MANY Americans have grown sick of “American foreign policy”, particularly towards wasting huge amounts of money, weapons, and good will on Israel, while Israel conducts what cannot honestly be called anything but terror campaigns. That includes Jews like me.

It is the old question: if I am not for myself, who will be?

Can we afford a president whose qualifications are his sympathy with the world’s problems, rather than America’s interests and sensitivities?

The problem with the Walt-Meashimer thesis isn’t the focus on Jewish pressure. No one can argue that AIPAC is effective, much in the same way no one can argue that the Cuban lobby is effective. Nor is it anti-semitic to argue that there are strategic aims that are not addressed/ are adversely affected by the U.S. relationship with Israel. There is room for legitimate debate on the topic.

The problem with the Walt-Meashimer argument is that it is poor political science - tinged with Old World antisemitic prejudices. Their definition of “The Lobby” is so expansive as to include everyone who disagrees with them while conjuring the bugaboo of the Jewish Conspiracy. Obama’s inexperience in foreign affairs (not all that much more than W, and look how that turned out) rather than his support by Brzezinski, is the larger issue.

That is simply not accurate. Much of the Muslim world is contemptuous of the modern world. It is racist, anti-women, anti-Semitic, luddite, anti-intellectual, and dedicated to the domination, if not outright eradication of the “infidels.” Also, far too many Muslims enjoy employing the victim card and indulging in self-pity and a sense of entitlement. They have listened too closely to the irrational utterings of the late Edward Said and other leftist “elites” claiming that Muslims have been victimized by the West. George W. Bush deserves blame for a number of mistakes. However, the conflict between the Islamic radicals and Western Civilization is not one of them.