TPMCafe
« From Reagan to Norquist | Home | The 2008 presidential campaign and the legacy of the Cheney Project »

Dershowitz Demands Obama Fire Brzezinski!

user-pic

It is almost laughable. Alan Dershowitz, legal gadfly and OJ Simpson lawyer, is demanding that Barack Obama dismiss foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, because Brzezinski said something nice about the Walt-Mearsheimer book about the Israel lobby.

Cool. Second degree Mc Carthyism! Obama didn't do anything. Brzezinski didnt do anything. But Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book the lobby does not like and so Brzezinski must go down for not condemning it. There are two possible explanations for this.

One is that Dershowitz has decided to take it upon himself to corroborate part of the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis i.e. that Dershowitz and other de facto lobbyists see it as their role to squelch any opinion on the Middle East that they don't agree with.

The other is that Dershowitz decided to celebrate the Jewish New Year by simply being Dershowitz and, as is his custom, embarrassing millions of Jews who cringe in disgust every time he publicly mouths his paranoid musings about Jews and anti-Semitism. (I mean, we Jews have Scarlett Johannsen, Shawn Green, Jon Stewart, Natalie Portman, Sara Silverman, Laura Rozen, Ari Berman, Suzanne Goldenberg, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Max Blumenthal, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jamie-Lynn Sigler, Borat, and Josh Marshall. Why do we have to suffer the humiliation of being "represented" by Alan Dershowitz)? Read the story and weep, or laugh. And hope that Obama does not cave....any more than he already did.

PS THOSE INTERESTED in following the daily attempts to muzzle debate on this issue should go to this site and subscribe to their e-mails. I don't agree with all of it but there are enough horror stories about the squelching of debate over the issue that dare not speak its name that it is worth reading.

 

 


176 Comments

| Leave a comment

Another possibility is that Dershowitz is acting as a campaign proxy for Hillary Clinton, to whom he donated $1,000.

Maybe I'm too stuck in viewing things through an electoral lens, but it's interesting to note that this issue didn't really come up (to my knowledge) when Obama first rolled out the Brezinski endorsement, but rather, seems more in response to his recent op-ed about sanctions on Iran and his Iraq speech...i.e., timed politically well to distract from what gains Obama could be making nationally on foreign policy issues, particularly with the Jewish community.

Facebook

This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.

Shall we be surprised that a man who defends the collective punishment(home demolitions) of innocent palestinians to sanction the behaviour of their out-of-reach cousins would seek to impose collective punishment on Americans for alleged refusal to cooperate in his tribal enterprises. Guilt by association is a dangerous weapon, particularly for one who indulges himself in the sorts of loathsome associations that have come to embrace, and be embraced, by the once revered, now reviled, pipsqueak of Cambridge.

What other techniques besides the efficacy of torture, censorship, control of the press and academia has Dershowitz learned and copied from the fascist playbook?

I think the tactic here is to try to force Obama to wade publicly into the minefield around "the lobby", where almost everything a candidate says will lose him support from one camp or another. Because this challenge comes from someone as high-profile as Dershowitz, some reporters will probably pick up on it and push on it. Let's see how Obama handles it.

Ouch!

MJ just helped me realize that I'd be more comfortable being represented by the words of Sara Silverman than Alan Dershowitz. There is, no doubt, something not quite right with that woman. But at least she knows when she's talking nonsense. I think, when it's all added up, she might even be the one who is more often correct.

I do, occasionally, agree with some of Dershowitz's more controversial statements. But mostly in the "stopped clock" vein. You know, "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

It'll be interesting. I guess I'd handle it this way -- if anybody asks for a reaction to Dershowitz's comments, simply say "I don't answer to Dershowitz" and then stick to that. I mean, why's Dershowitz so special?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If Obama responds he will just empower the rhetoric.

I haven't seen this issue on any other news sites so why make it a story?

MJ, you really don't understand democracy. Dershowitz can say whatever he wants; you don't have to agree with him. If he thinks that Brzezinski supports Anti Semites, it's his right and even duty to call Obama to fire Brzezinski. When Hillary Clinton hired Peter Fenn, who supports strike breaker, many called Clinton to fire him and I agree with that.

Mc Carthyisms is when you systematically chase down people who happen to have an ideology you hate. None of this applies here. Name calling is really not helpful.

As for Obama, he'll do well to send Brzezinski packing because Brzezinski is a machine generating cliches and not a thinking man; Obama can buy a parrot to do Brzezinski's job.

Last and least, Walt-Mearsheimer may not be Anti Semitic, but wrote an Anti Semitic book. The story of the Jews that control the press, the banks and now the policy in the Middle East is old, and I thought, went out of style long ago. (Even the support of Saddam in the past and the Saudi regime now is controlled by the Jewish lobby, I guess.)

I wonder how Matt Yglesias feels about being included in the same tier as Scarlett Johannsen and Jon Stewart.

I am reading it now. Mearsheimer and Walt's book is definitely not antisemitic. It simply points out that the US is pursuing policies in the ME that are in Israel's but not the US's interests. Indeed, policies that are hurting the US. This is controversial but not antisemitic.

Dershowitz should be exposed for the the danger that he is to this country. He is evil. He was the first prominent American to argue in favor of using torture in the war on terrorism. He recently organized a national campaign to deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein at DePaul University because Finkelstein supports Palestian rights. He has accused Carter of antisemitism. Of course, he has the right to spew this vile garbage, but because he is so prominent in this country we have the duty to expose him for it.

I think Josh should banish MJ Rosenberg's columns for his attack on Dershowitz! :-)

"Brzezinski is a machine generating cliches and not a thinking man; Obama can buy a parrot to do Brzezinski's job."

Zbig's certainly not a "thinking man" like those towering intellects you probably agree with, namely Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, George Bush, Dick Cheney, ad nauseum...

koshembos said: MJ, you really don't understand democracy. Dershowitz can say whatever he wants; you don't have to agree with him...."

1- I see nothing in MJ's commentary that suggests he doesn't understand Democracy, nor do I see anything that addresses Democracy one way or another.

2- Looking at Dershowitz's role here, maybe its Dershowitz that doesn't understand Democracy.

brewmn,

heh heh heh, good post. :-)

Isn't it interesting that in Congressional testimony in February that Brezezinski said:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran?

Sounds like a unhinged blogger conspiracy theorist to me!

Brzezinski not a thinking man?!

It is almost laughable.

MJ wrote a post about Iraq and got meager 36 comments.
So what should poor MJ do to get attention?
Write a hysterical post about Jewish lobby to attract Jew-haters and one staters.

======================================
On September 7, 2007 - 12:40pm petermschwartz52 said:
MJ made a promise not to comment on Israel?

On September 7, 2007 - 2:33pm mjrosenberg said:
Peter, I did say it because I don't like having extremists piggyback on my posts. But then I decided that it's more important to put out my views, even if the usual suspects use me as an opportunity to rant. Thanks, MJ

On September 7, 2007 - 2:59pm davai said:
It's not an honest explanation.

On September 8, 2007 - 4:19pm petermschwartz5
In what way isn't it honest?
============================================
The reason is that he broke his promise has nothing to do with need to put out his views and ideas.

He has few or any new ideas beyond idea that
Jewish Lobby is screwing America.
He just craves for good ratings and he would write any hysterical post to get attention.

MJ, Here is a challenge for you.
Write a post about policy issues in I/P or ME
in general without using word "lobby".
Let see if you can do it.

Wouldn't it be great if our want-to-be leaders were forced to go on the record on this subject. Given Iraq and given the drumbeat for war with Iran, both supported by AIPAC, I think it is critical to hear the candidate's opinion about the influence of this lobby on our foreign policy. It should be mandatory

Read the book. It has nothing to do with anti-semiticism except if one were looking to smear the Harvard and University of Chicago professor's message.

BTW, MJ
"(I mean, we Jews have Scarlett Johannsen, Shawn Green, Jon Stewart, Natalie Portman, Sara Silverman, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Max Blumenthal, Jake Gyllenhaal and Josh Marshall. Why do we have to suffer the humiliation of being "represented" by Alan Dershowitz)? "

We also have Norman Finkelstein.
I wonder why you never write about him and Dershowitz's role in denying tenure to NF. Does it have anything to do with attempt not to disaapoint your supporters like syvanen?
If he in your fame or shame list of American Jews?

And why should we listen to you about what we will discuss. The lobby happens to be a very important subject that is now being openly discussed. Public exposure is the way to counteract its influence.

There is no doubt that it does exist nor is there any doubt that it is very influential. And finally, since major players in the lobby are now advocating that the US move against Iran, we should be very concerned. At least, among those of us who see a US attack against Iran as a very serious mistake.

BTW the Mearsheimer and Walt book is very powerful indeed. Even for those who think they know everthing, like myself, it has much that is new.

koshembos,
I agree with you that Dershowitz can say whatever he wants. Judge Louis Brandeis said in 1927:
"Those who won our independence . . . believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to political truth . . "

But MJ didn't dispute that Dershowitz has the right to speak his mind, did he. And MJ has that same right, doesn't he.

"The lobby happens to be a very important subject"

Don't be modest.
It's Jewish lobby that you would like to discuss.
"Public exposure is the way to counteract its influence."
Public exposure of Jewish lobby is not new.
Jewish lobby was exposed for the last 2000 years with mixed results.
BTW, even in France Jewish lobby is very powerful.
The president of France recently said that Iran should not be allowed to get atomic weapons.

Speaking of hinges, B. said back in 1998 when asked about the US spawning of Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Re: The Lobby

from the web:
The center of the problem that Mearsheimer and Walt describe in their book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy ", is how politics is financed in the USA. Perhaps you remember this quote from M&W (taken from the Sunday Times):

They quote the experience of a Senate candidate who was invited to visit AIPAC early in his campaign for “discussions”. Harry Lonsdale described what followed as “an experience I will never forget. It wasn’t enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be . . . Shortly after that . . . I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel . . . that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called; they gave from Florida to Alaska”.
---------------
"The most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel"--AIPAC
http://www.aipac.org/

"for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be . "

So what they (opinion) are?

