Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Why Freeman himself was wrong about what his defeat signified...
There was a lot I didn't like about the Chas Freeman debacle, but the thing I did not like most was the degree to which it offered apparent support to the "theories" of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.
Freeman's own response to his lynching-by-blog cited the Israel lobby in language so full of anger that you can easily tell it was written in the heat of the moment. For those who would argue this proves he was too intemperate for the job, please. He was publicly pilloried, his exceptional career negated by arguments that were for the most part lies and distortions. He had been unable to respond publicly to them for weeks. Frustration built up. And frankly it is easy to see how and why he may have concluded that his downfall was proof of the existence of the Israel lobby. Personally, I have really been struggling with that issue for the past few days myself, wondering whether it was time to acknowledge that perhaps Walt was right.
Walt, needless to say, did a little
victory dance as well, offering
commentary that was supposedly focused on the injustice done to Freeman but
which really was a smug "I told you so" laden with a list of
co-conspirators with names so Jewish that I could hardly read it without
cringing. He added his obligatory "some of my best friends are
Jewish" sentence listing some Jewish supporters of Freeman and threw in
his tired old "I am the one who is a real friend of Israel" trope
saying, as he always does, "I really have the best interests of that country at
heart and if they would only listen to me they would be much better off."
Freeman, I can forgive. He had every reason to be angry. Walt, not now, not
ever, because whatever the pale intellectual merits of his hackneyed argument
may be, he and Mearsheimer know full well that their prominence on this issue
has come not because they have had a single new insight but rather because they
were willing and one can only believe inclined to play to a crowd whose "views"
were fueled by prejudice and worse. They may not be anti-Semites themselves but
they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress
up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the
University of Chicago. They did what the most desperate members of academia do,
they signed up to be rent-a-validators, akin to expert witnesses who support
the defense of felons with specious theories served up on fancy diplomas. They
would argue that they were daring to speak truth to power. In reality they were giving one crowd in
particular precisely what it wanted to hear.
Believe me I don't lightly come to the ultimate conclusion that this incident
should not change my view of their work. I was appalled by the mob mentality
generated by the blog debate on the Freeman nomination. It produced some
serious misgivings on my part regarding even being involved in the blogosphere
because so much of what passes for discourse in this world is undistilled
opinion and emotion designed to bind and stir up like-minded audiences. The
rest is more like grafitti than thoughtful commentary, designed to leave
a wannabe commentator's mark on the side of a passing issue.
There is no doubt that a small group of virulent supporters of Israel were at the heart of the movement to
undo Freeman. This group was very effective in getting its message out and in
mobilizing some in the government such as Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer to
become their advocates. That in this instance, this small group acted to lobby
on behalf of what they viewed as the interests of both Israel and the United
States cannot be denied. But here is where the Walt argument starts to break
down for me. The implication is that because these people had an interest in
Israel, they put that interest before that of the United States, and I know for
a fact that many of the people listed by Walt as Freeman's attackers certainly
do not. Walt self-servingly implies that because some argue for strong U.S.
support for Israel that means they are not putting America's interests first --
whereas it is also possible (and I think for the most part true) that these
people feel that it is precisely because they put U.S. interests first that
they end up advocating a close relationship with our most dependable ally in
the Middle East.
You want to debate whether Israel is a good ally? Fine. I'm ok with that. It even seems like a reasonable thing to do on an on-going basis as far as I am concerned.
My problem comes with the implication that those who support Israel are necessarily twisted by dual loyalties into positions that undermine the interests of the United States whereas those whose position is essentially to step back from America's historically strong support for Israel are "realists" who somehow have the best interests of the U.S. at heart...that somehow Walt & Co. are better Americans.
That's the insidious heart of this. (Although there is almost something comical about arguing that it is "realist" to bank on the benefits that will accrue from better relations with Arab regimes that are notoriously willing to say one thing publicly today and do something entirely different later on and which are, in a number of case, at serious risk of being toppled. This is precisely the brand of "realism" that led to our successful support of the Shah, Pinochet, Marcos, Suharto, and a host of other leaders who have permanently tarnished America's reputation in the world. )
Furthermore, of course, there are several other problems with the Walt argument that remain even after the events surrounding Freeman's appointment. First, is related to an earlier point: The implication that when the U.S. government supports Israel it's because of the actions of this lobby and not because it is actually in the interests of the United States to support Israel. There is the notion that support for Israel comes from a monolithic group rather than one that is not only ethnically, geographically, economically, and otherwise diverse but one that holds a variety of nuanced views on a host of issues regarding Israel and the Middle East.
There is also the idea that somehow this group is so powerful that it is dictating policy rather than trying to influence it like every other lobbying group in Washington, that somehow it is privileged or more successful among interest groups. More successful than the farm lobby in winning government appropriations? Hardly. And our farm subsidies because they are so hugely distortionary to trade are a source of tensions in a host of relations worldwide. More effective than a Cuba lobby that has gotten the United States to support a ridiculous, failed policy for 50 years? Not. (We allow more open exchange with North Korea than we do with Cuba, an impoverished, literally crumbling nation with no strategic significance whatsoever.) More inclined to put cultural considerations first than any of this country's national or ethnic special interest groups? Come on. Why, why, why, you have to ask yourself would you want to single out this lobby for special criticism? And why, if your purpose was to argue for a different U.S. policy in the Middle East, would you choose to focus your efforts on attacking the people who support an opposing view rather than on the merits of the policy you advocated? What makes the idea of this particular lobby more sinister than all those farmers or Cubans or African-Americans or gays or union members or Arabs or Taiwanese or Christians?
No, there is only one reason to argue that the Israel lobby is somehow special or of special significance. It is to suggest that American policy in the Middle East is being driven by the interests of an especially unsavory group of ultra-powerful people who are masters at manipulating Washington. And we know who they are right? Well, actually, we do...it's the oil companies. But therein lies my point. The "Israel Lobby" is a distraction, a distortion and a vessel in which to carry and by which to explain and even excuse the hatreds and prejudices of a small group. It distorts reality, implies coordination where there is none, implies consensus across a group of people with widely divergent views, misinterprets the actions of a few as a plan of the many, overstates the influence of those it argues are involved, indicts the motives associated with a whole class of ideas enabling them to be dismissed before they are fairly considered, and seeks to argue that normal behavior in a democracy is somehow sinister for one group when it is healthy for others. Further, it tars opponents as members of a lowly lobby while reserving the intellectual and moral high ground for the views of Walt & Co. -- "you lobby, we are patriots."
Did a small group of misinformed, intellectually intolerant individuals stir up a wave of criticism of Chas Freeman that distorted his record to the point that it was impossible for him to assume the role for which he was nominated? Yes. Are many associated with historical support for Israel? Yes. In so doing did they lead to a great disservice being done to Freeman and to the U.S. government? Also yes. But is it fair to say that they represented the views of the broad spectrum of people who support a strong U.S. relationship with Israel? No. Is it fair to say that all were part of an orchestrated attack? No. Further, while I hate what happened, as Americans we must defend the right of the Freeman opponents to lay out their views...and many of those concerns, the ones based on facts, were perfectly legitimate to raise. The problem is when political leaders cave to the sentiments of the electronic mob. In so doing, it is they and not the critics of the choice who debase the process and rob the government of the diversity of perspectives it needs. The actions and arguments of some members the anti-Freeman crowd disgusted me. But it was in the capitulation to them that the greatest disservice was done.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
David Rothkopf is the author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making and Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. He is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf, a Washington, DC-based international advisory firm.
Noun versus verb
So, while you concede that individuals can lobby on behalf of Israel (the word "lobby" used as a verb), you object to the idea that there is a lobby (used as a noun). This is absurd - to borrow from Monty Python - that is trying to draw a distinction between the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea.
Secondly, you are smart enough to know that Mearsheimer and Walt did not make the claim that such lobbying is done by men who put Israel's interests before America. They make the point, which you also make, that such men truly believe that Israel's and America's interests in the region are one and the same. What M&W did state, is that the two nations increasingly have divergent interests, and the efforts of lobbying are trying to cover up those differences.
"What makes the idea of this
"What makes the idea of this particular lobby more sinister than all those farmers or Cubans or African-Americans or gays or union members or Arabs or Taiwanese or Christians?"
Because tying America to Israeli right-wing policies like Freeman's attackers have successfully done increases anti-American terrorism, and leads to dead Americans.
Amen
David, as smart and correct as is your analysis, you make a mistake to call people like myself misinformed. You ignore that Chas was spared big-time, as were his Saudi buddies. Do you honestly think they played no part in his suggestion for the post? Do you think it was only Rozen doing the anti-Chas writting, and there were no Saudi phonecalls made to Rahm Emanuel?
It was the Saudi's who got spared, and their ability to turn the tables on the "Lobby" is itself mindblowing and attrocious. The whole narrative is disgusting.
-sure with the nets newest outcrop of bloggers like Walt. Hard not to see why a Saudi Wahabist like Chas wouldn't blame the Jews. The message is proof of his own incompetence.
A sad fact. Extremely sad. You have no idea how sad.
Amen.
A distraction pandered by the Wahabis, the Waltz, and endless anti-Semitic Jew hating, Israel bashing Jihadists, left-wingers, and other ignorant nuts.
I am a prime example of no coordiation. But I was accused by other reaers of being a knee-jerk AIPACer. I hope I wont feature in Walt's next Harvard endorsed "research" paper.
"intolerant"?! David, please. It's Emanuel's fault - he gave the ear, and he is is the one who only understands the Israel argument - if he had more brains, he could have been persuaded with the far more relevant issue of Saudi Arabia.
tribalism
David Rothkopf is still in the early stages of grief: Denial and anger. His Jewish tribal loyalties are obviously preventing him from seeing the obvious.
here you go walt, this is
here you go walt, this is your audience.
Mr. Rothkopf, my "jewish tribal loyalties" apparently prevent me from seeing "the obvious" as well, so don't take it personally.
Forgiveness
David-
It's so kind of you to forgive Freeman his "intemperate" outburst since he was acting out of anger at who he perceived his persecutors to be.
Do you also forgive Michael Richards for yelling the N-word several times at African-Americans who were heckling his comedy performance? You appear to find no vice in bigotry when it's motivated by anger. One wonders what it would take for you to change your opinion of Freeman.
Anyway, since he's apparently a friend of yours, could you ask Freeman for copies of the e-mails he described in his farewell missive? I'd love to see his proof of the organized "Israel Lobby" that was out to get him.
Walt-Mearshimer are right, and Freeman proved it
Whoa. Methinks the columnist doth protest too much.
Chas Freeman: petitions the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan
From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog:
March 23, 2009
Thank Goodness for the Obama Administration’s Thorough Vetting Process
By Ted R. Bromund
I had dinner last week with a former student who worked for Obama’s campaign and now, like millions of others, is in town to try to land an administration job. His complaint was that the administration’s vetting procedures were so thorough that they were slowing him up, a complaint that made me choke on the excellent Pomerol we’d ordered.
I thought of his complaint again today, when a friend pointed out an interesting item in the February 26, 2009, New York Review of Books: a petition calling on the U.S. to withdraw immediately and totally from Afghanistan. One signatory, predictably, was Norman Finkelstein. Another, equally predictably, was Chas Freeman. That petition was published weeks before Freeman’s name was put forward as the arbiter of U.S. intelligence assessments. Now, naturally, it would never for a moment compromise Freeman’s objectivity that his self-declared political opinions are wildly at odds with those of the administration he sought to join. Nor is there anything even slightly unseemly about a candidate for such a position publicly stating preferences that would immediately put him at partisan odds with the President. Nor, of course, need we wonder at the fact that Freeman found himself politically at home with a conspiracy theorist like Finkelstein.
But I do have to wonder about those vetting procedures. Freeman wanted the job, but it seems unlikely that he informed the administration of his publicly-expressed views. And amazingly, no one in the administration noticed them. The press doesn’t get a pass here: it’s astonishing that this publicly-available petition wasn’t immediately brought up as a reason why he was profoundly unsuited for the intelligence job.
Of course, all that may be too generous. Perhaps it’s not true that no one in the administration noticed his views about their policy. Perhaps, instead, they noticed and didn’t care. In that case, we have to ask not about the competence of their vetting process, but about the sincerity of their commitment to the war in Afghanistan.
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/bromund/59741
David, I think you presented
David, I think you presented a very thoughtful argument about how rashly people will act to accuse people, and then seek to destroy them. We are seeing this everywhere in the appointment process. I don't know whether Chas Freeman was the right choice for this position or not. We never know who is right until they have been in the seat. He clearly brought a breadth of experience and knowledge that would have likely served the country well. I'm not one who thinks that there is only one right person for each job, but I am appalled at how quickly people are willing to opine on how wrong someone is for a job, based on biases and prejudices, rather than on competence. Too many good people are going to stay out of government to avoid subjecting themselves to such harsh, often ill-conceived attacks. I'm glad you're writing on all this. You have a unique perspective, having been both in, and outside of the government.
The Washington Post's lead
The Washington Post's lead editorial today sums up many of the arguments against Freeman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html
First his employment by the Chinese state oil company and comments regarding Tiananmen Square was the primary reason house speaker Nancy Pelosi was against his appointment. Does the Chinese dissident lobby control the leader of the House of Representatives?
The problem was NOT that he was just a critic of Israel; the problem was that he didn't know basic facts about the Middle East.
He said Israel has not made peace with any of its Arab neighbors, which even the average Joe knows is wrong (Egypt and Jordan).
He said Hezbollah had not attacked US interests in decades when the Saudi branch of Hezbollah was responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 Americans. How an expert on Saudi Arabia could not know that a Saudi group attacked killed US citizens is troubling.
He also believes that US support for Israel was the primary cause of 911 which no one other than conspiracy theorists thinks is the case becaseu it contradicts al Qaida's own statements that US troops in Saudi Arabia was the primary motivation for the attack.
His Washington Institute for Near East Policy has an annual budget of $600k and the Saudi government completely funded it to the tune of $2 million dollars.
So add all this up and you have man who is on the payroll of the Chinese government's oil company, was on the payroll of the Saudi Arabian government for at least three years, blames Israel completely for 911, ignored Saudi involvement in 911 (almost all the highjackers were Saudi), doesn't understand the motivations of al Qaida, and can't get basic facts about the middle east right.
This is the person who is in charge of the National Intelligence Estimate?
Does the WaPo editorial board read its own paper?
In the same edition that this "Up-is-down" editorial appeared in, Walter Pincus wrote a very good article in the News section, where he writes:
"For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said.
But Block responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: "As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background."
So AIPAC sends out smears under "anonymous", those smears are reported as news, and then AIPAC can comment on the smears as if they did not release them?
This is no different than when Cheney manipulated Iraq intelligence, leaked that phony intelligence to the NY Times, and then cited the NY Times as evidence of Iraqi WMD.
not monolithic....
Dear Mr. Rothkopf,
Thank you for writing this article. It is well worded and one that gets to the crux of an important matter. You write that the "Israel Lobby" is not monolithic. (Here, "Israel Lobby" means people who support Israel and actively advocate for it.) Never has a truer word been spoken. It is exactly my lament of the discussion circling this issue. There are important aspect that are lost in all the drama and yelling.
You say: "My problem comes with the implication that those who support Israel are necessarily twisted by dual loyalties into positions that undermine the interests of the United States whereas those whose position is essentially to step back from America's historically strong support for Israel are "realists" who somehow have the best interests of the U.S. at heart...that somehow Walt & Co. are better Americans."
I come at this from a different concern and interpretation. Indeed, I think many people are American and vehemently so. If there is a dual loyalty at all, it is religious, and by that I mean Christian. Lets be realistic about Jewish population size in the USA, what is it 3%? It is just not enough force to bring forward without non-Jews. What worries me is the reason for the support and the fact that it can be so blinded that it may not seek what is in Israel's best long term interests. Not only that, but it is so loose knit that it may be hard for Israel's voice to be heard within it.
Still, I don't at this point have such a benevolent view of Israel as I see it as a relatively, but not totally, un-restrained state. Equally, there are times when I disagree with blind support for Israeli policies, like the use of our weapons on civilians.
Strikingly, we had the same reaction to this situation, for different reasons. Yours for the implications that Israeli supporters are unpatriotic, and mine for the possibility that anyone supporting Arabs may be. Always, two sides of the same coin.
All lobbies are not the same
Yeah, which other lobbies contributed the critical ideological and political mass for the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history, a disaster from which we will pay trillions and from which we and Iraq may never recover?
Not the Israel lobby
Even Walt and Mearsheimer had to correct the misgiving, originally in their article, that the "Israel Lobby" was a motivating force behind the Iraq war when they wrote their book.
The Lobby Wanted War
They were pushing for war with Iraq. The idea was that, if the U.S. won there, it and Israel could intimidate Syria and Iran and thereby create a security perimeter for Israel. How fundamental this motive was to the U.S. entry into the Iraq War is something that's never really been examined, because to even raise the issue is to be smeared as as antisemite.
Correction
It has been examined, by W&M as I said, and it was rejected.
Actually it has been widely
Actually it has been widely reported that the Israelis did not want the US to attack Iraq because they wanted the US to focus on Iran. Bush did not listen to them
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html
That got widely reported just
That got widely reported just before the invasion. And there had been a few reports of that sort earlier.
But what gets reported in the public media doesn't at all reflect what goes on between the actual governments. The PR the israeli government puts out has different goals from the policies. You quote a 2007 report, which shows 2007 spin.
Remember, Cheney said they were going to take iraq first and then iran soon after. Why would the israelis object to that?
The Battle Is Finally Joined
The attack on Freeman will have one useful outcome, which is that there might finally be a wider public debate on the power and influence of the Israel lobby.
This debate is very long overdue. "The Lobby" has exercised a suzerainty over U.S. Middle Eastern policy that ought to be unacceptable in what purports to be an American democracy. I think AIPAC and their offshoots will come to regret what they did in this case.
Why didn't "The Israeli Lobby" block George Mitchell?
Answer: Because George Mitchell is unbiased.
The problem with some of us is that we fail to realize that we do have people in our fold like Freeman, Zbigniew Brzezinski etc., who have admiration for the way authoritarian style regimes crack down on civilians to “control their populations.”
Just read some of their books and past statements and you’ll get the hint. Given Dennis Blair's actions during the East Timor civilian dissident massacre in the 90's, his defense of Freeman is understandable.
This point is at the very heart of the problem progressives present to those they are trying to bring to their side.
When faced with those within their own ranks whose true goal is to attain power, that would only use their agenda to lessen freedom and diminish personal choice, they will side with our own, even when it means they diminish the very values they espouse.
If liberals allow these few to attain leadership within their movement, then they will lose the moral high ground to those they oppose and the facts will become immaterial.
If the charges leveled at Freeman were false, then to disprove them should have been done easily. If not, how does his appointment legitimize or further the progressive movement in the eyes of others who have not chosen a side in the greater debate?
They Tried To Block Mitchell
The Lobby went after Mitchell, but that effort never got off the ground.
Why does Freeman get a pass?
The guy is a professional diplomat. So why give him a pass for penning an angry and, according to the WaPo, "grotesque libel"? More tellingly, one which echoes the themes of W&M's book which Freeman was actively promoting for a long time, presumably not in the "heat of the moment".
"So full of anger...
...that you can easily tell it was written in the heat of the moment."
Seems a description more applicable to this piece than to Freeman's statement.
Does reference to a grand total of three individuals who undenaiably had prominent roles in this whole episode - Rosen, Schumer and Chait - really constitute a post "laden with a list of co-conspirators"?
Does mention of Greenwald, Rosenberg and (!) Sullivan - undeniably prominent commenters on this - really constitute a "some of my best friends are Jewish" assertion?
I look forward to more thoughtful and less intermperate commentary in the future.
For what it's worth, however, I'm with you on the Cuba lobby (though the foreign policy significance of this is comparatively miniscule).
A little evenhandedness please
David this is a confusing post. You make some cogent arguments and then contradict them.
"This is precisely the brand of "realism" that led to our successful support of the Shah, Pinochet, Marcos, Suharto, and a host of other leaders who have permanently tarnished America's reputation in the world."
In 100% agreement but it is the US’s continuing uncritical support for Israel, KSA, and Egypt while simultaneously vilifying Iran, Cuba etc. that show it has learnt nothing from its past mistakes. When Israel destroyed southern Lebanon killing predominately civilians and rounds it of with a sprinkling of anti-personal mines while the US helps put the brakes on a ceasefire with an eye not on casualties but Israel military objectives why expect history to be any less judgemental than with the Shah or Pinochet? When the US backs Israel’s claim that Hamas are being armed by Iran and are some kind of existential threat justifying draconian measures it shreds its credibility. Hamas were totally unable to mount any defense of their civilian population they had less weaponry than a domestic SWAT team. At least when the US was acting as a state sponsor of terrorism in Afghanistan they gave them some Stingers to even up the odds a bit. Hamas needs a new sugar daddy.
I have no axe to grind in the Israel vs. Hamas/Hezbollah issue they are both as bad as each other just one is better armed thanks to the US. If some other power wants to even up the odds with some modern MBTs or fighters that’s fine by me. If, as you say, you want to debate whether Israel is a good ally? Also fine but I think they are not, at least not until they behave in a vaguely civilised manner, rather than as rouge state that should be up in front of the ICC, and would be if they did not have the US protecting them from the consequences of their crimes.
"There is also the idea that
"There is also the idea that somehow this group is so powerful that it is dictating policy rather than trying to influence it like every other lobbying group in Washington, that somehow it is privileged or more successful among interest groups. More successful than the farm lobby in winning government appropriations? Hardly. And our farm subsidies because they are so hugely distortionary to trade are a source of tensions in a host of relations worldwide. More effective than a Cuba lobby that has gotten the United States to support a ridiculous, failed policy for 50 years? Not. (We allow more open exchange with North Korea than we do with Cuba, an impoverished, literally crumbling nation with no strategic significance whatsoever.) More inclined to put cultural considerations first than any of this country's national or ethnic special interest groups?...What makes the idea of this particular lobby more sinister than all those farmers or Cubans or African-Americans or gays or union members or Arabs or Taiwanese or Christians?"
My question to you is, what makes this lobby so special that even pointing out that it exists deserves a storm of outrageous criticisms? There are numerous criticisms of the other lobbies you mention; you repeat many of them yourself, and I nor anyone else would not suggest that you are an anti-Cuban racist for your statements. So why does criticism of the actions of groups and individuals lobbying on behalf of Israel automatically recieve cries of anti-semitism?
There is no doubt that a
There is no doubt that a small group of virulent supporters of Israel were at the heart of the movement to undo Freeman. This group was very effective in getting its message out and in mobilizing some in the government such as Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer to become their advocates. That in this instance, this small group acted to lobby on behalf of what they viewed as the interests of both Israel and the United States cannot be denied.
But isn't it being denied on a large scale right now?
Freeman, I can forgive. He had every reason to be angry. Walt, not now, not ever, because whatever the pale intellectual merits of his hackneyed argument may be, he and Mearsheimer know full well that their prominence on this issue has come not because they have had a single new insight but rather because they were willing and one can only believe inclined to play to a crowd whose "views" were fueled by prejudice and worse. They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago.
That could be stated a little differently. The existence of the zionist lobby was indeed widely and cynically denied. No academics would study it -- it was considered dangerous to write about it.
By actually braving those dangers, by going ahead and attempting to study the zionist lobby and necessarily getting labeled antisemitic etc, they deserve whatever rewards come for an academic who does something new and worthwhile.
There are people who say their work was not of the best quality. And yet no one has been willing to improve on it, because other academics believe that anything short of total commitment to israel would get them also branded as antisemitic and declared public enemies. Surely this would be a great research topic, no? Correct Walt's mistakes, produce an excellent work that actually reveals the truth about the israeli lobby? And yet it doesn't happen....
You want to debate whether Israel is a good ally? Fine. I'm ok with that. It even seems like a reasonable thing to do on an on-going basis as far as I am concerned.
Would you like to start a topic on that subject? Perhaps it could get argued in the US Senate? The House? No, wait. US representatives who actually argued that israel has not been a good ally to us would find the zionist lobby trying hard to stop them from being re-elected. And it has a pretty good reputation for getting rid of the elected representatives it wants to get rid of.
I just don't see that debate happening, except perhaps on blogs.
I feel bad.
This is evidently difficult for you. Defending Freeman was honorable on your behalf, and his statement left many of his defenders in a tough spot -- I wish he had laid off the verboten language myself. I suppose we should accept your contribution to broader sanity and allow you to burrow back into your denialism. But it's hard to take.
Actually, you do have very good arguments against a lot of things Walt and Mearshimer don't claim. Devastating really. It is remarkable how effectively a caricature of an opponent's argument can be eviscerated by sustained critical assault. You might be almost ready to start to take on their actual case. At least you're getting close on the rhetoric. Now all you need is some evidence to counter the actual fact of the existence of real groups that describe their purpose as lobbying on Israel's behalf.
My...Last...Comment...On...This...Ever...
Let me clarify...and then with some luck not ever return to this issue again. I do believe that there are are groups of people who lobby the U.S. government to continue to provide strong support for Israel. But these groups are diverse, divided on key points of U.S. Middle East policy, regularly challenged, often sidestepped or defeated, and are not especially different from any other lobbying groups. They push their cases. They squawk when confronted. They are far from unassailable and it is hardly unique to identify them or call them out. Indeed, I would argue that not only is their influence declining but that it has been for some time. Given these things, I am forced to wonder why the reaction to this lobby is so inflamed and involves so much overstatement and distortion. As someone interested in U.S. foreign policy, I see it all as a distraction and the argument, often associated with this debate, that somehow Israel is the root of America's problems in the Middle East to be a canard and a dangerous distraction from the key issues (notably our addiction to oil from the region). As a Jew, I cannot help but hear code words not so much in the substance of the critiques but in their presentation, the emphases and framing of issues, the conscious misstatements and reflexive acceptance of untruths and half truths. I am reconciled however, to the fact that I will not persuade those with a different view that this entire debate is infused with something other than cool policy deliberations or, perhaps, that I am as objective as I try to be on the key policy points. I supported the candidacy of Chas Freeman for the NIC job not because he is a friend. I would not say we are close but I like him and have watched him in action and admire him. Rather, I supported him because I thought he had a good mind and background for the job. As the controversy unfolded, I was really appalled by the willingness of his critics to systematically distort and overstate his views. And that leads me to the final point. This behavior troubles me in either direction. Some of the comments seem to suggest that I am guilty of this myself. I hope not. I did not write this last piece in anger. I feel strongly about these points but I waited several days to put them down precisely because I was trying to be as objective as I could be. In the end, none of us is fully capable of stripping ourselves out of our views. But I will continue to try to be fair and fact-based in what I write...and I will continue to read the comments here and reflect on those instances in which I might fall short. Or, alternatively, I will just write funny stuff so that I can at least share you readers an inclination to not take me too seriously.
p.s. One More Thing
p.s. I feel it is important to note that I do not hate Walt or Mearsheimer. Don't know Mearsheimer. Met Walt once in Davos. Seemed like a nice enough guy. I just don't much like the thrust and implications of some of their arguments. But I would and do feel just as uncomfortable toward people who are reflexively dismissive of any criticism of Israel or any other point of view. I'm from a long tradition of folks who think any idea worth its salt can stand up to a little grappling and will almost undoubtedly emerge better for it.
Collegiality and Respect
Mr. Rothkopf,
If you read around the internet, you will see that usually in this "blogging" activity, writers who are hosted on the same site (eg. The Atlantic, TNR, etc.), at least maintain an outward collegiality, respect, and sometimes even partisan support for their fellow bloggers at the site, reagrdless of sometimes quite apparent and heated differences on substantive topics. These people are, after all, their colleagues. You, on the other hand, began your time here with an announcement that you were essentially blogging under protest on account your proximity to Stephen Walt. I'm not sure if you were unaware that he would be your colleague when you accepted the offer, or what, but the statement stood out for anyone who spends any time reading magazine-hosted blogs. No one has accused you of hating him (I don't think, perhaps I missed a comment), but let's be clear: just in this post, you accused him of accusing Americans of putting Israel before the U.S., something I think he would deny, and of cynically plotting the entire 'Lobby' conflagration -- article, book, and all -- simply for his own personal enrichment. This despite the manifestly obvious fact that he now receives a daily onslaught (perhaps deserved...) of personal vilification as a result of the position he took, an onslaught that I frankly would not take on myself, no matter the financial reward that came with it. For example, on publication of the article version (I believe) of the "Lobby," Professor Alan Dershowitz pronounced that both Walt and Mearshimer had destroyed their professional credibility. I personally respect Mr. Dershowitz greatly, even as I differ with him on many matters, and moreover, so do thousands of other influential people. I would not want Mr. Dershowitz on the record with such statements about me, i don't know how you feel. (Granted, I'm sure Professor Walt's ego will survive.) But are we to believe that you truly envy Walt and Mearshimer their present situation in its entirety?
The charge that a scholar's motives in publishing a piece of work were cynically remunerative from the start is among the gravest of charges that can be made against a man of ideas, even if you have good reason to believe it is true. However, you present no evidence of it at all, so what are we to conclude? Perhaps you don't hate him, but you do not accord him the respect he deserves from you if your writings are going to continue to appear next to each other's on this Web site as though you are colleagues.
If you knew from the start that you could not afford Professor Walt a minimum of respect, then you should have had the integrity to decline Foreign Policy's offer to blog for them. If his writings here have subsequently made it impossible to respect him (and I am not trying to tell you whom you should or shouldn't respect), then you should show the class to move to a space where you can express yourself fully without doing damage to the collegial atmosphere of the publication that is agreeing to host you.
This is of course just my opinion, take it for what it is worth.
I do appreciate your perspectives, and find them valuable. I would seek them out wherever they appeared.
Michael Drew
Madison, Wis.
Michael,"just in this post,
Michael,
"just in this post, you accused him of accusing Americans of putting Israel before the U.S., something I think he would deny"
On the Freeman topic, Walt said this in a blog post:
If you parse the words, he isn't literally saying that Goldberg puts Israel's interests before America's, but if he doesn't mean that, why invoke his service in the IDF at all? Why is Walt attacking Goldberg's credibility in this way, and really, why use character assassination in the first place rather than addressing Goldberg's arguments.
--------------------
"I believe) of the "Lobby," Professor Alan Dershowitz pronounced that both Walt and Mearshimer had destroyed their professional credibility."
Did you read the paper? There are glaring errors of logic, incoherent definitions, and lies of omission that can't really be explained away as innocent mistakes. His credibility took a hit on a number of levels.
I don't think his blog is doing his credibility any good either. For instance, go to his blog page and search on "China" and "Saudi" and see what hits you get. On the Freeman situation, China is unmentioned (edit: I see the mention of Tibet/Tianamen below on rereading, original search wasn't specific enough, same applies as for Saudi-trying to minimize the connection), and the only time Walt mentions Saudi Arabia is when Walt is trying to deflect that criticism of Freeman (see below). These are valid lines of inquiry about Freeman's appointment, but you would never know it from reading Walt's blog. An academic examination of the facts of the issue would distract/detract from Walt's "anti-Israel Lobby" agenda, as would an honest presentation of the arguments from those who were arguing against Freeman's appointment.
---------------------
All mentions of Saudi Arabia in Walt's many blogs posts on Freeman (the last is not Walt, but a quoted outline of Freeman's resume):
-because these stories demolish the claim that the fracas was about his views on Tibet and Tianenmen Square or even the fact that the think tank he headed had received a small portion of its funding from Saudis
-First, for all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful "Israel lobby," or who admitted that it existed but didn't think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful "Saudi lobby," think again.
-He says his real objection to Charles Freeman's appointment as chair of the National Intelligence Council is that Freeman is an "ideological fanatic" (isn't it odd that this quality went undetected during Freeman's lengthy career as a public servant?) and that Freeman's other critics were mostly worried about his relations with Saudi Arabia
- Just look at his resume:
"Freeman has worked with more than 100 foreign governments in East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and both Western and Eastern Europe. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d'Affaires in Bangkok and Beijing, Director of Chinese Affairs at U.S. State Department, and Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and the Institute of National Security Studies."
Walt doesn't blog on Goldberg's site as a colleague;
as you say, he DOES NOT say that he puts Israel ahead of the U.S. at this point in his life; I personally did find the IDF comment over the top, but it was not part of his substantive critique of U.S.-Israel relations; and in any case Walt owes Goldberg not the slightest quantum of respect, Goldberg's prior treatment of Walt had been disgraceful. Though if Walt blogged together with Goldberg on the same site, I would call him out similarly if he could not show him due respect. However I doubt Goldberg would have agreed to appear next to Walt to begin with, for which I would salute his integrity if that were the case. There is clearly a blood feud there, my point is that there doesn't have to be such a state of affairs on the digital pages of this magazine. Walt has not directly addressed Mr Rothkopf at any point on this site that I have seen.
Right, he just uses sly
Right, he just uses sly innuendo to imply it. When Walt plays this game, when he complains when people interpret it as Rothkopf did it is disengenuous (which gets back to the credibility issue).
I'm not sure who appointed you the arbiter of who should and should not be civil to each other, but I think the same rules should apply to everyone, even Walt.
The IDF thing was not part of his critique
It was part of a personal dispute. I don't defend it as personal conduct. But Rothkopf suggests that Walt's direct case on the Israel Lobby in the article or book impugns the patriotism of Israel advocates. It clearly takes pains not to do that; you have to want to believe otherwise to read such aspersions into it. You can say that you think he was implying anything you want; the fact is his words are his words. And you're ignoring the whole point of my post: Rothkopf should be aware he is not according collegial respect to his co-blogger. Wars between unaffiliated bloggers are another question altogether.
And no one appointed me: I offered my opinion clearly labeled as such.
But Rothkopf suggests that
Actually, Rothkopf was referring to this Freeman incident when he said that, not the book or article, and didn't make any distinction between a so-called "direct case" or not.
If you thought you were right, I'm sure we wouldn't see the lawyerese splitting of hairs and mischaracterization of Rothkopf's argument.
I basically addressed the individual accusation you made. I don't think being wrong about that one point takes away from your main argument.
Although, truth be told, I'm pretty sure Rothkopf was aware of it already, along with every single person who read this essay.
Implications and Interpretations
When defamatory accusations about what someone has said or wrote are being made, the actual words used matter. If it sounds legalistic to you that is fair enough, but a close reading of the material in question is the way disputes such as these are usually settled in my experience. I don't believe I have mischaracterized Mr. Rothkopf whatsoever, and if I have, I'll be glad to correct what I have said.
Here is what Mr. Rothkopf writes above:
To my way of reading, in the latter paragraph he is very clearly stating his belief that Walt imputes dual loyalties to those who support Israel -- Freeman critics or not. I don't see an alternative explanation of where Walt would have made those charges except in his broad critique of the Lobby, but Mr. Rothkopf could enlighten us if he so chose.
You are correct that in the first paragraph he is specifically accusing Walt of dual loyalties to Freeman critics. So you were right that Rothkopf makes that specific accusation as well. But you denied that he makes the general accusation, and you were wrong, because he clearly makes both.
Now, I don't know where Rothkopf believes these accusations to be made or implied. He should provide passages in which he believes the stated implications are made. I haven't seen them in Walt's posts on Freeman or on Israel in general, and they are carefully avoided in the book in my recollection. I will gladly review passages that you or Mr. Rothkopf or others contend show I am mistaken. However, let's be clear that statements to the effect that Israel supporters who seek to influence U.S. policy are not acting primarily in the U.S.'s interests (or, Walt would add, in Israel's) do not amount to an imputation that they "are necessarily twisted by dual loyalties into positions that undermine the interests of the United States." One's actions can be misguided and have adverse outcomes without having been borne of malign intent (or dual loyalties). Indeed, Rothkopf suggests plausibly that it is some (he admits not all) supporters' fealty to U.S. interests and their belief that they dictate strong support for Israel that drive their support for Israel. Walt would argue that those people are mistaken and wants to debate that extent to which that is so. But Rothkopf states that Walt implies those people are lying, without a single example of language from Walt implying such. To my knowledge nowhere has Walt rejected outright that explanation of Israel's more influential American supporters' motives. But Mr. Rothkopf could go a long way toward shutting me up just by providing an example of what he is referring to.
The point here is that Mr. Rothkopf above, along with others elsewhere, makes assertions about Professor Walt's (and Professor Mearshimer's?) work that, if they were true, would indeed be reason to reject their ideas and to some extent scorn them intellectually and perhaps personally. But examples are rarely provided to support the assertions -- there are absolutely none provided here. The charges being made are serious, and should be accompanied with supporting material; I believe when such unsubstantiated charges are left to stand unchallenged the practice becomes in part legitimized, so I am speaking up.
Finally on civility (your term), if you think Mr. Rothkopf is aware that he is not according collegial respect to Professor Walt, then apparently you are conceding that he is indeed not doing so. So we can agree on that. We can also agree that whatever standard one applies to one should be applied to all. In my view it is plainly ridiculous to expect civility across the entire blogosphere (I wouldn't particularly expect Jeffrey Goldberg to be civil to Professor Walt, and don't hold it against him that he hasn't been), but as a reader of this magazine and its website, I find internal 'civility' among its writers -- at least as an outward gesture -- to make for a better overall reading experience. (Mr. Goldberg in particular makes a conspicuous point of being extremely cordial in things he writes about his fellow Atlantic bloggers, to cite just one example.) If Mr. Rothkopf, Prof. Walt, and the editors do not feel the same atmoshere suits Foreign Policy, then I am happy simply to have made my views known.
Clearly this means a lot to
Clearly this means a lot to you. If it will make you feel better, I will say we were both right. However, your statement which I was addressing:
"...just in this post, you accused him of accusing Americans of putting Israel before the U.S., something I think he would deny...";
does not distinguish between the specific or general or whatever, as you are trying to do now. It also uses the language Rothkopf uses for what you call the "specific case".
I think a few places where we can agree:
I think some of Rothkopf's allegations were unfair, and I would like to see him explain his case for some of them. (David R: Are you still reading this? Are you game?) However, I will reiterate that I think Rothkopf's characterization of Walt "accusing Americans of putting Israel before the U.S." is a fair one, because Walt does do that.
I think that we may disagree on exactly how to call it, but I think we can agree that Walt does engage in character assassination, some involving attacks on people's credibility because of their affinity for Israel while holding up "true patriots"/"devoted public servants" as a direct comparison.
Just as Rothkopf does,
you need to cite something to show me why you think I should agree with you on these things. I don't agree to any of the things you say you say here you think we can agree to without something concrete to discuss. I don't know where you got the idea that I agree on the things you say I do. To do so would be to concede the entire argument we are having.
i suppose you are right that I didn't initially differentiate between Rothkopf's allegations about Walt's implying dual loyalties in the Freeman case versus in his broad critique. That's because you introduced that distinction. Had I been thinking in those terms, I would have said that what I said applies to both matters. If Rothkopf was in fact making the distinction you describe, then in either case he would need to provide supporting quotations. So mine was a blanket challenge to produce the goods showing that Walt does what he is being accused of. Show it to me in either the Freeman matter or in the Israel Lobby writings, I don't care which. Just show it to me. then we can discuss further. Short of that, these are specious, defamatory allegations that Mr. Rothkopf is indulging in. (May I point out that you have not addressed the charge made of a crude monetary motive on Walt's part. That charge also bolsters the notion that Rothkopf was indeed referring to Walt and Mearshimer's previous publications, not merely the Freeman matter.)
And to respond to your sarcasm, I wrote a post addressed directly to David Rothkopf. He had the choice of responding or not. But you took it upon yourself to respond in his place. So apparently it is important to you as well, my friend. If you choose to continue the dialogue, I trust that you will then own up that obvious fact going forward and cease with the juvenile quips. Less mundane quips are more than welcome, however.
Two things: 1) I already
Two things:
1) I already supplied the quote. Go back to Walt's blog post and see the whole thing in context. (I know, I know, you are a devotee of the literal word when it suits you and I say Walt is attacking their crediblity, and Walt never uses the word 'credibility'.)
2) My post wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but to get all snippy about it after making a heavily sarcastic post ("I feel bad...") yourself above? That's called being a hypocrite.
LOL!
1) So the Goldberg/IDF thing
1) So the Goldberg/IDF thing is what you are referring to in all this. Fair enough, though I still contend that it is clear Rothkopf does not confine his accusation to that example. We have discussed this already. I have said I don't defend it as general conduct, but that doesn't mean you can characterize it however you want. Walt was pointing out the fact that some who were quite openly questioning Freeman's loyalties should not cast that particular stone. Probably financial ties and 'clientitis' make for a better case than service in a foreign military, but that can be judged on the merits. The point is that it was a questioning-of-loyalties tit-for-tat started by Freeman's critics, Goldberg among them. I actually I don't think either case rose to the level of a true accusation of dual loyalties, as Rothkopf describes it. But at least we know now how you would defend his claim. Unfortunately, we'll probably not find out from the man himself, as he has obviously moved on. You could argue that Walt was overinvested in defending Freeman--that it was Freeman's prerogative to make use of that response, not Walt's. That would be a fair criticism.
Is that the only example you would offer to support charging Walt with accusing people of dual loyalties or are there others?
2) I didn't mean to suggest that sarcasm is out of bounds by any means -- I use it myself as you point out. I tried to make that clear ('quips welcome.') It was just the notion that I somehow care more about this more than you. We're both still at it or were at the time, were we not? Couldn't we say the same of you?
fyi
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/in-the-year-and-a-half-since-the-publication-of-john-mearsheimers-and-stephen-walts-israel-lobby-the-at.html
But here is where the Walt
Go take a look at AIPAC's homepage, particularly this juicy little nugget:
That sounds like a group that puts Israel's security first and foremost. They may honestly believe that it doesn't harm the security of the US, but that doesn't change the fact that they are effectively agents of a foreign state.
There's a vast ocean of difference between "Hey, I think Israel's a good country, and such" and actively lobbying and distributing money on behalf of that country's interests for near half-a-century in order to promote that country's security interests, even when there is actually a consensus that it's harmful on behalf of US interests (witness how long it took the US government to actually say that the settlements were harmful to an Israeli-Palestinian peace although this was widely accepted by most experts at the time, and what happened to the last people to actually try to do something to pressure Israel on it, such as George Bush Sr.).
Would you have been so sanguine if there had been, say, a Pro-Soviet Union lobby composed of Russian-Americans in the Cold War, lobbying for heavy, unconditional US financial aid to the Soviet Union and actively pressuring the government to not intervene or do anything in response when the Soviets were oppressing Eastern Europe? I'm sure many of them, no doubt, would think they were helping America's interests as well, but we'd still treat them with a great degree of contempt and distrust, because we'd rightfully see them as acting as agents for a foreign state that may or may not have the US's best interests in mind.
Can you actually make a reasonable argument as to why it is in the US's interest to provide the level of support it currently provides to Israel after the end of the Cold War? At least during the Cold War, the Israelis were our people in that region to balance out the Soviet Union's Arab clients.
I certainly don't know why Israel should be the cornerstone of US policy in the largely Arab Middle East, when there are plenty of other patrons with strong US ties (the ties with the Saudis go back to the 1930s, and the Egyptian ties to the 1970s) who aren't nearly so much of a hassle in terms of PR.
Nice little red herring there, Rothkopf, since many of us oppose all of these little ethnic lobbies (including the Cuban one as well as the Israeli one). We single out the Israeli one because, to be blunt, the Middle East is receiving a very large share of US foreign policy attention and aid, and the problems that our largely unconditional love for Israel creates in that region tend to have larger consequences (like support for terrorism).
Or, to put it more bluntly, nobody gives a shit enough about the Cuban embargo to blow themselves up or start terrorist groups targeting the US.
You know what bothers me the most about this whole post? The tone of petulant, whining victimhood in many of its parts.
Can you actually make a
I can. I don't have a ton of time, and I know you know this stuff, so I'll provide the bullet points without connecting all the dots.
--Even if Israel was an enemy, it is in our interest that no state start an all-out war with Israel. (Escalation -> nuclear/chemical exchanges -> oil fields burning -> etc....unimaginably crippling to our interests.)
--There are countries in the region still who would destroy Isreal if they could, and start that war if they thought they had a shot.
--It is in our interest that Israel not only be strong, but to appear so overwhelmingly strong that no other state ever tries.
Granted, we don't necessarily have to be the ones providing the support, but we do have an interest in stability in the region, and currently that means having a strong Israel. This is a Realist view, with the aim of preventing a low probability, but one of the worst case scenario events.
If they did, would you advocate making concessions to them?
--Even if Israel was an
That's calling for the US to be an honest mediator, not a patron of Israel.
Your point?
The Israelis have nukes, and better hardware and troops than all their neighbors. They'll still have that even if the US cut off all aid and simply sold them weapons.
But we don't need to be the type of patron that we are for the above to be true. Israel wouldn't collapse overnight if the US cut off most or all of the aid; they'd be hurting, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.
For that matter, Israel did quite well before 1967, when their main patron was the French (assuming they counted as a patron), and when the neighboring Arab states were much stronger in proportion to Israel (Egypt had superior equipment).
I'd be more inclined to tell the people supporting the embargo to fuck off.
It sounds like you agree that
It sounds like you agree that the endpoint is in our interest (a strong Israel), but just think it can be achieved without us giving them $3 billion a year?
I don't know enough to say whether they really need the monetary aid or not. However, I don't think the monetary aid is our biggest contribution, but rather the diplomatic (and ultimately, economic, due to potential sanctions) aid.
"Your point?"
Point being, if this condition truly didn't exist, if all of the countries in the region were at peace and liked each other, it essentially moots the whole scenario.
Also, this condition means that the one country facing this situation needs to appear overwhelmingly strong, vs. the hypothetical peaceful situation where power would need to be more evenly balanced for deterrence.
It sounds like you agree that
I don't think just cutting off Israel's aid would automatically lead to that endgame. That's why I put the question as to why we needed to maintain Israel as a client along with a point about how this is a majority Arab region, and there are several other states with long-standing ties in the neighborhood that we have ties with (especially the Saudis and Egyptians).
There's that. Good argument.
We do want a strong client - but it doesn't necessarily need to be Israel.
We do want a strong client -
My point is that regardless of who our client is, we need a balance of power that minimizes the chance of the all-out war scenario. It doesn't necessarily have to be us, or anyone, supporting Israel, but I think the most stability is gained by having an Israel that is qualitatively more powerful than any combination of its neighbors who may try to attack it.
IMO if we cut off monetary aid completely, it wouldn't make a difference in Arab public opinion anyway. This also is more dependent on the diplomatic cover we supply.
Thoughts on this Post
David,
This comes across as an angry post.
As a U of C alum and former student of Mearsheimer's, the Brooks Brothers slam comes off as profoundly out of touch with the reality of the institution you're criticizing. I don't think I ever saw any non-business school student or teacher in a Brooks Brothers suit. The U of C is a place defined by hard work, unforgiving teachers, poverty and sub-zero temperatures. Please don't lump us in with those coddled, grade-inflation-loving Harvard types.
(Yeah, Yglesias, I'm talkin' about you!)
On a significantly more serious note, even if we write off much of Walt's posturing it seems like his basic insight rings true here. We've got a well-qualified professional who was harassed and publicly pilloried for views that were not relevant to the job he was being considered for. As a result, he withdrew his candidacy.
What shocked me the most was that, on the basis of one line in his speech to the GCC, he was accused of severe "clientitis" by people who were attacking him because his views on Israel didn't correspond to their own. I can't evaluate those claims, but intuitively it seems like a pretty clear cut case of pot & kettle from where I'm standing. Why is it that we're only talking "clientitis" (clinical!) when we talk about Freedman, but when we get into Marty Peretz's views on Israel we're suddenly in "dual loyalty" (treasonous!) territory?
(Clarification, I mean when people criticize Peretz's [or any Jew's] views on Israel it's acceptable to describe those comments as accusations of "dual loyalty" while a similar statement about Freedman would be an accusation of "clientitis")
The real issue I have here is that it seems like those who ought to have the greatest stake in burying the language of anti-semitism continually use it to tar their enemies, thereby ensuring that we never deprive it of its power or move beyond its shameful legacy. Why can't we just acknowledge that a strong affection for anything (woman or man, cause or nation-state) distorts people's decision making process without getting into the realms of "conspiracy" or "dual loyalty?"
What's in a Name?
It seems to me that part of the problem is that we call a number of hawkish American lobby groups with convergent, but not identical, goals regarding American policy towards Israel the "Israel Lobby". It's a broad and sloppy term. If, say, AIPAC is a good example of a member of the Israel Lobby, then where does the dovish J Street fit in? It lobbies the United States government regarding Israel, but couldn't be considered a part of the Israel Lobby.
In order to distinguish between the ultra-hawkish lobbies like AIPAC, and more moderate groups like J Street, I propose that what has been called the Israel Lobby from now on be referred to as the Likud Lobby, or perhaps the Netanyahu Lobby. This will allow for more clarity in discourse amongst reasonable people, and reduce the rate at which people are unfairly accused of anti-Semitism.
All I ask for is credit for this innovation and perhaps a free subscription to Foreign Policy.
I do believe that there are
I do believe that there are are groups of people who lobby the U.S. government to continue to provide strong support for Israel.
Good, you're aligned with reality this far.
But these groups are diverse, divided on key points of U.S. Middle East policy, regularly challenged, often sidestepped or defeated, and are not especially different from any other lobbying groups. They push their cases. They squawk when confronted. They are far from unassailable and it is hardly unique to identify them or call them out.
Well, it might look more that way from the inside than from the outside. If you're on the outside, zionists often claim to have a united front, and they tend to claim they almost always win, and they tend to do these witch-hunt things where they say somebody's the devil and they disapprove of him, and the diverse zionist groups that disagree don't show up.
Indeed, I would argue that not only is their influence declining but that it has been for some time. Given these things, I am forced to wonder why the reaction to this lobby is so inflamed and involves so much overstatement and distortion.
I think it might be because the zionists used to be so powerful that just saying there was a zionist lobby was enough to get somebody branded an antisemite.
People get touchy about that sort of thing and when it's nearly safe to say what they think they're likely to have stronger opinions than they would if they hadn't been vilified and threatened so much before.
"Be nice to the people you meet on your way up the ladder of success, because you'll meet them again on the way down."
But I haven't seen the overstatement and distortion, just a little excess emotion. Maybe that's something else that looks different from the inside of the zionist lobby versus the outside.