On the Creeping Anti-Semitism Watch

Washington Post columnist and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson takes a hard look at The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Harvard's Stephen Walt and University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer and finds creeping anti-semitism. According to Gerson, Walt and Mearsheimer argue that the

"Israeli government and pro-Israel groups" have shaped President Bush's "grand scheme for reordering the Middle East."

As a former Bush insider, Gerson doubts that the "Israel lobby" had much influence on Bush Administration policy. He does offer what I think is a very nice rejoinder to the assertion by Walt and Mearsheimer that

"the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel"

Gerson retorts that statement is

the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia.

Gerson goes on to ask why Americans and our country's policymakers tend to support Israel. To wit:

Perhaps many Americans actually prefer Israel's flawed democracy to the aging autocrats and corrupt monarchies of the region.

Yes.

Perhaps they root for a reliable ally that is surrounded by nations still committed to its destruction.

Yes.

Perhaps many Americans recall that the Jews, just six decades ago, lost one-third of their number to genocide and believe that this persecuted people deserves a secure home and sanctuary.

Yes.

Perhaps Americans understand that anti-Semitism was the greatest source of evil in the 20th century and is not dead in this one.

Communism was the greatest source of 20th century evil, but anti-semitism was a pretty close second.

Gerson ends:

Every generation has seen accusations that Jews have dual loyalties, promote war and secretly control political structures.

These academics may not follow their claims all the way to anti-Semitism. But this is the way it begins. This is the way it always begins.

True, all too sadly true.

Whole Post column here.

Comments

Ken Shultz | September 21, 2007, 2:27pm | #

"These academics may not follow their claims all the way to anti-Semitism. But this is the way it begins. This is the way it always begins."

I don't know anything about these academics but that's the way an awful lot of slippery slopes begin.

ed | September 21, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Without The Jews we wouldn't have The Comedians.
So in that respect Hitler's victims had the last laugh.

joe | September 21, 2007, 2:34pm | #

the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia.

Britain didn't arm and defend Czechoslovakia. That's rather a well-known point, and makes the Israel comparison inapt. Unless you'd care to argue that the US has treated Israel the way Chamberlain treated the Chechs.

A better analogy would be, "Britain had a terrorism problem largely - nice omission of the word largely, Mr. Gerson - because it was so closely allied with Poland."

Which is, oh, what's that word? Oh, yeah: TRUE.

The Nazis eagerly sought a peace deal with the British throughout the 1930s, and only turned on them after they (officially) rose to Poland's defense. Even after that, the Germans still attempted to work out an armistice with the British, right up until the invasion of France in 1940.

This is rather well-known history.

ChicagoTom | September 21, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Perhaps objecting to the degree and the type of support we give for a foreign nation (in this case Israel) isn't inherently anti-semitic?

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 2:38pm | #

..."the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel"

Gerson retorts that statement is

the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia.

Perhaps. Then again, both statements might also be true. And if they are true then one reasonably asks whether the problem in question is worth the price of supporting the Israelis or the Czechs.

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 2:41pm | #

joe,

Well, the Czechs were really France's ally in the 1930s. France had at the time cobbled together an alliance with a number of Eastern European nations to provide a suitable counter-weight to the Germans. They did this largely because of the rather moronic policy of both of Britain and France towards the Soviets.

joe | September 21, 2007, 2:46pm | #

All true, Syloson.

And yet, Gerson jumps to some imaginary alliance with Britain.

And picks the Czechs, rather than the Poles.

There is a species of Very Serious Person in Washington for whom the war cry "Chamberlain-Munich-Czechoslovakia-Britain-Antisemitism!" is the foreign policy equivalent of "DEMAND KURV!" It's the answer to every question.

Andrew | September 21, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Being Jewish, I tend to get... annoyed... when people equate criticism of Israel with Antisemitism. It's something that too many of my fellow Jews subscribe to. Heck, I've been yelled at by members of my own family for doing it.

Bill Pope | September 21, 2007, 2:51pm | #

Allow me to deconstruct this bullshit:

"the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia"

Czechoslovakia didn't take German lands by force and constantly violate international law.

"Perhaps many Americans actually prefer Israel's flawed democracy to the aging autocrats and corrupt monarchies of the region."

The trouble is, it's the US government who actively props many of these goons. And to call Israeli democracy flawed is a massive understatement as the majority of people under the control of the Israeli state have no representation in the Knesset.


"Perhaps they root for a reliable ally that is surrounded by nations still committed to its destruction."

The Arab states have long offered normalized relations if Israel returns to the '67 borders.

"Perhaps many Americans recall that the Jews, just six decades ago, lost one-third of their number to genocide and believe that this persecuted people deserves a secure home and sanctuary"

But not by victimizing people who had nothing to do with the Holocaust

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 2:52pm | #

Andrew,

Well, it probably depends on how one views Israel. Is it a "normal state?" Or is it the salvation of a paticular people?

Episiarch | September 21, 2007, 2:52pm | #

"Anti-Semitism!" is used as an easy slapdown for very justified criticism of our support of Israel. It is also true sometimes. You have to look at each case, and in some you'll see strains of conspiracy/OMG!ZOG! shit, even if it is subtle. When I see that, I tend to think Eric Cartman.

joe | September 21, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Some of Pat Buchanan's anti-Zionist shtick creeps me out.

John Payne | September 21, 2007, 2:59pm | #

So Gerson's denying that AIPAC and Christian dispensationalists don't have an effect on American foreign policy? Then he might want to inform those groups that they're wasting tons of money.

NotThatDavid | September 21, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Being Jewish, I tend to get... annoyed... when people equate criticism of Israel with Antisemitism. It's something that too many of my fellow Jews subscribe to. Heck, I've been yelled at by members of my own family for doing it.

My rabbi was declared persona non grata by the Jewish Exponent for doing it. Gets to me, too.

VM | September 21, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Chicago:
Perhaps objecting to the degree and the type of support we give for a foreign nation (in this case Israel) isn't inherently anti-semitic?

QFT!

Tillman Fan | September 21, 2007, 3:03pm | #

While it may be true that Americans "prefer" Israel's democracy to its Arab neighbors, and that they "root for" Israel in its problems with those neighbors, I'm not sure why those preferences or rooting interests should translate to billions of dollars in aid each year and active taking of sides in matters that probably aren't our business. I don't recall hearing any arguments for spending lots of money and exercising our military power in support of Armenia, which also is a small democratic country that has troubled relationships with its neighbors whose population suffered genocide in the past century.

The real question is whether it is in our national interest to support Israel. I think that there are arguments in favor of that proposition, and also arguments that we shouldn't really care about it (from a national interest perspective). But unfortunately we can't have that conversation in this country, because even to raise the issue is to invite charges of slippery-slope anti-Semitism.

Episiarch | September 21, 2007, 3:04pm | #

My mom took me to see Mel Gibson's movie The Passion, and Mel Gibson says you are snakes, and you are liars. And if the Road Warrior says it, it must be true.

JMR | September 21, 2007, 3:06pm | #

The Nazis eagerly sought a peace deal with the British throughout the 1930s, and only turned on them after they (officially) rose to Poland's defense. Even after that, the Germans still attempted to work out an armistice with the British, right up until the invasion of France in 1940.

This doesn't even include Rudolf Hess skydiving into Scotland in Mid-1941 to cut a deal.

UCrawford | September 21, 2007, 3:07pm | #

I think Bill nailed it. The origins of the problems Israel has have less to do with anti-Semitism and more to do with how the modern version of it was founded (theft by the U.N. with the 1948 Partition).

I'm no fan of anti-Semites or conspiracy loons, and I certainly don't think the Israelis should be forced to give the land back to the Palestinians, same as I don't want the U.S. government forcing me to give back my home to the native Americans who used to live there (two wrongs don't make a right). But that said, however, I don't think there's a valid reason to continue to intervene on the Israelis' behalf or get ourselves tangled up in every dust-up the Israelis have in that area. We should let them sort out their issues with their neighbors on their own...something they've demonstrated many times that they're more than capable of doing.

Ashish George | September 21, 2007, 3:12pm | #

Seriously, Bailey ought to be ashamed of himself. He is smart enough to know better than to so heartily endorse this nonsense--and from Michael Gerson no less!

Here is the original London Review of Books essay Walt and Mearsheimer published on the subject. Judge for yourself whether it embodies creeping anti-Semitism.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

"No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be accused of."

JBinMO | September 21, 2007, 3:14pm | #

"the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia"

Actually Briton had a nazi problem because they were clostly related to Belgum.

Isaac Bartram | September 21, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Missing from many of these discussions are those pro-Israel types who support a Jewish homeland so that "those people" will live over there instead of here.

Is it accurate to consider these people anti-Semites?

Isaac Bartram | September 21, 2007, 3:16pm | #

Or do they escape the label because they are pro-Israel?

Andrew Ian Dodge | September 21, 2007, 3:16pm | #

But not by victimizing people who had nothing to do with the Holocaust

Wrong! In fact the Grand Mufti if Jerusalem actively recruited for Hitler, was a guest at the Eagles Nest and helped raise SS units of Muslims volunteers.

It would help if you did a wee bit of research before making such blanket statements.

Muslim jew-hatred pre-dates the rise of the Nazis by a long way. It is not just a reaction to the state of Israel or its behaviour.

I hear plenty of criticism of Israel from Jews and non-Jews alike...none of whom get accused of anti-semitism. Its a nonsense to think that anyone who criticises Israel is called and anti-semite. Not believing that Israel has a right to exist does make one wonder if there is hatred of Jews involved however.

GOD | September 21, 2007, 3:17pm | #

If you criticize the Israli Government or it's foreign policy you are a NAZI.

The AntiHumanist | September 21, 2007, 3:18pm | #

I do not perceive that debating what the nature of our relationship with Israel should be is the problem; it is the belief that the so-called 'Zionist-evangelical alliance' has a majority and primary influence on our foreign policy. Beneficial and detrimental reasons exist for being allies with Israel--as they do for NATO, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan--PAKISTAN--but nobody argues that our relationships with these regional or national allies is because of some vast and secretive 'social democratic-Arab-Islamic nationalist-Confucian-yakuza' conspiracy. Our relationship with Israel, for better or for worse, has actual political or security considerations, not undue influence from any inflated special interest or lobby.

Randolph Carter | September 21, 2007, 3:19pm | #

Sorry to open the ol' can of worms, but what about "The Passion of the Christ" was anti-semitic? I didn't see any suggestions that the Jews as a people were evil... unless the gospels are anti-semitic as well..

Alan Vanneman | September 21, 2007, 3:20pm | #

I agree with most of Ron's posting, but Gerson's argument, which Ron thinks is clever, that saying "the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel" is like saying that "Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia" has taken a proper pounding. Attempts to make one to one comparisons between "the terroists" and Nazi Germany are beyond banal, and Ron ought to know it.

John | September 21, 2007, 3:21pm | #

A lot of our terrorism problem has more to do with our support of the Saudi Royal family than it does with our support of Israel. That was certainly Bin Ladin's main bitch. He wants to overthrow the Saudi Royal family and re-establish a world wide Caliphate. Yeah, he would like to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews but that would only come later. His first objective is to wipe out the Saudi Royal family.

It seems pretty stupid to think that if the US stopped supporting Israel it disentangle itself form the area. Israel could disappear tomorrow with all its pesky Jews and the US and the world would still depend on the middle-east for oil. That is why we care who owns Kuwait and whether some nut is running Iran or Iraq, oil. Not that we want to still or some such nonsense, but that we want to buy it and all that money we spend goes into someone's pocket and we can't very well buy it if the region is completely unstable. It is in pursuit of that stability that has gotten the US entangled in the middle-east over the last half century not the support of Israel. People bitch about the 1967 war but the US wasn’t even Israel’s ally then. Israel’s main protector and ally in the 1960s was France. When the Israelis destroyed the Jordanian and Egyptian air forces on the ground in 1967, the IAF was flying French Mirages not F4s. We have terrorism problem because we have an oil problem. If the Mideast’s oil reserves were in South America rather than where they are, Europe would still have a terrorism problem because it has huge numbers of unassimilated Muslims but it would be a problem that the US looked on sympathetically from afar.

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Randolph Carter,

Depends on the Gospel in question.

joe | September 21, 2007, 3:26pm | #

I, personally, support Israel for all of the reasons Bailey quotes. Democratic government (though flawed). Nasty dictatorships for enemies. Emerging from the ashes of the gas chambers. The whole deal.

Heck, I even support giving them aid for those reasons.

But I gotta tell you, the Piper just sent his daughter to Bennington, I don't have any ones in my wallet, and I wanna hear some Skynard, goddammit!

William R | September 21, 2007, 3:27pm | #

The Wierd Men Behind Bush's War

dhex | September 21, 2007, 3:30pm | #

what about people who don't particularly give a shit about israel either way?

what do we call them?

Lowdog | September 21, 2007, 3:32pm | #

I have trouble believing that a good reason for our continued support of Israel is that many people really do believe that the Jews are a chosen people - it says so in the bible.

But I'm just an anti-semite, so I should be ignored. :/

joe | September 21, 2007, 3:32pm | #

True dat, Sy.

And, as a matter of fact, Gibson didn't base his Passion on "the gospels."

He based it on one gospel, the one most commonly singled out for its anti-semitism, and the only one not written for a Jewsish readership. Matthew, I think - the one where the Jews, at the trial of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, shout as one, "Let his blood be on us and our children."

But wait, it gets worse.

He didn't just read the gospel itself, by the interpretations of that gospel by a medieval nun also known for her visions of cannibalistic Jews with dripping fangs killing Christian children.

joe | September 21, 2007, 3:33pm | #

dhex,

How about "eh-ti-semites?"

Rattlesnake Jake | September 21, 2007, 3:33pm | #

"Perhaps many Americans recall that the Jews, just six decades ago, lost one-third of their number to genocide and believe that this persecuted people deserves a secure home and sanctuary."

They deserve a secure home and santuary at the expense of having land taken away from others to give to them? And how secure is that land for them? They would be more secure by living in democratic countries like the US, Western Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.

"Gerson goes on to ask why Americans and our country's policymakers tend to support Israel."

Because we have a common religious heritage.

William R | September 21, 2007, 3:34pm | #

Alarm bells went off in late 99 when Richard Pearl travelled to Austin to meet with then Governor Bush. His Father, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft warned him not to get in bed with the NeoCons. They would destroy his Presidency. I think the evidence is in. The NeoCons destroyed the White House, the GOP, and will be responsible for electing Ms Hilly in 2008.

Ken Shultz | September 21, 2007, 3:34pm | #

"what about people who don't particularly give a shit about israel either way?

what do we call them?

Semi-semetic?

Episiarch | September 21, 2007, 3:34pm | #

what about people who don't particularly give a shit about israel either way?

what do we call them?

Smart.

Ron Bailey | September 21, 2007, 3:35pm | #

One more observation: Support for Israel may well provoke anti-Americanism in the Middle East, but largely because it is used by authoritarian regimes as a way to divert attention from how they oppress their own populations. In other words, whatever the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians has almost zero effect on the economic, social and political backwardness of Arab countries. In fact, Arab regimes blaming Israel is a pretty good parallel with Hitler's claims that all the Germans' problems were the result of the machinations of international Jewry.

Blaming Israel and anti-Americanism is merely a way of blaming outsiders for the problems caused by repressive authoritarianism at home. In addition, another and I think more potent source of Arab anti-Americanism is our support of Arab monarchs and dictators.

Isaac Bartram | September 21, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Andrew Ian Dodge

Good points. Some people get carried away with some unjustified romanticism in sympathizing with the Palestinian* cause to be sure. Arab hands are far from clean.

I just watched a Frontline(?) program on modern Arab history recently. The nazis made major inroads into various Arab nationalist movements in the 30s and 40s*. The Iraqi Baath Party was almost slavishly modeled on the Nazi Party according to the narrative.

Mind you those movements were also secular as well and ran afoul of the clerics but sometimes exploited religion for the sake of maintaining power.

Of course much of the pro-German sentiment was motivated more by anti-Western/European feelings than by positive sympathies for the nazis. Much the same as the fifties thru seventies ties to the Soviets were hardly due to Communist leanings.

GOD | September 21, 2007, 3:38pm | #

"But I'm just an anti-semite, so I should be ignored. :/"

And a Nazi.

spur | September 21, 2007, 3:39pm | #

If we are going to be subjected to Michael Young and Totten spewing non-libertarian crap and Bailey smearing legitimate critics of Israel could reason magazine just ignore the middle east -- y'all do a much better job on domestic issues, cultural stuff and the occasional update from Burma.

H. B. Grant | September 21, 2007, 3:40pm | #

How close is Gerson to another Bush loyalist, Doug Feith?

Did they work together to shape the intelligence coming out of the CIA that the administration used to justify the Iraqi war?

Are they working together again to "Goebbelize" the message against Iran?

joe | September 21, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Andrew Ian Dodge,

That's some very fascinating history about the 1940s.

It doesn't justify stealing the land of peole who never met the Mufti of Jerusalem, in 1997.

Rattlesnake Jake | September 21, 2007, 3:41pm | #

"His Father, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft warned him not to get in bed with the NeoCons."

Now Brent Snowcroft is betting that Bush doesn't attack war because he doesn't think Bush is that stupid. Time will tell.

Randolph Carter | September 21, 2007, 3:43pm | #

joe,
Thanks for the info, I did not know about the.. uh... revealed truth of vampiric baby-eating Jews that inspired Gibson. Also, I'm probably most John-familiar when it comes to gospels.

On the more relevant side of things, I think that unless you support Japan, both culturally and militarily, your are anti-Japanese, and want to wipe the Japanese people off the face of the earth. I mean, come on, they're Shinto's chosen people! Amaterasu picked them!

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Ron Bailey,

Terrorism and various radical notions would likely be coming out of the middle east no matter what we do. We're dealing with the long-tailed consequences of a number of issues eminating from and directed toward the region.

In addition, another and I think more potent source of Arab anti-Americanism is our support of Arab monarchs and dictators.

I don't think it is that important.

Atabrat | September 21, 2007, 3:45pm | #

About thirty percent of our total foreign aid goes to Israel which as a population of about 7 million, or somewhat over 1/1000th of the world's population. It certainly seems like someone would have to be "pro-Israel" to continue this trend of massive foreign aid that has been going on since 1948.

As for this:
"the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel"

Why don't we just see what Osama has to say?

***

While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

***

Now I certainly don't agree with or have any sympathy for bin Laden or al Queda, but clearly our support of Israel is a factor and it's not anti-semitic to say so. The world's number one terrorist says it is.

It's ridiculous that any time anyone examines anything regarding our relationship with Israel or Israel's policies they are labeled as anti-semitic... oh, okay, or on "a slippery slope" on the way to becoming anti-semitic (read: you guys are right on the line and we--the non-existent pro-Israel lobby-- are keeping an eye on you!)

Jesse Walker | September 21, 2007, 3:47pm | #

the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia.

I don't have much to add to the comments that others have already made about this line. Gerson comes across as one of those people who tries desperately to fit everything into a WW2 framework. That's bad enough when the topic is U.S. foreign policy, but it's downright alarmist when anti-Semitism is the subject.

William R | September 21, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Go back to the Glory Days of the NeoCons. 9 days after 9/11 40 of them took out a full page ad in the NY Times demanding Bush attack not only Iraq, but Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. None of which were responsible for 9/11.

Then in early 2003, now disgraced NeoCon hit man David Frum wrote a piece trying to read out of polite company people like Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and various others. All needed to be purged because they didn't support invading Iraq.

In Nov of 2008 when the GOP gets destroyed, they need to purge the NeoCons.

Rattlesnake Jake | September 21, 2007, 3:57pm | #

"Terrorism and various radical notions would likely be coming out of the middle east no matter what we do. We're dealing with the long-tailed consequences of a number of issues eminating from and directed toward the region."

Where were the acts of terrorism against us from the Middle East before we starting meddling there?

Bazil | September 21, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Mr. Bailey you are WRONG sir.

Gerson may be a great propagandist, but I'm calling bullshit here.

Please read to Harvard study for yourself. Gerson's selective passages are a pathetic attempt to divert attention from the very valid points of the study.

Here is the WHOLE REPORT without filtered commentary:

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

Read for yourself. And decide if it's Anti-Semetic or not.

Especially Jewish Americans should read it as it distinguishes different Jewish factions, Jewish Americans, Israelis etc...

Andrew on this board has the best point. I say those who try to commingle Judaism (as an ancient tradition, religion, and a people and their cherished customs) is FAR different from the Zionist quasi relgious/quasi socialist government of Israel. One is Political and has done many questionable things, but Judaism is a faith and a tradition that should not sully its hands with the doings of the state of Israel.

Israel is at the heart of mistrust of people of Middle East not due to Anti-semetism as some contend. It is looked upon as a European colony built on the premise of a European Genocide whose perpetrators seem to have not paid much of a price yet, Palestinians, as tacticaly dumb as they are have a legitimate grievance as they see newly immigrated Russians, Czechs and Ethiopian immigrants who claim to have at least one Jewish grandparent (the bar for determining if one is Jewish enough to be awarded Israeli citizenship) have more rights, property or personal, than a Palestinian Christian or Muslim who have lived in that land for many generations.

Calling for the state of Israel to treat ALL OF HER CITIZENS regardless of race, creed, or religion isn't anti-semetism. Nor is calling Iran to treat her minorities (including Persian Jews) as equal being anti-Persian. It's just right.

Rattlesnake Jake | September 21, 2007, 4:00pm | #

"In addition, another and I think more potent source of Arab anti-Americanism is our support of Arab monarchs and dictators."

"I don't think it is that important."

It was important enough for an anti-American revolution to come about in Iran in 1979 after our propping up of a tyranical dictator for 26 years.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 4:02pm | #

"the equivalent of arguing that Britain had a Nazi problem in the 1930s because it was so closely allied with Czechoslovakia."
That is just so deluded. When attacking the Brits did the Nazi's over and over proclaim that they were doing so because of the backing of the Czechs by the Brits? Cause the terrorists site this over an over as to why they hate the U.S. In today's Washington Post we learn that the US assisted Israel via intelligence sharing in it's most recent strike on one of its neighbors (Syria). The Arab world noticed that the cluster munitions being dropped on Lebanon were often US made...They can readily see the dozens of UN Security Council resolutions that we usually single handedly opposed and vetoed for Israel concerning their Arab problems...The idea that they hate us for our support of Israel is not only not far-fetched, it's the most plausible answer one can think of. It fits with empirical facts and common sense knowledge of human nature...

"Every generation has seen accusations that Jews have dual loyalties, promote war and secretly control political structures."

Actually any nation with a lot of immigrants is going to have this, as it is human nature for people to identify not only with their home nation but also ethnic heritage. The last two charges are clearly fallacies of equivocation: most critics of the Israel Lobby do not claim that "Jews" in general started this or that war or "secretly control political structures" but that several pro-Israeli (and a narrow definition of "pro-Israel" at that) lobbying groups have a great influence on Middle East Policy. The latter is simply true.

"Support for Israel may well provoke anti-Americanism in the Middle East, but largely because it is used by authoritarian regimes as a way to divert attention from how they oppress their own populations." That is crazy. Ron, do you really think that if Arab nations became deomcracies overnight they would excuse Israel's occupation of what used to be Arab lands? In fact, the more they learned on this subject probably the madder they would get...

Ashish George | September 21, 2007, 4:03pm | #

"Support for Israel may well provoke anti-Americanism in the Middle East, but largely because it is used by authoritarian regimes as a way to divert attention from how they oppress their own populations. In other words, whatever the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians has almost zero effect on the economic, social and political backwardness of Arab countries. In fact, Arab regimes blaming Israel is a pretty good parallel with Hitler's claims that all the Germans' problems were the result of the machinations of international Jewry."

Whatever Arab regimes may say about Israeli-Palestinian relations, the fact remains that Muslims in the Middle East are going to be deeply invested in the plight of their co-religionists. The future of Jerusalem vis-a-vis a two-state solution, for example, is a topic that Muslims aren't likely to dismiss even if the Arab governments do.

I'd also like to know if Bailey really thinks it's healthy for the U.S. to support the Israelis on issues like the settlements on the merits.

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 4:04pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

I guess that depends on what one means by "we." If by "we" you mean the unsettling and downfall of the Ottoman Empire* by the British, French and (very tangentially) Americans, then yes there has been meddling.

But then again, I'd argue that encountering "modernity" itself has been a core part of the radical reaction by various elements in the Musulm world.

*Not that I am any great defender of the Ottoman Empire.

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Rattlesnake Jake,

So is American meddling necessary or sufficient (or both) in your mind?

deron | September 21, 2007, 4:12pm | #

as they see newly immigrated Russians, Czechs and Ethiopian immigrants who claim to have at least one Jewish grandparent (the bar for determining if one is Jewish enough to be awarded Israeli citizenship) have more rights, property or personal, than a Palestinian Christian or Muslim who have lived in that land for many generations.

Therein lies the solution. All Palistinians should claim to have a Jewish grandparent. End of problem.

Are they required to remain Jewish? What kind of proof is required?

Anti-Israel | September 21, 2007, 4:17pm | #

This article is a load of crap. US policy for to long has been pro-Israel. Why are we still sending huge amounts of money in aid and sending them money for their military but not requiring them to use it any of it to buy US produced military goods. What have we really gained from Israel other than the hate of its neighbors. When I was in High School I sent a letter about all the aid Israel received from the US for my Govt class to three US Congressmen. I was one of the few people who did not recieve a reply.

I am so thankfully that my Hebrew Grandmother turned down an invitation to move to Israel. I doubt that my relatives that died in Concentration Camps would be full of praise about what has come about since their deaths.

Bazil | September 21, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Deron, I'm assuming you're joking.

But to be Jewish the "natural" way (for Israeli immigration anyways) is to have performed your Bar Mitzvah (confirmed in writing by a officially recognized Rabbi)

Or if you are a convert to Judaism you must also have written proof from a fully bona fide Rabbi.

And you kinda need to stay Jewish, your citizenship is not a right and can be revoked.

Bonus: if you become a super orthodox Jew you don't have to serve in the military either. (the whole thou shall not kill thingie in the commandments)

If you're planning to emigrate, i suggest Tel Aviv over Jerusalem. Less crazies.

Ken Shultz | September 21, 2007, 4:20pm | #

"Support for Israel may well provoke anti-Americanism in the Middle East, but largely because it is used by authoritarian regimes as a way to divert attention from how they oppress their own populations. In other words, whatever the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians has almost zero effect on the economic, social and political backwardness of Arab countries. In fact, Arab regimes blaming Israel is a pretty good parallel with Hitler's claims that all the Germans' problems were the result of the machinations of international Jewry."

It's kinda tough throwing something out like that under a post suggesting that criticism of Israel is the root of all antisemitism, but that parallel to Hitler's false claims would make better sense if "international Jewry" had actually been responsible for the partition of Wiemar Germany.

Interesting parallels there nonetheless. Occupation does things to people. I've sometimes wondered what might have happened if the French hadn't occupied the Ruhr Valley.

Marcvs | September 21, 2007, 4:22pm | #

Perhaps many Americans actually prefer Israel's flawed democracy to the aging autocrats and corrupt monarchies of the region.

"Flawed democracy"? Try "Apartheid State". Why is only Israel able to call everyone racist for opposing them when the very foundation of their government is racist? Fuck them. I don't give two shits that they're Jewish, but they can rot in hell with all of the rest of the shit states in the ME.

Rattlesnake Jake | September 21, 2007, 4:30pm | #

"But then again, I'd argue that encountering "modernity" itself has been a core part of the radical reaction by various elements in the Musulm world."

By setting an example with our democratic, capitalistic system, many countries want to immitate us, but when we meddle in their affairs, they feel we are pushing our system off on them.

Rattlesnake Jake | September 21, 2007, 4:31pm | #

"So is American meddling necessary or sufficient (or both) in your mind?"

Neither

Johnny | September 21, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Conflating support of Israel's specific policies in reference to the Palestinians who's grandparents lived in Palestine prior to world war II with support of the existence of Israel and/or support of Jewish identity and rights around the globe trivializes the very real anti-semitism of some of our allies, such as the ones who financed 9/11 and still provide the majority of support for Al Queda, Saudi Arabia.

Just because someone believes that Israel has increased its own dificulties by it treatment of the descendants of the people who lived in "Israel" prior to WWII and were not Jewish does not constitute anti-semitism.

However, printing government pamphlets that say Jewish Rabbis use the blood of palestanian youths in the baking of holiday pastries, as the Saudi's did, is anti-semitism.

Jay Elias | September 21, 2007, 4:55pm | #

It seems to me that a lot of this is irrelevant to the terrorism question.

If we accept the work of Robert Pape and the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, the primary cause of terrorism is occupation by a foreign (democratic) nation. So Israel has its own terrorist problem, and the United States has its own terrorist problem. And beyond the fact that both groups of terrorists are Muslims, those two groups of terrorists are clearly distinct and independently caused.

Beyond terrorists' own propaganda efforts, there is no reason to believe that American support for Israel affects anti-American terrorism. Which means we should be able to discuss American support for Israel independent of American terrorism concerns.

Cesar | September 21, 2007, 5:06pm | #

True, supporting Arab dictators and monarchs may also be a source of ant-Americanism in the Middle East. But I hear a lot of people seem to suggest that Egypt, for example, is better non-democratic because then they would fight a war with Israel. Thus, we have to support Muburak. So in a way the two are intertwined.

KoWT | September 21, 2007, 5:09pm | #

the author's pitch that criticism of Israel is a "gateway drug" kinda thing that draws its users to antisemitism seems a bit disingenuous to me

the word "Israel" is not interchangeable with the word "Judaism"

there's more than enough room to take issue with the welfare case that the nation of Israel represents to US taxpayers without having to yell "Jews!" along the way

Paul | September 21, 2007, 5:21pm | #

"the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel"

Late to the party here, I know, but uhm, isn't this true on its face? Everytime a bomb goes off and an Islamist claims responsibility, our "policies in Israel and the Middle East" come to bear, somewhere within.

Buck | September 21, 2007, 5:23pm | #

How is this in any way consistent with a libertarian viewpoint?

Johnny | September 21, 2007, 5:29pm | #

Actually doesn't saying you have to agree with Israel policies and never question them or you are an anti-semite use the same exact argument that if I don't support Bush and the war in Iraq I must hate America?

Paul | September 21, 2007, 5:29pm | #

Rudolf Hess skydiving into Scotland in Mid-1941 to cut a deal.

Wasn't Rudolf Hess considered a bit... oh, how do I say... a few crayons short of a full pack? Nothing Rudolf Hess did was endorsed by the German high command-- that I know of. My understanding was that Hess was pretty much off the reservation at that point.

Alice Bowie | September 21, 2007, 5:30pm | #

Being Anti Israel is NOT being Anti-Jewish.

Many Jews feel that Israel is goin about it all the wrong way.

deron | September 21, 2007, 5:45pm | #

Many Jews feel that Israel is goin about it all the wrong way.

Ignoring the middle east, and all the history.

What's the right way to create a state devoted to serving a single ethnic or religious group? Isn't there an inevitable conflict in such a scheme?

Bazil | September 21, 2007, 5:45pm | #

Perils of Parallels

I don't know where it's written that EVERY current event must be explained by citing a historical parallel and replacing the individuals from that parallel with current ones.

I think its awfully condescending to the reader to assume that they can not comprehend or grasp the nuances of the current situations. And must be spoon-fed simplistic examples for which enough movies have been made for people to relate to.

Unless you're trying to hide something do an analysis on it's own.

That being said, I will be citing Star Wars extensively to explain world politics. All politicians as the following Archetypes for politicians and leaders:

Darth Vader: Clear Brutish Evil
Palpatine, Clever Kniving Master Strategic Evil
Padme: Pure Uncorruptable Trickable Soft Goodness
Leia's Perky Combative Clever Good
Jar Jar: Retarded Annoying Accidental Political Appointee Disastermaker
and
Lando: Kniving Womanizing Mercenary Good or Evil based on who pays better.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Everytime a bomb goes off and an Islamist claims responsibility, our "policies in Israel and the Middle East" come to bear, somewhere within.

Yep, guess that would be cuz of that FIFTY BILLION we've forked over to Egypt since 1979.

Dam Jews.

hiscross | September 21, 2007, 5:53pm | #

When a country support Isreal, it is in affect supporting GOD's choosen people. They will then receive the blessings of GOD. For those that don't, will receive the opposite. It's in the Bible.

John | September 21, 2007, 5:54pm | #

I find it distressing that it is impossible to even *discuss* our foreign policy with Israel without people flinging around charges of anti-semetism.

Stop hiding behind the holocaust, come out and have a fruitful conversation. Because eventually, changes of being anti-semetic will produce the same eye-rolling as when Al Sharpton starts yammering on about how racist white america is.

You demean the term "anti-semetic" by using it inappropriately.

crimethink | September 21, 2007, 5:55pm | #

Ron Bailey posting an endorsement of some incoherent bullshit argument for a position he agrees with?

I can't believe it!

</sarcasm>

GOD | September 21, 2007, 5:59pm | #

""Perhaps many Americans recall that the Jews, just six decades ago, lost one-third of their number to genocide and believe that this persecuted people deserves a secure home and sanctuary"

The jews were victimized by Nazis, but didn't millions of people fight the Nazis and hundreds of thousands die in the process. What happened was horrible and should not be minimumized or forgotten, but shoud we base our policy on guild for what one of our enemys did.

crimethink | September 21, 2007, 5:59pm | #

Seriously, he needs to get his transhumanist buddies working on a gene therapy to restore the capacity for critical thinking. I can't imagine Ron could have gotten where he is now without such capacity, but with some of the absolutely brainless nonsense that he quotes approvingly, I'm not sure it's still there.

Edward | September 21, 2007, 6:01pm | #

Anti-Semittism is only part of the problem. Don't forget all the self-hating Jews who criticize Israel and question the Bush administration's slavish support of anything israel does.

Narniaman | September 21, 2007, 6:07pm | #

Thanks to the wisdom of the posters on this thread, I think I've figured something out.

If I regard Jews that live in the United States as the descendents of pigs and apes, then I am an anti-semite.

However, if I regard Jews who live in the mid-east as the descendents of pigs and apes, then I am a legitimate critic of Israel.

Thanks everyone!!!

TGGP | September 21, 2007, 6:09pm | #

I for one think it would have been smart for England to stay out of WW2. Hitler had no desire to fight them, and Stalin would have been able to handle Hitler without them as well. I think we would still have terrorist problems without Israel, but I also think the principle of non-intervention is just as good an idea in that area as anywhere else.

Cesar | September 21, 2007, 6:10pm | #

If I regard Jews that live in the United States as the descendents of pigs and apes, then I am an anti-semite.

However, if I regard Jews who live in the mid-east as the descendents of pigs and apes, then I am a legitimate critic of Israel.

Who the hell is saying a word about apes or pigs?

Edward | September 21, 2007, 6:13pm | #

Maybe somebody is writing anograms.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 6:14pm | #

Bailey's contention that the high levels of Arab resentment towards Israel is due to manipulation by their autocratic governments can be easily tested: look at polls of Arabs in free-er states like Europe, Canada and the U.S. What do you think we'll find Ron? I'm betting that Arabs in free states are nearly as upset over our support for Israel as Arabs in non-free states.

[e-mail] | September 21, 2007, 6:15pm | #

Cesar, I don't know, but I can't say I'm not disappointed that "Narniaman" didn't bring up talking beavers.

crimethink | September 21, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Luckily that's not my real email address. teh internets is hard.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 6:22pm | #

"When asked what issues were most likely to affect their votes, Arab-Americans as a group placed the economy, health care, terrorism/national security, education, foreign policy and Iraq in that order, in percentages that mirror the US electorate as a whole. But, unlike most of the rest of the electorate, nearly three-quarters of Arab-American voters ranked "Israel-Palestine" as an issue that would figure "very importantly" in their choice."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD30Aa03.html
Must be our autocratic government producing that fixation, eh Ron?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 6:25pm | #

Narniaman-perhaps you could learn that you seem to have the reasoning ability of a descendant of a pig or an ape. Has anyone here cast a general aspersion on " the Jews that live in the Middle East?" Or is criticism of the policies of the Israeli government (actually opposed by some of the "Jews who live in the Middle East" and elsewhere) the same thing?

exhelodrvr | September 21, 2007, 6:26pm | #

TGGP,
"Stalin would have been able to handle Hitler without them as well."

Are you serious? You realize that had England stayed out of the war, there would have been no Lend-Lease supplies going to USSR. And Germany with just one front, against an un-supplied USSR would clearly have had defeated the Soviets. And then turned to the British.

exhelodrvr | September 21, 2007, 6:29pm | #

You do realize that the military aid given by the U.S. to Arab nations is at the same level as the military aid given to Israel, right?

REN | September 21, 2007, 6:32pm | #

UN. Israel, 1948. Libya, 1951. Yeah, while we're at it, I think we should kick the Libyans out of North Africa too.

Tim Cavanaugh | September 21, 2007, 6:34pm | #

Perhaps many Americans actually prefer Israel's flawed democracy to the aging autocrats and corrupt monarchies of the region.

We had Mearsheimer and Walt in to see the editorial board the other day. Here are some of their comments. One part that didn't make it into the highlights was when I asked them about this very topic, albeit without all of Gerson's froth and demagoguery. To wit:

Tim: There's another side to this, though, and I appreciate your question earlier about, if you wanted a political future would you strongly criticize Israel. I wasn't aware of the Brezinksi episode you mentioned, and certainly we all live in 24-hour horror of Alan Dershowitz.

Stephen Walt: Jimmy Carter is another example.

Tim: Yeah, but you know, the American people support Israel, in their hearts, and how convinced are we that they had to be argued into that position?

Susan Brenneman: That's my question too, and does this book look at the kind of grassroots culture, that we all grew up believing Israel was our brother, sister, you know?

Stephen Walt: Well [to Mearsheimer], I'll, I'll add anything that you leave out.

John Mearsheimer: There's no doubt that if you look at American public opinion, Americans support the existence of Israel and think that Israel is a net plus. No question about that. But it's largely a myth that there is broad and deep support for Israel in the American body politic.

Stephen: It's, it's I think a myth that the American people want the United States to give it unconditional support.

John: Well let me unpack the argument. Uh, I mean, I believe that one of the reasons that the lobby works so hard to, to shape the discourse in a pro-Israel direction, and is so concerned about people like me and Steve is in large part because they understand that the support is not that broad and not that deep. As Steve pointed out, we're talking about support for the present policy — we're not talking about support for the existence of Israel. And as Steve pointed out, we're talking about support for the existing policy. Let me say a few words about that.

The Pew Foundation has done polling between 1993 and the present, asking people whether they favor the Palestinians or the Israelis. And although it's clear that most Americans favor the Israelis over the Palestinians, only once in that entire period have more than 50% of Americans said that they favor the Israelis over the Palestinians. In most cases you find a huge chunk of people favor neither side. It's also clear from some polls of the Pew Foundation that a large number of Americans, over 70% of foreign policy people understand that one of the principle causes of global discontent with the United States is Israel. So American elites are well aware that this has gotten us into a lot of trouble. Unconditional support. And again, the American people are not as kneejerk as one might think, in their support for this, uh, present relationship.

With regard to the depth of the commitment, it's quite clear if you look at poll data that most Americans don't support the existing policy of unconditional aid and our one-sided policy in favor of Israel over the Palestinians. In fact polls show that roughly three-quarters of Americans believe that the United States should favor neither side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Including an Anti-Defamation League study from 2005; that's three-quarters of the American people who believe that the United States should favor neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis in settling that conflict. And this runs contrary to what the actual policy is. And one final point on this: 60% of Americans, according to a Pew survey, favor withholding aid from Israel if it resists U.S. pressure to settle the conflict with the Palestinians.

So again, the point here is not that the American people want to jettison Israel, or that Americans don't have respect for Israel, or that Americans don't believe the United States should work to ensure the survival of Israel. That's not in doubt, and it's certainly not in doubt with regard to me and Steve. The point is that the idea that the American people are demanding that we give Israel unconditional aid because they're so deeply attached to it does not mesh with the available poll data.

jim | September 21, 2007, 6:35pm | #

"The Arab states have long offered normalized relations if Israel returns to the '67 borders."

Do you mean the borders that existed immediately BEFORE the Arab world decided to destroy Israel from every direction? This is what passes for wisdom and fairness from anti-semites.

MarkJ | September 21, 2007, 6:41pm | #

Dear marcvs,

"Flawed democracy"? Try "Apartheid State". Why is only Israel able to call everyone racist for opposing them when the very foundation of their government is racist? Fuck them. I don't give two shits that they're Jewish, but they can rot in hell with all of the rest of the shit states in the ME."

Thanks for sharing your brand of frothy-mouthed, bug-eyed, end-stage BDS, morally-equivocating, anti-semitism and impotent rage with the rest of us...it's truly breathtaking.

By the way, how's everything on Neptune these days?

Benjamin | September 21, 2007, 6:43pm | #

Ron Baily's and Reason's credibility just went down a couple of notches for printing this nonsensical piece of propoganda.

Isn't Ron Baily the Science correspondent anyways???

The Pro-Israeli must be getting desperate if they're paying off Science correspondents to push forward their agenda.

Grand Chalupa | September 21, 2007, 6:43pm | #

This whole thread is a crock of shit.

If Muslims really cared about their fellow Muslims getting slaughtered they would've hated Saddam Hussein.

But they love him. Because he shares their race and faith. The Arabs are a tribal people, they hate westerners and especially Jews and when those westerners and Jews are dominating economically and culturally it eats away at them.

Polls show that the Palestinian Arabs are just as anti-European as they are anti-American. Sorry, seven million Jews are not to blame for the problems of a billion Muslims.

Cesar | September 21, 2007, 6:57pm | #

Chalupa, I'm pretty sure the Shia Arabs hated Saddam. And the Kuwaitis. And the Saudis. Oh yeah, and this guy did as well.

Grand Chalupa | September 21, 2007, 7:01pm | #

Ok, and the other 90%?

Cesar | September 21, 2007, 7:05pm | #

Ok, and the other 90%?

Well, you're the one who thinks most Arabs are religious nuts. So the other 90% probably hated him, too.

Cesar | September 21, 2007, 7:06pm | #

The Syrians also hated his guts. Nevermind the share the "Ba'ath Party" label, the Syrian and Iraq branches of that party were about as friendly as Stalinists and Trotskyites are to each other.

Grand Chalupa | September 21, 2007, 7:07pm | #

I never said they were logical. Only tribal and crazy.

Syloson of Samos | September 21, 2007, 7:17pm | #

joe,

You are getting a lot of love over at grylliade.

_____________________


I believe that Jesse Walker encapsulated what a lot of us were thinking.

_____________________

Ron Bailey,

As a former Bush insider, Gerson doubts that the "Israel lobby" had much influence on Bush Administration policy.

There are of course at least two ways to look at Gerson's position as a former Bush insider, right?

David Ross | September 21, 2007, 7:41pm | #

I think the greatest source of evil in the 20th century was anti-capitalism, of which anti-Semitism was one symptom - and not the largest. c.f.: Mao, Pol Pot, and the Sendero Luminoso.

William R | September 21, 2007, 7:42pm | #

IMHO, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer are heroic figures for writing such a piece. When the article first became public, I knew it home because the mainstream media tried to link David Duke to both men. The Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a Universty Chicago Prof to David Duke.

Pig Mannix | September 21, 2007, 7:57pm | #

Gerson goes on to ask why Americans and our country's policymakers tend to support Israel.

Well, it's clear that the policymakers support Israel, but it's less clear Americans do. At least a few polls indicate some ambivalence...


When asked "Do you think the U.S. has a responsibility to try to resolve the conflict between Israel and other countries in the Middle East, or is that not the U.S.' business?", 39% responded "Has Responsibility" and 56% responded "Not the US' Business"


http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm

LL | September 21, 2007, 8:02pm | #

"I find it distressing that it is impossible to even *discuss* our foreign policy with Israel without people flinging around charges of anti-semetism."

Well when that same people just lies or puts Israel in a standart that doesnt asks any other country to do and uses a venom that dont uses against anyone...


Why would US support Palestinians that since beginning got build up by KGB, always supported Soviet Union at expenses of USA, Helped make US hostages in Lebanon, massacred hundreds of christians in Lebanon, murdered civilians in terror attacks and a Marxist propaganda machine turned now into a semi-islamit one now using childrens as weapons tools?

Only if USA forgets everything that have been in the past.

iih | September 21, 2007, 8:32pm | #

Chalupa-

Saddam was despised by the overwhelming majority of Arabs -- especially after 1991. He was somewhat popular during the Iranian war and somewhat a little supported after the neocons in this country started beating the drums of war in 2002.

Saddam was loved because he shared a faith with the Arabs? Are you aware that baathists are inherently secular? He was oppressive of all religious people. He did oppress the Shiites more than the Sunnis. That does not make him loved by the Sunnis.

iih | September 21, 2007, 8:39pm | #

May be one ought to give Walt and Mearsheimer a chance to defend themselves:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/09/20070905_a_main.asp

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-mearsheimerwalt_19edi.ART.State.Edition1.423dade.html

The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2007, 8:55pm | #

It's a simple thing. If you're in a bar fight, Israel is who you want covering your back because they'll stand tall and they can handle the job.

ern | September 21, 2007, 8:59pm | #

Most of these comments are ridiculous. Not all criticism of Israel is met with charges of anti-Semitism. It's not criticism of Israel per se that is the problem, but the *types* of criticism we see, particularly those criticisms which make it sound like a cabal of Jews is behind the scenes running the show. That fits with standard anti-Semitic tropes--and it also has the problem of simply not being true. The Mearsheimer and Walt report traffics in these and other arguements which reflect classic anti-Semitism. And yes, I've read the report in full. Legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies are fine, and are made all the time without suggestion that the critics are anti-Semitic. But the Mearsheimer-Walt report, sorry to say it, is borderline anti-Semitic.

This idea that dispensationalist Christians influence American foreign policy is just lunatic. There aren't that many evangelicals who are dispensationalist. Just because they read "Left Behind" doesn't mean they believe it. And their influence on foreign policy is nil. Most people who support Israel support it for the reasons given above.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 9:41pm | #

I'm halfway through the Israel Lobby. They state up-front that there are many other governments that deserve criticism, but that they discuss only Israel because of the increasingly unconditional nature of it's support from us. So much for this "double standard" argument I've heard here (btw-who was the fool that said that Israel and "all the Arab nations" recieve equal aid from us so it's all equal? How many more nations and people constitute "all the Arab nations" compared to Israel? If they recieve the SAME aid then that is a great disparity).

They actually qualify much of what they say throughout. They mention that other ethnicities try to influence policy (look at the Cuban lobby as an example of a very successful one). They mention that Israel has often had good reasons to do some questionable things and that they have powerful arguments for their existence and security to be guaranteed. That AIPAC is a very, very powerful lobby in DC is simply a fact. That Jews sympathetic to Israel and Zionism are over-represented among the media is simply a fact. It would be juvenile to deny their influence.

It is true and understandable that Jews would be sensitive to charges that they secretly run things in politics or foriegn policy. But of course the authors explicitly point out several active Jewish organizations which work to counter the more Likudian (and yes much more effective) pro-Israeli lobby.

Chalupa's comments are typically racist comments (replace the word "Arabs" in his rant with "Jews" and think about it), the kind that represent REAL racism rather than equating anti-Zionism with racism. Jimmy Carter has had many a foolish moment, but does anyone really think this man is a racist against Jews? Isn't it more probable given what we know about this man that in his trips to the Occupied Territories he just did not like what he saw? Naive, simplistic, maybe. But a racist? Come on!

As to the discussion of dispensationalist Christians and their influence on American Foriegn Policy, we need not get into a theological debate about exactly who or what is a true "dispensationalist" because it is not necessarily a "true dispensationalist" that has kooky ideas about our policy concerning Israel. Pat Robertson, who has had considerable influence in the GOP, certainly thought that the Godly were called to oppose giving up the Occupied Territories for what he saw as Biblical reasons: http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robertson.sharon/
The same can be said of Falwell who said "We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel." John Hagee, Gary Bauer, and a host of other VERY influential Christian Rightists have had similar statements (and more importantly a hand in lobbying for hard line stances that would make a Likudian blush).

Mr. Nice Guy | September 21, 2007, 9:51pm | #

"It's a simple thing. If you're in a bar fight, Israel is who you want covering your back because they'll stand tall and they can handle the job." One wonders, but expects sadly, this kind of nonsense statement in a debate about Israeli policy in the US (the rest of the world is pretty clear that Israel has much to repent for, the US is very strange in it's views on the subject, less I should think due to the efforts of AIPAC than because of the high levels of intense and un-intellectual Christianity in the US). Is this supposed to make an argument that we should stand by Israel because they fight well? Even if we get past questions like who doesn't fight well when they are much better educated, armed and organized than their opponents (the Zionists were mostly first world citizens who squatted in the third world) we still are left with a general principle, that we should support good-fighting nations that would mean we should step up our unconditional support for any "kick ass" nation that passes the test...

anon | September 21, 2007, 10:04pm | #

An interesting discussion.

But the anti-Israel posters here resemble
almost word for word another group.

Their lack of clear reasoning, and purposeful
factual misrepresentations are trumped only
by their passion.

The anti-Israel posters here are remarkably
similar in tone and lo