Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSince February 26, I've written several times (here, here, here, and here) about the battle over the nomination of Charles W. ("Chas") Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Committee. On Tuesday, he withdrew his name from consideration after what I called a "thunderous, coordinated assault" against him by the Israel lobby and its neoconservative allies.
On Friday, three days after he withdrew -- in the midst of a media storm, including front page stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post -- Freeman and I spoke in an exclusive interview for The Nation. Here is the unedited transcript:
Q. When were you first approached by Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence? A. It was in early to mid-December. My initial reaction was that I was reluctant to go back to the government at all. And then my reaction was about, as I've been quoted saying, giving up my freedom, my leisure, most of my income, undergoing a mental colonoscopy, and resuming a daily commute to a job with long hours and a ration of political abuse.
Q. So when did you accept the position? A. Probably late January. It took me five, six weeks to overcome common sense and agree to do it.
Q. And what happened between January and the leak of your appointment? A. Two things happened. One, I began to notify the various organizations I nominally head or on whose boards I sit that I would be leaving to go into the government, though I didn't say where, and when I was approached to join new activities I replied that I would be grateful but that I couldn't consider it because I was going into government. And, two, I took the various business activities I was engaged in and looked at them to see how I could bring projects that were ongoing to a stage where I could responsibly walk away.
Q. Did you start to work with Blair in terms of defining your job? A. I had a series of conversations with him in which we discussed the need for the Obama administration to have a strong National Security Council policy process that could re-examine things on the strategic level, which is clearly long overdue. To look at the preconceptions of policy and to take a zero-sum look at quite a range of issues, including some connected with the Middle East, and a few, not very many, connected with China, because I don't see too much broken there: the alliance relationships, the NATO-Russia relationship, the emergence of narco-states within Mexico spilling over our border, the increasingly defiant stance of countries in Latin America to our influence, issues of order and state collapse in Africa, the issue of Indo-Pakistani relationship, "Pashtunistan" on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, how to understand the possibility of an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, and what remains as the basis for a mutually agreed upon Arab-Israeli settlement. And a lot of economic issues, too.
Q. Then the appointment was reported by Laura Rozen at Foreign Policy? A. Oh, I think I can probably reconstruct how Laura Rozen got the information. I think it was an innocent thing. I think the person who leaked it thought it was a 'good news' story. And didn't have any idea of the level of opposition that would quite quickly congeal.
Q. Were you planning an announcement? A. There would have been an announcement when I got on the job, which is the normal way these things are done. And I had figured on taking all or most of March to complete the process of disengagement.
Q. So after the Foreign Policy report … A. Yes, and within a day or two the Steve Rosen and Daniel Pipes crowd began piling on. And there were various, well, you watched it all. [Note: Steve Rosen, a former AIPAC official, blogs for Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum.]
Q. You were confident that you could withstand this assault until just before you dropped out. A. Oh, I could have withstood it anyway. I don't mind criticism… The issue was, in the end, that while in my own mind I thought I could make rather significant improvements in the integrity of the analytical process, I couldn't enhance its credibility, because anything that it produced that was politically controversial would immediately be attributed to me as some sort of political deviant, and be discredited. These guys would pile on with their usual lies, and half-truths, and distortions, and everything else.
Basically what Denny Blair wanted was a broadly experienced iconoclast, which some people says fits me as a description. And somebody who wasn't afraid to tell it like he saw it, or to ask people writing things for him why he's so sure about X, Y, or Z. Do they know that because everybody knows it, or do they have some evidence? And one could argue that is fairly critical in a number of contexts.
The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for or about Israel. It's really, well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with. And I think they're doing Israel in.
I had a really amazing outpouring of support, privately, not just from individuals, from Jewish-Americans of other views who hope that this was going to open up room for a discussion.
Q. How did your discussions on Capitol Hill go? A. Well, they didn't go badly. But I'm one guy talking to one or two people, and they're quite a number of people and they're feeding all sorts of disinformation in, and they have established channels and they also have clout. So there wasn't much hope on my part that I could get many people to stand up and support me, because the down side of doing that is so obvious. Because if you go against this group, they either curtail your contributions or they arrange to contribute to an opponent. So it's not realistic to expect courage on the Hill. And I didn't.
Q. You say that you retain confidence in the president. You don't think that a quiet word from him to members of Congress might have stopped all this? A. Oh, I think it might well have, particularly at the beginning when it was still a purely partisan matter. Before Nancy Pelosi jumped on the bandwagon. When you had the seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence writing a letter that was particularly partisan, that's when, if the White House were going to weigh in, it might have done some good.
Q. So the White House might have jumped in quicker. Certainly the White House suffered a loss of credibility as a result, now. A. Yes. They probably could have avoided that appearance of embarrassment. Would I have preferred to have been backed? Of course. But it wouldn't have altered the basic problem, that anything that the NIC said under my chairmanship would have been subjected to a slanderous attack.
Q. The Israel lobby wasn't too happy with other Obama appointments, such as James Jones, George Mitchell, Samantha Power. Why do you think they went after you and let them slide by? A. Because I was seen as particularly vulnerable. I'm precisely not the things they accuse me of being. I'm not a lobbyist. I haven't had a profile on the Hill. I think they probably very early figured out that this appointment, while presumably known to Jim Jones – well, I know it was known to Jim Jones – that there wasn't a specific White House buy-in because there didn't need to be anybody in the White House to buy in, and it was a nice way of, as the Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.
Q. Do think that's working? Are the ‘monkeys' scared? Is the administration deterred? A. By ‘monkeys' in this analogy I mean people who might accept an appointment in the administration who are independent, who have an open as opposed to a closed mind on these matters. I don't think it's working. But, I mean, I'm the last person to be able to judge that.
Q. Have you heard from members of the Jewish community and Israelis? A. Yes, of course, quite a few. Including many of those who are themselves concerned about Israel's settlement activities and other aspects of the occupation. What it shows is that despite efforts by the ‘Lieberman lobby' to make it seem like members of the American Jewish community speak with one voice, on behalf of Liebermanesque policies in Israel, in fact the American Jewish community has a broad diversity of opinion, and a good deal of it, maybe a majority, doesn't agree with this particular perspective and feels terribly afraid that it can't speak out without being trashed. So you're either anti-Semitic or you're a self-hating Jew. Either way it's an awful accusation to have to endure.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
"It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with. And I think they're doing Israel in."
From his own words, Freeman confirms why he was wrong for the position. He appears perfectly happy to see Israel destroyed and any Israelis who want to survive are called fanatics.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 5:23pm
Note to Mask..
I posted a response to you back on the CEDAW thread with some links to the area around our property, on taxes, and some other areas of interest in El Salvador that might surprise you (and anyone else interested)
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 5:25pm
It's particularly bad, that a non-confirmed appointment by a Presidential administration to a high-level intelligence position could be blocked by a dishonorable leak and slander campaign run by a discredited lobbyist working for a foreign government and currently on trial for espionage against us. It seems our government is accepting dictation from agents of a foreign government lobby, and that is a very bad situation for any country.
There truly is no hope for a better outcome from the Israel/Palestine issues. Israel itself, as a brutal, racist, and apartheid regime, has a dubious future. Rogue regimes in general have dubious futures.
Posted by syfriendly at 03/13/2009 @ 5:49pm
The whole idea of this thread is moot! The would be fascist Freeman is out and belongs in power NOWHERE in our constitutional society!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/13/2009 @ 5:54pm
I'm sure there will be many posts on this thread that have little to do with Freeman.
Anti-zionists would do better to find a principled person who does not tow the "Israel is always right" line.
This guy is a soulless lackey who has found a profitable niche, and just bought himself a pay raise at the next Saudi or China-funded outfit that hires him. He would apologize for NAMBLA or the Travelling Vice Lords if they could afford him.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 6:14pm
Anti-zionists would do better to find a principled person who does not tow the "Israel is always right" line.
This guy is a soulless lackey who has found a profitable niche, and just bought himself a pay raise at the next Saudi or China-funded outfit that hires him. He would apologize for NAMBLA or the Travelling Vice Lords if they could afford him.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 6:14pm
I don't know of anyone (myself included) that thinks that "Israel is always right". I don't think that of the US either. As long as you have a democracy, it will never "always" be right. Freedom also means the freedom to make mistakes or a wrong judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 6:45pm
gangpapist's comment is typical of the genre.
Ignoring the topic, he is trying instead to smear Freeman, anti-Zionists, the Saudis, the Chinese, and yet-to-comment readers with whom he disagrees, all in one short comment.
The most important point of the interview, in my opinion, is the fact that a small minority, within a small minority, feels it has the right to have the final say in an important appointment to the NSC of a superpower, and that the majority lets allows it have its way.
And going low below the belt: NAMBLA and the Traveling Vice Lords? Oh please!
Posted by KSaber at 03/13/2009 @ 6:49pm
'in fact the American Jewish community has a broad diversity of opinion, and a good deal of it, maybe a majority, doesn't agree with this particular perspective and feels terribly afraid that it can't speak out without being trashed. So you're either anti-Semitic or you're a self-hating Jew. Either way it's an awful accusation to have to endure.'
Yet - there are many who realize or will come to realize the manipulation of this nefarious and self-serving evil. The hypocrisy of this evil is proving ever more difficult to hide from those who care to look and dare to question.
Thank you Mr. Freeman for speaking truth. Thank you Mr. Dreyfuss for this interview.
'Another Jew Against Zionism 3-10-9
Dear Jeff,
Many of us Jews are reading your website very often these days. We feel very sad that the Zionists, once again, destroyed our civilization.
The main problem is not the Zionists...but us - the simple, poor Jews - who still do not realize the Zionist trap we fell into. Only about 3% of Jews are hardcore, rabid Zioniists...who highjacked our religion and leadership.
To my fellow Jews: you must watch: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
To illustrate it, I am enclosing a LIST OF QUOTATIONS I just received from my family in Israel. It shocked me, it may shock some of your readers, too.
Sincerely,
Tsvi Cohen Florida USA'
Source: rense.com
Posted by OneVote at 03/13/2009 @ 6:59pm
Ignoring the topic, he is trying instead to smear Freeman,
Posted by KSaber at 03/13/2009 @ 6:49pm
Freeman is the topic.
"the fact that a small minority, within a small minority, feels it has the right to have the final say in an important appointment to the NSC of a superpower"
I don't know whether they "feel" that way, but the idea that do have that power is the height of hyperbole.
So, it's not the Israel lobby anymore. A fraction of that lobby beholden to a party that has 15 seats in the Knesset is now calling all the shots. Wow! If the Jews could just unite they really would rule the world!
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 7:03pm
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 7:03pm
Lmao you the one the ones (believe it or not) you posted about.
You have a fetish for offering, opinion, alone ... as being sufficient for both judge and jury.
Avigdor Lieberman, was the real ... topic of this post. Light has never hurt anything that has tried to grow, that truly belonged to it, lets us give him all we can.
Posted by V at 03/13/2009 @ 7:24pm
Yes, my arrogant opinions wither in the blinding Light of Truth. It is not the Elders, but the Juniors of Zion that pull the strings! The vanguard of the vanguard! The seventh sons of the seventh sons! The Jewiest of all the Jewy Jewy Jews! What need have such as these for strength in numbers?!
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 7:50pm
Chas Freeman has coined a brilliant term "The Avigdor Lieberman's Lobby". Examining the Avigdor Lieberman Lobby is Quite an eye-opener:
They are minority radical Jews who attended Jew-only schools while young and may have been indoctrinated by fundamentalist Rabbis such as Meir Kahana. They are normally self-centered zealots who view the world from narrow Talmudic point of view, tempered with hatred of gentiles. Sample of this hateful breed can also be found on religious settlements on the occupied West Bank. One of their rituals is to attack Palestinian farmers, shoot their kids and uproot their olive trees. These Talmudic tribes are willing to sell America for a single West Bank Settlement. They have produced a trail of Israeli spies who went on rampage of espionage on American and passed the stolen secrets to Israel for pure ideological motives. One of these spies is Jonathan Pollard and the other, ironically, is the same Steve Rosen who was mentioned in this article. If we apply the infamous Lieberman's racist slogan "No loyalty, no citizenship" to the above breed of Zionists in America; 99% of them will fail the test.
Posted by CripThink at 03/13/2009 @ 8:06pm
He appears perfectly happy to see Israel destroyed and any Israelis who want to survive are called fanatics.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 5:23pm
Weird, anyone who doesn't agree with that policy is called Anti-Semitic or a self hating Jew. What goes around comes around I guess.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 8:08pm
This is so stunning... so breath-taking... and it seems so tightly timed...
An 'adventure' in Gaza... a distracted but 'listening ear' in the White House... 'Democracy' held anxiously over a bubble barrel...
Ravages of war on all fronts... uneasiness and constraints in the face of a trajectory of transcendence... worry for the future 'hope' so many have bargained for...
"Anti-Zionist!" the response of one of the many power hungry wills to power... and all conscientious people cower in shame... for no commonly accepted rules and morals apply to those who would rule...
Would we work it out differently if coercion was deemed unethical?... would we openly condone this behavior with popular votes and personal donations?... Are we resisting peaceful resolution by enabling false power with our deaf ear?...
I do not know, he said... I am nervous... this situation makes me feel more 'existential' than elemental, and in a quandary prone to pondery unrequited...
And yet... behind the set... the sun rises proudly. We shall rejoice in our new day... and our new world will be born and grow amongst us.
We shall prosper as never before imagined... encouraging everyone around us to join in... to become more than we are now...
It's just a really uncomfortable transition... that's all...
Posted by ttr at 03/13/2009 @ 8:13pm
Reading through the very interesting Dreyfus-Freeman Q&A one cannot help but notice the self indulgence of Freeman. One could be excused for thoughts of narcissistic personality disorder flashing through one's mind.
That he considers himself an iconoclast should have been warning enough to the Obama headhunters to have given him a big miss for the job. Obama will have enough trouble navigating the many hurdles in his way, without having to worry about such a loose cannon and the negative effect it could have on his administration.
A smarter less pretentious person with such views could have, eaten humble pie for his past, taken the job and attempted to move policy somewhat in his direction but that was too large an order for the off tune prima donna, Freeman.
It was a demonstration of loose lips sink ships. In this case his.
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/13/2009 @ 8:43pm
There is revealing information in the Freeman's interview. Nancy Pelosi, the so-called ultra liberal Speaker of the House "Jumping on the Bandwagon" to derail the Freeman's appointment. The question is: How could such a liberal pet supports such a religious radical tribe of Lieberman's Lobbyists? Well, the link may not be so obvious, but it can be explained. Pelosi is the spoiled child of AIPAC and this is only the beginning. Pelosi has been dancing to the marching band of AIPAC since the inception of her political career. AIPAC loves to support insecure, lackluster politicians like Pelosi to leadership positions; and AIPAC loves such politicians more when they have closets full of skeletons. Having skeletons in their closets allow AIPAC to intimidate and blackmail them at will to keep them in line. No one should bet on what side will Pelosi stand if Obama to ever clash with the Israeli Lobby. Remember Pelosi infamous "Impeachment off the Table"? This was a direct order from AIPAC; they promised their favorite son, George W Bush, full protection after long history of blind loyalty to Israel. Another telling incident was when Pelosi passed a legislation requiring Bush to seek congressional consent before attacking Iran; she attached it to an Iraq funding bill. Well, this did not sit well with AIPAC and they ordered Pelosi to take it out; she complied promptly. There are compelling evidences that Pelosi was fully briefed on all Bush's constitutional violations of torture and warrantless Wiretaps of Americans and she kept her mouth shut to please AIPAC. Pelosi, Joe Lieberman and other AIPAC loyalists are better moved to serve in the Israeli Knesset.
Posted by CripThink at 03/13/2009 @ 9:24pm
>>>So you're either anti-Semitic or you're a self-hating Jew. Either way it's an awful accusation to have to endure.<<<
This is what has to change. It's like saying anyone who disagrees with Obama is a "racist".
The over-use of the anti-Semitic label really demeans those who are concerned with real anti-Jew activity. It's like crying 'wolf" too many times and no one believes you any more when you use the label.
Jews everywhere should challenge the over-use of the anti-Semitic term by other Jews so that the term means something instead of being an empty slogan that one uses when they feel defeated and can't handle the substance of valid criticism.
If some group like the NAACP went around accusing people of being "racist" every time they criticized Obama, most reasonable people would think that this group had lost its ability to reason and think critically.
AIPAC needs to step up its game if it wants to continue to be relevant as an expression of Jewish sentiment and leadership in America. You simply can't call someone an anti-Semite and expect that is going to end scrutiny of the actions of the Israeli lobby, and efforts to make sure that US strategic and economic interests are paramount in any public policy matter, particularly intelligence gathering and analysis.
Like I have said on previous threads, with the stroke of a pen, most in Congress would vote for "real" campaign finance reform that takes away the political threat from moneyed lobbying groups like AIPAC. The problem with using "fear" to influence Congress, is that if you give those who are afraid a chance to never be afraid again, they take it. Publicly funded federal elections and "reasonable" restrictions on the free speech of so-called "independent" groups would give Congress that chance.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/13/2009 @ 9:28pm
I know Hitchens is not a big hero on this site, but he pegged Lieberman pretty well on Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2211915/
I think the administration should make some appointments that are not kosher with AIPAC, if only to show that the 'Israel Lobby' is not all powerful. And to demonstrate good faith to moderate Palestinians, lest they feel that moderation will do them no good.
I don't think Freeman was a good choice because he has frequently been infected with clientism.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 9:34pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/13/2009 @ 8:43pm
Every adjective, more apt a projection.
Posted by V at 03/13/2009 @ 10:17pm
"I don't know of anyone (myself included) that thinks that "Israel is always right". I don't think that of the US either. As long as you have a democracy, it will never "always" be right" (antisocialist 3/13)
You must have been living under a rock to be so naive. Israel is an apartheid theocracy and by definition could never be a democracy.You don't need to wait for the inevitable trucks to deport the remaining Palestinians, not genocided as yet, to concentration camps somewhere else.Ben Gurion alluded to that in Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs (NYT Oct 1979). And if you really imagine that America is a democracy with its concentration of power all in the executive branch, still alive and well under Obama, think again.
Posted by mystic7 at 03/13/2009 @ 11:40pm
A good piece on Israel's genocide:
http://www.counterpunch.com/ruder03132009.html
As to Freeman, one has to be saddened on his behalf by the grotesque turn of events regarding his appointment.
That said, I believe Freeman's fixation on Avigdor Leiberman is misguided. Leiberman is not the problem. It wasn't Leiberman who made the decision to bomb children's playgrounds in Gaza with white phosphorus and destroy everything in site in the latest Nazi-inspired rampage.
Israel is the problem.
So long as this shithole and disgrace to Jews and all humankind is permitted to exist in the Mid East, all prospects of peace are a pipe dream.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 12:10am
I don't know of anyone (myself included) that thinks that "Israel is always right". ---Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 6:45pm
Technically true.
Larry thinks that LIKUD is always right.
Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 07:33am
Supporting the only democracy in the middle east is a no brainer. The other parties only attribute is oil. They are dictatorships,do not support equal rights, treat women like possessions, etc. Let's call it like it is, it is the real problem is Israel is a Jewish state and Democracy, and the other parties not with oil as leverage.
Israel is not always right nor is the US. Supporting a democratic government should be unquestionable if we say what we mean and mean what we say.
Posted by geek at 03/14/2009 @ 08:47am
Its been said that Capital Hill is Israeli occupied territory. lol How true. Think about it. In your own community a person could not get elected dog catcher if they are a critic of the Jews. Your nascient political career will be strangled in the crib. A cabal of rabid radicals dedicated to a foreign government holds sway here. Its cost us dearly.
Posted by AverLevitt at 03/14/2009 @ 08:55am
Shame,US is still run from Tel Aviv.Who is getting killed in Baghdad and Kabul?Americans,Iraqis and Afghans !Ever bothered asking why ? To protect Israel.
Chaseman was right.Blind support of Israel,is the root cause of all evil in Mid East.
Influence of AIPAC/JINSA should be checked.Irony, Vast majority of Americans are happy eating POTS and watching sex life of OCTO MOM, while their country is hijacked by Israel.
Obama is do different. Rahm Imanual(former Israeli) runs White House
Posted by KW at 03/14/2009 @ 11:00am
'In the United States and even in Israel, there are some who say it's already too late, that we have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran - not to prevent it, but to contain and deter it.
"God forbid. To accept an Iranian nuclear bomb in 2010 is like accepting Hitler's election in 1933. A nuclear Iran is like Hitler with nuclear weapons. It is an absolute strategic threat to Israel."
If the diplomatic restraint fails, should Israel halt Iran by force?
"If we had acted vis-a-vis Iran as we should have between 1996 and 2006, our situation would have been totally different. I would have told the world that we are like Czechoslovakia in 1938. Just like it. And so the choice isn't between a bomb and bombing them. The choice is between being a lonely cowboy and explaining to the West that we are its front line. That if we fall, God forbid, the West will fall too." '
Excerpt from interview with Avi Lieberman
20/01/2009; Haaretz.com
Lieberman to Haaretz: Hamas missiles will reach Tel Aviv within a year By Ari Shavit
This is the battle line. Israel wants to drag us into the conflict. Perhaps another "false flag" act of terrorism in the months ahead? Very real possibility. We will not be able to leave Iraq or Afghanistan until Israel says so. US has 57 days of strategic petroleum reserves. Iran has threatened to interrupt world oil supply if attacked. Boots on the ground will be necessary to secure oil facilities. All this crap about Taliban and al Qaeda.
Freeman character assassination part of the plan to overcome US resistance to being drawn into the Iranian conflict.
We need to be aware of the real terrorists to this country.
Posted by OneVote at 03/14/2009 @ 11:57am
Technically true.
Larry thinks that LIKUD is always right.
Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 07:33am
Wrong. I think they've made a lot of mistakes, beginning with any negotiations with Arafat.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:15pm
The Iran-Israel nuclear endgame is now much closer
Feb. 26, 2009 EDWIN BLACK , THE JERUSALEM POST
Excerpts:
'Israeli countermeasures to date have included a massive international covert program of equipment sabotage, assassination of key nuclear personnel and a vibrant diplomatic offensive. But all these efforts combined amount to nothing more than delaying tactics, as Iran is irrevocably determined to achieve a nuclear weapon as fast as possible. Many believe such a weapon will be used to fulfill its prediction that Israel will soon be wiped off the map.'
'The question of when and how this endgame will play out is not known by anyone. Israeli leaders wish to avoid military preemption at all costs if possible. But many feel the military moment must come; and when that moment does come, it will be swift, highly technologic and in the twinkling of an eye. But as one informed official quipped, "Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know."'
Hmmmmm........massive covert operation of sabotage and assassination combined with vibrant diplomatic offensive.......
Very nice. America beware.
Posted by OneVote at 03/14/2009 @ 12:18pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 5:23pm
I thought you might be checking here. Curious if you have seen this article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 7:03pm
Do you want to argue that his appointment did not happen? If not, care to explain why he accepted the job and now isn't taking it - if not for the coordinated actions of a particular group?
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/13/2009 @ 8:43pm
God forbid someone have a personality and opinions, right? Better that it be someone more in line with the "consensus"?
Posted by geek at 03/14/2009 @ 08:47am
"Supporting a democratic government should be unquestionable if we say what we mean and mean what we say."
Feel free to discuss American support for East Timor, Saddam in Iraq or the many other dictators America has supported over the last 60 years.
I'm not even sure the premise, "The US have an unquestionable support for democratic governments," is a good one. But, I do know it is not backed up by history. All the rhetoric about caring about spreading democracy is exactly that, rhetoric. Disabuse yourself of this fantasy.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/14/2009 @ 12:23pm
I'm not even sure the premise, "The US have an unquestionable support for democratic governments," is a good one. But, I do know it is not backed up by history. All the rhetoric about caring about spreading democracy is exactly that, rhetoric. Disabuse yourself of this fantasy.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/14/2009 @ 12:23pm
SRJ, I know you are a student of history so you are also aware that the US has made some "lesser evil" choices throughout it's history.
I actually have a higher regard than you do for all of our presidents, Democrat and Republican along with the Congress having a genuine desire to see democracy spread. Even where people like yourself see us as being just the opposite in places like Central America, the net effect has been to produce real democratic progress in that region. Nicaragua (even with Ortega back in power), El Salvador, Costa Rica, Belize, Guatemala, and even Honduras are all much more Democratic than they were 30-50 years ago.
That's why I am serious about retiring in the next 2 years to El Salvador.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
"Killing a chicken to scare the monkeys."
MONKEY 'KILLS CRUEL OWNER WITH COCONUT THROWN FROM TREE'
A monkey who was forced to climb palm trees by his owner took revenge by killing him with a coconut.
Last Updated: 7:03AM GMT 11 Mar 2009
The animal threw the missile from the top of a tree after becoming frustrated with his tiring labour, according to reports.
Leilit Janchoom, 48, had employed the monkey to pick coconuts which he could then sell for around 4p each.
The animal – named Brother Kwan – found the work tedious and strenuous but Mr Janchoom refused to let him rest, dishing out beatings if he refused to climb trees. It is believed that the monkey eventually snapped, and targeted his owner from a high branch with one of the hard-skinned fruits.
Mr Janchoom, from the province of Nakorn Sri Thammarat in Thailand, died on the spot after being struck by the coconut, according to reports in a local newspaper.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/14/2009 @ 1:22pm
Mr Janchoom, from the province of Nakorn Sri Thammarat in Thailand, died on the spot after being struck by the coconut, according to reports in a local newspaper.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/14/2009 @ 1:22pm
it was probably because some worker in the US was making missile warheads (as you claimed in another thread).
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 2:01pm
The use of the term "Leiberman Lobby", is a political coup, in that it allows criticism of Israeli and American policies, and criticism of the mechanics of how those policies are formed.
The original coining of the term "Israel Lobby" in the Walt/Mearsheimer articles and book, cast a picture of monolithic conspiracy that literally fed the conspiratorial and anti-semitic invocations that we sadly hear on many blogs, including prominent left-leaning blogs.
The article and the book less so, contributed to that cast, in referring to literal canards "Jews control the media", "Jews control the banks", "Jews whisper in the ears of leaders". (Not direct quotes by any stretch.)
Their article and book did thankfully identify that they did not in any way advocate for the idea of silencing Jews speaking as Jews or even as supporters of Israel. Still, even while stating that overtly, implications of the canards appeared throughout the book.
I am thankful that Freeman renounced their branding as a misrepresentative generalization, and instead clarified that he valued their thesis of encouraging open debate.
His use of the term "Israel Lobby" in his angry letter, was corroboration for many (beyond those directly influenced by the lobbying efforts), that he in fact had been the wrong selection for the job.
Posted by Richard Witty at 03/14/2009 @ 2:12pm
witty
You couldn't persuade a grade school class with such patent rubbish. The israel lobby declares itself an Israel lobby---proudly and openly. They brag about the stranglehold they have over Congress, unless someone exposes this lobby of riff raff at which time they say "Israel lobby?? WHAT Israel lobby? You're a paranoiac! You're an Anti-semite!"
As predictable as it is repugnant.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 2:36pm
As predictable as it is repugnant.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 2:36pm
Hey bigot, when did you decide to come back out of your roach hole?
You belong in Iran, they would love you.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 2:42pm
Iran's Supreme Leader Says No Change in US Policies By VOA News 11 March 2009
Excerpt:
'Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers speech during conference in Tehran in support of Gaza and Palestinians, 04 Mar 2009 Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says the new U.S. administration is not showing any sign of changing its policies abroad or correcting what Tehran views as past mistakes.
Official Iranian media (IRNA and Press TV) report that Mr. Khamenei highlighted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a meeting with visiting Turkish President Abdullah Gul late Tuesday. The supreme leader also pointed to Israel's recent offensive in Gaza as a sign that the U.S. is pursuing old policies.
Mr. Khamenei praised ties between Turkey and Iran, and he said he believes this strengthening relationship will irritate the U.S. and Israel.'
Nice job BO. Israel lobby must be very pleased however.
Posted by OneVote at 03/14/2009 @ 2:56pm
antisocialist
Everyone's a "bigot" except your Israeli buddies who write "Arabs to the gas chambers" on the walls of Hebron, (when they're not busy beating women and children to a pulp).
They are the only true humanists in this world.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 3:17pm
They probably WOULD love me in Iran. After all, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Mid East outside of Israel and Iranian Jews are proudly independent of the Israeli tapeworms, about whom, they haven't much good to say.
of course, who does?
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 3:21pm
I don't think that AIPAC is representative of all Jewish people. They are an economic lobbying wing for Israel, and frequently have antithetical positions to American interests. They failed at taking over Iraq and may not make it through eliminating Gaza. They have become caricatures of a suffering people with nuclear weapons and the full might of the American military behind them, which tends to alienate most of the middle east. What surprises me is that they can still get away with playing the victim card while being the abusers.
Posted by julien38 at 03/14/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by Richard Witty at 03/14/2009 @ 2:12pm
This it TOTAL bs!
AIPAC IS the Israeli Lobby that we are talking about, and everyone in Congress knows it.
Granted, there are other groups that lobby on behalf of Jews and Israel, but the right-wing Jews that control AIPAC have identical political views to the right-wing Likud party in Israel and none of the other Jewish groups - except J Street or JAWS - will say anything publicly that counters the message of AIPAC because they enjoy the Jewish power this right-wing group brings to the Jewish community even if they disagree with these right-wing views.
We need to stop pretending that AIPAC's views are held by the majority of Jews, and quit waiting for other Jews to step up and say as much. If Jews can't police their own leadership, then someone else has to.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/14/2009 @ 3:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
"I actually have a higher regard than you do for all of our presidents, Democrat and Republican along with the Congress having a genuine desire to see democracy spread."
Democracy is something people demand for themselves. It is not something that is given to them by a foreign power. Spreading democracy is, more often than not, an excuse for American style colonialism.
"Even where people like yourself see us as being just the opposite in places like Central America...are all much more Democratic than they were 30-50 years ago."
It is a fact that the places where there has been greater U.S. involvement - such as Haiti - have the lowest level of democracy and economic development. I would also argue that it is entirely possible that "more democratic" was a general trend and that U.S. involvement may have inhibited it more than it acted as a catalyst. I don't want to play the "what if" game, but your conclusions require making assumptions I wouldn't make.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/14/2009 @ 3:32pm
The fact is, the only Latin American country without elections--CUBA---has seen the least regional horror, grinding inequality and rampant violence that categorize most of Latin America...an abysmal record with America's blood-spattered palm prints all over it.
Go tell the victims of the contras how fortunate they are. Go tell the Guatemalans how thankful they should be to the US. Go preach this vomit about the wonders of American democracy to the Chilean families of the desaparecidos.
Just be sure you're wearing body armor when you deliver your lunatic filth.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 3:57pm
Posted by geek at 03/14/2009 @ 08:47am
It is not enough that Israel is a "nominal" democracy in the region - they must demonstrate that they "get it" when it comes to ending the conflict in Palestine and showing by example to other Islamic countries in the region that they can live peacefully in a mutually prosperous relationship with Muslims.
Jews have done this for centuries when living in Muslim countries, so to suggest that they somehow can't live in peace now that they have their own country and because Muslims prefer the Sharia over Western democracy is total bs!
Making peace with the Palestinians ends a whole range of opposition to Israel in other Muslim countries, and if they are able to create a wider prosperous Judah through bi-lateral economic cooperation with the Palestinians, Palestine will be the envy of the Muslim world. <---This is the REAL key to Israel's long term security, but the right-wing Likud simply does not get this at all.
The continuation of the tit-for-tat violence offered by Likud just keeps Israel in a defensive position where it will continue to be threatened by others.
An active and progressive Israel that includes Sephardics, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians in one big prosperous family puts Israel in an extraordinarily strong "offensive" position with the rest of the world.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/14/2009 @ 4:07pm
Those who pretend to be in state of shock and denial whenever the powerful Israeli Lobby is mentioned ought to listen to what the most extreme Zionists said about the power of that Lobby:
Jeffrey Goldberg, over at the New Yorker, relates a conversation with the Israeli Spy Steve Rosen:
"He (Rosen) pushed a napkin across the table.' you see this napkin?' he said.' in twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin"
70 Senators' signatures is Veto-Proof, even the president of the United States can't over-ride that.
Ariel Sharon posted to Shimon Peres once:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." --Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (speaking to Shimon Peres, as reported on Israel Radio [in Hebrew, Kol Yisrael], 3 October 2001)
The Junior Zionist Newt Gingrich called AIPAC "the most effective general-interest group [on] the entire planet".
Unfortunately for the Zionists, none of above persons can be labeled Anti-Semite.
Posted by CripThink at 03/14/2009 @ 4:23pm
I have learned something from these threads. Even as a generally pro-Israel guy, I can see how over-lobbying by Israeli interests only serves to bolster conspiracy theories about Jewish control that would be there regardless.
Over-lobbying combined with Israeli thuggery in the settler areas, and demagoguery from Lieberman is not a recipe for peace.
Conversely, there are a few anti-semites here, and that can tempt people with my position to settle for a myopic view of the conflict.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/14/2009 @ 4:42pm
gang
It's a conspiracy theory to point out the obvious fact that Jews possess financial wealth, political power and media influence wildly incongruent with their demographic numbers in this country?
I see nothing wrong with Jews being so successful and influential but to DENY they have enormous power and use it very skillfully and often, very disgustingly, as we see with the AIPAC crowd and vermin like Abe Foxman who will profane the victims of the holocaust for a fast buck, is silly.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 4:55pm
I wasn't saying that every criticism of pro-Israel lobbies is based on conspiracy theory. Simply that a people who have been historically cast as pulling the strings of world government should be careful not to confirm that image.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/14/2009 @ 5:09pm
gang
But they ARE confirming that image...rather aggressively so. Much of organized Jewry have become anti-Jewish caricatures, straight out of Der Sturmer.
As to the Mid East disaster, if the Israelis and their supporters don't want to be compared with Nazis, there's an easy solution. Quit acting like Nazis.
On the other hand, I will agree that the JEWISH character of US imperialism is completely overblown. I don't think the likes of Dick Cheney were manipulated by any dark, Jewish forces to engage in their abominations, nor do I think these crimes were carried out at Israel's behest against longstanding American interests. On the contrary--the distinction between Israel and the US has become increasingly meaningless. For most purposes, Israel is our 51st state.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 5:25pm
The Zionist Lobby is raising a false smokescreen over Chas Freeman. They are trying to mask their real motive by falsely impugning Freeman as being soft on China and being on the payroll of Saudi Arabia. I am not even attempting to show the fallacy of such accusations here; Freeman has done so eloquently. My objective is to show the hypocrisy of Israeli-Firsters.
There is not a single nation that supported despotism and human right abusers more than Israel; however the Zionists are totally silent about this. The Israelis legendry support for the South American Military Juntas in San Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and Bolivia is very well known. They supplied arms and military training to these South American Nations while the generals there were butchering and raping their citizens. The Israeli nuclear and military cooperation with the Apartheid white regime in South Africa is also well known. Even the communists China did not miss the largess of the Israelis. The Americans have registered strong protest with the Israelis when they discovered that the Israelis were selling our top military technology to the Chinese behind our back. It behooves Israeli-Firsters and Freeman's critics like Steve Rosen, Daniel Pipes, Marty Peretz, Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer to find a deep sewer to bury their heads in it in shame.
Posted by CripThink at 03/14/2009 @ 5:38pm
>>>On the contrary--the distinction between Israel and the US has become increasingly meaningless. For most purposes, Israel is our 51st state.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 5:25pm<<<
If Israel is going to be our 51st state, then they need to share American values and interests and not deceive us into doing their own bidding.
It is in America's interest economically and strategically to not invade any other country that is not directly threatening us or our interests in the region.
The fact that Israel wanted us to invade Iraq for "different" (different than Cheney's) purposes does not negate the illicit character of the invasion absent WMD, or lesson the adverse impact on US relations in Europe and in the Muslim world, or on the strategic balance of power in the region.
The fact that both Israel's lobby (AIPAC) in the US and Bush/Cheney used the same phony intelligence purporting to show evidence of WMD in Iraq and an Al Qaeda terrorist connection to Saddam, means that both of these actors - Israel and the Bush Administration - felt it necessary to deceive Americans to act AGAINST its best interest.
Being diligent and proactive in lessening the chance of intelligence being politicized by favoring candidates who would be more skeptical of foreign intelligence and who would be more apt to seek out "independent" corroborating intelligence is just good management of your intelligence operation. If you can't learn from mistakes in the past - particularly colossal mistakes like the Iraq war - by changing the way you gather and analyze intelligence, then the same mistakes will be repeated.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/14/2009 @ 6:02pm
A true iconoclast loves verbal combat. If Freeman was really one, he would love to go before those hostile idiots in the Senate and give them hell. A true iconoclast would care less about the appointment, but would go through the hearings just to get those people to expose their massive ignorance. One thing bothered me about his comments. While the Americas may be in our "Sphere Of Influence", it doesn't mean they have to agree with us or follow our lead. Just because you have power doesn't give you the right to use it or dictate to other countries! I don't think Freeman has the guts or respect for different views for the job! He is too weak!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/14/2009 @ 6:44pm
PJ
I think it's Obama who is too weak.
Metteyya
The matter of WMD is a red herring at this point. I think we agree it was never the real reason for the iraq invasion. The reason was to establish US-Israel hegemony in the region and knock out any state that could not be controlled by us, while making a move for their oil resources. Some feel we have failed miserably in those aims, others, that we have succeeded, at the cost of many troops (who are irrelevant to US designs) and over a million iraqis (who are even more irrelevant to us).
Part of the problem i think is in the phrase "good for America." It's very tough to analyze. The neocons don't see the world reviling the United States as something "bad for America." They are indifferent to world opinion. The war was indisputably wonderful for the arms industry and may yet secure America's petroleum supplies, even if that doesn't look too promising at the moment.
What is never discussed is whether what is "good for America" bears any relation to what is good for humankind and planetary survival.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 7:02pm
The usual Zionist crowds have noticeably decided to lay low and vacate the scene, at least for this thread. The Freeman's affair has been a nightmare and a public relation fiasco for the lobby. Despite their victory in derailing the nomination of Chas Freeman to the NIC; the extensive and unexpected deep micro analysis of the Israeli Lobby -primarily in the cyber sphere- have touched a raw nerve with the Zionists. The Zionists count on keeping their Lobby operating below the Radar of average Americans; the less we know about the lobby, the more effective it remains. To achieve the desired high level of invisibility, they rely on massive cooperation from their friends and agents in the mainstream media. Well, the internet is emerging as game changer and the Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes finding it harder than ever to defend their racist darling Israel. The Anti-Semitism shield has begun to lose its efficacy. No one, however, should underestimate the potency of the lobby; they faced toughest challenges in the past and prevailed. This time it seems different; maybe the lobby has miscalculated this time by taking on Chas Freeman in the open; maybe they miscalculated getting into this battle period.
The post below is an excellent reading about the fallacy of the lobby, presented by Professor Saul Landau:
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau03132009.html
Posted by CripThink at 03/14/2009 @ 8:11pm
by CripThink at 03/14/2009 @ 8:11pm...
Well considered... and well spoken.
Posted by ttr at 03/14/2009 @ 8:34pm
The Camp David negotiations were where the Palestinians are overwhelmingly blamed for rejecting Barack's "generous offer", history was also rewritten to shed Palestinians in a negative light.
Here are the FACTS about the Camp David "offer."
Palestinians conceded their claim to 78% of historical Palestine, and agreed to form a new state on the remaining 22%, which is comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
- Israel proposed that 69 settlements, populated by 85% of West Bank settlers would be annexed by Israel. These settlements would reduce the Palestinian state by 10%, not to mention severely disrupt travel and daily life in the West Bank.
- Israel proposed "temporary control" of yet another 10% of land that housed the most extreme of settlers. Essentially this means that a foreign power would control the land of another sovereign nation.
- The remaining areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints, forcing Palestinians to live on bantustans or reservations (like South Africans or Native Americans), in a non-contiguous state.
- Palestinians were also expected to relinquish land considered most essential for trade and tourism.
- Israel would maintain very vital controls over Palestinian water, Palestinian borders, and Palestinian airspace.
The "offer" made to Palestinians was nothing more than subjecting them to live on bantustans, like those of South
betz55 ... ... over on Huff Post
Posted by V at 03/14/2009 @ 8:51pm
like those of South Africa
Posted by V at 03/14/2009 @ 8:52pm
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 7:02pm
No country, especially one that wishes to have legitimacy on the world stage can condone taking natural resources from another country by force. That is what outlaws and bandits do, not civilized, advanced countries that have evolved from the conquest era of colonial times and before.
As for looking out for what is best for human kind and planetary survival, I think collectively and individually, all countries share in this responsibility, which is why we have international treaties, international law, and international agreements.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/14/2009 @ 9:57pm
If Jews can't police their own leadership, then someone else has to. Posted by Metteyya at 03/14/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
say whaaat?
Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2009 @ 10:01pm
Posted by emile duBois at 03/14/2009 @ 10:01pm
If Jews don't stand up and challenge those who purport to represent them and make it clear that they don't agree with their right-wing militaristic views, then others will stand up who are more interested in the views of most Jews, which are in line with the vast majority of Americans in wanting an end to the Palestinian conflict and no more US invasions of any other countries on false pretenses.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/14/2009 @ 10:22pm
metteyya writes:
"No country, especially one that wishes to have legitimacy on the world stage can condone taking natural resources from another country by force. That is what outlaws and bandits do, not civilized, advanced countries that have evolved from the conquest era of colonial times and before."
..wish I could partake of your optimism concerning mankind's upward moral trajectory. In the coming era of demolished ecosystems, economic implosion, unsustainable population and competition for dwindling resources amongst a species equipped with ever more lethal means of mass murder, the war of all against all has probably already commenced. We will never return to a civilized state. Humanity's honeymoon is finished.
"As for looking out for what is best for human kind and planetary survival, I think collectively and individually, all countries share in this responsibility, which is why we have international treaties, international law, and international agreements."
A functioning body of international law would have compelled most of our presidents to be put on trial and executed and the United States forcibly de-militarized with the bulk of our wealth going to pay compensation to victims of US atrocity.
Posted by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 10:27pm
Cripthink: May I add one other country which is supported i.e. armed, by Israel? Zimbabwe.Enough said.
As a Jew born and raised at a Jewish day school in Johannesburg in apartheid South Africa,most of the Jews were a minority of whites but more than 50% were pro-communist with symnpathies for the blacks,and in those days that spelled house arrest and trouble. Some say that's because Jews have always sided with the underdog UNTIL, incongruously,they sided with the oppressors in Israel against the Palestinians, and that includes the US and South African Jews (who historically have donated more money to Israel than their American counterparts).
Posted by mystic7 at 03/14/2009 @ 10:40pm
by rykart at 03/14/2009 @ 10:27pm...
You are certainly in a mood for gloom and doom tonight... Everything alright?... or are you just having some fun with our buttons...?
Posted by ttr at 03/14/2009 @ 11:04pm
'Israel's access to buckets of U.S. money and shiploads of arms is secure as long as the grass grows and the rivers run, no matter what it does with settlements on the West Bank or to the people of Gaza.
The real significance of the fight against Freeman takes us away from the traditional need to affirm the right of Israel to exist, enjoy America's commitment to its continued survival, and consume its yearly entitlement from the U.S. budget. It has everything to do with trying to disrupt Obama's initiative to engage with Iran -- an initiative that has the active encouragement of Russia, probably tacit support from China, and the active interest of Iran itself.
Iran has an interesting battery of carrots to offer the United States. Beyond helping keep the lid on in Iraq by moderating the behavior of the majority Sh'ia against the Sunni, an active Iranian role in Afghanistan could do the United States a world of good, especially in opening some kind of second front against the Taliban in the opium heartland of western Afghanistan and providing an alternative to the risky Pakistan route for U.S. and NATO supplies into Afghanistan.
But rapprochement with Iran is anathema to the Israeli government, since it would replace the current situation--where it is assumed that the interests of Tel Aviv and Washington are identical and, if there is a conflict, Israeli priorities should prevail because it has the most at stake -- to a more complicated arrangement in which Israel's position might be downgraded to that of just another stakeholder, whose interests might be compromised by Washington for the sake of its geopolitical objectives and bilateral dealings with Iran.'
http://www.counterpunch.org/lee03132009.html
Good read on US v Israel on Iran.
Posted by OneVote at 03/15/2009 @ 12:10am
Legitimacy is required to lead, and when one violates international law and the rights of other countries, you lose legitimacy and most countries can no longer trust your ability to lead, as they will always question whether you are really pursuing some selfish national interest - like stealing natural resources - under the guise of something that the world should support.
To rebuild legitimacy, Obama has to rebuild trust in American leadership. And this can NOT occur if the same folks that sold phony intelligence to get support for the Iraq war are allowed to influence who gets appointed in our intelligence community.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/15/2009 @ 12:21am
Posted by mystic7 at 03/14/2009 @ 10:40pm
Mystic7,
I hear you loud and clear. I have always tried to maintain a distance from uttering the word "Jews" even in the most tempting of time. The reason is clear; there are always those Jews who stood tall, selfless servants of humanity at large and the oppressed Palestinians in specific. They are too many to list their names, but not to acknowledge their contributions to humanity.
Posted by CripThink at 03/15/2009 @ 01:20am
That's why I am serious about retiring in the next 2 years to El Salvador.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:55p
looks like the commies are gonna win tomorrow's election.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/15/2009 @ 01:51am
There's a sad irony with the position that the radical left ended up taking relative to terrorism, that has frankly plagued it and made many of its arguments relative to Israel in particular, irrelevant.
That is that RATHER than take a consistent principled position and expressed condemnation of terror as a means (of either dissent or suppression), the radical left ended up choosing to apologize for terror as dissent while condemning state terror as suppression.
So, applied in Israel, as the dominant power relative to the Palestinians, even Lebanese, that logic ended up in the form "Nothing that Israel can do is right, and nothing that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Al Aqsa Martyrs can do is wrong".
And, depending on the state of events in the world, many of the principled liberal left shift slightly to solidarity radical left.
That happens frequently following military conflict, Gaza, Lebanon, especially when Israel applies brutal/deterrent force (depending on which narrative you adopt). So, Rashid Khalidi's speech to the National Lawyers Guild in February was raging, which contrasted with his much more sober interviews six months prior on Charlie Rose, or op-ed in the NY Times a month earlier. (You Tube. I wasn't there.)
The principled liberal position conspicuously opposing all terror (factional and state, all use terror is an effort for power, not only "resistance"), is more consistent, ethical, law-abiding, and effective position. (Thank you Obama for adopting that position to the extent that you have.)
The underdog apology for Hamas shelling civilians in Sderot (as a more humane method of dissent than suicide bombing cafes, buses, hotels) is inhumane to too many, inconsistent, destabalizing everywhere, and ineffective.
Posted by Richard Witty at 03/15/2009 @ 07:43am
That's why I am serious about retiring in the next 2 years to El Salvador.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:55pm
Can you take some more fundies with you, please?
Posted by crabwalk at 03/15/2009 @ 09:40am
"The underdog apology for Hamas shelling civilians in Sderot... is inhumane to too many..." (Richard Witty)
It was Zionist terrorism that led to the imposition of the Jewish state in 1948 when at least 750,000 Arabs were expelled from their own land. Begin, Shamir and Sharon were among the terrorist leaders, and these Ashkenazi (Khazar/Sumerian) terrorists and butchers would become Israeli prime ministers and have the nerve to condemn Arab terrorism.What would YOU do if you lived in New York which was overrun by Canadian terrorists who claim your home is their home, and your government says you are wrong and with bullets and tanks, murders your parents and sister and brother? The so-called "Jewish" state of Israel is said to really be an "ethocentric garrison state established by a non-Semitic people for the declared purpose of dispossessing and terrorizing a civilian Semitic people". Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs, published in the New York Times Oct 23, 1979 said clearly that Ben Gurion, when asked what they should do with the Palestinians, gestured "Drive them out". Mr Witty, your lame argument about the rockets being "inhumane" is dishonest: President Carter recently told Charlie Rose that the Gazan rockets were relaunched because Israel maintained the Gazan blockade and refused to supply enough food which it had promised for a ceasefire to prevail.He was there
Mr Witty, your lame cries of "inhumane" are at odds with the incineration of hundreds of Gazan children with white phosphorus.Go tell that to Rachel Corrie and millions of others who were murdered and dispossessed by an occupation conveniently forgetting about the million Christians that the crypto-Jews perpetrated on the Armenians, and justifying all its actions on their WWII victimisation
Posted by mystic7 at 03/15/2009 @ 09:56am
looks like the commies are gonna win tomorrow's election.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/15/2009 @ 01:51am
My mother-in-law, her relatives,and nearly all of the middle class in El Salvador are very worried about this election.
El Salvador has made tremendous strides in trying to transform the country and this would simply be a terrible step backwards.
Funes, while not a member of the FMLN until he entered this campaign (he was a popular TV anchor), still represents the threat of a Chavez infiltration.
That will drive out all of the capital investment from Asia and the US.
I would have liked to have seen Saca run again. He's a very good man.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/15/2009 @ 11:27am
I'm presently watching Fareed Zakaria, GPS, interview Mr. Freeman. When did our government, in the person of Chuck Schumer, become so parochial? When did the Israel interests of Bibi take over our entire government? Is there something in our Governmental DNA that make us stupid? When did Israel become the seductive historical heroes to assassins of careers such as the one of Mr. Freeman's and thugs?
Posted by julien38 at 03/15/2009 @ 12:23pm
richard
I'll give you my standard Bernard Goetz argument.
You may (or may not) recall Bernard Goetz. He was an unassuming nobody in New York City who was one day accosted on the subway train by a couple of teenaged hoods, who menaced him with a screwdriver, demanding his money. Goetz thereupon took out a loaded pistol and shot each of the attackers, seriously injuring both---one of whom was paralyzed if i remember correctly.
Goetz became a sort of folk hero among upwardly mobile New Yorkers who were fed up with crime, especially muggings. This politically charged atmosphere probably contributed to Goetz' acquittal. Later, he had an unsuccessful bid to be mayor of new york and was then, promptly forgotten.
I found the support for Goetz rather appalling and always felt the proper place for him was behind bars. My reason? NYC has a heavily armed, trained and funded police force whose job it is to maintain law and order. The fact that they do so imperfectly is no excuse for vigilantism, which threatens everyone and marks the unravelling of civil society--a very disturbing precedent.
However:
One could imagine a situation in which an entire borough in NY was terrorized BY the police, who invaded homes, threw people onto the street, beat them to a pulp, rounded them up and sent them to torture chambers and so forth. We could imagine that the victims of this borough were trapped, with absolutely nowhere to go. We could imagine that they had no recourse to any legal authority which could protect them from these depredations. We could imagine this ghastly state of affairs persisting for 60 years. We now ask: "What are the social responsibilities of these citizens?"
Posted by rykart at 03/15/2009 @ 12:41pm
(cont)
In my view, all bets are off under such conditions. The blame for all resulting violence lies squarely on the shoulders of the oppressors. They alone have the capacity to alter this situation and bring just resolution to the situation. The victims do not.
That is why I reject efforts to frame Palestinian and Israeli violence in reciprocal terms. That is unreasonable A) because of the radical disproportion of violent means. B) the radical disproportion in violent effect, ie numbers injured, displaced and killed and C) because of the radical disproportion in ability to bring an end to the conditions of violence.
Posted by rykart at 03/15/2009 @ 12:46pm
Posted by Richard Witty at 03/15/2009 @ 07:43am
Richard,
It is one thing to repeat your charges like a parrot that all Palestinian organizations are terrorists; another thing is to empirically prove that. I do take into consideration the fact that you may have been exposed to few brain-washing sessions by Fox News and the Bush's State Department on who is terrorist and who is not. Give me a single act of violence committed by Hamas, and the other groups you listed, against the USA? Name a single American killed by these groups? I can name hundreds of Americans who were either killed or injured by Israeli violence.
In the last 10 years of the so-called Hamas rockets, 23 Israelis were killed; while in the same period, thousands of Palestinians were killed by Israel, courtesy of your tax dollars and your donated F-16s to Israel. Building in this logic, you are the actual terrorist who paid the Israelis to murder Palestinians while you can't name a single American killed by Hamas. Actually, if you expand your horizon beyond the sphere of Fox News, you will find that the majority of Gaza residents are victims of historic Israeli terrorism. Most Gazans are, or the decedents, of Palestinians who were violently pushed out of their homes (inside Israel) in 1948 and 1967. The Israelis claim to have left Gaza since 2005, but what they don't tell you is that they are still controlling Gaza's airspace, all territorial water, all border crossings to Gaza and a large chunk of Gaza as security zone. That enabled the Israelis to impose a cruel siege on Gaza; starving Gaza for years. Gaza was turned into a modern Warsaw Ghetto. Pointing fingers at the left does bring out one thing, if any; it is your glaring intellectual limitation.
Posted by CripThink at 03/15/2009 @ 3:24pm
Did your wife fly back to vote?
Articles mentioned that 25% of the population lives in the US (civil wars do that) and that most, if not all, of them were going back for the election.
Is this a miniaturized version of Obama's run (smooth talking leftist rep from nowhere)?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/15/2009 @ 12:18pm
No..we are watching and talking to relatives. It seems closer than the polls said.
It's a strange candidacy. Funes says he doesn't represent all of the FMLN's views. They are really trying to do a Chavez appeal to the poor campaign and also use his popularity as the ex CNN- en espanol host.
We shall see. My mother-in-law is poor but she really worries about the FMLN.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/15/2009 @ 4:34pm
Don't pressure Israel for Peace; cries John Bolton, the Israeli-Firster and the ex American Ambassador to the UN. This is the prevalent and advocated paradigm of the Israeli Lobby today. The Zionists want America to engage in unpredictable adventurous wars all around the Arab and Muslim Worlds; wars that they deem good for Israel. It is the same Zionists who demand that America doesn't offend the Talmudic sensitivity of bunch of Jewish fanatic settlers by asking them to return back the land they have stolen from Palestinians. We should Americans live forever in fear of another 9/11 with our civil liberty subjected to the abuse of the Patriot act, just to protect the privilege of few religious fanatics on the settlements, to practice their Talmudic rituals. And if a fellow like Chas Freeman advocates a sense of rationality in our foreign policy, then the Zionists will attack him as Anti-Semite. How much more in blood and treasure should we (Americans) shed to please John Bolton, Avigdor Lieberman, Daniel Pipes, Joe Lieberman, Bibi Netanyahu and the rest of the Israeli cabals? Why should America, with its constitutional separation between religion and the state, continue to support a Jewish-Only State by showering the Israelis with money and weapons? Why it is a sin for Americans to ask these questions, in the land of the free and home of the braves, without being assaulted by the Israeli loyalists? When America will be finally free from being another Israeli-occupied territory? http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070961.html
Posted by CripThink at 03/15/2009 @ 5:40pm
"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," Bolton went on to say.
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070961.html
I'm inclined to agree with him there. However, I also agree that the frontier radicals should be held in check. The Israeli government that is forming now is not conducive to moderation from the Palestinian side. Without any incentive for moderate voices, there will be noone to negotiate with "as equals."
The US should consider ceasing all foreign aid to both Israel and Palestine.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/15/2009 @ 6:02pm
Note Freeman's totally ridiculous characterization of Latin America: they're increasingly defiant stance to U.S. influence.
Yes, Freeman,they're becoming independent, democratic countries!!!
This guy is no one for the left to lose any sleep over.
Posted by neaguy at 03/15/2009 @ 6:41pm
International wires are reporting of final Agreement between Netanyahu (The hardliner Likud Party) and Avigdor Lieberman (The Fascist Yisrael Beiteinu Party) to form the next Israeli Government. It is reported that, according to the new agreement, Avigdor Lieberman will be the next Israeli Foreign Minister. Obama better be ready to deal with next Israeli fascist Government. When Austria voted for The Freedom Party under the hardliner Jorge Haider; the EU threatened to expel Austria and the US was up in Arm over Haider's fascist views. Apparently, Israel can vote a fascist and racist into office, but Austria can't; nor can the Palestinians vote for Hamas without being punished. Watch for our Secretary of State and our Congress embrace the fascist Lieberman. This is an insult to the Peace process and a flagrant rebuke to the Obama Administration; courtesy of the Zionists. Let's watch how the indignant Zionists who attacked Chas Freeman will line up to support the racist Lieberman.
Posted by CripThink at 03/15/2009 @ 8:57pm
Let's watch how the indignant Zionists who attacked Chas Freeman will line up to support the racist Lieberman.
Posted by CripThink at 03/15/2009 @ 8:57pm
I hope that you are wrong. If Lieberman does become the next Foreign Minister, it will indeed be an opportune time for the "Israel Lobby" to make a hard choice, or for the US to make a break from the IL.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/15/2009 @ 10:31pm
hope that you are wrong. If Lieberman does become the next Foreign Minister, it will indeed be an opportune time for the "Israel Lobby" to make a hard choice, or for the US to make a break from the IL. Posted by gangpapist at 03/15/2009 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Gangpapist,
I think that the wire is correct, but mark my word; none of your two wishes will happen. If I were you I would moderate my drinking and try to get in shape; your next stop is Tehran.
Posted by CripThink at 03/15/2009 @ 10:44pm
I'm out of the Army now, so i guess it will be somebody else's turn... Two more shots of patron please
Posted by gangpapist at 03/15/2009 @ 10:49pm
Is Avigdor Leiberman worse than Golda Meir?
On what basis?
All the Israeli leaders are violently racist goons. They are essentially interchangeable at this point.
All the talk about Leiberman is much ado about nothing, in my opinion. Actually, it's worse than that. It's counterproductive, as it implies Leiberman is exceptional in some way and that there are sane, viable alternatives in Israel to his repellent cosmology
But there are no such alternatives.
Posted by rykart at 03/15/2009 @ 11:25pm
Posted by rykart at 03/15/2009 @ 11:25pm
Rykart,
It is hard to disagree with your argument; there is, essentially, no difference in the level of criminality between Shimon Peres and Avigdor Lieberman; Peres, matter of fact, has murdered more Arabs than Lieberman can dream about.
Shimon Peres is the soft-spoken war criminal with Nobel Peace Prize; Lieberman is the thug who can't mask his bigotry. For those with keen understanding of the core of Zionism; the comparison between the two is meaningless.
Posted by CripThink at 03/16/2009 @ 01:56am
..or for that matter, the great "dove" Yitzhak Rabin, (who presided over the largest ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Israel's history, the forced expulsions of Lydda and Ramleh).
Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 02:09am
Here is an example of the Lobby's influence.
Richard Pearl gets beheaded and it's on the news day and night for months. We have a movie made.
Tristan Anderson, an American gets his brains blown up by IDF during a peaceful demonstration in the West Bank, not a word of it in MSM. Same was with Rachel Corrie. American activists killed by Israel are not worth a mention. A jewish journalist killed by (or kidnapped) by a muslim becomes a folk hero.
The Lobby not only has our government enslaved, but also our media.
Posted by UnSpin at 03/16/2009 @ 02:24am
Will someone please explain to me why any mention of Israel by the Left brings all the nutballs out of the Left's locked basement? (forget about the nutballs from the Right, like antisocialist and his ilk; they parade their goofiness here as a form of self-therapy)
I consider myself as a Jew and as an American to be highly critical of Israel. I reject the commonly held view of the uninformed that AIPAC speaks for all Jews or even for a large minority. I reject the despicable notion that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic. I think that Charles Freeman would have been an excellent appointee.
But this idea that Israel primarily wears the black hat, that the Palestinians are ALWAYS the victims is simply absurd. We on the left must acknowledge that Israel's security concerns are valid even though its responses are often not, that a macho, hyperbolic rhetoric of hate from the Arab world fans these concerns, and that the actual history of Israel/Palestine is so complex and muddy that anyone who claims to truly understand it is by definition a buffoon. There are on this thread nutty, quasi-antisemitic remarks typical of the locked-basement Lefties. Their opinions are no better and probably worse than the vomit spewed by the Right. At the very least, we on the left should disavow them and allow the grownups on both sides of the fence to try to begin to communicate without being drowned out by such shrill drivel.
Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/16/2009 @ 08:42am
Just as McCarthy jacked America with threats of Commies under every bed, we got jacked into Iraq by myths of terrorists with WMDs; the McCain campaign tried to jack the election with myths about Obama; Chas Freeman got jacked by the Lieberman Lobby (neé Israel); and as the Stewart/Cramer debate shows, "news" organizations helped jack us into this economic Waste Land.
I call it myth-jacking, the state of the art in manuFRACTURing consent.
Did you know that Joseph Campbell began lecturing in 1956, for I don't know how long, at the Foreign Service Institute? Some have taken his lessons to heart. Some of us are using a warped "power of myth" to power weapons-grade domestic propaganda: a strategic domestic disinformation campaign, in lifeless bureaucratese.
Looks like a concerted effort to jack the nation with not just mere lies, but with myths.
Myths aren't simple lies, they are metaphors, they are vessels, into which we are easily lured. The myths of our day, that is, deliver us as a people into our Promised or Waste Land, exactly as we load them with our intentions.
On second thought, a better image is of us in Mother Nature's Waste Stream. Is the earth already voiding us?
Here's a depiction of our global intentions:
[[[Full-Spectrum Dominance / Our Common Weal///[[[{{{Dissent}}}]]]]]]
In this case, the generic formula reads: "Full-spectrum dominance over our common weal based on suppression of dissent."
See the blast walls, the checkpoints, the laws that squelch dissent in our throats? Every brick-and-mortar wall ever built, and also our more intimate shields, are represented by the slashes and brackets.
beloved/[{UNION}]/Beloved
In every case: In Union We Trust
Posted by knowbuddhau at 03/16/2009 @ 09:35am
book writes:
"We on the left must acknowledge that Israel's security concerns are valid "
Like hell we do!
You may be convinced that israel actually cares about terror attacks, as they harp on the subject obsessively. But both the historical facts and current conditions prove their preoccupation with anti-israel violence and their rhetoric about security are a totally cynical fraud.
Indeed, the opposite is the case---they provoke anti-israel violence at every turn and DEPEND on anti-Israel violence in order to further the only interest they've ever had, which is NOT security but expansion.
Without anti-israel violence, the nakedness of their vile aggression and land theft could give them problems with world opinion. Without anti-israel violence they would have a harder time demonizing their victims and yapping about "having no partner for peace."
On every occasion where a possibility of honest negotiation presented itself, the Israelis moved aggressively to head off what they even REFER to as a "Palestinian peace offensive."
book writes:
"the actual history of Israel/Palestine is so complex and muddy that anyone who claims to truly understand it is by definition a buffoon."
A transparently ridiculous statement.
Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 12:42pm
Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 12:42pm
rykart,
Excellent analysis; can't help it but to keep coming back to peek at the old thread just to admire its breadth. I am no longer under the illusion that only me who think that way.
Posted by CripThink at 03/16/2009 @ 2:04pm
While many would love to point out that supporters of Israel are too quick to make accusations of anti-Semitism, and that these charges are often overused, no one here seems to acknowledge that Robert Dreyfuss used to be the Middle East intelligence director for Lyndon Larouche, a well-known Holocaust denier. Not that I want to accuse him anti-Semitism ...
Posted by seemsoddtome at 03/16/2009 @ 2:09pm
While many would love to point out that supporters of Israel are too quick to make accusations of anti-Semitism, and that these charges are often overused, no one here seems to acknowledge that Robert Dreyfuss used to be the Middle East intelligence director for Lyndon Larouche, a well-known Holocaust denier. Not that I want to accuse him anti-Semitism ...
Posted by seemsoddtome at 03/16/2009 @ 2:09pm
Lieberman's campaign rhetoric of requiring loyalty oaths from Israeli Arabs is legally and socially ill-conceived and objectionable. However, recognize that his fundamentally flawed proposal is a response to a significantly disturbing and potentially dangerous situation. Imagine if there were congressman who publically applauded the 9/11 attack. Imagine if there were congressman who travelled to al Aqaida camps. I cannot imagine any other country ignoring an active fifth column in a time of war, some of whom hold seats in the national legislature. It is ironic that the israeli arabs stridently oppose lieberman's proposal that as part of a 2-state peace solution that the borders of the state be drwn to include Israeli Arab villages within the Palestinian state. Kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Posted by gren at 03/16/2009 @ 2:21pm
@rykart
"book writes: "the actual history of Israel/Palestine is so complex and muddy that anyone who claims to truly understand it is by definition a buffoon."
A transparently ridiculous statement."
Why transparent? In what way have you revealed it to be so? All you did was state an opinion. No matter. I'm afraid that in my opinion, by my definition--the right for me to hold which I know you'd defend to the death, no matter how wrong you think it--you're a buffoon. Your blanket demonization is simple-minded and ludicrous. Nothing you wrote proves anything other than you look at this tragic situation through a tunnel. No one agrees on the historical "truth" of this tragic situation. There are only numerous overlapping shades of gray, which you evidently see only in black and white. Get back into the cellar, dunce.
Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/16/2009 @ 5:00pm
<i>Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 12:42pm </i>
The claim that the Israel-Palestine conflict is extraordinarily complex is just true, your "eh, they're all butchers" assertion notwithstanding.
<i>Posted by CripThink at 03/15/2009 @ 5:40pm</i>
Another occupied territory...what patent nonsense. If you would like, I can post the link to an editorial that utterly devastates your "they run this country" claim, and by the way, NO ONE HAS RESPONDED TO IT. Why? Because the "gigantic conspiracy" theory is stupid. What's one hint of this? Chas Freeman backing off of it when he otherwise has no incentive to do so.
<i>Posted by rykart at 03/15/2009 @ 12:46pm </i>
Your argument here would hold IF that were the actual state of affairs...it is not. Are there serious issues? Yes. Warsaw Ghetto? No. Extermination? No.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/16/2009 @ 5:14pm
Do you call yourself bookman in a feeble effort to camouflage your illiteracy?
This isn't the upper paleolithic we're talking about. We're not attempting to decrypt cave paintings in the freakin Perigord, my friend.
We have a voluminous record of what took place. The founders of the state openly declared their intention to rid the land of its Arab majority and have pursued that goal with the single minded zeal characteristic of this sort of racist dig filth, your disappointing efforts at obfuscation notwithstanding.
Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 6:02pm
hi crip.
It does become tiresome lecturing these talmudic mandrils, with hamentashen where their minds ought to be. You can't reach them.
I haven't the patience for it, really.
Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 6:30pm
Zionists ensure $3.9 billion is given to Israel,even if 11.2 million don't have any job,50 million no insurance, 5.7 million living on unemployment. Israels' per capita is twice that of US. What does US gest in return ? 1. Ethnically cleanse most of Palestine(Plan Dalet'48-50), 2. Commit terrorist attacks against US counsulate in Egypt(The Lavon Affair), 3. Mass murder of 34 of US sailors/ marines aboard the USS Liberty in '67, 4. Attempted to shoot down US SR-71 BLACKBIRDS during the '73 war( Admiral Moorer's words), 4. Attempted to ASSASINATE US ambassadors, John Guenther Dean, Philip Habib, and Morris Draper(U.S. State Depart. files), 5. Wiretap our UN ambassadors(Andrew Young), commit espionage against the U.S., and then pass it on to The Soviet Union(Jonathon Pollard trial records, NSA Gen. William Odom's opinion), 6. Repeated espionage from AIPAC and its umbrella organizations(Stephen Franklin court records), 7.Illegal transfer of classified technology to China--repeatedly!!(Dep. of Defense/JCS report on China/ DIA reports)...
Scripture tells of 10 commandants. Zionists has brain washed even good christians into believing the 11th commandant;
OBEY ISRAEL, or your life will be like that of Freeman(if u live in US)or Palestinians (if u live overseas)
Posted by KW at 03/16/2009 @ 7:05pm
<i>Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 6:02pm </i>
It's interesting how many of the quotations you all have cited are also used in Mearsheimer and Walt's book. Why is that important? Because critics of the book have proven decisively how virtually all of those quotes were either taken out of their proper context or completely misreported.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/16/2009 @ 7:10pm
thrawn
Please support the claim with credible sources.
(hint: Alan Dershowitz is not a credible source, unless the topic at hand happens to be "strategies of plagiarism and deceit" or perhaps "how to get murderers off the hook, at home and abroad."
Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 7:32pm
<i>Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 7:32pm </i>
Why, because he's Jewish and doesn't agree with Mearsheimer and Walt? That's hardly a good standard.
In fact, I'll give you an article that deals with the Iraq issue (even though I think analytically it's already been dealt with). Yes, yes, it's from the Jerusalem post, so I can see the bias argument forming now. But before you make it, look at the actual analysis:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/kramer/entry/mearsheimer_walt_and_cold_feet
I will find more analysis later on. I'll start off, though, by pointing that M & W made some pretty obvious mistakes, like equating the law of return with the criteria for citizenship. Innocent mistake, perhaps, but it does feed the myth of systematic racism rather nicely.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/16/2009 @ 10:23pm
"Why, because he's Jewish and doesn't agree with Mearsheimer and Walt? That's hardly a good standard."
He's Jewish. He doesn't agree with Mearsheimer and Walt and also...he shamelessly plagiarizes zionist comic books like "From Time Immemorial" and has never told the truth about anything in his entire life and is almost universally recognized as a loudmouthed fraud with absolutely nothing of value to say to anyone.
read your link. personally, I agree with the writer's skepticism about israel and the lobby pushing the US into its disastrous war with iraq. It's undeniable that they fully, enthusiastically supported it, but they were not the deciding factor and i don't think there's persuasive evidence they tipped the balance. Neither do many in the pro-Palestinian camp, including Chomsky and Finkelstein.
On the other hand, to deny a powerful pro-israel lobby that routinely makes use of mafia tactics to silence their opponents is a preposterous evasion of reality at this point. No serious person denies the existence and insidiousness of this lobby, whose latest (though surely not the last) victim was chas freeman.
ps: the law of return practiced by israel is a unique legal perversity and rather obviously, a case of systematic racism. Again--not controversial among reasonable people.
Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 10:41pm
<i>Posted by rykart at 03/16/2009 @ 10:41pm </i>
You keep using phrases like "no serious person denies X" or "X is not controversial among reasonable people," when those claims are patently false. Do all reasonable people claim that the law of return is racist? No. In fact, it seems almost obvious that it's not. In order for the policy to be racist, there must be a Jewish race that can somehow be distinguished from others. There is not. Moreover, has there historically been a reason for it? Yes; strong antisemitism has existed for some time. That's why Israel was created to begin with.
Moreover...to what mafia tactics do you refer? I'm not playing dumb here; I'm actually curious both what you mean and to what incidents you are referring.
The Dershowitz point is actually somewhat well-taken, though I'd of course reserve the right to reverse that judgment if I find evidence falsifying that claim. However, that does not automatically discredit every argument he makes, any more than Hitler's repugnant anti-Jewish crusade automatically invalidates any actual arguments he were to make against Judaism.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/17/2009 @ 10:13am
Let's say you present the following scenario: white members of country x dispossess black members of country x, herding them into open air concentration camps where they are brutalized and left to languish in deplorable conditions. They then invite white people to come from australia, the caymen islands, valley forge and the arctic circle to come live on the land they have stolen, handing them the full rights of citizenship denied to the native black population.
I think the average "reasonable person" would describe the scenario as monstrously racist on the face of it.
Your point about Hitler is well taken. I agree with the notion that a person's argument should be directly engaged, regardless of what we think of them personally. I think that is precisely the frustration and anger so many feel toward the Israel lobby, which routinely demonizes those they disagree with as anti-semites or other social deviants, utterly side-stepping the powerful arguments presented, Dershowitz being something of a master of the art.
I'd certainly cite his interventions in a number of cases as resembling mafia tactics--that is, threats to the livelihood of those critical of Israel....academics, book publishers, activists, etc. The case of Norman Finkelstein's tenure denial was merely one of the more egregious examples.
Posted by rykart at 03/17/2009 @ 12:00pm
AIPAC and the Israeli hawks need to take their blinders off so that they can see that they are hurting Israel.
Posted by politicky at 03/17/2009 @ 2:42pm
<i>Posted by rykart at 03/17/2009 @ 12:00pm </i>
First off, your black/white analogy is distinct from the status quo in a crucial respect: whatever you may think about the conflict, it has nothing to do with race. One, there is no "Jewish race." Two, no race is intentionally targeted for extinction or oppression. Are there dark hints of that going on? Yeah, and it worries me a great deal; this ugliness should not be allowed to take the reigns. However, what you have yet to account for is the fact that many Arabs are and have been full citizens of Israel; how many Arab countries can say the same about Jews?
Moreover, change your analogy a bit. Suppose that the people who come into the given land have been oppressed literally everywhere they went, and the international community seeks to give them some place where they can finally have shelter from that. When you make THAT modification, things look just a bit different, wouldn't you think?
Finally, to the extent that demonization happens, it's bad; I think we're agreed on that. I think that sometimes "labels" can be important because bigotry on either side can sometimes be very good at masking itself, but that regardless, the arguments themselves should be subjected to independent scrutiny. Labeling to the point of dehumanizing is wrong no matter who it is (no human being is "vermin"), but sometimes understanding the underlying motivation behind an idea, or the problematic implications of it, can make us a bit more careful in scrutinizing it.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/17/2009 @ 7:38pm
Thrawn
..as to the first point, there are Jews convinced we belong to a distinct race. On the other hand, the term is probably equally misapplied when talking about blacks. The whole concept of race has been mostly dispensed with in scientific circles. I think that changes the issue not at all....purely a matter of semantics. The point is, we ought to find it intolerable when one group violates the human rights of another, whether based on eye color, sexual preference, religious affiliation, language, what have you.
Second point..I agree that there was a very strong case to be made for a jewish homeland based on the severe oppression jews were subjected to, culminating in the holocaust. But a stipulation of granting this homeland, plainly carved out of another people's place in the world, was that the fundamental rights of the indigenous people would not be infringed upon. Clearly, that was not to be. I think someone (I forget who) put it exactly right: "Bad enough if you jump out of a burning building to save yourself and land on someone else's back. The Jews jumped and landed on someone else's back, and then began BEATING the person."
Third point...no real argument, though you can tell from the tenor of many of my remarks here that the enthusiasm of so many israelis at inflicting terrible suffering and harm on the Palestinians both nauseates and angers me. I find it hard to discuss it dispassionately.
here's another mensch I can relate to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8
Posted by rykart at 03/17/2009 @ 10:59pm
Zionists are essentially extermist jews,who use religion to justify their action. Irony, real jews that is the jews of middle east (Mizrahi and Sephardic jews) has very little role. It is Ashkhenaz jews that is european jews of khazar descent who became jews in 7th-8th century,who uses Zionism to promote their agenda. These ppl are NOT even SEMITE. If they were semite, then all Muslims and Christians are semites as well !
Creation of Israel served many purpose; 1. Europe got rid of these converted jews. 2. A pro-euro colony got created in the Mid-East.
Zionists are GODLESS. They are more dangerous than Nazi's,terrorists bcz they hide behind musks !
Posted by KW at 03/18/2009 @ 11:14am