The president of France recently said that Iran should not be allowed to get atomic weapons.
It's not always clear what the resident Iranian loudmouth, Ahmadinejad, is calling for. Gharavian and Yazdi, who are close to said loudmouth, have suggested Iran should have nuclear weapons.
OTOH, the man with the actual power in Iran, certainly including command of the military, Khamenei, issued a fatwa saying
The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.
In a statement to the IAEA, the Iranian representative said,
We as members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are proud to underline that none of the NPT members of the NAM rely on nuclear weapons in any way for their security. That is not the case of many other states, who either possess nuclear weapons or are member of nuclear-armed alliances and it is such states that have taken on the self-assigned role of denying Iran its legal rights under the NPT to access the peaceful uses of nuclear technology in conformity with the treaty's non-proliferation obligations
Hmmm...clearly, the declaratory members of the NPT do rely on nuclear weapons as part of their security. Two non-members of the NPT have declared they have nuclear weapons, and clearly have them as part of their defense. North Korea was removing itself from the NPT, but I'm not sure if it's still doing so.
Can anyone think of a state that is not an NPT member, has not declared itself as a nuclear power, but is generally accepted to be one of the more potent nuclear powers? But that must be OK, because the President of France says Iran shouldn't get nuclear weapons. Further, Brutus is an honorable man.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Rachel Corrie, 23, was crushed under an Israeli bulldozer three years ago. A play from her writings played to great reviews in London but was cancelled in NY due to pressure from the “community” and cancelled in Canada as well.

From Philip Weiss in Nation: But Nicola's statement about a back channel to Jewish leaders suggests the presence of a cultural lobby that parallels the vaunted pro-Israel lobby in think tanks and Congress. [snip] Having spent five months defending Munich, he [screenwriter Tony Kushner] says the fear has two sources: "There is a very, very highly organized attack machinery that will come after you if you express any kind of dissent about Israel's policies, and it's a very unpleasant experience to be in the cross hairs. These aren't hayseeds from Kansas screaming about gays burning in hell; they're newspaper columnists who are taken seriously." These attackers impose a kind of literacy test: Before you can cast a moral vote on Palestinian rights, you must be able to recite a million wonky facts, such as what percentage of the territories were outside the Green Line in 1949. Then there is the self-generated fear of lending support to anti-Semites or those who would destroy Israel. All in all, says Kushner, it can leave someone "overwhelmed and in despair--you feel like you should just say nothing."

Who will tell Americans the Middle East story? For generations that story has been one of Israelis as victims, and it has been crucial to Israeli policy inasmuch as Israel has been able to defy its neighbors' opinions by relying on a highly sympathetic superpower. Israel's supporters have always feared that if Americans started to conduct the same frank discussion of issues that takes place in Tel Aviv, we might become more evenhanded in our approach to the Middle East. That pressure is what has stifled a play that portrays the Palestinians as victims (and thrown a blanket over a movie, Munich, that portrays both sides as victims). I've never written this sort of thing before. How moving that we have been granted that freedom by a 23-year-old woman with literary gifts who was not given time to unpack them.

Corrie's play was going to travel to Israel, but it can’t play here? I think that Americans would loudly denounce censorship here in defense of a foreign country's interests (be it Israel or anyone) if they were aware of it. Free speech is the backbone of democracy where the system is structured for ideas to compete in an open “marketplace.” There is too much chilling of speech and attacks on academia from the right as it is. Walt and Mearsheimer have performed a valuable service in documenting this undue influence and initiating an honest debate about it.


It is not the Jewish lobby, it is the Israel lobby. It is not the same. A majority of the American Jews do not support right wing Israeli politics, but the American Israel lobby does. The lobby includes Christian Zionists but the average American Jew is horrified by those cretins.

You wish to define it as the Jewish lobby so to set up the charge of antisemitism against its critics. Sorry, but that is not going to work anymore. This discussion is going to continue and it will slowly leak out into mainstream America.

"A majority of the American Jews do not support right wing Israeli politics, but the American Israel lobby does."
Can you give me an example of a specific policy
that a specific well known Jewish organization/Lobby advocates (pointers please) that is not supported
by majority of the American Jews (pointers please)

The war in Iraq for one. The use of nuclear weapons against Iran for another. Even war against Iran without nukes. Expansion of the Westbank settlements.

Good point. While its true Zbiggy sounds like a paragon of reason these days, at least when compared to the neo-conartists, he in great part was a driving force in setting into motion the virus of Islamist asymmetrical warfare. He was and is a proponent of the imperial Great Game strategy of surrounding and containing emerging Eurasian powers (Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan). This is just as delusional and counterproductive as the neocon worldview, and just as dangerous in the long run, if not as overtly militaristic (and a bit more subtle). He is just a softer, a little more "left" member of the War Party in America and has no place as an advisor to a sane Democratic president. Nothing will change until we get rid of these hacks who dream into being a Clash of Civilizations.

UA

the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran

Uh...didn't Lieberman ask Petraeus permission to start a war with Iran just yesterday?

Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks
Check

followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure
Check

then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran;
Haven't Bush and Podhoretz and all them been saying Iran has been "provoking" us in Iraq for a few months now?

culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Well, didn't Lieberman just ask to go to war with Iran just yesterday? Aren't we already in Iraq, Afghanistan, making incursions into Pakistani territory?

Sounds about right to me.

A terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran?

Why not? The last one was blame on Iraq, after all, and we sure as hell aren't going to blame Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

OK, Let's pick up one issue a time.
"Expansion of the Westbank settlements."

I don't think that majority of American Jews dsupport this.

Which Jewish organization support Expansion of the Westbank settlements? Pointers please.

I don't know what the hell pointers are but (1) AIPAC lobbied for the Iraq war vigorously (2) AIPAC lobbies vigorously against any US penalties against Israel for settlement expansion (3) AIPAC lobbies against the two-state solution by consistently opposing US aid to the Palestinians as incentives for negotiation. AIPAC is the neocon lobby on Capitol Hill.

The American Jewish community opposes AIPAC in each
of those cases as do most Members of Congress. AIPAC's support is purchased with campaign contributions.

Read Walt-Mearsheimer. 100 pages of footnotes proving each of those points.

In the days of JF Dulles' Massive Retaliation, it was argued we couldn't afford to match the Soviet's conventional force quantities, thus nukes were cost-effective. Then some troublemaker at RAND asked how the Soviets could afford it if we couldn't. The contradiction was ignored, and the doctrine was changed only because it didn't work in the war games. 

I find an inherent contradiction in the scare-view of Iran, which considers it an irrational, religious-fanatic rogue state, while ignoring the statements of its supreme religious leader.

Maybe we can someday accept that, while no one is purely rational, most people aren't crazy.

This is way off the deep end. I was assigned the article that preceded this book by Mearsheimer and Walt for a college course I took. When I googled the article, I was blown away by the all-out attack on this work.

I began to question the Israel Lobby article critics, when time after time, they insulted the public’s intelligence by accusing a University of Chicago prof, and Harvard Kennedy School dean of shoddy scholarship. That is ludicrous on its face. (No person becomes a dean at Harvard or prof at U of Chicago who hasn’t proven competent scholarship)

There are powerful lobbies, plenty of scholars write on the topic, and these lobbies are a threat to the well being of our country. None of that is a secret! Presumably, these conversations help us to learn, improve and make corrections. I want to know why a Harvard law professor-- who should understand the benefits of honest debate and have a little respect for the first amendment—is trying to control what everybody else thinks, says and does.

Good grief. Is Dershowitz really advocating that we turn our country into one where the secret harvard law police decide what gets published and who our candidates choose to advise them? This nut teaches at Harvard? Dershowitz's actions here resemble Bush's dictator-like approach to those who don't agree with him. Good thing Walt and Mearsheimer don’t have wives working undercover in the CIA.

Now, could we get off this and onto the substantive issues that we must address for a better, safer world for all-- including Israel and Palestine and the US and the rest?

"(1) AIPAC lobbied for the Iraq war vigorously"
Any pointers?
As I pointed before, Sharon goverment was against
war in Iraq. but I don't want to re-start tis discussion.

AIPAC lobbies vigorously against any US penalties against Israel for settlement expansion

Yes, during Bush 1, if I remember correctly
AIPCAC lobbied for loan guaranties, however, if I remember correctly most American Jews supported
that position.

"(3) AIPAC lobbies against the two-state solution by consistently opposing US aid to the Palestinians as incentives for negotiation. AIPAC is the neocon lobby on Capitol Hill."

Yes, AIPCAP lobbies against any help to Hamas,
but I'm guessing that majority of Americans as well as majority of American Jews agree with AIPAC on this issue.

I don't think that AIPAC objects to US aid to
Abbas .


So, it seems to me that while you might not approve specific positions of AIPAC, most of Americans and American Jews support specific policies advocated by AIPAC.

One more thing.
Two top Aipac officials have been indicted on charges of espionage and will be tried in January.

So how does Aipac accumulate its power? How much of a part does Aipac's Steve Rosen and Jonsthan Pollard have to do with that success?

I'm looking forward to that trial when Aipac will be exposed as the den of spies it is.

Aipac: the ONLY American lobby ever charged with espionage.

"I was blown away by the all-out attack on this work."

Did you find any critizism that was not
"all-out attack " ?

In general, Is it OK to critize (not attack) Mearsheimer and Walt?

"Aipac: the ONLY American lobby ever charged with espionage. "
AIPAC is not charged with espionage.

I guess thast you changed subject because you don't have answers to my points.

Davai,

I don't remember much except the accusations of shoddy scholarship. I'm sure there were more substantive criticisms, but the attempts to discredit the authors themselves overwhelmed any discussion about the substance.

AIPAC charged with espionage.  As Mark says, the first lobby in US history charged with spying on America.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/09/03/070903taco_talk_remnick
The Lobby By David Remnick

Is this attack or criticisms ?

Not AIPAC but two employees.

It should be mentioned that as a "representative" of the Jewish public and Israeli lobby, and by presenting politicians with that lose/lose dilemma and the notion they must toe the line of AIPAC, he's only doing harm to Jewish political influence in the long term. To whatever extent that clown actually has influence on the matter.

Despite Dershowitz's other personal accomplishments as a lawyer and scholar, he's fanatical in regards Israel and basically espouses that what's good for Israel is good for the US.

Israel shares many values with America, rule of law, a free press, etc. and in those regards Dershowitz is an accomplished scholar. But to question Israeli policy, on human rights, and many of the same issues at play in American FP, is to be labeled a bigot by him.

Again and again he argues the US must support Israel, unconditionally, and may never question their polices. According to Dershowitz Israel can do no wrong. And neither can anything the US does in support of Israel be questioned.

This isn't a question of expertise within a given legal framework. This is a question of national loyalty.

That they both worked for the same lobby was, of course, totally coincidental. It was also totally coincidental that they have been charged with spying for the same country for which Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying.

All random events, which could not possibly have been in other than the best interests of the United States.

That CLANG is the iron just clearing Davai's head and hitting the floor.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I hope to God you're not onto something, Mopper8, but some reporter should look into this. It certainly would not be out of character for Mark Penn, Hillary's Rove, to enlist Dershowitz to try and drive a wedge between Jews and Obama -- and to do it during the High Holidays season when Jews do tend to talk politics a lot. If Obama is asked about this directly, all he needs to say is, "Unlike George W Bush, I listen to people with a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives. I don't believe in Groupthink. I don't agree with everything Mr. Brzezinski has written, nor do I agree with everything that any of the people I receive foreign policy advice from have written. I decide matters of policy for myself based on consideration of all the facts and all the relevant perspectives. If more politicians did that, maybe we wouldn't be in Iraq right now."

By the way, Dershowitz wrote a book shortly after 9/11 justifying the use of torture. If Obama played politics in as dirty a manner as Dershowitz, he might say, "I demand of Hillary that she return the contribution of Mr. Dershowitz and any other known apologists for torture."

Dear Howard,
In our previuos exchange, you concluded that you don't respect me. Not that I care, but why would you piggy back on my comments with your garbabe stream of words ?
Write your own comments.

"Again and again he argues the US must support Israel, unconditionally, and may never question their polices. According to Dershowitz Israel can do no wrong. And neither can anything the US does in support of Israel be questioned."

Obviously, Dershowitz never said anything like that. This is your impression of Dershowitz.

You are correct that I neither respect you personally, nor have any substantive regard for your posts. You choose to call my posts "garbage", but do not actually dispute them with substance.

When you post material that is easily refuted by specific information or by reasonably applied logic, I will contribute to the cleaning up of waste by refuting such posts. If you start being substantive rather than answering most questions with repeated "give me an example", rarely giving examples to support your posts; if your posts start having a flavor of honest discussion rather than being an apologist for Israeli policies and actions questionable in international law; if you stop using tu quoque excuses, I would be inclined to let your posts speak for yourself.


Not that I care, but why would you piggy back on my comments with your garbabe stream of words ?

Obviously, you do care, or you would not be asking for my reasons. Obviously, they challenge you, or you would not be responding with rather juvenile comments such as "garbabe streams".

In any event, would not piggy backing violate your dietary laws?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Koshembos, I agree that the "McCarthy-ite" label is too often resorted to, but here it's about right. What McCarthy did is lump together actual communists with those who merely defended their rights. What Dershowitz is doing is saying that Brzezinski should be blacklisted from working for any politician, not because Brzezinski is an anti-semite, but because he defended Walt and Mearsheimer from the charge that they are anti-semitic. For the record, I should say that I would not and do not defend Walt and Mearsheimer's argument; many others have demolished their methodology without resort to Dershowitzian hysteria. Nor do I agree with some things that Brzezinski has said about Israel, but I hope and expect that politicians will tap into experienced people with differing perspectives; otherwise you get the Cheney/Bush mentality, where diversity of opinion is lacking and Colin Powell is left out important decisions while Perle, Wolfowitz, and Cheney -- all sharing the same preconceptions and orthodoxies -- made policy.

Truman famously overruled George Marshall, the framer of the Marshall Plan, on recognizing Israel. I think Truman got that one right, and Marshall was less than sympathetic to the plight of Jewish refugees, but I would not think that if we could go back in time, we'd demand of Truman that he fire Marshall, just that he not agree with his advice not to recognize Israel.

Thank you for drawing an obvious if (apparently)widely ignored distinction.

Conflating Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism is rather like the conflation of the various anti-american elements in Iraq with al Quaeda. A pernicious rhetorical tool which is employed to stifle legitimate analysis, resulting in a profound failure to understand the geo-strategic elements which are in play.

Put differently, the only "return" I find relevant me is "return to Brooklyn"--That's the only homeland I ever left.

Frankly, after Sabra and Chatillah (let alone Rachel Corrie) I wanted to piss on the law of the return in front of the Israeli Embassy;I refrained, out of fear of Zionist terrorism (Meyer Kahane & Co., this means you, in whatever corner of hell you currently inhabit).

Time to cut Israel loose--like an adult and abused pit bull--not housebroken, unfit to keep as a pet.

"By the way, Dershowitz wrote a book shortly after 9/11 justifying the use of torture"

"Dershowitz says that he is personally against the use of torture, yet he argues that authorities should be permitted to use non-lethal torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario, regardless of conventional international legal prohibitions; that it would be less destructive to the rule of law to regulate the process than to leave such permission to the discretion of individual law-enforcement agents. He favors preventing the government from prosecuting the subject of such torture based upon information revealed during such an interrogation. Moreover, he argues, hypothetically: "If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, [then] it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice."[24][1]"

I'm not sure that Obama wants to start discussion what to do in ticking bomb" scenario.
So you are giving him a bad advice.

If I've mischaracterized Dershowitz's position on torture, I withdraw the advice to Obama, which was not all that serious anyway (I prefaced the 'advice' by saying, IF he were playing dirty, which of course he isn't).

I will confess to describing Dershowitz's position from memory; I did not go back and look at the book or find transcripts of the numerous interviews he gave in late 2001 or early 2002. So your info appears to be better than mine re Dershowitz (though your citations seem to have been omitted). The rest of my post stands.

Rule of law?

The Israeli army has destroyed over 350 homes and damaged 500 in the Rafah neighborhoods of Palestine. This is being done to make way for a gigantic steel wall along the Egyptian border, on which Israel began construction in October 2002. photo 1, photo 2 .

Endless destructions, and family members searching for remains in the rubble photo.

Bulldozer erasing another house in our neighborhood photo.

You win.

Aha, but MJ didn't attack Dershowitz, did he. Nice try, John, but MJ slips the dragnet yet again.

"Dershowitz Demands Obama Fire Brzezinski!"

Umm, that's exciting. When did Obama hire Brzezinski?

"Dershowitz and other de facto lobbyists see it as their role to squelch any opinion on the Middle East that they don't agree with."

Not to pick nits while you're conspiracy-theorizing, but think about the word "any" above - it makes your sentence nonsensical. And given your "Mc Carthyism!" above, how does this statement not apply equally well to you?

You really ought to have started by noting the fact that Obama says the book is fundamentally wrong, which nearly refutes Dershowitz's attack by itself. But you're apparently just another ideologue like Dershowitz.

More's the pity that such battle is needful. As Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, observed, "Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won."


--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Innumerable force of Spirits armed,
That durst dislike his reign, and, me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power opposed
In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven,
And shook His throne." [John Milton]

MJ: "Alan Dershowitz, legal gadfly and OJ Simpson lawyer, is demanding "

Don: "MJ didn't attack Dershowitz"

Dershowitz, lately, makes a good argument against tenure without periodic review.

I hear him rant periodically about things that displease him. Does he do any good these days holding down a professorship?

Sorry, you lost .... your mind

The Bush administration had no problem blaming 9/11 on Saddan. When the U.S. went to war with Iraq, a large majority of Americans believed Saddam was responsible or at least played a major role.

So if there is another attack, there is every reason to believe that the Bush administration, assisted by a docile mainstream media manned by stenographers, instead of reporters, could hang this on Iran.

By all means attack Dershovitz, who tries to destroy anyone who has the audacity to criticise Israel or Zionism. Look at what the guy did to Finkelstein. Dershowitz is a threat to our freedom to discuss middle eastern policy freely and uninhibitedly.

In discussions of middle eastern policy the Israel Lobby is the elephant in the room that almost everybody is pretending not to notice because if anyone says "Hey there's an elephant in the room!" he immediately gets accused of being anti-semetic.

"The story of the Jews that control the press, the banks and now the policy in the Middle East"

What about the story of the Jew that prevented a jewish scholar from getting tenure because he was critical of Israel. Dershowitz is working very hard to prove that the story is true.

Dershowitz can say whatever he wants but other people are free to criticise him and to urge others not to pay any attention to him, which they by all means should.

"You really ought to have started by noting the fact that Obama says the book is fundamentally wrong"

This once again proves that the Israel Lobby scares the shit out of American politicians. Not a single one, Democrat or Republican has the guts to defy it.

The response to Mearsheimer and Walt is the best evidence supporting their arguments.

Clearly if the American public becomes aware of the influence of the Israel lobby, its effectiveness will be greatly reduced. This explains the heavy investment by its supporters in denying it exists.

Bye, Bye, Z-big.

What Dershowitz wants, Dershowitz usually gets, not unlike a spoiled rotten six-year old having a temper tantrum because he didn't get any ice cream.

Dershowitz wields a large hammer which he uses to attack any problem, real or perceived, that might either interfere with or shine a light on his agenda.

Ask Professor Finklestein... or should one say "former" Professor Finklestein.

Finklestein's sin, in Dershowitz eye's? Daring to ask questions about the "Holocaust Industry"(copyright).

Well, Israel is a pretty fair and open and just society, for Jews anyways.

But hey, what's wrong with another theocratic leaning state created by the Brits in the ME anyways? They've all worked out so well.

No kidding. Koshembos is obviously talking out of his ass and doesn't have the faintest idea who Brzezinski is.

"I wonder why you never write about him and Dershowitz's role in denying tenure to NF."

Him and Dershowitz? Who him?

Normal Finkelstein (NF) certainly didn't conspire with Dershowitz to deny himself tenure.

Not literally will he admit that.

But he certainly is a zealot for Israel, even a sicarii, and regularly opposes any and all criticism of Israel and calls anyone critical "anti-semitic."

Which is doubly obnoxious considering he often attacks dissenting Jews, and even more obnoxious considering critics are often defending Palestinians, who are semitic people in every sense of the word, including historical persecution alongside Jews.

To whom it may concern;

My comment about MJ getting banished was tongue in cheek as I thought the smiley face at the end showed.

You tell 'im davai.

That'll learn ya Howard!

Davai's Rule

Dear Howard,
In our previuos exchange, you concluded that you don't respect me. Not that I care, but why would you piggy back on my comments with your garbabe stream of words ?"

In that no one at TPM has any respect for Davai, we should all take his advice and ignore him. Also, since Davai repeatedly demonstrates that he has no respect for MJ, he should ignore MJ by not "piggybacking" on MJ's posts.

So this should be it. Goodbye, Davai. Go where you are respected. I know. I know. But everyone is respected somewhere.


"

Quite apart from the merits or demerits of his frequent public discursions on everything under the sun, Dershowitz is regarded as an utter clown and a lightweight in the legal academy. Harvard law professor or no, he is not taken seriously as a legal scholar.

As a very distinguished law professor of my acquaintance said some years ago after the 2000 election debacle, "I had thought that not enough bad things could ever be said about Bush v. Gore. And then Alan Dershowitz wrote a book about it."

FWIW, I suspect that the Dersh will be ignored on this one. Brzezinski has a lot of credibility and weight in the foreign policy establishment, which is more than you can say about Dershowitz, anywhere.

What's more, unlike most of those who are highly respected in the FP establishment, Brzezinski actually deserves most of the respect he gets. I've been very impressed by most of what I've heard him say in recent years on a wide array of subjects, far more than I was, frankly, when he was Carter's national security advisor. That Obama has him on the team speaks well for Obama.

P.S. -- M. J., never mind Shawn Green, we have Kevin Youkilis too.

Kevin Youklis, absolutely, and the fallen star, Gabe Kapler)

I'm wondering what's MJ opinion about Normal Finkelstein and the role played by Dershowitz
in denying tenure to Normal Finkelstein?

Obama needs to shore up his image has having experience in foreign policy. Brezinski being Carter's Kissinger helps give Obama some gravitas with the unilateral surrender, anti-Israeli crowd that inhabits the Cafe. However, Bush is compete for worse poll numbers not only with Nixon but with Carter, so it is unclear what it really does for Obama. Brezinski like Kissinger is a grand policy theoriest but unlike Kissinger is well known to be anti-Israel.

As for Dershowitz he has a big ego and a bigger mouth. Rosenberg is big at attacking but not really at discussing or laying out of facts. Dershowitz is not a quisling nor an advocate of policies that make the Left happy but will result in many dead Jews. As for Dershowitz embarrassing millions of Jews, I would be very surprised is that is provable. Thus what separates the this crowd from the Bush crowd? Very little.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

he certainly is a supporter of Israel, and he regularly critizes zealots who oppose to Israel and who call anyone who support Israel unpatriotic and the member of Jewish Lobby.

Mark,
Did you lose your mind ?
Don't you have anything better to do then mark THIS comment to 0?
There is something tell me you are living on Avenue Q.

I'd have to agree with ZB on this. Which is the greater threat - Islamic terrorists or total nuclear annihilation?

The threat of terrorism is overblown. If terrorists really wanted to bring America to its knees, they could, easily. As long as you have people willing to blow themselves up, you could paralyze this country and swiftly turn it into a military dictatorship - if that were your real goal. As it hasn't happened (and there has been plenty of time and opportunity to make it happen), it's a pretty safe assumption that terrorism ain't what it's cracked up to be.

You had me at "Scarlet Johannsen".

"If terrorists really wanted to bring America to its knees, they could, easily. "

It's not that easy.
Even in Israel where 15-20 % of Israeli population are not Jews, there were few of any
Israeli Arabs willing to blow themselves up. Also Israel almost completly stopped flow of people willing to blow themselves up comming from West Bank or Gaza.
I would guess, that US are in much better position to prevent terrorism without turning into a military dictatorship .

"I'd have to agree with ZB on this. Which is the greater threat - Islamic terrorists or total nuclear annihilation? "

The answer is obvious, however, the question is,
Did US have to use Islam to bring USSR down?
How important was Afganistan in collapse of USSR?

Quite the literalist, aren't you, Don? John was pretty clearly joking.

If the shoe fits...

There's more than one kind of McCarthyism. The endless, vicious, nasty, insulting comments directed at those who would dare to express an opinion that is different than Walt-Mearsheimer's opinions is textbook McCarthyism. The intolerance and arrogance on the American left these days is absolutely insane.

"No person becomes a dean at Harvard or prof at U of Chicago who hasn’t proven competent scholarship."

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Absolutely hysterical. Jesus, I can't believe someone would say that. If you think that American professors do competent scholarship I suggest you read some of the American history books they put out, especially the sections on Vietnam and the last 50 years of American foreign policy. Or read some of the evaluations of new pharmaceuticals put out by professors who claim to be objective but are actually on the payrolls of the pharmaceutical companies. American academic is a long way from being objective. And I could name lots and lots of other examples. The overwhelming majority of people there serve the interests of those who pay their salaries. They couldn't care less about academic objectivity or accuracy.

"Finklestein's sin, in Dershowitz eye's? Daring to ask questions about the "Holocaust Industry"(copyright)."

Finklestein is bad, really bad.
If Dershowitz would attack Pol Pot, MJ would defend Pol Pot, he hates Dershowitz that much.

If MJ doesn't defend Finklestein when Dershowitz
attacks NM, it means that Finklestein is not defendable.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2007/09/09/the-israel-lobby-myth.html
The 'Israel Lobby' Myth
By George P. Shultz

Defaming the Jews by disputing their rightful place among the peoples of the world has been a long-running, well-documented, and disgraceful series of episodes across history. Again and again a time has come when legitimate criticism slips across an invisible line into what might be called the "badlands," a place where those who should be regarded as worthy adversaries in debate are turned into scapegoats, targets, all-purpose objects of blame.

Some critics seem overly impressed with the way of thinking that says to itself, "Since there is a huge Arab Islamic world out there with all the oil, and it is opposed to this tiny little Israel with no natural resources, then realistically the United States has to be on the Arab side and against Israel on every issue, and since this isn't the case, there must be some underhanded Jewish plot at work." This is a conspiracy theory, pure and simple.

Many many moons ago while in college, I admired Dershowitz for his courageous defense of academic freedom in several cases, his nimble and open intellect, and his pioneering use of television to bring challenging legal and moral questions to a broader public.

In the last several years, however, he has sadly (and frequently) become a charicature and not a very pleasant one. IMHO, he is a shadow of his former self, bitter, often nearing hysteria in terms of the wild charges he hurls at people and so on particularly on the subject of Israel/anti-semitism. It is a real shame.

Another reason not to vote for Hillary.

Wow! Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State defends Aipac.
There is a shocker. TPM people will certainly start revising their view of Aipac when they read that quote. Who will you come up with next? Joe Lieberman?

"TPM people will certainly start revising their view"
TMP people like you don't change their views, I agree, except from realy hating
Lobby and Zionists to really really hating Lobby and zionists.
This pretty much summarize the discussion here,
how can hate those dirty Zionists/Lobyy more.

Thank you, chauncey.

I thought it would be seen as an obvious satire on the theme of MJ's column.

Madison,

Edwin Meese?

Let me explain what happened to you.
Generally speaking you agreed with " his courageous defense of academic freedom", so you ovelooked his
"bitter, often nearing hysteria" style.
You don't agree with his general stand about Israel,
so his courageous defense of Israel using his
his nimble and open intellect looks to you like
"bitter, often nearing hysteria" style.

Conservative discovered that Bush is dishonest, when he started to use the same tricks he used to sell the war in Iraq (where they agreed with him) in immigration debate (when the didn't)

Yeah, you say that now that you've been caught.

P.S. You don't have a patent on tongue-in-cheekery, do you? I would never take you seriously on banishing MJ; I was merely trying to respond in kind and obviously failed. :-(

[Traveling? Go here to find ecotourism information.]

Matt Yglesias already responded to that op-ed, cuttingly:

Shultz says: "Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogeneous 'lobby' ought to spend some time dealing with them."

I'm not quite sure I understand where in the journalistic ethics manual it says "if you're attacking critics of Israel, you're allowed to completely misrepresent their work" but since it's available online let me offer a link to the original Walt/Mearsheimer "Israel lobby" essay which says "This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby [...] Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies [...] The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals" and so forth.

I really hate to write on this topic so frequently, because I really do think Walt and Mearsheimer overstate the centrality of the "lobby" to US policy in the broader region, and I don't want to be an obsessive on this subject. But it's really absurd how frequently and eagerly major publications are willing to run silly distortions of their position. Surely if the Walt/Measheimer argument is so wrong, its critics ought to be able to rebut the actual argument.

yglesias

Davai,
Your point is?

MJ was describing what Dershowitz is and was, and what he did, he wasn't attacking him, was he.

[Traveling? Go here to find ecotourism information.]

Good, Finally the sane voice.
I and Matt Yglesias agree that Walt and Mearsheimer overstate the centrality of the "lobby" to US policy in the broader region.

I and Matt Yglesias also agree that people should not be an obsessive on this subject.

If you, MJ, dont want to listen to me, listen
to Matt Yglesias, don't be obsessive about the Lobby, have self control,
write one post about lobby, one post about I/P without mentioning lobby, and one post about
something else. It's hard to cure addiction to the lobby writing, but you can do it.

"Thank you, chauncey". What a suck-up. Banish him! :-)

I've never been able to understand why Desrshowitz is so famous. He stopped making sense about 15 years ago, and is now just doing an "Ann Coulter" to keep his name in circulation. 

The attack on Obama, via the proxy smear on Brzexinski is also clearly in the interests of the Clinton campaign, if not directed by them. 

Hillary should be asked why she doesn't repudiate the tactics of this smarmly little man. Fair's fair, after all.  

In that case, 10,000 apologies, and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest my loins.

Huh? I've never written anything about the lobby, and I've responded to numerous posts from MJ that don't mention the lobby at all.

See, you're doing exactly what Schultz is: engaging in dishonest demagoguery.

Apparently I'm obsessed with the Jewish Lobby? Huh?

I also noticed you completely dodged the point, which is that Schultz completely misrepresented M/W's work. Why? And why are you misrepresenting me (and MJ) in response?

Why can't you just discuss things on their merits? Which, incidentally enough, was Yglesias' over-arching advice, advice you seem to have ignored.

davai,

You conflate the Israeli lobby with a mythical "Jewish lobby". We see that a lot. It's wrong. There are 13 million Jews in the world, and 8.2 million of them don't live in Israel. Over 25,000 of them, as a matter of fact, live in Iran. A lot of Jews live in America.

Regarding the popularity of Israel with American Jews:
A recent study funded by the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies yielded extraordinary findings. In order to measure the depth of attachment of American Jews to Israel, the researchers asked whether respondents would consider the destruction of the State of Israel a "personal tragedy." Less than half of those aged under 35 answered "yes" and only 54% percent of those aged 35-50 agreed (compared with 78% of those over 65).

So to criticize Israel and its lobby is not to criticize Jews. Suggesting that it is, is racist.

What the difference between attacking and criticizing?

Was it ever a case when a supporter of Israel was attacked and opponent of "lobby" was criticized?

"Apparently I'm obsessed with the Jewish Lobby? Huh?"
I was not talking about you. I was talking about MJ.

"I also noticed you completely dodged the point, which is that Schultz completely misrepresented M/W's work. Why?"

I have not read M/W book so I don't know.

"Why can't you just discuss things on their merits"

This is my advice to MJ and all bloggers.
Stop talking about antisemetism and the lobby.
Let's start discuss I/P issues on the merit.
So far MJ is not taking my advice.

I took a look at Bronfman Philanthropies web site.

Take a look at
http://www.acbp.net/pub/BeyondDistancing.pdf

"Comfortable as a supporter of Israel" - 80 %

"So to criticize Israel and its lobby is not to criticize Jews."
Agree, it's just criticizing 80 % of American Jews who support Israel according to your logic (not mine).

However in general, I don't know who belongs to lobby according to W/M.
As I understood , any supporter of Israel (Jew or Christian) who don't agree with W/M opinions about ME in general in I/P specifically belongs to lobby.
Is this correct definition ?

For those interested in this topic Tony Karon has this:

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11612

Basically, he is arguing that there is a major change occurring among American Jews where it is becoming more and more acceptable to openly criticize Israeli policies especially with respect to their oppression of the the Palestinians. We can thank M and W in part for this change.

It is easy to try to dismiss this discussion as being "obsessive" but it is one that has been delayed for to long. We should keep it alive until it even penetrates the open political landscape. Is it possible, that Dershowitz has unwittingly provoked just such a discussion? Or is this just another example of the clumsy bullying that is employed by the lobby?

Tony uses the same poll as Don:
." Less than half of those aged under 35 answered "yes" and only 54% percent of those aged 35-50 agreed (compared with 78% of those over 65). "

However in the same poll:
http://www.acbp.net/pub/BeyondDistancing.pdf

"Comfortable as a supporter of Israel" - 80 %

So don't count on Ameriacan Jews as well as Americans in general to stop their support of Israel.

I think Afganistan was pretty important to the collapse of the USSR. It was their Vietnam, from which they never recovered. There may have been other methods to fight the proxy war with the Soviet Union, but we tried those, too - in Central America, Southeast Asia, etc.

As for bringing America to its knees, American isn't Israel. We haven't grown up with terrorism the way Israelis have. If people started blowing themselves up in our shopping malls and pizza parlors, this country would lose its collective mind.

Eventually we'd recover and adjust and learn to live with it eventually, but I wonder, considering our recent past, whether our Democracy would survive long enough for us to recover.

My personal belief is that Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist, he's a criminal. He uses terrorism to extort money from governments very much in the James Bond/Diehard villain style. He uses politics and religion to recruit his lackeys, but his motives are simple banditry.

"I think Afganistan was pretty important to the collapse of the USSR. It was their Vietnam, from which they never recovered. "

I don't agree. Tere are too many American politicians take credid for the collapse of the USSR .
My guess is that if oil prices stayed high (like today) USSR would never collapse.

"If people started blowing themselves up in our shopping malls and pizza parlors, this country would lose its collective mind. "
My point is that it's much harder to find people
here willing to blow themselves up.

Regardless of what opinion the candidate was to hold, don't you find anything questionable about this practice? I guess bribery, an element of politics for ages, is now socially acceptable?

I don't think anyone here would dispute the rightful place of the Jews among the peoples of the world.

"Some critics" think our dedication and obligation to Israel is simply all out of proportion to our national interest. They wonder how that happens.

The conspiracy theories are born because it's impossible to talk about this subject honestly, because of the pre-existing parameters of "reasonable debate."

Nothing is pure and simple.

I think if it were considered socially safe to openly oppose Israeli policies, you'd probably see those poll numbers shift a bit.

The truth is, it isn't safe. Offering even mild criticism, if not properly prefaced with statements of support, is a risk few are willing to take.

If a candidate asks for donation from any organization, such as Sierra Club, NRA, NARAL or AIPCAC, they all will try to get detailed info of a candidate's views and commitment to their causes and spcicic legidtative agendas before giving any money.

Surprise, there is a gambling going on in Las Vegas

Sure, if you don't like polls, ignore them.

How about we just have a regular Palestine rant thread, that gets cleared daily so it doesn't build up to ridiculous length?

MJ doesn't even have to write anything, just say "Israel!"

I don't think it would work.
He needs to say "lobby" to get the correct results.

No. Dershowitz is the zealot. Norman Finkelstein is a serious scholar concerned with truth. Dershowitz is a zealous ideologue. It's not even close.

For example, the dispute over Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel" and Normal Finkelstein's critique "Beyond Chutzpah."

"BC" is a serious academic critique of Dershowitz's book, questioning his sourcing, and pointing out many flaws which indicate it's not a serious work, that it's core tenets plagiarize earlier poorly sourced propaganda works, that have already been debunked. For example Joan Peters' fiction "From Time Immemorial."

Dershowitz responded by contacting Gov. Schwarzenegger to have the UC Press stop publication of Finkelstein's book! He also issues intimidating statements threatening law suits against publishers. That's not the behavior of an academic, but of a thug.

Another example is Raul Hilberg's support of Finkelstein. Hilberg is another prominent Jewish Holocaust historian who went into great detail regarding the internal mechanisms by which the "Final Solution" manifested. Zealots attempted to silence him for decades as well. His "The Destruction of the European Jews" is held as the most through study of the subject.

Finkelstein's allegations are substantiated, and stand on merits. Finkelstein's own family has survived the Holocaust.

Finkelstein and Hilberg are correct to say that zealots like Dershowitz have been exploiting the holocaust for decades, mythologizing it, blurring the historical record, and exploiting it a bludgeon for a hawkish Zionist political agenda.

And frankly, it's a lot like what Bush has done with 9/11. It's disgusting.

"No. Dershowitz is the zealot. Norman Finkelstein is a serious scholar concerned with truth. Dershowitz is a zealous ideologue. It's not even close."

Let me repeat.
Even MJ doesn't defend Norman Finkelstein.
MJ endorsed Nir Rosen who advocates one state solution and MJ still wouldn't defend NF.
NF must be really bad if MJ is silent.

It's pretty damning of Dershowitz. That and his attempts to intimidate the publication of Finkelstein's critique "Beyond Chutzpah."

Dershowitz really demonstrates what a maniacal power crazed thug, and cowardly propagandist, looks like in action. He truly is a fanatic.

btw, Finkelstein also makes the point well that the American Israeli lobby is particularly zealous, beyond what you'll find in Israel. That the American Israel lobby is stuck in 1948, and has completely mythologized both the holocaust and Israel.

Which reminds me of some Cuban Ex-Pats, and the utter fanaticism they're known for. Detached from reality, literally spatially and psychologically. It assumes mythical proportions, a battle between Pure Good and Pure Evil.

btw, rambling a bit, but it occurs to me that one of the tenets of Judaism is the discomfort with a god made flesh. That spiritual aspirations materialized can be very dangerous.

You're joking right? You're equivocating Sierra Club with AIPAC?

I'll take your comparison seriously when:

1) There is a sovern nation the "Nation of Sierra"
2) After NofS has been in various stages of armed conflict for 60 years.
3) When NofS receives huge military subsidy from the US.
4) When the NofS is part of destabilizing the ME.
5) When the NofS holds tens of thousands of political prisoners, and encourages the US to adopt this practice.
6) When we're embroiled in a civil war with a neighbor of the NofS, at the urging of NofS, and suffering from the association.

I could go on. Suffice to say your equivocation is incoherent.

1- I see nothing in MJ's commentary that suggests he doesn't understand Democracy, nor do I see anything that addresses Democracy one way or another.

2- Looking at Dershowitz's role here, maybe its Dershowitz that doesn't understand Democracy.

I agree and it also appears that koshembos has little understanding of McCarthyism either. Koshembos first says:

If he thinks that Brzezinski supports Anti Semites, it's his right and even duty to call Obama to fire Brzezinski.

But then in the very next paragraph says:

Mc Carthyisms is when you systematically chase down people who happen to have an ideology you hate. None of this applies here. [emphasis mine]

Huh? Hasn't koshembos ever heard of blacklisting, one of the main tools of McCarthyism? In the halcyon days of McCarthyism in the 50s, anyone suspected of supporting communism could be fired based on nothing more than somebody's suspicions, just like Dershowitz is calling for in the case of Brzezinski (his attack on Finkelstein was in the same vein, and sadly quite successful). Here's the wiki on the topic:

Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers...

McCarthism is the perfect term to apply to Dershowitz' tactics.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

Finkelstein is a serious academic and historian that groups like AIPAC are attempting to silence through proxies like Dershowitz. Dershowitz has repeatedly attempted to bully and blacklist his critics, including Finkelstein.

Your argument, that NF "must be bad" depending on what MJ may or may not believe, and whether he's willing to take a bullet for NF or not, is juvenile, and exactly the sort of fanatic McCarthyism and thuggish tactics typical of Dershowitz.

The same was said to silence Raul Hilberg and supress his historical account of the Final Solution. It's now considered one of the most important and through works on the subject.

When the U.S. went to war with Iraq, a large majority of Americans believed Saddam was responsible or at least played a major role.

I don't want to scare anyone, but a substantial number of Americans still believe this, according to a recent CBS/NYT poll, as recently noted in Editor & Publisher.

Hit and Myth: Poll Shows 1 in 3 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved in 9/11

By E&P Staff

Published: September 11, 2007 4:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Six years after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S., it seems the media still have some educational work to do. A new CBS/New York Times poll reveals that even today, 1 in 3 Americans believe that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

This notion was thoroughly debunked by official sources, including those in the White House, years ago, but the myth endures. Polls have shown that belief in this untruth was a prime component in support for the attack on Iraq.

Four in 10 Republicans still hold this view, compared with 32% of Independents and 27% of Democrats.

The poll of 1,035 adults was taken Sept. 4 to 8. 

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

Dershowitz's pro-torture justification is itself one tortured bit of logic.

Basically he says torture should be legalized, and require a warrant.

He uses the "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify torture. The problem with that is there never actually is a "ticking bomb" literally. Metaphorically however, that's code among Israeli defense hawks for anyone suspected of being a terrorist.

I.e. Anyone these paranoid hawks consider suspicious becomes a "ticking bomb" from their perspective and loses human rights, habeas corpus, etc. And may then be detained indefinitely, tortured, and so on. Dershowitz respects the law, insofar as he'd like to model the law on paranoia and whims with only lip service to process.

For example Israel has detained tens of thousands of suspects, according to their own human rights groups who publish statistics. Detainees are tortured and often used for hostage trades.

Abu Graib was in many ways modeled on Israeli policy, as promoted by NeoCons. The problems with Abu Graib, and torture, and what it has done for the occupation and US moral authority are obvious. In the end almost all of the thousands of people we imprisoned as suspected terrorists, many tortured, were innocent and eventually released, having no intelligence value whatsoever. And it was a huge human rights and PR catastrophe.

Dershowitz also claims that it would be better to have warrants than allow interrogators in the field to decide to use torture on their own. Another utterly tortured argument. In fact interrogators aren't legally allowed to use torture at all. The Bush administration however is clearly pro-torture, and has been continually broadening what's allowable, without calling it torture. Obviously simply legalizing it would allow them to drop the pretense.

Another tortured argument from Dershowitz is the implication warrants would somehow slow the process and make it accountable. Of course that is patently false in lieu of the erosion of FISA, and the administration's propensity for rubber stamping whatever pretense is given process, claiming protections are in place, and then classifying the details.

Why is Dershowitz pro-torture? Again, simply look at ME hawks and Israel policy. Like the NeoCons who are overwhelmingly Zionist Hawks. they cooked the books for Iraq and can't seem to spill enough blood and torture and imprison enough people. They've long been proponents of torture, detention without process, a complete disregard of civil rights, and indiscriminately dragnet thousands of people alleging they're "ticking bombs."

If MJ doesn't defend Finklestein when Dershowitz
attacks NM, it means that Finklestein is not defendable.

davai: You seem unaware of the most basic element of persuasion: Know Your Audience. As most posters here at TPM Cafe are of above-average intelligence, why do you keep on with this nonsense that doesn't fool, much less persuade, anyone?

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

"Detainees are tortured and often used for hostage trades."
This is one tortured bit of logic. I'm sorry I don't know how to answer.

Who are the NeoCons, who are Zionist Hawks,
who are ME hawks, who cooked the books for Iraq ,
who they who can't seem to spill enough blood and torture and imprison enough people, who they who dring blood of Christian children.
Did you get this info from W/M book or from NM or from reading MJ posts?

"Your argument, that NF "must be bad" depending on what MJ may or may not believe, and whether he's willing to take a bullet for NF or not, is juvenile, and exactly the sort of fanatic McCarthyism and thuggish tactics typical of Dershowitz"

Thank you for comparing me to Dershowitz.
I don't care about NM. My argument is good enough for me to know that NM is really bad but you can have your own opinion, we live in free country.

Sierra Club with AIPAC uses the same tactic.
Your point is that it's OK for Sierra Club to use this tactic but it's not OK for AIPAC, because you don't like AIPAC.
I can ask why you don't like AIPAC, but I'm not going to. You don't know much about specific positions taking by AIPAC. You can only cite
conspiracy talking points.

"much less persuade, anyone

Did you ever read any comment of supporter of Israel (Israeli goverment) that persuaded you to change your view and me more sympatetic to his/her point of view?
We are here not to persuade each other, just to rant and have fun.

davai,
I don't know how you got me to do research for you, but I did.

W/M: "We use ‘the Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel."

So there it is. Nothing to do with ME opinions, everything to do with actively working (not just supporting) to steer US policy in a pro-Israel direction.

Commonly, AIPAC is called "The Lobby".

you're free to say what you want. But if you say that Finkelstein is bad because MJ does not support him, you have indeed descended to a juvenile level of argument. A clear case of a species of ad hominem fallacy,

By your argument when you do not support what MJ says (which is the usual case with you) you must be wrong ....which is absurd, right?

I don't think that we would use "lobby" for
loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US environmental policy .

Ok, this Davi guy is clearly a troll, and perhaps lacking a few screws. I mean "who are the NeoCons?" Come on. What planet of denial is this guy on?

Anyways, to keep the thread informative....

Regarding detainees, torture, and hostage trades, the following exchange (also available as audio) references sources and quotes detailing Israeli policies of detainment, torture, and hostage trades, which can't be denied by SHLOMO BEN-AMI, former Foreign Minister under Ehud Barak:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of torture of tens of thousands of Palestinians by Israel?

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: To tell you the truth, I don't know about the numbers, and we have seen different governments in — the British have done it. What the British did in Palestine in the '30s, there is nothing new in what we did that the British didn't do before us, and the Americans now in Iraq and elsewhere — what I find very, very uncomfortable is really this singling out Israel that lives in a very unique sort of situation in comparison with other countries, but —

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Norman Finkelstein makes the point, "Israel's Abu Ghraib," so that's making reference to what America did in Iraq.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, okay. But if you — if you would come from another planet and examine the resolutions of the U.N., the Security Council, you might reach the conclusion there is only one sinner in this planet, and it's the state of Israel, and not anybody else.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But I am quoting your own human rights organizations. You know, B'Tselem is not the United Nations.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, that's okay. I mean, I'm not — but it speaks in favor of Israel that we have human rights, we have B'Tselem, and we criticize ourselves.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Right.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: And we want to change things, but the solution —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I will agree with that, but then you have to say it doesn't speak too much in Israel's favor that it's the only country in the world that legalized torture. It was also the only country in the world that legalized hostage taking. It was also the only country in the —

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: It wasn't legalized —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, yes. As your chief justice called it, “keeping Lebanese as bargaining chips.” Israel was the only country in the world that's legalized house demolitions as a form of punishment. Those things have to also be included in the record.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Ben-Ami.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: In addition to — I totally agree with you, it's to Israel's credit that it has a B'Tselem, an organization for which I have the highest regard and esteem. I agree with that.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Okay, but the thing is that the conditions where Israel has to operate, this is — we do not have a Sweden and Denmark as neighbors, and we have neighbors that have taken hostages, and have taken hostages that forced us to exchange things that were not very popular. Rabin himself gave away 1,500 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers, and Sharon gave away 400 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for four bodies of Israeli soldiers. So we are living in that kind of place.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But that may tell you that's because they take so many people prisoner that they have a lot to give back. Right now, as we speak, there are 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israel.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: This is because we live in the conditions that we live. We are not, as I said — this is not Scandinavia.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But, Dr. Ben-Ami, you know, as well as I do, international law does not apply to some countries and not to others and some continents and not to others. Either it applies to everybody, or it applies to nobody. So to use the excuse, "Well, in our neighborhood we don't have to recognize international law," is simply a repudiation of international law.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: No, I'm not saying — No, no, I'm not saying that we do not have to recognize international law. I say that the conditions —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, then, it applies —

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: No, no. I mean, there are conditions where you cannot apply these lofty principles, which are very important, but you cannot apply them. And the British — and the British —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The British is an interesting example.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Well, it's an interesting example. They didn't —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: B'Tselem did a comparison —

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: They did it in Gibraltar —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The British — that's right.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: They did it in the Falklands. They did — anywhere —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: B'Tselem did an interesting comparison. It compared the British policies of torture in Northern Ireland with Israeli policies of torture. In the 1970s, there were thousands of terrorist attacks by the I.R.A., and B'Tselem's comparison showed that the Israeli record is much worse than the British on the question of torture. That's the facts.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yeah. You face now in this country a challenge of terrorism, so you go to PATRIOT Act and you go to —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But you won't find me justifying torture.

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: These are the conditions that can be very dire, very difficult —

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: No conditions justify torture.

MJ, you've stirred up another hornet's nest. Good column as usual.

Review in today's Guardian on Mearsheimer and Walt's book.

"Aipac is a self-avowed lobby (it calls itself America's pro-Israel lobby) and has been ranked the second most powerful such body in the US. With a staff of more than 150 and a budget of $60m, it wields extensive influence among Congressmen, working to ensure criticism of Israel is rarely aired on Capitol Hill. The Guardian invited it to comment, but it declined."

"In the final chapter of the book, Walt and Mearsheimer make a shopping list of reforms. They call for: a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis; greater separation of US foreign policy from Israel for both nations' sake; and campaign finance reform to reduce the power of pro-Israeli groups."

Guardian "Articles of Faith"

Strange how this debate sounds like the one surrounding clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Critics want an open discussion while the Vatican lobby dismisses the whole affair as an anti-Catholic conspiracy.

Just for the record, I have never written about Finkelstein one way or another. I don't allow trolls like Davai to determine who and what I comment on.

Thanks for the link, observer. I have also been observing this column, and I am not so sure about a hornet's nest being stirred as much as I feel a bit more confident that I can understand how a troll operates.

Of all the comments, one commenter, davai, consistently interjected comments which simply and argumentively attacked the poster [MJ] or many of the commenters by offering miniscule opinion disagreements on nit-picked irrelevancies to the subject at hand. The sum total of this was a whole lot of hijacking of substantive discussion while commenters dealt with davai's nit-picks. I did a count, and found that, so far, davai did this diversion of substance some 41 times within the, so far, 146 comments. That is, say, some 28-30% of the 'hornet's nest' phenomenon you noted.......

I'm curious why have you never written about Finkelstein who "is a serious academic and historian that groups like AIPAC are attempting to silence through proxies like Dershowitz."
If you wouldn't defend him, who would?

"Ok, this Davi guy is clearly a troll, and perhaps lacking a few screws. I mean "who are the NeoCons?" Come on. What planet of denial is this guy on?"

I'm not denying anything.
I'm just asking who is who:
Are NeoCons = Zionist Hawks = ME hawks = who they who can't seem to spill enough blood and torture and imprison enough people.
Are Neocons just Jews who supported Iraq war or you have better definition?

1.
"NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: But that may tell you that's because they take so many people prisoner that they have a lot to give back. Right now, as we speak, there are 9,000 Palestinian political prisoners in Israel."

I'm curious if you think suiside bombers and people who trained them are political prisoners ?

2. Israel's Abu Ghraib
Israel didn't do anything like what happened in
Abu Ghraib

"of hijacking of substantive discussion "
What substantive discussion you want to see?

With exception of me, everybody agree that
Alan Dershowitz is evil,
Walt-Mearsheimer and Normal Finkelstein are great, Israel is evil, Palestinians are great,
Jewish/Israeli lobby is evil.

To have substantive discussion, you have to have
some disagreements that are not considered to be
troll operations.


Can you name a few topics for discussions about I/P where it's OK to have different point of views?


What you can answer me is the following:
"We've already decided that Alan Dershowitz is evil and Normal Finkelstein is great. So we are having substantive discussion how to fight evil
Alan Dershowitz, AIPAC and Israel.
Therefore, expressing any doubts about evilness
of Alan Dershowitz is a troll operations"

NM? Who is NM? You're incoherent.

I see no content and just trolling in your posts.

You're totally incoherent. Take your meds.

If you can't see you have become a troll by community standards, even if you didn't start out on this site as one, you're hopeless. Some quite reasonable members have felt moved to take the time to zero whole strings of your comments on this thread. They obviously want you to stop posting in the manner you have because it is disruptive to quality discussion.

To take a discussion thread and try to reframe it to your one or two main bete noires by repeating the same challenge over and over and over is being a troll. It is just irritating to most people see someone say basically the same thing over and over again in great quantity, it's an insult to their intelligence. We got your messages, ok? You think that if people looked at AIPAC & its website and publications and activities objectively, they would change their mind, and also that many are secret "one staters." They're not changing their mind, but some once in a while get drawn by knee-jerk into unsubstantive tit for tit with you which takes it off-threa So stop already: the tactics you are using are not accomplishing anything except irritation.

That MJ Rosenberg often picks topics and frames things in manner that draws trollish response does not mean that the rest of the people here want trolling. Larry Johnson often does that too. That's another, different pity, mho. To say "he started it" or "that other guy is doing it too" does not make you less trollish in what you are doing. That he has gotten personal with you in the past does not mean you getting personal with him over many threads is not trolling. It IS trolling, you come here now partly to pick on or reform an individual person's posts and opinions (MJ) over time, not to discuss a specific topic. What I see is that you have become some of that which you complain about, you are not discussing on merits, you are contributing to making all about personal crusades.

One of the things your tactic does is ensure you will not get fresh blood into the conversation, nobody sane wants to wade into a fight where everyone knows what's going on but them.

I agree, based on the available evidence, that you are here to rant.

I and many others, I suspect, are here less to persuade than to refine positions, work out holes in policies, and practice answering silly assertions. Incidentally, does the Government of Israel have a Ministry of Silly Walks? That might be an occupational goal for you, wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

On September 13, 2007 - 4:54pm Florida Democrat said,

my highlighting added:

If Obama responds he will just empower the rhetoric.

I haven't seen this issue on any other news sites so why make it a story?

I've heard it said that "all publicity is good publicity."

I've also noticed this phenomenon: that those who use the blog medium to jot down some quick knee-jerk thoughts about the outrage they felt about something they just read often end up working against their own goals, sort of like being ensnared by a troll.

You didn't answer my questions.
MJ say basically the same thing over and over again in great quantity:
Alan Dershowitz is evil,
Walt-Mearsheimer is great, Israel is evil, Palestinians are great, Jewish/Israeli lobby is evil.
There are a lot of people repeat after MJ the same thing, over and over again. If this insults your intelligence, don't read MJ posts. There is nothing else there.
I concede that often I respond to the same misleading arguments and facts by MJ and his crowd with the same set of facts and observations.

So my question is the following, Are MJ posts for people who already decided that Alan Dershowitz is evil and Normal Finkelstein is great? Therefore discussions are about how to fight evil Alan Dershowitz, AIPAC and Israel ?

Obviously it's a trolling to go to Yom Kippur service, bring bagel with pork and cheese and start asking questions about God's existence.

It's not that it's anything wrong with people who always eat bagels with pork and cheese and always ask questions about God's existence. They just shoud not to Yom Kippur service.

"It IS trolling, you come here now partly to pick on or reform an individual person's posts opinions (MJ) over time, not to discuss a specific topic"

I'm sorry, but let me repeat, there is only one topic discussed by MJ over and over again.
I suggested to MJ to start discussing specific topics about I/P instead of bashing AIPAC over and over again but he can't help himself.

Why don't you ask MJ or Josh (in private emails or publically) to start discussing I/P policy issues instead of spreading hate and hysteria?

Don Bacon wrote:
---------------------------------------
davai,

You conflate the Israeli lobby with a mythical "Jewish lobby". We see that a lot. It's wrong. There are 13 million Jews in the world, and 8.2 million of them don't live in Israel. Over 25,000 of them, as a matter of fact, live in Iran. A lot of Jews live in America.

Regarding the popularity of Israel with American Jews:
A recent study funded by the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies yielded extraordinary findings. In order to measure the depth of attachment of American Jews to Israel, the researchers asked whether respondents would consider the destruction of the State of Israel a "personal tragedy." Less than half of those aged under 35 answered "yes" and only 54% percent of those aged 35-50 agreed (compared with 78% of those over 65).

So to criticize Israel and its lobby is not to criticize Jews. Suggesting that it is, is racist.

------------------------------------------

Don, that is very big of you to not blame the American Jews for the "crimes" you perceive of the Five Million plus (somewhat under 50% of world Jewry) that live in Israel (you somewhat underestimate the number of Jews living in Israel).
And I am impressed with your empathy with the young American Jews who would not view the eradication of Israel and its over 5 million Jews (pretty close in scale to the Holocaust) as a "personal tragedy". I know you must feel relief that they would not have such an event "ruin their day" and yours as well.

It is interesting to note that American Jewry did not mobilize on a large-scale to try to rescue Jews from the Holocaust. Apparently, then as now , some Jews didn't view what happened in Europe as a "personal tragedy", either. But, against your "optimistic thesis" that many (most?) American Jews are prepared to cut us in Israel loose to be slaughtered, the Jews of the time were consumed with guilt afterwards and this explains why the massive surge in support for Israel by American Jews in the decades following the creation of the state of Israel. Who knows, if, G-d forbid, a real crisis breaks out and it looks like we here in Israel are in real trouble, (as it seemed for example on the eve of the Six-Day War in 1967), you will be severly disappointed and see world Jewry rally around us once again. Polling questions asked of someone in the comfort of his living room may give different results then when the same person is faced with seeing his brothers possibly wiped out once again within 60-some years.

BTW,
Read MJ posting:
"But Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book the lobby does not like and so Brzezinski must go down for not condemning it." This sounds like Stalin's times in 1937 when people were forced to condemn
their friends to stay alive.

Nobody was trying to force Brzezinski to
condemn Walt and Mearsheimer in the first place.

I don't mind if you start challenge MJ's hysteria
instead of me, bu I think that MJ's hysteria should not be left unanswered.

You seems to agree with me that MJ posting are full of hysteria but you think that they should be left unanswered.

Further reflection leads me to the conclusion that someone who says he wouldn't view the annihilation of Israel as a "personal tragedy" doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't view it as "a tragedy" or even a "great tragedy", but rather, it is possible that they meant that they don't have any friends or relatives they know here in Israel, so it wouldn't affect them in a "personal" way. This could have been a pollster's trick of using a leading question to get misleading results.

You may be right on the poll phrasing. Certainly, the slaughter in Cambodia and Rwanda were great tragedies, but I didn't know anyone there. There is, perhaps, a greater poignancy in the case of Rwanda, as the UN commander there, Romeo Dallaire, desperately sought authority to take steps that might have at least reduced the killing, but did not get permission.

A lesser slaughter in the civil wars in Sierra Leone was much more personal, as I knew a number of people in danger, luckily who either stayed safe or emigrated.

As a student of Sudan and Darfur, the latter is tragic. It is tempered only by knowing Sudanese of good will, but added to the frustration is the simplistic approaches that politicians here propose, for a very complex situation.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Yes, you're right it's not so much a hornet's nest as one big hornet. A shame that a troll for any group is allowed to hijack a discussion. Davai doesn't want discussion, it's all very black and white to him - pro-AIPAC/pro-Israel or anti-AIPAC/anti-Israel.

TPM needs to put in a link like Huffington Post has so an "abuser" can be reported and their posting rights restricted.

"Davai doesn't want discussion"
How did you come to such conclusion?

"it's all very black and white to him - pro-AIPAC/pro-Israel or anti-AIPAC/anti-Israel"

Not at all, I don't know much about AIPAC, to have a strong opinion, but I challenge people who have all very black ani-AIPAC anti-lobby opinions to explain their positions.

For most people here their belief system
is based on the centrality of the "lobby" to US policy in the word generally and ME specifically.

I’m not exaggerating. Ask MJ why there is no peace in ME in general and I/P specifically. His answer is two words “the lobby”

In a way, "the lobby" theory reminds my of intelligent design theory, where everything in the world can be explained by the work of designer, “the lobby” today or by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 100 years ago.

I'm trying to challenge their belief system and
often I get response that amounts to ad hominem attacks.
It’s explainable, people don’t want their belief system to be challenged , so I ignore personal insults.

"In the final chapter of the book, Walt and Mearsheimer make a shopping list of reforms. They call for: a two-state solution to the Middle East crisis; "

If you read my comments, this is exactly what I proposed to MJ.
In addition (not instead of) to posts that just bashing "the lobby" why don't he write posts about the ways to achive a two-state solution.
So far he is not taking my advice. His all post about I/P are just "the lobby bashing"

"Strange how this debate sounds like the one surrounding clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church"

It's nothing like clergy sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
In case of Catholic Church the debate was not about how much power Catholic Church has but about specific crimes.
In case of "the lobby" the debate is not about specific crimes but about how much power "the lobby" has.

One of my best jobs was somewhat weird, in the sense that we had so many overlapping bosses that a very good technical team could ignore them, reach consensus, and do what needed to be done. Just to simplify things over the lunch table, we did have some brevity codes, alpha for the manager and numeric for the comment:

  • F-3: Fred is an idiot

  • J-7: Joe is manic again today. It is amusing.

  • FJ-1: Joe and Fred are back from drinking their lunch.


  • Fighter pilots have equivalent "Falcon" or "Charlie Echo" codes.

    So, we could have:

    On [date], MJ said [nothing]

    On [date], Davai responded MJ-31!


    --
    Howard

    *equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

    Reminds me of the joke about prison inmates that had told their stock of jokes so often they used simple number labels. The new guy waits and listens for several weeks, then makes his move---"67!"

    Silence. Then one guy grumbles, "Some guys just can't tell a joke."

    I actually didn't know Scarlett Johannsen was Jewish. That's pretty cool. I always figured she's primarily of Scandinavian heritage, maybe Danish or Norwegian. What with her name and her rather nordic/germanic looks. Yeah MJ, it is particularly sad that with all the accomplished American Jews to pick from, torture-boy Dershowitz is even considered to be some kind of spokesman or representative of the American Jewish community. Truly tragic.

    correction to previous comment: "was" should obviously be "is", as she is living and breathing. She's probably my favorite contemporary American film actress. Can't get over her and Bill Murray in 'Lost in Translation' a few years back.

    No, not random.

    But the question, I think, is: Does this spying, assuming its proven, have anything to do with AIPAC's power to influence US foreign policy?

    Or its success on Capitol Hill?

    The two are different, I think, but often conflated.

    Then we get a formulation that goes something like this: Foreign power--no, foreign espionage ring-- controlling US foreign policy.

    Add in: Said espionage ring manipulating the US into wars for the sole benefit of foreign power.

    I'm exaggerating here a bit, but this is the idea, the impression created.

    Well you know...

    Big Tobacco has been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans.

    The breast feeding lobby recently got HHS to water down their ads about the health dangers in not breat feeding...health risk to millions of babies.

    NRA anyone?

    So in terms of actual deaths...actual harm to Americans...our homegrown lobbyists have probably done more damage than AIPAC.

    AMEN! It's this obvious?

    Interesting exchange.

    Finkelstein makes many good points.

    But it's also true that "Israel is the only country in the world" that faces a number of conditions...and is in a number of situations.

    Ben Ami is right about that.

    Hezbollah has said that they regularly take Israel hostages as a policy to have something to bargain with for the release of their people.

    Now, this doesn't mean that Lebanon has legalized this tactic.

    But that's the point, isn't it?

    Hezbollah is part of the government. And before then, Hezbollah wielded enormous power as a "state within a state" or as an independent "army" within the state.

    So Israel has been forced to deal these sorts of actors...

    Israel has created it's own problems and continues to inflame them. For example, internal documents show Israel has repeatedly killed the peace process, and deliberately undermined moderate Palestinians, because it thinks it can get more settlements and expand borders by continuing the current conflict.

    Israeli hawks want to perpetuate the conflict. They want militancy to justify their militancy so they can continue building settlements and expanding. Israel used past wars to ethnically cleanse Arabs. Already Israel claims Jerusalem, when under international law it has zero right to it. To hawks, who see lives and war as a price worth paying for territorial gains, and care not about anything else, that's a great victory. And they hope for more territory with more war.

    The sad reality is that today's Israeli hawks are the products of Nazi history and a war torn world. Like children raised in abusive circumstances, it's all they know.

    I don't have sympathy for Israel in regards to the continuing conflict until sanity returns to Israeli politics. In the meanwhile we should cut aid to Israel.

    Let me a third possibility. I doubt Nixon knew in advance of Watergate or the Plumbers Unit, although I'm sure there was a bit of "Who shall rid me of this turbulent priest."

    There's a good deal of opinion, which I share, that if Nixon, on hearing of Watergate, within the first 48 hours or so publicly fired Colson and Haldeman, as well as Magruder and others at CREEP, and condemned the action rather than going into the cover-up, he might well have finishe his term. He probably would have had to fire Ehrlichman when the Plumbers situation became public.

    The question arises, however, that if Nixon hadn't had Colson working for him in the first place, would there ever have been a Watergate? Offhand, I can probably name half a dozen presidents whose administrations were severely tarnished by White House staffers to whom politically excessive loyalty was shown. I have every sympathy for Walter Jenkins, but LBJ politically did the right thing by cutting him loose.

    If AIPAC hires not just one staffer that gets into trouble over espionage, does it start sounding like Haig's explanation of a "sinister force" that caused the 18 1/2 minute gap? What -- and this is seriously meant as a question -- does it say about AIPAC's culture that it would have two employees that would push US law this far, in the presumed interest of a foreign power?

    To me, success on Capitol Hill depends, in part, about credibility of a lobby and whether a Member is willing to be associated. It's not quite conflating when reputation gets involved.

    --
    Howard

    *equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

    I don't question AIPACs right to lobby, but they should register like any other foreign agent. That is the law.

    The guilty plea by DOD analyst Lawrence Franklin to passing classified information to Rosen and Weissman of AIPAC and their subsequent indictment sounds like a crime to me. The classified information went from AIPAC to Israel.

    Change the Catholic Church's blaming of their woes on an anti-Catholic conspiracy to AIPAC yelling anti-Semitism - it's the same thing.

    user-pic

    Your article was very well written response to many problems, that is what I do not know, thank you.This
    is my website!I hope you like it!
    Christian louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch

    Facebook

    This information is very useful! Thanks!
    Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v licensing, ms iscsi target

    Facebook

    Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
    Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql high availability

    Leave a comment

    Advertisement
    Please disable your adblocker!
    Ads are how we pay the bills!

    Subscribe

    The Coffee House
    TPMCafe's regulars

    House Brew
    From Your Cafe Editor

    Special Guests
    Big names and big brains

    Special Features
    Pressing topics and trends

    Table for One
    An expert's week-long talk.

    All Reader Posts
    TPM readers discuss.

    Advertise Liberally
    Share
    Close Social Web Email

    "To" Email Address

    Your Name

    Your Email Address