This is a very important and sadly revealing post, although it does confirm what has always been my strong impression of the London Review of Books -- as "collectively" off the deep left end on anything concerning the Middle East.

When Adam Shatz left The Nation as book-review editor to move to the LRB, my assumption was that he was moving that way, too, so I'm surprised by your report that, presumably, he and other editors approved your review, only to be overruled from the terminally politically- correct top of the "collective."

Like genuine social-democrats in the 1930s and '40s who had to spend a lot of energy fighting both Stalinism and fascism, those of us who find ourselves fighting both Israel-hatred and AIPAC and the neo-cons would like to see more sane analysis like that in Bernie Avishai's review and, apparently, in the book. It's saddening to know that the LRB still can't get there.

You had an article rejected, with no explanation. Unless you have some evidence that you are keeping to yourself, the rest of this post appears to be fabricated entirely out of your own imagination, to serve your own ego. Ultimately, it appears you have no real knowledge about why your article was rejected, and have simply made up an explanation that suits your vanity, and thrown it out in public to extract revenge on the editor. Maybe you're right; maybe you're wrong. How many people in the universe care?

Of course, you can post whatever you want on your own blog. But I wish Josh would exert some more editorial control here and cut down on the number of posts by whiny prima donnas carrying their personal lives and petty little literary wars into the public sphere.

"We are supposed to believe the half-truths that keep our thoughts and loyalties from getting getting messy: e.g., that Hussein's was just a police state left over by Churchill, which colluded with Israel to repress the Palestinians; that the problem is Israel, the solution, one-state for all, and that we could get there, presumably, if not for Israel's occupation-regime, the Jewish lobby, Republicans, and, yes, backward, repressive Arab monarchs."

I suspect this is the paragraph that actually offends Dan K and Colore. Any point of view that doesn't place Israel at the epicenter of evil is to be marginalized. So Dan K claims that Mr. Avishai is simply whining about not getting published. "Get a life--that's what happens to writers." But actually, Dan, more than half the article was about King Hussein and a book written about him. Isn't that substantive enough for you? Or is it only substantive if the writer is detailing the myriad ways in which Israel has the Middle East tied up in knots and turning US into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Knesset?

And Colore twists the post beyond recognition by saying that it's a backdoor smear of M&W. Of course, much of the hoopla around M&W centered around how M&W were unable to get their article published here. Wails about censorship were heart throughout the land. And actually had SOME merit. But somehow, it's off limits to suggest there may be some ideological snuffing out of opposing views on the other side as well. Oh yes, and Mr. Avishai is principle-less money grubber. Had to get that point in there, too, didn't you?

petermschwartz responds to DanK and me with the following mindless dreck:

I suspect this is the paragraph that actually offends Dan K and Colore. Any point of view that doesn't place Israel at the epicenter of evil is to be marginalized.

petermschwartz can suspect anything he likes but it does not make it true. In fact, he is wrong on this as he was wrong in the remainder of his comment.

He also takes me to task for alluding to the fact that the London Review of Books has been hated by the Zionist Lobby ever since it published the Mearsheimer and Walt paper. Avishai wrote:

And you find many purveyors of this wisdom in Britain especially, which is why when the London Review of Books originally asked me to review Shlaim's book for them I jumped at the chance. It seemed to me that this magazine's audience in particular needed to hear a more complex view.

This is a remarkabale piece of chutzpah, written as it is for a primarily American audience - a nation whose elite opionion on Israel is formed and informed by racist magazines like Commentary and The New Republic. There have been many articles in The New Republic criticizing one aspect or another of domestic policy by both the Republican and Democratic parties. I can not remember ever seeing - or being directed to - any article critical of Israeli policy in these magazines other than to say it was not vicious enough towards the Palestinian people. This is well understood and should surprise no one - and certainly not Avishia. I can only conclude that Avishai lied when he wrote the piece I quoted.

Avishai needs to redirect his animus towards magazines like Commentary and The New Republic which have done immense harm to American Jewry as they blindly supported a decades-long Israeli occuption of the Palestinian Territories. I doubt he will, however, because he appears to be part of the problem and not part of the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dan K writes: "I'm not trying to "censor" anybody. But the site does have editors who decide who gets to post on the front page, and presumably exercise some guidance and judgment over the content of what gets posted on that limited front page space."

Front page? What front page? The only front page at tpm that I know of is Josh's home page. As for the individual blogs links (hardly a space issue, Dan, c'mon!), I believe they are featured on a rotating basis. Maybe there's some sort of algorithm based on time-since-last-being- featured and number of hits to a post. Or maybe relatively new-to-tpm bloggers get some extra advantage. Or something. But CLEARLY this is not a matter of editorial control. If you're willing to give a blogger a berth, you pretty much let him blog as he wishes.