From Atlas Shrugs, “Dhimmitude and Jewhatred at Harvard”:
[…] Harvard, recipient of millions in bloody Wahhabi Saudi dollars, issued an extraordinarily antisemitic paper on the American Israel political action committee AIPAC here:
AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress....
I am a member of AIPAC and I am a de facto agent? Uh uh. I am just a girl. A quintessentially American girl. Just a believer in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every individual. Those of us that support AIPAC do so because we worry about the existential threat to Israel.
The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security. ... Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?...
This is intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate.
[emphasis in the original; read the rest here.]
You’ll recall that one of the “concerns” the arts and sciences faculty at Harvard had with deposed President Larry Summers (the Clintonian neo-con and protector of ZOG) was that he found the movement, supported by many in the Harvard faculty, to divest from Israel just shy of being anti-semitic—a fact that inflamed those enlightened students of middle east history (as presented by MESA and filtered through the structural filter of Edward Said). After all, as academic elites, it was their duty to save the poor oppressed brown people who, for reasons surely the fault of Israel and the US, haven’t been able to solve their “refugee” problem for decades upon decades.
That no other Muslim states in the region will take in the “refugees”—or improve their lot (other than by providing them with the tools to attack the Israeli interlopers who control land that “belongs,” rightfully, to the “Palestinians,” or provide the families of suicide bombers with a living stipend)—is incidental to this official enlightened narrative of oppression of the powerless by the powerful. Democratic Israel is the racist country (whereas, say, the Saudis would welcome an influx of Jews with open arms), and it is not only being propped up by the US—but it actually controls the US by a pro-Israel lobby of powerful neocons and world-controlling Jews.
In the formulation of the Harvard paper, attempts to spread democracy—once an ideal of the Democratic party and liberals—is now couched as a sinister cover for advancing the interests of Israel. Democratic reform “has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security”—the very security that kept those two giant New York towers safe and upright on 911, presumably.
Which, once again, brings me back to my rhetorical hobbyhorse: rather than attempt to spread freedom where it doesn’t belong, we are to be held in thrall to “inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion”; to protect our own interests, we must leave the Arabs and Muslims to their blood libels and attempts to destroy Israel. After all, who are we to question their long-standing cultural beliefs? To do so suggests that we are beholden to the Jews—probably because of Irving Kristol, though perhaps the conspiracy goes back even further. And let’s face it: we’re not perfect, either, so judging the Arabs? We may as well turn our attention to the genocide of native Americans with small pox-infected blankets and the slaughter of buffalo herds.
But here’s the real question—the Justin Raimondo / Pat Buchanan / Stormfront / Harvard money query: What do they have on us, these bullying Jews? And why do we continue to show support for them when all they’ve ever done with their “democracy” is “inflame” those who don’t believe they have the right to exist and should be driven into the sea? Is it that they have infiltrated the highest levels of government? Or is it something less sinister and incidental—like the realization that the promotion of freedom elsewhere hurts our national security, particularly where the Israelis and their hidden agents in the US government are even tangentially involved.
After all, we have our own people to worry about. When’s the last time Maplethorpe received a grant, for instance? And hey—if sacrificing the Jews to the Arabs causes us less grief in the long run, Harvard / Buchanan / Raimondo / Stormfront say go for it!
Asks Pamela, “Where is the Harvard paper on the over 2,000,000 dead and 30,000 enslaved by the Islamic government in Sudan. Is Israel culpable there too?”
Well, not directly, no. But if we weren’t so invested in giving money to Israel, perhaps, just perhaps…
You know, they would start working on that Sudan paper over at Harvard; but they’ve already got the anti-Israel report generator built and it’s March Madness and all…you know, they’ve got things to do.
Hey, those anti-semetic hippie chicks aren’t going to bang themselves, you know.
And with that I’ve set the record for uses of “You know” in a short blog comment.
I’ve never been so proud.
Which, on reflection, speaks poorly on my self esteem.
Fwiw, it’s been at least sixteen years since Mapplethorpe’s received a grant. Robert died during the first year of the Bush 41 Regime.
1989: The Year When Things Were Just Ducky.
Yes, BS. This I know. But would the folks at Harvard?
Harvard and Yale-What happened?
Cliff Notes version of the Harvard paper:
Let the Arabs kill the Jews and all will be right in the world. And they won’t come after us.
I was going to tell you Mapplethorp was dead but stickerist beat me to it.
TW: college. I was in college when Mapplethorp was big.
If they did, they’d be sure to speculate that Poppy Bush had him killed.
Jeff
What do they have on us, these bullying Jews?
It’s even more than that. For members in good standing of the Left, no one comes to support Israel with clean hands. Point out to an ethnic (but secular) Jew of the Left that Israel has no better friend than American conservative Christians and be prepared to listen to a diatribe of how Christians are just “using” Jews for “The End Times” and are secretly planning on wiping out Jews, in Israel and everywhere.
Why the double standard with regards to human rights in the US and Israel versus those in the muslim world. Would they justify it by appealing to relativism and that different cultures should determine their own standards?
If so that seems hypocritical considering the support many lefist intellectuals have for monocultural feminism and also their adamence that the values of bible thumping southerners should be completely excluded from our own nations concept of human rights.
Maybe they wI ould argue that the U.S. and Israel “purport” to be liberal democracies and thus should be held to higher standards. Or else simply on the basis of their military/ economic superiority they deserved to be scrutinized more?
Either way this doesn’t make much sense to me.
zank –
It’s not supposed to make sense. It’s supposed to disorient and exasperate you to the point that you throw up your hands and let them do whatever they want. (It’s a subtle variaion on the “dictatorship of boredom” – the dictatorship of confusion.)
Jeff: Let me take a slightly different approach.
Since the conclusion of the so-called Camp David accords which resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, at the cost of $2 billion in annual US foreign aid to each, why doesn’t the US simply tell each side that this three decade-long experiment will not be renewed. And we look forward to both sides continuing their peaceful co-existance and mutual co-operation (or some such other diplomatic drivel).
I think Israel is more than capable to take care of themselves–and so no longer needs foreign aid from the US–while three decades of foreign aid to Egypt has been a more than sufficient time buffer allowing their peaceful co-existance to occur.
Now this won’t change the perspective of those wishing to employ ahistorical and bankrupt arguments, but since the main criticism, by the left, regarding US foreign policy, is that the US is meddlesome (except, of course, when the US should be more engaged!), let’s stop being meddlesome in the Israeli/Palestinian situation.
The Israelis can take care of themselves. It is in the Palestinians’ best self-interest to arrive at peaceful co-existence. As many on the left are prone to argue, we cannot shove democracy down throats. The Palestinians have been given the opportunity for self-government. Let them take it. Action will speak louder than words–even if their apologists spin Palestinian action in the most favorable light.
Furthermore, this is a policy prescription specifically regarding the West Bank and Gaza, and not a call for an isolationist foreign policy for the US.
If there is one lesson that should’ve been learned by now for all aspects of government policy, simply throwing more money, year after year, at the same problem, does nothing to solve it, as more often than not, it encourages the status quo, as constituencies dependent upon the flow of money develop, while the problems become secondary and voiceless.
Yes, But what they don’t reveal is that the united States is really under the control of the ZOG.
And the ZOG has something to do with JP Morgan, though he, like Mapplethorpe, continues to remain dead.
Or was it Skull-and-Bones?
The Illumanati?
The Jesuits?
The Shriners? Ah. That’s it. They all want us to be in those little cars.
word:consider. “I consider this argument to be a warm bucket of fertilizer.”
Here’s all you have to know to understand the “Palestinian problem”:
If the Palestinians would unilateraly lay down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel would unilateraly lay down their weapons, Israel would cease to exist.
Has ZOG taken over from the Trilateral Commission? Was there a memo on this? Why didn’t one of KKKarl Rove’s minnions inform me? I must’ve been napping when these changes were made.
I mean, who’s in charge?
Forbes
As Golda Meir once said:
Considering how “Palestinian” Arabs enjoy inculcating their gradeschoolers with the idea that strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Jewish school buses, discos and shoppers at the mall is the ulitimate “virtue”, I think we may still have to wait a generation or so until peace even looks obtainable.
The ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) is a branch of the IZC (International Zionist Conspiracy). The Trilateral commission, the Bilderbergs, and The Illumanati, are all front organizations for the IZC. It is the ZOG that flies the Black Helicopters.
Mikey,
It’s the Rotarians. Hamas says so.
Spiny,
I love that. I am working with a medical foundation to create instant clinic packages of supplies and equipment to deliver anywhere in the world – the Rotary is our intended target, er..funding source, heh heh. So if we succeed, the Rotary would be funding medical help that will end up in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, etc. Sounds like an evil Zionist conspiracy that could use a little work on the evil part
They’re ignoring our 200-year history of helping other non-Jewish states secure their freedom (e.g., WWI, WWII).
Sure, throw Israel to the wolves and then we’ll be safe!
Safe, yeah, that’s the ticket.
Let’s get ahead of the curve here for once:
Kill All The Jews And The Arabs Will Give Us Oil.
Jeff;
At the time of his resignation, I was the ONLY blogger to cite Larry Summers’ support for Israel and his opposition to “Israeli divestment” as the beginning of his end with the faculty at harvard – a faculty which is patently Leftist and anti-Semitic.
LINK:http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/02/left-wing-anti-semites-strike-again.html
excerpt:
Like Jospin, Summers supported Israel too much (he opposed divestment of Israeli assets in Harvard’s HUGE asset funds) and this pissed off the hard-Left of Harvard’s faculty. Then, when he raised accurate but “politically incorrect” questions about gender-based bifurcation in a few academic fields, it was his death knell; the Leftist faculty agitated until they finally forced him to resign this week. THE NY SUN AGREES:
Mr. Summers has shown flashes of brilliance since taking over in July 2001 as president of America’s oldest, richest, and most famous university. We were among those who cheered his willingness to confront political anti-Semitism on campus; his speech in Memorial Church, where he said the signers of a petition to get the university to divest from Israel were anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent, is one of the most important ever given by a Harvard president. When Mr. Summers came under attack for remarks on gender differences, we observed – in an editorial called “The Soul of Harvard” – that Mr. Summers’s travail could not be separated from his defense of Israel.
[http://www.nysun.com/article/27844]
This sad news about Summers reinforces my firm belief that today’s Left – (the Left of Sheehan and Moore and Belafonte and Chavez, to name just a few who have made frequent and blatant anti-Semitic comments) – is utterly reactionary and the true home of anti-Semitism. SCRATCH A LEFTIST AND YOU FIND AN ANTI-SEMITE.
[url=”http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_03_17.htm”]
Martin Kramer nailed the key issue in the Walt Meershiemer thesis[/url]. Read the following extract, but then RTWT:
… If you need an ally somewhere, don’t you want it to be the smartest, most powerful, and most resourceful guy on the block, who also happens to admire you? …
It took the United States some twenty years to figure this out. … The United States recognized Israel in 1948, but it didn’t do much to help it defend itself, for fear of alienating Arab monarchs, oil sheikhs, and the “Arab street.” …
So Israel went elsewhere. It got guns from the Soviet bloc, and fighter aircraft and a nuclear reactor from France. … Then came June 1967, and Israel showed its stuff. In October 1973, it achieved what military analysts have called an even greater victory …
It was then that the United States began to look at Israel differently: as a potential ally. The fact that the United States hadn’t backed Israel before 1967 didn’t prevent key Arab capitals from falling into the Soviet orbit. To the contrary: along with Nasser, they tried to play Washington off Moscow, with a preference for Moscow since it made policy by uncomplicated diktat. …
Israel looked to be the strongest, most reliable, and most cost-effective ally against Soviet penetration of the Middle East, because it could defeat any combination of Soviet clients on its own. … expanded U.S. support for Israel persuaded Egypt to switch camps, winning the Cold War for the United States in the Middle East. …
Since 1973, the Arab states have understood not only that Israel is strong, but that the United States is Israel’s guarantor. As a result, there have been no general Arab-Israeli wars, and Israel’s Arab neighbors have either made peace with it (Egypt, Jordan), or keep their borders quiet (Syria, Lebanon). The Levant corner of the Middle East, for all the saturation coverage it gets from an overwrought media, has not been a powder keg, and its crises haven’t required direct American military intervention. …
United States support for Israel has enhanced its standing in another way, as the only force, in Arab eyes, that can possibly persuade Israel to cede territory it has occupied since 1967. …
It is this “peace process” that has turned even revolutionary Arab leaders into supplicants at the White House door. …
Compare this to the situation in the Gulf, where U.S. allies are weak. …
It’s precisely because the Gulf doesn’t have an Israelâ€â€a strong, capable local allyâ€â€that Walt’s offshore balancing act can’t possibly succeed. If the United States is not perceived to be willing to send in troops thereâ€â€and it will only be perceived as such if it sometimes does send themâ€â€then heavily populated and technologically advanced states (formerly Iraq, today Iran) will attempt to muscle Saudi Arabia and the smaller Arab Gulf states, which have the bigger reserves of oil. …
In the overall scheme of the Pax Americana, then, U.S. policy toward Israel and its neighbors over the past thirty years has been a tremendous success. …
Walt’s notion that U.S. support for Israel is the source of popular resentment, propelling recruits to Al-Qaeda, is of a piece with his argument that the United States is hated for what it does (its detested policies), and not what it is (its admired values). In fact, America … s hated because of what they can’t do, and what they aren’t. They can’t accumulate power, and they can’t handle modernity, and they resent anyone who reminds them of it. …
And is it not actually better for the United States to signal the Arabs that until they change, Israel will remain America’s favorite son? … What lever would remain to encourage progressive change in the Arab world, if the United States were to back away from the one democratic, modern, and pluralistic society in the Middle Eastâ€â€the most persuasive and proximate argument made to the Arabs, for the empowering and overpowering might of Western democracy and Western modernity? …
Indeed, for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that we have followed Walt’s policy … How long would it be before the Arabs would revert to their pre-1967 fantasy of defeating or destroying Israel? … How long would it be before Israel felt compelled, as it did in 1967, to launch a preemptive strike against Egypt, with its massive conventional force, or Iran, which even now rattles a nuclear saber against Israel? … It is populated by the remnant of a people that was nearly obliterated in the twentieth century, and that’s unlikely to take chances in the twenty-first. Less American support would mean less Israeli restraint, less Israeli maneuverability, and a quicker Israeli finger on the trigger. …