Is there a rational, sensible middle ground between those who question or deny the Holocaust against the Jews and threaten to wipe out Israel, and those who maintain that Israel can do no wrong and must receive perpetual American support? That middle ground has been thin in recent years. In the United States, in particular, it is almost impossible to publicly discuss Israel's policies, Israeli-American relations, and how these two impact on America's degraded ties with the Arab world. The prevalent tone of public and private discussions remains a questioning of why the Arabs and Iranians hate Israel and America, and wage political or military war against them. The dominant litmus test of legitimacy is for Hamas and Hezbollah to recognize Israel's right to exist, without asking Israel to halt its continuing assaults on Arab lands and rights. This attitude has understandably generated a strong reaction against Israel and the US throughout the Middle East and beyond. This cyclical, cause-and-effect nature of Israeli-American-Arab relationships is rarely acknowledged in the US. A rare exception was the paper published in March by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University. In "The Israel Lobby, they questioned whether the pro-Israel lobby in the US served the best purposes of Israel and the US, or whether its virtual stranglehold on US policies in the Middle East was actually detrimental to both Israeli and American national interests. Their original paper in The London Review of Books and the Harvard website generated fierce criticisms, to which they initially offered only occasional, partial responses. They were accused of a wide range of terrible deeds and sentiments, including anti-Semitism, blaming the Jews for America's troubles in the Middle East, seeing American Jews as disloyal citizens, cavorting with racists like David Duke and other neo-Nazis, being anti-Zionists who did not feel that Israel's survival was important, exaggerating the power and nature of the pro-Israel lobby and its control over US foreign policy, and many other things. To find out where things stand and what might happen next in this important debate, I recently visited Walt in his Kennedy School office at Harvard. The authors knew their article would be controversial, Walt told me, because it addressed a set of important issues that few mainstream scholars or journalists had examined. They expected professional criticism and personal attacks, because they challenged some powerful individuals and organizations, and cast doubt on central American-Israeli historical claims and policy positions. They now feel they opened a space for an honest debate on the issue, where the focus should remain. "We feel that we have started an important public debate in the United States and abroad. Walt told me. Walt and Mearsheimer are completing a full length book on the pro-Israel lobby and its impact, to be published in the US and a dozen other countries next year. This is a good sign, given that the American journal that has commissioned their article subsequently declined to publish it. Equally important, they have written a detailed 80-page point-by-point response to all the accusations and criticisms made against them. Their essay shows that much of the criticism was mistaken and invalid. Where they found some critical assessments to be justified, they explained why the points raised did not significantly affect their main arguments. They grouped the many attacks against them into three broad groups: unsupported ad hominem accusations of being anti-Semites, liars, or bigots who relied on neo-Nazi websites; clear misrepresentations of their views, by accusing them of arguments they did not make or ignoring important points that they did make; and, accusations that the original essay was riddled with factual errors and was sloppy scholarship. Most criticisms aimed to discredit the authors, divert the discussion to tangential issues, or bury the original paper's core arguments about the questionable impact of the pro-Israel lobby. The rebuttal essay convincingly shreds the arguments of all the critics. It also reaffirms the authors' original point: any honest discussion of US-Israel relations and policies will often be met with a broadside by the pro-Israel lobby to silence the debate. Walt and Mearsheimer are respected, established and self-confident enough to withstand such an assault that would have felled lesser folks. Intelligently, they disdain the sort of cheap personal attacks and innuendo that were hurled at them, and, instead, maintain their sharp focus on the core issue that they feel deserves wider discussion. "The United States faces many challenges in the Middle East, and Americans need to be able to discuss all of the forces that shape US policy in the region in a candid and serious way, Walt observed, reflecting the tone of their rebuttal essay. "We are gratified that this conversation is now occurring, for what America needs is a sober discussion of these issues based on logic and evidence, as opposed to a conversation filled with name-calling and character assassination, or myths and misconceptions. Sounds like the American way to me, and very much worth affirming in the US and emulating around the world. Walt and Mearsheimer were right in March to raise the topic of US-Israel relations, and they are right again today to move the debate forward in a calm, facts-based manner. Rami G. Khouri writes a regular commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
