• 
• 
• 
• 
by Mark Silva
We reported earlier today on the new book by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the Unviersity of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard, on the power that the Israel lobby wields over U.S. policy in the Middle East.
The "unconditional'' support that the U.S. provides to Israel, despite its "brutal'' treatment of the Palestinians, can only be explained by the political power of this lobby, the authors contend -- suggesting that only when the U.S. embraces an "even-handed'' approach to the Palestinians and Israelis will it be able to play the needed role of peace-broker.
Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, has written a rebuttal to the book published today by New York Jewish Week. He once served as political director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington linchpin of the lobby about which Mearsheimer and Walt have written.
"The authors pursue Israel with a one-sided, prosecutorial zeal that echoes the same arguments that Israel’s critics have made for decades'' Forman writes. "However, even more damaging to Walt and Mearsheimer’s credibility is the question of how well they understand the role of American Jews in domestic politics.''
For more, see the Swamp's report on the book and its authors that appeared earlier today, and see Forman's article, reprinted here in the Swamp with permission:
Misreading The Power Of The ‘Lobby’
By Ira Forman
Published in New York Jewish Week 9/7/07
Of all the lessons I learned in 19 years of school, none was more useful than this: “Minority groups maximize their political influence by organizing intensely and focusing narrowly.” This notion, which came out of an undergraduate course in government, is simple yet powerful. It almost perfectly summarizes the success of the so-called “Israel Lobby” in the United States during the last 40 years.
Now in a new book — “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (Farrar Strauss and Giroux) — John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University provide a very different interpretation of how the lobby operates. The book, out this week, has already received an enormous amount of attention because of the authors’ argument that the Israel lobby is not only responsible for warping U.S. policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also for pushing America into a war in Iraq.
This is controversial material, and Walt and Mearsheimer would have written a much better, if less “sexy,” book if they had kept in mind my professor’s simple description of how minorities maximize political power.
Walt and Mearsheimer’s narrative begins with the argument that current levels of U.S. support for Israel cannot be justified on either strategic or moral grounds. Once they dismiss these justifications, they “examine” how the lobby operates and conclude that it is the lobby’s extraordinary power that is shaping much of U.S. foreign policy.
The authors pursue Israel with a one-sided, prosecutorial zeal that echoes the same arguments that Israel’s critics have made for decades. However, even more damaging to Walt and Mearsheimer’s credibility is the question of how well they understand the role of American Jews in domestic politics.
In fairness, the two professors demonstrate a basic understanding of how the Israel lobby operates. They recognize the central role the American Israel Public Affairs Committee plays in lobbying Congress and to a lesser extent the executive branch. They note the participation of a large array of other Jewish organizations and Zionist Christian groups. The authors also point out the significant levels of political contributions that come from American Jews. They even have some understanding of how the power of the lobby has grown and evolved over the last 60 years.
Moreover, Walt and Mearsheimer have extensively reviewed both the American Jewish press and the English-language press. As a result they are familiar with the internal arguments within the Jewish communities in both the United States and Israel and they support their narrative with over 100 pages of footnotes.
However, in the final analysis, “The Israel Lobby” does not accurately reflect the realities of the U.S.-Israel relationship or the extent of the lobby’s power. Though the authors appear to understand the high level of political organization in the Jewish community, they totally misunderstand the limits of the lobby’s power. In particular they fail to understand that a narrow, laser-like focus on the U.S.-Israel relationship is what enhances the lobby’s power.
The American Jewish community’s ability to influence U.S. policy toward Israel is dramatically enhanced because of the unique role of Congress in American democracy. Members of Congress, unlike representatives in parliamentary systems, are extremely sensitive to voter and interest group opinion. The Jewish community’s political strength, combined with the weakness of the opposition and the public’s general support for Israel, allows the lobby to strongly influence U.S. policy toward Israel.
But as soon as a minority community tries to extend its organizational power to other public policy arenas, its power to affect policy is significantly reduced, as it must compete with other powerful interest groups. A good example of this dynamic is the battle over the 2007 Lobbying Reform Bill.
Walt and Mearsheimer argue that AIPAC won this legislative fight. While it is true that AIPAC’s position on third-party funded congressional travel was adopted, AIPAC failed in its attempt to allow congressional lobbyists to travel with members of Congress on such trips. AIPAC was no match for a public opinion environment where the notion of “lobbyist and congressional travel” became synonymous with scandal. For the same types of reasons, the lobby has never had a significant impact on campaign finance reform legislation. Walt and Mearsheimer don’t understand such subtleties of congressional behavior or the limits on ethnic group power.
The authors’ most spectacular accusation — that the lobby has significant responsibility for the Iraq war — is also an illustration of their limited understanding of the Israel lobby. The professors describe how a group of neoconservatives conspired to push for a war with Iraq, and they conflate these neocons with the Israel lobby. Not only do the authors attach a significant amount of blame to the Israel lobby for the morass in Iraq, but they go on to warn that any future military action in Iran must inevitably be laid at the door of the lobby.
To argue that a gang of largely Jewish neocons was able to bully Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush into a war against their will is absurd. Even more ridiculous is the notion that these neocons were the Israel lobby.
At the beginning of the book Walt and Mearsheimer define the Israel lobby as a loose coalition of organizations and individuals. Thus in their worldview, organizations as diverse as the Israel Policy Forum and the Zionist Organization of America are part of the Israel lobby. Similarly, individuals as diverse as former UN ambassador John Bolton, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, former Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Sen. Russ Feingold constitute parts of this powerful lobby.
Even if one defines the lobby as “loose coalition,” it presupposes some degree of coordinated action and information sharing toward specific legislative and policy goals. I can assure Walt and Mearsheimer that Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean have never joined the AIPAC staff on any phone call to discuss how to defeat a Saudi arm sale, let alone how to ensure a U.S. military strike on Iran.
The real Israel lobby (whether you define it as AIPAC or a bit more broadly to include a number of other organizations) did not meaningfully participate in the debate on Iraq because it did not have the power to meaningfully impact that debate — not when large arrays of very powerful interest and ideological groups clashed over the question of America going to war.
There are other portions of the Walt and Mearsheimer narrative that also fail to reflect the realities of the domestic politics behind the U.S.-Israel relationship. For example, in one chapter the authors attempt to demonstrate that the Israel lobby dominates the public relations battle. If the authors had bothered to interview nearly any Jewish communal leader, they would have found that the Jewish community’s lack of a public relations strategy on behalf of Israel has been a source of contention for decades.
For all of the book’s footnotes, there are a great many factual errors in the text. For example, the authors inflate the Jewish percentage of the U.S. population by 50 percent. At another point in the narrative they state that AIPAC’s former executive director, Tom Dine, was “reportedly” fired in 1993 because he was insufficiently hawkish. This was not the case, and a check of the authors’ own sources (as listed in the footnotes) contradicts their claim.
One of the professors’ arguments — their complaint that they and others who criticize Israel or the domestic Israel lobby are subject to charges of anti-Semitism — is not totally lacking in merit. Some of us in the Jewish community too quickly resort to the charge of anti-Semitism. Terms like anti-Semitism and racism should be reserved for only the most obvious cases lest they lose some of their power to shock and shame.
But if the charge of anti-Semitism is, at times, overused it appears that Walt and Mearsheimer are guilty themselves of overusing the charge of censorship. Time and time again they tell their readers how difficult it is to challenge Israel and its defenders. They tell us how difficult it is to find a forum for their views and complain of the personal price they must pay to speak the truth. Yet the authors have gained a great deal of press and fame for their original essay and this book. To paraphrase William Shakespeare, “methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.”
Yes, if this book were an undergraduate paper it might receive a passing grade — if nothing else for its extensive footnoting and basic understanding of how the Jewish community and allies are organized for Israel advocacy. And yes, as an ideological polemic it also has some merit — particularly for the straightforward way that it makes its debating points. But as a serious academic work that effectively shines the light on the domestic politics of the friends of Israel, it deserves a big fat “F.”
By all appearances Walt and Mearsheimer started with their conclusions and then shoehorned their research into a narrative that fit their conclusions. It’s not what you’d expect from a couple of professor from Harvard and Chicago.
Ira Forman is the co-editor of “Jews In American Politics.” He currently serves as the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC). From 1978-1981 he served as a lobbyist and the first political director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Comments
"A Rebuttal on the Influence of the Israel Lobby"
Their favorite son, Joe Lieberman, is doing a good job for them (the Israel lobbyists).
Posted by: John E | September 6, 2007 3:42 PM
Tell that to Joe Lieberman.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 6, 2007 3:43 PM
I find that the United States has not real right to involve itself in the business of other countries. It is more of the United Stats' responsibility as a powerful nation, to used it's influence to help those struggling in poverty or being treated unethically.
Posted by: Erica | September 6, 2007 3:46 PM
Erica it's all about oil and religion. Joe is a lap dog to the Israel lobby.
Posted by: Force of Darkness | September 6, 2007 5:36 PM
"ISRAEL HAS A MASSIVE ARSENAL AND A GREAT MANY OF PEOPLE OF GOOD PEOPLE"
SO WHO DO WE SERVE, AMERICA OR ISRAEL.
I DON'T THINK I WAS BORN TO DIE AND PROTECT ISRAEL, AND NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY IT WAS PROCLALMATED ON BEHALF OF ISRAEL OR ANY OTHER NATION.
SO SAVE THE LOBBY FOR OTHER COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NO ARSENAL AND NO GOOD OF THE WILL PEOPLE.
TOO MANY THOUSANDS OF YEARS HAVE PASSED. TOO MUCH TECHNOLOGY HAS SURPASSED THOUSANDS OF YEARS. SO WHY CAN'T ISRAEL, OR THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST COME OUT OF THEIR OWN DARKEN DOORS AND LIVE AMONGST EACHOTHER?
ITS ON THEIR CELL PHONES JUST LIKE ITS ON OUR CELL PHONES. WE SEE WHAT THEY SEE, SO NOW ITS TIME TO RECONGIZE THAT, YES WE TOO SEE WHAT THEY SEE.
NEXT!
Posted by: Roger Morris | September 6, 2007 5:39 PM
I don't for a minute believe Israel influenced, encouraged, cajoled or made the U.S. go to war with Iraq. That was a blunder of Bush's own doing. Period.
The problems in the Middle East don't begin and end with the state of Israel. You could end the state of Israel tomorrow and you still wouldn't have peace in the Middle East.
That said, Israel's problems are its own and we shouldn't try to convince the Arabs to accept the state of Israel.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 6, 2007 5:50 PM
No sooner that these esteemed Professors wrote a book about the elephant in the room aka Israel Lobby that the lobby has released its attack dogs to quell any debate on this issue. Quick google search find most op-eds dismissing the book as anti-Semitic ramble. But the truth has a way of seeping thru the crack and it is now obvious to the world that Israel through AIPAC has a virtual straglehold on our foreign policy esp. the mideast. Go look at who is in charge in the White House of the ME policy and u will find a who's who of neocon Zionists bent on making the world "safer" for Israel even if it costs every American life. These people should be put on trial and deported to Israel for good. Buy this book people and decide for yourselves! Don't let the 'pundits' tell u your opinion.
Posted by: John Fairlane | September 6, 2007 6:34 PM
I will have to read the book for myself, but there is no question that
Israeli interests are our #1 concern in the middle east. Just look at the billions of dollars we ship in weapons every year. The fact we always veto resolutions regarding Israeli occupation. Also, politicians like Lieberman, but also some evangelical christian politicans are 100% supporters of zionism. No one is allowed to disagree for fear of the stigma of antisemetism. I'm sorry, but it's time we are allowed to openly discuss Americas role in the world and how all of our interests are best served. All peoples' civil and human rights should be respected, no matter their faith. This shouldn't be a bigoted debate, but it's time to not let special interests stifle honest and in this case just disagreement. We should stop shipping weapons and actually help implement real peace.
Posted by: Ben | September 6, 2007 6:52 PM
Curious how assertions of factual errors in Mr Forman's rebutal are completely lacking in references.
I have long thought that America's foreign policy in the Middle East made no sense whatsoever from a strategic perspective; especially given the dependence on foreign oil. I think that the authors may be uncomfortably closer to the truth than Mr Forman would like to admit.
Posted by: CD | September 6, 2007 7:11 PM
Folks, who do you believe the Harvard Professor and the Univ. of Chicago expert or the former POLITICAL DIRECTOR of the organization that Mearsheimer and Walt are trying to expose? Ira Forman cannot show any objectivity or truth since he loyally served AIPAC.
The pro-Israeli lobby have nothing but disdain for the American people and are counting on bogus issues to disguise their activities while they funnel aid and political support to the one nation that has become a thorn in the side of world peace.
We need to wake up and realize that America is being used by Israel at the cost of our young people dying in Iraq to protect Israel's stranglehold on Middle East power.
Do you recall Rosenberg and Pollard - they were Jews who worked for Israel, just as Lieberman and Forman are working for Israel now, except rather than espionage, Lieberman and Forman are using our democractic system to further their zionist agenda.
Folks , when you go to vote, be wary of any candidate who blindly supports Iarael because that person will become a unwitting hostage to the zionist lobby.
Posted by: the truth | September 6, 2007 7:54 PM
Don't forget Israeli agent Douglas Feith at the Office of Special Plans. He cooked the intel to push us into this catastrophic war with Iraq.
Don't forget that he co-authored "Securing the Realm" for Ariel Sharon. America needs to wake up and see that it has been taken for a ride by the apartheid state of Israel.
Posted by: Eric C. Anderson | September 6, 2007 8:55 PM
I just read a piece on Rosen and Weissman, the two Aipac staffers/Israeli spies, who claim that Aipac has written US foreign policy since 1999. They're trying to subpoena C. Rice to testify to that effect in their forthcoming trial in January.
Posted by: John S | September 6, 2007 10:29 PM
Did I call it, or what? I knew the day wouldn't go by without a rebuttal appearing here. You will never see the Palestinian position granted such an immediate and prominent response, if any.
Posted by: Bruce Y | September 6, 2007 11:19 PM
truth(?)'s(sic) response is emblematic of Mearsheimer and Walt's approach. "The Lobby" is defined loosely as anyone who supports Israel Therefore anyone who argues against their book must be a member of "the Lobby" and their argument should then be discounted because of who they are - not because of what they say.
Any worthy theory must allow for conditions whereby it could be disproved. If members of what Mearsheimer and Walt consider to be "the Lobby" disagreed on Iraq (and it appears that many so called members were quite content to let Saddam Hussein remain in power and had no interest in Bush's push for democratizing the Middle East), then there, then a major plank of "the Lobby" thesis falls apart. It matters not who points this out.
Posted by: L. King | September 7, 2007 12:15 AM
So this morning you ran a piece on a book that suggests there is a very large, effective and like minded if not centralized pro Israel lobbying force active in American politics today...
Before the end of the day you re print with permission a rebuttal....
No large likeminded but decentralized pro Israel public policy minipulation going on here...move along
Posted by: Tony D | September 7, 2007 12:58 AM
A rebuttal on Israel lobby influence by Mark Silva
Hey Mark, Please copy all the readers comments and send it to Mr. Ira Forman.
Maybe then he will realise that you can fool the people some of the time, but not now, after all that has gone by. For my part I don't see why my tax dollars should prop up Israel when they have nuclear bombs and have been brutal in their killings of Lebanese civilians. Also, the old sop about Anti-Israel equals AntiSemitic doesn't hold water, and is a mantra chanted by the likes of JINSA, AIPAC and IDL. Please, we have stopped drinking your kool aid, we can see better now.
And oh by the way when will our "fair" media publish an article with an alternate opinion as that of Mr.Freeman?
Posted by: Pathma | September 7, 2007 1:49 AM
I am part Jewish myself and my wife is jewish. There are many ways to view the US relationship with Israel. You can say that Israel deserves our support, or you can say that they don't but if the question is what is in the best interest of the US then the answer is a bit simpler to calculate. It has probably never been in the US interest to support the one country in the region that every other country in the region hates. It has probably never been in the US best interest to support a country that has no oil, or other valuable asset.
I do susspect that many of those that support Israel do recognize that the "soft underbelly" of the US Israel relationship is that the US has little to gain, and much to loose from the relationship. Now the moral question of whether or not we should support Israel is a very different question, and much more difficult to answer, but the US has very little precident for supporting countries based on morality.
Posted by: captbilly | September 7, 2007 1:52 AM
AIPAC just got Israel a 25% increase in already-lush US funding for weapons in the next few years, and this guy wants me to believe it has no great influence? And someone please explain why dual citizens of Israel can fight for a foreign (Israel's) army, but if anyone else migrates here and does that they're called a traitor and lose their US citizenship? I agree the US supports Israel to use its citizens like bait for those who oppose the US, but look how beautifully Israelis live compared to Palestinians, and it's mostly with our tax dollars! Of course the US supports or not according to strategic interests; only Saudi Arabia and Israel benefit so much from being so used.
Posted by: VCubed | September 7, 2007 4:10 AM
Israel receives billions of dollars in aid from America every year. Israel does what it is told to do and it is fatuous to claim Israel dictates to America.
Posted by: Ian McGarrett | September 7, 2007 4:50 AM
I find that the United States has not real right to involve itself in the business of other countries.
Posted by: Erica | September 6, 2007 3:46 PM
So Erica, is that to say we and the rest of the world should sit idly by while another regime ( i.e. Nazis' ) starts eliminating people in mass and do nothing , like some many countries did in 1939 ?
Posted by: Don B. | September 7, 2007 7:00 AM
Do you know that in the U.S. the Israelis are favored over the Palestinans. So it can't be just the "Jews" you see. It is all decent and rational people who have not been brainwashed to hate America and everything it stands for.
Posted by: jz | September 7, 2007 1:18 PM
Sorry Israelis are favored over Pals 3 to 1.
Posted by: jz | September 7, 2007 1:44 PM
Hey, JZ, what's the over-under on the Israel/Pals game?
Posted by: Tony | September 7, 2007 2:06 PM
So Erica, is that to say we and the rest of the world should sit idly by while another regime ( i.e. Nazis' ) starts eliminating people in mass and do nothing , like some many countries did in 1939 ?
Posted by: Don B. | September 7, 2007 7:00 AM
We've already been there, done that, Don. No one helped the Jews when they were being slaughtered, and protecting the Jews WAS NOT the mission of WWII, it was to stop German and Japanese imperialism.
No one helped the Rwandans, no one is helping the people of Darfur. We did intervene in former Yugoslavia, but you and your ilk (Candidate Bush) argued that was frivolous nation-building that was not in the best interest of the United States.
So which is it?
And Donny, it seems rather apparent that Osama Bin Laden is still alive. So much for your insane conspiracy theories that the MSM was burying that news because it would be helpful to Bush. Your tinfoil needs readjustment.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 7, 2007 3:38 PM
A fine example of how impotent Israel lobby is can be seen I an article published this week in Forward:
Go to www.forward.com and read "CNN comes under unprecedented attack".
The Article is a fine example of how the American public is kept in the dark to secure that much talked about "public support".
Posted by: candid | September 7, 2007 3:49 PM
We've already been there, done that, Don. No one helped the Jews when they were being slaughtered, and protecting the Jews WAS NOT the mission of WWII, it was to stop German and Japanese imperialism.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 7, 2007 3:38 PM
Oh! well thanks for making it crystal clear for me , I thought slaughtering Jews were part of the Nazi imperialistic desires. It's probably what they did on their down time, when they weren't busy being imperialistic.
Their were a lot people who tried to help the Jews, in many European countries, they were simply overwhelmed by the speed and brutality of the Nazis'., and yes the world sat on their hands in Rwanda and Darfur, perhaps their are a lot more countries than we thought who subscribe to Ericas' politics of burying their heads in the sand. So have another tall glass of KOOL-AID and pray for our defeat, it's what you do nothing liberals live for.
Posted by: Don B. | September 7, 2007 9:55 PM
Many of the readers' responses have a suspicious similarity: an anti-Semitic,virulently anti Israel lobby. Call it "Hatred of Israel and the Jews." Their ignorance is reflected in an inability even to write a lucid sentence, let alone make any sense.
Posted by: Basia | September 7, 2007 10:46 PM
"Many"? Almost *all* the comments here -- the ones dripping with hatred towards Israel -- have been written by the same person. Not only are there obvious patterns in the person's choice of names, but his language/tone/style is immediately apparent once you look for it. This is a one-man bombing campaign. Unfortunately I neither have the time nor the energy to counter this guy. Luckily though, both his language and his agenda are embarrassingly transparent.
This is the first time I have not used my own full name -- and it's because the author of these unvarying screeds sounds to me a little rabid in tone. Right now he's clearly obsessed with Israel. The last thing I want is to get him obsessed with me, you know?
Posted by: Daniel | September 8, 2007 5:09 PM
As one who has actually read the Walt Mearsheimer Papers and their new book, my comment is that it is not scholarship, but polemics and propaganda. Their central thesis that Israel is no longer (it was in the Cold War, they maintain) of strategic value to the US and that America's standing with Israel simply angers the Arabs and therefore we should stop our alliance.
Have they ever stopped to think that the only reasons we are friends with the Arabs is because of their oil and that Jews in Israel and around the world are constantly threated with their "drive Israel into the sea" words and deed. Walt and Mearsheimer also complete discount the long term goals of fundamentalist Islamists and that is to make their wives, daughters, granddaughters and others submit to Sharia law to restore the glory that was once Arabia. They have given no policy consideration that perhaps making nice nice to some of these Arabic nations by selling out Israel is comparable to Chamberland's "peace in our time" appeasement of Hitler.
Israel is the only country with declared war by its neighbors over the past 60+ years and these yuckeltz from Harvard and University of Chicago say they have no right to defend themselves, nor should the American government be subject to strong calls and please by Jewish citizens to be good allies. Shame on them, shame on their institutions and may G-d help us all from these so-called members of the "intelligencia."
Posted by: Not Turning The Other Cheek | September 9, 2007 11:17 AM