First, a nice debunking of the myth that Israel controls our foreign policy: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4075.
Now, onto the bad news. The local conservative radio talk show host in my area is a man by the name of Michael A. Smerconish (www.mastalk.com). I had thought him to be a fairly reliable supporter of Israel, the frequent guest appearances on his show of anti-Israel advocate Michael Scheuer notwithstanding. However, a week or two ago Mr. Smerconish indicated that he would be addressing the Walt & Mearsheimer book, and raising the issue of the U.S.-Israel relationship. In so doing, he added that he was doing so simply in the interests of discussing all issues. In other words, nothing should be "off the table".
Today, he raised the topic formally, and predictably, among the callers he took was one who started blathering on about the 1967 U.S.S. Liberty incident. I have listened to him for years, and have no doubt that his goal (and giving them the benefit of the doubt, that of Walt & Mearsheimer) is not anti-Semitic. He should be cognizant, however, that like it or not, he IS giving voice to anti-Semites.
I have no problem with anyone questioning to which other countries this country should be allied. That's a completely fair question. The problem I have with Scheuer, Walt & Mearsheimer (and now, by extension, Mr. Smerconish) is that the close relationship with Israel is the ONLY one they question. I never see a similar debate about Saudi Arabia (a fair question, given tomorrow's anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Saudi Arabia's production of 15 of the 19 terrorists). Similarly, no such questions are asked about Egypt, which receives nearly the same amount of military aid as Israel, and yet which contributes nothing to the U.S. in return. Those are but two examples.
The fact of the matter is that the anti-Israel crowd, in which I certainly place the "well-credentialied" (Smerconish's term. See my previous post on the academic credentials of those who attended the Wannsee Conference. Credentials don't--or shouldn't--mean everything.) individuals listed above, tends to belong to the so-called "Realist" line of thinking. That school of thought, the Dean of which is James "F--- the Jews" Baker, holds that if it is beneficial economically or politically to be an ally, then we should do so. If not, in short, "screw 'em".
This is their perspective, and it is a powerful, growing force.
8 comments:
I also noted the readio program and sent Smerconish this email:
To: mas@mastalk.com
From: S Silverstein/Drexel_IST
Date: 09/10/2007 09:55AM
Subject: Walt-Mearsheimer's book
Dear Michael,
I am a professor at Drexel's College of Information Science and Technology, the country's second oldest library science college.
I heard segments of your morning program this Monday morning on the Walt-Mearsheimer "Jewish Lobby" book. I do not believe Walt and Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic, and do believe their primary motive is one of appeasement of Islamofascism.
In any case, you promoted the view that the book opens a "needed dialogue."
Indeed it does -- but from the perspective of an information scientist in a college of same -- not the dialogue you think. When an academic conducts research, and that research deviates widely from basic standards of research - and their own prior standards - a dialogue needs to ensue as to "why ."
Rather than go into each and every factual error in Walt and Mearsheimers's article and now book, I pass along one website which catalogs links to critiques of the informational errors:
Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer Israel Lobby Controversy
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105
Also see the more recent critique " The Devil is in the Footnotes " at
http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2007/09/the-devil-is-in.html
One major error was ignoring well-known primary sources and relying instead on tendentious secondary sources that support their view, and calling the result “research." That is willful academic fraud.
I think the "dialogue" that needs to occur is regarding why this "research" is so shoddy, even when the professors took a second shot at it after voluminous critique.
When research errors are substantial enough to invalidate "research", discussing the topic being "researched" is moot.
That is, unless other fraudulent books or books by lunatics like "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are viewed as relevant to "having a dialogue." I don't believe you would support that view.
Sincerely,
S Silverstein
--------------------------------
S Silverstein
Drexel University
College of Information Science and Technology
3141 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
hiya BHG..I'm so sick of Jew haters and their ilk...arg!
It's telling that Mr. Silverstein offers links that could be considered biased in defense of his argument that the work of W&M is lacking. I think the level of histrionics against the W&M book means they've touched a nerve. I prefer the insight in discussing Jewish issues found at Philip Weiss' blog 'Mondoweiss.' As to "Jew-hating", I consider the scurilous attacks against former DePaul professor Dr. Norman Finkelstein to fall into that category.
Attacks on Finkelstein are "scurilous" and representative of Jew-hating? Are you serious?
The man is the quintissential self-hating Jew. He is an avowed Holocaust denier, and merits whatever negative commentary comes his way.
BHG
LanceThruster said... It's telling that Mr. Silverstein offers links that could be considered biased in defense of his argument that the work of W&M is lacking. I think the level of histrionics against the W&M book means they've touched a nerve. I prefer the insight in discussing Jewish issues found at Philip Weiss' blog 'Mondoweiss.' As to "Jew-hating", I consider the scurilous attacks against former DePaul professor Dr. Norman Finkelstein to fall into that category.
As to you comment about "offering links that could be considered biased", it's clear you know little of academic research and argumentation. You have just made an argumentum ad hominem.
