Their definition of this Israel Lobby is loose enough that the concept cannot be denied.

Yes, we can all agree that there are "people" who actively work to shape U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction. Of course, there are people doing the same almost every country, as well as hundreds of other special interest groups. The authors agree and confirm that these unconnected people and groups are doing nothing wrong. It is perfectly legal to lobby.

Their complaint is that these pro-Israel lobbyists are just so darn good at what they do that others cannot compete. Hmm, sounds almost American, doesn’t it? As a result, Israel receives favoritism to the detriment of our country.

Here’s how they believe US support of Israel harms us:

1. Israel receives US aid and is not required to account for its use – which could allow them to use it for purposes we oppose.
2. "The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel... and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult."
3. "Unconditional US support for Israel makes it easier for extremists like Bin Laden to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
4. We "would not be nearly as worried about Iran, Ba’thist Iraq, or Syria were it not so closely tied to Israel."
5. "Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason why some of its neighbors want nuclear weapons."
6. The US position outside of the Middle East is "weakened" because "Foreign elites consistently view the US as too supportive of Israel."
7. "Israel does not act like a loyal ally" and the authors cite instances of broken promises, technology transfers, and espionage by Israel.
8. "By preventing U.S. leaders from pressuring Israel to make peace (with Palestinians), the Lobby has also made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
9. "The Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects.
10. Being the "de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories…" makes the US "complicit in the crimes perpetrated against Palestinians"…and "undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to protect human rights."
11. "U.S." efforts to limit nuclear proliferation look equally hypocritical given it willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal."
12. "The Lobby’s campaign to squelch debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy."

Obviously, many of these charges are subjective. Numbers 1-6 and 9 are actually stated using subjective terms such as "could allow," "in good part," "makes it easier," "nearly as worried," "one reason," "weakened," and "could lead." In fact, it is highly likely that each of those problems would exist or not exist with or without an Israel Lobby.

Regarding Israel’s disloyalty, the authors admit, "Israel is hardly the only country that spies on us." Suffice to say we also spy on Israel and we spy on probably all of our other allies. This is a universal truth.

Number 8 is blatantly false and hyperbolic (as is most of the article). Nothing has made it "impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," it is not impossible.

Whether there is "Israel expansion in the occupied territories," as Number 10 declares, is a matter of perspective. The boundaries addressed by the resolution after WWII which formed two states, one controlled by Jews and one by Arabs, have not been exceeded. The ongoing dispute involves only that land. That Israel wants to control that area designated for Arabs by the resolution is natural and logical since it is from that area that repeated attacks have been launched against them. Any country would do the same. That those who have a different, illogical perspective consider the US "complicit" or "hypocritical" cannot be helped and should be considered irrelevant regardless of the unfavorable consequences.

Number 11 is a legitimate complaint. However, I wonder whether Israel would still exist, or exist in the future, without its nuclear capability. And, the authors readily admit Israel’s right to exist.

If Number 12 is true, it is a sadder reflection on the debaters than on the Israeli Lobby.’

Otherwise, the document goes on for many pages explaining why, IN THE AUTHORS’ OPINION, Israel does not deserve favored nation status. They take each of the common justifications for supporting Israel – "Virtuous Israelis" vs. "Evil Arabs," "compensation for past crimes against Jews," "aiding a fellow democracy," "backing the underdog," – and state why, in their opinion, they are not valid. Implicit in those statements is that, in fact, these are not the reasons for our support of Israel, that it is only due to the machinations of the Israel Lobby that we support Israel.

That allegation can only be implied because it cannot be proven. American citizens are solidly supportive of Israel for each of those reasons and, despite what the authors state, it is not only due to the Israeli Lobby’s manipulation of the media. The media did not invent the Holocaust. The media did not strap dynamite to the waist of the Palestinian before he boarded the bus or walked in the pizza parlor. It was not the media that created the dictatorships and theocracies of Israel’s enemies. Perhaps there is a pro-Israel bias in America’s media, but it is reflective of a pro-Israel bias in our population.

The authors also run through their explanation of the sources of the Israeli Lobby’s power, and the ways they exert that power. They state:

So, we’re not talking "conspiracy theory" in their opinion. They see two broad strategies employed – pressuring both Congress and the Executive branch, and controlling the public debate on Israel to exclude negative opinions.

One way Congress is influenced takes little effort, according to the authors. They contend that a number of its members are "Christian Zionists," specifically naming Dick Armey without citing justification. I don’t recall any Congressperson proclaiming him/her self a Christian Zionists and presume this is conjecture and opinion by the authors.

Other influence just seems to fall into the Lobby’s lap, according to the authors, because significant numbers of the Congressional staff are Jewish and pull strings for Israel. Hard to believe this is a pervasive problem, but the authors contend that it is so.

The core of the Lobby’s influence, however, they say comes from AIPAC in the form of campaign contributions to those who support Israel and to the opponents of those that oppose Israel. Secondary strategies include letter-writing campaigns and influencing newspaper editors. They quote the Washington Post estimating that Democratic Presidential candidates "rely on Jewish supporters to supply up to 60 percent of their money." Sounds like a key to eliminating the Lobby’s influence is to not elect a Democratic President.

"The bottom line," they say, "is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent of a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress." I say that, if there is truth to that statement, it is not the fault of the Israeli Lobby, the fault lies with our corrupt politicians, and Jews have historically supported Democrats.

The authors also accuse the Lobby of manipulating the media, although they are not specific with any explanation of how this is done. They cite letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations, and boycotts, but I don’t recall any significant number of those latter two. As for letters, I do believe that dumpsters can be found large enough to accommodate the most ambitious letter writing campaign. And we all know that if it is an e-mail campaign, the DELETE key is very effective.

I do think it is interesting that these authors, who have an obvious agenda to characterize their so-called Israel Lobby in the worst possible light, stop short of Thomas Keyes’ claims of absolute Jewish control of the media. Might I assume they see what the rest of us do – that there is plenty of anti-Israel coverage in the media?

Finally, they note attempts by the Lobby to influence academia, but declare their success minimal. If so, it would seem almost a paradox, since American academia is almost totally liberal and Democratic, and Jews are strongly Democratic. What makes them disagree on campus?

My conclusion: the authors provide voluminous citation and references (there were close to 200 footnotes) which are not conveniently linked so one has to assume they’ve quoted or deduced in context their sources. Even so, the evidence does not, nor do they even seem to have tried to make it, amount to overwhelming proof of an Israeli Lobby’s "stranglehold" on the U.S. government. I wonder why, when they have obviously conducted strenuous research, they could not have included a few cancelled checks, or admissions from politicians that, "yes, I was influenced by the Israeli Lobby to vote for that bill." Instead, they include numerous politicians suggesting that other politicians are influenced, without including themselves in the group.

There’s no smoking gun here. Mostly, it’s smoking conjecture and innuendo.

But, I give it an "B+" for effort.

	Web useless-knowledge.com