Walt, Mearsheimer and Academic Malpractice

I can’t improve on the overall analysis of the Walt/Mearsheimer Paper (“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”) in the extraordinary posts by Scott Johnson at Power Line (here, here and here), or Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky at The American Thinker, or James Taranto at Best of the Web (here and here), or Anne Lieberman at Boker tov, Boulder! (here and here), or Alex Safian at CAMERA.

But let’s look in greater depth at an important “factual” statement in the Paper -- and examine the lengthy footnote that supposedly supports it -- not only because the statement demands a formal correction, but because it is a case study of the Walt/Mearsheimer methodology. 

Here is the statement (contained not only in the Paper but in the shorter version published in the London Review of Books):

“[N]o Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous offer at Camp David in July 2000 would only have given the Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered set of “Bantustans” under de facto Israeli control.⁴⁰”  [Emphasis added by JCI].

And here is Footnote 40 in its entirety, with its impressive-looking citations: 

“40.  Charles Enderlein, Shattered Dreams:  The Failure of the Peace Process in the Middle East, 1995-2002, trans. Susan Fairfield (NY: Other Press, 2003), pp. 201, 207-208; Jeremy Pressman, “Visions in Collision:  What Happened at Camp David and Taba?  International Security, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Fall 2003, p. 17; Deborah Sontag, “Quest for Mideast Peace:  How and Why it Failed,” New York Times, July 26, 2001; Clayton E. Swisher, The Truth about Camp David:  The Untold Story about the Collapse of the Peace Process (NY:  Nation Books, 2004), pp. 284, 318, 325. Barak himself said after Camp David that “the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thein Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from Maael Adumim to the Jordan River,” which effectively would have been under Israel’s control.  Benny Morris, “Camp David and After:  An Exchange (1.  An Interview with Ehud Barak)”, New York Review of Books, Vol. 49, No. 10 (June 13, 2002), p. 44.  Also see the map Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians at Camp David, a copy of which can be found in Roane Carey, ed., The New Intifada:  Resisting Israel’s Apartheid (London:  Verso, 2001),p. 36. 

Two things are “immediately apparent to even the casual observer,” as my physics professor used to say:

First, the citations in Footnote 40 are to secondary sources, not primary ones, with the exception of (a) the Barak interview (quoted in more revealing length below), and (b) the “map” (in a book subtitled “Resisting Israel’s Apartheid”), which turns out not to be what one might expect. 

Second, there are well-known primary sources that are not considered in the footnote, including Dennis Ross’s “The Missing Peace:  The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace” (2004), with its exhaustive, day-by-day account of Camp David, and Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami’s nine-thousand word interview in Haaretz in 2002, with its similarly detailed explanation.

Let’s look at what Barak actually said in the interview cited by Walt/Mearsheimer, then at what was actually shown on the map they cite, and then at the readily-available primary sources they ignored:

1.  The Benny Morris interview with Ehud Barak (June 13, 2002):

Barak first recounted the call he received from Bill Clinton immediately after publication of the article by Deborah Sontag (one of the secondary sources cited in Footnote 40).  It is worth quoting this portion of the interview at some length, because no one could read it and write what Walt/Mearsheimer wrote:

The call from Bill Clinton came hours after the publication in The New York Times of Deborah Sontag's "revisionist" article ("Quest for Middle East Peace: How and Why It Failed," July 26, 2001) on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Ehud Barak, Israel's former prime minister, on vacation, was swimming in a cove in Sardinia.  Clinton said (according to Barak):

What the hell is this? Why is she turning the mistakes we [i.e., the US and Israel] made into the essence? The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism. That's the real story—all the rest is gossip.

Clinton was speaking of the two-week-long July 2000 Camp David conference . . . Midway in the conference, apparently on July 18, Clinton had "slowly"—to avoid misunderstanding—read out to Arafat a document, endorsed in advance by Barak, outlining the main points of a future settlement.  The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state on some 92 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8 percent of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organization by the international community of a massive aid program to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.  [Emphasis added by JCI]

Morris then asked Barak about the charge that Israel offered the Palestinians not a continuous state but a collection of "Bantustans" or "cantons." 

"This is one of the most embarrassing lies to have emerged from Camp David," says Barak.

I ask myself why is he [Arafat] lying. To put it simply, any proposal that offers 92 percent of the West Bank cannot, almost by definition, break up the territory into noncontiguous cantons. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are separate, but that cannot be helped [in a peace agreement, they would be joined by a bridge].

But in the West Bank, Barak says, the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from Maale Adumim to the Jordan River. Here, Palestinian territorial continuity would have been assured by a tunnel or bridge . . .   [Emphasis by JCI]

So what Barak actually said in the interview cited in Footnote 40 was that the "Bantustans" allegation was “one of the most embarrassing lies” Arafat promulgated about Camp David, and that Palestinian territorial continuity would have been assured, not threatened, notwithstanding the “razor-thin Israeli wedge” necessary for Israeli security.

Now read Walt/Mearsheimer’s footnote again and see if it either (a) fairly reflects the primary source it cites, or (b) supports the proposition that “no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own.”

2.  The “map Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians at Camp David:”

What exactly did that map show?  Walt/Mearsheimer don’t say, but a reader of their footnote would think they cited a primary source for the proposition that “no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own.”

Dennis Ross’s book published the map “Palestinians now cite . . . as the final offer they turned down at Camp David.”  Ross notes that it is not an actual map, but rather “reflects” a map “proposed by the Israelis early at Camp David, but it inaccurately depicts Israeli security zones” (emphasis by JCI), misstates the percentage of land offered at that stage to the Palestinians, erroneously “includes Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian state” and was not in fact the final offer at Camp David. 

Next to the extraordinarily misleading Palestinian “map,” Ross published a “Map Reflecting Actual Proposal at Camp David.”  According to Ross, his map “illustrates the parameters of what President Clinton proposed and Arafat rejected:  Palestinian control over 91% of the West Bank in contiguous territory . . .” (emphasis added by JCI).   

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm 

Ross also published in his book a “Map Reflecting Clinton Ideas” to illustrate the Clinton Parameters offered to both sides in December 2000 and formally accepted by Israel -- a Palestinian state in 95% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza, with an additional 1 to 3%  territorial swap from within Israel, meaning a total of 96-98% of the West Bank.  There is not a Bantustan or canton in sight on that map.

And if Walt/Mearsheimer had consulted the extensive interview with Ben-Ami (the most dovish Foreign Minister in Israeli history), they would have found this statement:

“[W]hen the ridiculous contention was voiced that what we were proposing to the Palestinians was cantons and that they would not have territorial contiguity, I went to [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak and showed him a map. As I recall, it was still the 8-percent map, a map of 8-92. Mubarak perused it with interest and asked aloud why the Palestinians were claiming they didn't have contiguity."

Thus if one reads the entire Barak interview, or looks at the purported “map,” or reviews the primary sources Walt/Mearsheimer ignored, the point in the text is not only unsupported but demonstrably wrong.  It is simply Arafat’s lie, refuted long ago by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Israel, the Foreign Minister of Israel, and the Chief Negotiator for the U.S.

Walt/Mearsheimer’s paper, complete with footnotes that misstate primary sources and ignore others, is worse than embarrassing.  It is academic malpractice.  No one contests their right to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

This is another moment in a new era.  In an earlier time, Walt/Mearsheimer’s paper, disseminated as the purported findings of “scholars” that are “not in serious dispute,” would have circled the globe before truth could get its boots on.  But thanks to the blogosphere, and the extraordinary efforts of people like Scott Johnson, Richard Baehr, Ed Lasky, James Taranto, Anne Lieberman, Alex Safian, and many others, the truth caught up in a matter of days. 

Other posts in this series:

Are Walt & Mearsheimer Anti-Semitic?

Postscript to Walt & Mearsheimer

Dershowitz’s Response to Walt & Mearsheimer

Comments

[RR]

Melanie Phillips ("The Graves of Academe") at her blog and Ruth Wisse ("Israel Lobby") in the Wall Street Journal have devastating and compelling articles that are absolutely essential reading:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001643.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114299039902704761.html

(hat tip: Ed Lasky)

[Tyler Kent]

Hmm, seems that the well-respected authors of this important study have drawn the ire of Israel's Amen Corner here in the US. The namecalling and slander have begun on Israel-firster blogs all over! Wow! I say it's clearly HIGH TIME for us to have this discussion WITHOUT the sophomoric attacks. Too bad that won't happen when "The Lobby" is exposed. Too bad for America and those of us who love her.

[Sara Miller]

Get lost, Tyler Kent, you lousy anti-Semite. You obviously didn't read any of the wise analysis here at all. Go to your anti-Israel Websites and leave us decent people alone.

[Tyler Kent]

Sara, you're an feisty lass, eh?
What's with the namecalling? Here's a novel idea - READ THE ACTUAL PAPER and try to debunk it. You can't. Facts are facts and the fact is that America is under seige by a small but well organized and financed lobby who put the interests of another nation ahead of their own.
Calling me an anti-Semite is a desperate tactic and the sure sign that you can't debate the actual merits of the paper. So used to having your way that when you're exposed you have to lash out. I know the type. I can only pray that this paper is widely disseminated and taken to heart by those loyal Americans who didn't realize the depth of the treachery of "The Lobby."
AMERICA FIRST!!

[Yael]

It strikes me that this post could be a great first step toward "The Essay that Walt and Mearsheimer Didn't Write" :)

Obviously devoted to finding the truth and with a gift for intellectual acuity, your scholarship is impeccable as befits an educated person. I hope you will continue to go from strength to strength.

[Scott]

The debunking is all over the internet for anyone to see and verify against the academics' shoddy article, and yet idiots like the below still persist.

Amazing behavior. Truly a fine demonstration of human degeneracy and psychopathology.

One wonders if they suffer a drug-induced lack of rationality.

Perhaps Scott Adams' observations at http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/ could help them. But probably not.

>>

[markus]

OK, let's look at the facts. Here is what Barak says he offered:

"a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from Maale Adumim to the Jordan River. Here, Palestinian territorial continuity would have been assured by a tunnel or bridge . . ."

Isn't this a contradictory sentence? Look on the map where these three towns are. "Jerusalem...to the Jordan River" would BISECT the West Bank, would it not with a "wedge"? Under such circumstances, how could a tunnel or a bridge guarantee territorial continuity?

Please tell me, Sara or other good people.

[mordechai]

Markus: the same way contiguity would be guaranteed between Gaza and the West Bank: by a road or tunnel or bridge.

In any event, a razor thin security wedge traversed by a tunnel or bridge is not a "dismembered set of Bantustans," which is what the authors asserted in their text and that their footnote allegedly supported.

On the contrary, it is "contiguity," as Barak stated.

[Tyler Kent]

A "Bantustan" is a "Bantustan" and that's just what Israel wants to create. And let us not forget the wall...

[Why Palestinians Get It Wrong]

Great, great post. Thank you.

[St. Paul]

Anytime you approvingly quote the numbnuts at Powerline you weaken your arguement.

[RD]

Just curious-- has anyone paused to think about those charges in the piece leveled against the discrimination enshrined in Israeli law? To wit, the section pointing out the fact that those Palestinians who marry Israelis cannot acquire Israeli citizenship (something based on "national origin", race, religion, color and creed notwithstanding) and do not have an automatic right to live in Israel with their spouses.
I've often wondered at these and other restrictions in Israel placed on Palestinians that seem at odds with the modern US concept of 'liberal democracy', and have yet to find someone who can explain the discrepancy.

[RR]

RD -- Lynn-B has already answered your question here:
http://incontext.blogmosis.com/archives/031727.html

“The law was first enacted in July 2003, not 1948 . . . Prior to that time, Israel did, in fact, permit anyone who married an Israeli citizen to become a citizen of Israel. M&W obscure the timing because the law served to address, not a "principle" but a very real and immediate security threat. An Israeli identity card is helpful in gaining access to terrorist targets with less scrutiny. In some instances, would-be terrorists were getting "married" to Israeli Arabs for the sole purpose of obtaining such identity cards and using them to facilitate terrorist attacks. The law, which must be considered for renewal each year, represented a direct and narrow response to this threat. It was not motivated by either racist or demographic concerns, and it has probably saved many lives -- Jewish, Christian and Muslim as well. Hopefully, one day soon it will no longer be necessary.”

[RD]

Thank you for the response. To play the devil's advocate, should the US apply this sort of 'profiling' to its visa policies? It is fairly sound to assert that 100% of Islamic militants are, in fact, Muslim, and that halting entry of Muslims into the US would do a great deal to prevent the reoccurance of a 9/11, the establishment of Al Qaeda cells in the US, etc. (Of course Islamic militants represent only the barest fraction of the Muslim population, especially of those who come to the US, but the same could be said of Palestinian suicide bombers vis-a-vis the Palestinian population at large, especially those Palestinians who marry Israelis.)

[anon]

See this dandy post

The Silence of Walt and Mearsheimer: Is there a Ghost in the House?

http://informaticsmd.blogspot.com/2006/04/silence-of-walt-and-mearsheimer-is.html

[anon]

Another good one

Walt and Mersheimer: Gone to the Mattress

http://informaticsmd.blogspot.com/2006/04/walt-and-mersheimer-gone-to-mattress.html

[anon]

Make that http://informaticsmd.blogspot.com/2006/04/walt-and-mearsheimer-gone-to-mattress.html

[Jack]

"Also see the map Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians at Camp David, a copy of which can be found in Roane Carey, ed., The New Intifada: Resisting Israel’s Apartheid (London: Verso, 2001),p. 36."

The one map cited by the authors is kmuch worse than the so-called "final map" as the Palestinians interpret which you post and link here. Check it out through Google Books. It claims to be the "final status map" proposed by the Israelis. It shows even more land retained by the Israelis by annexation and security control.

The footnote also cites "The Truth About Camp David." That book has another map by Jan De Jong at page xvii. It purports to be Israel's "final status" map, but it shows significantly less land than the other map created by Jan De Jong. Still, it shows more than the Palestinian map you posted.

The authors only call the readers' attention to the worst map. Better scholarship would have delved into the matter why the two books they cite have different maps.

[jay]

Greetings. Looks like this is the 1st post in a while.

Epitome of shoddy research in citation 43 talking about the creation of Israel:
"explicit acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres, and rapes by Jews".

The citation comes from 'hidden documents' that have not been released and somebody's memory. I've read at least 25-30 PRIMARY SOURCE citations indicating that many arabs voluntarily fled based on propaganda from their own arab leaders.

Of course Mearshimer makes sure not to write of this. All culpability is laid on Israel.

I've also read that these rapes may not have occured, and since he can provide no primary source evidence, who knows??

He is careful to use non-primary source material to point out only negative aspects of Israel, but of course there are no negative aspects of palestinian conduct.

Much of his historical information can be disputed and frankly, when the arab cultures put out Jew-hating propaganda even today, and have a history of putting out hitlerian propaganda, I'm FAR more inclined to believe the things that paint the palestinians as the aggressor. They have such a history of blatant lies that I cannot believe them.

[Gregor]

First, let me point out that M&W's paper does indeed have several factual errors. I will gladly concede that point, and that they are inexcuseable for academics of their stature.

However, most critiques also avoid one of the primary issue's brought up by the paper, namely whether supporting Israel is in the best interest of the U.S. Both sides in the conflict have gone beyond the bounds of decency on countless occasions, and our government seldom comes down on the Israelis.

One should probably note that this paper ties in very closely with Mearsheimer's theory of offensive realism. This is the theory that made him a big name in political science circles.

I also have to mention that I think it interesting that several of the critiques cited in the above article are written by people associated with organizations specifically mentioned in M&W's paper.

[Si Yu]

Here's a "watch" list you really should check out:

(1) Gilbert Ash's lyrical words on Israeli oppression and the background of Shamai Leibowitz - rabbi, reservist and leader of that brave band of soldiers (may Yahweh bless them)..."the refuseniks."

(2) James Michener's The Covenant. In the historically-based best-selling novel, Michener details how the Afrikaners too thought they had a covenant with God and used it to justify Apartheid.

Isn't it interesting that the only friend South Africa at the height of world opprobium and sanction was Israel?

Of course, Israel today is not a racist state. That's why the Falashan Jews are such first-class citizens in Israel, enjoying all the fruits of sovereignty that their Ashkenazi counterparts enjoy.

And what of the Sephardim? Now before you jump into your statistics about how many Sepharmic Jews escaped from oppression in Arab and north African lands let me just tell you an anecdote buried in the history of good relations between the Muslim and the Jew: 70% of Saladin's advisors were Jewish, including that very great giant of thought, Maimonides.

(3) Which gets me to my next recommendation: "Kingdom of Heaven." Saladin is considered a folk hero among non-Muslims, to this very day! Kingdom of Heaven celebrates this great leader.

(4) Robert Fisk: before you go and dismiss him (and his ancestors) as neo-Nazis just remember that his sweet mother, Peggy, repaired radios for the RAF that enabled the British to defeat the real Nazis and saved many of your ancestors from earthly fire and brimstone.

(5) The Koran: you won't believe how many times it addresses the "Children of Israel."

Saudi Arabians must rejoice in the fact that they seem to have received the word of God followed by the wealth of God.

Meanwhile, Israel has to rely on Israel bonds and straight out donations from those Americans of dual loyalty: billionaires who seem to have made all of their money from that good kosher profession: Usury.

There is nothing more I can say except that the actions of the unjust among you lead the world to an undeniable conclusion: the oppressed have become the oppressor.

[jkuntrwax mkpiay]

zftdnp tobekicl pros ityj blfstdocg klaioz xkzpacev

[viagra online]

The Muslim Quarter is the largest and most populous of the four quarters and is situated in the northeastern corner of the Old City, extending from the Lions' Gate in the east, along the northern wall of the Temple Mount in the south, to the Damascus Gate route in the west.

[buy viagra]

Of course Mearshimer makes sure not to write of this. All culpability is laid on Israel.

[Tramadol for dogs]

Just curious-- has anyone paused to think about those charges in the piece leveled against the discrimination enshrined in Israeli law