A friend passes along the following account of Walt and Mearsheimer's eventat Northwest D.C.'s most influential book store, last night: Went to Politics and Prose in Washington, DC last night.Place was like a sauna. A man passed out it was so hot.I thought EMS would find a way to shut it down there wereso many people. A waitress told me it was the biggest turnout in heryear there and a man outside said he'd been going for10 years and this was the biggest he'd seen. Heclaimed it was bigger than turnout for Gerry Adams andHoward Zinn. Then he said, Do you think the countryis ready for a discussion of this stuff...clearlyindicating that he did. I couldn't get in for some time. First questions Iheard were all antagonistic, but then there was astring of more positive questions. Almost all of thequestions that morning at the Cosmos Club werepositive. Very interesting evening. I don't agree witheverything they say (though I do with a verysignificant portion), but I think they're doing a veryimportant service in getting the country talking aboutit and exposing how outrageous it is to hurl theanti-Semitism charge around so carelessly in the waythat some groups do. They're absolutely right thatit's meant to silence and intimidate. Dan Okrent saida couple of years ago in one of his Sunday columns forthe NYT words to the effect that he thought it wascheapening an important term. I would give good money to know whether the man whopassed out was Jewish and whether one, maybe two, ofthe principal aid givers were Palestinian. Therewould have been a very powerful story there, but Iwasn't about to get up in people's faces at that timeand ask. And at some level it doesn't really matter. A man was down and other patrons of the store came tohis assistance. They might disagree politically (orthey might have been in perfect alignment), but whatmattered was providing help to somebody in distresswithout regard to things that may at one time havebeen hangups for people. The country has come a longway and because it has we've helped to create space totouch on sensitive issues in desperate need ofdiscussion.
-
-
- Al Jazeera exposes 2nd anti-Islam class taught to US military … 8
- Nobel Prize laureate J. M. Coetzee appears to boycott International … 9
- Inside, outside, Never Mind 0
- Over the Wall 6
- Exporting the occupation: Israel markets its drone expertise to the … 13
- Nakba 64 years later, we will never forget 7
- Oren’s defensive piece on ‘sinister’ delegitimization movement shows boycott is … 47
- For Palestinians, the Nakba has been perpetuated for decades 2
-
- Congressman Joe Pitts: ‘It is incumbent on Ariel Sharon and … 3808
- US military officers taught to target civilians and wage ‘total … 318
- Thousands march across the West Bank in support of the … 316
- Protests on behalf of prisoners sweep the West Bank 282
- After LGBT forum, Oren will headline for notorious homophobic pastor … 239
- Thaer Halahleh, dying, tells the daughter he’s never seen why … 235
- Biden gives Israel the green light on Iran in speech … 209
- Secrecy pact over Israel’s nukes, reached by Nixon and Meir, … 169
-
- Who’s the anti-Semite? 205
- A portrait of a former Zionist (Part 1) 201
- Liberal Zionists are afraid their parents will reject them if … 195
- On the sidewalk in Hamburg– ‘Hier wohnte’ 121
- ‘NYT’ exposes pattern of Ultra Orthodox community covering up sexual … 94
- US military officers taught to target civilians and wage ‘total … 87
- After LGBT forum, Oren will headline for notorious homophobic pastor … 65
- We’re still losing 61
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- ‘Orgy in the desert’ fails to wed young Jewish woman to Zionism (55)
- Chaos4700: Yes, but when Palestinians do it, it’s a crime against the state. Wasn’t there an article here...
- The left lacks an analysis of the neocon rise (36)
- marc b.: aiman, an integral part of the evolution of the permanent war ethic is public relations, and what public...
- On the sidewalk in Hamburg– ‘Hier wohnte’ (121)
- Chaos4700: …which means you can’t become a Jew by converting, right? Remind me again when Israel stopped...
- OlegR: There were no innocent Germans in the Nazi Germany.Not enough anyway to speak off. Every one of them who did...
- OlegR: I think of the millions of Soviets who were hanged shot burned and bombed by the fathers and brothers of those...
- Exporting the occupation: Israel markets its drone expertise to the world (13)
- Chaos4700: When Israel used F15′s and F16′s to bomb terrorists in Gaza, So the UN is a terrorist organization to...
- Shingo: Superbly done as lays Hostage There’s also this detil that Hasbrats like Samuel T love to sweep under...
- eljay: >> When a nations back is against the wall … Israel’s back is not against the wall. It is...
- Oren’s defensive piece on ‘sinister’ delegitimization movement shows boycott is working (47)
- Matthew Graber: Yup! That’s how I read it. Israel is happy to outlaw commemoration of the Nakba and BDS....
- ‘The Nakba is BS’: Right-wing Israelis protest student-run Nakba commemoration at Tel Aviv U (47)
- seafoid: Good points. I think the US is ahead of Israel on a lot of counts but that there is much that could be done...
- ‘Orgy in the desert’ fails to wed young Jewish woman to Zionism (55)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Kate
- Hamde Abu Rahme
- Ahmed Moor
- Stephanie Westbrook
- James North
Blogroll
Read the NYT review of M&W:
link to nytimes.com
/>
The reviewer, William Grimes, would obviously like to rip their hearts out, but he cannot dismiss them in Dershowitz fashion. Finally his arguments are reduced to whimpering and whining, here is a sample:
(…)"The general tone of hostility to Israel grates on the nerves, however, along with an unignorable impression that hardheaded political realism can be subject to its own peculiar fantasies. Israel is not simply one country among many, for example, just as Britain is not. Americans feel strong ties of history, religion, culture and, yes, sentiment, that the authors recognize, but only in an airy, abstract way.
They also seem to feel that, with Israel and its lobby pushed to the side, the desert will bloom with flowers. A peace deal with Syria would surely follow, with a resultant end to hostile activity by Hezbollah and Hamas. Next would come a Palestinian state, depriving Al Qaeda of its principal recruiting tool. (The authors wave away the idea that Islamic terrorism thrives for other reasons.) Well, yes, Iran does seem to be a problem, but the authors argue that no one should be particularly bothered by an Iran with nuclear weapons. And on and on.
“It is time,” Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt write, “for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country.” But it’s not. And America won’t. That’s realism."(END QUOTE)
That for the "gray lady" is the equivalent of throwing in the towel: they cannot ignore or really trash the book, they would like to, but they can't…
Trying to compare Israel to Britain is really a pitiful ploy… Do you know how many times the USA nearly went to war with the UK? We actually went to war twice. Do you know how much we charged them for the "lend-lease destroyers" when they had their backs to the wall in WWII? Do you know how "special" England is for Irish Americans? What a load of rubbish!
I would say then that it's "official", the book cannot be "ignored". The NYT is America's newspaper of reference and they have not ignored it and they have gingerly waltzed around the charge of antisemitism… hinting around it by calling the analysis, "cold". Not only is the book not to be ignored, its hot, hot, hot. The Israelis better start their war soon, by next week it might be too late.
I read the Grimes piece too, and agree with David Seaton. Grimes apparently doesn't know how to deal with whatever criticisms of Israel are in the book (I haven't read it yet, but have read their defense of the LRB article online), so he just complains about how cold and unsympathetic it all is. Of course readers who have been brought up on a picture of Israel as the heroic saintly David fighting off the Arab Goliath may just accept this. Since Grimes doesn't actually present any details of the criticisms of either Israel's behavior and how it is often whitewashed in the US, such readers may feel they can ignore the book.
That, I think, is what Grimes and Remnick are trying to do with their reviews in the NYT and the New Yorker. They can't give Walt and Mearsheimer the Chomsky treatment and dismiss the authors as crazed lefties, but they can still try and convey the impression that the book is unbalanced and not worth reading. It'll work with people who want to believe this.
“It is time,” Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt write, “for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country.” But it’s not. And America won’t. That’s realism."
We would not support even England if it was committing even a tenth of the human rights abuses going on in Israel.
Nor would we support england if it was as sectarian a state as Isreal. It is just not western anymore.
Finally, if england had been holding more than three million people in essentially prison camps for forty years we would be doing a LOT more to try an broker a peace including putting a LOT more pressure on England to do so.
Lady Mearsheimerley's Lover
I apologize right off for the horrible pun on Mearsheimer and "Lady Chatterley", but as I read all the commentary about Mearsheimer and Walt's book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" I suddenly had a flashback to when D. H. Lawrence's book came out in the states.
I was a high school freshman when the book was finally allowed to be published and I still remember the scandal around the book and reading a hidden copy of it one summer and how arousing it was then to read in cold print, forbidden language that today is normal currency among eight year old girls.
The same gasping prurience and pussy footing is now hanging around M&W's book as the authors use the "forbidden words" describing what most of world sees as perfectly obvious.
I imagine that before too long, after the taboo is broken, its thesis will be common currency at every level in America and it will be fun to see how the politicians, who are desperate for campaign contributions, will try to avoid mentioning something that everyone else, everywhere, is talking about.
Hey Phil,
Sorry this is not on topic, but did you see this fascinating article in Yedihot?
–
Study: US Jews distance themselves from Israel
Feelings of attachment to Israel declining among non-Orthodox American Jews, and are replaced by indifference and even alienation, study finds. Only 48% think Israel's destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, only 54% 'comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state'.
[Also..]
The study found only 48% of US Jews under age 35 believe that Israel's destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77% of those 65 and older.
In addition, only 54% of those under the age of 35 are "comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State" as opposed to 81% of those 65 and older.
The rest:
link to ynetnews.com
—
Concrete proof of what you've been saying here all along; that Zionism's foundation is cracking, especially among younger Jews. The implications of this may take some time to sort out, but they could be very profound. I'd love to see you do a post on this survey (not that my wishes are any real concern for you)…
This is a late response to 'Liberal Jews' Inability to Denounce Neocons'.
My hunch is that many neocons are basically power trippers who began to appreciate their Jewish identity as a result of the big victory in 1967. In that case it would not be accurate to view them as traditional Zionists. But Zionism in general has turned sour today and who knows where most of them are coming from.
I think that Zionism used to be more of a mixed bag but has been consumed by its worst elements, to the point now of appearing totally perverse to outsiders. Public opinion in the US has not yet caught on to this, but it will.
Gabriel Schoenfeld on M&W in Commentary:
"In the end, my guess is that the duo will be remembered not as scholars at all but, I argued last fall in the pages of COMMENTARY, as the continuators of a tradition started by Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Father Coughlin, which they have wrapped in scholarly garb."
link to commentarymagazine.com
/>
Schoenfeld and Foxman and Remnick, all of whom have hit the "antisemitism" card hard, have apparently not been coordinating with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs:
This week the Jewish Council for Public Affairs was scheduled to hold a conference call with member agencies around the country.
"We’re getting a lot of concerns raised from communities — especially ones where Walt and Mearsheimer are scheduled to speak," said Martin Raffel, the group’s associate director. "We’re trying to learn from best practices of the past: when to respond, when not to, how to respond, what works and what doesn’t."
JCPA is counseling groups to avoid charges of anti-Semitism.
"Whether they are or aren’t anti-Semitic, tactically it’s probably not a good idea to use the label because they just turn it around and say, ‘We told you so, you can’t criticize Israel without being labeled anti-Semitic,’" Raffel said. "Instead, we are urging people to counter their arguments on the merits, calmly and rationally."
Local Jewish groups are also being urged to make sure there are "knowledgeable, articulate people in the audience when they speak who can effectively counter their arguments," Raffel said."
link to thejewishweek.com
C-SPAN viewer Call for GAO head David Walker which mentioned Walt and Mearsheimer book
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/09/israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy.html
http://tinyurl.com/2KHCED
Mearsheimer & Walt book reviewed in the NY Times today:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78433
Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy Reviewed in Sunday Times:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78265
Cheney Orders Media To Sell Attack On Iran :
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78381
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
Israel Lobby Slammed at Start of Book Tour:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=78443
NOMOREWAR, three of your links have already been discussed here. If you'd read more and post less you'd have seen them. Cool it, you're just vandalizing the site.
(Although all credit to the resource that is warwithoutend.co )
nowarforisrael is likely David Duke. It's a common moniker of his. He smells blood and we know he is a frequent visitor to Phils website — He features Phil's website, much to Phil's disgust, on his website www.DavidDuke.com. We can expect that the genuine anti-semites, the people who hate Jews, not for anything Israel has done, but because they have irrational hatred of the other, are going to pump this up as much as possible. Legitimate criticism of Israel and the Israeli Lobby will likely become mixed together and many Jews will not be able to tell the difference, hurting chances for a serious dialouge, while many non-Jews will steer clear of the entire mess wishing a pox upon all houses.
This is my translation of the review, by Christian Hacke, of the Mearsheimer and Walt book that appeared yesterday in one of the most prestigious German journals, “Die Zeit”. It is a bit more “meaty” than the review in La Republique des Lettres that I put on this site yesterday. It is also not totally devoid of critique but yet, by and large, quite positive. I have translated the quotes from Mearsheimer and Walt back from the German (for the same reason: I haven’t got hold of the book yet).
Anti-Semitism or breach of a taboo?
The famous political scientists, John Mearsheimer from Chicago and Stephen Walt from Harvard, published in March 2006 an essay about the influence of the Israel lobby on American foreign policy. This had been originally commissioned by the Atlantic Monthly but was then rejected as too controversial and appeared subsequently in the London Review of Books. The basic argument of these scholars was that the Israel-lobby was responsible for the unshakeable loyalty (“Nibelungentreue”) of the US towards Israel because it had a stranglehold on Congress, strong influence in the White House, manipulated public opinion, had supported President Bush’s war on Iraq and was now urging for an attack on Iranian nuclear installations. With all this the lobby had imposed a Middle East policy on the USA that was against its national interest.
Is this an expression of anti-Semitism or the necessary breach of a taboo? No thesis of political science has, since the Second World War, at any case caused such waves, with the exception of George Kennan’s 1947 reflections on the containment of the Soviet Union and Samuel Huntington’s 1991 essay on the collision of cultures.
Mearsheimer and Walt have now expanded their arguments into a book that is presently being published world wide. Their idea of a lobby is not that of a monolithic body, but a loose coalition of various organizations and persons, with as its most powerful branch the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The authors do not question the legitimacy of the Israel lobby or Israel’s right to exist, but they do so with the stereotypical idea of Israel as a valuable and reliable strategic partner.
They counter the assertion that Israel and the USA are together because of a common terrorist threat with the argument that here cause and effect have been interchanged. “The USA faces a threat from terrorism because it is closely allied to Israel and not the other way round”. They also contradict the view that Israel deserves “generous and practical support, because it is weak and surrounded by enemies that are trying to destroy it, and possesses a morally better form of government”. It is, rather, the case that Israel is hollowing out its own democracy, is oppressing the Palestinians, is refusing them a state that deserves that name, is robbing them of their private property and is putting up illegal settlements, so that there can be no talk of common democratic values of the USA and Israel. Also the image of Israel as an unprotected David is to Mearsheimer and Walt just a
a chimera. Israel is in reality, as its only nuclear power, the military Goliath of the Middle East.
The reproach that the lobby has changed from a liberal community to an instrument of rightwing conservatism has been confirmed after 9/11. The new alliance between neoconservatives, Jewish conservatives and Christian Zionists was documented in a statement before AIPAC by the former Republican majority leader Tom “The Hammer” Delay: “I traveled through Judea and Samaria and I have been standing on the Golan Heights. I have seen no occupied territory. I have seen Israel.” Benyamin Netanyahu was appropriately grateful for this loyalty: “Let us thank God for the Christian Zionists. The future relation between Israel and the USA probably depends less on the American Jews than on the American Christians.”
The authors naturally criticize this new alliance vehemently, because it voted for the invasion of Iraq, a thing that was disapproved of by Mearsheimer and Walt but also by large parts of the American Jewish community, for instance by the well known liberal-cosmopolitan historian Tony Judt, and also by the large religious group Reform Judaism.
A large part of the critique by Mearsheimer and Walt is quite convincing, but the Jewish lobby cannot be made responsible for all negative developments. The authors should not always have taken the thoroughly inflated self image of the lobby at face value. The struggle for influence in Washington is also more diverse, than this study makes you presume. The Jewish tail does not always wag the American dog. There are often narrow limits to the American field of action, because Tel Aviv is stonewalling.
Mearsheimer and Walt are, however, neither crazy outsiders nor are they in a politically correct fashion trying out the water in the shark bay of politics and political science. They are serious and globally renowned scholars. Their theses are not “the Protocols of the Elders of Zion” from Chicago and Harvard, but courageous positions on a phenomenon of domestic and foreign policy that should be disquieting. Therefore this book will cause violent controversies (as it has already done in the USA), that hopefully will lead to further reflection on the activities of the Israel-lobby and American policy on the Middle East.
•
Fascinating stuff, Arie. Over time it will be interesting to see if the European states find it easier to talk about their own Zionist lobbies. I noticed both reviews so far steered clear of the subject.
——————————————————————————
Are there signs that the people are fighting back, even if their congressmen won't?–
BAN ON POLITICAL JUNKETS TO ISRAEL DEALS BLOW TO LOBBYING EFFORTS
link to forward.com
/>
"In a challenge to one of the most powerful lobbying tactics used by the Jewish community, a county in Maryland decided last week that local legislators could no longer go on sponsored trips to Israel. Montgomery County’s ethics commission decided last month that council members are prohibited from traveling at the expense of the local Jewish community."
(After the Abramoff scandals, congress tried to clamp down on lobby-sponsored junkets. Of course the Israel lobby–the largest sponsor of congressional travel–insisted on a loophole. Here's background–
link to sfgate.com
Here is a hint of change
Ban on Political Junkets to Israel Deals Blow to Lobbying Efforts – Forward
link to forward.com
In a challenge to one of the most powerful lobbying tactics used by the Jewish community, a county in Maryland decided last week that local legislators could no longer go on sponsored trips to Israel.
Montgomery County’s ethics commission decided last month that council members are prohibited from traveling at the expense of the local Jewish community, even when funding is indirectly provided by a private foundation. A trip planned months in advance was subsequently canceled.
“We were stunned by the commission’s decision,” said Ron Halber, executive director of the Greater Washington Jewish Community Relations Council, which organized the trip.(…)
The decision has such weight because sponsored trips to Israel are widely used by Jewish groups both nationally and locally to build support for Israel among non-Jewish leaders and to cultivate one-to-one relationships between American and Israeli leaders. On a national level, the trips have recently come under scrutiny amid the scandals surrounding Washington lobbyists and their relationships with lawmakers. The Montgomery County decision now brings the dilemma to the local level, as communities face the need to adjust to the changing winds in Washington and growing concerns about the power of lobbyists.
Hadar Susskind, Washington director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, called the Montgomery County decision “mistaken.” Susskind said that his organization has already begun looking into the decision in order to check if it represents a wider trend that could affect other Jewish communities.
“If it will become a widespread phenomenon, that would be misguided and unfortunate,” he said. According to Susskind, the trips to Israel are seen as an important tool for educating local leaders on issues relating to Israel and for building ties between Israeli and American leaders on the local level.
The attention given to lobbying trips to Israel has caused a number of organizations to make a formal separation between their lobbying arm and the branch in charge of sponsoring travel to Israel. Groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have founded subsidiary organizations that deal with taking lawmakers, officials and journalists to Israel. As accompanists for trips to Israel, other organizations now have dedicated staffers who are not registered lobbyists.
The concern about the trips has already seeped down to the local levels where policies tend to depend on state and county ethics rules. Many JCRCs have turned to private foundations to cover the costs, and some have given up funding the trips altogether.
In Boston, the JCRC has asked since 1999 that trip participants pay their own way, covering an estimated $3,200 in travel costs. A Massachusetts ethics commission approved the community’s funding of the trip, but the local JCRC decided to drop the funding anyway, according to executive director Nancy Kaufman.(…)
“It would not be fair to ask elected officials to pay from their own pocket,” an official with a major Jewish group said.
For the local Jewish community, the trips help forge stronger ties with the lawmakers and government officials and help to make them aware of the political issues relating to Israel.
In Maryland, each and every member of congress and most of the local officials have taken part in trips to Israel. Many of them later moved on to higher positions on the local and national scene. (END QUOTE)
David Duke doesn't link to this site becuase he agrees with Philip on any particular issue. It is the exact opposite, actually.
People like David Duke link to sites like this because they expose the racist activities of (some) Jews.
However, David Duke then goes on to say "hey, we should be allowed to do this too!"
Philip, on the other hand, goes on to say this needs to stop.
Big difference.
With regard to trips to Israel, Nancy Kaufman is being disingenuous and mendacious (not a big surprise). The JCRC Boston seems to have a deal with other Jewish communal organizations about picking up the Israel trip tab for (i.e. bribing) local Boston area politicians.
When Somerville Mayor Curtatone visited Israel as part of a bribe for his efforts to defeat Somerville divestment, the American Jewish Congress Council for World Jewry paid the charges.
Phillip – Now that it has been reported that the Jews are responsible for the dying bees, when will it finally be revealed what they did to that McCann kid?
It just never stops with these people does it?
This I need to hear. How are the Jews responsible for the bee problem?
Barrett my butt that's Pearlman. I knew he couldn't stay away.
Israel provoking Syria:
1) Israel mum on any IAF entry into Syria airspace
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied on Thursday all knowledge of a Syrian report that its military fired on an Israel Air Force warplane that infiltrated its airspace and "dropped munitions.""
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901650.html
2) Arab League, Egypt: IAF violation 'unacceptable'
"The Arab League said on Friday the alleged violation of Syrian airspace on Thursday by an Israel Air Force warplane was unacceptable and that it called into question Israel's commitment to achieving regional peace."
… Russia, meanwhile, called on Israel to respect international law and expressed "extreme concern" over the reported incident.
"… The reports have caused extreme concern in Moscow," the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.
"Particularly troubling is that this is the Middle East, a region already heavy with serious conflicts and tension."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/902017.html
3) ANALYSIS: The question is, how will Damascus respond?
"… It's also hard to figure out the point of the mission. Syrian analysts, however, say that the aim was to examine flight paths inside their country which the IAF could use without discovery by Syrian radar."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901689.html
Bush has been in Sydney over the last few days. Though the city had been transformed as if it contained the "Fuehrerhauptquartier" right in its midst the Australian coppers were a bit less efficient than once the S.S. A group of comics managed to pose as the 'Canadian delegation', got quite far into the forbidden circle, after which one of them jumped out, dressed as Osama himself. He happily missed becoming the victim of a trigger happy sniper.
You might wonder how your Great Helmsman is doing. Well, here is a snatch of a report about him in today's Sydney Morning Herald:
"If only APEC organisers had thought to chopper in some interpreters from Texas. The US President, for whom the English language is not a tool so much as a room full of baited mousetraps, started the day in great form at the Opera House, where he told business delegates that he thought John Howard was a terrific host "of the OPEC summit".
"I mean APEC summit", he corrected himself grinningly. "I've been invited to the OPEC summit next year."
(Not true, in case the oil producers among you were wondering.)
The President plunged on, traps snapping to the left and right of him. He voiced his abhorrence of terrorist groups operating in the Asia-Pacific region, including the evil "Jenna Islaaanah Nia", who does indeed sound like quite an alarming young lady.
He congratulated Howard on his visit to Iraq last year, which had given hope and succour to "the Austrian troops there".
One could almost sense the craning CIA sharpshooters wearily exchanging their live rounds for tranquilliser darts.
"Time to get the big guy out of there, Hank?"
"Roger that, Chuck."
Syrian analysts, however, say that the aim was to examine flight paths inside their country which the IAF could use without discovery by Syrian radar."
Perhaps they fear a repeat of what happened to the Egyptian Airforce at the beginning of the Six Day War (The IAF swooping in under the radar and destroying the opponent's airforce on the ground while its pilots were at their breakfast).
That war too was preceded by this type of incident. The most serious one was of course the aerial battle in April 1967 when the Syrians lost six aircraft.
Liberal White Boy = Troll.
I have translated the review of Mearsheimer and Walt by the Belgian historian Gie van den Berghe that appeared today (9/7) in one of the most prominent Belgian Dutch-language newspapers, “De Standaard”. Van den Berghe wrote a Ph.D. thesis about the holocaust for which he received a Flemish history prize. He commented about this study that it had taught him that “there is no limit to human barbarity”. He also published, in 1990, a study about the exploitation of the holocaust (“De uitbuiting van de holocaust”) in which he turned himself, on the one hand, against holocaust deniers but also highlighted how successive Israeli governments had exploited the holocaust for its political purposes.
His main critique on M.& W. seems to be that he finds them rather too apologetic.There are here too, as in the two previous reviews I put on this site, no reflections on the domestic political lobby,a fact 'anon' drew attention to. Van den Berghe has, nevertheless, first hand experience with this.
The United States of Israel
Why does American foreign policy favor Israel to such an extent? Is it a matter of a conspiracy? A secret alliance? It is a lobby.
On the eve of an American election year all presidential candidates do totally agree on one point: unabated support for Israel. These politicians, otherwise so critical, make a cheerful abstraction of the disastrous consequences of this policy for the US and the American people. Their attitude is not inspired by an allegedly vital strategic position of the Jewish State, which is not an indispensable partner in the ‘war against terror’ either. From a strategic point of view Israel is since the end of the Cold War an albatross around the American neck, and the close tie between both countries only increases the problem the Americans have with terrorism.
Moral arguments do not hold water either. The Jewish State is no vulnerable David who has to face an Arab Goliath. On the contrary, also because of the US, Israel has considerable military superiority in a region in which it is the only nuclear power. In fact moral considerations should rather instigate the US to give support to the Palestinians in view of the brutal treatment they receive in the Occupied Territories. But no, all support keeps going to the Jewish State, whatever it does.
The real cause of this unconditional support, which contrasts so flagrantly with that given to countries in need of aid, is the political power of the Israel lobby. This lobby also plays a key role in giving shape to American policy in the Middle East. It shares in the responsibility for the tense relations between the US, Iran and Syria, and had a large part in the American decision to attack Iran. That war has meanwhile become a catastrophe for the US and a blessing for Iran, yet Israel’s most feared opponent.
