You have to hand it to John Mearsheimer.
Just when you think he can't outdo himself for shoddy scholarship and sheer chutzpah, he surprises.
His co-authored screed on the "Israel Lobby," replete with dark images of a conspiracy perpetrated on American foreign policy by sinister pro-Israel forces, was bad enough. Reviews were scathing, and rightly so.
Now Mearsheimer has reached new heights of ignorance and ignominy.
His April 29th speech to the Palestine Center in Washington is a must-read for its misinformed, misguided, and mendacious outlook.
Posing as a Middle East maven, he catered to his audience, liberally sprinkling his remarks with defamatory references to Israeli policy. Israel was accused of everything from "massacres" to "brutal assaults," from "massive cleansing" to "racism," from "apartheid" to "colonization."
For Mearsheimer, the historical narrative is straightforward. It's all about Zionist "expansionism" stifling the quest for peace and human dignity. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are nothing more than unfortunate pawns in the Israeli power play, with no control over their own destiny and, heaven forbid, no responsibility for their own predicament.
Mearsheimer refuses to acknowledge that it takes two sides to achieve two states.
Missing, therefore, from his tedious and repetitive text are any references whatsoever to the 1947 Partition Plan, which proposed a two-state solution to the competing claims of Jewish and Arab nationalism - rejected by the Arab side - or the subsequent Arab declaration of war on the fledgling state of Israel the next year.
Is there a war in history which did not produce a stream of refugees? Of course, for Mearsheimer, the responsibility lies solely on Israel's shoulders, even though the Arab side started the war. And don't hold your breath for any mention of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. That would disturb Mearsheimer's idée fixe.
He also entirely ignores how Israel acquired the West Bank and Gaza - the Six-Day War, which threatened Israel's destruction - and subsequent peacemaking efforts along the way.
For instance, he notes that Prime Minister Barak "seriously flirted with the idea of creating a Palestinian state at Camp David in July 2000," but never explains why it did not come to pass. President Clinton has provided the answer: Arafat was to blame.
Referring to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni), Mearsheimer asserts, "It is by no means clear that either of them would be willing or able to make the concessions that would be necessary to create a legitimate Palestinian state. Certainly, Olmert did not do so when he was prime minister."
Really? According to none other than Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat, Olmert offered a remarkable deal in 2008, including a shared Jerusalem and territory equaling 100 percent of the West Bank. Like the Clinton-Barak offer of 2000, it was turned down by the Palestinian side.
In other words, Mearsheimer, so eager to protect his airtight narrative of a bellicose Israel uninterested in a two-state peace deal with the Palestinians, simply glides past all evidence to the contrary, including surveys of Israeli public opinion that regularly reaffirm support for a two-state accord.
Here is his assessment of the current state of affairs: "The Palestinians are badly divided among themselves and not in a good position to make a deal with Israel and then stick to it." That sounds reasonable, even if he never once mentions Hamas by name or the nature of the PA-Hamas conflict. But then there's the very next sentence: "That problem is fixable with time and help from Israel and the United States." Once again, the onus is on Israel, not the Palestinians, to sort out an internecine Palestinian dispute that has endured for years.
And speaking of Hamas, notably absent from Mearsheimer's speech is a single mention of Israel's security environment. In his world, there are no Hamas tunnels, rockets, and mortars; no Hezbollah arsenal; no Iranian nuclear program; no Syrian arms transfers; no al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades; and no Palestinian incitement against Israel, Zionism, or Jews.
No, those things presumably don't exist in Mearsheimer's mind. Perhaps they are just figments of the Israeli imagination, or are inflated by Israel to divert attention from its "refusal" to countenance a peace deal, or have no relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
So how does Israel get away with it? Again, for Mearsheimer, the answer is clear-cut. Diabolical forces at play in the United States protect Israel. Who might they be? Christian Zionists, he claims, coupled with a group he maliciously dubs the "new Afrikaners" - Jews in the U.S. who have "blind loyalty" to Israel, "will back Israel no matter what it does," and who will "convince themselves and others that Israel is not an apartheid state."
Well, I may have missed out on President Nixon's enemies' list, but I made Mearsheimer's, and I consider it a badge of honor, irrespective of what slur he uses. And since he lumps together everyone who dares to stand up for Israel's right to exist and defend itself, including many who actively support a two-state deal, the company is quite illustrious.
It includes, for example, Lester Crown and Mort Zuckerman. In 2005, they helped raise funds to purchase greenhouses in Gaza and, in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal, present them as a goodwill gift to local Gazans. The gesture was meant to protect 3,500 jobs and boost the economy. Instead, the greenhouses quickly became targets of Palestinian violence and looting.
It's even more illuminating to see who made Mearsheimer's list of "righteous Jews" in his outrageous "selection" process.
In 2007, Mearsheimer and co-author Stephen Walt claimed to be "'pro-Israel,' in the sense that we support its right to exist, admire its many achievements, want its citizens to enjoy secure and prosperous lives, and believe that the United States should come to Israel's aid if its survival is in danger."
Perplexing, then, that the Jews who made Mearsheimer's cut - and merit his applause - include:
Noam Chomsky, who said of Israel's creation, "I think that a socialist binationalist position was correct then [in 1947], and remains so today." Chomsky has also said that Hezbollah, a group that calls for Israel's destruction and doesn't much love Jews, either, has a "reasoned" and "persuasive" case for keeping its arsenal of missiles.
Richard Falk, who wrote of the Second Intifada, "Suicide bombers appeared as the only means still available by which to inflict sufficient harm on Israel so that the struggle could go on."
Tony Judt, who asserted, "Israel, in short, is an anachronism."
Sara Roy, whose review of a new book about Hamas was rejected by The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs because, according to the editor-in-chief, "all reviewers found the piece one-sided" in favor of Hamas.
Philip Weiss, who proclaims that "My feelings are not neutral about Zionism; I don't like it."
And the list goes on.
If John Mearsheimer actually cares a whit about Israel, why does he admire so many people who want it to disappear?
Mearsheimer has long ago lost any semblance of academic stature on the Middle East - if he ever had it. Instead, he has turned himself into a maniacally obsessed cheerleader for the most rabid anti-Israel voices.
Fortunately, his impact on the real Middle East is nil.
But tragically, his impact on impressionable students passing through his university classroom is daily.
Its like how many Muslims want a different Europe than what they want when they are a mjority in Muslim lands. Unless Whites show they have a strong sense of their ethnicity and religion they will be taken for a ride. Israel's is Jewish and Judaic, Palestine is Arab and Islamic. Why can't America be European and Christian? Ethnicity and culture for all, and no more hypocrisy.
The New England Minister, Lyman Abbott (1835-1922) wrote, “We Gentiles owe our life to Israel. It is Israel who has brought us the message that God is one, and that God is a just and righteous God, and demands righteousness of his children, and demands nothing else. It is Israel that has brought us the message that God is our Father. It is Israel who, in bringing us the divine law, has laid the foundation of liberty. It is Israel who had the first free institutions the world ever saw. It is Israel who has brought us our Bible our prophets, our apostles. When sometimes our own unchristian prejudices flame our against the Jewish people, let us remember that all that we have and all that we are we owe, under God, to what Judaism (Israel) has given us.”
What is wrong with acting on deeply held moral truth?
Camp David 2000 - There are two narratives of the 2000 Camp David summit. Mr. Robert Malley, a special assistant to president Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs, was a member of the U.S. peace team and participated in the Camp David summit. Mr. Malley co-authored: CAMP D AVID: THE TRAGEDY OF ERRORS, which presents a different account than the one Mr. Hume presented Sunday.
Read Clayton W. Swisher, "THE TRUTH ABOUT CAMPT DAVID, The Untold Story About The Collapse Of The Middle East Peace Process."
The Annapolis farce was identical to the Camp David farce. In both, an outgoing U.S. President made a sham attempt to broker 'peace.' In both, t he Israelis used the talks as a distraction. In both, Jewish proposals were intended to ultimately remove all Palestinians from Palestine. (thepeoplesvoice.org)
On C-SPAN sometime ago, Charlie Rose asked President Clinton about the Israeli/Palestinian peace debacle. President Clinton responded, "The one incident that scuttled peace between Israel and the Palestinians was the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli extremist.
Six-day war: Israel launched, without provocation, a preemptive attack on Egypt and Syria in 1967, murdering thousands and captured the Golan Heights, Jerusalem and the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai, has attacked Lebanon twice, struck sites in Iraq and Syria without provocation, attacked the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967, killing 34 sailors and wounding 172.
I disagree. Misrepresenting facts is really not honorable, and tends to diminish the misrepresentor.
Hussein Ibish posted a thoughtful takedown of Mearsheimer's speech on his blog from a Palestinian perspective:
http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/04/30/mearsheimers_unhelpful_unrealistic_and_disempowering_message_palestinains
He also wrote an entire book about why the one-state result is not something to be pursued:
http://www.ibishblog.com/book/2009/08/30/what%E2%80%99s_wrong_one_state_agenda_why_ending_occupation_and_peace_israel_still_palestini
Watch the video of Ibish and Aaron David Miller etc. discussing the book and its ideas:
http://www.ibishblog.com/ibish_multimedia
I learned of Ibish through Jeff Goldberg's blog at The Atlantic, so credit where it's due.
The greenhouses were abandoned because Israel blocked the export of produce. Abandoned buildings the World over get trashed:
"James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank president ..... hammered out the deal to buy the greenhouses......
But Israel controls Gaza's borders, and it has yet to approve an agreement that would open up a reliable channel to ship goods out of the strip.... Two weeks ago, Wolfensohn criticized Israel in a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, saying it was ''almost acting as though there has been no withdrawal" with its policy of continuing to seal off Gaza and delaying talks......
Without a guaranteed path to send Gaza's high-end vegetables and flowers onto the world market, .... the greenhouse project will wither on the vine...... the enterprise...... will dwindle as perishable cargo rots inside Gaza's sealed borders."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/10/31/greenhouse_project_endangered_in_gaza/
"The issue of the greenhouses is especially painful to Wolfensohn... "Everything was rotting because you couldn't get the fruit. And if you went to the border, as I did many times, and saw tomatoes and fruit just being dumped on the side of the road, you would have to say that if you were a Palestinian farmer you'd be pretty upset."
http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/friday-supplement/all-the-dreams-we-had-are-now-gone-1.225828
"The US has in the past threatened to withhold $200 million in military aid to Egypt over concern about arms smuggling in the tunnels, angering Cairo. A compromise was reached in early 2008 under which Congress allocated $23 million of that aid toward stemming smuggling, the US Army Corps of Engineers have been involved in training Egyptian troops on advanced technology that can detect and destroy the tunnels."
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1214/Gaza-border-Why-Egypt-is-building-a-steel-underground-wall
Now, I went to a school that was 80% Jewish for 14 year, and have always been an Israel supporter. At the same time, I try to keep a level head and be fair-minded about the conflict. I know there have been mistakes on both sides.
Halfway through the interview, I could tell that AJC was miles further towards the "propaganda" end of the spectrum. I told the interviewer that the job wasn't for me and walked out.
Interesting to read what you wrote. Unfortunately for you, it does not make you sound like someone one would offer a job very easily now.
The first thing a smart person should do in looking for a job, is to do their homework and know about the place they are interviewing for. (What is google for?). Why would you waste your time and that of a possible employer otherwise?
I hope that you have already a job, because what you just posted is not something that will help your resumee.
Also, for the record, what you just wrote, can be percieved as "propaganda" too.
I do have a job now, and I only got it because I read the 300-page report on the project they were starting before going into the interview. They made me take an hour-long written test on the objectives of the program.
Good advice though. Always do your homework, kids.
http://www.israellycool.com/2010/05/04/weird-pro-israel-video-of-the-day/
If you can find antisemitism here, provide a link or retract your slur.
Raskefing, posted below.
You absolutely sure?
Mr Harris is a full-time employee of the Israeli propaganda machinery.
His livelihood depends on his regularly churning out swathes of biased and spun window dressing for people whom he and his employers think will be so gullible as to swallow the stuff.
Instead, it appears that you are reluctant to address the facts discussed in the article that are as inconvenient for you as they are for the "professor".
You're expecting other nations to be complicit in Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity?
I was brought up to think Israel could do no wrong. I read as much as I could over the years about the subject, from both sides, and read the facts from resource material, not opinion pieces. I now have an opinion and continue to inform myself.
My son just spent 4 months in his honors english class on the Holocaust. He had to read two of Elie Weisel's books and read a lot of what appeared to be AIPAC sponsored propaganda. I kept my mouth shut and I urged him to do research on his own because I didn't want to push my views on him like the uninformed narrow-minded community I live in and family had done to me. He did the research himself. He informed himself. For his final report he had a choice of genocide, human rights abuses, or slavery. His choice was human rights abuses against Palestinians by the Israeli Government. He got an A+.
Stop underestimating high school and college students. The best way to teach is to urge them to do their own research of the facts. Don't force feed them propaganda. Are you afraid of this concept?
I'm hoping the new generation can succeed in helping with the peace process. I hope they're more informed than my generation. Facts are the greatest tool for our "impressionable students".
She said she was instilling in him her beliefs and values, so that when he left home...he'd be able to think for himself.
I almost ran off the road.
I'm lucky that my son has a bit of a stubborn streak. I'm such an uber-liberal but he told me when he was 13 that he didn't want MY thoughts to be HIS thoughts. I was very proud of him in that moment.
It is telling that Mr. Harris opens his article by attacking Mearsheimer’s book (The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy) as a “screed”, “bad enough” , “replete with dark images of a conspiracy”, then accuses Mearsheimer of “shoddy scholarship”, and tells us that “reviewers were scathing.”
Not a shred of evidence is offered; no argument, no proof, no discussion!
Are we supposed to just take Mr. Harris’s word for this barrage of unsubstantiated insults?
True the book is controversial, but it received its share of praise and balanced reviews too. Actually many reviewers were” scathing” at those who decided to crucify the authors instead of arguing with them cool-headedly. For instance:
Edward Peck, former US diplomat:
“The expected tsunami of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors, and denied there is such a lobby—validating both the lobby’s existence and aggressive, pervasive presence and obliging Harvard to remove its name.”
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1700
Tony Judt (NYT):
“This somewhat hysterical response is regrettable. In spite of its provocative title, the essay draws on a wide variety of standard sources and is mostly uncontentious.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19judt.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ei=5087&en=2706f771ea2e35aa&ex=1145592000
As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Harris has lost this case with his opening salvo.
One clarification is that "screed," although it sounds like a nasty word, just means a long written document. :) Fanned anyway, for asking this blogger to back up his assertions. I sure can't tell if he's read Mearsheimer's book.
http://www.odsg.org/co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1818:interview-with-tikva-honig-parnass&catid=27:one-state&Itemid=41
I'm always interested in what triggers awareness.
Julia Sweeney, the comediene does a great job in her stories of identifying what did it for her.
Some readers here will be uncomfortable with even the term "marxist". Just press on through the first few dense paragraphs and examine what she says.
Fanned.
Her latest interview:
http://www.odsg.org/co/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1818:interview-with-tikva-honig-parnass&catid=27:one-state&Itemid=41