Summary
Background
The film The Israel Lobby (2007), created and produced by the Dutch network VPRO, reviews and analyzes the central claims made in the academic paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy[A], published in 2006 and written by John J. Mearsheimer, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a Professor of International Relations at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Governance[2]. This paper argues that a powerful lobbyist group operates within the United States that is comprised of “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”[3]. The paper posits that this Israel lobby, sometimes called the Jewish lobby, works against the national and strategic interests of the U.S. This is mainly due to some of the interests of Israel being incongruent, or even in direct opposition, with those of the United States, such as military escalations in Iran or Iraq. The latter of which has already led to a full-fledged war that is now unanimously thought of to be one of the worst political decisions made by American leaders in the 21st century.
In spite of these apparent conflicting interests, politicians in the U.S. still seemingly hark on the lobby’s every proclivity and every bill sponsored by the lobby seems to get passed without pushback or question. In regards to the claim posited in Mearsheimer and Walt’s book that the interests of the Israel lobby are in opposition to those of the U.S, and why politicians continue to support them in spite of it, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that Mearsheimer and Walt are technically correct, but they are pragmatically wrong in that the U.S. would ever stop supporting Israel due to purely logical reasons, which he says is majorly due to “[…] a very powerful Jewish lobby in America”[1].
Mearsheimer and Walt argue that this deferential attitude American politicians have toward Israeli interests are largely due to the highly organized and well-funded nature of the lobby. By using campaign funding and ads, promises of reelection, threats of being labeled an antisemite, and through more hidden and illegal methods of gaining political power such as the buying out, spying, and political blackmailing of politicians, the lobby positions itself to be a highly and unnervingly influential force in the overall decision-making processes of the U.S government[2].
AIPAC, one of the key players in the Israel lobby and an organization that openly calls itself a proxy for the Israeli government, uses its power to afford the Israeli government various boons provided by the U.S., such as approximately $3 billion a year in foreign aid (vastly more depending on the period, such as over $20 billion in military aid in 2024 so far)[4][5]. The U.S. gives more foreign aid to Israel than any other country in the world, despite the fact Israel is one the wealthiest and financially stable countries in the world.
Figure 1 – U.S. Aid to Israel since the 1970s, Council on Foreign Relations[5].
The U.S. provides other important privileges as well, such as vetoing U.N. resolutions that are brought against Israel. The U.S. has vetoed 89 Security Council resolutions in total since 1945[6]. These vetoes frequently absolve Israel of facing repercussions after breaching international law. The creation of illegal settlements in the West Bank, military aggression in Lebanon in 1972, violent suppression of non-violent Palestinian protests, and various other breaches in international law and the Geneva conventions have been swept under the rug by American vetoes[7]. More recently, the U.S. vetoed U.N. resolutions calling for Israel to commit to a ceasefire deal in Gaza and various resolutions calling for humanitarian pause in Gaza[8][9]. The U.S. also provides a sweeping defense guarantee in the case Israel is ever attacked or in imminent danger.
Summary of Documentary
This documentary aims to analyze the claims and arguments presented in the titular paper. They do this by interviewing various pundits from either side of the issue from a pro-Zionist American televangelist to John Mearsheimer himself, and everything in between such as a political advisor who worked in the Regan and Bush administrations, former U.S. colonel, chief of staff, member of Congress, historian, professor, and investigative journalist. The creators of this documentary do not explicitly make an argument one way or the other. There is little to no narration and the bulk of the documentary are segments of interviews of the aforementioned pundits.
However, based on the interviews shown and the way the evidence was presented the creators likely aimed to substantiate the claims made by Mearsheimer and Walt. Despite this apparent bias, the documentary does make a good effort to interview pundits on the opposing side and acknowledge and disseminate the common criticisms of Mearsheimer and Walt’s work, such as claims of shoddy scholarly evidence or accusations of antisemitism.
Application
Introduction
One of the issues I had while writing this section was how to connect the operation of the Israel lobby with that of corruption, since the lobby is ostensibly completely legal under U.S. law and thus would not seemingly qualify as corrupt. During the application portion of this review, I aim to demonstrate that this viewpoint is inaccurate by providing the necessary context that will shed light on the inner, more inconspicuous, workings of the lobby, and hopefully connect various topics of corruption along the way. Specifically, I will argue that the Israel lobby’s influence in American politics—such as their ability to push biased legislation, undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans, and coerce U.S. politicians to serve foreign interests—constitute a subversion of American politics and the methods used in such subversion as unlawful and corrupt. This type of corruption should be combated just as vigorously as other egregious forms, such as pharmaceutical companies buying off politicians to keep life-saving drug prices high or Russia influencing U.S. politicians to adopt pro-Russia policies detrimental to American interests.
