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.

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 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?

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.

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!