The last few decades has witnessed what is perceived to be unconditional support for the state of Israel. This support, which began after the 1967 War, is not wavering and according to two international scholars, sometimes contradicts the best interests of the United States of America. At the center of the controversy over the Israeli lobby are two prominent intellectuals, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. In their article regarding this very topic, Mearsheimer and Walt analyze the issue as to why the United States stubbornly continues to maintain an overwhelming pro-Israeli stance in its foreign policy, even at the expense of American national interests. Walt and Mearsheimer dictate that the Israel Lobby is an important variable in explaining the positions of the United States of America, particularly inside the Middle East.
[...] It is because of the successful work of the Israel lobby that the political elite and even 66% of the American public are pro-Israelis. One example can be that the actual paper could not find an editor within the American boundaries. The Atlantic magazine, who commissioned it in 2002, rejected the article because of poor writing. A fallacious argument according to the authors, they argued that the editors got cold feet after reading it. After looking for another US publisher, they gave up, concluding that the piece could not be published as an article or book in mainstream outlet" in the United States. [...]
[...] They say that we continue to support Israel and its policies in the Occupied Territories, invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, and continue to exert a great deal of pressure on Iran especially because of the influence of the Lobby. They also argue that the Lobby has been very successful in controlling the discourse surrounding Israel and its actions. The strength of the Lobby is one area in which critics have attacked Mearsheimer and Walt. One has to wonder, is the Lobby really as powerful as they claim it is? [...]
[...] It seems that the American choice for backing Israel is based more on a strong historical and even a cultural trend that on the effects of a lobby group. The authors of this paper conclude by consensus on the following points: First, there is agreement in principle with many of the critics that the Israel lobby does not act differently than other large and powerful lobby groups in the United States such as the AARP, NRA or the AFL- CIO. [...]
[...] They also keep the members of their group, and the public in general, well informed on the issues that are important to their organization.” Thus, according to Catholic University, Walt and Mearsheimer's arguments against the Israel Lobby essentially fall flat. Or in other words, the Israel Lobby is simply doing their job in an effective manner. Alan Dershowitz illuminates this position candidly when he contends, “[according to Walt and Mearsheimer's logic], any group that needs a lobby must be working against the ‘American national interest” (See Critiques in LRB). [...]
[...] As for the moral component, Israel does morally qualify as a democracy, but, as Mearsheimer and Walt indicate, it is “deeply flawed” due, in large part, to the discrimination against its Arab citizens and the brutal oppression of the Palestinians, who have long since been under Israeli occupation. Since both strategic and moral considerations do not account for the deeply rooted U.S.-Israeli ties, Mearsheimer and Walt purport that this pro- Israeli position that the U.S. ardently continues to maintain is a result of the “unmatched power of the Israeli Lobby.” After their treatment of the U.S.-Israeli relationship since 1967, Mearsheimer and Walt move into their discussion of the "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee