Legendary 'NY Review' Hasn't Gotten Around to Walt & Mearsheimer, Now Out for a Year

More than two years ago the New York Review of Books published a piece by Michael Massing that began: "Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations?' in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force as 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,' [published in the London Review of Books in March 2006], by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government..." The piece went on for pages.

And that's the last the NYRB has had to say on the matter. The forceful 2006 essay in LRB has now given way of course to a forceful book, published more than a year ago. Search NYRB for Walt and Mearsheimer and you turn up a letter or two after Massing's piece, but no review. I say The Israel Lobby is the most important book on foreign policy published in the last year; and the most important literary review in the country has had nothing to say.

I hear that the Review commissioned a review some time ago and then turned it down, for what reason I have no idea. But the Review's inability to pronounce on this important book is symptomatic of the discomfort in the establishment--even the left-lib establishment--over the depth charge that Walt and Mearsheimer dropped and, given the importance of the authors'  charges re the Iraq-war neocons and Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians, is a regrettable abdication of cultural power. Assign Max Rodenbeck.

Comments

[Richard Witty]

So what?

You know its not going to happen at this point.

What do you hope to change by this effort, re: Israel Lobby?

[Richard Witty]

Do you find anything of merit in the liberal Zionist criticism of your blog?

Or, is it all dismissal and contempt?

[otto]

The NYRB may have received a ranting, TNR style review of Walt and Mearsheimer, and refused to publish it in order to avoid further polluting the public discussion of the book.

In fact, I wonder if the major political science journals have yet published reviews of the book?

[Paul Easton, Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, Belly Of The Beast]

Well Richard, I sometimes find it meritorious when you are mean to Phil, but I have only dismissal and contempt to offer for your political point of view.

[otto]

There's little or nothing 'liberal' in Richard Witty's commentary on this blog.

[Paul Easton, Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, Belly Of The Beast]

I dont follow the NYR because of the excessive price. As with the NY Looney Tunes, when you go upmarket you need to worry about offending your readers, since losses will not be replaced.

[Phil Weiss]

richard sometimes they do reviews more than a year later and it still has impact. i hope they do so now.
my probelm with the liberal zionist critique of the blog, and maybe i'm not up on the chpapter and verse, is that: they play even-steven with the israeli occupation and palestinian violence, when i think, hey we're jews, let's look after our moral house first, ala herskovitz of ann arbor about whom i blogged saturday; and also that they always tend to overlook the absolute disaster of iraq,which i think flowed in good part from the pervasion if that's a word of the zionist critique of the arab world into the american foreign policy idea bank. so i think iraq alone should have precipitated a critique of zionist ideas, in the jewish communiyt, and the lib zionists aren't doing so. i guess i havent convinced em!

[D.]

In NYRB's defense, 99.44% of potential Jewish reviewers must feel duty-bound to attack the message, and 99.44% of Gentile reviwers must feel terrified to support the message.

Basically, our society has gotten into a position where we can't conduct an adult discussion on any subject touching on Jewishness. (Unless of course it's "antisemitism.")

[JIm Haygood]

"pervasion if that's a word"

Prolly you meant "pervasiveness." But it's a good coinage nonetheless -- the zionist-incited perverse invasion of Iraq definitely was a "pervasion" in my book, as are their beachheads in the press (Bill Kristol et al).

[Richard Witty]

Phil,
You EVADED the question.

The question was "Do you find anything of merit in the liberal Zionist critique of your blog?"

You sound like Sarah Palin.

[Richard Witty]

Paul,
You don't have a clue as to my positions/conclusions.

My points to Phil are about whether he engages in thinking on this blog, or propaganda.

[ignorewitty]

I know that Witty and Phil go back in some way, but jeezus, can we just ignore his asinine comments and try to have substantive discussions here? I don't really have an issue with his politics, but if I want to engage with liberal zionists I'd rather lock horns with Dan Fletcher or any number of other people. The problem here is that Witty makes no sense - about half of his postings are hardly even grammatical much less intellectually coherent. I think it's time we set him out to pasture. I'm not for censorship at all -- Witty, comment away -- but why in the world do others on this blog inflate his sense of importance by trying to respond to him? Just ignore him.

[otto]

"Do you find anything of merit in the liberal Zionist criticism of your blog?"

I agree that this question should be ignored. It's like Richard Witty wants a cookie or a pat on the head for being such a good boy.

[Richard Witty]

What, the liberal perspective is too inconvenient for you?

Do you read the grammar of Phil's posts when he posts in comments?

Not suitable for his resume, I promise you.

[Richard Witty]

What, the liberal perspective is too inconvenient for you?

Do you read the grammar of Phil's posts when he posts in comments?

Not suitable for his resume, I promise you.

[Duane]

You have to look outside the MSM for any honest and challenging review of this book:

http://calitreview.com/256

[LeaNder]

"pervasion if that's a word"

Prolly you meant "pervasiveness." But it's a good coinage nonetheless -- the zionist-incited perverse invasion of Iraq definitely was a "pervasion" in my book, as are their beachheads in the press (Bill Kristol et al).

Posted by: JIm Haygood | September 14, 2008 at 04:54 AM

Actually I read it as pervasion, but as a choice that carried along a little of an orthographic neighbor, as a secret suggestion, a tiny accompanying whisper: perversion.

[LeaNder]

Do you read the grammar of Phil's posts when he posts in comments?

Not suitable for his resume, I promise you.

[...] Richard, everybody here knows that you over-conform to society's standards. ...

But concerning grammar, how about revising your own expression or style or reflection?

[peters]

i second ignorewitty.

[peters]

i second ignorewitty.

[peters]

i second ignorewitty.

[LeaNder]

Jim, another word that circled around Phil's choice in my head was: permeation.

But no doubt the -ness noun-formation is the most productive, or fecund, and thus an appropriate choice in the Palin ;) context.