LETTER from Profs Mearsheimer and Walt to Chicago Council on Global Affairs

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs cancels an

upcoming presentation by Profs Mearsheimer and Walt on
their new book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy"



The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has cancelled an upcoming speech  
by two prominent critics of the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington.   John      
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were scheduled to speak on Sept. 27 to        
discuss their soon-to be-published book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy."   The Wall Street Journal reports that the president of the Chicago
Council,  Marshall Bouton, cancelled the event under pressure from critics
who were  uncomfortable with the academics' arguments.  


Below is a letter written by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt to the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs.  The letter is reproduced with the permission of
the authors and the publisher of their book.


August 5, 2007

[Address]

[Salutation]

We are writing to bring to your attention a troubling incident involving the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs.  We do so reluctantly, as we have both
enjoyed our prior associations with the Council and we have great respect
for its aims and accomplishments. Nonetheless, we felt this was an episode
that should not pass without comment.

On September 4, 2007, our book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy will
be published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, one of the most highly respected
publishers in the United States. Through our publisher, the Council issued
an invitation for both of us to speak at a session on September 27, 2007.  
We were delighted to accept, as each of us had spoken at the Council on
several occasions in the past and knew we would attract a diverse and
well-informed audience that would engage us in a lively and productive
discussion.

On July 19, while discussing the details of our visit with Sharon Houtkamp,
who was handling the arrangements at the Council, we learned that the
Council had already received a number of communications protesting our
appearance.  We were not particularly surprised by this news, as we had seen
a similar pattern of behavior after our original article on "The Israel
Lobby" appeared in the London Review of Books in March 2006.  We were still
looking forward to the event, however, especially because it gave us an
opportunity to engage these issues in an open forum.

Then, on July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us
(Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was cancelling the event. He said he
felt "extremely uncomfortable making this call" and that his decision did
not reflect his personal views on the subject of our book.  Instead, he
explained that his decision was based on the need "to protect the
institution."  He said that he had a serious "political problem," because
there were individuals who would be angry if he gave us a venue to speak,
and that this would have serious negative consequences for the Council.  
"This one is so hot," Marshall maintained, that he could not present it at a
Council session unless someone from "the other side"-such as Abraham Foxman
of the Anti-Defamation League-was on stage with us. At the very least, he
needed to present "contending viewpoints." But he said it was too late to
try to change the format, as the fall schedule was being finalized and there
would not be sufficient time to arrange an alternate date.  He showed little
interest in doing anything with us in 2008 or beyond.

Several comments are in order regarding this situation.

First, since the publication of our original article on the Israel lobby, we
have appeared either singly or together at a number of different venues,
including Brown University, the Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia
University, Cornell University, Emerson College, the Great Hall at Cooper
Union, Georgetown University, the National Press Club, the Nieman Fellows
Program at Harvard University, the University of Montana, the Jewish
Community Center in Newton, Massachusetts, and Congregation Kam Isaiah
Israel in Chicago.  In all but one of these venues we appeared on our own,
i.e., without someone from the "other side."  As one would expect, we often
faced vigorous questions from members of the audience, which invariably
included individuals who disagreed in fundamental ways with some of our
arguments.  Nevertheless, the back-and-forth at each of these events was
always civil, and quite a few participants said that they benefited from
listening to us and to our interlocutors.

Second, the Council has recently welcomed speakers who do represent a
"contending viewpoint," and they have appeared on their own. Consider the
case of Michael Oren, an Israeli-American author, who appeared at the
Council on February 8, 2007, to talk about "The Middle East and the United
States: A Long and Complicated Relationship."  Oren has a different view of
U.S. Middle East policy than we do; indeed, he gave a keynote address at
AIPAC's annual policy conference this past spring that directly challenged
our perspective.  We believe it was entirely appropriate for the Council to
have invited him to speak, and without having a representative from an
opposing group there to debate him. The Council has also welcomed a number
of other speakers on this general topic in recent years, such as Dennis
Ross, Max Boot and Rashid Khalidi, and none of their appearances included
someone representing a "contending view."

One might argue that our views are too controversial to be presented on
their own.  However, they are seen as controversial only because some of the
groups and individuals that we criticized in our original article have
misrepresented what we said or leveled unjustified charges at us
personally-such as the baseless claim that we (or our views) are
anti-Semitic.  The purpose of these charges, of course, is to discourage
respected organizations like the Council from giving us an audience, or to
create conditions where they feel compelled to include "contending views" in
order to preserve "balance" and to insulate themselves from external
criticism.

In fact, our views are not extreme. Our book does not question Israel's
right to exist and does not portray pro-Israel groups in the United States
as some sort of conspiracy to "control" U.S. foreign policy.  Rather, it
describes these groups and individuals-both Jewish and gentile-as simply an
effective special interest group whose activities are not substantially
different from groups like the NRA, the farm lobby, the AARP, or other
ethnic lobbies.  Its activities, in other words, are as American as apple
pie, although we argue that its influence has helped produce policies that
are not in the U.S. national interest.  We also suggest that these policies
have been unintentionally harmful to Israel as well, and that a different
course of action would be better for both countries. It is not obvious to us
why such views could not be included in the Council's schedule.

Although we find it somewhat unseemly to refer to our own careers, it is
perhaps worth noting that we are both well-established figures with solid
mainstream credentials.  We are fortunate to occupy chaired professorships
at distinguished universities, and to have been elected members of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  We have both held important
leadership positions at Chicago or Harvard, each of us serves on the
editorial boards of several leading foreign policy journals (such as Foreign
Affairs and Foreign Policy), and we have both done consulting work for U.S.
government agencies. Given our backgrounds, the idea that it would be
inappropriate for us to appear on our own at a Council session seems
far-fetched.

Finally, and most importantly, we believe that the decision to cancel our
appearance is antithetical to the principle of open discussion that
underpins American democracy, and that is so essential for maximizing the
prospects that our country pursues a wise foreign policy.  In essence, we
believe this is a case in which a handful of people who disagree with our
views have used their influence to intimidate Marshall into rescinding the
Council's invitation to us, so as to insure that interested members will not
hear what we have to say about Israeli policy, the U.S. relationship with
Israel, and the lobby itself. This is not the way we are supposed to address
important issues of public policy in the United States, and it is surely not
the way the Council normally conducts its business. This is undoubtedly why
Marshall, who is a very smart and decent man, felt so uncomfortable calling
us to say that the event had been cancelled. He knew this decision was
contrary to everything that the Council is supposed to represent.

The Chicago Council is obviously under no obligation to grant us a venue,
and we are not writing in an attempt to reverse this decision. But given the
importance of the issues that are raised in our book, we are genuinely
disappointed that we will not have the benefit of open exchange with the
Council's members, including those who might want to challenge our arguments
or conclusions. The United States and its allies-including Israel-face many
challenging problems in the Middle East, and our country will not be able to
address them intelligently if we cannot have an open and civilized
discussion about U.S. interests in the region, and the various factors that
shape American policy there.  Regrettably, the decision to cancel our
appearance has made that much-needed conversation more difficult.

Sincerely,


John J. Mearsheimer
R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science
University of Chicago


Stephen M. Walt
Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs
Harvard University

__._,_.___

.

__,_._,___