http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/12/11/opinion/19668.shtml
Despite the dire predictions of Daily Princetonian columnist and Muslim Students Association president Sarah Dajani ’09, Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer delivered a talk yesterday unimpeded by any protest whatsoever. These professors made their names as realists, particularly Mearsheimer, who is credited for the theory of “offensive realism,” which rests on the premise that domestic factors have minimal influence on interactions between states. The two seem to have found an exception to this theory in their recently published book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” which claims that the “Israel lobby” has manipulated American foreign policy against U.S. interests.
While Walt and Mearsheimer say that they aim to spark debate on America’s policy toward Israel and the Middle East, their argument against the “Israel lobby” actually sours the environment for the debate. It does so by making illogical assumptions about America’s interests, employing a sloppy definition of the “Israel lobby,” using methods of research criticized by both sides of the political spectrum and ignoring the American democratic process.
The argument that Walt and Mearsheimer emphasized in their talk is that America has no incentive to support Israel. They derive this conclusion in part from assumptions that al Qaeda has attacked the United States mainly because of the country’s support toward Israel, a statement with which very few Middle Eastern scholars would agree. They further claim that the United States has no moral imperative to support Israel, neglecting the fact that Israel is the most democratic country in the Middle East, as the internationally acclaimed Freedom House ratings show.
It is fascinating that, in a book titled “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” the two professors fail to actually define the “Israel lobby.” Instead, they group together the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, leftist organizations such as Americans for Peace Now, right-wing Christian evangelists and neo-conservatives, ignoring the fundamental differences and distinct motives of the groups. Additionally, they make no distinction between the interests of the monolithic “lobby” and the Israeli government. It is impossible to claim that the “lobby” controls American foreign policy because there is no consensus on policy within the lobby itself, given the diverse views of its members.
From a scholarly point of view, Walt and Mearsheimer’s research methods have been strongly criticized. They have often misrepresented quotes and omitted necessary facts, to the point where one of their frequently quoted scholars, Benny Morris, has heatedly criticized the way they used quotations from his work. In his response to their working paper, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz noted that Mearsheimer acknowledged that “none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews.” Even Noam Chomsky, a professor at MIT who is highly critical of Israel’s very existence, wrote a blog post stating that he finds that the authors employ “a highly selective use of evidence.”
Ultimately, Walt and Mearsheimer are ignoring the effects of America’s democratic process on national decision-making. Walt and Mearsheimer suggest that those in the so-called “Israel lobby” do not have America’s best interests at heart, but rather seek to influence American policy only for Israel’s sake. This charge, which by its subjective nature is impossible to disprove, serves only to stifle debate and limit democratic discussion. By casting aspersions on the loyalty of those who honestly believe that a strong relationship with Israel is in America’s interests, Walt and Mearsheimer make it difficult for their opponents to disagree with their views on American foreign policy in the Middle East.
We believe very firmly in the principles of academic and democratic debate. We welcome open political discussion on America’s foreign policy. We hope that the environment for that debate will be based on facts and scholarly analysis, rather than the poor standards employed by Walt and Mearsheimer in their work. We do not think it is productive to implicitly suggest that some participants in the debate willingly disregard America’s interests and consequently marginalize significant portion of the opposition.
Rebecca Kaufman ’11, David Levit ’10 and Jacob Loewenstein ’11 are members of Tigers for Israel. David can be reached at dlevit@princeton.edu.
