Harvard Takes On the Israel Lobby

[donsu]

http://www.alternet.org/audits/34416/


How a seemingly noncontroversial academic paper set off a political firestorm within the foreign policy establishment.
-----


-snip-

But the paper was about the impact that the "Israel Lobby" -- which the authors characterized as a loose confederation of like-minded individuals and groups -- has on U.S. policy in the Middle East. So, predictably, it set off a nice little firestorm with accusations of anti-Semitism flying around our most hallowed Ivy League colleges and members of Congress discussing how to respond to the study's "charges."

-snip-

What was interesting about the paper was its authorship and the reaction it elicited from Israel's many U.S. supporters. Those supporters inadvertently proved Walt and Mearsheimer correct on at least one point: the Israel Lobby doesn't tolerate debate about the relationship between the United States and its favorite client state, and it's quick to accuse dissenters of having the vilest of intent.

-snip- (this snip tell of 2 papers pitching a fit over the article)

That statement alone illustrates one of Walt and Mearsheimer's main points beautifully: "No discussion of how the Lobby operates," they wrote, "would be complete without examining one of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-Semitism In fact, anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism, even though the Israeli media themselves refer to America's 'Jewish Lobby.'"

-snip-

The backdrop to all of this, of course, is the ongoing campus wars, where the Israel-Palestine conflict is always Ground Zero. Walt and Mearsheimer touch on the Lobby's efforts to constrain discussion of our relationship with Israel by imposing a narrow political correctness. In addition to funding the think tanks and academic chairs, that strategy rests on relentless attacks against academics who criticize Israeli policy:

The Lobby moved aggressively to "take back the campuses." New groups sprang up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to U.S. colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Hillel jumped into the fray, and a new group -- the Israel on Campus Coalition -- was formed to coordinate the many groups that now sought to make Israel's case on campus. Finally, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) more than tripled its spending for programs to monitor university activities and to train young advocates for Israel

Ultimately, most of the criticism of the study amounted to little more than knocking down straw men.
-snip-
---------------------------------


the article ends with this:

Perhaps a crack is appearing in the monolith, and perhaps that crack might widen into a real debate about our policies in the Middle East. For some, that's a dangerous prospect. Small wonder that the study was attacked with such rhetorical savagery.
-----

thank goodness for the crack. may it widen.

[still_one]

1. did it discuss the Arab lobby?

did it discuss HOW MUCH FOREIGN OWNERSHIP EXISTS IN THE UNITED STATES?

Perhaps the view that ALL LOBBISTS should be out of Washington would present a more balanced approach. In fact instead of picking on ONE lobbist group they should pick on them all, and support public financing

The only villian is NOT Israel, and that is how they are painting it

[Jim Sagle]

2. Harvard is taking Saudi money. So forget about (ahem) evenhandedness.

[still_one]

4. I realize that

It just bothers me when highly regarded schools do not take a balanced approach

Then again, Harvard and Yale graduated the moran we have for president and that speaks volumes

[Ian David]

3. Belongs in the Israel vs Hammas Forum n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[entanglement]

6. Tackling the elephant in the room - of course you'd expect

an army of Israeli apologists and pressure groups to try to suppress this shouting 'anti-Semitism'.

[Hardrada]

8. SOP here.

I will try to doownload a copy of this for myself.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. LMFAO!!!

How can anyone take this article seriously, especially when it starts off with; "How a seemingly noncontroversial academic paper set off a political firestorm within the foreign policy establishment."?

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Noam Chomsky's take.

He is not a big 'fan' of Israel by ANY stretch of the imagination. What does he have to say? Do notice the first "snip" rips apart the ludicrous assertion of this article, "How a seemingly noncontroversial academic paper set off a political firestorm within the foreign policy establishment."

<snip>

M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations, but it's worth noting that there is nothing unusual about that. ...

<snip>

But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion. I've reviewed elsewhere what the record (historical and documentary) seems to me to show about the main sources of US ME policy, in books and articles for the past 40 years, and can't try to repeat here. M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don't think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation. ...

<snip>

The M-W thesis is that (B) overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle. And there is plenty of conformity.

<snip>

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). ...

<snip>

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

<snip>

source

The article is tripe! It can easily be ripped apart as the propaganda it is, and from its own words!

[Coastie for Truth]

10. Since we are talking about Harvard

I would recommend a read of Berkeley Professor Jerome Karabel's