John Mearsheimer Speaks on Israel Lobby
VTR
Apr. 8, 2008 | By Jake Robert Nelson, DSJ Opinions Editor
John Mearsheimer, commonly seen as one of the foremost thinkers in modern international
relations theory, presented on Monday a lecture entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Middle East
Policy" to a packed University Center Commonwealth Auditorium.
In the lecture, which coincided with the recently published and controversial book of the same
name written by Mearsheimer and fellow IR theorist Stephen Walt, Mearsheimer discussed the
considerable influence exerted by the Israel Lobby on American foreign policy.
The Anti-Defamation League, an interest group devoted to the cessation of anti-Semitism, said
in a 2007 press release, “Jew hatred lives on in speeches by Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad [and] in the writings of the professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.”
Mike Tierney and Sue Peterson, directors of the College’s Institute for the Theory and Practice
of International Relations (TRIP), the group that brought Mearsheimer to campus, introduced the
speaker. Mearsheimer was described as a “public intellectual,” who was not only a theorist but
also a New York Times bestselling author with accessible publications in journals like The
Atlantic Monthly.
Mearsheimer began by laying out his three overarching points. First, he said that the Israel
Lobby is a powerful interest in the U.S. that shapes policy choices. Second, that most of the
policies pursued by the lobby are not in the interest of the United States or Israel. Finally,
that the U.S. should treat Israel as it would treat any other democracy.
The Israel Lobby, as defined by Mearsheimer, is a “loose coalition of individuals and groups
who work openly to influence United States foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.” He listed
some representative groups: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), some think tanks and media outlets like the Wall Street Journal.
The Lobby, he said, exercises its power by “exerting influence inside the beltway” and “shaping
public discourse and opinions.” Both instances make it extremely difficult to oppose the status
quo regarding Israel policy. He cited the role of AIPAC in steering campaign contributions to
pro-Israel candidates and of pro-Israel advertisers who choose not to support dissenting media
outlets.
He also defined the specifics of American aid to Israel. Although Israel has the 29th highest
per capita income, he said, the United States gives $500 per Israeli citizen in aid, as well as
consistent diplomatic backing. He cited the fact that the U.S. has blocked over 40 United
Nations Security Council resolutions that would change policy on Israel, more vetoes than
exercised by any of the four other permanent members.
This aid, he explained, is given unconditionally and constantly. The strategic location of
Israel, a moral or socio-cultural tie to Israel and overwhelming American public support are
the reasons given for the support. Mearsheimer, however, negates each of these points.
Mearsheimer’s three main points, which form the backbone of the argument in his recent book,
altogether advocate for a change in U.S. foreign policy with Israel.
He discussed the lack of cohesion in the Lobby’s pro-Israel positions with American or Israeli
national interests. Although every president since 1967 has opposed the building of settlements
on Palestinian territory, no administration has put pressure on the government of Israel and
some have even defended Israel in the United Nations.
Mearsheimer also said that the presence of the U.S. in Israel has been a major contributing
factor in creating global anti-American sentiment and the rise of terrorism, as “anger towards
the United States fuels terrorism.”
He listed three possible future outcomes for the state of Israel: a democratic bi-national
state, an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, or a South Africa-esque apartheid system. The last,
he says, is the most probable outcome, but Israel can only support such a system for a limited
amount of time before collapsing.
His final point -- essentially a policy suggestion -- was that the U.S. should end its special
relationship with Israel. He advocated that the United States oppose Israeli policy choices
that are contrary to its national interests.
“The United states,” he said, “should act as an honest broker, making even-handed policies.”
He insisted that this did not imply making anti-Israel policy and that the United States should
come to the aid of Israel when it is in trouble.
The hour-long lecture commemorates an unofficial start to Palestinian Awareness Week. While the
lecture was not a planned part of the week’s activities -- which include more lectures, a film
screening and a panel discussion, all sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine -- it is a
first step towards a dialogue about Israel and Palestine on campus.