Opinion - News Analysis   

U.K. journal sparks trans-Atlantic spat

Hasan Suroor

The controversy over an essay on U.S. foreign policy by two American academics in theLondon Review of Booksshows that free speech remains a tricky issue not only for traditional faith groups but also for the enlightened elite.

ONE OF Britain's most respected literary journals finds itself at the centre of a heated trans-Atlantic debate after it published an essay by two American academics in which they claim that the their country's foreign policy, especially in West Asia, is heavily influenced by a powerful Israeli "lobby" with access to the highest levels of the U.S. administration.

Most controversially, John Mearsheimer of Chicago University and Stephen Walt of Harvard, argue that sometimes America ends up acting against its own national interest in the process of appeasing this "lobby" to win Jewish votes. They explain at length how American foreign policy is virtually dictated by a cabal of lobbyists that includes influential politicians, academics, journalists, and rights groups.

The London Review of Books, which published the article in a recent issue after it was turned down by the Atlantic Monthly, has provoked angry protests from Jewish commentators on both sides of the "pond." The journal has been accused of giving legitimacy to "anti-semitic" views and causing deliberate provocation by printing an article that, it knew, had already caused a row in America and prompted Harvard University to dissociate itself from Prof. Walt's opinion.

Intriguingly, few voices have been raised in support of free speech or the right of the two academics to express their views — and that of the LRB to publish them in the larger interest of free debate. This barely weeks after so much was heard about the importance of freedom of expression during the controversy over Prophet Muhammed's cartoons.

Notable exception

One notable exception has been the Nobel Laureate Noam Chomsky who himself has written extensively about the pro-Israeli tilt in the American media. Prof. Chomsky, though not convinced by the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, acknowledged their courage.

"Recognising that Mearsheimer-Walt took a courageous stand which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion," he has been quoted as writing for ZNet online magazine.

Most others, however, appear to question their very motive in writing such an article and that of the LRB in publishing it. Among other things, Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of being "neo-Nazis" and closet propagandists for Iran.

One irate critic, in a letter to the LRB, pointed out that the essay was being "distributed by the PLO in Washington" and "hailed" by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. "I don't want to be in such company, and neither should you. Please cancel my subscription," he wrote demanding his money back.

The magazine has been bombarded with letters attacking the essay— and, to be fair, not all are hysterical. The common theme is that there is no such thing as a small Israeli or Jewish "clique" that has a veto on U.S. foreign policy; and that the role of the resourceful lobby group, American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in influencing the American agenda is exaggerated.

"AIPAC commands great resources but its reputation for untrammelled dominance is grossly overstated," said a U.S. academic arguing that its influence was neutralised by "plenty of countervailing" Arab lobby groups.

The LRB editor, Mary-Kay Wilmers, herself a Jew, has rejected accusations of anti-semitism saying that it is wrong to read any criticism of Israel as an attack on Jews. Such allegations, she feels, amounts to imposing censorship by those who do not want to hear even legitimate criticism of Israel. She told The Observer in an interview that she "re-read" the piece after the controversy erupted and she did not think there was anything that "should not have been said."

"I do not think that criticising U.S. foreign policy, or Israel's way of going about influencing it, is anti-semitic. I just don't see it," she said.

Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been accused of lumping together diverse pro-Israel groups and presenting them as "The Lobby" in what critics say has unhappy echoes of the term "The Mafia." Ms. Wilmers denies this.

"It is not true that the authors simply lumped together a long list of people and organisations in the same piece to make their case for an `Israeli Lobby.' To say that because someone is mentioned in context in a long piece is tainted by association with any other is wrong," she said but admitted that it was perhaps a mistake for the LRB to have capitalised "I" and "L."

The controversy shows that free speech remains a tricky issue not only for traditional faith groups but also for the enlightened elite. As for the LRB, its latest spat with American academics (the last was over its post-9/11 special issue) might be just the sort of thing it needed to boost its visibility at a time when serious magazines are struggling to get new readers.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Protecting islands of excellence
Will it or won't it?
Congress and coalition realpolitik
A trip to talk it out on trade
U.K. journal sparks trans-Atlantic spat
Corrections and clarifications
Mockery
Regressive move
Progressive
Unfortunate
`Pragmatism, not opportunism'

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu