Blame the 'Lobby'

[shira]

Blame the 'Lobby'
The Obama administration's latest failed nominee peddles a conspiracy theory.

Thursday, March 12, 2009; Page A18

FORMER ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. looked like a poor choice to chair the Obama administration's National Intelligence Council. A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King "Abdullah the Great," Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask -- as numerous members of Congress had begun to do -- whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.

For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board. According to a report by Newsweek, Mr. Freeman's most formidable critic -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- was incensed by his position on dissent in China.

But let's consider the ambassador's broader charge: He describes "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.

What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to describe Israel's nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. More spin from the WaPo

A newspaper that bears little resemblance to the one that helped expose Watergate.

[shira]

2. Yeah, more spin because you say so

what's inaccurate or dishonest about the article?

[Mr. Sparkle]

7. This article should clear things up for you...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/12/anonymity/index.html

[shira]

18. thanks, now read posts #12 and #16 below

Even if AIPAC was behind it, and they're certainly not angry about Freeman's resignation, I get the feeling that AIPAC would be lambasted, rather than applauded by you, had they been as successful against someone as outrageous as Pat Buchanon, had he been the appointee. Freeman's politics are closer to Buchanon's than Obama's so this isn't really a big stretch. It's terribly distressing to see so many pissed off "progressives" who are so reluctant to admit to Freeman's many faults. Would these "progressives" be as silent had Buchanon been the nominee? After all, he's also anti-Israel.

Now think about this one.....what if Freeman got the job and then had to divulge all financial information WRT his ties with China and S.Arabia? You don't think having to disclose such info. had anything to do with his voluntary resignation?

[Jefferson23]

3. From the above editorial:

"The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them."

The choice of Dennis Ross as Obama's point man in Iran applies to that statement too, doesn't it?


And then there is Nancy Pelosi's inconsistent reaction to human rights concerns abroad: "Mr. Freeman's most formidable critic -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- was incensed by his position on dissent in China."

Pelosi co-sponsors with John Boehner a non-binding resolution expressing unwavering support for Israel on its air and ground strikes on Gaza. And did so knowing full well at that time there were reports of at least 700 dead Palestinians and 11 Israelis had been reported dead at that time.

But oh yea, Freeman was a real threat to the humanity that the US and Israel stand for.

[shira]

4. explain the problem with Dennis Ross please

as for Pelosi, she believes Israel has a right to defend itself, just like Hillary believes. Yours is the extreme position in that you do not believe Israel has any right to defend its citizens so long as there is occupation or settlement activity anywhere.

[Jefferson23]

10. I have an extreme position according to you. I agree that the advisory

ruling of the ICJ 2004 should be honored, the only reason it has not, is for arrogance and putting ones own self interests ahead of the rule of law. If that makes me extreme, ok.

What makes you think Pelosi gets such high marks for her concern for human rights, when in fact it is selective at best. The resolution passed supporting the strikes on Gaza had not ONE word regarding proportionality. Pelosi has little credibility on the subject of human rights and her crying fowl on Freeman is bullshit.

Find where I have said Israel has no right to defend itself, since that is your claim.

Considering the legacy of the Bush administration and Dennis Ross's contributions, it is more than fair to apply this editorials question to Ross, not just to Freeman.

[shira]

14. what makes you extreme

is your hostility towards Israel. When you demonize Israel in the same way Islamophobes demonize their targets, that is extreme. Islamophobes are far more than just 'critics'. You and Freeman are far more than mere critics.

What does it mean that you believe Israel has a right to defend itself? If Hamas launches another 300 rockets this week, as they did during Christmas 2008, what do you believe Israel can do "proportionally" and legitimately in response? Please be specific.

WRT Dennis Ross, he's not an Islamophobe. He doesn't demonize and defame those he disagrees with, like Freeman does on a constant basis. Whereas Freeman's invective against Israel, like yours, is replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies - which incidently makes both of you irrational extremists - Ross doesn't operate that way and therefore doesn't deserve to be compared to Freeman. Thus, to compare them as polar opposites of each other is not only unfair and vulgar, but absurd.

[Jefferson23]

17. I'll take this to mean you haven't found where I said Israel can't defend itself, thanks.

When you begin the question with, does Israel have the right to defend itself as opposed to WHY is Israel being attacked in the first place you avoid the conflict and end up with a simplistic, of course Israel can defend itself!

Like I said, I agree with the 2004 ICJ advisory ruling, too bad the US and Israel continue to thumb their nose at it. One needs only to look at Ross's record under the Bush administration to conclude that the editorials question applies to him too.

[shira]

19. and I take your reluctance to answer me as conceding to my points, thanks.

Had you pegged from the start. Not that I have any special ability - haters are easy to peg.

[Jefferson23]

21. So you peg people without offering proof and you're proud too, very nice.

You choose to ignore Ross's record under Bush and only highlight the critics of Freeman, and you ignore those same critics who have no concern for the Palestinians human rights issues, nice cherry picking.

I'll stay with the extreme haters, those 15 judges on the ICJ, thanks. Just a reminder, in case you have forgotten the gist of that advisory ruling:

"The wall is illegal. Israel must dismantle it, and pay compensation to Palestinians who have suffered financial or property losses as a result of its construction. No state should recognize the barrier as legitimate. The UN should act to implement the court's decision. On July 21, the General Assembly of the UN overwhelmingly agreed with the ICJ opinion, by a vote of 150-6 with ten abstentions. Interestingly, the General Assembly requested that the secretary-general register all damages caused to the Palestinians by the wall's construction."

I'll leave you and the US and Israel to defend the indefensible.

As it stands, Freeman withdrew, that should make you happy, as well, Obama has sent Secretary Clinton to deliver this: Obama Conditions Palestinian Aid on Recognizing Israel’s “Right to Exist http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/12/headlines#5

Not much has changed, status quo is being upheld, you must be pleased, yet you appear so defensive about Freeman's views on Israel being the foremost reason for the criticism he received. IOW, enjoy your idea of success, you won't have to worry about Freeman! Hooray for shira!

[shira]

22. tell me what's nice about Freeman, besides the vitriol he spews against Israel

He's a rightwing troll with views more in line with Pat Buchanon than any progressive on the left. Why do you find him so politically appealing? Please don't tell me that the sole reason you like him is because of his hostility towards Israel. Besides that, why would you want him in any important advisory committee - or anywhere near a progressive Obama administration? I can understand his appeal to the Buchanites, but to a progressive?

As for Ross, since when has he ever directed vulgar invective against any other country that was as replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies as Freeman or any other Israel hating hack? Since when has he ever been on record for SUPPORTING opression of Palestinians, or showing no concern for Palestinians? For that matter, what makes you think ANY of Freeman's critics support opression of Palestinians, or have no concern for them? For someone who recoils at "antisemite" accusations, you certainly have no qualms dishing out your own baseless accusations.

WRT the wall or separation fence, let's agree that it has prevented hundreds or thousands of attacks and has therefore SAVED thousands of lives. Can we agree on that?

As for the legality of the fence, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled on that already. Are you aware of their ruling? Why bring the Hague into it when Israel is perfectly capable of self-policing?

[Idealism]

25. "Why bring the Hague into it when Israel is perfectly capable of self-policing?"

You should have left the last two sentences off, it really put the rant over the top. Just a tip.

[shira]

28. are you aware of Israel's Supreme Court ruling on the fence?

If so, why the need for the Hague ruling?

[Idealism]

29. Why the need for annexing Palestinian lands in the first place?

There are questions you should ask the Israeli government and the illegal settlers.

[shira]

32. one issue at a time....no moving the goal posts

Hague. Wall. Israeli Supreme Court ruling.

You brought it up. Are we done discussing this?

[Idealism]

43. It is obvious that Israel cannot self police, otherwise their wouldn't be 300 UN resolutions against

them, non-binding and binding.

It is obvious they refuse to comply with the ICJ's ruling on the legality of the separation wall in accordance to international law. The Israeli supreme court answers to Israel, the ICJ answers to no one- who is higher up?

[shira]

88. Where in the ICJ ruling did it take Palestinian terror into consideration as the main reason for

the barrier? Personally, I think it's the least shittiest of all options to stop terror and save lives. Would you have rather seen the ICJ ruling succeed, the barrier torn down, and several thousand more dead on both sides as a result? I wouldn't, how about you?

[shira]

91. about ICC rulings and UNGA rulings

take a look at this doozy:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=31017

That's the UNGA head calling anti-Sudan (Bashir) rulings by the ICC "racist". Best to focus on Israel, right? Are you starting to see how political and hateful the UN is? In fact, it was only until recently that Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu agreed that what was happening in the Sudan was genocide. Don't you see how crooked and politically biased some of Israel's biggest detractors are? Really now - what's respectable or commendable about some of your anti-Israel heroes who hypocritically turn a deliberately blind eye to mass genocide? There's nothing progressive about these jerks.

[Idealism]

96. The ICJ is not the same thing as the UNGA

There are 15 nonpartisan, impartial judges sitting on the ICJ council. The UNGA passes non-binding resolutions that target Israel all the time, but do they matter? No. The Security council rulings are more important but even they get ignored by countries. Ultimately, the UN is powerless in this respect.

[shira]

100. you have no problem pointing to 300 UNGA resolutions against Israel

pretending that they're based on legit concerns and passed by 'caring' nations who mean well. How much more counter evidence will you require that proves the UNGA to be politically biased, "racist", and hostile to the max versus Israel?

[Idealism]

102. Some resolutions are with merit

Others are petty and suspect, it doesn't change the fact that there have been 300 resolutions aimed at Israel. The resolutions that are dubious are not binding- and you can't use the silly non-binding resolutions passed to call into question the legitimate concerns passed by the UNSC. In no way should your broad brush attack cast a shadow on the ICJ ruling, either.

The US Congress anonymously passes non-binding resolutions all the time supporting this nonsense or that; they passed the non-binding resolution providing unquestioning support for OCL- are you going to call them politically biased and hostile to the max versus the Palestinians?

[Idealism]

97. The barrier was built after Hamas announced the end of suicide bombing attacks

Fatah in the West Bank is under a tight leash by Abbas, and Islamic Jihad was culled out of the WB for the most part by PA security forces (who have Fatah members in them) and PIJ moved to Gaza where they had more freedom to operate.

The excuse that Israel is spending billions and billions on the wall to solely keep the suicide bombers out is a bit disingenuous. If that were the case why didn't Israel just build the wall on the green line? They would rather steal land that isn't theirs.

[pelsar]

106. AAAAAGGGHHHH! (link please?)

The barrier was built after Hamas announced the end of suicide bombing attacks

Did the suicide bombs and bringing in bombs stop? before the wall went up...this is your claim correct....of course you do have the stats to prove it..right?


and incase you cant find them, your research might show that only when the wall went up did actually bombs stop blowing up in israel, the attempts were far less and they were caught more (as their options were far more limited.)

____

and that link from where you reached your conclusion____________

an the usual simplistic question about where its placement...it was designed in principle to protect israeli lives on both side of the green line.
___

[Shaktimaan]

108. I've never heard this before.

The barrier was built after Hamas announced the end of suicide bombing attacks

Are you serious?

If that were the case why didn't Israel just build the wall on the green line? They would rather steal land that isn't theirs.

Well, they don't see it as stealing land per say. You do because in your view the land automatically belongs to the Palestinian nation. But lost of that land is disputed. Israel has not officially annexed the land, but neither does it ascribe to the belief that the land belongs to the Palestinians and thus must be stolen from them. Right now the land technically does not belong to anyone.

The green line is not a border. It never was intended to be one. Israel built the wall so that it surrounded and protected as many Israelis as possible, regardless of where they were living. So there is a practical reason for the wall's path deviating from the 67 armistice line. If the wall snaked out to claim land that Israel had no cause to protect then your theory would be far better supported.

What you are doing is assuming that Israel is operating by a motive that makes sense according to YOUR interpretation of the situation, not theirs. If you want to honestly comment on Israel's motivations then you must look at the situation from its viewpoint first. Right now you are expecting Israel to make decisions based on YOUR viewpoint, which just doesn't make sense.

[Idealism]

109. No, we both agree they built the wall to protect Israeli's

The point is they had to build it so far because they let settlers colonize land that is not Israel's. If they didn't let this happen past the green line, which is not considered "no man's land", then the wall could have been built purely on Israel's land and Palestinians would have no complaints about it.

[pelsar]

112. stick around....

"idealism" seems to have an imaginative view of the conflict...but i think you figured it out...idealism sees everything from the point of that fits the narrative that "idealism" believes..and then pretends the events, the history fits that narrative.

[Jefferson23]

33. What is nice about Freeman? You're kidding I hope.

At this point in our conversation, I had thought you understood that the objections targeted at Freeman in reference to his connections to the Saudis, as if the US hasn't been in bed with them for years and years, and his comments about the Chinese regime not having any choice but to respond with force in Tienanmen Square are coming from people who imo, have no credibility on the subject of human rights. I already gave you examples supporting my opinion, I did not give you baseless accusations, quite the contrary. Those examples indicate a concern for human rights that is a very selective process on their part, in other words, hypocrites.

The position Freeman was offered did not require the Senate to have its own views reflected and Obama has said more than once that he will employ individuals with differing views, although this man was not hand picked by Obama, Freeman certainly fell in line with his idea to have a contrarians point of view. Basically that is my objection to the objectors of Freeman, this is not about whether Freeman would be the best choice to represent progressives within the NIC.

His role would not be one such as Secretary of State, that yields a great deal of power. As head of the NIC, Freeman would have no line operational powers, but he would be the guy to say, hold on there, what if we are wrong! Evidently, that is NOT what some people want in an Obama administration with respect to Israel. Just read what Senator Schumer said about Freeman, he makes it pretty clear what he considers "over the top" criticism of Israel.

You ask, "As for Ross, since when has he ever directed vulgar invective against any other country that was as replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies as Freeman or any other Israel hating hack?"
Men like Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Richard Holbrooke are no different from Bush's crew which comprised of Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle. Ross pushing for the invasion of Iraq is enough of a reason to apply your editorials question to him. You going to tell me now that Ross will offer an unbiased opinion of containing Iran but Freeman was the controversial figure?

That wall makes no Palestinian safe, and yes, I am aware the Israeli Supreme Court ruled on that already. What I find incredible is your question, "Why bring the Hague into it when Israel is perfectly capable of self-policing?"

Considering how many long years this has been going on, it should be clear to you by now that Israel may be capable of it but has no intention of doing so.

*edited for clarity and spelling.

[shira]

35. one question please

If Pat Buchanon were selected instead of Freeman, and AIPAC or ZOA had a part in taking Buchanon down, would you applaud or lambaste the "Lobby" for their efforts?

ETA
It doesn't matter from where the China and Saudi Arabia accusations are coming from. The point is how compromised is Freeman WRT China and Saudi Arabia, and are those accusations true (some are not, but most are). Let's not pretend we can ignore his stance on China just because the accusations are coming from a source we don't normally agree with. Either the accusation is true or false. Who gives a shit from where it originates? The bottom line is that his views repelled people like Nancy Pelosi and orgs like Human Rights Watch. If you need credible sources, there you are.

[Jefferson23]

36. What is the correlation between Freeman and Buchanan?

You don't read well I guess, I already gave you my opinion on Pelosi and the other critics of Freeman. She, like the others critical of Freeman have no problem with the human rights abuses of the Palestinians. When those crying fowl on him for said reasons is hypocritical. HRW is entitled to their opinion and have a record of consistency that beats out those you defend. It is laughable that you would join Pelosi and the others as one voice with HRW on the subject of Freeman. I already said, the issue is not that Freeman would be a choice made by progressives and I told you what I objected to. The REASONS his critics gave have no merit because their human rights concerns are inconsistent. Their "concerns" are limited, thus their foremost concerns about Freeman is based on his views on Israel, not China, not the Saudis.

Why don't you care where the accusations are coming from? Obama was accused of palling around with a "terrorist", no one should care who says such things?

[shira]

37. Freeman and Buchanon are both RW'ers, against neocons, against Israel, against Iraq war

their politics are closer to each other than Freeman's to progressives. I just want to see if there's anyone - and I repeat - anyone including the worst RWers, who you'd object to, or is the litmus test ONLY wrt their views on Israel?

The point about HRW, etc.. is that Freeman DOES have problems WRT human rights issues elsewhere. That YOU don't give a rip and only care that he focuses on I/P shows YOUR lack of consistency. Jeez, how hard is it for YOU to admit that WRT human rights in some places, Freeman doesn't really fit the bill of someone consistent on those issues? Had YOU been the one with clout like Pelosi or Human Rights Watch, would you have simply remained silent and turned the other way WRT Freeman's human rights views in other areas of the world, and if so what does that say about you?

[Jefferson23]

38. And your Freeman/Buchanan connection is a loose one and makes no

sense here. Buchanan does not have any where near the background that Freeman does, so your comparison is based solely on your opinion of their politics, not their job qualifications.


I have answered you more than once about the reasons I call Freeman's critics hypocrites, go back and read my earlier posts if you so choose.

Freeman is expected to be consistent on his human rights views but his critics get a pass on their own inconsistencies on the same subject, if that is what you buy as the main reason he was criticized and not his views on Israel, fine with me, believe whatever you want.

You might be interested to read this from Glenn Greenwald:

"Anyone who even casually followed the Freeman attacks from the start knew where most of the attacks originated. Once it was over, neocons like Daniel Pipes were sending out celebratory emails hailing former AIPAC official (and accused espionage defendant) Steve Rosen as being the catalyzing force behind the anti-Freeman campaign.
"http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/12/anonymity/index.html

snip*
Dear Reader,
As many of you may know, Charles Freeman “has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed.”

What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freeman’s appointment, in a February 19 blog titled “Alarming appointment at the CIA.” Within hours, the word was out; and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve’s stature and credibility could have made this happen.

Even those who backed the Freeman appointment acknowledge Steve’s leadership in this effort. For example:

* Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, calls Steve “the leader of the anti-Freeman brigade.”
* The director of policy for the Israel Policy Forum calls him the “quarterback” of the effort.
* Max Blumenfeld of The Nation Institute calls him “leader of the campaign against Freeman’s appointment.”

I congratulate Steve and am proud of this early achievement by the Forum’s newly created Washington Project.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Pipes



BTW, No, I wouldn't remain silent on any potential candidate, and I also wouldn't exaggerate the
relevance of a concern with regard to the job they were being appointed to. I also voted for Obama, another non-progressive.

Enjoy the victory shira, Freeman won't be around to upset Israel.

[shira]

89. you wouldn't remain silent on Buchanon, but you are silent WRT Freeman's views on China

why is that?

[Jefferson23]

92. I already answered why, read it again if you like.

Keep in mind that it is YOUR opinion that Freeman is the equivalent of Buchanan, not mine.

[Idealism]

5. Who is so delusional to think this wasn't about Israel?

Mr Freeman chairing the National Intelligence Estimate will not change our policy towards Saudi Arabia nor China. Mr Freeman not chairing the NIE will not change our policy towards Saudi Arabia nor China.

They have two things we need: oil and cheap labor.

This as completely about Israel, sorry.

[shira]

6. Pelosi and Human Rights Watch are solely about Israel?

[Idealism]

9. Stop being obtuse.

[shira]

13. then answer these please

1. Freeman's views WRT S.Arabia and China and his big oil ties do not bother you as a progressive? It doesn't bother you that those defending Freeman cannot even admit some of his views are problematic? You're outspoken enough against Israel, why be selective and not speak out against Freeman when appropriate?

2. Do you understand the difference between being a critic of Israel and defaming or demonizing Israel? Would you have a problem with an Obama appointee who is a critic of mideast Arab/Muslim regimes, or just a problem with someone who constantly demonizes (and very irrationally at that) Arab/Muslim regimes?

3. In your opinion, is anyone who is pro-Israel and who voices their support for Israel and its policies automatically part of "the Lobby"?

[shira]

15. and lastly, #4

4. If Pat Buchanon were appointed instead of Freeman, would you lambaste or applaud the "Lobby" for its efforts to derail such a nomination?

[shira]

31. waiting on a reply to #4. thanks

[Idealism]

46. Buchanon is an anti-Semite who will never have a place in the Obama administration

So your question is moot.

If by some oddity he gets appointed to something that could influence policy in the Middle-East, he will be lobbied against and rightfully so. Again, this won't ever happen in the current administration so it is rather pointless.

[shira]

90. so Freeman's views on China aren't worth lobbying against

Buchanon is bad, Freeman is fine if you just ignore his views on China - right? Why the double standard? And would you be against the appointment of anyone who is hostile to Arab/Muslim countries? Someone who demonizes and defames, let's say Syria and Iran, goes way beyond criticism into pure vitriol? You wouldn't necessarily be against such an appointment?

[Idealism]

95. "Views on China" = him disputing the Chinese government report on Tianamen Square

That is such a lame excuse for not wanting the guy to chair a minor post it isn't even funny. Having Freeman on the NIC will not change our policy with China. Having The Dalai Lama chair the NIC will not change our policy with China.

[shira]

98. Phil Weiss admits Freeman's wrong on China

but you won't object because even though Freeman's a humananitarian hypocrite, what's the point opposing him if there can be no change in policy. How lame. You'll only speak out for human rights when you think there can be policy change - or only when you think you can have some influence by bullying or pressuring. What a crock. Politics as usual. No better than Carter and Tutu denying genocide in Sudan. You (plural) make excuses for these moral perverts because they're useful when they trash Israel.

[Idealism]

101. Where do you make this shit up from? Tutu is denying Sudanese genocide?

We must not forget the killing and pillage taking place in Sudan
By Archbishop Desmond Mpilo Tutu

Here is an inconvenient fact about Africa: our genocides tend to happen away from television cameras.

In our world of 24-hour news cycles, people could be forgiven for thinking Darfur did not exist. The Sudanese government's policy of making it hard for the media and humanitarian groups to get access to its remote western region has paid off.

In Darfur 2m people have been ethnically cleansed since 2003, women and girls are systematically raped and tortured daily, there is cholera in the refugee camps and the violence is spilling into next door Chad, and all without the attention, or response, it deserves.

http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=420

[LeftishBrit]

115. That's just not true of Tutu

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article641362.ece

www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1998581,00.html


www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5344890.stm

[shira]

116. my mistake

sometimes it's difficult distinguishing between elders like Carter and Tutu WRT their hostile and hypocritical views vis a vis Israel. I shouldn't have lumped Tutu in with the genocide-denying Carter, although I have read some articles pointing to Tutu's hypocrisy WRT human rights elsewhere throughout Africa.

[azurnoir]

40. The better question is

Would the "lobby" derail a Buchanan nomination or would they have to?

[shira]

42. there's no question AIPAC would try to derail it, along with the ZOA, AJC, etc..

the reason I ask about Buchanon is to see how low the hate-Israel brigades would go to see ANYONE hostile against Israel appointed to some influential govt position. Would they draw the line at a hater like Buchanon and just allow him in based on one issue? Ergo, my question. It still hasn't been answered by anyone yet.

[azurnoir]

47. I found your claim that only Pro Israeli Jewish organizations

would oppose Buchanan quite interesting not to mention telling is your opion of the reast of the Americans really that low?

[shira]

48. amazing, you see what you want to see

where did I write that only pro-Israel groups would try to derail Buchanon? It's no wonder you have your views with the kind of comprehension skills you have.

[azurnoir]

49. You only listed pro Israeli groups

I saw what you wrote that is all

[LeftishBrit]

65. Would Dems appoint Buchanan?

I can't imagine Obama accepting him, or for that matter Buchanan agreeing to work for Obama.

However, I do wish that the 'Lobby' or someone had got rid of him when he was first given office by Nixon!

[Idealism]

26. Something you don't realize about diplomats, shira

is that they all praise the country they are ambassadors to. It is like politicians who say anything to get elected, very similar circumstances. If you go to the US Ambassador to Turkey in Istanbul and ask him about the Armenian Genocide, he will more than likely deny any such event happened. Does that mean he isn't qualified to do his job? Part of his job is keeping Turkey happy with the United States, and nothing will upset their government more than condemnation of a brutal time in their past.

Calling the occupation what it truly is--criminal, brutal, and repressive-- is not "demonizing" or "defaming" Israel. It is only defamation if it isn't true, which the world court disagrees with your assertion that it is a false accusation, as well as almost every country in the UN. I would like some consistency in the matter: Mr Freeman must step down and Dennis Ross needs to step down for the same reason.

No, not every pro-Israel voice is part of the Israeli lobby. Steve Rosen is part of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, ADL, etc. but not some random person on the street because the random person on the street doesn't have the ear of the politicians. The person on the street doesn't donate to the politicians campaign fund to buy the access that the special interest lobbies buy, and thus do not much matter with minor political moves like this.

[shira]

30. you don't think Freeman's views on China, Mao, Tieneman Square

were over the top? Are you serious? Are you at all aware of his positions on China alone?

As for demonization, which you agree to be false accusation, here's one example from Freeman:

"Demonstrably, Israel excels at war; sadly, it has shown no talent for peace."

That is not criticism. It's not based on history. It's not based on careful analysis. That is pure vitriol and goes farther than just simple criticism. That's hostile. Can you imagine Obama or Clinton stating this on the record? Do I need to explain to you precisely WHY this is defamatory vitriol?

Of course, the Israel Lobby spew speaks for itself. If that's not demonization, nothing is. See posts #12 and #16 below for a little enlightenment on the dreaded "Lobby".

[Idealism]

44. It is harsh criticism actually

And I applaud him for trying to change the status quo. For too long, the US has accepted Israel's weak commitments to peace. These promises have brought no security, no prosperity for Palestinians, and only more land being stolen. I would say that Israel does excel at war and has shown little interest in peace.

I wasn't in China at the time, were you? I can't say what did or did not happen.

[shira]

51. just "harsh criticism"

Come on, it's ahistorical and is not the result of any sort of serious analysis. And you know this. It's pure vitriol.

Israel has shown no talent for peace despite handing the Sinai over to Egypt and attaining peace, making peace with Jordan, handing back S.Lebanon and Gaza, offering what Clinton called a credible peace offer just 8 years ago, etc. Freeman is not just a "harsh critic", he's hostile to Israel. And you think the govt needs more of this crap?

[Behind the Aegis]

52. The issue is yours.

You just don't understand "no talent for peace" means "they didn't roll over and die." See, when Israel makes peaceful moves "it serves an agenda," or it is "strictly for show." The only way for Israel to show a "talent for peace" is to die. Today, it is called the "one-state solution."

[Idealism]

54. Who else has been critical of Israel in the US government?

Do you not recall the appalling OCL-timed non-binding resolution unconditionally supporting Israel? There are no voices giving the Israeli government "more of this crap," which is why peace has yet to be attained. I could care less how he criticizes the Israeli government if it makes them to stop the illegal settlements and make peace.

[shira]

56. you're avoiding the issue

that wasn't criticism by Freeman, it was pure, ahistorical vitriol - wasn't it? As was this:

"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 - and Rabin was in on this scam? Holy shit!

That's demonization and pure vitriol. It's not criticism.

Do you still disagree?

[Idealism]

58. Or what about this quote I just read

from CAMERA!

"Israel is responsible for all of the problems in the Middle-East and will continue to be<...>"

Did Oslo give back all of the land taken? Oslo was a hope to the Israeli government that Palestinians would accept illegal settlements. I seriously don't understand your faked outrage over this.

Oh and by the way, this quote is fake. See how fun it is?

[shira]

66. now you're pulling quotes out of context, admitting it's fake and fun, and this proves some point?

I'm betting you can recognize vitriol and demonization when it's pro-Israel people doing it against pro-Palestinians. Why can't you see it the other way?

[Idealism]

68. By your definition of "vitriol," you are just as guilty of what you accuse Freeman of doing.

Except your comments are aimed at Palestinians. Do you consider it vitriol?

[shira]

72. point to an example of vitriol or demonization against Palestinians or PA leadership

let's see if we can first agree with each other WRT to what constitutes demonization and vitriol against Palestinians and PA leadership, okay? Should be easy for you to find something.

[Idealism]

77. You are joking right? Or do you truly believe yourself to be a fair judge in this conflict?

[shira]

80. more fair than you, that's for certain. You game or not?

[Idealism]

81. Think what you will, but at least I don't try to amerliorate blame for civilian deaths.

Your shrieking about the rocket fire is duly noted next to your silence about the thousands of Palestinians killed, same as how you try to lay blame with Rachel Corrie for "dying for a smuggler tunnel" when that is just more bullshit on your propaganda websites.

[shira]

87. of course you ameliorate blame for ISRAELI civilian deaths

Your shrieking about Israel's right to self-defense is duly noted next to your silence about the thousands of Israelis constantly targeted and terrorized by Hamas, as well as your silence WRT Palestinians who are victims of their Jihadi leadership.

Last time. Do you want to supply an example of demonization WRT Palestine or PA leadership, so we can see if we at least agree what is demonization and vitriol?

[Idealism]

99. Perhaps you should read some threads on the matter

because if I see posts about harm being done I post on the matter and offer my sympathies- no matter who it is.

Where are your posts about the Sri Lankan civilians deaths? Where are your posts about the shooting sprees in Alabama and California? Where are your posts lamenting the deaths of Mexican civilians slaughtered by the drug cartels who run that country?

[shira]

118. I've read your posts

no sympathy for Palestinian victims of Hamas, just trivializing and minimizing such suffering in order to place the majority of the blame on Israel. I'm not impressed by this type of sympathy, sorry.

Neither am I impressed with your canards about Israelis who cannot be victims in this conflict.

[shira]

119. self delete

[Vegasaurus]

55. "weak commitments to peace"?

What have the Palestinians done to advance peace?

Name one thing.

Suicide bombings, blowing up border crossings, kidnappings, plowing over people in dumptrucks or tractors, shooting off 6000 rockets, etc. don't count as commitments to peace.

[Idealism]

59. The PA fired off 6000 rockets, blew up border crossings, kidnapped Israeli's?

The West Bank is barely in better shape than Gaza, and the PA has acquiesced to Israeli demands years before Hamas became a problem. How would you like either living under martial law or potential bombing? Both choices suck, one just sucks less.

[Shaktimaan]

60. ummm... the PA didn't exist years before Hamas became a problem. np

[Idealism]

61. They were called a different name but they existed, Shakti.

Why obfuscate?

[Shaktimaan]

62. No obfuscation...

What you said just isn't true. That the PA, or the PLO or Fatah or any Palestinian organization was acquiescing to Israeli demands for years before Hamas became a problem. In fact it is the exact opposite.

[Idealism]

70. Depends on what year you describe Hamas to become a problem for Israel

or rather, to what degree of a problem they were. Personally I don't think Hamas became a legimimate problem for Israel until about 1999 when they were banned from Jordan by the PA's US-backed request, but there is legitimate merits for disagreement on this topic.

[Shaktimaan]

105. Personally, I would hold Hamas responsible for the majority of the blame for Oslo's failure.

Hamas suicide attacks in the 90's killed many more Israelis than their rockets have managed to since then. Rockets on Sderot are bad, no one doubts that, but compared to buses and cafes in Israel's capital regularly exploding?

Hamas is more influential now and thus a far greater threat, but I don't think there's any question as to if they were a "problem" for Israel prior to 1999. They were one of Israel's main problems throughout the Oslo period. To a great degree, Hamas became such a problem for Israel specifically because of the danger that Oslo might lead to a negotiated peace.

Which is why I took issue with your statement... "the PA has acquiesced to Israeli demands years before Hamas became a problem." It mixes up the entire cause and effect tree. Hamas didn't raise their level of activity because PA concessions failed to bring about benefits. Quite the opposite. It was because they feared that Israeli and Palestinian co-operation would be successful. Israel was already making concessions when Hamas ramped up their attacks. The benefits were already happening. But Hamas wanted to avoid any permanent peace treaty with Israel. That was their, (and is STILL their) primary goal. They DO NOT WANT any Israeli concessions that also benefit the peace process.

If you look at the chain of events from the POV of Hamas trying to protect Palestinians and bring about peace on virtually any terms whatsoever then there will always be large logic gaps that need to be explained away somehow. If you consider that Hamas' goal was primarily to oppose Israel's existence at all costs, then, and only then do their actions make sense. But you don't have to even believe me... they have always been very honest about all of this. That's why I don't understand how people can mistake their motivations. They have always been very clear about it. It's a ridiculous thing to argue about, all of the evidence points to only one conclusion.

[Idealism]

110. That doesnt make much sense given that Arafat promised to squash Hamas

and all other militant groups after a peace treaty was signed. The US was supplying him with weapons and his security forces with training solely to eradicate the terrorist threat to Israel within an autonomous Palestine.

[Shaktimaan]

114. What doesn't make sense to you?

What Hamas was doing, when they did it or why they were doing it?

I don't see what Arafat has to do with it at all. Arafat promised lots of stuff that he never did. He certainly did not do much at all to reign in Hamas. Israel was less interested in what Arafat might do in the future and more interested in why he wasn't doing what he said he would be at any given moment.

Terrorism immediately doubled once Oslo was signed, it's a matter of historical record.

[pelsar]

67. i assume your kidding......(at least i would hope so...)

or do we need a simple history lesson?

PA has acquiesced to Israeli demands years before Hamas became a problem

do you mean like that one about not trying to kill israelis? If you got the memo, perhaps you forgot to pass it on, cause i dont think fatah/plo got it
___

seriously you shouldnt try to write that stuff here, many here actually know the history of the region, there are many other forums where you find a far less educated audience that will back up your baseless claims.....

and this one...

The West Bank is barely in better shape than Gaza...are you referring to the economics or personal security of the Palestinians?.....(on both counts you lose again.....but then i doubt you have any links or other info to back up the claim...ho hum, once again)

[Idealism]

71. Instead of being snarky about everything I write, how about asking nicely for sources?

Thanks.

The economy of Gaza and West Bank are both in terrible shape, Gaza being slightly worse off but not by much. Personal security is obviously better in the WB, as Israel has unleashed the fury of the IAF over Gaza more recently than over the West Bank but that is fleeting. The checkpoints around the WB and other restrictions make traveling of all types laborious.

The economy of the West Bank compared to Gaza is marginally better. Unemployment for the WB is pretty dynamic: anywhere from 30-50%. In 2004, the WB economy was being so ruined by annexation of farmland (olive farms in particular) that the economy needed an international rescue replete with emergency loans and special grants in excess of $1 billion dollars (which was akin to a little over 33% of the GDP at that time). Gazan unemployment is around 50-60% currently, although statistics are not accurate since OCL devastated so much of the Gazan infrastructure.

West Bank

The West Bank - the larger of the two areas comprising the Palestinian Authority (PA) - has experienced a general decline in economic conditions since the second intifada began in September 2000. The downturn has been largely a result of Israeli closure policies - the imposition of closures and access restrictions in response to security concerns in Israel - which disrupted labor and trading relationships. In 2001, and even more severely in 2002, Israeli military measures in PA areas resulted in the destruction of capital, the disruption of administrative structures, and widespread business closures. International aid of at least $1.14 billion to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 2004 prevented the complete collapse of the economy and allowed some reforms in the government's financial operations. In 2005, high unemployment and limited trade opportunities - due to continued closures both within the West Bank and externally - stymied growth. Israel's and the international community's financial embargo of the PA when HAMAS ran the PA during March 2006 - June 2007 interrupted the provision of PA social services and the payment of PA salaries. Since then the FAYYAD government in the West Bank has restarted salary payments and the provision of services but would be unable to operate absent high levels of international assistance.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html

Gaza

High population density, limited land access, and strict internal and external security controls have kept economic conditions in the Gaza Strip - the smaller of the two areas under the Palestinian Authority (PA)- even more degraded than in the West Bank. The beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 sparked an economic downturn, largely the result of Israeli closure policies; these policies, which were imposed to address security concerns in Israel, disrupted labor and trade access to and from the Gaza Strip. In 2001, and even more severely in 2003, Israeli military measures in PA areas resulted in the destruction of capital, the disruption of administrative structures, and widespread business closures. The Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005 offered some medium-term opportunities for economic growth, but Israeli-imposed crossings closures, which became more restrictive after HAMAS violently took over the territory in June 2007, have resulted in widespread private sector layoffs and shortages of most goods.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

[pelsar]

73. i believe the year is 2009....

not 2003, not 2005

i think in all of your posts if your going to rely on some "facts" you should put a link in as a default.. your track record for facts appears to be weak

gazas economy for 2009 has probably no match to compare to that of 2003/5/7 as per your link, which has probably gotten much worse, whereas the west banks is relatively better

http://www.shababinclusion.org/content/blog/detail/1312/

[Idealism]

75. The problem is economic statistics don't take losing your land into consideration

which can be pretty traumatic. Couple that with PTSD that many Palestinians have, and you have some serious psychological and economic problems.

[pelsar]

79. if you provide links in your copy.....you might be changing your posts...

as shown in my previous post...... you are using links/data that are years out of date...thereby negating your point...as least that becomes obvious.

or you wont be finding any links..leaving your posts with out the slightest bit of "backup"......being what they are : nothing more that mere speculation that adheres to your belief....

____

you may not change your beliefs, facts not being an issue, but at least, if you (cant) provide the links, it will be clear that your beliefs are nothing more than beliefs....like any religion.

[Idealism]

82. Sorry, the CIA world fact book only has economic data from 2008 on these parts

but it is among the most reliable data that you will find. Not much has changed since 08 to now in the West Bank production or consumption wise, so the statistics being a year old is not all that relevant.

As per your request, I will try to remind myself to provide links more often, but if you ask me for them I always will.

[pelsar]

64. can we count on your being consistent in your posts?

I wasn't in China at the time, were you? I can't say what did or did not happen.

do apply this line of thought to the I/P conflict as well.........that you feel you cant comment on something when you weren't there......

[Idealism]

69. Considering the events in question are hotly contested

there is no real way of knowing. Similar to the Rachel Corrie incident, which shira and other posters have tried to say her death was completely her fault, even going so far as to say that she "died for an empty field." Who knows the truth in these things for sure? It seems no one on some issues.

Few incidents are reported as meticulously as we would need them to be to understand the nuances of events, and no events in history are as simplistic as what some here routinely proclaim.

[pelsar]

74. yes i agree with you.....

no events in history are as simplistic as what some here routinely proclaim

and in most there is no real way of knowing of even the most mundane incidents....so we pretend we know, with our limited resources until proven or convinced otherwise.....kind of a "silly game,"

[Idealism]

76. I think Shakti described it best the other month or so

To paraphrase: every argument ultimately comes down to whether or not you agree that the Jews had a right to colonize Palestine without regards to those who inhabited it. "Land without a people" was one of the more popular slogans of Zionism at the time, as a way of morally qualifying the Balfour Declaration and accompanying UN proclamations. Throw in whether 1967 was warranted or necessary or disproportionate, and you better have months ready to debate...

Ultimately, who truly knows anything if you were not there at the time? At best all we can attempt to do is to understand the mental processes of the individuals involved in the events that we discuss. Certainly, there are irrational actors in international relations, but for the most part people act in their own self-interest, which is fairly simple to find their motivation and mental processes behind that interest out.

[pelsar]

78. i actually know some of those "actors"...

their motivations, the emotions involved and in fact have only the highest regard for them......they're in the 70's and 80's now, but i doubt in the history of the world was ever a nation built with so many political arguments amongst the players involved about its need, the style of government, the rights of the individuals, vs the whole etc....(and yes it includes the arabs of whom many worked with daily...-another pseudo bubble burst)

and when you actually speak to these people and listen to what the discussions were about, the atmosphere of the time.....

you'll discover a tremendous amount of BS gets floating around....for instance your little comment about the 67 (again i'm absolulty amazed how you put forth an arguement that is so far from the truth...again and again.)

in 67, the israelis who were at full alert, full mobilization for about a month, were scared shitless of a massive war....and that is from the soldier, the mothers, etc from the population. That some how that has been turned around to some "israel didnt even have to go to war...or they Egypt was just kidding" is mind boggling.

__

i get it, you believe israel is some kind of super super power, that can read minds, influence events all over the world all without batting an eye..... your wrong

[Idealism]

83. That is where the debate comes into play, though, Pelsar

in 67, the israelis who were at full alert, full mobilization for about a month, were scared shitless of a massive war....and that is from the soldier, the mothers, etc from the population. That some how that has been turned around to some "israel didnt even have to go to war...or they Egypt was just kidding" is mind boggling.

I did not blame either side, if you notice in my previous post. I said if it was warranted, proportionate, etc. Do you not think the Egyptian citizens were scared and confused? They were getting the fear treatment just like Israeli's were. The average person on either side had no idea what was going to happen but the worst was implanted into their minds. The Israeli's are going to bomb Cairo to rubble! The Egyptians are going to wipe Israel off the map! Xenophobia ruled the era.

Now, personally, I think the American Revolution shouldn't have happened. We lost thousands of soldiers, harmed economic relations, and started the north vs south split in the US ultimately because of it. That doesn't mean I am not for US independence, I just believe it could have been achieved bloodlessly- like Canada did.

I think there is a much better way for things to be done, but some would say my thinking is "outside of the box." Call me an idealist :(

[pelsar]

84. no, this is where geography and facts come into play.....i shall try not be sarcastic...

but it will be hard:

Pluuuesss...will you please STOP making stuff up?
but the worst was implanted into their minds.....

it was EGYPT that was doing the threatening to wipe out israel....it was Egypt that had great rallies with Nassar to that end. There was the big long desert called the sinai between israel and Egyptian population centers..and it was Egyptian Army on that border, with mere miles separating israeli cities from that threatening army. The Israeli army was hundreds of miles from Egyptian population centers and given the atmosphere i doubt very much the avg egyptian felt even remotely threatened.

This idea of attempting to believe that the both sides "felt the same" is a farce..


___
sorry its not idealism.....
I think there is a much better way for things to be done, but some would say my thinking is "outside of the box." Call me an idealist

from what i understand from your writings....very little is in fact based in real history or facts....so its not idealism...its fantasy.

[Idealism]

85. There is that isolationism again

You have no idea what was happening in Egypt at the time. You don't know what Nasser and his cronies were telling the people to get them to support their actions. Every regime that has went to war does so because of the fear they create among their own people: irrational and outright falsehoods more often than not. Of course there were no troops close to major Egyptian cities, but they were told the IAF would be dropping bombs on their houses if the Egyptians didn't fight them in Israel, similar to Bush 43 speaking about "we need to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here."

[pelsar]

86. again?

OMG....you just made this up "out of the blue
they were told the IAF would be dropping bombs on their houses if the Egyptians didn't fight them in Israel

have you even read anything about the 67 war? anything?


similar to Bush 43 speaking about "we need to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here."

you asked me not be sarcastic...so i'll ask you to link every one of your ridiculous assumptions..and when you cant find anything, dont post it

[Idealism]

103. Talk to Mr. Oren about it, if you don't believe it

Egyptians in particular were being indoctrinated with fear against an IAF attack on their cities.

Michael B Oren: Six Days of War

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-War-Making-Modern/dp/0345461924/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237427229&sr=8-1

[pelsar]

104. care to quote?

since i dont have that particular book yet...i shall check out the local book store...

however summaries on the web:

We are confident that we are making fast strides toward the realization of our common goal - the elimination of Israel and full unity
-doesnt sound like the Egyptian govt is "putting the fear of israeli attacks on the population" with messages like that.


care to quote that part of the book that talks of the "indoctrination with fear".... (somehow i doubt they were preparing bomb shelters as the israeli population was....)

[Idealism]

111. Seriously? Buy the book.

Its highly praised, and the Mr Oren is pro-Israel just in case you were wondering

[pelsar]

113. in the meantime since you claim the book backs you view point...

what page? can you quote it?

[Shaktimaan]

107. Idealism, what are you talking about?

Seriously, where in the world are you getting this stuff from? It really appears like you're making assumptions about war "in general" and are then applying it to specific historical events without any kind of understanding of what actually occurred. It sounds... you sound, really, like you're just making things up and assuming that they're true because it fits in with some preconceived philosophy you have about war and psychology.

Every regime that has went to war does so because of the fear they create among their own people

That statement is just untrue. Totally untrue, I don't understand how you can actually believe it, especially with regard to Israel and the Arab states. No one at all was under the impression that Israel was planning to destroy Egypt, that Israel wanted to provoke war with Egypt or anything like that. Israel never made statements threatening Egypt's existence. All of the provocations came from the Arab side and it had absolutely nothing to do with the Egyptians fearing Israel or believing that Israel was planning on attacking Egypt. Egypt closed the straits of Tiran. Egypt expelled all of the UN peacekeepers from the Sinai. Egypt began massing its military along the Israeli border. That war did not occur because of mutual fear and distrust... Arab actions and rhetoric provoked it.

similar to Bush 43 speaking about "we need to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here."

What are you talking about? In Tel Aviv and Jerusalem people were busy digging trenches and filling sandbags. (After Bush's speech, how many trenches did you dig to slow the terrorist advance? I mean, how does that parallel even help your argument?) What are you suggesting anyway, that Nasser convinced his people that war was necessary because otherwise Israel would try and destroy them? Are you serious?

Listen, Idealism, I've probably read around a dozen books and countless articles on this conflict and the things you are saying here I have never seen written anywhere else, ever. From Israel's standpoint they truly were facing their potential destruction at Egyptian and Syrian hands. I seriously doubt that ANYONE in Egypt and Syria fostered a similar fear about Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

23. Isn't it a pity that bribery with oil and cheap labour dictates so much policy, however?

Saudi Arabia also has an exceptional number of fingers in the international arms trade, and certainly has excessive influence on Britain for that reason, despite the fact that at least we have some oil of our own.

I don't think that AIPAC or other pro-Israel lobbying groups should be getting everything their own way; but I don't think that pro-China or pro-Saudi Arabia groups should either (and ultimately this is all at the expense of people and countries that *don't* have strong lobbies, or commodities with which they can essentially bribe the international community).

I find the statement, "(This) will not change our policy towards Saudi Arabia nor China. They have two things we need: oil and cheap labor" really sad, though no doubt true.

[Idealism]

24. It is a terrible shame, of course

But the presence of Mr Freeman, or lack thereof, will not change our foreign policy one iota towards Saudi Arabia or China. It may have changed our foreign policy towards Iran and Israel, however, which is why this was so controversial. It is a sad reality :(

The National Intelligence Estimate, which was what Freeman was to head up, is essentially an overview of all international actors. The last few years, the most notable thing to come from the NIE reports with regards to the Middle East is the definitive declarations they made on Iran's nuclear program. They stated there was no weapons program, and that the last known program was in 2003 and had since been dismantled under IAEA supervision. Now, when you have the Mossad trying to push the meme that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program and is an existential threat to Israel, you have the Israeli government pushing the US to intervene in Iran, it hinders that process if the NIE and our intelligence community keeps disagreeing with Israeli intelligence. I cannot tell you in less than 1000 words why no country should go to war with Iran. We cannot allow a war with Iran to happen no matter what country is attacking, as military operations in Iran are doomed to fail and the retaliation will be swift and global.

[shira]

34. are you so delusional as to reject out of hand that Freeman withdrew

due to the fact that his sources of finance (like from China and S.Arabia) would have eventually been disclosed, and that THIS may have been the deciding factor for him (of course he conveniently blamed the Elders of Zion).

[Idealism]

45. Are you so delusional to think that the entire Bush administration didn't have the same ties?

Are you so ignorant to believe that government officials have zero income from transnational corporations?

How long have you lived in Boston, shira? You don't seem to know much about US politics or history.

[shira]

50. so the Inspector General promising an investigation didn't scare Freeman?

riiiiight.

Meanwhile, back in reality....

[Idealism]

53. "promising an investigation" is what happens to "every member of government."

And that didn't deter BushCo, which have countless dubious ties to Saudi oil, Chinese labor, and even Nazi sponsorship dating back to Prescott Bush. Odd that these things didn't derail anyone then...

[bemildred]

8. This is horseshit.

At least have the balls to take credit for the accomplishment.

It is true Freeman makes the "Help, help, I'm being suppressed" mistake, but there is nothing tin-foil-hatty about thinking that he was attacked for his criticism of Israeli policies and for being an "Arabist".

WaPo does not make itself more credible with this mis-mash of unattributed name-calling.

[azurnoir]

11. This person whines about conspiracy theorists and writes this

"Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories."

One must wonder if he did it with a straight face

[Shaktimaan]

57. what's wrong with that statement? np

[LeftishBrit]

63. As straight a face...

as those who claim that Israel has the power to control the American government and get elected American politicians kicked out of office.

Actually, America does have more power over Israel than the other way round (it's bigger and holds the purse-strings) but this bloke is of course exaggerating considerably, and indulging in the conspiracy theories common to xenophobes.

One thing that Britain, America and Israel have in common is a fair number of rather paranoid xenophobic-isolationists. Israel probably has a higher proportion of such individuals than the other two countries, perhaps due to its being to some degree a country of and for refugees; nevertheless it's a phenomenon in all our countries.

[shira]

12. Chas Freeman and the pro-Israel lobby: watch your definitions

Was it really the “pro-Israel lobby” that scuttled the nomination of Chas Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council, as Freeman himself charged in an outburst after his withdrawal on Wednesday and prominent columnists like the Washington Post’s David Broder agree?

Well, it depends on you definition of “the lobby.”

There’s little question the spark that lit the Freeman conflagration came from Jews who support Israel, starting with former AIPAC staffer Steve Rosen, and that the loudest and most persistent opposition came from Jewish neo-conservatives.

There was a very active email campaign against Freeman, much of it containing exaggerated charges and some of it vile, and as Freeman said in his statement, some of it came from Jews who support Israel. I saw some of these emails (and was pretty disgusted by them). I didn’t see any names I recognized and I didn’t see any organizations.

Two Jewish groups spoke out publicly against the nomination – the Zionist Organization of America (which put out a press release claiming much of the credit for taking Freeman down) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

Does all of that constitute the “lobby?” Well, not exactly.

There’s only one group registered to lobby on behalf of the U.S.-Israel relationship - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Publicly, AIPAC was silent on the nomination.

Some bloggers (see Dan Fleshler’s “Realistic Dove” post) say an AIPAC official, spokesman Josh Block, was calling around, trying to stir up opposition to Freeman. I never received such a call. Maybe that means AIPAC wasn’t doing much on Freeman, maybe the claim was the product of the conspiracy theories that always swirl around AIPAC, maybe it means I dropped off Block’s call list, maybe it means AIPAC figured things were going great and didn’t need to get directly involved.

The fact AIPAC doesn’t make a statement on an issue doesn’t mean they’re not involved. Still, no evidence has come my way that they played a significant role in this case, although, as I wrote yesterday, they’re not weeping salt tears over his departure.

Other major Jewish groups that support Israel – the ADL, the AJCs, JCPA, the rest of the Jewish alphabet soup – stayed silent, upsetting some of Freeman’s harsh critics. During the course of the controversy I asked leaders of several groups about Freeman; their answer, roughly paraphrased, was “leave us out of it.”

Pro-peace process groups – APN, IPF, J Street– were similarly quiet, although some of their officials were sympathetic to Freeman or at least hostile to his critics.

Several Jewish lawmakers got involved, including Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), but the list was shorter than it usually is on issues relating to Israel, suggesting nobody was putting the squeeze on Jewish lawmakers.

I’ve heard the assumption that since Rosen was a top AIPAC staffer before his indictment on Espionage Act charges and that he is widely seen as a primary architect of its “night flower” approach, his involvement must signal AIPAC’s, as well.

But Rosen and AIPAC are estranged, as became even clearer this week when he filed a defamation suit against his former employers. It seems unlikely they coordinated their efforts.

So was it the “pro-Israel lobby” that axed Freeman? I say again: it depends on your definition of the lobby.

If you just mean “Jews who work in support of Israel,” well, yes, then you’re partially right, although they got a lot of help from non-Jewish conservatives interested in bashing the Obama administration, Chinese human rights activists upset about Freeman’s statements about that country and his approach to international human rights and activists who dislike the strangely close U.S.-Saudi relationship.

But “Jews who work in support of Israel” is a mighty broad category. It includes arch neo-conservatives like Rosen, but it also includes IPF’s MJ Rosenberg, who became one of Freeman’s most outspoken defenders. Both would tell you they work in the pro-Israel cause; both have resumes to back that up.

If you mean the formal pro-Israel lobby, probably not. Sorry, David Broder.

http://jewish-politics-ny.com/2009/03/12/chas-freeman-and-the-pro-israel-lobby-watch-your-definitions/

[shira]

16. Chas Freeman: Remember the US Constitution

Poor David Broder. He - and so many others - have missed the point of the whole Charles Freeman flap. The point is not Freeman’s character or his many capabilities or even whether or not Freeman got a “fair hearing.” The harsh truth is that nothing in our system guarantees potential appointees to high office a “fair hearing.”

But our Constitution’s First Amendment does guarantee something else: the right to free speech and the right to petition the government. In our democracy, interest groups have have a right to press their views, no matter how “one-sided” those views may seem.

Is Charles Freeman anti-Israel? I don’t really know. I do know that those who went after him have a right to do so, whether the rest of us like it or not. To target the “Israel lobby” (i.e. impassioned Jews) for somehow wielding out-sized influence is an affront - yes - to liberal values. It is precisely the point of free speech in a democracy that people we disagree with are able to voice their views, and to mobilize and organize. What no one has a right to do is to challenge groups - particularly ethnic groups that are subject to prejudice - for exercising their rights. That, Mr. Broder, is both un-democratic and un-American.

After all, which of us has the right to say how much influence Israel supporters (many of them Jews) are “supposed to have?” How much is too much? Shall we impose limits on the influence of other groups? Shall, say, Armenian-Americans be given a limit to influence because, as some would argue, the US relationship with Turkey is more important to our interests? Says who? Not anyone concerned about our democratic values.

Those who claim that the “Israel lobby” denies others the right to make their case need to back that up with evidence. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paraded their soporofic anti-”Israel lobby” doorstopper on all forms of media. Web-sites and publications abound that press the Palestinian cause, which is fine. The New York Times ran an impassioned op-ed by Rashid Khalidi at the height of the Gaza war.

Did the Times and Post not cover in graphic detail the impact of Israel attacks on Palestinians? Promoting his book on the Middle East, Jimmy Carter complained repeatedly about the one-sidedness of media - on serial national television appearances. Indeed, the Charles Freeman flap has erupted in the MSM, with little reluctance of parties to attack, irresponsibly, “the Israel lobby.”

The real question for Mearsheimer and Walt and their ilk is this: who is stopping pro-Palestinian groups from voicing their views? After all, this is the internet era. Who resticts themselves to the financially flailing msm anyway? Moveon.org, huffingtonpost, facebook are the face of media these days. Is the “Israel lobby” also denying access to these increasingly important vehicles for mass communication and mobilization?

The truly insidious step here is not by those who fulminated against Freeman (however over-the-top they may have been.) Rather, it is by those who would deny or impose limits on Jews who exercise their Constitutional rights. The implied accusation of “nefarious” and “undue” influence of the “Israel lobby” smacks of McCarthyism and, worse, laziness. Those who believe that US policy is too pro-Israel need to stop whining, roll up their sleeves and make their case - on the merits - not by stigmatizing Jews who are exercising their Constitutional rights.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/13/chas-freeman-remember-the-us-constitution/

[Sezu]

20. More like he didn't have the balls to face up

to scrutiny like ALL nominees do. No, just give up and blame it on Jews.

[cali]

27. what a crock.

He did not blame it on Jews, and anyone who knows anything about this, realizes that he had lost the support of the admin, and had to bow out.

[azurnoir]

39. Has Obama spoken on this?

or is it that the administration is afraid of losing the support of its own party who in turn is afraid of losing

[shira]

41. he blamed it on the Israel Lobby, ie, the Jews

And the way idiot haters like him describe "the Lobby" is as a loose connection of pro-Israel people which would include people who have NO lobbying experience but who happen to voice their opinions WRT Israel. There's only one Israel "lobby" and it's AIPAC.

Like it or not, AIPAC is as legit a lobby as any other. Just for the record, I've never been part of AIPAC and have never attended any of their meetings or even once visited their website. I can't even name any of the leadership in charge, as I could care less.

If any other lobbies out there got their acts together and were able to put forth better, and more honest and accurate arguments than AIPAC, no one is stopping them. I say bring them on and let's open up the debate. Freeman is just against a Jewish lobby that he feels has too much influence, as though the Jewish lobby - as opposed to any other - requires being neutralized or brought down a couple notches. It, like no other lobby, is too powerful. Sounds like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They.must.be.stopped.at.all.costs! Dipshit logic.

If Freeman got the position, his financing by foreign govt's would have come under VERY close scrutiny, just like Bill Clinton's before Hillary was appointed. My bet is that a few bloggers had little or nothing to do with his campaign, and if they did - how pathetic is that? There's not enough opposition by bloggers on the net? Come on. Criticism against him barely made the MSM at all. The Lobby is his convenient scapegoat. Freeman had skeletons in his closet - foreign funding - everyone knew it, and this is his convenient way out. He's an asshole.

[oberliner]

93. Pat Buchanan himself has weighed in on this

Here is his editorial for MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29739446/

[shira]

94. wow.....if one didn't know better, Buchanon is a great progressive

really, just replace the author, Pat Buchanon, with any other "progressive" anti-Israel "harsh critic" and the writing is indistinguishable. Wow, nothing but love for Buchanon. He's the man.

:eyes:

[shira]

117. China's top dissident breaks silence on Freeman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ashley-rindsberg/chinas-top-dissident-brea_b_175616.html

Wei Jingsheng, the leading anti-PRC dissident who spent two decades as a political prisoner in China, recently came out to voice disapproval of the selection of Chas Freeman for the position of National Intelligence Council chair. Mr. Freeman withdrew from the appointment last week, in part because of criticism he received from Chinese dissidents over his seat on the advisory board of China's third-largest oil company and statements he made concerning the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and China's violent suppression of Tibetan demonstrations in the lead-up to the Beijing Olympics last year.

In an exclusive statement, Mr. Wei commented that "due to conflict of interest, Mr. Freeman cannot make a normal and fair judgment on the related major issues when it is related to China. Yet, for President Obama to nominate this person in not just unsuitable to the Chinese, but also for the non-Chinese. Even for a non-Chinese , it is not reasonable to name a person who could not objectively make reasonable judgments on issues, especially if the person is expected to assist and thus affect the President's judgment. That could have very dangerous results."

<snip>