Discussing the Israel Lobby: Mearsheimer & Walt vs. Dershowitz

[CRGreathouse]

This is a thread for discussing the existence, influence, and exceptionalism of the "Israel Lobby" as proposed by Mearsheimer & Walt and rebutted by Dershowitz.

First, the papers themselves:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf, Mearsheimer & Walt (2006)
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/abstract_dersh1.htm , Dershowitz (2006)

I have attempted to suggest a number of different controversial viewpoints below. With any luck, both sides will think that I'm siding with their opponents.


Some questions to consider (or not):
* To what extent are disparate U.S. groups supporting Israel more cohesive than other collections of interest-joined lobbyists (hence "The Lobby" rather than "lobbyists")?
* For specific examples of persons and organizations belonging to the lobby, are the choices reasonable? Exhaustive?
* How can the size and influence of the lobby be measured?
* Is the press unusually favorable to Israel? How can this be measured? If so, is it more biased toward Israel than it is biased in other ways?
* To what extent is support of Israel costly to the U.S., relative to other policy goals?
* To what extent does MW mirror anti-Semitic propaganda? To what extent has the threat of being labeled anti-Semitic shut down debate?

Specific criticisms of Mearsheimer & Walt 2006:†
* Quotes taken out of context
* Lack of research (is it bad to be 'just' a compilation?)
* Factual and logical mistakes
* Low-quality/biased sources: if the information is right why can't a reputable source be found?

† There is no similar section for Dershowitz because Dershowitz responded to Mearsheimer & Walt, not the other way around.


When replying to this thread, please focus on the facts at hand; resist the tendency to fall into ad hominem attacks. Please support all facts with arguments or citations: what is obvious to you may not be obvious to others -- it may even be false! Also, respect the rules of the board in order to delay the nigh-inevitable closing of this thread.

 

[drizzle]

...
Some questions to consider (or not):
* To what extent are disparate U.S. groups supporting Israel more cohesive than other collections of interest-joined lobbyists (hence "The Lobby" rather than "lobbyists")?
* For specific examples of persons and organizations belonging to the lobby, are the choices reasonable? Exhaustive?
* How can the size and influence of the lobby be measured?
* Is the press unusually favorable to Israel? How can this be measured? If so, is it more biased toward Israel than it is biased in other ways?
* To what extent is support of Israel costly to the U.S., relative to other policy goals?
* To what extent does MW mirror anti-Semitic propaganda? To what extent has the threat of being labeled anti-Semitic shut down debate?
...

Unfortunately, it cannot be measured, since all the press and media [western] are showing the same level of defending and supporting to whatever actions Israel does, and if other shows differ than that [The Lobby] will take care of it!

 

[kyleb]

I think Mearsheimer and Walt's paper stands fine on it's own and answers the questions list as well, while I've yet to find anything of substance in Dershowitz's response, or even anyone on this forum who cares to back any specific argument of his, so I won't bother adressing any at this point, but http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html".

In regard to the lobby's influence in our media, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfiEpvGQ_E0". That common misunderstanding of Camp David II and Scarborough's retort "I read the New York times, the Washington Post, and Foreign Affairs. You know what I'm going to do, I'm going to throw those away" sums up the situation nicely. I've yet to see any sign that Joe is taking his own advice, but of course I'd expect him to be ostracised if he did. When it comes to coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict, you'll find notably more even-handed reporting in Israel's own mainstream media than we get in ours.

 

[kyleb]

Would you so demonstrate, ideally on the other thread? :)

Do you have any contest with how I did so previously in the other thread?

The massive support for http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/28/1005474/aipac-backed-letter-gets-329-house-signatures" .

While the letter presents the facade of supporting peace, the statement "the parties themselves must negotiate the details of any agreement" is a rather thinly veiled call for Obama to end his pressure towards a settlement freeze, effectively endorsing the status-quo which has allowed settlement expansion to continue for decades. Sure, most congressmen aren't so bold as to openly call for wiping Palestine off the map, but if you care to look for those opposing settlement expansion you'll soon note there are hardly any to be found. On the other hand, http://www.forward.com/articles/11794/".

Also worth noting is the fact that those Dershowitz attacks mentioned above are all pushing for a two-state solution on the basis of international law, as anything less wouldn't leave Palestine as a viable independent state. So, I suppose you could call it the "greater Israel" lobby if you prefer, but "death to Palestine" is the other side of the same coin.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Unfortunately, it cannot be measured, since all the press and media [western] are showing the same level of defending and supporting to whatever actions Israel does, and if other shows differ than that [The Lobby] will take care of it!

That sounds unnecessarily defeatist.

Also, you're assuming the conclusion you desire -- you need to *show* this.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think Mearsheimer and Walt's paper stands fine on it's own and answers the questions list as well, while I've yet to find anything of substance in Dershowitz's response, or even anyone on this forum who cares to back any specific argument of his, so I won't bother adressing any at this point

That seems directly opposite my purpose: to stimulate discussion on this issue. What you see as obvious your opponents don't see at all. Please don't rest on the weak argument, "I can't see anything of substance in my opponent's argument to debate".

If you'd like specific points to rebut, I suggest:
* The two Ben-Gurion "out of context" quotes (D, p. 20)
* The claim of logical weakness, for example in this passage (taken from MW, p. 43):

Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Do you have any contest with how I did so previously in the other thread?

Yes. You don't demonstrate the existence of the lobby you propose. You mention government officials with plans that support Israel or hint at supporting Israel. But government officials could come to support those plans without a lobby at all, let alone the overarchingly powerful and sinister one MW propose.

Even the article on the apparent whacko Brownback suggests that his position is to shore up support amongst conservative Christians -- and fishing for votes isn't something that needs to be explained away by a conspiracy.

So please present what evidence you have. People supporting things you don't like is not evidence of a global conspiracy.

 

[kyleb]

Mearsheimer and Walt adressed Dershowitz's argument's on the Ben-Gurion quotes directly http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html", which previously I linked above:

Dershowitz also claims that we quote David Ben-Gurion ‘out of context’ and thus misrepresented his views on the need to use force to build a Jewish state in all of Palestine. Dershowitz is wrong. As a number of Israeli historians have shown, Ben-Gurion made numerous statements about the need to use force (or the threat of overwhelming force) to create a Jewish state in all of Palestine. In October 1937, for example, he wrote to his son Amos that the future Jewish state would have an ‘outstanding army . . . so I am certain that we won’t be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbours, or by some other way’ (emphasis added). Furthermore, common sense says that there was no other way to achieve that goal, because the Palestinians were hardly likely to give up their homeland voluntarily. Ben-Gurion was a consummate strategist and he understood that it would be unwise for the Zionists to talk openly about the need for ‘brutal compulsion’. We quote a memorandum Ben-Gurion wrote prior to the Extraordinary Zionist Conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in May 1942. He wrote that ‘it is impossible to imagine general evacuation’ of the Arab population of Palestine ‘without compulsion, and brutal compulsion’. Dershowitz claims that Ben-Gurion’s subsequent statement – ‘we should in no way make it part of our programme’ – shows that he opposed the transfer of the Arab population and the ‘brutal compulsion’ it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not ‘discourage other people, British or American, who favour transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our programme’.

Furthermore, Dershowitz's argument on the first quote is a flagrant misrepresentation:

First, the authors have Ben-Gurion saying, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” The clear implication is that this would be done by force.

In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt's intent in presenting that quote is plainly stated in the two sentience preceding it:

The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi‐national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective.

As for the the claim of logical weakness, the comment you quoted through Dershowitz is better understood when it isn't deprived of context:

Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U.S. support intact. As Richard Gephardt, the former House Minority Leader, told the American‐Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), “Without [your] constant support . . . and all your fighting on a daily basis to strengthen that relationship, it would not be.” This quote was downloaded from the AIPAC website [http://www.aipac.org/] on January 12, 2004. Also see Michael Kinsley, “J’Accuse, Sort Of,” Slate, March 12, 2003.

On the other hand, Dershowitz's argument against the statement is absurd when it is understood in its original context. so I won't bother reprinting it here.

Yes. You don't demonstrate the existence of the lobby you propose. You mention government officials with plans that support Israel or hint at supporting Israel. But government officials could come to support those plans without a lobby at all...

Yet the lobby is what brought them to support such plans. For instance, the letter implying Obama should back off the settlements http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051404242.html" :

NOW, THAT'S LOBBYING

Speaking of Iran and that region, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sent out a "Dear Colleague" e-mail Tuesday asking for signatures "to the attached letter to President Obama regarding the Middle East peace process."

The letter says the usual stuff, emphasizing that Washington "must be both a trusted mediator and a devoted friend to Israel" and noting: "Israel will be taking the greatest risks in any peace agreement."

Curiously, when we opened the attachment, we noticed it was named "AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf."

Seems as though someone forgot to change the name or something. AIPAC? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee? Is that how this stuff works?

That is how stuff works.

...let alone the overarchingly powerful and sinister one MW propose.

I can't say I've seen Mearsheimer and Walt ever propose the lobby is "overarchingly powerful and sinister", could you please quote whatever you dervied that impression from?

Even the article on the apparent whacko Brownback suggests that his position is to shore up support amongst conservative Christians-- and fishing for votes...

Sure Christian Zionists are a big part of the lobby, but I doubt calling for ethnic cleansing won him many votes here, and I bet it would cost him more than it gets him if everyone was paying attention, but it certainly won him friends over there. I'm fairly certain Brownback is a true believer regardless.

... isn't something that needs to be explained away by a conspiracy.

So please present what evidence you have. People supporting things you don't like is not evidence of a global conspiracy.

I haven't suggested any conspiracy here, but rather I am referring to a loosely-knit lobby which operates quite openly.

 

[Hans de Vries]

America's special role is based on the biblical prophesy in Daniel 9:3-25
as acknowledged in Isaiah 45:1. (in the eyes of the religious lobbyist)

That is:

The second incarnation of the state of Israel can never be save
without the reincarnation of the Jewish Messiah: Cyrus (the great)

It was Harry Truman who first proclaimed: "I am Cyrus, I am Cyrus"
the non-Jewish (gentile) king of the most powerful army in the world.
who was instructed "inspired" by god to use his army "to subdue nations"
in the middle east in the service of the people of Israel.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/is/45.html

Cyrus' empire in the first incarnation stretched from Israel and Lebanon
via Iraq and Iran all the way to Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Neo-Babylonian_Empire

There seems to be a religious symbolic relation between the military actions
as lobbied for (think also the neocon's "new century for America") and the
borders of the first prophesied empire of the Messiah.

Donald Rumsfeld directly links Cyrus' army to that of the United States
by sending biblical texts from Isaiah 5:28 to the troops during the invasion
of Iraq in 2003: http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
"Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs shall be
counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind"Regards, Hans

 

[CRGreathouse]

As for the the claim of logical weakness, the comment you quoted through Dershowitz is better understood when it isn't deprived of context:

You misrepresent me! I took that quote directly from MW. you can tell because it's more than Dershowitz quotes, and it starts from the beginning of the note itself. I don't feel that the quote I gave is deceptive in any way.

Rather than give a longer quotation, I gave a page number (and a link). A proper reading probably requires reading not just the note but the text to which it is attached.

 

[kyleb]

I apologize for misrepresenting you, and that was not my intent by any means. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt there in assuming you were taken in by Dershowitz's misrepresentation of the quote. which he presented on p. 36 of his paper, and which is exactly the quote you presented minus his "[sic.]". But again, Dershowitz's argument against the statement is absurd when it is understood in its original context. So now I'm left curious to know, what argument you are taking with it?

And curious stuff there Hans de Vries, I've looked into the dogma of Christian Zionists a good bit over the years, but never stumbled across that particular position before. Any chance you can provide an authoritative source for it?

 

[AhmedEzz]

I was looking at similar threads and I came across some comments that I wanted to post here.

If a politician diss's Israel, he/she will not progress.

Israel has a strong lobby in the US. There is both a financial and religious (Judeo-Christian) component, and there is no such strong link between Christianity and Islam, and in fact, there has a been an historical conflict going back to the Crusades, and who controls the 'Holy Land' which includes Palestine and Jerusalem. Israel's existence is probably owed to the guilt following WWII and the Holocaust.

Our support of Israel is/was heavily weighted by the presence of oil in the middle east. The Israel lobby is now the strongest lobby in this country. Politicians are afraid to vote against sending Israel more money.

I think it is absurd to say that the Israeli Lobby in the US has no power over the decisions about Israeli affairs. And Israeli Lobby is mainly composed of Jews, so one might infer that decisions are being made to favored jewish interests rather than to served reasons to promote peace between Israel and other Arab nations.

I suppose that the Evangelists have strong influence higher up the ladder as well, and have been pushing to aide Israel solely because of religious beliefs.

America wants to have good relations with these people by seeming to support their "homeland"

Other contributing factors are a strong US Jewish lobby, the US Christian right, and no doubt some feeling of protection of Jews re the Holocaust.

Now, these are not my words and every quote is taken from a different person. What do you think?

 

[Hans de Vries]

And curious stuff there Hans de Vries, I've looked into the dogma of Christian Zionists a good bit over the years, but never stumbled across that particular position before. Any chance you can provide an authoritative source for it?

http://books.google.nl/books?id=9eX...jqWKCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8


Regards, Hans

 

[Count Iblis]

Is the press unusually favorable to Israel? How can this be measured? If so, is it more biased toward Israel than it is biased in other ways?

I think that the bias is so large that we are all affected by that. The bias has been hard wired in our brains. Then, just like you can demonstrate the fact that your brain is "biased" when it processes information via e.g. optical illusions, the bias we all have when we read the news can be easily demonstrated by applying simple symmetry operations.

So, if I take this news item:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE5524YZ20090603

and I apply a certain symmetry operator that should leave our alarm level the same if we were unbiased, I get this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday refused to rule out a possible strike on Israel, his comment came just hours after Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the Islamic state would not do so.

"I repeat what I have always said, we are not taking any options off the table", Ahmadinejad said.

Mottaki said earlier during a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Moscow that "Iran is not planning to attack Israel."

But this looks way more alarming than the original, news item. In fact, the mere statements of Ahmadinejad about Israel being wiped off the map that he later clarified to mean that Israel will cease to be a Jewish state all by itself and that it absolutely did not imply any miltary actions by Iran, still led us to be far more alarmed about these statements than any unambiguously real military treat against Iran made by Israel.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I apologize for misrepresenting you, and that was not my intent by any means. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt there in assuming you were taken in by Dershowitz's misrepresentation of the quote. which he presented on p. 36 of his paper, and which is exactly the quote you presented minus his "[sic.]". But again, Dershowitz's argument against the statement is absurd when it is understood in its original context. So now I'm left curious to know, what argument you are taking with it?

I'm making no argument whatever. I presented an argument of Dershowitz because I was curious to see the response. I must admit I'm not particularly satisfied. The quote does seem out of context here.

Here's the text surrounding the Ben-Gurion quote:

The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi‐national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben‐Gurion put it in the late 1930s, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”32

To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben‐Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.”33 Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.”34

MW, p. 10

In my opinion, the text would not survive the change from "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine." to "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine [...] through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement.". You may feel otherwise, and may have good support for that belief. But as far as I'm concerned the burden of proof is on you (well, on MW really).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Count Iblis:

I must admit, the only shocking part of your transposed article to me was the change in the style of Ahmadinejad's speech. But perhaps I'm jaded? Certainly I wouldn't present myself as typical in this respect.

But more important to me, as an analytical mind, is the idea of measuring that bias. How does it compare to the oft-claimed "liberal bias" in newspapers (or, for other papers, a "conservative bias")? How can bias be measured? I've seen a number of studies of general left-right bias in news reporting, but all seemed massively oversimplified and flawed.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Now, these are not my words and every quote is taken from a different person. What do you think?

To whom is this comment addressed?

 

[AhmedEzz]

To whom is this comment addressed?

