In an article in the New York Review of Books entitled The Storm over the Israel Lobby, Michael Massing looks at the furious debate over “The Israeli Lobby”, the essay by Mearsheimer and Walt about AIPAC and America’s policies towards Israel. He reviews the essay and the reaction that it provoked, and then goes through a devastating review of its weaknesses. He concludes this (the first third of his piece) thus:
Overall, the lack of firsthand research in “The Israel Lobby” gives it a secondhand feel. Mearsheimer and Walt provide little sense of how AIPAC and other lobbying groups work, how they seek to influence policy, and what people in government have to say about them. The authors seem to have concluded that in view of the sensitivity of the subject, few people would talk frankly about it. In fact, many people are fed up with the lobby and eager to explain why (though often not on the record). Federal campaign documents offer another important source of information that the authors have ignored. Through such sources, it’s possible to show that, on their central point—the power of the Israel lobby and the negative effect it has had on US policy—Mearsheimer and Walt are entirely correct.
And he proceeds to do exactly this. He describes the way in which AIPAC “facilitates” the flow of money from donors to PACs, and from PACs to those Congressional candidates who toe the AIPAC line. The analysis is clear and overwhelming. The number of congresspeople who were unwilling to be identified because of the likely consequences is depressingly large. This is the essay that Mearsheimer and Walt ought to have written. However Massing gives them the credit which is owed to them. By breaking the taboo against discussion of the topic, they have opened the way for writers like Massing to make the true case.
Recommended.
—
[Via Majikthise.]