The real significance of Erdogan's Davos outburst

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, February 2, 2009 - 6:59 PM Share

I finally got a chance to watch the fascinating video of the now-infamous Davos panel featuring Turkish Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan and Israeli President Shimon Peres, which ended with the Turkish prime minister walking off and declaring that Davos was over for him. He was upset because moderator David Ignatius had permitted Peres to speak twice as long as the other participants and then didn’t give Erdogan much time to respond. (The panel was already overtime and dinner was waiting). Erdogan returned home to Turkey and was reportedly greeted by large crowds of enthusiastic supporters. In response, Turkish flags have been displayed in Gaza.

Having now watched the panel in its entirety, here are a few quick reactions:

1. First, whoever established the format of the panel blew it big time. This wasn't some academic gathering on an obscure topic: it was a panel featuring two heads of state, the U.N. secretary-general, and the secretary of the Arab League, dealing with an obviously explosive issue. Arranging the order so that Peres would go last and giving him twice as much time to speak was bound to spur resentment. Equally important, it meant that there was no time for the audience to ask questions or for the panelists to engage in any back-and-forth with each other. Given the personalities involved and the topic itself, it was unrealistic to expect the participants to sit quietly and listen to each other's remarks and then head obediently off to dinner.

2. Three of the four panelists -- Erdogan, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, and Arab League secretary Amr Moussa -- were sharply critical of Israel's conduct during the recent clash in Gaza. None of their formal remarks struck me as especially heated, however, and none expressed significant support for Hamas. All three stressed the need for renewed peace efforts, with Amr Moussa emphasizing the importance of the 2007 Arab League peace initiative.

3. Erdogan's formal remarks made it clear he was upset by Israel's decision to launch the Gaza operation without informing Turkey beforehand. This is an important issue for him, because Israeli PM Ehud Olmert visited Turkey just before the attack was launched and because Turkey has been mediating indirect talks between Israel and Syria and probably has indirect contacts with Hamas. Israel's assault on Gaza made Erdogan look like something of a dupe, and so his irritation was to be expected. Erdogan also made some pointed remarks about the operation itself, although his remarks didn't strike me as crossing the bounds of civility.

4. Given the balance on the panel, one can perhaps understand why the organizers let Peres go last and gave him twice as much time to speak. (The first three panelists got about 10 minutes each; Peres was given 25 minutes for his own remarks, which pretty much used up the hour allotted for the session). But Peres's response was far more heated and combative than the remarks of the other participants, and as Richard Silverstein notes here, it also contained a fair number of dubious claims. For example, Peres claimed that Hamas had never won a democratic election, and that Israel had not formally responded to the 2007 Arab League peace plan because Iran (which is not part of the Arab League) was trying to dominate the region. Instead of sounding statesmanlike and reasonable in Israel's defense, Peres came off as angry and defensive. And I couldn't help wondering what the audience thought -- it didn't strike me as a performance likely to win over very many people.

5. It is also easy to understand why Erdogan wanted a chance to rebut, and why he resented moderator David Ignatius's efforts to bring the panel to a close and hustle everyone off to dinner. Given Turkish public opinion, it would have been extremely difficult for Erdogan to simply sit quietly and absorb Peres's heated remarks without saying a word. Had the situation been reversed, I would have expected Peres to insist on an opportunity to reply as well, especially if he had to run for office anytime soon. It wasn't polite of Erdogan to ignore the moderator's well-intentioned efforts to stick to the program, but his reaction was hardly surprising.

6. The real significance of the exchange is what it tells you about public opinion in Turkey, as well as the potential effects of democratization in the broader Middle East. I think Erdogan was genuinely angry, but his anger reflected Turkish opinion as well. His performance at Davos is bound to help his image in Turkey itself, and could help his party perform well in local elections scheduled for March 2009. Given that Turkey has been Israel's main ally in the Muslim world, this shift is not good news for Israel. And if more and more governments in the Middle East become responsive to the will of the people (whether or not they become Western-style democracies), it is going to be more difficult for ruling elites to do nothing in the face of Israeli actions like Gaza, no matter how much foreign aid these regimes get from Washington.

7. Last comment: I'll bet David Ignatius felt terrible, but it really wasn't his fault.

Photo: FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, DAVOS09, DIPLOMACY, ISRAEL/PALESTINE

(25)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

DATROY

7:26 PM ET

February 2, 2009

One more example of the

One more example of the ridiculousness of Davos

...

7:28 PM ET

February 2, 2009

thanks for the perspective

why was it set up that way? it appears not a lot of thought went into it, or someone intentionally set it up that way to avoid what happened anyway...

SCUBASTEVESW

8:36 PM ET

February 2, 2009

Ignatius

It sure was interesting. And though Ignatius didn't screw up nearly as bad as the Washington Post's interviewer of Erdogan afterwards:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002809.html

I did find his remark at the beginning of Peres' part rather interesting: "No one has worked harder or longer on this thing we call the peace process than you have."

He doesn't exactly have that much competition in that regard.

DAVID IN DC

10:26 PM ET

February 2, 2009

Hamas and democracy

SW: For example, Peres claimed that Hamas had never won a democratic election...

I took that as a problem with English rather than an attempt to deceive, or a "dubious claim" as SW would have it.

He literally said Hamas didn't win a democratic election, but then went on to explain that they are not democratic rulers, which seemed to be his point.

What he went on to say, among other things, was that democracy is more than a single day of voting. And in this he is right. Hamas did win an election, but discarded the laws under which they were elected when they staged a military coup. The intimidation, torture and murder of political opponents and critics also does not occur under what we would consider democratic rulers.

It strikes me as a bit disengenuous to try to impugn his credibility over this.

Also...

SW: ...and that Israel had not formally responded to the 2007 Arab League peace plan because Iran (which is not part of the Arab League) was trying to dominate the region.

How come the IR realist doesn't understand why this might be so?

SW: And I couldn't help wondering what the audience thought -- it didn't strike me as a performance likely to win over very many people.

Listen again. Peres got a 15 second ovation, and in his rebuttal Edrogen specifically addresses the applause ("I find it very sad that people applaud what you said...")

KENNETH SORENSEN

8:38 AM ET

February 3, 2009

Neo-cons in sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war.

----Facts brought to you from the free world, free---

David, I take it you are from D.C. Someone from D.C. - the capital in the worlds only remaining superpower (and incidentially Israels only ally on the face of the Earth) - worked with Israel in a sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war.*

____________________________

*) DOCUMENTATION

THE GUARDIAN, Jan 07 2009

How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of disaster

by Avi Shlaim

"In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.
America and the EU shamelessly joined Israel in ostracising and demonising the Hamas government and in trying to bring it down by withholding tax revenues and foreign aid. A surreal situation thus developed with a significant part of the international community imposing economic sanctions not against the occupier but against the occupied, not against the oppressor but against the oppressed.
As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel’s propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity.
Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.
It continued to play the old game of divide and rule between rival Palestinian factions. In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat. Now Israel began to encourage the corrupt and pliant Fatah leaders to overthrow their religious political rivals and recapture power. Aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup."

_____________________

Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World and of Lion of Jordan: King Hussein's Life in War and Peace.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-01-07-how-israel-brought-gaza-to-the-brink-of-disaster

BRETT

2:59 AM ET

February 3, 2009

Good post, Stephen. That

Good post, Stephen. That changed my views of what went on at Davos.

BURNINGCHROME

4:55 AM ET

February 3, 2009

Again Mr. Walt very shabby academia

Mr. Walt You link to an obscure dissident for an 'analysis' that fits your preconceived notions to support your proposition. Academic standards ordinarily adhere to the principle of quoting the source.

Mr. Walt writes "For example, Peres claimed that Hamas had never won a democratic election"

This is what Peres remarked "Let me start with democracy. First of all, who was elected by the Palestinians, but Mr. Abbas, who is called Abu Mazen. Sixty-two percent of the Palestinians voted for him to be the President of the Palestinian people, and we negotiate with him. Hamas participated in the elections but have a very unique idea about democracy. They think a democracy is a story of one day in four years you go through the election. After the elections you can start to shoot and kill and threaten. Finished. Democracy is not a matter of elections. It is a civilization and I want to conflict to your words by quoting from the Hamas; I won’t be going to interrupt the stories? But Hamas concerns us; Hamas published a charter; let me just read two lines, three lines from it, from the Hamas Charter. “The day of judgment will not come about until the Muslims kill the Jews, when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees, there is no solution for peace initiative, proposals, international conferences are all a waste of time.” This is an official charter. I don’t know about which Hamas you are talking?"

Here are the links for the video and transcripts of President Peres' remarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOD9tmB_Dfc&feature=PlayList&p=749732FFD312CA7F&playnext=1&index=1

http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/transcript-of-peres-speech-at-world-economic-forum-in-davos/

You will see that President Peres doesn't comment about Hamas winning an election. He does however go much further in explaining why Hamas winning an election is not sufficient to establish democratic credentials.

Even had President Peres made an erroneous remark a real academic wouldn't play a juvenile game of gotcha. A real scholar or academic would deal with the substance of President Peres' remarks.

It is the same Mr. Walt writes "that Israel had not formally responded to the 2007 Arab League peace plan because Iran (which is not part of the Arab League) was trying to dominate the region"

For the record Israel has made a formal answer to the Arab League initiative. It is published on the Foreign Ministry website. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Israel+receptive+to+moderate+Arab+peace+plan+15-May-2007.htm

Make no mistake President Peres is well aware of Israel's formal response. He may not have explained it well, even though he was given more time than the others he could not respond to everything in the allotted time so his explanation was a bit circuitous, He did answer to it directly and it was not about Iran.

President Peres said "...The problems we will facing well the following: a) we started to negotiate directly with the Palestinians. President Mubarak told me, “Look, finish you negotiations with the Palestinians we shall consider as the first move to an overall peace.” "

This is a reference to the understandings that came from the Joint delegation of Jordan and Egypt when they formally presented the plan to Israel in 2007. A series of events Mr. Walt seems unaware of. (Mr. Walt's knowledge of the Middle East never seems to extend beyond the banner headlines) An academic or a Middle East scholar would have followed those events and understood the references. One might argue the merits of Israel's response, Mr. Walt however seems more interested in making cheap points and playing gotcha.

JOACHIM MARTILLO

7:45 AM ET

February 3, 2009

Zionist Internet Defense Force at Work

Racist Jewish Zionist hasbarah simply oozes from Again Mr. Walt very shabby academia, for it so slavishly follows the standard Zionist government line.

Hamas won its election and more recently: Gaza: Planned Chaos and Eradication.

In any case as good as Professor Walt's analysis is, it misses the heart of the matter.

For Muslims (including a growing number of Kemalists) and an increasing number of non-Muslims, Zionism is like Slavery in the 1850s. It is the issue that consumes everything else just as Zionist machinations have wrecked the US economy.

Here is my "House Divided Letter" to Benjamin Harrison, who wrote The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel and Liberal Opinion: Last Word on Anti-Semitism.

Realistically, there is no benefit to justify the cost of the US-alliance with racist murderous genocidal Zionist invaders, interlopers, and thieves in Stolen and Occupied Palestine.

The sooner that the USA criminalizes Zionism and begins to arrest Zionists and seize their assets the quicker that the USA can repair the US economy and relations with the rest of the world.

Their is no other solution to the problems that the Bush II administration and Jewish Zionist Neocons have left the Obama administration.

KENNETH SORENSEN

1:10 PM ET

February 3, 2009

Arab Majority-rule in Palestine will solve all problems

The only sustainable solution for a situation where two peoples want the same stretch of land, is to grant this land to the group of people that recently have lived there the longest, and in this way have gained right of usage. When you consider that the jews generally are the best adapted to a life outside, and have shown that many times in the past, and considering all the neighbour-troubles in the past 3 score years, the wars, the oilcrisis in 1974, the ongoing depletion of water-resources due to this land being unable to sustain todays number of people, with the Sea of Galilee in the proces of diappearing, the intifadas, the terrorism and counter-terrorism, and take into account that this almost certainly will grind to a halt, since Palestinians, Syrians and Jordanians are brother-peoples, -the world must come together and by the means of an Embargo, force the worlds last colony - with an inhabitable surface-area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland* - to allow all Palestinians and their decendants to return to the land they are named after, and have a vote, as to how they wish to be governed.

Any jew who wishes to stay put should be allowed to do so, just like the Whites in South Africa can stay after the end of apartheid in 1994.This is the hallmark for us in the West: Freedom of Choice. And as a matter of course, israelis should be allowed to choose between: "Do you wish to stay under Arab Majority-rule, or do you prefer to seek new pastures?"

_____________

*) Documentation

..........Area..........Population
Israel: 20,770 km²......7,282,000
Negev*: ~ 13,000 km².......554,000
Israel
minus
Negev: ~7,770 km².......6,728,000

Delaware: 6,446 km²
Cecil County, Maryland: 1,083 km²

DAVID IN DC

12:03 PM ET

February 3, 2009

BurningChrome,I stand

BurningChrome,

I stand corrected. I listened to this a few days ago and the impression I was left with was that Peres explicitly said Hamas didn't win an election. This statement does imply it:

"First of all, who was elected by the Palestinians, but Mr. Abbas, who is called Abu Mazen."

This is what Walt and I probably keyed in on. But Peres never says what Walt (and I) ascribe to him. So it is not simply a matter of presenting his statement out of context, something you call a "juevnile game of gotcha" and I call disengenuous, it is the worse case of falsely attributing words to him that he didn't say. (Those familiar with his writing about Israel know there is nothing new here.)

Walt said he watched the tape, so he presumably heard what Peres actually said and still misquoted him.

I wonder if he will offer a mea culpa. In your experience, has he acknowledged that any critique of any of his writings about Israel is on target, ever? I haven't generally read Walt's writing about Walt's writing. Too sly, and what little I have read, too much reliance on what he SAYS he is writing about (this in the essay itself, just for example broad statements about "the Lobby", or disclaimers that he isn't putting forth any Protocols-like theories), and too little on the substance of the piece, which I have noticed sometimes contradicts what he has said earlier.

BURNINGCHROME

9:45 AM ET

February 4, 2009

re: re: BurningChrome,I stand

At lunch it was explained for me what President Peres was talking about. As I said he wasn't making a speech he was responding to some 40 minutes of criticisms and it wasn't always clear to me what precisely he was responding to. So as I said Mr. Walt was presenting President Peres out of context to play gotcha.

I did not watch the entire 60 minutes. Mr. Walt claims he did. So there really is no excuse for him not to have understood President Peres answers.

President Peres was in this instance explaining why Israel doesn't negotiate with Hamas. He was talking about Abu Mazen being the President, and the only legitimate recognised leader of the Palestine Authority (PA). (Democracy really wasn't relevant here in my opinion. Like every other country in the world Israel deals with plenty of non democratic regimes.) His point was that Mazen is the legal and legitimate representative of the PA. It is a matter of state to state contact that is the way negotiations are conducted.

The second reason he was giving was the very nature of Hamas, the antisemitic ideology that characterises their charter, speeches etc. that they refuse to accept Israel so there is no possibility of making a peace with them.

DAVID IN DC

12:53 PM ET

February 4, 2009

I'll offer my own mea culpa.

I'll offer my own mea culpa. My memory was right and the anti-Israel Palestine Think Tank got the transcript wrong :-).

Nevertheless, as I originally said, presenting it out of context was disengenuous.

And so is Walt's quote I just saw on the front page of FP about our "unconditional support" for Israel. An opinion about the US offering unconditional support is fine, but the statement begs the question and presents the notion that unconditional support exists when in fact it does not. I guess Walt is trying to "stimulate more debate" as he did with his "Israel lobby" screed.

Whatever the reason, since Walt obviously knows it isn't true - see, eg, our absention on the recent UNSC vote on stopping the operation in Gaza to Israel's chagrin, which Walt must be aware of - it makes him a liar. Sorry to be churlish, SW, but if the shoe fits....

BURNINGCHROME

4:50 PM ET

February 4, 2009

Unconditional support?

The US supports Israel but it is not unconditional. Who was saying that it was? Please provide link.

I gave you my opinion of Mr Walt's works. I agree he is very dishonest in his presentations. I don't believe he is a stupid man, I have seen many other saying that he doesn't apply ordinary academic standards in his work.

On a personal note he is extremely offensive. He wrote an obnoxious piece about a month ago what if the Arabs had won the 67 war what would they do to the Jews. Since my family is of the 1 million Jews violently driven out of Arab countries this was just over the top. It exceeds all standards of taste particularly when he described it as a some sort of brain or academic exercise. So this excuses the insensitivity to other people's trauma?

Again just today he wrote a op-ed on Iran and US and where they might begin in repairing relations....

You can read it and for what little it is worth my responce.

Cheers

DAVID IN DC

6:51 PM ET

February 4, 2009

re: unconditional support

SW: "giving Israel unconditional support wasn't a true act of friendship then and isn't a genuine act of friendship now"
-----------
If you go to the front page of Foreignpolicy.com you will see on the right side of the page a box with a quote from one of the authors from the site. I just realized that clicking on it will take you to the article from which the quote was taken.

This quote was up there from Walt. Clicking through you will get to the blog post from Jan 5 where he is pimping his book. I am pretty new to the site and so only noticed it now. The glaring dishonesty of the quote is what caught my attention and I was just making a general comment on it.

In my opinion, if Walt thought he could make a strong case honestly, there would be no reason for him to be so careless with the truth and he would address the subject with the rigor I assume he applies to his work on other subjects (given his reputation).

Edit: I read your response to the "apology" post. You are spot on. Perhaps Walt is trying to start his own branch of IR - the "wishful thinking" school of thought. ;o)

BURNINGCHROME

3:37 AM ET

February 5, 2009

re: re: unconditional support

Ok I saw it, this is my point about Mr. Walt. He has a pattern of deflecting a subject by asserting false premises as a fact and then proceeding from there providing a false solution. Mr. Walt's op-ed yesterday was a typical example of that.

Firstly as typical Mr. Walt did not go past the headline and was 'analysing' Iran's demand for an apology. As I cited the real core of contention between the US and Iran was the again repeated demand in President Ahmadinejad that the US close all military bases, stop supporting states in the Region and pull out completely.

No one reading Mr. Walt's expert opinion would even be aware of that this the key demand of Iran. Discussing an apology is at best disservice to readers since it was completely devoid of the substantive US/Iranian antagonism.

Iran routinely demands "mutual respect", a term Iran uses frequently. Iran is demanding the US acknowledge (mutual respect one super power to another) that Iran is the dominant pre-eminent power in the region, Middle East, Central Asia, this is their sphere of influence. Iran is demanding the US stop challenging 'Iranian interests'.

Mr. Walt's routine presentation of false propositions are presented as fact so that his proposed solution(s) is a basically
fait accompli. This is why I say his analysis' routinely fail to meet academic standards.

JOACHIM MARTILLO

7:46 AM ET

February 3, 2009

Ignore this.

ALIHDAHMASH

10:10 AM ET

February 3, 2009

From a Palestinian

Excellent analysis Stephen. I do believe that most countries in the Middle East including Iran, Fatah and Hamas all play the Palestinian card to their own interest. For exmple, Iran who wants to wipe out Irsael doesn't care about the Palestinians or their cause. The same with Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and sadly Fatah and Hamas.

Urdugan was brave to confront Perez this way, even if he had his own agendas, after all Politicians are Puppets gone wrong! But he also mentioned the Girl who's family got killed on Gaza beaches more than 2 years ago, long before Hamas rules Gaza. Israel's government has been blindly causing atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank for the past 60 years and the world has made it easy for Israel to commit it crimes by giving it a Carte Blanche.

I do blame Hamas and Fatah for the divide Palestinians are facing today. Fatah are corrupted thieves, Hamas are foolish and lack Political and Dipolmatic wisdom as well as a vision for Peace. What we need now is new leadership.

Thanks

ADRIAN77

10:54 AM ET

February 3, 2009

Why does everyone let Ignatius off the hook?

You too Professor Walt! We saw what the result was, not only of what Ignatius did but also how he did it (with his hand on Erdogan's shoulder -- he is lucky he didn't get a smack). The alternative . . . having one of Klaus Schwab's minions be slightly annoyed that your panel is running 5 or 10 minutes over. I believe Ignatius wanted to cut Erdogan off, and was indeed happy to do it. Why, I don't know.

BLUE13326

12:35 PM ET

February 3, 2009

Good post, though the

Good post, though the hypocrisy of Turkey criticizing Israel after Turkey's own refusal to acknowledge its genocidal past and its recent bombing of Kurds in Iraq makes Erdogan seem like something of a clown.

So, if Turkey follows the will of its people and turns more Islamist, what are the implications for the US? Could Turkey pull out of NATO (especially considering their recent overtures toward Russia)? What would this mean for NATO?

On a related issue, considering Russia's crushing of Muslim separatists in its various regions, it seems to have done a fairly good job of improving relations with that part of the world. Are there lessons that we can learn from Russia on this?

JOACHIM MARTILLO

4:47 PM ET

February 3, 2009

Rationally Discussing Genocide

The mind of the Jewish Zionist genocidalist is so transparent.

Russians have been crushing Muslim separatism since the 1820s.

What does that tell us about the Russian example?

I point out the following in More Jewish Genocide Denial.

We do not have a sane discussion of genocide in the USA. Not only are ethnic Ashkenazi Americans, who try to act as the guardians of US genocide discourse in order to control it, at least as much genocide deniers as Turks, but a segment of the organized Jewish community is also trying to use the Armenian genocide and a very selective reading of Ottoman or Turkish history as part of a program to control genocide discourse and to incite Islamophobia.
...
Throughout the 19th century demonization of Islam and the Ottomans justified mass murder and expulsion of Balkan Muslims while during the same time period similar outrages accompanied Russian expansion into Muslim areas of the Caucasus. The victims of Russian genocidalism generally sought and were granted refuge within the Ottoman Empire.

Until we Americans address anti-Muslim genocidalism honestly and deal with the disproportionate representation within our government of Jewish supporters, dreamers, and ideologists of Zionist genoide, the US government simply cannot engage the rest of the world in a rational discussion of genocide.

The mere existence of Jewish Zionist US government officials prevents the effective use of US soft power in situations of genocide.

It does not take much brainpower to figure out why Jewish Zionist Jabotinskian Neocons are so contemptuous of the concept of soft power.

Anyway, readers may find If I wasn't Muslim to be amusing.

BURNINGCHROME

5:04 PM ET

February 3, 2009

re: BurningChrome,I stand

The answer is no. I see Mr. Walt's opinions on Israel littered with factual errors. Paraphrasing President Peres I read Walt's accounts of Israel and I can’t recognise the country that I know.

Some suggested that I made a personal attack on Mr. Walt when I question his academic credentials. I know even as an undergraduate I could never get away with a false quote footnoted by an opinion of the reputed quote.

Yes I do think Mr. Walt is disingenuous. As I said he plays gotcha by falsely quoting President Peres or quoting him completely out of context. Because he fixed the game of course he wins.

I saw the episode on the news, like many people, and when I read Mr. Walt's account immediately it didn't ring true. I remember President Peres rambled a bit but I assumed it was because he was trying to answer a number of issues it wasn't a prepared speech.

However unlike Mr. Walt I don't just commit to print my first thoughts assuming I made no mistakes in my recollection. I did some basic fact checking, the sort of skills people ordinarily expect from someone who is titled as a scholar or an academic. I am neither.

My personal suspicion is even though Mr. Walt frequently says he supports the right of US Jews to organise and advocate for Israel he really wants to impugn the integrity of Jews in the US who support Israel. Mr. Walt attempts to accomplish this by making the case that Israel is an immoral cause, contrary to US interests so in fact the Jews advocating for Israel are disloyal to the US and must be curbed.

Read the comments from his cheer squad here you find no such ambiguity, just good old fashioned Jew hate. So not only do I never see a mea culpa I also never see him distance himself from even the most vile antisemitic tracts that are routinely posted here. Make no mistake these people claim Mr. Walt as one of their own and a champion for their cause.

There are many legitimate criticisms of Israel and good critics of Israel. Mr. Walt is not one of them.

JOACHIM MARTILLO

6:44 PM ET

February 3, 2009

Cheering Squad for Professor Walt?

What makes you think I am cheering for Professor Walt?

I certainly do not claim Professor Walt as one of my own.

I consider his analysis of the Israel Lobby inadequate albeit understandable.

I focused on Jewish studies at Harvard and Yale while Professor Walt is a policy analyst. How could I not know more about the malfeasance of Jews and the Israel Lobby (public face of the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland)?

As for impugning the integrity of Jewish Americans that support Israel -- of course we should.

Wouldn't the integrity of German Americans that actively supported Nazi Germany during the 1930s have been impugned?

I know exactly what BurningChrome is doing because I have taken the standard Israel Advocacy classes.

He is nitpicking to distract from the important issue.

I watched the session and had the exact same impression as Professor Walt, but I will go further. Peres should have had the decency to refrain from defending Zionist barbarism or perhaps should have tried to find some way to apologize.

The world economic crisis cannot help but force serious rethinking in non-Muslim circles about the legitimacy of Zionism and the Zionist state.

If he lives long enough, Peres will almost certainly be the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to stand before the ICC for taking part in genocide.

JOACHIM MARTILLO

6:30 PM ET

February 3, 2009

Typical Racist Zionist Mendacity

Here is BurningChrome's transcription:

This is what Peres remarked "Let me start with democracy. First of all, who was elected by the Palestinians, but Mr. Abbas, who is called Abu Mazen.

Here is the actual transcription at 40:57

Who was elected by the Palestinians? Not Hamas, but Mr. Abbas, who is called Abu Mazen.

I doubt that BurningChrome actually listened to the panel. Almost certainly he was simply typing in some talking points from the local Israeli Consulate, the David Project, StandWithUs or some similar Israel advocacy group.

JOACHIM MARTILLO

6:38 PM ET

February 3, 2009

Foreign Policy Magazine

The real significance of Erdogan's Davos outburst

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, February 2, 2009 - 6:59 PM Share

(25)