I read with interest Thomas Keyes’ article on the Israeli lobby and opened the link he provided to the thesis on the subject by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt. While I intend to read the entire 83-page paper if it seems to make sense as I progress, my review of the paper’s introduction does not bode well.

It is obvious that the authors have a bias. Being an amateur wordsmith, I understand the subtle nuance that specific word choice can create. I encountered such intentional nuance in the opening paragraph:

Using the words "helped produce" is an intentional effort to imply more blame for those problems than America deserves. What is the major reason, almost to the exclusion of any other, for the Iraq insurgency? The desire of the evil insurgents to re-institute a non-democratic dictatorial regime in the country. If not for that cause, there would be very little violence in the country. What is the major cause of the increase in world oil prices? Supply and demand. Any crisis can have a temporary effect if it is perceived to reduce oil supply. America has done nothing to reduce oil supplies. However, terrorist insurgents have staged attacks on Iraqi oil industry infrastructure in an attempt to cripple production. What is the major cause of those terrorist bombings? Without a doubt, the major cause is the terrorists.

If I’m stabbing you in the back, are you "helping to produce" the blood on my hand?

Thomas describes how the authors contend that the same Israeli Lobby they describe also initially kept the truth of their message from wide publication. They complained of being unable to find an American publisher for an expanded edition of the thesis. That a major publisher has now agreed to publish their work would seem to refute that claim, but Thomas doesn’t agree and cites the dearth of Google links to the article as proof.

Doesn’t it seem that there could be a more logical explanation rather than yet one more "conspiracy theory?" What if, in fact, publishers and readers saw the article as bigoted hogwash? Wouldn’t that account for the small number of citations and the disinterest from publishers? Doesn’t Professor Walt’s academic sponsor, Harvard University, by disowning the article, support the more logical explanation? Again, Keyes wants us to believe in his bogeymen in the shadows, who secretly make things happen without leaving evidence of their manipulations. I outgrew those monsters years ago.

I’ll read the rest of the article, when I can find time (oh, to have Thomas’ retirement lifestyle), and report whether the professors actually do prove that an Israeli Lobby exists and does, indeed, virtually own the US government. Judging by this last sentence in the article’s introduction, I do not expect to find that proof:

Read "conclusions" as "opinions" to fully understand that sentence. If the professors had been able to assemble overwhelming proof of their theory, reasonable and intelligent readers could not reject their conclusions. This sentence hints at what I am sure will be the totality of their research – more innuendo and allegations based upon perceived connectivity between facts – a landslide of "facts," I’m sure – that cannot, in fact, be proven to connect. They say "conclusions," I say "conjecture." Look for my upcoming report.

	Web useless-knowledge.com