Seven Questions: The Israel Lobby Revisited

Greg Martin; courtesy of Mearsheimer and WaltReal controversial: Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have taken a lot of heat for their views on what they call the Israel lobby.

FOREIGN POLICY: Its been nearly a year and a half since you first published your piece, The Israel Lobby, in the London Review of Books. What have you learned in that time?

John J. Mearsheimer: The principal lesson Ive learned is that there is a large number of people in the United States who agree with our argument but are afraid to stand up and say so for fear of being personally attacked. I was actually quite surprised by how much correspondence we received from individuals who said that they agreed with us and who said that what we were courageous to write the London Review of Books article. Its also clear from our correspondence and from talking to people across the country that many of them want an open debate on the issues we raised in the article and have expanded on in the book.

Stephen M. Walt: Even people who didnt agree with everything we wrote or in some cases had quite strong disagreements often said that they welcomed open discussion of the subject, that it shouldnt be a taboo, and that one ought to be able to talk about pro-Israel interest groups the same way that we talk about other interest groups in the United States. Watching the Lebanon war of last summer provided another case where the influence of the lobby on U.S. policy undermined Americas position in the region, and was also bad for Israel.

JM: Furthermore, watching what happened to Jimmy Carter after his book was published last year confirmed in large part many of the arguments that we made in the original article about how the lobby reacts when anyone criticizes Israel or the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Carter, who is a fundamentally decent man, a philo-Semite, and a staunch defender of Israels existence, was nevertheless called a Jew hater, accused of being sympathetic to Nazis and terrorists, and accused of plagiarism, all because he wrote a book that was critical of Israeli policy in the occupied territories.

FP: You said in your original article that you wrote it in order to break a taboo about criticizing Israeli policies. At the same time, I hear you saying that people have approached you privately and congratulated you, but it doesnt sound like a lot of people have come forward publicly and defended you.

SW: I dont think thats entirely true. This is a controversial topic, and therefore youre going to get a range of views. But in the past year or so, a number of people wrote quite supportive articles, ranging from Tony Judt, to Michael Massing, to Zbigniew Brzezinski in FOREIGN POLICY. Its still somewhat risky for people who are in the foreign-policy mainstream and want to have careers in high office or wield influence in Washington to publicly embrace some of the points that we made, and several people told us that privately. But we have had public supporters for our position.

JM: When the piece first came out in March of last year, almost all of the responses were negative, though there were a few individuals who stood up to defend us. But as time went by, more and more people stood up and defended our piece, or at least our right to make the argument.

FP: What are the most valid criticisms you have received about the argument you advance in The Israel Lobby, and have you incorporated any of them into your book?

SW: One of the reasons we wrote the book after the article was to clarify our position on a number of points. And some of the places we devoted a lot of effort to in the book were designed to address specific criticisms that people had made. Obviously, there were a lot of ad hominem attacks on us personally, but we didnt try to respond to those. But when people had substantive criticisms about our definition of the lobby or about key events, or about the different ways that groups within the lobby work, we tried to provide additional evidence to support our position, but also to lay out in greater detail exactly what we were saying and what we werent saying.

JM: Any criticism thats neither ad hominem nor misrepresents our argument is valid, in the sense that its legitimate to raise as part of the discussion. We wanted people to engage the article on substantive issues. A large number of people did that, which is all for the good, because we were trying to promote a discussion on Israeli policy and especially on the U.S.-Israeli relationship. We did not write the article thinking that everyone would agree with us. That said, we dont believe any of the criticisms successfully refuted our main claims.

FP: Since a lot of the discussion of your argument has been about whos in the Israel lobby and whos not, can you give a representative example of the arguments and positions of the Israel lobby?

SW: The lobby is a loose coalition of groups and organizations, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that actively work to shape American policy in a pro-Israel direction. Its not a unified movement, so there are different views within different organizations. They dont agree on everything, although they all want to maintain the so-called special relationship between the United States and Israel and to have Israel be treated rather differently than other states. But its not unified; they dont agree on everything. For representative examples of some of the thinking in groups in the lobby on contemporary issues, you can go to the [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] Web site; you can go to the Web site of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; you can read Commentary magazine on Middle East issues, the Weekly Standard, or the Wall Street Journal editorial page. And these would all give you some examples of the more influential parts of the lobby. You would also want to take a look at what Christian Zionist groups like Christians United for Israel have to say, because thats another important strand of the pro-Israel community. But again, I want to emphasize: Theres a range of views among these groups, and its not a hierarchical organization with a central leadership that gives all the orders.

JM: If I can add just one footnote to what Steve said: I think its important to look at Leon Uriss famous book, Exodus, which lays out the lobbys basic understanding of the history of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and forms the basis of the moral case that underpins the claim that the United States should support Israel unconditionally. Anyone who wants to get a good feel for the difference between the lobbys views on that history and our views (and the views of many critics of Israeli policy) should read Benny Morriss book, Righteous Victims, side by side with Exodus.

FP: What about politicians? Are there particular parts of the political world that are more likely to be beholden to the Israel lobby?

SW: All politicians are sensitive to interest groups, whether its the farm lobby, or drug companies, or energy companies, or the National Rifle Association. Clearly, groups like the Israel lobby tend to exert their most profound influence on Capitol Hill, but they also wield considerable influencelike other special interest groupsover the executive branch. This is not to say that any of these organizations control U.S. policy, just that they exert a very powerful influence on it. And one of the ways you see that is in the presidential campaign thats currently going on. American Middle East policy is clearly in trouble, and you would expect presidential candidates to be discussing and debating what ought to be done on a wide range of Middle East issues. But when it comes to Israel, all you get from presidential candidates is a competition for who can demonstrate the greatest devotion to Israel and willingness to back it almost unconditionally.

JM: A reasonably large number of politicians in Washington dont need the lobby to convince them to strongly support Israel; theyre true believers to begin with. Theyre deeply committed to Israel, and they believe that Israels interests and Americas interests are identical. In other words, whats good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa.

FP: Youve argued that the United States ought to deal with [Israel] much as it deals with any other country. Do you think Americans would accept it if the U.S. government treated Israel as it treats, say, Thailand?

SW: Yes. I think the American people, broadly speaking, would like the United States to deal with Israel as it deals with other countries. And by that we mean that if some other countryto include Israelis doing things that are consistent with American interests, we should support it. We strongly believe in Israels right to exist, and we think that the United States should come to Israels aid if its survival is ever in jeopardy. But by the same logic, if Israel or any other country in the world is taking actions that are harmful to American interests, then we should obviously oppose that and do what we can to persuade them to change their behavior. Thats how we would treat Thailand if it did something we didnt like; thats how we would treat France or Britain or Japan or China or Pakistanyou name it.

FP: Obviously, when people write books, they hope theyll have an impact in the real world. (JM: You dont know some of our colleagues.) Whats an example of a policy change by the U.S. government that would indicate your book has had a positive impact?

JM: If the United States behaved in a more even-handed way toward the Palestinians and the Israelis. Specifically, if we told the Israelis that it had to get out of the occupied territories, and then we pushed hard for a viable Palestinian state. If all of that happened, and our book played some role in causing it, I would say we had a positive impact.

SW: I would also say that if one began to see a more active public discussion of American policy in the Middle Eastmore people in Washington openly debating the merits of unconditional support for Israel, and whether the United States ought to have a more flexible policythat would be a sign that we were having an impact.

JM: We believe that open debate on critical foreign-policy issues, especially this issue, is good for the United States and good for Israel. Stifling debate does no good for anyone.

John J. Mearsheimer is professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Stephen M. Walt is professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. They are coauthors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2007).

For other timely interviews with leading world figures and expert analysts, visit FP’s complete Seven Questions Archive.