AIPAC vs. Chas Freedman
This sure is weird:
But former AIPAC Policy Director Steve Rosen sounded a more strident tone yesterday at Laura Rozen’s report of a new head for the National Intelligence Council, calling the reported choice of Chas Freeman “alarming.”
He, disapprovingly, quotes Freeman, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, saying, “As long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected” and decrying the consequences of “Israeli violence against Palestinians.”
If this is all they’ve got on Freeman, that’s absurd. Of course, I imagine their real objections run deeper than that. The Middle East Policy Council where Freeman works offers, as I understand it, something of an Arabist take on Middle East issues rather than the usual tussle between hawkish Jews and dovish Jews represented by me and Jamie Kirchick furiously blogging against each other. But clearly Freeman is right about the inadvisability of unconditional financial aid to Israel and also about the fact that Israeli violence has regrettable consequences. Freeman’s point of view, as far as I know, isn’t exactly mine but it seems to be well within the range of perspectives that one might want to have access to.
34 Responses to “AIPAC vs. Chas Freedman”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Rosen is on trial for espionage last I knew. Shouldn’t something like that make a dent in your ability to pundit about what’s good for America?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Not if you believe that what is good for Israel is good for America.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
There has been NO MSM coverage re the following alarming article (previously posted elsewhere):
http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/9334-israeli-spokesman-says-we-control-stupid-americans.html
In light of AIPAC’s vile vice-grip on supine members of Congress, what can be done to eliminate its nefarious influence?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Re Ed Marshall
Mr. Marshall is being rather premature here. The trial he refers to has not yet begun. So far, the governments’ case doesn’t look too strong and even the judge is beginning to lose patience.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/18/1003111/judge-allows-classification-czar-in-aipac-case
February 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I see that “We control America” rant every couple years attributed to someone new. It’s always some cobbled together bullshit.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Considering that point seems loaded with sense, I’d have to ask why it isn’t yours.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
The original “we control America” statement was real as far as I know.
THIS one, however, does appear to be fake as there is literally no direct source nor any identification available anywhere on Google for the person speaking it.
Of course, it’s STILL true that AIPAC and certain Jewish billionaires have far too much influence on US politicians.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Nah, the Ariel Sharon one? You can trace the provenance back to a Hezbollah TV station and that’s it.
Besides Ariel Sharon wouldn’t believe anything like that. Even if everything he said was factually correct (and it’s not), that’s not how right wing Jews think. It doesn’t matter how much power they have, they will always feel threatened.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“If this is all they’ve got on Freeman, that’s absurd.” Oddly, your link, Matt, has a lot more from Rosen than that. Oh, wait – It’s not your link exactly, but the source your link links to. (Are we to believe you didn’t even meet the most minimal journalistic requirement of checking a quote? I hope not.)
Surely, one could still disagree Rosen’s view, but it would be helpful for debate to be a bit clearer about how you’re clipping quotes.
And while your posts engender comments that talk about “AIPAC’s vile vice-grip on supine members of Congress,” I think a little more care is advisable.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Here’s a quick question: what, exactly, would Israel have to do to make divestment a mainstream option? Or to make SLC support divestment?
An outright, state-performed pogrom? Dropping a nuclear weapon?
If neither of these things would turn an individual against Israel, is it worthwhile to listen to that individual?
February 20th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Re Chet380
The source is a paper in Pakistan. What a reliable source, almost as reliable as stormfront. Not.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
As I have stated on numerous occasions, IMHO, the aid to Israel should be phased out, and in fact, the phaseout should have started 5 years ago. The Government of Israel could get along just fine without it. Hopefully, Bibi, who proposed such a phaseout during his previous sojourn in the Prime Ministers’ chair will revisit this issue as his first priority.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
No, that’s fucking stupid, there are plenty of good papers in Pakistan, that’s not one of them. Poking around with google, I found this: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=6788&lg=en
It looks like the paper plagarised from that and cut off the ending:
“Now, after this imaginary but very realistic introduction, we shall view the pictures of these “evil terrorists.”
February 20th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Interesting news on Mr Dennis Ross! Not sure if it’s been covered here or not…
“WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Former Clinton Administration Middle East diplomat Dennis Ross is under consideration as US State Department envoy to Iran. Ross is currently the chairman of the Jewish People Policy
Planning Institute (JPPPI) in Jerusalem, established by the Jewish Agency in 2002. Ross could face legal challenges under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, if he enters US government service…”
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS216643+29-Jan-2009+PRN20090129
February 20th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Doh! maybe not… those AIPAC connections do seem to work…
Philip Weiss has the CNN link:
“Throw a bone, a big one, to the Israel lobby. It looks like Dennis Ross is going to be handling the Iran portfolio under Hillary Clinton. This picture is his other portfolio: it shows Ross presenting the report of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert a year ago. Ross is chairman of JPPPI, which is devoted to strengthening “global Jewish identity” and fighting what Ross calls the new antisemitism, efforts to “criminalize” Israeli behavior. Honest broker?
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/02/is-it-just-me-or-does-this-picture-scream-dual-loyalty.html
February 21st, 2009 at 5:55 am
Ah, Ed, according to a site I just found, it wasn’t Hizballah, it was Hamas:
On the other hand, we have an Israeli political correspondent denying that Sharon made the statement.
Hmmm… Should I trust THAT guy over an AMERICAN Islamic group, even if they are a front for Hamas?
I’m not so sure.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:23 am
Look, you can agree or disagree but there’s no point in pretending to be dense about what Rosen objects to. It isn’t concern about the negative impact of Israeli violence against Palestinians, which is the one thing you actually pull out of the quote. It’s the presupposition that the obstacle to negotiations is Israel’s ability to maintain occupation of the West Bank. Whether you agree with this or not — I obviously don’t — it should be clear why a supporter of Israel would find this objectionable, and not in a superficial way. What is Freeman thinking? That if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders and thereby gave up its leverage in negotiations, everything would be sweetness and light? From the perspective of a supporter of Israel, this is, at best, “useful idiocy,” and at worst something much worse.
So again whether you agree or disagree, your characterization of the possible objections to Freeman’s views as inconsequential misses the point. Please be serious. It’s a serious topic.
And by the way, would it be possible for you to take a stand on the updated Protocols-style “discussions” like the above that often arise here?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Larry: “protocols” of what?
February 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Checking, I was referring to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a notorious piece of anti-Semitic propaganda created by the Czarist secret police — still in circulation today in fact — and not unlike the bogus quote above from a Pakistani web site.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Larry’s big concern is an ancient conspiracy document from Czarist secret police and its alleged modern parallels – which don’t exist except among right wing neo-Nazi nutcases.
In other words, he wants to claim anti-Semitism for anybody who criticizes Israel for its Nazi-like occupation. This is what they call “New Anti-Semitism” (look it up on Wikipedia) which is essentially a “Get Out of Jail Free” card for Israel.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 4:56 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:52 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:43 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra