Posted on 04/05/2006 5:49:19 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
Academic papers posted on a Harvard Web site don't normally attract enthusiastic praise from prominent white supremacists. But John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" has won David Duke's endorsement as "a modern Declaration of American Independence" and a vindication of the ex-Klansman's earlier work, presumably including his pathbreaking book, "Jewish Supremacism."
Walt and Mearsheimer contend that American national security dictates distancing ourselves from the state of Israel; that U.S. support for Israel has led to such disasters as America's status as the No. 1 target for Islamic terrorists; and that such an otherwise inexplicable departure from good sense can be accounted for only by the power of "The Lobby" (their capitalization), an overwhelmingly Jewish force abetted by some Christian evangelicals and a gentile neocon collaborator or two, who have hijacked American foreign policy and controlled it for decades.
One of Mearsheimer's University of Chicago colleagues has characterized this as "piss-poor, monocausal social science." -----------------break--------
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why?
There is no way to make an argument that race or ehtnicity should have any bearing whatsoever on determining whether the legal inhabitants of a nation should have the right to vote.
A nation is a group of people of common descent. If another group of people of different descent must be included of necessity within its political structures, then you argue that the nation of necessity has no right to define itself and to keep itself apart. In other words, nations have no inherent right to their own self-preservation, and are in fact wrong for attempting anything of the sort.
Nonsense. America was not an all-white nation when it was formed.
Sure it was. It says so right in the first Naturalization Law passed by Congress. Non-whites were not citizens, therefore they were not part of the nation. They might inhabit these shores, but they were not part of the body politic.
Rather, non-white Americans were unjustly excluded from exercising their inalienable rights by the American government up until sometime after the Civil War
America only dissolved the concept of the Asian Exclusion Zone in 1952. You need to extend your "unjust exclusions" quite a bit further than you have.
You keep using the word "objective" when you should really be using "subjective." But you already know that and are engaging in sophistry.
Christianity is objectively true. I am not confused on this at all.
Of course, everyone believes their religion is the true way, so what you propose is a system where disagreement with the majority= treason.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm just explaining why religions have felt that they have a right to execute heretics.
Are you sure you grasp the concept of this nation?
Yes.
Nonsense.
So you say. But every month I see new legal rulings against the religious freedom of Catholics in the pharmacies, in employment, in health care, and elsewhere. The history of oppression of the Amish due to their refusal to religiously assimilate is well known.
I never read Frank Rich. I have better things to do. I have no memory of the Dole incident. I'm taking your word for it all. I'm simply pointing out the lameness of your reference to some incident where a left-wing dingbat accuses somebody of anti-Semitism by assuming some sort of unmentioned Hollywood/Jew connection, and somebody else noticing the obvious attitude sported by a the phrase “Jews and their friends”. Whole different level of divination wouldn’t you say?
The fact that you even ask that question shows we have little common ground here. The simple answer is "all men are created equal." There is no rational basis for treating a white American differently from a black American when determining who gets the franchise. What grounds do you have to the contrary?
A nation is a group of people of common descent.
So, what is America, then? We certainly do not have common descent.
If another group of people of different descent must be included of necessity within its political structures, then you argue that the nation of necessity has no right to define itself and to keep itself apart.
In connection with America in 1776, the white and balck "nations" were not apart in the same manner as, say, Germany and Italy. The two were quite intimately mixed.
In other words, nations have no inherent right to their own self-preservation, and are in fact wrong for attempting anything of the sort.
The American nation includes, and always has included, people from many different ethnic and racial backgrounds. You propose some sort of racialist, segregationist clap-trap more akin to Europe than this country.
Sure it was. It says so right in the first Naturalization Law passed by Congress.
If Congress passed a law saying we are all Martians, I guess in your mind that would make it so. I suppose blacks in this country haven't, in fact, been an integral part of our culture for 400 plus years, in your opinion.
Christianity is objectively true.
No, sorry, it is not. Like any other religion, its truthfullness is wholly subjective. You have no more basis to claim that Christianity is objectively true than an Hindu has to claim that his religion is, in fact, the only correct one.
Who know, turning the place over to an Episcopalian didn't work.
According to what I have read the article was originally commissioned by a well known MSM publication in the states,who later decided not to publish it. It was then picked up by a London publication whose editor,a female whose name I can't recall,claims she doesn't hold their views but thought it worth throwing out for discussion.
It appears that this is not to be,all discussion seems to start and end with accusations about the poor research and/or swipes at the authors for being anti semitic. If the reaction on Free Republic is similar to the reaction across the states,and from what little I have read in the MSM,it does, it does seem to support their contention that the Lobby exerts a powerful influence on US policy on Israel which includes intimidating those with contrary views into silence. Discussion of the information and/or contentions is immediately suppressed by accusations of anti semitism. There is actually more discussion of this in the Israeli newspapers than in the states. That should tell us something is not quite right here.
Adding to my suspicions that there might be merit in the article is the fact that the professor who was the dean at Harvard is "resigning" his position after two years.
I admit I may be biased on the subject of money spent to lobby this countries' lawmakers on behalf of outside interests. I regularly have hissy fits as money from outside of Arizona fills the coffers of John McCain's campaigns for senator term after term.
Were you intimating that there is a lobby similar to AIPAC funded by Catholics to influence our policies vis a vis the Vatican?
Incidentally,I am not talking about some of the goofy position papers the bishops and cardinals from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops come out with. If I were the Pope I would probably ask the President to confiscate their headquarters in D.C. and tell them to work out of an isolated monastery in the boonies that has no electricity or other amenities. Oh,they shouldn't be allowed to have any transportation except donkies and a camel or two either.
The bishops are very lucky the Church does not have female priests,men are actually much kinder than women.That last paragraph is sarcasm,kind of. I guess I mean that in no case should government confiscate any property but if I believed they could and should,then those busy-body bishops (about a third of them) would be my target,and I am a committed Catholic.
And you are wrong about that. You must be getting overwrought,you are almost always well informed.
The Israel lobby is powerful. That is without question. It does encompass a well-connected network of people, who attempt to exert influence to nudge both lawmakers and the public towards a pro-Israel position. There is nothing anti-semitic about stating these basic facts. It is also a well-funded lobby, though the money comes almost wholly from private donations. Generally, the lobby also does include people whose positions, when considered as a whole, differ across the political platform.
However, the article in question is poorly researched, and, at least in my opinion, verges on being anti-semitic (at the very least). Let me explain my reasoning briefly, since you are right to confront me that I posted my position without supporting it.
First, the Israel lobby is no different than many other lobbies. It is no different than Hispanics trying to lift the Cuba embargo, or encourage traffic with Mexico (commercial, human, cultural or otherwise; and this lobby also has a high degree of success), or Asian lobbies encouraging greater ties with the Pacific rim or the Indian subcontinent. Like these lobbies, it is a single-issue lobby group, whose members come from many different political backgrounds, tends to be generally privately funded (the Chinese lobby may or may not be, that's for the CIA to judge, and not me), etc. etc.
However, the Israel lobby enjoys (or 'enjoys') a lot more attention, generally, than these other lobbies. A lot of it is negative. I would state, academically speaking, that possible reasons for this may include its success, its visibility (fame begets more fame), concern about the political power (or eventual aims) of some of its supporters (and in this case, I would be referring to Christian evangelicals, rather than Jews) or genuine concern that it may be blinding. However, I would not discount the possibility that a lot of the negative attention stems from a sublimated anti-semitism that has become anti-zionism, or just anti-Israel.
Secondly, the article is written with an overly humanistic and vague style. Read it for yourself, if you haven't already (sounds like you have, so I'll go on assuming you have). It makes serious (not quite wild, but certainly far from grounded) allegations, supporting them with anecdotes, and occasionally decontextualized statistics. It is heavily politicised: it reads more like a gripe than an academic study.
Thirdly, some of its focuses are ridiculous. Pro-Israel lawmakers or government figures (or former government figures) who have Jewish sounding names, many of whom aren't even Jewish. It begins to construct a false model of the pro-Israel lobby as a secretive, externally funded, centrally-directed group which has hijacked the government and used its suborned influence to achieve a) Israel's interests or b) the nebulously nefarious and sinister goals of the Christian right.
The truth is that the Israel lobby is, as I said before, a influential and well-connected, but unorganized and privately funded, network of individuals and lobby groups (each with their own motivations and specific agenda). Like any other single-issue lobby group.
Fourthly, anything supported by David Duke makes me suspicious. ... Yes, seriously. Anything. The man is a moral wasteland, who is openly racist, openly anti-Semitic, has demonstrated fascistic preferences and tendencies, who keeps the company of other similar wastes of human life (from other neo-nazis, or a wonderful diversity grabbag of racists, to drug dealers, to wannabe revolutionaries, to self-admitted terrorists, both Middle-Eastern and otherwise, etc. etc.) If you want, I can back all this up, but a google search will do fine as well. And his degree of enthusiastic support makes me hesitant. I am not saying that the authors intended this to be anti-semitic. I doubt they did, at all, even if it is anti-semitic (and while I personally think it is, I think a strong case could be made for that it's not). However, the fact that David Duke so strongly agrees with it, given his own agenda and history, makes me more suspicious.
Fifthly, I agree that charges of anti-semitism are overused. They are. A lot. Anytime someone says something that some Jews, or politically correct douchebag (for lack of an academic term), or random leftists dislike, chances are some schmuck like Abe Foxman of the ADL will call it, and/or its authors, anti-semitic. However, just because the term is overused, even abused, does not mean that it cannot be fairly applied in some situations. In many cases, I believe that anti-Israeli sentiment is motivated by either overt, covert or sublimated anti-Semitism.
Sixthly, the paper resurrects a lot of old negative stereotypes of Jews, and paints it instead onto a shadowy group of neoconservatives (despite the fact that the pro-Israel lobby includes tons of people from socialists to liberals to libertarians to Christian evangelics to Christian dominionists to plain conservatives, including paleoconservatives, believe it or not, etc.), and probably includes more non-Jews than Jews. It resurrects old canards of Jews having divided loyalties (which is one of my biggest problems with the paper, which was what I was expressing in my earlier post), of Jews having a secret agenda, of Jews manipulating media, or of silencing critics unjustly with cries of antiSemitism (although, as I expressed earlier, there is a tendency, often even an honest one, to overuse charges of anti-Semitism), or of Jews controlling government, or being uniformly wealthy (although it is true that the Jewish population of America, by and large, does tend to be very solidly middle-class and tend towards educated professional occupations) or masterminding wars for personal gain (the Iraq war in this case, but earlier conspiracy theorists have argued that pretty much every way from 1750 onwards, including the American revolution, was masterminded by Jews).
As for the reaction on Free Republic...
This is a right of centre site. At the very least, people here are centre-right. That makes them vastly statistically more likely to support Israel, for a wide variety of reasons. Christians, especially Protestants, support Israel because they see it as a holy land, as do the religious Jews here. Classic liberals, and libertarians, see it as a thriving capitalist democracy, and a success story of capitalism and liberal democracy, in an area not particularly renowned for either democracy or developed modern capitalism. Many see it as a true American ally in the region, that is loyal (even dependent, in some cases), despite a few occasions to the contrary. I could go on, but the reaction here is not exactly typical, speaking academically, of what you'll find across the states. It really will vary with political affiliation and background.
Now, I do not think the authors intended it to be anti-semitic. And I do agree that charges of anti-semitism are consistently overused, even abused, especially in the times we live in. They are falsely applied, and used as a political smear. I also agree that criticism of the pro-Israel lobby is not necessarily anti-Semitic. And, in many cases, is not. I agree that foreign lobbies can be a problem. And I also agree that a strong case could be made for the paper not being anti-Semitic.
But, I do think it is anti-Semitic. It reads like a political gripe, is poorly supported, is overly politicised, resurrects old canards about Jews (whether directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally), focusses heavily on Jews, and people with Jewish sounding names, single the Israel lobby out in particular, when it is one of many similar lobbies, many of which enjoy high degrees of influence as well.
You are free to disagree with me, and I will not respect you any less if you do. I am Jewish, if you didn't already know that, and so that definitely informs my perspective on this as well (as it does on the dangers of false use of charges of anti-Semitism, which I believe harmful). I particularly resent the idea that because someone is Jewish, and/or pro-Israel, they have divided loyalties. I, for example, am proudly Jewish, stridenly pro-Israel, hawkish, and stridently pro-American (I am actually Canadian). However, I think of myself as a Canadian, first and foremost. And if I was American, I would think of myself as American, first and foremost (as I may well do, one day, G-d willing). And, for example, I do not believe Jonathan Pollard should be released, because he is a spy, and a traitor. Even if his cause and/or motivation was just (and I am not so sure it was, frankly), it does not excuse what he did. At best, it mitigates it, but it still remains a serious felony, and does not subtract from the fact that he DID endanger the nation.
I resent anyone questioning my, or anyone elses, patriotism or loyalty, simply on the basis of their ethnic background, their faith, or their political affiliation. Hence why I have consistently defended moderate Muslims (as I actually know a few), have consistently spoken out strongly against Canadians (particularly conservative Canadians) being slurred as Americans, simply becauase they admire America or American values or institutions. And, frankly, I have little patience for conspiracy theories. Most things are right in front of us, if we care to look. Got a political cause? You can find a lobby group. A little work, and you can know who its prime movers and shakers are. And its opponents. You can find out who it has ties to, why, and probably the motivations of diverse supporters.
Likewise, its not any great secret how lobbying works. And rarely are lobby groups unopposed. There are groups who lobby for different positions and variations of the same theme, and groups who oppose them and lobby for different things.
Many, if not most, political decisions are arrived at as a structural compromise between many competing individuals and factions. That is why they often please no-one, yet no-one riots (usually...).
Like it or not (and I do not, on the whole, like it), we -are- in a multi-polar, globalized political environment, with many, many (did I say many? Many) non-state actors all whining to save the rainforest, chop the rainforest, subsidize the cattle industry, open the cattle industry to the global market, allow foreign workers to be naturalized, even if illegal, build a giant wall across, the border, whatever.
Singling one lobby group out, and slandering them by questioning their loyalty, with no evidence beyond anecdotes, allegations or conjecture, does strike me as unfair.
And when David Duke supports it with such feeling, then I grow more than a little suspicious.
Hope that answers your questions.
There is, in fact, a body similar to AIPAC, funded by Catholics. And a counter-body, also funded by Catholics. (Well, at least, people who claim to be Catholics) They tend to focus more on values, though (or opposing values).
The Vatican is not a traditional state actor, as Israel is. Through the Catholic Church, however, it does wield international influence. And does spawn its own lobby groups, which furthers that.
A better comparison would be the Indian lobby group, or the British, or the Chinese lobby group, or the Mexican, or Cuban lobby groups, or the OPEC lobby group.
Inept, even kooky academic work, then, but is it anti-Semitic? If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information -- why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.Their position seems to be based on a double-standard against Jews, much of which uses ideas from classical anti-Semitic texts like the Protocols.
These people have their heads rammed up their chorei-tachat.
You are correct. The NYT, however, is certainly Jewish, although saying such in this day of Jewish Neocons on one side against anti-Israel, ACLU-types on the other does not say much.
One thing persists though, and that is Frank Rick. I heard some irreverent commentator on TV a few years ago saying that Frank Rich, first, last, and always, applied to every issue the question that his grandmother taught him: Is it good for the Jews?
Jews are all over the place now and Frank ought to let it go and realize that America welcomes him, without hyphenation. He only needs to forget, a little, his Jewishness and join the American mainstream.
"Anti-zionism is inherently anti-Jewish."
There are Orthodox Jewish sects that would argue otherwise...
The vast majority of Orthodox Jews are either Zionists or willing to work with Israel to make it more Jewish.
Does anybody else think the now-banned hermann's real name might be Joe Sobran?
"The NYT, however, is certainly Jewish"
How so?
As meltdowns go, it was definitely first-class.
Well said, Alexander!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.