the rise of a security-oriented grouping called “neo-conservatives” in support of an assertive U.S. foreign policy, partnering with Israel. In this context, Mitelpunkt graphically portrays a more complex and diverse arrangement of political forces at play in U.S.-Israel relations in the 1980s and 1990s. He does not, however, hide his personal distaste toward rightwing players in Israel, such as the Likud Party leadership of Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu and conservative figures in the United States such as Ronald Reagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Pipes, and Donald Trump’s crew. Harvard’s Pipes spoke for many in arguing that “Israel’s interests and those of the United States were identical since the two were fighting different forms of terrorism” (p. 290). To this day, the neo-conservatives frequently cite the dramatic Israeli rescue of hijacked hostages from the Entebbe Airport in Uganda in 1976 as a model of toughness and bravery under enormous pressure and threat that the United States should emulate. Judging from the book, Mitelpunkt is a liberal in a conservative era. In the later chapters, he portrays Israel as a troubled, conflicted, and war-weary society that exerts military control over another people. Yes, I am a big believer in a two-state resolution. But weak peace camps in the Israeli and Palestinian polities hinder a sustained push toward peace negotiations, and Mitelpunkt does not consider the obstacles in depth. He makes no mention of Israel’s robust economic growth rates led by the high technology and export sectors, its growing diplomatic and intelligence ties with counterparts in key Arab Sunni countries, and its relatively amicable relations with Russia and India. He wishes Americans were more sympathetic to the Palestinians, and that the United States would “pressure Israel” (p. 339) to the point of actively moving Israelis and Palestinians toward negotiations, thus addressing grievances and achieving two recognized side-by-side states at peace. Nevertheless, as Israel in the American Mind portrays from beginning to end, the deep Israeli roots in U.S. soil and soul are thriving in a staunch and steadfast bilateral relationship. Public opinion polls consistently show Israel’s favorability to be greater than 60 percent. As Grose and Mitelpunkt demonstrate in detail, U.S. bonds with the Holy Land are tight, both societies tied together by a precious biblical and contemporary golden thread.

中文翻译：

---

斯大林最后的日子

一个名为“新保守派”的以安全为导向的团体的兴起，以支持与以色列合作的自信的美国外交政策。在这种背景下，Mitelpunkt 生动地描绘了在 1980 年代和 1990 年代美以关系中发挥作用的政治力量的更复杂和多样化的安排。然而，他并没有掩饰他个人对以色列右翼球员的厌恶，比如梅纳赫姆贝京和本杰明内塔尼亚胡的利库德党领导人以及美国的保守派人物，比如罗纳德里根、珍妮柯克帕特里克、丹尼尔帕特里克莫伊尼汉、诺曼波德霍雷茨、理查德·派普斯和唐纳德·特朗普的工作人员。哈佛的派普斯在争辩说“以色列的利益和美国的利益是相同的，因为两者正在打击不同形式的恐怖主义”（第 290 页）时代表了许多人。到今天，新保守派经常将 1976 年以色列从乌干达恩德培机场救出被劫持的人质作为美国应该效仿的在巨大压力和威胁下的坚韧和勇敢的典范。从书中来看，Mitelpunkt是保守时代的自由主义者。在后面的章节中，他将以色列描绘成一个陷入困境、冲突和厌战的社会，对另一个民族施加军事控制。是的，我非常相信两国解决方案。但以色列和巴勒斯坦政体中薄弱的和平阵营阻碍了和平谈判的持续推进，Mitelpunkt 没有深入考虑这些障碍。他没有提到以色列由高科技和出口部门带动的强劲经济增长率，其与主要阿拉伯逊尼派国家的外交和情报关系日益密切，与俄罗斯和印度的关系相对友好。他希望美国人对巴勒斯坦人更加同情，希望美国向以色列“施压”（第 339 页），以积极推动以色列和巴勒斯坦人进行谈判，从而解决不满并实现两个公认的并肩国家内心安宁。尽管如此，正如美国心目中的以色列自始至终所描绘的那样，以色列在美国土壤和灵魂中的深厚根基在牢固而坚定的双边关系中蓬勃发展。民意调查一致显示以色列的支持率超过 60%。正如 Grose 和 Mitelpunkt 详细表明的那样，美国与圣地的联系很紧密，