Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
1GoofyOcean110
Anyone read The Israel Lobby? John Mearsheimer was on The Colbert Report the other night. Any thoughts?
2EncompassedRunner
yeah, *yawn,* the myth is old
4BGP
>2 EncompassedRunner: It is not a "myth," per se, for there are lobbyists who advocate one side of virtually every contentious issue (be it national, economic, religious, secular, race-related, etc) in Washington. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the existence of any "lobby" in a democratic nation! Some pro-Israeli lobbyists are, like myself, moderate Zionists who fervently support the creation of a Palestinian state (for they believe that such a development is absolutely necessary if we wish to secure the safety of both Israelis and Palestinians). Obviously, there are others who take a more "hard line" stance on specific issues (Likudniks, primarily) and are, therefore, worth challenging/critiquing if and when one honestly believes that they are taking a stance on a particular issue which indefensible. That's the nature of life in a democratic state.
I have not had the time to read Mearsheimer's work, but even The Economist (by no means an enemy of Israel) has contended that the book should not be considered a threat by anyone.
In the end, it is never difficult to identify the difference between an argument which is essentially rooted in racism* (see: http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=26173 for a recent debate), and an honest critique (and/or rebuttal) of the specific political views of any and all particular interest groups.
There must be room for a critique of every side on every political policy or platform.
*I have chosen the phrase carefully, in order to avoid a violation of LT's terms of service: I am attacking the argument presented by an individual in the "linked" thread, not the individual who has posed the argument.
I have not had the time to read Mearsheimer's work, but even The Economist (by no means an enemy of Israel) has contended that the book should not be considered a threat by anyone.
In the end, it is never difficult to identify the difference between an argument which is essentially rooted in racism* (see: http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=26173 for a recent debate), and an honest critique (and/or rebuttal) of the specific political views of any and all particular interest groups.
There must be room for a critique of every side on every political policy or platform.
*I have chosen the phrase carefully, in order to avoid a violation of LT's terms of service: I am attacking the argument presented by an individual in the "linked" thread, not the individual who has posed the argument.
