Friday, October 1, 2010 - 1:50 PM
It is perhaps not surprising that Ruth Wisse, the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish literature at Harvard, has written a piece in the Wall Street Journal defending -- you guessed it -- Martin Peretz. She is entitled to her views about her benefactor, of course, but her piece also contains a blatant misrepresentation of my own work, one that she has made before. Indeed, her statement is so at odds with what John Mearsheimer and I actually wrote that it makes me think that Ms. Wisse did not bother to read our book before passing judgment on it.
Specifically, she writes:
The first at Harvard to exploit the Peretz case was Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government, who co-authored a book, "The Israel Lobby," which argues that a conspiracy skews American policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel" (emphasis added).
This statement is demonstrably false, as the following quotations from our book will show (emphasis added in each case):
In short, Wisse has accused us of saying the exact opposite of what we actually wrote, even though we said it numerous times and in several different ways. I might add that my co-author and I reiterated these points in virtually every public presentation that we have made about our book, and nowhere have we even hinted that the lobby is a conspiracy or a cabal, simply because it is not.
Given the obvious contradiction between what Wisse says we wrote and what we actually wrote, one wonders what is going on here. It seems to me that there are two possibilities. She either has not read the book and does not know what we wrote, or she has in fact read the book but has deliberately chosen to misrepresent its contents.
I don't know which of these explanations is correct, but neither reflects well on Ms. Wisse's scholarly integrity. She is obviously welcome to disagree with our arguments, but she is not entitled to make up her own facts.
It doesn't matter if she read it, she'd attack it anyway
The topic should be, should you attack a book precisely because it argues against your worldview?
No matter how many times you state that there is no Jewish conspiracy, opponents will keep repeating the claims of cabal/antisemetism because it historically has been the most effective way at stemming criticism against US foreign policy towards Israel.
This is done in many controversial topics. The technique is to not actually offer counter-points and reasoning, but to just change the topic or attack the author. Climate-change deniers refute scientific studies by countering widely accepted science with the most recent snowstorm (although they're all silent following 114 degree heat in LA this week). Big oil argues against emission regulations out of concern for jobs even though it's about money. Republicans argue for tax cuts for the millionaires out of concerns for 'small' businesses. The same tactics apply to those who favor an unwavering, unbreakable, unpenetreble, un-anything commitment to Israel.
If you can't discredit something with facts or logic, substitute buzzwords. Translated in this case: "Marty Peretz was only first criticized by a loony professor who offers conspiracy theories against Israel"
Only the one with 2 S's. Whoever believes ADDA has already prescribed to emotional and irrational ideology, and had also covered their ears and started screaming.
If ADDA was correct, the arrogance would not be present
Confident people do not act like assholes on the internet.
So I guess I'm a de facto expert on the politics and history of the US, UK, Australia, half of Canada, and a bunch of other countries where English is used.
The only thing more American than apple pie and interest group politics is attacking a book you haven't read.
If someone, or group of liked minded folks, scream, and keep screaming that the moon is made of cheese, it will eventually become conventionally wisdom it is made of cheese, unless an equally or more vociferous counterview is expounded.
This blog is a case in point, whenever something re Israel gets floated.
The form the adamacy takes does get more complex: dust kicking, obfuscation, insults. But mostly, these tactics all come under the heading of bluster, to create a reality.
What is not (quite) so obvious, is how people convince themselves of whatever, and how reality becomes real for them, as opposed to others who just come to accept what they "hear". IF even a disbeliever in something is put in the position of argueing for it long and hard, as a good lawyer will, they will internalize that perspective and believe it all the more. Just keep telling a lie with conviction and you'll soon believe its the truth. Good salesmen first sell themselves.
Ultimately, believe can exceed rationality, and in fact (here's the kicker) rationality has nothing to do with it: if someone believes something strongly enough, it becomes reality. Back to the moon being made out of cheese. Or present day Israel having been a land without a people for a people without a land, and everything that has come out of that simple trope.
Now its time to go throw up
I think thou doth protest too much
After a 5 second search at dictionary.com, one finds this as the 5th definition of conspiracy:
"any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result."
Under that definition, I suggest that Ruth Wisse is not making up any facts. In fact, your book (which I own and have read) goes to great lengths to demonstrate the combination that exists in Washington that is bringing about the given result of current US policy in the Middle East.
The fact that you ascribe to her various motives for using that word, I think says more about you than it does Ruth Wisse. Just sayin'...
this is the worst sort of sophistry. I mean, come on. while that is, of course, one sense in which the word conspiracy can be used, it is an uncommon one and the more common usages all have more specific meanings. like this: 'an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.'
using your definition any institution with an organizational purpose can be called a conspiracy. the NRA is a conspiracy, so is organized labor, and so is Microsoft. gun rights, card check, or profits, you can call it all conspiratorial. and so yes, by playing your little semantic games, we can call the israel lobby a conspiracy. but to suggest that's what Ruth Wisse was meaning is ridiculous.
Ruth Wisse's attack on Walt is indefensible, plain and simple.
that's like saying that it's ok refer to black people as 'negroes' because the dictionary says it means black. I'm sure when you looked at dictionary.com, you saw different definitions and connotations. If you look at Ruth Wisse has written, now and previously, you can see the meaning of her phrasing.
At the risk of being rational for a moment, wouldn't that definition define any plan made between 2 or more people?
If you added "made in secret", fine. So, are you thinking about truth, or looking for something to twist into making into a point of refutation? A rhetorical question.
Had Wisse been sat down with a copy of M&W's book with the sections noted and highlighted, I suspect she would PHYSICALLY would have been unable to get her head around those not-overlong sentences. Not that she isn't smart. Its call cognitive dissonance.
You have an individual, or a community, who is so incredibly invested in a point of view, or just in opposition to being called on their collective influence that the only information they can process is whatever they can find to support their position.
They shout down the information that will invalidate their perspective, having not even heard it. Its rather sad. Their anger, fear, and desperation; kinda pathetic really.
If Wisse had used the word "secret" as a modifier to conspiracy, then I could see Prof. Walt running to the ramparts.
But the fact is she didn't, and she should be permitted to use a word that has greater flexibility than Prof Walt is willing to permit. To spend a whole blog post trying to refute something that she did not in fact say, again, I think it says more about Steve than it does about Ruth.
Does it take a cabal for Republicans and Democrats to agree?
Israel has emerged as an interesting midterm election topic this year, in the face of the most polarized Congress.
Take for instance former NFL football player Jon Runyan's race for the House against his democratic opponent:
runyanforcongress.com/issues/#Israel
adlerforcongress.com/israel
They differ on every issue, except Israel. Perhaps they should tie in immigration reform or health care with the next Israel aid package
She could be plain stupid and incomprehending
"there are two possibilities. She either has not read the book and does not know what we wrote, or she has in fact read the book but has deliberately chosen to misrepresent its contents." Logically there is a third possibility perhaps a subset of the first: She read the book and doesn't understand plain English.
Netanyahu humiliates Obama again
The Obama administration's attempts at seducing Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, are getting embarrassing. Netanyahu has made it very clear he is not interested.
According to Ha'aretz, the latest (and most cringe-worthy) moment in the saga came this week when Dennis Ross, the president's top adviser on Israel-Palestinian issues, convinced Obama that Israel would only agree to an extension of the settlements freeze if Obama would "come off as friendlier" to Bibi.
So Ross and his aides (working with the Israelis) drafted a letter to Netanyahu in which the US would give Israel everything it could possibly want in exchange for a two-month freeze.
The details of the letter were revealed by researcher David Makovsky on the website of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
According to the report, the letter included incentives crucial to Israel's security that Netanyahu has been demanding for years. For example, the US pledged to support Israel's position on stationing Israeli troops in the Jordan Valley after the establishment of a Palestinian state, in order to prevent weapons smuggling.
The US also would not ask Israel to further extend the building moratorium and would pledge that the issue of settlements would be dealt with only as part of final-status talks with the Palestinians, the letter reportedly said.
The US also reportedly would veto any UN Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict this year, would upgrade Israel's defence capabilities after the peace agreement, and would increase security assistance.
This reportedly would include providing Israel with advanced fighter jets and early warning systems, including satellites. The US also would start talks with Arab countries toward a regional agreement vis-a-vis Iran.
Netanyahu's one-way street
It is hard to imagine anything Ross left out. For Bibi, the Ross offer was a dream come true. All that for a 60-day freeze.
But Bibi said "no".
And why? "Netanyahu said he appreciated the letter but could not accept the American proposal because it included a two-month extension of the construction moratorium, which he said would damage his public credibility."
But the "moratorium" was the whole point of the offer. Bibi seems not to believe that his dealings with the US have to be two-way streets. He will only consider deals where the US gives and he gets. (But then, that is the way it always is.)
Ross and the other administration figures are now "incensed," having been played yet again.
They even went up to Capitol Hill to discuss the situation with Bibi's pals up there. No dice.
So it is back to the drawing board. Maybe Ross can give Bibi one of the 50 states (Alaska!).
But that will not work. The word from Israel is that Netanyahu is counting on a huge GOP landslide to save him from Obama. And then in 2012, there will be a Republican president who is more likely than Obama to let him bomb Iran.
Netanyahu has done this before. During the Lewinsky affair, he came to Washington, ignored President Clinton, and went up to the Hill to smoke cigars with Speaker Newt Gingrich and exchange Monica jokes. To understand Bibi, you need to realise that as much as he is Likud, he is a right-wing Republican.
Here is what we should do. Tell Netanyahu that either he agrees to the freeze or the US slows down the delivery of aid. After all, Israel is the #1 recipient of US aid in the world. Surely, there are ways the Pentagon can indicate displeasure.
Or maybe we can refuse to veto one of those Security Council resolutions that rightly condemn Israel's actions in occupied areas. We do not always have to be the one country in the world that stands alone at Israel's side when the UN attempts to pass a resolution we know is right.
I mean, we are the United States. We are also Israel's only real ally on the planet. We do not have to take this kind of dissing lying down.
And Dennis Ross, who came to the White House from the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Peace, should devote his attention to some other region of the world, one in which his penchant for wishful thinking would be relevant.
aljazeera.net/english
This offer is indeed curious. What intrigues me is the circumstances of the ‘leak’. The response, or rather lack of response, from the White House and the Palestinians to the leak suggests that David Makovsky may have been encouraged to it. The offer itself was so extraordinary it is easy to imagine it only made in the confident expectation, if not actual knowledge, that it would not be accepted. Who comes out worse from it and will come out even worse when the negotiation falters over the settlements?
Wisse accused us of saying the opposite of what we wrote - Walt
"Sticks and stones may break our bones, but facts will never sway us." - Neocon Creed
You do use the oddest effusions to justify your prejudices. Although you dress your notions in the trappings of reason, they are rarely anything of the kind.
Let us take two. You are frequently justifying current Zionist activities on the basis of selections from post Canaan history. Canaan was an earlier entity than the Israel that came to occupy much though not all the same area. I am aware of the view that Canaan was simply a territory and I appreciate its convenience to the Zionist claims but since there was a Canaanite language it is reasonable to assume a Canaanite people to speak and write it. Within in this truncated time span you proceed to create a dizzying whirlwind of pickings from history, finally plonking yourself down in Jerusalem and Palestina as if nothing further can be said.
The second is your justification of Zionist aggression on the grounds that other peoples have done similar and still do. I doubt anyone is persuaded by this Swiftian approach, which might just as consistently be raised to justify Oedipal incest on the grounds that Nero did it, or the Rwandan massacres because the Nazis did the same to Gypsies and Jews.
Many simply shrug off your conclusions, having come to realise that behind the growls and snarls and general prestidigitation cowers but a sheep in wolves’ clothing.
It is not enough to SAY it's not a conspiracy....
...one also has to consistently descrbe it that way. The fact is, Steve does at times describe his "Lobby" as working behind the scenes in a coordinated fashion. This does, in fact, describe a conspiracy.
Just one example I was able to find quickly of Steve trying to have it both ways:
Steve: Page 150: "The Israel lobby is the antithesis of a cabal or conspiracy; it operates out in the open and proudly advertises its own clout."
Steve: The silver lining in this sorry episode is that it was abundantly clear to everyone what was going on and who was behind it. In the past, the lobby was able to derail appointments quietly -- even pre-emptively -- but this fight took place in broad daylight. And Steve Rosen, one of Freeman's chief tormentors, once admitted: "a lobby is like a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun."
So, does the "Lobby" operate in the open, or does it try to operate in the dark and it is a victory for the "anti-Lobby" when they can bring a fight into the open?
This shows two things pretty clearly:
1) Ruth Wisse is correct when she says Steve describes "the Lobby" as a conspiracy.
2) It is actually Steve who is being intellectually dishonest here.
But isn't most lobbying done behind the scenes?
The lobbyists don't hide their positions on issues, but they prefer that their exact lobbying efforts aren't widely known. This also makes their actions more effective
For instance, their's an ad running in my area arguing against climate-change legislation that will 'kill jobs.' At the end, it says in tiny print 'Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.' They don't flat out say in the ad "Big Oil is opposed to this law, tell your congressman."
Just like the Israel Lobby, the information is there for anyone who pays attention and does a little research. A conspiracy implies a cover-up, which doesn't exist in this case. They don't deny their own efforts, but they don't go out of their way to let everyone know about it.
So you're blaming *Walt* ... for what a *member* of the lobby that Walt says he believes is open ... for *that* member's expression of a wish for it to *not* be open?
No. Remove that statement entirely and you don't change the meaning. But, since Steve saw fit to say it one should ask why. Was he refuting it, or posting it as a true statement in order to support his claim?
Perhaps Steve meant it this way:
The silver lining in this sorry episode is that it was abundantly clear to everyone what was going on and who was behind it. In the past, the lobby was able to derail appointments quietly -- even pre-emptively -- but this fight took place in broad daylight. And Steve Rosen, one of Freeman's chief tormentors, once admitted: "a lobby is like a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." ... But Steve Rosen is quite wrong, the Lobby can be as successful in broad daylight as it is behind the scenes, and working in the public eye won't hurt it a bit, and ... wait a minute, there's no silver lining there ... forget it.
Moreover and as I noted above, it's like straining and straining after a gnat: "Gee, is there some molecule of anti-semitism in this one academic's writing?"
From my perspective, I see you and others straining to implicate critics of Steve as trying to accuse him of anti-Semitism, in this case basically setting up a strawman. You are the one who brought it up. My criticism is aimed at his unfair attack on a colleague and his intellectual dishonesty.
You really aren't addressing the basic point here:
To Steve, there is a "silver lining" (ie, some kind of adverse repercussion for "the Lobby") because of the fact that this fight took place in the open.
This is inconsistent with the notion that "The Israel lobby is the antithesis of a cabal or conspiracy; it operates out in the open and proudly advertises its own clout."
Steve disclaims that "the Lobby" is the opposite of a cabal or conspiracy by operating out in the open, but then goes on to describe an entity that in the past has done the opposite and, in his opinion, is clearly harmed by operating in the open. So which "Lobby" are we talking about here; the one from p. 150 of Steve's 2007 book, or the one from Steve's March 2009 blog post? The answer is: it really depends on Steve's audience and what he is trying to achieve at the moment.
The intellectual dishonesty is not about the Rosen quote which you have fixated on. Ignore it. The point is what I wrote above. Steve wants it both ways. He wants to point to his disclaimers when people call him on what he writes, but still wants to be able to paint "the Lobby" as something that operates in a coordinated manner and behind the scenes. When a colleague identifies it, correctly, he launches a nasty attack on her.
The book was actually masterful in defusing the inevitable bombs that had to throw regarding the activities of what is in reality a foreign lobby that acts to alter US ;policy for it's benefit..
Done so well in fact that critics have been reduced to the absurd silliness of 'gaming' words and descriptions.
Everyone who read the book saw that pains were taken to make it acceptable to both Jewish and non Jewish readers to reach the widest possible audience. And the book succeeded in it's goal.
No one except those who had/have something to fear from honest revelations about Israel and the US-Isr relationship have been critical of the book.
If you compare "The Israel Lobby" with numerous other books about the lobby and Israel W&M would even appear too kind.
It was only the reasonable logical presentation of the lobby issue and their stature in the foreign policy circle that made them and their book a threat to the Lobby and it's supporters and members..
.
...since there's a missing person everyone's arguing against (vilkssweden?)
I remember this guy from past threads. I suppose he's the Lal Qila of the ME channel? - i.e. the one troll so nauseating he manages to get banned on FP? (a feat, to be sure).
I'm almost in favor of leaving these people's stuff up. Nothing is so damning as having one's dumb ideas lashed to death in public. Yes, these people tend to try and monopolize debate (and turn every discussion into a forum on *their* opinion)...but if they get hammered by the general public, why not leave their dumbness to be displayed for posterity?
Maybe I'm wrong. I suppose I am. Part of what motivates these people is a need for attention. Removing them from the threads takes that away in some ways. Yet... yeah. I guess they do suck, and should be banned. A characteristic I've noted about some of these foreign policy trolls is that they are almost always one-trick ponies. Meaning, they have one drum to bang, and never have anything to say about anything other than their one dimensional view of their pet issue. For Lal Qila it is the innocence and victimization of Pakistan. For Vilkssweden, it's about the primacy of Israel, or something like that. It would be more interesting if they occasionally had a different angle on the same topics, but rarely is that the case. Surprisingly, some professional trolls seem to dance on the line without getting banned (see Marty Martel = the Indian agitprop machine). Someone clearly needs to do a dissertation on the nuances of trolling and their different modes of behavior. Its not like there's a lack of material to work with.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(23)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE