The Deadliest Lies

ADL's biography lists The Deadliest Lies among Foxman's published works, alongside Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (2003) and Jews & Money (2010).[1] The book was published the same day as Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, and Freedman's review describes it as an effort to rebut their thesis while also addressing allegations advanced by Carter and Judt.[2]

Foxman accepts that a pro-Israel lobby exists, but argues that it consists of Americans advocating a strong U.S.-Israel alliance rather than evidence of a global Jewish conspiracy.[4] He compares such advocacy with the activities of other ethnic or national community organizations and objects to what he characterizes as disproportionate criticism and demonization of the pro-Israel lobby specifically.[4] The book situates the lobby debate within a longer history of antisemitic scapegoating, arguing that Mearsheimer and Walt's reliance on what Foxman calls "half-truths, distortions and falsehoods" repeats myths about Jews with deep historical roots.[3]

The book opens with a foreword by former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, which a contemporary review described as persuasive.[2] Shultz argues that U.S. support for Israel is in America's own interests, that Israel and its supporters have a right to seek influence, and that responsibility for U.S. policy rests with the U.S. government rather than with any foreign state or lobbying group. Shultz is quoted as writing: "The U.S. government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other state or any of the myriad lobbies and groups that battle daily—sometimes with lies—to win American support."[2] In his own November 2007 remarks, Foxman also cited Dennis Ross and Ned Walker as figures who rejected Mearsheimer and Walt's portrayal of U.S. policymaking.[5]

Foxman characterizes Mearsheimer and Walt's allegations against American Jewish supporters of Israel as a kind of "blood libel," arguing the charges are designed to silence legitimate advocacy.[6] He pursues his rebuttal in what the reviewer Shalom Freedman describes as a relatively mild, nonpolemical tone, citing concrete historical episodes to make his case.[2]

Two Reagan-era policy decisions — the administration's visit to the German military cemetery at Bitburg and the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia — are offered as illustrations that, in Foxman's view, demonstrate the limits rather than the reach of Jewish influence over U.S. foreign policy.[2] On the Iraq War, Foxman rejects outright the claim that the Israel lobby drove the U.S. decision to invade, describing the allegation as absurd.[6] He also criticizes Mearsheimer and Walt for professing not to be enemies of Israel while, in his view, advocating policies that would isolate Israel and expose it to international sanctions and delegitimization.[2]

Foxman draws a clear line between different types of criticism. He regards criticism of specific Israeli policies as legitimate, but argues that condemning Israel's existence, applying standards selectively to Israel, or explaining Israeli actions solely through bad faith or evil motives crosses into territory that is no longer simple policy disagreement.[3] On campus controversies cited by Mearsheimer and Walt as evidence of lobby influence, Foxman responds with specific examples: one involved calls for Columbia University to denounce or dismiss scholar Edward Said, and Foxman notes that Said was not in fact denounced, sanctioned, or dismissed.[4]

To support his broader argument against the conspiracy narrative, Foxman cited survey data in his 2007 remarks: 61 percent of respondents said American Jews do not control U.S. Middle East policy, 55 percent said their influence was "just the right amount," and only 4 percent said the pro-Israel lobby had too much influence. A separate figure showed that just 8 percent believed pro-Israel or neoconservative Jews drove the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. The cited remarks do not provide the survey methodology.[5]

Foxman expresses respect for Carter's humanitarian work elsewhere in the world while attributing Carter's turn against Israel to personal disappointment with Prime Minister Menachem Begin.[2] On Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Foxman describes Carter as having an "appalling blind spot about the State of Israel" while stopping short of labeling him an antisemite.[3]

To rebut the apartheid comparison directly, Foxman invokes Benjamin Pogrund's argument that Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote, rather than an apartheid state.[6] The book does not idealize Israel in this discussion: Foxman acknowledges harsh realities on the ground, the intransigence of opponents, and instances in which Israeli self-defense measures have caused suffering to the other side.[6]

Foxman devotes substantial attention to Tony Judt's criticism of Israel and to defending himself and the ADL against the accusation that he attempted to prevent Judt from speaking at the Polish embassy in New York.[6] Foxman argues that the accusation was wrong and uses the episode to illustrate how he believes media can be manipulated by anti-Israeli propaganda.[2] He also tries to distinguish what he considers legitimate criticism of Israel from criticism he views as intended to damage rather than improve it.[6]

Shalom Freedman's review notes a limitation in this chapter: by focusing heavily on defending himself and his organization, Foxman leaves underexplored the broader phenomenon of what Freedman describes as anti-Jewish Jews in the United States and Islamist forces working to undermine support for Israel.[6]

The book's final chapter defends the legitimacy of American Jewish lobbying for Israel and the role of world Jewry in helping Israel defend itself and remain a possible refuge for Jewish communities in crisis.[6] Foxman's conclusion, as presented in contemporary reviews, amounts to a rejection of dual-loyalty accusations: he portrays American Jews who advocate for Israel as acting simultaneously as loyal Americans and as heirs to Jewish historical responsibility, and argues they need not be intimidated into silence by charges that exploit that tension.[6]

The two contemporary reviews cited here were favorable overall, though not without reservations. The Ynetnews review called the book a point-by-point demolition of Mearsheimer and Walt's arguments and described it as an "invaluable resource" for people defending Israel in universities, the media, or against boycott activists.[3] The same review criticized Foxman's frequent use of first-person references and characterized some of his more general reflections as "run-of-the-mill thinking."[3]

Shalom Freedman's review praised the book's nonpolemical tone and the persuasiveness of Shultz's foreword, while suggesting that the chapter on Tony Judt was weighted too heavily toward organizational self-defense.[2] ADL's biography lists the book among Foxman's published works on antisemitism and related Jewish issues.[1]