SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home I Confess: I Am A Member Of Opus Judaei

THE SPINE APRIL 30, 2010

I Confess: I Am A Member Of Opus Judaei

BY MARTIN PERETZ

John J. Mearsheimer, who is co-author (with Stephen Walt) of The Israel Lobby, a who’s who they’d rather have called The Jewish Lobby, has finally come clean and done a morphology of American Jewry, splitting it into two schools each personified by perhaps a dozen individual Jews.

The first he calls “righteous Jews.” This list includes Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Norman Finkelstein, Tony Judt, a certified nutcase named Philip Weiss, and other more-or-less unknowns—Naomi Klein, for example. Given the thesis of his book—that the other lobby is more than indifferent to American interests—it’s illuminating to examine whom he considers upright, even seraphic, with regard to these interests. It is telling to note that Chomsky is the first of these supposed patriots. The others, please believe me, are roughly of the same ken. I’d bet anything that Professor Falk, just as one other instance, has never, ever paused to think of what might be an American interest he could support in a foreign controversy.

Mearsheimer’s morphology was made public on April 29 at his Hisham Sharabi Memorial Lecture to the Palestine Center in Washington, D.C. Sponsored by the Jerusalem Fund—I myself was for more than a decade chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation, another charitable organization with a different agenda that also included excellent medical facilities, schools, parks, batter women’s shelters, youth clubs, sports centers for the city’s Arab neighborhoods—the lectureship honored a professor at Georgetown who had left Palestine in 1947 (just like Edward Said’s family) even before there was a war in the country, refugees avant la guerre. These upper-class deserters carried the psychological burden of abandoning the cause and leaving the fellahin to fight for it. Said lived out his life with the at last exhausted dogma of “Orientalism” as his creed and screed.

Actually, Sharabi took another road. He compensated for his early defection from holy Palestine by becoming an Arab fascist. Nobody at Georgetown seemed to mind or, for that matter, to notice at a time when the university hired only virtual anti-Semites or real ones to teach the Middle East. So the professor’s membership in the Syrian Social Nationalist Party was actually an authentication of his intellectual credentials. If you want to know more about this paradigmatic Arab seer go to Fouad Ajami’s The Dream Palace of the Arabs and read.

What’s even more interesting than the Sharabi memorial setting is that Mearsheimer’s lecture, “The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. New Afrikaners,” should have on the morrow of its delivery been published in a publication called Monthly Review. How should I put this? The review is a communist magazine, except there are very few real communists of which to speak. Nonetheless, it is significant that such a magazine with such a disposition links up with one of the certified foreign policy realists of the age. So what is foreign policy realism according to Mearsheimer (and Walt)? It is actually American defeatism. Why else would folk who idealized the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China give such prominent space to an enemy of Israel?

Well, the truth is that the review is also an enemy of Israel. After all, that is progressive dogma these days, the progressive dogma also of the idiots who run to their computers—ignorance in their minds, bile in their hearts—as soon as I post a Spine.

Realist Mearsheimer is now among their idols.

Having enumerated for his listeners at the Sharabi fest and for readers of the Monthly Review the “righteous” Jews, he also provides a list of those he calls the “New Afrikaners.” And he adds that “it would be easy to add more names to this list.” It is a scummy trick, this linkage of Zionism with apartheid, because virtually everyone on his roster has been very critical of the actually tiny percentage of Jewish ultras in Israel whose views are racialist.

I am at the end of the Mearsheimer dozen, among whom are several friends. Not one of them fits his stereotype: Mort Zuckerman runs the New York Daily News, which has fought for black people in New York for years and years; Lester Crown is among the most progressive American businessmen of his generation (just ask Barack Obama); Abe Foxman runs the Anti-Defamation League to combat discrimination wherever and whenever it raises its ugly head; Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post runs the most sensible liberal editorial page in the country; Charles Krauthammer has never written (or said) a racist word, not one; Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal is not only brilliant but a real realist. He knows what the Palestinians and their Arab cousins intend for the Jews. And it is ugly.

Mearsheimer is not stupid. He also knows. But he does not care.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 146 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

146 comments

Mearsheimer's speech with its categorization of American Jewry is utterly inane. I have no idea who he thought he was trying to convince? He was certainly preaching to the choir. To the rest Mearsheimer has revealed himself to be a fraud and an antisemitic bigot. Imagine conservative "a realist" believing that Chomsky is an American patriot? His comparison of American Jews who don’t agree with him as Afrikaners is just another way of calling them “Nazis.”

- jdyer

April 30, 2010 at 9:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Some “Realism” About John Mearsheimer" by David Bernstein http://volokh.com/2010/04/29/mearsheimer-sinks-even-lower/ "In short, Mearsheimer, ironically, has become the mirror image of the stereotypical pro-lsrael “lobbyist” he decries. One-sided, obsessed with Israel-bashing, willing to sacrifice scholarly standards and honesty to promote his political agenda, and willfully blind to the faults of the side he supports."

- jdyer

April 30, 2010 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Suspicions confirmed. PS who the heck does this guy think he is? He is telling us who is a "righteous Jew" and who isn't? Amazing.

- Sophia

April 30, 2010 at 11:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2010/04/mearsheimers-list/index.shtml

- noga1

April 30, 2010 at 11:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I recently saw the 2009 film "Endgame", based upon the book "The Fall of the Apartheid" by Robert Harvey, about the secret unoffical dialogue between the ANC and a few Afrikaaners that eventually led to Mandela's release from prison, legitimization of the ANC, and the end of South African apartheid. The end credits claimed the ANC was now advising the Palestinians. I guess the advice is to call 'the opposition' Afrikaners, part of the Big Lie technique. I mostly read history, not ideological polemics, and am a huge fan of Bret Stephens because he is so careful with his facts. Repeated encounters with this viral Palestinian narrative during my six-month participation in the Obama campaign in 2008 saw my inner Zionist-based-on-history re-emerge, what some would describe as an instinctive response from a thousand years of ancestral persecution. It is as if they have all been to a brainwashing camp, a la Mao. There is no way to fight them with words. The Big Lie technique lives. I sometimes wish all the Jews in the world HAD to live in Israel, expelled from every country. What would the Palestinian lobby do then?

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is amazing is that Mearsheimer has tenure at the University of Chicago.

- K2K

April 30, 2010 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mearsheimer: "The key to determining whether the lobby can protect apartheid Israel over the long run is whether the great ambivalent middle sides with the new Afrikaners or the righteous Jews." In other words, Mearsheimer is setting up the whole Jewish community for condemnation. There is no way most Jews will "side" with the lunatic left that he calls "righteous Jews." These Mearsheimer "Jews" are self righteous, alright, but most of them are not Jews.

- jdyer

April 30, 2010 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This was linked to Martin Kramer's site: http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/04/30/mearsheimers_unhelpful_unrealistic_and_disempowering_message_palestinains As far as this stuff going viral during Obama's campaign - I have been rather horrified for several years now - since 9/11 actually - by a really antisemitic thrust to the discussion about I/P. There is little regard for facts, less for history. It's worse on the Left maybe but has echoes on the right although the left is more careful perhaps to try and not sound TOO overtly antisemitic, since the left is supposed to be antiracist. On the right you get "realist" arguments and of course endless discussions of The Liberty etc. On the edges of course they overlap. Boycott movements in Britain have actually been seen to quote KKK and Stormfront. I've seen neonazi style art on "progressive" blogs. So I understand what K2K is saying also about feeling the weight of history. It wasn't that long ago that my grandparents fled Russia. The Shoah was only a few decades ago. The pogroms against Middle Eastern Jews, ditto including wars and intifadas against Israel. It's hard for me to see the ongoing wars against Israel as anything but a continuation of a war against Jews. This is especially so since people like Mearscheimer and Walt have raised the spectre of "bad" Jews here in the US. The conflation of Israel with South Africa is outrageous.

- Sophia

April 30, 2010 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Opus Judaei? Then hopefully without the secret Catholic signals and the papal permission for extra mortification of the body. Hey, maybe I'd even sign up for that!

- ironyroad

May 1, 2010 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well actually he didn't say that the group is pro-apartheid...just that it would continue to support Israel if it turned into an apartheid state. Any comments on the real point of the article? FWIW, Krauthammer has turned into a hard-line right winger across the board...no longer an interesting commentator. Bill Clinton is right about immigration....we need more immigration. Let's bring Israel over to the U.S. and let the arabs fight themselves.

- OscarPeck

May 1, 2010 at 1:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oscar Peck makes a good point. Professionals and businesspeople already commute from Tel Aviv to New York. The US could use two or three million more intelligent immigrants with world class educations and high level technical skills. The heck with the Arabs. It is inappropriate to speculate in public concerning the deep divisions within the community. Some folks have correctly hedged their bets and are immigrating to welcoming nations such as Australia, just one destination among a few. Israel is a grand and noble experiment in nation building. Yet, it clearly has demographic and military issues of unprecedented proportions.

- LawrenceGulotta

May 1, 2010 at 4:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"he US could use two or three million more intelligent immigrants" How generous. There are 6 million Jews in Israel. How will you choose among them who is to be allowed unto your golden shores? And what will you do with the rest of them who are not "with world class educations and high level technical skills" ? Leave them to the tender mercies of the Arabs? Like this one? "No one can claim that land is their "birth right" if they dont exist. I hope that next time, the Muslims who do end up in that situation commit mass genocide to make sure it's the last time. Muslim Arabs should also start killing off christian Arabs in places like Egypt and lebanon... Jordan... It will show it's benefits in the future." http://bujassem.blogspot.com/2009/10/jeff-gates-will-israel-fall-in-five.html?showComment=1254555405225#c4001201476010914695

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, the quoted commenter informed the readers on some other posts that he lives in one of the Southern states in the US.

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's hard for me to see the ongoing wars against Israel as anything but a continuation of a war against Jews." - sophia It is a seamless continuation, with just a change of venue and excuses. The same war by other means.

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peck: "Any comments on the real point of the article?" Sophia: "It's hard for me to see the ongoing wars against Israel as anything but a continuation of a war against Jews." noga: "It is a seamless continuation, with just a change of venue and excuses. The same war by other means." I add that one point was Mearsheimers revulsion of the ultra-Orthodox Jews, and what he calls the right in today's Israel, which would include, in his view, the one million ex-Soviets who are highly secular, but not Mearsheimer's idea of Righteous (secular). On the continuum of the War against Jews, the tactic is no longer to destroy the religion, as the ancient Greeks and then the Roman Church tried. The ethnic diversity of the Jewish diaspora has discredited the racial concept that Hitler used. All those Arab Mizrahi, Ethiopian Falasha, and blonde Russians do get confusing. What IS the point of an essay graded Failure on the basis of false historical points? The delegitimization of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. That knocks out both the ultra-religious AND the nationalists who have guns. It is a propaganda technique, because the same would be said to delegitimize Hamas and Fatah, the ultra-religious and the nationalist Palestinians. In the end, the goal is to kill all the Jews. Being secular, assimilated, and highly educated and economically productive was WHY Hitler could convince anyone that the German Jews were the enemy. The racial aspect was used for Jews and Christians and Roma in the Slavic countries. If Israel had never been created as a nationstate for the Jews, the Mearsheimers would today be trying to delegitimize the Jews of global finance, from the Rothschilds to the three new nominees for the U.S. Federal Reserve Board. Personal anecdote on the U.S. South: in 1967, I went to a summer leadership camp for Student Councils for the southern states. My roommate very politely asked to see my horns. Today, I am far less worried about the Southern Baptists than I am about the African-Americans who listen to Farrakhan's radio vitriol where he blames all of slavery on the Jews.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, it is foul and incorrect to label all those cranky right wingers "new afrikaners". That is just asinine, wrong, and incorrect. Still, one reaps what one sows and I have to wonder what the hell peretz expects when he has spent years, nay decades, calling people foul names with political implications - does "Hitlerite cog" ring any bells? - and not expect his targets to fire back. For two years, peretz has trashed Meirsheimer and others who have disagreed with his political stances. And, if you're Jewish and you disagree with peretz, he often questions your tribal bona fides. So, stop your whining. When you wallow in the gutter, expect to get dirty.

- MrCookie1

May 1, 2010 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 or little ms. Venus The world is a dangerous place. I understand you are Canadian.

- LawrenceGulotta

May 1, 2010 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Much overlooked in the recent silliness over James Jones's poor joke - overlooked in part because of Marty and Foxman - was Jones's powerful implicit defense of Dennis Ross and others against Stephen Walt's disgusting "dual loyalty" attack. Jones sided the Obama administration for which he spoke against the rising tide of Israel Lobby-incited anti-Semitism. It was a minor but important implication of the actual speech.

- rhubarbs

May 1, 2010 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MrCookie1 “Of course, it is foul and incorrect to label all those cranky right wingers "new afrikaners". That is just asinine, wrong, and incorrect. Still, one reaps what one sows and I have to wonder what the hell peretz expects when he has spent years, nay decades, calling people foul names with political implications - does "Hitlerite cog" ring any bells? - and not expect his targets to fire back.” You are missing the point, jaunty. It’s not the name calling. Had Mearsheimer called his enemies, “right wing nuts,” or even “Likudniks” people wouldn’t be complaining so vociferously! There are a number of reasons that make Mearsheimer’s speech antisemitic and which ought to concern all true liberals. First: Whatever, Mearsheimer’s aim he did target the whole Jewish community and only the Jewish community. He divided Jews into good guys and bad guys according to whether they support the Jewish State or not. Second: while he claimed that he was talking about a minority of Jews, the people he labeled “new Afrikaners” are, such as Abe Foxman, leaders in their community. The people he thinks are “righteous Jews” have removed themselves from the Jewish community and some don’t even regard themselves as Jews. In any case, they are not involved either in Jewish culture, in Jewish philanthropy, or in the daily work of keeping a community running. He also said that the majority of Jews are neutral in his imagined fight between “Afrikaner’s” and “righteous Jews” at this time. He left open the possinility of libeling most Jews “new Afrikaners.” Moreover, Mearsheimer uses the term “righteous Jew,” as was noted elsewhere, as an analogy with “righteous gentile” which is applied by Jews to those non Jews who risked their own lives in order to save Jews from the Nazi death machine. This comparison is in itself insane since the “righteous Jews” he mentioned risked nothing when they attack the Jewish community and the Jewish State. Third, comparing people like Foxman to the segregationist members of the Afrikaner state is a sign of historical ignorance as well as a sign that Mearsheimer knowing full well that his comparison is ridiculous is using it merely to taunt his enemies. (This of course is a sign that he lost the debate.) Finally, Jaunty, there is a very long history of antisemites dividing Jews into “good” Jews and “bad” Jews. This is an ignoble history that led to Auschwitz. For person who indulges himself in such labeling can’t be taken seriously as either a scholar or a decent human being. Liberals, especially, need to shun his kind of antisemitic labeling.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Much overlooked in the recent silliness over James Jones's poor joke - overlooked in part because of Marty and Foxman - was Jones's powerful implicit defense of Dennis Ross and others against Stephen Walt's disgusting "dual loyalty" attack. Jones sided the Obama administration for which he spoke against the rising tide of Israel Lobby-incited anti-Semitism. It was a minor but important implication of the actual speech." I liked everything about the speech except the silly joke. One can dislike one aspect of a persons rhetorical performance and still agree with most of the content of a speech.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Of course, it is foul and incorrect to label all those cranky right wingers "new afrikaners". That is just asinine, wrong, and incorrect. " "new afrikaners" is solely a propaganda technique, to reinforce the apartheid argument, another propaganda technique. The whole speech was pounding propaganda. if Roger Cohen starts using "new afrikaners", the media echo will be hard to stop.

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well the good news is it will be hard to hide the essentially antisemitic thrust of "the lobby" argument now. It was always implicit - not because it "criticized Israel" but because it attacked American Jews. Now it's out in the open. Referring to a person like Abe Foxman who's being criticized by some for defending Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, who has always made a principled stand against bigotry as an "Afrikaner" is so over the top wrong it is now impossible to ignore the real thrust of the "lobby" argument. It is plain old antisemitism. This was obvious to me from the get-go and I'm surprised that it's received a respectable audience anywhere. As to those who think Israelis should just move en masse to the US - oh please. Here we are back to the idea that it's ok for a nation to be stateless. This has worked out real well for the Jewish people hasn't it. PS yes what about the OTHER Israelis? Including the Druze, the Bedouin, the Arabs, the less technologically skilled? What exactly would happen to the Israeli Arabs if Israel falls? For modern ideas about open government and secularism in the Middle East? For tolerance of ideas, minorities, women, gays, art that challenges religious and social norms? The Palestinians routinely execute "collaborators" as it is and this includes Fatah members simply for not supporting Hamas and their point of view. It isn't just Israeli Jews who are at risk here.

- Sophia

May 1, 2010 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suggest to you that there is a reason why it is open season time on Jews and it is why Chuck Shumer appealed to the president to stop at once the way he speaks to and about Israel. The reaction, I suspect, is not what Obama had aimed at, which is why we see a lot of back pedaling now. But with this "“New Afrikaners” meme, the genie is out of its bottle.

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What is amazing is that Mearsheimer has tenure at the University of Chicago." Why? You don't get tenure for your political opinions, K2K. You get it by fulfilling the appropriate academic requirements. Presumably he has done that, probably twenty-five years ago after the publication of his book on strategic deterrence with conventional weapons. As a side note, I found his book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" (the only one I've read of his) to be pretty good. You may despise Mearsheimer's political views all you like, but please don't invoke dubious and irrelevant considerations that have an air of guilt-by-association about them. I had my fill of that on TNR boards during the '08 election. It sounds like some people can't even hear "Chicago" without losing control.

- ironyroad

May 1, 2010 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson I agree with your analysis of the further anti semitic implications of this idiotic new "category". It is just flat out ugly and stupid. I will not defend this thinking but as a Blackian Free Speecher, M certainly has the right to make an ass out of himsel. It's just that your defense is a lot more credible than coming from someone who has routinely called people "hustlers" (Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton), "Jew Boy" (David Axelrod), "Hitlerite cog" (George Soros), and on and on. When it comes to name calling, if you're going to throw vitriol, you should expect to take a few shots of your own medicine. If marty were clean on this issue, I would be a lot more offended for him personally, especially because his name in on the list. As it stands, the loud mouth is on his own.

- MrCookie1

May 1, 2010 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

good point about tenure, irony. I have never read anything by either Mearsheimer or Walt until this. The absence of any pretense to scholarship was stunning. I did not even know he was at Chicago until yesterday when I checked. And, my admittedly vague, impression of the University of Chicago is that it is an excellent institution. I always loved visiting Chicago. No idea I was walking into a 'guilt-by-association' trap. I was actually wondering what John D. Rockefeller, the founder of UoC, would be thinking if he saw THIS strand of his philanthropy supporting the credibility of THIS particular speech. and, never paid any much attention to politics until 2004-08, or sought books by political scientists unless they crossed into history (Paul Kennedy), or cultural conflict (Samuel Huntington).

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The transcript of Mearsheimer's talk is here: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/EventDetails/i/9322/pid/223 The video is here: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/EventDetails/display/ContentDetails/i/10418 I am much amused by those whose life work is the invented charge of anti-Semitism or self-hating Jew against anyone who finds their racism and bigotry objectionable complainging about being called out on it. Mearsheimer writes: -- The story I will tell is straightforward. Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans – to include many American Jews – Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream. (my emphaisis) This is so obviously true that even Israeli Prime Minister's has said it. I thought Mearsheimer was too polite in referring to those who advocate the creation of a Greater Israel as AFricaaners. At best they are Zionist Anti-Semites who appese Israeli war crimes because Israel is a "Jewish" state and in doing so seek to share the blame for these war crimes among all Jews. At worst they are Zio-Nazis who seek the continued nationalist (religious) militant oppression of the Palestinian people. They deserve our contempt. It comes as their names are seared into the dark pages of history. Frank Foer is probably down at the gym pounding weights and wondering why he gets no respect for editing The New Republic and publishing any and ever lie he can in support of the Greater Israel. Yeh, yeh - TNR supports the same two-state solution as everyone else even as it does everything in its power to ensure it doesn't happen. Try running backwards on the treadmill, Frank. That way you will see the future - even if you don't get there.

- ndmackenzie

May 1, 2010 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lawrenceG: "noga1 or little ms. Venus The world is a dangerous place. I understand you are Canadian." I don't mean to hijack the discussion but, at the risk of sounding like noga, what do you mean by that? For all but eight of the past seventy years, Canadian armed forces have been in active duty outside Canada, sometimes in war, sometimes in peacekeeping. Canadians know it is a dangerous world out there; we just don't think the answer is to bomb or bully each time.

- icarusr

May 1, 2010 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“But with this "“New Afrikaners” meme, the genie is out of its bottle.” It is, but what is amazing is that he used the term of an ethnic group as an insult. Imagine Mearsheimer calling his enemies “the new Germans,” or “the new Russians.” To use the term Afrikaner as an insult term is in itself bigoted.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nazi mackenzie is baaaaaaaaaaack.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Anti-Defamation League is a ZioNazi front organization that openly supports the occupation denial that is the central goal of ZioNazism. The following response from the "Israel: A Guide for Activists" section of the ADL website shows the ADL parrotting Israeli lies about the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory while ignoring that declaration of every responsible political and legal authority that the Occupied Palestinian Territories are occupied and are subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Inaccuracy Settlements are a violation of international law. Response Settlements, Jewish communities that were established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the territories were gained in the 1967 War, do not violate international law. Israel's administration of the territories in 1967 replaced Jordan’s control of the West Bank and Egypt’s of the Gaza Strip. Neither Jordan nor Egypt had legal sovereignty over these areas, but took them over during the 1948 war with the newly established State of Israel. (According to the U.N. Partition Plan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were to be part of an independent Arab state to be established alongside an independent Jewish state – a plan rejected by Arab nations and Palestinian leadership.) Israel maintains that these areas can thus not be considered “occupied territories” under international law, since Israel did not “occupy” it from another sovereign nation. Rather, they are “disputed territories” over which there are competing claims requiring that their future must be determined through negotiations. Since 1967, Israeli governments have maintained a willingness to withdraw from areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of a peace agreement with the Arabs. Israel uprooted all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip in August 2005 as part of its unilateral disengagement from Gaza. Critics of Israel frequently cite Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of a population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied through the use of armed force, as proof of the illegality of settlements. However, Israel maintains that the Geneva Convention, drafted after World War II, was intended to protect local populations from displacement, such as the forced population transfers experienced before and during the war in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary. The situation in today’s West Bank is clearly different. Israel has not forcibly transferred Israelis to these settlements. Rather, Israeli settlers voluntarily moved to the areas where Jews have historically dwelled. Jews have lived in the West Bank throughout recorded history, until 1948, but they were forced to flee the invading Arab armies. Indeed, several of the current settlement communities existed prior to 1948 when they where overrun by invading Arab armies. For example, Kfar Etzion and other villages in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor fell to Arab forces in May 1948 and those captured were massacred. Sons and daughters of those who lived there until 1948 were the first to return after the 1967 war.
http://adl.org/israel/advocacy/how_to_respond/settlements.asp?xflag=1 John Mearsheimer is right to have nothing but contempt for Abe Foxman.

- ndmackenzie

May 1, 2010 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mearsheimer laid out his/the strategy, which means he has to also discredit any American media voice that has not yet adopted (a preference for) the Palestinian narrative, which would include The New Republic, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. Must have really driven him crazy when Fareed Zakaria stumbled and had Rashid Khalidid and Bret Stephens discussing "peace in the middle east". Mearsheimer wants Roger Cohen instead of Bret Stephens. TNR occupies a unique niche. Intriguing that Mearsheimer did not name AIPAC. "Let me conclude with a few words of advice to the Palestinians about how they should go about turning Greater Israel into a democratic bi-national state. First, it is essential to recognize that the Palestinians and the Israelis are engaged in a war of ideas. ... Second, to win this war the Palestinians will have to adopt the South Africa strategy, which is to say that they will have to get world opinion on their side and use it to put enormous pressure on Israel to abandon apartheid and adopt democracy. ... Third, the Palestinians' most formidable weapon in this war of ideas will be the Internet, ..."

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MrCookie1 “It's just that your defense is a lot more credible than coming from someone who has routinely called people "hustlers" (Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton), "Jew Boy" (David Axelrod), "Hitlerite cog" (George Soros), and on and on.” Marty is an equal opportunity offended. Besides, calling someone like Soros and his father), "Hitlerite cogs" is a specific reference to an individual’s history. The Soros did make a lot of money trafficking in stolen Jewish property under the Nazis. The same with Axelrod, I don’t particularly liked his being called a “Jew boy” (and I said so at the time) it was an attack on an individual and not on a whole community. “When it comes to name calling, if you're going to throw vitriol, you should expect to take a few shots of your own medicine.” Sorry this isn’t right. Had Mearsheimer indulged merely in name calling, you would have a point. However, as I showed above, he did much more than insult a few individuals. You don’t have to agree with Marty or Abe Foxman to see that Mearsheimer’s is guilty of antisemitic bigotry. It’s possible though, jaunty, that your hatred of Marty has so blinded you, that you have lost the ability to think coherently about these issues.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ndmUckenzie "The Anti-Defamation League is a ZioNazi front organization that openly supports the occupation denial that is the central goal of ZioNazism." This says all we need to know about muckenzie's antisemitism. In fact his posts make explicit the logic of Mearhseimer's bigotry.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mack: thanks for posting the truth at 4:00 pm, about the legality of the settlements. Nice change. Gee, I thought Canada made it very clear they understand the world is a dangerous place when they whupped the world on the ice in Vancouver AND avoided the financial meltdown. Oh Canada! You Rule!

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, sometimes I have no idea what you are getting at. Quotes don't speak for themselves. I would rather you explained what you have in mind instead of assuming that everyone can read your thoughts.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hee, hee, jackson, perhaps you are right :)

- MrCookie1

May 1, 2010 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MUckenzie says: "John Mearsheimer is right to have nothing but contempt for Abe Foxman." What the MUCK really meant to say is: 'Mearsheimer "is right" to be an antisemite.'

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I was actually wondering what John D. Rockefeller, the founder of UoC, would be thinking if he saw THIS strand of his philanthropy supporting the credibility of THIS particular speech." Who knows, K2K but it's a university. I think that Mearsheimer's case is very different to e.g. that of Norman Finkelstein, who I think was quite correctly refused tenure at DePaul a few short years ago. Mearsheimer's credentials as a scholar and teacher are both long-standing and impressive, and it might be useful not to forget that if one is engaging in public dispute with him.

- ironyroad

May 1, 2010 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"AND avoided the financial meltdown. " No meltdown, just a very slow thaw...

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Mearsheimer's credentials as a scholar and teacher are both long-standing and impressive," All the more reason why his reckless expressions and interpretations are so confounding. It is the bona fide scholar and teacher who speaketh, or is it the antisemite who can barely contain his bile? Is this "new Africaaners" meme a measure of his scholarliness and teaching talents? Of what worth are all those credentials if this is the use he makes of them?

- noga1

May 1, 2010 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad “Mearsheimer's credentials as a scholar and teacher are both long-standing and impressive, and it might be useful not to forget that if one is engaging in public dispute with him.” They are, but it’s also no uncommon for first rate scholars to go soft in the head, or become entrapped in an idée fixe which makes it impossible for them to think clearly about a subject. I believe that this has happened to Mearsheimer and Walt. They no spend most of their time on a subject which is not their specialty. Does either of them know Arabic or Hebrew? To how much of the primary sources (documents, books, etc) do they have access?

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad “Mearsheimer's credentials as a scholar and teacher are both long-standing and impressive, and it might be useful not to forget that if one is engaging in public dispute with him.” They are, but it’s also not uncommon for first rate scholars to go soft in the head, or become entrapped in an idée fixe which makes it impossible for them to think clearly about a subject. I believe that this has happened to Mearsheimer and Walt. They now spend most of their time on a subject which is not their specialty. Does either of them know Arabic or Hebrew? To how much of the primary sources (documents, books, etc) do they have access?

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: "As to those who think Israelis should just move en masse to the US - oh please. Here we are back to the idea that it's ok for a nation to be stateless." Obviously it's not going to happen. But I do believe it was a mistake to put Israel square in the middle of Arab territory. 3 major religionns (at least) claim Jerusalem....leave the theocratic societies to the muslims, please. But if Israel were in the U.S., the Israeli nation wouldn't be stateless. They would be here. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "the nation".

- OscarPeck

May 1, 2010 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: "As to those who think Israelis should just move en masse to the US - oh please. Here we are back to the idea that it's ok for a nation to be stateless." Obviously it's not going to happen. But I do believe it was a mistake to put Israel square in the middle of Arab territory. 3 major religionns (at least) claim Jerusalem....leave the theocratic societies to the muslims, please. But if Israel were in the U.S., the Israeli nation wouldn't be stateless. They would be here. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "the nation".

- OscarPeck

May 1, 2010 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obviously it's not going to happen. But I do believe it was a mistake to put Israel square in the middle of Arab territory. 3 major religionns (at least) claim Jerusalem....leave the theocratic societies to the muslims, please." You are missing something essential. Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and it's the only place with which Jews from all over the world identify with. A Jewish nation anywhere else would not be a "homeland." You need to do some reading in Jewish cultural and socio-political history. "But if Israel were in the U.S., the Israeli nation wouldn't be stateless. They would be here. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by "the nation"." The US is the one place in the world where no people can constitute itself a separate nation with its own language. Jews can live here as individuals but not as a nation. That may change in the future, but I doubt it. In any case, it's all wishful thinking since most Israelis are not about to abandon their homeland and move here or anywhere else.

- jdyer

May 1, 2010 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "I was actually wondering what John D. Rockefeller, the founder of UoC, would be thinking if he saw THIS strand of his philanthropy supporting the credibility of THIS particular speech." You should consult Edwin Black's "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create A Master Race." 2003 Four Walls Eight Windows. You will discover that John D. Rockefeller's ( Jr. & Sr.) philanthropy included support of the American eugenics movement starting as early as 1912. In the 1930s, the Foundation supported eugenics research in Europe, including Germany. A quote from page 294 of Black's book provides a clue to what Rockefeller funded: "As the thirties opened, many key players in the American eugenics movement continued to support German raceology. In December of 1929, the Rockefeller Foundation began a five- year subsidy of Fischer's German national "anthropology survey" with a donation of $125,000. Although the study was labeled "anthropological," it was in fact racial, eugenic and, in part, directed at German Jewry." Rockefeller money went to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute-a scientific front for Nazi ideology. The KWI has a shocking history in the eugenic work conducted in concentration camps during the Holocaust. There were strong protests by the American Jewish community against Rockefeller Foundation funding of eugenic research by the KWI. I'm not sure what Rockefeller would think about an anti-Semite on the UoC faculty, but I think you have bigger fish to fry and much more to study about Rockefeller money and eugenic research conducted on the Jewish population during and before WWII.

- LawrenceGulotta

May 1, 2010 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Takes a lot to make Marty a sympathetic figure but Mearsheimer's clearly up to the task.

- Lymon1

May 1, 2010 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson, first, let me again wish you the best outcome for your surgery this week. we all hope you will be back with eagle eyes soon. I thank you and noga for further explaining why I was amazed that Mearsheimer is tenured. He uses his academic credentials to become a propagandist. If Mearsheimer says it, it must be true. I have studied John D Rockefeller's philanthropies, especially in education, and I think he would be very disappointed and annoyed by any tenured professor engaging in this kind of propaganda. (see footnote to Lawrence Gulotta's comment on JDR and eugenics) I sometimes follow media echos to see how memes get planted. Apartheid is already planted: Bishop Tutu says so, so it must be true. you wrote at 4:12 "sometimes I have no idea what you are getting at. Quotes don't speak for themselves. I would rather you explained what you have in mind instead of assuming that everyone can read your thoughts." ok, I assume you are referring to my comment at 4:04 where I quoted Mearsheimer from his speech, without noting the source. I really do not want to have to re-read 7,500 words like that a third time. That is cruel and unusual punishment. I was struck by Mearsheimer's repetition of Afrikaner, and my conclusion both times was that this is pure propaganda. My second read focussed on his two lists, and his advice to the Palestinians. The names of his 'righteous', and the names of 'the Afrikaners'. His emphasis on "war of ideas", using the South African strategy to change "public opinion", strategic use of "the internet". Mearsheimer's target market for this phase of the "war of ideas"? quoting him: "...The critical question, however, is: what will happen to those Jews who comprise the great ambivalent middle once it is clear to them that Israel is a full-fledged apartheid state and that facts on the ground have made a two-state solution impossible? ..." He also stresses the "great ambivalent middle" are American secular Jews. I interpret that to include observant Jews who are active Democrats and/or assimilated into American life, not comfortable with the ultra-orthodox. My definition of secular is broader than the inter-married or those who only go to synagogue for the High Holy Days, or celebrate Hanukah and Passover. I thought about the media sources this array of American Jews would be reading because I still believe we read more than the average American. The New York Times has almost completely bought into the Palestinian narrative. The NYT has been my main news source since 1969, no matter where I lived. When I lived in Wisconsin, I still got the Sunday Times even though I had to drive to Appleton to pick it up on Tuesday. As TNR.Reader recently pointed out, TNR is the only magazine that is progressively Democratic, but still sticks to the Israeli historical narrative. It is why I came here, after cancelling The Nation and New York Review of Books. NPR is now leaning into the Palestinian narrative. The PBS stations for NYC/NJ, and Long Island stopped showing the BBC news for awhile, Very refreshing, but the replacement show was recently cancelled. When I saw Khalidi and Stephens on Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN, I was actually somewhat surprised and pleased that Fareed had Stephens. It was a very good discussion. I assume Mearsheimer was not pleased. Therefore, my conclusion is that Mearsheimer named names as "The Afrikaners" to label them as liars, to start trying to destroy their credibility when they write op-eds or appear on news programs. Anyway, that is what I meant as I thought about this. If Israel is seen as dominated by the ultra-orthodox, and ex-Soviet nationalists, the "great ambivalent middle" may be persuadable to abandon support for Israel as a Jewish state. Israel makes it hard for American Jews to make Aliyah because they require proof of matrilineal descent. Is Israel looking like an alien country to the ambivalent American Jews? An unsolveable conflict? I am old enough to know I lost cousins in Auschwitz, and one aunt by marriage was a survivor who never left her room. This phase of the delegitimization campaign is really a problem. The first thing the ANC agreed in the secret meetings depicted in the 2009 film "Endgame" to was to stop the violence. It is astonishing that South Africa is the model that the Palestinians are using, except for Hamas. Footnote: Eugenics was very popular in the United States during that time period. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, it goes on and on. During the time period 1912-1930's, John D Rockefeller did more for African-American education in the segregated South, working with Julius Rosenwald (Sears Roebuck Jew) through their respective foundations, than most historians know about. I do not see Mearsheimer as anti-semitic the way lawrencegulotta does. Another way of confusing what Mearsheimer is doing with this propaganda piece. nice try on destroying my credibility :) good luck jackson! I am pondering Pakistan as a nation with an army or an army with a nation...

- K2K

May 1, 2010 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Prime Minister Olmert: -- If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished, (my emphasis) http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929439.html Defence Minister Barak -- If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic... If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don't, it is an apartheid state. (my emphasis) http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/israel_demography_democracy_or_apartheid And Mearsheimer is excoriated for expressing precisely the same warning in his speech: -- Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a "Greater Israel," which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream.

- ndmackenzie

May 1, 2010 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ndmac: "expressing precisely the same warning"? Honestly, man - Barak and Olmert are speaking in the conditional; Mearsheimer is making an affirmative assertion about what Israel's actions *are* going to be and what *will* happen. Can you not see the difference?

- icarusr

May 1, 2010 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the well wishes, K2K. I'll answer your post tomorrow. I am preparing for eye surgery on Tuesday (I have to take two different kinds of eye drops 4 times a day) and on top of that some water main broke here in Mass and we were told to boil our water and that too has been taking up a lot of time.

- jdyer

May 2, 2010 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr "Ndmac: "expressing precisely the same warning"? Honestly, man - Barak and Olmert are speaking in the conditional; Mearsheimer is making an affirmative assertion about what Israel's actions *are* going to be and what *will* happen. Can you not see the difference?" Exactly, icarus and I doubt that ndmuc knows the difference between the conditional and the indicative mood. Besides, ndmuc, had already posted that comment before, a number of times.

- jdyer

May 2, 2010 at 12:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well Dyer, I guess I just disagree. The world's interest and the major U.S. interest is peace and security...not biblical claims. Like I said, 3 major religions have biblical claims. What is the real basis for an Israeli state. Protection of the religion? I don't see it. Hitler didn't try to exterminate Jews because of "theological differences." He couldn't give a sh## about theology. If Britain had turned Palestine over to the Irish Catholics, do you really think the arabs and muslims would be doing kumbaya with them? Not a chance. They'd have the exact same reaction as they do to the Jews being on that land. To be perfectly blunt, it's white man in brown man's land....and brown man doesn't like it. Today's threat to Jewish people isn't derived from their lack of belief in Jesus or Muhammed. Thus, the U.S. as a safe sanctuary for individuals would be a solid alternative, imo.

- OscarPeck

May 2, 2010 at 2:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I will add, that in addition to an ethnic issue, Arab "elite" fear Israel's status as a democracy. They use religion as a canard...but after all, most of these Arab states are theocracies, so whataever non-theocracy was there, they'd hate.

- OscarPeck

May 2, 2010 at 2:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K "I thank you [JD] and noga for further explaining why I was amazed that Mearsheimer is tenured." !!?? Do we have to go through the same conversation twice? Why are you amazed? Mearsheimer was tenured (I'm making an educated guess) about 25 years ago for work he did in the early 1980s on superpower deterrence. What about that is difficult to understand? His tenure has nothing to do with the fact that you disagree with/reject/hold in contempt political attitudes on Israel that he expresses today -- once again, 25 f***ing years after he got tenure at U of C!

- ironyroad

May 2, 2010 at 3:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson, I read about the big water main break around midnight, just after reading Jill Lepore's "Letter from Boston" in The New Yorker, a history of "tea parties". Boston on my mind. I had no idea you get your water from the Quabbin Reservoir here in the western colonies :) Admit I immediately thought of the repercussions in an election year. yes, well stated icarus. so many examples here of word-twisting-misunderstandings. like my failure to clarifythat I am amazed that anyone would risk their professional reputation, such as a tenured professor of political science, to publish a purely polemical piece of propaganda.

- K2K

May 2, 2010 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems uncanny that, while Mearsheimer talks about “righteous Jews” and "new Africaaners" (you stand in line on the left while you stand in line on the right, Achtung! Schnell, schnell!), some posters go to some trouble to remind us that he is a respected, tenured, well-thought of professor. As if I didn't know! As if this is not the very reason for my shock and dismay! If he were easily identifiable as a proto-Nazi, like wearing a brownshirt and openly advocating the destruction of the Jews, there would be no problem, would there? And he would not be speaking in conferences and getting well-attended platforms from which to fulminate, would he?

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".. some posters go to some trouble to remind us" edit that to: some posters go to some trouble to remind us with noticeable asperity...

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".. the progressive dogma also of the idiots who run to their computers—ignorance in their minds, bile in their hearts—as soon as I post a Spine. Realist Mearsheimer is now among their idols." I do believe this is a comment on some of the commenters here.

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the beginning of this thread, jackson posted this URL but it needs reposting so posters can read what Mearsheimer's own words about his identity as a scholar, from http://volokh.com/2010/04/29/mearsheimer-sinks-even-lower/ "Mearsheimer’s protestation back in 2006: “I don’t have an agenda in the sense of viewing myself as proselytizing or trying to sell this,” Mearsheimer told the Forward. “I am a scholar, not an activist, and I am reticent to take questions from the media because I do believe that this is a subject that has to be approached very carefully.” " [David Bernstein]: "the scholarly content of the piece is a joke....In short, Mearsheimer, ironically, has become the mirror image of the stereotypical pro-lsrael “lobbyist” he decries. One-sided, obsessed with Israel-bashing, willing to sacrifice scholarly standards and honesty to promote his political agenda, and willfully blind to the faults of the side he supports. ..." Meanwhile, Hamas is upset that the Arab League gave Abbas permission to engage in proximity talks. What I am waiting for is confirmation that Abbas, on behalf of Sunni Arab states really did ask China to support sanctions on Iran, so far only reported by DEBKAfile yesterday: "Chinese president Hu Jintao was taken by surprise by the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas's plea to support tough sanctions against Iran's nuclear program when they met in Shanghai Saturday, May 1, debkafile's Middle East sources reveal. He was even more taken aback by the argument that a Middle East war, a realistic peril in the absence of sanctions, would cost the lives of many Palestinians who would find themselves caught between the belligerents. Hu received the Palestinian leader after the gala opening of Shanghai World Expo. According to Chinese sources, Abbas explained that for once, most Arab nations - and the Palestinians, most of all - are ranged on the same side as Israel and the West in their profound anxiety about Iran's nuclear program and the threat it poses of regional violence. Abbas told the Chinese leader that he spoke on behalf of a majority of Arab rulers, in particular, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, United Arab Emirates president Sheikh Khalifa bin Zaed al-Nahyan and King Abdullah II of Jordan. ..." still seeking confirmation of this, but what a great twist to this saga!

- K2K

May 2, 2010 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So Abbass is worried that in killing the Jews, an Iranian nuke will also kill Arabs. How very humanistic of him! A great stride forward in the realm of human rights.

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another overlooked issue here is Mearsheimer's use of "Afrikaner" as essentially a racial slur. Using it as he does in the phrase "New Afrikaner" is equivalent to someone describing the current crop of morally unmoored finance executives as the "New Jews." Not all Afrikaners were or are advocates of Apartheid or racial bigotry. For example, support for de Klerk's policy of dismantling Apartheid was slightly higher among Afrikaner than among English whites in South Africa. So even the name "New Afrikaner" is just another example of the shoddy, unscholarly "thinking" behind The Israel Lobby and Walt & Mearscheimer's subsequent commentary.

- rhubarbs

May 2, 2010 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Another overlooked issue here is Mearsheimer's use of "Afrikaner" as essentially a racial slur." Jackson made this point, earlier: 05/01/2010 - 3:54pm EDT | jdyer “But with this "“New Afrikaners” meme, the genie is out of its bottle.” It is, but what is amazing is that he used the term of an ethnic group as an insult. Imagine Mearsheimer calling his enemies “the new Germans,” or “the new Russians.” To use the term Afrikaner as an insult term is in itself bigoted

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OscarPeck “Well Dyer, I guess I just disagree. The world's interest and the major U.S. interest is peace and security...not biblical claims. Like I said, 3 major religions have biblical claims.” You need to know more about an issue before you decide to agree or disagree, Oscar. So far you have shown very little knowledge of Jewish history and culture. You have made a number of basic errors in you comment above: First that “world's interest and the major U.S. interest is peace…” This is at best a half truth. Since world war two there have been dozens and dozens of wars and conflicts killing million upon millions of people. The US alone has been involved in many of these wars. Hence, it’s hard to sustain the notion that either “the world” or the US in interested in peace. Next, Jews claim to Israel are historic and not Biblical. (Of course religious Jews and some Christians cite the Bible) but this is not what the early secular Zionists relied on. Thirdly, it’s not true that Islam’s claim to the holy land is based on the Bible. Their claim to the Jerusalem is by right of conquest. Hence your comment above has no merit. Next you say: “What is the real basis for an Israeli state. Protection of the religion?” The basis is the right of the Jewish people to live and practice their culture in their historic homeland in their own language. (Religion is only one aspect of that culture.) “I don't see it.” There are a lot of things you don’t see, or know. But his is besides the point. “Hitler didn't try to exterminate Jews because of "theological differences." He couldn't give a sh## about theology.” You are wrong here too. Hitler’s ideology was anti-Judaic which to him meant that the Jewish religion was the source of all evil in the world. As a man of war Hitler saw Judaism as a pacifist religion and pacifism was what he hated most. Read Mein Kampf sometime, Oscar. In any case, from a Jewish point of view there is no theology in Judaism. (Islam has a fixed theology, though they too forbade speculation about the nature of Allah that goes beyond what is in the Koran, but that is another matter.) One can be constructed externally to the religion. But the Jewish sages over the centuries did not speculate about the nature of God as did Christianity. Finally, it doesn’t matter what you think of Israel and Jewish culture. It’s obvious that you think that the Jewish State and hence its culture ought to be abolished. That is your prerogative, but don’t pretend that an act of genocide against the Jews of Israel will bring world peace or even peace to America. It won’t. The opposite is the case.

- jdyer

May 2, 2010 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/warpedmirror/entry/so_which_category_of_jew "The Warped Mirror: So which category of Jew are you?" Posted by Petra Marquardt-Bigman "...So, forget about Israel's Jews, or the Arabs of Mearsheimer's Palestine - it's all about American Jews. ... To illustrate what it takes to make Professor Mearsheimer's "righteous Jews" list, let's pick the example of Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, who wrote in 2007: "There is little doubt that the Nazi Holocaust was as close to unconditional evil as has been revealed throughout the entire bloody history of the human species. [...]Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not." ..." Richard Falk, professor emeritus of INTERNATIONAL LAW at Princeton University? How very reassuring...

- K2K

May 2, 2010 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What was the vision of the early Zionists? In the influential pamphlet, "The Jewish State" Theodor Herzl asks the question, "Palestine or Argentine?" He states, "Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points." "Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the difference of our new movement." "Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty of Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded as assigning to them extra-territorial status as is well known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfillment of this duty with our existence. The guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering." (Page 28, "The Jewish State" Theodor Herzl, Filiquarian Publishing, LLC.) Further: " "But the Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies. As for those who remain behind, since prosperity enfeebles and causes them to diminish, they would soon disappear altogether. I think the Jews will always have sufficient enemies, such as every nation has. But once fixed in their own land, it will no longer be possible for them to scatter all over the world. The diaspora cannot be reborn, unless the civilization of the whole east should collapse: and such a consummation could be feared by none but foolish men. Our present civilization possesses weapons powerful enough for its self-defense." page 92, "The Jewish State." Herzl goes on to mention that the prosperity of the Jewish State will also enrich its neighbors. Finally, I personally I find his proposal for the seven hour day absolutely meaningful to contemporary recession racked industrial economies.

- LawrenceGulotta

May 2, 2010 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Herzl's vision was but one among many visions. As you can see, his own take was very Euro-centric. He even took it as a self-evident premise that the language of the Jewish state would be German. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/maor.html

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"some posters go to some trouble to remind us with noticeable asperity..." Noga, I admit I don't go for the covert asperity option -- it's just too much effort for so little return! But with respect I suggest that you're wrong (if you're referring to me) that my main point of contention was about Mearsheimer's academic status per se. K2K's original question was "how does someone like that get tenure" and I pointed out that (a) it's not for opinions and (b) in JM's he almost certainly got it 25 years ago for his book on deterrence. My larger point if you will was that it's not a good idea, if engaging in attacking and rejecting someone's essentially political/idelogical position on an issue, to propose as an argument that the rest of their work (say, as an academic) is obviously shoddy and unconvincing and therefore their current stance is of a piece with their whole career (or vice versa). Or, at least, it's not always a good idea -- perhaps legitimate in some cases, but less so in others. I think it's a bad idea in this case because it gives the impression that one is working backwards from a dislike for/anger about an individual's current opinions to retrospectively query their past. I didn't say anything at all about the slightly different issue you raise, about Mearsheimer failing to be "easily identifiable as a proto-Nazi, like wearing a brownshirt and openly advocating the destruction of the Jews." That seems to me somewhat extreme, suggesting almost that his opinions are a covert equivalent to advocating such destruction, but I can't look inside his head, so I don't know what drives him.

- ironyroad

May 2, 2010 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "Herzl's vision was but one among many visions. As you can see, his own take was very Euro-centric." It was in part Euro-Centric as you put it, it was also the vision of the enlightenment many of whose principles were affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. From The Jewish Virtual LIbrary: "The Declaration Of The Establishment Of The State Of Israel (May 14, 1948)" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Dec_of_Indep.html "THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

- jdyer

May 2, 2010 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is not extreme to suggest that an author, whose book has been hailed as the modern equivalent of the "Protocols of the elders of Zion", who flagrantly divided Jews into two lines: "Righteous" and "New Africaaners", who counts as Righteous Norman Finkelstein, a Jew that actively urges Hizzballa to attack and kill Israeli Jews, the more the better, and who is very comfortable attributing the most evil conspiracies to Jews, and all under the mantle of respectable academia, is a proto-Nazi. There is nothing covert about Mearsheimer's prescriptions. If you follow his scenarios and readings to their logical ends, you will inevitably bump against destruction of the Jews, one way or another. The only possible quibble is that he has no such ambitions for American Jews. Only Israeli Jews. Once there is no such entity as Israel and its Jews, there will be no problem for him tolerating the presence of American Jews. At least for a while.

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: my comment 04/30/2010 - 11:25pm was : "What is amazing is that Mearsheimer has tenure at the University of Chicago." which is not a question, but a comment. irony at 3:53 pm today"the same as K2K's original question was "how does someone like that get tenure". a difference that makes irrelevant the rest of your comment about my intent, which I reframed at 8:06 am today: "so many examples here of word-twisting-misunderstandings. like my failure to clarify that I am amazed that anyone would risk their professional reputation, such as a tenured professor of political science, to publish a purely polemical piece of propaganda." so, I guess no matter what I write, or how often I apologize for the misunderstanding, you will rephrase as you like. which is not unlike the unscholarly Mearsheimer's "purely polemical piece of propaganda."

- K2K

May 2, 2010 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am amazed that anyone would risk their professional reputation, such as a tenured professor of political science, to publish a purely polemical piece of propaganda." Actually there is no risk involved. Any academic authoring any piece of writing with an anti-Israeli slant can only expect an brilliant career.

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 7:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It was in part Euro-Centric as you put it, it was also the vision of the enlightenment many of whose principles were affirmed in the Declaration of Independence." jackson: I want to thank you for posting Israel's Declaration of Independence. It is not a document I am at all familiar with. However, I fail to understand what is your main point in posting it? And how does it refute the fact that Herzl's vision of the Jewish state did not at first, at least, envision Oriental Jews being part of it? Or have I got that fact wrong?

- noga1

May 2, 2010 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My apologies, K2K, as I did not mean to rephrase you with malice aforethought -- I thought I remembered your words and I didn't check. But there is also such a thing as a distinction without a difference. All I was trying to point out was that Mearsheimer's tenure at Chicago, which was presumably given to him ca. 25 years ago for valid academic work, has no observable relationship to his opinions of today, and therefore is not "amazing" in any way. Secondly -- and a somewhat different issue -- Mearsheimer's not especially putting anything at risk in 2010. Tenure can be withdrawn from a faculty member in the U.S., but usually for some kind of offense that goes beyond the expressing of a political position. It certainly can be withdrawn if it's discovered and proven that the original academic work for which it was awarded was, in fact, fraudulent or plagiarized or otherwise inadequate. This does not, however, seem to be the case with Mearsheimer. It was more the case with Finkelstein at DePaul, where the academic basis for tenure seemed to be simply not there (much as he and his supporters tried to claim he was denied for his political opinions).

- ironyroad

May 2, 2010 at 8:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 “However, I fail to understand what is your main point in posting it? And how does it refute the fact that Herzl's vision of the Jewish state did not at first, at least, envision Oriental Jews being part of it? Or have I got that fact wrong?” I didn’t post it to refute your comment. I posted it to show answer LawrenceGulotta”s question: “What was the vision of the early Zionists?” The vision was varied and involved lots of discussions over many decades. Herzl’s was only one voice among many. It culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel whose vision is expressed in its declaration of independence.

- jdyer

May 2, 2010 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: you made your point the first time. pistols or swords :) I shall let the alumni and administration of the University of Chicago deal with Mearsheimer using his academic affiliation and reputation to provide credibility to earn honorariums (a pure assumption on my part) for extra-curricular propagandizing. Would Mearsheimer and Walt be listened to if they were NOT tenured at elite universities? Would other academics feel as free to echo them? If Henry Ford Senior had been an unknown smalltown newspaper publisher when his Dearborn Independent published "The International Jew" series, no one would have paid much attention. It was Henry Ford Senior's reputation as a highly successful businessman and potential Presidential candidate that gave his newspaper credibility, and why Hitler gave him a medal. btw, it was Ford, Sr.'s hatred of the Federal Reserve Bank (Paul Warburg's blueprint) and the movie industry's impact on loosening morals that made him believe there was an International Jewish conspiracy. "Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate", by Neil Baldwin (PublicAffairs, 2002), ISBN 1586481630 is a good read. My 2005 research paper is unpublished, and I focussed on the Warburg brothers angle, because Max Warburg represented Germany at Versailles, and could thus be later blamed by Hitler for the ruinous reparations, even though Max refused to agree to the treaty. Such is the problem when the truth collides with propaganda. Meryl Yourish does a fine job comparing Mearsheimer's words to Charles Lindbergh (why Roth used Lindbergh as President in "The Plot Against America") at http://www.yourish.com/2010/05/02/10781

- K2K

May 2, 2010 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: "Any academic authoring any piece of writing with an anti-Israeli slant can only expect an brilliant career." maybe. However, you might be surprised at how effective it can be for alumni and/or parents to express concern over anti-Israeli slants in order to restore balance with guest lectures and campus news coverage of those lectures; and tone down the student-on-student intimidation.

- K2K

May 2, 2010 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I'm not getting anywhere near you wielding a rapier.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2010 at 12:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jeff Goldberg has a damning critique of Mearsheimer’s little list: “Mearsheimer's List” http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/mearsheimers-list/39807/ Mearsheimer reminds me also of Ko Ko the Lord High Executioner in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Mikado” who sings “I've Got a Little List” in which he lists all the people he would like to get rid of. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A45xqLHccRo

- jdyer

May 3, 2010 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I made similar points about Mearsheimer which ironyroad labeled as "too extreme". Some thoughts come to mind: Remember Landa, the spectacularly-acted Gestapo officer in Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds"? He is nicknamed “The Jew Hunter” which I took to be a retroactive ironic fast-forward reversal play on the term “Nazi Hunter”. Mearshiemer, in choosing the loaded "Righteous Jews" is playing on the same kind of sensibility. Consider the term, "Chassidey Umot HaOlam" which means for Jews, the righteous persons among the nations of the world, or, more simply known as "Righteous Gentiles". It is a term used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis. I don't think this can be put down to mere coincidence. Think about the depth of the malevolence that would induce a respectable, tenured professor to abuse this term in this perverted way. In the same way "the new africaaners" meme is an echo of the "New antisemites". As a believer in political realism and all that, he must be following the dictates of our very own roidubouloi's by now fabled tactics of "tit for tat", with the "tat" aimed to demonize and dehumanize the perceived opponent in such a way as to induce shock and awe. But there is a silver lining to this. He can no longer pretend that he cares about Israel, as he tried to after the publication of his article and then book. As he has been gathered and enfolded into the bosom of the Palestinian Lobby, the result will be that his positions from now on can only become more radical and more antisemitic in order to keep pleasing his audiences. And accordingly whatever use his ideas might have offered at one time, whatever he offers now will be received with the same disgusted appreciation as those of his "list". Bear in mind that during Finkelstein's pilgrimage to Hizzbulla, it was Lebanese media who challenged his devotion to Hizzballa.

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have seen the name Hezbollah spelled in many different ways, but never in the same sentence: "Bear in mind that during Finkelstein's pilgrimage to Hizzbulla, it was Lebanese media who challenged his devotion to Hizzballa."

- jdyer

May 3, 2010 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does it really matter how you spell Hezbolla?

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, if there is any reason to believe that Mearsheimer's position -- provocative and prejudiced though it may be -- can be read as a direct intellectual equivalent of genocidal Nazi antisemitism, then obviously your extreme descriptions would be appropriate. I'm not sure that that is the case at this moment. Thus, to imply that Mearsheimer is, in some way, Landa, is -- I think -- to enter the danger area of extreme description, where the notion of proportionality is abandoned; and if someone a lot more like Landa were to appear on the scene, the key comparison has already been weakened and emptied of force. But I want to bring up the issue of the "Palestinian Lobby." Are the Palestinians entitled to a lobby? If I support a Palestinian nation-state as a neighbor of Israel's, does that make me part of "the Palestinian Lobby?" I had never thought so (any more than support for Israel put me in the "Israeli Lobby"). Surely, if one envisages a functioning peace plan that works for the Middle East, a Palestinian national home as well as a flourishing Israel will both be central components of it, n'est-ce pas? And therefore to want the Palestinian state to do well, to enable it to create its own national legitimacy and political stability, involves some nation-building and help from abroad, right? What I mean is, is that I see no inevitable degrading or diminution of a strong belief in Israel arising from a desire for a solution in which Palestinians have a state and it succeeds. They are going to need some solidarity too.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2010 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just a clarification/correction: I should have written "parallels" rather than "descriptions" -- you were drawing parallels rather than anything else.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2010 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "Does it really matter how you spell Hezbolla?" Not really since all spelling is a transliteration from another language. Still, you have to admit that it is funny to spell the same transliterated term differently in the same sentence.

- jdyer

May 3, 2010 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad “Noga, if there is any reason to believe that Mearsheimer's position -- provocative and prejudiced though it may be -- can be read as a direct intellectual equivalent of genocidal Nazi antisemitism, then obviously your extreme descriptions would be appropriate.” Why does bigotry have to be the equivalent of the worse case scenario before you condemn it, ironyroad? Is it alright for a David Duke to make nasty comments about Black people if he doesn’t want to enslave them? Besides, there is no direct cause and effect from a bigoted comment about a minority group and action taken against that group. Biological racism started sometime in the 19th century and the worst of its consequences didn’t become apparent till the 1930’s and 40’s.

- jdyer

May 3, 2010 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: I was not drawing a parllel between Landa and Mearsheimer (though it might be an idea worth thinking about, in some way). I was setting up the stage for explaining why I thought Mearsheimer's choice of "Righteous Jews" is so egregious and deliberately malicious. And the more I think about it the more I am convinced that it was not serendipitous but rather well-thought out and fully vindictive. Tarantino's play on the "Nazi hunter" - "Jew hunter" was mischievous and in tune with the general drift of his film. Mearsheimer's play on historical and deeply symbolic terminology is clearly menacing. I'm surprised you cannot see it or that you would be so pissed by my comments that you couldn't even get the gist of my meaning. You can't be that tone-deaf to what Mearsheimer is calling for her, can you? I welcome a Palestinian lobby and if you wish to belong to it, all the power to you. Just be careful who you'll be rubbing shoulders with, as you plead for "a Palestinian national home as well as a flourishing Israel". Yes, good luck with that.

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: "Biological racism started sometime in the 19th century and the worst of its consequences didn’t become apparent till the 1930’s and 40’s." It is possible that biological racism would never have been convincing enough for so many in Germany, and elsewhere by the 1930's. Too many asimilated Jews without visible "racial characteristics". I still maintain it was Henry Ford Senior's series on "The International Jew" in the 1920's that provided the credible propaganda platform for Hitler's Final Solution. When one reads "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the language alone makes it easy for an educated person to dismiss. "The International Jew" series became the highly believable re-write of the Protocols.

- K2K

May 3, 2010 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Biological racism has been around for much longer than that, with the Spanish Inquisition's invention of a parameter by which to keep Jews away "limpieza de sangre". The Germans improved upon it by removing all traces of religion from the equation. It was the politically correct way of speaking about Jews. So long as the discussion was conducted in a scientific manner; hating people for their religion had been disqualified by the ideas of the enlightenment. It was wrong to hate the Jew because he refused to accept Jesus but it was alright to remove him from society for his racial inferiority. It was no more than the good of the nation demanded.

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "It is possible that biological racism would never have been convincing enough for so many in Germany, and elsewhere by the 1930's." Anything is possible, but I don't get the connection between the above sentence and the following one. "Too many asimilated Jews without visible "racial characteristics"." "I still maintain it was Henry Ford Senior's series on "The International Jew" in the 1920's that provided the credible propaganda platform for Hitler's Final Solution. When one reads "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the language alone makes it easy for an educated person to dismiss. "The International Jew" series became the highly believable re-write of the Protocols." Germany and Austrai had flourishing antisemitic traditions and didn't need Henry Ford's articles to tell them that Jews were "undesirables."

- jdyer

May 3, 2010 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Mearsheimer's position -- provocative and prejudiced though it may be -" The use of "provocative" in this context reminds me of how the BBC once characterized Ahmadinejad's fulminations against Israel as "trenchant criticism": http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/trenchant_criti.html

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, if you write "Remember Landa, the spectacularly-acted Gestapo officer in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds? He is nicknamed 'The Jew Hunter' which I took to be a retroactive ironic fast-forward reversal play on the term 'Nazi Hunter'" followed immediately by "Mearshiemer [sic], in choosing the loaded "Righteous Jews" is playing on the same kind of sensibility," I don't think anyone could be blamed for inferring a parallel being drawn. But if you say you didn't, then you didn't. Assuming a certain kind of parallel could be drawn, however, then it may be legitimate -- I hadn't quite understood your reading of the "Righteous" designation, and vindictiveness on Mearsheimer's part may indeed be an implicit purpose. Although Landa names himself to some extent in Basterds -- he engages in an interpretive reading of his own title, rather than that of others. But presumably a key distinction is that Landa is subjectively a loyal Nazi, if a witty and literate one, while Mearsheimer is (I'm guessing) subjectively a critical intellectual trying to move American public opinion. No, bigotry doesn't have to be e.g. mass murder to be condemned, absolutely not, and I don't know how you read that into my comment, which was about the type and intensity of the condemnation and the danger of using up one's ammunition on a shadow. "I welcome a Palestinian lobby and if you wish to belong to it, all the power to you." Hah hah! Thanks. But I though my point was fairly clear, that I didn't so wish, precisely because it has the same hostile/dismissive inflection as "Israeli Lobby." If I'm to take your "good luck with that" as a dismissal of the vision of an Israeli and a Palestinian state as neighbors, it makes me wonder what your preferred solution is . . . ? It seems a bit too easy to flip the bird at my openly expressed ideas while leaving yours shrouded in discretion.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2010 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, if you write "Remember Landa, the spectacularly-acted Gestapo officer in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds? He is nicknamed 'The Jew Hunter' which I took to be a retroactive ironic fast-forward reversal play on the term 'Nazi Hunter'" followed immediately by "Mearshiemer [sic], in choosing the loaded "Righteous Jews" is playing on the same kind of sensibility," I don't think anyone could be blamed for inferring a parallel being drawn. But if you say you didn't, then you didn't." I don't see how anyone with your superior reading skills and a hawk's eye for zooming in on typos and flagging them could have misread my comment. But I see from reading the rest of your comment that you continue to misunderstand what I'm saying. Once again, I have to wonder why and how all of a sudden your reading comprehension skills desert you when you peruse my comments.

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh all right, I'll try again: I said this: I welcome a Palestinian lobby and if you wish to belong to it, all the power to you. Just be careful who you'll be rubbing shoulders with, as you plead for "a Palestinian national home as well as a flourishing Israel". Yes, good luck with that. A Palestinian Lobby would be welcome by me (since it would remove the perception of asymmetrical power relations between Jews and Arabs in the US). If you were to belong to it, then I warn you to be careful about whom you'll be meeting and associating with. One-staters, antisemites, and would-be genociders and such have been known to congregate around pro-Palestinian advocates. If you were to belong to such a lobby, and you would be pleading for "a Palestinian national home as well as a flourishing Israel", then I wish you good luck with that since the odds that anyone would wish to listen to you (in the Palestinian Lobby) are rather slim if not null. That's what I meant, and that's what you should have been able to understand if you removed those suspicious antenae from your mind. As for my "preferred solution" I have described it a few times and I know for a fact that you read it because you responded to it. So once again I must wonder what your beef is really about. BTW, I sense in your reluctance to criticize Mearshmyer [sic] that you may discern some merit in what he says. Care to share your thoughts?

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice", the ultimate guide to interpretation of competing narratives in the English language. apologies in advance to ironyroad, who should try to think of Austen's characters, male and female, as universal archetypes not necessarily gender-specific stereotypes. Miss Jane Bennett, ch. 16: "I had not thought Mr. Darcy so bad as this— though I have never liked him. I had not thought so very ill of him. I had supposed him to be despising his fellow-creatures in general, but did not suspect him of descending to such malicious revenge, such injustice, such inhumanity as this." Darcy, ch. 18: "Mr. Wickham is blessed with such happy manners as may ensure his making friends— whether he may be equally capable of retaining them, is less certain." Elizabeth to Jane Bennett, on Mr. Collins, ch. 24: ""You shall not, for the sake of one individual, change the meaning of principle and integrity, nor endeavour to persuade yourself or me, that selfishness is prudence, and insensibility of danger security for happiness." " Narrator Austen, ch. 24: "Miss [Jane] Bennet was the only creature who could suppose there might be any extenuating circumstances in the case, unknown to the society of Hertfordshire; her mild and steady candour always pleaded for allowances, and urged the possibility of mistakes..." imho, Mearsheimer is worse than Wickham.

- K2K

May 3, 2010 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I hadn't quite understood your reading of the "Righteous" designation," You could make an effort, if you are not familiar with the term. If you google "Righteous Jews" you may find a website which uses the term the way Mearsheimer does (I have no interest in promoting antisemitic, Holocaust-denying blogs which is why I'm not offering a link).

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"imho, Mearsheimer is worse than Wickham." In order to agree with you, one would have to fully understand the threat that lurks in Wickham's corruption and his potential to cause untold damage to innocent honest people.

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson: "Germany and Austrai (sic) had flourishing antisemitic traditions and didn't need Henry Ford's articles to tell them that Jews were "undesirables."" agreed. so did the Soviet Union, Poland, Britain, France, and the United States, to name a few. Byelorussia and Ukraine should have been the historic wellspring of Hitler's ideology. but, to conduct state sponsored full scale financial looting and industrialized genocide needed more than cartoons of vermin, and historic cultural acceptance of anti-semitism. Key Nazis, including Hitler, admitted the influence of Ford Sr.'s 1920's publishings on their thinking, and later actions. This is not a story that gets much publicity despite the evidence, but that does not mean it is not an essential stage in the historical arc of antisemitism, and of the Final Solution narrative. And Israel is the new proxy, because it would be too politically incorrect for anyone to start blaming Goldman, Sachs for global financial instability, or Steven Spielberg for immodest women causing earthquakes. There is a micro-industry trying to prove Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. (bagpipes playing in the background as the credits roll)

- K2K

May 3, 2010 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"imho, Mearsheimer is worse than Wickham." noga: "In order to agree with you, one would have to fully understand the threat that lurks in Wickham's corruption and his potential to cause untold damage to innocent honest people." To be honest, I have never quite understood Wickham's motivation in his seduction of Lydia. I was solely responding to Darcy's "Mr. Wickham is blessed with such happy manners as may ensure his making friends— whether he may be equally capable of retaining them, is less certain." Perhaps Mearsheimer has gone too far with this speech???? besides, this thread sorely needed Austen :) dandelion alert!

- K2K

May 3, 2010 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lydia did not need much by way of seducing. She was a low-hanging fruit. As were all those others who fell for him.

- noga1

May 3, 2010 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A different species of low-hanging fruit for the literary-inclined who speak Hannah Arendt: here is "RJ" Roger Cohen's epiphany on finally (?) understanding "What was it like? ... in the leafy Grunewald neighborhood to watch your Jewish neighbors — lawyers, businessmen, dentists — trooping head bowed to the nearby train station for transport eastward to extinction?..." an epiphany from reading/reviewing (?) Hans Fallada’s “Every Man Dies Alone”. That opening alone, the single phrase "trooping head bowed", reveals volumes of his ignorance of the Shoah. Reminds me of a dear, 30-something French friend, who refused to believe anything depicted in the film "Schindler's List" because she could not believe people were capable of such evil. Roger Cohen has no excuse for his ignorance. Is it a pre-requisite to be a Mearsheimer Righteous Jew to be so completely ignorant of Jewish history? To be so post-modern that history starts today? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.html?hp I hear Herman Wouk pounding his fist, in anger.

- K2K

May 4, 2010 at 12:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, if you genuinely want to have a discussion sometime, let me know. If so, that will involve each of us reading and responding to what the other actually wrote, fortunately or unfortunately. Other than that, ONCE AGAIN, I don't respond to deliberate misreading or pointless provocation.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2010 at 1:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, Nogal, just to emphasize that I'm not being obtuse or retreating for the sake of it: You say: "If you were to belong to such a lobby, and you would be pleading for "a Palestinian national home as well as a flourishing Israel", then I wish you good luck with that since the odds that anyone would wish to listen to you (in the Palestinian Lobby) are rather slim if not null." Why so? Isn't that what almost everyone knows has to be the solution? Has anyone with any sense or reality actually argued that a failed Israel is the best option for an independent Palestine? I mean, what I don't get is that, by your reading, one is obliged to be trapped in the most negative vision of developments because not to be so trapped is a kind of betrayal of thought? I find that somewhat disturbing, as clearly a "flourishing" or at least functional Israel would be crucial for a Palestinian state. This is what rhubarbs meant, I think, by saying that Marty's posts walk us up to the moment of idea and then back away so we are left with feelings but no real judgments or balanced evaluations. I'm interested in ideas for solutions, and not only the poetry of failure.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2010 at 2:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I find that somewhat disturbing, as clearly a "flourishing" or at least functional Israel would be crucial for a Palestinian state." Why are you saying this to me? It's the Palestinians you need to talk to about what will serve their better good. Can you provide a quote from any Palestinian leader, intellectual, journalist or teacher who will agree that a " functional Israel would be crucial for a Palestinian state." ? (Aside from Toameh, and Sari Nusseibeh, that is). You did not answer my question about Mearsheimer and merit. Instead you said: "if you genuinely want to have a discussion sometime, let me know.". Do you really think it is I that don't wish to have a discussion? If you don't like the tone of my comments, and you actually want to talk, try not to annoy me with [sic]s and such which I know is not really your style, except when you wish to sneer without the appearance of an open sneer. (You probably think you are above all that stuff and usually you are, but then sometimes you are not, at which point I get very curious as to what exactly triggered the sneer).

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 8:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

maybe ironyroad can read this assessment of the one bi-national state versus two state solution to gain insight into the division within the "Palestinian Lobby". The main point missing is the Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish State named Israel, but otherwise a balanced look at the issue from someone who is clearly not on Mearsheimers "Righteous Palestinian" list to be revealed in his next lecture (?): from: "Road to a one-state solution is paved with good intentions" Emile Hokayem, Political Editor, "...One-state advocates, overwhelmingly idealistic non-Palestinians or non-Israelis in search for a romantic cause, see themselves walking in the footsteps of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. In reality, they are projecting onto the Palestinian people their own expectations and ideals. It is abhorrent for right-wing Americans to subsidise Israeli expansionism. But it also should not be up to students in California, professors in London and Arab émigrés in the West, however well-meaning, to dictate the peaceful outcome that Palestinians should accept. ..." http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100504/OPINION/705039920/1080

- K2K

May 4, 2010 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is this from Ibishblog, too: "What Mearsheimer fails to see is that while it's true that extremists in the pro-Israel lobby are assisting Israel in its journey towards oblivion by counseling or enabling permanent occupation, he is performing the same Kevorkian-style tender mercy for the Palestinians by counseling and enabling the abandonment of efforts to end the occupation. Telling the Palestinians that they are doomed for a certain, probably long, term to endure formalized apartheid and there isn't really anything they can do to avoid that, but that in the long run they basically don't have to do much of anything for their national project to triumph since Israel will inevitably self-destruct is about as unhelpful, unrealistic and disempowering as anything I can imagine. It's been my long-standing suspicion that while Mearsheimer clearly doesn't like the pro-Israel lobby, he doesn't seem to really understand, or even care that much about the well-being of, the Palestinian people. That Mearsheimer is using them and their cause as a foil in his ongoing feud with the pro-Israel lobby, which he has been at odds with for so long he is starting to resemble, all but confirms this." http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/04/30/mearsheimers_unhelpful_unrealistic_and_disempowering_message_palestinains I used to dislike Ibish once because he sounded like Rashid Khalidi. But I was very gratified to learn more recently that his thinking and understanding have matured and evolved so now he sounds much more like my favourite Palestinian, Sari Nusseibeh.

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: the commenters are (mostly) chipping away at Roger Cohen's bizarre op-ed on Nazi Germany. I figure it is Cohen's pivot to earning his "Righteous Jew" status. Instead, he offers evidence that the only "Righteous Jew" is a secular post-modern with a Jewish last name. Tip of my hat to JG at http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/ for his excellent comment that pivots to Cohen's hypocrisy about Iran.

- K2K

May 4, 2010 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I Just noticed that ironyroad shared his views about Mearsheimer's list in Chait's thread about the subject. But he wouldn't stoop to sharing them here, with me, even though I asked.

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I wasn't trying to hide them. Here it is again: "The comparison with South Africa under Nationalist Party rule is also designed to be provocative without offering evidence that the comparison makes any sense whatsoever. The RSA was a country ruled by a tiny minority whose status consisted of their whiteness (indeed, a particular branch of whiteness marked by Anglophobic colonial resentments), to distinguish them from the massively larger black majority, who were for the greater part of the apartheid era effectively denied citizenship in their own country. Segregated structures in every sphere of life from courts to transport to education to puppet "bantustans" marked a nation whose raison d'etre was white supremacy. One can be completely against Israeli rule in the Occupied Territories -- as I am -- without descending into the conspiratorial delusions that have Israel, possibly the most diverse political culture in the entire Middle East, equivalent to South Africa in 1960." So why you read this and then practically in the next breath accuse me of "seeing merit" in Mearsheimer's thesis, I don't know. I've been accused of some things but never schizophrenia! K2K, I didn't plan to get into one-state/two-state arguments because my original (very limited) point was about how JM's academic status was becoming a feature of the discussion in a way that worried me, and my poking around the issue of the "Palestinian Lobby" and exploring the potential meaning of a solution was triggered by Noga's use of the phrase (you can read back). I did however probably launch, without clear intention, a discussion about whether a desire for the failure of the other, in a projected two-state model, is productive or even rational. I was being somewhat more abstract than perhaps warranted, but it does strike me that one slightly analogous situation is Ireland and Britain: while Irish nationalism never expressed the thought, it seems to me there was an implicit recognition among many of the smarter people that the relationship between the UK and a future independent Ireland would be a very important one. If a U.S. Palestinian lobby (such as it is) could do any good, it would be also to help Palestinians see beyond the next political blind alley to an actual relationship that, while fraught, might ultimately be more useful than those with Arab neighbors.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2010 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So why you read this and then practically in the next breath accuse me of "seeing merit" in Mearsheimer's thesis, I don't know" It makes sense that you would assume that I read your Chait comment first and then, in the next breath accused you of "seeing merit" in Mearsheimer's thesis (which I didn't. I asked to know if you saw any merit). It makes sense that you should think me such a poseur and a hypocrite.

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why does it make sense? I could just as well ask why you had to wait to read the Chait column comment at all before grasping where I stood. There was a long and bitter exchange back on the old CR site about exactly that S. Africa/Israel parallel and I'd have thought you might have recalled that you and I and others shared arguments when taking it down. I don't think you're a hypocrite. I don't know about the "poseur" thing, but as I'm given to tending that way myself at times, I'd probably feel a tremor of empathy if you did also.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2010 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...why you had to wait to read the Chait column comment at all before grasping where I stood." Because I didn't know and you wouldn't say, even when I asked. I don't remember the exchange on CR and it doesn't matter anyway since people change their minds.

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not a poseur. It's a waste of time and energy. And why would anyone want to be a poseur?

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Considering your excellent memory for posts going back years (especially longer discussions among several people), that surprises me a little. But ok. And you're not a poseur -- fine. I didn't level such an accusation or even bring up the term, you did. You have an odd habit at times of introducing a negative slur or descriptor of some kind into the discussion yourself, imputing it to your interlocutor, and then indignantly rejecting it.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2010 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Memories, no matter how excellent, are always selective and manipulated. For example, I always remembered the end of Casablanca one way and was very surprised when I saw the movie for the first time after 20 years to find it had a very different ending. I suppose you now will complain that I introduced the possibility that I'm a liar, and am imputing to you the unpleasant suspicion that I'm not telling the truth (as per "...that surprises me a little. But ok.")

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: "K2K, I didn't plan to get into one-state/two-state arguments..." I know. I was solely trying to suggest that the "U.S. Palestinian lobby (such as it is)" does NOT generally include the "two-state argument" in their narrative. Hope you both got a chance to read Birnbaum's "Human Rights watch Fights a Civil War Over israel" in the May 13 issue. Lovely day outside for reading print on paper. and very instructive on how competing narratives are shaped in groups.

- K2K

May 4, 2010 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not lovely here at all. Grey, humid, hot, oppressive.

- noga1

May 4, 2010 at 6:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I suppose you now will . . ." How about you just ease up on the supposing, Noga? That's 90% of the problem. You invent things that you impute to me, which you then reject as a vicious and groundless insult despite the fact that you were the one who thought them up! K2K, I was interested in what you were sketching out regarding models for future solutions -- I confess to not even thinking of a Pal Lobby as a real existing entity (at least a coherent entity) in the U.S. until now. If there is one, then it would obviously be crucial what their pitch to Congress, to the media, to the public, would be. You emphasize that they generally don't focus on a two-state solution. Do they cling to the old "Israelis into the sea" line? Surely not. I'm in the middle of the Birnbaum piece now, coincidentally. And it's a glorious evening too.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2010 at 7:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, the 'Pal Lobby' mostly pitches the U.N., and the media, and NGOs, and other governments in various ways. I am not sure what you think of as a Pal Lobby even represents the Palestinian people. But, the Hamas Charter insists on one Islamic State. Not sure how you agree to two states when it is so impossible for so many to acknowledge the existing state of Israel. It is common enough for a pro-palestinian activist to dismiss the problem of six+ million Israeli Jews. some actually say they all have to leave, 'move them to Long Island.' the basis for the palestinian narrative is that the creation of Israel as a Jewish State was illegal neo-colonialism. I found it interesting that Mearsheimer never named AIPAC in this speech. I never read his book with Walt. I already got sanctioned by jackson for hinting at my personal solution in a previous thread :) sorry noga has such miserable weather.

- K2K

May 5, 2010 at 1:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw irony, I have a small collection of atlases and globes. my oldest globe shows Israel and Transjordan, but not Pakistan, and most of Africa as colonial, which is curious because Pakistan was created in 1947, and Israel in 1948. I have a 1942 Atlas that shows the British Mandate of Palestine, which is what most Palestinians still want. Palestine had 1,467,000 people and 10,155 sq mi. Transjordan had 325,000 people and 16,222 sq mi. Syria, including it's coastal province of Lebanon is 76,197 sq mi with 3,216,567 people. the power of a 1942 map...

- K2K

May 5, 2010 at 1:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mearsheimer has a new headache: who makes his list of "Righteous Hindus"? The "Indo-Israeli Lobby" or "Jewish-Hindu lobbies", led by the U.S., also known as the Zionist-Hindu-Crusader Alliance, gains traction in Pakistan: May 4, 2010: http://www.apakistannews.com/indo-israeli-nexus-sabotages-world-peace-181029 "...However, all these measures are proving fruitless due to a deliberate anti-Muslim campaign, launched by the Indo-Israeli lobbies, creating obstacles in global cultural cooperation which is essential for global peace. America and its allies continue to kill many innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Palestine through heavy aerial bombardment and ground shelling in the name of war on terror. US-led Indo-Israeli forces have been using every possible technique of state terrorism in these territories which have become the breeding grounds of a prolonged interaction between freedom fighters and state terrorists, sabotaging world peace. ..."

- K2K

May 5, 2010 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judging from the rhetorical style and syntax of that paragraph you quoted, K2K, the guy in the Trotskyite group back in London in the 1970s who wrote the political analysis seems to have found a later career. "the cynical maneuvers of the bourgeoisie and their intellectual parasitic hangers-on have proven one more time if proof were needed that only uncompromising and combative resistance by the organized working class led by a genuine worker's party to defend their interests and advance socialism will have any real concrete effects at this stage of advanced international capitalsm. The so-called 'Labor' Party on the other hand which has in fact betrayed the working classes in every generation . . ." Come to think of it, there were a few Pakistanis in that group back then . . .

- ironyroad

May 5, 2010 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yeah irony. reading all of the U.S. media spin Faisal Shahzad into a credentialed TERRORIST* is just as bad as reading all this Hindu-Zionist-Crusader propaganda. *The latest NYT update has Shahzad "allegedly from Kashmir", prompting me to ask:"Are all New York Times reporters graduates of the Judith Miller School of Spin?" So, how about a betting pool on the next topic that bugs Peretz out? :) I think the Brandeis University controversy over whether historian and current Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren should be commencement speaker. Hallucinating that HE got to have lunch with Obama instead of Elie Wiesel? Would a blog devoted to Jane Austen improve his Google rank?

- K2K

May 5, 2010 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

for the record...One of Mearsheimer's named afrikaners, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, tackles Mearsheimer's revisionist historical narrative, http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/harris/entry/mearshimer_s_mere_slime_posted concluding with: "...If John Mearsheimer actually cares a whit about Israel, why does he admire so many people who want it to disappear? Mearsheimer has long ago lost any semblance of academic stature on the Middle East - if he ever had it. Instead, he has turned himself into a maniacally obsessed cheerleader for the most rabid anti-Israel voices. Fortunately, his impact on the real Middle East is nil. But tragically, his impact on impressionable students passing through his university classroom is daily."

- K2K

May 6, 2010 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Harris's qualified ad hominem argument is what I was talking about earlier. My problem is that it assumes that just because someone has radically different views to you on one matter, and they are wrong/evil, then all their other views must be wrong/evil too. I'll go out on a limb here and say that it's very unlikely that Mearsheimer's classes at U of C are all about the Middle East. Just because his views aren't Harris's doesn't mean he still doesn't have something worth imparting (as I noted earlier, his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is pretty good imo). http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/teaching.html

- ironyroad

May 6, 2010 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (quoted on wiki): "Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive." "Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to become hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive." "Misguided" - " guided in the wrong direction Netanyahu's policies seem to be anchored in the same kind of offensive realist prognosis. He does not assume Israel is positioned as having enough power to survive in the Middle East and he is sticking to what he considers to be Israel's vital interests in maintaining its hegemony in the region. If anyone reads Mearsheimer's theories and then compares them with what he was preaching to a Palestinian advocacy audience one might come away with the impression that his prescribed "solutions" were indeed intending towards bringing about the destruction of Israel. He is like a physician who has to care for a poisoned patient. He knows that the best way to cure his patient is to administer the antidote. Instead, he is speaking to the poisoned patient's enemies, explaining to them that if the patient does not get the life-saving antidote, he will eventually die and cease to be a problem for them. All they need to do is just wait.

- noga1

May 6, 2010 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since David Harris was specifically named by Mearsheimer, I think Harris can fling an ad hominem argument back at him. I thought Harris did a good job in the body of his blogpost rebutting Mearsheimer's fractured history, which was the sole point of my adding the link to this thread, since Harris is the first to actually rebut Mearsheimer's fractured history in print. It matters what and how ANY teacher teaches their students. Consider the debate about the teaching of creationism versus Darwinism that continues to rage in America. In Berlin, the ""Topography of Terror" documentation center opened on Thursday in Berlin at the site of the former Gestapo and SS headquarters. ... "...And they surrounded themselves by men who didn't necessarily fit into today's stereotype of a Nazi war criminal, neither boorish sadists nor bloodless bureaucrats. They were ambitious university-educated men, aged around 30 and more likely to be ideologues than technocrats. ..." http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,693373,00.html leaving unanswered what universities, and what professors, taught the educated SS and Gestapo bureacrats who drafted and executed the Final Solution.

- K2K

May 6, 2010 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad's defense of Mearsheimer sounds to be very much like Berry Scheck's tactics in defending OJ Simpson. Instead of dealing with the evidence, he went after the man who collected the evidence trying to discredit him as a sloppy lab worker who collected tainted samples thus discarding whatever could be learned from them into the dustbin. Likewise our resident eiron is trying to change the topic of the conversation. It's not what Mearsheimer said that deserves the scrutiny but those who criticize him that get his gimlet analysis.

- noga1

May 6, 2010 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is Harris's "ad hom": "Just when you think he can't outdo himself for shoddy scholarship and sheer chutzpah, he surprises. His co-authored screed on the "Israel Lobby," replete with dark images of a conspiracy perpetrated on American foreign policy by sinister pro-Israel forces, was bad enough. Reviews were scathing, and rightly so. Now Mearsheimer has reached new heights of ignorance and ignominy." Nowhere does he mention Mearsheimer's scholarship in relation to a book written and published before 2001. It is clearly in reference to "Israel Lobby" that Harris denigrates Mearsheimer's pretensions as "shoddy scholarship and sheer chutzpah". And there have been enough rebuttals of that book to render this judgment as quite plausible. And can this clearly angry assessment be defined as "ad hom"? It's not the man himself that he attacks, but his evil productions. It's not like Mearsheimer, who, being a scholar and a respected professor, was calling some of hismore vocal critics "New Africaaners" with the intent of suggesting they were swaggering unconscienable racists.

- noga1

May 6, 2010 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"ironyroad's defense of Mearsheimer sounds to be very much like Berry Scheck's tactics in defending OJ Simpson." A faulty perception, if so. I'm not in any way defending Mearsheimer's position or suggesting that attacking it is wrong (indeed, I've attacked it myself and had to repost my comment to make it clear), but I am pointing out that a line of argument that seeks to retrospectively delegitimize a person's work in order to prospectively give extra force to a critique of a person's current opinions is not (in my opinion at least) a good way to go. There is also the question of autonomy of teaching and research as part of the American academic deal. We are not in Nazi Germany with its "Gleichschaltung" (integration or coordination) of university education and NSDAP ideology, and I don't know what anyone gains by implying parallels that have no basis in reality. K2K, I said "qualified" ad hominem -- it's not an attack on the individual per se, but it does have some similar characteristics. Maybe I'm a bit sensitive on this issue but "It matters what and how ANY teacher teaches their students" is somewhat of a red rag. What and how I teach my students is none of your damn business.

- ironyroad

May 6, 2010 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What and how I teach my students is none of your damn business." That seems a bit extreme and unduly defensive, no? Can a teacher can teach anything? That the world was created in 6 days? That the earth is flat? That women are inferior to men? That the Holocaust did not happen? I mean, actually teach students that the "Protocols" is an authentic document? And it is nobody's business at all? As I pointed out, Harris did not, most emphatically, attack a person's record of work except as it pertains to the subject of Israel. Where, in my humble opinion, he (Harris) is on pretty firm ground. Show me where he delegitimizes Measheimer's record on the book had written in 2001.

- noga1

May 6, 2010 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, neither extreme nor unduly defensive. Just drawing a line in the sand. However, just to clarify: the autonomy of teaching and research doesn't mean the unaccountability of T and R. I'm pretty sure Chicago has fairly rigorous tenure and promotion procedures in place (and has had so for a long time) for academic work, and that teaching -- possibly even classes by senior faculty -- is regularly observed and reviewed. Also, some perspective might suggest that a professor that teaches deliberately skewed or ideologically fanatical material, or is clearly not up to the job, is not going to have students queuing up to take his or her classes. And no, it's really none of K2K's business -- likewise, I don't presume to lecture him on what he does or how he does it.

- ironyroad

May 6, 2010 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...some perspective might suggest that a professor that teaches deliberately skewed or ideologically fanatical material, or is clearly not up to the job, is not going to have students queuing up to take his or her classes." There can be a multitude of reasons why students would queu up to take a certain professor's class. And many of them would have nothing to do with a thirst for knowledge.

- noga1

May 6, 2010 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your given reason for a professor's popularity as bona-fide validation of his scholarly worth is not very reassuring. The best professor I ever had, unparalleled and unmatched in terms of the breadth and depth and rigour of his knowledge, never had students "queuing" to take his courses. I suppose that would be, for you, proof enough that he " teaches deliberately skewed or ideologically fanatical material". I mean, if it works as some sort of proof in one direction ("a professor that teaches deliberately skewed or ideologically fanatical material, or is clearly not up to the job, is not going to have students queuing up to take his or her classes.") it ought to work as proof in the opposite direction as well, no?

- noga1

May 6, 2010 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K repeats :" It matters what and how ANY teacher teaches their students." I do not believe I can be more generally universal, and universally general than that. David Harris was specifically named by Mearsheimer. Harris is #2 on Mearsheimer's list, and has every right to criticize Mearsheimer's revisionist history in this speech, rather than remain silent as so many students and teachers are, especially since the Gaza Cast Lead campaign; intimidated into silence in their classrooms and lecture halls across the West. The current example at Brandeis University over Michael Oren as commencement speaker is about this intimidation, that I have witnessed on three other college campuses. (Personal note: Just try to teach slavery as an economic issue anywhere in America!) In Mearsheimer's own words, copied directly from the text of this speech: "...On the other side we have the new Afrikaners, who will support Israel even if it is an apartheid state. These are individuals who will back Israel no matter what it does, because they have blind loyalty to the Jewish state. This is not to say that the new Afrikaners think that apartheid is an attractive or desirable political system, because I am sure that many of them do not. Surely some of them favor a two-state solution and some of them probably have a serious commitment to liberal values. The key point, however, is that they have an even deeper commitment to supporting Israel unreservedly. The new Afrikaners will of course try to come up with clever arguments to convince themselves and others that Israel is really not an apartheid state, and that those who say it is are anti-Semites. We are all familiar with this strategy. I would classify most of the individuals who head the Israel lobby's major organizations as new Afrikaners. That list would include Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Ronald Lauder of the World Jewish Congress, and Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America, just to name some of the more prominent ones. ..."

- K2K

May 6, 2010 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I went to the trouble of reposting my comment SPECIFICALLY expressing my forceful rejection of Mearsheimer's South African analogy in order to make clear even to the dimmest bulb that this conversation is not about the content of his speech, but about my unease at the way his academic career in general was being brought into the discussion. If this last post is addressed to me in any way, then we are seriously not communicating. Again, what and how I teach my students is none of your damn business. I already am under extensive systems of review and accountability, so the requirement that you stick your nose into my professional affairs is not one I see, right this minute.

- ironyroad

May 6, 2010 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I did not KNOW you were a teacher, ironyroad. you are overly defensive to even think I want to make it a "requirement that you stick your [my] nose into my [your] professional affairs." Is it a Democratic Party mindset that a general statement is immediately turned into a legal requirement? Mearsheimer's academic status is the only reason anyone takes his extra-curricular rants seriously. Fair game. He must be a very bad teacher, stifling dissent, seeking acolytes.

- K2K

May 6, 2010 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Professor Mearsheimer and His Useful Jews: An American political scientist talks in terms reminiscent of Tsarist Russia." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222580743250128.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

- jdyer

May 6, 2010 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Jackson, glad to read elsewhere how you are recovering. The WSJ certainly makes it annoying, but you can get the full text by googling the author's name and a word from the title. The other WSJ op-eds by Peggy Noonan and Mosharraf Zaidi are worth reading to gain some perspective on the hysteria over Faisal Shahzad.

- K2K

May 6, 2010 at 9:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Israeli diplomat nearly attacked in UK By JTA 29/04/2010 19:51 Pro-Palestinian protesters lunge at deputy ambassador after lecture. Protesters lunged at Talya Lador-Fresher following her lecture Wednesday at the University of Manchester. The envoy, who was not hurt, told Britain's Jewish Chronicle that she feared she would be physically assaulted by the protesters. Lador-Fresher was removed from the area by a security vehicle, which she entered from the back entrance of the lecture hall. The demonstrators attacked the car, some holding Palestinian flags up to the windows and others climbing on the hood and trying to smash the windshield, according to reports. “I don’t think they wanted to kill me, but I genuinely believed they wanted to physically hurt me," she said. "If I had not had the police and security team, I would have been beaten up.” Lador-Fresher told the Jewish Chronicle, “No foreign diplomat should have to go through what I went through.” She had been scheduled to give the lecture in February, but it was postponed following reports of planned demonstrations and the inability of university authorities to properly protect her. At that time, more than 300 protesters from the Action Palestine student society scuffled with Jewish students and police. The lecture was scheduled for Wednesday, when police and university authorities said they were prepared to deal with the demonstrators, including a complete lockdown of the building, a high-level security presence, ID checks at the door and ticket-only arrangements." copied from The Jerusalem Post, source is Jewish Telegraph Agency

- K2K

May 6, 2010 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's an understandable reaction from the victims of the New Africaaners. How long before this kind of behaviour arrives at your fair shores, I wonder? In Canada we already have experience of similar exercises of the freedom of speech: http://thegauntlet.ca/story/4724

- noga1

May 6, 2010 at 11:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "He must be a very bad teacher, stifling dissent, seeking acolytes." Well, maybe he is, maybe he isn't. How can we know, standing here? That's kind of the point I was trying to make -- you can't extrapolate with any certainty, and if you do and get it wrong, the blowback tends to rupture your own argument rather than his. Tactially, it seems to me always good to assume strength rather than weakness and to think before one puts the match to the cannon (btw you mentioned Birnbaum's HRW article a little while ago -- I was struck by his account of the one relatively pro-Israeli guy on HRW's team, Marc Garlasco (?), who was skewered by the pro-Israel side because they had stupidly misunderstood an exaggerated media story about his collection of Nazi war memorabilia). But, K2K, I've no desire to go back and forth -- it was a small point about tenure, ultimately, and had little or nothing to do with Mearsheimer's current politics, with which I am not in agreement.

- ironyroad

May 7, 2010 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, you should watch the 6-hour BBC film of Pride & Prejudice. very instructive on the perils of misunderstandings. "The conduct of neither, if strictly examined, will be irreproachable; but since then, we have both, I hope, improved in civility." I did not think Garlasco was "skewered". more like collateral damage for going along with the anti-Israel agenda at HRW when he should have had the spine to be a truth-teller on the fog of war and rules of engagement.

- K2K

May 7, 2010 at 5:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I would be much more afraid to show my face in Ramallah if I was lying, but most of the threats I get these days are from North American campuses. Americans, Canadians, some self-hating Jews, university professors. This is what you get for refusing to go along with the narrative. You know. They show up wearing the kaffiyeh and shouting, and they just want to say Israel is bad, war crimes, apartheid, that is all. But that doesn' make you pro-Palestine. That doesn't make you pro-peace. Instead of organizing Israel Apartheid Week, they should be helping with human rights under Hamas, women's rights under Hamas. A free press. But people on North American university campuses are more radical than Hamas." http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/05/speaking-truth-to-power-in-palestine.html

- noga1

May 7, 2010 at 7:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Walter Russell Mead reviewed the Mearsheimer/Walt book, "The Israel Lobby", in 2007, in Foreign Affairs. Mr. Mead, currently in Jerusalem* with Aaron David Miller, offered insight in critiquing Mearsheimer on anything to do with Israel. Mr. Mead also offered some advice in his conclusion that may or may not have been taken by Mearsheimer in THIS speech, but certainly seems to be shaping the response: "...Mearsheimer and Walt state very clearly that they are not anti-Semites, and nothing in this book proves them wrong. That said, some of the criticism that they will receive on this score is the result of their own easily avoidable lapses in judgment and expression. ...The authors do what anti-Semites have always done: they overstate the power of Jews. ... The authors also end up adopting a widely used tactic that has a special history in anti-Semitic literature. When anti-Semitic writers and politicians make vicious attacks, Jews are in a double bind: refrain from responding with outrage and the charge becomes accepted as a fact, express utter loathing at the charge and give anti-Semites the opportunity to pose as the victims of a slander campaign by venomous Jews. Nazi propagandists honed this into an effective weapon. Anyone who lived through or has immersed himself in the history of the golden age of European anti-Semitism is keenly aware of this tactic, and when one sees it employed in writing about Israel or the Israel lobby, one naturally assumes the worst: that the use of a tactic long popular among anti-Semites is a sign that a contemporary writer shares their deplorable worldview. The greatest living practitioner of this passive-aggressive form of provocation (and not just against Jews) is former President Jimmy Carter, whose recently published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid set off a firestorm by implying a parallel between the Israel of today and apartheid South Africa. Mearsheimer and Walt wag their fingers at those awful Jews who "smeared" the meek and innocent Lamb of Georgia. How dare the lobby be provoked by Carter's provocation! To a certain audience, that chain of events signals a powerful and determined anti-Semitism at work. This is wrong, in both the case of Carter and the case of Mearsheimer and Walt. But paying a little more attention to the ways in which modern history has shaped the emotions and responses of participants in Israel policy debates would have helped Mearsheimer and Walt make their case. The relationship between U.S. domestic politics and U.S. policy in the Middle East is far too complex, emotional, and important a topic to be sidelined by red herrings." http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63029/walter-russell-mead/jerusalem-syndrome?page=show *currently blogging about the global economy while in Jerusalem...

- K2K

May 7, 2010 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close