Monday, December 14, 2009 - 8:14 PM

Okay, that's enough inside the beltway, who were the big winners and losers around the world?
First, the losers:
And, the winners:
(Read on)PORNCHAI KITTIWONGSAKUL/AFP/Getty Images
I've always thought that the label "realist" was unfair. If you disagree with them, does that mean you are being "unrealistic" Technically yes. I also disagree with their positions...
Also wanted to say, at my website, www.onviolence.com, my co-blogger and I included you and a bunch of other FPers on our blogroll. I love you writing like today's post and keep up the good work. (I'd have emailed you but I don't think it is online)
"Ditching Israel" is not really the CENTRAL objective of ALL realists. I would say some realists do not completely agree with the Israel Lobby thesis (i.e. that it has overridden a realist view of U.S. foreign policy), and also, even those that do agree like Walt and Mearsheimer would say that it's merely one objective in a much more broad strategy of pulling back to being off-shore balancer and letting people take care of some of their own problems.
If Obama is the "ur pragmatist," and has rejected realists as well as idealists, that means everyone wins or everyone loses. I'd say so far the realists are doing pretty well, especially when you compare his actions/statements with Clinton and Bush 43.
And on another note, who are these high-powered people in the "punditocracy" that have been backing realists so hard? I track commentary on a daily basis for my job, so I know for a fact that the most oft-quoted analysts are still neo-cons and Liberal hawks (think o'hanlon and max boot) followed by "pragmatists" like Leslie Gelb, Richard Haas, Stephen Biddle, and the guys at CNAS.
Once again hope and hype has been followed by a chilling dose of reality, an opaque "peace process," and in the end by the fact that you can't cut a deal between two groups when one of them isn't quite organized to either represent their views effectively or implement any deals that actually get done. While the world wants to blame it on the Israelis, the thing that slammed the break on this process toward the end of 2009 was the fact that the Palestinians couldn't get their act together.
I don't know whether you can consider the Israelis "losers", seeing as how they just stayed in the same bad position throughout the year. The Palestinians definitely lost ground, though - even after a war, the humanitarian issues surrounding the Gaza blockade remain in place, land dispossession continues, etc.
And then on top of that, the core objective of realists -- ditching Israel -- didn't turn out to work so well as the new administration discovered what all before them have, we are allied with the Israelis not because they are perfect but because all the other alternatives are so lousy.
That doesn't affect whether or not they are right - and I challenge you to find one instance, one, where Walt or his ilk actually expected Obama to change the US-Israeli relationship. Walt in particular has been rather pessimistic.
As for the "core objective", thin-skinned much? I've seen this petty type of comment from you on Israel a couple of times before, and it's rather pathetic every time.
I'll admit it, I'm no fan. He's a lousy president. He's totally unreliable. His government is a feeble joke and barely keeps a lid on the most dangerous country in the world. But he's still alive at the end of 2009 and still in office and frankly, both defy the odds in a big way. Everything's relative.
The problem with this is that his position actually has declined. Whereas he started out with relatively wider support due to the anti-Musharraf reaction, a supportive US, and the like, he's now having to cede powers, the US is skeptical of him, and he's widely disliked in Pakistan and seen as a US lap-dog. He's "lost" ground by any definition.
I challenge you to find one instance, one, where Walt or his ilk actually expected Obama to change the US-Israeli relationship. Walt in particular has been rather pessimistic.
It doesn't change the fact that Walt was a loser. His obsessional attempt to sway public opinion about his "Lobby" actually was successful in one aspect - I think he is getting the word out. He got this blog gig, I would imagine had a lot of speaking engagements, and even got space on the Washington Post op-ed page. It seems that more and more people are aware of and amplifying his theories (or perhaps I am reading his blogroll too much :-)).
He is a loser because, despite getting the word out, his ideas aren't getting traction. He will, of course, point to that as yet more evidence that he was right about "the Lobby". However, a simpler explanation is that Americans just don't agree with him**. People reject Walt and his ideas because he is so over the top with his Israel obsession, his original "scholarship" was shoddy work, and a look at his blog shows that he is not presenting thoughtful analysis but rather tendentious snarking in an attempt to further his Lefty agenda. He is preaching to the choir, as one can tell from his comments and his blog roll, but not convincing too many others as far as I can tell.
**Ultimately, Walt really wants people to agree with him about policy decisions. "The Lobby" is simply a tool/foil/rationalization with which to manipulate public opinion/push his agenda/explain why his ideas aren't winning the day.
his original "scholarship" was shoddy work,
Have you actually read any of Walt's academic work? He was and is a serious political scientist, and was so before publishing The Israel Lobby.
Have you actually read any of Walt's academic work?
Clearly I was only referring to his writings on "the Lobby" with that statement, which I did read. (And did you mean to imply that you don't consider Walt's Israel obsession "academic work"? Because that is how it reads.)
Of his other works, no, I haven't really read into them in depth, only abstracts. Given Walt's position, I assumed they contained excellent scholarship. Ironically, Walt uses this as a defense of his "Israel Lobby" work, but I think it works in the reverse - why would he produce such subpar work on this subject only? IMO, the main reason is because if he presented an academically rigorous and balanced work, he wouldn't have been able to make his case as convincingly, if at all. So, for the most part, he chose to only present the evidence that supported his position and conspicuously leave out evidence which could be taken as contradictory to it. This criticism didn't just come from "the Lobby" itself, but also from many people who are otherwise sympathetic to Walt's views.
A secondary reason for producing the work he did is notoriety/publicity. You aren't going to get the same level of interest by producing a balanced, academically rigorous tome which would be seen as, if not banal, mostly uninteresting by most people. Now, Walt has achieved rock star status among the "anti-Lobby", and is making a ton of money selling his book and speaking and maybe even parlayed it into this blogging gig. In his posts on transparency (apparently "for thee, but not for me") I have asked him to break down his funding/income by percent of total for the years before and after writing The Israel Lobby, but he declined, unsurprisingly, only providing current numbers.
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE