On March 12, John Mearsheimer went on Philadelphia talk radio to discuss the Israel lobby, as reported here at the time. David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, was on next, and host Dom Giordano asked Mearsheimer to stay and have it out with Harris. Mearsheimer declined, saying that he had "to fly." Since then Harris has said that Mearsheimer ducked a debate
and has challenged him to "an open debate in a mutually agreed-upon
public forum." I emailed Mearsheimer to ask why he had declined to stick around
for Harris. He writes:
I did decline twice to debate David Harris on the Dom Giordano radio
show out of Philadelphia (WPHT) on March 12. But this was hardly a case
of me "running away" from a debate with him. Here is what happened.
On the morning of March 12 (Thursday), Dom
Giordano's producer called me and asked if I would be willing to be on
the show that evening. I had been on once before, and would normally
have said yes, but I said no, because I had to work all day to finish a
piece I was writing for the London Review of Books on the Chas Freeman affair–which LRB had asked for the night before, and which was due first thing Friday morning. So I was
really under the gun and simply had to work all day Thursday on the
piece.
Anyway, after I said I could not do it, Dom Giordano got on the line and pleaded with me and told me that it would be a very
short interview; it would only take 5 minutes or so. I said okay and
told him that he should call me at my office at about 5 pm Chicago
time. He then asked me if I would like to debate David Harris on the
show. I said no, because I did not think that we could have a
meaningful debate in 5 or so minutes on the radio. Dom said fine and I
thought that was the end of it.
The show called me at 5 pm as agreed and I did my interview and
took a call from one listener. As I was about to close out my
discussion with Dom, he asked me if I would like to stay on the line
and debate David Harris, who was going to be his next guest. I told Dom that I couldn't, because "I have to fly."
There was an important reason for this. My wife was taking a class at Northwestern and it
met on Thursday nights. We have two young children (ages
8 and 12) and we don't like to leave them alone. We had worked it out this
time, that my wife would leave at 5 and the kids would be alone for
about 20 to 30 minutes until I got home. (They had my cell number if
there was a problem.) In short, I was primed to leave my office as soon
as the interview with Dom was over and get home quickly to watch the
kids. So, when he asked me to stay longer on the show, I automatically
said no and said that "I have to fly."
As to my willingness to debate Harris, I did not say said that I would
never debate him. I simply said I did not want to debate him in a brief
radio appearance. It was just not the right format. The truth is that I
would love to debate him if we can work out the right format and
location. And I have spoken to Steve Walt, who is enthusiastic about
the idea.
Here is what I propose. Let's have a public debate in New York
City featuring John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt on one side and David
Harris and another heavyweight from the lobby on the other side –
maybe Abe Foxman.
Our only condition is that we will not debate individuals who have called us anti-Semites, for instance Alan Dershowitz.
The topic would be: "Is the Israel Lobby Good for America and Israel?"
We could hold it in a large auditorium at a place like Cooper
Union, the YIVO Institute, or CUNY. I would assume that the AJC could
easily set something like this up, and Steve and I would pay our own
way to New York and back.
I am sure we would have no problem filling the auditorium and I would bet that C-Span would cover it in a second.
In sum, I am not running away from a debate with David Harris. I welcome the idea.
Related posts:
- Who’s running? David Harris of AJC declines to debate Walt and Mearsheimer
- AJC’s David Harris sure seems to be running away from debate with Mearsheimer and Walt
- American Jewish Committee and Mearsheimer agree on debate
- It’s time for Yivo to host a debate with Walt and Mearsheimer
- Mearsheimer: C-Span would cover a debate. Jump up to it, Yivo!
{ 34 comments }
Bring it on!
Fabuloso,
thanks, Phil, that explains why Mearsheimer wasn't his usual relaxed and patient self. I was wondering something was very different, from how I perceived him before.
It was tangible in his voice. Makes sense.
I'd love to see a debate with Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said on one side and all the Lobby people on the other.
Dershowitz/Foxman/etc. Whoever the Zionists think represent them well enough.
It's just too bad Edward Said passed away. He was a great man.
Phil — have Mondoweiss be the presenter . . . Mearsheimer + Walt vs. Harris and Jeffrey Goldberg. Set it up at Fordham Law School in NYC six weeks from today. Let the dialogue commence.
David Harris has been critized for his piece "Durban Diplomacy, Durban Delirium" in a blog of The Jerusalem Post by editor Caroline Glick, "Londistan" author Melanie Phillips and Anne Bayefsky of EYE on the UN organization.
The debate, if it eventuates, could explore these differences re Durban Two.
But do we have to have bombastic, maccabee in the mouth, Foxman?
John
this is exciting! thanks for exploring the idea further phil and i hope you take up a suggestion like 'conscientious Objector's' above…
Why can't the debate be in writing? Why make a spectacle of it? The 'audience effect'has often little to do with the quality of the arguments. Also, when it is in writing things are well and truly on record.
Harris? LOL
Mearsheimer ducked a debate with him?
LOL
No contest.
Phil, follow up on this, pls.
He ducked out on Dershowitz 5 minutes after they were supposed to debate. Now he ran again.
What a coward.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512389
"Dershowitz, who publicly challenged Walt and Mearsheimer to a debate last week, said that Mearsheimer had been scheduled to debate him on the BBC at 10:30 p.m Eastern time Thursday. But Dershowitz said that he received a call at 10:35 p.m. saying that Mearsheimer had cancelled the debate."
I think it should be in person and on camera. Body language and tone of voice can make a huge difference in the impression one makes while presenting an argument. Many people give off 'tells' when they know they are trying to bullshit the audience, especially when their opponents deftly and aggressively call them on it. Let it be open, and bring it on. Written transcripts and Youtube will well and truly put it 'on the record', and open up the debate to more people who cannot or haven't the patience to read.
LD:
"I'd love to see a debate with Chomsky/Finkelstein/Said on one side and all the Lobby people on the other.
Dershowitz/Foxman/etc. Whoever the Zionists think represent them well enough."
You probably don't know but Chomsky and Finkelstein don't buy into M&W lobby theory.
Julian
You needn't feel deprived!
Here's Norman Finkelstein kicking the yellowed dentures out of Dershowitz' Nazi skull:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/6/29/aipac_v_norman_finkelstein_a_debate
I do know.
I didn't specify the subject matter of such a debate. I merely stated who I'd like to see in a match up.
And both of them acknowledge the Lobby. They just differ on how it functions. Chomsky has been talking about the Lobby since (from what I know, and I am sure it's even further back) at least 1992-3.
He said that the American State policy and the interests of the Jewish Establishment collude. It only looks like the Lobby has this crazy amount of power over our foreign policy. Now, they don't dismiss it absolutely BUT they just disagree on degree.
Now, Julian you keep bringing up the Dershowitz debate.
What makes him an authority on this subject, for you? Watch the Chomsky-Dershowitz debate. And actually listen to what they both say and fact-check it.
Specifically, just because someone does not choose to debate someone does not translate to the former FEARING the latter.
It's not simply about the act of debating but the nature of the debate.
As Arie stated, why not written format?
Why make a spectacle out of it? I actually prefer the spectacle WITH substance.
In any case – Mearsh did not run away from Dershowitz. It was about tactics.
Dershowitz is all about theatrics. He shouts opponents down and insults them. Straw mans/etc.
Both Chomsky and Mearsh are soft-spoken and polite. They aren't going to react to Dearsh in such away that they can equalize the the theatrics.
They will rely on logic/substantiated arguments. And as I said, watch the Chomsky debate to see how that goes down.
Personally, I thought it was great. Chomsky destroyed Dersh. Mearsh should just do the debate to shut people like you up who think Brawn vs. Brawn is what debating is all about.
It's about the presentation as much as substance. Sadly, often more about the former.
If there was a moderator that could get Dershowitz to refrain from interruptions and insults then Mearsh has no excuse.
Watch Dersh's debate with Chomsky and also the letters they exchanged throughout the years.
Also, for background on the Finkelstein-Dershowitz affair, read this:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1493
Now, the author – Frank Menetrez does not know Finkelstein personally. He took notice of this conflict and voiced an independent opinion.
Check the facts behind the conflict between the two and judge for yourself.
Carter refused to debate Dershowitz, saying that Dershowitz had absolutely nothing of substance to say on the issue of Israel-Palestine.
In any case, what's the point of debating Dershowitz? He gave his defense of israel in the form of a book. That book was shown to be a fraud from the first page to the last. It was totally demolished BOTH in print, and in on-air debate, where Dershowitz was given opportunity to reply to allegations of massive fraud, deceit and fabrication in his "book" and was unable to do so. the debate has already taken place. Israel lost.
Hmmm? If I listen to it again now, it sounds different. Mearsheimer sounds more calm, but Dom Giordana does sound a lot more impatient, hardly giving the impression of listening but pressing ahead. It's exactly that juxtaposition that produced the impression John Mearsheimer's voice was slightly quivering. But I still hear it although much less, with this information in mind.
The setting (set-up?) has inquisitorial qualities to it.
Thanks, again.
I agree about the moderation comment: If Dershowitz has a mike switched off after his allocated speaking times are up the debate is worth having. Otherwise it is about who shouts louder and who can draw breath mid-sentence.
LD, thanks, I wasn't aware of this second article Frank J. Menetrez on Counterpunch, only of the earlier article.
Frank J. Mentrez: The Case Against Alan Dershowitz
A combination of both is in the updated, 2008 version of Beyond Chutzpa.
LD:
"Now, the author – Frank Menetrez does not know Finkelstein personally. He took notice of this conflict and voiced an independent opinion."
Meneterez is hardly independent. In their correspondence it's "Dear Norm" He can't kiss Finkelstein ass enough. Give me a break.
We should go to Finkelstein's web page read his crap and then make a judgment?
I find Chomsky's take on M&W's thesis interesting.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm
Walt&Mearsheimer, Finkelstein&Chomsky, Massad&Abunimah represent three different understandings of the nature of the Israel Lobby: Ziobots Attacking Walt and Mearsheimer.
"We should go to Finkelstein's web page read his crap and then make a judgment?"
No.
Instead, watch Finkelstein tear Dershowitz' Nazi skull off and shove it up his ass on television!!
Watch the greatest proponent of Israeli Nazism and author of "The Case for Israel" get exposed as a plagiarist and liar.
Then make a judgement.
Julian, they became friends over the course of the correspondence (maybe).
But Frank Menetrez OPENED UP the exchange with the analysis. He did not know Norman beforehand, THAT IS THE POINT.
And like I said, READ the exchange and decide for yourself.
Tell me where Menetrez was biased or unreasonable.
The fact of the matter is – like I said earlier – that he did not know Norman before he conducted his independent investigation.
You're dismissing him entirely because he said "Dear Norm"? How petty. Check the facts for yourself.
I think Walt & Mearsheimer are too polite to debate Dershow, who never forgets to be a lawyer making his job on behalf of his client, Israel.
And Chomsky too. See "Israel & Palestine After Disengagement: Where Do We Go From Here?" (Chomsky and Dershowitz argued on the Israel-Palestine conflict at Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Institute of Politics – JFK Jr. Forum, on November 29, 2005.)
But I remember both Dersh and Martin Indyk ducking at Finkelstein making the point on Democracy Now!
As long as a moderator can keep Dershowitz's interruptions under control, anyone can debate him.
Let him insult and employ any number of logical fallacies. Just keep him from interrupting the other speaker from their allotted time.
Leander, please stop saying "hmmm?" in that irritating way.
What's the point of Phil debating anyone – except to sell his next book.
This is a money-making ploy by Phil – he's a bit like Ann Coulter – take a crazy, radical stance on an issue – like Israel doesn't deserve to be a State – and start selling books to the loonies. Demand proportionality from the Israelis, but don't ever have a sense of proportion in your attacks on Israel's right to defend itself or the Palestinian's excesses in the murder department.
Play up all of the rumors of misconduct shoddily "reported" by Ha'Aretz/AP and state them as fact, even though they are hearsay and none of the speakers witnessed the "events" first-hand.
Then, join forces with Pat Buchanan by publishing in his magazine, which appears to be an Israel-hating, anti-abortionist, homophobic and right-wing rag. Throw all of the rest of liberalism under the bus so that you can co-opt the America Firsters stance on Anti-Zionism.
Then sell books.
Fenton, did you even read the entry?
Moron.
Harry,
As long time editor of The American Conservative, I'd say your characterization is either wildly mistaken or completely dishonest. For the record, it's not Pat Buchanan's magazine; Ron Unz is the publisher and majority owner. Pat did have a share in it for a while, and wrote some important pieces for it. Including prescient beforwe the fact denunciations of the Iraq war, which I'm sure you wouldn't have liked. But, please, Harry, give me an example of homophobic, or even "Israel hating.' (TAC isn't very enthusiastic about the current relationship between Israel and the US, and does favor a two state solution, with a viable Palestinian state.) And yes, we do oppose abortion, though probably have published a good deal less about it than many pro-lifers would want. So I suppose "anti-abortionist" is correct. "Rag"–compared to the pro war mags, NR, Weekly Standard, TNR, TAC will be vindicated by history.
scott – remember words coming from harry fenton, are like a view looking out of the sewer trying to get a glimpse of what is going on at ground level… his vision is skewed…. everything is israel hating, homophobic etc according to these rabid far right neo con fanatics when they are challenged on their bs…
yeah, harry fenton is such an ethnic, he has to get his handle from star trek.
I think as long as the pro-Zionist side actually debates and not just shouts (à la Dershowitz), it will definitely be a learning experience.
If only Lance would stop shouting.
Anyone have a link for the Chomsky-Dershowitz debate of which you speak?
Comments on this entry are closed.