- FEBRUARY 10, 2010
-
-
AFPAK
Why We Shouldn't Listen to Gen. McChrystal
-
MEIN KAMPF
Discrediting Hitler's Tome
-
IRAN
Regime Change Isn't Coming
The best defense is to be offensive?: A response to Chait, Goldfarb, and Goldberg
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 9:15 PM
Share
You know your opponents are worried when they start calling you names.
Jonathan Chait says I'm "paranoid," that I "went bonkers" in a recent blog post, and that my scholarship is "wildly hyperbolic." He says his real objection to Charles Freeman's appointment as chair of the National Intelligence Council is that Freeman is an "ideological fanatic" (isn't it odd that this quality went undetected during Freeman's lengthy career as a public servant?) and that Freeman's other critics were mostly worried about his relations with Saudi Arabia (as if this had nothing to do with their views on other aspects of our Middle East policy). Nice try, but it is abundantly clear to almost everyone that the assault on Freeman has been conducted by individuals -- Chait included -- who are motivated by their commitment to Israel and who are upset that Freeman has criticized some of its past behavior. Of course Chait doesn't broadcast this openly, as it would immediately undermine the case he's trying to make.
As for the others, Michael Goldfarb compares me to Father Coughlin and says I assembled a "blacklist," when in fact I did no such thing. I'm not suggesting that Freeman's critics should lose their jobs or face other forms of persecution; I just pointed out what they were doing and said it was wrong. Read what I actually wrote, and then ask yourself why Goldfarb would make this up. Perhaps he's confusing me with Ron Radosh, who did call for the New York Times to fire Roger Cohen for writing a column about Iran that didn't demonize it. Jeffrey Goldberg says that my co-author and I are "viciously anti-Israel," even though we have consistently declared our support for a Jewish state, said we "admired its many achievements," and wrote that the United States "should come to Israel's aid if its survival is ever in jeopardy." M.J. Rosenberg challenges Freeman's critics too, and Goldberg labels him a "professional slander expert."
What explains the false claims and overheated rhetoric these pundits employ? Why can't Chait and his allies represent their opponents' views accurately, and deploy facts and logic instead of invective and character assassination?
Answer: because the case they are defending is so weak. Not the case for Israel's existence, which virtually everyone engaged in these debates supports (including Freeman himself), but the case for continuing to give Israel nearly unconditional backing, even when it continues to build settlements in the Occupied Territories and when its newly-elected leaders openly declare their opposition to a two-state solution, which was the preferred outcome of the Clinton and Bush administrations and is now the stated goal of the Obama administration. Because the case for never criticizing Israel and backing it no matter what it does makes little strategic or moral sense, advocates of that approach have no choice but to misrepresent their opponent's arguments, and to try to portray them as wild-eyed extremists (i.e., "ideological fanatics" or "paranoid"), in an attempt to marginalize them. It never seems to occur to them that what we really have here is a straightforward policy disagreement, and that the policies they prefer might actually be harmful to Israel and the United States.
Their tactics used to work pretty well, but more and more people understand and resent the game that Israel's hardline supporters are playing. But Messrs. Chait, Goldfarb, and Goldberg don't get this. They don't understand that their mean-spirited fulminations are undermining their own case, much as a loudmouth hogging the mike at a public meeting turns off the rest of the audience. So it's hard to get too upset at all the name-calling. As Napoleon once said, "when your opponent is making a very serious mistake, don’t be impolite and disturb him."
P.S. The Washington Times reports today that Freeman's appointment is going to be vetted by the DNI's Inspector General, to make sure there are no disqualifying conflicts of interest. I see nothing wrong with that, provided he is judged by the same standards as other government officials in similar roles. The article also quotes several former NIC members who support the vetting process but believe "It has to be looked at, but I don't see anything to disqualify him," and that Freeman "should be a fine choice."
EXPLORE:THE BLOGOSPHERE, MIDDLE EAST, CHINA, CULTURE, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
You are speaking truth. Please continue to do so.
(An admittedly anonymous blogger)
The Politico
March 10, 2009
Chas Freeman Pulls Out
By: Ben Smith
The controversial appointee to chair President Barack Obama’s National Intelligence Council walked away from the job Tuesday as criticism on Capitol Hill escalated.
Charles W. Freeman Jr., the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, had been praised by allies and by the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, as a brilliant, iconoclastic analyst. Critics said he was too hard on Israel and too soft on China, and blasted him for taking funding from Saudi royals.
Freeman “requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed,” Blair’s office said in a statement. “Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret.”
The withdrawal came after Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) grilled Blair at a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing Tuesday. Lieberman cited his “concern” about “statements that [Freeman] has made that appear either to be inclined to lean against Israel or too much in favor of China.”
In particular, Freeman has described “Israeli violence against Palestinians” as a key barrier to Mideast peace, and referred to violence in Tibet last year — widely seen in the U.S. as a revolt against Chinese occupation — as a “race riot.”
His writing drew criticism of members of Congress, but Blair said the words were taken “out of context” and allies warned that Obama was allowing domestic politics to skew intelligence analysis and continuing the Bush Administration’s stance of sidelining critics of Israeli policy toward Palestinians.
“If they withdraw his appointment prior to the conclusion of [Freeman’s formal vetting] that would be seen as abject caving in on people who are extreme partisans of Israel,” Nicholas Veliotes, a former Ambassador to Egypt, and one of 17 former diplomats who signed a letters supporting Freeman, said Tuesday before the withdrawal was announced.
But Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), one of Freeman's leading critics, said the appointee could have "withstood" the attacks on policy grounds, but ultimately was torpedoed by the fact that he headed an institute funded by Saudi royalty and sat on the board of a Chinese state oil company.
"The administration made yet another mistake not doing its homework before nominating someone to a senior position of unique sensitivity, and then learned from the press further and further embarrassing details," Kirk said. "He was heavily encumbered by multiple conflicts of interest involving Chinese, Saudi and other business dealings that all should have been disclosed long before."
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19856.html
Chas Freeman: petitions the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan
From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog:
March 23, 2009
Thank Goodness for the Obama Administration’s Thorough Vetting Process
By Ted R. Bromund
I had dinner last week with a former student who worked for Obama’s campaign and now, like millions of others, is in town to try to land an administration job. His complaint was that the administration’s vetting procedures were so thorough that they were slowing him up, a complaint that made me choke on the excellent Pomerol we’d ordered.
I thought of his complaint again today, when a friend pointed out an interesting item in the February 26, 2009, New York Review of Books: a petition calling on the U.S. to withdraw immediately and totally from Afghanistan. One signatory, predictably, was Norman Finkelstein. Another, equally predictably, was Chas Freeman. That petition was published weeks before Freeman’s name was put forward as the arbiter of U.S. intelligence assessments. Now, naturally, it would never for a moment compromise Freeman’s objectivity that his self-declared political opinions are wildly at odds with those of the administration he sought to join. Nor is there anything even slightly unseemly about a candidate for such a position publicly stating preferences that would immediately put him at partisan odds with the President. Nor, of course, need we wonder at the fact that Freeman found himself politically at home with a conspiracy theorist like Finkelstein.
But I do have to wonder about those vetting procedures. Freeman wanted the job, but it seems unlikely that he informed the administration of his publicly-expressed views. And amazingly, no one in the administration noticed them. The press doesn’t get a pass here: it’s astonishing that this publicly-available petition wasn’t immediately brought up as a reason why he was profoundly unsuited for the intelligence job.
Of course, all that may be too generous. Perhaps it’s not true that no one in the administration noticed his views about their policy. Perhaps, instead, they noticed and didn’t care. In that case, we have to ask not about the competence of their vetting process, but about the sincerity of their commitment to the war in Afghanistan.
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/bromund/59741
What explains the false claims and overheated rhetoric these pundits employ?
Probably the same thing that explains why you do it, Walt...
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/28/have_they_not_a_shred_of_decency
The Weakness of the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
It is simply ludicrous to assert that Professor Walt engages in overheated rhetoric. If anything, he errs in the opposite direction. Here are my issues with his analysis of the Israel Lobby.
[Issue 1] If anything the criticism by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt is rather tepid because they do not really look at how the Israel Lobby damages American society. While one can argue whether the Israel Lobby is forcing the USA to make suboptimal foreign policy choices, one cannot debate that the Israel Lobby has severely damaged domestic political processes that involve debate and discussion.
[Issue 2] Any attempt to criticize the behavior of the State of Israel or domestic Israel advocacy immediately brings out hordes of Big and Little Brothers to intimidate anyone that strays from Zionist orthodoxy. This attempt at thought control is all pervasive and invasive at the most micro-social levels as my wife found out when she joined a book club that happened to discuss a book by Harvard Professor Leila Ahmed.
1. The Weakness of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have done a service for American public political discussion by arguing their opinion as foreign policy realists
- that Israel protects no important US interests,
- that it is a foreign policy liability,
- that it arguably never has been a strategic asset despite the claims of Organick in The $36 Billionr Bargain[23], and
- that the disappearance of the Zionist state from the Middle East would at worst harm the USA in no significant way whatsoever.
MIT Professor Noam Chomsky would correctly point out that one could make a good case for the opposite of the above assertions, but debating the above claims misses the main issue. The real problem is the lack of a genuinely open debate in Washington or in the media about the US alliance with Israel.
The Harvard and University of Chicago scholars underscore this issue and provide some good comic relief when they themselves claim that there is a strong moral case for supporting Israel even though a good part of the book clarifies just how vacuous a belief in the justice of Zionism and in the morality of Israeli practices really is.
Yet, the book is flawed by acceptance of too many Zionist and Jewish claims at face value.
When the professors write, "There is no question that Jews suffered greatly from the despicable legacy of anti-Semitism and that Israel's creation was an appropriate response to a long record of crimes," they are repeating both ethnic Ashkenazi primordialist essentialism and also the basic creed of the so-called "pogrom and persecution" version of Jewish history. Neither assumption holds up under scrutiny.
The second century Roman Historian Dio Cassius wrote "all who observe Judaic law may be called Judeans, despite the ethnic group from which they originate."
The vast majority of Roman Imperial Jews (more properly Judeans) had no ancestral connection to the populations that lived in the Hasmonean or Herodian Kingdoms of Judea. Modern ethnic Ashkenazim (Jews of Eastern European Yiddish-speaking origins) have less connection and no obviously legitimate claim on Palestine whatsoever. The Israeli Zionist population is simply a conglomeration of racist, murderous, genocidal invaders, interlopers and thieves. (See How to talk about Zionism, a new improved guide[24] and For Tony Blair: The Real Extremism.[25])
Paul Kriwaczek writes the following in Yiddish Civilization, The Rise and Fall of a Forgotten Nation,[26] pp 5-6.
We have forgotten that Yiddish-speaking Jews were no mere religious or linguistic minority but formed one of Europe's nations, ultimately more populous than many others — eventually to outnumber Bosnians, Croats, Danes, Estonians, Latvians, Slovaks, Slovenians and Swiss, not to mention the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. What is more, their contribution to central and eastern Europe's economic, social and intellectual development was utterly disproportionate to their numbers. The Yiddish people must be counted among the founder nations of Europe. (Please take note Ireland, Spain, Italy and Poland, who have pressed for "the Christian roots of the continent" to be proclaimed in the constitution of the European Union.)
In the Polish Commonwealth ethnic Ashkenazim constituted an economic elite. They lost this status in the partitions of Poland.
Yet, despite supposedly onerously Czarist oppression, Russian Jews had higher incomes, more education, and longer life spans than the non-Jewish populations among whom they lived. They were highly disaffected because of exclusion from the status and access to which they believed they were entitled, but they were not obviously more oppressed than the majority of the Czar's subjects and less oppressed than others.
Yuri Slezkine belies the myth of Jewish powerless during the lead-up to WW2 in The Jewish Century. (See The Pattern of Ethnic Ashkenazi Genocidalism: The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine.[27])
Mearsheimer and Walt's casual misconceptions about Jewish history accompany a similar lack of interest in the sociology of the Jewish community.
Even though How Jews Became White Folks & What that Says About Race in America[28] by Karen Brodkin asserts on p. 147 that
Italian culture is not prefiguratively white, in the way Jewish culture — which Glazer described as like Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture in valuing individuality and ambition — is,
historically Eastern European Jewish culture is highly anti-individualistic, for it strongly controlled social and intellectual deviation to a degree unseen in either WASP or African American cultures.
Many of the traditional ethnic Ashkenazi social control mechanisms continue to exist among American Jews, have evolved in the American environment, and may help explain why liberal Jews have so empowered the Neocons to the detriment of US foreign policy interests as James Petras has described. (See How Anti-Iraq-War Jews Licensed Neoconservatism.)
The two professors do not even ask whether stated reasons for supporting Israel are the real or the same reasons for all Israel advocates throughout the "Israel Lobby." Do the leaders and followers even share the same overall goals?
In contrast, when Columbia Professor Michael Stanislawski investigates the 1848 killing of Reform Rabbi Abraham Kohn in Lemberg in his book entitled A Murder in Lemberg: Politics, Religion, and Violence in Modern Jewish History,[29] he asks whether the crime resulted from religious conflict or from the threat that Kohn represented to the incomes of members of the wealthy Jewish elite.
The same question applies today. Does the so-called "Israel Lobby" merely act to secure the interests of the State of Israel or is the real goal enhancement of the wealth, status, and power of those who pay for it? After all Saudi Arabia pays its professional lobbyists, who consequently serve the Saudi state. Not only does Israel not pay the "Israel Lobby," but The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy[30] does not give a hint who really does, and in any case large sections of the "Israel Lobby" like the Hollywood Crowd do not even appear in the book even though scholars like Melani McAlister have investigated the Hollywood foreign policy connection in books likes Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945-2000.[31]
With such gaps in the analysis of the "Israel Lobby," no one should be surprised with the weakness of the proposals that Professors Mearsheimer and Walt make for responding to the "Israel Lobby."
2. The Network of Zionist Conrol
Atheo News has forwarded an article entitled Lessons from the Seattle divestment initiative. The actions of the local Seattle Israel Lobby are striking in their similarity to the tactics of the Boston Israel Lobby when it was trying to thwart the Somerville Divestment Project. In both case Israel Lobby activists followed and harassed signature gatherers.
Harvard Kennedy School Professor Stephen Walt has been discussing the current Israel Lobby mobilization against Chas Freeman in a number of blog entries. The latest is The best defense is to be offensive?: A response to Chait, Goldfarb, and Goldberg.
Recently the international Israel Lobby, which had unsuccessfully tried to host Dutch anti-Islamic politician Geert Wilders at the British Parliament, brought Geert Wilders from the Netherlands to Rome and the USA to incite Islamophobia. (See Collection: Wilders' Visit to Boston.)
In addition, the Israel Lobby persistently dogs national and international NGOs and religious organizations. (See Louis Proyect: Pious Warmongers and Israel Advocacy Organizations Change Tactics.)
No comparable transnational political network has ever existed that has so successfully created a web of control to silence, to frame, to manage, and to dominate political discussion and discourse at the local, national and international level.
we'll see what senor mouse has to say about that! i think a theory is missing here somewhere!...
I think Professor has come to the end of the road. From here onwards either "he will be on top of the State or his carcass will be eaten by ravens". As he wills.
It is a Turkish saying:
"Ya Devlet basha, ya Kuzgun leshe".
ya = either/or
Devlet = the State
basha = to the head
Kuzgun = the Raven
leshe = to the carcass
but I have modified it for the English transaltion which fitted perfectly for the State with the given background;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Note: It looks like my mission here is accomplished with success. Thank you all for letting me to write what I had to write here.Surely I wouldn't be able to write what I have written here without your feedback, so it is all yours.
You used overheated rhetoric when you implied they were un-American, and they are using it now, and so the cycle goes on...
Why should you feel obligated to support Israel as a "Jewish state"? I have a low view of ethnoreligious justifications for nation-states.
Chait included -- who are motivated by their commitment to Israel
But Professor, suppose they are not motivated by their comitment to Israel but Jews.
Michael Goldfarb .... I just pointed out what they were doing and said it was wrong.
wrong according to what?
According to Bible? Torah? Constitution (/American values)? Your theory?
even though we have consistently declared our support for a Jewish state, said
Suppose they don't care forthe Jewish State but they care about Jews who have no state like structure in the US, but they have a lot of SPE (socio-politico-economic) interests with other Jews in the ME and EU.
Not the case for Israel's existence, which virtually everyone engaged in these debates supports (including Freeman himself), but the case for continuing to give Israel nearly unconditional backing,
So? as a Jew why shouldn't they have nearly unconditional backing to what ever country they choose?
You have nearly unconditional backing to the US, don't you?
Professor, I don't think those arguments are strong enough to silence those Guys. Those Guys are Jews and naturally behaving like a Jew, try to understand that rather than trying to shy them away. If you shy them away then as Allen Green demonstrated here they will put their secularist cloakon and prove you that they are in fact more American than yourself and that is why they deserve the Monopoly and to shape her FP. Those Guys are bidding on the Monopoly which is in secularists hands and their strongest argument if you haven't notice is;->their being as secularist as the existing owners of the Monopoly. You can't beat them like that Mate;->>But as I have laid down the outlines on my previous messages on all over the places, there are ways to skin those Guys as well;->>>
Look at the picture from this angle;->
The Monopoly is in reality slipping out from your hands whatever you do. Then as a decent American why not pave theground to let it end up in the hands of her real owners.
Professor, it is time to be honest to yourself your keep defending the Monopoly only helps those Guys that you see as un-American and not decent.
Think about it Mate! while you have been dragged towards the Altar to be sacrificed like a lamb;->>>
Grand Sen~or,
may I call my assignment off now;->>
I was almost forgetting the Copyright statement.
© Copyright 2009, FP Stephen M. Walt Blog, All Rights Reserved.
Unless one gets written permission from Prof. Walt one is not allowed to copy even a word of this article.
We don't mask anything. Being an American, as a Jew, you are moved to defend American values, because as a Jew you see how despised and ridiculed these values are in parts of the world.
Defending Democracy Abroad, is part of defending it at Home. If a Jew understands this better than most, because of his relationship to Israel, so be it.
There are no cloaks. Unlike other groups, we are very very transparent. We don't hide anything, nor speak with forked tongues, like the Islamic world - which says one thing in public, and another when the Kuffar is not present.
We also have a clarity of vision, and purpose.
In the end however, it is an error to make of us a group that is not American, or foreign to the USA. We are American, but we happen to cheer for Raiders, instead of the 49ners. That's all being Jewish amounts to. Now if the team we choose represents something symbolic to us, then sure, we do our best to cheer loudest. But I don't see at what point, we are not American, or not American enough, or pretend to be American.
I just don't get your accusation.
There are no cloaks. Unlike other groups, we are very very transparent.
It would have been good of Chait to put in his article, maybe at the bottom or the top beside his name, "Disclaimer: I am a zionist".
For transparency, you know.
like the Islamic world - which says one thing in public, and another when the Kuffar is not present.
I don't know what you mean by "Islamic World" for there might be al sorts of people out there, but if you want to talk about Islam, Islam is an open religion, everyting is openly declared in a written book like the one you have - the Qur'an. Moslems have no hidden values, no Ribbis who know the hidden side of their laws. Don't bother calling people Muslim falling outside of those openly declared laws. Because those laws not qualify them Muslims, so what youare talking is meaningless.
We don't mask anything. Being an American, as a Jew, you are moved to defend American values, because as a Jew you see how despised and ridiculed these values are in parts of the world.
Defending Democracy Abroad, is part of defending it at Home. If a Jew understands this better than most, because of his relationship to Israel, so be it.
There are no cloaks.
Which is even worse, then you are an anussim Mate! Check it out with your Ribbi;->
Grand Sen~or.
I am not sure you understand this term well. It's one thing to use it, another to use it knowledgably. Judaism, as it is outlined since RAMBAM, postulates Free Will as key to man's place in the world. If you can say the same about Islam, then either you are talking about an Islam that never existed, or one that has yet to be born.
As for the Muslim world - it is one characterised by profound dishonesty, and chaos. Everythign and anythign can be said. For a religion which can claim to be about peace, and at the same time be the only religion with institutionalised religious warfare, is beyond logic. There has probably never been a document more chaotic than the Koran - so you have to apply Naskh - and if you do that - the Koran is Mein Kampf.
Problem then is, Muslims will claim Naskh is outdated, and we're back at square one. Everythign and anything can be said.
Now please compare that to Judaism. I don't know what version you are studying - but please find one
1) The equilvanet of Muslim Dar Al'Harb
2) The equivalent of Muslim Taqiyya
Now consider the implications of signing treaties with someone who wont honor them, and a culture which promotes dissimulation for expansionist purposes?
I think the trouble here is that either A) you don't know as much as you think about Judaism and B) like nearly everyone, you are clueless about Islam,and Saudi Arabia.
either you haven't read the Torah and the Koran or Mein Kampf;->>
If you don't like my use of anussim than go double check your case with your Rabbi. Show him what you have posted here and ask him "Am I sounding like an anussim?"
existed, or one that has yet to be born
neither. Double check your previous message and my respond to it. In your message you made up a muslim out of your imagination and were trying to punch him/her and I remind you that your prototype character doesn't fit to the muslim profiled in the Qur'an.
Keep on punching your dummy if that would keep you happy;->>
Grand Sen~or
Dear Professor Walt,
I think it is generally fair to investigate the conflicts of interest that White House staff members and appointees may have, no doubt about that. But in that case, let's have a full investigation of Rahm Emanuel. It is no secret that he served in the IDF, and I believe he used to carry Israeli citizenship. Israel is known to have spied on the USA and even has active cases pending trial (AIPAC passing documents...). Let's not forget that Israel has even sunk American war ships... If we want to talk about conflict of interests, how about someone who volunteered to fight for a foreign army (though, he has never served in the US military!) If we are going to start doing investigations, let's open the flood gates!
Full Investigation -- Not Just Rahm Emanuel
The issue is much deeper.
I have done a lot of work on Wall Street. I am always being asked whether I am Jewish so that I can take part in corrupt Jewish social networking to trade insider info, to provide mutual protection, etc. Nowadays these finance industry social networks enforce Zionist discipline as well as simple ethnic solidarity.
I have to wonder why Obama was so hot to bring Summers in to the administration. Summers' failure history goes back to the 80s. There are a lot of reasonable questions about Emanuel's stint at Wasserstein Perella while Summers link with Professor Andrei Shleifer created a lot of concern at Harvard.
Were Summers and Emanuel networking together?
All these questions go to the heart of the real Israel Lobby, which Professors Walt & Mearsheimer did not address and which is the simply the public face of the Zionist Virtual Colonial Motherland, which has created a vast imperial system in which the USA is an intimidated and dependent client state.
The attacks on Freeman and Walt follow a strategy of preemption to make analysts like Walt defensive and to distract the American public from asking the real questions about the Zionist web of control that extends right into the White House.
The equation of Professor Walt and Father Coughlin is a classic, but now that we have more access to Soviet and Eastern European archives, we now know that Coughlin was not so wrong.
Click here to hear Coughlin discuss Jews and communism.
Click here to hear Coughlin defend himself against the charge of anti-Semitism.
In truth, Coughlin was an anti-Semite (he published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) but not because of his belief in the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy or because he thought it was wrong to bail out banks instead of nationalizing them. (It was considered a fascist or Nazi policy in the 30s because it was part of the strategy that Hjalmar Schacht used to bring the German economy out of the depression.)
Coughlin was an anti-Semite because he at times seemed to argue that there was one overarching conspiracy among "bad" atheistic Jews, whether they were plutocrats (or Jewish bankers) or communists. (He wasn't always careful about adding the qualifier 'atheistic'. While NY Jewish bankers often acted conspiratorially then as now, they were not conspiring with Soviet ethnic Ashkenazi leaders.)
In fact, there was a whole bunch of Jewish conspiracies at the beginning of twentieth century. Conspiracy is historically a normal part of Eastern European politics, and historians of Russia or Poland discuss conspiracy all the time.
Eastern European Jews brought a political cultural propensity to conspiracy with them. I discuss the associated Jewish political elites in Summary: Chabad, Jewish Political Elites.
Note that the various Jewish conspiracies/political elites did not work together and were often quite hostile to one another. The Zionist conspiracies were simply the most long-lived, and among the Zionist conspiracies, the Neocons/Jabotinskians have managed to cannibalize the others.
Nice try, but it is abundantly clear to almost everyone that the assault on Freeman has been conducted by individuals -- Chait included -- who are motivated by their commitment to Israel and who are upset that Freeman has criticized some of its past behavior. Of course Chait doesn't broadcast this openly, as it would immediately undermine the case he's trying to make.
Sneaky, sneaky Chait!
So when you were saying that Chait opposed Freeman's appointment because of Freeman's views on Israel, you weren't basing it on what he wrote, but on what you knew he really meant.
Is it a fair characterization, Walt, to say that you are accusing Chait, and therefore "the Lobby" I guess, of being sneaky/disengenuous?
Something Walt Can't stop Missing
Over and over and over you ignore it. The fat ugly elephant in the room which resembles the grotesque physiognomies of its Dictators - al-Mamlaka al-?Arabiyya as-Su??diyya
Please Mr. Walt, if you're going to become the face of the anti-AIPAC crusade, don't compromise academia and US foreign policy. You want to be another Edward Said, go ahead. But you denigrate the profession, as he denigrated everyone who dared express a different opinion.
I don't have so much beef with you over Jewish clout as may strike the eye. Jewish power is strong, and rightfully so. In a Democracy, where there is knowledge, there is power. I disagree with you, about the nature of the power, and I dare say you don't understand it - as its not a topic you have strong grounding in.
You are a Realist and with typical Realist arrogance, you think Pluralism can come to you with your eyes closed and hands tied behind your back. It's haughty.
Its dishonest of you, to ignore the awesome power that stems from totalitarian elements in the world. The elements our knowledge fight, in pursuit of Democracy, and American values.
The Saudi's enjoys blanket censorship in Western media - Wahabism, Islamism, Jihadism, and the anti-Democratic Westophobic OIC and their international allies, are oiled by Saudi money. Books discussing this, are often persecuted, and pulped -Libel tourism is a Saudi monopoly - when not pulped, distribution is reduced.
The Wall Street Journal, the New York times, all silent on the cancer, the ulcer that is the Saudi Kingdom. No political movements for democracy, for freedom, for womens rights, minority-migrant rights, end of Saudi Apartheid (Muslim only roads!!). Crooks like Bin Talal are allowed to build Islamic art wings in the LOuvre and displace Coptic and Byzantine works (how ironic), or finance Islamophilic and apologetic departments in top us universities, while financing Hezbollah and Hamas to the tune of 100 million dollars per telethon (Bin Talal), the SFO office in London can investigate the Saudi's for bribes that total 1 billion dollars per one (just one) guy - "Prince" Bindar - he was the ambassador in the US the entire time - and it gets virtually zero media attention. Nada. Zip.
We are talking here censorship, and ignorance. In ten years alone, the Saudi's boast of having spent 75 billion (no, let me be clear, 75,000,000,000 $$$$$$$$$$$$$) on Wahabism abroad.
Please, Mr. Walt, put this all into a rational, and responsible perspective!! We are talking massive money for the spread of Hate, of Violence, of Apartheid, of Civilisational Conflict. Why does our media, let them off the hook? Could it be because unlike your fabled Israeli lobby, the Saudi's have real cash, have real oil, and best of all, have shares in Fox, CNN, in GE, in Citibank, Disneyland- etc?
Now you don't contribute anything to improve the situation. Instead of informing Americans about the Poison of Totalitarian Saudi Arabia, you play the Saudi game and attack us!
May this be a simple lesson, to those who accuse us as Jews, of double-loyalties and distortion. Find me anyone else, if not Jews, fighting the Western, Democratic, American cause!?
Please. It's an open challenge.
May this be a simple lesson, to those who accuse us as Jews, of double-loyalties and distortion. Find me anyone else, if not Jews, fighting the Western, Democratic, American cause!?
Allen before you go out to sell all those values you list ask yourself as am honest Jew, not as an anussim;->
"Do we Jews have the right to make our laws in the US and implement those laws to Jews? Wht would we be as Jews subjected to the laws of the Gentiles?"
Don't you ask this question when you are not with Gentiles?
Or do you believe as an anussim the laws the Gentiles compose are quite in accord with the Laws? or in fact the Gentiles are so assimilated now, they make laws according to the Laws?
Can you tell us what makes you so patriotic to defend American values in such a hostile environment as a Jew, not as an American citizen?
Grand Sen~or.
Again, you use the term anusim wrongly. There is nothing at all which conflicts between Torah, and American law. That's why we defend secularism as a separation of church and state - it is precisely the democratic nature of American law, which is best for Torah. The US constitution, as you no doubt know, was shapped by two traditions, the Hellenic, and the Hebrew. The former, also shapped the latter. So there is little conflict, as the USA represent the ultimate synthesis of this historic dialectic.
Now this situation, of US democracy and secularims, is exactly the opposite of the Theocratic impulse programmed into Islam (programmed, by the way, by Wahabis), or the eschatological anticipations of millenerianists.
There is no greater man than the American, in terms of aspirations, and service.
your words "There is no greater man than the American, in terms of aspirations, and service." what a lot of hooey.. patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel..
Allen, if you are not happy (updated 3)
Allen, if you are not happy with my use of anussim, go double check it with you Rabbi.
, you use the term anusim wrongly. There is nothing at all which conflicts between Torah, and American law
Did you make sure by comparing it article by article that there is nothing at all which conflicts between Torah and American law. Are you saying that American law is the Law;->
Prof. Walt! My Dear Friend!
I was kind of thinking that American Law has nothing to do with Torah or Bible leave alone the Qur'an;->>,
the Constitution of the US doesn't say: :
Congress make laws by double checking to make sure that they are not in conflict with the Torah..
Guess what it says:
[Amendment of ARTICLE ONE]
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION...
(the Constitution of THE USA)
(key-words: Congress, law, establishment, religion)
I think it is time to make this Amendment more picturesque ? :->
[Further Amendment of ARTICLE ONE]
CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION -
except of its own as it shall be ESTABLISHED by LAW made by CONGRESS....
(the Constitution of THE USA)
(key-words: Congress, law, establishment, religion)
I mean since when Congress making laws according to Torah? Or is it by accident that there is no conflict between Torah and the American law?!!?
Oh Jupiter! It started hitting the fan;->>
Professor! Can you please explain what is Allen trying to sell me?
Allen, please go read the Constitution of the US before you push me "there is nothing at all which conflicts between Torah and American law", I am kind of immunized for this kind of salesman lingo Mate;->>
Allen saying that keep posting Mate!, your postings become revelations for the political structures we are fiddling with here;->>
Look and hear what you are saying Mate:
"There is nothing at all which conflicts between Torah, and American law"
You mean take the Constitution away and put the Torah in its place it would do the same job or are you trying to say that Torah would in fact do a better job but the Constitution is OK for the time being...;->>
Tell us more Mate! I can't wait hearing what you will say next;->
Allen I know you are desperately after the Monopoly and you have to use all the salesman lingo to sell yourselves as a perfect candidate to own her, nothing will change when you own her, there is nothing to be afraid of your owning it, it is just a formality, etc...I really appreciate your efforts as Jews Mate. I really don't blame at you for that. It is your God given right to live your laws, to make your laws, to implement your laws among yourselves and as a realist I know that your rights are denied by the Constitution so you have to find ways to practice your laws to maintain and flourish your identities as Jews. But Allen there are others like yourselves whose law-rights had been denied and they have ownership rights on the Monopoly. I mean the Monopoly realistically cannot end up being owned by you only. It has to be justly distributed among her real owners including yourselves. What I am trying to tell you is don't be so greedy on the Monopoly although she is not mine and for me it wouldn't make much difference its changing hands among secularo-fascists who thinks that they are still christians/jews/muslims/etc, on that point there is a big difference between I and our Professor, our Professor is in favour of status quo, he is happy with the so called American valued secularo-fascists dictating their laws to all SPEEs as the Owner of the Monopoly, but when he sees so called Zionst(Jewish) interference to the Monopoly he becoems the Patriot Himself defending the Monopoly branding others as un-American, not-so-decent;->>
They are not going to leave it to you Mate, you are running after a mirage! Unless you are one of them (secularo-fascist) even then! Remember your history and don't push it hard if you listen our Professor's advice. So be realistic and be satisfied with what you rightly and justly deserve and get geared up to defend your right to law (remembering that it is a joke to talk about human rights without it) rather than running after dreams to Own the Monopoly;->. The good news is the Monopoly is gouing to be dissolved eventually, because it is against the nature of SPEEs. So, don't hang around her if you don't want to get sucked into her whirl of doom;->>
That's about it Mate, it was nice to communicate with you. Have a nice weekend.
Grand Sen~or.
© Copyright March 2009, FP Stephen M. Walt Blog, All Rights Reserved.
Unless one gets written permission from Prof. Walt one is not allowed to copy even a word of this article.
You have been doing such a good job with this blog in reestablishing yourself as a leading foreign policy thinker after your brief sojourn into US domestic politics. Now, as far as I am concerned, you are ruining it. Chas Freeman was on the payroll of the Saudi royal family, and also on the payroll (and Board of Directors!) of a 70% state-owned Chinese oil company. And he is on record saying that the Chinese crackdown at Tiananmen was too soft. I consider it astonishing that you don't mention any of this in your self-defense above.
What about a 100 % state-owned Norwegian oil company?
and also on the payroll (and Board of Directors!) of a 70% state-owned Chinese oil company
What about Norway's Statoil, - a 100 % state-owned (as the name implies). But of course he was not on the payroll of this Norwegian Company but on a Chinese - what is the difference?
Adrian says: " The difference is that this Chinese company did business in Iran."
Reply: "And so what? Plenty of American oil-companies, including Conocco Philips did the same, as businesses tends to - in the nature of things - to be attracted to places where there is money to be made."
Adrian says: "Yes but what about Tiananmen Square?"
Reply:" I think Freeman - being a staunch Realist, who thinks that states acts in their own interests - was merely floating the idea, that the Chinese response was logical and in their interest; if the Communist Regime had not acted in this way, it may have crumbled."
Adrian says: "Yes but why couldn't the Chinese be Goodies and act determined to enhance democracy like the Soviet Communist did?
Reply: "Well, thank you for bringing this up. It is an opportunity to remind ourselves how unique the turnaround in the former USSR was. The historians are not yet done in figuring out how this came to pass.
But the Soviet system was run down,- and unable to provide what its citizens wanted - even the most basic needs - whereas China since Deng Xiaoping's opening in 1978 had been able to combine the best things from Communism and Capitalism. And the Chinese are born entrepreneurs.
"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"
So, no Vietnam protests, million man march allowed...? Sure sounds like he was doing more than "merely floating" ideas about China.
Professor, will you please talk about the ISSUES of this? Freeman approval of harsh treatment of the protesters in Tiananmen Square and the money his group takes from Saudi Arabia and China. That sounds harsh and if only his critics are talking, it sounds all the harsher. If you ignore this, I can only assume there is no defense. And about the name calling... You started it. Big deal.
SleepyIrv, what about all the money Dennis Ross has taken from Israel, AIPAC-WINEP-JPPPI? Should that disqualify him?
You'll probably respond with the canard that "Israel is our only ally in the region" and I would inform you that the Saudis are supposed to be our allies too. Let the man be vetted without the Lobby's interference, and stop with the fictitious Tiananmen Square hasbara already.
"Dennis Ross"
Red herring, we're talking about Freeman here, stop trying to distract the discussion.
Oh, I'm sure there's good defenses to the points I raised. I want to hear them from Professor Walt instead of these inane "they called me names" posts.
What money from Israel? Please provide your sources and numbers.
Also, why do you fail to distinguish between Saudis and Israelis?
Because its easier to blame the Jews, instead of doing you homework.
Walt gives everyone a good example of that.
Hey professor, Why do you worry about defending yourself among these Zion-fascist reactionaries?
When Will Real Americans Stand Up To The Zionist Power Configuation?
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2009/02/when-will-real-americans-stand-up-to.html
What's "real" about you "white boy"? The desire to "stand up"? I think that's more a sixties minority tone.
A "real" American respects debate, and has a handle on his native language. Solecisms don't recommend itself well.
Hey professor, Why do you worry about defending yourself among these Zion-fascist reactionaries?
When Will Real Americans Stand Up To The Zionist Power Configuation?
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2009/02/when-will-real-americans-stand-up-to.html
Keep fighting the good fight, Professor Walt
You're right that the hyperventilated squawking of the armchair AIPAC apologists appears loud because they have control of the megaphones (i.e., the mainstream media).
But we're learning they can be shouted down by a sea of opposing voices, which are growing louder by the day as The Lobby once again attempts to manipulate US foreign policy and trick the Obama administration into attacking Iran with American blood and treasure.
Would be nice to have a link to your original article so we could see why these individuals decided to say such things. Did you just present a legitimate argument and they flew off the handle or did you call them un-American or something?
He actually presented an illegitimate argument AND called them un-American. ("Them" being one or more of the people Walt is attacking.)
See:
Illegitimate argument -- as he tacitly admits in this post, he is arguing against what he divines as Chait's thoughts rather than what Chait wrote.
Called them un-American -- you can see in his previous post where he implies that Goldberg's shouldn't be challenging Freeman's appointment or that his criticism is less credible than others because of his service in the IDF. Note that Walt did not address the criticism, only made this ad hominem attack on the critic; and also note that Goldberg is a journalist, not a politician or public servant of any sort. The jibe about "public service" is a gratuitous swipe.
A journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) whose idea of "public service" was to enlist in the Israeli army is challenging the credentials of a man who devoted decades of his life to service in the U.S. government. Now that's chutzpah.
Original post:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/28/have_they_not_a_shred_of_decency
...he implies that Goldberg's shouldn't be challenging Freeman's appointment or that his criticism is less credible than others because of his service in the IDF.
Actually that looks like a perfectly good argument to me, if it's true.
Goldberg ought to say something like, "Freeman is biased in favor of a foreign country, as proven by his working for them for money, so he shouldn't be allowed to influence the US government. I personally am biased in favor of a foreign country, as proven by my choosing to serve in their army as I have never served the US military. My favored country is a deadly enemy of Freeman's favorec country. I also shouldn't be allowed to influence the US government. But it's fine for me to have a position to greatly influence US public opinion which a completely different thing."
I think if Goldberg made a disclaimer like that his position wouldn't be so offensive.
Your point is a somewhat fair one, but Walt's argument wasn't Israel vs. Saudi Arabia, as yours is. (And they aren't really deadly enemies any more. Their interests are aligning more and more these days.)
I can't say it's totally fair because, bottom line, we are all Americans and we all have biases. I think you will agree that we are all allowed to criticize and the criticism should be addressed fairly. Instead, Walt attacks the criticizer as somehow less worthy to be making the criticism.
Also, Goldberg makes no secret of his IDF service and really can't be expected to put it on every article he writes, or even every article that he writes that may be tangentially related to Israel. Your ignorance of the fact doesn't change that. Though this type of thinking should lead one to another conclusion -- Freeman should have come completely clean to the administration about all of his ties, financial and otherwise, to foreign powers. His appointed position is way more serious than a journalist penning an article. This is not to say he hasn't, but from the way things are playing out it doesn't appear so.
Freeman, unfortunately, will likely be thrown under the bus like a lot of Obama's other appointees. As Yglesias says, paraphrasing - it looks like they may have 'got the goods' on him. 'Got the goods' = there are conflicts of interest that rightfully disqualify him from the position.
I say unfortunately because I would like to see him stay. I can't say I agree with his views, but I don't see how it would hurt to shake things up a bit (I am one of those who thinks Israel should be pressured a bit more about the settlements, which one can do without slipping into Walt's reflexive and tendentious anti-Israelism). The danger in Freeman's appointment is that the NIE's would be slanted, leading to our President making decisions based information that is not as good as it could be. But I don't see this as a high probability.
Walt's argument wasn't Israel vs. Saudi Arabia, as yours is. (And they aren't really deadly enemies any more. Their interests are aligning more and more these days.)
In that case why object to Freeman?
Oh. Yes. He made some remarks critical of israeli policy.
I think you will agree that we are all allowed to criticize and the criticism should be addressed fairly. Instead, Walt attacks the criticizer as somehow less worthy to be making the criticism.
Well, try looking at it this way. For a long time we had small numbers of soviet apologists involved in US discourse. They took the USSR party line on pretty much everything. When one of them made an argument, saying they were a soviet apologist didn't address their criticisms fairly. But it did warn people to expect them to take the same old party line. To the extent they said something new then it would tend to falsify the "soviet apologist" label. I figure it was wrong to blacklist soviet apologists, but it was appropriate not to put them in the government where they'd affect soviet relations, and it made sense to give them jobs distorting the media only to the extent that informed media viewers liked it.
In precisely the same way, we have israeli apologists now, perhaps as much as several percent of the population. To the extent that they repeat the party line it makes sense to listen and refute just one of them. To the extent that they copy the party line it makes sense to call them zionists and otherwise ignore them. And truly they should only distort the media enough to get their message out and not drown out other views.
In that case why object to Freeman?
Oh. Yes. He made some remarks critical of israeli policy.
Again, parroting Walt's line and not actually reading the criticisms of Freeman.
If the above garbage comments are anything to go by, god knows what your spam inbox is like.
IMO You are fighting the good fight -- thank you.
The Bush administration brought on board Doug Feith and allowed him to create the office of special planning, which turned into a way for Cheney and his Cronies to stovepipe bad information about Iraq to the president, Information which had already often been dismissed by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. It was, by the way, one of Feiths underlings there who was the person who was responsible (and ultimately tried and convicted to 12 years in federal prison) for giving classified information on Iran to the two (hopefully soon to be convicted) AIPAC spys.
Given all of this, I find it so hopeful that a person who has the courage to suggest that blindly supporting the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement is bad for the US and ultimately terrible for Israel has finally ascended to a place of real influence in the US intelligence community. God willing, it might actually finally cause us to take action AGAINST the settlers and their backers, which would be the first positive thing we have done for Israel in a long time.
Even George Bush senior understood the damage that the Settlements and the occupation that they necessitate have and wouild cause, and he tried to make all funding to Israel conditional upon the demise of the settlements, so I would hardly call proactively working to end them a radical approach, although not one that is terribly politically easy to accomplish, as Bush I was ousted even after a decided victory in Iraq.
I look forward to the work that Freeman will accomplish, and to the sunshine disinfectant that he will apply to the issue of the settlements and the occupation, which, to this day, I do not believe that most Americans fully understand.
We need to start FORCING members of congress to personally own up to whether or not they support a violently enforced colonial settler movement in Israel or ANYWHERE else, and if not, what they are willing to do about it.
We also need to be clear about the cost of that settler movement, in terms of its contributions to the problem of terror attacks against Both Israel and the US, up to and including (at least to some not insignificant degree) 9/11.
deleted
Seeing everyone worked up is fun. Especially since no one here has a clue about the nature of Saudi Wahabia, and Islamism. You can say "stand up to the lobby" all you want, but its your grave you're digging.
They always start with the Jews, then they come for everyone else. And that's something Walt will have on his shoulders. It was a joice between being honest, and making a splash.
Your splash sir, may eventually cost everyone big. You certainly didn't do your job, when it comes to informing your public.
I think your the one who is misinformed. When the day comes that the US is no longer interested in middle eastern oil on a national security basis, that will also be the day that we will be out of the business of meddling in middle eastern affairs in order to assure that we have unfettered access to oil at somewhat reasonable prices.
That will also be the day that our "special" relationship with Israel will begin to resemble the special relationship that we have with, say, the entire continent of Africa, which is rife with genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, and maladies of all sorts, and to whom we provide almost no money and absolutely no military or diplomatic support of any kind.
If Israel does not have their act together by then and have peaceful relations with their neighbors they will be in serious trouble, and the ONLY way for them to accomplish that is to raze every settlement and end the occupation for good as soon as possible.
I think Professor Walt's views are indicative of the BEST advice we could give Israel and the best policy directions for the US that can adopt.
Yeah but you are ignoring something seriously tackled by Prof. Walt ;Jews bidding on the Monopoly. For many Jews Israel is not the final destination;-> Jews have a lot more SPE interests in the US and EU and other part of the Globe. Please don't get mislead by their target shifting propaganda;->
I keep telling Prof. Walt to investigate seriously about the SPE resources of Jews in the US to disclose the SPE dynamics behind their political interactions with the US. But professor rather than doing serious investigation wastes his time on gossip columns. We need figures here rather than empty talk. Those Guys are seriously bidding on the Monopoly while you are nitpicking.
Grand Sen~or.
note: SPE=Socio-Politico-Economic
Setback for pro-Israel hawks in U.S
REUTERS, Thu Mar 5, 2009:
Setback for pro-Israel hawks in U.SBy Bernd Debusmann
In the 60 years since its establishment on May 14, 1948, Israel has been by far the largest recipient of U.S. assistance, military and economic, in the world, according to the Congressional Research Service. Aid has been running at around $3 billion a year since 1985, a sizable sum for a country with a population smaller than that of New York City.
Walt, who blogs at Foreign Policy magazine, weighed into the Freeman debate as it gathered steam even before the actual appointment. Apart from trying to get it revoked by Dennis Blair or get Freeman to withdraw, Walt said, the anti-Freeman campaign had a third aim.
"Attacking Freeman is intended to deter other people in the foreign policy community from speaking out on these matters. Freeman might be too smart, too senior and too well-qualified to stop, but there are plenty of younger people eager to rise in the foreign policy establishment and they need to be reminded that their careers could be jeopardized ... if they said what they thought."
But the Obama administration appears to have no problem with people who say what they think about U.S.-Israel ties. Take Samantha Power, the former Harvard professor whose outspoken views echo those of Walt and Mearsheimer. Obama gave her an important job on the National Security Council.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(62)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE