Day: April 6, 2006

Mearsheimer in Trib

It’s here.  Chi Trib’s Ron Grossman does the Mearsheimer-Israel lobby story today. 

A University of Chicago professor has ignited an intellectual firestorm in halls of ivy and corridors of power with an essay in a highbrow British journal.

is the lead.  2nd graf calls the paper “a simple diagnosis.”  Grossman cites qualified support for it anyhow, even from some Israeli commentators.  But he notes:

“The Israel Lobby” smacks of the age-old accusation that a secret cabal of Jews aims at world dominance,

neatly summing up objections. 

He also, happily, further identifies Mearsheimer — “a former West Point cadet” and no “stranger to controversy.”  Regarding the latter, he cited his 1990 essay “proposing that Germany be encouraged to develop atomic weapons” and his fervent opposition to the Iraq war in 2003 on grounds that “it would give the Israelis an opportunity for an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.”

“The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves us to make sure it does not happen again,”

he said at the time.  Indeed, in the current essay, he and his co-author, Stephen Walt, say “the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people,” this in reference to the 1948 evacuation of Palestinian refugees.

Grossman quotes Mearsheimer as dismissing the current controversy as a “food fight.” 

He and Walt find no “compelling moral cause for sustained U.S. backing” of Israel.

The Trib got to this one in the nick of time, I’d say, but did justice to it.  Grossman was just the one to do it.  It’s a typically reliable, sensible piece by him in which he quotes the subject, who comes off as overly fond of the hot expression (“ethnic cleansing,” for instance) and naively arrogant (“food fight”).

Mearsheimer in Trib

It’s here.  Chi Trib’s Ron Grossman does the Mearsheimer-Israel lobby story today. 

A University of Chicago professor has ignited an intellectual firestorm in halls of ivy and corridors of power with an essay in a highbrow British journal.

is the lead.  2nd graf calls the paper “a simple diagnosis.”  Grossman cites qualified support for it anyhow, even from some Israeli commentators.  But he notes:

“The Israel Lobby” smacks of the age-old accusation that a secret cabal of Jews aims at world dominance,

neatly summing up objections. 

He also, happily, further identifies Mearsheimer — “a former West Point cadet” and no “stranger to controversy.”  Regarding the latter, he cited his 1990 essay “proposing that Germany be encouraged to develop atomic weapons” and his fervent opposition to the Iraq war in 2003 on grounds that “it would give the Israelis an opportunity for an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.”

“The precedent is there [to forcibly expel Palestinians], and it behooves us to make sure it does not happen again,”

he said at the time.  Indeed, in the current essay, he and his co-author, Stephen Walt, say “the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people,” this in reference to the 1948 evacuation of Palestinian refugees.

Grossman quotes Mearsheimer as dismissing the current controversy as a “food fight.” 

He and Walt find no “compelling moral cause for sustained U.S. backing” of Israel.

The Trib got to this one in the nick of time, I’d say, but did justice to it.  Grossman was just the one to do it.  It’s a typically reliable, sensible piece by him in which he quotes the subject, who comes off as overly fond of the hot expression (“ethnic cleansing,” for instance) and naively arrogant (“food fight”).

City Hall in the dock

Chi Trib has a story about City Hall hiring practices that promises a lot — “Politics, jobs linked by ex-top city aides: 2 say mayor’s office involved in decisions” — but gets so complicated that by the end you not only are ambivalent about the promise but aren’t quite sure who’s on first, to use an old Abbott & Costello expression.  The story has a triple byline and reads as if all three took a crack at it, splitting the middle when they disagreed. 
 
The lead,

Political job recommendations were funneled through Mayor Richard Daley’s office in a widely known and long-accepted practice at City Hall, two former Daley aides contend in court papers filed Wednesday

is straightforward enough.  The prosecuting Feds say it’s “massive fraud” meant to circumvent a longstanding injunction vs. political hiring — “the Shakman decree,” we read. 

Then there’s something about “an attempt by the defendants” to pry loose from a court-appointed monitor materials she says she needs to stop political hiring. 

And then there’s why the defendants want the materials. 

And then something about “federal authorities” not having interviewed any of the presumably relevant ex-Daley aides. 

And then a concession by defendants about a hiring “clearinghouse” at the Hall and their lawyer’s disavowing any attempt to slime Daley to save his clients — here paraphrased to make sense of what the story has or spell out what it hints at. 

And then their lawyer’s arguing why he should get the materials based on others’ previously getting similar materials.  (But he got them this time, didn’t he?  [See below]  How else would the Trib know about it?) 

The U.S. prosecutor who got them in 1997, now in private practice and not available.  For what?  To bolster the defense contention that they should get materials they already have?  [See below]

And finally the city’s law dept. saying they don’t know nothing about nothing in 1997 and furthermore do not consider the mayor guilty of nothing.

There’s some good stuff here, I think, but if I have to go back over it, translating into English, as Daily News’ Bill Mooney used to say, then either I’m losing it from too much blood pressure medicine, a distinct possibility, or somebody in the Trib who knows how to write did not show up for work yesterday.  (Dock him.)

(OK.  Just re-read lead.  It’s about what defendants “contend.”  OK.  They don’t have the papers yet.  I get it, I get it.  Finally.)

City Hall in the dock

Chi Trib has a story about City Hall hiring practices that promises a lot — “Politics, jobs linked by ex-top city aides: 2 say mayor’s office involved in decisions” — but gets so complicated that by the end you not only are ambivalent about the promise but aren’t quite sure who’s on first, to use an old Abbott & Costello expression.  The story has a triple byline and reads as if all three took a crack at it, splitting the middle when they disagreed. 
 
The lead,

Political job recommendations were funneled through Mayor Richard Daley’s office in a widely known and long-accepted practice at City Hall, two former Daley aides contend in court papers filed Wednesday

is straightforward enough.  The prosecuting Feds say it’s “massive fraud” meant to circumvent a longstanding injunction vs. political hiring — “the Shakman decree,” we read. 

Then there’s something about “an attempt by the defendants” to pry loose from a court-appointed monitor materials she says she needs to stop political hiring. 

And then there’s why the defendants want the materials. 

And then something about “federal authorities” not having interviewed any of the presumably relevant ex-Daley aides. 

And then a concession by defendants about a hiring “clearinghouse” at the Hall and their lawyer’s disavowing any attempt to slime Daley to save his clients — here paraphrased to make sense of what the story has or spell out what it hints at. 

And then their lawyer’s arguing why he should get the materials based on others’ previously getting similar materials.  (But he got them this time, didn’t he?  [See below]  How else would the Trib know about it?) 

The U.S. prosecutor who got them in 1997, now in private practice and not available.  For what?  To bolster the defense contention that they should get materials they already have?  [See below]

And finally the city’s law dept. saying they don’t know nothing about nothing in 1997 and furthermore do not consider the mayor guilty of nothing.

There’s some good stuff here, I think, but if I have to go back over it, translating into English, as Daily News’ Bill Mooney used to say, then either I’m losing it from too much blood pressure medicine, a distinct possibility, or somebody in the Trib who knows how to write did not show up for work yesterday.  (Dock him.)

(OK.  Just re-read lead.  It’s about what defendants “contend.”  OK.  They don’t have the papers yet.  I get it, I get it.  Finally.)