In May 1948, a presidential election year, over the vigorous objections of Secretary of State George C. Marshall, and influenced by his political advisor Clark Clifford, President Harry Truman made a politically expedient decision to recognize the new Jewish state in Palestine. Since then, support for, and protection of Israel has been the dominant theme in U. S. policy in the Middle East.

In March, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government published a controversial paper, “The Israel Lobby,” which examines the validity of various justifications for unwavering support for Israel by a succession of U.S. administrations and the dynamics which hold that policy in place.

The paper’s authors, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, surface some little-known facts and anecdotes, including this intriguing quote from early Israeli leader David Ben Gurion: “If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural. We have taken their country. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see only one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”

The researchers highlight the diversity of domestic political support for Israel. According to their paper, only about one-third of American Jews are actively pro-Israel. At the same time, a significant portion of the support comes from Evangelical Christians who believe modern Israel’s existence to be in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

Former House Majority leader, Christian Zionist Dick Armey, reportedly said in September 2002, “My highest priority in foreign affairs is to protect Israel.” Other key decision makers, including a coterie of neo-conservatives in the White House entourage seem to feel the same way, apparently unable to separate the U.S. national interest from that of Israel.

Undeniably, the current administration’s commitment to Israel’s protection was at the center of the decision to attack Iraq. Speaking publicly in September 2002, Philip Zelicow, executive director of the 9-11 Commission, said, “The real threat from Iraq was not to the U.S. The ‘unstated threat’ was the threat to Israel.”

And a retired Israeli general has said, “Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by U.S. and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s unconventional capabilities (weapons of mass destruction – WMD). In late July 2002, The Washington Post reported, “Israel is urging the U.S. not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.”

A paper prepared in 1948 for George Marshall by George Kennan, Marshall’s widely respected director of policy planning, was prescient indeed. It includes these words:

“The pressures to which this Government is now subjected are ones which impel us toward a position where we would shoulder major responsibility for the maintenance, and even the expansion, of a Jewish state in Palestine. To the extent that we move in this direction we will be operating directly counter to our major security interests in that area… our entire policy in the Middle Eastern area will unquestionably be carried in the direction of confusion, ineffectiveness, and grievous involvement in a situation to which there cannot be – from our standpoint – any happy ending.”

Predictably, the Walt/Mearsheimer paper has generated an energetic response, including a ferocious rebuttal by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz. The Walt/Mearsheimer paper and Dershowitz’s rebuttal are accessible on the Internet at /ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011.

Robert M. Sargent is a former U.S. diplomat whose overseas assignments included Tunisia (1985-88) and Turkey (1981-83). He lives in Sargentville.