AIPAC’s latest victim
More evidence that our foreign policy is behind held hostage by extreme pro-Israeli nationalists – Chas Freeman is forced to withdraw from his appointment to head the National Intelligence Council due to AIPAC pressure on influential senators. Greenwald has some good updates to the story. I haven’t been able to figure out why they singled this guy out, I haven’t seen any stridently anti-Israel statements in a modest amount of googling. He did chair some outfit called Middle East Policy Council, but that doesn’t look like some pro-Palestinian front or anyting.
Tags: AIPAC, Chas Freeman, israel
March 16th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Apparently the guy, who was indicted for spying (not on but) for Israel, was behind the effort to oust Freeman. AIPAC was on board, too.
Often cries of anti-Semiticism are used to divert attention, shut down debate and/or silence critics of Israel. Unfortunately more often than not it works. The hoopla against Freeman — he was too neutral. Presumably Israel felt threatened that neutrality meant honest assessments, accountability and criticism would be on the table as fair game. God forbid Freeman might broker a fair and balanced peace deal or force Israel [and Palestine] to make political concessions. So Freeman had to go. Israel could not reasonably expect anyone would accept those reasons as valid or would not face a barrage of angry criticism — so the old stand-by — accusing Freeman of being anti-Semitic worked once again.
To the defenders of Israel:
People are fallible and imperfect. Some mistakes are excusable. On the other hand, to knowingly and deliberately threaten, endanger, harm, torture, and/or cause the death of 1 person or a whole society lends legitimacy to criticism and warrants punishment depending on the circumstances. Likewise for nations that use disproportionate military force for retaliation or start wars for access to a sovereign country’s resources, or occupy another country to oppress its citizens, etc. …
The punishing circumstances Palestinians are forced to live have been a source of contention and hate. Disproportionate use of military against countries, usually with little to no provocation fuel the anger that simmers beneath the surface. It is not a matter of if, but when it boils over. Hopefully soon they wake up to the fact military might is counter-productive.
The Israeli government, knowing they will neither be held accountable nor criticized for acting in ways that deserve to be criticized will not change — not as long as the US inexplicably look away. The world community is rightfully angered when any country is given a free pass.
Those who believe it is in Israel’s best interests to defend the indefensible are simply delaying the inevitable. Allowing Israel to continue, undeterred and unfettered, to commit crimes against humanity without fear of punishment or accountability ultimately will backfire — when, not if, is the question.
I want Israel to be safe, and by the same token i want Israelis to recognize they have a moral obligation to act in accordance with the law.
Until such time Israel will be neither safe nor secure. Should Israel choose to ignore that it will be at their peril. I do not want to see that happen.
Who knows Freeman might have been Israel’s saving grace. Ousting him may turn out to be a big mistake although time will tell. Never underestimate the power of neutrality.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
If you continue to look into Freeman’s views you’ll find plenty of evidence of anti-semitism and anti-Israeli views. He seems, for instance, to believe that 9/11 and other expressions of Arab anger are the fault of Israel and not of the US, which is kind of absurd. He certainly isn’t competent to be director of intelligence, as his record clearly indicates (unless you support American warmongering).
Serena, you really need to learn about the history of the conflict. The war was formally declared by the Arabs in 1948, altho Palestinian attacks on the Jews go back to the late 19th century. The wars were extremely disproportional, with Israel virtually alone and unarmed against a much larger group of enemies, and ones well armed by western powers (the British). Israel has done nothing but defend itself as it is allowed to do under international law.
In any case, the Israelis and Jews couldn’t care less what others think about their moral obligations. Their only moral obligation is to defend their families and their children from attacks. They have done an excellent job of that, and all Jews are grateful to them for it. And proud that they have been able to do so without violating international law, the way the Palestinians do. The only thing that is “inevitable” here is Israel’s survival, which is now assured, and will probably continue for another few thousand years. You can count on that. It’s stronger than ever.
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Israel can look after itself. My beef is that AIPAC has successfully subverted US policy to fit it’s needs. I would care a whole late less about the cis-Jordanian conflict, frankly, if my tax dollars weren’t going to fund the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Israeli apologists always take about how they are our ally in the region, but in the post Cold War era they have become a stinking albatross around our neck.
Also, regarding the issue of Israeli survival and safety – true unless they ‘push it’ too far. The bigger Muslim states like to talk a big story around the Palestinians, but they don’t really help them (that’s apparently the job of the U.S. too, to funnel humanitarian aid into the occupied territories to clean up Israeli atrocities and keep the faux states humming along). But you seem to have forgotten the Islamic Bomb. Israel is a tiny country (I’ve been there). A single nuke smuggled into Tel Aviv could cripple the entire nation.
Better to find a diplomatic solution rather than rely on weapons and population punishment.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
If an ARPAC, a russian american kgb-stamped lobby group ensured the US would grant billions in aid to Russia, made sure no criticism of the USSR were allowed in any US media, that no US politicians could be elected without kneeling in servitude to the USSR, that US foreign policy required Moscow’s approval, that employees of the justice department FBI and intelligence could consider criticism of Rusisan influence as professional suicide, could the US call itself the land of the Free?
Even if Israel was not an apartheid state, it would be quite dangerous for US freedom and independance to have this or any other foreign country have that much influence over its media and government. Americans patriots need to rise up to take their country back, and keep the lessons to avoid a similar situation with another foreign nation or interest group.