Is James Fallows a Disloyal American?
10.22.2007 - 11:26 PMTaking up the ideas of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the inordinate influence of the “Israel Lobby” on American foreign policy, James Fallows of the Atlantic writes that “[t]o the (ongoing) extent that AIPAC–the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”–is trying to legitimize a military showdown between the United States and Iran, it is advancing its own causes at the expense of larger American interests.” The people behind this cause, he continues, “are not from one ethnic group in the conventional sense but are mainly of one religion (Jewish).”
To observe this, writes Fallows, and to warn against it, “including the disastrous consequences of attacking Iran” that it is seeking to bring about, is not to be anti-Semitic. And noting the “power and potential” of groups like AIPAC “to distort policy” simply means “recognizing that James Madison’s warnings about the invidious effects of ‘faction’ apply beyond the 18th century.”
I agree with Fallows that there is nothing wrong with observing the operations of “factions” in our politics, just as there is nothing wrong with warning against the consequences of their operations.
But why is this game played only one way, with America’s Jews the primary target?
Isn’t Fallows himself part of a faction? To be sure, it is not one organized on ethnic lines. It is a far more cohesive body than that, consisting of liberals who in almost all instances oppose the use of American power abroad. This faction, too, might be thought of as invidiously “advancing its own causes at the expense of larger American interests.”
All loyal Americans–including those, “mainly of one religion (Jewish),” whom Fallows brazenly tries to delegitimize as part of a faction pursuing interests running counter to those of our own country–need to observe carefully his faction, and to warn against its activities, lest it bring about the disastrous consequences of not attacking Iran should that state forge ahead with its nuclear ambitions
* * *
James Fallows’s amazed response to this post can be found here. And my less amazed response to his response can be found here.
| »Back to Connecting the Dots | »Back to Commentary |
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 AM
It takes many forms, in various times, in different places, but there is one certainty in this world: the Jews will always be blamed for something. Thanks, Jim Fallows, for the reminder.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 AM
If Iran has a nuke it could control the flow of Gulf oil, making it a decisive weapon against the United States; Iran could give nuclear material to terrorists to bring to our cities; it could give nuclear material and missiles its allies, our neighbors, in Central and South America; it could stimulate proliferation among Middle-Eastern countries that are hostile to us; etc. The US, acting in its own interests, has good reason to stop the Iranian nuke.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:04 AM
It takes many forms, in various times, in different places, but there is one certainty in this world: the
Jewspro-Israel lobby will alwaysbe blamed for somethingargue in bad faith. Thanks, Gabriel Schoenfeld, for the reminder.Fallows’s article does not “make Jews the “primary target” of his critique of factionalism at all. He explicitly mentions Armenian Americans advocating for a (he thinks) counterproductive genocide resolution and Cuban Americans for advocating a counterproductive Cuba policy. His point, ably proven by Schoenfeld, is that only Jews get to pull a special trump card (hysterical accusations of anti-Semitism) when we point this out.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 AM
James Fallows did not single out the Jews, he listed several other lobbies that have produced foreign policy at odds with American interests in general. So you are either lazy or dishonest when you accuse him of doing that.
Secondly, your war with Iran is not in our interests, Iran need do nothing to bring the American empire and its currency tumbling down, as you people are doing that yourselves. The dollars value plummets and you idiots on the right are high-fiving each other over an uptick in the Dow, as if anyone’s gonna be wanting our worthless paper in the decades to come!
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Truly breathtaking intellectual dishonesty.
Do you take your readers to be fools?
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Have the intellectual honesty to use the entire context of the quote. You don’t have to agree with Fallows, but a bush-league move like this immediately invalidates your point. If your going take on his argument take on the WHOLE argument, not the argument you wish he had made.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 AM
There’s nothing intellectual here at all. Just plain old dishonesty.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 AM
I think you owe Fallows a retraction. Or you may decline to do so and prove a point about AIPAC and its supporters.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 AM
You left out 2/3 of Fallows post: the part about Armenian-Americans’ lobbying strongly for their pet special interest, which would be contrary to the national interest (and hypocritical, given the U.S. genocide of Native Americans), and the Cuban-Americans’ lobbying strongly for their pet special interest, a counterproductive policy toward Cuba.
As noted you’re being flagrantly dishonest and clearly weird in cherry-picking part of the quotation and then simulating outrage. It makes me suspect that the level of discourse and argument in COMMENTARY is low.
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 PM
You rotten liar. Fallows discussed AIPAC as part of a handful of examples, and he saved it for last so the fairness and context of his argument would be obvious. Your dishonest framing is now equally obvious.