tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post114324183147496469..comments2024-03-12T22:31:46.500-04:00Comments on What Would Phoebe Do?: This should be it...Phoebe Maltz Bovyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17996039330841139883noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1144100570674334452006-04-03T17:42:00.000-04:002006-04-03T17:42:00.000-04:00Dear Ms. Phoebe: I am a professor of political sc...Dear Ms. Phoebe: I am a professor of political science teaching at several of the schools associated with the U. S. Army Staff college at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. As a practicing, committed Catholic I have always found anti-semitism an abomination. It is for this reason that between 1983 and 1986 I worked as an undercover investigator for the Anti-Defamation League--I went to meeting of anti-semites and gathered intelligence for the ADL. (Had some interesting experiences: At one meeting of anti-semites I sat between Willis Carto of Liberty Lobby and William Pierce of the National Alliance--I said to myself: "If my cover is blown, I am not getting out of this room alive!") It is because I feel so strongly about anti-semitism that I am writing you to say that my good friend John Mearsheimer, whom I have known since 1979, is not an anti-semite. Now, of course, his and Dr. Walt's essay is open to critism--but Joh is most definitely not an anti-semite, and, knowing him as well as I do, I very much doubt he would work closely with someone who is an anti-semite; so, even though I do not know Dr. Walt, I doubt very much that he is an anti-semite. Sincerely and Respectfully, Ernest EvansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1143686886123923582006-03-29T21:48:00.000-05:002006-03-29T21:48:00.000-05:00Phoebe--as I've written, I think the paper was ter...Phoebe--as I've written, I think the paper was terrible. However, it's important to understand that M/W are part of a school of political science theory that takes an extremely reductionist view of national interests. This isn't something they've just cooked up for this paper; it's something they've applied consistently. To be clear, I'm not saying that the paper isn't shoddy and tendentious (because it is), and for that matter one or both may be anti-Semites, but I don't think it can be inferred from the claim that Israeli and American interests are in serious tension. That's a highly plausible derivation of the neorealist theory they generally adhere to.Scott Lemieuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06701388686242654576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1143406672978613232006-03-26T15:57:00.000-05:002006-03-26T15:57:00.000-05:00A money quote from the Daniel Levy article I linke...A money quote from the Daniel Levy article I linked to above:<BR/><BR/><I>"The study is at its most devastating when it describes how the Lobby "stifles debate by intimidation" and at its most current when it details how America's interests (and ultimately Israel's, too) are ill-served by following the Lobby's agenda.<BR/><BR/>"The bottom line might read as follows: that defending the occupation has done to the American pro-Israel community what living as an occupier has done to Israel - muddied both its moral compass and its rational self-interest compass."</I><BR/><BR/>The article is very much worth reading as a response to Walt and Mearsheimer from a non-rightist Israeli position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1143314726288028002006-03-25T14:25:00.000-05:002006-03-25T14:25:00.000-05:00For a wonkier take than mine on Walt and Mearsheim...For a wonkier take than mine on Walt and Mearsheimer, Daniel Levy <A HREF="http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28214" REL="nofollow">reprints</A> his Haaretz op-ed over at TPMCafe...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7146512.post-1143303555609395782006-03-25T11:19:00.000-05:002006-03-25T11:19:00.000-05:00"...to American Jews who need to preface all prais...<I>"...to American Jews who need to preface all praise of Israel with how of course they are highly critical of its evil, evil leadership. But anti-Semitism's been around so long, often in quite the same form, so it's easily recognizable what's anti-Semitic and what's not."</I><BR/><BR/>Israel is an independent country. One can have issues with Israel's conduct that have nothing to do with anti-semitism.<BR/><BR/>America is an independent country. One can think America and Israel have divergent interests without being anti-semitic.<BR/><BR/>AIPAC is by far the largest lobbying force in Washington devoted to support of a foreign country. One can point out the nature of their influence without being anti-semitic.<BR/><BR/>Now are there anti-semitic people who think that Israel is evil, that America should distance itself from Israel, and that AIPAC is the latest manifestation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Of course.<BR/><BR/>But it's worth noting that there are also many, many anti-semitic people who are full-throated supporters of Israel, who think America should support Israel even more strongly than it currently does, and who think supporting AIPAC is doing the Lord's work. Those anti-semites are fundamentalist Christians who want a Greater Israel in order to fulfill a biblical prophecy that involves the death of all the Jews and the Second Coming.<BR/><BR/>What does that prove? Nothing except that the presence of anti-semitic fellow travelers doesn't prove much of anything about the soundness of a political position. Much in the same manner the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome" REL="nofollow">Jerusalem Syndrome</A> operates, the political topic of Israel brings a fringe of loonies into the conversation.<BR/><BR/>-------------<BR/><BR/>In the late 90's, I had a Serbian-American friend who was quite intelligent and civilized. She had the quirk of thinking that Slobodan Milosevic was a great man, and that Serbia's expansionist behavior was entirely justified. My friends and I laughed off her quirk as a matter of the odd ways that tribal parochialism can affect an otherwise good mind.<BR/><BR/>To bring the matter to a personal level, I'm an American Jew who's a supporter of the Zionist project.<BR/><BR/>If I were to raise the topic of Israel in conversation to praise it, I'd possibly preface my own praise with some criticism of Israel's leadership.<BR/><BR/>But this isn't because I have some <B>"fear of complaining about anti-semitism."</B><BR/><BR/>But this isn't because I believe <B>"the Jews have pretty much had it coming to them."</B><BR/><BR/>Instead it's because I believe the Israeli occupation of the lands acquired in the '67 war to be morally wrong.<BR/><BR/>Being a Jew is not only a tribal attachment to a piece of land in the way that being Serbian is. It is also the inheritance of a moral and intellectual tradition handed down over the millennia.<BR/><BR/><I>"I still fail to see why Drezner is so confident that assertions that Walt and Mearsheimer are anti-Semites are completely unfounded."</I><BR/><BR/>I won't try to speak as to why Drezner hasn't gone as far down the plank as you have, but it's worth noting that there is the small matter that Walt and Mearsheimer are accurately presenting the nature of AIPAC's influence.<BR/><BR/>-------------<BR/><BR/>And finally, to try one last time to <B>unpack the core departure from reality</B>:<BR/><BR/><I>"As I've already made quite clear, the authors' anti-Semitism is [their suggestion] that Jewish interests run against American interests, even while "American interests" encompasses all sorts of other conflicting goals and minority preferences."</I><BR/><BR/>First off, separate Jewish interests from Israeli interests. The two may have lots of overlap, but they are not the same thing. There's a reason it's not A<B>J</B>PAC.<BR/><BR/>Second off, recognize that there is a definition of "American interests" separate from the sum of its ethnic interest groups. There is such a thing as the "common good".<BR/><BR/>America did not support the Allies in World War II simply because English-Americans and French-Americans had a louder domestic voice than German-Americans. There was also a common good national interest. Likewise, the US didn't become involved in the Balkans due Kosovar-Americans domestically winning a political battle against Serbian-Americans. Instead, there really was an "American interest" in siding against the Serbs.<BR/><BR/>There was a time in this country where an alliance between Chinese-Americans and right-wingers motivated by ideology conspired to keep American policy in China tilted toward Taipei when "American interests" / the common good dictated a friendlier stance toward mainland China. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter had to defy those domestic <B>sectarian</B> interests to achieve that broader national interest.<BR/><BR/>The current AIPAC Jewish-American / right-wing alliance is a far stronger sectarian interest than the Taipei lobby ever was. And it is in a region of the world more central to current American foreign policy than the Straits of Taiwan were back in the day.<BR/><BR/>Walt and Mearsheimer are talking about a pretty large elephant in the living room. Noticing that elephant is not anti-semitism.<BR/><BR/>And now, I think I well deserve a second moka pot of coffee, before I return to the hard work of controlling indie theater and US foreign policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com