Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search "Jewish Current Issues"

Israel News

  • Israel News Ticker

Boker tov, Boulder!

Blog powered by Typepad

« Understanding Islamism | Main | Are Walt/Mearsheimer Anti-Semitic? »

March 22, 2006



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:



(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."


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


RD -- Lynn-B has already answered your question here:

“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.”


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.)


See this dandy post

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



Another good one

Walt and Mersheimer: Gone to the Mattress



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


"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.


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.


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

The comments to this entry are closed.

Article Archive