Become a Member

By

Joseph Weissman

Opinion

Friendly criticism or this century's Protocols?

October 11, 2011 09:50
3 min read

When US professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published their essay on The Israel Lobby in 2006, they argued that a right-wing, pro-Israel lobby held sway over Washington, causing leaders and Presidents to make harmful, wrong decisions for the sake of a small state thousands of miles away.

To them, while "Israel's enemies are weakened or overthrown," it is the US which "does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying." The logic goes like this; if you see your taxes increasing and your soldiers dying, it is reasonable to ask questions of your government. If your government is being controlled by lobbyists linked to a sinister nation that is constantly at war, this lobby should be viewed as a huge problem for your country.

Many people who read the essay saw parallels between it and the classic form of antisemitism and anti-Jewish thinking - Jews are perceived as powerful, threatening, attempting to corrupt and control nations.

Mearsheimer and Walt suggest that anyone who says there is an Israel lobby "runs the risk of being charged with antisemitism" despite the fact that even Israel's media refers to America's "Jewish lobby". Fear of being called an antisemite is effective, as "no responsible person wants to be accused of it". Accusations of antisemitism should therefore be regarded as mischievous, insincere, and strategically deployed.