According to the JTA (my favorite wire service), the National Jewish Democratic Council has said that Walt and Mearsheimer’s ideas are "irresponsible" and "downright dangerous." The Council, which is affiliated with the Democratic Party, made the accusations in response to comments by Virginia Congressman Jim Moran, who argued (in Tikkun, according to the JTA) that AIPAC pushed for the Iraq war, and that AIPAC has a lot of influence because many of its members are "quite wealthy." In attacking Moran, the NJDC threw in Walt and Mearsheimer, saying they had the same ideas.
Wow. The fur’s beginning to fly.
This is blackmail. The NJDC is saying we can’t discuss these ideas because they are dangerous–i.e., there will be pogroms in the U.S. if people start talking about an Israel lobby. And an effective blackmail so far: 5 years on and we can’t talk about the causes of the Iraq disaster. (By the way, Walt & Mearsheimer don’t say much about Jewish wealth, and say that AIPAC took a pretty low profile in the runup to Iraq; while other segments of the lobby were actively promoting the war…)
And yes. It’s true that ideas can be dangerous. Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.
After thinking this over carefully, I don't think these professors are really anti-Semitic. What they are is worse than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. Read on.
Walt and Mearsheimer are utilizing the same anti-Semitic tactics as despots who wish to distract their subjects from the malignant social ills that they themselves foster, but unlike despots who fabricate Jewish conspiracy theories out of a combination of opportunism and actual hate, these professors have written their essay and book based on the former motivation alone, opportunism.
Like bank robbers, their motivation for this outrage is primarily because “the Jews are there”, are the target du jour of the Islamofascists (for now!), and have proven useful as punching bags to countless others in history.
The professors’ writings show no respect for the Jewish people and for their past persecutions, but the professors are not anti-Semitic, just amoral and opportunistic. Accusations of anti-Semitism are a distraction from the real issues.
Walt and Mearscheimer know full well there is no super-powerful "Jewish Lobby”, that the pro-Israel lobbyists have competing counterparts representing many other causes and countries, and that the pro-Israel lobby is not particularly remarkable in this environment. They know full well that the misrepresentations of fact, omissions, things taken out of context, logical errors, etc. in their prior paper and this book are indeed risible, the trash produced by dilettantes, not by serious researchers.
But they don't care.
What would make them produce such garbage?
Fear of Islamofascism, and the standards of (mis)conduct that come right from the halls of academia with which they've lived their lives, notably amorality and betrayal of friends when some self-interest is served. (For professors, it's usually money and status.) They are clearly enthralled with university culture and attempting to export that pathologic "culture" to the rest of the world.
What is the "gain" here? In the main, I do think the reason d'atre of their book is one of appeasement and surrender to Islamofascism.
A few hundred million insane bloodthirsty Arabs and other followers of the death cult of Islam calling for Death to Israel and Death to America: what better way to appease them than writing a book that the authors hope will cause the U.S. to hang Israel out to dry in the face of genocidal maniacs, groups and countries like Hezbollah, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Syria and Iran?
In fact, they are not anti-Semites. Rather, they are equal opportunity amoralists. If the Islamofascists were chanting “Death to Mexico! Death to America!”, Walt and Mearsheimer would undoubtedly craft conspiracy theories that might justify allowing Osama and his minions to relocate from Waziristan to Acapulco.
University professors are renowned for turning on their friends, students and colleagues at the drop of a hat, if they see a personal gain in doing so. They could care less about ruining careers and lives. See for example, “Academic Tyranny: The Tale and the Lessons”, Robert Weissberg, Review of Policy Research, Vol. 15 no. 4 P. 99-110, Dec. 1998, and especially "Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints" by Wilcox, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 280 No. 3, July 15, 1998 that describes how stealing of others’ work and career-ending professorial retaliation against those who complain is common at Walt's university, Harvard. Of course see www.thefire.org as well.
So, Walt and Mearsheimer wrote this book in all its faux-academic glory in the cowardly and academic-culture-inspired hope of spearheading a U.S. betrayal of its friend, Israel, in their hope that this will satiate the Islamofascists' appetite for blood and "honor."
They are incredibly reckless in this regard. Their book is quite socially irresponsible (not a new thing for academia). Their whole theme, abandonment of friends for supposed secondary gain, i.e., the appeasement of a brutal terrorist killer culture, is explicitly amoral (and likely immoral as well for those of us not prone to moral relativism) as well as anti-American.
They are using this book and likely their educational pulpits with students as a weapon, with the desired collateral damage of weakening the U.S. (Does anyone even need to ask anymore why Ivy professors might be against a strong United States?)
Walt and Mearsheimer, through their arrogance, stupidity, and exportation of academia’s amoral tyranny, are tacitly working for our enemies.
These professors are out of control, like a runaway locomotive, thanks to the cheerful support of opportunistic anti-Semites and the MSM (I’m not sure those two are entirely separable). They need to be stopped – however, accusations of anti-Semitism are a distraction and they know it.
Walt and Mearsheimer have more in common with Arthur Neville Chamberlain than David Ernest Duke or Alfred Charles Sharpton.
That said, as Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and many others as well have observed (documented at the CAMERA – Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America story “Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer Israel Lobby Controversy” at link to camera.org
Walt & Mearsheimer's faux-scholarship is "riddled with errors" that tend to slant it "in the exact same direction, thus we are dealing not with a little unfortunate carelessness but with a culpable degree of bias."
I submit again that their "carelessness and bias" is most likely knowing and deliberate, but not due to anti-Semitism. Its purpose is promoting appeasement and the weakening of America, at a cost to Israelis and Jews the professors are indifferent to and simply don't care about, typical of Ivy professors who want their way, period.
There is a term for deliberate and knowing falsification in academia for any secondary purpose:
Academic Fraud.
Walt and Mearshiemer have placed themselves in the same league as Finkelstein, Chomsky, and other academic fabricators.
Charges of anti-Semitism are a distraction from their motivations. Charges of academic incompetence are not highly credible considering the experience, resources and positions of these professors.
Charges of deliberate academic fraud are, I believe, closer to reality, and perhaps hold the key to successful challenging of this dangerous charade.
In summary, Walt and Mearsheimer’s distortions are knowing and deliberate, in the interest of appeasement of Islamofascism and the weakening of the “imperialist AmeriKKKa.” The Israelis and Jews make good cannon fodder because “they’re there” and have a historical track record of serving this purpose for despots. W&M malign the Jews not out of anti-Semitism but out of amoral academic convenience.
This is worse than run-of-the-mill professorial anti-Semitism due to its generalized, nihilistic stupidity.
My only hope is that these professors are doing this of their own volition, and that there are no “handlers” involved.
- ERIS
It is irresponsible to speak in generalizations and then hide behind them.
I'm surprised that you don't see the dangers in the manner that they presented their ideas.
I'm also surprised that you consider issues of loyalty to be an issue at all. If you are a humanist, then appealing to either American national interest, or Israeli national interest is at best a secondary means, and most often a distraction.
It really can't be said that the United States is in any grave danger. (Some of its citizens certainly are in some danger if fanatic terrorism is incited.)
It can be said that Israel is in long-term danger, resulting from never being accepted by those that regard pan-Islamic sovereignty (an expansionism) as valid.
It certainly can be said that Israeli citizens are routinely in danger, to a far far greater proportion of their population than in the US.
It is therefore more humane, more humanist, to consider Israeli civilians safety more than Americans', being in more and more intimate danger.
And, it is more humane, more humanist, to consider Palestinians safety.
But, the Walt and Mearsheimer "realism" is a false emphasis for a humanist, however it strips a few clothes from a few non-emperors.
Regarding Eris: 1. Eris appears to feel that because Jews have been blamed for things in the past, they are now and forever immune from all blame no matter what. Eris fails to note that Professors Mearsheimer and Walt make the point over and over in The Book that The Lobby is not synonymous with the Jewish people, and that indeed most Jews favor totally different policies than those espoused by The Lobby. 2. In Eris' world, the Professors' promotion of peace through diplomatic just settlements of issues, such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, is defined as "appeasement." As is typical with The Lobby, Eris drags in Chamberlain in the usual irrelevant setting. 3. Eris is clearly very anti-Muslim and anti-Arab, a bigot for sure. 4. With regard to the Professors' motivation, has Eris ever heard of patriotism? The Lobby pushed us into an unnecessary unwinnable and unending war with Iraq and is pushing for an encore with Iran. The Professors hope to save the country before it is too late. By the way, The Book notes (p.242) that AIPAC's executive director boasted that "quietly" getting Congress to vote for the Iraq war resolution was one of AIPAC's sucesses. The Lobby is trying to be quiet regarding pushing us to war with Iran too because of fears that the American public might wake up to the fact that these wars are for Israel, not the US.
"After thinking this over carefully, …" Well, ERIS, whoever you are – I don't know about your thought processes but if you needed careful thought to come up with this kind of stuff I wonder what your lighter reflections will look like.
So academe is a snake pit, professors are bad, and Mearsheimer and Walt are particularly bad representatives of the species. That is, approximately, what your 'arguments' amount to.
Just assuring us that their scholarship is risible and worthless and that these gentlemen are academic fabricators is nothing much more than the verbal equivalent of foaming at the mouth.
If you want to argue against the book: ARGUE. Tell us where, according to you, their logic is bad and where their facts are wrong. Stop merely indicating your emotional state on hearing about the book (you didn't read it did you?).
What I found interesting in your post, though, was there no doubt unintentionally. The fact that you explicitly abstained from calling them anti-Semites (and preferred ascribing the unexplained motivation to them to 'weaken'America) could indicate that in your camp the faith in the efficacy of this weapon is weakening. And rightly so.
In dissecting Eris's comment I go back to my distinction between "anti" Semitism and "A" Semitism.
I suspect that for Eris, in his narcissistic self-absorption, there is really no distinction between an "A" Semite and an "anti" Semite: the a-Semite is simply an anti-Semite who hasn't "come out" yet. The distinction is fundamental, however.
Traditional antisemitism is a populist disease with the Jew as Christ-killing devil with horns or the Jew as universal capitalist/communist and it is infused with truly racist obsessions with noses, hair and accents. That doesn't seem to be the issue here. Mearsheimer and Walt appear to have discovered a truly new antisemitical category, the Jew as "a pain in the ass."
A-semitism consists in simply not being Jewish, which means that it is natural for an "a-semite" to have other priorities and agendas than Jewish ones. The world is inevitably seen from multiple perspectives and to navigate successfully among human beings, empathy is fundamental. "Walking a mile in another man's shoes" is a vital skill. Eris and the Lobby seem nearly autistic is this regard.
Back in the days of LSD and hippies it was considered bad form to make others "take your trip". The Lobby is making us all "take their trip". It is unfair to call the annoyance that naturally ensues "antisemitism."
Mr. Witty,
“It is irresponsible to speak in generalizations and then hide behind them.”
Hiding behind “generalizations”? How much detail do you require of M&W to accept that there may be something to their thesis? It seems that you won’t be satisfied until they have proven their case using trigonometry or the laws of physics.
“I'm also surprised that you consider issues of loyalty to be an issue at all. If you are a humanist, then appealing to either American national interest, or Israeli national interest is at best a secondary means, and most often a distraction.”
Are you suggesting that a humanist may not legitimately put the interests of his country before a foreign one or, rather, that the only legitimate cause for humanists is Israel? I am, sir, both a humanist and a citizen of my country.
“It really can't be said that the United States is in any grave danger. (Some of its citizens certainly are in some danger if fanatic terrorism is incited.)”
Precisely, so why the attempts by supporters of Israel to goad the U.S. into serial wars in the ME? “Fanatic terrorism” is being inspired as much as anything by America’s grotesquely misguided policies in the ME.
“…pan-Islamic sovereignty (an expansionism)…”
This is a straw man beloved of Islamophobes (who in the main are not regarded as outstanding humanists, excepting, perhaps, that national treasure, Mr Daniel Pipes) whereas Israeli colonialism/ expansionism in the West Bank, Golan Heights and Sheba Farms is of a facts-on-the ground nature that liberal Zionists choose to avert their tender gaze from. If Israel could content itself within its pre-1967 borders it might better expect to receive acceptance, recognition even(!) from its neighbors (are you not familiar with 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and its more recent incarnation?. What was it about never missing a chance to miss a chance…?)
“It certainly can be said that Israeli citizens are routinely in danger, to a far far greater proportion of their population than in the US. “
If you insist on reducing the issue to a league table of which peoples are most at risk to life and limb, it won’t have escaped you that since March 2003 the numbers of dead and wounded in the ME by nationality are:
1. Iraqi
2. American
3. Lebanese
4. Palestinian
5. Israeli
Using your "proportion" of population rhetorical sleight of hand, however, you would have us turn the list upside down? By your moral calculus there are more Chinamen than Frenchmen. Ergo, the life of one Frenchman is worth more than one Chinaman. I hesitate to put words in your mouth, though, so thank you for going on to clarify that:
“It is therefore more humane, more humanist, to consider Israeli civilians safety more than Americans', being in more and more intimate danger.”
This statement is probably more revealing than you intended. Do tell which part is liberal, which part is Zionist and which part is humanist! As far as I can make it is simply callous particularism of the most offensive kind.
Even AIPAC would have a hard time making this argument on Capitol Hill. And on Main Street it would go down very badly indeed if put in such bald terms. So it isn’t, of course. Instead we get diversionary bromides about “shared values” or the “special relationship”.
From your postings on this bog it is abundantly clear that to you the welfare of Israel and her citizens is for you the highest good. US citizen or not, this is wholly your prerogative. It is a stance you share with many in the Israel lobby and other American supporters of Israel in politics, the media and academia. Fine: 100 flowers, etc.
Whereas, M&W, quelle horror, make the blindingly obvious argument that most Americans put the interests of the US ahead of Israel or any other foreign country. It may be inconvenient for you to have that pointed out in by them in “The Israel Lobby” but how is it dangerous? To my mind, the omerta surrounding this issue until now has been far more dangerous whatever one’s position. Let the debate begin so that 100 flowers can well and truly bloom in a manner that befits America.
Best,
JP
Well said, David Seaton.
Apologies for the many spelling errors ( "blog","quelle horreur", etc.) and the lack of lines between paragraphs and various typos.
Would repost but it is already too long and I must get some work done.
JP,
You made a selective read of my post.
A humanist is concerned with human beings, not nations.
The US is itself already excessive in its influence and careless in its use of power. When it makes mistakes it harms thousands, or hundreds of thousands.
And, always in exagerated responses to threats of terror, which is itself falsely invoked, relative to numbers and actual effect on the US.
Israel and Israelis on the other IS threatened, has been since its founding, and while many of its actions and policies are rightly criticized as excessive, for Israel to need to spend 20% of its GDP on defense is reasonable, while for the US to spend 15% of its GDP on "defense" is unreasonable.
Walt's, Mearsheimer's, and many others' dismissal of the threat to Israeli civilians is a blindness.
A seeing would regard it is relevant, and STILL object to the content of specific Israeli policies but on the merit of the policies themselves, not on a somewhat maliciously catchy headline or title appealing to "national interests" (a fascistic appeal reminiscent of "America first" in WW2).
JP,
I keep my spelling errors in check by using the nifty new Mozilla, "Sea Monkey" browser thing. It underlines my every typo in red just like MS Word. I recommend it to anyone (for example I can't spell "recommend" without it) who writes online and is a victim of the progressive US educational system.
Who Are The Fanatics?
By Paul Craig Roberts
10 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
President Jimmy Carter was demonized for pointing out in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, that there are actually two sides to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Distinguished American scholars, such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have suffered the same fate for documenting the excessive influence the Israel Lobby has on US foreign policy.
Americans would be astonished at the criticisms in the Israeli press of the Israeli government’s policies toward the Palestinians and Arabs generally. In Israel facts are still part of the discussion. If the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, could replace Fox “News,” CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, Americans would know the truth about US and Israeli policies in the Middle East and their likely consequences.
On September 1, Haaretz reported that Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents 900 Congregations and 1.5 million Jews, “accused American media, politicians and religious groups of demonizing Islam” and turning Muslims into “satanic figures.”
Rabbi Yoffie is certainly correct. In America there is only one side to the issue. An entire industry has been created that is devoted to demonizing Islam. Books abound that misrepresent Islam as the greatest possible threat to Western Civilization and seek to instill fear and hatred of Muslims in Americans. For example, Norman Podhoretz proclaims “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.” Daniel Pipes shrieks that “Militant Islam Reaches America.” Lee Harris warns of “The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West.”
Think tanks have well-funded Middle East programs, the purpose of which is to spread Islamophobia. Fear and loathing pour out of the Middle East Forum and the American Enterprise Institute.
In the US it is acceptable, even obligatory in many circles, to hate Muslims and to support violence against them. Pipes has been described as a “leading anti-Muslim hate propagandist.” He is on record advocating the use of violence alone as the solution to the Muslim problem. This won him the endorsement of the Christian Coalition, AIPAC, and the Zionist Organization of America for appointment to the board of the United States Institute of Peace. President George Bush used a recess appointment to appoint this man of violence to the Institute of Peace. Pipes advocates that the Muslims be beaten into submission by force, the view that has guided the Bush administration.To brainwashed and propagandized Americans, Pipes appointment made perfect sense.
Podhoretz believes that Islam has no right to exist, because it is opposed to Israeli territorial expansion, and that America must deracinate Islam, which means to tear Islam up by the roots.
While neoconservatives, Christian Zionists, and the Bush administration embrace unbridled violence against Muslims, Lee Harris warns that America is much too tolerant and reasonable to be able to defend itself against Muslim fanaticism. America’s “governing philosophy based on reason, tolerance, consensus and deliberation cannot defend itself against a [Muslim] strategy of ruthless violence.”
Islamophobia overflows with such absurdities and contradictions. Harris tells us that the Enlightenment overcame fanatical thinking in the West, leaving the West unfamiliar with fanaticism and helpless to confront it. Harris, who fancies himself an authority on fanaticism, is deaf, dumb, and blind to Communism and National Socialism and is completely ignorant of the fact that neoconservative fanatics are the direct heirs of the Jacobins of the French Revolution, itself a fanatical product of the Enlightenment.
If Americans did rely on reason, tolerance and deliberation, they might free their minds of shrill propaganda long enough to consider the “Muslim threat.” Muslims are disunited. Their disunity makes them a threat to one another, not to the West.
In Iraq most of the fighting and violence is between Sunni and Shi’ite Arabs and between Sunnis and Kurds. If Iraqis were unified, most of the violence, instead of a small part of it, would be directed against the American troops, and the remnants of a US defeated army would have been withdrawn by now. However much Iraqis might hate the American invader and occupier, they do not hate him enough to unite and to drive him out. They had rather kill one another.
Iran, the current focus of demonization, is not Arab. Iranians are the ancient race of Persians. Indeed, Iran would do itself a favor if it changed its name back to Persia. For eight years (1980-1988) the Iranians and Iraqis were locked in catastrophic war with horrendous casualties on both sides. Despite its military exhaustion, Iraq was considered a “threat” by the American Superpower and was bombed and embargoed for the decade of the 1990s, one consequence of which was 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children.
Not content with the complete crippling of Iraq by the Clinton administration, the Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003 and has been dealing more death and destruction to Iraq ever since.
Palestine has been under Israeli occupation for decades. Israel has simply stolen most of Palestine, and the remaining Palestinian enclaves are ghettos policed by the Israeli army.
The rulers of Saudi Arabia and the oil emirates are Sunni Arabs. They are more afraid of Shi’ite Arabs than of Israelis. Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan are ruled by bought-and-paid-for American puppets. The Turkish military is also in the American pocket and suppresses any Islamist influence in the civilian government.
Afghanistan is a disunited country of tribal peoples, each holding sway in their area. The Taliban were attempting to unify Afghanistan, and the Bush administration’s fear that the Taliban might succeed was the reason for the US invasion of Afghanistan. The US allied with the defeated Northern Alliance, in part a remnant of the old Soviet puppet government, and turned Afghanistan back over to warlords.
When the facts are considered–Muslim disunity and the absence of modern technology, navies, and strategic reach–the Bush/Cheney/ neoconservative/Zionist propaganda that “we must fight them over there before they come over here” is such a transparent hoax that it is astounding that so many Americans have fallen for it.
To the extent that there is any Muslim threat, it is one created by the US and Israel. Israel has no diplomacy toward Muslims and relies on violence and coercion. The US has interfered in the internal affairs of Muslim countries during the entire post World War II period. The US overthrew an elected government in Iran and installed the Shah. The US backed Saddam Hussein in his aggression against Iran. The US has kept in power rulers it could control and has pandered to the desires of Israeli governments. If America is hated, America created the hate by its arrogant and dismissive treatment of the Muslim Middle East.
There is no such thing as Islamofascism. This is a coined propaganda word used to inflame the ignorant. There is no factual basis for the hatred that neoconservative Islamophobes instill in Americans. God did not tell America to destroy the Muslims for the Israelis.
In America today blind ignorant hate against Muslims has been brought to a boiling point. The fear and loathing is so great that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress offer scant opposition to the Bush administration’s plan to make Iran the third Middle East victim of American aggression in the 21st century.
Most Americans, who Harris believes to be so reasonable, tolerant, and deliberative that they cannot defend themselves, could not care less that one million Iraqis have lost their lives during the American occupation and that an estimated four million Iraqis have been displaced. The total of dead and displaced comes to 20 percent of the Iraqi population. If this is not fanaticism on the part of the Bush administration, what is it? Certainly it is not reason, tolerance, and deliberation.
The Bush supporter will ask, “What about 9/11?” Even those who believe the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report should understand that in the official account the attack was the work of individuals, none of whom were acting on behalf of Muslim governments and none of whom were Iraqi, Afghan, or Iranian. 9/11 provides no justification for attacking Muslim countries.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Not to pile on Eris, but sometimes I feel that some of America's most affluent, successful and politically powerful ethnic group need a reminder. We did not have pogroms in America. We did not have the Holocaust involving non-Americans, we just got the museum. In Washington D.C., on government land, at government expense. We did have a holocaust (small h) involving real American Indians. They have no museum in Washington. We did have a holocaust involving African Americans. Millions of blacks were enslaved, brutalized, raped and murdered for a period spanning 100's of years. These Americans have no holocaust museum in Washington either. Tell me again how M&W's case is overstated. Lets talk some more about academic malpractice. I don't believe that the Lobby is worried about programs in America. They are worried that their political power will some how be curtailed and thus their ability to serve Israel. Who can blame them? They have gotten away with this fraud for some time.
"Millions of blacks were enslaved, brutalized, raped and murdered for a period spanning 100's of years."
You say that like it's a bad thing…
In case you don't read this guy's blog I'm pasting in his latest entry as it is very pertinent. And no, I'm not Dan Fleshler. I'm just another liberal American Jew who supports Israel's right to exist, but opposes its policies in the West Bank. Just like M&W. I've also been quite vocal about this with anyone and everyone. I daresay there is good reason for my fellow Jews to be concerned. This has less to do with what the Israeli lobby has done, although this needs to be addressed ASAP, but more to do with the opportunists who will seek to benefit from this momenet of reflection and confrontation with the Lobby. I'm sure M&W and I would get along famously, and I don't see them as opportunists, but I do think there will be many opportunists who seek to engage in good old gutteral jew baiting for some type of gain, or simply to satisfy their dark desires.
SK
Mearsheimer, Walt and the so-called “silent” Jewish doves
I have read the Mearsheimer and Walt book. They have answered some–although not all– of my prayers, which were spelled out in my post on August 12th. The book is much more careful, more nuanced, more detailed and more convincing than their original paper, which was published in the Spring of 2006.
I wanted very much to like their original paper, but it contained too many questionable assertions, half-truths and unsupported or unqualified generalizations. This book still has problemmatic sections, but it must be taken more seriously. No doubt some in the organized Jewish community will lambaste them not just for their mistakes –and there are still many of those in the book—but for the act of writing it and skewering the conventional lobby. The rest of us ought to be absorbing what they have to say, taking it seriously, not blinking at truths that are incontrovertible and thinking very hard about their political and moral implications.
They still exaggerate –sometimes dramatically– “the Israel lobby’s” ability to get its way and influence the actual decisions that are made by actual Administrations in actual historical circumstances. They cling to the notion that Israel and its lobby were “the principle driving force behind the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003,” and I believe that is not accurate. They are especially unfair to Clinton’s Middle East peace team, for reasons that require much more space to explain. They make other important arguments about the inner workings of AIPAC and the rest of the lobby that don’t hold up. In the future, I will have more to say about the extent of the lobby’s power and take exception to other particulars in this book. But I don’t see how anyone can dispute their most important, overarching conclusions, painful though they may be to many American Jews. e.g.:
Washington’s reflexive support for Israel has fueled anti-Americanism throughout the Arab and Islamic world and undermined the U.S. image in many other countries as well. The lobby has made it difficult for U.S. leaders to pressure Israel, thereby prolonging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This situation gives Islamic terrorists a powerful recruiting tool and contributes to the growth of Islamic radicalism.
