Stephen M. Walt

Image: Ex-Israeli concentration camp guard Jeffrey Goldberg has launched a typical Hasbara smear & intimidation campaign against Gilad Atzmon and John Mearsheimer (R).

Ever since John Mearsheimer and I began writing about the Israel lobby, some of our critics have leveled various personal charges against us. These attacks rarely addressed the substance of what we wrote -- a tacit concession that both facts and logic were on our side -- but instead accused us of being anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. They used these false charges to try to discredit and/or marginalize us, and to distract people from the important issues of U.S. Middle East policy that we had raised.

The latest example of this tactic is a recent blog post from Jeffrey Goldberg, where he accused my co-author of endorsing a book by an alleged Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer. Goldberg has well-established record of making things up about us, and this latest episode is consistent with his usual approach. I asked Professor Mearsheimer if he wanted to respond to Goldberg's sally, and he sent the following reply.

John Mearsheimer writes:

In a certain sense, it is hard not to be impressed by the energy and imagination that Jeffrey Goldberg devotes to smearing Steve Walt and me. Although he clearly disagrees with our views about U.S.-Israel relations and the role of the Israel lobby, he does not bother to engage what we actually wrote in any meaningful way. Indeed, given what he writes about us, I am not even sure he has read our book or related articles. Instead of challenging the arguments and evidence that we presented, his modus operandi is to misrepresent and distort our views, in a transparent attempt to portray us as rabid anti-Semites.

His latest effort along these lines comes in a recent blog post, where he seizes on a dust jacket blurb I wrote for a new book by Gilad Atzmon titled The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics.

More »

John Pilger

Photo: Shoppers during the opening day of the Westfield Stratford mall. (Richard Baker/In Pictures/Corbis)

Looking for a bookshop that was no longer there, I walked instead into a labyrinth designed as a trap. Leaving became an illusion, rather like Alice once she had stepped through the Looking Glass. Walls of glass curved into concentric circles as one "store" merged into another: Armani Exchange with Dinki Di Pies. Exits led to gauntlets of more "offers" and "exciting options". Seeking a guide, I bought a lousy pair of sunglasses: anything to get out. It was a vision of hell. It was a Westfield mega mall.

This happened in Sydney - where the Westfield empire began - in a "mall" not half as mega as the one that opened in Stratford, east London on 13 September. "Everything" is here, reported the architectural critic Jonathan Glancey: from Apple to Primark, McDonalds's to KFC and Krispy Kreme. There is a cinema with 17 screens and "luxurious VIP seats", and a mega "luxury" bowling alley. Tracey Emin and Mary Portas lead the Westfield "cultural team". The biggest casino in the land will overlook a "24-hour lifestyle street" called The Arcade. This will be the only way into the 2012 Olympic Games for 10m people attending the athletics. The simple, grotesque message of "buy me, buy me" will be London's welcome to the world.

"If you've seen the Disney film Wall-E," wrote Glancey in 2008, "you'll certainly recognise Westfield and malls like it. In the film, humans who long ago abandoned the Earth they messed up through greed, live a supremely sedentary life shopping and eating. They are very tubby and have lost the use of their legs. Is this how we'll end up? Or will we plunge into the depths of some mammoth recession... with nothing and nowhere to spend?" In the less apocalyptic short term, Westfield is "a step towards our collective desire to undermine the life and culture of the traditional city, along with its architecture, and to shop and shop some more."

More »

Compiled by Samuel Dowell

Blacks in Libya Still Targeted by anti-Gaddafi Forces: killings, beatings, abuse

One quarter of indigenous Libyans are black Africans. In addition to that, there were over 1 million workers from Sub-Saharan African countries, including Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Mali, Niger, and Nigeria, in Libya at the start of the uprising. On September 13th, Amnesty International reported that:

“'Widespread, but largely unfounded reports that Gaddafi forces were relying on Sub-Saharan African mercenaries to fight the opposition put them at heightened risk in areas that fell under the control of the NTC. Racist and xenophobic rhetoric, already frequent before the unrest, increased as a result of the breakdown of law and order.” (p.80)(Link)

“The allegations about the use of mercenaries proved to be largely unfounded. Many captured al-Gaddafi fighters, including those interviewed by Amnesty International in Benghazi and Misratah, were in fact Libyan nationals, including individuals from places such as Sabha in the south-west of Libya and from the Tawargha region east of Misratah. Due to their black skin and Sub-Saharan African features, they were mistaken for foreign mercenaries. However, NTC officials did little to correct the false assumption and instead fed the flames of hatred and resentment.(p.83)

“NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil claimed in media interviews that Colonel al-Gaddafi was using ‘African mercenaries’ against his own people. Such claims were especially irresponsible in the climate of insecurity and fed existing racism and xenophobia in Libya and signaled that abuses against foreign nationals would be tolerated by the NTC. (p.83) Further, “NTC Chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil promised to ‘close the borders in front of these Africans’. (Statement by Mustafa Abdel Jalil: عبد الجليل ـ سنعمل على إغلاق الحدود في وجه المرتزقة)(p.89)

“When al-Bayda, Benghazi, Derna, Misratah and other cities first fell under the control of the opposition in the third week of February, house raids, killings, lynching and other violent attacks were perpetrated by supporters of the “17 February Revolution” against individuals believed to be foreign mercenaries on account of their skin color.p.82)

Throughout the 6-month conflict, Sub-Saharan African nationals were attacked on what have proved to be largely unfounded suspicions that they were foreign “mercenaries” hired by Colonel al-Gaddafi, and it hasn’t stopped.

More »

Charles E. Carlson

Photo: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas gestures before the start of a meeting with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during the 66th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters Monday, Sept. 19, 2011. (AP / Seth Wenig)

Mahmoud Abbas received continuous and general applause as he started his speech to the UN General Assembly, while a dozen or more men and women were seen walking out of the hall in protest. He proceeded with a rambling 45 minute read speech, which received more applause during and at the end. If one can judge by the response, most attendees are sympathetic with statehood. But President Obama has promised to veto its statehood. What are we not told about Abbas and the UN that we need to know?

Don't be surprised if the USA does not veto "Palestinian Statehood" in the United Nations. And if so, it would not mean President Obama has suddenly changed his mind and heart, only his political tactics. My guess is he will support a resolution that calls for statehood, but one that again ties the Palestinians to negotiation of boundaries and details. He and Israel would both accomplish a public relations ploy that would, in fact, maintain the status quo. It would not mean the Philistines will get fair play after 44 years (or more) of occupation. A sudden shift to US support for a watered down, "agree to agree'" statehood would be just another clever way of controlling the Philistines' government, much as the USA controls the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan and probably Pakistan.

More »

Adnan Al-Daini

An elderly woman in a care home. The Government
may introduce a 'national care service'. (Alamy)

Fair taxes are good for society as a whole, and those who can afford to pay the higher rates should be proud that they are contributing more for a pleasanter environment for all of us to live in.

Salaries above a certain threshold earned by the super rich are used as a status symbol, part of the “because you are worth it” culture that now permeates our society.  It is a way of massaging the massive egos of those people.  It is a competitive weapon in their battle with other like minded bosses that shouts, “I am at least as important as you if not more important”.  Look at my salary.

The proposal of Vince Cable, UK’s Business Secretary, to give shareholders and workers greater say in the salaries of their CEOs and directors at the top of an organisation, is to be welcomed as a first step.  However, it is not enough.  Here is a suggestion for Mr. Cable and the Chancellor to consider, which is progressive, fair and serves the interests of the ordinary citizens. Decide what multiple of the average pay of a UK employee is a fair wage for those “Masters of the Universe”, -say 10 times.  

Any pay above that, tax at a punitive rate rising in very steep steps to a level of, say 80%.  If this does not moderate the pay, it will have the effect of returning money to the government to help those most in need.  Taxation of the very rich, in itself, should not dent their super egos as they could continue to brag about their mega remuneration packages.  It may even give them another instrument to enhance their self-worth, with remarks like, “The taxes I pay are enough to keep [x] numbers of old people warm in winter”, or, “The taxes I pay are enough to lift [x] number of children out of poverty”.

More »