Talk:John Mearsheimer: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:31, 25 July 2006

Latest revision as of 12:07, 7 June 2025

(244 intermediate revisions by 65 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

Is it really necessary to state that he is opposed to the Iraq war in the initial paragraph of the article? [[User:Trojan traveler|Trojan traveler]] 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=y|class=B|listas=Mearsheimer, John|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low}}

==Anti-semitism==

{{WikiProject Chicago|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Pritzker-GLAM|importance=Mid}}

What is this anti-semitism you are discussing here? I did not see that term in the article but here you discuss it. However, no-one bothers to define what they mean by anti-semitism. YOu can not go arround asking people 'this sounds a bit ant-semitic, don't you think?' without explaining what you mean by that. Ho else can I answer you? Or are you yourself at loss with the term, trying to find a meaning for it.

{{WikiProject Military history|class=C

<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->

Don't you think a comment or two on Mearsheimer's anti-semitism is appropriate? How David Duke applauds his latest screed in the London Review of Books? {{Unsigned|170.148.10.43}}

|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =n

|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y

Mearsheimers lastest work is not anti-semetic, not even critical of Israel, only critical of U.S. lobbyists (jews and non-jews) having too much power of U.S. mid-east policy. Just because an anti-semetic like [[David Duke]] agrees with it does not make it anti-semetic. Everything book Hitler liked was not Nazist either. [[User:Engwar|A human]] 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

|B3 <!-- Structure --> =y

|B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y

:Concur. I've actually known Mearsheimer for several years and (although he's clearly not pro-Israel) he's never said anything anti-semitic. I also know several Jewish students who've taken his courses, one of whom has dual citizenship in Israel, and they never said they felt even slightly uncomfortable around him. However, it is appropriate in the article to mention the controversy over his article. [[User:Palm dogg|Palm_Dogg]] 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

|B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y

|Biography=y|US=y}}

David Duke approves of Mearsheimer's thesis because it supports his belief that Jews control foreign policy along with the banking system, Hollywood, and the media (did I leave anything out?). Is this factually true? Prove it then. Otherwise its only purpose is to be malicious, to stir up hate and resentment. But I guess thats not anti-semitic, is it? {{Unsigned|170.148.92.42}}

}}

{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}

:It does not support those ideas. You cannot withhold information because some radicals might use it in their propaganda. [[User:Engwar|A human]] 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

|archiveprefix=Talk:John Mearsheimer/Archives/

Calling Mearsheimer an anti-Semite is just as valid as calling Darwin an anti-Semite; both of their works might have been used as justification by bigots and supremacists, but that doesn't make them bigots.

|format=Y/F

[[User:ApathyInternational|ApathyInternational]]

|age=2160

|archivebox=yes

:Strong agree. The paper is not anti-Semite and not anti-Israel. It states for example that the lobby is not some conspirational group (unlike the portrayal of (''all'') Jews in the ''Protocols'') and that the different groups work quite open and observable. In fact Mearsheimer and Walt mention that it is the full right of any organization to lobby to influence policy and that the Israel lobby is just more effective than other groups (well organized, no pro-Arab lobby groups, no American public interest). Furthermore they just state that the Israel lobby consists of jewish "and" evangelist groups. [[User:Sijo Ripa|Sijo Ripa]] 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

|box-advert=yes}}

The following may help clarify this debate.

In describing the last of three "surprising weaknesses" of the paper, Eric Alterman writes in ''[[The Nation]]'', "Third, while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the NRA, Big Pharma and other powerful lobbies. The authors note this but often seem to forget it. This has the effect of making the Jews who read the paper feel unfairly singled out, and inspires much emotionally driven mishigas in reaction.

Do these problems justify the inference that the authors are anti-Semitic? Of course not. "

<ref>Eric Alterman, [http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/alterman AIPAC's Complaint]

The Nation, May 1, 2006 (posted April 13, 2006)</ref>[[User:204.210.35.48|204.210.35.48]] 13:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

==WSJ==

The WSJ did not refute the arguments in Mearsheimer's working paper. It merely responded - rather poorly I might add - to some of them. I've moved the external link to "external links" and changed refutes" to "response." If you have a problem with this edit please respond to this message before reverting to an earlier version. -V-

Calling Mearsheimer an anti-Semite is just as valid as calling Darwin an anti-Semite; both of their works might have been used as justification by bigots and supremacists, but that doesn't make them bigots.

[[User:ApathyInternational|ApathyInternational]]

==Removed partial summary of "Lobby" paper==

"The authors describe the activities that the pro-Israel Lobby undertakes to influence US foreign policy, and argue that this Lobby has shaped and controlled American foreign policy to suit the interests of Israel, even when it harmed US interests. The [[Kennedy School of Government]] removed its logo from this highly controversial paper, with the support of Walt<ref>The Harvard Crimson, [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512378 KSG Seeks Distance from Paper]</ref>; according to the school "the only purpose of that removal was to end public confusion; it was not intended, contrary to some interpretations, to send any signal that the school was also 'distancing' itself from one of its senior professors."<ref>The Guardian, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1743767,00.html US professors accused of being liars and bigots over essay on pro-Israeli lobby]</ref>

Several Harvard colleagues of Walt have written critical responses to the paper.<ref>

Alan Dershowitz, [http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/facultyresponses.htm Debunking the newest-and oldest-Jewish conspiracy]</ref> <ref>

David Gergen in U.S. News and World Report, [http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm An unfair attack]</ref>

<ref>Ruth Wisse, [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0306/wisse_israel_loby.php3 Harvard attack on ‘Israel lobby’ is actually a targeting of American public]</ref>

Elements of the paper have been described as anti-Semitic.<ref>Eliot A. Cohen in the Washington Post, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html Yes, It's Anti-Semitic]</ref> Mearsheimer has responded to charges of anti-Semitism by saying "We said in our paper that anyone who criticizes Israel or America's relationship with Israel is almost sure to be called an anti-Semite and have his or her scholarship impugned, and, of course, that is what we see happening to us."<ref> [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_us/israel_lobby_flap;_ylt=AlA4YlYqULjcPaOHTh1vjfOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ- Academics' Paper on 'Israel Lobby' Blasted]</ref>"

I removed the above from the main article page and replaced it with a very brief NPOV summary and a pointer to the article covering the "lobby" paper. The above summary is very incomplete and doesn't mention David Duke's involvement nor does it mention the response to the criticism -- its' just incomplete and there is no need to duplicate the main article here anyways. --[[User:LuckyLittleGrasshopper|LuckyLittleGrasshopper]] 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

:Lucky did exactly the right thing. [[User:204.210.35.48|204.210.35.48]] 13:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

== messed up references ==

The reference given for China seems to be instead about Iraq, and this reference occurs also in

the External Links section. Reference formats are inconsistent, with several different styles and different levels of completeness.[[User:204.210.35.48|204.210.35.48]] 21:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, the Alex Safian link under Reference doesn't seem to be working properly but the main point is, it seems out of place there. It certainly isn't a source of Reference on the subject but rather a criticism of the subject. If it is of any interest to readers, perhaps it should be moved to External Links. --[[User:219.95.25.245|219.95.25.245]] 10:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

== "Mearsheimer" a Jewish surname? ==

"Mearsheimer" sounds Jewish - if he is Jewish, has the media commented on this in light of the allegations of John being anti-Semetic?

:There are allegations in the media that the Mearsheimer-Walt paper has anti-Semitic overtones, but not that the authors themselves are anti-Semitic. Don't you think there is a difference? Or does saying something that can be construed as anti-Semitic automatically entail that the speaker must be anti-Semitic? [[User:204.210.35.48|204.210.35.48]] 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

== The Israel Lobby Paper ==

I think there is too much emphasis on that paper being given in this subject entry. Professor Mearsheimer is one of the leading scholar of International Relations of our time. Would it not be proper to give his other works equal attention? --[[User:219.95.25.168|219.95.25.168]] 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

:Agree. Mearsheimer's work was well known and respected for over 2 decades prior to this paper being published.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 08:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)