perhaps a bit long for the blogosphere?

A few thoughts:

Point #3: In essence, “Always remember, others may hate you- but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself”?

Point #6: Define terms. How often is usually? “This kind of behavior contrasts sharply with what one is accustomed to in academia, where well-crafted arguments are usually treated with respect, even by those who disagree with them.”

Point #7: How much have you suffered, actually, from publication of the Israel Lobby? The Navy, for one, has not apparently blackballed you. Aside from (to you) ill-founded criticism, which you seem capable of taking, have there been any negative repercussions from touching the (a) third rail?

This seems like generally good advice to me, though more useful to tenured academics than to people facing deadlines -- like elections -- by which they must persuade particular audiences that they are right.

The major doubt I have about Dr. Walt's advice concerns point number 7. Allies are surely necessary to someone attempting to advance an especially unpopular point of view. They can also be as much a burden as a help. It doesn't do much good to complain about "guilt by association" if one appears oblivious to those cheering one on for all the wrong reasons.

This happens in politics all the time. It was a real stretch, for example, for anyone to think of Barry Goldwater as a racist or of George McGovern as an advocate of Communist victory in Vietnam and other Third World conflicts. Yet Goldwater's eloquently-expressed resistance to the expansion of federal power over the states was undoubtedly congenial to the country's most dedicated racists during the mid-'60s, and McGovern's heartfelt denunciations of American foreign policy were cited frequently by the Communists that foreign policy opposed a few years later.

Was this fair? Does that matter? Discussions about policy are ultimately about consequences, not abstract truth. The case Walt and Mearscheimer made with respect to Israel and American politics has plainly suffered not only because "the lobby" and its sympathizers have attacked them, but also because some of their loudest defenders are plain anti-Semites (and, mostly overseas, sympathizers of Arab terrorism against Israel).

It would certainly be fair for Walt to claim that many of his critics use that fact to discredit his argument without addressing it on its own terms, which he has often done. Goldwater and McGovern could have made the same complaint, with as much justice and to as little effect. Not all allies are good allies, and if you want to promote an argument you know will be controversial you'd better be clear -- in public and if need be repeatedly -- that you understand that.

that after coming out in favor of policy relevance - and I really don't mean this as mean-spirited - you (Professor Walt) write blog posts that, I imagine, would be too long for the policy world.

Though one is not likely to be a postion whereby such an advice would be needed; I mean after all, this is meant for public figures or people whom have something serious to say about something, yet, one finds this piece a rather worthy advise.
khairi janbek.paris/france

I found it worthwhile, and not too long. I wonder, though, if he could just give a nod of the head to those who lose jobs for touching controversial subjects for reasons of conscience.

I agree with these greatly. I have stopped reading several blogs where I agree with the arguments of the writer, but the person's tone was too overwhelming. After a while, it is like watching the airing of dirty laundry out the window. No matter how much you like the neighbor, eventually, you're going to close the and shutter that window over looking their mess.

In one of the examples he gives, a response paper coauthored by W&M, he says this:

"Jews as Pivotal Voters
Lieberman attempts to challenge our argument that Jews
can be pivotal voters in presidential elections—a situation
that encourages candidates for the White House to enthusiastically
endorse the special relationship—but he ends up
agreeing with us..."

Walt always tells us that he is NOT talking about Jews in general when he is talking about "the Lobby". Here he appears to contradict this crucial point. (Crucial, in that the definition of "the Lobby" is central to all of W&M's work on this subject). Which is it, Walt?
-----------------------
I also have to say that I don't see Walt admit he is wrong too often, especially when he is prints something obviously wrong on this blog. This paper doesn't seem like a very good example of it either. I.e. (starting at the abstract and including the first paragraph of the paper):

"Robert Lieberman’s critique of our work on the Israel lobby is at odds with an abundance of evidence and prior scholarship describing
the powerful influence that pro-Israel groups exert on U.S.Middle East policy. In addition to mischaracterizing our arguments,
Lieberman claims that our methodology and research design are flawed and that our work contradicts the scholarly literature on
American politics.Neither claim is true. Contrary to what he says, we did consider alternative hypotheses, and our analysis contains
significant variation on both the independent and dependent variables. Given the methodological challenges involved in assessing
the causal influence of any interest group, we also relied heavily on “process-tracing.” Lieberman recognizes this is an appropriate
method for assessing causal impact and he concedes that this evidence supports our central argument.Moreover, we went to some
lengths to avoid selection bias. Similarly, our arguments are consistent with the existing literature on interest groups, and with much
of the scholarly literature on congressional decision-making, campaign financing, electoral politics, and the role of think tanks and
the media. Surprisingly, after leveling a variety of false charges, Lieberman offers an “alternative” explanation for the Israel lobby’s
influence that is virtually identical to our own.
It is hard to know what to make of Robert Lieberman’s
essay. Not only does it contain numerous unsupported
charges and internal contradictions, it is at odds with a
wealth of evidence and prior scholarship describing the
powerful influence that various pro-Israel groups exert in
Washington."

Or, better yet...

"In fact, Lieberman’s critique is more of a dust-kicking
operation than a serious assessment of our work.His strategy
is to raise countless objections, in the hope that the sheer
volume of accusations will convince readers that our arguments
should not be taken seriously.4 This approach leads
him to misrepresent what we wrote, and to ignore or denigrate
the extensive evidencewe compiled about the lobby’s
influence.Accordingly, almost every page of his article contains
some new condemnation: not only are we supposedly guilty of “selection bias,” “lapses of logic,” “conceptual confusion,”
“lack of variation,” and “impossibly vague” arguments,
but our case studies are dismissed as only “slightly
more extensive” than “anecdotes” and our causal claims are
said to be “often illogical” and “almost never supported by
dispositive evidence.”5 On top of that, we are said to lack
“even a rudimentary understanding of how the American
policymaking system works.”6 If we really committed all
these scholarly sins, and others that we have not mentioned,
we might be tempted to look for another line of
work. Fortunately, his complaints are groundless."

A "dust-kicking operation"?

You have moved from academic prose to journalism in the best sense--in a very short period of time.

There are very few on the other side who can come near you not only in emotional honesty, but in clear and vivid and telling style.

One feels he is overhearing a conversation in which the secrets of a cold-hot war are being discussed calming and with regard for the audience.

Your greatest achievement is treating the dunk-throwing semi-thugs-- who themselves are drowning in a sea of crap--- with a kind of diplomatic factual rehearsed respect.

I hope I am right in thinking the shameless are beginning to retreat.

This is good. If I ever get famous, I will refer back to it.

How about this? Whenever evil people attack, use that opportunity to cut the issue and build your movement. Use their energy against them.

Saul Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS would be a good place to add to your excellent thinking. The trouble is that doing this stuff takes so much time to do it right. But if it is a life's high priority, then go at it with everything you have and keep learning.

Most of all, have fun!

Bob Spencer

The person seeking advice wasn't Martin Kramer with his modest proposal, was it? ;)

It is incredible that we have to have a "Do's and Dont's" manual such as this to navigate political sensitivities. PACs are even claiming that only certain groups and their experiences have the right to use certain words. The toll that all these noisy and powerful PACs have had on American democracy is sad, but no one has yet shown enough courage to expose this except for people like Walt. It is obvious that Carter was right when he described Israel as an apartheid society in the making but look at how he was mistreated by the lobby. Now ex-Israeli PM Barack says the same thing and no one utters a criticism. American democracy has been shattered by these lobbies and both houses say nothing because they are also fearful of THE LOBBY (as per Carter). It appears that people of Jewish origin have special democratic rights over the rest of us when it comes to questioning Israel and her interests. Jews critical of Israel are labeled as "Jew hating Jews" while the rest of us are considered racists and anti-semitic. Nobody in his right mind wants to see any race targeted and Jews who have undoubtedly suffered throughout history must understand this most of all; the importance of free speech as a fundamental right of all democratic societies. To attack 2 elite scholars and an ex-President in "violent" ways to discredit them only bounces back. People may be silent or just fearful of recriminations, but they understand what is really going on. Jewish people were once the conscience of the world against injustices and oppression, but now all we see is a changed role as the oppresor. I cannot imagine that the militarization of Israeli society and the cruel treatment of her Arab citizens will not affect young Israelis psychologically. Their insides will harden against the quality of human empathy Jews were once famous for. I think these young minds are being "destroyed" in a sense and a great divide created between them and their prophetic tradition. This is sad. To save their young people from such a tragic loss, Israel must quickly settle with the Palestinians and begin the great healing process.