Video Infoblog with Transcription: Prof. John Mearsheimer EXPOSES Why the U.S. Supports Israel
Transcript
0:00
the fact is that the
0:02
icj uh looking at the evidence said
0:05
there was sufficient evidence
0:08
available uh to think that Israel was
0:12
waging a genocidal campaign against uh
0:16
Palestinians in Gaza I find this to be a
0:20
remarkable conclusion when you take into
0:23
account the fact that this is the Jewish
0:25
State and Jews of course were victims of
0:28
one of the greatest
0:30
uh genocides in recorded history and
0:33
that of course has to do with what the
0:34
Nazis did between 1941 and
0:38
1945 and to think that the Jewish State
0:41
uh is stands accused of genocide is
0:47
really quite
0:48
remarkable uh and uh in this day and age
0:53
uh when you have an internet and you
0:55
have all this alternative media uh it's
0:58
almost impossible for the word uh
1:02
regarding genocide uh and Israel's
1:05
Behavior or the words involving genocide
1:08
in Israel's Behavior not to sort of uh
1:11
spread all over the world and all sorts
1:13
of people Now understand what the J icj
1:19
said uh in late January and there's no
1:22
way this cannot do enormous damage uh to
1:26
Israel's reputation and by the way to
1:29
America's reput ation as well because
1:31
the United States is complicitous in
1:33
this genocide I think the principal goal
1:35
was ethnic cleansing uh I think that uh
1:39
Israel is in a situation now where given
1:42
the fact that it rejects a two-state
1:44
solution and it
1:46
rejects uh a democratic greater Israel
1:51
uh it's faced with two choices one is a
1:53
partide which of course is what you now
1:55
have War Two is ethnic cleansing and
1:59
what Israelis set out to do in my
2:02
opinion from the get-go in Gaza was
2:05
ethnically cleanse uh Gaza now you want
2:09
to think about the whole argument that
2:12
many Defenders of Israel make which is
2:14
that they weren't interested in ethnic
2:16
cleansing uh and what they were really
2:18
interested in doing was eliminating
2:22
Hamas there's no way you can eliminate
2:25
Hamas unless you either kill all the
2:28
Palestinians and God Gaza or you
2:31
ethnically cleanse Gaza as long as the
2:34
Palestinians remain in Gaza you're going
2:37
to have Hamas or you g to have a Hamas
2:40
equivalent Israel is never going to win
2:42
a total Victory uh against Hamas and do
2:47
away with h terrorist activities it's
2:49
just not going to happen the
2:51
Palestinians are going to resist so
2:52
again you have two choices ethnically
2:54
cleanse or kill all the Palestinians and
2:58
what the Israelis were doing
3:00
uh was waging a punishment campaign
3:05
against the civilian population the
3:07
Israelis put their crosshairs on the
3:10
civilian population they didn't just
3:12
simply go after Hamas they went after
3:14
the civilian population and in my
3:16
opinion they wanted to drive them out of
3:21
the Gaza Strip they wanted another knba
3:24
it was very clear to me and of course
3:27
they have been completely unsuccessful
3:30
up to this point uh in terms of
3:33
achieving that goal thankfully I would
3:35
add but in the end they have killed lots
3:41
of Palestinians they have killed so many
3:44
Palestinians and they have done so many
3:46
horrible things to the Palestinian
3:48
people that it is easy to reach the
3:52
conclusion as the icj did that there is
3:55
substantial evidence uh or plausible
3:58
evidence that is is in the process of
4:01
committing genocide I mean that's how
4:03
horrible things are I think that the
4:08
original reason that Biden committed the
4:12
United States wholeheartedly to
4:14
supporting Israel no matter what it did
4:17
uh in Gaza was because uh he has a
4:21
passionate attachment to Israel a lot of
4:25
presidents a lot of policy makers a lot
4:27
of Po politicians say
4:30
that they're deeply committed to Israel
4:32
and to Israel's security but they just
4:34
say that for political purposes I think
4:37
in the case of Biden is true he is in
4:40
effect joined at the hip with Israel and
4:44
he identified with Israel after October
4:47
7th and he committed the United States
4:49
to supporting Israel from get-go so
4:52
that's point one second point in in many
4:55
ways the more important point is that
4:58
the Israel Lobby is is a remarkably
5:01
powerful institution here in the United
5:05
States it is remarkably powerful and it
5:09
is almost impossible for anybody in the
5:13
White House to challenge Israeli policy
5:17
no matter what it is when it comes to
5:19
the
5:20
Palestinians uh if we're talking about
5:22
an arms deal with sori Arabia it is
5:25
possible for a president to challenge
5:28
the lobby as Ronald Reagan did in the
5:31
1980s but when it comes to the Israeli
5:33
Palestinian conflict it's almost
5:36
impossible so what's happened here and
5:39
it's quite clear is that as this
5:43
military operation by the IDF has played
5:46
itself out the Biden Administration has
5:49
become incredibly uncomfortable with
5:53
what's going on it's clear that Biden
5:55
wants to shut this one down even though
5:58
he has a passion attachment which raises
6:01
the question why can't he shut it down
6:04
and the answer is the lobby well you
6:05
can't put it all down to the lobby my
6:08
argument is that about 95% of it uh is
6:12
due to the lobby uh as I said before you
6:15
don't want underestimate the extent to
6:16
which Biden has a passionate attachment
6:18
to Israel but you raised a lot of
6:21
different points and they're all big
6:23
points uh that need a lot of unpacking
6:26
first of all with regard to what
6:28
happened in m Michigan there's no
6:31
question that Israel's image has
6:33
suffered uh in the body politic and that
6:36
when you look at especially young people
6:39
especially young
6:40
Democrats uh you have a situation where
6:44
any President should be able uh to uh
6:48
put significant pressure on Israel given
6:52
uh that uh situation with younger people
6:56
and what happened in Michigan but the
6:58
problem is there's a difference between
7:00
the public and the elites and where the
7:04
lobby concentrates its efforts is on the
7:06
elites on politicians it has tremendous
7:10
power on Capitol Hill and it has
7:12
tremendous Power Visa the White House
7:15
and the White House understands
7:17
President Biden understands that if he
7:19
crosses Israel which means crossing the
7:21
lobby that they will go to Great Lengths
7:24
to make sure that he gets defeated in
7:26
November and of course given that he's
7:28
up for reelection that's the last thing
7:30
in the world that he wants so Biden is
7:33
caught between IR rock and a hard place
7:35
of course he's worried sick about the
7:38
fact that all these people in Michigan
7:40
are effectively voting against them but
7:42
he's also worried sick that if he gets
7:44
tough on the Israelis he'll lose the
7:47
election in the fall because they'll be
7:49
perfectly willing to help elect Donald
7:52
Trump who won't get tough on Israel so
7:56
Biden is not doing anything now just to
8:00
go to the phone calls for a second
8:02
there's no question that Biden has also
8:04
called
8:05
Netanyahu and he's hollered at nyaho
8:08
there's this story of the phone call a
8:10
long phone call in December where Biden
8:13
actually got so angry with him that he
8:14
just hung up the phone on him uh but
8:17
it's not a matter of calling on the
8:19
telephone right it's a matter of
8:21
changing policy is you surely know Ali
8:24
we have the coercive leverage to bring
8:27
Israel to its knees I mean could easily
8:30
cause the Israelis to stop this genocide
8:33
there's no question about it it's a
8:35
question of policy but Biden simply
8:38
feels that he can't do that my final
8:41
point to you is it's important to
8:44
understand that the lob's power has
8:46
grown since
8:48
1982 Israel's first real problem with
8:52
public opinion in the United States and
8:56
with the elite with opinion in the elite
8:59
was the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and
9:02
then of course after that you had the
9:04
first inapa in the late late 1980s then
9:07
the breakdown of the Oslo process then
9:10
the second
9:11
inata uh and so forth and so on and over
9:14
the course of time Israel's reputation
9:18
in the United States has suffered
9:20
greatly as a result the lobby has had to
9:23
redouble its efforts to defend Israel so
9:26
the lobby that you're dealing with today
9:28
is a more formidable Lobby than the
9:31
lobby that Ronald Reagan was dealing
9:33
with and certainly than Dwight
9:34
Eisenhower was dealing with and it is
9:38
very difficult extremely difficult for
9:41
any president to take on the lobby it's
9:44
uh Tweedle D and tweetle dump uh the
9:47
president will provide unconditional
9:50
support for Israel whether he or she is
9:54
a democrat or a republican so I I just
9:57
don't think it matters I think that uh
10:01
in the case of the Gaza War uh you're
10:05
dealing with a different situation than
10:08
some of the previous conflicts that you
10:11
mentioned take the Vietnam War for
10:13
example the Vietnam War was largely a
10:16
result of America's belief in the Domino
10:19
Theory we believed at the time that if
10:22
Vietnam became communist other countries
10:25
in Southeast Asia and eventually all
10:27
over Asia and then eventually all over
10:28
the globe Globe would become communist
10:32
this was a remarkably foolish idea but
10:34
it's what motivated us uh and then a lot
10:36
of the wars that you described were a
10:38
result of what happened after 911 where
10:41
the United States went on a rampage and
10:44
decided it was going to run around the
10:46
world and promote democracy at the end
10:49
of a rifle barrel we were do social
10:51
engineering at the end of a rifle barrel
10:53
the Gaza War and the Ukraine war have
10:56
different causes than Vietnam and those
10:59
other conflicts uh and I could go into
11:02
them but I won't do it at this point in
11:04
time but I think the point is that it
11:07
all depends on the particular context of
11:12
each of those Wars as to why we got into
11:15
them but the general point I would make
11:18
about all of them is that one thing the
11:21
United States does not have is a good
11:24
sense of the limits of military force
11:27
most realists like me understand that
11:31
you can't really do that much with
11:34
armies especially if you get into the
11:36
business of doing social engineering
11:38
around the world it just hardly ever
11:42
Works uh because what you do in evitably
11:45
is you run into nationalism I mean this
11:47
is what happened in Vietnam what
11:49
defeated Us in Vietnam was not communism
11:52
it was Vietnamese nationalism and by the
11:55
way the reason that the Israelis are
11:58
never going to going to succeed in
12:00
beating the Palestinians into submission
12:04
the reason that the Iron Wall to use zes
12:07
Yaba tinsky famous phrase is never going
12:09
to work is because of nationalism
12:12
Palestinian nationalism and the Israelis
12:15
refuse to recognize that and what I'm
12:18
saying is in a very important way
12:21
Americans uh American policy makers have
12:24
failed to appreciate the power of
12:27
nationalism and how that gets in the way
12:32
of using military force in effective
12:35
ways uh and uh as I say I think that
12:39
this is the principal problem the
12:40
Israelis face uh in Gaza and it's why
12:44
the United States is remarkably foolish
12:48
uh to be supporting uh the Israelis not
12:51
only of course because it's going to
12:53
fail they're not going to uh defeat
12:57
Hamas decisively but also because we are
13:00
complicitous in a genocide and that is
13:03
an absolutely horrible situation it
13:06
should be categorically unacceptable uh
13:09
to every person in the administration
13:11
first of all I want to be clear that I
13:13
understand that the United States over
13:15
the course of uh the 20th century and
13:18
into the early 21st century uh has
13:22
toppled many Democratic regimes I I do
13:25
believe that at different points along
13:27
the way especially after 911 we got into
13:30
the business of democracy promotion uh
13:33
but I also believe that there are many
13:36
instances of where we overthrew
13:39
democracy the United States as I often
13:41
emphasize is a ruthless country uh but
13:44
just to go to your main point look the
13:46
reason we have an Israel Lobby is
13:49
because if we didn't have an Israel
13:51
Lobby US policy towards the Middle East
13:54
would be very different the reason you
13:56
have a Lobby the reason it's so powerful
13:58
and the reason the lobby works over time
14:01
is because the lobby wants to make sure
14:05
that we don't treat Israel as a normal
14:08
country now to back that up if you go
14:12
back to Jimmy Carter virtually every
14:15
president has been interested in
14:17
promoting a two-state solution some more
14:20
than others for sure but presidents like
14:23
Carter himself uh Bill Clinton uh Barack
14:27
Obama were deeply interested Ed in
14:29
getting a two-state
14:31
solution uh and they could not do that
14:36
and why could they not do that because
14:38
the lobby checked them at every turn the
14:41
reason we never even came close to
14:43
getting a two-state solution which we
14:46
thought was in our interest was because
14:49
of the lobby furthermore I would submit
14:52
that if you look at us Iranian relations
14:56
since at least the early
15:00
1990s uh the Iranians have on a number
15:02
of occasions showed evidence that they
15:05
wanted to improve relations and when for
15:08
example the Clinton Administration began
15:10
to go down that road the lobby quickly
15:13
moved in the lobby has had its gun sites
15:16
on Iran for a long long time and that
15:19
makes it almost impossible for us to
15:22
improve our relations with Iran which a
15:25
number of presidents have wanted to do
15:28
so I would submit that if you look at
15:31
American policy towards the Middle East
15:35
um and you think about what it would be
15:38
if there were no Lobby to put pressure
15:41
on American Presidents Visa the
15:43
Palestinians and Visa Iran you'd have a
15:47
different American policy if you went
15:49
back to 1948 and you had two alternative
15:52
Futures one with the state of Israel and
15:55
one without a state of Israel the United
15:57
States from a security point of you
15:59
would be much better off without Israel
16:01
it's impossible to say because nobody
16:03
would articulate that view publicly or
16:05
even privately to most people for the
16:09
simple reason that it would get you into
16:10
one well of a lot of trouble but you do
16:12
not want to underestimate how many
16:15
people inside the foreign policy
16:17
establishment including the intelligence
16:19
Community or I should say especially in
16:21
the intelligence Community who think
16:24
that Israel is a strategic liability
16:26
can't make those arguments you'd lose
16:28
your job in a second that's the
16:31
effectiveness of the
16:33
lobby I mean you just cannot
16:35
underestimate how difficult it is to
16:38
criticize Israel if you're in a
16:39
mainstream position we have this
16:42
alternative media out there which you
16:44
were just referring to it of course the
16:46
electronic Ina is part of this where
16:49
people talk about Israel in a Frank way
16:52
they treat Israel as a normal country
16:55
they treat Israel as a normal
16:59
uh interest group in the United States
17:02
they treat Jews as normal people this is
17:04
what happens in the alternative media
17:06
but the alternative media is
17:08
fundamentally different uh than the
17:10
mainstream media with regard to these
17:12
issues there's no question that big
17:15
change is taking place what it exactly
17:18
means is very hard to say let me just
17:21
make a number of points on this first of
17:24
all if we went back 10 years uh and you
17:29
and I were talking about this we were
17:31
all talking about these issues uh we
17:34
would be operating in a world where
17:36
hardly anybody called Israel an
17:38
apartheid state uh and the idea that
17:41
Israel would be accused of genocide
17:44
against the Palestinians was almost
17:46
Unthinkable right it just wasn't in the
17:49
car it's 10 years ago we're now in a
17:52
world where
17:54
50% of Joe Biden's supporters think that
17:58
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza
18:01
just think about that 50% of Joe Biden's
18:05
supporters in the 2020 election think
18:08
that Israel is committing genocide in
18:10
Gaza this is truly remarkable and with
18:13
regard to apartheid right Human Rights
18:16
Watch Amnesty International Bellum uh
18:19
have all written lengthy reports that
18:22
lay out in detail why Israel is an
18:25
apartheid state uh and the point is the
18:30
situation is not going to get better 10
18:33
years from now the situation I believe
18:37
in Greater Israel which includes Gaza
18:39
and the West Bank will be worse than it
18:41
is today because Israel is an AP partied
18:45
State and to run in a partti state in
18:48
this day and age you have to dehumanize
18:50
the Palestinians this will be visible to
18:53
everyone the Palestinians will continue
18:55
to resist people will continue to say
18:58
why is this going on why aren't we doing
19:01
certain things to stop it and so forth
19:03
and so on furthermore you're going to
19:05
see a continuing erosion of support for
19:08
Israel among younger Jews and certainly
19:11
among younger Democrats and younger
19:13
people in the United States as well in
19:16
the age of the internet you just can't
19:18
hide this stuff the way you did when I
19:20
was a kid right when I was young there
19:22
was no internet and my thinking about
19:25
Israel was informed largely by Leon
19:27
uris's book called X Exodus uh which
19:30
portrayed the Palestinians as the bad
19:32
guys and the Israelis as the good guys
19:34
that world is so far behind
19:36
us it's hard to believe we just live in
19:39
a completely different world so there's
19:42
no question that it's going to be
19:44
increasingly difficult for the lobby to
19:47
keep the American Body politic on board
19:49
The $64,000 Question and I was alluding
19:52
to this before is whether or not they
19:55
can the lobby can continue uh to
19:59
influence policy makers both on Capitol
20:01
Hill and in the White House in ways that
20:05
overcome that change in public opinion
20:08
that's the big question kind of in my
20:11
heart I say that things have to change
20:14
American policy has to change but in my
20:17
head I tend to say that what we'll have
20:20
for the foreseeable future is more of
20:22
the same obviously I hope my heart wins
20:25
out wins out over my head and my crystal
20:28
ball has a big crack in it on this
20:31
particular issue we all have both a
20:34
moral compass and let's call it a
20:36
strategic compass in my case it's a
20:39
realist Compass when I look out at the
20:41
world I think of it in realist terms and
20:44
I obviously as I hope is clear from our
20:46
discussion today have a moral compass
20:48
and I think about the world in moral
20:50
terms as well as realist terms now the
20:54
question is what's the relationship
20:56
between moral considerations and real
20:58
IST
21:00
considerations uh in my mind I think
21:03
that there are a good number of
21:05
instances where moral logic and
21:09
strategic logic or realist logic line up
21:12
and you can pursue a realist policy that
21:16
is backed by uh strategic by by moral
21:20
logic I I often make the argument when
21:23
the United States fought with fought
21:26
against Adolf Hitler in World War II uh
21:30
that this was a case where strategic
21:32
logic and moral logic lined up it was a
21:35
good War the war against Adolf Hitler I
21:38
also think there are a lot of cases
21:41
where
21:42
U uh there's no strategic logic at play
21:46
and I think the best case here is Rwanda
21:49
I was fully in favor of intervening in
21:52
Rwanda in uh the early
21:55
1990s because this is simply no
21:58
strategic logic at play it didn't matter
22:00
for the balance of power for the balance
22:02
of power and from a moral point of view
22:05
my moral compass said go in there and do
22:07
everything you can to shut that genocide
22:09
down as quickly as possible so you have
22:13
that those two sets of cases but the
22:16
really tricky cases are ones where the
22:19
Strategic logic points in one way uh One
22:21
Direction and the moral logic or the
22:24
moral compass points in the other
22:25
direction and my argument is that in
22:29
international Anarchy in the world that
22:31
we live in uh when the moral compass and
22:35
the realist Compass are at odds you will
22:38
act according to the dictates of realist
22:41
logic because underpinning realist logic
22:44
is the motive of survival and States
22:48
want to survive just like individuals
22:49
want to survive and they'll do what's
22:51
ever necessary to survive and if
22:54
international law says to do something
22:57
or moral logic or just War Theory says
22:59
to do something that is at odds with
23:03
realist logic uh the leader will uh I
23:08
believe every time uh go with realist
23:11
logic again because of the survival
23:13
imperative am I happy about this no um
23:17
it's kind of depressing it's why I
23:20
titled my well-known book on realism as
23:23
you know uh tragedy of great power
23:25
politics there's a real tragic element
23:27
to all of this this but it is the way
23:30
the world works and as you said when you
23:32
introduced me it is important to realize
23:36
uh that
23:38
this that this logic is at play that
23:41
there is this tragic element
23:43
International politics and to think
23:45
about how to smartly navigate it I don't
23:47
think of uh the United States in terms
23:50
of an Empire when I think when I use the
23:53
word empire I think of the British
23:55
Empire the French Empire uh I think in
23:58
the United States as a great power that
24:01
has tremendous reach and interferes in
24:05
the politics of every country on the
24:08
planet and Oli was getting at this
24:10
before uh I have no doubt that the
24:13
United States does not respect the
24:15
sovereignty of almost every country on
24:18
the planet we're constantly meddling and
24:21
everybody else's politics but what
24:24
matters most for me in terms of thinking
24:26
about the world is the constellation of
24:28
great powers and I think that when I was
24:32
young and grew up during the Cold War uh
24:34
we lived in a bipolar world and there
24:36
were two countries that really mattered
24:38
for shaping International politics this
24:41
is not to say other countries didn't
24:43
matter but the two countries that
24:44
mattered most were the United States and
24:46
the Soviet Union in 1991 after the
24:49
Soviet Union collapsed and of course the
24:52
Cold War ended we moved into the
24:55
unipolar moment and the United States
24:57
was the only great power was the only
25:00
superpower on the planet and this is
25:03
when it became fashionable to talk about
25:05
the United States as an Empire because
25:07
we were so powerful and we were doing so
25:09
much meddling that it made sense to a
25:12
lot of people to think about the United
25:15
States as an Empire whether you agree
25:17
with that characterization of the United
25:20
States as an Empire or not during the
25:22
unipolar moment the key point I think
25:24
that you want to keep in mind is that
25:26
unipolarity came to an end end in about
25:30
2017 it's just very important to
25:33
understand that the world that we live
25:35
in today is a multipolar world where you
25:37
have three great Powers China Russia and
25:41
the United States so the United States
25:44
although it may be the most powerful
25:46
State on the planet has two rival great
25:50
powers out there that cause the United
25:53
States a lot of trouble and limit what
25:56
the United States can do
25:58
China indeed is a pure competitor it's
26:01
not as powerful as the United States but
26:03
it's not that far away and it's growing
26:06
both economically and militarily and
26:08
with regard to Russia what happened when
26:11
Putin came to power in 2000 is that over
26:14
the course of the next roughly 24 years
26:17
what he did was he brought the Russians
26:20
back from the dead Russia is once again
26:23
a great power and as it's demonstrating
26:26
in Ukraine it is
26:29
in a position where it can thwart the
26:31
West which is another way of saying it
26:33
can thwart the United States and cause
26:36
us all sorts of problems and of course
26:39
the Chinese can cause us all sorts of
26:42
problems so our power is much more
26:45
limited today than it was during the
26:49
unipolar moment and it's not the end of
26:53
Empire right the United States uh in my
26:57
opinion was never really an Empire but
27:00
one could argue that that's a
27:01
definitional issue but it is certainly a
27:04
world in which the United States's
27:06
maneuver room is much less and we have
27:10
to be much more careful maneuvering
27:15
through these Troubled Waters
