The David Project

Backgrounder

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Introduction

In late August 2007 professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University published their much anticipated book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. As the title indicates, the authors claim that an “Israel Lobby” comprised of various Jewish organizations and their allies have influenced American foreign policy dramatically in favor of Israel. The authors are leading figures in political science, specifically the “realist” approach to international relations which sees states acting rationally in their own self-interest to ensure national security by maintaining a balance of power with competitors.

The authors allege that America’s bias and consequential disproportionate support for Israel s have been detrimental to American interests, causing a loss of American influence in the Middle East and reducing American security. Among other allegations the authors assert that Israel pushed the U.S. to attack Iraq, a claim that Mearsheimer has contradicted in a recent interview.

The Working Paper and the Book

The 2007 book follows up a much shorter magazine article and scholarly working paper, published in 2006. At the time they alleged that the article, commissioned originally by The Atlantic magazine, was rejected because of its content and that they could subsequently only find a suitable venue in England.

These early publications produced a firestorm of criticism for their weak grasp of Middle Eastern history and frequent conspiratorial outbursts. One absurd allegation is that that criticism of US-Israel relations are taboo in American politics and academia. Far from taboo, strong dissent over Israel’s policies, relationship with the United States, and very creation, has been a part of American discourse from the beginning, even as popular opinion strongly supported Israel. Such attacks have long been a particular staple of far right and far left politics. This is obvious to anyone reader even casually aware of Patrick Buchanan, who famously announced on national television in 1990 that “Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory,” or The Nation magazine, which regularly denounces Israeli “apartheid.” The popularity of Israel’s most vociferous academic critic, Noam Chomsky, currently boasting close to 2.5 million Google hits, also cannot be reconciled with this alleged suppression of anti-Israel voices on campus. The truth is that anti-Israel bias is the norm in academia, where Israel is accused of apartheid and threatened with boycotts and worse, and Jewish face a rising tide of antisemitism. Calling academia the only place where Israel can be criticized, as Mearsheimer has recently done, cannot be further from the truth.

What Mearsheimer and Walt regard as suppression is actually American politics at work. Their flawed analysis has been disregarded as incorrect and irrelevant by policy-makers and voters who, while informed, do not share their biases. The repetition of old allegations about Jews and power by two distinguished professors comprises the only novel aspect of their contribution.

Despite these documented shortcomings, the authors received a rumored $700,000 advance from a well-regarded publishing house, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, to expand their work into a full-length book. A few of the earlier rhetorical excesses were revised (Israel’s “stranglehold” on the U.S. Congress was downwardly revised to a “hold,” and the assertion that “the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby” was removed) but the core critique remains.

Among the key charges made by the book are:

• The Israel Lobby was a primary reason US went to war in Iraq. On the contrary, American officials have stated that Israelis warned continually that Iran, not Iraq, was the greatest threat to stability in the region, and supported the American invasion only reluctantly. Moreover, American Jews and their organization were largely skeptical of the Iraq War, whether on the grounds of protecting Israel or the human rights situation in Iraq.
• American backing for Israel was a prime motive for bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. The reality is that al-Qaeda’s statements to other Muslims emphasize the theological requirement to fight infidels and rarely mention Zionism. Statements to the West originally listed Israel as only one of many Muslim grievances. Furthermore, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center took place during Israeli peace talks with Syria, while al-Qaeda’s planning for 9/11 took place during Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Unfortunately Mearsheimer and Walt continue to repeat this charge.
• The Israel Lobby is the primary force pushing an attack on Iran. In fact, in 2006 the Israeli government asked American Jewish organizations to lower their rhetoric on Iran and have stressed divestment not military action as the means to confront Iran. Unfortunately, as with the run up to the Iraq War, Jewish groups are already being blamed. Walt and Mearsheimer assert further that the U.S. could “live with a nuclear Iran.”

Responding to M+W

Reactions to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy have been almost completely negative, even from sources like the New York Times that are otherwise inclined to be highly critical of both Israel and the U.S., their politics, actions in the Middle East, and long-standing strategic relationship.

All reviewers have pointed out numerous critical omissions and misrepresentations in the authors’ understanding of basic Middle Eastern history. Even more problematic is their analysis of the history of U.S.-Israeli relations, where they ignore numerous instances where American policy decisions have been contrary to the stated positions of the “Israel Lobby.” Major examples are arms sales to Arab countries, especially advanced warning aircraft to Saudi Arabia, and pressure on Israel to participate in the 1991Madrid peace conference that led eventually to the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. Most importantly, the U.S. supported the creation of a Palestinian state long before Israel was prepared to consider it as a realistic possibility.

Significant misrepresentations regarding Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, as well as the all-important details of what actually occurred during peace negotiations, have been pointed out. And, not least of all, virtually every reviewer has pointed out that the authors present Israel and its actions in a vacuum, largely ignoring Palestinian politics and Palestinian violence.

From the standpoint of political science, where Mearsheimer and Walt are among the leaders of the “realist” branch of international relations studies, the book is also puzzling. Most of their earlier work had dealt with the role of rational self-interest and calculation by state leaders and institutions seeking to create a balance of power between states. Apparently they suddenly perceive the distorting effect of an Israel Lobby as unique and dangerous to American security, since they allege it shifts American foreign policy dramatically to Israel’s side. This ignores Israel’s material support for America during the Cold War and more recently in the fight against radical Israel.

They also fail  to discuss the role of ethnic lobbies generally in American history, including those advancing the causes of Cuba, Ireland, Britain, China and India. It is arguable that the Anglo-American lobby has been among the most influential of all since it helped bring the United States into two World Wars.

Other factors that are self evident to any American citizen and consumer, namely the role of the oil and Arab lobbies influencing American foreign and energy policies, are ignored. Indeed, when questioned on this key point the authors denied that the Saudi Arabia had significant influence on American Middle East policy. This breathtaking claim ignores the documented investment of hundreds of millions of dollars by Saudis precisely with the aim of influencing American politics and public opinion.

The role of ethnic lobbies can also be seen in other aspects of American foreign policy. The current crisis in U.S.-Turkish relations was prompted by a Congressional resolution regarding the Armenian genocide of 1915 that was long sought after by the Armenian Lobby. The controversial nuclear agreement between the U.S. and India was also strongly supported by the India Lobby in the U.S., comprised of Indian-Americans and big businesses. The authors’ complete neglect of any comparative context when discussing Israel’s supporters in the United States, other ethnic “lobbies” and, most of all, the role of Saudi and Arab influence on American foreign policy, is highly suspect. Since the authors relied only on secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary documents or interviews, to build their case, the lack of any comparative context is even more puzzling.

The bottom line appears that Mearsheimer and Walt, who have taken a strong stance against the Iraq War, apparently cannot explain American foreign policy, support for Israel, and the Iraq War by means other than a vast conspiracy, conducted out in the open by normal political means. Furthermore, the negative reception of their book can only be explained by the machinations of the Israel Lobby, which has somehow failed to keep the book from being ranked in the top 100 books on Amazon.

A sampling of critics

The links below are a sampling for criticism from the mainstream media, as well as sources further to the left and right.

Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Usual Suspect,” The New Republic, October 1, 2007.

George Schultz, “The ‘Israel Lobby’ Myth,” U.S. New and World Report, September 11, 2007.

David Remnick, The Lobby,” The New Yorker, September 3, 2007.

William Grimes, ” A Prosecutorial Brief Against Israel and Its Supporters,” The New York Times, September 6, 2007.

Tim Rutten, “Israel’s Lobby as a Scapegoat.” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2007.

Jeff Robbins, “Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby,” Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2007.

Dore Gold, “Understanding the U.S.-Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Walt-Mearsheimer Claim.” Jerusalem Viewpoints. September 2007.

Mark LeVine, “No, It’s the Dog that Wags the Tail.” Asia Times, September 8, 2007.

Is it Antisemitic?

Whether The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy should be regarded as antisemitic is a difficult problem. A authors deny such claims but in their uncritical approach to the data and unthinking use of classically antisemitic language and concepts complicates the matter tremendously. Their accusations that the “Israel Lobby” has in fact attempted to censor them, precisely by using accusations of antisemitism, has become a hallmark of modern antisemitism. Certainly the art work used for the foreign editions of the book, on which the authors are unlikely to have been consulted, is forthright regarding its antisemitic imagery. If not antisemitic as such, the authors’ clearly display a deep antipathy toward Israel and its supporters that crosses into irrationality that thoroughly undermines their thesis.

In the end, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is bad scholarship which does these two scholars and their institutions little credit. How and when their specious arguments will be used, particularly in academic settings, remains to be seen, but Israel’s supporters should be prepared to address the book’s all-too-obvious shortcomings.

The David Project

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

In late August 2007 professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University published their much anticipated book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The authors claim that an “Israel Lobby” comprised of various Jewish organizations and their allies have influenced American foreign policy in favor of Israel.

The authors allege that America’s disproportionate support for Israel s damages American interests, costs American influence in the Middle East and reduces American security.

Among the key charges made by the book are:

• The Israel Lobby was a primary reason US went to war in Iraq. On the contrary, American officials have stated that Israelis warned continually that Iran, not Iraq, was the greatest threat to stability in the region, and supported the American invasion only reluctantly. Moreover, American Jews and their organization were largely skeptical of the Iraq War, whether on the grounds of protecting Israel or the human rights situation in Iraq.
• American backing for Israel was a prime motive for bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. The reality is that al-Qaeda’s statements to other Muslims emphasize the theological requirement to fight infidels and rarely mention Zionism. Statements to the West originally listed Israel as only one of many Muslim grievances. Furthermore, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center took place during Israeli peace talks with Syria, while al-Qaeda’s planning for 9/11 took place during Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. But Mearsheimer and Walt continue to repeat this charge.
• The Israel Lobby is the primary force pushing an attack on Iran. In fact, in 2006 the Israeli government asked American Jewish organizations to lower their rhetoric on Iran and have stressed divestment not military action as the means to confront Iran. Unfortunately, as with the Iraq War, Jewish groups are already being blamed. Walt and Mearsheimer assert further that the U.S. could “live with a nuclear Iran.”

Reviewers have pointed out numerous omissions and misrepresentations in the authors’ understanding of basic Middle Eastern history. Even more problematic is their analysis of the history of U.S.-Israeli relations, where they ignore instances of American policy decisions contrary to the stated positions of the “Israel Lobby,” including arms sales to Arab countries. Most importantly, the U.S. supported the creation of a Palestinian state long before Israel was prepared to consider it.

Significant misrepresentations exist regarding Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, as well as the all-important details of what actually occurred during peace negotiations. Not least of all, virtually every reviewer has pointed out that the authors present Israel in a vacuum and ignore Palestinian politics and Palestinian violence.

They also fail to mention the role of ethnic lobbies in American politics, including those advancing the cause of Cuba, Ireland, Britain, and India, and especially the the oil and Arab lobbies. When questioned on this the authors denied that the Saudi Arabia had significant influence on American Middle East policy. This ignores the documented investment of hundreds of millions of dollars by Saudis precisely with the aim of influencing American politics and public opinion.

The bottom line appears that Mearsheimer and Walt, who had taken a strong stance against the Iraq War, cannot explain American foreign policy, support for Israel, and the Iraq War in any way other than a vast conspiracy, conducted out in the open by normal political means. Furthermore, the negative critical reception of their book can only be explained by the machinations of the Israel Lobby, which has somehow failed to keep the book from being ranked in the top 100 books on Amazon.

Whether The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy should be regarded as antisemitic is a difficult problem. A authors deny such claims but in their uncritical approach to the data and use of classically antisemitic language complicates the question. Their accusations that the “Israel Lobby” has attempted to censor them, by using accusations of antisemitism, has become a hallmark of modern antisemitism. If not antisemitic, the authors’ antipathy toward Israel and its supporters crosses into irrationality and thoroughly undermines their credibility.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is bad scholarship which does these two scholars and their institutions little credit. How and when their faulty arguments will be used, particularly in academic settings, remains to be seen, but Israel’s supporters should be prepared to address the book’s all-too-obvious shortcomings.