I'm certainly not qualified to judge whether what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote is anti-semitic. However, I will point out two fundamental arguments that the authors make which every American should consider:

1) Is it inappropriate for US foreign policy to be handed over to a narrow political lobby that appears to represent another country or people's interests? If our unqualified support for Israeli foreign policy is creating a real threat to America's security, then maybe we need to recognize that Israel is simply not strategically important, and be willing to ask Israel to change its policies or risk losing American support.

2) Can the US claim to support a human rights agenda, while holding those countries with a strong political lobby to a lower standard? Israel's political lobby, like the IRA's lobby during the 1980s, is successfully convincing American politicians that Israel's actions are defensive and proportionate. Our call for the protection of human rights should be grounded in a belief that they can, and should, be universally applied. Which means both Israel and its Arab neighbors must be targeted as human rights violators. (Of course, the current government won't care one way or another because enforcing human rights is not a core principle of American foreign policy.)

I would also add, that the media reaction to their work is exactly what you would expect from a well-organized and networked political movement capable of manipulating public opinion through the mass media. It actually reminds me of Big Tobacco's ability to mock and browbeat opponents during the early 1990s without actually addressing the underlying complaints.

In response to your points:

1. Our Social Security policy is dominated by one interest group: the AARP. Is it right for our policy on such a thing to be controlled by that lobbying group that would only benefit a lot from it? Our Education policy is heavily influenced by the NEA and other like organizations. How about the same as above? Its a simply truth that in the 60s, there were very few Lobbyists in the US as compared to now, where there are over 30,000. The Israeli lobby is only a minor one amongst hundreds.

3. (This is your last paragraph, which I wanted to distinguish from the second point you made). "Big Tobacco" was one lobby. They had a counter lobby which dominates the air waves and makes billions of dollars a year. You have an organization, like Truth, that mocks the Tobacco business and blatantly lies. They claimed that "Whole Milk" is healthier and causes less deaths than second hand smoke. Believe it or not, Whole Milk is very unhealthy, as it has a lot of bad fats and is proven to lead to heart problems. Regardless of what anyone says, there is no tangible proof that second hand smoke has done anything yet, there are only correlations. Yet a farmer is some how the "expert" to decide the truth. Likewise, they go to a gun shop and ask for "Lite" bullets. They claim that all bullets kill. Really? Did they never hear of "blanks"? How about rubber bullets? Both of these are two commonly used types of ammunition that don't kill (well, rubber bullets are far less deadly than normal bullets). Yet according to "Truth", the high school drop out hillbillies are some how experts on bullets and on tobacco.

What does this tell you? That for every "lobby" there is a counter lobby, and that there is someone making money on the opposite end.

Even granting that AARP "dominates" Social Security policy (which strikes me as a curious assertion that demands more specific documentation), your point is hollow. AARP and NEA represent the interests of a American citizens, not a foreign nation. The Israeli lobby may be small in numbers, but their influence is disproportionate, AND THEY DON'T REPRESENT AMERICAN INTERESTS.

How could America even operate without this important strategic ally in the Middle East. Why, I'm sure we all remember how Israeli and American troops marched side by side into Baghdad to liberate it from the tyranny of Sad...

What? Oh, Israel was too busy that week?

But, of course, during the liberation of Kuwait they....

What? Oh.

But, let's not forget all the help they've given the U.S. in Afghansta....

Oh, too busy that week too?

Anyway, strategic ally, very important! No really!

"Anyway, strategic ally, very important! No really!"

You underestimate the value of a good excuse to drop bombs