John Mearsheimer sent me the following email lately:
There is not going to be a debate between me and David Harris [executive director of the American Jewish Committee]. As you know, he previously said that he wanted to debate me, but that I was afraid to engage him. However, it seems clear from my negotiations with one of his key deputies at the AJC that the opposite is the case: David Harris is afraid to debate me.
As you and many of your readers know, I declined to debate David Harris on the Dom Giordano radio show out of Philadelphia on March 12, 2009. What he wanted was for both of us to appear together for a few minutes on that show to debate the Chas Freeman affair. I did not want to do that, mainly because it is impossible to have a meaningful debate in such circumstances, as I told the host of the radio show. I thought that was the end of the matter, but the next day the AJC put out a press release titled: “Don’t Run Away From Debate, AJC’S Harris Tells Mearsheimer.”
You heard about this from a friend and asked me if it was true. I responded and on March 30 you posted my explanation of what had happened. In that posting I said that Steve Walt and I would love to debate David Harris and someone else from the lobby in a public forum in New York City. I was sure there would be great interest in such an event and that there would be no problem filling a large auditorium and getting C-Span to cover it.
On April 2, I received an e-mail from Ben Cohen, the Associate Director of Communications at the AJC, asking me to contact him “to explore the possibility of a public debate with David Harris and a colleague.” We talked for the first time on April 3, and we agreed that we would not reveal the details of our subsequent conversations and e-mails. For that reason, I can only tell you the broad outlines of what happened in our negotiations
We had three more telephone conversations, the last one at the end of June. My preference was to have a public debate in a large auditorium and to have Steve and me on one side and David Harris and someone else from the lobby on the other side. Those preferences, of course, were clearly stated in my March 30 posting. The AJC, however, preferred a debate between just me and David Harris and they wanted to do it on the radio, with the two of us in different locations.
After some discussion, we agreed to have a one-on-one debate involving me and David Harris and to do it on radio, but with both of us in the same studio in New York City. We had little difficulty reaching that arrangement, and were set to work out the details when Ben Cohen informed me in our last conversation that there had been a change in the situation and that David Harris would be spending most of his time out of the country during the remaining six months of this year. As a result, he would not be able to debate me after all. Ben Cohen said we might be able to revisit the issue at the start of next year, but I do not believe that this will happen. In short, there is not going to be a debate between me and David Harris.
I was not surprised by what happened, nor was Steve. Indeed, I told a number of people, you included, that I did not think there would be a debate. The reason is simple: the lobby has virtually no interest in open and free-wheeling discussions about Israeli policy, the US-Israeli relationship, or the role of the lobby in American political life. If that were to happen, it would quickly become clear to large numbers of Americans that the so-called “special relationship” makes no sense – for either the US or Israel – and that the only reason we support Israel so generously and nearly unconditionally is because of the lobby’s profound influence. Of course, we would have emphasized these points in a real debate, and David Harris would have had his hands full countering our arguments. Truth and justice are not on his side.
I am sure that if David Harris thought that he could dominate me and Steve in a real debate, we would have had one. But he knows better and thus he is running scared, as he should be.
Related posts:
- AJC’s David Harris sure seems to be running away from debate with Mearsheimer and Walt
- Mearsheimer: Walt and I welcome a debate on the lobby with the director of the American Jewish Comittee
- American Jewish Committee and Mearsheimer agree on debate
- Mearsheimer: C-Span would cover a debate. Jump up to it, Yivo!
- It’s time for Yivo to host a debate with Walt and Mearsheimer
{ 25 comments }
Yes, Harris is running scared of open public debate, even if only minimal public exposure is given, e.g., via C-SPAN and likely while most Americans are working or trying to find a job. If it was easy and PC to excuse by set-up ridicule, Sacha Baron Cohen would be able to come up with more than this: http://www.moviefone.com/movie/bruno/34365/video/...
This typifies the Lobby's shenanigans. They always want a small and tightly controlled environment in which they can batter their opponent with sarcasm, theatrics, and appeals to hysteria. A coldly logical debate about Zionism couldn't last any longer than 30 seconds; as such, its defenders will always resort to the tactics enumerated above. To anyone with a strong stomach, I recommend watching the Dersh/Chomsky debate. A good part of it consists of Dersh repeating the phrase "Planet Chomsky". And Dersh is the best Zionism has.
Since W&M are both Israel-friendly, what can we expect them to accomplish by debating the nutcases in order to take things back to to the respectable situation that existed prior to '67? Whatver their goals are, that seems about the best they could hope for. We don't need more Israel-friendly!
"the respectable situation that existed prior to '67" What was respectable about the situation that existed prior to '67?
Mearsheimer: “the lobby has virtually no interest in open and free-wheeling discussions about Israeli policy, the US-Israeli relationship, or the role of the lobby in American political life. If that were to happen, it would quickly become clear to large numbers of Americans that the so-called “special relationship” makes no sense” No, but the lobby does have two-faced Dems in its corner, who run and win elections as the party of change and peace, but then quickly stab the American people in the back at the behest of the lobby: ‘AIPAC has a powerful ally, however, in U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who in a recent letter to Obama suggested that confronting Iran trumped other Middle East issues.’ “I believe that resolving the problem of Iran’s nuclear program will help facilitate the Arab-Israeli peace process,“ Reid wrote. http://www.jewishjournal.com/iran/article/after_w...
Yeah, Harry, that's what they said about the Iraq war, too. The parties change, but the servile Israel pandering that has destroyed America remains the same. No country can survive successive generations of leaders who enjoy being raped by Zionists. Must be some strange pscycho-sexual disorder afflicting the Silent generation and the Boomers. That and venal and shameless ambition and greed; country and future generations be damned.
Nothing was respectable about the situation prior to'67.
Again, Mearsheimer and Walt rise to the occasion. Here is a man confident in his thought process and reasoning, dealing with a group dedicated to holding power based upon tyrannical manipulation of news and information, and dedicated to using their power to expand Israel's boundaries, as if the rise of Empiricism supplanting ideology and superstition, western democracy supplanting colonialism and empire mean nothing, are just a shiny ball to distract Others while classic tribal territorial expansion can progress. The rest of academia should behold their examples, and recognize themselves as a timid herd, cowed by tyranny built on the clever illusion of power. And they should make amends.
The voting American public get what they asked for, within the limits of the biased Fourth Estate-enhanced dual party system, which treats optional party candidates as whackos, and within the biases limits of what AIPAC allows; those limits are all-encompassing so that both privileged parties vote as one. Within those parameters, the Public Opinion is orchestrated exclusively by AIPAC, and rubber-stamped by our traitorous Congress. The public pays for it all. It's disgusting.
The mere act of discussing the 'Israel lobby' is enough to get people thinking. So no matter how the debate turned out, the idea is out there and people are asking questions. That's what Zionists do not want.
Yes. There is a forbidden meme, or taboo meme, which was the premise and subject of The Israel Lobby. The taboo will be toppled. That is inevitable. How and with what effect? is the question now. For what group will it be catastrophic? The catastrophe can be appropriately limited to the neocons, who deserve to be run out of town on rails, dressed in tar and feathers. But those who continue to enable and honor this meme, after its lack of reasoned foundation is becoming increasingly obvious, and who provide cover and shelter for the Neocons, after their total intellectual bankruptcy has been exposed, risk their own fall from grace and credibility and power, as well. Time to make decisions, and chart a new course. Past time.
If we sent a letter or made a asskicking call to our politicans as often as we post a comment on Isr and I-P they might decide it was more in their self interest to grease the public's wheel than Israel and the lobby's.
The taboo is already gone…everywhere but in congress. They are public enemy No. one. The next idea and word to put in the public discourse and circulate concerning Israel and congress is "treason". That will elict screams of outrage pro and con and add the ultimate fuel to the fire needed to.start the fight with congress. Every time one gets up to dennounce the accusation by defending his/congress's alleigence to Israel he will be reinforcing his guilt in the eyes of the public..
Good observation Tenma, Martin Indyk gave the same response when he appeared on Democracy Now and found out that he was debating Nomrna Finkelstein. He made some pathetic complaint that he had been sandbagged and refused to debate Fink. The Zionists only like debates in hermeticlly sealed envirnments.
"What was respectable about the situation that existed prior to '67?" The borders for a start.
How To Handle Walt and Mearsheimer In 2003, when The New York Times found it necessary to address the issue of Jewish prompting for the war in Iraq, no less than the Editor — that's the No. 1, capital "E" editor — wrote the piece himself. Said Bill Keller, the belief the the war is for Israel is "simple-minded and offensive". But wrong? The article had enough concessions, though, that it's easy to imagine the angry phone calls that would have poured in — and been heard — had anyone under Keller penned the piece. Here, a demand to speak to the highest authority in the newsroom would have had the caller patched through to the writer himself — thus defusing the bomb. Anyone looking for an indication of the gravity of having the editor write about an issue should check to see how many times, since his ascension to the spot, Mr. Keller has done so. This pattern repeated itself in September of 2006, when New Yorker editor David Remnick, who is Jewish, stepped in to discuss Walt and Mearshimer for "Talk of the Town." Remnick's approach is like Keller's: concede the "grain of truth" to the allegation of Jewish control over foreign policy, but dismiss it otherwise as an oversimplification (Using a quote from Zbigniew Brzezinksi, Remnick compares the Israel lobby to the Armenian, Greek and Taiwanese-American lobbies). And make sure to distance yourself from shrieks of anti-Semitism, which are just as much of an oversimplification. But both editors, of course, ultimately dodge the issue. With the evidence stacked so high, they best they can do is to tell us that the issue is really more complicated than that. This rhetorical technique is easily manipulated: Matters are "complicated" when the obvious point makes Jews look bad, but very simple when the obvious point makes them look good — or White Gentiles bad. You will never hear Keller or Remnick argue that the Third Reich or apartheid South Africa was "complicated," for instance. Both the weakness of their retorts — and the positions of the writers — are yet another insight into the undeniable power of Jews over the direction of America.
What borders would that be specifically?
The borders that existed prior to the 1967 war. The borders, for example, that do not include the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Ben Gurion refused to declare borders in 1948, and Israel continued to refuse to declare borders until this day. I repeat, what borders would that be specifically, since Israel has never had borders?
It wasn't up to Ben Gurion to declare the borers so much as the borders that are internationally recognized. You've heard of the green line I take it?
Yes, it is up to a state to declare its borders, and as the Head of State in 1948 it WAS up to Ben Gurion, and he refused explicitly stating his reason, which was to allow for territorial expansion. What, exactly, is respectable about that? The green line is not a border, it is an armistice line, which Israel has refused throughout its history to accept as its border. The notion that somehow Israel was a wonderful, respectable country prior to 1967 is pure myth. Israel has always been what it is now – an ethnocracy whose establishment and maintenance depended and continues to depend upon massive ethnic cleansing, territorial expansion, a constant state of aggression, and suppression of the full rights of ethnic minorities.
I am not disputing Israel's duplicity, and it's reasons for refusal to declare it's borders, but the green line is what is internationally recognized as Israel's borders, whether Israel want to declare it or not. After all, if it were up to a state to declare it's borders, Mexico would love a chunk of the US back, but there is the small matter of what the US and the international community is prepared to recognize.
If you are not disputing Israel's duplicity, and its reasons for refusal to declare its borders, then it seems to me that you are also acknowledging that there was nothing respectable about Israel prior to 1967. And yes, the decision about a state's borders is up to the state, in agreement with its neighbors and the international community. The Green Line is the internationally recognized boundary of Israel's territory, buy it is not officially a border until and unless Israel declares it so. Israel is still in the process of adjusting its borders outward, and officially, albeit illegitimately, included the Golan Heights and Greater Jerusalem as part of its territory. If not stopped it will eventually also declare the West Bank and most likely Sheb`a Farms as part of Israel. The US and the international community (and how very VERY interesting that you mention the US separately from the international community) have not officially recognized the Golan Heights and Greater Jerusalem as being part of Israel's territory, but in a very real way they have accepted it as eventually they will accept most if not all of the West Bank as part of Israel. But to return to your original statement, there was nothing respectable more about Israel prior to 1967 than there is now, the wishful thinking of nice, liberal Zionists notwithstanding.
Yes I should rephrase that. The 1967 borders was the best of a bad scenario and I suspect, one that even the Palestinians would accept today. The 22 Arab States who sidnegd the peace initiative regard the '67 border as acceptable, and even Hamas is willing to support a 2 state solution along '67 borders, so while such a border may not be respectable as such, it is practical.
Harvard's Alan Dershowitz has offered to debate Walt and/or Mearsheimer, but WM have refused on the grounds that Dershowitz is not an "expert." All the more reason for them to debate him — with their great expertise they will demolish him, right? Plus Dershowitz is sure to draw a crowd, both at a public event and on C-Span. So why are Walt and Mearsheimer so afraid to take on Professor Dershowitz?
Comments on this entry are closed.