The Origins of the Israel Lobby
I will start by giving a short history of the Israel lobby in American politics. The history of this lobby can be traced back to the 19th century, with Christian belief in the return of the Jews to the Holy Land. In the 19th century, Christian restorationist George Bush, a professor of Hebrew at New York University, published a book entitled The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived. In his book, Bush called for the elevation of Jews “to a rank of honorable repute among the nations of the earth” by restoring the Jews to the land of Israel where the bulk would be converted to Christianity[10]. This book sold approximately one million copies in the U.S. during the antebellum period. Beginning in 1914, Louis Brandeis and his brand of American Zionism made Jewish Zionism a force on the American scene for the first time, increasing ten-fold to approximately 200,000 members[11]. During the period of 1947-48, Zionist lobbying in the United States aided the creation of the State of Israel[12].
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the leading organizations within the Israel lobby, representing a coalition of pro-Israel American Jewish and Christian Zionist groups. AIPAC was founded on January 3, 1963, with its original name being the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA), an organization that began operations in 1954[13]. AIPAC advocates pro-Israel policies to the legislative and executive branches of the United States. It has been called one of the most powerful, organized, and prolific lobbying groups in the United States and has over 3 million members as of 2024[14]. AIPAC describes itself as a bipartisan organization, and the bills that it lobbies in Congress are always jointly sponsored by both a Democrat and Republican.
Israel Lobby’s Mode of Operation
Some of the operations and effects of the Israel lobby are in plain view, others opaque. AIPAC itself does not hide the fact they wield immense political clout in the American political system. On AIPAC’s own website, they openly admit to the fact that “98% of AIPAC backed candidates won their general elections”[15]. The website Track AIPACanalyzes pro-Israel PACs and interest groups funding of federal officials. According to their gatherings, hundreds of members of the U.S. house, senate, and congressional candidates have received various sums of money, ranging from a few thousand to millions.
Figure 2 – Nikki Haley payouts from AIPAC, AIPAC Tracker[16].
For example, Nikki Haley, a 2024 Presidential candidate and former ambassador to the United Nations, has received over $1.1 million from the Israel lobby[16]. In May 2024, Haley was interviewed with Israel Hayom newspaper just days after Israel drew international condemnation for a strike that killed dozens of Gazan civilians in a camp for displaced Palestinians. “Israel, they’re the good guys,” Haley unapologetically said. “And you know what I want Israelis to know? You’re doing the right thing. Don’t let anybody make you feel wrong”[17]. Haley signed an Israeli artillery shell that same week, writing the words “Finish them” onto the shell body.
AIPAC states on their website that “Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics”, seemingly oblivious, or confident enough not to care, of the political implications of corruption. John Hagee, a prolific American pastor and televangelist, said during an interview in a stark and matter of fact tone “If anyone comes against Israel in a malicious way, we’ll do everything in our power to make sure it’s their last term in office”[18]. This remark was in response to previous questions by the interviewer about how American politicians who go against the goals of the Israel lobby or criticize Israel are treated. Earl Hillard, a member of congress from Alabama, sought to create diplomatic ties with Libya and opposed resolutions in the 1990s that, in his eyes, unnecessarily put sanctions and strained relations with countries such as Libya, Syria, and Iran. He was unscrupulously defamed and skewed as a supporter of the 9/11 terrorist attacks due to his affiliations with these countries. AIPAC, having seen him as someone who would not bend the knee and support their policies, spent over $300,000 in campaign ads against him. He lost his reelection[19].
Michael Massing, an investigative journalist, said in an interview with VPRO that “AIPAC does an excellent job constantly testing people’s loyalty to Israel and the Israel cause—And those who vote in the way that AIPAC wants will be rewarded with campaign funds and financial support”[20]. This testimony is substantiated by Thomas Massie, a Representative form Kentucky, who said in an interview with Tucker Carlson that AIPAC tests candidates by giving them “homework” for them to do, such as writing white papers on Israel[21]. The logic in such a request is that the candidate who does what AIPAC says now is more likely to follow the requests of AIPAC after being elected. Massie himself was targeted by a campaign of “educational advocacy advertisements” against him by AIPAC, who spent over $400,000 against him in favor of his pro-Zionist running mate, Bill Adkins. During the interview, Massie makes light of a critical yet obvious characteristic about AIPAC: A lobby, with the express purpose to lobby in favor of a foreign agent, is not registered as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This presents a clear case of the principal-agent dilemma, where AIPAC (agent) is delegated authority by the U.S. (principal) to lobby and pursue the interests of a foreign agent opaquely, interests that might, or rather will inevitably, conflict with those of the U.S.[22].
The Israel lobby does not just hold power within America, however. Tony Judt, a historian and anti-Zionist, described a situation where he was invited to give a talk about U.S. foreign policy in the middle east. The Polish Consulate General has canceled Judt’s talk due to calls he received from the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-defamation League (ADL)[23]. The reason the Polish Consulate General rescinded his invite was pragmatic; The Polish government was trying to diminish their image as an administration plagued by antisemitism and become closer diplomatically to the U.S. and Israel. The justification for why the ADL got involved, however, makes little sense as Judt himself is a Jew, served in the IDF, and worked in a kibbutz in Israel in the 1960s. Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch (an independent NGO that investigates human rights violations), said that this is what the lobby does in order to silence those who criticize the Israeli government or the Zionist venture in any way[24]. Roth, who is also Jewish and who has stated his parents survived the Nazi Holocaust and pogroms in Poland and Belarus, said that he was labeled as an antisemite in response to Human Rights Watch’s coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006, where they reported Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment on civilian areas in Lebanon. Roth, continuing with the interview, said that the accusations of antisemitism did not stick and were ineffective due to his Jewish heritage. Indeed, many of the most ardent and publicly visible figures in the anti-Zionist space are Jewish historians and scholars, including people like Tony Judt, Kenneth Roth, Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein, Illan Pappe, and Gideon Levy. This is primarily due to a system of censorship pushed by various Jewish lobbies and groups like the ADL, whereby Jewish figures have additional immunity against accusations of antisemitism and the character assassination therefore which affords them the ability to speak more freely against Israel and the dealings of the lobby. Conversely, a non-Jew who is critical of the Israeli regime can be immediately shut down or censored due to the same accusations of antisemitism.
Given the breadth and depth of the apparent subversive influence AIPAC holds, it is clear illicit acts of corruption expressly outlined by U.S. law have taken place in some way. The bipartisan unwavering support for Israel cannot be fully explained otherwise. One could speculate that one of the ways corruption has taken place is similar in methods the lobbyist Jack Abramoff used to subvert US politicians. Abramoff bribed politicians covertly through things like giving vast amounts of gifts, access to prestigious restaurants and clubs, money, better jobs, etc., and was able to do things like put highly verbose and jargon-filled sections of law into US legislation, knowing the exact meaning of the sections will not be thoroughly examined[25]. This gave Abramoff direct discretion to modify US law. Keep in mind that much of what Abramoff did was technically legal under the current American laws, such as inviting Politicians to five-figure dinners at luxurious restaurants. Even though many of Abramoff’s tactics have been enumerated and outlawed, similar methods still allowed or unaddressed under U.S. law are still used today by a variety of other lobbyist groups including AIPAC.
Illegal corruption the lobby was and is likely involved in might include extortion, whereby the lobby threatens the job security of a politician or member of staff, or nepotism and cronyism, whereby positions of power in the US are given to those with views that align with the Israel lobby. Rent-seeking or the revolving door might be used to gain the influence of high-ranking officials and use them to do favors for the lobby as well. Through these methods and various other tactics not laid out here, continued support for Israel and the lobby is essentially guaranteed. Potential opposition is stifled by the prospect of never being able to win an election, having your career ended, or simply because being a proponent of AIPAC, as is prominently and proudly displayed at the front page of AIPAC’s website, is “good policy” for getting elected, donations, or progressing your career.
It is peculiar that politicians in the U.S., one of the most powerful nations in the world whose ideals were founded on the notion that all governments can and should be criticized and whose political foundational context is underpinned by a deep-rooted distrust and dismay of foreign powers and their influence, need to follow the discretion and rules laid out by a foreign interest group such as AIPAC to such a high degree, and to toe-the-line in what speech they can and cannot say regarding the government of a foreign nation. Whether that foreign nation is an ally or not, or whether Israel’s interests align with America’s or not, both matter little at the face of this overall, overarching, and blatant fact: A foreign interest group, a proxy of a nation that is not America, does not adhere to American governance or constitution, or is controlled by American leaders, can hold such domineering influence within the U.S. political system enough to enact laws into U.S. legislation, coerce Presidents and Congressman, and influence the political landscape of the U.S. If one were to replace the I in AIPAC with China or Russia then the foreign influence becomes transparently obvious. This alone should be enough to warrant the passing and utilization of further anti-corruption and anti-foreign-agent laws that monitor, mitigate, and control the influence of these foreign lobbies.
The Negative Effects of the Israel Lobby
The Iraq War
The Iraq war briefly mentioned during the beginning of this paper, but the extent to which Israel and AIPAC had in advising and encouraging the American invasion of Iraq is not widely known, which warrants a longer explanation. Current Prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu was a stark war hawk during 2002, strongly advising the U.S. to wage war against Saddam Hussein and pushing the idea of weapons of mass destruction being present within Iraq[26]. It is now well known there was little to no evidence to support this claim. Netanyahu’s motive in pushing for a military escalation into Iraq is clear: to destabilize and neutralize a sovereign country whose leader was against the Israeli regime. In short, the U.S. going to war in Iraq played directly within Israel’s interest of national security. In return the U.S. lost thousands of U.S. soldiers lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives were lost, trillions of dollars were wasted, the mid-east region only became even more dictatorial, destabilized, and anti-western, and the war resulted in the conditions that would lead to the emergence of ISIS in the region[27].
Of course, this is not to say the Israel lobby was solely responsible for America’s decision to invade Iraq. Neoconservatism along with the aftermath of 9/11 led to the ideological and psychological justification for the war, but the impact the lobby had in contributing to the ultimate decision to invade Iraq cannot be understated. The pressure and lobbying by the Israeli and American Jewish groups and donors played a significant driving factor to this decision, so much so that if the influence of this lobby were absent, the decision to enact war in Iraq might not have been made.
Lawrence Wilkerson is a former chief of staff of Colin Powell and is a vocal critic of many aspects of the Iraq war and has stated he regrets his participation in Colin Powell’s hearing that contributed to the decision to go to war. This is what Wilkerson had to say about the motives behind the Iraq war: “Was oil the number one influence on President Bush and Vice President Cheney? Or was WMD? Or was it spreading democracy[B]? […] You have to decide where were these factors, and inevitably the Jewish lobby in America, AIPAC in particular, has got to be there.” He points out that AIPAC’s influence on national security decision-making was particularly strong in the Bush administration and “very influential through Vice President Cheney ” and others like Elliot Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz[28]. John Mearsheimer, continuing the topic of what motivated the Iraq war, said that “[…] you don’t want to lose sight of the fact the Israeli government was also feeding, to the United State government, intelligence which said that Iraq had a serious WMD capability and was an imminent threat”[29]. Mearsheimer notes that an Israeli general named Shlomo Brahm wrote a report saying that Israel was “a full partner in this scheme to convince the public, in the United and around the globe, that Iraq was an imminent threat”, even though they knew Iraq not to be one.
The U.S.S. Liberty Attack
The USS Liberty incident, which occurred on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, was a significant event in the history of Israel and the United States. The USS Liberty, an American Navy technical research ship, was attacked by Israeli Air Force jet fighters and Navy torpedo boats. The combined air and sea attack resulted in the death of 34 crew members and left 171 wounded. Israel apologized for the attack, stating that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship. Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship’s identity[30][31].
Figure 3- Damaged USS Liberty on 9 June 1967, one day after attack, Wikipedia[30].
However, some survivors of the attack and contemporary experts have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate[32]
. In the aftermath of the incident, there were allegations of corruption within the Zionist lobbyist group at the time. Critics argue that this group influenced U.S. politicians to overlook the incident and continue supporting Israel. It’s reported that President Johnson believed the attack was intentional but decided he had to publicly accept Israel’s explanation[33].
By the end of the month of the Liberty attack, on June 29th 1967, the House heard the outrage of Representative Craig Hosmer, a navy reservist who served in World War II and was well-versed in ship identification. “I can only conclude that the coordinated attack by aircraft and motor torpedo boats on the USS Liberty 15 ½ miles north of Sinai on June 8th, which killed 34 officers and men of the Navy and wounded another 75, was deliberate. The fact that the USS Liberty was a Victory hull vessel, hundreds of which were produced and used by the U.S. Navy during World War II and since, rules out the possibility of mistaken identity. Every ship recognition book in the world has, for years, identified the characteristic Victory hull and superstructure of the USS Liberty as U.S. Navy property”[34][35].
Thomas Abernethy, a Representative from Mississippi, took the floor moments later and spoke candidly. “I have heard Members of this House, and many, many others, say that if this had been done by others, the leaders of our government would have moved in with sternness and appropriate demands or even retaliatory action. Regardless of who is responsible–friendly or unfriendly–when American sons are unnecessarily killed by an unprovoked military attack, even in the case of mistaken identity, Uncle Sam as a rule demands to know “Why”? And ordinarily we do not stop with just a demand. The ship was well marked, so said the Pentagon. Its name was painted on its stern. U.S. letters and numbers were on its bow. The day was clear. And it was distinctly flying the flag that you and I stood here and so praised and respected just a few days ago on Flag Day. What complaint have we registered? What has Washington said? To tell you the truth, this great Capital as well as this great Government–if it can still be called great–was and is as quiet as the tomb regarding this horrible event”[34][35].
Few other elected leaders said or did anything. Of the 435 House members, only Hosmer and Abernathy spoke out during the three and a half hours that legislative body met, and no one in the Senate, who met for less than two hours, mentioned the attack[36]. Surprisingly after the attack U.S. politicians praised Israel and even championed continued and increased aid to Israel. The cause of such silence and total impunity is clear: A foreign government has operated freely through its agents in the American democratic system.
The Lavon Affair
Many criticize the viewing of the USS Liberty attack as a deliberate, false flag operation by Israel to be dangerous and a disgusting conspiracy theory that accuses one of America’s closest allies of perpetuating violence against the U.S. This would be a compelling argument if Israel had not already committed several other false flag operations targeting Americans in the past.
The Lavon Affair, also known as Operation Susannah, was a covert operation that occurred in the summer of 1954. In this operation, a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian-, American-, and British-owned civilian targets. The operation was part of a false flag operation, with the attacks intended to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian communists, or local nationalists with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone[37]. Israel was also concerned about the rise of Egyptian nationalism under President Gamal Abdel Nasser and feared the strengthening ties between Egypt and Western powers, especially the U.S.
During the month of July in 1954, the operatives carried out a series of bombings targeting civilian areas in Cairo and Alexandria including cinemas, American education centers, and libraries. On July 2nd, agents detonated bombs at a post office in Alexandria. On July 14th, they bombed the libraries of the U.S. Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo, and a British-owned theater. On July 23rd, an incendiary bomb went off in the pocket of one of the agents outside the British-owned theater[38]. On October 5th, 1954, Egypt announced the arrest of a “13-man spy ring.” Egypt concluded that the operation was ordered by the Israeli Secretary of Defense, Pinchas Lavon, hence the name “Lavon Affair.” The 13 agents consisted of Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis[39]. In 2005 Israel publicly honored the surviving spies by presenting them each with a certificate of appreciation for their efforts on behalf of the state, ending decades of official denial by Israel that the operation ever took place[40].
This operation shows that Israel is not beneath using violent, deceitful, and corrupt tactics, even on their own allies, in order to manipulate international politics. This event further supports the claim that the USS Liberty attack was a deliberate false flag operation. The fact that the Lavon affair was known to U.S. officials during the 1967 Liberty attack, occurring a mere 13 years later, further worsens their inaction and silence.
The Gazan Genocide
The US government’s approach to human rights abuses and accusations of genocide reveals a glaring double standard when comparing its treatment of Israel to its treatment of other countries, such as China. For instance, in January 2021, the US State Department declared that the Chinese government was committing genocide and crimes against humanity against the Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang[41]. This declaration was made despite the absence of documented deaths directly attributable to the Chinese government’s actions against the Uyghurs, focusing instead on widespread repression and systemic discrimination. In stark contrast, the US has been notably hesitant to label Israel’s actions in Gaza, particularly during the 2023-24 invasion, as genocide. This invasion resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, with reports from various sources, including US-based organizations, confirming the massive civilian toll. Despite this, the US government refrains from using the term genocide when describing Israel’s actions, even though its own reports have documented gross violations of human rights and potential war crimes by the Israeli military.
One poignant example illustrating this violation of human rights and targeting civilians is the case of Hind Rajab. On January 29, 2024, six-year-old Hind Rajab was trapped alone in a car in Gaza City, surrounded by the bodies of her family members after an Israeli tank targeted their car[42]. Rajab was able to contact emergency dispatchers from the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS), and told the dispatchers, in response to being asked if her parents were alive, “They are all dead” and that their dead bodies were still inside the car. She repeatedly described the presence of an Israeli tank moving closer and cried for help multiple times by telling the dispatchers “I’m so scared, please come”. Palestinian paramedics Yousef Zeino and Ahmed al-Madhoun were dispatched to rescue her, having coordinated with the Israeli military for safe passage. However, as the ambulance was driving en route to Hind’s location Israeli gunfire struck them down, killing both paramedics. Hind’s body along with 6 of her deceased relatives were found inside their bullet-ridden and destroyed car 12 days later. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) denied presence in the area, but a Washington Post investigation found evidence of Israeli military activity and weaponry consistent with the damage inflicted[43]
.
Figure 4 – ‘Please come’: Hind Rajab, five, found dead in Gaza almost two weeks after call for help, Guardian News
Such incidents and many others highlight the indiscriminate nature of the bombings, which have targeted civilian areas, aid convoys, and essential infrastructure like hospitals and universities. The destruction of these facilities, some of which were already under Israeli control and did not house Hamas operatives, points to a deliberate strategy aimed at making Gaza unlivable for its civilian population. The widespread use of imprecise “dumb bombs”, which a U.S. report found to be more than 50% of all Israeli munitions used in Gaza, further points to this fact[44]. These bombardments and attacks against a densely crowded, locked up, and starving populace demonstrate the grueling amount of unnecessary suffering and loss of life that has been a major characteristic of Israel’s invasion of Gaza.
Despite the colossal civilian death toll and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, and despite evidence from the US State Department itself saying that five units of the IDF were responsible for severe human rights violations in incidents predating the current conflict in Gaza[45], the U.S. still continues to supply military aid to Israel and veto U.N. resolutions against them. This ongoing support exposes the inconsistency in the US’s human rights rhetoric and actions. The State Department’s findings, combined with Israel’s use of American-made arms in operations widely condemned for their civilian impact, suggest a tacit endorsement of Israel’s actions.
A key factor in the continued support America gives Israel is the continuous lies told by the Israeli government and lies that are repeated by American officials as fact or highly credible, lest the officials face backlash from the lobby. The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) created a list of some of Israel’s military and government most egregious examples of false and misleading statements used to cover up and deflect responsibility for war crimes they committed against Palestinians in recent years. These include lying about the use of white phosphorus in violation of international law in October 2023, unsubstantiated claims about beheading of children in October 2023, lying about deadly airstrike on civilian convoy seeking safety in Gaza in October 2023, lying about bombing of media offices in Gaza in May 2021, lying about the killing of Ahmad Erekat at West Bank military checkpoint in June 2020, doctoring video to falsely claim medic murdered by Israeli sniper was human shield in June 2018, and a myriad more[46]. Another recent example includes “top Israel lobby rallying its supporters to go to Capitol Hill and falsely claim to lawmakers that people aren’t starving in Gaza and Israel isn’t blocking aid shipments, according to talking points obtained by the American Prospect”[47]. Claims that Al-Shifa hospital was used as a base of operations by Hamas have also been found to be false, with a “Washington Post investigation [finding] Israel’s evidence “falls short” of showing that Hamas used the facility as a command center”[48].
The Palestinian-American analyst Omar Baddar laid out the timeline of how Israel keeps getting away with lying to the U.S. by describing a series of cyclical events: Israel commits a massacre, Israel denies the massacre, media says that they don’t know who committed the massacre, investigation reveals Israel committed massacre, news cycle moves on, and the average person doesn’t know Israel systematically commits massacres[49].
In summary, the US’s reluctance to condemn Israel as it does other countries, despite substantial evidence of human rights abuses and potential war crimes, underscores a significant double standard. This disparity not only undermines the credibility of US human rights advocacy but also perpetuates a cycle of violence and suffering in regions like Gaza. This disparity, and apparent inconsistency in human rights principles, is invariably due to a large portion of U.S. politicians being beholden to the Israel lobby.
The Censorship of American Citizens
Groups aligned with the Israel lobby and aid in the censorship aspect of the lobby include organizations such as the Canary Mission or the anti-defamation league (ADL). Canary Mission operates in ways that clearly infringe on the free speech of American and Canadian citizens by documenting the personal information of college students, professionals, and essentially anyone else they deem into public databases that show their face, name, and a bio of who they are. This documentation process is expressly used on anyone who “promotes hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews”, but in practicality it is used to censor people who criticize the government of Israel or the Israel lobby, whether that criticism is hate-filled or not[50]. This placing of people into these public databases are done with the implied allegation that those in it are antisemitic. People entered into the Canary Mission’s database are also placed on various blacklists so that employers hiring for educational institutions, private companies, or governmental institutions will see that person on the blacklist and block him/her from employment[51]. Putting the American people, including college students, professors, and organizations onto blacklists and barring them from being accepted into graduate programs, government positions, and positions in the workforce for criticizing the government of a foreign country goes completely against the core of American values.
Some people listed on Canary Mission may truly be antisemites, but a cursory reading of various people’s bio on Canary Mission website reveals that most don’t show anti-Jewish sentiments at all, but simply valid criticism and skepticism of the Israeli government. For example, a professor at the University of Toronto was defamed as a defender of Hamas terrorism due to questioning the legality of Israel’s bombing of a civilian building. Here is the full social media post presented in the Canary Mission profile: “David, intentionally targeting a civilian building is a #war crime. #Reprisal is not #self defense in #international humanitarian law. There was no military target there, only (allegedly) a #Hamas political operative”[52]. Whether one believes Israel is targeting civilians or not is irrelevant to the question of why a well-funded and political-tied organization should be able to blatantly defame and censor speech. The professor who questioned the acts of a foreign government is protected under freedom of speech laws. Questioning the acts of government is one of the founding principles of our democracy and should be encouraged, not faced with punitive action. Calling this professor antisemitic and doxing his info is a clear case of defamation; defamation that can then be used to discriminate against him in his professional career. Canary Mission’s use of intimidation and blacklisting also stifles the freedom of speech and protest the pro-Palestinian student activist movement[53]. Yet, the Canary mission has been completely allowed to continue doing so on massive scales, incontrovertibly due to the pull and well-funding of the Israel lobby[54]
. This type of public blacklisting constitutes harassment, defamation, and discrimination, and puts a strain on the founding principles outlined in the Constitution. For these reasons, organizations such as Canary Mission should be banned or severely restricted.
Critique
Counter arguments against the existence and extensive nature of the Israel lobby are not commonly made. There are criticisms against Mearsheimer and Walt’s work such as the conclusions made in their book are an oversimplification of complex issues, or that the arguments use poor methodology and data. However, the overarching claims laid out in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy are rarely challenged by scholars. The presence and vastness of the Israel lobby is an established fact. One could say that the Israel lobby doesn’t deal in corruption, though the evidence for this is slim. The film itself did a good job showing arguments from both the critics and proponents of the Israel lobby, and is generally well-received by critics as a balanced summarization of the Israel lobby and Mearsheimer and Walt’s work.
A criticism Mearsheimer and Walt get quite often is that they are antisemitic, or that their work is incendiary to antisemitic belief. Critics have, in order to downplay or invalidate their arguments, said the same observations and criticisms of the Israel lobby disseminated by Mearsheimer and Walt are also held by antisemites. These counter-arguments are not strong enough to justify the stifling of this discourse. They fail to confront the fact that such an extensive and powerful lobby necessarily needs to be discussed, regardless of guilt by association or the beliefs of antisemites. If corrupt influence of political interest groups and governments cannot be called out and criticized, then the duty of the American government would not be fulfilled, nor could we truly say the American political system can effectively root out corruption on its own. Censoring or repressing open discussion by U.S. political leaders and citizens due to vague concerns of antisemitism would be analogous to Congressional discussions of terrorism during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan being halted or opposed due to the possibility of islamophobia or spreading hatred of Muslims in the US. Yes, the critics’ concerns are important and such matters should be discussed with respect and without hate, but it does not follow that these concerns invalidate criticisms of the Israel lobby or necessitate the shutting down of the discussion of essential and imperative topics such as national security or the influence of foreign countries.
