Another possibility is that Dershowitz is acting as a campaign proxy for Hillary Clinton, to whom he donated $1,000.

Maybe I'm too stuck in viewing things through an electoral lens, but it's interesting to note that this issue didn't really come up (to my knowledge) when Obama first rolled out the Brezinski endorsement, but rather, seems more in response to his recent op-ed about sanctions on Iran and his Iraq speech...i.e., timed politically well to distract from what gains Obama could be making nationally on foreign policy issues, particularly with the Jewish community.

What other techniques besides the efficacy of torture, censorship, control of the press and academia has Dershowitz learned and copied from the fascist playbook?

Ouch!

MJ just helped me realize that I'd be more comfortable being represented by the words of Sara Silverman than Alan Dershowitz. There is, no doubt, something not quite right with that woman. But at least she knows when she's talking nonsense. I think, when it's all added up, she might even be the one who is more often correct.

I do, occasionally, agree with some of Dershowitz's more controversial statements. But mostly in the "stopped clock" vein. You know, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

If Obama responds he will just empower the rhetoric.

I haven't seen this issue on any other news sites so why make it a story?

I wonder how Matt Yglesias feels about being included in the same tier as Scarlett Johannsen and Jon Stewart.

I think Josh should banish MJ Rosenberg's columns for his attack on Dershowitz! :-)

koshembos said: MJ, you really don't understand democracy. Dershowitz can say whatever he wants; you don't have to agree with him...."

1- I see nothing in MJ's commentary that suggests he doesn't understand Democracy, nor do I see anything that addresses Democracy one way or another.

2- Looking at Dershowitz's role here, maybe its Dershowitz that doesn't understand Democracy.

Isn't it interesting that in Congressional testimony in February that Brezezinski said:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran?

Sounds like a unhinged blogger conspiracy theorist to me!

It is almost laughable.

MJ wrote a post about Iraq and got meager 36 comments.
So what should poor MJ do to get attention?
Write a hysterical post about Jewish lobby to attract Jew-haters and one staters.

======================================
On September 7, 2007 - 12:40pm petermschwartz52 said:
MJ made a promise not to comment on Israel?

On September 7, 2007 - 2:33pm mjrosenberg said:
Peter, I did say it because I don't like having extremists piggyback on my posts. But then I decided that it's more important to put out my views, even if the usual suspects use me as an opportunity to rant. Thanks, MJ

On September 7, 2007 - 2:59pm davai said:
It's not an honest explanation.

On September 8, 2007 - 4:19pm petermschwartz5
In what way isn't it honest?
============================================
The reason is that he broke his promise has nothing to do with need to put out his views and ideas.

He has few or any new ideas beyond idea that
Jewish Lobby is screwing America.
He just craves for good ratings and he would write any hysterical post to get attention.

MJ, Here is a challenge for you.
Write a post about policy issues in I/P or ME
in general without using word "lobby".
Let see if you can do it.

Read the book. It has nothing to do with anti-semiticism except if one were looking to smear the Harvard and University of Chicago professor's message.

And why should we listen to you about what we will discuss. The lobby happens to be a very important subject that is now being openly discussed. Public exposure is the way to counteract its influence.

There is no doubt that it does exist nor is there any doubt that it is very influential. And finally, since major players in the lobby are now advocating that the US move against Iran, we should be very concerned. At least, among those of us who see a US attack against Iran as a very serious mistake.

BTW the Mearsheimer and Walt book is very powerful indeed. Even for those who think they know everthing, like myself, it has much that is new.

"The lobby happens to be a very important subject"

Don't be modest.
It's Jewish lobby that you would like to discuss.
"Public exposure is the way to counteract its influence."
Public exposure of Jewish lobby is not new.
Jewish lobby was exposed for the last 2000 years with mixed results.
BTW, even in France Jewish lobby is very powerful.
The president of France recently said that Iran should not be allowed to get atomic weapons.

Re: The Lobby

from the web:
The center of the problem that Mearsheimer and Walt describe in their book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy ", is how politics is financed in the USA. Perhaps you remember this quote from M&W (taken from the Sunday Times):

They quote the experience of a Senate candidate who was invited to visit AIPAC early in his campaign for “discussions”. Harry Lonsdale described what followed as “an experience I will never forget. It wasn’t enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be . . . Shortly after that . . . I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel . . . that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called; they gave from Florida to Alaska”.
---------------
"The most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel"--AIPAC
http://www.aipac.org/

The president of France recently said that Iran should not be allowed to get atomic weapons.

The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It is not the Jewish lobby, it is the Israel lobby. It is not the same. A majority of the American Jews do not support right wing Israeli politics, but the American Israel lobby does. The lobby includes Christian Zionists but the average American Jew is horrified by those cretins.

You wish to define it as the Jewish lobby so to set up the charge of antisemitism against its critics. Sorry, but that is not going to work anymore. This discussion is going to continue and it will slowly leak out into mainstream America.

The war in Iraq for one. The use of nuclear weapons against Iran for another. Even war against Iran without nukes. Expansion of the Westbank settlements.

the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran

Uh...didn't Lieberman ask Petraeus permission to start a war with Iran just yesterday?

Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks
Check

followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure
Check

then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran;
Haven't Bush and Podhoretz and all them been saying Iran has been "provoking" us in Iraq for a few months now?

culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Well, didn't Lieberman just ask to go to war with Iran just yesterday? Aren't we already in Iraq, Afghanistan, making incursions into Pakistani territory?

Sounds about right to me.

A terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran?

Why not? The last one was blame on Iraq, after all, and we sure as hell aren't going to blame Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

I don't know what the hell pointers are but (1) AIPAC lobbied for the Iraq war vigorously (2) AIPAC lobbies vigorously against any US penalties against Israel for settlement expansion (3) AIPAC lobbies against the two-state solution by consistently opposing US aid to the Palestinians as incentives for negotiation. AIPAC is the neocon lobby on Capitol Hill.

The American Jewish community opposes AIPAC in each
of those cases as do most Members of Congress. AIPAC's support is purchased with campaign contributions.

Read Walt-Mearsheimer. 100 pages of footnotes proving each of those points.

This is way off the deep end. I was assigned the article that preceded this book by Mearsheimer and Walt for a college course I took. When I googled the article, I was blown away by the all-out attack on this work.

I began to question the Israel Lobby article critics, when time after time, they insulted the public’s intelligence by accusing a University of Chicago prof, and Harvard Kennedy School dean of shoddy scholarship. That is ludicrous on its face. (No person becomes a dean at Harvard or prof at U of Chicago who hasn’t proven competent scholarship)

There are powerful lobbies, plenty of scholars write on the topic, and these lobbies are a threat to the well being of our country. None of that is a secret! Presumably, these conversations help us to learn, improve and make corrections. I want to know why a Harvard law professor-- who should understand the benefits of honest debate and have a little respect for the first amendment—is trying to control what everybody else thinks, says and does.

Good grief. Is Dershowitz really advocating that we turn our country into one where the secret harvard law police decide what gets published and who our candidates choose to advise them? This nut teaches at Harvard? Dershowitz's actions here resemble Bush's dictator-like approach to those who don't agree with him. Good thing Walt and Mearsheimer don’t have wives working undercover in the CIA.

Now, could we get off this and onto the substantive issues that we must address for a better, safer world for all-- including Israel and Palestine and the US and the rest?

One more thing.
Two top Aipac officials have been indicted on charges of espionage and will be tried in January.

So how does Aipac accumulate its power? How much of a part does Aipac's Steve Rosen and Jonsthan Pollard have to do with that success?

I'm looking forward to that trial when Aipac will be exposed as the den of spies it is.

Aipac: the ONLY American lobby ever charged with espionage.

"Aipac: the ONLY American lobby ever charged with espionage. "
AIPAC is not charged with espionage.

I guess thast you changed subject because you don't have answers to my points.

AIPAC charged with espionage.  As Mark says, the first lobby in US history charged with spying on America.

Not AIPAC but two employees.

That they both worked for the same lobby was, of course, totally coincidental. It was also totally coincidental that they have been charged with spying for the same country for which Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying.

All random events, which could not possibly have been in other than the best interests of the United States.

That CLANG is the iron just clearing Davai's head and hitting the floor.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Dear Howard,
In our previuos exchange, you concluded that you don't respect me. Not that I care, but why would you piggy back on my comments with your garbabe stream of words ?
Write your own comments.

You are correct that I neither respect you personally, nor have any substantive regard for your posts. You choose to call my posts "garbage", but do not actually dispute them with substance.

When you post material that is easily refuted by specific information or by reasonably applied logic, I will contribute to the cleaning up of waste by refuting such posts. If you start being substantive rather than answering most questions with repeated "give me an example", rarely giving examples to support your posts; if your posts start having a flavor of honest discussion rather than being an apologist for Israeli policies and actions questionable in international law; if you stop using tu quoque excuses, I would be inclined to let your posts speak for yourself.

Not that I care, but why would you piggy back on my comments with your garbabe stream of words ?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Thank you for drawing an obvious if (apparently)widely ignored distinction.

Conflating Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism is rather like the conflation of the various anti-american elements in Iraq with al Quaeda. A pernicious rhetorical tool which is employed to stifle legitimate analysis, resulting in a profound failure to understand the geo-strategic elements which are in play.

Put differently, the only "return" I find relevant me is "return to Brooklyn"--That's the only homeland I ever left.

Frankly, after Sabra and Chatillah (let alone Rachel Corrie) I wanted to piss on the law of the return in front of the Israeli Embassy;I refrained, out of fear of Zionist terrorism (Meyer Kahane & Co., this means you, in whatever corner of hell you currently inhabit).

Time to cut Israel loose--like an adult and abused pit bull--not housebroken, unfit to keep as a pet.

If I've mischaracterized Dershowitz's position on torture, I withdraw the advice to Obama, which was not all that serious anyway (I prefaced the 'advice' by saying, IF he were playing dirty, which of course he isn't).

I will confess to describing Dershowitz's position from memory; I did not go back and look at the book or find transcripts of the numerous interviews he gave in late 2001 or early 2002. So your info appears to be better than mine re Dershowitz (though your citations seem to have been omitted). The rest of my post stands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz#Dershowitz.27s_2002_article_.22Want_to_Torture.3F_Get_a_Warrant.22

Aha, but MJ didn't attack Dershowitz, did he. Nice try, John, but MJ slips the dragnet yet again.

More's the pity that such battle is needful. As Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, observed, "Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Innumerable force of Spirits armed,
That durst dislike his reign, and, me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power opposed
In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven,
And shook His throne." [John Milton]

Dershowitz, lately, makes a good argument against tenure without periodic review.

I hear him rant periodically about things that displease him. Does he do any good these days holding down a professorship?

The Bush administration had no problem blaming 9/11 on Saddan. When the U.S. went to war with Iraq, a large majority of Americans believed Saddam was responsible or at least played a major role.

So if there is another attack, there is every reason to believe that the Bush administration, assisted by a docile mainstream media manned by stenographers, instead of reporters, could hang this on Iran.

In discussions of middle eastern policy the Israel Lobby is the elephant in the room that almost everybody is pretending not to notice because if anyone says "Hey there's an elephant in the room!" he immediately gets accused of being anti-semetic.

Dershowitz can say whatever he wants but other people are free to criticise him and to urge others not to pay any attention to him, which they by all means should.

The response to Mearsheimer and Walt is the best evidence supporting their arguments.

Bye, Bye, Z-big.

What Dershowitz wants, Dershowitz usually gets, not unlike a spoiled rotten six-year old having a temper tantrum because he didn't get any ice cream.

Dershowitz wields a large hammer which he uses to attack any problem, real or perceived, that might either interfere with or shine a light on his agenda.

Ask Professor Finklestein... or should one say "former" Professor Finklestein.

Finklestein's sin, in Dershowitz eye's? Daring to ask questions about the "Holocaust Industry"(copyright).

No kidding. Koshembos is obviously talking out of his ass and doesn't have the faintest idea who Brzezinski is.

Not literally will he admit that.

But he certainly is a zealot for Israel, even a sicarii, and regularly opposes any and all criticism of Israel and calls anyone critical "anti-semitic."

Which is doubly obnoxious considering he often attacks dissenting Jews, and even more obnoxious considering critics are often defending Palestinians, who are semitic people in every sense of the word, including historical persecution alongside Jews.

You tell 'im davai.

That'll learn ya Howard!

Quite apart from the merits or demerits of his frequent public discursions on everything under the sun, Dershowitz is regarded as an utter clown and a lightweight in the legal academy. Harvard law professor or no, he is not taken seriously as a legal scholar.

As a very distinguished law professor of my acquaintance said some years ago after the 2000 election debacle, "I had thought that not enough bad things could ever be said about Bush v. Gore. And then Alan Dershowitz wrote a book about it."

P.S. -- M. J., never mind Shawn Green, we have Kevin Youkilis too.

I'm wondering what's MJ opinion about Normal Finkelstein and the role played by Dershowitz
in denying tenure to Normal Finkelstein?

he certainly is a supporter of Israel, and he regularly critizes zealots who oppose to Israel and who call anyone who support Israel unpatriotic and the member of Jewish Lobby.

I'd have to agree with ZB on this. Which is the greater threat - Islamic terrorists or total nuclear annihilation?

The threat of terrorism is overblown. If terrorists really wanted to bring America to its knees, they could, easily. As long as you have people willing to blow themselves up, you could paralyze this country and swiftly turn it into a military dictatorship - if that were your real goal. As it hasn't happened (and there has been plenty of time and opportunity to make it happen), it's a pretty safe assumption that terrorism ain't what it's cracked up to be.

"If terrorists really wanted to bring America to its knees, they could, easily. "

It's not that easy.
Even in Israel where 15-20 % of Israeli population are not Jews, there were few of any
Israeli Arabs willing to blow themselves up. Also Israel almost completly stopped flow of people willing to blow themselves up comming from West Bank or Gaza.
I would guess, that US are in much better position to prevent terrorism without turning into a military dictatorship .

"I'd have to agree with ZB on this. Which is the greater threat - Islamic terrorists or total nuclear annihilation? "

The answer is obvious, however, the question is,
Did US have to use Islam to bring USSR down?
How important was Afganistan in collapse of USSR?

If the shoe fits...

"Finklestein's sin, in Dershowitz eye's? Daring to ask questions about the "Holocaust Industry"(copyright)."

Finklestein is bad, really bad.
If Dershowitz would attack Pol Pot, MJ would defend Pol Pot, he hates Dershowitz that much.

If MJ doesn't defend Finklestein when Dershowitz
attacks NM, it means that Finklestein is not defendable.

Many many moons ago while in college, I admired Dershowitz for his courageous defense of academic freedom in several cases, his nimble and open intellect, and his pioneering use of television to bring challenging legal and moral questions to a broader public.

In the last several years, however, he has sadly (and frequently) become a charicature and not a very pleasant one. IMHO, he is a shadow of his former self, bitter, often nearing hysteria in terms of the wild charges he hurls at people and so on particularly on the subject of Israel/anti-semitism. It is a real shame.

Wow! Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State defends Aipac.
There is a shocker. TPM people will certainly start revising their view of Aipac when they read that quote. Who will you come up with next? Joe Lieberman?

Thank you, chauncey.

I thought it would be seen as an obvious satire on the theme of MJ's column.

Let me explain what happened to you.
Generally speaking you agreed with " his courageous defense of academic freedom", so you ovelooked his
"bitter, often nearing hysteria" style.
You don't agree with his general stand about Israel,
so his courageous defense of Israel using his
his nimble and open intellect looks to you like
"bitter, often nearing hysteria" style.

Conservative discovered that Bush is dishonest, when he started to use the same tricks he used to sell the war in Iraq (where they agreed with him) in immigration debate (when the didn't)

Matt Yglesias already responded to that op-ed, cuttingly:

Shultz says: "Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogeneous 'lobby' ought to spend some time dealing with them."

I'm not quite sure I understand where in the journalistic ethics manual it says "if you're attacking critics of Israel, you're allowed to completely misrepresent their work" but since it's available online let me offer a link to the original Walt/Mearsheimer "Israel lobby" essay which says "This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby [...] Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies [...] The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals" and so forth.

I really hate to write on this topic so frequently, because I really do think Walt and Mearsheimer overstate the centrality of the "lobby" to US policy in the broader region, and I don't want to be an obsessive on this subject. But it's really absurd how frequently and eagerly major publications are willing to run silly distortions of their position. Surely if the Walt/Measheimer argument is so wrong, its critics ought to be able to rebut the actual argument.

yglesias

Good, Finally the sane voice.
I and Matt Yglesias agree that Walt and Mearsheimer overstate the centrality of the "lobby" to US policy in the broader region.

I and Matt Yglesias also agree that people should not be an obsessive on this subject.

If you, MJ, dont want to listen to me, listen
to Matt Yglesias, don't be obsessive about the Lobby, have self control,
write one post about lobby, one post about I/P without mentioning lobby, and one post about
something else. It's hard to cure addiction to the lobby writing, but you can do it.

I've never been able to understand why Desrshowitz is so famous. He stopped making sense about 15 years ago, and is now just doing an "Ann Coulter" to keep his name in circulation. 

The attack on Obama, via the proxy smear on Brzexinski is also clearly in the interests of the Clinton campaign, if not directed by them. 

Hillary should be asked why she doesn't repudiate the tactics of this smarmly little man. Fair's fair, after all.  

Huh? I've never written anything about the lobby, and I've responded to numerous posts from MJ that don't mention the lobby at all.

See, you're doing exactly what Schultz is: engaging in dishonest demagoguery.

Apparently I'm obsessed with the Jewish Lobby? Huh?

I also noticed you completely dodged the point, which is that Schultz completely misrepresented M/W's work. Why? And why are you misrepresenting me (and MJ) in response?

Why can't you just discuss things on their merits? Which, incidentally enough, was Yglesias' over-arching advice, advice you seem to have ignored.

What the difference between attacking and criticizing?

Was it ever a case when a supporter of Israel was attacked and opponent of "lobby" was criticized?

I took a look at Bronfman Philanthropies web site.

Take a look at
http://www.acbp.net/pub/BeyondDistancing.pdf

"Comfortable as a supporter of Israel" - 80 %

"So to criticize Israel and its lobby is not to criticize Jews."
Agree, it's just criticizing 80 % of American Jews who support Israel according to your logic (not mine).

However in general, I don't know who belongs to lobby according to W/M.
As I understood , any supporter of Israel (Jew or Christian) who don't agree with W/M opinions about ME in general in I/P specifically belongs to lobby.
Is this correct definition ?

Tony uses the same poll as Don:
." Less than half of those aged under 35 answered "yes" and only 54% percent of those aged 35-50 agreed (compared with 78% of those over 65). "

However in the same poll:
http://www.acbp.net/pub/BeyondDistancing.pdf

"Comfortable as a supporter of Israel" - 80 %

So don't count on Ameriacan Jews as well as Americans in general to stop their support of Israel.

"I think Afganistan was pretty important to the collapse of the USSR. It was their Vietnam, from which they never recovered. "

I don't agree. Tere are too many American politicians take credid for the collapse of the USSR .
My guess is that if oil prices stayed high (like today) USSR would never collapse.

"If people started blowing themselves up in our shopping malls and pizza parlors, this country would lose its collective mind. "
My point is that it's much harder to find people
here willing to blow themselves up.

I don't think anyone here would dispute the rightful place of the Jews among the peoples of the world.

"Some critics" think our dedication and obligation to Israel is simply all out of proportion to our national interest. They wonder how that happens.

The conspiracy theories are born because it's impossible to talk about this subject honestly, because of the pre-existing parameters of "reasonable debate."

Nothing is pure and simple.

If a candidate asks for donation from any organization, such as Sierra Club, NRA, NARAL or AIPCAC, they all will try to get detailed info of a candidate's views and commitment to their causes and spcicic legidtative agendas before giving any money.

Surprise, there is a gambling going on in Las Vegas

How about we just have a regular Palestine rant thread, that gets cleared daily so it doesn't build up to ridiculous length?

MJ doesn't even have to write anything, just say "Israel!"

No. Dershowitz is the zealot. Norman Finkelstein is a serious scholar concerned with truth. Dershowitz is a zealous ideologue. It's not even close.

For example, the dispute over Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel" and Normal Finkelstein's critique "Beyond Chutzpah."

"BC" is a serious academic critique of Dershowitz's book, questioning his sourcing, and pointing out many flaws which indicate it's not a serious work, that it's core tenets plagiarize earlier poorly sourced propaganda works, that have already been debunked. For example Joan Peters' fiction "From Time Immemorial."

Dershowitz responded by contacting Gov. Schwarzenegger to have the UC Press stop publication of Finkelstein's book! He also issues intimidating statements threatening law suits against publishers. That's not the behavior of an academic, but of a thug.

Another example is Raul Hilberg's support of Finkelstein. Hilberg is another prominent Jewish Holocaust historian who went into great detail regarding the internal mechanisms by which the "Final Solution" manifested. Zealots attempted to silence him for decades as well. His "The Destruction of the European Jews" is held as the most through study of the subject.

Finkelstein's allegations are substantiated, and stand on merits. Finkelstein's own family has survived the Holocaust.

Finkelstein and Hilberg are correct to say that zealots like Dershowitz have been exploiting the holocaust for decades, mythologizing it, blurring the historical record, and exploiting it a bludgeon for a hawkish Zionist political agenda.

And frankly, it's a lot like what Bush has done with 9/11. It's disgusting.

It's pretty damning of Dershowitz. That and his attempts to intimidate the publication of Finkelstein's critique "Beyond Chutzpah."

Dershowitz really demonstrates what a maniacal power crazed thug, and cowardly propagandist, looks like in action. He truly is a fanatic.

btw, Finkelstein also makes the point well that the American Israeli lobby is particularly zealous, beyond what you'll find in Israel. That the American Israel lobby is stuck in 1948, and has completely mythologized both the holocaust and Israel.

Which reminds me of some Cuban Ex-Pats, and the utter fanaticism they're known for. Detached from reality, literally spatially and psychologically. It assumes mythical proportions, a battle between Pure Good and Pure Evil.

btw, rambling a bit, but it occurs to me that one of the tenets of Judaism is the discomfort with a god made flesh. That spiritual aspirations materialized can be very dangerous.

1- I see nothing in MJ's commentary that suggests he doesn't understand Democracy, nor do I see anything that addresses Democracy one way or another.

2- Looking at Dershowitz's role here, maybe its Dershowitz that doesn't understand Democracy.

I agree and it also appears that koshembos has little understanding of McCarthyism either. Koshembos first says:

If he thinks that Brzezinski supports Anti Semites, it's his right and even duty to call Obama to fire Brzezinski.

But then in the very next paragraph says:

Mc Carthyisms is when you systematically chase down people who happen to have an ideology you hate. None of this applies here. [emphasis mine]

Huh? Hasn't koshembos ever heard of blacklisting, one of the main tools of McCarthyism? In the halcyon days of McCarthyism in the 50s, anyone suspected of supporting communism could be fired based on nothing more than somebody's suspicions, just like Dershowitz is calling for in the case of Brzezinski (his attack on Finkelstein was in the same vein, and sadly quite successful). Here's the wiki on the topic:

Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers...

McCarthism is the perfect term to apply to Dershowitz' tactics.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

When the U.S. went to war with Iraq, a large majority of Americans believed Saddam was responsible or at least played a major role.

I don't want to scare anyone, but a substantial number of Americans still believe this, according to a recent CBS/NYT poll, as recently noted in Editor & Publisher.

Hit and Myth: Poll Shows 1 in 3 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved in 9/11

By E&P Staff

Published: September 11, 2007 4:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Six years after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S., it seems the media still have some educational work to do. A new CBS/New York Times poll reveals that even today, 1 in 3 Americans believe that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

This notion was thoroughly debunked by official sources, including those in the White House, years ago, but the myth endures. Polls have shown that belief in this untruth was a prime component in support for the attack on Iraq.

Four in 10 Republicans still hold this view, compared with 32% of Independents and 27% of Democrats.

The poll of 1,035 adults was taken Sept. 4 to 8. 

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

If MJ doesn't defend Finklestein when Dershowitz
attacks NM, it means that Finklestein is not defendable.

davai: You seem unaware of the most basic element of persuasion: Know Your Audience. As most posters here at TPM Cafe are of above-average intelligence, why do you keep on with this nonsense that doesn't fool, much less persuade, anyone?

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

"Your argument, that NF "must be bad" depending on what MJ may or may not believe, and whether he's willing to take a bullet for NF or not, is juvenile, and exactly the sort of fanatic McCarthyism and thuggish tactics typical of Dershowitz"

Thank you for comparing me to Dershowitz.
I don't care about NM. My argument is good enough for me to know that NM is really bad but you can have your own opinion, we live in free country.

"much less persuade, anyone

Did you ever read any comment of supporter of Israel (Israeli goverment) that persuaded you to change your view and me more sympatetic to his/her point of view?
We are here not to persuade each other, just to rant and have fun.

you're free to say what you want. But if you say that Finkelstein is bad because MJ does not support him, you have indeed descended to a juvenile level of argument. A clear case of a species of ad hominem fallacy,

By your argument when you do not support what MJ says (which is the usual case with you) you must be wrong ....which is absurd, right?

Ok, this Davi guy is clearly a troll, and perhaps lacking a few screws. I mean "who are the NeoCons?" Come on. What planet of denial is this guy on?

Anyways, to keep the thread informative....

Regarding detainees, torture, and hostage trades, the following exchange (also available as audio) references sources and quotes detailing Israeli policies of detainment, torture, and hostage trades, which can't be denied by SHLOMO BEN-AMI, former Foreign Minister under Ehud Barak:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of torture of tens of thousands of Palestinians by Israel?

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: To tell you the truth, I don't know about the numbers, and we have seen different governments in — the British have done it. What the British did in Palestine in the '30s, there is nothing new in what we did that the British didn't do before us, and the Americans now in Iraq and elsewhere — what I find very, very uncomfortable is really this singling out Israel that lives in a very unique sort of situation in comparison with other countries, but —

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Norman Finkelstein makes the point, "Israel's Abu Ghraib," so that's making reference to what America did in Iraq.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, okay. But if you — if you would come from another planet and examine the resolutions of the U.N., the Security Council, you might reach the conclusion there is only one sinner in this planet, and it's the state of Israel, and not anybody else.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But I am quoting your own human rights organizations. You know, B'Tselem is not the United Nations.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, that's okay. I mean, I'm not — but it speaks in favor of Israel that we have human rights, we have B'Tselem, and we criticize ourselves.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Right.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: And we want to change things, but the solution —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I will agree with that, but then you have to say it doesn't speak too much in Israel's favor that it's the only country in the world that legalized torture. It was also the only country in the world that legalized hostage taking. It was also the only country in the —

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: It wasn't legalized —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, yes. As your chief justice called it, “keeping Lebanese as bargaining chips.” Israel was the only country in the world that's legalized house demolitions as a form of punishment. Those things have to also be included in the record.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ben-Ami.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: In addition to — I totally agree with you, it's to Israel's credit that it has a B'Tselem, an organization for which I have the highest regard and esteem. I agree with that.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, but the thing is that the conditions where Israel has to operate, this is — we do not have a Sweden and Denmark as neighbors, and we have neighbors that have taken hostages, and have taken hostages that forced us to exchange things that were not very popular. Rabin himself gave away 1,500 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers, and Sharon gave away 400 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for four bodies of Israeli soldiers. So we are living in that kind of place.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But that may tell you that's because they take so many people prisoner that they have a lot to give back. Right now, as we speak, there are 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israel.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: This is because we live in the conditions that we live. We are not, as I said — this is not Scandinavia.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But, Dr. Ben-Ami, you know, as well as I do, international law does not apply to some countries and not to others and some continents and not to others. Either it applies to everybody, or it applies to nobody. So to use the excuse, "Well, in our neighborhood we don't have to recognize international law," is simply a repudiation of international law.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: No, I'm not saying — No, no, I'm not saying that we do not have to recognize international law. I say that the conditions —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, then, it applies —

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: No, no. I mean, there are conditions where you cannot apply these lofty principles, which are very important, but you cannot apply them. And the British — and the British —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The British is an interesting example.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, it's an interesting example. They didn't —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: B'Tselem did a comparison —

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: They did it in Gibraltar —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The British — that's right.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: They did it in the Falklands. They did — anywhere —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: B'Tselem did an interesting comparison. It compared the British policies of torture in Northern Ireland with Israeli policies of torture. In the 1970s, there were thousands of terrorist attacks by the I.R.A., and B'Tselem's comparison showed that the Israeli record is much worse than the British on the question of torture. That's the facts.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yeah. You face now in this country a challenge of terrorism, so you go to PATRIOT Act and you go to —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But you won't find me justifying torture.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: These are the conditions that can be very dire, very difficult —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: No conditions justify torture.

Just for the record, I have never written about Finkelstein one way or another. I don't allow trolls like Davai to determine who and what I comment on.

I'm curious why have you never written about Finkelstein who "is a serious academic and historian that groups like AIPAC are attempting to silence through proxies like Dershowitz."
If you wouldn't defend him, who would?

"of hijacking of substantive discussion "
What substantive discussion you want to see?

With exception of me, everybody agree that
Alan Dershowitz is evil,
Walt-Mearsheimer and Normal Finkelstein are great, Israel is evil, Palestinians are great,
Jewish/Israeli lobby is evil.

To have substantive discussion, you have to have
some disagreements that are not considered to be
troll operations.

Can you name a few topics for discussions about I/P where it's OK to have different point of views?

What you can answer me is the following:
"We've already decided that Alan Dershowitz is evil and Normal Finkelstein is great. So we are having substantive discussion how to fight evil
Alan Dershowitz, AIPAC and Israel.
Therefore, expressing any doubts about evilness
of Alan Dershowitz is a troll operations"

You're totally incoherent. Take your meds.

I agree, based on the available evidence, that you are here to rant.

I and many others, I suspect, are here less to persuade than to refine positions, work out holes in policies, and practice answering silly assertions. Incidentally, does the Government of Israel have a Ministry of Silly Walks? That might be an occupational goal for you, wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You didn't answer my questions.
MJ say basically the same thing over and over again in great quantity:
Alan Dershowitz is evil,
Walt-Mearsheimer is great, Israel is evil, Palestinians are great, Jewish/Israeli lobby is evil.
There are a lot of people repeat after MJ the same thing, over and over again. If this insults your intelligence, don't read MJ posts. There is nothing else there.
I concede that often I respond to the same misleading arguments and facts by MJ and his crowd with the same set of facts and observations.

So my question is the following, Are MJ posts for people who already decided that Alan Dershowitz is evil and Normal Finkelstein is great? Therefore discussions are about how to fight evil Alan Dershowitz, AIPAC and Israel ?

Obviously it's a trolling to go to Yom Kippur service, bring bagel with pork and cheese and start asking questions about God's existence.

It's not that it's anything wrong with people who always eat bagels with pork and cheese and always ask questions about God's existence. They just shoud not to Yom Kippur service.

"It IS trolling, you come here now partly to pick on or reform an individual person's posts opinions (MJ) over time, not to discuss a specific topic"

I'm sorry, but let me repeat, there is only one topic discussed by MJ over and over again.
I suggested to MJ to start discussing specific topics about I/P instead of bashing AIPAC over and over again but he can't help himself.

Why don't you ask MJ or Josh (in private emails or publically) to start discussing I/P policy issues instead of spreading hate and hysteria?

BTW,
Read MJ posting:
"But Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book the lobby does not like and so Brzezinski must go down for not condemning it." This sounds like Stalin's times in 1937 when people were forced to condemn
their friends to stay alive.

Nobody was trying to force Brzezinski to
condemn Walt and Mearsheimer in the first place.

I don't mind if you start challenge MJ's hysteria
instead of me, bu I think that MJ's hysteria should not be left unanswered.

You seems to agree with me that MJ posting are full of hysteria but you think that they should be left unanswered.

You may be right on the poll phrasing. Certainly, the slaughter in Cambodia and Rwanda were great tragedies, but I didn't know anyone there. There is, perhaps, a greater poignancy in the case of Rwanda, as the UN commander there, Romeo Dallaire, desperately sought authority to take steps that might have at least reduced the killing, but did not get permission.

A lesser slaughter in the civil wars in Sierra Leone was much more personal, as I knew a number of people in danger, luckily who either stayed safe or emigrated.

As a student of Sudan and Darfur, the latter is tragic. It is tempered only by knowing Sudanese of good will, but added to the frustration is the simplistic approaches that politicians here propose, for a very complex situation.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Davai doesn't want discussion"
How did you come to such conclusion?

"it's all very black and white to him - pro-AIPAC/pro-Israel or anti-AIPAC/anti-Israel"

Not at all, I don't know much about AIPAC, to have a strong opinion, but I challenge people who have all very black ani-AIPAC anti-lobby opinions to explain their positions.

For most people here their belief system
is based on the centrality of the "lobby" to US policy in the word generally and ME specifically.

I’m not exaggerating. Ask MJ why there is no peace in ME in general and I/P specifically. His answer is two words “the lobby”

In a way, "the lobby" theory reminds my of intelligent design theory, where everything in the world can be explained by the work of designer, “the lobby” today or by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 100 years ago.

I'm trying to challenge their belief system and
often I get response that amounts to ad hominem attacks.
It’s explainable, people don’t want their belief system to be challenged , so I ignore personal insults.

"In the final chapter of the book, Walt and Mearsheimer make a shopping list of reforms. They call for: a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis; "

If you read my comments, this is exactly what I proposed to MJ.
In addition (not instead of) to posts that just bashing "the lobby" why don't he write posts about the ways to achive a two-state solution.
So far he is not taking my advice. His all post about I/P are just "the lobby bashing"

"Strange how this debate sounds like the one surrounding clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church"

It's nothing like clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
In case of Catholic Church the debate was not about how much power Catholic Church has but about specific crimes.
In case of "the lobby" the debate is not about specific crimes but about how much power "the lobby" has.

Reminds me of the joke about prison inmates that had told their stock of jokes so often they used simple number labels. The new guy waits and listens for several weeks, then makes his move---"67!"

Silence. Then one guy grumbles, "Some guys just can't tell a joke."

correction to previous comment: "was" should obviously be "is", as she is living and breathing. She's probably my favorite contemporary American film actress. Can't get over her and Bill Murray in 'Lost in Translation' a few years back.

Well you know...

Big Tobacco has been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans.

The breast feeding lobby recently got HHS to water down their ads about the health dangers in not breat feeding...health risk to millions of babies.

NRA anyone?

So in terms of actual deaths...actual harm to Americans...our homegrown lobbyists have probably done more damage than AIPAC.

Interesting exchange.

Finkelstein makes many good points.

But it's also true that "Israel is the only country in the world" that faces a number of conditions...and is in a number of situations.

Ben Ami is right about that.

Hezbollah has said that they regularly take Israel hostages as a policy to have something to bargain with for the release of their people.

Now, this doesn't mean that Lebanon has legalized this tactic.

But that's the point, isn't it?

Hezbollah is part of the government. And before then, Hezbollah wielded enormous power as a "state within a state" or as an independent "army" within the state.

So Israel has been forced to deal these sorts of actors...

Let me a third possibility. I doubt Nixon knew in advance of Watergate or the Plumbers Unit, although I'm sure there was a bit of "Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest."

There's a good deal of opinion, which I share, that if Nixon, on hearing of Watergate, within the first 48 hours or so publicly fired Colson and Haldeman, as well as Magruder and others at CREEP, and condemned the action rather than going into the cover-up, he might well have finishe his term. He probably would have had to fire Ehrlichman when the Plumbers situation became public.

The question arises, however, that if Nixon hadn't had Colson working for him in the first place, would there ever have been a Watergate? Offhand, I can probably name half a dozen presidents whose administrations were severely tarnished by White House staffers to whom politically excessive loyalty was shown. I have every sympathy for Walter Jenkins, but LBJ politically did the right thing by cutting him loose.

If AIPAC hires not just one staffer that gets into trouble over espionage, does it start sounding like Haig's explanation of a "sinister force" that caused the 18 1/2 minute gap? What -- and this is seriously meant as a question -- does it say about AIPAC's culture that it would have two employees that would push US law this far, in the presumed interest of a foreign power?

To me, success on Capitol Hill depends, in part, about credibility of a lobby and whether a Member is willing to be associated. It's not quite conflating when reputation gets involved.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Your article was very well written response to many problems, that is what I do not know, thank you.This
is my website!I hope you like it!
Christian louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v licensing, ms iscsi target