Description:

The Israel Lobby," by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory. Originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it 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.

Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and Iran. They describe 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...

Review

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is one of those rare books that arrives as a scandal before it is read as an argument. When the core thesis first appeared in the London Review of Books in 2006—after Atlantic Monthly commissioned and then killed the piece—it detonated a controversy that exposed the very suppression it set out to document. The book-length expansion, published the following year, is a work of sustained and disciplined polemic: a structural-realist empirical assault on the premise that American support for Israel is primarily driven by strategic calculation or moral commitment. It contends, instead, that the scale and character of that support are inexplicable without the political power of a loose but exceptionally effective coalition of pro-Israel organizations, neoconservative intellectuals, and Christian Zionists. The book is not a balanced seminar on Middle East policy; it is a prosecutorial brief that subordinates nuance to clarity and, in doing so, permanently shifts the burden of proof onto those who would defend the status quo. Its great strength is the sheer weight of documented fact, drawn from declassified cables, memoirs, Congressional Research Service reports, and the work of Israel’s own “new historians.” Its principal limitation is a tendency to treat the lobby as a unified causal force in ways that its own definition of a loose coalition resists, and to underplay the independent imperial reflexes of the American national-security state. Yet that limitation does not undo the core demonstration: the case for unconditional American support, on both strategic and moral grounds, collapses under serious scrutiny, and the lobby’s methods for preventing that scrutiny from shaping policy are themselves a subject demanding public reckoning.

The book’s structure is a model of analytic clarity, laid out in the introduction as a three-task project. First, document the extraordinary material and diplomatic largesse the United States has extended to Israel—by the authors’ count, roughly $154 billion by 2005, with unique provisions that allow Israel to spend a quarter of its U.S. military aid on its own defense industry and receive the entire annual allocation in a single upfront lump sum that earns interest. Second, demonstrate that this support cannot be fully explained by either the strategic-asset argument or the moral case. Third, identify the Israel lobby as the “something else” that fills the explanatory gap, and trace its influence through the policy process and the public sphere. This sequencing is more than rhetorical; it reflects a Popperian instinct to subject rival hypotheses to the most charitable reading before rejecting them. The argument that Israel was a Cold War strategic asset, for instance, is treated as plausible—the authors credit Israel’s role in bloodying Soviet clients and furnishing captured Soviet weapons—but they insist that the rationale evaporated after 1991, and that in the post–Cold War era Israel has become a net liability, fueling anti-American terrorism and complicating relations with every oil-producing Arab state. They cite Osama bin Laden’s statements, the 9/11 Commission Report’s finding that al-Qaeda’s animus was inseparable from U.S. Middle East policy, and the way the Iraq War was interpreted across the Arab world as a war for Israel. The moral chapter is devastating: Mearsheimer and Walt systematically dismantle the claims that Israel is a poor underdog, a fellow democracy, a necessary refuge after the Holocaust, a morally superior actor, a victim of Palestinian rejectionism at Camp David, or a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. They deploy the Israeli “new historians”—Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Simha Flapan—to establish that the 1948 war involved a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing. They quote Morris’s finding that “the IDF Intelligence Service called Deir Yassin ‘a decisive accelerating factor’ in the general Arab exodus.” The cumulative effect is to render the conventional moral narrative unsustainable as a justification for unconditional support, even if one regards the Israeli national project as legitimate.

With the strategic and moral grounds cleared, the book turns to the lobby itself. Here the authors take great care to distinguish their claim from the anti-Semitic caricature of a cabal: “It is simply a powerful interest group,” they write. Chapter 4 defines the coalition’s components—AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents, the ADL, the ZOA, a network of think tanks including WINEP, JINSA, and the Brookings Saban Center, along with neoconservative intellectuals and Christian Zionist organizations like John Hagee’s CUFI—and rebuts the counterarguments that the oil lobby is a serious rival or that critics of the lobby traffic in dual-loyalty tropes. The portrait that emerges is of an interest group that speaks with remarkable discipline despite lacking a formal central command. Former AIPAC official Steven Rosen once boasted to Jeffrey Goldberg, “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin,” and former House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Lee Hamilton remarked: “There’s no lobby group that matches it … They’re in a class by themselves.” Chapters 5 and 6 detail the mechanisms: campaign contributions that make or break congressional careers (the defeats of Charles Percy, Paul Findley, Adlai Stevenson, Earl Hilliard, and Cynthia McKinney are recounted as object lessons); the cultivation of sympathetic executive-branch appointees; the funding and staffing of think tanks that produce a steady stream of pro-Israel policy analyses; and the policing of public discourse through an activist media-monitoring apparatus and the deployment of the “new anti-Semitism” charge. The intimidation is real and measurable. Jimmy Carter, who brokered the Camp David Accords, was greeted with a torrent of abuse when he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid: “I have been called an anti-Semite. I have been called a bigot. I have been called a plagiarist. I have been called a coward.” The book’s own authors, of course, were themselves the targets of exactly such an organized campaign, which lends their account an uncomfortable authority.

Part II applies the thesis to a series of consequential policy episodes, and it is here that the book’s process-tracing logic is at its most ambitious. The chapter on the Iraq War is the most explosive and, for many readers, the most persuasive. Mearsheimer and Walt do not claim the lobby caused the war; they argue it was a “critical” though not sufficient condition—that the war would not have happened without it, even though other factors (oil, the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis, the post-9/11 climate) were also at work. The evidence they marshal is substantial: the open letters from the Project for the New American Century in 1998 and 2001 calling for regime change; the pipeline from Ahmed Chalabi through JINSA and the Office of Special Plans, where Douglas Feith’s team fed the administration intelligence laundered through the Iraqi National Congress; the explicit statements of Israeli officials from Netanyahu to Sharon, who told senators in a closed-door meeting that removing Saddam Hussein “would solve Israel’s security problems”; the way the lobby’s media allies crowded out skeptical voices. Michael Kinsley’s observation, quoted in the chapter, captures the epistemic closure: “the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel … is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.” The Syria and Iran chapters follow a similar pattern, documenting how the lobby blocked Syrian peace offers that included full normalization and Golan Heights concessions, pushed the Syria Accountability Act through Congress in 2003, killed the Iranian grand bargain offer of 2003, and later mounted a campaign to neuter the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation of engaging Iran. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s blunt assessment—“If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else”—summarizes a dynamic the book documents in granular detail. The chapter on the 2006 Lebanon War shows the Bush administration giving Israel advance blessing for what was a preplanned operation and then blocking a ceasefire for weeks, even as public opinion elsewhere urged restraint. AIPAC president Howard Friedman’s letter to supporters during the war is startling in its candor: “Only ONE nation in the world came out and flatly declared: Let Israel finish the job. That nation is the United States of America—and the reason it had such a clear, unambiguous view of the situation is YOU and the rest of American Jewry.”

The most damaging piece of reporting across these case studies is not a single smoking gun but a pattern: the persistent gap between what the United States might have done, had it followed its own stated interests in oil security, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation, and what it actually did under the gravitational pull of a lobbying apparatus that has learned to short-circuit the normal workings of foreign-policy deliberation. The authors repeatedly use a counterfactual heuristic—what would American policy have looked like without the lobby?—and the answer, drawn from the testimony of diplomatic professionals like Richard Clarke, Flynt Leverett, and members of the Iraq Study Group, suggests a substantially different trajectory: a sustained push for a Palestinian state, engagement with Syria and Iran, no Iraq War, no green light for the Lebanon campaign. The book’s policy conclusion flows directly from this analysis: identify U.S. strategic interests independently of Israel, adopt an offshore-balancing posture in the Middle East, treat Israel as a normal state rather than a special client, press for a two-state settlement on Clinton parameters, and foster open discourse through the creation of moderate organizations that are not captured by the lobby.

The book’s intellectual pedigree is unmistakable. Mearsheimer and Walt situate themselves within the realist tradition—Mearsheimer’s own The Tragedy of Great Power Politics and Walt’s The Origins of Alliances furnish the theoretical architecture—and the book is, at its deepest level, an argument about the pathology that arises when domestic interest-group politics override the rational-strategic calculus that realist theory prescribes. The canonical threads the book inhabits are therefore multiple: it is a work of realist state-power analysis, an empiricist case study in the tradition of diplomatic history, and an intervention in the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict that aligns with the revisionist findings of Shlaim, Morris, Pappe, and Flapan. It also engages, often polemically, with a long shelf of competing and complementary works—from Shlaim’s The Iron Wall and William Quandt’s Peace Process to Trita Parsi’s Treacherous Alliance and Charles Enderlin’s Shattered Dreams. Its engagement with Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel is particularly instructive: the authors treat Dershowitz as the purest distillation of the lobby’s intellectual arm, and their detailed rebuttals of his claims are part of the book’s larger argument about how scholarship is marshaled and distorted in the service of political objectives. The tradition of censorship and propaganda the book maps onto the American context—the organized letter-writing campaigns, the blacklisting of academics, the sponsorship of policy papers that masquerade as independent research—is entirely consistent with the literature on media capture and manufactured consent, though the authors rarely invoke that literature by name. In designating the book’s environment with the tags of historiography, propaganda, censorship, imperialism, and colonialism, the library’s canonical vocabulary captures the composite nature of the project: it is at once a work of social-scientific explanation and an act of intellectual archaeology, excavating the suppressed history of what American policy might have been.

Yet the book’s very clarity also marks its boundaries. The authors’ definition of the lobby as a loose coalition is analytically sound, but the prose often slips into treating it as a unified actor with a consistent strategic intent, as when the lobby “pressed” the Bush administration, “killed” the grand bargain, or “neutralized” the Road Map. This is a stylistic shorthand, but it subtly inflates the coherence and control the authors actually document. The influence of Christian Zionists, for instance, operates through a distinct theological logic—premillennial dispensationalism—that is irreducible to AIPAC’s Capitol Hill calculus, yet the book tends to fold it into the same causal mechanism. The treatment of Arab and Iranian diplomacy, conversely, risks making the opposite error: offers from Syria’s Bashar al-Assad or Iran’s Mohammad Khatami are presented as good-faith openings that the lobby alone foreclosed, which understates the extent to which those regimes had their own domestic and strategic reasons for retreating from engagement, and the extent to which the American foreign-policy establishment’s skepticism was not exclusively lobby-driven. The Saudi and Egyptian roles in the region are acknowledged but not deeply analyzed; the book’s focus on the lobby as the explanatory variable occasionally makes the rest of the Middle East appear as a collection of reactive bystanders.

Equally, the book’s realist architecture raises a deeper question it only partially addresses: is the postwar American order in the Middle East—the garrisoning of the Gulf, the sprawling military infrastructure, the symbiotic relationship with Saudi Arabia—something the lobby captured, or something the U.S. national-security state pursued on its own expansionist logic, with Israel serving as a convenient forward outpost? The authors argue, persuasively, that the Iraq War damaged American interests by any realist metric, but they are less attentive to the possibility that the war was not an anomaly but an expression of a broader imperial disposition that has independent sources in the structure of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, and a bipartisan tradition of global primacy. The lobby, on this alternative reading, did not impose an irrational policy on a rational state; it gave specific direction and intensity to a preexisting appetite for dominance. The offshore-balancing prescription the authors advocate is, in this light, not a return to normalcy so much as a break with the entire post-1945 American posture—an ambitious project that would require far more than neutralizing one interest group.

These limitations, however, are those of emphasis rather than fact, and they do not diminish the book’s achievement. What makes The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy a durable work is not the elegance of its theory but the density of its evidence. It is a direct answer to the charge, leveled routinely by its critics, that questioning the U.S.-Israel relationship is either anti-Semitic or naïve. The authors demonstrate that one can be neither, and that the real naïveté lies in pretending that a state’s foreign policy is immune from the organized pressure of an exceptionally well-resourced domestic coalition. The book’s significance therefore exceeds its immediate policy recommendations. It is a contribution to the study of how democratic foreign policy can be captured, how public discourse can be constrained, and how scholarship can be bent to the service of power—subjects that belong not to any single conflict but to the broader understanding of propaganda, censorship, and empire. Anyone who wishes to argue that American support for Israel is primarily strategic or moral must now do so in the book’s shadow, with the same patient engagement of evidence that Mearsheimer and Walt brought to the demolition of those claims. That the shadow has proved so difficult to escape, and the book so easy to condemn without refuting, is a measure of the problem it describes.

Notable Quotes

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.

The authors' foundational definition of the lobby, distinguishing their analysis from conspiracy theories — interest groups, democracy, political legitimacy

It seems as though we're forced to choose between Jews holding vast and pernicious control or Jewish influence being non-existent. Somewhere in the middle is a reality that none wants to discuss, which is that there is an entity called the Jewish community made up of a group of organizations and public figures that's part of the political rough-and-tumble. There's nothing wrong with playing the game like everybody else.

J. J. Goldberg, editor of the Forward, on the difficulty of discussing the lobby's influence — public discourse, taboo subjects, democratic participation

Were I an Arab, I would rebel even more vigorously, bitterly, and desperately against the immigration that will one day turn Palestine and all its Arab residents over to Jewish rule.

David Ben-Gurion's candid 1937 remark acknowledging the Palestinian perspective — founding of Israel, Palestinian resistance, moral complexity

The strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors.

2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies — military balance, strategic assessment, Israeli power

Washington's close relationship with Jerusalem makes it harder, not easier, to defeat the terrorists who are now targeting the United States, and it simultaneously undermines America's standing with important allies around the world.

Core thesis statement from the introduction — U.S. national interest, terrorism, strategic liability

If I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.

Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's former foreign minister and a key participant in the Camp David negotiations — peace process, Camp David, Palestinian perspective

We can count on well over half the House — 250 to 300 members — to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants.

A congressional staffer sympathetic to Israel, quoted by journalist Michael Massing — AIPAC, congressional influence, political power

In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.

Steven Rosen, former AIPAC official, illustrating AIPAC's power to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg — AIPAC, Senate, lobbying power

My generation of Jews became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fund-raising effort in the history of democracy.

Alan Dershowitz in a memoir, acknowledging the lobby's effectiveness — lobbying, political participation, Jewish American activism

Shamir, Sharon, Bibi — whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by me.

Robert Bartley, late editor of the Wall Street Journal, on his editorial stance toward Israel — media bias, editorial influence, pro-Israel coverage

I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert. Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.

Max Frankel, former New York Times executive editor, in his memoirs — media coverage, New York Times, editorial bias

Israel is the only recipient of U.S. economic aid that does not have to account for how it is spent.

Discussion of the unique financial arrangements governing U.S. aid to Israel — foreign aid, accountability, special treatment

Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.

Future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir on the Zionist use of terrorism against British rule in Palestine — terrorism, Zionist history, moral equivalence

We are behaving disgracefully.

One of four former Shin Bet officials who condemned Israel's conduct during the Second Intifada in November 2003 — Israeli self-criticism, occupation, moral reckoning

The U.S. presidents who have made the greatest contribution to Middle East peace — Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush — were able to do so precisely because each was willing on occasion to chart a separate course from the lobby.

Citing Shlomo Ben-Ami's analysis of which presidents achieved diplomatic breakthroughs — presidential leadership, peace process, political courage

Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah.

Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute describing neoconservative frustration after the 2006 Lebanon war — neoconservatism, Lebanon war, Syria policy

I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.

Haim Saban, billionaire donor who funded the Saban Center at Brookings, speaking to the New York Times — think tanks, political donations, institutional influence

It is naïve to think that the free market of ideas ultimately sifts falsehood to produce truth.

ADL head Abraham Foxman to the New York Times Magazine, explaining why the lobby must actively shape discourse — free speech, public discourse, media pressure

Although we see encouraging signs of more open discussion on these vital issues, the lobby still has a profound influence on U.S. Middle East policy. The problems that the United States and Israel face in this region have not lessened since the original article appeared; indeed, they may well have grown worse.

Preface, explaining why the authors expanded the original article into a book — public debate, policy failure, urgency

Israel has now controlled the West Bank and Gaza for forty years, making it, as the historian Perry Anderson notes, the longest official military occupation of modern history.

Chapter on the moral case, documenting the scale of the occupation — occupation, international law, Palestinian rights

The lobby was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a war that is a strategic disaster for the United States and a boon for Iran, Israel's most serious regional adversary.

Summary of the Iraq War chapter's central argument — Iraq War, neoconservatism, strategic blowback

What is needed, therefore, is a candid but civilized discussion of the lobby's influence and a more open debate about U.S. interests in this vital region. Israel's well-being is one of those interests — on moral grounds — but its continued presence in the Occupied Territories is not.

Final paragraph of the book, summarizing the authors' core prescription — policy reform, open debate, national interest

Those of us who criticize Israel do so because Israel is an important part of our identity, because criticism is an integral part of our traditional culture. We offer it as an expression of respect and love for the people of Israel.

Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold, director emeritus of Harvard University Hillel, quoted in the conclusion — Jewish identity, constructive criticism, diaspora relations

They don't love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play, and it's a five act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.

Israeli-American scholar Gershom Gorenberg on Christian Zionists' eschatological view of Jews — Christian Zionism, dispensationalism, instrumentalization

A country as rich and powerful as the United States can sustain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored forever.

The book's closing assessment of the trajectory of U.S. Middle East policy — American power, policy failure, reckoning