Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:

1. It's the Lobby's Fault -The Case against Mearsheimer & Walt
2. The appealing Faith of Islam - Conversion at Gunpoint
3. Nasrallah's Surprise - He didn't think they would fight back

Download
Subscribe
Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes

It's the Lobby's Fault - The Case of Mearsheimer-Walt

Two representatives of the Kennedy School of Government have made a case that the "Israeli lobby" in America have caused our policy towards Israel have been bad for America and bad for Israel. As Little Green Footballs noticed, and described in a press release:

On Monday, August 28, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will host a panel discussion on "The Israel Lobby and the U.S. Response to the War in Lebanon" at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The panel will feature Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of a recent Harvard University paper titled "The Israel Lobby."

In that paper, the authors stated: "Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country -- in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical.

Thanks to C-SPAN we have the audio, and Vital Perspectives we have the transcript. First I will play Mr. Mearsheimer's conclusion. It follows two straw man arguments:

1. American public opinion requires their government support Israel at all costs because American public opinion is pro-Israel
2. Israel is our client state

He then shoots down those carefully constructed straw men arguments by saying essentially that it is the Lobby's fault. They made Bush do it. Here are his concluding remarks at the end of his description of the flaws in those two points.

Play clip.

Dana Milbank attended the press conference, and wrote about it. He focused on the author's attention to all the Jewish members of the Bush administration, as if to help explain the rationale as a racial cabal. Powerline Blog pointed to Milbank's article as an example of "Hatin' at the Hater's Ball':

the Washington Post's Dana Milbank noticed a certain thematic unity to the event:

Walt singled out two Jews who worked at the Pentagon for their pro-Israel views. "People like Paul Wolfowitz or Doug Feith . . . advocate policies they think are good for Israel and the United States alike," he said. "We don't think there's anything wrong with that, but we also don't think there's anything wrong for others to point out that these individuals do have attachments that shape how they think about the Middle East."

"Attachments" sounds much better than "dual loyalties." But why single out Wolfowitz and Feith and not their non-Jewish boss, Donald Rumsfeld?

As Glenn Reynolds commented:

MEARSHEIMER AND WALT: Idiots, or anti-semites?
Do I have to choose?

I'm going to play two of the questions and the author's answers to get a better idea of how idiotic their anti-Semitism is:

Play clip.

So we have the old proportionality argument:

So they should have had very limited goals, rhetorically. They should have given Hezbollah a sharp rap, and that should have been the end of it.

I categorically reject the notion that a "sharp rap" would have a positive effect on Hezbollah. This is wrong on so many levels. First, it assumes that the aggressive response of Israel, preplanned or not, failed to help Israel's interests. In fact has raised the cost of Hezbollah's aggression to the level of nation-destroying. If this terrorist group ever attacks Israel again, Israel will destroy Lebanon, again. Second, it claims that these actions are against American interests. I say that we must attack these evil actors on their own soil before they attack us on ours. Worrying about world opinion, or terrorist responses is far less important that taking them out and killing them. Walt and Mersheimer, masquerading as scholars, are simply playing into the hands of the terrorist apologists at the Council of American Islamic Relations, or CAIR. As Charles Johnson concludes, at Little Green Footballs:

Indeed. But Walt and Mearsheimer weren’t really playing to the scholarly audience:

When the two professors finished, they were besieged by autograph- and photo-seekers and Arab television correspondents. Walt could be heard telling one that if an American criticizes Israel, “it might have some economic consequences for your business.”

Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming “Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby.”

“I like it,” he said, beaming.

The Appealing Faith of Islam

Brit Hume has a terrific description of the enemy we face, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Here is a clip from the discussion between Brit Hume, Juan Williams, Bill Kristol, and Nina Easton. Juan starts off with a discussion of the kidnappers suddenly saying that the U.S. is the target now. I wonder what 9-11 was all about? Brit disabuses Juan of that notion, in brilliant fashion. Thanks to the Fox News Sunday Podcast for the audio.

Play clip.

Juan Williams excuses the terrorists as oppressed, and therefore off the hook for their indisputable villiany. And Nina Easton refers to a rise in unemployment? Is she saying that if a Palestinian can't get a job, that makes kidnapping morally justified? Please!

Nasrallah's Surprise - He didn't think they would fight back

Many have said that Israel lost the Lebanon conflict. True, they failed to take out Hezbollah. Perhaps their disarmament will have to come another day. Many compare the conflict to the first Gulf war, in which the coalition left Sadam in power in Iraq. He was able to claim victory and proceeded to cause all kinds of trouble for a decade before crawling out of his hole in 2003. There is some truth to that sentiment. But one also has to realize that Hezbollah grossly miscalculated when they invaded Israel last month. And you have to also admit that they now realize that they will do so again only at a terrible price to the Lebanese. The tenuous cease fire we have now probably owes much to the fear that Israel will respond overwhelmingly next time. It's going to hurt! Here is a clip of Nasrallah admitting that he was surprised by the Israeli response. Thanks to CNN for the audio.

Play clip.

Claude Salhan of UPI described this apology this way:

It's a rare event when a leader in the Arab world openly admits to having been wrong. And it's even rarer when that leader goes on international television to confess his mistakes. Blunders in this part of the world have a tendency to be blamed on others, and usually with dire consequences for the ones being blamed. But strange things sometimes happen in the Middle East. This one counts among them.

Israeli officials in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv said that Nasrallah's admission shows that he realizes he did not win the war. Another official said this was proof that Israel had regained its deterrence. "Had he known what the consequences would have been, he wouldn't have kidnapped the soldiers," Israeli officials are saying. This "indicates Israel has dissuaded him from doing it again."

We can only hope.