June 12, 2008

'Israel Lobby' Professors Get Hospitable Greeting in Israel

Jerusalem — The first appearance in Israel by Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer since the publication of their controversial book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, impressed a largely student audience at the Hebrew University, but left some faculty members wondering about their honesty.

A threatened boycott failed to have any effect, and the talk passed off with nothing more dramatic than some lively debate and repeated declarations from the pair that they are neither anti-Semitic nor Israel-haters.

Their presentation, “Is the ‘Israel lobby’ good for Israel?,” attracted 200 people. Mr. Walt told The Chronicle that they were visiting Israel at the invitation of the veteran left-wing campaigner Uri Avnery and decided to add a university appearance to their schedule.

Mr. Walt is a professor of international relations at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Mr. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

Their work has been criticized as anti-Jewish and intellectually dishonest, charges that led some to call for the lecture to be canceled.

“Any discussion of the Israel lobby takes place in the shadow of centuries of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories,” said Mr. Walt. “John and I reject any one of those anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The Israel lobby is a normal U.S. interest group. There’s no conspiracy, no cabal, no secret plot here.”

Robert Wistrich, a professor of modern European history and director of the university’s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, said he was willing to assume that they are not anti-Semitic.

“I don’t think that’s the point, though,” he said. “Those who object to their kind of discourse about the lobby are right to point out that in a very attenuated and benign form, with all the academic qualifications they make, it is uncomfortably reminiscent of very familiar arguments that clearly were anti-Semitic in the past. Some of it is disingenuous. It’s a kind of cover.” —Matthew Kalman

Comments

1. If those who critized Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer are “right to point out that in a very attenuated and benign form, with all the academic qualifications they make, it is uncomfortably reminiscent of very familiar arguments that clearly were anti-Semitic in the past”, then the author means that one can always imagine unfalsifiable, hidden reasons for ANY critical comment on Isreal (Not on “Jews”). But such an attitude as embellished in words as the one quoted is typical of paranoiac behavior and need psychiatric help. Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer offer arguments and they cannot be erased by insinuations of paranoiac pro-Israel academics. It is fascinating to observe that the contingent fact of being jewish offers to some people a sufficient reason to reject any criticism on the dubious argument that it may be anti-semitic. This kind of pseudo-argument is a clear proof of LACK of cogent argument to counter the critical comments offered.

   — sceptical    Jun 12, 09:13 PM    #

2. Sceptical writes: “This kind of pseudo-argument is a clear proof of LACK of cogent argument to counter the critical comments offered.” Tell me, are you literate at all? Can you write English? But in your bizarre line here, you seem to be suggesting that any criticism of Israel can’t possibly be anti-Semitic, and it all is just Jewish paranoia? That , by the way, is a pretty old argument as well.

   — Wondering    Jun 13, 01:41 AM    #

3. In fact, cogent arguments to counter Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis are far from lacking. My friend and colleague Jeff Weintraub has gathered an extensive collection of such counter-arguments, which Engage has usefully posted here:

   http://www.engageonline.org.uk/archives/index.php?id=17

   — Chad Alan Goldberg    Jun 13, 04:40 AM    #

4. I fully admit the politics of Israel are over my head, but I am wondering—doesn’t EVERYONE criticize everyone else’s governments (as well as their own)?

   Why, in this case, does criticism seem to be perceived differently than criticism of other governments and not the people who are governed?

   — kgotthardt    Jun 13, 06:22 AM    #

5. Isn’t it pretty easy to see if someone’s argument is anti-Semitic? That’s when one is relating hatred or dislike of Jews to the Semitic origin of Jews, isn’t it so?
   Moreover, many horrible cases of persecution of Jews in the past were not anti-Semitic either: Ferdinand and Isabella, for example, asked Jews to convert to Catholic faith, nothing more. The discriminatory laws in old Russia, again, were applicable to Faith, not to the origin of Jews. In Marocco, some prominent and rich Moslem families had Jewish origin (they converted when ownership of the Old City land in Fez was restricted to Moslems). Actually, only Hitler proclaimed Jewish origin wrong.
   It’s time when people in academia at least, must watch what they say. The facts and argumentation must reflect the truth, not just fuel propaganda and fear. There are legitimate reasons now to hate or dislike “Jews”; this is a direct result of hysterical, dishonest and cultist propaganda that does not allow even Jews to have different political opinion. As a consequence, people refer to “Jews” as a single body. But, in practically all cases, this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, it has everything to do with what Jews, united in a cult to support Israel, are doing “on the ground”. Jews themselves became the most brainwashed people in the world. That includes perfectly educated Jews, who in the past only valued dissent and freedom of opinion! Curiously, within Israel, Jews do have freedom to dissent, while outside Israel the same is called “self-hatred and anti-Semitism”.

   — Michael Pyshnov    Jun 13, 10:26 AM    #

6. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines anti-Semitism as “hostility or prejudice against Jews.”

   Michael Pyshnov, post#5 writes, “There are legitimate reasons now to hate or dislike ‘Jews’…” and he goes on to say “Jews themselves became the most brainwashed people in the world.”

   I leave it to you to decide whether he fits the definition.

   — Mcolson    Jun 13, 11:02 AM    #

7. It is clear to me in discussions with my Jewish friends and colleagues that there is a whole spectrum of opinion among American and Israeli people of Jewish faith and/or heritage about the domestic and foreign policies of Israel. Unsurprisingly, I agree with some of these friends and colleagues, and I disagree with others.

   This is called “real life.”

   I am really sick and tired of hearing the word “Jews” used collectively—EITHER by repulsive anti-Semites, OR by right wing Zionist organizations in the U.S. claiming to speak for (all) “Jews.”

   — d    Jun 13, 11:38 AM    #

8. This definition is outdated, plain and simple. Used in 19 century, it was roughly correct. Now, we have to be more discriminating because we know more. We became very particular about “iimplications”. We hear the word “racism” every day. Finally, we have to know what we are talking about. When I said “legitimate reasons”, of course, I did not say that prejudice is a legitimate reason. I said facts “on the ground” are legitimate reasons. “Hostility” is one thing, but “prejudice” is a totally different thing. See this difference, or still don’t see? This definition is a garbage.

   — Michael Pyshnov    Jun 13, 11:47 AM    #

9. “..hostility as a result of prejudice..” would be fine.

   — Michael Pyshnov    Jun 13, 12:30 PM    #

10. Michael Pyshniov defines, in post #5, anti-Semitism as “when one is relating hatred or dislike of Jews to the Semitic origin of Jews” Then in post #9 he says it is “hostility as a result of prejudice.”

    He can try to hide behind whatever definitional veil he chooses — it, literally, changes by the hour with him — but I would still say to him, shame on you.

    The Walt & Mearsheimer book has succeeded in changing the terms of the debate surrounding the U.S.-Israel relationship. Many buy into their narrative, others have pointed out significant weaknesses in what they have written. But to allow this discussion to descend into the articulation of hatred of Jews is unbecoming, unacademic, and a chilling reflection of those who espouse those views. It’s unfortunate that the Chronicle has become an outlet for such people to express themselves.

    — Mcolson    Jun 13, 01:02 PM    #

11. Where is the discrepancy in my definitions? “Hatred or dislike” = “hostility”. “Prejudice” is most often accociated with “origin”. Mcolson, are you outside of logic? Or you are following some as yet unknown to me line of thought? It even looks to me that there was some original definition of anti-Semitism as “hostilty toward Jews based on prejuce” or something like this, but it was changed into a really stupid one. Simply “hostility toward Jews” cannot stand, there should be some indication that we are talking about hostility which is irrational, etc. Can you answer?

    — Michael Pyshnov    Jun 13, 03:42 PM    #

12. 1. Michael Pyshnov is not a common name.
    2. see this site about a person called Michael Pyshnov:
    http://www.famousplagiarists.com/scienceandmedicine.htm#larsen
    A Michael Pyshnov, according to this site, some 20 years ago referred to a Canadian professor in these words:
    “a communist professor was a fraud. And she, the Jewish female, brought the holocaust upon a scientist …”
    3. What does the Mr. Pyshnov of this blog think of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and people who believe it? Don’t answer; I agree with Mcolson that this blog should not have sunk to this.

    — tvusrfch    Jun 13, 04:27 PM    #

13. K. Gotthardt asks: “Why…does criticism [of Israel] seem to be perceived differently than criticism of other governments and not the people who are governed?”

    My guess is that of the 200-odd member states of the United Nations, Israel is unique in that a significant number of people—and countries—maintain it ought not to be allowed to continue to exist. Lots of other states are disliked for one reason or another; lots of opponents of various governments around the world desire “régime change” ; but nobody is working to contrive that a Burma, or a Zimbabwe, or even, for all its desperate failings, a Sudan will simply disappear from the map. In the circumstances, I can understand why some might not find it easy to distinguish attacks on the body that is charged with ensuring Israel’s survival as a state from attacks on the state itself. The two are not always the same, of course, but there again they’re not always not.

    As for Mr Pyshnov, one wonders who he votes for now that Hitler’s dead.

    — Gustave    Jun 13, 04:47 PM    #

14. To continue with the attempt to elevate the discussion…
    Gustave, who exactly do you mean by “the body that is charged with ensuring Israel’s survival as a state”?

    — K    Jun 14, 01:51 AM    #

15. K:-

    The Israeli government.

    — Gustave    Jun 14, 05:37 AM    #

16. I see nobody actually got their point. Their point is this: from the Realist position, Israel is a drag on US foreign policy. Indeed, any country crazy enough to support what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is doing neither itself nor Israel any favours.

    — delia ruhe    Jun 14, 06:35 AM    #

17. I hate this “Realist” position. If it is moral to defend Israel, US should do it. The problem is that it is immoral. It appears now that to defend Israel, US must drop big bombs on Iran, and that would be just the beginning. Meanwhile, Iran has never attacked Israel or US, Iran wants what is perfectly legal for a sovereign state – nuclear energy, and I have no doubt – nuclear bombs. And the same desire have a number of other states in the region. That was predictable. O, how it was predictable!

    I don’t know if anybody remembers this: when the fist war against Iraq ended in complete destruction of this country (it was said that Iraq was thrown out of 20th century), there was, even on television, an open call for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. It was made clear that US agreed to destroy Iraq IN EXCHANGE for this withdrawal. It was made clear that Israel promissed this. When I was in Israel in the ’70s, they were saying: “We can beat Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon together, but we can not beat Iraquis. That was the experience of the previous war (Iraq participated with a small force). So, elimination of Iraq was achieved. But, surprise, Israel wanted much more…

    Clearly, Israel is digging its own grave. And some are saying: “Don’t distract them”.

    — Michael Pyshnov    Jun 14, 08:00 AM    #

18. I’m responding to Pyshnov just so that some readers here, especially the young or forgetful, will be better informed:
    “Iran has never attacked. .. US”? US embassy in Tehran!
    “Iran has never attacked Israel”? Supplies to Hezbolah and Hamas, deadly attacks on Israeli embassy and Jewish center in Argentina!
    “… US agreed to destroy Iraq IN EXCHANGE for this withdrawal. …Israel promised this”? With sarcastic humor I might add that the second war in Iraq proved that it was not destroyed in the first, so the territories should be occupied; a deal is a deal! Seriously: Iraq attacked Kuwait, the US freed it. Iraq, for internal and regional politics, retaliated by attacking Israel with missiles. Israel refrained from any action (this may have been the only US request).

    — ER    Jun 14, 10:10 AM    #

19. As stated earlier in the prior article on this subject; I am confused, perplexed, amazed, —- We envision solutions vide a non-negotiation stance —- Seek peace vide use of force —- generation of meaningful outcomes vide restriction of granting merit to opposing perspectives, betterment vide …

    Lobbies/Lobbyists —- And, I thought that there was a clamor for barring/restricting all Lobbies/Lobbyists —- I thought the mantra of “change” included eradicating, or in the very least minimizing the influence of special interest groups in Washington —- Oh! Well ignorance is bliss —- let me move on, for enlightening myself with regards to the influence of the Israeli Lobby —- might simply harm my blissful state of well-being.

    — zahid    Jun 14, 08:54 PM    #

20. I haven’t seen a better piece for a long time: “With sarcastic humor I might add that the second war in Iraq proved that it was not destroyed in the first, so the territories should be occupied; a deal is a deal!” (from ER, #18)
    You see, someone was still alive in Iraq! That’s how defenders of Israel turn their face away from the rivers of blood of others. The previous comparable piece was a campaign to persuade the world that Arabs multiply too fast.
    Another, by the same author (ER): “Iraq attacked Kuwait…” Seriously? It was not just a provocation by US ambassador? It was not a New Jersey public relations firm that prepared fake evidence of Iraqis killing Kuwaiti children in incubators? Books are written about this provocation, television programs devoted to this provocation were made. Read Seymour Hirsh for God’s sake; or you say that Hirsh is anti-Semite? This is really something that should not be forgotten.
    Saddam Hussein was hung for killing 3000 people; that’s what it took him to maintain the peace in the country. The number of Iraqis killed on Israeli demand is over 1 million (US official data). Over 1 million Iraqi children died (UN data).

    — Michael Pyshnov    Jun 14, 11:59 PM    #

21. The Czech-Jewish part of me discussed the situation with the Norwegian-Lutheran and Polish-Catholic parts of me. We are all united and believe that “the Jews” are very nice people and should be thanked for their contributions to the world. No argument from any of me.

    — Greg    Jun 17, 12:57 AM    #

Previous: Biomedical Engineer at MIT Wins $1.2-Million Technology Prize
Next: Faculty Members' Criticisms Didn't Reach Accreditors