A tipping point in discussion of Israel and U.S. foreign policy?

Have we finally reached the point where we can have open and honest discussions about Israel and U.S. foreign policy in this country? Have we reached the point where the right-wing smears of "anti-semitism" are now the political equivalent of the boy who cried wolf?

It started last week with Time's Joe Klein wrote,

The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

The response was entirely predictable. A cadre of right-wingers attacked Klein and predicted his imminent demise for daring to mention that some of the biggest cheerleaders for war with Iraq and a new war with Iran seem to be more driven by an interest in protecting Israel than the United States.

Klein though has not backed down and Time magazine seems unpersuaded by the vicious attacks on him. Since his original post Klein has written 3 more wherein he directly takes on the cadre of neo-conservative bullies who would like to see him silenced. He followed his original post with a lengthy ad direct rebuttal on some his critics, entitling his post "Neocons Gone Wild,"

A question to all concerned: When was the last time you opposed a policy, any policy, of the Israeli government--other than one that attempted to move toward peace?

Klein followed with a post on Sunday after Joe Lieberman's saber-rattling appearance on Face The Nation and then again today he continued with another broadside against "Conflated Loyalties."

It's been remarkable to watch Klein singlehandedly push back against the neo-conservatives who so desperately seek to squelch all debate that might derail their long desired war with Iran. Klein's stand has not gone unnoticed. Today frequent Klein antagonist Glenn Greenwald wrote a lengthy recap of the events on his blog at Salon,

This attempt to "punish" people who note the role which allegiance to Israel plays in many advocates' desire for a militaristic American Middle East policy has always been an attempt to punish people for expressing a self-evidently true and important point. But that's only the second worst aspect of it. The worst aspect of it is that those who seek to place the "divided loyalty" point off limits are often the ones who most aggressively wield that same claim -- only they do so in service of their right-wing agenda. They seek to create a climate where "dual loyalty" arguments can be exploited by them for political gain, but cannot be spoken of by their political opponents upon pain of being subjected to exploitative, ugly accusations of anti-semitism and other crimes.

Greenwald goes on to note why it is so critical that we have an open and honest debate on these issues right now,

Smearing people as anti-Semites for cheap political gain is repellent in its own right and merits a response. But this tactic is particularly dangerous now, as the pressure is obviously being ratcheted up in numerous circles to pursue a far more bellicose policy towards Iran.

Greenwald is exactly right. Such a conversation was verboten in the lead up to the Iraq War. Now that that war has proven to be a catastrophe of epic proportions for America there appears to be less tolerance for attempts to stifle debate this go-around.

Besides the Iraq War though Ezra Klein (no relation to Joe) notes another important development since 2002 and 2003 - the debate over Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's 2007 book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." The book explored the influence of various affiliated groups and individuals who work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a decidedly pro-Israel direction. The very fact that they acknowledged that such a lobby even exists (a truly uncontroversial observation) was enough to send many of the right into full on hysterics. Mearsheimer and Walt were attacked and smeared as anti-semites and any honest discussion of their thesis was repressed. Ezra writes,

The rules have changed. Credit for this goes in no small measure to Walt and Mearsheimer, who made their statement aggressively enough and forthrightly enough that they shifted the acceptable window for conversation. It may still be that you're not supposed to agree with Walt and Mearsheimer, but so long as you don't mention them, you can echo their arguments and buy into pieces of their analysis.

This was largely the effect of bad strategy on the part of their detractors: By so cynically and aggressively calling them anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, they compelled lots of other folks to defend them, work through their ideas, and prove that nothing happened when you voiced impolitic-yet-obvious statements like some Jewish neoconservatives view the containment and even destruction of Israel's adversaries as an important objective for American foreign policy. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with that perspective, nor even with the idea that zionists, like corn farmers, have a powerful political lobby, but you weren't supposed to say so before. Walt and Mearsheimer may have lost the public argument, but they won in creating the debate.

Mickey Kaus at Slate notes that, indeed, the rules are changing - and for the better.

It should be possible to publicly debate whether some "Jewish neoconservatives," among others, too easily convinced themselves that America's and Israel's interests happily coincided in the prosecution of the war

We have watched public debate in the United States devolve significantly over the last several decades - the rise of right-wing shock radio, bumper sticker slogans, attempts to silence even modest dissent, the failure of our national media and the destruction of any true national dialog. Right now though we may actually be watching the evolution of public debate. We are witnessing our national discourse shed the manacles of the past and open up to honest and spirited discussion of the issues.