In spring 2006, two distinguished but largely unknown American political scientists broke out of academic obscurity. The debate about Israel and its supporters hasn’t been the same since.
John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University co-wrote an essay titled “The Israel Lobby.”
The London Review of Books published it.
The lengthy piece painted a scary a picture of how a cabal of American supporters of Israel had gained control of U.S. foreign policy, and promoted policies good for the Jewish state but injurious to America’s own interests.
It was — as virtually every objective observer soon noted — a complete crock. The essay was filled with errors of fact.
The incendiary charges it promoted were also so broad that it was hard to take seriously. After all, how could Israel and its American fans work a conspiracy so massive as to ensure the control of Congress and the media?
The authors were roundly condemned by academics, politicians and journalists who, whatever their opinions about the wisdom of Israeli policies, knew U.S. backing for the Jewish state was not the work of a cabal.
Moreover, at a time when anti-Semitism was on the rise around the world — with Jew-haters using anti-Israel invective as the cover for their base beliefs — that these men were promoting conspiracy theories of this sort was condemned as, at best, irresponsible, and at worst, a shameful justification of hate.
Deep roots
The vast majority of non-Jewish Americans and their political representatives strongly support Israel in its struggle for survival. That is something no “lobby” or its conspirators could create.
As Michael Oren’s indispensable history of American involvement in the Middle East, “Power, Faith and Fantasy,” demonstrated, backing for Israel has roots in American culture 200 years before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee hit the halls of Congress.
Although the duo complained that they were suffering for their beliefs, they soon obtained a publisher for a book-length version of their screed, which recently appeared and has propelled them onto the talk-show circuit.
Their comeback generated even more attention in the mainstream press. And the more notice they’ve received, the more Walt and Mearsheimer cry they are being silenced and falsely accused of anti-Semitism.
Israel’s accusers claim to be victimized; but if anything, it’s the pro-Israel position that at times struggles to be heard in national forums.
A case in point is a column by Michael Smerconish in The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sept. 9. Smerconish is a right-of-center, Philadelphia-based radio talk-show host. He has appeared as a commentator and host on national cable-news shows. He has earned a reputation as a supporter of Israel.
Yet his column, titled “‘Anti-Semitic’ label curbs talk of Israel,” took the position that Walt and Mearsheimer were right to claim that anyone who criticizes Israel “stands a good chance of being labeled anti-Semitic.”
He thinks their conspiracy theory deserves a hearing. Smerconish claims an instance in his own career, when some listeners took out of context a sentence he uttered in a report from Israel, proves the pro-Israel crowd will hammer anyone who doesn’t completely agree with their position.
In a conversation two days after his piece appeared, Smerconish professed astonishment that his call for more debate about an idea, which is both discredited and draws heavily on anti-Semitic stereotypes, generated a storm of criticism.
He claims the negative reaction led him to see that “there is some truth” in the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, even if he still doesn’t buy into it completely.
Anti-Defamation League national director Abe Foxman’s new book, “The Deadliest Lies,” refutes Walt-Mearsheimer, noting that they are selling “bigoted canards of great antiquity.”
As Foxman writes, by using “classic conspiratorial analysis invoking the canards of ‘Jewish power’ and ‘Jewish control,’” Walt and Mearsheimer “are feeding and strengthening the false and deadly beliefs that foster anti-Semitism.”
Walt and Mearsheimer disavow any anti-Semitic intent and even assert support for Israel’s right to exist. But, Foxman contends, “By promoting these beliefs and giving them a veneer of academic respectability, Mearsheimer and Walt are playing into the hands of the David Dukes of the world. And it is not an accusation of guilt by association to say so.”
True to his calling in talk radio, Smerconish’s position is that everything is fair game. But free speech does not obligate us to parse every stupid, vicious lie put about for clearly ill-intent as if it were a fine point in Plato’s “Republic.”
While no one disputes the right of Walt and Mearsheimer to speak, they have no intrinsic right to spread their distortions on the airwaves or the pages of supposedly respectable newspapers. As history has shown, such lies can have murderous consequences.
Agnosticism about “The Israel Lobby” does Smerconish and anyone else who defends it no credit. When otherwise responsible persons profess neutrality about things that no decent person should be neutral about, something is very wrong.
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia.
Loading ...