Israel lobby in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
For other uses of the term "Israel lobby", see Israel lobby (disambiguation).
This article is part of the
Lobbying in the United States
series.
Political action committee
527 group
Campaign finance
Campaign finance reform
Major industry lobbies
Agribusiness
Communications/Electronics
Construction
Defense
Energy and natural resources
Finance, insurance and real estate
Health
Lawyers and lobbyists
Organized labor
Software
Transportation
Major single-issue lobbies
Pro-life / pro-choice (abortion)
Environment
Federal leadership
Human rights
Foreign and defense policy
Gun rights / gun control
Israel
This box: view • talk • edit

The Israel lobby in the United States is defined by Mitchell Bard as "those formal and informal actors that directly and indirectly influence American policy to support Israel," a large proportion of whom are non-Jews." [1] According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, [2] the use of the singular label "Israel lobby" is not to imply that there "is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues."

Contents

[edit] Debates

[edit] Degree of influence

Tony Judt, writing in the New York Times, asks rhetorically "[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." [3]

Dennis B. Ross, former U.S. ambassador and chief peace negotiator in the Middle East under Bill Clinton, wrote:

"never in the time that I led the American negotiations on the Middle East peace process did we take a step because 'the lobby' wanted us to. Nor did we shy away from one because 'the lobby' opposed it. That is not to say that AIPAC and others have no influence. They do. But they don't distort U.S. policy or undermine American interests." [4]

Mitchell Bard has conducted a study which attempts to roughly quantify the influence of the Israel lobby on 782 policy decisions, over the period of 1945 to 1984, in order to move the debate on its influence away from simple anecdotes. He

"found the Israeli lobby won; that is, achieved its policy objective, 60 percent of the time. The most important variable was the president's position. When the president supported the lobby, it won 95 percent of the time. At first glance it appears the lobby was only successful because its objectives coincided with those of the president, but the lobby's influence was demonstrated by the fact that it still won 27 percent of the cases when the president opposed its position."[1]

According to a public opinion poll by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from October 10-12, 2006, 40% of American voters at least somewhat believe the Israel lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq. The following poll question was used: "Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?"[1]

The influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States has been cited as becoming "an obstacle to peace in the Middle East".[5]

[edit] Lobbying for a U.S. ally

Israeli academic and peace activist Jeff Halper said that "Israel is able to pursue its occupation only because of its willingness to serve Western (mainly U.S.) imperial interests" and that rather than influencing the United States via the lobby, Israel is actually "a handmaiden of American Empire."[6]

In 2006 former UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter published Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change (ISBN 1-56025-936-1). In his book Ritter claims that certain Israelis and pro-Israel elements in the United States are trying to push the Bush administration into war with Iran [2]. He also accuses the U.S. pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and outright espionage (see Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal) [3].

[edit] Political alignment

As detailed earlier, the formal aspect of the Israel lobby, according to some analysts, can be divided into right-leaning and left-leaning components. Of these two components, the right-leaning component is dominant according to Mearsheimer and Walt. They write "Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, are run by hardliners who generally support the [right-leaning] Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process."[2]

Thomas B. Edsall and Molly Moore reported in the Washington Post that some Israeli politicians regard AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobby organization, as "representing the more hawkish factions within the Israeli government."[7] Edsall and Moore go on to quote Yossi Beilin, a prominent Israeli politician and member of the center-left Labor party, who complains that AIPAC has "their own agenda [...] They contradicted our [center-left Labor] government. When there was a unity government, they would say, 'But you only represent Labor,' even if I was representing the prime minister."[7]

[edit] Media coverage of lobby

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

American journalist Michael Massing argues that there is a lack of media coverage on the Israel lobby and posits this explanation: "Why the blackout? For one thing, reporting on these groups is not easy. AIPAC's power makes potential sources reluctant to discuss the organization on the record, and employees who leave it usually sign pledges of silence. AIPAC officials themselves rarely give interviews, and the organization even resists divulging its board of directors."[8] Massing writes that in addition to AIPAC's efforts to maintain a low profile, "journalists, meanwhile, are often loath to write about the influence of organized Jewry. [...] In the end, though, the main obstacle to covering these groups is fear." [8]

Steven Rosen, a former director of foreign-policy issues for AIPAC, explained to Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker that "a lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."[9]

On The Diane Rehm Show (December 11, 2006), Middle East experts Hisham Melhem and Dennis Ross, when asked about the pervasive Israeli influence on American foreign policy in the Middle East mentioned in former President Jimmy Carter's 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid said: [H. Melhem] "When it comes to Israel [discussing Israeli and/or Jewish American issues], it is still almost a taboo in certain parts, not everywhere...there are certain things that cannot be said about the Israeli government or America's relationship with Israel or about the Israeli lobby. Yes there is, excuse me, there is an Israeli lobby, but when we say an Israeli lobby we are not talking about a Jewish cabal. The Israeli lobby operates the way the NRA operates, a system of rewards and punishment, you help your friends by money, by advocacy and everything, and sometimes they pool money in to the campaigns of those people that they see as friendly to Israel. This is the American game" [4]. The interview continued on in which the Dennis Ross responded. (radio interview: ≈16:30-20:05)

[edit] Mearsheimer and Walt controversy

Main article: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The March 2006 publication of Mearsheimer and Walt's bluntly worded essay, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," promoted a charged debate as to what constitutes antisemitic conspiracy theorizing when criticizing the Israel lobby.[10] 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."

The matter was further complicated, as Michelle Goldberg reported on Salon.com, because this was "not just a case of brave academics telling taboo truths" but that they had "blundered forth with an article that has several factual mistakes and baffling omissions" and that seemed "expressly designed to elicit exactly the reaction it has received."[11]

[edit] It is unfair

Princeton professor Aaron Friedberg takes issue with the suggestion that lobby members put the interests of Israel above the interests of the United States:

"at a minimum, this is a slanderous and unfalsifiable allegation of treason leveled at individuals whose views on Middle East policy differ from the authors. At worst, it is an ugly accusation of collective disloyalty, containing the most unsavory of historical echoes."[12]

Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish Literature and Comparative Literature at Harvard, wrote,

"When [Walt and Mearsheimer] imply that the bipartisan support of Israel in Congress is a result of Jewish influence, they function as classic conspiracy theorists who attribute decisions to nefarious alliances rather than to the choices of a democratic electorate". [13]

Eliot A. Cohen, a professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, argues that the Walt and Mearsheimer paper bears all the traditional hallmarks of antisemitism:

"obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews," accusations of Jewish "disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments," and systematically omits "any exculpatory information".[14]

Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips writing in her own blog called the paper a "particularly ripe example of the 'global Zionist conspiracy' libel".[15]

[edit] It is misleading

Madeleine Albright suggests caution:

"I think it’s very easy to get on this tack all of a sudden that it’s some kind of an overly powerful Jewish lobby. There are other lobbies that are very strong, and Washington is full of lobbyists. So I would not, in fact, stress that as much as I would stress the fact that the U.S. does have an indissoluble relationship with Israel that is based on history and culture."[16]

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, 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 takes issue with Joseph Massad's interpretation of Mearsheimer's and Walt's argument

"there 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. Indeed, like exaggerated claims of Jewish power at other times in history, such an explanation absolves the real powerbrokers and assigns blame to convenient scapegoats. This is not to say that Mearsheimer, Walt, or anyone else who expresses concern about the power of the Israel lobby is an anti-Semite, but the way in which this exaggerated view of Jewish power parallels historic anti-Semitism should give us all pause."[17]

Mitchell G. Bard of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise writes:

"Criticizing Israel does not necessarily make someone anti-Semitic. The determining factor is the intent of the commentator. Legitimate critics accept Israel's right to exist, whereas anti-Semites do not. Anti-Semites use double standards when they criticize Israel, for example, denying Israelis the right to ... defend itself, and ignore Jewish victims, while blaming Israel for pursuing their murderers."[18]

[edit] It is fair criticism

Mark Mazower, a professor of history at Columbia University, wrote that it is not possible to openly debate the article's critical thesis:

"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 US 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 US today about the country’s relationship with Israel." [19]

Criticism of the Mearsheimer and Walt paper has itself been called "moral blackmail" and "bullying" by an opinion piece in The Financial Times:

"Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US 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." [20]

Political commentator Molly Ivins, who voiced support for Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis, wrote that

"[i]n the United States, we do not have full-throated, full-throttle debate about Israel ..., but the truth is that the accusation of anti-Semitism is far too often raised in this country against anyone who criticizes the government of Israel. Being pro-Israel is no defense, as I long ago learned to my cost. Now I've gotten used to it. Jews who criticize Israel are charmingly labeled 'self-hating Jews.'"[21]

[edit] In relation to special interest groups

Noam Chomsky, political activist and professor of linguistics at MIT, writes 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." [22]

Eric Alterman writes in The Nation, that "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."[23]

Zunes describes that some groups who lobby against current U.S. policy on Israel "have accepted funding from autocratic Arab regimes, thereby damaging their credibility" while others have "taken hard-line positions that not only oppose the Israeli occupation but challenge Israel's very right to exist and are therefore not taken seriously by most policymakers."[6] Zunes writes that many lobbying groups on the left, such as Peace Action, are "more prone to complain about the power of the Israel lobby and its affiliated PACs than to do serious lobbying on this issue or condition its own PAC contributions on support for a more moderate U.S. policy" in the region.[6]

[edit] Arab lobby

Main article: Arab lobby in the United States

There are a number of differences between the Israeli lobby and Arab lobby according to American foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard.[1] In general the Arab lobby "suffers from a very negative image and Israel enjoys a very positive image."[1] In terms of activities "the Arab lobby almost always lobbies negatively; i.e., against pro-Israel legislation rather than for pro-Arab legislation."[1] Also, the Arab lobby, unlike the Israeli lobby, makes use of paid foreign agents: "Pro-Arab U.S. government officials can look forward to lucrative positions as lobbyists, spokesmen, and consultants for the Arab cause."[1] Public opinion polls also show both less suspicions of the Israel lobby ("polls indicate the public sees the Arab lobby as more of a threat than the Israeli lobby") and greater overall effectiveness ("Israel varied between 32 and 64 percent, averaging 46 percent, while sympathy for the Arabs has oscillated between 1 and 30 percent and averaged only 12 percent.").[1] The Washington Post noted that "pro-Arab and pro-Muslim groups donated $297,000" to federal politicians and campaigns since 1990 compared to the $56.8 million contributed by "Pro-Israel interests."[24]

Former U.S. President Harry Truman famously said to Paul Porter, an appointed "ambassador to the Arab-Israeli peace talks in Geneva in 1948: 'I won't tell you what to do or how to vote, but I will only say this. In all of my political experience, I don't ever recall the Arab vote swinging a close election.'"[1]

[edit] Structure

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

The "Israeli (or pro-Israel) lobby" is composed of formal and informal components according to Bard.[1] The components "tend to intersect at several points so the distinction is not always clear-cut."[1]

[edit] Informal lobby

Mitchell Bard defines the "informal lobby" as the indirect means through which "Jewish voting behavior and American public opinion" influence "U.S. Middle East policy."[1]

Bard describes the motivation underlying the informal lobby as follows:

"American Jews recognize the importance of support for Israel because of the dire consequences that could follow from the alternative. Despite the fact that Israel is often referred to now as the fourth most powerful country in the world, the perceived threat to Israel is not military defeat, it is annihilation. At the same time, American Jews are frightened of what might happen in the United States if they do not have political power."[1]

[edit] Formal lobby

The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized lobby groups, political action committees, think tanks and media watchdogs groups.

There are, according to Bard, two key formal lobbying groups:

These two key groups aim to present policy makers with unified and representative messages via the aggregation and filtering of the diversity of opinions held by smaller pro-Israel lobby groups and the American Jewish community at large.[1] The diverse spectrum of opinions held by American Jewry is reflected in the many formal pro-Israel groups, and as such some analysts make a distinction within the Israel lobby between right-leaning and left-leaning groups.

[edit] Right-leaning groups

Mearsheimer and Walt claim that the contemporary Israel lobby is dominated by a number of right-leaning organizations.[2] They claim that the tone of the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby results from the influence of the leaders of the two top lobby groups: AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. They go on to list, as right-leaning think tanks associated with the lobby, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hudson Institute.[2] They also claim that the media watchdog group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is part of the right-wing component of the lobby.[2]

In his book, The Case for Peace, Alan Dershowitz argues that the most right-leaning pro-Israel groups in the United States are not Jews at all, but in fact, they are Evangelical Christians. Dershowitz cites "Stand for Israel, an organization devoted to mobilizing Evangelical Christian support for Israel" co-founded by "[f]ormer Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed."[25] Although the rhetoric of most groups like Stand for Israel is as pragmatic as their Jewish-based counterparts, some individuals have based their support on specific biblical passeges, thus they have been vulnerable to criticism from Israelis and American Jews for having "ulterior motives" such as the fulfillment of "prerequisite to the Second Coming" or having "better access for proselytizing among Jews."[25][26] Madeleine Albright has expressed similar views (see below).

[edit] Left-leaning groups

Stephen Zunes, in a response to Mearsheimer and Walt, list "Americans for Peace Now, the Tikkun Community, Brit Tzedek v' Shalom, and the Israel Policy Forum" as "pro-Israel" organizations that, unlike the right-leaning organizations focused on by Mearsheimer and Walt, are opposed to "the occupation, the settlements, the separation wall, and Washington's unconditional support for Israeli policies."[6]

[edit] Means of influence

The means via which the Israel lobby exerts influence are similar to the means via which other similar lobbies, such as the National Rifle Association and the AARP (formerly known as "American Association of Retired Persons"), exert influence.

[edit] Voting power

According to Bard,[1] "Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor." He cites that "Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group" and that of the US Jewish population "roughly 89 percent live in twelve key electoral college states" which alone "are worth enough electoral votes to elect the president. If you add the non-Jews shown by opinion polls to be as pro-Israel as Jews, it is clear Israel has the support of one of the largest veto groups in the country." Bard goes on to say that for United States congressmen "there are no benefits to candidates taking an openly anti-Israel stance and considerable costs in both loss of campaign contributions and votes from Jews and non-Jews alike."[1]

Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress and a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, claims that when "it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics."[27]

Jimmy Carter, a former United States President, noted in an opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times that "because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee" it would "be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians."[28]

[edit] Campaign donations

Mitchell Bard writes:

"Political campaign contributions are also considered an important means of influence; typically, Jews have been major benefactors. It is difficult to assess the impact of campaign giving on legislative outcomes, particularly with regard to Israel-related issues, where support or opposition may be a consequence of non-monetary factors. In addition, one does not know if a candidate is pro-Israel because of receiving a contribution, or receives a donation as a result of taking a position in support of Israel. In the past, Jewish contributions were less structured and targeted than other interest groups, but this has changed dramatically as Israel-related political action committees (PACs) have proliferated."[1]

Bard points to a summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990 - 2004 collected by Center for Responsive Politics.[29] The Washington Post summarized the data and concluded that "Pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[30]

[edit] Education of politicians

Israel lobbyists also educates politicians by

"taking them to Israel on study missions. Once officials have direct exposure to the country, its leaders, geography, and security dilemmas, they typically return more sympathetic to Israel. Politicians also sometimes travel to Israel specifically to demonstrate to the lobby their interest in Israel. Thus, for example, George W. Bush made his one and only trip to Israel before deciding to run for President in what was widely viewed as an effort to win pro-Israel voters' support."[1]

The sponsoring of "study missions" for politicians is also done by the Arab lobby -- most recently to war torn Southern Lebanon.[31]

[edit] Coalitions with other interest groups

Main article: Christian Zionism

The Israel lobby seeks out other interest groups as coalition partners (a fairly common practice among interest groups) in part, Bard writes, because "even with the Jewish population concentrated in key states, there is still only a total of about six million Jews; therefore, the Israeli lobby is dependent on the support of non-Jewish groups and actively works to form coalitions with broad segments of American society."[1]

The right-leaning component of the Israel lobby, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, finds support from "prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay [...] all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will."[2]

Madeleine Albright similarly noted a "linkage between the Christian evangelicals and a lot of part of the Jewish lobby, if you want to call it that, because the Christian evangelicals in reading the Bible believe that Israel has to be—the people of Israel have to be free so that the Messiah can come back."[16]

[edit] Think tanks

Frontline, an Indian current affairs magazine, asked rhetorically why the administration of George W Bush that seemed "so eager to please [Bush's] Gulf allies, particularly the Saudis, go out of its way to take the side of Ariel Sharon's Israel? Two public policy organizations give us a sense of an answer: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)."[32]

Frontline reported that "WINEP tended to toe the line of whatever party came to power in Israel" while "JINSA was the U.S. offshoot of the right-wing Likud Party."[32] According to Frontline, JINSA had close ties to the administration of George W Bush in that it "draws from the most conservative hawks in the U.S. establishment for its board of directors"[32] including Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Bush administration appointees John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abrams.

Jason Vest, writing in the The Nation[33], alleges that both the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Center for Security Policy thinktanks are "underwritten by far-right American Zionists" and that they both "effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is through hegemony in the Middle East -- a hegemony achieved with the traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert action."

[edit] News media criticism

Stephen Zunes writes that "mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government." [6]

Massing writes that "Jewish organizations are quick to detect bias in the coverage of the Middle East, and quick to complain about it. That's especially true of late. As The Forward observed in late April [2002], 'rooting out perceived anti-Israel bias in the media has become for many American Jews the most direct and emotional outlet for connecting with the conflict 6,000 miles away.'"[8]

The Forward relates how one individual feels:

"'There's a great frustration that American Jews want to do something,' said Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of the Chicago Board of Rabbis. 'In 1947, some number would have enlisted in the Haganah,' he said, referring to the pre-state Jewish armed force. 'There was a special American brigade. Nowadays you can't do that. The battle here is the hasbarah war,' Youdovin said, using a Hebrew term for public relations. 'We're winning, but we're very much concerned about the bad stuff.'"[34]

Indicative of the diversity of opinion is a 2003 Boston Globe profile of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America media watchdog group in which Mark Jurkowitz observes: "To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into media coverage."[35]

[edit] Criticizing Israel's critics

Mearsheimer and Walt, who focus on the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby, write that "the Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide" to Israel.[2] Zunes writes that "assaults on critics of Israeli policies have been more successful in limiting open debate, but this gagging censorship effect stems more from ignorance and liberal guilt than from any all-powerful Israel lobby."[6] He goes on to explain that

"given that Israel is the world's only Jewish state and that some criticism of Israel really is rooted in anti-Semitism, organized attacks against those opposing Israeli policies tend to carry more resonance since they involve alleged manifestations of prejudice against a minority group. If a Jewish state were not the focus, many liberals would dismiss such attacks as passé McCarthyism and would not take them seriously."[6]

Zunes argues that the mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have "created a climate of intimidation against many who speak out for peace and human rights or who support the Palestinians' right of self-determination." [6]

Zunes has been on the receiving end of this criticism himself "As a result of my opposition to US support for the Israeli government's policies of occupation, colonization and repression, I have been deliberately misquoted, subjected to slander and libel, and falsely accused of being "anti-Semitic" and "supporting terrorism"; my children have been harassed and my university's administration has been bombarded with calls for my dismissal."[6]

Jimmy Carter wrote:

"The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. [...] What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land."[28]


Aryeh Neier, the "former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch," wrote in response to attacks on his organization following its issuing of a report critical of specific Israeli military actions in Lebanon: "...it is far easier to discuss such matters rationally in Israel than in the United States. Here, time and again, rational discussion is precluded by charges of anti-Semitism against anyone with the temerity to criticize Israeli policy or practice."[36][37]

Mitchell G. Bard called the silencing of "critics by labeling them anti-Semitic" a "myth" adding, "No campaign exists to prevent people from expressing negative opinions about Israeli policy."[18]

[edit] College campuses

Mearsheimer and Walt claim that there has been a recent campaign by the right-leaning elements of the Israel lobby to influence debate on college campuses with regards to Israel: "In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger with Oslo’s collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and employed massive force to subdue the second intifada. The Lobby moved immediately to ‘take back the campuses.’"[2]

Zunes writes that while

"recent attacks against U.S. professors specializing in the Middle East and criticism of the Middle East Studies Association are very disturbing," it is important to note that there were "similar attacks against professors specializing in Latin America and the Latin American Studies Association during the 1980s" and "during the 1960s targeting Southeast Asia scholars. ... [I]ntellectuals with empirical knowledge of any world region who dare challenge the lies and distortions of a given administration relevant to their area of research are going to be subjected to intimidation."[6]

Mearsheimer and Walt and their supporters' claims contrast sharply with repeated incidents of the minimalization of Jewish groups' complaints of anti-Semitism on American college campuses.[38]

Jimmy Carter, in the context of his promotional tour for his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which is critical of Israel, that his "most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors."[28]

[edit] Coordination with Israeli officials

Bard writes that "by framing the issues in terms of the national interest, AIPAC can attract broader support than would ever be possible if it was perceived to represent only the interests of Israel. This does not mean AIPAC does not have a close relationship with Israeli officials, it does, albeit unofficially. Even so, the lobby some times comes into conflict with the Israeli government."[1]

Mearsheimer and Walt make the more blunt claim that "American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States."[2]

[edit] Further reading

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Mitchell Bard, "The Israeli and Arab Lobbies", Jewish Virtual Library, published 2006, accessed August 26 2006.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  3. ^ A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy, Tony Judt, New York Times Op-Ed, April 19, 2006
  4. ^ Dennis Ross, The Mind-set Matters Foreign Policy, Jul/Aug 2006
  5. ^ Rupert Cornwell: At last, a debate on America's support for Israel The Independent, April 7 2006]
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Stephen Zunes, The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?, Foreign Policy in Focus, May 16, 2006, accessed August 27, 2006.
  7. ^ a b Thomas B. Edsall and Molly Moore, Pro-Israel Lobby Has Strong Voice, Washington Post, September 5 2004, accessed August 27 2006
  8. ^ a b c Michael Massing, The Israel Lobby, The Nation, June 10, 2002, accessed August 27 2006.
  9. ^ Jeffrey Goldberg, Real Insiders, The New Yorker, July 4 2005, accessed August 27 2006.
  10. ^ Dershowitz, Alan. "Debunking the Newest—and Oldest—Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt "Working Paper" Apr. 2006. Harvard Law School." 17 Jan. 2007.
  11. ^ Michelle Goldberg, Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies?, Salon.com, April 18 2006, accessed August 29 2006
  12. ^ Friedberg, Aaron. "An Uncivilized Argument." Foreign Policy. Jul/Aug 2006, accessed August 27 2006
  13. ^ Harvard attack on ‘Israel lobby’ is actually a targeting of American public, www.jewishexponent.com Accessed July 28, 2006
  14. ^ Cohen, Eliot. "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic", The Washington Post, April 5, 2006.
  15. ^ Phillips, Melanie. "The graves of academe", March 21, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2006.
  16. ^ a b Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty, Council on Foreign Relations, May 1 2006, accessed August 27 2006
  17. ^ Stephen Zunes, The Israel Lobby: How powerful is it really?, Mother Jones, May 18, 2006
  18. ^ a b Bard, Mitchell G. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase: AICE, 2002.
  19. ^ Mazower, Mark. "When vigilance undermines freedom of speech" , Financial Times, April 3 2006
  20. ^ America and Israel, The Financial Times, April 1, 2006. Copied here.
  21. ^ Molly Ivins, The Israeli lobby, CNN, April 26 2006, accessed August 27 2006
  22. ^ Noam Chomsky, The Israel Lobby? ZNET, March 28, 2006
  23. ^ Eric Alterman,AIPAC's Complaint The Nation, May 1, 2006 (posted April 13, 2006)
  24. ^ Glenn Frankel. A Beautiful Friendship. The Washington Post. July 16 2006.
  25. ^ a b Dershowitz, Alan. The Case For Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.
  26. ^ Berger, Matthew E. "Motives Questioned as Christians Rally for Israel." United Jewish Communities. 3 December 2006
  27. ^ Ari Berman, AIPAC's Hold, The Nation, August 4, 2006
  28. ^ a b c Jimmy Carter. "Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine (editorial)", Los Angeles Times, December 8, 2006.
  29. ^ Pro-Israel Political Contributions, Center for Responsive Politics, hosted by the Jewish Virtual Library, accessed August 27 2006.
  30. ^ Glenn Frankel. A Beautiful Friendship. The Washington Post. July 16 2006.
  31. ^ NDP MP heads to Middle East on fact-finding mission, New Democratic Party Press Release, August 15 2006, accessed August 27 2006.
  32. ^ a b c The myth of the `Jewish lobby', Frontline (magazine), 20(20), September 27 2003, accessed August 30 2006.
  33. ^ Jason Vest, The Men From JINSA and CSP, The Nation, September 2, 2002
  34. ^ Rachel Donadio, For U.S. Jews, the Media Is the (Biased) Message, The Forward, April 26 2002, accessed via Archive.org August 27 2006
  35. ^ Mark Jurkowitz, Blaming the Messenger, Boston Globe Magazine February 9, 2003: 10, History News Network (George Mason University) April 24, 2006.
  36. ^ "Aryeh Neier." The New York Times Review of Books. November 2006. 15 December 2006.
  37. ^ Aryeh Neier, The Attack on Human Rights Watch, New York Review of Books, Volume 53, Number 17, November 2, 2006
  38. ^ Paul, Ben, Roz Rothstein, and Roberta Seid. "Springtime for MUS and UC Irvine." On Campus Fall 2006:17+

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States_1a95.html"
In other languages