(Mearsheimer and Walt) controversy threatens free speech

[bloom]

"...However, their main points are not invalid: AIPAC and other unblinking backers of Israeli policy have a lot of influence, and their muscle-flexing has helped push the U.S. government into an unwise stance of almost unconditional support for Israel.

But from the reaction in certain quarters, you would think that Mearsheimer and Walt are completely out of line. Congressman Eliot Engel of New York (who is cited as a supporter of Israel by the authors) has actually called them “anti-Semites.” That’s ironic, since a part of their essay describes how the charge of anti-Semitism effectively gags critics. The conservative daily New York Sun has published six articles on the piece and has compared the analysis to the “rantings” of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

Such episodes also tend to strengthen views abroad that U.S. foreign policy is controlled by Jewish Americans. The story has gotten a lot of play overseas, especially in the Muslim and Arab world, with a number of publications almost gleefully covering the issue and pointing out the condemnation that Walt and Mearsheimer have suffered.

The negative experience of Mearsheimer and Walt will probably deter other people from exploring the U.S.-Israel alliance. But discussion of this subject should not be off-limits. Any attempts to squelch discussion of this issue does free speech—and the U.S. itself—a disservice."

http://progressive.org/mag_apb040606

[Jim Sagle]

1. This is funny.

On the one hand:

discussion of this subject should not be off-limits. Any attempts to squelch discussion of this issue does free speech—and the U.S. itself—a disservice."

On the other hand (emphasis mine):

But from the reaction in certain quarters, you would think that Mearsheimer and Walt are completely out of line. Congressman Eliot Engel of New York (who is cited as a supporter of Israel by the authors) has actually called them “anti-Semites.” That’s ironic, since a part of their essay describes how the charge of anti-Semitism effectively gags critics. The conservative daily New York Sun has published six articles on the piece and has compared the analysis to the “rantings” of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

Such episodes also tend to strengthen views abroad that U.S. foreign policy is controlled by Jewish Americans.

So Mearsheimer and Walt are promoting free speech, but anyone who disagrees is squelching free speech. Got it.

[Coastie for Truth]

2. Some Talking Points

NO THREAT TO "FREE SPEECH" - JUST A THREAT TO ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND SCHOLARSHIP AND THE PRESTIGE OF THE ACADEMY

1. Talking Point One - OIL "O-I-L" Dictates Our ME Policy

It is all about OIL and only OIL.

Look at the and their and just look the New York Times Re: .

And as , bites - it is going to get worse, as laid out right here in PNAC's blueprint,

- and I follow the energy industry. Read anything you want - Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy" or Craig Ungar's "House of Bush-House of Saud" or Matthew Simmons' "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" or William Engdahl's "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order"

2. Talking Point Two - Mearsheimer and Walt, Like Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke and Norman Finkelstein, Are Misreading The "Evidence"

Ask your self this - if Mearscheimer and Walt are correct, and if AIPAC is so powerful, and enjoys so much grass roots Jewish-American support, then how come and Likud was trampled in the Israeli election?

The sole effect of the Mearsheimer and Walt "scholarship" is to attempt
to discredit Israel and to equate ("=" is the math operator for "identically equal") "Jew = Zionist = AIPAC =Likudnik = PNAC = Bushie" has been the exact opposite.

It has led some of us to dig way beneath the surface of such academicians as Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke ("America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order") and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt ("The Jewish Lobby") and Norman Finkelstein ("Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict," "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" and "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.") to read their various books and articles - both in the popular press and in the learned journals.
(my interpretation on Halper, Clarke, Mearsheimer, and Walt is that but for their opinions on AIPAC they are somewhat to the right - as in Cold Warrior and Paleo-Con - of what most DUers would follow.)
It has also led some of us to check the previous positions of some of the vanity web sites cited regularly, like Allison Weir's "If Americans Knew" with its contributors such former Congressman Paul Findley (also of anti-choice and anti-affirmative action fame) and James Ennes (also of "Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth" fame), and its financial backers such as the Coors Foundation, the Olin Foundation, the Scaife Foundation (generally referred to by Senator Hillary Clinton as "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" - the same people who funded the Arkansas Project, and Santorum's defeat of Wofford, etc.)

These are academicians and polemicists who would never be seen or heard of on a Progressive site - because of their otherwise fairly consistent antipathy and hostility to Progressive positions. But, because they sharply criticize Israel - and Israelis, and Jews, in a "guilt by association" manner of linking "Jew = Zionist = AIPAC =Likudnik = PNAC = Bushie" these Paleo-Cons and/or members of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" have suddenly gained some new credibility among some Progressives.

3. Talking Point Three - This "Study" Has Backfired

It has not backfired because of the alleged "power" of the "alleged" "Jewish Lobby" - but because it just doesn't hold water. THAT DOG DON'T POINT AND THAT DOG DON'T FETCH

The effect of citing these academicians and polemicists, and the Progressives who cite them, have made MANY of us even more certain in our positions.

[bloom]

4. My questions for you

in regards to point #2.

What do YOU think about AIPAC? Do you generally agree or disagree with the agenda they promote? Who do you think AIPAC represents?

[Coastie for Truth]

5. My observation

Who does AIPAC represent - "

AIPAC is one of several competing conduits between our elected officials and various constituencies in the Jewish community. It tends to reflect the politics of (1) the American Jewish community (which voted 77% for Kerry), (2) the Israeli Government (which made a significant move to the left in this election), and (3) the US President and Congress (Conservative, expansionist Republican - don't blame me - I voted for and contributed $$$ to Gore, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, and Loughren ;)).

As to "Do you generally agree or disagree with the agenda they promote? " Heck- I may vote Democratic and give money to Democrats - but I don't agree with all Democrats - I don't agree with Zell Miller, and I didn't agree with Mayor Pete Flaherty (anti-choice, anti-school integration, anti-mass transit). Heck - I don't even agree with my wife all the time.

And I am 65 years old - and I was a Democratic volunteer from the time I started passing out sample ballots with my Union Organizer grand pa (age 7) - and have worked in Democratic campaigns regularly since I got out of the service (VietNam), and contributed since I complted grad school, and held Democratic Party Office, and local elected office (Zoning/Planning). I have also been an active member of the ACLU, the Americans for Democratic Action, various and sundry progressive Democratic clubs, Bnai Brith (Lodge President), and the Ant-Defamation League. And in my "Rust Belt" home town the Ant-Defamation League fought the battle for school integration, and against both "block busting" and the JDL.

[bloom]

6. I don't think anyone was saying

that Democratic politicians don't generally go along with AIPAC (you keep mentioning the 77% - which I am aware of).

I think the criticism is the degree that AIPAC influences BOTH parties - and Congress members of BOTH parties generally go along with what AIPAC thinks they should do and say - in regards to Israel. And in fact - as M. & W. mention - AIPAC brags about this - and I've noticed the comments they have to that effect on their web site.

While I agree with your point #1 that the oil industry is overly influential as well - I don't agree that "It is all about OIL and only OIL." When I decide to do something - it generally is NOT for ONE reason and ONE reason only - but a multiplicity of reasons - and that is what I think is the case in the ME.

And certainly when it comes to selling war - it is easier to sell it to people who want it. Like the right wing wackos who want there to be a war between Israel and Arab states - for their rapture purposes. And AIPAC clearly supports confrontation against various Arab states - like Iran. http://aipac.org/iran/index.html And if AIPAC is a primary source for you - I expect it would influence what you think about these things.

[Burning Water]

3. The great thing about America

is that people can publish anything damnfool thing they want. Other people can criticize them for it, call them anti-Semites, racists, war-mongers, lazy bums, communists, fascists, rednecks, whatever. Other people can criticize the criticizers. Eventually, like the theft of election 2000, or Bush's reasons for going to war, or who leaked in the Plame case, the truth will come out. Or the whole thing will disappear. But right will eventually prevail. And all because of freedom of speech and of the press.

So criticize the criticizers for the foolishness of their comments. But remember, they are participating in and strengthening a great American value, free expression. 'Cause if they can take it away from them, they can take it away from you.