What comes next?

A book by Mearsheimer and Walt explaining how world history is one big Jewish Conspiracy?

Do Mearsheimer and Walt address the Iranian revolution and how it affected U.S.-Israeli relations? IIRC pre-revolution Iran acted as the U.S. proxy in the region. Post-revolution that role fell by default to Israel, since the Arab regimes were either hostile to the U.S. or were openly flirting with the Soviet Union.

But the auxiliary hypotheses amount to abandonign realism, no?

Don't Mearsheimer and Walt understand that the United States in in the grip of the Zionist Occupation Government?

My real question is: are these guys Buchaninites who are old time anti-Semites, or are they communists who have adopted the socalism of fools, or are they just part of the moronic convergence?

If you're going to wave the red cape, as DD puts it, you should only use your tightest arguments. Certinaly AIPAC and others are very influential, but it looks like JM and SW try to explain everything by way of the Jewish lobby, including the Iraq war. But it's hard to see Israeli interest in the Iraq war when they argue above that Israel faces no threat militarily from Iraq or in the region.

But it's hard to see Israeli interest in the Iraq war when they argue above that Israel faces no threat militarily from Iraq or in the region.

Israel did not face a genuine military threat from Iraq, but there were several reasons why Israel would have been extremely pleased at the prospect of the Iraq war.
-- Saddam had provided money to the family of Palestnian suicide bombers.
-- Saddam had attacked Israel in 1991.
-- Saddam could conceivably launch attacks against Israel if he had mid range Missiles or Chemical weapons (turns out he had none of either, but it was certainly possible he had some -- not enough to pose a threat to Israel, but certainly an irritant).
-- It would pressure on Iran (and Syria). The Iran part turned out to be exactly reversed, but it was certainly reasonable to assume that Iran would be vary of 140K American troops next door.
-- A huge American presence in IRaq ties US policy and destiny to that of Israel in the region.

Certainly these reasons seem far stronger than US interest in the Iraq war.

A couple of other thoughts:

I. The "Jewish Vote" went overwhelmingly for the losers of the last 2 elections.

II. Are these guys mad enough to believe that if Israel were disappear tommorrow morning, or in deed if it had done so at some point in the last 50 years, that Arabs and Muslims would like the US? Would we have any interest in the Middle East other than the flow of oil? Shouldn't the realist position be go take their oil, they can't stop US.

The "Jewish Vote" went overwhelmingly for the losers of the last 2 elections.

Very likely (especially in 2000, when Leiberman was on the ticket). Some of the most fanatically anti-Bush people I met in 2004 were Jews (this was in NYC).

Are these guys mad enough to believe that if Israel were disappear tommorrow morning, or in deed if it had done so at some point in the last 50 years, that Arabs and Muslims would like the US?

I don't know about liking the US, but it takes no great wisdom to conclude that without the Arab-Israel conflict, the Middle East would have been a very different turn. I think it is indisputable that the Middle East would have been more pro-US, although liking the US might be exaggerated. Yes, the cold war means that the ME would very likely have become a battleground in any case, but I doubt the demarcation would have been as strict as in the current conflict. Very likely, there would have been as much or even more death, but it would be largely groups killing each other, without any particular hate directed at the US.

In the aftermath of the cold war, areas like Vietnam have cooled, and the same could well have happened to the ME.

Would we have any interest in the Middle East other than the flow of oil? Shouldn't the realist position be go take their oil, they can't stop US.

No, that would be the idiot position. Oil cannot be removed from the ground without a huge infrastructure, and that would require continuous patroling and occupation. As Iraq shows, that is a hugely expensive proposition. Empires are out of vogue these days and are expensive to run as well.

Mearsheimer seems to forgot his own argument that states try to maximize power. If things did not go bad after the invasion the US would have prevented the emergence of a regional hegemon for a long time (now that the Iran is trying to do that and the US is bogged down in Iraq, it is questionable that Iran can be stopped from acquiring nukes and became a serious contender for regional hegemony) and furthermore, the US would be able to project power throughout ME and beyond from Iraq. Given the Chinese and European dependence on ME oil that is one power maximizing move. The Bush Admin. may not be good at calculating risks but realism never says that te policymakers are smart.

Mr. Drezner, I don't mean to Jew/Israeli-biat here, but when I first read about this piece by these two guys, I found it smelled much more of "Zionist Occupied Governments" and "International banking cartels" than mere political incorrectness. Yet you seem to believe that these gentlemen had no stench of the paranoid, but were instead good-faith scholars merely trying to explain away phenomenon their models didn't predict.

Taking some of the problems you addressed in their research, do you not think there is anything anti-semitic going on?

I have dealt with some of these arguments here, in an earlier form as made by Walt in his Taming American Power.

It is true that the Jewish vote remains pretty strongly Democratic, but my understanding is that the key issue is not the numbers but the big donors. Here, the Bush embrace of Israel has, I've been told, paid dividends--no pun intended.

Anyway, agree with DD on the rest.

I did not know John Mearsheimer is a member of the UofChicago Poli Sci Department. I think this paper maybe exhibit A in a discrimination case aginst them for not granting you and Levy tenure.

Dan, you are only just now realizing that Mearsheimer likes to make controversial arguments to advance his own career? Sheesh, excluding the early stuff that no-one ever heard of, his whole career (Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War, proliferate to Ukraine, False Promise of Institutions, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, etc.) is based on taking stupid extreme positions to garner a lot of attention and citations.

This argument is about as far from structural realism as one can get. A little like Grieco trying to explain EMU.

What a joke.

Dan, I am starting to wonder whether you are illiterate. Or well, if not illiterate, then maybe you don’t even realize that you are obviously part of the Lobby.

You said:
“Finally, they argue that the U.S. invaded Iraq ONLY because Israel and the Lobby -- in the form of neoconservatives -- wanted it.” (emphasis added)

The LRB article says:
“Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.”

Also, it is amazingly ironic that you said:
“Shot through these papers are an awful lot of casual assertions that don't hold up to close scrutiny. The authors assert that, "If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran." I'm pretty sure that there's more to U.S. opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons than the protection of Israel.”

Being “pretty sure” of something without showing any evidence is a sure way to withstand “close scrutiny” dan. way to go with that one.

Your point 4 is also stupid. You say:
“4) The evidence is pretty thin in some sections. To demonstrate the current political power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, they cite a 1984 election where AIPAC was allegedly curcial. They argue that the Israeli-Palestine problem is at the root of Al Qaeda's beef with the United States -- which is funny, because I was pretty sure it was the presence of U.S. forces near the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina. They claim the Lobby is responsible for U.S. policy towards Syria, but that policy amounts to little more than some empty sabre-rattling.”

This is really 3 points: 1) you say the evidence is pretty thin, but they give numerous examples of ways the AIPAC influences elections, both directly and indirectly. I could add the attacks against Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hillard that caused them to loose their house seats, or the words of rep. Paul Findley or the numerous quotes given by AIPAC people or how Howard dean had an AIPAC guy as co-chair of his campaign, or what Fritz Hollings said. As well as the fact that the LRB article explicitly says that the lobby is not a monolith and that AIPAC is just the top dog.

2) “They argue that the Israeli-Palestine problem is at the root of Al Qaeda's beef with the United States -- which is funny, because I was pretty sure it was the presence of U.S. forces near the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina.”
Which again shows you might be illiterate because Bin Laden consistently gave three reasons for hating the USA: that it is occupying Saudi, that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians and occupying the holy Jerusalem, and that the USA is immoral and evil and willing to kill millions of Iraqis. Here is a direct quote from him:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

"Despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation…"

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

Sounds like it is “at the root” to me.

And your point 3) that “They claim the Lobby is responsible for U.S. policy towards Syria, but that policy amounts to little more than some empty sabre-rattling.”

Well, that may be true for you sitting in Hyde Park, but it is not true for those in Syria who are scared their country will be turned into the next Iraq. Or even, you don't give any reason to believe you that can withstand your “close scrutiny” test.

Your overall point 3 is dumb too, but I don’t have the time to go into it. Let me just remind you that Iraq was a strong ally of the USA when Israel bombed its nuclear power plant.

But basically, what is most annoying about your response is that you don’t deal with the central question that they bring up and totally “slam dunk” (to use the term of the neo-con idiots), that Israel is a strategic mistake for the USA to support, that is costs the USA way, way too much money to support, that there is no serious reward, doing so is a serious danger to such a vast degree that it is suicidal. And also, that it is the result of people like yourself who spew endless pro-Israel garbage because you have a personal belief in the support for Israel and because you relate to it as your country, not because it is in the best interests of the USA or the world.

I will just add, I have to hand it to the Jews for being able to be so smart and stick together and do stuff like this. Because, even though we Arabs are on the side of justice, we have screwed ourselves by not being more coordinated and efficient with our wealth and resources. We let ourselves get kicked around and spit on, and we don’t work together to fight this stupidity. Obviously Jews are powerful in America but they should be able to be stopped if we were better organized. Only, you have had thousands of years to coordinate and organize to act in a unified manner to defend yourselves when we are just getting started. Hopefully that Dubai ports deal was a good kick in the pants to show us that even our economic wealth is not safe unless we start standing up to this crap.

Oh, and last, Dan, just admit it, your love for Israel is because you are part of the clan; it is confessional, not based on rationality. For all I know you are not even religious and care less about holy stuff. But because you consider yourself Jewish you have an irrational love for Israel and that affects your views. I will admit this too. I am Palestinian. And because I am Palestinian I have an irrational love for the Palestinians. If I were rational I would love all people equal, but I don’t. Unfortunately, the irrational love for Israel is too powerful now and has allowed them to run wild and kill thousands and oppress millions and has turned the Middle East into a dangerously boiling caldron that will only continue to violently burn the world.

plus, i will add that your readers have obviously not read the article.

it takes no great wisdom to conclude that without the Arab-Israel conflict, the Middle East would have been a very different turn. I think it is indisputable that the Middle East would have been more pro-US

You, and others who believe that Israel is a problem, have been inattentive. Islam has bloody borders. Muslims attack kufirs around the world. Muslims are attacking Hindus in India, Buddhists in Thailand, Catholics in the Philippines, animists in Africa, and Europeans in Europe. None of these attacks is in anyway related to Israel or the Jews.

If Israel had never existed, Islamists would still exist and would still be attacking the United States. A realist foreign policy would always prioritize the flow of oil and would back the Sa'uds and the emirs of the Gulf, to ensure its steady flow. American policy towards Iran was driven by the Cold War, as was our involvement in the Soviet Afghan War, which lead to the mujahadeen. There would still have been a Khomeni revolution, and a state of war between the US and Iran. In order to assure the flow of oil, we still would have defended Kuwait, which would have left us in a state of war with Saddam.

All of this would have led to a conflict between the US and the Arab/Muslim world. Islamists would still hate the US and would still have attacked.

It has nothing to do with Israel or the Jews, those are just excuses to do what they want to do anyway, and ones that appeal to Europeans who are infected with the ancient disease.

Probably like many people who post here, I know Walt and Mearsheimer reasonably well professionally. And, while I strongly disagree with this analysis, having spoken to and heard them speak about this before, I think it is important to acknowledge their integrity and that they have no hidden agenda. Hopefully we can have this debate in a civilized way although I think they both may be facing a firestorm of criticism that they may not be able to cope with.

You, and others who believe that Israel is a problem, have been inattentive

And you, who seem to think that the 50 year old presence of Israel in the Middle East has had no negagtive impact on US relations with the Arab world, are wilfully ignorant or blind. That was the question, not whether Israel has been a problem or not.

Muslims attack kufirs around the world. Muslims are attacking Hindus in India, Buddhists in Thailand, Catholics in the Philippines, animists in Africa, and Europeans in Europe. None of these attacks is in anyway related to Israel or the Jews.

No one would ever make the claim that all Islamic radicalism flows from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that Arab-Israel conflict has been the major source of destabilization and radicalism in the Middle East. [ Yes, even exceeding the impact of the Iranian revolution or the Afghani Mujahdeen]. In the absence of Israel, it is most unlikely that different Arab groups would have learned to live in peace, but their battles would probably have been localized (like the Lebanese civil war) or in Sudan.

It has nothing to do with Israel or the Jews, those are just excuses to do what they want to do anyway, and ones that appeal to Europeans who are infected with the ancient disease.

I think its you who is inflicted with the ancient disease of blindness. Yes, if there were no Israel, Arab states would still be killing each other in large numbers, but there would be little reason for the US to be necessarily on one side of the story, much as the US is rarely involved in most of Africa's fratricidal civil wars.

One cannot discount the importance of evangelical Christians, whose dispensationalist eschatology compels many to strongly support Israel because of their belief in Israel's special role for the end of time. This is a politically significant group within the Republican party that cannot be ignored when considering the motivations for why (GOP) politicians are so staunch in their support of Israel.

I seriously doubt that the christian dispensationalists account for more than small amount of U.S. support for Israel. Conservatives don't need religious reasons to support a state that is embattered against what they would consider a common enemy (Islamists)

I'm a seclar gentile liberal Democrat, & I don't know if I have an irrational love for Israel, but I certainly have much more respect for them than some of their neighbors.

And you, ... are wilfully ignorant or blind.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you would be aware that the US was not Israels major arms supplier until the 1960s and then largely in order to balance Soviet arms shipments to Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

it is indisputable that Arab-Israel conflict has been the major source of destabilization and radicalism in the Middle East.

I am disputing it. It's wrong and silly.

In the absence of Israel, it is most unlikely that different Arab groups would have learned to live in peace, but their battles would probably have been localized....

You seem to forget the Cold War. As I pointed out previously, the US would have been involved, as it was, in Afgahnistan and Iran. Further, because of the importance of the Persian Gulf to world commerce, the US would in any event be involved in incidents like the Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

I think its you who is inflicted with the ancient disease of blindness.

Why? Because I don't believe in the International Zionist Conspiracy.

The US has not interverened in several levantine conflicts, including Syria Lebanon, and Iran-Iraq, one of the bloodiest wars in history.

the jewerish Zionist Lobby is the prime factor behind the depletion of American industrial capacity vis-a-vis Detroit.

..
Arab-Israel conflict has been the major source of destabilization and radicalism in the Middle East....
I am disputing it. It's wrong and silly.

My mistake. Clearly a conflict that has led to 4 wars, a major refugee issue, that consumes headlines every other day, that has led to the US being involved in several peace accords,and that is one major reason for OBL's crusade agains the US is not the major source of destabilization and radicalism int he Middle East.

Coming up -- will you now try and show that Kashmir has not been the major source of Indo-Pakistan tension and wars ?

As I pointed out previously, the US would have been involved, as it was, in Afgahnistan and Iran.

A fair point. OTOH, the Iranian revolution has largely cooled. Also, even for OBL, the Arab-Israeli conflict is one major source of his crusade. Ditto for Zawahiri.

Its just inconceivable to suggest that this conflict is not a major source of anger and extremism towards the US among Arabs in the ME. Thats all we're talking about here, not who has the moral high ground.

Why? Because I don't believe in the International Zionist Conspiracy.

No, but you do seem to suffer from the ancient, non sectarian disease of perceivec victimhood. At no point, did I suggest conspiracy or anything other than an accident of history.

The US has not interverened in several levantine conflicts, including Syria Lebanon, and Iran-Iraq, one of the bloodiest wars in history.

Precisely my point !! The US would not have found any reason to get involved in most battles at all, and the parties could have slaughtered each other without the US being forced into a role on one side and making new enemies. I'm sure we could have bought oil from both sides :-).

A few years back, George Ball (Undersecretary of State during the Kennedy and John son years) wrote a book with his son Douglas entitled "The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present". He made many of the same points as this paper. Whenever a person tries to examine the relationship between the US and Israel, they are attacked as anti-semites. They underlying question is never addressed - why does this relationship exist and is it in the best interests of the US? I don't think the attack on the Iraqi reactor justifies it all. Why does the US give over a quarter of its foreign aid budget to Israel? Is it in the interest of the US to be Israel's defender no matter what Israel does?

It is plain ignorance to argue that the US attacked Iraq because the pro-Israeli lobby wants that. If Israel and pro-Israeli looby could get their way it would have been Iran and Syria, not Iraq first. Also try to have a sense of geography, huh? Look at the Middle East map...could you spot Israel? Have a look around that tiny country...pretty much all Arab states, right? Their territories are how many time bigger? Maybe 50? They still want land from Israel...what good came out from rest of the Arab world...except blood and tears?

Have any of you critics actually bothered to read the paper? All we are getting in these comments are knee jerk reactions. Whether you agree with Mearsheimer and Walt or not, at least address the points they raise. I guess it is just easier to reach for the anti-semitic card.

Off the topic a bit but since Dr. Drezner linked to it.

Huntington is hardly the first to make this kind of argument. Benjamin Franklin complained during the colonial era that Germans immigrating to Philadelphia "are generally the most stupid of their nation. ... Few of their children know English." In 1921, Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote, "The new immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, with its lower standard of living and characteristic racial differences has intensified many existing social problems and created a number of new ones."

Franklin and Schlesinger were proved wrong, because those immigrants eventually assimilated. And in an election season when both parties are wooing Hispanic voters, most of the political class will want Huntington to be wrong, too.

This is simply innaccurate. First, in both cases the migration was stopped, in the first case by a series of European wars, in the second by the 1924 immigration act. So the effects were limited, however,

The effects can still be felt. In the first instnace there are still pockets of these German immigrants that are so unassimilated that they form a virtual parallel society within the US -- they are called Amish, the Mennonites and so on. They still call Americans 'English' for pete's sake. German immigrants from another was had a huge effect on US foreign policy in the run up to WWI. People forget, but there was a serious kulturkampf between the German midwest and the Anglo dominanted east coast as to whether we should get involved in that war. In fact, it got ugly enough for violence to break out.

In the second case. Would the main debate on this thread be occuring if there had been no Eastern European -- largely Jewish-- immigration at the turn of the last century? If Jews were still .5 % of the population (mostly Sephardic or old line German Jews) would we be debating the 'Israeli Lobby'?

No, this very debate would simply not exist, the 'racial' -- today we would say ethnic--tensions that go along with it would not be present, The Anglo-Saxon people of the United States would be pursuing their national interest. So migrations, even when limited as they were, did have a huge impact and changed the trajectory of the US.

You guys are talking past each other. It doesn't do any good to try to discuss this topic with each other because you have no common ground.

Anti-zionists say that the american zionist lobby is powerful, and is hurting the USA and should be opposed.

Members of the american zionist lobby say that what's good for israel is good for the USA, and furthermore that they don't exist.

There is simply no basis for dialogue here. It makes no sense to argue with somebody about whether he exists or not.

Both sides should be arguing to convince uninvolved third parties. The anti-zionists should be arguing that the american zionist lobby is powerful and that it is getting results that are bad for the USA, and antizionists should ignore silly zionist claims, beyond noting that the responses themselves imply that the zionists do exist..

And the american zionist lobby should be trying to persuade third parties that what's good for israel is good for the USA, and that they don't exist. They might as well ignore anti-zionists beyond claiming that they're antisemitic conspiracy theorists who actually don't have anybody to oppose since there is really no zionist lobby whatsoever.

I have to say I agree with Joe M. in his critique of Dan's points, although I don't necessarily like his aggressive style: Dan, the comments you posted are vague and misleading. I don't think you're part of anything, and i really love your work in general, but i do think you underestimated the essay and might need to read it again.

As for the essay, let me make 4 points:

1)US FP is not the best example of realpolitik. It might be the worst. The US rarely acts directly in its national interest like other nations do. Lobbying is more the result than the cause of the peculiar way US foreign policy is conducted. European immigrants played a big part in convincing the US to enter the world wars because of their allegiances towards their motherlands. So although M&W are realists, I don't think their critique of the US FP is as powerful as it would be of a state with a real defined national interest like France, in the same situation. I don't think it kills the essay, but it weakens its argument. (WR Mead might have a lot to say about this and the essay)

2)Europe as a whole relates to Is-Pal in a generally similar way, only reversed. Europeans have historically proven not to love Jews, have large constituencies of Arabs/Muslims pressuring FP one way or the other, and need to befriend Arab countries because they desperately need the oil. This is historically true, look at Italy's relations with N.African countries in the second half of the 20th century. So Europeans are pressured into weighing in on the Pal side because of constituencies and energy national interests. It's more in their interest to side with Pal than it is for the US to side with Isr, but the US faces another element in the equation which is:

3)America is a moral country. The american public and maybe even American politicians have a very strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. They feel Israel as their kin (fairly liberal, democratic country) and they feel it is living under constant threat which it does not deserve. Being the US a very democratic in FP (by European standards at least: bush had to convince people to go to war. European gov'ts that went to war had to override majorities' opinions) that weighs in.

4)I agree there needs to be an honest debate about this, also in Israel's long term interest, which there is not. As A&L Daily succintly and a bit misleadingly synthesized the essay: "Israel’s well-being is a legitimate interest for the U.S. But Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, along with its broader agenda, is not. The issue needs open debate". That said, I think the essay is too slanted towards consp theories to have the impact it needs. All throughout the essay I was thinking: "You know these guys are right, but what would they say about Taiwan, which is much less in our N. INterest than Is., and for which we have risked a huge war?" Taiwan exemplifies the morality and complexity of American FP maybe even more than Israel.

Sorry this was so long.
Best,
Berretta

"America is a moral country. The american public and maybe even American politicians have a very strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. They feel Israel as their kin (fairly liberal, democratic country) and they feel it is living under constant threat which it does not deserve."

Non sequiter, berretta.

My own observation is that Israel's support in the USA is based on mass ignorance and amnesia about history and current realities on the ground, suppression of debate as Professors Mearsheimer and Walt describe and RELENTLESS lobbying by charming golden boys like Drezner whose stake in Israel is optional and emotional. They should gaze in the mirror and congratulate themselves for being in a position to enjoy the choice and have the resources to play the game.

For the record, I also happen to believe that Arafat and Sharon were two ugly, sick sides of the same coin.

Mearsheimer and Walt have been very careful and restrained in their arguments - and immensely courageous for raising the subject.

Can someone please explain why they had to go to a UK publication to get into print and why there has been zero coverage of their comments in the mainstream US media?

QED.

"America is a moral country. The american public and maybe even American politicians have a very strong sense of what is right and what is wrong. They feel Israel as their kin (fairly liberal, democratic country) and they feel it is living under constant threat which it does not deserve.

Non sequiter, berretta."
---

Observer, for starters, it's "non sequitUr"; second, it's meant to be an observation, non a syllogism; third, i really don't know what you mean or what exactly you're referring to.

I'll explain what I said anyway: what I mean by that is simply that Americans' sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice -whether correct or not- tends to inform US foreign policy much more than most other states'. For other states, it makes sense to speak -as M&W do- of national interest as the linchpin of their FP; for the US (partly because of the above), less so.

THus, a)M&W's argument "it's not in our national interest, why do it?" is a bit less convincing and b)it might be (might) that Americans would side with Israel even without the lobbying.

As for it being published in LRB, I agree with you that it is suspicious and very telling at the same time. Mediawise though, nobody wants to report on boring scholarly essays about lobbying. The NYSun talked about it.

Among the 211 items in the "endnotes" section of the paper, I saw no references to the work of Ralph Peters..one of the most thoughtful and incisive analysts of terrorism. Had the authors of the paper bothered to read Peters' work, they might have noted his distinction of "practical" from "apocalyptic" terrorism...the first being driven by specific political goals, the second being a nihilistic end in itself. Whatever the original roots of Palestinian terrorism, it is now firmly in the second category, and has been for a long time. Only the most naive could believe that, were Israel somehow displaced 5000 miles away, the fomenters of terrorism would settle down to being teachers or farmers.

Suppose one looks to Waltz's variety of realism, which begins its by looking at the structure of international politics. Waltz contends that in a unipolar world the superpower by definition is unchecked and free to act as it sees fit, and reminds us of Fenelon's observation that never was there a predominant power but indulged in excessive employment of force. Surely this sort of realism doesn't have to resort to ad hoc theories to account for why a fear-ridden, politics-driven, and recklessly improvident troika (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld), none of them highly responsive to Jewish concerns, took us into war.

How about this blunder on page 7:

Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or “the West”; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Was there no Palestinian terrorism against Israel before 1967?

--
G.A.W.

I appreciate your response, Berretta. I thought what you said in your earlier post was good - but your point that I raised grated because you stated that Americans were moral people and inferred therefore they feel Israelis are their kin etc

A sense of right and wrong without openness, awareness and balanced information is worthless.

Erase the lobbying (and information suppression) and present a clear picture of Israel's creation and expansion and the disastrous political distortions this has created in that region and I wonder where the moral chips would fall.

I am educated, right-leaning and well-read, but I got a shock when the Middle East came into clearer focus for me after many years of comfortable assumptions. I felt foolish about what I had failed to know and think through. I challenge anyone with a normal moral compass not to have the same reaction.

But I am not dreaming about the American public ever doing that - especially given 1) the situation described by the two good professors and 2) the general low level of knowledge and interest regarding the rest of the world.

I suspect historians will look back on this unearned free run for Israel and think "what the HELL was that all about and why?"

And Taiwan, too, I agree, though that's a soft case compared with Israel.

Behold G.A.W. above, doing exactly what Professors Mearsheimer and Walt are talking about!

Maybe G.A.W.is just very young and has not learned much about the history of the Middle East.

If that's the case, G.A.W. you should shut up and read more. If it's not, well, we know where you are coming from....

Another blunder, this one really from page 7 (previous one was actually from page 5; acrobat reader's page 7):

Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better‐equipped, and better‐led forces during the 1947‐49 War of Independence...

More than 6,000 Jewish citizens died during the war of indendence, a full 1% of the population. In todays US, that would be 2.5 million lives lost. The reason the "Zionists" won in 1967 was pure dedication, nothing else!

Besides what kind of a term is "Zionists" for citizens of a country recognized by the UN? Doesn't that show bias?

--
G.A.W

Observer:

Please excuse my youthful naivete, but in my book of logic, if it is claimed that A is largely due to B, then it follows that when B is removed, A should be almost absent. So please elighten me and answer the following: was there no Palestinian terrorism before 1967?

--
G.A.W.

Now I am wondering G.I.W. if you are working with Mearsheimer and Walt to demonstrate their point.

Yes, of course there were resistance acts of terrorism by the Palestinians, but it was pathetically Mickey Mouse stuff compared with things like the feats of Sharon in his early career. And they also lacked the splendid tradition and background of what is described below.

Al Qaeda, your template is exposed!

Scotsman, Thu 22 May 2003
ATTLEE WARNED OVER JEWISH TERROR
Paul Gallagher

THE Labour prime minister Clement Attlee was warned by MI5 that Jewish extremists planned an IRA-style terror campaign in Britain, according to secret files made public today.
MI5 warned that "special reference" had been made to the then foreign secretary Ernest Bevin as a possible assassination target by militant Zionists pressing for a Jewish state in Palestine.
The files, released to the National Archives, reveal that police also broke up what they believed was an attempt by Jewish terrorists to drop high explosives on London using war surplus aircraft.
The immediate aftermath of the Second World War saw a sharp rise in Jewish terrorism in Palestine, which was still controlled by Britain, in an effort to put pressure on the Labour government to make good what were seen as British promises to create a Jewish state.
One terrorist group, the Stern Gang, blew up the King David Hotel, the main British administrative centre in Jerusalem, killing about 80 people.
The other main terrorist group, Irgun, hanged two British sergeants in retaliation for the executions of Jews convicted of terrorist attacks.
Against this background, in August 1946 the director-general of MI5, Percy Sillitoe, personally warned Attlee that Irgun and the Stern Gang could come together if 18 more Jewish men sentenced to death were executed.
"Our Jerusalem representative has received information that Irgun and Stern Group have decided to send 5 ‘cells’ to London to work on IRA lines," Sillitoe wrote in his note for the meeting.
"To use their own words, the terrorists intend to ‘beat the dog in his own kennel’."
An internal report on "Zionist activity" spelled out MI5’s concerns.
"The Stern Group has been steadily recruiting in recent months, and may now number as many as 600 followers, most of whom are desperate men and women who count their own lives cheap," it said.

Observer:

Thank you for your thoughful reply. Notwithstanding your "demonstration" that these acts of terrorism were preceded by a "more splendid tradition", and your terming these "resistance acts of terrorism", you are then conceding that the statement on page 5 is plainly wrong. To remind you the statement is (rephrased for clarity): Israeli "colonization" of the West Bank and Gaza (mostly) causes Palestinian terrorism; and since, as you admit, acts of terrorism were committed by Palestinians prior to 1967, the inevitable conclusion is that such a statement cannot be based on the facts. If you would be so kind then as to offer your conjecture why the learned professors from Harvard would advance such an easily refuted proposition.

--
G.A.W

(1) When Dan was sacked from Chicago U's PoliSci Dept., it was assumed at first that it was because of weblogging. It was assumed that this extra academic activity would cause envy of his fossilized colleges.
(2) Then ideological differences were suspected. Those in power seemed to side with the perestroika approach while Dan did not. It had to do something with an esoteric technical hierarchical-centralized-distanced vs. heterarchical-decentralized-personal conception.
(3) Today I am inclined to think that the reason for sacking Dan and Jacob much more simple. The Dept. was working on a major attack on the Jews and their nefarious effect. On foreign affairs, but importantly, on the academic world. Promoting them would have been dissonant.
(4) These happenings in the academe are pretty important because they prognosticate future issues in national politics and deep sea changes.
(5) We in Israel shall manage, but American Jews are in for a rough ride.

G.A.W. you must be holding the paper up the light and reading between the lines where I cannot see.

"it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip" does not read to me that these events sparked the first Palestinian act of terrorism.

And hey, I note jaimito has just weighed in with another demonstration of the very thing that Walt and Mearsheimer have written about.

I just re-read Joe M above. He's angry but I respect his lack of complaint and victim-tone and the acknowledgment of the failures of his side and the successes of those he opposes.

G.A.W. you must be holding the paper up the light and reading between the lines where I cannot see.

"it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip" does not read to me that these events sparked the first Palestinian act of terrorism.

And hey, I note jaimito has just weighed in with another demonstration of the very thing that Walt and Mearsheimer have written about.

I just re-read Joe M above. He's angry and snapping but I respect his lack of complaint and victim-tone and the acknowledgment of the failures of his side and the successes of those he opposes.

G.A.W. you must be holding the paper up the light and reading between the lines where I cannot see.

"it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip" does not read to me that these events sparked the first Palestinian act of terrorism.

And hey, I note jaimito has just weighed in with another demonstration of the very thing that Walt and Mearsheimer have written about.

I just re-read Joe M above. He's angry and snapping but I respect his lack of complaint and victim-tone and the acknowledgment of the failures of his side and the successes of those he opposes.

G.A.W. you must be holding the paper up the light and reading between the lines where I cannot see.

"it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip" does not read to me that these events sparked the first Palestinian act of terrorism.

And hey, I note jaimito has just weighed in with another demonstration of the very thing that Walt and Mearsheimer have written about.

I just re-read Joe M above. He's angry and snapping but I respect his lack of complaint and victim-tone and the acknowledgment of the failures of his side and the successes of those he opposes.

G.A.W. you must be holding the paper up the light and reading between the lines where I cannot see.

"it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip" does not read to me that these events sparked the first Palestinian act of terrorism.

And hey, I note jaimito has just weighed in with another demonstration of the very thing that Walt and Mearsheimer have written about.

I just re-read Joe M above. He's angry and snapping but I respect his lack of complaint and victim-tone and the acknowledgment of the failures of his side and the successes of those he opposes.

G.A.W. you must be holding the paper up the light and reading between the lines where I cannot see.

"it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip" does not read to me that these events sparked the first Palestinian act of terrorism.

I just re-read Joe M above. He's angry and snapping but I respect his lack of complaint and and his acknowledgment of the failures of his side and the successes of those he opposes.

Arab "Joe M"
Your Arab Parallel Univerise is calling; please, please go now!
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2005/01/06/the-7-rules-of-the-apu/

Observer:

No, it does not read as such (not even reading between the lines). But it does imply (according to my own twisted logic) that prior to Israel's presence in those areas, there should have been little incentive for Palestinian terrorism. And that is plainly not so. Here is a list of terror acts prior to 1967 from Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (I hope you don't object to the source).

Actually, to me it reads like a line straight out of Arab propaganda. In fact, Palestinian terrorism did not start in 1967 (not even in 1948), and will not end, if and when Israel withdraws from the West Bank and Gaza. (Oops, it has already withdrawn from Gaza and the Kassam rockets are still raining). Anyone who makes such a claim is either a fool, which I doubt these authors are, or is wilfully blind to the Palestinians clearly stated intentions. This line, together with calling the citizens of the newly formed State of Israel "Zionist" (awfully reminiscent of the "Zionist entity" used for decades by Arab governments), demonstrates the bias of the authors.

--
G.A.W.

Observer,

(1) Did I supply "another demonstration of the very thing that Walt and Mearsheimer have written about"? Did I misunderstand Walt & Mearsheimer? Aren't they talking about the Joooooos and their odious activities?
(2) I thought that President Bush invaded Iraq to give a lesson to Saddam Hussein, who humiliated his father and was insulting him non-stop. A second possible motive is to put Halliburton's hand on Iraq tremendous oil reserves. A third motive is Kuweit, Saudi Arabia and others in the neighborhood's wish to get rid of this invasion-prone baathist. Israel sure did not drop a tear for Saddam, but for us, he was a mostachioed paper tiger.
(3) I am a Zionist with clear agenda. American Jews should be coming to Israel, we need their energy and intelligence.

I presume the best times for Israel (then, Palestine) were in the nineteen twenties and thirties, when the British ruled the Middle East. The British are still in Jordan, and that is one country we have no problems with. American military presence in Kuweit and in Saudi Arabia means that these countries are almost friendly to Israel. I for one would love firm American control or pro-American regimes in Iraq and Iran and Syria. In fact, in all the world. I think I am pro-American. The British are my second choice.

Mearsheimer and Walt have been very careful and restrained in their arguments - and immensely courageous for raising the subject.

Yes, because opposing Israel will certainly hurt their academic careers. Are you serious? Being anti-Israel and anti-America is the sin qua non of Academia. Reading through these comments one cannot fail to notice the stench of anti-Semitism wafting through the air. At least I can see where Joe, the Palestinian, is coming from. What are the rest of your excuses for wanting another final solution to the Jewish question? I assume you consider yourselves to be intelligent individuals, yet you believe that somehow a miniscule group can control of US foreign policy by waving a few dollars in from of our representatives. After all nobody else contributes to their campaigns, correct? If you actually used your brains instead of displaying your bigotry you would see that the largest donors by far to the Anti-Semitic Left are none other than Jews such as Soros, Lewis and Bing ( 527 Committees ). So much for monolithic Jewish Lobby that controls the government. But facts are inconvenient things so you ignore them. The fact is that Islamic radicals hate everything about Western culture and Christianity. Islam is opposed to everything that the Left claims to hold dear – women’s rights, gay rights, and freedom of religion to name a few. Yet you are willing to state with a straight face that if only Israel did not exist there would be peace and harmony. You cannot really be this naïve. Unfortunately your bigotry is clouding your judgment.

The suggestion made at a few points in this discussion that Drezner and Levy did not get tenure at Chicago because they are Jewish is patently absurd.

Even if Mearsheimer is anti-semitic (which I strongly believe he is *not*), there is far more to a tenure decision than one faculty member's views. In a faculty of a few dozen faculty members, including a few Jews, do you think anti-semitism, even if implicit, could have carried the day? I highly doubt it.

The two professors conflate the neo-cons and the "Israel lobby". They ae not the same thing. Their positions are often different. Many issues the neo-cons support, Jewish groups have never taken a stand on, either because there is not enough agreement or they just chose not take a stand.

America has a Republican born again president and a GOP Congress. The Christian Right has a lot more power than AIPAC or any Jewish group. They were far more vocal in support of invading Iraq than American Jews. They are also farther to the right on Israel than most American Jews. Most American Jews supported the Gaza disengagement. As James Baker once so eloquently said, "F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." Yet, they are not mentioned at all.

I could make a very good case that Iran posed a far more serious threat to Irsrael than Iraq. It still does. The invasion of Iraq has narrowed US options in dealing with Iran. In some ways, Israel is less safe now, than before the Iraqi invasion.

What are the rest of your excuses for wanting another final solution to the Jewish question?

What is your excuse for hyperbolic nonsense ?

I assume you consider yourselves to be intelligent individuals, yet you believe that somehow a miniscule group can control of US foreign policy by waving a few dollars in from of our representatives.

More hyperbole. No claim of "controlling US foreign policy was made". And frankly, it takes little to no great intelligence to realize that small dedicated groups can indeed exercise great influence on US foreign policy. Cuban Americans have helped to keep embargoes against Cuba alive although just about everyone agrees they make no sense. During the cold war, Greek Americans often drove american FP to take a pro-Greece (and anti-Turkey) stance, that often hurt US relations with Turkey. African American groups have been instrumental in pushing for more aid to Africa. And so on .

If you actually used your brains instead of displaying your bigotry you would see that the largest donors by far to the Anti-Semitic Left are none other than Jews such as Soros, Lewis and Bing ( 527 Committees ). So much for monolithic Jewish Lobby that controls the government. But facts are inconvenient things so you ignore them.

Speaking for yourself, no doubt. The claim in the paper is not a "monolotihic" Jewish lobby or that all American Jews or even most American Jews are unified on foreign policy wrt Israel.

Yet you are willing to state with a straight face that if only Israel did not exist there would be peace and harmony. You cannot really be this naïve. Unfortunately your bigotry is clouding your judgment.

Well, bigotry goes both ways. The claim was not that there would be peace and harmony if Israel did not exist. The only claim is that if Arabs killed each other or indulged in wars with each other, it would not neccesarily have a major impact on US foreign policy any more than such wars in South America or Africa do.

merica has a Republican born again president and a GOP Congress. The Christian Right has a lot more power than AIPAC or any Jewish group. They were far more vocal in support of invading Iraq than American Jews. They are also farther to the right on Israel than most American Jews. Most American Jews supported the Gaza disengagement. As James Baker once so eloquently said, "F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." Yet, they are not mentioned at all.

A fair argument, but most of these Christian conservative groups that support Israel are of relatively recent vintage. James Baker, Bush Sr. etc were and are distrusted by most Jewish pro-Israeli groups. So their influence on American foreign policy is relatively new and does not explain the decades before that.

More hyperbole. No claim of "controlling US foreign policy was made". And frankly, it takes little to no great intelligence to realize that small dedicated groups can indeed exercise great influence on US foreign policy.

Well which is it? You have stated two contradictory points in the space of two sentences? If there is no claim that Jews control US foreign policy then what is the problem? Why even bring it up?

Speaking for yourself, no doubt. The claim in the paper is not a "monolotihic" Jewish lobby or that all American Jews or even most American Jews are unified on foreign policy wrt Israel.

I think you ought to go back and read what I wrote one more time. I was not commenting on the paper but on the responses to the paper in this comment section. It appears that all it takes is for one “courageous” academic to risk his whole career by standing up to the Jews to cause all of the anti-Semites to crawl out from under the rocks.

Well, bigotry goes both ways. The claim was not that there would be peace and harmony if Israel did not exist. The only claim is that if Arabs killed each other or indulged in wars with each other, it would not neccesarily have a major impact on US foreign policy any more than such wars in South America or Africa do.

Well thanks for your wonderful display of realpolitik. Clearly morality doesn’t play any part in your position on foreign policy. However, even though you have no problem with seeing millions of people slaughtered in African wars because “we have no strategic interest” in that region, the same is not true in the Middle East. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it did affect our strategic interests and it had nothing to do with Israel.

You also have failed to address my point about how Islam is fundamentally in conflict with the West. You may want us to avoid a war with Islam, but the feeling is not mutual. The attack on the on the World Trade center was not the first attack nor will it be the last. And as much as you wish it to be true, it has nothing to do with the Jews.

Anonymous, the tenure process is not a majority vote thing, it's a blackball process.

Martin Kramer refuted the key accusation in the Walt Meershiemer thesis. Read the following extract, but then RTWT:

... If you need an ally somewhere, don’t you want it to be the smartest, most powerful, and most resourceful guy on the block, who also happens to admire you? ...

It took the United States some twenty years to figure this out. ... The United States recognized Israel in 1948, but it didn’t do much to help it defend itself, for fear of alienating Arab monarchs, oil sheikhs, and the “Arab street.” ...

So Israel went elsewhere. It got guns from the Soviet bloc, and fighter aircraft and a nuclear reactor from France. ... Then came June 1967, and Israel showed its stuff. In October 1973, it achieved what military analysts have called an even greater victory ...

It was then that the United States began to look at Israel differently: as a potential ally. The fact that the United States hadn’t backed Israel before 1967 didn’t prevent key Arab capitals from falling into the Soviet orbit. To the contrary: along with Nasser, they tried to play Washington off Moscow, with a preference for Moscow since it made policy by uncomplicated diktat. ...

Israel looked to be the strongest, most reliable, and most cost-effective ally against Soviet penetration of the Middle East, because it could defeat any combination of Soviet clients on its own. ... expanded U.S. support for Israel persuaded Egypt to switch camps, winning the Cold War for the United States in the Middle East. ...

Since 1973, the Arab states have understood not only that Israel is strong, but that the United States is Israel’s guarantor. As a result, there have been no general Arab-Israeli wars, and Israel’s Arab neighbors have either made peace with it (Egypt, Jordan), or keep their borders quiet (Syria, Lebanon). The Levant corner of the Middle East, for all the saturation coverage it gets from an overwrought media, has not been a powder keg, and its crises haven’t required direct American military intervention. ...

United States support for Israel has enhanced its standing in another way, as the only force, in Arab eyes, that can possibly persuade Israel to cede territory it has occupied since 1967. ...

It is this “peace process” that has turned even revolutionary Arab leaders into supplicants at the White House door. ...

Compare this to the situation in the Gulf, where U.S. allies are weak. ...

It’s precisely because the Gulf doesn’t have an Israel—a strong, capable local ally—that Walt’s offshore balancing act can’t possibly succeed. If the United States is not perceived to be willing to send in troops there—and it will only be perceived as such if it sometimes does send them—then heavily populated and technologically advanced states (formerly Iraq, today Iran) will attempt to muscle Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab Gulf states, which have the bigger reserves of oil. ...

In the overall scheme of the Pax Americana, then, U.S. policy toward Israel and its neighbors over the past thirty years has been a tremendous success. ...

Walt’s notion that U.S. support for Israel is the source of popular resentment, propelling recruits to Al-Qaeda, is of a piece with his argument that the United States is hated for what it does (its detested policies), and not what it is (its admired values). In fact, America ... [i]s hated because of what they can’t do, and what they aren’t. They can’t accumulate power, and they can’t handle modernity, and they resent anyone who reminds them of it. ...

And is it not actually better for the United States to signal the Arabs that until they change, Israel will remain America’s favorite son? ... What lever would remain to encourage progressive change in the Arab world, if the United States were to back away from the one democratic, modern, and pluralistic society in the Middle East—the most persuasive and proximate argument made to the Arabs, for the empowering and overpowering might of Western democracy and Western modernity? ...

Indeed, for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that we have followed Walt’s policy ... How long would it be before the Arabs would revert to their pre-1967 fantasy of defeating or destroying Israel? ... How long would it be before Israel felt compelled, as it did in 1967, to launch a preemptive strike against Egypt, with its massive conventional force, or Iran, which even now rattles a nuclear saber against Israel? ... It is populated by the remnant of a people that was nearly obliterated in the twentieth century, and that’s unlikely to take chances in the twenty-first. Less American support would mean less Israeli restraint, less Israeli maneuverability, and a quicker Israeli finger on the trigger. ...

You have stated two contradictory points in the space of two sentences? If there is no claim that Jews control US foreign policy then what is the problem? Why even bring it up ?

The paper claims no such thing. That is hyperbole on your part. What it does claim is that on one particular point in foreign policy (Israel and the ME), the Israeli lobby has indeed skewed foreign policy. I notice that you did not bother to answer the obvious point that of course small dedicated groups can influence American policy, because that is self-evidently obvious (cf Cuban Americans).

It appears that all it takes is for one “courageous” academic to risk his whole career by standing up to the Jews to cause all of the anti-Semites to crawl out from under the rocks.

It appears that all it takes is for one (well 2) academics to suggest that maybe US foreign policy might have been better served with a policy with say less diplomatic and material support for Israel, for people to play the anti-semite card.

Well thanks for your wonderful display of realpolitik. Clearly morality doesn’t play any part in your position on foreign policy. However, even though you have no problem with seeing millions of people slaughtered in African wars because “we have no strategic interest” in that region, the same is not true in the Middle East.

You're clearly suffering from a serious martyr complex, and a desire to read into others statements something that was not written there. I never said I had no problem with people getting killed in African wars. That is something you pulled straight out of your rear-end. However, it is a fact, purely from a morality perspective that the US has rarely intervened in South American wars or in African wars. Perhaps I should turn around and accuse YOU of not being concerned about such wars in light of your obvious pre-occupation with Israel. After all, from a purely moral perspective, the US could probably have saved far more lives by spending the money that went to Israel in foreign aid in providing drinkling water to Africa.

You also have failed to address my point about how Islam is fundamentally in conflict with the West. You may want us to avoid a war with Islam, but the feeling is not mutual. The attack on the on the World Trade center was not the first attack nor will it be the last. And as much as you wish it to be true, it has nothing to do with the Jews.

As much as you may wish it to be true, Islam is not fundamentally in confict with the West. Fundamental Islam is in conflict with the West's secular, open tradition, but so is fundamental Christanity (albeit much less dangerous). You may believe a war with Islam is inevitable and even want to provoke a war with Islam, but I don't think most Americans share your views. Most Americans prefer to finish the war on terrorism without it becoming a war against Islam, since that would guarantee a turbulent world for decades.

And finally, Osama Bin Laden most definitely did consider US support for Israel as one of the reasons for his jihad. So the claim that "it has nothing to do with" Israel is utter nonsense.

Domestic lobbies can and do often exert inordinate pressure on American foreign policy. The US's relations with Great Britain has always been impacted by the Irish lobby, for instance. Acknowledging this in the matter of Israel may or may not take courage, but it is folly personified to deny it.

As James Baker once so eloquently said, "F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." Yet, they are not mentioned at all.

Seems like a million years ago, doesn't it?

Expanded U.S. support for Israel persuaded Egypt to switch camps,

This is very doutful (that US support for Israel persuaded Egypt to switch camps). In fact, Sadat expelled the Soviets because they weren't willing to provide military support after the Six Day war.

United States support for Israel has enhanced its standing in another way, as the only force, in Arab eyes, that can possibly persuade Israel to cede territory it has occupied since 1967. ..

I've never heard that this has enhanced US standing in Arab eyes. Maybe it should have, but that certainly hasn't. On the other hand, Hezbollah's bloody campaign in Lebanon, culminating in Israeli withdrawal, seems to have increased its standing.

ndeed, for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that we have followed Walt’s policy ... How long would it be before the Arabs would revert to their pre-1967 fantasy of defeating or destroying Israel? ... How long would it be before Israel felt compelled, as it did in 1967, to launch a preemptive strike against Egypt, with its massive conventional force, or Iran, which even now rattles a nuclear saber against Israel?

I don't believe that the paper suggests abrogating an absolute American guarantee for the safety of Israel.

I took two classes with Mearsheimer while I was an undergrad at U of C from 1991-95. Simply stated - he is not an anti-Semite. What he does do is treat Israel like an ordinary country, and tries to evaluate America's relationship with Israel in how it serves American national interest.

Israel is a nation that is friendly towards the U.S., has the best educated population in the ME, with a technologically savvy economy and the pre-eminent military in the region, and its only nuclear power. While Netanyahu was PM, he suggested that the time had come for Israel to stop receiving its annual $3 billion, since it was not a poor country, and it would remove one more complaint that critics of Israel like to make. He was quickly dissuaded not by Israelis, but by American Jews.

To paraphrase Mearsheimer in an interview he did with WGN 720 AM about a year ago, Israel is not going anywhere - so the idea that Israel will be pushed into the sea makes for stirring rhetoric, but does not match the reality on the ground.

But Israel is not the 51st state. For all the talk of Israel being a valuable ally, American and Israeli troops have never fought side by side, whereas in Gulf War I, the U.S. formed an Arab coalition to take on an Arab despot. There is still plenty of controversy surrounding the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.

Despite all the praise heaped on Israel in military matters, their record is spotty. You don't need to be an Askenazi to realize that trying to govern a region that vastly outnumbers you in population is foolish. Even Sharon figured that out eventually. Invading Lebanon was a colossal mistake, and once Israel was beaten back by Hezbollah, gave that terrorist group a huge propoganda coup.

I see no reason why the actions of those lobbying on Israel's behalf should be under any less scruntiny than the AARP, NRA, or the lobbying done on behalf of Saudi Arabia.

I should add that it is America's relationship with the Saudi royal family that was far more offensive to Al Qaeda than America's relationship with Israel. Our relationship with Israel causes more difficulties in our relationship with other Arab governments, but even they will not pull back on their efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda elements. Jordan has been particularly exemplary in this regard. And while Arab states have their own concerns about dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah (specifically their habit of keeping private armies and the influence of Iran), they will not lump them in with Al Qaeda.

As much as you may wish it to be true, Islam is not fundamentally in confict with the West.

No, but fundamentalist Islam is. And that is what we are concerned about. Did you somehow miss the riots over the Danish cartoons? Do you think that the bombings in London, Madrid and Bali shows Islam’s love for the West? Do you really believe that Islam respect the rights of women and gays? Do you believe that they respect freedom of religion? Explain to me how a religion that kills apostates, stones women to death for adultery and calls for the death of members of other religions is not in conflict with the values of the West. Did you miss the ranting of the Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his threats not only to Israel but to the West? And since you referred to Osama Bin Laden, are you going to try and tell me that his only grudge with the US is our support for Israel? If you can’t see that Fundamentalist Islam is in conflict with the West then I guess you are just not paying attention to what is going on in the world.

Mr. Schwartz,

Clearly, you know nothing about the tenure process. A "blackball system?" Please. What do you think this is rushing a fraternity? If John Mearsheimer had "blackballed" Drezner or Levy because they are Jewish, I'm pretty sure somebody else in the department would have gone public with this.

In any case, as somebody stated above, Mearsheimer is not an anti-Semite. I know the man quite well personally. In fact, he has great admiration for Israel. One of the exact points of his piece with Walt is that Israel is now perfectly capable of defending itself. Who surrounding it poses a serious military threat to Israel? Nobody. Given this, Mearsheimer and Walt--being the good realists that are--ask why the United States continues to devote such considerable resources to a state that is perfectly capable of defending itself. Since balancing dynamics can't very well explain it, Mearsheimer and Walt turn to a domestic interest explanation.

But, for some of you, I guess if you even dare to question the US-Israel relationship, then you must be an anti-Semite.

No, but fundamentalist Islam is. And that is what we are concerned about. Did you somehow miss the riots over the Danish cartoons?

Did you miss what I wrote in the line immediatedly after the one you quoted ?

Fundamental Islam is in conflict with the West's secular, open tradition,

I think that puts the rest of your rant and your inability to read in context.

And since you referred to Osama Bin Laden, are you going to try and tell me that his only grudge with the US is our support for Israel?

Like I said, you can't read. I specifically said it was "one of his reasons". I don't claim it was his main reason, it may have been partly for show (as pointed out before, his main gripe is with the Saudi royals), but the fact that it was for show also indicates how potent he considers this issue in the Arab world. It was certainly a major factor Zawahiri as well.

It may be worthwhile to consider the possibility that foreign policy or even wars are often motivated by emotional reasons as much as realist ones. The realist position may have dictated a less friendly position towards Israel, but the emotional position might just be to provide greater support.

After all, we see often that countries waste money and lives holding on to barren pieces of land because of "national pride". The realist position would have been for both Britain and Argentina not to fight over the Falklands, but the emotional position was different.

I don’t think the problem is so much with my inability to read in context as it is with your tendency to argue both sides of the issue. So which of the two statements should I have responded to

1) Fundamental Islam is in conflict with the West's secular, open tradition, or

2) As much as you may wish it to be true, Islam is not fundamentally in confict with the West.

If you are arguing that it is only fundamentalist Islam that is in conflict with the West and not “moderate” Muslims then we are in agreement. However, it is the fundamentalist Muslims who are attacking us, and whether or not we support Israel they will still view us as their enemy.

You guys are still trying to talk to each other, when there's no possible purpose to it.

Look, if you speak out against israel, and they bother to track you down, you can expect to lose your job. Your papers or novels will become unpublishable. Your pool of clients will tend to dry up. They're playing for keeps. Note how many people talk about the "courage" of these tenured University of Chicago professors. Say their research grants dry up and they can't publish -- they have tenure!

And many zionists believe it's true the other way round, that there's a vast antisemitic conspiracy that tries to destroy people's careers just because they're jewish, regardless whether they do much for zionism. See, they tend to believe you are their mirror-image.

What possible dialogue can be carried out here? What possible consensus can be reached? This is at best a chance for both sides to harden their positions and confirm their identities.

What possible good can this do? You should all be preaching to the uncommitted, not to the enemy.

this debate has been very interesting but also pretty weak at times. I guess that is the natural genesis of discussion about Israel, Jews, Palestinians and Muslims...

I don't want to get into the debate any more because there are too many weird issues. I do agree with the comment of barretta from the post before, that i was too mean in to dan. so sorry about that. it just seemed like you were doing the typical act of putting up bull crap arguments to blow off a very strong article.

but more importantly, i just want to point everyone to an article i just saw about how the Israelis have turned Gaza into a giant concentration camp in which they are starving the whole palestinian population. It is amazing brutality that is a major reason the USA and Israel are hated. can you imagine, starving a whole population of 1.3 million! its is unreal.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4566.shtml

obviously some of you will dispute this because of the source, but it has been widely reported other places, this was just deeper and had pictures.

I will add as well, as usual, that the way to totally solve this conflict is for the Jews to accept that they are normal people and join a single state with the Palestinians. No people have the right to have an ethnically pure state, especially when you put it on top of another people. If you want to end the conflict with other Arab states then make Israel bi-national. If you want the Palestinians and Israelis to stop fighting with bombs, then make them share the same political system. If the Jews eventually get out numbered, well, that is just reality, they don't have the right to do collective punishment to the palestinians or to do ethnic cleansing. the only way to solve the problem comprehensively is to give individual palestinians and the Jews equal political rights in the same state. that is the democratic, the human, the just thing to do. without that there will be no solution. that is the only way.

Is Mearsheimer = Walt´s paper antisemitic?

They focus on Jewish influence, which they clearly consider disproportionate, excessive and nocive to America.

They suggest Jews are acting in their own interest which is non-identical to the country's interest. Jews are even trying to control the academic world.

They think there is no plan nor a conspiracy but the sum of apparently un-coordinated efforts that impacts like one.

What is left unsaid? Jewish influence should be limited, starting with foreign affairs and the academe. Since Jewish influence is carried or exercised by individual, living Jews, they should be somehow restricted and their freedom of action should be curtailed. Presumably, a silent unaknowledged numerus clausus in the civil service and the universities could be a good start.

The counterargument could be: OK, but what can a honest, decent, non-antisemitic American do or say if he really thinks Jews have too much influence and they use it for no good? Must he keep silent?

Conclusion: Mearsheimer = Walt´s paper is against the Jews but not antisemitic (literally, against the Jews) because they are nice, honest, well-meaning people who sincerely think Jews are pfooia.

jaimito's personal message: All the above is a re-enactment of a very similar debate that took place in Hungary in the nineteen twenties. It did not end with numerus clausus, numerus nulus, the abolition of the right to carry arms, etc.

Is Mearsheimer = Walt´s paper antisemitic?

They focus on Jewish influence, which they clearly consider disproportionate, excessive and nocive to America.

They suggest Jews are acting in their own interest which is non-identical to the country's interest. Jews are even trying to control the academic world.

They think there is no plan nor a conspiracy but the sum of apparently un-coordinated efforts that impacts like one.

What is left unsaid? Jewish influence should be limited, starting with foreign affairs and the academe. Since Jewish influence is carried or exercised by individual, living Jews, they should be somehow restricted and their freedom of action should be curtailed. Presumably, a silent unaknowledged numerus clausus in the civil service and the universities could be a good start.

The counterargument could be: OK, but what can a honest, decent, non-antisemitic American do or say if he really thinks Jews have too much influence and they use it for no good? Must he keep silent?

Conclusion: Mearsheimer = Walt´s paper is against the Jews but not antisemitic (literally, against the Jews) because they are nice, honest, well-meaning people who sincerely think Jews are pfooia.

jaimito's personal message: All the above is a re-enactment of a very similar debate that took place in Hungary in the nineteen twenties. It did not end with numerus clausus, numerus nulus, the abolition of the right to carry arms, etc.

US aide to Israel in per capita terms is huge...by far the largest of any nation. Factor in the susidy from the diaspora...Israel is the MOST SUBSIDISED place on earth. Do you hear me libertarians! I dont think the US gets a great return on its investment.

US aide to Israel in per capita terms is huge...by far the largest of any nation. Factor in the susidy from the diaspora...Israel is the MOST SUBSIDISED place on earth. Do you hear me libertarians? I dont think the US gets a great return on its investment.

I find it interesting how different the views of the "Isreal lobby" are when compared to the US jewish community. It is time for the jewish community to form an organisation to represent it better than aipac.

What KXB said. A rare burst of sanity in the inevitable, and inevitably tedious, grand pissfest that is the fate of every internet thread concerning Israel. It should be possible to give Mearsheimer and his soclleague a hearing without resorting to vilification and accusations of bad faith.

It should also be possible to recognize that while Israel is a valuable ally, US and Israeli interests often conflict-- as they did over the multi-billion $$$ AWACs sale to the Saudis. As do US and French interests, or US and Taiwanese interests, or....

The only reason this issue attracts such heat (instead of light) is that two passionate groups, the pro-Israelis in the US and the pro-Palestinians in Europe, tend to want to remove all moral complexity from the issue and demonize the Other Side.

Then again, isn't rooting for OurSide and slanging the OtherSide what the blogosphere is all about?

The paper has been available for three days now. No mention of it in the mainstream media. But the Israel lobby is in full frenzy, smearing and attacking Walt and Mearsheimer. Why cannot we have a real discussion on the relationship between the US and Israel. Maybe Walt and Mearsheimer are completely wrong. But we should be able to discusss the issue and not have this paper be dismissed as "blood libel" by the American branch of the Likud party. It would be nice to have this discussion before the drumbeats for war with Iran get any louder. Can we hold off Bush, Chenney, Rumsfeld, et al for the almost three more years they have to ruin this country?

I think the 'gnawing concern' doesn't pan out, although it is interesting.

Two reasons

1) If I am Israel, I want the US engaged in my neighborhood. There is about zero chance that the US would sell out Israel explicitly to gain favor with the Arabs. However, total indifference to the region might be worse. We might cease to always have a carrier group in the Med and one in the Gulf (I guess that's probably two in the gulf these days). Nor would the US allow, willingly, a major change in the balance of power.In otherwords, the US just being concerned about the oil supply has positive positive externalities for Israel.

2) Oil revenue keeps an awful lot of Arab 'youth' employed. Better them cleaning bathrooms in the Dubai MacD's then being on the dole in Germany, learning how to build bombs.

But, for some of you, I guess if you even dare to question the US-Israel relationship, then you must be an anti-Semite.

You're being disingenuous. If these authors had merely suggested rethinking the U.S.-Israel alliance, nobody would accuse them of anything at all, except perhaps foolishness.

They didn't "dare to question the US-Israel relationship." Instead, they accused the "Israel lobby" of being the reason for the relationship. Accusations that Jews are causing a country to act in ways detrimental to its national interest is quintessential anti-semitism.

Even if one accepts that the alliance with Israel is detrimental -- something they make only a weak attempt at -- their argument dismissing the far more obvious reasons for this alliance is paper thin.

The paper has been available for three days now. No mention of it in the mainstream media.

Leaving aside that the story was picked up by the Christian Science Monitor, do you think that most articles published in the LRB get discussed in the MSM?

Dan´s blog is not the place to discuss his former colleges's work. I only want to add that most posts relate to the paper as an analysis of the USA - Israel relationship, which is not. It is an attack on American Jews. Fresh vitriol for Stormfront.

Instead, they accused the "Israel lobby" of being the reason for the relationship. Accusations that Jews are causing a country to act in ways detrimental to its national interest is quintessential anti-semitism.

and

I only want to add that most posts relate to the paper as an analysis of the USA - Israel relationship, which is not. It is an attack on American Jews. Fresh vitriol for Stormfront.

In fact, the paper specifically mentioned that many American Jews do not necessarily completely support the "Israel lobby" and also mentions that more American Jews opposed the war in Iraq than the the general populace at large. Money quote

"This it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on Jewish influence."

So much for the claims here that the paper amounted to an attack on all American Jews. [ Although I could have done without their reference to Dershowitz as an apologist]. They did criticize the neoconservatives, many of whom (Jewish and Christian), have very close ties to Israel.

Even if one accepts that the alliance with Israel is detrimental -- something they make only a weak attempt at -- their argument dismissing the far more obvious reasons for this alliance is paper thin.

In fact, I thought that was the strongest part of the paper. The paper points out that Israel's strategic value is limited in many cases (the Iranian revolution, for instance), and Israel was actually a strategic liability in the First Gulf War. [ The paper does ignore the value of Israel's strike at Osirak, as well as other intelligence co-operation but it doesn't mention the Liberty either]. It also points out that Israel isn't the underdog any more and favoring it is not favoring a weak country. And in terms of favoring democracies, we all know that the US sided with Pakistan against India during much of the cold war.

However, I did find the weakest part of the paper to be dismissing the moral grounds for supporting Israel and its equating Israel morally with the Arabs. I don't believe such an equivalence exists, and its likely to infuriate people enough to not take the rest of the paper seriously. Perhaps a better argument might simply be to say that the moral ground can be justified by giving an ironclad security guarantee to Israel, but that would entail a relation with Israel somewhat similar to our relation with Taiwan (although Taiwan faces a far more powerful threat).

"Accusations that Jews are causing a country to act in ways detrimental to its national interest is quintessential anti-semitism."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This is only anti-semitism if they believe there is something inherent to being Jewish that is causing the "Israel lobby" to act in this way. If you actually read the paper, you'll see that M&W believe that the "Israel lobby" is behaving like any other domestic interest group, only this one is particularly effective. Further, if you read the paper, you'll see that there are many non-Jews who Mearsheimer and Walt includee in the "Israel lobby." The only way that Mearsheimer and Walt's argument could be construed as anti-semitism is with the bogus argument that to criticize the US-Israel relationship is to be an anti-semite.

"Even if one accepts that the alliance with Israel is detrimental -- something they make only a weak attempt at -- their argument dismissing the far more obvious reasons for this alliance is paper thin."

Fine. That's a reasonable argument that one could make, and I think (knowing both of them) that it's an argument Mearsheimer and Walt would welcome. Why not have that argument rather than making unwarranted inferences of anti-semitism?

James Taranto weighted in today in Best of the Web Today. As always his headline for the item is hillarious: Duke 1, Harvard 0. Here is my favorite quote:

Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are "understandable." This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.

The last sentence, of course is a sideways reference to Larry Summers (didn't he used to be employed at Harvard), and highlights the parallel between the rationales of Walts & Mearsheimer and those of the disengagement proponents on American campuses.

One last quote regarding the flaws of Israel's democracy:

American democracy, too, is not without its flaws. During World War II, for instance, black Americans were still disfranchised, and innocent Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put in camps. It does not follow that America was no better than Nazi Germany.

But as jaimito has pointed out, the trouble is not with the message. Everyone today can see that it is flawed. The trouble is with the messenger. It has become respectable to voice antisemitic sentiments and it might be an ominous sign of things to come for American Jews (albeit perhaps not in the immediate future). I also agree with him that Israel has nothing to fear, and I might add that I am not too worried about American Jews either. Antisemitism will never again be as deadly as in the 20th century for the sole reason that Jews will now have a place to go. Case in point: France seems poised to loose its Jewry. Now who stands to loose from that?

--
G.A.W.

Watch for the Saudi donation to U Chicago.

BTW where is the article in the LRB on the Saudi Lobby?

Joe M.,

The Israelis have offered to allow the transfer of goods through Southern Gaza near the Egyptian Border.

Unfortunately this particular port of entry increases the difficulty of attacks against Israel so the Palis will not accept the alternative.

Joe,

If no people have a right to a religiously pure state (lots of black and brown Jews in Israel) let us start with Saudi Arabia. There are more Moslems in Israel (by a factor of many thousands) than Jews in Saudi Arabia.

BTW where is the article in the LRB on the Saudi Lobby?

The same place as the Guardian's Houston correspondent: not to be found. The Saudi lobby, consisting mainly of the firms of Bush (pere), Baker Scowcroft and Hill & Knowlton, does not merit a mention as it doesn't fit the anti-neocon Grand Meme.

I agree that saudi should be open to all religions too. no debate there. Again, Israel should be a bi-national state with all peopel sharing the same political and civil rights. that will solve the conflict once and for all.

But the most shocking thing, again, is that Israel has made Gaza into history's largest recorded concentration camp. And that the Palestinians are being forced into mass hunger by a political decision that was justified by saying it is for "security". This is brutality and collective punishment to the extreme. Israel is a terrorist state. The Jewish people should be ashamed that they are starving an entire population! Has not history shown them any sympathy?

Also, there is no doubt that there are many people in the west who exploit Palestinian suffering as a justification for anti-semitism. For all i know (and i am not saying that i know), the average person in the west probably only learns about the Palestinians as a way to advance their anti-semitism. But too, the "Jewish State" is responsible for the systematic destruction (and now starvation) of the Palestinian population. There is not one Arab of the whole 300 million who does not feel this personally. Do you expect Arabs to be happy when they see that their brothers and sisters have no bread and rice to eat? Can you imagine the outcry if the same was happening to 1.5 million Jews? it would be to no end (and it should be).

As for Mearsheimer and Walt, they made a very strong argument that not one person on this blog has made even a weak argument to disprove. the consistant criticism has been that they are anti-semitic, which holds no weight at all. if their argument was so bad, i would have expected a point by point rebuttal as to why the AIPAC is not strong, or why neo-con thought is not essentially the same as an American defense strategy for Israel, but there has been almost non of that. The only serious criticism of their argument i have seen here has been to attack their honor as human beings, which is pathetic.

Joe:

Check this out, and this, and THIS!

The whole basis for W&M's argument is that support of Israel (1) is detrimental to US FP; and (2) cannot be justified in terms of shared moral values. (1) is debunked by Martin Kramer, and (2) by James Taranto. Once that's gone, there is no basis to claim that the "Lobby" is so strong that it diverts US FP from what it should otherwise be.

So much for "not one".

--
G.A.W.

when i said: "Has not history shown them any sympathy?"

i meant to say, "have they not learned any sympathy from their own history."

joe m.,

A bi-national state where the Arabs want to kill the Jews is not a viable state. Check out the Hamas and PLO charters for details.

Besides - given the well known love for Jews by all nations of the world - a Jewish state is a necessity until the world becomes more civilized. How soon will that be?

In any case the Palis now have the beginning of a state in Gaza. The people of Hong Kong have done more with less. Let us see how the Palis do. After 10 years we can decide the next option.

The Palestinians are responsible for starvation in the Palistinian State.

The Israelis have offered to open a crossing near Egypt. This is unacceptable to the Palistinians. They prefer starvation instead. Who will stop them?

Joe M,

I see the evil Saudi PAC behind these professors.

if you believe any of that crap you are a true idiot.

If you actually believe that garbage, you must be a true idiot.

Now here is the real irony: Jews go crazy, yelling about a vast anti-semitic conspiracy and how they are in constant danger, but their proof is the most idiotic crap that only someone completely brainless could believe, totally ignoring that they have any responsibility for the suffering of the Palestinians. (above comments by M. Simon are a case in point).

I think that Taranto's remarks are evidence of the real motivation behind the paper. It was one giant social psychology experiment.

Hypotheses 1,2, and 3 The strongly identified pro-zionist forces will respond with with character assasination, non-sequiturs, fallacious logic.

I think we can say. Yes, yes, yes.

"it takes no great wisdom to conclude that without the Arab-Israel conflict, the Middle East would have been a very different turn."

You're right ... it doesn't take wisdom to conclude that.

It takes something altogether different.

I said

"it takes no great wisdom to conclude that without the Arab-Israel conflict, the Middle East would have been a very different turn."

to which the response is:

You're right ... it doesn't take wisdom to conclude that.It takes something altogether different.

Common sense, maybe ? Certainly most of us with a healthy dollop of that commodity would believe that the Middle East would be different. Not necessarily better, but certainly different.

In fact, the paper specifically mentioned that many American Jews do not necessarily completely support the "Israel lobby" and also mentions that more American Jews opposed the war in Iraq than the the general populace at large. Money quote

That's what Mickey Kaus calls the "to be sure" paragraph. You write a large article saying that X causes Y or whatever, and then tack on a "To be sure, it's not always true."

Imagine that you write a long paper saying, "Race and crime are related. Black people are responsible for almost all the crime in the U.S. We can't explain it away with any other factors, because we don't believe those other factors are true. What we can say is that a black guy killed a white guy in 1984, so this shows how much black crime there is." And then at the end, you tack on a perfunctory "To be sure, not all black people are criminals, and there are many white criminals also." What do you think people would say?

In fact, I thought that was the strongest part of the paper.

Well, the first problem is that the authors confused their view with other people's views. If I think Israel is a strategic asset, then this explains my support for Israel, regardless of whether Israel is an asset or not. You can't prove that there's some other explanation for my support, such as a nefarious "Israel lobby," by showing that you don't think Israel is a strategic asset. It's not enough to show that I'm wrong; you have to show that I don't really think this.

The second problem is that their analysis of why Israel isn't an asset is weak. That "its strategic value is limited in many cases" may well be true – but what does that have to do with whether it's an asset overall? Isn't the strategic value of MOST of our allies "limited in many cases"? (The Liberty was an accident, whatever Bamford thinks, and in any case has nothing to do with Israel's strategic value.) Even if one ignores the help Israel provided in the Cold War -- a strange thing to do, since it explains where the alliance came from, and inertia could explain the maintenance of it -- there hasn't been a major war in the Israeli area in thirty years. Don't you think Israeli strength, combined with U.S. support for Israel, is a large part of that? That this influence doesn't extend all the way to the Gulf hardly shows that Israel isn't helpful in its own neighborhood.

The third problem, you concede; their dismissal of the moral argument is really lame.

Anonymous, you say, " This is only anti-semitism if they believe there is something inherent to being Jewish that is causing the 'Israel lobby' to act in this way. If you actually read the paper, you'll see that M&W believe that the 'Israel lobby' is behaving like any other domestic interest group, only this one is particularly effective."

Yes, but that rather begs the question. What is "causing the 'Israel lobby' to act in this way"? Why would the "Israel lobby" be acting as it did? Other interest groups act in their own interest. AARP lobbies for RPs. Big Pharma lobbies for pharmaceutical companies. But the "Israel lobby" isn't Israelis.

A subsection of the M&W paper is headed 'The Great Silencer'. It discusses how any criticism of Israel is conflated with anti-semitism. This Blog certainly confirms that contention--if confirmation were needed.

Imagine that you write a long paper saying, "Race and crime are related. Black people are responsible for almost all the crime in the U.S. We can't explain it away with any other factors, because we don't believe those other factors are true. What we can say is that a black guy killed a white guy in 1984, so this shows how much black crime there is." And then at the end, you tack on a perfunctory "To be sure, not all black people are criminals, and there are many white criminals also." What do you think people would say?

Your analogy is flawed, because the article mentions it not in 1 line, but in a number of places, and even says the equivalent of "But statistics show that black people are less likely to be criminals than white people", when it says that American Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the regular American populace, and also goes on to explain many ways in which American Jews differ with Israel.

The second problem is that their analysis of why Israel isn't an asset is weak. That "its strategic value is limited in many cases" may well be true – but what does that have to do with whether it's an asset overall? Isn't the strategic value of MOST of our allies "limited in many cases"?

The question here is "net strategic value". The strategic asset value of Iceland is limited (a few bases etc.). But the strategic liability of Iceland is practically non-existent. With Israel, there is a great deal of US assistance (representing a liability) and there is the fact (which should be undisputed) that the relationship with Israel is really toxic in a lot of the Arab world. Hence, the argument that Israel represents a strategic liability is far stronger than for Iceland.

en if one ignores the help Israel provided in the Cold War -- a strange thing to do, since it explains where the alliance came from, and inertia could explain the maintenance of it -- there hasn't been a major war in the Israeli area in thirty years. Don't you think Israeli strength, combined with U.S. support for Israel, is a large part of that? That this influence doesn't extend all the way to the Gulf hardly shows that Israel isn't helpful in its own neighborhood.

I would argue that once Egypt largely came over into the US camp, after Sadat expelled the Soviets, the US was allied with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. At that point any cold war related reasons for keeping Israel as an ally were pretty low (although one could make an argument for doing so as insurance). Given that practically all of these countries were US allies in some way or the other, its not surprising that they didn't fight each other. So no, I don't think that US support for Israel is responsible for that.

Finally, there was a major bloody war in that area . It was called the Lebanese civil war. The US support for Israel didnt' stop that war.

Also, another question might be why the alliance wasn't unwound a little after the Cold War. The US tamped down its alliance with Pakistan (renewing it only when it was absolutely urgent to do so) after the cold war.

The biggest problems the US has faced in the Middle East over the past 25-30 years were
1) Iran
2) The Gulf War I
3) The Gulf War II

Israel was not helpful in 1), and was a liability in both 2 and 3. Nor was Israel all that helpful in combatting Qadaffi when he was considered a menace.

A subsection of the M&W paper is headed 'The Great Silencer'. It discusses how any criticism of Israel is conflated with anti-semitism. This Blog certainly confirms that contention--if confirmation were needed.

I have to agree 100%. I would say 75% of the critics have not read the article.

Ethnic lobbying is a serious force in the U.S. I worked on the Hill for six years and the strength of ethnic lobbies can not be understated.

Another interesting phenomina not discussed here is how funding from "home countries" forces these lobbyies into becoming maximalist and inorganic. AIPAC is certinly an example.

I would go one step further, it is not just criticism of of Israel that brands one antisemtic, it is criticism of the lobby, or from some of thecomments here the concept the lobby exists.

One reads routine criticism of the Irish American Greek American Lobby, the Moslem American Lobby, yet discussion fothe Jewish American lobby is a taboo.

Gese, what a surprise! The Jews having a disproportionate amount of influence in America, expecially in foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East. Was there any mention in the 911 Report about the link between the US and Israel as a prime motivator in Bin Laden's attack? We certainly would not have heard from the Jewish controlled NY Times and the Jewish controlled Washington Post now would we? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm anti-semitic. How dare I criticize the Jews. Douglas Feith? Richard Perle? Wolfowitz? They certainly had no influence with Bush.
911 has the blood of Zionists and American corporate exploitation on it. Talk to Arabs and they'll tell you: America is the mother of Israel. And what a disgrace for me, let me tell you, because I do not support secular Jewish values, namely, the relentless commercial drive (See Chua's World On Fire (2003)for the latest chronicle of minority influence) at the expense of others. (Oops! That's anti-semitic!)

Yep. Free speech unless your speech is too free. Criticizing the Jewish influence in American foreign policy is taboo in the US and it's unfortunate. You speak up, like me, and it conjures goosestepping and swastikas.

The US has gotten sucked into the agenda of Israel and it's a national disgrace. Fervent Jewish supporters of Israel should MOVE to Israel and put their lives where their mouths are. Jews make up 2% of the population of the US and what percentage of the military do they make up? Look it up... (Oh, I know, I'm a Nazi...)

I applaud these authors but they won't get a fair hearing in the Jewish controlled media in the States.

And to my Jewish friends, you have a moral obligation to criticize your own.

Shalom

No, Mark, I have no moral obligation to critisize my friends. I have a moral obligation to praise and thank them.

I also have a moral obligation to thank that raving antisemite, President Nixon, for sending us arms during the Yom Kippur War.

Jaimito brings up an important point.

We american intellectuals tend to argue morality. We talk about criticising our friends and encouraging them to do better.

But that's a conceit we happen to be able to afford. Consider -- israel is in trouble. Close to a billion people hate them, and they have no friends outside the USA. Any time -- a single misstep -- and they could be destroyed, millions of israelis dead, israel wiped out once again. The USA can lose vietnam and iraq and it's a setback. But if israel ever loses a war, if they ever lose a single war, they will all die. No possible doubt. And they could lose so easily.

So israel can't afford morality. Not while their continued existence is in serious question. So it's wrong for us to hold israel to any moral standard at all. Wait until israel has peace, until every enemy of israel is dead, then we can discuss what kind of morality israel ought to have.

Until then, any criticism only reveals that you are one of the enemies of israel yourself.

Even if you disagree, even if you are an enemy of israel and want to weaken israel with criticism, still it is wrong to suggest that israel should have any more morality than their worst-acting enemy. Until every enemy of israel is dead, israel is fully justified in doing whatever Hamas does, whatever Hisbollah does, whatever al Qaeda does, whatever the syrian government or the iranian government etc does. We can't expect israel to fight to standards better than their enemies follow. They might lose. We can accept higher standards for ourselves -- we aren't threatened. But israel is threatened with utter destruction every day, and they have to do whatever it takes to survive. We mustn't criticise them no matter what.

Their evil liars.

Why blame the Jews, when we have the Ai-rabs.

Who really wanted war on Iraq? Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. They were cheering accross the "Arab Gulf".

But no one is allowed to mention that? What would medina and mecca feel like, knowing their Ryiad sponsors pushed America into war against an aposthate Arab regime?