If you had heard the names Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer one year ago, what would have popped up into your mind? Perhaps the name "Walt" would conjure up childhood memories of Disney World. Maybe "Mearsheimer" would remind you of visiting your Jewish friend's house for Hanukkah. But if you happened to be an avid reader of the "London Review of Books," your mind would instantly jump to the topic that has now made the authors international figures: U.S foreign policy and the Israel lobby.
Walt and Mearsheimer, professors at Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, have made waves in the academic sphere and the world at large for daring to analyze the "special" relationship between the United States and Israel. It's no secret that the nearly 60-year-old Middle Eastern country has a lot to thank America for in terms of political, military and financial backing. But it might come as more of a shock when we realize the hypersensitivity to discussing this issue in the United States.
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" analyzes the astounding power of the "Israel lobby" critically and thoroughly, contemplating why a country that provides so little benefit to America (politically and otherwise) is still so strongly supported by it. Walt and Mearsheimer, two highly respected academics, challenge mainstream media assumptions that Israel is a key ally in the "war on terror" and that it is the bulwark of a just democracy in the Middle East; instead, they posit that lobbies such as the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are the reason for America's unwavering support of the country.
The premise of the book should not be controversial. Organizations like AIPAC, which has 60,000 members and considerable leverage within the Democratic and Republican parties, have undeniable power in America. As far back as 2002, The Washington Post reported on the 90 members of the House, 13 senior administration officials and 50 Senate members who attended the annual AIPAC conference, including then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card who announced to the crowd in Hebrew, "The people of Israel live." Organizations such as the ADL and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations also have considerable clout among U.S. businesses and politicians.
Nevertheless, and despite wide international acclaim, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" was met with a profoundly negative response in America. In an interview with the BBC, Walt explained that "it is striking and it is probably something one would predict, having read our book, that virtually all of the mainstream reviews in the United States have been either somewhat negative or harshly negative [... but] this in some way confirms our basic argument that it's much easier to talk about this subject [...] outside the United States."
It is a sad day when one of America's most clear foreign policy objectives, the near unconditional support of Israel, cannot be analyzed and debated without severe consequences. The severe reaction to Walt and Mearsheimer in the academic world is comparable to the sort of reaction a Holocaust denier would receive. Have we reached the point where criticism of Israel is on par with racism and bigotry?
Luckily for all you Princetonians, the University does not seem to think so: Walt and Mearsheimer will be holding a lecture next Tuesday to discuss their "controversial" publication.
What remains to be seen is what sort of resistance the two professors will have to face from university and community members. At an institution where David Horowitz can come and go freely with little consequence, it would be the height of hypocrisy to prevent free discussion of one of the central political debates in America today. Sarah Dajani is a Wilson School major from Seminole, Fla. She can be reached at sdajani@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.
