From the NY Sun:
"Harvard's         Paper on Israel Drew From Neo-Nazi Sites"
       By MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
     
       WASHINGTON - A prominent Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, is         alleging that the authors of a Harvard Kennedy School paper about the         "Israel lobby," one of which is the Kennedy School's academic         dean, culled sections of the paper from neo-Nazi and other anti-Israel         hate Web sites.
     
       "What we're discovering first of all is that the quotes that they         use are not only wrenched out of context, but they are the common quotes         that appear on hate sites," Mr. Dershowitz, who is identified in         the paper as part of the "lobby," told The New York Sun         yesterday...
     
       The paper, the law professor said, was "simply a compilation of         hateful paragraphs lifted from other sources and given academic         imprimatur." Mr. Dershowitz said that he and his research         assistants were currently working on a comparative chart showing the         parallelism between parts of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper and quotes         available on neo-Nazi Web sites.
     
       While Mr. Dershowitz stressed that the comparison project was a         "work in progress," one particularly noticeable example of the         authors' alleged culling from hate sites was found in the         Walt-Mearsheimer paper's use of a quote from a former executive editor         of the New York Times, Max Frankel.
     
       Under the section "Manipulating the Media," on pages 19 and 20         of the paper, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer write: "In his memoirs,         for example, former Times executive editor Max Frankel acknowledged the         impact 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 footnote cites Mr. Frankel's 560-page         book, "The Times of My Life and My Life with the Times,"         published in 1999.
     
       Yet the Frankel quote used by Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt, Mr.         Dershowitz said, is nearly identical to the quote used by a neo-Nazi Web         site in its own take on Jewish press influence, "Jewish Influence         in the Mass Media." The document, posted on Holywar.org, quotes         more extensively from the same section in Mr. Frankel's memoir.
The smoking gun!
     
       (Amusingly, Norman Finkelstein has accused Dershowitz of the same thing. Finkelstein says that Dershowitz's latest book on         Israel lifts, unattributed, 20 quotations purportedly from primary         sources but actually from a discredited secondary book. You can read         about it at Wikipedia         if you really want to, but it strikes me as a pretty small bore         scandal.)
     
       To refresh your memory         on why Alan Dershowitz, of all people, shouldn't be throwing stones         accusing others of guilt by association:
An         acclaimed Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz had an enviable         life filled with book deals, speeches, and wealthy clients. He         frequently appeared as a guest on network and cable television shows,         often staking out controversial positions on issues relating to the         criminal justice system. His appetite for publicity seemed insatiable.
     
       At the time of the murders, Dershowitz was just finishing a book called The         Abuse Excuse--and Other Cop-Outs, Sob Stories, and Evasion of         Responsibility. Concerned that Dershowitz's thesis may negatively         impact Simpson's case, Shapiro decided to hire Dershowitz, in part to         "shut him up." Rarely present in court, Dershowitz spent most         of his time handling motions and other support documents. His main         assignment was to prepare for possible appellate review of an adverse         trial outcome.
     
       In his book, The Best Defense, Dershowitz gave a view of the         approach he would later take in the Simpson case. "Once I decide to         take a case," Dershowitz wrote, "I have only one agenda: I         want to win. I will try, by every fair and legal means, to get my client         off--without regard to the consequences." In his memoir The Best         Defense, Dershowitz noted that "almost all of my clients have         been guilty."
As you may recall,         Dershowitz's client virtually decapitated a young Jewish man, Ron         Goldman, yet O.J. Simpson is a free man today, thanks to Dershowitz and         the other members of the Dream Team.
     
       Obviously, the ludicrousness of the arguments used in the Lobby's         frenzied attack on Mearsheimer and Walt shows the weakness of their         case. But the point of making these humiliatingly stupid arguments         against the two scholars is not to win a rational debate but to         intimidate everybody else. The purpose is to demonstrate to bystanders         that the Lobby is willing to do whatever it takes to smear anybody who         calls attention to its power, and so, if they know what's good for them,         they'll keep their mouths shut.
     
       In an editorial called "The         Belfer Declaration," the NY Sun praises various zillionaire         donors to Harvard for threatening to withhold support and demands that         Leslie Wexner ("The Gap") do the same. It writes:
For those covering the effort of anti-Israel academics to demonize the Jewish state in the American academy, things don't get more dramatic than the scandal at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. It turns out that the Kennedy School's academic dean, Stephen Walt, whose shoddiness and biases in a paper he co-wrote called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" ignited the scandal, holds a chair called the Robert and Renee Belfer professorship in international affairs. When we called Mr. Belfer to get his reaction, he clammed up tighter than a conch in a mudslide. But the skivvy around New York, where Mr. Belfer lives, is that the billionaire former Enron director, who has been generous to Jewish causes, was so infuriated and mortified by what Dean Walt was doing that he asked that Dean Walt not use the title of the Belfer professorship in promoting the article.
I          like the part about Mr. Belfer being a "billionaire former Enron          director." I guess the reason for mentioning their hero's          tangential Enron         connection (which was hardly his primary business interest) is to          imply that he will not be restrained by any sense of morality, decency,          or fairness, so you'd better not cross him or his friends.
      
       By the way, if you are interested in an even-handed assessment of this          paper, long-time Israeli foreign policy official Daniel          Levy's commentary in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz is sensible:
The         tone of the report is harsh. It is jarring for a self-critical Israeli,         too. It lacks finesse and nuance when it looks at the alphabet soup of         the American-Jewish organizational world and how the Lobby interacts         with both the Israeli establishment and the wider right-wing echo         chamber.
     
       It sometimes takes AIPAC omnipotence too much at face value and         disregards key moments - such as the Bush senior/Baker loan guarantees         episode and Clinton's showdown with Netanyahu over the Wye River         Agreement. The study largely ignores AIPAC run-ins with more dovish         Israeli administrations, most notably when it undermined Yitzhak Rabin,         and how excessive hawkishness is often out of step with mainstream         American Jewish opinion, turning many, especially young American Jews,         away from taking any interest in Israel.
     
       Yet their case is a potent one: that identification of American with         Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the         Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate,         rather than by virtue of Israel being a vital strategic asset or having         a uniquely compelling moral case for support (beyond, as the authors         point out, the right to exist, which is anyway not in jeopardy). The         study is at its most devastating when it describes how the Lobby         "stifles debate by intimidation" and at its most current when         it details how America's interests (and ultimately Israel's, too) are         ill-served by following the Lobby's agenda.
     
       The bottom line might read as follows: that defending the occupation has         done to the American pro-Israel community what living as an occupier has         done to Israel - muddied both its moral compass and its rational         self-interest compass.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 comments:
Your metaphor is so predictable that it makes you stand out a mile away, like someone in the morning wallstreet crowd walking along the sidewalk to their job at the NYSE wearing a Bozo the clown suit. You've been fed a media frenzied line that paints Ron Goldman as an all-American, Good Samuritan boy, when in actuality he has a 6 inch thick criminal file, protected by a California Law that protects the past criminal activity of "Snitches" who share information with the police departments from public review, Cal. Gov't Code Sec. 6254. His hidden criminal conduct may very well have foretold his final demise, however, not by O.J. As much as I'm sure you would like this Othellian plot to have played out you need to call for the truth to be brought forward that indicates that they all knew that Simpson was enroute by limousine to catch a flight to Chicago while his wife talked to her mother by telephone. Examine how far this conspiracy has gone towards blinding the American public with visions of "Nwords and Sand Nwords" in allowing certain excesses on their behalf in restoring the faith and integrity of America. If you don't believe me, just examine how absurd your liberties became in using O.J. Simpson as an example for making you point about Dershowitz' comments on plagurism. You presume that the Simpson matter is an open and shut case, I can assure you, it is not. Never move unless you are certain of stability of your next step. You have so little knowledge of that which you use so freely. That unfortunate, however, intentional faux pas is what terribly undermines the validity of your Dershowitz argument, SteveO.
It sometimes takes AIPAC omnipotence too much at face value and disregards key moments - such as the Bush senior/Baker loan guarantees episode
It's remarkable how often this episode gets used as an example of an Israeli Lobby defeat.
In fact, Bush told the Israeli lobby it would not get what it wanted. He then changed his mind and gave them what they wanted.
Here's the Israeli Lobby gloating about the victory:
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1292/9212013.html
As a footnote, American Jews developed a massive hatred of Bush following this event. The media began to criticize him, his popularity plummeted, and he lost an election that was a year before considered a shoe-in.
Post a Comment