Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-7wlv9 Total loading time: 0.463 Render date: 2022-05-19T22:17:59.430Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

The “Israel Lobby” and American Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Robert C. Lieberman
Affiliation:
Department of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University. E-mail: rcl15@columbia.edu

Abstract

In their recent book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that American support for Israel does not serve American interests. Nevertheless, they observe that American foreign policy regarding the Middle East, especially in recent years, has tilted strongly toward support for Israel, and they attribute this support to the influence of the “Israel lobby” in American domestic politics. Their book is principally an attempt to make a causal argument about American politics and policymaking. I examine three aspects of this argument—its causal logic, the use of evidence to support hypotheses, and the argument's connection with the state of knowledge about American politics—and conclude that the case for the Israel lobby as the primary cause of American support for Israel is at best a weak one, although it points to a number of interesting questions about the mechanisms of power in American politics. Mearsheimer and Walt's propositions about the direct influence of the Israel lobby on Congress and the executive branch are generally not supported by theory or evidence. Less conclusive and more suggestive, however, are their arguments about the lobby's apparent influence on the terms and boundaries of legitimate debate and discussion of Israel and the Middle East in American policymaking. These directions point to an alternative approach to investigating the apparent influence of the Israel lobby in American politics, focusing less on direct, overt power over policy outcomes and more on more subtle pathways of influence over policy agendas and the terms of policy discourse.

