Stephen Walt joins John Mearsheimer again

This strikes me as not unlike the moment in which John Mearsheimer doubled down on his defense of the anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon.There is, at this point, good reason to believe that both Mearsheimer and Walt's motives are indicative of something much darker, and their analysis should be viewed through that prism. 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.586082

 

 (I don't think it's paywalled, as I don't sub and was able to read it in full.)

Shalev: "Aren’t you absolving the American hawks, who ruled this country for at least eight years, of any responsibility? Are you saying that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were just putty in the hands of the Israel lobby? Are they simpletons?"

Walt: “Well, if you’ve read the book and I haven’t persuaded you, then I haven’t persuaded you. And we’ve spent almost all of our time talking about one chapter of the book.”

I certainly think that Walt and Mearsheimer had impeccable academic credentials prior to the publication of the Israel Lobby. However, I think that's inapposite here. The question is one of motivation and overtones. I don't think that the article was unfair in its depiction of Walt. 

Shalev was very, very upfront about his own misgivings heading into the interview and while I obviously posted the salacious "money quote" from the very end, I don't think there's any misrepresentation there, either Mearsheimer & Walt's original critique was massively mono-causal, used a definition for the Lobby so broad as to be worthless, and utterly imbalanced. I don't think it's a stretch to say that their support for Israel doesn't go much past lip service (which is strange, especially considering Mearsheimer's own advice on the former Yugoslavia.) This is probably a point where I should make clear that I am strongly opposed to the sitting Likud-YB coalition, the rightward drift empowering the likes of Uri Ariel, Moshe Ya'alon, the forever odious Naftali Bennet and his disturbing Area C annexation plan, and look forward to the moment that the burgeoning Labour-Shas alliance forms the basis for a new coalition (perhaps picking off Livni/Hatnuah? Would Lapid go back on his promise to avoid any coalition with Shas?) after elections (which seem like they might happen soon?). A peace based on the Kerry Framework, the 08 Olmert offer, or the '02 Arab League Initiative would be immensely preferable to the untenable, morally and pragmatically appalling Occupation. 

I think it's reasonable to mention that the imagery invoked by The Israel Lobby is similar to the tropes which have defined anti-Semitism for ages. It's obviously important to consider that when writing on the topic. The allegation, repeated by Walt in this interview, that Israel is the tail that wags the American dog (in the personage of Paul Wolfowitz, to start) is a deeply troubling one. It is not hysterical to say that the modern anti-Zionist cottage industry (the Andrew Sullivan/Mondoweiss school, not quite the MEM/Electronic Intifada variety) owes a heavy debt to Walt and Mearsheimer. 

Moreover,  Mearsheimer's own dark motivations were made clear when he endorsed - and then doubled down - a book by Gilad Atzmon, an outspoken anti-Semite of the most boorish variety (http://www.theatlantic.com/.../john-mearsheimer.../245518/

 

 I went with Goldblog, but Walter Russell Mead is similarly useful if you'd prefer:http://www.the-american-interest.com/.../john.../

 

). Here, Walt took a step in the same direction by elucidating what amounts to a rank conspiracy theory with deeply pernicious undertones. It's not the first time, either (http://ottomansandzionists.com/.../stephen-walts.../

 

 ). 

That's the point of this post. Not that Adelson-style blind faith and devotion to Eretz Yisrael is the only politically viable statement (it's prima facie not), but rather that Walt has given away his darker motives, just like Mearsheimer, and it's time that we reckon with that in the discourse, just as we should any other factor.