From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Terrorism
and Trivial Truths
"A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant
in a bustling area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing eight
other people and wounding at least 49 in the deadliest Palestinian attack in
more than a year," the Associated Press reports. This is in Tel Aviv, not
the disputed territories:
The Palestinians' new Hamas leaders called the attack a legitimate response to Israeli "aggression." Israel said it held Hamas ultimately responsible--even though a different militant group, Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility--and would respond "as necessary." . . .
Witness Israel Yaakov said the blast killed a woman standing near her husband and children.
"The father was traumatized. He went into shock. He ran to the children to gather them up and the children were screaming, 'Mom! Mom!' and she wasn't answering, she was dead already . . . it's a shocking scene," Yaakov said.
Another witness, 62-year-old Sonya Levy, said she had just finished shopping when the blast occurred.
"I was about to get into my car, and boom! There was an explosion. A bit of human flesh landed on my car and I started to scream," she said.
Are you inclined to sympathize with Israel when you read about something like this? If so, leading scholars say you're wrong. According to a paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, "The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions." Furthermore, there is no "compelling moral case for US backing" of Israel.
Last month we dissected the argument by which Mearsheimer and Walt purported to discredit Israel morally. Far from an evenhanded consideration of the facts on both sides of the issue, it turns out to be radically biased. Mearsheimer and Walt admit only evidence depicting the Jewish state as wicked, ignoring both mitigating factors and the evils committed by Israel's adversaries. This, we submitted, is an anti-Semitic argument, for it is constructed in such a way that Israel cannot win, even if the facts are on its side.
As far as we know, neither Mearsheimer nor Walt nor any of their supporters have offered any substantive defense of their moral condemnation of Israel. Our criticism of it appears to stand unrebutted. This is not to say there have not been efforts to defend Mearsheimer and Walt's work. As we noted Tuesday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an op-ed piece by Edward Peck, a former ambassador now affiliated with the California-based Independent Institute (not the Colorado-based Independence Institute), titled "Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby." On Friday David Theroux, head of the Independent Institute, emailed us a response to our item from Peck, which you can read in its entirety here.
Peck's latest response adds little to his Post-Gazette piece. He claims that our criticism, along with that of law professor David Bernstein, further demonstrates the truth of Mearsheimer and Walt's claim that there exists an "Israel Lobby." But this is an evasion. Mearsheimer and Walt's argument can be summarized as follows:
- Premise: "Neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's
support for Israel."
- Conclusion: "The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby."
What is controversial about the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is the premise: that U.S. support for Israel is strategically and morally unjustified. Peck, however, pretends that the argument is something like this:
- Premise: Many Americans are strong supporters of Israel.
- Conclusion: The "Israel Lobby" exists.
Whether this conclusion follows from the premise is a question of semantics; one could dispute whether it makes sense to characterize a journalist who has never lobbied an elected official in his life (i.e., this columnist) as part of a "lobby." But for the sake of argument, let's accept the widest possible definition of the "Israel Lobby": all Americans who strongly support the Jewish state. By that definition, we certainly qualify--and proudly so.
But also by that definition, Peck's version of the Mearsheimer-Walt argument is a truism. In other words, rather than defend the argument they actually made, Peck has recast it as a trivial truth.
Peck claims in his response to us that "those with differing views [from those of the 'Israel Lobby'] encounter highly restricted opportunities to express them in the media"--this, in case you missed it, in a response we have published in full, here. He complains of a lack of "open public discussion," when in fact the Mearsheimer-Walt paper has prompted a great deal of discussion.
If that discussion has been one-sided, it is because Mearsheimer, Walt and their supporters--including Peck--have not, in the face of serious, substantive criticism, defended the claim that support for Israel is strategically and morally unjustified. In our estimation, this is because that claim is indefensible.
Complaining
Without Context
London's Guardian reports on a "scandal" involving prisoner "abuse":
Donald Rumsfeld was directly linked to prisoner abuse for the first time [Friday], when it emerged he had been "personally involved" in a Guantánamo Bay interrogation found by military investigators to have been "degrading and abusive."
Human Rights Watch last night called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate whether the defence secretary could be criminally liable for the treatment of Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi al-Qaida suspect forced to wear women's underwear, stand naked in front of a woman interrogator, and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash, in late 2002 and early 2003.
Who is Mohamed al-Qahtani? The Guardian doesn't say, but a January 2004 Washington Post article does:
Jose E. Melendez-Perez, now an inspector with the Department of Homeland Security, recounted an interview he conducted with a Saudi national, Mohamed al Qahtani, who investigators now believe was planning to meet [honcho hijacker Mohamed] Atta at the Orlando airport on Aug. 4, 2001. Al Qahtani had no return ticket and no hotel reservations, and he refused to identify a friend who, he said, would provide him with money and other assistance on his trip.
"The bottom line was, he gave me the creeps," Melendez-Perez said in his prepared statement, adding that his first impression was that al Qahtani was a "hit man" because of his hostile and arrogant attitude and his refusal to disclose his plans. "A 'hit man' doesn't know where he is going because if he is caught, that way he doesn't have any information to bargain with," he said. "My wife said I was watching too much movies."
Before departing, al Qahtani turned to Melendez-Perez and said, in English: "I'll be back."
Melendez-Perez said he was taking a bit of a risk by refusing al Qahtani entry to the United States because Saudis were generally treated more permissively than other foreign nationals by U.S. border agents. Al Qahtani--who would later be apprehended by U.S. forces in Afghanistan--was eventually escorted onto a flight bound for Dubai via London, a decision that was applauded by the audience and the commission at yesterday's hearing.
"It is extremely possible, and perhaps probable, that Mohamed al Qahtani was to be the 20th hijacker," said Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor and Democratic member of the commission. "It is entirely plausible to suggest that your actions . . . may well have contributed to saving the Capitol or the White House and all the people who were in those buildings."
Here is how the Guardian describes Rumsfeld's involvement:
According to a December report by the army inspector general, obtained by Salon.com online magazine, the investigators did not accuse the defence secretary of specifically prescribing "creative" techniques, but they said he regularly monitored the progress of the al-Kahtani interrogation by telephone, and they argued he had helped create the conditions that allowed abuse to take place.
In other words, Rumsfeld had nothing to do with the so-called abusive interrogation techniques. Rather, he took an interest in the interrogation of an enemy combatant who, had Melendez-Perez been less alert, might have made the attacks of Sept. 11 even worse. To the Guardian, Salon and Human Rights Watch, this somehow incriminates Rumsfeld. To normal Americans, it shows he's doing his job.
Moonbattery
Goes Mainstream
A bitter blogress made page 1 of Saturday's Washington Post:
In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.
Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.
She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?
All in all, it's not a bad piece. It certainly captures the hatred and emotional imbalance that characterize much of the left today. Yet something bothers us a bit about it. Part of it is this passage:
What's notable about this isn't only the level of anger but the direction from which it is coming. Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack.
Some conservatives, such as Power Line's Paul Mirengoff, see the comparison as invidious. We suppose they have a point: Likening Newt Gingrich to Maryscott O'Connor is preposterous. Yet it is true that there once was an Angry Right, back when liberals were ascendant. Today's Angry Left is, in this sense, heir to Col. McCormick, Joe McCarthy and the John Birch Society.
But can anyone imagine an Angry Right figure being treated as respectfully in the mainstream media as O'Connor is in the Post? Don't get us wrong--we have no brief for right-wing moonbats. We're just a bit troubled that the press treats someone like O'Connor so sympathetically.
This double standard actually ought to trouble the left more. By treating crazy right-wingers as disreputable figures, the media give the Republican Party an incentive to distance itself from its fringes. The "mainstreaming" of the Angry Left, by contrast, makes the Democratic Party angrier and crazier--and less likely to win elections.
This
Multiculturalism Thing Has Gone Too Far
"Iceberg That Sank the Titanic: The dramatic story of the most famous iceberg
in history casts a very different light on the familiar Titanic legend. Where
it came from and the surprising and moving details of its 4000 mile trek, are
revealed amid the stunning landscapes of the north."--episode description,
Discovery Channel Web site, program airing April 22
This
May Be a Problem if She Decides to Run
"Clinton Couple Indicted for Tax Evasion"--headline, Clarion-Ledger
(Jackson, Miss.), April 14
Tú
No Dices
"Non-Hispanics Part of Immigration Debate"--headline, Associated Press,
April 16
Isn't
the Road to the White House Paved?
"Gravel Launches Bid for Presidency in 2008"--headline, Associated
Press, April 17
One
Suspect Possessed a Rubber Duckie Filled With Contraband
"Sesame Street Duo Held in Crack Bust"--headline, Times Herald-Record
(Middletown, N.Y.), April 17
Someone
Needs to Wash His Face
"Chin Plows Path From Oregon Potato Farm to State Supreme Court"--headline,
Associated Press, April 16
What
Would We Do Without Experts?
"Experts Ponder a Future of New Sex Gizmos, Robots"--headline, Reuters,
April 17
What
Would Cows Stun Without Experts?
"Cow Stuns Experts by Delivering Egg"--headline, China Daily, April 17
News You Can Use
"Hurricane Predictions Varied, Uncertain, Still in the Works"--headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), April 14
"Predicting Earthquakes Still Elusive"--headline, Associated Press, April 15
Thanks
for the Tip!--LXVII
"Health Tip: Take Care of Your Eyes"--headline, HealthDayNews, April 14
Bottom
Story of the Day
"Irish Census Form Omits Box for Jews"--headline, Jerusalem Post,
April 13
Censorship
Envy
Here's a hilarious story from the Daily O'Collegian, student newspaper of Oklahoma
State University:
A university spokesman threatened censorship of a Daily O'Collegian story earlier this week about President George Bush's plans to speak at spring graduation ceremonies, saying the story would jeopardize OSU's chances of receiving the high-profile visit.
Gary Shutt, director of communication services, told an O'Collegian reporter Monday evening that he would call the director of OSU's journalism school and ask him to stop the newspaper from running any story addressing rumors about Bush or confirming the president's visit.
The White House officially announced Bush's visit Thursday, before the O'Collegian could find a source to confirm the visit on the record.
The journalism school's director, Tom Weir, has no editorial control of the student-run newspaper. Students control all aspects of the paper, and Weir said he "can't imagine" any reason for asking editors not to run a story.
Accompanying the story is a "photo illustration" showing a bespectacled young man with an image of an American flag covering his mouth.
Now, this column yields to no one in our support for collegiate press freedoms. As Taranto trivia buffs are well aware, we waged our own free-press battle many years ago when we were enrolled in a third-tier Western university. (Oklahoma State, in case you were wondering, is a third-tier national university.) But the kerfuffle as described in the O'Collegian has nothing to do with censorship. Rather, it is a simple leak case.
What happened was that the paper received information from someone who presumably wasn't authorized to disclose it. The authorities got wind of the leak and asked the paper not to publish it. The paper refused to withhold the information (though it ended up not publishing it anyway, because it wasn't able to confirm it). In short, everyone behaved completely honorably, except the silly student journalists who tried to trump it up into a censorship case.
Guys, take it from us: Actually being censored isn't as much fun as it sounds.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Rochi Ebner, Joel Goldberg, Monty Krieger, Michael Segal, Ed Lasky, Ivan Osorio, Jim Trager, David Caley, Leland Smith, Andrew Robinson, Samuel Walker, Bennett Stern, Dan Carter, Joseph Abdy, Dan O'Shea, Bill Kicak, Arnie Dupuy, Marian Wissenberg, Barak Moore and Justin Akers. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: What's behind the attacks against Rumsfeld.
- John Fund: Meet Masood Farivar, the Afghan Yale refused to admit.
- The Journal Editorial Report: A transcript of the weekend's program on the FOX News Channel.
