In 2006 Dershowitz accused Walt and Mearsheimer of being antisemites. He wrote that their landmark paper on the Israel lobby, which could only be printed in England, recycled the "blood libel" and other canards and was giving an imprimatur to "bigotry." He said that their arguments came from "hate sites" and they aimed to limit the hiring of Jews as Congressional staffers. Meantime, in the Washington Post Dana Milbank said that Walt and Mearsheimer were blue-eyed men with white knuckles and Germanic names--all but accusing them of being Nazis. And Jeffrey Goldberg in the New Republic and on the stage at Yivo said that they were antisemitic.
Now when Chas Freeman, whose criticisms of Israel and the lobby are generally more blunt than Walt and Mearsheimer's, first obtains a presidential appointment, and then loses it, Dershowitz doesn't use the words bigotry or antisemitism at all in his attack on Freeman. He calls Freeman a "zealot" and an ideologue, etc., but he doesn't accuse him of antisemitism. That same piece mentions Stephen Walt, but Walt is no longer denounced as a bigot. Now Walt is merely "discredited," Dershowitz says. In Jeffrey Goldberg's attacks on Chas Freeman at his blog, the ones I read anyway, he did not accuse him of hating Jews, but of bias against Israel.
Here's my point. The Israel lobby and its exponents used to say that sharp criticism of Israel equals anti-semitism. The American Jewish Committee said so, and maybe they actually believed that. (Now the AJC merely says that Freeman is "nefarious"). But the exponents smeared Israel's critics in this manner because they were engaged in a power struggle and the charge of antisemitism carries real obloquy, and they did not want Walt and Mearsheimer and others of their ilk to gain any traction.
That line of defense has plainly failed. Freeman was chosen by the Obama administration; and the lobby respects power. The theory of the Israel lobby is being debated, somewhat, on the front pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times. Forced to publish in England three years ago, Steve Walt now has a blog at Foreign Policy. And even in going down, Chas Freeman was cheered on by many people. He touched a nerve that he first described in an interview in 1995, a fact that many supporters of Israel are aware of:
The purpose of the Israel lobby is to keep those enemies in the closet, often by threat. Now that the enemies are starting to defy the threats and come out of the closet (come out, more of you, please!) and on to the front pages, with more and more people paying attention, the lobby understands that the anti-semite smear doesn't work and is actually engaging more in civilized argument. Progress.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/03/12/jeffrey-goldberg-says-who-me/
Jeffrey Goldberg in the post referenced above gets upset when I, perhaps too flippantly, suggested he would soon be calling Patrick Leahy an anti-Semite for his comments re the Irish and the Palestinians. So, this pulling back from earlier rhetoric on the part of Dersh and others –like Jeffrey–a good sign. Not sure if it will make much of a difference– they'll still may get the war they want with Iran.
Read Weiss' words carefully:
"Israel has many, many, I would say, clandestine, closet enemies in Washington, because it tends to get what it wants by the exercise of raw political power and threats….Now that the enemies are starting to defy the threats and come out of the closet (come out, more of you, please!) and on to the front pages…"
Please observe that Weiss is calling on the enemies of Israel to come out of the closet. He is not talking about friends of Israel who are critical of some policy, but enemies. The primary definition of the word "enemy" from the dictionary is, "1. a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent."
So I understand where Weiss is coming from. Those who care about the future existance of Israel should take careful note
Phil:
This is very important. The lobby has already shifted the goal posts. There is now reference on the internet by Pro-Israeli websites to something called the Anti-Israeli Lobby. Glenn Greenwald did an interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday, and afterwards, he had on some shill that refuted Greenwald. All of a sudden, out of the blue, they begin talking about the "Anti-Israel Lobby", and asking each other if it has gone too far in attaching itself to Freeman.
I then looked on the news and googled Anti-Israel lobby. There are already quite a few hits, linking to the Weekly Standard and the New Republic.
It's a smart move by them– they will demonize us by arguing that there is a well-paid group, connected possibly to the Arabs I guess, that is the anti-Israel lobby. I think ultimately this tack will backfire on them, because they will have to point to nefarious foreign origins for such a lobby, and people will immediately begin to wonder about their own foreign connections. Also, there is the fact that believe it or not, we ultimately do need Saudi and the Arabs a lot more than we need Israel, because of the simple fact that the Arabs actually produce a product that the entire world needs, whereas Israel produces virtually no products that can't be produced elsewhere.
Look out for references to an "anti-Israel Lobby." Its coming to a theater near you.
Elliot,
I read Phil's words carefully and your claim is wrong. Phil asks enemies of the Israel Lobby to come out of the closet, not enemies of Israel as you claim. Is it perhaps that you believe Israel and the Israel Lobby are one and the same?
So what if Dershowitz doesn't call Freeman an "anti-Semite?" Instead he chooses a more circuitous route to American hearts arguing that "Those who successfully challenged the nomination of Charles W. Freeman…should be praised for an act of high patriotism." By choosing "those" rather than "we" he simultaneously praises himself and his cohorts in chicanery and denigrates Freeman's supporters as unpatriotic. A single word and he's off to the races. The Huffington Post took the bait and titled his polemic "Defeating Freeman: A Patriotic Duty."(3.13.09)
Dershowitz didn't have to go to Harvard to play this game. He learned from rabbinical commentary on the "four questions" asked during the Passover Seder. They distinquish the "good" son from the "bad" son by his use of "we" and "you." The former connects himself to Jewish history, while the latter distances himself from the past–as an observer.
Dershowitz has learned. He doesn't call for leveling Palestinian towns in response to suicide bombings on buses anymore either.
Walt/Mearsheimer's thesis still skirts the range of anti-semitism, in the invokation of anti-semitic themes "Jews control the media", "Jews control finance", "Jews exert undo influence by their counsel to government".
By your definition of "dual loyalty", most Jews would be excluded from public office. Is that your intent with regard to Chuck Shumer, say? I know that you advocated by character assassination for Rahm Emanuel to be excluded from consideration from his post.
I don't get the hypocrisy of the left that regards it as appropriate to engage in character assassination for their causes, but condemns an organized campaign to cause doubt when it is in behalf of someone's belief that they are helping Israel, and with a very blunt instrument (in the name of opposing collective punishment).
If you wish to stop character assassination as a means, then start with yourself.
It isn't "Jews", Richard…it's Zionist Jews who put the needs of Israel above those of their country (in the politician's case – the one's whose oath of office states their primary loyalty to…but I guess those are just 'words'). As those here have indicated time and again, there are scores of "Jews" who exhibit humanist universalist values that we would support without hesitation.
I think it clear by the actions of many Zionist Jews, that dual loyalty is an issue. If staunch Zionism is such a defensible position, then Schumer and others can come out and define their stance. It is helpful to know if a politician is pro or con gay rights, abortion rights, 1st and 2nd Amendment, church/state separation, etc…. so US citizens can be told at what level of importance US politicians put support of current Israeli policies, warts and all. I for one would like to know if the vague and nebulous phrase, 'support of Israel,' means turning a blind eye to each and every murderous, and illegal, and unethical action they take.
And Zionist Jews are quite capable of playing the '180 rule' to their benefit so they invoke "the anti-Israel Lobby" (while at the same time bemoaning 'conspiracy' theories), itself a misnomer as it equates rejection of Israel's actions in thwarting a peace process with being against Israel. I guess not letting your child have everything he or she wants as 'anti-child' too. And if your child threatens to accuse you of abuse if it doesn't get what it wants, well that's just good gamesmanship, huh?
"By your definition of "dual loyalty", most Jews would be excluded from public office."
People who have more loyalty to a foreign power than they do the United States should be excluded from public office.