Walt-Mearsheimer: A Clarification
I seem to have created some confusion with my posts on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, so let me try to clear things up.
First, I'll admit to being skeptical about "The Israel Lobby"—I found the original paper underwhelming—but certainly am keeping an open mind about it. The two professors may well have strengthened their case and elevated the quality of their research since the original paper.
Second, I certainly think that W&M;, as we shall now refer to them, have the right to publish the book and talk about it in any way they wish. This does not mean that private organizations need volunteer a forum for them in which to do so.
Third, I am slightly troubled by the way this book is being marketed, with access to W&M being controlled and limited by their publisher—more on this later—and the book itself kept under tight wraps—very unusual for an academic work—so as to promote greater interest in it. (There may well be other reasons; this is undeniably one.)
Having said that, I do agree that if W&M; really want to get their message out and be heard on such a volatile topic, then they do have to play the game of public relations; that's why I posted about the rather offputting nature of their PR photo.
What I do argue is that they can not have this both ways—play the game and then protest when others do the same.
When, for example, Professor Mearsheimer attributed the cancellation of their forum to pressure from "the lobby," I was dismayed, because in my opinion that remark borders on anti-Semitism. It would be one thing to say that the forum was cancelled because of protest from a specific group or groups; but to point to a vague, conspiratorial, behind the scenes pressure from the mysterious "lobby"—well, that strikes me as irresponsible.
Which is not a promising sign. My suspicion is that the professors don't know quite what they've gotten themselves into, and I can speak from firsthand knowledge that they are getting some bad advice, and that when you are injecting a subject as potentially hurtful and damaging as this one into the public arena, doing so requires great care, skill, and responsibility. (Remember: their paper was praised by David Duke, among others. The potential for unfortunate consequences is substantial.)
Whereas their publisher is concerned with selling books.
So there is something about the very nature of this process that concerns me. And again, that's why I posted about the W&M; photo—because it suggests, in one relatively trivial way, that these men don't quite know what they are doing in this larger arena than that to which they are accustomed, and that they have not surrounded themselves with people who do.
Which, in the end, makes it less likely that their book will provoke healthy, constructive debate, and more likely that it will provoke anger and dissension.
But I hope to be proved wrong. We shall see.
