Comments on: Chas Freeman’s Ugly Goodbye

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:08:14 +0000

ottovbs: The notion that the Freeman affair will “provoke” U.S. officials like Blair into being more pro-Arab is laughable. International diplomacy is determined by issues of POWER. Blair already has his world view. His pro-forma support of Freeman is a standard part of any Administration’s kabuki theater; Blair has probably forgotten about it already and moved on. And if Obama himself strikes back at Israel just because one of his appointments gets shot down, that would speak volumes about w petty Obama is.

By: sw

sw — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:02:01 +0000

The Netherlands, for heaven’s sake. Hans Brinker. Theo Van Gogh, and the other Van Gogh. lland.

By: sw

sw — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:59:29 +0000

lland should be lland. Sorry.

By: sw

sw — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:58:12 +0000

Is it surprising that a slashing condemnation of Israel comes from someone named “Otto”? The fact that the Islamists are its most bloodthirsty practitioners of contemporary anti-Semitism is not lost on Europeans. I suspect that many are only too eager to revive the bracing murderousness of their grandfathers.
“A growing sense in the country that US foreign policy is dictated by the interests of Israel” … what country? France? lland? Deutschland, mein junge?? Otto is zehr gut at doing the ol’ Goebbels rag .. you know, repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie, and then the sheeple’ll think it’s truth. Only problem is, we’re not all woolly quadrupeds.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:14:21 +0000

L’Affaire Freeman was barely on the national radar but it certainly hasn’t passed un-noticed in Washington reinforcing as it does the power of the Israeli lobby to harm nominees of whom the disapprove. Since Pollak is a fully paid up member of this group his comments can hardly be regarded as model of objectivity. Ultimately I suspect that this is likely to be counterproductive. Why? Human nature. It’s hard to believe that Blair, who after all is not a typical poster at Kos, not to mention the rest of the administration’s security and foreign policy establishment are not going to fairly ticked about this. Is this bullying likely to make them more or less receptive to the views of Israel and its lobbyists in the US. If anyone would give five seconds to thinking about how they would react….the question answers itself. In the wider sense that it all reinforces the growing sense in the country that US foreign policy is dictated by the interests of Israel it’s also likely to produce another contrary reaction in that policy makers in their interactions with Arab states like Saudia Arabia and Egypt will be bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of over favoring Israel. I realize both of these results are likely to be somewhat invisible and nuanced but that doesn’t make them any less likely. But then Pollak I suspect doesn’t do nuance.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:58:43 +0000

This is a good article. Freeman’s own letter withdrawing his nomination showed why he should NOT be head of US intelligence. Intel chiefs need to be objective and dispassionate with their analysis for the good of the country, and not let their political ideology predispose them towards certain conclusions. Blaming the Jews is a tired mantra. Even Senate Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein were wary of the nomination.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:19:43 +0000

Here are some perfectly good reasons why the U.S. should support Israel over the Palestinians, without needing any pressure from any alleged “Israel lobby”: 1. Israel is a democratic, Western-oriented, country, with a vigorous private sector. Its people honor and prize scholarship and learning. The Palestinians have never demonstrated anything comparable. 2. Israel has the most powerful armed force in the Middle East, perhaps the most capable intelligence service in the Middle East, and the only nuclear strike force in the Middle East; it’s good to have that firepower on our side. 3. On 9-11, those four American jetliners were NOT hijacked by Jews. 4. Hezbollah, close ally of HAMAS, was directly implicated in the Khobar Towers bombing that killed many Americans. 5. No civilized people chooses to be led by terrorists. That the Germans chose to do so in the 1930s, and the Palestinians of Gaza chose to do so in the 2000s, tells you that they were not acting civilized.

By: pampl

pampl — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:28:34 +0000

All the J Street bloggers ARE left wing, though. Or at least, all the ones I remember, maybe I’m forgetting some.

At any rate, if we’re interested in a non-mindless platform then we’ll need to avoid the kind of “debate” that featured prominently in the Freeman flap. Criticizing US-Israel policy: good, speculating about a powerful, shadowy Zionist Lobby that controls all the media and has dual loyalties: not good.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:31:38 +0000

I don’t know much about Freeman, but the debate on both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue is at a very high emotional temperature. I’m hoping the NM platform doesn’t encore the mindless Israel support of the neo-cons. It needs to be more nuanced and realistic about what can be achieved to bring peace to that region, and it needs to be willing to push Israel beyond its comfort zone.

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:35:50 +0000

Here’s Jon Chait at the New Republic: “Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful, and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.”
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/10/chas-freeman-is-out.aspx
After our nation’s experience of the past war, you can’t be surprised if Neoconservatives and hawkish, pro-Israel lobbyists develop a reputation. And I would say that just because J Street wants to settle Middle East problems peacefully doesn’t make them “Left Wing.” Not wanting to fight unnecessary wars isn’t “left wing.” Look up Burke, Edmund some time.