Sat 1 May 2004
I made the claim that Associate Professor of Political Science had an article in the Axis of Logic — a cite that is clearly not, shall we say, smack in the middle of the main stream. I made the claim because, well, here is the article.
In the comments to that post and private correspondance, Professor Lynch kindly points out that he, in fact, did not seek to publish his article on the Axis of Logic. I am glad to have the opportunity to correct my mistake. In fact, Professor Lynch published the article in TomPaine.com, a public interest journal.
All of which leaves me with two questions. First, are the settlements, in fact, illegal? Professor Lynch pointed out that there is some relevant material at the Foundation for Middle East Peace (www.fmep.org), which happens to be run by Philip Wilcox ‘58. See here for thoughts on the legality of the settlements. See here for a refutation. (Thanks to Max K in the comments for the link.) My conclusion is that terming the settlements illegal is biased and incorrect.
Note that this might help to explain why the anti-Semites at Axis of Logic decided to republish Lynch’s piece, as opposed to hundreds of other articles from sites like TomPaine.com that they decided not to publish. Again, just because the fever swamp folks at Axis of Logic like Lynch’s writing does not mean that he is a swamp denizen himself. But the fact that they do should give Lynch pause.
Second, why isn’t Lynch interested in a discussion of topic? He say that he is “not going to get involved in a pointless debate about the legality of the settlements in the occupied territories.” Why not? And why is it pointless? Of course, it is a free country and Lynch is under no obligation to discuss anything at ephblog or elsewhere. But, given that we have current Williams students reading and partipating at ephblog, and strongly disagreeing with what he claims to be a fact — that the settlements are illegal — I would think that he has an obligation to participate, at least a bit.
This is the interesting aspect of ephblog. We read what fellow Ephs have to say and take it seriously. Perhaps Lynch is not used to that, or at least not used to having readers of opinion pieces like this (as opposed to some of his more scholarly work) who do not already agree with him. I don’t know. However you slice it, Lynch is making a factual claim that I (and other Ephs) believe is clearly wrong. If, in a civil and public forum, he declines to defend his claim, readers can draw their own conclusions about his intellectual seriousness.
Lest this sound too harsh, let me say again that I am a fan of Lynch. Anyone with the sense of humor needed to produce pieces like this has got to be a good guy. Moreover, judging from a distance, Lynch seems to be at least as engaged with Williams students outside of his own classes as any professor at Williams. And, to the extent that you care about such things, his record of publications is one of the more impressive in the department.
May 1st, 2004 at 7:39 pm
although Prof. Lynch might not be enough of a neo-con on these matters for the readership of Ephblog, which tends to tilt right, I firmly support Lynch’s right not to get involved on a silly debate on the internet. We all know how such a debate would look, featuring name-calling, and really just dancing around the intractable nature of the problem. I think we should thank Lynch for saving us the hassle.
May 1st, 2004 at 8:46 pm
When you or anyone else here becomes an expert on the Middle East(as he is) then you can debate him. Until then shut it…and have a nice day.
May 2nd, 2004 at 2:19 pm
Associate Professor Lynch just received tenure and has plenty of time on his hands. He could easily decide to grace us with his presence. It’s not like he is a graduate student trying to avoid his dissertation.
Of course, there might be opportunity costs to participating in Ephblog. He could, afterall, be spending time with his family, pick up a hobby he has been neglecting since becoming an assistant professor, reading books from people who do research and know what they are talking about, grade papers, attend committee meetings, or relax in beautiful Williamstown. However, if he opts for one of these activities, Lynch clearly does not appreciate the far reaching importance of Ephblog.
If someone wants to engage in a debate with Lynch, I suggest submitting an article to Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs accepts articles from non-academics and is not peer reviewed, so the turn around time is reasonable and it is arguably the most influential magazine/journal on international relations. [Note: I would not suggest Lynch's other outlets: International Studies or any of the other purely academic journals. Peer reviewed journals: a) are very difficult for people without academic appointments to publish in (and you thought the guild system was dead); b) you'll be hassled by annoying, nitpicking reviewers; c) time to acceptance will be at least 6 months; d) once it is accepted, the article will not be published for a year or so; e) your article will be read by maybe a dozen people.]
My guess is that Professor Lynch would be far more likely to respond to an article in Foreign Affairs than a blog posting. If nothing else, there are far fewer articles in Foreign Affairs on Israel than on the web. The editors of Foreign Affairs also act as an excellent set of gatekeepers.
May 2nd, 2004 at 9:48 pm
Prof. Lynch is a lazy git, and should be forced to dance like a monkey for the erudite audience of Ephblog! Dance, monkey, dance!
Moreoever, I think faculty should consistently waste their time arguing on the internet over trivialities.
After all, we aren’t running a charity here–maybe Lynch should be donating his time to MGRHS instead of lollygagging about in his yard.
May 2nd, 2004 at 11:03 pm
The New York Times today notes that:
If Professor Lynch is correct that the settlements are, objectively, illegal, then why does the Times not describe them that way? Answer: Because the settlements are viewed by some people (and most Palestinians) as illegal and are viewed by other people (and most Israelis) as legal.
May 3rd, 2004 at 12:19 am
Kane, you’ve outdone yourself! Bill Occham is smiling down on you from Philosopher heaven for your use of such razor-edged logic. For your next great act, you should consider a grand unified theory of physics.
May 3rd, 2004 at 1:10 am
Ephblog has a rare distinction in the blog world. It both leans right AND views the NY Times as a reliable source of news. Moreover, the subtle semantics of the Grey Lady are deemed trustworthy on Israel. Quite shocking, really. I’m proud to be associated with this group of open minded alums.
May 3rd, 2004 at 3:55 pm
Referencing the New York Times — which is much more likely than, say, Commentary, to be sympathetic to Lynch’s point of view — is a good idea in this context. Confirmation from a source that, a priori, one would expect to go the other way, is more valuable than confirmation from a source that you already know agrees with you.
If the New York Times, along with every other US news organization that I know of, does not think that the settlements are “illegal,” then, at a minimum, Professor Lynch ought to provide a citation which argues that they are.
In scholarly work, you do not need to provide a footnote for every empirical claim that you make. When someone challenges a claim, then you should make a minimal amount of effort to back it up, even if that is no more than “See Smith (1987).”
May 6th, 2004 at 7:49 am
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Apparently, the New York Times was persuaded by Professor Lynch’s argument:
“Israel Sent Millions to Illegal Settlements.”
Glancing the article, it would appear that even the Israelis were persuaded by Lynch that at least a few of the Settlements were illegal. :)
(Of course, I didn’t bother to read Lynch’s article. I just saw the title of the NY Times article and chuckled given the content of this thread.)
May 6th, 2004 at 9:33 am
Live by the citation, die by the citation.
There are some settlements that the Israeli government itself considers to be illegal. Those are the ones that the title of the article references. I am happy to agree that those settlements are illegal.
Professor Lynch believes that it is a fact that all Israeli settlements are illegal. As best I can tell, the NYT does not agree, nor does the state of Israel.