In our modern political landscape, few topics evoke as much controversy and polarization as discussions surrounding Israel and its relationship with the United States. At the heart of this discourse lies the concept of the “Israel lobby” – a term often shrouded in secrecy and met with hesitancy in public conversation.
In this blog post, we delve into the intricate web of influence woven by the Israel lobby, drawing insights from John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s groundbreaking work, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. This influential book, penned in 2007, illuminates the lobby’s tactics, from media manipulation to accusations of anti-Semitism, in shaping American perceptions and policies regarding Israel.
—-
In a webinar comparing the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s with the protests to end apartheid in Israel now, Angela Davis noted that one significant difference is that there was no “South African lobby” to push back against protestors in the 1980s. Her brief reference to an Israel lobby led me to a book I highly recommend: John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, written in 2007, particularly Chapter 6, which discusses manipulation of the media, influential think tanks, and policing academia; the weaponization of anti-Semitism as the great silencer is a thread throughout and apropos the current situation, too. Here are some excerpts that speak to now.
“Because the United States is a pluralist democracy where freedom of speech and association are guaranteed, it was inevitable that interest groups would come to dominate the political process. For a nation of immigrants, it was equally inevitable that some of these interest groups would form along ethnic lines and that they would try to influence us foreign policy in various ways…Such activities have been a central feature of American political life since the founding of the country, and pointing them out is rarely controversial.
Yet, it is clearly more difficult for Americans to talk openly about the Israel lobby. Part of the reason is the lobby itself, which is both eager to advertise its clout and quick to challenge…To begin with, questioning the practices and ramifications of the Israel lobby may appear to some to be a tantamount to questioning the legitimacy of Israel itself…Given the strong feelings that many people have for Israel, and especially it’s important role as a safe haven for Jewish refugees from the Holocaust and as a central focus of contemporary Jewish identity, there is bound to be a hostile and defensive reaction when people think its legitimacy or its existence is under attack. But in fact, an examination of Israel’s policies and the efforts of its American supporters does not imply an anti-Israel bias, just as an examination of the political activities of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) does not imply bias against older citizens. We are not challenging Israel’s right to exist or questioning the legitimacy of the Jewish State…. We think the United States should stand willing to come to Israel’s assistance if its survival were in jeopardy…
In addition, the claim that an interest group whose ranks are mostly Jewish has a powerful, not to mention negative, influence on US foreign policy is sure to make some Americans deeply uncomfortable—and possibly fearful and angry—because it sounds like a charge lifted from the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that well-known anti-Semitic forgery that purported to reveal an all-powerful Jewish cabal exercising secret control over the world. Any discussion of Jewish political power takes place in the shadow of 2,000 years of history, especially the centuries of very real anti-Semitism in Europe… Given this long history of persecution, American Jews are understandably sensitive to any argument that sounds like someone is blaming them for policies gone awry. The sensitivity is compounded by the memory of bizarre conspiracy theories of the sort laid out in the Protocols… A key element of such anti-Semitic accusations is the claim that Jews exercise illegitimate influence by “controlling” banks, the media, and other key institutions. Thus, if someone says the press coverage in the United States tends to favor Israel over its opponents, this may sound to some like the old canard that “Jews control the media.” Similarly, if someone points out that American Jews have a rich tradition of giving money to both philanthropic and political causes, it sounds like they’re suggesting that “Jewish money” is buying political influence in an underhanded or conspiratorial way. Of course, anyone who gives money to a political campaign does so in order to advance some political cause, and virtually all interest groups hope to mold public opinion and are interested in getting favorable media coverage…
Making this discussion of pro-Israel groups and individuals in the United States even more difficult is the age-old charge of “dual loyalty.” According to this old canard, Jews in the diaspora are perpetual aliens who could never assimilate and be good patriots, because they were more loyal to each other than to the country in which they lived. The fear today is that Jews who support Israel will be seen as disloyal Americans…
The Israel lobby is not a cabal or conspiracy or anything of the sort. It is engaged in good old-fashioned interest group politics, which is as American as apple pie. Pro-Israel groups in the United States are engaged in the same enterprise as other interest groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the AARP….We do not believe the lobby is all-powerful, or that it controls important institutions in the United States…Nevertheless, there is an abundance of evidence that the lobby wields impressive influence.” (11-14)
“The influence of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy merits the same scrutiny as the impact of any interests, energy interests on environmental regulations, or the role of pharmaceutical companies in shaping policy on prescription drugs. We believe the activities of the groups and individuals who make up the lobby are the main reason why the United States pursues policies in the Middle East that make little sense on either strategic or moral grounds. Were it not for the lobby’s efforts, the strategic and moral arguments that are commonly invoked to justify unconditional American support would be called into question more frequently and US policy in the Middle East would be significantly different than it is today…We are not questioning American support for Israel’s right to exist…What we are questioning—and what needs to be explained—is the magnitude of US support for Israel and its largely unconditional nature, as well as the degree to which US Middle East policy is conducted with Israel’s welfare in mind…We use “Israel lobby” as a convenient shorthand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. The lobby is not a single, unified movement with essential leadership, however, and the individuals and groups that make up this broad coalition sometimes disagree on specific policy issues. Nor is it some sort of cabal or conspiracy. On the contrary, the organizations and individuals who make up the lobby operate out in the open and in the same way that other interest groups do…What sets it apart, in short, is its extraordinary effectiveness.” (111-114, 150)
“One of the lobby’s Central concerns is to ensure the public discourse about Israel echoes…pro-Israel strategic and moral rationales. Its various elements do this by constantly reaffirming Israel’s strategic value, by repeating one-sided accounts about Israel and its founding, and by defending Israel’s actions and policy debates. The goal is to convince the public that Americas and Israel’s interests and values are one in the same. At the same time, groups in the lobby try to marginalize anyone who criticizes Israeli policy or challenges the “special relationship” and try to prevent that person’s views from getting a fair hearing in the public arena. To do this, the lobby sometimes employs heavy-handed tactics to silence critics, accusing them of being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Channeling public discourse in a pro-Israel direction is critically important, because an open and candid discussion of Israeli policy and the Occupied Territories, Israeli history, and the lobby’s role in shaping America’s Middle East policy might easily lead more Americans to question existing policy toward Israel and to call for a relationship with Israel that more effectively serves the US national interest.
Accordingly, key elements in the lobby strive to influence discourse about Israel in the media, think tanks, and academia, because these institutions are critical to shaping popular opinion…While serious criticism of Israel occasionally reaches a large audience across the United States, the American media’s coverage of Israel tends to be strongly biased in Israel’s favor, especially when compared with news coverage of other democracies. This claim might sound like the old anti-Semitic accusation that “Jews control the media.” It is anything but…In fact, the reason that the lobby works so hard to monitor and influence what the mainstream media says about Israel is precisely that the lobby does not control them. If the media were left to their own devices, they would not serve up as consistent a diet of pro-Israel coverage and commentary…The lobby’s perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media in part because a substantial number of American commentators who write about Israel are themselves pro-Israel.” (168-169)
“No discussion of how the lobby operates would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism. Anyone who criticizes Israeli actions or says the pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US. Middle East policy stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents are hardly bashful about describing their influence, and the Israeli media themselves refer to America’s “Jewish lobby.” In effect, the lobby both boasts of its own power and frequently attacks those who call attention to it…
Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or questioning its right to exist…The implication is that anyone who criticizes Israel’s actions (or the actions of its supporters) is opposed to its existence and is therefore hostile to Jews. But this is a bogus charge, because it conflates criticism of Israel’s actions with the rejection of Israel’s legitimacy. In fact, Western critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist. Instead, they question this behavior toward the Palestinians, which is a legitimate criticism; many Israelis question it themselves…Israel is for the most part being judged by the same standard that people in the West apply to all democracies. This criterion is entirely appropriate, especially since Israel and its American supporters constantly emphasize that it deserves special treatment because it is the “only democracy in the Middle. East.” Israel, in other words, is expected to behave like contemporary Britain, Canada, Denmark, the United States…And not like the military junta in Burma, Pakistan, or Cuba. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted human rights norms and international law, as well as the principle of national self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp criticism on these grounds…Israel is merely being expected to live up to its own stated values and to widely accepted human rights principles.” (188-191)
