Mearsheimer & Walt: A Three Legged Stool Minus One Leg

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Mearsheimer & Walt: A Three Legged Stool Minus One Leg

Postby Radar » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:16 pm)

Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard stirred the antipathy of the Israel lobby with their book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" which exposed the power of that lobby and it's malignant influence on United States foreign policy. So powerful and irrefutable was their case that it was met with the usual ad hominem smears from the Israel support crowd and many media misrepresentations. It has now been buried by the intellectual crowd, the usual way they handle criticism of Israel.

But a careful analysis of the book also reveals that these two Ivy entwined academics are part of the familiar lock-step mind set which afflicts their tribe. They swallow hook, line and sinker "the Holocaust" story without a scintilla of analysis, referring over and over to revisionists as "deniers" and identifying themselves as true believing Zionists without once identifying "the Holocaust" as a main excuse for the Zionist abuses in Palestine or asking why this should be so.

One wonders if they have read even one line of the works of Faurisson, Butz, Rudolf, Garaudy, Graf, Mattogno, Smith, and the other serious revisionists whom they brush aside. I doubt it. I think they are afraid to do so.

They ignore the abuses of academic freedom used to silence Norman Finkelstein and others in our country and the thought control laws in Europe used to imprison Germar Rudolf, David Irving, and Ernst Zundel. Surely they are aware of these things. I think they are afraid to mention them for fear of offending their tweedy associates who might think they harbor, gasp, "denier" sympathies! Better to ignore these things.

Their "solution" to the Palestinian problem is said to recognize the "moral grounds" for "Israel's well being" [what moral grounds?], while ignoring the "moral grounds" for Palestinian Arab resistance and claims based on their dispossession and robbery. The Arabs are expected to quietly give up their homes, farms and businesses and their right of return because of the apparently superior "moral claims" of foreign Jews. Why this should be is never explained or even discussed in the book. Justice is not their measuring stick, power is.

M&W propose a "two state" solution, ignoring that the boat on that idea leaving as we speak, as Israel's real intentions become clear at Annapolis, that is the intent not to allow a real Palestinian state - only a subsevient Bantustan arrangement. The repugnant, racist, apartheid state of Israel is not seen by M&W as a problem. And Israel gets a nuclear weapons free pass as Israel lies about their weapons, refuses to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties, and we all nod understandingly while we strike a pose of horror at Iran!

A three legged stool will not stand if missing one leg. The problem is Zionism. A two state solution cannot survive Zionism. The sooner we wake up to that the sooner we will realize that our blind support of racist Israel must change and if a unitary, democratic Palestine must be promoted then it will have to be promoted even if AIPAC doesn't like it. Everyone else sees it.

Bankdraft
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Postby Bankdraft » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:24 pm)

Jimmy Carter took a pretty good hit with his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It likewise painted a pretty accurate picture of the Palestine situation which is of course off limits but I guess he didn’t know that. I saw a TV interview with him concerning the book (mostly) but the reporter got into some other Zionist issues as well and Carter was amazingly candid. He pointed out, for example, the massive U.S. Aid sent to Israel every year (What’s the current figure? Something like $10,000 USD every year for every man, woman and child in Israel) and numerous other truths... I mean hate speech.

Naturally his candor translated into anti-Semitism and was reflected by the numerous callers who called him Anti-Semitic and other slurs. If there ever was a “good” man, it would have to be Carter -- maybe not the best president but a “good” man none the less. You could see the shock in his face when the anti-Semitism statements started rolling in. I think, he thought, that if he just stuck with the truth, he would be safe but that’s pretty naïve in this arena. I’m guessing that Carter too buys the traditional holocaust story or maybe even he is not so naive as to touch that.

Speaking of American presidents, my favorite U.S. foreign policy move was when Bill Clinton sent (then) Secretary of State Madeline Albright (a female Jew) to negotiate “peace” in the Middle East -- never mind that Muslim culture is extremely patriarchal as well as anti-Semitic. Needless to say, that was a flop... and no one could understand why.

You remember Madeline Albright, she’s the one who supported sanctions against Iraq which resulted in widespread starvation and other hardships. When asked by reporters, "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

For logic, ya gotta give it to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he’s the one who said (in effect), “Even if there was a holocaust, why are we [Muslims] having to pay for it?!

User avatar
Holycaust
Member
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:40 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Postby Holycaust » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:17 am)

Bankdraft wrote:I’m guessing that Carter too buys the traditional holocaust story or maybe even he is not so naive as to touch that.


That would probably be a safe bet since the nazi hunting US Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations was established under President Carter.

We'd never find out if Carter personally had any doubts about the holocaust because voicing those doubts in the open would basically be commiting public suicide.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests