I think the point that Ibn Warraq is making is that The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is not normally the kind of book you’d see getting cited by academics. It’s more of a pop best seller than a scholarly work.
I have to say that’s an extremely puzzling question for someone who’s master’s thesis was on the relationship between the US and Israel.
I assume you would have known that Arabic names have multiple ways to be transliterated into English. Since Arabic doesn’t use the Roman alphabet, when using the Roman alphabet to spell Arab names or words there are multiple ways to spell them. That’s why there must have six or seven different ways to spell Qaddafi, one can refer to the Quran or the Koran, and the Prophet Muhammed can also be the Prophet Mohammed.
No, that’s not the most common way his name is transliterated, but it really is jaw dropping that someone with a Master’s thesis like your’s didn’t recognize that I was referring to a well-regarded Middle Eastern scholar at Columbia. His name is more commonly spelled Massad but it’s hard to believe that someone who would have had to do the research you’ve done wouldn’t recognize it, particularly after the idiotic *Columbia Unbecoming *scandal.
Agreed.
It’s generally considered terrible by academics. Amongst other things, it’s supposed to be about the way Congress is influenced by lobbyists yet the authors never interviewed a single Senate or Congressional aide.
Bernard Lewis is arguably the most well regarded currently living scholar of the Ottoman Empire, but when scholars cite his work, they cite his more serious academic work he’s done not any of his recent books which are more for popular consumption.
There you have it. I knew who he was, in fact I read and cited some of his writing when I wrote my paper(s), and I agree with his assessment of the Lobby, US Foreign Policy, and so on. He’s a hardcore anti-Zionist, not a “hardcore Zionist,” as you put it. I was confused. I had never seen his name rendered that way.
Swore off that habit, eh?
Ok, this is utterly comical.
First of all, I never called him “a harcore Zionist”. I said “he’s hardly a hardcore Zionist” which to anyone with the reading comprehension skill of an eighth-grader means just the opposite.
Second, you’re saying you had no idea that there were multiple ways to render Arabic names in the Roman alphabet despite your thesis being on the US relationship with Israel?
That’s really bizarre.
Third, obviously we have to and will take your word for it that you were quite familiar with him even though it seems painfully obvious you had no idea who he was. Certainly “Massad” and “Mahsaad” sound the same which is why they’re both equally valid spellings and up until you revealed your ignorance of this man that you used as a major source for your academic word, I would have bet any amount of money that anyone who’s field of academic study was the Middle East didn’t realize who he was.
Finally, now that you have revealed you know who he was, perhaps you can explain why you didn’t refer to him instead of Walt and Mearsheimer since he’s a serious academic rather than someone who writes popular non-fiction for a mass audience?
So again, why didn’t you cite him to begin with since he’s vastly more respected among academics than the hacks you’ve cited.
Until I pointed him out to you, so far the only people you’ve pointed out are a conspiracy theorist who insists the “blood libel” has “a basis in fact”* while writing on a truther website and some discredited hacks who didn’t even do a modicum of research on their work.
How can such an academic as yourself have such a difficult time finding credible sources without first being prodded in the right direction by a non-academic like myself?
Why don’t you make arguments and use sources more befitting of an academic like yourself?
*. Admittedly, you also seem to believe “the blood libel” has “a basis in fact”.
Hey, once you told him what the answer was, he knew it all along.
My eyes missed the hardly in your quote. I don’t think you’re one to talk, considering I have seen you make the “whose/who’s” mistake twice now, but said nothing. Also, earlier, you spelled his name “Muhsaad,” with a “u.” The only way I had seen it spelled was “Massad,” but if you had written “Joseph Mahsaad,” I would have recognized it. With only “Muhsaad,” I had nothing.
I didn’t refer to him earlier because I didn’t think there was anything wrong with writing popular non-fiction for a mass audience. I thought that was a good thing, under the circumstances.
Yes, making a common grammatical mistake while typing fast is the same as reading “he’s hardly a hardcore Zionist” and concluding the person righting this thinks the person referred to is a hardcore Zionist.
BTW since you seem to hate the Zionists for wanting an ethnically based state, why do you admire a man like Nasser who was the father of modern Arab Nationalism?
Also how can you admire him when raging against Nazi supporters when he also supported Hitler.
When professors I hold in high esteem gave me no indication that Mearsheimer and Walt are discredited hacks and/or clowns, and in fact advised me to read their work first (which I did, and then deconstructed it), I don’t see any reason to get some good usage out of what they (M & W) did pretty well. I hold the same mixed opinion of their work as Massad and Noam Chomsky. I took careful note of the apoplectic response M & W got from various “respectable” and “Establishment” quarters, and I took that as a sign that they were doing something right.
That reminds me of when I attended a talk by an American who had made Aliyah, then joined the Israeli peace movement, specifically Anarchists Against the Wall. He mentioned my university’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter earning the opprobrium of the Anti-Defamation League, and pointed out that that’s a sign they were on the right track.
I cited If Americans Knew because I had found they do an excellent job of presenting and packaging the issues. I knew about the “blood libel” myth before, but I had never encountered the recent controversy over its supposed origins until it came up here. I don’t have any particular stance on this controversy.
Similarly, I missed one of your words while reading quickly.
I don’t agree with some things Nasser did, and I think Arab Nationalism is, in the end, backward. He was, however, secular, and those who followed in his tradition were usually fiercely opposed to Islamic states. Also, his internationalism and involvement in the Non-Aligned Movement, as well as the Organization of African Unity, speak to a broader perspective.
That’s all beside the point, though. I mostly just wish the Western powers had not seen people like him as so dangerous. The Middle East (and neighboring areas) were once ruled by many such secular socialist/nationalists, and now there are theocrats everywhere.
Here we have Gilbert Achcar pointing out that Nasser never said anything praising Hitler, and actually mentioned that he understood the post-Holocaust impetus behind the birth of Israel, but that it problematically resulted in the Nakba. Sadat, to a limited extent, did have praise for Hitler. I did see a Wikipedia reference to Nasser’s pro-Hitler leanings, but the nearest link did not support that assertion. I don’t doubt that he wanted to see the Axis toss the British out of Egypt. I see a pattern here.
You have a Master’s Degree of which your thesis was the relationship between the US and Israel and you’re looking to wikipedia for information?
I’m sorry, but that is absolutely comical.
No, I was wondering where you might have found it, and so naturally I looked there.
Considering my well-known contempt for wikipedia such an admission doesn’t inspire confidence in your research abilities.
Knock it off with the personal shots. This thread is sufficiently rancorous without making it personal.
[ /Moderating ]
Okay.
I have a life outside of this board. I didn’t know anything about your “well-known contempt for wikipedia,” and why should I?
Doubtful, since Nasser was a member of the overtly fascist Young Egypt Party (which modeled itself on the Nazi Party) in the 1930s:
“In October 1933, pro-Axis Young Egypt Party was founded. Styling itself of its German ideal, the new party built a storm-trooper unit, marching with torches under the slogan “One folk, One party, One Leader.” Among the members of the violently anti-Semitic party was the young Gamal Abdel Nasser. Nasser’s brother, Nassiri, was the translator of Hitler’s Mein Kampf into Arabic, describing the Fascist despot in glowing terms. After the “Free Officers” came to power in the 1950’s, President Nasser used Joachim Daumling, the former Gestapo chief in Dusseldorf, to build the Egyptian secret service. The Gestapo chief of Warsaw organized the Egyptian security police.”
If one is going to hype the Stern Gang affair, it behooves one not to ignore the well-documented historical connections and sympathies between Arab nationalist groups/leaders (like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) and the Nazis.