An open letter regarding Walt and Mearsheimer

Printed below is the full text of an open letter by Wilson School professor Aaron Friedberg to the organizers of yesterday's discussion with Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, coauthors of the book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."

December 10, 2007

Dear Professors McCarty, Newman, Hanioglu, and Haykel,

I write regarding the forum that your organizations are cosponsoring today at which John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt will discuss their new book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

I wish to make clear at the outset that I have no objection in principle to such an event and no desire to criticize its sponsors. As I am sure is true of all of you, I believe very strongly that universities must permit even the most controversial opinions to be expressed and debated. Nevertheless, I do feel compelled to voice my deep concern about the content and impact of the authors' work.

Mearsheimer and Walt level very serious allegations against Israel, as well as against some American Jews. Yet they do so on the basis of analysis that does not meet even the most minimal standards of rigor or fairness. As several knowledgeable reviewers have pointed out, Mearsheimer and Walt's book is riddled with distortions of the historical record and a systematic suppression of evidence that would cast doubt on the authors' conclusions. Leslie Gelb, writing in The New York Times Book Review described the book as "wrong as well as dangerously misleading" and noted its "puzzlingly shoddy scholarship." In a recent review in Foreign Affairs, Walter Russell Mead described its arguments as "incoherent" and "simplistic" and concluded that the book was "not serious scholarship." Indeed, despite its scholarly apparatus of footnotes and quotations, and despite the authors' distinguished credentials, this is not a work of objective academic analysis but rather a one-sided and tendentious polemic. Professors of political science are perfectly entitled to write such books, of course. But they should not be permitted to pass them off as serious social science, nor should they be allowed to shield themselves from tough criticism by hiding behind the banner of academic freedom.

Much attention has been paid to the question of whether the authors or their work are in any sense anti-Semitic. I do not believe that this is relevant. Whether out of ignorance or a desire to court controversy, the authors have chosen to make use of language and imagery similar to that deployed in the past by avowed anti-Semites. As Mead notes in his review: "Although Mearsheimer and Walt make an effort to distinguish their work from anti-Semitic tracts, the picture they paint calls up some of the ugliest stereotypes in anti-Semitic discourse. The Zionist octopus they conjure — stirring up the Iraq war, manipulating both U.S. political parties, shaping the media, punishing the courageous minority of professors and politicians who dare to tell the truth — is depressingly familiar."

Not surprisingly, Mearsheimer and Walt's work has been applauded and embraced by some who clearly do harbor a hatred of Jews. While the authors have been at pains to disavow such unsavory admirers, this is hardly an adequate response. People of good will (and especially prominent scholars) have a responsibility to do what they can to ensure that their words do not give aid and comfort to those who advocate bigotry and hatred. Yet, rather than reflect on why they have been embraced by those whom they rightly despise, Mearsheimer and Walt have persisted in the use of harsh and inflammatory rhetoric. At a time when sectarian passions run high, and when Jews in many parts of the world are targeted for violence solely because of their religious beliefs, this is the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Mearsheimer and Walt have suggested that American Jews who advocate strong U.S. support for Israel are not merely mistaken, but guilty of putting the interests of a foreign nation above those of their own country. This is tantamount to an accusation of treason and, in my view, crosses the line that separates acceptable commentary from slander. Such ugly and offensive charges should have no place in our public discourse.

I hope that in future your organizations will see fit to host scholars with more balanced and better-informed views on this extremely important issue. Sincerely, Aaron L. Friedberg Professor of Politics and International Affairs Cc: Anne-Marie Slaughter Shirley Tilghman Robert Keohane