2024-05-19

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy -John Mearsheimer, Wikipedia

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy - Wikipedia

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses of "Israel lobby", see Israel lobby (disambiguation).
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
AuthorsJohn Mearsheimer
Stephen Walt
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
PublisherFarrar, Straus and Giroux
Publication date
August 27, 2007
Media typePrint (hardback)
Pages496 p.
ISBN0-374-17772-4
OCLC144227359
327.7305694 22
LC ClassE183.8.I7 M428 2007

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy[1] is a book by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School at Harvard University, published in late August 2007. It was a New York Times Best Seller.[2]

The book describes the lobby as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction".[3] Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of anti-Semitism", and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on "controlling debate" in American academia. The book "focuses primarily on the lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy and its negative effect on American interests".[4] The authors also argue that "the lobby's impact has been unintentionally harmful to Israel as well".[5]

Mearsheimer and Walt argue that although "the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely", it "has a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority".[6] They note that "not every American with a favorable attitude to Israel is part of the lobby",[6] and that although "the bulk of the lobby is comprised of Jewish Americans",[7] there are many American Jews who are not part of the lobby, and the lobby also includes Christian Zionists.[8] They also claim a drift of important groups in "the lobby" to the right,[9] and overlap with the neoconservatives.[10]

The book was preceded by a paper commissioned by The Atlantic and written by Mearsheimer and Walt. The Atlantic rejected the paper, and it was published in London Review of Books.[11] The paper attracted considerable controversy, both praise[12][13][14][15][16] and criticism.[17][18]

Background[edit]

The book has its origins in a paper commissioned in 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly, but it was rejected for reasons that neither The Atlantic nor the authors have publicly explained.[19] It became available as a working paper at the Kennedy School's website in 2006.[20] A condensed version of the working paper was published in March 2006 by the London Review of Books under the title The Israel Lobby.[11] A third, revised version addressing some of the criticism was published in the Fall 2006 issue of Middle East Policy, the in-house journal of the Middle East Policy Council. The authors state that "In terms of its core claims, however, this revised version does not depart from the original Working Paper."[21]

The book was published in late August 2007.[1][22] The book differs from the earlier papers in several ways: it includes an expanded definition of the lobby, it responds to the criticisms that the papers attracted, it updates the authors' analysis and it offers suggestions on how the U. S. should advance its interests in the Middle East.[23] With his elaborated position on Israel in this book, Mearsheimer distanced his own position from such established scholars as Hannah Arendt and Hans Morgenthau and their support for Israel,[24] the latter of whom Mearsheimer had previously cited as significant to the development of his own writing in the field of international relations.[25]

A paperback edition was published in September 2008.[26]

Content of the preceding paper[edit]

In April 2006, Philip Weiss discussed some of the background to the creation of the paper in an article in The Nation.[27]

Mearsheimer and Walt argue that "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical".[28] They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies. What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the Executive branch", as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media." They claim that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in particular has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress", due to its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."

Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of anti-Semitism", and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however, that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses", such as with Campus Watch and the U.S. Congress Bill H.R. 509. The authors conclude by arguing that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."[20] According to Mearsheimer, "it's becoming increasingly difficult to make the argument in a convincing way that anyone who criticizes the lobby or Israel is an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew." The authors pointed to the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, criticism of Israel's war in Lebanon and the publication of former President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as making it somewhat easier to criticize Israel openly.[13]

Reception[edit]

Professors John Mearsheimer (left) and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The March 2006 publication of Mearsheimer and Walt's essay, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", was highly controversial. The essay's central controversial claim was that the Israel lobby's influence has distorted U.S. Middle East foreign policy away from what the authors referred to as "American national interest." Alan Dershowitz opined that criticizing the Israel lobby promoted a charged debate about what constitutes antisemitic conspiracy theorizing.[29]

In the following issue of the magazine were a number of responses criticizing the essay including from Jeffrey Herf, Andrei Markovits, Daniel Pipes, and Michael Szanto. Herf and Markovits found Mearsheimer and Walt's arguments reminiscent of traditional fabricated anti-Semitic global conspiracies. They argue that Israel was not the focus of American middle eastern policy, but rather ensuring the secure global supply of oil. According to them, Israel would come to be viewed by the U.S. military establishment as a useful ally in a challenging region. They refute Mearsheimer and Walt's claim blaming the Israel Lobby for the Iraq War. They cite Saddam Hussein's own military commanders as not being aware that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction up to three months before the US led invasion. Herf and Markovits dispute Mearsheimer and Walt's implications that the State of Israel is the main cause for anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and assert that American Jews have the right to free speech and political participation like all Americans. Daniel Pipes clarified that he was not involved in the founding of Campus Watch, and asserted that he does not "take orders from mythical 'lobby'." Michael Szanto argued that Arab resentment of the West really stemmed from the history of British and French imperialism in the region, which was then opportunistically perpetuated by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Szanto argued that a lost war by Israel "could easily translate into another holocaust." Szanto pointed out that South Korea, Japan, and Europe received far greater amounts of military assistance from the United States.[30] After that even more criticisms appeared in the second issue of April most prominently by Alan Dershowitz citing a long list of what he claimed to factual errors and distortions. Robert Pfaltzgraff questioned why Mearsheimer and Walt had suddenly arrived at completely different assumptions related to the Israel Lobby than that they had utilized for the rest of their career. Pfaltzgraff also denied their claim that "pro-Israeli forces" had established a "commanding presence" at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. Mearsheimer and Walt responded to their critics in the May issue. They denied that their essay was intended to propagate anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and claim that they never intended to solely blame Israel for America's problems in the Middle East. Mearsheimer and Walt insist they support Israel's survival and necessary steps to protect it. They fault Szanto for not recognizing that America's security ties with Western Europe, Japan and South Korea did not according to them depend on "strong domestic lobbies."[31]

As a result of the controversy created by Mearsheimer and Walt's article, the Dutch Backlight (Tegenlicht) program produced a documentary entitled The Israel Lobby. Backlight is VPRO's regular international 50 minute documentary program.[32][33]

