The term
Israel lobby in the United States (at times called
the Zionist lobby or, less
accurately, the Jewish
lobby) is a term used to describe the diverse
coalition of groups and individuals who seek and have sought to
influence the foreign policy of the United
States in support of Zionism, Israel
or the
specific policies of its elected government. These
organizations have included political,
secular and religious groups of
Jewish-Americans, as well as non-Jewish
organizations of political, secular and religious
Christian Americans. These groups have reportedly
increased in size and influence over the years. The term itself has
been subject to debate and criticism over the years, concerning its
clarity and exact definition.
Background and History
A
Christian belief in the
return of the Jews to
the Holy Land has roots in the US, which pre-date both the
establishment of the Zionist
movement and the establishment of Israel. Lobbying by these
groups, to influence the
US government
in ways similar to Zionist ideology, dates back to at least the
19th century.
In 1844, George Bush, a professor of
Hebrew at New York University
and ancestor of the Presidents Bush, published a
book entitled The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel
Revived. In it he denounced âthe
thralldom and oppression which has so long ground
them (the
Jews) to the dust,â and called for
âelevatingâ the Jews âto a rank of honorable repute among the
nations of the earthâ by re-creating the Jewish State in the land
of Israel, thereby forming a âlink of communicationâ between
humanity and God. âIt will blaze in notoriety...". âIt will flash a
splendid demonstration upon all kindreds and tongues of the truth.â
The book sold about a million copies in the
antebellum period. The
Blackstone Memorial of 1891 was also a
significant Christian Restorationist petition effort, led by
William Eugene Blackstone,
to persuade President
Benjamin
Harrison to pressure the
Ottoman
Sultan for the delivery of Palestine to the Jews.
Starting in 1914, the involvement of
Louis Brandeis and his brand of American
Zionism greatly increased the movement's acceptance, visibility and
membership; by 1917, under his leadership it had increased ten-fold
to about 200,000. As chair of the
American Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist
Affairs, Brandeis raised millions of dollars to relieve Jewish
suffering in war-torn Europe, and from that time âbecame the
financial center for the world Zionist movement.â The British
Balfour Declaration of
1917 additionally advanced the Zionist movement and gave it
official legitimacy. The
US Congress
passed the first
joint resolution
stating its support for a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish
people on September 21, 1922. The same day, the
Mandate of Palestine was approved by
the Council of the
League of
Nations.
In the 1950s, the
American Zionist
Committee for Public Affairs was created by
Isaiah L. "Si"
Kenen. During the
Eisenhower administration, Israel's
concerns were not at the forefront.
Other problems in the Middle East and
USSR
were paremount, and Israel's U.S. supporters were
not as active as they had been. Consequently,
according to UCLA
political science professor and author, Steven L. Spiegel, "the tension between the
[Eisenhower] administration and Israeli supporters was so acute
that there were rumors (unfounded as it turned out) that the
administration would investigate the
American Zionist Council.
Therefore, an independent lobbying committee was formed." During
the 1960s, a Senate investigation determined that during its
earlier years AZCPA was, up until the 1960s, receiving funding from
the Israeli government.. The
Kennedy
administration ordered the American Zionist Council to register as
the agent of Israel under the
Foreign Agents Registration
Act. Kenen wrote that AZCPA's Executive Committee decided to
change their name from American Zionist Committee for Public
Affairs to
American Israel Public
Affairs Committee "to enlarge constituency and support."
The relationship between Israel and the government of the United
States began with strong American reservations about the wisdom of
creating a Jewish state, and remained chilly until 1967.
George Friedman writes that before 1967, the
government of "the United States was actively hostile to
Israel."
John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write that since 1976, Israel "has
been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military
assistance" and "largest gross recipient of such assistance since
World War Two," a sum amounting to more
than $140 billion between 1948 and 2004.
The annual "$3 billion
in direct assistance given to Israel" comprises "roughly one-fifth
of the foreign aid budget" of the United States
, amounting to about $500 per
capita per annum.
AIPAC's web site (2007) states that it "has grown into a
100,000-member national grassroots movement" and claims that it is
America's "pro-Israel lobby."
Context
Scholars tend to view Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel as one of
many examples of a US
ethnic group
lobbying on behalf of an ethnic homeland, which has met with a
degree of success largely because Israel is strongly supported by a
far larger and more influential
Christian
movement that shares its goals.In a 2006 article in the
London Review of
Books, Professors
John
Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt wrote:
In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no
different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workersâ unions, or other ethnic
lobbies.
There is nothing improper about American Jews and their
Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobbyâs
activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like
the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion.
For the most part, the individuals and groups that
comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do,
but doing it very much better.
By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as
they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobbyâs task
even easier.
Structure
According to former
American Israel Public
Affairs Committee official,
Mitchell
Bard, the "Israeli (or pro-Israel) lobby" is composed of formal
and informal components. These components "tend to intersect at
several points so the distinction is not always clear-cut."
Informal lobby
Bard defines the "informal lobby" as the indirect means through
which "Jewish voting behavior and American
public opinion" influence "U.S.
Middle East policy."
Bard describes the motivation underlying the informal lobby as
follows:
"American Jews recognize the importance of support
for Israel because of the dire consequences that could follow from
the alternative.
Despite the fact that Israel is often referred to
now as the fourth most powerful country in the world, the perceived
threat to Israel is not military defeat, it is
annihilation.
At the same time, American Jews are frightened of
what might happen in the United States if they do not have
political power."
Formal lobby
The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized
lobby groups,
political action committees
(PACs),
think tanks and
media watchdog groups. The
Center for Responsive
Politics, which tracks all lobbies and PACs, describes the
âbackgroundâ of those âPro-Israelâ as, âA nationwide network of
local political action committees, generally named after the region
their donors come from, supplies much of the pro-Israel money in
US politics. Additional funds also come
from individuals who
bundle
contributions to candidates favored by the PACs. The donors'
unified goal is to build stronger
US-Israel relations and to support
Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its
Arab neighbors.â
There are, according to Bard, two key formal lobbying groups:
However, after Bard wrote that article, a major new organization,
Christians United for
Israel was founded with the explicit intention of becoming a
"Christian version of the influential Jewish lobby, AIPAC, only
stronger."
These two key groups aim to present policy makers with unified and
representative messages via the aggregation and filtering of the
diversity of opinions held by smaller pro-Israel lobby groups and
the wider American Jewish community. The diverse spectrum of
opinions held by American Jewry is reflected in the many formal
pro-Israel groups, and as such some analysts make a distinction
within the Israel lobby between
right-leaning and
left-leaning groups. This diversity
became more pronounced following Israelâs acceptance of the
Oslo Accords, which split âliberal
universalistsâ and âhard-core Zionists --- the Orthodox community
and right wing Jewsâ.Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, Israel, the
Diaspora, and Jewish Identity,
Sussex Academic Press, 2007, ISBN
1845191897, Chapter 7, The Changing Identity of American Jews,
Israel and the Peace Process, by Ofira Seliktar, p126
[343339].
"Prime Minister Yitzak Rabinâs handshake with Yasir
Arafat during the 13 September [1993] White House ceremony elicited
dramatically opposed reactions among American Jews. To the liberal
universalists the accord was highly welcome news. [âŚ] However, to
the hard-core Zionists --- the Orthodox community and right wing
Jews --- the peace treaty amounted to what some dubbed the
'handshake earthquake.' From the perspective of the Orthodox, Oslo
was not just an affront to the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael,
but also a personal threat to the Orthodox settlers ... in the West
Bank and Gaza. For Jewish nationalists ⌠the peace treaty amounted
to an appeasement of Palestinian terrorism." This division mirrored
a similar split for and against the Oslo process in Israel, and led
to a parallel rift within the pro-Israel lobby.Danny Ben-Moshe,
Zohar Segev, Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity,Sussex
Academic Press, 2007, ISBN 1845191897, Chapter 7, The Changing
Identity of American Jews, Israel and the Peace Process, by Ofira
Seliktar, p126
"Abandoning any pretense of unity, both segments began
to develop separate advocacy and lobbying
organizations.
The liberal supporters of the Oslo Accord worked ⌠to
assure Congress that American Jewry was behind the Accord and
defended the efforts of the [Clinton] administration to help the
fledgling Palestinian authority (PA) including promises of
financial aid.
⌠Working on the other side of the fence, a host of
Orthodox groups, ⌠launched a major public opinion campaign against
Oslo.
⌠Hard-core Zionists also criticized, often in harsh
language, [the Labor government] architect[s] of the peace accord.
Middle East Review of International Affairs, Journal, Volume 6, No.
1 - March 2002, Scott Lasensky, Underwriting Peace in the Middle East:
U.S. Foreign Policy and the Limits of Economic Inducements
"Not only was the Israeli electorate divided on the
Oslo accords, but so, too, was the American Jewish community,
particularly ... among the major New York and Washington-based
public interest groups. U.S. Jews opposed to Oslo teamed up with
Israelis "who brought their domestic issues to Washington" and
together they pursued a campaign that focused most of its attention
on Congress and the aid program. ... The Administration, the
Rabin-Peres government, and some American Jewish groups teamed on
one side while Israeli opposition groups and anti-Oslo American
Jewish organizations pulled Congress in the other
direction.
During the 2008 election
campaign, Barack Obama implicitly
noted differences within the lobby in his comment that "there is a
strain within the pro-Israel community that says, 'unless you adopt
an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that youâre
anti-Israel,' and that canât be the measure of our friendship with
Israel." Commentary Magazine,
notes âIt was an odd choice of wordsâLikud has
not been Israelâs governing party for more than three yearsâbut
what Obama clearly meant was that an American politician should not
have to express fealty to the most hard-line ideas relating to
Israelâs security to be considered a supporter of Israelâs.â
US foreign policy scholars John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt define
the core of the lobby to include the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, the Anti-Defamation League and Christians United for Israel.
Other key organizations which they state work to benefit Israel, in
many cases by influencing US foreign policy, include the American Jewish Congress, the
Zionist Organization of
America, the Israel Policy
Forum, the American Jewish
Committee, the Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism,
Americans for a Safe
Israel, American Friends of Likud,
Mercaz-USA, and Hadassah. Fifty-one of the largest and most
important come together in the Conference of Presidents of Major
American Jewish Organizations, whose self-described mission
includes âforging diverse groups into a unified force for Israelâs
well-beingâ and working to âstrengthen and foster the special
US-Israel relationshipâ
Stephen Zunes, in a response to
Mearsheimer and Walt, lists "Americans for Peace Now, the
Tikkun Community, Brit Tzedek v' Shalom, and the
Israel Policy Forum" as
"pro-Israel" organizations that, unlike the right-leaning
organizations focused on by Mearsheimer and Walt, are opposed to
"the occupation, the settlements, the separation wall, and Washington's
unconditional support for Israeli policies." These
organizations, however, are not PAC and therefore are prohibited
by campaign
finance regulations from financially supporting political
campaigns of candidates for federal office.
Right-leaning groups
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt state in their controversial
bestseller, The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign
Policy, that the contemporary Israel lobby is dominated by
a number of right-wing organizations.
They state that the tone of the right-leaning component of the
Israel lobby results from the influence of the leaders of the two
top lobby groups: AIPAC, and the Conference
of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. They go
on to list, as right-leaning think tanks
associated with the lobby, the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute,
and the Hudson Institute. They also
state that the media watchdog
group Committee
for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is part of the
right-wing component of the lobby. Other groups such as the
Center for Security
Policy, Terror Free
Tomorrow and the Clarion Fund can
been seen as having an interest in swaying US views of the
opponents of Israel, by reporting on "Arab" and "Islamic" terrorism
threats to the US.
In his controversial book, The
Case for Peace, Alan
Dershowitz argues that the most right-leaning pro-Israel groups
in the United States are not Jews at all, but Evangelical Christians. Dershowitz
cites " Stand for Israel, an organization devoted to
mobilizing Evangelical Christian support for Israel" co-founded by
"[f]ormer Christian
Coalition executive director Ralph
Reed." Although the rhetoric of most
groups like Stand for Israel is similar to their Jewish-based
counterparts, some individuals have based their support on specific
biblical passages, thus they have been vulnerable to criticism from
Israelis and US Jews for having "ulterior motives" such as the
fulfillment of "prerequisite to the Second
Coming" or having "better access for proselytizing among Jews."
Left-leaning groups
In April 2008, J
Street was established, describing itself as the only federal
"pro-peace, pro-Israel" Political Action Committee (PAC).
Its goal is to provide meaningful political and financial support
to candidates for federal office from US citizens who believe a new
direction in US policy will advance US interests in the Middle East and promote real peace and security
for Israel. Founded by former President Bill Clinton advisor
Jeremy Ben Ami and policy analyst
Daniel Levy and
supported by prominent Israeli politicians and high-ranking
officers (see Letter
of support from prominent Israeli leaders), J Street supports
diplomatic solutions over military ones, including with Iran
;
multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialog over
confrontation with a wide range of countries and
actors.
Means of influence
The means
via which Israel lobby groups exert influence are similar to the
means via which other similar lobbies, such as the National Rifle
Association
(NRA) and the AARP (formerly
known as "American Association of Retired Persons"), exert
influence. A number of commentators have asserted that the
Israel lobby has undue or pervasive influence over U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East. However, many other commentators note
that no similar volume of criticism exists concerning the NRA, AARP
or other major political lobbies, and claim that much of this
criticism is based on anti-Semitic
notions of a Jewish
conspiracy.
Voting power
According to Bard, "Jews have devoted themselves to politics with
almost religious fervor." He cites that "Jews have the highest
percentage voter turnout of any ethnic
group" and that of the American Jewish population "roughly 94
percent live in thirteen key electoral college states"
which alone "are worth enough electoral votes to elect the
president. If you add the non-Jews shown by opinion polls to be as
pro-Israel as Jews, it is clear Israel has the support of one of
the largest veto groups in the country." Bard
goes on to say that for United
States congressmen "there are no benefits to candidates taking
an openly anti-Israel stance and considerable costs in both loss of
campaign contributions and votes from Jews and non-Jews
alike."
"Most important fact about the Jewish vote in America", according
to Jeffrey S. Helmreich of the Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs, "lies in the fact that it is a uniquely swayable bloc.
[...] The issue of support for Israel [by a candidate] has proven
capable of spurring a sizable portion of Jews to switch partiesâin
large enough numbers to tip the scales in national or statewide
elections. Moreover, the "Israel swing vote" is especially open to
political courtship because, unlike the interests of other minority
groups, support for Israel has long been compatible with
traditional Republican and Democratic agendas. ⌠On the other hand,
being distinctively unsupportive of Israel can significantly hurt a
candidate's chances."
Campaign donations
"Political campaign contributions",
writes Mitchell Bard, "are also considered an important means of
influence; typically, Jews have been major benefactors."
According to Bard, objective quantification that the impact of
campaign contributions have on "legislative outcomes, particularly
with regard to Israel-related issues" is difficult. This is because
raw analysis of contributions statistics do not take into account
"non-monetary factors" and whether or not "a candidate is
pro-Israel because of receiving a contribution, or receives a
donation as a result of taking a position in support of
Israel."
- Targeting
AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who
donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors in their
own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect donors with candidates,
especially to the network of pro-Israel political action
committees. AIPAC president Howard Friedman says âAIPAC meets with
every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive
in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the
complexities of Israelâs predicament and that of the Middle East as
a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a âposition paperâ on
their views of the US-Israel relationship â so itâs clear where
they stand on the subject.â
This process has become more targeted over time according to Bard,
"In the past, Jewish contributions were less structured and
targeted than other interest groups,
but this has changed dramatically as Israel-related political action committees
(PACs) have proliferated."
Among politicians considered unfriendly to Israel who AIPAC has
helped defeat include Cynthia
McKinney, Paul Findley, Earl Hillard, Pete
McCloskey, Senators William
Fulbright and Roger Jepson, and
Adlai Stevenson in his campaign
for governor of Illinois in 1982. The defeat of Charles H. Percy, Senator for Illinois until 1985, has
been attributed to AIPAC-co-ordinated donations to his opponent
after he supported the sale of AWACS
planes to Saudi Arabia. Donations included $1.1 million on
anti-Percy advertising by Michael
Goland, who was also a major contributor to AIPAC. Former
executive director of AIPAC, Tom Dine, was quoted as saying, "All the Jews in
America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the
American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and
those who aspire - got the message".
- Financial figures
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of
1990â2008 collected by Center for Responsive
Politics indicates current totals and a general increase in
proportional donations to the US
Republican party since 1996. The Washington Post summarized earlier,
1990â2006, data and concluded that "Pro-Israel interests have
contributed $56.8 million in individual, group and soft money
donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."
In contrast, Arab-Americans and
Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than
$800,000 during the same (1990â2006) period.
J.J. Goldberg wrote in his 1994 book Jewish
Power that 45% of the Democratic Partyâs
fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party came from
Jewish-funded Political
Action Committees. Richard Cohen,
a columnist for the Washington Post, updated those figures
in 2006 citing figures of 60% and 35% respectively for the
Democratic and Republican Parties. According to the Washington
Post, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish
sources for 60% of money from private sources.
Education of politicians
Israel lobbyists also educate politicians by
"taking them to Israel on study missions.
Once officials have direct exposure to the country, its
leaders, geography, and security dilemmas, they typically return
more sympathetic to Israel.
Politicians also sometimes travel to Israel
specifically to demonstrate to the lobby their interest in
Israel.
Thus, for example, George
W.
Bush made his one and
only trip to Israel before deciding to run for President in what
was widely viewed as an effort to win pro-Israel voters'
support."
Think tanks
Mearsheimer and Walt state that âpro-Israel figures have
established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute,
the Center for Security
Policy, the Foreign Policy Research
Institute, the Heritage
Foundation, the Hudson
Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the
Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs. These think tanks are
all decidedly pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US
support for the Jewish state.â
In 2002, the Brookings
Institution founded the Saban Center for Middle East
Policy, named after Haim Saban, an
Israeli-American media proprietor, who donated $13 million toward
its establishment. Saban has stated of himself, âIâm a one issue
guy, and my issue is Israelâ, and was described by the New York
Times as a âtireless cheerleader for Israel.â The Centre is
directed by AIPACâs former deputy director of research, Martin Indyk.
Frontline, an Indian current affairs
magazine, asked rhetorically why the administration
of George W Bush that seemed "so eager to please [Bush's] Gulf
allies, particularly the Saudis
, go out of
its way to take the side of Ariel Sharon's Israel? Two
public policy organizations give us a sense of an answer: the
Washington
Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs (JINSA)."
Frontline reported that "WINEP tended to toe the line of whatever
party came to power in Israel" while "JINSA was the U.S. offshoot
of the right-wing Likud Party."
According to Frontline, JINSA had close ties to the administration
of George W Bush in that it "draws
from the most conservative hawks in the U.S. establishment for its
board of directors" including Vice-President Richard Cheney, and Bush administration
appointees John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Paul
Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Armitage and Elliott Abrams.
Jason Vest, writing in the The Nation, alleges that
both the Jewish Institute
for National Security Affairs and the Center for Security Policy
thinktanks are "underwritten by far-right American Zionists" and
that they both "effectively hold there is no difference between US
and Israeli national security interests, and that the only way to
assure continued safety and prosperity for both countries is
through hegemony in the Middle East a hegemony achieved with the
traditional cold war recipe of feints, force, clientism and covert
action."
Media and Public Discourse
Stephen Zunes writes that "mainstream
and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable
lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish
community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other forums
of public discourse in support of the Israeli government."
According to CUNY professor of journalism, Eric Alterman, debate among Middle East
pundits, âis dominated by people who cannot imagine criticising
Israelâ. In 2002, he listed 56 columnists and commentators who can
be counted on to support Israel reflexively and without
qualification.â Alterman only identified five pundits who
consistently criticise Israeli behaviour or endorse pro-Arab
positions. Journalists described as pro-Israel by Mearsheimer and
Walt include: the Washington Postâs Jim Hoagland, Robert Kagan,
Charles Krauthammer and George Will; ; the Los Angeles Timesâ
Max Boot, Jonah
Goldberg and Jonathan Chait; and
the New York Timesâ William Safire, A.M. Rosenthal, David Brooks,
and Thomas Friedman (although they say that the latter is sometimes
critical of certain areas of Israel policy)..
Journalist Michael Massing writes
that "Jewish organizations are quick to detect bias in the coverage
of the Middle East, and quick to complain about it. That's
especially true of late. As The Forward
observed in late April [2002], 'rooting out perceived anti-Israel
bias in the media has become for many American Jews the most direct
and emotional outlet for connecting with the conflict 6,000 miles
away.'"
The Forward relates how one individual feels:
"'There's a great frustration that American Jews want
to do something,' said Ira Youdovin, executive vice president of
the Chicago Board of
Rabbis.
'In 1947, some number would have enlisted in the
Haganah,' he said, referring to the
pre-state Jewish armed force.
'There was a special American brigade.
Nowadays you can't do that.
The battle here is the hasbarah
war,' Youdovin said, using a Hebrew term for public relations.
'We're winning, but we're very much concerned about the
bad stuff.'"
Indicative of the diversity of opinion is a 2003 Boston Globe profile of the Committee
for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America media watchdog
group in which Mark Jurkowitz
observes: "To its supporters, CAMERA is figuratively - and perhaps
literally - doing God's work, battling insidious anti-Israeli bias
in the media. But its detractors see CAMERA as a myopic and
vindictive special interest group trying to muscle its views into
media coverage."
A former spokesman for the Israeli Consulate in New York said that
the result of this lobbying of the media was: âOf course, a lot of
self-censorship goes on. Journalists, editors, and politicians are
going to think twice about criticising Israel if they know they are
going to get thousands of angry calls in a matter of hours. The
Jewish lobby is good at orchestrating pressure.â
In addition to traditional media, Israeli public relations on the
internet also is targeted with software called the Megaphone desktop tool, which is
designed and promoted by pro-Israel interest groups. Regarding the
'Megaphone', the Times Online reported
in 2006 that the Israeli Foreign Ministry "ordered trainee
diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US
and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists
can place supportive messages." According to a Jerusalem Post article on the 'Megaphone',
Israel's Foreign Ministry was "urging supporters of Israel
everywhere to become cyberspace soldiers 'in the new battleground
for Israel's image.'" Chris Williams writes for The Register, "However it is used, Megaphone is
effectively a high-tech exercise in ballot-stuffing. We're calling
it lobbyware ."
College campuses
There are a number of organizations that focus on what could be
called "pro-Israel activism" on college campuses. With the outbreak
of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2001,
these groups have been increasingly visible. In 2002, an umbrella
organization, that includes many of these groups, known as the
Israel On Campus
Coalition was formed as a result of what they felt were "the
worrisome rise in anti-Israel activities on college campuses across
North America". The mission of the Israel on Campus Coalition is to
"foster support for Israel" and "cultivate an Israel friendly
university environment". Members of the Israel on Campus Coalition
include the Zionist
Organization of America, AIPAC, Americans for Peace Now, the
Anti-defamation League,
Kesher, the Union of Progressive Zionists,
and a number of other organizations. There has been at
least one conflict among these groups, when the right wing Zionist
Organization of America unsuccessfully attempted to remove the left
wing Union of Progressive Zionists from the coalition when the
latter group sponsored lectures by a group of former IDF soldiers who criticized the
Israeli Occupation of the West Bank
and Gaza
.
However, there are some who feel that pro-Israel activism on
college campuses can cross the line from advocacy to outright
intimidation. One highly publicized accusation comes from former
President Jimmy Carter, who complained
of great difficulty in gaining access to a number of universities
to discuss his new book Palestine: Peace Not
Apartheid. In October 2007 about 300 academics under the name The Ad
Hoc Committee to Defend the University issued a statement
calling for academic freedom from political pressure, in particular
from groups portraying themselves as defenders of Israel.
In December 2007, the New York Sun reported that student leaders who advocate pro-Israel films and groups on college campuses are eligible for being hired as "emissaries of the Jewish state" for their work and will receive up to $1000 a year for their efforts.
Coordination with Israeli officials
Rabbi Alexander Schindler, former chair of the Conference of
Presidents, told an Israeli magazine in 1976, âThe Presidentsâ
Conference and its members have been instruments of official
governmental Israeli policy. It was seen as our task to receive
directions from government circles and to do our best no matter
what to affect the Jewish community.â Hymen Bookbinder, a high
ranking official of the American Jewish Committee, said âUnless
something is terribly pressing, really critical or fundamental, you
parrot Israelâs line in order to retain American support. As
American Jews, we donât go around saying Israel is wrong about its
policies.â
Bard writes that "by framing the issues in terms of the national
interest, AIPAC can attract broader support than would ever be
possible if it was perceived to represent only the interests of
Israel. This does not mean AIPAC does not have a close relationship
with Israeli officials, it does, albeit unofficially. Even so, the
lobby some times comes into conflict with the Israeli
government."
Mearsheimer and Walt make the more blunt statement that "American
Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the
former can maximize their influence in the United States."
Responses to criticism of Israel
Zunes writes that "assaults on critics of Israeli policies have
been more successful in limiting open debate, but this gagging
censorship effect stems more from ignorance and liberal guilt than
from any all-powerful Israel lobby." He goes on to explain that
while "some criticism of Israel really is rooted in anti-Semitism," it is his opinion that some
members of the Israel lobby cross the line by labeling
intellectually honest critics of Israel as anti-Semitic. Zunes
argues that the mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations
have "created a climate of intimidation against many who speak out
for peace and human rights or who support the Palestinians' right of self-determination." Zunes has been on
the receiving end of this criticism himself "As a result of my
opposition to US support for the Israeli government's policies of
occupation, colonization and repression, I have been deliberately
misquoted, subjected to slander and libel, and falsely accused of
being "anti-Semitic" and "supporting terrorism"; my children have
been harassed and my university's administration has been bombarded
with calls for my dismissal."
In an opinion piece for The
Guardian, Jimmy Carter wrote
that mainstream American politics does not give equal time to the
Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that this
is due at least in part to AIPAC. Jewish-American billionaire
George Soros pointed out that there are
risks associated with what was in his opinion a suppression of
debate:"I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of
Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism
predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the
critics of those policies should be held responsible for
anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward
Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward
the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's
success in suppressing divergent views."
In his book, The Deadliest Lies,
Abraham Foxman referred to the notion
that the pro-Israel lobby is trying to censor criticism of Israel
as a "canard." Foxman writes that the Jewish
community is capable of telling the difference between legitimate
criticism of Israel "and the demonization, deligitization, and
double standards employed against
Israel that is either inherently anti-Semitic or generates an
environment of anti-Semitism." Jonathan Rosenblum expressed similar
thoughts: "Indeed, if there were an Israel lobby, and labeling all
criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic were its tactic, the steady
drumbeat of criticism of Israel on elite campuses and in the elite
press would be the clearest proof of its inefficacy."
Alan Dershowitz wrote that he
welcomes "reasoned, contextual and comparative criticism of Israeli
policies and actions." If one of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby
was to censor criticism of Israel, Dershowitz writes, "it would
prove that 'the Lobby' is a lot less powerful than the authors
would have us believe." Dershowitz himself has written several
critical pieces on specific Israeli policies. Dershowitz disagrees
with those who believe that the media is uncritical of Israel and
cites the frequent New York Times editorials and even an
editorial in The Forward
against some of Israel's more right of center policies as proof.
Dershowitz also denies that any significant, mainstream leader in
the American Jewish community equates criticism of Israel with
anti-Semitism.
Debates
Criticism of the term
According to William Safire, the term
"Israel Lobby" came into use in the 1970s and, similar to the term
"China lobby", carries "the pejorative
connotation of manipulation." He also writes that supporters of
Israel gauge the degree of perceived animus towards the Jewish State by the term chosen to refer to the
lobby: "pro-Israel lobby" being used by those with the mildest
opposition, followed by "Israel lobby", with the term "Jewish
lobby" being employed by those with the most extreme anti-Israel
opinions.
According to Walt and Mearshimer, "Using the term 'Israel lobby' is
itself somewhat misleading...One might more accurately dub this the
'pro-Israel community'..." since this is not the lobby of a foreign
country, rather, it is composed of Americans.
Degree of influence
Mearsheimer and Walt have collected and quoted some of the
lobbyists' comments on their organizations' political capital. For
example, Mearsheimer and Walt quote Morris
Amitay, former AIPAC director as saying, "Itâs almost
politically suicidal ... for a member of Congress who wants to seek
reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as
anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government." They also
quote a Michael Massing article in
which a staffer sympathetic to Israel said, "We can count on well
over half the House â 250 to 300 members â to do reflexively
whatever AIPAC wants." Similarly they cite former AIPAC official
Steven Rosen illustrating AIPACâs power for Jeffrey Goldberg by
putting a napkin in front of him and saying, "In twenty-four hours,
we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this
napkin."
Some politicians have echoed these views. Former U.S. Senator
James Abourezk wrote:
...the U.S.
Congress is despicable in its silence.
They are all bought off by the Israel lobby and are
afraid to criticize.
If this were happening in any other country by any
other country, there would be speeches on the floor of Congress,
legislation introduced to stop aid and other help to whomever would
be committing this cruelty.
But since their campaign money comes from the Israeli
lobby, we hear only silence.
However, some U.S. government officials accept that the Israel
lobby is not so powerful that they control U.S. foreign policy.
Former Secretary of State
George Shultz stated "... the
notion that U.S. policy on Israel and Middle East is the result of
[the Israel lobby's] influence is simply wrong." Dennis B. Ross,
former U.S. ambassador and chief peace negotiator in the Middle
East under Bill Clinton, who is now an
official at WINEP, wrote:
"never in the time that I led the American negotiations
on the Middle East peace process did we take a step because 'the
lobby' wanted us to.
Nor did we shy away from one because 'the lobby'
opposed it.
That is not to say that AIPAC and others have no
influence.
They do.
But they don't distort U.S. policy or undermine
American interests."
Individual journalists each have their own opinions on how powerful
the Israel lobby is. Glenn Frankel, a
Jewish-American Pulitzer Prize winning journalist for the
Washington Post, wrote: "On Capitol Hill the Israel lobby commands
large majorities in both the House and Senate." Michael Lind produced a cover piece on the
Israel lobby for the UK publication Prospect in 2002 which concluded, "The
truth about Americaâs Israel lobby is this: it is not all-powerful,
but it is still far too powerful for the good of the U.S. and its
alliances in the Middle East and elsewhere.". Tony Judt, writing in the New York Times, asked rhetorically, "Does the
Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course that is
one of its goals. [...] But does pressure to support Israel distort
American decisions? That's a matter of judgment."
Mitchell Bard has conducted a study which attempts to roughly
quantify the influence of the Israel lobby on 782 policy decisions,
over the period of 1945 to 1984, in order to move the debate on its
influence away from simple anecdotes. He
"found the Israeli lobby won; that is, achieved its
policy objective, 60 percent of the time.
The most important variable was the president's
position.
When the president supported the lobby, it won 95
percent of the time.
At first glance it appears the lobby was only
successful because its objectives coincided with those of the
president, but the lobby's influence was demonstrated by the fact
that it still won 27 percent of the cases when the president
opposed its position."
According to a public opinion poll by Zogby International of 1,036 likely
voters from October 10â12, 2006, 40% of American voters at least
somewhat believe the Israel lobby has been a key factor in going to
war in Iraq. The following poll question was used: "Question: Do
you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly
disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush
administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and
now confronting Iran?"[343340]
Comparison to other lobbies
The
closest comparison is probably to other ethnic-group based lobbies
that attempt to influence American foreign policy decisions such as
the Cuban-American lobby, the
African-American lobby
in foreign policy and the Armenian American lobby, although
the lobby has also been compared to the National Rifle
Association
and the lobby for the Pharmaceutical industry. In
comparing the Israel Lobby to the NRA, Glenn Frankel concludes that
"Nevertheless, the Israel lobby, and AIPAC in particular, gained a
reputation as the National Rifle Association of foreign policy: a
hard-edged, pugnacious bunch that took names and kept score. But in
some ways it was even stronger. The NRA's support was largely
confined to right-wing Republicans and rural Democrats. But AIPAC
made inroads in both parties and both ends of the ideological
spectrum."
Zunes describes that some groups who lobby against current U.S.
policy on Israel "have accepted funding from autocratic Arab
regimes, thereby damaging their credibility" while others have
"taken hard-line positions that not only oppose the Israeli
occupation but challenge Israel's very right to exist and are therefore not taken
seriously by most policymakers." Zunes writes that many lobbying
groups on the left, such as Peace
Action, are "more prone to complain about the power of the
Israel lobby and its affiliated PACs than to do serious lobbying on
this issue or condition its own PAC contributions on support for a
more moderate U.S. policy" in the region. Noam Chomsky, political activist and professor
of linguistics at MIT
, writes that "there are far more powerful interests
that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than
does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as
the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose
lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of
the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to
congressional races."
However, while comparing the Israel Lobby with the Arab Lobby,
Mitchell Bard notes that "From the beginning, the Arab lobby has
faced not only a disadvantage in electoral politics but also in
organization. There are several politically oriented groups, but
many of these are one man operations with little financial or
popular support." The Arab
American Institute is involved in supporting Arab-American
political candidates, but, according to award-winning journalist
Ray Hanania "itâs nothing compared to
the funds that AIPAC raises not just for Jewish American
congressmen, but for congressmen who support Israel."
Israel and U.S. interests
In a 2008
editorial, Israeli
-American
historian and author Michael B. Oren wrote that Israel and the United States
are natural allies, despite what the opposition from "much of
American academia and influential segments of the media." This is
because Israel and the United States share similar values such as
"respect for civic rights and the rule of law" and democracy.
Israel and the United States share military intelligence in order
to fight terrorism. Oren also notes that "more than 70% of
[Americans], according to recent polls, favor robust ties with the
Jewish state."Oren, Michael B.
"Israel Is Now America's Closest Ally."
The Wall Street
Journal. 7 May 2008. 7 May 2008.
"Powerful interest groups lobby against Israel in
Washington while much of American academia and influential segments
of the media are staunchly opposed to any association with Israel.
How does the
alliance [between the United States and Israel] surmount these
challenges? One reason, certainly, is values â the respect for
civic rights and the rule of law that is shared by the world's most
powerful republic and the Middle East's only stable democracy.
There is also Israel's determination to fight terror, and its
willingness to share its antiterror expertise. ... The admiration
which the U.S. inspires among Israelis is overwhelmingly
reciprocated by Americans, more than 70% of whom, according to
recent polls, favor robust ties with the Jewish
state."
In his 2007 review of Mearsheimer and Walt's book, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
"Forty years of polling has consistently shown that
Americans support Israel in its conflict with the
Arabs.
...
Both Israel and America were founded by refugees from
European religious intolerance; both are rooted in a common
religious tradition; Israel is a lively democracy in a part of the
world that lacks democracy; Israelis seem self-reliant in the
manner of American pioneers; and Israel's enemies, in many cases,
seem to be America's enemies as well."
The Israel Project notes in 2009
however that,
Fully and exactly 50% of Americans strongly support a
two-state solution⌠Over 78% of Americans support a two-state
solution.
So when youâre talking to Americans, you need to know
that when you donât support a
two-state solution you risk having a major public relations
challenge in America and Europe.
Israeli academic and peace activist Jeff
Halper said that "Israel is able to pursue its occupation only
because of its willingness to serve Western (mainly U.S.) imperial
interests" and that rather than influencing the United States via
the lobby, Israel is actually "a handmaiden of American Empire."
According to political scientists John J. Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and
Stephen M. Walt (Harvard University), though, "the
combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related
effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab
and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security." They allege
that while "one might assume that the bond between the two
countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling
moral imperatives....neither of those explanations can account for
the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the
United States provides to Israel."
In 2006
former UN weapons
inspector in Iraq
Scott Ritter published Target Iran: The
Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change (ISBN
1-56025-936-1). In his book Ritter states that certain
Israelis and pro-Israel elements in the United States are trying to
push the Bush administration into war with Iran. He also accuses
the U.S. pro-Israel lobby of dual
loyalty and outright espionage (see
Lawrence Franklin
espionage scandal).
Media coverage of lobby
American journalist Michael Massing
argues that there is a lack of media coverage on the Israel lobby
and posits this explanation: "Why the blackout? For one thing,
reporting on these groups is not easy. AIPAC's power makes
potential sources reluctant to discuss the organization on the
record, and employees who leave it usually sign pledges of silence.
AIPAC officials themselves rarely give interviews, and the
organization even resists divulging its board of directors."
Massing writes that in addition to AIPAC's efforts to maintain a
low profile, "journalists, meanwhile, are often loath to write
about the influence of organized Jewry. [...] In the end, though,
the main obstacle to covering these groups is fear." Steven Rosen, a former director of
foreign-policy issues for AIPAC, explained to
Jeffrey Goldberg of The New
Yorker that "a lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in
the dark and dies in the sun."
On The Diane Rehm Show
(December 11, 2006), Middle East experts Hisham Melhem and Dennis Ross, when asked
about the pervasive Israeli influence on American foreign policy in
the Middle East mentioned in former President Jimmy Carter's 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not
Apartheid said: [H. Melhem] "When it comes to Israel
[discussing Israeli and/or Jewish American issues], it is still
almost a taboo in certain parts, not everywhere...there are certain
things that cannot be said about the Israeli government or
America's relationship with Israel or about the Israeli lobby. Yes
there is, excuse me, there is an Israeli lobby, but when we say an
Israeli lobby we are not talking about a Jewish cabal. The Israeli
lobby operates the way the NRA operates, a system of rewards and
punishment, you help your friends by money, by advocacy and
everything, and sometimes they pool money in to the campaigns of
those people that they see as friendly to Israel. This is the
American game" [343341]. The interview continued on in which the
Dennis Ross responded. (radio interview: â16:30-20:05)
Criticism
Numerous books and commentaries by scholars, academics, professors
and Government officials have been written criticizing the
influence of the Israel Lobby on the US Governments foreign policy,
especially in the Middle East. Some of
these are: Professors John J.
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy,
Professor James Petras's The Power of Israel in
the United States, Former Representative/Congressman Paul Findley's They Dare to Speak Out, Professor
Kevin B. MacDonald's Understanding Jewish
Influence and The
Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement
in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements and
Norman G. Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah, former US President
Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.
In addition to books published by notable academics, influential
government officials have also commented on the Israel Lobby's
influence. For example, British
Labour MP and House of Commons representative, Sir
Tam Dalyell and American
Congressman James
P. Moran
In March 2009, Charles W.
Freeman, Jr., criticized the
lobby after withdrawing his candidacy for the chair of the National Intelligence Council.
Freeman said, "The libels on me and their easily traceable email
trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined
to prevent any view other than its own from being aired .... The
tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and
indecency .... The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy
process ...." The Washington
Post published two opposing editorials on the subject. One
an unattributed editorial opinion saying that Freeman disregarded
"established facts" in his criticism of the Israel lobby, which
include some recent defeats of right-wing Zionist positions. The other, by regular op-ed
columnist David Broder, opened by
saying: "The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing
defeat at the hands of the lobbyists [that] the president vowed to
keep in their place, and their friends on Capitol Hill." The Forward notes that, "Many of the lawmakers
demanding an investigation into Freemanâs qualifications for the
intelligence post are known as strong supporters of Israel".
Members
of Congress denied that the Israel lobby had a significant role in
their opposition to Freeman's appointment; they cite Freeman's ties
with the Saudi and Chinese governments, objections to certain
statements made about the Palestinian territories
and his lack of experience as the reasons for their
opposition.
Further reading
- George Soros. On Israel,
America and AIPAC. New York Review of Books. April 12
2007.
- Zev Chafets. A Match Made in Heaven: American Jews,
Christian Zionists, and One Man's Exploration of the Weird and
Wonderful Judeo-Evangelical Alliance. HarperCollins, 2007.
ISBN 0060890584.
- Murray Friedman. The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish
Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Cambridge
University Press, 2006. ISBN 0521545013.
- John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy"
[343342]. London Review of Books, Volume
28 Number 6, March 22, 2006.
- James Petras. The Power of
Israel in the United States. Clarity Press, 2006. ISBN
0932863515.
- Stephen Schwartz.
Is It Good for the Jews?: The Crisis of America's Israel
Lobby. Doubleday, 2006. ISBN 038551025X.
- Glenn Frankel. A Beautiful Friendship. The Washington Post. July 16 2006.
- Janice Terry. U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle
East: The Role of Lobbies and Special Interest Groups. Pluto
Press, 2005. ISBN 0745322581.
- Timothy P. Weber. On the Road to Armageddon: How
Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend. Baker Academic,
2005. ISBN 0801031427.
- Douglas Little. American
Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945.
University of North Carolina Press, 2004. ISBN 0807855391.
- Nasser Aruri. Dishonest Broker: The Role of the United
States in Palestine and Israel. South End Press, 2003. ISBN
0896086879.
- Paul Findley. They Dare to
Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby.
Lawrence Hill, 2003. ISBN 155652482X.
- Paul Findley. Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts About
the U.S.-Israeli Relationship. Lawrence Hill, 1995. ISBN
1556522398.
- Cheryl Rubenberg. Israel
and the American National Interest: A Critical Examination.
University of Illinois Press, 1989. ISBN 0252060741.
- Benjamin Ginsberg. The
Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. University of Chicago
Press, 1999. ISBN 0226296660.
- Edward Tivnan. The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and
American Foreign Policy. Touchstone Books, 1988. ISBN
0671668285.
- Jonah Goldberg. Jewish Power:
Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Basic Books, 1997.
ISBN 0201327988.
- D. H. Goldberg. Foreign Policy and Ethnic Interest Groups: American
and Canadian Jews Lobby for Israel. Greenwood Press, 1990.
ISBN 0313268509.
- Stephen J. Green. Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations
With Militant Israel. William Morrow & Co., 1984. ISBN
0688026435.
- Edward Tivnan. The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and
American Foreign Policy. Touchstone Books, 1988. ISBN
0671668285.
- Abraham H. Foxman. The Deadliest Lies: The Israel
Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control. Palgrave MacMillan,
2007.
See also
References
- Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen.
The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy, London Review of Books,
Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
- Mitchell
Bard The Israeli and Arab Lobbies", Jewish
Virtual Library, published 2009, accessed October 5, 2009.
- Michael B. Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy Reviewed by Hillel Halkin, Commentary, January
2007.
- Dr. Michael
Oren, address before the AIPAC Policy Conference 2007, delivered March 11,
2007; quoted in Foxman, The Deadliest Lies, pp.
17-18.
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Blackstone_Memorial Blackstone
Memorial
- Paul Charles Merkley, The Politics of Christian Zionism,
1891â1948â, 1998, p. 68 ff.
- Donald Neff, Fallen Pillars U.S. Policy towards Palestine
and Israel since 1945 Chapter One: Zionism: Jewish Americans and the
State Department, 1897-1945
-
http://www.ajhs.org/publications/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=281
Louis D. Brandeis and American Zionism
- The Israel Lobby Archive [1]
Accessed November 14, 2008
- The Israel Lobby Archive [2] Accessed November 14, 2008
- Abraham Ben-Zvi, Decade of Transition: Eisenhower, Kennedy,
and the Origins of the American-Israel Alliance, Columbia
University Press, 1998.
- George
Friedman, The Israel Lobby in U.S. Strategy, September
4, 2007 [3].
- http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
- AIPAC Web Site [4] Accessed April 18, 2007
- Ambrosio, Thomas, Ethnic identity groups and U.S. foreign
policy, Praeger Publishers, 2002.
- Gertrude Himmelfarb, American Jewry,
Pre=- and Post-9/11, p. 118, in Religion as a public good: Jews and
other Americans on religion in the public square, ed. Alan
Mittleman, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003
- Pro-Israel: Background | OpenSecrets
- Evangelicals and Israel: the story of American Christian
Zionism, Stephen Spector, Oxford University Press US, 2008, p.
168
- Jews and the 2008 Election
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p113
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p116
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p117
- Stephen
Zunes, The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?,
Foreign Policy in Focus, May 16,
2006, accessed August 27, 2006.
- Dershowitz, Alan. The Case For Peace: How the Arab-Israeli
Conflict Can Be Resolved. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2005.
- Berger, Matthew E. "Motives Questioned as Christians Rally for Israel."
United Jewish Communities. 3
December 2006
- Cohen, Patricia. "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
New York
Times. 16 August 2007. 4 July 2009.
- Amy Wilentz,
Whoâs Afraid of Jimmy Carter?, New York
Magazine. July 20, 2008. Accessed July 22, 2008.
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p154
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p157-8
- Saying the Unsayable, Andrew Stephen, The New
Statesman, 13 September 2007
- Pro-Israel: Long-Term Contribution Trends,
Center for Responsive
Politics, Accessed December 7, 2008
- Glenn Frankel. A Beautiful Friendship. The Washington
Post. July 16 2006.
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p156
- J. J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish
Establishment, ISBN 978-0201327984
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p163
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p176
- Saban Family Foundation Announces $100 Million in
Charitable Gifts Find Articles 2003-06-23
- Schlepping to Moguldom, New York Times, 5
September 2004
- The myth of the `Jewish lobby', Frontline ,
20(20), September 27 2003, accessed August 30 2006.
- Jason Vest,
The Men From JINSA and CSP, The Nation, September 2,
2002
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p170
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p170-1
- Michael
Massing, The
Israel Lobby, The
Nation, June 10, 2002, accessed August 27 2006.
- Rachel Donadio, For U.S. Jews, the Media Is the (Biased)
Message, The
Forward, April 26 2002, accessed via Archive.org August 27
2006
- Mark Jurkowitz, Blaming the Messenger, Boston Globe Magazine
February 9,
2003: 10, History News
Network (George Mason University)
April 24,
2006.
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p172
- GIYUS - About Us
- Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers, Times
Online, July 28, 2006
- Israel's newest PR weapon: The Internet Megaphone.
Jerusalem Post, Nov. 28, 2006
- Pro-Israel lobby targets BBC online poll. The Register,
September 6, 2006
- ICC Home Page - Israel on Campus Coalition
- "Coalition Votes Not To Toss Liberal Zionists -
Forward.com"
- Pro-Israel Group Puts Emissaries on Campuses,
New York Sun,
December 10, 2007
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p121
- Jimmy Carter, Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid,
Guardian Newspaper
- Soros, George. "On Israel, America and AIPAC." New York
Review of Books, April 12, 2007.
- Foxman,
Abraham. "The deadliest lies: the Israel lobby ...."
Google
Books. 20 July 2009.
- Rosenblum, Jonathan. "Paper on âIsrael Lobbyâ Poses Threat."
Jewish
Journal. 27 April 2006. 20 July 2009.
- Dershowitz, Alan. "The Big New Lie." Alan M. Dershowitz.
20 July 2009.
-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22769621-15084,00.html
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/small-lies-big-lies-and-t_1_b_67362.html
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p160.
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p10.
- Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p10-11.
- Israel's cruel offensive
- Forward by George Shultz in The Deadliest
Lies by Abraham H. Foxman
- Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
- Dennis Ross, The Mind-set Matters Foreign Policy, Jul/Aug
2006
- A Beautiful Friendship? In search of the truth
about the Israel lobby's influence on Washington
- The Israel Lobby, Michael Lind,
Prospect no. 73, April 2002
- A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy, Tony Judt,
New York
Times Op-Ed, April 19, 2006
- Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "A Dangerous
Exemption." Foreign Policy 1 July 2006: 63.
- Eric
Alterman, AIPAC's Complaint The Nation, May 1, 2006 (posted April 13,
2006)
- A Beautiful Friendship? In search of the truth
about the Israel lobby's influence on Washington, Page 3
- The Israeli and Arab Lobbies, by Mitchell
Bard
- Chutzpah needed
- Goldberg, Jeffrey. "The Usual Suspect." The New
Republic. 8 October 2007. 24 January 2009.
- Global Language Dictionary, 2009
- [5]
- Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran
- Book: Israel, Lobby Pushing Iran War
- Jeffrey Goldberg, Real Insiders, The New Yorker, July 4 2005, accessed
August 27 2006.
- Dalyell may face race hatred inquiry,
The Guardian,
2003
- Dalyell's 'Jewish cabal' remarks denied,
BBC, 2003.
- Dalyell steps up attack on Levy The Guardian
- CNN.com - Lawmaker under fire for saying Jews
support Iraq war - Mar. 12, 2003
- Moran Upsets Jewish Groups Again -
washingtonpost.com
- U.S. intelligence candidate pulls out after
objections
- Freeman Withdraws From Intel Position
- Freeman, Charles, " Charles Freeman's Statement in Wake of Withdrawal
From Intelligence Post", Wall Street Journal, March 11,
2009.
- "Charles Freeman's Failed Nomination as an Obama
Aide." Washington Post. 12 March 2009. 12
March 2009.
- The Country's Loss. Washington Post, March 12,
2009.
- Following Withdrawal From Intelligence Post, Freeman
Points Finger at Israel Lobby. The Forward, March 11,
2009.
- Isikoff, Michael and Mark Hosenball. "Facing
Opposition, Obama Intel Pick Pulls Out." Newsweek. 10 March 2009. 15
March 2009.
- Bolton, Alexander. "Lawmakers deny Freeman's Israel lobby
charges." TheHill.com. 12 March 2009. 12 March
2009.
External links