Ещё в копилку:

the United States (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf) has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.
<...>
The fact that the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people was well understood by Israel’s leaders. As Ben Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
<...>
Although neoconservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that “a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52% to 62%.” Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence. Rather, the war was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially the neoconservatives within it.
<...>
¹⁰⁹ Eliahu Salpeter, “Jews from the CIS Prefer Germany to the Jewish State,” Ha’aretz, May 28, 2005. Also, the Times of London reported in the spring of 2005, that, “An estimated 100,000 Jews have returned to Russia in the past few years, sparking a dramatic renaissance of Jewish life in a country with a long history of anti-Semitism.” Jeremy Page, “Once Desperate to Leave, Now Jews Are Returning to Russia, Land of Opportunity,” Times, April 28, 2005. Also see Lev Krichevsky, “Poll: Russians Don’t Dislike Jews, and More Are against Anti-Semitism,” JTA, February 2, 2006.

To reapply at home your ancient insight (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/3be37990586026a6), your professed position derives not from dispassionate reasoning, as purported, but rather, from considering what is best for your economic situation. Regrettably, in your case, this economic situation is devoid of moral, legal, and political entitlement to vast unearned wealth (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/83a75be583efa7a3). Instead, your efforts are dedicated to making the best of avoidable loyalty to a kleptocracy that debars your likes from partaking in such entitlements.

Mutatis mutandis, an analogous derivation applies to your obedient servant. In this regard, further exchanges pitting bitterly partisan conservatism imputable to Robert Conquest against mendacious Jew-baiting emanating from Mearsheimer and Walt (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060403&s=joffe040606), would amount to an exercise in futility.

Mearsheimer and Walt are saying that the American Jews are much less supportive of imperial policies than the Israel and American politicians and lobbyists.

You really insist that this is "Jew-baiting" ?

Mearsheimer and Walt are saying a lot of things that amount to Jew-baiting.Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard different from that applied to others. […]
    The Jewish lobby is, of course, not the only lobby of its kind. Consider three others: the Irish, Greek, and Armenian lobbies. The Irish lobby, which campaigned against the United Kingdom, America’s closest ally, and the Greek and Armenian lobbies, which campaigned against Turkey when Turkey was a crucial NATO ally, were seen as pursuing their legitimate concerns. I don’t recall accusations against any of them of disloyalty or even of divided loyalty.
    The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation against Jews of cosmic evil (����). [Examples elided. —MZ]

    Kurtlar vadisi - Irak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Wolves_Iraq)
    For those who needed it, all this provided an up-to-date, intellectually and socially acceptable rationale for what ought to be called anti-Semitism but, since that word isn’t acceptable, might be called Jew-baiting, Jew-hating, or generally being unpleasant to Jews.
    The rationale has thus served two purposes—one for Jews, the other for their enemies. In anti-Semitism’s first stage, when the hostility was based in religion and expressed in religious terms, the Jew always had the option of changing sides. During the medieval and early modern periods, Jews persecuted by Christians could convert. Not only could they escape the persecution; they could join the persecutors if they so wished, and some indeed rose to high rank in the church and in the Inquisition. Racial anti-Semitism removed that option. The present-day ideological anti-Semitism has restored it, and now as in the Middle Ages, there seem to be some who are willing to avail themselves of this option.
    For non-Jews the rationale brought a different kind of relief. For more than half a century, any discussion of Jews and their problems has been overshadowed by the grim memories of the crimes of the Nazis and of the complicity, acquiescence, or indifference of so many others. But inevitably, the memory of those days is fading, and now Israel and its problems afford an opportunity to relinquish the unfamiliar and uncomfortable posture of guilt and contrition and to resume the more familiar and more comfortable position of stern reproof from an attitude of moral superiority. It is not surprising that this opportunity is widely welcomed and utilized.
    —Bernard Lewis, “The New Anti-Semitism”, The American Scholar, Volume 75, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 25-36 (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/21832.html)And now you can explain your persistence in this futility.

The Jewish lobby is, of course, not the only lobby of its kind. Consider three others: the Irish, Greek, and Armenian lobbies. The Irish lobby, which campaigned against the United Kingdom, America’s closest ally, and the Greek and Armenian lobbies, which campaigned against Turkey when Turkey was a crucial NATO ally, were seen as pursuing their legitimate concerns.

Mearsheimer and Walt are arguing that the Israel lobby is working against the legitimate concerns of the Jews (not unlike quoted Zyuganov). It seems obvious, that, having gathered significant part of the world's Jewry in one place, and having incited the hate of the neighbors by land grab and population cleansing, Israeli and American leaders pursue interests of concentrating the power. Security interests of the people they purport to represent are viewed as a non-issue. This mode of operation is remarkably similar to the one they so indignantly accuse Putin of.

I deny (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/3dcb3f5b61b21f97) the hypostasis of “Jewish interests”. My interest in kicking ass and taking names bears but obliquely, if at all, on the exigencies of the real division in the upper reaches of achievement culture, between fuck-ups and suck-ups. (Copyright © 2003 Philip Weiss, The New York Observer) Furthermore, I am unmoved by your knee-jerk projection from the international amalgamation of capital (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/dec/17.htm) to the seemingly obvious “interests of concentrating the power”. On the disparity between capital and power, I refer you to work by Niall Ferguson, in particular The Cash Nexus (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,442457,00.html).

The only tangible charge against M&W so far has been that they accuse the Lobby of representing the "legitimate concerns", and that is unfair. So the hypostasis is all yours.
Interest of powerful in concentrating the power is obvious, as in well known truism that those having power always lust after more of it. Maintaining the permanent state of war is a tried and true way to increase the power of the executive. Where do you get connection with capital I don't know, as I haven't mentioned it, and neither had M&W.

The connection with capital flows from vulgar Marxism that permeates your arguments. Back off if you can, and contemplate your constant arrogation of obvious, well known truisms. This gesture reveals a great deal about your outlook, but sheds no light on the ways of the world
    Capital concentrates because it is fungible. Power is anything but. “Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles.” (James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, letter of 24 October 1787 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s22.html), summarizing the thesis of The Federalist #10 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm).) By contrast, Mere et multiplica is the only policy, by which capital can be, and has been, administered effectively. Your failure to make this distinction is the source of your errors.
    I cut you a lot of slack on the presumption of intelligence and good will. But here you are out of your depth. For all of us born and bred in the care of senescent Stalinists, getting out from under vulgar reductionism is a constant struggle. I suggest starting with a good biography of Gaius Julius Caesar, then working your way back and forth through ancient sources and modern imitators. It should take you no more than two or three decades to acquire a basic grasp of interests in power.

I don't see the point in backing off the position that I have yet to articulate.

The "effectiveness" of administering the capital is in the eye of the beholder. You can't speak of effectiveness without first naming the goal. Thus, "effective" from the point of view of corporate overlords administering of the capital consists in socializing the costs and privatizing the profits, well-known and longstanding principle of American business.
Likewise, the principle of separation of power is highly inefficient once you adopt the goal of subjugating the world to the interests of the American ruling class.

The good will is not in plentiful supply down here, ever after the US preparations for the first nuclear strike on Russia were popularized (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html) and you expressed wholehearted support for them. With respect to the USA, similarly to what I wrote in the old Usenet posting, more people think the way I do (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/345.php?nid=&id=&pnt=345&lb=btvoc), then the way you do.

Thank you for the suggestion of two-to-three decades long study program. In my turn, may I offer you a great shortcut, consisting in cheerfully disregarding all the self-important pronouncements of the lofty ideals and noble intentions, that American politicians and intellectuals are so fond of producing, and instead looking at the actual actions and policies of power.

Only one goal can be attributed to capital. Quibbles in regard to the term of its value make no difference to the ultimate outcome. No such attribution is possible in regard to power. Your ongoing imputation of “well-known and longstanding principle” bespeaks commendable loyalty to your oligarchic overlords, even as it fulfills my prediction of futility in this exchange. All the same, you may rest assured that there is nothing personal about my support of my country seeking, securing, and maintaining nuclear primacy over all her competitors.

"Of all the enemies (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000432) to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

–James Madison, Political Observations, Apr. 20, 1795 in: Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 4, p. 491 (1865)

James Madison makes an eloquent case for extending U.S. nuclear primacy to the point of destroying with a first strike the long-range nuclear arsenals of any potential aggressor.

I do not envy a country that has the widespread patriotism of the kind you exhibit.

Better widespread patriotism than persistent (http://lib.userline.ru/8137) self-loathing (http://lj.rossia.org/~tiphareth/).

Patriotism of the similar kind has been quite widespread in Germany during the 1930s.

American patriots raise your hackles by exporting democracy to ungrateful foreigners. By contrast, German patriots during the 1930s merely strove to protect their native populace against encroaching alien elements. As a provisional beneficiary of your President’s efforts to defend the indigenous populace of Russia against alien tribes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/russia/newsid_6516000/6516935.stm), you should tread lightly in violation of Godwin’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law).