Praise[edit]

Former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck wrote that "The expected tsunami of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors, and denied there is such a lobby — validating both the lobby's existence and aggressive, pervasive presence and obliging Harvard to remove its name." Peck is generally in agreement with the paper's core thesis: "Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both nations, but the lobby's views of Israel's interests have become the basis of U.S. Middle East policies."[14]

Tony Judt, a historian at New York University, wrote in The New York Times, that "[in] spite of [the paper's] provocative title, the essay draws on a wide variety of standard sources and is mostly uncontentious." He goes on to ask "[does] the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course — that is one of its goals. [...] But does pressure to support Israel distort American decisions? That's a matter of judgment." He concludes the essay by taking the perspective that "this essay, by two 'realist' political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind." And that "it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state."[15]

Juan Cole a professor at the University of Michigan, wrote at the Salon website: "Other critics have accused the authors of anti-Semitism, which is to say, of racial bigotry." Eliot A. Cohen of the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University published an emotional attack on the authors in the Washington Post, saying "yes, it's anti-Semitic." Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz also accused Mearsheimer and Walt of bigotry. The Harvard Crimson reported that "Dershowitz, who is one of Israel's most prominent defenders, vehemently disputed the article's assertions, repeatedly calling it 'one-sided' and its authors 'liars' and 'bigots.'" Cole continues to argue "Dershowitz went so far as to allege that the paper paralleled texts at neo-Nazi sites.

Michael Scheuer, a former senior official at the Central Intelligence Agency and in 2006 a terrorism analyst for CBS News, said to NPR that Mearsheimer and Walt are "basically right."[16] Israel, according to Scheuer, has engaged in one of the most successful campaigns to influence public opinion in the United States ever conducted by a foreign government. Scheuer said to NPR that Mearsheimer and Walt "should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject. I hope they move on and do the Saudi lobby, which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby."[16]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, wrote: "Mearsheimer and Walt adduce a great deal of factual evidence that over the years Israel has been the beneficiary of privileged — indeed, highly preferential — financial assistance, out of all proportion to what the United States extends to any other country. The massive aid to Israel is in effect a huge entitlement that enriches the relatively prosperous Israelis at the cost of the American taxpayer. Money being fungible, that aid also pays for the very settlements that America opposes and that impede the peace process."[34]

In his review in The Times, journalist Max Hastings wrote "otherwise intelligent Americans diminish themselves by hurling charges of antisemitism with such recklessness. There will be no peace in the Middle East until the United States faces its responsibilities there in a much more convincing fashion than it does today, partly for reasons given in this depressing book."[35]

Adam Kirsch argued that Robert D. Kaplan's "deification" of Mearsheimer in The Atlantic in January 2012 showed that the authors of The Israel Lobby were winning the argument.[36]

Glenn Greenwald has endorsed the book's central thesis, arguing "Walt and Mearsheimer merely voiced a truth which has long been known and obvious but was not allowed to be spoken. That’s precisely why the demonization campaign against them was so vicious and concerted: those who voice prohibited truths are always more hated than those who spout obvious lies."[37]

Marxist historian Perry Anderson also endorsed the book's thesis, calling it "outstanding".[38]

Mixed reviews[edit]

The paper was described as a "wake-up call" by Daniel Levy,[39] former advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and said it is "jarring for a self-critical Israeli" and lacks "finesse and nuance." In a March 25 article for Haaretz, Levy wrote, "Their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support".[40] Levy also criticized Mearsheimer and Walt for confusing cause and effect; he added that the Iraq war was already decided on by the Bush administration for its own reasons.[41]

Columnist Christopher Hitchens agreed that "AIPAC and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy", and stated that the paper "contains much that is true and a little that is original" and that he "would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt". However, he also says, paraphrasing a statement popularly misattributed to Samuel Johnson, that "what is original is not true and what is true is not original", and that the notion that the "Jewish tail wags the American dog... the United States has gone to war in Iraq to gratify Ariel Sharon, and... the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of Osama Bin Laden" is "partly misleading and partly creepy".[42] He also stated that the authors "seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem" and produced "an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly."[43]

Joseph Massad, professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, writes, "Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for U.S. policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not." Massad then argued U.S. policy is "imperialistic", and has only supported those struggling for freedom when it is politically convenient, especially in the Middle East.[44]

In describing the last of three "surprising weaknesses" of the paper, Eric Alterman writes in The Nation, "Third, while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the NRA, Big Pharma and other powerful lobbies. The authors note this but often seem to forget it. This has the effect of making the Jews who read the paper feel unfairly singled out and inspires much emotionally driven mishigas (craziness) in reaction. Do these problems justify the inference that the authors are anti-Semitic? Of course not."[45]

Michelle Goldberg[19] gives a detailed analysis of the paper. She writes about some "baffling omissions," e.g.: "Amazingly, Walt and Mearsheimer don't even mention Fatah or Black September, Munich or Entebbe. One might argue that Israel has killed more Palestinians than visa [sic] versa, but it doesn't change the role of spectacular Palestinian terrorism in shaping American attitudes toward Israel." She also finds valuable points: "Walt and Mearsheimer are correct, after all, in arguing that discussion about Israel is hugely circumscribed in mainstream American media and politics.... Indeed, one can find far more critical coverage of the Israeli occupation in liberal Israeli newspapers like Haaretz than in any American daily."

Michael Massing, contributing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, writes: "The lack of a clearer and fuller account of Palestinian violence is a serious failing of the essay. Its tendency to emphasize Israel's offenses while largely overlooking those of its adversaries has troubled even many doves." On the other hand, he writes: "The nasty campaign waged against John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt has itself provided an excellent example of the bullying tactics used by the lobby and its supporters. The wide attention their argument has received shows that, in this case, those efforts have not entirely succeeded. Despite its many flaws, their essay has performed a very useful service in forcing into the open a subject that has for too long remained taboo."[46]

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, gives a detailed point by point critique of the paper.[47] Zunes also writes that "The authors have also been unfairly criticized for supposedly distorting the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though their overview is generally quite accurate," and agreed with Joseph Massad's interpretation of Mearsheimer's and Walt's argument: "[T]here is something quite convenient and discomfortingly familiar about the tendency to blame an allegedly powerful and wealthy group of Jews for the overall direction of an increasingly controversial U.S. policy."[47]

Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, said the authors took a "courageous stand" and said much of the criticism against the authors was "hysterical". But he asserts that he did not find the thesis of the paper very convincing. He said that Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out that "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races." He finds that the authors "have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)", ignore historical "world affairs", and blame the Lobby for issues that are not relevant.[48]

In a review in the New Yorker, David Remnick writes, "Mearsheimer and Walt give you the sense that, if the Israelis and the Palestinians come to terms, bin Laden will return to the family construction business. It's a narrative that recounts every lurid report of Israeli cruelty as indisputable fact but leaves out the rise of Fatah and Palestinian terrorism before 1967; the Munich Olympics; Black September; myriad cases of suicide bombings; and other spectaculars. ... The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it."[49]

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Walter Russell Mead applauds the authors for "admirably and courageously" initiating a conversation on a difficult subject, but criticizes many of their findings. He observes that their definition of the "Israel lobby" is amorphous to the point of being useless: anyone who supports the existence of Israel (including Mearsheimer and Walt themselves) could be considered a part of the lobby, according to Mead. He is especially critical of their analysis of domestic politics in the United States, suggesting that the authors overstate the magnitude of lobbying in favor Israel when considered relative to overall sums spent on lobbying—only 1% in a typical election cycle. Mead considers their wider geopolitical analysis "more professional" but still "simplistic and sunny" on alternatives to a U.S.-Israeli alliance; he notes, for instance, that simply threatening to cut off aid to Israel in order to influence its behavior is misguided policy, given that other powers such as China, Russia, and India might well view an Israeli alliance as advantageous, should the United States withdraw. Mead rejects any antisemitic intent in the work, but feels that the authors left themselves open to the charge through "easily avoidable lapses in judgment and expression."[50]

Criticism[edit]

Scholarly[edit]

Benny Morris, a professor of Middle East history at Ben-Gurion University, prefaced a very detailed analysis with the remark: "Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity."[51]

Alan Dershowitz, at the time a professor at Harvard University, published an extended criticism of Mearsheimer's and Walt's position in his 2008 book, The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace.

Robert C. Lieberman a Professor of Political Science at Columbia University in his extensive review he explores the book thesis and in conclusion he writes "It is quite clear that the book’s argument does not support Mearsheimer and Walt’s central contention, that the existence and activities of an Israel lobby are the primary causes of American policy in the Middle East. The claim is supported neither by logic nor evidence nor even a rudimentary understanding of how the American policymaking system works" [52]

Former government officials[edit]

Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey also wrote a strongly negative review, remarking that "... Reading [Walt and Mearsheimer's] version of events is like entering a completely different world." Woolsey contends the authors "are stunningly deceptive", and that a "commitment to distorting the historical record is the one consistent feature of this book", proceeding with a few examples.[53]

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that the paper has not had "any great impact on the general public. The American public continues to support the relations [between the two countries], and resistance to any threat to the survival of Israel."[54]

Members of organizations[edit]

The American Jewish Committee (AJC): executive director David A. Harris has written several responses to the paper and more recently to the book. His article in The Jerusalem Post discusses the difficulty Europeans have in understanding America's "special relationship" with Israel and the resulting eagerness of European publishers to fast track the book. "Although the book was panned by most American reviewers, it will serve as red meat for those eager to believe the worst about American decision-making regarding Israel and the Middle East."[55] AJC also published several critiques of the paper, many of which were reproduced in newspapers around the world. AJC's Anti-Semitism expert, Kenneth Stern, made the following argument against the paper: "Such a dogmatic approach blinds them from seeing what most Americans do. They seek to destroy the "moral" case for Israel by pointing at alleged Israeli misdeeds, rarely noting the terror and anti-Semitism that predicates Israeli reactions."[56]

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL): National Director Abraham H. Foxman wrote a book in response to Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, entitled The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control[57][58] where he allegedly "demolishes a number of shibboleths . . . a rebuttal of a pernicious theory about a mythically powerful Jewish lobby." [59] Former Secretary of State George Shultz wrote in the Foreword to the book, "... the notion. U.S. policy on Israel and Middle East is the result of their influence is simply wrong."[60][61] The ADL also published an analysis of the paper, describing it as "amateurish and biased critique of Israel, American Jews, and American policy" and a "sloppy diatribe".[62]

Other critical organizations and affiliated individuals include Dore Gold from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,[63] and Neal Sher of AIPAC.[64]

Journalists[edit]

Those critical of the paper include Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post;[65] columnist Bret Stephens;[66][67] and editor of Jewish Current Issues Rick Richman.[68][69]

John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote: "I think Walt and Mearsheimer do exaggerate the influence of the Israel lobby and define the lobby in such an inclusive way as to beg the question of its influence."[70]

In a review in the Denver Post, Richard Cohen writes, "Where Israel is wrong, they say so. But where Israel is right, they are somehow silent. By the time you finish the book, you almost have to wonder why anyone in their right mind could find any reason to admire or like Israel. ... They had an observation worth making and a position worth debating. But their argument is so dry, so one-sided — an Israel lobby that leads America around by the nose — they suggest that not only do they not know Israel, they don't know America, either."[71]

In an address to Stanford University, author and journalist Christopher Hitchens said that Mearsheimer and Walt "think that they are smarter than the American imperialists. If they were running the empire, [Mearsheimer and Walt] wouldn't be fooled by the Jews. They'd be making big business with the Saudis instead and not letting Arabs get upset about Zionism. Well, it's an extraordinary piece of cynicism, I would say, combined with an extraordinary naiveté. It doesn't deserve to be called realistic at all."[72]

Scholarly reaction to the criticism[edit]

Harvard's Kennedy School removed its logo from the version of the Walt and Mearsheimer paper published on its website, and more strongly worded its disclaimer by making it more prominent, while insisting the paper reflected only the views of its authors.[73][74][75] Harvard Kennedy School said in a statement: "The only purpose of that removal was to end public confusion; it was not intended, contrary to some interpretations, to send any signal that the school was also 'distancing' itself from one of its senior professors"[76] and stated that they are committed to academic freedom, and do not take a position on faculty conclusions and research.[77] However, in their 79-page rebuttal to the original papers criticisms, former Harvard dean Walt ensures that it was his decision - not Harvard's - to remove the Harvard logo from the on-line Kennedy school version of the original."[78]

Mark Mazower, a professor of history at Columbia University, wrote that it is not possible to openly debate the topic of the article: "What is striking is less the substance of their argument than the outraged reaction: to all intents and purposes, discussing the US-Israel special relationship still remains taboo in the U.S. media mainstream. [...] Whatever one thinks of the merits of the piece itself, it would seem all but impossible to have a sensible public discussion in the U.S. today about the country's relationship with Israel."[79]

Criticism of the paper was itself called "moral blackmail" and "bullying" by an opinion piece in the Financial Times: "Moral blackmail—the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and U.S. support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism—is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views ... Bullying Americans into a consensus on Israeli policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to articulate its own national interest." The editorial praised the paper, remarking that "They argue powerfully that extraordinarily effective lobbying in Washington has led to a political consensus that American and Israeli interests are inseparable and identical."[80]

Mearsheimer and Walt's response to the criticism[edit]

Mearsheimer stated, "[w]e fully recognised that the lobby would retaliate against us" and "[w]e expected the story we told in the piece would apply to us after it was published. We are not surprised that we've come under attack by the lobby."[81] He also stated "we expected to be called anti-semites, even though both of us are philo-semites and strongly support the existence of Israel."[76]

Mearsheimer and Walt responded to their critics in a letter to the London Review of Books in May 2006.[82]

  • To the accusation that they "see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy," they point out that they refer to their description of the lobby "a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters."
  • To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark "we also pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America's standing in the Middle East is so low."
  • To the complaint that they "'catalog Israel's moral flaws' while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states," they refer to the "high levels of material and diplomatic support" given by the United States especially to Israel as a reason to focus on it.
  • To the claim that U.S. support for Israel reflects "genuine support among the American public" they agree but argue that "this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favorable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savory actions."
  • To the claim that there are countervailing forces "such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups ... and the diplomatic establishment,'" they argue that these are no match for the lobby.
  • To the argument that oil rather than Israel drives Middle East policy, they claim that if that were so, the United States would favor the Palestinians instead of Israel and would not have gone to war in Iraq or be threatening Iran.
  • They accuse various critics of smearing them by linking them to racists, and dispute various claims by Alan Dershowitz and others that their facts, references or quotations are mistaken.

In December 2006 the authors privately circulated a 79-page rebuttal, "Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Critics of 'The Israel Lobby'".[78]

In the book published in August 2007 the authors responded to criticisms leveled against them. They claimed that the vast majority of charges leveled against the original article were unfounded, but some critiques raised issues of interpretation and emphasis, which they addressed in the book.[83]

Debate[edit]

The London Review of Books organised a follow-up debate on the paper, moderated by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs (formerly known as the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs), also a professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University.[84]

The panelists were John Mearsheimer; Shlomo Ben-Ami, former Israeli foreign and security minister and the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy; Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, also Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution; Tony Judt, professor in European Studies and director of the Remarque Institute at New York University; Rashid Khalidi, professor of Arab Studies and Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University; and Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the author of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace.

A press conference was held after the debate.[85]

The work generated fascination and interest in the question of Israel-US relations and other scholars were motivated to address the issue from different perspectives, including those who asserted that the relationship is much too complex to be discussed solely through the prism of the Israeli lobby.[86]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-17772-0.
  2. ^ "New York Times Best Seller List" (PDF). New York Times. 2007-09-23. Retrieved 2009-04-14. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy was ranked 12th place on the non-fiction list for a total of one week.
  3. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) p.5
  4. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007)p.8
  5. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) p.9
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) p.113
  7. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) p.115
  8. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) p.132
  9. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) pp.126-128
  10. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) pp.128-132
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b The Israel Lobby Archived October 1, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  12. ^ Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor Archived June 10, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. By Patricia Cohen. The New York Times, January 31, 2007.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Backlash Over Book on Policy for Israel Archived October 26, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. By Patricia Cohen. NY Times, August 16, 2007
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby Archived November 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, Edward Peck, April 6, 2006
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy Archived June 11, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Tony Judt, New York Times Op-ed, April 19, 2006
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b c Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate Archived March 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, Deborah Amos, National Public Radio, April 21, 2006
  17. ^ Clyne, Meghan. Harvard's Paper on Israel Called 'Trash' By Solon Archived September 7, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, New York Sun, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  18. ^ Tim Rutten (September 12, 2007). "Israel's lobby as scapegoat". Los Angeles Times.
  19. ^ Jump up to:a b Michelle Goldberg, Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies? Archived June 5, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Salon.com, April 18, 2006
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Archived May 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Harvard Kennedy School Working Paper Number:RWP06-011, March 13, 2006.
  21. ^ John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt (Fall 2006). "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy". Middle East Policy. XIII (3): 29–87. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4967.2006.00260.x.
  22. ^ "israellobbybook.com". www.israellobbybook.com. Archived from the original on October 21, 2016.
  23. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) p. x-xi
  24. ^ Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
  25. ^ Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, Fifth edition, 1978.
  26. ^ Mearsheimer, John J.; Walt, Stephen M. (2008-09-02). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. ISBN 978-0-374-53150-8.
  27. ^ Weiss, Philip. "Ferment Over 'The Israel Lobby'" Archived March 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, The Nation, April 27, 2006
  28. ^ Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby Archived October 1, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  29. ^ Dershowitz, Alan. "Debunking the Newest—and Oldest—Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt "Working Paper" Apr. 2006. Harvard Law School." Archived February 21, 2015, at the Wayback Machine 17 Jan. 2007.
  30. ^ https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n07/letters
  31. ^ https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
  32. ^ Backlight: the Israel Lobby Archived November 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine on Netherlands Public Broadcasting.
  33. ^ The Israel Lobby: The Influence of AIPAC on US Foreign Policy Archived January 1, 2011, at the Wayback Machine on Google Video.
  34. ^ Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Dangerous Exemption[permanent dead link], Foreign Policy, Jul/Aug 2006. Reprinted "» A Dangerous Exemption". Archived from the original on 2012-02-04. Retrieved 2007-02-18. [1][permanent dead link]
  35. ^ Hastings, Max. The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy Archived May 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, The Times, September 2, 2007.
  36. ^ Kirsch, Adam (18 January 2012). "Framed". Tablet Magazine. Retrieved 3 May 2012.
  37. ^ "The mainstreaming of Walt and Mearsheimer". 2011-09-18. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-02-01.
  38. ^ Anderson, Perry (December 2007). "Perry Anderson, Jottings on the Conjuncture, NLR 48, November–December 2007". New Left Review (48): 5–37. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-02-01.
  39. ^ Levy, Daniel So pro-Israel that it hurts Archived May 21, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Haaretz, March 25, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006. Mirrored here Archived June 18, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
  40. ^ Goldberg, Nicholas. Who's afraid of the 'Israel Lobby'?[permanent dead link], The Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006.
  41. ^ Ralph Seliger (June 21, 2009). "The Israel Lobbies: Left, Right and Center". In These Times.
  42. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. Overstating Jewish Power: Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby Archived August 31, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, Slate, March 27, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006.
  43. ^ Quoted in Dean's World Archived November 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
  44. ^ Joseph Massad, Blaming the lobby Archived January 24, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Al-Ahram Weekly, March 23–29, 2006
  45. ^ Eric Alterman, AIPAC's Complaint Archived March 7, 2016, at the Wayback Machine The Nation, May 1, 2006 (posted April 13, 2006)
  46. ^ Michael Massing, The Storm over the Israel Lobby Archived May 17, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, New York Review of Books, June 8, 2006
  47. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen Zunes, The Israel Lobby: How powerful is it really? Archived July 6, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Mother Jones, May 18, 2006
  48. ^ Noam Chomsky, The Israel Lobby? Archived July 1, 2009, at the Portuguese Web Archive ZNET, March 28, 2006
  49. ^ David Remnick (September 3, 2007). "The Lobby". The New Yorker.
  50. ^ Mead, Walter R. (November–December 2007). "Jerusalem Syndrome: Decoding The Israel Lobby". Foreign Affairs. 86 (6): 160–168. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
  51. ^ Benny Morris, And Now For Some Facts, The New Republic, May 8, 2006; posted April 28, 2006
  52. ^ Lieberman, Robert C. (2009). "The "Israel Lobby" and American Politics". Perspectives on Politics. 7 (2): 235–257. doi:10.1017/S153759270909077X. ISSN 1537-5927. JSTOR 40406928. S2CID 146733012.
  53. ^ "Augean Stables » Print » Woolsey on Walt/Mearsheimer:Welcome to Wamworld". Archived from the original on 2007-12-21. Retrieved 2009-11-06.
  54. ^ "Kissinger: US public still committed to Israel". The Jerusalem Post | Jpost.com. Retrieved 2020-07-04.
  55. ^ "In the Trenches: Europeans' America problem". Archived from the original on 2007-11-11. Retrieved 2007-10-03. Jpost
  56. ^ When All Else Fails: The Israel Lobby at ajc wire - blog of the American Jewish Committee Archived July 23, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  57. ^ "The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and The Myth of Jewish Control". Archived from the original on January 3, 2013.
  58. ^ "Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Jewish Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise". Archived from the original on January 4, 2013.
  59. ^ Foxman, Abraham H. (February 5, 2017). Amazon.com: The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control (9781403984920): Abraham H. Foxman: Books. ISBN 978-1403984920.
  60. ^ Forward by George Shultz in The Deadliest Lies by Abraham H. Foxman
  61. ^ "CNN.com Video". CNN. Retrieved May 25, 2010.
  62. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise Archived January 4, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, Anti-Defamation League Analysis, March 24, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.
  63. ^ Dore Gold "The Basis of the U.S.-Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Mearsheimer-Walt Assault". Archived from the original on 2016-12-25. Retrieved 2007-01-08., Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, JERUSALEM ISSUE BRIEF, March 24, 2006.
  64. ^ Neal M. Sher [2][permanent dead link], The Jewish press, December 20, 200
  65. ^ Caroline B. Glick, "The Jewish threat by Caroline B. Glick". Archived from the original on 2016-12-04. Retrieved 2006-12-31., Jewish World Review March 26, 2006
  66. ^ Bret Stephens "Log in". Archived from the original on 2013-11-02. Retrieved 2007-01-08., The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2006 (username and password needed)
  67. ^ Israpundit » Blog Archive » The Israel Conspiracy Archived November 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  68. ^ "The 'Israel Lobby' and Academic Malpractice,Rick Richman". Archived from the original on 2010-06-08. Retrieved 2007-01-08., The Jewish Press, March 29, 2006
  69. ^ Bret Stephens: “Meet the Israel Lobby” Archived August 8, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Speech at the University of Chicago May 3, 2006, Delivered to Chicago Friends of Israel, Israel Week 2006 Keynote
  70. ^ John Judis. Split Personality Archived August 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine The New Republic Online via the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace website, February 8, 2007
  71. ^ Richard Cohen (September 12, 2007). "Why does America support Israel?". Denver Post.
  72. ^ "The War on Terror Revisited." May 9, 2006. Podcast. "Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies." Forum on Contemporary Europe. 30 June 2009.
  73. ^ Clyne, Meghan. "A Harvard School Distances Itself from Dean's Paper Archived April 10, 2006, at the Wayback Machine", New York Sun, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  74. ^ Rosner, Shmuel. "Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper' Archived May 29, 2009, at the Wayback Machine", Haaretz, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  75. ^ Safian, Alex. "Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper Archived August 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine", Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  76. ^ Jump up to:a b Borger, Julian. "US professors accused of being liars and bigots over essay on pro-Israeli lobby[permanent dead link]", The Guardian, March 31, 2006. Accessed March 31, 2006.
  77. ^ Bhayani, Paras and Friedman, Rebecca."Dean Attacks 'Israel Lobby' Archived March 3, 2016, at the Wayback Machine", The Harvard Crimson, March 21, 2006. Accessed October 10, 2013.
  78. ^ Jump up to:a b Philip Weiss, "Walt and Mearsheimer Rebut (and Humble) Their Critics" Archived July 23, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, January 9, 2007
  79. ^ Mazower, Mark. "When vigilance undermines freedom of speech Archived April 8, 2006, at the Wayback Machine", Financial Times, April 3, 2006
  80. ^ America and Israel, The Financial Times, April 1, 2006. Copied here.
  81. ^ Mekay, Emad. "Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges Archived February 7, 2012, at the Wayback Machine", Inter Press Service News Agency, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006.
  82. ^ Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. letter Archived October 1, 2009, at the Wayback Machine to the London Review of Books, May 11, 2006.
  83. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) p.x
  84. ^ "The Israel Lobby: Does it Have Too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy?" Archived November 11, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, ScribeMedia.org, October 11, 2006
  85. ^ The post-debate press conference Archived December 20, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, London Review of Books, October 12, 2006
  86. ^ "Academic Contact: A Theoretical Approach to Israel Studies in American Universities | Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences". 2020-08-02. doi:10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4p243. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

