7 thoughts on “Walt-Mearsheimer Cancelled by Chicago Council on Global Affairs – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. If someone is opposed to the views of Walt and Mearsheimer than they’re right wing?
    Who says? Who annointed you the “labeler”…
    I don’t buy that label… I know many people who oppose their views and logic and wouldn’t by any means qualify as right wing……
    If so perhaps 1 would label you Communist.

  2. I’d be grateful if you want to disagree w. me that you be more precise in characterizing what I’ve said. I didn’t say that those opposed to W-M were right wing. I said that those who prevented them fr. speaking in Chicago & those who prevented Tony Judt & Joel Beinin fr. speaking were right wing. The main groups opposing their right to speak are AIPAC, AJC & ADL which are quite right wing on matters related to Israel.

    There are some critics of W-M who ARE right wing. And there are some who are not. I myself have criticized some of the points in their original essay. But I am generally supportive of their efforts.

  3. I see nothing wrong with a moderated debate between Mearsheimer and Walt and their critics on the role of AIPAC. Why not include a discussion of the anti-Israel lobbyists, such as CAIR, Paul Findley, Jimmy Carter, as well! Expand the program to include all lobbyists and their effects on American Foreign Policy in the Middle-East! Invite Alan Dershowitz and Abraham Foxman to participate, answer questions about their pro-Israel stance and question Mearsheimer and Walt about the role of anti-Israel lobbyists.

    Then both sides will have to answer their critics, as well as make their case for their respective positions!
    That is what Dershowitz wanted to do with Jimmy Carter at Brandeis, but Carter refused to go along! This time, the Wall Street Journal wanted to create a debate forum and Mearsheimer and Walt refused to agree to that format. It makes you wonder what they are afraid of. It is it the weakness of their position? Is it the strength of their critics positions? Mearsheimer and Walt apparently don’t want us to know!

  4. It seems that your American elasticity of freedom of speech in debating is more restricted than in Canada and it is not based on the possibilities of the American constitution but on pure unwillingness to debate with all sides present. Imagine in Canada, our elasticity goes to the limits of the possible in terms of political realm since we have the Bloc quebecois, a separatist party proning the independance of Quebec sitting at the Parliament in Ottawa and whose members will also benefit from their mps federal retirement funds. I am sure President Carter is very well aware of this. He and Castro were the main foreign dignataries at Trudeau’s funeral in 2000.

  5. I agree that it could be interesting and illuminating for Walt and Mearsheimer to debate with apologists for Israel’s brutalization of the Palestinians like Mr. Foxman. I have no problem with that. If it was properly, objectively moderated, I’m confident W & M would soundly trounce whatever shrill Israel Firster they put up there with them. I just don’t think that Walt and Mearsheimer should be forced to share a stage with their opponents AS A CONDITION to be granted a public forum at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shindig. If you can’t see this as a kind of back-handed censorship/intellectual intimidation, then I would say you’re rather myopic. The fact is, Profs. Walt and Mearsheimer are respected foreign policy/international relations experts that should be able to give a speech at this forum without gratuitous strings attached, as any major professors and experts in the field would. If they wish to ALSO have a debate with these right-wing clowns on top of a regular speech, or in a different venue, then that’s fine, too. I watched the Israel lobby debate with Tony Judt, Rashid Khalidi, John Mearsheimer (on the side of sanity) v. Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Shlomo Ben-Ami (this last critic of W&M was actually a pretty nuanced and reasonable guy) on the London Review of Books web-site and thought Mearsheimer held up pretty well. I’m all for more debate. The problem is that these issues aren’t addressed in the mainstream discourse ENOUGH. Bring it on!–to borrow an idiotic expression from the Current Occupant.

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link