Review wasn’t balanced …
Regarding Ron Grossman’s review of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt [Books, Oct. 6], I have some observations to share.
Although I have not read the book thus far, I have seen the authors on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” being interviewed and questioned at length by Phil Ponce. As a result of their answers, I intend to give the book a careful reading. They seemed to have a sense of balance and concern for both the United States and for Israel. Their thinking seemed grounded in facts.
For example, they pointed out that all American presidents for the past 50 years have been firmly against Israeli settlements on disputed territory. Yet not a single president could put teeth into his admonition, due to pressures put upon him.
In another important case, they cited sources of opinion for Israel not to invade Lebanon under then-current conditions. Yet America bought time in the UN for Israel to achieve its war objectives, even though these eventually proved harmful to Israel itself. The authors expessed regret that Israel could not be kept from self-inflicted harm by the U.S. I felt they were speaking responsibly and with concern.
Thus it was quite a surprise to read in the [review] that their book “contains a touch of the paranoid” and that their solutions were not grounded on reality but indulged in fantasy. I do appreciate [Grossman’s] pinpointing pages that show inconsistency or lack of logic. Fair enough.
But I don’t see the full balance of an objective evaluator in his writing. On the other hand, I was impressed with the authors’ cogent thinking and their answers to possible criticisms of their positions brought up by their fair-minded interviewer.
It is my understanding that a review should address the spoken intent of the authors, which, in this case at least, was to encourage debate among people as to the effectiveness of U.S. policy in its relation to Israel. They have brought up examples of Israeli decisions and policies that have gone wrong and need investigation. Yet they say that U.S. financial aid never ceases. Why does it continue? The authors related that most of their critics attacked them with personal blame for being greatly anti-Semitic or partly so, instead of taking on each substantive issue, point by point.
Grossman accuses the authors of fuzzy thinking, having “the ring of religious or ideological commitment,” but his analogy of pseudo-Raphael works [being listed as] “in the school of Raphael” to this book as being “in the school of anti-Semitism” is quite a stretch of an image. (Sure enough, that accusation comes instead of debating each case.)
On and on until the authors are seen as weavers of fantasy for their idealism in a “post-Israel-lobby world.”
I infer from Grossman’s review that “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” is not worthwhile reading because of its faults. I intend to give it a close reading, however, to see if the cogent thinking of the authors that I saw on TV stands up in the book. If I happen to find examples of faulty thinking, perhaps I’ll come closer to Grossman’s view of it. I might grade it “B” or even “C” instead of “A,” but I doubt that I’ll pan or flunk the authors’ thinking as unrealistic or a bit paranoid.
Ed Dougal, Des Plaines
… and it was poorly argued
As a long-time subscriber to the Tribune, I rely on the paper to be an objective source of news, but after reading Ron Grossman’s biased and poorly argued review of the important new book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” I have lost all faith in the Trib’s objectivity.
First of all, how could you assign someone who is so clearly a strong supporter of Israel to review this book? Second, how can you possibly publish a review that ignores the central thesis of the book — namely that the amount of aid and political support we give Israel is not in the U.S. national interest — and instead just tries to nitpick and find inconsistencies?
After briefly acknowledging the power of the lobby in his review, he spends the rest of the time trashing the book and doesn’t concede that the authors have even one good argument. Are we to believe that he disagreed with every single point they made? Meanwhile, nowhere in his review does he mange to refute the authors’ central claim (that we need to rethink our relationship with Israel). I think the real hidden strength of the pro-Israel movement is that friends of Israel like Grossman consistently get chosen to review books like this. Its such a shame the Trib didn’t give this book a chance, because the authors make some very good arguments. Why don’t you allow the authors a rebuttal or invite someone less biased to review the book?
Dave Seminara, River Forest
