M&W are assaulting Israel on two fronts: One, that there is no pragmatic interest for US to support it; two, that there is no moral basis for supporting Israel.
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.
