| Author | Message | | realist | | Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: |
| alpha: can you not come up with anything more original than spamming the same message in every topic - shit for brains i guess.
liberateamerica: you are more stupid than i think, do they not teach you anything in that shithole that is kuwait? 'the jews infesting every country.' what a fucking uneducated and stupid comment.
i ask you what was the percentage of the jewsh population in Germany or in any country bar israel today or yester year? its roughly about 2-3% of the fucking goddam population you fucking goddam retarded fucknut.
its amazing that you think the jews are such a threat considering their size but then maybe you have a complex about the choosen people.
ontheotherhand muslims make up a much larger percentage of the population of the countries they inhabit including those in the west. why do they not have the influence of the jews?
1/ education
2/ muslims are segregated they do not embrace mainstream culture where as jews assimilate
jews are simply more willing to embrace the host countries culture and way of life and that is why even with all the anti-semitism floating around anti-muslimism is more prevelant in society. simply put you are jeleaous of this very small but successful race. end of story. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: Israeli Lobby - The Report |
| Israeli Lobby - The Report
By Ted Lang
3-25-6
"Mearsheimer and Walt's paper leaves absolutely no doubt that Israel
not only controls our entire government, our Pentagon, our foreign policy
and our political parties, but our media as well." In federal
government circles, selection by upper management of a candidate to attend the
senior management program offered to upwardly mobile government
executives as offered by the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard
University, is in and of itself a high privilege and an honor. It
clearly signifies to all that an attendee and graduate of the program is
destined for the highest ranks of government service; namely, the Senior
Executive Service.
During my employment with the federal government, virtually every
high-level executive I reported to was an SES that graduated from this
high-power school. The John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard
University is, therefore, a very prestigious center of learning, both in
terms of academic ranking and in terms of its ranking by the highest
levels of management within the United States government. Professor Stephen
M. Walt is a professor at JFK, while John J. Mearsheimer is a professor
in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
The JFK School provides just a vehicle for technical reporting and
essay writing in their "Faculty Research Working Papers Series." It was
through this venue, that Mearsheimer and Walt published their latest
eye-opening report, entitled: "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
Needless to say, at this time in our nation's history, it couldn't come
at a more critical time. As Americans feverishly attempt to understand
the workings of the twisted mind of a totally out-of-control genocidal
lunatic and mass-murdering warmongering buffoon and his gang that has
hijacked the government of the United States, explanations for his
unilateral and unnecessary invasion abound in limitless speculation and
inquiry.
However, the most frequently offered rationale, if that is what it can
be called, is that it was primarily about oil. But considering the
hostility of Israel, its penchant and perfected planning and execution of
terror, it becomes increasingly clear that the foreign policy of the
United States is dictated by Israel.
Digressing a moment from the natural order of topics in their
magnificent paper, let's move immediately to the report's treatment of Israeli
control of the American corporate mainstream establishment media (MSM),
as it will be the intention of that un-American element and institution
to work hard and feverishly to spike and cover up this damaging report
that exposes the motivational madness of the Bush regime. Addressing
the section, "Manipulating the Media," Mearsheimer and Walt offer: "In
addition to influencing government policy directly, the Lobby [AIPAC]
strives to shape public perceptions about Israel and the Middle East. It
does not want an open debate on issues involving Israel, because an
open debate might cause Americans to question the level of support that
they currently provide. Accordingly, pro-Israel organizations work hard
to influence the media, think tanks, and academia, because these
institutions are critical in shaping popular opinion." The report goes on:
"The Lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream
media in good part because most American commentators are pro-Israel.
The debate among Middle East pundits, journalist Eric Alterman writes,
is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel., He lists
61 columnists and commentators who can be counted upon to support
Israel reflexively and without qualification., Conversely, Alterman found
just five pundits who consistently criticize Israeli behavior or endorse
pro-Arab positions. Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds
challenging Israeli policy, but the balance of opinion clearly favors the
other side."
Certain key elements of the Alternative Media, this site among them,
have consistently exposed the one-sidedness of the MSM in protecting
Israel and extending this protection therefore to the Bush administration.
That is precisely what empowers the administration as a regime. And
what it doesn't say in the report, is the astonishing control those
sympathetic to Israel, and therefore supportive of the Bush crime machine,
overwhelming own, manage and operate print and TV and cable electronic
news reporting. This subject wasn't even touched on.
The report then turns to a brief analysis of the New York Times. This
is "America's newspaper of record" and as Bernie Goldberg has revealed,
is the national editorial gatekeeper and assessor of what is newsworthy
and what is not. It is the Times that decides what news will be on TV
and cable later in the evening, and you may rest comfortably sure that
this Mearsheimer and Walt report will not make it, nor will Charlie
Sheen. It is the Times, that blocked the Downing Street Memo report and is
now also dedicated to blocking a full, open investigation of the Bush
9-11 plot. Concerning the Times, Mearsheimer and Walt offer: "Editorial
bias is also found in papers like the New York Times. The Times
occasionally criticizes Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the
Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but it is not even-handed.
In his memoirs, for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel
acknowledged the impact of his own pro-Israel attitude had on his
editorial choices. In his words: I was much more deeply devoted to Israel
than I dared to assert., He goes on: Fortified by my knowledge of Israel
and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East
commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from
a pro-Israel perspective.," The report goes on to give examples of the
organized manner in which the Israeli Lobby encourages the supportive
consumers of newspaper, radio and television news, to literally bombard
news entities with protest letters and e-mails in the true and
time-worn fashion of Zionist agitation to stifle news and views they don't
like, and to urge for propaganda favoring Israel.
Examples of Zionist rank and file pressure on CNN and NPR are cited.
The report concludes this section on the media offering, "These factors
help explain why the American media contains few criticisms of Israeli
policy, rarely questions Washington's relationship with Israel, and only
occasionally discusses the Lobby's profound influence on U.S. policy."
It should be crystal clear that my labeling of the MSM as being "The
Zionist Media" is now virtually proven fact, especially coming from this
highly regarded institution of government studies and from trainers of
candidates for the Senior Executive Service. And you can count on the
fact that the Zionist media is burning the midnight oil to feverishly
suppress this critical exposé. The report's opening remarks now: "U.S.
foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is
this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and
enormous strategic importance. For the past several decades, however,
and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S.
Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The
combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to
spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion
and jeopardized U.S. security. This situation has no equal in American
political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside
its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?
One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on
shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show
below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the
remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States
provides to Israel." ........
Where did WE learn how to become terrorists and turn on our own? Why
did we turn against the whole world and ignore human decency and
morality, and ignore the Geneva Conventions and begin campaigns of torture and
mass terror, and slaughter unarmed captive men, women and children? Who
showed US how to do this and get away with it? Who? Ask Israel!!!
Mearsheimer and Walt summarize: "It is not surprising that Israel and
its American supporters want the United States to deal with any and all
threats to Israel's security. If their efforts to shape U.S. policy
succeed, then Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a
free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the
fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying. But even if the United States
fails to transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an
increasingly radicalized Arab and Islamic world, Israel still ends up
protected by the world's only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome
from [AIPAC's] perspective, but it is obviously preferable to
Washington distancing itself from Israel, or using its leverage to force Israel
to make peace with the Palestinians." The report concludes: "Can the
[Israeli-AIPAC] Lobby's power be curtailed? One would like to think so,
given the Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America's image in
the Arab and Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC
officials passing U.S. government secrets to Israel.
One might also think that Arafat's death and the election of the more
moderate Abu Mazen would cause Washington to press vigorously and
evenhandedly for a peace agreement. In short, there are ample grounds for
U.S. leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East
policy more consistent with broader U.S. interests. In particular,
using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the
Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and
promoting democracy in the Middle East. But that is not going to happen
anytime soon. AIPAC and its allies [including Christian Zionists] have
no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become
more difficult to make Israel's case today, and they are responding by
expanding their activities and staffs. Moreover, American politicians
remain acutely sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of
political pressure and major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic
to Israel no matter what it does."
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
____________________________________________________________________________
This the pro-Israeli site that closely monitors news media for the
slightest hint of criticism of Israel - and then pounces on it, denouncing
it as "anti-Semitic".
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099
The author of the American Thinker analysis is a reflexive supporter of
israel
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342
And the Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby, has never seen or heard of
anything Israeli did that he did not like
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/26/america_takes_side_of_israel/ | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:01 am Post subject: |
| Study Decrying “Israel Lobby” Marred by Numerous Errors
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=35&x_article=1099
A new study by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer charges that the “Israel lobby” has distorted the foreign policy of the United States to the point of serious damage to U.S. interests. Perhaps anticipating that their claims might be controversial, the authors attempt to reassure any who might doubt them:
Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars.
In fact, even a cursory examination of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy reveals that it is riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, displays extremely poor judgement regarding sources, and, contrary to basic scholarly standards, ignores previous serious work on the subject. The bottom line: virtually every word and argument is, or ought to be, in “serious dispute.”
In other words, a student who submitted such a paper would flunk.
According to the report, which is posted on Harvard's Kennedy School of Government website:
The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.
This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.
Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.
Is it true that U.S. policy in the Middle East, and specifically our support for Israel, is due almost entirely to the activities of the “Israel Lobby?” The authors are hardly the first to so argue, though one wouldn't know it from reading their report, which, as noted, ignores all prior serious work on the subject, including the seminal book refuting such claims by the late Professor A.F.K. Organski, The $36 Billion Bargain: Strategy and Politics in U.S. Assistance to Israel.
Though the authors do cite Organski's book once, on the strategic importance of Israel during the cold war, they entirely ignore his main point, which is that the primary reason for U.S. support of Israel can't possibly be the Jewish vote, or Jewish political contributions, or the activities of any pro-Israel lobby, for the simple reason that, as polls indicate, Jews were just as pro-Israel before 1970, when U.S. support for Israel was minimal, as they were after 1970, when U.S. support for Israel grew rapidly. As Organski put it in his preface:
In 1983 I ran across a Congressional Research Service series on assistance to Israel from 1948 to 1983, and I was surprised by what I saw. The numbers told an important story. Assistance to Israel before 1970 had been very low. After 1972 levels shot up. The data fairly screamed that American Jews could not have been responsible for U.S. policy, for it is elementary that one cannot explain a variable with a constant, and American Jews had been in favor of assistance all along...
Now, the president in 1970 was Richard Nixon, a Republican who knew very well that overwhelmingly Democratic and left-leaning American Jews had already voted against him in large numbers and would do so again in 1972. So what happened in 1970 that convinced Nixon, the arch practitioner of realpolitik, to press for increased support for Israel? Here we can turn to another seminal work on U.S./Israel relations, Israel: The Embattled Ally, by the late Harvard professor, Nadav Safran. According to Safran the turning point in U.S./Israel relations was the so-called Black September crisis, in which the Palestine Liberation Organization, assisted by invading Syrian tanks, and in connivance with the Soviet Union, attempted to overthrow and assassinate Jordan's King Hussein, an ally of the United States (see pages 451-456). Had these two Soviet clients succeeded in taking Jordan, they would have created an arc of radical Soviet client states pointing right at the Persian Gulf, thereby threatening western oil supplies. As Safran put it:
In the White House conception, Jordan under King Hussein ... constituted an important buffer separating the pro-Soviet radical regime of Egypt from those of Syria and Iraq, and all three of them from oil-rich, friendly Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf principalities. The fall of the Jordanian regime would bring about a solid pro-Soviet bloc from the Euphrates to the Nile ...
Safran continued:
... [when] the Syrians captured Irbid, an important junction of roads linking Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Israel ... King Hussein sent additional urgent appeals for American and British help. Consultations with the British ... revealed that they not only refused to intervene militarily ... but [also] strongly counseled against American intervention. Similar opposition was expressed by other European allies. The President ordered Kissinger to work out contingency plans for a joint American-Israeli intervention ...
Confident of American and Israeli support, King Hussein was able to commit all his forces to battle; fearful of that support, specifically of a flanking attack by massed Israeli tank columns, the Syrians withdrew, and Jordan was saved. According to Safran this affair had a profound effect on U.S/Israel relations:
The Jordanian episode had a far-reaching effect on the American attitude toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict... the President ... was deeply impressed by the determination shown by the Israelis at a time when America's formal allies had quit on him.
... the Jordanian episode drove home to the President and some of his advisers ... the value for the United States of a strong Israel.
Needless to say, Safran's work was also ignored by the authors.
Of course, the authors don't just argue that U.S. support for Israel was due to the pro-Israel lobby rather than U.S. interests, they also argue that this support has in fact damaged U.S. interests. They claim for example, that because of its support for Israel the U.S. is targeted by terrorists:
... the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S. support for Israel is not the only source of anti- American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight this issue.
While the 9/11 Commission report did mention Israel as a factor in the attacks, there is much evidence to argue against the assertion, and they certainly did not point to Israel as the major factor in provoking the attacks. Indeed, according to documents cited by experts on Al Qaeda, such as Rohan Gunaratna, the group attacked the United States on 9/11 (and before) not primarily because of our support for Israel, but because of our support for Saudi Arabia and other “moderate” Arab countries. As Gunaratna explains in his book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, bin Laden was horrified that the Saudis were considering a U.S. offer to send troops to protect the Kingdom. Bin Laden urged against what he saw as sacrilege, and offered to protect the Kingdom with his Afghan mujahidin, but the Saudis turned him down and invited in the Americans. For inviting in the infidels, the Saudi rulers would never be forgiven by bin Laden. Gunaratna quoted from bin Laden's key fatwa on the subject:
Ignoring the divine shariah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the Americans to occupy the land of the two Holy Places [Mecca and Medina] ... the regime has torn off its legitimacy...
Clearly after belief (iman) there is no more important duty than pushing the Americans out of the holy land [Arabia]... There is no precondition for this duty and the enemy must be fought with one's best abilities.
Al Qaeda's aim is to restore the caliphate (the unitary Arab Islamic state that existed in the days of Muhammed and his followers), but they understand that as long as the United States props up Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait and Egypt and Jordan, with weapons and soldiers and financial support, and the promise of military intervention if necessary, these regimes are unlikely to fall. A key example of such regime resilience was seen in Egypt after the assassination of Sadat by radical Islamists, who thought that with the leader gone the regime would fall. Instead the regime survived and decimated Egypt's Islamist movement, beheading scores of conspirators and sympathizers. Among those imprisoned, but eventually released, was a young man named Ayman al-Zawahiri, who later rose to become the deputy to bin Laden, and the operational leader of Al Qaeda. The lesson learned from the Sadat assassination was clear – with a powerful U.S. active in the Middle East, the regimes would not fall. There would be no caliphate, therefore, until the U.S. is humiliated and driven from the Middle East, at which point the corrupt regimes will crumble into the waiting hands of Al Qaeda.
Thus the earlier Al Qaeda attacks against the Unites States, in Saudi Arabia, in Kenya and Tanzania, in Yemen, and finally on the U.S. homeland on 9/11. These attacks had nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with U.S. support for Arab regimes. It should be noted also that Al Qaeda never even tried to attack an Israeli target, much less Israel itself, until after 9/11.
In their efforts to prove their at best shaky case the authors also argue that Israel is a bad ally. For example, they allege, Israel has compromised sensitive U.S. military technology:
... Israel has provided sensitive U.S. military technology to potential U.S. rivals like China, in what the U.S. State Department Inspector General called “a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers.”
What they don't tell readers is that the accuracy of the State Department report has been called into serious question. Richard Clarke, for example, then the official in the State Department responsible for overseeing arms transfers, and later President Clinton's counter-terrorism chief, stated there was one, minor improper transfer, not a pattern of them:
Under President Bush, Mr. Clarke served as Assistant Secretary of State for political and military affairs. In 1992, he was accused by the State Department's Inspector General of looking the other way as Israel transferred American military technology to China.
"There was an allegation that we hadn't investigated a huge body of evidence that the Israelis were involved in technology transfers," Mr. Clarke said. "In fact, we had investigated it. I knew more about it than anyone. We found one instance where it was true. The Israelis had taken aerial refueling technology we sold them and sold it to a Latin American country. We caught them, and they admitted they had done it." (New York Times, Feb. 1, 1999)
And an article in the American Journalism Review raised further serious questions about the reliability of the IG's report:
... a series of interviews with officials in the Defense Department, State Department and CIA leaves no doubt that there are major and bitter disagreements about whether the intelligence reports about Israel were as conclusive as some claimed. For example, a senior Defense Department official who examined both the classified and unclassified versions of the IG report, as well as the raw intelligence reports collected by Funk to assemble his study, said firmly that the "IG abjectly misrepresents the intent and bottom line of the documents upon which his report was based." And a former government official who had access to the raw intelligence charged that the IG report was politicized. "The IG report," he said, "was a dumping ground for anyone who wanted to get their digs in on Israel."(May 1992)
In the same vein, the authors also charge that Israel passed to the Soviet Union information it received from convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, supposedly to get more exit visas for Soviet Jews. But this claim, which originated in an extremely controversial sentencing memorandum submitted by Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, is known to be false. This is what Prof. Angelo Codevilla (a former Senior Staff Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and intelligence specialist) had to say about the charge in an interview:
But back to the issue of what Pollard is being punished for. The indictment that he agreed to plead guilty to did not charge him with any breach of sources or methods. It did not charge him with giving away a room full of anything. After the plea bargain had been consummated and before sentencing, there was an ex parte submission to the Judge by Caspar Weinberger. This memorandum was entirely outside the indictment. Its contents have never been made public. Nor have they been shared with the Senate Intelligence Committee or the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board or the Intelligence Oversight Board. But this memo contained the lie that Pollard caused the deaths of countless U.S. agents. It also reportedly said the Israelis sold part of the information to the Soviet Union. All of these things are not only untrue, they were known by Weinberger not to be true. (Washington Weekly, Jan. 11, 1999)
The authors also try to undermine the moral case for supporting Israel, arguing, for example, that it is not, and has never been, the underdog in the Middle East conflict. Thus, they claim that:
Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better-equipped and better-led forces during the 1948-1949 War of Independence.
This claim is simply laughable. Consider, for example, the relative strengths of the Israeli forces and the Arab forces arrayed against them during the first critical weeks of the war:
Israel
Tanks 3
Aircraft35
Artillery 5
Troops 28,000
Arabs (not including regular Palestinian units)
Tanks 270
Aircraft 300
Artillery 150
Troops 35,000
(From Arab-Israeli Wars, A.J. Barker)
Thus, contrary to the authors, and in contrast to the invading Arabs, Israel had essentially no tanks, barely any artillery pieces, and few if any aircraft.
As for Israel being better led, the authors are apparently unaware that the invading Arab forces were professional armies, while the Israeli forces facing them were no better than militias, with experience only in small unit operations. Just how foolish the authors’ claims are can be seen by looking, for example, at the Jordanian army, which was led by a highly experienced British officer, General Sir John Bagot Glubb, along with roughly 40 other British officers serving in senior ranks. At the time Israel simply had nothing to compare to this level of experience and professionalism.
How then did the Israelis win? Quite simply they were able to win because they were fighting for their lives, unlike the Arab forces, who could lose and go home, and because the Arab leaders did not trust each other and often acted at cross purposes.
The authors also try to undermine Israel's moral standing by citing seemingly damaging quotes from Israeli leaders. They claim, for example, that Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion stated that:
After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.
The authors are a little naive, and are apparently unaware that there is a whole “industry” of fake Zionist quotes, both on anti-Israel websites, but also in many seemingly respectable books. Too bad, then, for the authors, that they didn't check this “quote” more carefully. Here's the actual protocol of the relevant part of the meeting that the above alleged quote is based upon:
Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.
Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?
Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us... And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state.(Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the 'Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997)
In other words, Ben-Gurion was stating the opposite of what the authors would have their readers believe.
Unfortunately for the authors, they also “quoted” Ben-Gurion a second time, this time apparently supporting brutal measures to expel Palestinians:
...the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben-Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.”
Amusingly enough, in this case the authors’ own citation undermines their claim. They refer to a Palestinian author, Nur Masalha, and to the book Righteous Victims, by Israeli Benny Morris. Now either they never really checked the latter, or they are trying to fool their readers, for this is how Morris actually recounts the quote:
“Complete transfer without compulsion – and ruthless compulsion, at that – is hardly imaginable.” Some – Circassians, Druze, Bedouin, Shi'ites, tenant farmers, and landless laborers – could be persuaded to leave. But “the majority of the Arabs could hardly be expected to leave voluntarily within the short period of time which can materially affect our problem.” He concluded that the Jews should not “discourage other people, British or American, who favour transfer from advocating this course, but we should in no way make it part of our programme.” (Righteous Victims, p 169)
In other words, if you take seriously the authors’ own citation, it disproves their claim.
Of course David Ben-Gurion is not the only Israeli Prime Minister the authors criticize. They also go after former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, claiming that his peace offer to the Palestinians was not generous at all:
...no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own. Even Prime Minister Ehud Barak's purportedly generous offer at Camp David in July 2000 would only have given the Palestinians a disarmed and dismembered set of “Bantustans” under de facto Israeli control.
This claim about “bantustans,” or cantons, was directly contradicted by the one person who was in on all the negotiations, Ambassador Dennis Ross, President Clinton's chief Middle East negotiator. According to Ross:
... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002)
In addition to criticizing Ben-Gurion and Barak, the authors also try to link Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to war crimes:
[the IDF] was also complicit in the massacre of 700 innocent Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps following its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and an Israeli investigatory commission found then-Defence Minister Sharon “personally responsible” for these atrocities.
In fact, while the Kahan Commission did find that Sharon bore “personal responsibility,” it is clear from the rest of the report that the authors misunderstood this reference, which was in contrast to Ministerial responsibility. In the latter a ministry makes a serious mistake, and the Minister, though unaware, must take responsibility, since he heads the ministry. With personal responsibility, the Minister himself made the mistake. Sharon indeed was found to have made mistakes, but he was found to be only indirectly responsible for the outcome. To quote from the report:
Contentions and accusations were advanced that even if I.D.F. personnel had not shed the blood of the massacred, the entry of the Phalangists into the camps had been carried out with the prior knowledge that a massacre would be perpetrated there and with the intention that this should indeed take place; and therefore all those who had enabled the entry of the Phalangists into the camps should be regarded as accomplices to the acts of slaughter and sharing in direct responsibility. These accusations too are unfounded. We have no doubt that no conspiracy or plot was entered into between anyone from the Israeli political echelon or from the military echelon in the I.D.F. and the Phalangists, with the aim of perpetrating atrocities in the camps.... No intention existed on the part of any Israeli element to harm the non-combatant population in the camps. ... Before they entered the camps and also afterward, the Phalangists requested I .D.F. support in the form of artillery fire and tanks, but this request was rejected by the Chief of Staff in order to prevent injuries to civilians. It is true that I.D.F. tank fire was directed at sources of fire within the camps, but this was in reaction to fire directed at the I.D.F. from inside the camps. We assert that in having the Phalangists enter the camps, no intention existed on the part of anyone who acted on behalf of Israel to harm the non-combatant population, and that the events that followed did not have the concurrence or assent of anyone from the political or civilian echelon who was active regarding the Phalangists' entry into the camps.... If it indeed becomes clear that those who decided on the entry of the Phalangists into the camps should have foreseen - from the information at their disposal and from things which were common knowledge - that there was danger of a massacre, and no steps were taken which might have prevented this danger or at least greatly reduced the possiblity that deeds of this type might be done, then those who made the decisions and those who implemented them are indirectly responsible for what ultimately occurred, even if they did not intend this to happen and merely disregarded the anticipated danger. A similar indirect responsibility also falls on those who knew of the decision; it was their duty, by virtue of their position and their office, to warn of the danger, and they did not fulfill this duty. It is also not possible to absolve of such indirect responsibility those persons who, when they received the first reports of what was happening in the camps, did not rush to prevent the continuation of the Phalangists' actions and did not do everything within their power to stop them. (Emphasis added)
Mention must also be made of yet another claim by the authors with a bogus reference:
Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the U.S. military more directly involved in the Middle East, so it could help protect Israel.
They support this extremely dubious claim with footnote 181, which lists only one reference, a report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century.
This report is easily searched, and it mentions Israel only once:
Ever since the Persian Gulf War of 1991, when an Iraqi Scud missile hit a Saudi warehouse in which American soldiers were sleeping, causing the largest single number of casualties in the war; when Israeli and Saudi citizens donned gas masks in nightly terror of Scud attacks; and when the great “Scud Hunt” proved to be an elusive game that absorbed a huge proportion of U.S. aircraft, the value of the ballistic missile has been clear to America's adversaries. (p 51)
Obviously this report offers no support whatsoever for the claim that Israel wants the U.S. to fight its battles. Whether this is a careless mistake, or something more serious, it only further undermines the credibility of the authors.
In a further effort to discredit Israel the authors compare Israeli democracy unfavorably with U.S. democracy:
The United States is a liberal democracy where people of any race, religion, or ethnicity are supposed to enjoy equal rights. By contrast, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship.
It is not clear what the authors mean by blood kinship, but clearly there are many Israeli citizens who are not Jewish and some of them don't even have any kin in Israel, blood or otherwise. So what does this mean?
One obvious target for the authors is the supposedly massive level of US aid to Israel.
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one-fifth of America's foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita incom roughly equal to South Korea or Spain.
Interesting that the authors mention Israel being a wealthy industrial state, like South Korea. The implication being that South Korea doesn't get huge amounts of U.S. aid, while Israel, supposedly because of the lobby, does, to the tune of about $3 Billion annually.
However, we have had around 40,000 U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea for about 50 years. The presence of these troops is a direct subsidy to the South Koreans – because we are there protecting them, they have that much less a defense burden, and we have that much more a defense burden (that is, if we didn't have to defend them, we could have a smaller, less expensive, military). The money that South Korea saves can be used to reduce taxes, or to create, say, a car industry, or a steel industry, or a chip industry, producing goods which they can then sell to the U.S., and jobs that they can take from the U.S. All subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. And what do those troops and their equipment and other related items cost the U.S.? About $3 Billion a year. (source: New York Times, Jan. 8, 2003)
And what of the defense of Japan and the rest of East Asia (excluding South Korea)? Perhaps another $40 Billion. Same consequences as above, just multiplied by a factor of 13.
Which brings us to the defense of Western Europe – aka our NATO committment. That runs to about a third of the defense budget, roughly $80 Billion a year. Same consequences as for Korea, just multiplied by a factor of around 26.
Now, none of the above is to argue that the above money is wasted, or that we derive no benefits from carrying the defense burden of so much of the developed world. Maybe we do, and maybe we don't. But these are gigantic costs that truly dwarf what we spend on aid to Israel. About these costs, and the benefits or lack thereof to the “interests” of the United States, the authors are silent – a silence that is truly deafening.
The authors also make bogus claims about CAMERA (and they get our name wrong):
the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) organized demonstrations outside National Public Radio stations in 33 cities in May 2003, and it also tried to convince contributors to withhold support from NPR until its Middle East coverage became more sympathetic to Israel.
In fact, CAMERA (The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) did not organize the demonstrations outside NPR stations. They were organized by a woman named Diana Muir, independently of CAMERA. And CAMERA does not want coverage more “sympathetic” to Israel, we want coverage that is fair, accurate and balanced.
The authors make numerous other false and misleading claims, and they also mislead by what they omit, such as the documented power of the Saudis and the other oil states to directly influence U.S. policy, thanks to their great wealth and their control of oil. Also omitted is the Saudi use of powerful, influential U.S. corporations that do business in the Gulf, such as Bechtel, as their agents of influence.
These other omissions and falsehoods will be covered in further updated versions of this report.
But the material gathered here is enough to already reach some firm conclusions: The authors’ report is a deep embarrassment to Harvard University. While Mearsheimer and Walt are free to make any assertions they like, no matter how baseless, Harvard University should have nothing to do with such shoddy, biased work.
Harvard should remove the report from its website – and therefore remove from the report the Harvard imprimatur – until the authors fix its manifold deficiencies. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: |
| | Cowboy....AIPAC's trained seal. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
| JINSA Behind Drive To
Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
Executive Intelligence Review News Service
1-6-2
(EIRNS) - One of the "Mega" agencies that mobilized to quash the Fox TV pick-up of our Israeli spy scandal was JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
JINSA President and CEO David Steinmann is also a director of CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America), the group that actually staged the e-mail, fax, letter, and phone call mobilization that squeezed Fox TV, to the point that they removed the transcripts of the four Carl Cameron segments from their own web site.
While CAMERA lists Tom Lantos among its advisors, along with Sharon cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, it is JINSA that is the real hotbed of "Mega" and "X Committee" clout, particular inside the Pentagon.
On its own website, JINSA boasts that "Only one think tank puts the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship {first} -- JINSA!"
JINSA lists among its directors: Richard Perle, Steven Bryen (whose wife, Shoshana Bryen is still one of the few full-time JINSA employees), Max Kampelman, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, Kenneth Timmermann, and James Woolsey.
Beyond these hardcore "X Committee" operatives, JINSA's board also includes a dozen or more retired flag grade U.S. military officers, including Lt. Gen. Anthony Burshnick (USAF), Gen. Crosbie Saint (USA), Maj. Gen. Lee Downer (USAF), Adm. Leon Edney (USN), Gen. John Foss (USA), Adm. David Jeremiah (USN), Adm. Jerome Johnson (USN), Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch (USMC), Rear Adm. Sumner Shapiro (USN).
JINSA makes no bones about the fact that it is recruiting an Israeli fifth column inside the U.S. military command.
They sponsor frequent all-expense-paid junkets to Israel for retired officers, which are co-sponsored by the Israeli Defense Force; they run an exchange program for military academy cadets at West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy with military institutes in Israel; and they host lecture programs at all the military institutions in the U.S. where they bring in top IDF and Israeli intelligence officials.
One of the top figures on the JINSA lecture circuit is Dore Gold, who is a top aide to Sharon and is about to come to Washington as the Israeli ambassador.
JINSA's output of policy papers and press releases also makes clear that they are leading proponents of the "Clash of Civilizations," and the drive to lure the U.S. into a suicidal military alliance with an Israeli marcher lord state.
Typical of JINSA's operations of late are their sponsorship of a series of lectures by Iraqi National Congress honcho Chulabi, and their Sept. 13 press statement, calling for the U.S. to "go beyond bin Laden" to launch military attacks against Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria, "and even our presumed friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt."
The release demanded that the U.S. bomb Beirut and Damascus, cut military aid to Egypt, and revoke the Presidential ban on assassinations. | | | | realist | | Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
| the fact is there is a clash of civilizations. its the west versus the non-west. As huntington says in his article 'which side are you on'? the issue is not the influence of AIPAC it is 'centuries old military interaction between the West and Islam' which he adds is 'unlikely to decline.' Infact it is only going to get 'more virulent'.
M. J Akbar prominant Indian Muslim author says 'The Wests next confrontation is definitely going to come from the Muslim world. It is the sweep of the Islamic nations from the Maghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order will begin.' - WHY ARE YOU REVISIONISTS IGNORING THIS. the jews are not the reason for Islamist hatred they are merley a rallying factor. the Islamists resent a/ the Wests dominant military capabillities and b/ their economic globalisation.
It is almost pointless having a debate as people like edithan, alpha, liberateamerica will not take the real issues on board. Iraq/Israel is the side issue. Civilization conflict is the real issue.
Sarafar Al-Haewali dean of Islamic studies at the Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca: 'it is the West against Islam'
Chief Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'the struggle against American agression, greed, plans and policies will be counted as a jihad, and anybody who is killed on that path will be a martyr'
The islamists are rallying. WAKE UP WAKE UP. FUCK. stop blaming the goddam jews.
they say no to 'human rights imperialism'/democracy/universial civilization/freedom of speech. they dont want our fucking principles. caliphate over the world.
huntington again... 'the non-western nations... assert their right to acquire and to deploy whatever weapons they think necessary for their security' they have learnt that you 'dont fight the United States unless you have nuclear weapons' - see iran for what it really is trying to do, PLEASE. blinded are you by these liberal utopian ideologies and support for movements which want to end Judeo-Christian Western civilization as we know it.
In order to limit the rise of this Confucian-Islamist axis the west will have to maintain its economic and military power in relation to these civilizations. this means more iraq's boys and girls. GET FUCKING USED TO IT. ITS CALLED POWER POLITICS YOU DUMB FUCKS. - so the question is 'which side are you on'? | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:25 am Post subject: 'Israel lobby' critique roils academe |
| David Duke mentioned the following article on his Web radio broadcast earlier today (March 29th, 2006) which can be accessed by scrolling down to the archive at http://www.davidduke.com
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2006/03/29/israel_lobby_critique_roils_academe/
'Israel lobby' critique roils academe
Some assail paper by a Harvard dean
By Charles A. Radin, Globe Staff | March 29, 2006
A paper co-written by the academic dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government is setting off a firestorm in academic and political circles because of its assertions that US foreign policy is dominated by an ''Israel lobby" that ignores US national interest and makes the United States a target of Muslim terrorists.
According to the paper by Kennedy School academic dean Stephen M. Walt and University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer, American Jewish groups, leading Christian evangelicals, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Brookings Institution, and other think tanks have all contributed to sacrificing of US security needs to the interests of Israel.
''Saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards," the authors of the paper write. ''The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel. . . . US support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one."
The authors say that Israel long ago outlived its strategic usefulness to the United States and has become a strategic burden.
The paper first appeared two weeks ago in the Kennedy School website's ''working papers" section, where faculty members routinely post work in progress. It has received attention far beyond academia, drawing praise from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and Arab world media, and condemnation from many intellectuals and Israel advocacy groups.
But as challenges to the accuracy and evenhandedness of the authors have grown, the school removed the Harvard University-Kennedy School logo that originally appeared on the opening page, and inserted a strong disclaimer stating that the paper ''should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position" of Harvard or the University of Chicago.
The paper is a broad synthesis of criticisms and charges against Israel long heard on the fringes of American politics and renewed in the debate over the Iraq war, allegations that also form the core of Arab world critiques of the Jewish state. The authors assert that Israel has not acted as an ally of the United States, that it has received inexplicably large amounts of US support, and that even in Israel's earliest days there was no moral case for the United States to support it.
The Israel lobby's activities ''are not the sort of conspiracy depicted in anti-Semitic tracts like the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' " Mearsheimer and Walt say. ''For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise the lobby are doing what other special interest groups do, just much better."
But then they assert that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ''is a de facto agent of a foreign government [and] has a stranglehold on the US Congress," that major newspapers, including The New York Times (which is owned by the same company as The Boston Globe), are biased toward Israel, and that ''pro-Israel forces dominate US think tanks, which play an important role in shaping public debate, as well as actual policy."
The significance of the paper, according to those who condemn it, as well as those who embrace it, lies in the Harvard and University of Chicago credentials of the authors and in the fact that it has been presented in a high-level academic forum, in a heavily footnoted style associated with accurate, objective scholarship.
Duke, a white supremacist whose website is dominated by articles and tape-recordings condemning Jews and Israel, devoted his entire half-hour Internet radio broadcast on March 18 to the paper, reading from it at length and suggesting that it confirms his long-stated views.
''Now it is finally revealed by some of the top academic sources in the country," Duke said. ''It is not just David Duke anymore. None other than researchers at Harvard and the University of Chicago" have said that ''the Israel lobby controls US foreign policy and is responsible for this war" in Iraq. ''What a fantastic step forward this is."
The paper is also getting heavy play on websites operated by the Arab satellite television network Al Jazeera, the Islamic extremist group Hamas, and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
In a brief telephone interview yesterday, Walt said: ''My coauthor and I stand behind our paper, and we welcome serious scholarly discussion of its arguments and evidence. Period." He would not respond to questions about Duke's use of the paper or to critics' comments made to the Globe.
In response to a Globe inquiry about the controversial paper, Kennedy School spokeswoman Melodie Jackson said in a statement that ''the Kennedy School is firmly committed to academic freedom and supports the practice of scholars introducing ideas into the public arena where they can be discussed and debated."
Mearsheimer did not return a call to his office in Chicago.
Ronald A. Heifetz, the King Hussein Bin Talal lecturer in public leadership at the Kennedy School, said in a telephone interview yesterday that Mearsheimer and Walt had exceeded the bounds of academic freedom and that the dean of the Kennedy School should look into the matter.
''When a member of the Harvard faculty speaks, people are inclined to view us as credible sources of analysis and insight," Heifetz said. ''We have a special responsibility to clarify the difference between voicing an opinion and presenting a work of scholarship. . . . It behooves us to be careful about what we say . . . if we express a point of view that can be embraced by David Duke and the Muslim Brotherhood to justify racist, terrorist activities."
Marvin Kalb, a veteran journalist and longtime faculty member at the Kennedy School, said the article contained factual errors and was written on the assumption that the United States should side with Muslims rather than Jews in the Middle East because of the much greater number of Muslims.
''I was disappointed that a paper of this quality appeared under the Kennedy School label," Kalb said. ''I understand this is no longer the case. That was a good move."
Alex Safian, associate director of the pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, said that there were numerous factual errors, detailed on his organization's website, such as overstatement of the proportion of US foreign aid received by Israel. Safian also asserted that the authors' real issue is that US foreign policy is subject to public politics and the give and take of interest groups.
''Their problem is not that a cabal is running US foreign policy," he said. ''It is that they would like to be in the cabal."
Charles A. Radin can be reached at radin@globe.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) via the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal out of Cheney's office wants US to attack Iran for Israel as well (like we did in Iraq):
Whose War (Israel's war)?:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Pro-Israel lobby is finally under attack:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2006/03/21/pro-israel-lobby-in-us-under-attack-finally.php
Israeli Lobby - The Report:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/28/israeli-lobby-the-report.php
UN Security Council Demands Iran Suspend Uranium Enrichment...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/03/29/un-security-council-deman_n_18130.html
Cost of America's War in Iraq
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html
Fool Me Twice:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3416 | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:42 am Post subject: |
| 
Alpha just had to find himself another article showing that the absurd "Harvard study" (which Harvard pulled its name from because it is not valid academic research), is solidly supported by David Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan, former US politician who lost his job because of his blatant racism and ex-con who was jailed for defrauding his racist followers. Quite an indication of who supports the "Harvard study" that even Harvard has rejected.
Incidently, even Walt has said that he is saddened that Duke would think that the study is consistent with his beliefs. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
Subject: Zionist Jew Robert Belfer [ENRON] seeks to suppress Harvard Study
Financial blackmail in play at Harvard
Yesterday’s issue of The New York Sun reported that an “observer” familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from “pro-Israel donors” concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt’s professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School’s Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997.
"We do NOT control the US and we will financially wreck anyone who says we DO!"
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512378
News
KSG Seeks Distance from Paper
Controversial paper on “Israel Lobby” will not display KSG logo or series
Published On 3/24/2006 3:48:11 AM
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
Crimson Staff Writer
The Kennedy School of Government (KSG) removed its logo from a controversial paper published last week by Academic Dean Stephen M. Walt and the University of Chicago’s John J. Mearsheimer. A disclaimer stating that the views expressed belong only to the authors was also made more prominent on the working paper’s cover.
In their paper, Walt and Mearsheimer argued that the “Israel Lobby,” composed of active supporters of Israel, has seized control of U.S. foreign policy and made it reflect Israel’s interests more than those of the U.S. Since its publication in the London Review of Books last Thursday, the authors have drawn heated criticism from many academics, including Harvard’s Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz and longtime Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz, who is also the editor-in-chief of The New Republic.
According to a statement released yesterday by KSG Dean David T. Ellwood ’75, the paper’s logo was removed after some news agencies “were mistakenly reporting the paper as a ‘Harvard study’ written by ‘two Harvard researchers.’”
Usually, papers like Walt and Mearsheimer’s, which is part of the faculty working paper series and available on the KSG’s website, display the school’s logo, the series name, and a standard disclaimer stating that the views expressed may not reflect those of the KSG or Harvard.
The removal of the logo and series name was supported by Walt, the KSG said in the statement.
The authors also strengthened the wording of the disclaimer that appeared on the cover of their study, writing that “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.”
According to their assistants, both authors were travelling yesterday and unavailable for comment.
Yesterday’s issue of The New York Sun reported that an “observer” familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from “pro-Israel donors” concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director who endowed Walt’s professorship when he donated $7.5 million to the Kennedy School’s Center for Science and International Affairs in 1997.
“Since the furor, Bob Belfer has called expressing his deep concerns and asked that Stephen not use his professorship title in publicity related to the article,” the source told The Sun.
Belfer did not respond to a request to comment yesterday.
—Staff writer Paras D. Bhayani can be reached at pbhayani@fas.harvard.edu.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512378 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
