Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, April 24, 2006

Fund Smears Cole with Barrage of Lies

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal editorial page has published a large number of falsehoods about me.

The most egregious is this:



' He calls Israel "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." '



This a lie. I never said that. Try googling it. (All that comes up is the circular allegation I said it, never sourced. It never comes up on my site, because I did not say it, or say or imply anything like it.)

I did say that then-Israeli policies of assassinating people like Sheikh Yassin were dangerous to US interests in the Middle East. Since those policies also inspired such sympathy with Hamas that they went on to win the recent elections, the policies were dangerous to Israeli interests, too.

I presume Mr. Fund will apologize for libelling me and smearing me in an apparent attempt to interfere with my professional life.

That he can't get something so basic right, of course, says it all about the rest of his screed, during which he also accuses me of being a racist bigot for complaining about the then influence of Ariel Sharon and the Likud line on Bush administration policy toward the Middle East.

Mr. Fund should take it up with the Republican Party. Look at former National Security Council adviser under Bush senior, Brent Scowcroft: "Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft told London's Financial Times. "I think the president is mesmerized."

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell told W. that Douglas Feith, the number 3 man in the Pentagon was a "card-carrying member of the Likud." Powell also routinely referred to the Neocons in the Pentagon as the "Gestapo."

Fund calls me "anti-Israel." I have a funny way of showing it, if so. What he really demands is not that I be pro-Israel, but that I support Bibi Netanyahu. Why should I, Mr. Fund? Explain that to me.

Mr. Fund goes on to attempt to link me in some way with the Taliban. I am mystified by that particular smear. What similarity, exactly, does he see between an American member of the Democratic Party who voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry, and the devotees of Mullah Omar?

Fund inaccurately says that I am alone among academics in arguing that the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the Israel lobby should be given a hearing. He ignores Mark Mazower, Tony Judt, and a host of others. Fund accuses me of saying that AIPAC is powerful in Congress. La di la.

Mr Fund has clearly never read a word I've ever written. He has just cobbled together some snarky smears from other pundits who also have never read my work. Indeed, I know how to fix this Rightwing smear machine that has revved up against me. We'll make a rule that they can't criticize me unless they read my scholarly works first. :-)

As for the Web log being unscholarly or polemical, there are some issues about which some sharp writing is necessary. Fund can't make up his mind as to whether the problem with me is that I have written books about the 19th century Middle East, or that I comment extensively on contemporary developments. I'm not sure what business it is of his, anyway. But he should not lie so blatantly about me.

15 Comments:

At 1:25 PM, Blogger Cervantes said...

Hey don't worry about it. What would be weird would be a WSJ editorial that was truthful.

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger JoshSN said...

Well, John Fund has a career in journalism, based on his being completely accurate at all times. The google search "john fund site:mediamatters.org" has 53,200 results.

John Fund was the guy who impregnated the daughter of a former lover of his, then forced her to have an abortion, the way I hear it. He was supposed to help her get a start in NYC. Some start! What a hero! He complained loudly and proudly about Clinton's sex life before his own affairs came to light.

Some self-gratified slob on top, over at the WSJ, probably gets his jollies from watching Fund's pathetic partisan baseless smear pieces.

And this is supposed to be America's foremost _business_ paper? You'd think you were writing about corporate developments in the Middle East, whatever the century.

 
At 1:48 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

There is a problem with any and all who use the smear "antisemitism" whenever the smear is used indiscriminately to stifle legitimate discussion of Israel's activities.

The problem is this: legitimate discussion in these times requires one to think outside the accepted "attitudes" imposed by those with political power. Whenever a political group achieves too much power, essentail debate is deemed "evil."

Those who demand we accept all of Israel's attitudes also question why there was too little outcry against NAZI thought control. The answer, of course is that NAZIs stifled debate.

Israel may wither under its borrowed poison.

 
At 2:35 PM, Blogger Tano said...

Juan,

It should be a source of pride for you that people like Fund are your enemies.

Thanks for all the informed comment over the years - and I hope all works out well in your professional life.

 
At 2:42 PM, Blogger Dr. C said...

Professor Cole. You bring a wealth of intelligence and honesty to the discussion. I can't have any idea how many people support and rely on your comments. Does it not strike you that the tactics that Fund et al use are, as so many have pointed out, just those that intimidated the Germany of 1933-45.

 
At 4:34 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I agree with the other posts here - Anyone who blindly believes anything published in the WSJ opinion pages is probably too busy watching Fox News and dailing in to the favorite Bigotry News Radio to have any time left to examine Prof. Cole's ACTUAL writing...

Regarding "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East", it is certainly NOT Israel - that honor has long been bestowed on the Bush administration. After all, what other country with nuclear weapons is currently seriously planning on using nukes in the Middle East? Even Israel has never gone that far on a first strike plan.

Israel's last major military adventure in the ME was the 1996 Operation Grapes of Wrath. To focus on Israel as the pre-eminent danger in the ME is, as Republicans love to say, pre 9/11 thinking.

US are the dangers, koo koo katchoo.

 
At 10:11 PM, Blogger Justin said...

I took your invitation to google the quote, and saw that John Fund has extremely lax standards as a writer. The closest thing I saw was "The most dangerous regime to United States interests in the Middle East is that of Ariel Sharon," which bears a very limited resemblance to the words Fund put in your mouth.

Changing the quote in this way substantially alters the meaning from a criticism of the particular regime of Ariel Sharon to a criticism of an entire nation, a reading which is explicitly ruled out by your praise of Yitzak Rabin. Perhaps it's second nature for someone like Fund to confuse criticism of a nation's leader for hatred of that nation.

 
At 12:01 AM, Blogger -a- said...

Sounds to me like a tempest in a teapot. It was predictable that the Daniel Pipes contingent would try to interfere with Professor Cole's negotiations at Yale, and I can't imagine that getting controversialists like John Fund into the game (I believe he's at the Opinion Journal, incidentally, having been fired from the Journal's actual editorial page) will do their cause any good. Obviously notoriety is part of the package--so far as I know Hana Batatu isn't being considered!

The star of faux-experts like Pipes and Martin Kramer seems to be on the wane -- your appointment at Yale would certainly put an exclamation point on that trend. Unfortunately, for tens of thousands of people (and counting) it will be about three or four years too late.

 
At 12:20 AM, Blogger DavidEhrenstein said...

I was going to bring up Fund's past but Josh Narins got there first.

These people are SCUM, Juan. Don't let them forget it!

 
At 12:26 AM, Blogger Scaramouche said...

Being against assasination, whoever practices it, is plainly anti-terroist. Considering the origin of the word assasin one could consider you an opponent of irrationality.

The more I delve into the rhetoric of this adminstration I see the manipulation of the facts worthy of Peter the Hermit.

 
At 12:37 AM, Blogger @whut said...

The spoon-fed offspring of Poweline blogger Scott Johnson is repeating the defamation at the New York Sun
Eliana Johnson

This stuff spreads like wildfire.

 
At 12:44 AM, Blogger MG said...

I'd be most interested in hearing about any legal action taken for printing such an obvious falsehood. After reading the "responses" on WSJ, it seems that no one who reads his tripe has any interest in discovering the truth, since none of them found his lie the least bit relevant.

Let us know when you get that apology. In writing.

 
At 3:59 AM, Blogger lukery said...

we've got your back, juan

 
At 11:40 AM, Blogger melior said...

Prof. Cole,

This puts you in the great company of numerous others who the rightwing smear dogs have been sicced on for speaking the truth. Lies will not stand.

 
At 2:15 PM, Blogger SYNCRO.ORG said...

These days, you're nobody if you haven't been swift-boated by creeps like Fund. How pathetic and petty they are. I guess they see Juan as a danger to their fantasy world and political weapons of mass distortion.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home