Steve Rosen, Indicted Under Espionage Act, Lectures Obama and J Street
I'm not going to comment on Steve Rosen's ridiculous Obama and J Steet bashing piece in Foreign Policy today except to ask why this guy has any kind of platform whatsoever.
I know the espionage case against him was dropped. But that does not make him innocent. And he's not, not in the larger sense.
He spent his entire career at AIPAC trying to sabotage any chance of peace between Israelis and Palestinians and -- he brags about this -- successfully convincing Republican administrations that US and Israeli interests are identical. Prime Minister Rabin tried to get him fired; neither he nor Shimon Peres considered him any kind of friend of Israel. No doubt he thinks of himself as dedicated to Israel's interests. And so did the US Attorney.
I, however, do not impute "dual loyalties" to Rosen. But rather none.
He is not pro-Israel in any sense that I know. He is simply a pro-Likud neocon who was a tireless advocate of war with Iraq and now agitates for war with Iran. Does he push these wars for Israel's sake? I suppose he thinks so. He is, however, only "pro-Israel" in the sense that being virulently anti-Arab and anti-Muslim makes one pro-Israel.
Additionally, Rosen has spent decades trying to destroy the careers of anyone who dissents from the Likud line. (Sullied by the espionage act charge, he can't do that anymore so the indictment was worth something).
Within AIPAC he ran Stalinist-type purges against Democrats, successfully plotting the removal of former Ted Kennedy aide, Exective Director Tom Dine, and Democratic Congressional aide, Doug Bloomfield, who was AIPAC's legislative director. He also was known for getting journalists, think tankers, Jewish organizational figures and government employees fired for being insufficiently hawkish on Israel.
The government's case against him was too weak to prosecute but his whole career has been cloak and dagger.
I say that as the person who received the famous memo from Rosen in 1982. "A lobby is like a night flower. It thrives in the dark and withers in the light." Rosen has dedicated his career to inhibiting and crushing free inquiry on the Middle East. It's ironic that Foreign Policy would publish him now.
Here is the money paragraph in Rosen's screed.
"Some Netanyahu advisors think that Obama is himself a man of the left and that top aides like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are closet J-Streeters in the White House. Instead, however, Obama and his top advisors are instinctively drawn to the center-left, like Bill and Hillary Clinton. He is more likely to take advice from the National Security Council's Dennis Ross than from more-leftist deputy Mideast peace envoy Mara Rudman or the ubiquitous peace pundit Daniel Levy."
Clever, Rosen is defending Obama against "closet" lefties like J Street. And we don't see through that!!!
It's almost funny, a guy indicted under the Espionage Act is questioning the credentials of J Street, Obama advisers, and peace advocate, Daniel Levy, who actually left a rather comfortable life in London (his dad is in the House of Lords) to move to Israel and who, in fact, did his time in the IDF.
Congratulations, Rosen on the case being dropped and good luck with your law suit against AIPAC (AIPAC fired him when it saw the evidence against him). And "you-go-boy" with your new career of libeling people frontally rather than by calling on their employers to fire them. (I'm proud that he never got me purged).
But know this. You are now a novelty act. Big deal, the case was dropped. OJ Simpson was acquitted. His views on spousal abuse are as credible as your advice to American policymakers.
You can't huddle with the Americans. You aren't on our team.
NOTE: I leave Israel Policy Forum for Media Matter on Monday. As Mother Jones pointed out, my move to one of the largest and oldest liberal sites in the blogosphere is, along with the rise in J Street, a sign that the lobby is truly in trouble. (I obviously don't put my move in the same category as the J Street phenomenon). These are bad times for defenders of the status quo. The Jewish New Year starts this weekend. Maybe this will be the year that the occupation ends. Im yirtzeh Hashem, as the Jews say. Inshallah, as the Muslims say. God willing. .
I will, of course, continue to post here.
test
September 18, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on MJ. Rosen's comment doesn't imply anything about "loyalty." Rather, it implies Obama has advisors with varying perspectives that he doesn't force into lockstep.
Not that Rosen isn't a worm. As for Obama being center-left, that's one of the things I like about him.
September 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
About Michael Levy, father of Jeremy Levy of J Street. The British have similar problems with pro Israel lobbyists that some started to take seriously after the onset of the unpopular Iraq war. Naturally, those concerned about a war that made no sense as far as the British were concerned are routinely called anti semites. Sounds familiar. The Blair Government elected Michael Levy to thier House of Lords, google Michael Levy and arrest over cash for peerages corruption case.
Some other background, an exherp from the link about Michael Levy (Jeremy Levy's dad) and part of the Israel lobby in Britain, LFI, fundrasing and trips to Israel. Again, sounds familiar. Sorry but JStreet might appear more moderate than AIPAC but most folk would prefer no such lobby with inroads into our politcal system. These lobbys' should be registered as agents of a foreign country because that is what they most surely are.
http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/48-lobbying/97-labour-friends-of-israel-in-the-house
Buying Influence
While Labour originally carried a reputation for having more voices sympathetic to the Palestinians – especially during the Thatcher years – the New Labour government of Tony Blair has reversed this orientation. Although one of Tony Blair’s first acts after becoming an MP in 1983 was joining LFI, the relationship truly developed in the early 90s, when as shadow Home Secretary, Tony Blair met Michael Levy at a private meeting at the latter’s house. Michael Abraham Levyis a former chairman of the Jewish Care Community Foundation, a member of the Jewish Agency World Board of Governors, and a trustee of the Holocaust Educational Trust.[4] According to Andrew Porter of The Business, Levy expressed his willingness “to raise large sums of money for the party” which led to a “tacit understanding that Labour would never again, while Blair was leader, be anti-Israel”.[5] The partnership proceeded as Levy started inviting potential donors for tennis at his palatial home where Tony Blair would join them for a set or two. Levy would then proceed to ask the guests for donations after Blair had left.[6]The genius of Levy’s fundraising strategy ensured that most of Labour's election funds came from private sources, rather than its traditional source – the trade unions, thereby weakening their say over policy.[7]
Levy’s investment eventually paid off, with Blair’s accession to power. The reward was not long in coming as Levy was ennobled and subsequently retained as a “special envoy” to the Middle-East, leading predictably to the development of a strong pro-Israel line.[8] Given the fact that Levy has both a business and a house in Israel and his son Daniel used to work for Yossi Beilin – the former Justice Minister of Israel – speaks of a serious conflict of interest, especially when he is the man assigned by Blair to negotiate impartially with Palestinians and Israelis.[9]The fact that Levy acted as a fundraiser for former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak casts further doubt on his capacity for impartiality.According to Neil Sammonds of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in 2002, Four of the previous five ministers with Responsibility for the Middle East had been active members of LFI.[10]
Membership and Funding
LFI currently has a burgeoning membership in the Commons and it is seen as a certain ladder for success by aspiring politicians. Receptions hosted by the lobby usually boast a huge turnout, with such powerful guests as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, the Israeli ambassador and the Israeli Deputy Minister of Defence.[11]
LFI has found staunch allies in the current Labour government in the shape of Blair, Brown and Straw. The influence of this committee is quite evident in Blair’s frequent comments in support of Israel, particularly at a time, when its actions have been widely condemned. Addressing a meeting of the body, Blair urged the British public not to forget the suicide attacks to which Israel has been subjected when criticizing Israeli aggression towards the Palestinians.[12] That is indeed a remarkable observation given that - as is well known - the Israeli Human Rights Centre, B’Tselem, reports that the overwhelming majority of the victims, even in the current phase of the conflict, have been Palestinian civilians.[13]
In 1997, prominent members of LFI contributed generously to the coffers of Labour, including Lord Sainsbury, who donated £1 million – the biggest single donation ever – Michael Levy, who raised 7 million pounds, Sir Trevor Chinn, who was reported to have donated a six figure sum, and Emmanuel Kaye, who donated a sizable sum to Blair’s blind trust.[14] According to one party official, by 2001, Levy had raised up to 15 million pounds for the party.[15] David Goldman – the Chairman of an Israeli telecommunications equipment company BATM Advanced Communications – is also reported to have made several 5-figure donations.The amount of influence such money could buy in today’s politics cannot be discounted, and from Britain’s unconditional support for Israel’s brutal policies, it seems like the government is keen to deliver.
September 18, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another weekend in which MJ does not think the use of deadly force by the Israeli army against peaceful protests is worth his attention.
But when the next wave of Palestinian deadly violence arrives, and we know it will eventually, MJ will be on the media frontline advocating hypocritically (as Obama did in Cairo ) that Palestinians should use non-violent protests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjRzWJ7I6w&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.bilin-village.org/english/articles/testimonies/Dozens-were-suffocated-by-tear-gas-canisters-at-the-weekly-demonstration
September 19, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Iknow the espionage case against him was dropped. But that does not make him innocent.”
Actually, in America it does. See, we have this thing called “innocent before proven guilty.”
Personally, I have no idea if the guy is guilty or not, but until and unless it is proven in a court of law, he's not guilty.
September 20, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,I am surprised at you. Why would you expect anything else from Foreign Policy magazine? Why would anyone? It was co-founded in 1970 by Samuel Huntington (of "Clash of Civilizations" fame) and Walter Demian Manshel (an investment banker who also co-founded The Public Interest with Irving Kristol.) It's now owned by the Washington Post Co.
Susan Glasser, its Executive Editor, used to be Asst. Managing Editor for national news at the Washington Post. Besides redesigning its outlook section, Glasser also reported from Afghanistan and Iraq, and previously ran the Moscow bureau with her husband Peter Baker, who write for the New York Times. So Foreign Policy has very much been recreated in WaPo's image.
While the site hosts progressive bloggers like Stephen Walt, "The Shadow Government" is largely neocon and anti-Obama. Its senior editor is Christian Brose, Condoleezza Rice's longtime chief speechwriter, and most frequent Obama-bashing blogger of late is White House advisor Peter Feaver, who was Bush's special advisor for strategic planning and institutional reform on the National Security Council. Feaver also served as Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control during the Clinton administration.
Bloggers like Walt keep Foreign Policy out of the crosshairs of Media Matters, but in point of fact, Foreign Policy is very much of a piece with, at peace with, neocon journalism. So why would such a publication NOT give a forum to Steve Rosen?
September 22, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink