I'm a free speech absolutist. I believe that entirely free discourse and the ability to say things that are offensive, idiotic and insulting is one of the cornerstones of American Democracy and a free society. I believe this regardless of who is insulted; I believe that David Horowitz, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer should be permitted to speak, as long as they accept dissent and disagreement which must be equally free.
I'm dismayed, however, by certain students who vigorously opposed Horowitz' appearance on the grounds that his message is "hateful speech" — despite the fact that his poorly articulated point, that we are at war with some radical Muslims who wish to impose their brand of Islam on everyone and that groups like CAIR (unindicted co-conspirator) help support them, is undeniably true — but were eager to provide Walt and Mearsheimer a forum. You forfeit the right to cry "free speech!" when you demand restrictions on "hate speech".
Much has been made of whether Walt and Mearsheimer's work is anti-Semitic. One Washington Post writer summarized the original paper as follows: "If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information — why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic."
Now, I'm not arguing that any criticism of Israel or of the relationship between Israel and America is ipso facto anti-Semitic. But any analysis that posits that a renamed "International Jewish conspiracy" controls American foreign policy is a pseudo-intellectual heir to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." And yes, arguments that domestic supporters of Israel are an "agent for a foreign government," that a cabal of wealthy Jews controls the President and Congress, that "the Lobby" controls the media and that it is engaged in a "grand scheme" to reorder the world for Israel's benefit qualify as prototypical bigotry in fancier language.
A fellow columnist at this paper wondered why some find such arguments to be controversial. I would have thought it obvious that sprucing up anti-Semitic canards in an aura of academic integrity would prove infuriating. What is equally disturbing, however, are the ridiculously basic errors that permeate Walt and Mearsheimer's nearly 13,000-word book.
To take one example, Walt and Mearsheimer wonder why Israel did not intervene on our behalf when the Shah of Iran was ousted in 1979. My first reaction to reading that was shock, because the critique is absurd. Jimmy Carter didn't intervene on our behalf, either. My second is to wonder what Israel could have done besides assisting the Shah's internal security forces, which it did. My third is to wonder how Israel could have decisively intervened on the ground in a country 1,000 miles away, especially when Walt and Mearsheimer note elsewhere that this distance prevents direct interaction.
Walt, Mearsheimer and their campus allies also take as a given that Israel provides no real benefit to the United States. To that I can only reply: Si Monumentum Requiris, Circumspice. If you talk on a cellphone, chat on AIM, log on to windows or use any computer that has the latest Intel microprocessors, thank Israel, because Israelis either invented or played a key role in the development of each. If you asked Americans whether they would rather have $14 a year extra (our annual aid to Israel) or substantially worse versions of those services, the answer would be unsurprising. Perhaps subsidizing the only innovation-driven economy in a region otherwise marked by oilfields is in our national interest, especially when that country has greatly improved our standard of living.
The question of the moral obligations to support Israel is worthy of its own column. Let it suffice to say that I strongly disagree with Walt, Mearsheimer and their campus allies on whether or not Israel is the moral equivalent of its enemies and as such is unworthy of our support. Israel is by far the most democratic country in the Middle East and its social development numbers would not look out of place in Western Europe. Walt and Mearsheimer also danced around the issue of Sept. 11, 2001. Perhaps they have forgotten that many Palestinians danced that day and the week after: America has not totally forgotten, and to pretend that this does not affect our policy is crazy.
Israel is neither infallible nor perfect, but its warts do not excuse upscale Anti-Semitism and shoddy scholarship. No one should be cheering the appearance of such views, but no one should be banning them either. Barry Caro is a history major from White Plains, N.Y. He can be reached at bcaro@princeton.edu.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
