How do you propose to guarantee ‘a decisive Israeli (Western) military victory’ without even more ethnic cleansing, expansionism and suppression of the incumbent and surrounding indigenous populations? Israel has more than enough existing military capability and US backing to achieve this dubious (temporary) end if required, but the evidence of Iraq, Chechnya, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, several African states or wherever you care to look - Israel/Palestine itself, for that matter - is that ‘overwhelming’ military supremacy only leads to years of insurgency and guerilla warfare.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for Israel and respect its right to exist, but not as an indiscriminate cypher for ill-informed, partisan and bellicose western (US) interests. I agree that it would be better for all parties to reach an accommodation, but economic blockades, concentration camps and brutal incursions are unlikely to build bridges. The root causes of the intifada are poverty, despair and injustice, out of which it is easy to fan the flames of bigotry and fanaticism. The Middle East needs a Marshall Plan, not yet another Blitzkrieg. And that’s why it needs a liberal Israel lobby, not AIPAC.

-The author assumes the “Palestinians” want a state. On what is he basing this? Their four rejections of statehood in the past century seems to indicate that they consider the idea of national independence truly horrifying, and place a much higher premium on simply destroying Israel. If he’s betting on Palestinian national sentiment to outweigh their quest for vengance, he’s going to lose his bet.

-As the author mentions, liberal Jews tend to identify with domestic concerns. In other words, they have assimilated into the host country. Most Jews are left, but because leftism is basically multicultural nihilism. Only right wingers care enough to get involved. Every year about 2,500 Jews move from the U.S. to Israel. I can count the left-wingers among them on one hand.

-Like most policy ignoramuses, he confuses our actions, the Jewish nationalists, with those of the Israeli government. Exposing the amount of funding going to the settlements would simply illustrate the fact that the settlements, despite the Israeli government’s strangulation policy of the last decade, can grow quite briskly without massive infusions of cash.

I think Gorenberg is aware that withdrawing causes short-term insecurity for Israel (he explicitly says that AIPAC is concerned primarily with such short-term goals), but he also thinks (like myself) that the long-term interests of Israel are helped by not occupying Gaza/West-Bank etc.

Additionally, as a 21st century liberal its traditional to view the colonization of other people’s land as inherently illiberal, and something that shouldn’t be encouraged/protected by roads and checkpoints.

It’d need precisely that, with a sizeable dollop of additional magical thinking. Israel comprises dar ul-harb (the house of war) within what is believed by Muslims to be dar ul-islam, and Muslims are enjoined by sharia law never to cease fighting until they have recaptured what they believe to be Muslim land.

I believe that Israel is dangerously compromised by her unrealistic approach to this. Given the aove, she will never have a lasting peace with her neighbours; the best she can hope for are periods of non-belligerency and those only because her Arab neighbours are not strong enough to attack her, and the sooner she realises that her only recourse is to defend herself with all her might, militarily and in the media, the more chance she has to survive.

I like to say that Israel is the only country on earth that I would actually fight a war for. I would be happy to be killed in defending the country. Mine, I can live without.

Yet, I hate the Israeli’s policies as they self-perpetuate the problems. Yes, the P’s want to go back to “home,” which cannot happen as it would end Israel as it is, as it needs to be. Yes, peace is the only way — and that does mean negotiations and sacrifices.

Yet again, I cannot fathom Israel giving up Jerusalem by splitting it into two.

Lastly, I’d like to read how Jews got lumped together with the neo-cons. Like any group, they have those that believe X, but that hardly shows support (as a group). Rather I say that neo-cons find Israel interesting as a playing ground for their ideas (e.g. aggressions).

I think the fact you have to cite an issue from 27 years ago suggests that AIPAC gets its way pretty darn often. You need to come up with some more issues where AIPAC doesn’t get its way to convince me of your point.

How about an article on whether their are similar lobbies for other countries and whether they are as influential as AIPAC? It would be a pretty short article I suppose since the answer is NO.