Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

Posts gesorteerd op relevantie tonen voor zoekopdracht pro-Israel lobby. Sorteren op datum Alle posts tonen
Posts gesorteerd op relevantie tonen voor zoekopdracht pro-Israel lobby. Sorteren op datum Alle posts tonen

zaterdag 10 april 2021

Engineering of Consent: Analysis of the Israel Lobby's Facebook Discourse in the U.S Paper Thumbnail

 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The Israel-Zionist Lobby in the United States of America (U.S.A) continues to play an effective role in the American internal and foreign policies, especially towards the Palestinian-Israel conflict (Lieberman, 2014). In 2000, one American official at Camp David agreement said, "Far too often, we functioned as Israel's lawyer" (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006).

This role has been played by The Lobby for many decades and the primary goal is to get support from the Americans towards various Jewish and Israeli issues. Given the array of issues, the Lobby functions as advocacy groups, non-profit organizations, traditional and digital media (social media such as Facebook).

Over the last decade, the Lobby's organizations have become formidable in their effort to dictate their very own narrative of the Israel-Zionist conflict. This effort has led to the engineering of the American people's consent, opinions and attitudes when it comes to the Israeli and Jewish peoples’ issues (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). In line with this, the present study explores The Israel Lobby's use of media, discourse, narrative, representation, embedded ideology, power relations, language and communication used on the Israel Lobby's Facebook pages.

1

The evolution diffusion of communication technologies into civilians' lives over the last decade have enabled politicians, organizations, Lobby and advocacy groups, etc., to control and have a major effect on the public opinion across various countries. Social media, especially Facebook, reaches a huge number of people, and Americans are no exception of this. By the first quarter of 2018, it had 2.17 billion monthly active users worldwide and around 230 millions of them were Americans (Kemp, 2018). This study focuses on the Israel Lobby's Facebook pages in terms of form and content of their discourse (discourse construction, form, themes, representation, ideology and power relations).

In order to achieve what has been stated above, the present study uses qualitative methodology and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach to analyze the most active and interactive Israel-Zionist Lobby's Facebook pages which are: StandWithUs (SWU), United with Israel (UWI), Stand for Israel (SFI), Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and The Israeli Project (TIP). This study is theoretically guided by "the Engineering of Consent" (EOC) approach, and the Discourse Theory (DT).

This first chapter presents an introduction to this study. It consists of Background of the Study, Problem Statement, Research Aims and Objectives, Research Questions, Significance of the Study, and Limitations and Scope of the Study.
1.2 Background of the Study

The continuous Palestinian-Israeli conflict practically started in 1948 through Jewish occupation of the Palestinian land. This called for Israelis "declaration of Israeli state",

2

and what Palestinians consider it as "Al-Nakba"meaning (the Catastrophe). The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been described as one of the most gruesome conflicts in the world. It is said that the Israeli occupies more than (80%) of the Palestinian land. The initiation and origins of the conflict can be traced back to the 1897 Basle Conference which was organized by the Zionist movement in Switzerland when the Zionist movement decided to choose Palestine as a national homeland for Jews and declare their intention to establish Israel in Palestine (Munayer & Loden, 2014; Neal, .)1995

The Israel Lobby in the U.S. is an alliance of mainly Jewish collectives or individuals who seek and make efforts to shape and influence the American foreign policy and Americans attitudes. The Lobby also is mainly concerned with the unwavering support for Israel, its interests, policies and attitudes especially towards the Middle East. Typically, the Lobby does not consist of only American Jewish people. It also includes seculars, Christians, and other groups (Lieberman, 2009; Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007, .)2009

The roots of the Israel Lobby in the U.S. dates back to 1941 when the Jewish Agency and Israel was first represented in the United Nations. In the 1950's, American Jewish people established the American Zionist Council (AZC), and the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA) which in 1959 was renamed as American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Both organizations have been working as

"The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: Ø§Ù„نكبة, al-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"), occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war. The term Nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949." (Zochrot Organization, 2014, para. 1).

3

page20image46200704

the first Public Relations units of the Israel Lobby in the United States of America. In and around this time, other important Zionist organizations also operated e.g. Zionist Organization of America. All these organizations worked as the mouthpiece of the issues concerning the Jewish and Israel Lobby mission (Kenen, 1981; Verbeeten, 2006).

According to Malik (2017), the core agenda of most Israel Lobby's organizations in the United States are; aiding financial and ammunition subventions for Israel, seeking financial support and attempting to influence actions of the White House, influencing public opinion through academics and the regulation of media outlets such as The New York Times and C-SPAN.

Since the Israeli-Arabic October War in 1973, America has been supporting Israel much more than it does any other country, especially against the Middle Eastern countries. This support has been achieved through the influential role of the Israel Lobby in the United States (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). As of 2003, the total amount of financial support from U.S. to Israel is around $140 billion dollars, given that U.S. provides Israel with about $3 billion annually to develop its artillery concurrently with giving Israel an access to intelligent information and ignoring its nuclear weapons project (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006). Moreover, the U.S has been notably supporting Israel diplomatically since 1982. And in 2017, the U.S. has used her veto power for forty three times against the United Nations Security Council's resolutions when they criticized Israel (Okhovat, 2011; The New Arab, 2017). In addition to this, the U.S.

4

has played a vital role in the negotiations of the 1993 Oslo Accords2. They clearly supported and backed the Israeli agenda.

During Bush's presidency, the main strategy excogitated towards the Middle Eastern issues aimed at improving the Israeli strategic relations and security. This was proved in the invasion of Iraq and the U.S.’s attitude in the last war in Lebanon. They opposed calls for ceasefire according to the Israeli demands. According to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), "The United States and Israel have formed a unique partnership to meet the growing strategic threats in the Middle East. This cooperative effort provides significant benefits for both the U.S. and Israel" (AIPAC, 2015). The U.S. justified its support for Israel on the grounds that it is a weak state surrounded by enemies, and that it is the only democratic country in the region (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). They also justified it with the fact Jewish people have suffered heinous human rights violations and hence they deserve preferential treatments. This has made Israel to be morally superior to its enemies' behavior, and fighting "Islamic" terrorism, especially after 11 September attack (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). On the other hand, these justifications are contrary to the truth, that Israel today is the strongest power in the Middle East. It is the only state that has nuclear programs and weapons in the region. It refuses to grant Palestinians their own

The 1993 Oslo Accords "Is an agreement signed between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on September 13, 1993, meant to effectively bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to its end by means of territorial concessions and facilitating the creation of the Palestinian Authority. The accords, representing a milestone in Israeli-Palestinian relations, were finalized in Oslo, Norway, on August 20, 1993. The official signing ceremony was held in Washington the following September, with then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat representing both sides and US President Bill Clinton serving as their witness." (Ynetnews, 2009, para. 1).

5

page22image46163712

democratic state, and it is controlling the lives of roughly 6.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, occupied Palestine (1948), and West Bank (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006).

Consequently, during the first two years of America’s president Donald J. Trump’s time in the office, he adopted the Israel Lobby and AIPAC’s agenda on the Middle East. He promised before winning the position of the American president election in 2016 that he’d move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; pushing the Congress and America’s allies to strengthen the nuclear deal with Iran, cutting funds to the Palestinians as a means of forcing them to align more with Israel and the West. In recent times, United States representatives are seen to be releasing strong statements against the United Nations members who oppose the U.S. policies toward Israel (Kampeas, 2018).

As it has been mentioned earlier, the Israel-Zionist Lobby in the U.S. has formed a good number of influential organizations that impacts the U.S.A foreign policy; AIPAC being one of the most powerful and well-known ones. It was ranked as the second most influential organization in the U.S. (International Business Publications, 2009). AIPAC and other key organizations of the Lobby are run by extremists who generally support major policies of Israel's Likud party (right wing) (AIPAC, 2017). The Lobby has two main strategies to get the U.S. support. First, it has the influence and pressure on both the Congress and the executive branch to support Israel in their decisions. Secondly, it ensures that the U.S. public discourse represents Israel positively way, by repeating the Israel-Zionist narratives and myths about Israel- Palestinian conflict to prevent critical comments that could make the Americans critique Israel (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006).

6

Accordingly, pro-Israel organizations work hard to influence the American media, think tanks and academic institutions. Numerous of those organizations are funded and ran by people who are committed to the Israeli agenda. The Lobby's perspective of Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media because the majority of American commentators are pro-Israel. For example, Bartley, one editor of the Wall Street Journals, once stated, "Shamir, Sharon, or Bibi, whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by me" (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006, p. 19). The Lobby devises numerous strategies in confronting the anti-Israel people. These strategies include writing letters, organizing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts against these individuals, collectives and media outlets (Barringer, 2002). Some American mainstream media that prominently provide a pro-Israel editorial policy include: New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Washington Times, New Republic, and Weekly Standard (Lieberman, 2009).

One tool that has largely aided the efforts of all of the above-mentioned groups, strategies of the Israel Lobby in the United States is social media. It has been used in political actions, protest movements and public media campaigns, and it has become a coordinating tool for political movements and governments. Israel-Zionist Lobby uses the same technologies and platforms to mobilize and increase pro-Israel sentiments. For example, they convey a positive representation and coverage about the state of Israel (Ayalon, 2015; Nir, 2005). Since 2013, the Israeli government has collaborated with the Israel lobby's media to engage in recruiting social media and digital "cover units" to defeat a wide range of enemies who provide anti-Israel discourse in all fields. At a digital diplomacy conference in 2016, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "Israel is banking on social media to win the hearts and minds of the 7

public" (Ahren, 2017, para. 1). It coordinates the lobby's media in the U.S. and supplies them with posts, publications, and messages, which indicates that the Lobby is linked to the Israeli government (Ahren, 2017).

The Israel Lobby constantly works on the national branding of Israel. These images include the assumption that Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East and the defender of liberal democracy. It also portrays Israel as a global hub of technological and high-tech innovation, and it promotes Tel Aviv as a gay city with open and liberal mind, in other words a metropolitan city. They also portray the Palestinian terrorism as synonymous to ISIS’s i.e. just like ISIS that targets European countries, Palestinian terror targets Israel. Also, the Palestinian National Authority and Hamas are both dedicated to harming Israel and there is no difference between them, Palestinian terrorists attack Israel not because of the occupation but because of its liberal democratic nature and finally, Israel is leading a global war of "light" vs. "darkness" (Manor, 2015, para. 10).

The Lobby uses social media strategies to keep the Israeli narrative alive through varied social media accounts for the Lobby's organizations, leaders, media, and members. They shut down social media pages that belongs to opposite groups or anti- Israel media. They also organize social media propaganda campaigns and secret campaigns etc. (Abunimah, 2019; Silverstein, 2018).

1.3 Problem Statement

It is unmistakable as mentioned in the Background of the Study that the Israel Lobby has an influential role in pushing the Israel and Jewish issues in the American society. Indeed, it has managed to engineer the American public’s consent, opinions and 8

attitudes. They have done this through the discourse and narrative addressed in the traditional and new media platforms.

One of the major concerns and concentrations of this study is the representation of the Israel Lobby in the Palestinian Israel conflict. This representation helps to shape attitudes and perceptions of every element of the war. This representation also covers the attitudes and perception towards the Palestinians, Israeli, Jews, Muslims and other foreign involvements.

Despite the vital significance of the issue, there is dearth of scholarly focus on the Israeli lobby's role in the U.S. especially from the angle of engineering of the publics consent. This is largely because there is evident repercussion from studies like this because of the immense power and opportunities of the Lobby to influence academia across the world.

What is more, this study has even become even more indispensable with the use of social media by the Israel Lobby; hence investigating the, discourse used by them has become a sine qua non.
1.4 Research Aims & Objectives

The current study aims to:
1. Contribute to the scarcity of studies in this area by adopting CDA.

2. Investigate how the language, discourse and communication of the Israel Lobby on Facebook pages is used in engineering the Americans consent regarding to the

9

Israeli narrative of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This study adopts the EOC approach in this regard.

  1. Regarding the Israel-Zionist Lobby's position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; this study explores discourse aspects such as, most frequently used terms, news sources, quotations, textual and linguistic features, symbols, ideologies and power relation.

  2. Identify the abuse of power and ideologies within The Israel Lobby's discourse in the U.S. in respect to the Palestinian Israeli conflict.

  3. Find out the themes and major topics that the Israel Lobby discusses and presents to its American audience.

  4. Clarify the kind of relationship between the Israel Lobby and the U.S. in the Israeli perspective which made U.S. as the most pro-Israel country around the world.

  5. Find out how the Israel lobby's Facebook pages represent the Palestinian-Israeli conflict including the representation of Palestinians, Arabs, Israelis, Jews, United States, and Jerusalem.

  6. Define the prominent justifications highlighted by the Israel Lobby for the Israeli occupation crimes in Palestine.

10

1.5 Research Questions

This study aims to explore how the content of the Israel-Zionist Lobby is used in engineering the American people's consent, opinions and attitudes through the Israel- Zionist lobby's Facebook pages. In line with this, the researcher seeks to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. How did the Israel Lobby in the U.S. construct their discourse and represent the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the selected Facebook pages in the year 2018?

RQ2. What are the main themes that emerged from the Israel Lobby's discourse in the selected Facebook pages in the year 2018?

RQ3. How did the selected Israel lobby's Facebook pages work to engineer the Americans consent regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict during 2018 in the U.S.? 1.6 Significance of the Study
This research is important for several reasons, the first of which is the lack of studies of scholarly efforts in this area and provide a deeper analysis and explanations about the Israel lobby; there is no study that has focused on the issue yet. Secondly, it is important because it examines the issue through the EOC approach. The third reason is that, a study like this will serve as an important resource for further studies in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Fourth, the study is expected to provide newer insights for researchers, journalists, Public Relations practitioners and governments etc.

What is more, this study will inform the Palestinians publics about the Israel-Zionist Lobby's narrative of their conflict and how it works. Also, the analysis of the Israel-

11

Zionist Lobby's social media content provides a clear understanding of the Israel Lobby and how it engineers the world in the Palestinian- Israel conflict.

This study would also provide insights into important events and issues such as the relocation of U.S. embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, pulling out from the Western- Iranian nuclear agreement and other decisions that he took regarding to the Palestinian- Israel conflict (Begley, 2016).

Fifth, the study is also important is the sense that it buttresses other studies that has talked about how social media, big data and new forms of technology are used in engineering the consent of the publics.
1.7 Limitations and Scope of the Study

The current study focuses on the discourse, of the Israel-Zionist Lobby's Facebook pages. It specifically centers on the English language content of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in 2018. The Israel Lobby's social media pages and websites of organizations are examined by the researcher and after scrutinizing it, the most popular and interactive five pages are selected for this study. These pages are (StandWithUs, United with Israel, Stand for Israel, Christians United for Israel, The Israel Project).

Furthermore, the researcher chose Facebook because it is the most popular social media platform that the Israel Lobby uses in the U.S.

This study is limited in its focus on content in the year 2018. The study focuses on this year because, first, it comes after the America’s 2016 presidential election which enable the researcher to identify the new president’s policies as it affects the

12

Palestinian-Israel conflict in favor of Israel (O. Abu Arqoub, 2018). Second, it analyze the discourse of 2018 which will reveal a recent and newest results about the Israel Lobby's work, role, and discourse.

This study is also limited to the Israel Lobby and the researcher focuses on the Israel Lobby because it is one of the most powerful and influential lobbies in the U.S. They date back to many decades and they’ve helped achieve numerous Zionist goals and hence deserves to be studied.

Furthermore, this study is also limited in its sample considering that it focuses on the 60 most interactive posts on the five pages selected. The content includes texts, images, videos, hashtags, links, and emojis etc.

FURTHER READING: https://www.academia.edu/40463566/Engineering_of_Consent_Analysis_of_the_Israel_Lobbys_Facebook_Discourse_in_the_U_S?email_work_card=title


donderdag 8 november 2018

Midterm Reveals Massive Pro-Israel Influence

Midterm scoreboard reveals massive pro-Israel influence on Congressional candidates

Midterm scoreboard reveals massive pro-Israel influence on Congressional candidates
NORPAC event for Senator Bill Nelson, D-FL (March 8, 2018). Nelson has received nearly a million dollars from pro-Israel PACs. NORPAC says its primary purpose is to support candidates committed to Israel. More photos here.
A detailed scoreboard on candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives shows that 28 pro-Israel PACs and numerous pro-Israel individuals have given candidates millions of dollars in campaign contributions. 
The scoreboard presents 29 bills and resolutions that were introduced on behalf of Israel.. 20 passed into law or on-record statement, many by unanimous consent. The legislation has accrued a total of over 3,300 co-sponsors… 
Over 80 congressional challengers have also accepted donations from at least one pro-Israel PAC; most from more than one… Read more:
A just-released Midterm Elections Scoreboard shows that Israel partisans have dominated Congress over the past 10 years, despite the preference of American voters, who consistently wish evenhanded policies and feel the U.S. gives Israel too much money.
The detailed scoreboard on candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives* shows that 28 pro-Israel PACs and numerous pro-Israel individuals have given candidates millions of dollars in campaign contributions. There are currently no pro-Palestine PACs (although one of the pro-Israel PACs supports some Palestinian positions).
The scoreboard presents 29 bills and resolutions that were introduced on behalf of Israel, some openly drafted by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Twenty have passed into law or on-record statement, many by unanimous consent. The legislation has accrued a total of over 3,300 co-sponsors.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) at JAC event. JAC advocates for “a strong US-Israel relationship.” See video here and here.
In the rare cases when pro-Israel bills were unpopular, the split usually occurred along party lines, suggesting that the action was motivated by partisan politics, not deviation from pro-Israel  positions.
Only one bill explicitly supportive of Palestinians (opposing Israel’s widespread imprisonment of children) has been introduced. The bill has so far garnered 29 cosponsors.
The Scoreboard was compiled by If Americans Knew, a nonpartisan organization that focuses on Israel-Palestine and the U.S. connection.
Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) at NORpac event.
Five pieces of legislation in the study addressed military aid to Israel, including the Memo of Understanding (MOU) that President Obama signed, promising Israel $38 billion over the next 10 years. A bill currently before Congress cements this nonbinding agreement into law – the largest such aid package in U.S. history and an amount greater than US military aid to all other countries in the world combined. American taxpayers presently provide nearly a quarter of Israel’s annual defense budget. Six in ten Americans feel that is too much.
Six pieces legislation grant congressional supported to Israel’s “right to self-defense” against the unarmed enclave of Gaza or the Palestinians in Jerusalem; six others took a stand against actions of the United Nations which sought to safeguard Palestinian rights; an additional four supported the erosion of Americans’ rights to free speech.
In addition to bills and resolutions, the Scoreboard includes 11 open letters – some penned by AIPAC – to presidents and other influential leaders. Six of these letters endorsed pro-Israel policy and were signed by a significant number of legislators. The five letters encouraging actions that would benefit Palestinians gathered modest support.
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) at NORpac event.
An overwhelming majority of the incumbents running for re-election voted for the pro-Israel legislation and signed the pro-Israel letters.
The Scoreboard also indicates which incumbent candidates received campaign donations from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs), which totaled over $2.2 million for the 2018 election cycle. Pro-Israel Individuals contributed an additional $13 million.
Thirteen Senators and 14 Representatives received money and/or endorsements from five or more pro-Israel PACs.
Over 80 congressional challengers have also accepted donations from at least one pro-Israel PAC; most from more than one. According to Open Secrets, there are currently 28 pro-Israel PACs.
Unlike most PACs, which announce their focus in their name, most of the pro-Israel PACs use names that disguise their focus, such as “Americans United in Support of Democracy,” “Americans for Good Government,” and “Because We Care.”
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) at JAC event.
While there are currently no pro-Palestine PACs, one pro-Israel PAC, J-Street, is supportive of some Palestinians rights. However, J-Street aligns with Israel on many of its major policies, and supports the massive aid to Israel.
Open Secrets, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics, points out, “Few lobbies dedicated to international issues are so active and well-financed as the Israel lobby.”
Open Secrets continues, “A powerful pro-Israel force has carved out an influential place in American campaigns in the form of super PAC mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.” Adelson’s contributions to national political campaigns in 2018 alone reached over $113 million – all to Republicans/conservatives.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) at NORpac event. More photos of Cotton and others are here.
The Scoreboard indicates that a substantial number of the 410 incumbents on the ballot in both houses voted pro-Israel most of the time: 355 members of Congress (87%) had a pro-Israel score over 70%.
63% of House incumbents (240 of 378) had 100% pro-Israel scores – 74% of those (177) were Republican.
One Senator (Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-MS) had 100% pro-Israel rating; 78% of Senate incumbents (25 of 32) had a rating of 80% or higher. Six of these were Republican.
Congress considered only one piece of explicitly pro-Palestine legislation during the entire decade: Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) offered HR 4391 “No Way to Treat a Child,” which has garnered just 7% congressional backing (29 cosponsors) .
“No Way to Treat a Child” challenges Israel’s illegal practice of detaining, interrogating, and torturing Palestinian children – part of the brutal military occupation that has been ongoing for over half a century.
“To avoid the clashes, he started running in the opposite direction but a soldier spotted him and ran after him. Once the soldier caught him, he was pushed to the floor, kicked and punched several times…” (read more here and here).
In the words of the No Way to Treat a Child campaign, “Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world that systematically prosecutes between 500 and 700 children in military courts each year.”
UNICEF, the UN Children’s Fund, reports that ill-treatment of children (as well as adults) in the Israeli military detention system is “widespread, systematic, and institutionalized.”
In spite of this documented disregard for international humanitarian law on the part of Israel, only 29 members of Congress (7%) have signed onto HR 4391.
If Americans Knew says that the scoreboards will be updated and expanded as more information becomes available, and has announced that it welcomes sourced information from readers.
NOTE: More information about the scoreboards is here. A Tutorial on using them, including background information on the project, is here. Documentaries about the Israel lobby are here, and below.
———-
 * The House Scoreboard can be viewed in quick-loading sections by region, or as a whole (which takes up to 10 minutes to load):
———————

Documentaries on the Israel lobby:







maandag 8 oktober 2007

De Pro-Israel Lobby 46

'THE ISRAEL LOBBY

Two authors from the elite of American academia, an attempted answer to the what-went-wrong-for-the-U.S.-in-the-Middle-East question, and a controversy that has been brewing for over a year, no wonder this book is on the New York Times Best-Seller list. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's book is far more expansive in scope, detailed in argument, and thoroughly sourced (106 pages of footnotes) than their 2006 article on the same subject, although their methodology still eschews firsthand interviews. This is a difficult and challenging book. It is also an important book that deserves to be keenly debated. The book has generally elicited three types of response since its release. The first: Ignore it. Controversy, after all, breeds attention, debate and even sales, all of which, for some, are undesirable. Second: Take it seriously and deal with the substance, something this review will do in a moment. But before that, one must note the third type of response: To vilify, delegitimize and discredit the book and its authors. "Anti-Jewish bias" (Jeff Robbins, Wall Street Journal); "inspired by the Nuremburg Laws" (Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times); "a bigoted attack" (Alan Dershowitz) these are just a few of the Pavlovian responses to the book. Despite the accusations, this a not a hateful screed. Painful, yes. Prejudiced, no. As the authors close off each possible avenue of anti-Semitic intent or effect, they come across as thorough, not ritualistic or tokenistic.According to Walt and Mearsheimer, both political scientists, the former at Harvard, the latter at the University of Chicago, "the Israel lobby is the antithesis of a cabal or conspiracy." Interest group politics, including ethnic lobbies, are for them central to America's democracy and pluralistic society "as American as apple pie." Multiple loyalties are also very American, and not confined to Jews. To specifically question the dual loyalty of Israel's supporters would be "wrong," say the authors, as they "have every right to advocate their positions." Walt and Mearsheimer argue that, far from controlling the media, the Israel lobby has to work hard to ensure that its position wins out. Perhaps unexpectedly, the authors even describe themselves as "pro-Israel," and declare, "we are not challenging Israel's right to exist, or questioning the legitimacy of a Jewish state." Hardly very radical stuff. Their gripe is with where the lobby, effective as they claim it is, has taken U.S. foreign policy. Yes, they recognize it would be easier and more comfortable to discuss the pharmaceutical, gun or Free Cuba lobbies. Alas, their theme is the Middle East. Their more shrill detractors have either not read the book, are emotionally incapable of dealing with harsh criticism of something they hold so close (certainly a human tendency), or are intentionally avoiding a substantive debate on the issues. The authors' challenge is "to convince readers that the United States provides Israel extraordinary material aid and diplomatic support, the lobby is the principal reason for that support, and this uncritical and unconditional relationship is not in the American national interest." Proving the first point does not make for particularly arduous labor. Israel became the largest single annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in 1976 and has topped the league ever since. We receive approximately $500 every year for every Israeli (it's $5 per Pakistani). All this is rather nice. In fact, it is a remarkable achievement that few Israelis would prefer to do without. But is it a consequence of the Israel lobby's work? Rather than replying with an "obviously it is," and moving on, Walt and Mearsheimer treat us to an unforgiving debunking of the alternative explanations. This entails holding a mirror up to Israel and highlighting all the warts. We all know they exist, but still, it's not a pretty sight. Punch to the gutChapter Three, "A Dwindling Moral Case," is their punch to the gut of any Israeli claim to extraordinary U.S. support on the basis of merit alone. It is hardly unfair that they give us the most egregious examples of Israel behaving badly, that is precisely what clinches their argument. Just for good measure, the vast majority of their sources are Israeli. Many will recoil at this chapter, especially when the criticism comes from outsiders. By the time the authors ask "which group [Israelis or Palestinians] now has a stronger moral claim to U.S. sympathy?,” the question is clearly rhetorical. But what about Israel's value as a strategic ally? Walt and Mearsheimer are having none of it, and here the American elite consensus is probably on their side. If Israel was of "limited strategic value" during the Cold War, it has become a veritable "liability" in the war on terror. The alliance with Israel does not serve American Middle East interests as defined by these authors: It doesn't help keep Gulf oil flowing to markets; doesn't discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and certainly doesn't reduce anti-American terrorism originating in the region. Last year's bipartisan Iraq Study Group of wise American policy elders may have put it more politely, but they essentially reached the same conclusion. For Walt and Mearsheimer, support for an Israel that is at war with its neighbors "has fueled anti-Americanism ... gives Islamic terrorists a powerful recruiting tool, and contributes to the growth of radical Islam." It is not Israel per se that is a liability, but Israel as an occupier: "If the conflict were resolved, Israel might become the sort of strategic asset that its supporters often claim it is." The distinction should be on the radar screen of Israel's strategic planners. The authors argue that current Israeli policy is a liability to the U.S., and many would argue (the authors actually do) that it is also a liability to Israel itself. This is the first half of their argument often debatable, sometimes flawed, always compelling. I would argue for instance that they understate at least three factors in popular culture that embellish U.S. support for Israel. First, there is a significant element of emotion, sentiment and identification in the way Americans relate to Israel; manufactured or not, it exists. Just witness the response to Shahar Peer at this year's U.S. Tennis Open. Second they refer to but underestimate the role of the Christian evangelical Zionists and their impact at the local level, especially in the media. The main Christian pro-Israel lobby group, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has grown exponentially in recent years. It is fanatical in its devotion and politically way over to the right, channeling millions annually to support settlements. A third and not unconnected phenomenon requires a closer look at America's warts namely, the prevalence of popular Islamophobia. Pro-Israel sentiment is strengthened not by Israel's moral case, but by an immoral negative stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims by many mainstream media outlets since 9/11. But Walt and Mearsheimer are less good at seeing America's warts, and totally overlook this trend. Having set out their own stall, that this extraordinary state of affairs is explained by the influence of the Israel lobby, the authors then describe what the lobby is and how it operates. The lobby, they say, is a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations," not all of whom are lobbyists, with "fuzzy" boundaries. Their definition is interesting and probably over-inclusive, ranging from obvious groupings, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Christian Zionists, to think tanks, certain journalists and scholars, and the neoconservative movement (neocons), of whom more in a moment. It is not synonymous with American Jewry. Their description of how the policy process is "guided" would have most interest groups green with envy, and makes for entertaining, if at times disturbing reading. Former House Speaker Richard Armey's eminently quotable "my number one priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel," from 2002, does get you thinking how it would be received were the Speaker of the Knesset to opine that "my number one priority in foreign policy is to protect America." The tools and tactics used include: draft legislation, speeches, talking points; tours of Israel for politicians and radio talk-show hosts; cultivation of congressional staffers; campaign contributions. Their analysis of campaign financing is weak and leaves one feeling somewhat short-changed. Finally and not surprisingly, given their own treatment, the authors turn the spotlight on the ugliest face of supposedly pro-Israel activism-smear campaigns and silencing tactics, often perpetrated by organizations masquerading as watchdog groups. The attacks, for instance, on Kenneth Roth and Human Rights Watch, after they criticized Israel's offensive activity in Lebanon in 2006, were not only unjustified, undemocratic and un-Jewish, they are also a big turn-off for an increasing number of young American Jews. Bad for U.S., bad for Israel The second half of the book is devoted to concrete examples, with which the authors make their case that the lobby influences foreign policy in ways that are detrimental to the U.S. national interest, "and," the authors add, "although these policies were intended to benefit Israel, many of them have damaged Israeli interests." All of the examples are taken from the Bush era, post 9/11 and this brings us to the book's core weakness. Walt and Mearsheimer see too much continuity and not enough exceptionalism in this period. At the center of their argument stand the neocons, and their interplay with the Israel lobby. The neocons are a tight-knit group of ultra-hawks, favoring unilateral projection of U.S. power as a benign hegemon. They are predominantly, though not exclusively, Jewish, congregate around certain think tanks and publications (notably the American Enterprise Institute and The Weekly Standard, respectively) and are most associated with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which set out their goals in the 1990s. After 2000, neocons took up key positions in the Bush administration. Walt and Mearsheimer place them four-square inside the Israel lobby. The reality seems more complicated than that. Many leading neocons, by their own admission, care greatly about Israel, but they want to impose their policy, not follow Jerusalem's. Unlike, for instance, AIPAC, which takes its lead from the Israeli government, and then tends to give it an extra twist to the right, the neocons adhere to a rigid ideological dogma and are not afraid to confront a government in Jerusalem they view as too "soft." The view that sees neocons as spearheading the Israel lobby position under Bush has serious flaws. It is more likely that the neocons co-opted the Israel lobby, and Israel itself, to their own vision of regional transformation. Still, most of the Israel lobby were willing accomplices, and this represents their historic error. The gradual and consistent ideological drift to the right of key Israel lobby elements since the 1970s, and the hawkish excess of mainstream groups, made this cooperation not only possible, but natural, almost seamless. The picture is complete when the role of Ariel Sharon, then Israeli premier, is added. Sharon was a hawk, but no neocon. He viewed dreams of regional transformation, democratization and regime change with scorn and disdain, but he could spot a useful political ally when he saw one. The neocons would be his bulwark against being dragged into a negotiating process with the Palestinians or Syrians, as America re-calibrated its approach to the Middle East post-9/11. Negotiations were Sharon's "Room 101." The Dov Weissglas-Elliott Abrams channel saved him the trouble. Walt and Mearsheimer describe a damning end product, policies that are a disaster for America and Israel alike, but in over-conflating the neocons with the Israel lobby they overlook a dynamic and nuance that might have implications for the future. Outsourcing regional policy In recent years the Israel lobby, and even Israel itself, largely outsourced regional policy to the neocons, and this is crucial for better understanding all the issues that "The Israel Lobby" looks at: Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and the Second Lebanon War. Walt and Mearsheimer devote a chapter to each of these, but there is no space here for a detailed discussion of the entire region. "Removing Saddam Hussein from power" was, to quote Walt and Mearsheimer, a neocon "obsession," and it is more likely that Israel and the lobby fell into line in promoting the Iraq war than that they drove the agenda. Israeli leaders much too publicly went to bat for the war in American media outlets, and this is well documented in the book, even embarrassingly so (Ehud Barak, in The Washington Post: "Once he [Saddam] is gone there will be a different Arab world"), but there are also suggestions of senior Israelis urging caution in private. Democratic support for the war was propelled by the post-9/11 mood and a political fear of appearing weak on national security issues, and if the Israel lobby played a role it was not the leading one. On Iran, the authors draw our attention to two missed opportunities, both under former-president Mohammad Khatami, for a comprehensive U.S.-Iranian dialogue, and suggest a diplomatic way forward out of the current impasse. They contend that Israel and the lobby are driving policy in the opposite direction. If that is true, and evidence is certainly out there, then it suggests the neocon world view is still in the driver's seat, and that Israel and the lobby have learned nothing from the last years. Israel, declaratively at least, prefers a diplomatic solution, and both Israel and her friends should be pushing actively for enhanced diplomacy, not the ratcheting up of military threats that so play into the hands of Ahmadinejad.Syria is the arena in which the neocon-inspired U.S. position and the Israeli position seem most at odds: a policy of promoting regime change versus one that says, we are ready to negotiate with you (when we're not conducting military missions inside your territory). The book also makes the case that in the Second Lebanon War, the Israel lobby helped prevent early U.S. intervention to end the war. If that is true, it would present a particularly glaring example of the lobby working against the Israeli interest, and another reason why Israelis should follow this issue closely. Analysis of key ministerial testimonies to the Winograd Committee and the Interim Winograd Report itself suggests that very senior Israelis based their calculations and decisions on an expectation that the U.S. would pursue an early diplomatic solution. The neocons implacably opposed this, the lobby fell into line and Israel "reaped the rewards," all the way to the cemeteries.Walt and Mearsheimer explain Bush Middle East policy as Israel-lobby driven. Another way to look at it would be: This is the first Republican administration since the Christian evangelical Zionists emerged as a potent force in the GOP; since the mainstream pro-Israel community planted itself firmly on the Likud right, and with an executive that contained a sizeable and senior neocon presence. At the same time a hawk was ensconced in the Israeli Prime Minister's residence (Sharon). Then came the shock of 9/11, followed by the swagger and hubris that followed an apparently easy military victory in Afghanistan. This was a potent mix. These actors can all be described with some accuracy as pro-Israel, but they are also all different, and charting a future course is helped by recognizing that difference. Prescriptions on what to do next are precisely how Walt and Mearsheimer end their book. They come from the realist school of American foreign policy, and their policy advice combines off-shore balancing (deploy militarily only when under direct threat; maintain a military presence in, but do not own, the region) with broad diplomatic engagement and a push to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This last point is crucial, given the conflict's mobilizing and recruiting role for radicals, and its potency as a symbol for anti-American PR in the era of the Internet and Al Jazeera. On addressing the lobby, the authors consider four options. They reject weakening the lobby via campaign finance reform as impractical, and countering it via an anti-Israel lobby as unwelcome, given that it might lead to anti-Semitism. They prefer countering the lobby with a more open debate on the Middle East and encouraging the evolution of a more moderate Israel lobby (building, for instance, on the work of Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek veShalom and the Israel Policy Forum). For liberal American Jews who care about Israel, that means ending the outsourcing contract with neocons and right-wing evangelicals. It also means disowning the McCarthyite hate-mongering tactics used by groups like Campus Watch, and accepting dissenting voices. On his delightfully named and popular blog, "Rootless Cosmopolitan," Tony Karon has spoken of the beginnings of a "Jewish glasnost." It will take though a greater commitment of time and resources from liberal Jews who pursue multi-issue agendas. This debate would become acutely relevant were the Democrats to re-take the White House in next year's election. And finally, what about our role, in Israel? Three powerful conclusions emerge. First, as exposed in the Lebanon war and understood by the Winograd Committee, there is a dire lack of Israeli strategic planning capacity. How to respond to a weakened America in the region, occupation or peace with the Palestinians and Syrians, whether to outsource our policy to the neocons? For Israel, the answer seems to be: No comment. Israel lacks a definition of strategic objectives and their articulation to our friends across the pond. Second, alongside the undoubted benefits, the agenda pursued by the lobby in America has come at a great cost to Israel. NIS 45 billion could not have been wasted on settlements without U.S. complicity. As the book's authors argue, "Washington has helped insulate it [Israel] from some of the adverse consequences of its own actions," and that is a very dubious luxury indeed. Finally, while the right was busy investing in building allies and alliances in the U.S., the left was asleep or intimidated or both. A small number of center-left Israeli politicians display an active interest in events States-side, but very few display sufficient courage and conviction to challenge the self-defeating orthodoxy of the current mainstream Israel lobby. It is an absence sorely felt. Walt and Mearsheimer suggest that "it is time to treat Israel like a normal country." Presumably unintentionally, they echo the classical Zionist goal of creating a normal country. The two are linked. Absent a different discussion with the U.S. and our friends there, Israel is unlikely to become normal. Perhaps this difficult book can help advance that discussion.'

De Israel-Lobby is onlangs in Nederlandse vertaling verschenen bij uitgeverij Atlas.

Truthout Sunday 20/11/2026

  SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2026 Walking September 11’s Other Crime Scenes Millions had fled along the highway I had taken. Behind them Iraq was...