A hearty yashar koach to Dan Fleshler for organizing to rebut the smear campaign against Rob Malley and by extension Barack Obama, orchestrated by the wingnut publication, American Thinker (no link for obvious reasons though Dan supplies one for the masochistic among you). A pro-Israel extremist “journalist,” writing there, accused Malley, a senior member of the Clinton team that negotiated at Camp David, or being rabidly anti-Israel. Malley has been an unpaid foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign. The proof supplied was, of course, of the order and quality of that produced by David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and Alan Dershowitz in their smear campaigns against the likes of Nadia Abu El Haj, Norman Finkelstein, Rashid Khalidi, Joel Beinin, Debbie Almontaser, and many others. That is to say–lies, innuendo, and distortion masquerading as established fact.
What is worse the “journalist” even delved into the history of Rob’s father’s support for African and Middle East liberation movements in the 1960s. As if his father’s alleged radicalism explained Rob’s alleged anti-Israelism. As if Rob was somehow “guilty” of his father’s sins (which of course they weren’t). Maybe we should vet every campaign foreign policy advisor and go back into their family history looking for skeletons. Why don’t we start with Daniel Pipes’ father Richard Pipes, senior Reagan era neocon ideologue? I mean what’s the point? Daniel’s sins, of which there are many, are his own. Why reach back and blame them on his father?
What is different here is that Marty Peretz, a brother in arms to the pro-Israel propagandists mentioned above, has taken up the cause with a repetition of the smear in The New Republic-an (republished here in the Jerusalem Post):
There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley advises Obama on the Middle East. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the Web, like the ads for Viagra.
Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in the New York Review of Books, is anti-Israel.
This is how such smears begin and take root in peoples’ minds. An especially unsavory author and publication take up the cudgels and then a slightly less unsavory character repeats them. And so on. Until the smear takes on a life of its own and floats through the body politic spewing poison as it goes.
And further, others have more surreptitiously advanced the smear in an anonymous e mail campaign circulated to Jewish voters in Maryland before the presidential primary. As Obama only earned 40% of the Jewish vote in Maryland, I’d say that this viciousness worked in some measure. Expect these dirty tricks to escalate in the months leading up to the convention and general election.
Why is this important? Because a Democratic presidential candidate can be expected to gain as much as 80-85% of the Jewish vote. What if Obama is the nominee and gains only 50-60% of the Jewish vote? That’s a very substantial fall off. In a close election, this could make all the difference between loss and victory.
Obama can be said to be a double victim of a Jewish smear campaign since one of his staffers believes that the Muslim smear e mail campaign was aided and abetted using the e mail list of a “prominent D.C. based Jewish non-profit” (read, AIPAC). By smearing Malley, Jewish militants are by extension smearing Obama as well.
I’m pleased to report that Malley’s colleagues from the Clinton Administration, who support both Obama and Clinton, have organized to rebut the perfidy in no uncertain terms:
Over the past several weeks, a series of vicious, personal attacks have been launched against one of our colleagues, Robert Malley, who served as President Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs. They claim that he harbours an anti-Israeli agenda and has sought to undermine Israel’s security. These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong. They are an effort to undermine the credibility of a talented public servant who has worked tirelessly over the years to promote Arab-Israeli peace and US national interests. They must stop.
We have real differences among us about how best to conduct US policy toward the Middle East and what is the right way to build a lasting two-state solution that protects Israel’s security. But whatever differences do exist, there is no disagreement among us on one core issue that transcends partisan or other divides: that the US should not and will not do anything to undermine Israel’s safety or the special relationship between our two nations. We have worked with Rob closely over the years and have no doubt he shares this view and has acted consistent with it.
We face a critical period in the Middle East that demands sustained, determined and far-sighted engagement by the United States. It is not a time for scurrilous attacks against someone who deserves our respect.
Sincerely,
Samuel (Sandy) Berger
Former National Security AdvisorAmb. Martin Indyk
Former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt; Assistant Secretary of State for Near East AffairsAmb. Daniel C. Kurtzer
Former Ambassador to IsraelAaron David Miller
Former Senior Adviser for Arab-Israeli Negotiations, Department of StateAmb. Dennis Ross
Former Special Envoy of the President to the Middle East
A final note: American Thinker is the same publication which published a similar smear against UCLA’s Near Eastern Studies program, in which the alleged author of the article attempted to do to the faculty of that program precisely what has been done to Rob Malley. For legal reasons, I cannot at this time report further here about what I believe may be an intellectual fraud perpetrated by this article and its author. In time, I will you can be sure. Anyone who believes a single word emanating from American Thinker, Frontpagemagazine or Campus Watch and their ilk is either a propagandist themselves or entirely naïve, not to mention hoodwinked. They are about as reliable sources as the National Enquirer.
I’ll remember this the next time someone attacks Dennis Ross as a right wing neocon, or a Zionist traitor, or…heaven forbid….”Pro Israel”
I’ll also remember this the next time a blogger thinks his great contribution to the world of free speech and discourse was that he could call his flip-side “Kahanist Swine.”
To call Robert Malley “anti-Israel” is crude and simplistic. But we have now gotten to the point where COUNTERSPEECH is considered censorship or a “smear.” The fact is that Robert Malley is someone who is outspoken on the conflict and also involved tangentially in Obama’s campaign. So naturally people are going to criticize his views. That’s what politics is supposed to be.
And Richard, have you proven that AIPAC’s “list” was used for the Obama attack e-mails, or are you once again on one of your tirades filled with unsubstantiated assertions?
The fact that Dennis Ross stood up for Rob Malley has nothing to do with whether his views of the I-P conflict are correct. He did the right thing standing up for Malley. He’s still an enlightened AIPAC shill–though much smoother & more articulate than someone like Shmuel Rosner.
Only a demagogic propagandist like you would call me the flip side of Rachel Neuwirth. You may recall that the judge sided with me, not her. I trust him as a better arbiter than you.
How nice to hear you dignify the dreck in American Thinker as “counterspeech.” This is a coordinated campaign of vilification that will only intensify. Let’s not difnify it by calling it anything other than a dirty lowdown smear.
They attacked his father for Pete’s sake. Is that what politics is “supposed to be?” Clearly in yr warped world view it’s what politics is supposed to be.
Where did you think I got the quotation from? That I made it up? Now do some work for a change & Google the quotation & you’ll find the source. And while you’re at it read what I write. I didn’t claim AIPAC was the source. That’s my interpretation of what the source said. And a pretty good inference I’d wager.
You’re a supporter of that nutcase antisemite Norman Finklestein? I’m not surprised.
Oh, yes…just noticed you’re hawking his books on your site. You must be immensely proud.
Which only betrays your close-mindedness, intolerance, spitefulness & all around lack of menschlichkeit. You must think “hate your fellow-Jews” was one of the 613 commandments.
You sure win the snark award today. I think all the books in my store are worth reading as do the hundreds of thousands of other readers including many Jews who’ve purchased them. What would be in your store? Baruch Goldstein’s memoir? When Dersh writes that first opera of his why don’t you hawk tickets for it via your own online store? Maybe you could sell Daniel Pipes’ latest diatribe & David Horowitz’s latest attack on academia.
Me thinks you doth protest too much. Steve really hit a nerve didn’t he. You carry adds for Norm Finkelsteins books. However way you cut it that’s an endorsement. Are you a Norm Finkelstein fan, if your not the adds shouldn’t be on your site. If you are the next question is why? Serious question
Very mature response, Richard. I criticize a man who supports Hizbullah, who would like to see them defeat Israel and you throw Baruch Goldstein at me? You should be ashamed of yourself but I know you’re incapable of it.
Here are some of the words you’ve used recently with other people who disagree with you:
demagogic propagandist
yr warped world view
the world’s greatest class-A asshole
That’s dumber than dumb.
Sounds a lot to me like “close-mindedness, intolerance, spitefulness & all around lack of menschlichkeit”.
Richard,
I am still puzzled why you use the term “pro-Israel” as an epithet, meaning something like “fascist”, when you define yourself as a “Zionist”.
@ Bill Pearlman:
No, I enjoy pointing out the inanities posted by people like you & him.
I do so enjoy people like Bill Pearlman telling me what I should & shouldn’t do on my blog. It’s terribly persuasive Bill & I always take yr advice so seriously. I would advertise your book, Bill, if you could ever get one published that I found interesting. Chances of that happening are next to none. But it’s true. And if I did advertise yr book you can be damn sure it doesn’t mean I’m a fan of yrs. Same holds true of Finkelstein. I find what he writes to be 1,000% more compelling than anything you or Steve can come up with. Hence, I promote it in my store.
And if any of my readers want to support this blog I’d urge them to check the store out & thank Steve & Bill for helping me promote it. Because you can be damn sure that anything these two find objectionable almost all the rest of my readers would quite enjoy reading.
@ Steve:
You called him a ‘nutcase’ & ‘anti-Semite’ which is a little diff. than merely “criticizing” him. And you don’t quite have the full picture concerning his views. Finkelstein believed, as I do, that Israel waged an unjustified war of aggression against the Lebanese people that was all out of proportion to the actual event which triggered the war. He believed that Hezbollah was fully justified in defending Lebanon against Israeli attack.
I don’t support Hezbollah’s kidnapping Israeli soldiers. But Israel’s invasion and mauling of an entire nation was wholly unjustified. Finkelstein believed Israel deserved to lose the war. I don’t believe that but I certainly don’t believe they deserved to win it either. There would’ve been far more effective means of avenging the kidnapping than the choices made.
As for the epithets I used which you object to: they were used in debate with commenters here who I find intellectually dishonest, politically repugnant. Since you haven’t read my blog very long you will not know their history here, what they written, & how they have slandered me and my views. All you have to do is search through this blog for their names & you will find their other comments.
I don’t pull punches here. If someone wants to debate civilly & w/o ad hominem attacks on me then they will be responded to civilly in return. But those who use insults, snark & the like, thereby falling below those standards will be responded to in kind. If you don’t like that then there are a few million other blogs out there you may turn to which may interest you more.
@ Bar Kochba
The term I actually used was “pro-Israel extremist” which is entirely diff. than “pro-Israel.” You apparently didn’t bother to read my response to you the last time you raised this red herring argument. I am pro-Israel. The American Thinker “journalist” is a “pro-Israel extremist.” I think the diff. should be self-evident.
What do you find compelling about Norm Finkelstein. What do you like about him?
Richard,
I still don’t understand “pro-Israel extremist”. If you define yourself as “pro-Israel”, what you said makes no sense. That is like saying “he is like me, but too much”. I would understand “chauvinist”, “fascist”, “racist”, “jingoist”, or whatever.
Bar Kochba: I’m open to suggestions. But the terms you used ignore the fact that the motivation of Ed Lasky & Rachel Neuwirth is to advocate on Israel’s behalf. They aren’t just chauvinists, fascists, etc. So what short phrase would you call someone who is an extremist advocate for Israel?
Bill: I don’t always agree with Finkelstein and as Jerry Haber wrote to me recently he’d prob. not be the most convivial companion. But what I find compelling about him is that he is an uncompromising, laser-focussed political moralist. His arguments are fierce, unyielding & rigorous. He gives no quarter nor asks for any. Some of our Biblical prophets were fierce in the same way. Perhaps not the nicest person around, but I cut a lot of slack for a child of survivors. I’m sure the demons can be intense.
What do you expect the US rightwingnuts to do? When guys like David Horowitz, M. Thomas Eisenstadt and Daniel Pipes couldn’t get Giuliani elected, they’ve since gone looking for more blood in the water. Anything to get their names and think tanks in the media for the general election cycle, they’ll do: completely self serving, irrespective of what they “say” about Israel.