Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors

[IndianaGreen]

March 22, 2006
by Alex Safian
Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper

A controversial research report, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, that faults the “Israel lobby” for allegedly distorting the foreign policy of the United States to the detriment of U.S. interests, and which has been severely criticized as inaccurate and wrongheaded, no longer sports the Harvard or Kennedy School of Government logos that previously appeared on its front page.
The original first page, with the Harvard and KSG logos, and the usual small disclaimer.The revised first page – no Harvard logos and a much stronger and prominent disclaimer.

In a further sign that Harvard and the University of Chicago are distancing themselves from Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, the report also no longer includes the pro-forma disclaimer used for all other research reports on that Harvard website. In its place is a far stronger disclaimer, in much larger type. The original disclaimer read:

The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only.

The new, much more prominent disclaimer reads:

The two authors of this Working Paper are solely responsible for the views expressed in it. As academic institutions, Harvard University and the University of Chicago do not take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty, and this article should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position of either institution.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1101

Read the Harvard study before they make it disappear. Better yet, download it.

http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/7155042.html

http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28175

[Malikshah]

1. *Boom* *Boom* *Boom*

Drums from the deep....

That is such a shame. Fear and loathing in Harvard...and Chicago.

Guess these two will be put on Robertson's "Killer" lists.

Too bad Horowitz' book is out already-- he could've added them to his witch-hunt list.

Love the ole Camera site... nothing like a proto-campus-watch to warm the cockles of our academic hearts...

[Jim Sagle]

2. CAMERA RRRAWWWWWKSSSSS, doesn't it?

Glad to see we agree on something. :toast:

[Malikshah]

4. Uh...guess I should have used this...

:sarcasm:

Actually, it would appear that one would need to read my post a bit more closely.

Sound out the words if it helps.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Ummm...I kinda KNEW it was satire, guy. But hey, you knew that.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Ain't neither one of these perfessors worth a goddamn.

Fuck 'em both...but not with my dick.

[IndianaGreen]

5. I guess this is proof that the report is right on target!

Here is an excerpt from this 83-page document:

What Is "The Lobby"?

We use “the Lobby" as a convenient short hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Our use of this term is not meant to suggest that the Lobby is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues.

The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel’s interests. Their activities go beyond merely voting for candidates who are pro-Israel to include letter-writing, financial contributions, and supporting pro-Israel organizations. But not all Jewish-Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 percent of Jewish-Americans said they were either “not very” or “not at all” emotionally attached to Israel.60

Jewish-Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organizations in the Lobby, like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (CPMJO), are run by hardliners who generally supported the expansionist policies of Israel’s Likud Party, including its hostility to the Oslo Peace Process. The bulk of U.S. Jewry, on the other hand, is more favorably disposed to making concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups—such as Jewish Voice for Peace—strongly advocate such steps.61 Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both support steadfast U.S. support for Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult with Israeli officials, so that the former can maximize their influence in the United States. As one activist with a major Jewish organization wrote, “it is routine for us to say: ‘This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think.’ We as a community do it all the time.” 62 There is also a strong norm against criticizing Israeli policy, and Jewish-American leaders rarely support putting pressure on Israel. Thus, Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of “perfidy” when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging Bush to pressure Israel to curb construction of its controversial “security fence.” 63 Critics declared that, “It would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.”

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Since you didn't read the report, I can only surmise that your views

are strictly faith-based. I guess Bush is not the only one that rejects reason and debate.

[Jim Sagle]

9. I do indeed have faith that nobody gives a fuck what a pair of

David Duke-endorsed rantweilers heard at their local skinhead saloon.

[IndianaGreen]

10. You are confusing faith with the bogus faith-based

Faith-based is a rejection of reason and science. It is not confined to Christian fundamentalists and radical Islamists.

[Jim Sagle]

11. You can even find it at Harvard.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Harvard RRRAWWWWWKSSSSS

I always wanted to say that!

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemFromMem]

51. This is like when the Bushbots attack affirmative action

They always insist that there motives are pure and racism never is a factor. I suppose the odd Freeper really does mean it, but you'll excuse the African-American community if they're not convinced. And then the Freepers accuse members of the African-American community of being paranoid when they complain.

You'll excuse we members of the Jewish faith of being skeptical when we hear people talking about cabals of pro-Israel Jews controlling the government and then saying there's no anti-Semitism there.

[pelsar]

13. i read parts...

and it was so full of BS that my screen turned brown...it actually read like it was written by some freshman at Gaza Univ who had limited info whos sources were from the PA and Hamas.....

[IndianaGreen]

17. I have some issues with the report too!

However, when we have a collective knee-jerk reaction to anything that is perceived as a threat to the status-quo in US-Israel relations, it gives credence to those that say that US foreign policy is too tilted towards Israel's interests rather than US interests.

It also doesn't wash anymore the criticism of those that criticize the pro-Israel tilt of US foreign policy, particularly when now we see the same players that beat the war drums against Iraq do the same against Iran. Too many have died, and many more have yet to die in Iraq for us to embark on another military adventure against Israel's rivals.

We need a debate! We need an open and balanced debate! The Bush dictatorship did not attack Iraq because it would please Israel, we invaded Iraq for the oil and to establish permanent bases in the Persian Gulf. Bush & Co used Jews in the same way it used Christians, to sway public opinion in favor of the war. They are trying to do it now with Iran!

As to anti-Semitism, it is too often played as the race card is by unscrupulous politicians, but make no mistake about it, anti-Semitism is not some fantasy that Jim Sagle is having. It is real and it exists in the Left as much as it exists on the Right. I have heard people that call themselves progressives say as-a-matter-of-fact that it was a mistake to have allow Israel to come into existence in the first place. I have heard people that call themselves staunchly pro-Israel reveal that their support is based on some Christian apocalyptic vision of the future, a future in which Judaism ceases to exist as all Jews either accept Jesus or perish altogether.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. Even divorced from the Palestinian-Israeli Dispute

Anti-Semitism is as American as Apple Pie and the "Know Nothings" and "Irish Need Not Apply" and the label "God Damn Yankee Liberal Outside Agitators."

Two references:

1. "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton" by Jerome Karabel - which had nothing to do with Israel/Palestine

2. - which had everything to do with Israel/Palestine.

I have always maintained - based on my experiences in Israeli Arab communities in the Galilee and with Israeli Arab techno-geeks in HaCarmel Research Park, and with Israelis, Palestinians, Iraqis, and Persians in Silly Valley -- that if the self nominated and self-appointed "friends" of both sides would just bug out, an amicable solution would be found.

[IndianaGreen]

19. I couldn't agree with you more! n/t

:grouphug:

[bemildred]

21. When I was a kid, there was a disparaging name for everybody.

Now it's tacky to use the names in public. I suppose that is progress of a sort.

[pelsar]

46. i couldnt help but laugh....

i know its serious...but it you read what you wrote....just skim it it reads like a 3 Ring Circus.....which is probably as good as a description as it gets.....

[Englander]

14. Don't feed him. n/t

[4freethinking]

16. I was giving more thought to

this study. I was thinking there may be exterior motives. What if the authors are just trying to help prevent another war by trying to enlighten groups like AIPAC who are pushing for more war that there will be consequences to their activities?

I was looking over AIPAC's 2005 conference and it sounds like a promotional war exposition. During a debate Richard Perle advocates more of a military type response to Iran's nuclear program and is cheered by the audience. I'm sure that the audience consisted of many AIPAC members. Are these members aware of the controversy that surrounds Mr. Perle? What is wrong with this picture?

Side note on your avatar: Is that Karl Marx? I just now got done reading a book about the Civil War. A lot of the book had to do with 3rd party views of the conflict. I found Marx's views to be rather enlightening.

[TomClash]

20. Walt and Mearsheimer need to go to Re-Education Camp to learn

1. Opposition to Israel policies equals anti-semitism

2. Justice for Palestinians equals anti-semitism

3. Poor Israel is oppressed by the Arab masses even though it has 100 nuclear weapons

4. AIPAC and the Israeli Lobby does not try to influence US Foreign Policy

5. Israel's foreign policy interests must alway trumps US foreign policy interests

That said, I believe they are wrong about one thing: Israel had nothing to do with the US going to war in Iraq.

[4freethinking]

25. Yes

there is a need for thought rehabilitation for these two.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Very Dumb Question for Which I Apologize In Advance

How does an intelligent person explain away and/or reconcile the differing conclusions of Walt and Mearsheimer with, for example:

1. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf|PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses>

2. Paul Sperry, "Crude Politics"

3. Kevin Phillips, "American Theocracy" (especially the chapters on "oil")

4. Matthew Simmons, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy"

Can one be a liberal and/or Progressive, and a Democrat, and hold the belief that our heroin - crack cocaine like addiction for gas guzzling SUV's and oil just might, possibly, be more of a cause for our conduct then is AIPAC.

[number6]

24. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Report Raaawks

Read....before they make it disappear.

[geek tragedy]

26. The authors believe that Cheney and Bush only invaded Iraq

because some Jews convinced them that it was a good idea.

No sane person believes that.

[not systems]

27. Really? what page?

The report said no such thing but it makes a good attack to say it did.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. page 31

[IndianaGreen]

36. Let's read page 31, shall we? The Lobby and the Iraq War

The Lobby and the Iraq War

Within the United States, the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party.150 In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war.151 According to the Forward, “As President Bush attempted to sell the war in Iraq, America’s most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.”152 The editorial goes on to say that “concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.”

Although neoconservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not.153 In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that “a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52% to 62%.”154 Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence.” Rather, the war was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially the neoconservatives within it.

The neoconservatives were already determined to topple Saddam before Bush became President.155 They caused a stir in early 1998 by publishing two open letters to President Clinton calling for Saddam’s removal from power.156 The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and whose ranks included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble convincing the Clinton Administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam.157 But the neoconservatives were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. Nor were they able to generate much enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush Administration.158 As important as the neoconservatives were for making the Iraq war happen, they needed help to achieve their aim.

That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that fateful day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war to topple Saddam. Neoconservatives in the Lobby—most notably Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Princeton historian Bernard Lewis—played especially critical roles in persuading the President and Vice-President to favor war.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Yes...let's look....

The authors believe that Cheney and Bush only invaded Iraq because some Jews convinced them that it was a good idea.

No sane person believes that. Geek Tragedy, post #26

The Lobby and the Iraq War

Within the United States, the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neoconservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud Party.150 In addition, key leaders of the Lobby’s major organizations lent their voices to the campaign for war.151 According to the Forward, “As President Bush attempted to sell the war in Iraq, America’s most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.”152 The editorial goes on to say that “concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.”

Although neoconservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not.153 In fact, Samuel Freedman reported just after the war started that “a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52% to 62%.”154 Thus, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on “Jewish influence.” Rather, the war was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially the neoconservatives within it.

The neoconservatives were already determined to topple Saddam before Bush became President.155 They caused a stir in early 1998 by publishing two open letters to President Clinton calling for Saddam’s removal from power.156 The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA or WINEP, and whose ranks included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble convincing the Clinton Administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam.157 But the neoconservatives were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. Nor were they able to generate much enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush Administration.158 As important as the neoconservatives were for making the Iraq war happen, they needed help to achieve their aim.

That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that fateful day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war to topple Saddam. Neoconservatives in the Lobby—most notably Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Princeton historian Bernard Lewis—played especially critical roles in persuading the President and Vice-President to favor war.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RW...

The last statement sounds very much like, "The authors believe that Cheney and Bush only invaded Iraq because some Jews convinced them that it was a good idea." Although, not the only reason, the way it is written, it does seem like the run up to the war was because "...some Jews convinced them (Bush and Cheney) that it was a good idea."

[IndianaGreen]

40. I don't view this paper as the sinister thing its critics try to portray

it as, but there is no denying that honorable people can have honest disagreements with the views express in the paper. The point is to debate it, not to suppress it, which is what some want to do.

Neocons wanted war with Iraq for the reasons they stated in the PNAC document. The fact that most of the same neocons are now agitating for war against Iran should not go unnoticed. The even more obvious fact that some of the neocons are Jewish, it doesn't follow that it was the Jews, or even the Israelis (save for morons like Bibi Netanyahu), that wanted war on Iraq.

[geek tragedy]

41. I agree that the report should not be suppressed.

However, certain portions should be criticized with extraordinary gusto.

Does anyone really think that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush had any reluctance about going to war with Iraq? That Scooter Libby and Richard Perle and some think-tank types drive US policy more than the Christian right and Big Oil and the corporate benefactors of the Republican party?

That's what always gets me about these "the Israeli lobby dun it" theories--they serve as a way of deflecting blame from the PAINFULLY obvious culprits.

[IndianaGreen]

42. This report should be debated right alongside "American Theocracy"

Published on Monday, March 20, 2006 by the New York Times
'American Theocracy' - Clear and Present Dangers
by Alan Brinkley

Four decades ago, Kevin Phillips, a young political strategist for the Republican Party, began work on what became a remarkable book. In writing "The Emerging Republican Majority" (published in 1969), he asked a very big question about American politics: How would the demographic and economic changes of postwar America shape the long-term future of the two major parties? His answer, startling at the time but now largely unquestioned, is that the movement of people and resources from the old Northern industrial states into the South and the West (an area he enduringly labeled the "Sun Belt") would produce a new and more conservative Republican majority that would dominate American politics for decades. Phillips viewed the changes he predicted with optimism. A stronger Republican Party, he believed, would restore stability and order to a society experiencing disorienting and at times violent change. Shortly before publishing his book, he joined the Nixon administration to help advance the changes he had foreseen.

Phillips has remained a prolific and important political commentator in the decades since, but he long ago abandoned his enthusiasm for the Republican coalition he helped to build. His latest book (his 13th) looks broadly and historically at the political world the conservative coalition has painstakingly constructed over the last several decades. No longer does he see Republican government as a source of stability and order. Instead, he presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness. (His final chapter is entitled "The Erring Republican Majority.") In an era of best-selling jeremiads on both sides of the political divide, "American Theocracy" may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and for the most part frighteningly persuasive.

Although Phillips is scathingly critical of what he considers the dangerous policies of the Bush administration, he does not spend much time examining the ideas and behavior of the president and his advisers. Instead, he identifies three broad and related trends — none of them new to the Bush years but all of them, he believes, exacerbated by this administration's policies — that together threaten the future of the United States and the world. One is the role of oil in defining and, as Phillips sees it, distorting American foreign and domestic policy. The second is the ominous intrusion of radical Christianity into politics and government. And the third is the astonishing levels of debt — current and prospective — that both the government and the American people have been heedlessly accumulating. If there is a single, if implicit, theme running through the three linked essays that form this book, it is the failure of leaders to look beyond their own and the country's immediate ambitions and desires so as to plan prudently for a darkening future.

The American press in the first days of the Iraq war reported extensively on the Pentagon's failure to post American troops in front of the National Museum in Baghdad, which, as a result, was looted of many of its great archaeological treasures. Less widely reported, but to Phillips far more meaningful, was the immediate posting of troops around the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which held the maps and charts that were the key to effective oil production. Phillips fully supports an explanation of the Iraq war that the Bush administration dismisses as conspiracy theory — that its principal purpose was to secure vast oil reserves that would enable the United States to control production and to lower prices. ("Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath," an oil analyst said a couple of years ago. "You can't ask for better than that.") Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, tyranny, democracy and other public rationales were, Phillips says, simply ruses to disguise the real motivation for the invasion.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0320-31.htm




http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003486X/qid=1143339241/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-9576208-9263266?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Behind the Aegis]

45. It may not be sinister, but it sure is clumsy.

I have only manged to get through about half of it. I have jumped around to various parts.

There is no denying that neocons wanted war. This is a known. But the authors sloppily interchange the neocons with AIPAC and other groups. There is bound to be some cross-over, but the piece comes off like the Israelis control the American Jews, who in turn control the US or a bastardized version of that 'meme.' What should be noted is the majority of the neocons are Christian, and even more notable, they all have ties to big business, mainly oil! So, if any "lobby" controls the US WH, it is the Oil industry and other big businesses, not the nation of Israel or a handful of Jews.

[pelsar]

47. SHHHH...

theres an interesting side to this report that the Jews control the US Govt...and consequently are in fact a superpower......I kinda like it.....POWER!!!!!!! ......hehe....guess we dont have to take over the world after all, we HAVE!

[IndianaGreen]

48. this is why I said that the Kevin Phillips book "American Theocracy"

should be read right alongside the Harvard paper to get a wider picture.

Meanwhile, it is self-evident that AIPAC and others are beating the war drums about Iran just as they did about Iraq. We would be fools to listen to them again!

[geek tragedy]

49. AIPAC are the useful idiots of the American Right.

Do people really think that Tom DeLay is dedicated to the well-being of a bunch of Jews living on the other side of the world?

The pro-Israel rhetoric is merely a way of disgusing the naked imperalistic and Dominionist agenda of this adminstration.

[IndianaGreen]

50. You are absolutely right there, geek tragedy

When we are forced out of Iraq and the American people watch the helicopters flying people out of the Green Zone on their TV screens, who do you think will get blamed for the Iraq fiasco?

The Jews!

Not the neocons, or the elites that hoped to profit from an Iraq occupation, but all the Jews will be blamed.

[bemildred]

52. Yep, you got that right.

And the Bushites will be helping all they can. Screwing the hired help is a US government tradition.

[Coastie for Truth]

53. And it will have been in vain for Bushie's band of Oiligarchic Elites

VINOD KHOSLA was a founder of Sun Microsystems and then, as a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, he helped a host of technology companies get off the ground. These days, Mr. Khosla, 51, is still investing in technology, but much of it has nothing to do with the world of network computing in which he made his name. He is particularly excited about new ways of producing ethanol — the plant-derived fuel that, he says, could rapidly displace gasoline. "I am convinced we can replace a majority of petroleum used for cars and light trucks with ethanol within 25 years," he said. He has already invested "tens of millions of dollars," he said, in private companies that are developing methods to produce ethanol using plant sources other than corn.

Mr. Khosla isn't the only big-name entrepreneur to embrace ethanol. Sir Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin Group, plans to invest $300 million to $400 million to produce and market ethanol made from corn and other sources, said Will Whitehorn, a director of the company. Virgin expects to announce soon the site of its first production facility, probably in the eastern United States, with a second one likely to follow in the West, Mr. Whitehorn said.

Bill Gates has also made a move into the ethanol market. Cascade Investment, Mr. Gates's private investment firm, has declared its intention to buy $84 million in newly issued preferred convertible securities in Pacific Ethanol, according to William Langley, its chief financial officer. The company, which is based in Fresno, Calif., and is publicly traded, says it hopes to become the leader in the production and distribution of ethanol in the Western states.

Ethanol derived from corn now accounts for 3 percent of the American automotive fuel market. Most cars in the United States can already handle fuel that is up to 10 percent ethanol, and as many as five million are so-called flex-fuel vehicles that can use a fuel called E85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. The current excitement over ethanol derives from research that has cut the cost of converting nonfood plant matter like grasses and wood chips into alcohol. Mr. Khosla says he believes that such ethanol, called cellulosic ethanol, will eventually be cheaper to produce than both gasoline and corn-derived ethanol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=115809&mesg_id=115963



The worm turns

:rofl:

I am not laughing at the Arab proletariat or
the Palestinians -- I am laughing at Bushie's
OIligarchic buddies
--both Saudi princelings and oil company execs.

Geology and chemistry trumps in the end. The princelings should have shared some of their wealth with the refugees -- and now cellulose ethanol and peak oil will speed them to Ekaterinburg.

[bemildred]

54. Yeah, schadenfreude.

But what about the rest of us, that's the question?

[Coastie for Truth]

55. Did you read the New York Times Link?

Here it is again -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/business/yourmoney/26etha.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1143435681-2PvrXe1LZcvy9eFhCgmbBA

and you might try the Energy/Environment Link here on DU - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115 and the Peak Oil Group here on DU - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=266.

The American Petroleum Institute is more your enemy then AIPAC is.

Read Kevin Phillips' new book - "American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" - the rise and fall of the Netherlands (whale oil), England (coal), and now the US (oil). Iraq is the beginning of the end of the "American Century" or "American Hegemony" or whatever of our "Cheap and Abundant Oil Economy." Read Pillips' "American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century".

I have only been ranting this personal, obsessive-compulsive screed about oil for 40 years. Read "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl, or try "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" by Matthew R. Simmons or "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century" by James Howard Kunstler (use the DU search function for "Kunstler" - there's much more to DU then I/P - some very good and intelligent posting). And when you get to the threads where Kunstler is mentioned there are good posts about Ken Deffeyes and Anthony Evans.

It is not "schadenfreude" as much as realism. Get ready for the end of a life style initially propelled by cheap and abundant oil. Cheap and abundant oil is over -- and the sub-thread in appends 49-52 is too true.

And the sheeple will blame Israel - and the Zionists - AND AIPAC --- NOT THE NORTH AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION OR THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (APIPAC).

[bemildred]

56. No, I'm not that into it, unless there is something new.

I think the Sheeple will believe what they are told to believe, at least until they get hungry. If they are told that it's all AIPAC's fault, or the Jews, or the Islamofascists, or Hugo Chavez, they will believe it, that's what it means to be a sheep.

I am completely on board with the peak oil situation, but then I trained as a mathematician, so it's obvious, like the population issue. It's going to be one hell of a show. I'm just trying to think of a good, safe vantage point to watch it from.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed:

Assault in Scholarly Guise

The article by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" would not be taken seriously if not for the reputations and associations of the authors. They have each written respected scholarly works on government and international relations and occupy important positions at their universities.

The article itself, which was first posted in full on the Kennedy School Web site and then published in executive summary form by the London Review of Books, is a 41-page, amateurish and biased critique of Israel, American Jews, and American policy. It addresses in a perfunctory and all-knowing fashion some of the most important and complicated issues surrounding the Middle East conflict. Nowhere in evidence is a sense of complexity, balance, an examination of the variety of factors that cause an event, or of putting individual comments in perspective – all the appropriate tools for a serious piece of scholarship or journalism.

On every issue, the authors start with unproven, anti-Israel assumptions and then look for isolated examples to justify these assumptions. One does not have to take a pro-Israel position to recognize that the authors, despite their reputations, have no interest in producing a serious, balanced work. The result is a sloppy diatribe.

Here’s how it works. Mearsheimer and Walt start by blaming Israel for everything in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once establishing Israel’s consistent guilt, from the creation of the state to present day, they then move to asserting that the “Israel lobby” (which is loosely and inconsistently defined) in the United States uses every device and method of pressure politics to stifle criticism of Israel and to ensure America’s pro-Israel policy, against America’s true interests and to serve the interests of the Jewish state.

more...

[Coastie for Truth]

30. You want to see my MIlam Street Mafia Bogey Men

1. --

2. --

3. --

4. --

5. --

6. ---

And if you really believe that the Iraqi War is all because of Israel or AIPAC :shrug:

keep drivin yer Hummer and payin $7/gallon for gas.

[Scurrilous]

31. Israel lobby paper proves true

<snip>

"John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's paper, "The Israel Lobby," predictably rankled the lobby and its legions of handlers so much so that Harvard University must have compelled the authors to remove the logo from the original paper. Unsurprisingly, other "working papers" in the same series get to keep the logo (see for yourself).

Professor Alan Dershowitz, of all people, stated about this working paper: "There is no scholarship here whatsoever."

This, coming from a guy who plagiarized his horrific piece of propaganda, "The Case for Israel," from a thoroughly discredited waste of paper called "From Time Immemorial," which Joan Peters put out in the 1980s. Norman Finkelstein, who demolished Peters' credibility, also exposed the scholarly fraud known as Alan Dershowitz in his recent book, "Beyond Chutzpah."

As far as I am concerned, the actual reaction to this paper further proves its thesis. As the New York Sun reports, it was met with "furor from faculty members, Jewish leaders, and a congressman who say it fails to meet academic standards and promotes anti-Semitic myths."

As Harvard tries to distance itself from the paper, we again see the inability of many academics and institutions to critically engage a power structure that seeks to squash any dissent towards America's support for Israel."

more

[Coastie for Truth]

32. "Arab American News" -- as reliable as they claim Dershowitz to be

How much are you paying for gas -- and GM is going to lay off its unionized work forced but keep making more and bigger SUVs, pickups, and Hummers. Do you seriously doubt the shear political power of Big Oil. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=119785&mesg_id=119857)

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Since when have newspapers been considered scholarship??

And I didn't realise that the word 'Arab' in the title of a newspaper that's for Arab-Americans makes something unreliable...

From the About Us page on the newspaper's website"

"The Arab American News represents the diverse Arab American community. We showcase news and features from all over the Arab World, including social, political, cultural and religious themes. We also focus on the Arab American community, featuring news of interest to them as well as features about Arab American entertainers, artists, writers, politicians and businesspeople.

We survey and criticize foreign policy and give our views on how we think it should be formulated. We address new immigrants as well as third generation families. And as a reader, we welcome your opinions, your criticisms and your input.

The Arab American News is the largest, oldest and most respected Arab American newspaper in the United States. The proof of our journalistic integrity is the mainstream media focus that's been on us throughout the last two decades. The newspaper, its contents and publisher are staples in the local, national and international media."

http://arabamericannews.com/aboutus.php

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

34. Noted

I did NOT say "unreliable." I said "as reliable as they claim Dershowitz to be."

My life experience is that AIPAC's massive political power as a cause of the Iraqi war is so much hoop-dee-doo. The root cause is an American heroin-crack cocaine like addiction to SUV's and pick up trucks, and hummers, and other assorted gas guzzlers. See, e.g., www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=119785&mesg_id=119857, and www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=115809&mesg_id=115963, and www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=119684&mesg_id=119740.

I know you disagree - that's what makes our chats so interesting.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Seeing they'd be claiming Dersh is unreliable isn't it the same thing?

Actually, you don't know that I disagree, Coastie. While I'm aware that AIPAC holds some massive political muscle, they didn't cause the Iraq war. They supported the US govts plans to invade Iraq, which is a completely different kettle of fish....

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

38. A little circumlocution.

See the links in my append and in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=119785&mesg_id=119836.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that my nemeses, "Big Oil" far surpassed AIPAC or the Zionists or the Government of Israel (or whatever synonym) in both causing the Iraq War and in supporting the Bush-Cheney (both "Oil Men") decision to wage this war.

And, when it comes to poisoning our environment with carcinogenic and otherwise toxic "products of combustion," and global warming, and wasting a non-renewable natural resource - nobody beats the pure political muscle of the coalition of the oil industry, the auto industry, and (sad to say) their unions. Not even AIPAC.

You and I have discussed this before -- and I have had 40+ years to nurture it and stew over it --- (www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=115809&mesg_id=115963) - you won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. What are you supposed to be changing my mind about??

I don't think AIPAC convinced the US govt to invade Iraq. I've never said I did think that, so after I've just clarified it for you, I'm at a loss as to why you still think I do...

Violet...

[barb162]

43. I put the CAMERA response on as a thread a few minutes ago

It's fairly short in comparison with the Harvard/U of C report but it makes some interesting points

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Thanks for the links to the report...

After reading an exchange in this thread, I worked out that if I don't read it and rely on people paraphrasing what they like about it, I'm going to be led up the garden path...

Thanks again...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

57. An interesting contrary view (by a Palestinian American)

The append picks up Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad's article

The article is particularly interesting and "points the finger" to an interesting place.

Read it -- I do not want to get into a flame war for "creative editing."

[pelsar]

58. you mean....

an article that actually looks at history and compares US policy throughout the world and within the arab region...i thought that comparing was a "no no" here...as it puts israel into a context with the 'rest of the world"