The editor of the Forward doesn't think Walt and Mearsheimer's book is very good. Shocking. Absolutely shocking. What's next? The sun came up in the east this morning.

"“They haven’t really done original research. They haven’t talked to the people who are being lobbied or those doing the lobbying.”"

EXACTLY!! They could have written the entire article based on Lexis Nexis searches - it's almost entirely culled from newspaper and magazine reports. Actually, in reading more and more articles in IR journals these days, that seems to be something of a trend.

I agree with Dan, I don't really care if you're criticizing Israel, but this whole project has been an embarassment to the record (no matter how much I may disagree with the positions) of these two authors (one of whom I had as a professor in grad school).

I wrote more on this last year here:

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2006/07/that-pesky-lobby.html

99% of the views of the policy establishment are complete and utter junk. For example many works of trash become influential and popular: like how Huntington and Fukuyama wrote their most popular works (clash of civilizations or end of history and the last man) even though they are not very good as social science (and frankly, stupid ideas). But the thing is, no one was forcing them to share stages with their opponents, and especially not on extremely conventional stanges like the Chicago Council. I am entirely sure that Mearsheimer and Walt are willing and able to defend their work against it's opponents, and they have done so many times in the past (most prominently was when Mearsheimer debated with Khalidi and Judt against Ben-Ami, Ross and Indyk and the NYRB forum). So, when Drezner writes condescendingly about them and about their desire to have their views heard independently of their detractors, he is making a particularly empty argument.

The question is not whether they have free speech or not, but whether Israel is a taboo subject, and largely because of the power of those who seek to silence criticism of Israel. Just on it's face, it seems obvious that this is true.

There is no other subject that gets so regularly tabooed. You can criticize religion, race, sexual practices, or almost any other important topic, and if your credentials are high enough, you can get an open public forum with a major institution like the Chicago Council. People like Sam Huntington, Anthony Cordesman, Ken Pollack, Tom Friedman or Alan Dershowitz (the list goes on forever...) can spout totally racist and ignorant nonsense about the Arab and Muslim worlds and they are never forced to be balanced on the stage by their detractors.

Yet people are prominent as President Jimmy Carter or mainstream scholars like Mearsheimer and Walt consistently denied access to the public and policy circles when they speak about Israel. Carter, for example, is a hero and welcomed in every forum in the world when he speaks about elections or the Carter Center, but he is almost an enemy of the state when he speaks about Israel. There is no debate about this fact. And this in itself shows how the lobby works. I personally disagree with the much of what Mearsheimer and Walt say because i think they try to get too specific and i wish they would have made an argument more along the lines of hybrid of Michael Massing's article in the NYRB and the interviews with the arguments made by Avraham Burg and with the silencing power of invoking the Holocaust and Jewish victimhood: (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=19062
and
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/868385.html)

and to invoke the example J.J. Goldberg is not a very convincing one. Because, the simple counter-argument is to ask whether he is endorsing every view of those he writes in the Forward? Was he endorsing Burg when he wrote about him a few months ago? Of course not. And Goldberg has every right to decline any lecture he wants, but it is pathetic that decides to hide behind some transparent basis for it or argue that there is a need for "balance" or say you think there should be an open debate when you yourself back out from an opportunity to have that debate.

Anyway, point being, Drezner is dismissing the problems that W&M are facing in order to discredit their arguments. but the fact of their experience is more evidence in favor of their argument (even if it is not perfect evidence), not less.

Joe M. wrote so a long post that it's almost amazing that he didn't hit on the key issue somewhere simply by accident, all monkeys on typewriters making Shakespeare style.

Walt and Mearsheimer don't have some sort of right (first amendment or otherwise) to venues put on to promote their book. If they don't like the forums / opportunities that are offered (e.g., because there will be opposing parties), they are more than welcome to decline those opportunities. It's just a bit precious for them to then sniffle that this somehow is a free speech infringement.

Howard,

Walt and Mearsheimer did not have an opportunity to decline the Chicago Council on Global Affairs venue. Read over the facts, the council previously offered a chance to speak about their book, but then rescinded it.

Daniel,

What do you make of the fact that Mearsheimer wrote a very strong, convincing argument in "Tragedy of Great Power Politics"? Do you call into question his scholarship in that case? If not, why would Mearsheimer risk his reputation, knowing it would be highly scrutinized in writing the Israel Lobby? Sounds a little far-fetched to me.

Jeff,

Tragedy of Great Power Politics is light years ahead of Mearsheimer's scholarship on this work. I disagree with a lot of Tragedy, and I disagreed with Mearsheimer's interpretation of a fair bit of history, but it was a solid work. The Israel Lobby - not so much. The whole thing is taken from newspaper articles - he at least did original research for Tragedy. You're guess is as good as mine for the shoddiness of this work. I guess it is similar to how Dinesh D'Souza went from writing strong works on domestic policy to a screed about how liberals are responsible for 9/11. It's a mystery.

Alenda,

You bring up a good point in regards to the abundance of newspaper article references and lack of primary research. It is a fair point, but could it be that (and this is just a guess on my end) tackling such a sensitive subject would cause animosity from those they seek to interview. In other words, policymakers would run away from such an interview, knowing they are likely to be slammed in the book. Same goes for political action committees. I am not suggesting that their work was flawless, I would like to hold off on passing judgment until reading the book (I did read the article in the London Review), but I am skeptical that such respected writers would take such a risk. It seems that you admit it is rather strange.

Howard,
I don't know whether you read what i wrote, and on re-reading it i notice a few type-o's, but i said explicitly that i don't think this is directly a free speech issue, I think it is an issue about Israel specifically. I think there are hundreds of venues that would like to have W&M speak about their new book. But the question is why are such prominent scholars accepted and then rejected from speaking engagements, or why is President Jimmy Carter forced to debate an idiot like Dershowitz? This never happened when Huntington wrote his stupid book about clash of civilizations, even though that is as ignorant of an idea as the "white man's burden" from the colonial age. Also, it doesn't happen when Netanyahu comes to give a lecture at the CFR or CSIS. Why is criticizing Israel so controversial? Why is pressure from pro-Israel groups so powerful that it blocks previously scheduled lectures by such important people (even if you disagree with them) or forces them to debate their views rather then present them on their own? Is there any other important issue where that happens? Do people like Dan get forced to debate someone who is protectionist when he goes to the CFR or does the president of a major university make the Dali Lama debate a pro-Chinese/anti-Tibet person when he speaks publicly?

You know, M&S will get nitpicked and nitpicked and nitpicked. And it would be easy to write a long defense of their work, but I think the real root of the problem has been laid bare. Discussing Isiaiah Berlin, Joan Cocks pointed out (and yes, she's Jewish)

'there are all sorts of logical conundrums in Berlin's claim that a Herderian answer [i.e. an ethnically based state]to the Jewish question in Palestine creates a Millian freedom for Jews everywhere else.' Passion and Paradox: Intellectuals and the Nation-State pg 83.

And there you have it. Part of M&S's work exposes the contradiction. This isn't about scholarship, its about a cognitive dissonance that many diaspora Jews, esp. strong supporters of Israel, feel keenly.

Surely somewhere, on some campus, what they have written constitutes hate speech.

And that's good enough for me!

What original research was there in the Tragedy of Great Power Politics? Are you kidding me? It was full of newspaper article citations! Not to mention the the use of crucial and well thought out variables like the "separating power of water". Please.

The point of course isn't whether the Tragedy of Politics was a good or bad book; it is that it's quality of research was no different than the quality of research in the "Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" and yet the former didn't stop most people from throwing it endless accolades.

Lastly, it's not a denial of free speech to demand a contrarian view in a book presentation. It is however a degrading indignity aimed at the authors. Regardless of the work quality, I think that their resume should spare them from such indignities.

Doesn't the troubles they're having in getting speaking engagements (somewhat) prove their point about the inordinate power of the Israel lobby? There is no right to speak, of course, but the only other people who are forced to share a stage are David Duke types from whom organizations and institutions clearly want to distance themselves. That two otherwise decently respected scholars now run into such trouble for presenting a single mediocore piece of scholarship (when, as was said, most scholarship these days ain't all that great) tells you something about the power of the people who oppose the book.

Here is real evidence for the inordinate power of the Israel lobby. The US just signed an agreement with Israel to send $30 billion in military grants to Israel over the next ten years - an increase of 25% over current funding levels. Was there any public debate on this? No. Was there any consideration as to how this would affect what is left of the "peace process"? No. Did you hear a peep from a single Democrat of this squandering of taxpayer money? No.

Here is a link to the story -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070816/ts_nm/israel_usa_defence_dc_1

What will Israel do with this money? Probably build more roads like this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/world/middleeast/11road.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

To deny the outsize influence of the Israel lobby on US policy is simply delusional. It works hard to tamp down debate because if attention were really focused on things like the US funneling money to Israel, maybe people would object.

Nick, accidentally, demonstrates exactly what
is wrong with the Academy today:

"I think that their resume should spare them from
such indignities"

It's not about scholarship.
It's not about intellectualism.
It's not about truth.
It's not about justice.
It's not about free wheeling discussion or debate.

It is ONLY about credentials. They wrote a lot
of stuff and got their Professors to sign off.

So it must make them experts in their field.
And in no way can be critiqued.

No wonder the reputation of the Academy sinks
lower and lower each day. With shining examples
like W. Churchill, and N. Finkelstien, and the
Duke 88, does anyone with a sense of objectivity,
actually have a shred of respect for our so-called
bastions of higher learning?

These days students OPENLY laugh at their professors.

In the past, they only did so
behind the "great man's" back.

If you don't want to read about it don't buy the book. Don't assign it. Don't discuss it. Ban W&M from campus. This should of course make everyone better off–except for students, scholars, and the academy. Way to go everyone! I can only shake my head in disbelief. Isn't political science supposed to be political? The answer appears to be yes–political(ly) correct.

If you don't want to read about it don't buy the book. Don't assign it. Don't discuss it. Ban W&M from campus. This should of course make everyone better off–except for students, scholars, and the academy. Way to go everyone! I can only shake my head in disbelief. Isn't political science supposed to be political? The answer appears to be yes–political(ly) correct.

Who says they can't be critiqued? From graduate school and on to the highest levels, academia isn't simply about critiquing, it's about tearing people apart! Moreover their credentials weren't earned within the confines of a non-competitive seniority system, they were obtained through an array of tests and criticisms of their work until they and their work was considered worthy.

However, having your work open to criticism doesn't mean that you don't get the courtesy to present your work according to certain norms that rule this sort of things.

It is a norm to be able to present your book on the terms of your own choosing. And after the authors push the book the way they want to obviously, all kinds of criticisms and conversations can ensue. Btw there is also a very useful concept called book review, not to mentions discussions in TV shows, panels etc.

Let me also offer a thought experiment. Yesterday, Dan derided Giuliani's latest article as a piece of crap. I haven't read the piece, but I trust Dan and others' opinion that Giuliani's article in FA was indeed crap.

However, I sincerely doubt that the Council on Foreign Relations would cancel an appearance by Rudy because his musings were crappy. Nor for that matter anyone would seriously suggest that because Giuliani's opinions are mediocre and factually baseless, a person with a contrary view should follow him in order to balance the misinformation and clear the misconceptions in his article. People understand that no matter how crappy one respectable gentleman's opinions are, on certain occasions and according to prevailing norms, he can offer them on his own.

Therefore, the fact of the matter remains, that regardless of the quality of the scholarship or one's view on the issue, having CFR cancel appearances by Walt and Mearsheimer and/or offering to accept their presence on condition that an opposing view is offered are indignities which are meant to muzzle their opinions and portray them as extreme, out of the mainstream, not respectable, wacky and so on. That would be perhaps justified if they were antisemitic or not so highly successful academics. But they aren't antisemitic and they are very successful with highly respected work.

So, the explanation for this behavior should lie elsewhere and that explanation has to do with influence and politics, a fact which -as has been pointed out- validates the argument of their book.

Who says they can't be critiqued? From graduate school and on to the highest levels, academia isn't simply about critiquing, it's about tearing people apart! Moreover their credentials weren't earned within the confines of a non-competitive seniority system, they were obtained through an array of tests and criticisms of their work until they and their work was considered worthy.

However, having your work open to criticism doesn't mean that you don't get the courtesy to present your work according to certain norms that rule this sort of things.

It is a norm to be able to present your book on the terms of your own choosing. And after the authors push the book the way they want to obviously, all kinds of criticisms and conversations can ensue. Btw there is also a very useful concept called book review, not to mentions discussions in TV shows, panels etc.

Let me also offer a thought experiment. Yesterday, Dan derided Giuliani's latest article as a piece of crap. I haven't read the piece, but I trust Dan and others' opinion that Giuliani's article in FA was indeed crap.

However, I sincerely doubt that the Council on Foreign Relations would cancel an appearance by Rudy because his musings were crappy. Nor for that matter anyone would seriously suggest that because Giuliani's opinions are mediocre and factually baseless, a person with a contrary view should follow him in order to balance the misinformation and clear the misconceptions in his article. People understand that no matter how crappy one respectable gentleman's opinions are, on certain occasions and according to prevailing norms, he can offer them on his own.

Therefore, the fact of the matter remains, that regardless of the quality of the scholarship or one's view on the issue, having CFR cancel appearances by Walt and Mearsheimer and/or offering to accept their presence on condition that an opposing view is offered are indignities which are meant to muzzle their opinions and portray them as extreme, out of the mainstream, not respectable, wacky and so on. That would be perhaps justified if they were antisemitic or not so highly successful academics. But they aren't antisemitic and they are very successful with highly respected work.

So, the explanation for this behavior should lie elsewhere and that explanation has to do with influence and politics, a fact which -as has been pointed out- validates the argument of their book.

Who says they can't be critiqued? From graduate school and on to the highest levels, academia isn't simply about critiquing, it's about tearing people apart! Moreover their credentials weren't earned within the confines of a non-competitive seniority system, they were obtained through an array of tests and criticisms of their work until they and their work was considered worthy.

However, having your work open to criticism doesn't mean that you don't get the courtesy to present your work according to certain norms that rule this sort of things.

It is a norm to be able to present your book on the terms of your own choosing. And after the authors push the book the way they want to obviously, all kinds of criticisms and conversations can ensue. Btw there is also a very useful concept called book review, not to mentions discussions in TV shows, panels etc.

Let me also offer a thought experiment. Yesterday, Dan derided Giuliani's latest article as a piece of crap. I haven't read the piece, but I trust Dan and others' opinion that Giuliani's article in FA was indeed crap.

However, I sincerely doubt that the Council on Foreign Relations would cancel an appearance by Rudy because his musings were crappy. Nor for that matter anyone would seriously suggest that because Giuliani's opinions are mediocre and factually baseless, a person with a contrary view should follow him in order to balance the misinformation and clear the misconceptions in his article. People understand that no matter how crappy one respectable gentleman's opinions are, on certain occasions and according to prevailing norms, he can offer them on his own.

Therefore, the fact of the matter remains, that regardless of the quality of the scholarship or one's view on the issue, having CFR cancel appearances by Walt and Mearsheimer and/or offering to accept their presence on condition that an opposing view is offered are indignities which are meant to muzzle their opinions and portray them as extreme, out of the mainstream, not respectable, wacky and so on. That would be perhaps justified if they were antisemitic or not so highly successful academics. But they aren't antisemitic and they are very successful with highly respected work.

So, the explanation for this behavior should lie elsewhere and that explanation has to do with influence and politics, a fact which -as has been pointed out- validates the argument of their book.

Who says they can't be critiqued? From graduate school and on to the highest levels, academia isn't simply about critiquing, it's about tearing people apart! Moreover their credentials weren't earned within the confines of a non-competitive seniority system, they were obtained through an array of tests and criticisms of their work until they and their work was considered worthy.

However, having your work open to criticism doesn't mean that you don't get the courtesy to present your work according to certain norms that rule this sort of things.

It is a norm to be able to present your book on the terms of your own choosing. And after the authors push the book the way they want to obviously, all kinds of criticisms and conversations can ensue. Btw there is also a very useful concept called book review, not to mentions discussions in TV shows, panels etc.

Let me also offer a thought experiment. Yesterday, Dan derided Giuliani's latest article as a piece of crap. I haven't read the piece, but I trust Dan and others' opinion that Giuliani's article in FA was indeed crap.

However, I sincerely doubt that the Council on Foreign Relations would cancel an appearance by Rudy because his musings were crappy. Nor for that matter anyone would seriously suggest that because Giuliani's opinions are mediocre and factually baseless, a person with a contrary view should follow him in order to balance the misinformation and clear the misconceptions in his article. People understand that no matter how crappy one respectable gentleman's opinions are, on certain occasions and according to prevailing norms, he can offer them on his own.

Therefore, the fact of the matter remains, that regardless of the quality of the scholarship or one's view on the issue, having CFR cancel appearances by Walt and Mearsheimer and/or offering to accept their presence on condition that an opposing view is offered are indignities which are meant to muzzle their opinions and portray them as extreme, out of the mainstream, not respectable, wacky and so on. That would be perhaps justified if they were antisemitic or not so highly successful academics. But they aren't antisemitic and they are very successful with highly respected work.

So, the explanation for this behavior should lie elsewhere and that explanation has to do with influence and politics, a fact which -as has been pointed out- validates the argument of their book.

I think Dan isn't being exactly fair here. Obviously if authors insisted that they would *never* engage in debate that's one thing, but it's quite correct that it's pretty normal at venues like CFR or CCGA to give an author the stage to make their case.

I suspect Dan would be miffed if the Chicago Council said that due to the "unusual controversy" around his new book, rather than the usual academic setup they would only let him speak if he agreed to have Lou Dobbs present to give a rebuttal, and bookstores saying they'd only let him do book events if the local AFL-CIO chapter got to set up a table next to him encouraging people to _not_ read his stuff.

Not to mention that in the Chicago Council case, it doesn't sound like the issue was W&M not agreeing to a debate, but CCGA pulling the rug on a previously agreed to talk and not even offering them the chance at a debate instead.

anIRprof has it nailed. Dan and I others seem to want to prolong this myth that M/W are disingenuous because they initially called for a debate but have since run from that very debate.

The fact is the M/W have debated and discussed this piece in prominent places both orally (at the NYRB debate) as well as in print (in the pages of Foreign Policy). My guess is that they initially put off the debate in the hope that some of the more vitriolic and ad hominem rhetoric would die down, but since then, it's simply inaccurate to say that they have avoided debating this. In the Chicago Council case, I think it's pretty clear that the Council decided it no longer wanted to host a forum with M/W no matter what the format even if M/W had agreed to a debate format (which I don't think in the context of promoting a book they would have done).

Finally, the fact that the US gives $30 billion to Israel without debate is not, in and of itself, evidence of the lobby's undue influence. The key premise of the M/W argument--so often missed--is the contention that the US does not have a strategic interest in supporting Israel as it does. To me, the presence of the lobby is hard to deny. The key question is whether the lobby is lobbying on behalf of a genuine US strategic interest. If it does, then the $30 billion doesn't bother me so much. If it doesn't, then we all should be questioning why that level of funding persists. I hope (most likely in vain) that that's where the debate will be centered this time around.

Dan,

When you teach a class, do you always have another professor teach alongside you to go against everything you just taught? Perhaps your blog should be opened up to free-trade opponents, in the interests of fairness? If you point out that such an approach runs counter to higher ed tradition, then perhaps you would be a bit more sympathetic to M&W's surprise that the Chicago Council suddenly changed the rules on them. Will the council take this same approach to other contentious foreign policy matters, like Cuba?

So if the KKK wants it viewpoint aired, the NAACP
MUST give them a venue? Or if creationists want
their viewpoint aired, Scientific American must
give them a venue?

Or they are stifling free speech. You guys
can't be serious.

Both Carter and M&W CLAIM to want nothing more
than a free and open debate. Yet they refuse
to debate opponents not of their liking. They
are cowards. Unable to respond to well prepared,
reasonable, mainstream opponents.

The inability of posters such as anon or Nick
Kaufman (X4) to recognize that their refusal to
actually discuss their own viewpoints is, in
itself, an admission they are wrong, is simply
stunning.

"I'll debate anyone on this topic as long as
I get to choose the 'anyone'" is NOT free
speech.

It is the rantings of a bought and paid for
henchman of the oligarchic wahabi lobby.

It's a strange definition of open-mindedness to pan a book that hasn't been published yet.

LordAction,

Clearly, you're not paying any attention at all to the actual facts. Your prerogative, I suppose:

(1) M&W have not insisted that anybody give them a forum. The issue here is that they were invited to present at the Chicago Council, and then the invitation was rescinded because of pressure the Council's leadership was feeling. The Council then came with a whole bunch of silly justifications for its actions, and according to the letter, the Council indicated no interest in rescheduling for a later date even in a different format. It's that type of silencing in reaction to pressure that is problematic.

(2) Again, the notion that M&W have run from debate is pure mythology. I suppose you can keep propagating the myth if you want, but there is both video and print evidence that belies the claim.