I found it telling that Mr. Rosenbaum never addressed the author's contention head on: that the lobby is so powerful as to stifle any meaningful debate on Israeli policy, and that American and Israeli interests might not always be perfectly aligned. Instead, we have a discussion of the very real dangers to Jews in the world today, and a dismissive backhanded comment about their main argument: i.e. "well, their book managed to get published, so they must be wrong."

Mr. Rosenbaum's response, I'm afraid, continues in the sad tradition of attacking the authors instead of engaging the discussion.

Looking at the sheer number of anti-Rosenbaum posts in the fray, I'm inclined to think that this discussion is facial evidence that the animating premise of Mearsheimer and Walt's argument is incorrect. If everyone in America is so afraid to challenge the almighty Israel Lobby, then how on earth is it that the Fray seems to be overflowing with those willing to screw up the courage to do just that?

I think the points mainly apply to discussions in the mass media and political venues (e.g. congress). People may feel free to express their disagreement on a personal level, but know that they risk an attack if their discourse, no matter how moderate, gains public attention (Finkelstein case as an example).

Such attacks prevent a meaningful discussion of political issues surrounding Israel policies.

Unfortunately the only groups that really gain from this are those with true, irrational antisemitic agenda. They are the ones seeing world in back and white, and unequivocal responses just play into their game.

It would not be much more difficult for Mr. Rosenbaum to substitute a few paragraphs of his apoplectic rant to allay at least some of the concerns the public may have about a powerful foreign lobby. But he is too engulfed in his righteous indignation to take time for a real discussion.