Learning from the Mearsheimer-Walt Fiasco

by Daniel Pipes
Sun, 9 Sep 2007
updated Sat, 15 Sep 2007

Send

Comment

RSS

Several publications have invited me to respond to The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, but I have desisted (other than to correct the record about myself), for three minor reasons and one major one. The minor reasons first::

Many others have eloquently and devastatingly refuted the book.
I prefer to offer my own ideas rather than respond to someone else's.
Life is too short to read with care a long, boring, inaccurate book with a tendentious thesis.

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.

The major reason has to do with my belief that it was a tactical mistake to respond to what was originally a minor essay by two obscure academics in an obscure publication. Had attention not been drawn to it, the essay would long ago have disappeared down the memory hole. Arguing against it turned it into the monument that it now is.

I myself have repeatedly been the beneficiary of the same tactical mistake: opponents of Campus Watch turned it from a minor website into a significant force by dint of relentless attacks on it; CAIR's opposition to my U.S. Institute of Peace nomination offered me an unprecedented platform for me to get out my views; and protests against my talks on campus garner them far larger audiences and more press attention than would otherwise be the case. In brief, a symbiotic relationship often exists between political opponents.

Not wanting to help the already gigantic Mearsheimer-Walt publicity bandwagon, I gently decline invitations to comment on their book. (September 9, 2007)

TrackBack URL for this post: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/trackback.php/761/02da9/733

Reader comments on this weblog entry

Title	By	Date
Mearsheimer & Walt on You Tube: Iran is a "so called" threat [52 words]	James Burke	Oct 3, 2007 16:21
Mearsheimer on BBC Interview [127 words]	Martin Kessler	Sep 22, 2007 23:24
A great peculiarity [115 words]	P Berg	Sep 21, 2007 16:15
Not a mistake to respond [206 words]	James Eckert	Sep 21, 2007 09:47
They have a point but they have it backwards [337 words]	Ken Besig	Sep 16, 2007 10:42
↔ To Mr. Ken Besig [315 words]	Ynnatchkah	Sep 19, 2007 16:39
Of course, this strategy only works when the opposition is a tiny minority [44 words]	Mark James	Sep 15, 2007 19:33
Walt/Mearsheimer and supporters: profound insensitivity to history of Jewish persecution [614 words]	S Silverstein MD	Sep 15, 2007 11:45
↔ Object of Mockery. [172 words]	Ynnatchkah	Sep 17, 2007 03:10
↔ Humanities a circus [w/response] [591 words]	S Silverstein	Sep 18, 2007 10:21

Comment on this weblog entry

Name	Email Address (optional) Email me if someone replies to my comment
Title of Comments
Comments:
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. Top 25 recent comments Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

Daniel Pipes Blog Homepage

ADVERTISEMENTS