Freeman Withdraws Name
Remember, it had nothing to do with this.
Must have been his stance on EU membership for Cyprus. Or maybe Tibet. Or maybe....
We'll know soon enough, I expect.
Whatever the reason is, his withdrawal changes nothing about the argument I've been making about the full-blown assault on any would-be elected official or policymaker who speaks out against settlements and for rigorous and vigorous pursuit of the two-state solution.
Here's Glenn Greenwald's take.
And Chas Freeman's statement.
Advertisement
Pathetic. You know, as pissed as I get with Israel, and the Americans who seem to care more about Israel than our country, we can't let ourselves off the hook.
The manipulation of American politicians, media, and everyday people is as much our fault. We allow ourselves to be used. We allow Israeli politicians to give public interviews in which they admit to using and manipulating the United States and brag about how they're going to do it again.
This type of crap makes me ashamed of my country. We're the bitch of a second-world dust spot on the other side of the globe. Let's write them another check....
March 10, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democracy and the democratic process will inevitably produce decisions that you personally disagree with.
This shouldn't make you ashamed of your country. It should make you proud of your country: its openness, its opportunity for all who live therein, its efforts to improve the world in ways large and small, its learning from past mistakes and trying to do better, etc.
Patriotism is like marriage. If you're only proud of your wife when you agree with what she has done, your marriage won't last long. With your statement, you are supporting the untrue and deeply hurtful canard that progressives are less patriotic than conservatives.
March 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!
Get over yourself.
March 10, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a bunch of BS. Someone ought to tell that to the AIPAC folks who derailed Freeman.
March 10, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC is extremely patriotic. Country first, right or wrong.
March 10, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't it treason for any American official to place the interests of any foreign government above those of our country? In my opinion it is treasonous when any American is more concerned with supporting Israel than with supporting America. And, unfortunately, that makes a lot of people I otherwise have the utmost respect for be seen as traitors by me.
March 10, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To assume exceptional Israeli influence on America just because they run things sounds vaguely anti-Semitic to me. Isn't it better to censor yourself and avoid any question about your anti-Semitism?
Can we finally get some "documents" that prove we need to let Israel invade Iran now? The economy's getting pretty bad and I think we all need to rally around another war for Israel.
March 10, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who needs a document? They just need Charles Krauthammer to SAY they have a document.
Thank you for the reminder censor myself. Don't want to be caught calling a duck a duck do I?
March 10, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - It's called the Democratic Process. We all do it, and it's healthy. If Israel supporters (or people who don't like to hear Israel vilified) are good at it, let's emulate them, not attack them.
I, for one, am gladdened, as I see Freeman as deeply opposed to many things that progressives hold dear. I'm deeply puzzled by the support for him on this board (including you, MJ). It seems so counterintuitive on a progressive discussion board.
March 10, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can I tell you? I'm a progressive but I care about Israel and the status quo crowd that has run US Middle East policy for decades is laying the groundwork for the day when there is no Israel.
Democratic process? Who voted?
March 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly believe you care about Israel, despite the fact that my views on the subject are essentially opposite.
You should also know and believe that many of the people on the other side of the divide deeply care about Israel, but have a different understanding of the geopolitics than you do.
That's the way discussions begin and progress can be made.
The democratic process includes, and always has included, the behind-the-scenes efforts of elected officials and the citizen petitioners who try to get their attention. Read any civics book.
March 10, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
True
March 10, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you truly believe M.J. cares about Israel. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
You are a true progressive, and should repeat that word often to show others how noble, humane, and caring you are.
March 10, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on your comments, I don't give you the same credit that I give MJ.
I haven't yet figured out why you hate Israel so much, out of all the many countries in the world, many of which are known to have done much worse things than what even the worst haters accuse Israel of.
Give me five or six more good hateful comments, and I'll have you fully psychoanalyzed.
You should be proud to know that the type of unreasoning hatred that you show has a long and distinguished lineage, whose name I'm sure you know.
March 10, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What other country is willing and able to receive permission from the U.S. to provoke a military conflict that could very well lead to World War 3, for reasons that have nothing to do with the security of the U.S.?
When our elected officials become the proud servants of Zimbabwe, and Zimbabwe appears to be on the verge of provoking WW3 with the full assistance of the American establishment, I'll then focus much more on Zimbabwe.
You see, not everybody likes watching preemptive, illegitimate, unnecessary, and globally devastating wars, and I'm one of them.
Do you think that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, or do you just not want to see any real military rivals to Israel that could compromise its omnipotence in constantly redefining its borders?
March 10, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think that Iran is a real existential threat to Israel.
I would certainly prefer that Israel be cautious, and not find out too late whether it's true.
March 11, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill:
If you disagree with US Government policy on Israel (the policy, incidentally, of both Democratic and Republican administrations), that should maybe make you hate the US. Why does it make you hate Israel and reserve so much invective for them out of all the countries in the world?
Are you aware that in 1982, Syria massacred between 7,000 and 40,000 of their own people in the town of Hama (see link below)? Have you ever criticized Syria about anything, on any discussion board? I am not trying to bait you - I'm truly interested in your response. -Jon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
March 11, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I care about Israel. That is why I am involved the way I am.
In fact, for all its faults, I love Israel.
Hell, I even love my own country with its even more faults.
March 10, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly constitutes "progressive" from your "deeply puzzled" perspective. Enlighten us. What do we have to do exactly to be "progressive" in your meaning. Be very specific.
March 10, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy. A progressive is someone who fights for the interests of the innocent, wants everyone to have a fair shake, opposes tyranny, supports democracy, supports free speech and a free press, supports separation of powers . . .
I could go on for longer, but you probably get the idea. By any definition, Israel is by far the most progressive country in the Middle East (do you know what happens to homosexuals in most countries in the Middle East, including "moderate" ones like Saudi Arabia?) It is also one of the most progressive countries in the world. Being progressive doesn't mean you can't defend yourself against attackers.
What does the term Progressive mean to you?
March 11, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I asked you to be specific. "Innocent" is a value judgement, and is not remotely specific, as you well know and you carefully laid out in your ongoing campaign of bullshit. "Progressive" in any society, any, anywhere, begins with "rule of law" and *always* includes respecting borders, and rights of landholders.
You can't be "progressive" until you have rule of law, as any moron even knows. So you need to establish your credentials on the first one till you can (up till now, ridiculously) start crowing about the second one.
Anyway, you didn't begin to answer the question, and you expose yourself as a person for whom "progressive" only means, "my side gets more." That's all you are. Accept it. We already have.
March 11, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the full-blown assault on any would-be elected official or policymaker who speaks out against settlements and for rigorous and vigorous pursuit of the two-state solution"
Oh please. Quit the martyr act. Here are some individuals who have spoken out against settlements and in favor of a rigorous and vigours pursuit of the two-state solution:
Dennis Ross (e.g., http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10396/dennis-ross-slams-settlement-policy/)
George Mitchell
Hillary Clinton
Those individuals are actually involved, wouldn't you say? Not to mention some of the individuals opposed to Freeman, such as Jon Chait and Jeff Goldberg.
Freeman, in contrast, didn't stop with those positions. The litany of Freeman's positions have been detailed elsewhere, but stop pretending that he was loudly opposed because he believed in stopping settlements and a two state solution.
March 10, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. So-called progressives supported Freeman for one reason only - that he was critical of Israel, and never mind if a good chunk of that criticism was completely over-the-top ridiculous. They weren't interested in presenting Obama with a "rangle of views". They wanted someone with their views close to the center of power. They are the mirror image of the people they oppose: doctrinaire and intolerant.
And spare me the crap about no one being allowed to have dissenting views. In Washington, among elected officials and other people in government, there are a range of views on Israel. And in fact the vast majority of people are opposed to the expansion of Israeli settlements and are for a two-state solution. The notion that everyone toes the line laid down for them by the most hardline is ridiculous.
But if you start spouting nonsensical anti-Israel invective, you can expect pro-Israel activists to oppose you. And the vigor with which they oppose you is usually directly proportional to the level of nonsense you spout. In Chas Freeman's case, that level was very high indeed. In fact, it is a good indication of how much nonsense he spouted that very few of his defenders actually seemed to agree with his philosophy. He was anything but a progressive. Yet progressives defended him because his anti-Israel bias, although originating in a different place, happened to coincide with theirs.
March 10, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And in fact the vast majority of people are opposed to the expansion of Israeli settlements and are for a two-state solution."
Talk is cheap.
March 10, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk is not cheap for Israelis.
They have, on many occasions, in their hope for peace, supported taking risks which have later resulted in the deaths of innocent Israelis.
Cheap indeed!
March 10, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hogwash.
Chait and Goldberg accept idea of a two-state solution in the same way that Marty Peretz does: merely to the extent that the only side requiring external pressure, the only obstructionist side, is the Palestinan side.
Come time for substantive pressure on Israel, and they lose all interest.
March 10, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dennis Ross, eh? From Wikipedia:
According to Aaron David Miller, a member of the Ross-led US negotiating team in 1999-2000, under Ross they frequently acted as "Israel's lawyer", and their policy of "no surprises" (meaning all US proposals were first reviewed by Israel), led to a lack of negotiating flexibility and independence.[9] Ross writes in The Missing Peace that "Aaron was always arguing for a just and fair proposal... that the Palestinians were entitled to 100 percent of the territory. Swaps should thus be equal... on the basis that every other Arab negotiating partner had gotten 100 percent. Why should the Palestinians be different? I disagreed."
Makes you wonder what kind of two state solution Dennis Ross supports. Maybe one for Israel, and one for the Settlers.
March 10, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Hilary being tough on Israel:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4229894003980119465&ei=V-q2Sa3qLIL8rgKUvJj5DA&q=Hilary+Clinton+aipac&hl=en
March 10, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you saying that she has not spoken "out against settlements and for rigorous and vigorous pursuit of the two-state solution"?
If your criticism for her is her support of Israel, that's something different. I'm glad she supports America's ally, but not everybody feels the same way.
March 10, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but not everybody feels the same way."
You mean the anti-Semites who don't believe that presidential candidates (and future Sec. States) should proudly proclaim to be working for the Israel lobby and state that there is absolutely no difference between what is good for the U.S. and what is good for Israel?
I feel for you. Keep nourishing that persecution complex. It will get you out of any logical or ethical jam.
March 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no doubt that Dennis Ross worked vigorously at Camp David to try and reach a two state solution. And, as I linked, he has been vocal against the settlements.
Maybe he didn't side enough against Israel for your liking. But it doesn't change the truth of his actions.
March 10, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now he's working for Hilary (proudly working "with and for" AIPAC, watch the link!) as a Special Adviser to the Persian Gulf.
I'm sure he'll work just as hard to achieve peace with Iran, right buddy?
March 10, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should know.
March 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald asks the right question:
"Does anyone doubt that it's far more permissible in American political culture to criticize actions of the American government than it is the actions of the Israeli Government?"
March 10, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just what do you call the recent statements by Hillary Clinton criticizing Israel for slowing down humanitarian relief (lovingly recounted by MJ Rosenberg recently)? What do you call the criticism of Israeli settlements that has gone on for more than 20 years?
There is no shortage of criticism of Israel.
What I am guessing people like you want is not criticism so much as condemnation. And you would be correct in saying there is a shortage of condemnation of Israel in the US, compared to other countries.
As much as you might want to deny it, Israel is virtually the only country in the world that faces an existential threat. Tens if not hundreds of millions of people want it - to use the lovely Iranian phrase - wiped off the map. Israel owes its continued existence and its strength in large measure to the support of the United States. As long as the existential threat is there - and there's no sign it's going away any time soon - true supporters of Israel will work feverishly to make sure that support stays strong. That is why the pro-Israel community is so politically powerful. Nothing motivates commitment like the feeling that what you do is a life-or-death matter.
With these stakes, Israel supporters will try to marginalize or block anything that is perceived as stepping over the line from criticism, which is fine, to condemnation, which is not. That is also why comparisons to the level of self-criticism in Israel itself are so lame. In Israel, support for the state is a given, as it is in most countries. In the US, support is not a given. It has to be argued.
March 10, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm missing something but does the "National Intelligence Council" actually DO anything? Has it ever? It was formed in 1979, so it certainly was not involved in helping bring about the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel.
Achieving peace between Palestinians and Israelis was never destined to be easy. (This is one reason it was sidestepped in 1978, otherwise Israel and Egypt might very likely still today be engaging in artillery practice against each other from opposite sides of the Suez Canal). Inching towards a comprehensive peace arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians will be much more difficult still thanks to 8 years of cowardice, stupidity, and crass incompetence from Cheney and Bush. Does the Likudnik litmus testing of Freeman alter this dynamic in any non-negligible way?
It is shame that yet another qualified public servant in the US has been successfully trashed by traitors in league with and dupes of West Bank settler-terrorists, but does it really make any significant difference to the question of whether, when, and how the US Congress might finally begin to rollback the asinine hypocrisy of justifying any atrocity whatever committed by Israel, because it "has a right to exist," while continuing to deny the right of a Palestinian state to exist, let alone what Barack Hussein Obama might manage to do on his own?
Freeman couldn't or was unwilling to stand the unfair heat, so let others go into the kitchen with hot tongs, gloves and fire extinguishers instead.
March 10, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NIC is the organization that provides the National Intelligence Estimates. Controlling the product there, as the neocons did all during the Bush administration, has a lot to do with the decisions that are ultimately made by the President, even though the Council itself does not have a decision-making role.
I can't speak for other progressives, but even though I'm not a pure realist myself, as Freeman is, having a realist in charge of the NIE sounds like a great idea to me. Let the NIE reflect what's good for the US, and if then there are exceptions to be made on the basis of other legitimate concerns, let them be argued out in the halls of power. But the starting point for such discussions always should be what's in our own best interests. The problems come when one can't trust the basic intel to be free of bias. Obviously though, the AIPAC folks don't want such an "evenhanded" assessment, because the truth works against their interests. Our blind support of Israel hurts our country.
The news about Freeman today was bad enough, but the WaPo article about the withdrawal featured our favorite Senator, Joe Lieberman:
And added that "he feared that Freeman might not be able 'to separate his policy views from the analysis...'" [emphasis mine] Say what? Did Lieberman raise the same issue about Feith and his minions? (It's pretty clear that Lieberman has absolutely no sense of irony.)
If anyone knows who might be running against Lieberman in 2012, please let me know. I want to start donating now. Harry Reid made such a huge mistake by letting him retain his position on the Senate Armed Services Committee, let alone his chairmanship of HS.
March 10, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think it ironic that the Democrats and Obama think Lieberman is 'the' best person to be Chairman of Homeland Security ...
March 10, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? He's the de facto chairman of Israel's department of homeland security...
March 11, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politico has Freeman's statement.
Some excerpts:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0309/Freeman_blasts_Israel_lobby.html
March 10, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should just transfer the stimulus money to the state of Israel.
March 10, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One solution, perhaps, to this kind of blackmail (of course, it is blackmail), would be to submit another name even less acceptable, with the assurance that the third name would be even more unacceptable to the lobby in question. First deal the best deal--everything subsequent downhill.
Shame on Shumer, for that matter. It would almost be worth moving to New York to have the privilege of voting against him.
March 10, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schumer took the low road in this. Many of his constituents want that, and it can't surprise us, but (perhaps unlike you) I view him as one of the Democrats' heroes. It's hard to watch a hero take such steps.
March 10, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shumer and Feinstein voted to confirm Michael Mukassey, after careful consideration of many factors:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/02/leahy.mukasey/index.html
"Schumer had praised the nomination of Mukasey as a consensus candidate when the president announced Mukasey as his choice to replace former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales gave up the post in September."
"While saying "serious questions have been raised about Judge Mukasey's views on torture and on separation of powers," Feinstein said she would support the nominee because the Justice Department needed fresh leadership."
March 10, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.alternet.org/audits/130891/breaking_the_taboo_on_israel%27s_spying_efforts_on_the_united_states/
March 10, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is now the capacity," he writes of the NSA’s tentacular reach into the private lives of Americans, "to make tyranny total."
I'm sure Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman is doing everything in his power to make sure nothing nefarious happens.
He's always watching out for the homeland, and campaigns against possible opponents to it, like say, Barack Obama.
March 10, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Top cybersecurity official quits, says NSA has too much power"
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Top_cybersecurity_official_quits_blames_NSA_0310.html
March 10, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’m often wrong, but I doubt Freeman withdrew voluntarily after suffering through all the bashing. And I can’t believe that the decision for him to “voluntarily withdraw” didn’t come from the very top given all of the press around this (and MJ deserves credit for shining a spotlight on this). I’m reminded of the little jingles theaters ran promoting snacks between double-features in the ‘50s. I can still hear one of those tunes- “Come on out to the Lobby, come on out to the Lobby…”
March 10, 2009 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree it seems unlikely. Schumer's statement was interesting in that it presupposed that it was Obama's initiative, if you look at Schumer's syntax. Maybe he was in on the decision-making process.
March 11, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose Freeman should count himself lucky that he wasn't targeted for 'liquidation' by the Mossad. They probably have one of his family members in 'safe keeping' though.
March 11, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Getting 'super-real' about the Freeman incident is to confirm everyone's worst fears about the extent of AIPAC's influence on US foreign policy. That an unelected body can usurp democratic government should make every American (who is not a Christian or Jewish, Zionist) extremely nervous and hugely frustrated that it is apparently so easy to thwart the democratic process. Is this the type of democracy that we wish to impose on Iraq and Afghanistan?
March 11, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which unelected body usurped the government? I was unaware that President Obama had been usurped. Do you think Hillary would have done a better job avoiding usurpation? Should Obama be impeached now that he's been usurped?
As a Britisher, maybe you can give us Americans a fresh perpective on these burning questions.
March 11, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink