Philip Weiss has written a terrific article in The Nation (and republished at CBSNews.com ), Ferment Over the Israel Lobby, providing a history of previous academic critiques of the pro-Israel lobby (including several by prominent figures who’ve been bullied into silence or could not find any publishing outlet for their work). Weiss also portrays the fallout from The Israel Lobby for its two authors including its chilly reception in Jewish, liberal and left-wing circles. Finally, he speaks to the essay’s contribution in trying to “break the back” of the neocon cabal which set the agenda of much of U.S. foreign policy (including policy toward Israel) during the Bush presidency:
Mearsheimer and Walt…may have required such [shrill] rhetoric to break through the cinder block and get attention for their ideas. Democracy depends on free exchange, and free exchange means not always having to be careful. Lieven says we have seen in another system the phenomenon of intellectuals strenuously denouncing an article that could not even be published in their own country: the Soviet Union…
Realist ideas [the academic ‘school’ represented by Mearsheimer and Walt] are resonating now because the utopian ideas that drove the war are so frightening and demoralizing…these ideas are appealing because they offer a better way of explaining a dangerous world than the idea that our bombs are good bombs and that Muslims only respect force. Left-wingers and liberals who find themselves alienated from the country’s warmongering leadership have to acknowledge the potential in these ideas to forge a coalition of outs. But the price of effecting such a realignment is high: It means separating from the Israel lobby (or reforming it!) and trusting that a fairer American policy in the Middle East will not mean abandoning Israel.
“Realist ideas [the academic ’school’ represented by Mearsheimer and Walt] are resonating now because the utopian ideas that drove the war are so frightening and demoralizing…”
Perhaps, but there’s also a flip side to consider before throwing one’s hat into the “realist” ring. This philosophy also resonates well with the “isolationist” school of thought who while not declaring candidly could probably not care less about happens in a places like Darfur or 1990s Rwanda unless of course there were direct ramifications on American security.
20 years ago, the “realists” and the “neoCons” had intertwined interests regarding the cold war and viewed intervention in places like Nicaragua as options to consider since Western security was at stake.
If one has reservations about the ways and means of groups defined as the “Israel Lobby” or the “neoCons” there are many reasons their justification. However, in the post Cold War era, the “realists” are poised to ignore any issue of contention such as the plight of minority faiths (for example) in despotic regimes at risk of America morphing into the world’s policemen or seemingly subject to special interests groups.
However, considering the reasons stated above, there is IMO caveat after caveat before “progressives” consider joining forces with the realists and not to yield to the tempation of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
I read the Weiss piece and the abridged version of the Walt/Mearsheimer article, and nearly threw up both times. The W/M work is a venomous blend of Arab propaganda and old-fashioned anti-Semitism. That is why the criticism has been justifiably ferocious — not because they’ve tackled a sensitive subject. The disingenuous whining by W/M about the criticism is just as intellectually dishonest as their work. Weiss simply offers up more of the same and a defense of the W/M work.
I’ve been a liberal Democrat since birth, and I’ve also followed the Arab/Israeli conflict closely for almost 40 years. Only someone is who is completely ignorant of the history of that conflict or someone who opposes the existence of Israel altogether could buy the pseudo-intellectual nonsense that W/M and their friends are peddling. Reflects poorly on both U of Chicago and Harvard’s JFK School.
A broad cross-section of Americans strongly support Israel’s right to live in peace and security, and for good reasons. The conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites seem to have a hard time accepting that truth. Too bad.
Jake: I’m not much of one for schools of thought in any field. But they are useful in providing you a frame to view whatever facts you’re looking at. But I don’t see them as absolute frames. The Realist school is helpful as an antidote right now to the “utopian” (or “delusional”) Neocons. But I wouldn’t want to view the entire world through that frame & for all periods of history.
I’m more of an idealist myself about these issues & I DO believe in intervention when it’s warranted. But I absolutely reject the version of idealism (if you can call it that) represented by Bush & the Neocons. They have swung FAR too much toward one extreme end of the pendulum that is U.S. foreign policy. We need an immediate course correction & will get it soon (I hope).
Looks like the Know Nothings are out in force today (not you, Jake).
That’s bullshit of the highest order. Show me a single passage that merits either of those calumnious accusations. You can’t because there isn’t any. If you’d bother to read my longer post on the essay you’d see that I too had criticisms of it. It wasn’t a perfect piece of academic analysis. But the wicked stupidity that’s been leveled by the likes of you, Dershowitz & that crowd hardly merits consideration it’s so feeble.
The criticism has been ferocious because hardline pro-Israel types believe, completely erroneously, that any criticism of Israel threatens her existence. They believe that any criticism constitutes Jew-hatred or Israel-hatred or whatever. It’s the height of stupidity. I’m happy to say that Israel as a nation & a concept is far too robust for either criticism leveled by Walt & Mearsheimer or inanities mouthed by you to do it any serious harm. I’m afraid Israel will survive in spite of your feeble attempts to protect her.
Mazel tov, that & four bucks might buy you a latte somewhere. You clearly prove that anyone who thinks they’re a liberal Democrat can also be a hardline pro-rightist when it comes to Israeli politics.
Mazel tov again. It only goes to show that in all those yrs. you’ve learned absolutely nothing about anything when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Welcome to your No-Thought Zone. I’ve been a progressive Zionist myself for 40 yrs. The diff. bet. us is that I started out only caring about Israel & her well-being. That’s all that mattered to me. You, however never advanced fr. that position. You’ve stayed mired in it for 40 yrs. & will continue holding to it for another 40 if reality gives you the chance. Thankfully, reality is gradually passing you by & when peace comes yr ideas will be entirely irrelevant.
As do I and Walt & Mearsheimer. Israel’s right to exist is not threatened or questioned by me or them. But what form should her existence take? Does Israel’s right to peace & security include endless dominion over millions of Palestinians who reject it? Does Israel’s right to peace & security depend upon the the Occupation & striking terror in the minds & hearts of its “enemies?” If so, then no no right-minded person can wish this for Israel.
Those of us who are critical Zionists want an Israel that lives in peace with its neighbors. And that eventuality is possible though not with the views of people like you.