The Great Debate at Cooper Union Last Night
The debate was diffuse. It had few dramatic moments. There were six debaters with five different points of view, and the three men positing the existence of the lobby had not coordinated their points ahead of time and so were sorting out differences on stage. My friend Scott McConnell of the American Conservative said that he missed the great moment, the climactic clash, then reflected that maybe this is something that documentaries manage to create after the fact.
Yet: No one could leave the hall unconvinced that there is an Israel lobby. The quarrel was over scope and character. If the Israel lobby is the elephant in the room of American politics, here were six blind men each naming a different part of it they had felt in the dark. Well actually, four blind men. The three positing the existence of the lobby were joined by Shlomo Ben-Ami, from the other side, in a spirit of intellectual vigor and openness. All four speakers added to the audience's understanding. The other 2, Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross, longtime elephant-fattener-uppers, were determined to show the audience that the elephant was a hamster. They failed.
The debate belonged to Tony Judt. He arrived late to the hall in a turtleneck—everyone else was in ties—and might have been Mariano Rivera, for his confidence and dispatch. He was the most imaginative speaker, and imagination is required when you are describing a King kong sasquatch no one has seen and whose wranglers say doesn't exist. When Shlomo Ben-Ami and Martin Indyk said that John Mearsheimer was antisemitic for speaking of a collection of Jews who influence policy, Judt demolished them by quoting Arthur Koestler when he became an anticommunist and said that Just because idiots and bigots share some of his views doesn't discredit the views. The job of the social scientist is to describe the true conditions of society; are these statements accurate or not? That is the only issue. I'm paraphrasing. Judt was way more eloquent.
Judt's second great moment was when he accused Indyk of being "faux-naive" —a civilized way of saying, You're lying—when Indyk kept saying that the lobby was one small factor in an American president's exertions of power. Here again, he used his imagination. Because when you're talking about something about which there is very little information, and those who know something about it are trying to deny its existence, you need imagination. Anyway, Judt described the real exercise of power. He said that when a small state defied an American president, and the president wanted to do something about it, he had a great number of seen and unseen ways of compelling that state to fall into line, all sorts of bullying and pressure and fury. None of these had been deployed in Israel's case, and lo and behold the settlements had continued to expand, over four decades... Again I'm paraphrasing. Judt also got the last word of the night when he explained to a hungry audience that knew in its bones it has been deprived, that this discussion was an astoundingly rare one, and mind you it was organized by the London Review of Books. Thus he gave the audience a real sense of how the U.S. discourse/policy works, which is what the evening was after all fumbling towards.
The most resonant moment of the debate was Judt's, too. He pointed out that when he had endorsed the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, in an article for an unnamed major North American newspaper, he was asked by the editors whether he is Jewish, and told to stick that fact in the article. (Otherwise they couldn't publish it, was implicit or explicit, I'll have to check my tape). The newspaper—obviously—was the New York Times, in which Judt's op-ed taking Walt/Mearsheimer's side, appeared last April, as I recall, to stunning effect. I say resonant, and damning: Let's consider the lesson of this story: You can only speak out on this issue if you're Jewish? Oh my god, how did we get here...
The other three intellectuals' knowledge was more limited. John Mearsheimer deserves the greatest credit of all for breaking the seal on this discussion. But his actual knowledge of the lobby is drawn from reports of people who have seen Kong in the jungle, and lived to tell. So he read from one account or another of the lobby's existence, and its function in pushing for the Iraq war. Living in Chicago, he lacks intimate knowledge of its workings. His best moment came when he said that the U.S. ought to put pressure on Israel to come into line on matters that are important to us and if it fails to do so, or chooses a different course, the U.S. and Israel "should go their separate ways." This was a clean and bracing view of the relations of states. While ideal, in a realistic way, it certainly describes the usual behavior of the U.S. when a small state defies it on a critical question. E.g., the settlements. And the absence of democracy in the West Bank. We could have frozen those settlements with a wave of the hand...
Rashid Khalidi was the emotional life of the debate. He spoke of the lobby in more sweeping terms than Mearsheimer; he conveyed in a way no one else was able the ways in which the pro-Palestinian view is suppressed in the American scene. He got off the best line of the debate. His neighbor Dennis Ross's mike wasn't working. Khalidi passed him his own. "This is the first time that a Palestinian has ever enabled the Israeli side to narrate..." he said, in so many words. Laughter. And after that the audience waited on his words.
Enough for now. It was a fabulous night. We all left improved. The London Review of Books had extended the boundaries of knowledge, and freedom.
"The newspaper
Repeating my concern that blaming a lobby group for the consequences of their successes.
Sure its useful to ID the elephants in a room - just dont blame them for being elephants - if you dont want elephants in the room then do things different.
Thanks for the report - the first I have found so far. I hope it will be followed by many more. Was C-SPAN (or someone else) taping the debate?
The debate was taped by the radio program "Beyond the Pale: Radical Jewish Culture and Politics," the WBAI program that airs every Sunday from noon to 1pm and that has been bringing critical views on this issue (among many other things)to the airwaves for more than 10 years now. Watch their website for info on when it will be aired.
Has anyone ever actually attended one of these Cooper Union "debates"?
If you think that upper west siders are ugly, you have got to see this. The room is filled with angry smelly old leftists with an admixture of paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorists. The stage is populated with puffed up pseudo-intellectuals who prattle on endlessly and incoherently. It is actually amusing, in a sad sort of way, when one of the "debaters" engages one of the under-medicated patients in the crowd, not realizing one is pissing in the wind when arguing with a psychotic. If someone who is actually cogent ever takes the stage, which is a rarity, they quickly realize they have erred badly. After all, one must never wrestle with a pig since you will both get filthy and the pig will enjoy it.
"Rashid Khalidi was the emotional life of the debate."....
And therein lied the problem with the Khalidi, Mearsheimer and Walt side of the "debate". It was all emotion, without logic or dispassionate objectivity.
As apologists for CAIR and Islamic terror organizations, I can see why Mearsheimer & Walt would find it convenient to scapegoat Israel, and blame her for 9/11 and our problems with Muslims,etc.
But the objective reality is - Islam is on a worldwide killing spree, and every fair minded person knows it. From Darfur to Thailand to the Phillipines to Beslan to the Kashmir, London, Madrid, Bali, New York, the Danish cartoon Jihad, the Pope, the fact is there is a problem with Islamic society and blaming the victims of their terror just doesn't cut it anymore. Just look at the Shiite and Sunnis murdering each other in Iraq. Sadly, Mohammed's followers can't even get along with each other.
Of course the terrorists hate Jews and Israel; which only proves that there is a strong correlation between being criminally insane and being anti-semitic. But this is something we already knew, and in fact its proven regularly by the pro-Islamist commenters on this very blog.
Sounds like a interesting debate. I hope to get a watch to watch (listen) to it.
if i offended anyone out here, i am sorry.
have a happy new year!
Walt & Mearsheimer admits that this is not their specialty, instead being american firster realists. Massing would have made a better debating member, but how can you have a debate without one of the men that brought the whole issue into light.
Interesting group of people supporting the "what lobby?" side, being members of the lobby they admit is useless.
Ross also said that if Gore was elected, they would not have invaded Iraq. That is debatable since Gore was one of the biggest Islamophobe in the Democratic party. And it was that whole Islamophobia from the Democratic party that practically abandoned this minority group, which the Republicans went to court, which is how the Democrats lost places like Florida.
So? There's an Environmental lobby, a Womens lobby, a Muslim lobby, a Fat lobby. What's your point?
Ooooooohhhhhhh... I get it. When Jews lobby, they must be trying to manipulate government. When everyone else does it, it's a sign of a healthy democracy.
Every day that AIPAC exists is one day less that Israel will. Israel needs peace.
The lobby needs more donors to support the $600,000 a year salary it pays its executive director and similar salaries to other staffers.
AIPAC will fight against peace at every opportunity and once it is finished, and my beloved Israel is gone too, AIPAC will live on, rating Congressmen for supporting or non-supporting Israel Memorial Resolutions.
AIPAC is Israel's cancer. Yes, it is bad for America. But America will survive.
Israel won't.
Every Jew who supports the lobby has alot to atone for.
My New Year's wish: that the self-hating ghetto Jews who support AIPAC feel some of the pain Israeli paents feel when they lose their sons in the wars AIPAC beats its drums for.
The supporters of Israel will remain steadfast. Those on the left who abandoned support after the 67 war are not missed. They long for the days when the jew was weak, a victim, a lamb to slaughter. Sadly, they wish to project upon the Israeli their own weakness, self-loathing,cynicism, and lack of faith. They disengenuously attempt to detach anti-zionism from anti semitism; yet they know the enemy of Israel preaches not "death to zionists" but "death to the jews". Since they abandoned Israel, new, stronger, much more fervent and unflappable supporters have come on board, many who are non-jews. G-d bless those who support Israel for a good new year. Am Yisrael Chai.
It is your 'g-d', my dear misguided socalled wiseking, who is "a psychotic on a global killing spree".
Wow, there's a Jewish Lobby. There's also an Arab/Muslim lobby represented by groups like CAIR and backed with millions of petro dollars frpm Saudi Arabia and Qatar that buys university academic chairs, groups like WAMY and is buying into media outlets. Before, going back from 1948 through the 80's the Arab case was backed by oil companies, financial institutions and weapons manufacturers. You can read about it in an old book by a man with that Jew name of Hedrick Smith.
And if anyone buying that swill has a problem with lobbies, then start complaining about all the rest of them from the NEA teachers to Gay Rights to the UAW(auto workers) to the National Organization of Women to whatever lobby is crawling out of your pocket for your best interests which aren't necessarily your neighbor's concern or to his benefit.
At least there were a lot of laughs, like Mearsheimer's whining that the issue of the Israeli Lobby can't be discussed in the MSM. For a learned professor he sure must not read much. Of course that would explain many of his factual errors and what I thought were omissions in context I guess they weren't mistakes, he just, again, doesn't read much
You can tell an idiot when he spells God G-d. Think about it. These loonies think GOD will be upset if they type his name in cyberspace.
What kind of God is that. He doesnt care about millions being stuffed in ovens. But spell his name with an O and it's fire and brimstone.
Gotta go, Time to walk my d-g.
Wow, there's a Jewish Lobby. There's also an Arab/Muslim lobby represented by groups like CAIR and backed with millions of petro dollars frpm Saudi Arabia and Qatar that buys university academic chairs, groups like WAMY and is buying into media outlets. Before, going back from 1948 through the 80's the Arab case was backed by oil companies, financial institutions and weapons manufacturers. You can read about it in an old book by a man with that Jew name of Hedrick Smith.
And if anyone buying that swill has a problem with lobbies, then start complaining about all the rest of them from the NEA teachers to Gay Rights to the UAW(auto workers) to the National Organization of Women to whatever lobby is crawling out of your pocket for your best interests which aren't necessarily your neighbor's concern or to his benefit.
At least there were a lot of laughs, like Mearsheimer's whining that the issue of the Israeli Lobby can't be discussed in the MSM. For a learned professor he sure must not read much. Of course that would explain many of his factual errors and what I thought were omissions in context I guess they weren't mistakes, he just, again, doesn't read much
/"there is a strong correlation between being criminally insane and being anti-semitic"/
There's also a strong correletion between medicalizing /psychologizing simple disagreements and being an f'ing communist nancy-boy.
Lawrence Feld post (Oct 1, 10:52 PM) -- "Wow, there's a Jewish Lobby. There's also an Arab/Muslim lobby represented by groups like CAIR and backed with millions of petro dollars frpm Saudi Arabia and Qatar that buys university academic chairs, groups like WAMY and is buying into media outlets."
Yeah, you know all those sinister moneybag Arabs, their secret scheming conspiratorial cabals, and their control of our media...
The "lobby" is so effective, even to the detriment of U.S. interests because of the political culture that it both creates and resides in. That culture is dominated not merely by the "lobby" but by Jewish influence upon the media, establishing a political correctness with all its pernicious implications. After all, this is where the "debate" would otherwise be taking place. It is the lobby supported by huge financial resources wielding strict politically correct culture enforcement; that pc culture being fomented and enforced by the media and entertainment industry.
When the elephant in the living room soils the floor, its time to make changes.
Where on the web is the video of the Cooper Union debate regarding "The Israel Lobby?"