“True anti-Semitism conceives of Jews as being different from other people, in various invidious ways, which gives those others licensed to single them out and persecute them in both large and small ways. Anti-Semites maintain that Jews who are engaged in what seems like legitimate political activities—running for office, contributing to political campaigns, writing articles and books, or organizing lobbying groups—are actually engaged in dark and secret conspiracies. Real anti-Semites sometimes favor harsh measures to deny useful political rights and at times advocate even more violent persecution of Jews. Even in its milder forms, anti-Semitism indulges in various forms of stereotyping and implies that Jews should be viewed with suspicion or contempt, while seeking to deny them the ability to participate fully and freely in all realms of society. In its essential features, true anti-Semitism resembles other forms of racist or religious discrimination, all of which have been roundly condemned in Europe and the United States since the end of World War II…Many who criticize Israeli policy believe that Jews are like other human beings, which means that they are capable of both good and bad deeds, and that they are entitled to the same status as other members of society. They also believe that Israel acts like other states, which is to say that it vigorously defends its own interests and sometimes pursues policies that are wise and just and sometimes does things that are strategically foolish and even immoral. This perspective is the opposite of anti-Semitism. It calls for treating Jews like everyone else and treating Israel as a normal and legitimate country…There is neither special treatment nor a double standard here…
Most critics of the lobby do not see it as a cabal or conspiracy; rather, they argue—as we have—that pro-Israel organizations act as other interest groups do. While the charge of anti-Semitism can be an effective smear tactic, it is usually groundless…”[T]he mainstream Jewish organizations have played the anti-Semitism card so often that it has been devalued.” The obvious reason is that increasing numbers of people recognize that this serious charge keeps getting leveled at individuals who are not anti-Semites, but were merely questioning Israeli policies or pointing out that the lobby promotes policies that are not always in the US national interest… Playing the anti-Semitism card stifles discussion even more and allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged. Although other interest groups employ similar strategies in varying form, most of them can only dream of having the political muscle that pro-Israel organizations have amassed.” (194-196)
“It is time for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case, but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country…There is little reason to continue the handouts that American taxpayers have provided since the early 1970s, especially when there are many countries that have greater needs. Ultimately, US aid is indirectly subsidizing activities that are not in its national interest. Although the United States may have to offer some additional support in order to persuade Israel to grant the Palestinians a viable state, treating Israel as a normal country should eventually lead to a dramatic reduction in US assistance…Israel’s American backers need to recognize that denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights has not made Israel safer, and those who have lobbied hardest for unconditional US backing have ultimately nurtured Israeli and Palestinian extremism and inflicted unintended hardships on the very country that they seek to support. It is high time to abandon this bankrupt policy and pursue a different course.” (341-347)
“Because most Americans are only dimly aware of the crimes committed against the Palestinians, they see their continued resistance as an irrational desire for vengeance, or as evidence of unwarranted hatred of Jews akin to the anti-Semitism that was endemic in Old Europe. Ignorance about the past also encourages Americans to reject the Palestinians’ demands for compensation—especially the right of return—is utterly unjustified…We…believe most Americans would support a different approach to the conflict if they had a more accurate understanding of past events and present conditions. As the primary source of independent thinking and democratic societies, scholars and journalists should be encouraged to resist the lobby’s efforts to shape public discourse and to encourage more open discussion of these important issues. The objective is not to single out Israel for criticism or to challenge legitimacy of the Jewish state, but rather to help Americans gain a more accurate picture of how past behavior casts a giant shadow over the present.” (351)