John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are two of the most important thinkers in the “realist” school of US foreign-policy analysts. Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Walt is the Academic Dean at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he holds the Robert and Renee Belfer Professorship in International Affairs.
These two men are not, as you can see, fuzzy-headed liberals who are marginal to the mainstream of policy discourse in the United States.
Now, they have a major new article in the upcoming issue of the London Review of Books on the power and detrimental role that the pro-Israel lobby in Washington has played over the years. (The LRB piece has no footnotes. But you can access a fully documented, PDF version of the longer article from which it was excerpted, if you click here. 211 endnotes, many of them very lengthy, to document just 48 pages of text… These guys are empiricists after my own heart!)
Here is some of what they argue in the LRB version:
- Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
And this:
- In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.
The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the ‘smart’ choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy. [Emphasis by HC there, to signal my complete agreement, based on my own extensive experience.]
A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.
Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.’
AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.
There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’
AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes’.
The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’
Regarding media-muzzling, the authors note calmly, “It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one.” Indeed, I believe they tried to get the piece published in the US first, but failed.
They add:
- Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times, which occasionally criticises Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but is not even-handed. In his memoirs the paper’s former executive editor Max Frankel acknowledges the impact his own attitude had on his editorial decisions: ‘I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert . . . Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.’
News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to be objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel’s actions on the ground. To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets 6000 email messages in a single day complaining about a story. In May 2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National Public Radio stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade contributors to withhold support from NPR until its Middle East coverage becomes more sympathetic to Israel. Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1 million in contributions as a result of these efforts. Further pressure on NPR has come from Israel’s friends in Congress, who have asked for an internal audit of its Middle East coverage as well as more oversight.
The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy…
The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September 2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites students to report ‘anti-Israel’ activity.
Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of the presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. ‘One can be sure that any public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the pre-eminent literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters and journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either sanction or fire him,’ Jonathan Cole, its former provost, reported. When Columbia recruited the historian Rashid Khalidi from Chicago, the same thing happened. It was a problem Princeton also faced a few years later when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia.
… Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the importance placed on controlling debate.
And this very important point:
- Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’
Actually, the whole of that section on the role of Israel and the Lobby in pushing the Bushies into the invasion of Iraq is very clearly and calmly written, and well worth reading.
Finally, this:
- Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat’s death and the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the region.
But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today, and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities. Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.
The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.
Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.
There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a similar capability.
Besides, the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts – or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.
Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists. Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more even-handed.
There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well.
Well, let’s hope they are right to argue that “reality cannot be ignored forever.” But US politicians (and most MSM editors) have done a darn’ good job of ignoring it for the past 39 years. One big key to success, I think, is to push for meaningful campaign-finance reform in the country. This would help to eliminate or at least severely reduce the role of money in US elections. (Of course, most outlets of the MSM would have grave reservations about this, because a large chunk of their income is derived from election-related advertising.)
Campaign finance reform would also be good for democratic life in the US, altogether.
But until we can achieve that, or find other ways to reduce the heinous, anti-democratic role played by AIPAC and all its affiliates in US public life, one really good role is played by those who like Mearsheimer and Walt are prepared merely to tell the truth about what has been happening in our country’s politics…. Thanks for your labors on this, guys!
“These two men are not, as you can see, fuzzy-headed liberals who are marginal to the mainstream of policy discourse in the United States.”
That’s because in the United States the anti-Israel movement has not been “fuzzy headed liberals” for the most part. Right wing isolationists, state department Arabists, petroleum interests. These are the interest groups that have been carrying the load for the pro-Arab lobby, which has compromised American security significantly more than ties with Irael. Most americans, liberal and conservative, support Israel.
Ultimately, what has happened here is that in America, most people tend to be very sympathetic toward Israel, and the anti-Israel lobby has lost the debate. So instead, they try to smear the Israeli “Lobby.”
There is plenty of debate about Israeli policy and U.S. support thereof. The people who claim “censorship” are just upset that they are on the losing end of this debate. So you have congresscritters like Paul Findley and Charles Percy who are voted out by their own constituents and instead blame “the Israeli lobby” on the fact that their own voters didn’t like them very much.
(Side note: Findley and Percy were replaced by Dick Durbin and Paul Simon, two INCREDIBLY progressive congressmembers. So to the extent the “Israeli lobby” influenced those elections, as a liberal, I thank them immensely).
I’ve noticed that Helena has really stepped up her hateful attacks on Israel and her smears of pro-Israel advocates. My guess on this is partly due to the victory of Hamas. This has definitely turned a lot of people in the U.S. much more sympathetic to Israel (which was already high). Moreover, those who have defended and acted as advocates find themselves advocating for a group which is clearly racist, as well as anti-progressive in just about every way. The result is that she has to turn attention away from that and start attacking people who speak out in favor of Israel.
Ultimately, this has now led to Helena citing an article by some disgruntled losers in the debate bemoaning how the Jews…I mean Zionists…control everything. How sad that this blog has sunk this low.
Indeed Joshua. There has been a shift in Helena’s focus visible in the ratio between “World” vs. Israel postings. As a reader I find it borderline obsessive. She has long crossed the line from reporting and analysis into activism.
Right wing isolationists, state department Arabists, petroleum interests.
Absolutely correct. You might add to your list Arab-funded Mideast studies departments though it may invite the charge of ‘McCarthyism’ — despite the fact that ad hominem para-argumentative obsessions over the Israel lobby, who’s a “Pro-Likud Mole” etc is exactly the same thing.
Another thing I wonder. I would like to see what Helena’s view of “The National Interest” is compared to Mearsheimer and Walt’s.
Uh guys . . .
Maybe Helena’s focus on Israel and Palestine has been related to the fact that she has been there for the last couple weeks and has been talking to many people involved in the relevant discussions . . .
Maybe read a bit harder next time.
“hateful attacks on Israel and her smears of pro-Israel advocates” translates to “focus on Israel and Palestine?” Someone needs to read more carefully, and it isn’t Joshua.
“Hateful” is not a word I would associate with Helena. Cool your jets, man.
Oh my, did we touch a raw nerve or something there?
It seems to me that poor Joshua, Vadim, and Co. simply spend their days glued to their computer screens ready to hit back at a moment’s notice with their incredibly defensive, silly, and discourteous attacks the moment that one of my posts goes up here.
And nor do these “Israel-uber-alles” defenders even bother to engage with the substance of what is, indeed, an incredibly substantial piece of work there by Mearsheimer and Walt. Oh no. It’s shoot-the-messenger time, with a continuation of these guys’ really silly little attacks against me.
I, of course, am under no obligation whatsoever to continue to host or publish all these jejune attacks… But they do sort of illustrate some of the points about the pro-Israel crowd’s habits ofdiscourse domination and debate crushing that Mearsheimer and Walt were making, don’t they?
So guys, why don’t you (a) take a few moments to actually read and engage with the text that is the subject of this post, and (b) restrict your comments to that subject instead of to your silly attacks on me?
Helena:
Heard of the Hasbara Handbook?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara
Enjoy!
Helena:
Heard of the Hasbara Handbook?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara
Enjoy!
And nor do these “Israel-uber-alles” [sic] defenders even bother to engage with the substance of what is, indeed, an incredibly substantial piece of work there by Mearsheimer and Walt.
Please~! There’s nothing substantial about McCarthyite witch hunts and ad hominems. If the shoe were on the other foot, and some prominent personality were criticising your work on the grounds that you were “on the payroll” of the Saudi government (since you write for the famously impartial Saudi owned newspaper Al Hayat) you’d blow a gasket.
As far as discourse domination goes, have I been imagining your incredibly defensive censorship of the blog comments (note remark above?) but unlike Joshua, I’m uninterested in your personal prejudices, however glaring they may be. meta-argumentative ad hominem sidebars about “operatives” instead of policy are unproductive, ad hominem and juvenile. I associate censorship and ad hominems with the political right.
You’re doing fine, Helena. Please keep it up and don’t worry. Your supporters are still around.
Maybe some of us are a bit busy organising for the demonstrations at the weekend.
There are 242 cities worldwise listed on the Stop the War site as having some sort of demo this Saturday or Sunday for the third anniversary of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Charlottesville is not listed. Surely some mistake?
Yes, a terrible mistake, Dominic– we have lots going on, check here. I imagine there are plenty of other towns whose events didn’t get listed, too…
It’s nice to get the encouraging words from you, Ben P., and others. But these Israel-uber-alles folks just still don’t want to engage with the substance of what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote.
It strikes me, actually, that they have no clue how respected and influential these two guys are. The publication of this article is indeed a significant event. (Or maybe that’s why the IUA-ers don’t really want to engage with the substance?)
It strikes me, actually, that they have no clue how respected and influential these two guys are.
Unsurprisingly, an article whose thesis is an elaborate ad hominem fallacy is defensible only via the same shabby argumentation. yet the article is pure McCarthyism from start to finish. Its authors are popular and highly respected among vulgar right wing ‘realists’ in the mold of Henry Kissinger. Who knew Helena had so much in common with reactionary right wingers?
(ps Helena, from what I’ve read I’d say my views on Israel are pretty much identical to those of your old pal Juan Cole, and no crypto-Likudnik he.)
Having gone to the University of Chicago, I am aware of who Mearsheimer is.
In any event, I think that the substance of the issues has been addressed, even if not to your liking. As I pointed out, the anti-Israel crowd has largely lost the sympathy of the American public and policymakers. As such, they claim that they have been “shut out of the debate.”
The real issue is that their policies and their rhetoric were not adopted. The other issue is that they have to face counterspeech and call it “censorship.”
These accusations have been made time and time again, and I really don’t see any change because of them. Indeed, as noted above, the election of Hamas, has pretty much solidified support for Israel in America. To that I would also add the threats from Iran coupled with that leader’s Holocaust denial. Americans do not need AIPAC or any other “hasbara” to see that and consequently sympathize with Israel.
Lastly, the “Israel-uber-alles” is another example of a “discourteous” attack. But you’ve made clear your standards are a one way street a long time ago.
One good ad hominem deserves another. Here’s Mearsheimer on Kissinger:
It behooves us to pay careful attention to Kissinger’s views on foreign policy; few are better qualified to write on the subject. Not only was Kissinger, as both National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history (1969-1977), but he is also a deeply learned man who has written extensively and intelligently about international politics for nearly five decades. Indeed, never has there been a statesman with Henry Kissinger’s credentials as a scholar, or a scholar with his credentials as a statesman. . .
Since you defended Mearsheimer on the basis of his credentials and “respect in certain circles”, you’ll no doubt be eager to defend remarks he’s made along these lines.
Who said this about Kissenger…
“Why did anyone ever take this sorry old guy’s “intellect” seriously at all? He strikes me as just a muddled, highly irresponsible, imperialistic old bully.”
What a magnificent and courteous statement!
[I’ve noticed that Helena has really stepped up her hateful attacks on Israel and her smears of pro-Israel advocates. Posted by Joshua]
Hmmmm… having read a number of Helena’s articles, I really doubt that she can really attack a mouse. IMO, your imagination needs certain breaks.
Helena,
Your blog is great. Forget these guys. They show up all over – or at least their arguments do.
Critique AIPAC, you are incapable of reason, a lunatic, insane! In its “polite” form you get “lack of balance”. The hysteria is the give away.
Some of these jerks claim to be “liberal democrats” and yet they will defend an organization which will accept Cheney, with an American flag blending in to an Israeli flag, behind him, arguing harsh consequences for Iran.
They are incapable of arguing against the actual points – at least without assuming premises which neither you nor any other informed person – including many Israelis – would accept.
true story: I used to call in to Mike Gallaghers radio show all the time. He’s a conservative. I was on at least a dozen times over the years and always liked the guy even if i disagreed with him. Last time i called I defended mahmoud ahmadnajad, disagreeing with his ideas about israel but saying it wasn’t a good enough reason to nuke him. Needless to say, I’ve been banned from the show. Oh, one of the shows sponsers is the israel tourism board. oops!
note – I accidentally posted this in the elction thread.
our local college had a demonstration yesterday against Israel’s recent actions against the Palestinians in Jericho.
I guess I would have to say my sympathies mainly lie with the Palestinians, only because way more of their children have been killed by the Israelis than vice-versa.
The Palestinians are always painted as the “extremists” and “murderers”, yet we get numbers like this:
TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 123 children killed
TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Palestinians: 707 children killed
Maybe someone could explain to me why the good and decent and “non-extremists” Israeli are out-killing the Palestinians more than five to one?
The above is from a website
http://www.rememberthesechildren.org
Holy Moley AIPAC’s gonna s—
Heavy counterbattery fire directed at AMEN Corner.
About time the truth mainstreamed in this country. We are not, as Marty Peretz would have it, “all Israelis now”
We never have been. Wake up America. This iron triangle is bad for America and worse for Israel
Helena if you are betting on Campaign Finance Reform, I’ve a sure long shot at Pimlico for you, a nice bridge here in SFCA, and some Harkin Energy stock – package deal – TV special 29.99+ shipping.
Without going into detail, the politcal factors and legal (first amendment) issues in combination make this a slender reed indeed upon which to pin so much hope. Its something like a tube of toothpaste – squeeze in one place, the slop moves to another.
Fuggit about it.
No. What is needed is just what you have been doing, you and Juan Cole and host of others..relentless, take no prisoners, principled attack. War, like nothing else, energizes the contradictions in any political system and plants the seeds of the warriors’ destruction.
Keep the faith. Give no quarter. Kick ass, take names, and you might live to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Ps 27
“the anti-Israel crowd has largely lost the sympathy of the American public and policymakers”
Heh-heh! Joshua used “American public” and “sympathy” in the same sentence! You guys think you’re so smart because you manipulated a bunch of redneck Christian conservative neanderthals into believing they needed to attack all of Israel’s enemies in order to bring on the “rapture.” When the easy credit dries up, their jobs are all gone, their houses are all foreclosed on, they can’t afford their medicine, there’s still 1.2 billion Muslims in the world and Jesus is nowhere in sight – who do you think they might turn on?
“Most americans, liberal and conservative, support Israel.”
What’s that based on? Chapter and verse please.
And if Joshua can’t come up with the goods, what are we to make of a statement like that? Wishful thinking? White noise? White noise whipped up and churned out by precisely the elements that the two American academics are writing about.
Or to tweak the metaphor ever so slightly – you sure you’re not popping smoke, Joshua? Or maybe mistaking ground fog for what’s underneath it.
I say that because where I’m coming from a statement like that…well, we’re just not singing off the same hymn sheet at all. My reaction – gut and considered – is, “oh no you don’t – keep me and mine out of that”. Or to put that another way: this American supports America. End of story. Israel – shock, horror – doesn’t come into the calculus at all. And a corollary of that – this Yank doesn’t like the idea at all that some of his compatriots might be putting another country first. Or even a close second. Doesn’t matter what that other country is – Freedonia, Bergonia, Lilliputia, Likudonia, Hamastonia.
And my hunch is that most of my compatriots probably feel pretty much the same way.
And because of the stuff that’s going on over there – hell, I saw a television programme the other night about “settlers” who kept coming down the hill at night and destroying the one water pipe that a few Arab families who’ve lived on that land for generations are completely dependent on…what kind of people are they? what kind of people would do something like that? – because of the stuff that’s going on over there the “sell” aint’ going to get any easier.
The latest Gallup Poll indicated that 59% of Americans’ sympathies lied with the Israelis, 15% lied with the Arabs. Since the question was asked starting in 1967, the numbers have always been in favor of Israel. But in the past few years the numbers have increased.
Sorry, this is not just the “Jewish lobby” and fundamentalist Christians. This is bipartisan and broad based support.
Helena made a big to do about how well sourced the article is. Reading the article, it kind of reminded me of how Ann Coulter uses “footnotes,” in a way that was marvelously debunked by Al Franken in “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” Much of these footnotes don’t actually cite to any original hard evidence or even recycled hard evidence. It’s just citing other authors who have made the same opinion based assertions as they have. For example, in the section where they make blanket assertions of how “The U.S. regularly adopts the Israeli policy line” they site….here it comes…Noam Chomsky’s “Fateful Triangle” and a few other authors who have written one sided attacks on Israel.
You see this in the blogosphere a lot, when say, Helena cites to Juan Cole who cites to Riverbend who cites to the Angry Arab, who cites back to Juan Cole, etc. All of a sudden, you can document an argument with multiple sources, each citing to the other.
I remember when we were discussing Palestinian economic conditions in Gaza. Helena insisted that the occupation had crippled the Palestinians economically, and as proof she cited to Sara Roy as proof of the “de-development” which was largely a polemic. When I claimed that economic indicators in many sectors improved, Helena blew a gasket and started to delete my posts because I was making “unfounded assertions.” JES later proved Helena wrong by providing a myriad of stats which showed the claim to be correct.
So when Helena talks about the authors being “empiricists after her own heart”, it really means that, like her, the authors are citing people who made the same assertions and share the same opinions as she, under the assumption that if other people say so, it must be true. There is very little empiricism in the true sense, where there is hard data backing up their claims.
It’s particularly funny that Helena decides to bring this up this week. The authors, among other things, claim that the “Israeli Lobby” is squelching pro-Arab voices in the media and on campus. So I open up my “Zionist controlled” New York Times earlier this week, and see two full page ads (in color even!) congratulating Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud for his generosity in establishing an Islamic Studies Center at Harvard, and the establishment of a center for “Muslim Christian understanding” at Georgetown.
In the end, this article does not say anything new. It recycles the same tired old charges that “the Zionist lobby” controls U.S. foreign policy and tries to “squelch dissent.” And it’s not like these guys are even new converts to the cause. They’ve had axes to grind with Israel for quite some time.
The article (or at least the portions cited here) raise some questions for me that neither the authors nor Helena seem to answer.
First, if the “Israel uber alles” lobby (Cute. Note to Self: Use phrase Hamas Jungen at earliest possible convenience.) is so powerful, why did it take them three full terms to get Chuck Percy defeated? It is also interesting to note that the authors didn’t bring up Cynthia McKinney, the more recent self-proclaimed “victim” of the pro-Zionist lobby (or, as her daddy said more succinctly when interviewed: the J-E-W-S). I guess that’s because she somehow managed to subsequently overcome their all-powerfulness (and, in my opinion, the fact that she has shown herself to be a ranting lunatic) to get elected again to Congress.
The second question has to do with the attributed pro-Israel, or “Israel-first” as they are sometimes called, motives of the decision to invade Iraq. This is obviously not the first place I’ve seen the argument that the US went to war to protect Israel. What I haven’t seen anywhere is a logical elucidation of exactly what was the unique threat to Israel posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq that the US (against its own interests) was protecting Israel against. Was it perhaps the WMDs that everyone is claiming that the US government knew full well didn’t exist prior to the invasion?
Finally, I don’t understand exactly what the authors are complaining about. (I certainly hope that they’re not trying to say that the Jews control the media and finance!) As I see it, the pro-Israel lobby is simply doing its job well. They are well organized. They provide apparently good research services to members of Congress and their staff. They are vocal about what they believe in and they get people to write letters and demonstrate peacefully when something is written or happens that they don’t agree with. That, I think, is fine and I would also say quite preferable than making overt threats, calling for beheadings, burning down embassies, taking hostages and flying planes into buildings.
Helena
What an entertaining set of comments.
Rosner in Haaretz is apoplectic, and also a good read.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=693773&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
Your characterisation of the authors of the report and their academic pedigree is important. One of the things that has distressed me about the Iraq invasion of 2003 (over and above the death, damage and misery) is how academics with knowledge of the situation were shut out and ignored.
The result of ignoring the warnings of people who knew what they were talking about has been to have the decision to invade taught as a case study in Strategic Incompetence in some Asian Staff Colleges.
Strategic Incompetence is described in Dixon: Psychology of Military Incompetence as I expect you are already aware.
There is also a Wiki so people can check to make sure they arent showing symptoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_incompetence
I probably line up with the people who have said “Cool it, and read what the paper actually says” then do some rational thinking.
Attacking the Israel lobby is an indirect and non-substantive, attack on Israel. The world influence of AIPAC is dwarfed by the world influence of the Arabs, if you include their influence on Europe and on US Universities.
The US Congress seems to feel that Israel is an ally. Strangely, Yassir Arafat was of the same opinion, taking the side of any anti-American cause over virtually his entire career. The US tilt toward Israel results as much from the Arab tilt away from the US as from AIPAC or “Christian Zionists”. There is no ideological or material reason for Syria, say, to take such an anti-American tone to it’s foreign policy. But it does this despite the support this garners for Israel.
The authors argue “Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.” Arab violence toward Israel began long before the 1967 war. The authors know that. The Arabs adopted terrorist tactics in 1967 because other options were exhausted. And the settlements are the result of the Arab assault, not the cause of it. Palestinian terrorism is indeed part of a larger effort directed against both Israel and the West in general.
In other words, Mearsheimer and Walt are re-arguing almost the entire Arab-Israeli dispute as a series of asides in an article on the “Israel Lobby”.
The authors also argue, with deliberate dishonesty, that the Arab-Israeli dispute is not part of the worldwide Jihad movement. That they are totally separate. All the Islamists say that it is the same struggle, against “Crusaders and Jews”, for example. Are we supposed to be fooled by Mearsheimer and Walt?
And of course, they claim that the media is stacked against the poor innocent Arabs. If that is so, why do so many outlets print the columns of Helena Cobban? And why do so many news sources, especially the BBC and Reuters, almost never use the word “Terrorist” to describe a terrorist?
I’ll tell you why. Because they are afraid of having their reporters and photographers killed in the Middle East. Reuters has admitted as much publicly. Many of the mainstream reporters and photographers on the ground in the Middle East are actually part of the PLO and are subject to PLO discipline.
The article in the London Review of Books is a hatchet job, intended only to give support to Hamas during a decisive period. This is revealed by the abuse of statistics showing more Palestinian dead than Israeli. Of course, Israel has a more effective military, so it wins more battles. The moral onus of the deaths, however, still lies on the Palestinians who started the Intifada. It is also revealed by meaningless statistics that Israel used over a million bullets. Not mentioning how many of these were rubber bullets, and completely skipping over the fact that the average Palestinian losses over the Intifada was about 3 people per day. Clearly Israel is working very hard to minimize the deaths. The Palestinians have yet to use even one rubber bullet. It is distortionary prejudice like this that leads people to ask whether anti-Semitism is the motivation of such drivel.
The central pillars of Arab culture that relate to the Jews are the principles of Dhimmi and Jihad. How can Mearsheimer and Walt skip both of these central topics and still claim to not be prejudiced? Yet neither of these words appears in the LRB article.
Perhaps worst of all, the article is full of non-accusatory accusations, that is, describing innocent activities with a tone that indicates crtiticism, but with no specific fault pointed out. Typical is “A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel Studies programmes.” The article is full of perfectly valid descriptive sentences that are made to sound as if something bad is going on. This is the mark of political hatchetry and the departure of scholarship.
Finally, the article goes to great length to show that Israel supported the US decision to take down Saddam Hussein. So what? Israel was also the only country to vote on the side of the US in the UN General Assembly when it passed resolutions against the US intervention in Vietnam. Israel is a US supporter. It’s a smart move for Israel. Yes, Israel hated Saddam Hussein and was threatened by him. Yet for all the verbiage, the article just can’t say that the war was for Israel, but that “…many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests”. Well, many Americans say they were abducted by UFO’s. It just isn’t scholarship, and it isn’t honest reporting.
Just one thing. We all know that W Bush came into office wanting to take down Saddam Hussein. The left, on the other hand, has been telling us over and over that the war in Iraq is for oil or for Halliburton, depending on the day. Now, it’s the Jewish Lobby that did it. Can you see why this looks like prejudice to me?
Helena, I’m glad you have provoked all this fury. It shows you’re getting through.
The (very interesting) article is not a mere ad-hominem attack against the “Lobby”. It argues that the current level of US support for Israel is morally and strategically wrong. It then argues that this un-“Realistic” behaviour is due to the succes of the Israeli lobby, whose “activities are no different from those of other interest groups”, but which has more succes and less opposition.
The role and formation of US public opinion is underemphasised. It would be a good subject for a follow-up article.
Anyway, RTWT!
Andrew Brown
This is not fury. If you think this is fury, you’ve never seen fury. This (mostly) analysis.
http://www.nysun.com/article/29357
Of course the NY Sun is a Zionist rag, another mouthpiece for AIPAC propaganda. Look away!
I’ll tell you, for a sinister plot those Likudnik-Zionist-uber-alles types sure do broadcast their agenda something fierce. “Israeli lobby” pulls up 10 times as many Google hits as “Arab lobby” and 50 times as many as “Palestinian lobby” w/similar ratios on NEXIS. I thought those Zionists were more adept conspirators — why can’t they keep their nefarious agenda under wraps?
The funny thing is that the side making accusation is really the one that has done more to try and bring others into submission if they support “the wrong side.”
It wass the Arab League which demanded a boycott of not just all Israeli businesses, but all businesses affiliated with Israel.
Try advocating for Zionism in say, Iran. You will go to jail. THAT’S censorship.
Even here in North America, who is doing the “silencing?” The Israel haters engaged in literal mob violence to prevent Netenyahu from speaking at Concordia University. Posters and fliers for pro-Israel events are regularly torn down at schools, including Mearsheimer’s own Univeristy of Chicago.
Allison Weir’s “If Americans Knew” has demanded that the New York Times bar Jewish reporters from covering the Middle East.
On the other side, you don’t have censorship as much as counterspeech. Could it be more civil? Sure, we all could be more civil. But I think that the main gripe of the anti-Israel crowd is just that their ideas haven’t picked up much currency in American politics, American media, or the general American public. So they blame “the lobby” for their lack of success.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=hospital&itemNo=694966
The woman gave birth prematurely to triplets at Moqassed two months ago, and the babies needed extensive hospitalization. But due to the hospital’s concern that the National Insurance Institute (NII) would not cover the costs, since the babies’ father is a resident of the Palestinian Authority, the hospital allegedly decided to release only two of the babies, keeping the third as a “guarantee.”
The mother left with the two babies, and a week ago she and her father approached the Justice Ministry. “We looked into the matter with the hospital,” the Justice Ministry’s head of legal aid, Eyal Globus, said. “And it turned out that things were exactly as the mother said they were; the third baby was being held there.” It was also determined that there was no medical need to keep the baby hospitalized.
I’m not sure what the above has to do with the “Israeli Lobby.” But anyway, there are a few other interesting things in the article…
“We looked into the matter with the hospital,” the Justice Ministry’s head of legal aid, Eyal Globus, said. “And it turned out that things were exactly as the mother said they were; the third baby was being held there.”
Globus sent an urgent letter to the Health Ministry’s legal adviser in which he wrote that the hospital director told him this was normal procedure to ensure debt payment. “We must see that the debt is covered from some source,” Globus wrote. The Health Ministry subsequently ordered the immediate release of the baby, and the hospital complied.
The Justice Ministry’s legal aid department is now working to arrange NII payment of the hospital charges. A lawsuit and criminal charges against the hospital are also being considered.”
I’m not sure what the above has to do with the “Israeli Lobby.”
It has to do with Zionist perfidy. Please stay on topic. Baby-abduction, discourse-domination, lending money at interest. It’s disgraceful.
My take on the whole “Israeli Lobby” issue is that there IS an unhealthy degree of “My Israel, may she always be right but my Israel, right or wrong” sentiment in U.S. policy.
I would also have to agree with George Washington that, in the sense that people may have friends but nations have interests, the idea of seeing Israel as a virtual America-in-the-eastern-Med is probably not healthy either for us OR for them.
It seems to me a no-brainer: regardless of who started the ’67 War, the result was Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Wouldn’t it seem sensible that national and international law would dictate a return of these territories to their respective national governments? We all agree that Germany started WW2, right? So why wasn’t it OK for France to annex the French Occupation Zone in Germany after 1945, or import a bunch of Frenchmen to live in Aachen for 40 years?
The fact that the U.S. hasn’t simply said to Israel: “Okay, you want F-18s? Fine. Pull back to the 67 borders, return the Territories to Jordan and Egypt, and we will sign a mutual defense pact with you 1) recognizing the ’67 borders as the permanent border of Israel and 2)promising to send the full weight of U.S. military force against any nation or force that attempts to change that.” suggests to me that the U.S. is seeing the Territories through their Israeli beer goggles…
For starters, neither Egypt nor Jordan want Gaza and the West Bank back.
And the aftermath of WWII isn’t really a good example for you; it involved the expulsion of millions of ethnic Germans from areas their families had been living for generations, and IIRC the annexation of some German territories by Germany’s neighbours. International law has challenged none of this.
Very sensible post, FDChief. Of course if the US did anything similar, the conflict would soon be over. And of course land and the insane settlements are the core and cause of the conflict now. By the way, the only reason Israel and the US have not had a mutual defense pact for decades is that Israel refused when the US offered one in the early 50s. But largely at the urging of the Israel lobby (who don’t have to live with the results of criminally insane “pro-Israel” policies) US policy (since the early 70’s) is violently contrary to US, Arab and Israeli interests, and has basically been to pour gasoline on a fire. What is amazing is that there is not more bloodshed.
The issues are more complicated now, but it is clear what FDChief means or should mean. Of course Jordan would be happy to have the WB back, not that it is likely to get it the same way as before. However there is good reason to believe a future Palestine might confederate with Jordan.
Eyal, the United Nations was careful to make these postwar actions legal – look at the dusty ancient clauses at the back of the UN charter (in the 100s), which were specifically put there to do this. (The map redrawing was all on the Eastern front.) FDChief’s point is reasonable. If Israel acted with a tiny fraction of the wisdom shown after WWII, the conflict would have been over long ago. Instead the Germans after the Franco-Prussian war (grab territory for ridiculous “defense” reasons) and Allies after WWI (humiliate and starve your enemies) seem to be the model.
It’s a wonderful article. Well, the first half of it, which is what I’ve read so far. I picked it up an hour ago and am going through it carefully and slowly – indeed, I’m savouring it.
It’s important that it be given the widest possible circulation. And indeed that it stay in play for the longest possible time.
It’s the geopolitical equivalent of being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Which is why it’s prompted such a frantic, panic-stricken reaction.
The Action Stations hysteria that we’re seeing on this blog is going to be going on all over the shop.
Meansheimer’s and Walt’s article is a live rail running through one of the great “questions” of our time. Dangerous to touch. Dangerous to ignore.
I mean, did David Ben-Gurion really say: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural; we have taken their country…We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Did Ehud Barak really say that had he been born a Palestinian he “would have joined a terrorist organisation”?
Get pumping chaps…holed beneath the water line is an understatement.
I read the whole thing yesterday — it strikes me as a breakthrough piece. U.S. connivance with those forces in Israeli society that seek ever more territorial and water domination has been endangering the survival of Israel since 1967. Israel’s only long term chance was finding a way to live with its neighbors (and residents for that matter.) Eventually, it will be overrun or the whole area will be incinerated if peace is not made. Many Israelis and their friends have long known this, but the terrified and arrogant have prevailed, both in Israel and in the U.S.
Helena, thanks for posting excerpts from this important piece. It’s interesting that such a totally dispassionate, factual analysis would draw comments like this:
I’ve noticed that Helena has really stepped up her hateful attacks on Israel and her smears of pro-Israel advocates.
But then, that’s how the Israeli lobby has always reacted to effective criticism.
“Pull back to the 67 borders, return the Territories to Jordan and Egypt…”
How fascinating – but not at all surprising – that Syria, whose territory was occupied, systematically ethically cleansed (it was, in fact, Israel’s most successful ethnic cleansing effort ever, resulting in the removal of some 95% of the Syrian population, and the destruction of 96% of their towns and villages) colonized, and de facto annexed by Israel, gets left out of this list. In fact, the occupation, ethnic cleansing, colonization and de facto annexation of the Golan Heights is, along with the colonization of the Sinai peninsula, Israel’s most unambiguous violation of international law. And yet Israel has managed to remove this ongoing crime from the public thinking.
“neither Egypt nor Jordan want Gaza and the West Bank back
No, but the Palestinians who live there and who have ancestral ties there going back centuries if not millenia do, don’t they?
Excellent points, Shirin.
Dear Helena
Thanks for posting this.
I thought I’d also let you know that The Daily Star has published some comments criticizing Tony Badran, the guy who slandered you last week Aparently, he is a notorious right-wing extremist, the son of a phalangist militiaman from Mansourie, and a mere tool in the hands of Martin Kramer.
Jess
Lysandra Ohrstrom
“Welcome to the Lebanese Blogosphere”
(March 10)
Thank you for this interesting article bringing attention to the emerging Lebanese blogosphere. As a political science student, I find blogs very useful for taking a country’s temperature and understanding the way people think and react to certain events.
I was disappointed however, by the fact that your article focused excessively on two blogs that are run by either extreme left-wing or extreme right-wing bloggers.
Asad Abu Khalil’s blog is fun to read and very informative, the author is principled, but he does not hide his Marxist or rather anarchist tendency. As you rightly pointed out, he never offers any concrete solutions.
As for Tony Badran, whom you also mention, he propagates the simplistic sectarian ideology of the Phalangist militias and his blog consists of right-wing polemics, and even cheap insults toward all those with whom he disagrees, including respected and renowned academics like Juan Cole or Rashid Khalidi.
Badran’s blog is endorsed by die-hard pro-Israeli and anti-Arab pundits like Tel Aviv Professor Martin Kramer. Therefore, I suggest The Daily Star readers also visit some very interesting Lebanese blogs that were not mentioned in this article.
Charles Keyrouz
San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
In this article, blogger Tony Badran attributes the concept of White Arabism to Professor Asaad Abu Khalil. This concept was actually launched by presidential candidate, lawyer and human right activist Chibli Mallat in one of his books and also saluted and hailed by the late Samir Kassir.
I believe Mallat and Kassir were right on target and this new modern and progressive Arabism should not be held in contempt. It is a badly needed ray of hope.
Rami Chamseddine
Toulouse, France
Aparently, he is a notorious right-wing extremist, the son of a phalangist militiaman from Mansourie, and a mere tool in the hands of Martin Kramer.
Not a very nice remark if you ask me. You guys have so much in common with Daniel Pipes it’s remarkable.
Joshua, WarrenW, Vadim, JES, etc.
This morning I finally had a chance to look at the Mearsheimer and Walt research, and I must say that your reactions above prove beyond a shadow of doubt your utter lack of credibility as critics here at JWN.
In the relatively short history of the blogosphere, this posting by Helena must rank as one of the all-time greatest hits. You unwittingly reveal yourselves as one and the same with the Israeli lobby that Mearsheimer and Walt document in their research. The parallels are truly uncanny!
On this one, you are truly shouting in an echo chamber. Like ear-splitting feedback from on-stage microphones, everyone logging on to Helena’s website regularly receives your comments as awful background noise. In this case though you have unplugged yourselves.
Your regular approach to critiquing Helena’s postings is identical to the baseless tactics used by the Israeli lobby. Take one of Joshua’s critiques above, purporting to debunk Helena’s comment about the empirical nature of the M & W research and the extensive use of notations at the end of their paper:
“in the section where they (M & W) make blanket assertions of how “The U.S. regularly adopts the Israeli policy line” they site (sic)….here it comes…Noam Chomsky’s “Fateful Triangle” and a few other authors who have written one sided attacks on Israel.”
Lately, Joshua has been the one making the most background noise; and in this case, Joshua, you have unplugged every last one of the faulty stage mics. I perused the endnotes to M & W’s research, and I could find one reference to Chomsky. Is that what you did too, Joshua?
Chomsky is practically used as standard slander by hack critics like yourself, so it is no wonder you should adopt this approach. While there seems to be one reference to Chomsky in M & W’s research (and it is buried within a single endnote that references several other sources), I stopped counting the number of times that M & W cite William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Bernard Lewis, Charles Krauthammer, and dozens of other leading figures in the Israel lobby.
The point is that it is no longer necessary to cite Chomsky to make the point about distortions created by the Israel lobby. Just as one no longer has to cite Simha Flapan to document the distortions of Zionist history. The distortions of Zionism and the Israel lobby have long been floating above the surface for all to see.
The problem comes from those in the Israel lobby like yourselves who want to go on denying reality, desperately trying to persuade people that they do not see what they see. For the same reason, M & W had trouble finding a publisher in the US to publicize their research. For this reason, M & W’s work is highly recommended reading for all Americans.
Sd
Do you have some substantive criticism of what I wrote or was I just mentioned for love of seeing my name?
And that point Joshua made about Chomsky wasn’t about Chomsky, it was about use of footnotes. The LRB article doesn’t have footnotes, the PDF version does. This is presumably where Joshua saw it. You could, if you wanted, address the point about footnotes.
Or you could address my point about the connection between Jihad and the Palestinians. Or my point about non-accusatory accusations. Instead, you give us “echo chambers”, “Simha Flapan”, “desperation” and those “floating distortions”. Who’s panicking, you or me?
sd,
The Chomsky cite was just an example of how much of the “evidence” cited is not evidence at all, but just other opinion columnists. It wasn’t a smear at all.
I accept your apology in advance for your personal attack on me.
2006-03-18 JePo on Harvard report http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.ME06.htm
Joshua, don’t hold your breath waiting for that apology. For a tai chi instructor Sd needs to breathe a bit more deeply. We’re all friends, Sd, no need for insults.
You unwittingly reveal yourselves as one and the same with the Israeli lobby
First of all, as a proper noun, “Lobby” takes a capital ‘L.’ I’m flattered that you think I might be part of the Lobby, but alas I havent been ‘tapped’ to join their secret society despite my subtle overtures here on Helena’s blog. Maybe I’m not ‘cool’ enough , maybe I listen to the wrong music, maybe I’m too Christian, or too black. Who knows? I may never learn the secret handshake and hang out in their cool clubhouse.
FYI Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle is cited three times. Notes 10, 47 and 58. (in contrast, noted Mideast scholar and RAND alum Bill Quandt is cited only once.)
I skimmed the first part of the article and it seemed accurate to me. Israel has killed more Palestinian civilians, for instance, and I could cite sources for most of the other Israeli crimes mentioned in the article.
As for who the average American supports, I wouldn’t put too much stock in that one way or the other. Most Americans probably know very little about the history–hell, many or most probably couldn’t find Israel on a map, or if they could, only because they’ve seen it in a Sunday School class. To the extent that they support Israel, it’s in part because they’ve heard much more about Palestinian atrocities against Israelis than the other way around. I’ve had discussions on this subject with well-educated friends and it’s pretty clear they think the historical novels of James Michener or Leon Uris are accurate. When I mentioned Ariel Sharon’s first massacre (Kibya), one friend obviously thought I was talking about Deir Yassin, which is probably the only Israeli massacre she’d ever heard about. The level of ignorance is like something you’d expect to hear in an Arab country about Israel–it just happens to be stupid in a different way.
I don’t know much about the authors and if one supported Kissinger, that doesn’t say much for him. But the article is certainly on target in its description of how Israel and its past is covered in the mainstream media. A person who relied on the NYT or the New Yorker would probably be shocked to read what Benny Morris or Tom Segev or Avi Shlaim have written about Israeli history–such a person might also be shocked by what Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or B’Tselem have to say about its more recent behavior. To be fair, the NYT occasionally mentions something about these things (such as the ethnic cleansing in 1948), but if you blink you could miss it.
Ah yes. The “Americans just don’t understand because they are stupid and uninformed argument.”
The subtext of the above criticisms is interesting, in that buried beneath it is the doctrine that to compare zionism to nazism is in itself “anti-Semitic”.
I have also found that mentioning the fact that there are always surges of Jewish and zionist offensive activity during Purim is considered “anti-Semitic”, presumably because to drag the Jewish religion into the mix is … uh … “verboten”.
SD: The point is that it is no longer necessary to cite Chomsky to make the point about
distortions created by the Israel lobby.
What is really funny about this minor contretemps about citing Chomsky is that, as anyone who has actually read him knows, he is a very strong opponent of the M-W powerful Israeli lobby thesis! In my opinion he is completely, comically wrong, and his arguments, when they are comprehensible, are ludicrous and obvious products of teddy bears he has cherished his whole life. See the recent book The Politics of Antisemitism and an essay by Jeffrey Blankfort on the web somewhere for generally reasonable critique of Chomsky’s IMHO silly views, generally consistent with M & W’s paper. One thing NC has right, though, is that it is better called the pro -(moral degeneration and ultimate destruction of) Israel lobby.
By the way, there is a bit on the Israeli lobby, with interesting comparisons to its usage as a model by others e.g. a nascent Armenian lobby in Walt’s recent book Taming American Power.
Joshua: So when Helena talks about the authors being “empiricists after her own heart”, it really means that, like her, the authors are citing people who made the same assertions and share the same opinions as she, under the assumption that if other people say so, it must be true. There is very little empiricism in the true sense, where there is hard data backing up their claims.
The above alert about Chomsky’s actual views explodes Joshua’s unique citation. There is a great deal of empiricism in Mearsheimer & Walt’s and Helena’s work. Joshua’s statements are not very nice, and not very accurate. A more common estimate of the value of Helena’s work is that contained in a book I noted earlier, by an Israeli not of the same politics – a footnote in Martin van Creveld’s Defending Israel (when talking about the Israel-Syria peace talks, cf. “above all” Helena Cobban’s …) (Thought I might pass on some nice words.) It is not a very easy thing to succinctly address accusations that M & W & Helena are some sort of hacks. It just shows the accuser is unable to tell the difference between basically honest and reasonable, although, like everything human, imperfectly objective and accurate and somehow biased work, and things like productions of the Israeli Lobby, genuine hackwork that does not respect normal canons of scholarship, and frequently creates historical myths and grossly distorts the evidence. There’s no real cure for it but work – going to a library and looking at the other side’s books, and doing some reference checking, to see who treats their references honestly, and who doesn’t. Spend a lot of time at the Israeli MFA site – you can learn a lot of stuff contradictory to the Israeli Lobby standard total view. In a nutshell, there’s the pro-Israel lobby type productions, produced mainly to fool American Jewry and other Americans – (Israelis know a lot better about many things – they live there!) and that create an alternate, absurdly biased and dishonest history of the conflict. This history however was much more dominant in the past, and some of the older myths became so dominant they still infect even mainstream or leftist academic work and references. And then there’s normal academic history, American, Israeli, European and Arab, right or left, which has normal academic debates, but just doesn’t really live in the same universe as the propaganda doo-doo. The difference between Israeli New Historians and center-right Old Historians are trivial in comparison with the difference both have with the propaganda stuff. However the propaganda doo-doo still dominates the debate in the US MSM, and many posters/dupes here.
The Blankfort essay is here:
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
there has been some follow up argy bargy about this too and fro since of course but nothing too decisive lol
JES: I don’t understand exactly what the authors are complaining about.
What they are complaining about is that the policies the lobby favors are violently opposed to US interests. Nations often enough have policies which are violently opposed to their own interests, no matter how narrowly drawn – examples – the US attacking Iraq, after starving it basically just for the hell of it, Germany attacking the USSR, Israel refusing to make peace with its neighbors for at least 35 years, or invading Lebanon for harboring a terrorist group, the PLO, that, uh, refused to attack Israel. These all seemed like good ideas at the time to governing elites, but they were not bright ideas. Mearsheimer and Walt think that if not for the efforts of the Israeli lobby, doing what it does so well, by helping Israel get away with any obdurate peace-refusal, lunacy, war crimes and aggression it wants and being supported munificently nonetheless, there are still enough sane people in the US that US policy might not be so destructive of everybody’s interests. They could be right. 🙂
Rowan, thanks for the cite, but I don’t think you are going to find many people who take your Purim comment seriously. Do you find that Christian offensive activity has an upsurge around Halloween? 🙂
You are only considering the kids-dressing-up aspect, John, but Purim has a far more serious side concerned with turning the tables upon, and taking vengeance upon, the oppressor : a better comparison would be the fact that pogroms were often triggered by Good Friday sermons.
“There is a great deal of empiricism in Mearsheimer & Walt’s and Helena’s work. Joshua’s statements are not very nice, and not very accurate.”
Mearsheimer and Walt are respected scholars. But for the reasons explained above, this particular article is not empirical at all.
As for Helena, perhaps she has more scholarly accomplishments. In this form of medium, however, she largely makes unsubstantiated assertions and personal attacks.
John R,
Thank you for explaining that to me. However, I did read the article, and I do understand their argument. But, of course, the “national interest” is not necessarily a singularly defined, objective thing. I am certain that the majority of those who are active in “the Lobby” consider that what they are doing is also in the “national interest” of the US. The “national interest” is, and should be, a matter of discussion. The fact that one side of that discussion acts effectively to present and further its case is part and parcel of the way that such a system works. Of course, as you say, Mearsheimer and Walt could, as you say, be right in their appraisal of what is the US “national interest”. But then again, they could be wrong. It’s interesting that this article reminds me a great deal of Charles Lindbergh’s Setptember 1941 Des Moines, Iowa speech:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/filmmore/reference/primary/desmoinesspeech.html
Lindbergh may have been right, but I choose to think that had the US acted according to the perceived US “national interest” as espoused by pro-British Americans, the Roosevelt Administration and, yes, the Jews, the war may have been considerably shorter and many lives might have been saved.
I have also found that mentioning the fact that there are always surges of Jewish and zionist offensive activity during Purim is considered “anti-Semitic”, presumably because to drag the Jewish religion into the mix is … uh … “verboten”.
Apart from Baruch Goldstein, could you please cite some of these “surges” that happen during Purim.
I could mention that many “surges” of Muslim violence happen following Friday prayers, but then I would certainly be accused of being Islamophobic, wouldn’t I.
I don’t think you’d be accused of being Islamophobic if you simply stated facts – not by me anyway.
The comparison with Lindbergh has already been made on various blogs, as if to say, you don’t want to be tarred with the same brush that he was, do you – a response which exactly bears out the argument of the paper, namely, that the ready weapon of antisemitism accusations prevents policy feedback on Jewish related issues from functioning as it should.
…a response which exactly bears out the argument of the paper, namely, that the ready weapon of antisemitism accusations prevents policy feedback on Jewish related issues from functioning as it should.
No, an argument which merely states that there is much similarity between Mearsheimer and Walt and their ilk today and US isolationists 65 years ago. That’s all. No one, least of all I, have ever called anyone here an anti-Semite. In fact, I don’t recall seeing anyone here making accusations of anti-Semitism to support their arguments in the few months I’ve been visiting this blog. (In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. People on the other side of the divide have repeatedly used the claim of accusations of anti-Semitism being used to supress anti-Israel arguments as a means of bolstering their cases. Case in point: Your previous post.)
Again, I’d really like you to refresh my memory about the Purim “surges”.
that’s what I mean … nag nag nag …
that’s what I mean … nag nag nag …
Great response!
Joshua, in my experience Americans are pretty ignorant about Israeli crimes against Palestinians, but relatively well-informed about Palestinian crimes against Israelis. “Relatively” is of course the key thing there. The average American probably isn’t well-informed about any foreign policy issue (is this even a controversial point?) but if they pay any attention at all they know that Palestinians conduct suicide bombing attacks against Israelis, while they’re only going to know about comparable Israeli atrocities against Palestinians if they dig deeper. I also know why my Christian acquaintances are biased in favor of Israel. Many are evangelicals and they automatically think of the Jews as God’s Chosen People (which, as it happens, I also believe) and so they’re predisposed to think of Israel as the good guys and consciously or not, they see the Palestinians as people opposed to God’s Chosen and therefore as people skating on very thin ice. Liberal Christians on the other hand, sometimes tend to think criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism and this attitude is reinforced in some of the so-called liberal press, such as the NYT. I know I’ve seen the NYT subtlely or not so-subtlely implying that any really harsh critic of Israel’s policies is an antisemite. Of course some harsh critics are antisemites, but the NYT, as it often does, tends to delegitimize anyone to their left. I even remember one column by their pet neoconservative Edward Rothstein who lumped people who believe in universal human rights and criticize Israel with people who criticize Israel because they are neo-Nazis. Accusations of antisemitism may not occur in the comments section of this blog, but it’s pretty common elsewhere.
I could give you more examples of American ignorance of Israeli crimes that I’ve encountered. I have also heard examples of the opposite bias, but mostly in segments of the far left. (And certainly in some segments of the far right, but I don’t read them much.) The mainstream is heavily biased in the pro-Israel direction.
Who seriously imagines that AIPAC or the editorial board of the Weekly Standard (circulation: 60,000) has more of an influence over US opinion than what’s shown each night on the evening news? Maybe in the rarefied atmosphere of the Kennedy School & obscure corners of weblogistan.
Like it or not, the US public associates the Arab and Islamic world with decades of suicide bombings & airline hijackings, the abduction of its embassy personnel in Iran, the murder of its peacekeepers in Lebanon, naked antisemitism of its leadership (Malaysia, Iran, the PA) the mass murder of 9/11, religious fatwas, conspiracy theories, religious and politcal repression, crowds chanting “death to america” and burning the US flag, emblem of ‘the great satan’. It doesn’t conceive of the USA as a colonial power, it’s unsympathetic to those who do, and who are inclined to soft-pedal or apologise for the aforementioned behaviors on such grounds. Few if any of these deep-seated attitudes can be attributed to ‘the Lobby.’
The issue is not “Israel” per se, it is “Israeli expansion beyond the Green Line”.
I have never seen anyone make an argument that US aid and facilitation of Israel’s expansion beyond the Green Line is in the US national interest. Yet, it is this expansion and all that it entails (military occupation, violation of Geneva Conventions re settlements, and of course logically resistance from the native occupants and the brutal counteractions of the occupying Israel) that are the core issue.
A child can make the reasonable and natural connection that Israeli expansion and the consequent violence and genocidal behaviors against the Palestinians are detrimental to our numerous national interests in peace and good will in the Arab/Muslim/Near East region …… all down the tubes because our government is paralyzed in the face of Israel’s greed for land beyond the Green Line. The success of AIPAC in distorting US policy from our true national interests has been by its effectiveness in suppressing public argument about the sensibility of US facilitation of Israel’s greedy expansionist program. One tool of huge importance is that AIPAC insists that any discussion be about Israel, and not Israeli expansion beyond the Green Line.
Our national interests? Who is to say, that if Israel did not beat up on the Palestinians for 35 years, steal their land and kill their children, that the Marines wouldn’t have died in Lebanon, that the World Trade Center attacks may not have happened, that the embassies would not have been bombed? One may argue the absence of evidence one way or the other, but one cannot refute the logical probability of the argument for a causal relationship between US facilitation of Israel’s brutal and greedy expansion program and the violence and hatred against the US today.
“that’s what I mean … nag nag nag …”
You’re right of course Rowan, but if you really want to smack ’em down and count ’em out why not say the same thing in Yiddish.
To wit: hakn a tshaynik
Or indeed in the negative: hak mir nisht ken tshaynik
Translation: knock a teakettle; or: don’t knock a teakettle.
How’s that? Well, the idea is that you put a teakettle on to boil – and then you sit down to read the Comments section of Helena’s blog and you’re spellbound by some of the shameless mendacity parading its monkey’s bottom there – and of course you fuggedit – fuggit what’s going on in the kitchen I mean – water of course gets boiling merrily away – teakettle starts doing its jig (I was tempted – a la Ken Adelman – to say it does its cakewalk, but nah, let’s leave that be).
Anyway, the more water that boils away, the more the teakettle lid rattles. And so on and so on. And it gets noisier and noisier. More and more desperate you might say. Putting it very basically, the less substance – the less it has to offer – the more cacaphonous and annoying the noise.
Better get used to it because the more the heat gets turned up here – and the emptier the kettle gets – the noiser the rattling “covers” will get.
I slammed the quotation marks around that word “covers” when it dawned on me – yet another reminder – of just how extraordinary language is. What I have in mind in this instance is the way it – language – will suddenly, almost of its own accord, blossom into a nuance, a meaning one hadn’t intended or thought of. It’s almost as if there’s a deep “truth structure” hardwired into words.
Which – to widen the parameters of the discussion – doesn’t bode well for that colossal idiot in the whitehouse. And the rest of that shameful mob.
Hey Seymour,
Geh vaxen vie a tsiboleh!
And while you’re at it, take the rest of the Bundist shlobs with you.
Helena made a big to do about how well sourced the article is. . . . Much of these footnotes don’t actually cite to any original hard evidence or even recycled hard evidence.
It’s not necessary to discuss footnotes when the major points in the LRB article come from the mouths of supporters of Israel like Max Frankel and Dick Armey. However, most of the footnotes seem to link to general news stories (including many from Israeli newspapers); US government web sites; and pro-Israeli sources, including AIPAC’s own web site.
The article is so obviously true that there isn’t any effective factual rebuttal. What we see instead are are the following:
1) Attempts to change the subject (WarrenW).
2) Dismissals of the article’s points as “tired” (Joshua). It’s hard to see how these points could be tired since they almost never get any exercise in our national politics or media.
3) Accusations that Mearsheimer and Walt are practicing “ad hominem fallacy” (vadim). He produces no example of this from the article, while providing many of his own in the same post.
These responses say little about the article, but plenty about the respondants.
Thank you again, Helena, for providing the link.
Damn right we’re “tired” of talking to this brick wall that is supposedly “the mass media of the most democratic nation on God’s earth”.
My unknown friend at ‘Jewish Tribal Review’ compiled a whole section of Jewish media ownership and control in the USA, it’s probably still there.
One good thing about him is that unlike certain others who have worked on this topic, such as Kevin Strom, he is not any sort of race crank.
No pref– your characterization of the types of responses we’ve gotten here is good but possibly imcomplete. I think we’d have to add at least:
(4)Attempts to besmirch or demonize the messenger(s)– in this case, Mearsheimer, Walt, and myself (as in “hateful Helena,” the reference to Mearsheimer’s work on Kissingeretc, etc).
Your number 2 is interesting, though. I noticed it used most stunningly by my friend Zeev Schiff in a column he wrote right after the London Sunday Times’ publication of Mordechai Vanunu’s revelations about the Israeli nuclear program… and indeed, many other Israeli and pro-Israeli commentators followed that cue from Zeev… The general idea is to try to “trivialize” what is, actually, a seriously new criticism of Israel.
In this case, it is not the criticism as such that is new, but the careful marshalling of the facts behind it and the authoritative way in which the argument has been constructed and presented.
So probably on this occasion the Mossad won’t be mounting any extensive operation to lure these two guys to some open water off the coast of Italy so they can kidnap them and take them to a secret court in Israel…
H’mm, but if the Israeli government decided to do that to Vanunu (which of course, they did), then maybe his revelations weren’t such “old hat” as Zeev had tried to imply, after all?
Ditto in this case, too.
No one cares to comment on Rowan Berkeley’s last post featuring the “Jewish Tribal Review”?
Attempts to besmirch or demonize the messenger
This entire paper is besmirching the messenger (the pro-Israeli lobby). Circumstantial ad hominem is a sophistical fallacy, not rigorous argumentation.
the reference to Mearsheimer’s work on Kissinger
a direct answer to your trumpeting of Mearsheimer’s authority and respect in certain circles. A reasonable question is “by whom? and why?”
The object of political studies shouldn’t address the motives of political actors but policy itself. That’s why the argument presented here is almost entirely ad hominem. “____ [insert political class] has too much influence in public policy” is McCarthyite. It very closely resembles the pseudo-argumentation of Daniel Pipes’ “Campus Watch” and similar efforts. I really don’t understand how you’re missing this.
The object of political studies shouldn’t address the motives of political actors but policy itself.
Poorly stated:
The object of political studies shouldn’t address the motives of political actors unto themselves . It should evaluate policy according to well-defined criteria defensible along ethical and pragmatic lines, not merely a set of a priori assumptions regarding “the national interest”.
& I’m 100% sure Mearsheimer’s notion of “the national interest” is different from Helena’s, so for her to invoke this paper is really absurd.
I wonder if I might throw a couple of more faggots on this purifying fire.
I.E., Paul Craig Roberts’ new piece is fine, fighting, good old American stuff. You like your Neocons pinned and wriggling – and who doesn’t – that’s what the former Assistant Secretary of Treasury in the Reagan administration accomplishes in this splendid article.
Here’s a soupcon…
Neocons don’t believe in debate. They specialize in slandering critics and stamping out debate.
And the coup de grace…
Neocons are Jacobins. They are a foreign import and do not share our American values. Neocons are a grave danger to the United States and to the world. Neocons have led America into two gratuitous ongoing wars that cannot be won, and they are determined to lead us into more wars. It is our duty to defend our country and to oppose these evil people.
You can see it over at http://www.antiwar.com
Please, everybody, go take a look and then hop on your keyboard and do your Revere, one if by land, two if by sea number.
Thanks a bunch.
It is our duty to defend our country and to oppose these evil people.
That foul smelling substance you’re slopping all over yourself isn’t Chanel No. 5!
Your number 2 is interesting, though.
Helena, do you think any of the ‘arguments’ presented in this paper haven’t already been encountered by the people likely to read the paper? Does it mean anything to that the endnotes are to 50 years worth of opinion pieces, 2nd hand analysis and sound bites (eg the 50 year old Ben Gurion snippet that M. Upharsin found so fresh, surprising and revealing.)
Reaction of Haaretz is completely hilarious: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=695161
The theory that the neocondom, if I may call it that, is ‘Jacobin’, has an interesting intellectual history. One will find from AntiWar.com’s slightly more sedate cousin Lew Rockwell.com, which itself is a populist showcase for the Ludwig von Mises Institute, that the term derives from the work of a certain Claes G. Ryn, specifically his 2003 book ‘America the Virtuous : The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire’. We are talking libertarian capitalism, here, a rather implausible creed, I must say.
“No one cares to comment on Rowan Berkeley’s last post featuring the “Jewish Tribal Review”?”
Don’t go there JES. You can’t call anyone an “antisemite” on this board. That’s stifling debate and inquiry.
Joshua, WarrenW, Vadim, JES, etc.
Rattling, panicky tea kettles all, blowing steam and hot air.
To say this is not to make a personal attack. It is merely to make an observation, and thus requires no apology. You all are mighty defensive to be so supremely confident in your views.
Joshua, for you to request an apology (because I pointed out the standard “hack” reference you made of Chomsky), and then for you to accept the apology I did not give … this is a perfect example of your self-conceited life in an echo chamber; you are effectively talking with yourself, and the rest of us wonder why we should even give you the time of day.
Helena began this posting by pointing out a highly relevant and professional piece of academic research that a large majority of Americans desperately need to consider. The chances that they will consider it are practically nil because it is practically banned from America’s public sphere.
If you mentioned the theme of the M-W research most Americans would probably say “that sounds anti-semitic,” not realizing that criticism of the state of Israel or criticism of the pro-Israel lobby in America has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Americans will never realize this until they are able to consider the kind of research in M-W without the specter of anti-semitism hanging over their heads.
As long as hack critics like yourselves continue to undermine and downplay insightful research like M-W, as well as the analysis and commentary Helena provides here at JWN, then you are only contributing to the current problem of American/Zionist politics. Today America is at risk of becoming the kind of high security police state that Israel has always been; former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is warning about future dictatorship; the practice of torture and the denial of fundamental rights (another common point between the US and Israel) has been extended for years to come. And meanwhile, all you can do is create distracting background noise.
All of you remind me of President Bush’s environment advisors who continue undermining and downplaying the results of scientific research that shows without a doubt global warming is occuring and it is a serious risk to all life on the planet earth. Now there are some people who are trying to get the message out that we need to change basic social-economic practices, and there are other people running interference so people will just continue living their lives as if nothing ever changes from one generation to the next and we can all just keep living the same as the past.
I don’t intend any harm to you. I am not angry or mad at you. I don’t even have any ill thoughts toward you. I wish you peace and I wish that you live a good life.
Interesting discussion.
And sure enough, the great white whale gets wheeled in in due course. How predictable was that?
I’m going to respond to that in particular. By saying this:
1) I loathed apartheid. And when I look at some of the stuff that’s going on in Israel and the “Disputed” Territories – well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
2) I loathed the Berlin Wall. Yeah, by all means do “connect.”
3) I’m not a big fan of “lebensraum” policies, of stealing other people’s land, of bantustans, etc.
4) I loathe racism – whether it’s directed at blacks or whites or greens or Jews or Arabs or Eskimos…you name it.
5) I loathe “ethnic cleansing.”
6) I feel real uneasy about compatriots of mine (I’m an American) who apparently think it’s kosher to formulate policy for a foreign politician and then cook the books a few years later in order to get America to bring about one of the “desired ends” – toppling Saddam – in the Securing the Realm position paper written for the aforementioned foreign politician. It’s the geopolitical equivalent of bigamy. And as an American whose loyalties are less complicated, less “polymorphous”…well, I’ve got a real problem with that sort of behavior.
7) I would have been furious if a significant whack of my tax dollars had, over the years, gone to Apartheid South Africa. Yes, that’s another inference you can draw.
8) Eretz – is that the word? – Israel doesn’t float my boat. Not at all. I’d like to see the 1967 status quo restored.
9) I don’t like the way the term anti-semitism has been debased and cheapened.
End of story. Except to say, here I am, there it is. What are you gonna do? Engage? Smear? Tricky isn’t it?
sd,
There was no research my M&W. It was an opinion piece citing other opinion pieces.
Really, the idea that “the truth wont get out” is a bit patronizing. The article is out there. Do you think either of the authors is going to lose tenure or something?
I’m struck by how many pro Israel people are issuing flat denials, otherwise known in America as the “nyah, nyah, I’ve got my fingers in my ears and I can’t hear you” defense.
More Paul Craig Roberts:
“The real dangers to Americans reside in the neocon Bush administration. This delusional warmonger administration believes it has the power and the right to dictate to Muslim countries their political and social institutions. This extraordinary arrogance and hubris breeds opposition where there was none. The world is not going to obey Bush and a handful of stupid neocons.”
(4)Attempts to besmirch or demonize the messenger(s)– in this case, Mearsheimer, Walt, and myself (as in “hateful Helena,” the reference to Mearsheimer’s work on Kissingeretc, etc).
That tends to take a toll, doesn’t it, Helena? When one is badgered for years, if not decades, with epithets for criticizing Israel and opposing US policies, one tends to get a little testy. I notice this in myself, and I worry about it in effective critics like Juan Cole. You seem to have good defenses against slipping into rancor. I deeply admire that. It makes for a better discussion.
WarrenW, vadim, and Joshua may have misplayed their hand here. Rather than helplessly posting reactions that betray the fact that they have no effective criticism of the piece, they could have simply ignored it, as the mainstream media are doing today. That’s the first line of defense. I suppose the fact that they are regulars here makes that hard to do.
By the way, the mainstream media is ignoring this question for now, but it will not go away. It will come back.
Not quite, UPI are running with the story. Which means it’ll get into quite a few of the newspapers that subscribe to that particular wire service. And the letters to the editor will further fan the flames.
No Preference is right. There’s a huge difference between professional liars – like Perle, Kristol, Krauthammer et al – and the propaganda klutzes that foul this little nest. It’s no bad thing to have those angry red bottoms – as somebody put it earlier – frantically BSing away – sound and fury signifying precisely the opposite of what they have in mind.
Rather than helplessly posting reactions that betray the fact that they have no effective criticism of the piece
You [and Irving Rosen/Sd/Seymour Glass/ Schmuel Goldblatt] clearly don’t understand any of the criticism that’s been made. And ‘The Lobby’ doesn’t pay me well enough to sit around here explaining to childish bigots why McCarthyism is unscholarly.
PS the ‘mainstream media’ ignored it because it isn’t newsworthy. You’ll note that the NY Sun (a notorious Zionist propaganda rag) was one of several US newspapers that chose NOT to ignore it.
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_03_17.htm
Zionist Likudnik operative Martin Kramer [boo! hiss!]offers a ‘realist’ critique.
Here’s another one that’s sure to draw ad hominem.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099
No Preference:
no effective criticism of the piece, ?
Saying that doesn’t make it so. With just another moments work I can add to the effectiveness of my response.
The US is pro-Israel because Israel is pro-American. The Arabi-Israeli dispute has clearly emerged as a part of the Arab reaction against the West although not a prime mover of al-Queda. In the 1940’s the Mufti of Jerusalem was anti-Zionist from his radical Islamic perspective (mixed with Nazism). It’s the same struggle.
The primary motor of US Middle-Eastern policy is not Israel but oil and Saudi Arabia, and (was) the Soviet Union and its attempts to gain Middle Eastern influence.
Authors M&W skipped over oil, Saudi Arabia, dhimmi, jihad, and the Soviet Union. Clearly, 9/11 has made the US more suspicious of Islamic Jihadism and so closer to Israel.
Israel in the 1st Gulf War refrained from counter-attacking, showing Israel to be a supporter and not a burden.
Panic? Teakettles? I don’t think so.
The rogue states of Iran and Saddams’ Iraq are threats to Saudi Arabia (tottering) and to smooth oil flows more than to Israel, which can defend itself. These are facts.
No effective response?
If the Soviet Union would have invaded the Middle East it would have been Israel that played the role of Britain as the staging area for a counter-attack. How’s that for a “Shared strategic interest?”. And if a nuclear Iran decides to wage nuclear oil blackmail what will the West do in response — rely on France’s friendship with Iran to persuade them to stop?
“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light” (Isaiah 9.2, 6).
Well, not if the Thought Police have their way. Talk about all hands on deck. Here’s a good example.
The executive director of the Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America, Andrea Levin, said yesterday that she would be asking the Kennedy School to withdraw the paper because it failed to meet academic standards.
As is the Martin Kramer piece Vadim fished up. I read it very carefully – and then re-read (for the third time) the London Review of Books article that’s got the fur flying.
Kramer’s piece is sophistry. It’s clever sophistry, but it’s still sophistry. It’s smoke and mirrors. I kept thinking, there’s something fundamentally dishonest about this – it’s at so many removes from the actual experience of living, breathing, hoping, suffering, dying, flesh and blood human beings that it could be “about” that 1960s “board game” called Risk.
He says, for example, “America isn’t hated for what it does or what it is. It’s hated because of what they can’t do, and what they aren’t. They can’t accumulate power, and they can’t handle modernity, and they resent anyone who reminds them of it. How would U.S. abandonment of Israel alleviate this inferiority complex, which has been centuries in the making?”
I just don’t buy that. My common sense – my ordinary humanity – tells me that the “lived” experience of Iraqis and Palestinians – being bombed, having your land stolen from you, etc. etc. – is the critically important “opinion former”. What does Kramer take us for? How could anyone think otherwise?
Human beings – a little boy with his arms and legs blown off, a screaming little girl who’s just seen her parents and siblings shot dead at a road block, a Palestinian brother and sister gunned down on their rooftop while they fed their pigeons and took in the laundry – they don’t count in Kramer’s Olympian,”big picture”, geo-political, “strategic assets” “analysis”.
The reaction to Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s article absolutely proves their case. They’re going to come in for a lot of stick – accused of this, that and the other. But the real corruption is in the prestidigitation that would “cut” Shylock’s – or Mohammed’s – microphone during his “hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Muslim hands, organs, dimensions, senses…?” speech.
Martin Kramer’s piece is sophistry? Okay. But your response is pure emotive rhetroic.
What is interesting is that Kramer’s piece was actually written before the current “study”. It is a critique of Walt’s recent book. I’m sure that there will be other responses from people like Martin Kramer that are not “sophistry”.
Andrea Levin is perferctly justified in her action. The study (or as Kramer accurately describes it essay) is neither scholarly, nor is it really research, and there certainly isn’t anything new there.
I think that Helena was absolutelly correct whan she stated that what is “new” is the way the argument is constructed, and the fact that it has been given legitimacy by appearing in the LRB and over a Harvard Kennedy School Logo. That really doesn’t make it particularly true, however, and it certainly doesn’t turn it into an academic achievement. No, the whole exercise of publishing something like that – footnotes and all – has more to do with something that you do with your hand than it does with scholarship.
I found the piece quite scholarly, unlike all the rather thin and shrill critiques being linked here and there.
I don’t think there would be such a reaction if Walt and Mearsheimer hadn’t been so lucid.
‘ … a unique model of speech culture has developed in Israel, characterized by “a very powerful combination of variety, openness, stonewalling and aggressiveness,” which derive from “tough treatment, verbal violence and the silencing of rivals during the course of debate, the lack of refinement and depth, blindness to nuances and insensitivity to fine points.” This picture is very different from that of most Western democracies: “In Israel there is a great abundance of opinionated voices, arguers and responders, many of whom wish to limit their opponents’ freedom of expression.”‘
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/696522.html
— and this can be said of discussion fo jewish related issues throughtout the world.
“pure emotive rhetoric”
“neither scholarly, nor is it really research, and there certainly isn’t anything new there”
“doesn’t turn it into an academic achievement”
JES, either you’re labouring under a massive misapprehension or you’re being disingenous. Human beings being maimed and mutilated and killed by state terror – or by suicide bombers – isn’t “rhetoric”. It’s you and me. Insofar as we share humanity with the people who have been maimed and mutilated and killed. And as for “emotive”, I’d be very worried if I didn’t empathise and “feel for” those people – didn’t “feel angry” about the butchers – and their cheerleaders – who have loosed that carnage, that evil on the world.
As for the second quote…well, why don’t you show us how it’s “not scholarly” etc. Rather than a sweeping, unsubstantiated statement that’s amounts to little more than a shyster’s three card trick.
“Academic achievement” – definition please.
Apropos all of this, the following – which I came across last night – makes an interesting read. It’s from Steve Sailer’s blog – http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/02/francis-fukuyama-and-charles.html
– about the Francis Fukuyama-Charles Krauthammer falling out. Sailer is in turn linking to somebody called Gene Expression.
Ethnicity will and should legitimately be a topic brought up in the ensuing debate. Consider an analogy. Suppose that Wolfowitz, Perle, Shulsky, Feith, Ledeen, and all the rest were South Asian Americans rather than Jewish Americans and had names like Ramachandran, Patel, and Choudhury. Again they’d be selected from a highly educated group that was less than 2% of society (there are about 2 to 3 million South Asian Americans, about 1/2 to 1/3 the number of American Jews depending on how you count).
Now suppose they were pushing the US to invade Pakistan, and talking about how the Islamic terrorists killing Indian citizens in Kashmir were the same ones bombing the US on 9/11. Assume that they did this whilst having relatives, extended families, and significant contacts in India.
Now, their arguments would not – and should not – be dismissed out of hand. After all, it is probably more accurate to say that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the ISI are/were more closely involved in Muslim terrorism in Kashmir than they are with anti-Israeli terrorism in Palestine. (As far as I know, Al Qaeda has never directly attacked Israel.)
But while their arguments would not be dismissed out of hand, clearly their visible ethnicity would figure into the debate. Plenty of people would take their opinions with a grain of salt, knowing that humans tend to be ethnocentric on the population level if not the individual level. It would be scurrilous to dismiss their arguments simply because they were of Indian ancestry, especially if they were born in America. But it would be foolish to think their ethnicity wasn’t impacting any of their arguments, and to rule out mention of their ethnicity as “anti-Subcontinental.”
What we need, now more than ever, is free discussion. Closed discussion helped get us into Iraq.
“The Palestinians are always painted as the “extremists” and “murderers”, yet we get numbers like this:
TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 123 children killed
TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Palestinians: 707 children killed
Maybe someone could explain to me why the good and decent and “non-extremists” Israeli are out-killing the Palestinians more than five to one?”
O, yes. I also has question.
Maybe, someone can explain how it could be that “random-killing-all-moving-objects” isralies in fact inflict palestinian casualties that more than 90% males of ages 13 to 45?
How it could be that 316 isralien females were killed, and 140 palestinian?
How it could be that 255 israliens over 45 years old were killed, and 89 palestinian?
I have one answer, You’ll probably dislike – we (israliens) almost never (with maybe one or two regrettable exception) deliberitary target civilians, which palestinians in fact almost always do.
http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439
IDF/IAF: Re your “palestinians in fact almost always do [deliberately target civilians]”:
From B’tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:
Israeli civilian killed by Palestinians [both inside the OPTs and in Israel]: 685
Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians [both locations]: 309.
Therefore,proportion of security force personnel among the Israelis killed: 31%.
Given that it is far, far easier for an attacker to “achieve” the killing of noncombatants than of members of an organized security force, this figure certainly does not indicate that the Palestinian attackers are “almost always” deliberately targeting civilians.
(Even the web-pages you cite, which come from the highly partisan and militaristic [Israeli] “Institute” for Couter-Terrorism, give a figure of around 20%. Once again, indicating that your claim is wrong.)
Upharsin,
I have only one problem with your analogy, and that is that you leave out the kicker: Would it be right to accuse them of pursuing the interests of a foreign nation over those of the United States?
This is what it appears (especially from the notes in those “exhaustive endnotes”) that Mearsheimer and Walt are saying. Now all that is lacking is for some failing Senator, who realizes that his chances for reelection are slim, to pull a piece of paper out of his pocket and cry out “I have a list here of over 100 neocons….”
Given that it is far, far easier for an attacker to “achieve” the killing of noncombatants than of members of an organized security force, this figure certainly does not indicate that the Palestinian attackers are “almost always” deliberately targeting civilians
It’s interesting to read the breakdown of the Bt’Selem statistics, noting how many “security force personnel” were killed on buses, at hitchhiking stations, in malls, restaurants etc. (almost all of them)
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=8
Wow, it looks like “the Lobby” has struck again!
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1101
Or perhaps the Kennedy School just realized that, while it might be okay for a commercial publication like the LRB, they don’t want to be officially sponsoring an 83-page op-ed piece.
JES,
The Mccarthy scarecrow is just one more instance of the kind of funny money that’s common currency for you guys.
My personal view – and it’s based on how I would feel and what I would do if I were in their situation – is that someone like Paul Wolfowitz, who has a sister in Israel; or someone like Douglas Feith, who…well, surely I don’t need to teach you to suck eggs, you know as well as I do – indeed, almost certainly better than I do what his “views” and “connections” are; ditto Richard Perle, etc. etc….anyway it’s just common sense that the pole star for those three and their “fellow travellers” (don’t get your knickers in a twist, I’m just being – in Martin Kramer’s word – “mischievous”) is American and Israeli “interests” being congruent. Or nearly congruent. It puts them in an impossible position if in fact Israel’s and America’s interests aren’t congruent. And Lord help us, they’ve been at pains to talk that up, bring it about, make it happen. Or at least make it appear to be the case. And then get it sealed safely away…into some sort cryrogenic state…where it can’t ever be even questioned.
But there are lots of us who don’t think Israel’s and America’s interests are congruent, no matter how desperately you Kramer the thing. And like it or lump it, those are the colours that Walt and Mearsheimer have nailed to the mast. And good for them. It’s too important a question not to face full on. It needs to be addressed openly and honestly. What’s wrong with that? Well, what’s wrong with it – apparently – is that people might see that what’s good for Israel isn’t necessarily good for America. And vice versa. Ergo the s___ storm.
The whole sorry sorry business makes me want to weep. For my country. And indeed for Israel. And for Iraq. And for Palestine.
The Neocon “project” is a busted flush. Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc. would have served both of their countries better if they had recused themselves – if that’s the correct term. The conflict of interest is – well, it’s the elephant on the patio.
Upharsin,
You still haven’t answered the main question. Irrespective of whether or not some “neocons” have family in Israel (you forgot that Eliot Abrams has a sister-in-law in Israel), are you saying that they put Israel’s interests before those of the US – the country that they serve?
It needs to be addressed openly and honestly. What’s wrong with that?
I don’t think that anyone said that it shouldn’t be discussed. But discussing it means allowing both sides to air their opinions, and I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone has tried to ban or censor the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, rather all the fuss has been about putting it in its proper perspective.
And, if it’s really your country that your concerned with the, for godsake learn how to spell “color”!
And then get it sealed safely away…into some sort cryrogenic state…where it can’t ever be even questioned.
Boy they’re doing a crummy job. What the hell are the paper& its 200 footnotes about if it’s not been questioned?
the measure of congruence between Israeli and US interests is (of course!) a suitable topic for study and debate. The “excessive influence” of one lobby or another (the meta-argument) vaults past this underlying debate entirely, and goes charging headlong into textbook ‘well poisoning,’ exactly a la Daniel Pipes. A question you should ask yourself might be “what corrective policy is implied by M&W’s thesis?”
I recall in 1960 when John F. Kennedy began his campaign for presidency. In the face of stiff competition from the incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon, Kennedy faced questions about his catholic background.
In a still very divided american society where ethnic, racial, and sectarian relations were tense, and the ruling elite was still very much white, anglo-saxon, male, and protestant, there remained some degree of prejudice that if Kennedy were elected, the United States could fall under the sway of foreign influence from the catholic pope at the Vatican.
In no uncertain terms, Kennedy declared that his first and only loyalties would be to the United States of America, and
americans believed him and elected him the president of the country.
In a more recent US presidential election campaign, I recall how the Democratic vice president candidate, Joe Lieberman, faced one question (one that I am aware of) about his jewish ethnic identity. Out on the campaign stump Lieberman was asked by a reporter if americans should be concerned that if elected he would have divided loyalties between America and Israel, suggesting that israeli interests might sway american policies.
Lieberman’s reply was a stark contrast to the reply of John F. Kennedy in 1960. Rather than making clear that his first and only loyalties would be to the United States of America, Lieberman grinned his broad toothy grin and suggested by the intonation of his voice that the question was really a silly one. If I may paraphrase his reply, Lieberman said “of course the interests of America and Israel are the same. The two are good friends and strong partners. The US has a ‘special relationship’ with Israel.”
Prejudice and bigotry against any individual because of his or her ethnic, racial, sectarian, or gender identity is a crime. However, when it comes to the determination of national policy and government leadership in this country, it is a fair and necessary question to ask whehter or not anyone seeking a national (or even local) office would have divided loyalties in carrying out their public duties.
As was true in the era of Kennedy, the question really does not fit into the hysterical category of “witch hunts, McCarthyism, and inquisitions.” The question, as Mearsheimer and Walt make clear, is one that concerns the making and influencing of government policy. In the history of the United States this is one of the oldest political concerns, going back to the first american president, George Washington. Many have noted the contemporary relevance of what is commonly called Washington’s farewell address, actually a published statement in which he warns about the potential pitfalls of “passionate attachments” to foreign interests.
Quoted below are longer segments of Washington’s published statement, all of which make important reading today for anyone concerned that our american republic is becoming a very strange land in which to live, a land of “might makes right” empire:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence…
“In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of nations has been the victim.
“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions: by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity…
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
“But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
JES,
You’re a bright boy…I can’t imagine why you’ve got a mental block about this particular point. But let’s try again. Nice and slow. Here goes:
You play with a funny deck of cards – the deck of cards that holds that Israel’s and America’s interests are congruent…and hey presto, it’s like magic, by definition you can’t be putting Israel’s interests above America’s.
But as long as we’re playing this pleasant little game of pass the parcel, didn’t Phillip Zelikow – is that how you spell his name? – say something very much along those lines?
Again, it’s horses for courses isn’t it – but my impression is that there’s been an enormous, well orchestrated effort to “ring fence” the article. And I’m not saying there’s a conductor – in fact, it seems to be almost instinctual, everybody swings into action, pitches in. It’s the kind of group think and group response that would have brought tears of joy to the eyes of Orwell’s Big Brother. The Harvard business being of course a case in point.
As to my orthography and nationality…there’s something like 80,000 Americans living in London. I’m one of them. When in Rome blah blah blah.
Duh. And cheers.
On a not completely unrelated note. I thought a bit more about that charming Martin Kramer bagatelle to the effect that “they” – I think he means Arabs – “hate America because of what they can’t do, and what they aren’t. They can’t accumulate power, and they can’t handle modernity, and they resent anyone who reminds them of it.”
“Accumulate power?” What, like a portfolio? “Handle modernity”? What the hell does that mean? What DOES he mean by “modernity”? Is it just me…or is that remark as nasty as I suspect it is? Does he mean all Muslims? That’s what – over a billion people? Is the subtext – I hope it isn’t – that they’re…well, you know, inferior beings: hewers of wood and drawers of water, that sort of thing?
The problem with a remark of that tenor is that if you actually try to weigh it up there’s nothing there. There’s no there, there…in Gertrude Stein’s – I think it was – bon mot. It’s a no clothes job. It’s just nebulous nastiness.
Nebulous nastiness that could just as easily be applied to “the other side”. For the sake of the argument, let’s consider a Brooklyn-born-and- raised Jew who’s convinced himself that he has a better claim to, say, Hebron than a Palestinian whose people have been there for generations – the foundation for which conviction is the assertion that the Great Realtor in the Sky – i.e., the “God” of a group of Paleolithic nomads – “gave” him the land – a “thought process” which invariably puts me in my mind of Mark Twain’s trenchant observation that “faith is believing what you know can’t be true” – well, this Wasp is simply dumbfounded by that phenomenon. Dumbfounded and thankful that he doesn’t have that marching music going round and round in his head. And were you to ask him what he thought about it – and were Martin Kramer’s remarks fresh in his mind – well, he just might hazard the opinion that the Brooklynite who’s trying to fashion a life for himself in the middle of Hebron isn’t handling modernity terribly well.
See what I mean?
No, of course you won’t. Which is why there’s not really much point – we’re shouting at each other from across an unbridgeable gulf. I’m just very glad I don’t have to, er, bear your cross.
No, he means the ones who “hate America.” The passage refers to potential Al Qaeda recruits. The ones who “can’t handle modernity.” The ones who don’t care terribly for the plight of the Palestinians. Unlike some here, Kramer recognizes that retrograde salafist movements have very little to do with Israeli or US policy, and that Al Qaeda’s goals aren’t congruent with Palestinian goals, despite the vaguely bigoted (arabophobic) claims of those like M&W that Israeli turpitude helps “recruit terrorists”.
PHILOSOPHY: LESSONS FROM THE “ECHO CHAMBER”
For the aid of readers at Just World News, I think it is beneficial to observe (and preserve) a condensed record of many of the comments generated by this posting from Helena.
For future reference, keep in mind that a few regular “respondents” to Just World News (understatement for “quick-draw hack-hatchets”) made the following comments about the recently released Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Faculty Research Working Paper entitled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” written by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.
These comments followed Helena’s request of two things: first, that the “respondents” cease their initial (and customary) accusations against her for making postings of her choice; and second, that they turn their attention to the contents of her posting, as anyone with genuine intentions would do while visiting Just World News.
Under the pretense of informed and effective criticism these “respondents” consistently “challenge” (understatement for “launch illogical gang-assault harassment of”) Helena’s postings on Just World News. These “respondents” also consistently “challenge” other respondents who happen to express agreement or support, or offer complimentary information for what Helena posts at Just World News.
You decide if the following comments amount to effective critique worthy of engagement, or distracting background noise better tuned out.
If … by chance, in future postings at Just World News … you should become entangled with one of the below named “respondents,” consider what must motivate them:
philosophy (love of knowledge and wisdom with a spirit of openness);
or some combination of unreason, deceit, an abnormal inclination to obfuscate, excessive self-centeredness, hidden hostility, hysteria, or irrational fear.
My motivation is that more respondents with genuine intentions will in the future feel comfortable becoming engaged with Just World News, so on Helena’s next blog-anniversary she can report a three-fold increase in the number of daily readers.
This is how the internet is meant to serve as an informed global exchange that advances a more compassionate, democratic, healthy, and sane world for all to live in.
What follows, on the other hand, is your best guess.
There’s nothing substantial about McCarthyite witch hunts and ad hominems… meta-argumentative ad hominem sidebars about “operatives” instead of policy are unproductive, ad hominem and juvenile.
Posted by: vadim at March 16, 2006 03:22 PM
an article whose thesis is an elaborate ad hominem fallacy is defensible only via the same shabby argumentation. yet the article is pure McCarthyism from start to finish.
Posted by: vadim at March 16, 2006 04:22 PM
Americans do not need AIPAC or any other “hasbara” to… sympathize with Israel.
Posted by: Joshua at March 16, 2006 04:27 PM
In the end, this article does not say anything new. It recycles the same tired old charges that “the Zionist lobby” controls U.S. foreign policy and tries to “squelch dissent.”
Posted by: Joshua at March 16, 2006 10:58 PM
As I see it, the pro-Israel lobby is simply doing its job well. They are well organized. They provide apparently good research services… They are vocal about what they believe in and they get people to write letters and demonstrate peacefully… That, I think, is fine and I would also say quite preferable than making overt threats, calling for beheadings, burning down embassies, taking hostages and flying planes into buildings.
Posted by: JES at March 16, 2006 11:48 PM
The central pillars of Arab culture that relate to the Jews are the principles of Dhimmi and Jihad. How can Mearsheimer and Walt skip both of these central topics and still claim to not be prejudiced? Yet neither of these words appears in (M-W)…. Israel is a US supporter. It’s a smart move for Israel.
Posted by: WarrenW at March 17, 2006 03:25 AM
Just one thing. We all know that W Bush came into office wanting to take down Saddam Hussein… Now, it’s the Jewish Lobby that did it. Can you see why this looks like prejudice to me?
Posted by: WarrenW at March 17, 2006 03:39 AM
This is not fury. If you think this is fury, you’ve never seen fury.
Posted by: WarrenW at March 17, 2006 09:31 AM
I’ll tell you, for a sinister plot those Likudnik-Zionist-uber-alles types sure do broadcast their agenda something fierce… I thought those Zionists were more adept conspirators — why can’t they keep their nefarious agenda under wraps?
Posted by: vadim at March 17, 2006 09:40 AM
The funny thing is that the side making accusation is really the one that has done more to try and bring others into submission if they support “the wrong side”…On the other side, you don’t have censorship as much as counterspeech.
Posted by: Joshua at March 17, 2006 10:11 AM
Please stay on topic. Baby-abduction, discourse-domination, lending money at interest. It’s disgraceful.
Posted by: vadim at March 17, 2006 10:45 AM
Mearsheimer and Walt could, as you say, be right in their appraisal of what is the US “national interest”. But then again, they could be wrong… this article reminds me a great deal of Charles Lindbergh’s Setptember 1941 Des Moines, Iowa speech…
Posted by: JES at March 19, 2006 08:47 AM
No one, least of all I, have ever called anyone here an anti-Semite. In fact, I don’t recall seeing anyone here making accusations of anti-Semitism to support their arguments…
Posted by: JES at March 19, 2006 09:40 AM
Like it or not, the US public associates the Arab and Islamic world with decades of suicide bombings & airline hijackings, … religious fatwas, conspiracy theories, religious and politcal repression, crowds chanting “death to america” and burning the US flag, emblem of ‘the great satan’….Few if any of these deep-seated attitudes can be attributed to ‘the Lobby.’
Posted by: vadim at March 19, 2006 03:20 PM
Hey Seymour, Geh vaxen vie a tsiboleh! … And while you’re at it, take the rest of the Bundist shlobs with you.
Posted by: JES at March 19, 2006 11:38 PM
This entire paper is besmirching the messenger (the pro-Israeli lobby). Circumstantial ad hominem is a sophistical fallacy, not rigorous argumentation…It very closely resembles the pseudo-argumentation of Daniel Pipes’ “Campus Watch” and similar efforts. I really don’t understand how you’re missing this.
Posted by: vadim at March 20, 2006 09:50 AM
You can’t call anyone an “antisemite” on this board. That’s stifling debate and inquiry.
Posted by: Joshua at March 20, 2006 02:30 PM
I believe anyone trying to make sense out of these lines of unreasoning would be (mis)led to the same tired (mis)understandings of the past … (mis)understandings that brought the world to its current crisis.
These “respondents” clearly want to create a sense of alarm about the Kennedy School paper. “Beware the paper’s contents; its authors are on a witch hunt,” they warn us. Apparently we are to believe that the authors of the Kennedy School paper share anti-semitic ideas with other anti-semites prior to the second world war. We are to believe the paper unfairly attacks fine, upstanding and loyal Americans who support America’s “trusted ally” in Israel.
These “respondents” want us to understand that Israel and its powerful lobbyists in America are “fighting the good fight” in America’s own self-interests. They want us to keep seeing world politics as a black-and-white struggle between good and bad. Israel is good with peaceful, rational, and civilized intentions, while Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are bad with warring, irrational, and uncivilized intentions. Simplicity of perception in a complex world is not normally a good basis for government policy. And it is certainly not in this case.
The editor’s of today’s Wall Street Journal published their first opinion piece about the Kennedy School paper. It is a commentary by Ruth Wisse, a literature professor at the Kennedy School’s parent organization, Harvard University. Prof. Wisse makes an argument similar to the one made by the “respondents” above. Although Prof. Wisse uses more sophisticated language, she still suggests that a correct understanding of America’s alliance with Israel is a simple black and white proposition that any working class cabbie can understand.
She recalls a ride in a Boston taxi in the early 1980s, when the cabbie escorting her grasped the essence of America’s alliance with Israel:
“Israel! That’s America’s fighting front line! Israel fights our battles better than we could fight them ourselves.”
On the pages of major American newspapers, and on the airwaves of all American television broadcasts, we are being asked to share the simplistic mindset of Boston taxi drivers in the early 1980s. Instead of reading and seriously considering new and important research by professors associated with Harvard University, we are supposed to continue subscribing to misinformed ideas of the distant past.
Could Prof. Wisse be one of those who pressured the leadership of Harvard University to remove its name and school insignia from the M-S paper? Let’s hope that websites like Just World News help more people to become better informed about this world’s problems, from the working class man who drives taxi in Boston to the head of Harvard University’s literature department.
Sd demonstrates a masterful touch with the cutting and pasting functions of his PC. Unfortunately his reading comp skills could use some work. how on earth could he have gotten Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are bad with warring, irrational, and uncivilized intentions from “Al Qaeda’s goals aren’t congruent with Palestinian goals?” And a sense of “alarm” from what’s clearly amounted to light-hearted ridicule? Why should anyone be alarmed by such shopworn and shallow analysis?
Joshua, WarrenW, Vadim, JES, etc.
At this point the discourse is broader than snippy, faux pas, crossing t’s, dotting i’s.
We all know you are just a bunch of joksters on this website, engaging in a little “light-hearted ridicule.”
Gosh, we have not heard from Josh and WW in a long time. Cat got your tongue?
” Simplicity of perception in a complex world is not normally a good basis for government policy.”
There’s no more simple-minded construction than “Israel manipulates US perceptions of the Mideast” (save perhaps “Israel is the reason why they hate us.”)
Of course your black-and-white struggle between good and bad is another straw man, proof that you havent comprehended anything that’s been patiently and carefully explained to you here.
Josh
(the smart, return guest, I’ll take Helena up on her offer and show her wrong),
WorldWar
(Arab Muslims are really a bunch of Islamo-fascists like Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s, but I am completely ignorant of the fact that comparing today’s problems to the situation in World War II is like the hack critics who said FDR’s New Deal was the equivalent of Joseph Stalin’s imposed communism),
Vadim
(my man, more christian or afro-american, or maybe a mixture of Bob Marley and the confused, converted, reconverted, born again, shorn again Bob Dylan who today is singing “people are strange (and fucked up), and I don’t care….”),
and JES
(set up in fine style somewhere in … where? Tel Aviv? got a nice apartment and a hipster lifestyle, know your way from Mea Shearim to Ma’ale Adumim, could go down to Gaza and take sacks of flour to starving Arab and Muslim people in the mass prison encampment they call Gaza, but that would be beneath you because you still think Peretz will defeat Olmert or Ohlmert, or olMea’rt, or almost forgot his name…)
Come on dudes! …. we are all just having some fun.
thAts the best u can do? speaKing of sTRaw men, but throwing up, regurgitATing your own StRaW MaN quotes that relate to nothing I’vE said, or anyone I know said,…. please provide sources if u want to be proooooooooooFesional about this.
wEar r u?
No more “courteous, fresh, helpful, and to the point” comments?
zzzzzzzzzzzz
I am an ol’ man … aches and pains rrrrrrrrrrrrrr 2 much
it’s already way past my bed time, but…
…looking forward to tomorrow.
there’s always a new day
A request for genuine criticism:
JES, Joshua and especially vadim: I just finished rereading every post in the thread. What is striking is that there is no criticism of the study whatsoever, properly speaking, from any of you! All there is is accusations which are not backed up any way. I could equally well, with an equal amount of evidence and argument, say that “Your eighth grade report card was a Masonic conspiracy to take over the world!” The study is ad hominem? OK. Where do they make an ad hominem argument, attack a person or institution and not an abstract thesis held by the person. Which page? It is an opinion piece quoting other opinion pieces. Fine. Where is there an opinion with which you disagree, and show that they only back it up with other opinion pieces. There is no indication, no way to tell from these posts, that the study was even downloaded! Everything just boils down to saying “ME NO LIKE” repeatedly, while never saying just what it is you don’t like.
(I just noticed Joshua’s sole “Chomsky” citation wasn’t even accurate – I assume note 10 is meant. He is cited for the rather uncontroversial fact that “the United States consistently favors Israel over the Palestinians,” be serious -does anyone really not believe this?)
Note that I did not include Warren. His posts are actually head and shoulders above the others’. I disagree with nearly everything he says, as usual, and in general I think he is the victim of despicable propagandists who deceive him about practically everything about the region and its history. Practically every “fact” he states (or invents) is wrong or extremely selective and biased. But once in a while, interspersed with inferior stuff, he quotes and argues with something actually in the study, and he seems to understand the form of a rational argument.
Nearly the only contribution the others have made is to link to other criticisms, like Martin Kramer’s, which are hardly better, if that, than Warren’s. It would also be nice even if someone could point to one or two arguments that others, like Kramer, make, that they think hit home, so that there could be the beginning of a debate. Right now there are over a hundred posts, but hardly any relevant content.
John R.
I’ll try to be less flippant.
Rational debate over foreign policy is the proper aim of political science. There’s plenty of room for healthy debate over US policy toward Israel.
But with this essay we aren’t [for ther most part] arguing over policy/engaging in political science. “The israel Lobby” [proper noun, caps] is not a subset of ‘policy:’ ‘the Lobby’ (as opposed to ‘the policy’) isn’t here a worthy object of study, since:
1.) in contrast to many other political bodies, there exists no discrete, coherent, self-aware ‘Lobby’ [proper noun] with monolithic policy objectives [m&W issue a disclaimer to this effect on p. 14, but continue to use ‘the Lobby’ as a proper noun, assigning it objectives, motives etc, drawn from a wide variety of sources, just as if they were coherent and coordinated.] the category mistake they seem to think is trivial is in fact fatal to any far-reaching [non-trivial, falsifiable, non-overbroad] conclusion.
2.) no thesis addressing ‘the Lobby’ relates to political science, but to media studies, psychology or sociology. the paper mostly addresses the messenger[s] and “media of the message” leading to
3.) the paper leans upon many weak causal and behavioral inferences, only one of which is that policy is dictated by campaign contributions from Jews. A textbook circumstantial ad hominem verging closely on McCarthyism. (eg: American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.)
The question I’d ask you is: “What policy is recommended by the paper’s thesis, that couldn’t omit all discussion of “the Lobby?” Why is debate over “the Lobby” more worthy than a discussion of policy alone?
no thesis addressing ‘the Lobby’ relates to political science I don’t even understand what this is supposed to mean. Given that “the Lobby” in general and its constituent parts such as AIPAC are non-trivial actors that strongly affect decisionmaking by at least two of the three branches of government in this country, in what sense at all could you propose that a study of the Lobby is not a topic for political science and political scientists?
Perhaps Mearsheimer and Walt, who are both leaders within the academic discipline of political science, are just slightly more qualified to make a decision on this than “Mr. Vadim X”, whose qualifications to make a determination of this nature are completely unstated and unkown?
Vadim, you write:
“the paper leans upon many weak … inferences”
and then provide this specific example:
“one of which is that policy is dictated by campaign contributions from Jews”
You suggest this is a “weak inference” (or flawed argument?) because it is an example of a “circumstantial ad hominem”.
If I understand your argument, you believe that U.S. policy is not “dictated by campaign contributions from Jews” (I think the article actually refers to zionists) and the contrary assertion is an ad hominem.
After looking at the link you provided, I don’t agree that this is the case. The “circumstantial ad hominem” fallacy is a completely different type of statement where someone’s argument is dismissed because of a potential conflict of interest without considering the merits of the argument. This statement is an assertion of fact that is either true or false and can be proved or disproved with evidence.
Maybe what you are trying to suggest is that the article encourages people to dismiss pro-Israeli arguments from Jewish zionists without considering their merits?
Perhaps Mearsheimer and Walt, who are both leaders within the academic discipline of political science, are just slightly more qualified..
And perhaps they aren’t. Academics (even Hahvard professors) aren’t immune to jurisdictional overreach. You’ll note that the paper hasn’t been (and likely won’t be) published in an academic journal of political science but in the more generalist LRB.
I’d prefer to base criticism on the merits and shortcomings of M&W’s thesis rather than the awe-inducing academic credentials of its authors. You’d admit that even though they’re tenured professors, M&W might very well be wrong here (just as they were wrong about Kissinger’s wisdom, wrong about the permanent existential threat posed to Israel by an independent Palestine, and wrong about a bunch of other stuff. Please don’t appeal to their superior judgment.)
in what sense at all could you propose that a study of the Lobby is not a topic for political science and political scientists?
As I said, because its paranthetical to more worthwhile debate, and because the terms of discussion are overbroad and involve at least one clear cut category mistake (in the ryle sense) and many ad hominems. Unacknowledged motives are topics suited to psychology or criminal law. In good faith discussions of policy they’re a distraction.
Maybe what you are trying to suggest is that the article encourages people to dismiss pro-Israeli arguments from Jewish zionists without considering their merits?
Yes. Essays fleshing out the contours and character of the shape-shifting “Lobby” are peripheral to anything of substance. The fact that there may be a coherent bloc of political actors advancing policy X is irrelevant to the merits of policy X. It wouldnt matter if ‘the Lobby’ issued ID cards, a uniform and a decoder ring (fyi they don’t and I’ve asked several times.)
Unsurprisingly the people most likely to obsess over “The Israeli lobby” are likely to award undue significance to academic credentials at the expense of common sense. Meanwhile Clinton envoy Dennis Ross (Ph.D UCLA) has remarked that M&W exhibit “a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject” and that the paper is “remarkable for its lack of seriousness.” Marvin Kalb (of the Kennedy School itself) has said it “clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper.”
Vadim, again I see some of what you say as avoiding the questions. Thankfully there is a bit more meat though now.
1) is an empty, semantic criticism. There is no category mistake, no error. They could just as well call it the “supporters of Israel.” IMHO whatever you want to call it, is a pretty coherent group, and they discuss this too. The idea that it is not coherent enough to discuss sensibly is preposterous. One can make the same kind of criticism of any generalization or label. Sometimes I find their phraseology infelicitous, but deal with what they actually say, or what they would have said if they respected your quibbles. Buzzwords like “ad hominem” and “category mistake” and McCarthyism are tossed around, but not pointed out accurately.
2.) is even worse. Who cares how one classifies the paper? The point is – Is what they say true?
3) Is substantive, but if I understand, I disagree entirely, especially with using “ad hominem.” They do not lean on the inference “that policy is dictated by campaign contributions from Jews” (of course not worded this way, but that is a quibble similar to #1) they make this inference. They aren’t saying “the Jews support this (self-serving) policy, therefore it is bad” they are saying roughly the converse: The premise is that there is this extraordinary (and bad) policy, and they ask why. By eliminating alternative reasons, they conclude there is no reason other than Israeli lobby support, and observe that one of the main methods of support is campaign contributions.
You ask “What policy is recommended by the paper’s thesis, that couldn’t omit all discussion of “the Lobby?” Why is debate over “the Lobby” more worthy than a discussion of policy alone?
You’re right that there is not too much in the way of alternative policy recommendations; it is pretty clear that the main recommendation is simply to not do all the extraordinary things that the US does. As I’ve said before, these add up to pouring gasoline on a fire.
The point is so simple that they spend hardly any time on it. Their policy discussion and recommendation is contained in the policy critique, and a rational one can hardly avoid mentioning the Lobby.
I agree with Helena that exploring the influence of domestic actors on foreign policy is a worthy topic, and suggesting otherwise is amazing. One odd thing that differentiates this paper from Walt’s book, IIRC, is that they do not make a comparison with the old China Lobby. Does any one think this is not a fit subject of now historical inquiry, even though one can pointlessly say #1 and #2 against this too?
Their argument is that the domination of the discourse in the USA by one side has led to (manifestly) irrational policy. Moving from analysis to action, to affecting policy, which is clearly their purpose, I entirely agree with them that exploring the relationship of the Lobby to policy is a very effective means of changing the policy to sanity, much more effective than writing another paper that says or implies that US policy is self-destructive. I disagree with them perhaps as to the size of the effect the Lobby has had recently on American Mideast policy outside of Israel, but whatever it is, it is clearly detrimental and similar to the effect in Israel, fostering aggression and criminality and diminishing peacemaking and justice.
Basically these dudes are taking Marx’s advice that the point is not just to understand the world, but change it. (Put that in to cheer up Dominic.)
Again, what I want is more meat! Precisely what part does Dennis Ross think displays woeful lack of knowledge? Where does Marvin Kalb think academic standards are not met? (I actually might agree, but not the way he means. In academia as elsewhere, it is not considered polite to point out unclothed emperors or elephants in the room.) To someone who has been around the block, saying these things without pointing to examples is actually very high praise – it means “My team of fact-checkers has checked your paper without finding any error! Curses, foiled again!”
There’s nothing wrong with dismissing arguments, not based on their merits, if one does not have the time to explore their merits, and the people who are making the arguments have repeatedly made arguments which you have explored before and found meritless. Life is finite. If someone reads the article, checks and evaluates the arguments and find them good, he is perfectly justified in dismissing Israeli lobby arguments, even if they might be the truth on occasion. In the old Soviet Union, it got so people would never believe what the government said, even if it was logical and true and known to be true in the West. That’s not the fault of the people, but of the original liars. Very slowly, people are getting to distrust the Israeli Lobby view. As they point out, it is weakening and knows it.
John R.,
Precisely.
John R, this conversation seems familiar. We had one similar to it back when “the realists” were arguing that US Mideast policy was “all about oil,” and I tried to explain why ad hominem fallacies weren’t something you lived with like a case of herpes, but something one can and should always avoid. It seems you’re content to let M&W slide with their overgeneralised thesis on the grounds that ad hominem helps you manage your schedule. I’m sorry to hear that.
Actually, Dennis Ross, whom I am happy to consider a friend, most likely never actually got his doctorate. Even his “speaker’s bureau” describes his academic credentials only in these terms: A 1970 graduate of UCLA, Ambassador Ross wrote his doctoral dissertation on Soviet decision-making… Note this is not the same as saying that his dissertation was judged to be of enough quality to justify the granting of a doctorate.
Dennis is also definitely not to be considered a “neutral analyst” on this topic.
John R,
I think it’s great that you want “more meat”, but I think you’ve got to put a couple of steaks on the fire too – hey dude?
Why don’t you take a look at the rather brief and less turgid and annotated rebuttles we’ve linked here and try responding to those. You’re smart. I don’t really think that you need us to point out what’s relevant in a 500-word article. Or you might take a look here, and start off by demonstrating why the author’s four bullet points of criticism are off the mark:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008117
In addition, I’d like to see a little meat from the Mearsheimer and Walt cheering section on the article itself about exactly what their thesis is and why you think that they’ve proved anything over and above what has already been said on the Web sites and other op-ed pieces they site. I for one would like you, or someone else, point out how they have demonstrated that “the Lobby” is “is a pretty coherent group”. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it. Granted, I’ve only started working through those footnotes, but in many cases, they are even more revealing than the text they annotate. If you haven’t done so, you should take a look at the story they weave in the footnotes. For example, that the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon as a “close cousin” of “the Lobby”. I mean what the hell is that? And then they use multiple entries to build the impression that the “neocons” form some organized group of people, founded primarily by Jews, and affiliated with “the Lobby”. That, again, is something where I would find it very helpful if you were able to explain to me how they have demonstrated this with evidence. I just don’t see it. Sorry.
Dennis is also definitely not to be considered a “neutral analyst” on this topic.
Who on earth is a neutral analyst? Arguments don’t hinge on the neutrality (or PhD status) of the arguer. That’s the point. Cursory judgments like this are what comes of grouping Dennis Ross (‘Lobby’-member via WINEP) with Daniel Pipes. ‘the Lobby’ adds nothing to our understanding of the complex issues involved…it actually detracts from our political vocabulary by melding diverse opinions into an indistinct sinister “other”. it artificially bifurcates a many-sided problem, reducing complex arguments to easy-to-digest schedule-friendly soundbites.
Vadim,
I think a couple of people here, uh, missed your point (which was, by the way, very clear in my opinion).
Vadim, either my memory is failing, or you are confusing me with someone else (probably John C).
Too bad the other Warren doesn’t seem to be around. There was some nice, funny confusion back then with the two of them. JR & JC agree too much for good comedy. Maybe more tonite or later, too much work to do now.
The tone of this discussion is clearly better than what we have had in the past. Vadim and John R began making clear points for a debate, but then (as I read it) the discussion degenerated and spun off target, moving in unhelpful directions.
I see no point in trying to have a debate if we can not stay on target.
I agree with many of John R’s counter-points to Vadim’s initial clearly stated criticism of the M-W essay; and I would be willing to add a few additional supporting arguments to what John R stated.
However, I don’t see that JES and Vadim offered any relevant counter to John R other than:
1) Vadim’s reference back to an earlier discussion (apparently between John R and Vadim about which some of us know nothing) that paralleled the current discussion; the relevant response to Vadim is to ask how does your “counter-point” help us other than by saying “deja vu;” and
2) JES’s broadening of sources by referring to yet more opinion pieces on a journal website that clearly makes ad hominem attacks on M and W by falsely associating these two well-recognized scholars with an admitted bigot in the person of David Duke; the relevant response to JES is to say “why even make this additional linkage…slow down, stop widening the whirlwind,” let’s focus on the issues raised one at a time.
I think we began to make progress when John R requested “genuine criticism” of the M-W paper, and Vadim replied “less flippantly” by offering a clearly stated criticism of the paper followed by 3 clearly stated points in support of his criticism.
Vadim’s criticism of the M-W paper was that it falls outside the “proper aim of political science” — that would be, according to Vadim, “rational debate over foreign policy.” Vadim then goes on to say that “with (the M-W essay) we aren’t [for ther most part] arguing over policy/engaging in political science … (because) “The israel Lobby” [proper noun, caps] is not a subset of ‘policy’.” At this point Vadim made his 3 points — each point arguing why a study of the Israel lobby is presumably an unworthy object of study.
As I read John R’s response and reconsidered Vadim’s criticism, I think there is every reason to reject Vadim’s criticism as groundless, on nearly every point. What Vadim said simply does not stand up. Thus either Vadim and JES respond in a coherent way (as John R did) and counter by showing us why “a rejection of Vadim’s criticism as groundless” is wrong, or they themselves should admit that Vadim’s criticism is groundless. Only at this point can we move on to a discussion of other issues and other websites like those that JES linked to.
In other words, “Strike One” on your part, and let’s wait before we can consider your second swing at the plate, facing M-W’s hard fast ball thrown “right down the pike,” as they say.
As I see it Vadim is completely wrong to say that foreign policy debate is the “proper” aim of political science. “Proper” meaning the only proper or the most proper? And who says so? Just look at the multiple conference and sub-conference meetings at the annual gathering of the American Political Science Association. Where is it said that “foreign policy is the only or most proper” aim? I think you will find that there are many papers and meetings discussing the politics of lobbies and their influence on government policies, foreign and domestic. Some of these may even fall under the category of media studies, but so what? The APSA is a very big tent, so lobbies, policy, and the media all fit together. We don’t need a separate conference of the American Media Studies Association to address the influence of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy.
Next: Vadim argues that M-W’s essay does not deal with the “only or most proper aim of political science” because it concerns a “lobby,” and a lobby is not a sub-set of “foreign policy.” Hunh??? M-W’s essay deals both with a lobby and US foreign policy because their thesis concerns the causal link between the lobby’s activities and the orientation of US foreign policy.
Vadim then provides his 3 points concerning why the category of “Israel lobby” is a mistake, the second of which was just refuted above. John R effectively counters the first and third points, so although I could add additional counter arguments to Vadim’s points #1 and #3, I really see no reason to do so.
All I can say is that Vadim and JES should try again in support of Vadim’s first swing at the plate, or they should agree that the count is now “Strike One.” If Vadim and JES are not able to participate in this debate along reasonable and logical lines, then it is just a big waste of time.
I am willing and fully able (likewise others I am sure) to counter JES’s additional linkages (or to provide, as JES suggests, a concise summary of why the M-W is proper, worthy, reliable, and valid), but first Vadim and JES must acknowledge and play by the rules of American baseball where the pitches come hard and fast.
If Vadim and JES are not willing and able to play by the rules of American baseball, then we can confidently conclude that they are not worthy of engaging in debate.
I am willing and fully able (likewise others I am sure) to counter JES’s additional linkages (or to provide, as JES suggests, a concise summary of why the M-W is proper, worthy, reliable, and valid), but first Vadim and JES must acknowledge and play by the rules of American baseball where the pitches come hard and fast.
How do we say it, ah, bull puckey. If you’re so willing and able, then do it!
(By the way, Sd, I hope that you’re more adept at making arguments than you are about making assumptions about people you don’t know. I will be 57 in two months, I live in a small house in a rural community, and I bear no illusions about Amir Peretz winning the elections on Tuesday.)
Sd, your typing is masterful. you must be paid by the word. I’m not, so you’ll excuse me for declining to re-restate my still unaddressed point.
In the meantime, if & when the paper is ever published by an academic journal of political science — rather than a literary review along with articles on Martha Freud (‘Housekeeper of a theory’) and Peter Lorre (‘The Eerie One’) — I’ll be happy to offer my congratulations.
JES, Vadim, WarrenW, Joshua, Neal, Davis, David, etc.
All I can say is “unbelieveable.”
I did not think you would take the bait.
No serious player in American baseball, ever steps up to the plate, takes STRIKE ONE, and then steps away from the plate, drops his head, turns and drags his bat back to the bench to sit down.
I offered the bait to see how you would react, and like I said, “unbelieveable.”
You really are a bunch of “strike out” quitters, not even worthy of engaging in a debate. What a bunch of losers!
Either you offer a rebuttal to John R and what I wrote, or you admit that the count is now STRIKE ONE and we will let you have two more swings.
There are plenty of other people swinging away at the M-W essay. Today’s “Wall Street Journal” had another completely lame opinion peice. This one was written by the WSJ “editorial board.” Presumably they all got together, and offered the best critique they could make of the M-W thesis, and as I said “lame.”
Now I could offer the WSJ editorial as a “substitute batter” for you bunch of quitters, but I would much rather give you a second and third attempt at the plate.
Just think about it for a day or so: offer any concise, clearly stated critique of M-W as Vadim did, listing point by point, what is wrong with the M-W essay (i.e. why it is not worthy of academic attention), and we will see once again how the critique completely fails to make contact with that hard fastball thrown dead center across the plate.
By the way, you and others who argue that the standard for evaluating M-W’s paper is the following:
“if & when the paper is ever published by an academic journal of political science”
You fail to realize that the fact an essay like M-W is considered so sensitive and controversial for an academic publisher, or an academic institution like Harvard (which removed its insignia from the cover page and rejects any association with the paper’s contents), just supports the carefully researched and empirically based conclusions that M-W put forward in their essay.
Sd,
Fortunately for you, your self-soilings will shortly be rolling off the bottom of the recent posts list.
Fortunately for you, your self-soilings will shortly be rolling off the bottom of the recent posts list.
I think someone’s taken a beanball or two to the melon.
JES, Vadim, WarrenW, Joshua, Neal, Davis, David, etc.
A group of real class acts.
May there be peace, justice, and goodwill in your part of this world!
Vadim:
It seems you’re content to let M&W slide with their overgeneralised thesis on the grounds that ad hominem helps you manage your schedule.
Concerning the overgeneralized thesis, well of course. That goes without saying. All theses are overgeneralized. As the philosopher (Ortega y Gasset?) said, “To think is to exaggerate.” Could they qualify it more, do they say things in ways that even I think are infelicitous once in a while? Sure. Is there some truth in the basic thesis – yes. In particular, that Israel, as it acts now, is a strategic liability to the USA. Just the same way that all the territories are a strategic liability to Israel.
There is no ad hominem in M & W’s paper, at least none that anyone has pointed out. Saying “ad hominem”, on the other hand, without any ground, without any specific example, is an example of (abusive) “ad hominem”. (Don’t listen to those dirty rotten adhominizers Mearsheimer and Walt!) Since this thread is approaching the guillotine, I’ll put my future responses in the more recent M & W thread.
Hi John,
by “ad hominem,” I don’t just mean ‘insulting.’ I mean that fully 2/3 of the paper examines the hidden qualities of an argument-maker (‘the Lobby’-real or imagined) rather than confining discussion to whatever policy “the Lobby” is supposed to be advancing (‘support for Israel?’ so bland as to be trivial… ‘people who support Israel’ have advanced policy that favors Israel — what a shocker! ). To the extent ‘the Lobby’ describes anything more ambitious than ‘people who support Israel’ — it’s blatantly false (Brookings hasn’t qualified its support for Israel? Martin Kramer is a neocon? Richard Perle hasn’t argued for less Israeli financial aid? These people have ZIP to do with one another).
You could say all social science involves ad hominems, since political groups/movements are its basic objects of study; of course lobbies and political parties articulate and implement policy. Were the paper to address those lobbyists and party members whose aims were coherent, articulable , NON TRIVIAL & in plain view there might be something worthy of study; yes, political groups and movements are part of political science. But M&W are far more ambitious… they claim the Brookings institution is part of “the Lobby,” and the NYT editorial board and Dennis Ross are “Lobby-mates” with Martin Kramer, Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes and various other assorted bogeymen of the right wing. Are these people all part of the same movement? Some of them, & only in the most bland sense of ‘supporting Israel’- I dont think any of them would accept M&W’s ‘unconditional’ much less the suggestion that their views were coordinated. “The Lobby” is an umbrella political designation that the authors themselves impose, & one which I think a great many of supposed ‘Lobby’-members would reject. Unlike a political party or FORMAL lobby group like AIPAC (whose aims are forthright & coherent) these people have nothing important in common with one another. And imposing a wholesale, overbroad political designation that carries with it a raft of negative connotations (allegiance to a foreign power, irrationality, conspiracy, bribery) it actually goes beyond mere circumstantial ad hominem and strays into ‘guilt by association.’
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
There are other problems with the paper (as noted many realists would argue that oil, not Israel has been the centerpiece of US mideast policy, the ‘realist’ arguments for a pro-Israel policy) but the overbroad & pejorative sense of ‘Lobby’ is what grabs me.
Imagine one’s reaction if a copiously footnoted paper were published describing a secret “anti-Israel Lobby,” lumping the Helena Cobbans and John R’s in with the David Dukes and ahmadinejads and Binladens, (with all the anti-semitic baggage this entails.) Suppose it claimed that this group pushed its one unwholesome agenda through bribes and other devious means including sweetheart oil deals to allied governments, sponsorship of journalists, university endowments etc. could this ad hominem analysis be part of any constructive debate? Why spend 40 pages explicating a term whose purpose can only be slanderous, that obscures far more than it clarifies????
If someone reads the article, checks and evaluates the arguments and find them good, he is perfectly justified in dismissing Israeli lobby arguments, even if they might be the truth on occasion.
A point blank, unapologetic “poisoned well” ad hominem.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
Vadim, my advice to you is to eschew generalities and get concrete and to stop misusing the phrases “ad hominem” etc. which you almost never use correctly. Your criticism, and most criticism anywhere of the paper is practically content free. I’m forced to speak in vague generalities to counter yours. The only time I have seen you use “ad hominem” ( here “well-poisoning”) arguably correctly is against me just now. Mea culpa. I phrased that particular sentence badly, so out of context it said more that I wanted to say – All I was saying is that one should not rely on proven liars to tell the truth, and that one should take speakers’ biases into account. Of course not all “Israel lobbyists” are lying (or recycling lies); but a great many of them are. A tremendous amount of the “history” (especially pop history) of the region is ridiculous. Norman Finkelstein in his recent Beyond Chutzpah points out how the normal scholarly filtering mechanisms just don’t work well in this area. (And mentions how the dean of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg, says the same about his field.)
You say that by ad hominem “I mean that fully 2/3 of the paper examines the hidden qualities of an argument-maker” – well this is not what anyone else means when they say “ad hominem.” Nor do I agree with this fraction or characterization. The paper is about a reasonably well-identified group and its influence on foreign policy. This is a perfectly reasonable topic for study, there isn’t anything illegitimate about it, or more to say about it. You think it is not worth mentioning that “‘people who support Israel’ have advanced policy that favors Israel” – but it is; have people who support Iceland advanced policy that favors Iceland to the same extent? (IMHO in the case of Israel deforming instead of favoring is more accurate.)
When you say “You could say all social science involves ad hominems” you seem to be groping towards the realization that you use the term so promiscuously that it is meaningless. No one uses “ad hominem” the way you do. Good social science does not involve ad hominem, which is an illegitimate form of argument. I pointed out how you reversed the logic of the paper (i.e. they made the inference, not leaned on ..); this seemed to fly right by you. You are arguing with things they aren’t saying.
I can’t speak for other people, but I really don’t care one way or the other about being grouped with other people. I have a very thick skin. The only question is if the grouping is really based on a criterion, and if there are accusations of naughtiness, that they have factual basis. Just because David Duke, or Adolf Hitler believes something, doesn’t mean it is false, (or true.) Sure, talk about the Oil Lobby and all their (nefarious) deeds; why not? – talk about the India Lobby, the Armenia Lobby, the China Lobby, etc. Again when you say Israel Lobby is “a term whose purpose can only be slanderous, that obscures far more than it clarifies” you are just saying this, not presenting rational or factually based arguments against M & W’s adequately qualified identification of the Lobby. If you are saying that not all “parts” of the “Lobby” do all the things they accuse some part of doing, well you have a point. But this is a minor criticism, basically of different people using differing tactics rather than having different aims, and no sensible reader would think they mean to say this. If one wrote to protect oneself against all possible captious criticisms, why, one would be as turgid as this post is! IMHO, the main thing is that these things (shaping policy and public perceptions, often by suppressing debate) are done so successfully at all, by any “part.”
You say that the various parts and people have nothing in common. What they have in common is that they favor economic, military and diplomatic support (IMHO often consisting of shielding Israel from criticism for criminal acts.), and a shared narrative, IMHO a substantially distorted history of the conflict which involves a demonization of the “enemy.” This is not nothing in common. How qualified they are in support is beside the point.
It is what all these people (and you also, I presume) agree on is the right direction, is good, and are successful at favoring in the US, that I and the rest of the anti-Israel lobby, think is bad; bad for everyone, bad for the US, Israel and the Arabs, pouring gasoline on a fire, aiding the side that is generally the aggressor and the victimizer.
Good criticism would consist of pointing out things they actually say, with quotes and page numbers, and demonstration that it is wrong because of factual (e.g. inaccurate source), logical or moral (e.g. misusing sources) errors. There’s little of that anywhere. I put this post here because I don’t want to fill up the more recent thread with such vapid generalities.
Vadim, my advice to you is to eschew generalities and get concrete
The essay under dispute is one very long and very vapid generality. Hence the character of my criticism. I’m sure its just as annoying as I find this essay.
stop misusing the phrases “ad hominem” etc.
I’ve used the phrase correctly. Arguments addressing the arguer (‘ad hominem’ -toward the man) are under all circumstances fallacious, sophistical reasoning and have been so considered since Aristotle. it seems to have made a revival via “narrative”-oriented blogs like this one, which seems to be populated by literary critics who elevate ad hominem to art form.
To the extent “Israeli Lobby” projects anything beyond a vapid generality, it is ad hominem, eg What they have in common is that they favor economic, military and diplomatic support [not true in many cases, nb “a clean break”]… and a shared narrative, IMHO a substantially distorted history of the conflict which involves a demonization of the “enemy.”
The only question is if the grouping is really based on a criterion
Their criterion is vague, overbroad and incoherent. “The Lobby” is vague and overbroad.
“a substantially distorted history of the conflict which involves a demonization of the “enemy.”
Identify where and when Dennis Ross, the Brookings Institute or the NYT editorial board has demonised “the enemy” — line and verse please.
You say that the various parts and people have nothing in common.
They have nothing of substance in common. If you can explain what Richard Perle has in common with Dennis Ross, without falling back to vapid generalities, dippy po-mo psychobabble about “narratives”, and question-begging constructions like “they both favor Israel excessively“, I’m all ears.