Cheesy Argument

I used to regularly check out The New York Times' editorial page, but then years ago they put it behind a firewall and I learned how little you miss if you don't read it. Still, occasionally I hear about a piece, such as Thomas L. Friedman's latest on America and Israel.  I checked it out.  Not much there, I'm afraid, but the following paragraph is bizarre:

I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby. The real test is what would happen if Bibi tried to speak at, let’s say, the University of Wisconsin. My guess is that many students would boycott him and many Jewish students would stay away, not because they are hostile but because they are confused.

Why do pundits keep using the weird, classically anti-Semitic trope (even if Friedman isn't an anti-Semite) of magical powers behind the scenes that Jews have? (Though I admit I don't know exactly who comprises the Israel Lobby--sounds pretty ominous, though.  Sometimes it's called the Jewish Lobby, but I guess "Israel Lobby" goes down easier.) True, there are lobbyists who support a certain view of Israel, just as there are lobbyists for many other causes.  But politicians don't back losers, not for long, anyway.  The reason Netanyahu gets an ovation from our Congress is, ultimately, because the Israeli cause is quite popular in America--among most groups and in a bipartisan way.  No lobby can wave their wand (or pass out money) and make politicians applaud something the general population finds hateful.

Weirder still is Friedman saying the real test would be a speech at the University of Wisconsin (acting like he chose the place almost at random). Yes, Israeli leaders don't go over well at academic settings, which goes to show how radical and unpopular many political views held by academics are--take that, Bibi!

Seems to me the "real test" of a pundit is someone who doesn't casually confuse unpopular views with the mainstream.