Over the years I've always been able to count on The Nation to provide thoughtful and well-articulated challenges to the bias that pervades the mainstream media, whether it's Fox News or the New York Times. For that reason, when I came across Daniel Lazare's review of Mearsheimer and Walt's book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, I fully anticipated at least some counterbalance to the nearly universal abuse already leveled at the authors from other sources. Unfortunately, what I found was only marginally more benign echoes of that abuse. In fact, if anything, the tone and content of Lazare's review is only likely to feed the perception that fear of Israeli advocacy groups is now so pervasive that it has even compromised the journalistic integrity of one of the most reliable investigative journals we have.

Since I feel that so few of Lazare's criticisms are valid, it doesn't surprise me that, after characterizing the book as "a mess," he feels obligated to reassure readers--mostly begrudgingly--of the evidence that supports the book's basic premise. As to his broad claim that the book goes beyond raising legitimate issues and unduly demonizes Israel's advocates, I feel that the detailed evidence--much of it uncited by Lazare--in the book is itself more than adequate to challenge his convictions. I'd like, therefore, to comment only on what I consider to be warning signs of bias associated with Lazare's obvious hostility to the book.

Let's start with his opening broadside that the authors' "paradigm" is self-contradictory in characterizing pro-Israeli advocates alternately as a "lobby" and an already entrenched interest ("committee of the whole," as he puts it). I'm still struggling to understand how this seemingly contrived logical technicality in any way refutes the claim that Israel exerts undue influence in our public policy.

In citing Elliott Abram's "dual loyalty" as a token example of the book's "superficial plausibility," Lazare does not go beyond characterizing Abrams simply as "an adviser to Condoleezza Rice." Missing in this profile, however, is Abram's far reaching role in our government, stretching from the 1980s dirty war in Latin America to the most recent efforts to sabotage the very same Condoleezza Rice's already anemic role in the Middle East peace process.

In sharing company with such credible observers as Noam Chomsky, Lazare certainly has every right to defend the position that oil interests were more important than the "lobby" in driving the US invasion of Iraq. But even here his reasoning leaves a trail of misleading claims. For example, to say that the "US did not mind" when Saddam Hussein used his weaponry to attack Iran in 1980 seems a devious understatement, considering that the US not only helped arm Iraq (including supplying biological weapons) but also actively encouraged and even participated in Iraq's war against Iran.

Citing Chomsky, Lazare remarks that had Iraq not been an oil producer but a pickle exporter in the middle of the Indian Ocean, Iraq would never have come into America's line of fire. One interpretation of this observation is simply that, had Iraq not had sufficient revenue sources--whether from oil, pickles, or truffles--to fund its military power, it would not have been perceived as a threat by either the United States or Israel. Again, I'm not sure how this self-evident statement in itself refutes the book's central thesis.

Further, to fault the book for its "failure to consider what would have happened had the invasion [of Iraq] gone according to plan" is head-spinning. Clearly, the invasion initially did go according to plan, in that it destroyed Saddam's military defenses. Given the obvious circumstances in Iraq, however, the thought that the occupation could have gone "according to plan" is somewhat like imagining what would have happened if the metal balls Galileo dropped from the Leaning Tower of Pisa had suddenly flown into space.

Finally, invoking Alan Greenspan as an authority to seal an argument is reminiscent of a debate I saw on CSPAN in which Alan Dershowitz, when challenged by Noam Chomsky about the source of a dubious claim Dershowitz had just made about the Camp David II peace talks, impatiently retorted, "Well, Clinton told me!" That was the one remark in the debate that united the otherwise diverse audience in laughter.

Arthur Spencer

Columbia, MD

Mearsheimer's partner, Stephen Walt, covered the other lobby groups, along with Israel, in his book Taming American Power. They have not been neglected. This book is a good start in looking at the Israeli Lobby, and I am particularly fascinated by their account of the money wasted on military aid packages. I was reading in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz today where Barak and another contributor were hyping an upgrade of the Arrow Missile Defense System that would stop 90 percent of Iranian missiles that would reply to a pre-emptive strike by Israel or the US. I questioned the 90 percent figure in the comments, and thought that 10 percent might seriously damage Israel. The money would be better spent on shelters for the rocket attacks they are now facing, and any idiocy perpetrated against Syria or Iran. It looks like many Israeli leaders have been bought by the military/industrial complex.

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

The proximate cause of the silencing of opposition to Israeli interests in US media is the Jewish lobby. The selective censure by the ADL of Move On for allegedly trivializing use of Hitler and Holocaust rhetoric while effectively granting license for these rhetorical comparisons by Fox News in support of Israeli interests has been the topic of recent writing by Glenn Greenwald.

The ultimate cause, however, of this silencing is in the interest of Western expansion into the East for purposes of exploitation of resources. The accusation by Walt and Mearsheimer of US participation in illegal wars in such conservative institutions as the University of Chicago would not be well received in this era of Patriotic Correctness. Perhaps they did not feel adequate to the task of simultaneously presenting an objective appraisal of both US foreign policy and the Jewish lobby at the same time. Such objectivity would risk marginalizing themselves to a greater degree than they already have and thereby precluding the possibility of any public discourse on these issues at all. I find it difficult to defend or attack a partial effort when any effort runs the risk of personal devastation without any meaningful progress at all. See Finkelstein.

The Jewish lobby becomes more apparently credible as a threat to US sovereignty when the amount of money contributed to US supporters of Israeli causes is considered as evidence of power and control of US foreign policy. I agree with the position of Lazare that the US would be involved in Middle East conflicts with or without Israeli support. Keep in mind the peculiar form of American "democracy" where policy is separate from politics.

I do not find the enthusiastic support provided by the Jewish lobby is evidence of the effectiveness of their control of US foreign policy. I am reminded of the enthusiastic support that Tom Sawyer received in selling the opportunity to paint a picket fence. The wily Tom Sawyer collected money for a job he would have paid to have done under other circumstances. The Israelis are cast as wily manipulators of US foreign policy. I am inclined to see the US as the wily manipulator of the Israelis, à la Tom Sawyer. Dick Cheney sees an attack on Iran by Israel, and Iran's devastating counterattack on Israel, as an acceptable cost to justify a US attack on Iran.

The Israeli state was created with the support of wily anti-Semitic Western European states who were happy to assuage their guilt (felt or not) by granting territory, not of their own states but that of another hated group, the Islamic Middle Eastern people. This "gift" of support was granted at a time when European Jews were most vulnerable after the atrocities inflicted upon them by Western European anti-Semites.

Israel remains today as a vulnerable outpost of Western expansion into the Middle East. And those in the occupied territories remain vulnerable to the Israelis.

Glenn Fritz

Park Ridge, IL

It is a hard row to hoe: dynamiting away tons of myth to reveal ounces of truth, without burying some in the process. It is a long and disdainful review, you must dig for the bright spots if you are hungry to see an end to the manipulation of our government's Mideast (and other) policies by Zionists. So, I am glad the Mearsheimer work was, in the end, approved of.

The author adds significantly to the "pro-Israel community" (not "lobby") tale even as he criticizes, and any publicity is good if they spell the name right, right? One thing that I found rather ridiculous is that searching for the word "money" in this article returns no results--that's a surprise for this subject!

Chris Kent

Rye, NH

While many Americans are very supportive of Israel, when they see how Israel hampers the cause of peace by settlement policies in the West Bank and other activities, they tell pollsters that pressure should be used to make israel change its policy, like cutting off foreign aid. Yet Mearsheimer and Walt show how AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby prevent this from being done.

So the American people have no Lobby for themselves. They are massively against the war yet both political parties will continue the war until 2009 or later. Perhaps the American people should join the effective Israel Lobby.

Likud Zionism is at the heart of the Israel Lobby. This form of Zionism is integral nationalism, something very close to Fascism. Should Americans let it do its work without criticism?

10/5/07

* * *

Right now the biggest danger we face is a war with Iran, something the Democrats are falling all over themselves about in an effort to be more hawkish and more pro-Israeli than Bush. Here are the fruits of the Israel Lobby. Having massively participated in the push for war in Iraq the Lobby is fully mobilized for a war in Iran. One wonders what sermons were given recently during the High Holy Days of Judaism: was the word, "send your checks, Israel needs you, Iran is a threat"? Evangelical religion and fanatical Islam are not the only religious terrors in our midst.

10/9/07

Norman Ravitch

Savannah, GA

Lazare's response to Mearsheimer & Walt is the same as is emerging from establishment media in general: an at-all-costs rejection. By "at-all-costs" I mean that the media rejectors will sacrifice any form of integrity or will simply state anything in order to author an overall "negative" response.

Case in point: Lazare, in his response, states unequivocally that the "Israel lobby is no different" than "the Cuba lobby." He states this ultimately in rejection of the idea that the Israel Lobby drives the US to do things not in our best interest. The embargo of Cuba has strangled that tiny little nation and has propped up Fidel Castro since its onset. The embargo of Cuba is absolutely not in the interest of the US. It is exclusively an interest of a tiny little lobby, comprised of the former beneficiaries and descendants of beneficiaries of the old Batista regime. The US loses trade and political stabilization opportunity in Latin America with every passing year because of that embargo.

And every passing year that the Congressional officials all make their annual migration to the regular AIPAC convention in Washington DC and announce just how precious Israel is to them (Nancy Pelosi: "The creation of Israel was the greatest achievement of the twentieth century") and every passing year that the arms dollars keep flowing into Israel, and the US turns a blind eye to the apartheid, the oppression and cleansing in the occupied territories, the occupation itself (now at mid-life, age 40) as well as the regular wars on Lebanon, is a year the US lost out having better relationships with the majority of people who live in the most strategically crucial region of the world.

If it wasn't for the Israel Lobby, Mohammed Khatami's overtures to the US might have resulted in a reconciliation between the US and Iran, by now. Or the beginnings of a reconcilation.

I refer Lazare to the video recordings of the Congressional officials making their pilgrimages to the AIPAC conventions, or the reported pilgrimages of the various candidates for President to Hollywood to kiss the ring of Steven Spielberg. The Israel Lobby is everything it is presented as in M&W.

The sooner that this becomes public knowledge, the better the hopes for a brighter future here.

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA

Excellent article. America truly needs to look into its own heart and soul to find answers to its problems. What I find lacking is the distinction between the peoples of Israel and America and their governments and those special interests that reside therein. AIPAC doesn't lobby for the Israeli people, it lobbies for the War Party in Israel, largely the Likud .

Israel and the United States are facing the same problem : Blowback. To this point their answer has largely been the same, to become even more militant, which of course creates ever more resentment and hatred. People will recognize the pattern, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The question is: Who benefits from this insanity ?

Michael McKinlay

Hercules, CA

Lots of words to obscure fundamental truths; Uri Avnery straight to the point.

R. del Vecchio

Trenton, NJ