Culture, Global, Identity, Israel, Politics

Anti-semite or just making statements that no one likes?

Ok, I grant you, I’m a little behind in posting this; censorship last Tuesday, I was listening to NPR on my way to a doctor’s appointment, and since recently someone commented on one of my other posts how nice Jewschool has been since Mobius and his self-hating self was gone (although thankfully, he wasn’t and proceeded to prove it by commenting himself) and with him apparently all dissent in favor of sweetness and light and imbecility, I feel very fortunate to have caught this pair of interviews on Fresh Air (here’s the other). These two interviews are those of Stephen Walt of the infamous Walt and Mearsheimer, commenting on their book The Israel Lobby, and Abe Foxman, being interviewed on his rebuttal of their book in his book, The Deadliest Lies.
Now before I begin, I have to admit that I have read neither of the books in question, neither Walt and Mearsheimer’s, nor Foxman’s (which I should do, and will), and so I have to grant that how incredibly reasonable and even-handed Walt came off, and how frothing and foolish Foxman sounded, could simply be, for either, or both, of them, a matter of presentation or an artifact of the medium, or a coincidence of a bad (or good) confluence of the type of questions they were asked.
But I don’t think so. Walt was interviewed first, which in theory (assuming the interviews were actually in real time) ought to mean that Foxman should have heard what he said and been able to respond to it. But in truth, there wasn’t really all that much to respond to. Oh, I could certainly wish that W&M knew more about the various organizations in the Jewish community opposed to the policies of the Israel right or wrong no criticism crowd. But it was clear that he had heard of them. And, on the other hand, Walt certainly made it clear that he was aware that the organizations that support the “pro-Israel lobby” (*quotes, because I understand that those so called, are not necessarily those who are bringing about results beneficial to Israel) don’t actually represent the majority of Jews in the USA. He said so outright. He was also clear that although there are certainly Jews in the political allies of the so-called Israel lobby, Jews are not the only ones who are pushing for the policies which he is analyzing as problematic (and which many , many Jews have also called on for analysis, too) -and he names names, off the top of his head, of non-Jews and some non-Jewish organizations who fall into that category, as well. So the charge of antisemitism is hard to make stick, especially when he also noted that there is nothing wrong with lobbying-that Greeks and Poles and Irish, and Airline pilots and teachers all do it, and that it’s a part of our political system and perfectly okay, but that that is also why it is so essentially important that no one be above the possibility of analysis and critique. If whenever one questions any policy decision, for any reason, one is labeled as an anti-Semite, that can be no good for anyone in a free society.
Walt also stated, correctly, that anyone trying to make hay out of the connection between the neo-cons and the Jews was off in left field, given that Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general population, making any accusation of Jews responsibility for the war completely absurd. In fact, his main point seemed to be that, although they believe themselves to be acting for the benefit of BOTH the USA and Israel, this group of conservatives that he is calling the Israel lobby are quite likely not doing any favors for either.

Now, I know that the received wisdom is that W&M are anti-semitic and that the fact that they use the term “Israel lobby” at all is evidence of this (which seems to be Foxman’s point, although he starts out by denying it, only to end up there later) and so I’m sure I’ll be labeled a self-hater too for saying so, but if that’s all the guy has to say, then not only is it hardly antisemitic, it’s not even particularly novel. Hell, there have been Jews -granted Jews who have been vilified by lots of people who have a stake in the status quo- and Jewish organizations saying this for years. There’s nothing shocking -for those of us living in the real world- about asking whether aid unburdened by any requirements or even movement, to Israel, regardless of their actions, is worth discussing as a matter of political significance. Nor is it problematic to question whether such free handedness is actually efficacious in promoting peace. If the policies that have been engaged in, over and over, without resolution have not concluded in the expected results, it is madness not to at least insist on examining why, and whether there might be some more effective means of achieving one’s ends.
In contrast, Foxman got pretty hysterical right away. Within moments, he had played the Hitler card, mentioning that W&M has made discussing whether the Jews are in control of everything a respectable thing to do, and noting that the Nazis didn’t start out big, either, but worked themselves by increments to make the awful respectable. Unfortunately however, this doesn’t appear to bear any relation to what Walt, at least, said on the air. Unfortunately what we heard from Foxman, was the same crazy talk that we’ve always heard from this handful of Jewish organizations who purport to speak for the Jews, while benefiting from scare tactics (after all, fear pays their paychecks, or at the very least, they seem to be under the impression that fear will keep “young folks” from intermarrying, a dubious proposition at best, but one which said groups can’t let go of whatever the evidence), and silencing any voices that suggest there might be other ways to go about things, or who dare contradict them; not to mention ensuring that if a speaker who says such heresies is well known enough, they will behind-the-scenes (unless it gets out, like in the Judt case) arrange for their speaking forum to be taken away…by the threat of tarring the forum with the epithet of anti-semitism.
Then the next trick is to say that if you point out that they’re doing these things, they call you an anti-Semite for saying such a thing. After all, aren’t you now accusing the Jews of a conspiracy?
IN short, I am looking forward to actually reading these books just to see if W& M are actually the bogey man everyone in the Jewish world seems to think they are. I don’t know why I am continually surprised by how vehement the Jewish organizational establishment is in protecting its own turf to the detriment of the Jewish community, let alone the safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel; to me it seems very difficult to see how they can believe that what they are doing actually protects Israel, but I am sure that they do. I say this wihtout a touch of sarcasm. I do believe that they believe this, but nevertheless, I also believe that they are wrong, and perhaps since within the Jewish community, anyone who dares to say so is immediately persona non grata, perhaps it will have to be our friends outside the community working together with those of us who are desperate to see Israel survive as the holy nation God commanded it to be, and not just as a piece of earth to fight over water rights, perhaps it will be those friends, who in the end, will be seen as truly our friends, because they stood by us in the hour of need we did not know that we had.

23 thoughts on “Anti-semite or just making statements that no one likes?

  1. Anti-semite or just making statements that no one likes?
    I don’t think these professors are really anti-Semitic. What they are is worse than run-of-the-mill anti-Semitism. Hear me out.
    Walt and Mearsheimer are utilizing the same anti-Semitic tactics as despots who wish to distract their subjects from the malignant social ills that they themselves foster, but unlike despots who fabricate Jewish conspiracy theories out of a combination of opportunism and actual hate, these professors have written their essay and book based on the former motivation alone, opportunism.
    Like bank robbers, their motivation for this outrage is primarily because “the Jews are there”, are the target du jour of the Islamofascists (for now!), and have proven useful as punching bags to countless others in history.
    The professors’ writings show no respect for the Jewish people and for their past persecutions, but the professors are not anti-Semitic, just amoral and opportunistic. Accusations of anti-Semitism are a distraction from the real issues.
    Walt and Mearscheimer know full well there is no super-powerful “Jewish Lobby”, that the pro-Israel lobbyists have competing counterparts representing many other causes and countries, and that the pro-Israel lobby is not particularly remarkable in this environment. They know full well that the misrepresentations of fact, omissions, things taken out of context, logical errors, etc. in their prior paper and this book are indeed risible, the trash produced by dilettantes, not by serious researchers.
    But they don’t care.
    What would make them produce such garbage?
    Fear of Islamofascism, and the standards of (mis)conduct that come right from the halls of academia with which they’ve lived their lives, notably amorality and betrayal of friends when some self-interest is served. (For professors, it’s usually money and status.) They are clearly enthralled with university culture and attempting to export that pathologic “culture” to the rest of the world.
    What is the “gain” here? In the main, I do think the reason d’atre of their book is one of appeasement and surrender to Islamofascism.
    A few hundred million insane bloodthirsty Arabs and other followers of the death cult of Islam calling for Death to Israel and Death to America: what better way to appease them than writing a book that the authors hope will cause the U.S. to hang Israel out to dry in the face of genocidal maniacs, groups and countries like Hezbollah, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Syria and Iran?
    In fact, they are not anti-Semites. Rather, they are equal opportunity amoralists. If the Islamofascists were chanting “Death to Mexico! Death to America!”, Walt and Mearsheimer would undoubtedly craft conspiracy theories that might justify allowing Osama and his minions to relocate from Waziristan to Acapulco.
    University professors are renowned for turning on their friends, students and colleagues at the drop of a hat, if they see a personal gain in doing so. They could care less about ruining careers and lives. See for example, “Academic Tyranny: The Tale and the Lessons”, Robert Weissberg, Review of Policy Research, Vol. 15 no. 4 P. 99-110, Dec. 1998, and especially “Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints” by Wilcox, Journal of the AMA, Vol. 280 No. 3, July 15, 1998 that describes how stealing of others’ work and career-ending professorial retaliation against those who complain is common at Walt’s university, Harvard. Of course see as well.
    So, Walt and Mearsheimer wrote this book in all its faux-academic glory in the cowardly and academic-culture-inspired hope of spearheading a U.S. betrayal of its friend, Israel, in their hope that this will satiate the Islamofascists’ appetite for blood and “honor.”
    They are incredibly reckless in this regard. Their book is quite socially irresponsible (not a new thing for academia). Their whole theme, abandonment of friends for supposed secondary gain, i.e., the appeasement of a brutal terrorist killer culture, is explicitly amoral (and likely immoral as well for those of us not prone to moral relativism) as well as anti-American.
    They are using this book and likely their educational pulpits with students as a weapon, with the desired collateral damage of weakening the U.S. (Does anyone even need to ask anymore why Ivy professors might be against a strong United States?)
    Walt and Mearsheimer, through their arrogance, stupidity, and exportation of academia’s amoral tyranny, are tacitly working for our enemies.
    These professors are out of control, like a runaway locomotive, thanks to the cheerful support of opportunistic anti-Semites and the MSM (I’m not sure those two are entirely separable). They need to be stopped – however, accusations of anti-Semitism are a distraction and they know it.
    Walt and Mearsheimer have more in common with Arthur Neville Chamberlain than David Ernest Duke or Alfred Charles Sharpton.
    That said, as Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and many others as well have observed (documented at the CAMERA – Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America story “Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer Israel Lobby Controversy” at, Walt & Mearsheimer’s faux-scholarship is “riddled with errors” that tend to slant it “in the exact same direction, thus we are dealing not with a little unfortunate carelessness but with a culpable degree of bias.”
    I submit again that their “carelessness and bias” is most likely knowing and deliberate, but not due to anti-Semitism. Its purpose is promoting appeasement and the weakening of America, at a cost to Israelis and Jews the professors are indifferent to and simply don’t care about, typical of Ivy professors who want their way, period.
    There is a term for deliberate and knowing falsification in academia for any secondary purpose:
    Academic Fraud.
    Walt and Mearshiemer have placed themselves in the same league as Finkelstein, Chomsky, and other academic fabricators.
    Charges of anti-Semitism are a distraction from their motivations. Charges of academic incompetence are not highly credible considering the experience, resources and positions of these professors.
    Charges of deliberate academic fraud are, I believe, closer to reality, and perhaps hold the key to successful challenging of this dangerous charade.
    In summary, Walt and Mearsheimer’s distortions are knowing and deliberate, in the interest of appeasement of Islamofascism and the weakening of the “imperialist AmeriKKKa.” The Israelis and Jews make good cannon fodder because “they’re there” and have a historical track record of serving this purpose for despots. W&M malign the Jews not out of anti-Semitism but out of amoral academic convenience.
    This is worse than run-of-the-mill professorial anti-Semitism due to its generalized, nihilistic stupidity.
    My only hope is that these professors are doing this of their own volition, and that there are no “handlers” involved.
    – ERIS

