 |
April 10, 2007Dead Sea FlotsamDavid Brooks travels to the Dead Sea, and identifies why peace in the Holy Land remains so stubbornly elusive. It's because of Walt/Mearsheimer! No, really, I think.... As it happened, though, the Arab speakers mainly wanted to talk about the Israel lobby. One described a book edited in the mid-1990s by the Jewish policy analyst David Wurmser as the secret blueprint for American foreign policy over the past decade. A pollster showed that large majorities in Arab countries believe that the Israel lobby has more influence over American policy than the Bush administration. Speaker after speaker triumphantly cited the work of Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter as proof that even Americans were coming to admit that the Israel lobby controls their government... Were the arrayed Arab reformers supposed to prostrate themselves into rounds of self-flagellation because the great Bernard Lewis thunderingly queried them from on high regarding "What Went Wrong"? And the notion that the Walt/Mearsheimer piece has caused some seminal "profound effect" on Arab elites and their view of the Arab-Israeli conflict is (I'm trying to be polite) quite a stretch indeed. Wars in '48, '56, '67, '73, '82 and '06, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, final status issues of Jerusalem and right of return, the various intifadas, all have had rather a "profound effect on Arab elites", vis-a-vis how they view the Arab-Israeli conflict. Much more so, I'd wager, than any single academic paper, however overwrought a reaction it may have garnered, whether here in Manhattan, or over there in precincts Amman. Any nice Jewish boy can tell you that Arab political elites were pretty damn good at deflecting attention of their own shortcomings and onto Israel long before The London Review of Books decided to publish the infamous article. Indeed. Let's rake Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer over the coals for any shortcomings in their piece where genuinely legitimate (though I am not one who subscribes to the view that it constituted some pernicious Kennedy School redux of The Protocols), but accusing them of writing something that's proven a material causal factor in stoking some unbridgeable gap in civilizational narratives is rather a lot, no? P.S. One suspects most of Brooks' sources on Middle Eastern matters tends towards neo-con orthodoxy, alas. Perhaps David should speak more often to David Welch, to David Satterfield, to Aaron Miller, to Robert Malley, among others, to gain a wider perspective. Apologies to him if he is already, but this piece (and his earlier description of Hezbollah and Hamas as rank "nutjobs", which ostensibly means their millions of followers too, well, it speaks to contributing to a gap in civilizational narratives at least as wide as that which discomforted David so during this trip to the Dead Sea). P.P.S. A commenter writes that David B. might be on to something.
Comments
Yglesias is correct (it happens once in a while) and Brooks' claim is strange. A more accurate observation is that Arab rhetoric seems increasingly focused on the power of "the lobby" rather than rants of the "zionism is the most diabolical force in human history" variety. Posted by: ami at April 10, 2007 01:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
I tend to agree with you and Yglasias as well but that doesn't stop me from agreeing with Brooks on one issue. I think "nutjobs" describes the leadership of both Hezbollah and Hamas quite well actually. Posted by: Francis at April 10, 2007 02:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
Brooks' utter bad faith can be seen in his bland incredulity that "Jewish policy analyst" - HIS formulation - David Wurmser, a man who right now is the Vice President's middle east advisor, helped start up the Office of Special Plans and has served throughout the Bush Administration in key policy provisions at State and DOD, might be imagined by those crazy Arabs to have some kind of influence on administration policy. But no, Brooks implies, they must think that because he's Jewish! Posted by: Jim Henley at April 10, 2007 02:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
Actually: Brooks wrote that one speaker said that a book edited by Wurmser was "the secret blueprint for American foreign policy for the past decade". This was mentioned as an example of how "speaker after speaker" attributed the lobby with a sinister secret control over US. Henley's characterization of Brooks seems like a misrepresentation to me. Posted by: ami at April 10, 2007 03:28 PM | Permalink to this comment
I'm sure it does, ami. So what does Wurmser's book say? How closely does US policy track it? Bet you don't know. I don't either! Because Brooks doesn't deign to tell us. And of course "secret blueprint," like "Jewish policy analyst" is Brooks' characterization of what "speaker after speaker" are telling him. Given Brooks' history on such issues, we have zero reason to credit him with good faith in his paraphrasing. Interestingly, Amazon shows no "book" by David Wurmser from the mid-1990s. He wrote a book about "America's failure to defeat Saddam Hussein" in 1998, which seems like "late 90s" to me. He wrote a book on "the professionalization of peacekeeping" in 1993 - early 90s, if you will. So what "book" is Brooks talking about here? Let's all guess. I believe the answer is not really a book. Posted by: Jim Henley at April 10, 2007 03:37 PM | Permalink to this comment
So what "book" is Brooks talking about here? Let's all guess. I believe the answer is not really a book. So Brooks' track record tells to assume he is misrepresenting the Arab speaker at the Dead Sea conference? Should we then assume that the speaker did not actually say that Wurmser edited a book that is a secret blueprint, but actually said something more benign (like the fact that Wurmser is Jewish and has the ability to influence Cheney?) ?? Posted by: ami at April 10, 2007 03:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
We have no reason to believe or disbelieve that the speaker or speakers said Wurmser is Jewish. We do know that David Brooks has a track record of trying to conflate criticism of neoconservatives with criticism of Jews. We also know that Wurmser is a Bush administration official and that Brooks can't be bothered to tell us this, even though, you know, that would seem to be relevant to someone's belief that what Wurmser actually wrote in the mid-1990s was the Bush Administration's "secret blueprint." This latter is also Brooks' phrase of course. And like I said, it's overwhelmingly likely that what Wurmser actually wrote in the mid-1990s that folks at the conference are referring to was not "a book," since the famous thing that Wurmser wrote - helped write, really - in "the mid-1990s" that touches on grand strategy could not justly be called "a book." So Brooks is engaged in serial obfuscation just in that passage. For the record, I don't think that what Wurmser and similarly influential friends wrote in "the mid-1990s" can justly be called the Bush Administration's "secret blueprint," because I think politics is more contingent than that. But it's not absurd to claim that it is. Posted by: Jim Henley at April 10, 2007 04:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
Given that Google returns little post-2004 info on Wurmser + Cheney from mainstream news sites, it's possible that Brooks wasn't aware of the things you are assuming that he is. On the other hand, it does sound like the speaker Brooks is quoting has been reading rawstory, antiwar, larouchepub, etc. Posted by: ami at April 10, 2007 04:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Cute. AWESOMELY cute. But we've certainly given the world a chance to see just where the "misrepresentation" - your word - lies on this issue. Stay classy, San Di-ami! Posted by: Jim Henley at April 10, 2007 04:51 PM | Permalink to this comment
A Clean Break: Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy. [...] Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon. Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite. King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein. [...] WAY MORE:
The assumptions these Neocons make, conserning Arab attitudes, seems racists. Posted by: someotherdude at April 10, 2007 09:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm Published in 1996. Short enough to read on your lunch break and not really qualifying as "a book." I strongly suspect that it's the text one of the "speakers" was referring to. Posted by: Jim Henley at April 10, 2007 09:39 PM | Permalink to this comment
To be fair, I have lived and traveled pretty extensively in Egypt and the Levant - I speak reasonably good Arabic, or at least my friends are polite enough not to point about my shortcoming, and I have been astounded at the level of interest in the Walt/Mearsheimer paper amongst the relatively young intellectual/business class to which my friends belong. I am no water-carrier for David Brooks, but I think he may have been on to something here. I am asked about it on literally every trip abroad. Posted by: Charlie at April 11, 2007 12:16 AM | Permalink to this comment
psst, and never speak or write in public about the influence of cuban americans on US policy toward cuba....the world might talk! Posted by: CENTRIST at April 11, 2007 03:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
I think the Walt/Mearsheimer is solid scholarship. It provides academic (rational/scientific) support for what most people IN THE WORLD believe, “The Israel Lobby” has an extraordinary influence on American foreign policy.
Coping with Crumbling States: Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy. Iraq's future will profoundly affect the strategic balance in the Middle East. The battle to dominate and define Iraq is, by extension, the battle to dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run. Syria understands this and has made the Iraq file its highest priority since the Gulf War. Belatedly, Jordan has realized the strategic significance of the circumstance and forwarded its Hashemite option for Iraq. Until now, Syria and Iran have worked together without success to assume the lead role in defining a post-Saddam Iraq. Jordan's Hashemite option for Iraq is another blow to Syria's ambitions and will surely trigger a fierce Syrian-Jordanian competition. Still, Turkey’s recent shift under the Islamist leader Erbakan and that country’s continuing inability to come to terms with its Kurdish problem, as well as Iran’s increasing position as the power broker in northern Iraq, Asad’s close ties to Crown Prince Abdallah, and overall Western and Israeli inattentiveness due to their quest for "comprehensive peace," offer Asad some hope. The United States, Israel, and Turkey should pay particular attention to this circumstance in formulating an approach to the Levant. More: http://www.iasps.org/strat2a.htm These NeoCons live in a fantastical world where Brown people are so predictable. Unlike the complex and multi-faceted EuroAmericanMan. Posted by: SomeOtherDude at April 15, 2007 09:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder!
Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Quotable More Predictions Predictions, Predictions! A 'Sick Man of Europe' Reprise? Addingtonism (Belatedly) Ripe For A Comeuppance?
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Ross Douthat Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
August 2008
July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
