One might ask why you find the truth inconvenient, NotSoLiberalVoice???

The paper doesn't seem all that rigorous to me, it's more sort of riddled with logical non-sequiturs. A quick example:

However, to the extent that Mearsheimer and Walt actually consider power questions, they provide ammunition for the other side. “Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East (8).” They concur with the finding of an Israeli study that “the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel (8).” Under such conditions, the United States would be expected to side with the strongest regional military power, the one capable of advancing our interests, Israel.

Or maybe the US might be expected to check the ambitions of the strongest regional military power? Landy gives us no hint as why the one part of his argument follows from another.

Nor does it help that Landy's first attempt at a counter-argument is a counter-factual: what if Israel did not exist? This is a useful debating point perhaps, certainly it elevates the sense that Mearsheimer and Walt are threatening Israel, but it is hardly a rigorous treatment.

And elsewhere Landy suggests that they undermine their own realism, because:

"Mearsheimer and Walt’s opposition to Israel stems from an even less “real” source than foreign public opinion, sympathy for the underdog."

Never mind that it is a perfectly "realist" position to hold that creation of an underdog is an inherently destabilizing action.

Must do better.

I also want to note that I have followed the past weekend's flame war with some frustration (and also some considerable amusement - it's very TPMCafe to speak affectedly, whether of knuckle sandwiches or of meetings on the field of honor). It's very clear to me that the "attacks" and the "anti-semitism" are very much products of MJ Rosenberg's own mind, and don't stand up to examination. The commenters here are far more nuanced than you give them credit for and you are damned lucky to have them.

To me the author seemed pretty reasonable. He was evaluating Mearsheimer and Walt's paper from the position on which it's authority was based. Every college freshman knows that one is expected to adhere to standards, and the two professors work was lauded because of the expectation they adhered to such standards.

The realist position is supposed to be unbiased, and based on realist fact. Israel might be the strongest military power in the region, but it is surrounded on almost all sides by hostile governments and has been almost continuously under besiege by terrorist groups... thus the impetus for building a strong military force. As to the creation of an underdog, the Palestinian people, one could say had an underdog status long before the modern state of Israel came about. And the fact that one can hardly point the finger of blame at Israel for this fact.. One could also posit that the Jewish people have had an underdog status for centuries.. one can continue in what would be no doubt a vicious circle on the subject.

Their ridiculous rationale that in part bin Laden attacked us on 9/11 because we support Israel.. considering bin Laden's nonchalance about how the Saudi's, the Jordanians have mistreated and abused the Palestinians living in those countries kind of tosses that rationale out the window.. one has to wonder at Mearsheimer and Walt's true intent in their paper on the subject.. they haven't seemed very credible to me at all.

Meh,

Its been a while since I read the original paper, and I was waiting for a scholarly analysis to see where the weak points are. This, unfortunately, is not it. Its a pretty light argument that substitutes a sneering tone for analytical depth.

Rather than argue against Bush’s decision to treat 9/11 as the reason to declare war on terror, they trivialize terror’s importance. “Terror is a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups; it is not a single adversary. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (e.g. Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the United States except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982) (5).

Surely there is room for conceiving of Middle Eastern terrorism as more
complex than “a single adversary” without so underestimating its significance as
to view it as a mere tactic employed by otherwise disparate and unrelated groups.
Mearsheimer and Walt cling to this desiccated understanding because to provide a
richer account of Islamist Fundamentalism, its use of terror and its broader
ambitions, would require them to perform the mental exercise suggested above. It
would force them to confront the fact that even if Israel were to disappear, the
hostility of Islamism to liberal democracy is so profound as to pose a serious
threat to the United States, and indeed to all similar regimes.

OK, he presupposes a priori that Islamic Fundamentalism is a unified whole. It would be nice if he defined "Islamic Fundamentalism" (big or little "f"), or terrorism. Since he is using words he doesn't define to establish connections he doesn't explain it is difficult to understand what he is attempting to establish. "Islamic Fundamentalism" can consist of suicide bombings in Israel, or women in Cairo deciding to take classes in Islamic virtues. Terrorism is about as amorphus a word as you can find.

Sure, they're using common sense meanings of words, and general understandings of complex phenomena to advance their argument. That's exactly what academic writing shouldn't do - defining your terms, supporting your assertions with facts and logic is what seperates scholarly research from Fox News.

I'm not suggesting that Mearsheimer and Walt are beyond reproach, and their article may very well be torn apart by a well researched, well argued paper. But this ain't it.

. . . one must question their motives in writing this piece the way they did.

And let the debate begin.

Heck, yeah! Let's get that debate going! Just as soon as we drop a few ad hominem insinuations, that is. Because that's exactly what's needed to make it a productive discussion.

"then one must question their motives in writing this piece the way they did."

Mr Baer, I'd be grateful if you clarified what you mean here - are you saying these men are anti-semites, or are you not?

If you really want to "let the debate begin," you might want to offer at least a brief synopsis of the Landry piece. Just a line or two summarizing his argument, maybe. Or even just a couple of hints or clues.

Many academics publish in non-peer-reviewed journals like the LRB. Some academics even publish on non-peer-reviewed weblogs, for that matter. Are you willing to say that they all do so because they are "unwilling to adhere to the academic standards that their profession follows"?

My apologies for the sarcasm. I don't know why I respond to this poster at all.

You're better than this.

This is what I wonder about. People on this site are called anti-semitic in a broad and ugly way. Yet true hate speech has no gatekeeping rebuke. There is no equivalent hatespeech "anti-semitic" term to humiliate people who participate in hating Arabs, Lebonese, Canadians, Americans,... nothing.

Just a polite, "You're better than this."

Actually, I'm okay with this. Instead of shouting "anti-semitic" just say, "You're better than this" when you encounter something offensive.

LiberalVoice,

People on this site are called anti-semitic ina  broad and ugly way.

So what?  Zionists are routinely generalized as extremists, Jews as traitors, and Israelis as racists with none of the outcry over charges of antisemitism.  I don't really understand the outcry over characterizations of antisemitism, whether real or imagined, anyway.  The claim that it "stifles debate" comes off as ridiculous whining.  Certainly, it's not like the characterization of antisemitism itself amounts to an accusation of genocidal Nazism, as the dramatics of the routine outcries suggest ("Methinks they doth protest too much," nu?), anymore than characterizations of racism amount to full fledged lynch mob behavior.  There are degrees, as in all types of cognitive maps and emotional baggage.

It is quite obvious that some TPMCafe contributors, such as transhuman, jexter and others, historically have had issues with Jews participating either as an equal member of the family of nations, or within the crazy quilt of American special interests.  Fine.  Whether their perspectives are antisemitic or not hardly factors in the rise or fall of their argumetns anyway.  And it certainly has no real bearing on the course of the debate, such as it is. 

Did Mr. Baer read the article in question? From his description, I'd think not. Landy offers no point by point refutation. The article is in its substance an argument for another reading of SOME of the evidence presented. That argument is by no means irrefutable; whether it is even persuasive depends on the assumptions that one brings to the paper. Nor is the dismissal of one lobbyist's claim that Jews ended Chuck Percy's senatorial career as something "not even [the lobbyist's] mother would believe" a rigorous standard of evidence.

False alarm!

let the debate begin. (Kenneth Baer)

Go debate with someone else. I don't agree with everything in the Walt-Mearsheimer piece; but I'll discuss it elsewhere. When you "question their motives," I stop listening. I'm not reading any more garbage about anti-semitism at the TPM site.

fair comment

flavius,

Yeah , some of the TPM comments do appear to be anti semitic and you and the rest of us should point that out. Which will be a lot more effective if we only say that when we mean it instead of it's being "routine".

Too bad it doesn't work that way.  I can be called a thug, a racist, a troll, etc., but if you point out what you may find antisemitic, you will be flagged for stifling the debate.  Heads they win, tails we lose.  You'll see.

Somehow, I don't think "anti-semitism" began with Wilhelm Marr.

Ellen, do not take my word for it.  By all means, look it up.

Israel Lobby Watch

Let not your lying eyes lose sight of this quote from Dianne Feinstein, who claimed in response to a recent email from me on the criminal collective punishments in Gaza...

Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles.  In this regard, Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship with Israel. Sen. Dianne Feinstein  7/11/06

I asked Sen Feinstein to explain for me just how these relations were "crucial to stability" and why Congress placed "considerable importance" on them.

While I am waiting for her answer, maybe Ken Baer would like to take a shot. After all, that is the linchpin of the M/W thesis...the strategic interests of the US

Or delete and prove my case that way.

Your petard..my hoist

Zionista,

Your replies [and others like you, Jew and non-Jew] give me the impression that you exercise the label of anti-semitism not so much as a categorical condemnation of something concrete but rather as a personal disposition toward encountering an argument that you so vehemently disagree with that you reach for the anti-semitism pressure relief valve.

I'm not trying to dispense a cheap shot here but this disposition seems to include a victimization argument, we lose.

For Americans who view the world materially, it is difficult to see the loss you speak of. Do you believe you are worse off in some way than 99% of the world's population? There's no evidence of such a thing.

And this is what offends intelligent people. To have so much and to insist that you're being discriminated against somehow simply defies logic.

What Racist has won? What thug has won? Are you serious?

LiberalVoice,

How would you define the low-end of the scale? And where does Israel come into the characterization?

Sorry, but I just don't see it in rigid linear terms.  However, I would say that assigning nefarious intentions to the nature of Jewish interests is a reasonable foundation of antisemitic tendencies.

Where I would say that Israel comes into an antisemitic (or otherwise bigotted) characterization is in the rejection of the legitimate national expression of Jewish identity that qualifies the Jewish people for the same right of national self-determination in their native region that is assumed of Arab peoples (or any other peoples with legitimate national aspirations, for that matter).  An extension of this idea is that Zionism is a monolithic expression of its most extreme elements, despite the fact that most Israelis, Zionists and Jews reject the idea that Jewish and Arab national rights are mutually exclusive in the former British Mandate.

But you did say that those who accuse others of antisemitism tend to do so in the name of the Holocaust:

No. I said, "THE HOLOCAUST, and so on".  The so on being the important part you selectively parsed out.  But come now, would the label anti-semitic have any veracity without that moral understatement?

In America the Holocaust is imprinted into every schoolchild's brain to the ignorance that the Jewish Holocaust is  most eminant among human atrocities.  And equally imprinted is the idea that slighting a Jew amounts to "anti-semitism"!  Is this news to you?   This coupling isn't co-incidental and it isn't my invention.

But you're stalking a way to pull out that wildcard aren't you because anyone who refuses to accept your nonsense must be, well...

go ahead and say it.