Dov Waxman is Professor of Political Science, International Affairs, and Israel Studies, and the Stotsky Professor of Jewish Historical and Cultural Studies at Northeastern University. He is also the co-director of the university’s Middle East Center. An expert on Israel, his research focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli foreign policy, U.S.-Israel relations, and American Jewry’s relationship with Israel.
Originally from London, England, Professor Waxman received his B.A. degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins University. He has also held fellowships and visiting appointments at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University, the Middle East Technical University, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, the Avraham Harman Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and St. John’s College at the University of Oxford.
When Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer released first an article and then a book called “The Israel Lobby,” the reactions on both sides were hysterical. Supporters, including some with far more pernicious and conspiratorial views than the authors, treated it almost like the Bible, reading it uncritically and applying Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s views to whatever their own were.
Professors Stephen Walt (l) and John Mearsheimer
Critics, of course, were far more vitriolic, refusing to deal with the substance of the authors’ work and preferring instead to simply attack them as anti-Semites.
The editor of Middle East Report, Christopher Toensing, and I saw a need for a reasoned response to the paper, one which highlighted the many areas we agreed with Walt and Mearsheimer, but also taking a reasoned and critical look at the places where we disagreed.
The role of “The Lobby” is a constant topic of debate, both within the respective “pro-peace” and “pro-occupation” camps and between them.
Since I have referred to or touched on the contents of this article fairly often in this space, I thought it would be helpful to reprint the article now. The thoughts in it, as a paper which i was not the only writer, are not entirely my own. I therefore wrote a solo article in addition, which can be found on this site. But I think it provides a good basis for a rational, alternative view of “The Lobby,” one which differs sharply both from those who contend that “The Lobby” essentially determines US policy in the Middle East (it doesn’t) and those who see “The Lobby” as just a useful ally in selling American policies which would be virtually identical even if “The Lobby” didn’t exist (not so either).
The piece is longer than the usual fare here, it includes footnotes and I put it here largely for your reference. But I think it’s a very useful addition to the discussion, and is presented with all due respect to Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer who, as I said, got plenty right, stated some things that should be self-evident, and deserve applause in any case for opening up a public discussion that should always have been taking place and should continue to be widened.
It should also be noted that this piece was written in response to Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s initial article, and they refined some of their arguments considerably in their book. They also put out a paper in between addressing some the hysteria their article caused. I should also say that, after four years, my own views of the issue have been refined as well.
I’ll be writing more later about AIPAC, Obama’s appearance there, and all that for a more contemporary view of things. For excellent in-depth coverage of events in the region, i encourage you to subscribe to The Middle East Report, where this was originally published. And without further preamble, here is “‘The Israel Lobby’ In Perspective.” Continue reading →
The New York Times is reporting that the CUNY Board of Trustees is plannign an emergency meeting Monday to reconsider the decision to drop Tony Kushner from their list of honorary degree recipients for this year.
I think we can all pat ourselves on the back for this one, but really, the decision was so outrageous, there was hardly any support for the revolting behavior of Jeffrey Wiesenfeld.
I have no doubt that the CUNY trustees were simply cowed by Wiesenfeld, and thought they were taking a path of least resistance. That’s usually how it is with such bodies. University trustees are notoriously leery of controversy, because any controversy tends to be of concern to the parents of prospective students and to donors.
But in this case, they simply underestimated how widespread the opposition would be. Hell, even Ed Koch, another degree recipient and certainly not one who sees Arabs and Muslims, much less Kushner’s views, in a positive light, objected in very strong terms. He even called for CUNY to kick Wiesenfeld off the Board of Trustees, and I can only hoep that plea also doesn’t fall on deaf ears.
Good news here, but until some sense of reason can be brought to debate on the Israel-Palestine conflict and, most particularly, to the US role in it, it’s only a drop in the ocean.
Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the champion of anti-Arab bigotry who blocked an honorary degree from the City University of New York (CUNY) has reached a new low. In an op-ed about his contemptible action, he actually has the audacity to compare Kushner to David Duke (as well as to Sonny Carson and Lynne Stewart, rather bizarre trio).
This is because, according to Wiesenfeld, when you criticize Israel, you are an anti-Semite, by definition.
Anti-Arab bigot Jeffrey Wiesenfeld
Wiesenfeld considers anyone a racist who states simple historical fact: that driving Palestinians from their homes was part and parcel of Israel’s creation. This is a fact not open to debate; it is clearly recorded in no less a source than the Hagana archives. Tochnit Dalet (Plan D) clearly called for emptying and destroying Palestinian towns.
The historical debate is over the intent of this plan, not over its existence or execution. Even if you subscribe to the more sympathetic view of that intent, the event – that Palestinians were driven from their homes and not allowed to return – is not in dispute. Except, of course, in the mind of bigots like Wiesenfeld who purport that Israeli motives and actions are always pure and Arab ones always nefarious.
Wiesenfeld has an ugly history of bigotry. It is nothing short of appalling that he, a noted bigot, tries to paint Kushner, a courageous fighter for LGBT rights who was still willing to brave the fire, in his spare time, of defending the rights of Palestinians, and criticizing Israeli policy in an attempt to not only secure justice for the Palestinians but also a better future for Jews in and outside of Israel.
A call has been put out for personal letters to be written to the trustees.
One easy step is to visit the Facebook page set up for this issue and click “like.” You can also write to the trustees and voice your objections. This has actually proven to be effective in the past, so this isn’t just an exercise. The e-mail addresses of the trustees are: