Tonight Walt and Mearsheimer appeared with honor at the London School of Economics. It is reported that in the next couple days they will be speaking at the House of Lords and at Chatham House–the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Garlanded in England, the scholars are pilloried in the U.S. Trashed at Yivo Institute last night, trashed by Chatham’s House’s American equivalent: the Council on Foreign Relations.
This is simply tragic. It is now evident that mainstream institutions in the U.S. are determined to deny these men a platform. The Council on Foreign Relations should be hosting a debate. So should Yivo. ‘60 Minutes’ tough producers should be challenging the authors on facts and personal background. The Times should be having a roundtable. But no, all are afraid of their ideas. So our mainstream institutions willfully divorce themselves from reality.
(Why Do They Hate Us? On his blog, Marty Peretz, who kicked off last night’s bashing session in Manhattan, calls Palestine (and by implication its people) "a small glob of land" –that’s scatological–and says Jordan should take it over. Peretz also champions the "incorporation into the Jewish State" of Area E, a huge tract of land east of Jerusalem, whose annexation would only immortalize the fragmentation of the West Bank into bantustans, north and south and East Jerusalem.)
Related posts:
- YIVO Stages Event on Walt/Mearsheimer; Can Jewish Institutions See Israel As Others See Israel?
- Yivo Owes Walt and Mearsheimer an Apology. Or a Stage
- Elite Opinion vs. Populists; CFR Veers on Walt & Mearsheimer
- It’s time for Yivo to host a debate with Walt and Mearsheimer
- Peretz Says NIE Shocker Re Iran Was Enabled by… Walt & Mearsheimer
{ 25 comments }
Antony Loewenstein reviews the book in the country with probably the second-strongest Israel lobby, Australia–
http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2007/11/07/academics-expand-israel-lobby-case/
From the American Prospect.
I posted the URL from this on another thread.
Missing the Conversation About the Israel Lobby
Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby lacks scholarly thoroughness — and misses the debate among Jews over Israel.
Gershom Gorenberg | November 6, 2007 | web only
After giving a lecture in San Francisco, I drove to a friend's house where I'd arranged to pick up a copy of The Israel Lobby during my swing through the States. Curiously, it took just a few pages of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's book to induce the disjointed feeling I usually get from reading an all-out defense of Israeli policy from precisely the right-wing Jewish groups they find so pernicious: I recognize dates, main events, sources of information, yet they are put together to create a world wildly simpler than the one in which I live — an alternate reality neat and devoid of complexity, as if late at night I'd accidentally entered a subdevelopment's model home instead of my family's house down the street. The floor plan is the same, but the mess of being lived in is missing
By urgint that "The Israel Lobby" is your primary basis of dissent, in many ways you end up HINDERING convincing dissent.
The above is pure Zionist propaganda posted against Mearsheimer and Walt intended to distract from the truth conveyed in their excellent book (see http://www.israellobbybook.com) about the war for Israel agenda in Iraq which is about to be expanded to Iran before long. See the following Dutch documentary (in English) about AIPAC for comments by former Colin Powell assistant Lawrence Wilkerson (note the mention by Colin Powell's former assistant Lawrence Wilkerson near the end of the following documentary about WW 3 if Iran is attacked next – for Israel):
AIPAC's Push for War with Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6SQ02gqqao
Colonel Wilkerson mentioned in the following article as well:
Teflon Alliance with Israel:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=79679
Comments for USA Today correspondent Barbara Slavin (who has the new book out about Iran) are included via the following link from http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com
Re: AIPAC is Pushing US to War with Iran for Israel (see the Scott Ritter youtubes in the comments section for how he mentioned AIPAC and that nukes might be used on Iran as well):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
'Invade and Bomb With Hillary and Rahm'
Why war with Iran is likely
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11846
AIPAC, Espionage, and Legal Sabotage
Has the AIPAC spy trial been derailed?
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11856
More on Mearsheimer/Walt:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800
A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=61128
CBS '60 Minutes' refusing to cover Mearsheimer/Walt book:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=77703
Yes, by essentially labeling Lobby lapdog Marty Peretz a shameless Zionist hack, Philip, you are just relegating yourself to the tiniest minority of marginal, all-but-ignored political opinionaters, like Matt Yglesias, Spencer Ackerman (who both worked for Marty), Eric Alterman, Ezra Klein, Roger Ailes (the good one), and maybe a few dozen others.
You're really going off the deep end, Phil. I'm concerned for you.
Phil, I am really, truly concerned for you. You have a very worrisome condition, and I just want to help you with it.
You seem unable to resist the lure of simple answers, despite obviously complex problems.
The other day I heard you told somebody that the solution to global warming was massive investment in air conditioning. Phil, that's really over-simplifying it. (But I used to combust massive quantities of organic matter and exhale it into the atmosphere as part of my daily routine, so I am not going to lecture you, Phil, on that.)
The Palestinian problem is a complex one. All of your posts treat this as a black and white issues, as if Palestinians either have human rights, or don't. That is really over-simplifying it. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities, Philip.
It's just not that simple.
I am very comfortable with the slogan, "Never again." Never again will I let this complex problem, demanding analysis of many different contexts, to be answered in a simple, essentialist way. Never again will I allow the notion that Palestinians are a people and they deserve a future better than Ariel Sharon's Bantuplan, go unchallenged.
Now, I have spoken out against the war in Iran, in fact I am one of its principal critics. But I also believe that Tipzi Levni's statement that Iran presents no risk to Israel must be seen for the multiple shades of gray that permeate it. "Iran" could mean the national football club, for instance. We just don't know.
I'm going to go get my milk out of the microwave now, I think it's boiling.
You can't tell a fanatic to not be a fanatic.
Three components of political sobriety (in contrast to fanaticism).
1. Kindness
2. Reason
3. Acceptance
Richard, I think you've confused politics with dinner parties.
When blood is being spilt, in such great volume, on a daily basis, without any end in sight, to the tune of billions of soon-to-be-worthless dollars, the appropriate volume is loud, the appropriate tone is hostile, and the appropriate action is unrelenting, uncompromising resistance.
You, Mr. Witty, are just in the way. You ought to go drink your milk.
"When blood is being spilt, in such great volume, on a daily basis, without any end in sight, to the tune of billions of soon-to-be-worthless dollars, the appropriate volume is loud, the appropriate tone is hostile, and the appropriate action is unrelenting, uncompromising resistance."
We differ then. I believe that ONLY reason, kindness and acceptance are valid and sustaining means of political process.
By your logic, you would be LOUD all the time, and for thousands of years.
Hard to know what you advocate FOR.
Simple: UN Dec of Human Rights. For everyone. Everywhere. And to the extent that my tax dollars subsidize the violation of those rights, I am for an immediate end to that policy.
Domestic politics are hardly governed by the same sort of diplomatic code to which you seem to be alluding. But you knew that, if you thought for a second. No one cares the supposed standards to which you limit your
discourse, because you don't demonstrate any integrity to begin with.
In fact, you are pushing "kindness," "acceptance," "context," and all your other distracting bullshit, because you are content with the status quo (of endless, unconditional material support and apologia for Israel's transgressions), while Philip, god bless him, apparently is not.
Are these items present in Gaza?
1. Kindness
2. Reason
3. Acceptance
If so, why do Refuseniks exist?
"In fact, you are pushing "kindness," "acceptance," "context," and all your other distracting bullshit, because you are content with the status quo (of endless, unconditional material support and apologia for Israel's transgressions), while Philip, god bless him, apparently is not."
Actually, you are ignorant as to what I push for.
I am committed to a two-state solution, as I've spoken here, at approximately the green line (borders determined by mutual consent).
That puts me to the left of labor.
But, I am a Zionist in the sense that the Jewish people are a people, and deserve to self-govern, and in the land Israel.
History does not afford the view "what have we done to deserve losing our land".
Otherwise, you will be raging about events two, three (you are), or thirty or a thousand generations ago.
The liberal view is a better one. Constructive dissent.
"…'Iran' could mean the national football club, for instance. We just don't know…"
ROTFL (Rolling on the floor laughing)
"In fact, you are pushing 'kindness,' 'acceptance,' 'context,' and all your other distracting bullshit, because you are content with the status quo"
Witty is exploiting the christian character of the nation he is betraying. Like a parasite in search for a soft spot to penetrate he talks about acceptance on behalf of the racist, about kindness on behalf of the violent and about reason on behalf of the religious bigot. Witty is buying time for his fellow zionists and he does this by means of creating moral doubt. It is an efficient method, because americans are indeed under the guilty spell that makes them unable to understand the meaning of justice.
"I believe that ONLY reason, kindness and acceptance are valid and sustaining means of political process."
And yet the only "reason' why there is this 'kind acceptance' of your zionist betrayal is the sustaining influx of jewish money into the american political process.
Its actually not moral doubt, but moral foundation.
Hard to know why you are so viciously personal in your comments.
I understand why you would stay conveniently anonymous though, as devoid of credibility as it is.
You are not "Publius".
"I am committed to a two-state solution, as I've spoken here, at approximately the green line (borders determined by mutual consent)."
Agree, providing there is a deadline for the mutal consent agreement, enforced by penalties, such as withdrawel of foreign aid, and if no agreement by said deadline, enforcement of the borders before the 1967 war.
"But, I am a Zionist in the sense that the Jewish people are a people, and deserve to self-govern, and in the land Israel."
Agree, the land Israel being determined as above.
"History does not afford the view 'what have we done to deserve losing our land.'"
Agree:
"Otherwise, you will be raging about events two, three (you are), or thirty or a thousand generations ago."
Witty, whinning about the self-evident lack of credibility in an anonymous poster is pathetic. Just ignore my comments, I have no need of your attention. As I told you before I do not talk to you, I talk about you in a solitary anonymous way. That's considered a normal behaviour here in Arkham Asylum where I dwell. Your behaviour would also be considered quite normal round here. In fact my buddy Harvey Dent is a fan of yours.
"You are not 'Publius'."
But you may call me Publicola.
A prophet is hated in his own land.
Anonymous has got Witty cold.
"Anonymous has got Witty cold."
Well, perhaps he should be left that way. Revivify him and he starts spouting the same stuff about his humanity, tolerance and kindness, qualities the absence of which in Israel's dealings with the Palestinians he never seems to have noticed.
Why I have noticed those qualities in abundance all over the Zionist community, and my son noticed the same in Israel in person, on his birthright program trip (not some propaganda junket).
U.K. audio/video:
1. Mearsheimer/Walt, Michael Cox (LSE, London, November 27 2007, 6-7:30pm), LSE audio {1:30:10, 20.6mb.mp3}:
http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/publicLecturesAndEvents/20071106_1830_theIsraelLobbyAndUSForeignPolicy.mp3
source: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEPublicLecturesAndEvents/events/2007/20070906t0821z001.htm
2. Mearsheimer/Walt, David Cesarani, Aaron David Miller (Channel 4 News, London, November 6 2007, 7-8pm, and More4 News, 8-8:30pm), C4TV video, "How kosher is US foreign policy?":
http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=10022
{5:48, 17mb.wmv}:
mms://a1467.v154785.c15478.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1467/15478/v0004/origin.channel4.com/news/2007/11/06_israellobbyM4.wmv
source: http://www.channel4.com/news/watchlisten/video/day.jsp?date=06_Nov_2007
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/lobbying+foreign+policy/1013857
speaking of fanatics…michael scheurr ex cia has this to say today over at antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11871
Finally, I wish to directly refute Mr. Schoenfeld's claim that I "cast aspersions on American Jews." I do not cast aspersions, I forthrightly damn, and pray that God damns, any American – Jew, Catholic, Evangelical, Irish, German, Hindu, hermaphrodite, thespian, or otherwise – who flogs the insane idea that American and Israeli interests are one and the same. The nation-state of Israel is an intolerable burden to the treasury and security of the United States, and Washington's current relationship with Israel – sanctioned by the AIPAC-funded political leaders of both parties – is one of several factors that are leading to full-scale American participation in other peoples' religious wars, religious wars that David Horowitz's recent "Islamofascist Awareness Week" manifestly wants to bring to the streets of the United States.
what is really amazing in all of this to me, is how the ultra zionist or israels apologist continnue to drone the party line even as the momentum Against them and their movement grows. what Arrogance on the part of the dershowitzians, you all seem to be cut from the same cloth.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve America and israel.
Thanks for those links to the UK appearances, CJ Harwood.
BTW, that's an impressive collection of responses to M&W that you've gathered at your site–
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/israel-lobby-2007.html
I've been monitoring the media too, but I don't think I have much to add to your list. What you have there could someday become a potentially very interesting study of media response to a controversial subject.
Dear Sir,
the political attache of Israel in Poland has uttered a threat against Germany that it will not be allowd to stand at the sidelines in the coming war against IRAN
(see "Haaretz" of Nov. 2, 2007).
Also a reader wrote that the bossess of 1, 700 businesses will be killed, if Germany does not help Isreal.
Comments on this entry are closed.