Whatever the merits of their scholarship, it does make one wonder about the ability of intense minorities to bend the foreign policy of a democratic state. When the vast majority of people in a nation are not particularly interested in a given issue, those that are tend to dominate the policy-making. This seems patently clear in the case of U.S.-Cuba relations, why is it so implausible in the case of U.S.-Israeli relations? It's certainly not a conspiracy, nor is it even necessarily a problem. But isn't worth recognizing that one flaw of democratic social choice might just be the warping of foreign policies based on the organizational and financial capacities of lobbying groups? By god, that's what we theorize for every other policy set by Congress, no?

I understand that this is a sensitive and emotional issue for both American jews and American fundamentalist Christians. But it doesn't seem to me to be much more than basic, traditional political science: those who are well organized and well financed will be better equipped to exert influence in Washington, cetaris parabis. Pro-Israeli lobbies are better organized and better financed than virtually any other foreign lobby. Is it a surpise that U.S. policy favors them? It shouldn't be.

Part of the response, of course, is that policies that have broad-based public support to begin with tend to end up with well organized and well financed lobbies. This is certainly part of the picture: hey, Israel is popular in America! But it's also true that organizing a lobby tends to magnify this support beyond it's true level. Otherwise, why organize? It's a comparative advantage. And it's obviously true of the pro-Israel lobby. To deny this is to reduce your credibility quite far.

I guess what bothers me is that whenever crackpots publish articles like this, the people who rush to Israel's defense tend to exhibit some of the same blinders and emotional values of the crackpots.

Just my $.02

matt

I am not an Israel scholar, and I don't know if these authors' methodology is valid or not. I do believe, however, that Bernstein is being a little disingenuous in implying that just because these authors are being criticized by a wide variety of blogs and other sources, that means that there is no attempt afoot to suppress these authors' ideas.

Just why, after all, has this paper received such heavy, sustained, immediate criticism? Surely there are papers published all the time with faulty conclusions, faulty analysis, and faulty methodologies. Yet a good chunk of the blogosphere does not come crashing down on them. It's perfectly clear-- and this is clear even if we assume that the critics are completely right and the paper is a piece of junk-- that a lot of people who care a lot about Israel and its special relationship with the US mobilized to intensely scrutinize, and criticize, this paper. I don't know if this was a "top down" phenomenon (i.e., "the lobby"); it could have also been an organic grass-roots effort by many pro-Israel bloggers. But I would assume there were plenty of e-mails that encouraged this activity, including, yes, e-mails from pro-Israel lobbying organizations. I would certainly expect Bernstein and others to deny that this occurred if it actually did not occur.

Bernstein is on much more solid ground when he says this is not "retaliation". Unless and until we see evidence that these professors' livelihoods or scholarly standing, rather than their paper, is targeted, that term is a gross overstatement as to what has happened. And I should make it clear-- I have no objection to widespread condemnation of an academic paper; this activity is fully protected by our First Amendment and well should be; moreover, such protection should not be dependent on whether or not the speech is coordinated and encouraged or rises up from the grass roots.

But I think one more thing needs to be said on the merits of this. There is a certain element of "they doth protest too much" here. That the desire to protect Israel has some influence on American foreign policy is undeniable. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. Israel is a democracy in a sea of dictatorships in the Middle East, and a country that reflects our values a lot better than many other nations in the region (Israel, to take one example, doesn't execute people for converting to Christianity). Israel is also a steadfast ally.

But when those who care deeply about Israel's existence react so virulently to even the mere suggestion that perhaps Israel has a lot of influence on American foreign policy, or that some prominent foreign policy thinkers are weighing Israel's interests and not only American interests in formulating their policy preferences. If all suggestions that considerations about Israel is playing role in policymaking are shot down so quickly and vocally, it feeds exactly the perception that Bernstein and others should be afraid of, i.e., the old anti-Semitic "dual loyalties" canard that American Jews are looking out for Israel at the expense of America.

Whatever the merits of this particular study, a little honesty that some folks, including some neoconservatives, do care deeply about Israel and may sometimes be influenced by that fact in formulating policy, and that concerns about Israel have some currency in Washington when these issues are being debated, might blunt the force of the conspiracy theorists.

P.S. I should have made it clear that I discovered the paper via an article in Ha'aretz, and no one from any lobbying or other organized group emailed me or otherwise suggested that I take on the paper. I presume this is true of the vast majority of the paper's critics.

The only thing that astonishes me about this is that the utter incompetence and rot that is accepted in lieu of scholarship at Harvard (and Yale and Columbia) seem to finally being getting out before the public eye. I taught for over twelve years at Harvard, which in reality bears no relation to the reputation the place has built up over the centuries. There is nothing unusual about the utter intellectual incompetence shown in this paper: Stephen Walt, [intemperate criticism deleted--ed.]

I'm tired of hanging out in the Lobby.

When do I get my room?

"Countless facts are simply wrong." Please. If the allegations are facts, they cannot be wrong. If the allegations are false, they cannot be facts.

Stephen Walt, like very many faculty members at Harvard, is openly incapable of genuine scholarship.

What are the defects in the scholarship of The Origins of Alliances and Revolution and War? They continue to be highly regarded and used in poli sci / international relations courses.

I don't think either Walt or Mearsheimer start from an anti-Semitic viewpoint. They are both leading hard core realists who believe that ideology, morality and domestic politics do not (or should not - they are not clear on this point) influence a state's foreign policy. Instead they think states should seek to maximize power and minimize foreign opposition. Thus when they see what they view as a US foreign policy that is off course - both promoting democracy and a growing resistance to US power – they look the source of this deviation from the ideal foreign policy. Thus the focus on the Israeli lobby and neo-conservatives who they view as being successful in deflecting US foreign policy rather than oil interests or the Arab lobby who have not. The effect of ‘blaming the Jews for all our troubles” may be anti-Semitic but I am not sure the intent was.

That said their work highlights the dismal state of realism and IR theory in general. Walt’s work on Middle Eastern alliances (Origins of Alliances) is a superficial exercise in picking facts to fit theory utterly devoid of any nuance or context. Mearsheimer (Tragedy of Great Power Politics) is an entertaining read but a theory at such a high level of abstraction that any behavior thing can be said to match its predictions and nothing to falsify it – besides which it elides the while point of whether realism describes the world we live or serves as a guide to a successful foreign policy (or both or neither).

Kevin

I guess I haven't read any entirely convincing refutations of the authors' specific factual assertions, just attacks on their scholarship for relying on newspaper quotes, and attacks on the inferences they draw from these factual assertions, and for omitting certain facts. For example,

is it true that Israel receives more aid than any other country, gets it all at once (unique to Israel), and has fewer strings attached to its aid than any other country?

is it true that highlevel architects of the Iraq war (in the Pentagon) such as Feith, and Wolfowitz, openly supported the Likud and indeed worked for the Likud party in the early 1990s?

For those who say that "yes, but Bush was committed to going to war against Hussein before the neocons convinced him?" I say: Read Woodward's book on the Bush. Wolfowitz urged an attack on Iraq within 2 or 3 days of 9/11. Bush essentially told him no, but keep suggesting such ideas.

Of course, my own view is that the truth is more complicated. Yes AIPAC has huge influence on Congress, and yes, some in Israel wanted the US to take out Saddam (many were opposed as they worried about the consequences of such a war). And yes, some in the Christian right and in the neocon movement formed an alliance in urging the war, as a first step in transforming the middle east. I think the war was more of a result of people with the same ideas forming alliances than because of the Israel Lobby. Also, Bush himself I think wanted to "finish the job" that he felt his father had left undone. And, because Bush is an evangelical Christian (whereas Poppy was not) I think he is more influenced by the Christian fundamentalists' views about Israel.

The Israel gets more aid than anyone is something of a canard, because this aid, for the most part, originated as a bribe to Israel to withdraw from the very valuable (strategically and in terms of oil assets) Sinai Peninsula, and sign the Camp David agreements. No aid, no Camp David, which was seen as very much in the American interest. And Egypt gets almost as much as Israel, despite being a corrupt dictatorship.

First, you make the mistake of equating "discussing" with Bush participating in the discussion by offering his views. As I recall, Woodward's book makes the point that Bush didn't offer his views. But Bush's advisors of course talked to him about Iraq and their view about the need for and consequences of military action (see Powell's often repeated "Pottery Barn" rule--which ironically Pottery Barn denies having).

Of course, the real key person in the decision to go to war was not Wolfie, but Dick Cheney. He changed his mind, broke with Scowcroft and James Baker and Poppy Bush, and decided Saddam had to be removed. I think he drank the Kool Aid offered by Perle and Wolfowitz, believing that the war could be over quickly, we would be welcomed as liberators, etc. (I don't believe Cheney is a true neo-con; he thinks humans are innately evil, brutish and violent, which is contrary to the neo-cons utopian views about "spreading" democracy).
Once Cheney was on board, he worked on Bush, and the die was cast.

