Kudos to Fresh Air host Terry Gross; she did a very fair interview with Stephen Walt yesterday, though she was careful to handle the subject with steel tongs. She kept repeating the thought that the book is "controversial." And she bridled at his mention of neoconservatives; she asked Walt if he wasn’t singling out Perle and Wolfowitz and fellow travelers because "some of them were Jewish." I.e., she hinted at antisemitism.
Walt said, the neocons are Israel-centric, but then denied that the Jewishness of some of them had anything to do with it. Walt is wrong; or anyway, he feels inhibited about speaking about Jewish political culture. Jews don’t feel that inhibition. As Murray Friedman and Benjamin Ginsberg, two neocon scholars, have said themselves, Jewishness is a central current of neoconservatism. Norman Podhoretz also said as much in Breaking Ranks. Leon Hadar says it. Jim Lobe (whose reporting was a key source for Walt and Mearsheimer) says it. Star blogger Glenn Greenwald says the neocons are "Israel-centric" and yes, they’re Jewish by and large…
Gross’s defensiveness on this score is like Whoopi Goldberg defending Michael Vick’s brutality to dogs as being part of his background. There is, obviously, some racial/cultural element to Vick’s insensitivity on this score. And I seem to remember polls saying that most blacks are behind Vick. I wish that blacks would denounce his behavior.
The analogy here is that neocon-ism is an expression of Jewishness that most Jews can halfway relate to. The neocons are our race men. They abide by Rabbi Hillel’s assertion (which neocon A.M. Rosenthal always used to quote), If I am not for myself then who am I for? They are, like their capo Elliott Abrams, particularists who think of what is good for the Jews. I grew up hearing that invocation: Is it good for the Jews? So did many other liberal Jews. So we relate to the neocons as our hawkish uncles, and something in us pulls for them, or thinks, well maybe they know more than we do. Until liberal Jews identify these ideas openly and distance themselves from them, the progressive Jewish tradition will remain compromised, and, more important, the press will continue to live in a fog about Why we are in Iraq.
A matter of proportionality. One can love Judaism, love Israel, yet fall short of breaking the law, spying, fabricating evidence, and otherwise pushing the U.S. into a needless, horrific conflict. Passionate, articulate self-interest is one thing; criminality and war-mongering are a distinct other.
Or local weekly Jewish paper, JEWISH JOURNAL, is one of the more liberal Jewish publications — usually opposing the Iraq war, the Likud Party, and an attack on Iran.
Nonetheless they ran a full add from ADL this week calling for war with Iran in thinly disguised terms.
ADL has morphed into an attack dog for war-mongering neo-cons itching for the US to attack Iran on Israel's behalf. No lie is too outrageous in this propaganda campaign.
Heaven help American Jews if the ADL crazies get their wish and large numbers of gentile Americans are killed in another "war for Israel".
Phil–
Why on earth are blacks obligated to denounce any particular media created black guy du jour? And why should "progressive" Jews be obligated (which seems to be your opinion) to denounce similarly the media-created stereotypical greedy, self interested nasty badly drawn character that the "Jewish neoconservative" has become in the culturesphere? Are you so messianic yourself that you think we Jews hold the power–through sheer force of our Jewish will–to alter the complex socio-political complexities of US global domination of the past half century?
As a human being, I am disturbed by animal cruelty and neoconservative war mongering. I am disturbed as a Jew by the tragic bind all the occupants of Israel/Palestine have been locked into as pawns in a century long great power game with changing players at the top.
But your insistence that any particular ethnicity is somehow obligated to *denounce* the doings of fellow tribe members, simply because they are of the same tribe, seems archaic, oppressive, kinda silly, and in fact dangerous, since you play into the very sort of tribalism and stereotyping and dehumanization (by virtue of making tribe primary) that the evildoers amongst our species thrive on. C'mon, Phil, get over it. You and me are just fellow humanoid slop–we are chosen for nothing. But we can CHOOSE.
"How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances."
There. I have now scientifically proven that race is a social construct. Vick's brutality is simply a result of his social, economic, educational and political circumstances. The fact that his "race", for lack of a better term, has at most an average 85 IQ has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with it. Just as the fact that Jews have throughout history been forcibly removed from almost every society where they have settled has nothing to do with any mythical, stereotypical attempts to alter the "complex socio-political complexities" of their respective host cultures.
Any disagreement with this ruling will be met with severe castigation and immediate identification of your SS troop membership.
"But your insistence that any particular ethnicity is somehow obligated to *denounce* the doings of fellow tribe members, simply because they are of the same tribe, seems archaic, oppressive, [and] kinda silly[.]"
Here is the thing, when those tribe members howl and complain at every other incident of injustice, and particularly when their tribe is the aggrieved, andthen say nothing when their tribe is the perpetrator, that is a problem.
That is "tribal" behavior, and it undercuts everything else they say as being hypocritical and self serving.
To wit:
"Eytan Schwartz, an advocate for Darfur refugees in Israel, said about 400 have entered Israel in recent years. [The rest, over 500 and counting will be expelled. 500 equals about 20,000 for the current US population.]
Schwartz objected to any such ban. "The state of Israel has to show compassion for refugees after the Jewish people was subject to persecution throughout its history," he said.
But Ephraim Zuroff of the Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center said the Jewish people could not be expected to right every wrong just because of its past.
[More than their past, however, how about the constant agitating for taking in refugees in Western nations, including and in particular Russian Jews who faced much less threat than these people from Darfur?]
'Israel can't throw open the gates and allow unlimited access for people who are basically economic refugees," Zuroff said.'
I think that is called "chutzpah", no?
Well Phil, how about Greenwald?
Glenn Greenwald is really, really good. He is lately focusing more and more of his attention on the neo-cons and their "serious" fellow travelers and he is picking them apart with no mercy. Yesterday's post on Fred Hiatt and Ledeen is a pure demolition job – highly recommended:
- Fred Hiatt, Michael Ledeen and the "bomb Iran crazies"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/05/hiatt_ledeen/index.html
Today he goes after National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/05/hemingway/index.html
Here is a good article on Beltway Seriousness:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/26/klein/
Meanwhile, Bill Kristol keeps doing his thing in the Weekly Standard:
Terrorist Training Camps
in Iran
Should they be safe havens?
by William Kristol
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/061vrvwi.asp
Jews Against the War
.
Mikey —
I don't know if Jews are *obligated* to do anything, but Jews who can see are in a better position to influence the others and so I think we *ought* to. Besides it is in my self interest to try to get to them before the shitst*rm starts, though it may be getting late for that.
The trouble is I have no idea what to *do*.
.
Paul, remember Tom Wolfe's pithy saying: "the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States, but only lands in Europe."
Correction: I always thought Wolfe said that, but I'm wrong, having just googled it. At "the Volokh Conspiracy" blog they referenced it to an interesting 1965 panel at Princeton, with Gunter Grass (who Wolfe was poking fun at), Wolfe, and Paul Krassner:
"The next thing I knew, the discussion was onto the subject of fascism in America. Everybody was talking about police repression and the anxiety and paranoia as good folk waited for the knock on the door and the descent of the knout on the nape of the neck. I couldn't make any sense out of it. . . . This was the mid-1960's. . . . [T]he folks were running wilder and freer than any people in history. For that matter, Krassner himself, in one of the strokes of exuberance for which he was well known, was soon to publish a slight hoax: an account of how Lyndon Johnson was so overjoyed about becoming President that he had buggered a wound in the neck of John F. Kennedy on Air Force One as Kennedy's body was being flown back from Dallas. Krassner presented this as a suppressed chapter from William Manchester's book Death of a President. Johnson, of course, was still President when it came out. Yet the merciless gestapo dragnet missed Krassner, who cleverly hid out onstage at Princeton on Saturday nights. . . .
Support [for Wolfe's view that fascism wasn't coming to America] came from a quarter I hadn't counted on. It was Grass, speaking in English.
"For the past hour, I have my eyes fixed on the doors here," he said. "You talk about fascism and police repression. In Germany when I was a student, they come through those doors long ago. Here they must be very slow."
Grass was enjoying himself for the first time all evening. He was not simply saying, "You really don't have so much to worry about." He was indulging his sense of the absurd. He was saying: "You American intellectuals — you want so desperately to feel besieged and persecuted!"
He sounded like Jean-François Revel, a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."
Of course, that was long before 9-11. All we were doing in 1965 was getting more deeply enmeshed in Indochina (without any help from the Israel lobby, but with ENORMOUS backing from the MIC). After 9-11 we not only keep our eyes on the door, waiting for fascists, but we fling the door open and embrace them when they arrive.
"From Zelikow to Cohen was only a step on the long path of humiliation that now stretched before Condoleeza Rice. When, in March 2007, amid suggestions of a renewal of diplomacy, she intimated that talks might be helpful in dealing with the Hamas-Fatah unity government (whose formation the Arab world had greeted as offering a promise of peace), she was demolished by an AIPAC-backed advisory letter bearing the signatures of 79 senators, which directed her not to speak with a government that had not yet recognized Israel. From that moment Rice was effectively neutralized."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/iraq-israel-iran_b_62995.html
79 senators. I repeat: 79 senators. The US is doomed. It won't be pretty.
Not only the US is doomed. Israel is doomed too:
"During a special Knesset session Tuesday, opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the establishment of a Palestinian state would increase Israel's vulnerability to rocket attacks.
The Likud chairman said he was opposed to another Israeli withdrawal from the territories [code alert - read: occupied territories], saying "on the eve of Rosh Hashana, the nation has already done its soul-searching and realizes that another pullout means relinquishing land to extensions of Iran."
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3445672,00.html
Paul E. wrote:
"The trouble is I have no idea what to *do*.
.
You can start with answering the question I asked you – and offering me an apology.
both men were on "On Point" today. dennis Ross and some other guy were on too.
" … Jean-Francois Revel, a French socialist writer…"
Hm, yes, but that was long ago. In his later years he was positioned somewhere between conservatism, in his abhorrence of all utopian thought, and neo-conservatism
(in his defence of America and 'the war on terrorism').
Two notes:
1. Hillel did not stop where neocons stop, at the "If I am not for myself, then who am I for?" – he also added "And if I am only for myself, who am I?"
2. But if neocons insist on only using the first part, then our answer to them is very simple – FOR WEAK, FOR POOR, FOR DEPRIVED.
Here's a link to that other NPR interview, WBUR "On Point" today. Like the Gross interview, it's not particularly good. No insightful questions, but interesting for evaluating M&W's tactics for bringing this issue to the masses–
On Point Sept. 5 (w/ Dennis Ross and Aaron Miller)–
link to onpointradio.org
/>
Fresh Air Sept. 4 (Walt only)–
link to npr.org
/>
Abe Foxman response on Fresh Air–
Any bets on who the NYT will assign to review the book?
Do you think he'll be Jewish? (Hahahahahaha.)
Alex– Yes. We should be helping widows and orphans, not ordering our bombers to create more of them.
Arie, I remember with what excitement I bought and read Revel's 'How Democracies Perish,' and at how disappointed I was by its recommendations.
Ultimately, Revel was a bromide-spinner. "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Sounds good until you realize it's merely a caricature of valid criticisms of Western, and U.S., imperialism.
I wonder if he was funded by the same folks who financed 'Encounter.' How convenient, during the Cold War, to have a "leftist" rail against communism, and promote Westernism.
(Sorry for the divertissement.)
Yes, he died just when he could have offered his intellectual support to Sarkozy, the new European 'caniche' (poodle) of Bush.
And maybe, just maybe Phil, they really are smart about geo-politics, and their fetish for Israel happens to align with what fight the US should be fighting at this time. One of the tragedies of this current hysteria over Jews is that little attention is being paid to the geo-political maneuvering of Russia, China, and on a local level Iran. A terrified America will gladly occupy itself with scapegoating and witch hunting, while the wolf circles and prepares for the kill.
From the Australian Jewish News of May 8 2007:
"France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, lost 57 members of his family to the Nazis and comes from a long line of Jewish and Zionist leaders and heroes, writes RAANAN ELIAZ.
In an interview Nicolas Sarkozy gave in 2004, he expressed an extraordinary understanding of the plight of the Jewish people for a home: “Should I remind you the visceral attachment of every Jew to Israel, as a second mother homeland? There is nothing outrageous about it. Every Jew carries within him a fear passed down through generations, and he knows that if one day he will not feel safe in his country, there will always be a place that would welcome him. And this is Israel.”
Sarkozy’s sympathy and understanding is most probably a product of his upbringing it is well known that Sarkozy’s mother was born to the Mallah family, one of the oldest Jewish families of Salonika, Greece."
In that incestuous relationship between Israel and the 'land of the brave' one doesn't know who is infecting whom with its paranoia.
And about those 'circling wolves', Merc, it is not Russia and China that have an armed presence in the backyard of the US, but the other way round.
Also, that American anti-ballistic missile shield, virtually on the border of Russia, is only against Iran, is it?
Justin Raimondo has argued in a series of articles, to my mind convincingly, that Bush
has ignored all opportunities to create better ties with Russia and that, on the contrary, there has been of late a concerted campaign, redolent of Cold War days, to demonize it.
Arie:
As a former resident of Russia and an anti-Communist, I can tell you that current events find me in a very confusing state. It stated with father Bush, who did everything he could to alienate Russians who just shrugged of the Communist rule and were seeing America as a new role model. He started the process that humiliated Russians, destroyed their economy and lead to new period of suspicion and alienation that, I predict, will last very, very long. I think he was envious of Reagan's success and felt he needed to diminish it to boost himself.
Then the biggest mistake of all (even bigger than Iraq, I think) was made – the solemn promise that NATO will never move into the former Warsaw pact countries and former republics was broken, USA left SALT unilaterally and current anti-missile ballistic bases in Poland and Czech Republic were brought to life under a ridiculous premise of defense against Korea and Iran.
I never believed Soviet propaganda when they told us that given the chance the West would tear Russia apart. I always believed that America was just, friendly to others and again – JUST. America had many friends among Russians. America was the favorite for new generation of young Russians. And "was" is, sadly, the right word.
I cannot see how a Russian citizen today can believe that and I certainly cannot believe it myself. I just hope this nightmare will end some day and this country will come back to its roots. But the trust and admiration that America enjoyed during and immediately after the Reagan years will never come back. I do know what "never" means and that one is not supposed to use it. It breaks my heart to use this word, but I still do.
Arie – Putin seems to be doing a pretty good job of giving cause for concern regardless of what Bush is doing.
LATE MONDAY night, a missile crashed into the ground near the village of Tsitelubani in Georgia. The weapon failed to detonate, but the event has nevertheless sparked new tensions between the small, democratic country and Russia, its former overlord to the north.
Details are still emerging, but the Georgian government says that radar records prove that a Russian Su-24 jet entered Georgian airspace from the northeast, dropped the missile and then returned to Russia. Georgian officials also claim that the recovered weapon was a Russian anti-radar missile designed for use with the Su-24, an aircraft not in Georgia's arsenal. There is speculation that the target was a nearby Georgian radar installation. The Russians, for their part, have insisted that the Georgians attacked themselves, a Kremlin defense that has become unsettlingly familiar and no more convincing. A U.S. official familiar with the case says that the Georgians' evidence is credible and that there is no evidence to support the Russians' story.
The missile incident disturbingly resembles a March incident in which a missile was fired at a government building in Abkhazia, a Georgian territory that is home to pro-Russian rebels. Then, too, the evidence pointed to Russian aggression, but a United Nations report stopped short of blaming Russia — probably because the Russians had to sign off on the document.
By violating Georgian sovereignty, Moscow may hope to bait Georgia into responding with force of its own near an already tense border. Added conflict in the region could make Western governments nervous about Georgia's suitability to join NATO, membership being a key goal of pro-Western President Mikheil Saakashvili. So far, however, the Georgians have wisely limited themselves to releasing information and lodging diplomatic protests.
The United States and Europe should help Georgia bring the issue before the U.N. Security Council. And if, after a full vetting of the facts, it remains clear that the Russians are at fault, Georgia's aspirations for NATO membership should not be hampered. Indeed, stemming this sort of aggression is what NATO was set up to do.
link to washingtonpost.com
/>
Perhaps Alex has triple loyaltes?
Russia
USA
Israel
in that order.
Merc:
This analysis by M Stott puts the Russian threat in some perspective.
-DK
By Michael Stott – Analysis
MOSCOW (Reuters) – The Russian bear is showing its claws again, but how sharp are they?
President Vladimir Putin has rattled the West with a wave of dramatic military announcements redolent of the Cold War.
Long-range Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons are back on flying patrol around the world, prompting NATO fighters to scramble in response.
New long-range missiles have been test-fired, one streaking from one end of Russia to the other in less than half an hour, according to official accounts.
And the former Red Army is re-equipping itself, with defense spending growing 20-40 percent a year since Putin came to power in 2000, albeit from a low base after the ravages of the 1990s.
Should be West be worried ?
"Overall, Russia's military capability is well below 50 percent of what the Soviet Union had," Peter Felstead, editor of Jane's defense Weekly, said in a telephone interview.
"The bombers resuming flights was more a prestige thing and a diplomatic signal than real military posturing."
The State Department in Washington dismissed the bombers' reappearance as Russia taking "old aircraft out of mothballs" — an unflattering reference to the backbone of Moscow's fleet, the propeller-driven Tupolev-95 which first flew in 1952.
"The West doesn't terribly need to worry," said Christopher Langton, a retired colonel who works as a Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London.
"Most of the product of the Russian military-industrial complex is for the export market to bring in revenues. Little goes to the domestic market."
YEARS OF NEGLECT
In the army, most tanks are outdated models from the 1960s and 1970s, according to IISS figures. Russia's navy has just one operational aircraft carrier after five others were decommissioned and sold to China and India in the 1990s.
And despite pledges to re-equip the military, analysts say new high-tech versions of existing weapons are still snapped up abroad before they come into service at home.
"The first buyer for the modernized MiG-29 (fighter) is Yemen and the second is Eritrea," said Ruslan Pukhov, director of Moscow's Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.
Defense experts say that apart from Moscow's strategic nuclear forces, which were relatively well-funded in the 1990s, most of the military needs to overcome years of neglect.
Russia has started an eight-year $189 billion program to replace nearly half of existing military hardware by 2015, including modern Topol-M missiles, missile-carrying aircraft, motor vehicles and ships, according to official information.
But Yevgeny Bendersky, a senior analyst with the privately-funded Power and Interest News Report in Washington said the impressive-sounding defense spending masked deficiencies on other fronts, such as the quality of manpower.
It also helped to hide Russia's domestic social problems.
"What we are seeing now is a pattern very similar to the Soviet Union," he added. "Outwardly Russia seems very strong, especially in the field of energy, but inwardly it's not — the gap is widening between the rich and the poor, the situation in the countryside is terrible".
EYE ON ELECTIONS
Political and defense analysts say Putin's bold statements may be aimed at impressing voters before presidential and parliamentary elections in the coming months.
"Putin is grandstanding," agreed Giles Merritt, director of the Brussels think-tank Security and defense Agenda.
"A lot of their stances are directed at making people sit up and say Russia is really a great power without having any specific aims in mind."
The Kremlin says its military build-up should not worry anyone. Russia's 2007/8 defense budget is half that of Britain's and less than one-tenth of the United States', it says.
"The change in Russian military spending is insignificant compared with the military build-up of the United States or Great Britain," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
"We had quite a long period of underfunding of military programs…and of course it has to be compensated. Everything is gradually returning to normal."
Felstead of Jane's defense Weekly said the West's biggest headache might not be Russia's armed forces but some of their overseas customers like Iran, Venezuela or Syria.
"Russia still has certain key technologies which we don't have in the West," he said. "If the latest air defense systems find their way from the former Soviet Union to places like Iran, this could have a big impact."
Arie —
You said "You can start with answering the question I asked you – and offering me an apology".
I haven't seen the question, and if I was wrong about you I am certainly sorry. The reasons I had doubts about you were
1- Some of your posts were terribly long and hard even to scroll past.
2 – I found it hard to believe your claim of missing the fact that one of the posts was satirical.
Confusing that satirical piece by Taki was a real boner Arie. You may need to cut Paul E some slack on that one. If I didn't know you any better I'd have thought you were a wingnut with that post.
Paul E – Arie is one of the grown ups here.
Paul E. to refresh your memory, this was the original question:
"Paul E. could perhaps kindly inform me what exactly I am supposed to be wrecking.
He doesn't know 'what to make of me' – well, the feeling is mutual.
But if he is really curious he can perhaps start by googling on my name.
Or he can try this link
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:x–Yh62MBvcJ:webdiary.com.au/cms/%3Fq%3Dnode/805+Arie-Brand+olive-branch&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ph
where he can find me right under the introductory item ("Danby MP versus Melbourne University Press").
And seeing that I have similar difficulties with Paul E. (without blurting them out on this site)he could perhaps provide me with some links to his persona."
The apology would be in place for virtually accusing me of copying some stuff and then deliberately disabling the link to it to hide the fact.
If it was the alleged length of my posts that was troubling you there would have been far more likely targets.
So, if you can take time off from treating us to your undergraduate notions on Freud, from your old-womanish meddling with how others should present themselves (Pearlman, Martillo), from the gossiping behind your hand, ignoring the fact that you are in a public space, if you can time off from all that,I say, you might answer my question and offer me an apology.
Having done that you might start actually contributing to the topics on this blog. I haven't noticed you doing that thus far.
I have translated the review of Mearsheimer and Walt that appeared in the French political-literary journal La Republique des Lettres on yesterday, the fourth of September. Where it has quotes from the book I have just translated these back into English (I haven’t got hold of the book yet). The Eliot Cohen quote is identical to his statement in the Washington Post.
Le lobby pro-israélien et la politique étrangère américaine (the title under which the book was published in France A.B.) deals with a subject that is totally taboo in the United States, that of the influence of pro-Israel lobby groups on American foreign policy in the Middle East and the Arab countries. It is the work of two eminent American academics: John J.Mearsheimer, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Chicago (and the author of among other things The tragedy of Great Power Politics) and Stephen M.Walt, director of studies and emeritus professor of international relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (and the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy).
The two political scientists demonstrate in this precise and extremely well documented book that Israel is the country that has, since the Second World War, most benefited from American economic, military and diplomatic aid. The Hebrew State has been greatly and systematically favored, supported and defended by Uncle Sam, even on sensitive matters such as for instance the illegal development of nuclear weaponry, the colonization of Palestinian territories or the violation of human rights.
In fact the United States has since 1972 vetoed 42 resolutions of the UN Security Council that criticized Israeli policy, including those dealing with crimes against humanity or war crimes, without counting numerous other resolutions that were weakened in order to avoid that Israel, which multiplies in all possible ways its violations of international law without being bothered about it, would be indicted. And each year Israel, that is presently an industrial country as prosperous as Spain, receives, by itself, more than one fifth of the foreign aid of the US (that is about 500 dollars per each Israeli per year), to which are added a very important supply of weapons and military assistance, in close collaboration between the Pentagon and the Tsahal.
More radically, the authors assert, among other things, that George Bush entered into a war with the Iraq of Saddam Hussein at the request of Ariel Sharon and his confidants at the Pentagon such as Paul Wolfowitz, though this was not the only factor, and that Al Queda is in origin a combined emanation of the Israeli and American secret services. The same holds for conflicts such as the recent war in Lebanon or the threats of nuclear war with Iran which, under cover of the struggle against Islamic terrorism, are the results of the disastrous common policy of the Israelis and Americans. The researchers do finally not hesitate to denounce the great American media for their partiality in favor of Israel, which holds for journals or television channels of all political sides.
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer are resolutely taking a realist point of view by judging that the Jewish state is more of a burden than a strategical trump card, because its zealous protection by Washington, even to the extent of compromising the security of all western countries, is extremely dangerous, politically counter-productive, and strategically fatal, for the national interest of the United States as well as that of Israel and for world peace. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know the opinion of the very Atlanticist and very pro-Israel Nicolas Sarkozy, Bush’s new European ‘poodle’, and his minister of external affairs, Bernard Kouchner, who go straight at their goal of aligning the foreign policy of France with that of the United States.
The unfailing and unreasonable protection of Israel by the United States cannot be explained, say the authors, from a common strategic interest or from moral imperatives. The authors show clearly, with supporting arguments and incontestable numbers and documents, that a powerful pro-Israel lobby – notably represented by the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC, with a hundred thousand active members), some other right wing Jewish organizations and influential think tanks such as the Brooking Institute among others – exercise a considerable interest in all sectors, from the administration to the media and right through to the universities, and work actively at orienting American foreign policy.
This lobby is supported by numerous neo-conservatives and fundamentalist evangelical Christians – such as the United Christians for Israel (for whom the ‘rebirth’ of Israel is in a biblical plan) and all the fervent Zionists who are amply represented in the Bush administration. Mearsheimer and Walt judge, in fact, that if it were not for the sacrosanct security of Jerusalem, the America of George W.Bush wouldn’t today be so exposed to the terrorist threat from Syria, Iraq or Iran. “Israel doesn’t have the strategic weight that the United States gives it. Israel could have had strategic importance during the Cold War, but it has increasingly become a handicap now the Cold War is over.” They add that “the unconditional support of Israel has reinforced anti-Americanism throughout the world, weakened the ties with the European allies, and those with the Middle East and Asia”. In conclusion they recommend a radical change in the policy towards Israel.
Walt and Mearsheimer’s thesis presents hardly new elements for the observers of American foreign policy, the reality of the numbers and the documents is difficult to deny. It has however not escaped from a violent wave of hostile reactions and hateful comments in the media, not to talk of ‘punishments’ (Stephen Walt had, for instance, to give up his Deanship). This polemic has no doubt to do with the fact that we are not dealing here with a simple anti-Israel pamphlet but a serious political essay, composed by American intellectuals and serious scholars of these matters in prestigious universities. The article that was at the origin of this book, that originally was supposed to be published in the American journal Atlantic Monthly that had commissioned it in 2002, got refused by all American journals when they became aware of its design.
It was published for a few days on the web site of the Faculty of Law at Harvard but was hastily withdrawn under pressure from donators and sponsors of the university. It was finally the London Review of Books, the venerable intellectual and political British review that is read by the enlightened liberal intelligentsia that had the courage to publish an abridged form of the essay in the spring of 2006, provoking an enormous outcry. There is no American editorialist, from the Los Angeles Times to the Washington Post, and from the New York Times to the New Republic, without even talking of the virulent Daniel Pipes who spreads his Zionist propaganda through all the neo-conservative media, who hasn’t taken a position, mostly to condemn it in a contemptuous fashion and to accuse the authors of anti-Semitism if not of outright dementia. Some went as far as talking of new Protocols of the Elders of Zion, referring thereby to the famous anti-Semitic forgery.
Generally, most of the press comments did not deal with the questions raised in the article but with Mearsheimer and Walt’s ‘intentions’. The tone of the press was overall that employed by Eliot Cohen in the Washington Post: “If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information — why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.”
As recent as last month, when they were scheduled to talk at the Chicago Global Affairs Council, the meeting with Walt and Mearsheimer was cancelled at the last moment to ‘protect the institution’. Certain courageous critics, such as David Remnick in the New York Times, have however voiced the opinion that there is no reason for shouting about anti-Semitism and that a debate about this topic is necessary, even though it is improbable that it will take place during the present electoral campaign for the American presidency.
By breaking the taboo on the Israeli-American alliance, the two intellectuals have taken the risk of seeing their careers and reputation being shattered by the pressure groups they have denounced. They deplore the impossibility of debating American-Israeli relations that nevertheless constitute an important aspect of the foreign relations of the supreme global power, without being systematically weakened through being stamped an anti-Semite or a renegade Jew. “We are not developing an extremist position. Our book does not put into question Israel’s right to exist and does not picture pro-Israel groups as part of a conspiracy that controls the foreign policy of the United States. It describes, on the contrary, these groups and individuals –Jews and non-Jews – as an interest group of which the activities are not very different from those of the gun lobby, the agricultural lobby or other ethnic lobbies.”
One bit of my post against Paul E.should have read 'take time off' instead of 'time off'. But I have a hunch that that will not be his main trouble with my post.
If he wants my answer to his reaction he will have to wait for a while.
Thanks a lot for that translation, Arie. Who was the author?
The journal is edited by a certain Noel Blandin, David. But I couldn't discover an author for this particular piece. All their contributions seem to be anonymous, like that used to be the case with the Times Literary Supplement.
Catcher:
My loyalty is never to a country or a people or a government.
My loyalty is to noble and just ideas and the epitomy of such is a US Constitution, which is why I became a US citizen. If the Oath would include any mention of loyalty to the government or even the country itself, I would never have taken it.
As it said in the Oath, "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Interestingly, while preparing myself for taking the Oath and checking if I can truly take it "without reservations" I, to my great surprise found that the Pledge of Allegiance that every American recites many time at school is concerned with the "flag of the US and the Republic for which it stands" – i.e the State and not the Constitution! So we, naturalized Americans, have our loyalties pledged, like Presidents and other oathed public office holders, to the Constitution, while born-Americans have their loyalty pledged to State!
An interesting situation with far-reaching consequences if people would take their own pledges and Oaths really seriously.
One of my key objections to the Walt-Mearsheimer comments is that it is applied here and elsewhere as exactly what it criticizes, as a circling of the wagons to discredit criticism.
Mearsheimer and Walt deserve to be criticized. Their work (I read the LRB article but not this book) was trivial in its conclusions and method of forming them.
But abusive in its inferences.
An inference is always structured/designed to evoke and "over-reaction". That is why the rabid right and the rabid right use the phrase "what else could it be?" that gullible people buy.
Like Phil uses provocative headlines to solicit attention, Walt and Mearsheimer use a provocative title "THE Israel Lobby", but then later claim that they are not provoking, not inferring, not editorializing, but only analyzing, "realistically" (implying that "realism" is a single valid conclusion, not unlike rabid religious groups exagerate a claim to authoritative "truth" – rather than impression or interpretation.)
Richard Witty:
"THE Israel Lobby"! "THE"! Bastards!
But if they would have use "An Israel Lobby" – then you would not object, right?
Phil – I think you're wrong about us progressive Jews not criticizing right wing Jews. We do quite vociferously in many venues. They are still intitled to an opinion, and while I think their analysis is wrong, I don't attribute to them nefarious intentions as you and many of your commenters seem to. What really differentiates them from their non-jewish colleagues anyways? That they care about Israel? Many non-Jews care about Israel and are alarmed at the rise in radical Islamic fundamentalism. The US needs to put more pressure on both the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to an agreement that recognizes the rights and needs of both people. All this paranoia about American Jews is based on a very restricted view of American Jewry.
Apologies for the spelling and grammatical errors above. I'm typing on the train and my stop is coming up…
Your analogy is simply a mound of "meadow muffins."
"But if they would have use "An Israel Lobby" – then you would not object, right?"
Genius! And funny, too!
Mr. Witty, I urge you to read Tony Karon's "Mearsheimer, Walt and the Erudite Hysteria of David Remnick" for an explanation of why the concept of being a "liberal zionist" is an oxymoron.
http://tonykaron.com/
Not an oxymoron. Zionism, the desire for a Jewish homeland, is noble. The problem was the people who were on the land, plainly. There was insufficient accomadation, apparently.
The formation of the state of Israel I consider as an act of far-sighted, global "eminent domain." It was accomplished by the 2 principal powers at the time, acting as a de facto global government. However, there does not seem to have been adequate recompense for the displaced. Ancient animosities have, tragically for both sides, blossomed anew, after quietly germinating in the desert all those centuries.
typical Jew Alex. No loyalty to any state. And you wonder why you're not trusted.
"the desire for a Jewish homeland, is noble"
Yes, indeed, in theory. In practice, however, to realize it necessitated some not so noble ethnic cleansing.
Communism, in theory, is noble, too. Similarly, in practice, it was a moral catastrophe.
Ideologies are dangerous. Adding in elements of religion and race only make them more so.
I'd plump for humanism.
In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites
“>link to boston.com
Same with Iraq, Iran, the Palestinian situation, Hotel David, the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty, US involvement in WWII, Hollywood Babylon, Bratz Dolls (link to ujc.org
the whole neocon experiment, Frankfurt School and critical theory, and, heck why not, the murder of Yeshua. Just because there are Jewish and "Jewish" fingerprints all over the crime scenes doesn't mean we can infer involvement, predisposition, or intent. It's all a conspiracy to stereotype and to bring on that Dark Night that's hovering over America. The People that Shall Dwell Alone sure have a funny way of attaining their precious solitude; seems that their finger is stirring the pot of every society where they settle. Phil calls this a good thing; some others call it Good for the Jews. Let's take a look at the results, shall we?
Zionism is "the desire for a Jewish homeland" in the same sense that bankrobbing is a desire for the finer things in life. It's only true as far as it goes, Richard.
Zionism is the assertion that the Jewish people are in fact a people, and deserve to self-govern.
That is a good, whether you dismiss the good of it as theoretical or conditional.
The Palestinian people are a people similarly, and deserve the right to self-govern.
The fanatic views expressed by whomever are mutually exclusive in form and in practise. They urge physical separation, and where there is not currently physical separation, they urge verbal contempt and violence.
The history supports both victimish narratives. The skill comes in in constructing a narrative that is mutually respectful rather than mutually condemnatory.
That is liberal Zionism. The "we" (and there is no "realism", but in fact differing individual and shared – "we" perspectives) of liberal Zionism asserts that it is the Jewish responsibility to exist as a definitive community, AND to treat one's neighbors kindly and justly.
Liberal Zionists bristle at real abuses of Palestinians, often loudly.
We just don't trivialize our more rabid Zionists' experiences. We identify with them as well, their experience, if not their conclusions as to what to do next, to whom, or why.
In contrast, the anti-Zionist conclusion does deny the existence of the Jewish people to self-govern, to self-determine, and to the extent that anti-Zionism is incorporated into ideology, represents a fascism more than a humanism.
Comparable to the denial of Palestinian community by the pejorative "neo-cons".
Its sad when smart and kind people suppress.
The Walt and Mearscheimer invocation is partially an attempt to dismiss political voice.
I am definitely disturbed by ethical carelessness of using heightened captions or book or article titles to generate interest.
Anybody notice that Finkelstein quit DePaul a couple days ago?
Criticism is of specific cases, analyses. A book titled "The Israel Lobby" is a blunt weapon, an imprecise description.
To a researcher, to be described as generalizing is as bad a criticism as one can get.
In the LRB article by Walt and Mearscheimer, that is exactly what they did.
According the reviews by proponents and opponents of their original expression, the book is really an elaboration and not particularly new.
Ah Cooper – Back so soon?
Would you like us to gather all of those niggers with the kikes or keep them separate on that "dark night". What is most convenient for you?
If you do keep them separate remember to let Alan hang around the edge so he can be close to all those sambos he loves so.
Mr. Witty – Excellent comments, sir.
Can anyone explain what has happened to this thread?
All comments after sept.5 07.56 PM, including Alex's reply to Catcher, my translation of the Walt & Mearsheimer review in La Republique des Lettres and, regrettably, my 'special message' to Paul E., seem to have disappeared – at any case on my computer.
Miracle – I tried several times, via my favorites list, via the website address, through rebooting my computer – nothing helped.
But posting my last message suddenly brought it all back. Never experienced this before.