Stephen Walt Responds to the Washington Post's Nazi Smear
1. Milbank says he overheard Walt saying after his talk at the Council on American-Islamic Relations that if you take a position against Israel, your business will suffer. Wrong. Walt is no businessman, he's a student of policy, and what he said is that if you talk about this stuff, your academic/professional career suffers. (It's the same point he made several weeks back on the Diane Rehm show and that I blogged about then.) Many colleagues have said to Walt, "You're never going to work in Washington." He adds, "I find it interesting that that is so frequently the reaction, that this has made us compete pariahs. Quite remarkable." Yes, and Milbank is now running around collecting wood to burn the heretics in Lafayette Park. 2. Milbank hinted that Walt and Mearsheimer are Nazis because their names sound German. I emailed Walt to ask him about two things I'd heard (and never thought worth writing about before) —he's of Danish ancestry, his wife is Jewish. Walt wrote back to amend those reports:
I am 1/4 Danish, insofar as my maternal grandfather was an immigrant from Denmark, who arrived here as a very small boy. His mother was a widow, and she died shortly after they emigrated here. He was subsequently adopted by an American family, although he still spoke a bit of Danish as an adult. The rest of my ethnic background--if it matters-- is some mix of English, German, French, and I think a bit of Swedish.My wife's background is a bit more complicated. She comes from Russian and Rumanian Jews on her father's side, and Episcopalians and Catholics on her mother's side. (Interestingly, her maternal grandfather worked in the 1930s helping German Jews escape Nazi Germany.) She grew up in New York City, in what might be loosely termed a culturally Jewish extended family, and there's been lots of inter-marriage throughout. She was not raised in any particular faith.
As you might imagine, I find this whole type of discussion disheartening. Our country shouldn't be debating important issues by focusing on people's individual characteristics and backgrounds. That is what racists and anti-semites do: they look at someone's heritage and claim to know what they think, what they believe, and how they will act. Instead of focusing on our arguments and evidence, people want to look for some hidden motivation.
Walt's note is interesting on a couple of grounds. For one thing, it underscores the scholar's largeness of mind. Walt is no provincial. He is a sophisticated guy, his resume is Mandarin through and through: Stanford-Princeton-Harvard. He was a dean at Harvard; he is, or he was, going places. Yet he put everything on the line because of an idea. Impressive.
His note also echoes something he said at CAIR when discussing the dual-loyalty charge some lodge against Jewish neocons: "All of us have many affiliations and commitments—to religion, families, even employers. It is OK for those different commitments and attachments to manifest themselves in politics." Walt went on to say that when those attachments shape how people think about things, it's OK to bring them up in political debate. I liked the way he said this. It got us past the whole rancorous dual-loyalty issue.My critics are going to say, Weiss, ala Milbank, opened the door on this stuff by discussing Jewish tribal affiliations so bluntly. It's true, I opened the door, and I'll open it again (hopefully with accuracy). The point is, these affiliations have real meaning in our lives—but important ideas transcend them.
recipe for a boring blog:
beat a dead horse
be dogmatic
recipe to kill a newspaper:
have boring content
sloppy journalism
dogmatic reporting
note to self:
save newspaper
turn a profit
i salute this courageous scholar. He should be very worried because they will go after him.
ps; I thought wich hunts dont happen in the free US anymore.
recipe for a boring blog:
Okay, Kushner, we know what your recipe for a boring blog is. Now let me tell you the recipe for a great blog:
Tell the truth about the elephant in the living room, the fact that some pro-Israel zealots will simply not allow any criticism of Israel or the Israel Lobby. And keep repeating that truth until the American people finally understand that there is something wrong with a lobby that fears the American people knowing all the facts.
Phil
I have my Google news browser set to send me a link to any news story mentioning the name Mearsheimer. As a result I've read two to four news stories (or columns) a day about Mearsheimer and Walt over the last five or six months (a total of perhaps 350 stories.) Initially, ninety percent of the stories were hostile. Now I find that perhaps 75% of the writers endorse their point of view.
My question: I think these guys deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. Do you have any idea who can nominate them and how is it done?
I absolutely agree with Gene above that Mearsheimer and Walt should get a 'Profiles in Courage' award.
To see people still finding moral courage and certitude in calling what is immoral wrong, is refreshing and gives us all hope for a better world.
History will judge these two scholars as the pioneers in challenging popular opinions even when the media was parroting pro-Israeli distortions while the US was mislead by a warmonger for a President.
I stand in appreciation for Mearsheimer and Walt - having the courage to speak truth as they see it - knowing and accepting the very considerable backlash and slander they would incur. Speaking the truth to power. Asking questions important to us all - in a very volatile, vulnerable world. Their courage gives me hope!
Milbank referred to them and "blue-eyed with Germanic names". The implication may be "anti-Semitic", "indifferent to Jews", "white supremacist", etc.
You ought to think before you accuse someone of being a Nazi you schmuck.
I don't like the Walt-Mearsheimer report because I think it's full of holes.
But the two professors did take an issue that was not being addressed by anyone and moved it to front and center.
Dershowitz screams. Milbank ridicules. All the usual suspects rush to the barricades and the argument has been joined.
I would think that the professors should feel that they are accomplishing something very significant. But they need to be careful. The Dershowitzes and Marty Peretz's of the world certainly do not need ammunition to smear anyone who
is not ready to fight to the last Israeli or Palestinian. But don't make it easier for them. You can just stick to the most provable facts, and the picture drawn will be troubling enough.
One more point. People need to understand that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not unique in being dominated by those who can dictate policy by way of campaign contributions. There are a thousand AIPACs operating on thousands of issues and they determine US policy on virtually everything. The situation is worse than M-W imagines. Policy, laws, regulations etc are bought and sold like carpets in a bazaar and it will remain this way until we have full public financing of campaigns.
I don't like the Walt-Mearsheimer report because I think it's full of holes.
But the two professors did take an issue that was not being addressed by anyone and moved it to front and center.
Dershowitz screams. Milbank ridicules. All the usual suspects rush to the barricades and the argument has been joined.
I would think that the professors should feel that they are accomplishing something very significant. But they need to be careful. The Dershowitzes and Marty Peretz's of the world certainly do not need ammunition to smear anyone who
is not ready to fight to the last Israeli or Palestinian. But don't make it easier for them. You can just stick to the most provable facts, and the picture drawn will be troubling enough.
One more point. People need to understand that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is not unique in being dominated by those who can dictate policy by way of campaign contributions. There are a thousand AIPACs operating on thousands of issues and they determine US policy on virtually everything. The situation is worse than M-W imagines. Policy, laws, regulations etc are bought and sold like carpets in a bazaar and it will remain this way until we have full public financing of campaigns.
The comments were initially hostile because free Megaphone software has made it easy for zealots to
slant comments/polls with Likudnik
sentiments. The Israeli government itself champions the tactic.
All that is proven by the overreaction to Mearsheimer/Walt
study is their central thesis: that the Lobby tolerates no criticism.
Mearsheimer has a reputation among those who know him (students and colleagues) for being not just ambitious but brutally impatient with anyone who does anything he considers career-suicide. Like taking too long to finish a disseration. Or specializing in un-splash-worthy topics unlikely to advance one's career.
Whatever his private opinions regarding the Israel lobby, that he of all people would co-publish that article in the London review is just mind-boggling.
What Mearshiemer wants is to replace Sam Huntingdon at Harvard. Mearsheimer's wife is from Cambridge and she wants to go back.
Fat chance, John.
But he had to have known that along. Which makes what he did just mindboggling.
Auto - try not to be a hater and look at things a bit more objectively. If 'John' by your own admission did something that hinders his chance of getting some office at Harvard then your entire point becomes moot! Go read a book for Gods sake.
Zionism is a disease. Christian patriotism is the cure.
Enjoy the times, beanie-capped ones. Someday, you will be held responsible for this mess.
This is for Escape76:
A hater? Are you retarded?
Mearsheimer is a friend, although not a close one.
I rather like his LRB piece. But he committed career suicide.
And he, more than most academics, knows the moves that advance a career and the ones that set it back.
Which was my point.
Sorry if you didn't get it.