One reason that Israel gets such strong support from outside of the Jewish and Evangelical Christian groups is the perception that Israel is mostly fighting the battles of the US and the West. They face people on a daily basis who say "Death to America, Death to Israel", but who can only easily attack Israel. So from there people who believe in an aggressive foreign policy can come to support Israel very, very strongly.

As to the Likudnik smear: Likud, broadly, represents the right in Israeli politics. For those that believe in the benefits of free markets, limited government, etc, Likud fits into the mold of the type of party to support, within the limitations that domestic politics is very hard to translate across international boundaries. Just as Labour attracts the support of those who want social markets... Throwing out "Likud" tends to be operationally anti-semitic as well as a taunt that only applies to those on the right. People who tend to support the Democrats also tend to help out Labour (see Clinton's team's assistance to Barak's election, and the lack of any serious criticism of the people involved) but don't have people tossing barbs at them, regardless of their preferred security actions for Israel, America and others. I find it highly interesting that it is suspect to support Likud but not to support Labour. It appears to me that this trades on the distaste for Likud amongst those of questionable philo-semitism (especially those on the Left) and their belief in unmentionable conspiracies without appearing to get the speaker involved in that.

Personally I'm a traditional Likudnik 2x over (haven't been able to keep up with Kadima developments thanks to professional life), supporting those in the party that push for more market economics, as well as supporting an aggressive and muscular approach to security issues. Just as in any country, the politics on the ground are highly complex, but in broad application this position is better represented in both instances by major groups within Likud than it is by groups within Labour (especially with its current leader).

As to subsidies: we should end ALL foreign aid. We should also be offering very favourable terms to Israel on CNVs, SSBNs, B2s, etc provided a permanent guarantee not to sell any materiel or technology to China. But then talking to very hardline people on foreign policy and subsidy issues doesn't usually provide you with the rhetorical advantage that you expect, as we're not realists and have no desire to uphold realist projects like subsidies to disgusting governments.

Why not a "Canada Lobby," a "Britain Lobby," and "Germany Lobby?" The very name "Israel lobby" strikes me as a ghastly throwback and makes the user sound like a bigot.

I personally disagree with a lot of American policy toward Israel, especially in the realm of foreign aid. However the charge that Israel has some sort of special hold on our politicians disgusts me. That policies you don’t like have become and remained national policies, strikes me as a normal part of living in a democracy. The last I checked we have free elections and if you don’t like what elected officials do you can ask them to change or support candidates who have a different view.

For those who don't understand the State/Arabist connection - there is a well known pattern of diplomats enjoying extremely lucrative post-retirement employment with Arab governments and their proxies. The House of Saud is particularly adept at this manuever. Its not a matter of "biting the hand that feeds you" - rather, its "biting the hand the will feed you".

I'm not sure if this pattern (and its not isolated - its widespread) explains State arabism - correlation is not causation - but if we are going to use "likudnik" smears, well, lets not deny the State connection.


As far as Israel's aid - A huge amount of this aid is funneled back to US defense contractors as a backdoor subsidy to our existing defense budget. They tend to purchase military hardware/systems that decrease the per unit cost of the stuff we buy, since a large portion of the total cost of systems is R&D. Some of the money goes into the Israeli R&D industry as (basically) venture capital money, to develop stuff like drone technology.

I'm for ending pretty much all foriegn aid, but lets be fair to Israel about this - reducing aid to them would cause a pretty big blip in our weapons acquisition budget. Same with the Egyptians - they buy lots of Abrams talks, for example.

Well, Bemused, I guess that makes every Jew who has ever written consistently in favor of Israel part of the "Israel Lobby." Living out here in the middle of the country in upstate New York, on the mailing lists of no national Jewish or Israeli organizations, and never having been asked to offer my opinion on Israeli anyone in power, this comes as a shock and surprise to me. After all, those are Taranto's two qualifications: he's apparently Jewish and he writes consistently pro-Israel work.

The sure sign of a conspiracy theory is constantly stretching the theory to accommodate apparently contradictory pieces of data. Congrats Bemused.

Bemused,

So Taranto is part of the "Israel Lobby," because he is a pro-Israel columnist, and he is Jewish? The key aspect of defining the word "lobby" is that its members are organized, acting presumably on some marching orders issued from above. Taranto gets his marching orders from the WSJ, not AIPAC. Are you suggesting that AIPAC controls WSJ (and presumably Dow Jones too)? Or that any pro-Israel figure can be summarily lumped into the "Israel Lobby?"

In case this is difficult for you, let me offer an example. I'm Jewish, and I support Israel, by which I mean that when arguments ensue, I speak out in its support. I am not in any way associated with AIPAC. According to your definition, I'm a member of the Israel lobby.

There is a word for people who think that all Jews are inter-connected parts of the same body, the left hand always knowing what the right hand is doing, and vice versa...

David,

Why do you act so shocked they would behave like this. the essential theory behind their paper is this: that the moral and strategic arguments are so clearly against Isreal that there can be no other reason to support Isreal, but the conspiracy of jews. What a completely arrogant theory! To claim that your argument is so utterly ironclad no person can have honest disagreement with them. How utterly arrogant.

Of course there are some questions that are nearly that one-sided. The evil of the Nazis, for instance, or totalitarianism in general. But who would be fool enough to think isreal falls into the same category?

So now you challenge that premise, and other elements to the methodology of the study, and they think their work is so clearly right, that no one can simply have an honest disagreement with them. You really shouldn't be so shocked; its the same fundamental arrogance that infects the whole piece.

This is not to say i am a hopeless moral relativist. I believe that right and wrong is absolute. But I am sensible enough to recognize that people's ability to recognize right and wrong is not absolute.

There are a lot of 'Bemused's in this world, sadly.

Taranto of the WSJ tries to smear and destroy the careers of anybody who puts America's interests ahead of Israel's. Note how he brought up three days in a row that David Duke had praised Mearsheimer and Walt's study. What a sad, sad tactic! But also a very effective one, as Mearsheimer and Walt noted:

"No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

"What strikes me most about the article is the lack of any real research in it. It reads like a long newspaper editorial rather than a scholarly article, never even investigating such obvious questions as how is such a small group so disprortionately effective, why haven't other lobbying groups copied their tactics,"

The authors are simply saying publicly what many say privately. Most people won't say it publicly for fear of abuse. As senior, tenured, academics, they were in a position to say it out loud.

I suspect that part of the timing relates the AIPAC spying scandal.

Anyway, for this purpose, there is no need for them to do some kind of path breaking research.

In my opinion, there are plenty of lobbies in the U.S. that are very effective.

Most Americans are somewhat sympathetic to farmers, and farmers love government money. The result has generally been that government makes most Americans pay more for agricultural products and pay higher taxes to boot. Most American voters don't really know that it is going on.

Good relations with oil producing nations is plausibly related to America's national interest. In fact, ignorant merchantilist ideology, which plays an important part in many bad policies, suggest that political alliance with producers of important commodities is essential. Personally, I don't think the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia or the gulf states (which date from the thirties) are wise or should be maintained. But they fit in the foreign policy activities of the typical state since the beginning of the modern period and the development of merchantilism. And, of course, business interests, especially oil related ones, influence this policy.

What does Israel provide the U.S.? It isn't oil.

By the way, there is no doubt that the U.S. relationships with Cuba is at least partly explained like the U.S. relationship with Israel. Though there is a clear difference in that Israel is far away and Cuba is near. (So the "satelites on the borders" is an alternative.)

As for Japan and Europe--come on! The U.S. defended them from the Soviet Union. This was in our national interest becaue they were so wealthy and powerful. We could let Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia dominate such important powers. (Or so would be the thought.) Israel? So what if that speck of land is dominated by some anti-U.S. regime?

For DG and David:

I'm curious. Would a State Dept. officer with deep experience in, say, Latin America be appropriately assigned to the NEA Bureau?

As one of those "State Dept. Arabists" myself (though now retired), I'd consider it the height of hubris to start suggesting what US policy should be toward Argentina or Colombia. I'd be resentful of someone with expertise in the EU or China directing policy in the Middle East.

What might be a more profitable line of enquiry would be to look at the cross fertilization between State officers assigned to both the Arab and Israeli parts of NEA. How many diplomats assigned at one point to Tel Aviv have gone on to be assigned in, say, Damascus; and vice versa, of course.

As far as "lucrative post-retirment employment" goes... Are you kidding? There are perhaps a half-dozen who have gotten jobs with oil companies or lobbies. Most--including those most maligned by the media--work in think-tanks with salaries hovering around the $100K mark. While that's not shoddy, it sure doesn't meet my definition of "lucrative." On a blog by lawyers, I think this would be seen as not so great, in fact. Even for an academic, $100K isn't astonishing.

The quip also fails to differentiate the few former diplomats who hold salaried positions from the considerably larger number of unpaid "fellows" who share the goals of the organization and believe that there's another side of the issues that doesn't get publicized much.

Okay, you don't care for the fact that Arab governments donate to these organizations. That's certainly defensible. But who, then, should donate? Will Belgium fund an American think tank focused on Arab affairs, or, perhaps Korea, or Peru? Calling a source of funding out of bounds, prima facie, means the fiscal starvation of unpopular viewpoints. Is that what's intended here?

I write a regular blog about Saudi Arabia, Crossroad Arabia. I don't get paid to do it, nor do I get a cent from any outside source. I'd love to get funding from a source that finds my viewpoint worth supporting! But I don't dare because as soon as I did, certain people out there would instantly conclude that I'm just pimping. I'm lucky, I guess, that I can afford to do my blogging out-of-pocket. But with a son in university, I sure wouldn't object to extra income.

Why is this kind of support tainted if it comes from Arabs, but not from other governments? You guys aren't slagging the Alliance Francaise for its funding of exchanges or cultural programs? Why is it okay for the Israeli government to offer support to exchange programs, but improper for the Arab governments to do so?

I do see a considerable double-standard at play here.

These guys are playing a classic rhetorical game.

Step 1: Pick a commonly used term, like "Lobby" that most people have heard/used more of their lives and, therefore, has a deep meaning.

Step 2: Redefine the term to mean something different than it's normal meaning knowing full well that the deeper meaning in the minds of readers/listeners will remain unchanged.

Step 3: Proceed to use language such as to clearly imply the old connotation while maintaining plausible deniability.

So I can redefine "asshole" to mean "great guy", write 50 pages on what an "asshole" someone is, and then act offended when he gets angry at me for calling him that ("Dude, I was CLEARLY saying that you were a Gret Guy").

I'll admit to a bias here: I had Mearsheimer and Walt as professors when I was at U of C, and I consider the idea that either of them is anti-Semitic to be ludicrous. I know Mearsheimer better than Walt, though.

The criticisms of Merasheimer and Walt's paper have been rather over the top, such as this Sun Times editorial which, as near as I can tell, was written by someone who has not read the original article. (Compare a different view expressed in Haaretz.)

The claim that Mearsheimer is an Israel hater (advanced in this blog by David Bernstein) is simply false. He used to cite Israel as an example of his argument that democracies fight better than dictatorships, and he made many comments which indicated his admiration for Israel's military prowess and Israel in general.

Explain why your critics are wrong! (If you can!)

I've seen very few criticisms that aren't simply ad hominem attacks. (One exception came on this blog, by Daniel Bernstein, although I think you could argue the point he makes.)

I'd certainly like it if critics like Daniel Drezner mentioned that they know Mearsheimer. (He fails to mention it here.)

Are Mearsheimer and Walt wrong when they talk about Israeli espionage in the US?

My name? Forget it-I don't want to be subjected to what Mearsheimer and Walt are going through.

I wonder how quickly this comment will be purged.

The two professors have defined the pro-Israel "Lobby" so broadly as to include a majority of the American voting public. How that squares with their claim to be "realists" is beyond me. If anything, it demonstrates their willingness to ignore reality in favor of their preconceived beliefs.

"Living out here in the middle of the country in upstate New York..."

Yo Horwitz, got an atlas?

I think this piece at Al-Ahram is a more insightful response to the article in question.

I'm not terribly impressed by Bernstein's latest on this, either, since he's citing Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky, neither of whom do much actual refuting.

Bernstein is now nice enough to declare that Walt and Mearsheimer are not anti-Semites. (He earlier called Mearsheimer a long-time Israel hater.)

Something else I find significant in that last link:

And Rosner, like me, doesn't have the time and energy for a full-scale Fisking: "But let us not start arguing about every little detail in this paper. It will take a long time, and it will be a waste of time, as it is clear that the writers are not here to be convinced that they're wrong."

No one seems to have time to refute it point by point. (I've lost a lot of respect for Daniel Drezner in particular.) Instead, they launch ad hominem attacks, makes appeals to authority..heck, the whole range of logical fallacies has been deployed.