Are Walt/Mearsheimer Anti-Semitic?

Bret Stephens’s editorial from Saturday’s Wall Street Journal is not posted on OpinionJournal.com (strange, since Walt/Mearsheimer has identified the Journal’s editorial page as part of the Israel Lobby), so here is an excerpt:

Imagine a conspiracy so vast the only person not in on it is you.  In 1998, Hollywood indulged that conceit in “The Truman Show,” a film about a reality show so all-encompassing that its unwitting hero, Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey), has no idea the very world he inhabits is a stage. Now imagine a conspiracy that makes Truman [Burbanks] of us all.  According to professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, it's called “The Israel Lobby.” . . .

The authors are at pains to note that the Israel Lobby is by no means exclusively Jewish, and that not every American Jew is part of it.  Fair enough.  But has there ever been an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that does not share its basic features?  Dual loyalty, disloyalty, manipulation of the media, financial manipulation of the political system, duping the goyim (gentiles) and getting them to fight their wars, sponsoring and covering up acts of gratuitous cruelty against an innocent people -- every canard ever alleged of the Jews is here . . .

I do not mean to suggest that Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt are themselves anti-Semitic.  But as outgoing Harvard President Larry Summers once noted, what may not be anti-Semitic in intent may yet be anti-Semitic in effect.

I have resisted the temptation to charge Walt and Mearsheimer with anti-Semitism, either of intent or effect.  Sometimes, to paraphrase a Jewish insight from another context, a shoddy piece of academic work is simply a shoddy piece of academic work.

But the Walt/Mearsheimer paper is so shoddy it is hard to think of an alternative explanation, and there is a certain mindset evident in its language that recalls earlier allegations of a “Jewish Lobby.”  Compare these two statements:

“[T]he leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. . . . We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction. . . . [N]o person of honesty and vision can look on [the Jews’] pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them.”

-- Charles Lindbergh, in a speech at an America First rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941.

Why  has  the  United  States  been  willing  to  set  aside  its  own  security  in  order  to advance  the  interests  of  another  state? . . .  It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the United States to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security.  If their efforts to shape U.S. policy succeed . . . the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying.

-- Walt/Mearsheimer, in “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.”

It is one thing to see such language in a political speech 65 years ago.  But one would not have thought that an allegation of “duping the goyim and getting them to fight their wars” would appear in 2006 in a “Faculty Working Paper” at Harvard.

Elsewhere on the topic of the Walt/Mearsheimer paper:  Atlas Shrugged has an excellent series of posts.  Boker tov, Boulder! has still more essential follow-up posts (here and here and here).  The Neocon Express calls a meeting of the Vast Israel Lobby Conspiracy (for April 1).  Snapshots notes that Footnote 181 joins Footnote 40 in the academic Hall of Shame, and In Context has a very significant post that notes the problems start in the very first footnote and keep going.  The Media Monitor underscores an important point that “has made barely a dent in the American Jewish consciousness.”  And even the Guardian runs an interesting thread of comments on the paper. 

Comments

[J. Lichty]

I don't understand all this tiptoeing around the anti-semitism issue.

I think Ruth Wisse trying to classify this as an attack on America rather than Jews and Caroline Glick basically saying that this is because of Kadima are really starting to lose sight of the fact that this paper had one target -- American Jews. And its intent and effect was to harm American Jews.

It is pure anti-semitism indistinguishable from the views of Pat Buchanan (whom William F. Buckley his one time mentor has called an anti-semite, banning him from National Review).

This was not a marxist piece as some others have suggested -- but came deep from the bowels of the far right, who cares not for anything more than destroying the Jews.

The only other explanation I can come up with is that this was the nastiest job audition of all times -- a plea to the Saudis for blood money. Eitherway, these guys are jew-haters through and through.

[ian]

the theme I continually see in the denunciation of the paper is as follows:

1. "we aren't going to claim the authors are anti-semites, but gee whiz, if it acts like a duck and sounds like a duck... "

2. the paper lacks seriousness on so many grounds that it's pointless to even start to discuss it.

here's a thought: why not try discussing its points and refuting them, instead of relying on smearing the authors? your tactics are played out.

[Jason Maoz]

Contrary to the first comment above, Buckley never declared Buchanan an anti-Semite and never banned him from National Review. (You're thinking of Joseph Sobran.) Here's what Buckley wrote about Buchanan in 1991 at the height of the "Is Buchanan an anti-Semite?" controversy:
"I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he said and did during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it: most probably, an iconoclastic temperament."
Pretty slippery, ey? And it's instructive that the following year, National Review -- still under the firm control of Buckley -- actually endorsed Buchanan in the Republican primaries against the first President Bush. I'll be writing about this in an upcoming Media Monitor column in The Jewish Press (plug, plug).

[Walt Sherwin]

J. Lichty is correct that "Eitherway, these guys are jew-haters through and through."

I, for one, do not understand why one of the authors should continue to hold a chair endowed by a Jew.

I also do not understand why Jews do not take a leaf from Muslim tactics; Muslims are suing Danish and French newspapers for publishing caricatures of Mohammed -- so why should not Jews sue the London Review of Books?

Any number of grounds are conceivable, and it would serve to tarnish the authors and publisher with the facts of their bigotry.

[RR]

Case closed: Eliot Cohen, “Yes, It’s Anti-Semitic,” Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html

Hat tips: Anne Lieberman and Ed Lasky

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2006/04/inept_kooky_and.html
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2006/04/academic_freedo.html
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2006/04/washington_post.html
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2006/03/neocon_zionist_.html
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2006/03/the_saga_of_the.html

[RR]

Alan Dershowitz comes closer to answering his question here:

“I am proud of the way the Jewish community has responded to the Walt-Mearsheimer paper. Jews should not be ashamed to stand up for themselves and decry the sort of people who would blame all their own problems, or all of America's problems, on Jewish ‘power,’ ‘influence,’ and ‘manipulation.’ Those attitudes are indisputably anti-Semitic.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060412/cm_huffpost/018998

[Ken]

If you think this article is anti-semitic or conspiracy-mongering, then you clearly have not read it. Here's the link, to make it easier for you to do so. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

Based on the shrill response from all quarters, I'd say that Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have touched on some truth that is difficult for people to hear.

What characterizes most of the responses to their piece is the use of ad-hominem attacks and straw men. The authors may not be right about everything, but they express ideas that are valid and should be engaged on their merits.

Read the article, and then I'll be interested in what you have to say.

[DonGiovanni]

I have read the essay and the Walt Mearsheim paper is nowhere near antisemitic.

I have also read Dershowitz refute, and I have to say his paper really reads like cheap demagoguery and conspiracy theory in the lowest sense of the word.

His "quotes" of the article are completely out of context to make the Mearsheim Walt paper look like a sequel to the protocols of zion. Which is complete rubbish.

One example: Dershowitz translates all the factors attributd to the Israel lobby to "Jewish" which is a complete misrepresentation.

And opposes this supposed description of a "Jewish" cabal to the characterisation of the Palestinians as "innocent".

An shamelessly diffamatory trick. The real context was W&M of potential moral reasons of US support for Israel. They said that given the history of persecutions there is indeed a STRONG MORAL CASE to support Israel´s existence (which is not threatened), but not to uncondidtionally support it´s policies regardless of injustices committed against the Palestinians, "Who were completely INNOCENT OF THE PERSECUTIONS THE JEWS SUFFERED DURING WWII".

So if this is the way Harvard professors (Dershowitz) argue, no wonder mainstream journalists just go with the paranoid flow.

[DonGiovanni]

I have read the essay and the Walt Mearsheim paper is nowhere near antisemitic.

I have also read Dershowitz refute, and I have to say his paper really reads like cheap demagoguery and conspiracy theory in the lowest sense of the word.

His "quotes" of the article are completely out of context to make the Mearsheim Walt paper look like a sequel to the protocols of zion. Which is complete rubbish.

One example: Dershowitz translates all the factors attributd to the Israel lobby to "Jewish" which is a complete misrepresentation.

And opposes this supposed description of a "Jewish" cabal to the characterisation of the Palestinians as "innocent".

This quote is nothing but shamelessly diffamatorial trick. The real context was that W&M were discussing possible moral reasons the unconditional US support for Israel (Since they could not see the strategic sense).

They said that given the history of persecutions there is indeed a STRONG MORAL CASE to support Israel´s existence (which is not threatened), but not to uncondidtionally support it´s policies regardless of injustices towards the Palestinians, "Who were completely INNOCENT OF THE PERSECUTIONS THE JEWS SUFFERED DURING WWII".

So if Harvard professors like Dershowitz shamelessly argue with such distortions, it is really no wonder mainstream journalists just go with the paranoid flow and join the Salem witchhunt.

[Rex Lewis Field]

As a Christian, I am always in absolute awe of the willingness of my fellows to blame Judaism for current or historical problems that plague the family of man. I watch Muslim nations grow ever-more virulent and destructive (self-destructive?), yet the critical and uncompromising focus continues to be on the tiny country of Israel.

I am also a history prof' (minor community college in a little nowhere place, admittedly). Hence, I interact with "intelligentsia" who readily blame Israel (and the "Jewish Lobby" envisioned by the Mearsheim-Walt paper) for not just the nation's problems, but the whole world's woes. The only comfort I suppose I should get from that is the apparent detour from regular assaults on my Christian faith. There is the one back alley that intellectuals and Christians can meet in stooped, whispering agreement: The Jewish people are going to rule us!

This Mearsheim-Walt paper is a disgrace, an affront, and opportunistic carnival antics at it worst. There are so many real threats to Western Civilization and disasters looming over the horizon that I can only assume that these "scholars" either so hate the Jewish People they don't care about any other substantive topic, or they are paid off and "endowed" with funds to paint a sordid panorama for some one else who bears black hate in their rotting soul. With what little claim I have to being among the academe, I hereby disavow any association with these slanderous anti-Semites and as a Christian beg Jewish People everywhere to forgive me for saying or doing so little.

I don't fancy Jewish People as "special" or "chosen" any more than me, just neighbors, people normally sprinkled about the mix of folk I walk among all day. However, I pray and hope that if "Krystalnacht" does come that I will be braver than I've proven to be up until now. I know that Mearsheim-Walt would never put Anne Frank up for a night's sleep in the midst of goose-stepping on the streets, but sincerely beg God that I would be given that fortitude and strength.

[Rex Lewis Field]

Just an aside to "RR": I have already read the London shortened version to which you link. Note that the first two sentences leads in with

"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece (sic) of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised(sic) not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world."

I refute the mere premise of the article's "scholarship" (not to mention spelling) and condemn the attempt to establish a "history" to which Mearsheim-Walt would then drape their fantasies. With all that has happened in the Middle East (oil, coups, slaughter, etc.) and in consideration of the world's priorities, U.N. mandates and such, to put Israel up as the "focus" is a magic trick worthy or Merlin. This stuff works in the world of comic book mania, but doesn't contribute anything to the study of History.

[okbutjustonce]

Having read both the Walt/Mersheimer piece and the Dershowitz response, I must side with W/M. First, I simply cannot see the the alleged "anti-semitism" in their paper. Granted, some of their arguments and examples are less than compelling, but in the final analysis, they happen to be right. The relevant question is this: given the percentage of Jews in the US population, and given the strategic value of our alliance with Israel, does "The Lobby" have a disproportionate influence on US policy? Unfortunately for the US--and for American Jews--the answer is a resounding YES.

[Mike Pearse]

Can everyone just take a rest?
People can have views, even if some of us may not agree with them or even not like them.
Book burning; finger pointing persecution mentality serves no purpose other than to reinforce conspiracy theories. It also reflects a lack of maturity, an ability to argue your point, therefore diminishing the legitimacy of the argument.
OK so the USA has a strong ally in the Middle East, and that this ally may be running its own agenda. What is wrong with that? It’s free world.
If both parties see some common gaol(s) then they can arrange their affairs any way they like. If one party (it’s claimed the US) is getting a raw deal then caveat emptor.
The USA is not totally stupid; they are getting something out of the policy trend. Israel certainly is, and why should it not.
I cannot see why we need to be the apologists of either party, especially for a world super power.
Yes, maybe USA policy tends to make enemies of certain people, but any policy would.
This is beginning to look like the politics of envy.
The US is not as neutral player, no nation is.
The US has taken sides, that is obvious but what is wrong with that?
This is certainly no conspiracy.
The US makes this very clear in its use of the veto in the UN Security Council and the like.
True many don’t like this they think that Israel has too much influence but that is the ebb and flow of politics. This is the real world. Without this can you image how that region would look?
Best is to let the article rest on itself, encourage the discourse.
In the great market of ideas the better idea tends to get up any way (e.g.: take a close look at the fall of Nazism, communism) and please spend less time alleging racism (i.e.: anti-Semitism) because this does not achieve anything. People will be racists (yes even Semites) that’s a fact of life,.
Let it be, and get on with the real debate.

[Peter Fitzgerald]

Mearsheimer and Walt's article does not refer to a "conspiracy" except to dismiss (racist) notions that there is any difference between the way AIPAC, for example, operates and the way any other special interest lobby (be it pro-sugar producers or pro-arts) operates. Any special interest lobby acts to advance its own particular interest by leveraging its organizational and financial resources to influence policy relating to its particular concerns. As a special interest lobby, it represents the views of a particular group of people--in the case of AIPAC, this group is Americans (not necessarily Jewish, as Mearsheimer and Walt point out) who care more about Israel's security concerns than the US' security concerns. This type of pro-nation lobby is hardly unique, other examples come to mind such as the pro-Armenia lobby, the pro-Canada lobby, or heck even the pro-Kazakhstan lobby, which all participate in the struggle for influence in Washington. The only difference Professors Mearsheimer & Walt accord the pro-Israel lobby is that it has been especially effective.

The arguments presented by "The Israel Lobby" should not be controversial; they are both cogent and intuitive. It should not be controversial that the US frame its security policy based upon primarily US security interests! The US government is paid to do so by its citizens. That is not to say that US security policy might not also be drafted according to its citizens' preferences, which might in turn favor promoting the security concerns of another country, in this case Israel, over the security concerns of the US. They argue that this is the case; that US policy towards Israel is being driven by Americans who value Israel.

I must interject my own background: I belong to this group of people--I value the security of Israel and desire that, in certain scenarios, US policy serve the interests of Israel even to the detriment of US national security interests. For example, if a war were to develop in which the survival of Israel were at stake, on moral grounds I would want the US to intervene on Israel's behalf, even at great cost to US security interests. There is nothing wrong with my expressing this preference, just as sure as there is nothing wrong with AIPAC expressing and campaigning for its preference that the US government refrains from criticizing the US government.

What is astonishing about the arguments presented by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt is that they are arguments so rarely heard in policy debate in the US. The article in question claims that the reason why such arguments are rarely heard is that they are stifled by an atmosphere which intimidates and stifles free debate of US policy towards Israel and even of the effects of the pro-Israel lobby. They write:

"Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’."

Sadly, the bulk of the comments posted on this forum corroborate the authors claim. Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have written an article exceptional in its clarity and logic. Attempts, such as those on this forum, to smear their character, to accuse them of anti-Semitism, and to prevent objective debate are profoundly illiberal, hostile to what makes a free society desirable--the free debate of ideas, and for me deeply saddening to see. This smear campaign against two of academia's most distinguished professors is evidence of the very problem about which they write. It is also suggestive of ignorance of their article. Please read the article at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html, then ask yourself whether there is anything but objective, honest analysis presented in it.

[Peter Fitzgerald]

Ah, I'd like to sheepishly apologize for my original post. There are some serious flaws with the W/M article, well addressed by Alan Dershowitz's counter working paper available at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf. I really should have read this before posting. Indeed, I can only hope that all who read "The Israel Lobby" also read Dershowitz's response. I think my instinctively anti-special interest lobby nature got the better of me. I also, unfortunately, read Cohen's inept response to the article in question, which only confirmed my belief that Professors Mearsheimer and Walt were contributing something useful in the publication of "The Israel Lobby."

Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have failed to provide sound, valuable research.

[dave]

"I, for one, do not understand why one of the authors should continue to hold a chair endowed by a Jew."

Would you please stop and think about what you're suggesting, about the values that this seems to reflect on anyone who would say this? This statement amounts essentially to ethnic retaliation for the expression of opinions, rightly or wrongly. Last time I checked, all of us live in a country that puts our autonomous civil selves ahead of our ethnic identity. A meritocracy ought to be able to sustain itself even bearing the burden of the opinions of any numbers of individuals. Why does meritocratic decency always stop when the topic turns to Israel and these phantom-anti-semitisms?