Reflection
The film did not directly address ways to combat the corrupt dealing and influence of the Israel lobby, though through the interviews a few potential scenarios were given. One scenario posited by Richard Perle, a staunch Zionist and neoconservative, was that even if the Israel lobby ceased to exist, the U.S. would still support pro-Israel policies. Another scenario was posited by Tony Judt, who said that the Israel lobby would be dismantled if their subversion grows to a breaking point.
One should note how conspicuous and obvious the corruption and influence the Israel lobby holds. AIPAC proudly advertises that 98% of candidates supported by the lobby win their general elections. Yet, this is heavily contrasted by the fact that if U.S. politicians not ensnared by the lobby even mention the Israel lobby’s influence and being critical of its effects thereof, this would warrant the lobby enacting a campaign against that politician by defaming, funding their opposition, or subverting their own base against them. It is not just in politics but society as a whole that views criticisms of the Israel lobby as taboo and could lead to one’s career or livelihood being jeopardized. The influence of the lobby is hidden in plain view in this way. However, once there’s a critical mass of people who realize the extensive influence of the lobby and start calling out the corrupt controlling of politicians, much of the power the lobby has will be degraded and thus subversive political elements diminished.
References
[1] The Israeli lobby (2007). Films For Action. VPRO. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-israeli-lobby/
[2] Walt, Stephen and John J. Mearsheimer. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP06-011, March 2006. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy
[3] Mearsheimer and Walt. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” (2007) p.5. https://bamdadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/the-israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy-bamdadi-dot-com.pdf
[4] Katzman, K., Prados, A. B., & Blanchard, C. M. (2006). The Palestinian territories: Background and U.S. relations (RL33222, Version 49). Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33222/49
[5] Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). U.S. aid to Israel in four charts. Author. https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
[6] O’Dell, H. (2024, February 22). How the US uses its UN veto power to protect Israel. Blue Marble. Retrieved https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/how-us-has-used-its-power-un-support-israel-decades
[7] Euromediterranean Human Rights Network. (2020). United Nations Security Council and Israel-Palestine: Failing to Promote Accountability and Justice [PDF]. Euromediterranean Human Rights Network. https://eumep.org/wp-content/uploads/EuMEP-UNSC-and-Israel-Palestine-20-01.pdf
[8] United Nations. (2023, December 21). US vetoes resolution on Gaza which called for ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire’. UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144562
[9] Democracy Now! (2023, October 19). U.S. vetoes UN resolution calling for humanitarian pause of Gaza assault. Democracy Now!. https://www.democracynow.org/2023/10/19/headlines/us_vetoes_un_resolution_calling_for_humanitarian_pause_of_gaza_assault
[10] University of Michigan. (n.d.). Christian pamphlets. Vol. 13. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/BAC1512.0013.001/?view=toc
[11] Washington Post. (n.d.). Fallen pillars: U.S. strategy toward Iran. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/fallenpillars.htm
[12] Shelton, B. (1991, May-June). Truman adviser recalls May 14, 1948, U.S. decision to recognize Israel. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. https://www.wrmea.org/1991-may-june/truman-adviser-recalls-may-141948-us-decision-to-recognize-israel.html
[13] Amitai, B. (2023). Edge of the abyss: The origins of the Israel lobby, 1949–1954. Modern American History, 6(1), 57-77. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-american-history/article/edge-of-the-abyss-the-origins-of-the-israel-lobby-19491954/E1690BDB5CA87C66B2B65D12CA1D716A
[14] American Israel Public Affairs Committee. (n.d.). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC
[15] AIPAC Political Action Committee. (n.d.). AIPAC PAC. https://www.aipacpac.org/
[16] Track AIPAC. (n.d.). Track AIPAC. https://trackaipac.com/
[17] The Telegraph. (2024, May 29). Nikki Haley writes ‘finish them’ on IDF shells during Israel visit. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/05/29/nikki-haley-signs-shell-israel-visit-gaza-hama/
[18] The Israeli lobby (2007). Films For Action. VPRO. @11:45 minutes. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-israeli-lobby/
[19] Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Earl Hilliard Sr.. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Hilliard_Sr
[20] The Israeli lobby (2007). Films For Action. VPRO. @23:30 minutes. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-israeli-lobby/
[21] Tucker Carlson (2024, June 7). Rep. Thomas Massie: Israel Lobbyists, the Cowards in Congress, and Living off the Grid . Youtube . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omBSEuFTYEo&t=1882s
[22] Braun, Dietmar, & Guston, David H. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: An introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302-308. https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/30/5/302/1697393
[23] The Israeli lobby (2007). Films For Action. VPRO. @18:00 minutes in. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-israeli-lobby/
[24] The Israeli lobby (2007). Films For Action. VPRO. @21:00 minutes in. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-israeli-lobby/
[25] Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Jack Abramoff. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
