| ★阿修羅♪ > 戦争79 > 837.html ★阿修羅♪ |
|
| Tweet |
(回答先: ミアシャイマーとウォルトのイスラエルロビー批判論文の日本語訳（その三） 投稿者 愛国心を主張する者ほど売国奴 日時 2006 年 3 月 30 日 02:32:38)
やっちまった？ミアシャイマー
今日のイギリス南西部は晴れ時々曇りのイギリス的な一日。気温もだいぶマイルドになってきましたが、どうも風が強い。
さて、今日はこのブログで「 一読者」氏に教えてもらった、ミアシャイマー＆ウォルトの「イスラエルロビー批判」について。
まずこの両人についての簡単な説明を。
ミアシャイマーはご存知の通り、私が翻訳した『大国政治の悲劇』という本の著者でもありまして、「オフェンシヴ・リアリズム」という、国際関係論において「大国というのは拡大主義者だ論」を展開して有名になったシカゴ大学の教授であります。
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393978397/
一方のウォルトですが、この人はケネス・ウォルツという元祖ネオリアリズムの巨人の下で博士号をとり、主に６０年代から８０年代にかけての中東政治の外交史を下敷きにして「バランス・オブ・フィアー」、つまり「国家というのはパワーではなく、脅威に対してバランスを行うものだ論」を発表して有名になったハーバード大学の教授であります。
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801494184/
年齢はミアシャイマーのほうがやや上なのですがけっこう仲が良いようで、お互いの論文が発表されるときはよく一緒にその内容を討論しあったりしている模様です。
二人の共通点は以下の通り。
１、リアリスト（現実主義者）である。
２、国際社会の動きを構造面から説明しようとする、「ネオ・リアリスト」である。（その代わり、ミアはオフェンシヴ、ウォルトはディフェンシブという点で違う）
３、「オフショア・バランシング」、つまりアメリカは１９世紀までのイギリスのように行動せよ！ということ大戦略を主張している。
４、今回のイラク侵攻にははじめから反対していた。
５、二人で一緒にCFRでネオコンを相手に大論争をして（事実上）勝ったことがある。
（ここら辺のくわしい記事は国際戦略コラムのコバケン氏のコラムを参照）
http://fuku41.hp.infoseek.co.jp/index-kb.htm
さて、日本でも一部で騒がれておりますが、この両人が書いた最近の論文が、実はアメリカの外交政策に「イスラエル・ロビー」がものすごく大きな影響を与えていることを指摘する内容で話題になっております。
私もこの論文の要約版を読んでみたんですが、「うーん、これはすごいけど、やばいなぁ」というのが率直な感想。
私の友人（イスラム教徒）も「正しいことを言っているとは思うけど、これからこの二人はまずいんじゃないの？特攻やってどないすんねん」みたいなことを申しております。
今考えてみれば、たしかに以前からこういう兆候はありました。
私は著者との連絡を取るためになんどかメールでやり取りをしたことがあるのですが、「現在は何について書いているんですか？」と質問しても、いつもそれについては無回答。
それ以外の質問にはなんでも答えてくれたのに・・・・今考えてみると、やはりこれは「秘密プロジェクト」だったということですな（笑
これから両人の行く末がどうなるのかわかりませんが、私の中ではある程度計算済みでやっているんだろうなあ、と思っております。
そういえばハーヴァード内ではあのアラン・ダーショヴィッツという有名なタカ派シオニストの法律学の教授との討論会が行われるかも知れないといううわさがあるようで。
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512280
ぜひ見てみたいもんです。
http://geopoli.exblog.jp/d2006-03-30
Dean Attacks ‘Israel Lobby’
Article co-authored by KSG’s Walt stirs uproar; Dershowitz responds
Published On Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:24 AM
By PARAS D. BHAYANI and REBECCA R. FRIEDMAN
Crimson Staff Writers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a scathing attack on what they termed the “Israel Lobby,” the Kennedy School’s Stephen M. Walt and the University of Chicago’s John J. Mearsheimer argued in a recent article that supporters of Israel have seized control of U.S. foreign policy, making it reflect Israel’s interests more than those of the U.S.
The article was published last Thursday in the London Review of Books and on the Kennedy School’s website as part of the its faculty working papers series. Walt is the Kennedy School's academic dean and a professor of international affairs and Mearsheimer is a professor of political science.
In their piece, the authors savaged those on both the political Left and Right, calling groups as diverse as the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal editorial boards, and Sen. Hillary R. Clinton, D-N.Y., and World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz members of the “Israel Lobby.”
“The overall thrust of the U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby,’” the authors wrote in their introduction. “[No] lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest.”
The authors went on to criticize the foreign aid and the reflexive support that the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration give to Israel. They also devoted a section each to what they claimed was the disproportionate influence of the lobby on the media, think tanks, and academia, and wrote that the lobby demonizes Palestinians and comprised the “critical element” in launching the war in Iraq.
Because of the lobby’s power, they concluded, American political leaders were likely to “remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.”
Included in “the Lobby” was Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, whom the authors isolate as an “apologist” for Israel.
The authors accused Dershowitz of advancing a narrative in which Israel “has sought peace at every turn,” while the Arab countries have “acted with great wickedness.”
In interviews with The Crimson yesterday, Dershowitz took issue with this characterization, stating that he does not consider himself a member of a monolithic lobby and that he has criticized Israel on several occasions in the past.
Dershowitz, who is one of Israel’s most prominent defenders, vehemently disputed the article’s assertions, repeatedly calling it “one-sided” and its authors “liars” and “bigots.”
He criticized three piece on three grounds, alleging parallels with neo-Nazi literature, saying that Walt and Mearsheimer’s characterization that Israeli citizenship is based on “blood kinship” is a “categorical lie,” and taking issue with the representation of the lobby as all-encompassing.
Dershowitz said that the article used “quotes from [Israel’s first prime minister] David Ben-Gurion and [former president of the World Jewish Congress] Nahum Goldmann that are found repeatedly on hate sites,” and that in asserting that the Jewish state was founded on “blood kinship,” the authors were mistakenly conflating the right of Jews to immigrate to Israel with citizenship.
Walt and Mearsheimer countered in an interview that “the principle of ‘blood kinship’ refers to the fact that Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and that whether or not you are Jewish is normally a function of ancestry, especially maternal ancestry.”
Dershowitz also disputed the existence of a unified “Lobby,” which the authors defined in their piece as a “loose coalition of individuals and organizations.” He contended that while the authors define the lobby as a “loose coalition” at the start, they expand the definition in the body of the piece, and that in the end, any Jew who supports Israel could be considered a member.
The authors responded that their use of the word “Lobby” is not meant to imply that it is “a unified movement with a central leadership or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.”
In response to Dershowitz’s challenge to a debate at the Kennedy School—made through The Crimson—Walt and Mearsheimer said that they would be willing to debate Dershowitz “under the appropriate circumstances.”
Dershowitz said that he and his staff are preparing a documented response to the Walt and Mearsheimer article, and that he had immediately assigned a research assistant "to check every footnote."
In reaction to the piece, Kennedy School Dean David T. Ellwood ’75 released a statement saying that the school “is committed to academic freedom” and that it “does not restrict, interfere with, or take a position on the conclusions reached by its faculty in their individual research.”
Several other professors in the history and government departments and at the Kennedy School declined to comment yesterday, saying they had not yet read the article.
—Staff writer Paras D. Bhayani can be reached at pbhayani@fas.harvard.edu
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512280
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。