The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Organ123 (talk | contribs)
m Content: wikify
capitalization
Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
 
(841 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Short description|2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt}}
{{for|other uses of the term "Israel lobby"|Israel lobby (disambiguation)}}
{{other uses of|Israel lobby}}
{{use mdy dates|date=June 2024}}
{{Infobox book
| name = The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
| orig title =
| translator =
| image = IsraelLobbyBookCover.jpg
| authors = [[John Mearsheimer]]<br />[[Stephen Walt]]
| cover_artist =
| country = United States
| language = English
| series =
| publisher = [[Farrar, Straus and Giroux]]
| pub_date = August 27, 2007
| media_type = Print ([[hardback]])
| pages = 496
| isbn = 0-374-17772-4
| dewey = 327.7305694 22
| congress = E183.8.I7 M428 2007
| oclc = 144227359
| preceded_by =
| followed_by =
}}
 
'''''The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy'''''{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|at=Front cover}} is a book by [[John Mearsheimer]], Professor of [[Political Science]] at the [[University of Chicago]], and [[Stephen Walt]], Professor of [[International Relations]] at [[Harvard Kennedy School]] at [[Harvard University]], published in August 2007. It was a [[New York Times Best Seller|''New York Times'' Best Seller]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2007-09-23 |title=New York Times Best Seller List |url=http://www.hawes.com/2007/2007-09-23.pdf |access-date=2009-04-14 |website=New York Times}} ''The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy'' was ranked 12th place on the non-fiction list for a total of one week.</ref>
'''''The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy'''''<ref name=MearsheimerHWP>[[John Mearsheimer|Mearsheimer, John J.]] and [[Stephen Walt|Walt, Stephen]]. [http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011 The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy], [[Kennedy School of Government]] Working Paper Number:RWP06-011, March 13, 2006.</ref> (a condensed version used the title '''''The Israel Lobby'''''<ref name="LRB">[[John Mearsheimer|Mearsheimer, John J.]] and [[Stephen Walt|Walt, Stephen]]. [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html The Israel Lobby], ''[[London Review of Books]]'', Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref>) is a [[working paper]] written by [[John Mearsheimer]], [[political science]] professor at the [[University of Chicago]], and [[Stephen Walt]], [[Dean (education)|academic dean]] of the [[Kennedy School of Government]] at [[Harvard University]], in 2006. It claims that "the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in to advance the interests of another state" (Israel). Further, [[United States|U.S.]] [[Middle East]] policy is driven primarily by the "[[Israel Lobby]]", defined as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-[[Israel]] direction," The authors state that the "core of the Lobby" is "American [[Jews]] who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. [[foreign policy]] so that it advances Israel's interests." They note that "not all [[Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_United_States|Jewish-Americans]] are part of the Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies."
 
The book describes the lobby as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-[[Israel]] direction".{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=5}} Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call [[Weaponization of antisemitism|misuse of "the charge of anti-Semitism"]], and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on "controlling debate" in American academia. The book "focuses primarily on the lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy and its negative effect on American interests".{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=8}} The authors also argue that "the lobby's impact has been unintentionally harmful to Israel as well".{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=9}}
The paper was originally commissioned in 2002 by ''[[The Atlantic Monthly]]'', which then rejected it.<ref name="Goldberg">Michelle Goldberg, [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/18/lobby/ Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies?], [[Salon.com]], April 18, 2006</ref> The paper was finally published in March, 2006 by the ''[[London Review of Books]]''. [[Philip Weiss]] discusses some of the background to the creation of the paper in an article in ''[[The Nation]]''.<ref name="WeissNation">
Weiss, Philip.
[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515/weiss "Ferment Over 'The Israel Lobby'"],
''[[The Nation]]'',
April 27, 2006
</ref>
 
They argue that the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. And the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the “Israel Lobby."<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy |url=https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374531508/theisraellobbyandusforeignpolicy/ |access-date=2025-06-11 |website=Macmillan Publishers |language=en-US}}</ref>
==Content==
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. [[foreign policy]] as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical".<ref name=LRB /> They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other ethnic lobbies. What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the [[President_of_the_United_States|Executive branch]]," as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the [[mainstream media]]." They claim that [[AIPAC]] in particular has a "stranglehold on the [[U.S. Congress]]," due to its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."
 
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that although "the boundaries of the Israel lobby cannot be identified precisely", it "has a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority".{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=113}} They note that "not every American with a favorable attitude to Israel is part of the lobby",{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=113}} and that although "the bulk of the lobby is {{sic|comprised |hide=y|of}} [[Jews and Judaism in the United States|Jewish Americans]]",{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=115}} there are many American Jews who are not part of the lobby, and the lobby also includes [[Christian Zionists]].{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=132}} They also claim a drift of important groups in "the lobby" to the right,{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|pp=126-128}} and overlap with the [[neoconservatives]].{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|pp=128-132}}
Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call misuse of "the charge of anti-Semitism," and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however, that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses" (see [[Campus Watch]] and U.S. Congress Bill H.R. 509). The authors conclude by arguing that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."<ref name=MearsheimerHWP/>
 
The book was preceded by a paper commissioned by ''[[The Atlantic]]'' and written by Mearsheimer and Walt. ''The Atlantic'' rejected the paper, and it was published in ''[[London Review of Books]]''.<ref name="LRB" /> The paper attracted considerable debate,<ref name="NPR">{{Cite news |last=Amos |first=Deborah |date=April 21, 2006 |title=Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353855 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303223824/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353855 |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |work=[[NPR]]}}</ref><ref name="Cohen">{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Patricia |date=January 31, 2007 |title=Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?pagewanted=all |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610225450/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?pagewanted=all |archive-date=June 10, 2015 |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref><ref name="Back">{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Patricia |date=August 16, 2007 |title=Backlash Over Book on Policy for Israel |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/books/16book.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151026211152/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/books/16book.html |archive-date=October 26, 2015 |work=New York Times}}</ref> both praise<ref name="peck">{{Cite news |last=Peck |first=Edward |author-link=Edward Peck (American diplomat) |date=April 6, 2006 |title=Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby |url=http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1700 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161123045207/http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1700 |archive-date=November 23, 2016 |work=[[The Independent]]}}</ref><ref name="judt">{{Cite news |last=Judt |first=Tony |author-link=Tony Judt |date=April 19, 2006 |title=A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19judt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&en=2706f771ea2e35aa&ex=1145592000 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150611011253/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19judt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&en=2706f771ea2e35aa&ex=1145592000 |archive-date=June 11, 2015 |work=[[New York Times]] |department=Op-ed}}</ref> and criticism.<ref name="Clyne1">{{Cite news |last=Clyne |first=Meghan |date=March 22, 2006 |title=Harvard's Paper on Israel Called 'Trash' By Solon |url=http://www.nysun.com/article/29554 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080907051429/http://www.nysun.com/article/29554 |archive-date=September 7, 2008 |access-date=March 24, 2006 |work=[[New York Sun]]}}</ref><ref name="latimes">{{Cite news |last=Rutten |first=Tim |author-link=Tim Rutten |date=September 12, 2007 |title=Israel's lobby as scapegoat |url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten12sep12,0,5421243.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar |work=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref>
==="The Lobby"===
{{TOC limit|3}}
The paper says the following about "The Lobby":
 
== Background ==
* "We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."
The book has its origins in an article commissioned in 2002 by ''[[The Atlantic Monthly]]''. Four years later, when the article was submitted, it was unexpectedly turned down. Editor Cullen Murphy apparently sent the authors a letter, explaining the reasons for the rejection, but this letter was never made public.<ref name="Goldberg">{{Cite web |last=Goldberg |first=Michelle |date=April 18, 2006 |title=Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies? |url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/18/lobby/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605060231/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/04/18/lobby/ |archive-date=June 5, 2011 |website=[[Salon.com]]}}</ref>
* "The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests."
* "The Lobby also includes 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."
* " In addition, the Lobby’s membership includes neoconservative gentiles such as [[John Bolton]], the late [[Wall Street Journal]] editor [[Robert Bartley]], former Secretary of Education [[William Bennett]], former U.N. Ambassador [[Jeanne Kirkpatrick]], and columnist [[George Will]]."
* " Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], the [[Brookings Institution]], the [[Center for Security Policy]], the [[Foreign Policy Research Institute]], the [[Heritage Foundation]], the [[Hudson Institute]], the [[Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis]], and the [[Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs]] (JINSA).”
* "Jewish-Americans have formed an impressive array of organizations to influence American foreign policy, of which [[AIPAC]] is the most powerful and well-known.”
* "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 [[Likud]] Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the [[Oslo Peace Process]]."
* "AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress."
* "The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress."
* "The Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch. That power derives in part from the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections."
* "Key organizations in the Lobby also directly target the administration in power ... [and] make sure that critics of the Jewish state do not get important foreign-policy appointments"
* "Pro-Israel congressional staffers are another source of the Lobby’s power. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill] … who happen to be Jewish, who are willing … to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness …. These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators.'"
* "The Lobby’s perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media in good part because most American commentators are pro-Israel."
* "The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide."
* "Were it not for the Lobby’s ability to manipulate the American political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today."
* "American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States."
* "The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach."
* "Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this campaign to eliminate criticism of Israel from college campuses is the effort by Jewish groups to push Congress to establish mechanisms that monitor what professors say about Israel."
* "Jewish philanthropists have established Israel studies programs (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies programs that already exist) so as to increase the number of Israel-friendly scholars on campus."
* "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 that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over U.S. Middle East policy - an influence that AIPAC celebrates - stands a good chance of getting labeled an anti-Semite."
* "the [Iraq] war was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially the neoconservatives within it."
* "Congress insisted on putting the screws to Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israel officials and pro-Israel groups like AIPAC."
* "the Lobby must keep constant pressure on U.S. politicians to confront Tehran."
* "If their efforts to shape U.S. policy succeed, then Israel’s enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."
* "It is not meant to suggest that 'the lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues."
* "Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them."
* "There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy; the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy... For the most part the individuals and groups in it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better." However, "the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about."
* "Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so ... But that is not going to happen anytime soon."
 
According to Mearsheimer, ''the Atlantic'' simply “got cold feet”. At first it was very enthusiastic but as the authors went through all sorts of interactions with the journal, they eventually expressed doubts of the article ever being published. The handling editor reassured them, however, it would be published. He even offered them a $10,000 “kill guarantee” if it was not.<ref name="Transcript">{{cite news
====On US support for Israel====
|url=https://singjupost.com/john-mearsheimer-the-palestinian-genocide-and-how-the-west-has-been-deceived-transcript/|title= John Mearsheimer: The Palestinian Genocide and How the West Has Been Deceived (Transcript)|work=
* Economic: According to the authors, Israel is "the largest total recipient since World War II" of US aid. "Total direct U.S. aid to Israel for this period amounts to well over $1.4 trillion from 1973 - 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is about one-fifth of America’s foreign aid budget." The authors claim that "This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a [[per capita income]] roughly equal to [[South Korea]] or [[Spain]]."</br> The authors claim that "Israel is the only recipient of US aid that does not have to account for how the aid is spent." According to the authors, this makes it "virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes."
|author=Tucker Carlson and John Mearsheimer|date=July 31, 2025|access-date= Aug 1, 2025|url-status=|archive-url=|archive-date= }}</ref>
* Diplomatic/political: The authors write, "Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 [[United Nations Security Council]] resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members together." They further posit that the US also "blocks Arab states’ efforts to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the [[International Atomic Energy Agency]]’s agenda."</br>
 
The authors then submitted the article to a”handful” other American journals, all eventually turning it down. Lower level staff would initially express keen interest in the article but “as it filters up the chain of command”, people at the top would invariably kill it. The article was then “placed in the closet”, as it apparently was not possible to be published in the USA.<ref name="Transcript"></ref> An academic involved in the process, however, contacted ''[[London Review of Books]]'', which agreed to publish the article.<ref name="LRB">{{Cite magazine |date=March 23, 2006 |title=The Israel Lobby |url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091001141038/http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html |archive-date=October 1, 2009 |access-date=March 24, 2006 |magazine=[[London Review of Books]] |volume=28 |number=6}}</ref> It also became available as a [[working paper]] at the Kennedy School's website in 2006.<ref name="MearsheimerHWP">{{Cite web |last1=Mearsheimer |first1=John J. |author-link=John Mearsheimer |last2=Walt |first2=Stephen |author-link2=Stephen Walt |date=March 13, 2006 |title=The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy |url=http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=3670 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120516225011/http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=3670 |archive-date=May 16, 2012 |publisher=[[Harvard Kennedy School]] |id=Working Paper Number: RWP06-011}}</ref> A third, revised version addressing some of the criticism was published in the Fall 2006 issue of ''[[Middle East Policy Council|Middle East Policy]]'', the in-house journal of the [[Middle East Policy Council]]. The authors state that "In terms of its core claims, however, this revised version does not depart from the original Working Paper."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=John J. Mearsheimer |last2=Stephen M. Walt |date=Fall 2006 |title=The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy |journal=Middle East Policy |volume=XIII |issue=3 |pages=29–87 |doi=10.1111/j.1475-4967.2006.00260.x |doi-access=free}}</ref>
===Analysis of Israel as a Strategic Asset and the moral case for support===
 
The book was published August 27, 2007.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy |url=http://www.israellobbybook.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011202601/http://www.israellobbybook.com/ |archive-date=2007-10-11 |website=www.israellobbybook.com}}</ref> The book differs from the earlier papers in several ways: it includes an expanded definition of the lobby, it responds to the criticisms that the papers attracted, it updates the authors' analysis and it offers suggestions on how the U. S. should advance its interests in the Middle East.{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|pp=x-xi}} The book contends that the [[Israel–United States relations|US-Israel alliance]] skews [[Foreign policy of the United States|US foreign policy]] in Israel's favor, often at the expense of regional stability in the Middle East.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zhang |first=Chuchu |title=China's Changing Role in the Middle East: Filling a Power Vacuum? |date=2025 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-1-032-76275-3 |series=Changing Dynamics in Asia-Middle East Relations series |___location=Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY}}</ref>{{Rp|page=5}}
The authors state: "This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for sustained U.S. backing. But neither rationale is convincing". The authors offer the following in support of this argument:
 
With his elaborated position on Israel in this book, Mearsheimer distanced his own position from such established scholars as [[Hannah Arendt]] and [[Hans Morgenthau]] and their support for Israel,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Arendt |first=Hannah |title=Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil}}{{full citation needed|date=June 2024}}</ref> the latter of whom Mearsheimer had previously cited as significant to the development of his own writing in the field of international relations.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Morgenthau |first=Hans |title=Politics Among Nations |year=1978 |edition=5th}}</ref>
====Strategic Asset====
* "Backing Israel is not cheap, however, and it complicates America's relations with the Arab World."
* "The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden."
* "In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states."
* "More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards; the US has a terrorism problem because it is so closely aligned with Israel, not the other way around."
* "As for the so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel."
* "A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally."
 
A paperback edition was published in September 2008.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Mearsheimer |first1=John J. |title=The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy |last2=Walt |first2=Stephen M. |date=2008-09-02 |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |isbn=978-0-374-53150-8 |edition=Paperback}}</ref>
====The Moral Case for Support====
 
==Content of the preceding paper==
* "There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's continued existence, but that is not in jeopardy."
In April 2006, [[Philip Weiss]] discussed some of the background to the creation of the paper in an article in ''[[The Nation]]''.<ref name="WeissNation">{{Cite magazine |last=Weiss |first=Philip |date=April 27, 2006 |title=Ferment Over 'The Israel Lobby' |url=http://www.thenation.com/article/ferment-over-israel-lobby |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306044731/http://www.thenation.com/article/ferment-over-israel-lobby |archive-date=March 6, 2016 |magazine=[[The Nation]]}}</ref>
* "Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during (list of wars from 1948-1967) - all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing."
* "Today Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbors and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons."
* "That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid."
* "The country's creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians".
* "Yet on this ground (seeking peace), Israel's record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents."
* "...Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister of Israel declared that 'neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.'"
 
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that "No lobby has managed to divert U.S. [[foreign policy]] as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical".<ref name="LRB" /> They argue that "in its basic operations, it is no different from interest groups like the Farm Lobby, steel and textile workers, and other [[Ethnic interest group|ethnic lobbies]]. What sets the Israel Lobby apart is its extraordinary effectiveness." According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the "loose coalition" that makes up the Lobby has "significant leverage over the [[President of the United States|Executive branch]]", as well as the ability to make sure that the "Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the [[mainstream media]]." They claim that the [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee]] (AIPAC) in particular has a "stranglehold on the [[U.S. Congress]]", due to its "ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it."
== Reception ==
===Praise===
The paper was described as a "wake-up call" by [[Daniel Levy (Israeli peace activist)|Daniel Levy]],<ref>[[Daniel Levy (Israeli peace activist)|Levy, Daniel]] [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/698302.html So pro-Israel that it hurts], ''[[Haaretz]]'', March 25, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006. Mirrored [http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0404-27.htm here]</ref> former advisor to [[Prime Minister of Israel|Israeli Prime Minister]] [[Ehud Barak]]. In a March 25 article for ''[[Haaretz]]'', Levy wrote, "Their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support".<ref>Goldberg, Nicholas. [http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-goldberg26mar26,1,301596.story?coll=la-news-comment Who's afraid of the 'Israel Lobby'?], ''[[The Los Angeles Times]]'', March 26, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006.</ref>
 
Mearsheimer and Walt decry what they call [[Weaponization of antisemitism|misuse of "the charge of anti-Semitism"]], and argue that pro-Israel groups place great importance on "controlling debate" in American academia; they maintain, however, that the Lobby has yet to succeed in its "campaign to eliminate [[criticism of Israel]] from college campuses", such as with [[Campus Watch]] and the U.S. Congress Bill H.R. 509. The authors conclude by arguing that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying."<ref name=MearsheimerHWP/> According to Mearsheimer, "it's becoming increasingly difficult to make the argument in a convincing way that anyone who criticizes the lobby or Israel is an anti-Semite or a [[self-hating Jew]]." The authors pointed to the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, criticism of Israel's war in Lebanon and the publication of former President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s book ''[[Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid]]'' as making it somewhat easier to criticize Israel openly.<ref name=Back/>
Former U.S. Ambassador [[Edward Peck]], now of the [[Independent Institute]] and the [[Council for the National Interest]], an anti-Israel lobby, wrote that "The expected [[tsunami]] of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors, and denied there is such a lobby—validating both the lobby’s existence and aggressive, pervasive presence and obliging Harvard to remove its name." Peck is generally in agreement with the paper's core thesis: "Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both nations, but the lobby's views of Israel's interests have become the basis of U.S. Middle East policies."<ref>''[http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1700 Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby]'', [[Edward Peck]], April 6 2006</ref>
 
== Reception ==
[[Rupert Cornwell]], writing in ''[[The Independent]]'', welcomed "a debate on America's support for Israel", and accused the "Jewish lobby" of "suppression of serious domestic debate on the U.S. relationship with Israel" and "conflation of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians with America's war on terror".<ref>Cornwell, Rupert. [http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article356228.ece At last, a debate on America's support for Israel], ''[[The Independent]]'', April 7, 2006. (reg. reqd.) Reprinted: [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/265964_israel09.html], [http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=82099&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26]</ref>
[[File:Walt-Mearsheimer-Aug2006.JPG|thumb|150px|Professors [[John Mearsheimer]] (left) and [[Stephen Walt]], authors of ''The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy'']]
The March 2006 publication of Mearsheimer and Walt's essay, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", was highly controversial. The essay's central controversial claim was that the Israel lobby's influence has distorted U.S. Middle East foreign policy away from what the authors referred to as "American [[national interest]]." [[Alan Dershowitz]] opined that criticizing the Israel lobby promoted a charged debate about what constitutes [[Antisemitism|antisemitic]] [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theorizing]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dershowitz |first=Alan |author-link=Alan Dershowitz |date=17 Jan 2007 |title=Debunking the Newest—and Oldest—Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt 'Working Paper' |url=http://www.comw.org/warreport/fulltext/0604dershowitz.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150221024019/http://www.comw.org/warreport/fulltext/0604dershowitz.pdf |archive-date=February 21, 2015}}</ref>
 
As a result of the controversy created by Mearsheimer and Walt's article, the [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ''[[Backlight (TV program)|Backlight]]'' ({{lang|nl|Tegenlicht}}) program produced a documentary entitled ''The Israel Lobby''. ''Backlight'' is [[VPRO]]'s regular international 50 minute documentary program.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Backlight: the Israel Lobby |url=http://www.nposales.com/;jsessionid=D464B6A64B4D157FEE921BFA5B7B3079?article=9448&template=program |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071109232353/http://www.nposales.com/%3Bjsessionid%3DD464B6A64B4D157FEE921BFA5B7B3079?article=9448&template=program |archive-date=November 9, 2007 |website=[[Netherlands Public Broadcasting]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite AV media |url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878 |title=The Israel Lobby: The Influence of AIPAC on US Foreign Policy |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110101220837/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878 |archive-date=January 1, 2011 |via=[[Google Video]]}}</ref>
[[Tony Judt]], a historian at [[New York University]] wrote in the ''[[New York Times]]'', that "[in] spite of [the paper's] provocative title, the essay draws on a wide variety of standard sources and is mostly uncontentious." He goes on to ask "[does] the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course — that is one of its goals. [...] But does pressure to support Israel distort American decisions? That's a matter of judgment." He concludes the essay by taking the perspective that "this essay, by two 'realist' political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind." And that "it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19judt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&en=2706f771ea2e35aa&ex=1145592000 A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy], [[Tony Judt]], [[New York Times]] Op-Ed, April 19, 2006</ref>
 
