Submitted by DPWalker, Sep 14, 2007 09:56

The emergence of a frank and open public discussion of U.S. - Israeli relations should be viewed not as an attack on Israel or Jews but judged as the legitimate provence of debate in a democratic society. The immediate protests by American Jewish leaders and organizations of the premise underlying the Walt and Mearsheimer analysis suggests that the mere idea of questioning the value to American interests in U.S. support of Israel is simply not a subject for debate. To this extent, they seem to have validated the assertion that attempts to examine the pros and cons of U.S. policy in this regard have been effectively squashed rather than left to stand on its merits.

The notion that objections to the U.S.'s unquestioning support of Israeli actions, by either direct endorsement or by non-action, is somehow anti-Semitic again tends to confirm the notion that Israel and its behavior in its relationships with the Mid-East - and the U.S. for that matter - are simply not subject to public scrutiny.

An informed debate is a cornerstone of the American democratic process and one that should be encouraged, no matter how flawed aspects of it may be. Supporters of Israel clearly understand this given their investment in a number of organizations that, taken together, represent a constant and powerful voice supporting the continuation of U.S. support, financial and moral, of Israel irrespective of its actions.

The absence of an effective counter balance in this debate should be a source of concern to all Americans. Moreover, the absence of adequate, objective coverage of the Walt and Mersheimer book in the national print and broadcast media means that many Americans will never learn of these issues and become exposed to the positions of those who have joined the debate. In the long run, friends of Israel do it no favor to continue to argue against an open debate on the long-term benefits to American interests in providing weapons and financial resources to Israel. While they have every right to petition the government to continue this aid, advocates of this aid must accept the fact that in a democratic environment any recipient of American aid - especially on the scale involved here - is justly subject to a continuing assessment and judgment.

Walt and Mersheimer are forcing Americans to reexamine their assumptions and to think hard about this important issue. Keeping them from appearing at forums in which they will be confronted by those who disagree with them is not the way to inform the debate. It is, however, evidence that supporters of Israel fear the outcome of these debates. They can't have it both ways. It is, after all, American taxpayers - Jews and Gentiles - whose resources are used to support Israel and it tis hose taxpayers who deserve to hear the debate. The spirit of debate in an open society remains one of our greatest assets. To work against that spirt is to undermine the democratic process.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.