Walt & Mearsheimer expand and defend their account of the Israel Lobby
BY ALEX COPULSKY

“The Israel Lobby,” an essay published in the London Review of Books last year, instantly catapulted its authors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, to the status of academic renegades. Mearsheimer and Walt, political scientists at the University of Chicago and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, respectively, argued that a coalition of pro-Israel groups has, to the United States’ own strategic detriment, driven American policy in the Middle East. The ensuing controversy focused mainly on allegations of anti-Semitism rather than the substance of the arguments. A reading of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy will not convince a skeptical reader of the responsibility of “the Lobby” for the ills of the world, but—unintentionally—the book is a fascinating example of the ongoing search for the proper place for Jews in society.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is more a respectable academic work than it is a propagandizing hack-job. The exhaustive annotated bibliography, the heavy reliance on documents that are publicly accessible, and the clear rejection of conspiracy-theory-type talk speak to the basic intellectual integrity of the authors. Despite what some might think, Mearsheimer and Walt have done their homework and are not merely one step removed from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Their argument is laid out coherently, sequentially, and logically, making it easy to trace their findings and conclusions—and to see where they go wrong.

Tarnished Arguments
There are some serious failings in the logic of the book. In making the case that current U.S. policy is not in the best interest of Americans, Mearsheimer and Walt divide their argument into two segments: the strategic case and the moral case. Had the second been left out, the book would have been far stronger and, no doubt, less objectionable. Instead, the authors paint an unsympathetic and grossly exaggerated portrait of the Israeli people. They excuse terrorism as a morally acceptable strategy for the Palestinians. Finally, they dismiss one of the strongest arguments in Israel’s defense—that collateral casualties differ from the purposeful murder of civilians—in a single paragraph. The result is that the authors sometimes come off as disingenuous or—worse—careless.

The carelessness extends beyond sloppy philosophical arguments, for Mearsheimer and Walt neglect the very real question of causality. While they show that the Israel Lobby is tremendously wealthy and wields serious clout in Washington, clout does not always translate into a measurable impact on policy formulation. The authors admit that the American public supports the current stance toward Israel, but they attribute this support to the power and skill of the lobby. The implication is that only through being duped could Americans support the case for Israel that the authors dismiss so confidently in the early chapters of the book. Yet the authors do not refute the possibility that the notably idiosyncratic American polity just disagrees with the rest of the world.

“The Jewish Question”
Following the release of the original article, debate raged over allegations of the authors’ ostensible anti-Semitism. The authors address the controversy in the book and perhaps as a consequence, they preface many passages with disclaimers explaining the difference between their views and those of classic anti-Semitic tracts. Mearsheimer and Walt repeatedly assert their belief in the right of Israel to exist, and in the world’s responsibility to come to Israel’s aid if the nation were in existential peril. It is difficult to precisely define what constitutes “anti-Semitism,” especially when one is discussing the views of two Jews who claim to support Israel at least to some extent.

When considered carefully, in fact, the question of their anti-Semitism becomes almost absurd. This is not to deny that the book has the occasional jaw-dropping moment—for example, a passage in which the authors assert that some Jewish congressional staffers consciously manipulate the elected officials whom they work for into favorable positions toward Israel. In addition, the entire second half of the book, dedicated to providing examples of what the Lobby has wrought, could be interpreted as blaming the Jews for all that is wrong with the Middle East today. But the authors show genuine concern for the future of American and world Jewry. The conflict with their detractors, then, seems to ultimately stem from the fact that they hold an unusual view of the proper place of the Jew in society.

Conceptual Disconnect
The authors, in developing their conception of Jewish identity in America, fuse their case with another thread running throughout the book: the old anti-Semitic canard of “dual loyalty.” Similar to charges once leveled against Catholics, this is the idea that Jews have conflicting loyalties to their sovereign nation and to the Jewish nation and, in a pinch, cannot be counted upon to defend the former. Mearsheimer and Walt, like many Jews, recognize that this has more than a grain of truth to it; America’s and Israel’s interests are not always identical. This is, of course, a trend not unique to Jews, but shared by many “hyphenated-Americans.” But in their disapproval of Jews exerting influence to ensure favorable American-Israeli relations, the authors cut to the deepest beliefs of many American Jews.

The psyche of American Jews is deeply shaped by the trauma of the Holocaust. In this light, the importance of Israel is an understandable manifestation of the belief that the safety of the Jewish people cannot be completely entrusted to any other nation. Mearsheimer and Walt assert that this is a mere deeply-ingrained cultural paranoia, and that the radical anti-Semitism that wishes for the complete elimination of Israel is, for the most part, extinct throughout the world. But this view is, frankly, incomprehensible—even in America. The authors themselves repeatedly mention the UN’s constant condemnation of Israel without once considering possible political reasons for it. Their entire argument is underpinned by the sentiment that hatred for Israel is entirely based on dislike of its policies. This assumption renders the controversy that the book has provoked in the Jewish community to be unsurprising.

The book is a truly thought-provoking one, but probably not for the reasons the authors intended. To opponents of Israel, there is probably nothing new here; to supporters, nothing really convincing. Its real importance is as a significant development in American Jewish thought. What the authors are really calling for, whether they know it or not, is a step away from the legacy of the Holocaust and toward the end of “Jewishness” as a defining political viewpoint. For The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy to be accepted by American Jews would demand a cultural revolution in self-identity that American Jews neither want nor believe it wise to accept.¨ ]]>