On the latest great selection from Osama's Book Club...

Mr. Rothkopf, it's embarrassing to see such a vulgar guilt-by-association argument in your post. You know one can't decide who does what with a work after it's out in the world -- you write as much in your penultimate graf. If a Kahanist or an apocalypse-loving fundamentalist Christian cites your pro-Israel arguments, does that make you their equal, or that you're a "fellow traveler" for their kind? No. Nor does your book, or Walt's "deserve" their readers, as you suggest. Did Nietzsche deserve Hitler and other vile misinterpreters? Hell no. You can't control how a text or idea "travels." (Ed Said actually wrote about that, but is it OK to cite him without being accused of bad things?)

You present a crass caricature by saying realists believe the "whimsy" that "all it will take is for us to make nice with the Arab world and all will be well." Realists have no undying love for Arab regimes -- far from it. But realists also know full well that the U.S. lets Jordan and Egypt get off scot-free in spite of their awful human rights violations and democratic record because they play ball with Israel. This is also true of the Saudi govt., which has silently agreed to not cause trouble for Israel. Realists know we actually need to get tough with the Arab world -- their human rights violations help breed radicalism and make the U.S. less safe -- but we don't, because we need the aforementioned regimes' cooperation with Israel.

And if you honestly believe there is no philo-Semitism in the U.S., then you're determined to see Jews as only victims forevermore. Of course there's still anti-Semitism, but Jews are an admired part of the American establishment today, and that's a good thing. Jewish-Americans aren't the scorned outsiders that many supporters of Israel imagine them to be, perhaps because such an image is critical to Zionism.

Man, this is really sleazy. I just acquired an extra dose of admiration for the crap that Walt has to put up with.

I feel this short piece about this book being on Bin Laden's list is lacking the very thing that you accuse walt of missing- facts. You claim that half truths and biases drive the arguments of Walt and Mearsheimer yet you cite none of these in this article. In fact, you dispute absolutely nothing from their book, because you cannot possibly dispute the influence of AIPAC in Washington. Furthermore, you contend that the Washington line is to be tougher on Israel, what evidence do you have of this? Yes, the US has recommended that Netanyahu freeze settlements, but has there been any threat of action? Has Obama or anyone else threatened to downsize the billions in foreign aid doled out to one of the worlds strongest economies? Even if the administration has quieted unconditional support rhetorically, action is nowhere to be found. Walt uses facts and logic to make a point with Bin Laden. I feel as though this is nothing more than a petty attempt at disparaging an idea without having to deal with the actual arguments.

Wow, this is pretty rough stuff. I agree his post on the matter came off as dopey and left me with a kind of greasy feeling, but I mean there are instances throughout history of madmen liking innocuous things (i.e. Manson and the Beatles). And one would think that all the anti-semites he attracts to his blog might give him pause, but some people are immune to self-reflection.

I think, though, you give Walt and Co. too much credit; this move has been in the works for decades. As the left took over higher education, a lot of its base assumption became doctrine; and the Palestinians fit in very nicely with the left, because they are near-perfect victims. And as someone who is neither of the left nor a Jew, there's something sad but also ironic about this, as, of course, Jews (at least here) are overwhelmingly on the left; I mean, it's a really weird world when their only real friends seem to be those crazy born-again Christians, eh?

"Soon enough we will see that we ended up in support of Israel not because of the power of the Israel lobby or America's deep love of the Jews (hold on while I choke back my own laughter at that idea) but because they were the only country in the region that actually was a suitable and dependable ally"

Funny that. All this time Israel supporters were telling us the only reason Israel gets a $3 billion every year was because of America's abiding love of Israel.

And I would have thought Turkey has been at least as useful and reliable an ally as Israel, at a lot less than $3 billion a year, besides.

Back to basic principles:-

1) A lobby exists to make a state do what it otherwise would not do.

2) If 1) is incorrect, what other purpose could there be for a lobby?

