Small lies, big lies, and the Israel lobby
To those of us for whom the claim that the Israel lobby is all-powerful is neither a well established truism nor an ugly piece of anti-Semitism, the evidence presented in support of this claim matters a great deal. Surely Washington has more lobbies than a derelict dog has fleas. And, lobbying is a constitutionally protected activity, like the right to free speech and the right to vote. Hence, the pivotal question is whether the Israel lobby is significantly more powerful than others, and whether it is able to check-mate the usually pro-Arab oil companies, the arms manufacturers, and the other relevant lobbies that affect our foreign policy.
There are quite a few who have taken for granted the veracity of claims that the Israel lobby is all-powerful on the grounds that a new book making this case has been written by two highly regarded scholars; John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, respectively. In fact, the quantitative data they cite amount to (at best) a very thin reed on which to hang such a mighty claim. I will donate my house to anyone who can find a half respectable social science publication that would publish what these two present as evidence.
The authors write:
In 1997, Fortune Magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March of 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington 'muscle rankings'.
In fact, the Fortune survey was not made of Congress members and their staffs, but of 2,165 "Washington insiders" (chosen by two panels whose membership has not been disclosed), a group that includes an unknown number of congressional members and staffers, among an unknown number of others. More importantly, in both surveys roughly six out of every seven persons asked, i.e.most of those asked, did not respond. The authors' claim that members of Congress and their staffs ranked the Israel lobby higher than many others is based on 15% of those who were surveyed. No respectable social scientist (and many unrespectable ones) would dare to suggest that they have a sense of what any given group holds on the basis of the responses from such a small minority.
Moreover, social science has numerous procedures to correct for such a deficit of responses. One can return to the same group and elicit more answers, draw another sample, or study the differences between those who did and did not respond--and adjust the conclusions accordingly. None of these methods were employed here.
The number of people who responded is so small that an additional vote or two, or a change of mind by one or two respondents, would have significantly altered the results of the survey. The total number of the National Journal responses--which did survey only law makers--is 73. (Congress, the last time I checked, had 535 members and at least 17,000 staff members). The National Federation of Independent Business was ranked first and the National Rifle Association second--with nine and eight votes, respectively! In third place, ranked as the most powerful by seven members, was the US Chamber of Commerce. The AARP and AIPAC were each given the nod by five members. The oil companies and the arms manufacturers were not on the list of those to be ranked. I wonder if any student at GWU could get away with a term paper that held that such small numbers support a generalization about any given population or the ranking of a set of groups.
Some will say that all of this is nothing other than typical social science hair splitting. But, these data go to the heart of the matter. Is the Israel lobby just one among a whole slew of lobbies, each pulling Washington its own way? Is it one of the more effective ones? Or can it trump all the others? What the data show is surprisingly little. The book stands much more on accusatory anecdotes than, as the authors' claim, on evidence.
***
Micro-blogging: To see the kind of virulent anti-Semitism that rages in Europe, go to Google video, scroll all the way down, click on UK and use the search bar.
Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at The George Washington University, and the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy (Yale University Press, 2007).
www.securityfirstbook.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Hence, the pivotal question is whether the Israeli lobby is significantly more powerful than others,...
Shouldn't the question be whether a foreign government should be in a position to lobby and bribe our legislators at all?
Well, Mr. Miser too, you do have a good point. However, your point has nothing to do with Mr. Etzioni's discourse about the scientific legitimacy of the thesis of two University Professors. As you know, or should, statistics can be used for numerous purposes, but in this case there is something, apparently, wrong with the statistics and the universe from which the numbers derive. Universe in this case refers to a statistical entity. Not the universe of which we are all part.
Pinocchio's of a feather... eh mommamia?
Is the "Israeli lobby" meant to refer to Israle as a nation, or Isralei people/ If so, then I agree there is a legitimate question here. However, the reality is American citizens can always be funded by other nations to lobby their government, so the end run around your implication is obvious. I also wish to raise the issue of the hypocrisy of Americans complaining about foreign influence in their government.
How many Countries have lobbying groups constantly pestering our politicians in DC?
What if Iran had a lobbying group doing that?
Would that be covered under free speech?
Why don't you ask the National Iranian American Council?
http://www
If the National Iranian American Council were to have the kind of power that AIPAC has, I'd be grateful to someone who wrote a book about that subject. But we don't have that problem. We have others.
By the way, I think the Israel lobby has done a very bad job even serving Israel's interests. And just to be clear. I favor a very firm commitment to the US having a pro-Israel foreign policy and keeping that relationship strong. But I also feel that sometimes there's a place for opposing certain Israeli policies. Do you honestly feel that we have a free and open debate on these issues? Seriously. Can people in congress speak frankly about this issue? From everything I've heard, they can't. Jimmy Carter was savaged for writing the book that he did.
Pushing for war with Iran is contrary to American interests, according to many. Prolonging the Palestinian issue also is contrary to American interests, according to many. Lobbyists of all stripe should have register and disclose and disclose who is behind their "special interests.
Congressmen and women and presidential hopefuls should not have to pass mustard with any group except the People of the United States of America.
Many of my Israeli and Jewish friends are sick of this lobby who are also funded by fundamentalist Christians who believe in Armageddon and are determined to bring it about.
I want to be free of all religious and ideological zealots. That is harder to do with each passing day. With weapons of mass destruction, like so many loose cannons, in the hands of fundamentalists of all manner, our world is less secure.
I don't think anyone should have to pass mustard. Unless it's Grey Poupon and the guy in the Rolls next to you asks nicely.
I'm glad someone knows the difference between Muster and mustard.
LOL! "Pardon me..."
I sympathize with your desire to make sure the public debate isn't colored by anti-semitism.
But what kind of diversity of opinion do we have in congress about US policy toward Israel? What would happen if a Democratic member of congress even made a *realist* speech about Israel, disagreeing with Israeli government policies and advocating for the rights of the Palestinians? Could you contest that that would be very bad for their careers?
Then there's the question of the proximity of very strong Israeli nationalist beliefs close to the corridors of US power. Take for instance this article that ran in the Guardian regarding WMD intelligence in the runup to the Iraq War:
http://tin
I notice your book's subtitle mentions "A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy." I don't think the problem is with Jewish people or Israel at all. I think our problem is with *militarism*, and we are particularly affronted by a militarism that wants to spend American lives on a region that we should be *disentangling* ourselves from, and that we should be looking to *non-military solutions* for, and that kids in Missouri or Maine have no business getting involved in, despite your designs for a "A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy." (Just to clarify, I haven't read your book, so please forgive me if I'm misreading "muscular" and "moral.")
Your point about American militarism is well-taken, as is the need for non-military solutions to everything from the "war" on drugs to US energy problems. Still, I don't think total disentanglement is realistic or, in certain situations, moral. Would you object to US intervention in Darfur or, a few years ago, Rwanda? It is possible to use our resources for the greater good, even if we don't do it very often.
Well if it is not true why such a fuss over it? After all it is legal, why stoop to their level by contesting the numbers and minutia of the survey data?
Do you think it is worth your effort?
Well, here's *tha thing* Professor Nitpick. The blogger has an issue with *scientific data* that were presented. And that is allowed, since the authors of the book are both professors. And, like it or not, at universities there usually is some *nitpicking* over data. That happens when a student delivers a term paper, for example, and when the professor has a case that the data are not valid, or the content of the paper proves nothing at all, or, something contrary to the thesis, then, of course the Professor can give that student an F. Of course, if that is not deserved, the student can then, in principle, often not de facto, offer a counter argument and make a case for why he does not deserve a grade of F. And, no, making a scientific statement, the numbers of which do not add up, that is NOT LEGAL in Academia. Sorry, Professor. If you say that 2 + 2 = 106, that is not legal. Freedom of speech allows you to utter such nonsense, of course, but mathematically it is neither legal nor sound.
Dear mommamia526. I wish you would learn to read critically. Yes, those two are professors; as am I. Yes indeed, a professor of electrical and computer engineering, with PhDs in Math, Electrical Engineering, and a JD for good measure. Who has been a professor for over twenty nine years.
"After all it is legal", referred to the legal activity of lobbying. I wish you would pay more attention when you are reading.
Now that we have established that I know a thing or two about science and mathematics, as well as about arguments; and we also have established your love for sceince-- albeit of the kind presented on comedy shows. Let me do you a favor and share a little secret with you. Statistics is not really a science! It is nowhere close to math. All studies based on statistics can be junked without any disadvantage to the human race. Now that my great-grand students are professors in their own right, I think I have earned a right to render an opinion on subjects close to my heart.
Please refrain from making foolish and muddled arguments basing them on tabloid science. As a matter of fact, there are often cases when a student is right and the teacher is wrong. Many times, professors acknowledge the mistake at their own and reverse the grade. Else it goes to a committee or the ombudsman and a peer review overturns a mistake (I am not talking about undergrad students who mostly resort to rote learning, and do not have the mental sophistication to challenge a professor with any authority). Intellectual honesty you see!
The scientific data that you keep referring to is not really scientific.
Statics in not a hard science, and any statistical study can be shown to prove two opposing hypotheses (or the hypothesis and the null-hypothesis) from the same set of data. So it is more of an art than a science;-) Now if I were you, I would refrain from excessive use of the words 'data' and 'scientific'.
to be continued.
continued.
Now putting on my legal hat, you can in fact say that 2 + 2 = 106, it is apparently inaccurate (since you can define a number field with these properties, in which case it will be accurate) but it is protected speech and you are not breaking any law by merely stating it.
Remember 'Bell shaped curve?" anyway, I would like to know how much the blogger's house is worth, and what would be an acceptable level of proof to satisfy him that he is wrong? If is worth something, I might like to take a crack at it;-)
My point was, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." You missed it. Would that be an F? I think you would agree.
Please take a critical reading course, and spare us scientific arguments.
I like your energy;-)
Nice putdown of mommamia's nonsense. Thanks for the time in formulating it. Also, social science is quasi-science. While it might be used to buttress arguments, it cannot be used to substantiate them.
AIPAC is a lobby, it has been reported to have engaged in activities that could be considered illegal and it can destroy political careers of public servants in the US. There is no other entity in the US controlled by a group of foreign nationals that possess anything near the power of AIPAC and the other Israeli interest lobbies. One can do with this statement as they please and call it what they want, but it is in fact the perception of almost all the people I know in the US, and even some outside of it. I don’t know what the opinions of most of my Jewish friends are because I never engage them in the matter. I’m too much afraid of alienating them. But I am including the perceptions of those who broach the matter on their own and my “almost all” observation stands.
How’s that for sociological statistics gathering?
continued.
Errata: there were some typos and poor phrasing in the original text, here is a corrected version of the 'continued' part.
Now putting on my legal hat, you can in fact say that 2 + 2 = 106 without being hauled to your local jail. Granted, it is apparently inaccurate. I say 'apparently', because you can define a 'number field' with such properties that will make 2 + 2 = 106.
However-- in the case of integer numbers that you appear to be referring to-- it is still protected speech and you are not breaking any law (academic or otherwise) by merely stating it. Don't try to cash a check like that;-) That will surely land you in jail.
Remember "The Bell shaped curve?" By your perception of law, Murray should have been on death row;-)
BTW, I would like to know how much this blogger's house is worth, and what level of proof will satisfy him that he is wrong? If it is worth something, I might like to take a crack at it;-)
My point was, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." You missed it. Would that be an F? I think you would agree.
Please take a critical reading course, and spare us 'scientific' arguments.
I like your energy;-)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
