I think I would love to listen to an interview the other way round -- Mearsheimer interviewing Wirjawan for an hour or so. I suspect I would learn a lot.
John Mearsheimer has been exactly correct about everything he’s weighed in on. If the US as a country and we as a species had been smart enough to have taken his advice over the years there would have been much less death, destruction and nastiness and we would be much further ahead.
Your portrayal of the Israel lobby reeks of bias, painting a sinister picture without any shred of balance. This oversimplification of a complex geopolitical landscape is intellectually dishonest – U.S. policy decisions are clearly driven by much more than just lobbying pressure. By insinuating secrecy and manipulation, you play into dangerous conspiracies that fuel antisemitism. Your selective focus on alignment and dismissal of diverse perspectives within the Jewish community and pro-Israel circles reveals a clear agenda rather than genuine analysis. While the lobby may have influence, your one-sided attack undermines any credibility your work might have had.
This post is complete bullshit. Like many critics of John’s work on the Israel Lobby, you misrepresent his positions. You don’t know what he actually says and you don’t care what he has to say, because it’s more important to you to make a specious accusation of antisemitism than it is to make a substantive critique.
(1) John has not and has *never* said there’s anything secretive about the Lobby. He has stated hundreds of times, both in the original article/book and in countless public statements since 2007, that the Lobby operates openly. He’s right. The former head of AIPAC once had a dinner with Jeffrey Goldberg where the lobbyist held up a napkin and said “do you see this napkin? I could have the signatures of 70 United States Senators on this napkin within 24 hours.” The Lobby openly boasts about its collective influence.
(2) Of course the lobby “manipulates” policy just as the gun lobby manipulates gun policy and the oil manipulates energy policy. That’s the point of a lobby.
(3) You assert in conclusions fashion that it is “obvious” that U.S. policy decisions “are driven by much more than just lobbying pressure.” You provide no evidence to substantiate this claim.
(4) John has never dismissed the existence of diverse perspectives within the Jewish community on Israel. He has written entire book chapters on this very phenomenon and predicted that the American Jewish community would politically splinter over the issue of support for Israel well-over a decade ago (see his book chapter “Righteous Jews and New Afrikaaners.”) Just this past week John did an interview where he cautioned the interviewer to remember that Jews in the U.S. do not uniformly support Israel and that many of the Zionist state’s most vociferous critics are Jewish. Even basic cursory research on John’s public statements would have demonstrated this.
You are either too ignorant to comment or you are willfully misrepresenting John’s positions. In either event, your post is nothing but misinformation.
Most countries have interests in the United States, ranging from policy concerns to tourism and trade promotion. Foreign Lobby Watch uses the semi-annual reports foreign agents are required to file with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to calculate the countries with the highest spending.
Where is Israel on this list? Yet, Mearsheimer and his idiot disciples like yourself focus only on Israel. Mearsheimer wrote a misleading book and now goes on every podcast that will take him to spew his one-sided anti-Israel bullshit.
John, this may shock you... Jews... are citizens. Evangelicals? Are also citizens. I might not agree with the former, and I might very well think the latter are crazy. I might not want them to be anywhere near U.S. foreign policy. However, your idea that they form a "blob" which controls U.S. foreign policy is ludicrous. The Yale-Harvard mafia, that runs U.S. foreign policy. Oh, sure, there are plenty of Jews there. Didn't Nuland just "resign"? Isn't Blinken somehow powerless in the face of Israeli -- or Myanar -- foreign policy? I might not think the fact a majority of supreme court justices are in fact Jewish to be good for the USA, but it's not because they are Jews, it's because of stupid ideas about judicial interpretation that started back in the 1930s, really took off with the baby boomers, and no one else is correcting, so we're gonna wind up with term limits on the unable to self-regulate after all clique of wait for it
Harvard-Yale alumnae.
Fortunately these people are entirely clueless about terrorism, and many other things. Intellectual inbreeding.
Maybe... reconsider your targets? Or even better, modify your theory when facts contrary it, like any other scientist.
This post is so digressive that it is virtually unintelligible.
John has never said that the Lobby is exclusively Jewish or that it represents the interests of all Jews in the United States. The portion of your post on Jews being US citizens is totally inapposite. John never said otherwise. Believe it or not, many lobbies that try to influence federal policy consist of American citizens. John has furthermore never said the Lobby’s activities are illegal or illegitimate. All he has said is that the Israel Lobby is like every other Lobby in the U.S., and that its chief distinction is that it is especially effective.
John never said that Jews form a “blob.” The term “The Blob” refers to the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that pervades Washington, which encompasses Jews and gentiles alike. John didn’t coin that term. Barack Obama’s former speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, coined it.
Frankly even your irrelevant digression about the Supreme Court is misinformed but that issue is so inapposite to the topic at hand that it does not merit further analysis.
It is one thing to make bad arguments but it is another to make arguments so confused and muddled that the illogic embedded within them has to be deciphered before they can be critiqued.
Since you’re obviously very bright, articulate and a deep, critical thinker it would be good for me to have you review my “course”. My course is what amounts to a roadmap as to how we (the US) should have conducted our foreign policy since the end of world war 2 and especially since the end of the Cold War. It is a what amounts to a masterclass in world leadership and international diplomacy. It makes for the basis for a kind of non-religious religion, which is a species would do well to use as a replacement for the vast majority of our organized religions. And most importantly it should be the basis for the operating system for artificial intelligence, which serves as both AI’s governor and soul ultimate objective. (These are concepts that I got from studying the work of Nick Bostrom, Mo Gadwat, Geoffrey Hinton, Joshua Benjamin and others). I think it’s important work that is ahead of its time. However, it’s not too far ahead of its time because the problems we are going to be facing with the rapid, exponential advancement in AI will be upon us before we realize it’s scope and scale.
you can get back to me after you notice -100k dead from heroin -1 million dead from covid and get that diabetes and fat problem you have under control. oh. telling people ugly truths gets insults. carry on diening!
Because wrong ideas are self correcting, dummy. Oh, sure, they may kill a few people along the way to failing. That's the only reason I bother to engage shitflies from Moscow such as you.
The advice to students at the end is priceless
I think I would love to listen to an interview the other way round -- Mearsheimer interviewing Wirjawan for an hour or so. I suspect I would learn a lot.
Palestinians' gift to the world: #JewishPower has peaked
John Mearsheimer has been exactly correct about everything he’s weighed in on. If the US as a country and we as a species had been smart enough to have taken his advice over the years there would have been much less death, destruction and nastiness and we would be much further ahead.
Your portrayal of the Israel lobby reeks of bias, painting a sinister picture without any shred of balance. This oversimplification of a complex geopolitical landscape is intellectually dishonest – U.S. policy decisions are clearly driven by much more than just lobbying pressure. By insinuating secrecy and manipulation, you play into dangerous conspiracies that fuel antisemitism. Your selective focus on alignment and dismissal of diverse perspectives within the Jewish community and pro-Israel circles reveals a clear agenda rather than genuine analysis. While the lobby may have influence, your one-sided attack undermines any credibility your work might have had.
This post is complete bullshit. Like many critics of John’s work on the Israel Lobby, you misrepresent his positions. You don’t know what he actually says and you don’t care what he has to say, because it’s more important to you to make a specious accusation of antisemitism than it is to make a substantive critique.
(1) John has not and has *never* said there’s anything secretive about the Lobby. He has stated hundreds of times, both in the original article/book and in countless public statements since 2007, that the Lobby operates openly. He’s right. The former head of AIPAC once had a dinner with Jeffrey Goldberg where the lobbyist held up a napkin and said “do you see this napkin? I could have the signatures of 70 United States Senators on this napkin within 24 hours.” The Lobby openly boasts about its collective influence.
(2) Of course the lobby “manipulates” policy just as the gun lobby manipulates gun policy and the oil manipulates energy policy. That’s the point of a lobby.
(3) You assert in conclusions fashion that it is “obvious” that U.S. policy decisions “are driven by much more than just lobbying pressure.” You provide no evidence to substantiate this claim.
(4) John has never dismissed the existence of diverse perspectives within the Jewish community on Israel. He has written entire book chapters on this very phenomenon and predicted that the American Jewish community would politically splinter over the issue of support for Israel well-over a decade ago (see his book chapter “Righteous Jews and New Afrikaaners.”) Just this past week John did an interview where he cautioned the interviewer to remember that Jews in the U.S. do not uniformly support Israel and that many of the Zionist state’s most vociferous critics are Jewish. Even basic cursory research on John’s public statements would have demonstrated this.
You are either too ignorant to comment or you are willfully misrepresenting John’s positions. In either event, your post is nothing but misinformation.
I couldn’t agree more!
Most countries have interests in the United States, ranging from policy concerns to tourism and trade promotion. Foreign Lobby Watch uses the semi-annual reports foreign agents are required to file with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to calculate the countries with the highest spending.
Where is Israel on this list? Yet, Mearsheimer and his idiot disciples like yourself focus only on Israel. Mearsheimer wrote a misleading book and now goes on every podcast that will take him to spew his one-sided anti-Israel bullshit.
https://www.opensecrets.org/fara?cycle=2020
You give a wonderful example of a badly lopsided “ hubris- humility” index. (Refer to very end of video ICYMI.)
Always look forward to your work!
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
John, this may shock you... Jews... are citizens. Evangelicals? Are also citizens. I might not agree with the former, and I might very well think the latter are crazy. I might not want them to be anywhere near U.S. foreign policy. However, your idea that they form a "blob" which controls U.S. foreign policy is ludicrous. The Yale-Harvard mafia, that runs U.S. foreign policy. Oh, sure, there are plenty of Jews there. Didn't Nuland just "resign"? Isn't Blinken somehow powerless in the face of Israeli -- or Myanar -- foreign policy? I might not think the fact a majority of supreme court justices are in fact Jewish to be good for the USA, but it's not because they are Jews, it's because of stupid ideas about judicial interpretation that started back in the 1930s, really took off with the baby boomers, and no one else is correcting, so we're gonna wind up with term limits on the unable to self-regulate after all clique of wait for it
Harvard-Yale alumnae.
Fortunately these people are entirely clueless about terrorism, and many other things. Intellectual inbreeding.
Maybe... reconsider your targets? Or even better, modify your theory when facts contrary it, like any other scientist.
This post is so digressive that it is virtually unintelligible.
John has never said that the Lobby is exclusively Jewish or that it represents the interests of all Jews in the United States. The portion of your post on Jews being US citizens is totally inapposite. John never said otherwise. Believe it or not, many lobbies that try to influence federal policy consist of American citizens. John has furthermore never said the Lobby’s activities are illegal or illegitimate. All he has said is that the Israel Lobby is like every other Lobby in the U.S., and that its chief distinction is that it is especially effective.
John never said that Jews form a “blob.” The term “The Blob” refers to the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that pervades Washington, which encompasses Jews and gentiles alike. John didn’t coin that term. Barack Obama’s former speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, coined it.
Frankly even your irrelevant digression about the Supreme Court is misinformed but that issue is so inapposite to the topic at hand that it does not merit further analysis.
It is one thing to make bad arguments but it is another to make arguments so confused and muddled that the illogic embedded within them has to be deciphered before they can be critiqued.
I couldn’t agree more!
Since you’re obviously very bright, articulate and a deep, critical thinker it would be good for me to have you review my “course”. My course is what amounts to a roadmap as to how we (the US) should have conducted our foreign policy since the end of world war 2 and especially since the end of the Cold War. It is a what amounts to a masterclass in world leadership and international diplomacy. It makes for the basis for a kind of non-religious religion, which is a species would do well to use as a replacement for the vast majority of our organized religions. And most importantly it should be the basis for the operating system for artificial intelligence, which serves as both AI’s governor and soul ultimate objective. (These are concepts that I got from studying the work of Nick Bostrom, Mo Gadwat, Geoffrey Hinton, Joshua Benjamin and others). I think it’s important work that is ahead of its time. However, it’s not too far ahead of its time because the problems we are going to be facing with the rapid, exponential advancement in AI will be upon us before we realize it’s scope and scale.
you can get back to me after you notice -100k dead from heroin -1 million dead from covid and get that diabetes and fat problem you have under control. oh. telling people ugly truths gets insults. carry on diening!
You doubled-down on an irrelevant post with an even less relevant response. Bravo.
Your writing proves that Attention Deficit Disorder is one of this nation’s biggest problems.
Narcissism is the biggest problem.
The great part about wrong ideas is: they inevitably fail.
I Know Mearsheimer is wrong (and frankly self-contradictory). But I would prefer his wrong to fail forward faster.
You, in contrast, are, at best, a chump. I put in lots of commas so even chumps and suckers can read it.
You ever see someone ripping the wings off of a fly to watch it hobble around?
You are that fly.
Once more your response contained no substantive arguments regarding either John or I.
This is because you have no substantive arguments to make.
Because wrong ideas are self correcting, dummy. Oh, sure, they may kill a few people along the way to failing. That's the only reason I bother to engage shitflies from Moscow such as you.