Dhimmitude and Jewhatred at Harvard

No wonder Summer had to resign.  That was a  black day for Harvard. Today, it's blacker still.

Harvard, recipient of millions in bloody Wahhabi Saudi dollars, issued an extraordinarily antisemitic paper on the American Israel political action committee AIPAC here

AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress....

I am a member of AIPAC and I am a de facto agent? Uh uh. I am just a girl. A quintessentially American girl. Just a believer in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every individual. Those of us that support AIPAC do so because we worry about the existential threat to 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. ... Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?...

This is intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the most critical thing to understand about conflict in the Middle East," he told us, "is that it is not a conflict between Arab and Jew.  It is a conflict between the 10^th century and the 20^th." More at To the Point here

Amir Taheri writes in " not Israel that they loathe";

Conventional wisdom also insists that the US is hated by Muslims because it is pro-Israel. [...]  But is it not possible that the reverse is true – that Israel is hated because it is pro-American?

When I raised that possibility in Ramadan-night debates, I was at first greeted with deafening silence. Soon, however, some interlocutors admitted that my suggestion was, perhaps, not quite fanciful.

Let us consider some facts.

If Muslims hate the US because it backs Israel which, in turn, is oppressing Muslims in Palestine, then why don't other oppressed Muslims benefit from the same degree of solidarity from their co-religionists?

During Ramadan, news came that more than 500 Muslims had been killed in clashes with the police in southern Thailand. At least 80 were suffocated to death in police buses under suspicious circumstances.

The Arab and the Iranian press, however, either ignored the event or relegated it to inside pages. To my knowledge, only one Muslim newspaper devoted an editorial to it. And only two newspapers mentioned that Thailand was building a wall to cordon off almost two million Muslims in southern Thailand – a wall higher and longer than the controversial "security fence" Israel is building.

Muslim states have never supported Pakistan on Kashmir because most were close to India in the so-called nonaligned movement while Pakistan was a US ally in CENTO and SEATO.

When Hindu nationalists demolished the Ayodhya Mosque, no one thought it necessary to inflame Muslim passions.

Nor has a single Muslim nation recognized the republic set up by Muslim Turks in northern Cyprus. The reason? Greece has always sided with the Arabs on Palestine and plays occasional anti-American music while Turkey is a US ally.

When the Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica 10 years ago, not a ripple disturbed the serene calm of Muslim opinion. At that time, the mullahs of Teheran and Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were in cahoots with Slobodan Milosevic, supplying him with oil and money because Yugoslavia held the presidency of the so-called nonaligned movement. Belgrade was the only European capital to be graced with a state visit by Ali Khamenehi, the mullah who is now the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Republic.

And what about Chechnya which is, by any standard, the Muslim nation that has most suffered in the past two centuries? Last October the Muslim summit in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, gave a hero's welcome to Vladimir Putin, the man who has presided over the massacre of more Chechens than anyone in any other period in Russian history.

Right now there are 22 active conflicts across the globe in which Muslims are involved. Most Muslims have not even heard of most of them because those conflicts do not provide excuses for fomenting hatred against the United States.

Next time you hear someone say the US was in trouble in the Muslim world because of Israel, remember that things may not be that simple.

Where is the Harvard paper on the over 2,000,000 dead and 30,000 enslaved by the Islamic government in Sudan. Is Israel culpable there too?

Consider this statement. Defending democracy jeopardizes America's security? It seems to me that Israel is the object of Islamic rage because of her affiliation with America. Israel is the little Satan, America the great Satan.

Fred Siegal writes here;

The issue is not Israel. Usama bin Laden blew up a U.S. embassy when the Oslo "peace process" was at the height of its "success."

What did Israel have to do with the recent Islamic jihad murders in Nigeria? While Islamic terrorists were hitting New York, Muslim militants in northern Nigeria were killing Christians. The violence occurred in the majority Christian city of Jos, where the Nigerian government has imposed the Sharia (Islamic law) on the largely Christian population. The violence began when a Christian woman was attacked after she had the temerity to cross the street in front of a group of Muslim men who had gathered near a Mosque. What followed was three days of killing and burning churches.

Around the world Islamic militants are engaging in a holy war against the infidels - from Coptic Christians in Egypt and the Dinkas in the Sudan, to Hindus in Kashmir, Bahais in Iran, Catholics in the southern Philippines and Christians in East Timor.

In Sudan, the Islamic militants impose slavery on captured Dinkas - but wherever radical Islam is in power, it subjugates people it regards as infidels. The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights, an organization supporting those persecuted by militant Islam, argues that "radical Islamism is a world ideology, fielding a world terror-army, which oppresses millions with a racist ideology" that deems non-Muslims less than fully human.

The Harvard paper is a disgusting blood libel and every word fallacious. Blaming AIPAC? Essentially if you blame AIPAC, you are blaming me and every other believer in live free or die.
Vital Perspectives has a post here as well

Harvard: Support of Israel, Democracy Jeopardizes U.S. Security

Stephen M. Walt, Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School, and John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science and co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, have published a paper on "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" which blames support of Israel and the push for democracy for jeopardizing U.S. security. The paper aims to roll back the U.S. - Israel relationship, roll back U.S. efforts for the democratization of the Middle East, and end the post-9/11 foreign policy efforts of the Bush Administration.

As The New York Sun writes, "If the Islamists only hate America because of our support for Israel, why are they setting off bombs in Indonesia and Spain, which are hardly in the vanguard of support for Israel? How would abandoning Israel assuage the angry Islamists rather than encouraging them to press on to completing their end goal of making all of America subject to Islamic law?"

We are spending the next few hours dissecting this abomination and will follow with a complete report and retort. Check back at Vital Perspective later in the day for a rundown.

I, too, will continue this post and report back to you with  facts and empirical historical evidence that every contention The Harvard paper puts forth is a dangerous, antisemitic lie. Interesting thoughts here from a Muslim in Israel.

Harvard's integrity is all but an historical anecdote, " a rumor. It  never happened. Today is history." Amon Goethe.

UPDATE: I liked Neocon's take on the "paper" here;

University Prostituting for Islamic Petrol-Dollars, Goes After Jews Bottom-feeding for Islamo Petrol-dollars, a University produces one of the most despicable documents ever generated by a University in this country: two academics (John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt), one from Harvard and one from University of Chicago have produced the American version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Their general thesis is that since 1967, all US Presidents and the United States Congress have been hijacked, and have knowingly or have been duped into surrendering US interests to a conspiracy of international Zionist Jews who have taken control of US foreign policy through a scheming and secretive lobbying organization in Washington (AIPAC). This lobby, according to the report has imposed policies that are contrary to our national interests. Wow!

UPDATE March 20th here

Comments

[Harvey Goldamier]

I've read the paper. More than half the paper is dedicated to citations. The amount of research is pretty obvious because the quotes almost weave the entire paper's direction. I hate it when people criticize Israel but I hate it more when my fellow countrymen get offended when the truth is exposed. The paper makes a great case for the divergent political goals of the United Staes and Israel. As Jews in America, you can't possibly get angry that Americans are questioning your loyalties. It's their country and you need to play by their rules. How would we like it if someone came into Israel pumping millions of dollars into our leadership for goals that didn't serve Israel but a minority interest just like AIPAC has in the US? We would be upset and would ban the organization.

I sincerely look forward to the review but I wonder if you will be able to put forth academic arguments to defend the position of US and Israel interests being the same. I don't think it's possible to do that. Maybe then we just resort to calling anyone who disagrees with Jews to be anti-Semitic, Jew-hater, or whatever else we say to silence legit discussion on these topics.

Also, why do you go around bashing Islam and Muslim countries when the report squarely deals with Israel and U.S. national goals being completely different? Why not tackle the real issue instead of blaming everything on the Muslims?

~hnoon

[Pamela]

hnoon

The paper makes a great case for the divergent political goals of the United States and Israel. As Jews in America, you can't possibly get angry that Americans are questioning your loyalties. It's their country and you need to play by their rules.

I am American. My loyalty is with America. I was born and bred in America, third generation. My loyalty is to the principles this great country was founded on. "Their" country is my country. What country are you speaking from? The only ones questioning my loyalty seems to be terrorist enablers and dhimmis.

Also, why do you go around bashing Islam and Muslim countries when the report squarely deals with Israel and U.S. national goals being completely different? Why not tackle the real issue instead of blaming everything on the Muslims?

Please reread my post. I never bash Muslims. I will do everything in my power to free them from the gruesome boot they live under.
I "bash" Radical Islamists that murder and enslave their own people, I bash Islamofascism. I bash antisemites. Israel and US goals are essentially the same - to live free or die. To claim US support for Israel jeopardizes US security is a blatantly antisemitic and patently untrue statement.

The irrefutable fact is the goals and aspirations of the USA and Israel are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the shared goals of all democracies are fundamentally the same. FACT.

That canard about "anyone [that] disagrees with Jews to be anti-Semitic, or whatever else we say to silence legit discussion on these topics" is a device to silence the truth tellers. That's a tired and transparent device.

When I speak, I speak for America. When I supported the port deal, I spoke for America. When I speak out against the war declared on the West, I speak for America. When I marched in the Sudan Freedom walk, I marched for America.

That Harvard paper was the worst kind of Jew hating mudslinging trash. Radical Islam is perpetuating the worst kind of violence and murder against their own people while enslaving men, women and children -- where do you stand on that? Do you equivocate on that?
Do you stand for them? Just what is it that you stand for? For whom do you speak?

Pamela

[rlandes]

interesting comment by hnoon. i think the point is that israeli and american national interests and goals are very close, and specifically in this case because of islamism. this is a fight btw medieval theocratic authoritarian societies and free ones, and the goals of islamism are aimed not at israel alone, but at western culture in general.

this talk of "interests" moreover, particularly when the only interests the arab block can have for us is monetary, reveals the poverty of thought that this kind of analysis (hnoon's and Stephen M. Walt and John Mearsheimer) involves. if the usa were to operate on monetary "self-interest" and ally with the arabs against its value-driven "self-interest," the arabs would not see that as a sign of friendship but as a sign of weakness.

the french have made this mistake and it has earned them the contempt and hostility of the arab world. while they were busy showing pictures of al durah on their tv news to make themselves feel better and think that they were allying with their arab population, they were actually flashing a sign to global jihad in front of their 4-8 million muslim immigrant population, in which they, every bit as much as the israelis, were the object of hatred.

the idea that throwing israel to the arab/muslim fire will somehow quench it rather than make it all the more voracious, is foolish.

the reason that the "Israel lobby" is so powerful in the USA is not because it manipulates (if people used that line about women's influence they'd get pilloried) but because it's convincing, because it has a profound case to make for the deep sympathy between the US and Israel.

[Ben]

The familiar thuggish style of implied threat is evident when the writer asks: "Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security...?"

Set aside security?
Fuggedabowdit, youse could get hoit day way.

Could you imagine the reverse, asking the other side why they set endanger themselves by supporting the Palestinians?

The question answers itself! If supporting them endangers our security, than we must be on the side of right.

Why?

1) In no possible stretch of the imagination can the Palestinians pose a legitimate military or economic threat to the US.
2) Therefore, any threat to our security must come from Terrorism.
3) Therefore, if the threat is real, and the threat is Terrorist, then we are absolutely right to oppose those making it- and aid those that are also opposing terror.

Ironic. The author would have been more effective if he had merely said something like "Why has the United States been willing to set aside the feelings of millions of Arabs...". Instead, the implied threat exposes the inner thug and offers its own justification for the US policy.

[BobO!]

If you don't bash muslims, why all the pointing and gasping about the Ashura holiday?

[BobO!]

Oh, and of course, WE must defeat THEM.

(timpani hits)

[Pamela]

The Ashoura Festival speaks for itself here.

[BobO!]

So what?

Yeah, it might be weird, but are they killing anybody?

Also, on this day of St Patty, millions of americans will get slobbering drunk and some number will die as a result of alcohol poisoning or alcohol related accidents.

They may be bloody but at least they stay on the road on the way home.

[Steven]

This is a fantastic article Atlas, I will be linking to it in my blog.

[Harvey Goldamier]

Pamela, my ahot (sister), I did not mean to make you upset with my comments.

"Their" country is my country. What country are you speaking from? The only ones questioning my loyalty seems to be terrorist enablers and dhimmis.

I speak for myself and I live near Tel Aviv. I, personally, never questioned your loyalty but I do understand why researchers at Harvard want to explore the question. On a few occassions what we wanted from the United States did not happen concerning the Palestinian Territories. However, it is largely understood that the United States takes our side when dealing with anyone that may threaten us. This stance, right or wrong, puts the United States in a bad position because the Israeli government's goals are not always even handed and fair to all sides.

As a brilliant and beauty Jewish woman, I'm sure even you can see that not everything we do for our country will always work towards the national security goals of the United States. If they were, then Israel should just apply to be another state of the US. I must ask you though, if a serious situation ever came up where you had to choose between your country (the US) and defending your religious homeland (Israel), which would you choose? I would hope you would say Israel.

These researchers know the love we have for our country and they are right to question if AIPAC serves US or Israel purposes. We should have never pushed so hard on the Iraq WMD claims in Washington, D.C. because even our political figures knew they weren't true. However, we needed to neutralize Iraq to protect Israel and the United States helped us. Now we need to neutralize Iran. Iran is building light-water nuclear reactors that cannot produce any usable quantity of weapons material but our politicians are pushing for this story. We need Americans to bomb Iran to protect Israel. The problem with the Iran plan is eventually the American public will be in the same position as they are now with Iraq and they'll know Iran isn't a threat to the US. Ultimately, when we try to play the American public for fools in the short term, we hurt Israel in the long run by losing their support.

Please reread my post. I never bash Muslims. I will do everything in my power to free them from the gruesome boot they live under.

I think that is the wrong attitude to take, my dear. I know many Muslims both here in Tel Aviv and Yerushalayim who have treated me with nothing but respect. These families are very traditional and their women cover their hair just like my sister shaves her head and wears a wig. We are members of one of the oldest religions and we have been persecuted for centuries at the hands of almost every civilization. Many of our persecutors wanted to "free [us] from the gruesome boot [we] live[d] under." It is so offensive to characterize 1 billion Muslims so negatively. I don't doubt what you post on your site is true but many times I think you sensationalize it a bit much. I also don't see comments praising traditional Muslims just minding their business in the US. How do you hope to be effective at winning Muslim hearts and minds when you can't say anything nice about the silent majority of Muslims?

Israel and US goals are essentially the same - to live free or die.

Yes, if you want to over simplify then you are right. The fact is that our two countries have different goals in terms of material resources, business, and diplomatic ties. The fly in the ointment is how we go about achieving these goals. For settlers in the territories, they want to fight and displace Palestinians because that is their idea of living free. They hate our government when it tells them to withdraw and come back. The Israel settler's goals are not the goals of the US and their actions incite rage against the US. Sure, live free or die could also be the mantra of the enemies of Israel and the US. Suicide bombers also want to "live free or die" and they kill themselves weekly in the markets of our beautiful country. Do you see why that oversimplication is wrong?

That Harvard paper was the worst kind of Jew hating mudslinging trash.

But how? How is it Jew hating if the Americans want to question if always siding with Israel is not in their interest? I don't think Americans are killing Jews when they want to be sure their country is secure so I cannot call it Jew hating. I have to call it Americans doing for themselves what they need to do to protect their country. Protection of its citizens is a "shared goal of all democracies." If we, as Jews, start calling this discussion in the terms of "Jew hating" then we are not fighting for the Western tenant of free speech. Americans should be able to protect themselves and distancing their foreign policy from Israel may be what they need to do.

Radical Islam is perpetuating the worst kind of violence and murder against their own people while enslaving men, women and children -- where do you stand on that? Do you equivocate on that?

Violence does not happen in a vacuum. Many Muslims killing each other are doing so with weapons and funding provided to them from Western powers. Their leaders are hand picked to be oppressive dictators and it's coming to a point where these people are fighting back to survive. I don't see Iraq or Iran "enslaving [American or Israeli] men, women, and children," do you? Much of the propoganda launched against Islam is not true and is the same filth us Jews have had to deal with for thousands of years. Reading your website alone would make me think of Islam and the Muslim people as the worst of all people. The reality is they are good people with a few bad apples like any society or religion.

How do you expect to gain peace by always putting the silent majority of Muslims on the defensive? Again I want to say you are a beautiful and intelligent woman so I hope you try to understand where I am coming from.

~hnoon

[Chris]

BobO, you poorly equivocating ass. Do you really compare a drunk driver to a muslim terrorist? I'd rather the country be full of drunks then muslims, 7 days a week and twice on jumarr.

Apologist, dhimmi.

[elvis]

That Larry Summers is a Clinton democrat shows how far out on the edge the ivory tower elite are in seeking his removal. He committed thought crime in their eyes by stating the obvious -- that men and woman have inate differences which may be reflected in their learning modalities. That they would issue an antisemetic diatribe cloaked as scholarship should come then as no surprise either.

Also ~hnoon's PC screeds were worthy of letters to the editor of Z Magazine and a Harvard Sq. coffee clutch, literate but equivocating, convoluted, leftist tripe,ignorant of the facts. The immaturity shows in feigning sincere flattery for our hostess. This is as "sophisticated" as one such as he can manage.

[greenmamba]

hnoon: I have just one question for you. On page 9 of the document, the authors wrote: Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better‐equipped, and better‐led forces during the 1947‐49 War of Independence

Now do you believe this is true? Common sense says that the Jews must have had a smaller army, had little opportunity to organize and little money to buy arms compared with the large countries by which they were surrounded. Never mind that they would have lacked intelligence structures to even know if they were better armed.

This statement alone by Walt and Mearsheimer, says that they have a specific agenda and are prepared to use propaganda to achieve.

[Cynic]

" I speak for myself and I live near Tel Aviv. "
Ramallah?
True Americans apply the "dual loyalty" clause to Jews while not applying them to people of other political denominations while hypocritically taking advantage of Israeli innovations to increase the wealth of American companies (Intel's billions for their Centrino processor designed in Israel, some 600 improvements to the F-16 fighter saving American investment billions in R&D, ability to transmit pictures from Mars, Medical and agricultural inventions and a wealth of other things).

Amazing how the authors ignore the European influence of their European - Arab Dialogue of the 70s in provoking anti-American sentiment to boost European (French) importance as a pole to counter the US' power.

greenmamba,
" On page 9 of the document, the authors wrote: Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better‐equipped, and better‐led forces during the 1947‐49 War of Independence. "
This is a laugh if one considers the handmade mortar ("Davidka") which made more noise than anything else, and the state of the miscellany of aircraft garnered from Checkoslovakia and the immigrants just off the boats from Cyprus, where the British had thrown them into camps after their 'escape' from Hitler's death camps, pressed into service fighting the Egyptians, the British officered Jordanian legion .....

Maybe it is time for people to wake up to the fact that academia is as crooked as the ILA.

[blert]

America is too powerful to be named enemy.

So in the west, Israel is substituted by the Islamists.

In the east, Taiwan is substituted by the Communists.

Both exist as economic powerhouses yet are shunned by all of the lesser powers.

The massive blue water naval build up of China is pitched as oriented towards Taiwan. Absurd in the extreme.

The Ahmadi-Nejad comments inre liquidating Israel: he really means America. OBL has convinced the Islamists that the distant enemy is the only real enemy. Israel is a pawn by comparison.

America protects the world. But who protects America?