maybe because the M-W paper was NOT the _thesis_ of Anderson's article

silising'wi: "anderson does not mention this [the M-W paper] context specifically"

The thesis of Anderson's article was the arguments that certain leftist icons use to _deny_ the power and consequence of the Israel([search]) lobby.

Or as you finally put it in your own words: "there is no denying the powerful influence of the lobby on congresscritters,etc. this has been obvious for years. the proverbial elephant in the room. there's the spying. amdocs. the collaborations amongst intel agencies. james jesus angleton's connection w/ mossad. ted shackley's bringing 'em back into the fold after stansfield turner shut off their access. the numerous joint clandestine & covert ops, mutually beneficial, lucrative. israel's integration into the u.s. military-industrial establishment. and on and on."

Now why don't you go write your _own_ article and start your own thread on the M-W paper to deal with that to your hearts delight!

Anderson never took a position on the M-W paper because that was not his thesis. For all you know, he might agree with some of their points/analysis and disagree with others.

For another view on the Israel lobby similar to, but more extensive (it's a much longer article) than Anderson's, see:

"Its Origins and Growth:
The Power of the Israel Lobby"

- by Kathleen and Bill Christison


Re: the christison smear

what part of it did you want me to reread?

their strawman argument?

These critics on the left argue from a assumption that U.S. foreign policy has been monolithic since World War II, a coherent progression of decision-making directed unerringly at the advance of U.S. imperial interest. All U.S. actions, these critics contend, are part of a clearly laid-out strategy that has rarely deviated no matter what the party in power.

The principal problem with the left critics' analysis is that it is too rigid.

their apologetics for the u.s.?

When, as occurred in Lebanon([search]), the U.S. has blundered into misquided adventures to support Israel([search])'s interest, it is a clear denial of reality to say that Israel and its lobby have no significant influence on U.S. Middle East policy. [emphasis mine]


Accepting a convergence of U.S. and Israeli interests means that the U.S. can never act entirely as its own agent, will never examine its policies and actions entirely from the vantage point of its own long-term self interest, and can, therefore, never know why it is devising and implementing a particular policy. The failure to recognize this reality is where the left critics' belittling of the lobby's power and their acceptance of U.S. Middle East policy as simply an unchangeable part of a longstanding strategy is particularly dangerous.

c'mon. there is/was as much of this factionalism that i have pointed out in the cia as there is in the top tiers of power. apply the filter that i have offered to the christison's article & see what conclusions you draw. funny that these two intel insiders leave this context out & defend M-W's undeniably narrow - "rigid" is also an appropriate description - analysis while they actually support chomsky's sentiment that
Many would find the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis appealing, he wrote, because it leaves the US government "untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility," its Wilsonian impulses distorted by "an all-powerful force that it cannot escape."

Account Login

Media Centers


An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software