Walt-Mearsheimer as Sympton: Remnick’s Comments in The New Yorker

An excellent short piece on the short-comings of Walt-Mearsheimer. (Hat tip: Ellen Horowitz)

I have noted its short-comings briefly. But it shows that even if you’re part of the PCP paradigm, you are not irretrievably committed to folly as are W-M.

The Lobby
by David Remnick September 3, 2007

Last year, two distinguished political scientists, John J. Mearsheimer, of the University o Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard, published a thirty-four-thousand-word article online entitled “The Israel Lobb and U.S. Foreign Policy,” a shorter version of which appeared in The London Review of Books. Israel, they wrote, has become a “strategic liability” for the United States but retains its strong support because of a wealthy, well-organized, and bewitching lobby that has a “stranglehold” on Congress and American élites. Moreover, Israel and its lobby bear outsized responsibility for persuading the Bush Administration to invade Iraq and, perhaps one day soon, to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran. Farrar, Straus & Giroux will publish a book-length version of Mearsheimer and Walt’s arguments on September 4th.

Mearsheimer and Walt are “realists.” In their view, diplomatic decisions should be made on the basis of national interest. They argue that in the post-Cold War era, in the absence of a superpower struggle in the Middle East, the United States no longer has any need for an indulgent patronage of the state of Israel. Three billion dollars in annual foreign aid, the easy sale of advanced weaponry, thirty-four vetoes of U.N. Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1982—such support, Mearsheimer and Walt maintain, is not in the national interest. “There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence,” they write, but they deny that Israel is of critical strategic value to the United States. The disappearance of Israel, in their view, would jeopardize neither America’s geopolitical interests nor its core values. Such is their “realism.”

The authors observe that discussion about Israel in the United States is often circumscribed, and that the ultimate price for criticizing Israel is to be branded an anti-Semite. They set out to write “The Israel Lobby,” they have said, to break taboos and stimulate discussion. They anticipated some ugly attacks, and were not disappointed. The Washington Post published a piece by the Johns Hopkins professor Eliot Cohen under the headline “Yes, It’s Anti-Semitic.” The Times reported earlier this month that several organizations, including a Jewish community center, have decided to withdraw speaking invitations to Mearsheimer and Walt, in violation of good sense and the spirit of open discussion.

I thought the offers were withdrawn because W-M refused to debate and discuss openly with opponents.

Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists. They are serious scholars, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity.

They may have been serious scholars, but one of the reasons they don’t want to defend their book in front of critics is precisely because the scholarship is so shoddy.

They are right to describe the moral violation in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. (In this, most Israelis and most American Jews agree with them.)

Why are they focussing on Israel’s “moral” violations if they’re “realists.” Because the “moral” Arabs whom they’d have us court by dropping our embarrassing ally, Israel, are “morally” outraged? What kind of realism is this?

They were also right about Iraq.

No they’re not. We went into Iraq on Saudi bidding, not Israeli.

The strategic questions they raise now, particularly about Israel’s privileged relationship with the United States, are worth debating –– just as it is worth debating whether it is a good idea to be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. But their announced objectives have been badly undermined by the contours of their argument — a prosecutor’s brief that depicts Israel as a singularly pernicious force in world affairs. Mearsheimer and Walt have not entirely forgotten their professional duties, and they periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities. But their conclusions are unmistakable: Israel and its lobbyists bear a great deal of blame for the loss of American direction, treasure, and even blood.

In Mearsheimer and Walt’s cartography, the Israel lobby is not limited to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is a loose yet well-oiled coalition of Jewish-American organizations, “watchdog” groups, think tanks, Christian evangelicals, sympathetic journalists, and neocon academics. This is not a cabal but a world in which Abraham Foxman gives the signal, Pat Robertson describes his apocalyptic rapture, Charles Krauthammer pumps out a column, Bernard Lewis delivers a lecture—and the President of the United States invades another country. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Exxon-Mobil barely exist.

Where many accounts identify Osama bin Laden’s primary grievances with American support of “infidel” authoritarian regimes in Islamic lands, Mearsheimer and Walt align his primary concerns with theirs: America’s unwillingness to push Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. (It doesn’t matter that Israel and the Palestinians were in peace negotiations in 1993, the year of the first attack on the World Trade Center, or that during the Camp David negotiations in 2000 bin Laden’s pilots were training in Florida.) Mearsheimer and Walt give you the sense that, if the Israelis and the Palestinians come to terms, bin Laden will return to the family construction business.

This flaw in their logic/worldview is specifically linked to their inability to see the role of Saudi Arabia’s concerns about Iraq which lled to both Gulf Wars, the first of which, with its US troops in Saudi Arabia, first drove Osama off the Jihadi deepend.

It’s a narrative that recounts every lurid report of Israeli cruelty as indisputable fact but leaves out the rise of Fatah and Palestinian terrorism before 1967; the Munich Olympics; Black September; myriad cases of suicide bombings; and other spectaculars. The narrative rightly points out the destructiveness of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and America’s reluctance to do much to curtail them, but there is scant mention of Palestinian violence or diplomatic bungling, only a recitation of the claim that, in 2000, Israel offered “a disarmed set of Bantustans under de-facto Israeli control.” (Strange that, at the time, the Saudi Prince Bandar told Yasir Arafat, “If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime.”) Nor do they dwell for long on instances when the all-powerful Israel lobby failed to sway the White House, as when George H. W. Bush dragged Yitzhak Shamir to the Madrid peace conference.

Lobbying is inscribed in the American system of power and influence. Big Pharma, the A.A.R.P., the N.R.A., the N.A.A.C.P., farming interests, the American Petroleum Institute, and hundreds of others shuttle between K Street and Capitol Hill. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national-security adviser, recently praised Mearsheimer and Walt in the pages of Foreign Policy for the service of “initiating a much-needed public debate,” but he went on to provide a tone and a perspective that are largely missing from their arguments. “The participation of ethnic or foreign-supported lobbies in the American policy process is nothing new,” he observes. “In my public life, I have dealt with a number of them. I would rank the Israeli-American, Cuban-American, and Armenian-American lobbies as the most effective in their assertiveness. The Greek- and Taiwanese-American lobbies also rank highly in my book. The Polish-American lobby was at one time influential (Franklin Roosevelt complained about it to Joseph Stalin), and I daresay that before long we will be hearing a lot from the Mexican-, Hindu-, and Chinese-American lobbies as well.”

Taming the influence of lobbies, if that is what Mearsheimer and Walt desire, is a matter of reforming the lobbying and campaign-finance laws. But that is clearly not the source of the hysteria surrounding their arguments. “The Israel Lobby” is a phenomenon of its moment. The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran — all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.

I believe it’s called scape-goating.

23 Responses to Walt-Mearsheimer as Sympton: Remnick’s Comments in The New Yorker

  1. shimshon says:

    Remnick’s portrayal of the W-M piece is flawed. His quote: ““There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel’s existence,” is taken out of context. the paper argues that support for israel is neither moral nor in the interest of the US. this is the basis on thier entire thesis, because if support for israel is moral then america’s actions are explainable. (this does not mean that W-M would have agreed with them. being the realist that they are they would have protested, but at least they would have been able to explain america’s actions) in W-M opinion, because there is neither a moral nor a realist case for israel there must be another reason. this is where they come up with the idea of a jewish lobby that overpowers america’s ability to act. if Remnick’s claim that W-M believe there is a moral case for supporting Israel was correct, there would be an explanation for america’s support and thus no need for an “israel lobby.” additionally, this is why there is a mention of the immorality of Israel’s settlement policy. it does not make sense in Remnick’s article, because Remnick is arguing that W-M have no problem with Israel’s moral claims. But in the W-M piece it fits because they are argueing against israel’s moral claims.

    One more thing… i think RL is in need of another paradigm. Walt and Mearshiemer are realist, meaning they propagate an ideology from the right. it is similar the PCP but it is neither liberal nor radical. there seems to be a tendency on this site fault the left and ignore some of the more troublesome aspects of the right. as far as i can tell there is not one paradigm devoted to deconstructing the thinking of the right. this W-M stuff is probably the biggest challenge american jews have faced in 50 years, and it comes from the right.

  2. fp says:

    Scapegoating is exactly what I called it in my own piece which i posted in another thread, which is exactly what anti-semitism has always been.

    shimshon, here is what i said in my piece:

    “Well, suppose your society experiences dire consequences and approaches a crisis. ***If you came from the right***, from an elite business oriented academic institution, and advise a government by corporations for corporations, wouldn’t you want to distract the public away from the real root of flawed US policies? And if you came from the left and do not want to accept and admit the other real root of the policies—an uninformed, apathetic, gullible public who permits its own manipulation and exploitation (see, for example, this week’s political quote)—what would you likely do? A scapegoat would do nicely in both cases.”

    hitchens once said that we should judge people’s reputation by their work, not the other way around.
    i really don’t care much for remnick’s style. insofar as this particular work is concerned w&m are anti-semitic charlatans and that’s the only position they deserve. anything else is bs. remnick is a fake. he tries to exhibit balance and respect where none is due. these people don’t have the guts to call a spade a spade. they flow with the winds.

    FP
    http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

  3. shimshon says:

    fp, i am sure that there have been cases on this site where individuals such as yourself have also blamed the right, but my critique is more specific. it was addressed mainly to RL. he has done a nice job developing a number of paradigms that help us to better understand the ME. unfortunately W-M’s realism does not fit into any of them. Realism is neither politically correct, nor post colonial. W-M are not “dupes” because as realist they have little confidence in liberalization of the arab/muslim world. also, as academics they are more concerned with scholarly debates than the MSM and their work does not depend on access to arab populations. i agree that reputations should not be the factor by which we judge people, nevertheless, realist, liberal, and radical analysis are still used by many people today and understanding their implications is important. it think RL has done a fine job deconstructing the paradigms of the left but he seems to be reluctant to do the same to realism. in one comment string he even defended Martin Kramer’s use realism despite the many ideas in realism that are contradictory to just about everything that this site stands for. for example realism’s assumption that all states have the same rational interest in economic and military gains and that this is the sole determination for their actions. in other words, all states act the same. there is no millennialism or honor/shame considerations.

  4. fp says:

    i think your observation is fairly correct, but my guess it has something to do with the lunacy and imbecility of the left — it is much more obvious and visble than the right’s. the latter is as ignorant of the ME as the left, and just because they seem to be more anti-islamist does not mean that they face the risks intelligently. they tend to talk right, but they don’t do any better.

    realism of the w&m type is projection of western conceptualizations on ME/all cultures. i don’t think you can equate that with kramer’s realism, which does distinguish between the west and me cultures. i do agree with kramer on certain aspects, but not all.

  5. fp says:

    Here’s two reviews of w&m, one by a nixonian (sort of like Remnick’s) and a one by ross’s assistant:

    http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15294

    we know what nixonians thought about jews. and once you read fishman’s you can’t take kemp and remnick seriously.

  6. Eliyahu says:

    Shimshon & fp, you guys know that I usually agree with you. But why do you still use the silly “left-right” political spectrum notion??? Left & right may be bodies of public opinion but the guiding hand for both bodies may be the same. Have you studied or thought about the implications of Edwin Black’s research on the funding for the ostensibly “leftist” anti-Israel “NGOs” operating at the Durban Conference [9-2001]?? Black, a reporter for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, found that the ostensibly “leftist” NGOs [NGO is another lie, like "left-right," since many "NGOs" are financed and directed by govts] were funded by the big money of the Ford Foundation.

    Dear Abe Foxman, one of the Wise Men of Khelm, subsequently had a cozy chat with one Susan Beresford who headed [or still heads] the Foundation. She told him that Ford was going to be more stringent from then on with the bad boys who were misusing Ford funds, or some such claim. So here you have a big money outfit like Ford Fndtn, which also has a lot of prestige and a favorable reputation in the MSM, headed by the kind of person who used to or still does get appointed to “blue ribbon” commissions, and such, financing what the ignoramus in the street believes is “leftist.” Actually, it may be that most “leftist” activity and agitprop today is funded by big money.

    I believe that W-M, Baker-Hamilton, Polk-McGovern, and Carter’s moronic “apartheid” tract are probably part of a coordinated anti-Israel, anti-Jewish smear campaign. To this we have to add the ridiculous feature show on CNN starring one hell of a tough guy, C Amanpour, which is just a stew of asinine drivel. [imagine -- CNN compares the anti-abortion TV evangelical preachers and the Jewish Talmud students living in Hebron with Bin Laden!!! They're all "God's Warriors"!! This is not apples and oranges. It's 2nd century oil lamps compared to 21st century watermelon seeds].

    W-M are not merely wrong. They reverse the truth. Just as the State Dept was against rescuing Jews during the Holocaust, so it opposed the establishment of Israel in 1947-48. It’s true that the pro-Israel lobby was able to oppose them on certain crucial matters but their control of everyday policy and covert policy and operations over the years were beyond the capacity of the Israel lobby to oppose them effectively. As for academics being pro-Israel, we know that in the poli sci and Int’l relations fields, as well as ME area studies, the pro-Arab line has always had considerable support from and liaison with State Dept & CIA. Look at Professor Wm R Polk who put out a book whitewashing Muhammad and early Islam, as well as Muslim oppression of Jews and other dhimmis. Polk later became chief of Middle East policy planning at the State Dept. See link:
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/07/embellishing-muhammad-islamic-conquests.html

    Main line US periodicals like Time, Life, Foreign Affairs, etc. have usually been pro-Arab vis-a-vis Israel. The NYT & WaPo have become more so in recent years. What about the policymaking influence of the MEJournal, at one time the only ME academic journal in the US, which has always been pro-Arab? One of the faults of W-M seems to be their lack of historical perspective on US ME policy, and where it is present in their tract, it is misleading. A certain Snetsinger or Stoessinger or both were complaining about the nefarious influence of the Jewish lobby was back, as was the British poli sci big gun, Dennis Brogan.

    I recommend getting away not only from the silly “left-right” spectrum notion but from the traditional notion of what are interests. I think Shimshon does point to that problem in W-M’s “realism” although he is mentioning M Kramer in the context.
    realism’s assumption that all states have the same rational interest in economic and military gains and that this is the sole determination for their actions. in other words, all states act the same. there is no millennialism or honor/shame considerations

    Of course, such assumptions are ridiculous.
    What is needed is a lot of new concepts in political science. I think that interests should be defined as what one is interested in, takes an interest in; what one voluntariy promotes, etc. After all, not everybody is out for more money, more prosperity, etc. The jihadist is the perfect nihilist. For him, politics is rule or ruin. That’s the meaning of jihad.

  7. Eliyahu says:

    One illustration of the silliness of “left-right” notions is that Mearsheimer was a guest of honor at the recent Daily Kos convention. [I got the link from Kesher talk].
    The Daily Kos is supposed to be made up of “leftist” extremists, & if Judeophobia/Israelophobia is a current component of “leftism,” then they are “leftist.”

    And here they are addressed by John M, a State Dept consultant. Does that fit in with Edwin Black’s research??

    Of course, the cretins sitting in the audience at the Daily Kos confab are unlikely to have posed serious questions to John M, such as What are US interests in the ME? Who is entitled or should be empowered to determine or decide US interests in the ME or anywhere? And what exactly is US ME policy now? Bush calls for a “palestinian state,” the first president to do so. Does that make him a tool of the Israel lobby??

  8. Lynne T says:

    The Engage website posted a really good critique of M & W that appeared in Haaretz on August 23rd, and, apparently so did the Forward which gets a mention in the Haaretz piece for its excellent summary of the four steps to literary success these days:

    “The trick follows a typical pattern,” writes The Forward. “Step one: Publish your views in as provocative a manner as possible. Use words like ‘apartheid,’ as Jimmy Carter did in his book, or paint Jewish lobbying efforts in darkly conspiratorial terms, as Walt and Mearsheimer did in a paper published last year. Step two: Dare the Jewish community to lash out at you, then whine about being victimized by bullies. Step three: Implore fair-minded liberals to line up behind you, forcing them to choose between endorsing your vision – however skewed – or becoming part of the censorship juggernaut.”

    Read all of Shmuel Rossner’s critique of M & W here:

    http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1364

  9. fp says:

    eliyahu,

    it seems to me you are equating big money with right. if so, it’s not accurate. for example, soros is left in american politics.

    neither the right nor the left are monolithic. they consist of different groups which may differ in their positions and their reasons for those positions. e.g. on the right there are the corporate interests and evangelicals; on the left are the daily kos and soros.

    when it comes to israel and the jews there is overlap between them within and across the left-right segments.
    similar positions do not mean from the same angle. anti-semitism is one of those things that many persuasions can agree on.

    as the paragraph that i self-quoted above says, scapegoating occurs when a society is in crisis. that’s what happened in weimar and to some extent rome in its last days regarding the christians.
    the us is in a crisis of decline, hence the left and right unify in it.

    lynne,

    rosner is exactly right about how carter and w&m operate. in fact, this is how the arab propaganda has operated for decades — claiming no debate due to the jews — except in the absence of crisis it had no traction. it’s the decline of the US due to its own ignorant and incompetent policies, not the least of which is iraq, that gave traction to israel/jews scapegoating.

  10. Brad Brzezinski says:

    To me, W&M discredit themselves entirely just with the irrelevancies they include. In the paper, Endnote #1: “Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about.”

    This is specious nonsense but it speaks to their motive. I in fact saw one of them on a video interview later, saying that of course, lobbying was part of the American way; I expect the contradiction had been noticed but it’s too late.

    At the beginning of the piece: “Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better-equipped, and better-led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence” They cite a reference I haven’t read but it defies logic and even if true, does not alter the fact that a disparate group of Jews was going up against much larger, established countries. The real question though is, why was this piece of information (and many others like it) included at all? They have nothing to do with the central premise and everything to do with discrediting entirely, the establishment of Israel.

  11. Richard Landes says:

    from fp who couldn’t post for some reason

    Dear fp,
    please read my post over again. I am not saying now –nor did I say before– that “big money” means “right.” I am well aware that big money can be either “right” or “left.” Not only george soros but teresa ketchup and Armand Hammer have been identified as “left,” even the Kennedys are “left.”

    What I am saying is that the very notion of a political spectrum is ridiculous. There is no such thing as “left” & “right” in the real world. The Girondins & the Jacobins & the Mountain went to their reward long ago. Today these “left-right” terms are just labels for bodies of public opinion, at most. They don’t necessarily make any difference on the policy level. You are surely aware that one faction of the German Nazis was called “National Bolshevism” [led by the Strasser brothers]. Yet many fools persist in calling the Nazis “right.” Of course, Hitler and the Nazi party allied with rich German capitalists, who often profited from their ties to the Nazi govt, at least before the German defeat in the war. So what? Does that make the Nazis more “right” than “left”?? Alain Besancon, the French historian/political scientist/, says that in the Thirties the Nazis were considered “socialists” or “left.” [He wrote this in Commentary, if not elsewhere]. On the other hand, the Soviet Communists helped certain foreign capitalists get rich [for example, Armand Hammer]. The USSR also paid royalties to certain Western capitalists on the oil production off Baku. Then, Henry Ford set up a truck factory in the USSR, if I recall rightly. The same Henry Ford is reputed to have helped Hitler. Be that as it may, it is notorious that Ford published a Judeophobic newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. This same paper was the vehicle for Ford’s adaptation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, called The International Jew.

    Now, it was once believed that “left” meant helping the working class. Yet, today “the workers” are low down on the “left’s” agenda.

    What the hell is the diff today between “left” and “right”??

  12. fp says:

    those who call themselves progressives today are those who used to be the left yesterday. they changed their label. they had to, because marxism went bankrupt and the workers would not give them the time of day. in order to avoid cognitive dissonance they bastardized marxism to mean the west oppressing and exploiting the masses in the third world, hence their affinity to islamists, and their serving as useful idiots for the latter.

    so while it can be argued that they are no longer really left, they are still rooted in the old left and can be referred to as such in that context.

    you are right that in real terms the left-right continuum does not apply to the west-islamism conflict, but because of their rigidity and refusal to admit their bankruptcy the old left extends the continuum to where it does not belong because that’s the only trick they know and they shove it everywhere.

  13. fp says:

    brad,

    that w&m are full of inconsistencies and upside down and backwards arguments was amply demonstrated. the reality is that they did not employ the kind of primary research that their hypothesis necessitated: inteviewing the decision-makers.

    and there’s probably a good guess why they did not. aside from requiring more time and effort — they wanted to come up with a book fast — they probably had good reason not to: it would have refuted their arguments. here is one example and there are more:

    Source: Israel Told US to Target Iran, Not Iraq
    http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=11520

    This also validates my argument that in fact the neo-cons suckered israel into keeping quiet or supporting the iraq war when they needed it.

  14. Eliyahu says:

    Speaking of W-M, I think that Ira Stull does a pretty good job of analyzing their book in the NYSun.

    http://sandbox.blog-city.com/linkblog/jump/?i=497834

  15. fp says:

    can mearsheimer claim now he is not an anti-semite?

    In wonderful company
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/in-wonderful-co.html

  16. Lynne T says:

    fp:

    Credit for the “four steps” goes to the writers of the Daily Forward’s editorial, not Shmuel Rossner, who acknowleged the Forward for both that and for the Forward’s refusal to be suckered by M & W into cosponsoring an event where M & W could present their views “unopposed”.

  17. fp says:

    Lynne,

    any particular reason you addressed that to me?

  18. fp says:

    oh, I see. i stand corrected.

  19. Eris says:

    Blogger Zombie beat me to creating a graphic of the Walt/Mearsheimer Jewish Lobby drek in the toilet, at Little Green Footballs. (Zombie: Walt and Mearsheimer, Right Where They Belong.)

    After thinking this over carefully, I don’t think these professors are really anti-Semitic. Read on.

    Walt and Mearsheimer are utilizing the same anti-Semitic tactics as despots who wish to distract their subjects from the malignant social ills that they themselves foster, but unlike despots who espouse Jewish conspiracy theories out of a combination of opportunism and actual hate, these professors have written their essay and book based on the former motivation, opportunism. Like bank robbers, their motivation for this outrage is primarily because “the Jews are there” and have proven useful as punching bags to countless others in history.

    Anti-Semitism is a distraction from the real issues here. Walt and Mearscheimer know full well there is no super-powerful “Jewish Lobby”, that the pro-Israel lobbyists have competing counterparts representing many other causes and countries, and that the pro-Israel lobby is not particularly remarkable in this environment. They know full well that the misrepresentations of fact, omissions, things taken out of context, logical errors, etc. in their prior paper and this book are indeed risible, the trash produced by dilettantes, not by serious researchers.

    But they don’t care.

    What would make them produce such garbage?

    Fear, and the standards of (mis)conduct that come right from the halls of academia with which they’ve lived their lives, notably amorality and betrayal of friends when some self-interest is served. (For professors, it’s usually money and status.) They are clearly enthralled with university culture and attempting to export that pathologic “culture” to the rest of the world.

    What is the “gain” here? In the main, I do think the reason d’atre of their book is one of appeasement and surrender to Islamofascism.

    A few hundred million insane bloodthirsty Arabs and other followers of the death cult of Islam calling for Death to Israel and Death to America: what better way to appease them than writing a book that the authors hope will cause the U.S. to hang Israel out to dry in the face of genocidal maniacs, groups and countries like Hezbollah, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Syria and Iran?

    In fact, they are not anti-Semites. Rather, they are equal opportunity amoralists. If the Islamofascists were chanting “Death to Mexico! Death to America!”, Walt and Mearsheimer would undoubtedly craft conspiracy theories that might justify allowing Osama and his minions to relocate from Waziristan to Acapulco.

    University professors are renowned for turning on their friends, students and colleagues at the drop of a hat, if they see a personal gain in doing so. They could care less about ruining careers and lives. See for example, “Academic Tyranny: The Tale and the Lessons”, Robert Weissberg, Review of Policy Research, Vol. 15 no. 4 P. 99-110, Dec. 1998, and especially “Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints” by Wilcox, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 280 No. 3, July 15, 1998 that describes how stealing of others’ work and career-ending professorial retaliation against those who complain is common at Walt’s university, Harvard. Of course see http://www.thefire.org as well.

    So, Walt and Mearsheimer wrote this book in all its faux-academic glory in the cowardly and academic-culture-inspired hope of spearheading a U.S. betrayal of its friend, Israel, in their hope that this will satiate the Islamofascists’ appetite for blood and “honor.”

    They are incredibly reckless in this regard. Their book is quite socially irresponsible (not a new thing for academia). Their whole theme, abandonment of friends for supposed secondary gain, i.e., the appeasement of a brutal terrorist killer culture, is explicitly amoral (and likely immoral as well for those of us not prone to moral relativism) as well as anti-American.

    They are using this book and likely their educational pulpits with students as a weapon, with the desired collateral damage of weakening the U.S. (Does anyone even need to ask anymore why Ivy professors might be against a strong United States?)

    Walt and Mearsheimer, through their arrogance, stupidity, and exportation of academia’s amoral tyranny, are tacitly working for our enemies.

    These professors are out of control, like a runaway locomotive, thanks to the cheerful support of opportunistic anti-Semites and the MSM (I’m not sure those two are entirely separable). They need to be stopped – however, accusations of anti-Semitism are a distraction and they know it.

    Walt and Mearsheimer have more in common with Arthur Neville Chamberlain than David Ernest Duke or Alfred Charles Sharpton.

    That said, as Abraham Foxman and many others observed, Walt & Mearsheimer’s faux-scholarship is “riddled with errors” that tend to slant it “in the exact same direction, thus we are dealing not with a little unfortunate carelessness but with a culpable degree of bias.”

    I submit again that their “carelessness and bias” is most likely knowing and deliberate, but not due to anti-Semitism. Its purpose is promoting appeasement and the weakening of America, at a cost to Israelis and Jews the professors are indifferent to and simply don’t care about, typical of Ivy professors who want their way, period.

    There is a term for deliberate and knowing falisification in academia for any secondary purpose:

    Academic Fraud.

    Walt and Mearshiemer have placed themselves in the same league as Finkelstein, Chomsky, and other academic fabricators.

    Charges of anti-Semitism are a distraction from their motivations. Charges of academic incompetence are not highly credible considering the experience, resources and positions of these professors.

    Charges of deliberate academic fraud are, I believe, closer to reality, and perhaps hold the key to successful challenging of this dangerous charade.

    - ERIS

  20. Eliyahu says:

    RL, I see that Camera [ camera.org ] has a write up on Philippe Karsenty’s appeal of his conviction for insulting Charles Enderlin who made the “Muhammad al-Dura blood libel” available to the world, and for also perpetrating lese-majeste’ against Arlette Chabot, one of Enderlin’s superiors at France2, the French state TV broadcaster. You too are mentioned, RL.

  21. fp says:

    eris,

    the two are not mutually exclusive. and there is at least a third: moral turpitude.

    why the did it? had they not done it, would you have even known about those two? would have they gotten 3/4 of a million for any other book? they would have died obscure academics and much poorer.

    if you’re looking for more abstract motivations, read my piece on them posted above.

    fp
    http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/

  22. Roy21 says:

    Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>