Israpundit points to this New York Times Magazine article addressing some of the myths of "Jewish Influence" on American politics. Although it begins to get a bit fuzzy in the end (this is the NYT, after all), by walking us through some of the region's history, and the history of some of the ideas influencing our perceptions, the author provides a saner explanation for the seeming close relationship between the US and Israel.

Tam Dalyell, are you listening?

Update: "Gefen" has a lengthy fisking of this article.

Update 2: Roger L. Simon also comments. Good quote:

Update 3: I can already see how some are reading the piece and perhaps being more critical than necessary. I agree that much of the emphasis and explanation is wrong-headed, or has a slant that I hear often, but feel to be wrong. But that's to be expected in an article of this sort. It is, after all, not aimed at us "neo-con Likudniks." It's aimed at the more lefty or righty elements who may fall into the trap of conflating their anti-Israel sentiments with simple raw anti-Semitism. As such, of course the voice and perspective used in the piece will tend to come from the Israel-critical point-of-view. In effect, and I believe in intent (re-read that title), this article is a primer for them to make smarter, less racist arguments.

As such, I have mixed feelings, of course, since I don't want anyone helping the opposition. On the other hand, if it assists in making the debate more honest, that can only be a good thing, as I believe our (Israel supporters) arguments do well on the merits, and the more irrational argument that's stripped out, the better. Further, robbed of much of its anti-semitic foundation, I believe the opposition will be harder-put to find solid footing, and that can also be only a good thing in winning over the large numbers of people who, I believe, hold only naively anti-semitic viewpoints. That is, they have repeated the buzzwords and arguments of the real anti-semitic originators without ever really examining what they're repeating, or even having the means to do so.

So, consider articles like this one step in the process of conversion - of taking on a non-threatening tone and viewpoint and peeling back the fist layer of the onion.