Been getting a lot of spam lately? Yeah, so has everyone. Another worm must be on the loose. But these latest are amusing. Like everyone else, I’ve been getting dozens of “undeliverable” emails. Here are just a few of the titles:

Undeliverable: commonly

Well, yeah.

Undeliverable: disgusted

Goes without saying, doesn’t it?

Undeliverable: ascetic smoking gun

Whoa! Dude! That’s deep!

Undeliverable: malevolence seem

Now you’re talking!

Molly Ivins has read about the criticism of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, and apparently hasn’t read anything first-hand. Her criticism of the criticism:

For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious — that there is an Israel lobby in the United States — Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of “kooky academic work.” Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be easily upset, went totally ballistic over the mild, academic, not to suggest pretty boring article by Mearsheimer and Walt, calling them “liars” and “bigots.”

It’s the party line, apparently. Don’t look at the criticism that details the numerous factual errors in the paper. Instead, mislead your readers and say that the critics are saying there is no Israel lobby.

It’s good to know, though, that Ivins thinks it’s perfectly okay to have a discussion about the Israel lobby. Because, you see, it’s not like anyone in America has ever mentioned AIPAC or the Israel lobby before. It’s not like a Democratic Congressman never accused Jews — I’m sorry, in W-M terms, “the Israel Lobby” — of being behind the Iraq war.

David Bernstein has already written about this false criticism, which is beginning to become the standard answer to W-M critics. I suspect that when W&M finally respond to their critics, that response will be peppered with the same lies and misinformation.

After starting out with that intellectually lazy premise, she gets worse.

It’s the sheer disproportion, the vehemence of the attacks on anyone perceived as criticizing Israel that makes them so odious. Mearsheimer and Walt are both widely respected political scientists — comparing their writing to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is just silly.

Funny, I have the opposite reaction, particularly since Lynn B. did just that, and Walt and Mearsheimer come out stinking the stink of the Russian Czarists who forged the Protocols.

Here, she actually makes a bit of sense:

Several critics have pointed out some flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, including a too-broad use of the term “Israel lobby” — those of us who are pro-Israel differ widely — and having perhaps overemphasized the clout of the Israel lobby by ignoring the energy lobby.

But in the next breath, she loses it utterly.

It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel’s inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others.

What. A. Load. Of. Crap. Has Molly ever heard of an organization called B’tselem? Has she ever read Ha’aretz? Or any left-leaning Israeli who has published a newspaper or magazine article, or indeed, entire books written by Israelis about the Israeli treatment of palestinians? Has she heard of the many Israeli court judgments ruling against Israel in favor of palestinians over land, laws, and — here’s the big one — the placement of the security fence? Is she that effing ignorant, or wilfully blind and stupid?

And gee, can you get any more condescending than this:

I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others.

But wait, because now she really puts her foot in it. Deeply.

But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me their arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past.

Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of “anti-Semitism.” In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran.

Way to echo the paper, Molly. May I see a cite or three? What’s that? Don’t have one? What? Using the generic “The Israel lobby” is enough? Going by the erroneous W-M paper is enough?

You are seeing exactly what I wrote about weeks ago: The paper got out there, and now everyone is using it as a justification for the arguments that used to be whispered in private. They were whispered in private because they bear the stink of anti-Semitism. Now, they’re trying to move to the mainstream, and tools like Ivins are helping them right along.

To the extent that our interests do differ from those of Israel, the matter needs to be discussed calmly and fairly. This is not about conspiracies or plots or fantasies or anti-Semitism — it’s about rational discussion of American interests. And, in my case, being pro-Israel. I’m looking forward to hearing from all you nutjobs again.

Funny, isn’t it, that none of the people who decry the strength of The Lobby ever consider, even briefly, that perhaps American support of Israel is given because, well, gee — it’s the right thing to do. And the public approves of it, in every poll ever taken. Politicians don’t go against polls.

But then, Academia and Big Journalism have one thing in common: They believe that they, not the American people, know what is Best For America. Molly Ivins certainly does. Look at how she describes her opponents: “nutjobs.”

Better that than a hack who can’t understand an issue without having someone else do all the footwork for her, I guess.

Wafa Amr of Reuters is notorious for being a mouthpiece of Palestinian propaganda, but their latest blurt to hit the wires contains a very rare admission:

The Hamas-led Palestinian government is weighing softening its stance toward Israel to ease isolation but not without concessions from the Jewish state and the international community, Hamas officials said on Thursday.

They said ideas such as a 2002 Arab peace initiative, U.N. resolutions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Palestine Liberation Organization’s national agenda — all of which include recognition of Israel — were on the table.

One expert on Hamas said any softening would not involve a shift in ideology, but be a way to try to get Western aid restored to the Palestinian Authority and heal a growing rift with President Mahmoud Abbas over government powers.

