From the WSJ Opinion Archives
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(Editor's note: On Friday, David Theroux, president of the Independent Institute,
sent us this "reply from Ambassador Edward Peck" to the Best of the
Web Today item
Tuesday on Peck's defense of the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's paper
on "The Israel Lobby." In the interest of furthering "an open
public discussion," we are publishing it in its entirety. Shown in red
are modifications Mr. Theroux made to the Microsoft Word document before submitting
it to us.) McCARTHYISM REDUX: AVOID THE SUBSTANCE; ATTACK THE MESSENGER In "Of Course There Is a It is easy to understand why an open discussion of In democracies, the majority does not always rule. Groups of like-minded citizens
(lobbies) can dominate an issue if they are motivated and active and the majority
isn't -- or has real difficulty in disseminating its views. This might explain,
as examples, no relations with Cuba and negotiations with the IRA. Some lobbies
are small, others are multifaceted, well-financed and highly effective. They
work to advance their interests, and whether the effect on the greater good
is beneficial or detrimental is entirely subjective.
No one can object to the unquestioned right of the Israel lobby, individuals
and organizations, to promote close relations with Israel. Denying that it exists,
however, and is both extremely active and highly successful, is simply idiotic.
There is an unacceptable, dangerous, and entirely undemocratic aspect of its
activities, however, the massive, unrelenting pressure which seeks to deny the
same rights to others. Those with differing views encounter highly restricted
opportunities to express them in the media, and are subject to vitriolic personal
attacks if they actually succeed in doing so. (Right, gentlemen?) There are
logical, legitimate reasons for concerns that many of Israel's actions are not
at all in America's best interests -- nor in Israel's. An open public discussion
of the pros and cons of funding, arming and supporting the occupation of Palestine,
and the brutal, oppressive nature of that occupation, might reveal that current
policies actually do represent the desire of the majority of the American people.
The lobby, however, will do everything it can to insure that we never have
a chance to find out. This may in part be due to a well-founded fear of the
reaction if the general public ever becomes aware of the actual and future political,
economic and human costs, as well as the loss of moral standing, of supporting
policies and practices which we vociferously, ceaselessly, and rightfully condemn
everywhere else.
--Edward L. Peck
'Invective, Slander, Insult and Distortion'
A defense of a defense of Mearsheimer and Walt.
Monday, April 17, 2006 12:00 p.m. EDT
An
Israel Lobby", an attempt to inject an element of rationality into a highly
emotional subject, I said that merely mentioning the topic guarantees three
immediate reactions: denunciation of the document; vilification of the author
with ad hominem attacks; shrill denial that a lobby exists. I am
grateful to a ProfessorDavid Bernstein
and a Mr.James Taranto for their contributions
to demonstrating the validity of that prediction. Thanks, guys.
our
the U.S. government's massive support for Israel, and its
manifold heavy costs, stirs emotions. It should nonetheless be a matter of concern
that educated, otherwise intelligent people will instantly resort to invective,
slander, insult and distortion to silence anyone raising the subject.