English clippings Walt & Mearsheimer visit to Israel

Index

 

 

1.        Jerusalem Post June 11 Anti Israel-lobby lobbyists in country

2.       IBA Radio June 11: Interviews with Alon Pinkas and Gabi Shefer [translation from Hebrew]

3.       AP June 12: Israel lobby critics face campus queries in Israel

4.       Chronicle of Higher Education: 'Israel Lobby' professors get hospitable greeting in Israel

5.       Jerusalem Post June 13: Israel Lobby authors face critics at HU

6.       Israel Insider op-ed June 13: Don't ban Mearsheimer and Walt, or blame Hebrew U for hosting them

7.       Toronto Star June 13: Tel Aviv audience takes `Israel Lobby' in stride

8.       JTA June 13: Israel lobby authors in Israel

9.        Christian Science Monitor June 14 -- US policy and the pro-Israel lobby: A university in Jerusalem takes on the debate

      10.     IBA Radio interview with the professors on June 12.

 

 

Full texts

 

 

Jerusalem Post June 11 Anti Israel-lobby lobbyists in country

 

Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, June 11

 

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, whose book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy has become a bible for Israel-bashers in the US, will arrive in Israel Thursday and deliver a lecture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and to a Gush Shalom forum in Tel Aviv.

 

In the book, published last September amidst a wave of controversy, Walt - a Harvard University political science professor - and Mearsheimer, from the University of Chicago, argue that AIPAC and the Israel lobby have essentially hijacked US foreign policy.

 

The two argue in their book that Israel and its supporters in the US "have been able to stymie any détente between Iran and the United Sates, and to keep the countries far apart."

 

They also argue that "many policies pursued on Israel's behalf now jeopardize US national security."

 

Hebrew University professors Arie Kacowicz, chairman of the international relations department, and Gabi Sheffer, of the political science department, signed off on an invitation and abstract inviting students and colleagues to a lecture by the duo entitled "Is the 'Israel lobby' good for Israel?"

 

Sheffer said that the university had not invited the two professors to lecture, but that Walt and Mearsheimer had turned to the political science department and asked to do so. Since the two were known by many in the department, their request was accepted, Sheffer said.

 

The lecture at the university has not been widely publicized.

 

Sheffer said he had no hesitations about having the two controversial professors speak at the Hebrew University, even though he didn't agree with their positions, because if Israel was fighting against academic boycotts abroad, it could not apply one here.

 

Hebrew University spokeswoman Orit Sulitzeanu said that Walt and Mearsheimer were two internationally known scholars whose book was academically controversial, and whose thesis was that the Israel lobby is unintentionally bad for Israel itself.

 

She said that the purpose of the lecture was to have a "dialogue" and "academic argument" with them.

 

The two were invited to Israel by Gush Shalom, an left-wing group headed by Uri Avnery. They are scheduled to deliver a lecture at a Gush Shalom forum on Thursday at 8 p.m. at Beit Sokolow in Tel Aviv.

 

Avnery, in an article on the Gush Shalom Web site following US presidential candidate Barack Obama's speech at the AIPAC policy conference last week, wrote that "The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety [at the AIPAC conference]."

 

Neither Foreign Ministry or AIPAC officials would comment on Walt and Mearsheimer's upcoming trip.

 

 

 

 

 

IBA Radio June 11: Interviews with Alon Pinkas and Gabi Shefer [translation from Hebrew]

 

Inyan Aher [primetime newsmagazine], IBA Radio, June 11

 

Anat Davidov: we begin with a very interesting question.  Should the two American professors who last September published a book called "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" in which they strongly criticized Israel in general and AIPAC in particular be allowed to appear?  We're trying to understand what this is about and for that purpose we have invited Alon Pinkas, the former Israeli consul to New York.  Good morning.

 

Alon Pinkas: good morning Anat.

 

Anat Davidov (?): so tell us a little about these professors, Walt and Mearsheimer, and the book.

 

Alon Pinkas: I'll tell you a few things.  The two professors themselves come out of the core, the heart of the academic establishment, that is, they do not come from the fringes.  John Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, which is a prestigious and important university, and Stephen Walt is the dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, which is of course also a prestigious university.  So they do not come from the fringes of the left or the right or the conspiracy theories.  They come exactly from the middle of the establishment.

 

Anat Davidov: isn't that what is worrisome about their arguments?

 

Alon Pinkas: that is what is worrisome and that is what supposedly gave the book even more scientific validity and political validity, and that is why it was dangerous, as you said.

 

Anat Davidov: what exactly do they say?

 

Alon Pinkas: I'll tell you what they say.  They divide it into two, look, the original paper, an original research paper about 100 pages long was published first in The London Review of Books.  There is a theory that a famous American journal called The Atlantic refused to publish it, claiming it was too controversial.  I don't know how true that is.  After it was published in the London Review of Books it went over the Internet to anyone who was interested, in a distribution of millions, the controversy was created that led to writing the book.  At the basis of the book there are many arguments but there is one key argument, that the United States’ foreign policy, and especially its policy in the Middle East, and especially in the Israeli Arab conflict in the days and months leading up to the Iraq war, that foreign policy was taken hostage by

 

Anat Davidov: they actually said hijacked.

 

Alon Pinkas: hijacked.  Exactly.  Taken hostage, not at a single point in time around a single issue but over a long time in a fundamental and deep way, by a group or large coalition they call the Jewish lobby, at the center of which is AIPAC but not only AIPAC.  The Christian fundamentalist Evangelists, that group of foreign policy experts with an ideological leaning called the neoconservatives, Jewish organizations which are not AIPAC and so on and so forth.

 

Anat Davidov: a real Israeli conspiracy, a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

 

Alon Pinkas: it is not a conspiracy.  It can be said in their credit or their defense that they say the whole matter of a lobby is part and parcel of the United States and as American as apple pie and baseball.  I am quoting that, it is not my invention, that is what they say.

 

Anat Davidov: so it is the core of their existence.

 

Alon Pinkas: they don't have a problem, they are only saying that a very weak administration, a Congress whose concerns are raising money for candidates and contests, antipathy towards the Arabs and very strong Israeli arguments over the years quashed any kind of public discussion of the question, and the result, and here we come to the really dangerous part, is not that the policy is only pro-Israeli, but that that policy sometimes acts in a way

 

Anat Davidov: against the American interest.

 

Alon Pinkas: against the American interest.

 

Anat Davidov: doesn't that sound a little far-fetched to you?

 

Alon Pinkas: very far-fetched but let me tell you what the problem is.  I spoke about this on your program when the study came out even before the book.  I'll tell you two things from different ends of this discussion.  On the one hand it is very dangerous.  It is dangerous that people say it because it is not true.  By the way, their academic research is not 100% free of manipulations.  It is not deliberately false, it is not malicious but it is not free of so-called cherry picking.  Let's take what is convenient for us and leave on the tree what is less so.  On the other hand, there is a problem here.  It seems that the Jewish lobby, and pardon me the nonacademic phrase, got on the nerves of too many, too important people for people at that level and in the places they come from, Chicago and Harvard, to dare write a book like this without

 

Anat Davidov: so they have some depth, they have a back, even hidden.

 

Alon Pinkas: yes.  They got on a wave, you know, the wave of the Larry Franklin and Pollard affair is in the background, and the Iraq war, and the ridiculous and vicious charges, but they cannot be dismissed, they are there, that it was Israel that stood behind pushing the US into the war in Iraq and so on and so forth.  And anyone who wants to find arguments here, and that is what makes this study important from Israel's point of view, anyone seeking respectable, reasoned academic authorities to substantiate anti-Israeli positions has a study here on the shelf that is very easy to look at, unfortunately.

 

Anat Davidov: and that is worrisome.  The book got a lot of resonance, didn't it.  It is in use

 

Alon Pinkas: this is a classic example where research has already exhausted the whole debate potential or public conflict, I don't know if the book is a commercial success, it can be checked on Amazon, I haven't checked but I can tell you one thing.

 

Anat Davidov: the problem is the resonance of the arguments.

 

Alon Pinkas: the residence is tremendous, it is tremendous, and you must remember the most important thing here, it might be the third time I am saying something is the most important but still there is something very important here.  There are generations of American students that are going to college or began in the last two years, or will go study political science in the coming years.

 

Anat Davidov: it will be on their syllabus.

 

Alon Pinkas: exactly, or Middle Eastern science or courses about American foreign policy, and because of the high academic status of the two gentlemen who wrote it, Walt and Mearsheimer, those books will be included

 

Anat Davidov: on the required reading list.

 

Alon Pinkas: on the required reading list.

 

Anat Davidov: and then they will accept it as fact.

 

Alon Pinkas: by professors who very possibly sympathize in the first place with the authors of the book and not the counter arguments, but it also created a large academic literature against them, not the ones who cry 'woe is me, anti-Semitism.'  Shlomo Ben Ami, the former Israeli Foreign Minister, wrote a large article against it, Dennis Ross wrote a big article, by the way, they were attacked from the left in the US, saying stop letting Bush off the hook, he is the big criminal in the US foreign policy, not some lobby or other.

 

Anat Davidov: yes.  It seems as if there is nobody in America except for a bunch of reckless Jews.  I would like to say only that Professors Walt and Mearsheimer were invited to Israel by Gush Shalom.  And they will speak tomorrow at Beit Sokolov at a Gush Shalom conference in Tel Aviv, and at Hebrew University.  And I would like to invite to this conversation Professor Gabi Sheffer from Hebrew University's Department of political science.  Good morning.

 

Professor Gabi Sheffer: good morning.

 

Anat Davidov: controversial, not completely founded, a little far-fetched, should these two appear at a respectable academic institution like Hebrew University in Jerusalem?

 

Professor Gabi Sheffer: first of all let me tell you they came to us and we didn't even know they would be invited by Uri Avnery but it would not have changed our decision.

 

Anat Davidov: it really doesn't matter.

 

Professor Gabi Sheffer: let me speak please.  It would not have changed our decision to accept them.  Look, these two researchers, as Alon Pinkas said before, are very important researchers on international relations.  They have very particular views and they wrote the article and this problematic book.  I think it is possible to invite them.  Our intention is for them to appear tomorrow before students and university faculty.  It will be open for discussion.  It will not be a lecture without reactions.  Their talk will be short and afterwards there will be a discussion and dialogue and that was their intention in their request to appear at Hebrew University tomorrow, and we accepted it.  Now, Miss, please listen to another thing, if you don't mind.  Don't forget that there is an inclination, in England too, as you know, and as Alon Pinkas knows, there is also an inclination in the United States today to boycott Israeli academics.

 

Anat Davidov: right.

 

Professor Gabi Sheffer: whether they write positively or negatively on the right and the left, from Bar Illan and other universities, from every side.  Therefore Israel cannot allow two people, and other professors who criticize Israel and criticize the Jewish lobby, justifiably or not, we can not refuse to let them come here and voice their opinions.  We will not have a part in boycotting professors even though their articles and their book may be a little problematic in terms of the facts and so on, we will let them come here and say what they have to say and enter a dialogue, and that is what is important, to enter a dialogue, and our friends at the university and our students, I hope will criticize them and we will give them an opportunity to speak up.  Now,

 

Anat Davidov: what do you personally think about the book professionally, scientifically?

 

Professor Gabi Sheffer: just listen first, I will answer you, Anat, but first I want to say something.  I have known Mearsheimer for 35 years and other members of our department here know him, and other members know Walt.  He is not an anti-Semite, he was not an anti-Semite and he is not an anti-Semite and he is not anti-Israeli.  The article was originally directed at the Bush administration and Bush's policy because, without going into academic affairs, those two researchers have a realistic view and they thought the US administration's decision to go to Iraq was wrong.

 

Now to your question about the quality of the article and the book.  Look, there are problems there, there are problems in terms of some of the evidence they bring and some of the quotes and so on, but altogether it is a provocative book.  They needed to be heard, they needed to be reacted to, just like many others did react.  I agree, I wrote a lot about diaspora affairs and the Jewish diaspora and the lobbies of that diaspora and I think the Jewish lobby had an influence, I am not sure as much of an influence as these two professors say.

 

Anat Davidov: they almost turned it into something completely magical or maybe even demonic.

 

Professor Gabi Sheffer: that is an exaggeration.  But again, their original intention, and Mearsheimer wrote this to me a long time ago when he published the article, his main intention was to criticize the Bush administration and not the Jewish lobby, but things developed, partly because of the reactions and because of the dynamics of their study, they evolved into that.  I too have criticism of the book and the article and they know my criticism just like they know other people's criticism, but we must not boycott people like that who, as Alon Pinkas said, are from the core of professors at the most important universities in America, Chicago and Harvard.

 

Anat Davidov: Alon Pinkas, are you coming to Walt and Mearsheimer's lectures?

 

Alon Pinkas: let me tell you, I got VIP treatment and I am having breakfast with them on Friday, at which I want to tell them one point at a time where I think they are wrong and misleading.

 

Anat Davidov: okay.

 

Alon Pinkas: but let me tell you again Anat, even if I think they are wrong and misleading and their argument is not strong enough, the fact that they wrote a book like this and the fact that they are who they are and come from the places

 

Anat Davidov: requires us to listen to them.

 

Alon Pinkas: I don't know if it requires us to listen but it should turn on a little lightbulb warning us, I don't know if this is a trend because that is grandiose and very dramatic, but not everybody thinks about Israel what we hear and applaud with satisfaction at AIPAC conventions.

 

Professor Gabi Sheffer: do you understand what he said?  And I agree with Alon Pinkas about this.  We also have to think about Israel's connections with AIPAC, about AIPAC's activities, but as I said before they exaggerated on that issue and the problem was with the Bush administration.

 

Anat Davidov: Alon Pinkas and Professor Gabi Seffner from the Hebrew University Department of Political Science, thank you very much for this interesting conversation.  As I said, professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer will speak tomorrow at Beit Sokolov at a Gush Shalom conference and later at Hebrew University.

 

 

 

 

 

AP June 12: Israel lobby critics face campus queries in Israel

 

Aron Heller, Associated Press, June 12

 

Two American professors on their first visit to Israel since the publication of their book critical of the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington faced a sometimes-testy reception at one of the nation's most prestigious universities.

 

About 200 students and faculty members crammed into a stuffy lecture hall at the Hebrew University on Thursday and grilled John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt for more than two hours about their best-selling book.

 

The pair argue that pro-Israel special interest groups have manipulated the U.S. political system to promote policies that favor Israel and run counter to American interests. Jewish American groups and U.S. administration officials have criticized them.

 

The authors said Thursday their goal was to draw a lively academic debate over a topic that was perceived as taboo.

 

"If you bring up the Israel lobby, you are asking for trouble," Walt said as he opened his lecture. He said he knew he was "playing with fire" when he wrote the book, but said he would not be deterred by personal attacks.

 

Critics have charged Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago professor, and Walt, of Harvard University, with shoddy scholarship, faulty logic and even anti-Semitism.

 

The attacks have been compounded because Islamic militants, Holocaust deniers and even former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke are among those who have praised the book, although some mainstream analysts have said their work raised legitimate points.

 

The classroom erupted in excited conversation as the authors took questions. The exchange was mostly cordial, with the professors eliciting some laughs. But it got testy at times.

 

International relations student Liad Gilhar, 25, accused the professors of distorting facts and providing fodder for anti-Semites.

 

"You need to choose your words carefully," Gilhar said.

 

Walt shot back: "With all due respect, I don't think it is my words that harm Israel, but rather Israel's actions."

 

A professor criticized the authors for failing to condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. "I don't think he is inciting to genocide," Walt responded.

 

Mearsheimer said Israel's "brutal" treatment of Palestinians helped fuel terrorism against the United States and that, unlike in Israel, there was no healthy debate on the matter in America.

 

"The U.S. media coverage is heavily slanted in Israel's direction," he said.

 

Korina Kagan, a political science lecturer, said she essentially agreed with their thesis and was appalled by the attacks against them, especially from academic circles.

 

"The smear campaign against them is worse than anything they have ever written," she said, adding that many of their positions are shared by commentators in the Israeli media. "We need to have a free academic exchange."

 

Mearsheimer and Walt were invited to Israel by Gush Shalom, a small, ultra-dovish political group, to speak about their book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," published last year.

 

The two said they decided to speak at Hebrew University in order to address a more diverse audience.

 

"It is telling that the guests came to Israel and were hosted by a fringe group and had to solicit themselves to appear here," said Arieh O'Sullivan, a spokesman for the Anti-Defamation League in Israel. "It's not academia, it's like a traveling carnival show."

 

 

 

 

 

Chronicle of Higher Education: 'Israel Lobby' professors get hospitable greeting in Israel

 

Matthew Kalman, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 12

 

The first appearance in Israel by Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer since the publication of their controversial book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, impressed a largely student audience at the Hebrew University, but left some faculty members wondering about their honesty.

 

A threatened boycott failed to have any effect, and the talk passed off with nothing more dramatic than some lively debate and repeated declarations from the pair that they are neither anti-Semitic nor Israel-haters.

 

Their presentation, “Is the ‘Israel lobby’ good for Israel?,” attracted 200 people. Mr. Walt told The Chronicle that they were visiting Israel at the invitation of the veteran left-wing campaigner Uri Avnery and decided to add a university appearance to their schedule.

 

Mr. Walt is a professor of international relations at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Mr. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

 

Their work has been criticized as anti-Jewish and intellectually dishonest, charges that led some to call for the lecture to be canceled.

 

“Any discussion of the Israel lobby takes place in the shadow of centuries of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories,” said Mr. Walt. “John and I reject any one of those anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. The Israel lobby is a normal U.S. interest group. There’s no conspiracy, no cabal, no secret plot here.”

 

Robert Wistrich, a professor of modern European history and director of the university’s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, said he was willing to assume that they are not anti-Semitic.

 

“I don’t think that’s the point, though,” he said. “Those who object to their kind of discourse about the lobby are right to point out that in a very attenuated and benign form, with all the academic qualifications they make, it is uncomfortably reminiscent of very familiar arguments that clearly were anti-Semitic in the past. Some of it is disingenuous. It’s a kind of cover.”

 

 

 

 

 

Jerusalem Post June 13: Israel Lobby authors face critics at HU

 

Herb Keinon, The Jerusalem Post, June 13

 

After arguing in their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy that Israel and its US supporters were instrumental in pushing the US to war in Iraq, authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer said in Israel on Thursday that Israel and its lobby were now pressuring the US to attack Iran.

 

"There is only one country in the world that is putting any pressure on the US to attack Iran, and that is Israel," Mearsheimer said to a packed lecture hall of some 200 people at Hebrew University. "And it is putting enormous pressure on the US."

 

"Inside the United States, it is pro-Israel individuals and groups who are almost wholly responsible for pressure being brought to bear on [US President George W.] Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney to use military force on Iran," he went on. "The idea that the lobby and Israel don't put huge amounts of pressure on the US, is contradictory to the evidence."

 

Walt and Mearsheimer's lecture at Hebrew University was part of a regional lecture tour that included a speech Thursday night in Tel Aviv at a forum sponsored by the extreme left-wing group Gush Shalom, as well as lectures at universities and think tanks in east Jerusalem, Ramallah, Amman, Abu Dhabi and Qatar.

 

This is the first time that Walt and Mearsheimer have been to Israel since the publication of a controversial article in 2006 in the London Review of Books, that was then extended into an even more controversial book, published last year, that led some critics to brand the two as tainted by anti-Semitism.

 

"I would certainly prefer that people not call me an anti-Semite," Mearsheimer said in a phone interview with The Jerusalem Post as he and Walt were being driven from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.

 

"But it doesn't bother me. because I know unequivocally I am not an anti-Semite, nor is Steve [Walt]. In fact we are both philo-Semites and we both think it is a wonderful thing there is a State of Israel, and we are not in any way shape or form trying to delegitimize Israel."

 

As to whether he is concerned his book is being used as ammunition by dyed-in-the wool anti-Semites to bolster their Israel-bashing arguments, Mearsheimer said: "If there was a significant danger that anti-Semites would use our writing to raise the specter of anti-Semitism, we would not have written the article or the book. We just don't think that is a serious problem, and it was therefore appropriate to write both the article and the book."

 

Among those who have praised and cited the book are Holocaust deniers and former Klu Klux Klan head David Duke.

 

"We condemn unequivocally everything David Duke stands for and regret that he uses our article and now our book to support his agenda. But we have no control over who likes or dislikes what we write," Mearsheimer said.

 

In the nine months since the book's release, Walt and Mearsheimer have been featured on numerous talks shows, have spoken at countless events, and also been subject to withering criticism about the scholarship and objectivity of their work.

 

Despite the criticism, with some Middle East scholars calling their research "shoddy" and "tendentious," Mearsheimer said that had he been able to do it over again, there is almost nothing in the book - whose thesis is that an amorphous Israel lobby is leading the US to advocate and carry out polices detrimental to its own interests - that he would change.

 

While obviously critical of the Israel lobby's pressure, Mearsheimer has no problem when the roles are reversed, and in fact welcomed US pressure on Israel.

 

"I would have no problem in significantly reducing American economic and military aid [to Israel] for the purpose of getting Israel to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state," he said. "I would have no problem in joining in with other countries in the UN criticizing Israel."

 

Regarding Iran, Mearsheimer said that Israel and the Israel lobby were acting legitimately in lobbying for military intervention.

 

But, he said, just as it is legitimate for this to be done, so it is also equally legitimate to point out that it is Israel and the Israel lobby who is pushing the US to attack Iran.

 

"As you know, if you said that in the US you would be called an anti-Semite. And that is what we are protesting against. And we think it would be bad for the US and for Israel if the US would attack Iran."

 

In the interview, and through the nearly two-hour lecture and question and answer period at Hebrew University, Mearsheimer stressed that what the Israel lobby is doing is legitimate, and that it is an interest group just like the farm lobby or the National Rifle Association.

 

"We happen not to agree to the polices the NRA, farm lobby and Israel lobby are pushing these days. But that does not mean we are claiming that they are acting in an illegal or illegitimate way," he said. "We are just arguing that the policies they are pushing don't make sense."

 

According to Mearsheimer, Iran wants nuclear weapons to protect itself, the same reason he said both the US and Israel want nuclear weapons. He said that the best way to get a negotiated settlement with Teheran over the issue is to take the military threat off the table completely.

 

"What I advocate is that we take away the military threat, and we try to deal with the problem diplomatically," he said.

 

"You have to accept the fact that they are going to have significant nuclear enrichment capability, and that what you are going to try to do is reach a situation, or achieve a situation, where Iran has significant enrichment capability but doesn't take the final step in developing nuclear weapons. And if it decides to do that, you rely on deterrence, much as the US relied on deterrence during the Cold War."

 

Describing Israel's concern about Iran's nuclear capacity as paranoid, Mearsheimer said that a close look at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words will reveal that he has not threatened to use military force to eliminate Israel.

 

As to the Iranian president's famous comment about wiping Israel off the map, Mearsheimer said, "What he was talking about was eliminating Israel from the face of time, and what he meant by that is that he was hoping, or he believes, that Israel would eventually go away, as the former Soviet Union did, or as the Shah did."

 

Walt, meanwhile, said during the lecture, that he did not believe Ahmadinejad's statements constituted a call to genocide.

 

"I don't believe that is what he is saying. I believe his statements are deeply offensive and I reject them completely, but they are not, in my view, incitement to genocide."

 

The two were greeted politely at the university, receiving applause when they finished their presentation. However, a number of the questions from the audience were testy, with one student saying that their claim of a of moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian behavior was not only incorrect but also fodder for anti-Semites, and another taking sharp issue with Mearsheimer's argument that the US relationship with Israel was one of the causes of the September 11 attacks.

 

While the professors (Walt is a professor at Harvard University and Mearsheimer is at the University of Chicago) said that they believed in Israel's legitimacy and right to exist, one graduate student prefaced his question by saying that "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"

 

An Israel advocacy group, StandWithUS, distributed an eight page pamphlet just prior to the lecture against Walt and Mearsheimer's arguments in their book.

 

Arieh O'Sullivan, the Israel spokesman for the ADL who attended the lecture, said, "It is telling that the gentlemen came to Israel under the auspices of a fringe group [Gush Shalom], and had to solicit themselves to a university to speak.

 

"The appearance here was less academic, and more like a walking propaganda routine, something like a traveling carnival."

 

The ADL, cited by Walt and Mearsheimer as an integral part of the Israel Lobby, has been among the pair's fiercest critics.

 

Walt said that when it became clear they were coming to Israel, he and Mearsheimer approached the Hebrew University and requested to speak.

 

 

 

 

 

Israel Insider op-ed June 13: Don't ban Mearsheimer and Walt, or blame Hebrew U for hosting them

 

Op-ed, Gil Troy, Israel Insider, June 13

 

In the 1890s, a German anti-Semitic preacher named Rector Ahlwardt visited New York. Leading New York Jews begged the police commissioner to block Ahlwardt's speeches or, at least deny this agitator police protection. "This, I told them, was impossible," the police commissioner recalled in his autobiography; "and if possible would have been undesirable because it would have made him a martyr." The commissioner realized that the best tactic was to make the bigot look "ridiculous." And so, the German preacher denounced the Jews protected by "some forty policemen, every one of them a Jew," thanks to Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt's mischievous sense of humor. Ahlwardt left New York a laughingstock.

 

As president, Roosevelt would teach Americans to "speak softly and carry a big stick" in foreign policy; as police commissioner, Roosevelt taught to vanquish enemies with a chuckle not a hacksaw, and if forced to fight, to reach first for a stiletto not a shotgun.

 

Those outraged that Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt are lecturing at Hebrew University should remember Commissioner Roosevelt's cleverness. Mearsheimer and Walt have become rich and famous by charging that "The Israel Lobby" - capital I, capital L - has hijacked Ammerican foreign policy. To quote their book, so they cannot don their usual martyrs' robes and claim misrepresentation: "Many policies pursued on Israel's behalf now jeopardize US national security... While other special interest groups ... have managed to skew US foreign policy in directions that they favored, no ethnic lobby has diverted that policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest."

 

Given the professors' popularity in anti-Zionist circles and their notoriety among the pro-Israel crowd, partisans have criticized Hebrew University for agreeing to host them. But the academics requested to speak there, boxing the university into a corner. Banning them would be doubly counterproductive. It would give them the kind of publicity they love, cavorting before the bash-Israel crowd as persecuted professors. It would also force the university to sacrifice academic freedom for two relatively marginal academics who are better mocked, TR-style, or refuted, than demonized and boycotted. Violating this core ideal particularly at this time would backfire, justifying the English fanatics trying to boycott Israeli academics.

 

Moreover, in fairness, Professors Mearsheimer and Walt are neither Rector Ahlwardt nor President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who should not have spoken at Columbia University in September 2007 because of his regime's criminal acts, not because of his offensive opinions. True, Mearsheimer and Walt have made loose, politicized claims based on sloppy, often derivative, research. And yes their demagogic distortion of the "Israel Lobby" into the modern bogeyman helps legitimize anti-Semitism. Still, both have avoided any anti-Semitic expressions, and their book endorses Israel's right to exist.

 

We need a war of sources not swords, we need to fight about their footnotes not their freedom. Their book should be subject to rigorous academic scrutiny. Their conclusions should be challenged thoughtfully and thoroughly. But there is no reason to ban them from Israel's campuses, although Bar Ilan University Professor Gerald Steinberg may have the right Rooseveltian response -- ignore them, letting them address an empty room.

 

Academic freedom, like most liberties we cherish, rests on mutuality; it must be a two-way street, a neutral ideal. Academics cannot only champion freedom for the thoughts we love; it is freedom for the thoughts we hate that challenges us. When we boycott speakers, when we try to suppress criticism, we reflect a lack of faith that truth will triumph in the free marketplace of ideas. Censorship is an indulgence of the insecure, mocking the celebration of stability Israel's 60th anniversary triggered. Both Israel and the American Jewish community are strong enough to sustain criticism. There are enough nimble minds in both communities to refute academic critics.

 

By hosting Mearsheimer and Walt, Hebrew University can showcase one of Israel's great assets: its robust democracy. Every day Israel easily passes Natan Sharansky's test of a democracy, as critics shout down the government in public without being punished.

 

Hebrew University should turn whatever controversy the Thursday lecture generates into a "teachable moment." Israel's academic community should cherish academic freedom for all. Too many Israeli professors forget that academic freedom not only entails the freedom to criticize the government, but the freedom to criticize those who criticize the government too. Like their colleagues abroad, Israeli academics must ensure that all their students feel free to express a wide range of opinions, from right to left, and that one doctrine is not imposed within a particular department or classroom.

 

Too many academics these days impose their own orthodoxies, methodologically and politically. Such intolerance constitutes educational malpractice. If only one view is promulgated, if there is too much pressure on faculty members and students to toe one party line, the university suffers.

 

Partisan politics pollutes far too many academic discussions these days. When I lecture about American political history, I ask my students: can we learn to study politics, and even be passionate about studying politics, without always injecting partisan passions? Only then, if we put partisanship aside and open ourselves up to challenging our assumptions, can we start to learn.

 

In that spirit we should say, "Welcome Professors Walt and Mearsheimer to Israel. Note the wide range of opinions freely expressed here. And maybe, if, during your stay, you challenge yourselves and open yourselves up to the spirit of free scholarly inquiry that shields you, maybe you will rethink some of your conclusions. But whatever you learn or fail to learn in Israel, one thing should be clear: this is one Middle Eastern country where censorship does not flourish, where the free marketplace of ideas thrives for all."

 

 

 

 

 

Toronto Star June 13: Tel Aviv audience takes `Israel Lobby' in stride

 

Polite welcome for U.S. authors who say America's close ties to Jewish state serve neither's interests

 

Oakland Ross, The Toronto Star, June 13

 

They might well be among Israelis' most unpopular men these days, but two U.S. academics – both sharply critical of this country – encountered a polite, even sympathetic, reception here last night.

 

It was not necessarily what they had been expecting.

 

"If the subject is American Middle East policy, and you bring up the Israel lobby, you're in trouble," says Stephen Walt, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

 

The Israel Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy is the title of a controversial book Walt co-authored last year with University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer.

 

In it, they conclude the Jewish state has become "a strategic liability" for Washington.

 

The authors argue that a network of pro-Israeli interest groups – collectively referred to as "the Israel lobby" – has pressured a succession of U.S. governments into providing immense political and economic support for the Jewish state, even though this aid, they say, serves the interests of neither country.

 

Explains Mearsheimer: "Our argument is that the lobby, working with Israel itself, has pushed U.S. policy in ways that are in neither the United States' nor Israel's national interest."

 

The authors believe U.S. economic backing for Israel – to the tune, they say, of about $500 per capita per year – was "a major cause" of the 9/11 attacks and has continued to fuel bitter anti-American feelings throughout the Arab world.

 

They want Washington to reduce this level of support, though not in ways that would endanger Israel's survival.

 

"Israel is becoming a tough sell in the West," says Mearsheimer.

 

"The United States should end its special relationship with Israel and treat it like a normal country."

 

You would not expect such ideas to sit well with Israelis and, on the whole, they haven't.

 

Publication of The Israel Lobby was met with a firestorm of outrage and denunciation among pundits and opinion-makers here.

 

Last night, a young volunteer with the pro-Israeli advocacy group Stand With Us handed out eight-page glossy booklets that typified the reaction of many Israelis, accusing Mearsheimer and Walt of shoddy scholarship, factual errors and anti-Semitism.

 

The two men say they are used to such charges by now.

 

"There is nothing remotely anti-Semitic about the book," says Walt. "When you can't address someone's actual arguments, you then attack them by calling them names."

 

Last night's lecture was organized by a left-wing Israeli peace group called Gush Shalom. Most of the 200 or so in attendance at a Tel Aviv community centre seemed to be of a left-leaning persuasion.

 

They listened attentively and now and then clapped politely as the two Americans denounced the Israeli government for its treatment of Palestinians and decried ongoing Israeli settlement in the West Bank, activity considered illegal by most of the world.

 

After the presentation, audience member Tomer Haramaty, 24, a former naval officer, criticized the authors for giving the impression Israelis don't want peace.

 

"That's very simplistic," he said, arguing that most people here would agree to dismantle most West Bank settlements and divide Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians if it would bring peace.

 

"I think most Israelis are in the same place on this. This is kind of mainstream now."

 

 

 

 

 

JTA June 13: Israel lobby authors in Israel

 

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 13

 

The authors of a controversial book about the pro-Israel lobby said Israel is pushing the U.S. to attack Iran.

 

Profs. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt spoke Thursday at a forum in Tel Aviv and at Hebrew University in Jerusalem in their first visit to Israel since the publication of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."

 

Echoing their claim that pro-Israel forces in Washington had pressured the United States into attacking Iraq, the pair argued that the same forces are now pushing the country into attacking Iran.

 

"There is only one country in the world that is putting any pressure on the U.S. to attack Iran, and that is Israel," Mearsheimer told a packed lecture hall at Hebrew University, according to the Jerusalem Post. "And it is putting enormous pressure on the US."

 

Mearsheimer added, "Inside the United States, it is pro-Israel individuals and groups who are almost wholly responsible for pressure being brought to bear on Bush and Cheney to use military force on Iran. The idea that the lobby and Israel don't put huge amounts of pressure on the U.S. is contradictory to the evidence."

 

 

 

 

 

Christian Science Monitor June 14 -- US policy and the pro-Israel lobby: A university in Jerusalem takes on the debate

 

The authors of 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' said Thursday that the special-interest group is leading the charge for attacking Iran and damaging US interests.

 

Ilene R. Prusher,  The Christian Science Monitor, June 14

 

JERUSALEM - With many eyes in Israel already turned toward the American presidential election this November, questions over what and who is good for the Middle East are fast becoming hot topics.

 

Warming things up that much more, two academics who have cast a critical light on the nature of US-Israel ties came here Thursday as part of a larger Middle East tour, during which they called on America to end its "special relationship with Israel and treat it as a normal country."

 

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, professors at Harvard University and the University of Chicago, respectively, published "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" last fall, raising a maelstrom of reactions: criticism from some corners and praise from others.

 

In pro-Israel circles, the book is viewed – along with former US President Carter's "Peace Not Apartheid" book – as an attack on a pillar of American foreign policy.

 

Critics of Profs. Walt and Mearsheimer say that the book and the arguments they make in it has anti-Semitic overtones and paints the pro-Israel lobby in the US as an all-powerful interest group doing damage to American and international interests.

 

But the two men, who were brought to Israel as guests of the left-wing group Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc) and later invited by colleagues to speak at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said their words had often been misread and misinterpreted.

 

"Giving Israel unconditional support is not making America more popular around the world, and it is not making Americans more secure at home," said Walt. Israel's role as a democracy is also not a strong enough reason for such strong political and financial backing, he said. "There are a lot of other democracies around the world and none of them get this level of support, with no strings attached."

 

He said that anyone who questions that relationship is "playing with fire" and risks "being smeared" as anti-Semitic.

 

"These policies have been misguided. They're not good for the US, have not been good for Israel, and are not good for the Middle East overall," Walt said. "But we said at least a dozen times in the book: It's not a cabal and it's not a conspiracy. And we meant it."

 

In the talk, Mearsheimer charged that Israel and the Israel lobby – which he said also included many Christian Zionists and Evangelicals, and therefore was not synonymous with being a "Jewish lobby" – was trying to push America into military action against Iran.

 

"There is only one country that is putting pressure on the US to attack Iran, and that is Israel," Mearsheimer said. "AIPAC is pushing hard for an attack on Iran, and no other lobby in America is," he said, referring to the pro-Israeli lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 

That the two men were invited to speak at all was the subject of some controversy, with several Israeli professors questioning whether the invitation was appropriate. The university did not widely advertise the lecture, which was held in a moderate-sized lecture hall unable to contain the number of students and faculty who had arrived. But most seemed to agree that, especially at the school that is viewed as Israel's leading university, diverse views should be aired.

 

"There is more criticism being heard here in Israel of the lobby," says Moshe Fox, a doctoral student, referring to AIPAC, "and of the US-Israel relationship in general than there is in the US."

 

Indeed, in recent weeks, Israeli politicians and pundits have been speaking more critically about the state of relations between the United States and the Jewish state.

 

Following President Bush's visit here last month, some commentators worried aloud that the unconditional support he expressed for Israel during its 60th birthday celebrations was blurring the boundaries of Israel's sovereignty and further diminishing Washington's ability to claim a role as a "fair broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

 

Additional reservations about the US-Israel relationship have been voiced amid a deeply damaging scandal in which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is alleged to have taken more than $150,000 in unaccounted-for cash from a US supporter, raising deeper questions about the influence of American donors on Israeli politicians.

 

The Israeli government, says Uri Avnery, the head of Gush Shalom, is content with having a very pro-Israel American administration. Supporters of the peace camp, on the other hand, are hoping that November will bring a change in policy and are pinning their hopes on Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Peace advocates were dismayed, he said, to hear Senator Obama's comments to AIPAC last week.

 

"The first thing Barack Obama did after he secured the nomination was to go to AIPAC to make a speech which is scandalous as far as peace as concerned," Mr. Avnery said. "He said that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and cannot be divided, but without this, there won't be peace with Palestinians.

 

"It shows us that without AIPAC, he feels he can't be elected, and that shows us how crucial AIPAC is."

 

There are fears in Israel, Avnery adds, that a President Obama would rock the US-Israel relationship. "The Israeli establishment is very cautious and they are very suspicious of Obama," he adds. "The Israeli government is quite satisfied with America as it is, and as far as they're concerned, there can't be a better American for Israel than George Bush. We would like American policy to be more even-handed so it will play a role in making peace."

 

Robert Wistrich, a historian at the Hebrew University who runs the school's center for the study of anti-Semitism, says Walt and Mearsheimer's arguments pander to old-fashioned stereotypes – ones that won't help Israel make moves toward peace.

 

"Whichever way you turn it around, they're saying that if only there wasn't so much Jewish or Israeli power, everything would be fine in the Middle East, which we know isn't true," Professor Wistrich says. Israelis, he adds, still can't figure out where Obama stands.

 

"I don't think Jews or Israelis want to go out on a limb and prejudge a man who might be president," he says. "The main worry here is more along the lines of appeasement, such as what he's said about meeting Iranian leaders, and we know where that's led so far."

 

 

 

 

IBA Radio, International Hour, June 12 15:44 - Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote a book on the power of the Jewish lobby in the United States and blame AIPAC for the ills of America and the world.

 

Oren Nahari: Two professors are now in Israel with a provocative message, certainly here, and there are those accusing them of anti-Semitism. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote a book on the power of the Jewish lobby in the United States, and blame AIPAC for everything, or at least the vast majority of the ills of America and the world. Alon Shani.

 

Alon Shani: It is doubtful that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of the book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", expected to sign autographs on their new book this afternoon at the end of the discussion at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The two American lecturers, from the Universities of Chicago and Harvard, came to Israel as guests of the leftist organization Gush Shalom. After stops in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, they appeared today in a discussion entitled, "The Jewish Lobby: Good or Bad for Israel?" As they stood in front of their large audience, it was not difficult to identify the voices stridently opposing their thesis. However, some from the academic community chose not to come and listen to what they had to say. For example: Professor Gerald Steinberg, Head of the Political Science Department at Bar Ilan University, who explains to us why he did not attend.

 

Professor Gerald Steinberg: There is a basic moral defect, they want to gain American support for Israel, but they actually are joining with all the boycotts and the movements in Europe and also Cyprus and the United States to define Israel as a criminal state responsible not only for war crimes, but also for manipulating the United States into invading Iraq, etc., etc. From my point of view, this is simply immoral and I must protest.

 

Alon Shani: A reminder. A year ago, these two senior lecturers publish their book which overnight turns into a bestseller. In it, they claim that the Jewish lobby has taken over American foreign policy, steers it in directions it sees fit, and causes the superpower to act against its own interests. Israel, the authors claim, is a strategic burden on the United States and damages it. These claims brought down on the authors the wrath of many. Many researchers claim that Walt and Nirshheimer are only repeating ideas from “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” But this morning, Prof. Walt sounded more relaxed than ever when we interviewed him just before his lecture. First of all, there is no connection between our ideas and those of anti-Semitism or of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were disproved many years ago. Ours is a different message. The activities of the Jewish Israeli lobby impacts everybody in the region. And the policy up to now has not been good for anybody. Responding to our question regarding Senator Obama's statements at the AIPAC conference last week, Walt said, I think all the presidential candidates made it very clear that they do not want to do anything to change the relationship between America and Israel. I believe that this is connected to a great extent to their understanding that to express any other position would not be politically advantageous. But will this prediction become reality, will the candidates for President of the United States in no way alter relations with Israel? Only time will tell.

 

 

***END***