Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
OBAMA’S TEACHING MOMENT. Alec MacGillis reported Tuesday on the spectacle of Barack Obama's campaign frantically trying to distance the candidate from an ad for Mearsheimer and Walt's new book The Israel Lobby which appeared on the campaign's website. Yesterday we had this number from The Politico, in which Ben Smith functioned as a conduit for vague, unsubstantiated accusations of bigotry against the authors, and also against Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.
"Brzezinski, 79, stepped into the crossfire this summer when he published an essay in the summer issue of the journal Foreign Policy, defending a controversial new book about the power of the “Israel Lobby” in American politics.
The book’s authors, Harvard’s Stephen Walt and the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, thanked him for his “incisive defense.”
But the article inserted him into one of the most heated debates in America-Israel politics, a bitter dispute about whether the authors’ claims smacked of bigotry, whether their critics are – as Brzezinski put it — “McCarthyite.”“It is a tremendous mistake for Barack Obama to select as a foreign policy adviser the one person in public life who has chosen to support a bigoted book,” said Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the most visible critics of the Walt and Mearsheimer volume, titled “The Israel Lobby.” (Dershowitz has contributed to the campaign of Obama’s leading rival, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.)"
If Brzezinski thought that helping to negotiate the single most significant and long-lasting peace treaty in Israel's history, in which the preeminent Arab state recognized Israel, and removed the threat of a united Arab front against the Jewish state, had immunized him against charges of being "anti-Israel," well, think again, friend. Like Walt and Mearsheimer, Brzezinski has never written or said anything that any reasonable person could interpret as bigoted, let alone anti-Semitic, but, in the calculus of pro-Israel hardliners, the fact that he has maintained a firm and consistent critique of Israeli policy over the years is quite enough to qualify him for pariah status.
"Mr. Dershowitz said that while Mr. Obama has been a strong supporter of Israel, he "made a terrible mistake" by bringing on Mr. Brzezinski, which he attributed to "naivete.""
Here's a great example of the chilling effect in action. By "naivete," Dershowitz doesn't mean Obama's relative inexperience in foreign affairs, which is precisely what Brzezinski was brought in to meliorate. The "naivete" to which Dershowitz is refers involves Obama's apparent unawareness of the unacceptability of certain foreign policy ideas in American politics, the impermissibility of associating with people who espouse those ideas, and the price exacted if these strictures are ignored. Hillary Clinton learned that lesson after she embraced Suha Arafat in 1999. We'll see how Obama does.
--Matthew Duss
COMMENTS (11)
I dunno, taking the counsel of one of the nation's most outspoken advocates for torture sounds like a bad idea too.
Posted by: CJR | September 13, 2007 12:53 PM
never mind that hezbollah has never attacked the US and al qaeda has never attacked israel, the problem with AIPAC is not that they represent israel's interests but that they DON'T. how can you explain their single-minded existential fear of iran, while treating hamas-funding SA as a "moderate" state? every israeli knows which group has more blood on their hands.
Posted by: benjoya | September 13, 2007 1:02 PM
my guess is they're the tail, we're the dog, iran is more of a bushCo opportunity than an israeli existential threat, and $3bn/year buys a lot of anti-iranian fearmongering.
too cynical?
Posted by: benjoya | September 13, 2007 1:10 PM
Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, a law professor. He has no standing on foreign relations.
So are his opinions those of a single citizen, or is he speaking for others? If the latter, for whom does he speak?
I am not endorsing anyone's book, or Obama's choice of ZB, but why can't we have open and thoughtful discussions on USA-Israel? Why can't our discussions be at least as vigorous as those in Israel?
Is there some reason people are afraid of opinions?
Posted by: James E. Powell | September 13, 2007 1:17 PM
"Is there some reason people are afraid of opinions?"
Yeah. On a whole assortment of issues, we do a lot of mindless tarring and feathering. This stands in for thinking and, in turn, it inhibits more thinking. Problem solved.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 1:21 PM
Alan Dershowitz is the "liberal" legal mind who was advocating the legalization of torture years before the attacks on the WTC.
He's what Joe Lieberman would be if he had decided to become a professor instead of a Senator.
Posted by: Jinchi | September 13, 2007 1:32 PM
So, where's the pressure on *Hillary* to abandon her supporter, who by supporting *torture* is endorsing un-American values that harm American interests? (gosh, was it that long ago Hillary's people were clutching their pearls at the audacity of an Obama supporter talking smack about them? Wasn't that the rule they wanted to enforce then? Hmm.)
This is simple politics from the Clinton campaign again: "Hey, Barack, admit you suck! Well, when're you going to admit you suck? Serious people want to know! And they'll keep talking about it until you do! Because we'll keep telling them you might!"
And this line should be deconstructed: "...Brzezinski has never written or said anything that any reasonable person"
Which Dershowitz, as a longtime fan of torture, obviously *isn't*.
"...could interpret as bigoted, let alone anti-Semitic"
Nobody gives a shit about the accuracy of any actual text or comments; it's all about finding something and claiming offense, even if there was *nothing* offensive there.
"but, in the calculus of pro-Israel hardliners, the fact that he has maintained a firm and consistent critique of Israeli policy over the years is quite enough to qualify him for pariah status."
No, in the calculus of the Hillary '08 camp, the fact that Obama is threatening to upset the Very Serious Bipartisan Washington Establishment is quite enough to make them say *anything* to try to make him a pariah.
Hillary wants to be president. Dershowitz wants to help her. That's what this is. Period. The actual content, implications, facts, or ancillary statements don't matter; it's all about manufacturing outrage and using it to slam your opponents, all while pretending not to.
Now, it *does* open the door for Obama to strike back by accusing Hillary of "playing politics" not only with "national security," but *also* with "American-Israeli relations." Or something along those lines.
Posted by: Chris | September 13, 2007 2:07 PM
In Hillary's defense, she can't be expected to be held accountable for everything every campaign contributor has ever said. Nobody should be held to that standard. I don't like Dershowitz, but unless he holds some influence over Hillary's positions, he shouldn't be tied to her.
Posted by: American Citizen | September 13, 2007 2:14 PM
Dershowitz once wrote a book called "Chutzpah". There is a line between chutzpah and assholery that Alan crossed a long time ago. I was reminded by this post that I needed to throw the book away, but I see that I did that sometime ago.
Posted by: milo | September 13, 2007 2:47 PM
"In Hillary's defense, she can't be expected to be held accountable for everything every campaign contributor has ever said. Nobody should be held to that standard. I don't like Dershowitz, but unless he holds some influence over Hillary's positions, he shouldn't be tied to her."
Hillary's team tried earlier to hold Obama responsible for remarks of his contributors. If it's good for the gander...
Posted by: James Hare | September 13, 2007 2:51 PM
Let us also remember that Brzezinski was the conservative realist cold warrior in the Carter administration, who pushed for intervention in Afghanistan, starting the road to Taliban victory and Osama.
I still remember some of us at the time, including the The Nation, pointing out that maybe soviet backed government might be a better option then Islamic religious fundementalists. Certainly for women (aka: over 1/2 the people) and probably for us (blowback).
So Brzezinski is not exactly a good guy in greater scheme of things.
Posted by: DrSteveB | September 14, 2007 11:49 AM