Yes, how great it is to have Jews like Ruth Wisse who decry anything related to Israel as anti-semitic. With friends like these...

I do admire there discipline. In fact, it reminds me of the good old days of stalinism.

Daniel, you did not read the piece. MJR is right. And you are lying too? Where does W and M or Carter say Jews or Jewish cabal?

Daniel G, your ad hominem attacks on TPM regulars are unwelcome here. If you can prove MJ wrong, cite chapter and verse. Otherwise, beat it.

MJ, after reading her article, I don't have the faintest idea how you could have come up with your inflammatory title for this thread, however, it is in line with other comments you have made here in the past.

Ruth R. Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature

The New Republic demonstrates in minature M.J. Rosenberg's thesis on cricitizing Israel. TNR publishes many articles criticizing American policies. Yet it is utterly unthinkable that TNR would publish even a single article critical of Israeli policies.

As a gentile, I can tell you there IS a problem of conflating the Israeli Lobby and Jews in general. But, I maintain, there is nothing unusual about that. Conflation of Germans and Nazis is common. Conflation of Russians with Communist was at one time common.

Moreover, this conflation usually manifests itself in the less reflective segments of the population.

Still, this conflation must have a certain basis of some sort. Why does it happen so universally? Think of the stereotyping of blacks, gays, Jews, etc. Why does it happen?

Let me suggest perhaps some preliminary observations.

First members of a group do not want to criticize others in their groups even when criticism is warranted.

The complement population of the given group, sees that as "cabal type" behavior.

Why is there so little criticism among prominent Blacks of the more objectionable behavior of say gangster rap groups? Or why is there not more criticism amongst Italians of Mafia organizations? Why is there not more self-policing within affinity groups in general?

. This needs to be looked into and a book written about.

The fact that Jews have suffered the Holocaust has made all decent people react with horror and deep sympathy. That perhaps is one reason why there is such a reluctance to be critical of Israeli policy in the Middle East. It is not logical, it is psychological.
The Israeli Lobby uses this to its advantage. Gentiles feel manipulated and anti-Semitism grows

She says it because she wants to stop all discussion of the lobby and all criticism of Israel. Period.

And that is the rub! One cannot stop the above without suppressing a broad range of new thinking by Americans of any religion.

I miss the 60's where an author was not published because of the subject area he or she represented, or to fill a pre-determined point but was writing on the edge or beyond of public discussion for the opportunity of the view to be included in our reality if it sparked in the Gestalt .

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Ask Feingold or Franken if they agree with Carter or W & M.
On second thought, don't ask, you'll be disappointed.

That perhaps is one reason why there is such a reluctance to be critical of Israeli policy in the Middle East.

and anti-Semitism grows

I agree there is no such reluctance in the Middle East to criticize Israeli policy in the region. I was referring the reluctance in Western countries to be critical OF Israeli policy in the Middle East. Especially in the media.

MJ:

This is the title of your piece:

"Harvard Prof Says All Criticsm of Lobby Is Anti-Semitism"

I have read the op-ed piece by Professor Wisse that you link to, and she just doesn't write that all criticism of the Lobby is anti-semitism. I do agree that she is critical of W&M, and in a sloppy sense, but I don't read what she writes as comporting with the title of your piece.

But fwiw, I submit that most W&M supporters at the TPM Cafe are equally sloppy in terms of what they support in the book. When we speak of W&M's thesis, are we not speaking of theses? That is to say, isn't their principal argument that the many different Jewish and non-Jewish groups who make up the so-called Israel Lobby exercise extraordinary influence in Washington? I believe that is correct. But, as I understand things, W&M also assert something far more sinister in my view, and that is that, but for the influence of the Israel Lobby, American boys and girls would not be dying in Iraq.

Should anyone choose to respond to this comment I pose, please note that I am not convinced by references to the number of footnotes in their book, because even right wing maniacs like Ann Coulter have lots of footnotes, as did Professor Leonard Jeffries when he asserted that the European slave trade could not have occurred but for Jewish financing. Succinctly stated, counting footnotes is not a scholarly exercise; it is, at most, a political statement in this instance.

I would be more interested in someone explaining to me what is in those footnotes, i.e, what is the evidence put forward by W&M that we would not have been in Iraq but for the extraordinary influence of the so-called Israel Lobby. It's this premise, if I understand W&M correctly, that I take issue with, and serious issue with, both from an historical perspective and a realist assessment of what makes George Bush et al. tick.

I think it is fair to ask the foregoing questions, because so many of our fellow posters have embraced W&M, and a few may have even read the book. Embracing W&M, without explaining what one embraces, is an ambiguous and undefined embrace at best.

Finally, MJ, I don't condone davai's ongoing and obsessive personal assaults on you at all and I wish he would stop, but his question to you in this thread is a fair one, one that I have for you as well, and that is, what is it about W&M's book that you find objectionable? You are the principal moderator about I-P issues at the Cafe, an unenviable position perhaps, but that's why you get paid the big bucks. :) I think it's fair for you to elaborate on the flaws you see in W&M's thesis, or more accurately, theses. Thanks.

Bruce

Finally, MJ, I don't condone davai's ongoing and obsessive personal assaults on you at all

davai:

I don't like to gang up on anybody, ever, and maybe that's why I don't criticize you that much since you get plenty of zeroes and stuff from the rest of the gang. But you don't help your arguments, or those on whose behalf you argue, by engaging in personal attacks on MJ.

I promise you this: I will defend you and vigorously so when you make substantive argument and still are personally attacked by folks on here, and I will upgrade your zero ratings when I think they are politically motivated. But I have to tell you that I think it's wrong for you to keep insulting MJ, and I cannot defend you with credibility if that's the approach you continue to take.

Bruce

Well for starters, two wrongs don't make a right davai. You know that.

I never even thought about Kristol's religion

For example, it was in the last day or two that Davai brought up, in the context of the 2003 invasion of Iraq [Note 1], Bill Kristol, a list of Administration people he influenced to launch the Iraq operation. Davai said this was anti-semitic because Kristol is Jewish

To me, this is an example of Davai's constant playing of the anti-semitism card, in a case where Jewish identity was not part of the discussion.

As far as Davai's constant complaining about MJ, conflated with said card, I picture Davai as a little boy jumping up and down

Bruce,

I think it's fair for you to elaborate on the flaws you see in W&M's thesis, or more accurately, theses.

MJ, Howard and others, here is your moment.
Let's forget about W&M.
Would you at least condemn this guy is antisemite. If he is not antisemite, who is ?

Ruth Wisse and others like her can say what they want, but an accurate reading of history reveals that the Palestinians were made into a bulls eye by the Balfore agreement.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Wordie,
You, MJ, W&M and the rest of the gang allege that AIPAC dictates U.S. policy in the Middle East, helping Israeli interests and hurting U.S. ones.
You guys also argue that AIPCAC is using it's infuence on American media to prevent American people to know the truth. People who are trying to tell the truth like W&M Carter, Finkelstein, MJ and other are subjected to persecutions.
AIPAC is a Jewish organization.
Your understanding of AIPAC can be fairly summarized as "Jewish cabal".
It doesn't mean and nobody allege that every single American Jew is a member of a Jewish cabal.
Authors of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
never alledged that ALL Jews were part of that Jewish cabal.

If he had changed one reference from "Jews" to "Israelis" in

The Jews are stealing orange groves and land from Palestinians

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Bush/Cheney would have gone to war if there was no lobby, but the lobby allows itself to be used for their interests. That's not only a risk to the lobby, it's a risk to other Jews might well become scapegoats in the future. The war profiteers have no friends or allies and no morals either. They serve only themselves. They will throw the lobby (and Israel) to the wolves when it's no longer useful.

Why didn't you attack them when they did that?
I do, I've said several time sin tmpcafe that US
is not Nazi Germany or USSR.
US are still one of the most free country in the world. I agree that many leftwingers are crazy morons not only about Jews but also about
my adopted country, US.
BTW, it makes me feel better to know that left winger anti-semites who also say crazy things about US are reallly, really a very small minority in US and have no chances to get any support.

No, I didn't say make a statement that the US is not Nazi Germany or the USSR. I said that when someone we both may consider crazy such as Clark and Chomsky says anything, I don't see you condemning on threads dealing with their comments. I do, however, see you calling things that criticize Israeli actions, questions if Israel and the US have always-parallel seurity interests, or criticize an ideological figure that happens to be Jewish, you go off about antisemitism.

So no, I don't consider the statement made especially anti-semitic, and I don't consider criticizing Kristol's acolytes remotely anti-semitic.

It really puzzles me, seriously, if Israel's fate is so important to you, why did you not adopt Israel as your country, not the US? I see you terribly concerned about Israel's security interests, but can't remember you commenting about a US security interest where Israel was not involved. Where are you, for example, on threads dealing with East Asian issues? Why are you extremely concerned with the potential of Iran having nuclear weapons, when I haven't seen much from you about North Korea?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Looks like MJ has his very own obsessive-compulsive stalker, at least on the subject of Israel.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the US District Court subpoena of Condoleezza Rice and other US foreign policy officials to testify at the trial of the two AIPAC lobbyists on charges of passing classified information to Israel. Smart legal move by the lobbyists attorneys, but the Administration will likely fight it. This Administration would rather drop the case than reveal any of their so called "secrets", really just embarrassments.

I don't remember any post on tpmcafe about North Korea. People don't care about North Korea and the rest of the world.

People only care about Israel.

Well I don't remember a thread about Chomsky

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

One might observe the similarities between conflation and inflation, and marvel that only one specifically deals with expanding an object with gas.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." [Winston Churchill]

MJ wrote:
NOTE: This is the 3rd Washington Post piece attacking criticism of the lobby in the past six weeks.

Correction_1:

NOTE: This is the 3rd Washington Post piece
CRITICIZING ATTACKS on the lobby in the past six weeks.

Correction_2:
NOTE: This is the 3rd Washington Post piece
CRITICIZING CRITICISM of the lobby in the past six weeks.

FAQ:
1.Can you critize the lobby?
Yes, if you can clearly define who is and who is not a member of the lobby.
2. Can you critize the criticism the lobby?
Yes.
3. Can you attack the criticism the lobby?
What's the difference compare #2?

BevD:

I think that Bar-K has in fact read that letter and you are seeing how he interprets it.

Looking at Nazi Germany after the fact Bar-K equates the Jews trying to practice Satyagraha towards the Nazis as producing the same result of just letting themselves be killed.

Ghandi then compounds his offense: he 'understands' the Muslim violence but when it comes to the Jews going to Palestine "it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun." This looks remarkably like a double standard.

I always find it amusing that to be a true friend of Israel in these arguments, one must agree with Likud. If you agree with the position of the Labor party, you're an anti-semite.

It's just the same old crap that goes back to McCarthy, Huey Long, Chauvin, Savanorola, an endless list of those who cannot defend their actions and must therefore attack those who dare raise questions.

If he had read the letter, he wouldn't have interpreted it that way. Ghandi didn't ask the Jewish people to do anything more or less than he was doing himself. He said the Jews must stand their ground, not as Jews, but as Germans, and fight the German government as he did in South Africa and was doing in India - passive resistance in all things. Satyagraha is a system of non violent protest which combines passive resistance to any law or laws which are immoral with daily, visible sit downs. (This is the method employed by Poland in its only successful revolution of the 20th C.) Under no circumstances do you surrender or stop or by any means compromise your position, even if it takes years.

If you had read the letter, you would know that there was no double standard there at all. He specifically states that all of sympathies lay with the Jews, that if any war could be just it would be a war to fight this persecution (and this was in 1938) but no wars can ever be just and the only way to real peace is through the practice of non-violence.

Ghandi fully understood why the Jews wanted Palestine, but taking the land from the Arabs by means of violence and with the protection of the British government was inherently unfair to the Arabs and would be a source of ceaseless conflict. How right he was, too.

Thanks for replying to my post MJ.
Bruce

AJM, I don't understand your metaphor. You're saying the Israeli Lobby is a dead 1920's black rapist dredged from a river? How did he/it end up dead in the river? What is the counterpart to the raped Southern belle--U.S. foreign policy?

In any case, discrimination and prejudice against blacks in the Jim Crow South did not come from reportage of actual crimes committed by actual black criminals against actual white victims, but from refusal of white juries and white law enforcement agencies to take seriously actual crimes committed by actual white criminals AGAINST actual blacks victims.

Kinda ironic, in a post where you warn against encouraging the world's prejudice that you would gratuitiously conjure a symbolic black rapist, symbolically kill him and dump his symbolic body in a Southern river.

Bruce: I appreciated your willingness to speak to davai about the problem of his constant attacks earlier, and I appreciate this stronger statement. I applaud your willingness to recognize that insults have no place here at TPM Cafe. You needn't worry about uprating davai's zeros though; he does that himself with his sockpuppet, secretweapon. His doing so only confirms that he is a troll.

Because you were so forthcoming in taking this step, I'll issue my own mea culpa. In an earlier discussion (not with you), I said that another poster, hass, was attacked on the basis of his views about a one state solution (note that I personally do not support a one state solution). But I spoke too soon, and realized as I rethought it sometime later that Hass is also attacked because of the way he argues (insults, rants), much as with davai. I spoke to Hass in the past about this, to little avail; I strongly suspect your comments to davai will have no effect either. I've been meaning to go back and say something about this in the thread where my comment occurred, but it's long since buried, so thanks for opening the door.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

You and MJ, at least, bring up points worth discussing. Davai mostly whines and throws out irrelevant questions, which add nothing to the discussion.

You have the integrity to live in Israel, and take risks. You've earned a degree of respect from me that Davai has not.

Charles Krauthammer many years ago wrote a piece in Time Magazine that said that those who say they hold Israel to "higher standards" than their own or other countries are antisemitic.

I disagree, I don't think it's anti-anything to
ask WHY our CONGRESS has now, for all intents
and purposes, become the United Nations. It
also unfortunately makes plain and clear why
the UN has been allowed to go to hell, because
no one respects it as a venue anymore.

People want money. Specifically, people in
other countries want our tax money. Every
nickel they can grab. Matter of fact, just
shorten that to 'they want our money'. Period.
And, I don't think that their lobby, or any
foreign interest lobby for that matter, should be taking it personally or as an ethnic/racial affront to be asked, politely, to put down our congresscritters, and slowly back away.
You read a lot of this hyphenated-americanism
stuff anymore, these people and those people
and the other people claim basically some
other nationality first, and their american
citizenship SECOND. I say 'take the first one,
and pretty please get the hell OUT. If it's
so great that you just can't bear to let go
of it when you moved to the USA, well, then
by all means, go back there. And, solve your OWN
problems.

I leave it to you to figure out why this has
all come about, my opinion is it's all about
the $$$$, corruption gone corporate, gone
global, and Certain Parties just standing back
and letting it all happen. Meanwhile, it
all largely goes unreported on CNN. Hmmm....

Well, if I was king for a day, I'd go before
Congress and ask that they police themselves
both individually, and as a body, for undue
foreign influence, and go ahead and burn
another quart of the old midnight oil to
help define and mutually understand what that
is. I think America spread thin the world over
is America dissolved, and I don't think it's
quite gonna work out. At least, not for
americans, maybe it'll be ok for all the folks
demanding money and getting it, but not for
americans themselves. Couple that with the
runaway immigration thing, and you've got a
recipe for a Big Problem...O Brave New World
of Globalizationer...

I strongly suspect your comments to davai will have no effect either

Correct, because I’m a wrong target. The problem is hateful inflammatory writing by MJ. He calls religious people crazy, he calls Brooklyn Jews nuts, He blames Russian Jews for all problem in Israel, he accuses Harvard professor in lying, he call every Jew with who he disagrees about anything, neocon, jewish neocon or a member of the Israel lobby and on and on and on. There is nobody else among tpmcafe contributors practice such hate speech.

Viewed from where I sit, the discussions about the Lobby, which began quite some time ago here at TPM Cafe (to my knowledge, they started in March 2006) have been accompanied by so much acrimony and angry charges and counter-charges that it may be hard to know what anyone really thinks at this point. I do know that in the beginning, there were many loud claims that either W&M themselves were antisemitic, or that they had written an antisemitic paper. Even when quotes from the W&M paper were offered that directly contradicted some of these claims, the claims continued, much as they are continuing now with this new article from Wisse (sorry for the earlier misspelling). Even way back then, I personally said I didn't agree with all of what they wrote, but at that time, it was impossible to begin a substantive discussion of the issues raised in the paper, as there was so much disruption of any attempt to do so, and twisting of what they actually had said. It's getting better now, but it may be that people who remember what was said back then are less likely to bring up their reservations, for fear that those who are absolutely certain that W&M represent evil incarnate will sieze on those reservations and miss the larger (and more nuanced) points. (Watch what davai will do to this post for an example of this point in action.)

I do happen to think that "the Israel Lobby" can be a difficult term, as it may be too broad to be useful in many situations. I think that W&M, as I understand it, tried to refine and narrow the term a bit in their book (which I have not yet read, so don't quote me on this). A term that distinguished those rightwing Jewish supporters of Israel who are so prominent in AIPAC, and/or who are neocons, or support the neocon approach to the ME, or who are too willing to go along with either of these, might be far more useful way of describing where many of us feel the problem lies.

As far as the responsibility for the Iraq war is concerned, I think the description of some Jews in both Israel and the U.S. as being co-opted is probably accurate, but at the same time I think there were other Jewish-Americans who did play a more active role, and W&M rightly point that out. I think that an article I read some time ago on the Jewish Voice for Peace site describes it best:

Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq?

By Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy, Jewish Voice for Peace; Joel Beinin, Professor of Middle East Studies at Stanford University; and Cecilie Surasky, Director of Communications, Jewish Voice for Peace

As the war on Iraq rages on with no end in sight, the scandals around its beginnings continue to proliferate. Because of these scandals, one question now being revisited is the role the state of Israel may have played in initiating the invasion of Iraq.

Israel's role is debated whenever American policy in the Middle East is discussed. This is inevitable, because Israel is America’s key ally in the region and because the Israel-Palestine conflict is the focal point of attention for virtually anyone who cares about the Mideast.  Some critics of the war on Iraq maintain that the decision to go to war was made largely to advance Israeli interests. Others maintain that Israel had nothing to do with it. The evidence suggests, however, that neither of these views is accurate.

The neocons and Israeli support for the war
We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Many of the neocons are Jewish, though not all of them. But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq.

A number of key figures among the neocon wing of the Bush Administration were involved in writing an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. This paper listed removing Saddam Hussein from power as an “an important Israeli strategic objective.” It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward war on Iraq, simply didn’t think about this. Writers involved in the “Clean Break” paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were powerful proponents, in and out of government, for the war on Iraq.

Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.”Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other reports indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.

They go on to describe the competing reasons - those elements that also led to war that had nothing to do with "pro"-Israel influence. So this article has one view of the mix of influences that led to war, W&M have another perhaps slightly different one, and probably everyone who has thought seriously about the issue has yet another slightly different take on it. It seems to me that it may be really impossible to know in exactly what proportion the differing elements that resulted in war all came together in the ultimate decision to act. But it's undeniable that there were a number of influential neocons both in and outside of the Bush administration who had been pushing for "regime change" in Iraq since the middle of the 90s, some of whom (but not all) were hawkish Israelphiles, and so it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude, as W&M do, that they had a definite effect on the decision. 

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

Militant Zionist fanatics are walking in the footsteps of 1930's Germany. Not terribly surprising since they for all intents and purposes are Germanic culturally and genetically and their formative experiences all revolve around the Nazi era. Like abused children they seem to know only violence and are themselves mentally unstable and will inevitably frustrate themselves as well.

It's tragic that so many cliches about the Nazi, the paranoia, the militarism, the Napolean complex, the bunker mentality, are again playing themselves out among those militant Zionists whose psychology were shaped by the traumas of the 20th century.

You have the integrity to live in Israel, and take risks. You've earned a degree of respect from me that Davai has not.

Krauthammer apparently believes that as long as one country in the world does worse things than Israel, it is antisemitic to criticize Israel before criticizing that state. Essentially, Krauthammer is saying, as I read it, that Israel expects not to be criticized as long as it is one better than the least common denominator of the world.

No it's not what he said at all. Your interpretation of what he said is totally wrong.
However, Israel and I hope all reasonable people in the world should find inexcusable that Israel is the only country condemned by UN Human Right organizations.

Look at how desperate you are to claim Carter is implying a cabal when he's said to such thing.

Carter and M-W said there are some very influential and powerful people, some of whom are Jews, some of whom are uber hawks, some of whom are zealously pro-Israel, and that they coordinate sometimes and share common interests sometimes. Which is undeniable.

It's pathetic how deeply you apparently need to feel your being victimized and slandered unfairly. It's some sort of mental illness where you rationalize that since your critics are always evil, you're de facto beyond criticism. That's the same crazy defense many fanatics adopt, from the Nazis to Jim Jones. That's insane.

Sane Jews and sane Israelis would do themselves a favor to distance themselves from the fanatics. It's a bad idea to let the lunatics represent one's country, religion and culture.

It's also no coincidence the Israeli fundies and wingnuts hooked up with the American fundies and wing nuts, and had an evil spawn the Neocons, and all hell broke lose.

I didn't say generic American Jews don't have a right to support Israel. I said that you, Davai, being as militant as you are about Israel's hyperaggressive defense position, and having left one country to go to another, is a hypocrite for not having settled in Israel and taken risks personally.

Had you been born here, and then said, safe in the US, that Israel should ignore the fact that it's one of the world's strongest militaries and played the Holocaust-is-around-the-corner card, I could chalk it up to lack of knowledge. I could understand it even better given your demonstrated lack of military knowledge.

But I call you a hypocrite and a coward, for choosing to emigrate to a land where you were safe from real antisemites, and then criticizing everyone else for criticizing Israel. As I've said, while I disagree with Bar Kochba, I have a certain respect for him living his convictions.

Forget Krauthammer. You, Davai, have so often criticized people for saying anything negative about Israel as long as some other country doing worse, and I have so often pointed out that you are using the tu quoque defense used at Nuremberg, that I believe that your tactic is to shift responsibility to anyone you can think of before accepting criticism of Israel. Failing that, you play the antisemitism card.

Frankly, I have very little concern for what UN human rights organizations may or may not do. I've never made it a secret that while I believe the UN provides a useful venue for world organizations dealing with technical issues, which can include humanitarian operations, I believe that peace operations can work only with regional groups, possibly supplemented with something along the lines of Barnett's Leviathan.

I do note, however, that this is yet another way you are trying to change the subject. Nevertheless, I have never criticized Israel because some UN human rights organization passed a resolution about something or other. The closest I've come is criticizing IDF troops for shooting up a UN observation post. My criticism of Israel has to do with its observable military and political actions.

I have even harsher words for the PNAC ideologues, for whom a dominant Israel is part of their agenda but certainly not the only part.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Utter nonsense friend. Utter nonsense.

Howard, don't hide behind such nonsense.
If you don't want to comment on MJ hate speech,
don't comment, just skip it.

I don't think that there's much evidence to support your statement that many posters at TPM "embrace" what W & M have written in their book. I do think, however, there is ample evidence to suggest that many here at TPM support their right to say what they have said without being called anti-Semitic which they most certainly are not. W & M receive this kind of support from people on this site because of the irrational, hysterical and totally unreasonable reaction of a certain segment of those who are pro-Israel and who reflexively use this label to stifle debate that is not 100% supportive of whatever the Israeli government happens to be doing at any given point in time. Many who are pro-Israel have to endure being called anti-Semitic if they dare make any suggestion that not everything Israel wants is best for the middle east generally or even Israel particularly.

You don't have to agree with most or even anything in W & M's book to know they are not anti-Semitic and to defend their right to make the points they make without being tarred and feathered as such for daring to suggest that the present arrangements in Washington regarding Israel should, perhaps, be reviewed with a more critical eye. Our national debate suffers and so does Israel because of this censorship of and ostracization of anyone who dares to wonder aloud if we maybe oughta consider doing things differently with respect to Israel.

Any sane person can see that the current situation is untenable and fraught with increasing danger. We have a right, as Americans, to assess what our government is doing over there and also what the Israeli government is doing and make suggestions for change as we do in any country that we assist as heavily as we assist Israel. Our policies need a thorough review not just by officials and politicians, but by the people. However, no intelligent review of middle east policy can occur if no mention is allowed of anything that might approach a criticism of Israeli government policy.

We have to get past this weird hyperparanoia and start taking a cold, hard look at how we can get from where we are to a lasting and worthwhile peace for everyone in the middle east. This is the only way to secure Israel's future IMO. I have no prescription for how we achieve this goal but if we can't talk about how things work in American politics when it comes to Israel we will be unable to achieve much.

Our national debate suffers and so does Israel because of this censorship of and ostracization of anyone who dares to wonder aloud if we maybe oughta consider doing things differently with respect to Israel.

Talking about "ostracization", please don't play the victim card. People who who dares to wonder aloud if we maybe oughta consider doing things differently with respect to Israel should not be immuned to critizism.

However, no intelligent review of middle east policy can occur if no mention is allowed of anything that might approach a criticism of Israeli government policy.

The wierdest thing about calling people like Carter and Ghandi antisemites is that it threatens to rehabilitate antisemitism. Let's reserve the term for truly repugnant and hateful types like Hitler. If Ghandi is now an antisemite, antisemitism is a characteristic of some truly admirable people. But I don't believe that's the case--and not because Ghandi wasn't admirable.

The amusing thing about all this is that if there were an Arab professor in any American university even half as nuts as Wisse, liberals here would become defensive and the reactionaries would throw a fit.
But somehow she ended up at Harvarvd and in the Washington Post, a full-on racist.
That reality skews the entire debate. The Arabs are the outsiders being discussed.

And as some have pointed out Mearsheimer and Walt's argument attempts to put the blame on others for the actions of the US. That ideological nationalism is not worth defending.

Maybe we should be asking davai if he has the integrity to join the National Guard and spend several tours in Iraq.

You know, this is probably one of the more anti-semitic posts in this thread.

You first describe anti-semites as "someone who cannot accept that Jews are different" and the anti-semite thinks that "they bring all the persecution on themselves for being different." That doesn't make sense in even the most existential interpretation, nor does it make sense in the basest of interpretations. Jews are not any different than any other human beings. They are not separate from the rest of humanity in any physiological normative development. They assimilate into every single culture in which they have emigrated, just like every other group which has migrated from place to place.

What anguished Jews the most in pre-war Europe wasn't that others wouldn't accept them as "different" it was that others wouldn't accept them as the same. They considered themselves Germans, French, Dutch, Polish and Russian (to name a few) and the anti-semitism that swept Europe at that time was a complete reversal of what they had fought so hard to achieve - a national identity of birthplace, sacrifice and historical/ancestral ties. For too many reasons to list here, the Jews were betrayed by their own countrymen, not because the Jews were different, but because the Jews considered themselves the same. That was the great crime of that war - that a nation could turn on its own citizens and kill them to further a political agenda. (Just as it was a crime for the U.S. to lock up American citizens of Japanese descent no matter how it was rationalized - it was morally wrong.)

Your example of a "bad" Jew (whatever that is supposed to mean) is really abhorrent - why would embracing the political philosophy of communism make them "bad?" It would seem that you're exhibiting a prejudice and bigotry of your own - "all communists are bad." It's also a ridiculous claim - the fact that they were Jewish had nothing to do with their activism, it was political, not religious activism. The Russian revolutionaries who happend to be Jewish who fought the despotism of Russia did so not out of religious conviction but political conviction - they wanted a better Russia. (As to your claim that a high percentage of communist activists were Jewish sounds straight out of Goebbels' propaganda machine.)

No one claims Gandhi was perfect, especially Gandhi, but you have absolutely and completely given a false and derrogatory description of Gandhi and his beliefs. That site you mention is connected with an anti-semitic organization that has made false and morally reprehensible claims about Gandhi for the sole purpose of propagating anti-semitism. (Do you see now how propaganda works? You were certainly pulled into it, weren't you?) The man's life was a complete and utter repudiation of bigotry, hatred, violence and religious prejudice and with only cursory knowledge of his work and philosophy, you are willing to believe the most vile accusations against him, the same thing you seem to rail about in just about every thread you engage in at this site. That you so disengenuously throw out that website as a source makes me suspect any claims you make about anyone because even a modicum of research would have told you exactly what that site is all about - and yet you used it to reinforce your false claim, what does that tell us about you?

Shame on you, sir, shame on you.

MJ,

They each specifically and repeatedly write and say that "there is no cabal" and that they are talking about the "Israel lobby which is made up on Christians, Jews and others." They say that over and over again.

And yet, even MJ's own Israel Policy Forum is part of the Israel Lobby (at least by Walt's & Mearsheimer's LRB definition of the term).

(1) So Communism wasn't "bad", huh? Go ask the people in Russia, Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, etc, etc, old enough to remember the Communist regimes there and see what they think about it. I know a lot of Jews in Israel who lived under Communism and they all hated it.

(2) Gandhi's quotes about Jews are in open literature, including the Jesus-killer quote. I don't know anything about the web site you are talking about, it was put together by someone with an Indian name and didn't strike me as antisemitic.

(3) Your statement about Jews in Europe is totally incomprehensible to me. Europeans looked upon Jews as "different". I know many Jews from the pre-war Europe and I have heard what it was like, in both "liberal" western Europe and "antisemitic" eastern Europe. The countries with the highest death toll of Jews in the Holocaust included "liberal, democratic" Holland and Norway. They handed over their Jews to the Nazis quietly and efficiently. If there hadn't been a "low-level" genteel antisemitism in these "liberal" countries that brought the general population to collaborate, then the German's genocidal antisemitism would have been much harder to implement, as indeed was the case in Denmark, where the population refused to help the Germans.
Gandhi's "well-meaning" antisemitism was just the sort to set the stage for the Holocaust, after all, didn't he tell everyone in Europe NOT to fight the Nazis (Len Deighton in his non-fiction book about World War II mentions that Gandhi sent a message of admiration to Hitler on his conquest of France). He also told the Abyssinians to roll over and die in front of the Italian invaders.

Again, I am, as you say "prejudiced and racist"-Communism is BAD and those who supported it in the West have to account morally for supporting such an evil system.

Are you serious? You said:

-----------------------
He said the Jews must stand their ground, not as Jews, but as Germans, and fight the German government as he did in South Africa and was doing in India - passive resistance in all things. Satyagraha is a system of non violent protest which combines passive resistance to any law or laws which are immoral with daily, visible sit downs.
------------------------

What right does he have to tell ME that I must not "act like a Jew" but as a "German"? Jews are supposed to be loyal citizens of the country they live in. That is a given, but he has no right to tell me to give up my identity (if indeed that is waht he said) in order to put me in some box (i.e. a "good Jew" in his terms) defined by a bizarre political philosophy, which his own India and his disciple Nehru chucked out as soon as he was dead.
IIRC George Orwell said Gandhi had the good luck to be up against the British, not the Nazis. We Jews weren't so fortunate.

Hi Z,
Good point. You remind me that W-M make that point which, in my opinion, is silly.
IPF and AIPAC are only part of the same lobby in the sense that we are both pro-Israel.
In fact, however, in the 9 years I've been at IPF, our positions have been consistently at odds with AIPAC.
We tend to work with Americans for Peace Now, Churches for Middle East Peace, Brit Zedek v'Shalom, and the American Task force for Palestine consistently opposing the AIPAC-drafted bills and resolutions.
To include IPF in the lobby is just silly, and I don't know why W-M used that rubric, It is more accurate to say that pro-Israel opinion in America is represented not just by groups like AIPAC but also by pro-Israel groups like IPF etc which, in contrast to AIPAC, believe that the only way to effectively be pro-Israel is to support the two-state solution.

He didn't tell anyone to do a damned thing and if you knew anything about him other than the crap you picked up at some neo-nazi site, you'd know that.

He spent his entire life fighting against racial and relgious bigotry and in the end was killed for it. For your information, Gandhi's philosophy WORKED. It achieved exactly what he said it would. The fact that the Muslims and Hindus were too blindly bigoted to understand what he was trying to tell them, isn't Gandhi's fault, it was their fault, and they're still suffering for it today. As he so presciently pointed out, you cannot separate yourself from bigotry, you cannot run from it and you cannot live with it - any moral person MUST confront it.

Interesting that George Orwell would so conveniently forget the racist, murderous occupation of India by Great Britain. If it proves anything, it's that all people are willing and able to overlook their own history of brutality in the attempt to comfort themselves that the other people are so much worse than they are.

I know exactly from what website you culled these lies and canards - quit trying to bullshit people and quit bullshitting yourself.

Any port in the storm, huh, to prove your point, even if it's a racist, anti-semitic site that EXACTLY like the nazis propagates smears and lies to destroy the reputation of someone who was so inherently good, so beyond corruption, so greatly humane that the only way to respond to his philosophy is to besmirch his reputation and sully his legacy.

I don't know much about satan worshipers , so let's talk about antisemites or racists.
You say that you can't label people racists or antisemites if it isn't true.
I agree. My question is who should decide who is and who is not xxx-ist? One Ivy League school professor think that W&M are antisemites.Another Ivy League school professor think that Reagan is race-baitor. Should they have a right to say what they think or not?
What they say is not facts, it's just opinions.
You might disagree with their opinions, but why you want to deny Krugman and Wisse the right to say what they think?

I agree, Bev. One of the most effective things we could do to reduce the power of lobbies in general would be to pass legislation for public financing of elections, thereby reducing the dependence of our representatives on interest group funding,  

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

In unguarded moment anti-Zionist shows his true ugly face of anti-semite.
Jews who started according to bluebells all the wars don't don't fight the wars but instead send gentile to fight their wars. Good job bluebell.

In fact, however, in the 9 years I've been at IPF, our positions have been consistently at odds with AIPAC

No way.
They want to be able to call people with whom they disagree wit all kind of -ism labels, but they themselfes don't want to be called antisemites no matter what they do or say.

I don't understand how American Jews will become scapegoats for what the Israel Lobby does, unless critics of the Lobby do a pretty poor job distinguishing the American Jewish community in general from the hardliners on issues pertaining to Israel and the Middle East. I understand, for example, that W&M almost stand on their heads to point out the distinction between the so-called Israel Lobby and the overall American Jewish community.

You say that the critics of the Lobby may contribute to a rise in antisemitism, but doesn't the furious smear campaign against W&M, in which those who wish merely to discuss the book are themselves at risk of being labeled as anti-semitic, a much greater concern in this respect? An unjust label of antisemitism may in some cases create a self-fullfilling prophecy, if only for the resentment it causes. 

That said, I think many of us who think W&M have done a very good thing in opening the topic up for discussion, have often stepped up to mak