That is, even if there was some benefit to the US in supporting Israel, it is undone by the absence of moral justification. They are actually covering all the bases in presenting their case for cutting Israel loose.

I find their second argument much more egregious and dangerous than the first. Because in order to make a moral case, they resort to selectivity, lacunae and distortions in pesenting Israel’s conflict vis a vis the Arabs.

This is unconscionable. As Anthony Julius says: “it is written about Jews, but with a cold-heartedness that cannot altogether be attributed to scholarly objectivity. Jewish pain, Jewish suffering, does not resonate with Mearsheimer and Walt. And in the book’s preface, the authors describe their experiences in writing the paper that preceded the book in language that comes too close to the antisemitic trope of Jewish power over the media.”

As Plato above puts the question: “The question that must be asked is, “If the State of Israel did not exist, would the mullahs in Iran still want to rid the world of the Jews and the great Satan?” I think the answer from M&W would be: Israel is an obstacle for American easy schmoozing with the ayatollahs and the oiled Arab countries. Therefore, it is better for America if Israel did not exist. However, since they cannot claim that calculated interest trumps humanitarianism, they then go on to cut the humanitarian solicitude that one people owes another which is under threat of annihilation. They tell the people of conscience: Your solicitude is unwarranted for this is a bad, evil, wicked country. No tears or compunction should be extended to them.

If you read history, you will find that any great genocide, massacre or atrocity was preceded by a period of intense persuasion of this kind. It is meant to harden people’s hearts from considering the terrible consequences of their own indifference or complicity, to neutralize the voice of man-to-man compassion.

The question that must be asked is, “If the State of Israel did not exist, would the mullahs in Iran still want to rid the world of the Jews and the great Satan?”

However, in a certain sense, this question is irrelevant.

The question that must be asked is, “If Israel did not exist, would the mullahs in Iran still want to rid the world of Israel and the great Satan?”

In order to answer this question, one must pose another question.

“Is there a doctrinal reason, with a basis in Islamic texts, which could motivate such a fervent desire?”

If a person has committed any time to Islamic studies, and I do not mean the Armstrong/Esposito version, this individual will be able to answer the second question quite easily. Unfortunately, precious few have done this.

However, only a clear mind and common sense are required to answer the first question.

Unfortunately far too many – such as the authors of this ridiculous book – lack these qualities.

Everyone needs to wrap their brains around this oft-forgotten fact: The UN came in, threw a people out of its nation and handed it to their age-old nemesis. In light of that fact, can you understand why there might be a few disgruntled parties in the area?

Arab spin is now “fact”?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=foundation+state+israel

I love this part:

At this point the situation was quite fluid and political arrangements that would satisfy all parties might have been worked out if all had the far-sightedness and the sensitivities required. But apparently the Zionists of that time lacked an understanding of the national aspirations of the Arabs, and the Arabs themselves, lacking political experience, resorted more to force than to the more difficult task of convincing world opinion of their case.

If the Arab case against the foundation of Israel was so strong, why couldn’t they convince the world of its justice? Must have been the Jewish lobby, right? The Palestinian grievance machine may convince simpletons, but I remain unmoved by the alleged injustices they lament.

Quite frankly, I’m glad Israel has nukes. And I do hope they’re going to use the Samson Option, if necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

The UN never dumped anyone in Israel. The UN did not establish Israel. The UN recognized a nation already created by people on the ground. Jews had been living there for centuries and by the 1930′s a large number of Jews had moved there, on their own or with funds gathered by Zionist agencies. These people had established courts, defense, newspapers, theatres, health care, roads and many other systems that are the hallmarks of national life. Not a single Jew was placed in Israel by the UN nor was a single Arab thrown out by it either. Jews where either born in Israel or came by the aid of other Jews. Jews and Arabs, mostly Arabs, moved what Muslims left Israel. All the UN did was recognize that it happened.

What exactly qualifies the Jew as the Arab’s age-old nemesis? Arab hate towards the Jew is a relatively new phenomenon. It is based on the fact that Israel did carve itself out of lands once held by Arabs, who took that land from Greco-Romans, who had taken the land from Jews.

The point is that we do not need to, “wrap their brains around this oft-forgotten fact: The UN came in, threw a people out of its nation and handed it to their age-old nemesis. In light of that fact, can you understand why there might be a few disgruntled parties in the area?”, because those facts you mention are false.

Anybody can be disgruntled for any number of reasons. The issue is how you express this dissatisfaction and why the Arabs would rather rant, destroy and kill then to accept that Israel exists. You may despise the Islamic whack jobs, sir, but you do not understand why they are unhappy. They are unhappy because rather then be partners they want to be overlords. The irrationality that frames the W&M Papers is closely related to the hatred of Great Satan and the frittering away of American wealth to China. It is the irrational scream which overwhelms the rational whispers of our good and sensible conscience.

The North Koreans and Iraqis have been settled in Idaho for 5000 years now, as opposed to those pesky Jews who just happened to show up in the Holy Land around 1948.

Listen John, if you don’t want to be accused of ulterior motives for those damn Jews in the Middle East, don’t trot out the arguments of those that do want the death of Israel.

If it’s about money, then ask how much has the rebuilding of Japan and Germany has cost the American Taxpayer… billions upon bilions more than Israel… but that’s not the point is it?

Israel is the point.

Well, define “simply”. By “simply” do you mean handing them $4 billion a year, selling them superior warfighting technology that allows them to maintain military supremacy in the region, supporting them diplomatically in every instance and turning a blind eye to their abrogation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty while imposing it on every other muslim nation on Earth?

That kind of “simple” support?

Everyone needs to wrap their brains around this oft-forgotten fact: The UN came in, threw a people out of its nation and handed it to their age-old nemesis. In light of that fact, can you understand why there might be a few disgruntled parties in the area?

That is in no way an argument whether the UN should have taken such action or not, it is a review of how this whole mess started.

Imagine, for a moment, the UN removing the citizens of three or four US states and telling Saddam, Iran and Kim Jung Il they were welcome to populate the territories as they see fit.

Think ya might be pissed, even 50 years later? Would you shrug your shoulders and say “oh, well” and just forget about it all? Or might you grow to despise the power that continued ally with them and make their continued occupation possible?

Get this: I despise the Islamic whack jobs over there screaming about the Great Satan, etc. But I understand why they are unhappy.

Our concerns in the Mddle East are derived from geopolitical realities, not what ourt politicians pronounce for foreign and domestic consumption.

Now the Middle East is a key, strategic area in the Anglospheric, that is, Mahonian, scheme: naval choke points and the strategic resource, oil. Let others claim the Euroasian heartland, we dominate the access to and from the heartland.

Great Britain once played the Great Game, but a the end of World War Two they had become a spend force and it became our responsibility to step up as Weltmachthaber.

To that end, we speedily recognized the Zionist entity as our hostage to empire. Thus we insured that neither the poltroon impuse nor isolationism would seduce us away from out imperial responsibilities.

It is not that Israel uses us, or not only that, but that we use Israel to anchor our Middle Eastern policy.

And it worked very well, and it continues to work, as we see by the confusion of the so-called, self-proclaimed “progressives.” They really don’t know what to say about Israel.

Viewed thusly, what are we to say about who may be called the “realist?” Surely the Mearsheimer/Walt types are the misty-eyed dreamers. They are the ones who ignore our national interests in favor of slogans, dreams, buzz-words.