How would you feel if your career was destroyed because someone had publicly
launched false-but-damaging allegations against you? Right-wing WSJ columnist
John Fund has launched a disingenuous diatribe against one of the USA's top
Middle East scholars, U. Michigan History Professor Juan Cole, in his latest
Opinion Journal column, "Cole Fire: Yale Is Set To Ditch Taliban Man And Hire A
Notorious Anti-Semite." [1] Note that his harsh title employs the no-holds-barred term "notorious anti-Semite." Far from being true, this defamatory attack
merely illustrates that the American mainstream media's right-wing hatchet men
will trundle out their accusation of "anti-Semitism" to smear anyone who has
the temerity to disagree with the pro-Israel lobby. [2]
Not surprisingly, Mr. Fund uses the unethical McCarthyite tactic of guilt by
association to fabricate an extremely flimsy case against Juan Cole. For
instance, he accuses Professor Cole's anti-war blog of supporting a supposedly
"anti-Semitic" Harvard study, "The Israel Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy," by
Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. [3] In other words, Fund is claiming
that Cole is automatically guilty of "anti-Semitism" because he has associated
himself with the Harvard study's conclusions.
However, Mr. Fund's argument illustrates a classic error in logical reasoning
that is known as an "ipse dixit": something asserted but not proved. The mere
allegation that something is true or false, without more, does NOT make it
true or false. After all, one still has to prove it: where's the evidence?
Hence, when Fund alleges that two distinguished scholars from ethnically-Hebrew backgrounds drew conclusions that are somehow "anti-Semitic," that allegation alone does NOT make it true. Where's the evidence? And what about the contrary evidence?
Mr. Fund alleges that the Mearsheimer-Walt study is false because it
conclusions are the product of "anti-Semitism," but his argument would fail if its
conclusions were true. And their 81-page research paper contains probative
evidence aplenty that its conclusions are, in fact, true. Additionally, so many
scholars and pundits have come forth since its publication to defend the
level-headed objectivity of the Harvard study that Mr. Fund's specious charge of
"anti-Semitism" altogether lacks credibility. [4]
Furthermore, Mr. Fund's harshly-worded title reveals his most obvious motive
for this scurrilous attack - he hopes to intimidate Yale into revoking its
offer to hire Juan Cole. Although Fund alleges that Professor Cole is unqualified
because his academic expertise is limited to the history of the
nineteenth-century Middle East, that claim is belied by the fact that a great university
like Yale: (a) offered him a faculty position: (b) is not known for extending
offers to unqualified academic slouches; and (c) certainly doesn't need to
consult nasty hatchet pieces from right-wing columnists to decide whom it should
hire.
Finally, we can infer Mr. Fund's underlying strategic motive for this
unwarranted attack, and it is even more disturbing. The USA's right-wing fanatics
have successfully driven the top Middle East experts out of the State Department
and replaced them with neocon ideologues, so their next goal is to drive the
top Middle East experts out of academia, thereby adding academic freedom to the
other freedoms - like speech and press - that they will destroy to create
their neo-fascist National Security Fortress America.
The fanatical American Right has used sleazy McCarthyite intimidation tactics
to destroy the careers of far too many people, including its latest smear job
on Professors Cole, Mearsheimer and Walt. In so doing, they ignore the
glaringly-obvious fact that "anti-Zionism" (mere disagreement with Israel's
policies) is NOT "anti-Semitism" (a phobic dislike of the Jewish people per se). Even
worse, the pro-Israel lobby's definition of "anti-Semitism" has become so
absurdly overbroad that they've unwittingly transformed it into meaningless
nonsense. Instead, they wield that defamatory term like a blunt instrument with
which to cudgel anyone who disagrees with them into fearful submission.
THE REMEDY.
It's high time for every American - regardless of one's religion or ethnicity
- to resist these defamatory career-destroying intimidation tactics by
issuing our own cease-and-desist order: "ENOUGH! WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT
ANYMORE!"
THE ALTERNATIVE.
We can't get to much higher moral ground than the American progressive
position, which steadfastly maintains that U.S. foreign policy must altogether
cease to scapegoat people, and thus be neither anti-Semitic nor Islamophobic.
Furthermore, progressives maintain that it is equally unacceptable: (1) for the
Israeli-aligned parties to oppress, or seek the destruction of, the Islamic
parties; and (2) for the Palestinian-aligned parties to oppress, or seek the
destruction of, the Jewish parties. Instead, the partisans must STOP using
counterproductive intimidation tactics to coerce third parties into adopting their
position in the conflict, RENOUNCE their escalatory cycles of tit-for-tat
violence, SEEK forgiveness in their common humanity, and FIND a civilized diplomatic
solution.
_________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES
[1] John Fund's 4-24-06 OnlineJournal.com essay, "COLE FIRE: YALE IS SET TO
DITCH TALIBAN MAN AND HIRE A NOTORIOUS ANTI-SEMITE" [Skip to his essay's second section, where the nasty diatribe against U. Michigan History Professor Juan
Cole begins.]: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008282
[2] The Wall Street Journal owns and operates the OpinionJournal.com website.
[3] The London Review of Books published a shorter version of the 3-13-06
Harvard research paper, "THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY," by U. Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Kennedy School of Government Dean and
International Relations Professor Stephen Walt: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
[4] Read nine of the more recent essays defending the Mearsheimer-Walt study:
A. Molly Ivins' 4-25-06 CommonDreams/TruthDig essay, "PRO-ISRAEL
'NUTJOBS' ON THE ATTACK" [Explains why pro-Israel right-wingers generally, and Alan
Dershowitz specifically, lack credibility in their wildly off-the-mark
allegations that distinguished Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are
"anti-Semitic" because they've produced an objective study of the pro-Israel lobby's
influence on U.S. foreign policy. Notes that she's not so much afraid of
these right-wing smear tactics as she is sick-and-tired of them.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-27.htm
B. Tony Judt's 4-19-06 CommonDreams/NYT essay, "A LOBBY, NOT A
CONSPIRACY" [Americans must not be afraid to debate this issue: whether the pro-Israel
lobby's pressure to support Israel distorts the decisions of our Washington
policymakers. Explains why this issue has been prominently debated and dissected
overseas, whereas it has received virtual silence from the U.S. mainstream
media: (a) fear of legitimizing the notion of a "Jewish conspiracy"; and (b)
fear of being smeared as "anti-Semitic." Quite rightly concludes that we must not
conflate "anti-Zionism" with "anti-Semitism," because it is grossly
inaccurate to equate those who merely disagree with Israel's policies with those who
phobically dislike the Jewish people per se.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0419-27.htm
C. Juan Cole's 4-18-06 Salon essay, "BREAKING THE SILENCE: THE
OVERWROUGHT RESPONSE TO JOHN MEARSHEIMER AND STEPHEN WALT'S BRAVE PAPER ONLY CONFIRMS
ITS THESIS" [This U. Michigan History Professor is one of the nation's leading
experts on Middle Eastern history and culture. Hence, he offers a
knowledgeable perspective about the impact of the pro-Israel lobby which should carry
extra weight. Perhaps this is the real reason why right-wingers consider him to be <
a threat to their pro-Israel lobby.]:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/18/taboo/index_np.html
D. Normon Solomon's 4-13-06 CommonDreams essay, "THE LOBBY AND THE
BULLDOZER: MEARSHEIMER, WALT AND CORRIE" [Correctly contends the Mearsheimer-Walt study is NOT anti-Semitic, despite shrill protestations to the contrary in the
mainstream media. Concludes that: (a) they are level-headed scholars whose
study deserves serious consideration for its objective assessment of the
destructive aspects of the pro-Israel lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy; (b)
Americans must be allowed to debate this topic openly and fairly; and (c) the
pro-Israel lobby must stop using intimidation tactics to suppress our freedoms
of speech and press.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0413-20.htm
E. Leon Hadar's 4-13-06 AntiWar/Singapore Press essay, "FROM THE CHINA
LOBBY TO THE ISRAEL LOBBY: RENT-SEEKING IN U.S. FORIEGN POLICY" [Argues that
U.S. foreign policy has always been subject to the the bribe-ocratic
"rent-seeking" influence of American ethnic groups. Compares the pro-Taiwan lobby's
former influence on U.S. Asian policy with the pro-Israel lobby's current influence
on U.S. Mideast policy. Somewhat disingenuously concludes that U.S.
presidents listen to ethnic lobbying groups, but ultimately base their foreign-policy
decisions solely on American national interests.]:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=8845
F. Justin Raimondo's 4-10-06 AntiWar essay, "SMEAR AND FEAR: THAT'S HOW
ISRAEL'S LOBBY OPERATES" [Well worth reading for its detailed explanation as
to why "Israel's once-powerful lobby in the U.S. is running scared": (a) two
AIPAC officials are under federal indictment for spying (i.e., passing
classified U.S. documents to Israel); and (b) in the arena of public debate, AIPAC's
attempt to ruin the reputations of Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt by smearing their
Harvard study as "anti-Semitism" is being exposed and rejected.]:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8832
G. Ghali Hassan's 4-5-06 CounterCurrents essay, "PROTECTING ISRAEL:
CHOMSKY'S WAY" [The author: (1) contends that MIT Linguistics Professor Noam
Chomsky has unfairly criticized the Mearsheimer-Walt research paper about the
pro-Israel lobby's disproportionate influence on US policy; (2) rejects Chomsky's
reputation as the left's most intellectually-honest critic of US foreign
policy; and (3) quotes Chomsky's writings to prove that he's an
intellectually-dishonest apologist for Israel whose modus operandi is to shift the blame onto its chief ally: "Chomsky blames all Israeli crimes on the US."]:
http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan050406.htm
H. Justin Raimondo's 4-3-06 EtherZone/AntiWar essay, "THE ISRAEL LOBBY
AND MORAL BLACKMAIL" [Prominent Americans have reacted negatively to a research
paper by U. Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard Dean Stephen Walt.
So much so that they've been trying to suppress it and punish the authors.
However, most of their objections are so intellectually dishonest that they're
tantamount to moral blackmail.]: http://www.etherzone.com/2006/raim040306.shtml
I. Ted Lang's 3-31-06 Rense.com essay, "ISRAEL RULES AMERICA" [A
withering response to several writers who've predictably smeared Profs. Mearsheimer
and Walt with the unjustified charge of "anti-Semitism" because their level-headed
study concluded that the pro-Israel lobby exerts a powerful influence upon US
foreign policy that runs counter to American national interests.]:
http://www.rense.com/general70/rules.htm
______________________________________________________________
FINAL NOTE TO THE READER: If you agree with the aforementioned points, Joe
American urges you to forward his essay to your friends, relatives and
colleagues!
