The establishment has been anti-Israel since before there was an Israel to be against, though only a tedious combing of State Department memoranda, dusty memoirs and private diaries from the 30’s and 40’s would demonstrate the degree to which Harry Truman bucked an insular mindset that was virulently anti-semitic as well as having legitimate -if minor at the time, given minimal US interests in the Mideast – realpolitik arguments in 1948. The loss to has never been forgotten or forgiven.

Many of these same Eastern WASP and genteel Southerners looked down their nose at Truman as well and though were quite willing to overlook those of ” their own” like Alger Hiss and probably Joseph Davies, Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White and others who had seriously trucked with Communism and betrayed the United States. This includes Republicans like John Foster Dulles as well as Dean Acheson, both of whom were otherwise fiercely anti-communist.

In a more contemporary vein, Israel is also an aggravating client – high cost, resistant to “instructions” from ambassadors or assistant secretaries, prone to manuever using political hardball to keep it’s freedom of action – the Department of Defense likes the IDF far better than State likes Israel’s foreign ministry.

Ouch!

This is just the traditional eastern establishment and State Department view. We need less of this view among policy makers, not more.

It’s a form of isolationism, that sees affinity ties with other states as suspect. Churchill’s enemies laid a similar accusation against him, charging him with a dual-loyalty because of his American heritage.

As the Arab world has far fewer natural ties to the US (except for individuals, the Arab dictatorships have to resort to bribery and financial “support.” Hence individuals like Freeman.

China is in a position to use both forms of leverage… they paid Freeman, but also potential for affinity connections, too.

(Coincidentally with the current political environment, Sun Yatsen, pictured here [1], had a Hawaiian birth certificate.)

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/03/12/toward-chinese-taiwanese-military-cooperation.html

Regarding #5, I think some fear there will be a “gaming” of the intel about Iran to fit the alleged security needs of Israel as dictated through pressure and media manipulation by some Iran war supporters here.

David Broder is sort of a weather vein at times, though he presents it as problem that lobbyists can derail someone, without nailing “Zionists” for it.

The only useful bit Stephen Walt contributed to the Israel lobby argument was his observation that the Indian, Armenian and Mexican lobbies are learning from the success of the Israelis and emulating them. This may be good for those three countries, but may lead often to policy decisions or legislation that is not so good for America.

The Saudis, Russians and Chinese seem to do well enough just lobbying our business groups, who then lobby the politicians. The direct pressure applied in the Israel/India/Armenia/Mexico vein is more obvious and thus may stir up more anger.