Editor hits back over Israel row (observer.guardian.co.uk)

[norml]

Editor hits back over Israel row

London Review of Books stands its ground after being accused of anti-Semitism in an article attacking pro-Israeli influence on US policy

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday April 2, 2006
The Observer


She is, in the words of her many admirers, the 'mater familias of London's liberal intelligentsia'. This weekend, however, Mary-Kay Wilmers, editor of the London Review of Books, is on the defensive - speaking out for the first time in an escalating transatlantic row that has seen her respected journal accused of promoting anti-Semitism.

The argument has erupted over a cover article in the latest issue of the LRB by two prominent American academics on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the US. The article, which argues that the lobby holds a disproportionate and damaging sway over American foreign policy, prompted a bitter and growing controversy, particularly in the US, where rival camps have exchanged claims of anti-Semitism and intellectual intimidation by those accused of being members of 'the Lobby'.

The article, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, was originally written for, but rejected by, the Atlantic Monthly and picked up by the LRB, when Wilmers 'became aware of its existence'.

The article set out at exhaustive length to list every way in which it claimed US foreign policy had been captured on behalf of Israel by an all-encompassing lobby of academics, campaign groups, journalists and pro-Israeli activists in government. Among the fiercest critics have been Eliot Engel, a Democratic congressman from New York, who branded the authors 'anti-Semites', and the right-wing New York Sun, which likened the piece to the 'rantings' of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


snip


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1744960,00.html

[JohnyCanuck]

1. I was a teenager back in 67 when the Israeli/Arab war broke out.

Our family are all gentiles but my Dad was firmly behind Israel, and we all were plugging for Israel to win that war and beat those Arabs. We very much admired the bravery of their soldiers and the effectiveness of the Israeli military machine.

Nowadays I am so darn tired of hearing "you anti-semite" at anyone who is the least bit critical of Israel or it's military, (such as when an Israeli soldier shoots without provocation another Palestinian school kid), I really find it hard to muster much sympathy for them any more. I suspect the number of people who feel that way is growing, but now that they've got nukes of their own and are not limited by the non-proliferation treaty, I am pretty sure they really don't give a shit who supports them as long as they have enough political support in the US to keep the foreign aid flowing unchecked

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. and this is something you are proud of?

:wtf:

Is this a 'belated' April fool's joke?

[ima_sinnic]

4. since criticizing Israel is called "being anti-semitic," then that is

what I am.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. That's not what is is...

[ima_sinnic]

6. I'm tired of the ant-semitic card being played everytime Israel is

criticized. Therefore I will accept the label and see what happens then.

on edit: what is the alternative, to get on the defensive and say, "no I'm not"? so it can go back and forth, "yes you are," "no I'm not," etc. So I say, "okay, whatever, I'm anti-semitic then, so what?"

[Behind the Aegis]

7. And I am tired of people playing the "I'll be called an anti-Semite" card.

Especially, when some clearly are espousing anti-Semitic rhetoric and not anti-Israeli policy!

[ima_sinnic]

8. whatever, what "rhetoric" am I espousing?

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Did I say YOU were espousing anything?

On edit: The only thing you have claimed thus far, is you are "an anti-Semite, so what?" Hardly something to be "proud" of.

[King Mongo]

13. racism

From my observations, some on both sides hate each other, yet both are Semites. To be fair, anti-Semitism must be recognized as the hatred that both sides share for each other. Or, better yet, anti-Semitism should be understood as any type of racism against anyone.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Good.

At least you're honest. I like Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians (I even contribute to the Palestinian Red Crescent Committee - ) -- I have no intellectual respect for their facilitators and apologists.

[ima_sinnic]

21. I was being facetious

I have no business being on this forum because I am too ignorant of the issues, I have had to keep my focuses more limited

I just get weird when I do read accusations of "anti-semitic" anytime Israeli policy or PNAC affiliations with Israel are criticized. you see, I often find myself wondering whether, how, why, to what extent Israelis might have been involved in 9/11.

I feel no hatred for any race or religion in this world and apologize for making a crass remark.

[bemildred]

10. Well, it is certainly interesting to contrast this with the recent

world wide brouhaha over the cartoons of the Prophet. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

[Jim Sagle]

11. The contrast here is that no global jihad will be launched over this.

No "Death to America, death to DU". no bombings, riotings or burnings.

Quite a contrast indeed.

[bemildred]

12. For once, you are correct.

That is the one big difference, there are way the hell more Muslims than Jews or Israelis. So in a way the "beleagured Israel" image is correct. But the moral boneheadedness and lack of respect for free speech as a PRINCIPLE is much the same.

[Jim Sagle]

16. Actually it isn 't. Free speech is for Israel's defenders, too.

[Tom Joad]

18. It should be defended it for Israeli dissidents too...

If Free Speech is for everyone, then it is for everyone.

We heard for weeks about cartoons, in dozens of posts... hundreds of appends... that it was all about the Western value of Freedom of Speech. And yet those same people, who worried so much that a European editor was being unfairly attacked, that is "Freedom of Speech" (others saw it as Freedom to Hate) was being attacked.

And yet these same posters, self-described defenders of "free speech" say NOTHING when an Israeli Mayor shuts down an Art Show... one that was produced by Jewish ISRAELI WOMEN!

See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x120649

Dare to respond there.

Must be something very threatning about Israeli women, if the Mayor feels the need to shut down their show, and the defenders of Israel policy fear even to comment.

[bemildred]

36. It certainly is.

And I only disapprove when they attack other people's jobs and personal integrity; to the extent they criticize and argue with what people have to say, it is fine; when an attempt is made to punish people in a material way for speaking up and expressing an honest opinion, however mistaken one finds it, it is not fine. Do you think it is fine when pro-Israel professor's livelihoods and integrity is attacked, as it was in Britain? What did you think then? How is this less despicable than that?

[pelsar]

17. and where is the anti AIPAC speach threatening lives?

any bookstores threatened (Borders wont carry a magazine with the cartoons out of fear...)...any newspapers feel threatened for writing about the article...and OMG..actually quoting part of the article!!!!

any protests with "death to ...." from the AIPAC crowd....AIPAC does what is acceptable in democracies no more and no less. No one feels that their lives are threatened if they carry around, print and post an anti AIPAC or anti jew or anti israeli cartoon, article etc.

try doing that with some cartoons of Allah.....


an attempt to equalize the two is absurd...how many embassies people killed over the anti AIPAC article?..i seem to missed the news....

[Tom Joad]

19. Israeli Mayors are shutting down art shows!

Why don't you go protest there!

[Jim Sagle]

20. Silly, phony rhetorical question.

[Tom Joad]

22. Israeli dissidents rrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwk!

[Jim Sagle]

23. They certainly do. And they don't need to fear beheading, either.

[Tom Joad]

24. Rubber bullets, yes, not beheading....

[MrPrax]

26. No...no beheadings...

But you can make damn sure Dershowitz and his buddies are burning up the phone lines to both University of Chicago and the Kennedy School--in fact the above posting is a call to arms, no?

I have no doubt that Horowitz will add them to his honoured list of Anti-Semites® ,if he hasn't already.

[Jim Sagle]

32. It's called free speech. Check it OUT!!

[MrPrax]

34. Threat, intimidation and smear

is not actually free speech...pfft.

[Jim Sagle]

38. You're projecting. Again. (It's what anti-Zionists usually do.)

[pelsar]

28. the protests...

as in democracies are out.....in the paper, on the radio where it should be.....and in case one doesnt realize, TA a far more liberal town has in the past had such shows...Beersheva a bit more provincial and conservative also has the right to have local customs followed...whether that will work or not is yet to be seen as the university there has a world reputation.

but not a single embassy has been burnt in protest....

[Tom Joad]

35. Who needs to burn an embassy when you can just shut down the

show?

[pelsar]

30. its been publicized....

its on the talk shows, in the papers on the radio...discussion about it ...thats what democracies are all about....not burning embassies, threatening the ladies who want to put on the show.......no one feels a death threat over their heads.....thats how real democracies are run with the the conflict of freedom of expression vs "insulting someone" (freedom should win...)

[Tom Joad]

37. Israel candidates for Prime Minister make public threats against

Israeli dissidents.
Don't say you don't know.

[norml]

40. Here's my cartoon of Allah.

Allah ---> :)

[Coastie for Truth]

15. This is the lobby that you should worry about

that led us into Iraq.

[Tom Joad]

25. Are you saying that AIPAC has no influence on US policy...

and that those that fund it, at the tune of millions per year, are wasting their money??
NO influence?

And just to say again here, I do *not* think that ALL of US policy in the Middle East is a direct result of AIPAC, or related organizations, which is why i posted the Chomsky response to the M&W paper. I do think oil and power and desire for empire on the part of the ruling class (which is almost all White, but in any case a very small number of people in relation to the population of the US) had much to do with the whole mess.

(i know a dyslexic poster or two will respond heatedly and accuse me of saying exactly the opposite of what i just said, but hey, I support the disabled!)

All that said, i think AIPAC does make a difference. US policies in Haiti, in Central America, in Africa and the Middle East are very similar (and deadly). The difference is that there are no grassroots lobbies for death squads in Central America. There was actually dissent on the House floor (albeit usually quite contained)regarding these policies. There is no dissent on the house floor regarding policy in Israel/Palestine. AIPAC is currently pushing an anti-Palestinian resolution opposed by the Bush administration, it is that extreme. AIPAC pushes policies that are supported by the right-wing in Israel. I am surprised to hear not more dissent here.

People do have the right to lobby. People also have a right to speak out against lobbies they think are detrimental to people's interest. Be that the oil lobby, the NRA, or AIPAC.

[Coastie for Truth]

27. From personal experience

and three law suits - all of which I won -- API/Big Oil is worse then AIPAC, and NRA, and LULAC, and NAACP, and ACLU put together.

Who has usurped the Office of Science Adviser to the President and put forth the preposterous ideas that:

* Human activities have no effect on green house gases and global warming.
* Global warming is a worst a trivial third order effect.
* Global warming does not intense storms.
* Green house gases are not carcinogenic.

I agree that

I do *not* think that ALL of US policy in the Middle East is a direct result of AIPAC, or related organizations, which is why i posted the Chomsky response to the M&W paper. I do think oil and power and desire for empire on the part of the ruling class (which is almost all White, but in any case a very small number of people in relation to the population of the US) had much to do with the whole mess.

Now you're getting it. Big Oil and their allies are like Tom DeLay - they don't just want to "win" -- they want total destruction of their adversaries (like greens, and green techies). And they want to delude the sheeple that their sometime allies are the sole reason for their actions.

[Tom Joad]

29. So you are saying AIPAC has no influence?

It is completely irrelevant?
A waste of millions of dollars every year?

If that is the case, don't tell me that, tell it to the fools who waste their money contributing to AIPAC.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. No

Just a lot less then some give it credit for. And certainly far far less then the Big Business Interests.

[Tom Joad]

33. I agree. It is not the omnipotent organization people think it is....

I do think that it is the public face of many policies that hurt so many people. It is right to challange this lobby for militarism. It is also right to keep in mind that it can be defeated, what it fights for, its extremism, does not represent the views of many Americans... including many Jews.

[Coastie for Truth]

39. You can say that about a lot of membership organizations

Like - even the American Petroleum Institute - you have to belong if you want to get a "subscription" to purely technical publications and attend purely technical conferences (like the whole system of "grading" viscosity and vapor pressure and energy content of fuels and fuel blends). And a portion of your dues goes to the Political action Committee.

With the exception of SWE (Society of Women Engineers) and SBE (Society of Black Engineers), and just maybe the IEEE (Electrical Engineers) - most technical societies aren't worth a damn unless you're a junior faculty person presenting papers. The societies can't be bothered with "people issues." Until the dot com crash they didn't even publish anything about HR policies, or female friendliness, or GLBT friendliness, or black friendliness, or Latino friendliness. (The electrical engineers are the least bad - I joined them just to get "Founder Society" discounts for Chemical Engineers technical conferences)

BTW - the ONLY reason many (maybe most) "members of AIPAC throw any money at AIPAC is so that it can say "We have a paid membership of X million" for gravitas. My experience (at least with ADL and to a lesser extent AIPAC) are issues like yarmulkes, turbans, head scarves, and no exams on Eid-el-Fitr (as well as Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur) are "big."