-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, January 7, 2010 - 6:14 PM
Share
I was going to blog this morning about the Times's story that Dr. Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian double agent who killed 8 U.S. operatives in a suicide bomb attack last week, was reportedly motivated by his anger at Israel's pummeling of Gaza last year (you know, the war that President Bush didn't try to prevent, that President-elect Obama didn't talk about, and that the U.S. Congress apparently thinks was just fine.) Talk about blowback. But Phil Weiss and Glenn Greenwald are on the case, and you can just read them instead of me.
Instead, I want to share an invitation I was forwarded by a friend (for some inexplicable reason, I didn't get one myself). The email invited him to attend "Spotlight Iran," a special workshop sponsored by The Israel Project. Here's what it said:
From: The Israel Project [info@theisraelproject.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:11 PM
To:
Subject: You Are Invited to an Iran Conference in Washington, DC
Please join us for a community-wide grass-roots advocacy training program:
Israel Advocacy Training Institute: Spotlight Iran
Don't miss this hands-on training institute for Israel activists with special briefings by high level American and Israeli officials on the vital issues of Iran and grass roots advocacy. Gain new tools and learn how to effectively and efficiently make use of your time and resources to advocate for Israel in the halls of government, pages of newspaper print, radio airwaves, and internet sites of the new media.
Sunday, January 17, 12 noon- 4:30 p.m.
Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Academy
13300 Arctic Avenue, Rockville, MD
Plenary featuring:
-Dan Arbell, Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy of Israel
-Jennifer Laszlo-Mizrahi, President of The Israel Project
Workshop Sessions featuring:
*Congressional and Legislative Advocacy with AIPAC Mid-Atlantic Political Director Arie Lipnik and Congressional Legislative Assistants
*Online Advocacy: Blogging, Twitter and Social Media with "Press Guru" and Jewish Communications Expert Aaron Keyak
*How to Get Published and Write a Letter to the Editor with journalist and Reuters Editor Alan Elsner
*Israel Advocacy in the Synagogue with Rabbi Jonah Layman of Shaare Tefilah Congregation and President of Congregation B'nai Tzedek Helane Goldstein
*Advocacy and Radio strategy with Former White House Radio Director Richard Strauss
*Understanding Christian Perspectives on Israel: The Keys to Effective Advocacy with Ethan Felson and Josh Protas, Vice President and Washington Director of the JCPA
*Special Teen Track Workshops
Book signing featuring authors: Ilan Berman, Alan Elsner,
Michael Ledeen and Jonathan Schanzer
$18 standard track ? $10 teen track (includes lunch)
[followed by the usual contact info for those seeking additional information]
A few quick comments:
First, if anyone still doubts that groups in the Israel lobby work hard to shape public discourse about Middle East affairs...well, time to cast those doubts aside. Apart from hyping the threat from Iran, the clear purpose of this workshop is to train people on how to write op-eds, twitter posts, blogs, etc., that can push TIP's supposedly "pro-Israel" agenda.(Needless to say, its agenda on Iran is about pushing the United States to do whatever it takes to keep Iran from mastering the full fuel cycle, including the use of force.)
Second, there's nothing wrong with a group of Americans getting together to push their policy views; that's how our system of government works. This is in principle no different than Cuban-Americans organizing to preserve the misguided embargo on Castro's regime, NRA members meeting to figure out new ways to thwart gun control, farmers organizing to push for more crop subsidies, tea partyers getting together to sound off on their pet peeves, or birthers meeting to spread more goofy notions about Obama's heritage. Just good old-fashioned American interest group politics in all its glory.
But notice that this event advertises an AIPAC representative, an Israeli diplomat and apparently several unnamed congressional legislative assistants. The latter are supposed to be public servants; we understand that they will be the objects of a lobbying groups efforts but here they seem to be actively helping one. Given the prominent role given to an official representative of a foreign government and the participation of several congressional aides, this event does seem to blur the line between being a purely domestic lobbying group and being something else. Isn't it a bit over-the-line to have an officially accredited diplomat give the plenary address to a workshop whose declared purpose is to teach Americans how to advocate on behalf of that same diplomat's country?
Third, my main point is to be clear about who is pushing for war with Iran and who isn't. The Israel Project and other like-minded groups want the U.S. to confront Iran, and the main reason they want this is to protect Israel from what they believe (mistakenly, in my view) is a dire threat. (I think Iran's activities are a legitimate concern, but not the apocalyptic danger that many Israelis seem to think.) They are entirely within their rights to hold those views, however, and to work within the American political system to try to advance their hard line agenda. If they want to organize seminars to build support for that position, and train people on how to advocate for it, fine by me. And if other folks with similar views and agendas want to chime in, that's ok too.
And let's be clear about one other thing. War with Iran is not a project that is backed by all Jewish-Americans, or only by Jewish-Americans. The same was true about the war in Iraq, which was dreamed up by the neocons and backed by key groups in the Israel lobby, but not by many American Jews. Indeed, by the time the United States went to war in 2003, surveys showed that American Jews were less supportive of war with Iraq than the U.S. population as a whole.
But as in the run-up to Iraq, many of the most persistent advocates of a "kinetic response" to Iran are individuals or organization in the Israel lobby (including those bizarrely bellicose Christian Zionists), and as this invitation suggests, they aren't being especially bashful about making their policy preferences known. So if the United States does end up at war with Iran in the not-too-distant future, and if it turns out to leave us worse off than before, I hope these same people won't spend the aftermath denying that they had anything to do with it, or accusing people who discuss their role of being somehow bigoted.
FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images
Where are you man!?
It's already been 20 minutes and you haven't responded.
You're getting soft on us bro.
Please, give me a break. It does take a little bit of time to fact check Walt. Apparently, I put more time into it than he does :-).
Thanks for asking.
Yes, fact checking.
In this post:
1) Walt - this post is to highlight who is pushing for war with Iran.
Fact - the group's position is the exact opposite of what Walt implies.
2) Walt - "The latter [ostensibly members of Congress or their staff] are supposed to be public servants; we understand that they will be the objects of a lobbying groups efforts but here they seem to be actively helping one.", while he implies that there is something wrong with this.
Fact - there is nothing wrong with members of Congress or their staff helping grassroots activists.
In previous posts:
3) Walt - the NYTimes and WaPo didn't cover the Gaza march.
Fact - There were multiple articles about the March published before that was written.
4) Walt - Gilo is in East Jerusalem.
Fact - Gilo is in Southwest Jerusalem (Dave123 noted this one, not me).
This isn't from the past year, this is just from the past month and is not all inclusive.
Consequently, your claim - "You have never once, that I am aware of, provided anything of consequence to rebut Walt's views and analysis" - does not stand up to a fact check either.
----------------------
It's worth highlighting something here too. This relates to #2 above.
As we all know, Walt wrote a book about lobbying/activism. Some defend the work, some are critical. Regardless how one feels, everyone should be asking:
How is it possible that Walt does not know this most basic fact regarding interactions between Congress and lobbyists/activists?
It is not "Palestinian east Jerusalem". Gilo is a new (since the 1967 war) neighborhood that was built on undeveloped land. The point here is that this specific building isn't undermining Palestinian claims to the Arab areas of east Jerusalem or to having Jerusalem as their future capital, and as such it is an important distinction. The fact of the matter is, there will almost certainly be territory swaps at the end of the day, and the neighborhood (or settlement, or whatever you want to call it) of Gilo and it's Jewish population of 40,000 will remain part of Israel. This would be true with our without the recent construction.
You talk about intellectual dishonesty, but many would look at your presentation of the matter, which doesn't draw any distinction between Gilo, Arab areas of what is really east Jerusalem, and illegal settlement outposts, as intellectual dishonesty.
In any event, the facts are as they are. I pointed out where Walt was wrong and now why I consider this a distinction with a difference, and your name calling doesn't add anything to the discussion.
The other issues speak for themselves. It is hardly intellectually dishonest to point out that Walt misrepresented The Israel Project's stance on Iran. On the contrary, it is intellectually dishonest for Walt to smear them as warmongers. Or that he tried to smear them for wrongdoing for doing something that is a common practice and perfectly fine. And it is not intellectually dishonest to point out that the premise of his post on the Gaza marchers, that the mainstream media hadn't covered it, was demonstrably false at the time he made it.
"It becomes predictable and tiresome to even point it out, so I assume just about everyone here already dismisses your "facts" out of hand."
I imagine those that do are those like you who will put scare quotes around "facts" when the facts don't mesh with their worldview. However, I am not so stupid to think I can ever change your mind. How could anyone, when facts are dismissed as "facts"?! And I don't post to raise your blood pressure either and don't mean to :-), but rather to present a side of the story that fair-minded people will never get if they rely on Walt's one-sided telling.
Without rehashing the whole debate about whether settlements are legal or not, I will simply note that while discussing fact checking, you state as a fact a highly political point of contention that is disputed.
On Gilo as "east Jerusalem", after going back and reading the the context, I agree with you. The point was that we disapprove of the building and didn't do anything about it other than a statement when the Israelis went ahead with it. Additionally, the interview to which he linked had a questioner refer to "east Jerusalem", and apparently Walt just parroted that (though I am not sure whether that is damning or exonerating, since a lot of Walt's mistakes are because he parrots the anti-Israel sources he relies on). So he was factually incorrect but, as you said, it was a nitpick. I will try to not hold the Harvard chair (who, as it happens, devoted large sections of his book to the subject) to such strict standards in the future :-).
That said, you dismissed all of my points with a wave of the hand.
For instance, how is it being intellectually dishonest to point out that group Walt holds up as evidence to support the main theme in this post (that the "the Lobby" is pushing for war with Iran) actually shows the opposite (The Israel Project advocates a non-military approach to the issue)?
Also, if "the Lobby" actually is pushing for war with Iran, how hard could it have been to find a group with that position? And if he had to slander a group as warmongers, couldn't he have found some of those bizarrely belicose Christian Zionists rather than slandering the group meeting in a Hebrew school discussing Israel advocacy in the synagogue?? After all, everyone already hates those bizarrely belicose Christian Zionists, so having Walt stirring the pot wouldn't really matter much.
On a more serious note...Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I am surprised he hasn't published a correction of that. I emailed him about it and I'm sure a lot of others have as well. I have no doubt he knows about the mistake.
Blanced View - misses few facts.
here are few pointers.
1. E. Jerusalem:
Although under Jordanian rules, for 19 years (1948-67), those Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians", had full occupancy of the entire E. Jerusalem, WB & Gaza. Not once ever they uttered their desire to have E. Jerusalem as their future capital. The whole thing came about after Israel had unified this city to where it is today.
2. Legality of occupation:
Let face it, UN is nothing but a tool for 57 Islamic states, among them oil rich Arab states. Western countries dependence on Arab oil is the sole factor to the so-call legality of an occupation. back in 1967 Arabs had forced Israel into bloody war. They subsequently lost that war and lost territory with it.
Also pals have never accepted Israel's sovereignty and independence as the type of state which the Israeli people had chosen for themselves. Nor groups like Hamas ever recognized Israel's borders. SO WHY ISRAEL SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE BORDERS OF A (YET) NON-EXISTING STATE?.
3. Palestinian sovereignty:
Up to June 11 1967, E. Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule, after which its lost it to Israel. I the Summer 1994, the late King Hussein had publicly waved Jordan legal right to the WB & E. Jerusalem. Thus declare these territories as disputed land (from a legal stand point). Until its faith is settled through negotiation, E. Jerusalem will remain united with its western sister.
4. All throughout its 3,300 year history, Jerusalem was the capital city of only one country. Old and the new state of Israel. That the way it should remain.
Two points:
I. "But notice that this event advertises an AIPAC representative, an Israeli diplomat and apparently several unnamed congressional legislative assistants. The latter are supposed to be public servants; we understand that they will be the objects of a lobbying groups efforts but here they seem to be actively helping one. Given the prominent role given to an official representative of a foreign government and the participation of several congressional aides, this event does seem to blur the line between being a purely domestic lobbying group and being something else. Isn't it a bit over-the-line to have an officially accredited diplomat give the plenary address to a workshop whose declared purpose is to teach Americans how to advocate on behalf of that same diplomat's country?"
Congressional Legislative Assistant is a position at AIPAC. These aren't assistant's to congressman. Elementary fact checking with a quick Google search for "legislative assistant + AIPAC shows, for example, that its current Leadership Management Director used to hold this job.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/danielle-stein-kroo/3/a51/832
AIPAC Legislative Assistants also attended such a conference in 2008
http://www.aipac.org/AIPAC_events/Saban_Program_12.15.pdf
The bottom Person in this Linked in page also used to be an AIPAC Legislative assistant.
http://www.linkedin.com/companies/aipac
II. "Third, my main point is to be clear about who is pushing for war with Iran and who isn't. The Israel Project and other like-minded groups want the U.S. to confront Iran, and the main reason they want this is to protect Israel from what they believe (mistakenly, in my view) is a dire threat."
Is there anything in that email that says anything about pushing for war? In fact, if you bothered to look up its position on Iran (it took m 3 minutes to find this), it only calls for economic sanctions (like President Obama, it says nothing should be "taken off the table"), but it is certainly not "pushing for war with Iran ".
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=689705&ct=7062725
Isn't the First Amendment Great!
Once again, Walt's bigotry is amply on display. He reveals himself perfectly with this paragraph,
"..., there's nothing wrong with a group of Americans getting together to push their policy views; that's how our system of government works. This is in principle no different than Cuban-Americans organizing to preserve the misguided embargo on Castro's regime, NRA members meeting to figure out new ways to thwart gun control, farmers organizing to push for more crop subsidies, tea partyers getting together to sound off on their pet peeves, or birthers meeting to spread more goofy notions about Obama's heritage. Just good old-fashioned American interest group politics in all its glory.
Interesting isn't it that Walt mentions the "NRA" "tea-baggers," and "birthers. Of course, but for the bitterness that the widespread condemnation of his views has inspired in him, Walt might have written his paragraph this way,
"there's nothing wrong with a group of Americans getting together to push their policy views; that's how our system of government works. This is in principle no different than moveon.org organizing to oppose the war in Iraq; the Southern Poverty Law Center meeting to figure out how to fight Jim Crow, the ACLU meeting to develop strategies to fight illegal government eavesdropping or the NAACP holding a forum to push for affirmative action. Just good old-fashioned American interest group politics in all its glory."
Walt might also have pointed out that the activities of the group that he finds so objectionable are both enabled and protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Of course it's that same First Amendment that protects Walt’s right to say anything that he wants on this blog without threat of censorship from the government. It's also that same First Amendment that allows him personally to express views here and elsewhere that are not only unpopular amongst most Americans but are in opposition to the views expressed by virtually all members of Congress and the President.
One of Walt's purposes in this post is to acknowledge the right of the group in question to organize as they are while ridiculing their decision to do so. The irony is that it's Walt's position that is worthy of ridicule.
There is a diversity of ideas about the best way to deal with Iran. Some advocate doing nothing; some advocate engagement; some advocate sanctions and some advocate military action of some sort. Whatever decision is eventually made; it will be made by a popularly elected President and subject to the scrutiny of a popularly elected Congress.
That is the way Professor Walt wants it; isn't it? Or perhaps he prefers the way government works in Iran.
"The latter are supposed to be public servants; we understand that they will be the objects of a lobbying groups efforts but here they seem to be actively helping one."
Walt insinuates that something untoward is going on here, but it is perfectly fine for elected officials to participate in or conduct workshops in grassroots advocacy.
"Third, my main point is to be clear about who is pushing for war with Iran and who isn't. "
This appears to be an outright smear. When one goes to the groups website, these are the bullet points under "How to stop the threat of a nuclear Iran":
How to Stop the Threat of a Nuclear Iran
-Non-Military Strategies to Confront the Iranian Threat
-The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: Latest Developments and Next Steps. Testimony to Congress (Ilan Berman)
-Economic and Diplomatic Strategies for Isolating Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Regime
-Halting Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program (courtesy of JCPA)
-Facing the Iranian Threat (Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi)
-Peaceful Options on Iran
I don't see how highlighting a group that appears to be pushing for "peaceful options", "economic and diplomatic strategies" and "non-military strategies" addresses the main point of who is pushing for war.
It will be interesting to see if Walt issues a correction about this or lets his smear stand.
Congress members helping lobbying groups
First, if anyone still doubts that groups in the anti-Israel lobby work hard to shape public discourse about Middle East affairs...well, time to cast those doubts aside.
"Presentations during IFPB's First Grassroots Advocacy Training and Lobby Day
February 1 - 2, 2009 - Washington, DC
...The opening event of the Lobby Day was a Congressional Briefing. Titled Armed and Dangerous: Weapons Transfers to Israel During the Bush Administration, the briefing featured a presentation by Josh Ruebner, Grassroots Advocacy Coordinator at the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation; testimony by Amr Shurrab, whose brothers were killed by Israeli snipers during the 2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip; and Congressman Dennis Kicinich..."
http://www.ifpb.org/multimedia/video/grassroots_video.html
Second, there is clearly nothing wrong with members of Congress or others helping grassroots advocacy groups, and one has to wonder why Walt says there is.
The event above turned up on the first page of a Yahoo! seach on the terms workshop+grassroots+advocacy+congressman. There are 85,000+ hits in that search alone.
PS
Can anyone exlplain why the blockquote feature does not work anymore? It would make replies much more readable.
Apparently when they changed the format of the blog they took this feature away. It's a real pain.
Anyways, try bold and italics .
For bold, surround the desired text with the word "strong" in <> and.
And for italics do the same, but use "em."
I hope that works, cuz you're no longer allowed to edit your posts either.
Fascists!
In the post directly under this one, the Professor bemoans what a "time sink" writing this blog is.
Now I can see what Walt means. Given the sophistication of this post he must have spent many, many hours researching and writing this little gem.
No wonder he is having so much trouble finding time to write that next book of his.
For the sake of his poor students though, I am keeping my fingers crossed that preparing this post didn't eat too much into the time he needs to write all those recommendation letters.
That would just be too much!
like a little obnoxious ad hominem atttack to do...well, I don't know what it does. I guess it gets me to write replies. Beyond that...
It will be interesting to see if Walt issues a correction about this or lets his smear stand.
As I pointed out in the link below, Walt doesn't make corrections. I hope he takes me up on my suggestion to start making them.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/06/happy_anniversary#comment-98295
I hope the italics works!
"Isn't it a bit over-the-line to have an officially accredited diplomat give the plenary address to a workshop whose declared purpose is to teach Americans how to advocate on behalf of that same diplomat's country?"
I don't think so. Besides, what's over-the-line mean? Are you going to scowl a little more when you write something like this next time?
The object of the advocacy, confronting a third foreign country, is out there, but don't you think the Georgian ambassador would host a similar event if there were as many Georgians as Jews in America?
I'd really like to know how many teens attend.
"blockquote" "p" quote "/p" "/blockquote"
Replace " with < and >
One more test, to see if p on the outside of blockquote works. Also, report comment is at the top of the comments section, not with each post. Copy the comment title if you complain.
"blockquote" "p" quote "/p" "/blockquote"
Replace " with < and >
Actually, this is the p on the outside test
Shooter, you da man. Thanks.
Seriously NS, major kudos.
you are indeed, the Man.
Kudos to Prof. Walt, Prof. Finkelstein and Prof. Chomsky for their well-reasoned and forthright criticisms of Israeli excesses.
The outraged responses of the GIYUS crowd and others of the Hasbara Propaganda Machine give so much pleasure.
"And that's the real point. Israel's military leaders and their political yes-men don't believe, and never have believed, that Iran, if it possessed nuclear weapons, would unleash them in a first strike against the Zionist state."
Well if Alan Hart, who believes Israel has no right to exist, says so, it must be true.
Please provide some support for your support that Hart believes Israel has no right to exist. Your lack of credibility is obvious.
I'm just waiting for an organization like WND or someone like Daniel Pipes to comment on this email.
Cuz they sure as hell went bonkers at even the insinuation that any foreign government, or its official, be colluding with a domestic American lobby trying to sway Congressional opinion.
I'm totally for the lobbying game. But it just seems a little tyrannical for those that happen to be Pro-Israel to not only lobby, but then fix the rules of the game so that those opposed to their views are totally boxed out of the game.
Afterall, isn't this what one of the the intents of "Muslim Mafia" was?
It's downright unfair.
SMCI, I'm with you on that.
Regarding "Muslim Mafia" specifically, I had never heard of it before, but it turned up when I was searching to see if CAIR or any similar group also held lobbying workshops and who attended. You can see I addressed this in a previous post. To be fair, "Muslim Mafia" is about more than simply lobbying, and is about planting people in positions of influence. (This is what the article I read said, at least. To repeat, I know nothing else about the book other than what I just read.) If that is true, it would be an apples and oranges comparison. On the other hand, it sounded pretty paranoid and far-fetched to me and reading past the sensationalism it seemed like people who worked at CAIR went on to get jobs on the hill.
Back to your original point, the fact that the players hold double standards. Yes, they all do, including our esteemed host. There is actually nothing wrong with a foreign diplomat speaking and especially nothing wrong with members of Congress or their staff helping in an advocacy workshop. Walt has never ginned up the faux outrage, or made similar false statements about any other foreign connected lobby, and I can't imagine he ever would. See, for example, the episode where Walt and his co-author addressed the lobby CAIR.
Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby."
"I like it," he said, beaming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082801178.html
"Cuz they sure as hell went bonkers at even the insinuation that any foreign government, or its official, be colluding with a domestic American lobby trying to sway Congressional opinion."
An Israeli diplomat speaks at a pro-Israel function--stop the presses. This is not news. In fact, the Israeli Amabasador was recently criticized by an Obama appointee for NOT speaking at the ostensibly pro Israel J-Street conference.
Under your logic, anytime the Armenian Ambassador speaks to an Armenian group furthering Armenian interests by promoting recognition of the Armenian genocide--this is somehow wrong?
Walt's points were
1. Congressional staffers were attending which is false. He just saw the words "Congressional Legislative Assistant" and assumed they were congressional staffers and not what they are--just AIPAC employees.
2. The Israel Project supports war with Iran. Which is also false (See above posts).
"regardless of whether it's in the U.S. interests or not—with same not even be worthy of mention—it merely seeks to advocate for *whatever* Israel wants."
Your conclusion just doesn't hold up to logic. Advocating for Israel does not mean doing whatever the current Israeli leadership wants. J-Street is an advocate for Israel, AIPAC is an advocate for Israel, and they want totally different things. Even Walt thinks he is an advocate for what is best for Israel. The Israel Project has an explicit statement on the peaceful means it thinks should be taken against Iran. That is what it thinks is best for Israel so that is what it is advocating.
Fire and Brimstone for the Jews says Haggee
Hey, it's the David and Dave comedy hour again, with some Norwegian shooers kibitzing from the sidelines. No need for you to attend the latest on-line advocacy course as given by self-styled Press Guru and Jewish exper Aaron -- you must have already graduated from the latest ten dollar teen course.
For a more concise look at Israel's best friends, Haggee and the Christian Zios, look at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
According to Haggee's reading of his bible, the only reason he's interested in a monoreligious Jewish state is to hurry up the Second Coming, when Haggee will go to heaven and meet his 76 virgins and all nonbelievers will end up in a lake of fire and brimstone. That includes all Jews who do not convert to Christianity. So, those Jews that accept Hagggee's support of Israel must also accept the fact that Haggee views their religion as an abomination that will end up being consumed by fire and brimstone. Talk about self-hating Jews!
A bunch of non-entities at a suburban synagogue. You call that a lobby?
Not like the old days when Sen Kennedy and other Irish American politicians spoke at IRA fund raising meetings in Massachusetts.
Not like the good old days when the Saudi Arabian govt provided funds with strings attached (wahabism) to mosque building in major cities throughout America,
Some lobby!, Jews gossiping at the worksite, plotting world domination? A meeting at a synagogue, with a teen discount?
Get a life.
Walt, you're lucky you have tenure
I'm of two minds on this.
I hear your (Professor Walt's) inference that US policy should take into account incidents of terror as within a statistical curve as reflective of common and rational reaction to US or allies behaviors and policies, particularly in the Arab and Islamic world.
That assumes that if the United States undertook a foreign policy with a lighter footprint, that the public opinion about the US, and even Israel, might change to the point that jihadist ideology and jihadist application would decrease in number and support, or be even entirely marginalized by near unanimous repugnance and irrelevance.
I'm not sure about that that assumption. I actually think that it is a remote assumption given the reality of the modern world, with US necessary involvement in the middle east (911 occurred before the Iraq War).
From what I've heard, the proponents of jihad come from two communities, children of affluent and partially assimilated leaders in the west and Arab world, that have become alienated individually from the goals of assimilation and western definition of community success. They are disgruntled, angry, in internal conflict.
That state is understandable, but the commitment to pure Islam, or pure anything, is fanatic and results from the needs of individual minds. I myself was attracted to a fanatic movement in my twenties, presented as idealistic (and was idealistic in most ways).
The second group is from largely illiterate, and relatively gullible local community, that primarily offers support for jihadist residence, hospitality. They would tend to be militant only locally, relative to impositions on their tribe or community, moreso than any analysis of geo-political significance, and certainly unable to undertake actual relatively sophisticated terror operations in the west.
The illiterate and local support don't hear accurately about global politics, and certainly not currently. It can take decades or generations to affect public attitudes. Blowback is an innaccurate description for that community.
The plausible uses of the term blowback that I've heard are relative to ironies of say US arming the mujahadeen in Afghanistan gainst the Russians, then their feeling of betrayal and then retaliation that news and attitudes feed.
Let me be blunt with Mr. walt on his article. where he complains why someone did not send email (invitation to the workshop) directly to him. and other comments.
1. He did not get an invitation because, someone did not value his opinion of Israeli-Iranian matter. Nor did they wish to hear his bellicose defending a regime in Tehran which every rational person knows it as dangerous to the stability of the region - Except he and Mersheimer.
.
2. When it comes to leaving the fate of Israel to be decided by fanatic leaders who are guided by 7th century religious dogma, one can be sure, no Israeli will wait until it is too late, to tell him, "Mister Walt, we told you so !".
.
3. Every rational person, that is except Mr. walt, also knows that Israel being a Jewish majority state, it is judged by different standard then other nations - AIPAC just articulates that point, and it resonants well with majority of Americans. .
4. We all know that, Mullah's hatred of the "Zionist" (read Jewish), is based on religious dogma, and has very little (if any) concern for the Palestinians welfare.
5. As an Israeli & American myself, who is also very familiar with that famous Iranian duplicity, and the art of pretensions (Ta'arof, in Farsi), where they pretend to be your best friend, while they pick your pocket
.
with due respect, Mr. walt is either a naive, when it comes to the Akhoondah's real agenda in Tehran. or he intentionally engages with intellectual dishonesty to mislead his readers of his pretentious concern for American foreign policy, and to ensure Israel's long term survival. These concerns do not present themselves as convincing to many of us the Israeli-Americans as vividly as they to others less familiar with the Arab-Israeli conflict .
"3. Every rational person, that is except Mr. walt, also knows that Israel being a Jewish majority state, it is judged by different standard then other nations - AIPAC just articulates that point, and it resonants well with majority of Americans."
Please try to limit yourself to your own communities point of view as an Israeli-American. I know that you think you speak for all Americans and I know the fifth column propagates your position effectively but therein lies the problem.
American nationals want the intellectual discourse to reflect first and foremost the interests of Americans, not Israeli nationals. Your over representation and Chutzpah is responsible for diving this wedge.
STREETPATRO: speaking of "fifth column".
1. American & Israeli dual citizenship, is perfectly legal.
2. US's problem with the rest of the world, primarily stems from those "pure" American who's ignorance and luck of knowledge beyond their own toenail, is the major factor. Not people like me and other millions who try to present the other side of the conflict. I would welcome the same pov from any Arab American with dual citizenship. It can only enrich us all.
3. Let me make it clear to you. I will express views to which I wish to present, not what others expect me to express.
4. At least I am not trying to replace the constitution of US with some old and discarded Sharia Law - use violence if necessary to to so.
I would suggest you to view some interviews with Dr. Wafa Sultan. Herself a former Muslim, talking about many Muslims real agenda immigrating into this country. Her words, not mine.
Sababa, you noted elsewhere that dual citizenship/nationality "legal." The USG has traditionally had a "no-policy policy" on such questions, and a US citizen is able to hold multiple passports without violating any actual laws. Private citizens, I should say. This doesn't apply to federal employees with security clearances. Why do you suppose the SF-86 asks every applicant whether he/she holds a non-US passport, and if the answer is yes, whether the applicant is willing to forfeit the foreign passport as a condition for clearance & employment?
I only note this because the invitation is unclear about just who these American "officials" are, and what branch of the USG they serve in. As an executive branch employee, I'm prohibited from engaging in any sort of public advocacy on any subject remotely connected to my official duties. If these "officials" were, say, DoS officials, their presence at such an event is troubling and likely troublesome.
At any rate, yes: it is "legal," but please do not infer from this that we encourage it. We don't.
Not to mention that citing someone as vile and opportunistic as Wafa Sultan, who is nothing but a polemicist cashing in, thanks to the post 9/11 hysteria, further shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your arguments.
The woman is a cheap political hack, who naturally is in bed with far-right Israel hawks who tout her every time they need to divert attention and remind people "how Evil Islam Is."
Even your fellow Jews have discredited her as a professional spinster!
... you would have been privvy to the inside scoop. No great secrets other than the addresses of the local offices of Congress members. No political opinions other than the assertion that grass roots advocacy is an important part of the American political system. And a link to a New York Times web-site, which you can view from my blog:
http://faarsii.blogspot.com/2010/01/american-jews-seek-to-understand.html
The conference you attended sounds more exciting. Can I get a refund of my $18 (less the cost of the lunch)?
Thanks for the report, Michelle.
It's funny how mundane the reality is, when compared with Walt's bloviating above.
And is this really so hard for other groups to duplicate? One is led to the conclusion that it really isn't, and that the reason for "the Lobby's" success is nothing more mysterious than the fact that they are fighting a downhill battle. Which is to say, their positions coincide with the way American's feel. Walt and crew are fighting an uphill battle.
Follow up Israel Advocacy Training Institute: Spotligt on Iran
Google search at the link below and add
propaganda campaign
to see that many people around the world begrudge others the right to do
learn how to sign up for twitter;
get an address list for local congressional reps;
discuss letter-writing etiquette. (Always thank the Editor at the end, per NYT.)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS322US323&q="Sunday,+January+17,+12+noon"+iran&start=0&sa=N&filter=0
Actually only 58 links, and not 1250 showed up when I started paging through them. Actually, I already knew how to blog, write letters, and draw attention to quotations in English; I was disappointed that there was no opportunity to learn how to do so in ????? (Farsi). OK. I did not know the etiquette of thanking the Editor--which I hope applies in ???????. (Israel) and ????? (Iran) as much as in the USA.
Of course, everyone wants peace in the region. The google search confirms that, doesn't it?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(38)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE