I think it’s useful to do a little debriefing in the aftermath of the Chas. Freeman affair in terms of who got it right and who didn’t. So first of all kudos to Phil Weiss, Spencer Ackerman, Glenn Greenwald, Greg Sargent, M.J. Rosenberg, Ben Smith, Chris Nelson, Jim Lobe, Laura Rosen, Steven Walt, and others who reported the hell out of this story. Jewish Voice for Peace was also one of the few groups which spoke out for Freeman. We were right, but for reasons beyond our control we didn’t prevail.
But my real concern is examining the mistakes made by our side. First, I really want to take to task the Jewish peace groups like Brit Tzedek, Americans for Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, and especially J Street for turning tail and running from this fight as fast as their little feet would carry them. One of my readers, Walter Ballin, has done me the favor of posting J Street’s timorous response to his question on the matter and it’s unfortunately very instructive:
The appointment and subsequent withdrawal of Chas. Freeman from a senior national intelligence post this week is just the latest example of Israel policy as political football.
J Street stayed out of this fight. First, we – probably like many of those who did comment – did not know enough about Freeman or his positions to really take a stand. Further, on principle, we objected to making our government’s intelligence apparatus a political battlefield. Remember, it was politicized intelligence that helped mislead the U.S. into Iraq.
I’m sorry but it’s J Street’s job to “know enough” about candidates for government jobs that significantly impact U.S. relations with Israel. This is a cop out of the first order and frankly I don’t believe it. Getting up to speed on Chas. Freeman’s views wasn’t that hard a task.
Second, it was the lobby that “politicized” this appointment not Obama or Freeman. If you refuse to fight on the terms the other guy establishes then you’ll never end up in the fight. They chose the battleground. It doesn’t give us the luxury of refusing to engage. On the contrary, this was a major battle with the lobby, and those groups whose job it is to act as a counter to the most pernicious behavior of the lobby folded up their tent and went home.
Now, however, in the aftermath of the battle and Freeman’s withdrawal, many are interpreting the incident as a victory for those who would make their view of what it means to be pro-Israel a standard for service in the U.S. government.
To that I personally – and we at J Street – object.
You can object all you want. But again, the opponents set the terms. They won. They get to define what their victory means. You can disagree all you want. But since you absconded, it looks a little lame to come in after the fact and say their victory doesn’t mean what they say it means. Besides, even those on our side of this understand that this victory will have toxic effects in the future. The only question is whether the toxicity is small or large. But it is and will be toxic.
The principle at stake here is critical: It cannot be a litmus test for service in the American government that you have never criticized Israel or its policies publicly.
Once again, that’s precisely the argument the other side made and it carried the day. You weren’t there. They were. Sorry, but this is more lameness.
This really isn’t about Chas. Freeman or the statements he’s made. Again, we took no position on his nomination.
Why are you running away from Freeman as if he had leprosy? At most, he was somewhat overbearing in the manner in which he expressed himself about Israel. But none of his views are at great variance with those of J Street’s leaders. Again, I think it’s most unfortunate that J Street spent more time objecting to the messenger than understanding that the message was what was really important.
…Some are strutting proudly today at the personal destruction of someone who – in their view – is a real foe of Israel. In their view, intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on Israel is the ultimate service to protect and defend the state of Israel.
They’re wrong. Israel’s no better off with only meek friends in positions of power in the United States. Frankly, all friends, Israel included, need to hear the hard truth sometimes.
And sure would’ve been nice if you’d said that when it could’ve helped Freeman and our side.
Others are clamoring that the failed appointment is the death knell of hope that President Obama may engage in meaningful diplomacy and conflict resolution in the Middle East.
They’re wrong, too. President Obama has already shown his determination to bring about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s appointed George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace and lived up to his promise to engage from Day One in resolving the conflict.
Easy to say. But what happens when and if Obama finally bites the bullet and tells Israel to freeze the settlements and the lobby goes into real overdrive (not the ham-handed campaign it waged against Freeman). Everyone will have in the back or front of their mind the “job” the lobby did on Freeman. You couldn’t fault Obama for pulling punches after the shellacking they gave Freeman. And make no mistake, they WILL pull punches. J Street’s role is to encourage the administration NOT to pull its punches. So where were you when we needed you?
What is important to me is that the Obama team not draw the lesson from this episode that they simply need to be more careful vetting of appointees to make sure they’ve never criticized Israel.
And you think that WON’T come into play in future appointments given the experience on this one?
…I also feel strongly that if I see Israel or the United States following a misguided path, it’s not simply my right, but my obligation to speak out. Does that mean that I will never again be able to be in public service?
Given the treatment meted out to Freeman, it might.
Neither Israel nor the United States is served when free discussion and debate about foreign policy is stifled because people fear for the impact on their career of speaking openly.
Presidents and our country are best served by public officials willing to look critically at all sides of an issue that impacts the United States. In particular, those charged with gathering and sorting through intelligence to guide our foreign policy must be able to look at all sides of an issue.
Once again, you’ve got the issues but only expressed the right view after the horse left the barn.
I hope that the President and his team will ensure that subsequent choices for this and other sensitive intelligence and foreign policy positions have impeccable credentials and real independence. I further hope they choose people with the guts to speak truth to power and to force uncomfortable facts into foreign policy debates too often guided by political agendas.
Finally, I would say to friends of Israel that a litmus test for public service that rules out all those who have ever publicly questioned a policy or action of the government of Israel is of no service to the country you love. Without a hard look at the facts and the clock, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic homeland, is at grave risk.
I want to add that J Street is not the sole group at fault. The others I listed above were also derelict in their duty.
In the Brit Tzedek conference call with Dan Kurtzer, a caller asked where the Jewish peace lobby was on the Freeman issue. Steve Masters, the group’s chair, conveniently chose not to respond. But silence doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. We don’t support these groups so they can sit on their hands when we need them to be most vigorous and pro-active. So some serious boos to APN, Brit Tzedek and J Street. As far as Israel Policy Forum, to their credit they allowed M.J. Rosenberg to write extensively in support of Freeman. They probably could’ve muzzled him (though knowing M.J. it might not’ve worked) but didn’t. So kudos to him for his courage.
Finally, the Obama administration also got this one wrong. They didn’t battle for Freeman as they should have. During the campaign, whenever the other side launched a salvo Obama’s people were there to return fire. Here, whenever the pro-Israel right launched a salvo, no one responded. It may’ve been a mid-level appointment and I realize that administrations may not be used to fighting for candidates that low on the totem pole. But once the enemy engaged, it was Obama’s job to reply. He didn’t and the Republican right and Israel lobby carried the day.
The reason why fighting for Freeman was critical wasn’t so much Freeman or the NIC director’s position. It was the symbolism and its impact on future decisions and relationships. I personally can’t believe that Obama and the Jewish peace groups allowed Steve Rosen to have such a cheap victory. This is one of the worst practitioners of pro-Israel street fighting. Someone under indictment for passing U.S. secrets to Israel. This guy starts a fight and you say: “Sorry, not my fight?” I’m sorry, but that’s not the way I see it.
So Steve Masters, Jeremy Ben Ami, Ori Nir, etc. you made a mistake on this one.
Why do you think that those Jewish peace organizations wimped on this?
Whereas I think they were prudent, not gambling on what they did not know.
When there is a crack in a rock, water will get into it.
You don’t blame the water.
The aspect of this that is beyond the jurisdiction of any lobby rightly, is that it was a staff decision. If anyone would get the heat for lapses in the flow of national security information it would be Blair, as a Senate approved officer.
Lieberman, Schumer, Pelosi were then in fact criticizing Blair, more than Freeman in fact.
Freeman’s or Blair’s choice to rescind the nomination was the only one that could be made in the circumstances. That choice spoke well for Freeman. The choice to lash out in the letter did not speak well for him, and suggested to those in Congress and in the public that were on the fence (maybe he’s inappropriate for the position and really would bias the data flow). It confirmed their doubts, rather than dashed their doubts.
His still angry response in the Nation interview, was also hopeful and disappointing to me. The continued public expression of anger is disappointing, understandable but disappointing. That he clarified that he was NOT speaking of those even in AIPAC that favor an open discussion of prospective paths to peace and justice (for all concerned). The term “Israel Lobby” is too wide a net to be accurate.
Richard,
With all the betrayals that you’ve voiced relative to J Street for example, do you now actively oppose them?
No, in fact none of them ever mentioned Blair’s name. The ltr from the 7 Republican senate intelligence committee members specifically said they would give the NIC & its work extra scrutiny, not that they would do this to Blair himself or work produced by his immediate staff. So I’m afraid you’re wrong again, Witty.
Nonsense, as usual.
Did I say that? Seems to me I said what I wanted to say. But go ahead & feel free to put words in my mouth.
Richard S.
I guess you didn’t read my post (just reacted).
If Blair is the responsible party for his choices, then Lieberman, Pelosi, Schumer micro-managing his staffing choices is a FUNCTIONAL criticism of Blair.
The next choice will also be contreversial, and if there is similar objection with some merit at all, (implication of bias), then Blair will end up as the target.
In the condition that Congress distrusted the data that they received as evidence in their responsibilities to hold the administration accountable, then his decision to not push for that position anyway, was a GOOD one.
You are so invested in calling people wrong and harshly, that you fail to see truth where it is, even if incomplete.
Actually, Witty, you had a stronger case when you emphasized Freeman had a dubious moral stance on Chinese repression. While not as bad as is portrayed by his opponents, he’s not just describing the Chinese government’s position below, but endorsing it to some degree–
Weekly Standard link
That said, it’s clear that the players in Washington opposed Freeman not because they’re a bunch of Amnesty International members, but because he forthrightly describes the insanity of Israel’s policies.
As for “Israel lobby”, it’s shorthand for people (some Jewish and some Christian) who actively support Israel no matter what crime it commits, blame the Palestinian side exclusively for the conflict and who denounce people who don’t, sometimes accusing them of anti-semitism. There are clearly people like this and they seem to have a disproportionate effect on how American politicians talk about the conflict. That doesn’t mean that everyone who is concerned about Israel is a Lobby member. But the more sensible people have had much less influence.
I never mentioned China.
why, indeed? with all the suffering and misery in the lives of so many …why does a generally compassionate and humane population turn their backs and ignore the ongoing oppression? I’ve been corresponding with a young journalist who was beaten to unconsciousness about one year ago…by the iof at border thru which he was attempting to return (from jordan) into Israel to get back to gaza…he was the youngest recipient to get the Pilger award in London…and yet, today he is in pain in a hospital in europe for treatment on his back, and more. He is seeking refuge..but neither that country nor sweden is offering shelter…they do not want to ‘affront Israel’…imagine that? do you know an orgn that would be willing to sponsor this 24 yr old writer? how disgusting it is to me that I should be so safe whilst another is in pain with nightmares alone in europe about to be shunted back to hell. He says he’d apply to hell itself if they only had an embassy there..ideas?
Thanks, Richard. But I could not take the forceful stand I did on Freeman if Israel Policy Forum had not backed me up. It pays my salary and I am always identified — as in today’s New York Times — as IPF.
So I think my organization deserves some credit.
Thanks,
Keep up the good work.
MJ
I stand corrected & give credit where it’s due. I only wish IPF & the others had made public statements as organizations.
“Thanks, Richard. But I could not take the forceful stand I did on Freeman if Israel Policy Forum had not backed me up. It pays my salary and I am always identified — as in today’s New York Times — as IPF.
So I think my organization deserves some credit.”
MJ Rosenberg, I’m glad that you were able to say what you said here http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/freeman-opponents-pyrrhic-victory I hope that what you said here “And, two, Obama is going to be more determined than ever to take a strong stand on settlements, Gaza relief, and negotiations. They shot their wad on Freeman. They will not think that was so smart a few months from now” turns out to be true.
I hope I’m right. Right now my confidence that I am is 60-40.
You also consumed some political capital in this fight. The political capital that you personally, and Richard S might have gained, is only among those with an angry cross to bear.
That ends up a liability for a peace activist, rather than an asset, an eddy in an otherwise consistent moving stream.
What is your most important goal, your most important argument? How is that pursued? How is that argument supported in fact?
I object to Richard S’s litmus-testing is the point. Those that fight the specific distraction fight that he wants are “acceptable” and the rest end up condemned angrily and loudly.
J Street, other liberal organizations don’t need his condemnation. They get 1000 such voices from the likes of Rosen.
Maybe you two guys recover from mutual condemnation quickly and easily. You’re both veterans of such, probably have had such a dance with your colleagues a dozen times.
I find it distracting.
Again, I requested perhaps thirty times on different blogs, some reference to actual support of Freeman, and NEVER got a single reference. That is NOT a statement of confidence in the man, or his process, but merely an attempt to make the loud side-show the main one.
My sense of the Israel Lobby assertion is that it is a secondary means (an obstacle) to encouraging engagement in a real peace process. The internal war has been made primary.
I never knew crosses could be “angry.” At any rate I don’t buy what you’re peddling about my being especially angry or anger being a liability for a peace activist.
I have no idea what you’re referring to by acusing me of using a “litmus test.”
My criticism of J Street is NOTHING like that of Rosen. In fact, I’ve specifically & often condemned here smears against J Street. My criticisms of J Street related to specific positions they take or do not take, not to their overall existence. And I don’t only attack J Street. I took on Brit Tzedek as well in this post.
OK, now you’re not only annoying me you’re lying. I SPECIFICALLY told you of one letter written by retired CIA officers and one written by retired State Dept personnel which voiced support of Freeman for his foreign policy & intelligence expertise. You know I pointed this out to you. You know it exists. Richard, you’re right at the tipping pt. w. me. This is exactly what I & other readers here find most annoying about yr participation.
RE: “…I also feel strongly that if I see Israel or the United States following a misguided path, it’s not simply my right, but my obligation to speak out. Does that mean that I will never again be able to be in public service?”
ME: “You Bet Your Life” (at least not in any capacity in any way impacting upon Israel) SEE: Fulbright, Percy, Findley, Finkelstein, McKinney, Hilliard………
In my country, Finland, we had during the cold war an era a political “culture” called Finlandization (German: Finnlandisierung). It did mean that in all major political decisions, also in internal politics, the Soviet Union’s wishes had to be “obeyed”. For Finland that policy made sense after a lost war and because Finland’s rather “bad” geopolitical location in turbulent times. Near to St. Petersburg and Murmask. During Finlandization major politicians used the “Soviet” weapon against each other (= by saying that the opponent’s view was not “approved” in Kreml, true or not) and the media had a policy of self-censorship. Much like in US politics and media in recent years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
Maybe the political historians should begin to use the term Israelization to describe that rather strange situation in the superpower’s decision making system. For Finland the Finlandization was in national interests to prevent the total loss of sovereignty. USA has not that excuse, the surrender is “voluntary” and against the national interests. I often wonder the claims that it is in US national interests to support Israel in the style it now does. Surely that doesn’t make any sense in the perspective of national interests with economical opportunities and markets or even with militarily “prospects”. Also the democracy supporting excuse is rather weak with Israel. Surely supporting a one religion/race democracy and de facto an apartheid system is not in US or any other democracy’s interests.
“Surely that doesn’t make any sense”.
It baffled me for a long time too, but there is an explaination.
Try looking at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
“They shot their wad on Freeman. They will not think that was so smart a few months from now” {quite a disgusting image by the way.}
To the contrary, their tactics worked. Smear libel and innuendo worked. So they are encouraged not discouraged. Absolutely no reason for them to not employ the same tactics again.
Those of you who are surprised and/or disappointed at J Street ought not to be. From the outset they were a timorous organization, as many pointed out then.
People ascribed principles to J street, cuz it was an alternative to the front aipac. Principles that it did not and does not have.
It points to the larger question: how accurately can vision be thru rose-colored glasses?
“Those of you who are surprised and/or disappointed at J Street ought not to be. From the outset they were a timorous organization, as many pointed out then.
“People ascribed principles to J street, cuz it was an alternative to the front aipac. Principles that it did not and does not have.”
But what about Brit Tzedek V’Shalom?I always thought that they did good work in the past, but I was very disappointed that they didn’t take a stand on Freeman.
here is the mentality in all its glory from a harvard educated jewish guy who, not surprisingly, was once editor of the new republic. does he believe this crap. i doubt it
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=69713549312&h=4o9w_&u=31q7W&ref=mf
So, Mr. Freeman may have fallen foul of certain Israeli factions who have concluded his tenure as director of the National Intelligence Council might not be in their best interests. Let’s hope the next candidate for the job will avoid an equal measure of disapproval from certain Arab quarters. It all rather illustrates the truth of that well-known verse – “Bit it’s all right now, learned my lesson well — you see, you can’t please everyone — so you got to please yourself.”
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict could never be mistaken for your common or garden Garden Party. However, the event, now 60 years on, has demonstrated considerable staying power. But, even the best catered function becomes a trifle stale with the passage of years and this one is certainly no exception. The trouble is no one knows how to call time on the festivities without deeply offending the hosts.
Could seriously increasing the price of admission be the best way out for all concerned? This would have the effect of limiting the numbers attending to only a few dedicated partygoers. And then, even they must eventually take the hint and move on to the next venue.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com – saving the planet by costing the Earth.
Richard – good piece – thanks for handing J Street their “hat”, after the fighters left the ring. Their timidity in the face of intimidation of a well qualified candidate in the administration is typical of an organization that’s trying to thread the needle. always trying to have it both ways. Those who took comfort from J Street’s stand on the gaza carnage, were content to ignore just what a slim comfort it was, as J street’s official statement(s) on the issue were laced with more equivocation than a swiss cheese is full of holes.
In fact, issuing this statement now that the battle is all but over (though not the larger war) is almost an admission of defeat. Or so it would be taken by lobby-and-friends. This kind of timidity in the face of powerful special interests is unfortunately emblematic of the problem faced by the progressive movement as a whole, and not just in this area. I see the same cut and run when it comes to dealing with the economy and wall street’s fat cats. Just today, AIG bonuses are in the news. Does anyone think Obama administration will really put any pressure on them for running off with tax payer money? or that the progressives will really pressure Obama on this? after all – there are always bigger fish to fry, greater purposes. Forget the skirmishes – we are ready for the war, they say. Yes, I’m thinking of netroots like DailyKos and OpenLeft, who are forever sharpening their knives for a showdown that never seems to happen.
Significantly, MJ Rosenberg’s stand – and IPF’s by association – are exactly what’s required – and we all know it. As do the lobby-and-friends Unequivocal principled stands by more organizations is the only thing that stands between the new administration and its creeping co-option by the powerful special interests. Kudos to MJ and Richard for calling it like it is.
So where are the real warriors assembling now?
I’ll have ’em over to my house for coffee and good chat!
Now for some good news.
John Bolton thinks Obama getting ready to “sell out” Israel.
Hope he is right on this one.
TEAM OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL TURN
By John Bolton
NY Post | March 13, 2009
THE Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the “Arab-Is raeli dispute,” seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. This is bad news for Israel – and for America.
In its purest form, this theory holds that, once Israel and its neighbors come to terms, all other regional conflicts can be duly resolved: Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, fanatical anti-Western terrorism, Islam’s Sunni-Shiite schism, Arab-Persian ethnic tensions.
Some advocates believe substantively that the overwhelming bulk of other Middle Eastern grievances, wholly or partly, stem from Israel’s founding and continued existence. Others see it in process terms – how to “sequence” dispute resolutions, so that Arab-Israeli progress facilitates progress elsewhere.
Pursuing this talisman has long characterized many European leaders and their soulmates on the American left. The Mideast “peace process” is thus the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone – its mere existence being its basic justification.
And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by two key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as special envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary’s Clinton’s recent insistence on a “two-state solution” sooner rather than later.
Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy – rather than keeping the portfolio under Secretary Clinton’s personal control – separates Israel from the broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell’s role underlines both the issue’s priority in the president’s eyes and the implicit idea it
can be solved in the foreseeable future.
Obama and Mitchell have every incentive to strike a Middle East deal – both to vindicate themselves and, in their minds, to create a basis for further “progress.” But there are few visible incentives for any particular substantive outcome – which is very troubling for Israel, since
Mitchell’s mission essentially replicates in high-profile form exactly the approach the
State Department has followed for decades.
When appointed, Mitchell said confidently: “Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings.” This is true, however, only if the conflict’s substantive resolution is less important than the process point of “ending” it one way or another.
Surrender, for example, is a guaranteed way to end conflict.
Here, Clinton’s strident insistence on a “two-state solution” during her recent Mideast trip becomes important. She essentially argued predestination: the “inevitability” of moving toward two states is “inescapable,” and “there is no time to waste.” The political consequence is
clear: Since the outcome is inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse for not making “progress.” Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure – something President Obama can’t tolerate, for the sake of his policies and his political reputation.
In this very European view, failure on the Arab-Israeli front presages failure elsewhere. Accordingly, the Obama adminstration has created a negotiating dynamic that puts increasing pressure on Israel, Palestinians, Syria and others.
Almost invariably, Israel is the loser – because Israel is the party most dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When
pressure must be applied to make compromises, it’s always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.
How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some
artful camouflage). The pattern is so common that its reappearance in the Mitchell-led negotiations is what is really “inevitable” and “inescapable.”
Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel’s intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral economic ties, among many others, are important national-security assets
that should not lightly be put at risk.
The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel’s disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a
relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic “outreach.”
No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama’s “Arab-Israeli issues first” approach to the region.
This approach is exactly backward. All the other regional problems would still exist even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his fondest wish and Israel disappeared from the map: Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, its role as the world’s central banker for terrorism, the Sunni-Shiite conflict within Islam, Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda and other regional ethnic, national and political animosities would continue as threats and risks for decades to come.
Instead, the US focus should be on Iran and the manifold threats it poses to Israel, to Arab states friendly to Washington and to the United States itself – but that is not to be.
President Obama argues that he will deal comprehensively with the entire region. Rhetoric is certainly his specialty, but in the Middle East rhetoric only lasts so long. Performance is the real measure – and the administration’s performance to date points in only one direction: pressuring Israel while wooing Iran.
Others in the world – friend and foe alike – will draw their own conclusions.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow.
That seems an uncharacteristically nasty & snarky comment. I realize you were playing off the ludicrous comment fr. Bolton that Obama is about the sell out Israel. But the entire meme makes me uncomfortable.
John Bolton sounds like a dinosaur. The meteor has landed John! And here the mindset of the man is revealed “How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even military force has so far failed?” Force is supposed to be the last resort, not the first. No wonder he so disliked the UN, an organisation whose very raison d’être is the avoidance of conflict. I’m so so glad the last eight nightmare years are over.
“Now for some good news.
“John Bolton thinks Obama getting ready to “sell out” Israel.
“Hope he is right on this one.”
I hope so too! It’s the policy that our government has had up until now that’s really been selling out Israel in addition to the Palestinians, other people in the Middle East, and those of us in this country, Jewish and non-Jewish. As the expression goes, friends don’t let friends drive drunk!
Here’s a link to a good column on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to the Middle East, by James Zogby, President of the Aram-American Institute http://www.truthout.org/031509D From the column: “”Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent Middle East trip was striking, by any measure. Despite grumbling by some in the Arab media for what they derided as her “excessive caution,” or claiming that she merely echoed the policies of the previous administration – some going so far as to mock her as “Condi Clinton” – her overall performance was significant and substantial. She was constructive on many fronts: chiding Israel for its failure to open the borders of Gaza sufficiently to facilitate the transport of relief assistance and supplies; publicly criticizing Israeli settlements as ‘unhelpful, and not in keeping with obligations entered into under the Roadmap’; and expressing concern with the Jerusalem municipality’s plans to demolish Palestinian homes, noting that ‘the ramifications’ of this action go ‘far beyond the individuals and families affected.” So hopefully Obama will still do what we want.
Twenty years ago I had the fuzzy outlines of my current understanding of Israel-Palestine, which hasn’t fundamentally changed because the facts on the ground certainly haven’t.
But I would never dare say anything because of the power and the cruelty of certain parties.
Ten years ago I grew confident enough in my own subtlety, compelled enough by the ordinariness and the reliable continuity of the horrors, and
After Israel used us in the Yinon plan in Iraq, after Gaza (Jesus, what were you people thinking? You could’ve had all of Israel forever if not for the fact that clumsiness — not intellect, certainly not morality, sure as hell not sensitivity — is your identifying characteristic. There is nothing we post-Zeds could’ve done that is as effective or loud as what you did in Gaza), after Freeman, what reason is there for us to cower? How much longer will we allow ourselves to be killed and used while “progressive” Jews, like the conditionally moral but ultimately always pro-establishment Jews of South Africa, wring their hands and parse out complicated excuses?
You — you — you who reads this, no stereotype but flesh and blood and the money of other people piled without purpose — shot down Charles Freeman for the unforgivable crime of daring to be an innocent man in an age of social criminality, and in turn you will have no answers to seek when the people who have not been left anything else come after you. Or, since nothing’s stopping you, you can grow a brain and be slightly less clumsy and total about your controls.
Gaza, Freeman, Iraq —
Another decade of successes like these and we will be finished with Israel.
I followed M.J.Rosenberg’s link to the Washington Post and read Lane’s diatribe that culminated in this statement:
“Accepting his party’s nomination for president last summer, President Obama declared that “one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism.”
Now would be a good time to say it again. ”
Amazingly this was not said in defence of Freeman. On the contrary. Lane wanted the President to guarantee the ‘character’ and ‘patriotism’ of people that Freeman, in his farewell statement, identified as the source of the mud thrown at him.
Bizarro world …
Were we not promised a thorough housecleaning at Foggy Bottom when we elected President Clinton? Too bad the now-Sec of State had not been given portfolio to scour the place rather than putting her in charge of an atrocious attempt to further tangle the healthcare delivery system. Too bad she won’t flush the gone-native Staters into the Anacostia.
As to Mr Freeman, anyone who is sympathetic or sees his attempted appointment as a plus for the new administration ought to have his head examined. Cannot any of you who are defending him see that diplomacy is part symbolism? Oh, right, give them DVDs that don’t work in Britain and then act surprised that you’ve embarrassed the country and proven that you are naive and surrounded by nincompoops.
Given Mr Freeman’s apparent defence of the behaviour of the Chinese leadership leading up to the Tiananmen protests, and what I would then view as his approval of the Chinese repression of Tibet, and his Carteresque acceptance of large sums of money from our “friends” the Saudis (who apparently, unless you are a conspiracy theory addict), the financial sponsors of the attacks in the United States, his anti-Zionist views, whether heartfelt or based upon money, ought to be seen as the least of his problems as an Obama now-non-appointee.
The threat by his son to punch everyone who did not want Daddy appointed was high theatre.
And I agree with Arie: bizarro world.
But likely not for the reasons he might see things as bizarro.
The sad fact is that as usual the incompetent newspaper and broadcast nits and their bedmates of the State Department are not really interested in the truth. All they want is to satisfy their clients, their advertisers, and their egos.
Is it a mystery that in 1948, after Europe was made Jewless and the Grand Mufti, Hitler’s friend, was discredited, that Jordan (an artificial state), Lebanon (a French state), Egypt, and others did not want anyone living in their countries who had formerly lived in Israel? At the same time, they used the occasion to kick out as many of the few Jews who remained in their countries.
So you’re accepting the swill peddled to you by Steve Rosen and the neocon blog crowd though this was proven to be a total distortion of what Freeman’s views are on the subject?
So your claim is that the Saudi royal family financed 9/11? Interesting. Any proof?
Since when does criticism of Israeli policies & the Occupation make one anti-Zionist. Seems to me yr definition of “anti-Zionism” is a bit skewed.
Gee, you mean you object to the fact that Arab nations didn’t want to accept 700,000 expelled Israeli citizens and felt it should be the responsibility of their native nation which expelled them? The nerve of those ungrateful Arabs! DOn’t they understand their role is to solve Israel’s nasty little problems?
Actually I think the ‘sell out’ comment for Israel is ridiculous for other reasons. There is NO money in NOT supporting Israel.
Richard, I really think the Freeman lynching is backfiring. The coverage has been all bad except in the neocon Washington Post.
I called it a Pyrrhic victory last week but I wasn’t sure I believed it.
Now I am.
Thanks for keeping on this thing. It is important and it might have been a watershed moment.
“Richard, I really think the Freeman lynching is backfiring. The coverage has been all bad except in the neocon Washington Post.
I called it a Pyrrhic victory last week but I wasn’t sure I believed it.
Now I am.
Thanks for keeping on this thing. It is important and it might have been a watershed moment.”
Check this out! Is the Israel Lobby Running Scared?
Or Killing a Chicken to Scare the Monkeys
by Robert Dreyfuss http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/16-0
M.J.: From your mouth to God’s ears!
“That seems an uncharacteristically nasty & snarky comment. I realize you were playing off the ludicrous comment fr. Bolton that Obama is about the sell out Israel. But the entire meme makes me uncomfortable.”
Richard, please reconsider Crimson’s comment in the contest of Bolton’s conception of “selling out Israel” which he presented it in, rather than the tribalistic reactionary sense you have apparently taken it. We are all in this together here, and the two-state solution Bolton decries is the pragmatic resolution to this conflict which is best for all of us.
What i find strange is the propensity for peacemongers to read victory into defeat. I don’t necessarily admire Freeman that much, but this was a big defeat for peace. In order to move forward, we need to recognize that there’s something we aren’t doing right.
The ‘Israel Lobby”s has become imperial. They barely conceal their bias and their influence now. This COULD be their downfall, but so far, there’s no sign of it.
Yes, what they are selling SHOULD be hard to sell. So how is it that they sell it so well? What can we do better?
Freeman is right!I believe the only one selling out Israel is paranoid Israel.This is no way to make alies in the world.
It has been said that everything has two sides.
This American Government better let both sides being heard
People know better,not every one is convinsed by the controled media,and the faulse friends of Israel,that are on the path of selfdistruction