The folowing are two excellent articles confirming Normon Solomon’s position on the M/W Essay:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060426/1047865.asp

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_mear_walt.htm

Jeffepops, your “sweet reason” attack on the W/M Essay won’t fly. They hit the nail on the head and now their detractors - like you - are trying to hit them on the head. Yours is the same old story re critics of pro-Israel influence in the U.S., but the tide is turning, however slowly. Sooner or later, reality catches up with propaganda.

The fact that the Walt/Mearsheimer essay is not outwardly anti-Semitic does not mean that it lacks certain biases or underlying assumptions that cater to anti-Semitic tendencies.

If one were to write and essay on black crime in urban America, or Mexican illegal immigration, one could cite facts and opinions that would on the face of it not be racist—even somewhat accurate—but would certainly portray a racist picture of blacks and Latinos.

The great problem with the W/M essay is that it is a strongly ideological anti-Israel position paper disguised as an academic study of the “Jewish Lobby”.  It cites only secondary sources that will bolster its original premise.  For example, while quoting excerpts from two or three opionion pieces written by individuals in the Israeli liberal/left Ha’aretz newspaper, the W/M piece presents these selections as if they reflect the editorial views of the newspaper itself.  One can imagine quoting right wing columnists in the New York Times, and attibuting those quotes as the consensus editorial opinion the Times itself.  Hardly honest or accurate.

As far as AIPAC itself, it is a registered lobby with a web site and publically stated agenda.  Its members, supporters and contributors cut a wide swath across the political spectrum, but the W/M report strictly focuses on the right-wing or neocon element.  I don’t always agree with AIPAC’s positions, but is this group to be subjected to greater restrictions than any other lobbying group? Despite its stated caveat that AIPAC operates within the same framerwork as other lobbies, the W/M paper then goes on to make just the opposite case. Should we enact laws that restrict the rights of American Jews, lest they become (if they are not already) too influential?  Or shall we just restrict the Jews on the right—the bad Jews? 

One of the greatest and most egregious contributions to stoking the fires of anti-Semitism, is villification by misquoting, partially quoting or omitting complete statements by a handful of Jews—with the express purpose of indicting Israel and Zionism (both of which are supported strongly, albeit in different ways, by Jews across the political spectrum).  Many critics have pointed out the misleading partial quotes from David Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, etc. Highly respected Israeli historian Benny Morris has consistently stated that his research reveals that Israel did not have a policy of deliberately driving out the Arab population during the 1948 War of Liberation, but the paper purports that Morris’s research reaches the opposite conclusion.  Not that this informtion has anything to do with the Jewish lobby directly, but it makes its goal of supporting Israel seem all the more insidious and evil. Walt and Mearsheimer have either poorly read Morris’s writings, or they have relied on biased secondary sources who have falsely manipulated the original research for ideological purposes.

The Walt/Mearsheimer advocacy paper has not been suppressed—just look at all the attention it has received, particularly in the JEWISH press. Even those of the left who are full time critics of Israel have acknowledged its poor scholarship, and flawed “research”.

Wait until someone (from the Right, of course) publishes a “working paper” on the dual loyalty problem with Mexican-Americans, and their efforts to reconquer the Southwest United States by sponsoring and supporting illegal immigration.  After all, Mexico has more billionaires than any nation other than the U.S. They control the Spanish language media in America.  Just what are they up to, anyway. And aren’t some of them Jewish?

Those pesky Jews! What’s to be done with them? Why must they make such trouble? Give occupied Texas back to Mexico. Or maybe Hawaii. Oh, wait, those criticisms only apply to Israel. Gosh, those Jews sure make me annoyed. (oops, better not say that too loud, they might hear me… I hear they control the government and the press, too).

Israel has never played fair about the West Bank.  It has de facto annexed a good deal of it and won’t give it back.  I have no faith in the Arabs per se but I don’t blame them for mistrusting the Israelis.  As for the Israel Lobby, I wish it were as important as the Finland Lobby or the Thailand Lobby in this country.

Excellent article. Any criticism of Israel, even of its non Palestinian victims like Rachel Corey, is verboten proving the correctness of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Not only is support of Israel destructive and without benefit to the U.S. it is destructive to Jews as well tranforming a once progressive culture to a neo-fascist doppleganger rife with hypocrisy and xenophobic nationalism.

Norman Solomon’s opinion piece and the ensuing supportive comments encourage me to believe that we have not been irretreivably propagandized. The accusation of “anti-semitism” to suppress critics of Israel’s excesses is a classic use of propaganda, i.e., the use of an oft-repeated term for which there can be no defense. Once tagged with the epithet, one is suspect. Americans of good faith must resist this propaganda tactic by exposing it at every opportunity.

