hahahahahahhaaaaaa Harvards caves into jews . . .validiating exactly what study says. . .hahahahahaaaa . . . .

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/698307.html
Fri., March 24, 2006 Adar 24, 5766
Last update - 15:04 24/03/2006
Harvard to remove official seal from anti-AIPAC 'working paper'
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Harvard University has decided to remove its logo from a study that denounces the pro-Israel lobby's impact on American foreign policy, in order to distance itself from the study's conclusions.

The university also appended a more strongly worded disclaimer to the study, stating that it reflects the views of its authors only. The former disclaimer said merely that the study "does not necessarily" reflect the university's views.

The controversial study, published this week, was authored by Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. It charged that American foreign policy has been subordinated to Israeli interests and accused the pro-Israel lobby of responsibility for America's invasion of Iraq.

The study's many critics claim that its academic quality is poor, and that it is essentially a political polemic rather than genuine academic research. Well-known researchers such as Marvin Kalb, also of Harvard's Kennedy School, said this week that the study fails to meet minimal academic standards.

However, it has aroused great interest among the Arab media and been widely quoted there. The Palestine Liberation Organization's office in Washington distributed it by email to thousands of subscribers, and lobbyists for Arab states have been passing it around. The study also earned praise from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

One of the study's claims is that American opponents of Israel are consistently silenced by charges of anti-Semitism from the pro-Israel lobby. Congressman Eliot Engel of New York, in an interview with Haaretz this week, termed the study itself a form of anti-Semitism and said that it deserved the American public's contempt.

According to the study, the pro-Israel lobby is an octopus whose tentacles affect congressional legislation, administration policies, the press and other agencies. The paper focuses on the main pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, but also discusses other organizations, such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and devotes considerable attention to pro-Israel government officials - many of them Jewish - such as former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz in the Bush administration and former assistant secretary of state Martin Indyk in the Clinton administration.

The study also accused the pro-Israel lobby of monitoring academics to ensure that they do not diverge from the pro-Israel line. They will undoubtedly see proof of this contention in Harvard's decision to distance itself from the study due to pressure applied by pro-Israel donors. According to the New York Sun, Robert Belfer - who gave the Kennedy School $7.5 million in 1997 in order, among other things, to endow the chair that Walt now occupies - called the university and asked that Walt be forbidden to use his title in publicity for the study.

Israeli officials have been concerned over the study, saying it is liable to be used to delegitimize Israel among the American intelligentsia. As of yesterday, however, it did not seem to have won much support among academics specializing in American foreign policy. According to one such academic, who asked to remain anonymous, "the study obviously contains many correct facts, but their presentation is skewed and the conclusions [the authors] derive from them are unfit for publication. For instance, it completely ignores the enormous influence of the Arab oil lobby on American policy, and presents a one-sided and utterly politically biased picture of the world."

Other academics - some of them not known as fans of AIPAC - also cited many professional flaws in the study, such as omitting relevant facts, relying on unofficial sources (including Haaretz), and leaping to conclusions that are not necessarily supported by the facts.

In addition to reiterating the well-worn charge that Jewish neoconservatives in the Bush administration were responsible for America's invasion of Iraq, the study accuses the pro-Israel lobby of inciting the American government and people against the Palestinian Authority, tilting American policy against Syria and other Arab states, and trying to push the United States into aggressive action against Iran's nuclear program.

Shmuel Rosner on the Harvard study



LRB | Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006 | John Mearsheimer
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
[snip]

I didnt read your crap - I never do. Life is too short. If you loved the planet you would leave it...

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Isn't that just a tad ignorant of you? If Harvard says something then I don't care if it's presented by Adolf Hitler, i'm at least going to listen.

If you want a quick see through from a non anti-semetic mindset, then this is the situation: There is a powerful US group that fights for pro-Israel foreign policy. This group isn't only Jewish, of course, it is probably mostly Christian.

Up until now everyone assumed that was just a part of antisemitists mind numbing belief that "Jews control the world." But now Harvard has made it realized that the pro-Israel lobby group really does have some significance in US foreign relations.

Should this be a surpise? I've heard people (especially liberals) b*tch endlessly as to why we continously support Israel no matter what & this is, for all purposes, the reason.

The world is grey, not black or white. I thought everyone realized this.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that whether or not the accusations are true I can't say. But this is at least worth a read.

__________________
"If life were fair, Elvis would be alive and all the
impersonators would be dead.
-- Johnny Carson

STACKING THE DECK is a jew's best friend. . . .hahahahahahahaa jews are using the same smear tactics detailed in Paul Findley's and Tony Martins books. . . .

Scholars' Attack on Pro-Israel Lobby Met With Silence
By Ori Nir
March 24, 2006

WASHINGTON — In the face of one of the harshest reports on the pro-Israel lobby to emerge from academia, Jewish organizations are holding fire in order to avoid generating publicity for their critics.

Officials at Jewish organizations are furious over "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a new paper by John Mearsheimer, a top international relations theorists based at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, the academic dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. In their report — versions of which appear on the Kennedy School Web site and in the March 26 issue of the London Review of Books — the scholars depict "the Israel lobby" as a "loose coalition" of politicians, media outlets, research institutions, Jewish groups and Evangelical Christians that steers America's Middle East policy in directions beneficial to Israel, even if it requires harming American interests.

Despite their anger, Jewish organizations are avoiding a frontal debate with the two scholars, while at the same time seeking indirect ways to rebut and discredit the scholars' arguments. Officials with pro-Israel organizations say that given the limited public attention generated by the new study — as of Tuesday most major print outlets had ignored it — they prefer not to draw attention to the paper by taking issue with it head on. As of Wednesday morning, none of the largest Jewish organizations had issued a press release on the report.

"The key here is to not do what they probably want, which is to have this become a battle between us and them, or for them to say that they are being silenced," said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. "It's much better to let others respond."

Pro-Israel activists were planning a briefing for congressional staffers to be held Thursday. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are considering releasing a letter in response to the new paper, congressional staffers said.

Some of the arguments made in the new paper are reminiscent — both in content and style — of ones routinely found on virulently anti-Israeli Web sites, both on the extreme right and on the extreme left, pro-Israel activists said. For example, Mearsheimer and Walt argue that "the main driving force behind the [Iraq] war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud"; Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" on the United States and "does not behave like a loyal ally"; "the U.S. has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," and that in Israel, "citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship." The paper argues that "thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de-facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians."

Like no other lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt argue, pro-Israel forces have "managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest." The tentacles of that lobby, the paper argues, reach far into Washington think tanks from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution to the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. It argues that pro-Israel views pervade the editorial boards of the liberal New York Times and the conservative Wall Street Journal.

The study left pro-Israel activists fuming, albeit behind the scenes. "The truth is that this really wouldn't be worth spending any time discussing if not for the fact of where these people are located and what their reputations are," said Ken Jacobson, associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League. He pointed out that the paper contains no new revelations or insights, is riddled with factual errors and makes arguments that the ADL is accustomed to dealing with from extremists on the margins of America's political arena. Jacobson said that he had prepared a rebuttal to the study, but for the time being it is only being used for internal ADL purposes.

"In these kinds of things you're always trying to debate how important will it be in terms of the impact, if you give it more attention," he said. "The amount of attention we will give it will depend on how it plays out" in the public domain.

At least one leading pro-Israel luminary, Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, author of "The Case for Israel," is attempting to confront Walt and Mearsheimer. He has challenged the scholars to a debate; the two, prodded by Harvard's campus newspaper The Crimson, accepted, "under the appropriate circumstances."

Mearsheimer and Walt also seem to be resisting further publicity.

"I don't have an agenda in the sense of viewing myself as proselytizing or trying to sell this," Mearsheimer told the Forward. "I am a scholar, not an activist, and I am reticent to take questions from the media because I do believe that this is a subject that has to be approached very carefully. You don't want to say the wrong thing. The potential for saying the wrong thing is very great here."

Mearsheimer was hosted on National Public Radio Tuesday for a full hour, to talk about Iraq, but did not make any mention of the controversial paper he co-authored. "To have a throwaway line or two on public radio to promote yourself is a bad idea," he told the Forward, following his NPR appearance. "I prefer to take the high road, although that is not always easy." Since publication, Mearsheimeradded, he and Walt also turned down offers from major newspapers, radio and television networks to lay out their thesis.

The abstract of the report posted on the Kennedy School Web site appears to soft-pedal Mearsheimer and Walt's argument. It states that the authors argue that America's commitment to Israel is "often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives," though in fact the report works to undercut the notion of Israel as a dependable ally that shares the values of the United States.

While the paper has generated little attention in the mainstream media or policymaking circles, it has produced a buzz within the academic community and among advocates on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Palestinian activists and Arab affairs scholars sent the article to many people by email, but the controversy rarely strayed beyond the realm of Internet blogs.

Several editors, foreign affairs reporters and columnists for major American newspapers contacted by the Forward did not know about the study. They didn't sound especially interested when told about the report's findings.

"We might take a look at it, to see if there is any interest from a lobbying point of view," said David Meyers, managing editor of Roll Call, a Washington-based publication that covers Capitol Hill. A senior editor with one of America's largest daily newspapers, who asked not to be quoted by name, said: "We don't get excited about academic papers unless they tell us something new, and this one doesn't."

Given the relatively low publicity, pro-Israel activists said they are not worried about the short-term impact of the study. The main concern voiced by pro-Israel advocates was that the study would become a major archival resource on the role that American supporters of Israel play in shaping the government's Middle East policy.

"We live in a Google age," said Jennifer Laszlo-Mizrahi, a public relations expert who heads The Israel Project, an organization devoted to improving Israel's image in the media, "and in this age things like this can take a life of their own."


Furthermore, all kinds of Jews, from the Marxist radicals to the redoubtable “Prof.” Adelson of the Jewish Press, generalize about “the Jews” when it suits them. The “some Jews” business is yet another red herring and attempt at special rules for the Jews.

Tony Martin, “The Jewish Onslaught: Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront” ISBN 0912469307 (Dover: 1993). Page 37.

In short, when a lobby [AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee] stifles free speech nationally on one contoversial topic – the Middle East – all free speech is threatened.

Paul Findely, (former Republican Congressman of Illinois for 22 years) “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby,” (Westport: 1985) Page 332.

Most Congressional actions affecting Middle East policy are either approved or inititated by AIPAC. [AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee]

Paul Findely, (former Republican Congressman of Illinois for 22 years) “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby,” (Westport: 1985) Page 32.

Almost without exception, House and Senate members do its bidding, because most of them consider AIPAC to be the direct Capitol Hill representative of a political force that can make or break their chances at election time.

Paul Findley, “They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby” (Westport: 1985) p. 25

In practice, the lobby groups [AIPAC, ADL, AJC] function as an informal extension of the Israeli government. This was illustrated when AIPAC helped draft the official statement defending Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, then issued it the same hour as Israel's embassy. No major Jewish organization ever publicly takes issue with positions and policies adopted by Israel. Thomas A. Dine, executive director of AIPAC, spoke warmly of President Reagan's peace plan when it was announced in September 1982, but as soon as Israel rejected the plan Dine fell silent.
Paul Findley, “They Dare Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby” (Westport: 1985) p. 26-27.

Shamgar is an odd type, a bit obsessed if you ask me, he does bring up an interesting subject though, which is worth the attention, the paper (from what I have understood) was far from anti-semitic crap and focused on very real phenomena in the current American political arena and it did so in a very scientific and professional manner.

And the fact that groups succeed in destroying this papers' credibility by nothing more than political power instead of arguments, is highly revealing.

This action confirms the paper's message.

The paper is anti-Semitic and Harvard did the right thing by removing its official seal from it. Harvard is private, by the way, and has no legal obligation to approve this paper in any way.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

hahahahahahaaaaa it is a technique called The Granfalloon Technique . . . you create a group. ..this group of unrelated people have a group "tie". . .the outside group's differences are exaggerated. The outside group is labeled as a "hater". . .'antisemite". . . .racist". . . . etc who wants to be smeared as any of these labels. . . besides me that is.. . . you can read all about it in the "Age of Propaganda" by Pratkanis and Aronson, page 216-223


. . . .here is more of the smear campaign. . . melanie is a real laugh. . .
http://www.dailyalert.org/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary...es/001643.html

In what way?

Farce has to go find out the "talking points" first to respond. . . .

That is Shamgar's 'How To Hate The Jews And Other People That Are Not Like Me' strategy, from his book 'Look at me; I'm a rambling idiot'

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison