Prominent scholar Noam Chomsky is a steadfast
denier of the efficacy of such a lobby - so much
so that he titled his rejoinder to Marsheimer
and Walt: "The Israel Lobby?" Chomsky circumspectly stays away from defining "the lobby" and refers to it as such throughout his article.

In his book, Fateful Triangle: The United States,
Israel & The Palestinians, Chomsky devotes a
section of a chapter to "Domestic Pressure Groups
and their Interests," but only by way of quoting
Seth Tillman does he use the wording, "Israeli Lobby." Chomsky discusses 'Jewish interests' being 'Israel's
interests' but only through quoting others.

One is hard-pressed to find instances of Chomsky,
himself, using the wording "Israeli lobby." In a
personal communication to Jeff Blankfort, a
staunch critic of the lobby, Chomsky does,
however, acknowledge such a lobby by name.
Skirting the issue of whether the state designated
"Israel" is legitimate or not (is there a legal or
moral basis for one group of people to claim
another people's homeland based on spurious
historical rights? The present author maintains
there is not), there is still the matter of what
"Israel" is. Conventionally, a state is
constituted as a geographic entity and its
population. Disregarding the fact that the state
of "Israel" has refused to define its borders, it
must be noted that the population of "Israel" is
heterogeneous. Although it defines itself as a
Jewish state, approximately 20 percent of its
population is Arab and practices mainly Islam.
Given that most of Palestine has been annexed to
the state of "Israel" through violent force and
that the Palestinians who were not ethnically
cleansed had "Israeli" citizenship bestowed upon
them, it seems rather a leap of folly to refer to
an "Israel Lobby." No one will argue that the
"Israel Lobby" is representing the interests of
"Arab-Israelis." As well as being inaccurate, to
refer to an "Israel Lobby" is disingenuous or
worse.
"Israel" has been declared a Jewish state by its
Zionist rulers. But Jews are not a monolith and
neither are "Israelis."

Since the "Israel Lobby" does not represent
"Arab-Israeli" interests, and since it represents
Jewish interests worldwide, the label "Jewish
lobby" (there is no need to capitalize the "l")
would be much more accurate. Also, "Zionist lobby"
would seem to be less accurate because the lobby's
goals are not limited to Zionism but include
policies dedicated to the interests of certain
Jewish "elites". So long as it is not implied that
all Jews (since modern Jews never formed a
coherent ethnic or national group, but are peoples
who have shared somewhat the same religion, how
can one address them as a homogenous group? For
instance, if a Ukrainian Jew renounces Judaism and
declares atheism, then why should he be treated as
a Jew that he is no longer?) are included as lobby
members, then there is no reason not to label the
"Jewish lobby" for what it is. Most people would
not, after all, object to the label "Catholic
lobby" or "Arab lobby," so why should the label
"Jewish lobby" be controversial?

Regarding the labeling, Blum responds, "I used
'Israel Lobby' because that's what the authors of
the report I referred to used. And the purpose of
the lobby is to help Israel, not Jews per se."
With all due respect to the incisive
anti-imperialist Blum, he is remarkably off base
when he says: "the purpose of the lobby is to help
Israel." Since, as stated, approximately one-fifth
of "Israelis" are Arabs, and since the lobby has
no intention of helping them whatsoever, the
purpose as stated by Blum is, intentionally or
not, fallacious. To be factually accurate, one
should state that the intention is to help the
"Jews of Israel" and not "Israel" per se. Blum,
however, does see merit in changing the
designation of the "Israel lobby."
Why the reluctance to clearly and accurately apply
labels to crime-sanctioning entities? In the case
of "Israel," Chomsky noted the "general and often
effective" Zionist use of ad hominem to silence
dissent. Those people of conscience who dare
to rebuke the crimes committed by the Zionists
must not cower at the insidious Zionist tactic of
smearing its critics as "anti-Semites."

Caving in on a more accurate wording of a lobby
that, among its positions, advocates ethnic
cleansing and killing of an indigenous people, and
practices racism against those indigenous
remaining in their homeland, is complicity through
silence.