-
WAR OF IDEAS
Has the U.S. Reached Peak Car?
-
KILLER APPS
Cyberspies Are Using PRISM for Spearphishing
-
PASSPORT
Remembering Michael Hastings
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 1:18 PM
Share
I hadn't intended to say anything further about the shameful Martin Peretz affair, and lord knows there are plenty of good reasons for me not to poke my finger in the eye of Harvard's current leadership. But seriously: You'd think after nearly 400 years the leaders of the university would have figured out what the principles of academic freedom and free speech really mean -- and also what they don't mean. But judging from the official university response to the furor, the people I work for appear to be somewhat confused about these issues.
To recap: A couple of weeks ago, Peretz made some offensive and racist statements about Muslims on his blog. Specifically, he wrote that "Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims," and then went on to say that he didn't think American Muslims deserved the protections of the First Amendment, because he suspected they would only abuse them.
These statements were not an isolated incident or just a lamentably poor choice of words. On the contrary, they were the latest in a long series of statements displaying hatred and contempt for Muslims, Arabs, and other minorities. Peretz retracted part of his latest remarks after they were exposed and challenged by Nicholas Kristof (Harvard '82) in his column in the New York Times, but in his "apology," Peretz nonetheless reaffirmed his belief that "Muslim life is cheap." Indeed, he declared that "this is a statement of fact, not value."
A number of people then began to question whether it was appropriate for Harvard to establish an undergraduate research fund in Peretz's name and to give him a prominent role in the festivities commemorating the 50th anniversary of its storied Social Studies program. A University spokesman defended the decision to accept the money for the research fund and to have Peretz speak at a luncheon by saying:
As an institution of research and teaching, we are dedicated to the proposition that all people, regardless of color or creed, deserve equal opportunities, equal respect, and equal protection under the law. The recent assertions by Dr. Peretz are therefore distressing to many members of our community, and understandably so. It is central to the mission of a university to protect and affirm free speech, including the rights of Dr. Peretz, as well as those who disagree with him, to express their views."
In a masterful display of understatement, the Atlantic's James Fallows (Harvard '70) termed this response "not one of the university's better efforts." As he (and others) pointed out, nobody was questioning Peretz's right to write or say whatever he wants. For that matter, nobody has even questioned whether Harvard ought to give him a platform to expound his views on this or any other subject. (For my own part, if the Kennedy School invited him to speak on any subject he chose, I wouldn't object.
As should be obvious, this issue isn't a question of free speech or academic freedom. Rather, the issue is whether it is appropriate or desirable for a great university to honor someone who has repeatedly uttered or written despicable words about a community of people numbering in the hundreds of millions. And isn't it obvious that if Peretz had said something similar about African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, Asians, or gays, the outcry would have been loud, fierce, and relentless and some of his current defenders would have distanced themselves from him with alacrity.
And let's also not lose sight of the double standards at work here. After a long and distinguished career, journalist Helen Thomas makes one regrettable and offensive statement and she loses her job, even though she offered a quick and genuine apology. By contrast, Peretz makes offensive remarks over many years, reaffirms some of them when challenged, and gets a luncheon in his honor and his name on a research fund at Harvard.
And why? Because Peretz has a lot of wealthy and well-connected friends. Bear in mind that in 2003 Harvard suspended and eventually returned a $2.5 million dollar gift from the president of the United Arab Emirates, after it learned that he was connected to a think tank that had sponsored talks featuring anti-Semitic and anti-American themes. As the Harvard Crimson said at the time, "no donation is worth indebting the university to practitioners of hate and bigotry." So the University clearly has some standards, it just doesn't apply them consistently.
For more on this unequivocally depressing business, you can read:
1. An open letter from Harvard students protesting the honor to Peretz, and the petition protesting Harvard's policy that now has over 500 signatures, many from Social Studies alums.
2. James Fallows' summary of recent developments.
3. A powerful statement by Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic, examining Peretz's achievements as an editor and questioning his liberal bona fides.
4. A comment by Alan Gilbert of the University of Denver, a former tutor in the same Social Studies program.
5. And while you're at it, you might read the Boston Globe's editorial whitewashing Peretz, and compare it with their reaction to the Helen Thomas affair.
And no, this isn't just a matter of Ivy League academic politics, unrelated to issues of foreign policy. As everyone knows, U.S. relations with the Arab and Muslim world are especially delicate these days. You can read this or this to understand why, but it certainly doesn't help when one of the nation's premier academic institutions decides to honor someone with such deplorable views, even after they have been widely exposed. This is obviously not the main reason why the America's image in the Arab and Muslim world is so negative, but it surely adds fuel to the fires of bigotry.
To take this matter a step further, Islamophobia is on the rise here in the United States. Efforts to combat this pernicious and dangerous trend would be furthered if institutions like Harvard took a principled stand on this issue, and declined to honor anyone who has made bigoted remarks about Muslims (or any other group). This has not happened with Peretz, and history will not treat Harvard well for its behavior in this case.
Update: As I write this, I've received a couple of emails suggesting that Peretz was not going to be speaking at the Social Studies event after all. I don't know if that's true or not, but to me the issue is less about his being one of the speakers, and more about having his name permanently attached to an undergraduate research fund.
Update 2: James Fallows reports on the reported resolution of the dispute (i.e., Peretz won't have a speaking role at the event), and suggests that Harvard could address the controversy by creating a scholarship fund for students of Muslim background.
The Professor from Enron Strikes Again
Quite a comment coming from the Professor from Enron whose anti-Semitic rants (masquerading as serious critiques of Israeli policy and the American Jewish community) are notorious.
I guess it hasn't occurred to the Professor that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Protected by tenure as he is, Harvard hasn't taken away Walt's "named professorship" despite his bigoted commentary. Why Peretz should be treated less affectionately by Harvard than Walt is, is hard to fathom.
Walt likes to hear himself talk
The reality is, Muslims don't raise a fuss and cry when they are killed by other Muslims. This reality, has been voiced by no less a left-wing progressive than the NY Times' Nicholas Kristof, who said the same thing repeatedly in his op-ed columns during the years of 2002 through 2005. Indeed, he reiterates that POV when explicitely discussing the issue of Marty Peretz.
