Indicted for Espionage, Steve Rosen Assesses Obama's Stance Toward Israel
It's an interesting defense strategy. Steve Rosen, about to go on trial for espionage, keeps writing columns advising the President how best to be pro-Israel.
Has any one up on espionage charges tried this technique? Did my tocayos (Spanish for unrelated people with the same name), Julius and Ethel Rosenberg write articles urging a softer US position toward the Soviets. But Julius (if not Ethel) was guilty and Rosen might not be.
Still, if I were him, I'd keep my mouth shut. On the other hand, I wouldn't be him, not for all the tea in China!
Rosen's piece is in the Jerusalem Post and it isn't half-bad, although I hope he's wrong and that Obama will do precisely what Rosen would oppose. It has one great part. Rosen bemoans the fact that "nowhere on the list [of Obama officials] so far is there a true hawk either, an Elliot Abrams or a Doug Feith or a John Bolton or a Paul Wolfowitz."
Gee, Steve. More than a few of us think that Doug Feith did not exactly serve US interests while sitting in the Pentagon, quite the opposite in fact. As for the others, they are, with Feith, responsible for the worst foreign policy disaster in our history -- one that left 4200 Americans dead in a war whose justification they manufactured from whole cloth.
On trial for espionage, isn't it dumb to praise a group pf policymakers who are themselves suspect? And who themselves might be hauled before the Leahy Tribunal?
There is another provocative piece in the Post today about the Pollard spy affair and its meaning. I like this part.
"THE POLLARD AFFAIR should serve as a reminder to American Jews that, as Jews living in America, we are living lives not of dual loyalty but of dual identity. As far apart as is the chasm between Norman Podhoretz and Noam Chomsky in the realm of ideology, both men are legally Americans. The Satmar Hassid living in New Square and the Jewish atheist who eats bacon for breakfast on Yom Kippur in Los Angeles are each Americans. As an American, I have more in common with an American of African descent than I do with a Jew in Israel, even a Jew in Jerusalem who is from the same shtetl in Russia from whence my ancestors came."
Word!
I would add that every Jew I hang with has more in common with our Jewish or non-Jewish fellow Americans who share our political orientation and worldview than with Jews or gentiles who don't.
It's worldview that counts. A Jewish conservative is as alien to me as a non-Jewish conservative. The only difference is that, with the Jew, I wonder what made him like that.
Every American of every kind has more in common with all of his/her fellow Americans than with any people anywhere else whether or not they share some form of ethnic, religious, political or other sort of identity with them. This isn't something that is in any way a uniquely Jewish thing.
February 12, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Also, there is the language thing. If I'm on a bus in Slovenia, and I can sit next to a Jew from the Czech Republic, who speaks no English, or a New Zealander, I'd obviously choose the Kiwi.
Winston Churchill was right. English-speaking peoples have a tremendous amount in common. Additionally, language conveys culture. Yet, we ignore that aspect of our identity.
February 12, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it true that Aaron David Miller is going to be Envoy to Iran? If so, God Bless America.
February 12, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear MJ:
I thought you might enjoy this piece:
"It's the Occupation Stupid, the Rest is Commentary"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/10/171628/782/823/695824
Wishing you peace & health.
February 12, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well-done. I like the way you build your case. Some god responses too! Congrats.
February 12, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are just ever so wrong about that manufactured-from-whole-cloth business, MJ!! Didn't you ever hear Bush explain how *every country in the world* believed that Bin Laden and Saddam were using Iraq as a base for.... yeah, how'd that go again?
(Uh, with notable exceptions of permanent Security Council members France, Russian, and China, I suppose, but still!)
February 12, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would've been a nice capper for Rosen to close his article with a sentiment that is near and dear to Zionists everywhere: free the great Israeli patriot Jonathan Pollard!
February 12, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Rosen and his blog, Obama Mideast Monitor, are an invaluable resource for those who are interested in how the Lobby's agenda and appointments are manifesting themselves in the new administration. So far, Rosen is quite pleased with the emerging picture.
This excerpt from the JPost article helpfully highlights some of the players he favors:
"Fred Hof is tough on Hizbullah ("Hassan Nasrallah... and his inner circle do what they do first and foremost to defend and project the existence and power of the Islamic Republic of Iran... If [they] come to a violent end in the current crisis you will not find me among the mourners"). Dan Shapiro was one of the authors of the 2003 Syria Accountability Act. And Jeffrey Feltman was admirably outspoken as ambassador to Lebanon."
Dan Shapiro has been glued to Obama during his run and has a very influential post in the NSC. The idiot and Elliot Abrams/David Welch co-conspirator, Jeffrey Feltman was despised by the Lebanese (except for those who favored the Israeli attack on Lebanon and thought they'd gain power in the aftermath) . The fact that he will continue to have a role in destabilizing Lebanon is only a good sign for those who believe that neocon fairytales can still come true.
IPF advisor Frederik C Hof appears to be a good person but his views on Hezbollah and Nasrallah are colored by his friendship with the kidnapped, then killed, Col Rich Higgins, in 1988. Nasrallah wasn't even in Lebanon during that interlude and didn't become Hezbollah's leader until 4 years later. It's not kosher to have people with such deep personal grievances having roles dealing with those they consider responsible for their grief.
The Hof quote approvingly cited by Rosen is taken from this presentation about Hezbollah by the Conflict Forum's Mark Perry and Hof during the Israeli attack on Lebanon in '06:
http://legacy.fmep.org/analysis/articles/transcript_american_perspectives_on_hezbollah.html
Suggested reading ONLY for those not seriously afflicted with Zionist Memory Syndrome. Mark Perry's more nuanced, informed take could cause sufferers to stroke out.
February 12, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, Lally, GREAT site. I'll spend a few months there. Thanks for passing it on. Legacy, I mean.
February 12, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, Peter.
I have to admit that it was Steve Rosen, his very self, who pointed me to it by providing the link on Obama Mideast Monitor. ;~{)
Conflicts Forum is another fine resource. The folks there have real background and firsthand experience with the subjects of interest and debate. They provide perspective.
Here are quotes from a timely & facinating historical perspective of the relationship between Israel and Iran:
"Imagined affinities, imagined enmities: The strange tale of Iran and Israel
By Alastair Crooke, Le Monde diplomatique, February, 2009
The early Zionists never believed they would be accepted in the Arab world and pinned their hopes on the non-Arab periphery instead, particularly Iran. Israel reversed that policy by opening talks with a weakened Arafat in the early 1990s. But peace with the Palestinians did not happen and the ‘radicals’ grew more radical.
“We had very deep relations with Iran, cutting deep into the fabric of the two peoples,” said a high-ranking official at the Israeli foreign ministry just after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Israeli (and US) officials then saw it as madness to view Iran as anything other than a natural interlocutor. Thirty years later, western policy-makers, and particularly Israelis, see Iran as a growing threat. Could this fear be based on a misreading of Iran’s revolution?
David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, did not see Israel as part of the Middle East, but as part of Europe. From 1952, Ben-Gurion repeated that although Israelis were sitting in the Middle East, this was a geographical accident, for they were a European people. “We have no connection with the Arabs,” he said. “Our regime, our culture, our relations, is not the fruit of this region. There is no political affinity between us, or international solidarity” (1).
.......
"As a result of these rebuffs, Ben-Gurion evolved the concept of the “alliance of the periphery” which aimed to balance the vicinity of hostile Arab states by forming alliances with Iran, Turkey and Ethiopia. It was an attempt to strengthen Israeli deterrence, reduce Israel’s isolation and add to its appeal as an “asset” to the US.
In parallel, Ben-Gurion developed another idea: the “alliance of the minorities”. He argued that the majority of the inhabitants of the Middle East were not Arab, referring not only to the Persians and the Turks, but also to religious minorities such as the Jews, Kurds, Druze and (Christian) Maronites of Lebanon. The aim was to foster nationalist aspirations among minorities in order to create islands of allies in the ocean of Arab nationalism."
http://conflictsforum.org/2009/imagined-affinities-imagined-enmities-the-strange-tale-of-iran-and-israel/
February 13, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In parallel, Ben-Gurion developed another idea: the “alliance of the minorities”. He argued that the majority of the inhabitants of the Middle East were not Arab, referring not only to the Persians and the Turks, but also to religious minorities such as the Jews, Kurds, Druze and (Christian) Maronites of Lebanon."
I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, but in a different context. In some ways, and for whatever reasons, Jews have been the...how to pick my words here?...the "eternal minority." Maybe the archetypical minority would be better.
A lot of how we are as "a people" or "a group" and a lot of our history emerges from this fact. Anyway, I may write a blog entry on this point. Thanks for passing this on.
What has made you so interested in this topic...?
February 14, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure which topic you mean, Peter.
What struck me about the quoted para was that it goes a long way to explain why, despite obvious cultural differences, Israel has sought alliances with the groups mentioned; with more or less success. Now of course, it is the despised Arabs of Egypt and the KSA who are Israel's best regional allies. The Kurds too, although their usefulness is limited. Ditto the Maronite Christians and Druze of Lebanon who are less than reliable.
Obviously, the point of the article was the pursuit of expedient alliances belies the claims of eternal animus and permanent enemy status of Israel's batch of those currently designated as such. The same is true of US.
I would be careful about employing the term "archetype" in the context you did as it is meant to address universal individual charcteristics and does not apply to groups.
Eternal, within the context of the Jewish narrative, would work better I would think. Being a part of a permanent minority is a self-reinforcing glue that creates a bond even among those Jews I know who aren't religious and are far from being Zionists.
February 14, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
I meant Middle East politics...the IP conflict...this whole area.
You are quite knowledgeable and I wondered what the spring of your interest was?
February 15, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peter.
It's been so long now that I can't really recall precisely what it was (Operation Defensive Shield?) that spurred my interest. An Electronic Intifada link to a Haaretz article served as the portal to the Israeli media. That was all she wrote... it became quickly apparent that the Israeli sources (including the far right) were vastly superior to the filtered and/or distorted news and opinions about Israel from the predominate American perspectives.
The very fact that Israel is so central to US FP in the ME and beyond was surprising and the questions of how-why-what-where-who are neverending. As is the fascination and the frustration and the fear that we will become embroiled in more regional violence.
February 15, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good news and BRAVO! to B'Tselem. They're Israelis doing direct lobbying where it counts. Here.
From: Mitchell Plitnick, B'Tselem
To: imra@netvision.net.il
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:52 AM
Subject: New B'Tselem Reports, New Ways to Support Us
Dear Supporter,
Like you, I watched in sadness as the fighting in Gaza wreaked terrible devastation on the Palestinian population, while southern Israel endured waves of rocket fire. For me, the experience came much closer than usual, as I happened to be in Israel when the fighting began.
I was in the city of Sderot when a Qassam rocket struck the town, a truly terrifying experience that vividly illustrated what the people of Sderot have had to contend with. Only a few minutes later, the sounds of artillery fire toward Gaza could be heard, just as clearly as the impact of the rocket. After feeling the impact of the Qassam, I could only imagine how
much greater the impact of the Israeli shelling was in Gaza.
The importance of B'Tselem's work has never been clearer to me. Now more than ever we need an Israeli voice raising issues of universal human rights and promoting that agenda in Israel and in the US as well. Your support is a big part of our ability to make our voice heard clearly and effectively.
We are setting up a list to send targeted action alerts to amplify the voices of those who want the Obama administration to act decisively to address human rights concerns in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. We need our supporters, especially those in the US, to sign up for our action list. By clicking here and filling out the form, you will
receive periodic action alerts which will allow you to urge your elected officials to support Israeli civil society, human rights and the rule of law in the Occupied Territories.
B'Tselem has just released its interim findings on the fighting in the Gaza Strip. Click here to download this document, which highlights the need for real accountability
www.btselem.org/Download/200902_Operation_Cast_Lead_Position_paper_Eng.pdf
(the Acrobat Reader is required for this document. Download it here for free).
In order to put a human face to our message regarding the need to shield all civilians from hostilities, we're supporting a unique documentary film project, Gaza/Sderot that offers an in-depth look at individuals on both sides trying to cope with the ongoing violence. Videos are already up looking at daily life before the recent operation, and new videos will be posted shortly. And of course, we continue to monitor and report on the full
spectrum of human rights concerns in the Occupied Territories and advocate for policy changes to address these issues.
In the US, B'Tselem helped bring two Israeli human rights experts to meet with US officials. The impact was palpable, and two congressional letters were sent, the second gathering 61 signatures. And we continue to work to bring information to Capitol Hill, the State Department and the White House
to raise the profile of human rights in their policies.
Mitchell Plitnick
Director of US Office
B'Tselem
Contact the Washington DC B'Tselem office: mitchell@btselem.org
1411 K Street NW, Ste. 1350
Washington, DC 20005
Much, much thanks to the affronted Dr Lerner who signed up for their email list.
;~{)
February 13, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink