The Israel Lobby, but of course Justin! It’s always Israel! He should alter his site name to Anti-Israel from Anti-War, because it’s clear that’s his real agenda, or better yet obsession. Tom, you are doing yourself a great disservice by associating with this guy.

I don’t think that was his point. Just that Raimondo tends to overemphasize their role in our foreign policy. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Israeli lobby does have significant influence, but it also goes both ways (US influence over Israel) and there are plenty of other explanations for our (crappy) foreign policy besides the Israeli lobby, and they all are partially responsible. We hadn’t exactly been following a foreign policy of noninterventionism in the 50 years (or more) before Israel even existed. I think Raimondo has written some good stuff, but after he so vocally supported Hagel’s confirmation, and criticized Rand Paul (and others) for daring to oppose him, based little more on the fact that he’s acknowledged the existence of the Israeli lobby and the fact that many “neocons” don’t think he’s sufficiently pro-Israel, I’m not so sure if Will’s all that wrong about Raimondo.

My point, clearly, was not that an Israel lobby does or does not exist, but rather that Raimondo and that general sect of libertarianism is absolutely obsessed with disparaging Israel. It’s detracted from any legitimate points that he/they may make because the undercurrent is always there. Not to mention, you will rarely, if ever, find condemnation of the uncivil regimes that surround the tiny Israel.

If you think that recent US policy in the Middle East would have taken
the precise shape that it has without the considerable influence of the
Israel Lobby, you’re grossly mistaken. And if you think that we would still be approaching a bloody, blowback-laden and entirely unnecessary conflict with Iran absent that influence, you are completely divorced from reality. In fact, no *serious*
examination of US M.E. policy is even *possible* without taking “tiny,”
heavily *nuclear* armed Israel and its stateside political clout into
the equation. So it’s no surprise that it pops up frequently in
Raimondo’s columns and elsewhere on the site.

As for your claim that AWC ignores other “regimes” in the region, you’re
obviously not a regular reader. Maliki in Iraq has received a savaging
from Raimondo and others. Gulf countries like Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi
Arabia have been taken to task for repressive and destabilizing US-supported internal and regional policies.
And though it has condemned both the rebels and US interference in
Libya and Syria, AWC has exhibited sufficient coldness toward both the
late Qaddafi and the besieged Assad that certain biased readers have
actually expressed outrage. And these are but a few examples.

Now,
do any of these regimes receive quite the same air time as Israel? No.
But as Dr. Woods just pointed out, none of them has anywhere near the same
disproportionate influence and impact on US politics and foreign policy as “tiny Israel.” To pretend
otherwise would be to mimic the studied obliviousness of most MSM
outlets.

Further, you conveniently ignore AWC’s extensive and
valuable coverage of other topics. They’ve closely followed Manning and
Wikileaks. They’ve been chronicling the rise of the drone age, at home
and abroad. They’ve been all over warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, executive
drone assassinations and other assaults on civil liberties. And their
columnists have covered an array of other war- and national security
state-related topics that are of broad interest to libertarians and
other non-interventionists: from the sound and fury over
“sequestration” and the misinterpretation of the War Powers Act to the
biological aftereffects of Fallujah and the plight of wounded US
veterans.

So your only “point, clearly,” is that antiwar.com does
not express your own prejudices; and you are so outraged by this that
you’ve seen fit to hurl an oblique accusation of antisemitism.