But what is this “other side”? The reality is that even Safire and Krauthammer now believe that a Palestinian state is a necessity. And as the professors themselves say, the moderates are well represented (and by no less influential voices than Thomas Friedman and Richard Cohen). What Walt and Mearsheimer do want, it seems clear from their own conclusions, is that the op-ed pages of American newspapers consistently print critiques of Israel that paint its actions as immoral and America’s relationship to it a strategic liability (as they themselves believe). If this is their idea of balance it seems to me it would only add fuel to an already enflamed conversation. Walt and Mearsheimer realpolitik view of the world might divide it up into either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian camps, but that’s not a necessarily realistic idea of how editors see things, nor what op-ed pages should strive for.
Walt and Mearsheimer have written a terribly wrongheaded book, and their sloppy analysis is no more misguided than when they look at the media. Those who work at newspapers would find the notion of inside agents of the lobby (which is effectively what they are describing) as laughable. No columnist can pull off just spouting propaganda. They live and die by the intelligence of their argument. And, it should be remembered, just as a newspaper’s audience is affected by what they read, so are newspapers a reflection of their audience. There are many reasons why the American people support Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer undermine our intelligence by assuming that we are simply being manipulated. If more columnists support Israel it’s partly because most Americans do. That’s not the work of any lobby.
And, just to close by stating the obvious: If the lobby is so influential over the media, how were Walt and Mearsheimer given such space in every major news outlet in the country to express their “dangerous” views? You want to tell me that a force that can impel us to got to war in Iraq can’t find a way to censor two academics? Not much of a lobby, now is it?




The most tiresome part of the "debate" are the reflexive preemptive denials the book is anti-semitic. Why can't it be anti-semitic? If criticism of one group invokes several traditional templates for demonizing that group, why is it not "anti-" that group?
Posted by exmaple
on Thu 27 Sep 2007 at 06:01 PM
You write:
But what is this “other side”? The reality is that even Safire and Krauthammer now believe that a Palestinian state is a necessity. And as the professors themselves say, the moderates are well represented (and by no less influential voices than Thomas Friedman and Richard Cohen). What Walt and Mearsheimer do want, it seems clear from their own conclusions, is that the op-ed pages of American newspapers consistently print critiques of Israel that paint its actions as immoral and America’s relationship to it a strategic liability (as they themselves believe). If this is their idea of balance it seems to me it would only add fuel to an already enflamed conversation.
To answer the question simply: when I recently saw Walt and Mearsheimer (see link on my name), I believe the two examples they gave as representatives of the "other side" were Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn. You can argue that having a Fisk or Cockburn would inflame the conversation, but so what? It seems like it would still provide the balance W&M are talking about. The word "balance" doesn't imply any inherent limit on the heatedness of a conversation.
Posted by Justin
on Thu 27 Sep 2007 at 07:09 PM
Gal Beckerman, I feel, is missing the point. Whether it be Jimmy Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer, or any of the lesser known people and journalists who try to write about this subject, writers come out of the woodwork to not just smear the story, but most of the time smear the messenger. This happens not only when a writer tries to make sense of the bias in America's media towards Israel, but even when Israel's policies are criticized. It does make a difference how influential the writer is though. If the writer is Influential, like Jimmy Carter, the smear artists and smear campaigns from the Networks work until the job is done, which is to bring the writer's credibility down just enough notches. If the writer was not as influential, you wouldn't see or hear much criticism. People such as Juan Cole, Norman Solomon, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartman, and the many who write and speak truth to power much more than the mainstream media crew, are not given equal time with major media outlets, especially considering the real journalism they put into their work.
I don't understand why journalism students would rather critique a book that obviously is trying to correct one of America's media problems, rather than going after the actual problems, some of which make a mockery out of our American press such as a third of the American public still believe Saddam was personally responsible for the acts on 911.
I think the media is responsible for most of this because it is the media's job to inform the public of the truth when it can, but evidently it doesn't.
Posted by stevesouza
on Fri 28 Sep 2007 at 01:56 AM
Exmaple: There is a big difference between being against the actions of the Israeli government and being an anti-semite. There are many Jews who are against the actions of the Israeli government, and it would be nonsensical to call them anti-semites. I am against the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, yet I have no enmity toward Jews.
Posted by alexand
on Sat 29 Sep 2007 at 07:54 PM
For a balanced view on why the US supports Israel, see this PINR report: ''Why the United States Supports the State of Israel''
Posted by Adam Wolfe
on Tue 2 Oct 2007 at 04:17 PM