Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobies to withdraw from NIC Chairmanship

---

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

http://www.juancole.com/2009/03/chas-freeman-forced-by-israel-lobies-to.html

From Mr Freeman: "Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them."

I pray too, for the scum that continue to exert control with their distortions of the truth, are unfortunately, still succeeding.

he's obviously a lunatic as there's no such thing as the "Israel Lobby"
:sarcasm:

edited to add (after being pointed out by bemildred): my god, that's terrible spelling in the headline

Sigh.

The "Israel Lobies" are the ones who really have Zionism on the brain.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_blGfuJqvbMU/SEjAFQz1_4I/AAAAAAAAA-c/FeYPD0Nnr8s/s320/Rim+Shot+Johnny+Utah.jpg

But wouldn't a "Limbaughtomy" be a procedure where they removed the fat from your head?

Limbaughtomy would be where they stir the fat around, like what they do with frogs before dissection, so they won't feel it.

Will this be on the test?

Freeman ouster is signal, Obama won't put pressure on Israel

by Philip Weiss

Andrew Sullivan, as demoralized as we are here, says the MSM didn't cover Freeman and this means that the Israel lobby has won and there will be no change in policy in I/P under shrewd timid Obama. "The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate."

But the good thing is that this one happened out in the open, more or less, and is bound to be covered by the Times. I believe it will lead at last to the "60 Minutes" piece on the Israel lobby. Glenn Greenwald is particularly eloquent on this point, that the third rail is still alive.

<snip>

www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/freeman-ouster-is-signal-obama-wont-put-pressure-on-israel.html

It's all about money, as our correspondent Felson says below. Anyone who says this isn't about money is deluding themselves. The most important piece of journalism about the Israel lobby in the last couple of years was done by the Forward, when it reported that Ned Lamont's victory in the Connecticut Dem primary in August '06 had sent the big Jewish money running for the hills. They stuck with defeated Joe Lieberman, because of Israel. That's what the Democratic Party fears. And what the Republican Party is playing for: defection of the big money over Putting Pressure on Israel.

That's why Chuck Schumer's office is taking credit for getting Freeman knocked out, and Greg Sargent says it was Rahm Emanuel and Schumer working together.

The party bosses don't want Lamont/Freeman/realists/progressives to divide the Democratic Party.

Lincoln taught us all about this. You could maintain the party structure, Whigs and Democrats, and let slavery go out into the country. Or you could break up the party system and appeal to an unspoken moral constituency.

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/freeman-ouster-is-signal-obama-wont-put-pressure-on-israel.html

'Charlie Wilson's War' Cites Power of Israel Lobby. Who Gave Them Permission?

How many Jews are in your district? she asks. Seven. But those Jews don't matter.

It's the Jews in New York and L.A. who support his campaign because he's a friend of Israel, he says.

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=543

Good lord!

Or have you even seen the movie?

Those are your words.

and there are your words. Strawman much?

Because I was responding to your comment in post #11 where you used that phrase.

the only words of mine are on the subject line of the post. Of course, you knew that.

You claimed that my post #12 was the one in which "big Jewish money" first appeared. Hopefully, you now realize that this is not the case and that the phrase actually first appeared in your post #11.

Also, I am not sure how I am supposed to have known that the reference to "big Jewish money" included in your post #11 was an excerpt from an article and not your own words. It is not entirely evident from the post that the link provided applies to all of the paragraphs that precede it.

Be that as it may, however, you have asserted elsewhere on this thread that you are in accord with the author of that piece which you cited in your post ("I stand by the two articles I posted").

To summarize, you introduced the reference to "big Jewish money" via a link to a blog post with which you have subsequently professed agreement.

I would respectfully assert that references like that, be they from you or from the blog you linked to, are less than helpful.

"Ned Lamont's victory in the Connecticut Dem primary in August '06 had sent the big Jewish money running for the hills."

Phil has the most honest blog, the best commentary about these issues in the entire cyberworld. I would love to see you ask Phil about his use of that phrase, rather than simply cry foul.

Even a cursory reading of his venomous blog makes that abundantly clear. Your high praise of this insect does nothing for your credibility or that of the cause you represent.

Anytime you use phrases like that, you're just giving the Israeli right ammunition. And in some cases, LITERAL ammunition.

For the love of Yahweh, freaking rephrase that.

And, given that that asshole Charlie Wilson is largely responsible for the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, thanks to his fundraising and appropriations work on behalf of the Afghan "freedom fighters", you really shouldn't cite him at all.

You fell into a trap there, Indiana. You've got to get out of it, fast.

with Israel. The secondary issue is this evil alliance of neocons and neolibs that act as agents of Israel rather than as representatives of the American people.

not "Jewish money".

The way you had that post phrased sounded like something Henry Ford would've said in 1916.

It's crucial to get the language right and to avoid falling into the traps.

That's my point here.

It was AIPAC's money that saved Joe Lieberman, and it was the Israel Lobby's agents in Congress (Schumer et al) that decided who will serve the Obama Administration. Obama might as well submit the names of his nominees to Israel for pre-approval.

can americans have interest in foreign policy?

or is it just specific americans and specific foreign policies that are judged differently? as if they don't believe in what they are proposing but are merely "agents" doing it for (sex? money? being blackmailed?)

there always is shortage of the specifics why they are doing it....can i get some help here?

and I am not speaking of Jonathan Pollard, but of two AIPAC honchos:

Published on Friday, August 5, 2005 by Direland.com

The Real Aipac Spy Ring Story -- It Was All About Iran

by Doug Ireland

The indictment of the two senior AIPAC staffers follows the indictment in may of Feith's footpad Larry Franklin. Franklin worked in the Office of Special Plans, run by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who reported to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The OSP functioned as a "shadow" intelligence service on Iraq, and provided much of the information to the White House that was used to justify the American invasion of Iraq. Some wags have called it "Feith-based intelligence", since much of that intelligence and information has now been proven to be utterly false. At the beginning of May, Franklin was arrested by the FBI for the passing of classified documents to two AIPAC staffers, who were then to pass them to Israel. The documents in question concerned Iran.

One of the two newly-indicted AIPACers isn't just anybody. Steve Rosen, 63, is the man who built AIPAC into the $40 million dollar Capitol Hill powerhouse it is today. Buried in a Washington Post profile of AIPAC from May 19 is the skinny on Rosen as the power behind the scenes at AIPAC. Said the Post:

"For more than two decades, Rosen has been a mainstay of AIPAC and the architect of the group's ever-increasing clout. Though Rosen was listed below Executive Director Howard Kohr on AIPAC's organizational chart, people familiar with AIPAC's history say that Kohr is a protege of Rosen's and got that job with his help. Kohr declined to be interviewed about Rosen. 'He is a quiet guy,' said M.J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum, another pro-Israel group, and a former AIPAC employee. 'But everyone knows he's the brains behind the outfit.'"

Now, just what is AIPAC, you may well ask? AIPAC is the enforcer of the knee-jerk support for the Israeli government which characterizes the political and governing classes in this country, -- Israel is the real third rail of American politics: touch it with criticism, no matter how carefully couched, and you die. Both the Democratic and Republican parties fall all over themselves to kiss AIPAC's boots -- because AIPAC and its well-filled war-chest helps make sure they toe the line on Israel, and has been responsible for the defeat of a significant number of politicians over the years who dared to criticize Israeli policies. Earlier this year, AIPAC played a major role in destroying the candidacy of Tim Roemer for chairman of the DNC. There's an in-depth, critical profile of AIPAC by RightWeb's Michael Flynn that gives an in-depth look at AIPAC's arm-and-leg-breaking political style. And the newly indicted Rosen is The Man Behind the Curtain. Even though he formally resigned from AIPAC, the organization is paying his legal bills, and Rosen is still pulling the strings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-33.htm

why are these americans doing it? since i understand from the article that these americans are doing stuff that is not in their own interests as americans....in fact i guess traitors would be appropriate.

are they being paid for it? blackmailed...what is the means to coerce them?



so is it just AIPAC or other americans who have interest in say Saudi Arabia, that would also be doing stuff against amercian and their own interests?

Let's quit the playacting and pretending that this isn't about money, power and undue influence.

DISGUSTING!

just like other people.....just like americans who are pro hamas/hizballa etc....or NRA people who lobby to keep their guns...or the ACLU or the NAACP.......

you just dont like what they believe in....it s ok, i find people who support hamas, a fanatic theocratic style of governing rather disgusting myself.....as i find iran, saudi arabia and the taliban equally disgusting.....yet i doubt you do

but the ACLU, NRA, and NAACP are domestic their concerns are with internal policies in America, not the interests of a foreign government.
As for the proHamas types you mention do they have a lobby, do they direct funds to politicians? Or are the proHamas types you mention simply those who oppose their governments support of Israeli occupation.

what the ACLU and NRA etc are....americans with an interest that lobby their govt....are you saying americans shouldnt lobby their govt about its foreign policy?...are you against protests that involve americans foreign policy?...or is just when israel is involved?

i've seen photos of prohamas/hizballa anti israeli rallies in CA, i assume some of the participants lobby or otherwise attempt to influence their reps in congress.....just like those who belong to the AIPAC

or is it just AIPAC that is not allowed to lobby?
_____

or perhaps its that AIPAC is organized....is that then problem?...or maybe its the fact that many in congress maybe even agree with AIPAC?

however IMO lobby groups or special interest groups should be barred from giving donations or doing favors for any member of the US government, it is in fact a legalized form of bribery/extortion and in the US a major reason we do not have things such as nationalized health care and credit card compamies can charge loan shark like interest rates

onlies are criticized?

At least Pelsar acted on his convictions and had the balls to move to Israel.

the question at hand is, is AIPAC because israel is involved is it being singled out....to wonder is reasonable....to then compare to other lobbies is equally reasonable...to discover that other lobbyists who have multiple interests are not considered "anti american or against american interests is simply something to discuss.

the fact that people here do not want to compare and complain that "its a diversion" or shutting down the discussion" is just as interesting...because the comparison would obviously show the double standard...and its that double standard that is to be avoided at all costs.....

Discussing honestly what appears to be a double-standard, however, is labeled a diversion.

Hmmm.

You can't expect us, we Americans, to be less harsh on spies than Israel has been with theirs. Does Mordechai Vanunu ring a bell?

in this country.

what you want is no opposition at all to your demonization and defamation efforts against Israel. You can't stand rational criticism and debate against your hysterical views.

Tell me - do you also want honest dialogue about the reality that is Hamas and its supporters? You know, like Hamas' implementation of sharia law, gender apartheid vs. women, child abuse, hate indoctrination and incitement to genocide, human rights violations against religious minorities and Fatah, etc.? Or would you rather stifle such debate and unfairly label people who bring these things up racists and warmongers?

I am all about open discussion. Tell me Shira, why are you and orgs like AIPAC always trying to stifle open discussion?

Jimmy Carter made that claim when he came out with his Apartheid book, but for some reason he didn't want to debate anyone on the book's merits. So it appears that people like Carter want their views aired, but they don't want those views challenged.

and will use their influence to stifle any discussion of that particular incident. Fascism with a kippa to boot!

Israel has apologised and paid compensation for USS Liberty survivors. America has bombed a Chinese embassy, sunk a Japanese fishing boat with submarines, killed Japanese civilians with nuclear tests in the 1950s, killed British tank crews in Iraq with "friendly fire". Accidentally, it would seem.

I think the reasons advanced by some Liberty survivors to explain the attack are eccentric, and I am quite prepared to accept that Israel did not intend to attack the US.

and yet, because he has some tentative associations with Saudi Arabia he should be considered unfit for public service. Apparently, fitness for public service depends very much upon the foreign power to which one is loyal.

Lobbies try and advance special interests. By and large, these special interests run contrary to the national interests of the country. The agricorp lobby pushes subsidies which weigh upon the public purse and inflate the food prices paid by ordinary Americans. The auto lobby pushes for reduced emissions standards which contribute to the brown haze perpetually surrounding Los Angeles. And the Israel lobby pushes for unconditional foreign aid and unconditional support of Israel, which undermines America's credibility and adds to its 11-trillion dollar public debt.

A lobby, after all, exists to make a state do what it would otherwise not do. If not, what is the purpose of the lobby?

Of course, any American is free to lobby his or her government. Equally, any citizen of America is entitled to make the straightforward case that the policies of the Israel lobby are contrary to the national interests of the United States.

by and large, these special interests run contrary to the national interests

I'm sure the UAW would be shocked to hear that their actions are anti american...as would the NRA, the ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO......

or perhaps you have a formula to decide which lobbiest are anti american and which are not...perhaps you can enlighten some of us?.....

___


were the people who lobbied against the vietnam war....un american....or was that not considered a "special interest" (did they have other interests?

Pat Buchanan had his America Firsters; a bunch of rightwing fascists.

And we got our Israel Firsters; another bunch of rightwing fascists that should register as agents of a foreign government, as the law requires.

what else can explain your infatuation with a RW'er like Chas Freeman? His views on China and S.Arabia are awful. Why put his anti-Israel views ahead of the progressive agenda? Should Freeman register as an agent of S.Arabia or China?

crazy notion of a Jewish conspiracy controlling American gov'ts, etc. Except nowadays, they couch it with the term Israeli Lobby.

"crazy notion" my ass.

Are you saying there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the US?

and yes they are American's

and not be declared " un patriotic, un american' just because someone disagrees with you.

if the member of AIPAC are mormons....are they also "unamerican" and dont have american interests at heart?
___

i always find the lack of tolerance here for others always fascinating......AIPAC is a great example, it seems that for many its impossible to imagine that the americans in AIPAC see israel as being important and that they believe it serves american interests to be allied with israel........

well as unlikely as that is or about as likely as a Mormon NAACP member I don't care what religion they are as I said I do not approve of lobby groups period, but I do not think that is what you meant is it so let me be clear as to what I meant-
Well I find it curious that you support a group that supports you and your children and quite possibly grandchildren fighting a war and keeping up a conflict that makes them so proud of your bravery while they and theirs remain safely in the US, perhaps though you'll get to meet some of them when they take their birthright tours

thats what I meant nothing unamerican about safety

Done your reading of the Protocols recently?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that President Obama should pick his appointees based on how much crap they are willing to put up with if they do not toe the mark of certain lobbies.

it was the repuke voters in CT- as virtually everyone with any grasp on what happened there in 2006, knows. Grab a clue, dear, and educate thyself.

. . . significant campaign contributions from certain American Jewish groups and individuals are in large part responsible for preventing Freeman and people like him from being nominated to policy positions as well as the heavy policy tilt toward Israel.

in the US concerning ME policy and why it will not change anytime soon

That's what the Democratic Party fears. And what the Republican Party is playing for: defection of the big money over Putting Pressure on Israel.

Chas Freeman:

"...The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States...."

http://www.juancole.com/


Preach it, brother Chas!

and whose recent bid to power was criticized by Human Rights Watch, which is certainly not part of any neocon Israel Lobby. Think Tieneman Square.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He did, however, choose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

Are you comfortable with that choice?

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Assassination
Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (73) | Permalink | Trackbacks (6) | Email This
Chas Freeman has withdrawn his name from consideration as the chairman of the National Intelligence Council. His withdrawal statement is relayed here by Laura Rozen in all its pugnacious glory. The guy goes out with guns blazing--a bit too hot, for my taste. He pins his departure on "the Israel Lobby," which is imprecise. He was the victim of a mob, not a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives--abetted by less than courageous public servants like Senator Chuck Schumer, who has publicly taken credit for the hit. This was his statement:

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."
Schumer should know that he has taken a scalp in the name of closed-mindedness, which is not a well-known Jewish tradition. He has made Washington even less hospitable for those who aren't afraid to speak their minds, for those who are reflexively contentious, who would defy the conventional wisdom.

Freeman's most important point in his statement is this one:

I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
Barack Obama should take note. The thugs have taken out Chas Freeman. They will not rest. Their real target is you, Mr. President.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/10/assassination/

exercises its muscle? Are you a member? Do you feel pride in the way they operate? Do you believe they have American interests at heart?

They operate in the same way that other similar groups operate. They try to push their case as aggressively as they can in the hopes of influencing public opinion and achieving legislative victories. They believe that it is in America's best interest for the relationship between the US and Israel to be strong.

Who is to say what American interests are really? Does Rush Limbaugh have American interests at heart? Does Medea Benjamin have American interests at heart? Every American has their own idea of what American interests are. People have a variety of conflicting ideas about what they think is in the best interests on the US.

Although I'd be curious to hear what John Kerry has to say at this year's AIPAC policy conference coming up in May.

Odd that he would want to attend a conference for a group that you seem to imply does not have America's interests at heart.

I think a just solution to this conflict is absolutely in the best interests of the USA. I wish AIPAC shared that view.

I for one, am tired of my tax dollars being used to bankroll another country; to arm another nation; to subsidize illegal settlements; to make possible an illegal, immoral, violent military occupation.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that if Americans regularly heard both narratives; regularly had access to both sides of the story, US policy would look very different.

Yes indeed, AIPAC would have much to lose if there were regular, open, vigorous discourse and debate on US policy in the Middle East.

Why? I could write the script for you right now, if you like.

Odd that he would want to attend a conference for a group that you seem to imply does not have America's interests at heart.

Its not their job to have American interests at heart. I would fully expect that in a situation where Israel's interests ran counter to America's interests that they would support Israel. That is their role and that is what their donors expect them to do.

Remember, the only reason for a lobby to exist is to make a state do what it otherwise would not do.

Of the last fifty years, presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Junior, and Clinton have adopted policies very favourable to Israel. Presidents Eisenhower and Carter were much more neutral.

The correlation is this: of the last fifty years, only two American presidents have successfully resolved major conflicts between Israel and another state. Eisenhower did so in 1956, and Carter did so at Camp David.

Its simple carrot and stick stuff. Tell the Israelis that if they don't give back the 1967 territories, no further military or financial aid will be given to them. Their qualitative military advantage will evaporate within a generation. They'll take the deal.

People generally hate to see their elected politicians being openly manipulated by the representatives of another country. That is why, with the exception of the Israel lobby, every other foreign lobby operates behind closed doors. The Chinese lobby, for example, is influential in the US but is highly scrupulous - as a rule, the Chinese lobby will never issue any public rebuke of an American public official. The Israel lobby has decided to play a high-stakes game by exercising influence in a manner that is highly publicised. At some time, their luck will play out.

AIPAC is a domestic lobby composed entirely of Americans which receives no financial assistance from Israel.

The Chinese lobby acts on behalf of the Chinese government whereas AIPAC does not act on behalf of the Israeli government.

The actions of those who seek to criticize the group for their influence account for some of why AIPAC's lobbying efforts are so highly publicized.

You left Bush Sr. and Reagan off of your list of presidents - I would add them to the latter category and note that no major conflicts were resolved regarding Israel during their presidency. I would also add that one of the presidents in the former group, President Clinton, helped to broker an agreement in 1993 that was arguably the most significant agreement ever reached between Israelis and Palestinians.

You left Bush Sr. and Reagan off of your list of presidents

Bush was a lukewarm supporter of Israel. He did some useful work in pushing the Madrid Peace conferences. His contribution to Israel's recognition of the PLO was far more significant than anything Clinton did.

President Clinton, helped to broker an agreement in 1993

President Clinton helped stage a handshake on the white house lawn and was there to witness a "signing pf principles". The reason they're called "The Oslo Accords" is because the material discussions were held in Norway with the Norwegians as mediators. This was precisely because the Americans, and particularly Clinton, were viewed in such low esteem by the Palestinians.

AIPAC is a domestic lobby composed entirely of Americans which receives no financial assistance from Israel.

The Chinese lobby acts on behalf of the Chinese government whereas AIPAC does not act on behalf of the Israeli government.

The Greek and Armenian lobbies in the US are made up of US citizens. Certainly, the Armenian lobby takes instructions from Armenian leaders, in the same way that Jewish groups in the United States act on the instructions of Israel.

A recent example of this is the decision by Jewish groups to not oppose US funding for UNRWA this year. The Jewish groups in the US hate UNRWA and generally accuse it of everything under the sun. Israel, however, was concerned that if UNRWA was not allowed to repair the damage in Gaza, Hamas and Iran would get moral capital out of doing it instead. A few phone calls and everyone was singing from the same page.

Nevertheless, the Armenian lobby is far less provocative in issuing criticisms of public officials than the Israel lobby. One example of this is last year's house discussions on the house resolution recognising the Armenian genocide. As far as I am aware, not one of the US politicians who voted against the resolution were publicly criticised by the Armenian lobby, even though some of them went so far as to implicitly deny that the genocide ever took place.

does that mean AIPAC works against "american interests"....would you call that the "noise factor" as a method for defining patriotism?....so are americans that make up the membership of AIPAC are they "un americans"...and should they be blacklisted?

so just out of curiosity...the Palestinian lobby (CAIR)....are they too acting against american interests

like any foreign lobby, by and large works against American interests, mainly by trying to derail relations between the US and the Turkic nations (Turkey, Azerbaijan, etc). While I have no sympathy for the Turks, I realise that strategically they are very useful allies for the United States, certainly far more so than Israel. The same goes for the Cuban lobby as well as CAIR.

The ideal situation would be to have no lobby. The next best situation for most pluralistic political systems is to have opposing lobbies that are more or less equipotent. The alternative, least preferred option is that you rely on the voters to exert electoral pressure to keep special interests in check. Fortunately, this does tend to happen over time. However, this is not always the case for foreign lobbies. The Cuban lobby was able to persuade the US to maintain the food and medicine embargo against Cuba even during the Special Period following the demise of the Soviet Union, when many Cubans faced the threat of starvation. This lost the US quite a bit of credibility in latin America, and for no real gain. Even now the embargo against Cuba achieves very little for the US in any meaningful sense.

However, because the victims of the embargo are ordinary Cubans with no electoral pressure to exercise, there is no capacity for the system to correct itself. The only real advocates that Cubans have in the US are well-meaning leftists who attempt to bring their plight to the attention of the public, who are by and large the same kind-hearted folk that try to advocate the interests of the Palestinians. Mostly, they are unsuccessful.

Traditionally in western countries, elected politicians were kept as far away from the coal face of diplomacy as possible, and diplomacy for the most part was carried out by senior, career diplomats. The main reason for that was so that diplomacy was as far removed from the pressures of domestic politics as possible, as well as ensuring a reasonable degree of continuity from one government to the next. Recently, that tradition has broken down, there are many more political appointments to diplomatic positions, and elected officials are engaging much more directly in foreign policy.

people as a whole do what they believe is in their own best interests....that includes americans who write their congressman about various aspects of foreign policy, be it vietnam, iran, israel, afaganistan etc.


and some get organized (vietnam protestors) and some get donations (CAIR) to have people do the work full time to be more effective (AIPAC). But to declare that these people are working against their own interests, simply because you disagree with them..

this is a good summary of your posistion:

The only real advocates that Cubans have in the US are well-meaning leftists who attempt to bring their plight to the attention of the public, who are by and large the same kind-hearted folk that try to advocate the interests of the Palestinians. Mostly, they are unsuccessful.

wasnt there a committee called the "unamerican committee based on the same principle?.......people who disagree with you on american foreign policy ...should be "blacklisted as unamerican, not patriotic, etc....

AMAZING how the left so imitates the right when it comes to tolerance...er intolerance of different political viewpoints. I could take your post and with a few minor changes post it on a conservative site and get massive support. (change lobby to intl leftest etc)

___________
one note: i always forget..this is not a liberal board, where a single principle defines ones view point and is applied across the board, it is a "progressive board where the double standard is applied as per ones preferences

people as a whole do what they believe is in their own best interests....that includes americans who write their congressman about various aspects of foreign policy, be it vietnam, iran, israel, afaganistan etc.

Very few people are that politically conscious. If all Americans were, obviously, lobbying would be much more difficult, as people would be far more conscious of the extent to which their politicians dance on a string.

for reasons that are bizarre to me, you're claming that americans who work as lobbyists have no problem in proposing and pushing policies that are infact against their own interests as americans and infact put their families in danger....

but other lobbyists who arent as strong/organized as "other" lobbyists have THE REAL american interests at heart.....
___

most interesting...so how do you tell these "REAL AMERICANS apart from the "OTHER Americans"...do you have a little red book? or are the real americans the ones that agree with you and the anti americans are those that disagree with you? (Whats the difference between your view and McCarthyism?)

you're claming that americans who work as lobbyists have no problem in proposing and pushing policies that are infact against their own interests as americans

"Against their own interests as Americans" does not mean necessarily mean against their own interest. And its done every fucking day. Eg, the farm lobby successfully persuaded each of the presidential candidates to subsidise corn-based ethanol. While billed as a "green fuel" it produces 85% as much emissions as liquid petroleum. Expensive to produce, limited in scope, and it pushes up the price of corn used as food. But as long as you can appeal to nationalist sentiment and say you're supporting farmers, that'll do.

All you need to do is look at the plight of the non-union working poor in the US, who essentially have no lobby, to realise how much they get left in the cold.

deny any group of Americans their right to say and do as much as they can for their beliefs and yet that is what the AIPAC haters do. That these censors would come from the left is disgusting.

When did AIPAC promote a progressive agenda? Progressives push back on the efforts of the lobbying coming from the health insurance agencies, Exxon Mobile and their global warming denier pseudo-scientists propaganda, the efforts of Wall Street and large corporations, so why would they be silent about those opposing Freeman, because those opposing Freeman have such a consistent record of supporting human rights for everyone?

Please define what you mean when you say, they have the right to say and do as much as they can for their beliefs.

Israel for I might be called a "hater" and a "censor". Disgusting is right...

It's no better than people here who accuse you of being a terrorist supporter who hates America. Both suck.

I respond by pointing out that Freedman was good enough for Democratic president's administration.

And Cali, please feel no need to protect my posts or beliefs from being mischaracterized by someone else. If I feel falsely accused by someone, I am more than capable of handling it on my own. I don't need you to run interference, and I don't think Shira or other regular posters do either.

We're all adults here who can speak for ourselves.

This is a quote:

"Israel first? Israel only?"

You want to play the innocent? That would have been possible if you'd simply left it with "Good enough for Obama, good enough for me". Of course, in that case, I wouldn't have commented.

I'll apologize when I'm wrong. Here, I'm not. YOU accused/insinuated that another poster here is more loyal to Israel than to the U.S. Kindly refrain from such extravagances.

Who appointed you judge and jury of all that is right and true here in I/P land.

If you want to be a moderator, you should apply.

Until then, your POV carries no more weight than anyone elses.

And I have every right to say what I think here. Don't like it? Sorry, but that's the way it goes here.

And really, we're all adults. We can all speak for ourselves and don't need you to decide what is and is not appropriate to post.

Thanks for your concern.

Israel first?

The pro-Israelis are often referred to as Israel-firsters here. I know you don't post here every day, but it's not uncommon.

And BTW, if I am questioning someone's loyalty to this country, I usually flat-out ask them, rather than engage in semantic games.

(edited for grammar)

I was concerned that Mr Freeman would withdraw for several days before it happened, and I do believe that he withdrew of his own volition. He states the case perfectly well. He does not seem the sort of fellow to put up with the nonsense that has been going on over his appointment, and that could be expected to continue if he were to keep the job. So I disagree with the "forced" part, and all arguments based on it.

the problem is this I do not expect the nonsense to stop just because he withdrew, in fact his withdrawal will most likely be seized upon as an admission of sorts that he is guilty of something, after all if they Schumer, Rosen et al stop now it will be too obvious that the whole show was simply to make Mr Freeman quit, no quite to the contrary they almost have to continue or else be revealed for what they truly are are doing

On the other hand they have made some enemies.

On Chas Freeman's withdrawal
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 10:35am


As you might expect, I have a few thoughts on Charles Freeman's decision to withdraw from consideration as chair of the National Intelligence Committee. (For Freeman's own reaction, see FP's The Cable here; for other reactions, see Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Phil Weiss, and MJ Rosenberg.

First, for all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful "Israel lobby," or who admitted that it existed but didn't think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful "Saudi lobby," think again.

Second, this incident does not speak well for Barack Obama's principles, or even his political instincts. It is one thing to pander to various special interest groups while you're running for office -- everyone expects that sort of thing -- but it's another thing to let a group of bullies push you around in the first fifty days of your administration. But as Ben Smith noted in Politico, it's entirely consistent with most of Obama's behavior on this issue.

The decision to toss Freeman over the side tells the lobby (and others) that it doesn't have to worry about Barack getting tough with Netanyahu, or even that he’s willing to fight hard for his own people. Although AIPAC has issued a pro forma denial that it had anything to do with it, well-placed friends in Washington have told me that it leaned hard on some key senators behind-the-scenes and is now bragging that Obama is a "pushover." Bottom line: Caving on Freeman was a blunder that could come back to haunt any subsequent effort to address the deteriorating situation in the region.

Third, and related to my second point, this incident reinforces my suspicion that the Democratic Party is in fact a party of wimps. I'm not talking about Congress, which has been in thrall to the lobby for decades, but about the new team in the Executive Branch. Don't they understand that you have to start your term in office by making it clear that people will pay a price if they cross you? Barack Obama won an historic election and has a clear mandate for change -- and that includes rethinking our failed Middle East policy -- and yet he wouldn't defend an appointment that didn't even require Senate confirmation. Why? See point No.1 above.

Of course, it's possible that I'm wrong here, and that Obama's team was actually being clever. Freeman's critics had to expend a lot of ammunition to kill a single appointment to what is ultimately not a direct policy-making position, and they undoubtedly ticked off a lot of people by doing so. When the real policy fights begin -- over the actual content of the NIEs, over attacking Iran, and over the peace process itself -- they aren't likely to get much sympathy from DNI Blair and it is least conceivable that Obama will turn to them and say, "look, I gave you one early on, but now I'm going to do what's right for America." I don't really believe that will happen, but I'll be delighted if Obama proves me wrong.


Fourth, the worst aspect of the Freeman affair is the likelihood of a chilling effect on discourse in Washington, at precisely the time when we badly need a more open and wide-ranging discussion of our Middle East policy. As I noted earlier, this was one of the main reasons why the lobby went after Freeman so vehemently; in an era where more and more people are questioning Israel's behavior and questioning the merits of unconditional U.S. support, its hardline defenders felt they simply had to reinforce the de facto ban on honest discourse inside the Beltway. After forty-plus years of occupation, two wars in Lebanon, and the latest pummeling of Gaza, (not to mention Ehud Olmert's own comparison of Israel with South Africa), defenders of the "special relationship" can't win on facts and logic anymore. So they have to rely on raw political muscle and the silencing or marginalization of those with whom they disagree. In the short term, Freeman's fate is intended to send the message that if you want to move up in Washington, you had better make damn sure that nobody even suspects you might be an independent thinker on these issues.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/on_chas_freemans_withdrawal

Shame on the lobby and all who support it. This behavior transcends "politics as usual" and enters the realm of "immoral." Imagine doing all once can to stifle dialogue, to stifle new ideas, to stifle the flow of ideas. Utterly shameful.

much of his decision was based on the fact that he had no strong vocal support from the Democrats. That would certainly give me great pause.

I want to emphasize that Freeman is not politically my sort of person, he is conservative in the old mode. I think the old mode of politics is unworkable, and we need to invent something new. Modern technical and industrial societies require something better than medieval politics. But he is a "realist", which means not an ideologue, in the old mode. He is empirically based rather than ideologically based, he is open to different views, willing to try to think like his opponents do, admits that we do not have God or morality on our side, and that we better deal with our not-special position in the universe realistically, the universe does not care.

But WRT the particular issue, he is not an indispensable person, as he points out, and there is really nothing at stake here, it's all show biz. Somebody else will be found. His primary job would be public relations, a front man. It's not that big a deal. He might be able to do a better job of intimidating the Congressmen.

. . . not surprising . . . God forbid anyone speaks in favor of the security of United States and wants to debate the American interest in the ME.

The Holy Grail of American Foreign Policy.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that Freeman is a conservative Republican who is not progressive enough. But don't use what might be legitimate opposition to Freeman's appointment as an excuse for your real goal - Eretz Israel.

Now that you have compared me to a neo-nazi and a bigot (I don't compare you to Daniel Pipes or Jonathan Pollard, do I?), welcome to my ignore list.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

<snip>

"I’ve patiently tried to dissect who was responsible for the Charles Freeman fiasco and to discern what it portends for the Obama administration. Some commentary on the commentary:

Myth #1: The “Israel lobby” and AIPAC per se were not behind the opposition to Freeman; it was just a bunch of loud neocons.

AIPAC has publicly denied that it lobbied against the appointment. Joe Klein writes that Freeman: "pins his departure on ‘the Israel Lobby,’ which is imprecise. He was the victim of a mob, not a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives–abetted by less than courageous public servants like Senator Chuck Schumer, who has publicly taken credit for the hit."

Similarly, Jim Besser (a great reporter whom I admire) writes that he “saw no evidence the “lobby” — meaning AIPAC itself – was involved in the anti-Freeman effort, although that effort was sparked to a considerable degree by Steve Rosen, a former top AIPAC employee, and there’s plenty of evidence the more right-wing elements of the pro-Israel movement were heavily involved.”

Sorry, fellas. Very reliable sources inform me that Josh Block, an AIPAC spokesperson, contacted bloggers and journalists expressing concern about Freeman. That is probably what Freeman referred to when he mentioned “easily traceable e-mails” in the announcement that he was giving up the fight. Trust me on this one. I had to think twice about writing it because I want Block, who is generally very nice to critical journalists at the AIPAC Policy Conferences, to be nice to me. There is no way I would have written it unless it were manifestly true, and important.

Even it were not true, it is simply inconceivable that Mark Kirk, Charles Schumer and other Congressfolk who publicly objected to Freeman would have done so without the encouragement –or winks and nods– of AIPAC. The Hill is where it lives and breathes, and nothing this important could have been orchestrated without its blessing."

more

for this too? Obama Conditions Palestinian Aid on Recognizing Israel’s “Right to Exist”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/12/headlines#5




I think that notion would give Obama a pass and I don't see evidence that Obama is under such influence that he can't decide for himself how to proceed.

It should read:

Chas Freeman forced by Israel Loogies to withdraw from NIC Chairmanship

What really happened was that Netanyahu hocked a couple loogies in Freeman's path while Freeman was walking to his office at the Saudi embassy. Freeman then slipped and fell, tripping over his white sheet.

As Paul Harvey would say:

And now you know the rest of the story. Good day!

I admit I don't get it with Freeman. What's there to like for a progressive? Why the love affair for Chas Freeman?

Is being a neocon hater and rabidly anti-Israel the sole qualifications one needs to work for Obama? If that's the case, Pat Buchanon and David Duke fit that bill just as well as Freeman. Heck, they were also against the Iraq war. Yay, sign 'em up, what are we waiting for - right?

Freeman's a lifelong Republican (with paleo-conservative leanings), Human Rights Watch was against him for his views on China (Mao, Tienamen Square), and he's an enthusiastic supporter and apologist for a Saudi Regime that practices gender and religious apartheid, and executes gays.

So what's with the love affair?

Freeman is anything but progressive. Is this a case of blindly putting his anti-Israel agenda ahead of what's best for progressive America?

Why is everyone so mad and defending this putz?

anti-Israel agenda.

Guess the AIPAC folks didn't exactly expect a firestorm on the internet. tickety tock. The days when AIPAC calls the shots without interference are winding down.

And I don't see how you can claim that Silverstein is a progressive who hardly has an anti-Israel agenda. What's so progressive about him being in the cheerleading section of the Chas Freeman fanclub?

And if Silverstein is not anti-Israel despite all the hostility and demonization he directs at Israel, then by that measure Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are "hardly" Islamophobes. Spencer, Pipes, Freeman, and Silverstein are just critics. They mean well because they care.

:eyes:

Guess the AIPAC folks didn't exactly expect a firestorm on the internet. tickety tock. The days when AIPAC calls the shots without interference are winding down.

Are you also as pissed against Nancy Pelosi and Human Rights Watch for being against Chas Freeman? Does AIPAC control them too? Why is it so difficult for alleged progressives to admit to Freeman's rightwing shortcomings on China and S.Arabia?

Wait - now that I've read some more of Silverstein, we're supposed to believe that AIPAC is so powerful that they don't have to say a word....they only need to enlist a few bloggers to knock Freeman out? :rofl:

but even if he did, you're okay with any appointment he makes? What if that appointee were Pat Buchanon? Buchanon hates neo-cons, is anti-Israel, and against the Iraq war. But you'd be fine with that b/c you trust Obama with that decision, and if Buchanon has any influence against Israel, that's good enough for you? You'll gladly sacrifice progressive values (and how many would be enough) to put a Buchanite in charge?

This is what's so frustrating. If a Pat Buchanon were appointed by Obama and progressives like the pick due solely to Buchanon's views on Israel, you'd STILL blame and demonize the Israel lobby if it torpedoed such a nomination - and then question AIPAC'ers loyalties for doing so.

I'm at a loss for words here.

Buchanon = Freeman in my opinion. They're both rightwingers with many similarly warped views. And you don't have a problem with Freeman?

Unfuckingbelievable.

had Pat Buchanon been appointed instead of Freeman, and it was blessed by Obama, that's good enough for you?

Obama had nothing to do with the selection and made no statement to suggest he was "on board" with the choice.

Blair nominated Freeman - people criticized (and others defended/supported) the nomination. Obama said nothing about it. Offered no words of support for the nomination. Said nothing to indicate that he was "on board" with it. Then Freeman withdrew.

Interesting phenomenon, that.

seems there are plenty on the left who are progressive EXCEPT for Israel. For some odd reason, you all cannot distinguish between criticism and demonization WRT Israel. You all have a double-standard in distinguishing between Anti-semitism and Islamophobia.

Attitudes to the Middle East can certainly get in the way of liberal/progressive views - in either direction.

IMO:


You might be letting pro-Israel sentiment interfere with progressiveness, if:


You would consider voting for a Tory or Republican if they appear more pro-Israel than their opponent

You are inclined to scapegoat ethnic minorities and immigrants as the main cause of antisemitism, or to assume it's a recent development due to 'political correctness'.

You can see Palestinians, or Arabs more generally, only in terms of their being 'Israel's enemies', and not as human beings with their own rights and needs.

You consider that the agendas of right-wing pundits such as Melanie Phillips or Daniel Pipes may be at least partially valid, because they have defended Israel.

You support the Occupation, or worse, aggressive war to crush Arabs/ Palestinians/ 'Islamofascists'.

Your support for Israel tempts you into making common cause with Christian Zionists or with RW American or allied hawks.



You might be letting pro-Palestinian sentiment interfere with progressiveness, if:

You think that antisemitism is caused by bad actions by Israel or its supporters.

You don't apply the same standards of criticism to the Muslim Right as you do to the Christian Right.

You seem Israelis or 'Zionists' as monolithically bad, or responsible for many of the world's evils.

You consider that the agendas of right-wing pundits such as Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan may be at least partially valid because they have criticized Israel.

You support or justify terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

Your support for Palestine tempts you into making common cause with anti-Israel xenophobic isolationists, or with hardline Islamists.


('You' by the way is a generic 'you' and is not addressed to any specific individuals on the forum.)

reminds me of the, you might be a redneck if.....

There's some great ones at this site:

http://youmightbe.com/

are some progressives who are pro Israel. I do see the reverse in liberals where more of them are pro Israel. I myself am a lifelong liberal Dem who is obviously pro Israel.
I do get a bit ticked off when I see people try to pidgeon hole someones views and say being either pro Israel/Palestine is not being a progressive/liberal stance. Who are they to say what is or what isnt a progressive/liberal stance as there are enough differences in opinions to make either view not set in stone as say a view being pro choice/life would be

Bottom line: He would have brought some even-handed sanity to this situation. And we both know that even-handedness is the LAST THING AIPAC WANTS!

A U.S. Role Is Crucial For Peace
By Chas. W. Freeman Jr.
Published: Wednesday, October 18, 2000

No American politician ever lost an election by speaking too fondly of Israel or too poorly of the Palestinians. But this is a time for sober calculation about events in the Holy Land and their implications for American interests, not for emotionally or electorally satisfying rhetoric.

The credibility of the United States as mediator between Israelis and Arabs is at an all-time low, the cease-fire agreement reached yesterday between the Israelis and Palestinians notwithstanding.

Israelis had hoped the Oslo accords would persuade Arabs to accept their presence on the West Bank and even to thank Israelis for giving back some land taken in 1967, not to mention give Israelis a greatly enhanced sense of security. They expected acquiescence in their continued control of Jerusalem. What they got was continued animosity from Palestinians, pressure for additional concessions, a near doubling of the rate at which Israeli Arabs murdered Israeli Jews, and a rising challenge to their sovereignty in Jerusalem. They now face a resurgent intifada.

Palestinians had expected that Oslo would lead to the end of Israeli land seizures, paramilitary colonization and martial law. They hoped for the rapid return of land seized by Israel, emergence of self-government in their own state and recognition of their right to establish their capital in Jerusalem.

What they experienced was expanded Jewish settlements, repeated delays in deadlines for Israeli withdrawal and the consolidation of Israeli-controlled corridors on the West Bank. They saw the emergence of a territorial jigsaw puzzle rather than a state, and Israel's stance on Jerusalem was far short of their political requirements. Fewer Palestinians were dying at the hands of Israeli soldiers, but settlers were killing twice as many as before.

The ill-timed and ill-prepared summit at Camp David in July clarified these gaps between expectation and reality, but did not narrow them. Israelis and most Americans acclaimed broad concessions by Ehud Barak as bold departures from Israel's previous stands on the core issues.

But Palestinians, other Arabs and most Muslims saw Israeli final offers that would produce a Palestinian Bantustan, relegate Arabs to a permanent position of inferiority in the Holy Land and force Muslims to bow to Jewish control of the Islamic holy places in Jerusalem -- what Ariel Sharon's heavily armed visit to the Haram al Sharif sought to emphasize.

Camp David thus set the stage for confrontation, not peace. Its aftermath may have ended Mr. Barak's power to negotiate. He can thump and temporize; he can no longer compromise. Few expect him to be in office long. Likewise, the Palestinian people have curtailed Yasir Arafat's mandate to make peace with Israel. He has no authority to accept anything like what Mr. Barak offered him at Camp David even if that were still on the table.

please read on!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7DB173EF93BA25753C1A9669C8B63&th&emc=th

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is

(1) What does this intelligence job actually involve? How are his views on Israel related to gathering intelligence - surely partiality on either side should not come into this?

(2) What are his views in general? I must say, what makes me feel uncomfortable about him is mainly his views on China; but that may not be relevant to an intelligence post, either.

So:

(a) Is he actually a progressive?
(b) Is (a) relevant to his job anyway?

FTR, I get the impression that there's LOTS of people out to scupper Obama's appointments if they put a real or imaginary foot wrong on anything, and that AIPAC isn't unique here. E.g. the Daschle episode.

I do find the power that lobbies have in the American political process quite shocking. That includes but is hardly restricted to AIPAC. It's nothing like that extreme here, or in many other countries.

I didn't know either and was hoping there'd be some light shed on it...

I feel the same as you about the power of lobby groups in the US. While lobbying goes on here, it's nothing at all like it is in the US...

The New York Times re-ran this op-ed TODAY!

A U.S. Role Is Crucial For Peace
By Chas. W. Freeman Jr.
Published: Wednesday, October 18, 2000

No American politician ever lost an election by speaking too fondly of Israel or too poorly of the Palestinians. But this is a time for sober calculation about events in the Holy Land and their implications for American interests, not for emotionally or electorally satisfying rhetoric.

The credibility of the United States as mediator between Israelis and Arabs is at an all-time low, the cease-fire agreement reached yesterday between the Israelis and Palestinians notwithstanding.

Israelis had hoped the Oslo accords would persuade Arabs to accept their presence on the West Bank and even to thank Israelis for giving back some land taken in 1967, not to mention give Israelis a greatly enhanced sense of security. They expected acquiescence in their continued control of Jerusalem. What they got was continued animosity from Palestinians, pressure for additional concessions, a near doubling of the rate at which Israeli Arabs murdered Israeli Jews, and a rising challenge to their sovereignty in Jerusalem. They now face a resurgent intifada.

Palestinians had expected that Oslo would lead to the end of Israeli land seizures, paramilitary colonization and martial law. They hoped for the rapid return of land seized by Israel, emergence of self-government in their own state and recognition of their right to establish their capital in Jerusalem.

What they experienced was expanded Jewish settlements, repeated delays in deadlines for Israeli withdrawal and the consolidation of Israeli-controlled corridors on the West Bank. They saw the emergence of a territorial jigsaw puzzle rather than a state, and Israel's stance on Jerusalem was far short of their political requirements. Fewer Palestinians were dying at the hands of Israeli soldiers, but settlers were killing twice as many as before.

The ill-timed and ill-prepared summit at Camp David in July clarified these gaps between expectation and reality, but did not narrow them. Israelis and most Americans acclaimed broad concessions by Ehud Barak as bold departures from Israel's previous stands on the core issues.

But Palestinians, other Arabs and most Muslims saw Israeli final offers that would produce a Palestinian Bantustan, relegate Arabs to a permanent position of inferiority in the Holy Land and force Muslims to bow to Jewish control of the Islamic holy places in Jerusalem -- what Ariel Sharon's heavily armed visit to the Haram al Sharif sought to emphasize.

Camp David thus set the stage for confrontation, not peace. Its aftermath may have ended Mr. Barak's power to negotiate. He can thump and temporize; he can no longer compromise. Few expect him to be in office long. Likewise, the Palestinian people have curtailed Yasir Arafat's mandate to make peace with Israel. He has no authority to accept anything like what Mr. Barak offered him at Camp David even if that were still on the table.

please read on!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7DB...

from this article:

"Israelis had hoped the Oslo accords would persuade Arabs to accept their presence on the West Bank and even to thank Israelis for giving back some land taken in 1967, not to mention give Israelis a greatly enhanced sense of security. They expected acquiescence in their continued control of Jerusalem."

Really? That's what the Israeli peace camp actually hoped for? They articulated something else but deep down they wanted the above? Holy shit!

That's the kind of snark and juvenile ranting I'd expect from some anti-Israel bloggers, not from a distinguished statesman. This is precisely the reason he's wrong for the job. The above quote isn't criticism of Israel at all, but at this point I'm certain you cannot tell the difference between reasoned, legit criticism, as opposed to vitriol, demonization and the kind of invective in Freeman's statement that is based on myth and half-baked conspiracies.

09 Mar 2009 09:53 am

For the record here are two interesting statements on Chas Freeman and his fitness for public office, by people deeply familiar with the China-related part of his experience and outlook. Quick points of context:

- I don't think anyone seriously contends that Freeman's views on China are the central reason for the opposition to him. As Andrew Sullivan convincingly (IHMO) demonstrated, the real argument, for better or worse, concerns his views on Israel.

- On the other hand, his most often-quoted view about China -- that the regime erred mainly in waiting too long to crack down on the Tiananmen Square demonstrations -- has added to the argument that he is a doctrinaire "realist" who has no time for ideals of any sort.

- The two people whose views I quote below have absolutely unquestionable standing to speak on this subject. One is Sidney Rittenberg, who first went to China with the US Army in 1945 and ended up spending 35 years there, 16 of them in solitary confinement for alleged espionage and disloyalty to the Mao regime. The other is Jerome A. Cohen, of NYU Law School and Paul Weiss, who has been tireless in his efforts for legal reform in China and was instrumental in freeing John Downey, who had been held in Chinese prison for two decades after the Korean War.

Both of them strongly support the expansion of individual liberties and civil society in China. Both of them strongly support Chas Freeman and his candidacy for his now-disupted job.

After the jump, a long email Rittenberg sent me today about Freeman. Here, comments each of them made on a private China-related discussion group, quoted with their permission. Read these and ask yourself: based at least on the China part of his background, does this sound like a man so far beyond the range of reasonable opinion that he must be prevented from holding appointive office?

Rittenberg:

To my knowledge--and from personal experience--Chas Freeman as DCM in Beijing was a stalwart supporter of human rights who helped many individuals in need. Not political bluster,but intelligent and courageous action. He is strong in both wisdom and integrity.

Cohen:

Chas Freeman is one of the most brilliant, analytical, balanced and skeptical people I have known in the last four decades. I first knew him as a young State Dept China-watcher and was so impressed I persuaded State to stake him to a year at Harvard Law School so he could finish his JD and hone his skills in international law. Chas had left HLS after two bored, ho-hum years to join the Foreign Service, but when he returned he took full advantage of the opportunity and, if memory serves, had a perfect third year record. I have not been close to him since that time but we have occasionally crossed paths and I always benefited from and enjoyed the experience.

Chas is a keen observer, a wicked wit and a fearless critic. It is ludicrous to portray him as a "panda hugger" who endorses the slaughter of June 4 or someone who can be seduced by Saudi enticements. As far as I know, he has always been fiercely independent, and an enemy of "group think", and I will be glad to have him analyzing Israeli politics and policies as well as other problems.

In 1973, when Chas was helping to establish the pre-Embassy U.S. "liaison office" in Beijing, a time when the Cultural Revolution led PRC officials to obscure their titles from foreigners by identifying themselves as "responsible member of the department concerned," Chas had his own name cards printed in Chinese and English bestowing the same sobriquet on himself.

I congratulate Admiral Blair on selecting Chas to be "responsible member of the department concerned" and certainly will think less of President Obama and his advisors if they back down.

more...
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/chas_freeman_and_china.php

Is it one of those stupid pay per view archive things or something? I'd like to read the whole thing coz he's sounding very reasonable there...

By Uri Avnery

15 March 2009

Uri Avnery shows how, in the first test of strength between the Israel lobby and the Obama administration, the lobby won hands down by forcing the administration to rescind the appointment of a critic of the Israeli occupation, Charles Freeman, as National Intelligence Council chairman.

(snip)

Freeman was called by Barack Obama’s newly-appointed chief of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, to the post of Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. In this position, he would have been in charge of the National intelligence Estimates (NIE), summarizing the reports of all the 16 US intelligence agencies, which employ some 100,000 people at an annual cost of 50 billion dollars, and composing the estimates that are put before the president.

In Israel, this is the job of the Directorate of Military Intelligence, and the officer in charge has a huge influence on government policy. In October 1973, the then intelligence chief disregarded all reports to the contrary and informed the government that there was only a “low probability” of an Egyptian attack. A few days later the Egyptian army crossed the canal.

Throughout the 1990s, the man in charge of intelligence estimates, Amos Gilad, deliberately misled the government into believing that Yasser Arafat was deceiving them and was actually plotting the destruction of Israel. Gilad was later openly accused by his subordinates of suppressing their expert reports and submitting estimates of his own, which were not based on any intelligence whatsoever. Later, as the guru of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Gilad coined the phrase “We have no Palestinian partner for peace”.

In the US, the intelligence chiefs famously supplied President George W. Bush with the (false) intelligence he needed to justify his invasion of Iraq.

All this shows how vitally important it is to have an estimates chief of intellectual integrity and wide experience and knowledge. Admiral Blair could not have chosen a better person than Charles Freeman, a man of sterling character and uncontested expertise, especially about China and the Arab world.

And that was his undoing.

As a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman is an expert on the Arab world and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has strong opinions about American policy in the Middle East, and makes no secret of them.
In a 2005 speech, he criticized Israel's "high-handed and self-defeating policies" originating in the "occupation and settlement of Arab lands", which he described as "inherently violent".

In a 2007 speech he said that the US had "embraced Israel’s enemies as our own" and that Arabs had "responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies." Charging the US with backing Israel’s "efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations" and to "seize ever more Arab land for its colonists", he added that "Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians”.

Another conclusion is his belief that the terrorism the United States confronts is due largely to "the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation that has lasted over 40 years and shows no signs of ending".

Naturally, the appointment of such a person was viewed with great alarm by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. They decided on an all-out attack. No subtle behind-the-scenes intervention, no discreet protestations, but a full-scale demonstration of their might right at the beginning of the Obama era.

Public denunciations were composed, senators and congressmen pressed into action, media people mobilized. Freeman’s integrity was called into question, shady connections with Arab and Chinese financial interests “disclosed” by the docile press. Admiral Blair came to his appointee’s defence, but in vain. Freeman had no choice but to withdraw.

The full meaning of this episode should not escape anyone.

It was the first test of strength of the lobby in the new Obama era. And in this test, the lobby came out with flying (blue-and-white) colours. The administration was publicly humiliated.

http://www.redress.cc/stooges/uavnery20090315

all opposition bloggers put together. Maybe since all anti-Israel bloggers are so pisspoor that they're no match for a few proIsrael bloggers, they should consider other hobbies. How humiliating.

Anti-Freeman opposition barely made the MSM, the only Israel Lobby AIPAC made no public statements and didn't gather overwhelming congressional support as they would ordinarily (suggesting they stayed out of this one), but we're to believe "the lobby" is so strong that with their pinky finger - certainly not their full weight - they can stop any appointment they don't like?

Do they have supernatural abilities others just don't have? How irrational and conspiratorial does one have to be to buy into this shit? The Jews are powerful enough to kill God 2000 years ago (imagine what Jews can do to anyone else if they can kill God) and now with barely any effort at all they can control govts who are but putty in their hands? Oh wait, excuse me for a sec...I've got the Prime Minister of an important European nation buzzing me on my cell phone right now, I guess I should answer and give him his orders now, he's been calling me all morning...geez, you'd think he could run his own govt without me holding his fucking hand all the time......:eyes:

And some of you wonder why Freeman and his conspiracy-believing, cheerleading squad are perceived as loons.

didn't you get the memo?

A bunch of greedy Jews want to rule the world, and AIPAC controls everything the US does.

All foreign policy.

No politician can be elected without a blessing by AIPAC.

Those pushy Jews want to control everything (they control all the money anyway), and it is really time that people become aware of the truth.

Right?

:sarcasm: