Tom,
I figured some had already read it or reviewed it. I agree 100%. While I wasn't surprised at the reactions, it did catch me off guard was the ferocity of some of the attacks. A good, open debate can only help us in the long run, whether the political action committees agree or not.
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
from an earlier thread:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
Thanks, haven't looked at that in some time. George Washington was no stranger to the spy game either, he probably is the grandfather of American Intelligence.
There is one evil I dread, and that is, their spies. I could wish, therefore, the most attentive watch be kept . . .
—George Washington, March 24, 1776
My fear is what may happen several presidential election cycles down the road, when a critical mass builds, and the public's eyes are really opened to the depths of Israeli influence on our policy making process. I'm talking about the non book reading, which is most of it, those who don't read wonky rags like The London Review of Books or follow issues like the Middle East or counterintelligence.Originally Posted by sullygoarmy
I fear potential backlash against Jewish Americans. The Israel lobby would likely argue that potential backlash is exactly why articles Walt and Mearsheimer, and especially Ketchum's need to be suppressed. I would argue that it should be ironed out now to defuze any future scenario.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1446
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1105
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1099
http://www.nysun.com/national/harvar...i-sites/29741/
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar...nion/oe-boot29
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1143...ays_us_opinion
http://arab-lobby.blogspot.com/
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/usa.html
http://www.think-israel.org/plaut.cockburn.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...6-C50822DE1FBC
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6444
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/m...-disciple.html
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1894
There might be a few valid reasons for the labels.
JUST
A
FEW,
R
For or against, a bunch of activist websites, blogs, and opinion pages aren't going to change many people minds.
The original article as quoted was filled with heavy citations (trust me when I say that is just as suspect). For or against, the level needed to answer or criticize the Kennedy organizations article must be of at least the same quality.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/research/...owitzreply.pdf
"In his response, Professor Alan Dershowitz demonstrates that the paper contains three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted; and embarrassingly weak logic is employed. One of the authors of this paper has acknowledged that “none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews.”
SERIOUSLY,
R
It would be much better if you were to post a comment in your own words to explain why you thought so. Just posting a slew of links that may or may not support a position you appear to espouse is a poor technique and is discouraged here; that kind of stuff belongs on the juvenile political blogs.
It would be appreciated if you'd refrain from the practice in the future.
Thanks
Ken
Rather than wade through the links offered, let me just say that in trying to debate the idea that an Israeli Lobby exists and has extraordinary effect on US policies in the region, offering a series of counterpoint articles from CAMERA or a Neocon like Max Boot is a predictable tactic, one that largely buttresses what the two authors originally had to say.
Central to most of those critics is the idea that it is anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policies in the US. One of Israel's strengths has been an active debate on the very same issues within Israeli society.
It is also useful to look at the authors' rebuttal to what their critics put forward.
Tom
The Israel Lobby
From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt
We wrote ‘The Israel Lobby’ in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. We have also been gratified by the many positive responses we have received, and by the thoughtful commentary that has begun to emerge in the media and the blogosphere. It is clear that many people – including Jews and Israelis – believe that it is time to have a candid discussion of the US relationship with Israel. It is in that spirit that we engage with the letters responding to our article. We confine ourselves here to the most salient points of dispute.
Bookmarks