In the New York Sun, Ira Stoll reviews "The Israel Lobby."

The professors write that "anti-Semitism indulges in various forms of stereotyping and implies that Jews should be viewed with suspicion or contempt, while seeking to deny them the ability to participate fully and freely in all realms of society." They are at pains to emphasize that "the lobby is defined not by ethnicity or religion but by a political agenda." Then they proceed to jump in and do exactly what they say anti-Semites do.

Meanwhile, in The New Yorker, David Remnick has a take that reflects his greatest, perhaps his only major, weakness as a writer: His desire to be universally liked.

Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists. They are serious scholars, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity.

This is a bit of a bizarre couplet, perhaps the only place in Remnick's piece where he argues by assertion rather than accretion—and by misdirection: No one has accused W&M of insincerity. To W&M's critics, it is their sincerity that is the problem.

Remnick then continues in a less forgiving manner.

But their announced objectives have been badly undermined by the contours of their argument—a prosecutor’s brief that depicts Israel as a singularly pernicious force in world affairs. Mearsheimer and Walt have not entirely forgotten their professional duties, and they periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities. But their conclusions are unmistakable: Israel and its lobbyists bear a great deal of blame for the loss of American direction, treasure, and even blood.

I do not mean to accuse W&M of anti-Semitism, a subject on which my expertise is more than limited. And yet, I wonder why Remnick is so quick to absolve them of the charge, when the seed of it lies within his own words: though W&M "periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities," they still paint a picture of Israel as the Great Satan in American foreign policy. In other words, they sometimes try to be scholarly, but more often resort to stereotyping. Why could that be?

Remnick's answer lies in his concluding words:

“The Israel Lobby” is a phenomenon of its moment. The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.

Put more bluntly, Remnick's argument is that, in a time of fear and anxiety, W&M are irrationally blaming the Jews and their Torah-carriers. I don't know if that's anti-Semitism, but nothing within Remnick's argument rules it out.

Larry Summers appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, although the show was guest-hosted by Terry Moran. (It's late August. GS is probably at the US Open, where I should be.)

He was not optimistic about the state of the stock market and the economy, but stuck up for the little guy, saying that the focus of economic policy should not be bailing out big investors, but addressing the needs of homeowners who are facing the loss of their homes.

Sound economic policy—or political positioning for the 2008 campaign?

Summers' best-delivered line of the show: "The Wall Street editorial page is wrong when it tries to deny the American dream" of homeownership to working families.

LHS has gone almost entirely gray in the past year; he's looking more distinguished these days.

Newsweek has a list of the "hottest" colleges just out, and it's amusing if basically worthless.

Case in point: the magazine lists Cornell as the "hottest Ivy."

Here's why:

Unlike the other Ivies, Cornell is a land-grant college emphasizing problem solving as well as scholarly debate. The university boasts a world-class engineering college and top-flight liberal arts, science and fine arts. The hotel school is considered the world's best. Cornellians, proud of the variety on campus, point to the president, David Skorton, a cardiologist, jazz musician and computer scientist who is the first in his family to have a college education.

Okay, that's all true, and I'm imagine Wikipedia will confirm it. So what exactly makes Cornell "hot"? Newsweek does not elaborate.

Silly mainstream media. If you're going to say that something is hot, you should at least say why.

Okay, here's the Harvard entry:

This was a close one. Harvard rejected 91.03 percent of its applicants to the class of 2011. It seemed likely, once again, to win the trophy for Stingiest Admissions. But wait: Columbia College, part of Columbia University, rejected 91.05 of applicants. Its student newspaper declared it the winner. Some Columbia freshmen, however, attend the School of Engineering and Applied Science or the School of General Studies, which means that only 89.6 percent of applicants felt the pain.

Well, that is a tortured logic, and what the heck is "hottest for rejecting you" supposed to mean anyway?

The comments do a fine job of comments deconstructing of this particular feature.

I seem to have created some confusion with my posts on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, so let me try to clear things up.

First, I'll admit to being skeptical about "The Israel Lobby"—I found the original paper underwhelming—but certainly am keeping an open mind about it. The two professors may well have strengthened their case and elevated the quality of their research since the original paper.

Second, I certainly think that W&M, as we shall now refer to them, have the right to publish the book and talk about it in any way they wish. This does not mean that private organizations need volunteer a forum for them in which to do so.

Third, I am slightly troubled by the way this book is being marketed, with access to W&M being controlled and limited by their publisher—more on this later—and the book itself kept under tight wraps—very unusual for an academic work—so as to promote greater interest in it. (There may well be other reasons; this is undeniably one.)

Having said that, I do agree that if W&M really want to get their message out and be heard on such a volatile topic, then they do have to play the game of public relations; that's why I posted about the rather offputting nature of their PR photo.

What I do argue is that they can not have this both ways—play the game and then protest when others do the same.

When, for example, Professor Mearsheimer attributed the cancellation of their forum to pressure from "the lobby," I was dismayed, because in my opinion that remark borders on anti-Semitism. It would be one thing to say that the forum was cancelled because of protest from a specific group or groups; but to point to a vague, conspiratorial, behind the scenes pressure from the mysterious "lobby"—well, that strikes me as irresponsible.

Which is not a promising sign. My suspicion is that the professors don't know quite what they've gotten themselves into, and I can speak from firsthand knowledge that they are getting some bad advice, and that when you are injecting a subject as potentially hurtful and damaging as this one into the public arena, doing so requires great care, skill, and responsibility. (Remember: their paper was praised by David Duke, among others. The potential for unfortunate consequences is substantial.)

Whereas their publisher is concerned with selling books.

So there is something about the very nature of this process that concerns me. And again, that's why I posted about the W&M photo—because it suggests, in one relatively trivial way, that these men don't quite know what they are doing in this larger arena than that to which they are accustomed, and that they have not surrounded themselves with people who do.

Which, in the end, makes it less likely that their book will provoke healthy, constructive debate, and more likely that it will provoke anger and dissension.

But I hope to be proved wrong. We shall see.

The Chicago Trib reports on the decision by the Chicago Council of Global Affairs to cancel a forum about "The Israel Lobby," the forthcoming book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

Council President Marshall Bouton, who made the decision to cancel, said he was not trying to stifle free speech nor shy away from public discussion of a controversial issue. Rather, Bouton said, he preferred that the authors appear in "an appropriate forum" balanced by an opposing viewpoint. Neither council board members who are Jewish nor pro-Israeli groups influenced his decision or pressured him, Bouton said.

Proving again (see below) that Mearsheimer needs a better public relations person than the one Farrar, Strauss & Giroux has provided him—trust me, I know this firsthand—he responds:

"If he wasn't protecting the council from the lobby, who was he protecting it from?"

There you go, Professor Mearsheimer—blaming the Jews again. [You can tell that Mearsheimer would have capitalized "The Lobby."] Maybe the book should just be called "The Israel Cabal"?

The Boston Globe reports that some Harvard neighbors are ticked off at the university for failing to repair an Allston street that it was supposed to have fixed, oh, ten years ago. A decade ago, Harvard pledged to replace the sidewalk and a chain-link fence bounding Harvard athletic fields, as well as plant dozens of trees along the road, which runs from the Charles River into Allston.

Last month, neighbors complained that no trees had been planted, while the crumbling sidewalk and rusted fence remain, and the city agency overseeing Harvard's expansion plans ordered the university to make the promised improvements immediately. They have not yet done so, and for some neighbors the university's inaction symbolizes a broader indifference to neighborhood concerns.

This seems bizarrely and inexplicably foolish of Harvard: Why blow off something so small when you have much bigger fish to fry, and these things can come back to haunt you?

The Globe quotes Kevin McCluskey, Harvard's director of community relations, saying [apparently] that ten years ain't so long, really.

"You don't go out overnight and rip up a sidewalk," he said. "If you look at projects of this kind," the current plan to make improvement within a few weeks "is pretty quick."

Is it just me, or is the Allston project beginning to hit some bumps in the road in terms of community support?

The Times has an interesting piece on the problems Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer are already running into with their forthcoming book, The Israel Lobby.

An article last spring in the London Review of Books outlining their argument — that a powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy — set off a firestorm as charges of anti-Semitism, shoddy scholarship and censorship ricocheted among prominent academics, writers, policymakers and advocates. In the book, published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and embargoed until Sept. 4, they elaborate on and update their case.

With all due respect, Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, I have one suggestion: When you're taking on a topic this inflammatory, appearance matters. (It probably shouldn't, but it does.) Get rid of this photo—now. Quite frankly, it makes you look cold and heartless and a little creepy. Lose the ties at the very least. Get a dog in there somewhere. (Not a German shepherd, though!)

The book is going to be problematic enough as it is... Anyone out there plan to read it?

Harvard's president has posted a statement regarding the British boycott of Israeli academics.

...Such a move subverts the academic values and freedoms necessary to the free flow of ideas that are the lifeblood of universities and, ultimately, that of the societies and world we serve.

Well said. Concise, eloquent, and correct.

Finally, while I am most comfortable expressing my views on such matters directly in my own words as opposed to signing group statements or petitions, I obviously join many colleagues throughout the international academic community in denouncing...

Less well said. Joining a petition is a great democratic act, something a university president should feel proud to partake in (when appropriate), rather than stand apart or above. Faust's words would have drawn more attention if they were joined with those of many other insitutions....

Was it perhaps that the petition featured Lee Bollinger most prominently, and Harvard's president could not afford to look subordinate in any context?

Entertainment Weekly writes about Cornel West's new record this week (try the print version), and so does the Boston Globe.

In 2002 West left Harvard and returned to the Center for African American Studies at Princeton, where he is a professor of religion. Princeton president Shirley Tilghman wasn't available for comment, but West feels confident of her support.

"I think she'll be much more open than Brother Summers," he says. "The hip-hop scared him. It's a stereotypical reaction."

..."I hope that this contributes to an awakening among young people having to do with the political situation, connecting them to history, and most important, giving them a sense of just how precious the black musical tradition is," West says. "It ought not to be dumbed down or debased or disrespected. I'm not trashing 50 Cent and Snoop. I'm challenging them in a loving way. We can be more engaging and responsible in our work and our art."

With every logical, reasonable, and inspiring word West speaks in the context of this album, he puts the Harvard naysayers in an increasingly awkward position...

In the Times, former Harvard professor turned Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff—whose early pro-war writings were highly influential—admits that, well, he was wrong.

I like and admire Michael; he is an honorable man. But I am underwhelmed by his mea culpa, two-thirds of which is an abstract disquisition on the nature of truth in politics. (Or some such thing.) Dry and (ironically) bloodless, it reads more like a political apologia than the words of a man whose arguments, on the cover of the New York Times Magazine, have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

The bottom line is two paragraphs tucked quietly into the piece near its end.

The people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. They labored, as everyone did, with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq’s fissured sectarian history. What they didn’t do was take wishes for reality. They didn’t suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn’t suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. They didn’t suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little. They didn’t believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. They avoided all these mistakes.

I made some of these mistakes and then a few of my own. The lesson I draw for the future is to be less influenced by the passions of people I admire — Iraqi exiles, for example — and to be less swayed by my emotions. I went to northern Iraq in 1992. I saw what Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds. From that moment forward, I believed he had to go. My convictions had all the authority of personal experience, but for that very reason, I let emotion carry me past the hard questions, like: Can Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites hold together in peace what Saddam Hussein held together by terror? I should have known that emotions in politics, as in life, tend to be self-justifying and in matters of ultimate political judgment, nothing, not even your own feelings, should be held immune from the burden of justification through cross-examination and argument.

It seems to me that Ignatieiff has this exactly wrong. He was emotional in his arguments for war, he says. (Yes, true—though he cloaked his emotion in the guise of tough-talking liberalism.)

And now, as a result of that experience, he will not be emotional in his admission of error.

It seems to me that one should be tough-minded in arguing for war, rather than emotion-driven.

But how could you not be emotional, passionate, in admitting that you got it so very wrong? Does an apology delivered without feeling count for very much?

Another thought: Here is a magazine article, or a thesis, for someone who has more time than I. Some of the most ardent and influential supporters of the war in Iraq were people who had witnessed the human rights atrocities of Saddam Hussein. Ignatieff, Judith Miller, and so on. Their emotions were understandable—but it would be interesting and, I think, important, to study the impact of those well-meaning journalists and human rights activists on the public debate surrounding the war, and the ways in which those pro-human rights, pro-war liberals got it wrong.

Well, some of you aren't too happy about Harvard's efforts to go green, judging from the comments over at Shots in the Dark. Apparently you haven't read Drew Faust's contribution to the "Green supplement" of the Harvard Gazette.

I want to take this opportunity...

Almost a decade ago, President Neil Rudenstine ...

The University has also established a $12 million revolving, interest-free loan fund...

I am proud to inherit this institutional commitment...

Over 40 years ago, Rachel Carson wrote...

There are two options here: Either Drew Faust didn't write this, or she did. Neither is encouraging.

Here's something else that's less than confidence-inspiring: on the president''s webpage, you will now find links to positive articles in the press about Drew Faust. But only positive articles—you won't find, for example, my somewhat more skeptical look at her in 02138 on the site. The Revisionist, indeed.

Let's be honest: If Larry Summers had started posting puff pieces lauding himself on his president's page, which he did not, he would have been snickered at for engaging in such blatant self-puffery. The same should hold true for any Harvard president.