Tony Judt, http://www.nyu.edu/fas/Faculty/JudtTony.html writing in an op-ed in The New York Times on Wednesday about Walt's and Mearsheimer's essay:

QUOTE
How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been most thoroughly aired? It was an Israeli columnist in the liberal daily Haaretz who described the American foreign policy advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith as "walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ...and Israeli interests." It was Israel's impeccably conservative Jerusalem Post that described Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, as "devoutly pro-Israel." Are we to accuse Israelis, too, of "anti-Zionism"?

The damage that is done by America's fear of anti-Semitism when discussing Israel is threefold. It is bad for Jews: anti-Semitism is real enough (I know something about it, growing up Jewish in 1950's Britain), but for just that reason it should not be confused with political criticisms of Israel or its American supporters. It is bad for Israel: by guaranteeing it unconditional support, Americans encourage Israel to act heedless of consequences. The Israeli journalist Tom Segev described the Mearsheimer-Walt essay as "arrogant" but also acknowledged ruefully: "They are right. Had the United States saved Israel from itself, life today would be better ...the Israel Lobby in the United States harms Israel's true interests."

BUT above all, self-censorship is bad for the United States itself. Americans are denying themselves participation in a fast-moving international conversation. Daniel Levy (a former Israeli peace negotiator) wrote in Haaretz that the Mearsheimer-Walt essay should be a wake-up call, a reminder of the damage the Israel lobby is doing to both nations. But I would go further. I think this essay, by two "realist" political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind...
END QUOTE

funguy:

The snide ruffling of the plumage is duly noted, but I am afraid all you have managed to achieve is the laying of an egg there. Read the last paragraph of page one of the PDF version of the paper. It refers to the updated and edited version being available online at LRB. So yes, there are two versions available.

I disagree with you concerning Dershowitz. Each to their own. I would have thought that the examples of selective quoting and so on would be cause for some concern though? If the onus of proof were placed on M&W to show that they are correct then it becomes a different proposition. Do you really believe the main thrust of their arguments and where they inevitably lead to? Do you think it at all plausible?

rhoss:

"You refer to 'threats' made against Israel by the Iranian President as if this were justification for Israeli and American aggression toward Iran."

Actually I said no such thing. I made reference to comments by eet on the virtues of MAD. He believes it would force Israel to negotiate and the quote was an example of why the deterrent power of MAD may be lost on Iran. Of course your understanding of things Iranian leads you to the obvious conclusion that it is just a rhetorical flourish, that overly florid Persian turn of phrase, nuclear annihilation as a diplomatic gambit. You could be right.

As for the China thing, ever wonder why they haven't invaded Taiwan already? There are other differences that you might consider, you know: China already having nukes, a huge army etc. Practicality might play a part, as opposed to malign Israeli influence.

Beyond which, could you provide a better reason for anyone to lobby Washington than the threat of nuclear war from somewhere with a regime like Iran?

Mr.P.Pig

Colin Rubensteins's article is titled "The 'Israeli lobby' mirage" so it's not unreasonable to assume he would like us to think the Israeli lobby is a mirage.

If you want proof of what is surely the the wealthiest, most powerful and well connected single interest group in the US today, then you could just publish a report along the lines of Mssrs Mearsheimer and Walt. Like them you will receive a tirade of personal abuse, character assassination and invective from some of the most powerful people and institutions in the US.

Then you'd really be convinced there's no such thing as a Jewish lobby :)

As for Mr Rafsanjani, well, I feel sorry for the millions upon millions of Muslims that are saddled with this sort of poor leadership. However, poor leadership on the Muslim side is no excuse for criminal leadership on the Israeli side.

Well PP, "Your insight into..."? Whose insight? Dershowitz's. As for attributing "substance" to the latter, I again urge anyone who wants to understand how Propagandists of Zion such as Dershowitz (and Rubenstein) work to cloud any meaningful understanding of Israel's relentless and ongoing erasure of Palestine to read Norman G Finkelstein's 'Beyond Chutzpah'. "Character assassination"(by alliteration, no less)? Your specialty, PP. Chomsky questioning the "veracity" of M & W? Document it! And while on M & W, listen to Israeli commentator Uri Avnery: "The findings of the two professors are right to the last detail. Every Senator and Congressman knows that criticising the Israeli Government is political suicide. Two of them, a Senator and a Congressman, tried - and were politically executed. The Jewish lobby was fully mobilized against them and hounded them out of office. This was done openly, to set a public example. If the Israeli Government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith. President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically the positions of our government...Almost all the American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace activists. As to professors - almost all know which side of the bread is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years - they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi."

Strewth,
You ask for

"Chomsky questioning the "veracity" of M & W? Document it!"


chomsky says:

"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999

Meredith: "Veracity" means TRUTH, not 'comvincing'. Next time reach for your dictionary (if you have one) before exposing your ignorance.