The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is an influential and controversial 2007 book co-authored by political scientists John J. Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. The book argues that the 'Israel lobby'—a loose coalition of pro-Israel advocacy groups and individuals, including organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—exerts a powerful and disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy, often prioritizing Israeli interests to the detriment of broader U.S. national and strategic goals. Originally published as a controversial article in the London Review of Books in 2006, the expanded book provides historical context, case studies such as the Iraq War and U.S. policy toward Iran, and evidence of lobbying efforts that the authors claim distort American decision-making. Despite initial difficulties in securing a U.S. publisher due to its sensitive content, it was first released by Cambridge University Press in the UK and became a New York Times bestseller, sparking intense debate. Supporters praised its bold analysis of interest-group politics and the influence of domestic lobbies on international relations, while critics, including some Jewish organizations and scholars, accused it of perpetuating antisemitic tropes by conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli policy with conspiracies about Jewish influence. Mearsheimer and Walt maintain that their critique targets policy influence rather than Jewish identity, supporting their arguments with public records of lobbying expenditures, political donations, and media influence. The book influenced discussions on foreign policy realism and has been cited academically and politically, remaining polarizing: condemned by groups like the Anti-Defamation League for allegedly echoing historical prejudices, yet lauded by figures such as former President Jimmy Carter for highlighting unchecked special interests. While no major legal challenges arose, its publication prompted debates about academic freedom and self-censorship in U.S. universities.