Letters to the Editor
-
It Is Censorship Stupid!
Instead of commending Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer on their effort to examine a subject matter that has long been a taboo, Michelle Goldberg, who herself agrees that the influence of Israel’s lobby on the United States may be detrimental to the country’s interests in the Middle East, denigrates their work as a “clumsy argument”.
Goldberg is guilty of the same mistakes she accuses the two professors of making:
1. She accuses Walt and Mearsheimer of omitting pertinent information in order to make a point, which she does the same. Not only does she argue against the fact that Israel’s citizenship is limited to those of Jewish background, she goes as far as saying that the Israeli citizenship is granted to anyone of any ethnicity or religion. She even goes as far as saying that 25% of the Israeli population is non-Jewish. The fact is, the only segment of the Israeli population who are non-Jewish are the "original inhibitors” of the land; these are Palestinians that were there from the very beginning. And not quiet 25% of the population; it is more like 18%.
2. Goldberg discredits an argument the two professors made in their article by stating that their evidence is incomplete, but she herself provides incomplete evidence. Why can't both be right? Walt and Mearsheimer argue and present evidence that the Iraq war was a result of pro-Israeli influence, which may be true and arguments can easily be provided. A policy paper published in 1988 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), AIPAC's mouthpiece think tank, called for war on Iraq because of its openly anti-Israel policies. Her argument is that the cause of war is to control oil, which may also be true, or it may also be argued that controlling Iraq’s oil is an indirect benefit of the war.
3. Goldberg even proves herself wrong within the same article. She argues against Walt and Mearsheimer’s theory that the American Jewish vote is very influential on the Executive Branch’s policies towards the Middle East. In her argument, American Jews, who contribute up to 60% of the Democratic campaign funds, don't have much influence on the Executive Branch considering we've had a Republican Executive Branch for the past two elections. But later on describes AIPAC as an influential right-wing lobby group that supports right wing, hawkish pro-Israel Republican elected officials. So whether it is the 60% American Jewish vote in the Democratic Party or the almighty powerful AIPAC in the Republican Party, pro-Israel interests are being pushed in both parties.
Goldberg may argue that Walt and Mearsheimer's article doesn’t hold water, but neither does hers. In fact, her article is full of holes. The point should have been this: anyone can criticize, defame, and wrongly label any minority or ethnic group in the U.S., with Arabs and Muslims being on top of that list, and it is considered Freedom of Press. However, the same not only is not practiced in any way or shape, not even in an academic manner, when it comes to Israel, but it is publicly censored by the press.
-
Career suicide by critizing Israel or the Jewish Lobby
Michelle Goldberg's insightful analysis of the Walt/Mearsheimer essay critizing the "Jewish Lobby's" negative effect on U.S. Mid-East policies deserves another equally insightful article about: the career suicide awaiting any serious critic of Isreal or the Jewish Lobby. There is, after all, a enormous difference between intelligently keeping a lid on anti-Semitism and the more savage demonstration of a suppressive reflex against critics. Showing that one can crimp the career of a critic simply tends to lend credence to the uneasy awareness of pervasive Jewish influence in high places (such as academia, the media, or government) that other groups can't even conceive of having.
Instead of reflexive punishment for those opening Israel to the same level of honest scrutiny reserved for the rest of the world, let's be strong enough, honest enough, and smart enough to tell it like it is, warts, halos and all.
Allene Swienckowsky
-
Allison
You write:
"Showing that one can crimp the career of a critic simply tends to lend credence to the uneasy awareness of pervasive Jewish influence in high places (such as academia, the media, or government) that other groups can't even conceive of having."
I'm wondering if you re-read that and can't see how simultaneously fierce and empty that is. Or maybe I don't understand you. Are you suggesting that anyone who criticizes Israel is in danger of their career being "crimped?" Can you offer some examples? This is the type of statement that strikes me as dishonest and totally lame. Salon frequently publishes articles that are critical of Israel. Again, as I mentioned, Thomas Friedman is harshly critical of Israel at times. Look at the op-ed section of today's New York Times today and you'll see an opinion piece about the Harvard piece that is positive. There's a whole spectrum of critics of Israel in the so-called "media." Unless you only consider criticism of Israel being that which denys any legitimicy to its existance. Even then, there are plenty of academics who didn't lose sleep or tenure in their serious opposition to Israel's existance. And many more writers.
Jewish influence in high places? "... that other groups can't even conceive of having." Perhaps you're Jewish yourself. I have no idea. But this statement, followed by the next is stunning in being self-righteous without any opening for an alternative truth. On what basis are you suggesting that Jews have such influence? Are you talking about Jewish writers at The Nation? Or just Commentary? It's just so blanket, Allison. Do you feel victimized or under attack by these forces? I'm seriously interested what specifically (beyond some abstract "Jewish influence") you are responding to.
Your final paragraph again is a finite assertion. What are you reading or expecting to read... I mean, yes, if you read a local Jewish newspaper, they may romanticize Israel. Or a neo-conservative publication. But there is plenty of media that is highly critical about Israel. As well they should be. But there's something hermetic in your denunciation that is spooky. Your idea that Israel lives in a bubble makes me think that perhaps you have been living in your own bubble.
Check out Israel's own dailies online for some seriously critical coverage. www.haaretz.com is very good. But also just read the op-ed columns at The New York Times, The LA Times, and various publications like The Nation, Tikkun, or even The Economist for fairly critical coverage of Israel. Nobody's career is in danger. Certainly not these Harvard professors.