I guess this qualifies as the kind of legendary discussion Foreign Policy is known for.

The argument, best as I can tell, is this:

1. Israel bias? Two words: Richard. Gere.

2. No, you're a lobby.

3. It's bad to "explicitly or implicitly support the leadership or the interests of Hamas." Deep.

4. And it ends with some self-righteous huffing about being above it all.

That should do it.

Your reference to 'the extremist leaders of Iran' contemplates that the US is moderate. However, I have long thought that the US is a dangerous nation that bullies and terrorises other nations and destabilises countries that it does not like. For instance, in the name of goodness, it goes half way around the world to bomb Iraq into a rock pile and to impose its will on other nations .

The US has long interfered in the affairs of other nations, covertly and overtly, and caused them enormous harm. Its justifications have been shown to be intellectually bereft. Consider the Domino Effect in Vietnam and WMD in Iraq. Both theories have been exposed as running on empty. Nevertheless, the US is convinced that its actions are justified, if not justified.

Presumably, the US is of the opinion that if other nations support its actions then they are on the side of 'goodness' but if they counter US interests then they are dangerous terrorists. Therefore, if Iran decides that it is wrong for the US to be in its backyard that argument has no validity.

The US is a dangerous nation. I will not be surprised if the US starts to falter because its bank balance is too overdrawn as a consequence of spending its dollars on bombs that have been dropped on other nations in the name of 'goodness'.

He has suggested that the media is making Israel's case for it. (Please let me know where I can tune in to that. Mostly I get the opposite. Sometimes I think, the BBC ought to rename itself Death-to-Israel TV. I am often glad my college French is not good enough to watch the nightly news from Paris.)

I did not see much to argue with in this post, since I'm having difficulty locating its substance. But this quote just seems laughable. Has David Rothkopf ever watched American television? (Note that his evidence - scant as it is - is the BBC. The word "British" is in there for a reason.)

My sympathies tend to be with the Israelis, but is this all the bloggers on the site can muster against Walt's posts?

Of course not. This may be a small grammar (and gender) quibble, but why does Mr. Rothkopf use the third person impersonal feminine pronoun? Imagine writing about Hamas and "her interests." Please use the impersonal in English when writing about a country.

As to the deeper issue here, my sympathies also lie squarely with the Israelis. Yet Mr. Rothkopf continues to fail to suggest how the campaign against Hamas will further Israel's security interests. It continues to have the opposite effect.

How again was Hamas supposed to "provide basic services" when the Israeli and Egyptian governments were enforcing a strict blockade (an act of war, by the way) on everything, including food and medicine (never mind money and supplies)? It's not as if Hamas didn't try to work around this, either - at several points they cut holes in the barricade that imprisoned Gazans in Gaza, allowing them to purchase supplies.

Let's be honest here - Israel had no real intention of permitting Hamas to hold power in any part of the Palestinian Territories, which is why they didn't even bother to offer to lift the blockade if Hamas would stop firing rockets; they were hoping the blockade would drive Hamas out of power. Under those circumstances, what incentives does Hamas have to actually get along peacefully with Israel?

Don't disagree that people resist opposing arguments the more they argue, and I imagine Walt and Mearsheimer probably are not different in that regard - they're human, after all. And disagree with *a lot* with what they've written and said.

That said,

"He has sketched out a thought experiment in which he posits what might happen were it a few orthodox Jews fighting for their freedom in Gaza rather than the Palestinians. He has quoted George Orwell to make the point that he feels we are overlooking Israeli abuses against the Palestinians."

So Gaza is NOT ruled by extremists? How do you conceptualize Hamas then, and how much freedom *do* Gaza residents actually *have* in general, let alone today? Do you think Hamas is every Gaza resident, or do you think Fatah emerged the loser in an election and and a battle with Hamas?

Israel doesn't commit abuses? Every nation does. Israel does too. It controls the images of Gaza by refusing to permit journalists in. And I don't have a witty and intelligent retort to everyday abuses of Palestianis, other than try being a West Bank resident just "hanging out" at Israeli checkpoints, so maybe I should just shut up - but I think those points are worth making, and I agree with Walt. The Israelis were insurgents against the British, and indeed, there were internecine conflicts between rival insurgent groups. But more importantly and again, why would Israelis act differently under Arab occupation?

Mearsheimer is right on this: if Israel does not get a two-state solution, a democratic Zionist state will be unattainable.

I *do* wish he would go back to his realist roots and recognize the security dilemmas at play - unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon, and Hezbollah; unilaterally withdraw from Gaza (at considerable political and social cost and turmoil) and Hamas; unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank - more difficult than ejecting settlers from Gaza - and history will not recreate itself? See Richard Cohen's great editorial on this. But why won't Mearsheimer return to his realist roots - he argues world poltics is tragic because anarchy compels each state to always be wary of potential and actual competitors. Why should Israel be different than any other state in this regard? Walt's invocation of the Melian dialogue might be incredibly germane, and I'm not sure it's as wrong as he says it is (see Morgenthau on when people ignore the fundamental nature of politics).

Lastly and also, I think Walt and Mearsheimer, as students of politics betwen nations within the divides in political science, but not American politics, may have "strayed out of their lane. How does one measure the power of a lobby (the independent variable) outside the effects of that lobby (the dependent variable)? How does one account for causes independent of outcomes? Do Mearsheimer and Walt do so?

I fully agree with your views on Stephen Walt as well as the BBC... just would like to add that you do not need to brush up on your French to get what Paris is broadcasting - we in Israel can watch, in English, the 24/7 news program called France24 - http://www.france24.com/en/

Surely you are capable of more intelligent thought than this rambling nonsense, Mr. Rothkopf.

Thank you for this article. I have quoted it in the Power to the Commentariat post, "Justice in Gaza" - http://powertothecommentariat.blogspot.com/2009/01/judgement-in-gaza_09.html

Dear Sir,

Suggesting that the BBC be called Death to Israel TV undermines the arguments in your article by giving readers the impression that your emotions have gotten the better of you and are influencing your judgment. In all conflicts that it reports, the BBC tends to particularly focus on and condemn civilian deaths, which in this case leads it to criticize Israel. You are just not used to media outlets being critical of Israel, and to associate that with a wish for the death of Israel is simply stupid.

I believe that the US media is largely pro-Israeli. This is probably due to a number of commentators genuinely supporting Israel, but even more so by the US politicians competing for who could come up with the most Israel friendly rhetoric. Up to a certain point, the media commentary is extremely one sided. That progressively diminishes in inverse proportion to the death of civilians, as we witnessed a week ago and midway through the 2006 war in Lebanon. Finally, there is a faze of calling for a cease-fire, stressing though that it must be coupled with a resolution demanding actions to make it more difficult for the groups opposing Israel to do so in the future. Of course, those resolutions have not worked in the past against Hisbullah and will probably not either versus Hamas. Their support is deeply rooted in a wide section of their countries and the Arab population and are backed by the regional power Iran.

I read the book and believe that the power of the Israeli lobby is slightly overstated. I do not think that it was one of the reasons for the Iraq war, but that it played a role in convincing some to support it more strongly. Many counter by stating the prominence of the Arab lobby. What they do not seem to realize though is that it lobbies for Arab governments rather than the Arab population, and since they are dictatorships, their wishes do not coincide. Arab governments do not care enough about the Palestinian cause, especially the powerful oil rich gulf states. They are more concerned with staying in power. I believe that the Arab lobby does have a certain amount of influence on US foreign policy though, which is partly demonstrated by US policy concerning Lebanon. But its potential for critical influence is severely diminished by the fact that it is currently considered damaging for a US politician to be linked to Arab organizations.

The US media's "pro-Israeli" coverage is bound to change, as is the definition of "pro-Israel". The rise of the left, whose foreign policy ideology generally entails a more "civil" approach with further emphasis on dialog, human rights and international law will realize that Israels actions diminish the prospects of achieving peace in the region and are actually strengthening radical Islamic organizations by fueling Muslim hatred directed at the west. In short, the US media will start resembling the Israeli newspaper Haaretz rather than the Jerusalem Post.

The two state solution is clearly not the aim of Israel or they would have accepted the Arab League offer years ago. It is also clear that Israel will continue colonizing the West Bank with terrorists from it's side of the aisle, and that Tel Aviv considers apartheid a fine example of governance. Meanwhile, following the "Godfather" example of the Mafia, Israel is murdering the children of Gaza lest they grow up and pose a problem. My problem as a U.S. taxpayer is that Israel is doing the murdering with my dime and over my objections. If there is ever a Nuremburg to clarify who are the criminals in this slaughter I want written proof that I was against both sides. I would talk to my Congressperson, but that witless bunch of spineless clowns are so enjoying destroying the United States of America they haven't time to listen. (Obama aside, of course, who won't be different at all.)

i took your post as a casual observance of someone else's post. it's odd that it provoked this strong of a reaction from people.

in any case, i found it entertaining, and fairly spot on ... so, good job.

oh, and my french is great, and french TV is horrific.