Freeman Opponents Pyrrhic Victory
I know the blogosphere has been waiting with bated breath (whatever that means) to know what I think the implications are of Amb. Chas Freeman's withdrawal yesterday.
I don't know but, after a few conversations, I have an idea. For Steve Rosen and his followers this is the definition of a pyrrhic victory.
See my take here.
Meanwhile the Washington Post tells the Justice Department to drop the espionage case against Steve Rosen.
Advertisement
My take is that it's going to temporarily make your detractors around here really obnoxious.
March 11, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=bated
March 11, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
With bated breath. According to Webster, "bate" is an alternate form for "abate", = to lessen.
March 11, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I changed the spelling and now I know it has nothing to do with "fish or cut bait."
As for my detractors becoming obnoxious, yes, that is a possibility. I have so treasured their sweet style until now.
March 11, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - who knows? Maybe you're right that President Obama will change his policies on Israel based on this experience.
Or maybe, as I suspect, he'll continue to go with the policies he believes to be right, irrespective of the personality conflicts that inevitably arise in politics.
March 11, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought the difference between, say Begin, and a Terrorist was that, after he stopped being a terrorist, Begin did not lose elections and then have the opposition shot; he retired.
A terrorist wont hold elections, or will after they've established that they'll kill anyone who disagrees with them.
Begin was a terrorist, then he became a political thug, but it's not against the law to be a political hawk or even to have the personality of a thug.
The facts are that the government of Israel, like that of the US, engages in any number of despicable anti-democratic actions, and in addition, tries to maintain some semblance of democratic order. Success is of course, highly debatable.
Bu the Arab states are each and everyone, dedicated to tribal authoritarian rule backed by racist, xenophobic, paranoid, misogynistic cults of the great leader drink the cool aid insanity.
And are all supported by Euro-American largess, troops and their own petrol dollars, but we never hear anyone screaming for an end to say, Saudia Arabia's policies regarding minorities, or their treatment of women...
or that ala a Pynchon novel, the Saudias sell oil to people who do business with Israel...
therefore, the petro dollars help keep the "Palestinians" down on the plantation...in the "West Bank" and...in the Gulf where they live and work as wage-slave-labor for their "Arab brothers" who care so deeply for them...
The slogan for Saudia Arabia's 75th anniversary of "independence" says it all in glorious Orwellian double-speak: "75 years of progress without change..."
Lastly, what I find most "amusing" about the anti-Isralie rhetoric from wobbly-kneed liberals as well as foaming at the keyboard cyber-hawks, is that, America is founded on occupied territory, and if these critics are really that concerned about the West Bank and Gaza, why do they continue to pay their taxes?
As to "Chuckles" Freeman...his exit screed was, I noticed, long on Protocols of the Elders of Zion, heat, but, mythed two points.
A)The pro-Israel lobby seems to be working the system better then their political opponents. But it is not against the law to convince someone to write an article that claims Mr.Freeman is a punk. It would be against the law to convince someone he is a punk who should be taken out and shot.
and...
B)Mr. Freeman offered no specifics just innuendo that insiders would be able to trace inaccurate comments back to their source(s)
Yeah, so the F what...politics is the sport of thugs...apparently Mr. Freeman is against the imperfect representational oligarchy of American politics in which a community (say New York) elects a spokesperson (say, Chuck Schummer) to give voice to their concerns...
after all, apparently, Mr. Schummer, should be less concerned with the concerns of the millions of Jews in New York, and more concerned with the oil barons of Texas...
who don't have a voice of their own and have spent the last eight years wandering in the political wilderness praying for god, or Karl Rove, to find a face and a voice, for the idea that America should (to borrow another piquant phrase) spend its national treasure giving the oil industry a mandible straining blow job...
Cheers
M.
March 11, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marlow - in such a lengthy post, I can't find the content.
Why don't you cut, cut, cut - try to identify your main ideas and express them clearly and in an organized fashion, so the rest of us can understand what you are saying, which I'm sure is worth hearing.
March 11, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He seems logical to me.
And who made YOU the voice of reason on israel?
Are you are a paid shill to come here and disagree with anyone who is critical of israel?
It certainly seems that way to me.
The fact is Obama did wimp out here and he should have come forward and defended his pick.
Being a wimp is not good in a president.
As far as you and your obvious numerous comments always defending one side,
thanks for proving the point we fair minded people make about israel and its propagandists.
I look forward to seeing how you attempt to distort the truth.
BTW..Just between you and me..Do you get paid by the word? Or are you disingenuous by nature?
March 12, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody have any comforting evidence they can share that suggests Rahm Emmanual is any different than Charles Schumer on the issue of Israel and settlement policy?
I could use some right now.
I can't help but agree with the poster here last night who concluded that the decision to withdraw Freeman from consideration came from the very top.
Is there any evidence that the vengeful and vindictive Rahm would actually turn that energy toward the Lobby, and perhaps become disowned by his Hamas-like father?
March 11, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, does anybody have any evidence that the pro-Iraq war Rahm, who recruited exclusively pro-war candidates in '06 (long after the Iraq war was shown to be an evil scam), is opposed to ratcheting up tensions, sanctions, and dirty maneuvers that would increase the chances of drawing them into a military conflict?
Hilary called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. What has Rahm said or written about the subject? Can we make any conclusions from the complete absence of anti-war voices on Obama's national security team?
March 11, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm Emanuel's father is not Hamas-like. When making inflammatory statements, why don't you cite some backup, so it will be easier for the knowledgeable people on this board to refute you.
March 11, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I await with bateless breath an explanation of what "Hamas-like father" is supposed to mean. It might as well be "runcible father."
Happy days.
March 11, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me how the Irgun was different than Hamas.
March 11, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. Some specifics.
The Irgun was a group that engaged in a number of violent tactics that violated the laws of war. Mainstream Israel (Palestine at the time) decried and deprecated these acts. At the same time, the Irgun was an uniformed army that was fighting Israel's attackers, as was the main army Tzahal. Irgun did not state as a matter of philosophy that they want to wipe out the Arabs, as Hamas does about Israel. In the absence of specific evidence that Rahm's father were involved in the illegal acts, it's deeply unfair to label him in the way that you are doing.
Also, the nature of the violent acts engaged in by Irgun was very different from Hamas. For example, when they blew up the King David Hotel (generally cited as one of their worst travesties, and rightly so), warnings were telephoned both to the hotel and to the press. The warnings were ignored, and the hotel was not evacuated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing
This is in stark contrast with Hamas, which intentionally tries to maximize the casualties of the innocent, especially women and children.
Please do not misread me - I am not justifying illegal and violent acts perpetrated by the Irgun - as a progressive, I abhor these acts. I'm just telling you that by equating them with Hamas, you're not being honest.
March 11, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha. Thanks for the laugh, progressive. The Irgun wanted a racist state and were willing to terrorize and slaughter innocents to achieve it.
Hamas makes statements and shoots non-exploding bottle rockets. Irgun just wipes 'em out, then starts calling itself Likud and demands and receives complete loyalty from the entire American establishment.
Hamas is very different, and much more destabilizing. And don't call them freedom fighters, because they were never rounded up by Nazis, placed in concentration camps, and starved.
They got to go to GazaLand.
March 11, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I'm sure you know, Hamas explodes nail filled bombs in pizza parlors filled with innocent civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_restaurant_suicide_bombing
Whitewashing what they do doesn't become you, Bill. Also, a little more honesty from you would surely forward the discussion. Also, I put in time to respond to you because I respect you, and you don't seem to have read my post, much less responded to it. Where is your respect for your fellow poster?
March 11, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, calling Israel a racist state is bizarre, given that Israel has Arab citizens who are guaranteed rights, while Jews may not even enter Saudi Arabia - it's a law on their books. Israel is certainly the least racist state in the Middle East, and is one of the most progressive states in the world, despite enormous pressures not to be.
Is the fact-free nature of your posts due to ignorance, or are you intentionally ignoring reality?
March 11, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately Israel has decided that Arab political parties aren't legitimate members of the political process and barred them from the recent general election.
I'm not sure how this constitutes a guarantee of their rights as citizens of an allegedly democratic state.
March 11, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, you're slightly misrepresenting the situation, which makes a big difference.
Israel didn't bar "Arab Parties". Israel's Central Election Committee barred two specific Arab parties for inciting violence, just as it has barred Jewish parties in the past for doing the same thing (remember Meir Kahane?). Arab Israelis can still vote in elections, and are free to form a non-radical party that doesn't incite violence and support terrorist groups. It doesn't seem at all undemocratic to hold all citizens to the same standard.
Also, you are surely aware that it is considered very likely that the liberal Israeli Supreme Court will overturn this Committee decision; even the Committee itself acknowledges this.
All of this could not have happened in any Arab country in the Middle East. No Jewish citizens entitled to vote in any Arab country. No checks and balances in government. Even the example you cite in criticism shows how far ahead Israel is of its Arab neighbors in the basic freedoms for its citizens that we progressives treasure.
March 11, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, do you really believe that Hamas existed at the same time as Irgun? To quote your rant:
"Hamas makes statements and shoots non-exploding bottle rockets. Irgun just wipes 'em out, then starts calling itself Likud"
Do you know ANYTHING about the history of the region you're constantly mouthing off about? Is my trying to debate you futile because you're not one of the sharper tools in the shed?
March 11, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know they were at different times. I was comparing tactics. Read "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace" by Shlomo Ben Ami, the self-hating Oxford Ph.D who was Israel's Foreign Minister.
It turns out Israel wasn't a land without a people for a people without a land. It also turns out the Nazis weren't Palestinians, even though one could be mistaken by the way the Palestinians were so ungrateful when driven off their land into refugee camps, if not slaughtered.
Those are the original facts on the ground.
March 11, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly don't deny the terrible injustices many Palestinians suffered and continue to suffer.
March 11, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I detect a major inconsistency. You (falsely) criticize Rahm's father for being "Hamas-like". But have you ever criticized Hamas itself? I don't mean a "well, killing is not a good thing" mealy-mouthed criticism, but the sort of full-throated vigorous attack you routinely level at Israel?
If you haven't, then why not?
March 11, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't have the son of a Hamas terrorist explosives runner as CHIEF OF STAFF.
And we don't have a quote from our C.O.S.'s father that said something like,
“Obviously, he’ll influence the president to be pro-Palestine. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, a Jew? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.”
March 11, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, your answer is that while you have never seen fit to criticize Hamas regardless of what evils they have perpetrated, you DO criticise Israelis for being Hamas-like, but only if their sons enter the American government.
Or am I reading your answer wrong?
March 11, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chief of Staff is the second most influential position in the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/us/politics/25emanuel.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Early this month, Barack Obama was meeting with the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other lawmakers when Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, began nervously cracking a knuckle.
Mr. Obama then turned to complain to Mr. Emanuel about his noisy habit.
At which point, Mr. Emanuel held the offending knuckle up to Mr. Obama’s left ear and, like an annoying little brother, snapped off a few special cracks.
March 11, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your story shows that our President has a close relationship with Rahm.
But didn't we already know that? Isn't that why he chose him?
You would be more comfortable with a President that wouldn't touch someone like Rahm with a ten-foot pole. So next time around, vote for Buchanan. Right now, Obama is our president.
March 11, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a source link -- not a primary, but the an interesting read nonetheless... taking about Rahm 'the Israel man'
Note above file is a 17 page PDF. This quote is on page 13.
Charming eh. Conditioned from birth to be a asshole.
March 11, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you know, the older generation doesn't always have the same sensitivity on racial or ethnic matters that we do. It doesn't mean he's evil, just that he grew up in a society that spoke differently.
If any of the posters here who make comments that I perceive as anti-Semitic are above 80 and grew up talking that way, I will cut them some slack.
March 11, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's no surprise to anyone here that I trust President Obama to do what he perceives as right. I don't expect always to agree with him. But he's my guy.
March 11, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: I feel much as you do - I'll continue to support Obama because his performance on just about every other issue has been stellar - but I have to say I'm really disappointed in him for not coming to the aid of Freeman. Why didn't he? Do you think it had something to do with Emanuel?
Juan Cole thinks so (that the withdrawal was engineered by Schumer and Emanuel) and says he thinks that the Freeman debacle signals that "Israeli Apartheid will continue unabated under Obama." http://www.juancole.com/2009/03/did-schumer-and-emanuel-sink-freeman.html
I sure hope he's wrong. Peace can't wait much longer.
In the article, Cole mentions how Israeli policies of interferring with the food supply and healthcare are actually causing such malnurishment (correlated with low IQ and poor impulse control) in Palestinian babies that their growth is stunted. He holds Schumer partly responsible, because of his enabling of Israel, and gives a contact address for people to contact Schumer to protest his position. I know some of us have argued in your threads about whether Israeli policies constitute genocide. Although in the past I tended to back away from using the term in reference to Israel, I now think this evidence of stunted growth in Palestinian babies is also evidence of genocide.
March 11, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Michelle might quibble with that last statement.
March 11, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care!
March 11, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama isn't going to do anything.
Don't you guys get it yet? We've lost. The Freeman thing wasn't even a blip for the MSM. Congress votes 100 to 1 to support whatever Israel does, despite public opinion.
It is over. Israel and it's friends here control Israeli policy from top to bottom. MJ will get no where. Likeminded people will get nowhere. It is over. Israel controls our Middle East policy. They do. they control it and anyone who points that out is anti-semitic.
Israel does not want a two state solution. If they did, they wouldn't be taking the West Bank right f**king now. As we speak.
We cannot beat this thing. It is over. A foreign power has complete control over our policy in its neck of the woods, and we're too pathetic and weak to do anything about it.
Obama was the best chance to change things in 50 years, and probably for the next 50 years, and he isn't going to do it. We've lost. This aspect of foreign policy is no longer a question for Americans. It is a question for Israel's right wing, and we'll just do what they say.
Time to cut them another check, by the way. "And hurry the f**k up, America! We haven't got all day over here."
March 11, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord, what a pathetic rant. A month into the Obama presidency and foreign policy is lost for the next 50 years?
It might help things if you realized that Israel - the state, that is - had nothing, repeat nothing to do with this little contretemps. This evil campaign was orchestrated exclusively by Americans who are looking to influence their government on an issue they care about. Period. End of story.
March 11, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's over slick. We are Israel's bitch. I know it stings a bit, I'm just telling you to get used to it.
Oh, and go cut another check, bitch.
March 11, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Steve Rosen is well-known for caring about America.
March 11, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - Brad didn't say that Rosen cares about America.
He said that Rosen cares about this issue, which is doubtless true.
I would add that in the absence of evidence that Rosen doesn't care about America, it's invidious to say that he doesn't. Rosen is a lobbyist - so are many Americans. His offense is apparently so subtle that the Washington Post believes the charges against him should be dropped. Isn't it possible that he's a decent American who made a mistake?
March 11, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
BPDX - maybe public opinion actually supports the US Israel policies. If you're going to quote public opinion, could you at least provide a link to a survey?
Or does public opinion refer to YOUR opinion?
March 11, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez. I'm so tired of hearing that disingenuous claim that public opinion in the U.S. "supports Israel." How many of the citizens of our country have any idea that Israel is engaged in an brutal and illegal occupation? (Note: That may be changing now, after the Gaza War, but weren't the polls to which you refer taken before that?) How many citizens know that the Israel of today was only created in 1948 and is not the same as the theocratic entity of Israel that they grew up hearing about in Church and in the Bible?
Who conducted the polls that found "support"? How were the questions phrased in the polls that determined this result? Who was polled and how were they selected? Was "support" ever defined in the questions? Was there any effort to determine the respondents' level of knowledge about Israel (and our foreign policy vis a vis Israel), or was that considered irrelevant by the pollsters?
I'm about as pro-Palestinian as they come, yet I would say that I "support Israel" if the question was about Israel's existance, rather than it's actions. The polls you cite, as far as I can see, are meaningless.
March 11, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does your evasive answer mean that you don't have any survey that supports your claim?
March 12, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/30/democracy/
Now you answer the questions that I raised...
March 12, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is really no such thing as a centralized Jewish Lobby. Instead, there is The Borg which manifests as humanoid drones organized around allegiance to Israel-First. These drones are hypersensitive to any threat, real or imagined, and spring to action to defend The Borg. There is no need to coordinate with each other as this interconnected collective has a mind-meld with the hive mind. These humanoid drones love Israel so much that they are loving it to death.
March 11, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then there are the non-Borg, many of whom care as much about Israel as we do about...oh, say Iceland...which is to say not much at all. Israel is just another country on the planet and I owe that country/govt nothing at all. There are certainly other countries that interest me much more, and very few that interest me less.
March 11, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Borg does not desire to negotiate or reason, only to assimilate. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Profess your love for Israel . . . Hmmm.
March 11, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an outrage
I share Stephen Walt's concern over what this portends for Obama Middle East policy
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/on_chas_freemans_withdrawal
March 11, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phil Weiss also has some pretty disturbing thoughts on the matter:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/freeman-ouster-is-signal-obama-wont-put-pressure-on-israel.html
Really depressing...
(My apologies for the formatting. I just can't figure out how to code several paragraphs within one blockquote. Any help would be appreciated.)
March 11, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the worst aspect of the Freeman affair is the likelihood of a chilling effect on discourse in Washington"
Not exactly sure how it could be any more chilled than it already is. On the other hand, for Walt to single out the Democrats as "whimps" on Israel is pure partisan BS. It's been almost 20 years since anyone in the Republican Party who is not named Ron Paul has been any less slavish in his/her devotion to the Jewish State.
Given that American Jews as a group have been staunch members of the Democratic coalition for going on, oh, a 100 years, give generously to the party, vote for Democrats (including Obama) in overwhelming numbers, etc., exactly what kind of behavior would you expect from a Democratic Congress in a democratic system?
When the Republicans do anything -- any little solitary thing -- to cross even the most extreme anti-Castro terrorist fringe element in the CUBA lobby, then maybe Walt will have the right to talk about what whimps the Dems are.
Until then he really should STFU.
March 11, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you writing in some kind of code?
March 11, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink