Smearing Walt and Mearsheimer
or, How the U.S. media struggles to keep the issue of Zionist control of American foreign policy buried.
Part I: The New York Sun campaign
The highlight of the past week was undoubtedly the publication of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a working paper by the dean of Harvard's prestigious Kennedy School of Government, Dr. Stephen Walt, who is also Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Politics, and Dr. John J. Mearsheimer, Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. (PDF download here)
This article was a clear, compelling and in every sense objective analysis of Israel's privileged relationship with the U.S. - one with which I am sure President Kennedy would have agreed heartily - even though I tend to disagree with the authors when they say that 'there is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy towards Israel.' (p. 16) (NOTE 1)
Even if you haven't read this outstanding article - and I urge anyone with even the slightest interest in the process by which American politics have become so debased that they can now be dismissed as a mere function of Zionist interests - you may still know that it's unleashed something of a media firestorm. (NOTE 2)
The New York Sun - a neocon rag whose editor-in-chief and managing editor are both Jews (I refer to Seth Lipsky, who is a former editor of The Forward, a Zionist magazine, and Ira Stoll, who is a former managing editor of The Forward and former North American editor of the Jerusalem Post) - seems to be spearheading the Zionist backlash against Walt and Mearsheimer. Particularly unsavoury was the Sun's piece "Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean over Israel".
In this article, the Sun predictably solicited only the opinions of prominent Zionist rent-a-mouths like Martin Kalb, Dennis Ross, Mortimer Zuckerman, and Daniel Pipes who can be depended upon to denounce anything even vaguely critical of Israel, whether they know what they are talking about or not. (Who can doubt that if it was in Israel's interests to start lynching Palestinians, these psychopaths would not start insisting that it's nothing less than anti-semitic to criticize the practice?)
Particularly offensive was the claim of the other interviewee, the not-so-famous William Rapfogel, CEO of the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, who had the audacity to compare the Kennedy School paper to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, thus proving that when it comes to smear tactics there is no low to which Zionist ideologues will not sink.
A trenchant article has already been written about the use of smear tactics in the Sun article by David Duke, so I won't dwell on the subject here. What I would like to point out is that the paper has stirred such fierce antagonism in Zionist quarters that 'the donor who underwrote the chair occupied by Dean Walt, Robert Belfer,' has expressed his displeasure. (NOTE 3) The paper has therefore been modified so as to emphasize the fact that neither the Kennedy School of Government nor the University of Chicago endorse the paper's contents. (SOURCE) Perhaps in time Belfer will force Walt to retire from the professorship he endowed, presumably as a means of enhacing Zionist influence over the Kennedy School of Government.
A point that cannot be emphasized enough is that academic institutions do not endorse, should not endorse, and, indeed, historically never have endorsed, all the research carried on by their staff. The very point of a high quality academic institution is to grant academic freedom to individuals of outstanding intellectual ability, not to supervise them so that they only do what is politically acceptable. (This, indeed, was one of the reasons Hitler lost WWII - he cared more about ideological conformity in academia than scientific progress.) Institutions like Harvard and Chicago are no more responsible for the research published by their scholars or what they say on radio or TV than ISPs, for example, are responsible for the emails sent on their servers.
But part of the Zionist agenda is clearly to confine and cramp academic freedom to the point where no academic would dare to say anything offensive to Zionists. In short, their aim is to eviscerate academic freedom, which has no meaning if it is circumscribed in any direction. Indeed, it's arguable that they have already achieved this end. Since most academics do not court controversy and do not wish to jeopardize their institutions' sources of funding, watchdog organizations like the David Project whose purpose is to monitor academics on issues relevant to Jews and Israel are probably most accurately described as engaged in mopping up operations. Scholars like Walt and Mearsheimer would seem to stand among the final holdouts.
It is therefore an irony not lost on David Duke - or me - that campaigns such as that currently being waged by the Sun against Walt and Mearsheimer only prove everything that anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists allege - i.e., that rich and powerful Jews aim to rule the world and will do everything they possibly can to pummel gentiles into submission. You really couldn't get more stark confirmationof the essential thesis of the infamous Protocols than the fact that every time an academic sticks his neck out to say something incisive about Israel-related issues, the Zionists orchestrate a media storm (remember those rent-a-mouths?) which promptly sends institution heads scurrying to limit the damage. This is true even of heads of institutions like Harvard and Chicago that one would assume would be powerful enough to resist such blatantly partisan pressures.
It is, therefore, absolutely damning that Walt and Mearsheimer only published their article as a Kennedy School of Government Working Paper because the magazine that had originally commissioned it in 2002 - I wonder if it was Harper's? - got cold feet, and the authors realized that their piece had no chance of being published in an American academic journal. And, it should be said, this is a paper whose only real point is that the U.S.'s unconditional support for Israel has been a marked disadvantage for the United States since the end of the Cold War. Imagine what (orchestrated) pandemonium would have erupted if, for example, the pair had suggested that the foundation of Israel was illegal (which it was) or had mentioned the Holocaust industry shakedown (which puzzlingly they don't)? (SOURCE)
One of the persistent allegations of anti-semitic propaganda has been that the Jews seek to rule the world. It's very easy to laugh at people who suggest such things, as it is hard to get out of the habit of thinking of the world as too large and complex for any one group to control. But what are we to think when, time after time, Jewish interests intervene in our institutions in ways that make it abundantly clear that in fact they already do rule the world? Or at least the richest and most powerful parts of it?
Part II: The Crimson
Whenever a reputable scholar has something critical to say about Israel, the news does get reported, but only in a way which turns the subject to the Zionists' advantage. The familiar strategy is to turn the story reporting the scholar's views into a vehicle for the dissemination of the ideas of jaundiced Zionist ideologues like Pipes and Dershowitz. The Jerusalem Post, for example, devoted the better part of its report on the article to the exposition of Dershowitz's views, even using a quote from him for the article title ("AIPAC study is ignorant propaganda").
I must admit to getting rather fed up with this strategy, so I was rather incensed when an article in the Harvard student newspaper The Crimson turned an article that was ostensibly about the Kennedy School paper into a pulpit for Dershowitz's predictable opinions. I decided to write to the lead writer of this piece, Paras Bhayani, to find out exactly why The Crimson's piece about the Kennedy School paper ("Dean Attacks 'Israel Lobby'") amounted to an opportunity for Dershowitz to shoot his mouth off yet again.
The questions I wanted answers to were 1) how did Dershowitz become the star of the story?; 2) what makes the opinions of such a disreputable figure as Dershowitz worth soliciting anyway?; and 3) is a possible explanation for the article's emphasis on Dershowitz the fact that Bhayani's co-author, Rebecca R. Friedman, is Jewish? Does she have links to Dershowitz or any of the pro-Zionist organizations that collectively constitute the Israel lobby?
Hell hath no fury like a college newspaper reporter who has been caught in the act of staging a propaganda stunt. Bhayani's emails were vicious, incorporating every imaginable smear tactic - for example, he accused me of anti-semitism merely for asking whether his Jewish co-author might have links to Dershowitz or the Israel lobby - and the sense in his messages, insofar as they contained any, revolved around the single idea that the article has to have been fair and impartial because The Crimson has a multicultural staff.
BELOW: Neocon hack Paras Bhayani:
I won't go into the question of the multi-tinted complexion of The Crimson's staff, since it's blindingly obvious that you can be both a Hindu and a neocon (Hindus and Israelis often share an anti-Muslim bias). You can even be a Muslim and a neocon, since in most Muslim countries, including rather obviously Syria and Iran, there are Americanized elites who stand to benefit if the governments of their countries of origin are overthrown by the U.S.
What matters are answers to my questions about Friedman and Dershowitz. Bhayani failed to answer my questions about Friedman, whom he depicted in aggrieved tones as the epitomy of journalistic rectitude, a virtual saint. (Does anyone recall what they say about people who protest too much?) While he was willing to affirm that Friedman has no connections to Dershowitz, he sidestepped the question of whether she had links to the Israel lobby. Rather than answer the question, Bhayani stated merely that he had no idea what the Israel lobby was anyway (which implies, of course, that he hasn't read the article in question).
As for Dershowitz, Bhayani seemed astonished that anyone would suggest that he was a less than reputable figure. He's a Harvard Law School professor! However, you'd have to be woefully ignorant not to know that Dershowitz's pseudo-scholarship has been completely and utterly discredited. That fact is blindingly obvious to anyone who has read Professor Norman Finkelstein's scathing attack on Dershowitz Beyond Chutzpah. (For a small sample of Finkelstein's discoveries about Dershowitz's latest Zionist diatribe, see "Alan Dershowitz Exposed: What if a Harvard Student Did This?" here.) Anyone interviewing Dershowitz ought to have been familiar with it.
A question I did not ask Bhayani - because I am not interested at this stage in receiving yet another of his abusive emails - is whether Ira Stoll may have had a hand in the affair. Stoll, mentioned above as managing editor of the paper spearheading the campaign against Walt and Mearsheimer, was formerly managing editor of - you'll never guess - The Crimson! That The Crimson's approach to the issue exactly mirrors that of the New York Sun hardly seems explicable as a coincidence. It may well be that Stoll left behind a thoroughly Zionized Crimson or that Stoll still possesses sufficient clout at his old paper that every so often he can call it up and get something written to his specifications. Clearly, there is co-ordination going on between The Jerusalem Post, the New York Sun and The Crimson. I suppose I was rather naive to think that Bhayani might have fessed up to the fact.
NOTE 1: My personal view is that lobbying to influence government policy is fundamentally undemocratic, and while it's bad enough when done by corporations it's doubly undemocratic when it is done in order to advance the interests of other countries. I would strongly disapprove (and in fact do disapprove) of lobbying in favour of U.S. interests here in Australia. What's more, one wonders whether Americans would have tolerated it if, during the Cold War, the Soviets had created a powerful lobby group on the scale of AIPAC? I think the answer to that question is glaringly obvious.
NOTE 2: The current text is 82 pages long, but don't be put off - the last half consists of footnotes. Please email me if you'd like me to send you a copy of the original text, which I retain.
NOTE 3: For those who might find the connection interesting, Robert Belfer is a Jewish billionaire and former director of Enron. He has also received an award from the Weizmann Institute of Science for 'his lifelong commitment to the values of Jewish philanthropy … and his strong identification with the aspirations of the Weizmann Institute in the service of Israel.' One hates to speculate what a science institute might have done or be doing now 'in the service of Israel.'
BELOW: Robert Belfer. Isn't it interesting the way obscene wealth, corporate crime, academia and Zionism come together in this one man's person?
Part I: The New York Sun campaign
The highlight of the past week was undoubtedly the publication of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a working paper by the dean of Harvard's prestigious Kennedy School of Government, Dr. Stephen Walt, who is also Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Politics, and Dr. John J. Mearsheimer, Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. (PDF download here)
This article was a clear, compelling and in every sense objective analysis of Israel's privileged relationship with the U.S. - one with which I am sure President Kennedy would have agreed heartily - even though I tend to disagree with the authors when they say that 'there is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S. policy towards Israel.' (p. 16) (NOTE 1)
Even if you haven't read this outstanding article - and I urge anyone with even the slightest interest in the process by which American politics have become so debased that they can now be dismissed as a mere function of Zionist interests - you may still know that it's unleashed something of a media firestorm. (NOTE 2)
The New York Sun - a neocon rag whose editor-in-chief and managing editor are both Jews (I refer to Seth Lipsky, who is a former editor of The Forward, a Zionist magazine, and Ira Stoll, who is a former managing editor of The Forward and former North American editor of the Jerusalem Post) - seems to be spearheading the Zionist backlash against Walt and Mearsheimer. Particularly unsavoury was the Sun's piece "Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean over Israel".
In this article, the Sun predictably solicited only the opinions of prominent Zionist rent-a-mouths like Martin Kalb, Dennis Ross, Mortimer Zuckerman, and Daniel Pipes who can be depended upon to denounce anything even vaguely critical of Israel, whether they know what they are talking about or not. (Who can doubt that if it was in Israel's interests to start lynching Palestinians, these psychopaths would not start insisting that it's nothing less than anti-semitic to criticize the practice?)
Particularly offensive was the claim of the other interviewee, the not-so-famous William Rapfogel, CEO of the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, who had the audacity to compare the Kennedy School paper to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, thus proving that when it comes to smear tactics there is no low to which Zionist ideologues will not sink.
A trenchant article has already been written about the use of smear tactics in the Sun article by David Duke, so I won't dwell on the subject here. What I would like to point out is that the paper has stirred such fierce antagonism in Zionist quarters that 'the donor who underwrote the chair occupied by Dean Walt, Robert Belfer,' has expressed his displeasure. (NOTE 3) The paper has therefore been modified so as to emphasize the fact that neither the Kennedy School of Government nor the University of Chicago endorse the paper's contents. (SOURCE) Perhaps in time Belfer will force Walt to retire from the professorship he endowed, presumably as a means of enhacing Zionist influence over the Kennedy School of Government.
A point that cannot be emphasized enough is that academic institutions do not endorse, should not endorse, and, indeed, historically never have endorsed, all the research carried on by their staff. The very point of a high quality academic institution is to grant academic freedom to individuals of outstanding intellectual ability, not to supervise them so that they only do what is politically acceptable. (This, indeed, was one of the reasons Hitler lost WWII - he cared more about ideological conformity in academia than scientific progress.) Institutions like Harvard and Chicago are no more responsible for the research published by their scholars or what they say on radio or TV than ISPs, for example, are responsible for the emails sent on their servers.
But part of the Zionist agenda is clearly to confine and cramp academic freedom to the point where no academic would dare to say anything offensive to Zionists. In short, their aim is to eviscerate academic freedom, which has no meaning if it is circumscribed in any direction. Indeed, it's arguable that they have already achieved this end. Since most academics do not court controversy and do not wish to jeopardize their institutions' sources of funding, watchdog organizations like the David Project whose purpose is to monitor academics on issues relevant to Jews and Israel are probably most accurately described as engaged in mopping up operations. Scholars like Walt and Mearsheimer would seem to stand among the final holdouts.
It is therefore an irony not lost on David Duke - or me - that campaigns such as that currently being waged by the Sun against Walt and Mearsheimer only prove everything that anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists allege - i.e., that rich and powerful Jews aim to rule the world and will do everything they possibly can to pummel gentiles into submission. You really couldn't get more stark confirmationof the essential thesis of the infamous Protocols than the fact that every time an academic sticks his neck out to say something incisive about Israel-related issues, the Zionists orchestrate a media storm (remember those rent-a-mouths?) which promptly sends institution heads scurrying to limit the damage. This is true even of heads of institutions like Harvard and Chicago that one would assume would be powerful enough to resist such blatantly partisan pressures.
It is, therefore, absolutely damning that Walt and Mearsheimer only published their article as a Kennedy School of Government Working Paper because the magazine that had originally commissioned it in 2002 - I wonder if it was Harper's? - got cold feet, and the authors realized that their piece had no chance of being published in an American academic journal. And, it should be said, this is a paper whose only real point is that the U.S.'s unconditional support for Israel has been a marked disadvantage for the United States since the end of the Cold War. Imagine what (orchestrated) pandemonium would have erupted if, for example, the pair had suggested that the foundation of Israel was illegal (which it was) or had mentioned the Holocaust industry shakedown (which puzzlingly they don't)? (SOURCE)
One of the persistent allegations of anti-semitic propaganda has been that the Jews seek to rule the world. It's very easy to laugh at people who suggest such things, as it is hard to get out of the habit of thinking of the world as too large and complex for any one group to control. But what are we to think when, time after time, Jewish interests intervene in our institutions in ways that make it abundantly clear that in fact they already do rule the world? Or at least the richest and most powerful parts of it?
Part II: The Crimson
Whenever a reputable scholar has something critical to say about Israel, the news does get reported, but only in a way which turns the subject to the Zionists' advantage. The familiar strategy is to turn the story reporting the scholar's views into a vehicle for the dissemination of the ideas of jaundiced Zionist ideologues like Pipes and Dershowitz. The Jerusalem Post, for example, devoted the better part of its report on the article to the exposition of Dershowitz's views, even using a quote from him for the article title ("AIPAC study is ignorant propaganda").
I must admit to getting rather fed up with this strategy, so I was rather incensed when an article in the Harvard student newspaper The Crimson turned an article that was ostensibly about the Kennedy School paper into a pulpit for Dershowitz's predictable opinions. I decided to write to the lead writer of this piece, Paras Bhayani, to find out exactly why The Crimson's piece about the Kennedy School paper ("Dean Attacks 'Israel Lobby'") amounted to an opportunity for Dershowitz to shoot his mouth off yet again.
The questions I wanted answers to were 1) how did Dershowitz become the star of the story?; 2) what makes the opinions of such a disreputable figure as Dershowitz worth soliciting anyway?; and 3) is a possible explanation for the article's emphasis on Dershowitz the fact that Bhayani's co-author, Rebecca R. Friedman, is Jewish? Does she have links to Dershowitz or any of the pro-Zionist organizations that collectively constitute the Israel lobby?
Hell hath no fury like a college newspaper reporter who has been caught in the act of staging a propaganda stunt. Bhayani's emails were vicious, incorporating every imaginable smear tactic - for example, he accused me of anti-semitism merely for asking whether his Jewish co-author might have links to Dershowitz or the Israel lobby - and the sense in his messages, insofar as they contained any, revolved around the single idea that the article has to have been fair and impartial because The Crimson has a multicultural staff.
BELOW: Neocon hack Paras Bhayani:
I won't go into the question of the multi-tinted complexion of The Crimson's staff, since it's blindingly obvious that you can be both a Hindu and a neocon (Hindus and Israelis often share an anti-Muslim bias). You can even be a Muslim and a neocon, since in most Muslim countries, including rather obviously Syria and Iran, there are Americanized elites who stand to benefit if the governments of their countries of origin are overthrown by the U.S.
What matters are answers to my questions about Friedman and Dershowitz. Bhayani failed to answer my questions about Friedman, whom he depicted in aggrieved tones as the epitomy of journalistic rectitude, a virtual saint. (Does anyone recall what they say about people who protest too much?) While he was willing to affirm that Friedman has no connections to Dershowitz, he sidestepped the question of whether she had links to the Israel lobby. Rather than answer the question, Bhayani stated merely that he had no idea what the Israel lobby was anyway (which implies, of course, that he hasn't read the article in question).
As for Dershowitz, Bhayani seemed astonished that anyone would suggest that he was a less than reputable figure. He's a Harvard Law School professor! However, you'd have to be woefully ignorant not to know that Dershowitz's pseudo-scholarship has been completely and utterly discredited. That fact is blindingly obvious to anyone who has read Professor Norman Finkelstein's scathing attack on Dershowitz Beyond Chutzpah. (For a small sample of Finkelstein's discoveries about Dershowitz's latest Zionist diatribe, see "Alan Dershowitz Exposed: What if a Harvard Student Did This?" here.) Anyone interviewing Dershowitz ought to have been familiar with it.
A question I did not ask Bhayani - because I am not interested at this stage in receiving yet another of his abusive emails - is whether Ira Stoll may have had a hand in the affair. Stoll, mentioned above as managing editor of the paper spearheading the campaign against Walt and Mearsheimer, was formerly managing editor of - you'll never guess - The Crimson! That The Crimson's approach to the issue exactly mirrors that of the New York Sun hardly seems explicable as a coincidence. It may well be that Stoll left behind a thoroughly Zionized Crimson or that Stoll still possesses sufficient clout at his old paper that every so often he can call it up and get something written to his specifications. Clearly, there is co-ordination going on between The Jerusalem Post, the New York Sun and The Crimson. I suppose I was rather naive to think that Bhayani might have fessed up to the fact.
NOTE 1: My personal view is that lobbying to influence government policy is fundamentally undemocratic, and while it's bad enough when done by corporations it's doubly undemocratic when it is done in order to advance the interests of other countries. I would strongly disapprove (and in fact do disapprove) of lobbying in favour of U.S. interests here in Australia. What's more, one wonders whether Americans would have tolerated it if, during the Cold War, the Soviets had created a powerful lobby group on the scale of AIPAC? I think the answer to that question is glaringly obvious.
NOTE 2: The current text is 82 pages long, but don't be put off - the last half consists of footnotes. Please email me if you'd like me to send you a copy of the original text, which I retain.
NOTE 3: For those who might find the connection interesting, Robert Belfer is a Jewish billionaire and former director of Enron. He has also received an award from the Weizmann Institute of Science for 'his lifelong commitment to the values of Jewish philanthropy … and his strong identification with the aspirations of the Weizmann Institute in the service of Israel.' One hates to speculate what a science institute might have done or be doing now 'in the service of Israel.'
BELOW: Robert Belfer. Isn't it interesting the way obscene wealth, corporate crime, academia and Zionism come together in this one man's person?
