• AHA refuses to run ad for tome on “special relationship” between United States, Israel.
By Ronald L. Ray —
Most people think of historians as quietbookworms, squirreled away in cornersof ancient libraries. Few recognizethe more radical side of theirprofession, however, which for severaldecades has pushed various racial, social andpolitical ideologies as the yardstick of historical interpretation.
Take, for example, the American Historical Association(AHA), the largest organization of professionalhistorians in America. Claiming to “serve theinterests of the entire discipline of history,” it also issuesstatements on everything from a jaywalking arrestto opposing Georgia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Now, they have censored advertisingfor a new history book about the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.”
Apparently, modern history comes equipped with a memory hole.
On April 4, 2015, AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke withMs. Weir about her new book and the shocking experiencethat resulted when she attempted to placea paid advertisement for it in one of the publications of the AHA.
Against Our Better Judgment is a meticulouslyresearched work, with hundreds of footnotes andnumerous primary and reliable secondary sources—many of which are now out of print. A non-governmentalorganization rigorously checked the factsbefore publication and, although self-published, thebook has been highly praised—even by former StateDepartment officials.
The book tries to answer the question, “Whywould Israel be considered an ally of the U.S.?” Afterall, notes Weir, it is a barren country with no naturalresources to speak of. Surely the answer would be ofhistorical interest to many, especially as a key to understandingthe present conflict. As the author foundout, the State Department actually long considered Israel a detriment to our national interests.
But Zionist Jews—some already or soon thereafterwealthy—organized massive fundraising andpropaganda campaigns well before 1948. They deliberatelyco-opted Christiansinto their schemes and engagedin heavy-handed pressuretactics against non-ZionistJews, the media and politicians.And after the illegal declarationof the state of Israel,the Zionists made sure Americansnever learned about thewidespread persecution andmurder of Palestinian Christiansor the destruction of Christian holy places.
One would think a paid advertisementfor such a seminalbook would be welcomedby the AHA, but they refused to accept it, withoutexplanation. Ms. Weir’s follow-up inquiries led Dr.James Grossman, executive director of the AHA, toclaim the book “does not fall within the scope of themission of the AHA,” is “advocacy not scholarship”and was not “peer reviewed” or “reviewed by the mainstream press.”
Ms. Weir refuted these claims in an article on thewebsite “Counterpunch,” pointing out that Grossmanand the executive committee have not read thebook. But they have advertised books and printedarticles from “mainstream” sources that containedglaring errors, including writings about Israel. Theobjection of “self-publishing” from Grossman wasturned back by proof the AHA previously advertised (page 19) Michael Swanson’s self-published The War State.
Ms. Weir even joined the AHA.
“I am very interested in history,” she told AFP.
She began posting in AHA web forums aboutthe advertising refusal. She received some “verythoughtful responses” from both sides. But Grossmanhimself posted a response she characterizedas “rude” and “hostile.” Moreover, said Ms. Weir,the partisans of Israel “very quickly stoop to characterassassination, rather than discussing the factualcontent.”
Ms. Weir characterized the advertising rejectionas “very puzzling. I don’t think they have a valid reasonfor rejecting [it]. . . . In a way, it is a restraint oftrade. Some people can sell their books, and somecannot.” She saw the decision as contraryto principles of free speech andacademic freedom, restricting accessto the “marketplace of ideas.” Shesaid the “our journal/our decision”justification is a “ ‘might makes right’ argument” and is not “principled.”
AFP also attempted to interviewGrossman. He was unavailable for atelephone interview but agreed to answerour written questions. However,his reply to nine questionsabout refusing advertising forAgainst Our Better Judgment wasterse: “The AHA has no comment onthese questions.” No summary ofAHA’s view; no statement about academicfreedom, free speech or restraintof trade in relationship totheir decision and no defense againstMs. Weir’s incisive criticisms of theiractions. There was also no answer as to what influence,if any, resulted from pro-Israel, pro-Jewish oranti-Palestinian bias or prejudice—although a disproportionatenumber of executive committee members appear to be Jewish based on their names.
For her part, Ms.Weir concludes that she believesit is important to have the facts from both sides about the U.S. and Israel versus Palestine.
“One thing that motivates my work is oppositionto racism and discrimination,” she said. She points to a United Nations resolution calling Zionism a form of racism.
“Israel is based on discrimination,” she added.
Her goal—apparently not shared by the AHA—isto bring that truth to Americans, and to get the U.S. out of its destructive foreign entanglement with Israel.
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=23976#sthash.Ai6lGoZE.dpuf