Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholar

[barb162]

Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise
Posted: March 24, 2006

The article by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" would not be taken seriously if not for the reputations and associations of the authors. They have each written respected scholarly works on government and international relations and occupy important positions at their universities.

The article itself, which was first posted in full on the Kennedy School Web site and then published in executive summary form by the London Review of Books, is a 41-page, amateurish and biased critique of Israel, American Jews, and American policy. It addresses in a perfunctory and all-knowing fashion some of the most important and complicated issues surrounding the Middle East conflict. Nowhere in evidence is a sense of complexity, balance, an examination of the variety of factors that cause an event, or of putting individual comments in perspective – all the appropriate tools for a serious piece of scholarship or journalism.

On every issue, the authors start with unproven, anti-Israel assumptions and then look for isolated examples to justify these assumptions. One does not have to take a pro-Israel position to recognize that the authors, despite their reputations, have no interest in producing a serious, balanced work. The result is a sloppy diatribe.

Here’s how it works. Mearsheimer and Walt start by blaming Israel for everything in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once establishing Israel’s consistent guilt, from the creation of the state to present day, they then move to asserting that the “Israel lobby” (which is loosely and inconsistently defined) in the United States uses every device and method of pressure politics to stifle criticism of Israel and to ensure America’s pro-Israel policy, against America’s true interests and to serve the interests of the Jewish state.


snip

http://www.adl.org/Israel/mearsheimer_walt.asp

[laststeamtrain]

1. Wiki on ADL

From the Wikipedia article on the ADL:

<snip>

Some critics, especially on the left, allege the ADL willfully exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism, especially among Muslims. The critics also claim that the ADL defines legitimate criticism so narrowly that even moderate analysis of Israel could be categorized as anti-Semitic.

For example, linguist and activist Noam Chomsky wrote in his 1989 book Necessary Illusions:

"The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S.… These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement."

Michael Lerner, a prominent left-wing rabbi, has criticized the ADL on similar grounds:

"The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern)."

<snip>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#The_ADL_files_controversy

And don't forget, cops are your friends...uh huh...right...far right...way far right...

[barb162]

6. And if someone is breaking into your house, do you call 911...

you know, the cops? Or are the cops "far right" and you don't call

And do you have a problem with this too (from the wikipedia article)??

"The stated purpose of the ADL is to fight "Anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry (in the United States) and abroad, combat international terrorism, probe the roots of hatred, advocate before Congress, come to the aid of victims of bigotry, develop educational programs, and serve as a public resource for government, media, law enforcement, and the public, all towards the goal of countering and reducing hatred."

[laststeamtrain]

27. This is what I was thinking of...

<snip>
...federal, state and local law enforcement agencies quickly found ways around the restrictions. Among other things, they established information-sharing relationships with private organizations which spied on political dissidents. The best example is the Anti-Defamation League, which employs "fact finders" in major cities to track suspected dissidents. Although the ADL calls itself a civil rights watchdog, it was caught spying on a wide range of both left and right wing organizations in the early 1990s.

Reporters looking into the ADL spy scandal confirmed the organization¹s involvement with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. As the liberal Village Voice said on May 11, 1993, "In fact, the ADL has become a clearinghouse for law enforcement agencies. In the '70s and '80s, as many police intelligence units that gathered political information on citizens were shut down under court orders because they violated constitutional guarantees to privacy and freedom of speech and assembly, their files were often bequeathed to the ADL. The ADL, in turn, would often lend the files back to their original donor or broker them to another intelligence agency."

<snip>

http://www.konformist.com/2001/police-spying-101.htm

When I hear ADL, I hear COINTELPRO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Anti-semitism is repulsive. As are snitches. And authoritarians. And...etc, etc...

[Tom Joad]

29. The ADL broke the law.

They were sued.
ADL payed out thousands of dollars.

wish they spy on me....

[Coastie for Truth]

34. To find and report on enemies of human rights.

I spent my time in a Mississippi Jail Tommie -- January 1967.

[Tom Joad]

38. Your actions do not

have anything to do with the actions of the ADL.
The ADL broke the law.

It is not always about you. sorry.

[Coastie for Truth]

39. I am identified with and a member of the ADL - PROUDLY SO

[Tom Joad]

41. The ADL did work for civil rights. It also broke the law.

But as chomsky and others have observed, it is now doing things that oppose human rights, it now equates dissent with Israel policies with being anti-Jewish.

It considered those that opposed South Africa apartheid as "threats". It also broke the law, was sued, lost and all that is history.

If a nice guy goes out to join the Republican Party next week, would that change the fact that the leadership of the republican party is corrupt? I am sure there are many nice folks who are in the Republican Party... still, it is a corrupt.

That there have always been nice folks in the ADL does not change its criminal record.

[Coastie for Truth]

44. Who calmed down the school integration crisis in my home town?

Put an end to "block busting" in my home town? Exposed an anti-black, anti-Jewish politician for the scum bag that we was.

[Coastie for Truth]

33. Yr entitled to yr opinion.

[Karmakaze]

2. The ADL etc are relying on people not having read it...

Because I read it and I did not see what ADL are saying is there - I sure don't see them blaming Israel for everything - unless saying that Israel being formed out of terrorism is the same thing as Palestinians trying to form their state out of terrorism, is blaming Israel for everything.

One of the criticism's is that "the Israel Lobby" is loosely defined. In fact the paper itself points that out and clearly states that they are not claiming that all these disparate groups work together or coordinate their activities. What they are saying is that these groups have one foucs - Israel First - and work tirelessly and endlessly to ensure that US policy is agreeable to Israel.

They even say that there is nothing wrong with that in so far as it is their right to push for whatever policies they want. What the authors say though is that this push has resulted in an unbalanced, even biased US Middle East policy that in itself has resulted in anti-Americanism amongst Muslims in general and Arabs in particular.

There is NOTHING there that is not obvious to any honest observer.

Funnier still is the reaction this paper received - it proves exactly what the authors were saying. All these disparate pro-Israel groups lept up and started calling them anti-Semitic and straight out LYING about the paper in an attempt to "stifle criticism of Israel".

Here for example is what ADL say:

They present as the primary explanation of the refugee problem that grew out of the War of Independence the theory that Israel deliberately and calculatedly expelled Palestinians.

On all these matters, there is extensive historiographical work developed over decades presenting many perspectives. Criticism of Israeli policies is part of these perspectives. Thus, for example, on the refugee issue, scholars recognize that a certain number of Palestinians were forced from their homes. But, they also recognize that others left at the urging of Arab leaders and most left simply because warfare causes people to flee. The authors, however, are not interested in complex truths because they would undermine their goal to blame Israel for everything.

And here is the section of the paper they are talking about:

To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben‐Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.”33 Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.”34

This opportunity came in 1947‐48, when Jewish forces drove up to 700,000 Palestinians into exile.35 Israeli officials have long claimed that the Arabs fled because their leaders told them to, but careful scholarship (much of it by Israeli historians like Morris) have demolished this myth. In fact, most Arab leaders urged the Palestinian population to stay home, but fear of violent death at the hands of Zionist forces led most of them to flee.36 After the war, Israel barred the return of the Palestinian exiles.

Notice, that the historian they are quoting in regards to the policy of expulsion is Israeli, and the ADL itself doesn't deny that there were forcible expulsions. What they try to do is JUSTIFY the forcible expulsions by saying because many simply fled in FEAR, that Israel can't be blamed for that.

Of course they hope you dont read the actual paper and just take their word for it that the ONLY people saying that Israel had a policy of forcibly expelling Palestinians are anti-Israeli (and by subtextual inference anti-Semitic).

In fact, the paper is thoroughly supported by references, many to publications or statements by Israelis themselves, and yet not ONE of ADL's counter claims is supported with anything but appeals to common knowledge, and accusations of bias and racism. The paper makes a claim, then the ADL states (without any supporting evidence) that the claim is merely an old anti-Semitic argument in disguise. No argument as to whether the claim is true or not, just call them anti-Semitic for saying it.

Sorry but it is the ADL that is producing the "sloppy diatribe" - and in the process adding yet more proof of the paper's claims.

[barb162]

3. You make it sound like that M&W paper is great scholarship or

something. That's a laugh and a half. Of course if you refuse to check the facts and just take everything that M&W state as fact when it isn't, I can see why you have a problem with this ADL position. You might want to take a look at David Gergen had to write about his time in the WHite House and the fact he mentions he saw no Israel lobby(ies) influencing US policy.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm

[Englander]

4. Gergen's a conservative.

:popcorn:

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Another conservative connection...

Marvin Kalb's 'upbraiding' that was mentioned in yet another thread on this, was an email he sent to the New York Sun. Last time I checked it was a conservative newspaper, so I'm wondering why a scholar so much more prominent than the ones he's attacking opted on emailing the conservative gutter press...

Violet...

[barb162]

9. wrong Violet, the Kalb line was in Times Online UK

[Englander]

14. And what was the source for the Times quotes?

Hint; email to the rw, New York Sun.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Barb, he emailed the NY Sun. This is what's known as a fact...

"I do not regard this as a Kennedy School Research Paper, because it clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper," Mr. Kalb, who is also the faculty chair for the Kennedy School's Washington programs, told The New York Sun in an e-mail yesterday after reading the paper.

http://www.nysun.com/article/29470

The Times has picked up his quote from that. He did not contact or talk to The Times. He emailed the NY Sun...

Violet...

[barb162]

7. uhhuh, so you were in the voting booth with him too?

You're sure of that, because you stood right next to him in that voting booth over the last 20 years or so each time he voted?

[Englander]

8. No, because it says so in the link from the other thread.

Shall I post it for you?

Edited.

[barb162]

10. Was that the link that forgot to mention Gergen worked for Clinton

[Englander]

12. No, it mentioned Clinton, in the same sentence.

The same sentence that described Gergen as a conservative.

'Bridging Party Lines: A noted conservative who served Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, David Gergen put his country above his personal politics by bringing his wisdom and hands-on knowledge to Bill Clinton’s first years in the White House.'

See it?

[barb162]

51. So did you ever see him run for political office on the GOP ticket?

Because I never saw him at any time tell the world how he espoused GOP points and I never saw him vote. I just have seen him doing analysis

[Englander]

68. Absurd strawman.

Gergen's a conservative, that doesn't mean he's a Goper, it means he's a conservative.
Sweet nelly furtado, barb, what's so difficult about accepting the *fact* that's he's
a conservative, or even addressing the fact that he's a conservative, without going off
on these tangents about how he votes, or how it was impossible that Clinton would choose
a conservative to work in his Admin?

[Englander]

69. 'What's A Conservative?'

February 9, 2000

The Republican presidential candidates each say they're more conservative than the others. But just what makes a conservative? Following a background report, Margaret Warner talks with commentators and politicians who try to find the answer.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, some additional perspective on all of this from five people with conservative credentials: Former Republican Congressman Vin Weber of Minnesota, who's now advising Senator McCain; Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, now a political consultant and advisor to Governor Bush; NewsHour regular David Gergen, a former Nixon, Reagan and Clinton administration official who's now at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, Dorothy Rabinowitz; columnist with the Wall Street Journal, and Republican pollster Whit Ayers, who is not affiliated with any of the presidential candidates this year. Welcome all of you.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/conservative_2-9.html

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I just posted the link...

n/t

[Englander]

21. Looks like it's needed, really. n/t

[barb162]

25. And conservatives just ran to work for Clinton, huh? FUNNY!

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Not sure if he ran or was asked...

...but the fact is that advisors and all those sorts of folk do sometimes work for politicians on the other side of the fence. I'm not understanding why this simple thing is so difficult to grasp. They do a job and in some cases they do it very well and opposition politicians will seek them out when they get into power because of their experience...

Violet...

[barb162]

50. You seem to be having a hard time

grasping that this man wrote this article stating facts and what he saw and heard when he worked in 4 administrations. Because you don't seem to care for these facts, he's RW? I think not.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. I'm not having a hard time at all...

Someone saying they saw something does not make it a fact, barb. Why does Gergen carry any more authority than anyone else who sees something and says what they see? Easy. Because you think that Gergen is saying something you agree with, that's all...

No, I think I've said more than a few times now that I think he's a conservative coz a link to a reputable website was supplied with a bio of the man that said he was conservative. Credible website vs anonymous poster on a bulletin board insisting he's not a conservative coz I didn't walk into the polling booth with him. Damn. It's so hard to know which carries more credibility! ;)

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Not this lame attempt to claim he's not a conservative again??

Click on the link and read the bio. You seem to be the only person claiming he's not a conservative...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x120162#120251

[barb162]

23. Violet, do you stand next to him when he votes?

Think about it, why would he work for Clinton if he were really a conservative? I don't know anyone who goes to work for people of the opposition party and especially at a very high level. It makes no sense.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I don't stand next to Bush either...

WTF does standing next to someone when they vote got to do with anything? If you have anything of substance to support any claims that he's not a conservative, then the bio that Englander linked to is a hell of a lot more credible..

You have to be joking. You don't think people go to work for opposition politicians?? They do it all the time!

Violet...

[barb162]

49. Well what makes you think you know how this person votes?

And I would disagree that people go around working for opposition parties all the time. It's pretty rare, Violet

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Coz his bio on that website said he was a conservative...

Advisors work for politicians of different political stripes a hell of a lot more than you seem to think they do, barb....

Violet...

[MrPrax]

40. Money...Prestige...Inside Info? n/t

I love the way rightwing people can get so much play on the Israel file and really get upset when they are asked to explain things like the ADL's less than stellar record on 'facts' or extremist racist parties receiving nearly as many seats as Likud or are in complete 'dispora denial', but will be DAMN sure to send an 'angry form' email over to CP over Cockburn's Weisel trashing.

I look at the threads here in I/P about, say, Rachel Corrie and you get entire raps that would be 'kicked' anywhere else but Free Republic.

You find an well-written and thoughtful article like the 'Israel Lobby' that should be of concern to to anyone, including jewish people, BUT NO...even the most basic 'on the record' parts of the relationship between US-Israeli lobby is denied. But at the same time, they will promote quite openly such things as 1.2 billion Muslims being in some plot to get them.

But YEAH they're 'progressive' even as they call for the Bush administration to attack Iran.

Too much...hey what's ADL's position on the anti-immigrant progrom legislation perkolating through the US Congress at the moment--you think ADL would be way out in front on that one...? LOL

[Behind the Aegis]

46. ADL's position on the anti-immigrant progrom legislation

ADL Calls for Comprehensive Immigration Reform


New York, NY, February 15, 2006 …The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is calling on policymakers to reform our current immigration system in a comprehensive manner that will serve America's security, humanitarian and economic interests. The League passed a resolution to that effect at its recent National Executive Committee Meeting in Palm Beach, Florida.

"As a community that has suffered the consequences of a restrictive immigration policy, we are committed to ensuring that America's immigration policy is fair, humane, and serves our nation's interests," said Barbara B. Balser, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

The ADL leaders stressed that, "the tenor and outcome of our national debate over the fate of undocumented persons in the U.S. will speak volumes about how America welcomes and embraces foreigners from many lands who come here seeking refuge and opportunity."

Following the resolution's passage, ADL joined other Jewish organizations in a letter calling on Senators to adopt an immigration reform package that addresses the reality of the large population of undocumented workers living in our communities who currently lack meaningful rights under our law and are subject to exploitation.

more...

ADL Resolution on Immigration Reform
As adopted at ADL's National Executive Committee Meeting, February 11, 2006 in Palm Beach, Florida:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted: February 11, 2006

WHEREAS, the Anti-Defamation League (“ADL”) has a traditional interest in immigration policy and the humanitarian and national security issues that are a part of any immigration policy reform; and

WHEREAS, ADL has strongly supported the actions of the President and Congress to bar access to terrorists and their supporters who have sought to exploit our nation’s immigration system; and

WHEREAS, immigration policy must take into consideration and strive to protect civil and human rights; and

WHEREAS, immigration reform should not be influenced by misinformation, rumors, stereotypes and bigotry; and

WHEREAS, the growing population of undocumented migrants with no legal status present in the U.S. poses both security and civil rights problems; and

WHEREAS, effective comprehensive immigration reform must include border security screening enhancements, the use of improved data bases, more extensive international and federal-state-local coordination, and more effective visa tracking of aliens permitted to enter the country; and

WHEREAS, efforts to address the problem in the past – which have focused on “enforcement only” solutions without creating legal channels for workers needed by the U.S. economy – have proven ineffective; and

WHEREAS, the current chaotic system where roughly one and a half million persons a year embark on a dangerous, illegal journey to attempt to cross the border fosters an environment in which smugglers and traffickers flourish, and in which extremist groups foment anti-foreigner bigotry and private vigilante groups engage in confrontation and violence; and

WHEREAS, mass deportations of the 9 to 11 million undocumented immigrants living, working, and going to school in our midst would be unrealistic, unworkable and contrary to our values; and

WHEREAS, an orderly system of authorized entry for temporary foreign workers could replace the current illegal flow with a system which can regulate, track, and monitor legal workers; and

WHEREAS, we are concerned about the future of the students brought here as children and educated here who face barriers to higher education and the accompanying opportunity to be an integrated, contributing part of their community; and

WHEREAS, U.S. policy has made it a priority for immigrant families to remain together, but current backlogs in the system have kept families separated for many years, and in some cases have split families apart.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that ADL supports efforts to reduce the number of undocumented migrants in the U.S. in a comprehensive manner that will serve America’s security, humanitarian, and economic interests and help promote family reunification. ADL will support immigration reform legislation that adheres to ADL’s established principles in addressing the following:
Human Rights. Immigration reform legislation must recognize and protect the basic human rights of immigrants and must support the humane treatment of undocumented persons as part of our tradition of fighting bias, prejudice, bigotry and hate.


Border Control. Immigration reform should involve a broad border security strategy which includes fair and humane treatment of those who enter or attempt to enter the United States.


Earned Legalization. ADL supports the crafting of a path to legalization to immigrants who are already contributing to this country to regularize their immigration status upon satisfaction of reasonable criteria and, over time, pursue an option to become lawful permanent residents and eventually United States citizens.


Temporary Worker Program. Because our economy will continue to attract and to depend on foreign workers, a temporary worker program should be developed that takes into consideration fairness and humane treatment of the participants.


Education and Human Services. ADL supports equal access to available human services, including healthcare and public education, without discrimination based on immigration status. For example, ADL supports legislation which would allow undocumented minor students raised and educated here the opportunity to gain access to post-secondary education assistance and to move towards legal status based on certain criteria.

source

[MrPrax]

47. Oh that clarifies things...

and your link didn't work ...page not found...not your fault, I think they changed the .asp pointer.

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Better then being an Ernest Bevin racist.

[Karmakaze]

28. LOL - look who's talking...

You seem to be saying it isnt without any evidence OR evn an argument - just an opinion.

Oh and if you read past the first paragraph you will see Gergen contradict your assertion:

Commitment. To be sure, pro-Israeli groups in this country, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, push hard to gain the support of U.S. political leaders and public opinion in favor of positions that keep Israel strong and secure. AIPAC is officially registered as a lobbying group, and it is very effective. But that does not mean that its members are somehow disserving America or engaging in something sinister.

Hmm sounds like there is an Israel lobby and it is "very effective"!

[Coastie for Truth]

45. The Israeli lobby was NOT the prime mover for war in Iraq

1. Reason #1 - George Walker Bush's psychiatric problems -- read Justin Frank, "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President" - this man is a dictatorial nut case, competing with his Daddie and avenging the assassination attempt on Daddie and proving himself worthy of his Mommie. This is a sick dry drunk and not quite rehabilitated crack head.

2. Reason #2 PNAC's "Projection of Power to Assert Hegemony of Oil Land" - Read it here -- - This is as old as the British and French carving up of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, see Engdahl's "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order ". Again, for the benefit of "Big Oil" and the

3. Reason #3 - To make the economy appear to be good by pumping money into Halliburton and the armaments sector - major investment vehicles for Poppie Bush's

4. Make weight reasons - What has the and Big Oil and Big Energy done for you lately?

* usurped the Office of Science Adviser to the President and put forth the preposterous ideas that:
* Human activities have no effect on green house gases and global warming.
* Global warming is a worst a trivial third order effect.
* Global warming does not intense storms.
* Green house gases are not carcinogenic.
* People who buy hybrids and econo cars burn more gasoline and pollute more * Lobbied for California's energy deregulation that almost destroyed the state.
* Pumped massive bucks into California Gubernator Boobengrabber's campaigns to thwart the will of the people of California - and destroy the unions.
* Already started swift boating Angelides and Westly.

Think about it - what have done TO YOU lately?

This is classical "Big Business" Swift Boating to divert attention from Big Business lobbies.

[barb162]

11. Maybe a lot of people from various sides are relying on others

not having read it

[Englander]

16. Oh, the irony. n/t

[barb162]

20. Oh the facts

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Have you actually read the report, barb?

I've seen you faithfully reproduce every RW or partisan attack on it that can be found, so I'm wondering if you've found time to read the report. Do you have anything substantial to say about the report, rather than about the people who are attacking the report?

Violet...

[barb162]

48. Actually, Violet, you are wrong. I haven't at all posted

every criticism of this that can be found and to make the comment that all criticism of this report is "right wing" is a total fantasy. Is the next thing that Harvard U is right wing because they took their imprimatur off the report because it shows poor scholarship?

[Violet_Crumble]

66. I didn't catch yr answer in there...

Have you actually read the report? And do you have anything substantial to say about the report, rather than about the people who are attacking the report?

Violet...

[Englander]

31. Which facts are those?

That Gergen's a conservative?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. From one who did read it...

M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal.

Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC , such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.

<snip>

I won't run through the other arguments, but I don't feel that they have much force, on examination.

The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, "Wilsonian idealism," etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It's rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to "exaggerated Cold War illusions," etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case."

The Israel Lobby? by Noam Chomsky

[Karmakaze]

30. I have to disagree with Chomsky on this one...

For a start, the Israel Lobby were in a no-win situation with regards to the arms sales to China - they knew without a doubt that it was OBVIOUSLY against US security interests, and appearing to argue in favour of them would only make it worse. That didnt stop at least some members of the lobby arguing int he press that Israel should not be punished for it.

As for Chomsky's assertion that Oil interests have more sway over Midlle East policy, I could have agreed with that if US policy had consitently favoured the nations WITH the oil, rather than the nation WITHOUT it.

Take his Beirut example. His interpretation is rather strange - he states that the US supported the agression when it was in US interests, then turned against it when it wasnt, but then points out the US went in itself to "finish the job". If by that stage it wasnt in the US's interest, why did the US go in? It is clear to me that his interpretation is slightly faulty - it wasn't that it was against US interests when the agression was being exposed for its bloodiness, but that it was against Israeli interest. Israel was looking REALLY bad because of their actions. So they pulled out and the US went in instead.

That way the backlash was against the US, and what a backlash it was. In fact I am surprised Chomsky made such a hash of that argument.

"the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job)."

He clearly states that the US entered to "finish the main job" AFTER it was considered not in the US national interest. Why? Clearly because Israel wanted it done, but could not continue to do it themselves while still playing the victim card. So American soldiers became the fodder for that little bit of Israeli policy.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrPrax]

43. Good point...

Chomsky is basically removing the 'israel' from the 'israel lobby' and saying that this is how power and wealth works anywhere--he is probably right in assuming that when push comes to shove, the Israel Lobby WOULD modify it's position and support, if it cost them money--like any other group.

But yeah--Chomsky (and M&W) seems to have conveniently forgotten the saga of the Russian Patriarchs and that part of the Oil Industry, perferring only to ref. the American supply-control.

As far as Beirut--he didn't make any sense...Israel continued to occupy Leb for years after Raygun/? withdrew...it was Hezbollah that finally kicked them out. US support through Reagan, Bush and Clinton was solid through that period, except for the odd complains about perceived 'anti-semticism' in Bush1 admin.

Chomsky cites the Chinese arms deal, but ignores the 'downstreaming' of US tech by Israel for it's export arms sales (contrary to US restrictions) as well as the other espionage. But then again Israel did the same thing to France and it's Mirage fighter, so nothing personal really.

Chomsky doesn't really bother with things like partisan internal politics or religion much in his analysis--so what he is saying is that 'sure' there is a lobby, but it is NOT a clear-cut relationship or 'smoking gun' and reflects any other aspect of 'lobbying' and influence peddling among the power elites...Chomsky is a C W Mills type.

[Karmakaze]

58. I do agree with a LOT of what he said though....

For example the Israel Lobby is only as powerful in the US because of the Fundamentalist Christian Lobby. However, when it comes to Middle East policy, the Fundamentalist Christian Lobby IS the Israel Lobby. That is why the paper was careful to distance the "Israel Lobby" term from simply meaning Jews, or simply meaning certain Israel groups.

The Israel Lobby - from my reading of the paper - is simply a catch all term that refers to the array of groups that lobby for policies that favour Israel over Arab nations. That of course would include the Pat Robertsons etc.

So in those terms there are purely American influences that drive much of the US's Middle East policy. I simply disagree as to which groups those are. The oil lobby's fingerprints are not seen in the US' policy towards Israel, as that doesn't help the oil companies at all. Where the oil lobby's fingerprints show up is in the US' policy towards certain Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia. In fact the oil lobby and the Israel lobby have been directly opposed for a very long time. It is simply because Bush is in power and happens to be one of those Fundamentalist Christians that the Israel lobby has gained the most ground.

If the US' policy in the Middle East was simply a result of the oil industry's lobbying, then Israel itself would have ceased to exist long ago. The US would have been allied with the Arab nations and would have assisted them to "wipe Israel off the map" in return for favourable oil concessions. The fact the US has NOT done this is due to the Israel lobby.

[Coastie for Truth]

59. Simplistic

If the US' policy in the Middle East was simply a result of the oil industry's lobbying, then Israel itself would have ceased to exist long ago. The US would have been allied with the Arab nations and would have assisted them to "wipe Israel off the map" in return for favourable oil concessions. The fact the US has NOT done this is due to the Israel lobby.

Israel's very presence serve a valuable purpose for the Arab potentates and dictatorships. They can scapegoat all of their problems -- lack of democracy, need for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, women's issues, state religions and religious through police - on Israel. Id est - "We have to do things to protect (pick one:the Muslim world, the sanctity of Mecca, the Al Aqsa Mosque) from the Israelis."

Just like Bush is using "terra" to justify surveillance and the Patriot Act and tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and destroying the safety net - "terra." It don't make no sense - but the sheeple buy it.

[MrPrax]

42. Your link didn't work...

I think you got extra stuff on yours...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9999%A7ionID=11 <--yours..they might have changed their script or something >

[Behind the Aegis]

17. A "sloppy diatribe" for sloppy "academic" work.

[Coastie for Truth]

36. Wrong.

I read it. And I saw it.

[Phx_Dem]

37. Coastie posted a good critique

of this article. It was done by the editor of the New Republic, I can't find it. The author mentioned that Mearsheimer supports nuclear proliferation, he thinks that everyone (inc Iran etc) should have nukes, then we all would be safer.

[Coastie for Truth]

54. Here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=120552&mesg_id=120552

[bemildred]

52. I must say seeing this fuckwit whine about "scholarship" is most amusing.

:rofl::rofl:

[Coastie for Truth]

53. As long as we are talking about "Ethnic" Lobbies

what was the role of Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbus in such policy issues as:

* No Federal funding for (most) stem cell research,
* The "Terri Schiavo" show
* The appointments of John Roberts and Sam Alito to SCOTUS.
* The "Defense of Marriage" Constitutional Amendment
* Attacks on Roe v. Wade.
* The swarm of anti-gay legislation

I'm just asking, I haven't done the research.

[bemildred]

55. We aren't. You, of course, may talk about them all you like.

I was talking about the feeble propaganda polemic in the OP.

[Coastie for Truth]

56. Surprise Surprise

That is most definitely the gist and gravamen of the Mearsheimer and Walt study and the ADL and New Republic responses. Specifically, the OP was talking about well reasoned response to a Paleo-Con, cold warrior, "Old Establishmentarian" study.

By "Old Establishment" I would must humbly invite your attention to Berkeley Professor Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen."

[bemildred]

60. I'm not interested in defending Mearsheimer and Walt, or their study.

As I have said elsewhere, the question that I would like answered is what prompted them to such a masochistic act?

And, I was trying to point out in this thread that the OP, which criticizes the academic level of the Mearsheimer and Walt study, is far worse than what it pretends to criticize. It is filled with vigorously pummeled straw men and wild unsupported assertions, and devoid of either fact or any attempt at objectivity. Ordinarily, to be taken seriously, one has to at least pretend to look at both sides of a question.

[Lithos]

61. That is the heart of the matter

Why now and why this topic? Given the basis of their study purports the existence of major landmines, why did they release what is an obviously flawed study?

As for the ADL, yes, they are speaking emotionally, not rationally. If you are going to debate at a scholarly level, it is ill-advised to let emotion be your primary forensic instrument. In this case their credibility does come off looking about as bad as Mearsheimer and Walt.

L-

[bemildred]

62. A combination of blather and tortured examination of the obvious.

Both the study and the response to it, although the response leans on the blather more than the study, which at least has pretensions and footnotes, and stuff like that.

One might almost think it is some sort of intentionally manufactured drama; the motives of Mearsheimer and Walt are the only thing I don't really get. I was hoping somebody would do the work for me, provide some sort of credible motivation, but no such luck, so far.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical.

[Lithos]

63. If you find out, please post.

or PM me. Normally I subscribe to the notion that in marketing, even bad press can be occasionally be good. But in academia, it's the kiss of death, which makes me wonder even more.

L-

[bemildred]

67. Well, I assume this is not really academic, in the first place.

"The Study" is primarily political, so I would guess they do not care about that, it's not a factor, other than as a hook for public credibility.

It seems more like part of the Neocon-Straussian-Bushite vs "Realist" political fight, they have some other pieces on the web that are "Realist" critiques of PNAC and Bushite overreaching, and their backgrounds fit that, and the argument goes back some years now.

So I think (most likely) the provoking of this food-fight is intentional. If you poke around in their previous work, they are on the dovish side of US foreign policy (IMHO), from the old cold-warrior school, but I don't see them questioning support of Israel (AFAIK) prior to this; in fact "The Study" is not a direct attack on US support of Israel, the overt message is about a lack of balance in recent US policy. And that intention to provoke a fight would indicate some sense of urgency or alarm. But that is all I can think of, and to be honest, I will be surprised if the matter is clarified anytime soon.

This piece from 1990 is interesting in its own right in light of the course of events:

Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War

John J. Mearsheimer
August 1990

---

What caused the era of violence in Europe before 1945, and why has the postwar era, the period of the Cold War, been so much more peaceful? The two world wars before 1945 had myriad particular and unrepeatable causes, but to the student of international relations seeking to establish generalizations about the behavior of states in the past which might illuminate their behavior in the future, two fundamental causes stand out. These are the multipolar distribution of power in Europe, and the imbalances of strength that often developed among the great powers as they jostled for supremacy or advantage.

---

Do Democracies Really Love Peace?

Under the third scenario war is avoided because many European states have become democratic since the early twentieth century, and liberal democracies simply do not fight one another. At a minimum, the presence of liberal democracies in Western Europe renders that half of Europe free from armed conflict. At a maximum, democracy spreads to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, bolstering peace. The idea that peace is cognate with democracy is a vision of international relations shared by both liberals and neoconservatives.

---

The implications of my analysis are straightforward, if paradoxical. Developments that threaten to end the Cold War are dangerous. The West has an interest in maintaining peace in Europe. It therefore has an interest in maintaining the Cold War order, and hence has an interest in continuing the Cold War confrontation. The Cold War antagonism could be continued at lower levels of East-West tension than have prevailed in the past, but a complete end to the Cold War would create more problems than it would solve.

The fate of the Cold War is mainly in the hands of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is the only superpower that can seriously threaten to overrun Europe, and the Soviet threat provides the glue that holds NATO together. Take away that offensive threat and the United States is likely to abandon the Continent; the defensive alliance it has headed for forty years may well then disintegrate, bringing an end to the bipolar order that has kept the peace of Europe for the past forty-five years.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=713