You're obvously biased against critically evaluating the facts in those links and unable to decide that a research error is a research error as a result of your bias - for example, M&W's error of ignoring primary sources and quoting secondary sources that agree with their POV. If done knowlingly, this is research fraud.
Students in my classes would get an "F" for making such ad hominem arguments. However, as I teach grad students, that never occurs. People who would make such arguments get weeded out early.
As to "Jew-hating", I consider the scurilous attacks against former DePaul professor Dr. Norman Finkelstein to fall into that category.
While I disagree with Finkelstein's views, I consider the actions of DePaul to be not in the best interests of academia. Since they hired him, and certainly knew what they were getting at the time that decision was made, they really have no solid excuse to throw him out.
Of course, who ever said academia is a meritocracy? If anyone thinks it is, they're deluded. Academia is political like anything other organization. In fact, the adage "the fights in academic are so vicious because there's so little to lose [by the tenured]" is truer than most imagine. As former Yale faculty, trust me on that.
Finkelstein embarrassed DePaul, and they unceremoniously booted him. I don't think it was because of antisemitism on their part. They just fell into dislike of him. It's that simple. Perhaps he should have gone on hunger strike after all and not given up so easily.
Some excerpts of my email to Smerconish this AM:
From: S Silverstein
Date: 09/12/2007 10:11AM
Subject: Your program this AM: argumentum ad verecundiam
Dear Michael,
A few points about your program this morning, Wednesday:
1. You presented an argumentum ad verecundiam this morning, with your emphasis on Walt and Mearsheimer being "respected academics" and writing a book with hundreds of pages of footnotes.
I take a critical approach to the writings even of those with impeccable academic credentials, especially in an era of ideology wars, and have seen some of the most prominent professors acting like corrupt corporate execs and/or union leaders.
Academic reputations represent a source of great power. Abuse of that power is a most serious issue. As in my email of 9/10/2007, I believe Walt and Mearsheimer have abused that power (via deliberate academic fraud).
I don't believe they are anti-Semitic, simply amoral and opportunistic. Their "realism" school of thought is inherently amoral, and would abandon friends if it is deemed "in a country's interest" to do so economically and militarily. Followers of Islam are richer collectively than the Jews in terms of certain "natual resources" by a wide margin, and are certainly feared a lot more. The fact that Harvard was given $20 million not long ago to represent Arab views iteself increases the need to apply critical thinking to Walt's work.
2. I do not believe you are anti-Semitic in any way, but I do believe you are being a bit insensitive - perhaps due to a lawyer's dispassionate approach - to the accusations of anti-Semitism coming you way.
Jews have become accustomed to abuses of power in the form of writing. They know words cause actions. They also know that writings such as the Protocols, Der Stürmer , Rev. Charles Coughlin, Mein Kampf, and many other works and speakers that many abuses leading to physical and material harm to Jews is historical fact, and that those who supported such works in any way, even speaking of them as a matter of "legitimate discussion", were not friends of the Jews. You should consider that in understanding these accusations.
As put by another author:
Are some of us touchy when Israel is singled out for criticism? Well, maybe this time around we choose to defend ourselves. We failed to do so for some 2,000 years. Yes, Mearsheimer and Walt are nothing new under the sun … This is very old business. We have grown somewhat tired of being a patsy. Some of us have learned that words can be as harmful as sticks and stones. We certainly did not speak up (loudly enough) when six million of our brothers and sisters went up in smoke throughout Europe. We vowed – Never Again. So this time around we’re speaking up.
3. The issue that needs to be raised with Walt and Mearshiemer is why they refrain from active debate on the obvious research errors in their work (see prior email), documentation of which is all over the web and also written by other academics.
e.g. Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer Israel Lobby Controversy
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105
These errors are of a nature that pretty well invalidate their research.
When my former employer, Merck, was accused of witholding facts, distorting data, and other scientific abuses regarding VIOXX, they were accused of scientific fraud, and thousands of lawsuits arose. When Walt and Mearsheimer committed similar research abuses, they get accused only of "opening a dialog." This is a major problem.
4. Finally, to disabuse you of the notion of the infallibility and integrity of prominent Ivy academics , review this story: link . It details my experiences as Yale faculty supporting the Yale-Saudi Arabia collaboration in birth defects. It is a detailed case example of wasted resources and opportunity, attempted misappropriation of intellectual property by prominent tenured faculty for private use, unauthorized practice of law in the Office of the General Counsel, blacklisting, extortion, and retaliation treated with a blind eye and silence by university officials, leading to an impaired effort and several year delay in implementing electronic medical records at Yale-New Haven Hospital.
Senior academics acted no differently than corporate or union thugs.
A very reasoned letter, Dr. Silverstein. Please let me know if Mr. Smerconish responds in any way to what you say.
BHG
Baker, holds that if it is beneficial economically or politically to be an ally, then we should do so. If not, in short, "screw 'em".
I think we should be allies with freedom-loving countries that do not harm us. It does not matter if we get a benefit from them; besides they probably benefit from us. Freedom-loving people should strive to be partners with each other.
Post a Comment