RSS
Using PayPal
Stephen Walt, the "Israel Lobby" paper, and Academic Freedom
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Friday, Mar 31 2006, 4:26PM
I am going to obscure the names in the vignette I'm about to share to protect folks who don't deserve harrassment.
Once I had a brilliant young fellow at the New America Foundation, now a prominent national journalist, who wrote about the subject of "hero inflation" in America. He wrote an op-ed which appeared in the Boston Globe that stated that the firemen who died in the 9/11 attacks in New York were not really heroes in the true sense of the term.
In a nanosecond, this young, charismatic writer was invited on to Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox. O'Reilly didn't demolish him overtly; he did it in a grand-fatherly way grinning through the interview that he couldn't believe that this young writer was sticking to his guns.
But for those rubbed the wrong way by this story, know that there were many who agreed with you. I was in Tokyo when the piece appeared and literally had hundreds of emails from fire brigades in my in box -- preparing to protest at the New America Foundation's offices. I was able to secure someone who was heading the fire brigade email campaign and make a case to him about intellectual freedom that seemed to make sense to him -- and he told his troops to stand down.
I empathized with those who felt the writer had been insensitve and in some ways wrong. My own father died while active duty in the U.S. Air Force and had many friends who were firefighters, one in Bayonne, NJ -- very near to the New York action. They are heroes in my book -- but nonetheless, I got what this young writer was trying to say.
The bigger point is that any institution that doesn't take risks isn't worth its existence. And in any risk-taking environment, there will be flops and successes. Embrace the flops, the miscasts, the mistakes. It's part of succeeding next time.
I looked at the article as both a flop, of sorts, but also -- on a different level -- as a successful example of creative, out of the box thinking that was supposed to be going on at the New America Foundation -- and this writer deserved to be protected, supported, given some counseling on "framing", but immediatley launched out again to be a constructive provocateur in the public policy world. If we had censored him, or censored any other of our staff, our organization would have lost one of the key points of differentiation in a very crowded marketplace of Washington, DC think tanks.
Somehow, the fire brigades appreciated the honest response, got the "risk-taking" metaphor offered them, and seemed to be OK that we would chat with and counsel the writer -- but that he would not be fired.
Now John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt -- both distinguished, globally respected public intellectuals -- the former at the University of Chicago and the latter at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government -- are under serious pressure and attack from some quarters for a controversial study that they have done on the Israel lobby in America.
I am not meaning to suggest that their paper is either a flop or great success -- yet. But their paper does provoke -- about that there is no disagreement.
I remember when Pat Choate's book, Agents of Influence, came out documenting in great detail Japan's heavy investment in Washington's lobbying machinery. The book was just as controversial -- and Choate had a very hard time getting speaking gigs at Japan-related public affairs organizations in the United States. I ran the Japan America Society of Southern California at the time and organized the first event for Pat Choate at such a US-Japan outfit in the U.S.
Interestingly, Choate provided a roster of other nations and their lobbyists in D.C. in the appendix of his book.
Those of you who have it around, take a look at it. Israel is not in the list.
Why you might ask? Pat Choate's perfectly understandable response to me was that he had enough grief with the Japan dimensions of the book as it was.
I have not yet had the time to fully digest the Walt/Mearsheimer paper. My friend and colleague "Daniel Levy has, and Justin Raimondo has as of this morning.
There are other critiques out there, and I encourage those interested to look at all of them, but also read the paper itself so that the lens through which you decide to read the Walt/Mearshemer article is more your own than someone else's.
Richard Beeston at The Australian has reported that:
It has confirmed that Stephen Walt, the co-author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, will be stepping down in June as academic dean of the prestigious John F. Kennedy School of Government to become an ordinary professor.
Justin Raimondo has taken the above reference and asserted that Stephen Walt has paid the price of his "academic deanship" at the Kennedy School for the piece:
The reaction to the Harvard University study by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," has been fury by the Lobby and its partisans -- and a demotion for Walt, who, it was announced shortly after the paper's release, would be stepping down from his post as dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. As the New York Sun reports (via the Harvard Crimson):"Yesterday's issue of The New York Sun reported that an 'observer' familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from 'pro-Israel donors' concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt's professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School's Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997. 'Since the furor, Bob Belfer has called expressing his deep concerns and asked that Stephen not use his professorship title in publicity related to the article,' the source told The Sun."
And since Raimondo's piece went up -- my email inbox has been packed by people saying that something must be done to rally in support of Stephen Walt. Perhaps, but people need to be careful.
I communicate with Stephen Walt semi-regularly and share many of his views about American foreign policy, but I have not communicated with him today about this news that he is being demoted from his position as "Academic Dean" allegedly because of the provocative paper he has co-authored.
Now, I have just received the following communication sent by the Dean of the Kennedy School suggesting that there is no connection between Walt's stepping down as academic dean at the natural end of his term and this "Israel Lobby" paper.
The Dean writes:
31 March 2006To Members of the Kennedy School Community:
Many of you may be aware that Steve Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer have written a paper titled "The Israel Lobby," which appeared in the London Review of Books. Steve also posted a somewhat longer and more academic version of the piece as a working paper on the Kennedy School web site. The paper has generated a great deal of controversy and significant coverage in the press around the world.
Throughout this episode, I have sought to be driven by one principle above all others: maintain academic freedom for our scholars and our school. Such freedom is one of the most fundamental tenets of universities. I believe we all have a responsibility to stand up for that freedom, and I will fight hard to preserve it here at the Kennedy School. In the long tradition of the University, faculty members are free to publish and speak out on any important issue; others can and will respond vigorously.
Kennedy School faculty members have the right to post working papers in order to facilitate discussion by scholars and others. These papers must be academic in form, with appropriate use of footnotes and sourcing. The school does not make judgments about the content of working papers before posting. Academic work is best judged in the serious give and take of intellectual and scholarly debate. That debate is already underway with this paper, and some members of our faculty have spoken out on the issue. The significance of all work must be judged in the marketplace of ideas, not by the administration of the school.
Some have asked whether Steve's status as academic dean has any impact on this issue. We expect and hope that academic deans will carry on a rich intellectual life as Steve has, and as his predecessors did. Although some in the media have made much of his administrative position to raise the profile of this story and add to the controversy, Steve was clearly writing as an individual professor, not in any official capacity here at the school. His academic dean title did not appear in the credits. And even though everyone here at the school has known for many months that Steve's term as academic dean was coming to an end this summer, some media, in spite of our strong efforts, have chosen to portray the timing as significant. That is flat wrong and unfair.
There have been numerous false reports that this paper was written by two Harvard authors and that it was somehow an official document vetted and published by Harvard University. In part at Steve's suggestion and with the goal of pushing the discussion back into the realm of scholarly debate, the school strengthened its disclaimer and removed the logo from the cover page to clarify that this was not an official Kennedy school document. It is in absolutely no way a judgment about the paper, and the goal was to put the focus where it belongs: on the ideas expressed by two well-known international relations scholars.
Recently Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School sent a request we had never received before. He had written a direct response to the paper and wished the courtesy of having it posted on our web site as well. After discussing this situation with Joe Nye and others, I concluded that this request should also be evaluated in the context of academic freedom and vigorous open debate. We are, after all, one university. Thus under appropriate circumstances, I have agreed to let faculty from other schools at Harvard post responses to any Kennedy School faculty working paper. These will be available in a special Harvard response section, which will make clear that they are not the work of Kennedy School authors. I put my faith in the value of the free and open exchange of ideas.
I know that many of you have strong feelings about this recent work and perhaps about how the school has or has not handled the situation. These issues will be widely discussed -- evidence of the very academic freedom and vigorous response that is so fundamental to our work. Still we must try not to let our ideas and reactions divide us or distract us from our larger mission. It is far too important a time in the world to allow that to happen. We must work together as one community and one school. And we will do that best with free, open, and energetic debate.
Sincerely,
David T. Ellwood
Dean
So, terminated by disguise? or just coincidental?
To put this in some kind of context, consider the case of our current President and his father's national security advisor, General Brent Scowcroft.
Brent Scowcroft was not asked back by President G.W. Bush to serve another term as Chairman of the President's Federal Intelligence Oversight Board when his term expired on December 31, 2004. At a New Year's luncheon at Zbigniew Brzezinski's home, Scowcroft reportedly told those assembled that "The President fired me."
I asked Scowcroft about the PFIAB "firing" on January 6, 2005, and he theatrically declined to comment, but his meaning was clear -- and everyone in the room knew it.
Here is the exchange from the above linked transcript:
Steve Clemons to Brent Scowcroft:There is a lot of interest about your role, or the end of your role, on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Any comments on health of institution?
Brent Scowcroft:
No (said dramatically; laughter from crowd)
Scowcroft felt he had been fired by President Bush because of criticisms of the Bush administration's management of U.S. foreign policy.
Now, Stephen Walt should be making clear whether he "feels" fired from his position, or "demoted" as Justin Raimondo framed it. Perhaps yes -- or perhaps no.
But what is important in this debate -- no matter how strongly Walt and Mearsheimer's advocates and critics want to plead their cases -- is that it is critically important to not send signals that America's leading universities are bastions of thought control and censorship.
If Walt was planning to step down under normal conditions -- and not be renewed -- then the Kennedy School Dean's letter is very fair....but it's also important not just to send a communication to students and faculty at the Kennedy School but to do something to stand by the right of Stephen Walt to think and publish his work.
When the Toyota-funded "Japan Chair" was established many years ago at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, I wrote an op-ed asking whether that Toyota Japan Chair at CSIS would ever "consider" hiring Chalmers Johnson -- one of the leading authorities on Japan in the U.S. but also the then-acknowledged "godfather of revisionists" on Japan.
I wasn't asking CSIS to hire Johnson -- but to keep institutions safe, the hiring of a Chalmers Johnson acolyte needed to be considered. If the answer was no, then the financing of the CSIS chair was not worth the sacrifice of moral and intellectual integrity that it would entail.
Let's hope that in its Deanships and its various Chairs, the Kennedy School does not go down that road.
More on the substance of the Mearsheimer/Walt paper another time -- but in the mean time -- people need to sort out what is real from what is not.
And I hope that this piece finds itself to Stephen Walt who will send me a note on whether he feels "fired" or not for airing his views and research.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - America's Botched 2003 Iran Diplomacy: No Talks with Evil People in the "Axis"» Next Article - Stephen Walt Responds: NOT Fired
Steve:
You describe Mearsheimer and Walt as having written about the "Jewish lobby". In fact, their paper is about the "Israel lobby". Its a small but important difference.
you are right...i thought i fixed those references -- as i am inconsistent in the piece. fixing now.
steve clemnons
I have read the paper, and agree with it. I've thought much the same for a good while. And frankly, I find it impossible to believe that writing the paper had nothing to do with his firing.
No comment whatever on the events here, as I know only what you've written, but on their paper, I suggest you link to Chomsky's response. He's hardly a shrinking violet, and he has a critique others likely will not essay. Cf http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999
Thank you Steve
Your background info is much appreciated
I started to read the paper but got side tracked; I do need to go back and finish it
And wcw thanks for the link to Chomsky
I`m never going to get through all these articles I "need" to read...
"Everyday reality now is a complete fiction, manufactured by the media landscape and we operate inside it." - JG Ballard
I started to read the piece last week but got annoyed at the point where the writers could not seem to give Israel any points for being a democracy and having democratic institutions such as a functioning court system. Then there was the comment that Israeli Arabs are treated as second class citizens. Our suppose by that standard America is as bad as any dictatorship as well.
Steve, you've demonstrated here why I read you every day, and truly appreciate you, even though I am not always in agreement with you in every respect. There are too many knee-jerk positions from those I generally agree with as well as those whom I generally don't, but not from you.
Did Walt want to be an Academic Dean? Have things changed that much since I was in graduate school? My recollection was that most academic posts (I am thinking particularly of Department Chair) drained time from research and teaching and forced the holder to make decisions that gained the person nothing and attracted some enmity.
Perhaps this was a pinnacle of his life, but I doubt it.
I have not read the article under discussion but now I must. At this point I shall accept that Prof Walt is indeed stepping down (or up!) until there is information to the contrary.
However, the general attitude that there is a powerful Israeli lobby which has far too much influence on US foreign policy goes back a long way. It is about time that this is discussed. I remember that after 1947 many of us (my parent's attitude) saw a continuing, and not necessarily beneficial, skewing toward Israel. In college and graduate school, and later, even now, I have seen an undercurrent of "we cannot go there" attitude. To have a viable foreign policy there can be nothing that is out of discussion bounds. Congress is especially lax here and far too bound to the lobby under discussion.
What Barbara said.
Also, am I imagining things or is this a walking-on-eggshells post?
"the general attitude that there is a powerful Israeli lobby which has far too much influence on US foreign policy goes back a long way. It is about time that this is discussed. I remember that after 1947 many of us (my parent's attitude) saw a continuing, and not necessarily beneficial, skewing toward Israel. In college and graduate school, and later, even now, I have seen an undercurrent of "we cannot go there" attitude. To have a viable foreign policy there can be nothing that is out of discussion bounds. Congress is especially lax here and far too bound to the lobby under discussion."
I also find the US position on Israel largely baffling. Is it a sort of grandfathered sentiment; a Cold War holdover from the 50s and 60s, a byproduct of post-Holocaust sympathy? I just don't get it (which in itself doesn't mean much).
Or, to perhaps oversimplify: given the influence/power of the pro-Israel lobby, my question could be framed as: 'Why is that lobby so powerful?'
A tangential, and admittedly vague (if not blatantly ignorant, and possibly even racist) question is "what is the relation of neoconservative ideology to Israel?"
May I take a moment here to call all of you "anti- semitic", and supporters of "Islamo-fascism"???
There. Thats out of the way. How do I contact AIPAC to tell them where to send my check????
I read the Walt and Mearsheimer paper and didn't find anything even remotely controversial. Is it news to anyone that the Israeli lobby has had a stranglehold on US Mideast policy for decades? It is hardly anti-Semitic to believe that we are making a huge diplomatic and strategic error to defer to one country at the expense of our relationship with other important countries in the region. Our shameful lack of support for a Palestinian state is not only morally wrong; it is costing us dearly.
We do not need to buy into the false dichotomy posed by the Israeli lobby that asks us to choose between supporting Israel or supporting the Palestinians. The smart and decent policy is to support both.
Well,I read the entire 84 pages. I totally agree with every point and furthermore nothing in it is a secret and is well known to anyone who has paid attention. To say our congress is Israeli occupied is an accurate statement. I mean how many "former" senators and congressmen have to tell you that for it to sink it? To say that AIPAC influences congress and our foreign policy in the ME is a understatement. This has been going on for decades.
And what is hsyterically falling down funny is that AIPAC and JINSA and almost any Jewish newpapers you read will tell you all about which politicans they are mobilizing for what bill to benefit Israel. The only thing "wrong" with this is that "90%" of our congressmen do "exactly" what AIPAC tells them to do...regardless of how it affects American interest.
I was also amused by the "mis-direct" attack tactics employed by the Israeli firsters..that the paper wasn't "scholar worthy"..that is wasn't "academic" enough. Well, describing the tactics of campaign bribes and voter pressure of a lobbying group is a little hard to get all "scholarly" about.
As for the Jewish angle, well as far as I know AIPAC is all Jews, with a smattering of Jim Jones type evangelicals, so what can you say. I suggest we all acknowledge that not "all" Jews care more for Israel than America, but obviously "some" Jews do, so we won't have to repeat that ad nausum every time the subject comes up and the cultist start screaming anti-semitism. If that offends the American Jewish AIPAC radicals, tough titty boys.
US policy toward Israel not only needs talking about, it needs changing. Everyone from Kerry to Reid to Pelosi to Edwards who showed up AIPAC's conference and pledged alleigence to Israel is off my voter list. No more holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.
The next vote I cast will be for someone who is for America first.
We are counting on you to break some eggs. Stop pussy footing.
I remember reading the Globe piece and thinking Thompson was a cog of sanity in a wheel of hysterics. Framing wasn't a problem, although he sort of wandered around inside the one he created; in fact, I'd say his short essay had considerably more intellectual heft than Walt's and Mearsheimer's effort.
Why don't you just ask Walt what his situation is?
Carroll,
I believe you are incorrect on AIPAC, there are alot of fundamentalists who've joined.
I wish I still had the article I read about four years ago, it was about the 'marriage' between the hard right Jews and the fundamentalists, and it being one of convenience. For Israel. The fundamentalists believe Jesus will come back only when biblical Israel is intact, and then they'll get the 'rapture' they're looking forward to. Even though, domestically speaking, the two groups are at cross purposes, ie the 'war on Chrismas', it's given both groups much more power than they'd otherwise have had.
Like the presidency.
John Mearsheimer was interviewed by Ori Nir in the 3/24/06 issue of ?FORWARD?
Picture him postured like those barefooted abject slaves seen on the TV news every night responding to the dissonant shrieks emanating from under golden teapot domes as he responded to Mr. Nir?s journalist probes.
Mearsheimer states that their work was slated for publication in 2002 (!) in a ?leading American Magazine,? but the publishers told him that it was ?virtually impossible ?to publish that in the United States???it was a third rail issue? ?and it would cause publishers ?all sorts of problems.? The ?FORWARD? is a niche publication, but the Emperor just got little nakeder, careful now.
He was faulted for ?non-original documentation.? Yes, there is AIPAC, in the interest of scholarship, allowing Mearsheimer into their hard drives. Now that would make for a veeerrry interesting paper. Besides, look what original scholarship regarding WW 2 got David Irving. Pleease don?t go to Europe Mr. Mearsheimer, you have offended. A community college Poly Sci adjunct instructor position may be available in the UP, Michigan, and upper Maine for you Mr. Walt.
Mr. Nir wonders if the paper was published ?to appease Arab donors to their universities.? An anti-Semitic slur in the very true sense of the word. Finally, this explains why I see such a disproportionate number of mustached Mohammed type students and professors running around our Ivied Halls. The Emirs? signature machines ceaselessly cranking out those recommendation letters direct to Ivy presidents. The invisible ink reminding: ?or else.? Next, a Mosque on Harvard Square!
BUT WAIT! It appears that a certain Robert Belfer, former Enron Director endowed Mr. Walts chair. Say it ain?t so Mr. Belfer, the pension funds of your loyal secretary, the office maintenance guy, your plumbers, your electricians. (aahh Google) Mr. Belfer did escape a ?COURT TV? appearance with Kenneth Lay, so he?s golden. Like to see his phone records for the past few days, ?specially to Harvard.
Looks like the ?FORWARD? got it backward
Mr. Mearsheimer states that the “evidence in the piece is just the tip of the iceberg.” Unfortunately there are about 280 million of us cruising on the U.S. Titanic who do not share an atavistic attachment to Israel.
Edward Abboud’s well researched book “THE INVISIBLE ENEMY: ISRAEL, POLITICS,MEDIA AND AMERICAN CULTURE” Vox Publishing & Amazon takes a look into the murky waters and documents the massive icy bowel lurking beneath the surface. Read the Amazon “thou dost protest too much” reviews.
Also Richard Curtis, a former foreign service officer publishes the “WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS” A great journal. He follows the lobby and even tried to bring them to court to register as a foreign lobby. The lobby said “who us, we are just a Hebrew Rotary”. The judge agreed and went to their next Bingo night. He regularly documents the TRUE cost of supporting Israel.
Paul Findley, former US congressman, his book: “THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT.” He’s been in combat with the lobby and has the scars to prove it.
A very well researched book on historic Zionist influence in our foreign policy by Albert Pastore phd. : STRANGER THAN FICTION: AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUE CULPRITS BEHIND 9-11. Dandelion Press. He cuts to the quick with no weird theories, relying on readily available publicly documented facts, he weaves a very instructive scenario.
If only our citizens knew the amount of their taxes and labors that are extracted from local communities, roads, schools, hospitals only to be diverted to (in their own words) the Jewish state for the brazen purpose of destroying a group of humans unlucky enough to have the wrong genes.
Barbara, If this isn't what you're remembering, it may suffice.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/torah/shy/forc.htm
And what will the folks in Israel think when they find out that they have to convert to xtianity in order to follow their raptured "brethern and sistern" to the promised land? Who would Jesus rapture? Nobody who hasn't accepted him as their savior. Get with the program or get "Left Behind".
Thanks to Mr. Walt and Mr. Mearsheimer for kicking over this rock and Thanks Steve for highlighting their work. I'm not qualified to start coming up with "solutions" but I sense deeply that this warping of American priorities must be addressed in an actionable way beyond mere discussion. The perpetual chaos of the Israeli/Palastinian abscess has cost much more than it is worth.
Barbara
I think I remember the article you are talking about..about 2 years ago I believe...in the WP or either done independently by a contributing writer for the Post.
If that is the same article, he did give quite a good and scary look at the evangelical whackos by attending their convention and reporting on it.
It was either in that article or another that he described some evangelical lady leader as saying she "owed" her loyalty to Israel first...and then described how this made her audience "uncomfortable".
However I don't think the evangelicals (or their support of Israel) figure in with the Dems support of Israel as much as they do in the GOP right wing...from everything I have researched and read about AIPAC, it exerts power over both the dems and repubs equally and all by itself when it comes to aid and legistation for Israel and AIPAC causes.
Burro, thanks. That wasn't it, though. The article was much more about AIPAC.
Carrol, of course the evangelicals don't figure in with the Democrats. Their support is for the neoconservatives. And while AIPAC influences both parties, it's the neocons who have the power with this administration, and at this point, control of AIPAC. Since one of the neocon objectives is Israel hard right objectives, many Democrats are torn.
On another note, I saw recently where there's only about 50,000 Jewish members in AIPAC, a very small minority of this country's Jewish population. But obviously, a very influential group.
The fact that so many people want to be "careful" in commenting "accurately" about Walt's and Mearsheimer's paper is the most eloquent testimony to The Israel Lobby's power.
I read the paper, and concluded the following. First, it should be very clear to anyone who researched the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in any depth, that the authors have presented their views in the way that highlighted some selective observations, whereas clearly and intentionally hided most facts. This gives little credit to professors who clearly have the intelligence and background to have a fair view on the subject matter, but instead chose to present it in this very shameful way (probably out of envy to whatever goals they couldn’t achieve otherwise). Furthermore, on the subject of Pro-Israeli lobbying; there are numerous legal organizations in the US, lobbying for various causes, and people who support Israel certainly have the right to deploy their intellectual and financial resources (in any legal manner) to promote their believes. Nothing in the paper suggested that pro-Israeli lobbying was illegal, as it is not. We have our views, and we have the right (and in some cases obligation) to promote them. The last point that I will make is that although the paper is a shameful example of a biased representation of political views, both professors certainly have the right to express their views in any way they choose, and I sincerely hope that no official pressure was imposed on them.
That paper of those two "distinguished" professors from harvard and Chicago on the Israeli lobby and the war on Iraq is full of falcifications, half truths and bigotry. Mainly it reflects their shallow understanding of the historic facts concerning the Israeli-Plaestinian conflict. This has been said already by previous commentators and is not surprising. What is surprising, if you are ready to buy that rubbish, is the alleged "stupidity" of American presidents and policy makers who can be swayed so easily by the Jewish lobby. What is even more interesting is how those distinguished professor "forgot" the role of Dr. El-Baradai, the UN and the IAAA who for many years tried to get the information on WMD from Iraq and Sadam Hussein would not let them that information. Do the professors believe that the Israeli-Jewish lobby persuaded El-Baradai (a Nobel laureate) and the IAAA to "create" the conflict against Iraq? If the conlict between Iraq and America, Britain, Spain, Italy and other countries was just the result of Israeli-Jewish imagination, how do the professors explain the the role of the UN and El-Baradai in that game? Were they also bribed by the Jewish lobby?
I am just an average Joe midwestern Soccer dad, who happened to stumble on the Mearsheimer/Walt Lobby paper. It has completely changed my views on the Middle East and the US role in Iraq. It terrifies me to think what could happen if the Israeli lobby pushes us into war with Iran. Besides all of this costing us billions of dollars and the precious lives of our soldiers, it could very well cost us thousands or even millions of lives of Americans on American soil. Needless to say, the best interests of Israel are not worth putting at risk the lives of our children, especially while they are in their homes here in America.
This nonsense has to stop. Somebody in the comment chain recommended making sure that we vote for representatives that are not on the take from the Lobby, and that is certainly a starting point, but we need more at this point. Are there any level-headed non-extremist organizations out there that will push for "the rest of us" that don't believe America should be fighting Israel's wars?
Reader Comments (26) - post a comment