One of the consistent deformities in American policy debate has been challenged by a couple of professors, and the reaction proves their point so neatly it's almost funny.
A working paper by John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, called "The Israel Lobby" was printed in the London Review of Books earlier this month. And all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and academe. For having the sheer effrontery to point out the painfully obvious — that there is an Israel lobby in the United States — Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being anti-Semitic, nutty and guilty of "kooky academic work."
As I've noted before, no one denies there is an Israel lobby, and no one criticizes M&W merely for pointing out there is an Israel lobby.
Watch Professor Bernstein write about it, and about the influence of pro-Israel individuals more generally: "There is an Israel lobby. AIPAC is a registered pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC is one of the most influential organizations in the United States. Most American Jews support Israel. Some of the those Jews are very influential people. A smaller, but still substantial, percentage of American non-Jews support Israel. Some of those non-Jews are very influential people. Pro-Israel Americans hold high positions in academia, government, the media, and even write for blogs."
Wait a few days.
Check technorati, and see if anyone is criticizing me for "pointing out the painfully obvious." No? Well maybe it's because unlike M&W, I haven't extrapolated from these facts to a [as Ivins puts it] nutty and kooky "academic" thesis, including the idea that anyone who supports Israel is part of a "lobby". Just how nutty? M&W first footnote: "Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about." Two obvious nutty things: first that the U.S. has ever given Israel "unconditional support" [M&W explicitly reference allegedly "unconditional" U.S. support for Israel on page 6 of their paper]; and second, that the existence of a lobby for a cause has anything to do with whether the cause is in the national interest or not. Do these Harvard and Chicago professors think that policies that ARE in the national interest just get pristinely through Congress without any lobbying? Pick any policy you think IS in the national interest (including the U.S. being anti-Israel!) and I can almost guarantee there is a lobby for it.
I acknowledge that some critics of M&W have gone over-the-top in their attacks on the paper. But let's not pretend that critics of the paper are attacking them for insubstantial reasons. Some pro-Israel activists try to undermine their opposition by calling them anti-Semites, even when it's not justified. Some who are unsympathetic to Israel try to undermine their opposition by claiming that perfectly legitimate criticism of their views is the work of pro-Israel hysterics who, for example, call you an anti-Semite if you mention that AIPAC is influential. Ivins, though avowedly pro-Israel herself, has fallen for those pushing the latter line on the M&W paper.
So, from Ms. Ivins, either a retraction, or evidence that anyone criticized M&W for pointing out there is an Israel lobby is due.
[Also, contrary to what Ivins implies, folks didn't pick on Mearsheimer and Walt's paper because they go around looking for obscure academic papers to attack. Rather, the paper was quickly sent around by the Palestinian Authority to contacts all over the U.S., and appeared rather quickly on anti-Semitic websites worldwide. It's not M&W's fault that, e.g., David Duke praised their paper, but it would be horribly irresponsible to let the flaws in the paper go unanswered when it's being publicized by the likes of him.]UPDATE: Meryl Yourish has more detailed criticism of Ivins' piece.
EDITOR'S Note: I closed comments because I wanted to do other work, and go on to other posts. The debate on that post was fully played out, all sides represented, time to go on with your life.
"After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools."
He's been studying the Brian Leiter manual on how to win friends and influence people, apparently.
And some things are just idiotic.
-------------------------------
Which things, of course, Professor Bernstein will decide.
Well, it is his post, so he's the decider.
I've decided, after some initial ambivalence, that I like the word "decider." And, since, when it comes to matters of personal taste, I'm the decider of what I like, I've decided to incoporate that word into my everyday vocabulary. Away with clumsy construction, "decision maker!"
As to the post:
"So, from Ms. Ivins, either a retraction, or evidence that anyone criticized M&W for pointing out there is an Israel lobby is due."
When it comes to Ms. Ivins view of reality, it's fairly clear that she's the decider, so don't hold your breath waiting for either.
EDITOR: Again, that thread is over.
Of course Israel has a lobby, we call it their embassy. Of course there is also a large group of people who do try to influence US policiy for what the percieve as Israel's benefit, as there is for every other matter on which US policy impinges. Most people don't have a problem with that. The fact that the second group consistently pushes a dangerous far right line on Israel question that is more likely to destroy Israel than help it may be a concern. But this gets us back to your inability to seperate criticism of a country from criticism of a leader of that country.
I didn't hear that any Americans were critically injured in the recent Palestinian suicide bombing. A couple of things come to mind about this:
a) if "the Lobby" operated as W&M assert it does, one would think this would be splashed all over the media; and
b) if this happened in reverse, if IDF actions put an American in a coma and it wasn't flogged by the media, it would have been put forth as more evidence of "the Lobby".
Noting b) above, does anyone believe W&M would say there is a powerful Arab lobby manipulating the news?
1. They weren't trying to smear ordinary people for being part of the Israel lobby. They were simply pointing out the obvious, that the Lobby is a large and essentially boundary-less group, which cannot be said to consist simply of groups like AIPAC who openly assert that they are an Israel Lobby. It consists of big groups and small, and yes, ordinary people like you and me. Your attack against them on this basis is substanceless, and essentially amounts to you denying the lobby at the same time as you admit that it "obviously" exists.
2. The existence of the lobby does "suggest," as they said, that its interests are not the same as America more broadly. You may argue that in fact the lobby's interests are actually the same as ours but that it is simply more knowledgable on the issue, but the fact is that when somebody is trying to persuade you of something, it "suggests" that they have a different position than you do. Their second statement that "If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about," is not strictly and necessarily true, but is one sentence in a long paper which is offered as an off-hand statement. Moreover, it could be true; we simply can't say for sure.
You closed the Fund thread pretty quickly, but Cole is pretty much [choose one or more of the following or supply your own]..."nutty and kooky," "idiotic," "outrageous,"...
People who take exception to those descriptions should try to wrap their minds around this conspirazoid nonsense:
And the guys who (rightly, IMO) take exception to unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism and who post frequently on these comments should get a load of these specious generalizations. Any charge of racism is certainly loaded, but charges of crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc., kick it up yet another rhetorical notch:
http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html
I think your criticism was very well stated, Marcus. It reminds me somewhat of how many of these same people deny that a "Constitution-in-Exile movement" exists, at the same time they basically admit it.
But her defense of M&W is overheated. She completely undermines her case by minimizing the W&M argument, which is not simply that an Israel lobby exists, but rather that it has a "stanglehold" on U.S. foreign policy. Since secret Jewish control of the government is an ancient anti-Semitic trope, the W&M imagery (there is more) is uncomfortable, to say the least (Christopher Hitchens -- no apologist for Israel -- called it "smelly").
Ivins can just barely bring herself to criticize the W&M paper for its "too-broad use of the term 'Israel lobby'." But look at her sleight of hand: W&M capitalize Lobby throughout, which is obviously intended to make it seem unitary and sinister -- but Ivins puts it in a less offending lower case.
"The Lobby" as W&M define it and the lobby as Bernstein use it are two very different things.
"The Lobby" exists, inasmuch that W&M or any of us can glom together disparate and heterogenous objects into a group and title them "the Group". But at that point, you try to specify characterisics "the Group" and you all of a sudden are talking about something that doesn't exist. You'll find that some member of "the Group" have those characteristics, some don't, and some have the opposite characteristics.
There is no such "Lobby" that contains all of those elements and as a group does the things that W&M ascribe to it.
More to the point, W&M define their capital-L lobby so broadly as to make it meaningless.
I guess if Ivins were to be more precise, she would say people like Prof. Bernstein criticize W&M merely for pointing out that there is an Israel lobby that goes beyond the roster of registered pro-Israel lobbyists. I hardly think that distinction merits a formal correction, though.
The criticism is based on their extreme exaggeration of the lobby's power and their nearly grotesque insistence on treating it as a single-minded, unified force, capital L force.
I have to wonder whether Ivins even read Dershowitz's paper, which made that quite clear.
(btw, I am not the "Steve" whose posts surround mine.)
"unlike M&W, I haven't extrapolated from these facts to a [as Ivins puts it] nutty and kooky "academic" thesis, including the idea that anyone who supports Israel is part of a "lobby". Just how nutty? M&W first footnote: "Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about."
Now one might disagree with above on public choice grounds, and one might expect professors in political science and government to be familiar with public choice arguments. If that were the point, one could say the argument is "shoddy", though not "nutty". But ignoring this subtlety, it seems W&M are simply making a basic point: If everyone agrees X is beneficial, you don't need a lobby toaccomplish X. Here "X" is "unconditional support of Israel" and "beneficial" is equivalent to "in the American national interest." Now David may disagree with that argument, but to call it evidence of nuttiness and kookiness? As I say, uncharitable, to say the least.
As another example (and I know the thread has rapidly closed), David keeps mentioning Dr. Cole's position that "the number 3 man at the Pentagon is a 'card-carrying member of the Likud'" as evidence of weirdness. Yet, when I go to the link, I find Cole is actually not making that comment about Douglas Feith, but instead referencing a Salon.com article that QUOTES COLIN POWELL making that comment. I suspect General Powell knows Mr. Feith better than Dr. Bernstein. In any case, the comment is not Cole's.
Some of these strongly pro-Israel Americans in leadership positions hold dual citizenship, as do descendants of other immigrants in some countries.
Should America's fortunes fall in this century, with China and Pacific Rim countries picking up the mantle of world leadership and the US left to deal with her own troubles, will a great number of these dual citizens choose to retire to Israel?
This perhaps sounds like an anti-Semitic question -- I know some criticize others for sapping an area economically, thinking short term, then moving on so to speak. Getting themselves out, but leaving others behind to deal with messes that have been building up over years and were ignored, back when there was a chance something positive could be done to change direction.
This is a serious concern though: how committed are America's Israel-supporting families and friends to long-term American interests vs. Israel's interests? Some wonder this of Cuban immigrants and others; I think it is fair to ask of our loudly pro-Israel commenters and leaders.
This is why attacking the lobby is absurd. If you don't like the policy, criticize those they have persuaded. Or try to figure out how and why the lobby is persuasive with them. The decisions are being made by people with names like Bush and Cheney, not those with names like Feith and Wolfowitz.
AIPAC (lowercase lobby) certainly exists.
"The Lobby" (capitalized) with the substance and attributions that W&M give it does not exist.
Now, there has been a strawman argument put forth by some in their defense of W&M. They charge that critics of the paper are taking exception (usually "shrilly" or "hysterically") to the fact that W&M say there is an Israel lobby (lowercase). Molly Ivins does it above. She happens to eschew the use of shrilly or hysterically in favor of: "...all hell broke loose in the more excitable reaches of journalism and academe." You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to :-).
I have not seen a single credible (or non-credible for that matter) person make the argument that Ivins is trying to ascribe to people. The problem people have with W&M's paper is that they are trying to say something that doesn't exist, this capital-L Lobby, does.
I guess if Ivins were to be more precise, she would say people like Prof. Bernstein criticize W&M merely for pointing out that there is an Israel lobby that goes beyond the roster of registered pro-Israel lobbyists.
No, this is giving short shrift to the criticism. What you describe is pointing out that there are many groups and individuals that are pro-Israel and even advocate for them...and stopping there.
W&M go further, by alleging all sorts of conduct (and a lot of it unseemly conduct at that) that they, as a group, engage in. They don't. Lack of precision isn't Molly Ivins' problem here. To be blunt, it's lack of understanding (I suspect) or lack of honesty.
Exactly. It's like the "Gay Agenda" - an overly broad term designed to imply a sinister conspiracy while maintaining techincal deniability. You should ask David Horowitz for the software he used to make "Discover the Network" and create "Discover the Lobby".
M&W p.14: "We use 'the Lobby' as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues."
I realize that using such terms evokes images of shadowy Zionist conspiracies and the like, but they specifically disclaimed any such meaning, and I'm not sure how else you'd have them write the paper.
Jews have a stranglehold on congress (Page 19)
Jews manipulate the media (page 21)
Jews hold the executive office close because of $$(page 19)
Jews are rich, powerful and manipulative, and control events out of proportion to their number to the detriment of the nation they live in, for their own purposes.
Molly Ivins agrees. Fine.
Using the same brand of unabashful logic, I suppose that Jewish Americans vote Democrat, because David Duke voted Republican
What some of us are saying is that this 1 paragraph disclaimer seems somewhat disingenuous (at best) when placed next to 84 pages of consistently sloppy and loaded language.
Words, especially widely used ones, have deep meanings formed over years of use - these subconscious meanings do not just change due to a 1 paragraph disclaimer. They could just as easily used a neutral term like "Network of Influence (NoI)" which has absolutely NO emotional impact and would not have spawned the reaction, but they did not. Further, they chose to cloud the issue more by using consistently anthropomorphic language to descriibe something they ADMIT is not anything like a human being (no body and no brain = not really appropriate for anthropomorphization).
Considering their position and experience I have a hard time believing it was accidental or due to inexperience - if anything I think there position makes it more likely it was a choice to use language
"We use 'The Gay Agenda' as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. domestic policy towards acceptance of homosexuals and homosexuality. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that 'The Gay Agenda' are part of a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues."
if it was followed by 84 pages of
"The Gay Agenda monitors what professors are teaching"
"The Gay Agenda moves to silence opponents and crush dissent"
"The very fact that the Gay Agenda exists is proof that it is not in the best interests of our country - if their interests aligned with the country they would not need organizations to press their rights"
"The Gay Agenda uses the charge of "homophobia" to intimidate dissenters"
...sigh.
Its the SAME bullshit doublespeak.
>What some of us are saying is that this 1 paragraph disclaimer seems somewhat disingenuous (at best) when placed next to 84 pages of consistently sloppy and loaded language.<
So you want them to continually praise the lobby throughout the paper just to make sure nobody gets the wrong idea? I think you're simply being cynical. When you read something cynically, you can find fault in anything.
The fact is that there is a broad pro-Israel lobby, that it has a great deal of influence, and that it is much broader and more loosely organized than people like Prof. Bernstein want to admit. In fact, it is no different from the "homosexual agenda," which few would say was limited to official organizations, except that the pro-Israel lobby has a great deal more influence, and operates quite differently. Does the homosexual agenda operate? Sure, it operates through people like me arguing on sites like this that people should be more accepting of homosexuals and homosexual rights. It also operates through official organizations. If someone talked about the "homosexual agenda," I wouldn't respond, "That's ridiculous; I'm not part of any agenda." The main response, I think, is "All we want is equal rights; why wouldn't you sign on?"
Different lobbies operate in different ways, however, and have different degrees of influence. One of the traits of the Israel lobby appears to be understating its own extent and influence. I don't think that's really something the homosexual agenda does. I think we're glad to announce any influence we can get. This creates a situation where W&M want to write a paper saying, "Look people, this lobby is bigger and more powerful than you realize. It's important to recognize this, because we believe it has actually driven American policy away from actual American interests."
Is that really an improper use of the word lobby? Are we simply not allowed to talk about an Israel lobby because it's too loaded? I think that's pretty ridiculous. Network of influence? I can only imagine the criticism that would have broughten about. "These guys are trying to dance around the idea of some kind of Jewish lobby without saying it!"
Again, if you're going to be cynical, you can find fault in anything.
There's similar language throughout the power. That could be excusable in another context, but "a Jewish conspiracy is controlling everything" is a longstanding anti-Semitic trope. Given that context and the fact that the paper's thesis can be viewed to fit that paradigm, word choices that suggest a monolith of Jews whose real loyalty is to Israel rather than America indicate anti-Semitism.
It's interesting to watch who rises to the defense of such claims. Juan Cole, etc.
Don't you think it's reveals something about the inside of some who yearn for that paper to be true (even after it's been factually reduced several times) by publishing?
AIPAC = NRA = Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
Influence is open. It's the SYSTEM. We organize to achieve.
The racially motivated assertions these gavones have introduced via academic means will in 25 years be repeated by those who 'suspect' asian americans, and wish for 'gooks' suffering from an excess of professional excellence to be punished by claiming these people belong a to cabal to reward, China? Southeast asia?
It's all ignorance yearning to be made justified by facts. That why David Duke, and the arab antisemites are rejoicing. Ms Ivins has done herself, liberals and democrats no favor. Tony Judt, and the rest have truly taken hold of white sheets, and one day will be wonder what those two holes are for, wondering what the sheet is doing in their hands.
Let's have more come out, and I hope the sun shines on every single one.
Next up... a paper in the American Journal of Physiology explaining why african americans can't swim as fast?
M&W p.14: "We use 'the Lobby' as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues."
I saw the disclaimer. I can only refer you back to my previous post (with numbers added):
Their disclaimer is consistent with part 1.
Their disclaimer is not consistent with their use of "the Lobby" throughout the rest of the paper.
For example:
No, one part of "the Lobby" does this. Namely AIPAC and other true lobbying groups.
I'm not exactly sure which part of "the Lobby" is repeating myths, if any, but certainly not all are. This also should not be made as a blanket statement.
Huh? So while W&M's disclaimer - "Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues." - holds true for some things, preventing fair public debate is something they all agree on? Preposterous.
Again...huh?
What perspective?? That Israel deserves billions of dollars a year? That Israel can do no wrong? That Israel has a right to exist? What actually is the perspective of this non-unified group without central leadership which disagrees on certain issues?
I'm hoping you may be starting to get the point.
This one is particularly good. "The Lobby" (read: two guys) does this. Problem being...Martin Kramer didn't do it! It's one guy and one guy falsely accused. Oh, that far-reaching Lobby...
I'm not sure who is actually doing this protraying, whether it is "the Lobby" or a part of it or what, but if you look at the stats France does have the most anti-Semitic incidents in western Europe (all of Europe?). If you read the entire paragraph, you see that they don't actually say it isn't. They selectively quote people's opinions and provide red herrings in an attempt to imply that it isn't without actually saying so. Dishonest scholarship all around.
Finally, I'll drop one more analogy on you...
There is a loose group of individuals and organizations, some of them governmental, who all are supportive of America. We will use the term 'Amerikkkans' (hyperbole to press the point, and 'American' itself is already capitalized) to describe them. There is a very small minority of Americans who don't support America or who don't care what happens to it, but the rest, while disagreeing on some topics, all agree in their support of America. Amerikkkans' goals are to dominate the world. To do so they use two main strategies - lies and military might...etc, etc, etc.
BTW, Steve, do you support America? Then you are an Amerikkkan. Wait, do you mean you support America but don't agree with the whole world domination thing? Or you agree with the world domination thing but wouldn't lie in your pursuit of it? Perhaps we should narrow that definition of Amerikkkan down a bit...
Actually, that's not really fair to say. I'm sure the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lobby is really at fault for this asinine "debate."
You addressed my post without addressing a shred of its substance, but rather picking out one term out of context in order to portray me as "nut" or "kook".
Some people, you shouldn't engage.
If it's OK with you, I'll keep engaging who I like.
Wait, that came across wrong...I was too polite. Address the substance of what I say, if you feel the urge to gratuitously call me names just keep your big yapper shut. There, that's better :-).
But I don't think the paper comes anywhere close to the sort of anti-semitic screed some commentors see it as. The folks who allege the existence of a "Homosexual Agenda" are considered acceptable voices in our political discourse, at least by many. The fact that M&W's thesis evokes uncomfortable images of Zionist conspiracy theories doesn't mean they actually allege one. A fact-based argument that President Clinton refrained from doing such-and-such due to pressure from pro-Israel groups is qualitatively different from an allegation that a mysterious Jewish conspiracy controls the world's banks.
I just see the claims that the M&W paper is "Protocols Part II" as ridiculously overblown, possessing approximately the same level of credibility as the notion that "neocon" is code for an anti-semitic slur. I find it ironic that many of the same conservatives who believe racism against blacks is an artifact of the past and "not a big deal anymore" can still manage to find antisemitism around every corner.
I'm sorry, but the kind of cynicism that you're applying to their writing would prevent anyone from writing about any ethnic issue in an acceptable way. This is the exact same cynicism that says that Bernstein's commentary on blacks and the LSAT is transparently racist, creating a strong suggestion that minorities are inferior human beings.
You selectively quote to give the impression that W&M are talking about American Jews generally. Yet, they specifically say they are not. The fact remains, however, that the core of the Israel Lobby is going to be Jews and their Christian allies. Is that not something one can say? By your selective quoting and outrage, I think it's quite clear that it would be impossible for them to state this in any way without their comments being mischaracterized as something completely different.Well here's the thing: I'm half Swedish, and I'll openly admit that even if supporting Sweden weren't really in America's interests, I would probably do anything in my power to get America to support Sweden. It doesn't mean I'm anti-American, or that I put Sweden ahead of America. If it really came down to us or them, well, I'd have to decide at the time, but in any situation where it wasn't absolutely clear that it was us or them, I would push 100% for America to support Sweden.
So guess what? My guess is that a lot of American Jews are the same way with Israel. There are some important differences, however: 1. Sweden is a completely insignificant country. 2. I'm not supported by a bunch of religious nuts who think keeping control of Sweden is necessary for God to come down and take me to heaven, 3. Various other factors.
All of this, I think, is pretty obvious. Unfortunately, when you start talking about anything with ethnic implications, people get extremely touchy about anything. There are some good reasons for that, but seriously, it just doesn't justify the assumption that W&M must be anti-semitic.
It's easy to slide back and forth, and I caught myself doing it in some of my posts, but we were talking about the lower-case lobby vs. W&M's "the Lobby" and not anti-Semitism.
Regarding that, I think there are just a few parts in the paper where W&M slip and say things which are, indeed, anti-Semitic. But I don't think that is the intent (I think it is sloppiness/lack of precision) and I wouldn't call the paper an anti-Semitic screed.
BUT...
Anyone, and these guys in particular (because presumably, based on their positions, they should be among the best of the best), if they are going to write a paper that as you say "evokes uncomfortable images of Zionist conspiracy theories" they should a) be exceedingly careful with their language, b) write a well researched and balanced paper. The fact is, they were sloppy with language and even sloppier with their facts, with quotes taken out of context, and wrote an incredibly biased and intellectually dishonest paper. They obviously know better.
It is juxtaposition of all of these things that raises red flags I think.
Actually I made it clear that THEY SHOULD NOT USE THE TERM "LOBBY".
Thats why I've been trying to say, only better.
Their use of the term is at odds with their formal definition and the argument that we should take the formal definition at face value is simply not compelling.
Thats what I've been trying to say, only you said it better.
Their use of the term is at odds with their formal definition and the argument that we should take the formal definition at face value is simply not compelling - especially in the light of history.
She has a very good point, and one which I challenge you to answer. How can we carry out a rational political debate about the policies and actions of successive Israeli governments, in particular but not only towards the ethnic minorities within Israeli's legal or occupation boundaries, and of successive US administrations towards Israel, without the charge of anti-semitism (and the latent charge of holocaust-reviver?) being deployed to stop debate.
How can we analyse the interaction of the overt formal pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist political lobby with the more general financial support of many individual Jewish Americans for politicians whose views they share or want to influence?
The hair-splitting in these posts over is it a lobby or not is irrelevant: of course the formal and the informal work together and reinforce each other, and all of this is legitimate, and has no need of a conspiracy theory. That is not to say that the original Mearsheimer-Walt article was accurate and perfectly balanced: political scientists can write to provoke, and do expect their work to be criticised. But I agree with Molly Ivins that the response is so disproportionate - even hysterical - to suggest that "the lady doth protest too much".
>Actually I made it clear that THEY SHOULD NOT USE THE TERM "LOBBY".<
See, this is just weird, because "lobby" is simply not a loaded term. "Lobby" is in fact a term commonly used with many groups, having essentially no connotations whatsoever.
"Lobby" does not mean "conspiracy." It does not mean "cabal." It really has no connection to those ideas whatsoever. Lobby is really about the least dirty word I could possibly think of. Moreover, they even cement this by specifically noting that their Lobby should not be seen as different from any other lobby.
Your suggestion, on the other hand, "Network of Influence," seems to me to have a great deal MORE in common with the idea of a conspiracy or a cabal. In context, I am certain that many more people would say it sounds VERY shadowy, underhanded and falling in line with the claims of the likes of David Duke. "Lobby" is in fact the opposite: a clear, clinical and non-loaded description of a group of people making an effort to push public opinion in a particular direction.
With all due respect, your problem is clearly not with the word "lobby," but with the underlying idea of the paper. The attack on their rhetoric, I think, is entirely misplaced. If you consider the actual difficulty in addressing these issues, which I think is revealed by your attempt to come up with a less loaded phrase, I think it's quite clear that they went through great pains to use the most non-loaded and responsible rhetoric possible, without simply writing a paper in praise of Israel.
As a sidenote, the idea that it is irresponsible to talk about a Lobby, because all members do not necessarilly reflect generalizations about the group, is just silly. Everybody knows this, and W&M specifically stated that the Lobby is not of one mind. Nevertheless, in common parlance, we talk about what a lobby pushes for, and don't specify every single time that they are speaking generally when they refer to a group of people. Their enunciation at the outset that the lobby clearly does not operate with one mind is not "contradictory" with their later use of the term; it is a clarification, which should hardly be necessary, that speaking singularly about a lobby does not suggest that every member holds any particular view. Nevertheless, there are certain efforts of the lobby, generally speaking, which are worth discussing.
Again, the criticisms on this basis strike me as very transparent. They may be sincere, at least on a surface level, but any thought should reveal that they are baseless.
Grin. But moving along:
"...without the charge of anti-semitism (and the latent charge of holocaust-reviver?) being deployed to stop debate."
You mean, deployed, like tanks?
Here's a suggestion: keep right on debating. Even when someone says something you don't like. Or someone heckles from the cheap seats, or your precious ears are exposed to a poor argument, or someone somewhere disagrees with you, yet makes no sense.
It's easy! I'm doing it right now.
This isn't the point.
Just use the non-controversial word "group" instead of lobby. The point is, they define their Group one way, and then go on to allege all sorts of motives, goals and actions that are inconsistent with their definition of the Group.
The solution is simple: either they should redefine "Group" so the allegations they make fit the Group (rather than fitting individuals within or parts of the Group, which are then generalized to "the Group" as a whole), or limit themselves to allegations that apply to the Group as a whole.
That is not to say that the original Mearsheimer-Walt article was accurate and perfectly balanced: political scientists can write to provoke
Writing inaccurate and unbalanced papers about an extremely sensitive subject is certainly provocative, to say the very least. If they wrote this to provoke, well, I think you'd agree - mission accomplished :-).
You asked above how to engage in rational debate about a number of topics related to this paper. Try this on for size: writing an accurate and balanced paper for starters.
even hysterical
There's that word again. Regardless of your esteem for Molly Ivins, she used a strawman in her paper:
I don't doubt they were accused, but I have not seen one critique that did it for the reason Ivins says there.
I wouldn't apply any of those terms to W&M. I would say, with regard to this paper - sloppy, quite biased, and intellectually dishonest (even if, or maybe because, they were trying to provoke as you suggest).
My one problem with the substance of the stuff I quoted is that they characterize core of "the Lobby" as people who do stuff to turn American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction in their "daily lives." What could these people possibly be doing in their daily lives to change American foreign policy? They later backtrack, claiming that they're talking about stuff like writing letters to the editor, but nobody does that on a daily basis other than professional activists and lobbyists.
The idea that American Jews are altering American foreign policy in their "daily lives" is completely untenable unless you're willing to make some classic anti-Semitic assumptions.
Nevertheless, in common parlance, we talk about what a lobby pushes for, and don't specify every single time that they are speaking generally when they refer to a group of people.
The reason for this is simple. In common parlance, when we are talking about a lobby we are talking about a group like AIPAC which does indeed have specifically stated positions.
But we aren't talking about a lobby. We are talking about W&M's "the Lobby". This is not common parlance, it is the animal they created specifically for their paper.
But, as you point out, W&M are generalizing the actions of some of the Lobby to the group as a whole and this is not exceptional. If true, then there should be no problem explicitly stating it and it should not impact the meaning or even the connotations of the paper, right? Let's check it out:
It's not the same.
It goes back to what has been repeated a lot - their Lobby is so broadly defined as to make it meaningless. It is too heterogenous. The only thing tying it together is that it is pro-Israel, which basically means it is for Israel's right to exist. Other than that the Lobby is split on the stifling debate thing, anti-Semitism, money to Israel, the treatment of the Palestinians, Isreal's human rights record, the war in Iraq, party affiliation...the list goes on.
In a nutshell their argument is:
There a group that is defined by its support for Israel's right to exist (if I am being to broad here, I am open to suggestions as to the unifying factor for W&M's Lobby). Other than that they disagree on every other issue related to Israel. Some of them do [insert list of allegations here], some of them don't. Discuss.
>"Lobby" has connotations of organization, operating behind the scenes, and lack of popular support.<
Ha... well, I would actually dispute that; I don't think it's the word "lobby" that has those connotations, but merely that most lobbies seem to operate in that manner. I would still say that "lobby" is comparatively an extremely clean word, though, which is equally at home in a positive context (perhaps the "free speech lobby" or the "[pick your home state] lobby") as it is a negative context ("the pedophile lobby").
It raises a few points though: 1. Ok, so you're saying that even the very word "lobby" is suggestive of a lack of popular support. That's funny, because it suggests W&M were right that the existence of a lobby suggests that its interests are adverse to the rest of us. But more importantly,
2. That's their whole paper -- that the Israel Lobby is well-organized, operates behind the scenes, and lacks popular support! If what you're saying is true, then it seems they've picked the perfect word. a. As far as lobbies go, the Israel lobby is quite organized, with lots of official organizations like AIPAC. Compare that to the Palestinian lobby, or the Democratic Party, which appear to be less organized. b. Of course the Israel Lobby acts behind the scenes. That's what lobbies do. The Israel Lobby, as a collective (despite the generality of speaking of a group as a collective -- see how responsible I'm being), however, is known for this. c. Their whole paper is about how the Lobby's interests differ from those of America, and thus that at least if it doesn't lack popular support, it should, and it would in the absence of the lobby. If you want to take issue with that, feel free, but unless you do, it seems odd to criticize them for saying it.
I'd say that you can only really criticize them for using the word "lobby" if you can tell me that it means something more and worse than what their paper is about -- something, I would think, about cabals and conspiracies. If the word is simply the perfect embodiment of the argument they're making, then it seems a bit unfair not to allow them to use it. In that case, I'd say you should criticize their arguments, not accuse them of making underhanded accusations, which aren't actually underhanded at all.
Two out of three ain't bad :-).
Yes.
Lobbies (lowercase) do this. W&M's "The Lobby" is actually quite overt. Did you read the paper? According to W&M they engage in letter writing campaigns, shout people down with accusations of anti-Semitism, formed a group to monitor what professors write and teach, etc. A big part of the Lobby's strategy, according to W&M, is getting their story out (I think they referred to this story, in part, as "myths"). Whether you think they are lying or telling the truth, getting the story out behind the scenes defeats the purpose.
The "Israel Lobby as a collective ... ,however, is known for this"? It's not clear whether you are stating this canard or if you are trying to reiterate W&M's position. In any event, I'm not sure exactly who "knows" this (read: holds this opinion), but I would be curious about how they arrived at this "knowledge".
When you consider that, as defined, the country would lose a sizable chunk of its population if we got rid of W&M's "Lobby", I don't see how anyone could argue this. :-)
Now, who would want to stay is the real question - lol. You'd have the W&M's, the Pat Buchanans, the Cynthia McKinneys, Lew Rockwells, Lyndon Larouches, various Arab/anti-Israel lobbying groups and their associated capital-L Lobby, and the David Dukes. Basically you'd have the way far left, the way far right, and Arab interests. This is a function of just how broadly W&M defined "the Lobby", not any statement whatsoever about the "anti-Lobby", as it were.
There's a lot more.
The problem with the W-M paper isn't just that it takes all supporters of Israel, lumps them into a mysterious group called "the Lobby," and then gives them a single purpose. The problem is that Walt and Mearsheimer cherry-picked information, slanted their facts, and out-and-out lied.
Add this to the history of accusations against Jews controlling the governments of the countries in which they live, as well as the old slander that Jews secretly rule the world, and perhaps you can see why some of us doubt the "pure" intentions of Mssrs. W. and M.
As to Molly Ivins: Her premise is that people are criticizing the paper because it says there's an Israel lobby. I have seen no one responding to it in that manner. That is a dishonest statement that is being made, over and over again, by those who think that W-M actually had something new to say.
If people want to have an open, honest discussion of the Israel lobby, feel free. But don't mistake the W-M for one.
I'll avoid a long response, and note simply that you're refusing to accept the "Lobby" as a rough and abstract term which was never claimed or implied to be a specific group of individuals all with the same views and approaches to debate. It's entirely a straw man argument which you're assigning them despite their specific disclaimer to the contrary. They don't make, imply, need, rely on, or in any way base their argument on such a claim.
Put another way, the motives and ideas you're trying to assign them are completely unnecessary to their paper. They had no reason to make such arguments, and they didn't. Talking about a roughly defined Lobby simply does not imply the things you say it implies, particularly after the specifically disclaim such ideas.
It seems in a way you just realy don't want to let W&M decide for themselves what argument they're making.
I'm sorry, but those just don't sound like outrageous distortions. Of course, I can't verify the history, but when he says things like that the blood-kinship comment is outrageous, and that it has the worst possible echoes, I have to say it doesn't help his credibility. Five years of residency and various qualifications for non-Jews vs. automatic citizenship for Jews is not a trivial difference. This seems to me entirely supportive of the idea that "citizenship [of Israel] is based on the principle of blood kinship." If not blood kinship, what is this very significant difference based in?
The idea, moreover, that Israel being a Jewish state is the same as France being a French state is absurd. French does not specify a race or religion. Israel being an Israeli state would be no different, but that's not all that it is.
Now, honestly, I don't oppose this policy in Israel, because 1. I don't know enough about it, and 2. Under the circumstances, I can very much understand why Israel would basically need a majority Jewish rather than Arab population in order to be what it is. Nevertheless, saying that their citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship just doesn't sound like a distortion. If there are negative echoes here, which I really don't even know what they are, I'm fail to see how W&M are supposed to avoid it, again, without simply writing a paper in praise of Israel.
Personally, I find the criticisms here much more suspect than the claims in the paper.
Across the board lay-people almost universally reserve the word "lobby" to refer to groups with agendas that they oppose and rarely to refer to groups they support.
Denotation is NOT the same as Connotation and the word Lobby is used, by people, in a negative connotation the VAST majority of the time.
I'll avoid a long reply and just say you are talking past what I said rather than address my arguments.
Put another way, the motives and ideas you're trying to assign them are completely unnecessary to their paper.
I'm not talking about their motives, I am talking about what they said in their paper. (Which is to say, I am addressing their arguments rather than making ad hominem attacks towards the authors.)
It seems in a way you just realy don't want to let W&M decide for themselves what argument they're making.
I fully understand the argument they are trying to make. Just as I understand the similar (but not the same) argument you are trying to make for them. Perhaps you are right, and all of the errors and inconsistencies are made about aspects of the paper that are not crucial to their main point. Then I say, write that paper without all of the bias, errors, omissions and inconsistencies and let's have a look.
You have to realize, my critique is of their paper as they wrote it, not as you think they should have written it.
So the guy doesn't know what he wrote in his own book?
Regarding the blood kinship remark, I understand why you cherry picked that single critique out of the Morris excerpt in an attempt to discredit Morris, but even there you need a stretch. Perhaps W&M were trying to say that Israel is based on an ethnic form of nationalism, similar to the Finns or the Japanese, but then they should have actually said that.
I'm not sure why Morris picked France and Britain. Israel is a Jewish state like Finland is a Finnish state, Ireland is an Irish state, Germany is a German state (although maybe they changed in the past few years?), Japan is a Japanese state, Palestine will be an Arab state, Kurdistan would be a Kurdish state, etc. The Jewish people deserve a state of their own, based on the principle of the self determination of peoples which is embodied in the UN Charter.
It's funny how you can pick out intellectual dishonesty no matter where you look. I was checking out specifically what W&M said regarding this and this is the paragraph:
Believe it or not, this is given as evidence in an attempt counter the argument that Israel deserves our support because it is a democracy. Not to counter the premise of the argument (W&M actually make a good argument for this in the preceding paragraph), but as an attempt to undermine the idea of Israel's democracy itself.
To really understand how mendacious this is, you only need to look at Israel's Declaration of Independence:
Some may want to read the whole thing.
Also food for thought - have you ever heard anyone try to make this argument about Japan or Finland or any of the other countries listed above? Ever?
I take Mearsheimer and Walt, and Ivins (and Robert Fisk, in the London Independent, if you have on-line access) to be attempting honestly and seriously to look at a real political issue. What are the influences on (successive) US administration policies towards Israel which make it, to many observers, an almost unquestioning supporter of a series of Israeli governments whose policies deserve challenge, whether in the interests of those living in Israel and the occupied territories, or of the wider stability of the Middle East.
In an earlier post I asked just how you suggest that these discussions should be conducted in an environment of free speech? Objective analysis of the Israeli-American political pressure nexus is surely a legitimate exercise for political scientists: the more academics (and journalists) who attempt it, the closer to a consensus description we are likely to get.
In this era of political lobbying as one of the core mechanisms of the US polity, I can see no objective difference between the propriety of attempting to understand the overt and hidden efforts of the native American gambling interests to operate profitably, of US hydro-carbon producers and their attempts to influence the global warming debate, or of the Israeli-American activists and supporters to secure continuing military, economic and political support for the state of Israel. I see no reason to believe that any of these three (among many) will deny themselves any of the tools of spin, political arm-twisting and financial encouragement, at the organised or the individual level.
So are they or are they not a legitimate object of research, criticism and journalism? Grant that and then we can debate the accuracy of any attempt to do so. And then let us, in the spirit of this site, have a non-abusive debate, without the knee-jerk, broad-brush deployment of the "you can't say that, it's anti-semitic" taunt. In my earlier post I used the term deployed, and you responded "like tanks". Yes, rhetorically that is precisely what the use of the charge of anti-semitism is in this debate, it is an attempt to drive over the argument and ignore the evidence.
Tom,
I, for one, answered. Do you need an engraved invitation? :-)
Objective analysis of the Israeli-American political pressure nexus is surely a legitimate exercise for political scientists
I totally agree with you. Objective analysis is certainly legitimate.
Are you trying to imply that non-objective analysis is not a legitimate exercise for political scientists?
I'm guessing Harvard thinks so when it comes to Harvard political scientists, given their actions.
Now, you'll note that critics of the W&M critics are also making very general accusations. Perhaps they can stop also.
There are two issues here:
1) The paper specifically. It's crap, to be overly blunt, and it's getting dumped on as it should be.
2) The subject of US-Israel relations.
I'll continue to be blunt and just say that people are criticizing a crap paper and those who take exception to that are whining that they can't talk about the subject at all. To borrow a phrase - it's hysterical.
Do a lexus-nexus or other media search for AIPAC, neo-con, Israel lobby, etc. and you'll see that we aren't talking about something the media is shying away from. Far from it. People have been writing about this for years now in the run-up to and aftermath of the Iraq war.
--------------
I've been saying all along, the bottom line is there are advocates for differing points of view competing for our mind share. Each has a powerful lobby behind it. One side's ideas have won the day so far. The simplest explanation is that...people agree with them (gasp!).
"The Lobby" becomes somewhat of a moot point if the US-Israel relationship is in our interests. This is what should be explored. Is it or isn't it? In their paper, W&M stack the deck regarding this question and don't give it honest treatment. I'd suggest to them - put more effort into making their case fully, honestly and objectively regarding this point, and (again to be blunt) less effort making excuses as to why their ideas aren't winning the day.
Does that make me "pro-Israel" ?
Is that position contrary to "American interests" ?
>Regarding the blood kinship remark, I understand why you cherry picked that single critique out of the Morris excerpt in an attempt to discredit Morris<
I picked it because it was the one I could verify. As far as a guy saying anybody who read his book would have concluded differently, that sounds pretty subjective to me. For what it's worth: although I do agree with certain of W&M's arguments, I'm not biased in favor of their paper. I have nothing against the idea that there are errors. I just haven't seen any allegations yet that impressed me, whereas many of the allegations seem facially unfair. I tend to go by facial validity, incidentally, simply because I can't really verify many of the underlying facts.
Now, you're saying Finland and Ireland and Germany specifically favor ethnic Finns, Irish and Germans? How Finnish do you have to be? This isn't something I'm aware of; in any case, like I said, I don't really criticize Israel for the policy, though it does strike me as a bit awkward. Should I blame others who do criticize it, though? I'm actually not sure what you found dishonest about W&M's characterization. Because Israel's Constitution professes equality? I'm not sure what that proves. As I said, the difference between automatic citizenship and 5 years plus other tests seems to me pretty stark. How do they square that with total equality of all inhabitants?
I think you are drawing conclusions about their motives, though, because you're calling them dishonest, rather than incorrect. By your examples, though, you seem to me to be just extremely biased against the view expressed in the paper. Incidentally, I think this is what Ivins and others meant in saying that W&M were lambasted for the sheer effrontery of alleging an Israel lobby in the U.S. Of course, that's not your explicit attack, and you say that's not your problem, but there are many reasons to think that this was essentially the moral crime that they committed. Which is to say, I don't think it was their foonote saying that the existence of a lobby suggests a position differing from the societal default.
Or put another way, it's irrelevant to Ivins that you admit under some definition W&M aren't using that there is an Israel Lobby. Defined as W&M define it, which is what we're talking about, you think the idea of an Israel Lobby in the U.S. is outrageous, and that's the point.
I picked it because it was the one I could verify.
If you are not Jewish already, you can convert to Judaism (a Conservative or Orthodox conversion) and get the same benefit without a trace of "blood kinship". Strictly speaking, they are using an incorrect definition of "Jew", which is a religion and an ethnicity.
So they were wrong on the facts. But more importantly, you saw that they were making what is pretty clearly an intellectually dishonest argument about Israel's democracy. Why don't you acknowledge that? Factual errors may be only that, but their argument itself that I highlighted there is patently dishonest. Read it again:
As you saw in Israel's Declaration of Independence, all inhabitants of Israel enjoy these exact same rights. Now, do you really think W&M don't know this? I'm going to go out on a limb - of course they know it. Because if Jewish citizens of Israel had more rights than non-Jewish citizens of Israel W&M would have highlighted it right here in their paper.
But since it is not true, they only make the implication that it is so and let their readers draw their own conclusions.
And as if this isn't enough, this is offered as evidence that we shouldn't view Israel's democracy as favorably as we might. So even if we accept the argument that we should favor democracies, well, that shouldn't be such a compelling argument in Israel's case.
Again, why? Leaving behind the W&M speak - it's because, while Israel offers equal rights to all of its inhabitants and anyone can become a citizen of Israel, as the national homeland of the Jewish people Jews (whether by ethnicity or religion) in the diaspora are granted automatic citizenship via the Law of Return.
I didn't even address the fallacy of their argument against Israel's democracy with regard to the territories. That is aimed at people who don't really understand the details of the conflict, and as such is just another intellectually dishonest ploy.
Now, you're saying Finland and Ireland and Germany specifically favor ethnic Finns, Irish and Germans?
I was referring to ethnic nationalism (vs. civic like ours), not citizenship laws specifically. But I found this. I would double check those if you are really interested in the details, but the point is that Israel is not exceptional and specifically that this rule is not "undemocratic" as W&M are trying to imply.
I think there are quite a few others, too.
Furthermore, the UN's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination explicitly states that this is not racism:
But, again, W&M assert that the fact of Israel's Law of Return is a credible argument against supporting them as a fellow democracy. Not that they say it in quite that way, because then the weakness of the argument jumps off the page at you.
Note that all of this is to show W&M's intellectual dishonesty for one throwaway paragraph. If you said this paragraph isn't necessary for their case I would agree 100%, it isn't. But it's typical for the whole paper, not exceptional at all. And a person who was not knowledgable about Israel wouldn't have a clue what was wrong with it...this being the point, as these are the people W&M are trying to influence. You note: "I tend to go by facial validity, incidentally, simply because I can't really verify many of the underlying facts." You are the target audience.
I think you are drawing conclusions about their motives, though, because you're calling them dishonest, rather than incorrect.
Intellectually dishonest. The only motive I see is they want to convince you of their point of view (duh, right? :-)). But, big 'but here, their paper shows that they put that ahead of giving you the full story. They are trying to sway you with selective presentation of facts, not educate you. That has its place, of course, but not in an academic paper with the imprimateur of Harvard.
...you seem to me to be just extremely biased against the view expressed in the paper.
I have always had a bias against dishonesty, so sue me ;o). Kidding aside, I happen to disagree with them - I do not believe that our relationship with Israel is harmful to our interests. I believe there is a net positive. That's the really important issue. "The Lobby" is a smokescreen they concocted because they couldn't honestly make their real point. And when their paper get ripped to shreds as it rightly should be, well, that's just more evidence of "the Lobby" because it couldn't be that they wrote a transparently crappy paper.
...but there are many reasons to think that this was essentially the moral crime that they committed.
Puh-leeeze. If there was any crime committed here it was academic, if you can call writing an egregiously slanted, intellectually dishonest paper with multiple factual errors a crime.
Defined as W&M define it, which is what we're talking about, you think the idea of an Israel Lobby in the U.S. is outrageous, and that's the point.
You don't seem to be listening to what I say or are getting me mixed up with someone else. W&M can define whatever they want and call it whatever they want. I have no problems with the words they chose and I don't have any problems with the definitions they set up.
You see why they set up the definition as broadly as possible, right? It's so they could drag in the maximum number of anecdotes and allegations as possible to then ascribe to their "Lobby". But by making it as broad as they did, they set up a situation that for almost every situation where there is a 'pro' (their argument) within the Lobby, there is also a 'con'. They just listed the 'pros', left out all of the 'cons' and called it a day. You think what they did is fine, and maybe it is if you are trying to score points in a debate or if you are trying to sway people. But not in any kind of academic paper. And it is not a convincing argument even if they published it in Counterpunch.
I think you're trying very hard to turn their very conventional statements into something outrageous. It just doesn't work. The idea that Palestinians are not given the same rights in Israel as Jews is not an outrageous claim. The simple fact that Jews are given automatic citizenship, vs. 5 years plus other qualifications for non-Jews, proves this.See, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're being deliberately dishonest here. The issue they raised, as you know, is not about those who have been granted citizenship, but about the discriminatory policy in granting that status, and impliedly the discriminatory effect this policy has on various groups.
We could not have a law in the U.S. that gave citizenship to ethnic Germans more easily than ethnic Mexicans. It would be completely absurd, and would be considered ridiculously un-American. Now, you can say that Israel is different, and thus requires a different policy, and I agree. You can say that other countries do the same thing, and I'll agree to an extent, though there seem to be some important differences. You can even argue that getting citizenship for being born here is no less discriminatory than getting citizenship for being Jewish in Israel. What you can't say, though, is that W&M are dishonest because they disagree.
Or, rather, you can, of course, but it makes you kind of a partisan hack. Really, it strikes me that your position seems based on the premise that the only intellectually honest position regarding Israel is one that is fully supportive. You're going through great lengths not just to disagree with W&M, but to infer every which thing so that you can make insinuations about their character rather than simply to argue against them. If you struck me as angry or irrational, I'd give you a pass on this, but I've noticed that your arguments are pretty well-controlled. This leads me to believe that if you only gave the slightest effort, you'd be able to understand much better where W&M are coming from, and would not find their paper nearly so outrageous.
I've read outrageous statements, on both sides of the debate. On my scale of outrageous, I'd put Prof. Bernstein probably somewhere around a 7, you somewhere around a 4 or 5, and W&M, at least in this paper, somewhere around a 2 or a 3. I'd put the things I've read in Counterpunch at somewhere around an 8 or 9. Derschowitz probably gets something like an 8.
A couple other of your points: 1. An academic paper is allowed to make an argument. It never claimed to represent the other side. I don't think it effectively could have.
2. I think you did criticize the definition of the lobby, for saying that it includes a private individual like you who may write a letter now and again, or something like that.
3. "'The Lobby' is a smokescreen they concocted because they couldn't honestly make their real point." No, I'm certain you're wrong about that. The lobby is a huge issue in and of itself to those who oppose our position on Israel. This is why, as many believe, our position toward Israel is skewed from what it should be. If anything, it seems you'd say the issue of our "national interests" was concocted in order to address the lobby...
Well, I don't think that. I think the idea is that the lobby, roughly speaking, is stunting open debate on our relationship with Israel, and thus the lobby is a big part of the issue which has to be addressed.
4. "If you are not Jewish already, you can convert to Judaism (a Conservative or Orthodox conversion) and get the same benefit without a trace of 'blood kinship'." Is that true? Wikipedia tells me the law of return is based on whether you have the requisite number of Jewish relatives. Not that you could have a religious test in the U.S. either...
I'll ignore your unseemly ad hominem attacks. The following will prove your charges about me wrong in any event.
The issue they raised, as you know, is not about those who have been granted citizenship...
You are reiterating part of Morris' criticism, not specifically addressing mine.
You are talking about the underlying issue they were addressing, which they inaccurately described in their paper. That's his point - they misrepresented it.
Tortured parsing notwithstanding, when you say the basis of membership in a club is based on some characteristic, you expect the members of the club to have that characteristic. This is "common parlance".
Now on to my argument. I assure you, I am not being dishonest here as you charge.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're being deliberately dishonest here. The issue they raise