Another reviewer asked me the question, "What is going on here?" It's a good question. This book is pretty well written and is politically moderate. Folks such as Dennis Ross and Elie Wiesel recommend it. Why does it have, so far, three times as many one-star reviews as 5-star reviews?
Just what point are the one-star reviewers making? Well, in terms of facts and logic, they are not making any points at all. In terms of sheer numbers, they are simply proving that a few extremists who ignore things such as facts, logic, and rational discussion can drown out more serious individuals. And they are casting doubt on the value of their reviews of a bunch of other books.
As for the book itself, it's useful in pointing out the problems with Walt and Mearsheimer's wild explanation of America's tolerance of and support for human rights for Levantine Jews.
As Foxman points out, some of the things in Walt and Mearsheimer's book are truly silly, such as the stuff about the Israeli lobby seeking to enforce ideological conformity on U.S. college campuses. As anyone can see, pro-Israeli voices are not particularly strong on American college campuses: screams of outrage at the existence of human rights for Israeli Jews tend to be louder, and some university departments are notorious for abandoning academic standards in order to side with these screamers.
In addition, Foxman asks why, if America was following Israel's wishes, did we attack Iraq when Israel regarded Iran as more dangerous? Sure, Israel regarded Iraq as dangerous as well, but had we followed Israel's wishes rather than our own, we would not have attacked Iraq as we did. I would add that many Israelis were probably concerned about the possibility that in order to get support for attacking Iraq, the United States might also agree to decrease its support for Israel.
Is mere criticism of Israel legitimate? Of course, and Foxman says so. But he adds that "criticism that condemns Israel simply for existing" is not legitimate. Criticism singling out Israel is not legitimate, in Foxman's opinion. I can imagine some circumstances in which it might be proper to single out some nation or other, but there are plenty of others where there's no excuse for it. Finally, Foxman says that criticism that "concludes that only bad faith or evil motives can explain any failure or error on Israel's part" isn't legitimate.
The author then points out some of the many problems with Jimmy Carter's atrocious book, "Peace not Apartheid." As Foxman says, "it's terribly sad - and potentially tragic - that a former U.S. president should be doing so much to perpetuate myths that themselves constitute roadblocks to peace."
Maybe this is a good time for those of us who value reason and discussion to calm down and talk about issues. Let the extremists on this forum generate noise with their taunts. Ignore them. If you want to make yourself heard, try to make sense rather than use words as weapons in a war.
I was disappointed that Foxman does not even try to refute the facts relied on by Walt and Mersheimer in support of their foundational claim that American's economic, military and diplomatic generosity to Israel is beyond compare in modern history. Instead, page after page is devoted to anti-Semitism, a word that Foxman is somewhat careless in using and which he seems to define in a way not likely to be found in any respected dictionary. (pages 171-174). The book is also confusing. At page 9 Foxman charges Walt and Mersheimer with writing that American Jews are in a conspiracy to control American foreign policy but Walt and Mersheimer clearly state in their essay that the Lobby is not a conspiracy (page 7), that it includes non-Jews (page 6), that not all Jews agree with the Lobby's positions (page 6) and that it influences, not controls, foreign policy (page 20, 23). This book is worth reading as an aid to evaluating the essay and the subsequently published book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Walt and Mersheimer. Marshall Foreman
