To: MR&MRS PEARL,

I'm so sorry about what happen to your son Daniel. I have a neice's she's takeing jurnalism , she got inspired by your son Daniel.

SINCERLY
SANDRA SOLARES

To: MR&MRS PEARL,

I'm so sorry about what happen to your son Daniel. I have a neice's she's takeing jurnalism , she got inspired by your son Daniel.

SINCERLY
SANDRA SOLARES

I agree with Galileo8.
Of all those who commented here in support of Mr.
Gandhi, how many would recognize Israel as the
legitimate historical homeland of the Jewish people? I would venture to guess: ZERO. How many
Palestinians would go for that? ... note the word
"historical" ... Zero. How many Palestinians would
go for that if Israel retreats to the 1967 borders? ----------Zero.
Here you have it.

Thanks to Mr. ANONYMOUS for posting such an instructive and revealing interview with Walt and Mearsheimer --I used to believe that the two clowns are victims of a Jewish Lobby paranoia, the interview now proves them plain racists.

Here are a few observations.

WALT: For many people in the Muslim, Arab world there is a fundamental question of justice.
GALILEO8 (G): For many people in the Muslim, Arab world the fundamental question of justice is synonymous to ME, ME, and only ME!

WALT: John and I both thing it was a good thing. But, that act, creating a Jewish state in Palestine, involved the infliction of great crimes against the local residents-- the Palestinians.

G: How generous of you to acknowledge that "it was a good thing"; most of the world agreed with you, in 1947. Most of the world however noticed that attacking and invading the Jewish state
involved the infliction of great crimes against the local residents -- the Israelis -- 1% of whom were killed in that war.
Now, what prompts a "scholar" of your caliber to gloss over that pivotal war as if it did not occur? You and John have studied some history, right? so you know very well that it was
that war of "elimination" against Israel which created the refugee problem as well as most of Palestinians' suffering since. So, how can you stand here in straight face and speak about "justice","crime" and "moral balance" while pretending that that attack against Israel did
not take place. Isn't it a little disingenuous?

WALT: The United States likes to talk about human
rights, it likes to talk about democracy,
it likes to talk about national self-determination. But here, by giving Israel nearly unconditional support, ....
is seen as deeply contrary to all the things the U.S. claims to stand for.

G: Really? To me it looks mighty consistent with
all the things the U.S. claims to stand for.
It protects the human right of innocent civilians
to a terror-free life, it protects the only democratic society in the region and, most importantly, it assures self-determination to EVERY side that acknowledges the right for self- determination of the other. Mighty consistent, I must say.

MEARSHEIMER: It is the longest ongoing occupation in modern history.

G: I would not call "occupation" a situation that can end immediately by the so called "occupied."
Perhaps you meant to say that "it is the longest ongoing denial of legitimacy of a sovereign state in modern history." To this I would agree.

And, again, I am surprised that respectable scholars like you,would choose to gloss over the one pivotal step that can end the conflict over night: recognitionof Israel as a historically legitimate homeland of the Jewish people.

Two deliberate omissions of known facts
is more than a coincidence, wouldn't you agree?
I am tempted therefore to suspect that you are a bit unfair, or shall we say, biased? or perhaps plain racist?

Thanks to Mr. ANONYMOUS for posting such an instructive and revealing interview with Walt and Mearsheimer --I used to believe that the two clowns are victims of a Jewish Lobby paranoia, the interview now proves them plain racists.

Here are a few observations.

WALT: For many people in the Muslim, Arab world there is a fundamental question of justice.
GALILEO8 (G): For many people in the Muslim, Arab world the fundamental question of justice is synonymous to ME, ME, and only ME!

WALT: John and I both thing it was a good thing. But, that act, creating a Jewish state in Palestine, involved the infliction of great crimes against the local residents-- the Palestinians.

G: How generous of you to acknowledge that "it was a good thing"; most of the world agreed with you, in 1947. Most of the world however noticed that attacking and invading the Jewish state
involved the infliction of great crimes against the local residents -- the Israelis -- 1% of whom were killed in that war.
Now, what prompts a "scholar" of your caliber to gloss over that pivotal war as if it did not occur? You and John have studied some history, right? so you know very well that it was
that war of "elimination" against Israel which created the refugee problem as well as most of Palestinians' suffering since. So, how can you stand here in straight face and speak about "justice","crime" and "moral balance" while pretending that that attack against Israel did
not take place. Isn't it a little disingenuous?

WALT: The United States likes to talk about human
rights, it likes to talk about democracy,
it likes to talk about national self-determination. But here, by giving Israel nearly unconditional support, ....
is seen as deeply contrary to all the things the U.S. claims to stand for.

G: Really? To me it looks mighty consistent with
all the things the U.S. claims to stand for.
It protects the human right of innocent civilians
to a terror-free life, it protects the only democratic society in the region and, most importantly, it assures self-determination to EVERY side that acknowledges the right for self- determination of the other. Mighty consistent, I must say.

MEARSHEIMER: It is the longest ongoing occupation in modern history.

G: I would not call "occupation" a situation that can end immediately by the so called "occupied."
Perhaps you meant to say that "it is the longest ongoing denial of legitimacy of a sovereign state in modern history." To this I would agree.

And, again, I am surprised that respectable scholars like you,would choose to gloss over the one pivotal step that can end the conflict over night: recognitionof Israel as a historically legitimate homeland of the Jewish people.

Two deliberate omissions of known facts
is more than a coincidence, wouldn't you agree?
I am tempted therefore to suspect that you are a bit unfair, or shall we say, biased? or perhaps plain racist?

Authors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer
“We are not talking about a conspiracy”

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of the book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," about how their groundbreaking book and ideas have been received.

February 14, 2008

The anti-lobbyists

“Let’s move over here – in the corner. It’ll be better for us to talk in private. Or else some people might get the wrong idea,” chuckles John Mearsheimer, a Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and co-author of the incendiary book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” The controversial book’s co-author, Stephen Walt, an Academic Dean at the prestigious Harvard Kennedy School of Government, smiles and concurs as we all find comfortable seats in the back end, lounge corner of San Francisco’s Prescott Hotel.

“The wrong idea” according to the authors is the inaccurate labeling and smearing of their reputation as “Anti-Semites.” According to them and their supporters, they’ve unfairly earned this slander solely due to their detailed and systematic criticism of an “Israel Lobby” and its alleged actions in greatly influencing U.S. foreign policy in the volatile Middle Eastern regions of Israel and Palestine.

The Anti-Defamation League, which retaliated by publishing “The Deadliest Lies: The Myth of the Israeli Lobby” on the same release date as “The Israel Lobby,” lambasted the professors’ work as an “anti-Jewish screed: a relentless assault in scholarly guise.” However, talking to them in person and later observing their demeanor at a speech followed by question and answer session held at U.C. Berkeley, the two professors both appeared very calm, rational, collected and lacking the stereotypical, passionate vitriol and acidic anger unfortunately espoused by all parties associated with the endless “Israel-Palestine conflict.”

For anyone with even the slightest experience in dealing with the “Israel-Palestine” issue, whether that experience be academic, polemical, political, or even a friendly discussion over coffee, it becomes glaringly obvious the topic is contentious, divisive and, dare I say, explosive. To call it a “powder keg” of a situation would be a glorious understatement. I spoke with Mearsheimer and Walt regarding their controversial thesis, their critics and detractors, the stifling of academic dissent, foreign policy in the Middle East, and the resulting profound implications for the United State’s relationship with the Muslim World in the 21st century.

I guess life must have been boring for you guys, and you had nothing interesting going on. So, you decided to spice things up, right? What goes on in your head that makes you get up one day and decide, “You know what? I think we’re going to tackle the “Israeli Lobby.”

(Both laugh.)

WALT: We wrote this not because our lives were boring, but because we were concerned with what was happening with American foreign policy and specifically American Middle East policy. We felt there was an aspect that wasn’t get that much attention in the U.S; the influence of the “Israeli Lobby” was the elephant in the room that no one was willing to talk about. We believe this was having unfortunate affects on the U.S., other countries, and Israel itself, and no one, especially mainstream circles, would speak or write about it. We thought we were in positions of relative security and if we didn’t [talk about it], then no one else would.

MEARSHEIMER: Nevertheless, we fully understood we were grabbing the third rail, and pro-Israeli forces in the U.S. would come after us in a serious way. We’ve not been surprised by the reaction to our piece here in the U.S.

Ok, for the unacquainted, let’s become familiar with the central thesis of “The Israel Lobby,” lay it out for me and the readers. There’s this group you label the “Israel Lobby.” Who are they and why should we, as average Joe Americans, even care about them?

WALT: The Lobby isn’t a single organization. It is a loose coalition of different groups and individuals that actively work and try to move American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction and try to maintain a special relationship with the U.S. and Israel. This group includes some predominantly Jewish American groups, such as AIPAC, the Anti Defamation League, The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. It also includes non-Jewish groups like Christian Evangelicals, such as Christians United for Israel. This is not a single organization, and they don’t agree on every issue, but they all want to maintain that special relationship. It’s an interest group like other groups we have in U.S.

Interest groups are part of American politics. So, there’s nothing illegitimate or wrong with what the Israeli Lobby is doing. But, like some other interest groups, when they have profound impact on U.S. foreign policy, they may be leading to foreign policies that aren’t in the interest of the country as a whole. So, Americans should be concerned about this and other interest groups if they are leading to policies that are contrary to the American national interest.

MEARSHEIMER: American should care about the Israeli Lobby, because it has a profound effect on the shape of U.S.– Middle East policy. We believe by and large that effect is negative. In other words, the Lobby is pushing policies not in the U.S. interest and not in Israel’s interest either. The best example of that is the Lobby’s influence has with regards to the occupation and the building of settlements in the West Bank. The U.S. has opposed settlement building since the Israelis first conquered the West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967. It has been the official policy of every president since Lyndon B. Johnson to oppose settlement building, but no president has been able to put any meaningful pressure on Israel to stop building settlements. The principle reason is due to the Lobby, which goes to great lengths to make sure no President can force Israel to do something that it doesn’t want to do. Since Israel doesn’t want to end the settlements, no President has been able to put an end to the settlement building.

What are the consequences that result from this? It is one of the main reasons why the U.S. is deeply hated in the Arab and Islamic world. It is one of the main causes of America’s terrorism problem. It is clear that Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, one of the main architects of the 9-11 attacks, were deeply battered by American policies in the Occupied Territories [in Palestine.] So, we as Americans should care how the Lobby influences U.S.- Middle East policies, because it sometimes influences them in a way which is not in the best interests of the U.S.

However, doesn’t the publication of your book, the media publicity blitz surrounding it, the release of Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” and Norman Finkelstein’s very public criticism of Alan Dershowitz’s “Case for Israel,” all provide examples that a healthy debate about Israel does indeed exist and the Lobby is either ineffective or not as influential as you suggest?

WALT: Nobody believes that the discourse in the U.S. is 100% pro-Israel. That is completely impossible. Our point in the book and our publication of the book doesn’t contradict this, we contend that conversation and public discourse in mainstream media circles is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. It’s not to say occasionally you won’t have other voices out there. But the fact is we had trouble getting our original article published in the U.S., and we have had some coverage, but relatively little, regarding our book in mainstream media circles.

We’ve seen various efforts made to try and minimize the exposure by getting events cancelled when were supposed to speak about this, or having media arrangements fall through. So, it’s not to say you can’t occasionally get critical views out there, but the balance of coverage on the Middle East coverage is pro-Israel. But, if you look at the critical reviews of the book, the reviews in England have been uniformly positive. Generally, all across Europe as well. There have been a number of positive reviews in Israel itself. But the mainstream reviews in U.S. [is a different story], for example the Washington Post, the New York Times Sunday Book Review; the New Republic had a vicious attack comparing us to Osama Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So, getting favorable reviews, including in Israel, is relatively easy outside of the United States.

MEARSHEIMEHR: Based on reading our book, one would predict we would get hardly any positive reviews in the United States, and a lot of positive reviews outside of U.S., including Israel. That prediction has held up very well. We have been consistently slammed in the mainstream media inside The United States, and garnered lots of positive reviews outside the U.S., which is what the book would predict.

Is this proof of the New-Anti-Semitism? Is this the smoking gun evidence that the whole world is ganging up against Israel and American Jewry?

MEARSHEIMER: The fundamental flaw with that argument is that the book has received favorable treatment in Israel itself. One of the most positive reviews was written in Haaretz itself written by Daniel Levi who is an Israeli Jew. The most favorable review overall was written by an Israeli, Yuri Avnery. This is not to say that there are not people in Israel or U.S. who see our book as evidence of the The New Anti-Semitism. We don’t believe there is a New Anti-Semitism. We believe there is not a lot of Anti-Semitism in the U.S. or in Europe itself. And that charge is leveled at critics of Israel like us and Jimmy Carter, because it is an effective way of marginalizing and sidelining us. We are not Anti-Semites, Jimmy Carter is not an Anti-Semite, and the vast majority of people who like our book are not Anti-Semites, in fact many of them are Jews.

Briefly describe your initial journey towards publication at the Atlantic Monthly. Why did they ultimately reject the draft, and how did you find a publication home at London Review of Books?

MEARSHEIMER: Stephen and I decided in early 2002 to think seriously about writing a piece on The Israeli Lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Then, in the fall of 2002, we were commissioned by The Atlantic to write that piece, and we began working on it. We were slowed down by the fact the Iraq war was about to take place. We couldn’t write about it while it was still happening, because the Lobby was involved in pushing that war. So, we didn’t get a draft of the piece to the Atlantic until the Spring of 2004. After they saw the initial draft, they were very happy with it and asked us to make a number of changes, which we did. We submitted the second draft in January 2005, and shortly thereafter they rejected it. We believe they rejected it because they came to believe the subject was too controversial and would cause problems.

Were you surprised when it was rejected?

WALT: We differed on this. I was more surprised than John was. But we were both disappointed. Again, we had no indication that they weren’t going to publish it, and they had seen all of our previous drafts and had been very positive about all of them. So, for them to suddenly discover at the last minute that the entire piece was unacceptable, and that they didn’t want us to re-write it to make it acceptable, was very disappointing.

MEARSHEIMER: So, the Atlantic rejected the piece, and of course, surely, they will never say they rejected it out of fear about how the Lobby would react to the piece, but rather how the piece was written. We don’t believe that’s the case. We believe they got cold feet. After it got rejected, we talked to a number of journals about the possibility of getting the piece published somewhere in the 2005.

By the early summer of 2005, it became clear it would be impossible to get it published in the United States. So, we put the article away and didn’t think it was possible to get it published in the U.S. Someone gave a prominent American academic a copy of the piece we had submitted to the Atlantic, and he knew the editor of the London Review of Books. He wrote to me and asked me if we were interested in publishing it there. We talked about it and thought it was an excellent idea, and we talked to them and made an agreement to submit it by January 2006, a new version of the article. They published it two months later in March 2006. I mean, it’s interesting to think had this academic not gotten hold of the final draft we submitted to the Atlantic, it would have never appeared.

I want to talk about this “stifling” of criticism. Let’s discuss this recent “Google” speech, where you were scheduled to appear, but according to you a Google representative at the last minute told you, “You can’t appear without having the other side represent,” and then they cancelled at the last second. In your opinion, is this “other side” really present?

WALT: As part of the publicity campaign for the book, our publicist began to setup various venues to come talk about the book. Three of those agreements were cancelled. We were cancelled at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs who had invited us to come and speak. The President of the Council got in contact with John and said, “In order to protect the institution, he was canceling the event. The subject was just too hot to cover,” and we can only appear there if they had someone who would represent the “other side,” and it was too late to get someone from the other side. I should mention they’ve had plenty of people who represent “the other side” speak at the Chicago Council and those people spoke on their own. Michael Oren, an Israeli American historian, for example has spoken on his own without someone else representing the other side.

MEARSHEIMER: Dennis Ross would be another good example. And we always say there is nothing wrong with this.

WALT: We think that’s fine. It’s entirely appropriate for Oren or Dennis Ross or lots of other people to come and speak there. They never said anything to us or our publicist about having someone there to debate us when were arranging everything. It was only after the cancellation, did they mention this. We had an agreement to speak at the City University of New York also in September, but that also fell through without an explanation. Finally, we were scheduled to speak at Google Headquarters here in Mountain View, California, which regularly hosts an author series where they bring authors on a variety of subjects to give talks. So, our publicist got an email the previous Friday late in the afternoon that the event had been cancelled and didn’t give us an explanation.

We were subsequently told that the decision had been made “very high up in the company,” and the Google representative said they had never seen an event like this get cancelled like the way they did. They said they would be interested in possibly rescheduling us, but we’ve never been able to reschedule the event, so clearly, it’s not going to happen. But, just to add a number of other places where we’ve spoken, such as the World Affairs Council in Dallas, the Hammer Museum, The City Club of Cleveland, all these people told us they had gotten emails, phone calls, or messages protesting our appearance and suggesting we be dis-invited. To their great credit, none of these places gave into that kind of pressure. In each of these places, we appeared without note-worthy incident; we had good discussions, they asked challenging questions. Some people agreed with us, some people disagreed with us a lot, but in all these places we had a very useful discussion and nothing bad happened at all.

