Volume 4 No 1 - Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

2012] THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM 223
Equally, it is not the place to discuss and debate an earlier text by
former U.S. and Republican Congressman from Illinois Paul Findley,
whose 1985/1989 text They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions
Confront Israel’s Lobby (Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books) 5 evoked far less
The reality: As an organization dedicated to the freedom of Jews,
the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish homeland, and the protection of
civil rights for all people, the ADL has inevitably gotten involved in
some politically controversial topics. One of the challenges we face on
a regular basis is figuring out exactly how to position ourselves so as to
serve our core mission without becoming embroiled in irrelevant or
distracting battles. Making these choices isn’t always easy, and we’ve
made an occasional misstep. But our overall objective is clear, and as
long as we pursue it single-mindedly, we don’t get into trouble.
The myth: The Israeli Lobby enforces—or seeks to enforce—ideological
conformity on U.S. college campuses.
The reality: As college professors themselves, Mearsheimer and
Walt are naturally concerned about academic freedom, and it would
greatly strengthen their argument about the power of the Israel Lobby
to control debate in the United States if they could show that its tentacles
extend to America’s college campuses.
The myth: Jews have used their political power in the United
States to ensure that Israeli interests inevitably prevail in the shaping of
American foreign policy.
The reality: It’s true that the United States and Israel have a strong
alliance. I’m happy to be able to say this because I believe such an
alliance is in the best interests of both countries as well as in the interests
of peace in the Middle East and around the world. But the notion
that Israeli interests somehow control U.S. foreign policy is absurd.
American governments are no more subservient to the wishes of Israel
than they are to the demands of Great Britain, France, Mexico, Japan,
or any other important U.S. ally.
These refutations seemingly serve primarily to address the third chapter, “A
Dwindling Moral Case,” of Mearsheimer and Walt’s text, 78-110.
5. The tenor and tone of Findley’s book may best be judged by the following
comments toward the end of his text (315-316):
Those who criticize Israeli policy in any sustained way invite painful
and relentless retaliation, and even loss of their livelihood, by pressure
by one or more part of Israel’s lobby. Presidents fear it. Congress does
its bidding. Prestigious universities shun academic programs and grants
which it opposes. Giants of the media and military leaders buckle under
its pressure. . . . The charge of anti-Semitism is a worrisome one, particularly
because it is becoming more widespread. . . . The lobby has
already attained strength far beyond the level its numbers would suggest
. . . The lobby’s success in stifling dissent is shocking, particularly
in Congress. . . . The lobby has made free speech a casualty by skillful
use of our free institutions.