External links[edit]

  • Alternative link to Mearsheimer and Walt paper hosted at University of Chicago "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," Harvard Kennedy School of Government Working Paper No. RWP06-011
  • Letters to the London Review of Books: Vol. 28 No. 7, Vol. 28 No. 8, Vol. 28 No. 9, Vol. 28 No. 10, Vol. 28 No. 11, Vol. 28 No. 12
  • The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt Outside the Box Podcast, 18 April 2024===


    ›
    Politics, Philosophy & Social Sciences
    ›
    Politics & Government







    Hardcover
    $298.35
    Paperback
    $29.00

    Other Used and New from $29.00






    $29.00$29.00













    FREE International delivery 5 June. Details


    Deliver to Sejin - Campbelltown 5074‌





    In stock




    US imports may differ from local products. Additional terms apply. Learn More.

    Quantity:Quantity:1



    Add to Cart
    Buy Now


    Ships from
    Amazon US
    Sold by
    Amazon US










    Payment
    Secure transaction






































    Add to Wish List
    Add to Baby Wishlist












    Other sellers on Amazon
    New & Used (20) from $29.00$29.00










    Roll over image to zoom in






    Follow the authors

    Stephen M. WaltStephen M. Walt
    Follow

    John J. MearsheimerJohn J. Mearsheimer
    Follow





    The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Paperback – 2 September 2008
    by John J Mearsheimer (Author), Stephen M Walt (Author)
    4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 487 ratings




    #1 Best Seller in History of Iraq
    See all formats and editions








    Save 6% on any 2 qualifying items | Terms


















    NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER

    Originally published in 2007, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy. A work of major importance, it remains as relevant today as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006.

    Mearsheimer and Walt describe in clear and bold terms the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. They provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America's posture throughout the Middle East―in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict―and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America's national interest nor Israel's long-term interest. The lobby's influence also affects America's relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.

    The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy led to a sea change in how the U.S-Israel relationship was discussed, and continues to be one of the most talked-about books in foreign policy.


    ==

    Product description
    Review
    "Controversial." --Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR


    "It could not be more timely." --David Bromwich, The Huffington Post


    "The strategic questions they raise now, particularly about Israel's privileged relationship with the United States, are worth debating." --David Remnick. The New Yorker


    "Ruthlessly realistic." --William Grimes, The New York Times


    "The argument they present is towering and clear and about time." --Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss.com


    "Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Walt, on the faculty at Harvard, set off a political firestorm." --Jay Solomon, The Wall Street Journal.com


    "Promises controversy on a scale not seen since Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations sought to reframe a new world order." --Stefan Halper, National Interest.com


    "Deals with Middle East policymaking at a time when America's problems in that region surpass our problems anywhere else . . . People are definitely arguing about it. It's also the kind of book you do not have to agree with on every count (I certainly don't) to benefit from reading." --MJ Rosenberg, Israel Policy Forum Newsletter


    About the Author
    John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. He has published several books, including The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.


    Stephen M. Waltis the Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and was academic dean of the Kennedy School from 2002 to 2006. He is the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy, among other books.
    Product details
    Publisher ‏ : ‎ Farrar, Straus and Giroux; First Edition (2 September 2008)
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    Paperback ‏ : ‎ 496 pages
    ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0374531501
    ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0374531508
    Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 13.84 x 2.16 x 20.57 cm
    Best Sellers Rank: 3,018 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
    1 in History of Lebanon
    1 in History of Iraq
    1 in History of Saudi Arabia
    Customer Reviews: 4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 487 ratings
    About the authors
    Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
    Stephen M. Walt
    Follow
    Stephen M. Walt
    Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs, and more


    See more on the author's page
    John J. Mearsheimer
    Follow
    John J. Mearsheimer
    John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He graduated from West Point in 1970 and then served five years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. He then started graduate school in political science at Cornell University in 1975. He received his Ph.D. in 1980. He spent the 1979-1980 academic year as a research fellow at the Brookings Institution, and was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University's Center for International Affairs from 1980 to 1982. During the 1998-1999 academic year, he was the Whitney H. Shepardson Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.


    Professor Mearsheimer has written extensively about security issues and international politics more generally. He has published six books: Conventional Deterrence (1983), which won the Edgar S. Furniss, Jr., Book Award; Liddell Hart and the Weight of History (1988); The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, 2014), which won the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize and has been translated into eight different languages; The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007), which made the New York Times best seller list and has been translated into twenty-four different languages; Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics (2011), which has been translated into twelve different languages; and The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (2018).


    He has also written many articles that have appeared in academic journals like International Security, and popular magazines like Foreign Affairs and the London Review of Books. Furthermore he has written a number of op-ed pieces for the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times dealing with topics like Bosnia, nuclear proliferation, American policy towards India, the failure of Arab-Israeli peace efforts, the folly of invading Iraq, and the causes of the Ukrainian crisis.


    Finally, Professor Mearsheimer has won a number of teaching awards. He received the Clark Award for Distinguished Teaching when he was a graduate student at Cornell in 1977, and he won the Quantrell Award for Distinguished Teaching at the University of Chicago in 1985. In addition, he was selected as a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar for the 1993-1994 academic year. In that capacity, he gave a series of talks at eight colleges and universities. In 2003, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    Customer reviews
    4.7 out of 5 stars

    Top reviews
    Top reviews
    Top reviews from Australia
    Amazon Customer
    5.0 out of 5 stars Lobbies assert too much power
    Reviewed in Australia on 20 April 2024
    Verified Purchase
    Though the book is about the Israeli Lobby, one thing that I now understand are that lobby groups play an integral part in US.


    It is an interesting read and shows how the American government is influenced by the Israel Lobby. So long as the Israeli Lobby exerts its influence in American policy especially in the Middle East, the US will find it difficult to establish true and meaningful relationships with the Arab world and in broad strokes within the Islamic world if the US keeps blindly supporting Israel. The authors in brief are of the view that the US should be more even handed in its relationships with all countries in the Middle East. This book in my view is not for everyone as if you're not interested in US politics and prefer a light written book, you might be put off by this book but I found it well written and informative.
    Helpful
    Report
    Detroit
    5.0 out of 5 stars Very good background
    Reviewed in Australia on 11 April 2024
    Verified Purchase
    Important book to decipher spin
    Helpful
    Report
    Mahnoor
    5.0 out of 5 stars informative read
    Reviewed in Australia on 17 December 2023
    Verified Purchase
    very well written and informative
    Helpful
    Report
    Stan
    4.0 out of 5 stars we have been brainwashed, the most evil actors in our time is in control
    Reviewed in Australia on 21 April 2024
    Verified Purchase
    just read it - it will open your eyes
    Helpful
    Report
    CKR
    5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent.
    Reviewed in Australia on 20 August 2020
    Verified Purchase
    Reveals the truth.
    One person found this helpful
    Helpful
    Report
    See more reviews
    Top reviews from other countries
    Translate all reviews to English
    Teamster
    5.0 out of 5 stars Essential reading.
    Reviewed in the United States on 19 May 2024
    Verified Purchase
    Whether you're for Israel or for Palestinian Liberation this is an essential reading. There was great effort made by the Israel Lobby to defame the authors and their work as "antisemitic" at the time of the book's release but that was just the usual strategy for discrediting anyone who voices criticism of Israel. Most of those lobbing the "antisemitic" charge never of course refuted any of the points made by the book. How could they? Even in the post truth world, facts are still facts. Not only was the book far from "antisemitic" but the authors went to exceedingly great lengths to handle the topic of the Israel Lobby with kids glove because they were dreading the antisemitism charge--in the end it still came despite their best efforts. Reading this book in the current backdrop of what's taking place in Gaza drives home the danger of the Israel Lobby to America. Consider that today in the United States you can castigate our government institutions and the elected officials who make a mockery of it, freely; but if you dare question America's disastrous policy of backing Israel unconditionally you are summarily labeled "antisemite". Right now the Israel Lobby is working overtime to make it an offense to criticize Israel on American College campuses--this in a country that advertises itself as the free speech center of the world.
    2 people found this helpful
    Report
    Amazon Customer
    5.0 out of 5 stars Well documented. Well argued
    Reviewed in Canada on 29 January 2024
    Verified Purchase
    A classic account of a worrying problem : the influence of another nation on US foreign policy
    Report
    Ravindranath Soory
    5.0 out of 5 stars Every thing
    Reviewed in India on 11 December 2023
    Verified Purchase
    Good
    One person found this helpful
    Report
    D. Waterman
    5.0 out of 5 stars Good information bad conclusions
    Reviewed in Germany on 20 May 2018
    Verified Purchase
    While this book makes every effort to play an even hand and provide neutral commentary the authors commit a cardinal Sin in my view by attempting to exonnerate the Israel lobby of the crime of conspiracy. In their attempt to clarify the difference between conspiracy and lobbying they in fact incriminate the lobby by ignoring the fact that conspiracy does not per se have to be secretive.


    When the lobby puts its full force behind the invasion of Iraq, it misleads the general public concerning its aims to reprganise the middle east as part of a neoliberal empire building exercise, claiming rather that the removal of Saddam Hussein is necessary because of the threat of WMDs. Although this lobbying occurs in the open, the misleading and lying to the public it entails involves a considerable amount of coordination and activity beyond the view of the public. In addition one cannot simply ignore the extent of influence exercised outside public control by organisations like AIPAC. Those who claim the invasion of Iraq and many other interferences all over the world are evidence of conspiracy are therefore very much correct, even if they are not well informed of the precise mechanisms by which policy is determined.


    In addition the authors commit another naive error by referring to lobbying as a legitimate activity within democracies, and ignoring the many insidious ways that such activity actually undermines public control. In my view they do this to avoid accusations of antisemitism that might otherwise be leveled at them for accusingbthe lobby of questionable if not illegal activity, but the point is tgat lobbying corrupts democratic decisionmaking in ways that are profoundly unethical, and therefore highly problematic.


    A further cardinal error, in my view, is the authors failure to discuss neoliberalism as the main driving force behind US and Israeli policy. While correctly identifying neocons within the Israel lobby, and the joint US Israeli neocon scheme to literally redraw the geopolitical map of the mideast, the authors fail to explore the wider motive for this, this making it seem as if the Iraq, Syria and Iran regime change plans are entirely motivated by Israeli paranoia rather than a broader ‘conspiracy’ to disempower popular movements in the region from actualising democratic reform from within. These policies may indeed reflect fear amongst neocons of real democratic movements: create an external enemy, identify a scapegoat, go to war, divide and rule! In other words, this oversight is perhaps the most serious error of the book making the long litany of errors in mid east policy entirely inexplicable and thus depriving readers of the possibility to make up their own minds on whether these policies do in fact ‘amount to a conspiracy’ when considered a ‘hidden agenda’.


    This brings us back to the question whether the term conspiracy needs to be updated to reflect the realpolitikal world as it actually manifests itself in this day and age, which is to say that there is every justification for calling political processes that take place outside the view of the people and beyond public control ‘conspiracy’ regardless whether those involved are deliberately, wittingly, conspiring and collaborating toward any specific goal.


    The problem is that this leaves readers with precious little understanding of how US policy on the middle east fits with other interests and policies that have an equally important role at home. These are the issues from racism to corruption pollution and wages, healthcare etc. all of which determine voting pattherns and political consciousness and willingness to act.


    These problems are evident in the authors call in the final conclusions where they suggest the US can still legitimately play a role as nuclear watchdog in the ME! No it cannot! US policy in the region as elsewhere has lost all credibility precisely because it is entirely untethered from any democratic process at home. The US needs to remove all traces of its interference anywhere outside its own borders and fix its democracy problems at home! That might make it a credible partner for peace.


    All of which is thoroughly depressing. The authors reading suggests in fact that politics is entirely something that takes place outside the scope of publi control. But as Zygmunt Bauman argues real power ultimately rests with the people. It is ordinary people who foot the bill for US donations of money to Israel, who give their lives for the false hope and lie of democracy, and who lose the opportunity to have good schools and hospitals because the country’s respurces are being diverted.


    The authors recommendations are predictably useless: treat Israel as any other state’ may be good advice but it does not account for tge way in which US policy foreign and domestic is actually made. It ignores tge very real gap between people and power and within public consciousness, themselves the consequences of centuries of injustice and imposed ignorance. Although the authors hold that policy is ultimately a democratic product this by no means explains the extent of polarisation in public debate and policymaking that deprives us of real choice at the polling booth.


    US foreign policy is in other words a consequence of the lack of real democracy at home, a fact tge authors seem to ignore entirely. Thus when they argue that the lobby’s influence on policy has not made Israel safer they fail to recognise that Israeli leaders ppwer to pursue policies tgat are not in their own best interests represents another discrepancy between the interests of those in power and the common people.
    Read less
    12 people found this helpful
    Report
    Translate review to English
    Alexander Sokol
    5.0 out of 5 stars Well researched, relevant, not always completely convincing
    Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 8 July 2012
    Verified Purchase
    The central argument of the book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by J. J. Mearsheimer and S. M. Walt is that there exists a powerful pro-Israel political lobby in the United States, and that this lobby influences foreign policy in a manner detrimental to the United States, and occasionally also in a manner detrimental to Israel. Arguing this, the book also touches upon many aspects of the United States and Israeli politics and history in general, and so becomes in fact a rather complex and far-reaching work. The value of the book, therefore, rests not only on its ability to argue its central thesis, but also on the more general information it provides on United States and Israel.


    The book is split into two parts. The first part outlines the strong political and financial support which Israel receives from the United States, argues that the rationale for the support can be based neither on national security interests nor on moral grounds, and proposes instead that the "Israel lobby" - a catch-all term for pro-Israel political groups in the United States - is the main reason for the United States support for Israel. In the second part, examples are given of political affairs - the Iraq war, the second Lebanon war and affairs with Syria and Iran - where the authors argue that United States policy has been irrationally favoring Israeli interests in contrast to national interests, and concludes that the Israel lobby has an important part to play in this.


    Israel and its relationships with its neighbors is a touchy subject, but the authors take great care to clarify their opinions, to nuance their criticisms, and in particular often and explicitly distance themselves from any anti-semitic lines of thought. In general, while I have not checked many of their sources, the book appears well-researched, and the arguments of the authors are for the most part clearly stated and well thought-out.


    Personally, however, I did not find the main arguments for the power of the Israel lobby entirely convincing. The general modus operandi employed throughout the book is the following:


    1. Consider an example of United States Middle East policy in support of Israel.
    2. Argue that the policy has been detrimental to United States national interests.
    3. Argue that the policy is not justifiable on moral grounds.
    4. Give examples that the Israel lobby influenced the policy.
    5. Conclude that the Israel lobby yields considerable influence.


    This method of argument is largely sound, but it is also necessary to realize both that the final conclusion must be qualified as a matter of degree and that there may be other explanations for the United States policy not considered (other lobbies, for example). I found that the authors argued well that the Israel lobby is powerful, and more powerful than most other lobbies. The authors clearly state that they do not believe that the lobby "controls foreign policy" or anything conspiratorical to that effect, nonetheless I did not find myself entirely convinced that the Israel lobby is quite as powerful as they seem to make it out to be.


    What I by far found most interesting about the book, however, is that during the development of its arguments, many details of United States and Israeli policies are investigated from both an economical, political and moral perspective. In these discussions, the subject is not how much influence the Israel lobby has, rather the subject is simply analysis of a historical political event, where questions are raised as to how various policies affected terrorism, regime changes, peace prospects et cetera. I found these analyses very informative and thought-provoking. Furthermore, while the authors most of the time find Israel culpable of some major or minor moral stumble, they in general appear to attempt to judge the cases on a fair basis. Also, in several cases throughout the book, when the conclusion is not clear-cut, they point this out. Nonetheless, it is ultimately the case the authors spend most of their arguments criticising Israel rather than defending it.


    In spite of that I found the arguments for the main thesis - the power of the Israeli lobby as claimed in the book - imperfect, I would clearly and warmly recommend it to anyone interested in the relationship between Israel, its neighbors and the United States. Although somewhat academic, it is very readable and very informative on many accounts. The authors give their opinions and arguments on a varied series of historical and current events, and the arguments in general appear well thought-out, impartial and thought-provoking.
    Read less
    14 people found this helpful
    Report


    ==


    ==


    ==
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)