[26] Vox. (2015, February 26). Benjamin Netanyahu’s not-so-prescient 2002 message to Congress about Iraq. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8114221/netanyahu-iraq-2002
[27] Byman, D. L. (2015, April 29). Comparing Al Qaeda and ISIS: Different goals, different targets. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/comparing-al-qaeda-and-isis-different-goals-different-targets/
[28] The Israeli lobby (2007). Films For Action. VPRO. @37:50 minutes in. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-israeli-lobby/
[29] The Israeli lobby (2007). Films For Action. VPRO. @38:40 minutes in. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-israeli-lobby/
[30] Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). USS Liberty incident. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
[31] Central Intelligence Agency. (2006, June). Intelligence Memorandum, The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0001359216.pdf
[32] Honor Liberty Vets. (n.d.). Quotes by Contemporary Experts on the USS Liberty
Experts. Retrieved from https://honorLibertyvets.org/experts.html
[33] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. (2005, August). Washington’s fateful cover-up of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. https://www.wrmea.org/2005-august/washingtons-fateful-cover-up-of-israels-attack-on-the-uss-Liberty.html
[34] United States Government Printing Office. (1967). Continuation of the National Defense Act of 1967: Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, First Session on H.R. 9716 (pp. 57-76). Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1967-pt11/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1967-pt11-5.pdf
[35] USS Liberty Veterans Association. (n.d.). Commentary by Major Political and Military Officials. UssLibertyveterans. https://www.ussLibertyveterans.org/files/randa/commentary/comments.html
[36] Barlow, Jeffrey G. (2011). “The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship”. The Historian. 73 (2). Phi Alpha Theta: 359. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2011.00294_33.x. S2CID142661228.
[37] Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Lavon Affair. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
[38] American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. (n.d.). The Lavon Affair. Jewish Virtual Library. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-lavon-affair
[39] Encyclopedia.com. (n.d.). Lavon Affair. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/lavon-affair
[40] Egyptian Jewish Community Council. (n.d.). Israel honors 9 Egyptian spies. ynetnewshttps://www.hsje.org/Egypt/israel_honors_9_egyptian_spies.htm
[41] BBC News. (2021, January 21). US: China ‘committed genocide against Uighurs’. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55723522
[42] The Guardian. (2024, February 10). “I’m so scared, please come”: Hind Rajab, six found dead in Gaza 12 days after cry for help. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/10/im-so-scared-please-come-hind-rajab-six-found-dead-in-gaza-12-days-after-cry-for-help
[43] The Washington Post. (2024). Palestinian paramedics said Israel gave them safe passage to save a 6-year-old girl in Gaza. They were all killed. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/hind-rajab-israel-gaza-killing-timeline/
[44] Bertrand, N., & Lillis, K. B. (2023, December 14).Exclusive: Nearly half of the Israeli munitions dropped on Gaza are imprecise ‘dumb bombs,’ US intelligence assessment finds. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/intelligence-assessment-dumb-bombs-israel-gaza/index.html
[45] Bateman, T. (2024, June 17). US says Israeli army units violated human rights. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68925495
[46] Institute for Middle East Understanding. (n.d.). Fact sheet: Israel’s history of spreading disinformation. https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-israels-history-of-spreading-disinformation
[47] Perez, A., & Ramirez, N. M. (2024, March 14). Israel Lobby Pushes Lie That People Are Not Starving in Gaza: Report. The Daily Poster. https://www.dailyposter.com/israel-lobby- pushes-lie-that-people-are-not-starving-in-gaza-report/
[48] Johnson J. (n.d.). Turns out the Israelis lied: Probe dismantles IDF’s Al-Shifa hospital claim. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/news/turns-out-the-israelis-lied-probe-dismantles-idf-s-al-shifa-hospital-claim
[49] Hasan, M. (2024, May 2). Which is worse, Israel’s lies about Gaza or its western backers who repeat those lies? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/may/02/which-is-worse-israel-lies-gaza-western-backers
[50] Canary Mission. (n.d.). https://canarymission.org/
[51] Dursun, A., & Dag, B. (2023, December 30). Israeli blacklisting, intimidation mission in US. Anadolu Agency. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/israeli-blacklisting-intimidation-mission-in-us/3096068
[52] Canary Mission. (n.d.). Mohammad Fadel. https://canarymission.org/professor/Mohammad_Fadel
[53] Kane, A. (2018, November 22). “It’s killing the student movement”: Canary Mission’s blacklist of pro-Palestine activists is taking a toll. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/22/israel-boycott-canary-mission-blacklist/
[54] Bamford, J. (2023, December 22). Who is funding Canary Mission? Inside the doxxing operation targeting anti-Zionist students and professors. The Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2023/12/22/canary-mission-funding-doxxing-operation-anti-zionist/
[A] A more in-depth book of the same name was published a year after in 2007. I will be referring to the contents of this book for the rest of the review as it provides a more comprehensive analysis of the Israel Lobby.
[B] Wilkerson, voicing his skepticism in the Bush administration stated motive of “spreading democracy” in Iraq, said he “[Doesn’t] believe it for a moment […] They transmogrified the mission into spreading democracy simply to appease the American people and to give them some reason to support the war.”