Jonathan Chait And The Usual (Neocon) Suspects On Freeman -- And Hill Suspects Too
Hey, neocons, you lost. President Obama ignored you and appointed Chas Freeman anyway. Elliot Abrams' "back channel" is gone forever. Doug Feith is probably en route to The Hague.
Get over it.
But you you can't get over it, because you are not used to to losing (unlike my friends in the pro-Israel, pro-peace camp. We can't imagine winning).
Now Jonathan Chait of the New Republic is an interesting case. He's liberal on every single issue but Israel (on which he is pure neocon), not only liberal but brilliant. But when it comes to Israel, he just can't get beyond the ethnic pull. Even worse, he does not understand that his ethnic blinders (and that is all they are) have led him to support an approach to Israel that, if it succeeds, will destroy it.
He also seems not to be aware that his inability to stifle his views on the Middle East (about which he has no expertise) is leading people to question his judgment about the issues on which he does. That is because in 2009, in Obama's America, it is harder and harder to take seriously those who approach issues ethnically. It's antediluvian. And thank God.
In this piece, Chait attacks Steven Walt for writing that the bloggers who worked so hard to derail Charles Freeman's appointment as chair of the National Intelligence Council were motivated by one thing, and one thing only, Freeman's outspoken opposition to the Israeli occupation.
He finds this quote from Walt particularly offensive: "as soon as the appointment was announced, a bevy of allegedly 'pro-Israel' pundits leapt to attack it in in what The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss called a 'thunderous, coordinated assault.' Freeman's critics were the usual suspects: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Gabriel Schoenfeld writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal), Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Marty Peretz in his New Republic blog, and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen."
Chait calls Walt out for failing to note that many of the "usual suspects" Walt cites didn't only write about Freeman's views of Israel. Some wrote about his views of...China.
Chait has to be joking. None of the bloggers in question had any interest in Freeman's views on China until Steve Rosen (and some of his colleagues) decided to stir up the opposition to Freeman because of his alleged lack of fidelity to the occupation. In fact, I hear that the offending China quotes were only discovered in the context of a Google Nexis/Lexis search to find incriminating material to block Freeman's appointment because of his Middle East views. China was not even an afterthought.
That should be obvious unless one believes that Rosen, Goldfarb, Goldberg, Peretz, Goldberg again and Scheonfeld suddenly developed a deep and simultaneous concern about human rights in China. The only issue that gang has in common is defending the occupation and opposing the peace process.
The only reason Chait is even writing about Freeman at all is because he is worried that Freeman will be an honest broker on the Middle East and not "Israel's lawyer."
It's the same reason I'm writing about Freeman. I want an honest broker. He doesn't. The only differences between Chait and me on the issue are (1) We have diametrically opposed views about what is best for Israel (2) I know the issue and (3) I am up front about what my interest in Freeman is.
It's okay for Chait to be part of the "usual suspects." He just shouldn't pretend that he isn't.
MORE FROM THE SUSPECTS. Former lefty, now neocon, demands New York Times fire op-ed writer Roger Cohen for writing that Iranian Jews are not being persecuted.
AND HILL SUSPECTS TOO
Ben Smith of the Politico is being played for a chump. Shelley Berkley is so far to the right on Israel, she ignores AIPAC and works primarily with the Likud ZOA. Mark Kirk ran for re-election in Chicago on the "I can do more for Israel" ticket and raised a ton of money on it. How brazen can you get?
I think one of the usual suspects has been given the assignment of filling Ben Smith up with misinformation which, friendly guy that he is, he just prints. But he's being played. Ben, you know who the guy is so, next time he calls, tell him "thanks, but no thanks. I don't need a minder."
Yes, who do you think pays my $1 million plus salary. Or is it $2.
I can't respond to the rest of your post because I only read the part in CAPS.
Thanks for all the attention, YBD. Your responses to me are longer than my posts.
March 3, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my favorite part: "Now, we all know that Carter is a saint, and the fact that he dumps fire and brimstone on Israel all the time, whereas there is nary a word of criticism towards human rights abuses of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia or the fact that it would be illegal for Carter himself to pray in a Christian church in Saudi Arabia or even bring a Bible into the country with him is purely a coincidence."
Paranoia, false charges, and a run-on sentence.
March 3, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I was thinking. In Lieberman, the world has the only nativist candidate who can barely speak the local language and goes home to a foreign country at every opportunity.
Enjoy.
Or come back here. I'll bet you still have your passport, settler man.
March 3, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ keep up the good work. If every time the lobby launches a coordinated action against some issue or person and they are publicly identified as doing so, the effectiveness of that action will be lessened. Over time this exposure should also work to undermine peoples desire to participate in coordinated lobby actions -- what self respecting intellectual wants to be seen as a pod in some larger political movement.
March 3, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There seems to be some relief of late to seriously discuss this most critical issue MJ. Without the availability of input from scholars in this field, many of us were as confused as we are today over the economic crisis and who/what caused it.
There was a time not too long ago that ANY debate was only bound to attract rabid attacks and the type of aggressive critisism YBD offers here. The points are older and more tired than trickle down economics.
The likes of Stephen Walt and Juan Cole as learned and credible voices for this debate evens the playing field a bit, and invites the timid minds of the past to even join a conversation.
The level headed Jewish contributions to this healthy debate can't be overlooked either, both here and more importantly, from and for Israel.
March 3, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right. Jimmy Carter and the Walt/Mearsheimer book had a powerful effect. And so did the development of a strong movement within the pro-Israel community that hates what the rightwing has dome to Israelis and Palestinians both.
YBD is a valuable resource here because his kind of mentality is dying out, but there are still enough like him that we need to know where they are coming from. I'm just grateful he emigrated!
March 3, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Have you also checked into the story over @ the JTA blog about Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY] also going after Freeman?
March 3, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The list is getting too long to credit all the current writers that contribute common sense conversation today, and keep a post reasonable in length.
Carter had it right long ago, and doesn't get much well deserved credit even today. Almost taboo, it seems. His last book (Peace or Apartheid) would be a good primer for the majority of the commenters here, generated by your post.
Patrick Lang's site [http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/] often draws similar fire, seemingly from the same bunch.
March 3, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose then, YBD, that anyone that has an opposing opinion to yours must have gigantic financial backing and a tin foil hat?
Regime? Really?
Could it possibly be that at least a few of us are deeply concerned over age old bad blood and want to see lasting peace over there? That we believe a reasoned resolution could ease worldwide tension and conflict?
Should we immediately denounce Carter and figure he must be part of some sort of regime with too much money because he provides factual background history and proposes a solution for peace (not apartheid)?
Are you proposing Carter is just another liar with a tin foil hat?
March 3, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is a perfect illustration of what is so frustrating about MJ Rosenberg. Anyone who disagrees with MJ's (sad to say) knee-jerk blame Israel approach to all issues is automatically branded a "neocon" and apologist (or worse, a supporter) of the killing of children, regardless of their actual position or the content of their views. Instead of engaging the substance of these opinions many of which are voiced by natural allies opposed to the occupation but with differing views of the responsibility for the violence and ways to end it, the authors are chided for their "ethnic" approach. This is what passes for debate here at the "Cafe."
Sadly, those of us waiting for a credible pro-Israel, pro-peace voice will not find it on this page. Yet, I somehow manage to find myself sucked in time and time again.
March 3, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment is a perfect illustration of why MJ Rosenberg's commentaries are so valuable.
What passes for "debate" in the mainstream news media in the US amounts all too often to a silly shouting match between partisans of "Israel is always wrong" and "Israel is always right." In diametric opposition to such unAmerican nonsense, MJ IS in reality demonstrably pro-Israel and pro-peace. Nowhere on this page does he "blame Israel." One would be hard put in fact to find instances of such blame on any of his many pages at TPM. On the contrary, his consistent position has been that certain politicians and opinion-makers in Israel and the USA and elsewhere (Yes, including amongst Arabs!) are to blame for acting against the interests of Israel, the USA, and the rest of the world. The greatest common denominator of those taking repeated issue with him here is a delusionary paranoia that makes it hard for them to accurately read what he actually says.
March 3, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like this post, but I think the situation (on this blog) is a bit more complicated than that.
March 3, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin: I think your defense of MJ on the previous thread was pretty accurate. At best, MJ can serve as a corrective to a viewpoint that is readily available elsewhere. I understand that. But in the almost compulsive need to establish a counterpoint, any pretense at thoughtfulness and balance seems to have been lost and the tactics are no different than those whom he criticizes.
March 4, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be the same to 'blame' the United States for the actions of George W Bush and his administration?
With access to world views via the internet, it is obvious to me that many fellow international bloggers understand that a good many Americans disagreed huge with George.
They also see plainly that our views won by a landslide last November. And world peace is no small member of our family of views and goals that got us where we are today.
Peace is worth getting sucked into, time and time again Bro.
March 3, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little drama-queenish, Armchair. No one is attacking the concept of the "pro-Israel" position. We're attacking the ridiculous posts of new-Zionist and former American, YBD, who probably spends his days wripping pictures of Old Palestine from the books at the local Israeli library.
I personally have nothing but contempt for citizens of foreign nations who express outrage that American officials don't jump through their hoops.
America is a universal nation, full of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and agnostics. Sorry but many of us aren't going to hate Arabs--and fight them--so a bunch of losers from Brooklyn and Moldova can steal Palestinian land.
March 3, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a closet drama queen.
March 4, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love that image of Yahoo By Definition ripping pictures of old Palestine out of dusty old tomes. How about him carefully putting asterisks next to the P word and carefully noting in margin *Eretz Yisrael.
March 4, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not tech savvy enough...but I'm working on it.
When I read YBD, he reminds me of a story told by an Irish priest was incardinated for three years in our parish. The priest was absolutely a great guy. Totally, 100% Irish. Beautiful accent.
Before coming to our church, the priest had been "exiled" in Boston. And he used to groan whenever he talked about the "Plastic Paddies" (Irish-Americans) of Boston who lathered on and on and on about Ol' Eire.
Substitute YBD for a Plastic Paddy. I'll take a true Sabra over an Exiled Brooklynite any day.
March 4, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry certainly has a vociferous mouthpiece in this YBD fella who clearly has nothing else to do all day but write these beautifully scripted pieces of propaganda. Get a life YBD - there's a whole world out there (that doesn't read this column).
March 4, 2009 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the MFA has a pretty good website and, believe me, it sounds nothing like YBD. He is a voice of the settlers, not of the Israeli government. YBD's Israel exists only beyond the green line.
March 4, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This -the distinction between settlers and Israeli government- is an important one, MJ. Insufficient attention to it is, in my view, a serious flaw in the otherwise generally insightful analyses of Mearsheimer and Walt, for example. Of course, it is not the only distinction worth noting. There are, for example, instances where the interests of Israelis as a whole and the interests of Americans as a whole diverge. But the differences between the goals and modus operandi of Israeli extremists and Israelis generally are considerably more important, at least in terms of the stumbling blocks to peace efforts generally, and more particularly to America acting as an honest broker.
The comments of settlers, their aides and their dupes -here on a forum where their deceptions, hypocrisy, bigotry, and inherent amorality can be readily exposed- thus serve a useful, if unintended, positive purpose. As you take proper actions to protect yourself against flagrant lies and rampant misattribution, MJ (fully justified, and I would even say you have been commendably tolerant so far), please continue your attention to the need to expose -through other means- the lunatic fringe's pretense and false claims that it is mainstream and normal.
March 5, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any effective method to limit the patent propaganda pushed into every internet blog column by Hasbara minions of the Israel Foreign Affairs Ministry. The answer is probably not. The only way to limit the damage to gullible readers who believe the written word to be truth is to make everyone fully aware of the agenda to control and shape the opinion of Internet users worldwide by the recruitment and indoctrination of thousands of impressionable dogsbodies who are willing to believe in the misinformation themselves.
They then search every blog on every site and immediately refute, deny, condemn, dismiss or otherwise rubbish any criticism of Israel. (An example of this is a fella who goes by the name of ABC or YBD or something similar, who spends all day, everyday, posting such garbage – and who, presumably, influences those who assume his content to contain some iota of truth.)
The purpose of the above comment is to reiterate THAT THE RECENT KILLING OF HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN IN GAZA WAS A WAR CRIME AND THAT THOSE ALLEGED RESPONSIBLE SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT TO ANSWER SUCH CHARGES.
No amount of verbiage, or misinformation, or screaming and shouting about ‘human shields’ will alter the facts. Massive tanks, armoured vehicles, guided missiles and cluster bombs cannot be threatened by small children and they were most certainly not killed ‘in self-defence’. The very idea is senseless. Killing is killing. Children are children. Death is death and subterfuge is exactly that.
March 4, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
YBD--I tolerate your lies here because you are interesting in a bizarre way. However,ifyou continue to make up quotes from me (which you do throughout this thread" and put quote marks around them, I'm going to have to ask the "front office" to ban you from the site.
I don't object to your crazy talk. But you may not write Mj says: "Russian olim (immigrants) to Israel should go back to where they came from because they don't back my political positions". Or MJ says "Israel massacres Palestinian children" and these other quotes you make up.
You see, a quote is something a person actually said, not your interpretation.
So shape up or you are out of here.
That's a warning.
March 4, 2009 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: You know I agree with you,IPF, J-street, Peace Now, etc... the occupation is the problem, more settlements a disaster, phony endless negotiations that never get to a real two state solution a disaster for Israel etc.
And I agree that Chait and neocons are a disengenuous source.
But it does not mean that the ultra-realist Freeman types, with an active dis-insterest in democracy, or even liberaliztion be it in China or Saudi Arabia, etc. in favor of "stability" are not a bad thing. It is like Kissinger on Argentina and Chile and Indonesia, etc. (generals good; democracy bad). The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Just sayin' Freeman may not be thesomebody to get too close in bed with.
March 4, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. SteveA:
You are absolutely correct. But this "battle" has become about something other than Ambassador Freeman's credentials, and I feel badly for him as a result of that because I think in the appropriate environment he could explain himself and it appears that he has excellent credentials.
But, as I said, the battle lines have been drawn by folks with a much different agenda, namely whether Ambassador Freeman's appointment will or will not survive the so-called resistance of the "Lobby" with a capital L. Many commentators on the internet are joined at the hip to that agenda, and I submit that such an agenda shall be to the agenda that J Street, the IPF, and Peace Now should really be focusing on.
Thank you for drawing out the distinction. You are correct that, at the threshold, it is odd that "progressives" would be rallying behind someone with such strong ties to both Saudi Arabia and China. But the reason for this is the battle about the Lobby with a capital L, and to test my thesis, google Freeman and see how many articles or blogs you can find that deal with the man's qualifications to render intelligence analysis.
March 4, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a foreign policy realist. But the opposition to Freeman is entirely fueled by those opposed to him because he he opposed to the rightwing agenda on Israel.
Accordingly, people like me have to stand up to him because if they can block him, they can block anybody. This is the same crew that is keeping Rob Malley out of government.
So it's bigger than Freeman.
The issue is whether anyone who differs with the usual suspects can work on foreign policy issues.
If they can't, then both America's and Israel's interests are damaged terribly and we get a repeat of the last 8 years.
Bruce is right. It is a shame Freeman cannot defend himself because of the position he's up for. That leaves it to lesser sorts, like me, to do it.
March 4, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair comment, but I wouldn't say the opposition to Freeman is "entirely fueled by those opposed to him because he he opposed to the rightwing agenda on Israel." From what I've read (not all that much, to be sure), it's not just his opposition to the right wing agenda on Israel, it's his apparent hostility to any wing agenda on Israel. I would agree with Dr. Steve A. that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Moreover, it is disingenuous to lump all the critics into the right-wing/neocon camp. That's just not true of Chait, Goldberg and many others who have spoken out about this. Whether Freeman's views disqualify him for the position is a well above my pay grade.
March 4, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just would rather spend time my time analyzing, attacking and defending from the pro-peace pro-demicracy left.
But we are seeing in many many ways, domestic (I mostly write on health policy from a single payer perspective) as well as foreign, that Obama is very much a centrist/realist and has a desire/need to surround himself with folks who have the finest of inside-the-beltway (and from the rest of the de facto oligarchy that actually rules) credentials and credibility.
March 4, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring the issues over Israel to talk about the Saudis is called changing the subject. It means the person's actual argument can't withstand scrutiny. Certainly the Saudis have issues, and in their interactions with the US probably the biggest one is that they assume this country works like theirs, and they attempt to work the oligarchy from both sides. They need a completely different approach.
But that is utterly beside the point. Reality is, as MJ and many people are clear about, the current path for Israel is a disaster that leads to loss of democracy, loss of Jewish identity, or both. The smart way is to cut a deal NOW and get back to the approximate '67 borders and get into conformity with the relevant UN resolutions. And the best thing for the US to do is to insist on that, because it pulls the rug and the high road out from under the Iranian radicals and the Al-Qaeda types... and frees them to continue going at one another, reduces the amount of common cause they have, all of which is good for us.
If you think the Mideast and the economy and the US military situation is bad now, wait and see what happens if some neo-Mossad Likudnik plot baits us into attacking Iran as we did Iraq, or if the Israelis foolishly do it alone. All of us will experience having the biggest worry in life be foraging for firewood and edible local plants...
March 4, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am really glad that the US government and Jewish Americans did so much to support the birth of Israel.
But it is clear to many of us in middle America that there is an imbalance in the support by the US government of policies, philosophies and tactics that have led to the Middle east tinderbox we now witness, not to mention the human rights abuses of both "sides".
I am glad that for the first time in my 50+ years I am witnessing signals from the Obama administration that things have to change, and will change.
Keep up the great work MJ. You have been quite enlightening to someone like me. I have no problem getting the other views here in WV. Of course, I have to watch out for the Christian zealots around here that are in a hurry for that Rapture.
March 4, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Biker.
Even HINTS of fairness over there is extremely encouraging. But it will take a lot more than hints to expose the path that got us here to begin with, that being the perpetual deception.
We would also be lame not to at least mention Amy Goodman in this fray. The straight poop, all the time, is what this problem begs for.
March 4, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I honestely think you are ignoring Chas Friedman's blind spots. He seems to have a weird arrogance about America power that feels that America can control ultimate outcomes through the signals it sends. In an odd way he denies any agency to the Arab regimes or the Arab peoples by assuming that they will act in the way America wants simply with America following their wishes. It ain't that easy and I think it is a receipe for more bloodshed in that it will embolden the hard line players present in all Arab regimes to bully the Arab/Persian centrists into conceeding nothing and demanding everything. The minute Obama signalled the change in US-Israeli policy, the Gaza Hamas leadership gave up on returing the body of Gilad and stopping the intermitant rocket attacks. This is a bad sign.
Also, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that this conflict can be resolved via traditional Westphalian statescraft; it is too intractible for that and thus requires a tragic solution, similar to 1945 Poland and Czechoslovakia. But that is a harder discussion for another time.
March 4, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep up the great work MJ. You have been quite enlightening to someone like me. I have no problem getting the other views here in WV. Of course, I have to watch out for the Christian zealots around here that are in a hurry for that Rapture.
Barbie Oyunları Araba Oyunları
August 24, 2010 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama, such an inspired leader and I very much like the Obama Administration.Chicago movers
August 30, 2010 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is becausefilme online in 2009, in Obama's America, it is harder and harder to take filme online gratisseriously those who approach issues ethnically. It's antediluvian. And thank God.
January 23, 2011 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v client, how to configure iscsi
March 31, 2011 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
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 high availability clusters
April 28, 2011 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
car shipping, auto transport, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car shipping.
April 28, 2011 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Filme online gratis This website is realy nice.. filme online gratis rocks
May 5, 2011 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink