Let's All Go to the Israel Lobby
David Weigel | August 29, 2006, 11:16am
Dana Milbank (via Glenn) offers up the most brutal take on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that I've yet seen, and the hook is their choice of partners to promote their work: CAIR.
Yesterday, at the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), they held a forum at the National Press Club to
expand on their allegations about the Israel lobby. Blurring the line
between academics and activism, they accepted a button proclaiming
"Fight the Israel Lobby" and won cheers from the Muslim group for their
denunciation of Israel and its friends in the United States.
The button read: "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby." And this is embarrassing:
As evidence that the American public does not agree with the Israel
lobby, the political scientist cited a USA Today-Gallup poll showing
that 38 percent of Americans disapproved of Israel's military campaign.
He neglected to mention that 50 percent approved, and that Americans
blamed Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and Lebanon far more than Israel for the
conflict.
Feel free to kick me off the Serious Person Roll Call, but I had initially thought there was merit in the discussion Mearsheimer and Walt were trying to kickstart. They faced a serious hurdle in that discussion of Israel, like immigration, is dominanted by fringe voices, and they were going to be lumped in with that fringe immediately whether or not they liked it. If, as Milbank finds, they do like it, that's too bad.
Nemo Ignotus | August 29, 2006, 11:02pm | #
I've known John Mearsheimer for about 12 years
now. He's sometimes, shall we say, a bit
over the top. (Though he isn't in his writings.
Just in person.) I think some of the claims
and methods used to attack him have ticked him
off. (My bet is the way people dragged out
David Duke to get his viewpoint, a classic
example of guilt by association and argumentum
ad hominem, made John's blood pressure go up
quite a bit.)
Stephen Walt is a lot calmer and less irritable.
It takes quite a bit to make Walt lose it, but
not that much to get John fulminating.
Maybe debate on this subject should go back to
whether or not Israel does, in fact, have a
lobby in the US, with a few Sabra wannabes
being notable for their influence.
I think that's certainly true.
For what it's worth, I think there is a China
lobby, a Taiwan lobby, a Turkey lobby,
a Saudi lobby and a Russia lobby. That's
without getting into the issue of how many
foreign agents of influence are running around
DC.
Part of the problem here is that there are
centuries of vile lies about Jewish
conspiracies, all of which were utterly false.
Now that we have a Jewish state (which does not,
by any means, control all Jews), which has
intelligence services (which engage in
conspiracies, like the intelligence services of
all nations), the false stories of the past are
conflated with the real ones, which makes it
rather hard to discuss them rationally.
I'll happily talk about Israeli agents of
influence in DC, but the number of people who
will listen to me who aren't also firm
believers in the truthfulness of the Protocols
of the Elders of Zion is pretty small. (Note:
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are fakes.)
It's a shame that Walt and Mearsheimer have to
go to CAIR to be heard out. (I wonder how they'd
fare if they talked about the Saudi lobby....)
MUTT | August 30, 2006, 5:34pm | #
I didnt write it, I just took it. However, Id say either elected officials who circumvent the clear intent of the Con.- like the notion only Congress shall declare War, or things of value be given for testimony at trial, or use high office to funnel cash to cronies would be a domestic enemy, after a open, transparent trial finds them so.
Then there are, in TR's famous terms, "malfactors of great wealth" who use thier power for unconstitutional ends. For example, in the early 30's a combination was formed between the DuPonts, the gun making Wessons, and several other of the eras Captains of Industry to overthrow Roosevelt (Franklin) & put what they thought would be a puppet in the White House.
The "puppet", a great American hero/imperialist spearpoint Marine Maj. Gen Smedely Butler, who sank the enterprize, quite far along, by revealing it, chapter & verse. This buried bit of American history can be found in Jules Archer's "Smedley Butler & the Plot to Sieze the White House".
I would say funding & arming a army of unemployed war veterens (its the origins of the American Legion) not to redress the Gvt, but overthrow it, to eliminate Constitutional government & replace it with an oligarchy consitutes a threat, but thats just me.
If we shot these swine, instead of worshipping & reelecting them, it will be a happy day.
PS- thats why, last I looked, to join the Legion now requires an oath of fealty to the President, not the Founding Documents. Bad idea, in my mind, but clearly Im in a minority opinion here.
scott | August 30, 2006, 8:15pm | #
it seems much easier judging from comments i've read, to smear these two (that's Mearsheimer and Walt) than to hear them out. it's much more difficult to talk about complex issues when someone is arbitrarily deciding that they are anti-semitic.
do you see how the debate is being controlled here? if a reputable newspaper raises the anti semite canard, there is subsequently NO MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION ensuing. ostensibly because the labeling indicates that those two have nothing meaningful to say. that's certainly what the OP-Ed in the Post, or the War Street Journal say. why shouldn't we believe them?
because you need to make decisions yourself, not accept someone else's opinion like mindless sheep. read the original article. watch the CSPAN video.(my .02 on it is similar to Nemo's experience - Walt is a bit more circumspect, while Mearsheimer is more passionate).
these two scholars are not by any means conspiracy theorists. all they want is a frank, open discussion on the extent of Israel's influence on the direction of foreign policy in America.
the fact that we invaded a country that truly posed no threat whatsoever to us in the US for non-existent WMDs and are prepared to bomb innocents in Iran three years later to eliminate a dubious nuclear weapons program based on practically zero credible intel other than what Abram Shulsky stovepipes to Cheney (similar to what the OSP did w/ iraq intel) should give you at least a little pause.
then read the PNAC Clean Break document (written for Bibi Netanyahu) and ask yourself who really stands to benefit in the region, and whose relations with its Arab allies will be jeopardized in the process of fulfilling this path. we are following the textbook of the Clean Break document, and if we don't watch it, we will open ourselves to terrorist actions that'll make the current crop look like a cakewalk.
incedentally MUTT is right. i haven't seen the world from a barrel of a gun as he has, but i know enough about how states operate to understand how a state couches its political and profit oriented aims in patriotic terms. and Smedley Butler is The Man for how governments and the industries manipulate the people for their own selfish aims.
as for the oath of allegiance and all that. think very carefully back to the founding of our country. we thumbed our collective nose at the British Empire and made absolutely sure with the constitution that we would never, ever allow a king to sit in the president's chair. over the years, politicians, lobbyists and opportunists have exploited 20th century gaps in that 18th century framework, and responsibility has been so abdicated that we are a hair's breadth away from a dictatorship, i.e an empire. the neoconservatives want this empire. i, as a loyal american to the ideals of washington and jefferson, do not.
at the very least we need a new constitutional convention (to tighten the existing language so no loopholes can be found) , reelect every member of congress, with no incumbents allowed, and outlaw privately funded elections. that'd be a start.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
