How would you feel if your career was destroyed because someone had publicly launched false-but-damaging allegations against you?

Right-wing WSJ columnist John Fund has launched a disingenuous diatribe against one of the USA's top Middle East scholars, U. Michigan History Professor Juan Cole, in his latest Opinion Journal column, "Cole Fire: Yale Is Set To Ditch Taliban Man And Hire A Notorious Anti-Semite." [1] Note that his harsh title employs the no-holds-barred term "notorious anti-Semite." Far from being true, this defamatory attack merely illustrates that the American mainstream media's right-wing hatchet men will trundle out their accusation of "anti-Semitism" to smear anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the pro-Israel lobby. [2]

Not surprisingly, Mr. Fund uses the unethical McCarthyite tactic of guilt by association to fabricate an extremely flimsy case against Juan Cole. For instance, he accuses Professor Cole of using his anti-war blog to support a supposedly "anti-Semitic" Harvard study, "The Israel Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy," by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. [3] In other words, Fund is claiming that Cole is automatically guilty of "anti-Semitism" because he has associated himself with the Harvard study's conclusions.

However, Mr. Fund's argument illustrates a classic error in logical reasoning that is known as an "ipse dixit": something asserted but not proved. The mere allegation that something is true or false, without more, does NOT make it true or false. After all, one still has to prove it: where's the evidence?

Hence, when Fund alleges that two distinguished scholars from ethnically-Hebrew backgrounds drew conclusions that are somehow "anti-Semitic," that allegation alone does NOT make it true. Where's the evidence?

AND WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE?

Mr. Fund alleges that the Mearsheimer-Walt study is false because it conclusions are the product of "anti-Semitism," but his argument would fail if its conclusions were true. And their 81-page research paper contains probative evidence aplenty that its conclusions are, in fact, true. Additionally, so many scholars and pundits have come forth since its publication to defend the level-headed objectivity of the Harvard study that Mr. Fund's specious charge of "anti-Semitism" altogether lacks credibility. [4] 

Furthermore, Mr. Fund's harshly-worded title reveals his most obvious motive for this scurrilous attack - he hopes to intimidate Yale into revoking its offer to hire Juan Cole. Although Fund alleges that Professor Cole is unqualified because his academic expertise is limited to the history of the nineteenth-century Middle East, that claim is belied by the fact that a great university like Yale: (a) offered him a faculty position: (b) is not known for extending offers to unqualified academic slouches; and (c) certainly doesn't need to consult nasty hatchet pieces from right-wing columnists to decide whom it should hire.

FUND'S STRATEGIC MOTIVE.

Finally, we can infer Mr. Fund's underlying strategic motive for this unwarranted attack, and it is even more disturbing. The USA's right-wing fanatics have successfully driven the top Middle East experts out of the State Department and replaced them with neocon ideologues, so their next goal is to drive the top Middle East experts out of academia, thereby adding academic freedom to the other freedoms - like speech and press - that they will destroy to create their neo-fascist National Security Fortress America.

The fanatical American Right has used sleazy McCarthyite intimidation tactics to destroy the careers of far too many people, including its latest smear job on Professors Cole, Mearsheimer and Walt. In so doing, they ignore the glaringly-obvious fact that "anti-Zionism" (mere disagreement with Israel's policies) is NOT "anti-Semitism" (a phobic dislike of the Jewish people per se). Even worse, the pro-Israel lobby's definition of "anti-Semitism" has become so absurdly overbroad that they've unwittingly transformed it into meaningless nonsense. Instead, they wield that defamatory term like a blunt instrument with which to cudgel into fearful submission anyone who disagrees with them.

THE REMEDY.

It's high time for every American - regardless of one's religion or ethnicity - to resist these defamatory career-destroying intimidation tactics by issuing our own cease-and-desist order: "ENOUGH! WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

THE ALTERNATIVE.

We can't get to much higher moral ground than the American progressive position,  which steadfastly maintains that U.S. foreign policy must altogether cease to scapegoat people, and thus be neither anti-Semitic nor Islamophobic. Furthermore, progressives maintain that it is equally unacceptable: (1) for the Israeli-aligned parties to oppress, or seek the destruction of, the Islamic parties; and (2) for the Palestinian-aligned parties to oppress, or seek the destruction of, the Jewish parties. Instead, the partisans must STOP using counterproductive intimidation tactics to coerce third parties into adopting their position in the conflict, RENOUNCE their escalatory cycles of tit-for-tat violence, SEEK forgiveness in their common humanity, and FIND a civilized diplomatic solution.

ENDNOTES

[1] John Fund's 4-24-06 OnlineJournal.com essay, "COLE FIRE: YALE IS SET TO DITCH TALIBAN MAN AND HIRE A NOTORIOUS ANTI-SEMITE" [Skip to his essay's second section, where the nasty diatribe against U. Michigan History Professor Juan Cole begins.]: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008282

[2] The Wall Street Journal owns and operates the OpinionJournal.com website.

[3] The London Review of Books published a shorter version of the 3-13-06 Harvard research paper, "THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY," by U. Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government Dean and International Relations Professor Stephen Walt: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[4] Read nine of the more recent essays defending the Mearsheimer-Walt study:

A. Molly Ivins' 4-25-06 CommonDreams/TruthDig essay, "PRO-ISRAEL 'NUTJOBS' ON THE ATTACK" [Explains why pro-Israel right-wingers generally, and Alan Dershowitz specifically, lack credibility in their wildly off-the-mark allegations that distinguished Professors Mearsheimer and Walt are "anti-Semitic" just because they've produced an objective study of the Pro-Israel Lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy which concludes the Lobby was a major factor in promoting war with Iraq. Notes that she's not so much afraid of these right-wing smear tactics as she is sick-and-tired of them.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-27.htm

B. Tony Judt's 4-19-06 CommonDreams/NYT essay, "A LOBBY, NOT A CONSPIRACY" [Americans must not be afraid to debate this issue: whether the pro-Israel lobby's pressure to support Israel distorts the decisions of our Washington policymakers. Explains why this issue has been prominently debated and dissected overseas, whereas it has received virtual silence from the U.S. mainstream media: (a) fear of legitimizing the notion of a "Jewish conspiracy"; and (b) fear of being smeared as "anti-Semitic." Quite rightly concludes that we must not conflate "anti-Zionism" with "anti-Semitism," because it is grossly inaccurate to equate those who merely disagree with Israel's policies with those who phobically dislike the Jewish people per se.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0419-27.htm

C. Juan Cole's 4-18-06 Salon essay, "BREAKING THE SILENCE: THE OVERWROUGHT RESPONSE TO JOHN MEARSHEIMER AND STEPHEN WALT'S BRAVE PAPER ONLY CONFIRMS ITS THESIS" [This U. Michigan History Professor is one of the nation's leading experts on Middle Eastern history and culture. Hence, he offers a knowledgeable perspective about the impact of the pro-Israel lobby which should carry extra weight. Perhaps this is the real reason why right-wingers consider him to be a threat to their pro-Israel lobby.]: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/04/18/taboo/index_np.html    

D. Normon Solomon's 4-13-06 CommonDreams essay, "THE LOBBY AND THE BULLDOZER: MEARSHEIMER, WALT AND CORRIE" [Correctly contends the Mearsheimer-Walt study is NOT anti-Semitic, despite shrill protestations to the contrary in the mainstream media. Concludes that: (a) they are level-headed scholars whose study deserves serious consideration for its objective assessment of the destructive aspects of the pro-Israel lobby's influence on U.S. foreign policy; (b) Americans must be allowed to debate this topic openly and fairly; and (c) the pro-Israel lobby must stop using intimidation tactics to suppress our freedoms of speech and press.]: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0413-20.htm

E. Leon Hadar's 4-13-06 AntiWar/Singapore Press essay, "FROM THE CHINA LOBBY TO THE ISRAEL LOBBY: RENT-SEEKING IN U.S. FORIEGN POLICY" [Argues that U.S. foreign policy has always been subject to the the bribe-ocratic "rent-seeking" influence of American ethnic groups. Compares the pro-Taiwan lobby's former influence on U.S. Asian policy with the pro-Israel lobby's current influence on U.S. Mideast policy. Somewhat disingenuously concludes that U.S. presidents listen to ethnic lobbying groups, but ultimately base their foreign-policy decisions solely on American national interests.]: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hadar.php?articleid=8845

F. Justin Raimondo's 4-10-06 AntiWar essay, "SMEAR AND FEAR: THAT'S HOW ISRAEL'S LOBBY OPERATES" [Well worth reading for its detailed explanation as to why "Israel's once-powerful lobby in the U.S. is running scared": (a) two AIPAC officials are under federal criminal indictment for spying (i.e., passing classified U.S. documents to Israel); and (b) in the arena of public debate, AIPAC's attempt to ruin the reputations of Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt by smearing their Harvard study as "anti-Semitism" is being exposed and rejected.]: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=38832

G. Ghali Hassan's 4-5-06 CounterCurrents essay, "PROTECTING ISRAEL: CHOMSKY'S WAY" [The author: (1) contends that MIT Linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky has unfairly criticized the  Mearsheimer-Walt research paper about the pro-Israel lobby's disproportionate influence on US policy; (2) rejects Chomsky's reputation as the left'smost intellectually-honest critic of US foreign policy; and (3) quotes Chomsky's writings to prove that he's an intellectually-dishonest apologist for Israel whose modus operandi is to shift the blame onto its chief ally: "Chomsky blames all Israeli crimes on the US."]: http://www.countercurrents.org/hassan050406.htm

H. Justin Raimondo's 4-3-06 EtherZone/AntiWar essay, "THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND MORAL BLACKMAIL" [Prominent Americans have reacted negatively to a research paper by U. Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard Dean Stephen Walt. So much so that they've been trying to suppress it and punish the authors. However, most of their objections are so intellectually dishonest that they're tantamount to moral blackmail.]: http://www.etherzone.com/2006/raim040306.shtml

I. Ted Lang's 3-31-06 Rense.com essay, "ISRAEL RULES AMERICA" [A withering response to several writers who've predictably smeared Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt with the unjustified charge of "anti-Semitism" because their level-headed study concluded that the pro-Israel lobby exerts a powerful influence upon US foreign policy that runs counter to American national interests.]: http://www.rense.com/general70/rules.htm

-###-

April 25, 2005 FINAL NOTE TO THE READER: If you agree with the aforementioned points, Joe American urges you to forward his essay to your friends, relatives and colleagues!