Soccer Dad

Walt and mearsheimer get sanitized by the nytimes

The New York Times today writes about Backlash Over Book on Policy for Israel

“Now that the cold war is over, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States,” they write. “Yet no aspiring politician is going to say so in public or even raise the possibility” because the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful. They credit the lobby with shutting down talks with Syria and with moderates in Iran, preventing the United States from condemning Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon and with not pushing the Israelis hard enough to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. They also discuss Christian Zionists and the issue of dual loyalty.

There are other reasons for not condemning last year's war against Hezbollah. For example Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah is sponsored by Iran that is hostile to the United States.

Alas they're hurt.

The subject will certainly prompt furious debate, though not at the Center for the Humanities at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a Jewish cultural center in Washington and three organizations in Chicago. They have all turned down or canceled events with the authors, mentioning unease with the controversy or the format.

The authors were particularly disturbed by the Chicago council’s decision, since plans for that event were complete and both authors have frequently spoken there before. The two sent a four-page letter to 94 members of the council’s board detailing what happened. “On July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us (Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was canceling the event,” and that his decision “was based on the need ‘to protect the institution.’ He said that he had a serious ‘political problem,’ because there were individuals who would be angry if he gave us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative consequences for the council. ‘This one is so hot,’ Marshall maintained.”

A Jewish organization's cancellation "particularly disturbed" them? Why should Jews be offended? I'm more offended that a Jewish organization considered giving them a platform.

“It’s the way American politics work,” he continued. “Sometimes powerful interest groups get what they want, and it’s not good for the country as a whole. I would say that about the farm lobby and about the Cuba lobby.”

To the authors, dual loyalty is as American as Presidents’ Day sales and “Law & Order” reruns. As Mr. Mearsheimer explained: “People are allowed to have multiple loyalties. They have religious loyalties, loyalty to family, to an organization and you can have loyalty to other countries. Someone who is Irish can have a loyalty to Ireland.”

“The problem,” he said “is when you raise the subject of dual loyalty, many people tend to think of it in the context of the old anti-Semitic canard and making the argument that Jews are disloyal to the U.S.”

And why would people think that? Because the arguments are poorly made? Was it that interview that they gave to Robert Fisk last year that featured an American flag with a star field made up of Jewish stars?

The disingenuousness of these two is astonishing. They claim that their views are controversial (therefore worth debating) but then say that dual loyalty is no big deal? Come on.

Given the sloppiness of their work demonstrated in their paper last year you really have to question their motivation. They weren't happy last year when David Duke praised their work, but given what they wrote they had no reason to be surprised.

more via buzztracker.

Previously at Soccer Dad.

Walt Mearsheimer.