Type
Exchange
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Party Politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2000. The consequences of party organization in the House: The role of majority and minority parties in conditional party government. In Polarized Politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan Era, ed. Bond, Jon and Fleisher, Richard. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Rohde, David W.. 2001. The logic of conditional party government. In Congress Reconsidered, ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I., 7th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Irvine H. 2005. Biblical Interpretation and Middle East Policy: The Promised Land, America, and Israel, 1917–2002. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, de Figueiredo, John M., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2003. Why is there so little money in U.S. politics? Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1): 105–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, Warren. 2003. Support Any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, Pierre. 2001. The Idea of France, trans. M.B. DeBevoise. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bleich, Erik. 2003. Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking in Europe since the 1960s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Tullock, Gordon. 1962. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Eliot A. 2006. “Yes, It's Anti-Semitic.” Washington Post, April 5, A23.Google Scholar
Collier, David, Mahoney, James, and Seawright, Jason. 2004. Claiming too much: Warnings about selection bias. In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, ed. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l'Homme. 2006. La lutte contre le racisme, l'antisémitisme et la xénophobie, Année 2005. Paris: Documentation Française. http://lesrapports/ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/064000264/0000.pdf.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. The nature of mass belief systems. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crenson, Matthew A. 1971. The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2: 201–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1958. A critique of the ruling elite model. American Political Science Review 52 (2): 463–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2006. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 4th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Don't Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dobbin, Frank. 1994. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the Railway Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. 1986. Logrolling in an institutional context: A case of food stamp legislation. In Congress and Policy Change, ed. Wright, Gerald C. Jr., Rieselbach, Leroy N., and Dodd, Lawrence C.. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Forman, Ira N. 2001. The politics of minority consciousness. In Jews in American Politics, ed. Maisel, L. Sandy and Forman, Ira N.. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 1999. Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gamm, Gerald H. 1989. The Making of New Deal Democrats: Voting Behavior and Realignment in Boston. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan. 1998. Estimating the effects of campaign spending on Senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review 92 (2): 401–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1987. Collective decision-making and standing committees: An informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2): 287335.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1989. Asymmetric information and legislative rules with a heterogeneous committee. American Journal of Political Science 33 (2): 459–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorenberg, Gershon. 2000. End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Green, John C., Rozell, Mark J., and Wilcox, Clyde, eds. 2003. The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review 98 (2): 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2003. Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative research. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, Floyd. 1953. Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Immergut, Ellen M. 1992. Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Page, Benjamin I.. 2005. Who influences U.S. foreign policy? American Political Science Review 99 (1): 107–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Jeffrey M. 2005. “Americans More Positive Toward Israelis, Palestinians.” Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing. February 8.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Edward H., and Small, Charles A.. 2006. Anti-Israel sentiment predicts anti-Semitism in Europe. Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (4): 548–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. 2007. At the court of chaos: Political science in an age of perpetual fear. Perspectives on Politics 5 (1): 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inquiry in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2d ed.New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, David D. 2006. “For Evangelicals, Support for Israel is ‘God's Foreign Policy’.” New York Times, November 14, 1.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C. 2002. Ideas, institutions, and political order: Explaining political change. American Political Science Review 96 (4): 697712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C. 2005. Shaping Race Policy: The United States in Comparative Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1964. American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics 16 (4): 677715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1972. Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review 32 (4): 298310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 2000. America's Congress: Actions in the Public Sphere, James Madison through Newt Gingrich. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, and Rothenberg, Lawrence S.. 1996. Commitment and the campaign contribution contract. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 872904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, Walter Russell. 2006. God's country? Foreign Affairs 85 (5): 2443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J., and Walt, Stephen. 2006a. “The Israel Lobby.” London Review of Books 28, no. 6 (March 23). http://lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01.html.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J., and Walt, Stephen. 2006b. “The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy.”http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J., and Walt, Stephen. 2006c. “Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Critiques of ‘The Israel Lobby’.”http://www.israellobbybook.com/Setting_the_Record_Straight.pdf.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J., and Walt, Stephen. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review 57 (1): 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milyo, Jeffrey, Primo, David, and Groseclose, Timothy. 2000. Corporate PAC contributions in perspective. Business and Politics 2 (1): 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1987. Interests, institutions, and positive theory: The politics of the NLRB. Studies in American Political Development 2: 236–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson W. 1963. Community Power and Political Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, Andrew. 2004. Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David W. 2005. Committees and policy formulation. In The Legislative Branch, ed. Quirk, Paul J. and Binder, Sarah A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo. Public Choice 33 (4): 2743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Gideon. 2007. “Reflections on The Israel Lobby.” Typescript.Google Scholar
Rozell, Mark J., Wilcox, Clyde, and Madland, David. 2005. Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering, 2d ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1981. Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice 37 (3): 503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr. 1990. Campaign contributions as investments: The House of Representatives, 1980–1986. Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 1195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr. 1992. Long-term investing in politicians, or, Give early, give often. Journal of Law and Economics 35 (1): 1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr. 1993. The market for campaign contributions: Evidence for the U.S. Senate, 1980–1986. Economics and Politics 5 (3): 219–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmo, Sven. 1993. Taxation and Democracy: Swedish, British, and American Approaches to Financing the Modern State. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. 2006. “Bush's Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father.” New York Times, August 2.Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truman, David B. 1971. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion, 2d ed.New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uggen, Christopher, and Manza, Jeff. 2002. Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review 67 (6): 777803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valelly, Richard M. 2006. “Political Scientists' Renewed Interest in the Workings of Power.” Chronicle of Higher Education 52, no. 49 (August 11): B6.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H.. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wand, Jonathan N., Shotts, Kenneth W., Sekhon, Jasjeet S., Mebane, Walter R. Jr., Herron, Michael C., and Brady, Henry E.. 2001. The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review 95 (4): 793810.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J. 2001. A panel probit analysis of campaign contributions and roll-call votes. American Journal of Political Science 45 (3): 563–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, Gregory J., and Schickler, Eric. 2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Eugen. 1976. Peasants Into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Marshall, William J.. 1988. The industrial organization of Congress; or, Why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets. Journal of Political Economy 96 (1): 132–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Clyde. 1992. God's Warriors: The Christian Right in Twentieth-Century American Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1974. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E. 1971. Nondecisions and the study of local politics. American Political Science Review 65 (4): 1063–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The “Israel Lobby” and American Politics
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The “Israel Lobby” and American Politics
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The “Israel Lobby” and American Politics
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *