-
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
Friday, August 26, 2011 - 11:40 AM
Share
One of the distinctive features of American democracy is the permeability of our political institutions. It's an incredibly wide-open system, given First Amendment freedoms, the flood of money that corrupts the electoral process, and a wide array of media organizations and political journals that can be used to disseminate and amplify various views, even when they have no basis in fact.
This situation allows small groups of people to have a profound impact on public attitudes and policy discourse, provided that they are well-organized, well-funded, and stay on message. And if you don't believe me, then take a look at the Center for American Progress's new report Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America. It's a remarkable piece of investigative work, showing how small set of right-wing foundations and individuals have bankrolled the most vocal Islamophobes in contemporary U.S. politics, such as Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Daniel Horowitz, and Robert Spencer.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
Following a six-month long investigative research project, the Center for American Progress released a 130-page report today which reveals that more than $42 million from seven foundations over the past decade have helped fan the flames of anti-Muslim hate in America…
Over the past few years, the Islamophobia network (the funders, scholars, grassroots activists, media amplifiers, and political validators) have worked hard to push narratives that Obama might be a Muslim, that mosques are incubators of radicalization, and that "radical Islam" has infiltrated all aspects of American society -- including the conservative movement.
The irony in all this that the extremists examined in this report have gone to great lengths to convince Americans that there is a vast Islamic conspiracy to subvert American democracy, impose sharia law, and destroy the American way of life. Instead, what we are really facing is a well-funded right-wing collaboration to scare the American people with a bogeyman of their own creation, largely to justify more ill-advised policies in the Middle East.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
How much funding goes to anti-anti-islamists like, say, the Center for American Progress?
I don't know if you've spent much time on the internet, but it's full of people with an extremely low opinion of islam who aren't getting paid a dime to share that opinion.
You both speak my mind on this issue.
Walt if you know of anyone who wants to pay me to do counter-jihad work please do send them my way. Sounds like there's a ton of money floating around out there but oddly enough everyone I know (and that's more than a few) with the exception of Rob Spencer is doing the good work pro bono. And I think even Mr. Spencer generates much of his own money through his entertaining and informative best-selling books. It's quite odd that these books would be so commercially successful given "Islamophobia" is a tiny little coven of right-wing extremists with some serious cash - must be those pesky Jews coughing up the dough.
Any any rate, I'll work for one-twenty flat, bonus is negotiable, references available upon request and I won't settle for less than 3 weeks paid holiday.
I have read many comments complaining that antisemitism is a rising problem in the US. I suspect that is true.
Most of those comments also claim that it is a more prevalent and growing faster than Islamophobia. I disagree with that, in that I think the hate spun up against Muslims and Mexicans is both more virulent and spreading faster, but I suppose it looks a bit different when aimed at the writer.
I think the demonization of "other" is to blame for all of it. It is dangerous for every identifiable minority.
In Europe, there is an immigration element in this Islamophobia, but in the US I think the Islamophobia comes almost entirely from the organized efforts of the Israeli Lobby and neocons (not the same) to link the War on Terror with the problems Israel has with its Arab minority and neighbors.
That was a false linkage, and done cynically, and is rebounding badly.
How much does Walt get paid by the Gulf Arabs
to spread antisemitism and anti-Israeli views? Last I heard Harvard (Walt's employer) and Georgetown recieved over $20 million from the Saudis.
No doubt those anti-semitic bigots make a good sum selling their sophistic tripe to foolish tools like yourselves. Fear of Sharia in America? Good grief, you need a shrink.
Only some are more equal than others. You fellow travelers have repeatedly demonstrated that you deny the very humanity of many. Many, are the victims of US and Israeli policy. You don't know the Gospel, and your interpretation of the Old Testament is a blasphemy. Either you worship the book of Joshua, or the Golden Rule, as espoused by Rabbi Hillel or his contemporary Jesus of Nazareth.
Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is to treat your neighbor as yourself, regardless of nationality, faith or tribe. Your rejection of that lesson, is a rejection of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule, according to Jesus, is the principle upon which all the Law and the Prophets hang--the Law and the Prophets, is the Old Testament.
Such illiterate people as yourself are easy to dupe, and fool. And, as you point out these sophist hate mongers are making a pretty penny off your ignorance and misplaced fear.
How about the US first stop meddling in the affairs of Muslims. Frankly, the grievances at the bottom of the Declaration of Independence makes the Colonists look like belly-achers compared to the legitimate grievances that Muslims have about the US subverting their leaders and the consent of the governed. I guess your an Israeli Marine, cause you seem ignorant of the ideals upon which this country was founded. Let me cite Jesus to you again, as you seem equally ignorant of his teachings as you are of the US founding fathers. Jesus said, to look at the log in your own eye before you complain about the splinter in your neighbor's. If you ARE a Marine, you failed your oath. All US servicemen pledge to uphold the US Constitution and for you to fight an Unconstitutional war is a violation of your oath. For you to attack those not fighting you, even if your commander in chief lied to you is an illegitimate order. I'm sorry you're too ignorant of the tenets of your faith, or your supposed country. I know it's really hard to fix stupid, but with diligent study, and an open mind, there is hope. Though it seems like you've got a longer journey than most. Perhaps you've suffered head injuries, in which case, your caretakers should be better monitoring your rants on here.
“How much funding goes to anti-anti-islamists like, say, the Center for American Progress?”
This is non sequitur if I’ve ever seen one. They’re not “anti-anti-islamists,” rather, they have the belief (which some find unfathomable) that bigotry against Muslims is wrong. Or are you saying that the only way to oppose Islamism is mull over the idea of nuking majority Muslim countries, which is what’s going on at hate sites like “Atlas Shrugs” and “Jihad Watch.”
Perhaps if you could provide proof that the Center for American Progress explicitly propounds Islamism, then you would be taken a little more seriously. Say a quote, maybe? Or are we going to have more baseless name-calling and acting like hurt toddlers (who Islamophobes mimic whenever they’re subject to criticism)?
“I don't know if you've spent much time on the internet, but it's full of people with an extremely low opinion of islam who aren't getting paid a dime to share that opinion.”
And what’s palpable is that the likes of Geller, Horowitz, and Spencer directly influence those people. I don’t think anyone can honestly deny that they spread anti-Muslim bigotry.
Incidentally, much of what Spencer says is downright false. This is why real academics of Islamic studies reject his work out of hand:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/testimony-of-rape-victim/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/more-proof-that-robert-spencer-is-an-intellectual-huckster/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/robert-spencer-insists-muslims-worship-a-different-pagan-god-a-case-study-in-spencers-paper-thin-arguments/
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/do-muslims-want-to-reimpose-dhimmitude-or-live-as-equals/
(LoonWatch was cited in the report.)
Scott do you act like a moron for free
or do you get paid for your antisemitic idiotic comments?
By the way, Walt never mentions the millions his department receives from Gulf Arabs. These Arabs pay for Walt to be a shill for their antisemitic, anti-Israel screeds.
Keep chomping
When did Harvard receive money from the Saudis ARAVA?
Last I heard, Norman Finkelstein and Juan Cole were both denied tenure becasue of pressure from pro Israeli donors.
Were Jews burning flags in 1939 MARINESNIPER?
>> The reason they aren't "turning on the Jews," is because the Jews don't burn American flags, riot over idiotic things like cartoons, behead people on film, or fly planes into buildings.
It's true that Jews weer doing none of those things, yet a European styate turned on the Jewish population.
So MARINESNIPER, are you sugegsting anti Semtism is rational too?
It's no their lives we are there to hadle MARINESNIPER
And they wouldn't be funding suicide bombers and terrorists throughout the 1990s if we hadn't been bombing tehm or starving half a million children in Iraq.
>> We just have to go in there to clean up the shit.
No, the military goes there to stir shit up.
"US invading muslim lands? We wouldn't be there if the muslims could handle their own lives, if they weren't funding suiceide bombers and terrorists throughout the 1990s, if they weren't invading their neighbors, and if they stopped breeding extremists. We just have to go in there to clean up the shit."
The US was perverting the gov'ts of Muslim countries long before the 90's. Actually, much of our influence can be traced back to the Treaty of Paris, which concluded WW1. Now, don't be thrown off that much of this was a British/French initiative, we picked up the mantle after WW2. All that far predates any "terrorism" of the 90's. So, clown, what else have you got?
Effendi, you did not get my point. I used the phrase "anti-anti-islamist" after the older term "anti-anti-communist". That term is sometimes mockingly used by self-described anti-communists, but some anti-antis like George Kennan were themselves anticommunist. They were just very critical of others who they thought had a distorted view of communism which hampered the U.S effort. I am myself an isolationist sympathetic to many "realist" arguments (I would actually be more extreme than them). I don't think there's a threat of Shariah law in the U.S: there aren't enough Muslims here, our muslims aren't as dysfunctional as Europe's (different selective filters for immigration) and futhermore the big scary muslims the media likes to freak out over just aren't that competent. So I think a lot of self-described anti-anti-islamists are wrong. I also think that while Walt may know some stuff about foreign policy, he buys into terrible arguments if they take down his political opponents. Think Progress' "Hey, look at the money! Now they're discredited!" strategy is ridiculous. Most obviously, they are funded by George Soros and Wal-Mart. I don't have a beef with either, but I'm not making their sort of funding argument. And in the "culture wars" their opponents tend to be populists with relatively less money behind them. Having less money and funding doesn't make you right, populists are often stupid even if they represent the real authentic untainted voice of (very large portions of) We the Sheeple.
Exactly which polls are you referring to? Also, you might want to go behind the flag burnings, what it is response to. Generalizing that this is how all Muslims respond to American policies they disapprove of is dangerous. There is a bigger Muslim population that don't make it to the news and who don't resort to flag burnings to respond to American policies or "idiotic things like cartoons." Islamophobia is dangerous because it could lead to backlash. How is that rational?
The study also cited the politicians, think tanks, organizations and blogs that they believe have been influential in the spread of unfounded fears of Shariah taking over legal institutions in the US in depth, citing examples from speeches where famous US politicians render the Islamic faith a threat, and pointing to Islamic terrorism as the source of all evil in the country while turning a blind eye to the violence caused by non-Muslim assailants. In fact, according to the study, the “majority of terrorist plots in America since Sept. 11 have been committed by non-Muslims, particularly right-wing extremists and white supremacists.” Politicians like Rep Seomelbourne who promote fear-mongering in the country against Islam base their ideas on and mimic the language of so-called experts, who manufacture facts as they have been funded by particular organizations with “more than $42 million over ten years,” according to the report. One of the ways politicians integrate the “manufactured facts” into the mainstream was believed to be through legislative actions and electoral debates, many of which make the news in the US and reach millions of silver rings for women viewers all over the world. Acknowledging that the promoters of anti-Shariah legislations to be passed all over the country to defy the risks of Islam taking over US legal institutions “have failed to demonstrate a single case of Shariah infiltrating a US court,” the study claimed that the motive of the anti-Islamic crusade was to “create a distracting, fear-based political atmosphere hampton bay fans in which conservatives are brave patriots and strong on defense, while liberals are weak and politically correct.” Furthermore, the findings of the study also revealed that the discourse stemming from the anti-Islam experts, campaigners and politicians in the US spread throughout the world, as clearly indicated by the references in the manifesto of the Norwegian anti-Islamic terrorist, who cited the US sources mentioned by the study over 100 times in his 1,500-page work of anti-Islamic propaganda.
Gulf Arabs gave a total of $88 million to 14 US universities between 1995 and the present. The biggest recipients (in order) are the University of Arkansas (where I am a professor), Georgetown University, George Washington University and Harvard University."
How much of that went toward tuition? How many of those universities have campuses in the Arab world now? Who the hell would hire such an intellectual fraud as you? Go suey!
over 16 years to 14 universities? That's a few hundred thousand dollars per university per year, which anyone who works in higher ed would know is a mere trifling. In other words, for private schools like Georgetown, GWU and Harvard, that's the equivalent to a few students' tuition payments. Harvard also has an endowment of almost $30 billion. Such schools are not afraid of losing "Arab money".
They are very much afraid, however, of losing the support of wealthy alumni, many of whom are pro-Israel. If you want an example of how that works, read about the Yale administration's withdrawal of an offer of a tenured position to Juan Cole after the alumni donor network went crazy.
Idiots who dont understand how it works
these are donations and grants directly to specific chairs or departments. They influence directly the department or chair. It's not the same as tution money or endowments that go to everyone slowly and based on need.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world
For someone who claims to be a "professor" you have quite the academic vocabulary. Despite your suggestion that I'm an "idiot" who doesn't know how the donation game works at universities, I understand the situation quite well.
A few endowed professorships here or there have minimal impact on the discourse at universities and, more importantly, on the behavior of universities - especially elite and wealthy universities like Harvard, where Walt works. If "Saudi" or "Arab" money had any real influence, at least some of the numerous divestment campaigns would have already been successful.
More to your original point re "Arab money" and Walt, in fact Walt's professorship is endowed by Robert Belfer. Far from being pro-Arab, Mr. Belfer is a supporter of Israel. Walt was awarded the Belfer professorship before he began writing about the Israel lobby. Belfer has since expressed discomfort at having his name associated with Walt's work, but to his credit does not appear to have pressed Harvard too hard on the matter.
divestment campaigns have nothing to do with endowments or grants. Usually they are pushed through various student or ta unions, and professors have very little to do with it, if anything at all.
Second, small donations can influence a professor or chair. That is precisely the point. It's targeted and makes a difference.
The Republic Of Anti-Israel (David Warren, Ottawa Citizen)
The Ottawa Citizen
August 31, 2011
The Republic Of Anti-Israel
By David Warren
We are waiting patiently, as the fuse burns down on another Middle Eastern powder keg. On Sept. 20, as the next United Nations session opens, Mahmoud Abbas will present a declaration of statehood to the General Assembly, on behalf of the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. Though unilateral, it will be welcomed by a voting majority which includes all the dictatorships of the Muslim world and Africa.
Full membership in the UN requires the sanction of the Security Council, where there is an American veto. That will almost certainly be exercised, even by the Obama administration. But for all practical purposes, the Palestinian Authority has been a member for a long time, and been behaving as a state. It has the ultimate hallmark of a state, for it conducts its own foreign policy, freely.
We live, I have argued, in a "postmodern" time, under post-modern conditions, including those created by post-modern wars and diplomacy. The difference between "de facto" and "de jure" has been lost. This may have seemed "academic" even to many in the past; and it could be said that the whole history of the nation state is de facto becoming de jure. But the attempt to preserve certain legal niceties was responsible for a great deal of peace and order. Even tyrants hesitated to cross taboo lines, in the days when those lines were enforced.
The Palestinians, so far as they are a people, have now a long history of being able to do things without consequences. (They are not ethnically distinct from neighbouring Arabs, but defined by family ties to a given location.) Under the direction of a succession of "reformed" or unreformed terrorist leaders, from the Mufti of Jerusalem to Yasser Arafat to Hamas, they have "evolved" a polity which may itself be defined as "the Anti-Israel."
Israel is consistently held to account, both internally and externally, as an old-fashioned, formal nation state. When the Israelis respond to rocket attacks from Gaza, they are compelled to justify their action. But the people who sent the rockets are not. And supposing them to have been launched "freelance" by independent terror cells, the authority which governs Gaza is not held gravely responsible for having failed to stop them.
Imagine what the consequences would be, if Israeli citizens, acting independently, began lobbing missiles into the Palestinian territories, gratuitously at targets both civilian and military - whatever happened to be in range. And then, the Israeli authorities made no gesture to stop them. The diplomats of the world would spit up their sherry. Our peace-loving politicians would go berserk.
Yet they have nothing to say after each of many thousand Qassams comes down within Israeli borders of the strictest 1947 definition.
Take this mental exercise one step farther. What if a party in the Israeli Knesset - a party in a position to sweep any free election - announced in its very constitution that Israel's borders extend from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, and include all deep-historical areas of Jewish settlement, including the entire West Bank. That, moreover, while Jews and perhaps a few quiet Christians are allowed to stay, all Muslims must get out. On pain of death.
Yet the reverse of this is the "final position" of Palestinian statecraft.
Hamas declares it openly, and swept the only election in which it was allowed to freely run. The operatives of the PLO used to declare it, but made an ambiguous recognition of Israel's "right to exist" - tactically, in exchange for substantial territories, and Israeli complaisance in their own "right" to enter and govern them.
If an identifiable Jew from Israel wanders, unguarded, into any part of the Palestinian territories, he is a dead man. This is a fact of life, and everyone knows it. Leftist and Islamist rhetoric about Israeli "apartheid" masks a very big truth: that more than a million Muslim Arabs live, work, and move freely around Israel, with full citizenship and protection under Israel's laws (enforced by very liberal courts). Whereas, the number of Jews enjoying this status under the Palestinian Authority is zero.
The western position has been, settle a boundary, let Israel live in peace within it, let Palestinians live in peace on the other side. Let all past claims be resolved by direct negotiations, under international supervision. This is called "the two state solution."
It sounds plausible, but only so long as we avert our eyes from the reality.
The UN will be granting Palestinian statehood without a resolution of anything. It will be a reward for consistent Palestinian refusal to negotiate in good faith, or to deliver on any significant undertakings made under the various Madrid, Oslo, and other "peace agreements" reached in the past.
Israel was told to exchange Gaza for peace. All the Jewish settlements in Gaza were uprooted. All the Israeli troops were withdrawn. Observe what happened.
David Warren's column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/republic+anti+Israel/5331129/story.html
What about the oil lobby and Iran
Mr. Walt,
Very good observation. Are you willing to talk about the other side of the coin? I mean the oil lobby which is by far the most powerful lobby to influence US policy toward Iran and many other countries in the Middle East?
Here is a short quote from my articles about the most powerful lobby in favor of engagement and friendship with the Iranian regime:
The pro-engagement lobby
On December 18, 2008, shortly after Obama’s election, representatives of some 20 groups held their monthly meeting to discuss their lobby efforts to influence US policy on Iran. The coordinator of this coalition declared that the group is now the “center of gravity on Iran issue” in the Congress.
This coalition is the “Campaign for a new American policy on Iran” (CNAPI) that for the past several years has been lobbying to influence US policy with Iran. American foreign policy project is a coalition’s political website. The December 2008 meeting brought together representatives from USA*Engage (pro-trade lobby), Open Society, peace and religious groups. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) has been coordinating this coalition and its lobby.
The governmental press in Tehran has referred to NIAC as the “Iranian lobby in US” and Senator Jon Kyl has sent an inquiry to the US Attorney general asking to investigate the group’s ties with the Iranian regime. (See also “Iran’s oil Mafia)
CNAPI coalition was formed in 2005-6 after Ahmadinejad became president. Officially, these groups came together to fight Bush’s policy on the Middle East and prevent a war between US and Iran but NIAC’s internal documents suggest that it joined this coalition and gradually shifted its focus toward fighting the sanctions and pressure on Iran.
In 2007 Parsi sent a report to his partner in Tehran and explained the activities of this coalition and how it should be morphed to an anti-sanction lobby. The report is titled the “lobby groups”:
“As of early 2005, Washington’s heated rhetoric over Iran has attracted the attention of a variety of interest groups eager to prevent the escalation of tensions in the Middle East and the prospects of a war between the US and Iran. These groups have managed to build unprecedented support in Congress in favor of dialogue and against military action among progressive Democrats as well as conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill.
This coalition of pro-dialogue and anti-war entities consists of a diverse group of organizations ranging from arms control organizations, to Iranian American organizations, to religious groups. Key players in this coalition are the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, which coordinates a coalition of approximately 50 organizations, MoveOn and the National Iranian American Council.
While these groups have focused extensively on passing measures to reduce the risk for war with Iran, little attention has been paid to efforts to intensify sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, while a momentum exists for anti-war measures, no comparable opportunity exists currently for an anti-sanctions campaign. Nor is the coalition of disarmament, religious and progressive groups best suited to take on this issue. Here, the absence of pro-business interests on Capitol Hill active constitutes a key point of advantage for AIPAC.”
In his report, Parsi explained the importance of bringing in the pro-trade lobby group and notably USA*Engage:
“Pro-Business groups
With the exception of USA Engage, American businesses and oil companies have after September 11 next to eliminated their efforts on Capitol Hill in favor of greater trade and contacts with Iran.
USA Engage is a coalition of approximately 500 major US companies which has retained a distant interest in the Iran issue, though the coalition has devoted little resources towards promoting trade or preventing new sanctions from being imposed. In particular, the recently imposed UN sanctions have granted the sanctions track with Iran new legitimacy and made efforts to oppose such measures on trade grounds more difficult.
However, initial efforts are currently being made to make align the trade groups with the pro-dialogue coalition and frame sanctions an initial step that invariably will lead to war. If such a coalition of pro-trade and pro-dialogue groups can be formed, the current momentum for sanctions may be significantly hampered.
Conclusion
The balance of power on Capitol Hill is currently shifted in favor of sanctions on Iran but against military action. AIPAC continues to seek both military strikes against Iran and draconian sanctions and has benefited from the absence of active lobbying by pro-trade groups. A change in heart by pro-trade coalitions may significantly hamper efforts to have Congress impose new draconian sanctions on Iran. This is great significance since Congressional sanctions are far more difficult to undo than those imposed by the Executive Branch.”
A year later in 2008, NIAC became the coordinator of this coalition, USA*Engage joined the group and their focus turned toward lobbying against sanctions. Some of the coalition meeting notes and relevant documents has been posted here and the review of these documents gives a basic understanding about the coalition’s work and its agenda.
CNAPI has three pillars: Trade lobby that has been active in Iran issue for the past thirty years and created the USA*Engage in 1997 with the goal of removing sanctions against Iran. Then, there are peace and left organizations that grew strong during George Bush administration. Finally, pro-Iran advocacy individuals or organizations with ties to different factions of the Iranian regime.
The difference between Walt and Dai
Professor Walt, uses logic, evidence and traces actual money from source to recipient before accusing anybody of being on the payroll of anybody else.
Hassan Dai is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who **with no evidence at all** is shamelessly spending day and night attacking any and all opponents of War and Sanctions with Iran, and he doesn't care what right-wing reactionary neoconservative forces he has to work with to parrot such theories.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/13/does_washington_have_an_iran_lobby
Hassan Dai has failed to prove even a single so-called "lobbyist" received any funds from the Islamic Republic, yet here he is attacking clear and public evidence of Islamophobic funding. If Dai wants to "investigate" he should start by explaining who funds his round-the-clock lobbying for intervention in Iran? Does it have anything to do with his 3 family members who are officers in the terrorist cult of Rajavi?
Finally, when Dai says:
"I mean the oil lobby which is by far the most powerful lobby to influence US policy toward Iran and many other countries in the Middle East?"
Who is he trying to fool? AIPAC is the most powerful lobby on the Middle East and foreign policy in general.
When you can point to the "Iran Lobby" as being more effective upon the US Congress than AIPAC, please let us know...
If the oil lobby was so powerful
Then why are there sanctions against Iran based on false allegations?
And why is JP Morgan being fined for doing business with Iran?
Yes HASSAN.DAI, if the Iran lobby is so powerful
Why are US government leaders being allowed to receive money from the MEK (listed by the State Departhement as a terrorist organization) to give speeches and lobby on the part of the MEK to delist them?
If Hamas, Hezbollah or al Qaeda tried to do the same, they would have all been charged with crimes.
Here is the link to the article where you can find actual links to documents used for the article
The Pro-engagement Lobby and US Failure with Iran
By Hassan Daioleslam
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_proengagement_lobby_and_us.html
Those are not documents HASSAN.DAI
That is a right wing blog that makes no mention fo any pro engagement lobby.
The admission from Gates that the US has "no effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability", is proof of the limits fo American influence and options, not of any lobby.
Richard Haass' admission to the poicy of regime change is actually evidence that no pro no Pro-engagement Lobby exists.
The Brookings institute is a right wing, pro Israeli think tank that are blatant liars. Martin Indyk is after all, an Israeli lbbbyist. The BS about Iran's nucler wepons program is simpy that, BS. There is NO evidence that Iran is working to produce nukes and the 2011 NIE just verified that again.
Wow Walt, you're so right, this article has completely convinced me there's nothing whatsoever to worry about. Hey Walt, ever been to the suburbs of Paris? Ever heard the call to prayer at Harrow on the Hill? Been to Tower Hamlets lately? Attended one of Britains 85+ known sharia courts? Been told to convert to Islam so you can be spared the wrath of Muslims when Britain becomes an Islamic state? Care to take a moonlit stroll with me through one of France's 700+ no-go zones?
Yeah Walt, you're so right, that could never happen here. Islam is just a beautiful unicorn shitting a sparkling rainbow and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly racist.
You're the pig, ala Animal farm. You don't believe that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights... You believe some are more equal than others, you're a pig, but that doesn't make you more entitled. I'm sorry you fail to understand the ideals of this nation, the ideals of Jesus.
It's funny how Scott thinks he knows people
and creates whole scenarios about what they think and what they say. What a loser.
I have been to Paris and London SC
And indeed there is nothing to worry about.
The suburbs of Paris are the same as they have always been.
I have friends in Harrow and they say that there is no Islamic threat.
Britains "sharia courts" are there to handle issues like divorce settlements and they are createdon the basis of ultimate respoect for British laws.
No one is threatened to convert to Islam in any Westrn states. Such a thrat would be a criminal offense.
My friends in Paris have no issue with moonlit strols through any parts of Parais, apart from the Red Light district. Apprently ther junkies can get nasty when they need a hit.
You should apply for a passport SC and take a tried to Europe some time. You might get an education.
It's funny how ARAVAY thinks he has to
highjack someone else's name to get noticed.
Apprently he couldn't think of his own.
What a loser.
You've already expressed the idea Scott articulated MARINESNIPER
After all,
You already admittd that you believe the Arab states can't take care of their own lives and need the US military to do it for them.
And stop pretendign you're a marine. Stick to using that name among your XBOX community.
neo left u must know a lot about Xbox
as I assume your fat ugly ass plays it a lot in your mom's basement.
Your Xbox comment is yet another bare assertion ad hominem. Suppose I started in a more charitable mood, but, your sophistry needs to be contrasted with the arguments and evidence of those more earnest than you.
I have yet to see you make an argument Scott
Yet, I did see you comment that someone was "Marine Pig" - very clever, if you are 3 years old.
Where you at my counter-jihad friend? How's things these days? On my end - bloody terrible! But getting better. Hope all's well.
Walt looks for easy villains but is afraid to spell out truth.
I don't disagree with what Walt is saying though "Islamophobia" is a rather dubious term. Politics is about stirring up fear and hatred, and anti-Muslim crowd is no different than any other. "-phobia" can be attached to just about any impassioned position: gunphobes, guncontrolphobes, abortionphobes, prolifephobes, taxphobes, anti-taxphobes, constitutionphobes, traditional marriage phobes, etc.
By the way, there is an Islamic threat, though it is, to be sure, greatly exaggerated. A real phobia is an EXTREME fear of an HARMLESS object, situation, condition, etc. For example, a big man freaking out over a tiny little white mouse or a non-poisonous garter snake would be a phobia. Some people freak out over tiny little bugs that can do no harm. Some people faint over the mere sight of blood. People infected with rabies freak out over a bowl of water.
So, the current political passions about Muslims might better be called Islamo-hysteria or Islamo-steria. There is reason for fear of Islamic terrorism and infiltration, but the fears are indeed vastly exaggerated. But given the bombings, the plots, and troubles in Africa, Europe, and US, we cannot dismiss fear of Muslims as mere a 'phobia'. Some Muslims seem willing to kill over something like cartoons in the West. Would Walt say Muslims are free-expression-phobes, liberty-phobes, westophobes, etc?
It is also disingenuous for Walt to single out a few neocon figures. Yes, some of them are little more than Zionist extremists who are stirring up anti-Muslimism to make Americans fight 'wars for Israel'. They also play on Christian guilt, i.e. "since Christian West is guilty for the Holocaust, all good Christians must be vigilant and support Jews against the new Nazis, the 'Islamofascists'--another stupid term."
Anyway, the real problem isn't just a handful of extreme 'right-wing' Islamophobes. Also, neocons aren't necessarily 'right-wing'. They are Zionists, or Jewish nationalists or supremacists, who are often liberal on social and economic issues in the US. They are truly 'right-wing' only when it comes to Jewish power.
But the real question, one which Walt is afraid to ask, is WHY HAS THIS BUNCH OF EXTREMISTS BEEN ALLOWED TO CARRY ON WITH THEIR NUTTY RHETORIC(and are they really alone in making such noise)?
Most people don't read ideological publications, but they do watch a lot of TV and movies. And Hollywood is controlled by liberal Jews. There have been tons of movies since the 80s--often directed/written/produced by liberal Jews--where the bogeymen are swarthy, murderous, insane, deranged Muslims(and of course, Russians or other Eastern European thugs). These films were not made by the likes of Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes. They were made by liberal Jews. Whether it's IRON MAN or the TRANSFORMERS movie, we often have the US military in the Middle East blowing things to kingdom come. And most natives are presented as no better than cannon fodder or people who need to be saved by good decent gungho interventionist Americans.
Watch a lot of TV shows, and Muslims have been the bad guy terrorists.
Of course, liberal Jews have gotten a bit nervous about this. Why? (1) Liberal Jews take pride in their 'tolerance' and 'diversity celebration'. So, all this anti-Muslim propaganda makes them look like hypocrites. (2) Liberal Jews(who are most Jews)worry that overt anti-Muslim rage may morph into overt anti-Jewish hostility. After all, anti-Muslim rage is directed at the Other. What if such 'xenophobic' mentality comes to boomerang and hurt the very Jews who stoked its fire? It can happen. After all, Jews unleashed ideological rage in Russia via the communist revolution but that rage was eventually directed at elitist Jews in the Soviet government. Also, Jews in the media and government stirred up extreme anti-German and anti-'Jap' rage during WWII, but this rage soon became directed at the leftist Jewish community as the Cold War began. So, even as Jews wanna stir up anti-Muslim rage(for the sake of Zionism and Israel), they fear that too much of this can boomerang back to the Jews.
So, Jews wanna have it both ways. They wanna maintain anti-Muslim rage since (1) it's useful to maintain America's pro-Israel stance against Palestinians and other Arabs (2) it's a cathartic outlet for pent-up white American rage since Jews and blacks--the two groups most hostile to white Americans--is banned by political correctness. Jewish media are also propping up Chinese yellow peril as the other great cathartic outlet for American rage and frustrations. Though the current economic mess was largely the product of Jewish-dominated foreign policy(radical free trade), open borders, and Wall Street crookedness; the Jewish media decided it's useful to blame it all on the Chinese. Though Jews resent the way they were depicted as an octopus swalling the world, they have no qualms about depicting other peoples that way. Jewish Christo-hysteria, Sino-hysteria, and Islamo-hysteria are really of a kind. Jews tend to distrust and feel contempt for goyim, but since they are vastly outnumbered by goyim, their strategy is to make one bunch of goyim fear and hate another kind. And when Jews themselves do something wrong, they suppress criticism of Jewish malfeasance by screaming 'Nazi' and 'antisemite'. We've been so brainwashed by stuff like SCHINDLER'S LIST and bullshit history that says Jews had always been saintly victims throughout history, we are afraid to say even mildly critical thing about Jews(which is dangerous since Jews are the most powerful people in America, which makes them the most powerful people in the world; indeed, when a group has the most power but is treated as saintly victims, it's gonna lead to tons of corruption of the soul, politics, and economics; and boy oh boy, are we seeing it all over in Wall Street, media, and our foreign policy; it's like Jews, with their great power, can get away with anything. When Wall Street, government, and media are all controlled by Jews, there is no real ethnic checks and balances. And both political parties are also owned by Jews. It's basically Jews looking out for one another. And though Germans of Nazi era carried out the Holocaust, Jews have cleverly turned that historical event into a religon for which the entire world must feel guilty. Our society has been totally Abe-Foxmanned). If screaming 'Nazi' or 'antisemite' won't work, Jews cleverly blame the problems on EVERYONE but themselves. Though the mess in the Middle East was largely Jewish-created, Jews blame everyone--Europeans, Russians, Muslims, American gentiles, etc--but themselves. Though Chinese power rose as a result of 'free trade' policies devised and pushed by American Jewish economists and Jewish control of Washington and Wall Street, Jews will try to dump the blame entirely on the Chinese. Though Putin challenged the power of the 'Russian' oligarchs for looting the entire nation in the 90s, American Jews tend to see those Jewish oligarchs as tribal brothers and blame all Russian problems on Russians and none on the Jews. Jews won't even face up to the fact that Jews played a prominent role in the Soviet Union and were responsible for the deaths of millions of Christian Slavs(and many other ethnic groups). Though Jews were among the lesser victims of Soviet communism, much of the history about communism focuses on Jewish victims(while almost entirely neglecting Jewish involvement. This is true of both Anne Applebaum and Jonathan Brent. Richard Pipes blames the failure of the Soviet Union on the authoritarian Russian mentality but not on the radical Jewish mentality. Notice how Jews feel it's okay to generalize and stereotype about the 'mentalities' and 'values' of other groups and draw conclusions as to their 'problems', but if you try to generalize about Jewish mentalities, attitudes, or power, you immediately get denounced as a 'Nazi' or 'antisemite'.)
Why do many Jews condemn anti-Muslims rage as 'racist', 'Islamophobic', and 'xenophobic' when so many of their brethren are encouraging anti-Muslim fear and hatred? It's like this: Jews wanna use white/Christian American rage against Muslims in the Middle East, but Jews also wanna use Muslims--as 'victim' minority--against white Americans in America. It's like how Jerry Springer invites goyim on his show, makes them fight one another, and then pretends to sympathize with both sides. Make goy fight goy, just like Romans used to make barbarian fight barbarian, like the Brits used to make Hindus fight Muslims, etc.
In fact, the reason why people Daniel Pipes and others like him get to carry on with their crusade or Jewsade is because the liberal Jewish establishment--that runs most of media and much of academia(and controls most of Hollywood, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley)--gives them the green light and the means to do so. Most liberal Jews despise white American Christian conservatives but still see the latter as useful in garnering American support for Israel, and THAT responsiblity is left up to neocons like Daniel Pipes. So, it's like a tag-team match between neocon Jews and liberal Jews. Though they do have ideological differences, they are united in their common Zionism and Jewish power-ism. New Republic, aka Jew Republic, and New York Times, aka Jew York Times, are often a meeting place of liberal Jews and neocon Jews. Indeed, why were Jewish neocons able to rise so fast in the political realm? Because liberal Jews who run the media favored them as voice of conservatism over paleo-conservatives. So, a liberal Jewish-owned media outlet will, more often than not, invite a neocon--or stupid white goy brainwashed by neocons--as the voice of American conservatism. And the biggest issue for neocons is Zionism. Over time, Christian conservatives hearing such 'conservative' voices came to see 'protecting Israel' as the MAIN purpose of conservatism. Indeed, most white American conservatives are more concerned about security and prosperity for Israel than for their own country and countrymen. This is good for neocons for obvious reasons. It's also good for liberal Jews, most of whom are no less Zionist than neocon Jews, though they do give lipservice to Israel abuses. (Where was the outrage from liberal Jews and their waterboy or watergoy Obama when Israel attacked Gaza and killed 1000s, many of them women and children?)
This arrangement is good for liberal Jews because the passionate support for Israel from the Christian Right makes it possible for Jews to blame Christian conservatives for whatever abuses that exist in Israel. This way, the liberal Jewish spin is, "most Jews are decent and want peace between Jews and Palestinians, but a small band of crazy ultra-right-wing Jews allied with a whole lot of nutty Christian Right lunatics have made middle-east peace impossible."
So, you see how liberal Jews work with neocon Jews to rile up Christian Right support for Israel but then admonish the Christian Right in America for their 'Islamophobia' and extremism. Jews train Christian Americans to bark and bite Muslims, and then yell at the Christian dog for being so 'rabid' and kicks it. Jews tell the Christian dog, "Go sic the muzzie!!!" and then Jews put their arms around Muslims and say, "You guys need us good decent Jews to protect you from those rabid Christians." Jews act like the sly general in PATHS OF GLORY. Remember how the general manipulated people right and left? And when things go badly, he acts like he's above it all and dumps all the blame on everyone from other generals to common soldiers? To understand the Jewish mind and style, one needs to watch Jerry Springer and David Mamet movies. It's a political house of games.
So, liberal and neocon Zionists encourage and inspire American Christians to go fight 'wars for Israel' in the Middle East while, at the same time, lecturing to people in America about the dangers of excessive anti-Muslim hatred. In other words, use Christian soldiers to blow up Mosques in the Middle East, but support Muslims to build Mosques over here. Use Christians against Muslims in the Middle East, and use Muslims against Christians in the West. Christians are told that 'Islamofascists' must be destroyed OVER THERE; Muslim-Americans are told to beware of 'Islamophobes' OVER HERE(in the West). So, in the attacks on the Middle East, Jews pose as friends of Christian Americans. At the same time, Jews pose as friends of Muslims in the West against crazy rightwing Christians.
While it's true that some rightwing churches are nuts, most Americans get their 'Islamophobia' from Hollywood movies, TV shows, and lopsided Zionist-controlled US media. And the powers-that-be in government and media--most liberal Jewish controlled--have NOT condemned people like Daniel Pipes and driven them into the wilderness. Though liberal media pretend to be offended by anti-Muslim rhetoric, they still allow anti-Muslim voices and forces as legitimate participants in the political process. People like Pipes might be criticized but they are not turned into pariahs on the order of David Irving or David Duke.
If the media used their power to eradicate the likes of the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, and other extreme groups from public discourse, why haven't the same been done to Daniel Pipes and his ilk? Because deep down inside, both neocon Jews and liberal Jews share a lust in Jewish power. They also operate as tag-team match. When Walt criticized the Israel Lobby, what did the liberal Jews at New Repubic and New York Times do? They condemned him as an 'antisemite'.
Your tinfoil hat is on way too tight my friend
The other day I was driving alone at night in the Hollywood Hills when a Jew popped out from behind a bush! I was startled to say the least. It had two heads and glowing red eyes and a long tail with snake scales. A terrifying sight indeed! I fired a few shots at it and the thing ran up the walkway, wound up going into a three story modernist dwelling just off Laurel. Stopped briefly to adjust the mirror on its big body Mercedes. I went back the next day, nothing remained of the scene except a few cloven hoof prints and some pages from a pilot script starring Aziz Ansari.
"all the trouble your people create"
I beat this dickwad's girlfriend left him for a Joo
I was thinking more along the lines of his boyfriend
leaving him for a man with a visible penis.
You've shown your bigotry even in farce. All persons are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why, oh why do you deny Muslims this essential liberty? And why do you ignore Jefferson's call for those denied these essential rights to their "duty" to fight those who hold tyrannical binds over them? I'm an American, though this country has lost it's way, thanks in no small part to sophistic tools as yourself. You don't seem to recognize the American Ideals, perhaps you should go to Israel and fight them yourself.
Nothing to say about the REALIST2011's virulent bigotry Scott?
Oh yeah, it's because you agree with him. Hypocrite.
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.
(164)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE