Quack, Quack, Quack.

The Mearsheimer and Walt article should be viewed as a start to a new discussion instead of being attacked and dimissed. The best article I have seen about it is by Daniel Levy in Haaretz. The link is:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/698051.html

Levy was in the Israeli negotiation team at both Taba and Oslo.

I don't think anything by Alan Dershowitz is worth reading.

"I don't think anything by Alan Dershowitz is worth reading."

That is funny, he spoke well of you.

New policy here at danieldrezner.com: if the authors of a study refuse to engage in the open debate they claim to want, then I see no reason to take the study seriously.

Wouldn't it make more sense to consider the arguments on their merits?

Dan

I think your comments against the article were the best and most solid refutation. By contrast, many of the articles you link to do not do that.

Dershowitz does indulge in ad hominem attacks (to be fair though, he was called an apologist in the article). He also claims that all points on the paper can be found in hate sites.

Wisse's article compares it to 19th century German anti-semitic tracts. So much for the lack of ad hominem attacks,

The Forward article is actually a fairly well written refutation, but even it begins with the header "In Dark Times, Blame the Jews" and ends with

"Mearsheimer and Walt join a long line of critics who dislike Israel so deeply that they cannot fathom the support it enjoys in America, and so they search for some malign power capable of perverting America's good sense. They find it, as others have before, in the Jews."

Incidentally, I can understand why Walt didn't want to be quoted in the NYSun. This is the same loony paper that claimed in 2004 that John Kerry had been court-martialed. Furthermore, I see that 2 of the news papers you link to specifically mention how pleased David Duke is with the article. What better way to malign an article than by quoting David Duke about it ? Can you blame Walt for being very careful in commenting ?

And Herf's letter, though reasonably well written makes its own mistakes -- it claims that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Turkey, which most people would consider to be part of the ME, is a democracy, so is Lebanon. Even the Palestinian territories can claim to be democratic.

I consider myself to be pro-Israel, believing strongly in its right to exist, and I have a great deal of contempt for most of the Arab countries and their inability to build modern countries as well as their hypocrisy.

Yet with all of that, I beleive the pro-Israel lobby in the US was a major factor in the war with Iraq. I believe an honest debate on this is overdue, and possible, without succumbing to the virus of anti-Semitism. Perhaps, the time for the debate was prior to 911, but at that time, the urgency was less apparent.

[ I also believe that discussions of the impact that Mexican Americans may have on US policy wrt mexico, Irish Americans on US policy wrt Ireland etc. are also appropriate, but for the moment at least, these are not crisis points.]

I am guessing that M&W took at least a year to write that paper. I have seen nothing, nothing of the instareplies that even comes close to a reasoned critique. Certainly Dershowitz hasn't

"You have to counter this article", Dershowitz told The Jerusalem Post, "These are two serious scholars and you need to expose what they have done as ignorant propaganda".

So much for the careful reading, the point by point refutation...

So, M&W are pursuing the exactly the correct strategy--wait for the furore to die down, a reasoned reply to formulated, and then let the debate move forward. And that debate should not be conducted on NPR, in the Weekly Standard, the JPost, etc. At the very least it should take place in Foreign Affairs, Current History, maybe The Atlantic ...similar venues.

The more I read about this, the more my admiration for these men grows. They knew exactly what they were doing, the personal attacks they would face , the behind the scenes campaigns that the excerpted article points to.

No doubt one of the greatest acts of altruism on behalf of their country committed by scholars in a long while.

the challenge is to find a single idea in the piece that does not already appear in hate websites.

Dershowitz knows that just because an idea has appeared on a 'hate' site doesn't make it false. This is a version of the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy that Leo Strauss pointed out long ago. Dershowitz knows no shame.

Dan, I think you're wrong to call the Forward editorial "the most comprehensive shredding of their hypothesis". It indulges in a good deal of rhetoric, makes some points and stops short of labelling the authors as anti-semites. And then in the end, they throw this:

Mearsheimer and Walt join a long line of critics who dislike Israel so deeply that they cannot fathom the support it enjoys in America, and so they search for some malign power capable of perverting America's good sense. They find it, as others have before, in the Jews.

Really, what open debate can one have after that?

The linked Wisse article is a gem

1) Starts out with an 'Irish cab driver' (in Boston of course) telling Ms. Wisse that Israel is fighting America's battles.The 'cab driver anecdote' is never a good way to start an analysis -- apart from the almost certain confusion of 'Irish' with 'Irish American'.

2) Claims that W&S are wrong because they didn't talk about the Arab league and its 21 countries and links to 1.2 billion Muslims. Sort of like saying critics of Enron failed to mention OPEC's role in world energy markets.

3) On of her students tells her its 'Wacko Quacko' -- Robert Schwartz, come clean that was you, wasn't it ; )

The interesting thing is the 'chirp, chirp, chirp' of crickets among the mainstream, gentile conservatives on this one.

(No, I am not saying that only gentiles are mainstream conservatives, I am wonder about a subset of meanstream conservates, those that are gentile)

Be interesting to see if George Will weighs in.

I think Alan Dershowitz does have an important role to play. If I was very wealthy and had just murdered my wife, I would be sure to listen to him and take his advice.

The problem with Dershowitz is that he will attack if someone raises a point that has been accepted by all historians. If one were to repeat passages from Shlomo Ben-Ami's "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace" (He was Foreign Minister under Ehud Barak), Dershowitz would accuse you of being anti-Semitic.

To satisfy Dershowitz, you have to accept that his book, "The Case for Israel" is the complete and accurate description of the situation in the Middle East. Just put aside the fact that in writintg this book, he plagiarized from a complete and utter fraud, Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial."

A previous poster claims that "...[it] took at
least a year to write that paper ..." Another
speculates " ... because an idea has appeared
on a 'hate' site doesn't make it false"

Cutting and pasting quotes from web sites
takes a Harvard Dean and a U of C scholar
more than a year? And that is called serious
research? And that we should "consider the
arguments on their merits?"

Issac Asimov must be spinning in his grave!

Decades ago he lambasted such "scholarship"
- only reviewing published sources and not
conducting original research - in the
"Foundation Trilogy". And these clowns didn't
even bother with the "compare and constrast"
part.

I thought only education majors could get
away with publishing the sort of crap it
took M&W more than a year to write.

Is it any wonder that the respect and
esteem formerly enjoyed by "The Academy"
is now in tatters?

If this is an example of the work product
from two of America's finest Universities,
India and China are going to eat us for
lunch.

The Forward reminds us that there are a number of issues that M&A do not address – if the Israel Lobby is working to give Israel a freer hand in dealing with the Palestinians, Iraq does not seem the best target. Syria and Iran are far more deeply involved in providing support to Palestinian terrorist groups. Indeed, Iraq may have been wrecked because to borrow from Gordon Gekko, it was “wreckable.” It was not as big as Iran, not as marginal to America interests as Syria.

But The Forward weakens its position with statements like, well, the very headline. M&A point out that the activities of the lobby are but a small segment of Jewish opinion.

“They mean to indict the entire U.S.-Israel relationship, going back to the point in 1973 when American aid rose into the billions and America became the essential broker in Middle East diplomacy.”

This is not the impression I got. If anything, what M&A seemed to suggest is that the U.S. adopt a position more akin to the Reagan and Bush I administration – let the locals deal with each other, and step in only when hostilities will harm American interest.

The Forwards editorial board, and others critical of M&W still have not answered this – what does America gain from it “current” relationship with Israel? It is clear what Israel gets - $3 billion a year, a reliable veto in the UN, and no pressure to remove West Bank settlements that, up until Dubya’s administration, where criticized by successive American presidents. Raising these questions is not a sign of bigotry. Demanding that they not be raised in the first place is unsettling.

To see where the debate is heading, the latest article from the New York Sun “Harvard’s Paper on Israel Drew From Neo-Nazi Sites” If this is just the first week, M&A’s hesitancy to engage in a debate in the media is understandable.

A previous poster claims that "...[it] took at
least a year to write that paper ..." Another
speculates " ... because an idea has appeared
on a 'hate' site doesn't make it false"

Ted,

First, that was the same poster ...me. Second, I said guessed, because I really have no idea how long. Third, this meme is developing into a full fledged smear by Alan Dershowitz and his minions and its obvious you have picked it up.

There is absolutely zero evidence these scholars took anything from any 'hate' site. Nor is there any evidence that they 'cut and pasted' anything. What there is is a carefully laid out argument about the Lobby of a foreign government diverting US policy away from US national interests backed up with many, many data points.

Mitchell:

You're joking, right?

"Jews control the media and foreign policy" isn't
taken directly from 'hate' sites? Are you living in a bubble or under a rock?

"... Lobby of a foreign government ..."

Does the Government of Israel pay or run AIPAC?

This is exactly the sort of totally unsubstantiated attacks M&W make throughout their "paper".

And you indicate you accept that crap unreservedly.

No one can possibly be as stupid your posts
make you out to be.

So you have to be joking.

It is a bit unfortunate that Walt and Mearsheimer are unwilling to defend theor own work. But at the same time, it also attests to the trouble with beinging Israel into account. Thier backers are both extremely powerful and very dangerous and you risk your job and reputation by going against them. And, i assume that Walt and Mearsheimer figure that they have done enough by even having the guts to present the argument to the public, and that the rest is for us to do.

In that respect, i thank you dan for making it a priority to cover their paper. Even though you are trying to discredit it, you have provided a valuable forum to discuss these issues. I assume that it is in large part because you are jewish that you have feel the need and ability to do that. anyway, i am glad for the forum.

Lastly, ths far, the best argument i have seen against the Walt and Mearsheimer article has been from Joseph Massad of Columbia University. His argument makes far more sense then the personal attacks that have been leveled against Walt and Mearsheimer. I encourage everyone to read his analysis in al-Ahram and decide what you think then.

you can find his article here:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/787/op35.htm

The authors are certainly not avoiding an open debate about their paper, but simply waiting for the proper forum. It was reported in The Crimson that the authors would be willing to debate Alan Dershowitz. Its amazing how much the authors names are being dragged through the mud. Every newspaper article i've read avoids the authors argument, and simply write about how the piece resembles Neo-nazi literature and about David Duke's approval. I've read the article and have found it to be extremely interesting. Strategically, i think it would have better if they had investigated the matter more and written a longer paper. I'm really hoping that the authors follow up the report with a book.

I think the key point that the authors make is that the reason the Israel Lobby has been so effective is because they are very powerful and they care VERY deeply about the issue. Most of the American public has no opinion about the relationship the U.S. government has with Israel because they don't realize that the relationship has very important implications as to how the Middle East views America. A large part of their hate stems from the fact that we back Israel. The combination of a powerful lobby and an American public that is ignorant results in a foreign policy that reflects Israel's national interests more than it does America's.

One more point. Alan Dershowitz is scum! He is undoubtably an extremely intelligent man and realizes that his tactics are underhanded. However, he knows that he can fool the American public by discrediting the authors through associations with Nazis and bigots. It is unsettling that the media considers Dershowitz an intellectual.

"I think you're wrong to call the Forward editorial "the most comprehensive shredding of their hypothesis". It indulges in a good deal of rhetoric, makes some points and stops short of labelling the authors as anti-semites."It's really so.

This controversy has hit the MSM. In the Wahington Post at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032402147.html

FIRESTORM
Of Israel, Harvard and David Duke
Sunday, March 26, 2006; Page B05

International relations scholars John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University ignited a furious debate last week with their lengthy essay "The Israel Lobby," appearing in the London Review of Books. Their argument -- that the influence of a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States threatens U.S. national security -- has reverberated through academic and policy circles, the media and the blogosphere. A sampling of their article and the ongoing controversy: .....

The Daniel Levy article that was in Haaretz ("So Pro-Israel that it Hurts") is now up on the TPM Cafe blog - along with comments. It is at:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28214

One of the points that is being missed in the discussion of M&W is their assertion that the tilt toward Israel distorts U.S. foreign policy. Rather than grousing about the “Lobby” excessively, we should engage their question: “Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?” Whether one agrees with their contention that the Israel lobby is responsible, we can agree with the premise that the continued advancement of Israel’s interests does not always increase American security and promote U.S. national interests. Stephen Walt makes this point in Taming American Power without reference to the Israeli lobby which no on seemed to have noticed.

And a note on the earlier post about offensive realism’s failure to predict the Iraqi invasion. Mearsheimer remarked in his ISA roundtable on IR theory and foreign policy analysis that he was disappointed but had no intention of tweaking his theory to explain events. Parsimonious theories of IR are going to just get some things wrong sometimes he said and you just have to live with that. It would be intellectually dishonest (in his words) to augment them to fit events.

It is natural that the Israel lobby/Washington Post (Washington Post Outlook section March 26) should seek a quote from David Duke first and foremost in its effort to discredit the work of these two distinguished academics. But the issue is not the rights and wrongs of Israel and the Palestinians or the accuracy or otherwise of the Mearsheimer/Walt article.

The issue is FREE SPEECH and the right of Americans to discuss, debate and criticize Israeli policy. It is, in short a human rights matter.

You claim that supporters of Israel are holding back from comment. Well, how do you explain the Committe for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and Dennis Ross?

The supporters of Israeli policy in the US are really doing their cause a truly frightening dis-service. They have effectively cowed the people at all levels to a point where one dare not discuss the Palestinian situation at a private dinner, unless one knows the fellow guests extremely well. To speak out publicly is no longer an option. One might conclude that the savage reaction to the Mearsheimer/Walt article, as evidenced in the Washington Post Sunday Outlook section, merely bears out the fact, in stark terms, that the authors have it absolutely right. They are among the few who dare to say what millions would like to say, but dare not. The professors have tenure in their jobs. But Harvard is so intimidated that it forces Professor Mearsheimer to take the official logo off the paper. Well, there you have it in a nutshell.

Ruth Wisse says that "the American public now supports Israel with higher levels of confidence than ever before". I have no idea with whom she dines and socializes, but this may not true. The intimidated American media and the cash-dependent politicians support Israel. Non-Jewish acquaintances may not be being honest with her. They dare not. Sad? Yes? Disturbing? It ought to be.

Here you have a situation as in a kitchen, where a cook is standing over a huge, bubbling pot, holding down the lid at all costs, fighting firecely to stop the contents exploding under the force of the steam. Eventually it is inevitable that the top blows and the truth of the contents emerges to spatter all over the kitchen. The cook can only hold on so long.

By engineering a situation where the American public is not allowed to debate the Palestinian/Israeli situation in good faith for fear of being labeled "antisemitic" , the architects of this tail-wag-the-dog scenario are only making the explosion, when it comes, all the worse. It is a scandal that in a country purporting to be free, open and democratic, it is not possible to publicly utter a word of criticism of Israel without being pilloried. The only other item it is not acceptable to criticize is the professional military and its conduct of the actual war on the ground in Iraq (and this has been less than stellar).

Meanwhile, it will do no good whatsoever to the Jewish community generally (most of whom support Israel but do not necessarily favor suppressing debate) if the subject is now opened up, not in terms of Israeli policy, but in terms of free speech and the right of the protector and paymaster (the US taxpayer) to have accurate information and the right to debate it.

Robert Hanrott
In support of freedom of speech

Hypothesis: The Israel Lobby runs American foreign policy. They're so powerful, they stop people from talking about them. But we're going to release this study that PROVES the Israel lobby is powerful and running American foreign policy. But not in an anti-Semitic way, of course.

Action: Paper is published.

Reaction: Paper is badly-researched, filled with errors, and, uh, your hypothesis rather echoes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that have been around for centuries.

Authors' reaction: SEE! WE TOLD YOU THE ISRAEL LOBBY WOULD TRY TO SHUT US UP! THEY'RE CALLING US ANTI-SEMITES!

Don't lawyers have a Latin phrase for this? Q.E.D. or something?

A lot of criticism of this article stems from misreading it. Take the Harvard Crimson, which says, in what Drezner calls a "priceless paragraph", that the authors name Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, and other left-wing institutions, as members of the "Israel Lobby". They do no such thing. Being *influenced* in some way by a lobby is not the same thing as being a *member* of a lobby. Walt and Mearsheimer's article is important and shouldn't be discarded immediately as either anti-Semitic or badly researched. They make a few claims (e.g. about the nature of Israeli citizenship) that are not well-researched and were apparently thrown in as part of the kitchen-sink approach to prove their point. They shouldn't have done this, since it simply opens up ways to attack their argument on the margins (see Dershowitz http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512280) and diverts attention from the main point.

And the main point is very simple. Forget the war in Iraq. What is the US strategic interest in its unconditional support for Israel over the last four decades? I am Jewish, and I care deeply about Israel’s well-being. But, as an American, I have always been pleasantly surprised that the US government shares my concern. If stabilizing oil markets is in the US national interest, if preventing the terrorist attacks on the US is in the US national interest, then supporting Israel is the last thing the US should be doing. What is the source of this “special relationship”? Domestic politics is the best answer. However, I don’t think the authors proved “Israel lobby” to be the culprit.

I have two major points of contention with the article. The first is with the direction of causation. The authors argue that the neoconservative agenda serves the Israeli interest, and so the “Israel lobby” uses them as instruments to promote their own goals. Perhaps the authors got it backwards. Maybe it is the *neocons* who use Israel and the charge of anti-Semitism to promote *their* goals, the centerpiece of which is regime change in the middle-east, not entirely for the sake of Israel’s security. The authors don’t address the direction of causation at all. In fact, they may respond that the interests of Israel and those of the neocons are so inextricably linked as to make the distinction irrelevant. But then why is the article not called “The Neoconservative Lobby” or, more appropriately, “The Neoconservative Government?” After all, a *government* holds more sway over a state’s policy than a lobby. Part of the answer, I’m afraid, is that this argument would be less controversial and would not elicit as much attention.

My second point of contention is the authors’ claim that the “Israel Lobby” was largely responsible for the war in Iraq. This, given that the authors themselves admit that “Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than then [the US] population at large” and that the “[l]obby’s influence has been bad for Israel.“ Is the lobby that strategically short-sighted? If it’s an “Israel lobby”, why doesn’t it reflect either the interests of Jews or of Israel?! Perhaps it would be more appropriate then to call it the “War lobby.” This would surely include our neocon government, large segments of the Israeli government, but also the British government, the various US business interests, the “War-on-Terror-happy” electorate, Iran, Kuwait, etc.

This should give us the complete alternative title for the article: “The Neoconservative War Lobby.” Now I don’t have enough information to judge whether this title is more appropriate than the original. The authors were supposed to provide us with this information, and here they have failed.

“Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?”

If that is their main question, one need go no further to explain the ridiculous nature of their argument.

M&W obviously think its ok to protect the security of its allies. Is Israel not an ally?

This is the problem you get when IR theorists, with no substantive area focus or expertise, jump around from one region to another and declare that they have full expertise on said region. Mearsheimer has done this, starting with Europe and the Soviet Union, moving on to China, a little dabbling elsewhere in Asia and now suddenly he's an expert on the Middle East.

To prove his expertise in Middle Eastern affairs, he has in the past (also with Walt) declared that the reason al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein would NEVER have even contemplated working together was because the secular Saddam hates the theocratic Osama and vice versa. They couldn't explain secular, Baathist/Sunni Syria's alliance with Shi'a fundamentalist Iran against secular Ba'athist/Sunni Iraq in their war in the 1980s. They couldn't explain Shi'a Iran's past dealings with Sunni al Qaeda. But gosh darn it, mutter some stuff about anarchy in the international system and you're an expert in everything.

Is Israel not an ally?

This deserves careful study.

It's clear that the USA is israel's ally. It is not at all clear that israel is an ally for the USA.

It's possible that the reason for this is not at all that they wouldn'd do things for us, but instead that there's nothing useful they can do for us.

Hey J Thomas

After reading much if not all of your comments I deduce that your profound knowledge about the history of US Israel relations definitely qualifies you as an Arabist. You should ask the Saudi Embassy to subsidize the important work you do in comment boxes on blogs run by the Lobby.

Regarding your last brilliant comment: "It's clear that the USA is israel's ally. It is not at all clear that israel is an ally for the USA. It's possible that the reason for this is not at all that they wouldn'd do things for us, but instead that there's nothing useful they can do for us."

I think the following link proves how incisive and astute your analysis has been about the merit of W&M's arguments to date. And the article to which I refer you makes specific reference to the point raised in your quote above.

http://tinyurl.com/gt2fm

Happy reading J.

Hey J Thomas

After reading much if not all of your comments I deduce that your profound knowledge about the history of US Israel relations definitely qualifies you as an Arabist. You should ask the Saudi Embassy to subsidize the important work you do in comment boxes on blogs run by the Lobby.

Regarding your last brilliant comment: "It's clear that the USA is israel's ally. It is not at all clear that israel is an ally for the USA. It's possible that the reason for this is not at all that they wouldn'd do things for us, but instead that there's nothing useful they can do for us."

I think the following link proves how incisive and astute your analysis has been about the merit of W&M's arguments to date. And the article to which I refer you makes specific reference to the point raised in your quote above.

http://tinyurl.com/gt2fm

Happy reading J.

Not-antizionist, thank you for the link. It's an excellent example of that kind of thing.

Naturally J Thomas, in 1970, you would have advised the US not to assist Jordan's King from being toppled by a USSR backed Syrian tank and PLO guerilla assault after he had appealed to the British for help and was ignored. And what would that say about you? US Isolationist? pro Soviet during the Cold War? A foe of King Hussein?

I find there is a curious allergic reaction to anything resembling the dreaded "ad hominem."

I am sorry, but the paper is a bigoted piece of crap. Why shouldn't we just say that? Why shouldn't we point out that they make excuses for muslim-run regimes that they refuse to make for jewish-run ones, and note the obvious anti-semitism that this indicates? These men have an obvious double standard by which a nation chock full of jews is judged by a different, and harsher, standard than nations virtually absent of them. Yeah, God forbid we suspect they just don't like jews.

Of course, maybe they are also bigoted toward Muslims in a "soft bigotry of lowered expectations" sort of way. But one way or the other, this paper is bigoted and I don't see why everyone is so alergic to pointing this out.

AW, you have missed the point.

Of course we should hold our allies to a higher standard than our enemies. If they're no better than our enemies, why would we want them for allies?

The question is whether israel deserves the level of support the USA provides, or whether this level comes primarily because of domestic lobbying. Saying that they're antisemitic for raising the question and collecting part of the data that might help answer it, tends to support their claim. It is an odious tactic. Whether or not they are antisemitic, the question itself deserves careful objective academic study. It deserves well-researched debate in the pages of academic journals.

AW: The only point J Thomas wants to make is that he WANTS TO BELIEVE that Israel is no better than North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Mullahcratic Iran, Belarus, etc., etc. That is to say, the only "careful objective academic study" that would satisfy J Thomas' standards, is one that reinforces his tendentious and fantastical animus towards Israel. Evidence to the contrary, be damned.

not-antizionist, you are accusing me of predetermining the result.

But I'm saying that to avoid predetermining the result, the appropriate method is to go by careful academic study.

Why would you disagree?

When you take everybody who doesn't go along with your assertions and call them names, how does that help?