Your 2nd point
Reader comment on item: Is Campus Watch Part of a Conspiracy? [On Mearsheimer-Walt and The "Israeli Lobby"]

Submitted by Robert Arbetman (United States), May 15, 2006 at 09:10

Dear Dr. Pipes:

Your second point is reasonable in my opinion. However, you have not elaborated on this point much further. Other supporters of Israel have done so. Allow me to attempt to do so.

"Second, what they dismiss as a "Leninist caricature" of a lobby – one that strategizes and gives orders – is the only type of lobby that exists. If no one instructed me to begin Campus Watch, how could Campus Watch's coming into existence be part of an organized campaign?"

Your second point is critical in much of the criticism toward the Walt/Mearsheimer report. According to that report, ANYONE who supports Israel's struggle to survive is a member of a nefarious "Lobby" which is the focus of their report. Moreover, their report goes to great lengths to demonize Israel and conclude that support for Israel's survival is against American interests thus implying that Israel's supporters are "anti-American".

I saw NOTHING in your letter to the London Review of Books that suggested you had accused them of labeling the pro-Israel lobby "Leninist". This is a fine example of the cheap-shot tactics employed in the Walt/Mearsheimer report. Your letter merely claimed that the "Lobby" as described in the Walt/Mearsheimer report is "mythical". Because the Walt/Mearsheimer report brands all supporters of Israel as members of the "Lobby", your use of the word "mythical" is reasonable and accurate. The authors offered a deliberate mis-interpretation of your comment as their defense.

These same authors try very hard to dismiss anti-Semitism as a motivation for the thesis of their report. This was not mentioned in your essay; nor was it a factor in your second point. Perhaps their motivation is best left to others. Yet the manner in which the Walt/Mearsheimer report brands all supporters of Israel as anti-American members of a nefarious "Lobby", even when their examples prove untrue (as you demonstrated in this instance), clearly points to anti-Semitic intent. If this alone is not sufficient to brand the report anti-Semitic, then the glowing endorsement David Duke gave this report lends additional credence to the charge. David Duke is America's most noteable White Supremacist and anti-Semite. He is certainly not the only anti-Semite endorsing the Walt/Mearsheimer report.

I am glad that you have taken time to expose those inaccuracies in the Walt/Mearsheimer report that pertain to your activities. Others too, have come forth to point out inaccuracies in the report. Combined with the glowing endorsement of this report by known anti-Semites, the true nature of the report is being exposed.

---

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. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.