-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 10:09 PM
Share
There has been an interesting flap in Cambridge this past week regarding some appalling remarks made by one Martin Kramer. As some of you undoubtedly know, Kramer is a hard-line Israeli-American commentator who has made something of a name for himself attacking the Middle East studies profession, and just about anyone who is remotely critical of Israel’s actions or the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.” (Full disclosure: he’s taken various ill-aimed swipes at me in the past few years). He was an early supporter of Campus Watch (the organization Daniel Pipes founded to blacklist scholars it disapproved of), and Kramer has also sought to convince Congress to curtail or at least closely monitor the Title VI funding it provides to support Middle East studies and other area studies programs at American universities. He is affiliated with a number of right-of-center organizations in the United States and Israel, and for the past few years, he’s also been a research fellow at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs here at Harvard, under the auspices of its National Security Studies program.
In any case, the ruckus started when it was revealed that Kramer had given a speech at the recent Herzliya Conference in Israel, where he advocated eliminating outside aid to Gazans (which he termed “pro-natal subsidies”) because -- according to him -- it encouraged them to reproduce, which led to the creation of what he termed “superfluous young males,” which, in turn, contributed to terrorism. He also suggested that Israel’s siege of Gaza was intended to deal with this problem. You can watch his remarks here, but the money quote is the following:
“Aging populations reject radical agenda and the Middle East is no different. Now eventually, this will happen among the Palestinians, too. But it will happen faster if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status. Those subsidies are one reason why in the ten years, from 1997 to 2007, Gaza's population grew by an astonishing 40%. At that rate, Gaza's population will double by 2030 to three million. Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza's runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have. That may begin to crack the culture of martyrdom, which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men."
In other words, if Israel and the West can just keep those pesky Palestinians on a subsistence diet and stop them from having all those babies, the population will get increasingly older and smaller and the terrorism problem will eventually go away.
One rarely hears anyone make such horrific remarks in polite company here in the United States, especially someone associated with a college or university. Not surprisingly, Kramer’s remarks have stirred up a major controversy. Several prominent bloggers -- notably Ali Abunimah (who broke the story) and M.J. Rosenberg -- accused Kramer of advocating genocide. Juan Cole at Informed Comment referred to Kramer’s ideas as a form of eugenics, Richard Silverstein called it anti-Muslim racism, and a number of people complained to the leadership of the Weatherhead Center. I know that because I am on the center’s executive committee and I received several irate emails demanding that Harvard dismiss Kramer or least distance itself from him. In response, the center’s directors issued a statement saying, “It would be inappropriate for the Weatherhead Center to pass judgment on the personal political views of any of its affiliates, or to make affiliation contingent upon some political criterion. Exception may be made for statements that go beyond the boundaries of protected speech, but there is no sense in which Kramer's remarks could be considered to fall into this category.” They also said the charge that he was advocating genocide was “baseless.” The Harvard Crimson took a similar line, which you can read here.
I have three points to make about this matter.
First, although a good case can be made that Kramer’s remarks were tantamount to advocating genocide, I would not use that word to characterize them. The 1948 U.N. definition of genocide does include “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group,” and Kramer’s call for an end to ‘pro-natal subsidies” is very close to that part of the definition. But despite my respect for Abunimah and Rosenberg, I think the word “genocide” has become a loaded term that gets tossed around too loosely, which makes it easy for Kramer and his defenders to portray legitimate criticism of his extreme views as over the top.
What word you use to describe his comments is actually not that important, because their substance is so offensive to any decent person that you don’t need to worry much about getting the right label for them. To illustrate this point, just imagine how Kramer would react if the Iranian government announced that it was worried its Jewish population (some 25,000 or so) was a potential “fifth column,” and that it was therefore imposing measures intended to discourage Iranian Jews from having more children? Or what if a prominent academic at Harvard declared that the United States had to make food scarcer for Hispanics so that they would have fewer children? Or what if someone at a prominent think tank noted that black Americans have higher crime rates than some other groups, and therefore it made good sense to put an end to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other welfare programs, because that would discourage African-Americans from reproducing and thus constitute an effective anti-crime program? Americans of all persuasions would appropriately denounce such views as barbaric and racist, and that’s precisely how Kramer’s chilling remarks should be viewed.
Second, I take the issue of academic freedom very seriously and believe that the principle applies to Kramer, even though I found his remarks appalling. Thus, I believe that the Weatherhead administrators were correct in deflecting calls to dismiss him. (Some of you may recall that I thought that the head of Ben Gurion University of the Negev was wrong when she tried to censure Professor Neve Gordon, who is on her faculty and who called for a boycott of Israel. By the same logic, it would be wrong for Harvard officials to cut off Kramer because they disagreed with what he said or even found it offensive.)
But notice that the Weatherhead directors did not quite “refrain from passing judgment” on what Kramer said. The appropriate stance to adopt whenever a faculty member or affiliated researcher takes a controversial or unpopular position is strict neutrality; the institution, or its official representatives, should take no position at all about the validity of the person’s views. Therefore, they should have defended Kramer’s right to say what he did but refrained from commenting on whether the accusations against him were “baseless” or not.
It is also more than a little ironic that Kramer and his defenders are using the principle of “academic freedom” as a means of defense, given Kramer’s past efforts to bring external pressure to bear on academics who made arguments about the Middle East that he found objectionable.
Third, the principle of academic freedom does not prevent scholars from challenging Kramer’s racist ideas, and pointing out just how offensive they are. Nor does it prevent any of us -- and that includes academic administrators -- from questioning Kramer’s judgment on matters relating to U.S. Middle East policy or from questioning the judgment of anyone who thought that having him affiliate with Harvard was a good idea.
One final point. It is important to emphasize that many Israelis and most American Jews would undoubtedly find Kramer’s views offensive. At the same, however, he is hardly an isolated extremist, or some messianic settler sitting in a trailer in an illegal outpost in the West Bank. On the contrary, he is an especially well-connected individual, with appointments at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and of course Harvard. Moreover, he is not the only Israeli who has expressed such hateful views about the Palestinians. Of course, one can find equally hateful sentiments about Israeli Jews coming from Palestinians and Arabs. But the key difference is that they don’t hold appointments at prestigious institutions like Harvard.
I love the double-standard at work here. You have a prominent Israeli academic urging his government to place limits on Palestinian population growth, and all you get in response is a few bloggers out of the woodwork arguing the other side.
I wonder what would occur if a Palestinian, Syrian, or Iranian academic- with connections in Washington and in American academia- came out with a similar statement against the Jewish population. Do you think that this man or woman would retain his or her job as a professor or research director? Anything but!! The Palestinian, Syrian, or Iranian who made the remarks would be castigated by the U.S. media, burned by the powerful Israeli lobby (especially AIPAC) and defamed as a Muslim version of Adolf Hitler. The safety of the family would probably be put in jeopardy as well. The mailbox would be chock-full of hate mail, and harassing telephone calls would swarm the answering machine.
Lucky for Martin Kramer, he doesn't have to worry about the consequences. He's a resident of the United States, whose foreign-policy is hijacked by small group of loyalists advocating the suppression of Palestinians and the expansion of "Greater Israel."
This is yet another blow to the Mideast Peace Process. Government officials- like Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas- are responsible for cooling down the rhetoric when things get out of hand. But influential academics (on both sides) have the same exact duty. This is especially true for a man like Martin Kramer, who can steer a nation's entire public-policy.
-Daniel R. DePetris
http://www.depetris.wordpress.com
Is that why the motto of Harvard University is VE-RI-TAS, and not Veritas?. Ooops, for the benefit of Harvard graduates, Veritas means truth; in all shapes and sizes including the lobe-sided dimension, which Mr. Kramer seems to be the excpert at, or, would that be Eugenics ?.
khairi janbek.paris/france
"Of course, one can find equally hateful sentiments about Israeli Jews coming from Palestinians and Arabs. But the key difference is that they don’t hold appointments at prestigious institutions like Harvard." (Stephen Walt)
They don't hold appointments at prestigious institutions like Harvard; really Professor Walt? In case you haven't noticed Columbia University is a pretty prestigious institution; in fact many would say that some of its deparments are as good or even better than Harvard's.
There are both Palestinians and Arabs at Columbia who say hateful things about Israeli Jews, Israel and even Jews in general. When it comes to hate, I'd stack up your friends and political allies at Columbia against Martin Kramer any day of the week. The Middle East studies department at Columbia is little better than a KKK chapter.
And while you may be right that there are no Palestinians or Arabs at Harvard spouting hateful comments about Jews or Israel there is one thing we know; bigotry at Harvard is amply represented by faculty members of the John F. Kennedy School who got their undergraduate degrees at Stanford and doctoral degrees at UC Berkeley.
Bigotry comes in all colors, Professor Walt. But more often that not its white people perpetrating the bigotry. And these days, more often than not its political leftists and realists who are the biggest bigots.
Do you really believe that you're in a position to criticizie Kramer? Have you looked at yourself in the mirror?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Dr. Walt doesn't spew hateful comments about Jews. Have you read any of his work? All of his books and articles are based on real-life observations, personal experiences, and in-depth scholarly research. And believe it or not, most of the work is respected by his colleagues at Harvard and by the greater IR academic world.
You are right that Arabs and Palestinians do hold some prestigious jobs in the United States. The problem is that the debate is anything but fair. Israel can rely on the lobby to constantly monitor the situation on Capital Hill, not to mention edge policy in Israel's direction. The Palestinians hardly have a fracture of this capacity. Their representatives are lucky to get a sit-down with the President.
-Dan DePetris
http://www.depetris.wordpress.com
I've read elsewhere that Walt's wife, Rebecca Stone, is Jewish. By some people's definition, that would also make his children Jewish. As such, he'd have to be an extremely sick human being to be the anti-semite you imply he is.
But I doubt any of that matters to you. He dares to put a critical spotlight on Israel and its rabid supporters here in the States (including this Kramer buffoon); therefore, whatever his motive and whatever the facts, he must be branded a bigot.
Wigwag: Antisemitism at Columbia
You wrote: "The Middle East studies department at Columbia is little better than a KKK chapter."
Provide some specific examples in which Columbia faculty members have made hateful statements about "Jews in general" that are as egregious as Martin Kramer's remarks.
After reading Mr Kramer's blog post defending his racism, I also looked up Gunnar Heinsohn. It was interesting to read about the man behind whose work Kramer takes moral refuge. A scathing critique of Papa Racist: [Essay below at New Left Review]
http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2775
That part shared.. I must also say that the Harvard Weatherhead Center's defense of Kramer in their official statement on the matter is unforgivable and shocking. As Walt said, No, don't fire him, but at least condemn his statement—or say nothing.
I wonder if decent people at the institution, such as Prof Walt, are doing something to make their outrage known to their colleagues and administrators, not just to us readers. Because the WCIA has been oblivious to requests for re-consideration of its position from outsiders like myself.
Not only are Kramer's remarks are awful in their own right, they are stupid besides.
Mainly, if one wants the Palestinians to stop having as many babies, bring UP their standard of living. This is a win all around, except for those who want to keep them radicalized. And those who want to keep them radicalized exist on both sides. The Hamas-Hezbollah-Iran axis for obvious reasons; and the Israelis who realize that they will be forced to make a deal when the Palestinians engage in successful state-building from the bottom up, which they are trying to do in the West Bank right now.
Also, you don't need to engage in ugly schemes rationalizing aid cuts that, in any case, will not show results for a generation. The best case to be made for cutting aid to the Palestinians is the massive corruption that still exists in the Palestinian government. With little accountability, we see a lot of the money ending up in the pockets of Abbas' cronies.
Israel is afraid of being washed away by a sea of Palestinians because Israel has reached a a comfortable standard of living where people have fewer children and devote greater resources to each one. If you want the Palestinian population growth rate to slow, give them peace, prosperity, and money. Of course, the Palestinian leaders have a role to play in this (as they have had the major role in keeping their land inpoverished and isolated) but it stands to reason that Kramer's opinions are ignorant as well as cruel.
Walt [on Kramer]: "He was an early supporter of Campus Watch (the organization Daniel Pipes founded to blacklist scholars it disapproved of)."
To me, this sounds like a smear from Walt. I just went to their website (linked above). This doesn't sound like an attempt to blacklist:
"Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds."
It sounds like they are exercising their right to free speech and to criticize, just like Walt is with regards to his "Lobby'. I don't see any difference.
Walt, do you agree that you are also trying to "blacklist" scholars with whom you disagree? If not, what is the difference between you and Campus Watch?
There's a difference between calling someone an anti-semite (the principle charge labelled from campus watch to academics of middle eastern studies) and calling out someone who isn't afraid to use bully tactics to silence others. Campus watch may now pretend to respect freedom of speech, but it's previous actions belie that claim. In what capacity is Professor Walt smearing scholars with which he doesn't agree with? Has he spread a false charge against anyone?
Perhaps not genocide, but persecution and apartheid
Kramer may not be recommending genocide, but he is recommending the continued application of an illegal form of persecution. The 2004 ICJ judgment found that Israel had taken legislative and administrative actions that had resulted in destruction and requisition of property, restrictions on freedom of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and impediments to the exercise by the Palestinians of the right to work, to health, to education, and to an adequate standard of living in breach of international law.
Systematically oppressing a group by the imposition of living conditions that cause their physical destruction in whole or in part is a specific example of the crime of apartheid that is enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Crime of Apartheid.
The preambular material in the General Assembly resolution that contained the apartheid convention noted that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide contained certain acts which may also be qualified as acts of apartheid.
In 1984 a study conducted by a UN panel of experts suggested that apartheid was just a special instance of genocide.The major difference between the two is that genocide always includes the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such".
There are many other manifestations of the crime of apartheid listed in the convention which are forms of persecution that do not constitute an "intent to destroy" the group in whole or in part including: "measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;".
Walt has spread false charges against people and groups, and unfairly smeared others, but I don't think that amounts to attempted "blacklisting". And more generally, he attempts to categorize very diverse people and groups into his "Lobby", and ascribes a number of unsavory characteristics and tactics to "the Lobby" as a whole. In other words, when Walt names you as part of his "Lobby", it is a smear in and of itself. As a rule, he doesn't point out the groups who don't engage in the type of unseemly behavior he names, he just lets the accusation hang there.
Walt engages in the McCarthyite practice of "naming names" when it comes to his "Lobby" (see the book for numerous and extensive lists of people and groups Walt considers part of his "Lobby").
Regarding Campus Watch - I don't know too much about them. Can you provide examples where they make unfair accusations of anti-Semitism?
Is your criteria for meeting the definition of "blacklisting" whether or not the criticism is true?
David in DC: On being attacked by the Israel lobby
How many Americans and Europeans in recent decades do you think have been the targets of bullying, harassment, intimidation, personal attacks, smears and threats by pro-Israel activists and militants like yourself, Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, Jeffrey Goldberg, Pamela Geller, Abraham Foxman, Martin Peretz, Caroline Glick, David Horowitz, Michael Ledeen, Jonah Goldberg, William Kristol, Alan Dershowitz and many, many others? In what direction are these peculiar social processes trending?
If I woke up one morning and discovered that the Ireland or Japan lobbies were indulging in a barrage of personal attacks against many Americans and Europeans, I would come to the reasonable conclusion that they had lost their collective minds and were on the road to ruin.
How is this a tenable political position in the long term, and aren't these heavy-handed methods likely to backfire in quite a spectacular way against Israel? How many resentments are accumulating and festering among even those whom Israel presumes are its best friends in American and European politics?
More smears from Walt's 'attack fanboys'
Last blog post I commented on, someone unfairly attacked me for calling Walt an anti-Semite (I did nothing of the sort). Now I am accused of "bullying, harassment, intimidation, personal attacks, smears and threats". However, I have previously posted evidence for every claim I make.
Everyone should note -- this is what people do when they can't address the facts of your arguments.
So I guess that when we had welfare reform in the United States, that stopped the artificial incentives to have children, that was also genocide?
This has been done since, look at some of China's or the Soviet Union's policies and statements regarding their conquered provinces.
This is more like how the Progressives used to talk about blacks and other minorities in this country, limiting their birth rate for the good of society and all that; definitely racist, but not genocide. Genocide would have been more like when the Progressives advocated aborting black babies for society's betterment; but, hey, Sanger et al are still heroes of the left nearly a century later despite advocating this, so who knows how history will judge?
Despite your hysterics, hat really makes no sense. Countries have commited genocide against their own people, so if "ending welfare as we know it" is genocide, then the US government is commiting genocide against its own people. Welfare reform in the US was for the express policy (in part) to reduce the number of people being born into poverty and being dependant on the welfare system. Why would a country fund the type of program for another country which it had decided harms its own people? That would be choosing to do harm to that country by promoting that same bad program.
It's a mark of a weak argument when you have to constantly shift your predicates. Those countries tended to swallow up others, ship in their own natives, and then work on population control. So, I guess under your new conditions, you might be technically right; because, technically, there were Russians in the Ukraine, Han in Tibet, etc...
But, seriously, don't play stupid; what the Chinese have done Tibet, just as one example, is far worse than anything Israel has done re the Palestinians.
Ok. If you were german and you day this, you are called nazi, by the left and the right. Thanks god for that. But if you are israeli or american-israeli, you are cold hawk or realistic, or far-right. That guy is a israeli neonazi, and that is it. PLEASE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, CRITICISZING THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENTE IS NOT THE SAME AS CRITIZSING JEWISH PEOPLE.
Martin Kramer + Supporter Nut-Jobs
Mr. Walt,
Good Job on exposing this nut-job. He should not be anywhere near a respectable American Institution. Much less Harvard. His type only inspires hatred and anti-semitism.
I've noticed your usual group of pro-zionist bloggers follow you like a bad case of herpies. (ie Wigwag, Dave in DC). Nice to see the resistance from the other bloggers. Anyone with half a brain would shut his mouth concerning this disgraceful video even if they did support it.
I believe you are actually pro- Isreali. Men like Martin Kramer do nothing to promote peace for Israel with their Nazi solutions. Most educated Americans would be discussed by this.
Rather then engage in the name calling that so many of Walt's fanboys resort to when they can't adequately defend him, why don't you answer the question I asked.
When Campus Watch publishes criticism, Walt calls it "blacklisting". Why isn't "blacklisting" when Walt does it? Or is it?
Perhaps Walt himself can address this.
First, Walt or Meshaimer, among many other, do not get paid, as C-W staff do, to do that.
Second, this a commentary on a certain issue he has written a book, and he has been personal witness of how far the hawkish pro-israeli crowd can go.
Etc., etc.
>>>First, Walt or Meshaimer, among many other, do not get paid, as C-W staff do, to do that.
Of course, Aparicio, Walt does get paid. He got paid for the book, he gets paid for this blogging gig, and I presume he is/was paid by Harvard for a lot of the time he spends/spent doing both of those.
>>>Second, this a commentary on a certain issue he has written a book, and he has been personal witness of how far the hawkish pro-israeli crowd can go.
I don't get why this differentiates Walt from Campus Watch.
Is your argument that Walt is an expert because he has written a book, and also has been criticized, so therefore he cannot be a "blacklister" himself when he engages in his own criticism?
Dave in DC: Campus Watch and blacklisting
Did you take the trouble to read the Wikipedia entry on Campus Watch? Here is an excerpt (and there is much more, at this site and many others):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_Watch
BEGIN QUOTE
Campus Watch is a web-based project of the Middle East Forum, a think tank with its headquarters in Center City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to its website, it "reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them." Critics have charged that it is a pro-Israel lobbyist organization, which is involved in harassing, blacklisting, or intimidating scholars critical of Israel.
Campus Watch was launched in 2002 by Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes. It is currently headed by Winfield Myers.
...
Campus Watch encourages students to submit reports about college professors. In 2002, Campus Watch created a controversy when it compiled these reports into 'dossiers' critical of various professors at institutes of higher learning in the United States, in which it detailed their supposedly "anti-Israeli statements". In response to the posting of the dossiers on its website, many individuals sent harrassing emails and phone calls to the profiled professors, and the website was widely condemned in the media for supposely engaging in "McCarthyesque" intimidation. The Campus Watch project was derided as a "War on Academic Freedom"; in protest, more than 100 academics asked to be listed along with those accused by Campus Watch.
END QUOTE
There is an enormous difference between an *individual* (like Walt) expressing reasoned disagreements with another individual (like Kramer) and a well-organized group engaging in coordinated personal harassment of political opponents that in some cases verges on vigilantism.
Do you grasp the important distinction?
The collection of "dossiers" has very much the flavor of totalitarian methods favored by Hitler, Stalin and the leaders and members of messianic and totalitarian cults and mobs in general.
Why do pro-Israel activists think that they are helping, not hurting, Israel by adopting these methods? Their behavior is a great mystery. Any public relations expert would advise them that tactics of this kind inevitably backfire.
One gets the impression that some key sectors of the Israel lobby are hostile to the kind of free and open discussion and debate that are the heart and soul of democratic societies.
In a nutshell, you are saying individuals read the criticism and wrote emails in response, the people criticised didn't like the criticisms, and a lot of people made the same smears that Walt did.
I see a difference in the response to the criticisms, I don't see a difference in what they did. Because Campus Watch organizes into "dossiers" and Walt organizes into keywords, this makes the difference?
... a well-organized group engaging in coordinated personal harassment of political opponents that in some cases verges on vigilantism.
Are you suggesting that, by publishing their critiques, Campus Watch is harassing anyone?
Or are you suggesting that Campus Watch is covertly coordinating some kind of response, while making it appear to be spontaneous and individual? Because I don't see any evidence of this kind of conspiracy.
The most insidious part of what is looking more and more like a smear campaign is the self amplifying nature of the it:
Critics have charged that it is a pro-Israel lobbyist organization, which is involved in harassing, blacklisting, or intimidating scholars critical of Israel.
Those who don't like the criticism try to smear the group, and then offer as evidence for the smears the fact that "critics" (in essense, themselves) have made the charge.
Orchestrated harassment. I am in a American campus, and even is israelis students here make fun of Campus Watch. One told me that was the reason everybody seem to believe that all israel politcians were a bunch crazy people. I know that is not true, seems the most sharp critics to the palestinian apartheid come from the inside there. But, anyways, is good to realize that must of israelis do not support idiots such as Kramer.
Of course Walt, in pushing his Jew hating agenda, decides
focus on genocide.
The fact that the Palestinian population in Gaza grew at a 40% rate in 10 years gives rise to the lie of genocide.
In addition, let's point to Kramer's actual sentence "if the West stops providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status."
For the past four years, Gaza has been run by HAMAS, an organization with an above board genocidal platform (if not homicidal or suicidal)
The question is should the West subsidize a group with such an aim?
^Ah, a Muslim who is clearly a fan of the great Adolf Hitler! It's so common it's practically cliche these days.
To illustrate this point, just imagine how Kramer would react if the Iranian government announced that it was worried its Jewish population (some 40,000 or so) was a potential “fifth column,” and that it was therefore imposing measures intended to discourage Iranian Jews from having more children?
How convenient that you’ve neglected to mention that said Palestinian leadership have openly stated that their best enemy in the fight to eradicate the Jews is “the Palestinian womb.” Gee, when you consider this guy’s comments in light of the above, kinda changes the game a little (or a lot). Claims of “genocide” and references to Hitler are so knee-jerk and totally overused they have lost all impact and only serve to discredit the accuser.
Some whiny liberal said: Do you think that this man or woman would retain his or her job as a professor or research director? Anything but!!
What planet are you living on? Academia in the US is crawling with openly anti-Semitic college professors.
David in DC said: Everyone should note -- this is what people do when they can't address the facts of your arguments.
^Welcome to dealing with the left, particularly the Left/Islamist alliance. You’re doing a cracking job of smacking these fan boys down though (and that is exactly what they are).
Oh bother! My "you love Hitler" comment was aimed at Mufti.
Oh bloody hell! Typos abound today. I meant to say:
How convenient that you’ve neglected to mention that said Palestinian leadership have openly stated that their best WEAPON in the fight to eradicate the Jews is “the Palestinian womb.”
Meanwhile if Walt is going to offer up catigation by association
Then it would be entirely fair to include in the debate Harvard's acceptance of funding from Sheik Zayed (he of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up) which hosted Dr. Umayma Al-Jalahma, Michael Collins, and PiperTheirry Meyssan, among others.
As for Walt's use of bloggers to support his claims
Well, this would be the same Richard Silverstein who vented his bile at Israel after he got taken for the equivelent of an April Fool's prank on the Ha'Aretz web site.
Way to go Walt. Maybe you could quote Farfur the Mouse too.
Walt, Just make sure to add yourself to the basket of hateful
commentators.
"Of course, one can find equally hateful sentiments about Israeli Jews coming from Palestinians and Arabs. But the key difference is that they don’t hold appointments at prestigious institutions like Harvard. "
"Of course, one can find equally hateful sentiments about Israeli Jews coming from Palestinians and Arabs. But the key difference is that they don’t hold appointments at prestigious institutions like Harvard. "
So true, they only hold appointments at Columbia.
Inaccuracies, missing responses, and feigned outrage
First of all, throwing around the term "hard-line" is cheap. This meant to point one as on the fringes prior to disagreeing with him. Its an easy way to destroy one's credibility before saying anything about him. Just paint him as "hard-line" and we've already come to the conclusion that he's a dubious character. Of course, this is a term that was used in the United States to refer to communists during the Cold War. Cheap, very cheap.
Go to his blog, you will see that he is not hard-line.
Second, Martin Kramer is not an Israeli-American. He is an America-Israeli. He is American by birth and later became Israeli.
Third, the person who is the co-founder of the Electronic Intifada and he accused Dr. Kramer of advocating genocide is named Ali Abunimah, not Ali Abunibah.
Most importantly, though it is no coincidence that the same man who wrote the book "The Israel Lobby," should write such a piece. To charge and to support the charges that an academic supports genocide because of these comments is outrageous. It is an attempt to stifen a discussion and such charges no doubt have a chilling effect on academic discussion. He has merely connected demographics to extremism and come to the conclusion that subsidies which are tied to family size should be reconsidered may be counterproductive if the aim is to reduce violence. Discussing subsidies tied to family size is not advocating genocide.
Of course, I'm not surprised that an author of "The Israel Lobby" failed to provide us with a link to the response of theWeatherhead Center at Harvard. Part of what they wrote is:
"Accusations have been made that Martin Kramer’s statements are genocidal. These accusations are baseless. Kramer’s statements, available at http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2010/02/superfluous-young-men/, express dismay with the policy of agencies that provide aid to Palestinian refugees, and that tie aid entitlements to the size of refugee families. Kramer argues that this policy encourages population growth among refugee communities. While these views may be controversial, there is no way they can be regarded as genocidal."
The full response of the Weatherhead Center is here:
http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2010/02/wcfia-at-harvard-accusations-are-baseless/
CW: If Mr. Kramer is dismayed with "...the policy of agencies that provide aid to Palestinian refugees, and that tie aid entitlements to the size of refugee families", perhaps he might consider working to change their refugee status? I understand that most of the Gazan population fled there from other parts of Israel/West Bank, and were not allowed to return. If Israel wants to reduce the amount of aid to refugees, why not reduce the number of refugees?
On to Walt's next smear - using 'racist' to stifle debate
We saw Walt used the term "blacklist" in an attempt to smear Kramer for (gasp) publishing criticisms. However, one smear per blog post is apparently not enough for Walt. On to the next one:
Third, the principle of academic freedom does not prevent scholars from challenging Kramer’s racist ideas...
This is quite ironic coming from someone who spends so much time bemoaning the fact that people are calling him (Walt) a racist (yes, anti-Semitism is 'religionist', if I may, and not 'racist' but in this context the charge amounts to the same thing and I will use the term 'racist' for both for readability).
It does raise some questions though. Most importantly, is it true? Walt, feel free to jump in here.
1) Is the statement racist because you think Kramer has it in specifically for people who are 'racially Palestinian'?
2) Or is it racist because the [action proposed/disproportionate criticism levelled] affects a certain political entitiy, Gaza, that happens to be made up, in the majority, of people who are 'racially Palestinian'? This being true even if the [action proposed/disproportionate criticism levelled] is not because they are 'racially Palestinian', but because of their actions or political situation.
In other words, racist in effect if not in intent.
3) Does it matter that Kramer is only talking about some Palestinians? (Gaza and not the West Bank)
I am sure you see the parallels I am drawing with your own work, Walt. How is it that Kramer's remarks are 'racist' but yours are not?
Not a very convincing argument
The classic "You are wrong because your argument is bullshit" rebuttal.
While this rejoinder is frequently put forward by Walt's fanboys, it does not gain any capital from repetition.
Any other comments on Walt's loose slinging of the "racist" charge?
I actually think 2) above is the reason Walt plays the race card here. One really can't prove 1), which relies on Kramer's state of mind or intent. Of course, 2) is the same reason people call Walt an anti-Semite because, despite all of his disclaimers, it does not change the content or direction of his accusations. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander here.
And to be clear, my point here is not that Walt is an anti-Semite. It is the opposite - that neither Walt nor Kramer should have this charge glibly thrown at them. Walt charges that this term is used against him in order to stifle debate. This raises the question - As one who is so keenly aware of this rhetorical tactic, what is Walt's intent when he does the same thing?
Proof from the UN that Kramer is lying
Hello,
I am a Harvard alumnus and I have worked at Harvard University. I have now officially reported Martin Kramer to both the President's and Provost's office for his act of academic dishonesty:
According to the UN Convention on Genocide adopted in 1948:
The definition in 1948 stated that genocide could be "any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part; steps intended to PREVENT BIRTHS within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
Thus, according to the UN at least, Martin Kramer appears to be touting genocide, and so Kramer is clearly lying to the Harvard community (and to everybody else) when he claims that he is not advocating a genocidal solution for the Palestinian people.
You are missing a key part of that definition:
...any of the following acts committed with the INTENT TO DESTROY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group...
Reading the paragraph above, Kramer's intent is clear. It is to stop the "runaway population growth", to the ultimate goal of stopping the radicalization of the Gazan population. Not to destroy it.
According to the UN definition, this is definitively NOT a call for genocide, despite Walt's sly insinuations:
(...although a good case can be made that Kramer’s remarks were tantamount to advocating genocide, I would not use that word to characterize them...I think the word “genocide” has become a loaded term that gets tossed around too loosely, which makes it easy for Kramer and his defenders to portray legitimate criticism of his extreme views as over the top...)
Personally, I would not use that word to characterize Kramer's remarks...because it isn't true.
From what Walt says, that isn't his reasoning. He says he wouldn't pull out the "genocide" charge (despite, as he says, the good case to be made for using it) as a tactical consideration in the campaign to deligitimize Kramer with so-called "legitimate criticisms". Apparently to Walt, "legitimate criticisms" consist of smearing him with other epithets such as "blacklister" and "racist".
If your point was that that last part deserved its own post, rather than glommed onto my previous post, the point is taken. It was "superfluous", as it were.
But about whether it is fair to point it out at all, I think it is. Walt tends to make these kinds of sly insinuations[1]. If it isn't genocide, say it isn't genocide. Period. Don't say that you aren't *calling* it genocide because, even though a good case can be made that it is, since it is a loaded term your opponents will make hay of the fact that you made the charge in an attempt to distract from your other arguments. Pointing out these rhetorical tactics, of which I am sure Walt is aware, should not be out of bounds.
In a larger sense, this blog entry was about one single paragraph in a talk which took place a month previously(!). The reason Walt made it is pretty obvious - to slam a fellow academic but ideological opponent who had previously taken swipes at him. It's petty. It also and also explains why Walt is using all of these loaded terms himself ("blacklist" "racist"), justifying some with tortured and inapt analogies, in an attempt to demonize Kramer.
[1] As an aside, in this case my reading is that he is doing it because he doesn't want to directly contradict his blog friends. But of course we can't really know his motivation, only point out what he wrote, so this is a matter of each of our opinions.
More shrill name calling from Walt's fanboys
What did I do that was "horrific, utterly unsympathic" and "sociopathic" to A Balanced View?
Well, I had the audacity to point out that a fellow commenter was misinterpreting the UN definition of genocide.
Oh, yeah. And I criticized his hero Steve Walt.
ABV, a small bit of advice - get a grip. Really.
No one pointed out that part of Kramer's argument (taken from Hehnson's) was directed over cutting foreign aid to Gaza and let Gazans know that they cannot live forever over UNRWA funds. Perhaps that way they might even try to boost their economy; should funds be directed to build & create, instead of purchasing weaponry and sustaining Hamas' corrupt elite, siege would be undoubtedly over and, if added a fair dose of lacking pragmatism, palestinian independence just a step away.
I find it strange that you label this as a genocidal statement...
1) There is no deliberate policy or intent to destroy ethnical groups
2) Suddenly I sense that many of you do not see capitalism working. Which is to say, some people are best suited for opportunities, some are not. It may be harsh but let's not be politically correct about it. Things as they are.
I disagree over the genocide label. Should that be characterized as genocide, then every government with demographic goals would be committing genocide with its own populations. And for that matter, from this perspective when IMF did cut foreign aid to, say, Latin American countries then they were committing genocide as many unemployed and needy people went directly to starvation when govts ceased welfare.
are you serious? Allow Palestinians in Gaza to grow their own economy? and how do you propose such things? with the blockade Israel has on them? Lets be realistic here, when Israel controls borders, seawaters, and control of sky above Gaza, Im surprised the Israeli government has not figured out a way to not allow them to use the Oxygen above them..Gaza my friend has been turned into the Warsaw Ghetto, the only difference, instead of Nazi's outside with swastikas, you have IDF soldiers with The star of David on the arm. I'm still interested in how you would allow capitalism to take place when they are robbed of every right that there is.
You cannot deny that over and over again UN & EU funds for the palestinians were/are used to:
a. Engross the personal bank accounts of the corrupt elite that governs them
b. Purchase weaponry
Have you asked yourself why they did not use a dime of the billions of dollars thrown in there to create something that can add value to their economy? Well spent money could have taken them out of starvation. I did acknowledge the siege in my message, though you answered like I did not. Please do not use just one eye to see the reality. Funds have been flowing there for a while ago and its not anything genocidal (or something that might resemble to that) to cut it, as the money has not been properly used.
Does Kramer incite more than controversy ?
I have now also officially reported Mr. Kramer to the FBI, alleging that he is attempting to incite or encourage genocide via hate speech.
Additionally, some of America's top attorneys and I are now investigating the possibility of filing a major lawsuit against Harvard University.
But, then again, perhaps nothing will come from the above two efforts.
About Harvard's Free Speech Guidelines
"No human being is superfluous."
I applaud these three Jews at Harvard University who oppose Kramer's policy prescription:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/3/4/human-harvard-kramer-nbsp/
In 1990, the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) adopted the Free Speech Guidelines.
I would argue that is a violation of these guidelines to advocate a genocidal solution for a specific ethnic group (in this case, the Palestinian people).
Martin Kramer said at least twice that he is NOT advocating a genocidal solution, an assertion which clearly contradicts the UN Convention on Genocide of 1948. Furthermore,I would argue that the three most recent directors of the WCIA tried to deny this particular act of academic fraud by M. Kramer by asserting that his proposed policy is not genocidal.
"I applaud these three Jews at Harvard University who oppose Kramer's policy prescription"
Why not applaude these three people?
Why Kramer's idea is unscientific
Here is also evidence that Kramer's idea is unscientific:
http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2010/02/let_em_starve.php
To the extent that "excessive" population growth might be a problem, I would argue that it should require an agreed upon, coordinated and global solution, rather than a specifically Palestinian solution.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(60)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE