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.

Israel did get a small reactor under the old Atoms for Peace program, but the big reactor came from France as a reward for Israel's support during the Suez war. I have recently read that the Heavy Water came from Great Britain.
I would recommend two books on Israel and It's foreign policy Covering the Mandate period Tom Segev's Ond Palestine Complete and Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall Israel and the Arab World. Also Dr. Stephen M. Walt's excellent book "Taming American Power" where examines, besides the Israeli lobby, a varity of ethnic lobbies that influence American Foreign Policy. I don't think we have an American foreign policy.
Tom Segev is associated with the Israeli Paper Ha'aretz, and Shlaim is Israeli associated with Oxford University. Unlike the information that often comes out of lobbies and "Think Tanks", these people are respected scholars who do scholarly analysis as opposed to myth and propaganda.
Is Israel and The United States the same type of democracy? While a work in progress, we are an inclusive, multi-ethnic, and mult-religious society. Israel seeks to create an exclusive democratic society for one group of people. Philosophically, we are not even close.

We need to have an honest debate about US support for Israel. Israel Lobby is powerful and it attacks its critics with charges of antisemitism.

Mearsheimer and Walt should be thanked for courageously writing about the Lobby. Israel Lobby's attack dogs in the media are now attacking these two authors for merely pointing out the truth.

Mearsheimer totally misrepresents Hitchens' reaction to the article. In fact, Hitchens - no supporter of Israeli policy - was scathing in his criticism of the Harvard piece. I invite your readers to read the Hitchens piece and see it for themselves. The selective and quite blatant out-of-context misquoting by Mearsheimer calls his integrity into serious question - as does his one-sided presentation of the case against the Israel lobby. God knows there's much to criticize Israeli policy on the West Bank, and its supporters here. But blaming the lobby for the Iraq war is particularly egregious. All the evidence overwhelmingly suggests Bush & Co. entered the White House determined on war with Iraq from Day One. Blaming the Israeli lobby is - purposefully or not - letting this administration quite undeservedly off the hook.

James,

You might want to be careful throwing big words around like "bigot" and "dispossessed" in your polemics against Joel and the other "Palestinian-hating bigots." Jews and Arabs lived in British mandatory Palestine and Transjordan during the first half of the last century. "Palestine" was the name given to the lands of Israel and Judah by Pontius Pilate after Roman centurions sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D. "Palestinians" was a term coined in the mid-'60s by the early PLO to drum up support for a nationalist movement among Arabs in the region. Arabs living in Israel in 1948 were encouraged to leave by invading Arab armies who promised a quick victory. Arabs were never dispossessed by Israel. One million Arabs live in Israel now in relative comfort and freedom to those in Israel's neighbors. To say there are no Palestinians does not mean there were never ethnic Arabs living in Palestine. It just means that there is no separate ethnic group of Palestinians with a claim on statehood. Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank (formerly Judah) should get a state because they don't want to live in srael and Israel can't afford the security risk that absorbing them would create. Also, they've been used as propaganda and kept in poverty by corrupt leaders. They deserve a state. Perhaps not one run by Hamas, but that's a different story. I agree with you that "my country, right or wrong" arguments are not helpful or thoughtful. I also agree that the word "anti-semitism" may be overused. However, anti-semitism is in the eye (or ear?) of the beholder. Reading some of the history is very helpful in embarking on a thoughtful analysis of the situation. For both sides.

Israel is the most powerful special interest group in the history of the world (no joke). The chokehold on US politicians in 100%. You simply can't be in U.S. politics and vote against something Israel's lobby wants. What happens if you do? AIPAC and/or some other group finances another candidate at the next election to whatever amount it takes to get you kicked out of politics. That is a fact- and no one in this post can dispute that. So, combined with a very deranged (and large) group of evangelical christians who believe that when all the jews return to Israel, then Christ will pop out of a hat, you actually have a large and influential group in America that forms this lobby. And most Americans, looking at just the facts, do not support this special interest group or any special interest group, because special interest groups by definition only benefit a small group of people at the expense of a large group of people.

And regarding a posted comment about a 'very small minority of jews' who give such support- I think it is rather the majority of American jews who feel this way. And I can't say I blame them- you certainly can't blame someone for fighting for their own. However, it also cant be appreciated either, and while questioning this situation certainly isn't anti-semitic, being accused of such a thing will in itself lead to anti-semitic feelings. You're darn right!

An example of Mearsheimer's out of touch mental meanderings is that he would cite and call attention to Hitchens' Slate article which castigated Mearsheimer. How about posting some of Hitchens' criticisms here?

The Israel "Lobby" is powerful. Compared to what? Not the dairy lobby. Or any numerous other lobbies. Though I have new respect for it. Mearsheimer opines that 25% of the defense subsidy goes to Israeli military industries. Wow! That means our domestic military industrial complex is only 3 times more powerful than the Israel "Lobby?" I thought it was a lot more.

James says,

"So tell us, joelsk44039, why else would you put quotation marks around the word 'Palestinian'?"

Because a lot of Arabs do to? Upset with colonial-determined identities. Don't impose your Western constructs!

Here's the chatter about a Jewish world conspiracy again.

Deja vue moment for me. It's a theory the nazi's had, the Jews ran the world.

But no you might say, that's not what this piece says it's not against the Jews it talks about the pro-Israeli lobby in the US. In effect it says there's a Jewish group of people that tells the US what to do and who to bomb, a group that has way too much influence. Sort of like a Jewish world conspiracy but sans all the Nazi overtones. Bunch of dumb yankee Christians being led by the Jews. Like those Arab cartoons have it.

No this piece of dangerous text hasn't been writtin in support of Osama bin Laden, but he will thank the authors for the free ammo. Thank you sages in your ivory towers for your limited reading of history, for your absolute disregard for the real murder and suffering in the world that's happening now in Darfur and other such remote places, for your continued obsession with the state of Israel and your uncritical osmosis of whatever the state controlled Arab media forces through your membranes. Brilliant.

When Hamas speaks of occupation, they speak of the entire land of Israel.

Nobody reacting until now has disputed the facts in the article. And anti-Israel maybe, but could somebody using that wording please explain what in the article is 'anti-semitic'?

Willem,

Morley posted links to people (e.g. the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) who have disputed the "facts" in the article. You might want to start there.

Steve writes:

"However, it also cant be appreciated either, and while questioning this situation certainly isn't anti-semitic, being accused of such a thing will in itself lead to anti-semitic feelings. You're darn right!"

Feels good to get that off your chest doesn't it? Blame the Jews for your feelings about Jews.

"Israel is the most powerful special interest group in the history of the world (no joke)."

I don't know about "the world" but in America I'd say they're about 1/2 as powerful as the dairy lobby. Probably equal to the cotton lobby.

"Nobody reacting until now has disputed the facts in the article."

You're a funny guy Willem.

"nd anti-Israel maybe, but could somebody using that wording please explain what in the article is 'anti-semitic'??"

It seems you're not acquainted with anti-0semitic cliches. One traditional one is that Jews are an all-powerful force causing the wars of the world. To wit, the Jews are located as the source of Gulf War II. Mearsheimer couldn't let go his all controling theme so he made some cockamamy arguments about the Patriot battery systems. Wild stuff. Anti-semites often have an obsession with Jews as a central operator of the world.

Then there's that whole oil-lobby thingy Mearsheimer seems not to know about. It's obvious, but acknowledging it would undermine the centrality of the Jews/Israel narrative so it is ignored. Mearsheimer's world is a closed system, a damn good example of the "paranoid style" of thinking.

According to Mearsheimer "The Israel lobby is mainly responsible for the difference in the reactions to our piece at home and abroad,".

So those who disagree with him have two options: Either keep quiet and offer no opposition, or criticize him, thereby providing proof of the power of the Israel lobby. Either way, he wins.

This is reminiscent of the tactics of Mahathir Muhammad, following his "Jews control the world" speech to the OIC on Oct. 16, 2003, which reads as if it was lifted straight out of "Mein Kampf". When informed that Chirac, Blair and Schroeder have all attacked the speech as antisemitic, Mahathir replied with a smile: "Isn't that proof that the Jews control the world?"

Until 1948, the word "Palestinian" referred to a Jew living in Palestine. The Arabs were referred to as Arabs. Just in case you weren't aware of it, James, there was a huge Arab influx into Palestine as a result of Jewish immigration, which created jobs and other financial benefits for everyone in the region.

And I don't "hate" Palestinian Arabs. I only hate those who believe that Israel should be pushed into the sea and those that support violence and terrorism. (And don't give me the circuitous argument that Israeli actions perpetuate a "cycle of violence.")

When exactly did the Palestinian culture emerge, James? Wasn't it in 1964 with the formation of the PLO terrorist organization? Let's also remember that the Al Aksa Mosque has been the "third most holy site in Islam" .... since 1964!!

Duh!!

Mr Morley, Your piece does not offset the stunningly shallow and distorted earlier item in the Washington Post “Of Israel, Harvard and David Duke” Sunday, March 26, 2006.

I am still waiting for the mainstream media to raise many of the points made by your online commentators here. Studying the media coverage on Mearsheimer and Walt’s paper has made me increasingly uncomfortable at the McCarthyist tone of what is appearing in the USA – which can only be further dampening the debate.

What you and others don’t mention is that Meearsheimer and Walt were given a much healthier airing in Israel than in the USA. Why when quoting the Israeli daily Haaretz did you select the sneering and defensive piece from by Tom Segev and not the pieces “Lobby in the Crosshairs” by Akiva Eldar and “So Pro-Israel That It Hurts” by Daniel Levy, both of which 1) confirmed the existence of the Israel lobby (Akiva refers to AIPECsending out 2,000 activists to assault Capitol Hill on the issue of withholding aid to the new Palestinian government) and 2) strongly made the point that the actions of the Israel lobby is harming both the USA and Israel.

How about giving them some coverage? Both Eldar and Levy apparently feel safer debating this in Israel than any mainstream politician or media figure does in the USA.

For a long time the issues raised in this piece could not be addressed in public, much less among friends. Whether the authors are right or wrong (or more likely their ideas lie somewhere in between) it is refreshing to see this out there. As with the recent issues surrounding the Summers presidency at Harvard, one of the most difficult aspects of the recent era has been accusations of anti-semitism leveled against those who seek to discuss a range of issues honestly.

"There was a huge Arab influx into Palestine as a result of Jewish immigration, which created jobs and other financial benefits for everyone in the region."
That sounds like the old "a land without people for a people without land" jive! The implication being, I suppose, that since many of the Palestinians came to be in the area through immigration after Israel was in control, they have some less right to the land? Lame argument, particularly because it is bogus.

Fact is that "in 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000."

Part of the problem in this debate is the attempt by Israel's supporters to ignore inconvenient facts rather than face up to the wrongs that have been committed in an attempt to find a fair solution.

Mr Mearsheimer, Mr Walt and Mr Morley get to the right conclusion as long as one starts the reasoning from the results of the Arab-Israel Six Day war in 1967 for instance, but one could get to totally contrary conclusion if one could start the reasoning from the recognition of Israel by the voting nations at the UN in 1948 or from the causes of the Six Day war of 1967 for instance.

Israeli lobby and their media surrogates have prevented an open discussion in US about the following:

(1) why does Congress give $4 billion each year to Israel when it continues to annex Palestinian lands?

(2) why does Congress give $4 billion each year to Israel when its policies toward Palestinians including occupation and settlement building generates so much terrorism?

(2) why does Congress give $4 billion when Israel is a wealthy country with per capita income equal to that of Spain?

Now these two authors have written an accurate essay that discusses what few dares to talk about. For this, there are called antisemites by the lobby and their attack dogs.

Mr. Morley,

You are coverage is absolutely correct. This controversy reveals what we have known for some time: there has been far more free speech on this issue in the rest of the world and in Israel than in the major US press & universities. The propagandist efforts to smear the authors of this informed, balanced study in the NYT,Boston Globe, & Washington Post were shocking and confirmed one of the authors' major points.

Reality check - 3 comments:

1. Tom Segev is in the same political camp as Eldar and Levy, and, being older, has been there for much longer. So his criticism of Walt-Mearscheimer should not be so flippantly dismissed.

2. Unlike Walt-Mearscheimer, Eldar and Levy have Israel's best interests in mind. Their desire to see Israel going in a new direction blinds them to the openly anti-Israeli agenda and antisemitic overtones of Walt-Mearscheimer. Unfortunately, that is often the case with the snow-white doves of the Israeli left.

3. I take it your reference to "McCarthyist tone of what is appearing in the USA – which can only be further dampening the debate" is echoing Mearscheimer's claim that "you cannot say that in the United States without being accused of anti-Semitism and bringing a storm down on yourself".

First, you are confusing criticism with censorship. No one is stopping Walt-Mearscheimer and their followers from saying whatever they want. In fact, this very discussion, and many like it taking place across the country, are evidence that the debate is being stoked rather than dampened.

Second, this sort of preemptive defense does not hold much water. if someone wrote an article saying that black people were lazy, prone to crime and genetically inferior, then signed off by saying "Now watch how everyone will attack me as a white racist" would you call that a valid claim of a McCarthyist atmosphere? That type of circular logic sound even more ludicrous coming from an allegedly distinguished U. of Chicago professor. If you say racist things you are a racist, what else is there to it?

It is unfortunate that some of us who care about Israel feel the need to attack open debate. Seeing the good and bad in Israeli policy isn't anti-Semitic. Is qustioning what the US should do about Iraq anti-American? I hope not.

Those who label any difference of opinion as anti-Semitic or who invoke the Holocaust do far more damage to Israel than they can possibly know.

Calling someone a name doesn't change their mind, it makes them realize that you can't back up your opinion with throughtful judgement.

I think it's time we did something radical in this country -- develop an even-handed approach to the Middle East. We should certainly stop giving Israel weapons money so they can kill Palestinians -- God knows with Iraq we already have enough blood on our hands.

We should tell Israel that political assassination is wrong. We should tell them that occupying Palestine doesn't make them any safer, it just gives the terrorists an opportunity to take the moral high ground. In other words, we should be as tough on the Israelis as we are on the Palestinians when they mess up.

These types of policies will actually give Israel the upper hand in the conflict. But that shouldn't be our main reason for being even handed.

We should take a fair minded approach because it's good for America. Taking sides in this cycle of revenge just tarnishes our reputation in the eyes of the world. Taking sides turns a billion Moslems against us. Taking sides means we condone occupying other lands and treating Moslems as second class.

Taking one side, even when that side does things that are wrong, is the sign of a country with a simpleton in charge.

As to whether the Israel lobby has too much influence in this country... is there any other country out there that we support no matter what?

Nobody disputes the conclusions of the paper, even if they nitpick on the details. The United States currently gives more to Israel than any other country. Even the method by which we give them this huge sum of money is uniquely beneficial. No other country enjoys such unquestioning support from America.

Most here have taken great pains to avoid denying the prescient conclusions of the study. Why?

Just to clear things up, there are two James' here. I use, for no reason, lower case in my name on this and other blogs.

Re: the Jasper, jvd, and joelsk rhetoric. If there is an Israeli lobby, and it is powerful, can we not discuss this fact without being accused of rehashing the Elders of Zion nonsense? If not, then you ARE guilty of contributing to the notion that criticism of Israel is not allowed, which of course creates suspicion. By all means go after M & W's facts and interpretations and be specific about it. But for the last time, being critical of Israel is not anti-semitic. If you think it is, you have nothing to add to this debate.

Jasper's comparison of the Israeli lobby to agricultaral lobbies is deceptive and irrelevant. We're talking about international lobbies, or those that affect US foreign policy. M and W do compare Israel's lobby to the Cuba lobby, which they call more powerful on its issue, but smaller in total impact.

I think there could be many points to criticize about M & W's piece, particularly about the Iraq war, which has rightly been pointed out as GWB's own boondoggle. It would be nice if people concentrated on specifics rather than fret over anti-semitism, which is irrelevant to the article.

Jews, like eveyone else, are all over the political spectrum. This worldwide conspiracy is nonsense which has sometimes worked for them and more often againt them. The appearance of power can often give a group or individual leverage, but it can also cause fear. However, with respect to U. S. politicians appearance is everything, and the Israeli lobby has become very powerful. This is in part because of the horror of the holocaust, and a tendency to see all Jews as victims. Certainly, even without the holocaust, they have often been victims of prejudice and violence. This violence has been more often caused by Christians, and Arabs have a long way to go before they catch up with the Christians.
It is my view that the Israeli Lobby has often been as damaging to Israeli policy as they have to American foreign policy. They blindly support whatever government happens to be in power in Israel no matter how incompetent. They rather remind me of Americans and the Bush Administration. It is support based on panic and not thought. They have foisted neoconservative economics on them which is a disaster. Poverty is on the rise.
However all that aside, I am tired of American foreign policy being held hostage foreign based lobbies in general. I want a foreign policy based on America's interest and Americans. This mean all Americans includinG Jewish AMERICANS in America.

The most amazing and encouraging discussion this citizen has read in the Post in the last fifty years. How many of my letters to the editors have touched on these very themes only to be spiked! Nonsense to claim the mainstream media have ever allowed Americans to ventilate this issue. All one ever sought was a debate and perhaps we may get something like it out of this work.

From Reality Check

I see the commentator above responding to my post has not really addressed anything I said, but was sufficiently stung to rush in and dismiss it.

What has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe and LA Times to date more or less insists that Meersheimer and Walt have written such a piece only because they are anti-Zionist, ignorant and incompetent - and academic frauds, to boot.

As intended, such shrill invective intimidates others and drowns out everything else. Whether they are right or wrong, their piece stands as a model of sound, restrained balanced scholarship when placed beside their critics.

What is stopping many people from examining this subject in private and public is reluctance to risk the harassment, pressure and personal insults that often fly from those threatened by any challenge to this taboo topic.

One of the commentators above very rightly pointed out that the US does not have a foreign policy. After hostilities with Iran break out and we witness the end of the oil age(to quote the historian Niall Ferguson) will anyone ever be able to justify the catastrophic cost of the Israel lobby's agenda?

Because that is where this is leading and many Israelis know it. The poor coverage of these issues in the US media is delaying the same awareness in the American public and their representatives.

Jasper writes..."Steve writes:

"However, it also cant be appreciated either, and while questioning this situation certainly isn't anti-semitic, being accused of such a thing will in itself lead to anti-semitic feelings. You're darn right!"

Feels good to get that off your chest doesn't it? Blame the Jews for your feelings about Jews.

"Israel is the most powerful special interest group in the history of the world (no joke)."

I don't know about "the world" but in America I'd say they're about 1/2 as powerful as the dairy lobby. Probably equal to the cotton lobby."

See Jasper, you don't get. What do you know about my feelings about jews? Just because I am passionately against special interest groups, of which Israel is the biggest,doesn't mean I 'hate' or whatever term you would like to accuse me of. I don't like the NRA, or the oil lobby either,but I don't hate the people that like guns or work for Exxon.
What I DO hate is being called something I am not, which the pro-Israel groups do more than any other. If you speak out against the NRA, you dont immediately get accused of some terrible social ill. The NRA might call you weak or liberal or something , but not accuse you of racism. This is what gets people angry- you simply can't say you are not in favor of the special interest group that is Israel without some attack dog like yourself getting all lathered up.

The main justification for the present geographical realities on the bank of the Eastern Mediterranean is the right of conquest and the undisputed ability (for now) of the Israelis to repel any and all invaders with the diplomatic, economic, and military support of the U.S. (Also apparently with all the secrets Israeli operatives can steal from the U.S. defense establishment.)

The Israelis and their supporters say since they are God's chosen people and HE gave them this land there is no basis for a dispute.

Both propositions are considered moot by the rest of the world and therein lies the rub. (For example, how did God overlook providing His people with their full share of oil and gas? He certainly gave to the Muslims in abundance? Or is this another case of intelligent design?)

So don't be surprised if the Muslims wish to assert their rights and suggest their irredentist claims and opt for one more battle.

Good luck to Israel and her supporters but count out Uncle Sam this time.

One oil embargo and two adventures in Iraq are quite enough thank you. If Israel is hellbent on taking out those nuke plants in Iran on her own then the best of British luck.

Do the Israelis all have the right of return to the U.S. if things should possibly get sticky? Call your congressman now--trust but verify.

SHARED VALUES WITH ISRAEL?

Israeli lobby keeps saying we have shared values with Israel as if repeating the same lies will make it true. It's like after 9/11, proxies of Israel kept repeating that we were attacked by the Arabs because of our freedom.

Are we that stupid to believe that we were attacked because of our freedom and bill of rights?

No, we were attacked because of our support of Israel's occupation of Palestinians. Even the terrorist Bin Laden said he attacked us because of our support for Israel. But Israel's proxies want us to believe that people want to kill themselves because of our freedom.

james you write: "Re: the Jasper, jvd, and joelsk rhetoric. If there is an Israeli lobby, and it is powerful, can we not discuss this fact without being accused of rehashing the Elders of Zion nonsense? If not, then you ARE guilty of contributing to the notion that criticism of Israel is not allowed, which of course creates suspicion."

Not allowed? Suspicion? Guilty? Hey what doublespeak this isn't Syria. If I argue rhetorically it's because I am upset and hurt and I have a history and a past that I can't deny.

There is an Israeli lobby and if it is powerful it is because Americans are sensitive to their arguments and their arguments make a lot of sense. America stands behind Israel, that's why the lobby is strong.

Why does America stand with Israel? It's because America is full of dumb Bush-voting Christian rednecks who want a new Messiah. Honk if you support Israel. Only a few years ago it was because of those bleeding liberals who with their New York Jewish friends dominate the democratic causus and the entire planet's gold supply. It's always some twisted reason. The truth is friendship and the sharing of values.

Jews are entitled to live in Israel, especially after having absorbed and integrated 650.000 Jewish Arabs in 1948 (a treatment the Palestinian Arabs should have gotten from the Arab countries that "absorbed" them as well). Gaza used to be Egypt and the West Bank used to be Jordan; but neither country now comes forward to claim what's their own territory. Pre-1967 maps show it all.

The pentagon throws billions into Israeli defense to both allow Israel to deter its enemies (Syria, Iran) and to develop anti ballistic missile technology; Israel has a couple of those flying through the sky on occasion; it's a valuable live testing ground. In the war on terror investing in Israel makes 100% sense.

And Mearsheimer and Walt speak of many such things that are relatively easy to deconstruct if one has a historical perspective; if one is interested in learning about for example Ottoman history, English and French colonialism, Theodor Herzl and Zionism, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Fascism, 1948, Baathism, etc. etc.

The Americans are friends of the Jewish people because they share the same values, perhaps each time as someone says values some eyes will gloss over but values are central to the issue. If you want to understand these values please read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html?ei=5090&en=d13886daba5e586f&ex=1299733200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1143848803-SNaUekouLLTPCeB2L3ASww (Dr. Wafa Sultan article in the New York Times).

I believe I am only being objective. If only all Arabs had the same opportunity as Dr. Wafa Sultan had, if the scales fell from their eyes and they saw to what use their lives have been put by the self interested elites of the Islamic world. Islam isn't an enemy but the Baathist infidels in Damascus sure wish the west would make it so. Look at those dumb yankees shoot themselves in the foot.

It is NOT anti-semitic to offer constructive criticism of the Country of Israel.
It is NOT anti-semitic to believe that Israel should unilaterally withdraw to the 1967 Green Line.
It is NOT anti-semitic to demand that Israel support a Palestinian civil society (Let's not forget that Hamas was originally organized by Mossad as a counter to the Fatah faction of the P.L.O. What goes around sometimes does indeed come around).
It is NOT anti-semitic to demand that Israeli Arabs be treated as equals by Jewish Israelis instead of the 2nd class citizens that they are treated as today.
It is NOT anti-semitic to demand that Israeli soldiers stop harrassing ordinary Palistinians who are going about their everyday lives. Whatever happenned to the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Speaking of which....
It is NOT anti-semitic to demand that all of the Palestinians being held in Israeli detention camps should be tried in a court of law and be JUDGED BY THEIR PEERS.

I've yet to read or hear any cogent rebuttal of the paper. I've heard that the paper is 'anti-semetic', 'not scholarly', even - get this - 'smelly'.

Smelly, yes, sometimes the truth IS smelly...

PJ Casey you're quite right that France, more than America, was responsible for Israel's early head-start on nuclear weapons.
But in recent years America has most definitely taken the lead on that front.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1061381,00.html

Amazingly, Bolton was doing this while he was Undersecretary of Defense responsible for COUNTERPROLIFERATION.

I'm also utterly tired of the 'anti-semitic' strawman.

And I think a growing number of people are unwilling to be slapped down by this catch-all rebuttal.

It's so regularly used against people who are obviously not anti-semitic that it's completely discredited.

You only have to spend five minutes on a US website to see that all the racial bile is directed against Muslims and Arabs.

They're the ones continually being called savages and animals. Theirs is the religion mocked sarcastically as a 'so-called religion of peace'.

The only actual large group of anti-semites in the States are Israel's fanatical Baptist supporters. They believe that Jews should be tortured in hell through eternity for the crime of not accepting Jesus as saviour.

Another strawman is the claim that people question Israel's right to exist. The real argument is invariably about 1967 borders, not 1948 ones.

I agree 100% with Reality Check and canadian scholar that you are much less likely to hear this anti-semitism crap in Israel, though Israeli embassies in Europe are certainly full of it.

In fact we could have a much more reasonable dialogue about the future if it were with the Israelis directly, instead of everything having to pass through the not-one-inch gang at AIPAC.

And finally, Israel is one of a tiny number of states in the world that actually imposes different laws on different people according to their religions. Israel's supporters should therefore think twice before accusing others of discriminatory behaviour.

it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to demand that Muslim governments stop promoting terror

it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to demand that Muslim/Arab countries allow people of all religions to enter their countries and practice their religions in those countries

it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to portest the daily killings, brutality and murder by Muslims, Copts and Hindus in over 20 different countries

it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to protest the honor killings and gender apartheid against women in many Arab and Muslim countries

it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to protest the inhumane treatment of non-Arabs and non-Muslims in many Arab and Muslim countires

it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to tell the truth that is rarely hear in the mainstream media, but brave ex-Muslims write about on www.golshan.com

it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to protest against oil-rich shieks and tryants who torture dissenters and silence the masses while plundering their national wealth

LOL, I thinking KAtie has made some pretty god points. If any coutnries discriminate in the world against those of other relgions, it is not ISrael where Muslims and Arabs are members of the Knesset, have full voting rights etc...but countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and others with their regimes of bigotted tyrrany.

There are many mosques in ISrael. HOw many Churches in RIyadh?

Arab Muslim women in ISrael have more rights tha in any Arab country.

But with 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and only 15 million or so Jews, there are certainly econmic incentives for some of my countrymen here in France, not too mention Muslims,Arabs and anti-Semites of every relgion or atheists to villify Israel.
NOt too mention it's physically safer to side with the Arabs. Jews in Europe don't burn embassies or blow up buildings and cars when the Arab press prints yet antoehr cartoon.

Imorality and cowardice have been bedfellow throughout history. No reason to believe our generation is any different.

Reality Check:

Funny, I thought I did address your points one by one. Perhaps that explains why so many people here believe that debate is stifled. They are literally unable to read opinions which are different from their own.

That mere fact that respectable publications on both ends of the political spectrum, such as NY Times, The Boston Globe and the WSJ agree that Walt-Mearscheimer is garbage, should tip you off that perhaps it really is.

Do you have any specific example of someone being “stopped from examining this subject” by “harassment, pressure and personal insults”? The only thing that comes to my mind is that U.S. papers, unlike their European colleagues, would not publish the Muhammad cartoons. Offhand, I would say that is a sign of intimidation by the Muslim lobby, not the Israel lobby.

With regard to hostilities with Iran, allow me to inject some real reality check: A. Hostilities with Iran broke out 27 years ago, when the Mullahs came to power and initiated relationship with the U.S. by invading its embassy and holding its staff as hostages. To my recollection, no one at the time said this had anything to do with Israel. B. The current efforts to stop the Mad Mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons were initiated by leaders of the EU, once the alarm was sounded by the IAEA. Neither one of these two organizations is famous for being a member of the “Israel lobby”. All the same, I’m sure that if things do get worse there will no shortage of people like yourself who would rush to blame it on Israel.

katie, i think you made a typo there...
you mean Muslims murdering other Muslims (as the Arabs are doing daily in Darfur against the blacks in a brutal and racist ethnic cleansing) as well as murdering Copts (a Christian group in Egypt and other African nations)

http://savedarfur.org/

Rememeber Yogi Berra's "Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded"? I wonder what he would have to say at the spectacle of dozens of people vigorously arguing that they're not allowed to make the argument they are making.

SPREAD WHAT?

Mearscheimer and Walt write that the "unwavering U. S. support of Israel and the related effort to spread democracy thoughout the region" has "jeopardized U. S. security". They then proceed, in a forceful, scholarly manner, to prove their point on the first of these policies -- U. S. support of Israel.

The purported spread-of-democracy policy cries out for similar analysis. It seems unassailably altruistic. But democracy under the Bush Administration has become a code word for capitalism, which concentrates wealth and power into the hands of the few, thus destroying democracy. (Note my emphasis on the word "unregulated"). The practice or spread of this kind of 'democracy', cunningly called 'neo-liberalism', is not in the national interest.

Regards,

David

Spread What 2

In my "Spread What" submission the word "unregulated" was somehow edited out in the 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph. The sentence should read : But democracy under the Bush Administration has become a code word for capitalism ....
I am not arguing against capitalism but against unregulated capitalism.

An hour ago the Financial Times (London) published an editorial even more supportive of open discussion on M-W than the recent one in the Christian Science Monitor.

Spread What? 3

Once again in Spread What 2,the word "unregulated" was mysteriously omitted by some virtual editor perhaps hung up on the word. You'll have to take it from me: I'm against the practice or spread of unregulated capitalism, not capitalism.

I think the best defense of the article is the vehemence of the "lobby" response.

Perhaps the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf should be studied by those who fire the words "anti-semite" at anyone and everyone who dares to criticize Israel.

Eventually the abstract power of the label is diluted and finally people will stand say "well I guess if criticizing Israel means I am an anti-semite so be it". There are anti-semites and bigots in the world - save the label for them not the vox populae.

For the record linking the authors and David Duke is shameful - one could easily argue that many Jewish people share SOME of the same beliefs as Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein but that does not make them bigots or anti-gentile.

My solution, pre 1967 borders, Jerusalem to be designated an International Protectorate belonging to neither state and Israel granted an absolute right of protection against foreign military attack.

Discussion is good, if you must, attack the message not the messenger.

I love how the backers of this demonization continue to point out that the facts are, "beyond dispute" and, "without a doubt", or "clearly proven" but site no facts.

Demonization, Double Standards and Delegitimization is Anti-Semetic.

The vast majority of American's support Israel because they share interests and values. 66% according to the latest survey, while only 23% support Palis. Did you ever think that maybe Congress reflects what the American people want?

Judge Israel by the same standards as her oh-so-friendly theocratic neighbors. Look at the millions of dollars pumped into Saudi lobby efforts and tell me why Israel is different?

Short of the vocal anti's that populate the Internet, this country supports Israel because of what the state is, what the state provides to this country and not because of a powerful cabal of lobbyists.

From Reality Check:
Michael wrote: Do you have any specific example of someone being “stopped from examining this subject” by “harassment, pressure and personal insults”?

Yes, I do. I have been on the highly unpleasant receiving end and witnessed and heard others complain of it in private social circles and in the professional arena. For you to deny it shows you are either entrenched inside the attack camp or so far removed from the realities you are unqualified to comment.

In the current instance I know academic and media people who privately agree but simply dare not get involved. McCarthyism is not too strong a comparison.

You crowed: "The NY Times, The Boston Globe and the WSJ agree that Walt -Mearscheimer is garbage". In fact that is where the garbage is being generated in this - the standard of writing and argument in relation to this has been curiously shallow and unsophisticated for major US publications, reading almost like paid advertorials.

I am missing 2 things:

There is no hit for the M-W report in the NYT website.

Who are the "Jewish leaders" that the owner of the Theater Workshop said pressured him to cancel "My Name is Rachel Corrie".

To call M-W "anti-semitic" is a laugh. A week ago one was anti-semitic if one urged withdrawal from any of the West Bank. Now that it seems that's OK for some Israelis, the definition of anti-semitic has changed with the geography. It's a real kick, isn't it - but for the fact that over the past decades many American lives - beginning with the Marines in Lebanon - have been sacrificed for Zionist aggression - without debate.

It's serious folks, and the Israeli lobby thinks it's just fine for our people to die to further Israel's power - first Iraq, and AIPAC is beating the drums for Americans to start dying in Iran.

After reading the comments above, one can only wonder what would be the deterrant value outside the cyberworld of the label "anti-semitic" for most of the commentators here without the existence of the so called "powerful jewish/israel lobby."

It is a great opportunity for the true supporters of State of Israel to look at this article with sincerity instead of the usual response cliche "antisemitism" .
There is not a single grain of that in this article except naked facts. Long overdue a starting point for a healthy debate to deal with this subject matter thoroughly.

It is a great opportunity for the true supporters of State of Israel to look at this article with sincerity instead of the usual response cliche "antisemitism" .
There is not a single grain of that in this article except naked facts. Long overdue a starting point for a healthy debate to deal with this subject matter thoroughly.

An excerpt from George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 admonishing against foreign influence:
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

Prescient?

Reality Check I am sorry to hear you have been “stopped from examining this subject” by “harassment, pressure and personal insults”. I am sorry you "know academic and media people who privately agree but simply dare not get involved."

But I was much more disturbed when I learned of this youth who felt compelled to slice open the throat of a movie director who had had the temerity to call Islam a backward religion and make a movie about Islam's abuse of women. I was also devastated to see how a few planes full of people flew into buildings full of people because they all contained infidels that deserved to die.

It happens in Israel too, people are killed simply because they are Jewish. The Israeli response always has been about trying to take out the parties responsible for terror, at times individuals in the IDF have gone too far and taken matters in their own hands, and innocent people had to suffer. It's a pattern we could see in Northern Ireland and Northern Spain as well. It's never ever been taken to where indiscriminate killing has been politically mandated. Israel is a democracy under the rule of law. You must be somehow prepared to consider that a possibility. The alternative is that everything is a lie and that the Syrians and Iranians are correct, how can there be a middle ground?

As I read the article and the comments made, I couldn't help but wonder what does Islam have to do with the whole discussion?!?!?! We are talking about the effects of the Israeli lobby on U.S. policies. Why even mention Islam?!?!? This is bad argument, to disprove something else to prove yourself?? Palestine doesn't necessary mean Islam. Questionable Islamic terrorism doesn't justify what Israeli lobby does to U.S. and its image around the world. In fact, last time I checked one result of such effects was exactly the recent terrorist attacks, as agreed by many logical rational people. So we need to start practicing more tolerance and keep reminding ourselves that we need to live and let other people live as well. Trying to destroying everyone else around you, your brothers sometimes- ironically in this case Arabs and Jews of the same Semitic race- doesn't necessarily warrant your existence or legitimacy..... It usually has an opposite effect. I am sure you know the reasons....
Just let's live and let others live as well, what is wrong with that? Why can’t we do it? (To find the correct answer, don’t blame it on others, first start with yourself!)

As I read the article and the comments made, I couldn't help but wonder what does Islam have to do with the whole discussion?!?!?! We are talking about the effects of the Israeli lobby on U.S. policies. Why even mention Islam?!?!? This is bad argument, to disprove something else to prove yourself?? Palestine doesn't necessary mean Islam. I am sure there is any justification in true Judaism for the abhorrent treatment of "Palestinian" Arabs in the holy land. Violent acts of terrorism don't justify what Israeli lobby does to U.S. and its image around the world. In fact, last time I checked one result of such effect was exactly the recent terrorist attacks, as agreed by many logical rational people. We, Jewish people, need to start practicing more tolerance and keep reminding ourselves that we need to live and let other people live as well. Trying to destroy everyone else around us, our keens sometimes- ironically in this case Arabs and Jews are of the same Semitic race- doesn't necessarily warrant our existence or legitimacy of actions..... It usually has an opposite effect. I am sure many fellow jews see the reasons....
Just let's live and let others live as well. And if you start your answer with pointing fingers, then let's point at ourselves first.

Agreed. Bringing up jihadists is a total red herring.

The Israeli lobby does 'wag the dog' on US policy in Israel and Palestine.

But people who blame Israel for the Iraq war are going a step too far.

Sure, Israel was happy to see it, and no doubt they egged the US on. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they produced some of the dodgy WMD evidence.

In fact the Niger forgery is widely attributed to Michael Ledeen, whose security clearance has previously been revoked because of government concerns about his contacts with the Israeli embassy.

But remember that when US troops invaded Iraq, Bush's approval rocketed to 73%.

Somehow I doubt that AIPAC was lobbying three-quarters of the American population.

Sheldon says higher up: "All the evidence overwhelmingly suggests Bush & Co. entered the White House determined on war with Iraq from Day One. Blaming the Israeli lobby is - purposefully or not - letting this administration quite undeservedly off the hook."

I agree with that. But further, it's a very handy escape route for the American people themselves - the one group in US politics who never get blamed for anything.

A few Americans are honest enough to admit today they backed the war. But not 73%.

Plenty more are looking to blame anyone but themselves.

The sad truth is that invading Iraq was one of the most popular things George Bush ever did.

I am deeply grateful to Mearsheimer and Walt for publicly addressing this important issue. Others have tried (e.g., Norman Finkelstein of DePaul U. in Chicago) but been labelled self-hating Jews and other smear-tactic names. What M & W bring to this discussion are their impeccable credentials as political scientists/historians. Therefore, their ideas will have to be taken seriously. I am also very gratified to see that most of the posters to this thread have agreed with the position that the U.S. should be an honest, fair broker of a just middle east peace.

MER claims, ludicrously, that "there is no separate ethnic group of Palestinians with a claim on statehood." Yeah, right. How would you respond if I said the same about "Israelis." Denying a people's existence is bigoted and hateful. Of course it's convenient to the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd to deny Palestinians' existence because that obliterates the historical record of the murders and ethnic cleansing by Zionists that drove so many of them out of their homes and into squalid refugee camps on the poorest land in the Occupied Territories and other neighbouring states, and it also obliterates the fact that since then, Israel, armed and financed by the U.S., has continued to dispossess Palestinian people of their lands and homes while Israel's expansionist settler campaign has continued.
These crimes are the basis for the existence of modern Israel. Those who continue to deny them are only asking for more war, more hatred of Israel, more hatred of the United States.
A righting of past wrongs and Truth Commission -- as happened in post-apartheid South Africa -- together with compensation for stolen lands, and trials of killers on both sides, will be needed for Israel and Palestine to move past their current murderous impasse and reconcile.
But for that to happen, those bigots who deny the very existence of the Palestinian people must be roundly condemned.

I am interested in hearing from the Pro Israel persons here if they believe the bombing of the King David Hotel, the assassinations of British Officers and the hanging of British soldiers were legitimate acts of rebellion prior to the founding of Israel.

To the not-so-aptly named Reality Check:

Just as I thought, you have not been able to provide a single independently-verifiable instance of someone being harassed or pressured into silence on the subject. Your claims regarding your own personal experiences may or may not be true, but since there is no way to check them, they are useless as a proof.

That's one thing Walt-Mearscheimer can be credited with: Their screed is serving as the pied piper of all conspiracy nuts, bringing them all out of their holes.

I saw an 86 year old female Holocaust survivor shouted down, jeered and harassed at Stanford University last year. Her crime was to criticise the Israeli governments treatment of Palestinians. The group of "students" who were behind it were clearly orchestrated and organized.

Does that count? Or is it just another case of "conspiracy nuts" & "racists" "anti-semitism" etc etc...

Oh so quick to label those who disagree with your point of view.

Free speech is for everyone..

From Reality Check

Michael writes: "Just as I thought, you have not been able to provide a single independently-verifiable instance of someone being harassed or pressured into silence on the subject"

Oh sure, I am going to publish names and details right here - and bring on all the grief again.

I am wincing at the orchestrated slander, insults, disinformation and hysteria-tinged attempts to have sanctions imposed on Mearsheimer and Walt. It's a familiar feeling.

I repeat, you are either writing from within the attack camp or so underinformed you should stay out of the discussion. I suspect the former, which also places you in the latter category.

Denial of Statehood?

James: "But for that to happen, those bigots who deny the very existence of the Palestinian people must be roundly condemned."

There are Indians in the deep rainforests of South America that only recently discovered they were part of a nation like Venezuela or Brazil. That they feel no relationship whatsoever to their nationality doesn't disqualify them as a people does it? Why condemn stating the obvious?

The Arab people were "liberated" from their Turkish overlords only to be scooped up by the imperiums of France and Britain. Britain called a piece 'Palestine' after the Fillistines from the Bible. The Arab world at the end of WW1 was like Germany after the defeat of Napoleon in the sense that there was a feeling of unity but there was no sense of nationality like there was in Turkey or France. The Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine after WW1 were not likely to adopt the name given to them by their new colonial masters, they felt no connection to Palestine as a nation. Egyptians had more of a sense of nationhood. A feeling of Palestinian national unity rose with the rise of the PLO. The defeat of Israel seemed like the only way out of the camps. Palestinian nationalism is intimately related to the state of Israel because it rose in response to it. That's no denial of the existance of people, it places the people who live there now in their historical context. They deserve to live just like anyone else,

In 1948, 850.000 Jewish Arabs left their Arab homes often after having been harassed and persecuted. 650.000 Arabs left or were evicted from Israel at pretty much the same time for pretty much the same reasons. Of those 850.000, 650.000 Jews went to Israel and were put in camps, the Arabs likewise were placed in camps by Jordan and Egypt. Whereas many of the Jewish Arabs were placed in homes formerly occupied by Arabs, the Palestinian Arabs got no such treatment from their host nations. That would have helped a lot but instead the newly born Arab nations chose to concentrate the refugees at the very borders of the new Jewish state. The Arab Jewish Aliyah was not a voluntary idealist movement to settle the long lost land of the ancestors, they were forced often leaving their belongings and homes behind without compensation. Just like the Palestinian Arabs.

Why Islam and the Arab world gets dragged into the discussion each time Israel is discussed: it's because the subjects are strongly interlinked. Leaving them our would be like talking about the political situation in Ireland without mentioning Northern Ireland.

All this history is very well documented for example on wikipedia.org which deals with it very fairly and objectively.

How sweet. Now neat. Who needs a Jewish Lobby when the truth is so simple and mathematically explained. Nothing happened, of course, before 1948.

But perhaps that is as much as you know Jud. Keep reading. And thinking.

Reality Check:

"Oh sure, I am going to publish names and details right here - and bring on all the grief again."

Are you really so thick or do you just pretend to be? I'm talking about evidence, anything in the public domain, anything in the newspapers, in the media anything that can be verified by an objective observer. If these things happen all the time as you claim, there would be some record. Some public figure would complain about being silenced. Somebody would file a first amendment lawsuit. Is there any evidence at all that all this stuff is not just happening in your head?

"I am wincing at the orchestrated slander, insults, disinformation and hysteria-tinged attempts to have sanctions imposed on Mearsheimer and Walt".

Where? What sanctions? Who is making those attempts? Can you show me a single instance in the press or in TV or radio transcripts where anyone has asked to have sanctions imposed on W-M? Or are you making this stuff up as you go along?

"I repeat, you are either writing from within the attack camp or so underinformed you should stay out of the discussion. I suspect the former, which also places you in the latter category."

That's right, and now I have to leave, because in half an hour they'll be closing the attack camp for the night and turning on the alarm.

Well Michael - Alan Dershowitz attacked the paper as "propoganda" isn't that a "sanction" of sorts?

Character assasination is also a sanction as well as a warning to others in public positions who want to offer their opinions.

I'm still spoiling for a substantial debate. This is the website of the Washington Post and not your neighbourhood blog. I've said things and backed it up with historical references and I can link to items on wikipedia for all my material; we can agree that is a neutral source of information can we?

If you want to defend this paper then defend it. Bring it on.

No Angus. You are confusing "sanctions" and "criticism", just like others here are confusing "censorship" and "criticism". "Sanctions" and "censorship" are official acts which are enforceable by law. Dershowitz has no authority to enforce anything on anyone. What he does have is the right to rebut Walt-Mearscheimer and criticize them, same as they have the right to attack Israel, AIPAC, the entire Administration, all members of both houses of representatives, the mainstream media in the U.S. and anyone else they consider to be part of that huge conspiracy.

Perhaps by your logic Walt-Mearscheimer should have the right to criticize everybody and his dog, and at the same time be immune from counter-criticism themselves. However, that's not how things work. Not in the U.S.

Palestina was a Roman Province...which was considerably before the British had a hand in naming anything.

Naming conventions aside for one second...Since the Canaanites were there first shouldn't it be their land? Oh wait there's none of them left is there?

If those who make the biblical argument for Israelis to live in Israel as a right are willing to return their land and property in the US to Native Americans I will give credence to your argument.

Anecdotally I have always found Sabra's to be much pragmatic and willing to compromise than Ashkenazi's...not sure why but its interesting all the same.

At the end of the day I have found no rational rebuttal to the major fact of the paper that there exists an extremely powerful lobby that smears and demonizes anyone who dares criticise Israel.

As for your statement that the lobby is powerful because Americans share the same values etc etc I would suggest that this is not true. I recall the storm over Mel Gibsons movie and the barrage of attacks asking people not to watch it. I particularly recall one amusing TV show with Dennis Miller (yes I admit he's annoying) Gloria Allred and some others where she was lambasting the movie as being Anti Semitic etc and finally she was asked if she had seen the movie and she had to admit she had not. She was basing her opinion on the ADL or JDL or something.

Anyway it seems to me that millions of people went to see the movie anyway suggesting perhaps that many American's chose to make up their own minds rather than listen to the smear campaign. Also interestingly I don't recall any widespread incidents of movie related Anti Semitism that was being predicted.

Free Speech a two way street...

Well not to play semantics but sanctions is not just a legal term. It can also be termed as a punishment. In my opinion Dershowitz is calling two of his fellow Professor's liars. Also the use of the word propaganda implies that they are lying for a purpose. That to me is an open invitation for them to be punished.

Calling something propaganda is not a criticism it is an attack.

Just my opinion.

A prominent canadian scholar said in print that he considered it unacceptable, in the light of the Holocaust, for someone who was not Jewish to criticize the State of Israel. But when Norman Finkelstein spoke here that was also considered unacceptable. If the balanced, and documented analysis of the M&W paper is unacceptable, what is acceptable?

Israel's occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights are violations of international law. Israel has flouted more United Nations Security Coouncil Resolutions than any other nation- And these are Resolutions to which the U.S. was a party. .

Values

Angus you wrote: "As for your statement that the lobby is powerful because Americans share the same values etc etc I would suggest that this is not true."

You base this statement solely on the Mel Gibson movie.
That movie has been shown in Tel Aviv. Distribution rights bought by an Israeli firm.

The values I mean are the ones about free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise, equality before the law, democracy. Doing stuff even when others hate it and reject it. Making and showing movies.

The Israeli lobby is powerful because two thirds of Americans support Israel. And many Americans get upset with people critical of Israel, and if they feel upset they should feel free to express that upset, that's their freedom of expression in action. They don't haul people off to jail or burn their embassies or put a fatwa on their heads when they defend Israel.

The Israeli lobby helps protect Israel against a cabal of despots who rule in capitals such as Damascus and Teheran. You only need to ask Hariri or Salman Rushdie what the difference is between free and non free. You only need to see the walkie talkies in the streets of Damascus to understand who decides which embassies get torched.

If I were the PM of Israel I would probably try to create a lobby in the US that was even more powerful than any other foreign lobby. I'd go to great lengths to protect my people from neighbours such as those that overkilled Hariri and think nothing of killing over 10.000 people in 1982 in Hama to stamp out a rebellion. I would try my utmost to get influence in Washington if I noticed that the press hardly cares about that but goes bezerk when the Phalangists in Lebanon massacre Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila and blame me for it. The latter is an interesting story and comparison; Sharon took political responsibility for the latter because he was defense minister and the Phalangists were an ally, Israel itself didn't actually commit the massacre and that's been very well documented as well. Still many see Sharon as the war criminal and have no idea what happened at the same time in Syria because they don't educate themselves about what happened.

If I were the PM of Israel I would create a powerful force that also educated people about my country. If that would be seen as propaganda on the same level as that coming out of Damascus all the more reason to educate people.

Oh and by the way in 135 ad the Roman province of Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina by emperor Hadrian. That was after the desctruction of the Jewish temple and the third Jewish rebellion. Political motive if I ever saw one.

Michael,

Yes, there are public examples out there for anyone who wants to research it -including you. The fact that well-established academics of the stature of Meersheimer and Walt could not get their paper published in the USA is probably not a bad one to begin with.

When I read in the Israeli publication Haaretz about "AIPEC sending out 2,000 activists to assault Capitol Hill" I recognise this as just part of the picture.

There will be others reading this like me who have witnessed examples at the micro level, where somebody has their story spiked or lecture cancelled when a dean or editor became cautious after receiving phone calls, letters etc from people expressing polished outrage while hinting at influence with board members, sponsors or advertisers etc. Arguing gets the flame turned up, the slander started in earnest and the threat to reputation and career becomes alarming enough for people I've known in this position to decide there's nothing but more grief to be gained by pushing it furher.

I myself was deeply stunned and embarrassed to receive an over-the-top personalised diatribe and subsequent remarks to others about my ignorance and hostility to Jews from two other guests at a social gathering in response to my mild objection to their declarations that Palestinians are inherently disgusting, killers and liars. I confess that I've since been very careful not to risk provoking anything like this again. And I have witnessed similar treatment dished out to others both at private and public events.

Lucky you, Michael, not to be aware, concerned and unhappy at such things.

JVD - thank you for confirming that the Romans had a province called Palaestina and that the Palestians are not a recent invention of the British as you had stated earlier.

Some other points .. wow praising Sharon for taking the heat for the massacres at Sabra and Chatilla. I don't believe there are any right minded people who believe the IDF participated in the massacres but they sure as hell did nothing to stop it did they. Another thing for a defense force they sure do a lot of attacking. Back to Sharon ....I think everyone who knows the politics of the region understands that he instigated Intifaddah II in order to get elected. He's not stupid. It worked.

So you give all the reasons why you would and should create a powerful lobby - is this an admission that you do believe the lobby exists.

Regarding the stuff about depots, cabals etc etc. there seems to be a tone in some of the "paper basher" posts that if you criticise Israel you are tacitly a supporter of Iran, Syria, OBL etc etc..I will tell you and I suspect its true of most of the "paper supporters" that it is not true. Definately not in my case. I will not lose any sleep the day that Saddam is sentenced and disposed off.

My problem with Israeli policies and the lobby is that some Israeli's believe it is acceptable to treat the Palestinian's as sub-humans, the lobby's job is to hide this from the public or to put their own spin on it. A lot of the posts here confirm it. What is encouraging to me is that the hard core parties never win in Israel which means there are obviously a lot of people there who are not comfortable with their policies. What I wish is that more of the Liberal Jewish people in the US would challenge the people like Aipac and not allow them to define their public voice as the only voice of American Jews.

Interestingly your point that MGs movie was shown in Israel is great. I am happy that Israelis were more understanding that it was just a movie instead of the rush to condemn in the US by the professional accusers who always pop up.

On American support I would say I believe 99% of American's, including myself, believe and support Israel's right to exist however I would not extrapolate that into thinking that people here support Israel unconditionally - trust me - thats not true.

1967 borders are a good starting point - build from there!!

Enough politics for tonight I am off out and about in seacrh of fun but I will be back tomorrow to read more.

James:

Spelling lesson -

MITZVAH
SHABBAT
PROTOCOLS
CONSEQUENCE

It's refreshing to see that people of such astounding intellect and clarity of thought support Mearshimer's findings.

Jefferson quotes Mersheimer's supporters in the press, but provides only links to their critics, then gives Mersheimer the last word

Looks like Jefferson has found his mouthpiece.

Angus, let's chat about murder.

Political and social sciences are so easy to manipulate that I am going to make the case that there's an all powerful Russian lobby in the US that manages to shut up the US govt at least 60 times better than the previously all powerful Israeli lobby. I'd need to find a few other metrics to nail my case shut but if guys from Chicago and Harvard can get away with half baked science then why should a polemic blogger like myself care about scientific integrity.

The number of dead isn't a valid metric on Mearsheimer & Walt's sordid little Machiavellian planet. Shame on them. It's really the only metric that counts for those that share our values, each life is equally sacred. And you don't have to be religious to believe that.

Science is about value measurement. If there are instruments to the science of measuring the power or damage capabilities of a lobby then Mearsheimer & Walt have never heard of them and didn't even try to conjure up reasonable ones; they are awful scientists. If they had pulled this stunt in physics they'd be far worse off than Stanley and Pons are.

Imagine the scientific metrics concerning getting away with murder. The value is 1 civilian human life. Russia has an all powerful lobby in the US because they've killed 180,000 civilians in Chechnya and state squeaked a bit. Since 1987 some 6000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, most of these were militants or terrorists. But lets for the sake of the argument assume only 3000 were. By that metric the Russian lobby in the US is (very) roughly 60 times better at shutting the US government up on human rights than the Israelis.

And that is assuming that each civilian killed regardless of where in the world it happens actually raises the same level of protest from the US government, which we all know isn't so. Almost each time an Israeli kills a Palestinian civilian there's a rush to the department of state to find a spokesperson who is willing to condemn Israel for it.

I am critical of Israel as well, but I am FAR more critical of regimes such as those that control Syria, Iran, Russia, Sudan and such countries I assure you. I feel compelled to question anyone who wants to shine the light of revelation on Israel while leaving the suffering caused by repression and paranoia of those regimes in the dark. In just a few days time in Hama, 1982, Syria's apostate regime greased the tracks of its tanks with more (Muslem) people than have been killed in the Israeli-Palestine conflict over the last 20 years. When Syria gets it in the teeth for that as much as the Israelis have I will start feeling a lot better. Unfortunately people will be bored out of their minds and will wait for the next shock horror Israel headline. Death is not the metric applied in the media either.

And Angus, for the record, you misconstrue what I say. I didn't say that the Palestians are a recent invention of the British like you have me put it. I said "Britain called a piece 'Palestine' after the Fillistines from the Bible."
Also "wow praising Sharon for taking the heat for the massacres at Sabra and Chatilla." I didn't praise him for that, I only said that as defense minister in the Israeli cabinet he took his political responsibilities. I don't equate that with praising him.

But since we talk about praising Sharon I'd like to praise him for his chutzpah on first taking on the Israeli left and then the right and becoming one of the most popular Israeli politicians in the process.

Mr. Morley, perhaps you should get with your techs and find out if they can split up this diatribe over several pages, I am far from done with the space you and your paper have so graciously alotted, I feel compelled to be wordy because some things just have to be here in this wad of text for the record to preserve. But I'd rather feel my polemics are recorded without consuming half the monthly alloted bandwidth of your readers.

jvd while you're correct that Russia has treated Moslems far worse than Israel ever did, your argument about Chechnya is still apples and oranges. It's not Russian lobbyists that keep America from criticising her, it's Russian ICBMs. Moreover Russia is not subsidised by the US.

I find your attempts to delegitimise Palestinian nationhood - to deny that they are a real people - completely ugly.

Those who play such semantic games are invariably trying to lay the groundwork for massacre or dispossession.

Any people who band together, share a common culture, and declare themselves a nation are just that. What other definition of nationhood can there be?

It's entirely up to the Palestinian people to decide whether they're a nation or not. Your opinion is completely worthless.

And, while I loathe getting dragged into arguments about Arab-Israeli history, your misrepresentation of events in Lebanon in 1982 is unacceptable, and I say that as someone who was there at the time.

Your claim that the IDF had no hand in Sabra and Shatila is garbage, as the Israeli government's own inquiry showed.

That massacre lasted nearly three days, under the approving eyes of overwhelmingly powerful IDF forces who were right there on the scene and could have stopped it at any moment. Instead they opened the gates, which they were supposed to be guarding, to let the killers in.

Moreover, the thousand-odd victims of those massacres are small beer when set next to the 17,000 civilians killed by the IDF themselves in that illegal war, whose true purpose was hidden even from the Israeli people. It was an attempted annexation of South Lebanon.

We watched every evening for months, on the news, IDF artillery indiscriminately pounding West Beirut. The IDF was also caught red-handed by UN monitors cutting off civilians' water supply in the city, something it had repeatedly denied doing.

I myself watched an Israeli destroyer prowling along the coast road, taking pot-shots with its 5-inch gun at refugee families fleeing the battlefield in cars and buses. The IDF showed no respect for civilian life in that war. For the first time in Israel's history, many of their own soldiers objected and refused to participate.

“In just a few days time in Hama, 1982, Syria's apostate regime greased the tracks of its tanks with more (Muslem) people than have been killed in the Israeli-Palestine conflict over the last 20 years.”

Your numbers reveal your fundamental dishonesty. Let’s assume that Assad killed as many people in Hama as Begin and Sharon did in Lebanon. Both events happened in 1982. Yet while you look back 25 years to count the Syrian massacre, in Israel’s case you only look back 20 years to deliberately exclude the IDF’s mass killing of the same year. Do you think we’re that stupid?

I could just as easily say that Israel has killed more civilians in the last 60 years than Germany has. But push that start date back to 65 years and the picture is rather different. Drop the semantic tricks.

As for your defence of Ariel Sharon, I suggest you go to Morley’s previous page “Sharon’s Last Chapter”, and see if you can refute the detailed proof of his war crimes you’ll find there.

Angus:

"Well not to play semantics but sanctions is not just a legal term. It can also be termed as a punishment."

Punishment by an official authority. Before going any further on semnatics, may I suggest that you consult a dictionary?

"In my opinion Dershowitz is calling two of his fellow Professor's liars. Also the use of the word propaganda implies that they are lying for a purpose. That to me is an open invitation for them to be punished."

Punished how? and by whom?

"Calling something propaganda is not a criticism it is an attack."

You mean verbal attack. If you want to get deeper into semantics you are welcome to define for us the difference between criticism and verbal attack. personally, I find this sort of nitpicking tiresome.

Reality Check:

"Yes, there are public examples out there for anyone who wants to research it -including you."

I have no reason to research something which I know is baloney. You are the one making the claim that there are such examples so the onus is on you to prove it.

"The fact that well-established academics of the stature of Meersheimer and Walt could not get their paper published in the USA is probably not a bad one to begin with."

Excuse me, how do you know that it's a fact? Did they say they tried and could not find a single publication in the U.S. to print it?

"When I read in the Israeli publication Haaretz about "AIPEC sending out 2,000 activists to assault Capitol Hill" I recognise this as just part of the picture."

I sincerely doubt that Haaretz would have misspeled "AIPAC", but that's beside the point. The point is, how is that different from any other lobby? As we speak, there are a lot more than 2,000 people lobbying Washington, demonstrating, writing articles, emailing their congressmen and otherwise canvassing all over the country, for the right of foreigners to break American law by being illegal immigrants. So what? All those people acting on behalf of the illegal immigrants are using the democratic process to achieve their goals. What seems to be the problem?

As for the rest of your blood-curdling horror stories: Again, I'm not going to argue over something which, for all I know, you could have just made out of whole cloth. Even if those stories are true, they do not amount to much more than political arguments gone nasty. If you can't handle a political argument then don't get into one.

Michael,

Mearsheimer himself is on the record as saying that he could not get the article published. But then again, he is just a liar.

Despite your posturing, I think you are well aware that if I gave any details of examples I am familiar with, the respective deans and editors would be getting more calls for allowing it to be known. And the people who were the victims of this pressure would find the unpleasantness revived.

Interesting that what I raised has been echoed in the UK Financial Times on April 1 in an editorial about the controversy:

"Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views. It is also leading to the silencing of policy debate on American university campuses, partly as the result of targeted campaigns against the dissenters."

The FT editorial goes on to compare the lively and open debate in Israel with the strangled silence in the USA, commenting:

"Reflexes that ordinarily spring automatically to the defence of open debate and free enquiry shut down - at least among much of America's political elite - once the subject turns to Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby's role in shaping US foreign policy.
Even though policy towards the Middle East is arguably the single biggest determinant of America's reputation in the world, any attempt to rethink this from first principles is politically risky."

It concludes: "Nothing, moreover, is more damaging to US interests than the inability to have a proper debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how Washington should use its influence to resolve it, and how best America can advance freedom and stability in the region as a whole. Bullying Americans into a consensus on Israeli policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to articulate its own national interest."

But of course, the Financial Times is just some rubbishy obscure publication and anyway it was published on 1 April. Right, Michael?

And back to me. What I experienced was not "a political argument turned nasty", it was a staged routine for having the discussion cut and the person who raised it slandered. A micro-example of what is being done to Mearsheimer and Walt, if I reflect on it.

Yes - you are right Michael - how tiresome - I stand by everything I have said here and I trust any other readers to decide for themselves what to believe and not to believe. That's the beauty of this forum - I hope many people read it, choose not to believe you or I or anyone else who posts, but that they make the decision to do their own research and form their own opinions.

JVD -

I invite people to read back to your earlier posts regarding what is a Palestinian - I think what you are trying to imply is pretty obvious but blog readers make up your own minds - it's all there in prior postings.

Same with Sharon - It seems to me you are praising him - but again I suggest people make up their own mind. Also since you brought up the S & S massacre - I would invite others to do their own research - just google Sabra & Shatila (the spelling may be off) and read what you find. I am glad you brought it up as I think it's not a proud moment in Israel's history and perhaps more people should be aware.

The other stuff is just a smokescreen - are there many governments who have committed crimes worse than Israel's, of course. Unfortunately the world is full of morally repugnant people and governments. Does this mean Israel should be free from criticism, I don't think so. Pointing to the warts on others don't make you any prettier...

Also I am not sure these countries are held up as paragons of virtue, beyond reproach as Israel is.

If anyone is interested - google the names, Rachel Corrie, Tom Hurndall & James Miller. I think you may be interested to see what you find. These incidents were reported in the American Media but to a very limited degree.

On another note, JVD you said you "are far from done" - excellent, the more you post, the better. You state that you are critical of Israel as well, if thats true it speaks volumes for the need for real criticism.

Anyway as I said before and will say again - the more that its talked about the more people will want to find out for themselves.

I think, at the end of the day thats what the M & W bashers fear most.

lol
as aM&W basher, I don'tfear anything,least of all the googling of Rachel Corrie.

You anti-Israel propogandists need to come up with a new strategy.

Hate get's tiring after a while.

Why US Support of Isreal is Crucial

We can cloak our support for Isreal in moral arguments but the real reasons stem from a practical necessity to keep the region destabilized. Isreal is the anchor that prevents countries in the middle east from coalescing around a common arabic/islamic and probably a very dangerous ideology. It is the linchpin that ensures arab frustrations can be vented without jeopardizing governments essential to our interest.

Governments as diverse as Saudia Arabia and Egypt would rue the day Isreal is emasculated.

Here in Kopenhagen weare having our own up-close encounter with ISlamism of the Arab strain. I would say that it's quite understandable that the West finds common ground with Israel and strong bonds fo friendhsip.

These need not preclude improving relationships with moderate Muslims and Arabs ---in fact quite the opposite.

peace!
from Denmark

Yes Guilermo - hate is tiring - read all the posts and see that the hatred comes from the pro israel folks...

I am not a supporter of Israel. I support Israel because the survival of Israel is essential to our interests. Israel serves to destabilize the reactionary idealogical islamic forces in the middle east. This is essential while we rely on middle east oil.

As for morality, I am sure I could find moral arguments to support a deal with even the devil if I found it necessay, with appropriate references from the Bible. So let's not go there.

"Guilermo" (sic) writes: "You anti-Israel propogandists need to come up with a new strategy. Hate get's tiring after a while."

A beautiful example of how the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd, unable to respond to facts raised, resorts to the cheap smear of "hatred" (or, just as often, "anti-Semitism") in a tired ploy aimed at diverting attention from those oh-so-uncomfortable facts about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.

What a low-quality comment, Guilermo. Michael and jvd were doing much better than that.

OD you accuse me of being an architect of mass murder and/or disposessment.

I quote you.

"I find your attempts to delegitimise Palestinian nationhood - to deny that they are a real people - completely ugly.

Those who play such semantic games are invariably trying to lay the groundwork for massacre or dispossession."

"Your numbers reveal your fundamental dishonesty."

I said earlier "There are Indians in the deep rainforests of South America that only recently discovered they were part of a nation like Venezuela or Brazil. That they feel no relationship whatsoever to their nationality doesn't disqualify them as a people ..." You might have wondered why I brought that up.

You come with a heavy charge here: I am "trying to lay the groundwork for massacre or disposession". You are letting your emotions rule your interpretation of what I said. I also said "each life is equally sacred" but you don't seem to care about what I write, because you feel justified to say I am an architect of mass murder. So in your eyes I am a liar and my hidden agenda is an open book to you. All I can say about you is that you don't understand me.

The indians of the Amazon basin are some of the most wonderful people you can meet. But those indians have no nationhood and by what you wrote above one can deny that they are a real people. Yes it's your semantical definition of nationhood here that I use against you - you call the kettle black. It's why I brought the natives of the Amazon forest into this argument in the first place: the fact that they have no nation doesn't make them any less. Each life is equally sacred. My fundamental dishonesty revealed.

I should explain.

I am aware I leave a lot out, if I didn't this would be even more the book it's startting to become rather than the blog it should be. The Israeli side of the story and the history of this conflict are often misrepresented in the media so I do my best to write it down to the best of my knowledge with the time and space allotted.

I numerially compared and said the single instance in Hama, Syria was a larger violation of human rights than the 20 years of conflict within the occupied territories during the two intifada's. I made this comparison because they can fit under the umbrella "civil war or out of proportion police work "within territory under one's control. I didn't look at international conflicts, or I might have dragged the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in or I could have mentioned the Iran Iraq war.

OD you wrote: "Yet while you look back 25 years to count the Syrian massacre, in Israel’s case you only look back 20 years to deliberately exclude the IDF’s mass killing of the same year. Do you think we’re that stupid?"

I was the one introducing Lebanon in this exchange, did I do that only to then deliberately exclude the topic?

I put those (Hama, Beirut) side by side this time not numerically but because they happened at the same time and were of similar scale and nature. I said that while Israel got it in the teeth for what their Lebanese allies did in the Palestinian camps people hardly took notice of what happened in Syria. I wasn't congratulating Sharon for it and am equally appaled by the horror of what happened there and the crimes that were committed by people on all sides. I was thoroughly disappointed in the IDF lack of concern and direction. When I congratulate Sharon I congratulate him for playing Israeli politics well, for sidelining the settler movement (hopefully) and implicitly for organizing a large centrist force that can hopefully prevail in Israel politics, but not for his role in the Lebanese war. Judging from your command of English you are not stupid, and I am writing for the benefit of Washington Post readers that take the trouble to read this deeply into the post. They are all very discerning which is why I take the trouble.

By the way, the 20 years is the (almost) 20 years of initfada since 1987; I compared the events in Hama with the events in the west bank. I never deliberately excluded anything.

OD it ticks you off when people argue that Palestinians didn't have a sense of national unity until the PLO crystallized around one. A good book in this context would be "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Anderson, that book should be read by everyone who is still under the imperial delusion that nationality is some kind of fundamental right on a par with the right to a fair trial, human rights and equality under law. You have to build a nation with institutions, with a compromise between cultures and minorities, you need laws, equal rights, consensus, or you can replace the whole thing with brutality.

Palestine wasn't a nation with a national identity and national unity, the identity was mostly Arab and Jewish. Also culture was Arab or Jewish, there was no Palestinian culture because that would have meant there was a culture common to both Arabs and Jews and other groups that lived there and they didn't share enough to share a culture. That's semantics, words aren't vague because we have dictionaries and websites where they find definition. Nation, identity, culture, ethnicity.

Then there's my point about Russia having a 60 times more powerful lobby than Israel has, nobody here has so far denied it, the numbers used haven't been disputed, I also got the bonus now to add that Russia is actually pointing nukes at the US so any lobbying they do is going to be reinforced by the veiled threat of actually having something to lob.

So in fact there is a lobby that is far more powerful than the Israeli lobby; wasn't that what this is all about. Nukes are the primary and most fundamental threat to the interests of the USA and here we are ignoring a whole borneo full of 800 pound gorillas aimed at citizens of the United States. Gosh what puny lobby Israel has, they don't even point their nukes at the US.

Angus also to you if it's so obvious what I am trying to imply then please spell it out. If you also think I am a potential war criminal just say so for the record. Don't make people guess or don't assume they can read what I wrote and suddenly realize what you now know about me.

Angus the other stuff you say is a smokescreen. Here we are debating two scientists who don't use the scientific method on something so critical as US National Security and when I point out a similar theory that does use a scientific method you call it a smokescreen.

See another huge wad of text and I am trying to keep it condensed. I don't think I deserve being called a potential war criminal and I dont appreciate the insinuations. I said bring it on so if you want to be blunt just bring it on, don't toss these kinds of easy dismissals at me.

Anti-Semitism IS the elephant in the room.

A bloody war and 50 plus years of troop deployment in Korea - is it the Korean Lobby? 50 years of military presence and countless billions spent defending Europe from the Communists - is it a European "cabal"?

Of course not, just America siding with its democratic allies against a hostile ideology.

So why the hysteria when we do the same with Israel? Oh I see, we're not supposed to say it (shhh....anti-semitism). You see, before Israel there was such a thing as anti-semitism, but it magically disappeared after Israel was born. All those nasty folks who based their political leanings on their emotional hatred of Jews, they just plumb fell off the face of the earth. So how can we mention it if it doesn't exist - just like that Big Elephant in the corner.

APS:

Mearsheimer is a well published and tenured professor at Chicago, and Walt is the Academic Dean at KSG at Harvard. If the poster above is correct--Mearsheimer said they could not find a journal in the States to publish their article--there is an elephant in the room, but it's NOT anti-semitism.

Yes, there is an elephant in the room.

It is the buyout of our leading univirsites by sauid-oil/blood money and the shoddy scholars who poulate our decaying academy.

Funny how the Harvard "study", (which has now disowned, though Islamist fanatics and their American bedfellows like David Duke are salivating at M&W's work) comes right after the powerful Saudi lobby in the form of one of those priveleged princes looting the Saudi national wealth, has donated $20 million to Harvard.

Well, that's $20 million not going to terror propoganda at some Madrassa so poverty stricken Pakistani boys can have some death and hate with their hot meals.
Though I guess there'smore where that cam e from.

lol, elephant in the room---" joseph merrick"
one of my favorite movies!

anastasia in somerville, ma

The worst part is that the Israeli lobby has only begun....determined to get Iran, Syria we know. BUT also watch the continung plan to foment revolution in Russia...attacking Putin daily, notice? The seven JEWISH OLIGARCHS given most of Russia's wealth for pittance have in mind taking over (of course, what else is new) Putin is trying to stop it. Keep watching. It's the mostserious of all.

PS,as far as Israel's having the same values as America. Dear God, I hope not.

The piece would have read the same way if it focused on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion instead of the walt/mearsheimer screed. The "Protocols" is also rejected in the US and popularly read in the nations that Mr. Morley refers to, i.e. Pakistan, Yemen,Qatar, and southern Asia (in particular Indonesia.)This points to a different kind of divide between the US and certain parts of thew world, one based on ugly anti-semitism and racism. Professor Mearsheimer's satisfaction from the reception of his article in these places is as ugly as his writings.

Isn't it amazing too see such a lively and varied discussion on this topic on your internet site. if only we could have the same discuusil on some of our public media. i would suggest that Walt and Mearsheimer be invited for a discussion of their paper to Charlie Rose. It is of course that this wish that is ludicrous as the lobby will do everything to prevent such an occurrenc. The cancellation of the performance of the Rachel Corrie play last week in New york is another example of the iron fisted control the Lobby holds over prevention of any discussion on relevant issues that it deems unfavorable to Israel-right-wing interests.
If there are no "palestinians" why do we continue to permit the incorrect use of the word anti-semitic. Ethnically/linguistically both Arabs and Jews are semitic people. Of course being labelled anti-semitic carries a much more vitriolic sting than anti right-wing israeli, given the fact that there are many courageous Israelis who speak out against the long-term suicidally self-destructive poicy of the present Israeli government.

Anyone who thinks the American media is not Jewish-controlled has never worked in the American media. The blatent Jewish racism and nepotism would make any decent person sick-to-the-stomach, if they were allowed to see it.

Anyone who thinks the American media is controlled by Jews is a bit delusional.

Just got to Camera.org
or honestreporting.com
and look at examples of constant slanders in the media against Israel.

YEs, CNN is less agregious than AL Jezeera, or even the BBC, but even that's quite a low threshold.

In response to JVD’s post that we “share values” with Israel. This is another sad piece of cynical propaganda fed onto the American public. Israel is a religious (Jewish) state, one of the only states that actively discriminates in favor of one religion in its citizenship. There are Israeli citizens who are not Jewish but they are actively discriminated against (in the legal system and in public funding, to name a few examples) and encouraged to leave. America is a secular state where religion is not a consideration for citizenship and where freedom of religion is enshrined in a consitution; this is the basis of real freedom. America is a nation of equality under the laws where, for example, fundamental property rights (i.e. no expropriation without compensation) are respected. Compare this to the fact that each week Israel expropriates new land without compensation and continues to engineer the land to remain Jewish. And please don’t say we share a democratic system, because Israel’s “democracy” is like the whites voting in apartheid South Africa, both were and are rigged games. The list of differences goes on and on but perhaps it’s easier for JVD to tell us which values he thinks the United States shares with Israel.

Reality Check:

"Mearsheimer himself is on the record as saying that he could not get the article published. But then again, he is just a liar."

He said it where? Do you have any reference? any link? Are you capable at all of substantiating a single allegation you are making?

As long as you're quoting the article in the FT, you could also quote Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institute, who told the FT that he had written to David Ellwood, dean of the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard which published the work, denouncing the "grotesque" and "objectionable" paper full of "invidious innuendo" and "unsubstantiated allegations" about Brookings.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=FT&Date=20060328&ID=5599757

(The line above, BTW, is called "a link". It allows you to go to the source of my quote, and it's an example of verifiable evidence, none of which we have seen from you so far.)

The Brookings Institute is far from being a bastion of hard-right or neocon thinking, and Talbott is a former senior member of the Clinton Administration. However, now that Brookings has been tagged by W & M as part of that sinister conspiracy to "silence dissent", I guess what it has to say can be dismissed off hand, same as the NY Times, the WS Journal, the Boston Globe, all branches of the U.S. government, and everyone else on that long list of W & M. So who exactly is silencing whom?

The allegation that the U.S. government and the Israeli always act in concert is beyond absurd, as evidenced in Morley's follow-up of today. The same applies to the idiotic assertion that the U.S. public is bullied into consensus on this question. Just like the W & M paper and your own tall tales, the FT article is long on rhetoric and short on facts. I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a single example of someone being "harassed" or "bullied" or "intimidated" by anybody into not speaking their mind.

Oscar Mayer, Israel is the reason why we have "idealogical islamic forces in the middle east" today. So you, in the West and the US, create the cancer in the middle of the Arab World and then cry like a baby when its poison gets thrown back at you. Listen, we do not care why you love Israel. If you want to do porn movies there, be my guest. If you want Jesus to come and marry your wife after the construction of the supposed temple, that is fine too. However, whatever you chose and do, take the consequences like a man and stop crying and wining about. Understand that if you hate Arabs they will hate you in return, and, guess what, you, the Christian West, started it. History, I am sure, will teach you how foolish you were/are.

Jvd, I find your rebuttal of my charges in many ways quite convincing. I still feel that the only reasonable qualification for nationhood is that a people choose to consider themselves a nation. But perhaps it's not worth arguing about words.

I also think that your conflation of ICBMs and lobbyists is a bit odd, but again, it's really just semantics, and not worth fighting over.

I had mistaken you for a Sharon-booster. I'm truly glad to see that you too condemn the brutality of the unnecessary 1982 Lebanon war. If we can agree on that vital point, our remaining differences are minor.

Many of your points about Israeli influence in the States are quite valid. So are many of your opponents' points. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I think it's the subject of argument because it's very complex and much is hidden.

America's attachment to Israel is old and deep nowadays, so that even qualifying it doesn't negate it. Take, for example, the two AIPAC members on espionage charges. One might say that the fact that the US govt charged them (and Pollard) proves it
is unbiased. One might equally say that Israel is the only country that could be repeatedly busted for spying in the US without relations being seriously damaged.

I think you're quite right that no-one has actually been banned from making comments about excessive Israeli influence. But I wonder if you accept the argument that the US Government managed to suppress debate on the upcoming Iraq invasion in 2002-3 by regularly questioning the motives and patriotism of those who tried?

It's pretty widely accepted today that it did do that. The same kind of 'soft' restraint can also serve to stifle debate on Israel.

But ultimately, as with Iraq, those who let themselves be muzzled by that approach have only themselves to blame.

And the threat of public censure plays a smaller role in the one-sidedness of the US debate than the fact that most Americans simply prefer Israel because they think Israelis are more like themselves.

Dave Ellis, no-one would deny that Jews are heavily represented in the US media (and the British media), but that is for the same reason that Jews are overrepresented among scientists, lawyers and doctors yet underrepresented among construction workers and fast-food servers. Judaism is the religion with the largest proportion of highly-educated people. Anyone who wants to dominate media need only copy the Jews' 5000-year-old habit of nagging their children to study harder.

Yet the fact that nobody mentions is that American jews vote heavily Democrat. Given this, how can anyone claim that the Iraq War, a Republican project, was a Jewish conspiracy?

I realise some people here are saying it was Israeli not American jews who pushed the US into Iraq, but those aren't the people I'm addressing.

This debate will go nowhere unless a strict line is drawn between (a) US policy towards Israel/Palestine and US policy on Iraq/Iran, and (b) the Israel lobbyists themselves and the mass of US Jews.

The bulk of US Jews have very little history of pushing for war anywhere. Being educated, they are inclined towards peace.

It's the Baptists who scare me.

JVD -

I implied you were a potential war criminal - dang - that is one powerfully paranoid statement. I reread and my posts and gotta say not seeing it!!!

Read back - what I am saying in your initial post you stated the British named a small piece Palestine after the "fillistines" I later pointed out that the romans had much earlier named the province paalestina - what I was suggesting/implying is that your statement was a cheap piece of wordsmithing designed to imply that the Palestinians should not be thought of as a nation or people. It is all still posted further back in the blog and I invited people to go back and read it - and I still do.

As for your other rebuttal stuff using the metric of Russian dead blah blah - like I said smokescreen - choose a line or two out on an 83 page paper and design your own projections from that - sorry not buying it.

The basic premise of the paper is that there is am immensely powerful pro Israel lobby in the US - seems to me some of us argue that its true but there is debate as to its level of influence and some deny it absolutely and vehemently.

I have yet to see anyone come up with valid argument to make me believe that there is not a powerful lobby in the US - do I think they have complete power over US Foreign policy - not really - however I do think they have TOO MUCH influence and that should be debated and explored.

I do have some other questions for everyone.

If AIPAC serves US & Israeli interests why are they spying on the US?

Why did they change their name from the American Zionist Comittee for Public Affairs?

Why would a former AIPAC President brag - we have a dozen people in Clinton's headquarters and they're all going to get big jobs - (this was as Clinton was taking office) ?

Why does Israel pressure the US to release Jonathan Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Israel against the US?

Why do they still refer to Israel as "the only democaracy in the Middle East? (Didn't the Palestinians just have an Election)..

BTW - the person who suggested going to camera.org and honestreporting.com - if you go there just note that these are two sites that are also linked from AIPAC - that may be a hint as to their neutrality.

Normally, I wouldn't respond at this late date to a March 31st posting, however, it seems that people are still discussing the topic. So I am going to take the liberty of responding to "Katie".

Katie wrote--
"it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to demand that Muslim governments stop promoting terror

"it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to demand that Muslim/Arab countries allow people of all religions to enter their countries and practice their religions in those countries

"it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to portest the daily killings, brutality and murder by Muslims, Copts and Hindus in over 20 different countries

"it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to protest the honor killings and gender apartheid against women in many Arab and Muslim countries

"it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to protest the inhumane treatment of non-Arabs and non-Muslims in many Arab and Muslim countires

"it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to tell the truth that is rarely hear in the mainstream media, but brave ex-Muslims write about on www.golshan.com

"it is NOT anti-Muslim or anti-Arab to protest against oil-rich shieks and tryants who torture dissenters and silence the masses while plundering their national wealth"

Response--

Katie, Katie, Katie..... By satirizing what I wrote, you are -- whether you realize it or not -- clearly implying something. What I was implying as strongly as I could was that AIPAC and its' allies throw the slur of anti-semitism at ANYONE who offers any criticism of the Country of Israel. By satirizing what I wrote, you implied that the Arab-American Anti-discrimation League has been accusing anyone who has criticized a Muslim/Arab Country of being a racist.

The Arab-American Anti-discrimination League has never -- to my knowlege -- done that. You are being disenguous when you imply that. Exactly what were you thinking when you decided to satirize my posting in that manner?

This Discussion IS taking place in the Mainstream Media

Why just the other night Joe Scarborough of MSNBC had David Duke on his program. (You can read about it on Duke's website) Bill O'Reilly has had Duke on as well. Now its no secret that Mearsheimer and Walt are simply spewing the same anti-semitic bile as the ex-KKK Wizard....In fact, Duke even boasted about it.

The only real difference is that David Duke doesn't try to pretend that he's not an anti-semite. In that regard, I guess, he's just a bit more honest than M & W.

"I implied you were a potential war criminal - dang"

Actually those comments of jvd's were directed at me because I said he was laying the groundwork for massacre or dispossession by denying Palestinian nationhood.

That's the crappiest logic I've ever heard APS. O'Reilly invites Duke instead of academics because Duke is at the intellectual level of O'Reilly and his viewers.

LWP:

That's obviously just a self-serving lie that M&W have come up with. Its funny, they're not shy about naming names - spending 81 pages slandering decent Americans who differ oppose their views on Israel...

So why don't they name those publishers who supposedly turned them down, and the state reasons they gave? Because it never happened.

Pat Buchanan's been spinning the same yarn as M&W for 20 years, and he has no problem finding an American publisher. Same with many others...

The problem here isn't the medium, its the message. According to the most recent Gallup poll around 70 percent of Americans support Israel. Meanwhile the Arabs are at the bottom of the list.

So any fool can see that the so-called "pro-Israel Lobby" isn't representing the views of a minority against the majority. Its reflecting the views of the American majority as opposed to the whiny voice of an increasingingly dwindling, islamofascist minority.

OD/JVD

Fair enough - I stand corrected.

"That's the crappiest logic I've ever heard APS. O'Reilly invites Duke instead of academics because Duke is at the intellectual level of O'Reilly and his viewers."....From OD

LOL...If that's true OD, then Mearsheimer & Walt have simply churned out a paper at the intellectual level of ex-KKKlucker David Duke. In fact Duke even boasted that they're basically rehashing his claims, and M&W haven't denied it because they can't. But of course we already knew that.

APS -

Since Rupert Murdoch is passionately pro - Israel having a moronic f*ckwit like David Duke on your network is actually a pretty good way of ridiculing something. Walt has already come out and denounced Duke's comments on the Israel Lobby paper.

As i said earlier there are many people who share SOME of the beliefs of Meir Kahane and Baruch Goldstein - that in my mind proves nothing one way or another.

Exposing Anti-Semitism IS Legitimate Criticism.

Its funny, if M &W spent their time criticizing the nuts and bolts of policy that would be one thing. But they don't. They attack motives. They slander good, decent Americans as being disloyal - agents of of a foreign power - simply because they take a different position on Israel from M &W. They claim that such people are acting emotionally rather than in the best interests of America.

Well, Ok. But then why is it taboo to mention emotional hatred of Jews and Israel as a motive behind the "criticism"? Why if anyone dares mention anti-semitism are they immediately smeared as being agents of some Lobby?

Are we really supposed to pretend that just because Israel was born all those emotional anti-semites disappeared and morphed into dispassionate "critics of Israeli policy"? Of course not - but that, after all, is the real Elephant in the Room - the way in which anti-semitism skews the thinking of Israel's "critics".

Oh, and by the way, Israel's been attacked directly three times but we never sent in troops. Meanwhile, Bush's daddy sent troops into Panama to liberate them from pock faced Noreiga. I guess the Panamanian Lobby in exile controls the media.

(everytime people address jvd in their posts jvd feels free to latch on and start writing his sad piece of propaganda)

"...perhaps it’s easier for JVD to tell us which values he thinks the United States shares with Israel."

Well jvd tells you that Israel is a democracy, has rule of law, (please let him finish), freedoms such as freedom of press, assembly, etc. Such laws enshrine the same, shared values. In Israel any citizen can go to the courts and get justice all the way up to the supreme court http://www.court.gov.il You can research this for yourself so that you can stop relying on jvd to repeat what he said before; you thereby give him the opportunity to make his case once more. You'll see that Israel is a state based on identical values enshrined in law. Look at that site, read the cases, educate, delight and astonish yourself.

"...59 percent of Americans support Israel ... support for the Palestinians, ... decreased to 15 percent following Hamas' victory ..." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3215863,00.html - 59%; hopefully jvd speaks just a little for the silent majority of all freedom loving people that support Israel in the same wsy that the US supported Europe during the 2nd and cold war. Freedom Loving ... yes jvd is fairly sure that 60% of Americans are with him that there are freedom loving peoples and nations. If the terminology makes one trip and look for what propaganda reference manual jvd might be using that's fine but the majority accepts it because they look at the bigger picture. People see a world divided in shades of grey between free and non-free. And obviously Israel is squarely in the lighter, free shade of grey.

"Duped Americans" you wrote: "Israel’s “democracy” is like the whites voting in apartheid South Africa, both were and are rigged games."

Duped, you should research things for yourself so that you are not duped. Then you'll find out there are Arab members of the knesset, Arab parties, Salim Joubran is an Arab serving on the supreme court. There's Rakah / Hadash, an - hold your breath - Arab socialist/communist party! With 3 seats in the Knesset! All of this In Israel! Such sweet democratic delights. Go ahead research it.

Imagine that, an Arab far left wing party in Israel and people are free to vote for it. 3 seats in the knesset!
Duped, you compare Israel to the apartheid RSA. Now let me compare. Do you think that in an Arab country a Jew can vote for a Jewish communist party? Nobody can vote in an Arab country. And they got rid of almost all of their Jews in 1948. And they got rif of most of the communists and international socialists as well. Can you imagine an Arab waving a red commie flag in support of his (or her!) party in free elections? What a fabulously rich image of democracy that is. It happens, in Israel, and now in Iraq. I hope they don't win, but I sure love their freedom to try.

Almost everyone wants peace and justice for the Palestinian people. Most Israelis do too, they voted for Ehud Barak but Arafat decided not to trust Barak and Clinton in 2000. Then Ariel Sharon took the initiative (and the blame). And then the Palestinians voted a party into office that believes that the Lions club is a zionist organisation.

As for the issue that these lads couldn't get their paper printed in the US: that happens to you if you fail to meet academic standards. They're not likely to publish my "1 dead 1 vote" theory either, even if it's much more scientific.

If you read this blog there are many more people who are yelling Anti Semite than there are people accusing others of being an agent of a lobbyist.

The Mearsheimer-Walt analysis has long been the conclusion reached by any honest and thorough researcher. The fact that it so rarely appears in print in the US is evidence of its accuracy.

Our organization has accumulated a body of research showing consistent pro-Israel distortion in the media; yet, almost no professional journals have felt they could discuss it. Fortunately, people are now learning the facts via the internet:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

I suggest that people interested in this topic read our statistical reports on the media, view our recent video about one case study, in which AP erased highly newsworthy footage, and read our articles:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/

...about Islamist atrocities and Arab honor killings...or about gender apartheid in many of the 57 Islamic countries /22 Arab countries...

if America only knew....

....about the bigotry and persecution of Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders and Queers in much of Islamist/Arab society...

or about the hatred of non-mulsims that prevades much of Islamic society on every level from textbooks, to news media to the friday sermons

if America only knew....
about the culture of hatred, blame and the glorification of children who kill other children that is now a staple of Palestinian society

if America only knew ....
about the brutal and daily murder and relentless humiliation and dehumanizing of ethnic black Muslims by racist Arab Mulsims

if America only knew about the apologists for intolerance and their lies and whitewashing

if America only knew....

www.memri.org
www.queersagainstterror.com
www.opinionjournal.com

listen to what they say in their own words, not what their apologists say or what the

OD I salute you for your chivalry, I think we are in agreement. But please don't get me started on:

"But I wonder if you accept the argument that the US Government managed to suppress debate on the upcoming Iraq invasion in 2002-3 by regularly questioning the motives and patriotism of those who tried?"

If you wanted to invade Iraq while representing a significant swat of the free world, you'd have kissed French feet and got them to commit some of their Legionnairs to your cause. President Bush didn't and went against the pentagon brass in thinking this could basically be a specops kind of war and we all now see the failiure of that policy. If the brass had it their way; 450.000 troops, some of them French, some of them Arab, it would have worked out a lot better.

The trouble with democracy (US style) is that after 4 or 8 years you might have a new crew who think they know it all and are out to prove it. The guys on the other side of the street don't suffer from that. I have to say though that I admire the brazen guts the neocons had in thinking they could actually create democracy in the Middle East. I really am a mensch and I still hope they are right, just like I still think Saddam had WMD (since he poisoned the Kurds). If the neocons are right just imagine how wonderful that would be for the Arabs, to be free, to have a democracy, to start writing, debating, enjoying themselves like we do. Wouldn't that just be fantastic. And they so deserve it. We all agree on that.

Not long ago a kid sliced open the throath of a movie director who made a movie about how Islam abuses women. This kid felt it was the proper thing to do, to kill the movie director. I can't live in that world. I have to fight what they're doing to their religion and to us. Islam is the religion of Harun al Rashid and the 1001 Arabian nights, of mystery and enlightenment. Not of murder and repression. Nobody, not Syria, not Iran, not Osama bin Laden nor anyone else should get away with hijacking it.

Academic conferences used to be meeting grounds where scholars discussed their latest research and work, taking home new knowledge that would enhance their teaching.

The Middle East Studies Association (MESA) Conference at the San Francisco Hyatt Regency, which I attended on Sunday, November 21, however, was anything but such a scholarly exchange.

When I arrived at the conference, I looked over the information tables. One table offered what can only be described as anti-Israel, anti-U.S. propaganda in the guise of scholarly and professional research society materials. On the bulletin board was a business card for Alison Weir’s IfAmericansKnew.org, an anti-Israel Web site claiming that America’s support of Israel should be terminated, and that a Palestinian state should replace Israel. The site uses misleading statistics to push its hateful message. For instance, the chart depicting American aid to Israel and the Arab world ignores the fact that, while Palestinians receive less U.S. aid than Israel does, the Arab world as a whole gets much more; in addition, aid to Israel is reciprocated through new technology. Also, the Web site’s statistics on Palestinian casualties include suicide bombers and armed combatants as “civilian casualties.”

Weir has also distorted history in the past. She once called a massacre of 60 yeshiva students in Hebron in 1929 by Arabs an “Arab uprising” against Jewish oppression – even before Israel existed. Manipulation of statistics to advance political goals for foreign dictatorships should not be welcome at an academic conference.

At the same table, free copies of a glossy newsmagazine called the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs were being distributed to the academics in attendance. Most people, upon seeing the publication, might assume it was similar to Newsweek or Time; the inside cover claims the report has been “telling the Truth for more than 20 years. … Interpreting the Middle East for North Americans.” What most people don’t know is that the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs magazine and Web site – indeed, the entire organization behind it – are funded by Saudi Arabia, a despotic regime that has been quietly buying its way onto every campus in America, particularly through Middle East Studies centers in the U.S.

Articles in the magazine included anti-U.S. and anti-Israel diatribes by the likes of the 83-year-old dyed-in-the-wool leftist radical Rachelle Marshall from Stanford, who condemns as evil both Israelis fighting Palestinian terrorists and U.S. forces in Iraq dealing with similar terror attacks. An article by Alison Weir claimed that Israelis beat American activists for walking Arab children to school in Gaza (with no proof that the thugs were Israelis, since the assailants were hooded and robbed the victims). The message throughout was that Israel and the United States are “colonialist” warmongers, and titles such as “Israel’s Day of Penitence: Drown Gaza in a Sea of Blood” were typical.

That was just some of the free reading material being distributed. I could find nothing presenting an opposing point of view.

I next attended what was to be the highlight of the evening: a speech by outgoing MESA president Laurie Brand from USC. Brand’s speech, rather than being a scholarly discussion of the state of Middle East Studies, particularly during the War on Terror, was an anti-U.S., anti-Israel harangue. Titled “Scholarship in the Shadow of Empire,” Brand’s speech echoed the theme on the tables outside, presenting not the truth, but an agenda to portray America as being imperialist and our allies, whenever they support the U.S., as being “colonialist.”

Brand had an audience of slightly more than 300 people, and I found myself sitting next to Alison Weir, who passed out business cards and lobbied against Israel. Weir isn’t an academic, but she apparently had the academics’ ear at the conference. Barbara Lubin, an activist for the PLO from Berkeley, was also featured at a conference session titled “Gender and Conflicts in the Middle East.” Like Weir, Lubin is not a college professor but a propagandist against the United States and Israel. She raises funds for a Palestinian “charity” whose leader in the West Bank refused to sign a U.S. State Department directive against using U.S. aid for terrorism (because, she claimed, many of her patients are terrorists).

Brand first identified the United States as the “Empire” and then used that term exclusively for the U.S. throughout her speech. Brand asked if Middle East Studies should remain just an academic field of study or if it should be used for what she termed other problems and challenges of “inequality” and “exploitation” of the Near East.

Just as she used the pejorative term “Empire” for the United States, she declared all scholars, especially those in the Middle East Studies Association, the “academy,” which she defined as those open to ideas and scientific study, a definition contrasting sharply with the propaganda outside. She called the U.S. government an imperialist entity, while academics who fight it from within (“embedded patriots,” she termed them) were portrayed as true seekers of knowledge, a commentary that lacked any intelligent objectivity. Brand used catchphrases often found in systematic propaganda in the most totalitarian countries of the world: She claimed our government constantly acted “against international law” or engaged in “lies” and “manipulation.”

Gradually, the speech degenerated into a polemic against the U.S. government and, more importantly, the Bush administration.

Brand spoke contemptuously about federal grants to create Homeland Security centers in areas where Middle East Study centers exist. She discussed NSEP (National Security Education Program) and NLFI (National Flagship Language Initiative), both programs designed to create more Arabic-speaking scholars to aid the war effort.

She then seethed about the failure of a part of HR Bill 1337, a House bill to create an International Education Advisory Board to examine “all points of view” during the war, which was effectively killed in Congress. She said she hoped it would succeed in the future as a necessary part of the “academy” and “scientific inquiry” (This from a woman who marched in the streets of Beirut against the U.S. going to war in Iraq. She also has suggested that American students studying abroad need to avoid their own embassies in order to pursue scholarly study without that pesky American democratic perspective over their heads).

She basically accused the “Empire” of interfering with the “academy” and the free pursuit of ideas simply by dint of our national security taking precedence in time of war. Three thousand people killed in New York on 9/11, suicide bombings in Israel, and beheadings in Iraq never made the play list that night for Laurie Brand. She accused the “Empire” of creating a “coercive apparatus” against those in the “academy” who expose the administration’s “lies,” harassing the opposition in order to silence it.

She then lit into the Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) introduced by Congressman Jack Kingston, R-Ga., and David Horowitz. Describing Horowitz as “a far left-wing turned right-wing commentator,” she explained how the bill was set up to prevent indoctrination in the classroom by requiring a plurality of methodologies and a diversity of approaches – an accurate description. She went on, however, to declare it an abuse of academic rights that would make teaching creationism in the schools mandatory (the key foundation of the Academic Bill of Rights centers on the humanities, not the sciences, unless unfair political indoctrination is also occurring within the sciences), a complete misinterpretation of the bill, which she then fervently rejected.

She clamed the ABOR would curb academic freedom and play into the hands of the “Empire” to stifle “scientific inquiry.” She lamented the lack of a plurality of views about whether Iraq was making nuclear weapons before the war and about Iraq being portrayed as democratic and free afterward. She accused the Bush administration of not exploring any option other than a military intervention in Iraq. She also did not bother to condemn Saddam Hussein.

Her comments did not reflect a plurality of views to help all Americans and provide them security, but rather to ease the burden of an enemy in a new kind of war. She made accusations of illegitimate uses of torture by the administration without substantiating any of them. Where government policies have succeeded or are in process, she called them failures. She accused the Bush administration as seeing scientists as only useful for manipulating findings to the administration’s own political ends.

Quoting Homeland Security’s objective of funding Middle East Studies programs to promote the “best and brightest” scholars in order to combat the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, she claimed that professorial integrity was being compromised by a “coercive Empire” supported by “mainstream media.” She then lauded MESA as being at the forefront of “academic research and educational issues.”

She urged members of MESA to “rethink” cooperating with the U.S. State Department or the CIA, despite the fact that Middle East Studies is funded principally by our government. She concluded her speech by condemning the detention of terrorist combatants in Guantanamo Bay, describing Israeli attacks against Hamas terrorists as Apache helicopter attacks on “refugee camps,” and accusing U.S. soldiers fighting to create a stable democratic Iraq of launching an unnecessary attack on the people of Fallujah.

Brand’s biography in the MESA program directory reveals that she found her niche in academia at the Institute for Palestine Studies, where she apprenticed under the likes of Edward Said. Said was once a member of the Palestine National Council, which helped dispatch terrorists to kill people. Brand made her way to the new Middle East Studies department at USC that was set up probably by Saudi funding. Her bio notes that other faculty members sought to have her removed from USC because of her open support of the enemy in the War on Terror, but they failed. That failure is easier to understand after one experiences the standing ovation she received by those attending the MESA Conference.

Brand’s speech was an embarrassment to anyone with real academic objectivity in Middle East Studies, especially anyone who is a citizen of the Untied States in time of war after 9/11. A quick review of those in attendance revealed a large number of professors of Arab descent or from Arab countries, and the standing ovation was proof positive of a receptive audience to such an openly seditious speech.

During the awards ceremony that followed, it thus came as no surprise that Rashid Khalidi, the new Middle East Studies chair at Columbia, was given an award for his newest book attacking Israel and the United States. In the past, Khalidi has approved of killing Israeli soldiers during the peace process. His book was described as “a courageous and strongly stated essay on war in the Middle East and especially on the war against Iraq.” (The emphasis is mine, the implication being that removing Saddam Hussein was not a war of liberation.)

A brief speech was also given about how the U.S. imperialist reach “had seriously deteriorated” the university system in Iraq, with libraries having been looted and “democratic ideas” being compromised. The absurdity that universities in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who modeled his dictatorship after Joseph Stalin, were more open to the “free exchange of ideas” than they are under U.S. “occupation” could only be heard in the halls of the propaganda ministries of the dictatorships of the Arab world; the exception, of course, might also be in the classrooms of these professors at the MESA Conference here in the United States.

I moved on to the film screenings. Every film being promoted that night dealt with anti-Israel themes. A large film poster touted a film titled “Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.” It featured such luminaries as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Hanan Ashwari, Michael Lerner and Hussein Ibish, all known Israel bashers, and it wasn’t difficult to imagine the film’s content. While most mainstream films have quotes from reviews by reputable journals on their posters, this one had reviews such as “the definitive document on the conflict” and “ a superlative film,” quoted not by mainstream journals but by organizations that advocate the dismantling of Israel.

The film shown that night was “Divine Intervention,” which began with a scene of an Arab in the West Bank loading hundreds of bottles onto his roof. The guy next to me wondered out loud, “What the heck is he doing?” I replied, “What else? Storing bottles to throw at Jews,” which is exactly what occurred next in the film. The film was billed as a comedy.

In a later fantasy scene, Israeli undercover police officers are shown being killed by a Palestinian woman wearing an Arafat-style kefiyyah who hits them in the forehead with darts that have an Islamic star and crescent attached to the ends of them. In one fabricated scene at a checkpoint, an Israeli soldier stops an Arab driver and comments on what a nice imported leather jacket he has – then steals it from him. An Israeli soldier would be court-martialed for that. Checkpoints are a theme in the film, but the filmmaker never shows them being blown up, with Israeli soldiers dying, being maimed and burned. Instead, the Arabs are shown pranking them or attacking them with a balloon that has Arafat’s face on it.

At the conclusion of the film, questionnaires were passed out asking if viewers thought the film was suitable for the classroom.

I decided to interview some faculty attendees and gravitated to the upstairs bar, where I met Nabil Al-Tikriti, a professor from the University of Chicago; Albrecht Fuess, a Middle East Studies professor from the University of Erfurt in the former East Germany; and a Ph.D. candidate named John Curry, attending from Ohio State. All three condemned the U.S. presence in Iraq and blamed the U.S. invasion for the “collapse” of the Iraqi government. When I asked if the majority of the Iraqi people weren’t better off since the removal of Saddam Hussein, they all said no. Curry cited an Arab proverb that “a bad government is better than no government at all.” They complained that Iraq wasn’t a democracy under U.S. presence there.

I asked, “But the U.S. government is now setting up elections. Hussein was murdering 5,000 Iraqis a month. How can you say they were better off?” Al-Tikriti stated: “That’s a myth that Hussein killed more than 5,000 a month. It was more like 20 per month and that was only during the last seven years of his rule.” Fuess interjected, “If you do the math, you can see it is impossible.” Fuess put Iraq’s population at 22 million and declared that at the rate of 5,000 per month over 35 years of Saddam’s rule over Iraq, he would have to have killed 2.1 million people. (Actually, the number is more than plausible, because compared to Hussein’s idols, Hitler and Stalin, both of whom he modeled his regime after intentionally, Hussein was a piker. The Kurdish village of Halabja alone netted over 5,000 dead when it was gassed by Hussein.)

Basically, the idea was that the U.S. is doing wrong in Iraq and no good will come of it, not even the liberation of the Iraqi people from a Hitler wannabe. They claimed there was absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, yet anyone who reads a newspaper knows that Ansar Al-Islam was founded in Northern Iraq with Hussein’s permission and is now leading the insurgency against U.S. soldiers. They still insisted it wasn’t true.

These are the same people who our government is funding as “experts” on the Middle East.

I finally asked about indoctrination in the classroom and expressed that I’d seen how it occurs, based on what scholars attending the MESA Conference were discussing. Al-Tikriti commented that he felt professors had a right to teach their personal opinions in the classroom and asked what I had against it. I answered that opinions backed up by verifiable academic research should be taught, but that I’d seen blatant propaganda throughout that evening’s conference. He asked me what I would change.

I replied, “I’d invite those academic Middle East scholars who actually support America’s war effort overseas and security needs here at home. People like Daniel Pipes or Martin Kramer.” I continued, “Why aren’t they here at the MESA Conference?”

“They’d be shouted down,” replied Al-Tikriti.

by Lee Kaplan
http://frontpagemag.org/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16242

Well, the real obfuscation with regards to colonialsm is the bloody, the corpse-filled blitzkrieg history of Arab colonialism, land-grabbing and expansionism

On a secondary level, the Cultural Imperialism of the Arab/Islamist crusades and, in particular, the Arabization of Islam which crushed many indegenous societies and religous communities is the real tradegy.

If only Americans knew....

Daniel Pipes - come on - this is a man who still feels it was acceptable to imprison Japanese Americans during WW2 - www.campuswatch.org - sending students with video cameras into lectures - you don't think thats intimidation.

This is a long post against Alison Weir and www.ifamericansnew - I say read both - website and post - make up your own minds -
I would like to bring up again 3 names. Rachel Corrie - probably everyone knows her story an young American girl crushed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to stop the IDF demolishing a house.

James Miller a British Cameraman shot dead by the IDF

http://www.justice4jamesmiller.com/

Tom Hurndall a British Peace Activist shot dead by the IDF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hurndall

Don't take my word at face value just read it yourself and make up your own mind.

Again I must bring up a point that was mentioned but not treated in the Mearscheimer - Walt report. In their opening paragraphs, they write that the U. S. has gained the enmity of all Muslims worldwide by (1)its unwavering support of Israel and (2)by its efforts to spread democracy in the Middle-East. They then proceed to elucidate their first point in an erudite, scholarly manner.

The second point also cries out for analysis, though it might ignite a fiercer firestorm than the first.

Spreading democracy would seem to be unassailably alruistic. Yet, in the lexicon of the current Administration, the words "democracy" and "freedom", as exemplified by their domestic application, appear as code words for unregulated capitalism (I stress 'unregulated').

Unregulated capitalism is good at increasing productivity, but it has, by design and in practice, no patriotism and no social conscience. We must find a way for capitalism to work for the common good, or it will destroy democracty.

Rachel Corrie was not an innocent victim, and she was not murdered. Her death, although tragic, was her own fault. She deliberately stood in front of the bulldozer in an effort to prevent the destruction of tunnels used to smuggle weapons for terrorists, and she did so with the confidence that Israeli soldiers would never deliberately harm her. Unfortunately, the bulldozer driver did not see her, and so she died quite accidentally.

If Corrie was a victim, it was of her own foolishness and arrogance. Corrie's memorializers are trading on her status as an American--as if her self-inflicted accidental death means more than the deaths of thousands of innocent Jewish and Arab victims of Palestinian terrorism.

Nobody reads history? Why all the words? The easy fact is Zionist Jews in the United States are doing for the United States exactly what they've done for every country, in every century, in history. Ponder that. And how the citizens of those countries in those centuries liked it.

Can somebody help me understand:

Is the distortion of the direct aid to Israel (compared to other countries) the result of some lobbying activities, or a genuine effort of the US governements since WWII to help Israel grow up?

Jvd:
"If you wanted to invade Iraq while representing a significant swat of the free world, you'd have kissed French feet and got them to commit some of their Legionnairs to your cause. President Bush didn't and went against the pentagon brass in thinking this could basically be a specops kind of war and we all now see the failiure of that policy. If the brass had it their way; 450.000 troops, some of them French, some of them Arab, it would have worked out a lot better."

Clearly that could never happen since Iraq was an illegal, unjustified and deeply stupid invasion, and even if Americans are confused about the true motives behind it, foreign governments are not.

A few peripheral academic neocons may have genuinely harboured romantic notions of democratising the Arab world. The White House and Pentagon certainly didn't.

Megan S. wrote--

"Rachel Corrie was not an innocent victim, and she was not murdered. Her death, although tragic, was her own fault. She deliberately stood in front of the bulldozer in an effort to prevent the destruction of tunnels used to smuggle weapons for terrorists, and she did so with the confidence that Israeli soldiers would never deliberately harm her. Unfortunately, the bulldozer driver did not see her, and so she died quite accidentally.

"If Corrie was a victim, it was of her own foolishness and arrogance. Corrie's memorializers are trading on her status as an American--as if her self-inflicted accidental death means more than the deaths of thousands of innocent Jewish and Arab victims of Palestinian terrorism. "

Reply--

Blame the victim; I like that. Of course, using that logic one would conclude that all of the civil rights activists who were not murdered in the south by the Klan were also victims of their own foolishness and arrogance. Bottom line: Megan, you definitely are a part of the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. It must be nice to be able to look at the world and not have to waste any time actually thinking critically about it.

Megan S.

Your words speak volumes.

Please note I did not say murdered. But the Bulldozer backed up over her after she was run over the first time so who knows??

Not sure if you are saying she was aware of the existence of "tunnels" and was trying to aid and abet smuggling? Are you?

I am pretty sure that if there were tunnels the IDF would have blown them up with explosives and not relied on a Caterpiller. But then what do I know. As I say to everything read up on it and make up your own minds - there's a lot of information out there - I found the eyewitness accounts the most telling.

I for one don't think that any nationality's life is worth more than anothers and for you to claim that Rachel Corrie is being used because she is American is ludicrous. I think the point is that there is no culpability in Israel(unless extreme polictical and public pressure is brought to bear) - if these 3 westerners were able to be so easily dealt with what chance does a nameless, faceless Palestinian have.

If anyone is interested go to google and enter the words - palestiniam boy shot - you may be surprised - and of course as usual I encourage you to read both sides versions of what happened in each case.

The PA asked many times for the UN to be allowed to have troops on the ground but this idea was always dismissed by the Israeli government citing security concerns.

Personally I think Rachel Corrie was an incredibly brave young lady. Too bad the play won't be seen in NY - I hope Seattle has the cojones to bring it there.

jvd: "I still think Saddam had WMD (since he poisoned the Kurds)."

I also think Saddam poisoned the Kurds, but since these chemical weapons have a shelf life of 3 to 7 years, I fail to see how their presence in 1988 is evidence of their presence in 2003.

And it might amuse you, jvd, to learn that the US Government actually spent more than two years blaming Iran for the famous gassing of the Kurds at Halabja.

Halabja 1988 was actually a battle in the Iran-Iraq war, and the town had fallen to Iranian-Kurdish forces the day before the gas attack. A fact that's never mentioned today.

The next day Iraq counter-attacked, and over three days various gas attacks were made in the area.

But the US was still allied to Saddam, so the State Dept insisted at the time that the dead Kurds had been killed by Iran.

Don't believe me? Google Halabja Charles Redman to read the comments of the State Dept spokesman at the time. Other people who blamed Iran for Halabja included the DIA, in a report, and Senator John McCain, later that year.

It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait more than two years later, and was no longer an ally, that the US Government suddenly decided he, not the Iranians, had gassed the Kurds at Halabja.

True story.

Those wankers will say whatever they think is convenient. Whether it's true or not is completely irrelevant.

Of course Americans have erased all this from their memory. Collective amnesia is essential to the smooth functioning of American political life.

"Collective amnesia is essential to the smooth functioning of American political life."

Of course, that requires that there would have been something in their brains to start with, a highly doubtful proposition.

OD I don't care much about the latest spin Washingtonians put on events. There now is a lame duck US Presidency that has been undermined by its own spin and failiure to listen to advice from experts and allies.

What worries me is that there's an increasingly emotional divide in the US between the two parties and too few people understand why the other side believes what they do. Many conservatives feel the world is heading towards a confrontation between the free world and nations like Syria, Iran and North Korea. Many liberals feel that Washington is addicted to the pork barrel defense spending that subsidize jobs in certain constituencies.

Both are right. And both fail to listen to each other.

We have a world economy on which billions depend for their livelihoods and in order to sustain and grow it the entire world needs a fundamental change in its energy policy. With ever growing demand for oil and a rapidly worsening global climate the need for a rapid and fundamental change is greater than any other need.

The lobbies that are a fundamental threat to the security of the US and other free nations are those that try to stop all such change from happening and this Israel thing is a diversion they've been using.

How is Israel to make piece with Hamas who believes killing civillians is a legitimate way of ending the occupation (of all of Palestine); We in the west have paid billions to Arafat who in 2002 called Hajj Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem his hero. This very mufti who worked with Hitler to eradicate Jews. They're not serious about peace. The Palestinians are being propagandized to the point where Palestinian kids believe killing jews will buy them a spot with 70-something virgins in heaven. Millions of Arabs who deserve to have all the freedoms that we take for granted are being held hostage by that lobby. They don't want to loose their oil income and their stranglehold on power.

And now I see how many free people, Americans, Europeans, run to the defense of that lobby and blame the Jews .. excuse me I mean blame the Israelis .. and I wonder why they are so easily swayed, why they don't see the danger.

Walt and Mearsheimer http://realisticforeignpolicy.org/archives/2005/01/ending_the_isra.php believe access to cheap oil - despite the nightmare oil is becoming - is why we should betray our principles and sell the Israelis out.

Mr. Walt works at Harvard, an esteemed institution that recently stooped to receive a $20m gift for it's Islamic studies program from Saudi Arabia.

Harvard's where the US gets its future leadership from.

You can buy influence in the US except when you're Jewish.

And yet people insist the conspiracy is on the other foot.

Israel-bashing isn't necessarily anti-Semitic (plenty of Likkud types are heavily critiquing Israel's policy of ethnically cleansing Gaza fo Jews which has only led to more Arab terror and a Hamas gov.)

However, QUITE OFTEN, Israel-bashing is anti-Semitic. Martin Luther King Jr. understood and spoke about how anti-Zionism usually means anti-Semitism.

After all if there are 57 (count em) Islamic countries --- there movement for one Jewish one, i.e. Zionism, seems quite fair to me -- though I am fairly secular WASP.

So beware of those whining that they are unfairly being smeared as an anti-Semite - since that is often a pretty hollow tactic to couch their anti-Semitism as simply anti-Zionism or "critiquing Israel."

Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.

Israel is a creation of fanatics whose survival can only persist with lies, propaganda and vicious attacks on its antagonists camouflaged in such terms as anti-semites, terrorists and the uncivilized. The American melting pot turned out to be the ideal platform for these prowlers to accomplish their evil pursuits. Having been chased out of Europe, the hard-working Americans unfortunately fell into the trap of these immoral marauders. But history often repeats itself, and it seems the time is near when these fanatics will face the music in America as well.

I completely agree. The difficulty in US today is while the world can recognize apples from oranges, jewish and christen zionists melt into the mainstream posing as caretakers of US interests in the middle-east.

OD....great comments. I admit my earlier post was too vague so hence, more detail. I spent ten years or so as a television techie on the US west coast. And I personally witnessed MANY examples of Jewish racism, nepotism and discrimination. Too many to count. The Jews didn't even make any significant attempt to conceal it; it was just the modus-operandi of the time and place. And frankly, what I'm saying here is so commonly known among media types that it's considered a chiche. (this was well before 9/11 I might add)

While I admit that the Jews are very smart, well educated and highly motivated, there's more to it than that. My country would be just as dysfunctional and biased if we were sponsoring, say, a Chinese holy-war and all our information were disseminated by Chinamen. But that's not the case.

I found the whole thing so sickening that I got out of the business. But I'm afraid my opinion of "the chosen race" will never be the same.

So Megan - Who decides who is a fair critic of Israel and who is not?

Is there a set of metrics that we must adhere to before we are allowed the privilege of being critics of Israel?

If so I would love to see them.

As for me I do not consider myself an anti-semite - as I have said before that I absolutely believe that Israel has a right to exist; and with peace and security for its citizens. I think that anyone who dispatches another human being to blow themselves up killing innocent people is a worthless POS.

But I also believe that Palestinians (and everyone else) should have the same rights. I know many Palestinians in the US who are hard working, extremely decent citizens who want what everyone else does. Live in safety, raise a family, get them educated and see their kids lives improve over their own. I suspect that if the majority of the people in the West Bank and Gaza had the same opportunities - freedom sans interference from Israel in a few years extremists would be a tiny minority. I already know the arguments that are coming back, we offered them this, we offered them that - they have the choice, they will use that time to arm themselves and attack us - let's be honest - with the kind of firepower the IDF has it is virtually impossible for that to happen. Same with disarm the militants then we'll talk - how was the PA supposed to achieve that - a Police force armed with rifles? It seems to me that every time I watched the news 3 or 4 years ago anytime a PA policemen made the mistake of popping his head up during conflict it was blown off by the IDF.

Anyway that's history - i think someone said earlier here or maybe somewhere else if everyone keeps looking back nothing will ever be solved - arguing over the parsing of sentences and splitting hairs about who started it are pointless.

The thing that I think is the biggest shame is that in reading the M & W paper again today, in my opinion, they had pre-answered most of the arguments here - it seems to me that what they are asking for the most is a foreign policy not created by foreigners - even if you don't give a crap about Arab lives in Iraq (although most American I talk to seem to) that stills means that 2000 plus American boys died in a War that POSSIBLY was the making of powerful foreign lobbyists - if there were Senate/Congressional hearings etc when POTUS (soon to be FLOTUS) stained Monica Lewinsky's dress - surely this is worth taking a look at!! Wouldn't the lobby welcome a Congressional investigation to clear their name.

Anyway I guess there are some people who will consider me an anti-semite no matter what - to be honest I dont really care - that particular label has been fired out so many times its diluted.

Not sure if anyone is still even reading this blog but if so - read the paper again and measure it against these posts here - I found it interesting.

As a Nation, Israel has unfairly benefited from an International double standard since it's illegal inception. This double standard, enforced via US veto power within the United Nations has allowed and probably encouraged Israel to engage in behavior which has not been tolerated from any other Nation in modern times.

To criticize Israel and it's minions within the US government, political and even academic establishments is not any more anti-Semitic than criticizing the war in Iraq is "unpatriotic". It's the very insistence by some Jews and the US that Israel be an exception to international law and above criticism which has invited the hostility and resentment which continues to plague us ALL today.

For "apologists" to denounce all critics of Israel as, "White Supremacists" and "Anti-Semitic" doesn't make that criticism unjust nor inaccurate.

The UN's Jan Egeland said (march 2005): "At least 180,000 people may have died in Sudan's Darfur region over the past 18 months, according to the United Nations' top emergency relief official."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4349063.stm

Ami writes: "... encouraged Israel to engage in behavior which has not been tolerated from any other Nation in modern times."

What modern times are those, then? Anything since March 2005?

It's funny how M&W's pro-terror cheerleaders keep whining about insufficient media coverage of this "scholarly work".

But let's face it. This isn't M&W's first paper. How much coverage did their last article get, or the one before that?

Maybe these two Profs just aren't as important as they pretend to be.

Now of course their polemic might be newsworthy if it offerred something new. But as serious critics have pointed out, its really just warmed over anti-semitic trash found on most neo-nazi and Islamist websites.

And therein lies the real reason it isn't making any waves despite the prodigious efforts of sympathetic pundits: Because despite their claims of mainstream objectivity, this isn't a really piece of serious scholarship. Its simply a reflection of their emotions. And that is why no mainstream scholars will stand behind it.

In fact, as has been pointed out, the paper's most prominent supporter in the US is ex-KKKlucker David Duke (Phd).

And so, the "debate" they hoped to spark is now relegated to the sideline "blog" battles that attract hard core anti-semites and opponents of anti-semitism, but hold little interest for the average non-racist, Christian American. (This site is a good example).

On the bright side, this is probably the best thing for M & W's careers (moneywise anyway). Whereas before, they were virtually unknown, they now have a niche audience of Jew Haters and Arabs who will pay for their lectures, buy their books and get them more directly on the Saudi pay roll. (Much like Pete McCLosky, Paul Findley, etc.).

Of course, they won't impact public policy much. According to 20 years of Gallup polls, about 60-70 percent of Americans support Israel and showing a steady increase (around 200 million Americans). Meanwhile support for Arabs is pretty abysmal. So what's Congress to do? Follow the views of 200 million Americans or two discredited professsors and the likes of David Duke?

Chomsky is a self hating Jew. You seem to cater to Jew haters. Have you any criticisms of the anti Semitic United Nations which spends 1/3 of it time criticising & condemning Israel? I think you are pretty screwed up.

How are they discredited?

And yet again I will point out that SOME liberal Jews may share some of the same views as racist followers of Meyer Kahane and also Baruch Goldstein - does that make them racists ..I think not.

How are they discredited?

And yet again I will point out that SOME liberal Jews may share some of the same views as racist followers of Meyer Kahane and also Baruch Goldstein - does that make them racists ..I think not.

First, thanks for a balanced article on this incredibly important subject.
It is almost laughable that the authors described in detail the way in which they would attacked for simply reciting a series well established facts.

These men should be commended for their bravery, while the majority of the senate and the current administration should resign in shame for their political and moral cowardice.

Angus: how they are discredited:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099

I reproduced the URL for your benefit so that you can't miss it this time, with a bit of luck you can find tons of very reputable publications that repeat the same points albeit in a more condensed format through news.google.com - so how about dismissing that camera.org piece in a better way than through "blah blah - like I said smokescreen ... sorry not buying it" like you did above. That is not a proper way to argue. Arguing like that on the washington post's real estate; it's like embarassing the guests at a White House party.

Mr. Walt works at Harvard, an esteemed educational institution that recently received a controversial $20m gift for it's Islamic studies program from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Saudi Arabia.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/13/saudi_donates_20m_to_harvard?mode=PF
A $10m gift to the Twin Towers Fund from the exact same source was rejected by mayor Giuliani of NYC because of the accompanying press release urging '...the United States to reexamine its Middle East policies ''and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."'.

So how are we to read that piece of information, for $10m more you get your press release written by Harvard's professors? Or is that taking things too far or should one be worried about academic standards at Harvard if that piece is so poorly written?

Harvard is where the US gets its future leadership from. Islamic studies is where the federal government hopes to recruit experts on understanding our fundamentalist enemies, experts whose studies for a significant part is funded by the very same Saudis who have trouble defining their loyalties.

How is that not a lobby contrary to US interests.

In the mean time
http://www.google.com/search?q=Coalition+for+International+Justice+estimates+500+people+die+in+Sudan+every+day&btnG=Search
it takes less than two weeks for more people to die in Sudan than in 20 years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

How are they discredited?

Well, if they had popular support, then politicians (M-W's target audience) would take notice. Politicians are notorious poll watchers. But with polls showing 60-70 percent of America consistently supporting Israel, and Arabs at the absolute bottom of the barrel, no one needs some silly conspiracy theory to explain our support.

Now, if the paper had academic merit, you would expect to see at least some in mainstream academia being swayed by its conclusions. Instead, even the anti-semitic, anti-Israel academic fringe isn't jumping to get on board. Just look at critiques of well known Israel haters Noam Chomsky of MIT and Joe Massad of Columbia. Even they don't buy into this "wag the dog" nonsense.

Which leaves only the usual suspects; the Arabs; the pro-Arab pundits, mainly in the foreign press; and here in America - its people like the demented racist Dave Duke. It isn't so much that Duke happens to agree. Its that here in America, Duke and a handful of racists like him, are just about the only base of support for this paper. Obviously, that's the only sort of diseased mindset that this sort of trash appeals to. ( The Islamofascist trolls on this board are of course a good example of that mindset).

I mean lets face it, its gotten so bad that M & W's supporters have to rely on the expected, and well deserved, trashing of the report to support the "genius" predictions of the authors.

That's kinda like the kid who leaves a big, steaming one in the toilet bowl and then "brilliantly" anticipates that some adult will come along and flush it down.

Like, yeah, that's what happens to drek.

Let me put this in simple terms.
As a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, I want My $140 Billion (plus) dollars back. With interest. I want "paid for in the USA" taken off of the homes of West bank settlers whose actions and beliefs make the KKK look like the NAACP in comparison.
I want those settlers removed from the West bank and at least half of Jerusalem and for the security wall to be torn down on those places that it extends over the Green Line. Finally, as a Republican, I want my party, The party of Lincoln, the party that abolished slavery, taken back from those that use religious and racial prejudice as a platform to justify crimes of unimaginable brutality against the Palestinians. Taken back from people who want to turn a blind eye to 40 plus years of vicious occupation, the objective of which has been aimed at fostering and protecting the settler movement (400,000 and growing!)
and the results of which have been numerous, costly and avoidable wars and ultimately 9/11 and the "war on terrorism", which will cost us far more than all those wars combined. This is not sound Republican fiscal policy. This is the worst investment in American history!
Beyond those points, I support Israel and as an ally would fight to protect it if it was legitimately threatened or attacked.
Furthermore, as an avid reader, I know that my views are soundly backed in large part by a great many Israelis.

Joe

The hubris of the US, European ountries and the western world about their freedom of speech is frightful. They even went to the extent of hurting the feeling of others by making cartoons of their prophet. Yet these same free and braggart people are mute and NOT free to speak the truth about Israel. When an Israli bulldozes an American, the former is a hero. When a Palestinian defends his house destroyed by Israelis, he is called a terrorist. After killing thousands of innocent civilians, Sharon is a "man of peace". Kudos for these two professors for their courage to break this shackle on freedom of speech.

Angus: how they are discredited:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099

I reproduced the URL for your benefit so that you can't miss it this time, with a bit of luck you can find tons of very reputable publications that repeat the same points albeit in a more condensed format through news.google.com - so how about dismissing that camera.org piece in a better way than through "blah blah - like I said smokescreen ... sorry not buying it" like you did above. That is not a proper way to argue. Arguing like that on the washington post's real estate; it's like embarassing the guests at a White House party.

Mr. Walt works at Harvard, an esteemed educational institution that recently received a controversial $20m gift for it's Islamic studies program from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Saudi Arabia.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/12/13/saudi_donates_20m_to_harvard?mode=PF
A $10m gift to the Twin Towers Fund from the exact same source was rejected by mayor Giuliani of NYC because of the accompanying press release urging '...the United States to reexamine its Middle East policies ''and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."'.

So how are we to read that piece of information, for $10m more you get your press release written by Harvard's professors? Or is that taking things too far or should one simply be worried about academic standards at Harvard?

Harvard is where the US gets its future leadership from. Islamic studies is where the federal government hopes to recruit experts on understanding our fundamentalist enemies, experts whose studies for a significant part is funded by the very same Saudis who have trouble defining their loyalties.

How is that not a lobby contrary to US interests.

To: jvd

I don't think that there's a direct connection of the $20m gift to Harvard to Mr. Walt's saying what he thinks. In any of your courts, your implied presumption will be rejected.

As I see it, the whole issue here is not whether this guy speaks because he's been paid to do so but rather why can he speak freely on one subject but NOT on another - especially on issues related to Israel: issues which not only affect your country but the entire planet as well. The university is an academia and an arena of free speech, debate, sharing of ideas and the advancement of knowledge. To censor or limit the thinking of the academia and put shackle on their freedom of speech belies the founding fathers of your country.

Instead of trying to silence these two courageous gentlemen (Mr. Walt/Mr. Mearsheimer) either by threat or demoting their positions, why not refute their research paper point-by-point in the spirit of democracy?

Arcee you wrote: "Instead of trying to silence these two courageous gentlemen ... either by threat or demoting their positions"

Arcee, you fundamentally misrepresent what I wrote. You seem to imply that I would somehow prefer censorship over free speech, nowhere, not in the singlemost digit of what I write can you find any such preference. I am baffled.

The university I attended had a certain level of peer review that was required before any scientist published findings officially. Imagine the level of scrutiny from peers required when you publish a scientific paper with this kind of potential impact. The scrutiny was there, it didn't meet scientific standards which is why it wasn't published in any journal of scientific note. http://www.lrb.co.uk/about/index.php the london review of books published it, it isn't a scientific publication, it's a literary paper. "The London Review of Books has been dedicated to carrying on the tradition of the English essay."

You can allow all you like from journalists and politicians who freely vent their opinion on questions of international politics but these people are scientists and have to work according to peer review and certain standards of scientific integrity. Failing that they're still allowed to post all they like and enjoy their freedom of speech to the utmost, but let's not call it a research paper then when it fails to meet the criteria.

Isaac Asimov also published fiction next to his academic writings but never did he publish fiction in an academic paper, nor reversely.

And Arcee I don't care if it stands in court or not, I'm free to voice my fears. After 9/11 people in the west have reasons to fear Islamic extremism, have reasons to fund Islamic studies programs to better understand Islamic extremism; enough reasons to be inquisitive about streams of money, funding, attached strings and press releases.

To: jvd

I’m very sorry, jvd, if I misread you. So you don’t prefer censorship over free speech. Are you then willing to come to the rescue of these two courageous professors to exercise their freedom to speak their mind by helping them to publish their work in national publications and newspapers? As Voltaire says: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

You have such an objective and scientific university! But will your university publish an objective scientific research findings, for example, on the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp even it contradicts some long-held established views - assuming that it passed all “level of peer review” and scientific standards?

You’re correct – the professors’ work is not a scientific one in the strict sense of the word. But they did not write from haunches, presumptions or wild guesses. In fact, it’s just unbelievable that almost half of the 83 pages are devoted to mentioning their sources. They supported every statement they made with evidence. But since it’s not a scientific paper, why was not it accepted for publication in national media so that it can be debated and refuted in the spirit of democracy? Are you telling me that your newspapers and magazines are subject to your “peer review and certain standards” too? Let me pose this question to you - if there’s another research paper on exactly the same subject commissioned by AIPAC, will it be published in national newspapers? While waiting for your answer, let me tell you my answer - SURELY it will. Why? You’ll find the answer in Messrs. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper.

By the way, can you spell out to the public these “criteria” and “certain standards of scientific integrity” so everybody can examine these two professors’ work based on them? You might even convince the world to side with you that their work is a fiction.

You’re perfectly “free to voice” your “fears” after 9/11 which is the worst human tragedy that happened not only to you but all mankind as well. And you’re not alone in your fears – the world too! But are you also willing to examine honestly and objectively with all your “standards of scientific integrity” (1) Why this most inhumane tragedy happened in the first place so that it can be prevented from happening ever again? Did you honestly ask yourself other questions like – (2) Why is “Islamic extremism” happening now? (3) Why was there no “Islamic extremism” against your country prior to 1940s? (4) Are you willing to “seek the truth” so that it will set you free?

And, yes, jvd, don’t parrot the rationale of your politicians that these extremists did it because they envy your freedom and democracy, for example. If you do that, you’ll be like a doctor diagnosing a feverish patient who has a ruptured appendicitis as suffering from lung infection. If you are really after finding the answers to the above questions and ultimately lead you to the truth, you should be prepared to look for it everywhere - even if it means re-examining the research paper of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

(1) Why this most inhumane tragedy happened in the first place so that it can be prevented from happening ever again?

A group of young misguided people who lived mostly in Hamburg, Germany felt it was the right thing to do. They were so convinced it was the right thing to do they were willing to die for it.

What needs to be done to prevent it is to have freedom of speech and rule of law in certain countries so that whomever is funding terrorism, whomever is poisoning people's mind with radical propaganda that calls for murder - can be stopped. Freedom of speech and print in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan or Iran for example would engender a healthy debate that would expose the rot at the core.

Many people call for a less aggressive US and European foreign policy. In measuring human rights abuses and counting the number of people being killed, detained without trial or otherwise mistreated the US, Europe and Israel as well are nowadays on the side of the good guys. It only takes 2 weeks in Sudan to achieve the same bodycount as 20 years in Israel. If people feel compelled to fly planes into buildings in the US as a protest against the horrors of the Great Satan why don't they stop being hypocrites and do something about the horror that rules Sudan. But they ignore it. Which is why they are hypocrites.

(2) Why is “Islamic extremism” happening now? / (3) Why was there no “Islamic extremism” against your country prior to 1940s?

Here's another very relevant piece of Harvard based writing for you to digest:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH05Ak03.html

Is that author listed as a reference in M&W's paper? The points being raised certainly are relevant in placing Israel and its lobby in a historical context. Not many references to that kind of information can be found in that paper, If any. These professors can quote a million sources, but being a good scientist isn't a matter of quantity.

Recently Islamic extremism has become a tool of proxy warfare (of Iran, Sudan and Syria and certain groups in oil rich Arab nations); the weapon is gullible (young) suicide bombers. I know some people who believe Islamic extremism is somehow a symptom of an oppressed people railing against occupation. Yes, the Islamic extremists are oppressed indeed, by their own governments. Theyre oppressed by people like the Saudis and the Assads who use Islam against their own people, use it to point their anger and frustration at Israel and the Great Satan, use it as a carrier wave signal to their anti-Western and anti-Jewish propaganda.
http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/cartoon_arab_press_061802.asp - The ADL actually didn't draw those images in case you wondered; the Arab state controlled press did most of the work.

(4) Are you willing to “seek the truth” so that it will set you free?

Hello, you started out with the wrong assumption that I was somehow trying to restrict people's freedom of speech (which is diametrically opposed to what I try to achieve). Then after being sorry about misreading me you persist in unquestioningly assuming that I am an American (I've never disclosed my identity, I could be a Syrian, Israeli or both for all you know).

Twice now you have made unfounded assumptions that are patently obvious once you see them, but you missed them. How many more have you made that you can't see? Are you willing to face the freedom that might come when you free yourself of all these assumptions?

I quote you:
"...if there’s another research paper on exactly the same subject commissioned by AIPAC, will it be published in national newspapers? While waiting for your answer, let me tell you my answer - SURELY it will."

I quote Master Yoda:
"So certain are you."

I quote you:
"Are you then willing to come to the rescue of these two courageous professors to exercise their freedom to speak their mind by helping them to publish their work in national publications and newspapers?"

I ask you, if I say yes then would that mean I should be willing to have helped Adolf Hitler publish Mein Kampf?

To: jvd, you wrote:

a. “It only takes 2 weeks in Sudan to achieve the same bodycount as 20 years in Israel”. How long did Ariel Sharon and his cohorts massacre 900 Palestinian civilians at the Shabra and Shatilla refugee camps?

b. “I ask you, if I say yes then would that mean I should be willing to have helped Adolf Hitler publish Mein Kampf?” No way! It means that although you disapprove M&W work, you’re willing to fight to the death their rights to say what’s in their minds. Moreover, their work is not anti-Semetic but rather anti-Israel-Lobby. Unlike David Irving who was jailed just for speaking freely about the gas chambers, M&W speak freely about this interest group.

c. As to the extremists, you said: “They were so convinced it was the right thing to do they were willing to die for it.” Have you ever wondered why they’re so convinced and willing? You sound like a robot parroting your politicians’ rationale of “freedom of speech”, “envious of our democracy”, “terrorist”, blah, blah, blah…If it’s freedom of speech, why was there no extremism in dictatorial governments like Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin's Russia, Hirohito’s Japan, etc? Mind you, nobody can say that Ireland, Spain and Columbia are ruled by despots ruling over “oppressed people”. And yet extremist groups sprung from them like IRA, ETA and FARC-EP respectively.

d. ‘I quote Master Yoda: "So certain are you."’ You did not answer from your own hand my question on AIPAC paper on same subject being published on mainstream media. Why do you have to let somebody speak for you? But if your answer is affirmative, then why this double-standard? Why let one party speak freely and prevent others even if you disapprove of them? Specifically, why not “defend to the death” the right of M&W to publish their work in mainstream media and have the public refute their statements as wrong, unfounded or fiction.

e. I’m still awed by your objective and scientific university. But will your university publish an objective scientific research findings, for example, on the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp even it contradicts some long-held established views - assuming that it passed all “level of peer review” and scientific standards?

Let’s go down to business and tackle the task at hand which is the research work of M&W. Since you did not define your “criteria” and “certain standards of scientific integrity”, I want you to apply them by refuting point-by-point some of the serious statements raised by M&W in their paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy:

(1) “Israel is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption that makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes, like building settlements in the West Bank.” - Page 4

(2) “More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.” – Page 7

(3) “Equally important, unconditional U.S. support for Israel makes it easier for extremists like bin Laden to rally popular support and to attract recruits.” – Page 7

(4) ‘The “shared democracy” rationale is also weakened by aspects of Israeli democracy that are at odds with core American values. The United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights.’By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.26 - Page 10

(5) “A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not act like a loyal ally...Israel has provided sensitive U.S. military technology to potential U.S. rivals like China,...According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any ally’.” - Page 8

(6) “The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.” – Page 19

(7) “It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the United States to deal with any and all threats to Israel’ security. If their efforts to shape U.S. policy succeed, then Israel’s enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying.” – Page 41

(8) “By preventing U.S. leaders from pressuring Israel to make peace, the Lobby has also made it impossible to end the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict. This situation gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathizers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism around the world.” – Page 42

JVD -

CAMERA is a joke - it's about as one sided a site as you can get. If you won't accept anything from ISM and www.ifamericaonlyknew.com don't expect me to swallow any of CAMERA propoganda - as for Alan "pants on fire" Dershowitz - I just read his rebuttal - seems to me that he spends most of his time smearing the paper by linking it to all the wacko's out there like Finkelstein et al...when you can't kill the message go after the messenger.

Also please don't condescend to tell me how why and where to argue - if you don't like what I say you don't bother to reply.

hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. MY yellowpages, SMART Yellow Pages, About DIRare. From online directory .

When will apoligists for israel finally understand, anti-semitism is not a valid argument. Semites are not jews. Some jews are semites, but not all semites are jews. And it is the ashkenazi jews that most people despise for what they did to Palestine.

call it anti-ashkenazism. Though I guess the Israelis want to avoid any words that have the word nazi in them since they've carefully crafted the world's understanding to be one-sided -- the jews are the victims, always and forever, therefore when they round up palestinians and stick them in refugee camps, they cannot be victimizing another people like they themselves will never let us forget they were.

hypocrites.

to APS:

So 60 - 70% support for Israel and Arabs are the bottom of the barrel - I would love to see this poll - or are you simply mixing empirical and anecdotal data?

Also anyone who uses polls as an absolute is deluded - polls and opinions can change on a daily basis if asked at different times - I would argue that even the way a question is asked and who asks it can change the ratios immmensely - I will be interested to see how these polls would look after the AIPAC spying story plays out - or if Pollard is released - also I would be interested to see how American's would feel about Congresspersons and Senators taking money from AIPAC if they still used the word zionist in the title as they used to - perhaps, rightly so, AIPAC realised this is not quite so palatable to America.

Although impossible to prove I have found anecdotally that Israels policies are not nearly as popular as you seem to think. In fact I've usually found that when people feel they are in a conversation safe from the usual howls of anti semite I am often amazed at the level of disgust people feel concerning Israels treatment of the Palestinians.

SjBill - I found it interesting what you say about Ashkenazis as I had made a similar statement earlier in the blog - I have always found Sabras to be much more pragmatic - perhaps this is as a result of having a shared (if not always completely peaceful) co-existence on the land with the Palestians - just speculation on my part but who knows.

angus i said the situation in Checnhya where roughly 200.000 people died and in Sudan where roughly 200.000 died and are still dying is much worse than the situation in Israel where 6000 people have died over the last 20 years during the two intifada conflicts. I said the lobby that biased the conflict in Israel in the news is obviously a much stronger lobby considering the attention each person killed received.

You said "blah blah ... smokescreen" to that argument. Then I point out that your method of discourse is childish and amateuristic because of your use of the term "blah blah" and you feel that's condescending? I think your "blah blah" was much worse.

I'm not sure why my reply to Arcee hasn't been published; perhaps that's just how things work out sometimes with freedom of speech; some speech isn't considered relevant. Ask arcee if he/shes willing to die to see my unpublished response published.

AIPAC is a weapon of Mass destruction

Watching the response to this article from Europe (us of the anti-semitism) is one of the most intersting bits.
The basic position is indisputable unless you're looking through a very bumpy lens.

The lack of serious mainstream coverage when 2 major American political academics saying that Americas relationship with it's closest ally is one way and very harmful is again a revelation.
( of course we have the obligatory outrage at the effrontery of it all but the discussion has largely been marked by it's absence)
I look in Google expecting it to be alive with talk and all I get is obscure mid western newspapers and Arab commentary.
What does it take for a democracy to be able to function?
These ideas are not going away.
If we get a strike on Iran as the lobby clearly wants (my my their bravura with others lives!) then you will have to have this discussion.
The Iranians understand and clearly are looking foreward to it.
America. wake up.

Hi, guys...

What a lively discussion on this very HOT subject! Let's do something worthwhile though. Instead of discussing issues outside the subject at hand - which is the research work of M&W - let's focus our energy to the points raised by these two professors. I suggest that everyday we tackle one point - just one - and let the deniers provide evidence to prove that it is wrong. I will start today with this point:

Mearsheimer & Walt (M&W) states in page 4: "Israel is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, an exemption that makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the United States opposes, like building settlements in the West Bank."

Hint: To prove this wrong, either provide another recipient country which does NOT have to account too for how the aid is spent or an verifiable evidence that Israel is indeed making an account for it. Please note that a justification of why Israel is the only recipient will not disprove their statement. On the contrary, it will prove M&W correct.

JVD -

You are mixing together a number of different posts so let me paraphrase..you claim that you could make the argument that Russia has a lobby 60 times more powerful than Israels based on the number of Chechnyans they have killed compared to the number of Palestinians killed by the Israelis -

My initial response was"

"...The other stuff is just a smokescreen - are there many governments who have committed crimes worse than Israel's, of course. Unfortunately the world is full of morally repugnant people and governments. Does this mean Israel should be free from criticism, I don't think so. Pointing to the warts on others don't make you any prettier...

Also I am not sure these countries are held up as paragons of virtue, beyond reproach as Israel is. "

Your next response:

Angus the other stuff you say is a smokescreen. Here we are debating two scientists who don't use the scientific method on something so critical as US National Security and when I point out a similar theory that does use a scientific method you call it a smokescreen.

my response was:

"As for your other rebuttal stuff using the metric of Russian dead blah blah - like I said smokescreen - choose a line or two out on an 83 page paper and design your own projections from that - sorry not buying it."

Let's say for a second that I completely buy your argument - what does it prove? If I am looking at a forest composed of many trees and you show me one plastic one and use that to try and convince me that the forest is not a forest. That does not work for me I'm afraid. I'm more a preponderance of the evidence guy.

So - perhaps I am not as eloquent as you but I don't feel my responses are childish or amateurish as you state.

I actually find your tone arrogant and elitist - but hey that's your right.

History is full of eloquent speakers not all of them were using their talents for good!!

hello! http://www.areaseo.com/contacts/ google pr. SE marketing, High Rankings, SEO consultant. From google pr .

So nobody disagreed with the first point that was stated yesterday. Do I have to assume that, as they say, silence means yes and that M&W are correct? I don’t have another choice. If you don’t agree with me, then give me another choice by refuting it now. Without much ado, we continue cross-examining the other serious points raised by M&W in their research report. Here’s it on page 5:

“Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. Moreover, Israel’s military could not protect U.S. interests in the region. For example, the United States could not rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of Persian Gulf oil supplies, and had to create its own “Rapid Deployment Force” instead.”

Hint: Show that US backing of Israel is indeed cheap and does NOT complicate the former relations with the Arab world. Provide verifiable evidence that Israel did NOT receive $2.2 billion dollars or, perhaps, receive less or that the US gave more than the above amount to another country in the same circumstance. Provide proof that Israel’s relation with the US facilitates the latter relations with the Arab world.

jvd:

You said in your blog with Angus: "Ask arcee if he/shes willing to die to see my unpublished response published." Why do you have to go to other people to ask me? Are you that chicken-hearted to address me directly?

Ha! Ha! Ha! I'm not willing to die to see your unpublished response. On the contrary, YOU should be willing to die to have it posted because unless and until it's posted, the only point of view that the visitors of this website see is my point of view.

It really doesn't matter what you call them -- the fact is that 200,000 individuals were dispossessed of their land. Neither the Ottomans, nor the British, nor the UN, nor Israel had the right to do this. Unless, that is, you believe that might equals right.

hello! http://www.areaseo.com/contacts/ google pr. Professional SEO, pagerank algorithm, Web Site Analysis. From google pr .

hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. About DIRare, Search in Business Category, Yellowpages search. From online directory .

hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. MY yellowpages, SMART Yellow Pages, About DIRare. From online directory .

I'm sorry Mr. jvd but if your talking about raping, killing terrorizing and stealing then I, an American, share no values with Israel. Nor is this arcticle anti-Semetic. It is anti-Zionist perhaps but it should be. It is pro-American because it states truthfully why America should withdraw all help from Israel. They can cry all they want but when I think about all the innocent Palestinians who have sufferedsince the creation of Isreal, I just don't care about Isreal's problems.