The Walt-Mearsheimer study and the Haaretz factor

As a post Walt-Mearsheimer piece that's basically supportive toward the authors of the now infamous pro-Israel study, Tony Judt's New York Times Op-Ed (Read it here) was the best so far. It was not as powerful as the anti-study piece by Eliot Cohen in the Post (Read it here) - nevertheless, it was fair, balanced and thought provoking. And this is not a small thing coming from someone who made up his mind on this study less than 24 hours after it was published.

Judt writes about the paper that "it makes two distinct and important claims. The first is that uncritical support for Israel across the decades has not served America's best interests. This is an assertion that can be debated on its merits. The authors' second claim is more controversial: American foreign policy choices, they write, have for years been distorted by one domestic pressure group, the 'Israel Lobby'."

I'm not going to dive into Judt's arguments, as I really feel that enough already has been said in this Domain of the matter. However, I will use this opportunity to address something that's on my mind - and, apparently, the minds of some of my readers - since the study came out: Let's just call it the "Haaretz factor."

I work for a left-wing newspaper. If you read Haaretz you already know this by now. But, in this paper there are many voices, from the right (not many), the center-right (still not many), the center (quite a few), the center-left (many), the far-left (let's say that Haaretz has more than its fair share coming from this political camp).

Haaretz also has many professional reporters with no distinctive political agenda. Some of them I have known personally for years, and I'm still not sure if I can figure out what camp do they belong to, or what party they voted for.

Enter the Walt-Mearsheimer study, and some of my readers became confused. Firstly, the study contains many quotes from the newspaper I work for. These quotes are meant to help the authors prove the two claims they are making (I'm saying two because of Judt). But then they read what I have to say and start sending me emails along the lines of: "How can you say this study is flawed when it was built on anecdotes and remarks by Haaretz commentators?"

Some of the readers I answered personally, but I came back to the issue because of the Judt article, in which my newspaper is mentioned three times.

The first reference, in which he doesn't mention the paper, but the name of one of its columnists: "The Israeli journalist Tom Segev described the Walt-Mearsheimer essay as 'arrogant,' but also acknowledged ruefully that, "They are right. Had the United States saved Israel from itself, life today would be better... the Israel Lobby in the United States harms Israel's true interests'."

The second: "It was an Israeli columnist in the liberal daily Haaretz who described the American foreign policy advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith as 'walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments... and Israeli interests'." The columnist, by the way, is Akiva Eldar.

The third: "Daniel Levy (a former Israeli peace negotiator) wrote in Haaretz that the Walt-Mearsheimer essay should be a wake-up call, a reminder of the damage the Israel lobby is doing to both nations."

Now, as proud as this might make me, there's a problem here that's self-evident to any Israeli reading the article (and it doesn't matter to which political wing he belongs). The choices Judt made on whom he was going to quote are either uneducated or biased. You can't take these three (excellent) commentators, and pretend that they represent - well, what exactly do you want them to represent?

The Segev quote aims to prove that the lobby work is "bad for Israel." Is this true? Yes, if you believe in what Segev believes - and most Israelis and Americans don't.

And what about the Eldar quote? This one was meant to prove that "the uncomfortable issues" were aired in Israel, so why not here in America? On this I will say two things: First, you can "air" them here as much as needed, but make sure you don't do it in a manner that Eliot Cohen rightly exposes as anti-Semitic.

Second, don't rely on the bragging Israelis as proof. Israelis are sometimes very narrowly focused on the "Israeli" aspect of every issue, and tend to exaggerate it. So they think Douglas Feith has nothing better to do than to think day and night about Israel? Many of them will say the same about President Bush, or, for that matter, President Clinton. It's not because these people are so preoccupied with Israel as to distort everything else, but because Israelis are so preoccupied with Israel to the extent that they see everything through this narrow hole.

And, since I dealt both with Segev and Eldar, let me add a word about Levy. He was a guest writer for Haaretz. I thought his piece reflected a certain point of view. And, comfortably enough, there was no problem in finding an opposite opinion to use, had Judt wanted to. (Try "Embarrassing and dangerous" by Reuven Pedhatzur here). So why choose him?

As you might understand, this is a very delicate issue for me to write about. These are my colleagues, and this is the paper that pays my salary. However, the truth must be told, and in this case, the truth is that my paper is being used here in a manner that makes me uncomfortable (I'm sure that many Haaretz commentators will not feel the same ? that's one of the reasons for which you need more than one person writing for a newspaper, and more than one point of view).

Haaretz is a very good source of news. It is also a good source for commentary, but when it comes to views you have to bear two weaknesses in mind. One, you need to use it in an honest manner, otherwise there's enough fringe material in it as to distort reality. Two, you have to realize that this fine paper does not ? repeat, does not ? represent the majority view in Israel.

That's why it was so easy for Walt-Mearsheimer to use material from Haaretz in their study. That's where the Judt piece is also somewhat flawed. The great thing about the paper though, is that it gives voice to more than one opinion. Hence, you shouldn't have been surprised to read in my blog my reaction to the study and its aftermath.