News Obama's speech in Cairo, June 2009

[AhmedEzz]

I was hoping someone would say that.

 

[kyleb]

Did Obama say something in his speech to spark that off?
From what I listened to, I'd think he'd tell you both to knock it off.

If you care take issue with my response to Mheslep, then please actually do so by addressing it directly rather than hiding behind your speculation of how Obama might respond. As for your quote from Obama, I agree completely, which is why I called out Mheslep for his demonstrating interest in casting blame on the rest of the region to absolve Israel's expansionism rather than pursuing peace.

 

[Astronuc]

Some militants respond positively to Obama speech
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_obama_undercutting_extremists

Some positive developments.

 

[AhmedEzz]

These are all minorities that one only reads about them in European/American media. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Astronuc]

These are all minorities that one only reads about them in European/American media. Sorry to disappoint.

Are there better sources in English but written by Arab or Muslim journalists? I'm also quite aware that these views are those of a few people quoted in western media. There are millions more voices to be heard - but how to find them.

 

[LowlyPion]

Obama has popular support by a good margin here and I see little chance of change there, but all the same there is a powerful political machine against him, so what he can actually accomplish is still very questionable.

I hope you aren't talking about this right wing hijacked Republican juggernaut of "No".

 

[kyleb]

Are there better sources in English but written by Arab or Muslim journalists? I'm also quite aware that these views are those of a few people quoted in western media. There are millions more voices to be heard - but how to find them.

Particularly considering MERMI's long demonstrated ideological bias towards demonising Muslims, http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD238409#_ednref2" looks rather promising.

 

[kyleb]

I hope you aren't talking about this right wing hijacked Republican juggernaut of "No".

I am talking about the vast majority of Congress being in the pocket of the "death to Palestine" lobby, and that lobby being useful idiots for the military industrial complex along with the settlement industry. The massive support for http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/28/1005474/aipac-backed-letter-gets-329-house-signatures" . This isn't a matter of one wing or another, but rather the support of Israel's ongoing conquest of Palestine spans far and wide across party lines.

 

[LowlyPion]

I am talking about the vast majority of Congress being in the pocket of the "death to Palestine" lobby, and that lobby being useful idiots for the military industrial complex along with the settlement industry. The massive support for http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/28/1005474/aipac-backed-letter-gets-329-house-signatures" . This isn't a matter of one wing or another, but rather the support of Israel's ongoing conquest of Palestine spans far and wide across party lines.

That resolution is about as useful as the attempt to get a resolution to make next year the year of The Bible. As to the JTA they don't have Congress in their pocket against Obama's evenhanded approach. That letter is luke warm spit that few would object to in any event.

I think you are imagining genies were there are only whispers of shadows. There's no juggernaut of a conspiracy. It seems that Israel was motivated to get their licks in before there was a new administration with backbone and a brain, because I think Netanyahu got an earful his last trip. No more ineptitude in the White House and Israel can stop whining, right along with the other parties in the Middle East and stop finding ways to not get along, and instead find ways to progress.

 

[kyleb]

That letter is just one of countless examples of the "death to Palestine" lobby rallying Congress behind the the Israeli government position I could provide. As for Obama's even handed approach, back when Bush Sr. tried the same Congress left him blowing in the wind, and the lobby support piled behind Clinton who let the lobby run the show, and Bush Jr. did the same.

While you assume I am imaging things here, I get the impression that you really just haven't been following this issue nearly as close as I have. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878" .

 

[mheslep]

...Here is a documentary which explores the workings of the lobby reasonably well[/URL].

Here's an academic reply to Walt and Mearshiemer, the prominent speakers in the documentary.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf

 

[kyleb]

I am familiar with Deshowitz's response. If you bother to watch the documentary, it is discussed there. Anyway, I can't say I've seen anything academic from him on the subject though, is there anything in his arguments you would care to present specifically?

 

[mheslep]

I am familiar with Deshowitz's response. If you bother to watch the documentary, it is discussed there.

It's mentioned by Perle, not discussed.

Anyway, I can't say I've seen anything academic from him on the subject though,

The paper was posted on the Kennedy school's website under strict rules for inquiry, so Id say it qualifies as an academic work. I list it now only as a reference to be considered when examining the work by the authors in the video.

 

[kyleb]

From the cover page:

The author of this paper is solely responsible for the views expressed in it. As an academic institution, Harvard University does not take a position on the scholarship of individual faculty members, and this paper should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position of the University or any of its Schools.

That leaves me curious to know; what specific standards are you suggesting the paper is required to adhere to?

Anyway, it's been a while since I watched the documentary, but I'm pretty sure Wilkerson brings up Dershowitz's response in it as well, and the much of the arguments he has made are addressed throughout the documentary, including Perle's contests being presented as recounting from Dershowitz's.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That leaves me curious to know; what specific standards are you suggesting the paper is required to adhere to?

Does Harvard need to adopt his stance officially in order for his work to be considered academically qualified? Which university published an official statement of support for the documentary you posted?

 

[seyitcan]

I do not trust him.He is still "Uncle Sam"

 

[BoomBoom]

I am talking about the vast majority of Congress being in the pocket of the "death to Palestine" lobby, ...

Seriously??

If you truly believe that, then I don't see how anyone can take your posts seriously...

The sad thing is many from the region believe as you do...I'm not sure whether to laugh my head off, or cry?

 

[AhmedEzz]

Are you denying the existence of such a lobby, or you denying that it is a majority?

 

[BoomBoom]

Are you denying the existence of such a lobby, or you denying that it is a majority?

I am denying that any such lobby pulls any weight whatsoever...we probably have a Nazi lobby too. Every country has their "wacko" populations.

 

[AhmedEzz]

You really deny the existence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the US?!..gimme a break :(

 

[seycyrus]

Pro-Israel does not mean "death to Palestine"

 

[kyleb]

Does Harvard need to adopt his stance officially in order for his work to be considered academically qualified?

Of course not, but I don't see how the coverpage's statement that "Harvard University does not take a position on the scholarship of individual faculty members" rightly jives with Mheslep's claim that it was "posted on the Kennedy school's website under strict rules for inquiry", do you?

Which university published an official statement of support for the documentary you posted?

None that I know of, but then I never made such a claim either.

Seriously??

If you truly believe that, then I don't see how anyone can take your posts seriously...

The sad thing is many from the region believe as you do...I'm not sure whether to laugh my head off, or cry?

What region are you referring to? Best I can tell, the power of the lobby is commonly understood in much of the world, aside from many people here in the US refusing to take a serious look at the issue. Even many of the Lobby's big guns aren't bashful about their influence, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/04/050704fa_fact" :

aipac’s leaders can be immoderately frank about the group’s influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac’s president, was caught on tape boasting that he had “cut a deal” with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. “We have a dozen people in his”—Clinton’s—“headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

So anyway, I am left wondering; do you have anything of substance you can present to back your argument?

Pro-Israel does not mean "death to Palestine"

Of course not, but Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank does mean death to Palestine, and that is exactly what the Israel governments which our Congress consistently backs by vast majority has been doing for decades. There is obviously the pro-Israel pro-peace lobby too, but they don't have nearly the influence on Congress as the one's who arranged that recent letter to Obama implying he should back off his calls for a settlement freeze.

 

[BoomBoom]

Of course not, but Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank does mean death to Palestine, and that is exactly what the Israel governments which our Congress consistently backs by vast majority has been doing for decades.

Oh I get it, so you are equating the pro-Israel lobby with something you call the "Death to Palestine" lobby. <sigh>

 

[mheslep]

From the cover page:


That leaves me curious to know; what specific standards are you suggesting the paper is required to adhere to?..

Rules set up by the Harvard dean for publishing working papers in rebuttal:

...In addition to requiring that authors be full-time Harvard faculty, the new policy would require that articles submitted be in academic format, with citations of sources, and that they be responsive to the intellectual ideas and evidence of the original paper and not contain attacks on the authors of the original paper...

By allowing the post Harvard affirms that the dean's requirements are met, nothing more.
http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...arvard_dean_opens_faculty_papers_to_rebuttal/

 

[kyleb]

Oh I get it, so you are equating the pro-Israel lobby with something you call the "Death to Palestine" lobby. <sigh>

Rather, it seems your are making conscious effort not to get it, as your response ignores not only my explanation of how the lobby is cheering on the death of Palestine though their support of settlement expansion, but my acknowledgment of the pro-Israel pro-peace lobby in the sentenced you truncated off in your quoting of my response.

Rules set up by the Harvard dean for publishing working papers in rebuttal:

By allowing the post Harvard affirms that the dean's requirements are met, nothing more.
http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...arvard_dean_opens_faculty_papers_to_rebuttal/

Ah, it seems we have different understandings of the term "strict".

 

[CRGreathouse]

I am familiar with Deshowitz's response.

Did you actually read it? If you did, it might be interesting to start a new thread to discuss it. (This is getting seriously off-topic here.) I'd like to follow that discussion, though I doubt I'd participate in it. For one thing, I haven't finished reading the papers -- I'm about 75% through one and not quite half on the other.

 

[kyleb]

I can't say I read it thoroughly, mostly just skimmed, but I feel I comfortable enough to with my understanding of his arguments to discuss them. But again, I didn't see anything of merit in the response to discuss, which is why I asked Mheslep to present whatever arguments might have compelled him to present it.

I disagree with your suggestion that such discussion is off topic here though, as the power of the lobby directly relates to the relevance of Obama's speech. That said, I'd happily participate in a thread dedicated to discussing the lobby if anyone cares to start one.

 

[mheslep]

...

Ah, it seems we have different understandings of the term "strict".

I've no doubt the guidelines are strict: comply or the dean would disallow its appearance. 'Rigorous' is the word I think you want to debate.

 

[kyleb]

I mean the standard that such papers "not contain attacks on the authors of the original paper" seems rather loose considering for example Dershiwitz's claim that Walt and Mearsheimer are compelled by an "interest in vilifying Jewish leaders and spouting conspiracy theories about Zionist plots against American interests."

Again, if you have found anything of virtue in Dershiwitz's arguments, I'm interested to know whatever that might be. As it stands I'm left to wonder what motivation you have for defending it, or for having bothered to present it in the first place.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'd happily participate in a thread dedicated to discussing the lobby if anyone cares to start one.

I've started a thread for the discussion of these papers and the related issues:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2229465

I would welcome intelligent debate on the matter.