Obama Surrogate Calls Walt & Mearsheimer 'Specious, Dangerous, Venomous.' Well At Least They're Not Bitter.

I've praised Daniel Kurtzer many times for his great book on Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, which in many ways parrots the argument of Walt and Mearsheimer that the Israel Lobby has strangled the peace process by compelling the U.S. to stick by Israel right or wrong. 

I have to take some of that praise back. Kurtzer is Obama's surrogate, and here he is in the Philadelphia Jewish Voice, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, smearing Walt and Mearsheimer before a Jewish audience in order to advance Obama's campaign:

Now, we’ve seen in this country, specious, dangerous, venomous arguments couched in academic terms, couched in public policy terms, that seek to undermine the support of Americans for the state of Israel. I’m now something of an academic. I don’t think my academic colleagues quite see me that way, but I go to work with them everyday. And I see two professors, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, under the guise of an academic exercise, write such nonsense about the policy process in this country, about the pro-Israel community in this country, and about politics, it really just blows the mind. It’s amazing.

And yet, it’s against that backdrop that we are blessed with three candidates in whom we can trust with respect to their support for the state of Israel. And Barack Obama is among those candidates.

Note the little air-kiss to McCain there. Disgusting. This is a smear campaign, designed to prove Obama's bona fides. The problem is that the Jewish left generally goes along with it, rather than standing up for Walt and Mearsheimer, who are serious and honest scholars. I bet Obama, who is also serious and honest, and baked in a progressive world, has read their work. Why doesn't someone ask him that question? 
 

Comments

[Steve]

All candidacies are based on lies and pandering.

Surprise, surprise, Obama's is no different.

Having said that, campaign b.s. by surrogates doesn't necessarily translate into policy.

For some probably misguided reason on my part, I suspect that Obama will toe the neocon/Israeli rah-rah line less than either Hillary or certainly McCain. Toe it he will, but a slight break with the official line would I think open the national dialogue up to a more critical analysis.

[Richard Witty]

Phil,
You've invested FAR too much in Walt/Mearsheimer's work.

It deserves much of the criticism that it got.

[Richard Witty]

Phil,
Are you singly loyal because it is consistent with your values?

Or because in your mind patriotism is more important than values?

If the United States committed to a policy on a permanent basis that conflicted with values that you considered fundamental, would you consider leaving the US?

[Richard Witty]

Also,
Did you read my question to you about parallels between your personal clarification of your single loyalty (after a "childhood" of a-loyalty) and Podhoretz' clarification of his patriotism?

Any comments?

[Jim Haygood]

.

"The problem is that the Jewish left generally goes along with it, rather than standing up for Walt and Mearsheimer, who are serious and honest scholars."

*sigh*

It seems that every time one scratches below the surface of the so-called "Jewish left" -- those tolerant folks who lean Democratic, and openly-mindedly support a two-state solution -- one finds a ravenous zionist wolf lurking under the liberal sheep's clothing.

If Kurtzer really feels that M&W wrote "mind-blowing nonsense," how seriously can we take any of the rest of his views? Are they just positioning on his part -- or has he reached some good conclusions from bad assumptions?

Man, I'm glad Phil's still around. Witty is so exercised about his having aired the dual-loyalty canard, that I was afraid Witty and the Stern gang might have ambushed him on the Taconic Parkway.

[Bill]

Richard, you are obviously an intelligent man, and faithful to your upbringing, but you should try to think outside the box. If you were brought up in a Muslim home, would you still have the same Zionist position? If you were brought up in a non-religious environment, would you believe that a burning bush spoke to a wanderer and gave him the rules of engagement? We were all programmed as children (always with the best intentions). We can always see the faults with other beliefs,ie the Mormon sect in Eldorado, but seldom in our own. Try to put aside your prejudices, think of the other sides position. Can you, in all fairness, justify the brutal domination of the Palestinians, or the thief of their lands?

[samuel burke]

why muzzle the issue out of mainstream media if there is no fear of reprisals, why intimidate candidates if there is no fear of reprisals. the sooner this issue is brought out the less the backlash, the longer the oppression goes on the worst the reprisals.

who can really blame americans like walt and mearsheimer for feeling the way they do about the subject of jewish zionist americans oppressive practices against the government of the united states?

money is power and the money power is betting on a horse that has already lost this race, but they fell in love with this horse a long time ago and they cant seem to pull back the bets that have been placed on it, the horse being zionist israel.

if the zionist jews who keep this issue out of the mainstream media werent afraid of this issue catching the attention of john doe in middle america then why do they excercise so much power in keeping the issue out of the press?

like phil says one day even a wus like chris mathews will blurt it out and name aipac by name.

until an american political candidate takes this issue on headfirst there will be no real progress made on it.

[Richard Witty]

"Can you, in all fairness, justify the brutal domination of the Palestinians, or the thief of their lands?"

No.

When did I ever justify anyone's brutal domination?

"By any means necessary", doesn't cut it. The way to propose a different US foreign policy is to.

Among the various proposals that are possible, there are very very different colleagues than among the demonization approach.

There is a very real problem in Palestine, which is the deferred, and not so deferred, civil conflict (sometimes war) between Hamas and the PA.

Israel cannot be the party that unifies Palestine. It is up to Palestinians to consider their national affirmation as more important than their national irritation.

But, until Palestine is unified, and to the extent that all significant parties adopt the agreements and law of the prior, then Israel realistically has "noone to negotiate with" as galling as that term sounds.

It is relevant for individuals to communicate with Hamas, even unofficially inviting discussion between Israel and Hamas by agency, but so long as there is civil war, there is no Palestinian weal.

While the settlement exercise is obviously driven by likud policy of annexation and some pressure to dispossess individual and collective Palestinians, it is also laudable that the settlement exercise is GREATLY slowed, and has been since Oslo.

There are only two cases of new state authorization of settlements since 1994, but MUCH expansion within already authorized settlement geography (that Israel inferred would not be built on, even with the formal delineations.)

While on the surface waves, it looks like Israel is the "cause" of all wrong, at the tidal level, the ball is in Hamas' court, to either kill its national aspiration, or to willingly compromise sufficiently to achieve it.

[Richard Witty]

Walt/Mearsheimer represent a tactical recommendation, a change in tactical thinking.

What is US interest? How do you even go about assessing what that might be?

Does it mean the "choice" of pandering to Saudi, Iranian, Kuwaiti, UAE control over oil, while doing NOTHING to effect the change in US dependance on that oil?

I say that US interest includes commitments to existing long-term allies, especially now that there is coherence between the Israeli need for stability and security, and all of the other states' needs for stability (with the exception of Iran).

And, most importantly, it includes the commitment to conserve energy.

With that, we actually have choice as to the basis of policy, including the prospect of actually adopting an ethical consideration.

[LeaNder]

?
"What is US interest? How do you even go about assessing what that might be?
?

Surely not a longterm war (WWIII/IV) against a whole series of ME states.

Without the above scenario the world would not have witnessed the publication of W/M's article and book. (Faster Please: Iran!)

Simple.

[jonathan ekman]

Most of the Jewish left is guilty of what
Stephen Sniegoski has called "Israel Lobby
Denial", but the courageous example of Jeff
Blankfort (whose essay on Iraq, A War for
Israel deserves to be widely read) should
never be forgotten.

[Richard Witty]

Anybody remember what Walt/Mearsheimer proposed instead of the Israel as prime US ally proposal?

I don't remember any other alternative being presented.

[MM]

"Can you, in all fairness, justify the brutal domination of the Palestinians, or the thief of their lands?"

There is no Palestinian people!

They were immigrants!

The land wasn't stolen it was granted!

They had no title!

The Arab armies started it!

The Palestinians are choosing extremeism!

Hitler! The Mufti!

They blow themselves up in our pizza parlors!

They are ignorant Arabs!

Judaism needs it!

God commands it!

How am I doing Bill, you need more or can we stop there?

[bondo]

"It seems that every time one scratches below the surface of the so-called "Jewish left" -- those tolerant folks who lean Democratic, and openly-mindedly support a two-state solution -- one finds a ravenous zionist wolf lurking under the liberal sheep's clothing." - jim haywood

worth reposting. left zionist, right zionist=zionist. left jew, right jew=zionist

[bondo]

correction:jim haygood. sorry, jim

[americangoy]

Richard Witty:

"

Phil,
Are you singly loyal because it is consistent with your values?

Or because in your mind patriotism is more important than values?

If the United States committed to a policy on a permanent basis that conflicted with values that you considered fundamental, would you consider leaving the US?"

Lets flip it!

Richard Witty,
Are you singly loyal because it is consistent with your values?

Or because in your mind patriotism is more important than values?

If Israel committed to a policy on a permanent basis that conflicted with values that you considered fundamental, would you consider leaving the US?

Ohhh this is TOO good...
May I suggest an Israeli policy that might conflict with fundamental values of a (good) person - saaaaay, occupation and oppression of Palestinian Arabs?

[LeaNder]

;)
Richard Witty: Anybody remember what Walt/Mearsheimer proposed instead of the Israel as prime US ally proposal?

I don't remember any other alternative being presented.

LeaNder: Wonderful!!! Yes that is it precisely!!! How about a multilateral approach?

"What kind of animal is that? Never heard of it." [Witty said]

"Are there any candidates at all besides Israel?" [Witty asked] Adding: "Doubtful."

That's it!

Big and little hegemon. versus the rest of the world. That solves the problem of double loyalty, no doubt.

gone for today ... ;) but thanks a lot!:)

But can you please, please stay that straightforward. It's refreshing.

[Charles Keating]

"What is US interest?" (Witty)

Try this: To ensure the safety and prosperity of the American people.

"How do you even go about assessing what that might be? " (Witty)

Try this: (1)Assure access to the Middle East's oil and gas. How? Prevent any local power for establishing hegemony in the Gulf. And deter outside powers from gaining control of that region.
(2) Hence, discourage local states from acquiring WMD and destabilizing the area. (3) Reduce anti-Americanism terrorism. (3) Encourage spread of democracy, but not at the point of a gun, either the USAs or a proxy's.

Neither the USA's territorial integrity, its military power, its economic prosperity, nor its core political values would be jeopardized if Israel was conquered (very unlikely, given its military power and nuclear deterrent).

Return to an Offshore balancing policy a la the Cold War, rather than continue the current misguided policy of regional transformation hitched on the back of 9/11. In short, the USA does not need to control the Middle East, it merely has to assure that no other country does. No preemption. Intervene only as a last resort, finish the job quickly, move back offshore. This would do much to lessen the resentment and fierce resistence caused by USA boots on the foreign ground. Terror against the USA would diminish accordingly.

Offshore balancing (divide and conquer) gives states like Iran and Syria less reason to worry about a USA attack, hence less reason to acquire WMD. Threaten the locals less, make them more likely to seek USA help--don't lump them together in an "axis of evil" which encourages them to join forces against us.

Instead of trying to topple Åssad regime in Syria, push Israel to cough up the Golan Heights in exchange for a peace treaty, which would recognize Israel, isolate Hezbollah in Lebanon, drive a wedge between Iran & Syria, reduce Iran's ability to aid Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, encourage Damascus to help the USA deal with al Œaeda and other terrorit groups.

Finally, forget threatening Iran with preventive war, an approach that fires Iran's desire for WMD and allows Åhhmadinejad to use nationalist sentiment to deflect popular discontent--USA should try to cut a deal with Iran on nukes, putting Iran's hard-line leaders on the defensive.

Is this approach worse for the USA than what we have now? Secondarily, is it worse for Israel?

Treat Israel as a normal state sans pretending the USA's and Israel's respective interests are always the same. No Israel right or wrong. Gradually wean Israel from the current economic and military aid the American taxpayers give it annually.

There is no good reason to keep giving Israel handouts as the USA has done since the early 1970's, especially since there are so many other countries that need help more.

Above all, the USA should use its considerable leverage to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end. While reaffirming committment to Israel's security within its jpre-1967 borders, the USA should tell Israel clearly that it is dead set against Israel's expansionist settlement policy and land-grabbing "security fence." Ending the occupation would help divide and defuse the coalition of forces that doomsayers now see arrayed against Israel.

The USA bankrolls Israel and jeopardizes its own security by doing so. So the USA is fully justified in pressuring Israel.

Israel would have a choice, become a real USA ally or go on its own as colonial power. The USA has played hard ball with many close western colonial empire-allies in the past, as well as Japan and South Korea. It has forced Israel out of Egyptian land following the 1956 Suez War.

[surrogate]

There must be peace in all the world.