It's not a simple matter. The Mearsheimer/Walt piece in the London Reveiw of Books is really very careful, rational and well cited. If you haven't read it, you ought to. The subsequent edition carries letters on the piece (including from Dershowitz) and the Nation has a response to all the rukus from Mearsheimer/Walt. I too believe that they minimize the factor of oil interests in their analysis (Chomsky has the most compelling argument I've read re that point) and that is one of the points they address in their Nation piece.
One can make the argument that Israel is just like any other country (eg Canada) in that many foreign states have "lobbies" working within the US to steer US policy in advantageous directions. Of course, that's not terribly discerning nor helpful as it doesn't speak to the magnitude of influence, the consequences of it, nor to what sector or population that lobby really represents (eg diamond interests but not really the citizens of Mobutozango). For example, the "neoconservatives" surrounding this administration aren't linked to Israel so much as to Likkud and the people and interests around Sharon.
But it isn't just a matter of chance that Mearsheimer/Walt couldn't get their article published in the US. The thesis - significant and negative consequences arising from the influence of the Israeli lobby on US foreign policy - hasn't been a "proper" topic of political conversation. Mike Kinsley made the point several years ago re motives for the Iraq war describing Israel as "the elephant in the room no one is talking about".
A curiosity which escapes most people (simply because so few read any Israeli press) is that criticism of Israeli government policy, particularly regarding the Palestinian problems, is far more common and vital in Israel than it is in North American press. An interesting and illuminating exercise would be to read Ha'aretz for a week and compare it with the New York Times on the single matter of beating the drums for war with Iran. You get that here daily but you don't in Ha'aretz. Ain't that odd?
And one has to differentiate the various corners of the jewish population residing here (or in Canada). There is nothing like unanimity on any question except Israel's survival. How to ensure or work towards that survival is where all the disagreement sits.
Here's an interesting and relevant piece...
Quote:The chairman of the Republican Party was booed at an American Jewish Committee event over comments on Iraq.
Ken Mehlman, who is Jewish, said Iraq posed less of a challenge now than under Saddam Hussein.
Mehlman was otherwise politely received when he spoke Tuesday at the AJCommittee's 100th anniversary celebrations in Washington, and he got warm applause when he said the Bush administration would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear bomb and always would stand by Israel.
The room burst into applause, however, when AJCommittee board member Edith Everett asked Mehlman to "take a message" to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran.
"It does not help Israel and it does not help American Jews to appear to be stimulators of any action against Iran," Everett said.
She added that "it's easy to understand why Iran is not worried about us" because Iraq is consuming so many U.S. resources.
Mehlman replied by acknowledging that Iraq was a "challenge," but claimed it's "less of a challenge than when Saddam Hussein was in power."
The room filled with boos and hisses.
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=2450
