Great news, so let's get on with the debate. There is still the issue of the foaming of the mouths of pro-Israelis claiming that the paper is not up to academic standards and that it's anti-semitic. Tell me how that furthers debate. I would say these types of reactions sort of validate the paper.

Let's take one example; the Iraq war. Who really had the means, motive and opportunity? Who was influencing the Office of Special Plans? Is Doug Feith not a rabid Zionist? Did Larry Franklin not work in that same office? Did Larry Franklin not admit that the Israelis gave him far more information than he gave them? The AIPAC spy scandal is not about what information we provided to AIPAC and to the Israeli government. It is about what mis-information the Israelis gave the Office of Special Plans which was then funneled through to the WHIG bypassing all the normal intelligence channels. The INC with Chalabi's connections to these same Zionist Neo-Cons also helped the Bush Administration make their flimsy case for war. There were Israeli generals constantly hanging out in the Pentagon as witnessed by people like Karen Kwiatkowski. I urge people to read the Lie Factory and The Spies Who Pushed For War for corraboration to my so called conspiracy theories. Remember, this is just one example of means, motive and opportunity. I can talk about 9/11 in this vein as well and make just as good a case. I'll leave you with a quote from the executive director of the 9/11 commission, Philip Zelikow:

”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

There was nothing scholarly or objective whatsoever about Walt and Meirsheimer's paper. They started out with their own anti-Israel bias and then set out to find sources to fit their already preconceived conclusions. It was a smear job of Israel and it's American supporters. It could never possibly occur to them we support Israel for the same reasons we are allied with Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia and every other free country that shares our values. There must be some sinister force at work, why else would we be allied with Israel, which just happens to share our values and is surrounded by oppressive, non-democratic, non-free states.

The reality is, it is Walt, Meirsheimer and others of their ilk who's loyalties to America should really be questioned because they are the ones who back these brutal arab dictatorships which repress women, Christians and other non-muslims. Not to mention they fund terrorism and incitement against us. But obviously that isn't enough of a problem for walt and meirsheimer to suggest we end our support of saudi arabia and other arab "allies".

I CAN'T think of a foreign policy that would be more cowardly and immoral than to favor the arabs over Israel simply because they are far more numerous, threatening and have oil.

Do Walt and Meirsheimer have a problem with the money we send to Egypt, which isn't free and oppresses the Copts? Do they have a problem with the fact we have thousands of troops still stationed in Europe, Japan, S.Korea that costs us billions to defend countries that should be perfectly able to defend themselves? Or how about the fact that we fought to save Kuwait and saudi arabia during the first gulf war? Apparently none of these issues is worthy of a research paper. Only our relationship with Israel is open to question. At least Israel fights its own battles without the need for U.S. troops to protect them.

And finally do Walt and Meirsheimer have a problem with the fact that wealthy arabs give away money to promote their interests in America?

Rest assured, Arab oil and wealth is more controlling and more powerful than Jewish lobbies can ever be. Do you think for one minute that the Arabs are truly powerless? Do you see their control of Europe and the UN?

There are two major flaws with Mearsheimer's and Walt's thesis. The first is the assumption that absent Israel, the US would have acted in its own best foreign policy interests. Vietnam and our support for the Shah put paid to that notion, as does the casual decision to abandon Afghanistan to civil war after we helped drive the Soviet Union out. There are endless other examples.

Israel has been useful in advancing a variety of US policy goals in the Middle East and elsewhere. Our massive support of the country dates back to the 1967 war, and escalated again after the 1973 war. What Israel did in those wars was effectively end the prospect of a workable pan-Arab nationalist movement. We liked that. And when the Shah went down the tubes, we were left with Israel as the lone powerful, reliably pro-US client in the region.

You could actually make a stronger argument that US patronage enabled Israel to act against its own best interests than the reverse; we were going to do so anyway, whereas Israel might have had to resolve the Palestinian issue rationally absent our support. A secular, democratic, economically viable Palestine would have been in our best interests and the Israeli's, but in the final analysis most Americans, including most politicians, don't give a damn about the latter.

In other words, we shoot ourselves in the foot all the time, we don't need Israel's help to do it, and our support for them has probably buggered their prospects more than it has our own; in the past, I've described that support as akin to handing car keys to a drunk so he won't have to pay for a taxi home.

The other major flaw resolves around Wolfowitz et al. Those guys didn't hijack US Middle East policy; they were hired by their spectacularly non-Jewish political godfather, Dick Cheney, to implement their shared vision of it.

Did they think invading Iraq would help Israel? In the short term, yes, but the primary reason behind the invasion was, as ever, to secure US interests in the neighborhood: we need to protect the free flow of oil, we couldn't base a major troop presence in Suadi Arabia any longer, and a US-friendly Iraq was viewed as the perfect solution to both problems. In the longer term, the realized fantasy of a democratic tsunami in the Persian Gulf — or even just a tranquil US-friendly Iraq — would actually diminish Israel's value to us.

Possibly the neocons hadn't cottoned on to this — a group of them explicitly made the opposite case when they were working for Netanyahu in the mid-1990s — but it wouldn't have taken them too long to catch on had things worked out as they thought, and it would have gone down as another short-term triumph and long-term failure. And a few years down the road some Israeli political scientists would be writing a Mearsheim/Walt-like paper questioning Israel's blind adherence to US policy.

Alan Dershowitz has entirely discredited himself
by supporting the idea that torture can be justified.
What ever points he may make in this argument, who cares
what Dershowitz has to say? The man is intellectually
bankrupt.

I will interject into this argument that those
who think that Israel's best interests and those
of the US necessarily coincide might want to
familiarize themselves with the incident when
Isreal knowingly attacked a US intelligence ship
named the Liberty. Over ten men were killed and
many were wounded. The ship was so badly damaged
that it almost sank.

Isreal will do what it needs to in order to
survive. When it comes to issues of survival
they don't clear their actions in advance with
the United States. In the same way, the US would
do well to adopt a foreign policy that
recognizes the interests of our allies, but holds
US interest first.

Ian

You, Laura and Weldon, obviously have not read the Walt/Mearsheimer study.

Israel is of no value to us -- Israel has sold us out consistently and Israel has, as any country does except for the lice in our Congress who act on Israel's behalf over the U.S., always acted in her own best interest.

As far as the blithering idiots and or limited hang-out plants in the anti-war movement who claim that we invaded Iraq for oil: if we wanted oil we could invade Mexico or Canada.

Much easier on the logistics, and half of the southern border states populations are already fluent in Spanish. The illegals would be more than happy to return to Mexico if we annexed it and raised the standard of living. If we spent 1/12 of the amount we spend each month in Iraq helping Mexico build her infrastructure we would benefit profoundly.

I could refute all of your arguments, Laura and Weldon, but won't bother because the bottom line is this (and real Americans have only a limited amount of time to get this across to our fellow U.S. citizens): Iran is no threat to the United States, nor was Iraq, nor is Syria.

To my fellow Americans: READ THE WALT/MEARSHEIMER STUDY!

Jorge Hirsch in antiwar.com today makes a compelling argument that USRael will attack Iran this month. FOR WHAT? To prevent Russia and China (and Japan) from consolidating their hold on the Iranian oil fields?

Do a little economic analysis here -- we're bankrupt -- Iran has 5-11% of the world's oil but for us to take action against Iran would destroy our economy well before we could stop Russia and China from gaining the advantage. They'll laugh all the way to the central Asian banks while we, SUCKERS, pay in blood and treasure for Israel.

And to Laura and Weldon -- I am an immigrant to this country. I do not parade in the streets carrying the flag of the country I was actually born in, nor do I encourage, bribe, and threaten the U.S. Congress because the Vatican (the home of the religion I was raised in) wants to invade the rest of Italy, or France, or Switzerland or...

So go to your homeland and leave us the hell alone. Again, EVERYONE read the Walt/Mearsheimer study for yourself!

Can'tTalkNow: I have read the Mearsheimer-Walt study, I am a long-time critic of Israeli policies, I strenuously opposed the invasion of Iraq, I do not parade under anyone's flag and my argument is not that US support for Israel, or rather the nature of that support, has been uniformly good for the US, but that it coincided with what successive US administrations believed was in the interest of the US. Take your own advice re: reading, and take your jingoistic "go to your homeland and leave us the hell alone" and shove it up your ass.

It's amazing to me then, that anyone who had read the Walt/Mearsheimer study and actually also had followed the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East could call themself a "critic of Israeli policy." You are obviously not critical enough.

I could literally pick through your first post and destroy the premises, but it would be a waste of time, when an attack on Iran appears to be on the very near horizon.

Yesterday Mohammad El Baradei said that Iran was not an imminent threat. The Russian foreign minister said that Russia would not stand for sanctions against Iran at this point.

We had no enemies in the Islamic world until our carte blanche support for Israel, which includes the funding of the weaponry being used to bomb Gaza yesterday.

Last week, a former head of the Mossad said that the world was already in World War III, which he described as the (somewhat mythical) *West* (does that *West* include Columbia? Tibet?) against Islam.

Pardon me while I go find a newpaper article on the Crusades...oh -- WHOOPS -- they ended centuries ago -- silly dumb me -- I forgot that whole thing in the 9/11 commission report on how it was anger at U.S. support of Israel that led to 9/11 ( I believe it was on page 147 of the official report)

NO, THE WEST HAS NO BEEF AGAINST ISLAM. ISRAEL HAS A BEEF AND NOW WE'RE IN AN ENDLESS WAR SOLELY BECAUSE THE ZIONISTS HAVE DRAGGED US INTO THEIR FIGHT WITH THEIR DISTORTIONS AND LIES.

Jingoistic? I think not. Patriotic, yes -- but I am also an internationalist who believes that we can make peace, and the foundation for peace is based on economic parity.

I am all for making treaties and cutting deals with the rest of the world as opposed to resorting to war -- because I think war is the ultimate crime and only benefits the powerful.

And by the way I was joking about annexing Mexico but am entirely serious about establishing a sort of Marshall Plan for Mexico using oil in a repayment scheme, it would benefit both countries and then VOILA, the Middle East could disappear for awhile, or at least until Israel found a new way to drag us in.

Renewable energy resources anyone? Oh, no -- that would be too peaceful an option then our National Guard would be home cleaning up after hurricanes and earthquakes rather than fighting Israel's wars...

weldon berger, I appeciated your first post, especially the idea that US support for Israel may have induced Israel to act against its own long-term best interests. You use the metaphor of handing car keys to a drunk, so he can avoid paying for a taxi.

You don't say so, but I guess you mean that US support made it easier for Israel to occupy the Territories and build settlements, roads, etc.

Are there other ways in which this process played out?

It's an interesting idea to me, one I hadn't thought of. Certainly, Israel's occupation of the West Bank was a maximalist dream that should have died long ago. Didn't Ben Gurion warn against it shortly after the Six Day War?

btw, your description of Dick Cheney as "spectacularly non-Jewish" was delicious.

Here's a question for you and anyone else not full of animosity:: How vital to Israel is US aid at this point?

I think we give Israel $3 billion a year, no? But I just saw in the CIA World Fact Book that Israel's GDP in 2005 was $139.2 billion, at purhasing power parity. So how much difference would it make if we cut off all aid tomorrow?

Do you mind if I just call you "Cant?"

My experience of people who say "I could demolish your arguments" and then don't, is that they can't. And you've got plenty of time, if the attack on Iran is a month away.

Arab and Muslim attitudes toward the US were generally positive throughout the history of our support for Israel until the Bush administration took office. The hostility that was directed toward us arose primarily from post-Shah Iran, a country where we installed and supported an anti-democratic ruler who engaged in hideously repressive practices — and even there, popular attitudes toward the US were generally positive — and from bin Ladenists, whose primary gripes were our presence in Saudi Arabia and our support of repressive secular Arab regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and, off and on, Iraq. In truth, hardly any regime in the Middle East really cares about the Palestinians other than as a useful foil for diverting popular discontent with their own practices: if they did, they would have helped them considerably more than they have.

The hostility generated by Bush arises first from the free reign he gave Sharon during the second intifada, which was far bloodier and more destructive than the first, and more importantly from the invasion of Iraq. Jews did not hypnotize Bush or Cheney into invading Iraq: the administration were quite content to do that on their own, and as I'm sure you're aware, Cheney, Rice and other leading administration lights had been advocating just that course througout the period when they were out of power in Washington.

Where the Israel lobby did have an impact on Bush was in connection with his willingness to abandon any attempt to force Israel into some rational accomodation with Palestine. But that's as much an indcitment of Bush's lack of interest in actually accomplishing something on that score as it is of the Israel lobby's capacity to make Congressional action, which is what any really punitive measures would require, extremely painful.

Now, how you conflate the Bush administration's refusal to push for alternative energy sources, their general hostility toward diplomacy, their affection for American empire and their unwillingness to pimp their corporate bankrollers by helping Latin American economies raise the standard of living for citizens at the bottom of their respective heaps with support for Israel is a process that, frankly, I don't even want to understand.

Hal, cutting off the aid would be painful but not terminal. In essence that money has gone to supporting the settlements and providing low cost loans for the purchase of US goods and technologies, primarily military. With the pullback from Gaza and probably some portions of the West Bank, it'll be even less important. And yes, those sorts of counterproductive activities are what I was talking about in my "car keys for a drunk" analogy.

One of the funny things about the Israel-dominating-America narrative is that several of the people most often named as evidence of it, notably Doug Feith and David Wurmser, who has been Cheney's Middle East advisor for a few years, authored a 1995 paper for incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called "A Clean Break," in which they advocated weaning Israel from US aid. In part this was because the aid acted as a restraint on Israel with respect to military actions against Palestinians and neighboring states, and in part because Netanyahu and his neocon advisors hate the quasi-Socialist Israeli economy and want to convert it to a free market one, destroying the Labor party in the process (that free market ideology was also a priority for neocons in Iraq, with disastrous results). One of the reasons the settlements are so unpopular in Israel is that they threaten the state's generous social services policies. If Netanyahu succeeded in killing those, the money saved could replace US aid in supporting expansionism.

In other words, they wanted what many critics of Israel want, and in some sense for almost the same reasons. Richard Perle was in on that recommendation as well. People tend to ignore that part of the paper and, I suppose understandably, focus on the part that advocates replacing Saddam with an unemployed Hashemite prince, an idea that still held some currency among administration officials almost up until the eve of the invasion, when they came down solidly for Chalabi.

When I read the paper, I was struck by the comic possibility of a world in which Israel supporters in the US, along with their Congressional clients, would be pushing US aid on an Israeli government that didn't want it.

"The reality is, it is Walt, Meirsheimer and others of their ilk who's loyalties to America should really be questioned because they are the ones who back these brutal arab dictatorships which repress women, Christians and other non-muslims. Not to mention they fund terrorism and incitement against us. But obviously that isn't enough of a problem for walt and meirsheimer to suggest we end our support of saudi arabia and other arab "allies"."

Posted by Laura

Uh oh, heres the same old tired SHIT. These people are despicable.

"The reality is, it is Walt, Meirsheimer and others of their ilk who's loyalties to America should really be questioned because they are the ones who back these brutal arab dictatorships which repress women, Christians and other non-muslims. Not to mention they fund terrorism and incitement against us. But obviously that isn't enough of a problem for walt and meirsheimer to suggest we end our support of saudi arabia and other arab "allies"."

Posted by Laura

Keeping It Quiet: The Israel Lobby's Crushing of Dissent

by Charley Reese

The first weapon of choice for the Israeli lobby when someone with prestige publishes a soundly researched paper or book critical of Israel or its powerful lobby is silence. If it's a book, it rarely gets reviewed; its author doesn't get interviewed. If it's a paper, there are no news stories in the big corporate press, no interviews with the authors, no television appearances.

For the average American who depends on the press to tell him what's going on, it's as if the criticism never existed. The second weapon is, of course, to launch vicious personal attacks.

continues at......

Oops......sorry....heres the address.....

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8791

Rabid Israeli partisans like Dershowitz undermine their own position by becoming unhinged when anyone makes the suggestion that the USA should review and re-think its policy toward Israel. He isn't even willing to join the conversation in a spirit of good faith-- he immediately resorts to cheap shots like raising the "anti-semitic" charge. Weak stuff.

I can accept Walt's explaination but have to wonder if the release of the paper in London wasn't timed to make his bound to be painful time at Harvard after publication as short as possible.

However and whyever the paper arrived as and when it did, I for one am glad it has attracted this uproar.
For one reason..because sooooo many people have written about the "Lobby" before and gotten no notice..most likely because it never made the American press...naturally.

I am sure Steve knows about the three papers Michael Lind of New America has written on this subject...

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?sec=Documents&pg=article&DocID=779&T2=Article

By Michael Lind
Whitehead Senior Fellow

People "in the know", so to speak, know all about the Jewish hyphen American Lobby. More Americans are finding out..all that remains is to vote out every congressman and senator who has taken part in this raping of Americans for a foreign country. As our dear leader is so fond of saying...you're either for them or for us".

There is no such country as Isrmerica.

There are a few other lobbies we need to clean out also but right now this is the most important one and the most dangerous to America.

I really wish the professional Israel baiters would make up their minds as to what are the proper responses to their allegations. If there is an insufficient response in their eyes, to each & every crank foaming about a zionist conspiracy, they go on about "Why the Silence? Why is there no debate on this oh so important issue?" Yet when these same people respond critically to these very same accusations, such as in the Walt & Mearshimer paper they get criticized for trying to "stifle" or silence debate. It's damned if you do & damned if you don't with the Israel baiting set. Or to put it more concisely, Damned if you do anything besides agree wholeheartedly with our theories about a zionist occupied government.

And please drop the false "Any criticism of Israel is immediately deemed Anti-semitic" canard, criticism of Israel isn't immedately deemed anti-semitic, Israelis themselves are critical of Israel all the time, if you are accused of anti-semitism, it's probably because you are being anti-semitic. Most people have been pretty temperant when criticizing the Walt/Mearshimer thesis, which is remarkable considering it's proponents are basically arguing that American Jews are a 5th column, orchestrating the arms of American Government through the power of it's secretive & insidious cabals.

And some advice for the professional Israel-baiters, please drop the fake rhetorical "Why is America supporting Israel when it isn't in it's national interests?" questions, when there is nothing you could care less about. At least the people who are open about their belief that Israel is an oppressive state comparable to Nazi Germany & should be destroyed are honest about their beliefs. This namby pamby "Supporting Israel isn't in our National interest" is reactionary xenophobic right-wing nonsense. You might as well be the John Birch Society or Lyndon LaRoucheites.

Dustin ,

Evidently you have not received your copy of the talking points done by the Luntz research group for the Wexler foundation to guide Jewish American Israel supporters in the conversations on the subject.

Here you go....maybe it will help you because you are making no headway at all with objective observers, maybe you can do better with non thinkers.

ANALYSIS:

ISRAELI COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES 2003

OVERVIEW

The world has changed. The words, themes and messages on behalf of Israel must include and embrace the new reality of a post-Saddam world.

In the past, we have urged a lower profile for Israel out of a fear that the American people would blame Israel for what was happening in the rest of the Middle East. Now is the time to link American success in dealing with terrorism and dictators from a position of strength to Israel's ongoing efforts to eradicate terrorism on and within its borders. In the current political environment, you have little to lose and a lot to gain by aligning with America. With all the anti-Americanism across the globe and all the protests and demonstrations, we are looking for allies that share our commitment to security and an end to terrorism and are prepared to say so. Israel is a just such an ally.

THE NEXT STEP

The fact that Israel has remained relatively silent for the three months preceding the war and for the three weeks of the war was absolutely the correct strategy - and according to all the polling done, it worked. But as the military conflict comes to a close, it is now time for Israel to lay out its own "road map" for the future which includes unqualified support for America and unqualified commitment to an ongoing war against terrorism.

Perceptions of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are being almost entirely colored and often overshadowed by the continuing action in Iraq. Partisan differences still exist (the political Left remains your problem) and complaints about Israeli heavy-handedness still exist. Advocates of Israel have about two weeks to get their message in order before world attention turns to the so-called "road map" and how best to "solve" the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Developing that message is the purpose of this memo.

Author's note: This is not a policy document. This document is strictly a communications manual. As with every memo we provide, we have used the same scientific methodology to isolate specific words, phrases, themes and messages that will resonate with at least 70% of the American audience. There will certainly be some people, particularly those on the political left, who will oppose whatever words you use, but the language that follows will help you secure support from a large majority of Americans. These recommendations are based on two "dial test" sessions in Chicago and Los Angeles conducted during the first ten days of the Iraqi war for the Wexner Foundation.

ESSENTIAL CONCLUSIONS

This document is rather long because it is impossible to communicate all that is needed in simple one-sentence sound-bites. Yes, we have provided those on the pages that follow, but we have taken the space to explain why the language is so important and the context in which it needs to be used. If you only read two pages, these are the key conclusions:

1) Iraq colors all. Saddam is your best defense, even if he is dead. The worldview Americans is entirely dominated by developments in Iraq. This is a unique opportunity for Israelis to deliver a message of support and unity at a time of great international anxiety and opposition from some of our European "allies." For a year - a SOLID YEAR - you should be invoking the name of Saddam Hussein and how Israel was always behind American efforts to rid the world of this ruthless dictator and liberate their people. Saddam will remain a powerful symbol of terror to Americans for a long time to come. A pro-Israeli expression of solidarity with the American people in their successful effort to remove Saddam will be appreciated.

2) Stick to your message but don't say it the same way twice. We have seen this in the past but never so starkly as today. Americans are paying very close attention to international developments and are particularly sensitive to any kind of apparent dogma or canned presentations. If they hear you repeating the exact same words over and over again, they will come to distrust your message. If your speakers can't find different ways to express similar principles, keep them off the air.

3) It DOES NOT HELP when you compliment President Bush. When you want to identify with and align yourself with America, just say it. Don't use George Bush as a synonym for the United States. Even with the destruction of the Hussein regime and all the positive reactions from the Iraqi people, there still remains about 20% of America that opposes the Iraqi war, and they are overwhelmingly Democrat. That leaves about half the Democrats who support the war even if they don't support George Bush. You antagonize the latter half unnecessarily every time you compliment the President. Don't do it.

4) Conveying sensitivity and a sense of values is a must. Most of the best-performing sound bites mention children, families, and democratic values. Don't just say that Israel is morally aligned with the U.S. Show it in your language. The children component is particularly important. It is essential that you talk about "the day, not long from now, when Palestinian children and Israeli children will play side-by-side as their parents watch approvingly."

5) "SECURITY" sells. Security has become the key fundamental principle for all Americans. Security is the context by which you should explain Israeli need for loan guarantees and military aid, as well as why Israel can't just give up land. The settlements are our Achilles heel, and the best response (which is still quite weak) is the need for security that this buffer creates.

6) The language in this document will work, but it will work best when it is accompanied with passion and compassion. Too many supporters of Israel speak out of anger or shout when faced with opposition. Listeners are more likely to accept your arguments if they like how you express them. They will bless these words but they will truly accept them if and only if they accept you.

7) Find yourself a good female spokesperson. In all our testing, women are found to be more credible than men. And if the woman has children, that's even better.

8) Link Iraqi liberation with the plight of the Palestinian people. It is likely that the most effective argument(s) you have right now are those that link the right of the Iraqi people to live in freedom with the right of the Palestinian people to be governed by those who truly represent them. If you express your concern for the plight of the Palestinian people and how it is unfair, unjust and immoral that they should be forced to accept leaders who steal and kill in their name, you will be building credibility for your support of the average Palestinian while undermining the credibility of their leadership.

9) A little humility goes a long way. You saw this with your own eyes. You need to talk continually about your understanding of "the plight of the Palestinians" and a commitment to helping them. Yes, this IS a double standard (no one expects anything pro-Israeli from the Palestinians) but that's just the way things are. Humility is a bitter pill to swallow, but it will inoculate you against critiques that you have not done enough for peace. Admit mistakes, but then show how Israel is the partner always working for peace.

10) Of course rhetorical questions work, don't they? Ask a question to which there is only one answer is hard to lose. It is essential that your communication be laced with rhetorical questions, which is how Jews talk anyway.

11) Mahmoud Abbas is still a question mark. Leave him that way. You stand much more to lose by attacking him now. But similarly, he is not worthy of praise. Talk about your hopes for the future, but lay out the principles you expect him to uphold: an end to violence, a recognition of Israel, reform of his own government, etc.

THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT WORDS: SADDAM HUSSEIN (STILL)

This document is about language, so let me be blunt. "Saddam Hussein" are the two words that tie Israel to America and are most likely to deliver support in Congress. They also just happen to be two of the most hated words in the English language right now.

Without being repetitive, Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its boarders. Unfortunately, as a democracy, we tend to dwell on our failures (Vietnam, Watergate, etc.) more than our successes. It is essential for the long-term support of a strong military and a commitment to national security that we remind people again and again...and again that there are times when it is necessary to take preventative action and that military intervention is better than appeasement.

A WARNING

There are some who would say that Saddam Hussein is already old news. They don't understand history. They don't understand communication. They don't understand how to integrate and leverage history and communication for the benefit of Israel. The day we allow Saddam to take his eventual place in the trash heap of history is the day we loose our strongest weapon in the linguistic defense of Israel.

References to the successful outcome of the war with Iraq benefit Israel. While Americans don't want to increase foreign aid in a time of significant budgetary deficits and painful spending cuts, there is one and only one argument that will work for continuing Israeli aid (in four easy steps):

THE ISRAELI AID MESSAGE TREE

(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.

(2) Prevention works. Even with the collapse of Saddam's regime, terrorist threats remain throughout our region.

(3) Israel is America's one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.

(4) With America's financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort in the war against terrorism.

This is important. All the arguments about Israel being a democracy, letting Arabs vote and serve in government, protecting religious freedom, etc., won't deliver the public support you need to secure the loan guarantees and the military aid Israel needs. All the language we have written in past memos will not work when it comes to U.S. tax dollars. You need a national security angle - one that clearly links the interests of both Israel and America:

WORDS THAT WORK:

SELLING ISRAEL AID (I)

"It was Israel who risked their pilots and planes in taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactors and thus thwarted his quest for nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

It was Israel who provided much of the intelligence that helped America defeat Iraq back in 1991.

It was Israel alone among Middle Eastern nations that supported America's successful effort to remove Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq.

We stood without you against the Saddam regime from beginning to end. Israel has been a key regional asset and military ally of the United States for more than 50 years. That relationship must continue, even and especially in the post-Saddam era. It is a partnership of democracies devoted to the war against terrorism and the fight for freedom."

As we have seen, the news cycle during and immediately following a war is is not a matter of idle curiosity, it is compulsory viewing. Even more than in Israel, where conflict has tragically been almost commonplace, war means a new and real threat to personal and familial security in America. And Saddam Hussein, dead or alive, still embodies that threat.

Americans have been thinking and talking about the war on terror for almost a year and a half now, and they have come to conclude that Saddam Hussein is a sponsor of world terror and is a particular threat to the democracies of the world. New and shocking revelations about the brutality of his regime are discovered daily, which only reinforces American support of military action. But the fact that Hussein was a direct threat to Israel is especially important. Israel opposed his cruel ambitions for decades - a decade longer than the U.S. Remind audiences that Israel and America have common values, but then stress that we also share common enemies.

But deterrence is only half the message. You really do need to emphasize your historic willingness to compromise and sacrifice on behalf of America. This may not play well among some Israeli politicians but it will certainly play extremely well in the States.

WORDS THAT WORK

"During the Gulf War, Iraq attacked Israel with Scud missiles 39 times. Israel stood by each time, not knowing if the next missile contained biological and chemical weapons. Israel chose restraint instead of war, because it was what the U.S. asked. It was Israel's way to support our ally, America, and its troops during the Persian Gulf War. We put supporting American priorities higher than our own. But now, with our national security at stake, we need America's financial help."

RESPONDING TO PALESTINIAN PRESSURE

While the Chicago and Los Angeles sessions yielded significant new language and several new communication "principles," most of our previous observations hold true. Too many in the Jewish community are too linguistically hostile at a time when the other 97% of America wants a resolution to the conflict. In particular, you cannot just issue recriminations, however justified, against the Palestinian Authority and expect American elites to be suddenly convinced of your righteousness. All the evidence and common sense can be on your side, but the hostility and negativity will be rejected as biased and one-sided.

Here's a specific example:

WORDS THAT DON'T WORK

"There is no moral equivalency. On one side you have duly elected and appointed Israeli officials from a democracy that has been operating for more than half a century. On the other side you have corrupt Palestinian officials who have lied, cheated and stolen from their people. Israel will not negotiate until they have someone to negotiate with."

While the statement above is perfectly accurate and justified, it will not work. Individually, the words are good, the facts are accurate and the message is correct. But this communication effort fails miserably because it is regarded as a complete rejection of negotiations and peace. Listeners see it as accusatory and contentious - exactly what they don't want to hear and will not accept. We have a better approach, one that says virtually the same thing but in a more effective way:

WORDS THAT DO WORK

"Whatever the root causes of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis, there are certain tragic cultural facts and differences that stand in the way of peace negotiations between the people of Israel and the Palestinians. No Israeli child has ever strapped a bomb to his back and gone off to kill civilian Palestinians, and yet the Palestinian leadership does too little to dispel the notion among its more extreme citizens that killing Israelis with a suicide bomb is the surest route to heaven. How can Israel deal with a population of parents that stand aside or even encourage their children to become martyrs?"

Yes, this is harsher and more explicit than the previous paragraph, but it works for several reasons:

(1) The human touch. Mentioning parents and children humanizes and personalizes the terror that Israel has to face every day.

(2) The rhetorical question. Even pro-Palestinians have a tough time answering that final question. It's time for Israeli spokespeople to ask a lot more unanswerable rhetorical questions as part of their communication effort.

(3) Acknowledging a cultural difference between Israelis and Palestinians is stating the obvious - and good for your case. Even those Americans that have sympathies for the Palestinian struggle have an easier time relating to the Israelis because of the similarities between America and Israel in culture, tradition and values.

With this in mind, we have identified four specific spokesperson themes and emotions that appeal to American opinion influencers when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and whatever negotiations may or will take place:

OPTIMISTIC

"I am hopeful that with the end of this war, the peoples of the Middle East will celebrate life and freedom. I am hopeful that the scenes of Iraqis throwing off the yoke of tyranny and fear will serve as a model for all peoples of the region. Yes, I do have hope that by reaching out to the stars, we can bring something good back to earth."

RESPECTFUL

"What we are hoping for is that the Palestinian people recognize the leadership they have right now has unfortunately a very different agenda than the agenda of the real Palestinian people...We do not have the right to tell the Palestinians who to elect to represent them but we hope they will choose leaders that will listen and truly care about them. "

THE HUMAN ELEMENT

"It's very difficult for us. We know that going into these Palestinian cities creates hardships and dilemmas for the Palestinians. But it is even more difficult to look our own children in the face knowing that that there are people in these cities planning to commit terrorist acts and not go in there and try to stop them before they kill."

DEDICATED TO DEMOCRACY

"We all know the importance of bringing genuine democracy and human rights to all nations and to uproot the ideology of terrorism. That is what we have tried to do, and we will keep on trying."

We have tested about 75-minutes of new language in Chicago and Los Angeles. Much of it was ineffective ... or worse. However, we did uncover some messages that do move opinion elites from neutral to positive. Of all the language that deals with the Palestinians directly, here's what works the best:

PALESTINIAN SOUND-BITES THAT WORK

Advocates of Israel will do well if they adopt the language that follows:

"The Palestinians deserve better leadership and they deserve a better society-with functioning institutions, democracy, and the rule of law."

"We are hoping to find a Palestinian leadership that really does reflect the best interest for the Palestinian people."

"As a matter of principle, Israel will sit down, negotiate and compromise with those that wish all the peoples of the Middle East to live together in peaceful coexistence. Egypt made peace with Israel. Jordan made peace with Israel. And both agreements still live on today."

"We know what it is to live our lives with the daily threat of terrorism. We know what it's like to send our children off to school one day and bury them the next. For us, terrorism isn't something we read about in the newspaper. It's something we see with our own eyes far too often."

"We don't want to sign a meaningless agreement that isn't worth the paper it is printed on. We want something real. If there is to be a just, fair and lasting peace, we need a partner who rejects violence and who values life more than death."

"As a matter of principle, the world should not force Israel to concede to those who publicly deny our right to exist or call for our annihilation."

"Right now, today, there are still terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs that the Palestinian Authority has either been unable or unwilling to curb-and Israelis continue to die because of it."

"Just as the American government pledges to secure for you life, liberty, and the chance to pursue happiness, so must Israel's government guarantee that we will be secure and free."

DEMOCRACY: CONNECTING IRAQ AND THE PALESTINIANS

"My earnest hope is that with regime change in Iraq, democracy may finally take firm root in the Middle East. If the Palestinian people and the people of other Middle Eastern nations are able to see the brilliant example of a successful Arabic democracy, I am confident the tide will turn.

Obviously it is wrong to assume that overwhelming American support for regime change in Iraq is fully transferable to changing the Palestinian leadership. Americans view them as separate issues - at least right now. That being said, your support for the American efforts to liberate the people of Iraq can and should be tied to our mutual interest in guaranteeing freedom for the Palestinian people.

Americans want democracy to flourish in the Middle East. There is genuine hope that the Iraqi people will establish a representative government with genuine freedoms. In that vein, remind people that the Iraqi people need not look any further than their Israeli neighbors for an example of such a government.

Democracy loves company. So far, one of Israel's most effective messages has been that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It's time to take that message one step further. Emphatically state that while you are proud of Israel's democracy, you would much rather be the FIRST democracy in the Middle East than the ONLY democracy in the Middle East. Consider the following communication ladder that draws the attention first to Iraq and only then to the Palestinians.

(1) Democracy matters. Never in the history of the world has a democratic government engaged in war with another democracy.

(2) Democracy in Iraq matters. Iraq's transition to democracy is an essential first step towards a stable Middle East.

(3) Democracy can bring peace. True regional peace will come only when governments truly represent the interests of their people and guarantee their freedom and security.

(4) It's time for true democracy for the Palestinian people. They deserve no less.

This may seem simplistic but the message works when delivered this way and in this order. Americans sincerely hope that Iraq - a former adversary - can become a partner in peace once a representative government is installed. Insofar as they yearn for freedom and deserve representative leadership, the Palestinian people are no different. This is exactly what Israel has asked of the Palestinian Authority for so long: to establish a legitimate government that will become a partner in peace.

TALKING ABOUT HOPE & THE FUTURE: FOUR KEY SENTENCES

(1) We hope that we can once again achieve peace with an Arab neighbor.

(2) We hope that terror will no longer be the only thing that separates Palestinians from having their own state and Israelis from living in peace.

(3) We hope that the Palestinian people will no longer languish under a leadership that refuses to be a partner for peace.

(4) We hope that we can negotiate a fair agreement with a democratic government that is committed to the rule of law.

As zealous as Americans are about their own democracy, they quite often have to be reminded why they defend it so fiercely. This reminder becomes your obligation when associating Israel's democratic values with those of America.

Using the word "democracy" without giving examples of what makes this system of government so essential is like saying you want "peace" without giving evidence that you've made honest strides toward achieving it. Americans want proof that you know what these nice-sounding words mean.

When linking our common bond of democracy, use specific examples of why we hope that more nations establish the freedoms democracy guarantees.

* Women are treated as equals

* The press operates freely

* All religions are respected

* The people chose who represents them in free elections

* Democracies do not make war on each other

Finally, make the argument that if these freedoms are so dear to Israelis and Americans, they are just as dearly missed by the Palestinian people. All people yearn to live free, and their current leadership denies them that right.

THE ROADMAP: A BALANCED APPROACH

[Author's note: We include this section because the President's speech did so well in both Chicago and Los Angeles and because this topic will be at the core of Jewish and Israeli communication efforts in the coming months. We warn readers that a great deal of additional research is needed to offer a guarantee that the words and messages included here are the best available.]

As the post-war dust settles over the Iraqi desert, the focus has already begun to shift to the Israel-Palestinian peace process and President Bush's so-called "roadmap" to peace. The good news is that the American people firmly believe that if the Palestinians want to demonstrate sincere commitment to peace, they must abide by the tenants of the President's soon-to-be-released roadmap. The not-as-good news is that they expect exactly same from Israel and they demand it immediately.

In both Chicago and Los Angeles, and among virtually all respondents regardless of political party, Americans responded quite favorably to the language from President Bush for two reasons: "a balanced approach" and "shared responsibilities." Keep those terms in mind and use them whenever possible.

WORDS THAT WORK: A BALANCED APPROACH

"I see a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side in peace and security. I call upon all parties in the Middle East to abandon old hatreds and to meet their responsibilities for peace

The Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful and democratic state that abandons forever the use of terror. The government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, must take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable and credible Palestinian state, and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement...

We believe that all people in the Middle East -- Arab and Israeli alike -- deserve to live in dignity, under free and honest governments. We believe that people who live in freedom are more likely to reject bitterness, blind hatred and terror; and are far more likely to turn their energy toward reconciliation, reform and development."

- President George W. Bush

COMPLICATING THE ROADMAP: MAHMOUD ABBAS (ABU MAZEN)

To some extent, your job as proponents of Israel has been easy. Under the Arafat regime, it's not difficult to convince the American public of the corruption of the current Palestinian leadership. While many sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people, there is no love lost for Yassir Arafat. Arafat is a terrorist; they know that. Better still, he looks the part.

The emergence of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian Prime Minister comes exactly at the wrong time. His ascent to power seems legitimate. He is a fresh face, and a clean-shaven one at that. He speaks well and dresses in Western garb. He may even genuinely want peace.

Just as President Bush had begun to make headway in drawing attention on the need for a reformed Palestinian leadership, the Palestinians throw us this curveball. What will the world make of Abbas? Is he the new leadership for which Israel has pleaded for years? Or is he an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

Given the haze surrounding this new figure, it is imperative that you NOT immediately launch criticisms on Abbas. This is critical for three reasons:

(1) Overt negativity. If it turns out that Abbas legitimately wants peace and that he represents the true interests of the Palestinian people, then the attacks you launch today will turn the tide of public opinion against ISRAEL tomorrow. You will undermine all of your credibility as the willing partner for peace if you shoot down the first true peace partner the Palestinians have offered. (We don't expect this scenario but it is possible.)

(2) The unknown factor. Abbas is a relative unknown in the international community. Look at his emergence as if it were part of a political campaign. He is not a candidate to sit at the negotiating table until he proves his worthiness. While uncertainty makes your communication strategies complicated, it should not necessarily change your priorities. The more you talk about him, the more he is going to be talked about, which leads to the next point...

(3) Patiently Await a Peace Partner. Abbas may be a leader who wants peace, but it is incumbent upon him to prove that he is the willing and serious partner Israel needs to pursue peace together. Whether or not he has been elected or appointed to this position, he still needs to demonstrate tangibly that he wants peace. Your goal remains a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Once the Palestinians have shown their house is in order, you will be ready and willing to find an agreement. And if they don't, they, not Israel, will be blamed.

NOTE: This is not to say that Abbas should be given a free ride in the press. It is only to say that criticisms must be confined to what he does to thwart the peace process as a leader of the Palestinian people. Allow him the chance to succeed. A brief exercise in game theory may better illustrate this point. What happens if...

You immediately attack Abbas, and he turns out to be a genuine and effective partner in peace?

Israel loses credibility as the party that wants peace above all else. He gains popularity among an international community that already doubts your rhetoric and "heavy-handed" actions, and wins over those Americans who sympathize with the Palestinian people but support you because they distrusted previously corrupt Palestinian leadership. This is the worst result possible.

You immediately attack Abbas, and he turns out to be an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

What has Israel truly gained? You may have stripped his faux wool months before he would have done it himself, but you risked backlash. In the end, it would have been better off to publicly remain committed to peace while letting the Palestinian leadership implode on the public relations front - a strategy that has worked effectively thus far.

You wait on Abbas to define himself, and he turns out to be a genuine and effective partner in peace?

The roadmap is instituted and there is a peaceful resolution to decades of conflict by this time next year. This is the best result possible.

You wait on Abbas to define himself, and he turns out to be an Arafat in sheep's clothing?

Let him keep the faux wool; you'll reap the benefits of this communications gold mine. All your old messages of needing a genuine partner for peace will ring even truer, and the next time, the new leader cannot be justifiably appointed by Arafat.

So when people ask for opinions or reactions to Abbas, put it in terms of a "scouting report" with the following two facts:

(1) He was appointed to his current position by Arafat, which is suspect.

(2) He has denied the Holocaust, which is confounding at best and offensive at worst.

If he is an Arafat in Western clothing, it will not take long to identify him as such. The American people will know it by the actions he takes and the demands he makes. That is an incrimination that, if true, he will do to himself.

Is it a concern that he is a Holocaust denier? Absolutely. Will that fact convince Americans that he cannot represent the Palestinian people in an honest bid for peace? Hardly. Americans don't want to hear about the Holocaust anymore, and they particularly don't want to hear it from the Jewish community.

Nevertheless, you need more substance on Abbas before you can tell the American people you question his devotion to peace.

Americans believe that peace has to start somewhere other than Arafat. If Abbas is presented as that alternative, they quickly identify him as a symbol of "hope." His emergence as Prime Minister (a very Western, democratic-friendly title) is all Americans will need to believe that the peace process should be underway. They will expect you to follow suit and take a seat at the negotiating table. Finally, most believe that the United States can and should serve as an honest broker between these two parties. In their eyes, these are all the ingredients needed to begin the peace process.

It is essential that you use positive language when asked about Abbas. However, that does not mean you must compliment Abbas himself. While knocking him down now does little to help your long-term goals, building him up is also counterproductive. Therefore you must remain positive about the peace process and indifferent about Abbas until he defines his role. Above all else, reaffirm your position that first terrorism stops, and then negotiations begin.

WORDS THAT WORK

"Yes, we hope that this potential change in leadership signals a new opportunity for peace in our region. Israel has long sought a partner who wants peace as dearly as we do. But Israel reaffirms that before any peace talks can begin, terror must end. We cannot negotiate with any leadership that allows its people to murder our civilians."

Mix this message in with one of compassion for the Palestinian people. Many Americans sympathize with their plight. So should you. Americans want to hear it. A statement that the Palestinian people deserve better should follow every recrimination of a Palestinian leader or terrorist.

WORDS THAT WORK

"We know the Palestinian people deserve better. We want for them what we have in Israel: freedom to say what they want, believe what they want, and live in equality. They also should have the right to choose who speaks on their behalf. The Palestinian people deserve and want leaders who will work for peace and not for terrorism. We know that terrorism causes hardships for everyone involved. That is why we are committed to working for peace as soon as we have a willing partner."

THE VALUE OF RHETORICAL QUESTIONS

An effective communication technique to continue to apply pressure to the Palestinian leadership without looking like you are ignoring Israel's responsibilities is to pose rhetorical questions. These questions will lead to only one answer, of course: peace cannot be achieved until real reforms are in place, and that the terror must stop first.

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS TO ASK OPPONENTS OF ISRAEL

"How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when the same leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state two and a half years ago?"

"How can Yassir Arafat, whom Forbes Magazine says is worth more than three hundred million dollars, claim to be a leader who understands and represents an impoverished people when he has become rich at their expense?"

"Is it too much to ask that the Palestinian leadership not sponsor terrorists? Are we unreasonable to insist that they stop killing our innocent children before we jeopardize our security and make concessions for peace?"

"How can we make peace with a leader that does not believe in or allow free and honest elections?"

"Why do Palestinian schools have pictures of suicide bombers hanging up in the hallways of their schools or celebrate them as martyrs? Why do they name sports teams in the West Bank after suicide bombers? How can we make peace with the Palestinian people when their leaders instill a culture of terror against our people?"

"How can the Palestinian people end their impoverishment if their leaders continue to steal precious resources from them, which are then used to support terror?"

Why has Yassir Arafat been in power for so long, and yet made so little progress towards a peaceful resolution? If he were truly committed to peace, would he not have made a sincere effort to achieve it by now?

When will the Palestinian people themselves have a voice at the peace table?

The answer of every rhetorical question is the same: peace will come when the current Palestinian leadership is truly reformed and the terror tactics have ceased.

CONCLUSION: A LITTLE HUMILITY, PLEASE

Presenting a fair evaluation of your past allows you to present a hopeful - and believable - vision of your future.

You have your work cut out for you. As you emerge from one delicate public relations situation - war with Iraq - you enter an even dicier situation - cooperating on "the road map" with an unknown counterpart, Mahmoud Abbas. Fortunately the former may provide you some breathing room and cover for the latter.

The essential conclusion is to remain focused on your communication priorities from this point forward. Terror ends first. A willing peace partner emerges second. The roadmap is executed last. And throughout it all, you exhibit humility and reaffirm that the Palestinian people deserve better.

This memo has identified language that effectively articulates why - and how - the Palestinian leadership must change. Critiquing the other side is the always the easiest part of public communication, but it is only half of effective language.

Opinion elites in America will not find repeated criticisms of the Palestinian leadership credible unless they are coupled with a similar onus on the Israeli government to accommodate for peace and acknowledge past transgressions. Assertions that Israel enjoys a blameless history are soundly rejected. This will not be received well by everyone but it is essential for your spokespeople to acknowledge it Israel has made some mistakes. Not only does this build credibility but it also allows the spokesperson to then explain and assert Israel's history of taking strides for peace.

Here is how this message is best developed:

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PAST, BOTH GOOD AND BAD

(1) We know that the history of our conflict has been marked by frustration and mistrust by both Israelis and Palestinians, and Israel is willing to accept some of the blame for what has happened in the past

(2) However, throughout our history we have demonstrated that we value peace above all else. In our hope for peace we overcame differences and found agreement with our Arab neighbors Egypt and Jordan.

(3) We remain committed to peace. We offered the Palestinian people a state of their own that included over 97% of the West Bank. Their leadership rejected this proposal, showing once again that we do not have a partner for peace so long as the current Palestinian Authority remains the voice of the Palestinian people. It's time for a change - not just for us but for our Palestinian cousins as well.

1 The Luntz Research Companies & The Israel Project - April 2003

LOL...unfortunately...none of this works for one simple reason...the entire world has watch Israel lie and lie and lie for 30 years....say one thing then do another, then say they never said anything and who are we going to believe, our own lying ears and eyes or them.

"Evidently you have not received your copy of the talking points done by the Luntz research group for the Wexler foundation to guide Jewish American Israel supporters in the conversations on the subject."

Firstly I am not Jewish (thanks for asking)

Secondly, I am familair with the memo (you could have simply linked & saved the space) exactly what point do you think this PR memo makes? What is it that you are trying to prove exactly?

"LOL...unfortunately...none of this works for one simple reason...the entire world has watch Israel lie and lie and lie for 30 years....say one thing then do another, then say they never said anything and who are we going to believe, our own lying ears and eyes or them."

?? I thought we were talking about the American Israel lobby? Are we talking about the state of Israel now? What exactly has Israel "lied" about in your view? Is your antipathy toward the state of Israel itself the source of your views regarding the power of the Israel lobby in the United States?

To Weldon Berger,

I don't remeber clearly, wasn't the Netanyahu reduction rhetoric a bargaining tool? He seemed to use it effectively at the peace talks. I am pretty sure Israel walked away with more money than it came with. Then again it is late and I could be off base.

Other than that question your post are great.

Thanks

To Steve,

I stand corrected on Walt's removal, he wasn't fired.

It seems that the 'side' here that is anti-Walt is ASSUMING we're attacking ALL Jews, and that is just not correct. Jews are not a fifth column.

But there is absolutely no doubt that there is a heavy influence by Jewish groups on our foreign policy. In the case of Jewish neoconservatives, such as Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, etal, they've access to our highest echelon of foreign policy makers (if not a part of it themselves), and they have USED that access to further objectives for Israel's hard right.

Who would care to respond to this administration's undermining of the UN, as anything but reprisal for its votes against Israel?

Who would argue that the meme of regime change in Iraq, Iran, and Syria is not an objective of the hard right of Israel?

I have always, and will continue, to argue for the right of Israel to exist. What I do not like is Israel dictating our foreign policy. As Walt said, the tail is wagging the dog. That's irrefutable.

And it has to stop.

"And please drop the false "Any criticism of Israel is immediately deemed Anti-semitic" canard, criticism of Israel isn't immedately deemed anti-semitic, Israelis themselves are critical of Israel all the time, if you are accused of anti-semitism, it's probably because you are being anti-semitic."

Posted by Dustin

Oh bullshit. Go rub "Laura"s, (above) face in that premise, you blithering dolt. "Anti-semitic" has become a regular God damned mantra to justify an unhealthy and destructive degree of foreign influence over American policies. And do you have any clue how slimey and hypocritical it is to say that the accusation of "anti-semitism" is not used as a tactic of discredidation, in the very same paragraph that you are using that EXACT tactic? Get a clue, will ya?

Barbara,

You claim that US mideast policy is dictated by Israel's "hard right." But the right wing was just rejected by the Israeli voters, so how is that going to work from here on?

And what about previous US administrations, from JFK on, who supported Israel without planning to "remake" the Middle East by force?

A deeper question I have is why the Walt & Mearsheimer paper was written now, at the moment when Israeli politics seems to be undergoing a seismic shift. A center-left coalition is emerging, one that rejects Eretz Israel as a goal, but also one that is clear-eyed about Palestinian revanchism. I think it's a hopeful and important development.

It's an odd moment to call on the US to break off with Israel.

The people who support everything the Israeli lobbyists want lost me at "evanhanded." Never have I witnessed such a distribe as when one man utters that word. Oh, that we should be evanhanded. Terrorists come in many forms -- see Guantanamo for evidence.

Hal,

There is still a hard right in Israel, but it looks like they've been repudiated in this election. But you have to remember, Kadima is the 'new' moderate side of Likud, which is STILL to the right of the Liberal party. What the voters rejected was the even harder right.

As to why the paper was written now is a question best left to the authors.

I don't think anybody is proposing 'breaking off' from Israel. But I think what needs to be talked about in the US is ending the 'tail wagging the dog', that has only gotten worse in the last five years.

It is a very legitimate concern, and we should not fear retribution, nor charges of anti-semiticism, in lodging criticism of it.

Of course there is still a hard right in Israel, but they are out of power. Ehud Olmert has travelled quite a way towards the center. His number 2 or 3, Shimon Peres, was a lifelong Labourite before joining Kadima. The main coalition partner will almost certainly be Labour, which favors negotiation with the PA.

This is not a rightwing government.

As for why American policy veered so far off course since Bush took office, and especially since 9/11, I think the answers lie here at home, in an "Onward Christian Soldiers" mentality and an arrogance about American virtue. Add an obsession with oil, the need to pull out of Saudi Arabia, and a willingness to lie to the public, and you have the Iraq War.

None of this was cooked up in Israel. Texas would be more like it.

Please, criticize away. Of course it's possible to criticize an Israeli government without being anti-Semitic. Israelis do it all the time. On the other hand, when someone (not you) begins a thought with "You just have to...," I know that I am looking at a heart full of hatred.

I meant to say "You Jews have to..."

Israel has been useful in advancing a variety of US policy goals in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Like what?

Hal, the authors say the paper was written in (I think) 2003; at any rate, they mention Dick Armey several times, and he retired after the 2004 elections. I don't think it was destined to have much of an impact on internal Israeli politics no matter when or where it was published, and I don't think Mearsheimer or Walt or the LRB editors had the expectation that it would change anything here or there. They were just being bold academics, and after looking around a bit, I'm not sure this wasn't as much an assault on the American Political Science Association as it was on pro-Israel lobbyists.

Here's Mearsheimer, quoted by fellow UC faculty member Kurt Jacobsen, writing in the delightfully named "Post-Autistic Economics Review":Political science has "been taken over by methodological parochialists who believe that the only worthwhile scholarship in political science speaks the language of mathematics," stated Chicago security specialist John Mearsheimer.In fact, Steve, if you read this, maybe you could ask Walt whether he thinks there would have been the slightest chance that the APSA's house organ would have published the paper? and if not, whether the quarrel would have been over thesis or methodology?

Susan, in the event you haven't noticed, it's possible to both criticize Mearsheimer's and Walt's paper and strongly disagree with US foreign policy — and not just in the Middle East — and Israel's internal policies. This isn't an if-then proposition, any more than proponents of Mearsheimer-Walt are automatically aligned with David Duke, who has become one of the paper's most ardent advocates.

One final point that I think demonstrates the flabbiness of the paper, and then I'm out of this.The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.Is there any circumstance in which the US could have invited Israeli participation in either Gulf War, whether or not we give them money? That is to say, if the US didn't support Israel financially and diplomatically, would the Saudis then have consented to fight side-by-side with them in the first war? And is it actually unreasonable for a country we ask to sit on the sidelines to ask us for antimissile defense systems in exchange for not retaliating against missile strikes on their country?

As for the current war, maybe I'm missing something, but did we actually get any Arab support for the invasion even after taking the radical step of asking Israel to butt out? And would we have gotten that support under any circumstances? Is it possible that Arab support wasn't forthcoming not primarily because of US support for Israel, but for the same reason France, Germany, Russia, Turkey and most of the rest of the world withheld their support, i.e., this was a hideously bad idea?

The answers are clearly, according to me, no, no, no, no, no and yes.

SteveJ: scuttling the Arab nationalist movement, as I mentioned, which serves the US goal of a splintered Middle East, providing conduits for getting around sanctions against apartheid South Africa, the Contras and even Iran, providing back channels for deals with Pakistan and Turkey, and etc. Israel has always and still conducts its affairs largely outside traditional diplomatic channels, and they've been useful to the US in that respect. The question of whether those policies are/were good ones is entirely different, and one to which I think the answer is far more often than not "No." But the US would have been pursuing them anyway, and Israel gave our various administrations convenient cover.

Where pro-Israel lobbyists — and I would dispute that they're genuinely pro-Israel because what they want is often bad for Israel, as I've said above — have had an unquestionably negative impact is on the peace process, and in that they've been joined by people such as Armey and DeLay who view Israel as their ticket to Rapture. I think it's sick to ally with people who want your country to embark on an ethnic cleansing campaign so that God can get on with destroying it and you, but apparently needs must.

As always, when AIPAC and Israel come up..the comments, intentionally and unintentionally, begin to mis-direct the conservation.

The real point here is not Israel, but the perversion of AMERICAN INTEREST by AIPAC, the political organ of some Jewish Americans who work overtime to use America in every way possible for the benefit of Israel, and the corruption of our elected politicans who are willing carry out AIPAC orders and to damage America and Americans to protect their own political careers.

If you are a citizen of this country, especially an elected representive, and you work toward and promote policies that are harmful to it for the benefit of another country you are a traitor, plain and simple.

And no amount of esortic nit picking and theorizing and justifying and excusing it as real politic can cover that fact.

And Berger

your arguement below doesn't hold water...

"One final point that I think demonstrates the flabbiness of the paper, and then I'm out of this.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again."

The exact point is, that despite all the aid and the touted "value" of Israel to the US in the ME...they can't be called on or used in any way to "safeguard or promote" any US interest because they "ARE" one of the reasons the US has ME problems.

If anything is "flabby" it is your use of that passage as an example of "flabbiness".

Hey Weldon, don't call me Cant, you can call me Kant though ;-)

With the amount of money we're spending in the Middle East we could BUY Canada, Mexico and Venezuela -- forget about invading.

There really is no economic reason to go out of our own hemisphere for oil, and again, if the staggering amount of money we've spent on Israel had been used as a Marshal plan to build up Mexico and Central Americas' infrastructure we would not be facing the crisis in immigration that we are now.

NOR would we be in endless war in the Middle East and NOR would we have the emnity of the Muslim world, which again, never hated the U.S. until Israel and her operatives decided that Islam should be our enemy. COUGH -

Netanyahu on Sept. 11 "It's a good day for Israel."

Again, I refer you to the Mossad and the recent revelation by Efraim Halevy (former Mossad chief) that Hamas offered Israel a 30 year truce in 1997. This is according to Halevy's book, which is to be published this month.

In the meantime Israel was too busy having Mossad agents trickling poison into the head of Hamas' ear in a botched assassination attempt. This is all in Halevy's book.

But let's go further, this same Halevy confirmed to Der Spiegel that Benjamin Netanyahu WAS warned before the 7/7 London bombings. And Verint, a company owned by Israeli company Comverse, was in charge of Tube security at the time of the London bombings.

Let's go even further: Comverse installed most of the phone system on Capitol Hill and in the White House...

Ah, it's all a game within a game within a game, ain't it? The Mossad has admitted freely that it uses false flag operations, outright assassination, and blackmail as a means to its ends.

It would all be fine except our kids are going to be slaughtered on the battlefields of Iran, Syria, etc., when they could be helping build bridges and roads in the south of Mexico. I mean if we're going to deploy our children to another country let's make sure it's for our and the worlds' benefit, right?

Wrong, if you're an Israel firster.

And again, I throw down the gauntlet -- as an immigrant to this country I challenge anyone who would draw us into endless war and total economic destruction to either help us regain some kind of stability and peace, or get the hell out and go to the country your loyalties lie in.

The point is whether or not Israeli participation would have been welcomed by Middle Eastern countries under any circumstances. If the answer is "No," as I think it obviously is, and if the "no" isn't conditional on our support for Israel, which I think it obviously isn't, then the question is irrelevant and the argument is reduced to "We can't support Israel because Arab states don't like the country."

Can'tTalkNow: I agree wholeheartedly that our money could be far better spent. My point is that with rare and magnificent exceptions, our foreign policy is usually plodding and occasionally, as with the current war, flat out insane. If Israel didn't exist, we still wouldn't be embarking on a Latin American Marshall Plan — US governments are much more comfortable with the ownership plan espoused by the Monroe Doctrine, even though the countries affected stubbornly insist they don't belong to us — and we still wouldn't be forging ahead on alternative energy development. So, again: could the money we give to Israel be better spent? Absolutely. Would it be? Not likely.

Anyway. I really am done here. If anyone wants to bring up anything else, I'll be at home.

You're absolutely correct, Carroll.

They are traitors to our country.

Not entirely unsuprisingly, the Murdoch owned 'The Australian' newspaper has not made any effort to correct the story they published on 31 March 2006 titled 'Harvard disowns anti-Jew report' by Richard Beeston.

One should not be holding ones breath awaiting such correction!

Here's something from the Univ. of Chicago student newspaper, published in 2003, that speaks, I think, to Mearsheimer's basic feelings towards, and beliefs about, Israel:

"An open letter demanding vigilance in ensuring that Israel does not forcibly expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza has drawn the endorsement of nearly a thousand American academics, including eight at the University of Chicago.

"The letter, adopted from one circulated by Israeli academics, cites Israeli politicians who publicly support removing Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and relocating them into neighboring Arab countries. The “fog of war [with Iraq] could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing,” the letter reads.

...

"'The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves us to make sure it does not happen again,' said John Mearsheimer, co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University and one of the letter’s signatories.

"Mearsheimer endorsed the letter because he sees significant evidence that Israel might use force to expel the three million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and perhaps also the 1.2 million Palestinians living inside the borders of pre-1967 Israel. Mearsheimer cites as evidence a March 2002 poll conducted by Tel Aviv University which found that 46 percent of Israel’s Jews favored expelling the Palestinians from the West Bank while 31 percent supported expulsion of the Palestinians who are Israeli citizens."

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2003/01/10/american_profs_take_.php

Here's what I got from the Mearsheimer/Walt paper:

It's a poorly written, badly constructed argument. While I agree with their stated facts, and the conclusions (to wit: the hard right pro-Israel lobby exerts undo influence in Washington, and that influence is occasionally counter-productive to both US and Israeli interests), I think the piece tends to overstate its case to the point of sounding like propaganda.

Current US foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East seems governed by a plurality of interests: ensuring oil flow, preserving Bush/GOP political credibility/electoral viability, fighting Israel's enemies, combating terrorism, and, in a much larger sense, the overall preservation of US hegemony. I don't believe that US foreign policy is solely governed by the pro-Israel lobby, but I do think that lobby exerts far too much influence in Washington.

An aside rant - Condoleeza Rice's recent statements about religious freedom being necessary to democracy struck me as shallow, ignorant, and offensive; as though US history is the only template for independence.

And so it is with Israel: Palestinians are forcibly partitioned onto reservations, yet rightwing Israeli nationalists cum expansionists whine about being on the defensive after a terrorist/freedom fighter blows up on a city street (yes, people do horrible things for the right reasons, but let me say now, for the record, that the ends never justify the means). What's the current kill ratio, 3.4 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli citizen? Yet Israel is always painted as a victim.

Israel and Israelis aren't the problem; its religious fundamentalism masquerading as a political mandate: that is the problem.

Lost in all the noise about our relationship with Israel is the fact that we are losing the Middle East. Maybe Muslims don't have a good lobbying presence in Washington (Saudi Arabia, excluded, of course); maybe our Evil-gelicals think Islam is an "evil" religion, and alien; and maybe we "share more values" with the "quasi" European state we call Israel. So what? Our foreign policy establishment has yet to find a positive way to engage with the Arab-Muslim world. And if we can deal with China and Russia, we can deal with the Muslim world. I have to say it was a proud moment for me watching Condi deliver the news to Al-Jaafri that "we" want a new Iraqi Prime Minister. Nothing enobles democracy more than a foreigner trying to rig your elections. Let freedom ring.

First Oliver Stone uncovered the secrets of the JFK assassination, then Hillary discovered the �vast rightwing conspiracy...� now Harvard (via two academics, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, with the full backing of... David Duke, "PhD." and the Washigton Note) have dug deep and discovered the �Vast Israel Lobby Conspiracy� (VILC). So who�s in on this secret? A tiny cabal... of 40 million Evangelical Christians; secretive Neocons like this difficult-to-access web page; an army of secretive think tanks, newspaper columnists and mysterious media moguls; 5 million Jooooos; millions of other average Americans; both Republicans and Democrats too stupid and duped to know better: This tiny, secret group of... millions are conspiring together to manipulate our government to act against our own interests by using shady tools such as� the US constitution, democracy and "free speech," to petition the government. Now we know the TRUTH. Thank you Mr. Walt and Mr. Mearsheimer for finally breaking the code and sorting all this out after years of research...free at last.

PS: the Next Vast Israel Lobby Conspiracy (VILC) meeting, will take place on April 1, 2006 at the San Francisco TransAmerica Building, suite 462 at 10:36 AM in the conference room (This is on a need to know bases only).

Someone said that the Arabs were more in control of U.S. foreign policy.

I am sorry to say this but upon critical investigation the argument is dumb:

Everyone knows that today if you were to
utter a anti-Israeli position, you would be deemed an a.hole.

But you would be deemed a 'true patriot' if you were to remark an anti-Arab position.

Obviously the two positions are racist and fascistic and must be critiqued.

Yet the example provided in fact shows who dominates and limits our foreign policy.