> it
> strangely implies or assumes that the rest of U.S. foreign policy is
> benign, and support of Israel an exception to the rule.
I'm not entirely sure what, in concrete terms, the antecedent of 'it' is here. But it's quite possible to hold the view that the Israel lobby inflects US policy in substantial ways -- ways not entirely in the interest of some other elite elements -- without believing that US policy would be "benign" absent that inflection. Two quite different things, really.
It's hardly controversial to observe that the imperial elites aren't a monolith. A noisy and determined element, focused strongly on a narrow topic, can end up having its way a lot of the time, simply because there's no consensus among enough other elements that the noisemakers need to be reined in. Not to mention the possibility of shifting alliances and understandings -- you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
This is a common phenomenon. You can see it with the gun lobby -- there's no elite consensus that a heavily-armed citizenry serves the interests of capitalism; many elite elements would no doubt argue the contrary; and yet the gun lobby hasn't yet made itself enough of a problem to be shut down. Fetus freaks, same thing.
As for the "anti-Semitism" canard -- it's long past time that anybody who brings that one up was laughed out of the room. That dog just won't hunt anymore.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com http://cars-suck.org