A lot of people, some but not all former lurkers, are posting effectively useless stuff just to help make that artificial quota.

And in that vein, I just read the (83 page) paper on “The Lobby” written by Mearsheimer (Chicago) and Walt (Harvard). You can get the full pdf from JFK School of Government, and read an abridged version on the London Review of Books site.
Very readable, extensively footnoted, history of the Israeli lobby’s configuration and activities in the USA. No doubt moral value judgements will vary, but I appreciated the information as it seems to be hard to come by. At the risk of being labelled forever an “anti-Semite” I believe it sheds some badly needed light on US government actions in the Middle East.
I see this is over a week old, apologies if it’s been covered elsewhere but it didn’t turn up on the MoA google.

U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration’s attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.
The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.
This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.
Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.
In the pages that follow, we describe how the Lobby has accomplished this feat, and how its activities have shaped America’s actions in this critical region. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East and its potential impact on others, both Americans and non‐Americans need to understand and address the Lobby’s influence on U.S. policy.
Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars. Indeed, our account relies heavily on the work of Israeli scholars and journalists, who deserve great credit for shedding light on these issues. We also rely on evidence provided by respected Israeli and international human rights organizations. Similarly, our claims about the Lobby’s impact rely on testimony from the Lobby’s own members, as well as testimony from politicians who have worked with them. Readers may reject our conclusions, of course, but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial.

Posted by: PeeDee | Mar 29 2006 22:43 utc | 3

Oops, just caught up with the discussion in another thread. “M-W” vs “Chomsky”. Still a great read.

Posted by: PeeDee | Mar 29 2006 23:01 utc | 5

I’m a reader, not a writer so I post “useless stuff”. :/

Posted by: beq | Mar 30 2006 0:31 utc | 7

well annie, you definitely say it better than I.

Posted by: beq | Mar 30 2006 1:58 utc | 9

fyi (pee dee)An “Alliance” of Violence�By Dahr Jamail

A disturbing trend noticeable in Iraq for quite some time now is that each aggressive Israeli military operation in the occupied territories results in a corresponding increase in the number of attacks on US forces in Iraq. One of the first instances of this was the assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in March 2004 and the reaction it set off across Shia and Sunni, ultimately spiraling into the siege and devastation of Fallujah. Fallujah isbut one example one may use to demonstrate how the ongoing use of heavy handed tactics by the US-Israel alliance is proving to be as suicidal as it is homicidal. US troops in Iraq and Israeli civilians in their homes can bear testimony to this, as they are the ones who bear the brunt. Not to mention the collateral damage in Iraq.
clip
����”One step the Pentagon took was to seek active and secret help in the war against the Iraqi insurgency from Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East,” wrote Seymor Hersh in the New Yorker in December, 2003, “According to American and Israeli military and intelligence officials, Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with their American counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and in Israel to help them prepare for operations in iraq.” Israeli commandos are expected to serve as ad-hoc advisers – again, in secret – when full-field operations begin. Neither the Pentagon nor Israeli diplomats would comment. “No one wants to talk about this,” an Israeli official told me. “It’s incendiary. Both governments have decided at the highest level that it is in their interests to keep a low profile on US-Israeli cooperation” on Iraq.)” Hersh also told the BBC that his sources had confirmed the presence of Israeli intelligence personnel operating inside Iraq.

Posted by: annie | Mar 30 2006 2:06 utc | 11

I like the idea of subtitling the open threads because I frequently run back through the old ones to find sources/links/arguments et cetera. I can generally remember which month a thing got tossed around in, but I often have to slog through a number of indistinguishable archives before I can find what I’m looking for.
I also think subtitles are cute and lighten the mood a tiny bit, especially when the bulk of what we are discussing are somber, frustrating and inhuman. I love this place, but we do tend to oscillate between angry and funereal… a little snark might help with the feng shui.
That said, I haven’t (yet) posted in the new, subtitled open thread because I didn’t think I had anything valuable (yet) to contribute to it. I also never bought an issue of that National Lampoon where they threatened to shoot a dog on the cover… this is probably going to adversely affect my karma.

Posted by: Monolycus | Mar 30 2006 2:43 utc | 13

congrats on the show, annie! i know it’s been a struggle, glad to hear it’s in the can (filmspeak for finished shooting).
also want to say that i agree about substance over quantity. it is nice to come here and see folks you’ve come to “know”. it is even better when i learn from the conversations. i must admit i do miss some of the earlier posters – deanander, colman, fran, jerome, outrage, debs, alabama, stoy, flash harry, helpful spook – but i love some of the newer folks – malooga, monocyclus, ralphieboy. however, what made me stop reading moa for awhile was when billmon was linking and there were soooooo many people commenting. it was impossible to read all of the comments and keep up with other regular reading so i stopped. so what’s my point? i came back because the people who write here do it so well and with heart. i read kos daily and get my us-centric news there. the diaries have gotten better over the last 6 months, but the comments don’t come anywhere near to moa. fortunately, now that they have redone aspects of the site i can look through them more easily and decide which are most likely worth opening and reading. anyway, b, just wanted to say that i would prefer modest sized threads to endless ones. i just don’t have the time to read everything never mind put together a decent post.
off topic, but does anyone know what happened to debs is dead?

Posted by: conchita | Mar 30 2006 4:07 utc | 15

I am not an American and I don’t even live in America and here I assume most of the people are Americans and most of the topics are about America. Now because of America being a world bully I am interested what’s going on in and around USA but not to that great detail. So forgive me for not being able to contribute a lot. As I live in an USA dominion (Australia) I obviously have to be informed of what’s going on there…What ever goes on there will definitely come here…

Posted by: vbo | Mar 30 2006 10:45 utc | 17

Vicious- what unearned hubris for you to state that lurkers who introduce themselves are posting “effectively useless stuff.”
I find it really interesting to read posts from ppl who have been here for a while, or who just show up, and introduce themselves. I may not reply to them or lots of posts, but it doesn’t mean I don’t like to read them. I would hope the assumption would always be that people are welcome to post here and there are no monitors to determine who is or is not allowed to speak out.
what is useless? is a painting useless? I much prefer the art work of ppl from this site to cat blogging, esp. since I have three of my own. But let me share that one is only a few months old and was found in a recycling bin beside a dumpster. This cat became very ill, almost died from abandonment/a viral infection and I had to take her to get a shot to hydrate her body when sores in her mouth made it too painful to eat. I’ve been feeding her with a syringe and special food. oops. useless.
But I say that because it’s one reason I do not take much time to post and link to other sites, so my cat incident is useless — except to say to b that my life is pretty hectic right now and at least until May.
but I wish bernard well and I come by to read as much as I can.
B- why this focus on numbers? Or is the focus on numbers a worry that ppl will not or do not post here because they are intimidated by dismissive remarks? As when Billmon was so attacked when he met with Juan Cole? He was suddenly persona non grata to ppl who could find nothing but criticism for Cole because he was not ideologically pure in the decision to go to war with Iraq?
I could post about sorting letters from someone who wrote to his wife in 1895 and always signed his full name, while his wife simply used her first name. He was writing for posterity. He even signed his full name in letters to his mother. The women were writing as family. This man, tho, created one of the most important venues for writers in the early 1900s, and helped change the course of history. However, I’m only viewing these letters because I’m looking for letters from other ppl.
–work is taking up most of my time now, when I’m not dealing with kid stuff. I have a student from France coming to live with me for a bit, so that’s another time consumer. I could post about research, but that seems to be more fitting for the speakeasy.
sometimes as I go about my day to day, I think that people who are considered history are only a small part of life, and so many other parts of life are ignored. people with political convictions, who see an inevitability to come are so often wrong, in hindsight.
“the rich get richer and the poor get…children.” was the old tune. now it could be “the rich get reality shows and the poor get a greater disparity but they don’t seem to care because darwinian capitalism is now synonymous with Christ for too many Americans.
…in the meantime, in between time…ain’t we got fun.” :/

Posted by: fauxreal | Mar 30 2006 13:16 utc | 19

I feel that you owe us a longer, considered response to all our comments about the future here at “Moon.” People took the time to think about and post their ideas — some in favor of more decentralization — about how to continue the experiment, or even improve upon it. It all seemed to fall into the deep silence of a virgin snowbank. Please share some of your thoughts to our responses. Nothing is written in stone (especially in cyberspace). How is your thinking evolving? Tell us, please.
I thought I did so here . Despite some talk, nobody did send something to post yet (beq did send a picture – big thanks!).
I am looking into building a “Scoop” site where people could post diaries like Booman and DKos, but with much less functionality (i.e. no comment rating etc.).
Other than that, not much thinking yet…

Posted by: b | Mar 30 2006 16:19 utc | 21

I have been changed here, for sure. I began as a bruno bauerian left hegeliasm, journeyed through the dark glass of vulgar marxism, and am now a reformed fellow traveller, travelling to where I’m not sure; but fine intentions paving a path to heaven.
I listened to 5 moody blues records today. they suck, but I’m feeling especially epiphanic. “I’m a melancholy man, that’s a what I am…”
soundtrack for a feingold presidency

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 30 2006 17:25 utc | 23

Love the useless stuff 🙂
Really, this would not be what it is without the bits and pieces of personal experience. After all personal experience and communication of it is what underpins any reasonably certain picture of the world.
And I do think that subtitles not only are useful in order to find old stuff but matter when it comes to start open threads. It is some sort of psychology thingy. When there is nothing it can be hard to start (a lot of writers and students with papers to hand in tlak about the mocking blinking cursor on the empty electronic sheet).
r’giap
that reminds me when you were impersonated (but that was not slothrop, was it?). Anyway it was a good impersonation but not good enough, one or two sentences into it I could tell “this is someone impersonating r’giap”.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Mar 30 2006 18:39 utc | 25

@slothrop
I worked like a slave for years
Sweat so hard just to end my fears
Not to end my life a poor man
But by now, I know I should have run

Posted by: b real | Mar 30 2006 19:19 utc | 27

@fauxreal:

Actually, I was referring to all the posts which were, in one form or another, “me too”. They’ve become a lot more common recently, and they clutter up the page while contributing nothing, and they started showing up when b said he thought there wasn’t enough traffic.

What’s wrong with lurking? I don’t post very often here precisely because I don’t think I’m qualified to comment most of the time. I read a lot more than I write. (Here, at least.) This idea that this place will be more worthwhile if the numbers go up is mildly insulting — it’s a suggestion that it’s more valid to talk when you know nothing than to sit back and learn.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Mar 30 2006 21:29 utc | 29

slothrop,
My favorite american soliloquy go to play her songs, Infamous Angel, Our Town. Should be the National Anthem.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 31 2006 5:04 utc | 31