It is like when you are having a debate with someone and then they bring up the Nazis and Hitler. It kills the debate. By labeling books as anti-semitic because they are critical of policy is just an attempt to end the debate.

I wonder, does the book cover the support of Israel as a remnant of Cold War policy or the standard “lone democracy” theory?

But seriously, I think this commenter may have chosen the wrong name for a pseudonym. I have read good and bad reviews of Mearsheimer’s book, and I plan to read the book itself sometime in the near future. However, it is not even close to the truth to say that it is “universally-panned and discredited.” In fact, most of the negative reviews that I have found sound very much like this comment – illogical, uninformed, emotional, and reactionary. I have heard the authors labeled as anti-Semites, but rarely does a critic actually engage them on their factual assertions. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are true, but it certainly does not support the argument that they are widely discredited.

And if you’re so smart, “Smarter than I look,” why did you post your comment on the wrong blog post in the first place, huh?

“universally-panned and discredited”

Really? Well, sir/ma’am, that just isn’t true. True that book has been at the center of debate in the field of international relations, but “universally-panned and discredited” is far from an accurate statement.

“The basic premise of this book is that it is no longer in our interests to stand by Israel because we don’t want to piss off the Arabs, who have lots of oil and pum money into Harvard and University of Chicago where these to shameless scholars hang out and corrupt the young elite studying to enter the foreign service.”

Can you say an appeal to fear and a misrepresentation of the book’s premise? I can, and you did. Your response to Mearsheimer’s book is wholly reactionary and no where in your post here have you used any sort of constructive logic or argumentation.

It’s no longer in our interest to stand by Israel, unconditionally, because it’s hurting us from a geopolitical and moral standpoint, and it serves to weaken our standing in the international arena; it’s especially damaging to our influence in the Middle East. “Just give war a chance.” “Cluster bombs over Beruit.” “Occupation of the Golan Heights.” These sound familiar?

I would bet that you haven’t even read the book. If you did, you would probably rescind on comments like “the basic premise of this book is that it is no longer in our interest to stand by Israel because we don’t want to piss off the Arabs.”

So, who am I? I am a student with an open-mind. I am not some some Arab funded disinformation tool, as you seem to imply. I invite you to follow that “trail of deception and money.” If it winds up leading back to me, will you kindly tell me where the money’s at? I sure could use some.

So who is S C Denny and why would anyone think he an authority to review this universally-panned and discredited book which has become a tool of anti-Israel forces? The basic premise of this book is that it is no longer in our interests to stand by Israel because we don’t want to piss off the Arabs, who have lots of oil and pum money into Harvard and University of Chicago where these to shameless scholars hang out and corrupt the young elite studying to enter the foreign service. Could SC Denny be on the same payroll. Follow the trail of deception and money. It always leads to people with a desire to rid the world of Israel.