A HOT PAPER MUZZLES ACADEMIA

Reading this article brought home to us that the way the W&M paper quickly became a taboo matter among academics, who know very well which side of their bread has the butter, is exactly how any objective revisionist paper on the Holocaust is made taboo among these same delicate folk. We see a connection. How the Holocaust story is used to help morally justify U.S. and Israeli policies in the ME is one of them.

A hot paper muzzles academia
By Eve Fairbanks,

Eve Fairbanks works at the New Republic as a reporter-researcher.
May 14, 2006

DID YOU THINK there was a controversy in academia over "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," the paper by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer contending that a shadowy "Israel Lobby" — including everyone from the New York Times and Hillary Clinton to Pat Robertson and Paul Wolfowitz — has seized control of American foreign affairs? I did too, but let me tell you: We were wrong.

When professors Walt and Mearsheimer (of Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively) went public with their paper in the London Review of Books on March 23, it seemed the whole world started screaming. From columnists Richard Cohen and Max Boot to historian Tony Judt and Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, public figures battled in the pages of the major papers. Accusations of anti-Semitism and divided loyalties flew. The magazine I work for published three articles on the paper in a single week. (Read more)