Matthew Yglesias (September 14, 2007) - Homogeneity (Foreign Policy)

I wouldn't find their argument at all persuasive except the reaction it garners seems like the best evidence they could ever ask for. As you note, MY, rarely does anyone ever take on their argument at the merits, instead distorting it and attacking the caricature, or attacking their credibility with a frightening gusto. This almost zealous approach seems less aimed at rebutting the argument than stifling the discussion their work is meant to provoke.

And that seems like pretty good evidence that maybe they're on to something, no?

Posted by mopper | September 14, 2007 11:34 AM

matthew, what is it you see in the track records of the deep critic that leads you to conclude that dealing with actual arguments, on their merits, is part of their makeup?

Posted by howard | September 14, 2007 11:34 AM

perhaps it didnt reubt the actual argument because

"George Shultz was secretary of state from 1982 to 1989. This is excerpted from his introduction to The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control by Abraham Foxman"

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | September 14, 2007 11:38 AM

I think what makes this issue difficult for "those of little brain" (as Winnie the Pooh would say) is that the pro-Israel lobby is ONE factor behind the strong US support for Israel, but not the ONLY factor. See how amazingly subtle the issue is?

Here are some other factors I can think of.
-Cultural empathy: Israel has Western values, the muslim hordes don't.
-Americans like winners: Israel has done well militarily.
-Israel is fighting terrorists.
-Press coverage has been slanted in favor of Israel for a variety of reasons.
-Israel was on our side during the Cold war.
-Defense contractors get a big subsidy out of our aid to Israel

Posted by Jim W | September 14, 2007 11:39 AM

What I like best is that Shultz is essentially making a Jew joke ("Those Jews can't agree on ANYTHING!") that would give Marty the vapors if someone less pro-Israel made it.

Posted by Alex | September 14, 2007 11:40 AM

yup: it's about as old as they come:
"two jews, three opinions".

not that it has ever struck me as anti-semitic, though.

Posted by kid bitzer | September 14, 2007 11:43 AM

Surely if the Walt/Measheimer argument is so wrong, its critics ought to be able to rebut the actual argument.

Yeah, I'm still waiting too.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 14, 2007 11:44 AM

"Read him and take him seriously" is something that nobody has ever said about Crazy Marty himself.

Posted by Tom Hilton | September 14, 2007 11:48 AM

If Marty Peretz advises you to read someone and take them seriously, you can be quite sure that you should dismiss this person's views.

Posted by Rules of Punditry 101 | September 14, 2007 11:54 AM

Matt,

That disclaimer is at odds with the language they use throughout the paper.

For instance, SOME groups in "the lobby" try to surpress anti-israel speech. But W&M say "The Lobby monitors what professors write and teach" which, to most people, directly implies that it describes a collective goal agreed upon by all or most factions when it actually is a contentious issue and opposed strongly by many supporters of Israel.

Its just as sloppy as the rights term of "the left" to lump all sorts of disparate groups together and use the behaviors of some to impugn them all.

Posted by r4d20 | September 14, 2007 12:02 PM

If you think critics are misrepresenting their work, how about all of their enthusiastic supporters who are glad someone finally had the courage to come out and say that 'the Jews' are behind all that's gone wrong in America, whether or not this is actually what W-M said?

Posted by Phoebe | September 14, 2007 12:05 PM

Re Yglesias

How about Mr. Yglesias commenting on the Richard Cohen review of the Walt/Mearsheimer book, a link to which I posted yesterday. Not even Mr. Yglesias can claim that Cohen is a all out Israel supporter, given his Israel bashing track record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=%22richard%20cohen%22&

Posted by SLC | September 14, 2007 12:17 PM

about all of their enthusiastic supporters who are glad someone finally had the courage to come out and say that 'the Jews' are behind all that's gone wrong in America, whether or not this is actually what W-M said?

Also bad! But only relevant in a Hitler was a vegetarian kind of way, unless your point is that there are well reasoned criticisms of W-M out there, and it's unfair of MY to focus on the bad ones.

Posted by washerdreyer | September 14, 2007 12:18 PM

Wow. I hadn't realized vegetarians were so evil.

Posted by Jim W | September 14, 2007 12:24 PM

But only relevant in a Hitler was a vegetarian kind of way...

It seems to me that if you're going to take a scholarly position in this particular debate, you sort of have a moral obligation to do everything in your power to distance yourself from the sort of nutters who might otherwise hold your work up as some sort of confirmation of their beliefs.

As long as you do that, then you can't really help what the nutters do. But I mean, you shouldn't write a book like The Bell Curve and then act shocked and dismayed that the white supremacists are buying up all the copies.

Posted by Steve | September 14, 2007 12:26 PM

W and M say "‘the Lobby’ is [not] a unified movement with a central leadership" but then go on to treat it that way for the entire book. So it's pretty dishonst to use that quote as proof.

Posted by Dave | September 14, 2007 12:27 PM

1) I myself like kosher hotdogs and Israeli newspapers. So when I check Haaratz to see what the International Zionist Conspiracy thinks about the Iraq War, I read the following:

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical "

Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

2) Ha ha ha ha. "Not Part of the Group", Tom. I bet you stumbled over reading the Torah at your Bar Mitzvah, also. No?

3) But evidently the guys throw journalist Tom an occasional bagel -- probably because his mother asked them to give him a break. So Tom passes on the scoop to Haaretz:

" Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. "

Posted by Don Williams | September 14, 2007 1:29 PM

Kinda sad you guys had to get the word from a goyim.

And sadder still that we all have to get the REAL news about the US from foreign papers.

Posted by Don Williams | September 14, 2007 1:33 PM

Take any pro-Palestinian or anti-occupation group in the United States; student groups, divestment campaigns, local peace organizations, the ISM, or any other sort of organization that is at all sympathetic to the Palestinians, from moderate to outright radical. Check out their board of directors, key officers, and so forth, and I bet you dollars to donuts that at LEAST one third to one half of the people in charge are Jewish. I don't know if there is some survey to back this up, but it has been my experience, and I always have found it admirable, even if I didn't agree with the philosophy of one particular group. Add to that the fact that Jewish Americans are more passionately against the Iraq war than most Americans, or the fact that some of the most incisive criticism of Israel can be found in Haaretz, etc.

The point of all this is that we probably shouldn't talk about the "Israeli lobby" at all, and certainly not about the "Jewish lobby." Groups such as AIPAC and the ADL are best described as the right-wing Likudnik lobby. Calling them the Israel lobby or the Jewish lobby, after all, just makes it easy for them to call their opponents anti-Israel or anti-Jewish.

Posted by Spokeytown | September 14, 2007 1:45 PM

"not that it has ever struck me as anti-semitic, though."

Oh, I completely agree. As a Jew, I'm here to testify that I myself have at least three different opinions about all things at any given time, and the fights get violent.

But whether or not it's actually anti-Semitic doesn't have any bearing on whether or not Marty would CALL it anti-Semitic if it suited his purposes.

Posted by Alex | September 14, 2007 1:54 PM

In the article Shultz is equally cavelier with distorting Carter's work. Carter analogized the system of roads that carve up the West Bank to a system of apartheid. Shultz calls this illegitimate because Israel is entitled to defend itself. But there is no serious argument that the settlements in the West Bank contribute to Israel's ability to survive. In fact they strain Israel's military resources. So it is hardly an article that gives one reason to take it seriously.

What is true is that Walt and Mearsheimer make bad spokesman for the anti-Israeli lobby side because they oversimplify and slant things to the other side. They are hardly less serious than Shultz in this article, but they are not as serious as one would like the people around whom the debate centers to be.

Posted by Lon | September 14, 2007 2:01 PM

Re Spokeytown comment "The point of all this is that we probably shouldn't talk about the "Israeli lobby" at all, and certainly not about the "Jewish lobby." Groups such as AIPAC and the ADL are best described as the right-wing Likudnik lobby. Calling them the Israel lobby or the Jewish lobby, after all, just makes it easy for them to call their opponents anti-Israel or anti-Jewish"
----------
I concur that we shouldn't speak of the "Jewish Lobby".

On the other hand, the problem is not with common activists --either right wing, Likudite, or progressive. Most of the leaders you mention have NO influence -- both the number of people they influence and the campaign donations they make are trivial.

By contrast, when Bill Kristol or Richard Perle ran the Iraq scam on us, they addressed MILLIONS.

When the owners of the New York Times wanted to float Judith Miller's bullshit about Saddam's WMDs, they reached MILLIONS.

When President Bill Clinton fetched soft drinks for Haim Saban, he did so for an Israeli Billionaire who gave the Democrats almost $14 MILLION in the 2000-2002 cycle. $14 Million that the Republicans would dearly like to have.

When I complain of the Israel Lobby , I complain of specific, wealthy, powerful men who harm this country greatly --and appear to do so because they think they are acting in Israel's best interest. The fact they are often full of shit doesn't alleviate the damage they do.

I am actually skeptical re whether these men really care for Judaism. One does not, after all, acquire $Billions by having an unduly strong relevence for the Commandments "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not Lie". It may be that these men simply like the idea of having a second passport and a second country as refuge -- ask Marc Rich.

And of course they make deals with other wealthy men in Big Oil who would not care if Israel was nuked off the face of the earth tomorrow.

What the Israel Lobby doesn't realize is that Big Oil will dump its pro-Israel stance as soon as the oil runs out. Israel, meanwhile , will be left holding a bag of shit -- stuck in a sea of millions of Muslims who hate her due to decades of conflicts stirred up by Big Oil.

But Big Defense will still be happy to sell Israel -- and the Muslims -- F16 jet fighters.

The Israel Lobby also seems very indifferent to how the damage it brings down upon America is driving a wedge between Jewish Americans and the other 294 million Americans who have welcomed the Jews as fellow countrymen for over 200 years.

The Israel Lobby showed a similar indifference back in 1917 when it cut a deal with British PM David Lloyd George and --in exchange for the Balfour Declaration -- dropped millions of leaflets on Germany,Austria and Eastern Europe urging German Jews to support the Allies. Except for the self-hating ones, of course.

25 years later -- after Versailles , Adolf Hitler, and the Holocaust-- over 5 million Jews had paid for that little political manipulation.

Posted by Don Williams | September 14, 2007 2:13 PM

Well said, Spokeytown!
It is the declining and desperate Lik-nudnick faction that has heedlessly tied Israel's fate to the neocon imperialists and ghastly Christian fundamentalists.
In keeping with the noble Jewish tradition of spirited inquiry, no matter to whose benefit it redounds, most American and Israeli Jews see the US-Israel relationship as vital, risky, and morally complex.
It is the strikingly "un-Jewish" aspect of the AIPAC mindset- short-sighted, crude, selfish, authoritarian- that is the clearest sign that it does not, and could not, ever truly represent the best interests of Israel or the US.
Regrettably, W&M's casting of their argument is no less blockheaded than that of AIPAC et al. And there is no denying the strong whiff of ant-Semitism implicit in their presentation. And that is why their critique does not, and could not, ever truly represent the best interests of the US or Israel.

Posted by hum'n'mum | September 14, 2007 2:14 PM

hum'n'mum;

I read the W+M paper, but not the book they just put out. I thought the paper was regrettably lame; there were no specifics at all and the only example they had of the Lobby ending someone's career was some Congressman who spoke out against Israeli policy in 1984 and then lost the next election. The NY Review of Books had a piece about the original W+M paper that was much better than the paper itself, because it named names and had much better, more current examples of the Lobby flexing its muscles.

I didn't detect a strong whiff of anti-Semitism though, and I would be curious to see where you did (I read the paper a while ago, and maybe the book is different than the paper). If W+M are guilty of anything, it seems that they didn't delve into why Israelis might find it in their interest to support the Lobby. I.E. there's nothing sinister about an Israeli saying "AIPAC is our ace in the hole in this whole Middle East mess, and we want to support it. After all, we're under attack." If the Lebanese or Yemenis or had a similar outfit they would support it unapolagetically, and we couldn't really blame them for it. Again, the NY Review of Books article does a much better job of stating this than W+M do.

I could also see, but don't agree with, an argument saying "why focus on the Lobby without talking about Israel's security considerations" or "why focus on the Lobby and not talk about bad things in Darfur/Congo/Burma/etc.?" I think it is important to talk about Israel's security considerations, to get a better picture of the Lobby's motives if for no other reason, but that only go so far; a totally illegal settlement deep in the West Bank has absolutely nothing to do with Israel's security, yet no one in Congress will say that. And pointing to Darfur/Congo/Burma is important, and it is too bad that those conflicts don't get more coverage and concern, but that doesn't mean that Israel doesn't deserve scrutiny for what it does. (Especially because I'm paying for it; what's happening in Darfur sucks, but we're not giving Sudan several billion dollars in military aid each year.)

PS Don Williams, put the brakes on for a bit. Do the activities of the Lobby really threaten the future of Jews in America? Maybe among the black helicopter crowd, but they probably weren't too disposed to like Jews in the first place. And while I'm sure the early Zionists played a few political tricks prior to WW2, I imagine Hitler and Co. were going to do what they did regardless.

Posted by Spokeytown | September 14, 2007 3:11 PM

Re Don Williams
"The Israel Lobby showed a similar indifference back in 1917 when it cut a deal with British PM David Lloyd George and --in exchange for the Balfour Declaration -- dropped millions of leaflets on Germany,Austria and Eastern Europe urging German Jews to support the Allies. Except for the self-hating ones, of course.

25 years later -- after Versailles , Adolf Hitler, and the Holocaust-- over 5 million Jews had paid for that little political manipulation."

1. Just for the information of Mr. Williams, thousands of German and Austrian Jews served honorably in their respective armies and navies, particularly the German navy. As a for instance, the father of a friend of mine who is a professor at UMass Lowell served in the Austrian army.

2. Mr. Williams is, as usual, totally full of shit. The Balfour declaration was issued in order to overcome any resistance of German Jews in the US, who were extremely influential (e.g. the ownership of the New York Times), to entrance of the US in the war on the allied side. They might have been expected to support Germany, or at least oppose entry of the US on the allied side, as Jews were more integrated into German life then into British or French life (remember the Dreyfuss affair). As to the alleged leaflets, I suspect that they were totally ineffective, if in fact they existed at all. By the way, how were these leaflets dropped as no long range aircraft existed at the time of WW 1.

Posted by SLC | September 14, 2007 3:30 PM

It seems odd to include people like Bill Kristol or Richard Perle in as the main representatives of the Jewish Lobby (admittedly the point was to get away from that inaccurate label).

While there are jews who support Israel out of the same kind of loyalty that the Irish in this country used to support the opposition in North Ireland, Kristol and Perle seem to be two ideologues who happen to be jewish and will suppost Israel only because it happens to fit with their ideological views.

One can find people who happen to be jewish on every side of most major issues. But this seems to be different from people who speak as representatives (maybe self-appointed) representives of parts of the American jewish community.

Posted by Lon | September 14, 2007 4:06 PM

"Kristol and Perle seem to be two ideologues who happen to be jewish and will suppost Israel only because it happens to fit with their ideological views."

My thoughts exactly. It's neo-con ideology that's the problem. And neo-con ideology has infected groups like AIPAC and AEI, groups with very large megaphones in DC. That some of the more prominent members of these groups are of Jewish ancestry is certainly true. But they aren't all Jews and most are not Israelis. They're not looking out for Israel's best interests simply to benefit Israel and Israelis...they're looking out for Israel's best interests - or what they view as Israel's best interests (which often isn't in line with the opionions of other American Jews or even many Israelis themselves) - because they see this as helping to forward their own flawed ideology. A stronger Israel - beholden to the US for billions of dollars in military aid - in the land of milk and honey and black gold means a stronger US.

Similarly, ideology and not love for all things Israeli is why the "Israel Lobby" also includes Christian fundamentalists, whose ideology differs from that of the neo-cons in that it's based in their interpretation of the Christian bible....you know, where the gathering of the tribes of Israel in the promised land brings about the return of Christ and the thousand year reign, after which the Jews will either have to accept Christ as their lord and savior or burn in hell.

At the end of the day, it's not really about Israel, it's about (mostly neo)conservative ideological goals related to their vision of the United States place in this world.

Posted by OGLiberal | September 14, 2007 4:39 PM

Re SLC's comment "They might have been expected to support Germany, or at least oppose entry of the US on the allied side, as Jews were more integrated into German life then into British or French life (remember the Dreyfuss affair)."
------------

Ha ha ha. Part of what SLC says is true. Which raises the question of how Adolf ever rose to power.

Actually, I think another reason American Jews supported the Germans in the early stages of WWI was because Germany was killing a shitload of Czarist soldiers. The same Czars that had tried to exterminate Jews in Russia for various reasons in a series of pogroms. But in WWI, The Krauts were exterminating the Russians like something out of the Old Testament.

Earlier, Superrich New York Banker Jacob Schiff
had financed the Japanese in their war against the Czars. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

Which resulted in the Czarist intelligence service writing the "Protocols of Elders of Zion". A work of paranoid fiction. Which had a drop in sales after the Bolshevik Revolution overthrew the Czarist government -- and the Czarist intelligence service.

Which meant the "Bad Russians" had been replaced by the "Good Russians" -- and Germany was no longer needed.

In truth, however, you had several factions dragging the US into WWI on Britain's side. The superrich elites had intermarried. There was a lot of capital interlocked across the pond. The British wing of the House of Morgan was telling the New York wing of the House of Morgan that some loans might ..er.. be shaky if the Yanks didn't have the decency to join the party.

So the Balfour Declaration satisfied almost everyone except a German corporal sitting in the trenches who couldn't take a joke.

Again, read the memoirs of the man who set up the Balfour Declaration -- British PM David Lloyd George.

Posted by Don Williams | September 14, 2007 4:46 PM

Ah, yes. Here we go. From British PM David Lloyd George's Memoirs on the Peace Conference, Vol II, page 737

"The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally to the Allied cause Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world. They kept their word in the letter and the spirit, and the only question that remains now is whether we mean to honour ours. Immediately the declaration was agreed to, millions of leaflets were circulated in every town and area through - out the world where there were known to be Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air in German and Austrian towns, and they were scattered throughout Russia and Poland. I could point out substantial and in one case decisive advantages derived from this propaganda amongst the Jews. In Russia the Bolsheviks baffled all the efforts of the Germans to benefit by the harvests of the Ukraine and the Don, and hundreds of thousands of German and Austrian troops had to be maintained to the end of the War on Russian soil, whilst the Germans were short of men to replace casualties on the Western front. I do not suggest that this was due entirely, or even mainly, to Jewish activities. But we have good reason to believe that Jewish propaganda in Russia had a great deal to do with the difficulties created for the Germans in Southern Russia after the peace of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering to-day for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist p]edge to the Allies. "

Posted by Don Williams | September 14, 2007 5:15 PM

PS Note that David Lloyd George , as British PM, had access to the full output of the British Intelligence Service.

Posted by Don Williams | September 14, 2007 5:18 PM

Victor David Hanson wrote an excellent piece " Looking for scapegoat, world again turns to Jews " at http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6876280 . Hanson makes the point that " this new face of anti-Semitism is so insidious because it is so well disguised, advanced by self-proclaimed diplomats and academics - and now embraced by the supposedly sophisticated left on university campuses."

You should understand the history of anti-Semitism and how it has led to heightened sensitivity towards publications perceived as biased against Jews . This is what many are failing to grasp.

Here are some points to ponder:

1. Walt and Mearsheimer could have written a book entitled "Why it is not in the U.S. interests to maintain a special relationship with Israel ." This would probably not have raised charges of anti-Semitism if well-documented as to their reasons.

2. Instead, they chose a book whose title and major theme suggests excessive Jewish influence, a charge others have made for centuries. In doing so, and being aware of history themselves (hopefully), they should have taken the utmost care to get their facts correct.

3. A reading of the rebuttal links I provided below, or even Dershowitz' response alone to their paper ( Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy Theory: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper” ), should convince any reasonable person that there were serious structural, factual, contextual, and logical errors sufficient to possibly invalidate the professor's research and its conclusions.

4. Considering these errors, which significantly deviate from the prior work of these men and from academic research standards, and the fact that Harvard recently received $20 million, a huge sum in academia, to have Islamic views taught ( Saudi donates $20 million to Harvard , Boston Globe, Dec. 13, 2005), even a reasonable person might suspect a less than pure motivation for the "Jewish Lobby" work.

5. Walt and Mearshiemer have been insensitive to the response of the Jewish community, a response based on solid history - a solid history of atrocities often instigated by polemical, anti-Semitic writings. In fact, it has been suggested they expected and sought this response as a "trap" to validate their ideas that any charges raised against Israel cause "labelling" as an anti-Semite. In fact, it is the focus on a cabal that has been the principal cause of that repsonse.

6. A work like Walt and Mearsheimer's "Lobby" publications are not an appropriate mechanism to "open discussion" on the relationship between the US and Israel . They destroyed their credibility by their tendentious tone and numerous errors, errors that in other research would lead to charges of research fraud. Just as with works like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or articles in Der Sturmer, their work is only suitable for opening an examination of why their research on this topic is so lousy.

Posted by S Silverstein | September 14, 2007 9:03 PM

I have little doubt that when most of the startling percentage of Israeli land owned by the Israeli government is sold off to shady consortiums of mostly Arab investors it will have been a perfectly bitchen idea because it happened under Likud leadership.

Posted by Linus | September 14, 2007 9:44 PM

"For instance, SOME groups in "the lobby" try to surpress anti-israel speech. But W&M say "The Lobby monitors what professors write and teach" which, to most people, directly implies that it describes a collective goal agreed upon by all or most factions when it actually is a contentious issue and opposed strongly by many supporters of Israel.

Its just as sloppy as the rights term of "the left" to lump all sorts of disparate groups together and use the behaviors of some to impugn them all."

Whereas you would prefer that they list the specific groups they are referring to any time they refer to any action whatsoever taken by any member of the Lobby?

They really have no choice but to lump these various groups into one label. It's not quite the same as the right's use of the term "the left" - or vice versa, for that matter - because they explicitly deny that the groups comprising the Lobby are under one controlling organization or that they always agree with each other.

You get no such acknowledgement from "the right" OR "the left."

WM say as follows:

"We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."

That's a very simple statement that shouldn't be too hard to understand.

They also specify who they are referring to, in part:

"The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests."

"The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay...all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will."

" In addition, the Lobby’s membership includes neoconservative gentiles such as John Bolton, the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and columnist George Will."

"Over the past 25 years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).”

They note that "not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby," and that "Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies."

How many times do writers on "the left" refer to "the right wing nuts"? Do you demand that all such writers list specifically WHICH "right wing nuts" they are referring to in every instance?

This is a bullshit criticism.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 10:17 PM

SLC: Yeah, let's look at Richard Cohen, who wrote in "The Denver Post":

"By the time I put down the book, occasional critic of Israel though I be, I was ready to burst into '[Hatikvah]],' the Israeli national anthem. ..."

For those interested in a real overview of the original articles and the book, check out this site:

http://www.stopthewarnow.net/warlobbies/harvardpaper.html

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 10:27 PM

PS Oprah: Tell us governor Huckabee: how did you lose all that weight? (suction, trance, a little coke). How did you feel Mayor Giuliani when that second plane crashed into the south tower (the truth Oprah is that after all that manly exertion I had to pee and even after eight years of being in charge there were still no restrooms downtown). Tell us Mrs. Clinton: is Bill gonna do the housework? (Oprah: you have to understand: Bill gives amazing head).

Posted by Linus | September 14, 2007 10:30 PM

I for one greatly appreciate S Silverstein's comedic flare. That was meant to be humorous, right?

Two good points were made in comments:

1. While pretty much all strands of Zionism require the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, there are substantial political differences in Israel and the neoconservative ideologues like Kristol and others are or were directly affiliated with the extreme right-wing Likud Party. To the extent that AIPAC, ADL, Mighty Marty Peretz and the rest of the gang attack any and all messengers of the war-crimes and human rights violations committed by Israel, they serve to conflate the agends of particular Likudnik imperialistic bloodlust with that of all of Israel. People like Yglesias meanwhile attempt to stake out a middle ground, now demonstrably against the Likudnik/neoconservative Iraq War, but still in favor of Israel's rights to continue oppressing Palestinians for essentially ethnic reasons, a position which, flawed though it is, at the very least highlights the differences in Zionist "approaches," you might say. All of this to say, I agree that W&M ought to have considered the Likudnik "Israel Lobby's" stance for the extremist and minority position it occupies even in the Israeli political spectrum.

2. American corporate media has never seemed to find it relevant to mention "the 25" (or the Clean Break paper, in another permutation) in any of the thousands of hours and pages of Iraq coverage that I've seen... that kind of "wacko" stuff is reserved for the most untrustworthy internets and British, French, Canadian, German, and Israeli newspapers.

Posted by Murph | September 14, 2007 10:36 PM

I for one greatly appreciate S Silverstein's comedic flare. That was meant to be humorous, right?

Two good points were made in comments:

1. While pretty much all strands of Zionism require the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, there are substantial political differences in Israel and the neoconservative ideologues like Kristol and others are or were directly affiliated with the extreme right-wing Likud Party. To the extent that AIPAC, ADL, Mighty Marty Peretz and the rest of the gang attack any and all messengers of the war-crimes and human rights violations committed by Israel, they serve to conflate the agends of particular Likudnik imperialistic bloodlust with that of all of Israel. People like Yglesias meanwhile attempt to stake out a middle ground, now demonstrably against the Likudnik/neoconservative Iraq War, but still in favor of Israel's rights to continue oppressing Palestinians for essentially ethnic reasons, a position which, flawed though it is, at the very least highlights the differences in Zionist "approaches," you might say. All of this to say, I agree that W&M ought to have considered the Likudnik "Israel Lobby's" stance for the extremist and minority position it occupies even in the Israeli political spectrum.

2. American corporate media has never seemed to find it relevant to mention "the 25" (or the Clean Break paper, in another permutation) in any of the thousands of hours and pages of Iraq coverage that I've seen... that kind of "wacko" stuff is reserved for the most untrustworthy internets and British, French, Canadian, German, and Israeli newspapers.

Posted by Murph | September 14, 2007 10:36 PM

I for one greatly appreciate S Silverstein's comedic flare. That was meant to be humorous, right?

Two good points were made in comments:

1. While pretty much all strands of Zionism require the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, there are substantial political differences in Israel and the neoconservative ideologues like Kristol and others are or were directly affiliated with the extreme right-wing Likud Party. To the extent that AIPAC, ADL, Mighty Marty Peretz and the rest of the gang attack any and all messengers of the war-crimes and human rights violations committed by Israel, they serve to conflate the agends of particular Likudnik imperialistic bloodlust with that of all of Israel. People like Yglesias meanwhile attempt to stake out a middle ground, now demonstrably against the Likudnik/neoconservative Iraq War, but still in favor of Israel's rights to continue oppressing Palestinians for essentially ethnic reasons, a position which, flawed though it is, at the very least highlights the differences in Zionist "approaches," you might say. All of this to say, I agree that W&M ought to have considered the Likudnik "Israel Lobby's" stance for the extremist and minority position it occupies even in the Israeli political spectrum.

2. American corporate media has never seemed to find it relevant to mention "the 25" (or the Clean Break paper, in another permutation) in any of the thousands of hours and pages of Iraq coverage that I've seen... that kind of "wacko" stuff is reserved for the most untrustworthy internets and British, French, Canadian, German, and Israeli newspapers.

Posted by Murph | September 14, 2007 10:37 PM

"Groups such as AIPAC and the ADL are best described as the right-wing Likudnik lobby. Calling them the Israel lobby or the Jewish lobby, after all, just makes it easy for them to call their opponents anti-Israel or anti-Jewish."

That would be a valid point, but unfortunately they are advocates and lobbyiests for the state of Israel.

And I fear it would be a considerable nuance for the US public to even know what a "Likudnik" is.

So I don't see the point of complaining about the name. I mean, the NRA is regularly referred to as "gun nuts" by the left rather than the "pro-gun lobby" or even specifically "the NRA."

But just because the Israeli Lobby is comprised mostly, if not entirely. as MW explicitly state, of Jews, we have to avoid mentioning the target of the Lobby's activities?

I think not.

I would agree that calling them "the Jewish Lobby" is inaccurate - which is why MW don't. But the term "Israeli Lobby" is accurate. Not to mention that I suspect that many people who support the Lobby in a particular policy or comment are not themselves Likudniks - in particular all the Christian Zionists and neocons who are not Jewish. You can hardly call them "Likudniks". Besides that, the Labor Party in Israel, which has had its share of Israeli Prime Ministers, is not "Likudnik". So it's not correct AT ALL to refer to the Lobby as "Likudniks".

Whether it is correct to refer to it as a "Zionist Lobby" is debatable. Many people who refer to themselves as "Zionists" - such as MJ Rosenberg over at TPM - would not consider themselves supporters of the Lobby, even when they belong, as Rosenberg once did (in AIPAC, which he left due to policy disagreements), to a member of the Lobby. So the term "Zionist Lobby" would perhaps be inaccurate, even though most of the JEWISH members of the Lobby probably consider themselves "Zionists".

No, sorry, Israel Lobby it is.

Besides which, being "anti-Israel", although perhaps unpopular on the face of it, is really only that way because the Lobby has made it so (with some assistance from Hollywood movies and the fact that Israel is opposed to the Arab world, which most of the US apparently equates to "raghead terrorists".)

Once enough revisionist historical research has been done, and the influence of the Lobby is reduced, I suspect Israel will not be considered so favorably by the US public.

As the study referenced by Tony Karon that I mentioned in another thread shows, there is a "Jewish glasnost" occurring in which the majority of Jews in the world appear to have less interest in the survival of Israel - or at least a "Zionist state" - at least on a "personal level" - than ever before.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 10:41 PM

And I sincerely apologize for the triple post...

And while I'm at it, this is for Matt, who begs in his original post, "Surely if the Walt/Measheimer argument is so wrong, its critics ought to be able to rebut the actual argument."

Since you work for The Atlantic now Matt, the very magazine that abruptly cancelled the original W&M article after commissioning it, maybe you can get some good "rebuttals" to the W&M thesis right there in house?

I'm still waiting, too. I bought the book and while I find W&M's disparagement of the "bi-national democracy" crowd's position regrettable, I could find nothing even partially objectionable about their methodology and the vast majority of their conclusions.

Posted by Murph | September 14, 2007 10:43 PM

Silverstein's points reduce to hand waving. No evidence is provided for any glaring errors of fact in the MW paper, let alone the book with its 120 pages of carefully documented footnotes.

Numerous academics have said that the paper, let alone the book, isn't that bad, particularly as it was not really intended to be a scholarly piece but more a polemic to open the discussion. The book is where you will find the documentation.

Instead, Silverstein reveals his Zionist bias by comparing it to the "Protocols of Zion" which was a joke on the face of it, and has zero relevance to the MW paper and book.

This charge by Silverstein is particularly revealing:

"Walt and Mearshiemer have been insensitive to the response of the Jewish community, a response based on solid history - a solid history of atrocities often instigated by polemical, anti-Semitic writings. In fact, it has been suggested they expected and sought this response as a "trap" to validate their ideas that any charges raised against Israel cause "labelling" as an anti-Semite. In fact, it is the focus on a cabal that has been the principal cause of that repsonse."

In other words, let anybody criticize Israel at all, and IMMEDIATELY 1) they are anti-Semitic because they are "insensitive" to historical Jewish persecution, and 2) once they are criticized for being so - with of course no reference to the original issues raised by their piece - they have no right to point to the criticism as a vindication of their argument.

Such reasoning epitomizes Zionist thought. Not only are you not allowed to criticize Zionists, but by doing so you are DELIBERATELY doing so just to invite Zionist criticism so you can then CLAIM that your criticism is being suppressed by Zionists.

Nonetheless, your criticism IS still being suppressed by Zionists - who are of course blameless in all of this.

It boggles the mind what kind of mind could turn up such twisted reasoning, while ignoring the very real issues raised by the initial criticism of Israel. Ah, but that initial criticism can now be DISMISSED - because, after all, it's just the ravings of an "anti-Semite" - which we have just established because...they objected to being criticized for being anti-Semites!

Amazing...

It only reveals the utter depth of intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty of the typical Zionist. These guys make Dick Cheney look honest.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 10:57 PM

Silverstein -
I don't think that the charge "excessive Jewish influence" made throughout the centuries, is entirely inappropriate.

Every nation fears an influential minority, be it Jews, Allewites, Hashemites, Prussian aristocracy, the Roman Church, and so on dominating and controlling key areas of society or organizations - behind the scenes.
The fears are rarely without any justification. Only the magnitude. The charge "Jews had disproportionate roles in communism and the mass deaths of the Red terror" only differ in degree of magnitude - from utter Jewish dominance of the slaughter, to Jews only controlling the Terror in the early years, down to Jews were involved and leaders only in disproportion 5X greater than their 2.5% citizenship in the Russian Empire..

Just as the black self-determination movement in the 60s was pretty much a Jew purge. Blacks woke up and found since the early days of the 20th century Jews had more and more become their slumlords, merchants, teachers, judges, lawyers, union bosses, work bosses. They ran the black NAACP, the SNCC, served as MLK's retinue, fundraisers, and speechwriters. Jews served as black citizen's "elected spokesman and advocates" in city hall and Congress.
Blacks saying enough of that and tossing the Jews out defined the 2nd phase of the civil rights movement when blacks got true power of black leadership and representation in office, stood in front of black judges and teachers...

Right now, in America, Jews have 4 areas of overrepresentation and disproportionate impact that are problematic for the 98% of other Americans:

1. The afore-mentioned Israel Lobby that has led America into some foreign policy decisions badly harmful to America's interests.

2. Wealth and clout translating into disproportionate control of key US industries. The media, Hollywood, banking&finance, middleman distribution networks, import networks, liquor sales, the pornography industry, legal services, jewelry, music business, pro sports, and so on.

3. Wealth and clout translating into disproportionate influence of the American political and legal system.

4. Spokeytown used this to deny that Jews of the neocon ilk represented a Jewish problem as per the Israel lobby, Jinsa, and other arms of right-wing Jewis clout, but he only illustrates the clout and excessive influence of the Jewish Left in attacking American institutions and values of the majority of Americans:

Take any pro-Palestinian or anti-occupation group in the United States; student groups, divestment campaigns, local peace organizations, the ISM, or any other sort of organization that is at all sympathetic to the Palestinians, from moderate to outright radical. Check out their board of directors, key officers, and so forth, and I bet you dollars to donuts that at LEAST one third to one half of the people in charge are Jewish.

The truth is the disproportinate influence of Zionists is mirrored by the clout of Lefty Jews that run Moveon.org, Code Pink, the ACLU (a Jewish director and half contributions Jewish for 45 straight years), Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, National Lawyers Guild, Federation of (Open Borders) Immigration Lawyers, the DNC, American Communist Party, ANSWER.

That doesn't "cancel out" the Zionist influence, Spokeytown, it just shows what many on the non-Left would consider a problem area, a problem area where Jews have enormous impact..

Throughout history, despite their considerable contributions to Christian, Muslim, Roman, Greek, black societies, far more often than they get acceptance - history has societies concluding that the Jewish bad outweighs the Jewish good, and the welcome mat gets rolled up. Many Jews have tried to explain this as a pathology of each different society they come to exercise power and clout in...some universal envy, hatred, Judenhass.....going back to the Egyptians and continuing in different society after society that we know embraced and assimilated other peoples...It is reasonable to say that the seeds of rejection are not from bigoted society after society - but contained within from a propensity to troublemake, seek to subvert societies into ones more to Jewish liking, and "taking a little too much power and wealth" onto themselves that others in society see as acceptable.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 14, 2007 11:01 PM

The main problem is idiots who think that the US twisting Israel's arm to endanger its security would lead to anything but more bloodshed.

When the Israeli government wants to do stupid things like rehabilitate Arafat, or withdraw from Gaza- no Jewish lobby is going to stop it.

Posted by Ron Levinstein | September 15, 2007 2:46 AM

"Blacks saying enough of that and tossing the Jews out defined the 2nd phase of the civil rights movement when blacks got true power of black leadership and representation in office, stood in front of black judges and teachers..."

Heh. Whole lot of good that's done them. The Jewish-black history in the last century illustrates a couple of things:

1) No good deed goes unpunished. The contributions Jews made to blacks getting civil rights, from the turn of the 20th Century until the '60's, were enormous. As were other Jewish efforts to aid blacks -- building thousands of schools for them throughout the South, serving as teachers and physicians in their communities, etc. The black response has been one of contempt. Not that Jews should have expected otherwise: if you want someone to like you, it's better to get them to do a favor for you than likewise (counterintuitive perhaps, but true).

2) Black preference for black faces over competence in professional roles has bitten them in the ass over and over. Due to the paucity of truly qualified black professionals, positions have been filled with blacks who are incompetent, corrupt, or a combination of both. From hack doctors like affirmative action poster boy Patrick Chavis, to corrupt, self-dealing Congressman William Jefferson, to crooked bond trader Joseph Jett, to D.C. Judge Roy Pearson suing for $65 million over a pair of pants, Und So Weiter. All the blacks have going for them now is the vestigial pandering of the Democratic Party, which is rapidly working to replace them with Mexicans.

Posted by Juan | September 15, 2007 3:27 AM

Chris Ford,

When the revolution comes, will you and the rest of the freikorps spare Matthew Yglesias, who has been lavishly critical of the Israel lobby, or will he have to go down as well?

Posted by Chaim | September 15, 2007 3:31 AM

To claim that you get a "whiff of anti-Semitism" from Walt and Mearsheimer's article and/or book, as someone did above, is an embarrassingly anti-empirical comment. And such a vague, impressionistic claim nicely (and probably unwittingly) displays the sort of magical, irrational thinking characteristic of so many of their denouncers. Those who charge "anti-Semitism" on the part of W&M rarely ever seem to engage or cite the actual text, but rather tend to blanketly state that the article or book as a whole somehow suggests a dark conspiracy or cabal (I'm still convinced most of these hysterics haven't read the material). It's the same straw-man argument(s) over and over again. The authors reject the notion of a cabal/conspiracy and they paint a pretty variegated picture of the 'lobby' throughout the book (for those who have actually read it). It's a depiction that is explicitly not homogenous or monolithic; and they make it quite clear that the 'Israel lobby' is not exclusively Jewish. Moreover, the 'lobby' has an important arm that isn't Jewish at all! I have to conclude that many of their critics, certainly those that bogusly claim anti-Semitism, are just incapable of nuanced, thoughtful analysis.

Posted by Warren | September 15, 2007 5:32 AM

Murph | September 14, 2007 10:36 PM wrote:

"I for one greatly appreciate S Silverstein's comedic flare. That was meant to be humorous, right?"

Thank you for sharing this bit of wisdom with us.

Perhaps I'm the next Don Rickles! Why don't you point out to us what parts were humorous?

People always need a good laugh, especially when speaking about genocide, a very funny topic indeed. (Isn't the sound of burning flesh of little children just hilarious?)

Posted by S Silverstein | September 15, 2007 8:16 AM

Hello, Warren?
I agree with you, but you're wrong. Ahem.
Anti-Semitism need not involve jack-boots or Ivy League quotas. But, it always requires some measure of historical amnesia. Witness Chris Ford's witless screed above.
W&M's analysis does, indeed, marshall a fairly convincing array of facts demonstating that there is a network of religiously atavistic (Jewish and Christian), recklessly nationalistic, and ideologically sclerotic saber-rattlers and chicken-littles influencing the Middle East policy of both the US and Israel. But, it is equally clear that this faction is NOT representative of the Israeli polity. W&M, however, are rather sloppy in emphasizing this distinction.
Why is this a big deal? Well, like a friend remarked, "There are the facts- and then there is the truth."
The truth is that, historically, anti-Semitism has always relied upon just such marshalling of facts, carefully selected and schemingly adulterated, to foment anti-Jewish fear and animus. Witness friend-Ford's assertion that African-Americans became tired of Jews being their landlords, shop-stewards, shopkeepers. Well, that historical circumstance just might have something to do with Gentile 'White flight' and the violent refusal of other Whites to even interact with Blacks. Jews, to there eternal credit, have always been ready to join and support the underdog, when others refused to do so. Mr. Ford is clearly not interested in that historical truth. But, he certainly has a number of 'facts'.
I do not believe W&S are anti-Semites. And their argument has merit. But, in not attending to the obvious risk that their facts can easily (look at the hubbub, bub) be twisted to anti-Semitic purpose, in not scrupulously repeating (loud and often) that their argument MUST NOT be used as part of any 'blood-libel', they are, de facto, serving the purposes of anti-Semitism.
The 'truth' of the 20th century is the virtual extirmination of the Jews by rabid anti-Semites, while the rest of the world- conversant with the 'facts' of undue Jewish influence- looked on, or turned away.
Thank-you for a civil discussion.

Posted by hum'n'mum | September 15, 2007 1:51 PM

Re S Silverstein comment "Isn't the sound of burning flesh of little children just hilarious?"
--------
I certainly don't think so.

By the way, were you talking about little Iraqi children, little Arab children, little Palestinian children, or little Jewish children?

I consider them all children -- which is why I think that people who start or encourage unnecessary wars sin greatly. Because such inevitably cause the widespread deaths of innocents.

What do you think?

Posted by Don Williams | September 15, 2007 1:55 PM

I do not believe W&S are anti-Semites. And their argument has merit. But, in not attending to the obvious risk that their facts can easily (look at the hubbub, bub) be twisted to anti-Semitic purpose, in not scrupulously repeating (loud and often) that their argument MUST NOT be used as part of any 'blood-libel', they are, de facto, serving the purposes of anti-Semitism.

This is an incredibly high standard to meet though isn't it? It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where every time they discuss being gay they proceed it with "Not that there's anything wrong with it." It is obvious from the voluminous critism that no matter how they couched their arguments people were going to charge them with anti-semitism. That morons like Chris Ford exist shouldn't stop people from presenting arguments for and against policies affecting the state of Israel.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | September 15, 2007 7:19 PM

Posted by S Silverstein | September 14, 2007 9:03 PM
What's so funny S(hell)? (I love your books but I'll have to stop buying them now to support the Israel boycott.)

1. Walt and Mearsheimer could have written a book entitled "Why it is not in the U.S. interests to maintain a special relationship with Israel ." This would probably not have raised charges of anti-Semitism if well-documented as to their reasons.

...Well, that's humorous because you (consciously or subconsciously) went for the most bland, boring, academic-sounding title. I take it you are displeased that it is the #1 selling book in the Israel section of Amazon.com.

2. Instead, they chose a book whose title and major theme suggests excessive Jewish influence, a charge others have made for centuries. In doing so, and being aware of history themselves (hopefully), they should have taken the utmost care to get their facts correct.

This is hilarious because you yourself (via the links you provided) are so wanton with the facts that if the Arab world had a crime for denying the Naqba, well, you and your links might develop a sympathy for the likes of David Irving.

3. A reading of the rebuttal links I provided below, or even Dershowitz' response alone to their paper ( Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish Conspiracy Theory: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper” ), should convince any reasonable person that there were serious structural, factual, contextual, and logical errors sufficient to possibly invalidate the professor's research and its conclusions.

Well! If -Alan- -Dershowitz- says so then... I'm sorry... but you said it so... seriously... "any reasonable person" would have to agree that Norman Finkelstein should get his nuts crunched too for trying to clarify the historical record, I mean doesn't he realize what tremendous peril he is putting the entire Jewish race in by refusing to just accept Zionist mythology? Well. I had to laugh. At you. So serious.

4. Considering these errors, which significantly deviate from the prior work of these men and from academic research standards, and the fact that Harvard recently received $20 million, a huge sum in academia, to have Islamic views taught ( Saudi donates $20 million to Harvard , Boston Globe, Dec. 13, 2005), even a reasonable person might suspect a less than pure motivation for the "Jewish Lobby" work.

That's hilarious because if I understand your irresponsible intimations, you are contending that there's an Islamic, anti-Semitic conspiracy involved in the W&M book. You're aware they're PRO-ZIONIST, right? Do you have a copy of the book? They say it several times in the introduction.

5. Walt and Mearshiemer have been insensitive to the response of the Jewish community, a response based on solid history - a solid history of atrocities often instigated by polemical, anti-Semitic writings. In fact, it has been suggested they expected and sought this response as a "trap" to validate their ideas that any charges raised against Israel cause "labelling" as an anti-Semite. In fact, it is the focus on a cabal that has been the principal cause of that repsonse.

This is just bizarre funny. I'll hand it to you, you are the superior mental contortionist of this circus.

6. A work like Walt and Mearsheimer's "Lobby" publications are not an appropriate mechanism to "open discussion" on the relationship between the US and Israel . They destroyed their credibility by their tendentious tone and numerous errors, errors that in other research would lead to charges of research fraud. Just as with works like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or articles in Der Sturmer, their work is only suitable for opening an examination of why their research on this topic is so lousy.

Compared to your research, of course. That nearly made me bust my gut. Thanks for the laughs, S.

Posted by Murph | September 15, 2007 9:21 PM

For a concise overview of the problems with the Walt-Mearsheimer essay and book, see the 5 page pdf at this link.

This pdf is being widely disseminated in academia, industry and government.

Posted by Eris | September 17, 2007 1:17 PM

I am sorry for my September 15, 2007 9:21 PM post. I was inebriated when I wrote it.

Posted by Murph | September 17, 2007 1:19 PM

Thanks, Murph.

We knew you had it in you to apologize.

Posted by Eris | September 17, 2007 1:22 PM

"Murph" why are you such a racist & why can't you share the center stage? You laugh at what seem like serious matters?? That's dishonorable. You should be ashamed.

Posted by Lord Skeletor | September 17, 2007 5:22 PM

Homogeneity

Comments (55)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories