Bin Laden's book club

Crossposting from Marc Lynch's blog.

Lynch:

Some of Walt and Mearsheimer's enemies will probably try to use this "endorsement" to discredit them. This would be stupid. Walt and Mearsheimer are no more responsible for how bin Laden uses their words than is Dick Cheney. It should be obvious that Americans shouldn't avoid having a debate about Israel or about Afghan policy just because bin Laden says we should. Shouldn't it?

Of course, having the debate and W&M's treatment of the topic are two different things.

You will note the 'People who bought this also bought..." list at Amazon shows that W&M's book resonates with people of a certain mindset. Probably if the book was a bit more scholarly and a bit less polemical that wouldn't be as much the case. As it is, W&M start with a conclusion, present the evidence that supports their conclusion while omitting the evidence that contradicts it.

Obviously they are trying to influence the public debate and realized they wouldn't move too many opinions with a balanced, scholarly work. Walt's blog here, which also takes a very one-sided look at the conflict, is not any different.

The fact that bin Laden and other anti-Semites take solace in W&M's writing doesn't discredit it, it is the methodology that discredits it.

At root, both sides have powerful lobbies and probably the Arab side throws around more money. This comes via the oil lobby, cushy post-government employment and gifts to institutions such as yours, Marc. While the side W&M takes does resonate with some, it generally doesn't resonate with the American people. Since it can't be that they are wrong, there must be another explanation -- hence the fact that Walt now spends the majority of his professional career (if his blogging and talks are any indication) focusing on his "Lobby".

And is it really any more mysterious than the fact that the academics in middle eastern studies, who are subsidized by Arab money, take one stance and the politicians, who are answerable to the American people, take another?

I disagree with most of the thesis of your book, but also think bin Laden's views on your book are entirely irrelevant. Manson liked the Beatles; this said nothing about the Beatles.

I also disagree with the premise of your work on the Israel lobby, which is that by its nature it necessarily works against American security interests in a way the myriad other lobbies and specific interests of the nation do not.

However, I doubt bin Laden even read the thing or the other two. I would bet it was Adam Gadahn aka Azzam the American, AQ's advisor on American communications. He seems relatively skilled at finding the key nodes of American culture which seemingly overlap with AQ's interests. If he wasn't partying with OBL, he would be surely be writing for the Huffington Post.

I have noticed that bin Laden has a sophisticated understanding of American political dynamics and public opinion. So, I have to wonder what he sees to gain by undercutting your teachings. If he could somehow discredit your views, America and Israel would continue to do things that actually hurt Israel’s and our best long term interests. Also, we would continue down the path we are now following in Afghanistan and driving a wedge further and further between America and the Muslim world.

I definitely have to say that he sees you as a serious threat to Al Qaeda and he is trying to under-cut your influence.

Bob Spencer

Bin Laden has in many respects further proven the legitimacy of "The Israel Lobby"by CLEARLY demonstrating that the ongoing issue of the Israeli settlements and the occupation they necessitate are a MAJOR influence in terrorist recruiting and fund raising, and that this key fact is quashed and dismissed by a majority of our leaders in the House and Senate simply because it is politically uncomfortable for them to accept it, act on it, and in doing so, protect the Nation that they claim to serve.

even after this clear evidence, they will continue to do the politically expedient thing and ignore it at our nations peril, when in fact they ought to be working RIGHT NOW to cut off the Netanyahu administration from all foreign and military aid, and then hit them with sanctions if necessary,if they do not comply with the standing US demand to freeze all settlement activity and prepare for an almost total withdrawal of all occupied territory.

Why would anyone believe that this communique is authentic? It has a distinct odor of fakery about it, as do many of the preceding communiques from OBL. If it is indeed fake, it is certainly an exercise in psychological warfare.

"We believe the United States should defend Israel's existence, and we said so repeatedly in our book."

I would really like to read Professor Walt's vision for what the final status agreement between Israelis, Arab countries, and Palestinians should be, and, more importantly, how to get there. It's easy to criticize other's ideas when you don't have any of your own.

We can call it:

"The Professor Stephen M. Walt Realist Plan for Solving the Israeli/Arab/Palestinian Conflict"

I expect to hear echoes.