International relations is a field of study that is flooded with an abundance of ideologies and outlooks. The 3 main branches of thought are realist, liberalist, and constructivist. Realism, the leading branch since WWI, is traditionally split into two main parts, defensive and offensive. Defensive realism, spearheaded by Kenneth Waltz, claims that states act to maximize their security and enhance survival, by maintaining the status quo. Offensive realism, led by John Mearsheimer, asserts that states act to maximize power and attain hegemony. A closer examination of Mearsheimer’s work reveals troubling inconsistencies.

Interestingly, Mearsheimer does not apply his own concept of offensive realism to the State of Israel. As “one of the purest realists in the land”, he argues Russia has “legitimate security concerns” that justify their annexation, however he denies any realist grace to Israel. 

If a massive nuclear power like Russia is rational for seeking security, then a fortiori, a state like Israel, surrounded by proxies and states committed to its erasure, is acting with absolute rationality when it aims to secure its borders. Yet, Mearsheimer ignores this habitual existential threat and reframes the narrative as a quest for “lebensraum.” The Holocaust Memorial Museum explains “In the Nazi state, Lebensraum became not just a romantic yearning for a return to the East but a vital strategic component of its imperial and racist visions.” This comparison is fundamentally flawed, as Israel’s foreign policy is complex and cannot be boiled down to simply being driven by imperial conquest. This departure from realist logic is not isolated, but reflects a broader pattern in Mearsheimer’s work.

In 2011, Mearsheimer offered a glowing review to a modern version of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion called “the wandering who”, written by Gilad Atzmon, an individual who identifies as a “proud self-hating Jew.” Some of the book’s boldest claims state that Jews specialize in the trafficking of body parts, persecuted Hitler by boycotting German goods, and he even names his 15th chapter  “Swindler’s List.” In response to this reprehensible antisemitism, Mearsheimer wrote:

“Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it incredibly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? Should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.”

Unfortunately, this is not Mearsheimer’s only flirtation with antisemitism. In 2007, Mearsheimer wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy alongside Stephen Walt. The entire report is describing the vicious puppeteer Jewish lobby who works together to manipulate United States policy. For example, they argue that “AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress,” suggesting that American democratic processes are effectively controlled by a pro-Israel interest group rather than elected officials. As I read parts of the brief, I was reminded of Nazi propaganda like the poisonous mushroom, which sought to indoctrinate children to perceive the Jews as an “other” by portraying them as a collective group with established ulterior motives. Similarly, Mearsheimer and Walt define the “Israel lobby” so broadly as “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations” shaping U.S. policy that it effectively collapses diverse actors, many of whom disagree with each other, into a single, coordinated force. Clearly Meirsheimer had not done his research, for the better or worse, as Jews are incapable of agreeing on any shared interest.

Historical precedents further challenge this narrative of total control, as the U.S. government consistently prioritizes its own strategic interests when they clash with the lobby’s preferences. For example, the 2015 JCPOA (Iran Nuclear Deal) moved forward under the Obama administration despite an unprecedented campaign by pro-Israel groups and a direct address to Congress by Benjamin Netanyahu to block it.

A large portion of the brief explains how Israel is “the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy.” It is shocking that two academic scholars ignore the conventional consensus that the “centrepiece has been and remains access to oil for the United States and for the global economy.”

The authors conclude the report by acknowledging one of the lobby’s “most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism… anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semite.”. This claim introduces a cowardly catch-22, effectively gaslighting the Jewish community by framing any identification of genuine bigotry as a calculated political ploy.

This controversy underscores a broader issue, when influential academics lend credibility to extremist ideas, those ideas gain a legitimacy they do not deserve. Simultaneously, it highlights the tension between rejecting harmful rhetoric while still engaging with the academic contributions of those who produce it. While I have not deciphered the exact line of how much we can learn and absorb from bigoted individuals, I do know that calling out hate is not a ‘tactic’, it’s a necessity.