Thursday, January 11, 2007

Links from a "Comment"

Yves has written an interesting comment on my previous blog entry which should generate some lively discussion. When I replied to his comment with a comment of my own I found that the links within my comment opened in very small screens. I'm therefore copying a portion of my comment here so it will be convenient for readers to view the publications I consider extremely important.

The publication I consider a “must read” is “THE ISRAEL LOBBY” by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

First, here is an article ABOUT their paper: “Ferment over the Israel Lobby”, by Philip Weiss.

BTW, it fascinated me to notice in the Weiss article this sentence, which contains exactly the kind of language I’ve been complaining about: “The Anti-Defamation League called the paper ‘a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control.’” So much for a thoughtful and reasoned debate over the facts.

To read the actual paper, “The Israel Lobby”, you can go to the
Harvard University introductory page and click on the Adobe Reader icon to open the paper, or you can open the paper directly.

Please note: It takes a while to load; don’t give up.

P.S. I just noticed that the Harvard page refers to the "London Review of Books" having also published "The Israel Lobby." I had a look at www.lrb.co.uk and found that the "London Review of Books" also sponsored a debate on the "Israel Lobby" in the Cooper Union in New York. On this page you will find videos of the debate as well as access to a transcript of the debate. I haven't looked at either yet.

2 comments:

Nabila Harb said...

The Report by Mearheimer and Walt offers nothing new in terms of fact. Its importance lies more in its publication by Harvard University. It therefore is far more threatening to the Zionist propaganda machine than many previous publications delineating Zionist crimes and facts proving that the interests of Zionism and the true interests of the United States (and most of the world) do not intersect.

This will not make much difference, however, as long as the present government is in power.
Despite the failure of Bush to resurrect his popularity or the trust of the public, he will continue to pursue his destructive policies.

The latest U.S. terrorist attack may be worth an entry at some point. As usual, the U.S. ultra-sophisticated military 'strike' on Somalia missed its avowed targets, but that doesn't appear to agitate or frighten the general public. There are a few points here:
1. The fact that the U.S. can launch an attack of this sort without any general consensus by the people it is supposed to represent.
2. The fact that 'collateral damage' often is the ONLY damage in these attacks.
3. The fact that there is no sense of accountability to any one here. It is enough to say that the target is 'terrorists' and the U.S. can zoom in with their 'smart' bombs or 'smart' pilots who have no concept of the identity of the targets they are hitting or whether or not these targets actually could be convicted of ANY crime in a real court of law.
4. Here is another 'undeclared war' that the U.S. is fighting.
Defining it simply as 'another front in the war against terror' evidently allows the U.S. to kill any one anywhere apparently with impunity.

Yves said...

Well yes, (to Nabila's point) the war against terrorists is the war against those whose only violence is the violence of desperation. So it would be better to call it the war against desperation, or the war against disorganised enemies, or perhaps the pre-emptive war, or the war of self-righteous smiting, or the war of the strong against the weak.