New York Times op-ed
.
Behind The Rage
.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
.
Published: April 16, 2002KHARTOUM, Sudan—
.
It's a measure of the rage spreading across the Middle East that even in this dusty capital, almost at the edge of the world, several hundred thousand people have marched through the streets denouncing Israel and America -- and in some cases cheering Osama bin Laden.
.
Elsewhere, hundreds of thousands of Moroccans have taken to the streets to demonstrate, in their country's biggest protest ever. And four people have been killed in the huge protests that are shaking Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia and other countries.
.
This frenzy in the Arab world is fascinating, because while the Israeli brutality in the occupied territories is real, it is small potatoes by Arab standards.
.
Some 1,600 Palestinians have been killed since the latest round of violence erupted in the fall of 2000. In contrast, two million Sudanese have died in the ongoing civil war here, with barely anyone noticing.
.
Likewise, Syria blithely killed about 20,000 people in crushing an abortive uprising in the city of Hama in 1982. And Saddam Hussein, who has killed more Arabs than Ariel Sharon and all his Israeli predecessors put together, is somehow a hero for much of the Arab world.
.
New York Times op-ed
.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
.Published: February 25, 2004
.
Moreover, Arabs undermine their standing to complain about American double standards when they are guilty of equal hypocrisy.
.
It's a double standard to notice only how Israel represses Arabs and not how it empowers them. More important, Arabs erupt at every outrage by Israel, but seem unmoved when Arabs abuse other Arabs.
.
One of the moments when I decided that I wanted to be a foreign correspondent came in 1982, when, as a vacationing law student, I backpacked to Hama, Syria, after the army there had massacred some 20,000 citizens. The sight of the city center -- reduced to rubble, with shards of concrete intermixed with clothing as a few survivors strolled about in a daze -- was indelible. And the survivors' grief wasn't diminished because their children had been killed by fellow Syrians rather than by Israelis.
.
The Arabs who have been treated worst of all are the people of Western Sahara, who have had their very country stolen out from under them. Morocco has occupied Western Sahara (a former Spanish colony), treated its people barbarously, defied the International Court of Justice and tried to annex the territory for its natural resources. Yet hardly any Arabs or Westerners have ever championed their cause.
.
And while they are not Arabs, there's a parallel with the Kurds in Turkey. The Kurds, like the Palestinians, have been cruelly suppressed. The Kurds also turned to terrorism, achieving nothing, and the Turkish authorities responded with savage repression that made the Israelis' look mild. Yet when Kurds were being tortured and executed in the 1990's, fellow Muslims looked away.
.
New York Times op-ed
.
September 13, 2010, 11:15 am
.
A Martin Peretz Apology
.
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
.
After my Sunday column criticizing comments by Martin Peretz about Muslims, he today issued an apology. Here it is:
.
let me say that I welcome and respect the apology. It’s easy when we say dumb things to dig ourselves deeper, and very hard to apologize. So that was classy.
@vilkssweden: your comparison to bin Talal makes no sense
Al-Waleed Bin Talal has no power in Saudi Arabia. He is just one of thousands of princes. He is no more than 1/4 Saudi, probably more Lebanese than Saudi. He and his father hold no ministry positions and don't have much influence. His father actually pushed hard for more civil rights in the kingdom and was banished for decades before being allowed to return. Bin Talal is probably more likely to get involved in Lebanese politics than Saudi.
Has bin Talal regularly and repeatedly made any bigoted comments? If not, there is no basis for comparison to Marty Peretz and your comments are more explicitly hateful than what you all even wrongly accuse Dr. Walt of (taking dirty money from those vile barbaric Saudis versus Walt stating that Pro-zionists using their money to lobby foreign policy is tantamount to saying "jews using their money to secretly conspire agains the govt).
did he make hateful comments about any racial group? If so, you definitely have a point. Otherwise, there isn't a comparable double standard to the history of Marty. I don't think it's fair to just pin him on the actions/views of his family, a group in the thousands. Perhaps he should use his wealth to speak out more against the hateful practices in Muslim countries.
the biggest war in islamdom is not the war of muslims against the west but the war of sunni muslims against the shia muslims (and other minorities such as the ahmadiyas). in a weird way, muslims need the great satan and israel with its continued persecution of the palestinians to muster up some kind of common cause in order to keep from killing each other even faster than they are doing it now.
The subject line says it all
No one wants to sit next to Peretz
Professor Robert Paul Wolff says of his decision to attend, "I begged her not to seat me next to Marty at the head table. She agreed."
FYI, This is exactly the real-life reaction that PBS news anchor Jim Lehrer wrote about Peretz in Lehrer's 1993 Washington novel Blue Hearts, featuring the cameo appearance of Peretz as the roman à clef character "Jonathan Perry". Lehrer wrote (read it yourself in Google books),
Bruce agreed to come if Perry [Peretz] would be seated far away from him. … [Perry] was a lightweight sociology professor of no special talent or accomplishment who owned and edited the magazine The New World because his wife was a shoe company heiress who bought it for him. He was a joke in all circles except those that believed money was important. Perry was an occasional dinner guest at the Hollowells' solely because his magazine published a long think piece by Bill Hollowell once a month. …
Perry, what Bruce [Conn Clark] would call a predictable fool's fool, had made himself even more foolish by writing a recent column accusing the producers of talk shows, particularly on public television and radio, of blacklisting him for his strong pro-Israel views. It was an embarrassing incoherence that only the owner of a publication could have brought to public print.
To take this matter a step further, Islamophobia is on the rise here in the United States. Efforts to combat this pernicious and dangerous trend would be furthered if institutions like Harvard took a principled stand on this issue, and declined to honor anyone who has made bigoted remarks about Muslims (or any other group).
According to the latest figures, there are 10 times as many anti-Jewish hate crimes in the US than there are anti-Muslim.
Steve's book, while not overtly bigoted againt the Jewish religion, lumps the very large majority of Jewish people (and basically all Jewish organizations) in the US into a "Lobby" working towards aims that are extremely detrimental to the country's interests. It's not a stretch to think that this contributes to the "pernicious and dangerous" phenomenon of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish hate crimes in the country. Steve is just the other side of the coin from Marty, and as such it is not a surprise to see him writing multiple blog posts attacking him.
Here's a quick quiz:
How many posts has Steve made attacking those he considers anti-Muslim bigots, and how many has he made attacking those he considers anti-Jewish bigots? (answer: many more attacking those he considers anti-Muslim bigots)
Considering that these anti-Jewish bigots are using Steve's own book to spread their hatred, wouldn't you think he would have devoted more posts attacking anti-Semites, rather than Islamophobes?
What do you think explains this disparity?
According to the latest figures, there are 10 times as many anti-Jewish hate crimes in the US than there are anti-Muslim.
Quite simply untrue.
If what peretz wrote about Moslems, was written by a Moslem about Jews, you can be sure it would be reported to the FBI as a hate crime. Also many very activist, vocal folk consider criticism of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians as a manifestation of antisemitism. Hence, booing the Israeli ambassador and being arrested for disorderly conduct could end up with a hate crime complaint.
David, painting Walt as an entrenched anti-Semite (if that's your intent) is a stretch. He is clearly not in the AIPAC camp or pro_zionist, but does that relegate him to anti-Semite status ?
I don't think there's a way to accurately count every Muslim bigotry vs. Jewish bigotry episode in print or in person, so let's leave that open to debate. Walt's input, regardless of whether or not one agrees, is generally backed with facts and not self-contradicting or reliant on prolonged semantics (presumably to confuse the audience or because a writer is confused himself) - unlike the rants of so many others. I don't always agree with him but respect his manner of writing. He is, as we all are, entitled to our ideologies and biases within reason.
Just as an example (and not to bug you), check out that T.N. Coates articles referenced in The Atlantic. It's much less delicate in tone and nuance.
Cheers
And there are 200X as many hate crimes against Gays as Jews!
Holy hate crime Batman! We're living in the end times!
Didn't you read the comment below ADDA?
Go to the FBI link. The organization publishes an annual breakdown of hate crimes. And yes, anti-Semitic hate crimes have far outnumbered anti-Muslim hate crimes consistently throughout the decade.
DDSnaik - Walt's book on the "Israel Lobby" reads like a modern
day version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, chapter and verse. Jews using all sorts of nasty, dirty tricks to manipulate the US government to do their bidding for nefarious schemes, in this case Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer decry how Jews use their filthy money to bend the will of the Good non-Jewish politicians down in Washington, and use the media to manipulate unaware good non-Jewish American citizens to supporting an unholy Israel which not only harms US foreign policy, but the US's upstanding moral center as well.
.
I think Walt and Mearsheimer stopped short of calling the Jews on Deicide, but I wouldn't put it past them given the content of the book.
Jacob, how do you get that impression reading the book?
Did you even read their book or the protocols of Zion? Do you think the new book 'The Arab Lobby' is racist? They say repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with act of lobbying, but that careers shouldn't be destroyed by criticising US foreign policy towards Israel and that it should be treated as a regular country. Perhaps it is in US interests to support Israel the way they do, but there's nothing bigoted about criticising them. And you even admit it they don't actually say anything overtly, that you just interpret however you want to so you can denounce their work without any factual basis.
I'll stand by my comments, Jacob
Sure, Walt and Mearsheimer were enthusiastic in their portrayal of the AIPAC/Isreali lobby/et.al. are manipulative and ideologically aggressive. Agreed, many of Walt's articles in FP are not complimentary or supportive of Zionist goals and methods.
... but only a adamantly pro-Israeli person would extrapolate that input into the realm of willfully misleading, unequivocally biased, and deserving of scorn. For the vast majority of middle grounders (like me) and obviously for anti-Zionists, Walt's comments are perfectly valid at large (they may or may not be convincing, but that's not the same as invalid), especially in the article above which is the pointed target of your recent critique.
I'm much more a fan of humanism and progress and common sense than of Israelis/Arabs/whatever side, so believe me when I say that I don't have a political agenda when reading these things. (I'm sure you won't, since most here cast doubt readily on others while skipping objective self-criticism, but that's fine.)
We'll just have to agree to disagree this time.
Cheers
Sorry about the grammatical errors
(time for lunch)
Actually Mitch, I've read both books
Both the "Protocols" and Walt & Mearsheimer's. That's why I make the comparison. In fact, it was due to Walt & Mearsheimer's book that I read the Protocols to see what the fuss was about.
David, painting Walt as an entrenched anti-Semite (if that's your intent) is a stretch. He is clearly not in the AIPAC camp or pro_zionist, but does that relegate him to anti-Semite status ?
DDSNAIK,
I pretty clearly said that Steve's book doesn't display any anti-religious bigotry. What I pointed out, correctly, is its contribution towards fomenting hatred and, as such, posited that Steve should be given the same considerations at Harvard as Marty. IMO a lot of the issue here is with Steve's rhetoric (a lot of times inflammatory and ill-considered), and with the the fact that he falls over himself decrying anti-Muslim bigotry but is relatively silent when it comes to anti-Jewish bigotry.
Since his book does contribute to the atmosphere of hatred, even if that is completely unintentional and unavoidable when dealing with this subject, I contend that this places a special onus on him to speak out forcefully against anti-Jewish bigotry. He certainly doesn't have to, but one can only wonder why, and it leads to a more compelling case that Harvard should treat him as he would have Harvard treat Marty. Steve cannot control how others use his material, but he does have a choice about what he says.
I see that nobody answered my questions, so I'll reiterate them, while also noting that Steve has made more posts gratuitously denouncing Jews in particular for anti-Muslim bigotry (settlers, or attacking Israel's FM, for instance, among others) than he has denouncing anti-Semitism in total. I say gratuitously because one can cherry pick instances of one group behaving in a bigoted manner towards another on a daily basis, and Steve chooses these. I'll also note that those saying he does address anti-Semitism, but just not enough to suit, er, "Zionists", are setting up and knocking down a strawman (and I'm also not sure what Zionism has to do with this conversation, except that this is a codeword that anti-Semites often use for "Jew", the tipoff being whether the usage makes sense or not). At issue is the disparity in quantity, volume and passion that Steve exhibits when addressing these two reprehensible forms of bigotry.
The questions:
How many posts has Steve made attacking those he considers anti-Muslim bigots, and how many has he made attacking those he considers anti-Jewish bigots? (answer: many more attacking those he considers anti-Muslim bigots)
Considering that these anti-Jewish bigots are using Steve's own book to spread their hatred, wouldn't you think he would have devoted more posts attacking anti-Semites, rather than Islamophobes?
What do you think explains this disparity?
David in DC: "Steve's book, while not overtly bigoted againt the Jewish religion, lumps the very large majority of Jewish people (and basically all Jewish organizations) in the US into a "Lobby""
Adda: Majority did you say? What page and paragraph would I find that allegation?
This is "Lobby" 101. You comment an awful lot about Steve's book and writings for someone who doesn't understand how he defines his "Lobby".
In what instances should Walt have spoken out?
These are a few controversies that come off the top of my head:
- Helen Thomas
- Karel De Gucht
- Octavia Nasr
- Mel Gibson
In the case of Helen Thomas, Walt did refute what she said, but said the reaction was exagerrated. I don't think he made a comment about the EU Trade Commissioner, de Gucht, (personally, I'm not sure his remarks were hateful). Octavia Nasr was blown out of proportion. I doubt he called out Mel Gibson, but wasn't that so obvious? Walt could enhance his image by calling out antisemetism where he sees it, but in what specific instances would you have liked to see that? Didn't he recently condemn the violence by Hamas and the Lebanese army? Someone below mentioned antisemetic Columbia professors, but I'm not familiar with that.
In the cases were he's criticised remarks against arabs/muslims (Martin Kramer, Peretz, Ground Zero Mosque) or defended supposed antisemetism (Chas Freeman), Walt did so to speak out against the commonly held narratives published, and his posts add to the discussion. In the case of Freeman, it fit in so well with the central theme of his book.
No matter how many times Obama says he's not muslim, there will be a large minority that refuses to believe him. The same is probably true for Walt, regardless of how many times he rejects hatespeech on any group.
Mitch,
Just as a case in point, let's look at Helen Thomas, whom you have mentioned. I only find Steve mention her one time on his blog (if I missed another mention, certainly a possibility with the search function here, please bring it to my attention), and it is in this post:
After a long and distinguished career, journalist Helen Thomas makes one regrettable and offensive statement and she loses her job, even though she offered a quick and genuine apology.
Obviously the only reason this was brought up was to say she got a raw deal when compared with Marty, not to denounce her bigotry. Clearly his calling her statement "regrettable and offensive" is strictly pro forma. As such, this is a great example reinforcing the point I made.
Also, while you bring up a number of high profile incidents, this isn't strictly comparing apples with apples. Steve also brings up low profile instances of anti-Muslim bigotry, the "cherry-picking" to which I refer, highlighting offensive statements from some idiot or another, usually from Jews directed towards Muslims, never showing anti-Jewish actions or rhetoric from individual Muslims or even Muslim governments. Go back and survey the blog and you will see.
Also note, I am not assigning any motive here, simply stating the facts. One can explain away his actions by making excuses for him, or demonize him by assigning malign motives. In both cases you are guessing what he is thinking. I am not. I only say that, since they are both contributing to a climate of hatred, seemingly with little concern for remediating the effects of their statements, both should be treated the same by Harvard.
David, I'm calling truce on my way out of this
You're right - I'm not specifically answering your posed questions, partly out of laziness and partly out of ambivalence towards the questions (no offense intended)
I will respectfully submit that self-anointing yourself as correct on the issue of Walt's words in spurring on anti-Semite sentiment or as support for whatever malfeasance is something with which I disagree. Meaning that you can't just stamp it as fact if that's your interpretation and discard my interpretation of it not being fuel for bigotry or hatred. That's all my main point was...
I simply don't see Peretz and Walt being 2 sides of the same coin or having the same impact when voicing their respective opinions, but that's just me. Also, somewhere in this string was a comment by someone claiming that anti-Zionists are really anti-Semite or something to that effect, which it's safe to say isn't unequivocally true also, but I'm skipping that for now, too...
... but apologies for my juvenile attention span being exhausted by now. Nice repartee, though.
Cheers
The use of islamophobia is not correct. It means "irrational fear of islam". I think the left wing idiots who think we should bow down and kiss the muslim butts are the islamophobes. I don't like them, (muslims or leftist liberal buttkissers) especially their stupid, archaic, barbaric pseudo religion, but I am not afraid of them. I'm NOT Jewish, Catholic, or Fundamentalist. I am Canadian and most of us feel the same way as many of you do in the USA.
I'm not piling on Peretz (yet) but will question the decision to channel funds into a Muslim students scholarship fund (per the link) at Harvard.
How does funneling unwarranted/undeserving/etc. monies towards benefits for the insulted/stigmatized/threatened demographic solve anything or count as proper rebuking ?
If anything, it's analogous to a bribe to Muslim groups for their acceding to the status quo, isn't it ? Peretz can still go about his (presumably) bigoted ways and still have his name in lights and so on at the relatively palatable cost of a Muslim student swallowing her/his pride and attending Harvard, and the university gets to avoid actually addressing policy or legacy.
I have nothing against scholarships for whatever minority groups, of course, but fail to understand that as an effective "solution" and would certainly think twice about the karmic or precedent-setting value of establishing it thusly.
Just a thought...
Question for David and Wigwag:
Why don't you respond to Walt's points (see below) rather than try to smear him as an anti-Semite?
"As should be obvious, this issue isn't a question of free speech or academic freedom. Rather, the issue is whether it is appropriate or desirable for a great university to honor someone who has repeatedly uttered or written despicable words about a community of people numbering in the hundreds of millions. And isn't it obvious that if Peretz had said something similar about African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, Asians, or gays, the outcry would have been loud, fierce, and relentless and some of his current defenders would have distanced themselves from him with alacrity."
One thing Martin Peretz and Steve Walt have in common is a view of Muslims filtered through the prism of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To the extent Peretz is down on Muslims, it's almost entirely due to the hostility shown by Arabs to Israel; Walt's indignation at Peretz's commentary on Muslims flows from his hostility to Israeli government policy and American support of it.
For neither of these gentlemen do non-Arab Muslims, as Muslims in their own right, really exist. So I don't have a lot to add to the discussion on this point, either in defense or in criticism of Peretz. I should point out, though, that to some Muslims -- particularly Arab Muslims -- Muslim life really is cheap. The support of Arab governments for Sudan's genocidal government over Darfur is Exhibit A. Pre-2003 Arab public admiration of Saddam Hussein, even after the Anfal, is Exhibit B. Vicious civil strife in Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, and of course Iraq -- the latter extending over years -- are Exhibits C, D, E and F.
This has approximately nothing to do with the matters at issue in the Manhattan mosque controversy, and to the extent someone like Martin Peretz or for that matter Stephen Walt think about it, they do so with reference to the Israelis and Palestinians. That's what matters to them. To the people who live in and around Arab countries, though, the dismissal as mere, un-Harvard-like bigotry the idea that some Muslims place little value on the lives of other Muslims must sound a little otherworldly. It's certainly not a dismissal they can afford to make in their own lives.
Very good, Zathras. Not a bad tactic taking Peretz's repulsive comments and equating them with Walt's reasoned analysis. I suppose when Peretz exposes himself as a righteous fascist of the first water, the usual apologists must do damage control as best they can. Very creditable effort on your part.
It's simple really: Go back through Walt's blog here at FP. You will find commentary and analysis on a wide variety of topics using restrained, juducious language throughout. (I'm afraid I cannot follow his example as I am too outraged by what Peretz and those of his ilk have done to the long-term interests of the US.) Now, go to Peretz's blog, The Spine, over at TNR.com, The New Republic's website. Go back through posts, entry by entry. One article after another is obsessive, paranoid detestation of Islam, Arabs, and anyone not subscribing to his Israel Uber Alles psychosis. There is absolutely no similarity between the tone and substance of Walt and the disgusting Peretz.
So please don't delude yourself or others by trying to conflate the analysis of the one with the unbridled ziofascism of the other.
Your three paragraphs here are making more sense than cumulative number of the many that Walt has printed over the decades.
Walt is always trying to prove his agenda-laden point. One can prove 'true' almost any point if one is good at it, and this can be written off as a) manipulation or b) agenda-led reality.
Which one is Walt?
Foreign Policy - please get rid of Walt. He cannot be trusted, and I'd like to be able to trust that the writers for FP; even if I do not agree with them, are not trying to manipulate the facts for their own personal agenda.
In my opinion, that's the game of Walt.
Wasn't Marty Peretz only an associate professor at Harvard?
Not to downplay associate-professorship or anything, but is that common for an associate professor to be honored with a research fund named after them by their former institution?
What exactly has he done to warrant this honor anyway, besides using his wife's family fortune to buy a magazine and post himself as it's editor-in-chief. I guess that would be a pretty typical example for Harvard kids to follow.
...the less that I trust anything that he says.
First of all, only those that have read all of the quotes should be able to comment here. I have read as many as I could find and except for some pronouns that are questionable, ("They are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all. It is routine in their cultures."). All of them, Mr. Peretz? Who is "They" and "Theirs"? All Muslims or; as he spoke about originally and then afterward, the Islamists? I read it as contextually the Islamists, not all Muslims, but just those that he spoke about specifically who commit these actions or do not speak out against such actions - not ALL Muslims. But, he could be more clear, for sure for those that are either a) not smart enough to read everything in the proper context, or b) those that want to demonize him while maliciously misrepresenting him out of the proper context.
As for the quote, "Muslim life is cheap", to those that either commit these acts or those that are more tribal or clannish - he's right. When a Islamist kills dozens in a suicide mission against their own group/clan/religion, perhaps some will speak out, but often if it's not against their group/clan/religion - there will be no speaking out if not for actual appreciation of the act.
For instance, a Sunni may decry the killing of another Sunni while supporting the killing of a Shia. We've all seen this a million times. This is not rare. A Muslim no matter which sect may decry the killing of Muslims in Gaza but will support inter-sectional killing...
So, he's not exactly wrong.
What this seems to be is a 'big idea', full of nuance and in need of intelligent consideration.
As usual, Walt does not do any of this - but he sure is good at picking out his partisan point and trying to prove it.
Walt should go away.
Oh - Walt? No one gives a s*hit who went to Harvard and who didn't. You may, and your clan may, but no one else does.
I really do find
there was probably a really good thought there, now lost to posterity forever. The world is all the poorer now. The horror, the horror...
The More That I Read and Think About This...
Is it possible that, while indelicate, Mr. Peretz’s comments maybe not be an assignation against all Muslims, but – as he states at the beginning of his writing and throughout, moreso about the Islamists or Muslims that are clan/sect/nationality-centric?
Sure, to suggest that ALL “Muslim life is cheap” is a ridiculous statement from beginning to end. But, after possibly a million Muslim deaths in Iraq after our first invasion, the millions in Africa – and not really much in the way of public outcry to the level of one attack by Israel in Gaza…could it be that to some Muslims, especially through rival clans/sects, life is; sadly, in fact cheap?
What as Mr. Peretz’s mistake? To paint ALL Muslims with the same brush, or to not go into the nuance of his statement and allow those that have difficulty reading between the lines to have a reason to attack him instead of using this as a tool to learn more about his base intentions for that statement?
I honestly do not know the answer, but in reading what he wrote, I do not automatically see this as racism. I see a larger idea mistakenly distilled down to a simply one-liner.
Re: The More I Read and Think About This...
Sawadee,
Adda is absolutely correct. You are obviously trying to wrap Peretz's knuckles as gently as possible while you simultaneously work assiduously to explain away his atrocious remarks. I believe it was the Nazi Major Strasser in "Casablanca" who said malevolently, "Perhaps you have observed that in Casablanca, human life is cheap, very cheap." Well, that's an appropriate provenance for your sentiments.
Let's step back for a minute. Over the last century, two world wars and one cold war with attendant secondary hot wars have originated in the West. The ideological bases of these unprecedentedly destructive wars were all western: Nationalism, imperialism, fascism, Leninist-Marxism, Zionism. The protagonists were principally western. Cumulatively, over 100 million deaths and untold suffering stemmed from this horror. Even the main non-Western progenitors of mass death during this period, the Japanese nationalists and the Chinese Marxists learned their killing ideologies at the knee of the West.
And what was the role of the Islamic world in all this death and destruction? Virtually, none at all exept to provide soldiery to its British, French, and Russian imperial masters, and ultimately, to oppose the various imperial projects imposed on it by the West. The Islamic world has many problems, some of them of their own making, but to make the accusation--or insinuation as is your preference--that Muslims have a lesser regard for human life, in the context of the mass murder spree the West has embarked on over the last century, would be comical if it were not so grotesque. Peretz is pathological in his fevered attempts to demonize Muslims because they refuse to accept armed robbery at the hands of the West. There is blood among Muslims as there is anywhere humans reside, but in modern history, the blood on Muslim hands is relatively slight. You, as a co-conspirator of Peretz, bear the same mark of propagandistic dishonesty and moral hypocrisy as he.
1) Who bloody cares.
What happens to academics really only matters to other academics, and maybe perhaps those pundits. They seem to think they matter in the real world. Has no one told them yet?
But I guess we should be kind and let academics live with their sense of imaginary relevance. Everyone needs a little fantasy to make life interesting. I personally pretend I'm descended from Vikings. Normally its not a big deal, unless I get drunk and start going off on the whole Ice Trolls/Ragnarök Is Coming thing.
2) Harvard is and has been way, way overrated for way, way too long, and there is some presumption here that what happens with Harvard people versus some other academic douchehats should make us gasp in horror.
Although, in reflection, I suppose that completely invalidates point #1? If I didn't care about what academics think, why would I care about Harvard in relation to any other institution? In traditional academic m.o., I will posit that I'm exposing the complexity inherent in the discourse. I shall now drop the names of Derrida and Lacan and Saussure, and then eventually blame everything on Jews and Capitalism.
3) Is anyone surprised that immediate responses to this piece turned into, "Yeah, well Walt is FREAKIN ANTI ISRAEL!" Good comeback guys! I think that is technically known as the "Pee Wee Herman"-retort.
Godwins Law is more complex than we initially realized. It may be true that all discussions *ultimately* devolve to comparisons with Nazis; however, the chance that any discussion will IMMEDIATELY be sidetracked into a irrelevant debate about anti-semitism/the Israeli-Palistinian Conflict is seemingly far more likely; in fact, rather than being an issue of devolution to a certainty, it's a probabilistic factor that exists in nature regardless of the whether there's even a discussion going on. I'm lead to understand that many major sporting events are often canceled because competing teams get sidetracked on the issue of settlement building and/or the Palestinian right to return. There does apparently exist a small, rare class of people who are immune to this phenomenon, for whom any mention of the topic elicits a shrug and a, "Who cares? They're all assholes. If they weren't, they'd have solved their problems by now. Do you have any beer?" These people are currently the subject of a major research fellowship at Harvard.
4) In reference to point #1… is there a reason we’re supposed to care again? Sorry, please explain slowly for me (without reference to Israel), as I did not attend Harvard. Is it just so, like OMG!! Harvard guy said something mean about teh mooslims!? Does this have some implication for our policy vis a vis Saudi Arabia now?
Walt is butthurt, textbook moral supremacy, more lies
Walt misrepresents Peretz statements:
But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.
Walt of course didn't actually quote Peretz' words and simply wrote:
""Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims," and then went on to say that he didn't think American Muslims deserved the protections of the First Amendment, because he suspected they would only abuse them."
Ahh, classic Waltism.
And then to pull the race card no less. To me, this is about as pathetic as accusing critics of Israel as antisemitic.
Walt, your books are loaded with antisemitic over-tones, some have even drawn parallels to the protocols and elders of Zion. Benny Morris claims you falsely represented his research in your "Israel lobby and US foreign policy" and failed to properly attribute his statements.
And yet, no one has ever called for a boycott or a banning of your presence at Harvard.
Whatever Marty has done, it is a fraction as unethical as the academic crimes you have committed Walt.
If Marty is racist, so what? How many racists run around freely among the universities? Arab professors at Columbia complaining of a Jewish/Zionist conspiracy, attacking students who served in the Israeli Army as "baby killers."
When did you call for their boot Walt?
Oh yeah, I forgot - selective morality.
This is just more moral outrage (TRADEMARKED) on the end of the Left. They whine and moan about being victim to Zionist lobby, but when someone challenges them they pull the race card and begin the demonization machine.
Walt, you are not a realist. you are a pundit. I suggest you actually debate Marty, though we all know can't.
The "butthurt" use really made your criticism the more solid
...
really, wasn't this to do about saying some people 'don't deserve the 1st amendment'? Did Walt say that about 'teh joos'? I missed that.
It's stupid to condemn Walt based on comments on his blog
usually, it tends to be extremists who bother to take the time to create an account and make remarks anyway. Was JD Salinger a violent beatle-baiter because one of his readers was influenced by 'Catcher in the Rye' to murder John Lennon? That's how little sense you make.
What does he actually say (not what you infer with secondary logic) or do that is so vile and bigoted to you? It's not enough to just simply label everyone you disagree with as a bigot or jew-baiter.
perhaps the comment section could be moderated better
but by the same logic, articles in the Jerusalem Post and WSJ op-eds about Israel are race-baiting too. The bottom line is that I haven't seen anything written by Walt that is antisemetic/bigoted and no one has clearly pointed that out. People are always going to selectively pick the parts of the discussion they want to hear to feed their pre-ordained notions, just as they do with religion. The whole david duke connection is nonsense. Any hateful comments should be reported and deleted. They just distract from the discussion of the main topic. I think better moderation would eliminate any of the 'jewbait' you refer to.
