April 30,2006

In Defense of Academic Freedom

By W. George Krasnow

The publication of the provocative, but academically solid paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in the London Review of Books has generated more heat than light in the United States. The media's response has been overwhelmingly hostile and even hysterical. There was little debate, but much recrimination and name-calling.

Eliot A. Cohen's April 5 op-ed article in the Washington Post was typical. It was one of the most outrageous assaults on academic freedom I've seen since I first came to the United States as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago in 1966.

Titled, "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic," the article is rife with character assassinations, obfuscation, innuendo and personal insults. By denigrating the scholarly work as "piss-poor," "inept, even kooky" and "wretched," he insults all academia. After all, the two professors have endowed chairs from two most prestigious schools, the University of Chicago and Harvard.

Accusing the two professors of "anti-semitism," Cohen defines the term as "irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews." But the two authors clearly state, "Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not." At the start, "Jews [were] less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent," and later a greater number voted against Bush. This is not hostility, but respect for the common sense of American Jews. It's the Lobby's leaders who are out of step with American Jewry.

Yes, the two authors do criticize Israel, but their thrust is against a leadership allied with the Neocons in the United States. They do not challenge Israel's right to exist. Motivated by a desire to advance U.S. national interests, they strive to find an equitable solution for the tragic situation facing both the Israelis and Palestinians. Their attitude to Israel is moderate compared with that of Torah-True Jews who's anti-Zionist and anti-Israel stands had been advertised in the Post.

Nor do the authors challenge the right of a pro-Israel lobby to exist. What they don't like is that this Lobby does not represent the interests of the majority of American Jews, as it fails to separate U.S. interests from those of Israel (as defined by some of Israel's most hawkish leaders), an approach that does disservice to both. The Lobby's efforts appear counterproductive to the goal of achieving peace and security for either Israel or the United States.

When I first came to the United States, the rage was against the Vietnam War and "American imperialism." But academic freedom of even the most radical professors was respected. The media even hailed Daniel Ellsberg's publication of the classified Pentagon Papers as an act of civic duty. In a system of checks and balances, we were told, the media has the duty to check the government's overreach.

What a contrast to the country whence I came, the USSR! The situation there could be summed in the dialogue: "Why did you sign a Pravda newspaper letter denouncing Leonid Pasternak's novel Dr. Zhivago?" one Soviet scholar was asked. "Because it's anti-Soviet." "But in what chapter did Pasternak make such statements?" "How do I know? I did not read it." "Then why is it anti-Soviet?" "They wouldn't give a Nobel Prize if it weren't anti-Soviet. Besides you can read it only in a KGB library."

During my long teaching career in the U.S., I taught my students the value of non-mainstream sources, such as the writings of Soviet dissidents found only in samizdat, meaning "self-publishing" by typewriting. At a time when U.S. newspapers were wary of criticizing the Soviet Union for fear of disrupting "détente," my students wrote papers about courageous Soviet dissidents, such as Andrei Amalrik, Vladimir Osipov, Irina Ratushinskaya and Anatoly Sharansky.

By trying to defame two bold scholars, the media has proved them right in at least one respect. They wrote, "The Lobby's campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy." "Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts-or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites-violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends." These issues are vital for the preservation of civility in our midst, especially when efforts are being made to spread democracy overseas.

It is a shame that we had to learn of the two Americans' scholarship not in America, but on a London website to which the media often "forgot" to refer. Do not prejudge the two scholars. Read first: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

Were it not for the Internet, would we have to resort to samizdat? Let's not repeat the mistake of Soviet leaders by insulating ourselves from "dissident" scholarship, "dissident" news and the reality of a changing world.

W. George Krasnow, Ph.D.
President, Russia & America Goodwill Association
Alexandria, Virginia
president@raga.org
www.raga.org