John Mearsheimer writes:
I saw your posting titled: "AJC's David Harris sure seems to be running away from debate with Mearsheimer and Walt."
I am pleased to say that I do not think that is the case.
Ben Cohen, who is the AJC's Associate Director for Communications, sent me and Steve [Walt] an e-mail yesterday morning (April 2) saying that he had been made aware of my proposal for a debate via your blog and that if we were interested in exploring the possibility of a public debate with David Harris and a colleague, we should contact him.
I tried to contact Mr. Cohen yesterday afternoon to tell him that Steve and I would like very much to do the debate, but we ended up playing telephone tag.
We talked first thing this morning (April 3), however, and Mr. Cohen made it clear that the AJC would like very much to have a public debate with us, but that they would like to put off the planning for the event until after May 8, because the AJC has a packed calender until then. I told him that would be fine with us and we agreed that he and I would get back in touch right after May 8 and begin planning for the debate.
We had a very nice conversation and I am hopeful that we will be able to set up a debate.
I am pleased to say that I do not think that is the case.
Ben Cohen, who is the AJC's Associate Director for Communications, sent me and Steve [Walt] an e-mail yesterday morning (April 2) saying that he had been made aware of my proposal for a debate via your blog and that if we were interested in exploring the possibility of a public debate with David Harris and a colleague, we should contact him.
I tried to contact Mr. Cohen yesterday afternoon to tell him that Steve and I would like very much to do the debate, but we ended up playing telephone tag.
We talked first thing this morning (April 3), however, and Mr. Cohen made it clear that the AJC would like very much to have a public debate with us, but that they would like to put off the planning for the event until after May 8, because the AJC has a packed calender until then. I told him that would be fine with us and we agreed that he and I would get back in touch right after May 8 and begin planning for the debate.
We had a very nice conversation and I am hopeful that we will be able to set up a debate.
This is good news. . . a sign that the AJC recognizes that the general strategy of trying marginalize W&M as beyond the pale Couglinites (not that this was especially David Harris's strategy, but that of "the lobby" in general) has failed utterly. W&M will do very well in the debate, and it will push forward the larger national debate about America and Israel Palestine. Good will come of it.
I dunno… I think debates are almost as pointless as fist-fights (which someone suggested here yesterday!)
That reminds me: Gilad Atzmon (who as far as I know never bothers to visit here) was going to have a debate with David Aaronovich. I would not want to see, hear, or read about that, though I imagine Mary Rizzo and co. will be dissecting every second of it with breathless enthusiasm, assuming it has taken place.
As long as that dork Dershowitz aka The Pitbull stays out of this, it might very well be productive.
1. He can't look at his calendar until after it empties out? Reminds me of "I have to wash my hair."
2. The slaughter of at least 288 Gazan children hangs over Israel like a plague of locusts, and facing criticism of the Lobby from two well-meaning non-Jewish academics, who alone were willing to go on record with such criticism, against the character assassination enforcers of the Lobby, isn't enough of a priority to even set a date for it? After criticizing them for running from a debate? After Dershowitz stood at Georgetown bellowing "Bigot" at another well-meaning critic?
3. AJC should collectively thank Walt & Mearsheimer for so surgically identifying, documenting, and criticizing what is wrong with our Middle East policy. If they'd been given a proper forum two years ago, perhaps Gaza wouldn't have happened.
Given that Phil was the procuring cause of this upcoming debate, this should be a Mondoweiss production. The debate should have an academic setting — perhaps the Fordham Law School at Lincoln Center. There should be a modest charge for attendees, a portion of which could go to Mondoweiss for funding the new projects.
You think they (the Zionists) will go through with it? Doubtful.
Hazem Jamjoum (in The Electronic Intifada): Not an analogy: Israel and the crime of apartheid
A MUST READ.
I'd like to hear what answers some of you have for Bryan Caplan's questions on Palestine:
link to econlog.econlib.org
"A MUST READ."
Same crap as always from the EI.
"You think they (the Zionists) will go through with it? Doubtful."
It's Walt and Meirsheimer that always run. Even to the point of not showing up and cancelling a BBC debate 5 miutes after it was to start.
1. He can't look at his calendar until after it empties out? Reminds me of "I have to wash my hair."
Well he surely needs time. That needs good preparation. No ad-hoc encounters. Who will be his partner? Whom of the candidates–besides the Dersh–has actually already read the book? Studied it? Better let the time frame a bit open if you have other things to do. Let's be reasonable. Such things need preparation.
But if this really happens, that would be good news even if it takes till autumn, winter.
Given that Phil was the procuring cause of this upcoming debate, this should be a Mondoweiss production.
I agree, he's been working for this for quite some time now. He could partner with Dan Fleshler in these matters. Whom would David Harris choose as moderator. Jeffrey Goldberg?
Good news.
Welcome back to the rough-and-tumble, Leander, I hope you enjoyed your brief rest from it all.
It won't happen. They'll concoct some type of excuse or propose some ridiculous set up that allows for their complete domination of the subject matter(or something like that)that renders true and honest debate impossible.
Anyone taking bets?
LeaNder, just keep paying your taxes to support Israel right or wrong, as we Americans do.