I now have a copy of the letter John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt sent to the board of the Chicago Global Affairs Council after it cancelled their September appearance there under political pressure. The letter follows, below.
A couple of comments. This is a sad business. Two distinguished profs who have both spoken at the Council before are disinvited regretfully/squeamishly by a respected professional friend, and informed that they might only speak if someone else comes to counter their statements. The old "context" argument used against Rachel Corrie and everyone else. Your views are too toxic to be heard unless we "balance" them.
Walt and Mearsheimer point out that Michael Oren spoke at the Council earlier this year on Middle East matters without "context." Oren is a neoconservative who made aliyah to Israel in the 70s and who served as an officer in the Israeli army. John Mearsheimer served as an officer in the United States Air Force. Let us be very clear about this: A former officer in the Israeli Army who lives in Israel (and has lately served in the Israeli Reserves) may hold forth about our policy in the Middle East, but a former officer in our Air Force has no place to do the same. You don’t have to be a nativist to find this mindboggling. Mearsheimer and Walt are all for Oren speaking, they just want to be able to speak too. And just compare the literary and analytical work of Oren and Mearsheimer; there is no comparison. Oren is a polemicist, Mearsheimer a serious student of American policy. Deeply dispiriting. Where is Alan Dershowitz, to decry the censorship?
I’m upset. I tell myself that this just shows how afraid the other side is of the truth, but face it, they’re winning. Last night my wife said at dinner that I am "paying a price" for my views on the Middle East. I have a long career as a journalist. I lost a blog-job earlier this year over these issues, I can’t get paying assignments to write about these matters; and they are all that I care about, as my country fumbles through the aftermath of 9/11 and Iraq. I sense some of that same sorrow in the Walt and Mearsheimer letter that follows. At the peaks of their careers, they have devoted themselves to these policy issues out of some sense of duty; and they’re not being allowed to speak. It appears from the letter that a friendship has ended: the authors’ with Marshall Bouton. How long before the country wakes up from this madness?
August 5, 2007
[Addressed, individually, to board members of the Council, and to members of Council committees]
to bring to your attention a troubling incident involving the Chicago Council
on Global Affairs. We do so reluctantly,
as we have both enjoyed our prior associations with the Council and we have
great respect for its aims and accomplishments. Nonetheless, we felt this was an episode that should not pass without
comment.
4, 2007, our book The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy will be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, one
of the most highly respected publishers in the United States. Through our publisher, the Council issued an
invitation for both of us to speak at a session on September 27, 2007. We were delighted to accept, as each of us
had spoken at the Council on several occasions in the past and knew we would
attract a diverse and well-informed audience that would engage us in a lively
and productive discussion.
On July 19,
while discussing the details of our visit with Sharon Houtkamp, who was
handling the arrangements at the Council, we learned that the Council had
already received a number of communications protesting our appearance. We were not particularly surprised by this
news, as we had seen a similar pattern of behavior after our original article
on “The Israel Lobby” appeared in the London
Review of Books in March 2006. We
were still looking forward to the event, however, especially because it gave us
an opportunity to engage these issues in an open forum.
Then, on July
24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us (Mearsheimer) and
informed him that he was cancelling the event. He said he felt “extremely
uncomfortable making this call” and that his decision did not reflect his
personal views on the subject of our book. Instead, he explained that his decision was based on the need “to
protect the institution.” He said that
he had a serious “political problem,” because there were individuals who would
be angry if he gave us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative
consequences for the Council. “This one
is so hot,” Marshall maintained, that he could not present it at a Council
session unless someone from “the other side”—such as Abraham Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League—was on stage with us. At the very least, he needed to present “contending viewpoints.” But he said it was too late to try to change
the format, as the fall schedule was being finalized and there would not be
sufficient time to arrange an alternate date. He showed little interest in doing anything with us in 2008 or beyond.
Several
comments are in order regarding this situation.
First, since
the publication of our original article on the Israel lobby, we have appeared
either singly or together at a number of different venues, including Brown
University, the Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia University, Cornell
University, Emerson College, the Great Hall at Cooper Union, Georgetown
University, the National Press Club, the Nieman Fellows Program at Harvard
University, the University of Montana, the Jewish Community Center in Newton,
Massachusetts, and Congregation Kam Isaiah Israel in Chicago. In all but one of these venues we appeared on
our own, i.e., without someone from the “other side.” As one would expect, we often faced vigorous
questions from members of the audience, which invariably included individuals
who disagreed in fundamental ways with some of our arguments. Nevertheless, the back-and-forth at each of
these events was always civil, and quite a few participants said that they
benefited from listening to us and to our interlocutors.
Second, the
Council has recently welcomed speakers who do represent a “contending
viewpoint,” and they have appeared on their own. Consider the case of Michael Oren, an
Israeli-American author, who appeared at the Council on February 8, 2007, to
talk about “The Middle East and the United States: A Long and Complicated
Relationship.” Oren has a different view
of U.S. Middle East policy than we do; indeed, he gave a keynote address at
AIPAC’s annual policy conference this past spring that directly challenged our
perspective. We believe it was entirely
appropriate for the Council to have invited him to speak, and without having a
representative from an opposing group there to debate him. The Council has also
welcomed a number of other speakers on this general topic in recent years, such
as Dennis Ross, Max Boot and Rashid Khalidi, and none of their appearances
included someone representing a “contending view.”
One might
argue that our views are too controversial to be presented on their own. However, they are seen as controversial only
because some of the groups and individuals that we criticized in our original
article have misrepresented what we said or leveled unjustified charges at us
personally—such as the baseless claim that we (or our views) are
anti-Semitic. The purpose of these
charges, of course, is to discourage respected organizations like the Council
from giving us an audience, or to create conditions where they feel compelled
to include “contending views” in order to preserve “balance” and to insulate
themselves from external criticism.
In fact, our
views are not extreme. Our book does not question Israel’s right to exist and
does not portray pro-Israel groups in the United States as some sort of
conspiracy to “control” U.S. foreign policy. Rather, it describes these groups and individuals—both Jewish and
gentile—as simply an effective special interest group whose activities are not
substantially different from groups like the NRA, the farm lobby, the AARP, or
other ethnic lobbies. Its activities, in
other words, are as American as apple pie, although we argue that its influence
has helped produce policies that are not in the U.S. national interest. We also suggest that these policies have been
unintentionally harmful to Israel as well, and that a different course of
action would be better for both countries. It is not obvious to us why such views could not be included in the
Council’s schedule.
Although we
find it somewhat unseemly to refer to our own careers, it is perhaps worth
noting that we are both well-established figures with solid mainstream
credentials. We are fortunate to occupy
chaired professorships at distinguished universities, and to have been elected
members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. We have both held important leadership
positions at Chicago or Harvard, each of us serves on the editorial boards of
several leading foreign policy journals (such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign
Policy), and we have both done consulting work for U.S. government
agencies. Given our backgrounds, the
idea that it would be inappropriate for us to appear on our own at a Council
session seems far-fetched.
Finally, and
most importantly, we believe that the decision to cancel our appearance is
antithetical to the principle of open discussion that underpins American
democracy, and that is so essential for maximizing the prospects that our
country pursues a wise foreign policy. In essence, we believe this is a case in which a handful of people who
disagree with our views have used their influence to intimidate Marshall into
rescinding the Council’s invitation to us, so as to insure that interested
members will not hear what we have to say about Israeli policy, the U.S.
relationship with Israel, and the lobby itself. This is not the way we are
supposed to address important issues of public policy in the United States, and
it is surely not the way the Council normally conducts its business. This is
undoubtedly why Marshall, who is a very smart and decent man, felt so
uncomfortable calling us to say that the event had been cancelled. He knew this decision was contrary to
everything that the Council is supposed to represent.
The Chicago
Council is obviously under no obligation to grant us a venue, and we are not
writing in an attempt to reverse this decision. But given the importance of the issues that are raised in our book, we
are genuinely disappointed that we will not have the benefit of open exchange
with the Council’s members, including those who might want to challenge our
arguments or conclusions. The United States and its allies—including
Israel—face many challenging problems in the Middle East, and our country will
not be able to address them intelligently if we cannot have an open and
civilized discussion about U.S. interests in the region, and the various
factors that shape American policy there. Regrettably, the decision to cancel our appearance has made that
much-needed conversation more difficult.
Sincerely,
John J.
Mearsheimer
R. Wendell
Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science
University of
Chicago
Stephen M.
Walt
Robert and
Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs
Harvard
University
You didn't loose a "blog job" you never had a job that you were getting paid for. Don't misrepresent yourself. Maybe you could get a writing job if you focused on the top twenty lobbies (link to opensecrets.org
that each spend between 65 and 315 million dollars a year. Your anti-Israel rants about AIPAC (that spends just under one million dollars a year) are just that- rants of someone with their own agenda (self-hating, anti-semitic, anti-Israel, etc.). If you hate your religion, your people, Israel, fine- however extrapolating a tiny lobby into force of evil in the global geo-politic s is ridiculous. America is a Christian nation and supports Israel and its values.
Greg, what other categories of thought should be censored? Phil's post was about censorship, and although you obviously dilike Phil's ideas, I'm curious what other ideas you dislike enough to see censored.
Phil,
You have your integrity, which is more than I can say about practically everyone else spare a handful of people in the US. When all is said and done, and the US is merely a shell of its former self, the bodies of USrael's military campaigns will be counted. There will be a record of righteous people who sought and vocalized the truth and you will be among them. Remember this.
Zaid Khalil
New York, NY
I think that all racist, hateful conspiratorial lies should not presented in legitimate forums. For example, the KKK. They and W&M have a right to free speech which they freely exercise. This is not censored any more than when a permit for the KKK is not approved. They just move on to a venue that wants to hears their garbage.
greg- they had a guy from the israeli military. that's worse than the KKK. When was the last time a KKK member knocked down a black persons house, confiscated his property, or ran a black person over with a bulldozer?
It's because america is a christian nation that we don't support Israel and it's values
Zaid – When all is said and done, and the Caliphate is merely a shell of its former self, the bodies of Islam's military campaigns will be counted. There will be a record of righteous people who sought and vocalized the truth. Will you be among them. Remember this.
Daily apologist comedy:
Walt and Mearsheimer in the same sentence (and context) as the KKK. Just brilliant.
Then, the "bodies of Islam's military campaings". Like, far out man! Trippiiin'.
Phil
give up this blog and live your life with integrity.
The pro Israel mafia are a lost cause. Fifth column pathologues, a cult that revels in ethnic cleansing as a principle, that debauches the history of Jewry's oppression.
The English language isn't powerful enough to describe this grotesque phenomenon.
The Middle East, the world, needs a new Baal Shem Tov, to usher in a return to the ideas of spiritual magnanimity (love of fellow man). I guess first we should embrace the Besht's remarkable optimism.
Which leads me to a question: are the Hasidim notably Zionist in outlook? Less so, perhaps, than their orthodox, non-Hasidic counterparts? Or is there a spectrum of opinion, even within Hasidic ranks?
Parallels are often problematic, but Hasidism seems to be a sort of Jewish charismatic movement, as opposed to the dessicated Calvinism (or small-town Baptism, fi you will) of late 18th century rabbinical Judaism (In fact, the Lubavitcher rebbe, M. Schneerson, called for Jews to encourage non-Jews to follow the Noahide laws, a type of evangalism). From my (extemely) limited reading, it seems that Besht was something of a St. Francis figure, who, like St. Francis, by his saintliness and mystical wisdom conjured almost single-handedly a sea-change in Judaic thought, which lives on today, if in somewhat modified form. Besht avoided political alliances in his lifetime; do you think he would he have embraced or rejected Zionism?
Maybe Phil is our new Besht.
Reminds me of Ibsen's "An Enemy of The People." A doctor discovers that the spa that has made the town prosperous has contaminated water. At first he assumes that everyone will be open to hear this, since they are honest people. But he's denied any venue for publicizing his findings. Finally he rents a hall to give a speech on the subject, but his opponents pack the hall and hijack the event. First they declare it "a public meeting," and then demand the election of a Chairman. After the doctor foolishly assents to this in order to get on with his speech, the Chairman's first order of business is to rule him out of order and deny him the floor!This proves the fallacy that it's alright to deny free speech because there are always other venues, because the ones who maintain this are generally the ones quickest to shut down the other venues. Witness Dershowitz's attempts to deny Finkelstein the right to publish.
Greg said: "America is a Christian nation and supports Israel and its values."
You are absolutely right and the result has been a catastrophe. Thanks to our indiscriminate support for Israel's extra-territorial criminal adventures in the mid-east, America is now the second most hated nation in the world, after Israel.
A Likud Curse!
The whole current blog discussion is unpractical.
It does not take into account that most Israelis are decent and progressive people.
The Walt paper should have mentioned that AIPAC is misrepresenting Israel. It is a Likud oriented forum. Walt did not have to waste hundreds of pages on the Israel lobby. In one word he could have finished his grand research: LIKUD.
Sharon, Begin and Shamir are gone, and I hope that the next Israeli leader will be an intelligent decent liberal person.
The major problem is the permanent lack of quality leadership on the Palestinian, and on the broader Muslim front.
There has never been a semi-acceptable positive Arab/Muslim leader with the exception of Ataturk!
No Muslim Washington, no Jefferson, no Lincoln, no Roosevelt.
Walt must write about the historical vacuum in the Muslim world.
Let us forget AIPAC, the Likud forum.
Steve–
Do you think things would have been materially different if Rabin had lived?
I was in Jerusalem when Muslim worshippers were massacred at Al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, a Palestinian city in the West Bank. I realized Prime Minister Rabin was lying about wanting peace when instead of removing the fanatics settled near Hebron, he punished the Arabs of Hebron with a curfew. After the massacre, the settlers resumed spitting on Palestinians, throwing stones, breaking windows, pushing down old people and numerous other petty and more serious forms of abuse. Did the Israeli army in Hebron try to stop this behavior? No, they helped. Several times I watched IDF soldiers threaten rape and murder while they exposed themselves to 10-12 year old girls attending the local Islamic parochial schools.
Phil,
Please don't stop writing. We need to stick together and keep fighting against these horrible people. They are responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and thousands more in Palestine. I met a Palestinian man yesterday who had six years of his life stolen from him, because Israel held him in prison without charge. This type of thing happens all the time in Palestine. Part of the problem is that so many people are looking at this situation through the lens of their own fear, instead of at reality. Your writing helps people to cut through that. People in the U.S. really think they know what's going on here, but they have no clue! That's why we need people like you, for the people whose minds are still at least partially open. I don't know if you're the new besht, but I know that those of us who can see the truth need to keep talking.
Have you thought about joining the American Free Press? It is one of the very few newsprint media that is out of Zionist control.
Phil, Keep writing. Not only is your subject interesting, but you are a great, I mean, great, stylist. I'm going to try and imitate you in the next thing I write.
And I think I'm going to order the Mearsheimer and Walt book for my course this semester.
James Petras reported in the Washington Post that Israel Friendly Lobbies are responsible for 60% of the contributions to the Democrats and 35% of the contributions to the Republicans. The figures were taken from JJ Goldberg's book "Jewish Power: Inside the Jewish Establishment".
The lobby website:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp?showyear=a&txtindextype=s
shows that the US Chamber of Commerce (very much influenced by Israel politics) gives more than half of all contributions.
Whateverthecase, it's not so much the cash contributions as it is the influence attached to the contributions. AIPAC may spend about 1 million dollars but it's influence is tremendous. When almost half of the US politicians attend the AIPAC annual conference even though AIPAC is under indictment for espionage against the US…that's power!!
When we see lobbies give to both sides of the aisle, i.e. to both contenders running against one another rather to their favorite candidate, we can only suspect that someone is giving money for the sole purpose of receiving something in return. That happens all of the time!!!
Crooked politicians abound and the lobbies that take advantage. What a shame!
Phil – Here's an idea for you and the professors: join our synagogue vigil, or create one of your own. We flip the power pyramid on its head for a short time every Saturday morning: no asking for venues, no allowing the Zionists to set parameters of discourse. If they want us to stop, they must come to us, not vice-versa. Check out "Michigan's vigilant outcasts" on Electronic Intifada: link to electronicintifada.net
The picture is cute. I would add a sign saying,
"Ethnic Ashkenazim in Palestine:
Murderous genocidal
thieves and interlopers."
Here is my simple litmus test for genuine Ashkenazi anti-Zionism.
An Ashkenazi America must be willing to state the following.
1) There is no Jewish people, which is a concept of Zionist myth and ideology. I am of ethnic Ashkenazi background.
2) No Jews in any modern sense resided in Palestine in Greco-Roman times. The Palestinian population of that time period consisted of Judeans, Galileans, Idumeans, Samarians, Nabateans, Greeks and other groups with no demonstrable ancestral connection to modern ethnic Ashkenazim or other modern Jewish groups except perhaps some communities of Syro-Palestinian Arabophone Jews.
3) The Zionist colonizers of Palestine constitute a criminal population of murderous genocidal thieves and interlopers. Either they make full restitution to the native Palestinian population (including restoration of residence and property rights) and fully acknowledge their crimes and the crimes of Zionism, or they must be removed from Palestine.
4) The only population in the modern world with any significant probability of descent from ancient Palestinian Israelite, Ephraimite, Judahite, Judean, Samarian, Galilean or Idumean populations are the modern Palestinians.
If a self-identifying American Jew refuses to assent to any of the above statements, he is accepting Zionist ideology in all or in part and cannot legitimately be part of any genuinely anti-Zionist group, and if accepted as a member, he would probably disrupt it.
Ah Henry, your such a moral guy. Better than the rest of us somehow. More pure. But seriously though, I think you should join forces with Joechem, and lester too. The stormfront" guy. You all deserve each other.
let me throw this one at you. Why not convert to Islam, surely you don't want to be eroneously identified with the neocon jew Zionist blood sucking war mongering cabal. Why not become a Moslem. It is the true path is it not.
I just came across your blog. Your posts are interesting reads. More needs to be said in the mainstream about the efforts to silence Mearsheimer and Walt.
With friends like Mr. Ajami (aka Joachim Martillo) it is no wonder people are suspect of Phil and Walt and Mearsheimer. David Duke makes some good points about crime in the black communities in America, but I wouldn't expect Barack Obama to not want to question his motives and true intentions.
"Oren is a polemicist, Mearsheimer a serious student of American policy."
Oren's book on the Six Day War is the best work in English on the subject, Mearsheimer's writing on the Israel Lobby is a shabby polemical exercise.
I think commenter Henry Herskovitz has the right idea. Hats off to you.
"No asking for venues, no allowing the Zionists to set parameters of discourse. If they want us to stop, they must come to us, not vice-versa."
Phil, I believe, is somewhat conflicted between two goals — helping the powerless, and "correcting" American Jewishness.
bill- I am a muslim
US Chamber of Commerce
$317,164,680
American Medical Assn
$156,375,500
General Electric
$137,770,000
American Hospital Assn
$129,114,026
Edison Electric Institute
$105,642,628
AARP
$105,332,064
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America
$104,302,000
National Assn of Realtors
$97,530,000
Business Roundtable
$97,060,000
Northrop Grumman
$95,682,374
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
$84,156,418
Freddie Mac
$81,884,048
Lockheed Martin
$80,206,965
Boeing Co
$77,898,310
Verizon Communications
$75,836,522
Philip Morris
$75,500,000
General Motors
$71,158,483
Fannie Mae
$70,957,000
Ford Motor Co
$67,670,808
US Telecom Assn
$65,280,000
American Israel Public Affairs Cmte
-
$1,049,549
American Jewish Cmte
-
$155,680
American Jewish Congress
-
$130,000
Zionist Organization of America
-
$234,000
Client
Subsidiary (Lobbied For)
No. of Registered Lobbyists
Lockheed Martin
- 104
General Dynamics
- 83
Northrop Grumman
- 66
Boeing Co
- 50
Raytheon Co
- 41
EADS North America
- 38
SAIC
- 34
General Atomics
- 26
SAP America
- 26
iDirect Technologies
- 21
Shield Technologies
- 21
American Federation of Govt Employees
- 20
BAE Systems
BAE Systems North America
20
Mass Development Finance Agency
- 20
Battelle Memorial Institute
- 19
City of Kingsville, TX
- 19
Biopure Corp
- 18
NISH
- 18
Teleguam Holdings
- 18
Cellular Telecom & Internet Assn
- 17
DRS Technologies
- 17
Textron Inc
- 17
General Electric
- 16
MD Helicopters Inc
- 16
Human Rights Campaign
- 15
Trex Enterprises
- 15
GKN/Finmeccanica
AgustaWestland
14
L-3 Communications
- 14
Semiconductor Industry Assn
- 14
SRI International
Sarnoff Corp
14
21st Century Systems
- 13
Alion Science & Technology
- 13
Alliant Techsystems
- 13
BearingPoint Inc
- 13
United Industrial Corp
AAI Corp
13
Health Net Federal Services
- 12
Lucent Technologies
- 12
Thales North America
- 12
Armor Holdings
- 11
Day & Zimmerman
- 11
Gentex Corp
- 11
Meggitt PLC
Meggitt Defense Systems
11
Microsoft Corp
- 11
Research Triangle Institute
- 11
Alcatel USA
- 10
CACI International
- 10
Cangene Corp
- 10
Center for American Progress
- 10
Dynamics Research Corp
- 10
Electronic Warfare Assn
- 10
What are the amounts paid out by lobbying groups and how many lobbyists do each of the Defense contractrs currently have working for them?
That's an interesting question, Jeopardy. Particularly given the fact that a single Israeli Zionist, Haim Saban, gave as much to the Democratic Party in 2002 as all the arms and weapons PACs combined.
Makes you realize the scope of the problem we're facing.
Dear Philip,
I was touched by your intro to the Walt and Mearshimer letter but I urge you not to be overwhelmed by despair.
I'm a former ITN and BBC Panorama correspondent and currently the author of an epic, two-volume book, ZIONISM: THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS (published so far only in the UK and available from Amazon). With this book, and in the company of dear Jewish friends such as Professor Ilan Pappe, the Gentile me is on the hottest frontline in the war for the truth of history. I believe, as does Ilan, that this war can be won.
THE question that needs to be asked and answered is – Why, really, is the mainstream media throughout the Judeo-Christian world terrified of offending Zionism (as are almost all book publishers)? In my view a large part of the answer is fear of punishment by the withdrawal of advertising. Commercial pressure. Simple as that.
I'd also like to ask a one-word question about The Silence of the Jews.
The question with necessary context is this:
The Zionist state of Israel is a criminal state and, because of its behaviour, is the prime cause of the re-awakening of the sleeping giant of classical anti-Semitism throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian or Western world where must Jews live. Put another way, Zionism is a threat not only to the peace of the region and the world, but also to the best interests, and possibly the existence, of Jews everywhere. But most of the Jews of the world are silent on the matter of the Zionist state's behaviour.
WHY?
Dr. Hajo Myer, a survivor of the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust (he emerged alive from Aushchwitz), is of the view that the Jews, almost all of them, are suffering from "clinical paranoia", a consequence of their history of persecution, which is fed and kept beyond cure by Zionist propaganda, which is driven (he agrees with me) by Zionism's need for anti-Semitism in order to justify its crimes – past, present and future.
Very best Wishes
Alan
Here are some facts of history and some assertions:
(1) There is only one group on this damned earth that have suffered. Guess which one?
(2) Only one set of people have faced the holocaust (no doubt a truly terrible tragedy created by some freaking aryan racist madmen.) The rest, native americans, black south africans, armenians, kurds, african americans should go treat themsleves to a bottle of Coke and be happy for you have had a great life all along!!
(3) Only one set of people should have the right to a state based on religion and ethnicity. Rest of the world MUST and should be secular.
(4) Only one set of people should be outraged for real or imagined censorship that takes place. When this group does it to others, the rest of us should shut up!
(5) What about a state that is persecuting some poor set of people, many of them ousted from their homeland some 60 years ago? This state should be blessed by us all to continue its genocidal policies..
WELCOME TO THE NEVERLAND OF UNREALITY!!
Abe Foxman et al have a pathological hatred for anything other than their narrow views of Zionism. Look up the history of the ADL and several other Jewish groups cum Holocaust deniers on the Armenian genocide issue. Jewish quarters have become so paranoid and reactionary that they are illogical and discredited to anyone who has an open mind. When realists like Judt, M&W and others dare not tow the line the result is predictable. What a shame. Mr. Weiss, I read your excellent ramblings in the American Conservative. I'm glad to see your sane and much needed voice hasn't been silenced. Keep up the good work.
Ok guys, the Phil Weiss fan base, ( better know has the hitler/hamas western apologists brigade ) Please check out former BBC correspondent Alan Hart. Not exactly a model of journalistic balance himself is he.
AS I said previously how dare Armenians claim it was a genocide. Poor native Americans slaughtered for generations, but then it was a disney land shootouts nothing like genocide, what about Kurds, oh come on they are having a good life. Black South Africans..oh their economy was better than African Americans here..let alone Mandela and the ANC leadership served 27 years in jail fighting for freedom..etc etc. What about Palestinians; oh come on they are having only a little inconvenience, so what if there is no water and electricity in Gaza, so what if they are living in near genocidal conditions..it is all their fault for exercising their democratic right in electing who they wanted and not who this special set of people wanted!! SO pay the price Gazans it is all your fault..so what if your babies and sick and the weak are dying OF MALNUTRITION and are facing starvation conditions due to embargo!!
NO ONE HAS SUFFERED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD EXCEPT ONE SET OF PEOPLE (WHOSE SUFFERING OUTRAGES ME TOO), THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAVE SUFFERED, ARE SUFFERING AND WILL ALWAYS SUFFER(according to their own claims)…NO OTHER GROUP HAS SUFFERED AND IF OTHER GROUPS START CLAIMING THEY HAVE SUFFERED BEWARE WE WILL CALL YOU ANTI-??????
WELCOME TO NEVERLAND OF UNREALITY!!
Zen – It is only the Jews in your distored black and white world that resemble your description. Jews are just as sensitive to other groups' pain as the next guy. You claim you don't want to be labled an anti-semite yet you behave like one with your blanket descriptions. Not very truthful, accurate, or zen of you.
The way I see it, Mearsheimer and Walt don't have a problem with the *Israel* lobby so much as they have a problem with lobbies in general. After all, a lobby is defined as "a group of persons who work or conduct a campaign to influence members of a legislature to vote according to the group's special interest." Why is anyone surprised that AIPAC is doing this? It's no different from the NRA, AARP, etc.
So, if their problem is with the system, then why single out the "Israel lobby"? Why not talk about lobbies in general? At best, their work demonstrates anti-Israel bias, but because of their shear negligence of how hate groups will use their work, it is actually anti-Semitic.