March 18, 2006
1:49 PM Subscribe
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", by University of Chicago's John J. Mearsheimer and Harvard's Stephen Walt. Massive .pdf and shorter, edited version
This post was deleted for the following reason: you can blame the jews for this deletion
It's even the same link. Did you somehow ignore the blinking lights and claxon?
posted by tiamat at 2:34 PM on March 18, 2006
posted by tiamat at 2:34 PM on March 18, 2006
I totally blame the Jews for this double post. I'm sure messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt will support this position
posted by matteo at 3:11 PM on March 18, 2006
posted by matteo at 3:11 PM on March 18, 2006
No, no, the double post is clearly an instance of antisemitism. As is talking about the double-post in any way.
posted by Artw at 3:12 PM on March 18, 2006
posted by Artw at 3:12 PM on March 18, 2006
You know who else thought like matteo and Artw, don't you? The Nazis.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:15 PM on March 18, 2006
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:15 PM on March 18, 2006
I call "Godwin" on ZenMasterThis.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:16 PM on March 18, 2006
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:16 PM on March 18, 2006
You know who else thought like the Nazis?
Hitler
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 3:17 PM on March 18, 2006
Hitler
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 3:17 PM on March 18, 2006
Hitler wasn't a vegetarian because he loved animals; he was a vegetarian because he hated plants.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:27 PM on March 18, 2006
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:27 PM on March 18, 2006
Doublepost-Godwin-Meh? Don't they make films?
posted by cillit bang at 3:36 PM on March 18, 2006
posted by cillit bang at 3:36 PM on March 18, 2006
I let the last post go about this, even though I knew I should have commented earlier. I'm loathe to post anything on MeFi that's political in nature because I don't want to have any of my other posts on other topics labeled from this single perspective. But I feel that I have to take a stand on this one, regardless of any future consequences.
I even read the entire report so I wouldn't come across as half (or even quarter)-cocked, although I admit that I knew what I was dealing with when I read this quote early on:
"More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."
So from the most objective perspective I can muster I have to say that this whole concept is total and utter bullshit and every other word in the "report" has zero credibility in my eyes. You'll never hear me say that one side is a complete angel in the conflict, but the tone and the statements in this document are completely biased and in many cases, disgustingly wrong.
I am not simply going to label this "anti-semetic" and dismiss it, because that would be a disservice to the growing number of real anti-semites out there. I give the authors credit for taking great pains to avoid that knee-jerk label and I believe that they did so admirably.
This report is quite plainly anti-West, and specifically anti-American. The Jewish Lobby and AIPAC in particular are in fact very powerful on the Hill, but I suspect that they wouldn't be if the cause of supporting Israel wasn't as morally, financially, and militarily beneficial as it clearly is to the citizens and congressional constituents of the United States in current times as well as during the Cold War.
The real shame here is not the report itself (and I do think it is absolutely detestable), but from the fact that Harvard University would allow it's name to be associated with this kind of inane claptrap.
posted by marc1919 at 4:58 PM on March 18, 2006
I even read the entire report so I wouldn't come across as half (or even quarter)-cocked, although I admit that I knew what I was dealing with when I read this quote early on:
"More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."
So from the most objective perspective I can muster I have to say that this whole concept is total and utter bullshit and every other word in the "report" has zero credibility in my eyes. You'll never hear me say that one side is a complete angel in the conflict, but the tone and the statements in this document are completely biased and in many cases, disgustingly wrong.
I am not simply going to label this "anti-semetic" and dismiss it, because that would be a disservice to the growing number of real anti-semites out there. I give the authors credit for taking great pains to avoid that knee-jerk label and I believe that they did so admirably.
This report is quite plainly anti-West, and specifically anti-American. The Jewish Lobby and AIPAC in particular are in fact very powerful on the Hill, but I suspect that they wouldn't be if the cause of supporting Israel wasn't as morally, financially, and militarily beneficial as it clearly is to the citizens and congressional constituents of the United States in current times as well as during the Cold War.
The real shame here is not the report itself (and I do think it is absolutely detestable), but from the fact that Harvard University would allow it's name to be associated with this kind of inane claptrap.
posted by marc1919 at 4:58 PM on March 18, 2006
« Older How I got my groove back | That's a lotta simoleans Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cillit bang at 1:51 PM on March 18, 2006