Zionism is crumbling. That is the overall picture that emerges from reading all the posts on Rosenbaum's review of The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Numerous posters have articulately and thoroughly shredded all of Rosenbaum's justifications for the Israel lobby and Zionism.

Most crucial, more and more Jews are not accepting these standard justifications, making Zionism a fading ideology even among its own constituency.

Leaving aside the extreme conservative Jews, 78% of Jews over 65 feel the loss of the state of Israel would be a "personal tragedy". But only 54% of Jews aged 35-50 feel this way, and less than half of Jews under 35 feel this way.

The reason for this shift is "a growing number of Jews, who place the universal, ethical and social justice traditions of their faith above those of narrow tribalism", and these Jews are willing to see that "the ethnic-cleansing in which the Israelis expelled 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 and the apartheid character of Israel’s present occupation of the West Bank are objective realities".

These figures were given by doodahman in this thread, and are discussed at length (including the above quotes) in an excellent article "Is a Jewish Glasnost Coming to America?" by Tony Karon. The full article is here:
<link>

Rosenbaum's central hypothesis is a "lack of moral imagination" in those who don't understand how afraid some Jews are of a second holocaust. He is almost certainly correct on this.

But his extreme fear causes a lack of moral perception, in which Rosenbaum can't seem to see the ethnic cleansing and apartheid treatment of the Palestinian people by the Zionists. He is like a person with a brain injury who can't see half of reality.

As numerous posters pointed out, Rosenbaum does not address these fundamental, objective facts. Therefore he never considers the possiblility that Palestinian attacks on Zionism are RESISTENCE to ethnic cleansing and apartheid. And he never considers the possibility that supporters of Palestine are objecting to Zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid. The best remaining theory for him is anti-Jewish bigotry.

The crumbling of Zionism will be a boon to peace. ALL THREE "terrorist" organizations assisted by Iran are focused on resisting Zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid. They are of NO THREAT to the U.S. EXCEPT insofar as the U.S. supports the Zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid treatment of Palestinian people. The "war on terrorism" will virtually vanish with the disappearance of Zionism's ethnic cleansing and apartheid treatment of the Palestinian people.

The U.S. is betraying its fundamental principles by supporting a religious state, since these inevitably impose religious bigotry on part of their population. The U.S. should stand up for this fundamental principle around the world.

America, Jews, and the whole world owe The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy authors John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt a great gratitude for their courage in standing up for this principal when it was hard to do.

I was wondering when you were going to show up and spew your same racist bull crap.

Way to go.

You earned your spot in hell.

It's scarcely a representative sample. But, as you point out, there is objective evidence that uncritical support for Israel is waning even among American Jews. I have the feeling that Mearsheimer and Walt merely said, and documented, things that millions of us have been wondering about for years.

There is a difference, however, between taking a critical position toward Israeli policies, such as West Bank settlement and the slow strangulation of Gaza, and taking a critical position toward the Israel lobby. Although the first probably implies the second, the converse is not true. It is perfectly possible to say: "I don't care what Israel does; that's their business. But I care what my country does, and I want it to act in its own best interests, not Israel's. The relationship has become grossly one-sided. Israel is nothing but a liability to us. The influence of Israel's agents over our political process is dangerous. It is time for us to tell our government that we want our choices justified in hard-headed terms of what benefits the United States, instead of pandering to those who make Israel the idol of American foreign policy."

I personally think this political pragmatism is preferable to getting into the endless debate over the morality of Zionism. If our grounds for choosing a foreign policy are predominantly "moral," we leave ourselves open to exactly the same thing again, from Israel or from somebody else. The problem with "Wilsonian" foreign policy (aside from the fact that Wilson himself was a cold egoist who looked out for himself first, second and third) is that it plays into the hands of political opportunists and demogogues. Any glib shit can get up and start pumping the bellows about why we have to go here and fight there and stick our nose into that, because if we don't awful things will happen and we will be Betraying Our National Purpose.

Do you have any idea how much the defense industry and other federal contractors love that? It doesn't matter to them whether we're pouring our resources into Israel or into Patagonia. The important thing is that we're pouring them somewhere. The rationale is unimportant; whatever keeps the masses behind the program. So we get a generation of Republican corruption and a pathetic figurehead president like Frat Boy.

Government was once considered a high art, one for professionals, not amateurs. That's not incompatible with a democracy, unless the democracy, like ours, has gone soft in the head. Now we let any creep into office if he flatters us enough. And, of course, the Israel lobby has known very well how to make use of that.

"Government was once considered a high art, one for professionals, not amateurs. That's not incompatible with a democracy, unless the democracy, like ours, has gone soft in the head. Now we let any creep into office if he flatters us enough. And, of course, the Israel lobby has known very well how to make use of that."

The United States is a republic. In a republic, voters are represented indirectly. In a democracy, voters are directly represented. Countries like Germany and Israel have hybrid systems that incorporate elements from both systems.

You're truly splitting hairs at the subatomic level. Besides, our Federal system does allow for direct democracy; in fact, here in California, we have a little too much of it.

Fritz Gerlich wrote the following post at 09/22/2007 1:03 AM:

"It is perfectly possible to say: "I don't care what Israel does; that's their business. But I care what my country does, and I want it to act in its own best interests, not Israel's."

A point of view I share.

James Forrestal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Doubts have existed from the beginning about that Forrestal's alleged suicide. These were fueled by the fact that the Navy did not release the transcript of ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

"pumping the bellows about why we have to go here and fight there and stick our nose into that, because if we don't awful things will happen and we will be Betraying Our National Purpose.

Do you have any idea how much the defense industry and other federal contractors love that? It doesn't matter to them whether we're pouring our resources into Israel or into Patagonia. The important thing is that we're pouring them somewhere. The rationale is unimportant; whatever keeps the masses behind the program."

Eisenhower tried to warn us of the political power of the Military industrial Complex. "

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together".

His Vice President, in my opinon, was destroyed by a coalition fueled by its money. Many organisations hostile to Nixon, I am sure, never knew the source of their funds.

From Nixon's 1974 State of the Union;

...........Throughout the 5 years that I have served as your President, I have had one overriding aim, and that was to establish a new structure of peace in the world that can free future generations of the scourge of war. I can understand that others may have different priorities. This has been and this will remain my first priority and the chief legacy I hope to leave from the 8 years of my Presidency.

This does not mean that we shall not have other priorities, because as we strengthen the peace, we must also continue each year a steady strengthening of our society here at home. Our conscience requires it, our interests require it, and we must insist upon it.

As we create more jobs, as we build a better health care system, as we improve our education, as we develop new sources of energy, as we provide more abundantly for the elderly and the poor, as we strengthen the system of private enterprise that produces our prosperity--as we do all of this and even more, we solidify those essential bonds that hold us together as a nation.

Even more importantly, we advance what in the final analysis government in America is all about.

What it is all about is more freedom, more security, a better life for each one of the 211 million people that live in this land.

We cannot afford to neglect progress at home while pursuing peace abroad. But neither can we afford to neglect peace abroad while pursuing progress at home. With a stable peace, all is possible, but without peace, nothing is possible.

In the written message that I have just delivered to the Speaker and to the President of the Senate, I commented that one of the continuing challenges facing us in the legislative process is that of the timing and pacing of our initiatives, selecting each year among many worthy projects those that are ripe for action at that time.

What is true in terms of our domestic initiatives is true also in the world. This period we now are in, in the world--and I say this as one who has seen so much of the world, not only in these past 5 years but going back over many years--we are in a period which presents a juncture of historic forces unique in this century. They provide an opportunity we may never have again to create a structure of peace solid enough to last a lifetime and more, not just peace in our time but peace in our children's time as well. It is on the way we respond to this opportunity, more than anything else, that history will judge whether we in America have met our responsibility. And I am confident we will meet that great historic responsibility which is ours today. ...................

Nixon was ending the Cold War, had ended Viet Nam, and was trying to pass legislation for a nationall Health Care system when he was forced to resign. But he was a crook or something, right?

I particularly appreciate your full quote of Eisenhower's warning. He was someone who had seen multiple sides of the situation personally, and had a very valuable perspective. His warning is among the great words of American patriots.