by David Bromwich

I wish to comment on Jeffrey Herf's extended use of the defamatory epithet anti-Semitic, and Alan Wolfe's remark that nicknaming of this sort is coercive and dishonest. Herf says that Mearsheimer and Walt in their article on the Israel lobby employed an ancient style of anti-Semitic argument: namely the attribution of exorbitant influence to Jews working behind the scenes. But Mearsheimer and Walt do not cite examples of secret influence. They have no concern with secret influence, claim no special knowledge of it, and appear uninterested in finding it, if it exists. They address, rather, instances of political influence through political lobbying, instances which are public, open, and easily checked. They do so in the belief that the influence of the Israel lobby has clouded the public discussion of America's self-interest. Could one make a similar comment on the Cuban anti-Castro lobby in America or, a couple of decades ago, the Irish-American supporters of the IRA, without being accused of being soft on Communism or anti-Catholic? I am not sure. But there is this relevant difference: the effects of the more fervid anti-Castro lobbyists on American policy since the Bay of Pigs have been intermittent and spasmodic; and the U.S. government seems never to have been much tempted to interpose itself as an active force in Northern Ireland. By contrast, this country has taken on large commitments in the Middle East. The claim of an organization like AIPAC must be that its efforts to persuade Americans of an identity of interests between Israel and the United States are both legitimate and well-founded. The reply of its critics is that there may be a divergence of interests between the U.S. and Israel, and that the power of the lobby prevents an adequate hearing for qualified judges of that divergence. Here are three questions a critic of Mearsheimer and Walt might ask. First, is there such a thing as the national self-interest of the United States? Second, is there such a thing as the national self-interest of Israel? Third, are these interests distinct, so that there may be points at which they diverge? If the answers to all these questions are yes, then a fourth question arises. Is it permissible to speak of such a divergence in public discussions? If not, why not? But, if so, what have Mearsheimer and Walt done to violate the canons of decency approved by Herf? What is their offense beyond asking that discussions be more frequent, candid, and permissible without incurring the charge that by recommending such discussions at all, the recommender proves his anti-Semitism? As for the recent imputation of anti-Semitism to Jimmy Carter, on the ground that he hopes the Israeli administration of occupied lands will not follow the pattern of apartheid: Carter was saying nothing that readers like Herf, Wolfe, and I could not have found in an article by Akiva Eldar in Haaretz (May 13, 2003) here. This article describes statements by Ariel Sharon in the preceding months, to more than one person, that he considered the "Bantustan model" the most appropriate solution to the Palestinian conflict. The cowardice of Brandeis University in threatening to cancel an invitation to a former president of the United States unless he would consent to a "counterpoint" response, is, as Wolfe properly says, entirely in keeping with the opinion-discipline enforced at other universities by advocates of creationism, feminism, race studies, and so on. We expect no better of institutions, perhaps; but individual scholars ought to hold themselves to a less pliable standard. In this respect, the accusation that is offered "more in sorrow" about a supposed former friend is far uglier than a head-on accusation. The purpose of the slander is to exact conformity without being seen to want to silence opposing views. The procedure is gutless, and its effects are stupefying.