Read the bold sections a few times.

They’re not doing this to change their ultimate goals. They’re only doing it for the money and power.

I have no doubt that the weak-willed latent anti-Semites of the EU will cave in quickly to this change in propaganda by Hamas without changing its goals. I’m also pretty sure that President Bush and Condi Rice will end up caving in eventually, playing the Israeli Exception Card as they always have in their overall War On Terrorism.

Anti-Semitism is down worldwide, except in Russia and the Ukraine, according to an Israeli study. But the overall number of anti-Semitic events was up, leading one to wonder how one can claim that anti-Semitism is down, except when you include certain countries individually. Like France. Except then you have to point out that the rate of violent anti-Semitic events in France has jumped this year, starting with the torture and murder of Ilan Halimi.

And in the past week, we have seen three stories that make me believe that anti-Semitism is not going down worldwide; in fact, it is heading back upward.

Sweden has pulled out of joint military exercises because Israel is taking part in them.

Indonesia refuses to play a World Federation cup tennis match in Israel, risking fines and banishnent for that refusal to play.

And on Tuesday, during a march against the Fascists who took over Italy before WWII, the marchers burned Israeli flags and chanted “Intifada.” The Vatican condemned it.

But still, a study of anti-Semitism worldwide says events are on a downward trend.

Pardon me if I am skeptical of the study’s claims. Actually, don’t. I don’t apologize for being skeptical.

When the world condemns Iran for its leaders’ anti-Israel rhetoric, then I will believe that anti-Semitism is on a downslide. I think it hasn’t yet peaked. Israel still exists, does it not? Jews still exist, do we not?

The upward trend will continue while those two facts are true.

Once more, the AP spins anti-Israel. Note the title of the article that will be picked up by hundreds of media outlets worldwide:

Palestinian Killed in Israeli Airstrike

They’re not even using the weasel-word “militant,” even though it appears in the lead.

DEIR EL-BALAH, Gaza Strip (AP) - Israeli aircraft fired missiles at two cars in Gaza packed with rockets on Thursday, killing one Islamic Jihad militant and critically wounding another, the Israeli army and Palestinian officials said.

The militants were on their way to fire a barrage of homemade rockets at Israeli targets, the military said. The militants belonged to a cell that was especially active in firing rockets, it added. One of the two cars targeted was hit, the army said.

Pillars of black and white smoke billowed from the destroyed vehicle as rescue workers removed burned and dismembered bodies from the car.

Check out the photo that goes with the article. Here’s the caption:

A vehicle allegedly used by Palestinian militants burns after it was hit in an Israeli missile strike, in Deir El Balah, south of Gaza City, Thursday, April 27, 2006. Israeli aircraft fired three missiles at targets in the central Gaza Strip on Thursday, critically wounding two Palestinian militants, Palestinian health officials said.

What’s with the sudden need for “allegedly”? Oh, that’s right — let’s cast doubt that the Israelis hit the right target, even though the story contends that rescuers pulled body parts from the burning vehicle.

This next paragraph is confusing.

Israel has pledged to end the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, but is reluctant to launch an invasion into the coastal area it withdrew from in August. The homemade rockets are highly inaccurate, but at times have killed people and damaged buildings.

The “inaccurate” rockets have killed people. Israel is “reluctant to launch an invasion.” You’d almost think the AP was reaching for balance there, if you hadn’t been a regular reader of theirs for years.

The new Hamas-led government has said it will not arrest the militants launching the rockets or take other steps to halt the fire.

Well, that’s completely accurate and amazing unbiased. But this next has to be a mistranslation.

Islamic Jihad vowed to take revenge for Thursday’s missile strike.

“God willing our reprisal is coming and it is going to be like air shaking,” said spokesman Abu Ahmad. “We are going to shake the air under their feet. They had experienced us in Tel Aviv and more is coming.”

“Air” shaking? I think they mean “earth.” Because if they don’t, they’re even dumber than I thought. (And we are so disappointed not to have a “gates of hell” quote.)

Now let’s look at the difference between the next two paragraphs. Read them carefully. See the subtle, subtle bias.

Islamic Jihad, a small group with ties to Iran and Syria, claimed responsibility for last week’s suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed nine and wounded dozens.

During more than five years of fighting, Israel has killed dozens of militants in targeted airstrikes. The attacks also have killed or wounded dozens of civilians.

Notice how the victims of suicide bombings are numbers only, but the AP felt it necessary to add that civilians ahve been killed in airstrikes. A truly unbiased report would say something like, “Militant suicide attacks have killed or wounded hundreds of civilians.” Thousands, actually.

But we don’t expect balance from an AP article. Good thing, too.