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