The Israel Lobby Continues to Dominate
With the barbarians clattering at the gate, the sad but probably inevitable end came yesterday to Chas Freeman’s bid to be seated as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Since we’ve covered this all before, there is no need to recap the particulars, but Freeman left no doubt as to his view of the playing field on his way out the door.
“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,” he wrote.
“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.”
As is already being noted, this should serve as notice to anyone interested in elected office that business as usual is still the order of the day under the new administration. While Social Security has long been thought of as the “third rail” of domestic politics, Dave Schuler points out that Israel remains the “third rail of U.S. foreign policy.” In an update to the same post, James Joyner points to a previous article he published which predicted precisely this.
The Obama administration is, by American standards, quite to the left on Israel, with Jim Jones, Hillary Clinton, and others having been quite candid in the past about Israel’s need to make concessions on such controversial issues as Jerusalem and the settlements if a peace deal is to get done. But that’s a leftist position only insofar as American politicians seem to consider anything short of the Likudist position to be anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic.
This pretty much summarizes the current state of American foreign policy, unchanged through several presidential administrations regardless of party. The welfare of Israel will continue to be placed not only near the top of American priorities, but in fact ahead of the welfare of the United States. Anyone who questions the nature of this relationship or proposes a more neutral stance toward the combatants in the Middle East will continue to be tarred with the anti-Semitic brush and immediately marginalized. Of course, as long as this condition continues, the United States will never be taken seriously as an honest broker for peace in the region. Nor shall perceptions change in the Muslim world, where we are widely seen as “Israel’s big brother” and a target for their rage.
One might say that this is a lesson which Chas Freeman just learned in a very brusque fashion. In reality, of course, he probably knew it going in and wasn’t a bit surprised by the outcome. You can run through the Memeorandum Roundup of stories on this subject to find the full range of protests and cheers over Freeman’s abrupt departure.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “The Israel Lobby Continues to Dominate”
“No American President can stand up to Israel.” – Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations (1967-1970) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1970-1974)
Its a sad state of affairs when foreign lobbies carry more weight in the White House than the populace of the US. That it has lasted as long as it has, is even sadder. That AIPAC is nothing short of felonious organization, allowed free and unfettered access within the halls of Congress, the Pentagon and the nation's youth (weekend camps full of brainwashing the minds of adolescents)…is outright tragic.
The US relationship with Israel…must cease. There is absolutely zero upside for the US. None. ffs…Israel's government is the splitting image of a mafia's model for power distribution and pecking orders. As well…not only would the US be wise to cut off Israel…we'd absolutely thrive in a relationship allied with Iran. That nation is far more stable than Israel, far more productive with manufactured goods, and…AND…able to sustain itself economically. Then there's that business of the Israeli government sending and selling the club drug Ecstasy, by the case here in the US.
The FBI, fearful of AIPAC, did nothing but confiscate the drugs, and sent the dealers back to Israel….free of any accusation or charge.
lol…the Israeli government must absolutely loathe the fact that there's some 30K+ Jewish Iranians living and thriving in Iran. They worship freely, have synagogues, schools, and privately owned shops. But will Israel ever concede the fact that all those Persian jews want nothing to do with Israel??? lol…not only will they never concede such, they're happy to keep the world at large in the dark about jews living prosperous, peaceful lives…in Tehran.
Not only that…there's a thriving underground market in Iran, for…bacon and US basketball!
So again I say…drop Israel…and then go shake hands with Iran!
Riiiggghhhttt. The Great Jewish/Israel Lobby/Cabal strikes again.
You don't think the fact that he was beholden to the Chinese, sitting on the Board of Directors for a state-owned Chinese oil company (CNOOC) had anything to do with it? Or statements like this:
“For myself, I side on this — if not on numerous other issues — with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans’ “Bonus Army” or a “student uprising” on behalf of “the goddess of democracy” should expect to be displaced with dispatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined. while shutting down much of the Chinese government’s normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang’s dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China.”
Or this wonderful quote:
“Mao Zedong had a force and energy which none but men of equally great spiritual conviction could withstand. His animal appetites, we now know, matched his intellectual vigor (note: what an incredible metaphor. Mao was a mass murderer and a known pedophile). He was an object of adulation to his subjects and of mingled admiration and dread to his subordinates and intimates. While Mao lived, the brilliance of his personality illuminated the farthest corners of his country and inspired many would-be revolutionaries and romantics beyond it.”
He has also compared the Tibetan Freedom movement to a 'race riot'.
Somehow I fail to see the Israll connection to those comments and positions myself, but I do see a world-view I don't want in my government.
Could you image the outrage by the left, who rightfully supported the Tienanmen Square protesters and currently the Tibetan freedom fighters, if that statement was made by a Republican? Or worse yet, RUSH!?!?!?! The cries would rise to the heavens.
I have made no comments about some of his Middle East positions, to ensure that i do not muddy the waters. But based on these comments of his alone, the man is just plain simply not philosophically or morally competent to serve as Chairman of the NIC.
I feel we need a more “balanced” relationship with Israel. No more, no less.
“The welfare of Israel will continue to be placed not only near the top of American priorities, but in fact ahead of the welfare of the United States. Anyone who questions the nature of this relationship or proposes a more neutral stance toward the combatants in the Middle East will continue to be tarred with the anti-Semitic brush and immediately marginalized.”
********
I say we use an equal stroke to boot out all religious lobbying. Separation of church and state. And anyway, it's all about the Haifa Pipeline, Refineries and Ports.. If not for the strategic position for BigOil, we would've told Israel to piss off long ago; threats of “marginalization” utterly impotent. The truth is often a bitter pill.
AR,
Freeman was a firebrand to be sure, but that's exactly why he was chosen for that position. Sometimes you need that person in your group that's willing to question the conventional wisdom. We certainly needed that before we invaded Iraq. Israel could have used that before it bombed the sh*t out of Gaza.
As for whether or not this was an Israel motivated hit job on Freeman, Andrew Sullivan makes a convincing case that it was: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily…
Chris – John Bolton was a firebrand. Chas Freeman singing Mao's praise and stating that the Chinese were not tough enough on the Tienanmen Square and Tibet protesters is supporting Totalitarianism.
Would you have supported the Bush Administration appointing someone espousing those views? I would hope not.
Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed with you on this one. We are often on the opposite sides of issues, but you have always struck me as true to your convictions. I am having difficulty not thinking that you are 'selling out', so to speak, on a truly flawed candidate because some portion of his views do align with yours, while ignoring others that are diametrically opposed. I am aware of realpolitik, and the compromises that have to be made internally and externally in Foreign Policy, but there are limits.
AR,
Ultimately this is really tough on me. I don't agree with Freeman when it comes to Middle East dictators and human rights in China. Perhaps if that's what the fight was really about, I'd be on your side. However, I just don't see how this isn't 99% about towing the line with Israeli policy.
If it's possible to disagree strongly with Freeman, and still support him against these smears of anti-Semitism, then that's what I'm trying to do. Perhaps he was a bad person to defend because of his other baggage, but I hate to see this continuing punishment of Israel related dissent.
Chris – then support him against any perceived and actual smears; just don't support him for Chair of NIC (which is of course moot now) or as a man unjustly maligned on all counts is my point.
There are no saints for us to look to for government service, a point I alluded to, but we must take the measure of the entire character of the person, not just the parts we like. Certainly the Bush Administration years serve as an example of that truism.