Dennis Ross was accused of being more concerned with Israel's interests than those of his country, the United States. Professor Stephen Walt, the author of The Israeli Lobby, along with Professor John Mearsheimer, wrote about this dual loyalty. Walt said he preferred to use the term “conflict of interest” when talking about Ross and his ilk, while Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy, responded, and defended Ross. Walt did not say anything about Ross that I or other Arab writers have not already said. However, we are on the “Arab team,” and Ross is on the Israeli team – but Walt is in neither camp. He is an independent American who is concerned with his country's interests, and is an academic of the highest possible standard. He knows about the topic and about Ross specifically, more than all of us. When he headed the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, he had no problem with Ross delivering a lecture on the diplomacy of the peace process in the Middle East. In what follows, I have only the pleasure of selecting and summarizing: In his response to Satloff's original article, Walt selected the title “Robert Satloff doth protest too much,” borrowing the well-known phrase from Shakespeare's Hamlet. He said there were two important issues ignored by Satloff: whether senior American officials, like Ross, had a strong commitment to Israel, and whether this commitment was detrimental Washington's policy in the Middle East. With regard to the first issue, as Walt says, there is considerable evidence of Ross' strong commitment to Israel. He held a high-level post at WINEP, an Israeli lobby in which Ross was active since 2000. The (Jewish) historian Avi Shlaim says: “Ross belongs fairly and squarely in the pro-Israel camp. His premises, position on the Middle East and policy preferences are identical to those of the Israel-first school. Indeed, it is difficult to think of an American official who is more quintessentially Israel first in his outlook than Dennis Ross.” The above is sufficient to settle the matter. However, Walt's information is precise and documented, and should be circulated. He continues by saying that in recent years, Ross headed the Jewish People's Policy Planning Institute, a fact that Satloff ignores, even though it demonstrates the man's profound commitment to Israel. Here, Walt arrives at the second issue and asks if it is appropriate to see a person with a strong commitment to a foreign country, in this case Israel, hold a post that involves setting and carrying out US policy in the Middle East. Walt answers in the negative. He cites the Oslo agreements of 1993, and how the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized Israel, and how a framework for action on the peace process was drawn up. However, US policy was set and led by Ross and others who had a strong commitment to Israel, which foiled the process. The result was that during the peace process, Israel confiscated 40,000 acres of occupied land, built 30 new settlements and built 250 miles of peripheral roads on the land of Palestinians, doubling the number of settlers. Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's foreign minister at the time, said about the Camp David agreement: “If I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David.” The meeting at Camp David was a conspiracy by Israelis in the American administration against the Palestinians, and Walt's reference to Ben-Ami settles the matter. However, I will remain with Walt, who records that George Bush gave Elliott Abrams a key post in designing US policy in the Middle East, even though he was known for his extreme commitment to Israel. The peace process was stalled and the US supported Israel in its catastrophic war on Lebanon in 2006, and its war on Gaza in 2008-2009. Walt said that Satloff's attack on him was no surprise, because of the issue of dual loyalty, and even the original article by Walt was against the use of this phrase. He explains this by citing Satloff's position as the executive director of WINEP, a key Israeli lobby since its establishment in 1985, with funding from three people: Larry and Barbi Weinberg, who previously served as the president and vice-president of the official lobby, AIPAC, and Martin Indyk, who had earlier served as AIPAC's director of research. Thus, WINEP provides research, analysis and commentary that support Israel, while AIPAC engages in direct political action. Walt then lists the names of members of the board of WINEP, all well-known apologists for Israel, with only one loyalty, against America and its interests, as I say. Professor Stephen Walt's comments are a decisive condemnation of the Israel cabal in and around the United States, and he enjoys a leading academic position that places him above suspicion. He is not speaking on a whim, like Israeli-Americans or Arab journalists, but is defending his country's interests. [email protected]
