The Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism in America

A strong Israel is fine. A wise Israel would be preferable. Why is it that so many of their leaders seem only to earn that wisdom through years of blood and tears.

And why, for the love of God, hasn't someone hired David Duke to drive trucks in Iraq?

@Cynic: Well said, but there are plenty of bigger and more powerful nations that don't always come out looking too clever on the wisdom front.

Israel has made mistakes but I often feel its biggest problem is that it's behind the game when explaining itself to the world. Maybe Israelis think they shouldn't have to justify their actions, but the result is often that the anti-Israel propaganda macine, which is well-oiled, is the one that ends up wining hearts and minds.

Just for the record - there is a difference to being anti-semitic, and being opposed to the policies of the state of Israel. Certainly, if you are the former, then it is likely you are also the latter, but the same cannot be said vice versa.

It's interesting how easily we can speak of Israel's actions while sitting in the relative comfort of our office or home. And far be it from me to condone every decision that has been made on the part of the Israelis. However, it never ceases to amaze me how easily it eludes so many individuals that Israel is under constant siege. I would like nothing more than to see the violence come to an end, as I have many relatives who immigrated there. But the reality of the situation remains - there are countless merciless attacks being mounted on these people's lives by the surrounding nations that will not rest until the State of Israel is no more and every Jew on the face of the planet has met his or her demise. So, I'm curious... How would you all propose they resolve this? Sit back and let it happen?

Just for the record - there is a difference to being anti-semitic, and being opposed to the policies of the state of Israel.

Very true!
The name of the article is "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", not the "Jewish Lobby..." or "Jewish-American Lobby...".
What's wrong with being an American and opposing another country's politics? Questioning a different nation's policies is not "Mainstreaming Anti-Semitism".

They are obviously very respected academics. . . . What a few years ago was reserved for people who preached hate for a living is now acceptable for a Harvard Dean.

Interesting article. One point, however. Harvard University is a huge, complex institution with scores of students, faculty, employees, and visitors from all over the nation and world. It would be a serious mistake to assume that every stance supported by a Harvard affiliate, including a dean or other high-level official, is automatically fair and just and well considered by default. This, as you have seen, is not correct by a long shot, which is why no one should ever be surprised to find that many Harvard affiliates hold the same gamut of beliefs as people who are not affiliated with the university.

Its unhealthy when any state or leadership is given a blank check from the public. Questioning authority is the foundation of democracy. Post holocaust guilt has kept many people from engaging in honest discussion about Israeli activity in many areas. This gets even more clouded when the far racist right such as David Dukes has common points of view with those that may have legitimate issues.

We rarely equate questioning the actions of African governments with black racism. One should likewise be able to freely criticize Israel without being labeled an anti-semite. Is it the nature of the supposed activities of Israel that gives us pause before issuing a critique? Is it the shared Judeo-christian beliefs? Whatever it is we have to realize Israel is a secular (kinda) state that has all the warts and problems of any country.

Lobbying groups exist to change public policy to promote the interests of other nations, individuals, industry trade groups, or what have you. Lobbying groups, by definition, are supposed to modify public policy to reach legislation and conclusions that would not have been reached in absence of the lobbying group.

There is an Israel lobby which has frequently found success.

The above two facts mean that there is an Israel lobbying group that has been successful in changing American foreign policy to support positions and legislation that would not have otherwise been supported.

I don't think that recognizing this makes me anti-semitic. Nor do I think that questioning the policies of the government of Israel makes me anti-semitic.

I've been waiting for this to happen, despairing at the thought, but certain of its eventuality. The war was concocted by the Neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration and in the media. Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Podhoretz, Kristol, Feith. Jews all. Now that the war is not going so well and people's opinions are that the war wasn't worth entering into, the search begins for someone to blame. These men, besides being Jews, are devoted supporters of Israel, and many of my countrymen and -women make no distinction between the two. I think the Holocaust has still enough moral effect that the prejudice and the anger won't be overt, but it will be there.

Yaakov,

at the very first paragraph of your article you write in quotes, so the trusty reader is lead to believe you actually quote from the incriminated paper of Mearsheimer and Walt:

1. The Jews have "inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security".

2. They are "unhealthy for democracy"

3. [they] "increase the terrorist danger that all states face".

[Yaakov's "quotes"]

Now, understand that you may feel upset about what you consider venomous anti-semitism disguised as high scholarship, even more so if it comes with the Harvard logo. But, let's look at the corresponding originals:

1. "The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security". [page 2/83]

2. "… the Lobby's campaign to squelch debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy" [page 42/83]

3. "This situation is deeply worrisome, because the Lobby's influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face—including America's European allies". [page 42/83]
["quotes from Mearsheimer and Walt original paper ]

To be fair, and to say the least, 1. and 2. are rather more articulated than what you crudely report, to the point of deforming the original, even of "wrenching" it from the original. Only quotation 3., in spite of its disarming brevity, is not totally unfaithful to the original.

Do not you find it rather paradoxical that you quote so poorly people that you accuse, among other thing, of being lousy quoters?

"They're[ Mearsheimer and Walt] just taking ideas that already existed out there in hate sites - in the work of Chomsky, in the work of Buchanan, and in the work of David Duke - and they're claiming it as their scholarship."
[Alan Dershowitz, from New York Sun, 3/24/06]

Do not you find it careless (actually I prefer: disgraceful) that "Chomsky" (presumably Avram Noam Chomsky) is so casually bunched up by Alan Dershowitz with "Buchanan" (presumably Pat Buchanan, out of the 25 listed by Wikipedia) and (hear hear) with KKK David Duke?

Yaakov, I much admire the resilience of the Jewish people, which, against all odds, prejudice, persecution, has managed to survive and thrive, without a land they could call their own, for nearly 2000 years. A famous Jew, Sigmund Freud, said (before 1948), that Jews enjoy a unique status: too much History, too little Geography.

If we look at things in a perspective of Faith in the one and only God of Abraham, the one that Jews, Christians, Muslims recognize as their own, in spite of the dramatically different interpretations, we may be tempted to say, I am tempted to say that I see God's hand in these predicaments.

Let me add something, which I do hope you will take in earnest as a friendly comment: Truth is a very rare and fragile commodity. Jews, least of all others, can afford to tamper with it.

Just another little comment, which you may find mysterious, or maybe not: the great cancer of our age is a deadly combination of "secret motives": secret societies, secret agendas, secret services, mafia's secrets, free-masonic secrets, religious secrets.

Kabbalah is the "secret" (or more properly "occult") Jewish religion. The sooner healthy Jews distance themselves from the poisonous influence of Kabbalah, the better.

Kabbalah is the "secret" (or more properly "occult") Jewish religion. The sooner healthy Jews distance themselves from the poisonous influence of Kabbalah, the better.

This comment mystifies me entirely. Kabbalah is the mystic side of Judaism. It is not necessary to study it to be a Jew but it is an adjunct to the faith. Jews cannot "distance themselves" from it, maybe just not study it. In fact I don't think it is all that commonly studied, other than by non-Jewish celebrities as if it were some sort of stand-alone mystic cult.

How though is its inluence "poisonous"? What on earth do you mean?

What the hell does kabbalah have to do with this discussion about US politics and insidious anti-Semitism? Go give your warnings to Madonna -- or should I say Esther -- and Britney Spears. It's about as germane to this conversation as bringing up Pentecostal snake-handlers in a discussion about anti-Catholicism in the English Civil War.

That's more or less what I was thinking, but I was trying to be polite.

I don't care about proxies' opinions. And it was "mysterious" for the non adept. Whether they try to be polite or not.

You two should try and criticize the substance of my comment, rather than pathetically clinging to the last paragraph.

I find it amusing that people blame our relationship with Israel for why Middle Easterners resent the American government; as if our actions in the region are top-notch besides our support of Israel. Both the United States of America, and Britain before us, have condoned all sorts of policies which negatively affected Middle Eastern peoples in order to advance our interests. just look at how the region was divided into states after WWI. Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, take your pick: Western intervention usually hasn't been good for locals. Our relationship with Israel isn't our problem with Middle Easterners, it's one of our problems with Middle Easterners.

That being said, while criticisms of this nature can be valid, I find most of the time they are based on prefound notions not actual critical analysis. The same person who would criticize "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" might go on to lament how the Jews run media. This is not always the case, but according to my experience that's most often the case.

evano:

The war was concocted by the Neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration and in the media. Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Podhoretz, Kristol, Feith. Jews all. Now that the war is not going so well and people's opinions are that the war wasn't worth entering into, the search begins for someone to blame. These men, besides being Jews, are devoted supporters of Israel

what about Cheney? What about the Jewish people who criticized the invasion of Iraq, saying it would destabilize the region?

People should remember that, for all its shortcomings, Israel is one of the best states in that region. Even if its founding could have been done more delicately, I'm not sure what other solution the world could have chosen in 1945.

It's also noteworthy that the author introduces the topic of rising anti-semitism in America and most people chose to start criticizing Israel, without even dealing with anti-semitism. Is it out-of-line to say anti-semitism is rising, but at least Jews aren't Arabs? Anti-Arab sentiment is also on the rise, and I would bet at a faster rate and with more mainstreaming.

Noam Chomsky is against Jews?!? Does that mean he's a race-traitor?

@Servetus: We are all just "proxies" here, Your Lordship. If Your Worship would like to speak just with Yaakov, then may I direct Your Divine Person to the "Contact Author" link at the top of the page. However, if Your Worthiness wishes to participate in a public forum then you need to get off your high horse because you might be from Vicenza, but you ain't no Doge of Venice.

As to your comment, you were doing pretty well, making some legitimate observations about Yaakov's incomplete and possibly out-of-context excerpting of quotes from the report. But then you start asking if he finds disgraceful the conflation of Chomsky, Buchanan and Duke, adding a complete non sequitir "hear hear" to Duke's name. Then we're off into Freud and your perception of divine intervention in "these predicaments." What predicaments are you talking about? God is sowing dissent and making scholars anti-Semitic? Or is God confusing Dershowitz into bringing those three names together? Maybe he was whispering in Freud's ear. And why is "truth" particularly dangerous for Jews to "tamper" with? Then, finally, you go off the dissociation chart all together with your kaballah reference and warning.

This forum is about communication, not obfuscation -- as you correctly point out in the first, lucid half of your comment. If you have something to say, say it without all the mystery and opacity and you might find that conversation is possible.

Dear Sir,

if it was your intention to "communicate" with me, you are done with it. Are you a teacher, in your "professional life"? With blue & red pencil?

As you are obviously so superficially informed about Kabbalah, let me just correct a gross misconception of yours. The Kabbalah Centre (sorry, this is the proper English spelling), founded by Philip Berg and children (Yehuda and Michael) may well satisfy the mystical cravings of Madonna/Esther and of Britney Spears, as the gossip magazines must have amply reported for your scholarly readings, but is only a parrot imitation of the real Mc Coy.

For the rest, the obfuscation is entirely yours. Pity you cannot tell Freud from Dershowitz, or from Chomsky, or from God.

upright ape deserves a bit of a w00t for pointing out that the US-Israel relationship is something of a scapegoat for other policies the US has had in the middle east. The US has been clomping around with awfully big boots over there for almost a century now, doing things like installing a corrupt shah of Iran.

Not only that, but the Palestinian people have been kicked around by the Arab world plenty since 1948 -- one reason they want the right of return so badly is that other Arab countries (exception: Jordan) won't give them citizenship. These countries stir up anti-Israeli sentiment while doing nothing for refugees.

Israel isn't blameless here. But the US's relationship with Israel is far from the only cause of anti-US sentiment, and plenty of the problems faced by rank-and-file Middle Easterners have nothing to do with Israel at all.

It's also worth noting that David Duke may have interpreted this report through his own twisted lens. he's not what we English majors would call "a reliable reader." I would imagine that the authors of the report are somewhat embarrassed by his "Jewish extremist neocons" slurs. If they aren't, they should be.

There are a lot of ideas in this thread and a lot of good comments. I don't have too much more to add, but I want to point out that the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", is about an organization that lobbies the federal government. These are lobbyists.

Am I wrong, or hasn't criticizing lobbying groups been a staple in the campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats? Since when is it "anti-semitic" to wonder if special interest groups are hurtful to the way government in this country is run?

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it almost seems like... Forgive me for being blunt, perhaps there are some finer points here that I'm missing, but it seems that some people have the think it's okay to criticize the tobacco lobby or the chemical industry lobby or the pharmacutical lobby, but not the Israeli government's lobby. I have to wonder if, perhaps, the sole reason for the harsh words and outrage is the fact that this is the Israeli lobby.

Israel isn't a part of the US, it doesn't surprise me that in some situations, the interests of Israel may not perfectly dovetail with those of the US. In such a situation, I suspect these lobbying groups will push for things that may not be in the best interests of the US. This is, I believe, is what lobbying organizations do.

It's important to remember that the problem is not Israel or people working to further the interests of Israel. The problem lies with lobbying organizations in the general sense and the ways in which they short circuit the functioning of the US government. There is nothing anti-semitic about being concerned with the influence lobbying organizations have on US policy. In my mind, there is nothing more patriotic than people getting involved with the way government in this country works.

The title of this blog entry - "The Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism in America" - is misleading and disgraceful. The article by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is in no way at all anti-semitic, nor is it even particularly critical of Israel, per se. It merely highlights the Israeli lobby's influence over American foreign policy and discusses its consequences for Israel and America. To label such discussion as anti-semitic is to bully anyone out of talking about the issue. Quite frankly, Yaakov, it's not Walt and Mearsheimer who are anti-Semitic - it's you who is anti-democratic, pro-censorship and anti-American.

C. Miles:

I don't think it is OK to:

"Forgive me for being blunt, perhaps there are some finer points here that I'm missing, but it seems that some people have the think it's okay to criticize the tobacco lobby or the chemical industry lobby or the pharmacutical lobby, but not the Israeli government's lobby. I have to wonder if, perhaps, the sole reason for the harsh words and outrage is the fact that this is the Israeli lobby."

Like it or not Judaism is a persecuted religion. Persecuted to the point where they felt they had to establish a country so they have some where to go if the rest of us start killing them. The Jews have had place after place turn on them. I haven't the slightest problem with them promoting their right to live, practice their religion and have some sort of safe place when (not if) the rest of us go nuts again.

The Romans were really unhappy with the Jews and the diaspora was Rome's way of messing them up forever. It worked.

Like it or not Judaism is a persecuted religion. Persecuted to the point where they felt they had to establish a country so they have some where to go if the rest of us start killing them.

That's how it went down, huh? Somehow I think that it was a bit more complicated than that.