To:
"
From: "Desch, Michael C." <mdesch@bushschool.tamu.edu>
Date: 09/14/2007 05:09PM
Subject: RE: Your program this AM re: accusations of anti-Semitism
What a nut!
Michael C. Desch
Professor and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security
Decision-making,
Director, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs,
Editor-in-Chief, Security Studies,
Bush School of Government and Public Service
4220 TAMU
College Station , TX 77843-4220
[o] (979) 458-1703
[Security Studies o] (979) 862-2848
[mobile] (979) 229-8235
[fax] (979) 845-4155
mdesch@bushschool.tamu.edu
"Great commanders write their actions with simplicity; because
they receive more glory from facts than from words." Montesquieu,
The Spirit of the Laws, Bk. XXI, chap. 11.
From:
S Silverstein
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:03 PM
To: S Silverstein
Subject: Fw: Your program this AM re: accusations of anti-Semitism
Thought
you might find my emails to Michael Smerconish of interest. Smerconish is
a local talk radio host in Philadelphia (1210 AM) who has created a controversy
through supporting the Harvard/U. Chicago "Jewish Lobby" paper and
book as valid works to initiate a "dialog" on the US/Israel relationship.
To professors Walt and Meirsheimer: I intend to use this controversy to
create case studies on defective research for use in the iSchool consortium , about
those who call themselves academics and researchers but who don't seem to
understand the basic tenets of informatics (information science).
In medicine, as the saying goes, when research is defective, "your
patient's dead."
-----Forwarded by
To: mas@mastalk.com
From:
Date: 09/14/2007 11:20AM
cc: jtobin@jewishexponent. com
Subject: Fw: Your program this AM re: accusations of anti-Semitism
Dear
Michael,
I don't know if your staff has forwarded my prior emails to you, but as a
result of your expressed exasperation today, Friday, with charges of
"labelling" [as anti-Semitic] by the Jewish Exponent, I wish to
amplify the points I made in earlier emails, below.
Victor David Hanson wrote an excellent piece " Looking for scapegoat,
world again turns to Jews " at http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6876280
. Hanson makes the point that " this new face of anti-Semitism
is so insidious because it is so well disguised, advanced by self-proclaimed
diplomats and academics - and now embraced by the supposedly sophisticated left
on university campuses."
You should understand the history of anti-Semitism and how it has led to
heightened sensitivity towards publications perceived as biased against Jews .
This is what you are failing to grasp, and your exasperation as expressed on
your radio program is not helping.
Here are some points to ponder:
1.
Walt and Mearsheimer could have written a book entitled "Why it is not in
the
2. Instead, they chose a book whose title and major theme suggests excessive
Jewish influence, a charge others have made for centuries. In doing so,
and being aware of history themselves (hopefully), they should have taken the utmost
care to get their facts correct.
3. A reading of the rebuttal links I provided below, or even Dershowitz'
response alone to their paper ( Debunking the Newest – and Oldest – Jewish
Conspiracy Theory: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt “Working Paper” ), should
convince any reasonable person that there were serious structural, factual,
contextual, and logical errors sufficient to possibly invalidate the
professor's research and its conclusions.
4. Considering these errors, which significantly deviate from the prior
work of these men and from academic research standards, and the fact that
Harvard recently received $20 million, a huge sum in academia, to have Islamic
views taught ( Saudi donates $20 million to Harvard , Boston Globe, Dec. 13,
2005), even a reasonable person might suspect a less than pure motivation for
the "Jewish Lobby" work.
5. Walt and Mearshiemer have been insensitive to the response of the
Jewish community, a response based on solid history - a solid history of
atrocities often instigated by polemical, anti-Semitic writings. In fact,
it has been suggested they expected and sought this response as a "trap"
to validate their ideas that any charges raised against
6. You have fallen into the same trap. Consider the accusations you
are hearing in the context of history.
I myself only recently found out the fate of my ancestors, namely, the
Treblinka concentration camp, of my grandfather's entire family in
7. Your response should emphasize that you are not anti-Semitic but
understand what, historically, is feuling the charges.
8. Finally, a work like Walt and Mearsheimer's "Lobby"
publications are not an appropriate mechanism to "open discussion" on
the relationship between the
Best regards,
cc: Jewish Exponent
-----Forwarded by S Silverstein/Drexel_IST on
09/14/2007 10:47AM -----
To: mas@mastalk.com
From:
Date: 09/12/2007 10:11AM
Subject: Your program this AM: argumentum ad verecundiam
Dear
Michael,
A few points about your program this morning, Wednesday:
1. You presented an argumentum ad verecundiam this morning,
with your emphasis on Walt and Mearsheimer being "respected
academics" and writing a book with hundreds of pages of footnotes.
I take a critical approach to the writings even of those with impeccable
academic credentials, especially in an era of ideology wars, and have seen some
of the most prominent professors acting like corrupt corporate execs and/or
union leaders (see Anti-Social Informatics at Yale , also mentioned below).
Academic reputations represent a source of great power. Abuse of that
power is a most serious issue. As in my email of 9/10/2007 below, I
believe Walt and Mearsheimer have abused that power (via deliberate academic
fraud).
I don't believe they are anti-Semitic, simply amoral and opportunistic.
Their "realism" school of thought is inherently amoral, and would
abandon friends if it is deemed "in a country's interest" to do so
economically and militarily. Followers of Islam are richer collectively
than the Jews in terms of certain "natual resources" by a wide
margin, and are certainly feared a lot more. The fact that Harvard was
given $20 million not long ago to represent Arab views iteself increases the
need to apply critical thinking to Walt's work.
2. I do not believe you are anti-Semitic in any way, but I do believe
you are being a bit insensitive - perhaps due to a lawyer's dispassionate
approach - to the accusations of anti-Semitism coming you way.
Jews have become accustomed to abuses of power in the form of writing.
They know words cause actions. They also know that writings such as the
Protocols, Der Stürmer , Rev. Charles Coughlin, Mein Kampf, and many other
works and speakers that many abuses leading to physical and material harm to
Jews is historical fact, and that those who supported such works in any way,
even speaking of them as a matter of "legitimate discussion", were
not friends of the Jews. You should consider that in understanding these
accusations.
As put by another author:
Are
some of us touchy when
3. The issue that needs to be
raised with Walt and Mearshiemer is why they refrain from active debate on the
obvious research errors in their work (see prior email below), documentation of
which is all over the web and also written by other academics.
eg Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105
These errors are of a nature that pretty well invalidate their research.
When my former employer, Merck, was accused of witholding facts, distorting
data, and other scientific abuses regarding VIOXX, they were accused of
scientific fraud, and thousands of lawsuits arose. When Walt and
Mearsheimer committed similar research abuses, they get accused only of
"opening a dialog." This is a major problem.
4. Finally, to disabuse you of the notion of the infallibility and
integrity of prominent Ivy academics , review this story: http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/failurecases/?loc=cases&sloc=_yaleinf
. It details my experiences as Yale faculty supporting as a Jewish
physician, ironically, the Yale-Saudi Arabia collaboration in birth
defects. It is a detailed case example of wasted resources and
opportunity, attempted misappropriation of intellectual property by prominent
tenured faculty for private use, unauthorized practice of law in the Office of
the General Counsel, blacklisting, extortion, and retaliation treated with a
blind eye and silence by university officials, leading to an impaired effort
and several year delay in implementing electronic medical records at Yale-New Haven
Hospital.
Senior academics acted no differently than corporate or union thugs.
Sincerely,
S Silverstein
Drexel
-----S Silverstein/Drexel_IST wrote: -----
To: mas@mastalk.com
From:
Date: 09/10/2007 09:55AM
Subject: Walt-Mearsheimer's book
Dear
Michael,
I am a professor at Drexel's
I heard segments of your morning program this Monday morning on the
Walt-Mearsheimer "Jewish Lobby" book. I do not believe Walt and
Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic, and do believe their primary motive is one of
appeasement of Islamofascism.
In any case, you promoted the view that the book opens a "needed
dialogue."
Indeed it does -- but from the perspective of an information scientist in a
college of same -- not the dialogue you think. When an academic conducts
research, and that research deviates widely from basic standards of research -
and their own prior standards - a dialogue needs to ensue as to " why ."
Rather than go into each and every factual error in Walt and Mearsheimers's
article and now book, I pass along one website which catalogs links to
critiques of the informational errors:
Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer Israel Lobby Controversy
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=189&x_article=1105
Also see the more recent critique " The Devil is in the Footnotes "
at
http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2007/09/the-devil-is-in.html
One major error was ignoring well-known primary sources and relying instead on
tendentious secondary sources that support their view, and calling the result
“research." That is willful academic fraud .
I think the "dialogue" that needs to occur is regarding why this
"research" is so shoddy, even when the professors took a second
shot at it after voluminous critique.
When research errors are substantial enough to invalidate "research",
discussing the topic being "researched" is moot.
That is, unless other fraudulent books or books by lunatics like "Mein
Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are viewed as
relevant to "having a dialogue." I don't believe you would
support that view.
Sincerely,