But nothing changes. In the middle of last year the US was virtually the only nation to support Israel in the strategically stupid and morally wrong war against Lebanon and Hezbollah. This did not only cause a lot of suffering, but also brought about that Hezbollah’s position was reinforced and Iran and Syria were driven more deeply into each other’s arms.
American policy in the Middle East that is inspired by the Israel lobby feeds anti-Americanism in Arab and Islamic countries, is a source of tension between the US and its allies, increases the chance for anti-American terror deeds and endangers the national security of the US.
The Israel lobby is even damaging to Israel. Without its unceasing pressure the US could have used its financial and diplomatic power to induce Israel not to put up any more settlements. It could have helped it in the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Israel’s position would then have been a lot more favorable, whereas now the Palestinians, who have been radicalized by a policy that is increasingly a policy of apartheid, are steadily less inclined to peace negotiations.
This, in a nutshell, is the thesis of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, American professors in, respectively, political science and international relations. They first formulated it after The Atlantic Monthly, a well known American journal, had asked them, a few months after 9/11, to write an article about the Israel lobby. When they offered it their well furnished article in 2005 this journal refused to take it. Ultimately it appeared abroad in the London Review of books (March 2006).
Since then Mearsheimer and Walt have been showered with praise and mud. They are praised for their courage in opening up a discussion that could shift policy in the Middle East. They are spurned (by the lobby) as incompetent academics, enemies of Israel, probable anti-Semites.
Recent developments in the Middle East, the unchanged attitude of the US and the undiminished pressure on all those who dare to criticize Israeli policy, induced Mearsheimer and Walt to expand their thesis into a book as thick as your wrist. They provide even more shocking examples and more solid proofs. At the same time they cover themselves against the predictable insinuations. They assure us, in all possible ways, to the point of boredom, that they feel no resentment towards Israel and that they don’t think that it behaves less well than other countries.
They reject any argument about a conspiracy, underline that American Jews have no important position in the American media or banks and that they are as good citizens as other Americans. Being conscious of the power of the lobby they exaggerate a bit by rejecting all this as anti-Semitic arguments. There is no doubt that anti-Semites use this type of arguments and extend these to all Jews at all times and everywhere, however this does not mean that these arguments are always and everywhere groundless.
The Israel lobby is not a clique or conspiracy that dominates American foreign policy but just a powerful interest group of Jews and (to a lesser extent) non-Jews who do everything in their power to influence American foreign policy in such a fashion that it favors Israel. The lobby defends its interests in the usual way, not different from that used by the National Rifle Association or the American Petroleum Institute. It rewards or punishes politicians with larger or lesser contributions to their campaign funds. It operates on people working in the administration who share its opinions, pressures media and academics to steer the public debate about Israel into a certain direction and intimidates and accuses critics of Israel.
The Israel lobby is not unique, except for its influence. It is one of the most powerful political interest groups in the US. To keep the most powerful nation in the world on a string, even against its own interest, is truly something. Mearsheimer and Walt do not really clarify how the lobby gained this power and kept it. Reading between the lines one perceives that it has a lot to do with money, especially the American system of private financing of and obtaining donations for electoral campaigns. American Jews happen to be relatively prosperous, relatively strongly interested in politics and sharing in a considerable tradition of providing donations.
Mearsheimer and Walt also provide a sketch of an alternative policy for the Middle East. American assistance should be made dependent on Israel’s willingness to gear its policy to American interests. Israel has to make a choice “ between making an end to the disastrous occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and remaining a good ally of the US also in the future, or continuing as a colonial power but then on its own legs.”
Less clear is how this can be brought about. Journalists and academics should crank up the discussion, puncture myths about Israel and inform the American people about the crimes against the Palestinians. Mearsheimer and Walt show nicely how many journalists, politicians and presidents are kept under control by the lobby. Perhaps, they surmise, the lobby will undergo change from the inside. That is not very likely however, in view of the fact, to which they point themselves, that the lobby profits from the uncertain situation in the Middle East. Always when there is a chance for peace, the donations to the lobby decrease.
Arie, thanks for translating Bush's transcript back into english for us.
Philip, I think your website is a great idea. It is good that a sensitive and intelligent Jew is publicly working out his problem of Jewish identity. But to be meaningful you have to be remorselessly honest.
So why is 9/11 not listed as one of the topics on the side of your page? Here is the first part of a promised four-part article that spells out the centrality of Jewish involvement in the planning and execution of 9/11
link to wtcdemolition.com
The author one “Lazlo Toth”, goes to great lengths to formulate this in a politically correct fashion, for example by stating in a heading that “The Jews did not ‘do 9/11’. But language fails him. (See Israel Shamir’s distinction between “Jews” and “the Jews”, which I am happy to follow.) It turns out not only did some Jews play a role in 9/11, it was the leading role. And these were not guys who just happened to be Jewish, they were acting with the whole weight of organised Jewry behind them.
For more on this topic, one should see the work of Christopher Bollyn – who has been Tasered, had his arm broken and is facing a possible spell in jaiL for his reportage. His website is
link to bollyn.com
/>
and the article “Israeli Control of the Mass Media & the 9-11 Cover-Up”
link to bollyn.com
is his latest contribution to the coverage of Jewish involvement in 9/11.
Perhaps you have already covered this issue extensively. I have only been reading you over the last few days. And the search engine you have given SEARCH MONDOWEISS does not seem to work.
Thanks for your sincere effort, and good luck.
This is the last 'European' review I will put on here.
Though one cannot at this stage provide a clear impression of the state of informed European opinion on the Mearsheimer & Walt book it would be wrong to pick out only positive reviews. Last night ‘Deutschlandradio’, a national broadcaster, came up with the following comments on the book by Alan Posener who is opinion editor of “Welt am Sonntag”, the Sunday edition of the German conservative national paper “Die Welt”, which is owned by the Axel Springer Company.
Here too I had to translate the (many) quotes from the book back from the German. So the quotation marks are a bit misleading.
Anti-Semitic conspiracy theory
John J.Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt inquire in their book into the influence of “the Israel Lobby” on the foreign policy of the US. These scholars put the facts not only on their head but serve purely anti-Semitic prejudices.
The Jews are our misfortune (Note: ‘die Juden sind unser Unglueck” – this refers of course to the Hitlerian mantra). The thesis of the book “The Israel Lobby” that presently causes predictable waves can be summarized in about this fashion. Yes, I know that this is an unfair and sweeping critique. The authors, John J.Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, use many lines to establish that they are neither anti-Semites nor anti-Zionists. And we are happy to believe them. This is not a matter of their persons, but of their book.
Quote: “Israel has become now, after the Cold War has ended, a strategic burden to the United States. The close relations between Washington and Jerusalem make it harder to defeat the terrorists that are presently attacking the United States. At the same time they undermine worldwide America’s prestige with important allies … Various political decisions made in favor of Israel now threaten the national security of the United States …”
Israel is a burden. So much is clear. And why do the United States put up with this burden? Does America enjoy any advantages from this? Does Israel have oil like the Saudis? Is Israel an important trading partner as the Japanese or Europeans? A strategic partner like India? Can it be a threat to America such as Russia or China? No. Israel, that is six million Jews in a hostile environment. The Arab oil powers hate it. It is a thorn in Europe’s flesh. The Indians, Russians and Chinese are at best indifferent to it. They only cause anger.
Quote: “However no politician with ambition will say this publicly or even discuss it as only a possibility.”
And why not?
Quote: “The political power of the Israel lobby is the real reason why American politicians are so markedly considerate … Because the Israel lobby has gradually become one of the most powerful interest groups in the US, candidates for high administrative positions take its wishes meticulously into account … The lobby has made it difficult to impossible for the US-government to criticize Israeli conduct …”
And not only that. The Israel lobby has, if one can believe Mearsheimer and Walt, driven America into the war in Iraq, has prevented a rapprochement with Syria and Iran as well as taking a distance from the Jewish State and brought about an increase in anti-Americanism and terrorism in the Arab and Islamic world. So whose fault is it that presently American foreign policy has got into difficulties? George W.Bush? Not a bit of it. The Israel lobby. And that happens to consist, when one doesn’t take a handful of crazy Christian Zionists into account, mainly and from the nature of the case of Jews.
This is a classical anti-Semitic argumentation according to which the Jews abuse their host peoples – you have to imagine the quotation marks – by controlling public opinion and politics for their own selfish purposes that are damaging to these host peoples. But classical here, and anti-Semitic there, what about its truth content? Mearsheimer and Walt are, after all, no right wing extremists but, to quote their German publisher “renowned political scientists and experts in international relations.”
Yes, they are scholars. Mearsheimer has a professorship in Chicago, Walt even in Harvard. But Mearsheimer’s renown doesn’t go very far, to be sure, since he in his 1990 essay “Back to the Future” saw the whole of Europe sink back, after the end of the Cold War, into nationalism and wars and advocated as the most important goal of US-foreign policy the nuclear armament of Germany and the Ukraine to restore the European balance of power and to save peace. The conservative professor had simply forgotten about the peace factors NATO and the European Union. In this new book a balance of power policy is proposed as well. Mearsheimer and Walt call it “Offshore Balancing”.
Quote: “Offshore balancing is in accordance with the traditional grand strategy of America and was during the Cold war for a long time an important component of American policy in the Middle East. The United States did then neither attempt to station troops in the area nor to bring about a democratic change. It rather attempted to retain a balance of power between the regions by supporting several local allies.”
This school of American foreign policy calls itself “neo realism” to distinguish itself from the foreign policy of the “neocons” that is inspired by morality. The neocons have identified precisely this policy of support for “several local allies”, including some of the most odious dictators in this world, as the most important cause of the hatred against America and have wished for America to put itself on the side of democracy.
If one wants to understand this book “The Israel Lobby” one has to understand that Mearsheimer and Walt’s main goal is to defame the neocons, who have already been tarnished by the setbacks in Iraq, as instruments of the Israel lobby. This should serve to definitely discredit them and to prepare for a change in American foreign policy: “Back to the future” indeed – back to the amoral policy based on interests of a Henry Kissinger, the hero of the neo-realists.
What about the Israel lobby however and its capacity to influence American foreign policy? That there is such a lobby is indisputable. The Organisation AIPAC – American Israel Public Affairs Committee – calls itself proudly “America’s pro-Israel Lobby”. It makes a tireless effort to explain Israel’s policy and to fight for American support. One may doubt however whether it is as influential as the pro-Arab oil lobby.
After the Cold War all US-Presidents, from Bush Senior through Clinton to Bush Junior, have imposed their agenda on Israel, and not the other way round. One only has to think of the first Gulf War when Bush Senior demanded and obtained from Israel the promise that it would not react to the rocket attacks of Saddam; of Clinton’s attempt to force a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that didn’t fall through because of Ehud Barak but because of Yassir Arafat; of Bush Junior who insisted, against Israeli objections, to allow Hamas to participate in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. The tail might wag the dog from time to time but the view that this is, as Mearsheimer and Walt’s book suggests, always the case belongs to the realm of irrational conspiracy theories.
Let us take the war in Iraq. It is understandable, now that the war is as unpopular as it was popular before, that the search is on for the guilty ones. Mearsheimer was against the war from the start, because of practical considerations, though he did believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But only now he has found a fitting scapegoat. The new book says:
Quote: “There is a variable without which, with a probability that borders on certainty, the war would not have taken place. This variable is the Israel-lobby and specifically a group of neoconservative ideologues and experts …”
Here, as elsewhere in this book, the Israel lobby is linked to the neoconservatives in a perfidious manner. The neocons are thus defamed as Jewish and the American Jews as war mongers. The Israeli government was, in fact, not enthused about the plan to topple Sadam. But the Saudis by contrast did urge this.
Normally one does not feel inclined to give in to Michael Moore’s fantasies about the power of the oil lobby but these are almost rational compared to what is suggested in this book about the power of the Israel lobby.
"Arie, thanks for translating Bush's transcript back into english for us."
Not my work, Oarwell. But Annabelle Crap's
(sorry that IS her name). Didn't you like it? I thought her report rather funny.
Arie, fun begins when Dear Leader opens his mouth.
I never before considered the dilemma foreign-language translators face when trying to convert Bushisms back into understandable language. It must be considerable.
Seriously, though, thank you for your other translations. Is 'De Standaard' center-right? The title, "The United States of Israel," seems inflammatory to American eyes.
Thank you for the translations Arie. Appreciated.
"Is 'De Standaard' center-right? The title, "The United States of Israel," seems inflammatory to American eyes."
"De Standaard" started out as a conservative catholic paper. Today it also gives space to anti-catholic activists.
In the sixties and seventies it was often very critical of American foreign policy and I seem to remember that, from time to time,it has also published articles that are critical of Israel.
In the convoluted domestic politics of Belgium it has generally pleaded for the Flemish cause.
I only see the paper occasionally but I know that it is regarded as one of the three Belgian Dutch language quality papers.
The headline of Van den Berghe's article did probably not come from him but from some smart alec young journalist. All the same, I thought it rather neatly hinted at the contents of W.& M.'s book.
David Seaton's comment on the NYT book review (above) has been quoted at Gorilla in the Room–
link to gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com
/>
(Hope you remember your roots when you get famous.)
David Seaton's comment on the NYT book review (above) has been quoted at Gorilla in the Room–
link to gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com
/>
(Hope you remember your roots when you get famous.)
Oarwell, I belatedly found out that an article by Robert Fisk in Counterpunch of 27th April 2006 has the same title: 'The United States of Israel". Only, Fisk discreetly put a question mark behind it.
Turns out the person who fainted was a Bahai and the people who helped him were Likudniks. Go figure.
A few quick points about that German broadcast are in order:
1. About the 'morality' of neocon policy: it is the morality of Robespierre and Danton: wading to Utopia through seas of blood.
2.About the alleged American capacity to impose the US agenda on Israel: there will be many examples in W.& M. of the opposite.To me the strongest evidence of the lack of this alleged American capacity is the fact that the US hasn't been able to prevent the (expansion of) the settlements.
A strong instance of this occurred during Carter's administration. Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council, to which both the US and Israel are a party, wanted a total Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories minus some reciprocal border corrections. Israel managed to muddy the waters on that by claiming that the lack of a definite article before the words "occupied territories" in the English (though not the French) version of the resolution showed that the intention of this resolution was to give it discretion in choosing what to leave and what to keep. During Carter's time the situation had become so unclear that he asked his staff to look at the archival material. The conclusion it came up with confirmed the original international consensus. Carter then started to talk, to the chagrin of Menachem Begin, about minor border corrections. Begin asked him to keep mum about this. In return Carter got the promise that there would be no further expansion of the settlements, a promise that the Israeli government virtually broke right away.
3.There is something wrong with each of the examples the German reviewer gave of American influence over Israel.(A) The promise that Israel gave to keep its head down during the first Gulf War: this shows, no doubt against the reviewer's wish, the limited strategic-military value Israel has for the US – an 'ally' that during a time of war has to be bribed not to be an ally. (B) Clinton's alleged capacity to get the Israelis and Palestinians into a peace settlement: I think it has been established, contrary to what the reviewer says, that the reaon why this not came about was that at the last possible moment Barak got 'cold feet'(which Clinton was not able to warm again)- and of what was offered earlier even Shlomo Ben Ami, Istrael's Minister of Foreign Affairs then, has said that he wouldn't have accepted it either if he had been Arafat (C) Bush's demand that Hamas should participate in the elections: I thought that Israel secretly welcomed that – gave them a chance to divide the opposition. Moreover, this was not Bush's finest hour, even among the many rotten ones he went through earlier: allowing an election and then disavowing it because the 'wrong party' wins it.