by JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:42 P.M. EST

Anti-Jew Déjà Vu
Blogger Ed Lasky notes a fascinating piece that appeared in the Jan. 10, 2003, issue of the Chicago Maroon, a student newspaper at the University of Chicago:

An open letter demanding vigilance in ensuring that Israel does not forcibly expel Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza has drawn the endorsement of nearly a thousand American academics, including eight at the University of Chicago.

The letter, adopted from one circulated by Israeli academics, cites Israeli politicians who publicly support removing Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and relocating them into neighboring Arab countries. The "fog of war [with Iraq] could be exploited by the Israeli government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing," the letter reads. . . .

"The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves us to make sure it does not happen again," said John Mearsheimer, co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University and one of the letter's signatories.

Mearsheimer, of course, is a co-author, with Stephen Walt, of the infamous Harvard paper arguing that there is no moral or strategic basis for America's support of Israel and concluding that such support is explained by "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." As we noted Monday, their paper has drawn praise from David Duke.

The claim that Israel would expel Palestinians from the disputed territories had a familiar ring to it, and after some digging through our archives, we figured out why. On March 14, 2003, less than a week before coalition troops crossed the Iraqi frontier, we quoted a reader e-mail responding to our mystification at the idea--then being propounded by figures as diverse as Edward Said, Pat Buchanan, David Duke and Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.)--"that the impending liberation of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy by a Zionist 'cabal,' as Buchanan calls it, that is 'colluding with Israel' to 'ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests.' "

Our reader wrote:

What is obvious is that they [the Israelis] will use the resulting chaos as a pretext to get rid of the Palestinians, driving them out of the country into Jordan or Egypt. Who will say or do anything to stop them when the region is totally destabilized and a mess?

We are not cruel enough to reveal the identity of this silly missive's author, but we will say that the person is at the University of Chicago and is not Mearsheimer. Apparently this idea was very much in the air among Windy City savants in early 2003. Three years later, Israel not only has not expelled the Palestinian Arabs; it has withdrawn from Gaza. The prediction not only was not "obvious" but was flat wrong. We said so at the time:

Let us spell out the assumptions underlying this theory:

• That the disastrous outcome of war in Iraq--"chaos," with the region "totally destabilized and a mess"--is foreordained.
  
  
• That Israel and its co-conspirators, some of whom hold subcabinet-level positions in the Bush administration, know this, but the rest of the administration and the majority of Congress have no clue and thus have been duped by the Zionist plotters into thinking the war has a significant chance of success.
  
  
• That although the whole region will be engulfed in "chaos," "totally destabilized and a mess," Israel will have no problem managing the forcible relocation of more than three million people, many of them heavily armed with guns and explosives, all the while defending its borders against the hostile states and terrorist groups that surround it.

There is actually one more assumption implicit in the 2003 prediction of imminent "ethnic cleansing" in the disputed territories: that Israel would not observe any moral constraint against such an action. In other words, those who predicted mass expulsion of Palestinians assumed both (a) that Israel is wicked and (b) that carrying out the imagined plan would be practicable. We'd argue that both (a) and (b) are false, but clearly they cannot both be true. It may be that a conviction that Israel is evil blinded advocates of this theory to its practical shortcomings.

In a 2005 essay for Josh Marshall's TPMCafe.com titled "A Democratic Foreign Policy?," G. John Ikenberry sang the praises of both the authors of the Harvard study, among others:

It is worth noting that some of the most lucid and compelling voices in Democratic foreign policy circles are in fact scholars who ground their ideas in realist theory. These realist-oriented security studies scholars--who include the top figures in the field such as John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Barry Posen, Robert Art, and many others--all have distinct and sophisticated realist-oriented theoretical views of world politics. But they also have spoken out against Bush foreign policy and opposed the Iraq war in unusually systematic and intelligent ways.

Can we at least agree that entertaining lurid fantasies about Israeli depravity does not qualify as "realism" in any meaningful sense of the word?

What Would We Do Without Iraq?
"Iraq: Experts Are Part of the Problem"--headline, WashingtonPost.com, March 21

Talib U Déjà Vu
If you've been following the story of Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the erstwhile Taliban spokesman who is (for the moment at least) a student at Yale, you'll get a kick out of the political cartoon a portion of which is shown nearby. (Click on it, or on the heading atop this item, to see the full cartoon.) Drawn by the Cincinnati Enquirer's Jim Borgman, it carries the headline "How to Terrorize the Taliban." First suggestion: "Random acts of feminism." A burkha-clad woman is shown holding a letter and exclaiming, "A scholarship to Yale!" In the foreground a bearded fanatic clenches his teeth and covers his ears.

This cartoon appeared on Oct. 7, 2001. Yale turned out to be a lot friendlier to the Taliban than to their victims.

Moonbats Rock On
Blogress Karol Sheinin ventures into enemy territory--well, OK, "enemy" is too strong; let's say she goes observing moonbats in their native habitat. To be specific, she attended the antiwar rock concert dubbed "Bring 'Em Home Now" the other day. Among her amusing observations:

We have this contingency [sic] of people, who actually believe they are the majority. It was mentioned several times . . . that most Americans have come around to their view, that the troops need to come home now. How do they know? Well, polls say so! Which, fine, you want to believe polls, that's ok with me. But how come their elected officials don't believe those same polls? Why aren't their Senators and Congressmen calling for withdrawal en masse? If the majority agrees that immediate withdrawal is necessary, why is it a touchy political issue? It should be so simple. In fact, I highly recommend that Democrats follow the polls and run in '06 on the idea of immediate withdrawal. I want to see how that would go down, exactly.

The whole concert was something straight out of South Park. Susan Sarandon was there. Cindy Sheehan, of course. A random anti-war veteran of this war. Chuck D. Margaret Cho. Everyone took themselves extremely seriously. Steve Earle, some old hippie looking sort-of country singer kicked the night off with a song called "F--- the FCC" the lyrics of which are the extremely insightful "F--- the FCC, F--- the FBI, F--- the CIA, Livin' in the m-----f---in' USA." Cindy Sheehan proclaimed herself a "rockstar" and led the crowd in a chant of "Violence and occupation/Do not bring liberation/That's bullsh--/Get off it/This war is for profit." . . .

All in all, it was a collection of hasbeens and publicity seekers. The worst of the spotlight whores was actually the anti-war vet, Geoff Millard (. . . note the upside down flag on his shoulder: he's like so subversive, man.). He was just basking in the adoration. He was also easily the most pretentious, dumb person up there (and, c'mon, with this collection, it's a feat). He's this white guy who is an African-American studies major (of course), quotes MLK and Malcolm X, and said some of the stupidest things of the night such as "my rights aren't being trampled by Al Qaeda" and "Saddam Hussein never tapped my phone." Idiot. While he was talking, I heard someone scream out "Why did you join in the first place?"

Our item yesterday on the increasingly superannuated character of the antiwar constituency prompted this observation from reader Andrew McDonald:

Your observation that "Vietnam-style defeatism . . . is an ingrained impulse of aging hippies" is astute. I would go further and speculate on the motivation for their actions. As people get older and near retirement, when their children have grown and they have more free time on their hands, they may take up hobbies to pass the time and make new friends. The hobby they choose is often connected with a past interest, one they stopped pursuing during their active years for lack of time. For example, many men will buy and restore a brand of car that they admired as teenagers.

Here in Seattle, where there is a high concentration of aging hippies and Wobblies, many protesters seem more interested in the social than the political aspect of their gatherings. Every Sunday afternoon, a small group gathers at a local park, ostensibly to wave signs at passing motorists. They mostly chat and share refreshments. Even on weeks when there is an "atrocity" that might stimulate turnout, few more than the core group put in an appearance.

Rarely do I see anyone under 40 at these rallies. I have come to the conclusion that rallying is the hobby of the aging hippie. How better to relive your youth? The country's defeat in Vietnam was their victory. Calling for America's defeat now helps them get a thrill, the same way driving an old Cobra excites the retired hot-rodder.

Maybe the 21st-century hippie slogan should be "Get a hobbyhorse!"

Stable Condition
Blogger Harry Forbes has a laugh at the expense of this Boston Globe correction:

Because of a reporting error, a Sunday book review of "The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977" referred to a policy that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "set in motion before his death." Sharon remains in a coma after suffering a stroke in January.

What's hilarious about this is that the correction is completely unnecessary. As long as Sharon is still alive, everything that has ever happened occurred before his death.

Unlike the Credentials of Radiohead
"Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke says he turned down the chance to discuss climate change with Tony Blair because the British prime minister has 'no environmental credentials.' "--Associated Press, March 21

Understatement of the Year
"Democrats Must Learn to Make Sense to Voters"--headline, RealClearPolitics.com, March 21

Which Is Still Enough to Upset the Dyslexic Animal Rights Activists
"Only a Few Hundred Demonstrate in Minsk"--headline, Associated Press, March 22

Hard to Believe He Had Any to Begin With
"Man Who Raped and Killed Grandmother Loses Appeal"--headline, Associated Press, March 22

Thanks for the Tip!--LVII
"Health Tip: Eczema Uncomfortable but Not Dangerous"--headline, HealthDayNews, March 21

Bottom Story of the Day
"Candidates Address Concerns in Uncontested Races"--headline, Sudbury (Mass.) Town Crier, March 16

Good Thing He Wasn't Dressed to Kill
"A man's pantyhose led to his arrest, authorities said. An unshaven man wearing a black evening gown, fishnet stockings, calf-high boots and a black wig robbed a USA Gas station Monday morning, authorities alleged," the Associated Press reports from Monterey, Calif.:

The armed man stuffed $290 in cash into an ensemble-matching black purse. . . .

About 35 minutes after the robbery, police Officer Chad Ventimiglia spotted a black Saab with fishnet pantyhose hanging from the front driver's side door, dragging on the ground, investigators said.

The car was pulled over and Michael Leslie Clouse, 26, was arrested and booked for investigation of armed robbery.

Wow, you might say Clouse was literally caught in a dragnet.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ethel Fenig, David Gerstman, Lewis Sckolnick, Naftali Friedman, Dave Amrine, Bill King, Max Koss, Edward Schluze, Charles Ogden, Thomas Dillon, Ruth Papazian, Suzanne Smith and Merv Benson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)

Today on OpinionJournal:

• Review & Outlook: The consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq.
• Holly Fretwell (from PERC): It's time to get rid of National Forest junk land.
• Gabriel Schoenfeld: Decades of spying on nuclear programs have had low yields.