I want you to hear some comments by your critics. George Schultz, Reagan’s Secretary of State, writes in the new book “The Deadliest Lies: The Myth of the Israeli Lobby...”

MEARSHEIMER: That book was scheduled to be published on exactly the same date as our book was published on September the 4th.

WALT: Publishers know when things are going to appear months in advance and once our publisher made it clear it was going to be on their Fall list, then they can start preparing “The Deadliest Lies,” which is a very thin book that didn’t involve much work, and thus it could be arranged to have it timed with the release of our book. I mean, there are no secrets in the publishing world. Nothing unusual about this.

MEARSHEIMER: The Abraham Foxman book [“The Deadliest Lies] and the George Schultz preface in the forward are not based on the book we wrote, “The Israeli Lobby,” because it hadn’t been published at that time. It was rather based on the article that was published [in 2006.]

Well, he writes in the forward, “…those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters for U.S. policies they do not support - are wrong. They are wrong because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our [The U.S.] best interests. They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S. government is responsible for the policies it adopts.” If you both concede that what the Israeli Lobby does is within the confines of a democratic process, then isn’t Schultz’s critique valid? If the Lobby isn’t working democratically, then how is it abusing the process?

WALT: We make it very clear in our book that what the Israeli Lobby is doing is not an abuse of the Democratic Process, but we think all Americans have the right to organize around political causes they believe about. But the fact that it is legitimate activity doesn’t mean it is in the best interest of the country. Lots of other interest groups have skewed American policy in a way that is not good for the country as a whole. We never argue, and we don’t believe what the Lobby is doing is illegitimate, inappropriate, or not Democratic, it’s just that the effects are harmful to the United States.

Now, if George Schultz disagrees with us, then he can make that argument and we can have a debate on it. One of the reasons we wrote the book is to try and encourage debate. “Whether or not unconditional support for Israel is good for the U.S. or not? Was it making Americans safer? Was it Americans more popular around the world? Was it improving our relation with allies in The Middle East and elsewhere?” If all those are true, then, maybe, we’re wrong. We’re making the argument that unconditional support for Israel, as encouraged by the Israeli Lobby, has been deeply harmful.

I’d alert anybody who reads this article that they should go back and read page 112 of George Schultz’s memoirs called “Turmoil and Triumph” where he talks about his own involvement trying to do Middle East policy in the face of pressure from the Lobby. When he and President Regan were dealing with the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, he discovered Congress was about to vote a $250 million supplemental military aid package to Israel after the invasion of Lebanon, after [Israel] had used cluster bombs, after the Shatila-Sabra camp massacres. This is what he writes in his own memoirs:

“We fought the supplement and fought it hard. President Reagan and I weighed in personally making numerous calls to Senators and Congressman. The supplement sailed right by us and was approved by Congress as though President Reagan and I had not even been there. I was astonished and disheartened. This brought home for me vividly Israel’s leverage in our Congress. I saw that I must work carefully with the Israelis if I was to have any handle on Congressional action that might affect Israel, and if I were to maintain Congressional support for my efforts to make peace or progress in the Middle East.”

In 1982, and when he wrote his memoirs, he understood the Israeli Lobby was very powerful and he understood that it wasn’t good; it was interfering with what he and President Reagan wanted to do. But he understood it was too powerful to fight it. He might’ve forgotten that in 2006-2007, but that’s what he wrote in his own memoirs.

MEARSHEIMER: There’s no question that Israeli supporters in the U.S. have the right to push pro-Israeli policies. Their behavior in that regard is as American as apple pie. However, there is one form of behavior that many members of the lobby engage in that is antithetical to the American way of doing business. That is the proclivity for smearing critics of Israel. If you criticize Israeli policy, or the power of the Lobby in formulating, or influencing U.S. Middle East policy, you are almost certain to be called an Anti-Semite or worse. Smearing people has become one of the key tactics that large numbers of organizations and individuals use in the Lobby to deal with critics, and this is not as American as apple pie. This kind of behavior should be condemned.

Let’s switch gears and talk about an Arab-American professor at Columbia, Joseph Massad, who published a stinging criticism of your book in Al-Ahram. He suggests your thesis falls into a predictable trap, and I quote him, “…the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies.” So, my question, after listening to this, does your thesis help exonerate the U.S. government from all its responsibility? Moreover, perhaps the U.S. is in fact using Israel, instead of Israel and its Lobby using the U.S, correct?

WALT: Professor Massad greatly overstates it when he says this exonerates the U.S. government from all responsibility. We understand that actors in the U.S. government are independent actors to some degree. You take the Iraq war where we believe the Israeli Lobby had a key role in pushing the U.S. to do this, but ultimately George Bush made the decision to invade. So, we wouldn’t let him or Vice President Cheney off the hook. We are not exonerating those people in the U.S. government. Any official or most officials in the government, and certainly people in Congress are shaped by the political and social forces that exist within American society. They always pay attention where the political support is going to be, and it’s quite clear, as we just saw from the George Schultz quote a moment ago, where the Secretary of State thinks policy ought to go in one direction [not giving Israel the supplementary aid] and President Reagan agrees and thinks it’s a terrible idea, but they get rolled by Congress as if they had not even been there.

So, I think the idea that the U.S. government would be pursuing the same policies vis a vis the Middle East the same policies it would be pursuing absent the Israeli Lobby and the political power of AIPAC, I think it is just wrong. It has been the official policy of every president, every president since Lyndon Johnson to not support the settlements but none of them ever do anything about it, and they are the Presidents. It’s because of an array of political forces that make it impossible for them to take action. Problem #2 is the dog wagging the tail argument, here the argument is that Israel basically is our tool, we give it orders, and it does what we want it to do in the Middle East.

MEARSHEIMER: That Israel is our Rottweiler argument.

WALT: I mean, if you look carefully at the record, there is not much evidence that it is the tool we are using to shape the Middle East. I’ll give you three examples. One is the first Gulf War of ’91 where the U.S. goes into throw Hussein’s Iraq out of Kuwait, Israel didn’t participate in the war, not because they didn’t want to, but if they had participated the Arab coalition would have fallen apart. So, we went to great lengths to keep them out. And then we had to defend them when the SCUD missiles starting coming to Israel. The second example is the Iraq War of 2003, here we are our knocking off an Israeli enemy, but the Israelis are not there doing it, it’s us doing it. They are on the sideline yet again. The third example is the Lebanon War in the Summer of 2006. We don’t like Hezbollah very much, and of course the Israelis don’t like them very much, but there is absolutely no evidence that we were pushing the Israelis to go after Hezbollah. More importantly, we certainly didn’t want the Israelis to go after Lebanon. If Israel was taking our orders in the Summer of 2006, they would have left Beirut alone. They would have done nothing to undermine the democratically elected government in Lebanon, which is something that Bush takes great credit for. We had helped put the government in power, and it was one of the big successes you could point to in Bush’s Middle East policy. If Israel was taking orders from us, they would’ve had a very different approach than us in Lebanon. It’s not that there isn’t some collusion, but the idea they are our obedient servant carrying out the wishes of American Imperialism in the Middle East is just dead wrong

MEARSHEIMER: Two quick points. The U.S. can’t use Israel to support its policies in the Middle East in a large part because it is radioactive, and by that I mean so unpopular in the region. We couldn’t use Israel in the first Gulf War or second Gulf War. My second point would be to focus on what happened after the Shah of Iran fell in 1979. Up until that point, the U.S. had relied heavily on the Shah to do much of its heavy lifting in the Middle East. After the Shah fell, the U.S. was deeply concerned that the Soviet Union might intervene in Iran, and number two that Iraq or Iran might try to dominate the region. In that case, we would need military forces in that region to deal with the problem did it arrive.

So, the United States, if we are to believe the story where Israel is our Rottweiler, then we should’ve been able to turn to Israel to replace the Shah. But, of course, we couldn’t do that, and instead we had to build the rapid deployment force, which is an over the horizon military capability. But we need bases in the Middle East to deploy equipment for the rapid deployment force should it have to come into the region quickly. None of the equipment for the rapid deployment force was put in Israel, because it was unacceptable for the U.S. to station or to put equipment in Israel. So, what we did is we developed a rapid development force of our own, and we deployed that equipment in Arab countries.

Why do these pro-Israeli groups have such a loyal and firm alliance with hawkish, Neo-conservatives and the Christian Right in recent years? This is, after all, the same Christian Right, if you read some of their ideology and dogma, who believe that the Second coming of Christ will end in either the mass slaughter or mass conversion of Jews in Israel.

WALT: The Israel Lobby is a heterogeneous group. They all want to maintain a special relationship with the U.S., but they don’t agree on everything. There are a number of prominent groups, such as AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, the ADL, the Zionist Organization of America. There are a number of moderate groups that support a 2 state solution as well. The Israeli Policy Forum, the Americans for Peace Now are just a few examples. Then, there is this movement of Christian Evangelicals known as Christian Zionists. The more influential and wealthier organizations have tended to be right of center and more hard-line. AIPAC for example is hard-line. The Zionist Organization of America is very hard-line, opposing a 2 state solution.

Wait, what exactly do you mean by “hard-line?”

WALT: Generally those who oppose a 2 state solution, or like AIPAC never endorsing it. And also, basically supporting the “Settlement” enterprise. Groups like Israeli Policy Forum believe in the 2 state solution and oppose the Settlement enterprise.

MEARSHEIMER: It’s marginally a function of how you think of the [President] Clinton parameters. The Clinton parameters would be a broad outline for a 2 state solution. Organizations like the Israeli Policy Forum, people like Dennis Ross endorse the parameters, I mean he helped craft them.

WALT: I think we argue this in our book, if you look at the major organizations they tend to be more right of center, but they have become more conservative over time, and become more aligned with the Likud party in Israel, more aligned at least politically with conservative movements here in the U.S. The Israeli Lobby has moved in a rightward direction over time. And, it has been strengthened by the Christian Evangelicals who believe, and I’m oversimplifying a lot here, but their view of Israel is shaped by their interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. They believe the re-establishment of a Jewish state in all of Palestine is foreordained in Biblical prophecy, and it is a key sign leading up to the Second Coming, the End of times.

Like a pre-requisite?

WALT: It’s a pre-requisite, it’s gotta’ happen. It’s one of several steps we have to go through. So, they oppose any form of Palestinian state, they oppose any withdrawl of the settlement enterprise, because they think that’s inconsistent with what the Bible has predicted.

MEARSHEIMER: What the Bible says is necessary for the End times to come about.

WALT: Now, as you said, obviously this image of what happens to Israel or the Jewish people is not optimistic. Either they die, are converted, or they get left behind. But, obviously, if you are Jewish you don’t believe any of that prophecy stuff, and therefore there has been a tactical alliance between these groups, because it strengthens the political influence of both hard-line organizations. To put it in crude terms, I think the Jewish groups don’t much care for the Christian Zionist’s other views, because they don’t think they’re true, and they’re happy to get their support on this foreign policy dimension. As we can see the support for our very confrontational policy with Iraq and Iran today, where the Christian Zionists have been very bellicose, as have members of the Israeli Lobby been as well.

MEARSHEIMER: An additional point to make is that Israel, itself, has been progressively moving to the right as well. If you look carefully at Israeli public opinion, there is little support for the Clinton parameters, which is the only meaningful way you can create a viable Palestinian state. The Israelis say they are willing to give the Palestinians a state and favor a 2 state solution, but when you see what the majority of the Israelis want to give the Palestinians it does not in any shape, way, or form add up to a viable Palestinian state. Basically, it would be a series of enclaves in the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip would be another enclave. These enclaves would not be territorially contiguous, not connected, and the Israelis wouldn’t give the Palestinians control of East Jerusalem. The point I’m trying to make is that the fact the Lobby is dominated by hard-line individuals is facilitated by the fact that it is a worldview that is largely reflected by a majority of Israelis.

Professor Mearsheimer, you and several academics recently convened in Chicago, Rockafeller Chapel, and you said academia is the only space where Israel is “treated as a normal country, where past and present actions are critically assessed,” and the place where public opinion on the matter is most accurately reflected. If that is the case, then how do we explain the abrupt denial of tenure of Israeli and Dershowitz critic Norman Finkelstein? [Finkelstein’s very public tenure controversy at DePaul University ended in September ’07 when the Board decided to reject his tenure bid, despite overwhelming support for Finkelstein by his peers, his students, and national and international scholars]

MEARSHEIMER: I said in my comments, academia “tends to be the one place,” where Israel is treated like a normal country. I think there’s no question that there is more criticism of Israel in the academic world and in college campuses, then there is in mainstream media. Nevertheless, the Lobby works very hard to influence the discourse on university campuses and goes to considerable length in influencing hiring and promotion decisions regarding critics of Israel. The Normal Finkelstein case is illustrative of this. Nobody disputes that the Lobby put considerable pressure on DePaul University to deny Finkelstein tenure. They will deny that the pressure had any effect on the ultimate decision to deny him tenure, but this is hard to believe.

You suggest in your book that the image and framing of the issues has been skewed to reflect Israel as a “David” fighting a “Goliath” that is the Palestinians and neighboring Arab enemies. How much of this alleged symbolism is actually reflected in reality? How has this image been popularized and cemented in the mindset of American psychology?

MEARSHEIMER: There is no question that Israeli’s supporters have been very successful in conveying the message to most Americans that Israel is a David surrounded by an Arab goliath. Anyone who looks carefully at the history of the conflict quickly discovers that is not the case. To be more specific, Israelis won the 1948 war decisively, they won the 1956 decisively, they won the 1967 war decisively, and they won the 1973 decisively after suffering a massive surprise attack. All those victories were gained before massive U.S. aid came to Israel.

WALT: Up thru ’67 that’s exactly right. The U.S. was starting to provide significant military aid after ’67, but the aid goes up even more after the ’73 war.

MERSHEIMER: So, Israel won those 4 wars, and since then no Arab state has picked a fight with Israel for the simple reason they all understand Israel is the “Goliath” and they are the “Davids.” Today, Israel has the most powerful conventional army in the region by far. It’s the only state in the region that has nuclear weapons, it has a couple of hundred of them. It has a very close alliance to the U.S., which would surely come to its defense if its survival is threatened. It has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and would have a treaty with Syria had it not walked away from the deal. So, Israel is not only the most powerful country in the region, but it also has peace agreement with some of its neighbors, two of them they have fought wars with in the past. And it would’ve have peace deals with 3 of its principle adversaries had they reached a peace deal with Syria.

The Saudis started in 2002 to push a peace initiative that would’ve brought peace between Israel and the Arab League, and they resurrected it again this year and pushed it again. This tells you that most of the states in the region are interested in reaching some sort of modus of endii with Israel. They understand it is very powerful and not going away anytime soon, therefore it makes sense to make some peace agreement. Israel is in excellent shape in terms of military balance. In terms of its dealings with its neighbors, it is in very good shape.

One might say what about the Palestinians? The Israelis have had opportunities to cut a deal with the Palestinians, especially during the 90’s Oslo Peace Process. But they have never shown any serious interest in allowing the Palestinians to have a viable state. If they could change their thinking on that conflict and bring themselves to evacuate almost all the West Bank, and allow for a Palestinian state, then we believe they would have good relations with the Palestinians as well.

WALT: You have to bear in mind the balance of power between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Israel, today, has the 29th highest per capita income in the world, now that’s not a poor country. Palestinians are deeply impoverished, unable to have a viable economy in the face of all of the obstacles presented now by Israel. The Palestinians have no army, no air force, no navy, they barely have an effective security force, and of course they are deeply divided internally. When any group of people is put into a situation like that, they are going to use any tactic available. Which is why of course the Palestinians have relied on terrorism. John and I both regard the use of terrorist tactics as deplorable, and the loss of innocent human life on either side is deeply, deeply regrettable. So, we’re not defending that. But, the point is that the Palestinians hardly pose an existential threat to Israel. It’s very much a one sided competition. The problem is for all of Israel’s considerable military power it still does not permit them to dominate the Palestinians to the point they won’t try to resist with any means they can come up with. But the idea that Israel is the vulnerable party here, and its various neighbors are all powerful has got reality turned upside down.

How does the Lobby skew this image, in your opinion, for the Average American psychology?

WALT: By constantly repeating how vulnerable Israel is, by constantly exaggerating the dangers that is faces. And, it does have security problems in addition to problems from terrorist bombings, it has problems with Hezbollah to the north. But the groups of the Lobby are hyping the exaggerated threat that Israel faces in trying to convince people its security is very precarious; that Israel might be destroyed anytime soon, that it faces a gigantic sea of enemies that aren’t interested in peace. But if someone looks carefully at the true military balance, or looks carefully at what Israel’s relations with its neighbors really are and what those neighbors have already offered, it suggests Israel is already quite secure in regards to its overall existence. Its survival is not in jeopardy. Its security can be significantly enhanced if it would reach a reasonable settlement with the Palestinians and take that whole problem off the table once and for a all.

MEARSHEIMER: The principle way that the Lobby creates this image of a beleaguered Israel is by working 24-7 to shape the discourse about Israel. The Lobby not only portrays Israel as a “David” surrounded by “Goliaths,” but it also goes to great lengths to silence those who argue that the opposite is the case.

Here’s a criticism. The U.S. is country with over 300 million people. We have blogs, the internet, op/ed publications, websites, liberals, republicans, and a diversity of opinions. How can a tiny minority of Jewish people, which is about 2 to 3% of our population, have that much influence? Is this some sort of conspiracy theory suggesting Jewish boogeyman who own the vast, diverse media we have in the United States?

MEARSHEIMER: We want to be absolutely clear we are not talking about a conspiracy. We are also not making an argument that pro-Israel groups control the media. Our argument is that the Lobby has to work very hard to shape discourse in the United States, because it does not control the media. Certainly, there are pundits and columnists and owners of newspapers who are naturally pro-Israel. There are many others that need to be reminded that criticism of Israel carries with it a significant cost. It’s there where the Lobby is great on what is written in the mainstream media in regards to Israel. Our argument is that they are very effective in that regard.

Let’s just talk about the discourse in the mainstream media about the Middle East. Where do you see evidence of Arab Americans writing columns in major newspapers? Where is the evidence of Arab Americans who are constantly on T.V. or on radio constantly criticizing Israel and defending the Palestinians?

Someone can say Fareed Zakaria is Muslim – [Fareed Zakaria is an influential and well known editor, columnist, and pundit]

WALT: He’s not Arab. He’s a South Asian Muslim. He does not take sides on Middle East questions very often. I think he understands this is a delicate issue, and particularly as delicate an issue for someone as prominent as he is who is known to be Muslim. Find me the Palestinian American columnist in the Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the SF Chronicle. They don’t exist.

MEARSHEIMER: What we have here in the United States is a one sided debate. We have pro-Israel forces and nothing else.

WALT: What you see of course is anytime a major media organization does publish something that is mildly critical they immediately get pressure put on them. For example, this past fall CNN ran a 3 part series on Muslim, Christian, and Jewish fundamentalism. The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, said it [CNN] suffered from an “unprecedented attack,” where organizations were putting pressure on advertisers that had bought advertising time. The whole purpose was not to stop the broadcast, because it already happened, but they wanted to put enough pressure on CNN that the next time a producer has an idea or a big story that is controversial, that producer is going to face an uphill battle. Or if a newspaper in Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, pushes an article that is critical of the Lobby, if the editor gets 5,000 letters protesting about that, then they will think twice the next time that they let something like that appear.

If you do this long enough and over many years, plenty of reporters, editors, and columnists realize it’s too much trouble. “I’ll write about something else, or I’ll write something bland.” That isn’t control of the media as in the old conspiracy scene, that’s an interest group, like how a number of interest groups work, working very hard to try and make sure that their story gets reported, and the other side tends not to get reported. I say “tend” because every now and then you see something representing the other side appear in various places, but the point is you want to make sure the balance of coverage is on one side.

MEARSHEIMER: I want to add another dimension to this. It is widely recognized in the U.S. that the Lobby has a powerful influence on U.S.-Middle East policy. If you look at almost all the critical reviews of our book, virtually all of the critics admit that the Lobby is powerful. Nevertheless, when you read American news accounts of U.S.-Middle East policy, you hardly ever see any discussion of the Israel Lobby’s presence, much less influence, in the shaping of the U.S. policy.

WALT: Not never, but it’s rare. It’s rare you find someone who is writing about Middle East policy who will devote a couple of paragraphs to the role that pro-Israeli forces are playing in shaping that policy. Even though everyone in Washington knows that they’re very influential.

Let’s talk about Iraq. You, unlike many academics, underplay the role of oil and oil lobbies in the Iraq War. If not oil, then what was the motivating reason for the pre-emptive attack, and how does/did Israel benefit from the attack on Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein?

MEARSHEIMER: With regards to the question of oil, there is hardly any evidence that oil was driving the Iraq war. Except for Kuwait, none of the oil producing states favored the war. And even though Kuwait favored the war, it didn’t push the U.S. hard to attack. Saudi Arabia was opposed to the war, as were the other oil producing states in the regime. There is hardly any evidence that I’m aware of that the oil companies which were pushing this war. The oil companies wanted to cut a deal with Saddam, so they could help him develop his oil fields, move his oil around the globe, and make lots of money in the process. The basic problem is there is not a lot of evidence to support the idea that oil was driving this war. What we believe was driving this was war was 1) The Israeli Lobby, and 2) the fact that George Bush and Cheney after 9-11 believed it was necessary to topple Saddam to win the war on terrorism. It’s a combination of them pushing this war to make this happen.

WALT: I would add to that, of course, the people who pushed for this believed it would benefit the U.S. and benefit Israel as well. They believed it would launch a process of political change throughout the Arab-Islamic world that would make the terrorism problem go away, enhance America’s overall strategic position by gradually creating a lot of countries that were Pro-American, and finally enhance Israel’s strategic position by creating a bunch of countries that were willing to make peace. They were tragically wrong on all counts. How would this war benefit Israel? The war didn’t benefit Israel, of course, it’s been a strategic disaster for Israel. It’s created a failed state nearby [Iraq], and it has enhanced the position of Iran, which is a country Israelis worry about even more than they worried about Saddam. This underscores a point we make in our book and make all the time is that the Israel Lobby in pushing for unconditional American support for Israel, and in some elements, pushing for hair-brained schemes like invading Iraq, it has been bad for the United States and unintentionally bad for Israel, too. It’s incorrect to see the Lobby as always pro-Israel. A lot of what they are supporting is very bad for Israel.

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker posits the U.S. is engaged in “The-Redirection,” whereby the U.S. and Israel are aligning themselves with moderate Arab dictatorships against Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. As professors of international relations and critics of the Israel Lobby, what blowback would this have, if any, on US-Muslim world relations?

MEARSHEIMER: The basic problem is that the strategy is not going to work. The fact is that Israel is radioactive in the region. The fact that Israel, the U.S., and Arab countries are going to form a right alliance against Iran and maybe Syria and Hezbollah is not going to work. Those Arab countries are going to be unwilling to reach an alliance with the Israelis and U.S. as long as the Palestinian issue continues to fester. One of the principle reasons for Condoleeza Rice is pushing for solution to a Palestinian problem now is because she understands now she can’t put together an anti Iran coalition without shutting down the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. But, there is no serious hope that conflict is going to be shut down anytime soon. That’s why you can’t put that balancing coalition against Iran together. In the populations of countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, there is a significant amount of sympathy towards Iran, and a significant amount of animosity towards U.S. and Israel.

WALT: One of those reasons those countries wont jump into bed fully with us on this, is because they are potentially fragile regimes and they worry about what their populations think if they were to try doing something like that. Second point to remember is Americans sometimes think we would be much better off if we had more democracy in the Middle East, and probably that’s true if you take a very long term view of it. But right now it’s false to imagine rapid democratic transitions in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. You would end up in countries that were very anti-American, because they don’t like the support we’ve given Israel and they also don’t like our support we’ve given to those ruling regimes as well.

MEARSHEIMER: One important piece of evidence that highlights how it’ll be impossible for the U.S. to put together that coalition is to see what happened during the Lebanon war in 2006. Initially, the Arab governments in Jordan and Egypt were very critical of Hezbollah, which is consistent with the policy that the Americans are trying to pursue. But, it quickly became clear to the leaders in Jordan and Egypt that the people in their societies sided with Hezbollah against the United States and against Israel. Therefore, the leaders in Jordan and Egypt had to turn on a dime and become critical of the U.S. and Israel and support Hezbollah.

Let’s close it with this final question and talk about U.S.-Muslim relations in regards to Palestine. Why is this issue, the Palestine issue, above all other issues at the forefront of the Muslim world’s anger against U.S. foreign policy? How does U.S. relation with Israel and the Lobby undermine or help our relations with the Muslim world in this regard?

WALT: For many people in the Muslim, Arab world there is a fundamental question of justice. What they see happening to the Palestinian people is a great injustice, although there were terrible crimes against Jewish people in history, and those crimes may justify the creation of a Jewish state. You can even argue on balance that it is ok to create a Jewish state in Palestine. John and I both thing it was a good thing. But, that act, creating a Jewish state in Palestine, involved the infliction of great crimes against the local residents – the Palestinians. Until there is some compensation and they are given a state of their own, and effort is made to compensate them and acknowledge what happened to them, the moral balance has not been equated.

Second, the entire episode resonates with the whole history of Western interference and domination of that region. It’s seen as another case where Western powers have inflicted great harm on Arab or Islamic peoples. So, it has a particular salience for people elsewhere in that region. Thirdly, it makes the U.S. look deeply hypocritical. The United States likes to talk about human rights, it likes to talk about democracy, it likes to talk about national self-determination. But here, by giving Israel nearly unconditional support, even as Israel continues its 40-year, 4-decade campaign to colonize the West Bank and previously Gaza, and for us to be supporting that enterprise the way we have is seen as deeply contrary to all the things the U.S. claims to stand for. That drives a number of people in the Arab-Muslim world, at least, makes them very angry. The fact we are so hypocritical and inconsistent with our own professed values.

MEARSHEIMER: It is the longest ongoing occupation in modern history.

WALT: It’s still ongoing; there are others like the British occupation of India that lasted much longer. Of all occupations that are currently happening, and there aren’t that many, it’s certainty the longest, continuing occupation that is still happening.

Arun Gandhi is 100 % correct, no matter what people like Judea Pearl have to say.

Could not have said it better than this. G-d bless you for trying to make people aware of the truth. The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. Fifty million plus Muslims want to murder the Jews by driving them into the sea WHILE THE WORLD WOULD REGRET THEIR DEATH, AFTER THE FACT OF COURSE JUST AS DURING THE HOLOCAUST!!!!!!!! Mr. Ghandi believes that the Jews have not held out their hand or an olive branch towards the Arab nations for the attainment of peace. He forgets that each time a Jew decides to reach out in peace to the Arabs it is perceived as a sign of weakness and the Arabs proceed to try to cut it off.

Could not have said it better than this. G-d bless you for trying to make people aware of the truth. The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me. Fifty million plus Muslims want to murder the Jews by driving them into the sea WHILE THE WORLD WOULD REGRET THEIR DEATH, AFTER THE FACT OF COURSE JUST AS DURING THE HOLOCAUST!!!!!!!! Mr. Ghandi believes that the Jews have not held out their hand or an olive branch towards the Arab nations for the attainment of peace. He forgets that each time a Jew decides to reach out in peace to the Arabs it is perceived as a sign of weakness and the Arabs proceed to try to cut it off.

Mr. Ghandhi's words are an insult to the work of his grandfather, Mahatma Ghandi. They incite hatred, and are bigoted. At best they are painfully naive; at worst they are chillingly anti-semetic. I shudder to think about the falshoods he promotes on college campuses with his M.K. Ghandi Institute for Non-Violence, quite a misnomer. In addition, I share Mr. Pearl's concerns that the Washington Post is irresponsible posting his biased views without any challenge or checking on its accuracy. I agree that the Washington Post has a moral obligation for decent and responsible discourse.

Horrible, insulting, thoughtless and prejudiced and reveals the inclinationto blame everything on the Jews..hostility, hate, remembrance of integrity and loyalty and bravery. We have existed more than 5700 years and we are still here, despite the violence and hatred of people and countries, for no reason except those who find it necessary to find a reason for that hatred. \
The article says we should forgive and forget. Not likely. I still feel a responsibility for the slavery of black peoplel and the uprooting of the American people. It is past, it is true, but we must never forget...if we forget, it will happen again and again. The violence is created by people who fear and need to feel superior in order to function. It is people like this man who supported Hitler.

ghandi,s comments go well beyond the criticism of the the state of israel and its history of military superiority. it is simply anti semetic at its core and shows her abusive personality. jewish identity is not tied to the holocaust. it is ties to almost 5000 years of historic proportion and humantic theater. i am a surviving child of a man who was in the death camps. i learned my judaism from him and a mother who was in the warsaw ghetto. my identity is imbedded in parents who taught me the lessons of history and the wonders of culture. ghandi owes no explantion. she simply needs to move on.

ghandi,s comments go well beyond the criticism of the the state of israel and its history of military superiority. it is simply anti semetic at its core and shows her abusive personality. jewish identity is not tied to the holocaust. it is ties to almost 5000 years of historic proportion and humantic theater. i am a surviving child of a man who was in the death camps. i learned my judaism from him and a mother who was in the warsaw ghetto. my identity is imbedded in parents who taught me the lessons of history and the wonders of culture. ghandi owes no explantion. she simply needs to move on.

I am surprised by the Post taking the stance of propagating hatred and anti-semitic views...it is quite regretable that such a newspaper will do it. Heed the words of this man because he lost his world because of this kind of hatred the Post is now helping propagate, change your ways and apologize to your G-d ( if you have one!!) I am NOT jewish but I want to say to you in no uncertain terms:
DO NOT TOUCH MY JEWISH BROTHER!

By the way..we use surgical laser-fiberoptics made in ISRAEL here in the US. We use NOTHING from India nor any Muslim country.

Also, it is very interesting how many Hindus and Muslims have no problem having a Jewish Surgeon, and having their procedure done at a Catholic/Christian/Jewish Hospital (Medical Center)

Mr. Pearl, I am very sorry for your loss, and the loss to the whole world of this brave journalist, your son Daniel.

I wish he had consulted with a non-muslim islamic scholar, on par with Mr. Robert Spencer or Mr. Hugh Fitzgerald of "Jihadwatch.org". Their writings are unique in the level of aptitude and truthfulness, which are gravely missing from our national dialog.

Certainly if he had, like poor Nick Berg, he would have realized how crazy and bloodthirsty Islam and Muslims actually are, and to stay as far away from them as possible.

Sir, have you read the Koran yet? The Hadith or Sira? I recommend that all Americans do so, and remember that the first victim of 9-11 was a female flight attendant who had her throat cut in front of the other passengers as a message of terror requiring immediate submission from the other helpless passengers.

I will not forget Mr. Daniel Pearl and what he stood for: honesty and openness, freedom of expression, freedom of the written word, and the never-ending effort to help the poor.

Sincerly,

Bryan Magnusson, SF, CA

Peace-loving Israeli is a contradiction, ALL Israelis are part of an illegal occupation. If Germany would have won WWII there would be 'peace-loving' Germans settle in Ukraine....

Peace-loving Israeli is a contradiction, ALL Israelis are part of an illegal occupation. If Germany would have won WWII there would be 'peace-loving' Germans settle in Ukraine....

Peace-loving Israeli is a contradiction, ALL Israelis are part of an illegal occupation. If Germany would have won WWII there would be 'peace-loving' Germans settle in Ukraine....

i am frightened and alarmed at the reaction and subsequent expulsion of mr gandhi from the university.

he overstated jeiwsh culpability- but he mostly called for jewish forgiveness of 60 year past events, and a moving forward dialogue.

sadly, that forgiveness is not responded to with like.

The letter I sent to Professor Pearl at the Daniel Pearl Foundation

Re: Professor Pearl's letter to the Washington Post

You should be ashamed, Professor Pearl, for your invocation of Daniel's death in response to Aru Ghandi's very astute and long overdue observations. That is a cheap trick. You have sacrificed your beautiful son to Zionism and now you want to squeeze all of the Zionist spin out of his death that you can.

Shame on you. You are as disgusting as the stereotype Jews have struggled with for generations.

Denis O'Brien, PhD/Esq.

Am I the only one who is confused as to why Professor Pearl was allowed to be a "guest voice"?
His post, though thoughtful and well written, boiled down to the following points--that antisemetic statements have caused great harm in the past and continue to cause harm, that Mr. Gandhi's post was such a statement and shouldn't have been allowed on the board, and that one can't criticize israel without offering suggestions for other ways israel can address certain issues. The article didn't raise any points that hadn't been raised by the other commentators, except the last point in which professor pearl basically asks us to give israel special treatment, where though everyone and everything else in the world is freely criticized, israel can't be critized without offering helpful alternatives.

My point is, however gracious his tone, his post offered very little that was new, and what was new was of dubious value. The only other point of novelty in his article was his invocation of his son. What happened to Daniel Pearl was undoubtedly sad and regrettable, but how does the unfortunate demise of his son make professor pearl any more qualified to speak on israeli policy or antisemitism? Few would argue that the family of any soldier killed in iraq are automatically experts on the war, foreign policy, the proper way to encourage democracy in iraq, etc. The parent of someone killed in a store robbery does not become transformed, by their tragedy, into an expert on crime or the complex forces and situtations that drive people to commit criminal acts. 0
Why is Professor Pearl (a professor of computer science, btw) elevated to guest commentator status?

60 women were shot at the Egyptian border attempting to escape the desparate situation created in the Gaza Strip by Israeli refusal to allow food, medicine, fuel to get through.
The enitre population is trapped in Gaza where all borders are closed and electricity has been shut off.
Courageous Israelis.

Professor Pearl is right.
Jewish identity is rooted in the ethical and humanistic tradition of Moses, Jeremaia, Mainonides and Einstein -- it needs no approval
from amateur identity-definers like Gandhi.

Contemporary Jewish identity shines through the lives and works of courageous young Jews like Daniel Pearl and their pursuits of truth, friendship, social justice and human dignity -- their accomplishments accentuate the emptiness of Gandhi's rhetoric.

Professor Pearl is right.
Jewish identity is rooted in the ethical and humanistic tradition of Moses, Jeremaia, Mainonides and Einstein -- it needs no approval
from amateur identity-definers like Gandhi.

Contemporary Jewish identity shines through the lives and works of courageous young Jews like Daniel Pearl and their pursuits of truth, friendship, social justice and human dignity -- their accomplishments accentuate the emptiness of Gandhi's rhetoric.

Dr. Pearl's comments are exactly on point. The Washingron Post has discraced itself by printing raciist hatred written by a member of the Ghandi family. It is, as Pearl points out, dangerous to target Jews who are, yet again, the victims - this time of Islamist Fundamentalism - as the perpetrators of violence when thery are involved in absolutely legitimate self defense.

Perhaps the Post thinks we should not respond to the killing of 3,000 innocent Americans and others in 2001 at the hands of these same murderers. These same murderers who bombed and burned the Balinese because they are Hindus or innocent children in Beslan Russia because they are Christian. We need to hear what Mr. Ghandi thinks about that - but I fear he never does think about that.

This should not come as a surprise. Remember what his grandfather advised the British and the Jews to do in the face of the Nazi onslaught (from the Wikipedia article on Gandhi):
"In accordance with these views, in 1940, when invasion of the British Isles by Nazi Germany looked imminent, Gandhi offered the following advice to the British people (Non-Violence in Peace and War):[25]

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

And his advice to the Jews facing annihilation . . . !

Really, is Israel fighting India's wars? Why isn't the American media and public as outraged by the US govt. winking at Pakistani terrorist groups when they attack India?

Mr. Omar Sheikh, the person accused to kidnapping Daniel Pearl, surrendered to Brig(R) Ejaz Shah, his former handler, who is a close friend of President Musharraf. Have the US and Pakistani states done what needs to be done to punish all associated with Daniel Pearl's murder?

Omar Sheikh was in an Indian prison in 1999 when soon after Musharraf took office, Pakistani terrorists hijacked an Indian Airlines plane, took it to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and demanded the release of their associates including Omar Sheikh in exchange for the 150 odd passengers they were holding hostage. The hijackers slit the throat of a newly married Indian man Rupin Katyal who was returning from his honeymoon on that plane.

After securing the release of Omar Sheikh and two others from Indian prisons, the hijackers released the hostages and themselves returned to Pakistan. One of the prisoners swapped Masood Azhar went on to openly start a new jihadi group of Pakistanis, Jaish e Mohammed which attacked the Indian Parliament in 2001. We all know what Omar Sheikh went on to do after his release.

Here's the point. Neither Pakistan nor the US has since responded to requests for information by Indian authorities seeking to bring those hijackers and murderers of Rupin Katyal to justice. US claims to be the epitome of freedom and democracy fighting a global war on terror. It claims the Musharraf regime is a frontline ally in fighting terror. Where's the outrage?

Are the self-propagated myths of America good enough reason for Indians to refrain from criticizing the US and Pakistani states for their actions shielding terrorists who attacked Indians and the Indian state (and eventually Mr Pearl's son)?

Can a world order even be sustained in which selected states are never criticised for their support of violence simply because they claim 'their' violence is righteous violence and all others' is evil?

Nice letter, but you should have mentioned how RiDICULOUS AND IRONIC it is that Islamic terrorists have attacked India virtually nonstop for many decades, and for at least 100 years now, so badly that they tore much of it away to form Pakistan... yet every week even in modern times Islamic terrorists strike india. Some smart cartoonist should draw some islamic terrorists blowing up innocent people in India while ghandi's dumb grandson stands a few feet away writing idiotic articles scapegoating the jews.

Does Israel have compulsory military service for its young people or not? Has it been in conflict with its neighbours for many decades or not? Are the latest series of conflicts past and future being driven by US security concerns regarding Israel or not? Do a majority of the world's Jews reside in Israel and the United States? Do a significant number of Jewish Americans approve of the US's Middle East policy including the Iraq war which killed 165,000 Iraqis?

Why is Mr. Pearl missing the violence in all of the above and instead promoting hate speech against Mr. Arun Gandhi because Mr. Gandhi sees a different solution to Israel's troubles than the ongoing relentless violence?

As a Jew whose family was very much affected by the holocaust I have come to the point of exhaustion and even anger about the use of the holocaust to excuse all things Jewish and Israeli. Israel is one of the most powerful nations in the world today and yet pretends to victimization while committing genocide (i.e., a holocaust) against an unarmed civilian population. While visiting Israel, Jews should spend a few days in Palestine to see what the "vicitm state" has wrought. It is sad to say that Israel has defied all the hopes of a state based on the moral principles of Judaism and is no better than the worst country doing harm to its own people and to its neighbors. Thank you to Arun Gandhi for telling it like it is.

"Victoria makes an excellent point: This forum should be wide and diverse, so that we can have a dialogue and hopefully do more than confirm our own opinions."

then maybe victoria should take her own advice and quit calling other posters IDIOT, BIGOT, ISLAMOPHOBE, and PIKEY.

sheesh..

Victoria makes an excellent point: This forum should be wide and diverse, so that we can have a dialogue and hopefully do more than confirm our own opinions. So while I think it unfortunate that the highly respected and widely liked journalist, Danny Pearl, be referenced by his father in the context of the Gandhi blog, I absolutely respect his right to do so and to grieve and try bring something good from the terrible and tragic death of his son in 2002. He was a human being of great integrity.

Arun Gandhi clarified the only objectionable part of his claim that "Israel and Jews" hold on too firmly to their holocaust experience by correcting the implication that the policies of the Israel are reflective of the views of all Jews. I can now agree with his clarified view. It is certainly not anti-Semitic.

However, I find University of Rochester President Joel Seligman's response to Mr. Gandhi's statement and apology paranoiac. Dr. Seligman was wrong to infer that
that Mr. Gandhi singled "out of Israel and the Jewish people as to blame for the "Culture of Violence." Mr. Gandhi's original and unclarified statements were:

"Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs."
"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."
Note the use of the terms "any nation" and "we" in these statements. The term "biggest" does not imply the term "only."

I must also strongly disagree with Mr. Pearls assertion made in other venues that being against zionism is racist. This is simply a ridiculous statement

You have to wonder how many people, proud of their religious faith, know the definition of faith. Webster's has it as "Belief not based on logical proof or material evidence." St. Paul wrote, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." Faith, in other words, is wishful thinking. It's no wonder the greatest crimes are those committed in the name of religion - which will always be the case so long as people base the most violent actions on assumptions they can't prove are true.

Reminder: Mohandas Gandhi wrote two letters to Hitler which were undelivered. Like his letters to Lord Irwin, they began "Dear Friend..." But the Mahatma was sufficiently pragmatic in Indian politics. Arun has oversimplified. How could Israel compare with the country that is now occupying Iraq? Isn't that far more similar to the occupation of India? Wouldn't the Mahatma's attempts to create good feelings between good Muslims and good Christians be a more appropriate spiritual message for today?

Hmmm...Christians and Muslims both borrow heavily from Jewish religion. So couldn't this post also have been including them in this "culture of violence". Maybe today's Jews weren't singled out by anything but their own paranioa from past treatment.

Maybe the "culture of violence" actually points to the inability of these sibling religions to share their common features. The latter, younger siblings both claiming to be improved and corrected versions of the worship of God/Allah. And the older siblings claiming original rights and calling the later siblings perversions or just wrong.

All three religions are very territorial witness the battles over Jeruseluem. All three tend to incite violence in the other -- most often by their simple existence, though sometimes by actions.

But then I didn't get to read the article. I just know that sometimes people tend to read persecution into where it was not intended.

sari- the point of onfaith is to encourage interfaith dialogue-
rather than only allow people who share the same faith to blog on their own affiliate religious questions, i believe the entire point of it is to establish communication between faiths-
so christians post on atheists panelists and pagans post on muslims and muslims post on jewish blogs-
ive certainly seen very vicious responses to pagans, christians and muslims alike here-

people share their experiences and make their connections in their own ways

persoanlly i like it this way- there are plenty of targeted sites to go to if we only want to hear views similar to our own-

we have to find deeper human connections here that transcends narrow sectarian identification

"Gandhi's Words an Insult to all Decent People"

Sorry, I respectfully disagree! He voiced his opinion about the state of Isreal. There was nothing anti-semitic about it.

Sari:

"They would not dream of doing this things to Christians and Muslims."

You are joking right???? Have you seen the blogs on here lately or are you only reading when it concerns Jewish heritage?

Thank you Dr. Pearl. Thank you for responding to the words of Mr. Gandhi. Please pay no mind to the hateful voices on this blog. They are ignorant. Unfortunately, so many people are hateful and ignorant today. They'd rather blame Jews and Israel for the problems facing the world rather than really study and analyze the roots of those problems.

Why does the Washington Post feel the need insult Jews each time there is a posting on Judaism. The last Jewish posting I saw, there was a Muslim woman who posted about her personal conversion to Islam.... nothing to do with Judaism. Now, the Gandhi thing. They would not dream of doing this things to Christians and Muslims.

Clearly Malcolm's posts illustrate the point Dr. Pearl raised. Keep on ranting Malcolm -- you and Arun Gandhi are peas from the same vile pod.

Clearly Malcolm's posts illustrate the point Dr. Pearl raised. Keep on ranting Malcolm -- you and Arun Gandhi are peas from the same vile pod.

As an Indian I would like people to know that many Indians feel betrayed by Gandhi and his grandfather. However, this article of his is no more an expression of anti-semitism than the pro-muslim agenda of his grandfather's was anti-Hindu. What it does tell us, however, is that the Gandhis stand for and uniformly apply the principle of non-violence no matter what common sense and reason tells them in different contexts. India took their advice and paid for it dearly. Now they would like Israel to do the same.

The first thing people do when they read or hear something that they don’t like is to whine about how “offended” they are. IMO, I could give a tick’s behind if they are “offended”. Their constant whining offends me.

Gandhi has nothing to apologize for. The fact is that the Zionists were inciting the other Western countries to go to war against Germany in the 1880’s. They wanted to get the European Jews to move to Palestine and to start a new country for Jews. In the early 1900’s they were buying land there and when the British took over they saw a golden opportunity to increase their presence. They needed a boogeyman to unite the Jews behind them and Hitler and the Nazis were perfect villains. In the end they flooded into Palestine, displaced the locals, got the U.S. to back them and used the world’s guilt to form their new nation Israel. They play us like a violin and we give them billions of our tax money that we should have used for our own people.

It’s interesting that they would have us believe that six million Jews were killed in WWII while they crow about surviving the concentration camps. I guess the survivors were collaborators who tossed the others into the one body ovens. I don’t know how else to explain the fact that they survived for years in the camps when the Nazis we so intent on exterminating them.

Contrary to what Mr Gandhi says, I am always amazed at how forgiving of the Germans, the Jews seem to be. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does appear intractable but I dont see how the Palestinians and the meddling Arabs and Iranians can be absolved of their role in it. Would merely befriending the Palestinians permanently solve the problem as Mr. Gandhi suggests? I dont think so. At some point in the future, when it becomes more favorable, many Palestinian and Israeli Arabs will also demand that the Jews either convert or allow it (Islam) to dominate Israeli national life. This can be safely predicted based on realities in India, Pakistan, Malaysia etc.

Unfortunately, Mr Arun Gandhi is taking a stance that is quite familiar to most Indians. Indeed, it was his grandfather Mahatma Gandhi who wrote to Churchill asking him to give up England and its 'fair lands', and all their possessions to Hitler's advancing forces, in the name of non-violence. It was also Mahatma Gandhi who wanted that the Hindus in India forsake almost everthing and compromise with the muslims for non-violence to be the dominant ideal. The eventual result of such irrationality was that muslim leaders hardened their stances and only demanded more in the form of a separate homeland (Pakistan) whose creation was opposed but could not be prevented even by Gandhi.

A fair and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot therefore be found by following the naive assumptions and inflexible principles that Mr Arun Gandhi (and his grandfather) stand for.

Congratulations to the Post

to have censored Mr Gandhi's original post would have been "prior restraint."

you didn't do that. Good for you.

you printed his "apology" - it was a Non apology, but hat is NOT the Post's fault.

Good for you again.

You apologized a third time, concluding after reasonable consideration that Mr Gs post WAS anti-semitic (I am not jewish btw(

I think that On faith and WAPO have been admirable in this episode. And I am always right.
"

Ha ha Mr. Ghandi, you got fired.

I am glad the Post printed your loony moral-equivalence-laden buffoonery. It is good for you to be exposed as the bigoted tool you are.

Dear Mr. Graham
Professor Pearl speaks the truth when she says great newspapers have a great responsibility to prevent irresponsible writing in their paper and on your blog.
I knew your mother and believe she would have been horrified to see this in "her" paper.

Dear Mr. Graham
Professor Pearl speaks the truth when she says great newspapers have a great responsibility to prevent irresponsible writing in their paper and on your blog.
I knew your mother and believe she would have been horrified to see this in "her" paper.

Dear Mr. Graham
Professor Pearl speaks the truth when she says great newspapers have a great responsibility to prevent irresponsible writing in their paper and on your blog.
I knew your mother and believe she would have been horrified to see this in "her" paper.

Dear Mr. Graham
Professor Pearl speaks the truth when she says great newspapers have a great responsibility to prevent irresponsible writing in their paper and on your blog.
I knew your mother and believe she would have been horrified to see this in "her" paper.

The remark by Arun Gandhi has been the topic of hot debate. I have been following the story through the Democrat and Chronicle. Arun Gandhi, head of the Nonviolence at the University of Rochester is a well educated, well respected man. His remarks are typical of a man of his stature and knowledge. Gandhi knows quite well that his comment would be attacked, yet he said it anyways. Gandhi showed courage. Our society has become extremely soft. And the reactions to Gandhi's remarks shows just that. Everything Gandhi said was truth. The Jews have, mainly because they are financially well off and protected by "all powerful" United States is able to get away with anything. The numerous holocaust memoirs and movies have over played the whole situation. The Jewish community has power and influence, how many times have we heard of the Rape of Nanking?, the cruelties of the Japanese against the Chinese, or the cruelty the Americans showed to the Vietnamese during the war, or the Israel Pakistan conflict that rages on today and the numerous crimes against humanity that occur every day? The Jewish community has the capital and the influence to create so much hype. Yet, they fail to remember that they are in the midst of an ongoing war with Pakistan. Israel and the Jewish community seeks sympathy from the world in order to keep the eyes off of the war, this sympathy the Jewish community creates leads many of this world's people to feel sorry for them and make their war seem like it is the right thing to do.
I would like to say one more thing. Gandhi should not be forced to resign from his position. Our society is too soft now a days, I do not care if you will begin to attack me but, Gandhi is a courageous man, he is able to stand up to the Jewish run society we live in today.

Professor Pearl,

I think Ghandi's comment was as insulting as it was narrowly opinionated - and I am talking about his second posting. But I think this section of the Washington Post does more long term good in allowing Ghandi his chance to speak his "true feelings" than having the Post editor preempt these statements. This forum allows commentation from all kinds of people, some I enjoy hearing from, others not so much, and some who just seem to enjoy barking.

I completely agree. Gandhi's article was a disgrace, and the Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for publishing it. Although I doubt shame is a concept they are familiar with.

Thank you, Judea Pearl, for your wise words. I hope all readers here will take a moment to remember your son and reflect on the message of his life and death:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5NRksR1trI

Perhaps it's time to look again at Hannah Arendt's concept of- "the banality of evil -the tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without critically thinking about the results of their action or inaction".

"No cause is left but the most ancient of all, the one, in fact, that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny."

When the Israelites attack the only safe place is the ho-house. From sacred scriptures, "only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house"

Joshua 6:17
And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.

Maybe the Hindu read the Bible?

Those who use genocide shall suffer genocide? Cry not for Israel for Israel cries not but for self.

We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal except the chosen people of God.

Where we value freedom of speech.
The overblown emotional reaction to Gandhi's post is more proof that one can say anything in America, exept criticize Israel.