  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Milton Viorst on ‘The Israel Lobby’Posted on Oct 4, 2007
About 30 or so years ago, when I first began to write of my concern that Israel was embarked on a course that would lead only to recurring wars, or perhaps worse, I received a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, then as now the voice of the Anti-Defamation League, admonishing me as a Jew not to wash our people’s dirty linen in public. I still have it in my files. His point, of course, was not whether the washing should be public or private; he did not offer an alternative laundry. His objective was—and remains—to squelch anyone who is critical of Israel’s policies.
In the ensuing years, Foxman and a legion of like-minded leaders, most but not all of them Jewish, have been remarkably successful in suppressing an open and frank debate on Israel’s course. In view of Israel’s impact on America’s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated. As a practical matter, the subject has been taboo. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, professors of political science at the University of Chicago and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, respectively, have challenged this taboo in their new book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foxman, in an effort to discredit them, has written a rejoinder in his book “The Deadliest Lies: The Jewish Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”
The Israel Lobby
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 496 pages
The Deadliest Lies
By Abraham H. Foxman Palgrave Macmillanm, 256 pages
The controversy over Mearsheimer and Walt’s views has been going on since March of last year, when they first presented their argument in the London Review of Books. In their essay, they contended that support of the magnitude that the United States gives Israel might have been justified during the Cold War but is not defensible, “on either strategic or moral grounds,” under the conditions that currently prevail in the Middle East. America’s unconditional backing, they argued, is harmful to its own interests and possibly even to Israel’s, and it is made possible only by the influence of the Israel lobby over U.S. foreign policy. The article touched a sensitive chord among many of Israel’s defenders, generating a furor. Now Mearsheimer and Walt have written a book which, while more comprehensive at nearly 500 pages, recapitulates the original themes. Foxman acknowledges basing his book-length reply on the article, so impatient was he to proclaim its authors guilty of “distortions, omissions and errors.” The late social critic Irving Howe, deeply committed to Israel himself, used to argue that Jewish leaders like Foxman depend for their status on ceaselessly trumpeting the dangers faced by the Jewish people, and particularly by Israel, from a hostile world. These leaders, Howe insisted, exploit the scars which inquisitions, pogroms and the Holocaust have left on the collective Jewish psyche, scars which distort Jewish political judgment. Foxman is no doubt sincere in agonizing over the dangers that Jews have historically faced. But Howe argued that these dangers had become a vested interest for the leaders of Jewish organizations, making an open and honest debate all but impossible in American Jewish circles and in America’s political culture generally. Foxman does not quite accuse Mearsheimer and Walt—though other disapproving critics do—of being anti-Semitic. But he uses intimidating language nonetheless, pointing to a “level of quiet, subtle bigotry—an attitude that may not run to the actual hatred of Jews but that assumes that Jews are somehow different, less respectable, less honorable, more treacherous, more devious than other people. ... [I]t’s only natural that people who exhibit this kind of bias against Jews should look a little askance at the special relationship that exists between American Jews and the nation of Israel.” One can admit the legitimacy of Foxman’s warnings on anti-Semitism and still ask for the evidence of “subtle bigotry” in the Mearsheimer-Walt text. I found none, unless the reader accepts the premise that anti-Semitism is present in any scrutiny of relations between the U.S. government and American Jews, or the Israel lobby. Foxman says the authors’ objective is to make Israel into a “pariah” state, though nothing that they write reveals such a goal. On the contrary, Mearsheimer and Walt recognize lobbies—all lobbies—as a legitimate part of the American political system, existing to shape or shift policy in the interest of the various causes they serve. Foxman, backed by quotes from such dubious authorities as Dennis Ross, an ex-U.S. ambassador and a vigorous defender of official Israeli views, seeks to attribute something sinister to their motives. Without question, Mearsheimer and Walt have written less a work of political science than a brief for their position. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as they maintain the standards of scholarship incumbent on their craft, which exhaustive footnotes of more than a hundred pages suggest strongly that they do. Some of their critics, ill at ease with the charge of anti-Semitism or “subtle bigotry,” have accused them of being “unbalanced,” in omitting the sins of “the other side.” By their nature, briefs are not balanced, but in this case the accusation seems doubly contrived. Assuming that the Palestinians or radical Muslims are “the other side,” the critics can scarcely claim that the literature is not already overflowing with negative evaluations, readily at hand in any library or bookstore. The objective of Mearsheimer and Walt is to break new scholarly ground, which is what academics are supposed to do. Their findings will come as no surprise to those familiar with American political institutions, but, judging by the reverberations of the Foxman line, they have ignited panic by daring to put so much of the available material on the public record. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
«1 2
3
»
By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2007 at 5:27 pm # Re Benjamin Franklin letter, I’ve been unable to locate it so have no opinion whether it represents colonial American thought, or if it even exists. Google Benjamin Franklin and Jews...it’s called “The Prophecy”. The story behind it is that Charles Pinckney of South Carolina recorded it in his journal of the Constitutional Convention. There was no official record as they wanted the proceedings secret, but Pinckney kept a journal. Supposedly. It is this journal’s entry that all the anti-semites and neo-nazis cite, and cite as “fact”. But there’s a problem: Pinckney’s journal doesn’t exist. He mentioned in a letter in the 1800’s, I believe to John Adams, but it has never been found. Therefore the “citation” from it is impossible--it must be fraudulent. It is also totally inconsistent with Franklin who founded an abolitionist society, was a Deist (not quite an Atheist but close), cited the Iroquois Nation Charter’s division of powers as a model for the Constitution, and once gave 5 pounds to help build a synagogue--when 5 pounds was a fortune. Additionally, analysis of the language of “The Prophesy” is nothing like Franklin’s and uses words in ways he did not--like the use of “homeland”. In fact, the language is the language of Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, translated into English. Finally, “The Prophesy” has no provenance prior to 1933. It is a crude, disgusting forgery concocted by the nazis to win over hate-filled ignorant fools.
By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm # I’m afraid the beast is showing itself again in typical guise. And this indication of the facts makes me ‘a nazi’, eh, Wicher? Typical. Are you going to whistle up your fellow creatures Howard and ITW to help you suppress this comment? ........... Nazi, eh, Wicher? Yes, Butt-Catching, you are. “We are still here, watching you and yours, Wicher. Probably many others besides myself still have no love of hyenas. We won’t just watch forever” Where did you get that line, some cheap horror movie? That crap doesn’t work any more.
By Sepharad, October 10, 2007 at 1:09 pm # Agree with comment that while not in itself anti-Semitic, Mearsheimers & Walt always give each action and issue the darkest possible interpretation of Israel, Israel supporters and AIPAC. Re Benjamin Franklin letter, I’ve been unable to locate it so have no opinion whether it represents colonial American thought, or if it even exists. However, did find in the city of Charleston’s charter a phrase declaring that the young town “welcomed all Jews and other heritics” to become citizens, perhaps implying that other colonies did not. Re Roger Cohen, I’ve never found his column anti-Israel. He disagrees with some of their policies (as do other Jews, including Israelis —one of the few true stereotypes about us is that we argue about our politics and our souls and the meaning of it all, far more than most non-Jews). Re non-Jewish citizens in Israel, they are not treated as dhimmis (Arab term for truly second-class citizens, i.e., non-Moslems, who pay more taxes and have fewer rights). Arab Israelis vote, have representatives in the Knesset and MAY—but are not forced to—join IDF, which is compulsory for all Jews. The fact that so many Arab Israelis do join IDF says something about the way their feelings for Israel, but even more eloquent is the fact that when land for peace was being considered, and several Arab villages and their lands were proposed to become part of a Palestinian states, the Arab residents affected hotly rejected joining the nascent Palestinian nation. One Arab man shouted, in front of the Knesset, “We’re Israelis! You can’t trade us away!” So the government didn’t. Re Iraq: Sharon advised Bush to NOT invade Iraq, because the WMDs had long since been moved to Syria, and because to do so would mess up the regional equilibrium. Many of us wished he had gone public with his objections but Sharon did not think he could afford to publicly criticize a major ally. Re AIPAC’s influence in the U.S.: 1)There are 6 million Jews in the U.S. and 10 million Muslims, many of the latter having large large families and even larger fortunes; 2)Israel has not a drop of oil; 3) the Saudis are delightful best friends of the Bushes, Bechtel and even columnist Maureen Dowd, whose main squeeze was Prince Bandar Sultan while he was in town. As for intense supporters of Israel, spectacularly more of us are liberal inerventionists rather than neocons or religious right nutters. Shalom Aleichem.
By Baldwin, October 10, 2007 at 8:40 am # The review confused me a little, because it only talked about lobbying organizations. Aren’t people within the government like Wolfowitz, Feith and Pearle considered part of the Israel lobby? What about the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans I read so much about? Don’t many of those government figures get support from AIPAC? The reviewer made no mention of this kind of cross-pollination between government officials and groups such as AIPAC. It is not just these organizations and lobbying, it is the people they support who become part of the government. As I see it, these Likudniks (the term I like best) served as willing enablers for Bush and Cheney’s imperialism and thievery. I can’t stand Netanyahu, I’ll say that without embarrassment. Down with Likud!
By Inherit The Wind, October 10, 2007 at 7:55 am # Tony Wicher on 10/09 at 7:05 pm #105864 by Inherit The Wind on 10/09 at 3:25 pm “Tony, I was with you up to the bolded sentence. In every age there’s ALWAYS an excuse for anti-semitism...this is just the latest.” It’s the latest excuse, all right, but Israel is GIVING anti-Semites that excuse by its policy of ethnic cleansing, which the whole state of Israel is founded on. The only way to stop the growth of this cancer of anti-Semitism is to change this policy. Read Viorst’s article again. MOST American Jews (and I believe most Jews world-wide) detest the Likudists and the horrible mess they’ve made of things. They are no better than the Moslem fundies in the Arab world or the Christian fundies (a la Pat Robertson here). Most want peace, a decent, fair negotiated peace. It’s come close a few times--the last, best time, a Likudist shithead named Ygl Emir murdered Rabin… See, if a peace can be negotiated that BOTH sides agree to and live with, then 242 becomes moot. It’s clear Israel will never comply with 242 100%. 90%, maybe, but 100%, not realistic unless Israel is flat-out conquered. So “242” becomes the banner to avoid REAL negotiations just like the “Line Item Veto” and the “Balanced Budget Amendment” were the Re-thuglicans way to avoid REAL fiscal responsibility and controls in the 80’s. Yet if there’s a negotiated settlement that both can live with, then they all can live and prosper. Between the excesses and atrocities from both sides’ war-parties, it will be a long time before trust builds up enough for decent people to work together again, as they once did. But it can. There’s too much profit to be made by both from the efficiencies of trade. But the Israeli middle is just as scared of the Likud Right as the Democrats in Congress are scared of the GOP and Bush...Both are exhibiting genetic spinelessness that prevents them acting in their nation’s BEST INTERESTS! But as long as the Likudists keep yammering about a “Greater Israel” and “God’s Mandate” and the Hamas keeps yammering for ALL of Palestine, and NEITHER side shuts the yammerers up and shuts down their influence, the state of war will continue. This is implicit in Viorst’s article and is his criticism of the book.
By Flakcatcher, October 10, 2007 at 12:00 am # Wicher “In fact, it is the goal of these nazis to OVERWHELM your site with their posts and limit EVERYONE ELSE’S right of freedom of speech.” Impartial observers of Truthdigg may care to note the number of entries by Wicher on this thread alone, and he has the gall to talk of others of opinion other than his who ‘OVERWHELM’ and limit . . . well, you read the lie. His squeal of erzats hurt and justified protest should also be duly appreciated. And he dare in the same breath mention ‘freedom of speech’. Chutzpah unlimited. But then this is probably his profession. I’m afraid the beast is showing itself again in typical guise. And this indication of the facts makes me ‘a nazi’, eh, Wicher? Typical. Are you going to whistle up your fellow creatures Howard and ITW to help you suppress this comment? We are still here, watching you and yours, Wicher. Probably many others besides myself still have no love of hyenas. And we won’t just watch forever. Perpetrated by any who do not control all our media, buy our politicians, impoverish us by the infliction of financial manipulation and render our populations morons via controling our defenseless infants’ education and said media, the lobby and its influence would be deemed an unprovoked criminal act of international aggression. Well, since it is germane, I deem the activity of the lobby and its influence an unprovoked act of criminal international aggression. Considering the facts and reviewing the abysmal state of the world resulting from the lobby’s insidious activities, I imagine I am not alone in this. Nazi, eh, Wicher?
By Inherit The Wind, October 9, 2007 at 3:25 pm # The lesson for many people, especially young and politically inexperienced people, is that there is such a thing as anti-Semitism, that it is widespread and growing, and that Jewish conerns about this are entirely valid. However, this does not make criticisms of Israel and Zionism on human rights grounds any less valid, and in fact the validity of these reasons are ultimately the cause of the spread of anti-Semitism. Tony, I was with you up to the bolded sentence. In every age there’s ALWAYS an excuse for anti-semitism...this is just the latest.
By CJ, October 9, 2007 at 11:45 am # Excellent review by Viorst, but for the following. And indeed answer to the question why AIPAC is so influential does remain something of a mystery. Viorst: “Perhaps the answer has something to do with America’s being the most religious, the most Christian, the most church-going society in the Western world. Once upon a time, deeply held Christian faith could be taken as a measure of hostility to Jews; that certainly is the case no longer. If anything, American Christianity—led by but not exclusive to evangelicals—seems to take the biblical promise of a homeland for the Jews as a test of its beliefs and a commitment of its own. This commitment goes beyond guaranteeing Israel’s existence. It provides a body of sympathy for Israel’s hard line, and for the economic aid and weaponry that the United States dispatches to support it.” This might be one answer, though I’m somewhat skeptical, since American Christianity isn’t really led much at all by evangelicals, albeit they are certainly the noisiest of American Christians, sounding as though they’re leaders, and no doubt influencing policy when the president is himself an evangelical. But AIPAC’s been around a long time. And there are millions of Catholics and other Protestants with no such insistent investment in continuation of a Jewish state. And as Viorst writes himself, it’s no longer the case that deeply held Christian faith can be taken as a measure of hostility to Jews, if indeed that ever was the case, say, among average Catholics, though it very likely was true among Catholic (and Protestant) hierarchy. I think one could argue that one reason for AIPAC’s “mysterious” influence might have more to do with Americans’–not just Christian Americans’–fear of, thus hatred for, Arabs. This particular fear and loathing well and long entrenched in the American psyche. (Fisk notes in his book that no less than Steinbeck referred to Arabs as the filthiest people in the world.) Israel might be viewed by Americans (if less so by Europeans) as a kind of bastion of civilization in what is otherwise and still covertly, if not longer quite so overtly, believed a “savage” Middle East mostly populated by “murderous” Arabs. Obviously, this fear and loathing of Arabs is racist by any name, indeed a racism that continues unacknowledged, thus largely unabated, in America. Akin to the racism shown Native Americans upon the “discovery” by Europeans of the “New” World. When they too were deemed savages, incapable of (seriously murderous) European “civilization.” And despite ongoing anti-Semitism on the part of many, Jews who did emigrate did so ALSO as “civilized” Europeans, many emerging from what even after the savagery of WWII was still believed more civilized Europe. Then there’s the possibility of an on-going guilt-complex stemming from refusal to allow Jews trying to escape the Holocaust to land on American shores during the war. This idea of a complex fits to some degree with Viorst’s citation of Irving Howe’s, wherein Howe wrote of manipulation of the Jewish psyche, and then: “But Howe argued that these dangers had become a vested interest for the leaders of Jewish organizations, making an open and honest debate all but impossible in American Jewish circles and in America’s political culture generally.” Quite right Howe was, and remains, particularly regarding that last part. Anti-Arabism in the form of racism combined with what Howe wrote of regarding manipulation of Jewish psyche might constitute the real reason AIPAC continues to be so influential among American people, thus also among American Politicians who to some degree still have to concern themselves with garnering votes enough to maintain office. Well, that and the fact that power tends to hold sway most everywhere, regardless of national, religious or ethnic identity/affiliation.
By mark, October 9, 2007 at 6:28 am # If the PNAC doctrine on the Mid-East is the same as Israel’s policy, than this is not a Israeli Lobby but an embedded Army.
By Inherit The Wind, October 9, 2007 at 2:24 am # Stockman72 on 10/08 at 7:39 pm Taken from a copy of the original from the written records of CHARLES PICKNEY of South Carolina, of the PROCEEDINGS during the drafting of the United States Constitution at the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION in 1789 re: THE STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN at the CONVENTION CONCERNING JEWISH IMMIGRATION. ****************** And where are the “originals” of Charles Pinckney’s located? Answer: Nowhere. Pinckney mentioned them in a letter in his later years BUT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN FOUND! So...if they have never been found, how is it possible to have a transcript from them on anything? Answer: It’s not. Conclusion: Benjamin Franklin, a man who founded an abolitionist society, and modeled the division of federal powers on the Iroquois Nation’s charter, and was the LEAST likely to be racist of any man at the Convention did NOT make this virulent anti-semitic speech. Therefore it must be (and is) A FORGERY. And it’s cited as fact only by nazi websites.
By Inherit The Wind, October 8, 2007 at 8:15 pm # Stormtrooper69 is spamming Truthdig with Nazi propaganda and lies. EVERYTHING he has posted is a pure total falsehood, totally undocumentable. Much if it is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to historical fact and documentation. He’s also implicitly threatening the life and safety of EVERY Jewish American--calling for their expulsion from the US and the Constitution. His “history” is straight out of “Mein Kampf” and should be recognized as that. Notice that he DEFENDS the 3rd Reich, which was America’s MORTAL ENEMY, and that is usually considered treason. Your statement about Benjamin Franklin’s hatred of Jews is a PROVEN CRUDE FORGERY: “The late Charles A. Beard reported, “I cannot find a single original source that gives the slightest justification for believing that the Prophecy is anything more than a barefaced forgery. Not a word have I discovered in Franklin’s letters and papers expressing any such sentiments against the Jews as are ascribed to him by the Nazis — American and German. His well-known liberality in matters of religious opinion would, in fact, have precluded the kind of utterances put in his mouth by this palpable forgery . . . In his writings on immigration, Franklin made no mention of discrimination against Jews.” Beard also noted that “the phraseology of the alleged Prophecy is not that of the 18th century; nor is the language that of Franklin. It contains certain words that belong to contemporary (Nazi) Germany rather than America of Franklin’s period. For example, the word ‘homeland’ was not employed by Jews in Franklin’s time. It was created in connection with the Palestine mandate.” Beard also showed “positive evidence” that Franklin held Jews in high regard, citing the instance when the Hebrew Society of Philadelphia sought to raise money for a synagogue in Philadelphia. Franklin signed the petition of appeal for contributions to “citizens of every religious denomination” and gave 5 pounds himself to the fund.” Pinckney’s journal has NEVER been found, you lying Nazi traitor-to-America sack of shit. The ONLY websites citing it are ALL nazi-racist sites. Truthdig: You are allowing your site to become enveloped and sucked in to the White-supremacist, neo-nazi, nazi and KKK world, by allowing posters like “Stockman72”. Barring people from brazenly posting falsehoods, forgeries and unsubstantiated slander is NOT a limit on freedom of speech. In fact, it is the goal of these nazis to OVERWHELM your site with their posts and limit EVERYONE ELSE’S right of freedom of speech. You need to stop them--you’ve done it before. |
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article