Originally Posted by stephanie
But what Mead said was "immoral" was not discussion of "the Israel Lobby" in the way Friedman did or the numerous comments about AIPAC that have been made since long before M&W wrote their article and book. He said it's wrong and -- if one does or should know better -- immoral to attribute the US's foreign policy re Israel to some vaguely defined powerful group of Jews. It is in part immoral to do this -- as I understood his comment -- because it ignores the much broader reasons for the US's action, ignores the reasons why the US may see these things as in its interest.
How is it immoral for experts on international relations to disagree about what harms or advances the American national interest in the ME? That is, after all, the kernel of the debate between W/M and their opponents. And why is it immoral to say that an organisation like AIPAC wields disproportionate influence in the formation of American policy in the ME? It may be right or wrong (correct or incorrect) to say this, but it is certainly not immoral, unless of course you assume that the only conceivable motivation for saying that the American national interest isn't served by AIPAC and others is anti-semitism.