An open debate on Israel

[Scurrilous]

Obama's appointee to lead the National Intelligence Council withdrew, blaming the Israel lobby. To shape U.S. policy, many voices must be heard.

<snip>

"When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote about "The Israel Lobby" in 2006, many supporters of Israel were outraged. How, they wanted to know, could anyone say that the United States offered "unwavering support" to Israel? Worse yet, how did these two misguided professors dare suggest that there was a cabal of die-hard Zionists in the media, in Congress, in the Pentagon and in neocon think tanks working to ensure that U.S. policy did not deviate from the pro-Israel party line?

The debate was ferocious; the world (or at least the part that cares about these things) divided along angry partisan lines. Mearsheimer and Walt were shouted down in many quarters as anti-Semites. Needless to say, no resolution was reached, and eventually the furor died down.

Several weeks ago, however, it re-erupted after President Obama appointed Charles W. Freeman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Vehement objections came from several of Israel's most loyal supporters in Congress, from some journalists and lobbyists known for their strong support of the Jewish state, and from other members of what some would no doubt call, well, the Israel lobby."

<snip>

"But Freeman's critics kept at him, and on Tuesday, Freeman withdrew from the appointment. Afterward, he was blunt: "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and reflect "an utter disregard for truth."

Our opinion is this: Israel is America's friend and ally. It deserves to exist safely within secure borders. We hope it will continue to prosper as a refuge for Jews and a vibrant democracy in the region (alongside an equally democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza). But we do not believe that Israel should be immune from criticism or that there is room for only one point of view in our government.

U.S. policy has been extremely supportive of Israel over the years, as have many of our policymakers. That's fine. But theirs should not be the only voices allowed in the room."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-freeman12-2009mar12,0,6110962.story

[Jim Sagle]

1. OK, I 'll add my voice to this robust debate about Freeman: Fuck'm.

;)

[aquart]

2. What Jim said.

Have a nice "debate" now.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Your way, or the highway! Let's try this one for size...

Today the IDF shot in the head an American, Tristan Anderson, a peace activist from California. He is now on life support at a Tel Aviv hospital. His prognosis is poor. I won't be surprised if the Israel Firsters contingent in DU will blame Tristan for his present condition and, were he to die, smear his memory just as they did Rachel Corrie.

Human life is equally valuable whether one is gay or hetero, black or white, American or non-American, Jew or non-Jew. The saddest thing about the last 41 years of Occupation is that what should have remained the core principles of humane people have become compromised, twisted, and subverted in order to defeat the legitimate grievances that each side in this conflict has against the other. There is less humanity, less compassion, and too much schadenfreude.

[Idealism]

11. Considering one of the posters in this thread already smeared Rachel Corrie

I would count on the same for Mr Anderson from the Israel firsters.

[Idealism]

3. Since Mr. Freeman had to step down because of his "unfavorable" views,

lets have Dennis Ross step down as well. I don't want someone obviously predisposed against the country they are advising our president on, forget Mr. Ross' pro-Israel stance.

[Igel]

4. There's a problem.

A lot of the Freeman opposition also dealt with his being pro-Saudi and how he interacted with the Chinese. It's an open question as to whether *just* his attitude towards Israel would have been sufficient to get his nomination flushed.

Of course, the primary thread in the MSM dealt with Israel, but one can object to Freeman on plenty of other grounds, just as one can consider Geithner's wonderful response to the monetary crisis in Indonesia in the early '90s to be sort of a counter-reference.

[Howardx]

5. shockingly neutral for the LA Times n/t

[Idealism]

10. No, it was not.

That was the cover of what the lobbying was about. There will be zero change in our policy with China and/or Saudi Arabia. One more diplomat that overlooks human rights abuses in our biggest exporter and our biggest oil supplier will not change foreign policy one iota. This was all about his objections to the Israeli occupation and settlements. Do you truly believe that his "favorable" views of Saudi Arabia matters one bit? We have been in bed with them the Saudi's since Standard Oil moved into the Kingdom. You might want to google ARAMCO, too, if you think the United States is about to reverse course on 80 years of history with the Saudi peninsula.

China is the same way. Not only do they hold over $2 trillion in US debt, they also are the biggest exporter of goods to the US. Without us, their economy falters and the country dips perilously close to outright revolution. Without them, the price of basic goods in our country goes through the roof.

The lack of Mr. Freeman being named to an intelligence position will not change US foreign policy one ounce towards China or Saudi Arabia, but it might change the status quo towards Israel. That is what the Israel lobby is afraid of.

[shira]

7. what exactly are Dennis Ross's non-progressive views

that worry you?

[IndianaGreen]

8. Dennis Ross is a warmongering neocon

Ross was one of Paul Wolfowitz's neocon gang that brought us Iraq, that included Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.

[Idealism]

9. How do you figure he is a progressive?

He is predisposed to dislike Iran, and will manipulate what he tells Obama to reflect his worldview of hyping up fear around Iran.

I don't want someone with an obvious chip on their shoulder telling our president about how things "really are on the ground." He is hardly an impartial observer.

[shira]

12. Ross supported Obama's presidency, not McCain

and he opposed Bush's policy of not talking to Iran. Do you see Ross' views being very similar to Hillary Clinton's?

[Idealism]

13. Ross supported the Iraq War, even signed multiple PNAC statements.

He was appointed by Reagan, then reappointed under Clinton, then assigned under Wolfowitz (another notorious neocon) by Bush.

He opposed Bush's policy of not talking to Iran, but he did not oppose the same strategy with regards to North Korea. Odd how there is no consistency there. Perhaps it is because PNAC was pushing for a North Korean invasion?