Zionists and pro-Zionists have had for long used the blackmailing cliché of “Anti-Semitism” to silence anyone who dares to criticize Israel or its supports. Twenty-five years ago, when my fate caused me to land on the shores of this so-called great land of freedom, one of the great cultural shocks I received was the usage of the term “Anti-Semitism” which I was hearing for the first time. Since then, I never liked the idea that the Israelis were manipulating the term “Semitic” for their own when I was convinced that I, as a Muslim and a person of Arab stock, was a more pure “Semite” than many of the Jews and Israelis of today.
As a person of “Semitic” background, I would like to call those blackmailers as “Anti-Truth” and “Truth-Haters.” I believe that this “moral blackmail” practiced by this group amounts to what I would call “Thought-Terrorism.” It is, in my opinion, the worst form of terrorism evil people might use against those they do not like or disagree with them.
Even evil Bush, despite his low level of intellectualism, has admitted recently that Iran does not pose a direct threat against the USA; yet he is willing to go nuclear against Iran because it poses direct threat to Israel. In light of this, there are only two logical explanations: either Israel is the spoiled child of the USA political-military establishment, or that it holds a virtual occupation of Congress and the American political establishment in general. The blackmailing cliché of “Anti-Semitic” has served well and continue to serve the interests of Israel and the Zionist Christians. This, en essence, is the crux of the truth expressed eloquently by the two courageous and intellectual giants,John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Their critics are mere intellectual medgits and “Thought-Terrorists.”

I wonder how many people with “perspectives” on the Mearsheimer and Walt paper have even read their 80 page report.  People who make statements like “I’m not Jewish but anyone who criticizes Israel’s lobby in the U.S. should not be “highlighted” don’t really sound like citizens in a democracy.  And statements that claim the U.S. makes decisions that go against Israel’s interests without citing what are those decisions are not very believable.  To say “I have Jewish friends,” is not the same thing to say, “I support Israeli policies unconditionally.”  Conflating Israeli governmental policy and Jewish individuals is mostly only done in the U.S. and mostly done by gentiles as if it was a good idea for Israeli civilians as distinct from the military or U.S. vital interests in the Middle East to keep 3.5 Palestinian civilians under military occupation for thirty some odd years. 

The Mearsheimer/Walt report is a way to open debate in a country where too often debate is shut down by those who are angry that they no longer have a monopoly on speech about Israel.  Yet, every U.S. citizen pays taxes that fund Israel’s occupation.  It’s a basic responsibility of citizenship, not anti-Jewish, to understand what your taxes fund.  It’s called American civics. 

Radical extremists in the U.S. who do not represent American Jews or Americans in general have not nor will they have the last word on this subject, as much as they might wish they would.  No ideas are stopped by demonizing the authors, as Dershowitz, does on this website.  Dershowitz and his allies can harangue the rest of us all they want, but we are American and are not going anywhere.  Nor will we be smeared everytime we say something that they don’t like.  This is, after all, America.

Norman Soloman’s analysis of the media is as ever cogent and on target.  As for anyone who says “shut up and pay your taxes,” that statement signals precisely the problem that Mearsheimer and Walt finger.

Which is just another way of saying that all “dissent” is unAmerican and unpatriotic.

I’m of Scotch heritage and not Jewish. And I enjoy the alternative sources of news such as this ‘publicaion’ and Common Dreams News Center but do find them anti-Israel and have to turn to other sources to offset the constant anti-Jewish anti-Israel hammering. The Jewish people, many are friends, whom I know are loyal Americans. and as such are entitled to petition our government for issues they believe it. Often our government doesn’t support issues which are in Israel’s best interest and puts pressure on Israel to concede to our government’s wishes for things which are to Israel’s disadvantage. I am disappointed that any voice raised in opposition to Jews having any influence in Washington is highlighted and wildly supported by the alternative news sources.

I don’t think anyone in their right mind reads the Mearsheimer & Walt paper to mean that all Middle East releated foreign policy decisions are dictated by the Israel lobby. Like most of life it’s not an all or nothing situation. It’s more complex than that.

There are of course many other interests when it comes to this part of the word. Having grown up as the son of a military-industrial complex man in Saudi Arabia I can attest to that. Of course the oil and defense industries are huge lobbies and want to sell arms and equipment to the Arabs and the Israelis. Don’t forget the major construction firms such as Fluor, Bechtel, Morrison-Knudsen, Parsons etc. have much to do with it. Many large oilfield service companies are in the picute too. Halliburton has been in the Middle East for at least 50 years. I remember seeing their red and gray trucks in Saudi way back in the 50’s.  Dont forget Dresser Industries (now Dresser-Rand) - GWB’s grandpappy was on the board of that company and Baker-Hughes, Smith Tool Company and on and on.

The confluence of AIPAC and other Israeli lobbying organizations with the MIC creates a perfect storm of interests. Unfortunately that confluence of interests has led the American people down the road to perdition in a permanent war against the Islamic fundamentalists in support of Israeli and capitalist fundamentalists.

I’ve been spreading this around lately, but I believe it to be a very clear and cogent description of how policy and planning was conducted in the Pentagon in the run-up to the Iraq war.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1069

Kwiatowsky was posted at the Near-East desk at the Pentagon and recounts the thinking that went on at the time.  She presents context and discussion, without political invective, on the process from an insider’s POV.

I especially liked her description of “three colonels and a missile defense civilian in a car pool” discussions.  These decisions are not black box.  They are made by people.

This interview is all relevant and enlightening, but the most relevant part for this discussion is her description and characterization of Israeli influence on the process, and her belief (which both echoe Zinni’s public comments, and contributed to her decision to retire) that “American foreign policy should not be conducted in this way.”

Again, this is a very small part of the interview (at about 40 min into the Podcast), and is stated clearly and in context.

I also have to commend Truthdig for having the courage to include Mr. Solomon’s important post.  Didn’t see it on Kos or Huff.

I’ve been spreading this around lately, but I believe it to be a very clear and cogent description of how policy and planning was conducted in the Pentagon in the run-up to the Iraq war.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1069

Kwiatowsk

the big lobbys own our goverment ,to fight them is to fight america ,pay your taxes and shut up you idiots.

No defender of Israeli or American politics, even Noam Chomsky finds the work by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt to be unconvincing.

He basically says that the oil companies, arms industries, and other groups run American foreign policy.  Once again, Noam Chomsky is probably one of the most astute observers of American foreign policy:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

In Seymour Hersh’s piece in the New Yorker, he reveals that the prime mover of the Iran war policy is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  Their Patrick Clawson devised the plan and sold it to the Bushies.  The Washington Institute is AIPAC’s 501c(3), created by AIPAC in the 1980’s to serve as its tax exempt research arm.  So now AIPAC seems to have successfully pushed another Mideast war on this administration.  Not bad for a nonexistent lobby.

I’ve written about this in the past.  The idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon, even in 5 years per some estimates, is mainly a threat to our access to Middle Eastern oil, and to Israel.  NOT to the United States proper.  We are being played.

It is amazing how the tactic always works.  Careful, intelligent academics right a paper in a level tone, doing nothing but state facts.  Lobbyists skim over the paper long enough to see it is against their interests, and then proceed to call the paper ‘anti-Semitic’, knowing that hardly anyone will read the original paper and see the obvious truths it recounts.

Bravo, Mr. Soloman, for being an American Jew with the courage to call AIPAC out for waving around the “anti-Semitism” word for their own political purposes.  I feel very strongly that liberal American Jews must speak as candidly about our dissatisfaciton w/ certain Israeli policies as we do about our dissatisfactions w/ our own government.  With the spectre of being labeled an anti-semite forever looming over most Americans, it is understandable that many are afraid to express how they feel.  But they should not have to be!  (unless, of course, they really are racist…)

Anyone who supports the idea of PEACE in Israel & Palestine should check out Brit Tzedek V’Shalom and Jewish Voice for Peace on the web.  We musn’t lose faith that a lasting settlement can be reached!

It’s about time that the American people begin to wake up from the long nightmare of atrocities committed in their name. Unqualified US support of Israel is one of the leading causes of anti-American sentiment around the world and one of the reasons why America is targeted by the Islamic Jihadists. 9/11, to paraphrase Malcom X, was “the chickens coming home to roost.” Notwithstanding the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid this is the “net” loss in the relationship. One must be a fool, willfully ignorant, completely uneducated or just completely biased about the issue not to understand this. My tax accountant is Jewish – he’s a wonderful and a committed progressive - but when it comes to the Palestinians he understands they are oppressed but he stated to my face “I don’t care.” His position is that after what the Nazis did to the Jews we need to do whatever it takes to survive and if that means oppressing an entire people then so be it.

Next time you are searched before boarding an airplane think about the line of causality that extends from being a target of terrorism to the repression of a people. I do not condone violence in any form (except in extreme self defense) but can understand that when a people have no hope they resort to violence against those who cause and are perceived to cause their suffering. The Israeli governments’ policies and the USA’s support of them are the root cause of the suffering of the Palestinian people. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, “it’s the occupation stupid!” The facts of the matter are not really in dispute. Any position to the contrary is just blaming the victim just as it would be blaming a woman for being raped or the slave for being enslaved. The US has almost without exception supported Israeli-Zionist interests ever since we recognized the government of Israel in 1948. The litany of atrocities and complete disrespect for human rights by the Israeli government is far too long to write about here.

The publication of the paper by the two very well respected academics John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt has resulted in a predictable backlash by the pro-Israeli lobby in the American and world press. Charges of anti-Semitism are as predictable as the sun rising when anyone dares to criticize the Israeli government and its policies. American Jews, while usually quite liberal and progressive are for the most part committed to social justice except when it comes to the horrors perpetrated by the Israeli government on the Palestinian people. Apologists for the Israeli lobby such as, the neocon Max Boot and the lobby itself smugly point to organizations like CAMERA debunking the paper as if CAMERA were an objective source of information.

We say we support Israel because it shares our values? Wake up America – Israel is not a democracy any more than the USA would be if we expelled all non-Christians and declared that (except for a tiny minority who refused to leave) no one could be a citizen unless they were Christian. Unbalanced support for this quasi-theocracy is leading us down a path where we will forever spend our national treasure and blood defending that which is indefensible; justifying behavior which is unjustifiable. Please look at the history, the facts. The myth of the noble kibbutzim greening the desert and bringing truth justice and freedom to a bunch of backward Arabs is just that – a myth. The Israeli government has systematically engaged in ethic cleansing ever since the founding of the state and the gullible American taxpayer has supported that with blood and treasure. Look at the UN Security Council votes, at the wholesale transfer of arms. I could go on and on but this is not the forum. There are plenty of sources for this information. Even the Israelis themselves are more open about the debate than we Americans. For their part the Arabs are just as guilty of human rights abuses and atrocities as are the Israelis but until the US breaks its addiction to our one-sided support we have no hope of bringing peace to that region. We have not been an honest broker. This conflict is waged by two sides that base their beliefs and philosophy on “an eye for an eye” and until this cycle of violence is broken with some “turn the other cheek” we will be doomed to war and oppression and it’s consequences.

Well, here goes!

But seeing as how I am already retired, 67, and with a chronic life-threatening illness ... I am not too worried about the backlash from the Israeli cheering section. In fact, they will probably understand that a little notoriety will merely provide welcome attention at my stage of life, get the blood flowing and prolong my existence.

I read the “working paper by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was excerpted last month in the London Review of Books.” It made a lot of sense to me and fit my take on the news from the Middle East and elsewhere during my lifetime.

Granted, I’m not a Middle East Scholar. I’m a member of the working class, born a Swedish-American farm boy in Duluth, Minnesota back before World War II and raised by a mother who firmly believed that the establishment of the State of Israel was a sign of the imminent Second Coming of Jesus.

But I’ve read the newspapers all my life and I can’t escape the similarities between the modern State of Israel and the recent history of South Africa. And whenever the issue of apartheid is brought up as a yardstick, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent rational discussion from the “Israeli” side of the issue relative to the facts. Rather there seems to be a lot of agitation and yelling of slurs at the person who has the temerity to suggest that we examine the facts. Isn’t that in itself a sure sign that argument is on target and has hit a sore spot? Why don’t those who disagree simply refute the argument?

Another big point to this little ol’ farm boy ... how come we get so excited about everyone having “the bomb” except when Israel got it?

I mean, I am sure the deterence effect of Israel having “the bomb” hasn’t escaped the notice of others in the region. I mean, the deterence effect of North Korea having “the bomb” certainly hasn’t escaped anyone’s notice.

And now we want to toss the nonproliferation treaty overboard for India’s sake.

Somehow this idea of Chosen People of God (the Judaic-Christian God, by the way) having a Manifest Destiny has gone far enough. I mean watching children starve to death as we impose globalization on the world is not exactly my idea of Jesus’s message.

But it is the message given by the same God (earlier phase of development?) through Joshua at Jericho:

Joshua 6:21 (King Jmaes Version) “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword”

Dear Sir,

    Your reading of the piece is totally myopic.
It targets the Jews as agents of Israel and calls for effectively removing their ability to petition government. Anyone not an ideologue can see this a mile away.

    Not only do the authors butcher historical facts re the founding of Israel and downplay the imminent threat to that country’s security but they bring up all the classic conspiracy theories about the overwhelming mythical power of the Jews to make others bend to our will. It is absolute lunacy.

  America will do whatever is in her interest as will Israel. So far, their interests have more or less coincided but neither is the slave of the other.

The biggest problem I see when trying to have an intelligent debate about Israeli policy is that many people fail to recognize the inherent differences among: (1)anti-semitism (i.e., prejudice against jews); (2)anti-zionism (i.e., belief that Israel shouldn’t exist); and (3)disagreement with the way Israel handles its diplomatic affairs, particularly vis-a-vis Palestinians.  While it’s debatable whether one can really subsribe to anti-zionism without being anti-semitic, certainly one can disagree with Israel’s diplomatic policies (or lack thereof) without beeing anti-semitic or anti-zionist.  Concededly, I haven’t read the paper in question, but it would not surprise me to find that even highly educated scholars would refuse to make these distinctions in analysis, for fear that the audience will fail to see the distinction.  Such is the rabid fear of being labeled anti-semitic.  It blurs rationality and turns discourse into a meaningless frap of lowest common denominators.

What a return to Mearsheimer & Walt for trying to head off Armageddon for which, if it happens,  the Jewish settler-state, Israel and its only ally, America,  for sure will share responsibility.  What chutzpah, too, from Israel’s supporters,  for daring to accuse the settler-states’ critics of racism (anti-Semetism, to be exact)  when the very settler-state that they champion is doing an ethnic cleansing number on the Palestinian people.  If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, what is?    Apparently Israel’s supporters believe that, on account of the Holocaust,  they deserve a free ride to subjugate the Palestinian people.  Never mind that the escape from bondage in Egypt is the most compelling event in Jewish mythology and that the meaning of the Passover service which celebrates that event boils down to “none of us will be free until the last chain is broken.”    So it is not those of us who oppose Israel who are anti-Semites (in the spirit of Judaism we aim to set the Palestinian people free) but the Zionists themselves because they support the colonization (ie enslavement)  of a people.  Not only is this anti-Semetic, it’s downright sacrilegious

I recently commented on the AIPAC story (#6168) with much this same view.  Mr. Solomon does it here so much more eloquently and less devisively.

(BTW, I confused Meire Kahane with Abraham Foxman in that post.  The person Bury was talking to was Foxman.  Sorry.)

I also associate myself with Frank (post#6362) in that same thread and in all but his “racist” characterization. 

Israel has the right to exist and protect itself.  But it does not have the right to forcibly conquer, occupy, and colonize a neighboring country.

When the bugaboo of anti-semitism is used to advance the political agenda of Israel in the American body politic, this is a VERY DANGEROUS tactic for American Jews.  It opens the door wide for the backlash of reversing the rightful gains that have been secured in the past decades, based upon the actions of some radical right wing Judahists in Israel (Likud?), and Christianists (Robertson?) in the US.

The problem with all this is that Israel is NOT the only democracy in the Mid-East.  Palestine is also.  While we may not like the outcome of democracy, electorates have the right to express thier individual views, as they did in the Palestinian [honest] elections. 

The current Hamas vs. Likud/Kadima/Wall situation may very well be akin to “Nixon goes to China” in that hard-ass meets hard-ass and the negotiations reflect the acceptability that each side fought hard, didn’t sacrifice important beliefs, and got the best deal.  In short it may take the most hard-line elements in each camp to actually come up with a solution to this quagmire.

It is really bad to suppress debate at this point, as there seems to be something different in the equation, and, I would suggest, light at the end of the tunnel (as is in a revolutionary approach may be brewing). 

Israel/AIPAC have substantially more power (otherwise EVERY significant US politician would not make a beeline to the AIPAC convention) in this debate.  It is up to them to make the political overtures.

In the fervent plea department to both sides:  Stop assassinating each other!  Give it a chance!!

The mainstream corporate media effectively revealed its failings yet again.

First they ignored the paper, hoping it would go away.  Interest on the Internet and blogs exploded, driving the story into the mainstream.

Then the MSM launched stories about the paper focusing on quotes from wacko David Duke and Noam Chomsky’s take on the paper. Since when does the MSM take either seriously?

Americans reading the MSM carefully do not fail to note this slur of important news from thinkers outside the official “DC Think Tank” circuit they are so enamored of. 

Little wonder circulation rates at such “vaunted newspapers” as the LA Times and Washington Post continue to plummet.  They bring it on themselves.