101 U.S., Israel Move To Keep Goldstone Report From Going to Security Council

(1) Brzezinski threatens Israel;  'softened' UN report (Goldstone) on Gaza
(2) U.S., Israel Move To Keep Goldstone Report From Going to Security Council
(3) Brazilian Parliament Calls for the Freeze of the Israel - Mercosur Free Trade Agreement
(4) UN Body Urges Israel to Allow Nuclear Inspection
(5) Jacob Zuma attends conference of South African Jewish Board of Deputies
(6) Egypt delivers 135 tons medical aid to Gaza via Rafah
(7) Israel Has 'Stranglehold' on Washington, Says Ex-Congressman Traficant
(8) Obama tells Israel Lobby "We had eight years of no daylight"

(1) Brzezinski threatens Israel;  'softened' UN report (Goldstone) on Gaza

From: leo schmit <leoschmit@yahoo.com> Date: 23.09.2009 05:31 AM

I don't think Brzezinski is in a position of threatening Israel which is well protected by the inner circles within Obama's court.

Re the 'softened' and 'belated' UN report (Goldstone) on Gaza. Although softened Falk may be right to expect some impact, but I doubt it.

The balanced blame on both sides is a sick joke, too obvious to be taken serious. Much more serious is the downplaying of the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by IDF under command of Barah, Livni and Olmert. And calling this a military operation (see chapter in the Goldstone report) while it was an assault on 300 cadets of the policy (not military) which came from the sky followed by 22 days of mayhem which even some IDF soldiers' are ashamed of.
  
Goldstone refers to: '‘serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity’.

What are 'possible' war crimes and crimes against humanity? By using the word 'possible' the report raises doubt whether these crimes were committed. Actually there are standards for defining these crimes according to international law. If the Fact Finding Mission considers that these standards are being met the word 'possible' should not be used. If the Mission finds that these standards are not being met the word 'possible' and indeed the terms 'war crimes and crimes against humanity' should not have been used.   

I have already shared the following piece on an earlier occasion.  But in view of the Goldstone report let's consider once more the views of another fact Finding Mission of six international lawyers that was commissioned in April by the League of Arab Nations and chaired by Professor John Dugard ( South Africa) with members Professor Paul de Waart ( Netherlands ), Judge Finn Lynghjem ( Norway ), Advocate Gonzalo Boye (Chile/Germany), Professor Francisco Corte-Real ( Portugal : forensic body damage evaluator) and Ms Raelene Sharp, solicitor ( Australia : Rapporteur). .

See:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/05/09/nyheter/utenriks/gaza/krigen_i_gaza/hamas/6123837/

"The conclusion of the Committee is that there is evidence that Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 22 days assault on Gaza .  The Committee has also considered the case whether Israel has committed genocide (‘folkemord’) and says that, if this (the destruction of the Palestine people as a group) was not explicitly the purpose of the Israeli leaders, this may have been the case for individual members of the Israeli army. Judge Lyngheim points to the incredible high number of small children and specifically girls who have been slaughtered with the possible purpose of preventing them to raise new generations."

“I was struck by the high number of children who were killed on purpose (‘med hensikt’). According to Palestine sources among the 1400 who lost their lives there were 850 civilians, of which 300 children and 110 women. This could not have a military purpose other than aiming to weaken popular support for Hamas and terrorizing the people into submission, says Lyngheim. Children of 3 – 4 months old and many girls were murdered. That is not done to achieve military goals. That is the way to destroy future generations. These were future Palestine mothers”.

You can read the entire 254 pages report at http://www.dagbladet.no/download/israelpdf.pdf

... So let's hope Falk is right and that this will be taken further to the International Criminal Court so that the perpetrators of these crimes will no longer travel with impunity outside Israel.

(2) U.S., Israel Move To Keep Goldstone Report From Going to Security Council

From: UmmY <ummyakoub@yahoo.com> Date: 24.09.2009 03:25 PM

U.S., Israel Move To Keep Goldstone Report From Going to Security Council

By Nathan Guttman
September 23, 2009.
http://forward.com/articles/114867/

Israeli and American diplomats came to the United Nations not to praise the Goldstone Report, but to bury it. And unlike Marc Antony in his eulogy for Julius Caesar, they meant it.

As a result of their efforts, it appears all but certain that the report accusing Israel and the Palestinian faction Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity will not reach any binding international forums.

The report, released September 15, caused a huge initial international stir, not only because of its findings — the bulk of them focusing on Israel — but also because of its ultimate recommendation: that the United Nations Security Council, which has binding power under international law, require Israel and Hamas, which controls Gaza, to conduct their own respective independent investigations of the evidence of human rights violations cited in the report. If they do not do so within six months, the report urged the Security Council to refer their cases to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

But in the days following the release of Goldstone's report, it became clear that in the arm-wrestling contest between international rights organizations and the established Israeli-American diplomatic bond, the latter wins easily.

The 574-page report, commissioned by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, was overseen by Judge Richard Goldstone, a widely respected South African jurist who had served on his country's highest court and gone on to prosecute war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The report scrutinized the events of the December 2008 Operation Cast Lead, in which Israel bombarded Gaza from the air and ground in response to the continued firing of rockets by Hamas militants at Israeli towns.

Estimates of Palestinian dead from the campaign range from 1,166 to 1,417. The number of non-combatants among them remains in sharp dispute, running from 300 (Israel's estimate) to nearly 1,000 (Hamas'). An estimated 4,000 Palestinian homes were destroyed. Thirteen Israelis were killed during the conflict.

Israel cited the council's one-sided condemnation of it in the council's resolution commissioning the report and refused to cooperate with the investigation. It blocked Goldstone from entering Israel to pursue his probe, though Goldstone had secured the backing of the council's president to expand his mandate to scrutinize Hamas, as well. The Goldstone Commission was thus unable to examine Israeli homes hit by the rockets. And it could not interview Israelis injured by them, but for a few who traveled to Geneva at the Human Rights Council's expense to testify.

Although the report raised serious accusations against Hamas, the Palestinian faction ruling Gaza, Israel and its supporters condemned it as anti-Israel, citing its lengthier and more detailed accounts of alleged Israeli human rights violations and its use of the terms "war crimes" and "possible crimes against humanity" to describe Israeli actions. Jerusalem was especially worried about the report's recommendation to refer the issue to the International Criminal Court if Israel refused to launch an independent investigation of its own.

The report's defenders countered that Israel's complaint was a case of a child murdering his parents and then seeking special consideration as an orphan. The scantier scrutiny of Hamas's misdeeds was hardly surprising, they argued, given Israel's decision to deny the investigators access to the scene of Hamas's crimes, or to its victims.

Israel's drive to counter the report began moments after Goldstone's presentation of it. Israeli leaders took to the airways and blasted the report as biased. They also made reference to an earlier document prepared by the Israeli foreign ministry, which counters some of the points made by Goldstone.

On the diplomatic front, Israeli officials in Washington, New York and Jerusalem pressed Israel's key goal with their American counterparts: to quarantine the report within the confines of the council and ensure that it is not picked up by other international forums. Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, was on an official Washington visit and met with Susan Rice, American ambassador to the U.N., and raised the issue with her, as well.

The argument that Israel presented to American officials and to diplomats from Russia and key European countries was designed to appeal to their own self-interest. The Goldstone report, Israeli officials asserted, carries a hidden danger for all countries participating in international military campaigns against terrorism. Supporters of Israel pointed out that the United States military, for one, had killed many civilians during its military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is a report that should worry every country fighting terror," said Jonathan Peled, spokesman of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. "We need to make sure this report does not endanger the U.S. and other countries."

Ayalon urged American Jewish leaders to take on the report. Most major Jewish groups issued statements condemning Goldstone's findings and calling on the international community to look at the Israeli military's inquiry into its Gaza operation. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee called the report "deeply flawed" and said that Goldstone's investigation was rigged.

Key supporters of Israel in Congress also lashed out at the council. New York Democrat Gary Ackerman, chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, fumed that the report's authors lived in a "self-righteous fantasyland."

Some Israeli officials went after Goldstone. Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz denounced him as an "anti-Semite."

"Just as a non-Jew can be anti-Semitic, a Jew can also be anti-Semitic and discriminate against our people and despise and hate our people," he told the New York paper The Jewish Week.

Goldstone has a long history of support for Israel that includes his current service on the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's board of governors.

But despite mounting pressure from Israel and its supporters in the United States, the administration took its time in making a clear statement on the report. A State Department spokesman initially said that because of the report's length, he had no immediate comment.

This made some pro-Israel activists edgy. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said two days after the release of the findings that he was "shocked and distressed" that the United States had yet to come out unequivocally against the report.

But by September 18, three days after their release, the State Department was ready to declare Goldstone's findings unfair toward Israel — citing the lack of equal scrutiny stressed by others. Notably, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly did not challenge any of the report's specific findings of human rights violations by Israel or Hamas. "While the report makes overly sweeping conclusions of fact and law with respect to Israel, its conclusions regarding Hamas's deplorable conduct and its failure to comply with international humanitarian law during the conflict are more general and tentative," he said.

Kelly also made clear that the United States believes the only venue for discussing Goldstone's report is only within the council. The administration has "very serious concerns" about the attempts to take up the issue at other international bodies, he said.

Goldstone's report was published just as the United States began its term as a member of the Human Rights Council. Administration officials said the Goldstone report demonstrated the need for the United States to sit on the council and make sure Israel is treated fairly.

While condemnation in the council is unavoidable, after their consultations with the Americans, Israeli officials were confident that the United States would easily prevent the issue from being raised at the Security Council, even without using its veto power.

Still, Jewish groups and pro-Israel activists stressed that it remained important to fight the Goldstone report in the public arena to ensure that its findings are not adopted as world public opinion.

That fear could only be reinforced by the assessment of international law expert Richard Falk, a Princeton University professor, strong critic of Israel and earlier UN appointee charged with investigating allegations of Israeli war crimes.

Falk cited the report's likely impact on "the symbols of legitimacy, what I have called the legitimacy war" between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Increasingly," he wrote on the website Mideast Online, "The Palestinians have been winning this second non-military war."

Falk predicted the report would mean gains for the international movement to boycott Israel and fray Israel's Jewish support, as well. "The weight of the report will be felt by world public opinion," he predicted.

Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com

(3) Brazilian Parliament Calls for the Freeze of the Israel - Mercosur Free Trade Agreement

From: Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date:  23.09.2009 02:53 PM

Palestine Monitor
http://palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1072

The Brazilian Parliamentary Commission on Foreign Relations and National Defense has recommended that the parliament should not ratify the Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) between Mercosur and the State of Israel until "Israel accepts the creation of the Palestinian state on the 1967 borders". This decision is an explicit act of pressure on Israel to comply with international law, and a rejection of years of incessant Israeli lobbying, pressuring for a vote to ratify the agreement.

This decision is an enormous blow for Israel's economy and foreign relations. It poses a massive stumbling block for the enactment of the agreement, which since its signing in 2007, has been stalled due to a lack of ratification by Mercosur member countries. The Mercosur is one of the world's most quickly expanding markets and the fifth largest economy in the world. Israeli exports to the Mercosur amounted nearly 600 million dollars in 2006.

Israel has invested heavily in pushing for the agreement, focusing particularly on Brazil, the Mercosur's largest economy and most powerful political player. Brazil alone, even without an FTA, is Israel's third largest export destination. In 2005, Ehud Olmert, the trade minister at the time, visited Brazil to get President Lula's support for the agreement. A little over a month ago, Israeli minister of foreign affairs, Avigdor Liberman traveled to Brazil to urge the ratification of the agreement.

Since the beginning of the negotiations of the FTA, Mercosur civil society summits have rejected the trade deal. On behalf of the Palestinian National BDS Committee (BNC), the Palestinian Grassroots Anti- Apartheid Wall Campaign has worked together with Brazilian intellectuals, social movements, parties and politicians to block the ratification of the FTA. The Front for the Defense of the Palestinian people and the Parliamentary Front against the ratification of the FTA were formed to back the Palestinian call against the FTA. In January a letter by the BNC was handed over to President Lula.

Oscar Daniel Jadue, vice-president of the Palestinian Federation of Chile, intervened and called for the rejection of the bill. He argued that the ratification of the agreement is a violation of international law, to the benefit of a country that does not respect the human rights of Palestinians.

"I invite reflection on what would reward the government of Israel and opens of the Latin American market to a country that annihilates the Palestinian people", said Jadue.

Arlene Clemesha, professor of Arab History at the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and part of the United Nations Coordinating Network on Palestine, argued against the tokenism of ratifying the agreement with the exclusion of settlement products, warning that it is impossible to separate the two as Israel has a history of marketing settlement products as Israeli ones. Instead, she said, the path to peace requires international forces to compel Israel to end the military occupation of Palestinian territory.

The members of the parliamentary commission agreed with Clemesha and Jadue and recommended the freezing of the agreement as a means of political pressure.

"It will be a small contribution, but be specific. The agreement can only be valid if approved by the Mercosur countries. As Uruguay has already approved, we will work with Argentina and Paraguay. The Lula government has been courageous and it has to say publicly that the agreement is frozen until the resumption of peace negotiations", said Mr Nilson Mourao (PT-AC).

Jamal Juma', coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign comments:

"After years of campaigning, we are extremely happy with this decision. It is a major victory that has been made possible only by large and determined civil society support in Brazil.

This decision has shown that Latin America's democratic governments are allies for justice and are ready to take up a principled stand on Palestine, even when under Israeli pressure. Lieberman's delegation tried to lure Brazil with the illusion they could become `mediators' in the region if they would proof `impartial' and backed Israeli interests with the FTA.However, Brazilian politicians did not fall into the trap.We now ask the PLO and the Palestinian National Authority to ensure that the `No' to the FTA will be a priority for their regional foreign policies."

The struggle against the FTA is not over yet; the project will still be analyzed by the commissions on Economic Development and Trade and Industry, and the parliament. It will then head to the senate. However, yesterday's decision is unlikely to be reversed and has turned the ratification process of the FTA by Brazil and other Mercosur into an effective instrument of pressure on Israel.

(4) UN Body Urges Israel to Allow Nuclear Inspection

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org>  Date: 24.09.2009 03:40 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115650.html

Last update - 04:50 19/09/2009 

By Reuters

Arab states in the United Nations nuclear assembly on Friday won narrow approval of a resolution urging Israel to put all its atomic sites under the world body's inspection and join the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Israel deplored the measure for singling it out while many of its neighbors remained hostile to its existence, and said it would not cooperate with it.

The non-binding resolution, which passed for the first time in 18 years of attempts thanks to more developing nation votes, voiced concern about "Israeli nuclear capabilities" and urged the International Atomic Energy Agency to tackle the issue.

Israel is one of only three countries worldwide along with India and Pakistan outside the nuclear NPT and is widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied this.

Iranian Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, whose country's disputed nuclear program is under IAEA investigation, told reporters Friday's vote was a "glorious moment" and "a triumph for the oppressed nation of Palestine".

UN Security Council members Russia and China also backed the resolution, which passed by 49 votes to 45 against in a floor vote at the IAEA's annual member states conference.

The vote split along Western and developing nation lines. There were 16 abstentions.

"Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region," chief Israeli delegate David Danieli told the chamber.

Western states said it was unfair and counterproductive to isolate one member state. They said an IAEA resolution passed on Thursday, urging all Middle East nations to foreswear atomic bombs, included Israel and made Friday's proposal unnecessary.

Arab nations said Israel had brought the resolution on itself by having never signed the 40-year-old NPT.

Before the vote, U.S. Ambassador Glyn Davies said the resolution was "redundant ... Such an approach is highly politicized and does not address the complexities at play regarding crucial nuclear-related issues in the Middle East."

Calling the resolution "unbalanced", Canada tried to block a vote on the floor with a "no-action motion". But the procedural maneuver lost by an eight-vote margin. The same motion prevailed in 2007 and 2008.

A senior diplomat from the non-aligned movement of developing nations said times had changed.

"People and countries are bolder now, willing to call a spade a spade. You cannot hide or ignore the truth, the double standards, of Israel's nuclear capability forever," he said.

"The new U.S. [Obama] administration has certainly helped this thinking with its commitment to universal nuclear disarmament and nuclear weapons-free zones," they said.

The measure was last voted on in 1991 when it passed by 39-31 with 13 abstentions when IAEA membership was much smaller.

Since then there have only been official summaries of debate on this item or successful motions for adjournment or no action.

(5) Jacob Zuma attends conference of South African Jewish Board of Deputies

From: Kristoffer Larsson <kristoffer.larsson@sobernet.nu> Date:  22.09.2009 06:25 PM

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15413

03:34 09/10/2009

An Open letter to Mr. Jacob Zuma, President of South Africa

People in Johannesburg March in Solidarity with Palestine.

By Dr. Haidar Eid - Gaza

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing to express my dismay and disappointment with both your attendance at the national conference of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. ...

(6) Egypt delivers 135 tons medical aid to Gaza via Rafah

From: UmmY <ummyakoub@yahoo.com>  Date: 22.09.2009 09:27 AM

17/09/2009
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=226430

Bethlehem - Ma'an/Agencies - A shipment of medical supplies from the Egyptian Red Crescent arrived at the Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip Tuesday, and was sent through the following day, Egyptian government sources reported.

According to officials at the North Sinai Governorate Ahmed Kamel, 135 tons of medicine plus renal-dialysis equipment, was included in the delivery.

(7) Israel Has 'Stranglehold' on Washington, Says Ex-Congressman Traficant
From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 21.09.2009 01:14 PM

Fox News - (Video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0scNGzWfv8A

Former U.S. Congressman James Traficant says that Israel has a "powerful stranglehold on the American government." In a startling interview with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren, the former nine-term Ohio Democratic Congressman also says that Israel is "controlling much of our foreign policy" and "influencing much of our domestic policy." "We're conducting the expansionist policy of Israel and everybody's afraid to say it," he also said. "They control much of the media, they control much of the commerce of the country, and they control powerfully both bodies of the Congress. They own the Congress." Runtime: 8:59 mins.

(8) Obama tells Israel Lobby "We had eight years of no daylight"

From: Ken Freeland <diogenesquest@gmail.com> Date: 15.09.2009 10:38 AM Subject: [shamireaders] The New Israel Lobby

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13JStreet-t.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

The New Israel Lobby

Gavin Bond for The New York Times

OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM At work in J Street’s offices in Washington, from left: Isaac Luria, campaigns director; Rachel Lerner; Daniel Kohl; Jeremy Ben-Ami.

By JAMES TRAUB

Published: September 9, 2009

In July, President Obama met for 45 minutes with leaders of American Jewish organizations. All presidents meet with Israel’s advocates. Obama, however, had taken his time, and powerhouse figures of the Jewish community were grumbling; Obama’s coolness seemed to be of a piece with his willingness to publicly pressure Israel to freeze the growth of its settlements and with what was deemed his excessive solicitude toward the plight of the Palestinians. During the July meeting, held in the Roosevelt Room, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told Obama that “public disharmony between Israel and the U.S. is beneficial to neither” and that differences “should be dealt with directly by the parties.” The president, according to Hoenlein, leaned back in his chair and said: “I disagree. We had eight years of no daylight” — between George W. Bush and successive Israeli governments — “and no progress.”

Henry Leutwyler for The New York Times

It is safe to say that at least one participant in the meeting enjoyed this exchange immensely: Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder and executive director of J Street, a year-old lobbying group with progressive views on Israel. Some of the mainstream groups vehemently protested the White House decision to invite J Street, which they regard as a marginal organization located well beyond the consensus that they themselves seek to enforce. But J Street shares the Obama administration’s agenda, and the invitation stayed. Ben-Ami didn’t say a word at the meeting — he is aware of J Street’s neophyte status — but afterward he was quoted extensively in the press, which vexed the mainstream groups all over again. J Street does not accept the “public harmony” rule any more than Obama does. In a conversation a month before the White House session, Ben-Ami explained to me: “We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, ‘Israel, right or wrong.’ ”

There appears to be an appetite for J Street’s approach. Over the last year, J Street’s budget has doubled, to $3 million; its lobbying staff is doubling as well, to six. That still makes it tiny compared with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, whose lobbying prowess is a matter of Washington legend. J Street is still as much an Internet presence, launching volleys of e-mail messages from the netroots, as it is a shoe-leather operation. But it has arrived at a propitious moment, for President Obama, unlike his predecessors, decided to push hard for a Mideast peace settlement from the very outset of his tenure. He appointed George Mitchell as his negotiator, and Mitchell has tried to wring painful concessions from Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states. In the case of Israel, this means freezing settlements and accepting a two-state solution. Obama needs the political space at home to make that case; he needs Congress to resist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appeals for it to blunt presidential demands. On these issues, which pose a difficult quandary for the mainstream groups, J Street knows exactly where it stands. “Our No. 1 agenda item,” Ben-Ami said to me, “is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back.”

The idea that there is an “Israel lobby,” with its undertones of dual loyalty, is a controversial notion. It has been around since the early 1970s at least, but it became a topic of wide discussion only after the publication of a notorious article in The London Review of Books in 2006 by the political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. The article, which was expanded into a book, infuriated many readers by its air of conspiratorial hugger-mugger; by its insistence that Jewish neoconservatives had persuaded President Bush to go to war in Iraq in order to protect Israel; and by the authors’ apparent ignorance of the deep sense of identification many Americans — Jewish and gentile — feel toward Israel. But the authors made one claim that struck many knowledgeable people as very close to the mark: The Israel lobby had succeeded in ruling almost any criticism of Israel out of bounds, especially in Congress.

“The bottom line,” Mearsheimer and Walt wrote, “is that Aipac, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that U.S. policy is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.” Mearsheimer and Walt also wrote that Aipac and other groups succeeded in installing officials who were deemed “pro-Israel” into senior positions. This is, of course, what effective lobbies do. The Cuba lobby, for example, long operated in the same way. But Israel is a much more important American national-security interest than Cuba. No country, whether Israel or Cuba, has identical interests to those of the United States. And yet mainstream American Jewish groups had implicitly agreed to subordinate their own views to those of the government in Jerusalem. The watchword, says J. J. Goldberg, editorial director of The Forward, the Jewish weekly, was, “We stick with Israel regardless of our own judgment.”

American Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic, but as Jewish groups moved to the right along with Israel in the 1980s, the groups increasingly made common cause with the Republican Party, which from the time of Ronald Reagan was seen as more staunchly pro-Israel than were the Democrats. Jewish groups also began to work with the evangelicals who formed the Republican base and tended to be fervidly pro-Israel. Indeed, when I met with Malcolm Hoenlein in July, he had just come from a huge Washington rally sponsored by Christians United for Israel, whose founder, the Rev. John Hagee, has denounced Catholicism, Islam and homosexuality in such violent terms that John McCain felt compelled eventually to reject his endorsement during the 2008 presidential campaign.

George W. Bush shared the views of the mainstream groups on Israel and Palestine, on Iran and on the threat of Islamic extremism. Doug Bloomfield, who served as legislative director for Aipac in the 1980s — and who was pushed out, he says, for being “too pro-peace” — describes Aipac and other groups as “very sycophantic toward the Bush administration.” Aipac and other groups found little to criticize in a president who, unlike Bill Clinton, did not believe in pushing Jerusalem to make serious compromises to achieve peace. President Bush, in this view, was the best president either Israel’s Likud leadership or the mainstream Jewish groups could have wished for.

And it was precisely this success that began to loosen the “stranglehold” described by Mearsheimer and Walt. As Martin Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel and now the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, puts it, “In the Bush years, when Israel enjoyed a blank check, increasing numbers of people in the Jewish and pro-Israel community began to wonder, If this was the best president Israel ever had, how come Israel’s circumstances seemed to be deteriorating so rapidly?” Why was Israel more diplomatically isolated than ever? Why had Israel fought a savage and apparently unavailing war with Hezbollah in Lebanon? Why were the Islamists of Hamas gaining the upper hand over the more moderate Fatah in Palestine? “There was kind of a cognitive dissonance,” Indyk says, “about whether a blank check for Israel is necessarily the best way to secure the longevity of the Jewish state.”

James Traub, a contributing writer for the magazine, is the author most recently of “The Freedom Agenda.”