These questions are especially urgent with a Presidential election coming up.

Ho.  Ho.  Ho. 

I see you get your ideas from fantasies like "Superman" with lines like "Clark Kent: Mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet", so you make Walt and Mearsheimer "mild-mannered political scientists".

MJ, you state that your 20 years of experience in Congress has shown that they are subjected to "constant pressure to support status-quo policies on Israel". Well, members of Congress are subjected to "constant pressure" to support all sorts of lobbies like the farmers which of course leads to higher food prices for everyone, the Greek lobby which because of Cyprus and other problems causes problems with America's NATO ally Turkey, the Mexican lobby which wants liberal immigration policies which affect millions of Americans, etc, etc.
In any event, who says you are correct in saying that "status-quo" policies are wrong? The predecessors of your Israel Policy Forum lobbied for years to bring veteran terrorist leader Arafat to Israel which the Israeli gov't foolishly did, leading to his taking control of the Palestinian population, brainwashing them to support suicide bomber terrorism leading to unprecedented numbers of Jews and Arabs to be killed.
Again, you repeat the canard that most American Jews don't support AIPAC and what you dismiss as "pro-Israel" policies. Again, I repeat that if the voters DIDN'T support these policies, the politicians would have taken notice and done what you want. The fact that they don't is because most American Jews DO more or less support AIPAC's efforts or at least don't object to them feeling that Israel's gov't is the best one to determine what is best for Israel's interests, not MJ and his Israel Policy Forum or other such groups.

I am now going to add something that will no doubt raise the hackles of many who participate in this group, but it has to be said:

In Berlin in 1920 people said the same thing "The JEWS have too much influence". Of course, they were well-meaning Germans, out for the best for their country, just like W & M are looking out for America's interests.

This is a test. My posts don't seem to be posting.

I'm there right now. I think most Israelis are glad that Aipac owns Congress. At the same time, I think they are desperate to have the conflict end so they can get on with building their country. Unlike Aipac, Israelis will support any deal like the Clinton parameters. I dont think they know that Aipac wouldn't.
Mainly, I think that Israelis don't think Americans understand their situation. They do understand that so long as the American government is providing the aid, America has the right to weigh in on what Israel needs to do. Or give back the money.

Eddie George, you are right. But I stick to the common usage so that people know what I'm talking about.

Every day, my confusion deepens as I ponder the question, "Why should I care?"

You raise an important issue here. You are correct, the election results can be interpreted as supporting a "Leftist" position. However, that is a major over- simplification. For example, the Israeli newspapers today are reporting that Olmert has agreed, in his discussions with Abu Mazen, to the principle of 100% withdrawal to the pre-67 lines, acceptance of responsibility for the "suffering of the Palestinian people" in the War of Independence without accepting the Right of Return (let's see if Abu Mazen will accept that!) and handing over Judaism's holiest place, the Har HaBayit (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Sharon explicitly rejected all these concessions before he left the scene. Does that mean that those who voted for Sharon's Kadima party support these far-reaching concessions? Or let's go back in time, to the 2003 elections. Sharon EXPLICITLY rejected the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif in the Gaza Stip which Amram Mitzna and the Labor Party were advocating in the election campaign. Sharon won a huge victory in the election. He then turned around and did the opposite of what he promised and destroyed Gush Katif. Is this what the voters who voted for Sharon's Likud wanted?

The fact is that Israeli voters are more "right-wing", or what you call "pro-Likud) than the media presents it and are a majority in Israel. The fact that Sharon and the Likud betrayed their voters in 2005 by destroying Gush Katif left "Right-wing" voters very confused as for what to do. I, along with many people I know ended up voting for parties that did not cross the electoral threshold and so we are not represented in the Knesset at all. We did this in order to register a protest vote. Many others did not vote at all. This election had the lowest turnout in history, so what you call the "pro-Likud" camp is largely disenfrachised in the Knesset and in public life (i.e. the media and the coercive arms of the government).
However, this group is still present in the body politic. Those in power are aware of this. This explains why the gov't has been slow to deal with the wrongly-labelled "illegal outposts" in Judea/Samaria (they are almost without exception NOT illegal but this is not the place to get into the details of this matter). Now Sharon gave a committment to his master in the White House, President Bush, to take these down (who says he has a right to give away people's homes like this?) and we keep hearing that there is constant pressure by the White House to do something about it. It must be remembered that many Jews in Israel have searing memories of the destruction of entire communities in Gush Katif that were built up with blood, sweat and tears over more than 3 decades, on land that was Jewish long before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and seeing Arabs burning down the synaogogues there. Many also remember the police violence at Amona where many idealistic people, including decorated army veterans and officers were severely beaten on orders from Olmert because his polticial spin advisers thought it would help him in the upcoming election. Actually, he dropped in the polls sharply after that.
These things have built up a LOT of anger in many Israelis and the gov't does have to take this into consideration, even if they despise this part of the population.

The bottom line is that things are more complicated than they seem in the media, and what you call the "pro-Likud" Right is more powerful, both in Israel and the US, than many think.

MJ:

You lament the hysteria where little exists. Yes Foxman is doing his thing, but most people are doing anything but being hysterical.

For a comprehensive overview, and I believe an appropriate assessment of the W and M book by another American Jewish dove, I encourage all of you to check out what Dan Fleshler has written over at Realistic Dove.

There are other ways to address M and W. This American Jew spoke to 300 congregants this past Saturday in my former conservative Jewish congregation out in Plainview, New York. Yea, out there on Long Island, in the belly of the beast.

I addressed W and M's upcoming book and their thesis and I took on their assertion, as I have done at TPM, that the Israel Lobby is what drove America to the Iraqi desert. But I also cautioned that W and M are not anti-semites; that we had to listen to what they were saying; that AIPAC et al does exercise extraordinary influence in Washington; and that with this extraordinary influence comes a responsibility on the part of the American Jewish community to always make sure that we place America's interests first.

I concluded by stating, perhaps for the first time ever from the bima at that shul, that I unequivocally recognize the national aspirations of the Palestinian people, and that doing so was in America's interest. And afterwards I was greeted with hugs and tears from dozens of people who live in that longest of islands in the belly of the beast.

MJ, you have an important message to share, but you just don't do it on the Cafe. You stoke flames here MJ, and you're doing it again. I respect you and what you do in real life. But I think you play games with emotions on the TPM Cafe. I don't mean to offend you but I think you and I have been honest with each other in the past and there's no reason to cease doing so now.

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

MJ: First, thanks for a great post and analysis, as always. What you say is so commonsensical, it's hard to see why anyone would disagree with it.

As to the lobbyist argument, however, I have a question. WM agree that lobbying of all kinds is legitimate under our current system; that many if not all interest groups do it; that lobbying sways public policy in ways that aren't necessarily good for the public.

Recently, there was an article in WaPo about the baby formula lobby getting the government to dilute a government ad campaign warning about the dangers of NOT breast feeding. The consequences of this lobbying effort could be poorer health for millions of babies.

So, my question is this: If MW feel that the "Israel or Likud Lobby" has "too much power," what do they think is a practical, legal and Constitutional solution to the problem? No lobby is going to pull its punches, because its JOB is to influence policy.

My thought is: Congresspeople with the courage to think, act, and speak for themselves according to what they think is right. They may lose some money; they may cause lobbyists of all stripes to fund their opponents. And kissing good-bye to big checks is hard.

But Dean and Obama have shown that it is possible to raise huge sums directly from small constituents via the Internet, in effect, bypassing the big money people. This can be done now without any of the difficulties of passing public funding of elections.

My worry with MW's thesis is that it easily leads to the scapegoating of one group--especially if MW don't have a legitimate solution to propose. Simply saying that one group has too much power doesn't help much if: 1) they are doing what all lobby groups do; 2) they aren't doing anything illegal or untoward. What is one to do: Ask them to try less hard to put across their agenda?

So my question to MW would be...what do you propose?

Your comments are welcomed.

Well MJ, you are absolutely correct that I do not understand Hebrew well enough to read the Hebrew press. I do read Haaretz in English and I do read the Jerusalem Post. I also read the Forward regularly and the Jewish Week. I take the WSJ for what it is worth.

So if you want to cite to "hysteria" it's your post. Show it, but when you do so, don't forget that you are hardly the only American Jew who is not screaming fire in the moviehouse in response to this book.

And, now, since I've been told that all I do on here is talk about Israel, I yield the floor to all who have something else to say.

Shabbat Shalom and G-d Bless America.

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

It makes no sense for the US to give "NATO-like" guarantees to Israel. The whole concept of NATO is "collective security" and "an attack on one is like an attack on all". The problem with your proposal, MJ, is that Israel's enemies include (supposed) "friends" of the US like Saudi Arabia and Egypt (notwithstanding Egypt's so-called "peace agreement" with Israel). How can the US go to war with its own Arab allies? Thus, such guarantees would be meaningless and would really mean the end of Israel as an automous, sovereign state.

I have family who live in Israel, love the country, and love the people. But I do not agree that Israel is essentially right-wing.

I find the diversity of views on the occupied terrritories staggering - e.g. I have a cousin who lives on the West Bank, and another cousin who refuses to visit the family because he regards the occupation as immoral - but underlying all the differences is a recognition that the Palestinians' situation is not acceptable either. With the last election, where Kadima and Labor emerged as the dominant political parties, I believe this showed that in terms of security and the peace-process, a majority of Israelis are on the same page.

My main point however is that defining the AIPAC lobby as pro-Israel is problematic. And I happen to think pro-Likud is a better label, but I am open to other suggestions.

"...if the voters DIDN'T support these policies, the politicians would have taken notice and done what you want." Really? Where's the approval rating of Congress right now - at about 10%? What's the gripe from the public? Congress is not doing what the voters want done. Congress, it seems could care less what the voters want. Members of Congress do care tremendously about the money coming into their coffers and are certainly well-aware of where it's coming from.

AIPAC supporters are politicians' cash cows. Multi-million dollar campaigns will eventually bring in the votes - unfortunately.

Well, MJ is big Fat lier, He made a promise not to comment on Israel and he broke his promise.
with the comments that spread hate.

In any case, I challenge people who don't like AIPAC,
go to http://aipac.org/
and point to any lies, objectionable/right wing opinions or anything else that you don't agree with.

"For the vast majority of us who care deeply about Israel"

MJ, you don't care about Israel.
In your previous post you promoted guy who advocated one state solution and the return of refugies to Israel. With friends like MJ, Israel doesn't need enemies.
You don't have to care for Israel, but please be honest, why you have to pretend?

I doubt we have any collective-security agreements with S.A. or Egypt.

And consider that several members of NATO have fought vicious wars against each other in the fairly recent past, before the treaty.

BTW, why the scare-quotes around the Egypt-Israel peace? Did they fight a war we missed, after signing the treaty?

"I assert that W&M are anti-Semitic, and if you disagree, then so are you, unless you are just lying instead." Is this just too-subtle-for-me satire?

yeah, it was quite amusing to hear Foxman confirm what W+M said just minutes earlier; you can't criticize Israel or the Israel lobby in any way whatsoever without being compared to anti-semites, if not called an anti-semite. Foxman is an ass. Israel is NOT a sacred cow.

Ya know, davai, this discussion thread was going along quite nicely on topic, reasonably intelligently and civilly, until you brought up the the personal stuff.

How about pretending that you don't know any of these people? Because, in actuality, you don't. It's always when it gets personal that forums turn to shit. (I honestly don't know why people don't see that, and instead go looking for sparring partners and their converse, camaraderie, and look to pick out individuals to stereotype and turn into straw men to knock down. Sticking to attacking the argument, not the person, always seems to work out so much better.)

You're most welcome, and I'll take a look at my in-box. Thank you also for the Realist Dove site...looks very interesting.

How does it come to pass that both nations are led down the dark path by so-called "experts" who have been so consistently wrong in their predictions?

How can it be anti-semitic to criticize AIPAC's level of influence when most Jews in Israel and the US do not share their goals?

Call it Kool-Aid or snake oil, it's time to spit it back in the faces of those who would lie to us and manipulate our democratic process in the service of another nation, or small group of nefarious special interests.

MJ made a promise not to comment on Israel?

Someone who works for the IPF isn't going to comment on Israel?

I'd be very surprised if he made that kind of promise.

I'm just a some-time reader, so maybe I missed it. Maybe you can reprint it.

On September 7, 2007 - 11:03am mjrosenberg said:

You should care because this damn conflict can blow back on us here in America (it already did once, at least in part).

I dearly hope you are not referring to the attacks of 9/11, even with your cute disclaimer "at least in part." Yes, I thought when the planes hit that it must have something to do with Israel and the Palestinians, and so was surprised that BinLaden's first statement(s) did not reference the Palestinians at all. As I remember it was almost an afterthought by the time he got around to dragging your favorite conflict into his list of grievances, many days later.

I just don't buy into the idea, posited by some of your friends, that if we would just sever our relationship with Israel all would be hunky-dory. I suggest those in search of non-opinionated history read this George Friedman piece on stratfor.com -- http://tinyurl.com/yvmxk4 -- which contains actual facts.

Am I wrong? Show me.

UPDATE: I found this in a piece by Robert Fisk written 9/22/01 for the Sydney Morning Herald.

But this crime was perpetrated - it becomes ever clearer - to provoke the United States into just the blind, arrogant punch that the Pentagon is preparing.

Bin Laden has described to me how he wishes to overthrow the pro-American regimes of the Middle East, starting with Saudi Arabia and moving on to Egypt, Jordan and the other Gulf states. In an Arab world sunk in corruption and dictatorships - most of them supported by the West - the only act that might bring Muslims to strike at their own leaders would be a brutal, indiscriminate assault by the US.

Bin Laden is unsophisticated in foreign affairs, but a close student of the art and horror of war. He knew how to fight the Russians who stayed on in Afghanistan, a Russian monster that revenged itself upon its ill-educated, courageous antagonists until, faced with war without end, the entire Soviet Union began to fall apart.

It strikes me that the terms used here are misconstructed.

The "Israel Lobby" is no such thing. That lobby doesn't represent anything more than a single faction of the Israeli body politic.

But by claiming to represent all of Israel it deforms both American and Israeli politics.

Perhaps we should rephrase. Call it the "Likud-Israel Lobby" or the "Barking Mad Israel Faction Lobby".

I think we need to come to grips that Israel is a larger and more diverse place politically.

I also begin to think that the extremist faction that controls the lobby, uses it not just to manipulate and deform behaviour in America, but with America as a lever, they have an advantage in Israeli politics that is unjust and undeserved.

The sooner they lose that privileged place in both American and Israeli politics, the better for everyone.

MJ,
1. How can you explain your support for NIR ROSEN who advocate the destruction of Israel and still call yourself a friend of Israel:
"NIR ROSEN: What needs to happen at this point is a one-state solution, where Palestinian refugees are allowed to go back to their homes, where Israel is a state for Jews and non-Jews alike, a state for its citizens. And this one-state solution is inevitable."

2. I do not support particulal policies, I as well as most of the friends of Israel (Jews and non-Jews)support Israeli people and trust their wisdom.
It doesn't mean that from time to time they make mistake. In examples you provided Iraeli people and their leaders possibly made mistakes.
What it had to do with lobby? Do you think that American friends of Israel should second guess every decision of Israeli people and their leaders?

"Nobody has convinced me that the best course for a secure and safe Israel is a different one then a negotiated peace with the Palestinians."

Can you point me to any website of any
"Lobby" organization that doesn't agree with your statement?

If America assumed a position of complete neutrality and disengagement, any conflict there wouldn't blow back here, any more than it would blow back on, say, Japan or Inner Mongolia.

We no longer have any strategic interest in Israel. We have a strategic interest in the oil owned by the people who seem to hate Israel. But as for Israel itself, as with Iraq, they hate us because we are there. There's no rational reason for us to be there, not at our current levels.

And as with Iraq, I think that if we weren't there big brothering the situation, it would force the combatants to choose between total war and rational diplomacy. Our support only enables and perpetuated the hate on both sides.

I agree with you - we should guarantee the security of Israel through some sort conditional NATO-like agreement. We should also offer the same guarantee to Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Lebanon and Egypt. We will protect Israel from Syria and Syria from Israel - that sort of thing. But that should be the limit of our involvement in the region.

I'm guessing that MJ is on the left of Beilin.
How many people voted for people like Beilin
in the last elections?
What do you know about AIPAC that suggests to you that they now are pro-Likud and not pro-Kadima or pro-Labor?

" Unlike Aipac, Israelis will support any deal like the Clinton parameters. I dont think they know that Aipac wouldn't."

Any prove? What was Aipac position in 2000?

"who live there the same rights"
Everybody who lives in Israel have the same rights.

And the common usage validates the right and demeans the left - that rhetoric is a huge part of the problem. A lot of people assume that the overwhelming majority of Israelis support the ultra-right positions because of rhetoric like yours. The Israeli left - which is healthy and huge - gets virtually no attention in the media either here or in israel. And if we are to resolve this problem, then we must give as much attention as possible to the israeli voices that support an aggressive peace policy with the Palestinians. Something like 48% of Palestinians support the basic treaty offered up by Clinton and then the Geneva Initiative and something like 64% of Israelis do. That's enough to do business but I guarantee you most people following this discussiion would expect the numbers were reversed.

It's incredibly important to sort the Israeli right out from the interests of Israel in general. To do otherwise, is to smear a decent and unheard people with the actions and inclinations of sociopaths with megaphones and money.

"We will protect Israel from Syria and Syria from Israel - that sort of thing. But that should be the limit of our involvement in the region"

:-)

Their basic point is simple. Israel is not worthy of American support.

No they do not argue that. They only argue that Israel is not worthy of the level of American support it currently receives.

renato,

I'm just waiting for someone to call me an anti-semite....

Trollish as this is, I take back my initial zero rating, because, on further consideration, renato is only being much more honest than the routine pretentious whining about "stifling debate."

The term Walt and Mearsheimer use is "the Israel lobby". To focus only on the pro-Likud portion of that lobby would be to distort their point. They do not argue that advocacy and lobbying on behalf of another country is unusual or illegitimate; nor are they primarily concerned with whether that lobby is extremist or gives excessive support to right-wing Israeli governments as opposed to left-wing Israeli governments - that is a separate issue. Their point is simply that the entire Israel lobby has, in their view, too much influence on the foreign policy of the United States.

Take any other country you want and the point is the same. Suppose there is an organized pro-Poland lobby. Suppose that lobby supports the interests of Poland as seen by the broad mainstream of public opinion in Poland, so that there is nothing extremist about it. If that lobby were to grow very, very powerful, then US politicians would begin to defend a foreign policy that was more and more in line with the preferences and interests of mainstream Poles. The lobby might even grow so powerful that US foreign policy almost never diverged from Polish preferences.

But clearly, the interests of the United States and Poland at least sometimes diverge. Certain things that are good for Poland might not be good for the US, and vice versa. If then, the US practices a 100% Poland-approved foreign policy, it is probably not practicing a foreign policy that is consistently in the best interests of the United States.

This is all Walt and Mearsheimer are saying, as I understand them. They think that the Israel lobby has reached such a position of strength that they have been successful in getting the United States to pursue Israel-friendly foreign policies that are not, in fact, in the best interest of the United States. The point would probably remain, even if the Israel lobby leaned more toward the Israeli left wing than they do now, because no matter what kind of government leads Israel, Israel's interests and US interests are not in perfect harmony.

Hmmm,

..."anti-semitic" does NOT mean "anti-Jew".

Linguistic integrity aside, Jews did not invent the term "antisemitism" and all its forms.  People who have no use for Jews did.

Mr. Rosenberg, while you're at it, please refer me to an AIPAC publication that criticized-- in even the mildest terms-- Israelis for executing the 1979 accords with Egypt, the 1981 Israeli withdrawal from the Yamit settlement in the Sinai as part of that treaty, the 1994 treaty with Jordan, the 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon, the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and the 2007 meetings between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbass.
You lie through your teeth when you make AIPAC the bogeyman because you KNOW that if the democratically elected Government of Israel decides to do a deal for peace, AIPAC will not criticize it or any American politician who supports that deal.

Having worked at AIPAC for 4 years, as editor of Near East Report, I can tell you that it does not divulge its strategies in its publications. Wise operators do not put it in writing!

bslev,

So, my ignorance [sic] aside, where is the hysteria that MJ asserts he has seen?

The hysteria seems most prevalent where manufactured by Walt's and Mearsheimer's publishers (see the Forward editorial).

Perhaps MJ thinks there should be a presumption of hysteria, and the burden should be on those who dispute the presumption to rebut it?

Haven't you heard?  9/11 changed everything.  Guilty-until-proven-innocent is a much easier standard than the other way around.

It's not an honest explanation.

Isn't it fair to say that the main goal of a peace treaty is peace? The friendship-building measures are good, too, and I suppose Israel could raise the issue of Egypt not fulfilling these goals. Has it?

Hmmmm,

If you put a light on a house, it does not make it a lighthouse.

If you put butter on a fly, it does not make it a butterfly.

I am sure that you must know this and simply choose to consistently ignore it, but "anti-semitic" does NOT mean "anti-Jew".

I'm not saying it's the best word to mean what it means. However, you can't simply declare that the word means something other than what it actually means. did you look it up in the dictionary? Did you do any research what so ever on the origins of the word?

You clearly have not. So, I find it particularly strange that you include, with your incorrect information, the smarmy comment about "must know this and simply choose to consistently ignore...". Seeing as how the dictionary is readily available both in print and online, I believe the charge of intentionally ignoring the actual meaning of the word falls on you.

In case you are just too lazy, the following is from the American heritage dictionary:

an·ti-Sem·ite (?n't?-s?m'?t', ?n't?-)
n. One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

—Related forms
an·ti-Se·mit·ic /?æntis??m?t?k, ?ænta?-/ Pronunciation[an-tee-suh-mit-ik, an-tahy-] adjective

"anti-semitic." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 07 Sep. 2007.

Hmmmm, Please let us know what you think about this.

So, there is no protection against Hisbolla?

Got a suggestion? Everybody else's efforts have failed.

How does a city protect against random murders? It increases police presence, along with community relations work so the presence is welcome, and throws in social and economic programs. 

The best protection would be a healthy society on Israel's borders. Israel likely can outlast the resentment it faces, but only if it doesn't add to it.

My IPF readers do not need to be enticed into reading my piece by a headline. They are IPF people.

At TPM, I, like all bloggers, go for a good headline. That is why headlines were invented.

"The best protection would be a healthy society on Israel's borders"
Then you don't need NATO protection.

A "5" for candor. But the IPF article has a headline too. Must be quite a distinction to be an "IPF person" as distinguished from bloggers at the TPM Cafe. Maybe you'd like to be really candid and explain the difference between your two groups of loyal readers.

Israel can protect herself against territorial aggression, but something tell be that you think that going after Hisbolla in Lebanon is territorial aggression.

No, it wasn't that because Israel did not capture territory. I accept that there was little choice, politically, but to react somehow to Hizbollah. The actual reaction chosen was not apparently very effective, and had many critics.

What's your suggestion?

Hysteria - absolutely!

A small blogger outlined W&M on his blog. Out of nowhere, two never-before-seen posters showed up, taking up the cause of bashing W&M.

One good thing came up out of it for me, I became aware of for the first time, of the fraudulent Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial". That work was debunked, in part, by Israelis. The fraud seems to be primarily American in origin.

Made it very plain that "Americans claiming to represent Israel" and "Israelis" are two very different things.

The first drive of any institution is survival. I doubt AIPAC would ever want a situation to arise where it is irrelevant, which could arise e.g, if everything quietens down in the Middle East and Israel is just another small country in a community of nations; e.g., think of Latvia or Lithuania in Europe. It would be an exceptional breed of leaders in AIPAC to sincerely be working to making themselves irrelevant. (I've yet to see such human beings.) AIPAC remains relevant only as long as Israel is a indispensable ally in a dangerous region.

I also think that if we citizens of America - if we want to reduce the powers of lobbies in Congress and on our politics in general - we are going to face opposition from guess whom - lobbyists - of which AIPAC is one.

----

To the person who asks what methods are there of determining US interests (aside from counting heads), the answer is that if we're dealing with reality then reality determines it; e.g, no matter how many Americans thought/think invading Iraq is a good idea and in America's interest, it does not make it so.

Mr. Greenbaum is claiming that Walt and Mersheimer's basic point is that Israel is not worthy of American support. As this is not their basic point at all, everything else he writes is irrelevant.

At the core of their argument is that many of the positions advocated by the "Israeli lobby" are not in the long-term interest of Israel and are opposed by the majority of American Jews. But according to Greenbaum, it appears that attacking things that most American Jews disagree with, or that harm Israel, is anti-Semitic because institutions like AIPAC and the ADL are holy and can do no wrong, and anyone who says otherwise must be driven out of the public square.

Overall, Israeli people have shown
wisdom and ability to correct mistakes.
Compare to American people who re-elected Bush.

So I don't think I or you have a better suggestion how to achive peace.

It's drearily predictable that these people will pull out the "anti-Semitic" card any time AIPAC's undue influence over U.S. policy is questioned or even mentioned. The problem is, we're talking about Israel here--not Jews. And Jews aren't the only Semitic culture on the planet.

The pro-Israel lobby rivals even the Church of Scientology when it comes to preemptively smearing anyone who dares to question their righteousness. And now that they seem to have weaseled their way into the fanatic evangelical movement via far-right wackjobs like John Hagee, they pose an even bigger threat to sensible U.S.-centric policy.

It's really time to for U.S. politicians to stand up to the graymail. But will it happen? Probably not. Word is, digging too deep or putting up too much opposition can be a career-ending move. Just ask Jimmy Carter how much power they wield.

OTOH, who cares if he broke the promise?

Nothing was riding on it, yes?

It's clearly an area he's interested in--his life's work, I'd imagine--so it wasn't likely that he'd keep that promise.

But again, who cares.

Ah yes, the 21st Century version of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Oh, with a whole bunch of footnotes (note to all: Even Ann Coulter has footnotes).

Actually, I'm not going to argue that the authors of this book are anti-Semitic, because I haven't read it (although until someone complains about the influence of the pro-Ireland lobby -- and check out the immigration statistics if you doubt one exists -- I'm a little unimpressed with the counter-argument.) The more important point is ... what's the point? So you argue AIPAC has too much power. Tell us: How is that power exercised? I was a congressional aide for a long time too. I had many meetings with AIPAC, and we had a lot of Jews in our district. They have no more real power than any other large-ish lobby ... $5,000 PAC contributions and a message that is only heard by maybe 5% of the population. Tell us too: What would you do about it? I think Exxon-Mobil has too much power. I can't think of much that would work in terms of decreasing it. Can you? And if you can't, what's the point other than to bash Israel? Why aren't you bashing, oh I don't know, China or Russia or or that matter Sierra Leone for human rights violations.

This is why Jews particularly sensitive to anti-Semitism, like survivors and children of survivors, see persecution here. Whenever Jews band together to try and defend themselves and stick up for their rights, like in creating Israel or giving to AIPAC, they get bashed.

By the way, I completely agree that Israel should settle with the Palestinians along the lines of the Clinton plan, give up those horrible settlements and move on. So do most Israelis and so did the Israeli government at the time. It was Arafat who turned it down.

This is an interesting point. And I agree with you. But I think we also get into the weeds a bit on this one, and I'll try to explain why...as soon as I can be coherent about my concerns.

No, no one reasonable thinks that what is going on is on the par of the good old Protocols. What is going on is not secret or unpredictable, it's just that large elements of it just can't survive exposure to sunlight and proper public questioning.

No one says Israel is empirically unworthy. But most or close to all of the arguments the 'Israel lobby' advances are halftruths not worthy of the respect they're given. ("Israel is a democracy", "Israel has Western values", "Israel is a civilized society in a barbaric environment", "Israel is a Jewish state".) In the end serious Western support for is predicated on sympathy/guilt for Jewish suffering, for maybe another generation or two, and politically just about unexploitable, personal-level regard for undegenerate Judaism as a way of life. A.J. Heschel's example outweighs a hundred Meir Kahanes and Joe Liebermans. But will not be enough to outweigh a thousand.

The 'pro-Israel' lobby admittedly doesn't work in a vacuum. The reason many of its bad appeals work is because most Americans have liked the colonial-messianic historical parallelism between the two societies. Both societies have lived by unsustainable selfimages and onesided historical selfrepresentations of a majoritarian class. Both are seeing their triumphalism broken by an unstoppable resurgence of the aboriginal peoples and their messianic or dominionist aspirations failing from within. Their long term decline- well, evolution and slow social, cultural, political, and economic synthesis with their opponent- is masked by reactionary desperations and political backlashes to the Right.

If you read the appropriate American "Christian" literature, and Jewish publications like "Commentary", you can see the basic corruptions to both illustrated quite clearly. The arrogance and entitlement and sense of superior knowledge and power is, of course, the similarity in form. 'We' should nuke Iran, the clever stupidity and moral dissolution of the liberals, the deeper wisdom of killing morally good things like universal health insurance for children, et cetera. But the roots are all about leveraging the power now available to resurrect a past and aggressively 'defend' and create more iniquities in the present. I think we all know the neo-Puritan crud the Christian Right wants. On the 'pro-Israel' side, the unstated (and unstateable) ideal seems to be a hegemonic state which wages war against and annihilates Hitler and Stalin retroactively, that routs and disperses the barbaric Arabic hordes with ease, and a society essentially an idealized, fundamentally secularized, version of the not-so-very-Semitic-looking Ashkenazim of the Jewish Pale.

About all I have to say about the "anti-Semitism" charge is that it seems to be mostly a preferred defense against critiques of morally dubious tribal behaviors and objection to its dogmas. It seems to get used routinely by the Ashkenazi side in the continued German Jewish-Ashkenazi spats, e.g. Dershowitz calling Finkelstein an anti-Semite. I just hope that running misuse doesn't degrade the charge of anti-Semitism to a corrupt and morally dubious one in the public mind.

not so. What about the neighborhoods in Tel Aviv that do not allow Arabs to buy homes.

Did I know that most Jews voted Kerry? I don't remember; I'll take your word. I'll believe it, and say it implies "most Jews" is not synonymous with AIPAC.

The question on this thread is AIPAC, right? Was it obvious they had no position? I thought it pretty obvious they were pleased to see Bush re-elected.

I'll admit no personal expertise on the issue, no special insight or connections, but I do resent being told what is obvious and what I know.

I don't think I agree with you here.

Formally, yes, this appears to be their argument. But let's suppose that AIPAC were a left-leaning organization pushing the US to mediate a lasting agreement between I-P with a sovereign Palestinian state being one of the goals.

Let's suppose further that Israel were actively pursuing peace with the Palestinians and even investing lots of money to build up Palestine into a vibrant economy.

Let's also suppose that Israel were trying to spread peace and prosperity throughout its immediate region and were working hard at developing technologies solving the ME and African water crisis.

Even in this case, Israel's and the US's interests would sometimes diverge.

But, would MW, or anyone else, be arguing that the US was too involved with Israel--was too supportive of Israel? I think not. The beef is fundamentally political and policy-oriented. MW don't like the lobby's politics (rightwing) and don't like Israel's actions toward the Palestinians and, perhaps, its other Arab neighbors.

Seems a strong point. Since it is filtered through Wilkerson, and he is mainly arguing about Iraq, he may be soft-pedaling when he says: "...the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran..."

I've heard a bit here and there that implies the Iran warnings are a little less cautious than implied, but you do make the point that Bush was not doing Israel's bidding, more the opposite.

I think the corect numbers are between 60% to 80% of Israelis as well as American Jews as well as most Americans in public polling

That is why I am leaning more and more to the one state with equal rights for all religions kind of solution."

There is already one state, Israel with equal rights for all religions.
There are also bunch of Arab States without equal rights for all religions.
There are also West Bank ang Gaza that can be independent or join any of Arab states, such as Egypt or Jordan if they decede to live in peace in Israel.

I hope you don't mean that there should be one state in Middle East including all Arab states and Israel or some kind of state incliding Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, West Bank, Gaza, Egypt and Israel.

Arafat turned down the Camp David offer in the summer of 2000 and a great many people think he was right to do so. His unwillingness to jump on the possibility of a better agreement at Taba is where I think one could blame him. He thought the new Bush would be like the old Bush and that he could get a better deal with him than under Clinton. A bad miscalculation. But I don't think that Bush and Sharon should be absolved for their share of the blame, as if Sharon's total lack of interest in offering the Palestinians a fair peace offer is somehow acceptable while Arafat's dithering is morally wrong. Bush, of course, is blameless, because he's too stupid to know what he's doing.

Well, it's expectable for a country at war, which is what most of Israeli society thinks it is.

Problem is, it's a war it won't win. But the government carries on as if it might. It's convinced that the sequence of events that matter are segregation, Palestinian attacks, Israeli incursions, killings of armed Palestinians, armistice, retreat, negotiated pseudopeace.

The Palestinian view is unclear to me. But I think the real game is for Israelis to quietly negotiate an inofficial, identical, and decency-based peace with one Palestinian faction after another, starting with the most willing. The military back-and-forth is a background.

It's probably too sophisticated for either side to pull off, with too many people willing to sabotage it. But the concept and attempt would be an acknowledgment that war is not the totality of the present condition of both sides, let alone the truth of coexistence in the long run.

First, just to be clear, Mearsheimer and Walt are not even remotely left wingers. They are foreign policy realists.

It is probably true that if Israel pursued all of the policies you describe, and both these policies and strong US-Israeli relations were supported by the Israel lobby, Walt and Mearsheimer might not be writing books and articles complaining that the Israel lobby was having too much of an influence on the foreign policy of the United States. But that is because in that case, even though the interests of the United States and Israeli policies would still sometimes diverge, they would not diverge nearly so often, or to such a degree as they do now. That's because in those counterfactual circumstances, Israel would itself have many more friends in the region, and would be pursuing policies that were much more conducive to happy US relations with the rest of the region. Being a great friend of Israel would thereby carry less of a burden, and help to cement relations with the rest of the region, not undermine them. Therefore, if the Israel lobby were the main domestic actor responsible for the US pursuing these beneficial policies, it's influence would not be excessive, but just right.

I'm still reading the book, but I believe that in its bluntest terms, the W&M case comes down to this: there are a lot more Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East than Israelis, and they are spread out over a larger area. Those Arabs and Muslims sit on top of a lot of very valuable oil, and occupy geopolitically strategic locations. Consequently, it would behoove the United States to have lots of Arab and Muslim friends in the region. Our current relationship with Israel severely damages our ability to establish and maintain those relationships. Since the degree of US support for Israel is largely explained, they think, in terms of the influence of the Israel lobby, that lobby is therefore having a harmful and excessive influence on US policy.

But imagine an alternative world in which Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors were all very, very friendly, and in which the Arab and Muslim states still possessed great amounts of oil, just as in our world. And imagine that the Israel lobby was quite powerful, and was promoting continued good relations with the states of the Middle East. But suppose an even more powerful Christianist lobby in the United States was working to undermine US relations with Muslim peoples and states, and to provoke a new Crusade. In that case, Walt and Mearsheimer would probably be writing a book called The Christianist Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in which the Christianist Lobby was criticized for its excessive influence on US foreign policy, and its methods of influencing US foreign policy were described in great detail. They would be talking about how politically difficult it is to criticize the Christianist lobby in the United States, and how a politician's doing so ran the risk of that politician being smeared as anti-Christian, and targeted for punishment and defeat. The Israel lobby would be the good guys in this story, pushing US policy in a more beneficial direction.

So, Walt's and Mersheimer's point is that the United States has concrete interests in the region that are seriously damaged by its current intense support for Israel, given the relationship Israel actually has with the peoples in the region. It's a mistake to think Walt and Merasheimer are motivated by the plight of the Palestinians, left wing sentiments about anti-imperialism and oppression, or any of those other reasons for criticizing Israel that are popular on the left. Nor that it is primarily a question for them about who is right in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They look at these issues in a much cooler, realpolitik manner.

Walt and Mearsheimer do recognize that US support for Israel is often defended by others in moral terms. Although I don't think these moral considerations play much of a role in Mearsheimer's and Walt's own thinking, which is heavily oriented toward strategic considerations, they consider the moral case on it's merits. They describe that moral case as "dwindling" and assert that it is "not compelling."

"Our current relationship with Israel severely damages our ability to establish and maintain those relationships"
I'm not sure it's true. Give me example of oil producing country with whom US have bad relationship because of Israel?

BTW, What about Venezuela?

Well, MJ broke his vow, and I call him on it.
He invited people to do that.

As you can look up in this thread I made a lot of arguments that were not personal at all.

But I have to admit that I don't like MJ bacause as he almost admited that his comments are hysterical in order to get better rating.
I don't like people like Rush Limbaugh for the same reasons.
I think he is the worst offender among TPM conributers.

The US gave Israel its guarantee after the 1956 war that it would keep the Straits of Hormuz open. When push came to shove in 1967, the US failed to live up to those guarantees.

1. Iran. If not for Israeli concerns about the Iranian regime, we would likely have patched up our differences with the mullahs a decade ago. We have rebuffed several overtures from Iran, because Israel's friends scream bloody murder every time there is any inkling of diplomatic progress.

2. Formerly, Iraq. One of the major impediments that stood in the way of a rapprochement with Hussein's government during the 90's were Israeli complaints that Saddam was one of the leading "state sponsors of terror" because of his payments to families of suicide bombers, and agitation for his removal. Leading up to the Iraq War were the activities of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, the major boosters of which were the same neoconservative, Israel First cadres who formed PNAC.

3. The major problem is that even where we have had a decent relationship with the governments of Middle East oil-producing countries, we have a shitty relationship with the people across the region. Our name is mud there. We are held in lower esteem in the Middle East than in any other region in the world. And complaint #1 on every list of regional complaints is our favoritism for Israel. That means that our policy in the region has been, and will continue to be, to support our cronies and to prevent popular governments from gaining power. For example, we are currently in the process of engineering a slow-motion overthrow of the Iraqi government, a government which represents the majority of Iraqis, all because that government is a little too close to Iran, a country over which Israel is, not coincidently, pulling its hair out. This is a debilitating long-term drain on our relationship with the region.

The Israeli factor distorts everthing.

Well, lally, be a good sport, not a sore loser.

Well, generally, if you are anti-semitic, you're not that fond of Israel. However, the more interesting question is: "if you are anti-Israel are you an anti-semite?"

The answer is, of course, "it depends". You may be, you may not be. I think one of the best ways to answer that question is to consider how critical one is of each and every country that is, in some way, in the wrong.

For example, if one makes 100 critical comments about poor behavior of nations around the globe and and 8 or 9 of them are critical of Israel, maybe you are just a conscientious person who is alert and aware of the international scene. However, if you make only 10 comments and 8 or 9 of them are critical of Israel then clearly you have a disproportionate interest in that one country. At that point, you have to ask: Do you have a special feelings for Palestinians or do you have special feelings for Israelis. It could be either. But it's got to be one of them.

Treating Israel as if it's transgressions are the only important ones on the planet can lead to the odd situation in which legitimate complaints can come across as an anti-Jewish fetish.

If you think displaced refugees are a problem, then lobby for the Palestinians. But do so for the Iraqis, the Darfurians, the Tibetens, the Native Americans, etc, as well.

If you think that militarism supported by US aid is a problem, then complain about the deals Israel gets. But do so also in regards to the Colombians, the Saudis, and the Ethiopians.

If you think that children dying in war is atrocious, then speak out when the IDF screws up. But do so also when children are conscripted and die in places like Nigeria, the Ivory Coast and Mynamar.

Those folks who can't or won't see tragedy where ever it falls, and instead see it only in the Middle East, and only when Israel is at fault, have only themselves to blame when others call them names like "anti-semite".

Go ahead.

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?

REG: F*** off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Judean People's Front?! We're the People's Front of Judea!

BRIAN: Can I... join your group? … I hate the Romans as much as anybody.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f***ing Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...!

Yesterday I asked Mr. Rosenberg to provide facts to support his charge that AIPAC is hysterical. Specifically, I asked him to cite examples of the Government of Israel, or supportive Senators and Representatives, being criticized by AIPAC when that Governemt signed peace accords with Egypt and Jordan, withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza, and agreed to meet regularly with President Abbass of the PA. Mr. Rosenberg chose to give a one line non-answer saying AIPAC does not publicize its strategies.

Mr. Rosenberg makes a hysterical charge. I ask for proof. Mr. Rosenberg counters with an irrelevancy. And then Mr. Rosenberg and his coterie wonder why no Democrats in Washington except President Kucinich take what he says seriously.

Probably a good image of Iraqi resistance.

Corvid

The authors do not say that there is anything intrinsically wrong about the existence of a pro-Israel lobby. As political scientists, they understand that lobbies are as American as corn in Kansas.

I disagree. Foreign governments should have no right to lobby on Capitol Hill. Period. And we should think seriously about banning any entity that isn't a vote-eligible American citizen from hijacking our government.

If this sounds extreme, I ask you, what's the alternative? I'm an American citizen who can't afford to hire a lobbyist whose interests are in direct and hostile competition with corporations (non-citizens) and foreign governments (non-citizens) who do. How do you justify that?

It's not just Israel. I learned only recently that a majority of members of both houses of Congress belong to something called the "India caucus." What the hell is that? Why does it exist? What are they doing?

Lobbying by totally inappropriate, non-citizen entities whose interests are utterly antithetical to the credible functioning of a democratic republic is common in America, sure. But so are burglary, murder, fatal highway accidents, spitting on the sidewalk and morbid obesity.

Zionista:

"MJ Rosenberg in his capacity within a progressive "Israel Lobby" organization should really know better."

But the sad thing is, MJ does know better. That is why he is at the Israel Policy Forum in the first place, is it not?

Bruce

As I pointed in this thread, Israeli goverment was against war with Iraq.

This, I believe, is quite false, and you can turn to Chapter 8 of Mearsheimer and Walt to get the rundown.

As they document, Beginning in Spring 2002, and continuing throughout the year, Israel's leaders began advocating quite vigorously for the war. Netanyahu, Sharon, Peres and Barak all came to the United States urging action on Iraq - quite openly, with editorials and television appearances in all the major media. Sharon's spokesman Ra'anan Gissen also joined in the campaign. Israel was also feeding the US government intelligence hyping the Iraq threat, much of which later turned out to be false. As 2002 wore on, Israel was especially concerned that the US might decide to put off or defer the attack, and began urging the administration not to delay - again with an open media campaign, along with slightly more private counsel that was nevertheless reported in all of the mainstream media. They were especially concerned by the US decision to get UN authorization for the attack, which they feared would delay or even prevent the war. Barak and Netanyahu again penned editorials in the fall of 2002 - in the NYT and Wall Street Journal respectively - urging prompt action. In February, 2003, Ha'aretz reported that "Israel's military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq."

The Israeli public was behind its leadership. In early 2002, a poll found that 58% of Israelis favored a U.S. attack on Iraq, and by February of 2003, the percentage favoring an invasion had risen to 77.5%

As the war neared, political consultants in the U.S. began to advise the Israelis to tone down the enthusiasm, so as not to produce a backlash in the U.S. And consequent on that advice, Sharon directed his government to keep quiet.

Given the evident disaster of the war, almost all of its backers have, of course, tried to distance themselves from it, and Israel and its most vociferous U.S. allies have worked zealously to shove the Israeli role in the war down the memory hole.

Funny.  I had initially suspected a case of identity theft.  Ultimately, I decided to give you benefit of the doubt and surmised that you had simply sobered up enough to offer a valuable contribution to the overall discussion, and rated the comment accordingly.  One day at a time, Valdron.  Keep coming back!

"Their article is without doubt anti-Semitc"

How so? Name a specific example to support your slander.

"In early 2002, a poll found that 58% of Israelis favored a U.S. attack on Iraq, and by February of 2003, the percentage favoring an invasion had risen to 77.5%"

How about US polls?

Anyway, you choose to believe only information that prove your worldview:
"The Israeli factor distorts everthing".
So obviously you reject the following:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html
"Israeli officials warned the George W Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to the region and urged the United States instead to target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former Bush administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.
immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, said Wilkerson, "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy."

Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."

The warning against an invasion of Iraq was "pervasive" in Israeli communications with the US administration, Wilkerson recalled. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence, and private citizens.

Wilkerson noted that the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran."

I agree with Corvid in spirit.

I think it's wise and healthy for society to be suspicious of lobbies. I suspect that all insular organizations become incompetent and corrupt over time (even if they don't start out that way). Lobbies should have to justify their actions every year of their existence. They should make plain to the world and to their supporters exactly what they do and why, how they are organized and where they get and spend their money.

I remember an arts organization back in my hometown whose entire budget we learned was spent paying the employees of the organization to raise money to pay the employees to raise money to pay the employees. None of the money went to actual artists or helped artists in any way. Oh, the group published a crappy little monthly calendar of arts events, but since it only listed artists who donated, the calendar was useless to the general public. And artists who donated still had no input in the organization's policies. Needless to say, anyone who criticized the organization was accused of not supporting or actively hating art!

MJ's original post questions how much Amercian pro-Israeli lobbying actually helps Israel, and 75% of the comments are about whether Israel is good or bad, whether M & W are good or bad, what is or is not anti-Semitism, what Arafat should have done, blah, blah, blah. One could plausibly troll-rate almost the entire discussion thread.

Oh the inanity.

Tom Wright,

Did I know that most Jews voted Kerry? I don't remember....

The question on this thread is AIPAC, right? Was it obvious they had no position? I thought it pretty obvious they were pleased to see Bush re-elected.

The most conservative polling that I recall from 2004 had shown an overall 3-1 turnout for Kerry-Edwards among the American Jewish electorate (I would suspect that this ratio would vary by precinct). 

As an established lobbying group, I would like to believe that AIPAC would make no overt endorsements of particular parties or candidates, nor could I find any on a cursory search.  Since elections can go either way, it would strike me as unwise at best to dismiss potential legislators and administrations whom AIPAC eventually would have to work with.

That said, it may be useful to note that AIPAC's performances to date have been known to earn the public scorn of Israeli leaders such as Yitzhak Rabin and Yossi Beilin (see Beilin's My Brothers Keeper).

Hrebendorf:

"Buy a decent dictionary--the one you own sucks."

Show me a single dictionary that supports your assertion.

A single one. Go ahead. We are waiting.

Good,
"This, I believe, is quite false, and you can turn to Chapter 8 of Mearsheimer and Walt to get the rundown.

As they document, Beginning in Spring 2002, and continuing throughout the year, Israel's leaders began advocating quite vigorously for the war."

At least we can agree that Mearsheimer and Walt
didn't present complete and honest account of
Israeli leadership opinion about war with Iraq.

"It wasn't just Ranaan Gissin, as the article states - but Saharon, Netanyahu, Barak and Peres."
I don't remember articles, however I doubt that Sharon wrote any article supporting the war.

In any case, it's plausable, that after given private advice not to start war with Iraq, once the pesident of USA made a decision, Israel as loyal friend, supported US effort.

It doesn't tell that somehow Israeli lobby has too much influence over US, it's actually tells
that American lobby has too much influence in Israel.

BTW, for a very few people on this list who are not closet or openly one staters,
the following review can be useful
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/09/03/070903taco_talk_remnick

The Lobby by David Remnick

"threatening academics like Norman Finkelstein "

I'm curious what MJ thinks about academics like Norman Finkelstein.
I'm guessing he is closet admirer of such academics.
In reality the distance between Mearsheimer and Walt whom MJ endorsed and academics like Norman Finkelstein is not that great.

Do you agree, Abdull that people who like Mearsheimer and Walt should like Norman Finkelstein?

If MJ is not admirer of such academics.
why he would not tell what he think?
Very curious silence.

These criticism of the book are baseless.
The fac that Paul Wolfowitz was booed by a pro-Israel crowd is not evidence that he isn't a pro-Israel hawk - its only evidence of how the other pro-Israeli hawks are so willing to punish even small missteps amongst their own group. Walt Mearsheimer point to several instances when even rabidly pro-Israeli folks were slapped around by AIPAC for accidentally appearing not pro-Israeli enough.

hysteria? What, specifically, in my comments do you find to be hysterical?

Do you dispute that it is possible for a fiercely committed minority to overwhelm a lightly committed majority? Do you dispute that this happened in the ante-bellum South? Do you dispute the political success of the NRA?

Hysterical? Please.

But are you saying that the rest of white Southerner opposed slavery or wanted to see it abolished or thought that blacks should have equal rights with whites?

I agree that a highly motivated and well-focussed minority can prevail over a majority--until majorit "wakes up"--but I don't think the South is a good example--at least as far as I know.

This claim:
"Similarly it is with AIPAC. They have enough power to raise a shitstorm against any politician daring to oppose them, and have done so. Politicians know to take such a stance immediately puts them on the defensive. Since the majority within the Jewish community who oppose them are less fervent in their views, they're unable to counter the serious pressure AIPAC is able to bring to bear. They'd rather not obsess about Israel, thus take themselves out of the game."

Give me example where the majority within the Jewish community oppose AIPAC opinion, (if possibly recent)

Abdull,
You are openly one stater, and you like authors who in your opinion advance your cause, so we have really have nothing to argue about.

" really doesnt matter if MJ does or does not like Finkelstein"

It doesn't matter to you, it matter to me,
I try to out him as closet one stater.

In what way isn't it honest?

Since I'm not MJ, I don't know what's going through his mind.

But, given how hot the discussion on I-P gets, I can easily imagine him wanting to bow out and, in a moment of high emotion, making that promise.

More generally, I think it's up to YOU to SHOW that MJ is dishonest in his explanation. The burden falls on you, IMO, to prove your statement.

My default position is to take people at their word. And frankly, MJ strikes me as particularly straightforward and honest in his expression-- even if he isn't always correct.

"I don't think that MJ is a "one-stater" at all"

Why do think so ? Did you read his any comment
agains Norman Finkilstean, or agains the right of return or against one state solution ?

Why did he promote in tpmcafe article of Nir ..
that advocated one state solution ?

You are making assumption that MJ can't possibly be that crazy therefore he is not one-stater.

Despite second-hand, anecdotal reports about how Sharon supposedly warned Bush not to invade Iraq, the public record shows quite clearly that Israel not only pushed hard for the invasion to happen and funnelled falsified "intelligence" about non-existent Iraqi WMDs to help ensure that the invasion did happen, but that they expected the US to go to war against Iran next too.

Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam

JERUSALEM — Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

And...

Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region By James Bennet New York Times February 27, 2003

Israelis have also suggested that that an Iraq war may salvage their economy and even prompt the opposition Labor Party to join Mr. Sharon's coalition in a new government of national unity.

Expressed in its broadest, vaguest terms, that theory has come in for the sort of mockery that the idealistic vision of Oslo's effects suffered from the right. The accusation is the same: fuzzy, wishful thinking.

AND...

Attack Iran the Day Iraq War Ends, Demands Israel by Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas The Times Tuesday, November 5, 2002

ISRAEL’S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete...

Do you have some statistical proof of your assertion?

You are partially correct-the majority of Israelis now believe, like me, that there is no possibility of reaching any sort of peace agreement with the Palestinians because the Arabs can not accept any terms that Israel, even the Left..the FAR Left can live with. However, it is incorrect to call this a "Far-right" position. This is an across-the-board position including Leftists who supported the abortive Oslo Agreements. A Palestinian state is just not in the cards because the Palestinians neither want such a state nor are they capable of running one.

One of the difficulties with MW argument--or perhaps it's what people have made of it, not what they said--is that they seem to confuse, or at least intertwine, several distinct arguments:

• The Israel Lobby has too much power.
• The Israel Lobby gets the the US to take action that conflicts with its real interests.
• Israel is pursuing bad, immoral policies.
• Hard stuff, like oil, is more important than soft stuff like moral principles in foreign policy.

I think you're agreeing with my counter-factual: It's not that that Israel Lobby has too much power. It's that it has too much power AND uses that power for the wrong ends. Unfortunately, the argument one sees all to often stops before the "and."

(This isn't necessarily MW's fault. They can't control what people make of their argument. But most of the heat in the blogosphere centers around the lobby having too much power, representing a foreign power, and the like. That is, what gets people riled is that AIPAC has too much power. Less discussion is given over to what AIPAC actually advocates. This is a worrying tendency in the US body politic, IMO.)

So moving on a bit...

"That's because in those counterfactual circumstances, Israel would itself have many more friends in the region, and would be pursuing policies that were much more conducive to happy US relations with the rest of the region. Being a great friend of Israel would thereby carry less of a burden, and help to cement relations with the rest of the region, not undermine them. Therefore, if the Israel lobby were the main domestic actor responsible for the US pursuing these beneficial policies, it's influence would not be excessive, but just right."

It seems to me that MW have to SHOW this and can't simply assert it (perhaps they do). And that's tough, because it's hard to prove a hypothetical like this. But while this may sound commonsensical, there are also good reasons to doubt it. The influx of Jews to the region and the birth of Israel inflamed Arab opposition from the beginning. It's not clear to me that Arab governments or the "street" were ever going to be happy with a Jewish state, or even a lot of Jews moving into the 'hood.

Similarly, it's hard to believe that it is their great love of their Palestinian brothers and sisters, and anger at their mistreatment, that drives this animosity. Palestinians have been treated abhorrently by most the Arab countries where they have resided. Jordan, for one, and Egypt for another, could have given the Palestinians their own state on the very land that's now so much in dispute. Surely they deserve some of the blame for the current plight of the Palestinians, not just the intransigent Israelis. So, even if Israel makes way for a Palestinian state on a small plot of land--hardly enough for all Palestinians--will the Arab countries follow suit?

In short, I'm skeptical of the claim that if the Israelis played well with others, others would play nice with them. There is also, I believe, the problem of there being a Jewish state in the midst of what Arabs believe should be all Arab land and Arab rule with "protection" for minorities (dhimmis). It's the Jewish "splinter" in the "foot" of the Arab world and their inability to remove it.

So, MW might say, "Well, that might be--but it's the Arabs who gots the oil, so we need to curry favor with them--not with the Israelis who ain't got nothing, but troubles." But is this values-absent approach in which money talks and everything else walks really a good basis for a successful foreign policy? It seems to me the blogosphere is aflame with debate about adhering to international law, human rights and the like, especially with regard to the US's many abuses in this regard.

And then along come MW saying, in effect, that none of that counts; it's all about the oil.

It's the same point with Iran. It seems to me that Israel became worried about Iran when Khomeini started talking tough about the Zionist state and how it ought to vanish. But since Iran gots the oil and Israel doesn't, US foreign policy should drop Israel and curry favor with the theocrats of Iran apparently. Talk about being in a position to blackmail the US into doing their bidding--a claiim often levelled at the Lobby who "blackmails" members of Congress into doing their bidding, or so it is often said.

I have not read the book yet. I did read the article, but it was a while back. But frankly, I was disturbed by the errors about Israel in the article. Especially the one about "blood" being the basis for citizenship in Israel. I understand that they now say that what they meant was that it was the basis for Jewish citizenship in Israel. But, in fact, this is also not true: People can convert to Judaism, and the law of return applies to them as well.

But the use of the word "blood" conjures the "blood libels" of old. Though I don't think MW are anti-Semitic, this point has the aroma of anti-Semitism. (Scheuer, in his book, made a similar point.) Similarly, their point that the Israel Lobby has too much power conjures up the old canard that "Jews control the world." MW probably don't believe this, but again it starts to smell that way after their work filters through the blogosphere a bit.

I think their argument would have been a lot cleaner if they had simply said: "This is what US foreign policy should be and here's why."

There are more things to say, but this enough for now...

But is this values-absent approach in which money talks and everything else walks really a good basis for a successful foreign policy? It seems to me the blogosphere is aflame with debate about adhering to international law, human rights and the like, especially with regard to the US's many abuses in this regard.

Yes I agree with your reservations. I only wanted to make the point that Mearsheimer and Walt are realists, not leftists. Their analysis is that the Israel lobby is successful in getting the United States to do things that are bad for the United States. And they understand "bad for the United States" in fairly practical realpolitik terms related to prosperity and power.

"Take any other country you want and the point is the same."

But MW's point wouldn't be the same, because being Poland's friend isn't "costly" to the US.

Yes, this is their FORMAL argument, perhaps. But as soon as you start assigning values to the a, b, and c in the equation, you don't come out with the same answer.

And if you say, "Well, Poland's been a good neighbor and Israel hasn't," you have to ignore the ways in which the Arab states haven't been good neighbors to Israel.

And then if you say--regressing a bit further--that Israel's birth was an indelible and indefensible act of aggression, then, I think, you've reached a point where no further argument is possible, one way or the other.

But getting back to Poland, for a moment. Sometimes friendships are costly. It was costly to be Poland's friend in WWII. It was costly to be France's friend and England's friend, too. And many Americans felt that the cost was too high. But was it?

I'm not trying to tease Godwin here--I'm making a broader point. Isn't a rational foreign policy almost always, or at least often, a matter of trade-offs? And doesn't coming up with a realist foreign policy involve some sort of cost-benefit analysis?

For example, it's in our interests to be friendly with Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have a lot of oil, and we need a lot of oil. We hold our nose because they are theocracies and oppress their people. And maybe, over time, they'll change. The same point goes for Nigeria, to a degree, and Venezuela.

Similarly, we are friends with Israel because of the history of the Jewish people, the reasons why Israel came into being, and the function it still serves in some cases. It's also one of the few true democracies in the Middle East, and we value democracies. OTOH, we hold our nose because they oppress the Palestinians and are too trigger happy. Nevertheless, perhaps, this too will change.

MW would have done us a real favor--and perhaps all this is in their book--if they had given us insight into how these trade-offs are and SHOULD be calculated by the US to create a pragmatic and moral foreign policy, to the degree these two objectives can co-exist.

Anyway, I will read the book...

Davai, I don't follow the doings of AIPAC. I probably should follow them more, given how much they figure in these debates. My "understanding" is that they are close with right-wing parties in Israel, specifically, Likud. Since I tend NOT to be right-wing in my politics, my bias is against them.

However, you have proffered this challenge to many on this thread, and you appear to know what AIPAC advocates, so why not answer the question yourself? You're in a better position to do this than I am.

"you appear to know what AIPAC advocates"
No I don't know much, I have no insider info.
I've checked out their website, I didn't detect
any right-wing or Likud bias.

with Second Intifada.

I was going to say I haven't studied polling on this issue, nor would I necessarily trust it. I'm sure I have read polls that cut both ways. Much depends on how the questions are asked. Although I did read a story this week which at least somewhat backs up my claims, in the Chicago Tribune - "Youth's bond to Israel loosens"

This jibes with my experiences. Most Jews I know (and I am one too) do not think as AIPAC does. Sure, they almost unanimously wish well the State of Israel and its people, as do I, as does MJ. Inasmuch as they have thought of it at all, they don't adopt hardline anti-Arab positions. They hope for peace, have no idea what it would take to achieve it. They don't know what to think. Above all, they don't obsess about Israel. They are certainly no match for AIPAC which certainly does know what it thinks.

I didn't vote for AIPAC, or its policies, they don't represent me. I'd like to see real debate between AIPAC and others who disagree. But you have to have a pretty thick skin to disagree and that's what I object to. And no, that's not hysterical. No discussion of this topic is allowed to occur without the gratuitous question of the critic's supposed antisemitism being raised. It#39;s been raised in this thread. It's similar to the anti-bellum South in that way - no Southern critic of slavery was allowed to escape vilification as anti-Southern - of course that situation was worse, such critics risked not only vilification but in some cases their livelihoods if not their lives. We're nowhere near there on this issue, but there are similarities.

Do I sound like an hysteric to anyone but davai?

I like the way you put the problem into mathematical terms ("10 comments," etc.), but the math gets fuzzier if you attempt to quantify the influence or effect that any said nation or conflict has on the society of the person under examination for anti-Semitism.

Israel's outsized influence on US policy is a problem that inserts itself into American conversations, and so I think someone might be forgiven if, say, three of four of their critical comments (out of 10) were about Israel. Any more than that, and we can let the anti Anti-Semite darts fly!

If M+S's research is even halfway accurate, then perhaps a better name for many of those who criticize Israel in a manner out of proportion to it's per-capita number of war crimes would be "American patriot."

"This jibes with my experiences. Most Jews I know (and I am one too) do not think as AIPAC does."

EXAMPLE !!! EXAMPLE!!!

Half a kingdom for an example

"I'd like to see real debate between AIPAC and others who disagree."

Yes I would love to, but first give me example of the topic for such discussion.

"No discussion of this topic is allowed to occur without the gratuitous question of the critic's supposed antisemitism being raised. "

No discussion of this topic is allowed to occur without the gratuitous question of the Israeli supporters supposed using the "lobby", and lack of patriotism.

How about we all commit to stop discussing the lobby and antisemitism and instead will discuss the issues on the merit.

So far MJ posting were all about lobby and jewish neocons and so on.
I don't remember he ever discussed the issue on the merit.
Prove me wrong, find s single MJ posting without
words such as lobby, AIPAC, jewish neocon and so on

Did any of you hear Steven Walt and Abe Foxman on NPR's Fresh Air. Walt was calm, cool, and logic. Foxman was nuts, likening Walt to Hitler. This is the Israel lobby at its most insane. Foxman tends to be to the left of Aipac too!

The Links:

Foxman:

Walt:

Gee, I thought I did provide an example. Did you bother to read the Tribune article I linked to? What example could I possibly give that would satisfy you? I have told you that most Jews I know do not think as AIPAC does. Obviously, I cannot prove that, nor can you disprove it. The article cited a study showing a decreasing level of concern by younger Jews about Israel, less obsession about it, if you will.

Do you deny that AIPAC is strongly, fanatically, obsessively concerned about Israel (leaving aside any questions about whether this obsession is good or bad)? If so, you're delusional. There is, therefore, at least some gulf between many Jews and AIPAC. Do you deny it?

Your trouble, davai, is that you can't help yourself from boasting about the power of AIPAC vs its opponents' as you sneeringly did in the remark that started this thread, even as you turn around on a dime and deny any insinuation that this power exists.

So far MJ posting were all about lobby and jewish neocons and so on. I don't remember he ever discussed the issue on the merit. Prove me wrong, find s single MJ posting without
words such as lobby, AIPAC, jewish neocon and so on

Actually, this is trivially easy to do. Just click on MJ's name on the top of this post. It will take you to a page entitled "Recent Posts by MJ Rosenberg" There, after the link to this post, we come to the following

• What Do We Do if Bush Goes To War With Iran?
• Nir Rosen: There Is No More Iraq
• Dems Roll Over And Are Dead

Actually, there will never be a state of Palestine because Israel always wanted to ethinically cleanse all non-jews from their homes and create their mythical Greater Israel, and so has always rejected peace offers and provoked violence.

Mainly I was annoyed by the tone of "as you know".

Thank you for the clarification, Dan K. I am most familiar with Wilhelm Marr's introduction of the word into common usage in the 1880's. I have never seen the earlier reference incorporated into any concise history of the word. But, I'm willing to take your word for it.

Essentially, for the last 120 years, Marr's usage of the word has dictated the meaning. I seriously question the motivations of those who press the claim that it does not.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite a modern dictionary definition that shows otherwise.

Call me an anti-semite - I dare you!!!!!...

Hysterics aside, you must not have read what I wrote very carefully. Or, perhaps I did not write what I meant very carefully.

If you are Jewish, Israeli, or Palestinian, you have a reason to be disproportionately concerned with what goes on in Israel. Moreover, you appear entirely willing to acknowledge that Israel is not unique in having governments which behave in ways that are worthy of condemnation.

There are many critics of Israel, however, that cannot bring themselves to the realization that Israel is a nation and as such behaves like one. That means that they have a military; and they have rules about who is a citizen; and that if attacked they will respond; etc.

I wouldn't call you an antisemite because nothing you write indicates that you are. Frankly, I would bother to call anyone an antisemite because I think antisemitism is generally so beyond rationality that name calling doesn't help. Calling a psychotic a psycho doesn't tend to advance the conversation or help the individual in question (and before you get jumpy, I'm not calling you psychotic either).

There are reasons to care passionately about Israel. There are reasons to devote considerable amount of energies trying to change the situation there. However, if the reasons are that one thinks that Israel is uniquely evil or uniquely illegitimate as a nation, then as I said before, it invites the name calling.

Additionally, I was somewhat careful about my numeric example. I'm talking about folks, and there are many, who focus 80%+ of their complaints on Israel. Nevertheless, the mathematical model is there as a way to express the idea. I wouldn't cling to it (or the specific numbers I mention) as any sort of absolute.

artappraiser.

"I rate you a zero for abusing the ratings system and trying to work against the vision of the website. You shouldn't be empowered to be able to give zeroes, as you don't know how to use them. Giving you a zero helps take that power away from you, and I hope that others do so as well for that reason."

Thanks for the link to Josh's "Basic Guidlines on Comment Rating".

This is his point #5:

"Retaliating against someone else's ratings abuse can be a form of ratings abuse in itself. And it can be very disruptive to the sorts of discussions we're trying to foster. Especially if ratings cliques develop. If someone is abusing the ratings system, bring it up with the management of the site."

I'd forgotten all about that one.

Can you point me where AIPAC say
"we are gonna say up front what is off the table on the Israeli side if there are to be negotiations".

"Go on, tell us. I dare you"
I told you so many times, before, we argued about this several times.

The bottom line, If you want to destroy Jewish state of Israel, you would have to defeat Israel in the war. So far you guys tried so many times and lost it every single time, but who knows ?

"Some day Israel will pay the price and my own dream to be buried in my Jewish homeland will disappear. "
If you were in charge, "your Jewish homeland"
wouldn't be created or would be defeated by now.

"Call me an anti-semite - I dare you!!!!!!!"

No, you are not anti-semite , more likely you are useful idiot, one stater Abdull just love you.

Not sure exactly what you are referring to. However, it sounds, on it's face, to be illegal according to Israeli law. Israeli citizens, at least 20% of whom are not Jewish, all have the same rights, under the letter of the law, to rent or buy property within Israel proper.

If there are land covenants attached to deeds (that amount to private agreements) that restrict who can subsequently purchase residential land, I do not know. But if there are, they are outside the law and would/should be found illegal by a court if challenged.

Could you please be more specific about which areas you are talking about and by what mechanism non-Jews are prohibited from living there?

pkafin - I have gotten to be very sensitive to the name calling I receive on a weekly bassis. I get called an anti-semite and self-hating Jew every single week by Jews. I have gotten very ugly e-mails and telephone calls as a result of my postings on various blogs.

One does not have to be Jewish, Israeli or Palestinian to be disproportionately concerned with Israel. How many countries can you name where there is a full blown occcupation with an entire people stateless, a condition that has lasted 40 years. That puts Israel in a unique position currently. That is why Israel gets so much attention.

I am not putting all the blame on Israel for this condition but I am just trying to explain why the issue is disproportionate.

I disagree with W-M. Aipac's lobbying is sinister. Sierra, NRA, Women's groups, Labor, business, all are lobbying by Americans to promote what they consider to be best for America.
Aipac is Americans lobbying for what's best for Israel, whether it is good for America or not.
THAT is why every foreign lobby (from every single other country has to register as a lobby and is forbidden from being involved in politics by law).
Aipac came up with a clever device. Have Americans lobby for Israel and the Israel lobby will not have to register and it can do whatever it wants.
There is no other lobby like this. None.
I hate the NRA but it is a bunch of Americans acting in what they consider to be US interests. Aipac is unique. An unregistered foreign agent.
Totally sinister and should be shut down. Maybe it will if the Aipac espionage trial in January ends with a conviction.
PS Have any of the other lobbies had two employees on trial for espionage?

Mad is right. AIPAC lobbies for policies beneficial to a foreign country. Like the Greek, Turkish or Saudi lobby. But they all register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act which, is as Mad, keeps them out of our politics, I have no problem with AIPAC if it registers and is monitored. But it won't happen because if it did, how would it coordinate all its pacs on behalf of Joe Lieberman and the rest of its clients.
The Nra and NARAL are, as MJ writes, as American as Kansas corn. Aipac is as American as the Knesset.

Lockean:

"MJ's original post questions how much Amercian pro-Israeli lobbying actually helps Israel, and 75% of the comments are about whether Israel is good or bad, whether M & W are good or bad, what is or is not anti-Semitism, what Arafat should have done, blah, blah, blah. One could plausibly troll-rate almost the entire discussion thread."

MJ's post, by his own admission, referred to hysteria in the Jewish community in order to entice readers with a provocative title. And maybe it worked.

In any event, I would dispute what I respectfully discern to be your condescending assessment of this thread and your fellow posters and posit that there have been some absolutely excellent exchanges of views that are directly on point, and I would also posit that those views have been exchanged: (1) despite MJ's reference to hysteria among the Jews and (2) notwithstanding the usual riff-raff and gibberish that we get on all threads at the Cafe--and, as I have come to discover, not only on those which deal with the Middle East.

It is very easy to criticize other posters and to refer in your instance to "the inanity" of what you have read. But, in this case, I think your criticism from on high misses the mark. I really don't think you have read some of the quality posts in this thread, posts that have been written by people on all sides of the issues surrounding lobbying on behalf of Israel in Washington.

Take another perusal. FWIW.

Bruce

Like Mr. Rosenberg, you too, StiVo, are unable to show us any instance when AIPAC raised a "shitstorm" over a U.S. politician supporting Israel's decisions to withdraw Israeli troops and settlers from Lebanon and Gaza, to negotiate with Areafat and Abbass, and to declare their willingness to reach a lasting two-state solution. You don't know how many liberal Democrats like me are proud AIPAC members, you don't know the extent to which AIPAC's positons are supported by virtually every major Jewish organization that operates in the U.S. even if you're not a member of any of them, and you don't know how many Representatives and Senators who never got a dime from AIPAC members (AIPAC itself does not endorse or contribute to campaigns) nevertheless agree with AIPAC's positions on the need for a strong and secure Israel.

In short, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

AIPAC and its 100,000 members have very right to raise a "shitstorm" when a U.S. politician condemns Israel for practicing apartheid, or condemns Israel for using self-defense against rocket attacks on its civilians.

I rest easy in the knowledge that despite idiots like you and M/W, nobody is going to be elected President who thinks AIPAC is the problem and not Hamas and Hezbollah.

Pathetic MJ. He started his thread with histerical attack on Israel and Israel supporters in US. 242 comments later what we got:
Lies and distortion, attack on Israel and American people supporting Israel from open and closet one staters, who want to see Jewish state of Israel destroyed.
Not a single word of disapproval from MJ, no matter how extreem are lies are
Good job, MJ.

I've asked over and over again, give me example of AIPAC position that you don't like.
No answer.
American Jews including AIPAC support peace and two state solutions, you guys support destruction of Jewish state of Israel and AIPAC stands in a way, but most of you don't have balls to openly stay your goals.

This why you hate "power" of the "lobby" so much. You think that somehow that it's power of the lobby that prevents destruction of Jewish state of Israel. You are mistaken.
It's support of American people (Jewish and Christians) that stands in your way.

Better yet, how about if I just give you the point? It wasn't really my intention to get caught up in a discussion of the term--it's just a personal gripe that I can easily save for a better forum. Antisemitism, in its common usage, means precisely what you claim it means.

Who ducked the debate, Walt or Foxman? I'm not privy to that information. I doubt you are either.

Actually, if you listen to the tapes, there is one instance amid all the BS, where Foxman does engage with Walt on the issues - the issue of whether current levels of US support for Israel are in the US national interest or not. Not surprisingly, he takes the opposite viewpoint, arguing that Israel helps the US by being a friend in the region, who helps the US guarantee its oil supply.

But that's okay. That is the issue that should be debated. It is sad that after a year and a half since the M/W paper came out, only now do we finally hear some actual debate on this issue. Up to now it's been all about whether M and W should be engaged with at all. And we still have that discussion, but in spite of it, the issues are being engaged.

Like Mr. Rosenberg, you too, StiVo, are unable to show us any instance when AIPAC raised a "shitstorm" over a U.S. politician supporting Israel's decisions to withdraw Israeli troops and settlers from Lebanon and Gaza, to negotiate with Areafat and Abbass, and to declare their willingness to reach a lasting two-state solution.

Of course not. That isn't the claim I'm making.

The claim I'm making is that the shitstorms arise (or would arise, were not our policitians well trained by now) when a politician OPPOSES one of Israel's decisions.

I rest easy in the knowledge that despite idiots like you and M/W, nobody is going to be elected President who thinks AIPAC is the problem and not Hamas and Hezbollah.

What the hell. I'd rather not spend any time on AIPAC either.

So I'll make you a deal. There is an issue we can discuss. Abe Foxman in his appearance on Terry Gross's show disagreed with Walt's argument that support for Israel at the current levels is not in US national interest, citing Israel as a force for stability in the region, helping to ensure the supply of oil from the region. Let's discuss that position. Is this a good reason for America to support Israel? Is it good for Israel in the long or short run?

Can we discuss that without the name-calliing?

"Aipac came up with a clever device. Have Americans lobby for Israel and the Israel lobby will not have to register and it can do whatever it wants.
There is no other lobby like this. None.
I hate the NRA but it is a bunch of Americans acting in what they consider to be US interests. Aipac is unique. An unregistered foreign agent."

Clever device? AIPAC was STARTED by Americans. There are plenty of examples in which Israeli leaders disagreed with AIPAC on policy. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem was just one example, but if you read the 'sphere, or do a little research, you'll see there are plenty.

But it is true, they believe that Israel and America have coinciding interests. So? That's their position. They are Americans arguing for "what they consider to be US interests." The fact that there are two countries involved--as there would have to be with "Country Name-American" group--whether it be Poland, Greece, etc.--doesn't change this basic fact.

It's up to us to argue AGAINST AIPAC's position. As to the other "truly American" lobbies--NRA, Pharma, Tobacco--it's a dead certainty that they have caused the loss of more lives than AIPAC ever will. It's worth keeping that in mind.

It is truly unfortunate that you get harassed in the way you describe. It's a bit hard to discern how severe the problem is from where I stand (the problem of being accused of being a self hating Jew). Quite frankly, I see people preemptively defending themselves from the charge far more often than I see it being leveled. But I wouldn't deny your own experience.

There are other countries that are maintaing long term occupations. China of Tibet is one. Someone occupies Kashmir (depending on who you ask), Ethiopia and Entriea can't figure out where their border is, Morrocco and Western Sahara, Indonesia in West Papua, Canada, Australia, and the U.S. exist on appropriated land, etc.

I do understand that the stateless status of the Palestinians creates a further wrinkle. And I don't rule out there being other reasons why one would be disproportionately interested in Israel. I was trying (and at this point need not torture the point any further) to point to the type of obsession of Israel that simultaneously appeals to universal human rights and excludes all other misdeeds by all other countries.

For what it's worth, I think, based upon what you post, your criticism for Israel is firmly rooted in an admirable concern for Jewish values, Jewish history, and a Jewish future.

You still have the money issue lurking. A lot depends on how much money really talks. Some studies have been done, and it seems unclear how much talking it does, or in what way it talks. Some say that money only talks by changing a Rep's priorities, so you move from 10 to 3 on his to-do list. This is shown by the fact that big donors tend to give to Reps who ALREADY AGREE with them. That is, money tends not to change minds, but perhaps changes the priority list.

So I still like the Internet fundraising model as promulgated by Dean and Obama. Citizen groups find out soon enough that the bigger they are, the more clout can conceivably command. So they focus on getting bigger and aggregating power. And the bigger these groups get, the more they exclude minority voices and become the more "niche" oriented or become so watered down as to be meaningless voices. Because no one cares about things that aren't endangered--not enough to give big bucks and big time--they care about things that are endangered, e.g., guns, Israel, abortion.

So the more general and anodyne in nature an organization becomes--the more people it includes--the slower it grows and the less its members care. AARP may be the real exception, except for this: Aging people always feel endangered in one way or another. Their very existence--health, mobility, dependence on others--becomes more tenuous daily. AND they have a ton of time on their hands, and tend to pay attention to what they read and hear.

So the cycle starts all over again.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with Foxman.

But I suspect that Foxman was being honest here. This IS the "national interest" argument FOR continuing support for Israel. Without this argument, and you're right, it's a weak one, what is the "national interest" argument for continuing the support? You have nothing left to counter Walt and Mearshimer with, other than idealism about Israeli democracy, which is getting harder and harder to maintain, and ad hominem attacks about their supposed antisemitism.

"But that's okay. That is the issue that should be debated. It is sad that after a year and a half since the M/W paper came out, only now do we finally hear some actual debate on this issue. Up to now it's been all about whether M and W should be engaged with at all. And we still have that discussion, but in spite of it, the issues are being engaged."

I agree with you: The debate should be about what are and aren't genuine US interests. However, MW share some responsibility for the state of the debate by focusing on AIPAC et al having too much power or control over the debate. So "do they--or don't they" becomes the center of the debate and generates much emotion.

The reason is obvious: The formal structure of that assertion sounds an awful lot like the classic anti-Semitic charge: Jews have too much power. They control the world. They start all the wars.

Had MW stuck to the issues, as you are requesting, the debate would probably have stuck to the issues.

Of course, it's not at all illegitimate to question whether lobbying groups sway public policy too much. Nor is it illegitimate to look at one lobby. But MW say, at one and the same time: The lobby has too much power. AND, the lobby doesn't do anything illegal or anything that other lobbies don't do. They just do it better.

So one is left shaking one's head and with a bad after taste in one's mouth.

"It's just wrong, and nothing will change until the "silent majority" of American Jews who don't support AIPAC positions make it plain that AIPAC doesn't speak for them,"
"Of course, that isn't easy to accomplish"

It's very very easy.
Just pick up a specific AIPAC position which "silent majority" of American Jews don't support and let the world know .

To repeat a clarification I have made before...it is incorrect to say that the "silent majority" of American Jews don't support AIPAC's positions. A significant minority of American Jews are very involved in Israeli political and security matters and they more or less support AIPAC's positions and lobbying efforts. A majority of American Jews are not so involved on a day-to-day level, but they are willing to accept that the Israeli gov't is best qualified to determine Israel's security and political policies , and they are aware that AIPAC coordinates its activities along with the Israeli gov't (although no doubt individuals involved with AIPAC may have more or less enthusiasm for particularly controversial policies such as during the 1990's when Yossi Beilin was telling AIPAC to lobby Congress to grant money for weapons for Arafat's gangs).
People like MJ and his Israel Policy Forum which openly lobby against Israeli gov't policy are a distinct minority of the American Jewish community. The fact that the IPF and other such groups have failed to create an effective counter-lobby, in spite of the fact that Leftist American Jews hostile to traditional Israeli gov't policy have immense financial resources, shows that they just don't have support in the American Jewish rank-and-file. And don't forget the millions of pro-Israel non-Jews in America who far, FAR outnumber the number of pro-Israel Jews.

However, MW share some responsibility for the state of the debate by focusing on AIPAC et al having too much power or control over the debate. So "do they--or don't they" becomes the center of the debate and generates much emotion.

The reason is obvious: The formal structure of that assertion sounds an awful lot like the classic anti-Semitic charge: Jews have too much power. They control the world. They start all the wars.

This is true and it's what keeps Foxman and friends busy. It does sound something like the classic anti-Semitic canards, but the key question is, is it the same thing? I think not, I think it's a fairly accurate description of current reality.

Had MW stuck to the issues, as you are requesting, the debate would probably have stuck to the issues.

Had MW stuck to the issue of whether or not current levels of support for Israel were in American national interest without mentioning the Lobby, the debate would never have happened. Most likely their report would have been ignored. They made a judgment that they had to raise the heat to bring light and they did so, fully appreciating the risks.

I think they were right to do so. Now Abe Foxman feels compelled to answer why current levels of support are in the national interest. Previously, he was not so compelled.

There is an important historical factor that no one has mentioned here but which plays a major role in determining American policy towards Israel. That is the fact that the United States and its "Establishment" has shown great support for Jews and Jewish causes since LONG before the Jews had any significant electoral clout in the US. This starts in the colonial period in which study of the Jewish Bible served as inspiration for the earliest settlers, the large number of Biblical place names found all over the US, the immense influence of the Bible on the Founding Fathers who drew up the Constitution (the tripartite form of the government is taken straight out of the Bible), the influence of the Bible in the struggle for the emancipation of the slaves, etc. President Washington sent his famous letter of support to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island assuring them of the support of the US gov't for religious freedom. President Martin Van Buren intervened for the Jews in the infamous Damascus Blood Libel of 1840. By the late 1840's the idea of setting up a Jewish state in the Land of Israel was becoming an international cause, and I know that at least President Abraham Lincoln came out in support of it, and there may have been others at the time (Lincoln expressed a wish to visit Jerusalem after his second term ended) as well.
Again, all of this was long before the large-scale Jewish immigration to the US which began in 1881 as a result of the pogroms in Russia gave the American Jewish community much political clout.
President Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration and there was talk for a while of granting the Palestine Mandate (which was based on Balfour) to the US instead of the British.
Both the Republicans and Democrats had pro-Zionist planks in their platforms for the 1944 elections.
Thus, as you can see, there is nothing new here in having rock-solid American support for a Jewish state. One could say it is as "American as apple pie".

The Israelis think they're at war because they've been attacking neighbors and ethnically-cleasing people- so if they're at war, its their own damn fault, and the onus is not on the rest of the world to make them feel secure by rolling over and playing dead as they continue to expand their settlements and ethnically cleanse people and proclaim a God given right to conquer Greater Israel and massacre/"transfer" all the non-jews.

bar. The argument you made is what is and that you distorted facts to make it is your problem.

Hint: both anti-missile systems would destroy the rockets before they land, therefore negating their effectiveness.

Those Israelis who are actually involved with protecting her citizens are worried about the development/acquisition of more lethal and accurate munitions by Palestinian militias and Hezbollah.

I find it odd that you don't think the investment in anti-missile systems worth the costs. Especially since a "foriegn country" will be devoting considerable funds for the development of the Iron Dome. Because it is a "homegrown" product, Rafael can benefit. The Skyguard system is a more advanced version of a joint US/Israeli project started in 1996 and according to it's advocates, will only require a small investment .

I'm aware that some of the Israeli defense establishment is resistant to deploying defensive systems rather than offensive ones but that kind of thinking should be relegated to the dust bins were it belongs in the new age of asymmetric warfare.

Do you have another, more cost-effective solution in mind?

(Update: The latest estimate is that the Iron Dome will also be ready in 18 months. If Barak is still in a government role as DM or perhaps PM, that speeds up his timetable for withdrawl from the WB)

Have they said...or do you otherwise know...they aren't Americans?

Dual citizens, for example, are Americans.

delete duplicate

"repeatedly refused perfectly reasonable peace offers from the Arabs."
See, for you "the right of return is reasonable"
We went tru this discussion before several times.

"Go on, say it. Admitting to being a racist apartheid supporter can be liberating."

Sure, I admit that
"jewish" state of Israel REALLY MEANS
a state where Jews are in majoriry (like todays Israel) and where they give minorities at least as many rights as minorities in other Arab countries enjoy.