Israel lobby in the United States

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sugaar (talk | contribs) at 06:55, 7 March 2008 (Undid revision 196479638 by GHcool (talk). GHCool is edit warrying and not discussing.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:55, 7 March 2008 by Sugaar (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 196479638 by GHcool (talk). GHCool is edit warrying and not discussing.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) For other uses of the term "Israel lobby", see Israel lobby (disambiguation).

v t e Lobbying in the United States
History
Topics	Direct lobbying Political action committee Super PAC Hybrid PAC 527 organization Campaign finance (reform) Legislative scorecard
Major industrial and business lobbies	Agricultural Energy Health Insurance Organized labor Pharmaceutical Software Tobacco Transportation
Major single-issue lobbies	Administration Abortion Environmental Federal leadership Feminism Foreign policy Guns Immigration LGBT Retirees Taxes
Diaspora and ethnic lobbies	Arab Egypt Libya Saudi Arabia Armenia China Cuba (Anti Castro) Greece Ireland Israel Jewish lobby Anti-Israel lobby Pakistan Turkey Japan
See also	Congressional caucus

The Israel lobby in the United States is composed of various groups which attempt to influence American foreign policy in support of Israel and its policies.

Structure

The "Israeli (or pro-Israel) lobby" is composed of formal and informal components according to Bard. The components "tend to intersect at several points so the distinction is not always clear-cut."

Informal lobby

Mitchell 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, think tanks and media watchdog groups.

There are, according to Bard, two key formal lobbying groups:

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which directly lobbies the legislative branch of the U.S. Government
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations which "is the main contact between the Jewish community and the executive branch" of the U.S. Government.

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 American Jewish community at large. 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.

Right-leaning groups

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt claim in their best-selling book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that the contemporary Israel lobby is dominated by a number of right-leaning organizations. They claim 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 claim that the media watchdog group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is part of the right-wing component of the lobby.

But Benny Morris criticizes the quality of their work: "Mearsheimer and Walt build their case mainly by means of omission: they tell certain facts while omitting others, sometimes more apt and crucial. And occasionally they distort facts and figures."

In his 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 in fact, they are Evangelical Christians. Dershowitz cites "Stand for Israel, an organization devoted to mobilizing Evangelical Christian support for Israel" co-founded by "ormer Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed." Although the rhetoric of most groups like Stand for Israel is as pragmatic as their Jewish-based counterparts, some individuals have based their support on specific biblical passeges, thus they have been vulnerable to criticism from Israelis and American Jews for having "ulterior motives" such as the fulfillment of "prerequisite to the Second Coming" or having "better access for proselytizing among Jews." Madeleine Albright has expressed similar views (see below).

Left-leaning groups

Stephen Zunes, in a response to Mearsheimer and Walt, list "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." The New Israel Fund has also been described as left-leaning.

Means of influence

The means via which the Israel lobby exerts influence are similar to the means via which other similar lobbies, such as the National Rifle Association and the AARP (formerly known as "American Association of Retired Persons"), exert influence.

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 US Jewish population "roughly 89 percent live in twelve 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."

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 selling of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. 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".

Campaign donations

Mitchell Bard writes:

"Political campaign contributions are also considered an important means of influence; typically, Jews have been major benefactors. It is difficult to assess the impact of campaign giving on legislative outcomes, particularly with regard to Israel-related issues, where support or opposition may be a consequence of non-monetary factors. In addition, one does not know if 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. 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."

Bard points to a summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990 - 2004 collected by Center for Responsive Politics. The Washington Post summarized the 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."

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."

Coalitions with other interest groups

Main article: Christian Zionism

The Israel lobby seeks out other interest groups as coalition partners (a fairly common practice among interest groups) in part, Bard writes, because "even with the Jewish population concentrated in key states, there is still only a total of about six million Jews; therefore, the Israeli lobby is dependent on the support of non-Jewish groups and actively works to form coalitions with broad segments of American society."

The right-leaning component of the Israel lobby, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, finds support from "prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will."

Madeleine Albright similarly noted a "linkage between the Christian evangelicals and a lot of part of the Jewish lobby, if you want to call it that, because the Christian evangelicals in reading the Bible believe that Israel has to be—the people of Israel have to be free so that the Messiah can come back."

Think tanks

Frontline, an Indian current affairs magazine, asked rhetorically why the administration of George W Bush that seemed "so eager to please 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."

News media criticism

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."

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 , '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."

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, Stand With Us, 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:

"A group working to promote pro-Israel sentiment at American colleges is hiring students to act as campus emissaries of the Jewish state. Jewish student leaders from Columbia University, New York University, and Queens College will receive up to $1,000 a year from the advocacy group StandWithUs to bring speakers and films to campus that portray Israel in a positive light."

Coordination with Israeli officials

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 claim that "American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States."

Rebuttals to criticism of Israel

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (December 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Mearsheimer and Walt, who focus on the right-leaning component of the Israel lobby, write that "the Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead Americans to question the level of support they provide" to 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

"given that Israel is the world's only Jewish state and that some criticism of Israel really is rooted in anti-Semitism, organized attacks against those opposing Israeli policies tend to carry more resonance since they involve alleged manifestations of prejudice against a minority group. If a Jewish state were not the focus, many liberals would dismiss such attacks as passé McCarthyism and would not take them seriously."

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."

Jimmy Carter wrote:

"The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land."

Jewish-American billionaire George Soros described 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."

Debates

Degree of influence

Former Secretary of State George Shultz stated "... the notion. U.S. policy on Israel and Middle East is the result of their influence is simply wrong."

Tony Judt, writing in the New York Times, asks rhetorically " 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."

Dennis B. Ross, former U.S. ambassador and chief peace negotiator in the Middle East under Bill Clinton, 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."

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 10-12, 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?"

Journalist Rupert Cornwell cites journalist Edward Tivnan as claiming in 1987 that the "pro-Israel lobby" in the United States had become "an obstacle to peace in the Middle East".

Michael Lind produced a cover piece on the Israel lobby for the UK publication Prospect in 2002 which concluded "The truth about America’s 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.".

Lobbying for a U.S. ally

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."

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 claims 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) .

Political alignment

As detailed earlier, the formal aspect of the Israel lobby, according to some analysts, can be divided into right-leaning and left-leaning components. Of these two components, the right-leaning component is dominant according to Mearsheimer and Walt. They write "Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process."

Thomas B. Edsall and Molly Moore reported in the Washington Post that some Israeli politicians regard AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobby organization, as "representing the more hawkish factions within the Israeli government." Edsall and Moore go on to quote Yossi Beilin, a prominent Israeli politician and member of the center-left Labor party, who complains that AIPAC has "their own agenda They contradicted our government. When there was a unity government, they would say, 'But you only represent Labor,' even if I was representing the prime minister."

Media coverage of lobby

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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: "When it comes to Israel , 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" . The interview continued on in which the Dennis Ross responded. (radio interview: ≈16:30-20:05)

Criticism

Numerous books and commentaries by scholars, academics, professors and Government officials have been written criticising 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 Professor Norman G. Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry and Beyond Chutzpah, Jonah Jacob Goldbergs Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, Former US President Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid and Professor Tony Judt's A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy

As well as 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 Representative and Congressman James P. Moran

One of the most radical criticisms of the Israel lobby in recent years has been done by James Petras in his book The power of Israel in the United States (2006). Unlike and even against what his anti-capitalist correligionary Noam Chomski sustains, Petras argues that the Israel lobby in the USA is much more powerful than any other lobby and that ignoring that fact is giving a free ride to the principal authors, architects and lobbyists in favor of the (Iraq) war (and is an) obstacle to achieving clarity about whom we are fighting and why. To ignore the pro-Israel Lobby is (also) to allow it a free hand in pushing for the invasion of Iran and Syria (and any other regime in the region Israel may wish to remove).

In relation to special interest groups

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 , 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."

Eric Alterman writes in The Nation, that "while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the NRA, Big Pharma and other powerful lobbies." Zbigniew Brzezinski agreed stating that "he participation of ethnic or foreign supported lobbies in the American policy process is nothing new." Brzezinski ranks the Israeli American lobby to be among among the three most effective lobbies in the United States (the other two being the Cuban American lobby and the Armenian American lobby).

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.

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 2006, accessed August 26 2006.
Jeff Weintraub: Mearsheimer & Walt - "And Now For Some Facts" (Benny Morris)
Jerusalem Posts Forum Forums-viewtopic-And Now For Some Facts - by Benny Morris
^ 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
^ Stephen Zunes, The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?, Foreign Policy in Focus, May 16, 2006, accessed August 27, 2006.
Saying the Unsayable, Andrew Stephen, The New Statesman, 13 September 2007
Pro-Israel Political Contributions, Center for Responsive Politics, hosted by the Jewish Virtual Library, accessed August 27 2006.
Glenn Frankel. A Beautiful Friendship. The Washington Post. July 16 2006.
Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty, Council on Foreign Relations, May 1 2006, accessed August 27 2006
^ The myth of the `Jewish lobby', Frontline (magazine), 20(20), September 27 2003, accessed August 30 2006.
Jason Vest, The Men From JINSA and CSP, The Nation, September 2, 2002
^ 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.
ICC Home Page - Israel on Campus Coalition
"Coalition Votes Not To Toss Liberal Zionists - Forward.com"
Scott Jaschik (2007-10-23). "A Call to Defend Academic Freedom". Inside Higher Ed. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Pro-Israel Group Puts Emissaries on Campuses, New York Sun, December 10, 2007
Pro-Israel Group Puts Emissaries on Campuses, New York Sun, December 10, 2007
Cite error: The named reference Carter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Soros, George. "On Israel, America and AIPAC." New York Review of Books, April 12, 2007.
Forward by George Shultz in The Deadliest Lies by Abraham H. Foxman
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy, Tony Judt, New York Times Op-Ed, April 19, 2006
Dennis Ross, The Mind-set Matters Foreign Policy, Jul/Aug 2006
Rupert Cornwell: At last, a debate on America's support for Israel The Independent, April 7 2006]
The Israel Lobby, Michael Lind, Prospect no. 73, April 2002
Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran
Book: Israel, Lobby Pushing Iran War
^ Thomas B. Edsall and Molly Moore, Pro-Israel Lobby Has Strong Voice, Washington Post, September 5 2004, accessed August 27 2006
Jeffrey Goldberg, Real Insiders, The New Yorker, July 4 2005, accessed August 27 2006.
Dalyell may face race hatred inquiry | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics
BBC NEWS | Politics | Dalyell's 'Jewish cabal' remarks denied
Dalyell steps up attack on Levy | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics
Scotsman.com News
Lies and Deceit Brought the UK Under Zionist Control
Alistair Fenner: Is Britain Under Zionist Control?
CNN.com - Lawmaker under fire for saying Jews support Iraq war - Mar. 12, 2003
Moran Upsets Jewish Groups Again - washingtonpost.com
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
[http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/the-power-of-israel-in-the-united-states The Power in Isrel in the United States. Review by S. Lendman at RINF
Noam Chomsky, The Israel Lobby? ZNET, March 28, 2006
Eric Alterman,AIPAC's Complaint The Nation, May 1, 2006 (posted April 13, 2006)
Remnick, David. "Comment: The Lobby." The New Yorker 3 & 10 Sept. 2007: 39-40.

External links

Video From the Israel Lobby Debate
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a research paper by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
Former Envoy: Israel Lobby Not All-Powerful - transcript of Dennis Ross' interview at NPR Morning Edition July 7, 2006.
Most Jews ever set to enter Congress -- from The Jerusalem Post (Jan. 7th, 2007)
Republicans more pro-Israel than Democrats -- from U.S. News and World Report
Ferment Over 'The Israel Lobby' -- from The Nation
"The other Israel lobby" -- from Salon.com
Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby? -- from Salon.com
Inside America's powerful Israel lobby -- from Salon.com
"AIPAC Alternative?" -- from The Nation (April 2007)
Election power of the Israel lobby - from Al Jazeera

Categories:

Misplaced Pages