As someone who has been highly critical of Mearsheimer and Walt (authors of the infamous "Israel Lobby") paper, but who gave them more of the benefit of the doubt than some of their critics (you can find some of my previous posts on them here), my eyebrows were raised when I saw that they had agreed to speak at a forum sponsored by the venomously anti-Israel and pro-Islamicist Council on American-Islamic Relations [update: irony alert: criticizing the "Israel lobby" for acting contrary to American interests before a group that, at the very least acts as an apologist forIslamicist terrorism]. After all, M & W had piously refused to debate their thesis with academics who pointed out flaws in their methodology, errors in their facts, and their use of highly tendentious sources. Mearsheimer, moreover, told the Forward that
"I don't have an agenda in the sense of viewing myself as proselytizing or trying to sell this," Mearsheimer told the Forward. "I am a scholar, not an activist, and I am reticent to take questions from the media because I do believe that this is a subject that has to be approached very carefully."
This is a bit difficult to square with his performance at CAIR, as reported by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, (hat tip: Instapundit) which includes this gem: Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby." "I like it," he said, beaming.
Milbank detected an anti-Semitic flavor to their remarks, but having not been there, I'll just pass his impression along without comment.
In any event, far from maintaining their posture as "objective" scholars, which would, for example, entail actually responding to academic criticism of their work, M & W seem well on their way to joining the Norman Finkelstein school of professional (and disreputable) critics of Israel.
Meanwhile, an interview published in Mother Jones in July provides further evidence of how infinitely malleable, and ultimately weak, M & W's thesis is. Mearsheimer says, "Regarding Iraq, we argue that the lobby—and here we are talking mainly about the neoconservatives—was pushing hard for a war against Iraq from early 1998 on." Putting aside the accurcay of this statement (my own strong recollection is that push for "regime change" in Iraq among conservatives, neo and otherwise, dated back to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait), Mearsheimer apparently thinks that "the lobby" can be used interchangeably with "neoconservatives," even though, by any measure, neoconservatives are only a tiny portion of Israel's U.S. supporters, and their agenda of international democratization, by force if necessary, is far, far broader than anything narrowly pro-Israel. By M & W's logic, apparently any foreign policy position taken by any group or indvidual that is pro-Israel can be considered an action by the nefarious Israel lobby. Liberal Jewish organizations coming out against genocide in Bosnia or Sudan? Ignore them, just part of the Israel lobby. An evangelical Christian organization protests against persecution of Christians in Muslim countries? Israel lobby. And so on. In case you wonder why there has been such a firestorm over the M & W paper there's a significant part of it; if their thesis is accepted, anyone who is pro-Israel is going to have their views on any issue even tangentially related to Israel dismissed as yet more shilling for Israel.
UPDATE: Here's a transcript of the CAIR event. I withdraw the comparison to Finkelstein; M & W aren't that bad. On the other hand, they continue to assert that the war in Iraq was a neoconservative plot, and as such, a plot of the "Israel lobby", subject to the same obvious criticisms I note above. Mearsheimer also manages to discuss what he considers excessive U.S. support for Israel in the Lebanon war without ever mentioning that Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any other terrorist group other than Al Qaeda, that Hez's sponsors Syria and Iran are causing the U.S. all sorts of trouble in Iraq, that Hez has played a large role in destabilizing relatively pro-U.S. forces in the Palestinian territories, and that Hez is the mortal enemy of relatively pro-American forces in Lebanon. Why wouldn't the U.S. want Israel to utterly defeat Hezbollah?
Get a rope.
Their original paper was basically an op-ed, not an academic paper, and this talk just further confirms it.
I listened to a portion of the talk on the drive in this morning on C-Span. Their characterization of the recent war was structured exactly the same as their paper. Their argument:
a) Our actions during the war were not in our interests.
b) Israel's actions were immoral, therefore one can't make the case that we are supporting them for moral reasons.
therefore...
c) It must be that "the Lobby" is to blame.
I don't see why David has such a problem with M&W's characterization of the lobby - they repeatedly point out that it is not in fact a unified or even coordinated body, certainly not some sort of evil conspiracy. Their definition of the lobby is basically "any foreign policy position taken by any group or indvidual that is pro-Israel" - you may not like that, but it is hardly inconsistent or problematic in itself.
What M&W are trying to do is understand why a country such as the US would do something against its own strategic interests; clearly something has gone wrong. If you accept Political Science theory at all, this is pretty basic. Their solution is that a diverse group of individuals and organizations has lobbied very effectively for a certain policy. They are not suggesting the lobby is doing anything illegal or even immoral - they just happen to believe it is advocating the wrong policy. Much like many readers of this blog feel about the ACLU, I would imagine.
CAIR is certainly anti-Israel. But pro-Islamist? I don't see any evidence of that, as it has explicitly condemned terrorism (e.g. here). You can also note that Mearsheimer supported Israel responding militarily to Hezbollah - he just thought using air power to attempt to eliminate Hezbollah in a few weeks (when Israel failed to stop them in EIGHTEEN YEARS of ground occupation) was extremely foolish. And the evidence has proven he was correct.
M&W take this approach very frequently. Their rationale that the U.S. action is contrary to our national interest is usually after the fact and, at best, highly debatable when it is not after the fact.
Allying with a democratic ally against totalitarianism in a very dangerous part of the world is not against the US's own strategic interests.
Never assume a massively monolithic LOBBY when simple error will do.
(Allowing, for the sake of argument of course, that the US has done something against its interests--strategic or otherwise.)
As my daddy used to say, if it walks like a duck, and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, but isn't carrying a driver's license indicating it's a duck, then it's probably a hippo. Yep. Probably a hippo.
/tendentious
I've asked before and will ask again, how many Jews and/or Israelis must be slaughtered for Islamacists to stop hating the West? If the U.S. cut all ties to Israel tomorrow, would they like us then or is their some un-payable blood debt yet to be paid? Our answer to the Israeli question is moderate assistance. The Islamacist answer is "when every last one of them, in the Middle East and elsewhere, including Rio, Manhattan, Hollywood, and small towns in Kansas, is dead." I cannot see grounds for compromise on this issue, as only our side can compromise, and the only thing we can put on the table to compromise is the security of six million souls in Israel, and several million more souls in the diaspora. Walt and Mearsheimer may not be anti-semitic, any more than the appeasers were pro-Nazi, but their existence serves to embolden the Islamacists and make them think the West will ultimately accept the Islamacists' proposed final solution. This pours gas on the fire...
Do you have a cite for the proposition that M&W are against the existence of Israel or that they have suggested Jews control the "world monetary system"? (The other allegations I might disagree with, but I can see a POV argument.) Or, like Bankey Edwards, do you believe the purpose of the Internet is to enable people to "slander others anonymously"?
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/394
E.g., Promoting anti-Semitism. The head of CAIR's Los Angeles office, Hussam Ayloush, routinely uses the term "zionazi" when referring to Israelis. CAIR co-hosted an event in May 1998 at which an Egyptian militant Islamic leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, called Jews the "descendants of the apes." (Nice segue to ID debate!)
Not surprisingly, CAIR also backs those who finance terrorism. When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was "used to support the Hamas terror organization," CAIR decried his action as "unjust" and "disturbing."
CAIR even includes at least one person associated with terrorism in its own ranks. On Feb. 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments. Yet CAIR deems him "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America" and includes him on its advisory board.
For these and other reasons, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, Steven Pomerantz, concludes that "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."
One does NOT even need to call CAIR "anti-semitic" or "pro-terrorist" in order to see hypocricy at work. By ANY objective standard, CAIR is as open to charges of double-loyalty and putting the interests of foreign fellow-believers over the interests of American infidels, as ANY pro-Israeli group is.
But it is increasingly clear that the attacks on Walt &Mersheimer had merit and that they DID NOT write that paper, but rather just made a broadside attack on anyone who supports Israel.
Defenders will say W&M are not opposed to the existence of a Jewish State at all. They merely note, objectively, of course, that its existence does violate out core values.
I believe you're correct that it would properly be designated libel, but in the film Jay &Silent Bob Strike Back, Banky Edwards (whose name I misspelled above) said:
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously."
DB -- If you can find and post a single example of W&M asserting that the arguments and views of anyone or any group in "the lobby" should be dismissed or ignored, I'll donate $50 to GMU. If not, you owe them an apology for distorting their work. They don't argue that anyone's views should be dismissed or ignored. They are inviting a dialogue on whether "the lobby" has disproportionate influence, a fact that virtually any politician in DC would admit behind closed doors. In response to their invitation, you engage in hyperbole. What a surprise.
it goes without saying that W&M disagree substantively with much of what the "lobby" contends
"I've asked before and will ask again, how many Jews and/or Israelis must be slaughtered for Islamacists to stop hating the West?"
= "how many Muslim children must be slaughtered for pro-Israel commenters to stop hating Arabs?
Blood libels and denials of inhumanity run in both directions.
TPB, on the one hand, the lawyerly side of me appreciates the relative artfulness with which they make their case. On the other hand, the human side of me picks up the stench of anti-semitism. One could have argued similarly in 1930 that Germany would have been a much more orderly and pleasant place to live, free of many cultural disturbances, if only it was more ethnically and culturally homogenous, free of outsiders who had trouble fitting into German society. One way of viewing such an argument is that it would be a sensible way of characterizing factional unrest during the Weimar Republic. Another way of viewing it would be as an argument with trappings of rationality, that helped set the stage for the "final solution." In a time when a substantial chunk of the world's population apparently feels it has a duty to exterminate the Jews, it seems to me that the case being made by Walt &Mearsheimer is somewhat dangerous, lending at least partial legitimacy to bad people with wholly illegitimate agendas. A much fairer and more serious treatment of the Israel lobby appeared in the Wash Post's Sunday Magazine a couple months ago.
And God help me, but am I in agreement with Dilan Esper on something? Perhaps the eschatalogical fundamentalists are right, and this Israel thing has brought on the end times...
But I read the M&W paper, and I really saw nothing exceptional about it, except that they had the guts to write it knowing that it was likely to provoke exactly the firestorm of personal attack that it did. None of the many over-the-top allegations of anti-semitism seem to have factual roots in anything that M &W wrote, but rather are straw men set up by their attackers. The central point, that there is a strong pre-disposition to support Israel among a huge fraction of politically active Americans seems pretty plain (mainstream opinion on this blog is one manifestation).
The idea that the US should support Israel because it is an ally in the War on Terror is plainly absurd from a strategic standpoint. It is not a useful ally. Israel is a very vulnerable forward position and the energy required to defend it is huge compared to, say, Kansas. A close analogy in the Cold War was defending West Berlin. But, at least in that case we had a justification (that is, a reason based in self-interest)- holding out the example of an alternative to Communism which could not be easily concealed to promote the eventual collapse of Communism through demoralization / revolution / internal reform. We have the same *goal* in the Middle East, but I don't know anything about Israel's governmental model that makes it a particularly useful example of Middle Eastern democracy, and much (like its explicitly non-Arab ethnic basis) which makes it seems at best alien to most people in that region. Lebanon and Turkey would both seem to be more appealing models for us to encourage others to follow, and our support of those countries has been significantly less steadfast than our support for Israel. The argument that an alliance with Israel is a net strategic benefit to the US really requires a pretty high level of pro-Isreal initial sentiment to even seem remotely plausible.
Nobody has ever suggested that there is an institutional Israel Lobby of the sort that issues membership cards and imposes discipline on its members ala the Communists. What M&W did suggest is that there are a large number of Americans who are committed to Israel as a nation (in the sense of a government, with an army, etc.).
The argument that Israel is a democracy under attack and we should support all democracies under attack does not explain much of what we support or put up with in Israeli actions. The latest action in Lebanon certainly can't be supported in these terms, since it appears to have been conducted with little regard to the impact on long-term political development in Lebanon. Other governments which are as democratic as Israel receive much less US support.
I know that you, David, believe in not suppressing debate. I think, though, that you have something of a logical blindspot when it comes to Israel. Rather than making this a case about attacking personality (making Mearsheimer &Walt into a version President Summers) perhaps the more appropriate focus is on ideas and issues (eg whether or not CAIR is respectable).
In that regard, I did take the part of your post focused on CAIR seriously. Do you know of any Arab / Islamic / anti-Zionist groups that you'd consider respectable opinion? I'd like a chance to compare.
WB: The most vicious antisemitism heard since the defeat of the Nazis ceaselessly bellows forth from Islamic sources, including their exalted clergy and state press organs. Can you point to anything remotely comparable voiced by those "pro-Israel commentators" you see as indifferent to the deaths of Arab children, if not actually wishing their deaths?
It is interesting how many commentators will blindly accuse M&W of anti-Semitism, while proclaiming how everyone else in the Middle East is somehow fundamentally incompatible with us and needs to be destroyed. Why exactly are the lives innocent Israelis more valuable than those of innocent Arabs? No hypocrisy there.
neurox) This has been well documented. Not the existence, but our nearly blanket support for its policies and massive unnecessary aid. Poll Arabs on why they dislike us, and the vast majority cite our support for Israel (along with Iraq now, which is seen as the same thing). Ask them how they like American things - Coca Cola, MTV, etc., and there is an overwhelmingly positive response. As to your second point, obviously extremists are going to use rhetoric like that. Is it any different from far-right Israelis? When Rabin wanted to make peace, was it an Arab or a Jew who was so opposed he murdered him?
Many people think that we have no reason to support Israel as much as we do. If that is M&W's "central point," then the central point is well within the mainstream.
But M&W say more, and it may not be "central" in their piece, but it is certainly revealing. For example:
There is no follow up to that sentence in their piece, no further explanation as to why a Jew at the highest level of government would support Israel to America's strategic detriment. M&W simply ignore their own repeated disclaimers that not all Jews approve of America's support for Israel. The above quote is a complete, stand-alone argument in their piece. They believe that Jewish senators and congressman support Israel to America's detriment simply because they are Jewish. Not every sentence in M&W is antisemitic, but that one is.
Generally, you know you've gone too far when - as M&W do - you insist that you are not comparing Jews to those portrayed in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Do I think that if the US stopped supporting Israel all our problems with Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. would be over? Of course not. But, to say that something isn't a *complete* solution doesn't mean that it isn't a major factor.
My point is that it is often in a nation's interest to support its allies, simply to keep them as allies, because the alliance adds to security. For example, the Shah of Iran was a useful ally in the Cold War, and we did some things we might not otherwise have done simply to retain the Shah's good will and alliance. Similarly, West Germany was a useful ally, and we modified our military strategy in Germany to some degree in order to keep that alliance strong. That was at least a plausible meta-strategy. One can argue about whether the costs exceed the benefits of the alliance, but at least there is *some* benefit as a general rule.
In the case of Israel, the existence of the relationship itself detracts from our national security. The only benefit the US gets from the relationship is the sense that we are doing the right thing. In strategic terms Israel is more properly thought of as a client than as an ally. I recognize that this saying this in public is no way to get elected to Congress or to get confirmed by the Senate. That doesn't mean it isn't the basic truth. M&W's central point our need to support Israel seems often to overwhelm every other consideration. This seems as a factual matter to be true.
Because the innocent Arabs are human shields, and the responsibility for their death falls on Hezbollah, not on Israel.
Poll Arabs on why they dislike us, and the vast majority cite our support for Israel (along with Iraq now, which is seen as the same thing).
That's because the leaders find that riling up the masses up against Israel is a convenient scapegoat for the own problems, not because Israel has done something worthy of some condemnation. I bet if you polled them you'd also find many Arabs believe that Jews drink Muslim blood. Is the way to peace to get Jews to stop drinking Muslim blood?
Morris..."is considered the most influential and prolific member of the New Historians, a controversial group of scholars who have challenged much of the received wisdom of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (Wikipedia). He has always seemed to tell it like he saw it, even if his research led him to uncomfortable conclusions.
New Republic
Post date 04.28.06 | Issue date 05.08.06
And Now For Some Facts
by Benny Morris
...John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is a nasty piece of work...
... But what these distinguished professors have produced is otherwise depressing to anyone who values intellectual integrity...
...Mearsheimer and Walt build their case mainly by means of omission: they tell certain facts while omitting others, sometimes more apt and crucial. And occasionally they distort facts and figures...
...I must confess to a personal interest in the matter. Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity. Were "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body...
...In their introduction, Mearsheimer and Walt tell their readers that "the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars.... The evidence on which they rest is not controversial." This is ludicrous. I would offer their readers a contrary proposition: that the "facts" presented by Mearsheimer and Walt suggest a fundamental ignorance of the history with which they deal, and that the "evidence" they deploy is so tendentious as to be evidence only of an acute bias. That is what will be not in serious dispute among scholars...
I know what I should do to avoid being *called* anti-semetic - just shut up.
In fact, M&W looked at the thesis that support for Israel was mostly driven by ethnic sentiment (which would not be an unusual observation, and not be hotly denounced in any other context) and correctly observed that there was much more to it than that.
If anyone can offer a forumla for fair (not anti-semetic) criticism of Israel, I'd like to hear it.
As for "legitimate" Arab, anti-Zionist organizations, I haven't surveyed them, but the point is that M &W claim to be distinterested scholars, not activists trying to prove a political point, so it's rather odd that their most high-profile appearance thus far discussing their paper has been at CAIR, which not only isn't a scholarly organization, it's one with a rather radical agenda, and, in terms of its anti-Zionism, an agenda that M &W purport not to share. I'm sure that there would be various academics lining up to debate M &W in a scholarly forum, if they'd agree to such a debate. Instead presenting their "research" at CAIR is the equivalent of a medical researcher who holds a press conference trumpeting his recent discovery, but fails to submit it to a reputable scientific publication for peer review. (That is, no credibility.)
You really think that US support for Israel is of no more intensity or cost than our support for Turkey? If that's your factual argument, you might want to re-consider the evidence.
Also, the Cold War analogy makes my point. We supported Turkey even though it was a long way from Paradise during the Cold War, because the US and Turkey had a common enemy - the Soviet Union. Nobody ever thought to suggest that Soviet animosity to the US was due to our alliance with the Turks, and as a factual matter it was not. We supported Turkey militarily (including with nukes) because one effect of doing with was to compel the Soviets to take Turkey into account in war planning, and to devote military assets to dealing with Turkey that would otherwise have been available to attack, say, Germany. The dynamic of common defense being more effective than piecemeal defense is common in alliances generally, but largely absent in the US Israel situation.
BTW: Thanks for blogging here. Your posts are useful and informative. I wouldn't bother to read and respond if I didn't think so.
Having listened to the entire M&W presentations last night on C-SPAN, I can say that this is a gross misrepresentation of what M&W said. Their statement what NOT that the existence of a Jewish state conflicts with American core vales. What that did say was that certain practices in the democratic state of Isreal do not comport with certain "core American values of democracy."
1) It's wrong on another level as well. One does not have to be "ethnically Jewish" to become an Israeli, as their recent acceptance of a large number of Ethiopian Jews attests. In addition, although Jews don't get many new recruits, citizenship is open to converts and the children of converts as well.
2) Not only is it wrong, its an example of the way M&W manage to "just happen" to use loaded language whenver another, more neutral, expression would suffice. The term "ethnicity" would have been both less offensive and more accurate in given context, or even just "kinship", but they chose "blood kinship" - a much more evocative term that sounds more pernicious but is less accurate. It isn't just that either, they do it OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Notice how, despite their disclaimer that "the lobby is not centrally ogranized or unified" they consistently use anthropomorphic language whose connotation implies deliberate intenet by a single actor.
3) The argument "Israel is a racist state" loses most of it's strength when it is made by people who actively oppose "punishing" other cases of ethnic exceptionalism, or who otherwise characterise such behavior as "forcing our values on other people". I give no credit to people who morally denounce Israel for being a racist state and who then go on to denounce, from a practical position, the colonial powers for having created the modern states of the Middle East and Africe without regard for religious,tribal, and ethnic boundaries.
4) The "Racist State" loses merit when it is framed exclusively in terms of "Jewish exclusivity" or "Holocaust Guilt" - which is an attempt to deflect the debate from the more secular, and "progressive", argument for having a "Jewish State":
When nations look for scapegoats they turn on their minorites. So long as the Jews (or any identifiable ethnic group for that matter) are scattered and everywhere a minority, they will inevitably continue to be the victims of scapegoating and atrocities.
In your point (3), are you denying that the mess in the middle east does not trace its roots to imposition of state boundaries by colonial powers based on only their colonialist state interests. To be somewhat non-controversial here just consider the modern states boundaries of Iraq and Jordan.
They aren't and any argument, or attempt to imply, that "More Arabs died than Israelis, therefore anyone who supports Israel values the lives of Israelis more than Arabs" is fallacious (even if it happens to be true for some individuals).
This Video
was admittedly distributed by the Israelis, so take it as you will.
Of coure their hackjob is behind much of this violence.
My point is that I don't give credit to people who ask to have their cake and eat it too. If one acknowledges that mixing antagonistic groups causes violence, why on earth would one possibly advocate that Israel do exactly that?
If you simply blame Hezbollah for all the casualties, that flies in the face of just about all Just War Theory and International Law. The fact is that nations are not allowed to go after civilians, period. Collateral damage is permitted only in certain cases even against legitimate military targets. Obviously it makes it quite hard to fight insurgents who mix in the with the population - but there is no exception. There is a reason the entire world (with the exception of the US) condemned Israel's actions. But they must all be anti-Semites, too.
It would probably be useful for most of the commentators to actually read M&Ws article in its entirety and/or the panel transcript; most of the assertions ascribed to M&W here are way out of context or simply made up.
Martin Kramer in particular has written a number of pieces on just how incompetent and uninformed they are.
However, it's always useful to have people like them out in the open so that their work can be held up to scrutiny.
More importantly, their work has had no effect and has largely been a flop.
Israel continues to enjoy US support, continues to be a US ally, and will continue to be so long after Meatshimer and Walt are dead.
To them, I have only to say:
Am Yisrael Chai,
Cus Emeq, Sayid Mearshimer
Cus Emeq, Sayid Walt
I doubt him to be an anti-Semite, just depressingly intellectually lazy in this one instance. I forget when, but the New York Review of Books published an article that was both an embarrassing takedown of the M/W paper as well as an exposition of how AIPAC has managed to get many people in the us government, in both the Congress and Executive branch, to not only support ISrael, but to support the Likudnik vision of Israeli engagement with the Palestinians and greater middle east. You don't have to be in CAIR to see where this might be troubling to supporters of Israel(including most American Jews) as well as just those who think American foreign policy is best served by making strategic alliances and not necessarily making ideological bedfellows. The discussion of how AIPAC and Likud have managed to dominate the government's debate about Israel, in both parties is one THAT MUST HAPPEN. Just look to Rep. Lantos blocking aid to Lebanon, leaving the door open for Hezbollah to further ingratiate themselves with the Lebanese public. Our Israel policy is not one of friends , because friends let friends know when their policies are immoral, reckless and likely to alienate the world as well as endanger their own populations. The question isn't whether we support Israel, but how we support Israel, how open the debate is. To use Secretary Rice's words, what we are seeing now are the "birth pangs" of a necessary debate, one need only look to the powderkeg that is the middle east and the debatable, at the very least, strategic decisions they've made. I only hope that all parts of the political spectrum are able to debate AIPAC's influence on US policymaking, especially with them pushing for preventive war with Iran, without descending into childish accusations of anti Semitism. With AIPAC staffers passing recently being convicted of passing along DOD Iran war plans to Israel, the time to have this debate is now, before it's too late.
You're confused. Neither "Just War Theory" nor "International Law [sic]" say what you think they say. They do not permit the deliberate targeting of civilians; they say nothing about collateral damage other than that countries must strive to minimize it, consistent with those countries' military objectives. The idea that military targets can't be hit if civilians or civilian infrastructure might be hurt is something made up very recently by a few human rights groups who confuse their ideals with what actual international agreements say.
R4D20, outstanding. I've never seen it framed in that way before. And in my experience, people in the former group are very likely to also be in the latter.
I think the problem is that M&W wrote a mendacious polemic and not an academic paper. This should be obvious to everyone, even to them, but they continue the facade that this is 'scholarly research'. Then, they turn down every offer to debate the subject, yet speak to an anti-Israel LOBBYING group (and a case can easily be made that CAIR's interests diverge from the U.S. much more than "the Lobby's" do).
Coupled with the fact that their screed (to borrow from Lee Smith) is a shitty and nasty piece of work perfectly consistent with ostensibly "rational" and "balanced" anti-Semitic tracts throughout history.
Also coupled with the fact that these guys are giants in their field, and (to borrow your words) they had the guts to write [their paper] knowing that it was likely to provoke exactly the firestorm of personal attack that it did. I agree with you, they must have known what was coming, so why did they write such a crappy paper on this particular subject given the terrible history associated with precisely the ideas they are espousing? My feeling is that they realized they couldn't make the case if they looked at this in an unbiased and academic way. To make their case they needed to stretch the truth, be imprecise when it suited them (what exactly is "the Lobby", and why are they quoting how Jews vote overall as evidence for the power of this "Lobby"...hmm) and omit crucial points.
It's as if they feel that our relationshis with Israel and "the Lobby" is bad, but really can't make the logical case that it is.
In any event, this is why some people catch the whiff of anti-Semitism here. I don't, but I can see why people would. I have seen it charged that people use the accusation as a way to shut people up. I have seen this charged a lot, actually. A whole lot. Much, much, much more than I have actually seen it. I truly think that the large preponderence of people making the accusation of anti-Semitism where I don't agree is that people are very sensitive about this. They truly believe it but, IMO, are simply wrong. Point being, in this case, while I disagree, I don't think they are out in left field.
If anyone can offer a forumla for fair (not anti-semetic) criticism of Israel, I'd like to hear it.
I'd say:
a) Avoid the above.
b) Be consistent, consistent, consistent. If you care about what people say, then extra consistent given that people are extra sensitive. Holding a double standard for the world's only Jewish state isn't conclusive by a long stretch, but is most definitely a red flag.
c) Make it more like this: Frankel article
Not exactly a formula, but it's a start.
You'll note that the long article, published in the Sunday magazine of one of the world's most influential newspapers, didn't really raise too many eyebrows. I hadn't seen anyone call it anti-Semitic.
Easy. Criticize the politician's acts on the grounds that they don't benefit the US, but don't link that to his being Jewish, unless you have some reason other than speculation to believe being Jewish has something to do with it.
From one of your posts defending W&M:
Their original polemic "extremely moderate and lucid"?
No offense, but I'd imagine that most people who have actually read it would classify it as disingenuous hackery...at best. Which also raises the question as to how one would classify someone who defends it as "extremely moderate and lucid", or view their opinion on it.
For the record, the "Germanic" reference from Milbank also turned me off. You were right on target there. But the other stuff, or even why you spend thousands of words defending work that is truly disengenuous hackery...I don't know. There are better fights out there if one is a passionate supporter of open debate.
Heck, you have spent enough time and words on this that you could have written a good treatment of the subject yourself. Why spend all the time you do defending their crap (which inevitably splashes up on you) when you could do better than they did yourself?
M&W, the eminent academics, have me confused. If a condition is truly a "necessary, though not sufficient" one, that being "the Israel lobby", how could the putative result, that being the "Iraq war", ever have come about in the absence of that condition?
Well, they responded to that in the speech:
As far as me being able to do better than them, I think you far overestimate me. It's easy to look at their paper and explain why it's not what people are saying. On the other hand, I don't have any of the background they have, or probably that you have either.
Why does it interest me? I've thought about this, and I think the honest answer is that I'm interested in nearly all things where I think open debate is stunted. This is why, you may have noticed, I'm also mildly obsessed by religion in general. My goal, ultimately, is to see whether it's possible to navigate the landmines of the Israel debate while retaining candor. I think most people, honestly, would laugh at the very idea, but I say the jury is still out.
As a sidenote, Bernstein says that they aren't responding to their academic critics. In their speech, they state that they have an extended response forthcoming.
Not to split hairs, but pehraps it was necessary for the war to come about the way that it did. Probably few conditions are truly necessary, since there are always ways around things, but I think you say something was a necessary cause regardless, if without that cause you would have needed something else in its place.
As far as me being able to do better than them, I think you far overestimate me.
Well, the bar is set extremely low...not to take away from my impression that you would do a good job if you set your mind to it.
It's easy to look at their paper and explain why it's not what people are saying. On the other hand, I don't have any of the background they have, or probably that you have either.
To judge their paper you need to know the underlying facts, or you can't judge whether the criticisms are on target or not. Of course, if you limit yourself to highlighting the unfair criticisms that isn't an issue. But then one has enough information to draw the conclusion that Person X is making an unfair criticism , but not that the paper is extremely moderate and lucid.
So the paper is a good start in any research. You would probably need to read the paper and the critiques, and then do your own focused research.
My goal, ultimately, is to see whether it's possible to navigate the landmines of the Israel debate while retaining candor.
It will take a screed that is not disengenuous from front to back to really test that.
Try the article from the WaPo that I linked to in my post to PDX. It seemed candid enough to me, and I certainly didn't agree with all of it, but he avoided the landmines quite well IMO and judging from the reaction.
Of course, the definition of "connected to the lobby" is "anyone who disagrees with us", which is a nice little way of summarily dismissing all criticism out of hand.
This statement could have come word for word from the mouth of any would-be hack peddling theories about "the healing power of crystals" or "proof that Aliens visted ancient Egypt and built the City of Atlantis".
Also, why posit a condition as a "necessary, but not sufficient" (NBNS) one if one does not intend "NBNS" in the only way that formulation can be logically understood? By saying NBNS rather than observing that some who champion Israel favored going to war with Iraq, M&W did not mean that but for the wishes of Israel and what they style the "Israeli lobby," the US would not have gone to war with Iraq? Don't M&W sound something like Pat Buchanan, who back in 1991 asserted that the US was going to war with Iraq because Israel's "amen corner"? (BTW, Iran has been perceived by Israel as the much greater concern, indeed an existential threat to it, than Iraq, notwithstanding the malevolence and mischief of the latter under Saddam. Let M&W come forward with this evidence that the Israeli government actively encouraged the US to invade Iraq in 2003.)
I regret that the US did nothing to halt the genocide in Rwanda, on humanitarian grounds. Offering Israel support in its effort to continue to exist seems at least humanitarian, perhaps even strategically useful.
Failure to support the Czechs and others has been offered as a cause of WWII. Abandoning peoples to destruction is potentially costly too...
Arguments against supporting Israel, including M&W, mix, often unconsciously, realpolitik (too costly) and morality (racist state). What they and many others fail to acknowledge is that the reasons for supporting Israel are also multiple, not monolithic. By crudely creating one "actor", their argument does resemble the argumentation of anti-semites...
I had a law professor propose that it should be a valid defense argument that it was reasonable to have, in fear, shot dead a black person if enough black people had been committing violent crime in the area. Shocked, I pointed out that equal protection would seem to preclude this ("innocent because victim was black": How much less protection can the law offer?). He seemed to have never considered this... I liked the professor and am confident that he was not racist (supremacy of the white race, etc) but his thinking was, I believe, deficient in empathy for others, leading him to make a gross error in judgment.
Related to moral issues...
Someone correct me if you think I am wrong, but don't think the main thrust of their argument is that we shouldn't support Israel because of moral issues.
I think what they are saying is that Israel is not the moral better of its neighbors -> therefore there is no good reason for differentiating on that score -> therefore there must be another explanation -> "the Lobby".
The paper is structured that way, at least. I do grant that they try to sneak things in that clearly don't make this case, but are calculated to stir up animosity towards Israel. The use of language seems to point to this as well.
After thinking about it, I get the feeling they are just among the group that thinks our relationship with the House of Saud should be the end-all, be-all of our strategy in the mideast. This idea is not uncommon at all, especially among realists. The fact that one of their few speaking engagements about their work is to a Saudi funded lobbying group kind of tipped me in that direction. It would also explain the glaring omission of any mention of our policies on the Arabian peninsula (with the associated blowback from supporting what the al Qaida's of the world perceive to be corrupt rulers defying the will of the people, or putting infidel boots on holy soil protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) or the oil lobby or the fact that the administration is extremely tight with the oil industry (the Bushes and Cheneys and even Condi has an oil tanker named after her).