  2. W&M are using a very interesting strategy…Walt is much more measured than Mearsheimer and presents a better face for their argument. More to the point, the initial paper (which I have read) is frought with errors that, in the book, they have backtracked, and language that they have muted. Foxman’s argument may suck, but that has nothing to do with whether W&M’s does too. They just have polished there argument better
    More to the point, W & M’s understanding of domestic politics and how it operates in the United States is utterly laughable and they didn’t really try to understand how policy gets made…its not their forte.
    And finally, this post points a number of the things that are problematic. The points that you says Walt made were points utterly left out of the initial paper. The points you grant to the other side are always defensive…again, as the post acknowledges.

  3. I would strongly recommend reading a lot more on this subject, and not just in various echo chambers on each side of the issue. (The crowning of W&M as “courageous taboo-breakers” by “progressives” and paleocons makes Foxman at his most hyperbolic seem thoughtful.)
    There were numerous problems with the original article that have been buried behind the a host specious footnotes and lost in the antisemitism/muzzling debate. (My own analysis can be found here
    Walt & Mearshimer play a bit a shell game with their argument, making stronger or weaker claims depending on the audience. But the argument made in the article (and from the sections of the book I have read, which remains unchanged) is that various Jewish neocons in the Bush Administration (1) started the Iraq War and (2) did so while acting for the Israel Lobby. In other words, American Jews, acting in the interest of Israel, conspired to send thousands of American servicemen to their deaths in order to improve Israel’s security.
    You do not have to support the Iraq war, the Bush administrations’ approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel’s national security policy or the ADL’s discretion in handing out the antisemite label to find this a misguided and dangerous argument. (Walt & Mearshimer don’t even have to be antisemites to make this argument – simply driven crazy by what they consider the Bush administration’s unfathomable departure from Realist doctrine.)
    It is tempting for progressives who wish to take pot-shots at neocons or AIPAC or the ADL to glom onto Walt & Mearshimer as an opportunity to further their cause. Before doing so, they have an obligation to think long and hard about Walt & Mearshimer are actually saying and decide whether they really want to advance that agenda, even indirectly.

  4. I would go so far to say that AIPAC is really just another chearleading organization that mostly is interested in self-preservation and is relevant mostly to Jews, especially ones with thick wallets. The spying scandal last year was a REAL shonda. So I have no love lost for them. Foxman also sucks, and though I worked for them one summer in college and feels some of their work is good, the ADL and its fearmongering/fundraising don’t speak for me either.
    But Foxman is not wrong about to comment that W&M have help make it polite and even erudite to raise the spectre of Jewish control and influence, no matter how subtly.
    That W&M excuse the “majority of American Jews” by saying they were against the war, doesn’t change that essentially regurgitate classic anti-semitic canards. ‘Some of my best friends are Jews. But they don’t conspire to unduly iunfluence the Government. The other ones do.’
    I read the initial W&M paper and wasn’t that impressed. I also read some good responses, including one by Chicago Peace Now’s Doni Remba:
    And a great critique of its ‘realism’ claim by Martin Kramer:
    The reason the US supports Israel is not a democracy/aipac/judeo-xtian one but a classic extension of power / triangulation strategy. It worked in the cold war pretty well. AIPAC is actually pretty irrelevant as long as people in government see Israel as a means of keeping some political and economic stability in an oil-rich neighborhood (so what do they really DO?).
    If anything, the invasion of Iraq and direct US intervention makes Israel’s role as an ally less important. It also took away 30 years of offestting adversary between Iraq and Iran, which was adventageous to Israel and the US. Why would it advocate an end to that when it gives rise to an Iran bent on its destruction and on funding terror on its borders?
    Well, you’ll have to ask President Bush. As far as I’m concerned, his simplistic approach to Israel have been disastrous to her long term stretegic health.
    Finally, Its intersting to note that W&M have been quick to adopt some rather theatrical antics, ala Finkelstein, to sensationalize their “findings” and sel their book
    They were invited to participate in a program through the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The president of CCGA says that from the outset, because of the nature of the material, the council wanted the program to be a panel discussion that might include opposing opinions.
    When W&M found out their arguements might be challenged or opposed, they pulled out. Moreover, they released a statement saying that they had been silenced by Zionists. They knew better, and the CCGA went on local television to explain that this was not the case, but that a format had been established to which they wanted to adhere and which W&M refused.
    W&M took the opportunity to lie in an effort to falsely claim they were oppressed because of an unpopular view, a fiction of their own making. That alone discredits them and their arguement, but others have done so well, and I encourage you to read the responses.

  5. Full disclosure: haven’t read the books, I only heard the interview.
    I agree that Abe Foxman sounds like a douchebag. More importantly, by his tilting the ADL in the last 10 years away from focusing on defending the rights of all racial, ethnic and religious groups, and focusing instead on defending the Jews, he’s really proven to be not only a douchebag, but also a really lousy leader for the Jewish people. Are we so helpless we need a 501c3 that exists solely to refute anti-semitic claims? I know the ADL still does defend the rights of other slandered minority groups, but all I hear about in the past few years is their impassioned defense of the Jews. I’d rather we continued to work in coalition with other minority groups and all work together to end racist hatred of all shapes and sizes.
    BUT, more to Kol Ra’ash’s point: Walt does make a good point that AIPAC exerts a lot of influence on Washington and that it may not be such a good thing. AIPAC doesn’t represent a fair cross-section of US Jewish opinion on Israel and that leads me to feel that when they get criticized publicly for their influence, they deserve it. The US and Israel are both mostly righteous but flawed moral-political states. Their attitudes and relationship can serve sometimes as a system of checks and balances. When Bush I threatened to pull loan guarantees from Israel for building settlements, it was roundly attacked by the Jewish community and AIPAC. But it was an important act: an increase in settlements is detrimental to making peace with the Palestinians.
    HOWEVER, Walt undoes any gains in his argument (or at least what I heard on Fresh Air) when he suggests the Israel lobby drove the US to invade Iraq. From day one of the administration the Bush government began to build a case for war in Iraq; the doctored up argument at the UN by Colin Powell, the flimsy CIA and NSA reports to Congress… AIPAC doesn’t nearly have the money or power to get Bush II to pull all that stuff together. Bush saw Iraq as a threat, as his father’s unfinished business, as a nice little profitable oil opportunity, and a chance to expand US influence in the Middle East by planting a pro-US regime. Pleasing the Israel lobby is an ancillary benefit, at best.
    To miss the forest for the trees like that, Walt and Mearschlizzer’s thesis comes off to me as pseudo-intellectual dreck at best and veiled anti-semitism at worst.

  6. I don’t think I’ve ever read such a long reply to a posting here that completely failed to address a single point made in the original posting as Eris’s.
    On and on and on and on and on and on. Just a bunch of attributions of motives without a single argument made or backed up by anything whatsoever.

  7. So you’re basing your opinion of the book on how he came off in an interview, and how poorly you feel Foxman comes off? Perhaps you should read the text you’re inclined to defend before you try and initiate discussion with a long drawn out opinion. If one were to base their opinion of Jimmy Carter’s book based on his interviews, rather then what he says in his book, they would be incredibly mislead. So as nice as you think these fools came off in the interview, they didn’t stay true to the implied message inside the book….which means you were manipulated. In this day and age, an entire book devoted to the possibility that Jews in the USA conspire is a problem.

  8. I am an academic. I don’t steal. I don’t turn on my friends. Nevertheless, there is a lot that is horrendously wrong with academia. If I criticize it, I am not called a self-hating professor, am not accused of being anti-educational nor do people claim that I have turned my back on the great martyrs to knowledge, you know, like Socrates and Copernicus.
    The sheer hysterical silliness of Foxman and Eris’s responses to W&M is that they can only cast aspersions on motives, not on arguments. And in this case, argument is what it’s all about. Hell, it’s what democracy is all about. Aren’t we supposed to, let alone allowed to, debate policy? And shouldn’t we, who support Israel with whatever nuance we might choose to express that support, find a good way to defend our committment beyond invoking Hitler or the whole lamentable history of the past 2000 years?
    It doesn’t take a paranoid to see that in the grand scheme of the Iraq war (you know, the part that was crafted by folks like Perle and Wolfowitz) there was the hope that all this would protect Israel. A laudable aim. While it was not the sole motivation for the war, it was certainly an ingredient, however minor, in that toxic cocktail.
    Perhaps I’m wrong–and if I am, I am sure that someone will say so and maybe even say something nasty about me too–but the argument about the Israel lobby is not necessarily an argument about the Jews, but about a group that claims to speak for the Jews. In other words, it is, or should be, an institutional argument.
    The question that W&M ask is whether our policy towards Israel is good for America. If it is, to call them antisemites is a red herring. So is saying that our policy is somehow good for the Jews. The issue is the issue, not our identity.

  9. Haven’t read the book, but heard the interviews. Quite frankly, they both sounded like morons.
    Tangentially, this does raise the whole issue (again) of AIPAC and other organizations representing themselves as “pro-Israel.” I feel like this is a horrible abuse of semantics, like the use of the term “pro-life.” Are people who support a woman’s choice somehow “anti-life?” Just because one is pro-choice, can’t they also be in favor of life?
    I see the same semantic flaws in terming AIPAC and other such orgs as pro-Israel. I live and vote in Israel. In November, I will wear the uniform and serve in southern Gaza. As someone who literally has his ass on the line, I resent a lot of the positions that AIPAC supports. They, and much of the “pro-Israel” community in the US supports positions that increase the odds that I won’t make it home to my wife (chas v’chalila). How is it “pro-Israel” to support policies that are bleeding the country financially, morally, and militarily?
    So I say that we take back semantics and abuse it for our own motives! From now on, I will make every attempt, when in conversation, to call AIPAC and it’s ilk “anti-Israel.” To me, W&M puport to write about the “Anti-Israel” lobby.
    Anybody with me?

  10. Yaakov –
    I agree with you 100%.
    The problem IMHO, however, is that you and I are both in Israel and so being seen as “pro-Israel” isn’t a part of our identity. While I did not get to serve in the IDF, coming here too late, by being here we are “pro-Israel” even if you and I vote for different (or the same) political parties. But, for many, this is about identity not about being pro-Israel. Check out my article for more of this:,7340,L-3443457,00.html
    Though I don’t think “anti-Israel” is the right term for AIPAC et. al. How about “wrong and misguided” instead.

  11. I didn’t hear this set of interviews, but typically, radio interviews are recorded in advance so assuming that Foxman heard what W&M said may be way off the mark.

  12. Just to cast a vote here: AIPAC is great, it’s supportive of Israel, not any particular Israeli party, most of us support Israel, and fuck all anti-semites. We now resume our regularly scheduled broadcast.

  13. Avi:
    “Though I don’t think “anti-Israel” is the right term for AIPAC et. al. How about “wrong and misguided” instead.”
    “Wrong and misguided” portrays nuance. Look at Kerry’s fate. Nuance fucks you up the rear every time. Gotta keep it simple, straight forward, and easy for us amei haaretz to remember!

  14. Yaakov (which is my hebrew name)—I’m with you. I argue with people on certain boards who cannot comprehend that US policy is NOT particularly pro Israel. If it was, then how is Israel in the most precarious position she’s been in since 1973?
    Fartig–it’s not particularly bold or original of you to state that high level Jews are doing things that are for the benefit of Israel. And similarly to M&W I notice that you are unable to provide a shred of evidence to back up this assertion. These same high level Jews signed off on the plans to bomb the Serbs back in the 90s, while Israel supported the Serbs (who were slandered and demonized, much like the Jews are). So much for your ‘neocon Jews only act on Israel’s behalf’ theory.
    These high level Jews tend not to be remotely observant and they have no loyalty to Israel–after all, why would they be hired into such positions if their primary loyalty is to Israel?
    M&W also tend to lie a lot regarding Oslo. Instead of turning to primary source evidence from Clinton or Dennis Ross, they rely on 2nd hand hearsay from people that were not there, and accounts that contradict those of Ross and Clinton.
    Much like the ‘protocols’ that influences their work, they can provide no evidence and it’s a piece of garbage that Harvard should be quite embarrassed about.

  15. “Gotta keep it simple, straight forward, and easy for us amei haaretz to remember!”
    And from this derives the reason that Foxman is right on this.
    And the reason that the validity of his positions derives precisely from its shallowness and hysteria.
    Who among Am Ha’aretz is going to read and carefully weigh W&M’s report? Very few if any. Most will derive, from its title cited in other works, a Jewish plot that endangers America.
    And it is not the folks in the ivory towers who pick up the pitchforks and axles.

  16. In November, I will wear the uniform and serve in southern Gaza. As someone who literally has his ass on the line, I resent a lot of the positions that AIPAC supports. They, and much of the “pro-Israel” community in the US supports positions that increase the odds that I won’t make it home to my wife (chas v’chalila).
    dude, with all due respect (and I have quite a bit of respect for IDF soldiers), you’re talking like AIPAC just devotes its efforts to stonewalling peace initiatives or something. the truth is, the lion’s share of AIPAC’s efforts are not devoted to “supporting” any particular “position” at all. sure they make headlines when they come out against a ceasefire during the Lebanon War, for example. but the vast majority of AIPAC’s work you never hear about.
    do you know who is responsible for securing the US military aid package that goes to Israel every year? mostly AIPAC. do you know how much of that $$$ goes to stuff that no one has even mentioned in this thread, e.g. food for you on the base, maintenance of fences along the borders, anti-aircraft defenses in the North, etc.? most of it probably.
    it’s easy to hate on AIPAC because they’ve been in bed with Likud in the past, have taken less-than-proactive stances on the Peace Process, etc. but people: let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. MOST of the work AIPAC does is quiet, humdrum lobbying aimed at securing military aid to Israel. if AIPAC disappeared tomorrow, so would most US aid to Israel.
    is anyone prepared for that? has anyone in here really even thought about what that would look like? I doubt it. my apologies to anyone in here who happens to be a budget analyst for the IDF, and who can say with confidence that a massive cut to or even cessation of military aid to Israel would have little impact on Israel’s home defenses, or may even result in Peace.
    but my feeling is actually that none of you AIPAC haters have a clue as to the consequences of the ideas the ideas you’re promoting.

  17. Fartig writes:
    “.. and Eris’s responses to W&M is that they can only cast aspersions on motives, not on arguments”
    I though I cast aspersion on their research methods and quality.
    Wait. Let me check…
    “They know full well that the misrepresentations of fact, omissions, things taken out of context, logical errors, etc. in their prior paper and this book are indeed risible, the trash produced by dilettantes, not by serious researchers.”
    Yep, I did cast aspersion on their research methods and quality.
    I’d hate to be your research subject, Professor Fartig. You can’t read.
    I guess I’m a better professor than you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.