The Israel (capital-l) Lobby
I'd like to think that such serious structural errors--along with the unequivocal denunciations of the paper's conclusions from Establishment figures such as David Gergen and Marvin Kalb, hardly people known for making rash statements, might have caused those sympathetic to the conclusions of the W/M paper to, at least, think twice about its conclusions.
A survey released last week by the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy suggests otherwise.
IRmep hardly seems like a pro-Israel group: its mission statement affirms a desire to return “the U.S. to its higher role: that of a just and neutral regional influence, and adds that “many IRmep analysts work anonymously to protect themselves and their universities from de-funding and smear campaigns.” It surveyed 2300 academics with advanced degrees in Middle East Studies to determine their reaction to the W/M report. The survey’s findings:
--90 percent considered “accurate” or “extremely accurate” W/M’s claim that “The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro-Israel to include letter writing, financial contributions, and supporting pro-Israel organizations.”
--86 percent considered “accurate” or “extremely accurate” a statement that the Israel Lobby as (very) broadly defined by W/M places “what it considers to be Israel's interests above the national interests of the United States.”
--78 percent maintained as “accurate or extremely accurate” W/M’s claim that the United States had"been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of Israel."
The monolithic support among those educated in Middle East Studies programs for some of W/M’s most extreme claims is astonishing and dispiriting. Even stranger are some of the comments supplied by survey respondents. “The fact that the report has not received the national public airing it deserves,” said one, “illustrates the truth of its claims.” Leaving aside the fact that the paper has probably received more attention than any academic publication in the last 12 months, this statement could define “circular logic.” “Those who agree with the study's findings are afraid to say so,” added another, “and the media is afraid to even discuss it.” Again, leaving aside the fact that the paper has probably received more attention than any academic publication in the last 12 months, claiming fear as a reason for the paper receiving a meager public defense is a lot more convenient than admitting that the paper hasn’t gotten much public support because its methodology might be flawed. Contended a third, “European academics are generally more ‘open’ than their US counterparts.” Would that be those same “European academics” at a British academic trade union who tried to blacklist professors from two Israeli universities?
The survey respondents break down fairly evenly only in response to one question: a mere 49 percent contend that the academic community is hostile “to studies that are critical of the ‘Israel lobby’ and US policies toward Israel,” while only 26 percent contend that today’s campuses are “open and supportive” of such a message. This description of a pro-Israel environment in the contemporary academy, hostile to those with the" courage" to speak out against Israel on campus, is perhaps the most ludicrous assertion of the survey respondents.