The content of Slater's criticisms was similar to Rothkopfs, though not as personal.

Slater appears to be limiting parts of his discussion to Walt's book without addressing Walt's rather personal attacks on those opposed to Freeman's nomination.

I didn't think David Rothkopf's rather personal attack on me deserved a response...

What changed your mind, that someone else did the work for you? ;-)

I actually appreciated Mr. Rothkopf's candor. To me, hitting below the belt is direct terms of disrespect like "goy are too mentally inferior to understand our superior arguments" or "terrorist". Though I admit I have never published a famous book but have heard both often enough.

We need room to talk honestly. I respected that you did not reply to the insulting parts of the post. You have argued that room for discussion is often silenced and needs to be created. And, then you respected that there was dissent from your opinion.

What I like about Mr. Rothkopf's reply was that he gave the reason for his acerbic post. He said:

"My problem comes with the implication that those who support Israel are necessarily twisted by dual loyalties into positions that undermine the interests of the United States whereas those whose position is essentially to step back from America's historically strong support for Israel are "realists" who somehow have the best interests of the U.S. at heart...that somehow Walt & Co. are better Americans. "

We all remember the Dreyfus Affair and its historical significance. I take this to say, "BE CAREFUL!!!" Certainly, Finkelstein has opened the question of the future implications for Israel supporters. While I see no reason to assume you favor his work, theories are not put out into a vacuum. The "Israel Lobby" does not stand alone and therefore probably is interpreted with other works, whether they are attributable to Walt and Meirsheimer or not. In the end, I think Rothkopf's reply really amounted to "we are not supporting Israel to commit treason; we actually believe Israel and the USA's best interests lie together".

I can accept this as long as there is an understanding that those that support policies that may be seen as "Pro-Arab" are also doing so, not in treason, but in a belief that it is the best path for both.

In the end, the road of the Jews in this nation is likely to be intertwined with that of the Arabs, as it seems history has fated it. This "mob mentality" as he puts it, like the people who come on this blog and comment on the IL when it is not the subject of the post, or those that cast every Arab initiative into the light of terrorism, no matter its intent, the dichotomization that it fuels puts all the Semitic peoples (and those resembling them ) at risk.

If it makes you feel any better, Rothkopf got totally burned in the comments section of his blog. That's pretty rare; he rarely gets a lot of comments on his posts, not like your Israel-Palestine posts that seem to generate 1001 comments each.

I didn't think David Rothkopf's rather personal attack

Professor we critisize you here enough to get you going Mate! You don't need other Blogs or Blokes for that;->>Actually we critisize you beyond their imagination, that is why theirs fall short not worth mentioning;->
You are well covered here Mate;->
Why don't you invite him to post his here, you could or rather he could get a better perspective, we could give him some tips how to critisize you efectively. Tell him that you wouldn't be called realist if you were afraid of criticism. Realist means what is left behind after all criticism;->>

are "realists" who somehow have the best interests of the U.S.

Grand Sen~or.

That was a great post by Jerome Slater. There’s nothing wrong with criticism as long as it's based in fact and not on lies and slander. This is what Rothkopf and his ilk don’t seem to understand. Continue your great work Professor Walt.

"My problem comes with the implication that those who support Israel are necessarily twisted by dual loyalties into positions that undermine the interests of the United States whereas those whose position is essentially to step back from America's historically strong support for Israel are "realists" who somehow have the best interests of the U.S. at heart...that somehow Walt & Co. are better Americans." - Rothkopf

Alterman on dual loyalty (as reported by Weiss):

"I find this very confusing." Of course there's dual loyalty to Israel. He was raised with it. In Hebrew school, they were told they had to be supportive of Israel. At 14, on his first trip to Israel, at the behest of the ZOA, it was drilled into him that he should always do what was best for Israel.
-
And while complaining that he gets quoted by Walt and Mearsheimer for making the point, Alterman cited the maxim of foreign policy that the strategic interests of two states inevitably will diverge and said, "Sometimes I'm going to go with Israel" when its interests and the U.S.'s interests diverge. Because the US can take a lot of hits, but Israel can't.
-
You heard that right, boss. To her credit, Eisner asked Alterman to name a situation in which the two countries' interests diverge. Alterman offered: that bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists were "to some degree inspired" by the U.S. relationship to Israel. The general environment of "terrorist attacks" and their "pool" of supporters in the Arab/Muslim world obviously draws on the the U.S.-Israel relationship.
-
"Dammit, if that's the price we have to pay [for the special relationship], let's pay it... But let's be honest about it." - Link

