Fresh on the heels of the Gaza visits by Congressmen John Kerry, Brian Baird, and Keith Ellison, another sign that President Obama is telling officials to change our policy visavis Israel/Palestine. Obama plans to name an Arabist, Chas Freeman, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to head the National Intelligence Council, according to these reports. Steve Rosen, the former AIPAC official who allegedly gave you-know-what to you-know-who, is alarmed and disturbed. Hallelujah. Rosen quotes Freeman:
My message to American Jews: We can jump on the third rail too! In fact, when we jump on it that does even more to neutralize it. When will Rep. Bob Filner of San Diego, who nobly voted against the Iraq war despite the neoconservative push in the Jewish community, join Ellison and Baird in calling for a change in policy. Bob–get ahead of this one now!
I'd also note that Steve Rosen calls Freeman "a textbook case of the old-line Arabism that afflicted American diplomacy at the time the state of Israel was born." True, historically. These guys said if we recognized a Jewish state that had gobbled 4/5ths of Palestine we'd been in for generations of bloodshed. Prescient. The Arabists have been dealt out of policy for 61 years. It's time to get them included.
Related posts:
- Alleged spy for Israel tries to get MJ Rosenberg fired for supporting Ambassador Freeman
- Ellison, Edwards & Baird offer a vision of the post-Israel-lobby Congress
- Arabist, anti-semite, Americanist–where is thy sting?
- As US politics shift, even the evangelicals are starting to jump ship on Israel
- Jack Ross contends Freeman ouster means nothing re policy
{ 9 comments }
I'm starting to believe…
But wait, I thought that according to "Pig Weiss" this couldn't possibly happen. That the Jewish Lobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! controlled well, everything. How can this be.
Dan, I'm starting to believe, too.
The appointment of Chas Freeman, an accomplished diplomat, is a brilliant choice by Obama. It sends an unmistakeable message to Israel's new government as well as the Israel Lobby: The US will make decisions in the ME and Gulf region based on national interests first and foremost. Just like it does in the rest of the world.
Meanwhile Freeman's once-removed predecessor at the NIC, Richard Perle, is out denying he's a neoconservative and that neoconservatives had anything to do with the US invading Iraq. His audience just laughed at him. Talk about irrelevancy. Read it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021903332_pf.html
'My message to American Jews: We can jump on the third rail too! In fact, when we jump on it that does even more to neutralize it.'
Within the New York City Transit Authority, there's an elite 'Club 600' — folks who touched the 600-volt third rail and lived to tell about it.
Phil Weiss is an honorary member of Club 600, for damned sure. Keep on electrifying us, my man.
There are definitely confusing signals coming from Obama. Freeman appointment sounds good if that is a sign that the administration is willing to pursue America's best interests in the ME. But then in the post above this one, is the story about Dennis Ross — a man whose loyalty likely lies with Israel — being given the Iran portfolio. Phil's optimism is difficult to share.
The Dennis Ross appointment is really, really bad. He's the poster child for dual loyalty. In fact, dual loyalty is too kind. He's interested first and foremeost in Israel.
One thing that's really dismaying is that this Rosen character still appears to be openly welcome in what seems mainstream jewish channels. (E.g., the JTA.)
Under indictment for what in my opinion essentially amounts to betraying the United States, and he's still openly so welcomed and cited? And, moreover, when his defense so far at least appears to be not that he didn't do it, but instead that everyone else does it too?
I'd like someone to tell me how this doesn't essentially amount to openly giving the finger of disdain to non-jewish Americans. So *what* if everyone else does it (which is dubious anyway); that doesn't mean it's not a betrayal. Nor do I see anyone else openly embracing any of those others who supposedly have done it either.
Appears to me you have to admit there can at least seem to be a kind of dual, exoteric/esoteric nature to the discourse of Israeli partisans a la Leo Strauss. To the rubes and boobs and outsiders and others who don't pay attention, yes, Israel and its enthusiasts love the U.S. and are good loyal allies and etc. and so forth. When talking amongst themselves however, esoterically, a very different understanding seems to be clearly apparent.
Some threads ago Ed talked about how deep down Zionists "hate" gentiles and Sword of Gideonthepoint responded by saying he didn't know of any such who so hated. But what about disdain? This Rosen business, with an organization that bills itself as providing the news to the jewish people giving this guy this space to criticize the appointment of a U.S. official just offends the hell out of me.
Like Mark Twain said, even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked. How the hell do any Israeli partisans expect that non-jews aren't going to just dismiss all their comments as being of the exoteric variety, having no connection to reality or the truth or etc. except insofar as it helps preserve a false public face?
I'd sure like to see the JTA get some letters or comments from its U.S. jewish readers at least repudiating this platform-giving to Rosen.
Afraid Dan is right. Check out this Ross character.
I hope Chas Freeman can endure what he's about to get hurled with, and that Obama has the strength to back him up.
Comments on this entry are closed.