I laugh at people who think that Mr. Mearsheimer is anti-semitic, after reading the book, LIVING and studying the history of the situation for many decades I can honestly find nothing incorrect about what the author says. If people would simply take a look at what we have done to the Palestinians, for just one example, anyone will realize that something has gone awry, and that there is an overwhelming force in complete support of Israel. S. Bercovitz, Israel

Sent by Stan Bercovitz | 2:15 PM ET | 09-20-2007

The Isreal lobby has secured Billions in loan guarantees in order to build settlements on occupied land. Have any of these loans ever been paid back??

Sent by Ben Haag | 2:27 PM ET | 09-20-2007

This entire subjust is hyped up flame bait. Share on NPR for fanning the flames by bringing on such nonsense.

Sent by D. Nathan | 2:32 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Is Mr. Miller's assertion that Americans share "values" with Israel anecdotal or scientific? Mr. Miller: racial segregation, occupation and collective punishment are NOT American values, sir.

Sent by Todd | 2:35 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Someone commented that we Americans want an ally in the Middle East, well, as an American/Israeli born Jew, I am not interested in the ramifications of treating Israel as a "favorite son." Those ramifications include putting everyone else at odds with our huge imbalance of support for Israel. We can call them "terrorists," but in reality they are enemies of our policies which we (and Israel and AIPAC) have created.

Jeff Simons

Sent by Jeff Simons | 2:37 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Good to hear a discussion of the Israel"special relationship" with the U.S. Israel needs the U.S., the U.S. does not need Israel. What has happened starting with Harry S Truman, the U.S. started siding with Israel over the Palestinians, a tragic mistake. The U.S. should have remained truly neutral and now perhaps it is too late.

Sent by barbara sherman | 2:38 PM ET | 09-20-2007

I find it interesting that the United States supports Israel at all costs; and many citizens support this mentality. At another time in history, this type of support would be considered treason; it is clearly at the expense of the United States' safety.

Sent by Nick | 2:45 PM ET | 09-20-2007

now for the sake of Isreal US is trying to attack Iran for having necular or urianium weapon for Iran's carring this weapon will be a threat to Isreal, will it goes both ways since Isreal already have necular and other national illeagle chemicals.

Sent by Faith Salamey | 2:47 PM ET | 09-20-2007

I don't think it is anti-semitic to have this discussion. All lobbyistS have gained an inordinate amount of power in recent years. So, why is the Israel lobby -- which does, after all, represent a foreign country, exempt from criticism. Our U.S. congress should be reminded that they represent the U.S. people.

Sent by Joyce | 2:48 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Barbara Sherman wrote "The U.S. should have remained truly neutral and now perhaps it is too late."

I don't think it would be too late to correct ones mistakes. The real question is whether our system of gorvenment would allow such a change. Many laws have been carefuly passed over the past 40 years that render us hostage to the AIPAC!

Sent by Mak Jordan | 3:26 PM ET | 09-20-2007

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."

MLK

Sent by Arne | 4:30 PM ET | 09-20-2007

My hope is renewed that there is, at least sometimes, a chance to hear comments and opinions critical of Israel. It is so often maddening to see the disproportionate influence, in all forms of media, in favor of whatever Israel does, no matter how immoral, inhumane or counterproductive. Now I wonder if I can hope for a more balanced American policy regarding Israel.

Sent by dennis hannon | 4:56 PM ET | 09-20-2007

The belief that America supports Israel at all costs is odd. One would think that Israel, not Europe, was under the US nuclear umbrella. One would think that Israel, not S. Korea has US troops positioned in it. One would think that Israel, not Tawain, has a US guarantee that an economic boycott will be consider an act of war. US subsidies to Israel is the cheapest form of aid.

PS to Ben Haag, loan guarantees don't get payed back.

Sent by Aaron | 4:57 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Special relationship? All I can say to that is, remember the Liberty. Israelis are for Israel. They are only using America and we are using them. They're getting a much better deal than we are, in my not-so-humble-opinion. I suppose Arne and the like will now label me anti-semetic. Ya know what? I don't care. To equate criticism of our "special relationship" with anti-semitism is the most tired dodge in the book. Not all Jews are Zionisits, after all.

Sent by John R. Otten | 5:05 PM ET | 09-20-2007

I wonder if average American citizen realizes that we have been paying with our blood (remember 9/11) and monies to support Israel for the last forty years no matter how wrong Israel has been in the recent history.

Sent by MMS | 5:16 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Too many of us are narrow minded. Call it what you want, antisemitism or constructive criticism, but you should not make up your minds on the basis of one book or the the articles in newspapers. A balanced approach is best, but human nature usually precludes it. I suggest you at least read another book, one by Alan Dershowitz, "The Case for Israel." The case for the Palestinians is pretty weak (perhaps my bias, you say), unless you fall for the propaganda that is regularly doled out. Speaking of propaganda, that is one area where the US and Israel have been equal, i.e., equally poor at. There is nothing more moving than seeing women and children dieing, like is so often portrayed by the press (eagerly shown by the "oppressed"). It matters more that they are being killed by the "oppressor" than they are being used as human shields. I suggest you put yourself in the shoes of the person who has to fight against women and children in order to get at the enemy and see how you would handle the situation. Oops, I think I've just touched on something that is going on in Iraq. Sorry I brought up the ugly truth about these wars of late, even though war is intrinsically ugly. Enough! I've said too much already (I can hear many of you saying "damn right").

Sent by Mike | 6:02 PM ET | 09-20-2007

I agree that in the long run this especial relationship will be harmful to the interests of both countries. And to label everyone critizing Israel as anti-semitic will not silence critisism alhtough it may take it underground which is worse and it will lead to more misunderstandings and conspiracy theories. It's much better to discuss and criticize openly without being labeled. Israel one way or another has to live with it's neighbors, the demographic situation in the Middle East is not on her side.

Sent by MG | 7:18 PM ET | 09-20-2007

As Jew that was raised both orthodox and a Zionist, that is one generation removed from the holocaust, I find these so called experts nothing more that anti-Semites. I refuse to apologies for caring for Israel. I think it is interesting that Iranian television is running a show about the holocaust and how the Iranians helped Jews escape to Iran from Germany. It is not that I dispute that Iranians helped Jew escape but what I find insulting, and it was pervasive in this story as well, was that as long as Jews disavow there historical ties with Israel the world claims they will embrace them. Of course they will; the holocaust, the pogroms, the Spanish inquisition, etc.

Sent by David Zabel | 7:42 PM ET | 09-20-2007

MLK was ill-informed. Zionism is the belief in the expansion of "Israel"; Judaism is the belief in YHWH. U.S. ignorance of the difference is only fueling the flames, as it is possible to be anti-Zionist while also pro-Judaism.

Sent by Kate | 8:07 PM ET | 09-20-2007

I listened to the show today, and as we all know already, everything the authors argue is correct. They actually are too lenient in their critiques of the Israel lobby. When I heard them refer to it as 'just good American politics...' and comparing it to other lobbies like AARP and the like, I knew they were just kidding themselves in order to get their main arguments out to as many people as possible prior to provoking to hard of a response. They know that there is a huge difference between the farm lobby, the AARP and the like and the Israel lobby: namely, the Israel lobby is a foreign government and not a single one of the others are. They also grossly underestimated their influence. No other single lobbly recieves as much cash as the Israel lobby does. Three billion a year direct to Israel, and another one billion a year to Egypt as a bribe to keep them from warring with Israel. Thanks for the great 'Peace' agreement Pres. Carter. You start handing out a billion a year, you can make a lot of peace. And then on top of that Americans can acutally make tax free charitable donations to support new settlements. No other lobby recieves anything approaching the total true cost of support that Israel does.

The authors of this book rightly understate the effect of the Israel lobbly in order to continue to broaded the average American's understanding of this issue.

Sent by Jim Kaff | 8:28 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Those of us who believe that stealing a country and then attempting to murder its population in order to make room for the thieves is not nice even if its done by the nice Zionists/Jews or the nice Europeans in the case of the Native Americans.

Ask the Palestinians/Native Americans about their Holocaust (or is the word a monopoly of the Jews....cannot Africans abducted from their homes and enslaved have a right to the use of the H word!?) The problem with the theft of Palestine by the Zionists (I'd like like to leave it at that...the Zionists, which I think is accurate but if some Jews insist that I mean Jews so be it. Its semantics and manipulation, small potatoes compared to genocide) The problem for the Zionists or Jews is that the Muslims seem to stick together, there are lots of them and they do not turn the other cheek, so sooner or later the Zionist/Jewish entity will disappear. The only question is will it be another Holocaust or will a solution like South Africa's be found. I fear time is running out!

Sent by Rene Wholefunker | 9:45 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Professor Alan Dershowitz has posted on the Harvard Kennedy School of Government website his 45-page (with 157 footnotes) response to the Walt & Mearsheimer paper on the "Israel Lobby." In his response, Dershowitz expressly questions their motive:

[A]s I will show, this study is so filled with distortions, so empty of originality or new evidence, so tendentious in its tone, so lacking in nuance and balance, so unscholarly in its approach, so riddled with obvious factual errors that could easily have been checked (but obviously were not), and so dependent on biased, extremist and anti-American sources, as to raise the question of motive: what would motivate two well recognized academics to depart so grossly from their usual standards of academic writing and research in order to produce a "study paper" that contributes so little to the existing scholarship while being so susceptible to misuse? [Page 6].

Dershowitz repeats the question again 38 pages later, at the end of his paper, but does not answer it. After summarizing some of the more egregious factual mistakes and easily refutable distortions that even a serious student, much less a scholar, would never make, Dershowitz leaves it at this: "I simply do not understand, what is the motive?".

Sent by Mike | 9:55 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Based on the comments, the American people are prepared to think and talk about the American-Israeli relationship on a rational basis, abandoning the mine-strewn obstacle course of assumptions and taboos that defines political discourse on this matter. I blame the media for not elevating the content of American policy regarding Israel and the Middle East, South America, and elsewhere to the forefront with fact not shrink-wrapped opinion. Isn't that what is supposed to happen in a democracy??

Sent by Lee | 10:01 PM ET | 09-20-2007

No group of people, be it religious, ethnic, or racial, is above reasoned, studied scrutiny.

Sent by angsty | 10:14 PM ET | 09-20-2007

It is like a fresh air, finally someone in the media dare to talk about Israeli lobby. Congratulation NPR to bring ALL topics in the discussion.

Sent by Mike Khan | 10:44 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Some countries in Latin America blame the US for all their problems. Now we can blame ours on Israel. What else is new?

Sent by Anaiz | 11:40 PM ET | 09-20-2007

Having read many of the comments above, it is clear the "Israel lobby" question has provided a pretext for the many people who wish to vent anger at Israel, and by extention, Jews. I teach psychology at the collegiate level and feel qualified to say that yes, strongly anti-Zionism beliefs among those of European descent are often (not all, but frequently) motivated by underlying animosity towards the Jewish people. This can stem from religious, economic, and cultural bias that, expressed as direct anti-semitism, would put the individual harboring these thoughts outside the accepted American society. These thoughts are given expression, however, through the "safer" and more palatable "anti-Israel" statements on this forum. Sad to say, some of those who harbor these feelings may not even be fully aware of their own biases. Just see Mel Gibson and his "I'm not a antisemite" statements, which he seems to truly believe.

Sent by F. Norman | 9:34 AM ET | 09-21-2007

I say the best advice is to ask Steven Spielberg what he thinks. Then go with the flow.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:06 AM ET | 09-21-2007

It's surprising that Mearsheimer and Walt's writing would receive such a visceral response from critics. It's almost as if the pro-Israel lobby is insecure and thinks the Bush administration might be listening. Don't worry, the administration doesn't listen to congress, to world opinion nor to American citizens, why would you think they're listening to two lowly professors?

Sent by Rhett Jibaja | 10:57 AM ET | 09-21-2007

As a Palestinian-American - it is tremendously important for me to hear the voices of Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt's speak to the American public. Professor Alan Dershowitz is a psychopath - as he justifies using genocide and razing Palestinians villages to subdue the native Palestinians into submission to Israeli brutality and aggression. Bascially his logic to the Palestinians - know who your master is and behave or else, face torture, death and destruction.

Americans need to take a trip to Gaza and live there for one week, or at least one day and just listen and observe what the people there have endured the past half century.

But Israel is afraid of that, hence, the refusal to allow UN observers in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. In fact - when they razed Jenin, they first kicked out all the journalists and foreigners - so they can refute and twist the stories of horror from the villagers. Be a witness and go see firsthand what the US billions are doing to another people.

Sent by hanan | 1:05 PM ET | 09-21-2007

"Having read many of the comments above, it is clear the "Israel lobby" question has provided a pretext for the many people who wish to vent anger at Israel, and by extension, Jews. I teach psychology at the collegiate level and feel qualified to say that yes, strongly anti-Zionism beliefs among those of European descent are often (not all, but frequently) motivated by underlying animosity towards the Jewish people." says F. Norman, who then also posts this revealing gem. "Sad to say, some of those who harbor these feelings may not even be fully aware of their own biases."

Let me clue you in, F. Norman, that it might be YOU who is biased and unaware of it. I was raised in a very religious Christian house that was also extrememly pro-Israel. Criticism of Israel was tantamount to criticism of "God's chosen people," and by extension, criticism of God. I grew up thinking the same. Then I met some Palestinians and started getting the other side of the story. After researching the question on my own, seeking only to really understand what the situation is, I've since concluded that the Palestinians got a raw deal in the extreme and many of their complaints are legitimate. I'd be pretty mad too if I were them. I also found out about what happened to the Liberty in '67.

I also conclude that, though certainly Anti-semitism exists, these days the charge is leveled indiscriminately and often without justification by people who think just like yourself. It therefore stifles the debate necessary for Americans to understand the complex situation in the middle east. I suggest that a mirror image of the bias and prejudice you speak of is actually within yourself and others who would paint people who disagree with you as anti-semitic with so little regard for the content of what they are saying.

Go ahead and call me anti-Semitic if you want. As I stated before I don't care because I know it's a dodge, a way of not dealing with reality, a way of writing off criticism without truly addressing it. If you say the question of the Israeli lobby provides a pretext for anti-Semitism, then you have just dodged the central question right there. My questions to you, assuming you are American, are these two. Which country, ultimately, has your loyalty, America or Israel? Have you asked yourself this question?

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:10 PM ET | 09-21-2007

i found it balanced, informative, and impartial. thanks NPR.

Sent by konrad | 3:08 PM ET | 09-21-2007

Wielding such a power to literally deny the right to study/debate/criticize the Israel lobby is like the code of silence practiced by the mafia. Imposing such an undeclared prohibition on this subject can be equated to "intellectual terrorism." All this fuss should convince the skeptics that indeed, this critique is closer to the truth than one may think. But the worst is that all of this negation of the use of critical thinking is taking place in the USA, a renowned land of freedom of expression.

Sent by daruom | 3:34 PM ET | 09-21-2007

Two questions:

1) why is this lobby so powerful?
2) who (besides Israel) benefits from the financial aid going to Israel? If most of the aid goes towards arms sale, then its a no-brainer to assume that US "defense industrial complex" has a vested interest in continuing unconditional financial support of Israel!

Sent by MJ | 7:53 PM ET | 09-21-2007

I have been following the responses to W and M's views on the Israeli Lobby for quite some time now and what strikes me is the tone of pent up frustation of many Americans on the lack of honest discussion on this topic. I have felt this way myself and was very happy to see something, anything, written on it. There is a certain desperation in the arguments of those that defend AIPAC and the US's unwavering support for Israel. Could they be afraid of this viewpoint becoming generally available to the American public? Maybe, they should be. I sense a shifting of the winds.

Sent by Craig Johnson | 8:44 PM ET | 09-21-2007

More ignorant comments on Israel and America's support of it. It obvious that the Israel bashers are uneducated and don't kow anything about the history of Israel and much less the history of the world.
Let me start at the beginning. Israel was re-named Palestine by the Romans and has no Arab connection. Jews were the first to be called Palestinians because they lived there.
Arabs only started calling themselves "Palestinians" several decades ago for propaganda purposes. There has never been a Palestinian country, language, culture or people. These Arabs are not indigenous to Israel the Jews are and there's overwhelmingly evidence to prove it.
As someone with an American Indian grandparent I'm offended that anyone would compare the American Indians to "Palestinians" since the Arabs originated in Arabia and are the ones occupying Jewish land. It is they who are the colonists. The Jews are the Native Americans of Israel.
Most non-Jewish Americans support Israel because they share our values and morals. The Arab Muslims don't. That's the truth.
Most Arab societies are filled with sexism, bigotry, anti-semitism and murderous rage at Jews and the rest of us. Beheadings, bombings, honor killings are Arab "values" that Israel and America don't adhere to.
The fact that Israel lobby is organized and powerful is because Americans support Israel and the Jewish people against terrorists who want to destroy them.
The Arabs also have a poweful oil lobby but most Americans don't support people who raise their children to be terrorists.
Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. The Jews have the right to their homeland. My grandfather should not be denied his land in America and the Jews shouldn't be denied their birthright either. If you don't agree you are an anti-semite.

Sent by Daisy | 10:42 PM ET | 09-21-2007

I do not know how much more Israeli bias we must endure?!! The fact of the matter is Israel occupied Palestine with the help of western powers and has continued to expand its influence ever since. They are the aggresors, they have the fire power, they are the occupiers, and wonder why they are hated throughout the region. We will be well served to deal in the middle east with an even hand, and not as an Israeli protector. When Pat Buchanan stated "the US Congress is Israeli occupied territory" he wasn't kidding!! Let us deal in the region with an even, unbiased hand. Maybe then we will attain peace. Fel free to call me an anti-semite. But what I and many other patriotic Americans know and feel is we cherish justice and peace for all. The billions of our dollars are sent to Israel to maintain the weapons industry in our country. Follow the money, and you will find the reason there is no peace. It is going to take many more dialogs on the national and international stage to wake America up and redirect our policies.

Sent by Bill G | 11:28 PM ET | 09-21-2007

I was once a one-sided individual favoring Israel, but over the years, I've changed my position. I no longer see Israel as a true ally of the USA. Israel and its lobbies have far too much influence at the very top of the federal government. It appears to me that American taxpayer funds given to Israel only helps them to keep oppressing the Palestinians. I was especially disappointed when Israel attacked Lebanon with a great deal of destruction. This was totally unacceptable, and I now see Israel as more of the enemy of the USA. It's time to cut the umbilical cord from Israel. They only use the USA for it's military might and to do whatever they please against the Palestinians. The Zionists have complete control of Israel, and they will only cause more problems in the Middle East. Israel has become a burden for the USA. I don't think 300 million Americans should be held hostage to Israel and the Zionists. I'm fed up with talk about both Israel and the USA using nukes to bomb Iran. Should nukes be used or even conventional weapons be used against Iran, this will only perpetuate the flames of Middle East wars and serve to incur the wrath of the entire Muslim world.

Sent by Dushan | 11:51 PM ET | 09-21-2007

What drives pople like Alan Dershowitz crazy is that they can't shut people up anymore just by calling them anti-Semites. A prediction: Twenty years from now, anyone who didn't get called an anti-Semite for speaking out against Israel's conduct in the occupied territories (and our support of it) will be considered a moral imbecile.

Sent by Gene | 1:21 AM ET | 09-22-2007

I'm sorry but what "lack of honest discussion" about Israel is there? Have any of the commenters on this board read the NYTimes, LATimes, Washington Post, SF Chronicle or any other major newspaper in this country? There are constant op-eds, editorial and stories that are DEEPLY critical of Israel. To pretend that criticism of Israel is muted in the US is to pretend that the earth is flat.

And speaking of special relationships, I'm wondering if any of the learned commentors on this board are aware of the billions of dollars of support the US has provided to prop up autocratic and corrupt Arab regimes for decades. Or how about the hundreds of billions of dollars the US spent during the Cold War to protect Europe, or Taiwan, etc etc etc.

Lastly, rather than it being Israel who dictates policy to America, it is much more the other way around. The Israeli government essentially is on a leash by the US. We utilize their technology, their intelligence and their military to carry out policies that we don't want to carry out ourselves.

That's hardly the stuff of a "non-strategic" asset.

But by all means, please DO go on and fantasize about how "the Jews" (read The Lobby) are controlling the US foreign policy to our great peril. Yes, please do.

Sent by Daniel T | 2:02 AM ET | 09-22-2007

Growing up next to a Jewish community i never understood Antisemetism when i read about it in the bible or in history class as the teacher presented literature on world war two and the Holocaust. Whats to hate about jewish people? Whats the problem? I thought it was extreme racism.
As an adult i watched a documentary which showed footage from a video tape Islamic terrorists use to recruit. I was appalled by the images of Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian children as young as 7 or 8 years or for simply throwing rocks at them or the poor father and his son (quite obviously unarmed) being toyed with by armed soldiers and eventually shot in cold blood. If i belonged to the Islamic faith the video would certainly have done the trick.
I try to be fair and open to correction when forming an opinion on anything so i downloaded as much info and footage as i could just incase the video is bias.

I have to ask,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
do you think that deliberately destroying a U.N watch tower in Lebanon and then continuing on (officially unobserved) to annihilate suspected terrorists and civilians around them is an acceptable and humane course of action?
Secondly, Do you think the existance of Israel justifies the actions taken to ensure it`s survival and expansion?
I understand that the threat posed to Israel on a daily basis is very threatening and extreme. I am glad that i am not a Citizen of the country and am grateful i don`t have to live like that.
The crimes committed against each other are shameful and i wonder how a people could have come from a holocaust to this. In my opinion the only option open to Israel is to return to there former borders and over time, try to gain respect from it`s neighbors before it demands recognition. It`s either that or lose it all. I have no desire to see Isreal fall and know most countries would gladly offer aid and shelter in case of the worst however, one comment mentioned the clock is ticking, i have to agree

Sent by hm | 4:58 AM ET | 09-22-2007

Although, the title of the book represents a very fact in regard of the American foreign policy, I found that the critics of this book are narrow visionary individuals; they should understand that many mistakes have had happened in the past because of this lobby. Coming back to the present, we are in war because of it we failed to balance our foreign policy accordingly; we ignored what the rest of the Middle East is looking for we failed to stop the blood pool in the holy-land.

Because of the relationship we successfully managed to fuel anger for almost one and half billion Arab (Christians and Muslims), we lost our creditability among other nation, and we kept people wondering why our foreign policy unbalanced when it comes down to Israel.

It is a close relationship and it will be, however, this not meant to attack Israel, it just to clarify how things done behind the scene in Washington D.C.

The biggest question is for all the respectful reader and writer, how we can gain back our foreign policy creditability? Not, Is the U.S. Relationship with Israel Too Close?

Sent by MF | 5:15 AM ET | 09-22-2007

I'm reading their book now and wonder why they have to declare so oten that they are not anti- semitic. I believe them from what I read .

Sent by seajay | 7:24 AM ET | 09-22-2007

I believe AIPAC should register as a lobby representing a foreign goverment.
But that won't solve the problem. Our activist group is monitored by an AIPAC employee, our Congressman has AIPAC people on his staff...they are recommended and hired through AIPAC connections, AIPAC monitors and controls a local political discussion site. Accusations of anti semitism are immediately forthcoming if the word AIPAC is used or Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanon, etc. It's truly frightening to witness this in my own county. This isn't about anti semitism it's about control. The Congressman faces a tough race...he knows what to do, and he gets paid to do it.

No American citizen should put up with the purchasing of our government, not only by AIPAC (they just happened to be very skilled and successful but they aren't responsible for the system).
Get the money out of politics and the problems will be solved.

Sent by Jay Dee | 8:29 AM ET | 09-22-2007

"This entire subjust is hyped up flame bait. Share on NPR for fanning the flames by bringing on such nonsense." D. Nathan

You hit the nail on the head. This is basically a redux of the "Bell Curve controversey" of ten years ago: Two obscure academics (Herrenstein & Murray) published a book claiming Blacks actually are less intelligent than white; and soon every anti-black racist crawled out of the woodwork trumpeting that their long held prejudices were at last vindicated....And the authors laughed all the way to the bank.

Let's face it, ten years from now, Mearshiemer & Walt will be sitting on some island with Herrenstien and Murray, sipping cocktails and having a good laugh at the suckers who paid for their retirement.

Sent by APS | 9:22 AM ET | 09-22-2007

Mearsheimer reveals his hostility to Israel by repeateadly asking that Israel be treated like all other nations. What other nations have virtually every Arab country still in a state of war against Israel, except Egypt and Jordan? What other country has it's very rihgt to exist than Israel? How can one treat such a nation like"any other nation"?

Sent by Sol Koenigsberg | 9:43 AM ET | 09-22-2007

Looks like there's a brown streak up in here. Takes an act of courage for John Otten to even admit that there is such a thing as anti-semitism. Bravo, sir, until out of the other side of your mouth you accused someone you disagreed with of having a dual loyalty. Then you dare someone to call you anti-semitic. Wow, sir. How did you get such brass ones?

Look, calling someone an anti-semite isn't the most sophisticated argument, but it's not inconsistent with free speech. It's also not dishonest when the charge fits as it does in this case. To act as though it's a diversion is to embrace that which necessitated the charge to be made to begin with. You can argue this on its merits just like anything else.

Pretty soon, these same geniuses above who want to exclude talk of anti-semitism from analysis of one's motives are going to want to exclude it from Holocaust studies. I promise not to say it, but then whose speech is being suppressed, all you Zionist defying free speech warriors?

Sent by Paul | 10:14 AM ET | 09-22-2007

AIPAC's role in American affairs is long overdue to be scrutinized. Anti-semitism has nothing to do with it. If a sovereign state is acting in a repressive fashion and an organization is placing a foreign sovereignty's agenda above the agenda of the country wherein it is established, there is a major conflict of interest at minimum. For a small country with limited resources, Israel/AIPAC receives a disproportionate amount of aid and attention in lieu of many of their questionable practices, e.g. the segregation wall and the bulldozing of villages and apparent disregard for due process (similarly, with the United States and detainees).

It freezes legitimate discussion when one cannot convey any legitimate criticism levied against a group, country, etc. without accusations of racism and in this case, anti-semitism. It is an overused and convenient excuse for disgraceful behavior and overusing it against those who disagree with your point of you is equally as despicable.

I am ethnically Italian and was raised Catholic (and no longer practice at all) and I maintain heavy criticisms against certain Italian politicians and harbor many disagreements with the Catholic Church. Does that mean I hate Italians or Catholics or do I, as a rational human being, have issue with some of their unjust policies? I also have many problems with the current administration and our involvement in Iraq, the tax structure as it favors the wealthy and its environmental policies, does that mean I am anti-American?

I most certainly think our relationship with Israel is jeopardizing our national security and needs to be thoroughly reassessed. We most certainly need to desist in so much aid and must force a solution to a Palestinian state. Our credibility is at issue and Israel is not our responsibility, they are a sovereign state, let them stand on their own two feet. I just hope everyone can rise above this ultra-nationalist fervor and work to achieve peace for everyone. That might be hoping too much, though.

Sent by JL | 10:29 AM ET | 09-22-2007

I think there is a big difference between Judaism and Zionism. Those who support Israel talk about its unquestioned 'right to exist.' I think a democratic one state solution with safeguards for all - Christians, Jews and Muslims - is the most just and therefore stable solution for the long run. How would you like to be a second class citizen in your historic land based on new immigrants coming with a different religion/ethnic group and even new arrivals have more rights than long-time residents.

Sent by Dan Burnstein | 10:31 AM ET | 09-22-2007

THIS is what we've all been silently waiting for. I hope this dialogue transforms into ACTION and the U.S. Congress realizes that we all know what the Israel Lobby is up to.

Sent by Liz B. | 12:19 PM ET | 09-22-2007

I'm a small cog in the Israel lobby, working here in the UK. It's no more than a lobby, like thousands of others working for better governance in foreign affairs, domestic issues, health, industry, and so on. I certainly do not believe for a moment that the pro-Israel lobby is a fraction as influential as the food industry, which has inflicted bad health on Americans and the rest of us for decades without a whimper from government. You just have to be part of the pro-Israel team or have symp[athies towards Israel to know how very hard it is to get the pro-Israel message across. Meanwhile, newspaper after newspaper, TV channel after TV channel, politician after politician (especially on the left) is openly pro-Palestinian, to the point where telling the truth about the conflict is the hardest thing in their lives. Here's an example: during last summer's war with Hizbullah, the British Independent national newspaper ran a full front-page feature on how Israel had used enriched uranium weapons. Despite evidence to the contrary, they would not change their opinion. Eventually, a conference of the UN, HRW, Amnesty, and the Lebanese army concluded that the Israelis had done no such thing. Many of us asked for a retraction. It was not forthcoming. A lot of Brits still believe their original lie. Yet we are the big, bad, all-powerful lobby. Pull the other one.

Sent by Dr. Denis MacEoin | 1:15 PM ET | 09-22-2007

"Look, calling someone an anti-semite isn't the most sophisticated argument, but it's not inconsistent with free speech. It's also not dishonest when the charge fits as it does in this case. To act as though it's a diversion is to embrace that which necessitated the charge to be made to begin with. You can argue this on its merits just like anything else." Paul

Very true Paul. We can talk about conservative bias, liberal bias, Republican Bias, Democratic bias, anti-black/racist bias....so why is it taboo to discuss anti-semitic bias?

It's been around for 2000 years. It exists alongside many other cultural and political biases. It clearly distorts the way some people view issues involving Jews. So why is it verboten to even mention it?

Sent by APS | 1:30 PM ET | 09-22-2007

After reading the responses above to NPR's review of Mearsheimer and Walt's book, I have a comment and a suggestion. My comment is that I certainly hope my response is anonymous because each side would evidently like to silence me for daring to voice an opinion. My suggestion is that starting now, the U.S. should require all governments that receive U.S. aid to spend some small portion of it preparing a "report card" detailing what they are doing for a single purpose -- making the lives of EVERYONE who lives in their country BETTER. To me this is really what America is all about.

Sent by Edsel | 2:12 PM ET | 09-22-2007

At this very moment, more people are reading about Britney Spears than they are about Blackwater or Israel or the war in Iraq.

Here's a little experiment for you to try. Whatever city in America you are in, take a walk down one side of a fairly busy sidewalk. Stop to ask pedestrians what they think of America's involvement with Israel. Ask them what they think of the war in Iraq. Ask them what they think of Blackwater.

Long as the war is over there, and not here, the vast, vast, vast majority of American pedestrians are content and don't want to change anything.

When you get to the end of that particular sidewalk, cross the street and walk back up to where you came from. Stop pedestrians and ask them something about their favorite celebrities or sports heroes or the Academy Awards..

See what side of the street you get more conversation on. My bet is that you will spend more time on the side of the street where everyone is talking about Britney Spears.

Any takers?

Fred call

Sent by fred call | 7:03 PM ET | 09-22-2007

Great,unbiased coverage by NPR,Keep up the honest job you are doing,I agree with Dan Burnestien,in state of DEMOCRACY,everybody has the right to live EQUALLY with others,with fairness and justice,WITHOUT confiscating houses and grabbing land by the newcomers from the people who have been living there for AGES.

Sent by yas | 8:56 PM ET | 09-22-2007

What Mearsheimer and Walt don't tell us is that Israel opposed the Iraq war. This is an old story that has been reported in the world press, but ignored in the US. In 2002, then PM Sharon came to Washington to lobby President Bush against invading Iraq. But he, and the American pro-Israel lobby, were intimidated into keeping their opposition to themselves. This story was first brought out by those who were close to Sharon, and has now been confirmed by former US State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson.

Although the majority of American Jews were and remain opposed to the war, as it was obvious from the start only Iran and radical elements could benefit from Saddam's demise, American Jewish organizations remained silent rather than risk the wrath of the Bush Administration. That left the White House to control the debate in the Jewish community by designating Paul Wolfowitz and his ilk as the war spokesmen for American Jews. Note that Wolfowitz had hardly any, if any, connection to the Jewish community. He has always been closer to the Arab world. I did a web search and can find no Jewish organization of which Wolfowitz is a member. As far as I can ascertain, he belongs to no synagogue. He may have been born a Jew, but outside of his political role has no ties to anything Jewish.

THIS is the story that NPR should be reporting on -- if they have the guts.

BTW, why do people who hate Israel oppose the war in Iraq? Look who Bush put into power -- radical Shiites aligned with Iran who is dedicated to Israel???s destruction. In other words, Israel-haters, they are your kind of people!

Sent by MichaelF | 10:42 AM ET | 09-23-2007

I have total respect for these two authors. To those posting who would say that the authors are anti-Semitic, preying on Israel with deep-rooted European hatred, I would like to mention: due to a previous job I had, I witnessed in passing the bullying the two authors were getting not to write the book. And the word is BULLYING.
With all due respect to those who feel that a criticism of Israel is an attempt to negate the atrocity of the Holocaust- if what matters to you is the continuation of a secure country in which Jews can feel free, I hope you wil give more thought to the beneficial effects that healthy criticism and debate can do to help the future of Israel. The partnership between the U.S. and Israel doesn't have to be broken, it just has to be fixed. If you are so desperate to stop the criticism of Israel's policies towards Palestinians or, much more importantly, criticism of the U.S. government's refusal to openly question such policies, that just makes people wonder if maybe the criticism has more than a little truth to it.

Sent by labnmike | 9:37 AM ET | 09-25-2007

I can only reiterate for Mr. John Otten and others like him that the disproportionate hatred and vitriol directed against the State of Israel is indeed a strong indicator of some underlying bias. The key word is "disproportionate."

Among all the nations on earth, you have chosen to focus your energy on Israel. Of all the nations with a history of human rights issues, you could have chosen any number of countries.... many, many come to mind that dwarf Israel in size and population. Many also have dictatorial leaders and have committed genocide and egregious violations of human rights on a large scale. Yet, you and others have chosen to focus on one small democratic nation, Israel.

You have not even chosen to focus on your OWN nation. On whose land do you live? Assuming you are American, you seem to have no problem with your ancestors "stealing" land from the indigenous Native Americans but do have a problem when the indigenous Jewish people go back to their ancestral land? How interesting.

Perhaps Mr. Otten thinks that he was somehow "betrayed" by his upbringing, thinking the Jewish people were "God's chosen people", only to find out that yes, they are just as "normal" (both in good and bad ways) as any other nation? Interesting as well, Mr. Otten, is your need to question the loyalty of those who defend Israel. Can this too be termed a "dodge", a term you seem so fond of?

I stand by my earlier statements. The need to single out Israel for approbation, among all the nations on earth, is no accident for people like you. You yourself give the biographical information that provides the context of such a development.

Those who are immune to facts and logic will not benefit from discourse on the topic. Those who are willing to educate themselves so as to become aware of their own prejudices have some hope. All who are reading this forum need to educate themselves so they can see through the propaganda written by those who want to cast Israel and Jews in a negative light.

Sent by F. Norman | 11:12 AM ET | 09-25-2007

Ok, let me take on Paul's post first:

"Bravo, sir, until out of the other side of your mouth you accused someone you disagreed with of having a dual loyalty." Actually, I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I asked a question. One that I feel is very important. There seems to be an idea that the interests of Israel and America are the same. Sometimes they are but sometimes they're not. Ultimately, those who feel loyalty to both countries will have to make a choice at some level. Otherwise the foreign policy of America will most likely continue to march in lock-step with that of Israel. We can see from the hatred of many in the Arab world toward both Israel and America that this is not a good thing. That's why this debate is happening in the first place. Now, it did not surprise me in the least that both yourself and F. Norman went ahead and did the predicatble thing of painting me anti-semitic. I expected that because that's the very thing I'm talking about: this reflex action of twisting things around and convoluting them to discredit the opposition with that horrible phrase.
In fact, Paul, you go on to give a great example of exactly my point.

"To act as though it's a diversion is to embrace that which necessitated the charge to be made to begin with. You can argue this on its merits just like anything else." My argument IS that charges of anti-semitism ARE often (though not always) a diversion that distracts from debating the issue of American support for Israel openly and without hesitation. The first sentence of that quote does exactly what I'm accusing you of doing. To call irresponsible accusations of anti-semitism a diversion IS NOT to embrace anti-semitism (which in your carefully worded response was the point you were making). To say that it is anti-semitism is a circular argument which feeds on itself but has no merit outside of it's own self-perpetuating loop.

F. Norman, you completely and utterly missed the point of giving you my background. I was NOT raised to be either anti-Israel or anti-semetic. Quite the opposite. You stated quite clearly that you believe most criticsm of Israel is a cover for anti-semitism. I was showing you that you are wrong. I'm not saying that SOME criticism of Israel isn't anti-semitism. I'm sure some is. I'm also sure that a hell of a lot of it is not. You can keep your head buried in the sand about that and comfort yourself with the idea that I and others are anti-semites but you're only fooling yourself and adding to the problem.

Another opinion from F. Norman "Among all the nations on earth, you have chosen to focus your energy on Israel. Of all the nations with a history of human rights issues, you could have chosen any number of countries.... "

Um, gee, I surely could but maybe I chose Israel because the topic of discussion was Israel's relationship with the US. Not some other country. America's history about genocide? Sure, I'll look at that. Considering that some of my ancestors were Cherokee and the guy that tried to wipe them off the face of the earth is on the $20 bill, I think about this quite often. But guess what. That isn't the issue here. The topic isn't about what America did in the past. It's about what Israel is doing now. Got any more red herrings F. Norman? So it's really not "interesting" as you put it since it has nothing to do with the Israeli lobby.

Finally another gem from F. Norman "Those who are immune to facts and logic will not benefit from discourse on the topic. Those who are willing to educate themselves so as to become aware of their own prejudices have some hope."

May I suggest that you review your understanding of logic. Look up the terms 'red herring' and 'poisoning the well' which I believe apply to yourself.

I do want to thank both Paul and F. Norman for responding and proving my points so clearly. To the rest of the posters on this blog, I hold you both up as exhibit A and B, respectively.

Sent by John R. Otten | 7:47 PM ET | 09-25-2007

The problem with the Jews and Israel that in present term they are not at least 100 million and they have not territory of at least of 500000 square meter and their territory in the wrong place and that they have not enough wise to understand 1. That in the long term almost only this gives them as a nation acceptable guarantees to survive 2. How to achieve this goal in the future (the future is long).

Sent by Dan Rose | 11:41 PM ET | 09-27-2007

of course the intention is 500000 square km

Sent by Dan Rose | 7:57 AM ET | 09-28-2007

Here's an excellent article that tries to level the playingfield -- at least, the academic one, which is dangerously tilted in favour of Israel:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/864/op1.htm

Sent by Diana Relke | 6:36 PM ET | 09-29-2007

Israel has a large nuclear arsenal.

Pakistan has a large nucler arsenal.

India has a large nuclear arsenal.

In the middle is Iraq and Iran's oil fields (not to forget the Chechen oil fields).

Any questions about Borat?

fred call

The Guardian:
The Russian bear is back - and this time it's gas-powered. Petrodollars give Putin weight on world stage
In the Kremlin on Thursday a little-known but powerful Russian official held court for the first time before foreign journalists with a very simple message: Russia is great and getting greater by the week.

Sent by fred call | 11:25 AM ET | 09-30-2007

To all those who are so afraid of the freedom of speech we have in this country. The truth from the view of America is so different from the truth as seen by Israel. Those who are so angry about this book have shown their true colors. To call people anti-semitic for their views is so typical to shut people up.
The truth is that those who want to shut people up with this dishonest labeling are the ones who are ANTI-AMERICA!!!

Sent by Janet Hammer | 7:32 AM ET | 10-01-2007

Obviously NPR and many of the people posting are biased against Israel. That's fine it is their right. But I applaud Israel for standing up and defending itself. Any Nation would do the same. It's that simple.

Sent by LMD | 10:01 PM ET | 03-23-2008