Justin Raimondo quotes Iraq-war-supporter Jonathan Chait and offers a one-line comment:
"Taken to extremes, realism's blindness to morality can lead it wildly astray.
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, both staunch realists, wrote 'The Israel
Lobby,' a hyperbolic attack on Zionist political influence. The central error
of their thesis was that, since America's alliance with Israel does not advance
American interests, it could be explained only by sinister lobbying influence.
They seemed unable to grasp even the possibility that Americans, rightly or
wrongly, have an affinity for a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile
dictatorships. Consider, perhaps, if eunuchs tried to explain the way teenage
boys act around girls."
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, both staunch realists, wrote 'The Israel
Lobby,' a hyperbolic attack on Zionist political influence. The central error
of their thesis was that, since America's alliance with Israel does not advance
American interests, it could be explained only by sinister lobbying influence.
They seemed unable to grasp even the possibility that Americans, rightly or
wrongly, have an affinity for a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile
dictatorships. Consider, perhaps, if eunuchs tried to explain the way teenage
boys act around girls."
Putting Israel first is as natural as heterosexuality–but only if you work
for Marty Peretz.
Here's what I find significant about Chait's statement, apart from my feminist headline: You will notice that the New Republic has retreated from its party line of a year and so back that the authors of the Israel Lobby are antisemitic. Chait isn't going near that. And why not? Because the Israel Lobby's realist message is moving deeper and deeper into the heartland of the discourse. As neocon John Hannah said at WINEP today, Realism is now in vogue in Washington. Yes, thanks to the neocons and the New Republic.
