"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
Seldom have just over 40 pages of text (plus just under 40 pages of notes) kicked up such a storm. Attacked for everything from being "sloppy scholarship" to anti-Semitic, this article is clearly neither. It is an argument advanced by two scholars, both of the realist school of international relations, that "unwavering U.S. support for Israel" is not in the United States' national interest. The damaging misfit between pro-Israel U.S. policies and U.S. interests in the Middle East, they argue, is the fault of a number of domestic pressure groups -- which they lump together as "the Israel Lobby" -- spearheaded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Mearsheimer and Walt use realist national-interest analysis to deftly deconstruct the usual justifications for supporting Israel (that it is a fellow democracy, a strategic asset, or a tiny state in danger of being overwhelmed by its neighbors). They set out the role of that "Israel Lobby" in pushing for war against Iraq, and perhaps against other Middle Eastern regimes down the road.
May the storm kicked up by this article rage on. The role of pressure groups and lobbies in determining U.S. foreign policy is important. The U.S.-Israeli connection is important. The hardheaded analysis that Mearsheimer and Walt so cogently present cries out for careful consideration. It just might set in motion a useful paradigm shift in the United States' Middle East policy.
Related
The Foreigner's Gift is vintage Fouad Ajami: bold, crisp, wide-ranging, and discursive, it will surely both inform and provoke. But can the U.S. invasion of Iraq really be defended as a noble mission regardless of its cause -- or its outcome?
The traditional goals of U.S. foreign aid -- promoting U.S. security and fostering development in poor countries -- are no longer as pressing after the Cold War. Washington must revamp its approach to aid and address new, urgent priorities: shoring up peacekeeping efforts in such places as the Middle East and the Balkans; easing the transition to globalization; tackling transnational environmental crises and diseases; and improving the quality of life for the world's neediest. This new diplomacy will not only transform U.S. aid but bolster its relevance to American interests and values in a rapidly changing world.
President Bush's case for war on Iraq overlooks a very real danger: if pushed to the wall, Saddam Hussein may resort to using weapons of mass destruction against the United States. Such a strike may not be likely, or may not succeed, but attacking Saddam is the best way to guarantee that it will happen. And Washington has done far too little to prepare for it.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.