===Praise===
[[Michael Scheuer]], a former senior official at the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] and now a terrorism analyst for [[CBS News]], said to [[National Public Radio|NPR]] that Mearsheimer and Walt are basically right. Israel, according to Scheuer, has engaged in one of the most successful campaigns to influence public opinion in the United States ever conducted by a foreign government. Scheuer said to NPR that "They [Mearsheimer and Walt] should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject. I hope they move on and do the [[Saudi lobby]], which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby."<ref name="NPR">[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353855 Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate], [[Deborah Amos]], [[National Public Radio]], April 21, 2006</ref>
Former U.S. Ambassador [[Edward Peck (American diplomat)|Edward Peck]] wrote that "The expected [[tsunami]] of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors, and denied there is such a lobby — validating both the lobby's existence and aggressive, pervasive presence and obliging Harvard to remove its name." Peck is generally in agreement with the paper's core thesis: "Opinions differ on the long-term costs and benefits for both nations, but the lobby's views of Israel's interests have become the basis of U.S. Middle East policies."<ref name=peck/>
 
[[Tony Judt]], a historian at [[New York University]], wrote in ''[[The New York Times]]'', that "[in] spite of [the paper's] provocative title, the essay draws on a wide variety of standard sources and is mostly uncontentious." He goes on to ask "[does] the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course — that is one of its goals. [...] But does pressure to support Israel distort American decisions? That's a matter of judgment." He concludes the essay by taking the perspective that "this essay, by two 'realist' political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind." And that "it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans why the imperial might and international reputation of the United States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial Mediterranean client state."<ref name=judt/>
[[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], former national security advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, wrote: "Mearsheimer and Walt adduce a great deal of factual evidence that over the years Israel has been the beneficiary of privileged—indeed, highly preferential—financial assistance, out of all proportion to what the United States extends to any other country. The massive aid to Israel is in effect a huge entitlement that enriches the relatively prosperous Israelis at the cost of the American taxpayer. Money being fungible, that aid also pays for the very settlements that America opposes and that impede the peace process."<ref>Zbigniew Brzezinski, [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3510 A Dangerous Exemption], [[Foreign Policy]], Jul/Aug 2006. Reprinted [http://harowo.com/2006/06/27/a-dangerous-exemption/] [http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/07/01/1633937/print/?printcomments=true]</ref>
 
[[Michael Scheuer]], a former senior official at the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] and in 2006 a terrorism analyst for [[CBS News]], said to [[National Public Radio|NPR]] that Mearsheimer and Walt are "basically right."<ref name="NPR" /> Israel, according to Scheuer, has engaged in one of the most successful campaigns to influence public opinion in the United States ever conducted by a foreign government. Scheuer said to NPR that Mearsheimer and Walt "should be credited for the courage they have had to actually present a paper on the subject. I hope they move on and do the [[Saudi Arabia lobby in the United States|Saudi lobby]], which is probably more dangerous to the United States than the Israeli lobby."<ref name="NPR" />
Abdulmo'em Abulfotah, a senior member of the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] (a Sunni Islamist group which, according to U.S. Government-operated [[Voice of America]], was banned by tolerated by the [[Egypt]]ian government as of late 2005<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/egypt/egypt-050905-voa01.htm]</ref>) said he thinks "that the people who wrote that report were working for the interest of the American people."<ref name=Lake />
 
[[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], former national security advisor to U.S. President [[Jimmy Carter]], wrote: "Mearsheimer and Walt adduce a great deal of factual evidence that over the years Israel has been the beneficiary of privileged — indeed, highly preferential — financial assistance, out of all proportion to what the United States extends to any other country. The massive aid to Israel is in effect a huge entitlement that enriches the relatively prosperous Israelis at the cost of the American taxpayer. Money being fungible, that aid also pays for the very settlements that America opposes and that impede the peace process."<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Zbigniew |last=Brzezinski |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3510 |title=A Dangerous Exemption |magazine=[[Foreign Policy]] |date=July–August 2006 }}{{dead link|date=December 2016|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}}. Reprinted {{Cite web |title=A Dangerous Exemption |url=http://harowo.com/2006/06/27/a-dangerous-exemption/ |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204170324/http://harowo.com/2006/06/27/a-dangerous-exemption/ |archive-date=2012-02-04 |access-date=2007-02-18 |website=Harowo.com}}</ref>
[[Michael Collins Piper]], a conspiracy theorist from the [[American Free Press]], a [[far right|far right-wing]] news agency, praised the article.<ref>[http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/slamming_israeli_lobby.html]</ref>
 
[[William Grimes (journalist)|William Grimes]] of the ''New York Times'' wrote: "Coolly, not to say coldly, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt mount a prosecutorial brief against Israel’s foreign and domestic policies, and against the state of Israel itself."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Grimes |first=William |date=2007-09-06 |title=A Prosecutorial Brief Against Israel and Its Supporters |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/books/06grim.html |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
===Mixed reviews===
 
In his review in ''[[The Times]]'', journalist [[Max Hastings]] wrote "otherwise intelligent Americans diminish themselves by hurling charges of antisemitism with such recklessness. There will be no peace in the Middle East until the United States faces its responsibilities there in a much more convincing fashion than it does today, partly for reasons given in this depressing book."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Hastings |first=Max |date=September 2, 2007 |title=The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy |url=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2348741.ece |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110517050738/http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article2348741.ece |archive-date=May 17, 2011 |work=[[The Times]]}}</ref>
Columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] agreed that "[[AIPAC]] and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy", and stated that the paper "contains much that is true and a little that is original" and that he "would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt". However, he also says that "what is original is not true and what is true is not original", and that the notion that the "Jewish tail wags the American dog... the [[United States]] has gone to [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]] to gratify [[Ariel Sharon]], and... the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of [[Osama bin Laden|Osama Bin Laden]]" is "partly misleading and partly creepy". <ref>[[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens, Christopher]]. [http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/ Overstating Jewish Power: Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby], ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'', March 27, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006.</ref>
 
[[Adam Kirsch]] argued that [[Robert D. Kaplan]]'s "deification" of Mearsheimer in ''The Atlantic'' in January 2012 showed that the authors of ''The Israel Lobby'' were winning the argument.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Kirsch |first=Adam |date=18 January 2012 |title=Framed |url=http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/88397/framed-2?all=1 |access-date=3 May 2012 |magazine=Tablet Magazine}}</ref>
A ''Haaretz'' [[editorial]] said that the paper "involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments that are unconnected to them", and goes on to say that "the conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be immune for eternity." It concludes that "it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message...The professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign."<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=697059 A warning from America], ''[[Haaretz]]'' Editorial, March 23, 2006. Accessed March 27, 2006.</ref>
 
[[Glenn Greenwald]] has endorsed the book's central thesis, arguing "Walt and Mearsheimer merely voiced a truth which has long been known and obvious but was not allowed to be spoken. That’s precisely why the demonization campaign against them was so vicious and concerted: those who voice prohibited truths are always more hated than those who spout obvious lies."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Greenwald |first=Glenn |author-link=Glenn Greenwald |date=2011-09-18 |title=The mainstreaming of Walt and Mearsheimer |url=http://www.salon.com/2011/09/18/friedman_14/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151119144205/http://www.salon.com/2011/09/18/friedman_14/ |archive-date=2015-11-19 |access-date=2015-02-01 |website=[[Salon.com]]}}</ref>
In describing the last of three "surprising weaknesses" of the paper, [[Eric Alterman]] writes in ''[[The Nation]]'', "Third, while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the [[National Rifle Association|NRA]], [[Pharmaceutical industry|Big Pharma]] and other powerful [[Lobbyist|lobbies]]. The authors note this but often seem to forget it. This has the effect of making the Jews who read the paper feel unfairly singled out, and inspires much emotionally driven mishigas in reaction. Do these problems justify the inference that the authors are anti-Semitic? Of course not. " <ref>[[Eric Alterman]],[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/alterman AIPAC's Complaint] [[The Nation]], May 1, 2006 (posted April 13, 2006)</ref>
 
Marxist historian [[Perry Anderson]] also endorsed the book's thesis, calling it "outstanding".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Anderson |first=Perry |date=November–December 2007 |title=Jottings on the Conjuncture |url=http://newleftreview.org/II/48/perry-anderson-jottings-on-the-conjuncture#_edn3 |url-status=live |journal=New Left Review |issue=48 |pages=5–37 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304205425/http://newleftreview.org/II/48/perry-anderson-jottings-on-the-conjuncture |archive-date=2016-03-04 |access-date=2015-02-01}}</ref>
[[Joseph Massad]], professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at [[Columbia University]], writes, "Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not." Massad then argued US policy is imperialistic, and has only supported those struggling for freedom when it is politically convenient, especially in the Middle East.<ref>[[Joseph Massad]], [http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/op35.htm Blaming the lobby] [[Al-Ahram|Al-Ahram Weekly]], March 23-29, 2006</ref>
 
===Mixed reviews===
[[Michelle Goldberg]]<ref name="Goldberg"/>gives a detailed analysis of the paper. She writes about some "baffling omissions" , e.g. : "Amazingly, Walt and Mearsheimer don't even mention [[Fatah]] or [[Black September]], [[Munich Massacre|Munich]] or [[Operation Entebbe|Entebbe]]. One might argue that Israel has killed more Palestinians than visa versa, but it doesn't change the role of spectacular Palestinian terrorism in shaping American attitudes toward Israel." She also finds valuable points: "Walt and Mearsheimer are correct, after all, in arguing that discussion about Israel is hugely circumscribed in mainstream American media and politics. ... Indeed, one can find far more critical coverage of the Israeli occupation in liberal Israeli newspapers like Haaretz than in any American daily."
The paper was described as a "wake-up call" by [[Daniel Levy (political analyst)|Daniel Levy]],<ref>{{Cite news |last=Levy |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Levy (political analyst) |date=April 4, 2006 |title=So pro-Israel that it hurts |url=http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0404-27.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130618181052/http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0404-27.htm |archive-date=June 18, 2013 |work=[[International Herald Tribune]] |via=[[Common Dreams]]}}</ref> former advisor to [[Prime Minister of Israel|Israeli Prime Minister]] [[Ehud Barak]], and said it is "jarring for a self-critical Israeli" and lacks "finesse and nuance." In a March 25 article for ''[[Haaretz]]'', Levy wrote, "Their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate, rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having a uniquely compelling moral case for support".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Goldberg |first=Nicholas |date=March 26, 2006 |title=Who's afraid of the 'Israel Lobby'? |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-goldberg26mar26,1,301596.story?coll=la-news-comment |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191001193613/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-mar-26-op-goldberg26-story.html |archive-date=2019-10-01 |access-date=March 26, 2006 |work=[[The Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref> Levy also criticized Mearsheimer and Walt for confusing cause and effect; he added that the Iraq war was already decided on by the Bush administration for its own reasons.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Seliger |first=Ralph |date=June 21, 2009 |title=The Israel Lobbies: Left, Right and Center |url=http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4524/the_israel_lobbies_left_right_and_center/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090629164328/http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4524/the_israel_lobbies_left_right_and_center/ |archive-date=2009-06-29 |work=[[In These Times (publication)|In These Times]]}}</ref>
 
Columnist [[Christopher Hitchens]] agreed that "AIPAC and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy", and stated that the paper "contains much that is true and a little that is original" and that he "would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt". However, he also says, paraphrasing a statement popularly misattributed to [[Samuel Johnson]], that "what is original is not true and what is true is not original", and that the notion that the "Jewish tail wags the American dog... the United States has gone to [[Iraq War|war in Iraq]] to gratify [[Ariel Sharon]], and... the alliance between the two countries has brought down on us the wrath of [[Osama bin Laden|Osama Bin Laden]]" is "partly misleading and partly creepy".<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Hitchens |first=Christopher |author-link=Christopher Hitchens |date=March 27, 2006 |title=Overstating Jewish Power: Mearsheimer and Walt give too much credit to the Israeli lobby |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110831234113/http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/ |archive-date=August 31, 2011 |access-date=March 29, 2006 |magazine=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]}}</ref> He also stated that the authors "seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem" and produced "an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly."<ref>Quoted in {{Cite web |last=Coleman |first=Ron |title=So not ZOG |url=http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1143587014.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071109181655/http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1143587014.shtml |archive-date=November 9, 2007 |website=Dean's World}}</ref>
[[Michael Massing]], contributing editor of the [[Columbia Journalism Review]], writes:
"The lack of a clearer and fuller account of Palestinian violence is a serious failing of the essay. Its tendency to emphasize Israel's offenses while largely overlooking those of its adversaries has troubled even many doves." On the other hand, he writes:
"The nasty campaign waged against John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt has itself provided an excellent example of the bullying tactics used by the lobby and its supporters. The wide attention their argument has received shows that, in this case, those efforts have not entirely succeeded. Despite its many flaws, their essay has performed a very useful service in forcing into the open a subject that has for too long remained taboo." <ref>Michael Massing, [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062 The Storm over the Israel Lobby], [[New York Review of Books]], June 8, 2006</ref>
 
In an address to [[Stanford University]], Hitchens said that Mearsheimer and Walt "think that they are smarter than the American imperialists. If they were running the empire, [Mearsheimer and Walt] wouldn't be fooled by the Jews. They'd be making big business with the Saudis instead and not letting Arabs get upset about [[Zionism]]. Well, it's an extraordinary piece of cynicism, I would say, combined with an extraordinary naiveté. It doesn't deserve to be called realistic at all."<ref>{{Cite podcast |url=http://fce.stanford.edu/events/the_war_on_terror_revisited/ |title=The War on Terror Revisited |website=Forum on Contemporary Europe |publisher=Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies |date=May 9, 2006 |access-date=30 June 2009 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120711040457/http://fce.stanford.edu/events/the_war_on_terror_revisited/ |archive-date=2012-07-11}}</ref>
[[Stephen Zunes]], professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, gives a detailed point by point critique of the paper, and concludes:
"The consequences of U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be tragic, not just for Palestinians and other Arabs, who are the immediate victims of the diplomatic support and largess of American aid to Israel, but ultimately for Israel as well. The fates of American client states have often not been positive. Though differing in many respects, Israel could end up like El Salvador or South Vietnam, whose leadership made common cause with U.S. global designs in ways that ultimately led to untold misery and massive destruction. Israeli leaders and their counterparts in many American Zionist organizations have been repeating the historic error of accepting short-term benefits for their people at the risk of compromising long-term security....To blame the current morass in the Middle East on the Israel lobby only exacerbates animosities and plays into the hands of the divide-and-rule tactics of those in Congress and the administration whose primary objective is ultimately not to help Israel but to advance the American Empire."<ref>Stephen Zunes, [http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/the_israel_lobby.html The Israel Lobby: How powerful is it really?], Mother Jones, May 18, 2006</ref>
 
[[Joseph Massad]], professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at [[Columbia University]], writes, "Is the pro-Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for U.S. policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not." Massad then argued U.S. policy is "imperialistic", and has only supported those struggling for freedom when it is politically convenient, especially in the Middle East.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Massad |first=Joseph |author-link=Joseph Massad |date=March 23–29, 2006 |title=Blaming the lobby |url=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/op35.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150124085837/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/op35.htm |archive-date=January 24, 2015 |work=[[Al-Ahram|Al-Ahram Weekly]]}}</ref>
===Criticism===
 
In describing the last of three "surprising weaknesses" of the paper, [[Eric Alterman]] writes in ''[[The Nation]]'', "Third, while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the [[National Rifle Association|NRA]], [[Pharmaceutical industry|Big Pharma]] and other powerful [[Lobbyist|lobbies]]. The authors note this but often seem to forget it. This has the effect of making the Jews who read the paper feel unfairly singled out and inspires much emotionally driven {{lang|yi-Latn|mishigas}} (craziness) in reaction. Do these problems justify the inference that the authors are anti-Semitic? Of course not."<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Alterman |first=Eric |author-link=Eric Alterman |date=May 1, 2006 |title=AIPAC's Complaint |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/aipacs-complaint/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307213842/https://www.thenation.com/article/aipacs-complaint/ |archive-date=March 7, 2016 |magazine=[[The Nation]]}} (posted April 13, 2006)</ref>
====Scholars====
The paper has faced criticism, for differing reasons, from individuals across the ideological spectrum.
 
[[Michelle Goldberg]]<ref name="Goldberg" /> gives a detailed analysis of the paper. She writes about some "baffling omissions," e.g.: "Amazingly, Walt and Mearsheimer don't even mention [[Fatah]] or [[Black September (group)|Black September]], [[Munich Massacre|Munich]] or [[Operation Entebbe|Entebbe]]. One might argue that Israel has killed more Palestinians than visa [sic] versa, but it doesn't change the role of spectacular Palestinian terrorism in shaping American attitudes toward Israel." She also finds valuable points: "Walt and Mearsheimer are correct, after all, in arguing that discussion about Israel is hugely circumscribed in mainstream American media and politics.... Indeed, one can find far more critical coverage of the Israeli occupation in liberal Israeli newspapers like Haaretz than in any American daily."
A number of Harvard professors have criticized the paper. [[Marvin Kalb]], a lecturer in public policy, [[Edward R. Murrow]] Professor of Press and Public Policy from 1987 to 1999, and former Director and now Senior Fellow[http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/marvin_kalb] at the [[John F. Kennedy School of Government]] at Harvard, said that the paper failed to meet basic quality standards for academic research. <ref name=Clyne1>Clyne, Meghan. [http://www.nysun.com/article/29554 Harvard's Paper on Israel Called 'Trash' By Solon], ''[[New York Sun]]'', March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref> [[Ruth Wisse]], a professor of Yiddish Literature and Comparative Literature, wrote, "When the authors 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". <ref>[http://www.jewishexponent.com/ViewArticle.asp?ArtID=2891 Harvard attack on ‘Israel lobby’ is actually a targeting of American public], www.jewishexponent.com Accessed July 28, 2006</ref> [[David Gergen]], a professor of public service at the Kennedy School at Harvard, wrote that the charges in the paper are "wildly at variance with what I have personally witnessed in the Oval Office over the years"<ref>David Gergen, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm An Unfair Attack], U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2006</ref> [[Alan Dershowitz]], professor of Law, wrote a report challenging the factual basis of the paper, the motivations of the authors and their scholarship. Dershowitz claimed that, "The paper contains three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted, and embarrassingly weak logic is employed."<ref>[[Alan Dershowitz|Dershowitz, Alan]]. "[http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf A reply to the Mearsheimer Walt "Working Paper"]", April 6, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2006.</ref>
 
[[Michael Massing]], contributing editor of the ''[[Columbia Journalism Review]]'', writes:
[[Noam Chomsky]], professor of linguistics at MIT, asserts that he did not find the thesis of the paper very convincing. He said that [[Stephen Zunes]] has rightly pointed out that "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races." He finds that the authors "have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)", ignores historical "world affairs", and blames the Lobby for issues that are not relevant.<ref>Noam Chomsky, [http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999 The Israel Lobby?] ZNET, March 28, 2006</ref>
"The lack of a clearer and fuller account of Palestinian violence is a serious failing of the essay. Its tendency to emphasize Israel's offenses while largely overlooking those of its adversaries has troubled even many doves." On the other hand, he writes:
"The nasty campaign waged against John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt has itself provided an excellent example of the bullying tactics used by the lobby and its supporters. The wide attention their argument has received shows that, in this case, those efforts have not entirely succeeded. Despite its many flaws, their essay has performed a very useful service in forcing into the open a subject that has for too long remained taboo."<ref>Michael Massing, [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062 The Storm over the Israel Lobby] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517045150/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062 |date=May 17, 2008 }}, [[New York Review of Books]], June 8, 2006</ref>
 
[[Stephen Zunes]], professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, gives a detailed point by point critique of the paper.<ref name="Zunes">Stephen Zunes, [https://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/the_israel_lobby.html The Israel Lobby: How powerful is it really?] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080706031023/https://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/the_israel_lobby.html |date=July 6, 2008 }}, Mother Jones, May 18, 2006</ref> Zunes also writes that "The authors have also been unfairly criticized for supposedly distorting the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though their overview is generally quite accurate," and agreed with [[Joseph Massad]]'s interpretation of Mearsheimer's and Walt's argument: "[T]here is something quite convenient and discomfortingly familiar about the tendency to blame an allegedly powerful and wealthy group of Jews for the overall direction of an increasingly controversial U.S. policy."<ref name="Zunes" />
[[Benny Morris]], a widely quoted scholar on the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]] and a professor of Middle East history at [[Ben-Gurion University]], prefaced a very detailed analysis with the remark: "Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity."<ref>Benny Morris, [http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060508&s=morris050806 And Now For Some Facts], The New Republic, May 8, 2006; posted April 28, 2006</ref>
 
[[Noam Chomsky]], professor of [[linguistics]] at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]], said the authors took a "courageous stand" and said much of the criticism against the authors was "hysterical". But he asserts that he did not find the thesis of the paper very convincing. He said that [[Stephen Zunes]] has rightly pointed out that "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races." He finds that the authors "have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)", ignore historical "world affairs", and blame the Lobby for issues that are not relevant.<ref name="chomsky">Noam Chomsky, [http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999 The Israel Lobby?] {{webarchive |url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090701051237/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999 |date=July 1, 2009 }} ZNET, March 28, 2006</ref>
[[Stephen Zunes]], professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, gives a detailed point by point critique of the paper, and writes:
"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."<ref>Stephen Zunes, [http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/05/the_israel_lobby.html The Israel Lobby: How powerful is it really?], Mother Jones, May 18, 2006</ref>
 
In a review in the ''[[The New Yorker|New Yorker]]'', [[David Remnick]] writes, "Mearsheimer and Walt give you the sense that, if the Israelis and the Palestinians come to terms, bin Laden will return to the family construction business. It's a narrative that recounts every lurid report of Israeli cruelty as indisputable fact but leaves out the rise of Fatah and Palestinian terrorism before 1967; the Munich Olympics; Black September; myriad cases of suicide bombings; and other spectaculars. ... The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it."<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=David Remnick |author-link=David Remnick |date=September 3, 2007 |title=The Lobby |url=https://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/09/03/070903taco_talk_remnick |magazine=[[The New Yorker]]}}</ref>
[[Jonathan Rosenblum]], columnist for Maariv and the Jerusalem Post, said that Mearsheimer and Walt prefer "to portray President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (not to mention former President Bill Clinton) as helpless dupes of the lobby, than to discuss their policy choices."<ref>Jonathan Rosenblum,[http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=15770 Paper on Israel Lobby poses threat], Jewish Journal, April 28, 2006</ref>
 
Writing in ''[[Foreign Affairs]]'', [[Walter Russell Mead]] applauds the authors for "admirably and courageously" initiating a conversation on a difficult subject, but criticizes many of their findings. He observes that their definition of the "Israel lobby" is amorphous to the point of being useless: anyone who supports the existence of Israel (including Mearsheimer and Walt themselves) could be considered a part of the lobby, according to Mead. He is especially critical of their analysis of domestic politics in the United States, suggesting that the authors overstate the magnitude of lobbying in favor Israel when considered relative to overall sums spent on lobbying—only 1% in a typical election cycle. Mead considers their wider geopolitical analysis "more professional" but still "simplistic and sunny" on alternatives to a U.S.-Israeli alliance; he notes, for instance, that simply threatening to cut off aid to Israel in order to influence its behavior is misguided policy, given that other powers such as China, Russia, and India might well view an Israeli alliance as advantageous, should the United States withdraw. Mead rejects any antisemitic intent in the work, but feels that the authors left themselves open to the charge through "easily avoidable lapses in judgment and expression."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mead |first=Walter R. |author-link=Walter Russell Mead |date=November–December 2007 |title=Jerusalem Syndrome: Decoding ''The Israel Lobby'' |url=https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/fa/fa_novdec07/fa_novdec07k.html |journal=[[Foreign Affairs]] |volume=86 |issue=6 |pages=160–168 |access-date=2023-12-19}}</ref>
[[Shlomo Ben-Ami]], foreign minister of Israel under Barak, wrote: "Mearsheimer and Walt’s focus on the Israel lobby’s influence on America’s Middle East policy is grossly overblown. They portray U.S. politicians as being either too incompetent to understand America’s national interest, or so undutiful that they would sell it to any pressure group for the sake of political survival. Sentiment and idealism certainly underlie America’s commitment to Israel. But so do the shared interests and considerations of realpolitik." <ref>Shlomo Ben-Ami, [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3509 The Complex Truth], [[Foreign Policy]], Jul/Aug 2006</ref>
 
===Criticism===
Other critical scholars include [[Johns Hopkins University]] professor [[Eliot A. Cohen]];<ref>{{cite news|author=[[Eliot A. Cohen]]|title=[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html Yes, It's Anti-Semitic]|publisher=[[The Washington Post]]|date=April 5, 2006}}</ref> University of Maryland history professor [[Jeffrey Herf]];<ref>[http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/letters.html Letters], London Review of Books, vol. 28, no. 7, April 6, 2006</ref> Columbia University journalism professor [[Samuel G. Freedman]];<ref>Samuel Freedman,
[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961225753&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull A footnote's footnote], Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2006</ref> [[Princeton University]] professor of politics and international affairs [[Aaron Friedberg]];<ref>Aaron Friedberg, [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3507 An Uncivilized Argument], Foreign Policy, Jul/Aug 2006</ref> and [[Stanford University]] [[political science]] professor [[Josef Joffe]].<ref>Josef Joffe, [http://magazines.enews.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060403&s=joffe040606 WALT AND MEARSHEIMER: ANTI-AMERICAN., Common Denominator] ''The New Republic'', 04.06.06</ref>
 
In the following issue of the magazine were a number of responses criticizing the essay including from [[Jeffrey Herf]], [[Andrei Markovits]] and [[Daniel Pipes]]. Herf and Markovits found Mearsheimer and Walt's arguments reminiscent of traditional fabricated antisemitic global conspiracies. They argue that Israel was not the focus of American Middle Eastern policy, but rather ensuring the secure global supply of oil. According to them, Israel would come to be viewed by the U.S. military establishment as a useful ally in a challenging region. They refute Mearsheimer and Walt's claim blaming the Israel Lobby for the Iraq War. They cite Saddam Hussein's own military commanders as not being aware that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction up to three months before the US led invasion. Herf and Markovits dispute Mearsheimer and Walt's implications that the State of Israel is the main cause for anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and assert that American Jews have the right to free speech and political participation like all Americans. Daniel Pipes clarified that he was not involved in the founding of Campus Watch, and asserted that he does not "take orders from some mythical 'Lobby'."<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Letters |url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n07/letters |journal=London Review of Books |volume=28 |issue=7}}</ref> After that even more criticisms appeared in the second issue of April, most prominently by [[Alan Dershowitz]] citing a long list of what he said were factual errors and distortions. Robert Pfaltzgraff of the [[Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis]] questioned why Mearsheimer and Walt had suddenly arrived at completely different assumptions related to the Israel Lobby than that they had utilized for the rest of their career. Pfaltzgraff also denied their claim that "pro-Israeli forces" had established a "commanding presence" at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.<ref name="r122">{{cite journal | title=Letters | journal=London Review of Books | date=20 April 2006 | volume=28 | issue=8 | url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n08/letters | access-date=9 August 2024}}</ref>
====Members of organizations====
 
Mearsheimer and Walt responded to their critics in the May issue. They denied that their essay was intended to propagate antisemitic conspiracy theories and claim that they never intended to solely blame Israel for America's problems in the Middle East. Mearsheimer and Walt insist they support Israel's survival and necessary steps to protect it. They fault Szanto for not recognizing that America's security ties with Western Europe, Japan and South Korea did not according to them depend on "strong domestic lobbies."<ref name="LRB" />
The [[Anti-Defamation League]] published an analysis of the paper which described it as "amateurish and biased critique of [[Israel]], [[American Jews]], and American policy" and a "sloppy diatribe".<ref>[http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise], [[Anti-Defamation League]] Analysis, March 24, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.</ref>
 
==== Scholarly ====
The [[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]], a media watchdog group monitoring perceived anti-Israel coverage, published a detailed critique of the paper, claiming that it was "riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgement regarding sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous serious work on the subject".<ref>Safian, Alex. [http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099 Study Decrying “Israel Lobby” Marred by Numerous Errors], [[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]], March 20, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref>
[[Benny Morris]], a professor of Middle East history at [[Ben-Gurion University]], prefaced a very detailed analysis with the remark: "Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity."<ref>Benny Morris, [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20060719232227/https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i%3D20060508%26s%3Dmorris050806 And Now For Some Facts], The New Republic, May 8, 2006; posted April 28, 2006</ref>
 
[[Alan Dershowitz]], at the time a professor at Harvard University, published an extended criticism of Mearsheimer's and Walt's position in his 2008 book, ''The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace.''
A list of critiques of the paper, with links, is posted on the [[Engage (organization)|Engage]] website. <ref>[http://www.engageonline.org.uk/archives/index.php?id=17 http://www.engageonline.org.uk/archives/index.php?id=17]</ref>.
 
[[Robert C. Lieberman]] a Professor of Political Science at [[Columbia University]] in his extensive review he explores the book thesis and in conclusion he writes "It is quite clear that the book’s argument does not support Mearsheimer and Walt’s central contention, that the existence and activities of an Israel lobby are the primary causes of American policy in the Middle East. The claim is supported neither by logic nor evidence nor even a rudimentary understanding of how the American policymaking system works" <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lieberman |first=Robert C. |date=2009 |title=The "Israel Lobby" and American Politics |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/40406928 |journal=Perspectives on Politics |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=235–257 |doi=10.1017/S153759270909077X |issn=1537-5927 |jstor=40406928 |s2cid=146733012|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
[[Ned Walker]], president of the [[Middle East Institute]] and former U.S. ambassador in Egypt and Israel, told [[NPR]]: "I lived through all the history that these gentlemen write about, and I didn't recognize it, not from the way they described it -- and I was in government all this time." <ref name="NPR">[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5353855 Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate], [[Deborah Amos]], [[National Public Radio]], April 21, 2006</ref>
 
====Former government officials====
Other critical organizations and affiliated individuals include the [[Dore Gold]] from the [[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs]],<ref> Dore Gold [http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-20.htm], Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, JERUSALEM ISSUE BRIEF, March 24, 2006.</ref> and [[Neal Sher]] of AIPAC.<ref> Neal M. Sher [http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20067/Recent_Events_Give_Lie_To_Walt%2FMearsheimer_Thesis.html], The Jewish press, December 20, 200</ref>
Former Director of the [[CIA]] [[James Woolsey]] also wrote a strongly negative review, remarking that "... Reading <nowiki>[Walt and Mearsheimer's]</nowiki> version of events is like entering a completely different world." Woolsey contends the authors "are stunningly deceptive", and that a "commitment to distorting the historical record is the one consistent feature of this book", proceeding with a few examples.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Augean Stables » Print » Woolsey on Walt/Mearsheimer:Welcome to Wamworld |url=http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/13/woolsey-on-waltmearsheimerwelcome-to-wamworld/print/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071221120205/http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/13/woolsey-on-waltmearsheimerwelcome-to-wamworld/print/ |archive-date=2007-12-21 |access-date=2009-11-06}}</ref>
 
Former Secretary of State [[Henry Kissinger]] said that the paper has not had "any great impact on the general public. The American public continues to support the relations [between the two countries], and resistance to any threat to the survival of Israel."<ref>{{Cite news |title=Kissinger: US public still committed to Israel |url=https://www.jpost.com/international/kissinger-us-public-still-committed-to-israel |access-date=2020-07-04 |work=The Jerusalem Post &#124; Jpost.com}}</ref>
====Others====
 
