by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, March 20, 2006 3:32 P.M. EST

Duke 1, Harvard 0
With Yale struggling to control the damage owing to its admission of an unrepentant onetime Talib as a student (John Fund has the latest), Harvard now finds itself in a similarly embarrassing situation. It's the sort of Ivy League rivalry that causes "prominent alumni" of third-tier Western universities to break into a slightly guilty smile. The New York Sun reports on the latest trouble in Cambridge:

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.

Now of course, just because Duke endorses Walt and Mearsheimer doesn't mean they endorse him. Indeed, we suspect they're as mortified by this praise as Yale is by the criticism it has received over Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. Yet without ascribing to them any invidious motives, it seems fair to say that their views dovetail disturbingly with those of unquestioned anti-Semites.

Walt and Mearsheimer argue that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel," and therefore the only possible explanation is "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." The premise is plainly false; the "Israel Lobby" in fact makes many strategic and moral arguments in its own favor. Walt and Mearsheimer merely disagree with them, and they spend the opening paragraphs of the paper explaining why.

We'll pass over their strategic arguments. We find them wrongheaded, but we will stipulate that one can in good faith take the position that the costs to the U.S. of supporting Israel outweigh the benefits.

Their rejection of the moral arguments, however, is highly problematic. They write:

[Israel's] backers . . . argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel's conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive.

Let's take these points one by one:

• Israel is weak and surrounded by enemies. To the contrary, they say, Israel is by far the strongest regional power. Further, "Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so." This gives the Saudis far too much credit. True, as we noted in 2002, then Crown Prince Abdullah (now king) told the New York Times' Thomas Friedman that he was amenable to establishing full diplomatic relations, conditioned on Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories (occupied by Egypt and Jordan before 1967 and Israel since). But Riyadh quickly made clear that it was unwilling even to talk to Jerusalem until after such a withdrawal. As we wrote then, "The Saudi position, in other words, amounts to: Give us land now, and maybe we'll give you peace later." It is true that Israel is the regional superpower, and that Cairo and Amman have signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, but it seems undeniable--and Walt and Mearsheimer do not deny it--that none of this would be true absent U.S. support for Israel. Thus their reasoning is circular: Israel doesn't deserve U.S. support because it has received U.S. support.
  
  
• Israel is a democracy. This they concede, but they also claim that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values." In particular, they claim that Arab citizens of Israel "are treated as second-class citizens" and note that "a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a 'neglectful and discriminatory' manner towards them." Yet even acknowledging that Israeli democracy is flawed, its political system is still vastly superior to those of its adversaries. Israeli Arabs enjoy more political and civil liberties than citizens of just about any Arab country; and the only Arab lands that come anywhere close to being democracies are Lebanon, Iraq and the disputed Palestinian territories--the last two only because of American intervention. That the Israeli government criticizes its own treatment of Arabs is a testament to its democracy; can anyone imagine, say, the Saudi regime offering similar criticisms of its treatment of Shiites, non-Muslims or women? American democracy, too, is not without its flaws. During World War II, for instance, black Americans were still disfranchised, and innocent Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put in camps. It does not follow that America was no better than Nazi Germany.
  
  
• Jews deserve a homeland because of their past oppression. Walt and Mearsheimer go so far as to allow that Israel's creation "was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews." But, they say, "it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians." They lay the plight of the Palestinians entirely at Israel's door, failing to acknowledge the Arab states' vast culpability. The Arabs rejected the 1947 U.N. partition of Palestine, which would have created a Palestinian Arab state including territories beyond the present-day West Bank and Gaza strip. The Arabs immediately declared war on the nascent Jewish state--a war in which Israel gained more territory--and they waged war again in 1967 and 1973. All Arab states except Jordan refuse to allow Palestinians to become citizens, preferring to let them linger as stateless refugees. Nor do the authors acknowledge that since the creation of Israel many Jews who settled there were fleeing persecution in Arab lands and (since 1979) Iran. Whereas Israel has 1.3 million Arab citizens, no Arab country except Morocco has more than a handful of Jewish ones.
  
  
• Israel is morally superior to its adversaries. Here they cite various alleged abuses by Israel during its war of independence and claim that "Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority." Even if we concede all the criticisms of Israel, they do not belie "any claim to moral superiority," only to moral perfection. Evaluating which side is morally superior would require a comparative analysis; the only thing Walt and Mearsheimer say about Arab misconduct is that "the Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions." No such excuses are offered for Israel's purported misdeeds.

Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are "understandable." This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.

Which brings us back to David Duke. His endorsement no doubt is anathema to Walt and Mearsheimer, but it is telling that he finds their ideas congenial.

Their brand of anti-Israel prejudice is much more common and respectable in Europe than in America (indeed, their paper was published in the London Review of Books), a fact that they would no doubt attribute to the mighty "Israel Lobby." But here is another difference between Europe and America: In many European countries, David Duke would not be allowed to speak because of postwar prohibitions on Nazi propaganda. Passing these laws surely was an act of prudence, and it may be that they are still necessary for the protection of European democracy.

By contrast, America's ability to tolerate the likes of Duke demonstrates the health of our body politic. It may be that Duke's presence even enhances that health. Think of him as a sort of vaccine that helps immunize us against more insidious forms of bigotry.

The Catastrophe That Wasn't
It's been three years since coalition troops entered Iraq. The results of that intervention have been mixed: the toppling of a tyrant and successful democratic elections vs. a continuing guerrilla insurgency and a fraying of American national purpose. Critics of the war are right to say terrorists are more active in Iraq than before--but then, if terrorists are going to be active, surely it's better to have them in a place where American servicemen can kill them.

To hear the carping critics, you'd think Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, or that such a disaster is imminent. To put all this negativism into perspective, though, consider some of the warnings from before the liberation:

• "In launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. . . . Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed."--Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002
  
  
• "Not so long ago, prominent German politicians were outdoing each other forecasting worst-case scenarios for the Iraq conflict. The predictions ranged from 'millions of victims of U.S. rockets' to 'millions of Iraqi refugees desperately fleeing the country.' "--San Francisco Chronicle, May 1, 2003
  
  
• "It is also likely that in the early stages there will be a large segment of the population requiring treatment for traumatic injuries, either directly conflict-induced or from the resulting devastation. Given the population outlined earlier, as many as 500,000 could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries."--U.N. report on "likely humanitarian scenarios," Dec. 10, 2002
  
  
• "Up to four million people could die in a war on Iraq involving nuclear weapons. A more contained conflict could cause half a million deaths and have a devastating impact on the lives, health and environment of the combatants, Iraqi civilians, and people in neighbouring countries and beyond. It could also damage the global economy and thus indirectly harm the health and well-being of millions more people across the world."--executive summary, "A New Gulf War: The Real Cost," Medact ("a UK-based charity taking action on key global health issues"), Nov. 13, 2002

The antiwar Web site IraqBodyCount.net puts the maximum number of Iraqis who've been killed in three years at 37,795. Meanwhile, USA Today has some comparatively good news for Americans:

U.S. military deaths during the past month have dropped to an average of about one a day, approaching the lowest level since the insurgency began two years ago, according to a USA Today analysis of U.S. military data.

The decline in U.S. deaths comes as Iraqi casualties are the highest since the U.S. military began tracking them in 2004.

Obviously we'd prefer if the number of deaths were zero--the objective of war is always peace--but it is a good sign that more Iraqis are shouldering the risk of defending their newly free country.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that antiwar sentiment seems to be abating: "Many of the weekend demonstrations across Australia, Asia and Europe drew smaller-than-anticipated crowds--far short of the millions worldwide who protested the initial invasion in March 2003 and the first anniversary in 2004." Only 1,000 people showed up to a Saturday rally in New York, a city of eight million.

It's easy to get discouraged by the drumbeat of bad news from the adversarial media--and polls suggest many Americans are sorely tempted to give up and give in. Here's hoping we continue to resist.

But Bush Promised Us Immortality!
"Deaths Continue as Iraq War Enters Year 4"--headline, Associated Press, March 20

Oh Well, Never Mind!
In a front-page story and an "editor's note," the New York Times has acknowledged that Ali Shalal Qaissi, the man it earlier reported was an iconic symbol of the Abu Ghraib abuses, was an impostor. From the editor's note:

A front-page article last Saturday profiled Ali Shalal Qaissi, identifying him as the hooded man forced to stand on a box, attached to wires, in a photograph from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal of 2003 and 2004. He was shown holding such a photograph. As an article on Page A1 today makes clear, Mr. Qaissi was not that man.

The Times did not adequately research Mr. Qaissi's insistence that he was the man in the photograph. Mr. Qaissi's account had already been broadcast and printed by other outlets, including PBS and Vanity Fair, without challenge. Lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib vouched for him. Human rights workers seemed to support his account. The Pentagon, asked for verification, declined to confirm or deny it.

Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi's claim.

The Times also overstated the conviction with which representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International expressed their view of whether Mr. Qaissi was the man in the photograph. While they said he could well be that man, they did not say they believed he was.

Two cheers for the Times for its forthright admission of error. We'll make it three if the Times acknowledges that it went wrong because it was eager to believe a story that cast America in a bad light.

Milosevic Meets His Maker
From an Associated Press report on Slobodan Milosevic's funeral:

A letter from the [erstwhile dictator's] son, Marko Milosevic, expressed hope that the late president's death would "sober up the humiliated Serb people."

"To die for one's country means to live forever," his letter said.

No priest officiated at the interment because Milosevic was an avowed atheist.

Even an avowed atheist wants to live forever.

It's Such a Paradox!

"Especially in the country's inner cities, the studies show, finishing high school is the exception, legal work is scarcer than ever and prison is almost routine, with incarceration rates climbing for blacks even as urban crime rates have declined."--New York Times, March 20

"Portland Jail Empty, Despite Rise in Crime"--headline, Let's Eat Mites!, March 20

Wouldn't It Prove the Opposite?
"Chilling Proof That Glacier Meltdown Is Getting Faster"--headline, Independent (London), March 20

If a Golfer Bites a Man, Is That News?
"Tiger Bites Man at County Fair"--headline, Associated Press, March 20

Ending, or Just Beginning?

"President of Harvard Resigns, Ending Stormy 5-Year Tenure"--headline, New York Times, Feb. 22

"Thousands Flee Cyclone Larry"--headline, Australian Associated Press, March 20

Hey, It's a Start

"Fatah Officials Call on Palestinian President to Resign"--headline, Associated Press, March 17

"Palestine Volleyball Coach Resigns"--headline, Palestine Herald-Press, March 17

More Bush Administration Foot-Dragging Incompetence!

"French Riots Spread Beyond Paris"--headline, BBC Web site, Nov. 4, 2005

"FEMA in Paris"--headline, Moberly (Mo.) Monitor-Index, March 20, 2006

Everyone Hates a Know-It-All
"Experts Tick-Off English Exams"--headline, Australian, March 21

Thanks for the Tip!--LV
"Health Tip: Non-Smokers Get Lung Cancer, Too"--headline, HealthDayNews, March 17

'E's Shuffled Off 'Is Mortal Coil! This Is an Ex-Woodpecker!
"Is Ivory-Billed Woodpecker Alive? A Debate Emerges"--headline, New York Times, March 16

Then It Must Be a Duck!
"Column One: Israel's Policy Quacks"--headline, Jerusalem Post, March 17

Bottom Stories of the Day

"Donkey Hurt in Septic Tank Fall"--headline, Ventura County (Calif.) Star, March 18

"Water Discovery May Not Spur Space Mission"--headline, Associated Press, March 17

"War Protest at Hayworth's Office Draws 2"--headline, Arizona Republic, March 16

Other Than That, It Was Perfectly Plausible
On Friday, we closed our column by telling the story of "the turtle who got mugged by a gang of snails. A cop asked him to describe the suspects, and the turtle said, 'I didn't get a good look at them, officer. It all happened so fast.' " This prompted reader Karl Spisak to write:

I'm trying to figure out your turtle-and-snails joke. I know turtles are slow, but there isn't a turtle alive that isn't 10 times faster than any snail. Is that part of the joke? Was that meant to be sarcastic? If it were the other way around, it would make sense. What am I missing?

We reread the joke, and we realized Spisak is right about the speed differential. What's more, it turns out the joke contains other factual inaccuracies:

• Even if snails had the speed to keep up with a turtle, snails have neither the strength to attack it with their bare hands nor the dexterity to handle a weapon.
  
  
• Come to think of it, they don't have hands either.
  
  
• Although it is said that "snails seem more intelligent than other mollusks, more sentient somehow," their intellectual capacity is insufficient to organize into gangs.
  
  
• Policemen typically concern themselves with human-on-human, or perhaps occasionally animal-on-human, violence. It is unlikely that an invertebrate's attack on a reptile, even if it were physically possible, would fall under the jurisdiction of any law-enforcement agency.
  
  
• Turtles can't talk.

Spisak is right: When you think about it this way, the joke isn't funny at all. We can't imagine what we were thinking.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Michael Segal, Joel Goldberg, Doug Levene, Steve Bartin, David Donadio, Monty Krieger, David Shapero, Rochi Ebner, Ethel Fenig, Jeff Raleigh, Edward Morrissey, Darin Zimmerman, John Hartness, Dan Madoni, John O'Donnell, George Brown, Lewis Chilton, Robert Koslover, Jerry Rhoden, Ed Lazear, Ed Lasky, Bob Batts, Shraga Simmons, Steve Shineman, David Shapero, Fred Lo, R. Mermelstein, Brian Dawson, Scott Hadley, Matthew Linden, Robey Newsom, Dave Tinkle, Mark Caldwell, Stefan Sharkansky, Jacques Vilar, Jason Shanker, Russell Caso, Ted Gilson, John Guaspari, Mark Van Der Molen, Carl Fogel, Tal Kerem, David Eike, Phil Hord, Ruth Papazian, Joseph Payack, Gary Petersen and Matthew du Mee. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove need new jobs.
• John Fund: Yale, which ran off a Nazi propagandist, today welcomes one from the Taliban.
• The Journal Editorial Report: A transcript of the weekend's program on the FOX News Channel.