Behind the News

The Israel Lobby Doesn’t Control the Media

According to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is the media

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

What more could there possibly be to say about “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” the controversial new book-length version of John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt’s provocative thesis about pro-Israel forces in America? We’ve heard both the cries of anti-Semitism, and the sighs of those defending the two professors as illuminators of inconvenient truths (“their book has the power of Silent Spring and The Jungle”). And then, this past Sunday, in The New York Times’ book review section, Leslie Gelb provided, what I think, was the most clear-headed and dispassionate deconstruction of the Mearsheimer and Walt argument so far.

So I don’t wish to add too much more to the noise. Personally I feel torn by the debate. There is certainly a discussion to be had about role that the Israel lobby (and I’m referring here only to the actual, registered lobbyists of AIPAC) plays on Capitol Hill in stifling real political debate about Israel, or at least in restricting the options open to American leaders who want to tackle the Israel-Palestinian conflict creatively. There is little doubt that this is a real phenomenon, just as the absence of debate on Cuba, support of Taiwan, or alternative energy is due to strong lobbies using their power to effect policy.

This might be the professors’ starting point. But it is certainly not where they end up. Their idea is that the Israel lobby is large and amorphous, encompassing many more institutions and people than just AIPAC. Its influence and ability to shape American foreign policy is also virtually boundless in their account, having led us into Iraq and possibly into Iran next. And though they repeat ad infinitum that there is nothing illegal or untoward about the lobby’s work - it being an American tradition for interest groups to organize and try to effect policy, foreign and domestic — there is something inescapably sinister to the tone in which they describe it. “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” this is not, for sure, but the incredible powers of influence granted to these supporters of Israel in Walt and Mearsheimer’s telling, and the zeal with which the professors denounce and accuse, makes it hard for me to see their argument as useful. They have taken the grain of an interesting idea and cultivated with it a confused and potentially poisonous plant.

But what I really find difficult to swallow - and this I do not feel unambiguous about - is their account of how American media and specifically newspapers are molded in the hands of this Israel lobby. Six pages out of their book in a chapter titled “Dominating Public Discourse” are devoted to making this argument. In all their pronouncements about the lobby, when their initial paper was published and since the book was released last month, the media have always played a central role in what they see as a shutting out of debate, both about American policy towards Israel and about the lobby itself. In these six pages, they stick to looking at the discussion of Israel’s policies (especially vis-à-vis the Palestinians) and how they are presented here. The professors try to build an argument that, due to the lobby, we are receiving a skewed and one-sided picture. But this examination is plagued by the same lack of concrete evidence, strange extrapolations and generalizations, and innuendo that makes the rest of the book uninteresting as a piece of scholarship.

To make their point without sounding like they are joining in the tired anti-Semitic battle cry of “Jews control the media,” they deploy a simple trick. For Walt and Mearsheimer, the media cannot be controlled by the Israel lobby, because the media itself is part of the Israel lobby. In describing their conception of the lobby early on in the book they write that, “To be part of the lobby…one has to actively work to move American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.” So the lobby can include multitudes. But when it comes to journalists and academics - who are all potential members of the lobby — the professors get just a bit more precise: “A journalist or academic who sometimes covers Middle East issues and occasionally portrays Israel favorably - such as the New York Times reporter David Sanger or the Duke University professor Bruce Jentleson - should not be seen as part of the lobby. But a journalist or scholar who predictably takes Israel’s side and devotes a significant amount of his or her writing to defending steadfast U.S. support for Israel - such as the Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer or the former Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis - clearly is.”

So the lobby’s influence on the media comes from within. And since Walt and Mearsheimer admit that, “reporting on news events is less slanted than editorial commentary, in part because most reporters strive to be objective,” the main place where the lobby can exert itself is on the op-ed page. The dominance of the lobby’s “perspective” in the media, is due, they write, to the fact that, “a substantial number of American commentators who write about Israel are themselves pro-Israel.” So members of the lobby work inside newspapers and use them to express the principle of “steadfast U.S. support for Israel.” Walt and Mearsheimer then go on to look at the regular columnists of The New York Times and The Washington Post to uncover who is in the lobby. The Times had William Safire (“especially favorable to Ariel Sharon”) and now has David Brooks. Thomas Friedman gets a pass because he “is attached to Israel, but willing to offer qualified and intelligent criticism,” though he too “almost never takes the Palestinians’ side or advocates that the United States distance itself from Israel.” The Post op-ed pages has even more lobby members, including Jim Hoagland, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and George Will, and, they add, it used to feature no less than William Kristol and the late Michael Kelly.

 1  |  2  |  3 

Comments

exmaple

Thu 27 Sep 2007 06:01 PM

The most tiresome part of the "debate" are the reflexive preemptive denials the book is anti-semitic. Why can't it be anti-semitic? If criticism of one group invokes several traditional templates for demonizing that group, why is it not "anti-" that group?

Justin

Thu 27 Sep 2007 07:09 PM

You write:
But what is this “other side”? The reality is that even Safire and Krauthammer now believe that a Palestinian state is a necessity. And as the professors themselves say, the moderates are well represented (and by no less influential voices than Thomas Friedman and Richard Cohen). What Walt and Mearsheimer do want, it seems clear from their own conclusions, is that the op-ed pages of American newspapers consistently print critiques of Israel that paint its actions as immoral and America’s relationship to it a strategic liability (as they themselves believe). If this is their idea of balance it seems to me it would only add fuel to an already enflamed conversation.

To answer the question simply: when I recently saw Walt and Mearsheimer (see link on my name), I believe the two examples they gave as representatives of the "other side" were Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn. You can argue that having a Fisk or Cockburn would inflame the conversation, but so what? It seems like it would still provide the balance W&M are talking about. The word "balance" doesn't imply any inherent limit on the heatedness of a conversation.

stevesouza

Fri 28 Sep 2007 01:56 AM

Gal Beckerman, I feel, is missing the point. Whether it be Jimmy Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer, or any of the lesser known people and journalists who try to write about this subject, writers come out of the woodwork to not just smear the story, but most of the time smear the messenger. This happens not only when a writer tries to make sense of the bias in America's media towards Israel, but even when Israel's policies are criticized. It does make a difference how influential the writer is though. If the writer is Influential, like Jimmy Carter, the smear artists and smear campaigns from the Networks work until the job is done, which is to bring the writer's credibility down just enough notches. If the writer was not as influential, you wouldn't see or hear much criticism. People such as Juan Cole, Norman Solomon, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartman, and the many who write and speak truth to power much more than the mainstream media crew, are not given equal time with major media outlets, especially considering the real journalism they put into their work.
I don't understand why journalism students would rather critique a book that obviously is trying to correct one of America's media problems, rather than going after the actual problems, some of which make a mockery out of our American press such as a third of the American public still believe Saddam was personally responsible for the acts on 911.
I think the media is responsible for most of this because it is the media's job to inform the public of the truth when it can, but evidently it doesn't.

alexand

Sat 29 Sep 2007 07:54 PM

Exmaple: There is a big difference between being against the actions of the Israeli government and being an anti-semite. There are many Jews who are against the actions of the Israeli government, and it would be nonsensical to call them anti-semites. I am against the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, yet I have no enmity toward Jews.

Adam Wolfe

Tue 2 Oct 2007 04:17 PM

For a balanced view on why the US supports Israel, see this PINR report: ''Why the United States Supports the State of Israel''