Re: Harvard's intellectual culture discourages identification with Christians...

The essay would have you believe that these two are merely moderate
critiques of Israel. There are a number of policies of Israel I don't care
for, particularly the lack of religious freedom that only looks good
compared with their neighbors. Furthermore, if any agent of a foreign
country including Israel is found guilty of spying on this country they
should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As you should see, if
the authors merely criticized Israel of its many obvious faults and didn't
fall into conspiracy theories I would be on their side.

From the essay referenced by Rich:

> The authors eschew any type of conspiracy thesis relating to Jews. "The
> Israel lobby's activities are not the sort of conspiracy depicted in
> anti-Semitic tracts like the *Protocols of the Elders of Zion,*" they
> emphasize. Rather, "for the most part, the individuals and groups that
> comprise the lobby are doing what other special interest groups do, just
> much better.
>

and

> The authors point out that "readers may reject our conclusions, of course,
> but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial."

Before I start this statement is facially false. Not only has the
conclusions been controverted but even moreso the nature of the evidence.
Dershowitz' rebuttal is almost completely concerned with the nature of the
evidence. If Measheimer and Walt cannot get this simple fact right how can I
trust the conclusions that defy belief?

Back to the essay Rich referenced. Hmm. So, Mearsheimer and Walt are victims
of nasty ad hominems from the entire political spectrum. Would that it be
true. But, Mersheimer signed an open letter in 2003
http://maroon.uchicago.edu/news/articles/2003/01/10/american_profs_take_.php
that
said:

>
>
> The "fog of war [with Iraq] could be exploited by the Israeli government
> to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged
> ethnic cleansing," the letter reads.

When the University of Chicago student newspaper asked him about this he
said:

> "The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves
> us to make sure it does not happen again," said John Mearsheimer,
> co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the
> University and one of the letter's signatories.
>
>

Sure looks like conspiracy theorists to me. Merely because many evangelicals
support Israel does not make them an ipso facto part of "the Lobby". When
the New York Times and the Washington Times or Alan Dershowitz and George
Will are both part of the "lobby" something really strange is happening. But
no it's not a conspiracy. It's just "[they] are doing what other special
interest groups do, just much better". Much better? Try superhuman. Please,
please, please get AIPAC to break the impasse in Congress now. They seem to
be the only ones capable of getting them to agree on anything including the
time of day.

On 4/21/06, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I had an exchange with rich blinne and dropped it because I seemed unable
> to precent a convincing argument of my own to him.
> I found a superb argument that contains everything I might have/should
> have said about the
> whole affair. The link is below the introduction. Paramount among the
> arguments Sniegoski presents is Dershowitz's unscholarly response. Note that
> as of this morning NPR has aired a segment on the controversy.
>
>
> Steve Sniegoski brings the force of scholarship [Ph.D., History, U. of
> Maryland] to bear on this response to the Mearsheimer and Walt essay on "The
> Israeli Lobby." Critics of the essay have mainly mounted ad hominem attacks
> and racialist slurs against the authors, so Sniegoski examines these
> critics' credentials.
>
> For example, "Eliot Cohen, the man who coined the term "World War IV" for
> the neocon-desired American war on Islam, titled his piece condemning the
> Mearsheimer-Walt essay, 'Yes, It's Anti-Semitic.'"
>
> Sniegoski also demolishes the argument that, owing to the holocaust, no
> examination of the Israeli role in determining US foreign policy is
> allowable.
>
> On one point, Sniegoski missed by a day. He says that the Lobby has been
> successful in blocking serious discussion of the Walt and Merisheimer paper
> in the big media. But notably, this morning, April 21, National Public
> Radio aired a segment on the controversy. The Walt and Meirsheimer paper is
> also posted on the NPR website.... I assume this is the London Review of
> Books version rather than the extensively footnoted version that appears
> on Harvard's Kennedy School of Government site.
>
>
> Sniegoski's essay is here:
>
> http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_mear_walt.htm
>
>
> rich faussette
>
Received on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:00:58 -0600