====Jewish organizations====
[[United States House of Representatives|Congressman]] [[Eliot L. Engel]] described the authors as "dishonest so-called intellectuals" - he insisted they were "entitled to their stupidity", and had a right to publish it, but also supported "the right of the rest of us to expose them for being the [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semites]] they are."<ref name=Clyne1/>
The [[American Jewish Committee]] (AJC): executive director David A. Harris wrote several responses to the paper and the book. His 2007 article in ''[[The Jerusalem Post]]'' discusses the difficulty Europeans have in understanding America's "special relationship" with Israel and the resulting eagerness of European publishers to fast track the book. "Although the book was panned by most American reviewers, it will serve as red meat for those eager to believe the worst about American decision-making regarding Israel and the Middle East."<ref>{{Cite web |title=In the Trenches: Europeans' America problem |url=http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?blog_post_id%3D1516 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071111073119/http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?blog_post_id=1516 |archive-date=2007-11-11 |access-date=2007-10-03}} Jpost</ref> AJC also published several critiques of the paper, many of which were reproduced in newspapers around the world. AJC's antisemitism expert, [[Kenneth S. Stern|Kenneth Stern]], made the following argument against the paper: "Such a dogmatic approach blinds them from seeing what most Americans do. They seek to destroy the "moral" case for Israel by pointing at alleged Israeli misdeeds, rarely noting the terror and anti-Semitism that predicates Israeli reactions."<ref>[http://ajcblog.org/2007/09/06/when-all-else-fails-the-israel-lobby/ When All Else Fails: The Israel Lobby at ajc wire - blog of the American Jewish Committee<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080723182024/http://ajcblog.org/2007/09/06/when-all-else-fails-the-israel-lobby/ |date=July 23, 2008 }}</ref>
 
The [[Anti-Defamation League]] (ADL): National Director [[Abraham H. Foxman]] wrote a book in response to Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, entitled ''[[The Deadliest Lies|The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control]]''<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and The Myth of Jewish Control<!-- Bot generated title --> |url=http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/deadliest_lies/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130103232049/http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/deadliest_lies/ |archive-date=January 3, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Jewish Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise<!-- Bot generated title --> |url=http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130104000747/http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp |archive-date=January 4, 2013}}</ref> where he allegedly ''"demolishes a number of shibboleths . . . a rebuttal of a pernicious theory about a mythically powerful Jewish lobby."'' <ref>{{Cite book |last=Foxman |first=Abraham H. |title=Amazon.com: The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control (9781403984920): Abraham H. Foxman: Books |date=February 5, 2017 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |isbn=978-1403984920}}</ref> Former [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[George Shultz]] wrote in the Foreword to the book, ''"... the notion. U.S. policy on Israel and Middle East is the result of their influence is simply wrong."''<ref>Forward by [[George Shultz]] in [[The Deadliest Lies]] by [[Abraham H. Foxman]]</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=CNN.com Video |url=http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/09/18/todd.moran.vs.aipac.cnn |access-date=May 25, 2010 |work=CNN}}</ref> The ADL also published an analysis of the paper, describing it as "amateurish and biased critique of [[Israel]], [[American Jews]], and American policy" and a "sloppy diatribe".<ref name="adl">[http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130104000747/http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp |date=January 4, 2013 }}, [[Anti-Defamation League]] Analysis, March 24, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.</ref>
[[United States House of Representatives|Congressman]] [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) dismissed the idea that Israel's supporters control American policy in the Middle East. "Americans are just solid, rock-solid with the people of Israel. It is a democratic nation and a freedom-loving people and a very decent people and they deserve to have a free and secure state."<ref>[http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2006/04/22/news/world/aipac0421.prt]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1969542.stm]</ref>
 
Other critical organizations and affiliated individuals include [[Dore Gold]] from the [[Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs]],<ref>Dore Gold {{Cite web |title=The Basis of the U.S.-Israel Alliance: An Israeli Response to the Mearsheimer-Walt Assault |url=http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-20.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161225202450/http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-20.htm |archive-date=2016-12-25 |access-date=2007-01-08}}, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, JERUSALEM ISSUE BRIEF, March 24, 2006.</ref> and [[Neal Sher]] of AIPAC.<ref>Neal M. Sher [http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/20067/Recent_Events_Give_Lie_To_Walt%2FMearsheimer_Thesis.html]{{dead link|date=December 2016|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}}, The Jewish press, December 20, 200</ref>
[[Madeleine Albright]], [[Secretary of State of the United States]] from 1997 to 2000, acknowledged that the Israel lobby was very strong. She spoke of the resistance she encountered from the lobby over sales of airplanes to Saudi Arabia in 1978, during her tenure on the National Security Council in the Carter administration. However, she found "a genuine problem in some of the things" in the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, and found it "highly overstated". She concluded "So 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.....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." <ref> Council on Foreign Relations, [http://www.cfr.org/publication/10606/mighty_and_the_almighty_rush_transcript_federal_news_service_inc.html], May 1, 2006</ref>
 
====Journalists====
[[Daily Mail]] journalist [[Melanie Phillips]] writing in her own blog called the paper a "particularly ripe example of the [[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion|global Zionist conspiracy]]’ libel". According to Phillips, "The fundamental misrepresentations and distortions in this LRB paper are quite astonishing." For example, she dismisses the paper's assertion that Israeli citizenship "is based on the principle of blood kinship" as "totally untrue" because "Arabs and other non-Jews are Israeli citizens." Contrary to the claim by the paper's authors that critics of Israel stand "a good chance of getting labeled an antisemite", writes Phillips, "they stand instead an excellent chance of being published in the ''[[London Review of Books]]''".
<ref>[[Melanie Phillips|Phillips, Melanie]]. "[http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001643.html The graves of academe]", March 21, 2006. Accessed April 6, 2006.</ref>
 
Those critical of the paper include [[Leslie H. Gelb]] of the ''New York Times'';<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gelb |first=Leslie Howard |date=2007-09-23 |title=Dual Loyalties |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Gelb-t.html |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> [[Caroline Glick]] of ''[[The Jerusalem Post]]'';<ref>Caroline B. Glick, {{Cite web |title=The Jewish threat by Caroline B. Glick |url=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0306/glick032406.php3 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161204014654/http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0306/glick032406.php3 |archive-date=2016-12-04 |access-date=2006-12-31}}, Jewish World Review March 26, 2006</ref> columnist [[Bret Stephens]];<ref>Bret Stephens {{Cite web |title=Log in |url=http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg%3Dwsj-users2%26url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB114325983069308278.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131102221808/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114325983069308278.html |archive-date=2013-11-02 |access-date=2007-01-08}}, The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2006 (username and password needed)</ref><ref>[http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=610 Israpundit » Blog Archive » The Israel Conspiracy<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071109213232/http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=610 |date=November 9, 2007 }}</ref> and editor of ''Jewish Current Issues'' Rick Richman.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The 'Israel Lobby' and Academic Malpractice, Rick Richman |url=http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/17970/The_'Israel_Lobby'_And_Academic_Malpractice.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100608111106/http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/17970/The_%27Israel_Lobby%27_And_Academic_Malpractice.html |archive-date=2010-06-08 |access-date=2007-01-08}}, ''The Jewish Press'', March 29, 2006</ref><ref>{{Cite speech |last=Stephens |first=Bret |event=Chicago Friends of Israel, Israel Week 2006 |___location=University of Chicago, Chicago, IL |date=May 3, 2006 |url=http://israel.uchicago.edu/bret_stephens_speech.pdf |title=Meet the Israel Lobby |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080808115826/http://israel.uchicago.edu/bret_stephens_speech.pdf |archive-date=August 8, 2008}}</ref>
In the blog ''Washington Babylon'' at www.harpers.org, [[Ken Silverstein]], Washington editor of [[Harper's Magazine]], discusses a blog of [[As'ad AbuKhalil]], professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. Silverstein writes:
"AbuKhalil also wrote a fascinating critique of the controversial paper ' The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, ' by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. His analysis pointed out some of the contradictions in the paper—most notably that the authors seemed ' intent on blaming all the ills in U.S. foreign policy on the Israeli lobby. ' "
<ref> Ken Silverstein, [http://harpers.org/sb-a-statue-to-reason-1152745267.html A Statue to Reason], Harper's Magazine website www.harpers.org, July 13, 2006 </ref>
 
[[John Judis]], a senior editor at ''[[The New Republic]]'' and a visiting scholar at the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]], wrote: "I think Walt and Mearsheimer do exaggerate the influence of the Israel lobby and define the lobby in such an inclusive way as to beg the question of its influence."<ref name="judis">{{Cite magazine |last=Judis |first=John |date=February 8, 2007 |title=Split Personality |url=https://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19028&prog=zgp&proj=zusr |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160805100058/http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19028&prog=zgp&proj=zusr |archive-date=August 5, 2016 |magazine=[[The New Republic]] |url-status=live |via=[[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]]}}</ref>
Others critical of the paper include author [[Michael Oren]];<ref>[http://www.aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/PC2007_MichaelOren.pdf Michael Oren piece], from AIPAC.</ref> [[Caroline Glick]] of [[The Jerusalem Post]];<ref> Caroline B. Glick, [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0306/glick032406.php3], Jewish World Review March 26, 2006</ref> columnist [[Bret Stephens]];<ref> Bret Stephens [http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB114325983069308278.html], The Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2006 (username and password needed)</ref> <ref> [http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=610]</ref> editor of ''Jewish Current Issues'' Rick Richman;<ref> [http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/17970/The_'Israel_Lobby'_And_Academic_Malpractice.html], The Jewish Press, March 29, 2006</ref> <ref>[http://israel.uchicago.edu/bret_stephens_speech.pdf Bret Stephens: “Meet the Israel Lobby”], Speech at the University of Chicago May 3, 2006, Delivered to Chicago Friends of Israel, Israel Week 2006 Keynote</ref> and [[James Taranto]] of the [[The Wall Street Journal]];<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008117], The Wall Street Journal, Editorial Page, March 20, 2006</ref>
 
In a review in the ''[[Denver Post]]'', [[Richard Cohen (Washington Post columnist)|Richard Cohen]] writes, "Where Israel is wrong, they say so. But where Israel is right, they are somehow silent. By the time you finish the book, you almost have to wonder why anyone in their right mind could find any reason to admire or like Israel. ... They had an observation worth making and a position worth debating. But their argument is so dry, so one-sided — an Israel lobby that leads America around by the nose — they suggest that not only do they not know Israel, they don't know America, either."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Richard |date=September 12, 2007 |title=Why does America support Israel? |url=http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_6863135 |work=[[Denver Post]]}}</ref>
==Reaction to the reception==
 
====Scholarly reaction to the criticism====
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government removed its [[logo]], more strongly wording its disclaimer and making it more prominent, and insisting the paper reflected only the views of its authors. <ref>Clyne, Meghan. "[http://www.nysun.com/article/29638 A Harvard School Distances Itself from Dean's Paper]", ''[[New York Sun]]'', March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref> <ref>Rosner, Shmuel. "[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/698307.html Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper']", ''[[Haaretz]]'', March 23, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref> <ref>Safian, Alex. "[http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1101 Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper]", [[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]], March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref> The Kennedy School said in a statement: "The only purpose of that removal was to end public confusion; it was not intended, contrary to some interpretations, to send any signal that the school was also 'distancing' itself from one of its senior professors"<ref name=Borger>Borger, Julian. "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1743767,00.html US professors accused of being liars and bigots over essay on pro-Israeli lobby]", ''[[The Guardian]]'', March 31, 2006. Accessed March 31, 2006.</ref> and stated that they are committed to academic freedom, and do not take a position on faculty conclusions and research. <ref>Bhayani, Paras and Friedman, Rebecca. "[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512280 Dean Attacks 'Israel Lobby']", ''[[The Harvard Crimson]]'', March 21, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.</ref>
Harvard's Kennedy School removed its [[logo]] from the version of the Walt and Mearsheimer paper published on its website, and more strongly worded its disclaimer by making it more prominent, while insisting the paper reflected only the views of its authors.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Clyne |first=Meghan |date=March 22, 2006 |title=A Harvard School Distances Itself from Dean's Paper |url=http://www.nysun.com/article/29638 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060410200742/http://www.nysun.com/article/29638 |archive-date=April 10, 2006 |access-date=March 24, 2006 |work=[[New York Sun]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Rosner |first=Shmuel |date=March 23, 2006 |title=Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper' |url=http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/698307.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090529051314/http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/698307.html |archive-date=May 29, 2009 |access-date=March 24, 2006 |work=[[Haaretz]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Safian |first=Alex |date=March 22, 2006 |title=Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper |url=http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1101 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804065520/http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1101 |archive-date=August 4, 2016 |access-date=March 24, 2006 |website=[[Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America]]}}</ref> Harvard Kennedy School said in a statement: "The only purpose of that removal was to end public confusion; it was not intended, contrary to some interpretations, to send any signal that the school was also 'distancing' itself from one of its senior professors"<ref name="Borger">{{Cite news |last=Borger |first=Julian |date=March 31, 2006 |title=US professors accused of being liars and bigots over essay on pro-Israeli lobby |url=https://www.theguardian.com/usa/story/0,,1743767,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130830011503/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/31/usa.internationaleducationnews |archive-date=2013-08-30 |access-date=March 31, 2006 |work=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> and stated that they are committed to academic freedom, and do not take a position on faculty conclusions and research.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Bhayani |first1=Paras |last2=Friedman |first2=Rebecca |date=March 21, 2006 |title=Dean Attacks 'Israel Lobby' |url=http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/3/21/dean-attacks-israel-lobby-in-an/# |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303225832/http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/3/21/dean-attacks-israel-lobby-in-an/%23 |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |access-date=October 10, 2013 |work=[[The Harvard Crimson]]}}</ref> However, in their 79-page rebuttal to the original papers criticisms, former Harvard dean Walt ensures that it was his decision - not Harvard's - to remove the Harvard logo from the on-line Kennedy school version of the original."<ref name="observer.com">{{Cite web |last=Weiss |first=Philip |author-link=Philip Weiss |date=January 9, 2007 |title=Walt and Mearsheimer Rebut (and Humble) Their Critics |url=http://mondoweiss.net/2007/01/walt_and_mearsh.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723123819/http://mondoweiss.net/2007/01/walt_and_mearsh.html |archive-date=July 23, 2014 |website=[[Mondoweiss]]}}</ref>
 
[[Mark Mazower]], a professor of history at [[Columbia University]], wrote that it is not possible to openly debate the topic of the article: "What is striking is less the substance of their argument than the outraged reaction: to all intents and purposes, discussing the US-Israel special relationship still remains taboo in the USU.S. media mainstream. [...] Whatever one thinks of the merits of the piece itself, it would seem all but impossible to have a sensible public discussion in the USU.S. today about the country’scountry's relationship with Israel." <ref name="Mazower">[[Mark{{Cite news |last=Mazower |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Mazower |date=April 3, Mark]]2006 |title=When vigilance undermines freedom of speech |url=http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9640bf82-c338-11da-a381-0000779e2340.html "[|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060408164625/http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9640bf82-c338-11da-a381-0000779e2340.html When|archive-date=April vigilance undermines freedom8, of2006 speech]" , ''|work=[[Financial Times]]'', April 3 2006}}</ref>
 
Criticism of the paper haswas itself been called "moral blackmail" and "bullying" by an opinion piece in the ''[[The Financial Times]]'': "Moral blackmail - theblackmail—the fear that any [[criticism of IsraeliIsrael]]i policy and USU.S. support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - isSemitism—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."<ref name="FTAmericaAndIsrael">{{Cite news |date=April 1, 2006 |title=America and Israel |url=http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8ed824fc-c11b-11da-9419-0000779e2340.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20150506172148/http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8ed824fc-c11b-11da-9419-0000779e2340.html |archive-date=2015-05-06 |work=[[Financial Times]]}}</ref>
<ref name="FTAmericaAndIsrael">[http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8ed824fc-c11b-11da-9419-0000779e2340.html America and Israel], ''The [[Financial Times]]'', April 1, 2006. Copied [http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=135117 here].</ref>
 
==== Mearsheimer and Walt's response to the criticism====
[[Juan Cole]] responded to Alan Dershowitz, disputing Dershowitz's major factual criticisms, charging that Dershowitz "sets up the [[straw man]] that the authors claim that a central "cabal" of "Jews" tightly controls the U.S. press and the U.S. government and prevents them from criticizing Israel" and claiming that Dershowitz is trying to imply that "Mearsheimer and Walt are anti-Semites in the [[Henry Ford#Anti-Semitism and The Dearborn Independent|Henry Ford]]/[[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion|Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] tradition".<ref name="Cole" />
Mearsheimer stated, "[w]e fully recognised that the lobby would retaliate against us" and "[w]e expected the story we told in the piece would apply to us after it was published. We are not surprised that we've come under attack by the lobby."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Mekay |first=Emad |date=March 22, 2006 |title=Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges |url=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32599 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207111214/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32599 |archive-date=February 7, 2012 |access-date=March 26, 2006 |work=[[Inter Press Service News Agency]]}}</ref> He also stated "we expected to be called anti-semites, even though both of us are [[Philo-Semitism|philo-semites]] and strongly support the existence of Israel."<ref name=Borger/>
 
Mearsheimer and Walt responded to their critics in a letter to the ''London Review of Books'' in May 2006.<ref name="MWResponse">{{Cite magazine |last1=Mearsheimer |first1=John J. |last2=Walt |first2=Stephen |date=May 11, 2006 |title=The Israel Lobby |url=http://lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html#1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091001162650/http://lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html#1 |archive-date=October 1, 2009 |department=Letters |magazine=London Review of Books |volume=28 |issue=9}}</ref>
[[Richard Cohen (journalist)|Richard Cohen]] responded in ''[[The Washington Post]]'' to Eliot A. Cohen's prior editorial in the same newspaper, denying that the working paper is anti-Semitic, and calling Eliot Cohen's piece "offensive": "To associate Mearsheimer and Walt with hate groups is rank guilt by association and does not in any way rebut the argument made in their paper on the Israel lobby." Richard Cohen found the paper unremarkable, calling its "basic point" "inarguable", but contends that "Israel's special place in U.S. foreign policy is deserved, in my view, and not entirely the product of lobbying." He also observes that the article is "a bit sloppy and one-sided (nothing here about the [[Arab oil lobby]])".<ref>[[Richard Cohen (journalist)|Cohen, Richard]]
"[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401396.html No, It's Not Anti-Semitic]", ''[[The Washington Post]]'', April 25, 2006. Accessed April 25, 2006.</ref>
 
Syndicated political commentator [[Molly Ivins]] believes that "the sheer disproportion, the vehemence of the attacks on anyone perceived as criticizing Israel that makes them so odious. Mearsheimer and Walt are both widely respected political scientists -- comparing their writing to ''[[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion]]'' is just silly." She herself comments that she finds the arguments of the paper to be "unexceptional" and that "it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past." <ref name="MollyIvins">[[Molly Ivins]], ''[http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/26/ivins.israelilobby/index.html The Israeli lobby]'', [[CNN.com]], April 26, 2006</ref>
 
==== Mearsheimer and Walt's response ====
 
Mearsheimer stated, "[w]e fully recognised that the lobby would retaliate against us" and "[w]e expected the story we told in the piece would apply to us after it was published. We are not surprised that we've come under attack by the lobby." <ref>Mekay, Emad. "[http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32599 Israel Lobby Dictates U.S. Policy, Study Charges]", ''[[Inter Press Service News Agency]]'', March 22, 2006. Accessed March 26, 2006.</ref> He also stated "we expected to be called anti-semites, even though both of us are [[Philo-Semitism|philo-semites]] and strongly support the existence of Israel." <ref name=Borger/>
 
Mearsheimer and Walt responded to their critics in a letter to the ''London Review of Books''.
<ref name="MWResponse">Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. [http://lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html#1 letter] to the ''London Review of Books'', May 11, 2006.</ref>
 
* To the accusation that they "see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy" they refer to their description of the lobby "a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters".
 
* To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark "we also pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America’s standing in the Middle East is so low".
 
* To the complaint that they "'catalogue Israel's moral flaws', while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states", they refer to the "high levels of material and diplomatic support" given by the United States especially to Israel as a reason to focus on it.
 
* To the claim that U.S. support for Israel reflects "genuine support among the American public" they agree, but argue that "this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel’s less savoury actions".
 
* To the claim that there are countervailing forces "such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups... and the diplomatic establishment'", they argue that these are no match for the lobby.
 
* To the argument that oil rather than Israel drives Middle East policy, they claim that the United States would favour the Palestinians instead of Israel, and would not have gone to war in Iraq or be threatening Iran if that were so.
 
* To the accusation that they "see the lobby as a well-organised Jewish conspiracy," they point out that they refer to their description of the lobby "a loose coalition of individuals and organisations without a central headquarters."
* To the accusation of mono-causality, they remark "we also pointed out that support for Israel is hardly the only reason America's standing in the Middle East is so low."
* To the complaint that they "'catalog Israel's moral flaws' while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states," they refer to the "high levels of material and diplomatic support" given by the United States especially to Israel as a reason to focus on it.
* To the claim that U.S. support for Israel reflects "genuine support among the American public" they agree but argue that "this popularity is substantially due to the lobby's success at portraying Israel in a favorable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel's less savory actions."
* To the claim that there are countervailing forces "such as 'paleo-conservatives, Arab and Islamic advocacy groups ... and the diplomatic establishment,'" they argue that these are no match for the lobby.
* To the argument that oil rather than Israel drives Middle East policy, they claim that if that were so, the United States would favor the Palestinians instead of Israel and would not have gone to war in Iraq or be threatening Iran.
*They accuse various critics of smearing them by linking them to racists, and dispute various claims by Alan Dershowitz and others that their facts, references or quotations are mistaken.
 
In December 2006 the authors privately circulated a 79-page rebuttal, "Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Critics of 'The Israel Lobby'".<ref name="observer.com" />
[[Ori Nir]] at [[The Forward]] wrote: "Asked if the study may have been initially rejected by the American publisher because of poor research, Mearsheimer said that the "evidence in the piece is just the tip of the iceberg," and that the study's observations are supported by a large body of evidence."<ref>Ori Nir, [http://www.forward.com/articles/7550 Professor Says American Publisher Turned Him Down] The Forward, March 24, 2006</ref> Speaking at a forum at invitation of the [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]], Walt expresses that the Israel lobby "is not a cabal," that it is "not synonymous with American Jews" and that "there is nothing improper or illegitimate about its activities."<ref>Dana Milbank:[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801178_pf.html Pronouncing Blame on the Israel Lobby], Mearsheimer and Walt speak at a forum at invitation of the [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]] (CAIR), [[Washington Post]], [[August 29]], 2006</ref>
 
In the book published in August 2007 the authors responded to criticisms leveled against them. They claimed that the vast majority of charges leveled against the original article were unfounded, but some critiques raised issues of interpretation and emphasis, which they addressed in the book.{{sfn|Mearsheimer|Walt|2007|p=x}}
In answering a question at [[Georgetown University]] about David Gergen's criticism, Walt noted that Gergen, in his White House days, was primarily involved in public relations and [[spin (public relations)|spin]], not the formation of Middle East policy.
 
== Debate ==
The authors have privately circulated a 79-page rebuttal, "Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Critics of 'The Israel Lobby'" [http://alternet.org/story/35925/], and are working on a book on the subject.<ref>[[Philip Weiss]], [http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2007/01/walt-and-mearsheimer-rebut-and-humble-their-critics.html "Walt and Mearsheimer Rebut (and Humble) Their Critics"], [[January 9]], [[2007]]</ref>
''The London Review of Books'' [https://web.archive.org/web/20061207215602/http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ organised a follow-up debate] on the paper, moderated by [[Anne-Marie Slaughter]], Dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs (formerly known as the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs), also a professor of Politics and International Affairs at [[Princeton University]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ |title=The Israel Lobby: Does it Have Too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy? |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111143336/http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ |archive-date=November 11, 2014 |work=ScribeMedia.org |date=October 11, 2006}}</ref>
 
The panelists were [[John Mearsheimer]]; [[Shlomo Ben-Ami]], former Israeli foreign and security minister and the author of ''Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy''; [[Martin Indyk]], director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, also Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the [[Brookings Institution]]; [[Tony Judt]], professor in European Studies and director of the Remarque Institute at [[New York University]]; [[Rashid Khalidi]], professor of Arab Studies and Director of the Middle East Institute at [[Columbia University]]; and [[Dennis Ross]] of the [[Washington Institute for Near East Policy]] and the author of ''The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace''.
====Response to critics mentioning support by David Duke====
[[David Duke]] "devoted his entire half-hour Internet radio broadcast on March 18 [2006] to the paper."<ref>Clyne, Meghan. [http://www.nysun.com/article/29470 Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean Over Israel], ''[[New York Sun]]'', March 21, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.</ref><ref>Guttman, Nathan. [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395657538&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 'AIPAC study is ignorant propaganda'], ''[[The Jerusalem Post]]'', March 22, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032402147.html Of Israel, Harvard and David Duke], ''[[The Washington Post]]'', March 26, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006.</ref><ref>Radin, Charles A. [http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/03/29/israel_lobby_critique_roils_academe/ 'Israel lobby' critique roils academe], ''[[The Boston Globe]]'', March 29, 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006</ref> On March 21, 2006, Duke praised the paper on [[MSNBC]]'s ''[[Scarborough Country]]'' program.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11959495/ 'Scarborough Country' for March 21], show transcript, ''[[MSNBC]]'', March 21 2006. Accessed March 29, 2006</ref> Duke has stated he is "surprised how excellent [the paper] is" and claimed his views had been "vindicated" by its publication. According to Duke, "the task before us is to wrest control of America's [[foreign policy]] and critical junctures of [[Mass media|media]] from the Jewish extremist [[Neoconservatism|Neocons]]".<ref name=Lake>Lake, Eli. [http://www.nysun.com/article/29380 David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean], ''[[New York Sun]]'', March 20, 2006. Accessed March 28, 2006.</ref> In response, Walt stated "I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world".<ref name=Lake/>
 
A press conference was held after the debate.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/12/israel-lobby-press-conference/ |title=Israel Lobby Press Conference |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131220004724/http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/12/israel-lobby-press-conference/ |archive-date=December 20, 2013 |website=ScribeMedia.org |date=October 12, 2006}}</ref>
[[Mary-Kay Wilmers]], the editor of the ''[[London Review of Books]]'' which published a version of the paper, said: "I don't want David Duke to endorse the article. It makes me feel uncomfortable. But when I re-read the piece, I did not see anything that I felt should not have been said. Maybe it is because I am Jewish, but I think I am very alert to anti-Semitism. And I do not think that criticising US foreign policy, or Israel's way of going about influencing it, is anti-Semitic. I just don't see it."<ref>''[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1744960,00.html Editor hits back over Israel row]'', Peter Beaumont, [[The Observer]], April 2 2006</ref>
 
The work generated fascination and interest in the question of Israel-US relations and other scholars were motivated to address the issue from different perspectives, including those who asserted that the relationship is much too complex to be discussed solely through the prism of the Israeli lobby.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ali Mousavi |first1=Mohammad |last2=Kadkhodaee |first2=Elham |date=2020-08-02 |title=Academic Contact: A Theoretical Approach to Israel Studies in American Universities |url=https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/9318 |journal=Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences |language=en-US |doi=10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4p243 |eissn=2039-2117 |doi-access=free |volume=7 |issue=4}}</ref>
[[Juan Cole]], a historian at the [[University of Michigan]] writing in [[Salon.com]] in support of the paper, characterises the association of the paper with Duke made in the ''[[New York Sun]]'' and elsewhere as "[[guilt by association]]".
<ref name="Cole">Cole, Juan. [http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/18/taboo/ Breaking the silence], ''[[Salon.com]]'', April 19. 2006.</ref>
 
== Debate ==
The London Review of Books [http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ organised a follow-up debate] on the paper, moderated by [[Anne-Marie Slaughter]].<ref>[http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ "The Israel Lobby: Does it Have Too Much Influence on US Foreign Policy?"], ScribeMedia.org, [[October 11]], [[2006]]</ref> The panelists were [[John Mearsheimer]], [[Shlomo Ben-Ami]], [[Martin Indyk]], [[Tony Judt]], [[Rashid Khalidi]], and [[Dennis Ross]].
 
== See also ==
* [[Israel lobby in the United States]]
* [[John Mearsheimer bibliography]]
* [[Arab lobby in the United States]]
*''[[They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby]]''
* [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee]]
* ''[[The CouncilLobby for(TV the Nationalseries)|The InterestLobby]]''
 
== References ==
{{reflist|3}}
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
 
<references/>
== Further reading ==
</div>
* {{Cite book |last1=Mearsheimer |first1=John J. |author-link=John Mearsheimer |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780374177720 |title=The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy |last2=Walt |first2=Stephen |author-link2=Stephen Walt |publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-374-17772-0 |___location=New York}}
 
==External links==
* Alternative link to Mearsheimer and Walt paper hosted at University of Chicago [http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," Harvard Kennedy School of Government Working Paper No. RWP06-011]
*[http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ Video] From London Review of Books Israel Lobby Debate
* Letters to the ''London Review of Books'': [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/letters.html Vol. 28 No. 7], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n08/letters.html Vol. 28 No. 8], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html Vol. 28 No. 9], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/letters.html Vol. 28 No. 10], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n11/letters.html Vol. 28 No. 11], [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n12/letters.html Vol. 28 No. 12]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taXIbXYt6YY The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt] ''Outside the Box Podcast,'' 18 April 2024
* Alternative link to Mearsheimer and Walt paper hosted at University of Chicago [http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0040.pdf "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," Kennedy School of Government Working Paper No. RWP06-011]
*[http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2020/stories/20031010000906000.htm The myth of the "Jewish lobby"] in the ''Frontline'' (India's National Magazine) Volume 20 - Issue 20, September 27 - October 10, 2003.
*[http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein05012006.html It's Not Either/Or The Israel Lobby]
*[http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/cnif/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2678 The FLORA or Foreign Lobby Registration Act], a proposed bill to limit or restrict the influence of foreign governments influence in Washington DC.
*[http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2006/07/walt_mearsheimer.html Grabbing the third rail], Mother Jones interview of Mearsheimer and Walt
*[http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/07/21/news-gbmideastexpert-07-21.html We need to put pressure on Israelis, professor says],Times Herald-Record interviews Mearsheimer
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201627_pf.html A beautiful friendship?], Glenn Frankel at Washingtonpost.com
*[http://www.engageonline.org.uk/archives/index.php?id=17 Some Rebuttals to Mearsheimer & Walt's "Israel Lobby"] published by ''[[Engage (organization)|Engage]]''
*[http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-fairbanks14may14,1,6447050.story?coll=la-news-comment&ctrack=1&cset=true A Hot Paper Muzzles Harvard: controversial "Jewish lobby" paper raises nary a peep on the cowed campus] -- from the LA Times
*[http://wamu.org/programs/dr/06/06/21.php One Hour Radio Interview with Mearsheimer and Walt on NPR's ''The Diane Rehm Show''] -- June 21, 2006
*[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901fabook85549/john-j-mearsheimer-stephen-m-walt/the-israel-lobby-and-u-s-foreign-policy.html Review] by L. Carl Brown, [[Foreign Affairs]], September/October 2006
*[http://alternet.org/story/47148/ Is There A Kosher Way to Criticize the Israel Lobby?] -- from ''[[The American Prospect]]''
*[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060804/republicans_mor.htm Republicans more pro-Israel than Democrats] -- from ''[[U.S. News and World Report]]''
*[http://alternet.org/story/39679/ AIPAC's Dangerous Grip on Washington] -- from ''[[The Nation]]''
*[http://ww4report.com/node/2709 The Israel Lobby & Global Hegemony: The Mearsheimer-Walt Thesis Deconstructed] -- from ''[[World War 4 Report]]''
 
{{John Mearsheimer}}
[[Category:United States-Israeli relations|Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, The]]
{{American Israel Public Affairs Committee}}
[[Category:Working papers|Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, The]]
 
[[de{{DEFAULTSORT:The Israel Lobby andAnd U.S. Foreign Policy]], The}}
[[Category:Books about Israel]]
[[Category:Books about foreign relations of the United States]]
[[Category:Israel–United States relations]]
[[Category:United States–Middle Eastern relations]]
[[Category:Israel-related controversies]]
[[Category:American Israel Public Affairs Committee]]
[[Category:Lobbying in the United States]]
[[Category:Working papers]]
[[Category:Books by John Mearsheimer]]
[[Category:2007 essays]]
[[Category:2007 books]]