Hi Sean,

I am not up on the literature of the lobby, so to speak, so perhaps you could provide a list of the books in the same genre as Walt's. Being familiar with Walt's book, and all of its biases and errors, I imagine it will come in close to the bottom of that list, but I am willing to review the others.

As a "default inference" until you provide a reference list, you can place Walt's book at the bottom of the list until I have a chance to review the other entries.

Out of curiousity, if you will, note which books on the list you have read and your rankings.

Happy new year to you.

I am surprised that someone who claims to have as much expertise on the Israel lobby as you do can't name a single book you've read on the subject other than Mearsheimer's and Walt's. How do you explain that?

I think the problem is that discussion of the Israel lobby makes you uncomfortable, and that you would prefer that the subject not be mentioned at all -- thus all the weak sniping.

Some other authors on the topic: Craig Unger, Edward Tivnan, George W. Ball, Grant Smith, James Bamford, James Petras, Jeff Gates, Norman Finkelstein, Paul Findley, Robert I. Friedman, Seymour Hersh, and Stephen J. Sniegoski. Mearsheimer's and Walt's book is the best of the lot, the most substantive -- they've connected the most dots in the most accurate way.

Which bloggers do we think we should be paying attention to? Let's compare sources.

"I am surprised that someone who claims to have as much expertise on the Israel lobby as you do can't name a single book you've read on the subject other than Mearsheimer's and Walt's. How do you explain that?"

Easily, by the fact that I never made that claim :-).

"I think the problem is that discussion of the Israel lobby makes you uncomfortable, and that you would prefer that the subject not be mentioned at all"

Except for the fact that I discuss it on these boards ad nauseum.

Sean, if you want to discuss the issues I am happy to do so. If you want to put words in my mouth and play pop psychologist you will need to find someone else to play with, because I have no interest in wasting my time like that.

For blogs, my regular stops every day are these FP blogs, the Atlantic blogs, Yglesias, Instapundit and Powerline. Who I think you should pay attention to? That's your business. If you are trying to play pop psychologist again, don't bother.

I'll review the list as I have time. Thanks for providing it. I've read Bamford and Hirsch, but nothing specifically about lobbying for Israel. I see Finkelstein is on the list, so perhaps Walt will move out of last place :-). Some of the names I don't even recognize. Are any of the books you list not critical of the Israel lobby?

Thanks for sharing the names of a few of your favorite blogs -- I always find these "best of" lists to be fascinating and helpful for understanding the mental context of participants in political discussions. Those are all high-quality sites, regardless of whether one is sympathetic to them.

I am trying to think if I have ever encountered any books which portray powerful lobbies in a positive light (not just the Israel lobby -- think of the oil lobby, the pharmaceuticals lobby, Wall Street, etc.). None come instantly to mind. :) I will have to think about that, and why it is that powerful lobbies tend to attract negative attention.

I think it is important to understand as objectively as possible the operations of all major lobbies in American and global politics, if one truly wants to understand what is going on in the world. And I am sensitive to the dangers of over-emphasizing the power of any particular lobby, and demonizing it to the exclusion of all others.

Sean - When I asked if any of the books were not critical of the Israel lobby, I meant exactly that, which is different then being favorable towards it. I have Googled the lot of names and some of these seem to be way out there ("Zionists, Bankers and Militarists", or some such, for pete's sake).

I recall seeing analysis of congressional actions compared with AIPAC positions, which was taken from a book, so I know these kinds of texts are out there. If I remember correctly, the bottom line was that AIPAC was extremely successful in their lobbying when they took the same line as the President (95%+ type of numbers). When the went against the president, they still showed good success, but hardly reflecting Walt's description that they have "a stranglehold on Congress". It might have been in the 60's% range, but don't quote me on that. The type of issue also played a determining role in AIPAC success - whether it was and economic issue, security, etc.

There was also a lengthy article about lobbying for Israel in the Washington Post magazine a few years back that also analyzed as opposed to editorialized.

So I know it is possible to treat this in a more neutral fashion, and may I humbly suggest that you might want to expand your reading horizons on this subject beyond the monolithic hyper-critical position that apparently all of your reading list holds.

Here's a question - When do the Walt's of the world acknowledge that people simply disagree with them? By its nature, Walt's "Lobby" theory can be conveniently used to explain everything, including the most important factor of all - public opinion. Yet I see "anti-Lobby" members quoted on the radio, in the newspapers, in television and on influential blogs all the time. People are certainly being exposed to their ideas. Can you see Walt ever saying - "Well, my ideas aren't winning the day, but it's not really the "Lobby's" fault anymore since me and the "anti-Lobby" have also had a chance to get our ideas out, people just don't agree with me". I can't. It would be so out of character that it is funny just thinking about it.

On a related note, and given your post above in which you wrote, "I am sensitive to the dangers of over-emphasizing the power of any particular lobby, and demonizing it to the exclusion of all others", have you ever examined the networks of the "anti-Lobby" as you did with the "Lobby" and compared them? If so, I'd be interested in seeing your list of "anti-Lobby" names. This is, of course, a topic that is given short shrift in Walt's book. Understandably so given the source and agenda, but which is yet another reason why the book was panned by quite a few people who are otherwise sympathetic to Walt's views.

Yossi Melman and Dan Raviv's "Friend In Deed: Inside the US-Israel Alliance." It came out in 1994 and was cited in M&W's book. It focuses a bit more on shared military and intelligence history but mentions lobbying, leverage, and AIPAC a bunch. These two guys also wrote a great book on Mossad entitled, "Every Spy A Prince." I think you can get both of these books on Amazon for a couple bucks.

Also, Dr. Walt, thank you for blogging on a regular basis. This is easily the best blog on the web and the only one I read daily. My runners-up are Ricks, Drezner, Laura Rozen @ Politico, Steve Coll & George Packer @ The New Yorker, and Walter Russell Mead's new blog over at The American Interest.

Thank you for the recommendations, MarkH. I will keep an eye out for them.

If you can point me to a book which in your opinion analyzes the Israel lobby in a purely neutral or objective way, I promise you that I will read it with as open a mind as I can muster, and report back on my impressions.

Three points:

1. I read Melman's and Raviv's "Friend In Deed" some years ago (just mentioned by Markh), and I recall being impressed by the forces that the Israel lobby was able to command to help prevent George H.W. Bush from winning a second term. In fact, as I recall, Melman and Raviv seemed to be quite boastful about that power. (I need to refresh my memory about the details of that particular book.)

2. We have just witnessed a stunning demonstration of the power of the lobby: the leader of (supposedly) the most powerful nation on the planet issued a demand that the Israeli government halt all new settlement activity. Obama quickly retreated with his tail between his legs, after Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman brushed him off as a person of no consequence. There is no conceivable way that Netanyahu and Lieberman could get away with this behavior without powerful resources at their disposal within the Democratic Party. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

3. I rarely see strong critics of the Israeli government given a platform in the American mainstream media -- perhaps you could mentions some examples.

Yes, I guess you're right, Sean; Professor Walt is on target when he points out what a pampered lot those columnists are; they're little more than boulevardiers! If they want to know what real work is they should try living the trying life of a Harvard faculty member with an endowed professorship. I doubt many of those columnists could take the pressure; after a few short days, most of those arrogant enough to think they could survive the hard work of the academic world would go scampering back to their publishers begging to be reinstated in their old jobs. After all, just think what Professor Walt and his colleagues have to put up with.

Think of the superhuman strength required to grade all of those tests and term papers! Imagine the tenacity and perseverance it takes to write all of those recommendation letters! Reflect on the extraordinary stamina required to update those lecture notes so that the subject you've taught 20 times still seems fresh! Ponder the intellectual acuity and diplomatic skills required to chair those departmental meetings! Consider the amazing self-control required to participate in those faculty conferences without jumping out of your seat and screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!"

What Professor Walt does for a living is truly awe-inspiring. I just can't believe that he does all of that and still finds time to blog; surely there isn't a columnist in America who could do what he does.

But at least Professor Walt doesn't suffer from false modesty; he's told us in no uncertain terms how time-consuming it is for him to produce this blog. Speaking of his blog, the Professor confides in us, “it's a big time-sink, and I'm still trying to figure out how to write my next book while doing this gig.”

I know exactly what he means. Just look at a few of his recent posts:

“Have You Heard About the Gaza Freedom March? Probably Not” (December 29, 2009)
“On the Unrest in Iran: Don’t Just Do Something; Stand There” (December 27, 2009)
“Last Minute Holiday Gifts (December 24, 2009)

Sure these posts only range in size from 350-600 words, but what a “time sink” they must have been. One can only imagine the enormous number of research hours required to produce these gems. My favorite recent post was the one where Professor Walt criticized Peter Galbraith for taking oil money from the Iraqi Kurds. Professor Walt assured us that if he was ever the beneficiary of an oil well, he would be sure to let us know. The Professor was so overwhelmed by his many responsibilities that he forgot to tell us that he is the beneficiary of an oil well; that is his named professorship was endowed by a family of oil tycoons.

The question of the relative hard work required of faculty members, bloggers, columnists and other journalists is an interesting one. Maybe Professor Walt could entice his now retired colleague Marvin Kalb to do a guest post on the subject (that is, if they are still speaking). Kalb after all has some experience in all of these diverse worlds.

Alive yes my friend. Unfortunately all of my kicking is metaphorical.

Your posts are simply awsome. It gives a lot of insights and serves as a source of gaining valuable knowledge. Thank you and keep the good work going.

custom logo design

I hope you do resubscribe... we do plenty of articles about serious matters. We reported today on Hillary Clinton's speech on development, and ran a reaction to it by Bill Easterly. We ran a very serious analysis of the so-called green revolution in Iran by Hooman Majd. We published Lilia Shevtsova's critique of Western Russia hands... not to mention the new print issue, which has plenty of meaty analysis on weighty matters, such as Barack Obama's foreign policy. We don't expect all of our readers to like everything we publish, but it's just not the case that we aren't making space for serious issues. In fact, we're publishing more of it than ever before.

Quote: I came to the site today because I was thinking about re-subscribing to FP..

He was thinking of re-subscribing, ergo he is already a subscriber, and presumably have been to the site before. If not, he is one of those for whom the printed issue (hitherto) has been enough and has been fulfilling his needs. So if the printed issue is not enough for him anymore, and he came to the online edition for the first time today (at around 8 PM ET), why does he get upset about a single blog post from Mr. Walt, without exploring what else Mr. Walt (or some of the other contributors) has written?

Isn't it likely that he is one of the (albeit few) who come here in order to deliberate annoy Mr. Walt, because there is something in Mr. Walt's work, that he doesn't like? It could be the usual resentment about Mr. Walt's crucial exposure of The Israel lobby and its workings, that he then shares with another commenter, namely "David in DC".

dear prof (no, this is not to mr keith to waste his time),

for every serious fello like this ny gent, there's a dozen of us don't mind to know when and where will your jazz buddies perform in this new year--my, my, let's delete that entry lest mr keith wastes more of his wondrously ponderous time.