"Marcy Newman
BY MARCY NEWMAN - Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: 12/06/07
Dan Fink's "Liberal Israel-bashing sounds like 21st century anti-Semitism" (Nov. 10) resorts to the same tactics that Zionists adhere to, especially in the United States. Fearful that the logical, moral claims put forward in John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby" and Jimmy Carter's "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid" may begin to sway Americans away from the quotidian Zionist propaganda fed by the media, Fink depends upon his libelous claim that anti-Semitism is at the root of the problem. What is in fact the core of the issue is Zionists historically and currently using the label of anti-Semitism to silence rational, critical debate about Israel's apartheid policies towards Palestinians in all of what constitutes historical Palestine.
I read his column after arriving back in Palestine after having been gone for one year. Even on my initial travels through Jerusalem and Bethlehem the apartheid stranglehold on Palestinians has grown exponentially. The 25-foot-high, 400-mile-long apartheid wall, built inside the West Bank on Palestinian land, separating Palestinians from their agricultural land and from family members is but one visible reminder of the prison in which Palestinians reside. Both Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, upon traveling through Palestine, not only stated unequivocally that apartheid exists here, but also that it is worse than it was in South Africa. While not as visible as inside the West Bank, the 1.2 million Palestinians living inside Israel make up a marginalized minority who are oppressed because they are not Jews. What sort of democracy, may I ask, requires citizens be of a particular faith in order to receive equal rights?
To be sure, I write this as a Jew, who has lived in many parts of the Arab world, including Palestine, and can attest to the fact that the situation of Palestinians under this brutal apartheid regime is dire. Unfortunately, we do not get to hear about this in the media because whenever a courageous scholar or public figure attempts to get at the truth of the matter Zionists like Fink invert the argument making Jews the never-ending victims when in fact they are the victimizers. I write this, too, as a Jew to say that Fink does not speak for all of us; I have witnessed the devastation of Palestinian life on every level: economic, educational, societal, cultural, familial, and I refuse to support a state that would have me as a citizen today because of my religion while my friends, who are Palestinian refugees, are not allowed to return to their homes, which they are entitled to under U.N. Resolution 194.
Speaking about Palestinian rights - most especially their right of return - may be speaking against the Jewish state. But I believe that a Palestine where all its citizens are free to live where they choose in an actual democracy of, by and for all the people is what real democracy looks like. Over the centuries Palestine has been a refuge for Bosnians, Ethiopians, and Armenians to name a few examples. Had Jews come in as true refugees and not settler colonialists who ethnically cleansed the land of its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants, we would not be looking at a situation as we are today. The Palestine of the past was, and I would hope the Palestine of the future will be, one where all the people prevail, not just the minority brutally occupying and destroying the majority."
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."
