CAMERA - stifling free expression in the USA, why not try to stifle it in Israel. Such noble people.PS M.J. "Him"?"...God (not that Phil believes in him)."

MJR, did you see this. Weiss thinks you are the most important Jew in America!

delete

No, davai, I am not criticizing the quality of or the importance of Haaretz. I am a fan of Haaretz. CAMERA obviously has a different take than I do.

Bruce, I think that the trashing of the book was not based on its merits or lack thereof but was a direct product of fearing to antagonize the Likud lobby. Almost without exception the major media asked reviewers associated with the Likud lobby to review the book which is pretty unheard of. Leslie Gelb! Jeff Goldberg! Even the New Yorker felt constrained to essentially editorialize (David Remnick) about this one book. The W-M book is not the issue. Its made a fortune for its authors and helped put the issue on the map. But we all saw from last year's McCarthyist campaign by the American Jewish Committee against liberal Jews how this machine operates.

As far as not being scared of the power of the Likud lobby to cost people their jobs, you are right, I am not afraid and neither are you.  But if either of us were in a position where the likes of the now-indicted Steve Rosen could go after our jobs, we would be. Ask the current editor of the New Jersey Jewish News, Andrew Carroll, how Rosen got him fired by having a spy at a leftist meeting report that Carrol was in attendance.  Ask the New York Jewish week's Larry Cohler-Esses.  Ask Tony Judt and Eric Alterman what happens when you write things you are not supposed to write.  Take my word for it.  CAMERA and its more subtle partners are the new McCarthyists.  

fired by having a spy at a leftist meeting report that Carrol was in attendance

Anyway, a few weeks ago Phil went to the New York conference of CAMERA

You are interesting bunch of people. Phil spys on Camera, AIPAC spys on leftist meeting.
I'm really curious what kind of leftist meeting
Carrol went.

But we all saw from last year's McCarthyist campaign by the American Jewish Committee against liberal Jews how this machine operates.

MJ's assertion that Pipes "hates Arabs and Palestinians" is subject to question, to say the least. Tell me, MJ, did Peres and Rabin who imposed Arafat's corrupt terror regime on the Palestinians "love the Palestinians"? MJ supported bringing Arafat to Israel and turning him loose to rob and kill HIS OWN PEOPLE. Does he "love them"? He knows what Arafat did in Lebanon and Jordan before he was brought to Israel. To this day, the PLO and Palestinian armed groups are hated in those countries, as was recently demonstrated in the war of the refugee camp in norhtern Lebanon. Arafat and his FATAH/PLO set off civil wars in both countries leading to tens of thousands of dead. Next, as MJ wished, Arafat was brought to Israel and killed or wounded thousands more, both Jews and Arabs, not to mention all the money he stole from his own people. This is called "loving the Palestinians"?
During the "bad Occupation" period before Oslo, thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel, putting large amounts of money directly into their pockets, also stimulating their own local economy (although, unfortunately, Israel did impose restrictions on the Palestinian economy that did some harm due to fear of creating competition to Israeli firms, but this is another story). After Oslo and the inevitable terror wavesw that came with it, the Palestinian workers were sent home and in order to survive they had to go to their local FATAH or HAMAS warlord in order to get money. This forces them to serve these terror gang leaders. Their economy has been contracting for years, and it isn't Israel's fault. Their own leaders made it so. They were given more aid per capita than anybody in the world, yet it vanished down a black hole. Does MJ think that is in their true interests?
You people who supported Arafat and forced the Palestinians to serve him are the REAL ones who have contempt for the Arabs.

Del

Their economy has been contracting for years, and it isn't Israel's fault

"WHAT "LIKUD" LOBBY?"AIPAC

:-)

AIPAC is not affiliated with any Israeli political party in any way, shape or form. Leftists like MJ and Martin Indyk have come out of AIPAC. It is not "right-wing" and has no position, as far as I know (I am not affiliated with them and don't even necessarily support what they do) on what form a "peace agreement" between Israel and the Arabs should take. They do seem to emphasize security, which MJ and the Left don't seem too preoccupied with and Arab compliance with already existing agreements, which isn't too good, to say the least. Some people like MJ might wish to ignore these things, others don't.

I find Rosner's columns dont always open.

It is funny. Haaretz.com is my antidote to Rosenberg's dishonesty and the anti-semitism that follows everyone of his posts. It is not at all obvious from reading the New York Times that anyone outside the Sun is so pro-Irsael. Of course recently Haaretz editorially complained that American Jews were trying to control Israeli policy. Which is a reverse of the anti-semitic fantasies so often expressed here of the Jews controlling American policy.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

But Daniel...

It's also worth noting that a lot of pro-Israel comments follow his posts, too.

Perhaps it's just me, but you seem to have become much more bitter of late. I'm sorry about that.

"They were given more aid per capita than anybody in the world, yet it vanished down a black hole."

More money per capita than anybody in the world?

That's an interesting stat. Do you have back up for it?

So, what's the line of AIPAC, and what's the line of your organization, and what the view of that girl?
What are the major differences?

MJ, you leave me breathless. You say: "Israel is a superpower". How many people have been killed the terror war that came as a result of the cursed Oslo agreement that you and your ilk forced on us? Something like 1200 people, not counting the thousands of wounded. In proportion to population, this is the equivalent of 60 THOUSAND victims of terrorism in the US. 9/11, by comparison, claimed under 3000. Add to that the thousands of Arab victims, pushed into a hopeless war by Arafat whom the "peace camp" forced on the Arabs. Add to that the destruction of the Palestinian economy and impoverishment of their population. Rabin once dismissed terrorism as "not a threat to the state". Right, it is only a threat to its citizenry. However, MJ, as someone I believe grew up in a family affiliated with Labor Zionism (correct me if I am wrong), you would know that for the Labor Party the operative slogan is "L'etat, c'est moi" (I am the state), so Rabin could comfort himself that as long as he and his party were in power, nothing else matters, including the welfare of the population. In Olmert's failed Lebanon II war, 160 people were killed. Everyone was outraged. A committee of inquiry was set up as a result. Almost 10 TIMES as many people were killed as a result of Rabin and Peres's "Peace War" but NO inquiry was ever held (too much blood on too many hands, I guess). Where is the justice? Where is the accounting? MJ, you advocated this, now you think you can just walk away from this, say "Israel is a superpower" so that in your it can afford to sacrifice more people just so that you can feel good, just as Gandhi was telling OTHER people (i.e. MY people-the Jewish people) to commit suicide so that HE can feel good about himself and his bizarre political philosophy that his followers Nehru, Patel etc. got rid of as soon as he was dead.
On the one hand, you are with the supposedly Zionist "Israel Policy Forum" and you keep saying how concerned you are about Israel. Then, you turn around, in this forum (NOT IN YOUR WRITINGS IN THE JERUSALEM POST) and say your main concern is that Israel is endangering your position as a Jew in the US. This is what the old anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism said. However, the two just don't go together. If you feel Israel is endangering you, then cut off you contacts with us, break your relationship with the IPF and advocate cutting off the aid to Israel, an action WHICH I SUPPORT. Just say what goes on in Israel is not your problem. But don't tell us how much you love us and then advocate sacrificing more of our people.

MJ,

First, I appreciate your observation of CAMERA and the manner in which it advances its agenda.  But your approach to discussion over Walt's and Mearsheimer's thesis and their support for it in The Israel Lobby perhaps oversteps, at least somewhat:

Peter, the book had real problems. But I think that the hysterical reviews (not JJ Goldberg's in THE FORWARD) were a product of the perceived need to suck up to the lobby. [emphasis mine -Z]

So, there are problems in The Israel Lobby's thesis and the authors' support for it.  But what happens when these problems are discussed?

(Item: it [Ha'aretz] ran two favorable articles on the Walt-Mearsheimer book while the American media rushed to tear it to shreds to avoid offending the powers that be). [emphasis mine -Z]

The broad sweep of your argument suggests that any criticism of Walt and Mearsheimer amounts to an attack for the sake of neocon toadyism.  Can you appreciate how this kind of argument is not substantially different from that which says "any crticism of Israel is antisemitism"?  If one serves to stifle debate, surely the other does as well.

I shall preface this with the statement that it is neither a denial nor a rejection of MJ's positions. I speak for myself.

You say: "Israel is a superpower".

How many people have been killed the terror war that came as a result of the cursed Oslo agreement that you and your ilk forced on us? Something like 1200 people, not counting the thousands of wounded. In proportion to population, this is the equivalent of 60 THOUSAND victims of terrorism in the US. 9/11, by comparison, claimed under 3000.

Add to that the thousands of Arab victims, pushed into a hopeless war by Arafat whom the "peace camp" forced on the Arabs. Add to that the destruction of the Palestinian economy and impoverishment of their population.

If you feel Israel is endangering you, then cut off you contacts with us, break your relationship with the IPF and advocate cutting off the aid to Israel, an action WHICH I SUPPORT. Just say what goes on in Israel is not your problem.

1. Relax military censorship, even in the form of classified disclosures to independent experts, to the point where events that appear disproportionate, or even war crimes, either get a good tactical justification, or individuals responsible for inappropriate use are charged.


2. Work jointly on a rocket and missile defense system, along with passive defenses, for threat reduction. This could involve sensors in the Territories, and possibly live feeds from certain US warning systems.


3. Pull out of the settlements in what you call Judea and Samaria, leaving IDF troops or protected sensors as appropriate for security. Blow away anyone interfering with those sensors.


4. Tone down the saber-rattling at Iran until independent sources confirm a real threat is being developed, which could be attacked when it starts to exist but is not ready to be used.
   

But don't tell us how much you love us and then advocate sacrificing more of our people.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

how impossible it is for the Israeli peace camp or the Palestinians to get a hearing in Washington, DC.

My guess is that even very few people who agree with your so called peace camp, don't agree with your approach to lobby Congress to presssure Israel.

mjrosenberg,

I told her I would not recommend lying but that, if she were my kid, I'd tell her that, if she wants to work in government, she should publicly adhere to the AIPAC line.

Wow.  With a pep talk like that, no wonder AIPAC can be so intimidating.

Dear Sean,
Thank you for your feedback.
However, I served with ??? ?????????? ???????: I knew ??? ?????????? ???????; ??? ?????????? ??????? was a friend of mine., MJ is no ??? ?????????? ???????.

MJ:

You write:

"I told her I would not recommend lying but that, if she were my kid, I'd tell her that, if she wants to work in government, she should publicly adhere to the AIPAC line."

My oldest is graduating college this year and looking for work in DC. Thank heavens, but I bet if I ever told her to fudge what she believes in to get a job she would probably tell me to go stick it somewhere.

I have no doubt that you meant well and you were expressing Washington reality with honesty and candor, but, well I don't want to sound preachy and self-righteous because I have no standing in real life to be self-righteous in the grand scheme of things, so I'll leave it at that.

"Teach your children well. . ."

Bruce

Zionista:

You write:

"The broad sweep of your argument suggests that any criticism of Walt and Mearsheimer amounts to an attack for the sake of neocon toadyism. Can you appreciate how this kind of argument is not substantially different from that which says "any crticism of Israel is antisemitism"? If one serves to stifle debate, surely the other does as well."

Yes I can appreciate your point Zionista. I feel like I'm in some kind of Twilight Zone episode. I'm genuinely confused. I mean everyone wants to talk about W&M, it seems, and then it seems like there is this presumption that the powers that be are stifling such discussion.

So here I am with this nagging pang of frustration because I think that this notion advanced by W&M that, but for certain elements of the so-called Israel Lobby, American boys and girls would not be dying in Iraq, is distressing as hell and inaccurate and . . .well analogous to a lot of bad historical presumptions. So, what did I do? Is it something I said? Have I stifled somebody?

Talk to me Zionista, tell me I'm not nuts (or tell me that I am nuts), but can I be equally disturbed by CAMERA and W&M's thesis about Iraq at the same time? Or does that disqualify me from being the liberal union attorney, with all the battle scars to show for it against real, I mean REAL "powers that be" (I can tell ya stories), that I always thought I was.

Bruce

You have it exactly backwards, syvanen.  For people who support the principles of an outfit like the Israel Policy Forum, like Bruce, myself and others who want to see our elected legislators and foreign policy-makers succeeed in the peace process, MJ Rosenberg is essentially our voice in Washington.  If he really has given up, then he should do something else and give someone else a shot at the job.

Given up? No way. Not ever. Our side has just begun to fight.

Israel, according to WRMEA's estimate (said to be conservative), has been the recipient of a total of $107,961,300,000 of U.S. aid since 1948. The estimate is comprised of not only the more well-known economic and military aid figures, but also includes loans (Israel hasn't defaulted on these - it's just never been asked by the U.S. to repay them), items from the DOD budget for specific projects which are not included in the general grants to Israel, extra interest paid on loans to Israel by U.S. taxpayers because of the early disbursement of funds (a policy in place since 1982 and unique to our aid to Israel among all other recipients), other grants and endowments not included in the economic aid figures, etc. I'm not certain whether the value of the tax breaks that charitable donors in the U.S. are given for money sent to Israel has been included in the $108 billion figure.

Israel's population as of 2006 was estimated to be 6,426,679.

There may be a more sophisticated way of calculating per capita aid, but when I divide the total aid to Israel since 1948 by current population estimate, I get $16798.93. This far exceeds the amount of per capita aid to the Palestinians.

This is especially disturbing considering that Israel has a per capita income of $26,800 (2006 CIA Factbook estimate - I've seen some higher estimates but could not find cites), placing it on par with many developed countries of the EU, and a high standard of living said to be 21st in the world by the UN. While in the meantime, the Palestinians have an ecomomy that is faltering due to the occupation.

“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung

Here is what the intimidation is. If you go against the line, you will catch so much flack that your life will be made miserable, donors will withhold money and you'll wish you had just gone along with the lobby.
Every Hill staffer knows that it is part of his/her job to keep the boss out of trouble with the lobby.

The examples you cite are ancient history. The intimidation is now and it is daily. Do you think candidates and politicians advocate status quo policies because they believe in them? They don't.
I doubt 50 House/Senate Members believe the line they feel constrained to utter.

Can the lobby defeat them for deviating. Not likely. But, under our current system, with Members primarily trying to avoid any static on any issue, taking on the lobby is something they won't do. Israel is just not that important to them.

Zionista, Bruce,

MJ Rosenberg is essentially our voice in Washington.

Maybe you can explain me why MJ has to fight so hard and has nothing to show for his fight.
I've asked him before:

In order to get a hearing you need to prove that you can deliver votes or/and campaign contributions. Why can't you deliver votes and campaign contributions? You claim that majority of Americans and American Jews support your position. There are many very liberal rich and very rich American Jews. So, if your claims are correct, why can't you get a hearing?

My guess is that even very few people who agree with your so called peace camp, don't agree with your approach to lobby Congress to presssure Israel

Sometimes when I read columns like MJ's and learn of organizations like CAMERA, and Bruce's words to MJ: "I have no doubt that you meant well and you were expressing Washington reality with honesty and candor" where Bruce describes the reality in DC, I think to myself; something is very, very wrong in the interaction of people who represent Israel, the United States, and those looking for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This "wrong" that I sense, if it exists, doesn't bode well for either side.

I won't attempt to identify what may be "wrong", I'll leave it to those who I see are deeply involved, if in fact they see anything wrong.

Comon.
You included military aid that was given to Israel to fight USSR proxy wars.

Palestinians have an ecomomy that is faltering due to the occupation.

peter said:

"I hope Ha'aretz has reinforced its cojones."

Well, Peter, hopefully Ha'aretz hasn't hired any Congressional Democrats.

Hey, there's Howard. Hi, Howard.

Thanks for the comprehensive post.

The vast majority of Jews who favor Rabin's vision do not give money to campaigns based on that belief. For instance, if I told you that your favorite Senate Democrat is an uber-hawk on Israel and signs every ZOA letter, you might still support that person because he/she is "good" on choice, environment, labor issues, etc. You will not withhold your contribution or your vote because liberals are not single issue voters or donors.

The voters and donors who follow the dictates of the lobby are. Tell them to go for Santorum because He's "good on Israel" and they do. Tell them to go for Barbara Boxer and the same person will go for her.

This is the same way all the ideological single-issue groups operate. Liberals just don't do it that way, at least not on the I-P issue. For us, the broader American agenda will always come first. And that is why it's so hard to compete.

DanielGree said:

It is funny. Haaretz.com is my antidote to Rosenberg's dishonesty and the anti-semitism that follows everyone of his posts.

This is confusing since MJ says this:

Ha'aretz is the premier newspaper in Israel. Its reporting is respected worldwide. In fact, those of us who defend democracy in Israel like to point to Ha'aretz as the best evidence of the kind of free-wheeling, open democracy Israel is.

OK, OK, what the frig is a "MOT"?

Zionista:

"MJ Rosenberg is essentially our voice in Washington."

So true. MJ sometimes I feel like I just want to shake you and make you understand that folks like Zionista and me are on your side and that you are indeed our voice in DC. I just try in my own way to give you some hints on the acoustics of the choir hall folks like you need to spend some more time preaching in.

Bruce

Bruce, I know you guys are on our side and I appreciate it. I believe that most American Jews are on the right side.
But, as I keep saying, being right is not enough. If it was. Kyoto would have been ratified.
The crackpots have alot of power.

John:

You are being overly modest when you write:

"I won't attempt to identify what may be "wrong", I'll leave it to those who I see are deeply involved, if in fact they see anything wrong."

You have more standing than anyone around here to talk about what is wrong in Washington. For heaven's sake you put your life on the line for this country in WWII (as did Zionista's dad by the way) and there are very few posters at the Cafe who can say that. I have said it before but it bears repeating that I am, and I'm sure many others on here are, forever humbled by your service, and by the sacrifice of the brothers you went to Europe with so long ago and who never returned home.

In any event, as I see it, the I-P debate in Washington suffers from the same constraints afflicting just about all pressing matters in DC. MJ's fundamentally right; it is in large measure all about money and power and an ever-evolving but ever-present good ole' boy/girl network. The folks on K Street and on Capitol Hill just don't want to rock the boat too much; it might cost them a few bucks.

But we press on John.

Bruce

OK I get it already!!!! :)

mjrosenberg,

You will not withhold your contribution or your vote because liberals are not single issue voters or donors.

The voters and donors who follow the dictates of the lobby are.

But that still does not explain what My Favorite Democratic Senator has to lose by continuing to vote liberally Democratic AND telling AIPAC to go schtup themselves, does it?  The voters who vote for Santorum are never going to vote for the likes of them anyway.  (Don't you guys tell them this stuff?) 

Again, and I'm sorry to belabor the point, but if the votes are coming in liberal and Democratic at a consistent rate of 3-1, then I still don't understand what the Reids, Durbins, Clintons, Obamas, Boxers, etc. have to lose by calling AIPAC's bluff.  Would you really expect Al Franken to defer to AIPAC the way Norm Coleman does, for example?

Is there a reason that when I was a kid "22" was always the number I wanted to have on my uniform?

Davai:

If CAMERA is leading a campaign to stifle Haaretz, or even opts to challenge the paper's posture with a letter-writing campaign or whatever, then that sure as hell does bother me, and it bothers me a great deal.

I don't like debate stifling, whether it's coming from a right-wing zealot or a self-annointed purported progressive.

Bruce

davai,

In recent illegal imigration debate, money and power was on one side but voters were on another side, and voters won.

Yes.  And this is exactly what is frustrating about this argument.  I understand when MJ says that American politics is almost always about the money.  Money buys attention and votes follow.  But if the votes are already in and the power is there to be had, then what good is the money?

Zionista:

"Yes. And this is exactly what is frustrating about this argument."

You think you're frustrated. Let me take it one step further. I believe that there are people with money and influence whose hearts and minds and wallets can be opened if they are given the right message.

Let me over-generalize a bit to make my point. If the only alternative message on the I-P conflict that the American Jewish community hears is that Israel is fascist, that its supporters are hypocritical liberals at best, that they exploit the Holocaust to stifle debate, and that they are responsible for the deaths of American boys and girls in Iraq, then we don't stand a friggin' chance.

I'm telling you Zionista, you and I both know that there is another message to share with our people, and one that resonates. You and I both know that life just ain't so gosh darn linear. We both know that you can't win people over by beating the crap out of them all of the time, especially when they're selling kosher dogs with real mustard (not that yellow crap) on the other side of the road. Those other dogs just won't hunt.

Oh my. What a rush! I feel so much better now. But am I nuts? Really Zionista? Am I?

Bruce

Bruce,
again, thanks for your kind words. I think I was one of 16 million in uniform.

Hey, I think I ran into Zionista's dad in France. :-)

Bruce, many people who post on MJ's columns are Jewish, and many of those are deeply involved, immersed, educated in, well versed in, the Israeli/Palestinian situation. When I read the posts I see myself as an outside observer not very well informed on the reality of what goes on over there, and the indepth knowledge of those who post reinforce my vision of myself vis a vis the I-P situation.

Still, there are some strange posts on this topic. :-)

Bruce, if you're nuts then so am I.

Your comment was a little elliptical and I thought you were referring to the discourse between MJ and bruce. I disagree strongly with many things that bruce and zionista say, but I find their reactions to MJ interesting.

Of course what what CAMERA is doing is objectionable, but this kind of activity has been going on for for at least 40 years without any debate; what is healthy is to see this discussed openly by people who obviously are very pro-Israel.

When I was having my first background investigation for a security clearance, it included a psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrist told me he would do an evaluation for a third party, but his take on medical ethics required that he share the report with the person he was reporting upon. Before handing me the report itself, he commented that if there was any question by the security people, he would tell them that this should be read as a positive report. In his opinion, if my childhood experiences had not driven me into outright insanity, nothing would.

This being during the days when James Bond was especially popular, I inquired if he meant that I would be reliable under torture. He laughed, and then said, "as much as anyone of whom I can think." I asked him if he'd tone down that aspect of the report.

It was only after I had left his office that I realized I had been judged sane by the Department of Defense. That's very frightening.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Lang is usually credited with the final warnings, admitedly on the order of a few days, that Iraq was going to attack Kuwait.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

We get national security advice from Steven Hadley. Governor LePtomaine was advised by Hedley Lamarr. Coincidence?

Prove that most American Jews are on your side. I have repeatedly challenged you to do that. Don't repeat stale old polls that says "a majority of American Jews support the two-state solution with a Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with Israel" because that doesn't address the current situation in which the Palestinians REFUSE to recognize any Jewish state within any boundaries. Ehud Barak was reported yesterday in Ha'aretz as saying exactly this.
Prove that American Jews think that AIPAC doesn't represent their views, and that they oppose the Israeli gov'ts security policies. Go ahead, prove it!

There are different reasons, if this is true, why this might have happened. One possibility, I suppose, is that this might have made him considered a security risk.

More likely, I'm afraid, knowing something of Lang's background and reputation, is that he was not assumed to be someone that would always support the Administration position. His recommendations would, unfortunately, be based on expert opinion rather than ideology. I have no way of knowing whether it happened in this case, but there have been appointments in many agencies that selected a party loyalist, supportive of the Administration's positions, over someone with expert knowledge of the field.

Richard Carmona, the Surgeon General, was not reappointed, after repeated fights with the Administration over things that he could not support medically. After leaving office, he reports that his speeches would go for political clearance, and, if they did not mention Bush an average of three times per page, they were rejected.

In other agencies, I have direct knowledge of government and contractor safety research, done by qualified specialists, refused publication authorization because the White House political side believed they might offend voting blocs.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Why would that bother me? Davai, I read Weiss' column that MJ linked to. I found his analysis facially credible, the quotes disturbing, and the implications of a concerted effort to "challenge" a newspaper inconsistent with my belief in free press.

Now, it is possible that I am wrong about Weiss, and if for some reason you felt it important to demonstrate that Weiss is not credible and then you did so successfully, well then davai I would be happy to admit error if it would make you happy -- but I have to tell you I would hardly be bothered by that.

Davai, so far as I know, CAMERA is not just a fact-checking organization, and by making such a statement I think you might be doing the same thing that some people who hate Israel do when they rely on certain organizations that also just put out "facts". Know what I mean?

Now ulitimately I think this whole thing about CAMERA and comparing it to the Red Scare of the 1950s is an overstatement and political in nature. For this and other reasons I have absolutely zero interest in accepting any sort of challenge from you to debate the relative merits of CAMERA. If you want to assert that CAMERA is an objective fact-checking library type service, then go ahead. If you want to criticize me for not acknowledging that, then do that too.

It's all cool with me, and hardly bothersome.

It wasn't Hadley. It was Doug Feith. And that incident was no surprise to anyone who knows Feith whose main interest in life, prior to advancing the Iraq war, was promoting West Bank settlements. His law firm even had a West Bank office.

I read Weiss' column that MJ linked to. I found his analysis facially credible ..... Davai, so far as I know, CAMERA is not just a fact-checking organization

Harvard Prof Says All Criticism of Lobby Is Anti-Semitism

Know what I'd like to read? I'd like to read
how a lot of countries, Israel included, spent
14 hours a day fixing their own problems, and
FIVE minutes a day whining to the United States
about it, not the reverse. Of course, if they
did that, then, well, there goes all that money,
and hey, we might see our budget balance again
before 2317, can't have that...

Yoel Marcus is the senior opinion columnist in the Leftist, post-Zionist Ha'aretz newspaper that MJ is defending in this thread. See what he says about the Annapolis
meeting and the chances of an I-P "peace agreement".

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/922232.html

BarK and Davai are going to turn us all into Tom Tancredo fans. Bar, get the hell out of here. Is it not enough that Americans give your country more money than any other in the world. Can you let us debate without whining at us.

Davai, what happened to immigrants who were grateful to and loyal to America. Your heart and soul and loyalty is with Israel. Move there.
Let us Americans debate how America should handle the Middle East.
You two are a blight on TPM. And you have never convinced any of us about anything except that the myth of Jewish intelligence may in fact be a myth.

Trolls out!

My comment referred to MJ's mention of CAMERA and the description of their tactics,
and the fact that they can exist while using those tactics.

And Bruce's reinforcement ("I have no doubt that you meant well and you were expressing Washington reality with honesty and candor...") of MJ's claim that: "I told her I would not recommend lying but that, if she were my kid, I'd tell her that, if she wants to work in government, she should publicly adhere to the AIPAC line."

It was those two items that made me think there is something very, very wrong....

It's not much of a debate. Not yet. But it's starting. Meanwhile, Joe McCarthy lives!

It's not much of a debate. Not yet. But it's starting. Meanwhile, Joe McCarthy lives!

John,
I am not familiar with the details of CAMERA, and really can't say if this is an organization that intimidates politicians and journalists. Certainly, there have been such, either standalone or part of some issue group (e.g., that might also have a large publications presence, lobbying, local chapters, etc.).

Unless such a function is happening under the color of government authority, as did Joe McCarthy, I'm more concerned with the slippery First Amendment slope of trying to stop them by legal mechanism. Outright slander and libel are a difficult matter, but hard to prove.

If a group is having a chilling effect, then the proper way to defend is to use light of the First Amendment on them whenever the pulpy many-legged things scuttle out from under their rock. Once, mainstream media, in the form of a Murrow, a Cronkite, or a Woodward & Bernstein might shine that light. The changed economic basis of news coverage, however, makes that less likely.

Less mainstream media, such as blogs, may be the real alternative. I honestly don't know how much First Amendment privilege, or principles of source immunity, or requirements for accuracy, should apply to them.

Whenever a part of the government suppresses government-funded, non-national-security information because it might offend some voting bloc, something is very wrong.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I'm telling you Zionista, you and I both know that there is another message to share with our people, and one that resonates.

other U.S. citizens from understanding the injustice being funded by their tax dollars?

MJ is stuttering again. :-)

Howard,

I took MJ's description of CAMERA, and on that I stated there was something wrong in America when an outfit that uses those tactics can exist. I would not try to close them down as I too believe in the First Amendment, let the neo-Nazis march, but its disheartening to see an outfit using those tactics and perhaps thriving.

Then again, I never liked the KKK either. :)

I took MJ's description of CAMERA,

Now ulitimately I think this whole thing about CAMERA and comparing it to the Red Scare of the 1950s is an overstatement and political in nature

Here is another good piece on CAMERA.

What undermines davai's arguments is his asking for references, and exact numbers, and dismissing unimmediately substantiated assertions while making so many himself, while exposing his own prejudices.

Whether davai likes it or not, the only way he can extrapolate 1200 Israeli deaths to "60,000 victims of terrorism" in proportion to the USA is by excluding all non-Jewish Israelis from the overall population count. And it's easy to say "add to that the thousands of Arab victims" without reminding anybody of the thousands of innocent vitims of Israeli firepower, the bulldozing of homes with no legal process for the victims, or the communal punishments meted out at whim.

Which ever way you cut it, the Israeli state is by far and away the most continuously internationally subsidized nation per capita over any other nation.

That davai can't admit it makes it no less clear to anybody with eyes to see or read, and ears to hear, that any criticism of Israeli policy equates, for some people, with anti-semitism. One only has to listen to the uninformed and carefully parsed abuse heaped lately on two Nobel Peace Prize awardees for daring to sympathize with the Palestinian situation which, by logical extension, includes criticism of Israeli policy while looking forward to a better future for all.

And it's just as clear that there are forces abroad here in the USA (and not all citizens)that look to influence the debate and the body politic, not by logic or force of argument, but by means of dissembling and intimidation allied to the power of money and influence.

None of this is any more good for the US than it is for Israel. But idealogues wouldn't see that, would they?

Which shul on the upper West Side?