I want to thank you for your blog, which I very much enjoy and look forward to every day, and to your sponsorship of meaningful discussions of extremely serious issues in an intelligent and genuinely even-handed manner, which is the only way that the truth can ever be collectively discovered when dealing with highly complex issues laden with emotion.

And my compliments -- and my gratitude -- on the courage and clear thinking you display in your support of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, and of President Carter, in the face of those give us no alternative but to conclude that they are either incapable of logical thinking or are deliberately mongering fallacies in an attempt to fill up a page and confuse those who prefer to respect authority rather than to examine the validity of the authority's arguments.

I refer specifically to the very first paragraph of the very first comment posted in this thread, written, though not posted, by Eliot A. Cohen, who is a professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and so should naturally be familiar with basic logical reasoning. The very first paragraph of Cohen's article is reproduced here for convenient reference:

"Yes, It's Anti-Semitic"

"Academic papers posted on a Harvard Web site don't normally attract enthusiastic praise from prominent white supremacists. But John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" has won David Duke's endorsement as "a modern Declaration of American Independence" and a vindication of the ex-Klansman's earlier work, presumably including his pathbreaking book, "Jewish Supremacism." "

Let us examine this single paragraph in terms of facts, logic, and rhetoric.

First, what facts do we learn from this paragraph?

1. David Duke has endorsed "The Israel Lobby."
2. Well, unfortunately, there aren't any more facts.

I can see that Cohen is trying to say something more in the last sentence, but I can't quite figure out what it is. Is he saying that Mearsheimer and Walt have written "The Israel Lobby" in order to vindicate one of David Duke's earlier works, which Cohen, unfortunately, doesn't name? This would make sense if Cohen provided us with information as to whether either Mearsheimer or Walt ever said that "The Israel Lobby" was written to vindicate David Duke's writings. Does such a statement exist? No. It might also make sense if Mearsheimer or Walt ever joined one of Duke's organizations. But this has never happened either.

Does Cohen mean that David Duke thinks "The Israel Lobby" vindicates Duke's earlier thinking? Cohen, regrettably, provides no Duke source, but even if he did, it wouldn't matter. A point by point comparison of Duke's work with Mearsheimer and Walt's is necessary to decide whether "The Israel Lobby" vindicates anything Duke wrote about. Cohen does not do this. In the absence of such a study, what David Duke opines about "The Israel Lobby" has no more credibility than the opinions about Jesus Christ of the three people I have met in my life who believe they ARE Jesus Christ. Which is zero. Nada. Nichts.

Or is Cohen saying that HE thinks "The Israel Lobby" is a vindication of Duke's earlier work? But he can't be saying that either because the indefiniteness of his remark: "presumably including his pathbreaking book, 'Jewish Supremacism.'" Now "The Israel Lobby" either IS like Duke's book, "Jewish Supremacism" or IS NOT like "Jewish Supremacism." I haven't read "Jewish Supremacism", so I can't tell you. And if Cohen hasn't read it, then he can't say either. And if he has read it, then why the "presumably"� We'll get to why I think Cohen brought in "Jewish Supremacism" in the rhetoric section.

Logically expressed, the article looks out like this:

If David Duke endorses "The Israel Lobby," then "The Israel Lobby" must be anti-Semitic (from the title of the article) / pro-Klan.

Formally, the argument is:

If Duke endorses X, then X must be anti-Semitic / pro-Klan.

This is easily seen to be false by a substitution for X:

If Duke endorses Nathan's Hot Dogs, then Nathan's Hot Dogs must be anti-Semitic / pro-Klan.

or

If Duke endorses "The Fiddler on the Roof," then "The Fiddler on the Roof" must be anti-Semitic / pro-Klan.

Duke's endorsement of "The Israel Lobby" tells us nothing about "The Israel Lobby." Duke may be lying. Duke may be crazy. Duke may be trying to get some cheap publicity. Duke may have never read the paper at all. Duke may have been out drinking all night. We just don't know about the relationship until we make the point by point comparison of the professors' work with Duke's.

But Eliot A. Cohen's bringing up David Duke in the context of "The Israel Lobby" tells us a great deal about Eliot A. Cohen. Which leads us to the rhetoric section.

The attentive reader will notice that I have spent all this time discussing the first paragraph of the article that forms the first comment of this thread. This was deliberate. Some rhetorical effects must be used at the beginning to be effective.

The following quotations are all taken from "The Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus." It is produced by the World Union of Jewish Students. I have some reader of this blog to thank -- when I find your name again, I'll publicly thank you -- for making a cryptic reference to "hasbara" which I had never heard of and had to look up, and have since profited so much from it that I now refer to it, in turn, for the benefit of others. We're going to take a quick peek at it now, and then we're done. Beginnings. What's so special about beginnings?

http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

Hasbara Handbook page 6. Being Proactive and Promoting Israel
"...However it is important that Israel activists are proactive too. Proactivity means taking the initiative and setting the agenda. It means being on the attack."

Please note, there is nothing here (or anywhere else in the 131 page Handbook) about a fair and open discussion or a rational debate. There is nothing here about getting at the truth. The Hasbara Handbook is, pure and simple, a book of instructions on how to promote a certain agenda -- Israel. I make no claims -- because I have no knowledge -- as to whether Eliot A. Cohen or anyone else promoting Israel has ever read this manual. I only urge the objective reader to make comparisons for him or herself, and draw their own conclusions. If their conclusions are along the lines of "if the shoe fits..., then don't let them pull your leg," I won't be too surprised.

Hasbara Handbook page 6. Being Proactive and Promoting Israel
"Why Be Proactive? Agenda Setting.
The Person who sets the agenda will usually win the debate....However by setting the agenda Israel activists get to determine what to talk about, and can therefore discuss the things they feel help promote the pro-Israel message. Being proactive keeps the right issues in the public eye, and in the way Israel activists want them to be seen."

["Why Be Proactive"] People Believe What They Hear First.
Uncritical audiences believe something if they hear it first and hear it often. People tend to believe the first thing they hear about a certain issue, and filter subsequent information they hear based on their current beliefs. Once people believe something, it's hard to convince them that they were wrong in the first place."

And one last quote for today, which also relates to beginnings and to motivation.

Hasbara Handbook page 8. "Point Scoring and Genuine Debate.
"Point Scoring. Point scoring is a method of communication that prioritizes making certain points favorable to the speaker, and attacking opponents of the speaker by trying to undermine their positions. POINT SCORING COMMUNICATION OUGHT TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF RATIONAL DEBATE, WHILST AVOIDING GENUINE DISCUSSION." my emphasis.

"When to Point Score
Point scoring is the correct method of communication to use when the audience is likely to be only partially engaged."

The beginnings of a discussion, article, speech, etc., is just such a time.

Finally, let's use all this to summarize Mr. Cohen's paragraph's rhetorical flourishes.

1. "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic." (the title, the very first thing you see. "People Believe What They Hear First.")

2. David Duke, a Ku Klux Klan member, is thrown into the first paragraph along with Mearsheimer and Walt, even though there is no logical connection between the professors and the Klansman except the Klansman's statement, and no affiliation or admiration or anything whatsoever. ("Point scoring is the correct method of communication to use when the audience is likely to be only partially engaged.") This is how one sets up the "Guilt by Association" fallacy, or the observation that if you throw a lot of mud, a little will inevitably stick.

3. "The Israel Lobby" is a vindication of Duke's book, "Jewish Supremacy." Point scoring again. To the "partially engaged" and not well-informed, jewish supremacy sounds like it might have to do with the Israel lobby, even though "Jewish Supremacy" by David Duke has nothing to do with "The Israel Lobby" by Mearsheimer and Walt.

This is the agenda that Eliot A. Cohen sets. There is no truth in it whatsoever; but it's quite a good agenda for concealing the truth and promoting Israel. The use of such means speaks most eloquently about the Zionist cause. For were it legitimate, there would be no need for such means. The truth, when permitted to be heard, is always chosen over lies.