I think our disagreements are fleshed out enough that I'm mostly willing to leave it, but just to highlight:
Originally Posted by ledocs
The politics may be changing now, I think, and Friedman's column could well be a milestone there, and W&M paved the way for that column.
This is where I most disagree. I don't see a roughly consistent US policy marked with one primary explanation, vs. a US attitude toward Israel that has become more extreme over time due to somewhat varying causes. Nor do I think it makes sense to attribute the reaction to the more extreme US attitude to W&M, as opposed to the extremity itself.
But despite this, I think we agree on the problem itself, that the reaction against it is beneficial (even if we might not agree on how far it should go or the language it should use), and that a more concrete cause and effect examination of the power of lobbies, etc. on these issues would be useful and interesting.