To me,the most interesting point about the author of this article is his "name".

'Ruben....stein'

Does anyone care to think just how ancient this name is? and from where it came?

"31 When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. 32 Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben,.....(Genesis)

Leah, wife of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, to whom God said:

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing
(Genesis 12)

That Nation,of course became Israel.

I have no illusions at all about the reality of a 'Jewish Lobby' I'm sure it exists, and is devoted to furthering the interestsof kith and kin, politically and economically.

That the author would seem to deny this is rather an insult to common intelligence and a few thousand years of history.

The saddest part of this debate is that there are those who seem to feel there could ever be a human/political solution to the issue of Israel/Palestine.

Please stop wasting your energy.

THE ANTICHRIST IN IRAN ?

Yes,I'm sure that raised a few "Oh nooo...ol Bozo is at it again".

All I say is "note the question mark" :)

Interesting times...indeed.

David Boaz:
The author is not suggesting that there is no Israeli lobby - as in groups that lobby various governments. He is referring to a discredited article by Mearsheimer and Walt that makes repeated use of the phrase “The Lobby”. This as a shorthand for “those Zionists control the press and the government”, and all that this usually entails. This article in turn was used by Anthony Lowenstein as supporting evidence for his usual positions on the matter.

Maybe it would be better to stop arguing about origins, take a bird's eye view of the Middle East without taking sides. We then attempt to reason what a blatant mistake it was for us Westerners to have carried symppathies with the Israelis too far, going against the UN Constitution and letting them retain the captured Arab lands after the two Arab-Israeli wars, and then shutting our eyes when Israel went militarily nuclear in the late 1970s.

It is interesting that the Brits predicted trouble in the Middle East for letting the Jews return to their so-called Promised Land, but all was forgotten no doubt because the US backed Israel.

Since that time of course, when Americans were still regarded highly mostly as a result of the great success of the Marshall Plan, the love for Pax Americana has fallen to a low ebb, especially among our social scientists, who clearly have a better understanding of history than either the corporate owned media or the average person in the street.

The truth of the matter is, that we Westerners have been lately fed with a belief that realism as far as today's Middle East is concerned has much to do with the "survival of the fittest", and because we have God's Own Country well on our side, its Hallelula and let's now knock out Iran.

We are getting such talk in our streets these days, but in more colourful language, the Arabs will never be any bloody good, anyhow, so let's get it over with and back a winner.

Mr P.Pig:
"The author (Rubenstein) ...is referring to a discredited article by Mearsheimer and Wals...".
In what sense is this article "discredited"?
Is it "discredited" because Rubenstein or others of his outlook claim it to be so, for obscurative rhetorical purposes, or merely because Loewenstein employs it. It must be "discredited" merely on the basis that Lowenstein, representing a contrary viewpoint, cites it? Frankly, if Rubenstein attacks it and Lowenstein cites it , this writers' sense is that it must in fact be substantial in nature.
On David Boaz; yes, I have a little sympathy- I'm not quite sure what he is getting at myself. His comments elsewhere do certainly appear to reveal a general commentary somewhat eclectic in nature.

funguy:

It is discredited in the sense that it has been shown to be factually incorrect by several people, over many of its points:

The most comprehensive way to convince yourself of this is to first read the article by Mearsheimer and Walt:

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

and then read this reply by Alan Dershowitz:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf

So no, it is not a matter of Rubenstein and people of his outlook (come on, you mean the jooz right) points of view that discredit the article. It is the fact that it contains things which are not true.

PPig, As well as hawking the tarnished wares of a certain gin-sodden ex-Trotskyite popinjay, I see you're now peddling those of Israel's leading advocate in the US, Alan Dershowitz, who wrote of his role as a lawyer (in his book 'The Best Defence'): "Almost all criminal defendents - including most of my clients - are factually guilty of the crimes they have been charged with. The criminal lawyer's job, for the most part, is to represent the guilty, and - if possible - to get them off." Anyone who thinks that Dershowitz is doing other than representing the guilty with respect to Israel needs to read Norman G Finkelstein's brilliant demolition of Dershowitz in his new book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.