I would have thought that the realism we ought to be discussing was Israel's, the question being whether Israel should not conform its own policies to the preferences of the United States when to do otherwise advances no American interest and causes this country considerable inconvenience.

In the real world, it is well understood why Israel does not do this with respect to settlements on the West Bank; the reasons all involve Israeli domestic politics. I would be glad to hear David Rothkopf subscribe to the common sense position that Israeli politics are not an American problem, and moreover to acknowledge that Israel owes much more to America than the other way around. Perhaps it is only the limitations of the blog format that produce the impression that Rothkopf does not believe either of these things, and thinks instead that the obligations in the Israeli-American relationship are all on the American side.

I have more sympathy with his views about Walt, though I'm not sure I would use the same language he does. Anyone reading Walt's blog on this site -- almost always well-written and often quite insightful -- quickly becomes aware that Walt has attracted to his corner a disturbing number of obvious anti-Semites and terrorist sympathizers. Walt is not as sensitive to this as he ought to be. Much as many American voters dismissed Barry Goldwater because Southern racists used his arguments about states' rights and limited federal power for their own ends, some of Walt's admirers throw his argument into question.

Supporters of Israel in the United States would never have been able to portray criticism of their position as hatred of Jews or support of terrorism without a great deal of help from those who do hate Jews and do support terrorism (the great majority of these, in case it is not obvious, are Arabs, not Americans). The reported endorsement of the odious bin Laden might better have prompted Walt to reflect on the implications of this than to simply restate the same argument he's made before.

While I see nothing wrong with arguments between fellow writers, the tone is a bit troublesome.

I have to concur with most of the other posters, this piece is really disappointing. It's a lowpoint for David Rothkopf

The essence of Osama's mention of Walt's book is that a not insignificant part of the reason we are being attacked by al qeada and other groups is because of our association with the Israeli settler movement and occupation, which is viewed as an ongoing catastrophe and and slap in the face to the entire Arab/Muslim world, and more importantly viewed as a template for things to come from both Israel and the US. Furthermore, he seems to suggest, by referencing this book, that most people here would demand a very different response to this ongoing tragedy, but that our government is swayed disproportionately by a powerful lobby that would like to see the settlements and occupation continue and expand.

The 9/11 commission, the Iraq Study Group, the CIA, and just about every non biased bipartiasn group or expert that has viewed the situation agrees that the settlements and the occupation are one of the PRIMARY marketing tools for terrorist recruitment and fund raising throughout the middle east. IE, we are attacked in large part because of our perceived involvement and funding of the settlements.

It was not Walt that says this, but these bipartisan groups, and they have said this in RESPONSE to government inquiries. So, when it is the case that our state department finds that the settlements are illegal, and all of these groups come to these damning conclusions about their impact on AVOIDABLE terror against both the US and Israel, but the house and senate continue to FUND Israel even as they defy our presidents direct request to begin to wind down this monstrosity, one must conclude that the house and senate are acting out of some other motivation than a healthy respect for the safetly and welfare of either the US OR Israel. They are acting out of PRECISELY the same type of motivation that is preventing them from DEMANDING affordable and universal health care for this country, even as the LACK of it is making us incapable of competing in the global market.

In the end, Osama is simply doing here what he has been doing since long before 9/11; Using the utterly pointless and morally indefensible Israeli settlements and occupation as a way to market for new recruits and new funding.

The only thing I hope is that if Osama is able to pull off another strike against the US using the settlements and occupation as a marketing tool for money, troops and support AGAIN, that every SINGLE politician that did NOTHING (and thats most of them) even as ALL of the feed back that they have gotten suggests that the persistence of the settlements and occupation literally and needlessly endanger the security of the US, is prosecuted for gross negligence.

Rothkopf usually goes too far in his criticism of Walt, and he does so again here. He misses the mark badly. It's patently obvious that bin Laden's endorsement doesn't discredit W&M's book, any more than the conspiracy theorists who gravitate to Rothkopf's do (and it's not clear how the two situations differ, other than the fact that one pertains to Rothkopf and one doesn't, and that Rothkopf tells us he has reflected on it).

I also contend that Rothkopf does a diservice to his position, in that his writings gives defenders of W&M an excuse to avoid the substantive criticisms of their work, which they do and of which there are many. There are valid reasons their work generally got panned, but ObL's endorsement isn't one of them. The one positive that runs uniformly throughout the critiques is that they facilitated the discussion on the topic, about which I agree.

For instance, one well known commentator wrote the following (emphasis added):

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

M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion).

And seconding what I wrote on Walt's post on this topic:

As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races."

I won’t bother commenting on the smarmy tone of the article, as others have said it quite well.

I would note, however, that Rothkopf is advocating a policy for the US that has been a demonstrable failure for the US.

The fact that you still get time on blogs like this is a disappointment. I enjoy the point-counterpoint of these blogs, but it would be so nice to read someone whose policy opinions are fresh and have not been proven to be so detrimental to the US.

I know it is hard for many posters to retrain their animus toward Israel and have a balanced view, but that is not the issue in Rothkopf's post. He is not saying that Walt's book is bad because bin Laden likes it (guilt by association). He is saying Walt's book is problematic because the substantive arguments are poorly reasoned(read his earlier review of Walt's book) and that bin Laden makes the same equally facile arguments (you get the readers you deserve). He is saying that because both make the same argument with respect to "The Israel Lobby," their shared ideas will both be discredited when their ideas prove wrong.

After reading this and several other post by David Rothkopf, I am once again scratching my head trying to figure out how this flea of a thinker got space by Foreignpolicy, a relatively respectable mainstream publication, to write such tripe.

Just embarrassing that anyone who lives within 500 miles of Washington DC could still debate the power and existence of the Israel lobby.

Rothkopf: blah, blah, blah, blah.

Rothkopf's one fan (Blue13322532): blu, blah, blu. bah. (Note that Rothkopf's one fan is more coherent and a better writer than Rothkopf himself!)

Fire this dork already! He is an embarrassment to this journal.

I heard from a reliable source that Bin Laden likes lamb donor kebabs. Thefore, anyone that likes a lamb donor kebab is a terrorist sympathizer. After all, every kebab gets the audience it deserves

"the only country in the region that actually was a suitable and dependable ally"

Why is Israel a more suitable ally then Turkey?

So I might as well be the one to throw this out there…
Why is it the defacto position that Israel is even a good ally?
They have been described as having the largest espionage program against the US of any nation – certainly any ally (I don’t know if this is still true…) Is this the behavior of a dependable ally?
There is nonstop talk about Israel attacking Iran without the backing of the US knowing that the repercussions to the US would be massive. Is this the behavior of suitable ally?
The US foreign policy in the ME has been largely tailored to accommodate Israel, yet Israel does ultimately what is best for Israel. This is to be expected. The US should behave in the same manner – do what is in the US interest, not the interest of a purported ally with grave costs to the US.
As far as I see it, the ‘special relationship’ between the US and Israel is a one-way relationship and that needs to change.

As somebody who has many disagreements with the Mearsheimer-Walt (M/W) thesis, I nonetheless find this post to be absurd. Besides the obvious guilt-by-association tactics, Mr. Rothkopf completely mischaracterizes M/W's arguments. They do NOT say that America's support for Israel is the only cause of anti-Americanism in the Arab world - they acknowledge that there are other grievances.

M/W also specifally address the claim that Israel is a a strategic asset - they argue (quite effectively, in my view) that whatever stategic value Israel had to the United States dissappeared with the end of the Cold War. Of course, Rothkopf is free to disagree with M/W on Israel's strategic value, but he is wrong to say that they do not consider it.

When our president first put it clearly to Netanyahu that settlement expansion was to be frozen as a first step towards a negotiated peace settlements, the entire senate, and I mean JUST ABOUT EVERYONE signed an AIPAC drafted letter that in essence supported Netanyahus case, and not that of our own president.

Similar AIPAC letters were signed regarding support for Israels attacks on both Gaza and Lebanon, neither of which accomplished ANY of their stated goals, but DID result in Israeli war crimes, further staining the US by association, and hurting our strategic position in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the region in general.

Congress commissions fact finding panels, like the 9/11 commission and the Iraq Study group, and they come back with the same message; The Israeli Palestinian conflict (sustained by the settlements and the occupation) is by far the most effective marketing tool for terrorists in the middle east, and we would be a safer nation if this conflict ie the settlements, were brought to a swift and complete end.

Yet, congress does nothing. Just like our health care situation.

So, if one says that there is a powerful insurance lobby in this nation that is preventing our government from doing the right thing, it would seem reasonably self evident that that is the case given the absurdly horrible situation that our broken system subjects our nation to on so many levels, and congress' TOTAL lack of action about it for so many decades, and even now.

David Rothkopf wants you to believe that although every single objective sign (like Bi partisan panels, almost every past president including Bush senior, the CIA, ect) points toward our relationship with Israel as being as dysfunctional and counter intuitive as it can POSSIBLY BE, that it is NOT reasonable to assume that congress is not being swayed into making disastrous decisions about these issues, even in light of the fact that AIPAC is one of the largest and best funded lobbying machines on the planet, and that millions of loony Christian Right "apocalypse now" advocates see supporting Israel's settlements and occupation part of their ticket home to paradise (and hell for the rest of us in their insane accounting of things).

He would like you to forget that taped call between and Israeli spy who called Jane Harmon asking her to interfere in an espionage investigation of two AIPAC employees (neither of whom ever DENIED ferrying classified intel on Iran back to Israel, but simply that they felt that this was their right) in exchange for a major donor (Saban, most likely) threatening Nancy Pelosi with withholding millions in funding if she did not appoint Harmon to a key intelligence committee. He would like you to over look the absolutely UGLY light that it casts on the METHODS (bribery, blackmail, espionage, corruption) that AIPAC employs in getting their business done.

Mr. Rothkopf would like you to see Osama's reference to Walt's book as an isolated, meaningless event, Rather than a clear example of Bin Laden's CONSTANT use of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the HORRIFIC treatment of the palestinians as a marketing tool to bring in recruits, funds and general support for al qeada, just he did to get support, recruits, and money for 911 .

It is Mr Rothkopfs and other over zealous Israel "all or nothing" people's refusal to, 1) see the fact that Walt is correct 2) see that the the settlements ARE morally indefensible and a source of inspiration for terrorists world wide 3) and that our association with them in the eyes of the Arab/Muslim world imperils our security here and abroad that will help Bin Laden CONTINUE to use this pointless, awful, inexcusable colonial settler movement in the occupied territories to gain cash, support and followers who will continue to attack the US, and that the corruption of congress will ensure that he continues.

OF COURSE our congress is for sale. The abysmal state of US Health care alone helps prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. But the day that it becomes less easy for congress to continue to sell out to aipac in the way that they traditionally have is the day that we will begin to see some postive results in the war on terror.

It's official: Rothkopf is obsessed with Walt. This guy is so intellectually immature. it's just one mindless accusation after another, it never ends. Typical ethno-centric, he just can't stand criticism of his beloved Israel, it drives him crazy.

Former AIPAC chief Steve Rosen once said ( paraphrasing )Lobbying lives in dark and dies when exposed to sunlight. Mr Rothkopf knows that all too well too. That is why this vulgar guilt by association charges made against Mr Walt.He does not want people to know the kind of influence Israeli lobby exerts on American foreign policy. The lesser people know the better it is for Mr Rothkopf.

Oh well. I guess when it comes to Israeli lobby Mr Rothkopf looses the ability to think like a rational person.

why so bitter? and why so demagogic?

Let's see what happens when the United States distances itself further from Israel, when we beat up on them...

How many chances do we have to pass up to distance ourselves from Israel for you to see that it ain't going to happen? We struggle to put mild diplomatic pressure on Israel. Beat up on them? You have got to be kidding!