Email to Chicago Council on Global Affairs re: ban of M/W

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Marshall Bouton

To: mbouton-AT-thechicagocouncil.org

Dear Mr. Bouton,

I would like to confirm if you were able to receive the following email that I just sent through to your assistant (Ms. Fugo):

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:49:53 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: For Marshall Bouton
To: mfugo-AT-thechicagocouncil.org

Dear Ms. Fugo,

Thank you for your time on the telephone moments ago. It is unacceptable for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs to have banned the September 27th, 2007 presentation by esteemed political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about their new book which conveys the agenda for how the US got into the Iraq quagmire and is about to go to war with Iran as well for the same agenda.

Mr. Bouton might be interested in reading the following as well (Jeffrey Blankfort is an anti-Zionist Jew who lives in San Francisco and hosts a radio program there):

Forwarded:

From: "Jeff Blankfort"

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:45:35 -0700
Subject: WSJ: Jewish pressure forces cancellation of Mearsheimer-Walt presentation.

"John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were scheduled to use the Sept. 27 address to outline their upcoming book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” which is expected to be released by Farrar, Straus & Giroux early next month. But the president of the Chicago Council, Marshall Bouton, canceled the event under pressure from critics who were uncomfortable with the academics’ arguments, according to a letter drafted by Mearsheimer and Walt to the Council’s board."

San Francisco, New York, now Chicago. The Jewish Thought Police score another triumph against the First Amendment. Frankly, the line has long been indistinguishable between Jew and Zionist and will remain so until there is some evidence that those Jews who seriously resent the Jewish power structure speaking their name, publicly, loudly, and repeatedly, and in great numbers, condemn that Jewish power structure for what it is, not only an enemy of the non-Jewish peoples of the Middle East, but also to what is left of American democracy.-JB

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/08/07/speechless-in-chicago/

August 7, 2007, 6:33 pm
Speechless in Chicago
Jay Solomon reports on controversy over a planned speech.
Wall St. Journal

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs has canceled a September speech on U.S.-Israel relations and Washington’s pro-Israel lobby by two prominent U.S. political scientists.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were scheduled to use the Sept. 27 address to outline their upcoming book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” which is expected to be released by Farrar, Straus & Giroux early next month. But the president of the Chicago Council, Marshall Bouton, canceled the event under pressure from critics who were uncomfortable with the academics’ arguments, according to a letter drafted by Mearsheimer and Walt to the Council’s board.

These opponents of the event argued that the two political scientists could only address the Chicago Council if someone from the opposing side, “such as Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, concurrently appeared on stage with the authors.

“One might argue that our views are too controversial to be presented on their own,” Mearsheimer and Walt wrote. “However, they are seen as controversial only because some of the groups and individuals that we criticized in our original article have misrepresented what we said.”

Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Walt, on the faculty at Harvard, set off a political firestorm last year when they penned an article for the London Review of Books, called the “Israel Lobby,” that argued pro-Israel interest groups had distorted U.S. policies in the Middle East. They also argued that these groups played a central role in promoting the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq.

Since the original article appeared in March 2006, the two academics have appeared at a number of ventures to explain their views, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Press Club and Georgetown University. But a number of leading Jewish-American organizations, such as the ADF and the American Jewish Congress, have consistently charged that Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s views are anti-Semitic and overemphasize the power of the pro-Israel lobby.

Mearsheimer and Walt deny being anti-Semites and said the charges are designed “to discourage respected organizations like the Council from giving us an audience.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Walt and Mearsheimer Cancelled by Global Council on World Affairs:

www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/08/10/walt-mearsheimer-cancelled-by-chicago-council-on-global-affairs/

Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

tinyurl.com/yrkj2y



August 10, 2007
Walt and Mearsheimer Banned in Chicago
www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/

Unbelievable that Walt and Mearsheimer have been banned from speaking in Chicago:

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/08/07/speechless-in-chicago/trackback/

Again proving the profs' argument about the strength of the Israel lobby. Where is Alan Dershowitz? Even he ought to decry this censorship, which is only forcing the discussion of an important issue underground-ish, to the blogosphere. I guess that is what the lobby wants. If the Global Council in Chicago dignifies the argument, well, then it could get on to the cover of Time. As one of the commenters says on the site linked above, this sort of behavior just builds the backlash.
Posted at 02:00 PM in Israel, Politics, Culture, U.S. Policy in the Mideast |

Comments
Report offensive comments to washwire-AT-wsj.com
It has been the worst kept secret that Israel and all of its support groups have been influencing United States’ policy since the end of World War II. This has been true even if an Iraeli government position is in fact adverse to what should be the U.S. position. Anyone, ANYONE, who takes an adverse position is automatically an anti-semite and should not appear anywhere in any forum whatsoever. Even Alan Dershowitz, that supposed strong proponent of the Free Speech, promptly falls in line if the speech considered to be anti-Israeli. Years ago when Marlon Brando made a supposedly anti-semite comment on Larry King, one would have thought that war was declared. After he apologized on air, Saturday Night Live correctly commented that Mr. Brando after his apology was advised that he can work again in Hollywood. Israel is no longer a weak little nation. It is a powerful nation and should be able to take adverse comments. Why can’t it?
Comment by Art Robinson - August 8, 2007 at 1:58 am
America will never be able to get its policy in the Middle-East right as long as it is being dominated by the interests of AIPAC. Branding any dissent from the AIPAC party line as anti-Semitic is a short sighted strategy. What will happen when the American public wakes up the reality that they must blindly support the Israel’s every military and strategy position but are not allowed to question or criticize it? Worse, those who seek sincere, responsible discussion (like Messrs Walt and Mearsheimer) are prevented from doing so. All that needs to be said that can’t be said. I can’t see how the tone of the discussion, once it finally breaks through (and it’s just a matter of time), will only grow more shrill and emotional after years of being bottled up.
Comment by E. 66th and Lex - August 8, 2007 at 7:11 am
I can’t see how the tone of the discussion, once it finally breaks through (and it’s just a matter of time), will only grow more shrill and emotional after years of being bottled up.
Well said E.66th!
The censors have won every battle; I can’t help but wonder how much unspoken anti-semitism and bad will towards Israel this has engendered.
I suspect that once the genie is out, there will be a backlash against our current policies.
Comment by Chiguy31 - August 8, 2007 at 2:22 pm
One would hope that in our democratic society all points of view could be represented without the necessity of having them all represented at the same time.
Comment by Jessie K. Palmer - August 9, 2007 at 10:59 am
One would hope that in our democratic society all points of view could be represented without the necessity of having them all represented at the same time.
Comment by Jessie K. Palmer - August 9, 2007 at 10:59 am
“the president of the Chicago Council, Marshall Bouton, canceled the event under pressure from critics who were uncomfortable with the academics’ arguments, according to a letter drafted by Mearsheimer and Walt to the Council’s board.”
Well thank goodness we have Mearsheimer & Walt to explain exactly why they were canceled.
The point is that there is a qualitative difference between writing a book and having to answer questions face-to-face, and after all the press their paper has had, a serious debate is long past due.
Of course, after hearing Mearsheimer’s interview with Pajamas Media (See YouTube: John Mearsheimer At Yearly Kos 2007) and hear him defend the Iranian murder of American soldiers in Iraq as being “a very small percentage”–I can understand why they would want to avoid serious questions from people who know the subject.
Who are the ones who are really uncomfortable with their opponents’ arguments? Once again, M&W give themselves far too much credit.
Comment by Daled Amos - August 10, 2007 at 12:13 am
Proof again that THERE IS NO LOBBY! Don’t even THINK that anyone is trying to control what gets said about Israel and Middle East policy!
What could possibly have given M&W such a silly idea?
Comment by David G. - August 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Posters have mentioned the inevitable backlash to this kind of heavy-handed bullying. Well, look at the bright side: any backlash will be great for aliyah numbers, and Abe Foxman will have an easier time raising money.
Not everyone hates “antisemitism”.
Comment by Alana - August 10, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Daled Amos, I have yet to see any credible evidence that any American soldiers in Iraq have been “murdered by Iranian[s]”.
Unless you mean the shaped “Iranian IED” factory which turned out to be…in Iraq, run by Iraqis.
Perhaps you are confusing Iran and Iraq. Or perhaps you are making the mistake of listening to Dick Cheney.
Comment by agum - August 10, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Anyone who thinks this is good for any Jews, anywhere in the world, is crazy.
Comment by freespeechlover - August 10, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I suppose Foxmans denial of the armenian genocide isn’t controversial to these fellows.
Comment by lester - August 10, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Why are W&M fear a discussion? reminds me of Jimmy Carter - does “free speech” mean a monopoly?
On the other hand, it seems that too many educated Americans believe in conspiracy theories - probably it makes the world looks simpler. This particular “conspiracy” looks similar to those who claim to be abducted by aliens. Frightening indeed.
Comment by Maoz - August 11, 2007 at 3:36 pm
W&M fear a discussion? Isnt it the other way around? Its funny how the word conspiracy can get thrown around at even the most obvious of issues, and how some would insist theres no elephant in the room even if they were standing right next to one.
Comment by J. Bryce - August 11, 2007 at 10:06 pm
It seems that Walt-Mearsheimer, Carter, Jim Baker, Prof Polk are all part of a concerted, planned effort to weaken Israel internationally, and to even demonize it and the American-Jewish community. W-M’s arguments are false. They claim that Israel has always controlled US policy towards the Middle East. Ridiculous. Otherwise, please explain the huge amounts of American foreign aid that have gone to Saudi Arabia over the years [disguised as “foreign tax credits” for ARAMCO]. Please explain all of those retired US officials on the payrolls of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc. Please explain the huge weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by the United States. How about the funds –almost always being raised by a few dozen millions, so it seems– given to the “Palestinian Authority”??? Why is Prez Bush advocating another Arab-Muslim state, to be called “Palestine,” as a supposed solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Such a state would likely intensify the conflict with Israel. That hardly indicates friendship for Israel.
Comment by Elliott A Green - August 12, 2007 at 6:07 am
^ Sorry, you have a false argument. The U.S. isnt completely suicidal in neglecting its own own greater interests, it has tremendous strategic and economic interests tied to the region which includes protecting and supporting those Arab states that supply it and the rest of the world with energy. And it prefers those states to look after themselves as much as they can without direct U.S. military involvement - quite simple and elementary. And all arms sales to those Arab states have plenty of clauses and conditions (as well as technical limitations) that basically render them useless against Israel. In a conflict with Israel, how would they expect the U.S. to resupply them with spares and ammuntition? Their miltaries would grind to a halt in a few days of conflict without resupplies. The Israelis otoh, have managed to turn these latest arms sales into a huge windfall for them, they’ve exricated another $10 billion of miltary aid from the U.S. as recompense for what was already a virtual non-threat to them. Furthermore, U.S. influence and leverage in the region would have lessened substantially if those states got their weapons from elsewhere. Unfortunately many probably know these elementary facts yet use such arguments (Hasbara?) hoping to hook the clueless into agreeing.
As to Palestine having a state side by side to Israel, its a logical solution to defusing instability and extremism in the region - and this too if or when it happens, will have tremendous conditions imposed upon it basically making it far less of a threat than without statehood. Unfortunately - and as all Israelis know but dont like to admit - its not the security issue that is behind their opposition to a Palestinian state, its their Zionist ideology that considers “Judea and Samaria” indivisible parts of Israel… and damn the worlds laws and UN resolutions referring to them as “Occupied Territories” requiring them to be handed back.
Comment by J. Bryce - August 12, 2007 at 8:40 am

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jean's Art"

Subject: comment on: Walt and Mearsheimer Banned in Chicago
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:25:25 -0400

Well, my dear man, that is nothing new, is it?

B'Nai B'rith put out a little booklet a few years ago listing all the major colleges and universities in the U.S. Purpose? To show Jewish students (as well as stupid non-Jews) how to protest some speakers from taking part in campus discussions. Looks like that tactic is still working.

I saw that booklet myself while on a university campus and I know people who have them. it was very very disturbing. Students can discuss anything at all on campuses nowadays. But this was about Israel, and giving both sides of the issue which B'nai B'rith apparently did not want and went to great lengths to see it didn't happen.
Jews have leave to write about anything in the Israeli news including things very unflattering to Israel, but over here in the US, non-Jews are faced with threats to their freedom of speech if they do that. And then there is the ole catch phrase "anti-semitism" which is totally misused as meaning only Jews; in fact, there are more Semites in the M.E. that are non-Jews than are Jews.
So, it goes on and on. Stupid, yes. Dangerous precedent? Yes indeed. It can be stopped if enough people complain. When former President Jimmy Carter's book came out, you'd think he had murdered his grandma. But it's still a very popular book and we found that all of his descriptions of the brutal occupation were exactly what we saw several times over there and yes Israel has an apartheid system of government that has gone on for decades.

This will continue because not enough speak out - and while Jews are not monolithic, when it comes to Israel, most of them use aipac bouncers. Even though more Jews live in the US than in Israel, they choose Israel over the US across the board.
J

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email to Jeff Fager (executive producer of CBS '60 Minutes'):

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 03:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: For Jeff Fager

Dear Mr. Fager,

I would like to know if '60 Minutes' has a segment in the works to interview respected political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about their soon to be released book (it will be available on September 4th, 2007) which was expanded from their paper ( tinyurl.com/obe2j ) on the pro-Israel lobby and how it pushed US to attack Iraq and is doing similar to get US to attack Iran. If '60 Minutes' does not plan to do a segment about the Mearsheimer/Walt book, I would like to know why (I have a pretty good idea already though). The following currently can be found at www.amazon.com after doing an author search there for 'Mearsheimer':

Editorial Reviews
Book Description
The Israel Lobby,” by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory. Originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy.

Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and Iran. They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest. The lobby’s influence also affects America’s relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.

Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared, “Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force.” The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certain to widen the debate and to be one of the most talked-about books of the year.
About the Author
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. He has published several books, including The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
Stephen M. Walt is the Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and was academic dean of the Kennedy School from 2002 to 2006. He is the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy, among other books.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Details
Hardcover
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (September 4, 2007)
Language: English

-------------------------------------------------------

THE HIGH COST OF SUBSERVIENCE TO ISRAEL (by Paul Findley):

www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php

See the following URL for more about the 'A Clean Break' as discussed by Bamford on pages 261-269/318-321 of 'A Pretext for War' (the paperback version of 'A Pretext for War' includes an additional chapter about the AIPAC espionage case which the pro-Israel biased US media is not covering either for the most part - neither is the BBC!):

www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php

Bamford also had the following 'Iran: The Next War' article for Rolling Stone magazine which mentions the AIPAC espionage case as well:

www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war

Brit MP and Father of Commons Tam Dalyell exposed the 'JINSA crowd' initially in 'Vanity Fair' and via the articles linked at the bottom of the following URL:

www.democracynow.org/article.pl

Even Colin Powell conveyed for Washington Post editor Karen DeYoung's new bio book about him that the 'JINSA crowd' was in control of the Pentagon - one can look up 'Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs'/JINSA in the index:

A War for Israel? Colin Powell seems to think so:

www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php

Prominent Mideast analyst associated with AIPAC:

www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php

BBC: The War Party (if only Americans could see such a program!)


video.google.com/videoplay

PS: Please take a look at the exchange with 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton via the 'What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?' link at the upper left of the following URL which includes a transcript of the exchange with Hamilton:

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel

representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html

SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:

representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/reviews-of-without-precedent-inside.html

You might also be interested in viewing the following youtube video short which has the moderator of the terrorism 'expert' panel trying to cut off the 'Q & A' at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books at UCLA this past April before the main motivation for 9/11 was conveyed:

www.youtube.com/watch

Additional at the following URL:

www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php

Israeli Interrogators in Iraq:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3863235.stm

Impeachment: The Conversation Continues (be sure to scroll through all the comments at the bottom of the following URL):

www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/08/impeachment_the_conversation_c_1.html

Here is a tinyURL for the above one:

tinyurl.com/yo6u63