I have taken the trouble of addressing some of Stephen Walt’s recent ridiculosity; it is only fair that I should acknowledge his partner in crime, John Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is featured in the latest issue of The American Conservative offering his thoughts on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. (Mearsheimer and Walt allege in their book that the unstoppable Israel Lobby seeks to put critics of Israel out of the press. How is it then that both of the authors are still able to be published in major American journals? Whatever.) Mearsheimer dismisses Israeli claims that the operation was meant to restore Israel’s deterrence and damage Hamas’ capability to launch rockets. The truth is much more sinister, he claims:
The actual purpose is connected to Israel’s long-term vision of how it intends to live with millions of Palestinians in its midst. It is part of a broader strategic goal: the creation of a “Greater Israel.” Specifically, Israel’s leaders remain determined to control all of what used to be known as Mandate Palestine, which includes Gaza and the West Bank.
I cannot put into words just how false this is. Either Mearsheimer knows nothing about Israeli politics, or he simply does not care what facts get in the way of his defamation of Israel, or both of these are true. Anyone who can comment on Israeli politics in a major publication ought to know that the concept of “Greater Israel” is limited to Revisionist Zionists and the Ultra-Orthodox parties. Neither of the two main coalition partners (Labor and Kadima) — or even the chief opposition party, the right-wing Likud party — is Revisionist or ultra-Orthodox.
In Political Science Quarterly‘s Spring 2008 issue, Professors Jonathan Rynhold and Dov Waxman illustrated that demographic concerns have led to a transformation of the Israeli right wing away from Revisionism and “Greater Israel.” This transformation even led to the creation of Kadima as a more moderate offshoot of Likud. In Kadima’s platform, we can see the modified stance. The following is an excerpt which I have loosely translated from Kadima’s Hebrew website (bold mine):
The resolution between the desires to enable every Jew to live throughout the Land of Israel and for the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland requires conceding part of the Land of Israel.
Later in his article, Mearsheimer characterizes Israelis as being “blunt,” which is a fair claim. It’s strange then, that he cannot cite any Israeli leader, on or off the record, as justifying the incursion on the basis of “Greater Israel.”
Israelis have come to terms with the fact that they will not hold all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Mearsheimer and Walt cannot possibly know what is in Israel’s best interest if they do not even know these basic facts.
Even more to the point, why would Israel declare a unilateral ceasefire and withdraw entirely just a week after the ground operation began if it truly sought to re-occupy the Gaza Strip? This is the twisted logic we can expect from a “tail wags dog” academic like John Mearsheimer.
[...] as high as Hamas claimed, that Israel was targeting UN schools, that the operation was part of some strategy of maintaining the hopes of “Greater Israel.” Organizations like Human Rights Watch [...]