Oddly, Rothkopf begins by admitting what is obvious to almost everyone else, that the Freeman affair “offered apparent support to the ‘theories’ of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer…

Professor! those Guys don't know how and why theories are formed and used. Theories are abstract grammatical structures, they don't need to be supported by affairs, rather they are used to explain affairs and a theoretical affair is an affair if and only if it is an affair according to the theory in use. Therefore it is meaningless to claim that an affair supports/doesn't support a theory.
Guys! Learns some logic, it really saves a lot of time to avoid idle-talk;->>

Professor! if people don't know that much logic, it really doesn't worth mentioning and wasting Blog Space to their so called criticisms. Just recommend them an Elementary Logic book Mate! or recommend them to consult their Logician before composing criticisms;->

Now look what the Guy says:

Unlike Walt and Mearsheimer, I’m Jewish, which may make it somewhat more difficult to charge me with anti-Semitism—though of course not impossible, since there is always the self-hating Jew gambit.

no! there are more effective ways to criticize you;

like "You think you are Jewish, in fact you are another assimilated American Citizen who has no legal identity as a Jew, because Jews don't have right to law, they have to obey the one and only law of the Secularo-fascist State."

or like "You are in fact an anussim, assimilated by the one and only State laws, to save your identity."

so, I suggest you be honest at least to yourself and don't say you are Jewish Mate!;->>Realistically speaking, you are just another Costume Party Jew;->
In fact a realist would say "Look at my eyes Guys! Unless I see a Start of David replaced one of the starts on the flag and Jews right to law admitted and legally implemented by the Jews to the Jews and I am identified by those laws as a member of Jews and I accepted it, I am legally no more than a Blooming American Citizen!"

It is not that cheap to be Jewish Mate!

Again realistically speaking, what is happening here is you Guys and the asteemed team of Professor are trying hard to save the State to have a confy chair, pushing each other. Professor is being a nice guy reminding you that you are legally speaking American Citizens so behave like one to get a better chance to grab a seat, don't complicate political affairs saying legally meaningless things like "I'm Jewish", "as being a Jew I also want to save the State of Israel more than the State to save the State.." etc. There is no legal room for those within the mono-law, Monopoly of the State. Don't dream! Be realistic! (as Professor would say;-))

On the other hand when you say "I'm Jewish" Professor gets confused, realistically he argues that "I am talking about some political affairs related to the IL and other family resembling lobbies which are realities of our political space, I am not talking about legally un-identified entities like Jews", but when he observes that state is helpless in front of those lobbies he gets frustrated in his efforts to save the State and encouraged by your claiming that you are Jewish and in desperation he blames you, calling you "un-American!", But fortunately there are other realities taking place in this state of affair, like Freeman's resignation. Unfortunately Professor seems to be ignoring this reality still to save the State by reducing it as if it was caused by the Lobbies. However, the reality behind Freemans' resignation is not some Lobbies' activities, but the State's being incapable to function as he expects as a Patriot. That is what made Freeman to resign - observing that there is nothing left out there to save the State.

In summary, Freeman resigned observing there is nothing left to save the State, while Professor still struggles to save the State and doesn't even mind to sacrifice Freeman in this process. Freeman is more realistic than Professor. Professor cannot see the socio-politico-economic dynamics behind the Lobbies which make the State redundant.

Freeman observing this redundancy warns Patriots:

Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home.

Mark his words.

Grand Sen~or.

Note on theory: Suppose Professor has a theory called the FP of Walt (FPW), then it should work something like this:

Observation of a political affair is not merely the observation of a group of facts but also the reporting of these facts via a symbolic language played by the rules of the theory (FPW). In this process of reporting the facts are abstracted to the political (scientific) facts via
the theory (FPW) which correlate the observed facts
to the abstracted. In such a way the observation of the political affair or a political experiment, the political facts are governed via the theory (FPW).

Political affair is observed or a political experiment is conducted according to the theory (FPW),

and according to the theory (FPW) it is decided
what should be observed, what is a political affair, political fact,

and according to the theory (FPW) it is reported
what politcal affair, political facts observed.

You see Guys, what Our Professor can and cannot do with a scientific theory is not a mystery, it is all written in a clear book called - the Logic of Scientific Theories, If he is claiming that his theory is a Scientific. If not, then Jupiter knows what he is talking about;->>