Unlike the original paper, the book makes an effort to show that self-styled, pro-Israel, American Jewish organizations do not form anything close to a monolithic front. It notes that:
[While] AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents have tilted toward Likud and other hard-line parties in Israel and were skeptical about the Oslo process, a number of other, smaller groups –such as Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v’ Shalom, Israel Policy Forum, Jewish Voices for Peace, Meretz USA and the Tikkun Community—strongly favor a two-state solution and believe Israel needs to make significant concessions in order to bring it about…
…Some of these organizations actively promote U.S. engagement in the peace process and have been able to win some minor legislative victories…[but], such groups lack the financial resources and influence of AIPAC, the ADL, the ZOA or the Conference of Presidents, whose right of center views are unfortunately taken by politicians, policy makers and the media to be the representative voice of American Jewry. For the moment…the major organizations in the lobby will continue to advocate policy positions at odds with many of the people in whose name they speak.
That is, of course, true. It is a truth that has been one of the banes of my existence. It is also true and important to note that, as they put it, “even when the leaders and rank and file of important American Jewish organizations have serious reservations about Israeli policy, they rarely call for the U.S. government to put significant pressure on the Israeli government.” That has been another, personal bane. Obviously, the underfunded Jewish peace camp has not provided a strong political counterweight to more hawkish, richer and noisier organizations. This state of affairs that has helped to constrain American policy makers from taking a more balanced approach to the conflict, an approach that would clearly be in America’s interest as well as Israel’s.
Towards the end of the book, one of their recommendations is:
strengthening more moderate forces that already exist” [in the current Israel lobby] or…creating new, pro-Israel groups that support different policies. U.S. and Israel interests would also be advanced by wresting power away from hardliners who now control AIPAC, the Zionist Organization of America, the Conference of Presidents…Such efforts might also be strengthened by institutional reforms that would give the rank and file a greater voice in determining these organizations’ policy prescriptions.
Finally, they insist in a number of places that they are “pro-Israel.” They “believe that the history of the Jewish people and the norm of self-determination provides ample justification for a Jewish State.” They are two-staters who reject the bi-national, single-state option and the actual implementation of the Palestinian “right of return.” And they want the U.S. to come Israel’s aid if its survival is threatened. In other words (sorry to disappoint you, hard lefties who want them to be your heros, and righties who want people like me to denounce them), they sometimes come across as…left wing Zionists. Or at least they appreciate left-wing Zionists, which amounts to the same thing.
I will offer one major quibble, for now, because it pertains to the actual tactics necessary to effect change in both the Jewish community and American foreign policy:
Mearsheimer and Walt exaggerate the extent to which people in my camp and other American Jews have been constrained from criticizing Israel in public or attacking the conventional Israel lobby when they disagree with it. They assert that “more sensible voices in the Jewish community will have to discard the taboo against public criticism of Israelis policies that are harmful to Israel and may even be harmful to Jews in the Diaspora.” Elsewhere, they make the very familiar claim that there is a “norm against public criticism” of Israel within the Jewish community.
Now, there are people who still believe there should be a “norm against public criticism,” but that norm has been violated so often, and so vociferously, in the last two decades that it can no longer be taken seriously as a predictor of the community’s behavior. It was shattered by the American Jewish right during Oslo, some of whom actively and openly lobbied against official Israeli policy in Washington. But there have also been many important precedents of vocal dissent against Israeli policies by Jews on the left, who have spoken out and somehow managed to survive as members of the organized community. These precedents offer some hope to those of us who agree that Israel as well as America need a different, more evenhanded U.S. approach to the conflict, and that more American Jews must make it clear that they support this kind of approach.
One example used by Mearsheimer and Walt to show “efforts to marginalize dissenting Jewish voices” is a recent vocal campaign by the Zionist Organization of America against the Union of Progressive Zionists. The UPZ sponsored on-campus appearances of “Breaking the Silence,” a group of Israeli soldiers who told vivid stories of the brutal behavior exhibited by Israelis trying to enforce the occupation. That disturbed the ZOA and its leader Mort Klein, who “demanded that the group be expelled from the Israel on Campus Coalition, a network of pro-Israel groups that includes AIPAC and the ADL.” They also note other voices of opposition.
Mearsheimer and Walt mention that “the ICC steering committee unanimously rejected the ZOA’s demand.” But they might not realize that some of the most vocal supporters of keeping the UPZ on campus reportedly included the reps of the Conference of Presidents and other mainstays of the lobby that supposedly wants to suppress opposition to Israeli policies.
The leaders of these mainstream groups apparently understand –or at least begrudgingly accept– that the communal tent needs to be big enough to include Israelis and American Jews who are mortified by the moral costs of the occupation and willing to say so, publicly. The fact that Mort Klein –and one Orthodox Jewish organization– weighed in against this particular form of criticism hardly means their sentiments are representative of the Jewish community’s.
Klein is also invoked in another example that, the authors assert, shows “how deep the opposition to open discussion runs”: in 1996, he objected to the ADL’s invitation to Tom Friedman to speak at their dinner. But the ADL let him speak. These and a few other examples they cite do not show there is a “norm” or a “taboo” against open discussion or criticism of Israeli policies. They show that one set of Jews is arguing with another set of Jews.
Klein is a ferocious, skillful opponent of any conciliation or compromise with the Palestinians, but he has a relatively small following now and had a much smaller one in 1996. To treat him as a representative of deep currents in the community is like treating Pat Robertson as a representative of mainstream Christians. More importantly, he himself has CONSTANTLY violated the “norm” by attacking Israeli policies that he considers to be too conciliatory. He openly disdains that norm.
Moreover, Mearsheimer and Walt ignore the way divisions over Israeli settlement policies and some military actions caused deep schisms among American Jews beginning in the 1980s. They spend a great deal of space on the [shameful] treatment of Breira, a group of lefty Jews who were ostracized by the community in the 1970s. But times changed. Norms and paradigms of discourse gradually –VERY gradually– began to shift once Begin was elected in ‘78.
Yes, when confronted with Begin and then Shamir, it was a minority of American Jews who protested publicly or otherwise went against the grain. But that minority did include some important mainstream leaders and organizations, including the American Jewish Congress and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now called the Union of Reform Judaism). In times of emergency, the protests and disquiet spilled out of organizational board rooms and made it into mainstream media. There was rarely an unbroken wall of support for –or passive acceptance of–Israeli policies or the positions of the conventional Israel lobby. Consider:
o–On May 5, 1990, Time Magazine ran an article entitled; “The agony over Israel: American Jews face a dilemma: how to criticize the Jewish state without seeming disloyal.” It asserted: “It has been an article of faith held by every government of Israel since the Jewish state was founded: no matter how much American Jews might disagree with Israeli policy, they could be counted on not to keep their criticisms public. No more. The American Jewish community has become a house divided –and sometimes loudly so—over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and its reluctance to pursue a comprehensive settlement that finally might bring peace to the region.”
o–Two years before that (March 21, 1988), a New York Times headline proclaimed “Shamir assails his U.S. Jewish critics.” The lead: “Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir lashed out yesterday against American Jews who have been pressing the United States government to force Israel to accept an international conference to resolve the Arab Israeli dispute.” Reporting on Shamir’s speech to a meeting of the Presidents Conference, the story noted that “Albert Vorspann, senior vice president of [the Union of] American Hebrew Congregations, argued that Israel could not always expect the `reflexive loyalty’ of American Jewry. He said it was “dangerous to imply that honest disagreements represent disloyalty.”
o–In February of that same year, Commentary devoted a whole issue to the mounting, passionate, very public protests of Israeli policies by American Jews. A cranky, unsigned introduction explained,“never perhaps has criticism of the state of Israel by American Jews been so open, so widespread, and so bitter as it is today.”
o–Six years before that, on July 15th, 1982, a New York Times headline read “Discord Among U.S. Jews over Israel Seems to Grow. ” The article, about American Jewish opposition to Israel’s continuing military assault on Lebanon, asserted “As in Israel itself, opponents of the policies of Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Ariel Sharon are beginning to engage in skirmishes through articles, statements, letters and newspaper advertisements.”
There are many other examples. Of course there were not enough of us and these efforts were not politically consequential. Of course there are not enough of us now. And of course a good many attitudinal shifts will be necessary for American Jews in my camp to be an effective political opposition. But, while the taboo against taking on Israeli policies or pressing for active American diplomatic engagement is still out there, it is not nearly as strong as Mearsheimer and Walt seem to think.
The question remains, will enough silent, passive American Jewish liberals ever feel like there is a sufficiently grave emergency to start making noise?
Eris and Richard Witty: your argument would be much stronger if you didn't need to raise the pan-Islam scapegoat.
The problem we have in this respect, has not much to do with anti-Israel sentiments or anti-Semitism for that matter, but has much to do with the intended use of atomic weapons for all the "Islamo fascists" out there, that is so much en vogue in neocon and assorted allies circles.
"This is blackmail. The NJDC is saying we can't discuss these ideas because they are dangerous–i.e., there will be pogroms in the U.S. if people start talking about an Israel lobby."
That's not blackmail. That's counterspeech.
This is a common tactic of the "anti-Israel Lobby." Make statements, bait your critics into responding, and then claim that such response proves censorship.
Yes the Lobby would do much better if it simply ignored it's critics and those of Israel, much like Main Stream Media. Have we attacked Iran yet? link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
David Seaton, you're correct that "antisemite" used to refer to someone who did not like Jews, for whatever reason.
However, the new and approved definition now reads: Anyone not liked by Jews.
Please update your Oxford.
For new readers of this blog, Richard Witty is another Zionist pseudo-intellectual who tries really hard to appear balanced in his opinions and succeeds for a while but who always spoils it in the end.
Consider this new brilliant line of argument that humanists should care more about Israelis since they face more "dangers" than Americans.
"It is therefore more humane, more humanist, to consider Israeli civilians safety more than Americans', being in more and more intimate danger."
Now while writing this, he probably realised he was giving himself away, so he quickly added:
"And, it is more humane, more humanist, to consider Palestinians [sic] safety."
Aha! Well, first of all, Mr. Witty is guilty of doing exactly what he warned against:
"It is irresponsible to speak in generalizations and then hide behind them."
What incredible chutzpah from someone to write this and then proceed in doing just that! Well, veterans of this debate know it is a classic tactic the apologists use.
So, Mr. Witty, we shouldn't speak in generalizations but, when considering Israelis and their safety,
1) We shouldn't look at the historical roots of this conflict,
2) We shouldn't really consider the actions of successive Israeli governments
3) We shouldn't consider the injustices perpetrated on the Palestinians to this day,
because, well we are humanists after all. So we should throw all historical and political context of this conflict away and just be "humanists"!
That's why Tony Judt in his article for London Review of Books writes that today's liberals have become the useful idiots of the militarists:
"… They may see themselves as having migrated to the opposite shore; but they display precisely the same mixture of dogmatic faith and cultural provincialism, not to mention the exuberant enthusiasm for violent political transformation at other people’s expense, that marked their fellow-travelling predecessors across the Cold War ideological divide. The use value of such persons to ambitious, radical regimes is an old story. Indeed, intellectual camp followers of this kind were first identified by Lenin himself, who coined the term that still describes them best. Today, America’s liberal armchair warriors are the ‘useful idiots’ of the War on Terror."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/judt01_.html
By making such idiotic simplistic assessments, by ignoring the history of the region and by denying the legitimate political grievances of the oppressed, the only ammunition for useful idiots like Mr. Witty here is the subsequent problem of "safety" for the oppressor's civilian population. I guess he never heard of the phrase "you reap what you saw". When a particular state in the Middle East has as its doctrine the concepts of "perpetual war" and "dynamic borders", has subsequently defied more UN resolutions than pretty much all other nations on this planet combined and still refuses to make peace with its neighbours, any sensible person would understand that there will indeed exist a problem of safety! But not for Mr. Witty, when all that is need is an appeal to the "humanism" of Americans who should care more about the safety of Israelis!
Frankly, if Mr. Witty ever dared to show up in any social science or psychology class to present this kind of simplistic BS, he would be thrown out pretty fast for avoiding any look at the CAUSES of problems and only looking at the SYMPTOMS and/or RESULTS of unacceptable behaviour, whether we are talking about an individual, or a group, or a nation.
And of course, there is the problem of the Palestinians. Here is the litmus test for anyone who wants to quickly understand who he is really dealing with in such discussions and debates. Here, Mr. Witty says humanists should be concerned for the safety of Israelis and yeah, while we are at it, also of the Palestinians.
Thus, the oppressed, stateless, defenseless should be of the same concern to us with the civilian population of the oppressor. That's "humanism" in Mr. Witty's lexicon.
And what about a reality check? For all the usual talk about the "existential" threats Israel is facing (and remember that it is proven now that even 1967 was not such threat but a war of choice instead), Israel is not facing such a threat even today. Even without taking into account the fact that Israel has the 4th strongest military in the world and has also something like 200-300 nuclear warheads plus the support of the greatest military power in the history of man, to look at Syria or Hezbollah or Hamas or even Iran and talk about an existential threat is baloney. It works though on the uninformed and those, like Mr. Witty here, who are too emotionally attached to Israel to actually make sober assessments and are thus too easily manipulated by the neo-cons and of course the Likudniks.
And to preempt the usual argument about the threat of the tin cans also known as Kassam rockets, here are the numbers of civilian casualties since 2000 when the second intifada started:
Fact 1 (Oct. 2006):
Deaths because of Palestinian Kassam rockets since 2000 (6 years):
10 Israelis.
Fact 2:
Deaths due to IDF operation to stop "deadly" Gaza Kassam fire, June – Oct 2006 (4 months):
400 Palestinians, 100 children.
I bet Mr. Witty didn't know that.
It would appear that the only ones facing existential threats are Palestinians, not Israelis.
P.S. Since I am a former useful idiot myself, I would kindly suggest to Mr. Witty to visit the Occupied Territories next time he visits Israel. Real life tends to destroy self-serving illusions, especially for those who are supposedly fond of the universal ideals of humanism while continuing to be particularlists in reality. Equating the plight of the Palestinians who are refugees on their own land for decades and live in open prisons at the mercy of the IDF with the plight of Israelis is grotesque for anyone who has ever seen what is really going on. Even reading Gideon Levy is only an introductory course in what persistent state-induced brutality of a helpless civilian population is all about. So, Mr. Witty, take your particularlist "humanism" and shove it. Thank you in advance.
Correction: "state-induced brutality [against] a helpless civilian population…"
For any other errors, I apologise. Writing this at work was trouble enough. And we can't all be articulate intellectuals like Mr. Witty here.
- Addendum to get our priorities straight if we are going to be humanists:
Since Israel supposedly left Gaza they have fired over 16,000 shells and run over 550 air raids, they have flown sonic booms, cut off food and medicine, shut the crossings, denied the right of Palestinians to work, slaughtered more than 400 people including more than 100 (often sleeping) children, injured or maimed nearly 2,000 more, demolished 14,000 acres of crops, bulldozed 400 homes.
(Compare this to primitive Kassam rockets, which make military experts laugh and which land mostly in the desert.)
Another correction: "You reap what you sow".
Israel is not America, Israel and America are not one and the same.
Israel is a seperate and "foreign" nation.
We do not share similar cultures.
We do not share a similar democracy.
We do not have the same "interest".
If anything about the Isr-US relationship or it's discussion is "dangerous", it is only dangerous to the people and to the countries who do not recongize and try to deny the above realities.
I'm new here, but I already think this Alan fellow is a bit of a wanker. Not having anything to do with his argument per se, just his style.
Yes Uncle Sol, you are absolutely right. No more political correctness from me and/or polite conversation with people who underestimate our intelligence so blatantly. "Humanism" my ass!
BTW, this post by "ERIS" (first one on this entry) is actually a quick copy-paste from a very serious and impartial site, Blogs of Zion:
http://www.blogsofzion.com/blog/?p=1144
Apparently this was also posted on Richard Silverstein's site. Here is what happened next according to Eris:
********
"Eris Says:
September 9th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I tried to publish the above, with some edits, at Tikun Olam as a comment on the post “J.J. Goldberg is Wrong About Walt-Mearsheimer.”
Here’s what I got from that blog’s proprietor:
From: “RICHARD SILVERSTEIN”
Subject: RE: [Tikun Olam-???? ????: Make the World a Better Place] Comment: “J.J. Goldberg is Wrong About Walt-Mearsheimer”
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:55:28
When you published this comment at Blogs of Zion you noted with pleasure a graphic of the Walt Mearsheimer book at LGF which featured it in the toilet or some such nonsense. This is enough for me to decide not to publish yr comment. Also, I don’t like republishing comments that have already been published elsewhere. If you can’t take the time to publish a comment that directly reflects the post you’re commenting on at MY blog then I can’t be bothered to publish it."
**********
Above link has also the reply of Eris to Richard.
P.S. A lot of quick copy-pastes lately with no reference to the original source or putting the material in quotes. It seems too many people find it hard to argue with M&W on their own so they plagiarize other people's efforts. This speaks volumes about the value of M&W's work.
Welcome wanker, I meant Uncle Sol.
.
Another great piece by Glenn Greenwald today:
- A one-day guide to war supporters and their enablers, Monday September 10
"As war cheerleaders and their enablers lay the groundwork for the glorious testimony of Gen. Petraeus, it is hard to recall a day so suffuse with war propaganda. Reviewing just a few selected samples illustrates how fact-free is the campaign to prolong this war. And the activities of today provide a very vivid guide for identifying those most responsible for launching this war and enabling its endless continuation, and for understanding how they behave."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/10/propaganda/index.html
Highly recommended, especially for students of orchestrated propaganda campaigns as Weapons of Mass Deception. Glenn is really, really good. Jim Lobe is another great observer and analyzer of those campaigns who is also digging a little deeper by looking at who pays for them, following the money and the connections.
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/
.
.
We are approaching the climax. Just take a look at National Review today!
http://www.nationalreview.com/
.
I have completed both Walt and Mearsheimer's book and Abe Foxmans new "counterpoint" book "The Deadliest Lies". While I do not claim to be objective on the matter, after reading both there is no serious question that the more persuasive, strongly argued book is "The Israel Lobby". In fact the Foxman book, aside from occasionally stumbiling onto a sound point (his comparison of the Cuban and Israeli lobbies is worthwhile and interesting, though for reasons totally opposite of what he suggests) is remarkable in how incredibly unconvincing it is.
A few points worth noting from the book:
- Foxman goes to great pains to argue that Israel is a natural and strategic ally of the United States, but other than tossing out platitudes about having "shared values" and being a "democracy" in an otherwise undemocratic region he literally offers no serious argument for the close ties between the nations on strategic grounds. Of course "The Israel Lobby" takes on both issues and is quite right in making the point that the U.S. has routinely supported and subsidized violently undemocratic regimes throughout the world, making the "democracy" argument transparently fradulent and weak.
- Foxman claims that Judt, Walt/Mearsheimer and others have failed to show that the Israel Lobby has any significant impact on internal electoral politics in the States, because they could only find a half dozen or so instances where the Lobby was said to play a role. This is interesting not just because of who he doesn't discuss (no mention of Hilliard, McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, or Paul Findley as I recall despite those being the most often cited cases by Lobby critics), but because he claims that the few cases on record support the charge that the Lobby plays no part in these issues, despite the fact that the central argument presented by critics for years has been that Lobby members and supports create a culture of fear silencing potential criticism before it hatches. The retired Senator from my state Fritz Hollings said as much on his way out the door..not surprisingly that is also omitted from the almost totally unsourced Foxman offering.
- Foxmans claims of a powerful counter lobby consisting of Saudis, Arabists and oil companies proves nothing about the Power of the Israel Lobby. In fact it is telling that the Neocon/Likud wing of the Lobby, who were open advocates for war with Iraq (even if they were not the driving force), were able to hold sway over these allegedly counterbalancing lobbies, who by Foxmans account have as much influence and more money.
- Near the end of the book Foxman asserts that pointing out that many Jewish Neocons have close ties to Likud is literally an anti-semetic canard. This despite the fact that there is a current criminal case involving classified documents being passed from a neocon insider to AIPAC (not mentioned once by Foxman), the fact that Richard Perle has been investigated for passing classified documents himself, the fact that leading Neocons have openly prepared strategic memos for Likud before, et. In other words if claiming neocons are tight with Likud is a sign of anti-semitism, than it must also be said that any TRUTHFUL commentary on these matters that offends the sensibilities of Foxman is anti-semetic..or in other words anti-semetism is whatever Foxman feels like it should be.
- Despite discussion of the relationship and the close ties, Foxman never ONCE in 250 pages mentions the amount of foreign aid given to Israel, let alone the fact that is by far the highest recipent of it, or for that matter why a power First World industrialized nation should receive so much aid (even if the argument is for 'strategic reasons" it is hard to see a) why Israel should get so much more anyone else and b) why Israel is more deserving than other allies such as Great Britain who have been willing to incur a much higher cost for consistent support of U.S. policy interests).
If one is being honest there is only one serious conclusion. Foxman is a fraud.
The Israel Lobby is NOT a perfect book. There are assumptions that shouldnt' have been made. There is an overreliance on non-traditonal sources that open the authors up to criticism (and I say this as an advocate of many of the sources in question). At times the authors make leaps at times they fail to connect important dots. But it is a solid work and the critics thus far have done a poor job of arguing otherwise. Foxman is no exception.
.
Finkelstein is finished at DePaul. There is enough space in American academia for Dershowitz and Wisse (Harvard) but not for Finkelstein…
" A Chicago university professor who has drawn criticism for accusing some Jews of abusing the legacy of the Holocaust agreed Wednesday to resign immediately "for everybody's sake."
DePaul University officials and political science professor Norman Finkelstein issued a joint statement announcing the resignation, which came as about a hundred protesters gathered outside the dean's office to support him.
Finkelstein, who is the son of Holocaust survivors, was denied tenure in June after spending six years on DePaul's faculty. His remaining class was cut by DePaul last month.
[...] Dershowitz was critical of the school. "DePaul looks like they caved into pressure," he said in a telephone interview. "The idea of describing him as a scholar trades truth for convenience. He's a man who is a propagandist and is not a scholar."
Still, Dershowitz said, "I'm happy he's out of academia. Let him do his ranting on street corners."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/901583.html
.
Quoting Chalmers in 'Nemesis:'
"What made Eichmann both evil and banal, Arendt concluded in one of those essays, was his inability to think for himself.
"Some years ago," she wrote, "reporting the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem, I spoke of the 'banality of evil' and meant with this no theory or doctrine but something quite factual, the phenomenon of evil deeds, committed on a gigantic scale, which could not be traced to any particularity of wickedness, pathology, or ideological coviction in the doer, whose only personal distinction was perhaps an extraordinary shallowness. However monstrous the deeds were, the doer was neither monstrous nor demonic, and the only specific characteristic one could detect in his past as well as in his behavior during the trial and the preceding police examination was something entirely negative: it was not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think."
Arentdt called Eichman a "desk murderer." Looking at the National Review website, as per Alan, I would suggest that in the future we refer to these craven lickspittles, these propagandists for war, not as "laptop bombardiers," but as "desk murderers."
Perfectly apt.
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
There were MANY lobbies that supported the Iraq war:
the oil lobby, the arms lobby, mercenary (security contractors), the conservatives, the neo-conservatives.
Most of them were dominated by white anglo-saxon-protestants, of the same elite groups that regarded Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Catholics as outsiders.
There may be few Jews in minor roles in the oil lobby and the arms lobby, but they are few and far between.
There were many potential beneficiaries of the war in Iraq, the least of whom was the state of Israel, which argued that the US focus on Iran RATHER than Iraq.
The US invaded Iraq in spite of Israel's urgings rather than because of it.
And, although there were a few neo-cons that ignored Israel's recommendations and continued to advocate for essentially unilateral invasion of Iraq, the majority of Jews and of Jewish organizations (even those identified as comprising the dominant organizations in the Israel lobby) opposed the unilateral invasion of Iraq.
And, on the basis of the same principles of consistent Jewish liberalism, of regarding war as a last resort, only a necessity, not as an equal component of statecraft.
It was an interesting reflection once, "Ah, there is a coalition of formerly opposing bedfellows with a predisposition to support Israel's policies and even encouraging the worst of them".
But, now, as an article, 200 lectures, a following, a book, it is not an interesting reflection but a juggernaut itself. Something that humanists will observe, "this is not what I hoped for. This is now a fascist invocation, a catchy fascist title".
"Those Jews have undue influence over the lives of true-blue Americans."
Indeed. Both Alan and Cooper seem ready to have a facistic climax on one another's face. Seaton will shake his head as they drag poor Mrs. Goldberg out of her apartment and gore her for the sins of the neo-cons. "I tried to warn 'em. I really did." he'll mutter. Not appreciating the pending irony when he is to be sodomized and degraded by a street gang made up of the ancestors of those whose Seaton's forefathers raped, pillaged, and immasculated. The empathy with Mrs. Goldberg will be intense.
The image of Alan and Cooper together just ruined my breakfast. Thanks a lot.
Richard Witty wrote: "But, now, as an article, 200 lectures, a following, a book, it is not an interesting reflection but a juggernaut itself. Something that humanists will observe, "this is not what I hoped for. This is now a fascist invocation, a catchy fascist title".
Walt and Mearsheimer carrying the fascist torch in the US!
You gotta love those balanced Zionist apologists and their intellectual subtlety.
Richard Witty, presumably to refute the argument that Israel wants the US to do its fighting for it, claims that it asked its big ally to attack Iran rather than Iraq.
It sounds like a man who is being accused of instigating a bank robbery defending himself with the claim that he actually had asked the robbers to set their sights on a bigger bank.