FIRESTORM! The Mainstream Media Explodes Over Freeman "Withdrawal"
Until today the story of the "pro-Israel" right's efforts (ultimately successful) to keep a critic of Israel's policies out of the National Intelligence Council has been confined to the blogosphere.
As is usually the case with this subject, the so-called MSM is afraid to touch this issue with a ten foot pole.
But this time the "pro-Israel" right went too far.
And the MSM had no choice but to go high with the successful effort to keep an honest broker far away from the intelligence community. Not only that, the New York Times laid to rest the idea that the anti-Freeman campaign was about anything other than Israel. China? Yeah, right.
Suddenly it's a firestorm.
Also, see this terrific LA times editorial.
PERSONAL REQUEST: I appreciate the large readership my posts here get. However, I am going to lay off this issue if people use my posts as an excuse to bash Israel or Jews in extreme and ugly ways. You are entitled to believe what you want. But I do not want my posts or TPMCafe to be used as a sounding board for ugly stereotyping. Most of the racist anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab types are out of here and I'm glad. I don't want their counterparts on the other side exploiting my presence here either. Hate speech of any kind is not permitted at TPM Cafe and, to put it simply, those who engage in it will be banned. Thanks.
MJ: "Critic" of Israel = honest broker
Why am I not surprised?
Being an honest broker does NOT mean having equally distant or close relations with both parties. It simply means being able to conduct negotiations fairly, so that both sides are heard. Yet here and in other redoubts of the anti-Israel left, it is taken as a given that only critics of Israel can be honest.
March 12, 2009 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, if you can't think of any actions by the israeli government that you consider wrong or counterproductive (as in US foreign policy), you're probably not an honest broker, either.
March 12, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The automaton speaks.
March 12, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the (IMHO long overdue) personal request. But in that light, I must ask, is this what passes for reasoned discussion?
March 12, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think MJ is going to continue to allow some good-natured name calling among the posters here. But comments that target Jews as a whole or target Israel in a way that sounds anti-Semitic will be deleted if I understand him right (similarly such comments about Arabs as a whole etc.)
It's a good step in the right direction.
March 12, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is great service to show us how lobbying groups operate. If what they do is legitmate, they should not be offended if their actions are exposed.
Your columns help us put names to actions. As citizens, we need this information.
March 12, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, the automaton is Brad.
March 12, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
For someone who posts essentially the same argument again and again, sometimes several times a day and whose perspective is as predictable as it is misguided, you have little standing to be accusing others of being automatons.
When you post something, anything that doesn't paint Israel in a negative light, then you can start accusing others of being automatons.
I won't hold my breath.
March 12, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never read MJ trash Israel. He points out mistakes Isreal's misguided leadership makes, but I think he has a good grasp of the fact that Israel is not a catch-all word for one ideology.
I would propose that the right wing Israel enablers are the ones who have conglomerated all of Israel into one opinion, which is part of their problem.
We are talking about one of the most diverse nations on earth, so how is it the Brads among us seem to think all Israelis must think in mental lockstep?
The right wing, not the left wing, is using Israel for their own selfish purposes and ideological chess games.
Accusing someone like Rosenberg of "trashing Israel" just because he points out their leadership foibles is just a vain attempt at political thought-reform and pernicious framing.
March 12, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please point to the part where I accuse MJ of "trashing" Israel. I said he paints Israel in a negative light, which has a slightly different ring to it, wouldn't you say?
I'm actually pretty sure that if he actually took the time to engage in an argument, rather than just "trashing" his critics, his views would come across as a bit more nuanced. But just reading his posts and comments, your only conclusion is that he thinks that only Israel is at fault in the conflict and that peace is just a few Israeli concessions away. He's completely predictable, yet accuses me of being an automaton. The chutzpah is pretty breathtaking.
March 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEP, you have to admit that while Israeli opinion is generally very diverse, today almost all Israelis, both left and right, are united behind policies that you disagree with. This is why the leftist parties got almost no votes in the recent elections, and the preponderance went to center and right. This is despite the fact that normally the Israeli electorate is somewhat left of center.
You can argue with the direction the Israeli polity has taken and wish that they had supported different policies (of course, living in the line of fire they may actually have certain insights about security that you don't have). But you can't dispute their right, as citizens in a democracy, to select the leaders they selected; and you can't act like it's about a fifty-fifty split, which it isn't at this time.
March 12, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo to The Progressive Conscience for this,
" But you can't dispute their right, as citizens in a democracy, to select the leaders they selected..."
is exactly my conclusion about the people who voted for HAMAS, and for the PA representatives. Which does bring into question the targeted killings of elected Palestinian representatives by the State of Israel, doesn't it?
...and you can't act like it's about a fifty-fifty split, which it isn't at this time.
The point is worth making and iterating that the majority vote in Israel does not represent an overwhelming majority of Israeli or Israeli/American citizens, despite political rhetoric to the contrary. The movement to defend and protect the Palestinian people began in Israel, survives in Israel, and, I think, in recognition of various groups and individuals, can be said also to lead from Israel.
The Israeli minority population supportive of equal protection under the law, equal rights and equal opportunity for all inhabitants has had an enormous impact, taking it one day at a time in unity with those who don't qualify as 'real', that is to say, full, Israeli citizens.
From my perspective, that minority is helping to protect my freedom as a US citizen. Every day in which the Israeli military kills or imprisons someone without due process is another day in which my rights are eroded. Ditto, of course, Israel's little brother, Bush, and his posse.
March 13, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
PC: It's not clear to me what policies you are referring to here. While it's true that Labor and Meeretz were trounced, a majority of Israelis voted for parties that favor the two-state solution when you consider that even the odious Lieberman does not oppose Palestinian statehood.
March 13, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad the Borg
March 12, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnMcCircleJerk
March 12, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Broder's article:
In the end, Obama's presidency will be nothing spectacular. He will cave in with most of his promised agenda. The reason given will be that he is pragmatic and post-partisanship. People who given him the benefit of the doubt see his political moves as playing a multi-dimensional chess game with his opponents. The truth is that he's politically cautious, putting his finger in the wind before he moves, and just wants to get re-elected in 2012. Reverend Wright got it right when he said:
March 12, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think MJ is going to continue to allow some good-natured name calling among the posters here. But comments that target Jews as a whole or target Israel in a way that sounds anti-Semitic will be deleted if I understand him right (similarly such comments about Arabs as a whole etc.)
It's a good step in the right direction.
March 12, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In the end, Obama's presidency will be nothing spectacular."
I respect your opinions, while I hope and believe you're wrong.
"He will cave in with most of his promised agenda."
It doesn't matter to me as long as he is a very good President.
"People who given him the benefit of the doubt see his political moves as playing a multi-dimensional chess game with his opponents."
Good line. Interestingly, Bush's sycophants in the press would say that about Bush as well, i.e., it only looks moronic -- if you only saw it from the perspective of Bush's genius master plan! I think Obama deserves some real credit, though. If you wanted to put the Freeman appointment in that framework, here's what you might say:
Obama is going to need to be tough with Israel at some point if he wants Middle East peace, and it seems like he really does. He is going to get a lot of shit from unpatriotic "Americans" who are part of the Lobby for confronting any Israeli government ever about anything. He doesn't need to start early with petty confrontations over the likes of Freeman, but indeed he should keep his powder dry.
"The truth is that he's politically cautious,"
That's not a bad thing, to a significant degree.
"putting his finger in the wind before he moves,"
That's a little much.
"and just wants to get re-elected in 2012."
And that is false. He doesn't "just" want anything for himself. Your rumination about this is gratuitous, comes from inside you and is not related to him (and doesn't square with his history). I plan to help him get re-elected BTW and I believe he will be a President of historic proportions. We'll see, of course.
March 13, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM's hands were tied by Freeman's parting shot, in which he clearly stated the obvious:
"The outrageous agitation…will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues...[It casts] doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government…
"The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views…and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those it [the Lobby] favors."
The cat has left the bag. Freeman also put the ball in Obama's court: There's simply no way this can be seen as anything other than an American President's craven acquiescence to a lobby fronting for a foreign government. If there is justice in cosmos, this victory will be less pyrrhic than kamikaze for the lobby's irrepressible influence.
March 12, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the lobby is as powerful as you think they are, don't you think they'll have a solution to this also?
March 12, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, M.J.!
March 12, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
DITTO! (Hey, I'm an MJ Dittohead... and I'm in company.)
March 12, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, it's always seemed pretty simple to me, but I'm a Jew. What Israel does or what Zionism does is in no way related to the Jewish religion (Orthodox, Conservative or Reform) or to any "characteristics" or traits possessed by Jews as a people. That's where criticism of Zionism crosses over into anti-semitism.
Rather, it has always seemed to me that the aim of Zionism has produced, as such a project always has the means appropriate to the project. And nothing about that project or those means is exclusive to Jews, although combining the outward tropes of Judaism creates, for the non-Zionist Jew, a particularly noxious mixture.
But extreme criticism of Israel? Of a country? What the hell? I thought you forfeited that protection when you decided to play on that stage So, in my typically Jewish way, let me attempt to cross the line, and see where I end up. I will now make the most extreme criticism of Israel I can: The state of Israel kills people in pursuit of its aims, kills them wantonly and with malice and abuses the concept of self-defense to do it.
Please remove this comment if it is an example of too-extreme criticism of Israel.
Thank God we're not talking about any other country here, the debate would just become impossible!
March 12, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Mooser. M.J., how about giving us an example of a comment from the past couple days that went over the line, so we know to censor ourselves.
I don't recall anybody saying all Jews are greedy landgrabbing manipulators of the goyim, but if there was overwhelming evidence that a couple of them were, I'd hope I could make such a (extreme example) case here along with ample evidence, if such credible evidence existed.
I think it's a good warning, and will probably improve debate, but you really need to be more specific to eliminate the self-censorship of legitimate points, accusations, and citations of credible evidence.
Thanks in advance.
March 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, just use the Supreme Court's dictum on obscenity. "I know it when I see it."
I trust us all to know when we're crossing the line. I'm not going to get specific but I'll point it out in the future.
Debate has been much better here since most of the Likudniks took off. They distorted everything. I just want the moderation to apply to both sides.
For instance, I'm not crazy about "Brad The Dad." His views are pretty appalling in my opinion. But he's polite and restrained. It's the difference between Brad and YBD.
March 12, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But here's the problem...
The State of Israel and many US congress members insist on 'protecting' Israel as a 'Jewish State'. A 'State' that seems to want to ethically cleanse itself? Plus, it becomes even more difficult to separate Israel and the Jewish religion when we blatantly and intentionally turn a blind eye to the expansion of that Jewish State into Judea and Samaria.
That's why I think it's difficult to debate, discuss the politics of Israel without bringing in the Jewish religion. With regard to "characteristics" or traits possessed by Jews as a people" -- I'm not sure what you mean there?
March 12, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I think it's difficult to debate, discuss the politics of Israel without bringing in the Jewish religion." SandThroughTheEyeGlass
Think of it this way: religion is one of those discriminators used to separate 'us' from 'them'. Historically, the most frequent use of religion in such a manner has resulted in transfer of property from one group to another.
Sometimes, other discriminators are used: 'serfs' /Indians/Blacks/Irish/Boers/Armenians, people of color, other gendered people, the disabled, those with unpopular political beliefs.
An interesting thing about the use of a "Jewish identity" by Israel is that it includes so many forms of those discriminators, and thus becomes the poster child for ethnic discrimination.
Concomittently, IMHO, doing so engenders anti-semitism by lumping all those who fit under any possible definition of Jewish into a mythic Israeli identity created to represent a State that has been engaged in active warfare against an indigenous people for over sixty years. All 'the Jews' are expected to think the same, feel the same, support the Israel state without question. Fat chance!
Sorry, Mooser: did you say you were Jewish? Seems to have slipped by a few of the viewers, so I wanted to clarify my understanding. Oh, that's right, one dear manchild suggested you talk to your Rabbi. Not thinking the 'right' thoughts, there, Mooser.
March 13, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moose: Here is a syllogism that will probably help you understand.
1. Israel is the only Jewish state, while scores of states are Christian (offically) and scores are Muslim (officially).
2. Some people reserve invective for Israel that they do not use for any other country of the hundreds in the world, even when those other countries have taken actions that any objective observer would classify as similar or even far worse.
3 Ergo, those people are most likely actually expressing an anti-Jewish attitude, but veiling it as attacks on Israel, which is considered more "respectable" in our society today.
Can you give any other explanation for the special invective those people reserve for Israel? Note that I'm not talking about Palestinians or people with a personal connection - that could perhaps be different. If you have an alternative explanation, I'd be very interested - I've thought long and hard about this and haven't found one.
I won't address your comment about Israel, which seems to be more of a straw man than a serious attempt to engage the issue.
March 12, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dustup was 'organized' by the ISRAEL lobby to VET the candidate according to his loyality to Israel... not his ability to do his job... Adm Blair thought he was suitable for the job, Obama ok'ed it, but the ISRAEL lobby didn't... The outcome -- chilling... yep chilling.
March 12, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound a little hard done by...
But at the end of the day... The Jewish State of Israel is not immune from criticism. That's life I'm afraid.
March 12, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, Mr. Sand. I truly don't understand what you're getting at.
How about trying to write a bit more clearly here - it's not an echo chamber, you're supposed to be communicating with the rest of us!
March 12, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you read English? Try again...
March 12, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel gets a lot of criticism in the US by lefties because it's been portrayed as the virtuous underdog fighting for its life against hatefilled Nazi-like Arabs. When people learn the truth--that the 1948 refugees were forced out in many cases, that Israel has committed war crimes, that Israel has tortured on a large scale, and practices an apartheid-like system, then people become angry at the propaganda they've been fed. It's still more infuriating when our politicians continue to treat Israel as a sacred cow.
So for many of us, it's precisely the fact that Israel has received ridiculously favorable press in the US that leads to so much criticism, though mainly in the blogosphere. If mainstream America saw Israel as what it is--a democracy that commits serious human rights violations and shares much of the blame for the lack of peace in that region, then the issue would, I think, actually be discussed with much less heat. Instead, we'd be discussing what sorts of policies could bring peace, rather than having to spend time changing the false picture of Israel as the purely innocent victim.
For myself, I think Israel is a serious human rights violator and also one with a long history of supporting other human rights violators (Guatemala, for instance, back in the Cold War days), but it's not worse than many other states. But I don't hear people in the US proclaiming the unique virtues of, say, Colombia or Sri Lanka. Some twenty years ago or so I was equally angry over the mainstream hypocrisy regarding human rights violations in Central America. If we're very lucky, there will be a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians and you'll find that most lefties will move on to other issues and the actual antisemites won't have this issue to latch onto.
March 12, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear your point. Simple answer - two wrongs don't make a right. If progressives feel it is important to furnish a more accurate history of Israel and correct what they perceive as inaccurate hagiography, they can do exactly that, as a number of Israeli historians have done.
That's very different from unbalanced attacks that discredit the progressive movement by making us sound like anti-Semites.
March 13, 2009 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is the only Jewish state, while scores of states are Christian (offically) and scores are Muslim (officially).
I would controvert this opening sentence, as Mooser has done - using knowledge drawn from personal experience with a religion he loves - but for different reasons: Israel is a product of a Judaic-Christian ethos, most particularly obvious in it's attributes as a colonial state. Israel seems to distinguish itself among democratic states by placing the establishment of a state religion outside the purview of politics; one cannot question the principle that Israel is a "Religious" state; one cannot conduct a national conversation regarding it's 'nature' as such. Like Mooser, I fail to find any convincing explanation of what the characteristics are that define a State as "Jewish," a lack that seems to follow directly from the inability to discuss what that means.
One gathers, from statements made by those who occupied themselves in trying, unsuccessfully, to establish Israel's Constitution (google Israeli constitution), that there may be a connection between it's status as a 'religious' state and the lack of a national constitution. Yet, Israel is not unique in this respect; there is a Church of England. Is it coincidental that the UK doesn't have a formal constitution either? Is there an inherent disconnect between having a constitution and having a state religion? I would suggest the answer is yes: religious authority does not value human or individual rights.
I'd appreciate a response to Mooser's questions. Describing his response as a "straw dog" seems specious. If you want to continue ignoring Mooser, while exploring further the question of whether Israel can cogently claim itself to be a Jewish (or religious)state, I suggest you check in with http.themagneszionist.blogspot.com. He's both Orthodox Jewish and a professor of religious history, an Israeli who would like Zionism defined a bit differently from the current rhetoric.
Let's rename Israel, hypothetically, The Religious State, as opposed to the Jewish State - the name of the religion being "Religion". Having done so, the first reaction for people with my mentality is "Hey, why are US tax dollars used to support a State based on a principle directly opposed to the bedrock value of the First Amendment?" Which is tangential to this comment, but what a rich source of conundrums! And data.
Some people reserve invective for Israel that they do not use for any other country of the hundreds in the world, even when those other countries have taken actions that any objective observer would classify as similar or even far worse.
You're venturing into dangerous territory here - it would be difficult to find actions by other states "far worse" than those of Israel.
"...attacks on Israel, which is considered more "respectable" in our society today."
You appear even more insular than I. For an introduction into how acceptable it is to criticize Israel, google 'academic freedom', the names Joel Kovel, Norman Finklestein or ... Charles Freeman
Can you give any other explanation for the special invective those people reserve for Israel?
Where to start? I deplore US support for a State that institutionalizes political assassination. There is a laundry list of human rights that the Israeli Defense Force and the Israeli State ignore, dispute or abrogate routinely, nonchalantly, one could almost say, as if considering them banal. Law as it's known in Israel is a totally different animal than that with which we in the States are familiar. Ominously, attempts are being made to align our laws with Israel's.
It makes me sick to my stomach to read that the State of Israel killed over 1400 people between December 27 08 and Feb 9 09, using materiel supplied by the US. It makes me sick to read of the continuing depredation of the Palestinian people by the Israeli Defense Force. Sources? check out Haaretz.com to begin. You can surf for days from there.
My invective usually is related directly to what I've read in the newspaper or observed on the 'Net. Given my incredulity at Israel's religious claims, the question of whether my invective is based on prejudice against "Jews", IMHO, is moot.
March 14, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Former CIA officer Ray McGovern has some good perspective in a piece at Antiwar.com:
March 12, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting shot at Emanuel. Obama has a tough-as-nails top drawer operator in this guy, and we're all going to better off for it.
Thank goodness, and thanks to Obama (and Emanuel).
I did not realize how much he is adored by the Jewish community, the Lobby, or that he had served in the IDF as a Hebrew-speaking son of an immigrant from Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035128.html
That fills out the broader picture somewhat.
March 13, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive my running on, please, but I see now even more than before that having Hebrew-speaking IDF-serving Emanuel in there has this strong advantage:
It puts a brake on one of the Republican base's most cherished defamations: "Our party cares about Israel and yours doesn't."
I really like Emanuel. I remember him on Meet the Press not tolerating that horrible Elizabeth Dole as she fretted over how (sadly) Democrats like terrorists, two days before her failed party got their assese handed to them in the 2006 elections. It was partly Rahm's victory and partly all of ours when the demogogic witch lost her own seat just two years later (what a scrumptious beginning to a great election evening!).
March 13, 2009 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like having the sensibilities of administration officials seemly transparent. However, I wonder if one can predict the responses of someone to being raised by a father who seems to have accepted -as an Irgun commando- a necessity for killing civilians in order to establish an ideal state.
Emanuel could be one of those Vonnegut devotees who carries with him everywhere a copy of Slaughterhouse Five or Mother Night.
Freeman seemed a good balance: his connections to other interests in the Middle East appeared equally, if still only apparently, clear.
March 14, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Freeman would have been a useful hand, but it was probably unrealistic to expect the Administration would fight for him. If they are serious about Mid-East peace, they probably are going to need to give Israel some tough love, and there are people right on this board who will *race* to defame them as anti-Semites for it.
Such types would already be merrily spewing hateful defamations against our President right now if he'd fought this battle. And he'd thus already be blackballed by the time of any tough negotiations. Definitely not worth it in my view.
March 14, 2009 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I looked at that site and it's pretty shrill.
March 13, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or perhaps it's overreach.
And Rahm Emanual is your fetish... not mine. Keep him.
March 13, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rahm's a prick, no doubt. And I respect what you're saying, truly, even though "fetish" might be a bit charged. :) For me, I have come to believe Obama may need a prick or two around, given the ambiance.
Presumably, over four years, our opinions as to Rahm's worth will evolve. He *could* be a critical link in forging mid-East peace, or not. We'll see, amigo.
March 14, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't say that I see all the "bashing of israel and the jews", that you do.
The problem is ANY criticism of israel is seen as "bashing of israel and the jews".
And that is why there is often so much frustration in comments regarding these issues.
To deny it is to deny the truth of even this issue regarding freeman.
Is there anyway to say obama caved into the pressure of the israel lobby and this speaks ill of him, without being accused of bashing israel by someone?
I doubt it.
I supported Obama mainly because I believed he would offer new and fair foreign policy.
You see I happen to believe ALL children are precious.
Sadly obama can not recover from this cowardly incident and that is the true tragedy here.
and lastly i would fall short of my personal integrity if i didnt wonder out loud that your statement regarding "hate speech", was an attempt to push back at any critism of israel.
however having read your views for a long time i dont feel that to be the case.
would you agree that it would be the case with many others, including the people that attacked freeman for instance?
and thats really the point here, isnt it?
March 12, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who reads my posts knows that I am an outspoken and forceful critic of Israeli policies.
I am talking about those who invoke conspiracy theories, talk about Jews controlling the whole world, and use reckless language about Jews or Israelis that they would not use about other groups.
This Freeman thing -- not surprisingly -- has caused real anti-Semites to come out of the woodwork, which is something the lynch mob might have considered before launching their reckless attack on a great public servant.
As a Palestinian friend said to me the other day. "It is disgusting when we discover that some of the people who claim to be great friends of ours are just people who hate Jews. We are always filtering them out."
That is what I want to do. Most of the Palestinian and Arab bashers are gone from this site. And I don't want them either.
I hate ALL hate speech. Period.
March 12, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., is it safe to say the Israel Lobby controls our foreign policy, in the direction of more military conflict as opposed to more peace?
Is it safe to say the U.S has by far the world's largest, most powerful military, with the annual budget of the next 15 largest countries combined?
Is it safe to say we have bases all over the world, as well as aircraft carriers, battleships, and nuclear submarines patrolling the entire world?
Is it safe to say that whoever controls the foreign policy of the U.S. controls this massive, unprecedented military empire?
March 12, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Controls? No, it isn't.
Has a hell of alot of influence, yes.
Cheney and Rumsfeld did not go to war for the Israel lobby. They just exploited the all-too-willing neocons who were all too happy to join the campaign.
But it was not control? No way. Cheney and Rumsfeld and their ilk care nothing about America, nothing about Israel, only about personal profits.
THAT DOES not exonerate the neocons by any means. It is also worth noting that Jewish Americans and African Americans are the only two groups which, according to the polls, were most anti-Iraq war and voted in the highest percentages for Obama.
March 12, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your obvious point that Rummy, Cheney, and their non-Jewish ilk in the defense, oil, and construction industries probably couldn't care less about Israel, except for encouraging its self-destructive ways that lead to more war and profits for them.
There are probably some Jews who fit into the same boat, and pretend to be Zionists just to get there hands on more contracts.
I wonder how many Likudniks in Israel fit this description. Lord knows most Israeli leaders these days end up being indicted for something.
Whatever the case, days like yesterday can certainly be overwhelming, but I regret temporarily minimizing the impact of the non-Lobby powers that obviously still wield much power.
I read some rumor in the past few days that GHWB lost his re-election bid because of his perceived ant-Israel views (and those of Jim Baker). I'll do some research on that, because he seems like a pretty powerful dude, and such a conspiracy would have involved intentionally favorable media hype of the Perot campaign, for starters.
Hard to imagine the guy who ran the country for the 12 previous years could be undermined like that by a foreign lobby.
March 12, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Control? But can you deny that is their ultimate aim? To 'control' foreign policy matters.
Cheney and Rumsfeld has gone but there are still Cheneyites and AIPAC'ers embedded in the political system... and still seem to be getting in.
AIPAC's coffers are exploding at the moment -- gotta be for some reason -- maybe because they are getting results.
March 12, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Control? But can you deny that is their ultimate aim? To 'control' foreign policy matters.
Lobbies are a big problem in the States. Do you really think the many, varied and often unified Israeli interests are stronger than Big Pharma? Seen any reports recently on recalls (dead animals, kids, people)? And what about that Jack Abrams, exerting masterful control of US policy regarding the Mariani Islands' labor and trade statutes. (Don't bother telling me if he's Jewish, aren't a lot of us?)
Lobbies are a big problem in the US. Focusing attention on the Jewish lobby, over and above observation, due concern and protest regarding possibly criminal lobbying activities, is not just counterproductive. What? 'Jews' don't get to form interest groups? That's what politics consists of, interaction of interest groups. (If some groups aren't allowed to lobby, just how are they to be identified? Fail: identification of Jews is not a concern of the local, state or federal US government. Full stop.)
What about the biggest interest group of all, the one that hasn't needed to lobby, because it's been in control of national and foreign policy for the last eight years? Israel does not stand alone in it's use of warfare to provide resources and profit for those who invest in war. Using the National Guard, none the less, to achieve that profit. Now, that's chicanery!
(White phosporus, on the other hand... now that's something else, isn't it?)
For something that's chilling, SandThroughTheEyeGlass, the exposure of those representatives who do lobby on behalf of Israel seems to have increased the heat of attention on their actions. It's gotten a lot more press than Dershowitz's boast that he was telling Obama what to do. How many times can 'they' do this and remain invisible to the general populace and their constituency? - those who are elected representatives, that is. Got to watch out for the unelected ones, the stealth lobbyists of all kinds.
March 13, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...Lobbies are a big problem in the States.
Yes I do.
Do you really think the many, varied and often unified Israeli interests are stronger than Big Pharma?
In the case of advocating for war in the interests of another country -- yes absolutely!
March 13, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In the case of advocating for war in the interests of another country -- yes absolutely!"
Which war? Before responding, I'd like to be sure I know what you mean.
March 14, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just chilling... if I'm correctly reading between the lines -- I think you will get it too:
Influence? just influence?
March 12, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it chilling? The vetting process, if done effectively, identifies controversial aspects of an appointee ahead of time. If vetting is not done well, you have an embarrassing dustup, as we did just now.
Remember how we used to criticize Bush for inadequately vetting appointees? Remember Giuliani and Kerik? Josh had a field date with that debacle for weeks.
Why is this case any different?
March 12, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dustup was 'organized' by the ISRAEL lobby to VET the candidate according to his loyality to Israel... not his ability to do his job... Adm Blair thought he was suitable for the job, Obama ok'ed it, but the ISRAEL lobby didn't... The outcome -- chilling... yep chilling.
March 12, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every dustup is organized by the citizens that care about the issue.
March 12, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're being ridiculous...
Normal citizens especially those from a non-profit organization whose reason for being is to make sure that foreign policy is done in the best of interest of Israel should be able to create enough of a 'dustup' to bring down an appointment of the NIC... That appointment was for Adm Blair to decide... not a rabble of Israel Firsters.
[eyes roll]
March 12, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happens all the time, particularly in matters of ethnic sensitivity. We Americans are very sensitive to what appear to be ethnic or racial attacks, because ultimately we're a melting pot. Remember Andy Rooney's suspension by CBS? Had he said anything about Jews or Israel? Remember Trent Lott, forced to resign as majority leader? Was that because of the ultrapowerful Black lobby?
I could give you a hundred examples, but you can do the homework too.
March 13, 2009 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you are talking absolute bullshit -- it doesn't happen all the time ... and going off on tangents isn't going to work either.
From now on I'm not going to waste my time replying to your inane crap.
March 13, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes the organized campaign was generated by AIPAC/anti-real peace/pro-occupation schmucks.
But I do still continue wonder if it would have had the traction and result that it did, if there was not the more legit questions about Freeman conservative/Kissingeresque ultra-realist views regarding China and Saudi dictators and stability vs. democracy.
Didn't Human Rights Campaign and some other not-AIPAC types also oppose him?
What if he had JUST been a questioner of Israel's occupation policy, continuous increase in settlements policy, endless-phony negotiations policy? And the attacks were seen solely in terms of traitor-Rosen and AIPAC crowd vs. qualified intelligency guy. Would it have had traction and succeeded?
I really think this one was slightly less black and white than Rosenberg and others (IPF, J-street, American Friends of Peace Now, etc.) who I always agree with otherwise are making it.
March 12, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I've read, he might be a Saudi apologist (which is not unusual in D.C., I don't think), but he may be innocent of the charge regarding China. I read this at Richard Silverstein's blog Tikun Olam--apparently Freeman wasn't giving his own view of the Tianenman (sp) Square massacre, but describing how it was seen by members of the Chinese government. His description was then taken out of context and presented as though it was Freeman's own view.
Now if that turns out to be the case , it ought to be a major scandal. I don't know that it is, because I have yet to see the text of the actual memo. Our press corps ought to find out the truth--if they don't, then they are as useless as they were in the runup to the Iraq War.
March 12, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freeman's email is quoted in http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/the_realist_chas_freeman.asp
Posted by Michael Goldfarb on February 24, 2009 11:46 AM
Chas Freeman, who has reportedly been offered and accepted a job as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, offered his take on the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 on a listserv in 2006. Here is the full text of his email to that group:
From: CWFHome@cs.com [mailto:CWFHome@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:29 PM
I will leave it to others to address the main thrust of your reflection on Eric's remarks. But I want to take issue with what I assume, perhaps incorrectly, to be yoiur citation of the conventional wisdom about the 6/4 [or Tiananmen] incident. I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than -- as would have been both wise and efficacious -- to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo's response to the mob scene at "Tian'anmen" stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.
For myself, I side on this -- if not on numerous other issues -- with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans' "Bonus Army" or a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined. while shutting down much of the Chinese government's normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang's dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China.
I await the brickbats of those who insist on a politically correct -- i.e. non Burkean conservative -- view.
Chas
Note Mr. Goldfarb's conclusion: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/freeman_and_beijing_a_shared_v.asp
The Most Dishonest Freeman Defense
He agreed that the protests were intolerable and that the government had only done what was, in his view, necessary to end the standoff.
A masterful distortion, based on the quote provided.
March 13, 2009 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for providing the quoted e-mail in full. Upon rereading it, I again consider it completely indefensible, and I think any progressive should find it indefensible.
March 13, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm developing my answer to your response. That this particular issue is one for which Freeman is criticized is interesting. One way to respond would be to investigate Freeman's actions and statements thoroughly, but that would take longer than is useful for this venue. From what he says in this email, I do make suppositions, which I can't support from other documentation, but which make sense to me. Articulating those thoughts to make sense to others is taking still more time.
March 15, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear M.J. Rosenberg,
Thanks for your informative, thought-provoking posts *and* a forum in which to discuss them, as well as for your judicious editing and moderation.
So, maybe there is hope?
M
March 14, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let us engage in a Thought Experiment:
1. Israel continues the "occupation" for another 150 years.
1a. The water runs out and Turkey emerges as a regional super-power.
1b. Turkey joins the EU and sides with Israel while Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, (as we know them) collapse into "failed states" and become defacto colonies of the EU.
1c. The water runs out and Turkey swings between Islamic "radicalism" and counter-vailing military juntas that prevent Islamic "radicals" from consolidating their power but also prevent Turkey from becoming a full member of the EU and the sporadic sale of "white gold" brings about the collapse of Syria, Iraq, and Jordan as we know them.
1d.The "Palestinians" remain stateless and the "Great Schism" between "Westernized Palestinians" and "Traditional Palestinians" becomes the central leitmotif of the "Palestinian" community (including a growing number of marriages between post-post-modern western Jews and "Palestinians")
1e. The "Westernized Palestinians" take on the challenge that the collapse of the oil-world offers and begin buying up land in the former "Arab states" and by virtue of having deep roots in the west connect the former AS (Arab states) to the economic and cultural institutions of the "West" bringing an increasingly deeper connection and cohabitation with Israel.
2. The "Occupation" continues unabated for the duration of the oil era - say 75 to the next 150 years. Isralie politics continues to lurch spasmodically between left and right and the use of wage-slaves from the "West Bank" continues (the analogy being China continues to skull fuck Tibet because the US continues to SF China over Taiwan so as long as oil dominates Israel will continue for multiple reasons to SF the Palestinians)and the hysterical prognostications over the demise of "Isralie democracy" are revealed to be as shallow as the same shrill cries about "American democracy" (genocide, hypocrisy, colonization, police-state tactics, etc - America remains a schizoid state lurching spasmodically from corporate oligarchy to republic)and with its deep roots in the "West" the Jewish community continues to maintain cultural, economic and political (all interconnected) ties to Isralie which helps maintain Isralie's existence.
3. The emergence of a "Westernized Palestinian" "elite" (who display the same contempt for West Bankers that Ashkenazim show for Spheradim)allows for the emergence of what might be called the Northern Ireland Paradigm in which having finally left the ghetto behind (we can all thrill to see the transformation of the Palestinian national myth as it goes from the Palestinian Beshev Sing-Woody Allen-Philip Roth school to it's own Post-Seinfeld trope)recognize their future lies with "Western"anti-tribalism and not ossified cults of the great-leader-tribalism and with the end of oil-politics and the emergence of eco-politics they can afford the cultural shock of assimilation without the sense that they are committing cultural suicide.
until then...nothing will change...because, Faulkner was right...the past aint even hardly past...
March 12, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might have added:
4. The West goes into severe economic decline and remittances to Israel terminate. Without Western markets for their products, Israel sees large-scale emigration.
5. Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia test-fire nuclear devices by 2025. Israel sees large-scale emigration.
March 12, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me engage in two thought experiments.
Thought Experiment (A): Arab states unilaterally decide to end their hostility to Israel. Palestinians end rocket barragement and terrorism. After a confidence-building period, Israel lowers its security measures, which are only intended to protect Israeli citizens. With cultural and economic exchanges, Palestinians thrive, and earn a demilitarized state successful in the high-tech sector, especially in partnership with its neighbor and ethnic cousin Israel.
Thought Experiment (B): Israel unilaterally reduces its security posture, takes down its security fence, and destroys its (undeclared) nuclear arsenal. Within a week, Israel is destroyed in a second Holocaust, God forbid.
It is these two thought experiments that explain the deep asymmetry that runs through all Middle East policy. In both cases, the predicted impacts of the initial unilateral action are completely realistic based on both the history and on current behavior. Thinking this through will help you understand where Israel is coming from. Until all of Israel's neighbors deradicalize (as some of them have already done - there is no active conflict with Jordan or Egypt) Israel is morally bound to protect its citizens from scenario (B).
March 12, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel wouldn't take down its fences and defuse its nuclear arsenal even if Arab states "deradicalize". The fences and arms, the militant posture and periodic slaughter of its neighbors, are meant to preserve its integrity as a religiously (and, in truth, ethnically) exclusive state. Israel's inveterate preconditions for negotiation are intended to preclude negotiation - not enable it. Freeman recognized that, and that's why his appointment was torpedoed.
March 12, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are 100% wrong. That's exactly what Israel would do if the threat went away. It would have security similar to the US - enough to protect itself against threats, but not the overwhelming security posture it is forced to adopt now.
Now to quote you verbatim: "The fences and arms, the militant posture and periodic slaughter of its neighbors, are meant to preserve its integrity as a religiously (and, in truth, ethnically) exclusive state."
This statement is bizarre. You have no evidence for it, it's sick, and I'm embarrassed to be responding to someone who would say something so evil and depraved. This is exactly the type of comment that MJ should be deleting, and I would argue that you should be banned for it (or at least warned).
March 12, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is stunningly self-absorbed:
". Until all of Israel's neighbors deradicalize (as some of them have already done - there is no active conflict with Jordan or Egypt) Israel is morally bound to protect its citizens from scenario (B)."
For someone who self-styles him/herself the "progressive conscience" you lack the basic knowledge or awareness as to caused Egypt, for example, to "de-radicalize": Egypt got its land back.
Moreoever asking Palestinians whose land is progressively being taken to "de-radicalize" is like asking a rape victim to accept the actions of her attacker.
Some of us are waiting for Zionists to "re-radicalize," i.e, stop peddling the primitive myth that God gave them land. George Bush also claimed that God wanted him to be president. Funny how the people with the pipeline to God always hear what they want to hear. They probably have "progressive consciences" to.
March 12, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Mr. Myth, you're saying that the only way Israel can have peace is to give up 100% of its land and cease to exist? After all, all the land used to be Arab land, especially if you only look at recent history.
If you really believe that, why don't you say so explicitly?
March 12, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said Israel had to give up 100% of its land and "cease to exist." If you actually my comments on this page before annointing yourself the "progessive conscience" you would know that I support the two-state solution.
Doesn't lying hurt your progessive conscience?
March 12, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not lying.
You said, and I quote:
"Moreoever asking Palestinians whose land is progressively being taken to "de-radicalize" is like asking a rape victim to accept the actions of her attacker."
So you're saying that while Israel holds "Palestinian" land, they can't be asked to deradicalize, which, in the context of my post, means to give up on terrorism. Since the Palestinians consider all the land of Israel to be theirs (or certainly their radical elements do) you are saying that the Palestinians can continue to engage in terrorism until they get their land back, meaning until Israel no longer exists.
If this is not what you mean by your fairly clear statement, why don't you tell us what you mean? Are you saying that Israel has to give back PART of the Palestinian's land before the Palestinians should be asked to give up terror? Hasn't Israel already done that?
It's hard to debate you when your positions are so vague, and seem to just revolve around an unexplained dislike of Israel.
March 12, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have an "unexplained" dislike of Israel. I dislike Israel because they turned my wife's family into refugees.
I dislike Israel because they continue to harass and humiliate her other relatives that remain.
I dislike Israel because they continue to take more and more Palestinian land, murder Palestinian children, and lie about what they are doing.
I dislike evil. I hate it, in fact. Hence, I hate the Zionists' evil actions against the Palestinians.
Did I make that clear enough for you, nitwit?
March 12, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, I thought I passed that test.
March 12, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please ignore. (As if you haven't already)
March 12, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your behavior were logical, then our Jewish neighbors and friends would dislike practically every nation of the world. Read some history, and you'll see that they've been badly mistreated in every one (except, perhaps, the US and Israel).
Why don't you grow up and realize that other people have perpectives too? Many Israelis have lost family members to Palestinian terror, and MJ wouldn't allow them to make hateful comments about Palestinians on this board because of it. You spread hostility and invective daily on a public Board because of your wife's experiences? Double Nitwit!!
March 13, 2009 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
For a bit of perspective on religious persecution, TPC, consider the Catholic sects hounded into extinction by the Catholic Church, Catholics persecuted by Protestants, the various Protestant sects terrorized by the Catholic Church and abjured by the Protestants, as well as 'pagans' of whatever origin anathema to both Catholic and Protestant religions. Which list doesn't include any of the religious persecutions historical to countries with which I am less familiar.
The persecution of Jewish people because of religious faith follows a common pattern; it isn't unique.
March 14, 2009 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it necessary for Israel "to give up 100% of its land and cease to exist" in order to have peace?
What's wrong with plain vanilla civil rights for all the inhabitants of the Israeli/Palestinian region, The Progressive Conscience?
Perhaps that is too broad a leap without explanation: my premise is that inequality inherently destabilizes society; the more unequal the bestowal of rights, the less peaceful the society.
March 14, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
For someone who styles himself a "mythbuster", you sure do propagate a lot of myths.
If you recall, Egypt de-radicalized and reached out to Israel before they got the Sinai back, with Sadat's famous trip to Jerusalem in 1977. As soon as they perceived Egypt was no longer trying to destroy it, Israelis jumped at the chance to make peace, even if it involved major concessions.
It will be similar for the Palestinians. The way forward for the establishment of a Palestinian state has always been clear: stop the terrorism, accept Israel and get on with building a real country. It's been the same for more than 70 years - why do the Palestinians still not get it?
March 12, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, as usual. A provision of the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt was the return of the Sinai, wasn't it?
So....Egypt got its land back.
As usual, I am forced to waste my time--and valuable heartbeats--correcting you.
Thus endeth the lesson.
March 12, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in your version of history the only ones seeking peace were the Israelis, and the Egyptians did not reach out to them until offered their land back?
Brad made some good points, and you didn't respond to them; I assume it's because you're rethinking your position.
March 12, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did respond to them, but since you only accept those arguments that go "Israel good, Arabs bad," I can't dumb the argument down enough for you to get it.
Whenever people like you claim to believe in peace, etc, I always ask them this question:
Can you identify one legitimate Palestinian grievance?
(The usual answer is some whinging little response like "their Arab brothers didn't do enough for them.....)
Frankly, most Zionists are in total denial about what IOG is really doing to the Palestinians. It's hard to face just how evil their policies really are.
March 12, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I put this in the wrong spot, but...
I thought I got a star for answering that question once before.
March 12, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
From my perspective, the most legitimate Palestinian grievance is that a subset of the Palestinian population truly wants to make peace with Israel, and when they try to take legitimate steps in that direction, they are killed (extra-judically) by the radical Palestinian elements as "collaborators".
It's hard to make peace when doing so can get you killed. Palestinians need to take some lessons from Israel, which has a thriving peace movement which is free to organize, write, petition the government, and generally to act on their conscience.
March 13, 2009 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Palestinians most "legitimate" grievance is with...other Palestinains?
You have really drunk the Zionist Kool-Aid.
That question was a test to see if you had the intellectual integrity to justify engaging.
You failed.
March 13, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marlow: There are a finite number of bodies in the I/P Territory and an apparent finite limit to the tolerance of many powerful people to having inconvenient bodies remain in the way of God, truth, and whatever replaces Manifest Destiny in our times. The warfare against the Palestinians, the Iraqi and the Afghani is also warfare against our freedom. For the Western powers to continue to take on the military tactics and strategy of powerful interests (which I identify as international, rather than of any ethnic or national group, still stereotyping, but it opens it up pretty wide) which want to profit from increasingly scarce resources and are willing to kill, using the youth of the US and Israel (etc.) to do so, endangers the citizens of those Western powers as well as the people in the countries we invade. We don't have 150 years to spare.
Faulkerner's past is way down the road, back there, now. The forests have been cut down; the fields... ticky tacky boxes, parking lots, etc.
March 13, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The warfare against the Palestinians, the Iraqi and the Afghani is also warfare against our freedom"
You have it exactly backwards. It is warfare FOR our freedom. Do you know anything about the repression under the Taliban or under Saddam? Of women, of homosexuals, of dissidents, of the weakest people?
March 13, 2009 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
See http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/695631d2afcc1bf88525757800604801!OpenDocument
March 14, 2009 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - yesterday, I was reading complaints that the mainstream media wasn't reporting this issue at all. Today, it's a firestorm. Maybe we could steer away from the extremes a bit - I'd like to see more nuance and shades of gray in the discussion. Extremes usually mislead.
I don't think anyone thought or said Israel had nothing to do with the opposition to Freeman. They said that there were also other important issues raised by the appointment. The Times article doesn't refute this point at all. Your point that the critics only care about Israel and not at all about the other issues is, in my opinion, unproven.
By the way, excellent personal note appended to your post, and I personally thank you for it. This is a community, and I think we all need to remember (and I include myself in this exhortation) to always be respectful of all the other members even though many of us have deeply held beliefs.
March 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well-said.
March 12, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do unfounded, unmerited accusations of anti-Semitism count as hate speech?
March 12, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crap, I forgot about our little history with that issue. That was not intended to be a personal jab.
March 12, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes
March 12, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...also other important issues raised by the appointment...
Yes... like all the AIPAC enablers getting into the State Department... but I note that doesn't come up in the media...nor in your posts. Until you refreshing look at the those issues... and explore some of those gray areas to give a fuller and educated picture -- I will take your posts a little more seriously.
March 12, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
...Until you refreshingly look at the those issues... and explore some of those gray areas which will to give you a fuller and more educated picture -- I might take your posts a little more seriously.
March 12, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sand: If you would write more clearly and less cryptically, I might be able to respond to your posts, which I'm sure are well intended. Tell me what you're referring to instead of tossing off oblique references that pass me by. It would even help if you provided a few links.
Are you making use of some kind of code language?
March 12, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes my writing is crap, totally admit it, but I do have a remarkable ability to see through bullshit... and even code at times, and I've noticed your posts [when they have something to say] do have a tendency to espouse one-sided AIPAC talking points.
Just something I've noticed.
March 12, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy to respond to any specific question, especially if cogently expressed in English.
Generalized name-calling is hard to respond to. Rest assured that my opinions are my own, based on reading probably hundreds of books (especially history) and thinking a lot about what I've read, and that I have no connection whatsoever with AIPAC.
March 12, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well obviously you have a problem with English...
I've said your posts resemble AIPAC talking points... I don't think I need to be specific -- you can go over to the Aipac website and check them out yourself.
Regardless whether you've read hundreds of books you still seem to be regurgitating the same old tired one-sided AIPAC talking points...
I come here not to have AIPAC propaganda shoved down my throat.
March 12, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please give me an example of AIPAC propaganda that I say, explain why you disagree with it, and let me respond.
Just throwing out the word AIPAC is lazy; it lets you avoid engaging my ideas. I've never looked at the AIPAC web site; in fact I didn't know AIPAC had a web site. You may find this hard to believe, but there are a few people out there who don't get most of their knowledge from the internet, and I am one of them.
March 13, 2009 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I used to take the time to carefully respond to posters such as yourself... provide arguments, links etc -- hoping to partake in some balanced reason. But no...
All that happens time and time again is to find people such as yourself who believe they are constantly under threat, are victims of their religion, and at the end of the day will NEVER ever accept the Palestinians as partners in negotiations.
The narcissism and self righteousness of your side is just not worth responding to anymore...
And as for you to say you don't know about AIPAC, but seem to know about what happened to Freeman -- just reveals another example of the deception and bullshit you espouse.
March 13, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Well obviously you have a problem with English..."
I consider the above statement abusive. It abuses the person to whom it is addressed; it abuses those of us who are constrained to read it in passing.
March 14, 2009 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally unexpected. Even Broder's figured out what's going on
March 12, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the LA Times op/ed (not bad, as far as it goes) and for the "personal request" (better to warn pre-emptively than to wait until bigotry and hate speech -from whatever direction- finds its way here).
I'm bothered, however, in this discussion about the Freeman appointment/withdrawal as in many others, about the term "Israel Lobby." I don't think the people usually said to be exponents of that lobby actually represent Israel, or even necessarily care much about the long term future of the people of Israel as a whole.
I realize that other popularized expressions such as "Jewish lobby" or "Zionist lobby" are even more distorting and/or inappropriate, and I am not enough of an expert to feel comfortable suggesting an alternative. I just wish we could find terminology that reflects key truths, that you, MJ, and others are already making clearly and refreshingly from time to time, but not as consistently as is needed, in my view: slaughtering children in Gaza is not "Pro-Israel", decrying such cowardly and utterly unjustifiable slaughter is not "Anti-Israel", etc. etc.
March 12, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
About conspiracy theories, let me say that Jews do not control the whole world. Actually, it is the Israel-First drones, not all of whom are Jewish, who control the level of discourse and have a strong influence on the levers of power in the USA, Canada, and Europe on anything having to do with Israel.
All of this occurs in the context of three hands clapping together: For the Christian Crazies it is about Armageddon and the return of Jesus. For the Jewish Crazies it is about Jerusalem and the third temple. For the Iranian Crazies it is about martyrdom and the return of the 12th Iman.
March 12, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The headlines signal a stunning shift in the public discourse.
When Walt and Mearsheimer published The Israel Lobby just three short years ago, the very use of the term would draw chareges of "anti-semitism"
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Obama's appointee to lead the National Intelligence Council withdrew, blaming the Israel lobby. To shape U.S. policy, many voices must be heard.
March 12, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah... If only 'progressive' radio would start talking about The Israel Lobby...
March 12, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know who the major fundraisers are for AIPAC?
Bloomberg? Mort Zuckerman? That Las Vegas Sands guy? Larry Silverstein? Maurice Greenberg?
If anybody knows of a Who's Who of AIPAC, I'd be curious to know who I should boycott when leasing my next skyscraper, or whatever.
March 12, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard that Josh Marshall is a secret fund-raiser for AIPAC.
It's even been said that part of the money comes from the page hits on this very web site!
March 12, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that we should be able to deduce from this episode is that the lobby is NOT some centrally directed organized cabal. What self respecting conspiracy would use an indicted Israeli spy as their point man in a public campaign like this?
This shows more of a common emotional bond and that the herd can panicked into some common direction with a few well placed fear memes.
March 12, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a conspiracy if its in the open. It's called a policy or an agreement.
March 12, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the stories coming out has Aipac and others "secretly" working behind the scenes coordinating a public campaign. The campaign itself is open, but frequently it is difficult to detect whether there is or is not a coordinator. Except for Block's awkward efforts to hide, this latest campaign seems quite transparent.
March 12, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only conspiracy I see with AIPAC is the fact that the MSM is very careful when it covers its meetings. You would think that the media would investigate closely any organization that is able to get most Members of Congress and the Executive Branch to speak. That means big influence. But we only hear about the speech, not the group that got them to speak.
Apparently, the strong lobbies like AIPAC and the NRA have got the media trained. The question is not asked.
March 12, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What self respecting conspiracy would use an indicted Israeli spy as their point man in a public campaign like this?"
Perhaps an arrogant one supremely confident in their influence.
March 12, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right off the top, if maybe people could reflect for a fraction of a second, just a fraction, before they use the word "Jew", "Zionist" or "Israeli" and think, "Is that the correct word, the word I want. "Jews", "Zionists" and "Israeli" mean different things, and are not interchangeable, especially when criticizing Israel and it's actions.
And no, "Progressive Conscience" that was not a straw man accusation, it is a terrible accusation to make against a state (an unthinkable one to make against a religion, of course) but unfortunately, if Israel wants to be a state, and be organised and established in the way they are, it is a perfectly reasonable accusation to make.
The fact that it's a terrible source of shame to me as a Jew is irrelevant.
And to help those who might be perplexed: Zionism is not not a religiously sanctioned Jewish belief, and there is no committee, or even a process by which the aims and methods of Zionism could be first debated and then adopted as a Jewish religious belief and process.
Israel is not (except in it's own mind, and for its own propaganda purposes) the center of the Jewish religion.
And if Brad the Dad wants to tell me how they're assembling the boxcars for American Jews as we speak, can we at least clear the room of Afro-Americans and Native Americans, so I can be spared at least that exquisitely excruciating embarrassment.
March 12, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moose: You haven't responded to my syllogism (above).
Have you started thinking about it? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. Also, thinking about it might help you understand the connection between the Jewish state and the Jewish religion. Really.
March 12, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
...might have missed it on one of your blogging notes, but it seems as though the mainstream media barely covered the application of white sulphur back in December...where was the Congressional outrage on that...
Googling "white phosphorous":
"On Dec. 27, Israel attacked the Gaza Strip – a small coastal enclave abutting Israel. It's the crowded home to 1.5 million Palestinians.
As of Jan. 15, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza. Of them, 765 were civilians. An additional 5,100 Palestinians have been wounded.
Thirteen Israelis have been killed. Three of them were civilians. An additional 80 Israelis have been wounded.
The disparity in the number of casualties is largely the result of each side's relative military strength.
Hamas, the group exercising semi-control of Gaza, is a ragtag army of militants and terrorist dicktards. Its arsenal consists of guns and homemade rockets. If it were capable of killing more Israelis, it certainly would.
Israel, however, has one of the world's largest, most technologically abundant militaries. Its arsenal includes tanks, advanced fighter jets, precision-guided bombs and missiles, a modern navy with submarines, and nuclear weapons.
A vast majority of the Palestinian dead have been killed by so-called conventional Israeli bombs, missiles and shrapnel. Nevertheless, much attention has been paid in recent days to Palestinian victims of white phosphorous weapons.
White phosphorous, or WP, is a manmade derivative of the element phosphorous (found on the periodic table of elements between silicon and sulphur). WP is most commonly used to make phosphoric acid, a key ingredient in chemical cleansers, fertilizers, and, um, Coca-Cola. Phosphoric acid is what gives Coke its tanginess.
White phosphorous also has chemical properties making it very useful to a military. It burns very brightly, allowing illumination of battle areas at night. It also generates a lot of smoke, obscuring troop movements during the day.
Packed in a bomb, grenade, or artillery shell, it's also a powerful incendiary. Incendiaries are weapons that set things on fire (as opposed to regular bombs, which destroy targets with explosions and flying metal).
WP incendiaries work by disbursing a cloud of white phosphorous dust. The dust ignites at 86 degrees and will not stop burning until its oxygen supply is cut off. When WP dust comes into contact with the human body (which is approximately 98.6 degrees), it burns. And burns. And burns. People killed or wounded by WP look like they've been dipped in acid.
During the first half of the 20th century, burning people alive during war was considered acceptable. You know the old saying: to make an omelette, you need to break some eggs and set a few live chickens on fire.
Believe it or not, the atomic bombing raids of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not history's deadliest bomb attacks. On March 9, 1945, an incendiary raid on Tokyo killed 100,000 Japanese and left approximately 1 million more homeless – in a single night.
In 1980, the civilized world decided that maybe burning civilians alive during warfare was not such a good idea. That year, a new section was added to the Geneva Convention banning the use of incendiaries on or near civilians.
Israel denies that it is using WP in Gaza.
"I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorous is absolutely not being used," an Israeli military spokesman told CNN on Jan. 7.
Unfortunately, there is strong evidence to the contrary."
March 12, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a minimum standard for information that is posted (at least on an intelligent message board like this one - I can't speak for the fever swamps). You can't just "google" something and then give us long, rambling, unsourced material. (As a really nice touch, you put the entire unsourced piece in quotation marks!)
Tell us what your source is so we can evaluate it using our own intelligence and judgment. In fact, provide a link. This is particularly important if the source is making an ugly accusation about Israel that Israel denies. This way you can have a productive dialog, rather than a throwaway post.
March 12, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply |