A year ago Stephen Walt was invited by University of Montana History Chairman Richard Drake to deliver the school’s annual Presidential lecture in Helena. Drake writes that he experienced a fusillade of angry mail — from other professors. "I have invited more than two hundred speakers to the campus. Walt was the
first one to be welcomed with a preemptive barrage of defamatory
invective from faculty members."
One of my critics told me before startled witnesses that he would
not rest until I had been stripped of my position of power, which
manifestly had corrupted me. Someone as insensitive to Jewish issues as
I was could no longer be entrusted to coordinate a university lecture
series. He initiated a campaign to bring about my dismissal.The charge that Walt was the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier
seemed little less than grotesque, but there it was in black and white
on University of Montana stationery in one of the many bitter letters
that this affair inspired: “It is much as if the university had brought
a Holocaust denier to campus and accorded him the honors of a respected
guest.”
Of course, another charge was that unless Drake invited someone to balance Walt–say Alan Dershowitz–he would “leave a dark stain on the President’s Lecture Series and the university itself.” Drake answers that one by referring eloquently, not to the lobby, but to American government:
The government possesses ample resources for celebrating its
policies, dominating as it does a wide range of institutions and
offices that condition the public debate, and it hardly requires the
services of a university lecture series… In a democratic society, all government policies must stand for
public inspection. With both of our political
parties and the media sharing the same basic ideas about foreign
policy, especially in the Middle East, we need a place where the
assumptions of the status quo encounter a stern testing, not a
happy-faced tribute. The university should be that place.
Robert Fisk wrote this in 1997–
"Had Palestinians massacred 2,000 Israelis 15 years ago, would anyone doubt that the world's press and television would be remembering so terrible a deed this morning? Yet this week, not a single newspaper in the United States – or Britain for that matter – has even mentioned the anniversary of Sabra and Chatila."
Still true 10 years later.
The Dershowitzniks swing at every pitch. It seems that hysteria is getting the better of some peoples judgment. In today's media climate crude attempts to silence and intimidate backfire. Freedom of speech is a core value in American's self-mythology. The story feeds itself.
Certainly the overwrought reactions to Walt appearing in such an out of the way place as Montana prove the thesis of his book entirely. Is that stupid or is that stupid?
This is going to get much worse before it ever gets any better. The chances are very high that a war with Iran is in the offing and if this occurs the chances of it having disatrous results on the economy very high. In that case we would be looking at very high gasoline prices with Israel's fingerprints all over them… the natives could get restless… grumbles may be heard… Dershowitz and Foxman will be on 24 hour call to squash every grumble… pop goes the weasel.
The Dershowitzniks swing at every pitch. It seems that hysteria is getting the better of some peoples judgment. In today's media climate crude attempts to silence and intimidate backfire. Freedom of speech is a core value in American's self-mythology. The story feeds itself.
Certainly the overwrought reactions to Walt appearing in such an out of the way place as Montana prove the thesis of his book entirely. Is that stupid or is that stupid?
This is going to get much worse before it ever gets any better. The chances are very high that a war with Iran is in the offing and if this occurs the chances of it having disatrous results on the economy very high. In that case we would be looking at very high gasoline prices with Israel's fingerprints all over them… the natives could get restless… grumbles may be heard… Dershowitz and Foxman will be on 24 hour call to squash every grumble… pop goes the weasel.
The Dershowitzniks swing at every pitch. It seems that hysteria is getting the better of some peoples judgment. In today's media climate crude attempts to silence and intimidate backfire. Freedom of speech is a core value in American's self-mythology. The story feeds itself.
Certainly the overwrought reactions to Walt appearing in such an out of the way place as Montana prove the thesis of his book entirely. Is that stupid or is that stupid?
This is going to get much worse before it ever gets any better. The chances are very high that a war with Iran is in the offing and if this occurs the chances of it having disatrous results on the economy very high. In that case we would be looking at very high gasoline prices with Israel's fingerprints all over them… the natives could get restless… grumbles may be heard… Dershowitz and Foxman will be on 24 hour call to squash every grumble… pop goes the weasel.
Sorry for these multiple postings, there has been some problem this morning (my time) with the ISP. I promise I haven't pushed the button more than once. I hope this one doesn't come out four times too.
.
I'm glad M&W is having an impact but I know I couldn't read it. Looking at it on Amazon I was referred to Joel Kovel's 'Overcoming Zionism' and ordered it. Have only had time to read the beginning but I am very pleased with it. It gives a unique (psychoanalytic) point of view on the history and motives of Zionism.
Then I found that the book, published in England, had been suspended by its US distributer, the U Michigan Press, because of Zionist pressure on the U. It has since been reinstated but the U is now considering whether to end its distribution of all books by the publisher. For news on this see:
link to blogger.com
Also there is the action of UC Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake of revoking the offer to Erwin Chemerinsky to head their new Law School. Here is the excellent editorial on it in the Times:
link to nytimes.com
and here is Drake's statement:
link to chancellor.uci.edu
in which he insinuates that Chemerinsky would intimidate the students.
The reason for this reversal is not known, but the best guess is that it has to do with Chemerinsky's representation of the family of Rachel Corrie, since nothing else about him seems to be particularly controversal.
I wish there were more people like Richard Drake. Unfortunately the Zionists have usually been successful in intimidating academic institutions.
See the excerpt from M&W on Amazon, and also DePaul's dropping of Finkelstein, which happened too recently to be mentioned in the book.
All of which reflects on Phil's strange espousal of elitism. US elites are mostly either deaf and blind, and/or co-opted. I can have no respect for them, especially the 'intellectuals' who should know better.
Best strategy is indirect, best tactics is diversion.
Alan Greenspan delivered both in his new book.
"We invaded a third country for oil" just means we are still (sigh!) Kiplingesque white colonialists. That is not as bad and grossly embarrassing as "We were manipulated like a flock of sheep into a failed colonial war against a weak third-world country and sent our sons to die for the Utopian ideas of a tiny club of lobbyists working for the interests of a foreign country that literally cannot survive one minute without us bailing them out".
Bravo, Alan! That will delay the truth for another 3-6 months.
The free speech fight is never "won", it is a constant and often exhausting battle. The Bill of Rights is only meaningful as long as people are willing to keep challenging the forces of totalitarian enclosure.Fortunately there are still folks in Missoula (where i live) willing to struggle against what seem like impossible odds.
Alex, if I understand you correctly your guess is that Greenspan is trying to cover up for the Israel lobby.
Possibly.
But I think it is more likely that he is right. The 'Israel lobby' has replaced the 'oil junta' in a lot of analysis but that doesn't mean that that junta (Bush, Cheney, Rice) was and isn't there.
I have argued before that the 'Israel lobby' has probably been decisive in the setting of US policy as far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned but not in US Middle East policy in general.
In the interview on ZNet with Norman Finkelstein, to which David Seaton drew attention, I found that Finkelstein, who can say these things with much greater authority, espouses a similar point of view.
"McLeod: What do you think about the recently-released book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt?
Finkelstein: Parts of it I agree with, parts of it I don’t.
For example, I don’t think there’s any evidence that the Is lobby was a crucial factor in the decision for the US to go to war in Iraq and I don’t think that there is evidence that US policy in the Middle East in general is shaped by the lobby.
However, I do think that the lobby is a crucial factor in determining US policy towards the Palestinians.
I don’t think it determined US policy in Iran, in Turkey or in Iraq. But on the Israel-Palestine conflict – the building of settlements and the colonisation of Palestine, I think it is a crucial factor."
I believe that the 'oil junta' is keenly aware of the impending scarcity of oil (look at the 'peak oil'website) and is anxious for the US to obtain a key position, by fair means or foul (mostly foul), in the Middle East.
I should add to this that this doesn't mean that the Israel lobby didn't have a part in the Iraq debacle (that has however turned out to be quite profitable for both the defence and oil industry)but wasn't that limited to 'aiding and abetting' and cheering on the sideline?
Arie, there are always forces urging war. Even if it's only Acme Hand Grenades, Inc., or a president who wants to dress up as Commander in Chief. But there are also checks and balances built into a complex democracy and most of the time they're capable of keeping the forces under control. A lobby doesn't have to create a war, it only has to throw a little extra weight on one side of the balance, or dismantle a few checks. For example, I don't see "cheering from the sidelines" as innocently as you do–not in the age of mass media. How do you explain to yourself why the normally "liberal" media decided to help out on this war?
Also, I have to disagree with your distinction between Israeli-Palestinian policy and Iraq War policy. It always seemed obvious to me that getting the American people into a war with Arabs would be the single most important objective for a paranoid Zionist. As Netanyahu said, "It's good, very good for Israel."
What's the old adage, you always hate those whom you have unjustly harmed?
David,
Yes I am sure that a lot of 'paranoid Zionists' , with the unspeakable Netanyahu in front, wanted the US to get into this war but that doesn't mean that 'their' lobby made the crucial difference.
Gabriel Ash says it best:
" … one doesn’t need to be a fanatical Israel Lobby denier to poke holes in the theory that lays US misadventures in the Middle East primarily at AIPAC’s door.
Mearsheimer and Walt are ideologues of imperialism with a deeply flawed understanding of US politics — the words ‘corporations,’ ‘finance’ and ‘capitalism’ are simply not part of their lexicon.
Others are differently myopic. If one were to believe James Petras, the billionaires who put Bush in the White House in 2000 with the best funded campaign in US history were taken for a ride by a cabal of secret Israeli agents such as Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith, who sent the US into a losing war that nearly bankrupt the US, damaged the prospects of its oil majors and threatened the worldwide advances of American corporations, all out of their commitment to Zionism. [4] That America’s billionaire class came back for a second round and supported Bush in 2004 as well must be chalked up to their masochism and the desire to lose even more money. [5]
Zionism is a loathsome ideology, and AIPAC is a powerful organization. Nevertheless, the tunnel vision that sees Zionism as the major determinant of US politics is a new permutation of the classical right-wing knife-in-the-back myth. [6] To those who buy this fairytale understanding of US politics, stripped off corporate power, the military-industrial complex, petrodollars, conflicts of accumulation and the class war, all I can offer is a pack of premium Enron shares at a discount."
I should add that Ash has argued elsewhere that the defence and oil industry have done quite nicely out of this war to judge by the steep increase in the value of their respective shares.
In fact a victorious "Blitzkrieg", over in a matter of weeks, would have been against the interests of the weapon industry.
Zionism, when defined and applied as the self-determination movement of the Jewish people is a jewel of a movement, not loathsome.
If the application is corrupt, then the specific application is the appropriate focus of criticism, not silly generalizations.
Oh dear
Arie, no offense, but it's obvious you haven't read the book yet. :)
#1 wrote:"
Robert Fisk wrote this in 1997–
"Had Palestinians massacred 2,000 Israelis 15 years ago, would anyone doubt that the world's press and television would be remembering so terrible a deed this morning? Yet this week, not a single newspaper in the United States – or Britain for that matter – has even mentioned the anniversary of Sabra and Chatila."
Still true 10 years later."
THE ISRAELIS DID NOT DO THE KILLINGS FISK BLAMES THEM FOR. THE KILLINGS WERE DONE BY FELLOW LEBANESE WHO, SUBSEQUENTLY, WERE WELCOMED INTO THE SAME EUROPEAN NATIONS WHICH ISSUED WARRANTS FOR THE ARREST OF SHARON. WHAT HYPOSCRISY!
AND WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE OVER THE DESTRUCTION OF Nahr al-Bared?
link to usatoday.com
"Arie, no offense, but it's obvious you haven't read the book yet."
True enough, and not for want of trying. The bookshops here won't stock it (as James Wolfensohn said: in most of the 'third world' the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is merely a side-show) and to get a book through from outside is no simple matter. You are lucky if you get it at all.
But didn't I read in various reviews that the book is an expanded version of their original paper with more examples, more fully argued, but not basically different? Should I understand from your comment that that is not true? That what they have come up with now should silence Ash, Finkelstein, Chomsky, Massad (did you read his article in the Egyptian Al Ahram weekly?)and other left wing critics?
I would be glad because, as I said before, with W.& M.'s attempt to assist in demolishing a taboo I am very much in sympathy.
So, if I invaded Israel and then left a down of women and children next to the Gaza strip open while Hamas from Gaza starting to poor in and kill them, I would no be responsible for the killing?
Who exactly were the professors at Montana who tried to stop Walt lecturing? Prof. Drake is too polite to finger them. Were they perchance Zionist Jews?