The Showdown: Dershowitz vs. Walt and Mearsheimer
My recent post on “Why Is The US And Israel Jumping In To Bed Together?” discusses the controversial paper released by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively. The paper came under great scrutiny from the academic community which criticized the paper as ‘unacademic’ and based on fallacious myths and opinions from anti-Israelis such as David Duke and Noam Chomsky. Adam Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard as well as an adamant Israeli supporter and Jew took the dais in debunking their arguments.
What is peculiar to his rebuttal was that he was gravely concerned with the professors’ motive behind their publication of a ‘sub-standard’ piece of work. Dershowitz stated that neither professor have so far had the courage to refute this rebuttal or engage in a live debate.
So what is really their motive?
On behalf of Walt and Mearsheimer, their motive (in my opinion) was to open a can of worms for a subject which seeks to take a historical position similar to that of the Holocaust. In today’s societies, it is absurd to deny the Holocaust and for those who do (such as British Historian David Irving) end up being persecuted, tried and jailed.
The legitimacy of the Israeli State as well as the way in which it was formed continues to be a matter of heated discussion. Similar to the historiography of the Holocaust, contemporary ardent Israeli supporters would very well wish to have a majority consensus (from Americans, Europeans, Asians and possibly even Arabs) that the country has a right to exist; that it was ‘correct’ to force the Palestinians from their homes and it was ‘correct’ to strike a collusive deal to partition the land.
A paper like that of Mearsheimer and Walt is completely counterproductive to such a goal. In essence, it encourages readers to critically ‘question’ the right of the existence of Israel and ultimately sway their opinions. Thus, to have readers question the existence of Israel, it was necessary for Mearsheimer and Walt to present hard-line arguments since (naturally) those would be the ones to instigate a debate as well as stir thoughts.
Based on purely personal experience (no surveys), there seems to be a strong sense of public animosity against the US and Israel. These experiences are based on travels in Europe, South America, Central America, Africa and Asia. In fact, many individuals especially Arabs tend to equate Israel and the US. The Israeli Lobby explains this very phenomenon. I recall during the 2000 Gore vs. Bush elections, many Arabs hoped for Bush’s victory because Gore opted for Joseph Liebermann (an Orthodox Jew) as Vice President. Ironically, their hope for Bush’s election (in retrospect) did not matter since Bush has infringed upon Arab sovereignty and meddled too much in their affairs.
Dershowitz’s paper raises 'seemingly' valid rebuttals which Walt and Mearsheimer need to tackle convincingly to prove him wrong and increase the credibility of their paper. However, Dershowitz’s diatribe-style rebuttal contains many bold and audacious statements (similar to those of Walt-Mearsheimer). For example he says that:
How would one expect a Palestinian kicked out of his home in 1948 to EVEN CONSIDER accepting a Partition? Who said the Jews had the right to live in Palestinian lands? Also the war was initiated with the occupation itself not with the counter-attack which occurred the following day (the event Dershowitz is alluding to).
This post would be too long to bring side to side the arguments posed by the authors. However, the controversial academic discussion has alluded to several important conclusions:
1) There continues to be a grand debate on the historiography of the region, the war, the cause of mass exodus as well as the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. Outside of academics, this has been an incredible hindrance to any sort of peace agreement or compromise on either side. For example, Hamas believes Israel does not have the right to exist and will not concede to any Israeli demands – this is due in part to their interpretation of the historiography of the land: Jews simply walked over Palestinian land and decided that this is their new permanent home.
2) Neither side genuinely seeks peace. Until the Israelis acknowledge that Zionism and the idea of a pure Jewish state is not compatible with peace, there will be no peaceful compromises. Similarly, Arabs need to understand this and focus their efforts with that as a baseline.
3) Regardless of what the ‘real’ puissance of the Israeli Lobby is, the US needs to be careful with its foreign policy actions in the Middle East. The Bush administration has done a great job at spreading American animosity around the world which will eventually lead to the American peoples’ own demise abroad. Israel is certainly the US’ conduit in the Middle East and the US has been using it to justify many of its actions in the region (either outspokenly or on a more private level). However the Bush administration needs to make sure that global consensus understands that the US and Israel ARE NOT ONE per se. This message needs to reach Arabs especially, however given that Iran might be on the US’ next target list, this message will not be sent anytime soon.
What is peculiar to his rebuttal was that he was gravely concerned with the professors’ motive behind their publication of a ‘sub-standard’ piece of work. Dershowitz stated that neither professor have so far had the courage to refute this rebuttal or engage in a live debate.
So what is really their motive?
On behalf of Walt and Mearsheimer, their motive (in my opinion) was to open a can of worms for a subject which seeks to take a historical position similar to that of the Holocaust. In today’s societies, it is absurd to deny the Holocaust and for those who do (such as British Historian David Irving) end up being persecuted, tried and jailed.
The legitimacy of the Israeli State as well as the way in which it was formed continues to be a matter of heated discussion. Similar to the historiography of the Holocaust, contemporary ardent Israeli supporters would very well wish to have a majority consensus (from Americans, Europeans, Asians and possibly even Arabs) that the country has a right to exist; that it was ‘correct’ to force the Palestinians from their homes and it was ‘correct’ to strike a collusive deal to partition the land.
A paper like that of Mearsheimer and Walt is completely counterproductive to such a goal. In essence, it encourages readers to critically ‘question’ the right of the existence of Israel and ultimately sway their opinions. Thus, to have readers question the existence of Israel, it was necessary for Mearsheimer and Walt to present hard-line arguments since (naturally) those would be the ones to instigate a debate as well as stir thoughts.
Based on purely personal experience (no surveys), there seems to be a strong sense of public animosity against the US and Israel. These experiences are based on travels in Europe, South America, Central America, Africa and Asia. In fact, many individuals especially Arabs tend to equate Israel and the US. The Israeli Lobby explains this very phenomenon. I recall during the 2000 Gore vs. Bush elections, many Arabs hoped for Bush’s victory because Gore opted for Joseph Liebermann (an Orthodox Jew) as Vice President. Ironically, their hope for Bush’s election (in retrospect) did not matter since Bush has infringed upon Arab sovereignty and meddled too much in their affairs.
Dershowitz’s paper raises 'seemingly' valid rebuttals which Walt and Mearsheimer need to tackle convincingly to prove him wrong and increase the credibility of their paper. However, Dershowitz’s diatribe-style rebuttal contains many bold and audacious statements (similar to those of Walt-Mearsheimer). For example he says that:
“Keep in mind too, that it was the Palestinians and surrounding Arab armies that initiated the war. There would be no refugees if, as Israel did, the Arabs had been willing to accept Partition, leading to full Palestinian state alongside a Jewish homeland.”
How would one expect a Palestinian kicked out of his home in 1948 to EVEN CONSIDER accepting a Partition? Who said the Jews had the right to live in Palestinian lands? Also the war was initiated with the occupation itself not with the counter-attack which occurred the following day (the event Dershowitz is alluding to).
This post would be too long to bring side to side the arguments posed by the authors. However, the controversial academic discussion has alluded to several important conclusions:
1) There continues to be a grand debate on the historiography of the region, the war, the cause of mass exodus as well as the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. Outside of academics, this has been an incredible hindrance to any sort of peace agreement or compromise on either side. For example, Hamas believes Israel does not have the right to exist and will not concede to any Israeli demands – this is due in part to their interpretation of the historiography of the land: Jews simply walked over Palestinian land and decided that this is their new permanent home.
2) Neither side genuinely seeks peace. Until the Israelis acknowledge that Zionism and the idea of a pure Jewish state is not compatible with peace, there will be no peaceful compromises. Similarly, Arabs need to understand this and focus their efforts with that as a baseline.
3) Regardless of what the ‘real’ puissance of the Israeli Lobby is, the US needs to be careful with its foreign policy actions in the Middle East. The Bush administration has done a great job at spreading American animosity around the world which will eventually lead to the American peoples’ own demise abroad. Israel is certainly the US’ conduit in the Middle East and the US has been using it to justify many of its actions in the region (either outspokenly or on a more private level). However the Bush administration needs to make sure that global consensus understands that the US and Israel ARE NOT ONE per se. This message needs to reach Arabs especially, however given that Iran might be on the US’ next target list, this message will not be sent anytime soon.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 12:32 PM
5 Comments:
I agree with your analysis. I have read Walt and Mearsheimer's Paper, although I haven't read Dershowitz's criticism of it. I am frankly not even inclinded to read his criticism since I know that, despite any valid points it might raise, it would end up twisting facts. I'd take the word of seemingly "neutral" Harvard and Chicago distinguished professors over Dershowitz who authored books titled along the lines of "The Case for Israel".
Maybe it mere bias that's motivating me; however throughout the past few days, I have came almost by chance on several neo-con websites that don't even attempt to show neutrality or cool headedness while explicating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The lobby is powerful, and it raises the Holocaust and anti-semitic flag whenever anyone critcizes Israeli policies, as mentioned in the Walt paper. What's even more disconcerting on these neo-con websites however is that they equate Hamas with OBL. Let me get one thing straight: I am against the targetting of civilians, but it's anything but the "common Islamist threat" these websites are talking about. They are attempting to convince Americans that their fight with OBL is the same as the fight against a resistance movement. Granted, the resistance movement uses abhorrent techniques, but after all, its delegates were recieved with open arms in Russia, Norway, and Sweden. These countries would not extend the same courtesy to OBL...would they?
Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, said that Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (two prominent neo-cons who happen at the top of the policy-making process)are "walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ...and Israeli interests". If the American Deputy secretary of Defense is labelled as "loyal" by an Israeli newspaper, I wonder the extent to which this loyalty exists in actuality.
America should realize the damage it's inflicting upon its image in the middle east before it's too late. Any attempt towards neutrality is welcome.
A fellow Egyptian
Hi EO...just wondering, could you maybe link to this paper you mention? I'm very interested in reading it now that I've read your post, and it would actually make your post easier to understand. Where can I find it? THANKS!
@rambling hal. If you click on the second link in the post (Adam Dershowitz), it will take you straight to the pdf. file. Also refer to the other post "Why is the US and Israel jumping in to bed together?" to read the initial article. Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks! (Should've figured it out myself, sorry, I'm lazy). I'll get back to u!
Fellow Egyptian,
Great points. In fact, Dershowitz does an incredible job of managing to convey the 'twisting' of facts and would leave readers of both papers completely distraught.
Setting the obvious bias aside, I would also prefer to read a 'neutral and objective' reading of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Dershowtiz constantly raised the question of Mearsheimer and Walt's motif on the issue and since they are not 'racially-inclined' or support a specific side, it is purely to contest an issue which has become taboo (Israeli-American relationships as well as the legitimacy of the State of Israel) similar to that of the Holocaust.
Equating Osama Bin Laden and Hamas is completely absurd and like you pointed out, the latter (now a political party in power) is a movement, which without doubt has used aggressive methods to try to achieve concessions but has been taken with open arms in various governments around the world. The former however is completely condemned by all those who are sane and rational, liberal and moderate.
The US needs to understand that it is digging a hole for itself which it cannot get out of. American sentiment in the Middle East is being exacerbated and tensions will continue to rise, is this all worth it for Israel? This is a question the administration needs to address or ensure the American public that the country is in fact acting in its own self-interest.
This is a very difficult task given the points raised by the Mearsheimer-Walt paper regarding the mutual friendship both countries share as well as the power of the Israeli Lobby in the US.
Neutrality is certainly welcome, but the US is now aiming for bigger fish to fry: Iran.
Post a Comment
<< Home