To the Editor:
We read The Herald’s Nov. 7 article “US spent over $22 billion on Israel’s military operations in the past year, Watson study finds” with interest. While we were aware of the United States’ long standing commitment to support Israel as the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, we were surprised to learn that what is effectively a political advocacy group, The Cost of War Project, is operating out of the Watson Institute under the guise of academic research.
The Cost of War Project purports to “raise awareness and foster public debate by providing the fullest possible account of the human, economic, political, and environmental costs of U.S. militarism.” In practice, it produces political opinion, embracing an extreme worldview that casts blame on the United States and its allies while casting terrorists and totalitarians, from Hamas to Russia to the Houthis to China, as benign underdogs.
In The Herald’s story, the authors of the study make casual mischaracterizations and accusations against the United States and Israel that show a deeply troubling bias and a lack of appreciation of the historical and current context.
Stephen Semler, a co-author of the report, described aid to Israel in 1973 as a bailout. Putting aside his disparaging characterization, which is also historically inaccurate, your readers might be interested to know that military aid to Israel was particularly high at that time because Soviet-backed Egyptian and Syrian forces almost overran the country in the Yom Kippur War. What would Semler have had the United States do? Does he believe the United States should have allowed an intentional massacre of Israeli civilians?
Semler describes Israel’s current military campaign as genocide. William Hartung, a co-author, said the U.S. government is “enabling war crimes.” Never mind that the High Level Military Group — composed of retired American and British military officers — among others have praised the Israeli Defense Forces for its adherence to the laws of war, or that Hamas has embraced bloodshed, strategically embedded itself among the civilian population and described civilian casualties as “necessary sacrifices.”
If the incontrovertible evidence refuting this claim is not enough, an instructive thought exercise makes the case clear: what do Hartung and Semler think would happen if the United States withheld aid from Israel, and Israel in turn unilaterally laid down arms against Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis? The answer is obvious: an actual genocide would ensue. Alternatively, if these Iranian proxies laid down their arms, the war would be over.
In recent years, we, and many others with whom we have spoken, have observed with concern a shocking lack of balance and academic integrity from the Watson Institute with respect to the Middle East. The information reported in your article only confirms those concerns.
Brown’s leadership must have the courage and moral clarity to ensure that the Watson Institute is committed to dispassionate academic inquiry and that it is not used as a vehicle for political activism. The selection of a new head of Watson will be a critical test in this regard. The credibility and reputation of the Institute and that of the University lies in the balance.
Sincerely,
Justin Steinberg ’98
Abby Doft ’91
Frederick Horowitz ’86, P’19
