| ★阿修羅♪ > 戦争79 > 976.html ★阿修羅♪ |
|
| Tweet |
(回答先: チョムスキー、「イスラエル・ロビー」でミアシャイマー＝ウォルトに反論【シオニストぶりを大いに発揮！】 投稿者 バルセロナより愛を込めて 日時 2006 年 4 月 04 日 23:29:10)
ロンドン・タイムズ紙論説欄トップ記事でミアシャイマー叩き-地政学を英国で学ぶ-
やっぱり始まったミアシャイマー叩き
今日のイギリス南西部は何日か連続ですっきりした晴れの日が続いております。その代わり気温は下がりました。
さて、昨日いきなり友人から頼まれて、うちの学校で行われているイギリス政治学学会の年次会の手伝いをしております。
かなり大規模なもので、出席者の合計は４００人を越えるとか。私がやっている内容は比較的簡単なもので、いわゆる「受付」ですな（笑
ところがここで気がついたのは、どうやら学会を利用して、男女の学者同士が不倫旅行をしているという様子がかなりうかがえた、ということです（笑）これについてはまた後ほど書きます。
本題です。まずは下のロンドン・タイムズの記事の引用から。
Terrorism, the Iraq war – now we can blame one mysterious, powerful group
David Aaronovitch
THERE ARE DIGNITIES that cannot be ignored. Titles like, say, the Count Palatine of Simmern or the Keeper of the Queen’s Swans command respect, as do the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago and the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. I have no idea whether Simmern has an Elector any more, and I believe that the Keeper’s job (though not the Keeper) has been divided into two. But I can tell you that the last couple of positions are held by a John J. Mearsheimer and a Stephen Walt respectively, and that the holders have been causing a fuss.
きました、ミアシャイマー叩き。ついにイギリスまで波及してきました。
もちろんこれを書いたのは名前から明らかにわかる通り、ユダヤ系の人物です。
とりあえずこの記事ではミアシャイマーとウォルトをけちょんけちょんにけなしておりますが、私的に重要だと思うのが、これがタイムズ紙の、しかも論説欄のトップ記事だったことです。
実は私の周りでもある政治学の先生（セオリーが大好き）が私に会うなり、「おい、ミアシャイマーがすごい論文書いて問題になってるな！昨日記事プリントアウトしたし、君に早く知らせようと思っていたよ」と話しかけてきました。
で、結局アメリカではイスラエルロビー（これも上の記事によると怪しい定義だということになるみたいですが）の力が強いが、わざわざこういう記事を発表したミアシャイマーとウォルトは、どこかで強力なバック・アップがあったからやった、ということで意見が一致しました。
実はどうやらミアシャイマーは私が翻訳した本を２００１年に書き上げた前後からアメリカ上層部とけっこう深いつながりができていたようで、今回のこういう行動もある意味で計算済みなような気が。
まあこれは本人に聞いてみないと本当のことはわかりませんし、いくらメールして聞いてみたところでも多分メールはパンク状態なので返信があるかわかりませんが、とりあえず表向きだけの理由だけでも聞いてみたい。
しかしこの問題はまだまだ始まったばかりであり、この先何年かはこの問題を引きずるのでは、という気がしてなりません。
まあウォルトやミアシャイマーが大学を辞めさせられることになっても不思議ではないですが。
# by masa_the_man | 2006-04-05 06:48 | ニュース | Trackback | Comments(0)
http://geopoli.exblog.jp/d2006-04-05
The Times April 04, 2006
Terrorism, the Iraq war – now we can blame one mysterious, powerful group
David Aaronovitch
THERE ARE DIGNITIES that cannot be ignored. Titles like, say, the Count Palatine of Simmern or the Keeper of the Queen’s Swans command respect, as do the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago and the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. I have no idea whether Simmern has an Elector any more, and I believe that the Keeper’s job (though not the Keeper) has been divided into two. But I can tell you that the last couple of positions are held by a John J. Mearsheimer and a Stephen Walt respectively, and that the holders have been causing a fuss.
In early March this brace of distinguished academics produced a very long paper entitled The Israel Lobby and a shorter (but still hefty) version of the essay was printed in The London Review of Books (read the article here). Their argument, in essence, is this: first, America is and has been acting against its own obvious interests in the Middle East since God knows when. The reason for this foreign policy perversity, they reveal, has been the influence on domestic politics of the Israel lobby, known simply throughout their document as “the Lobby”. “This situation,” they write portentously, “has no equal in American political history.”
Gollygee, as they say at Harvard. No equal, eh? So exactly what has the US been doing that has been so inimical to its wellbeing? For a start, say the profs, it has focused on the wrong threats. An example: “The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them”; and indeed: “The US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.” Osama bin Laden is “motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians”. Presumably if the US told Israel to take a hike, then terrorism against the US would be substantially reduced — even if that against Israel, India, Bali or Iraqi Shia held steady or went up.
Having thus dealt with terrorism, W and M turn to “so-called rogue states” who — they discern, “are not a dire threat to vital US interests . . . even if these states acquire nuclear weapons — which is obviously undesirable”. This analysis includes both Iraq — retrospectively — and Iran, whose “nuclear ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US”. Which can, the profs argue, “live with a nuclear Iran”.
And while they’re in this optimistic frame of mind, they dismiss the notion of a possible threat to the US from nuclear technology transfer between states and terrorists, because “a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards”. An argument that, as we know, worked a treat with the Taleban.
To summarise, terrorists aren’t America’s enemy, they’re Israel’s. Rogue states armed with nuclear weapons aren’t America’s problem, they’re Israel’s in so far as they’re anybody’s. And rogue states wouldn’t be mad enough to assist anti-American terrorists to carry out plans for mass destruction — even though one did just that five years ago.
On, then, to the explanation for this strategic blindness on the part of US policymakers. It is “the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby”. But not the vulgar notion of conspiring Jews used by the Ku Klux Klan, the Syrian Defence Minister and some maverick politicians. The professors do not mean to suggest that “the Lobby is a unified movement with a central leadership . . . [or] a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. No, their lobby is a “loose coalition of individuals and organisations” who just happen to have got a stranglehold on US policy in a way [remember] “with no equal in American political history”.
The Lobby, for example, was a “key factor” in the decision to go to war with Saddam Hussein’s unthreatening Iraq. After all, according to W and M, Saddam would not have threatened US interests even if he had developed nuclear weapons. But the war was “motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure”. That, not oil or strategic considerations, is the reason for 2,000 US combat deaths.
And it has to be said at once that the Lobby is a problematic concept, as the profs use it. For a “loose coalition” the parts seem to do everything together, moving and thinking as one: the Lobby doesn’t tolerate even-handedness. The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate. The Lobby’s perspective prevails in the mainstream media. The Lobby created its own think-tank. The Lobby moved immediately to “take back the campuses”. Loose but so, so tight.
And how does it do it? Not because Jewish voters all vote for the most hawkish pro-Israel stuff, say the professors, because they don’t. Yet: “Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch.” So it could be money: “Although they [Jews] make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties.” Commitment:
“Jewish voters have high turnout rates”. Geographical spread: “[Jews are] concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania . . . [so] presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them.” As opposed to those sections of the electorate who candidates presumably seek actively to alienate. And if Jews are so clever, why don’t they also go to the key states of Ohio and Texas? Don’t ask; the professors don’t.
A reminder here. Their article is not about arguing that there is a Jewish vote (mostly Democrat) and an Israel lobby. Of course they exist. The professors are far more ambitious than that. The Israel Lobby is the most powerful lobby in American political history, persuading an entire nation into quasi-suicidal policies.
It helps them to make the case that the authors corral everybody who argues for pro-Israeli policies (or presumably — see above — even some sorts of anti-terrorist ones) into “the Lobby”. This is obviously flawed; most columnists and academics who are broadly pro-Israel argue their case out of conviction, not out of a desire to propagandise. Otherwise what is to stop me accusing Walt and Mearsheimer of being part of the Iranian lobby?
OK, let them be closet pro-Iranians. Let’s say we’re all lobbyists. And if we are, who is more powerful than the energy lobby that risks the future of the entire planet or, in 1940, the British lobby, which sought successfully to ensnare the US in a European war that it did not want? You want perfidy? We have it right here.
The problem with the Professors Mearsheimer and Walt is not that their arguments are silly or exaggerated, though many of them are. In a way I sympathise with their desire for redress, since there has been a cock-eyed failure in the US to understand the plight of the Palestinians. No, it’s what pornographers would call their “money-shot” that really offends. For, breaking into polemic, the professors finally claim that if the Lobby succeeds: “Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying.”
Not the Jews.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2117045,00.html
【私のコメント】
このタイムズの記事を読んでみたが、ミアシャイマーとウォルトをKKK呼ばわりしたり、楽観主義者とか親イラン主義者と決めつけてみたり、レッテルを貼る傾向が目立つ。以前ネオコンが公開討論でミアシャイマーに左翼とレッテルを貼って会場を爆笑させた事件を彷彿とさせるが、それほどネオコンや親イスラエル派の論理は粗雑であるということだろう。
筆者は米国がイスラエル政策を転換することで米国へのテロが減少するとしてもイスラエル、インド、バリ島、シラクシーア派へのテロが継続するかあるいは増加する危険性があるとするが、インドとイラクシーア派はキリスト教国には関係のない局地的問題であり国際的に拡がる可能性はないし、イスラエルのテロは単なる自業自得、バリ島はキリスト教徒の観光客に対するイスラム系のテロであり米国の親イスラエル政策が関与している可能性が高いのは自明である。北アイルランドのテロを経験している英国人にとっては、一般大衆のテロへの支持を減らすことがテロ撲滅に非常に有効であるとの認識は一般的だろうし、それ故に米国の親イスラエル政策が親米国への国際的なテロを悪化させているというミアシャイマー等の指摘は納得されるのではないかと思うのだが。
イラクやイランの核開発についても、ミアシャイマーは「ならず者国家が核兵器をテロリストに譲渡し、そのテロリストが米国を攻撃する危険は、その譲渡を察知されその後非難され罰を受ける危険があるためほとんどあり得ない」
「米国にとっては望ましくはないが差し迫った脅威ではない」と言っているだけなのに、この記事では「タリバンへのごちそうだ」「5年前にテロリストが大量破壊兵器計画を実際に実行した」と非難している。911での航空機（核兵器ではないし、断じて大量破壊兵器でもない）によるテロ攻撃（表向きはタリバンが関与するアル＝カーイダが行ったことになっている）ですらあれほど激しい反撃による罰を受けた事を考えれば、核兵器によるテロが考え難いのは当然のことだ。しかも、イラクやイランには大量核兵器を米国本土に飛ばす大陸間弾道ミサイルもない。
米国と違い狂信的なキリスト教原理主義者もいない英国で、この記事を見てイスラエルロビーを擁護する人がいるようには思えない。
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。