Comments on: Serious. Cold. Stunning. Walt and Mearsheimer Arrive in Hard Covers http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html The War of Ideas in the Middle East Sun, 27 May 2012 21:18:24 +0000 hourly 1 By: Spanky http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-86108 Spanky Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:45:54 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-86108 American tourists! Hilarious. No wonder so many of us claim to be from Canada while traveling. American tourists! Hilarious. No wonder so many of us claim to be from Canada while traveling.

]]> By: Alex Stein http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-86107 Alex Stein Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:58:20 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-86107 Not sure what you aim to show with this video. It's hardly difficult to get drunk Americans with deep personal problems to say awful things on a Thursday night. I'd say about 90% of the people you interviewed were American-Jews (and not Israelis), while the others were messianists (you point this out in the commentary, Blumenthal seems to imply that they are Israelis). Imagine if someone did a similar exercise in Gaza. It's also absurd to say they had developed views on Israeli politics - one of the girls didn't even know who Netanyahu was. You yourself acknowledge that they are mainly short-term visitors from the States, but then go on to say that they are somehow typical. Well, maybe in Jerusalem, although there are lots of dissenting views as well. The rest of the country, however, is somewhat more nuanced. Not sure what you aim to show with this video. It's hardly difficult to get drunk Americans with deep personal problems to say awful things on a Thursday night. I'd say about 90% of the people you interviewed were American-Jews (and not Israelis), while the others were messianists (you point this out in the commentary, Blumenthal seems to imply that they are Israelis). Imagine if someone did a similar exercise in Gaza. It's also absurd to say they had developed views on Israeli politics – one of the girls didn't even know who Netanyahu was. You yourself acknowledge that they are mainly short-term visitors from the States, but then go on to say that they are somehow typical. Well, maybe in Jerusalem, although there are lots of dissenting views as well. The rest of the country, however, is somewhat more nuanced.

]]> By: Hebrew reader http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-86106 Hebrew reader Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:31:43 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-86106 Here is a Hebrew article with the same reaction from Israeli settlers, but without the profanity. Get someone to translate ir. <a href="http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/899/695.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/899/695.html</a rel="nofollow">" target="_blank">http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/899/695.html</a></a> Here is a Hebrew article with the same reaction from Israeli settlers, but without the profanity. Get someone to translate ir. http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/899/695.html

]]> By: Oarwell http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-70403 Oarwell Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-70403 <p>Remnick said that the M&W thesis is a "symptom" of the times, ("In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.), that is, a symptom of that age-old disease of "blame the Jews." He notes uncomfortably the authors' focus on Jewish actions, "... Exxon-Mobile barely exists." He doesn't, at least in that article, explicitly say that M&W want Israel to disappear, but he clearly paints them as being one-sided in their views, and describes their argument as being disproportionate to the facts, one of distorted perspective. He trots out Brzezinski to "provide a tone and a perspective that are largely missing," dutifully listing other lobbies, noting their efficacy. </p> <p>Perhaps. But most Americans wonder: when did those other lobbies push us into war? Yes, there was the Bay of Pigs, and the cuban-Am lobby played a large role, but that was hardly the catastrophe Iraq has become, and it was a secret operation anyway, not requiring a focused propaganda campaign to "sell" it to the public. This is a false parallelism, itself an attempt at distortion.</p> <p>Remnick casts M&W as scape-goaters, plain and simple. But his own words betray an uwillingness to grapple with the truth: most telling is his comment regarding the role of the press:</p> <p>"The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby."</p> <p>That seems disingenuous. Remnick knows the score regarding Judy Miller and the Times. This was more than an anemic "inability to upend those duplicities:" Hell, they were actively SELLING the duplicities. Other editors (Gannett, I think) knew the documents and facts being touted were cooked. Plenty of perceptive people on the anti-war left (William Rivers Pitt) and right (Raimondo, Antiwar.com, numerous LRC authors) knew the whole thing was based on lies. Give credit to all those writers who stuck in there all those years, virtuously trying to counter the administration's swillage while being smeared as 'traitors' by the rabid lapdogs of kookland. And it still goes on today! The NYT is still actively engaged in marketing the administration's Iran war, and no one is under any illusion about who the principal enthusiasts are. </p> <p>What has left Americans furious is the fact that we were lied into war. Who made up the lies, who sold them, and who continues to sell them, is the question most of us are concerned with. Remnick shouldn't assign invidious intent to efforts made by M&W to shed some light on these matters.</p> <p>After all, isn't sunshine the best disinfectant?</p> Remnick said that the M&W thesis is a "symptom" of the times, ("In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.), that is, a symptom of that age-old disease of "blame the Jews." He notes uncomfortably the authors' focus on Jewish actions, "… Exxon-Mobile barely exists." He doesn't, at least in that article, explicitly say that M&W want Israel to disappear, but he clearly paints them as being one-sided in their views, and describes their argument as being disproportionate to the facts, one of distorted perspective. He trots out Brzezinski to "provide a tone and a perspective that are largely missing," dutifully listing other lobbies, noting their efficacy.

Perhaps. But most Americans wonder: when did those other lobbies push us into war? Yes, there was the Bay of Pigs, and the cuban-Am lobby played a large role, but that was hardly the catastrophe Iraq has become, and it was a secret operation anyway, not requiring a focused propaganda campaign to "sell" it to the public. This is a false parallelism, itself an attempt at distortion.

Remnick casts M&W as scape-goaters, plain and simple. But his own words betray an uwillingness to grapple with the truth: most telling is his comment regarding the role of the press:

"The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby."

That seems disingenuous. Remnick knows the score regarding Judy Miller and the Times. This was more than an anemic "inability to upend those duplicities:" Hell, they were actively SELLING the duplicities. Other editors (Gannett, I think) knew the documents and facts being touted were cooked. Plenty of perceptive people on the anti-war left (William Rivers Pitt) and right (Raimondo, Antiwar.com, numerous LRC authors) knew the whole thing was based on lies. Give credit to all those writers who stuck in there all those years, virtuously trying to counter the administration's swillage while being smeared as 'traitors' by the rabid lapdogs of kookland. And it still goes on today! The NYT is still actively engaged in marketing the administration's Iran war, and no one is under any illusion about who the principal enthusiasts are.

What has left Americans furious is the fact that we were lied into war. Who made up the lies, who sold them, and who continues to sell them, is the question most of us are concerned with. Remnick shouldn't assign invidious intent to efforts made by M&W to shed some light on these matters.

After all, isn't sunshine the best disinfectant?

]]> By: KXB http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-70404 KXB Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-70404 <p>I ordered my copy from Overstock and should get it the first week of September. I think it's cheaper than the price on Amazon. Plus, I'm a sucker for that woman who does the commercials, talking about The Big O.</p> I ordered my copy from Overstock and should get it the first week of September. I think it's cheaper than the price on Amazon. Plus, I'm a sucker for that woman who does the commercials, talking about The Big O.

]]> By: David http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-70405 David Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-70405 <p>"Other editors (Gannett, I think) knew ..."<br /> Oarwell, I think you mean Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy). Their guys were almost alone in continuing to perform the journalistic function, and deserve to be recognized for it.</p> <p>(Nice piece of writing, Phil.)</p> "Other editors (Gannett, I think) knew …"
Oarwell, I think you mean Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy). Their guys were almost alone in continuing to perform the journalistic function, and deserve to be recognized for it.

(Nice piece of writing, Phil.)

]]> By: Steve http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-70406 Steve Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-70406 <p>The title is a problematic one for me.<br /> Israel Lobby?<br /> This is a huge generalization.<br /> How many people are supposedly involved with the Israel lobby?<br /> 20-40-60-----200?<br /> Even if we count their financial supporters.<br /> This is not representing too many Jewish Americans, or Israelis.<br /> The more correct title would be, Likud oriented lobbying. Just one small shrinking party.</p> <p>I can not understand you. Why are you so enthusiastic about this subject?<br /> Are we objective? <br /> Even so, your reporting is fun to read.</p> The title is a problematic one for me.
Israel Lobby?
This is a huge generalization.
How many people are supposedly involved with the Israel lobby?
20-40-60—–200?
Even if we count their financial supporters.
This is not representing too many Jewish Americans, or Israelis.
The more correct title would be, Likud oriented lobbying. Just one small shrinking party.

I can not understand you. Why are you so enthusiastic about this subject?
Are we objective?
Even so, your reporting is fun to read.

]]> By: Alan http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-70407 Alan Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-70407 <p>Steve would again and again have us believe it is only the Likudniks. Bollocks. Thomas Friedman is not a Likudnik. Judith Miller is not a Likudnik. The NYT and the New Republic are not right-wing lunatic publications. Tony Judt has an excellent article on the complicity of Jewish Liberal America where he writes:</p> <p>"In today’s America, neo-conservatives generate brutish policies for which liberals provide the ethical fig-leaf."</p> <p>Bush’s Useful Idiots - Tony Judt on the Strange Death of Liberal America</p> <p>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/judt01_.html</p> <p>Pretending that the misguided support of Israel-no-matter-what is only a singular trait of the Likudniks will not make the problem go away Steve. It will only continue making too many liberal Jewish Americans the ususful idiots of the Likudniks. </p> Steve would again and again have us believe it is only the Likudniks. Bollocks. Thomas Friedman is not a Likudnik. Judith Miller is not a Likudnik. The NYT and the New Republic are not right-wing lunatic publications. Tony Judt has an excellent article on the complicity of Jewish Liberal America where he writes:

"In today’s America, neo-conservatives generate brutish policies for which liberals provide the ethical fig-leaf."

Bush’s Useful Idiots – Tony Judt on the Strange Death of Liberal America

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/judt01_.html

Pretending that the misguided support of Israel-no-matter-what is only a singular trait of the Likudniks will not make the problem go away Steve. It will only continue making too many liberal Jewish Americans the ususful idiots of the Likudniks.

]]> By: Oarwell http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-70408 Oarwell Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-70408 <p>David, you're right, it was Knight-Ridder, inc. John Walcott, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, nicely featured in Moyer's 'Buying the War.' Thanks for the correction.</p> David, you're right, it was Knight-Ridder, inc. John Walcott, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, nicely featured in Moyer's 'Buying the War.' Thanks for the correction.

]]> By: Alan http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/serious-cold-st.html/comment-page-1#comment-70409 Alan Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/30/serious-cold-st.html#comment-70409 <p>My last sentence should have been: </p> <p>"It will only continue making too many liberal Jewish Americans the useful idiots of the Likudniks."</p> My last sentence should have been:

"It will only continue making too many liberal Jewish Americans the useful idiots of the Likudniks."

]]>