Isn't the US in alliance with Israel because Israel is a country that shares the same values?

To me the US presence in Israel is like the US presence in Europe during the cold war.

Did that "seriously damage the interests of the United States" as well? Depends on how you view things but yes one can certainly argue it turned the second largest power on the planet from an ally into an enemy.

That one may choose values over geopolitical realism perhaps hasn't occurred to the authors.

Don't be fooled by the deceptive headline of this article. The US press is also riddled with a substantial anti-Israel bias. It is just packaged much more elaboratley than it is in, say, Malaysia.

The interesting thing about the Mearsheimer piece is that it lays bare its anti-semetic and anti-Israel bias. To that end, it is actually welcome, as it is much easier to debunk. (That is, to anyone willing to consider all of the facts).

What is most interesting about Morely's piece here is the manner in which it illustrates the more insidious type of anti-Israel bias that typically runs through American media. Notice, for example, how articles approving of Mearsheimer's so-called analysis are quoted in depth, while critiques are referenced, but never repeated. The reader must take an extra step if he or she wants to learn more about that side of the debate. Similarly, the Qatar, Malaysia and Pakistani press are all cited as though they have no bigger inherent ax to grind with Israel than, say, the New York Times. Sure. That makes sense.

Subtle, Mr. Morely. Very subtle.

The Mearsheimer Walt review article is now definitely mainstream, as evidenced by one of its findings forming the basis for yesterday's lead editorial in the Christian Science Monitor: "Bush must now focus on the West Bank". Noam Chomsky effectively rebuts much of the authors' thesis in a detailed response ("The Israeli Lobby?", ZNet 28Mar06) that is much more convincing than the highly emotional attacks from academics based at Harvard, Tufts, and Brandeis (all of whom should have done more homework prior to reacting). The bottom line is that the two authors have opened up areas of debate that have been closed in the US for much too long, and good on them!

As someone who strongly supports Israel's right to exist in peace and security, I must say that the Mearsheimer Walt article is an accurate, detailed and candid discussion of the power of Israel Lobby. Support for Israel's right to exist does not mean support for its oppression of the Palestinians, which is generating worldwide terrorism against US. We must support Israel as the only Jewish state, but must force it to withdraw from the territories it occupied in the 1967 war.

The Israel Lobby is angry because its influence is now being openly discussed, not because the article is inaccurate. The Israel Lobby is attacking these two great Americans by calling them antisemites. This is outrageous. Nothing in the article is antisemitic.

Mearesheimer has not read Hitchens. In his article Hitchens finished with the followign paragraph: "Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly."

Somebody should tell Mearsheimer that Hitchens is not complimenting him on his choice of aftershave.

Jeff, Is Mearsheimer really quoting the Slate article in his email?

The Mearsheimer Walt study should be front page news.

Mainstream corporate media's reaction to it largely a reflection that the report's observations about media bias are correct.

Thank god for the Internet.

At last, a straightforward analysis that tells it like it is. Of course the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd is trying desperately to smear its authors as anti-Semites, since they have no substantive rebuttal to the facts or thesis presented. It's obvious to anyone who pays attention to Middle Eastern politics that America's multi-billion-dollar subsidy to Israel's ongoing campaign to annex and occupy Palestinian lands only inflames Palestinian opinion and helps extremist groups recruit and gather support. When the world's largest superpower allies itself with an army and settlers who have been dispossessing your people of their land and resources for decades, is it any surprise that there is immense hostility to the U.S. in the Arab world? It only makes sense.

Mr. Morley,

Please correct your posting as it is ambiguous. The second to last paragraph fails to identify whether the reference to Hitchens is yours or Mearsheimer's. Closing the quotation or correcting with a single quotation (') would fix the problem.

It is not antisemitic to point out that America gives $4 billion a year to Israel, which is a wealthy country, while desperately poor countries in Africa and Asia get nothing. Congress provides the money to Israel each year not because America loves Israel, but because of the power of Israel lobby and their supporters in the media.

It is not antisemitic to point out that Israel's continuous occupation of Palestinian lands captured in 1967 is one of the main causes of terrorism.

A distinction should be made between Israel's right to exist and Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands.

Mearsheimer and Walt's article on the Israel Lobby is fair, balanced and thoughtful. Smearing two of America's finest scholars with the charge of antisemitism is disgusting. The Lobby will go to any length to silence its critics.

Do all these clowns ever wonder that Israel, and the Jews worldwide who back it, with all their political, economic, military, and media power are struggling to hold on to a small fraction of the land designated as their homeland? In their warped minds, the defense against the Jewish hordes must be a rare success of justice over power in world history.

Those who cry anti-semitism are the ones who would like these trues be buried and forgotten, don't forget, AIPAC is a force to be reckoned with, it aint' over yet.

Palestinian lands? Sorry, but even if a lie is repeated endlessly, it's still a lie. State lands owned by the Ottoman Empire and lost as a result of WW I, out of which Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and "Palestine" (including Jordan) were carved up by the French, English and Americans is a more accurate description.

"Arab" lands might be a bit more accurate, but "Palestinian" lands is a misnomer repeated endlessly until even the "Palestinians" believe it.

I first heard of this study last week at a bat mitvah shabat service. The rabbi was quite beside himself with rage over the piece, calling it anti-semitic, even Hitlerian. Having read it, I can now say that this rabbi has no credibility with me anymore.

There's nothing remotely anti-semitic in Mearsheimer and Walt's article, nor is there any "Protocals of the Elders of Zion" conspiracy mongering. The facts of the power of the Israeli lobby and the extent of US aid to Israel are beyond dispute. What is up for debate is the consequenses of that relationship. One can reasonably agree or disagree with Mearsheimer and Walt over their conclusions. But attempts to squelch this debate with ludicrous charges of anti-semitism only discredit the people who make those charges.

It is totally unacceptable to place off limits any criticism of Israel or its relations to the US. The very small minority of Jews (and some gentile supporters of Israel) who insist on unquestioning support of any Israeli action hold a completely immoral position. Like any "my-country-right-or-wrong" rhetoric, such thinking deserves no respect at all.

Sure enough, one of those Israel-right-or-wrong, Palestinian-hating bigots has weighed in, claiming that the Palestinians have no lands and insinuating that they don't even exist as a people.
So tell us, joelsk44039, why else would you put quotation marks around the word 'Palestinian'?
Even the most balanced critique of Israel and the unfair role played by the U.S. in bolstering its campaign to take ever more lands from an already dispossessed people elicits this kind of bigotry.
Telling.