SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Not Very Scary Israel Lobby

JONATHAN CHAIT MAY 31, 2011

The Not Very Scary Israel Lobby

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

 

Andrew Sullivan recently posted an item titled "How The Pro-Israel Lobby Works," continuing with his explanation, "By fear, threats, and stigmatization." The item links to a Media Matters blog post by M.J. Rosenberg titled, "How The Lobby Chills Middle East Debate." The piece is worth exploring because it reveals a lot about the mentality of the most hyperbolic critics of the Israel lobby.

I certainly agree that the Israel lobby is powerful -- though I think the most important basis of American support for Israel is not the lobby but the public's overwhelming sympathy for Israel -- and that the Israel lobby sometimes influences policy in ways I oppose. This is true of many lobbies. But to a group of left-wing critics clustered around the argument put forward by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the Israel lobby is something much greater. It is, in Walt and Mearsheimer's term "The Lobby." It exerts not influence but total control over American foreign policy, and can even be blamed for the Iraq war. Its influence is invariably described in the most lurid terms -- it smears, it intimidates, it threatens.

Rosenberg reports an anecdote that he and Sullivan believe demonstrates this nefarious power. I think it demonstrates the opposite.

You should read Rosenberg's entire item, but the gist is this. In 1988, then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said he opposed any land-for-peace agreement with the Palestinians. Senator Carl Levin, then Rosenberg's boss, drafted a letter stating that the United States believed otherwise. Levin ran the language by Aipac's president and got 30 Senators to sign it. The letter leaked to the New York Times, which caused some Aipac donors to complain and the Shamir government to protest to Levin.

And then what happened? Then... nothing. Rosenberg got a call from William Safire, investigating a tip (provided by Benjamin Netanyahu and and Aipac's number two official) that Levin's letter was drafted by Israel's Labor Party. Rosenberg denied it, which persuaded Safire, who decided not to publish the column. That is the entire sum of the fear, threats, stigmatization, and debate chilling of the story. Now, Rosenberg dresses up the anecdote with man adjectives to make it all sound as sinister as possible. But accepting his version of events at face value, this story seems to deeply undercut even his own conclusion.

First, though critics like Walt and Mearsheimer present the Israel lobby as a pure agent of the Israeli government, in Rosenberg's telling, the head of Aipac approved a letter that infuriated the Israeli government. Second, this letter received wide support in the Senate. It got 30 signers, and, as Rosenberg puts it, "probably could have gotten three times as many [i.e., 90] but it was Friday afternoon and most of the senators had decamped."

Third, Israel was furious at Levin, and its fury had no consequence whatsoever. Rosenberg's account:

When Levin's chief of staff, Gordon C. Kerr, told him that it was inappropriate for a foreign official to protest a letter senators had addressed to their own government (i.e., the Secretary of State), the Israeli official insulted Levin and made ugly threats. Kerr then threw him out of the office.

Wait -- Levin's chief of staff threw the Israeli ambassador out of his office, and Levin managed to survive anyway? Absolutely nothing happened to him except that his staffers had to have an argument?

Finally, while the Israeli government complained loudly, the U.S. President backed Levin:

In the meantime, Levin heard from President Ronald Reagan, who thanked him for organizing support for the administration's position. Meanhile, Shamir began calling senators to express "astonishment" that his policies had been criticized.

And then the crowning jewel of this Dan Brown tale of intimidation and secret power is... a phone call from a columnist who is duly dissuaded from publishing an erroneous tip.

If you think I'm slanting this account, please do read Rosenberg's version. His description differs from mine only in its pulp novelization of those same facts. It seems to me that this story, if anything, proves that the Israel lobby wields less power than most people (including me) believe. You have Aipac, the Senate, and the President openly opposing the Israeli government and suffering no ill effect whatsoever.

Again, I must repeat some caveats because invariably I'm going to be accused of saying that the Israel lobby has no influence whatsoever. Of course it has influence. I suppose one could say it "chills debate," in the sense that AARP chills debate on Medicare or Lockheed Martin chills debate on weapons programs. One thing that lobbies do is raise the political cost to elected officials of opposing their policies. But I'd appreciate if somebody could explain to me how this story demonstrates that the Israel lobby wields power in any way out of character with the power of other lobbies.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 21 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

21 comments

But of course there's a difference between AIPAC and all the other lobbies - none of the others are primarily run by Jews. To a certain type of mind, this automatically makes it a sinister abomination.

- Shorpe

May 31, 2011 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are many "Israeli" lobbies, and AIPAC does not speak for me on Israel. In fact I am not sure what AIPAC is supposed to stand for, but hopefully not make excuses for Netanyahu's settlements in Arab lands or speaking before Congress. Bluntly put, this is the Prime Minister if an ally stirring up America's racial pot.

- NR027810

May 31, 2011 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When I read the head to this post, I thought of the very item that Andrew Sullivan wrote the other day, which you link to here, Jonathan. Sullivan has just gone bonkers on Israel and I don't suppose that anyone can talk any sense into him. If you don't watch out, Jonathan, the Israel lobby will come after you with a tire iron and then .... nothing will happen. But even this shows the power of the Lobby, no? The fear is always there.

- liberalref

May 31, 2011 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's also funny about this is that Sullivan and Rosenberg claim that when they are referring to the Israel Lobby, they're talking about AIPAC. But AIPAC itself actually didn't take any actions adverse to Levin, et al. Only Jews did. So when these guys refer to The Lobby, to whom are they referring after all?

- bigm

May 31, 2011 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If official U.S. support for Israeli governments is evidence not of the power of the Israeli lobby, but the "the public's overwhelming sympathy for" Israel, I suppose we should conclude that the NRA isn't very powerful at all. Gun laws in this country are determined by "the public's overwhelming sympathy" for the rights of people to carry loaded guns of virtually any type or caliber into church, bars, parks, almost any gathering place in the country. The gun lobby isn't advancing the goals of a relatively small number of committed people, it's just channelling the desires of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Of course, one might argue certain lobbies exercise great power by leveraging the sympathies of people who are, essentially, single issue voters -- using the passion of a very committed minority to dominate an issue in which most of the public have only half-hearted interest. But if you believe such a thing about the gun lobby you would have to admit that it is at least possible the Israeli lobby is doing the same thing. And that would be anti-Semitic. So it isn't happening.

- DC Spence

May 31, 2011 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chait, but I don't think you are fully aware of the utter perfidy and total control of the Jewish Lobby over Obama's administration. You need to get out more: [Norwegian Daily] Aftenposten: ‘Rich Jews threaten Obama’ http://www.israelwhat.com/2011/05/21/aftenposten-rich-jews-threaten-obama/

- noga1

May 31, 2011 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DCS, there's a difference of a very considerable nature between the NRA and AIPAC, and by extension an even greater one between the NRA and the Israeli government. The National Rifle Association is a large American organization that sees -- over the last couple of decades at least -- its task as enforcing the Second Amendment freedoms in a political and legal environment they consider to be hostile to basic rights. I might think they are nutty, or myopic in a dangerous way, but their right to interpret the Constitution in an assertive way and organize on local, state, and federal levels around that position, and, moreover, to support litigation to win court backing for NRA ideas, is not in dispute. They have a massive national membership and don't hesitate to openly influence elections. AIPAC is in contrast a relatively small, if high profile, American organization that works to lobby politicians, media, and government on behalf of another country's interests. AIPAC would certainly argue that American and Israeli interests converge much more than diverge, but at the end of the day it has only a volatile combination of public opinion, foreign policy tradition, and official access to work with, and can invoke nothing even remotely like the Second Amendment as a warrant. Indeed, AIPAC must take care not to be seen as some kind of outside-directed body interfering in U.S. government affairs, as their work could be compromised -- and has been at times -- by any such perception. And, although it may appear as it did last week that AIPAC has significant influence in the sitting Congress, they also have to avoid becoming a Republican Party stalking-horse, which would ultimately damage their cause. The NRA has no such fears. To that extent, the NRA is not a fair comparison, as it can set to work on considerably more constitutionally solid ground than lobbying for Israel can -- and indeed, has had considerably more success, as I'd argue that a natural NRA foe such as Obama treads more carefully when it comes to guns and gun rights than he does in relation to U.S. Middle East policy.

- ironyroad

May 31, 2011 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I carry no water for Walt and Mearsheimer, but it is not fair to tar them with their original capitalized term "The Lobby." In their December 2006 online response to their critics, here is what W&M say about that: "First and foremost, we regret having capitalized the word 'Lobby' in our original article. Capitalizing this term ran counter to our explicit claim that the lobby was a 'loose coalition' but not a unified or centralized organization. (The term is not capitalized in Walt’s 2005 book, Taming American Power, which contained a brief summary of some of the core arguments in our paper.) In any case, to capitalize this term was an error and we have used a lower-case ' l ' in our subsequent writings."

- rriley

May 31, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you have to qualify "American's overwhelming sympathy for Israel". Not least because there are many different views on what constitutes Israel. For example, three quarters of Americans think Israel should not build settlements on occupied territory. Yet, it has being going on for decades. Take your google pick of polls. They all show the same thing. When asked in general about supporting Israel, the results are strongly in favour of Israel but when asked about specifics, like settlement construction, the results are also strongly against Israel. "One third of Americans show more sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians, substantially more than the 12 percent who express more sympathy for the Palestinians." However "Even those respondents who sympathize more with Israel feel that it should not be building settlements in the West Bank by a clear majority (64%), as do those who sympathize equally with Israel and the Palestinians (80%), and those who sympathize more with the Palestinians (96%)." http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/604.php?lb=brusc&pnt=604&nid=&id= You should know better Jonathan. It's very much the argument you make against The Randians propaganda i.e., the American public being against Big Govt in the abstract but for specific govt programs.

- IggyPop

May 31, 2011 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've pretty much stopped reading Sullivan. His views on too many subjects --Israel and Sarah Palin come to mind-- have become so unhinged that he is cannot be taken seriously anymore. Even on issues that he used to be so adamant about, things like government debt, he is seemingly wishy-washy on now. Moreover, since he moved to the Daily Beast, I have no reason to even read him in passing. When he was at the Atlantic, the other bloggers were so interesting to me that I'd see what Sullivan was saying even if it wasn't why I was going there. Nothing at the Daily Beast brings me there on a regular basis. In the end, I firmly believe that Sullivan's refusal to allow open reader comments makes his blog useless. If he allowed commenting, he'd have to back up some of the more ludicrous statements he makes. Instead, he hand picks user emails and publishes the ones that he wants, rather than the ones I want to see.

- SJ_LEX_LEO@YAHOO.COM

May 31, 2011 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I'm aware the NRA and AIPAC are not identical. I didn't make that argument. What I wrote is that the support U.S. government officials show for the Israeli government might be a bit more complicated than the public's "overwhelming support" for Israel and that single-issue voters on the Israel issue wield on outsized influence on their cause of choice, much the same way single-issue gun voters do. I've noticed that some people who regularly denounce the NRA's influence on our country's gun laws seem to become complete innocents when the subject of the Israeli lobby's influence on U.S. mideast policy is raised. I'm not arguing that the Israeli lobby doesn't have the right to influence U.S. policy in any legal and ethical way it is possible to do so. I'm just saying it does have an outsized influence on its issue of choice just as the gun lobby does on its issue or the AARP on its issues. The fact that these lobbies are not carbon copies of each other is not important. What matters is that they wield great influence over certain areas of U.S. policy and that influence sometimes runs counter to public opinion [most Americans favor far greater gun restrictions than NRA lobbyists do] or what I or others may judge to be the best interests of the country. And it doesn't make one a "gun-grabber" or anti-Semite to point out this simple, obvious fact.

- DC Spence

May 31, 2011 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am grateful that AIPAC and other domestic grassroots pro-Israel organizations have some influence and power. The stakes are very high in the Middle East. Debates about the legitimacy of the pro-Israel lobby are an attempt to intimidate Americans who understand Israel's unique predicaments. You can be sure that MJ Rosenberg, Mearsheimer, Walt, and Sullivan are not complaining about the Arab Lobby, which is mostly organized and amply funded from abroad. Unlike the Arab/Islamic Lobby, the pro-Israel Lobby still has the support of most Americans. That is the real source of its power.

- amidut

May 31, 2011 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If McConnell thinks he can do both at once, then Obama is doing a terrible job of negotiating." Two years of data strongly suggests the best bet is is on McConnell. And Obama touting the agreement as "Economic Bipartisan Peace in Our Time"

- drofnats1

May 31, 2011 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Despite Andrew Sullivan's ludicrous views on the Middle East and his obsession with Sarah Palin, The Dish is still a beautiful blog and an incredible reading experience, jam. Reading Sullivan is a wee bit more edifying than reading, say, you. The rant about no reader comments is just bizarre. A. Sullivan routinely publishes strong dissents, so it is not like he is cherry-picking. If he only published yes-readers, then you would have a point. But as it is, you don't. So any blog that doesn't provide for reader comments is useless? It is precisely remarks like this at TNR that depress me. Here we have educated (semi-?) readers and yet the level of comments are often very poor. Yes, let every blog be open to reader response and then we can have universal inanity. I see that the loopy dro wandered in on the wrong thread for his comment. I worry about him driving down the road; he might lose his way and veer off the street and smash into the Democratic Party headquarters.

- liberalref

May 31, 2011 at 9:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Despite Andrew Sullivan's ludicrous views on the Middle East and his obsession with Sarah Palin, The Dish is still a beautiful blog and an incredible reading experience, jam. Reading Sullivan is a wee bit more edifying than reading, say, you." You need remedial reading lessons if you think Sullivan is a beautiful "writer." I am glad he is gone from the Atlantic.

- arnon

May 31, 2011 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I like The Dish. It's not particularly deep, but Sullivan has an eclectic and interesting taste and every day I find several things worthy of my attention.

- DC Spence

May 31, 2011 at 9:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I like The Dish" DC Spence Of course you do.

- arnon

May 31, 2011 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sullivan is so eclectic he might end up writing for the NY Times. If I were Roger Cohen, I'd worry about it.

- arnon

May 31, 2011 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The remedial needs are all yours, a. I didn't write that A. Sullivan is a beautiful "writer." I wrote that The Dish is a "beautiful blog." My phrase is right there, and still you muffed it. I like how it is always the idiots who strut around. I second your comment, DC, and I would only add that not infrequently, The Dish is deep. Sullivan has a tremendous grasp of political philosophy and it shows at his blog. On the other hand, what he chooses to showcase on the topics of philosophy and religion is almost never first-rate.

- liberalref

May 31, 2011 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" I didn't write that A. Sullivan is a beautiful "writer." I wrote that The Dish is a "beautiful blog." My phrase is right there,...." Oh my, I suppose blogs write themselves.

- arnon

June 1, 2011 at 1:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sweet Jeebus, Arnon, liberalref could be referring to the photos and poems, in addition to the writing. You can't possibly be this stupid and the play-dumb routine doesn't make you a contrarian, it just makes you unbearably drab and tedious. Congrats.

- DC Spence

June 1, 2011 at 6:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close