« The Non-Petraeus Report | Main | Collective Action and Global Warming »
September 10, 2007
Oh The Things We Say
I've been reading The Israel Lobby over the weekend and trying to figure out the chronology of the Second Intifada and the significance of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. This led to some fuzzily directed googling, which led to this Atlantic article heaping opprobrium -- much of it deserved -- on Yassir Arafat.
One of the peculiarities of the nation that Arafat created was that it was founded on a festering grievance rather than any positive imagination of the future; the worse things were in the present, the stronger the Palestinian case became.
For the diplomats of the European Union, whose dream of creating a new kind of political organization that would rival the United States for global influence was burdened by the historical guilt of colonialism and the Holocaust, the image of the Jew as oppressor that Arafat offered the world was both novel and liberating; the State of Israel would become the Other of a utopian new world order that would be cleansed of destructive national, religious, and particularistic passions.
That's quite a charge. Luckily it's backed up with heaps of supporting ev--wait, what's that? No evidence at all? Oh.
For all the hysterical denunciations of the calm, methodical argument presented by Walt and Mearsheimer, this sort of thing passes unnoticed all the time. Here we've got The Atlantic Monthly, one of the most prestigious and respected magazines in America, charging that the European Union has declared Israel "the Other," and believes they singularly impede our future as laid-back, bisexual cosmopolitans drinking fair trade espresso. And yet, it appears no editor even raised an eyebrow, much less asked for a quotation of some sort.
Which is lucky, because if you go to the EU's official web site on the conflict, you get positions like "It is the EU’s position of principle that Israel should live in peace within internationally-recognised borders, accepted by all its neighbours, and free from threats to its security." Or if you look at the EU's action plan with Israel, you get "[The EU's] Enlargement offers the opportunity for the EU and Israel to develop an increasingly close relationship, going beyond co-operation, to involve a significant measure of economic integration and a deepening of political co-operation." And for that matter, former British prime minister (and thus EU member) Tony Blair is the new envoy to the Middle East. So all in all it's probably good the editors didn't press for quotes or evidence, as they really wouldn't have fit with the article.
Meanwhile, Walt and Mearsheimer construct a book entirely from footnotes and direct quotations, and they're branded anti-semites -- not because they hate the Jews, but because they tilted against Israel's chosen policies rather than towards them. Healthy.
September 10, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
as i remember it, Sharon visited the temple mount long after Arafat declared his "day of rage" over supposed Israeli obstructionism after his demands from Barak for the right of return were rebuffed again. Sharon visited the temple mount when he was campaigning, which necessarily came after Barak couldn't get a handle on the explosion that Arafat ignited.
Posted by: Cody | Sep 10, 2007 11:07:46 AM
i also don't think it's really fair to dismiss Israel's grievances on the stated policies and positions of the EU. the public motto of the UN, for instance, would only obscure the actual, factual incidents of anti-Israeli decisions such as the case with the video of the kidnapped Israeli soldier which they refused to turn over.
Posted by: Cody | Sep 10, 2007 11:13:18 AM
Ummm ... I'd hardly use Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as a starting off point.
I can't stand Sharon any more than the next dirty hippy liberal non-Zionist, possibly "self-hating" (I'm sure that's what any neo-con would say) Jew, but to say "oh that Sharon ... he shouldn't have visited the Temple Mount, 'cause it just stirred up trouble" is to say ... well, we Jews shouldn't visit places important to us as Jews simply because others won't like it. Would you say to a woman that she should not wear what she wants to wear because the morality police would be offended? That a Black person shouldn't sit under a tree because some crackers might be offended?
Sharon may be detestible. Possibly even a criminal. But since he was not locked up pursuant to a due process of law, he should have the same liberty to go places that we all ought to have. Jews can't pray on the Temple Mount? It's "reserved" for Muslims? What's up with that?
People talk about Israel being some sort of colonial outpost (which it may very well be, but why do lefties, normally so empathetic, fail to see the point of view that Israel is actually just as much anti-colonial in its own perception as their treasured anti-colonial movements?) ... but what is the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque then? The original culture of the area certainly wasn't Moslem ... aren't these colonial outposts? Shouldn't the reflexive anti-colonialism of the left also indicate that Jews should have as much right to be on the Temple Mount (no matter who built what there) as Palestinians would have to live in Israel (no matter who built what there)?
Why the double standard?
Posted by: DAS | Sep 10, 2007 11:22:52 AM
There isn't one. That's why i said I was looking into the significance of the visit, rather than looking into why Sharon started the intifada by going to the Temple Mount. The move may have been a bit short-sighted, but it almost seems neither here nor there, given the weight of the response (first one the Palestinian side, and then on the Israeli side).
Also, i think you're using the term "Colonialism" oddly here.
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 10, 2007 11:41:00 AM
but to say "oh that Sharon ... he shouldn't have visited the Temple Mount, 'cause it just stirred up trouble" is to say ... well, we Jews shouldn't visit places important to us as Jews simply because others won't like it.
it's a little more complicated than that. Sharon's visit was a callous campaign trick that was designed to make people angry and blow themselves up. it's just that people were already angry and blowing themselves up before he did it.
Posted by: Cody | Sep 10, 2007 11:42:08 AM
DAS, I find your rhetorical slide from Ariel Sharon, of Shabra and Shatilla infamy, to "... well, we Jews shouldn't visit places important to us as Jews simply because others won't like it." fascinating. Exactly how do you arrive at this equivilancy? We are talking about Ariel Sharon the military and political leader, not Jews collectively. Or is Sharon, in this context, supposed to be seen as a sort of Jewish everyman?
Are we to ignore the actual specifics of Sharon's personal and politicial history, the history that made his appearance at the el Aksa Mosque such a provocation in the first place, in order to postulate a general antipathy towards Jews as the catalyst for the angry reaction that ensued?
Isn't this really yet another variation on the tired meme that aquits all Israeli actions of any culpability for Palestinian distemper while attributing the latter to an ingrained, diabolic anti-Semitism?
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 10, 2007 12:51:53 PM
...while attributing the latter to an ingrained, diabolic anti-Semitism?
Sharon's toxicity aside, you can't deny that the Palestinians are antisemites. it's the biggest reason Israel shouldn't have been put there. the Palestinians had already erupted in revolts against Jews living there long before any talk of a Jewish state was floated.
i don't agree with many of Israel's decisions, but i can't for a second dismiss the fact that they are surrounded by antisemites. nor could i believe that given whatever concessions the Palestinians ask for that their distemper would vanish were Israel to remain in the region.
Posted by: Cody | Sep 10, 2007 1:07:46 PM
i should say, if you're only saying that their distemper over Sharon's visit wasn't simply due to diabolic antisemitism, then i agree. but if you're claiming that Palestinian distemper generally can't be attributed to it, i'd have to disagree. i think it plays a larger part than really anything else.
Posted by: Cody | Sep 10, 2007 1:10:52 PM
Would you say to a woman that she should not wear what she wants to wear because the morality police would be offended? That a Black person shouldn't sit under a tree because some crackers might be offended?
Would you say the Japanese PM should refrain from visiting the Yasukuni shrine so the rest of Asia won't get offended? That seems like a more appropriate analogy.
Posted by: Senescent | Sep 10, 2007 2:53:08 PM
Sharon's toxicity aside, you can't deny that the Palestinians are antisemites. it's the biggest reason Israel shouldn't have been put there. the Palestinians had already erupted in revolts against Jews living there long before any talk of a Jewish state was floated.
Er...the earliest Palestinian revolts that I'm aware of were in 1937. The idea of a Jewish state had been being floated since at least 1917. Although what exactly the Balfour Declaration meant was unclear, the leading Zionists in Palestine between the wars were always pretty clear on wanting a state.
Palestinian anti-semitism (certainly real) is almost entirely a response to Zionism.
Posted by: John | Sep 10, 2007 3:07:36 PM
I don't think these professors are really anti-Semitic. I think what they are is worse than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism because it affects us all. Hear me out --
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 fabricate 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 alone, opportunism.
Like bank robbers, their motivation for this outrage is primarily because “the Jews are there”, are the target du jour of the Islamofascists (for now!), and have proven useful as punching bags to countless others in history.
The professors’ writings show no respect for the Jewish people and for their past persecutions, but the professors are not anti-Semitic, just amoral and opportunistic. Accusations of anti-Semitism are a distraction from the real issues.
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 of Islamofascism, 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 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, Alan Dershowitz, and many others as well have observed (documented at the CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America story “Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer Israel Lobby Controversy” at http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105), 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 falsification 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.
In summary, Walt and Mearsheimer’s distortions are knowing and deliberate, in the interest of appeasement of Islamofascism and the weakening of the “imperialist AmeriKKKa.” The Israelis and Jews make good cannon fodder because “they’re there” and have a historical track record of serving this purpose for despots. W&M malign the Jews not out of anti-Semitism but out of amoral academic convenience.
This is worse than run-of-the-mill professorial anti-Semitism due to its generalized, nihilistic stupidity.
My only hope is that these professors are doing this of their own volition, and that there are no “handlers” involved.
- ERIS
Posted by: Eris | Sep 10, 2007 3:26:07 PM
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
i can only hope being pro-Israel doesn't inadvertently associate me with statements like this.
Posted by: Cody | Sep 10, 2007 3:28:47 PM
Wow. Is ERIS an acronym of some sort? [Horowitz is that you?] That's quite a mouthful for one comment. And do the professors get royalties from the few hundred million insane blood thirsty Arabs or do they just receive assurances that when it all hits the fan their contribution will be remembered, a little metaphorical lamb's blood if you will.
I was going to make a joke that if the Euros also ensure that we will shed unwanted body hair, develop abs of steel and get rid of love handles, in addition to our fair trade coffee, I, too, will back the betrayal of our friend and ally. But now -- I don't think I'm going to say that. Who wants to be a tool of Islamofascism after all? Other than, of course, Walt and Mearsheimer.
Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Sep 10, 2007 3:53:24 PM
There were earlier riots in 1920, after the Faisal accords...
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 10, 2007 5:06:06 PM
Would you say the Japanese PM should refrain from visiting the Yasukuni shrine so the rest of Asia won't get offended? That seems like a more appropriate analogy. - Senescen
Are you equating the Temple Mount with the Yasukuni shrine? Are war criminals interred at the Temple Mount?
Probably Sharon should have refrained from visiting the Temple Mount. I am sure some Rabbi could even come up with a Halachic reason as to why Sharon had a religious obligation not to do something so offensive.
But it does say something that a visit to the Temple Mount would be considered offensive. Moreover, due to "sensibilities" we Jews are prohibited from praying on the Temple Mount (there are halachic reasons why maybe we are not supposed to do so, but that's a whole 'nother question).
Something is wrong here. And, at the risk of sounding like a concern troll, where's the outrage about it?
Posted by: DAS | Sep 10, 2007 5:38:01 PM
Are you equating the Temple Mount with the Yasukuni shrine? Are war criminals interred at the Temple Mount?
Is it a sacred structure representing an millennia-old ethno-national-spiritual ideology? Is that ethno-national-spiritual ideology associated by other nations in the region with imperial expansionism? Is it predictable that visits by a head of the secular government known to harbor sympathy for the ideology might be read as a defense or endorsement of those associations?
Posted by: Senescent | Sep 10, 2007 6:50:51 PM
Is ERIS an acronym of some sort?Probably just someone tossing in an apple of discord (to a thread whose subject practically guarantees an instant flamewar anyway.) "Eris"'s anti-Islamic invective is so over-the-top that it's hard to believe he/she could be serious and not merely trolling or trying to provoke some sort of response.
In any case, Israel is the emblem of a 60-year-old injustice (briefly, disinheriting the Palestinians' grandfathers) which the US is obstinately and bizarrely dedicated to preserving. Resentment is hardly surprising with that kind of history - and neither side has shown much good faith effort towards peace.
Personally I think it's long past time we adopted a more neutral stance and focused on providing humanitarian aid to the victims on both sides, and pressuring both sides away from attacks on civilians. Being less of an interested party would give us more credibility as peace brokers, anyway. But maybe that bridge has already been burnt and we'll need to find some other party to act as a neutral.
Posted by: Chris | Sep 10, 2007 9:52:23 PM
I think it's safe to say that Eris was just unleashing a diatribe, and has no intention of ever returning here. Just another pro-Israeli whack job who likes to deny reality.
DAS, I'd suggest you learn the differences between someone visiting a site to visit it, and someone visiting a site to rub it in other peoples faces. nobody is saying Jews shouldn't visit the site, people are saying that a war criminal and psychopathic tyrant shouldn't do so just kick sand in the faces of people he despises. Intentions matter, and if you don't understand that I'd suggest you make an effort to understand it, instead of making a concerted effort NOT to understand it as you seem to be doing.
Posted by: soullite | Sep 11, 2007 9:56:19 AM
Chris, that's the problem ultimately. If we act 'fairly', Israel won't likely exist. The nation can not sustain itself without foreign aid, not and keep anywhere near the standard of living they now enjoy. Israel is basically one giant welfare state living off donations. It does not have enough water, or arable land to feed it's people. By way of natural resources, Israel should be a third world country and not a second tier world power.
Israel will never accept that, and it's obvious it's citizens don't even kind of care how much of their lifestyle comes at other peoples expense. Israel is essentially an American adjunct. It's only this because Jews are white Europeans at this point, and arabs are not. The two countries won't separate until a real cataclysm forces them apart.
Posted by: soullite | Sep 11, 2007 10:00:38 AM
i should say, if you're only saying that their distemper over Sharon's visit wasn't simply due to diabolic antisemitism, then i agree. but if you're claiming that Palestinian distemper generally can't be attributed to it, i'd have to disagree. i think it plays a larger part than really anything else.
Moreso than than having three generations of displaced Palestinians grow up in political, social and economic deprivation? Latterly under Israeli military occupation?
I'd be interested in hearing of any anti-Jewish riots by Palestinians prior to the onset of immigration by Zionist settlers. If memory serves, that commenced in the late 19th century. Naturally the goal of a Jewish state was the motive for such settlement.
Certainly there is anti-Semitism amongst the Palestinians but to characterize it as the motive force of their actions is to argue that Zionist or Israeli actions have no relevance. This doesn't strike me as a reasonable view.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 11, 2007 11:42:02 AM
"For all the hysterical denunciations"
Oh no, not the argument-from-shrillness.
"Meanwhile, Walt and Mearsheimer construct a book entirely from footnotes and direct quotations"
What, they didn't add anything? That's quite a feat. Of course, you've read the links Haggai posted on the other thread, so you know that the expert community made comments like,
[...] they are not experts in the Middle East. Far too often in their extensive footnotes one reads citations that begin with the words “quoted from”—meaning that they relied not on original sources, but on quotations provided by others.
and
By my count there are 1,247 footnotes; only three refer to correspondence with a source and only two mention interviews with sources. I could find no references to any communication with key players in the U.S. government, the Israeli lobbies and Israel who might have had some interesting confidential comments on the matter in question. It seems that their research lacked extensive field work, including background interviews, especially among the Washington elite who make up both the lobby and its targets. This is not a trivial matter, and as a consequence the book has a sharp, somewhat strident and detached tone—devoid of the atmospheric frills and descriptions of the personality quirks and complicated motivations of key players that are to be found in the works of the best investigative journalists. It is also superficial in its coverage of the Washington think-tank community [...]
Ok, fine, so one needs to ask, how does the book score based on the completeness of the data and how well is it used? Often poorly, according to these reviews.
As for the EU, maybe the Atlantic editors think the claim is sufficiently conventional wisdom to let it stand without links to comments about "that shitty little country", but I wouldn't be surprised if there are calm, methodical books with lots of footnotes that argue the case.
Posted by: rilkefan | Sep 11, 2007 12:27:38 PM
WB Reeves: "If memory serves, that commenced in the late 19th century. Naturally the goal of a Jewish state was the motive for such settlement."
Note that Russia and Poland and Galicia or wherever it was the Jews came from after 1880 weren't the nicest places, and afair the Ottomans weren't the worst rulers imaginable for Jews.
Posted by: rilkefan | Sep 11, 2007 12:38:15 PM
Note that Russia and Poland and Galicia or wherever it was the Jews came from after 1880 weren't the nicest places, and afair the Ottomans weren't the worst rulers imaginable for Jews.
Meaning what exactly? That Zionist settlement wasn't for the purpose of establishing a Jewish state? Isn't the establishment of such a state the raison d'etre of Zionism?
Or did you intend some other meaning?
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 11, 2007 2:14:13 PM
I meant that getting away from pogroms was a motive as well. Calling it "Zionist settlement" is entirely question-begging.
Posted by: rilkefan | Sep 11, 2007 4:13:03 PM
Excuse me Rilkefan but are you denying that there was an organized movement for Zionist settlement in Palestine prior to WWI? Those fleeing the pogroms did not flee on mass to Palestine.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 12, 2007 3:14:53 AM