Stephen Walt has built a career on proving Israel has somehow victimized US foreign policy and corrupts our leadership.
the biggest lie of course is Walt's constant complaint that he is being silenced and not allowed to criticize Israel by power pro-Israel pressure groups. He has made millions bashing Israel. Saudi Arabia donated over 20 million to his department alone!
Famous Waltism:
Isn't it obvious that US policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular country in the region?
According to Walt, anyone who associates with organizations that have not been totally bought out by Arab oil (unlike Harvard university) are ineligible to be considered real Americans. They are dual citizens and cannot be trusted, even distinguished scholars like Martin Kramer and Dennis Ross.
Famous historian and expert on Palestinian refugees had this to say about Stephen Walt:
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is a nasty piece of work. [W]hat these distinguished professors have produced is otherwise depressing to anyone who values intellectual integrity. [They] build their case mainly by means of omission: they tell certain facts while omitting others, sometimes more apt and crucial. And occasionally they distort facts and figures… Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity. Were "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body.
Walt pretends to be a realist but really he is a propagandist. You can count every article on this forum will always be about why Israel is teh sucks. He has demonstrated extraordinary ignorance on Middle Eastern affairs, and invokes the "realist" sloganism to silence criticism.
Walt has reduced the Middle East into Israel versus America. Realism no longer exists. Everything is a Zionist conspiracy and Arab states are passive victims to the West.
Shameful pandering to the leftist masses. Probably generating loads of advertising for FP.
Ah, Vilkssweden21, I always enjoy your addled sophistry. Like many who try and slink away from the truth, your first instinct is to try and change the subject. Since you have absolutely no ability to defend Peretz and his anti-Canaanite ideology, the story for you becomes how unfair it is that the public is waking up to the supremecist positions he so reprehensibly espouses. Yes, it’s all terribly unjust that any who disagree with you should have any forum to express their views. Of course, the solution is to suppress any such discussion by demanding the relevant authorities impose censorship. The truth, Vilks, doesn’t need censorship as a defense. It's a good thing that those who think like you weren't around during the formation of this country; God knows what our Constitution and Bill of Rights would have looked like.
Smashing the idols of ones opponents, in the Israel Firster view is, naturally, permissible, but God forbid they should have the opportunity to take on the hideous gods Peretz worships. He muses about whether Muslims are worthy of 1st Amendment protections but you’re not really concerned with that, or at least, you’re only concerned to the extent that it has riled up the “anti-semites”. Because, after all, isn’t it axiomatic that all other hatreds pale into insignificance when the plaintive cry of “anti-semitism” goes up?
I have to wonder if you can possibly be serious when you speculate that FP, the Nation and the Atlantic host Walt’s analysis to get page views and some incremental advertising revenue. The fact is that there are still some—I say SOME--journalists, editors, and publishers who adhere to the notion that a journal of commentary is a marketplace of ideas, not subject to the whims of some gauleiter. Peretz doesn’t blog by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, so stop carping about this blog which is incomparably more civilized, and let one hundred schools of thought contend.
What you should ask yourself, Vilks, is why there is a rising tide of anger at Israel and those who, with a repellent sense of entitlement, demand submission to its imperious demands. Those who insist on putting the welfare of Israel above that of the US are putting themselves in an untenable position, and that fundamental issue isn’t going away no matter how much you complain.
Blah blah blah Israel firsters
Israel is an historic US ally and has contributed more to our defenses than all NATO allies combined.
Muslim foreign policy has killed many thousands of Americans and many millions of Muslims/Arabs.
And yet, the Left is most outraged at people like Peretz who speak the truth. Peretz is calling a spade a spade. This bully Muslim pressure groups have been pulling the race card to continue their hate speech and boycotts. They peddle B.S antisemitic conspiracy theories and attack Israel supporters.
But oh no, give them a taste of their own medicine and now the tolerant Leftists become intolerant of dissent.
A bunch of whiney little bitches.
"Israel is an historic US ally and has contributed more to our defenses than all NATO allies combined. "
Can you quantify this contribution?
When you say "our", do you really believe that Israeli policies are formulated to better the interests of Americans?
I think you’ve captured the essence of Peretz—and of your general views on the subject--quite well when you write, “If Marty is racist, so what?"
I mean, that just about says it all, doesn’t it?
But I fear you’re a bit off base with this remark: “Walt pretends to be a realist but really he is a propagandist. You can count every article on this forum will always be about why Israel is teh [sic] sucks.”
Let’s look at the last 10 articles on this blog:
1. 22 Sep “The Virtues of Competence” (General Item)
2. 21 Sep “More on the Peretz Affair”
3. 21 Sep “The New Saudi Arms Deal”
4. 20 Sep “Are You an Optimist or Pessimist?” (General item)
5. 17 Sep “Did Tony Blair Endorse Preventive War on Iran?”
6. 15 Sep “How Long Can Beijing and Washington Handle Their Relationship?”
7. 14 Sep “Defending the Afghan Study Group Report”
8. 13 Sep “Will Harvard Do the Right Thing?” (Peretz I)
9. 13 Sep “Trapped” (Overview of Obama FP)
10. 12 Sep “Stop War, Start Tennis” (Indo-Pak)
Only the Peretz items had much Israel/Arab content. So, before you go off half-cocked, how about looking at what Walt actually writes.
Sorry, it was BENNY MORRIS - a NEW HISTORIAN and hated by the hard-core Zionists Walt constantly bitches about.
Helen Thomas' and Octavia Nasr
Helen Thomas lost her job because she was an old senile post-activist that happened to be a White House press reporter.
If she was a journalist anywhere else she would have gotten away with her totally ignorance on Israel and Holocaust facts.
You really think Obama would allow someone like Thomas to send him questions after being nailed with accusations of antisemitism?
Octavia Nasr made apologetic comments towards Hezbollah, a terrorist organization responsible for the murder of thousands of Israelis, Americans, and Lebanese Christians.
Journalists aren't supposed to be apologists. No wonder coverage of Lebanon from CNN was so terrible.
I can quantify these contributions
Since 1967, Israel has given to the Pentagon Soviet military equipment captured in conflicts with Soviet-supported Arab countries, providing important data. Israel gave the US a full squadron of MiG-21s which was called the “Top Gun” squadron and used by the U.S. Air Force and Navy for training purposes.
In 1970, Israel forced the withdrawal of the Syrian army from US-ally Jordan while the U.S. was involved militarily in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, helping to prevent the collapse of a pro-American government and the installation of a pro-Soviet regime.
In the 1973 War, Israel defeated Soviet-trained and equipped Egyptian and Syrian armies. Israel shared captured Soviet equipment with the US. Israel emerged the one reliable ally where U.S. troops could land, where U.S. equipment can be pre-positioned and where the U.S. has friendly port facilities, saving the US billions of dollars.
In 1982, Israel destroyed Soviet anti-aircraft systems in Lebanon that were considered impenetrable by American weapons. Israel shared with the US insights from the conflict, estimated to be worth billions of dollars.
Senator Daniel Inouye has stated that Israeli data on the Soviet military has saved the U.S. billions of dollars and that the contribution made by Israeli intelligence to America exceeds information provided by all NATO countries combined.
In 1981, Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, stalling Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capabilities and allowing the U.S. to engage in conventional warfare with Iraq.
Israel has provided critical analysis of the F16 to General Dynamics that resulted in 600 improvements, including structural enhancements, software changes, increased capability landing gear, radio improvements and avionic modifications.
In the Gulf War, Israel provided the US with key intelligence, air cover for military cargo and had IDF stationed in the Iraqi desert to rescue American pilots.
The IDF was the sole military force in the region that could successfully challenge the Iraqi army. That fact, which Saddam Hussein understood, was a deterrent to further Iraqi aggression.
The US military benefited from the use of Israeli-made Have Nap air-launched missiles on its B-52 bombers. The Navy used Israeli Pioneer pilotless drones for reconnaissance in the Gulf.
Israel provided mine plows that were used to clear paths for Allied forces through Iraqi minefields.
Mobile bridges flown directly from Israel to Saudi Arabia were used by the U.S. Marine Corps
Israel Aircraft Industries developed conformal fuel tanks that enhanced the range of F15 aircraft used in the Gulf War.
An Israeli-produced targeting system was used to increase the Cobra helicopter's night-fighting capabilities.
Israel manufactured the canister for the highly successful Tomahawk missile.
Night-vision goggles used by U.S. forces were supplied by Israel.
A low-altitude warning system produced and developed in Israel was utilized on Blackhawk helicopters.
Other Israeli equipment provided to U.S. forces included flack vests, gas masks and sandbags.
Israel offered the United States the use of military and hospital facilities. U.S. ships utilized Haifa port shipyard maintenance and support on their way to the Gulf.
General George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, has stated that “Israel is worth five CIA’s.” He said that between 1974 and
1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants, but, that in the same timeframe Israel provided the U.S. with $50-$80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings and Soviet weapons systems given to the U.S.
Israel shares with the US important experience in homeland defense and warfare against suicide bombers and car bombs.
In preparation for the Iraq War, American soldiers trained in IDF facilities and Israeli drones flew above the Sunni Triangle and in Afghanistan providing U.S. Marines with critical intelligence.
In Iraq, Israeli advisers have trained US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders.
The IDF sent urban warfare specialists to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US special forces, and Israeli military consultants have also visited Iraq.
The US Army also travelled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas. The IDF regularly shared its experience in the West Bank and Gaza with the US armed forces. The Pentagon regularly asked the IDF to debrief on operations similar to those engaged in by US military forces.
An American liaison team had been responsible for coordinating efforts and intelligence between the Pentagon, the IDF, and American forces. Major General Charles Simpson, the chief liaison officer for the U.S. Army, met repeatedly with IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon on this joint project.
Joint air force exercises, such as the Juniper Cobra, had taken place between Israeli and the American Patriot artillery in the Negev and radar units from the U.S. Sixth Fleet. Noble Dina, an anti-submarine warfare exercise, were executed with the combined efforts of the Israel Navy and the Sixth Fleet.
American soldiers were in Israel prior to the Iraq war to work with anti-missile defenses, both the U.S.-made Patriot and the Arrow, developed by both Israel and the U.S.
The U.S. sailed an aircraft carrier, the Harry Truman, into the Mediterranean Sea. The aircraft allowed U.S. planes to reach Iraqi targets by flying over Israeli and Jordanian territory. Israel has permitted the use of its air zones.
Israel has been sharing with the US its experience in combating Palestinian terrorism, which has been helpful in the US's war in Afghanistan. The US military benefits from Israel’s tactics against suicide bombers, car bombs and improvised explosive devices.
Most of the US military aid to Israel must be spent in the United States, which benefits US military contractors.
In contrast to US commitments to Korea, Japan, Germany and numerous other countries in which the US has over 100 military bases, the US has no military bases in Israel.
Former Secretary of State and NATO forces Commander Alexander Haig has said that he is pro-Israeli because Israel is "the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security"
In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, Israel provided assistance to the relief efforts. An Israeli airlift arrived in Little Rock, Arkansas with an eighty-ton shipment of humanitarian aid, including baby food, diapers, water, ready-to-eat meals, clothes, tents, blankets, mattresses, stretchers, first aid kits, wheelchairs and other medical supplies.
In addition to government aid, Israeli non-profit organizations assisted in the relief efforts. Magen David Adom (Israel's national emergency medical, disaster, ambulance and blood bank service) began the "United Brotherhood Operation," which sent a plane-load of supplies and financial assistance. IsraAid, the coordinating body of Israeli non-profits organizations involved in relief work, sent a delegation of medical personnel, psychologists and experienced search-and-rescue divers.
Five universities in Israel welcomed displaced American students from the affected areas and invited both undergraduate and graduate students to continue their studies in Israel.
When terrorists bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, Israel immediately dispatched search and rescue teams to assist in saving the victims trapped under the rubble. The IDF's Home Front Command Rescue Unit was the first delegation to arrive from abroad, and was accompanied by military and civilian doctors, rescue dogs and high-tech rescue equipment. The Israeli team led the rescue operation in Nairobi, Kenya and was able to pull three survivors from the building, perform life-saving operations and provide medical care to the victims of the bombing.
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.
(63)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE