New In My Non Virtual Inbox

I was gone all day yesterday, but when I got home I saw my copy of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and I'm eager to give it a read. The originally essay certainly had its flaws, but it was much better than the demagogic counter-campaign it unleashed.

When you look at something like, say, Cuba policy it's unfortunate for our policy options to be circumscribed by the extreme views of a small domestic lobby, but it's not obvious that this has any fundamental significance. America's policies in Israel's neighborhood have, by contrast, taken on dramatically higher levels of significance over the past six years or so. The original essay prompted a little debate on this but, frankly, too little -- and I'm very eager to see what the authors have been able to do with some greater length at their disposal.

Comments

I see that the piece of crap authored by Mearshimer and Walt is being distributed to their amen chorus. I would be willing to bet that Alan Dershowitz or any other critic isn't being given an advance copy to review. It will be interesting to see who is assigned to review the piece of crap at the Washington Post the New York Times, Newsweek and Time.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 12:28 PM

I would be willing to bet that Alan Dershowitz or any other critic isn't being given an advance copy to review.

Dersho-homocid-iwitz.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 26, 2007 12:32 PM

I just bought a copy yesterday, and I'm looking forward to making a serious dent in it today. One thing that is promised is a more thorough discussion of the role of Christian Zionism.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 26, 2007 12:34 PM

Given the Washington Post's reception of the original Mearsheimer and Walt piece and Carter's book, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave it to Dershowitz to review.

Posted by William Burns | August 26, 2007 12:34 PM

A great problem with the Israel Lobby is that it holds it has an immunity amulet from criticism in one key area.

The nation is able to hold open and honest discussions about the root of the power of the Cuban exiles, and why they have been able to have final word on Cuba policy and special immigration rules for Cuban exiles. It is, with other minor factors of good educations, organization....that Cubans became the swing vote in a swing state after positioning themselves as "faithful anti-communist, America-lovers".

But frank discussion of the roots of Jewish power and clout are considered taboo, or at best, only to be mentioned in a positive way that excludes and negatives of the "Special Relationship" - because to be frank would be to start anti-Semitism. And, because of special victimhood status, of 181 nations, it is best to limit criticism and negative observations to 180 of 181 nations and whatever leaders and ethnicities have interests in those nations.

But the impact of the "Special Relationship", with it's enormous foreign policy impacts - positive and negative - are too important NOT to assess as good or bad for America, and what the levers of power Jews have that make both Parties hew to their wishes on Israel policy.

Mearsheimer and Walt began breaking the taboo by discussing the Israel Lobby, it's sources of power, and where it not only has helped America's interests, but badly damaged them. Naturally, if a cultural taboo that greatly helped a group united in ideology avoid scrutiny is broken, you can expect them to react with high dungeon.

Especially when exploration of the negative impacts on US diplomatic position, our dislike in the 3rd World, our low credibility in the UN and in Europe are triggered by the US being seen as Israel's manipulated pawn..And when exploration of the levers of Jewish power to set US foreign policy (in money, law profession, media, critical industries, inside the Beltway, in the Parties) may result in discussions of why Jews, like Cuban exiles in a Florida setting - have too much power, disproportionate power - compared to what other groups have. And what other groups must do to better balance power...

Posted by Chris Ford | August 26, 2007 1:00 PM

The speed at which SLC responds to posts about Israel, and only posts about Israel, is astounding.

I have a lot of problems with China's government and our government's foreign policy stance towards China. I must be an anti-Chinese racist!

A great problem with the Israel Lobby is that it holds it has an immunity amulet from criticism in one key area.

The accusation of anti-Semitism is the nuclear bomb of American public discourse. No matter who says it, no matter how they say it, no matter what the context or forum, any public figure who criticizes Israel will be call an anti-Semite, by Abe Foxman or Marty Peretz or Allen Dershowitz or whoever else. And even setting aside the flat libel of many of those claims, this kind of McCarthyism has had a corrosive effect on American policy in the Middle East. We can't even talk about new solutions, because we can't talk openly or honestly.

Posted by Freddie | August 26, 2007 1:16 PM

Sometimes I wish everyone in Israel would just move to Minnesota or someplace, which would solve everyone's problems except the "Left Behind" people. The Mormons were polite enough to move their Zion to a quiet neighborhood when they were not received enthusiastically in New York and Missouri. But I guess Mormons are just ridiculously polite.

Posted by Space Monkey | August 26, 2007 1:25 PM

which would solve everyone's problems except the "Left Behind" people.

No offense, but I don't think many Israelis look at it that way.

The Mormons were polite enough to move their Zion to a quiet neighborhood when they were not received enthusiastically in New York and Missouri. But I guess Mormons are just ridiculously polite.

You only think that because the powerful Mormon lobby* has effectively covered up their violent past and effectively silenced all criticism:

Mountain Meadows massacre

Not very polite of them, ridiculously or otherwise, if you ask me.

*sarcasm

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 1:35 PM

On a slightly more serious note, Space Monkey, when you write about "Minnesota or someplace" and then about Mormons and Utah, it might help, just for sake of fairness, if there was some nod or acknowledgment on just how we pale faces came to be in control of the New World to begin with.

I think you'll find it is not as polite a history as you imagine it to be.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 1:43 PM

This reminded me of this recent article on how various institutions are canceling forums on this book under pressure from, you guessed it, the Israel Lobby:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-israelbook_aug21,1,6109069.story

Posted by KM | August 26, 2007 2:29 PM

SoCalJustice:

I was partially kidding. I know the plan is ridiculous, and I just thought Minnesota needed some more diversity. I know many Anti-Semites use Zionism or Israel lobbies as the most socially accepted front to attack Jews in general, so I realize I have to tread lightly.

What I was trying to point out in an idiotic manner, was that the Mormons and other religious minorities have found solutions to exile or unfriendly neighbors without digging in their boots. I believe many (not all) Zionists are more concerned about producing a safe community for Jews rather than the specific territorial demands of a Promised Land. When I spoke of "Left Behind" people, I should have referred to any group that sought Biblical or Rabbinical justification for Israel by pointing to the territory itself. I know many of the places offered to early Zionists were ridiculous in retrospect (Madagascar), but I feel America today might be a better place as a homeland than Israel in some ways. I realize this is extremely unlikely for many reasons, but I feel American interests and Jewish interests would be better off.

Mormon-Ute relations were pretty good, but I get your point. Conflict with Native Americans was an ugly chapter of history, but I think for better or worse it is mostly now a minor role in American policy in ways that are very different than Israeli-Palestinian history affects current events in the Middle East.

Posted by Space Monkey | August 26, 2007 2:34 PM

Chris Ford, great comment. But do Mearsheimer and Walt talk about the taboo itself?

Posted by Sangfroid826 | August 26, 2007 2:39 PM

SCJ,

Thanks for the Mountain Meadows article, that's damn interesting. Te movie about it is out in the theaters now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dawn

Posted by beowulf | August 26, 2007 2:41 PM

Before you start talking about moving Israel to Minnesota, remember that Minnesota is where Tom Friedman comes from.

Posted by Juan | August 26, 2007 2:53 PM

Space Monkey,

I know many Anti-Semites use Zionism or Israel lobbies as the most socially accepted front to attack Jews in general, so I realize I have to tread lightly.

Believe me, I wasn't accusing you of that at all, and it did not cross my mind, nor would I wish anyone to tread lightly.

Rather, your post reminded me of a conversation I once had with my college roommate's wife (she is a PhD from Yale - a very smart woman). Somehow during dinner, the conversation turned to Israel and she said something like: "You know, I don't have a problem with the existence of Israel, I just have a problem with the way it was founded."

Me, "Fair enough, I can see that. How do you feel about how America was founded?"

Her, "Oh."

was that the Mormons and other religious minorities have found solutions to exile or unfriendly neighbors without digging in their boots.

I just don't see that as the case. One of the major differences between the origins of the U.S. and Israel (despite many similarities), is that we (Americans) killed off such a percentage of the native population with respect to our own - to the point where there could be no resistance - in all of the land we wanted, and took.

The Israelis, for all the flack they take for the perception of doing just that, actually did not to that - nowhere near to the degree that we did. Which is why there are millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank (i.e. "Greater Israel"/Judea and Samaria), and in surrounding Arab countries, let alone 1 million Arab citizens of Israel - 20% of the population. What percentage of American citizens are Native Americans? I'm not endorsing or condemning anything, just making the comparison with how we founded our country.

I believe many (not all) Zionists are more concerned about producing a safe community for Jews rather than the specific territorial demands of a Promised Land.

I don't know whether this will change your perception of Zionists or Jews for the better or worse, or at all, but my guess is that your belief is not true.

but I feel America today might be a better place as a homeland than Israel in some ways. I realize this is extremely unlikely for many reasons, but I feel American interests and Jewish interests would be better off.

Fair enough. You're completely entitled to feel that way, of course.

but I think for better or worse it is mostly now a minor role in American policy in ways that are very different than Israeli-Palestinian history affects current events in the Middle East.

I'm not saying it should play any roll in our current foreign policy, but that Americans should understand who we are, where we came from and how we got here when passing judgment on others.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 2:54 PM

Clearly, the fact that Matt Yglesias has written about this book proves that there is no Lobby.

Posted by M. Duss | August 26, 2007 2:55 PM

"You know, I don't have a problem with the existence of Israel, I just have a problem with the way it was founded."

Me, "Fair enough, I can see that. How do you feel about how America was founded?"

Her, "Oh."

You obviously think this is a clever gotcha, but it seems to me to prove exactly the opposite point.

American soldiers and pioneers perpetrated a massive genocide in order to found America as currently constituted. We all have a huge, huge problem with that, don't we? We all think that the US should do basically anything it can for hte remaining first nations people living on their land, right?

In Israel, we have a situation where a state was founded on top of another people, and no genocide (thank g-d) has taken place. It seems to me that the fact that we basically accept the post-genocide US doesn't in any way suggest that we should think that Israel should remain the way it is. It just means that after a genocide, things get screwed up and weird.

Posted by DivGuy | August 26, 2007 3:06 PM

It's hard to believe no one has mentioned Norm Coleman or Al Franken in regards to a Minnesotan Homeland.

Posted by Sangfroid826 | August 26, 2007 3:10 PM

No, I don't think it was a "clever gotcha."

It was part of the conversation, which went on for much longer, but that point was illustrative of the tendency of how "we" are easy to condemn others, rather than ourselves, and it somewhat applies to a "just give Minnesota to the Jews" mindset.

American soldiers and pioneers perpetrated a massive genocide in order to found America as currently constituted. We all have a huge, huge problem with that, don't we?

But that's just the point - not too many Americans do, actually - life is pretty comfortable here and not too many people seem all that broken up about just how that has come to be.

Example: when Native Americans protest Columbus Day, what's the general reaction from the rest of the population?

A) Indifferent
B) Indignant
c) I should get this day off too, just like government/postal workers and bank employees. Who's playing on MNF tonight?

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 3:16 PM

a very smart woman

Got to say, it really doesn't sound like it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 26, 2007 3:17 PM

Book smart, at a minimum.

She knows a ton about epidemiology.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 3:22 PM

>American soldiers and pioneers perpetrated a >massive genocide in order to found America as >currently constituted. We all have a huge, huge >problem with that, don't we?

99.999% of Americans could give a flying **** about those details.

Posted by David | August 26, 2007 3:25 PM

Re Freddie

Relative to Alan Dershowitz, the charge that he loosely uses the charge of antisemitism against critics of Israel is totally incorrect and inaccurate. To my knowledge, he has not even accused Mearsheimer and Walt of being antisemitic. His criticism of them has been based on what he considers to be inaccuracies in their article. However, it is fair to accuse Walt and Mearsheimer of cowardice in their refusal to engage in debate over the charges made in their book (and before Don Williams repeats his claim that they did engage in a debate with Indyk, BenAmi, et al, I would hardly consider a debate with wimps like that legitimate). Let the yellow bellies Walt and Mearsheimer agree to a debate with, for example Carolyn Glick or Alan Dershowitz or Daniel Pipes.

Re KM

For the information of Mr. KM, the forums were canceled because the craven cowards Walt and Mearsheimer refused to debate any of their critics. Like James Earl Carter, they just want a free ride with no opposing views to respond to.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 3:36 PM

OT scary news:

Robert Baer, who was a high-ranking operative in the Middle East, said last week that senior government officials had told him the administration was preparing for air strikes on the guards' bases and probably also on Iran's nuclear facilities within the next six months.

Mr Baer said: "The feeling in the administration is that we should have taken care of the guards a long, long time ago. We won't see American troops cross the border. If this is going to happen, it is going to happen very quickly and it is going to surprise a lot of people."

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 3:49 PM

If my add my two cents worth to what Divguy, SoCal & Space Monkey are saying. I take it that the Zionist movement began at a time, late in the nineteenth century, when it was taken for granted in European and white N. American circles that, in the natural order of things, that surplus white population--often undesirables like the Irish ('my peoples'-- could be dispatched all over the globe and the darkly-complected native populations would have to give way. If they failed to recognize this necessity, they could be, reluctantly, encouraged by a mixture of extirpation and expulsion--brought on, any viewer of a certain kind of Western film will know--by their own recalcitrance. (I'm simplifying by ignoring non-settler forms of colonialism, e.g., India or the Philippines). The creation of Israel belongs to this history. But SoCal is right, so does the formation of the US. When Zionism really got rolling, and especially when it was given an impulse by the genocidal turn in midcentury European history, the rest of the world wasn't having it anymore. Anti-colonialism was here to stay. What is more, the Palestinian mandate was not like pre=British/French N. America or Australia, but more like India and the Philippine, i.e., a thickly settled land emerging from a long period of colonial domination (by the Ottomans and British). All of which is to say, the Zionist project was a recipe for disaster from the outset.

Posted by J | August 26, 2007 3:50 PM

Re SoCalJustice

"Robert Baer, who was a high-ranking operative in the Middle East, said last week that senior government officials had told him the administration was preparing for air strikes on the guards' bases and probably also on Iran's nuclear facilities within the next six months."

If true, this is good news. The sooner the mad mullahs are given their comeuppance, the better. And if the use of nuclear munitions is required to ensure that the Iranian nuclear facilities are taken out, the administrations' hand should not tremble in giving the order.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 4:11 PM

For years there has been more open debate within Israel itself over that government's policies, on everything from settlements to "land for peace," than there is here in the U.S. The Jewish and Muslim populations in the U.S. are roughly equal in size, but certainly not in political influence. And Muslims generally don't serve as advocates for the point of view of a single country, which tends to dissipate their political impact.

Posted by Geaghan | August 26, 2007 4:15 PM

And if the use of nuclear munitions is required to ensure that the Iranian nuclear facilities are taken out, the administrations' hand should not tremble in giving the order.
And with that, I now feel even more comfortable ignoring anything SLC says than I already did.

Posted by Minipundit | August 26, 2007 4:38 PM

Hey SLC, Mearsheimer and Walt put their names on their work. Do you really think someone who won't even put his own name on a blog comment gets to call them "yellowbellies?"

Posted by William Burns | August 26, 2007 4:47 PM

Re William Burns

Does Mr. Burns think that Dr. Orac is less then manly because he doesn't put his name on his blog?

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 4:52 PM

Way to change the subject there, dude. Are you going to tell us your name, or are you going to admit that, compared to men like Mearsheimer and Walt, you are a lily-livered chicken?

Posted by William Burns | August 26, 2007 5:01 PM

SLC - However, it is fair to accuse Walt and Mearsheimer of cowardice in their refusal to engage in debate over the charges made in their book (and before Don Williams repeats his claim that they did engage in a debate with Indyk, BenAmi, et al, I would hardly consider a debate with wimps like that legitimate). Let the yellow bellies Walt and Mearsheimer agree to a debate with, for example Carolyn Glick or Alan Dershowitz or Daniel Pipes.

Walt and Mearsheimer stated that they had no interest in debating lawyers like Deshowitz or journalists like Glick. Their paper came from academia, in the social science, foreign policy, and diplomacy field. They argue that is where the debate they join in must come from, not the Lobby's paid and volunteer legal and media guns.

On a slightly more serious note, Space Monkey, when you write about "Minnesota or someplace" and then about Mormons and Utah, it might help, just for sake of fairness, if there was some nod or acknowledgment on just how we pale faces came to be in control of the New World to begin with. I think you'll find it is not as polite a history as you imagine it to be.
Posted by SoCalJustice

Most people saturated in paleface loathing about New world "genocides" are ignorant or willfully silent about other major demographic changes in recent or recorded history. The acts contemporaneous with the New World conquests that more "sensitive" people brush over.

The Muslim mass slaughter of the Byzantine Greeks and introduction of population policies that limited the breeding and perpetuation of non-Arab, non-Turk peoples in Anatolia and the Balkans. The Bantu mass slaughter of lesser African races. The Han Chinese elimination of some 20 ethnicities from what is now China, except for certain survivors, small "biosphere island" redoubts on resource-poor soil or mountains the Han do not wish to go after. The history of Indochina is basically of ethnicities that the Han drove out of China that in turn pushed the Malay cultures further South. The Japanese wiped out the Ainu over 1,000 years.

In the new world, many peoples and ethnicities lost numbers, but were not completely wiped out. The clear exceptions are in the Caribbean basin, where blacks wiped out indigenous natives completely, off Islands, and portions of the coasts of Central America and Latin America.

In the 20th century, plenty of people besides "American white oppressors" used better technology to demographically triumph. The Han conquest of Tibet and the Arab pushback and eradication of black tribes since the 50s has happened in Lefty silence, while the decolonialization movement of whites is mostly been of token guerilla resistance, western "morality" factions, and high native breeding rates causing white flight.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 26, 2007 5:06 PM

I think the Bush administration has plans to designate the Iranian Republican Guard as "terrorist" to make it easier to get away with bombing Iran. It sounds better to target the Republican Guard than it sounds like targeting "Iran". And of course the civilian deaths will be only a side-consequence and not intended, no not at all.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 26, 2007 5:24 PM

SLC

"The sooner the mad mullahs are given their comeuppance, the better."

Hate-mongering away as only SLC can. What a vile wretched prejudiced person.

Posted by Jennifer | August 26, 2007 5:32 PM

Most people saturated in paleface loathing about New world "genocides" are ignorant or willfully silent about other major demographic changes in recent or recorded history.

paleface loathing? You've got to be kidding.

Actually, from your other posts, I guess you're dead serious. Not that you can be - or should be - convinced otherwise, but simply talking about what happened to Native Americans does not mean that other horrible things haven't happened (or aren't happening) all over the planet, at the hands of others - which, if you read the entire conversation, would understand that "bad things happening all over the planet" was kind of the general theme.

But if paleface loathing is what you call merely acknowledging what happened to Native Americans, count me in.

Whatever.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 5:36 PM

Re SoCalJustice

Excuse me, Alan Dershowitz is a full professor at Harvard which certainly qualifies him as at least as much of an academic as Stephen Walt, also a full professor at Harvard. However, let's examine this excuse proffered by Prof. Walt and Prof. Mersheimer. As Mr. Don Williams has pointed out, they did debate Martyn Indyk and Shlomo Ben Ami and a third party whose name escapes me at the moment. Since when are Indyk and Ben Ami academics?

Re William Burns

If I had written a book as controversial as that written by Prof. Walt and Prof. Mersheimer, I would have no hesitation at putting my name on it and no hesitation in engaging in debate with its critics. As a sometime commentator on various blogs, I am no less manly then Dr. Orac who refuses to put his name on his blog (or in fact any other blogger who uses a pseudonym instead of his/her name). And for Mr. Burns' information, SLC are my initials, not that it is any of his business.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 5:47 PM

You need not fear, SLC, you will never write a book as good, or as controversial, as Walt and Mearsheimer's.

Posted by William Burns | August 26, 2007 5:54 PM

Time to put the hand wringing about American Indians in perspective.

American Indians weren't a bunch of childlike innocents. The revisionist lefty tendency to objectify them as such and deny them any agency in their history is wrong-headed. From the time the first white men came to North America, until about the end of the 18th Century, Indians held the balance of power here. They rapidly adopted modern weapons, and skillfully adapted their tactics. Indians aligned themselves with various powers out of their own self-interest and to slaughter rivals.

In the end, the Indians lost -- but so did the French, Spanish, English and Dutch. The Indians were no better or nobler than any of those Europeans, and their defeat needn't be mythologized as if they were. Had things worked out otherwise (and they very well could have*), and the Indians maintained their early dominance, they wouldn't be shedding any tears for your ancestors.

*Some forget how perilous things were for the early settlers in New England. In the 17th Century, they lived in constant fear of annihilation by Indians. At one point, all of what is now Maine had to be abandoned in the face of Indian attacks and massacres. Some speculate that the Salem witch hunts were fueled by the anxiety of living under this constant fear.

Posted by Fred | August 26, 2007 6:02 PM

SLC writes: "To my knowledge, he has not even accused Mearsheimer and Walt of being antisemitic. His criticism of them has been based on what he considers to be inaccuracies in their article."
 
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor smart enough to know that he need not libel someone when allusion will suffice. Let’s see how he achieved this in his letter to the London Review of Books following publication of the Mearsheimer and Walt article:

it is fair to ask why these distinguished academics chose to publish a paper that does not meet their usual scholarly standards, especially given the obvious risk that it would be featured, as it has been, on neo-Nazi and extremist websites, and even those of terrorist organisations, and that it would be used by overt anti-semites to 'validate' their claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy
...
'Anyone who criticises Israeli actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy . . . stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite'; 'In other words, criticise Israeli policy and you are by definition an anti-semite.' This is demonstrably false, though it is a charge made frequently in the hate literature.
...
'Israel,' they state, 'was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.' This mendacious emphasis on Jewish 'blood' is a favourite of neo-Nazi propaganda.

Mr. Dershowitz associates Walt and Mearsheimer with "neo-Nazi and extremist websites" then associates their claims with "hate literature" and finally describes a suggestion of Walt and mearsheimer as a "favorite of neo-Nazi propaganda." Frankly, Mr. Dershowitz lays only a thin veneer of allusion over a despicable slander of Walt and Mearsheimer.

Finally, Mr. Dershowitz challenges Mearsheimer and Walt to:

look me in the eye and tell me that because I am a proud Jew and a critical supporter of Israel, I am disloyal to my country.

Mr. Dershowitz is correct in writing that he has been a "critical supporter of Israel." Over the years his support has been critical in allowing Israel to perpetuate a decades-long subjugation of the Palestinian people. I would have no trouble looking Mr. Dershowitz in the eye with a complaint that his blind support of Israel has caused immense damage to this Nation.

Posted by ndm | August 26, 2007 6:12 PM

Fred

"Some speculate that the Salem witch hunts were fueled by the anxiety of living under this constant fear."

Yeah, crazy Fred is hunting witches again which is all crazy Fred is capable of.

Posted by Jennifer | August 26, 2007 6:23 PM

Re SLC's comment "Relative to Alan Dershowitz, the charge that he loosely uses the charge of antisemitism against critics of Israel is totally incorrect and inaccurate. To my knowledge, he has not even accused Mearsheimer and Walt of being antisemitic"
----------------
ha ha ha ha You crack me up, SLC.

The readers here are invited to look at Alan Dershowitz's "academically objective" critique
of Mearsheimer and Walt's paper. See
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf

A few examples of Alan's statements:

"Academics do not generally respond to the kinds of assertions and accusations made on hate
sites.29 But because of the academic setting in which the Walt-Mearsheimer paper appears,
I feel compelled to respond in detail and to these recycled charges and to demonstrate
how the paper fails the most basic tests of scholarship and accuracy."

"For example, the authors cull a single quotation that originally appeared on pages 401-403
of Max Frankel’s biography, The Times of My Life and My Life with The Times. ("I was
much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert.") It is the type of quotation
that pops up regularly on radical conspiracy theory web sites that assert the same sort
of Jewish domination of the media as Mearsheimer and Walt allege."

-----------
Er..so what exactly is Alan trying to imply?? That Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semitic -- they merely plagarize from anti-Semitic hate sites?

Posted by Don Williams | August 26, 2007 6:37 PM

You notice that Alan Dershowitz's criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt's paper is heavy on the smears but kinda ignores a number of FACTS. For example, that the largest campaign donor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002 was Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban, who's made pretty clear where his loyalty lies. What does Alan think Haim was trying to buy with that $14 Million? Good government?

Or with the $1 Million plus Haim's raised for Hillary this year?

Notice how Alan also doesn't discuss how billionaire S Daniel Abraham -- a long time advocate for Israel -- stabbed Howard Dean in the back in the 2004 Iowa Primary with a series of TV Attack ads. I seem to recall even Forward talking about that.

Or maybe Alan can explain why all that money flowed from New York City into Cynthia McKinney's 2002 primary -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Mckinney#_note-usnews1 .

Posted by Don Williams | August 26, 2007 6:40 PM

PS The last time I checked, Cynthia McKinney was a Congressional representative from an Afro-American district in GEORGIA. Maybe Alan Dershowitz can explain why people in New York City would toss so much money into trying to defeat a representative from GEORGIA. Also, why said people think they are entitled to BUY/choose the Congressional representatives for districts in other parts of the country.

Posted by Don Williams | August 26, 2007 6:44 PM

SLC - Excuse me, Alan Dershowitz is a full professor at Harvard which certainly qualifies him as at least as much of an academic as Stephen Walt, also a full professor at Harvard. However, let's examine this excuse proffered by Prof. Walt and Prof. Mersheimer. As Mr. Don Williams has pointed out, they did debate Martyn Indyk and Shlomo Ben Ami and a third party whose name escapes me at the moment. Since when are Indyk and Ben Ami academics?

Nice effort. Indyk and Ben Ami have standing because they have been part of the foreign policy establishment. While Dershowitz and other Zionist champions want to get standing to discredit the diplomatic and foreign policy debate, they have no standing in the fields that Walt and Mersheimer address. No different than a Fundie lawyer or journalist "demanding" to debate intelligent design and with Big Bang PhD astrophysicists.
Deshowitz and his devoted fans believe he is entitled to turn any academic argument into his "Courtroom" to be tried with legalistic arguments.
Not so.

But if paleface loathing is what you call merely acknowledging what happened to Native Americans, count me in. Whatever.Posted by SoCalJustice

My problem is the Left's selective use of white moral crimes in arguments while they deliberately exclude dramatic, well-documented contemporaneous abuses by people of the "morally better" race, gender, class.

A Lefty will talk 1,000 times about the Crusades and evil whites while talking zero times about Islamic depredations over 1400 years. Or Abu Ghraib 1,000 times while ignoring Muslim extermination of Christians in Indonesia 2001-2007, or the Haziris 1995-2001. And attempt to equate the Crusades or "being mean to Noble Native Americans 200 years ago" with the moral equivalence of 9/11.

And SoCalJustice needs to be reminded what we did in N America was no different than the actions of the Bantus, Han Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Hispanics in the same time era encountering less advanced, weaker races. Except the whites, "pale-faces" as he calls them, mostly left their colonies and expansion into Africa, Asia - while the others stayed put.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 26, 2007 6:46 PM

Re William Burns

Mr. Burns is absolutely correct. I will never author a pile of crap such as the book written by Prof. Mearsheimer and Prof. Walt.

Re ndm

1. Prof.Dershowitzs' claims are borne out by the fact that the paper authored by Mersheimer and Walt has been highly praised and quoted by David Duke on his web site, in addition to being given prominence on the rense and stormfront web sites. When one gets into the pen with the pigs, one may expect to emerge with a coating of mud. As a matter of fact, every claim made by Prof. Dershowitz is absolutely correct and accurate. Whether or not Walt and Mearsheimer are, in fact, antisemites is academic. The antisemites love them.

2. Mr ndm makes the usual Israel bashing charge that: "Mr. Dershowitz is correct in writing that he has been a "critical supporter of Israel." Over the years his support has been critical in allowing Israel to perpetuate a decades-long subjugation of the Palestinian people. I would have no trouble looking Mr. Dershowitz in the eye with a complaint that his blind support of Israel has caused immense damage to this Nation.". Obviously, the homicide bombings, the Kassem rocket attacks, the mortar attacks by the Palestinians are perfectly okay with Mr. ndm. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Israel has been far too lenient for far too long.
with the Palestinians. It's time that the Government of Israel adopt the tactics of the late and unlamented dictator of Syria, Hafaz Assad, and apply Hama rules, as did Mr. Assad when faced with similar assaults from Islamic extremists in the City of Hama.

3. Just as a matter of fact, Prof. Dershowitz has also been a supporter of the Palestinian claims to an independent state and has even gone so far as to defend Palestinians charged with crimes before the Israeli Supreme Court.

Re Jennifer

I guess that Ms. Jennifer thinks that the Mullahs running Iran are just a bunch of sweethearts who are misunderstood in the West.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 6:49 PM

Don Williams:

"The last time I checked, Cynthia McKinney was a Congressional representative from an Afro-American district in GEORGIA."

If it weren't for us, Ms. McKinney wouldn't have been able to ride in the front of a bus, let alone get elected to Congress. After all we did helping blacks get civil rights, they don't need be grateful, but if they try to fuck over our brothers in Israel, don't expect us not to use our 1st amendment rights to fund their political opponents.

Posted by An Elder of Zion | August 26, 2007 6:50 PM

SLC writes:

Obviously, the homicide bombings, the Kassem rocket attacks, the mortar attacks by the Palestinians are perfectly okay with Mr. ndm. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Israel has been far too lenient for far too long.

The crimes committed by Palestinians against Israelis pale into insignificance when compared with the horrors the Israelis have visited upon the Palestinians. Through the daily brutality, the collective punishments, the settling of war criminals in the Occupied Palestinian Territories the Israelis have committed acts matched in the last 60 years in the Judeo-Christian world only by those in Yugoslavia.

And yet even these brutalities are not enough for SLC who demands more from a "Government of Israel [that] has been far too lenient for far too long." It is through the moral depravity of individuals like SLC that Nationalist movements decay into the militant racism that Europe calls neo-Nazism. I don't know what Americans call it but its adherents all seem to hate the Mearsheimer and Walt paper.

I believe history will be far kinder to Mearsheimer and Walt than it will be to Dershowitz and the rest of the apparatchicks of the American-Zionist lobby. Their paper has finally allowed Americans to speak openly about the damage caused both to the US and Israel by the craven fools in the American-Zionist lobby. These imbeciles profess to love their country even as they betray it. They profess to love Israel even as they betray it. And they profess to be "proud Jews" even as they betray their religion.

Posted by ndm | August 26, 2007 7:18 PM

Well, I guess I'm not too surprised that Chris Ford equates all American Jews with AIPAC and the Israel lobby.

Posted by Julian Elson | August 26, 2007 7:18 PM

Well, I guess I'm not too surprised that Chris Ford equates all American Jews with AIPAC and the Israel lobby. Posted by Julian Elson

Considering any reader noticed my words did not equate ALL Jews with AIPAC and the Israel Lobby - the only surprise is it took so long for a Jew loyal to Israel to utilize their specialty, the blanket smear.

As in, any criticism of Israel or AIPAC attacks ALL Jews. Ergo, it must be anti-semitic!

Once that sufficed to stifle debate and ruin the careers of people like Walt and Mearsheimer.

No longer.

A corner has been turned in America, the taboo on discussion Jews in the Zionist Camp and for that matter, their counterparts on the hard secular Jewish Left - have tried imposing on Americans about THEIR Front Group's activities - has been broken.

Jews that have tried using disproportionate wealth and power to chill discussion, tragically, refuse to use that intelligence and drive to make friends, but instead seek to subordinate others to their wishes and stop dissent by "cleverness". Same old story.

Jews are welcomed into a new land. After a while, the locals protest that their interests are affected for the worst by Jews using instruments of clout and influence. Jews get tossed, restricted in position and place, or get set upon by their former welcoming hosts.

2,000 years of that.

And the true "fresh start" was not in Israel, nor in the lands of historical animosity to Jews by Christians once hunted by Jews as they started out, or by Muslims for what the Prophet called a greedy, treacherous people. The real "fresh start" was to be the New World where Jews were welcome as settlers and tradespeople. The welcome was compromised by being too close to Latin Ruling Elites down South, and now in North America by perhaps a little too much power, too many lawsuits, too aggressive and meddling an activism for causes of the Right and Left, and too big a slice of the economic pie than is good for a minority that is only 2% of the population.

Watch out, so that the real "fresh start" continues..because Israel may not last..

Posted by Chris Ford | August 26, 2007 9:00 PM

Re ndm

I am afraid that Mr. ndm is full of shit. The right wing racist web sites, David Duke, rense, stormfront, etc. love Mearsheimer and Walt. Anyone who doesn't believe it can go there and see for themselves.

Re Don Williams

1. Mr. Williams just can't resist sticking it to left wing appeaser Haim Saben. The best reason I know for not voting for Senator Clinton. If she were elected, Saben would convince her to talk to the Hamas terrorists.

2. I'm surprised Mr. Williams hasn't brought up the old canard that those Zionists are responsible for the defeat of Senator William Fullbright in 1968. I guess Mr. Williams isn't old enough to remember that one. Along with Senator Charles Percy and Congressman Paul Findley. Those were three pretty good Israel bashers in their day. And the Zionists got 'em all, right.

3. Cynthia McKinney and her father who was a Georgia state Legislator, are both admirers of Louis Farrakhan, a notorious antisemite, and have made numerous antisemitic statements having nothing to do with US policy toward the State of Israel.

Re Chris Ford

1. Let's see, in order to have the credentials to be allowed to debate Mearsheimer and/or Welt, one must either be an academic with foreign policy credentials or a member of the foreign policy establishment. Alright, how about these clowns agreeing to debate Bibi, who, as a former Prime Minister of Israel is just as much a part of the foreign policy establishment, whatever the hell that is, as Shlomo Ben Ami. Of course, the real reason is that Walt and Mearsheimer don't want to debate anyone who will not treat them with the respect to which they are not entitled.

2. Mr. Ford brings up the example of the refusal of the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins to debate creationists as an excuse for Walt and/or Mearsheimer not to debate Dershowitz. In other words, Mr. Ford equates belief in creationism with support for the State of Israel. This will come as a great surprise to such luminaries as Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg.

Posted by SLC | August 26, 2007 9:01 PM

Chris Ford,

And SoCalJustice needs to be reminded what we did in N America was no different than the actions of the Bantus, Han Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Hispanics in the same time era encountering less advanced, weaker races.

Sorry Chris, you need to be reminded that merely talking about what we did in N America does not make someone a "Lefty" or a traitor or whatever you think it makes them.

My problem is the Left's selective use of white moral crimes in arguments while they deliberately exclude dramatic, well-documented contemporaneous abuses by people of the "morally better" race, gender, class.

I wasn't using anything selectively. But when we talk about "giving" Minnesota to someone, part of the discussion can be just how it is that we're in a position to do that in the first place, in light of a larger discussion about the lingering issues of colonialism.

You know, because we were talking about America, and not, say, Nanking.

When you float your plan of giving the Jews Macau - or whereever - then we can talk about European/Asian colonialism.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 26, 2007 9:04 PM

"We won't see American troops cross the border."

Baer is a fool if he believes that. Maybe not on the first attack, no. That is technically correct.

But when the Iranians retaliate, oh, yes, this WILL become a ground war. Worse, it will turn into a guerrilla war like Hizballah used against the Israelis last summer.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 9:27 PM

SCL says Dershowitz has never accused them of being "anti-Semitic."

What does this paragraph amount to if not the same thing?

"The perfect test case came last month, when the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a political science professor at the University of Chicago jointly published a "working paper" that parroted virtually every conspiracy theory ever articulated against Jews. Dean Walt and Professor Mearsheimer wrote that Jews control the media and the government; that we are loyal to Israel rather than to our "host" country; and that we dupe non-Jews, against their best interests, into fighting and dying for our interest. All that was missing from the Walt-Mearsheimer screed was the "blood libel": the medieval accusation that Jews use the blood of Christian children to make Passover matzo. (They came close by asserting another blood libel - namely, that Israeli citizenship is based on "blood kinship," a claim which is demonstrably false.)"

If that isn't accusing them of "anti-Semiticism", I don't what what does without actually using the word.

SLC is the typical Zionist - ZERO intellectual honesty. Shameless outright lies.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 9:33 PM

Not to mention that Dershowitz himself is a major scumbag - zero intellectual honesty, shameless lies, shameless smears, complete inability to address rational argument.

The reality of Zionism is that it is a racist, nationalist, terrorist ideology that grew out of the late 1800's when any number of extremist nationalist views were being hatched. One of them ended up being National Socialism - another ended up being Zionism. Mirror images of each other, one could say.

And both ended tragically for the demographics involved on the receiving end of the ideology. Innocent Jews murdered. Innocent Palestinians murdered.

No significant difference - except that today, nobody supports the Nazis, while everybody supports Israel.

But the end result will be the same - the nation that embraces such an ideology - be it Germany, Israel - or the US with neoconservatism - will ultimately be destroyed.

This is historically inevitable.

Israel as a state is doomed.

And it all could have been avoided if the idiots who invented Zionism realized that Judaism was made immortal by the Diaspora. That the Diaspora was the best thing that ever happened to Judaism. Judaism would have been just another local religion in the Middle East except for the Romans. Now it is worldwide and will never go away - not at least until people get smart and realize that all religion is BS. Ethnically, Jews are everywhere and can never be exterminated any more.

So the whole Zionist concept - that of collecting all the Jews and placing them in one country seized from its inhabitants and pissing off everybody else for two thousand miles around and trying to turn it into a "Fortress Judaica" able to withstand the entire world - is complete frickin' lunacy.

A five-year-old child could see that plan wasn't going to work given the realities of 20th Century history and technology.

But nitwits like SLC, Dershowitz, Josh Marshall, and the rest of the morons running and supporting Israel don't seem to have a clue how stupid the entire notion is.

So what? The Zionists in Israel are all going to die. Israel is going down. Just a matter of time.

Have a nice day, Zionists.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 9:56 PM

The Zionists in Israel are all going to die.

And so are you and everyone you've ever met.

You know - circle of life and all that.

You could have learned that from the Zionists in Hollywood, or don't they have the Lion King where you live?

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 27, 2007 12:57 AM

I'm increasingly convinced that 'SLC' is a parody troll, a caricature dreamed up by a twisted anti-semite. I'd like him/her to disprove it, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 27, 2007 2:07 AM

I'm increasingly convinced that 'SLC' is a parody troll, a caricature dreamed up by a twisted anti-semite. I'd like him/her to disprove it, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

SLC could be nearly anyone in the House of Representatives sock puppet. Most of them have said worse.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 27, 2007 3:17 AM

Chris Ford, I wasn't attacking Walt or Mearsheimer. I was commenting on your increasing overt anti-Semitism, which, in your latest post, frankly sounds like something out of Wilhelm Marr.

Posted by Julian Elson | August 27, 2007 5:03 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

1. The State of Israel will be around long after Mr. Hack has departed this mortal coil.

2. In Mr. Hacks' quote mining of a statement by Prof Dershowitz, I would appreciate it if he would point to one statement which is untrue. The fact that Mersheimer and Walt are extensively quoted an praised in racist web sites is proof positive in support of Prof. Dershowitzs' statement.

3. "Not to mention that Dershowitz himself is a major scumbag - zero intellectual honesty, shameless lies, shameless smears, complete inability to address rational argument." Gee, this sounds like a description of Mr. Hack.

Re pseudonymous in nc

"I'm increasingly convinced that 'SLC' is a parody troll, a caricature dreamed up by a twisted anti-semite. I'd like him/her to disprove it, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting."

By this reasoning, Richard Steven Hack, and Don Williams, are obviously agents of the International Zionist Conspiracy, based on their nonsensical writings which bring discredit to the anti-Zionist position.

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 7:28 AM

Given that TNR ran, let's say, 50 articles bashing the original paper, I assume they'll devote a whole week's issue plus every web piece for a week and of course every Spine to bashing the book.

Posted by Farty Peretz | August 27, 2007 9:07 AM

Well, SLC, perhaps they are. Now can you disprove that your nym doesn't stand for Stormfront Lovin' Coward?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 27, 2007 11:00 AM

pseudonymous in nc,

Not defending or supporting anyone, but just noting for the record:

if you go to Stormfront, you'll find that they are big fans of Walt and Mearsheimer's work on this topic.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 27, 2007 11:29 AM

First shot against the Walt/Mearsheimer book by former Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold, a diplomat by the way, who is yet another individual who the former have declined to debate. Or is Mr. Ford going to claim that Mr. Gold is not a member of the foreign policy establishment.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/11938.htm

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 11:51 AM

I've said it before, but I had one of those professors, and I enjoyed his class though I very often disagreed with him. But this article, and I'm sure the book too, is terrible social science. I'm embarassed for these two guys.

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2006/07/that-pesky-lobby.html

Posted by alenda lux | August 27, 2007 11:52 AM

James Kirchick shares his usual pithy comments on Andrew Sullivan's blog which doesn't run comments so he can say whatever he wants without fear of criticism. This is how the bigoted moron ends his comment:

Except to see a great deal of praise for these clowns over the coming weeks by their fellow courageous, speaking-truth-to-power comrade here.

The final word here is a link to this blog. Frankly, I don't understand why the likes of Steve Clemons agreed to cohost Sullivan's blog with Kirchick since he is regarded as an idiot even on his home blog at The New Republic.

Posted by ndm | August 27, 2007 12:25 PM

alenda lux writes:

But this article, and I'm sure the book too, is terrible social science.

Why should I not be surprised about the mendacity of the American-Zionist flunky. alenda lux has not read the book but is ALREADY certain it is "terrible social science."

Posted by ndm | August 27, 2007 12:30 PM

Something truly remarkable is taking place on the WM debate. The attacks are personal, the name calling vituperative, the charge of bad faith thrown around like confetti and any serious attempt at discussion stifled. This the USA. Why shouldn't WM get to argue for their book and take the heat. Why are they being deprived of a platform as organisations cancel. Where is this pressure coming from? I know that most politicians make sure they get to AIPAC meetings and some leave their spine at the door. But that's life, I guess. Criticising AIPAC is a no, no.

Just back from Israel. Boy, what a difference. Those people criticise themselves far more harshly than I thought possible. Their politics makes for much bitterness and anger. The Palestine issue really troubles the Israelis whose natural inclination is to be good neighbours with a helping hands at the ready.

We could learn a lesson from them. After all they live out their anxieties every day.

Posted by Alan | August 27, 2007 12:31 PM

Does anyone notice how SLC etc --as well as Alan Dershowitz -- seem like mirror images of the anti-Semites they profess to despise? That both groups seem to have a form of mental illness??

Notice how both groups duck the FACTS -- in fact, REFUSE to address the facts -- in favor of hysterically promoting made up narratives? Notice how both groups REFUSE to see anything that contradicts the rich fantasies they have constructed in their inner worlds.

There is PLENTY of evidence that the Israel Lobby exists, is very powerful, retaliates against those who can meaningfully oppose its desires, and has brought death and destruction down upon America. I've shown a small fraction of that evidence. I could show more but what's the point?? -- SLC etal resolutely refuses to address what I do show.

But there is also PLENTY of evidence that the Israel Lobby is the work of a few powerful billionaires and their hangers-on. That most of America's 6 million Jews are common citizens who are largely ignorant of the Israel Lobby , who are loyal Americans, and who do not have the votes or treasure to distort US policy in the way being done by the Israel Lobby.

Indeed, it is not difficult to find progressive American Jews who are deeply critical of --and actively oppose -- the Israel Lobby's imperialism.

Just as it is not difficult to find very powerful Non-Jewish interests like Big Oil whose minions pander to the Israel Lobby in order to sabotage any Democratic resistance to spending the lives of our soldiers to grab Middle Eastern oil.

But the anti-Semites can't see reality. Just as people in the Israel Lobby camp like David Horowitz depicts many Muslims as "Islamo-Fascists" and Alan Dershowitz seems to see an Anti-Semite under every bed. Bring in Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and you have an insane asylum.

In my opinion, however, David Horowitz, Alan Dershowitz, Rush Limbaugh are probably not really mentally sick-- they only appear to be so because their livelihood and/or influence depends upon them strongly courting people who are.

We need to insist that American discourse returns to a reality. That when a public figure makes a bullshit statement, he is challenged to provide convincing evidence for that statement and that he is pushed off the podium if he fails to do so.
There are people who apparently think it is patriotic to sabotage the national discourse with NOISE -- with a barrage of deceitful and false propaganda.

Unfortunately, the corporate media thinks that the rants of the insane gain higher ratings than dull reality.

Posted by Don Williams | August 27, 2007 12:59 PM

Kirchick links approvingly to an editorial in The Forward which confesses that Measrheimer and Walt have a case:

Major Jewish organizations, including centrist as well as hard-line groups, regularly use their clout to narrow the scope of acceptable public debate on Israel. They cast their net wide, indiscriminately targeting independent-minded allies of Israel along with its sworn enemies. Many pro-Israel dissenters have walked away feeling deeply bruised and disillusioned.

Wow, is that not a generous and honest statement from a leading Jewish newspaper? Of course, it cannot last and so the article has to accuse them of the usual "trick:"

The trick follows a typical pattern. Step one: Publish your views in as provocative a manner as possible. Use words like "apartheid," as Jimmy Carter did in his book, or paint Jewish lobbying efforts in darkly conspiratorial terms, as Walt and Mearsheimer did in a paper published last year. Step two: Dare the Jewish community to lash out at you, then whine about being victimized by bullies. Step three: Implore fair-minded liberals to line up behind you, forcing them to choose between endorsing your vision — however skewed — or becoming part of the censorship juggernaut.

And so the Forward demonstrates that it wishes to continue slow and steady with a decades-long Israeli immiseration of the Palestinian people.

Of course, what the hardcore American-Zionist lobby wants is not a debate. A show trial where its star lawyer will run the prosecution against two academics.

Posted by ndm | August 27, 2007 1:00 PM

I also think it is hilarious how some people think that honest discussion and fair debate is obtained by inviting Alan Dershowitz to the forum.

One, Alan Dershowitz is a LAWYER -- and the whole mindset of lawyers is aggressively OPPOSED to honest discussion and fair debate. They don't see their duty as finding TRUTH -- they see their duty as mounting the best advocacy for their side-- with no deception being too unfair and no trick of sophistry being too low. Who ever heard of a lawyer trying to ENLIGHTEN a jury -- vice trying to confuse and mislead?

Didn't anyone here watch the OJ Simpson trial??
The one where Alan Dershowitz was on the defense team?

By the way, has Alan ever found the "real killer" of an American Jew named Ron Goldman? Or is Ron to be sacrificed to the greater cause in the same way the Jews of Weimer Germany were sacrificed by American and British Zionists??

Posted by Don Williams | August 27, 2007 1:14 PM

And for Kirchick to throw that bomb to Sullivan's fellow Atlantic blogger using his friggin blog on his frigging wedding day! Shameless. Raimondo was right about him.

I just ordered the damned book.

Posted by Kuks | August 27, 2007 1:19 PM

Or is Ron to be sacrificed to the greater cause in the same way the Jews of Weimer Germany were sacrificed by American and British Zionists??

One of your best yet, Don.

How do you do it?

Let me try. Johnnie Cochran sacrificed Nicole Simpson to the greater cause in the same way that the white farmers of Zimbabwe were sacrificed by Robert Mugabe?

No, I don't think that works.

Robert Kardashian sacrificed Nicole Simpson to the greater cause in the same way the the Armenians of the Caucusus were sacrificed by American and British Armenians?

No, strike two.

This is tough. Keep up the good work.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 27, 2007 1:33 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Does anyone notice how conspiracy theorists like Mr. Don Williams address all topics by trumpeting the claim that vast, remorseless conspiracies are responsible for all the worlds' problems. I have a suggestion for Mr. Williams. Instead of beating up on left wing appeasers like Haim Saben, how about taking time out to appraise the real threats to American freedoms, namely the Christian Dominionists like Richard Mellon Scaithe and Howard Ahmanson, the creatures of R. J. Rushdooney, who scheme to turn the country into a Christian version of Iran. Compared to them, Walt, Mearsheimer, Saben, Dershowitz et al are a minor sideshow.

2. Mr. Williams complains when I anoint him as a left wing version of David Duke. He then turns around and conflates a liberal Democrat like Alan Dershowitz with right wing whackjobs like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, et al. The fact is that the charge promulgated by Mr. Williams and Mr. Hack that Prof. Dershowitz has accused Walt and Mearsheimer of antisemitism is based on his statement that their previous article will be highly praised on right wing racist web sites. Well, guess what, that article is indeed highly praised on right wing racist web sites like David Dukes, rense, and stormfront. But I suppose that Mr. Williams and Mr. Hack will blame that on Prof. Dershowitz. After all, if he had ignored the article, Duke et al might never have heard of it.

Re ndn

Apparently, Mr. Ndn just can't stand it when publications like the Forward have the temerity to say an unkind thing about one of his heros. Just as Profs. Walt and Mearsheimer have the absolute right to publish their ideas, so do their critics have the absolute right to point out that their ideas are a pile of crap. Mr. ndn accuses the critics of not wanting a debate but a show trial. Well I have a question for Mr. ndn. What would he consider a fair debate, since Walt and Mearsheimer have done nothing but avoid confronting any of their critics, just like their fellow coward James Earl Carter did earlier this year. For the information of interested readers, attached is a link to an article in the Jerusalem Post which provides a summary of the arguments of Walt and Mearsheimer. The summary appears to be factual and neutral, although I suspect it will not satisfy Mr. ndn.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188128148930&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 1:38 PM

I can understand the Jewish lobby and their spear carriers screaming about this book and the original essay. They don't actually produce any evidence to refute the basic thesis of the book, it's all personal abuse. Crap, anti semites, etc etc crop up frequently in any comments, just look above. Similary, they claim Messr Walt and Mearsheimer have refused to enter into debate about their essay. This is also untrue. The fact is as just about anyone in America with the remotest interest in politics knows only too well the Jewish constituency exercise a huge influence over the US political process. Much of it is benign but when it comes to Israel there's surely little doubt that the tail is wagging the dog. They should perhaps beware of over reaching because at some point the American public is going to demand a proper accounting of how and why we went into Iraq which was largely at the behest of the neo conservative wing of the Jewish lobby. I'm a pro Israeli but I have to say the stridency and sheer unreason of folks like Dershowitz and others like me begin to make me wonder whether they don't protest too loudly for their own good.

Posted by John | August 27, 2007 1:55 PM

Just a reminder for everyone: being Jewish does not equal being a Zionist. The rejection or acceptance of Israel should be political, not ethnic or tribal.

Posted by alec | August 27, 2007 1:57 PM

They don't actually produce any evidence to refute the basic thesis of the book, it's all personal abuse. .

That's actually not true.

http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=434

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/abstract_dersh1.htm

You may disagree with their conclusions, but it's not personal abuse and they do provide evidence.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 27, 2007 2:04 PM

SLC directs me to the Jerusalem Post's "factual and neutral" summary of the Mearsheimer and Walt arguments. Frankly, having read the original article in The London Review of Books I can understand the Mearsheimer and Walt thesis without reading a summary in a right-wing Israeli newspaper.

Posted by ndm | August 27, 2007 2:09 PM

SoCalJustice claims the Dershowitz criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt is not personal abuse. Further up this thread I provided some direct quotes from his letter of response to The London Review of Books. These quotes show Dershowitz to have been utterly abusive to Mearsheimer and Walt. In several places in that letter Dershowitz deliberately and mendaciously associated Mearsheimer and Walt with neo-Nazis. Presumably SoCalJustice does not view that as personal abuse.

Posted by ndm | August 27, 2007 2:29 PM

I meant to say that it was not ALL personal abuse, as was the quote I excerpted.

No need to presume, ndm, I do not think that the three quotes you cite constitute personal abuse, nor do I think your characterization that they were "mendaciously associated" with neo-Nazis is an accurate description.

Their material was picked up favorably by all stripes of neo-nazis.

I actually emailed Professor Walt about that when it was happening and he was kind of enough to respond, and he was obviously not happy about it, but acknowledged it was in fact a widespread occurence.

But there's certainly much more in his response than the three or four quotes you cite.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 27, 2007 2:41 PM

Re ndn

"SoCalJustice claims the Dershowitz criticism of Mearsheimer and Walt is not personal abuse. Further up this thread I provided some direct quotes from his letter of response to The London Review of Books."

Mr. ndn engages in Mr. Don Williams' favorite pastime, namely proving his assertions by quote mining, just like the clowns at the Discovery Institute quote mine to prove that something is wrong with the Theory of Evolution. Apparently, Mr. ndn has his nickers in a twist because Prof. Dershowitz asserted that right wing racist web sites would love the Walt/Mersheimer paper and subsequent book. Well guess what, Prof. Dershowitz was absolutely correct and accurate in his assessment. The right wing racist blogosphere indeed just loves the paper and I daresay will love the upcoming book. One can hardly call telling the truth to be abusive.

Re John

"Similary, they claim Messr Walt and Mearsheimer have refused to enter into debate about their essay. This is also untrue."

I am afraid that Mr. John is seriously in error. Please inform me of a debate where they have been confronted with respectable critics (I hardly consider Mr. Don Williams' assertion that left wing appeasers like Shlomo Ben Ami or Martin Indyk constitute respectable critics). Earlier on, I pasted a link to a review by Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the US. How about Walt and/or Mearsheimer agreeing to debate Gold? Not a chance. They won't debate anybody who might show them up for the scumbags they are.

Posted by SLC | August 27, 2007 3:30 PM

Here's some other non-personally abusive, evidentiary criticism of the good Profs.:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/09/03/070903taco_talk_remnick

Again, take it or leave it.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 27, 2007 3:36 PM

The London Review of Books hosted a debate in New York last year on the Mearsheimer/Walt article. The panellists were Shlomo Ben-Ami, Martin Indyk, Tony Judt, Rashid Khalidi, John Mearsheimer and Dennis Ross, and the moderator was Anne-Marie Slaughter.

The video for the debate can be found here.

I wonder if that is the Dennis Ross who was a top US Israeli-Palestinian negotiator or the Dennis Ross who works for the AIPAC-spawned Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Posted by ndm | August 27, 2007 3:50 PM

I am a bit surprised to find Matthew Yglesias supportive of such a work of pulp by Walt and Mearsheimer. However, to Matt and others of his persuasion on this matter, I would like to pose the following questions, which no one seems to have addressed:

1. By just how much does the Israel (Jewish) Lobby have "too much power"? How much power would be just enough, or even too little?

2. How would you propose to remove such power from the (pro-Israel) Jews? Would you remove power from leftist Jews who don't support Israel, or just the the ones you don't like?

3. Would you limit or remove the power of Jews in non-Israel centered organizations such as civil rights, feminist, scientific and labor organizations and lobbies, or just the pro-Israel ones? Or would you limit the power of all lobbying and advocacy organizations?

I eagerly await your responses.

Posted by Jeffrey Ellis | August 27, 2007 5:13 PM

I don't know SLC can describe Alan Dewrshowitz as a "liberal Democrat" when Dershowitz supports such things as torture warrants. And my recollection is that Dershowitz has been fairly quick to label people as anti-Semites. For instance, when Mass Senate President William Bulger (admittedly not an exemplar of probity) made a hostile comment about Dershowitz and a colleague and then said "just look at them," Dershowitz took this as evidence of Bulger's anti-Semitism, since Dershowitz argued that he and his colleague looked visibly Jewish. You have to wonder who is the bigit here and in whose mind do the nasty stereotypes roam.

And of course there is a tremendous effort to discredit Walt and Mearsheimer, much like there was to discredit Charles Murray.

And frankly, reading someone like SLC calling for using nuclear weapons against the "mad mullahs" of Teheran doesn't sound much different than calling for their use against the "raving rabbis" of Jerusalem who think that the Old Testament is their special real estate contract with God that all unbigoted people have to enforce.

Posted by Gene | August 27, 2007 5:58 PM

There's ZERO intellectual honesty and MAXIMUM intellectual cowardice in ANY Zionist thug. And that includes Dershowitz.

No point in arguing with them, really. They will simply distort, lie, abuse, whine, and generally ignore anything that smacks of facts or logic. They'll work behind your back to get you cut off from any support network or hearing by anybody. They'd attack you with guns if they thought they could get away with it.

They're thugs. Their ideology is a thug ideology, their personal behavior is like a thug.

It's that simple.

The only way to deal with them is to ignore them and keep hammering on the main point with the facts: Israel is an illegal, rogue, terrorist state that needs to be - as Ahmadinejad put it, correctly - "erased from the pages of time."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 27, 2007 11:35 PM

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer masquerade one sided political advocacy as objective research.

Posted by Jonathan | August 28, 2007 9:33 PM

Professors Walt and Mearsheimer received a hefty cash advance and most likely pocket hefty speaking fees as well. Absurd is a claim that persons receiving buckets of bucks are free speech victims. The pair are poltroons: the sole debate in which they participated (London Review of Books) was attended by only one of them. Refusal to debate means your argument stinks to heaven.

Posted by Marshall | August 29, 2007 4:40 PM

As I mentioned on the topic over at my own humble site, I'm rather amazed by arguments by those who, like SLC, try to bring down Walt and Mearsheimer by association with the neo-Nazis.

It raises a question: should one not decry human rights abuses in China because it will prove popular with those who are bigoted against the Chinese?

No?

Then what's the difference?

I'm looking forward to reading this, and I suspect that on one level, a point made above is correct: Israel advocacy is losing its "third rail" status. It was inevitable, as namecalling and ad hominems will only work for so long. Even deceptive arguments like Marshall's, that don't recognize that a work stands apart from its writer, aren't having the kind of effect they once had.

I suggest "marshalling" better arguments.

Posted by Demosthenes | August 30, 2007 2:53 AM

SLC wrote, However, it is fair to accuse Walt and Mearsheimer of cowardice in their refusal to engage in debate over the charges made in their book (and before Don Williams repeats his claim that they did engage in a debate with Indyk, BenAmi, et al, I would hardly consider a debate with wimps like that legitimate). Let the yellow bellies Walt and Mearsheimer agree to a debate with, for example Carolyn Glick or Alan Dershowitz or Daniel Pipes.

I think the only appropriate response to such an idiotic claim is "LOL!"

Posted by liberal | September 1, 2007 10:13 AM

Marshall wrote, Absurd is a claim that persons receiving buckets of bucks are free speech victims.

IIRC the one at Harvard lost a promotion or something because of the original essay.

Refusal to debate means your argument stinks to heaven.

Really? So you cannot refuse to, say, debate members of the KKK on the topic of race in America?

Posted by liberal | September 1, 2007 10:16 AM

IIRC the one at Harvard lost a promotion or something because of the original essay.

It's strange watching these myths build - especially around this kind of thing.

KSG: Walt Planned To Step Aside Before Furor

Kennedy School of Government (KSG) Academic Dean Stephen M. Walt—who is facing criticism from some colleagues after co-authoring a paper assailing the United States’ pro-Israel policies—will step down from his administrative post this June, but school officials say that his move was long-planned and is not related to the controversy sparked by Walt’s paper.

Walt will remain a tenured professor at the school, but the announcement that he will leave the position of academic dean means that Walt will no longer be in charge of the KSG’s teaching and research at a time when his own scholarship is under attack.

KSG Dean David T. Ellwood ’75 said in a statement that Walt "had been due to depart last June after the normal three-year cycle, but had agreed, at my request, to stay on for one more year."

"His departure is completely unrelated to the current discussion surrounding the article he co-authored with John Mearsheimer," Ellwood said in the statement.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512421

Posted by SoCalJustice | September 1, 2007 10:32 AM

Debate is an almost entirely useless way of getting at the truth--it tends to reward people who are good debaters rather than people who have better arguments. I don't blame anyone for spending their time in a more productive way.

Posted by William Burns | September 1, 2007 10:49 AM