As I said CRGreathouse, those are comments by 6 different members of PF all speaking of the same thing. I would not believe they were all 'fooled' , do you? I would post the names but I'm not sure this would be appropriate.

 

[CRGreathouse]

As I said CRGreathouse, those are comments by 6 different members of PF all speaking of the same thing. I would not believe they were all 'fooled' , do you? I would post the names but I'm not sure this would be appropriate.

I wasn't asking who wrote them. I was asking to whom this statement of yours was addressed:
"Now, these are not my words and every quote is taken from a different person. What do you think?"

Without commenting on the merit of the underlying issue, I could easily imagine six handpicked quotes being from people who were "'fooled'". Let's not fall into the http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Popularity, for that matter).

 

[kyleb]

http://books.google.nl/books?id=9eX...jqWKCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8


Regards, Hans

I thank you much.

I'm making no argument whatever. I presented an argument of Dershowitz because I was curious to see the response. I must admit I'm not particularly satisfied. The quote does seem out of context here.

Dershowitz took the quote out of context, his argument against Mearsheimer and Walt's statement is refuted by that context. If you believe otherwise, please present your argument so I can adress it.

Here's the text surrounding the Ben-Gurion quote:

MW, p. 10

In my opinion, the text would not survive the change from "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine." to "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine [...] through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement.". You may feel otherwise, and may have good support for that belief. But as far as I'm concerned the burden of proof is on you (well, on MW really).

And I quoted Mearsheimer and Walt addressing that argument above, pointing out that further context confirms their characterization:

Dershowitz claims that Ben-Gurion’s subsequent statement – ‘we should in no way make it part of our programme’ – shows that he opposed the transfer of the Arab population and the ‘brutal compulsion’ it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not ‘discourage other people, British or American, who favour transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our programme’.

If you take issue with that, please present your argument so I can adress it.

 

[Hans de Vries]

http://books.google.nl/books?id=9eX...jqWKCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8
I thank you much.

The religious idea that the president of the US is anointed by god,
and "inspired" by god to serve the interest of the State of Israel
can lead to embarrassing situations. especially when it's taken
for granted:

"I said: 'Get me President Bush on the phone,'" Olmert said in a speech in Ashkelon.
"They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care:
'I need to talk to him now.' He got off the podium and spoke to me."

Olmert said he argued that the United States should not vote in favor of the resolution,
and the president then called Rice and told her not to do so. "She was left pretty
embarrassed," Olmert said.

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArtStEngPE.jhtml?itemNo=1055223&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&title=%27U.S.:%20%27Olmert%27s%20comments%20100-percent%20not%20true%27%20%27&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

Regards, Hans

 

[AhmedEzz]

I wasn't asking who wrote them. I was asking to whom this statement of yours was addressed:
"Now, these are not my words and every quote is taken from a different person. What do you think?"

Without commenting on the merit of the underlying issue, I could easily imagine six handpicked quotes being from people who were "'fooled'". Let's not fall into the http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Popularity, for that matter).

I apologize if it seemed low of me to try and play anyone. However, my intent was that not only Middle Easterners recognized a strong pro-Israel lobby in the US, Americans also do so.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I apologize if it seemed low of me to try and play anyone. However, my intent was that not only Middle Easterners recognized a strong pro-Israel lobby in the US, Americans also do so.

There are many Americans, many Middle-Easterners, and many others who recognize this lobby. But the same is true of those who do not. The existence of people with such a belief is not particularly telling; many people believe in extraterrestrial visitations, but that doesn't make them credible.

 

[drizzle]

There are many Americans, many Middle-Easterners, and many others who recognize this lobby. But the same is true of those who do not. The existence of people with such a belief is not particularly telling; many people believe in extraterrestrial visitations, but that doesn't make them credible.

i don't think it's the same, they are tripled in number if not more, not sure if there's a poll done on this but I don't really think that people are aware of such a lobby [I'm talking about the majority]. cause it would definitely show if there are as many who recognize it

 

[CRGreathouse]

Dershowitz took the quote out of context, his argument against Mearsheimer and Walt's statement is refuted by that context. If you believe otherwise, please present your argument so I can adress it.

I read the context for it before I even started this thread! I've been reading the papers side-by-side to compare. Further, I posted a fair amount of context (more than you or Dershowitz). It's not clear to me how you conclude that the MW statement is refuted by the context. My argument here is the one I presented above (but which has not been addressed): if you replace the short quote by Ben-Gurion with an excerpt containing his later answer "through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement", the sense of the MW quote containing it would be lost. This demonstrates to me that the MW quote relies on omitting that portion of Ben-Gurion's quote.

And I quoted Mearsheimer and Walt addressing that argument above, pointing out that further context confirms their characterization:

Dershowitz claims that Ben-Gurion’s subsequent statement – ‘we should in no way make it part of our programme’ – shows that he opposed the transfer of the Arab population and the ‘brutal compulsion’ it would entail. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: he was simply noting that the Zionists should not openly proclaim it. Indeed, he said that they should not ‘discourage other people, British or American, who favour transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our programme’.

If you take issue with that, please present your argument so I can adress it.

The claim that Ben-Gurion was not rejecting that policy, while plausible, is unsupported. If it can be supported then the quote is still taken out of context, but the MW's failure is only one of misattribution and failure to explain. If it cannot be it is a more serious misrepresentation.

 

[CRGreathouse]

i don't think it's the same, they are tripled in number if not more, not sure if there's a poll done on this but I don't really think that people are aware of such a lobby [I'm talking about the majority]. cause it would definitely show if there are as many who recognize it

If you have a poll I would be interested to see it, especially if it includes many countries beside the US (in a statistically significant way). But whatever the results, it won't prove anything. If 99% of people believed there was no lobby or that it has no special influence, that wouldn't mean it's true; if 99% believed it was the dominant force in American politics that wouldn't make it true either.

 

[drizzle]

If you have a poll I would be interested to see it, especially if it includes many countries beside the US (in a statistically significant way). But whatever the results, it won't prove anything. If 99% of people believed there was no lobby or that it has no special influence, that wouldn't mean it's true; if 99% believed it was the dominant force in American politics that wouldn't make it true either.

you maybe correct.

 

[kyleb]

I read the context for it before I even started this thread! I've been reading the papers side-by-side to compare. Further, I posted a fair amount of context (more than you or Dershowitz). It's not clear to me how you conclude that the MW statement is refuted by the context. My argument here is the one I presented above (but which has not been addressed): if you replace the short quote by Ben-Gurion...

I wasn't talking about the Ben-Gurion quotes there, I was responding to your reply to my comment here, which you quoted the first portion of but apparently failed to comprehend it in context:

As for the the claim of logical weakness, the comment you quoted through Dershowitz is better understood when it isn't deprived of context:

Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U.S. support intact. As Richard Gephardt, the former House Minority Leader, told the American‐Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), “Without [your] constant support . . . and all your fighting on a daily basis to strengthen that relationship, it would not be.” This quote was downloaded from the AIPAC website [http://www.aipac.org/] on January 12, 2004. Also see Michael Kinsley, “J’Accuse, Sort Of,” Slate, March 12, 2003.

On the other hand, Dershowitz's argument against the statement is absurd when it is understood in its original context. so I won't bother reprinting it here.

Again, if you believe otherwise, please present your argument so I can address it.

As for your arguments on the Ben-Gurion quote, I will gladly come back to that later, but in the interest of avoiding further confusion I feel it is best we stick to addressing one point of contention at a time.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I wasn't talking about the Ben-Gurion quotes there, I was responding to your reply to my comment here, which you quoted the first portion of but apparently failed to comprehend it in context:

Your statement is an http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Ad_Hominem attack. On forums, I quote as little as is needed to make clear which statement I am addressing. The full context is present, so I don't feel the need to go further.

 

[kyleb]

I wasn't attacking you there, I pointing where I had responded to the issue of Dershowitz's argument against the statement "Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about", but which you had responded to as if my comment was in regard to the separate matter of the Ben-Gurion quotes.

Again, do you agree that Dershowitz's claim of logical weakness is absurd when the statement he quotes is understood in its original context, or do you care to present an argument to the contrary?