As the last Walt/Mearsheimer post never generated any intelligent responses, let me throw so more tinder of the fire: this Globe story about the abominable (or perhaps just abominably stupid) behavior of Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, which just fired its New England director for daring to assert the (obvious) truth of the Armenian Genocide.

It's this kind of thoughtless, thuggish behavior that lends a patina of truth to the Walt/Mearsheimer charges. Well, that plus also the actual cancellation of their events, which also lends support to some of their secondary assertions about the overly-constrained debate here in the US about Israel.

But by all means, let's focus on the PR elements of this instead.
 

I think 'overly constrained' is a good term. ('Patina' on the other hand is a fudging word. (Mmm, patina fudge...))

Excellent snark in that last sentence, 11:27.

Standing Eagle
 

Fine snark indeed, Anon. And agreed with you: Foxman's decision was foolish.

But here's where I disagree with you: In the idea that, in any public debate, the PR elements are irrelevant and should not be considered. Of course they're relevant; they affect how every public message is presented and interpreted. And believe me, Walt and Mearsheimer have already given considerble thought to questions of PR and strategy. It's quite possible, for example, that the Mearsheimer quote which I gently tease in the item posted is itself a PR construct. (Controversy for the sake of controversy.)

All this doesn't mean that the central issue of their argument can't be talked about, or won't be. Of course it can and will. But let us not be unaware of the presentation, the stage-managing, the roll-out, either....

How do you think this story wound up in the newspaper, anyway?
 

Anon 11:27 here.

Richard, you can't really think my comment asserted that "the PR elements are irrelevant and should not be considered." That would be a stupid thing to say.

But your original post seemed to take rather lightly the cancellation of this event. Obviously, Walter and Mearsheimer do not lack for other forums in which to advance their views, but it still strikes me as a cause for concern that they are being marginalized like this.

The only editorial comment you saw fit to make in the post, however, seemed to criticize the ineptness of Mearsheimer's public presentation. Thus, my snark.

Ugh. Explaining my snark is almost as painful as watching you construct straw men out of my comments.
 

"Here's where I disagree with you: In the idea that, in any [...]"

These words appear in my Field Guide to Blog Rhetoric under "Straw Man, Construction and Deployment of."

SE
 

Of course, SE and Anon, a byproduct of snark is the reader's inability to know for sure the exact intention of the writer!
 

Anon here again.

Via The New Republic, I see that the ADL has made an emergency retreat from its brain-dead position. Statement here. It's probably already done a lot of damage, unfortunately, but this is better than nothing.

So much for the omnipotence of the Lobby, eh?

PS That's more snark. I still think that discussion of Israel is overly constrained in the US, partly as a result of groups like the ADL, AIPAC, and others.

PPS For non-APIAC-sanctioned views, I'd recommend Jewish Voice for Peace, and their very good blog, MuzzleWatch.
 

Richard,
You say:

"All this doesn't mean that the central issue of their argument can't be talked about, or won't be. Of course it can and will."

That seems utterly naive. ANY mistakes of fact will turn the whole book into "shoddy scholarship" - as Foxman has already dubbed it - with the usual insinuations about any defenders of their broader or narrower findings.
 

Richard,
It made it into the paper for obvious reason that Prof. Mearsheimer understandably contacted them after Marshall Bouton, president of the the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, unilaterally cancelled the forum on their book.

According to the article you link to "the council was "feeling heat" over the authors' anticipated appearance before Bouton called to cancel. Bouton confirmed to him that the council was facing criticism, Mearsheimer said."

Instead of your snide "The Israel Cabal" wrap-up, why don't you suggest an alternative answer Mearsheimer's question, which seems quite reasonable in the circumstances, given what Bouton said to him directly: "If he wasn't protecting the council from the lobby, who was he protecting it from?"

As another poster remarks, you seem to imply that the cancellation was perfectly OK. I haven't read the book since it's not yet out, but we're not talking about David Duke or Ward Churchill are we?
 

I don't mean to imply that the cancellation was okay—far from it. I believe that Professors Walt and Mearsheimer should have every opportunity to discuss their work. However, I also believe that the professors can not have it both ways. They are trying to orchestrate a PR campaign around this book, and they are trying to control the press it gets. (Note, for example, that the book is embargoed.) Can they really cry foul play when they are engaging in the same measures they decry?
 

Anon 11:27 again (I'm not the Anon at 4:40).

Richard, your last remark is beyond perplexing. You ask, "Can they really cry foul play when they are engaging in the same measures they decry?" But what on earth are they doing that's the same as their opponents?
Here, let me ask a similarly specious rhetorical question: Can you really be serious when you compare embargoing a book until it goes on sale to attemping to silence dissent? Do you really think that Walt & Mearsheimer are trying to stop AIPAC and others from speaking or are they trying to sell books and promote their own viewpoint?

For a post that started off telling them to be better at PR, you now seem to be telling us that it's illegitimate for them to be engaged in publicity at all.
 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Harvard's endowment is now at $34.9B ... and FAS is in deficit ...
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519438
 

Richard,
You need to read the links you are giving us a little more carefully. The motives for the embargo are in the Trib article you linked for us, and they seem reasonable enough:

"Foxman is publishing his own book, "The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control" (published by Palgrave Macmillan) in early September as a response to Mearsheimer and Walt's arguments'.

It'll be a quick write.
 

Did you read the Crimson´s news regarding Harvard´s 35 billion endowment?

This stellar performance of the managers of Harvard´s endowment confirms Bok´s decision not to spend any time fund raising, focusing his time instead in academic matters.

If Harvard can make a 20 percent return a year on this kind of endowment, is there really any reason to raise more money? Perhaps this gift from Harvard´s benefactors in the past truly frees current University leaders to focus on the academic mission of the University. Let´s focus on trying to earn the right to use a portion of these funds through stellar scholarship and teaching.
 

Nice threadjack attempt, Anon 8:43/10:06.

If you want Richard to write about something, why don't you just email him? And if he doesn't want to do it, why don't you start your own blog?
 

What I meant, Anon, is that Walt/Mearsheimer are hardly blameless in the game of trying to control debate, and with their book embargo, this is exactly what they are trying to do--at least until the book is out. Why are they doing it? Two reasons. Maybe they're afraid the book will be attacked to death long before most people have a chance to see it. More likely, they're hoping that the book will burst onto the scene with a sudden burst of publicity, suddenly lifting it onto the bestseller lists (first week sales are crucial).

They are not embargoing it so as to make Abraham Foxman's rebuttal more difficult, I can assure you of that.

This is a murky business. I don't approve of cancelling discussions; the Harvard Book Store refused to host one for me because it was afraid of damaging its relationship with Harvard, and it was infuriating. So I sympathize with Profs. W&M; there.

But on the other hand, they are participants in this PR game, completely complicit in it as well. And when you are throwing around charges as serious as they are—"The Lobby made them do it"—well, the PR becomes problematic. Are they making such charges now because they believe them? Or because it's good for book sales? (Controversy sells.)

W&M; should call upon FSG to cancel their embargo and release the book. Otherwise, their campaign for the book risks looking like a stunt.
 

I fear your cynicism has caught you in something of a contradiction, Richard. On the one hand, you portray W/M as inept to the point of comedy, victimized by their own obliviousness (see lame photo) and at the mercy of a lame FS+G PR hack (see your comment in the original post). But now, on the other hand, you've decided that they're so clever, they're making intentionally outrageous statements to boost sales.

This seems like an implausible mix to me. I don't know W+M myself, but I suspect that they value their scholarly reputation more than the relatively meager money they'll get from book sales, especially given that their academic work is what pays the bills.

(Or do you think that this is only the first in a series of Israel Lobby books? Perhaps they'll adapt them into thrillers? Would Matt Damon sign-up for "The Lobby Identity," "The Lobby Supremacy," and "The Lobby Ultimatum," maybe? I'd buy a ticket.)

In any case, the assumed cost/benefits I see of deliberate outrageousness make your charges about crying "wolf" for attention unlikely.
 

Rich did take off on the horror of Harvard having lost $250M in a hedge fund debacle, so I was sure he would want someone to note that the endowment had actually gained 20 times the loss he had worried about. I apologize if I just somehow beat Rich to the punch ...
 

Richard,
You say "They are not embargoing it so as to make Abraham Foxman's rebuttal more difficult, I can assure you of that."

Can you say why you can so assure me/us?
 

I'm sure Rich is thrilled to learn that Harvard has so much money. I know I am. Who wouldn't be? But aside from indulging and intellectually sparring with all of us, I bet Rich has a life to lead.....

eayny
 

Now wait, aren't you all being just a little quick to interpret the second-hand (from Mearsheimer) account of the council "feeling the heat" as pressure or even threats from "The Israel Lobby." I'm assuming their "Lobby" is not simply defined as pro-Jewish sentiment in general. If I espoused these opinions, I'd probably face some real pressure from my friends and family, some Jewish some not, but none would be from "The Israel Lobby."
 

Espoused what opinions?
 

To 12:32:
So Bouton's friends (Jewish and non-Jewish) and family persuaded him to cancel the M-W panel? That should make us confident about the objectivity, independence and legitimacy of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs?
 

I think it's pretty clear that when Mearsheimer says "the lobby" he is a) referring to the "Israel Lobby," which is the title of his book, and b) flacking his book.