Chas Freeman's appointment is important in sociological terms. Freeman is the latest heir to a realist tradition in foreign policy that--while Jews have been adherents of it--has a gentile cast because it is associated with opposition to the recognition of Israel in 1948 and, more recently, the Walt and Mearsheimer analysis of the pro-Israel stranglehold on foreign policymaking in the Middle East.
In Jacob Heilbrunn's book, They Knew They Were Right, he speaks of the neocons in very sociological terms. They were City College of New York Jewish boys who felt excluded by the WASP establishment. They had resentment over that exclusion. They built a "parallel establishment," and lo, they matched the WASP tragedy that was Vietnam with the tragic war they pushed, against Iraq/the Arab world.
When this was pointed out by critics of the Iraq War, the Israel lobby smeared the critics in sociological terms, as anti-semites whose pedigree extended to Father Coughlin and other isolationists. It was gutter-fighting, and it was effective. Realism became an outsider tradition. John Mearsheimer has been repeatedly censored in the last couple years. Steve Walt, too, till he got his blog at Foreign Policy. Never forget that Dana Milbank in the Washington Post wrote a disgusting column that said these men were white-knuckled blue-eyed Germanics-- implying they were Nazis. And Yivo gave over its stage to a denunciation of Walt and Mearsheimer as antisemites, and not a word about the Iraq war tragedy that motivated them, let alone an invitation to them to respond.
That era ended last November 4, the era of the neocon parallel establishment fueled by ethnic resentment and fear of antisemitism. The big surprise in the attack on Chas Freeman from the usual quarters--the Weekly Standard and the New Republic and other rightwing Jews--is that it has been met this time by a mixed coalition who say No thanks! Richard Silverstein, Jim Lobe, and MJ Rosenberg are among Freeman's Jewish defenders. Steve Walt showed real intellectual leadership here, drawing the line a week ago by calling the attacks McCarthyite witchhunt. Andrew Sullivan has said, There's a blacklist of people who opposed the Iraq war and it has to end!
I'm saying that the old divide of tribal identity politics in Vietnam=Iraq/Bundy=Wolfowitz are over. Under Obama we are into a new era of ethnic cohesion. This is great news. Roger Cohen's column today would be considered "Arabist" in an earlier time, and dismissed. No longer. We can at last speak openly of "an American interest" in the Middle East that is much larger than support for the Jews in Israel and not be accused of antisemitism. This is Walt and Mearsheimer's achievement, and Jimmy Carter's and Jacob Heilbrunn's and MJ Rosenberg's, and Chas Freeman's too. A lot of people are going to share in this. Now let's all hug.
P.S. Glenn Greenwald shares my analysis, here, in a vigorous defense of Freeman. He says the taboos are still chilling. Yes, but they're faltering.
Greenwald:
"So absolute has the Israel-centric stranglehold on American policy been that the U.S. Government has made it illegal to broadcast Hezbollah television stations and has even devoted its resources to criminally prosecuting and imprisoning satellite providers merely for including Hezbollah's Al Manar channel in their cable package. Not even our Constitution's First Amendment has been a match for the endless exploitation of American policy, law and resources to target and punish Israel's enemies. But this trilogy of Cohen columns reflects the growing awareness of just how self-destructive is that mentality and, more importantly, the growing refusal to refrain from saying so….
It's destructive enough to artificially limit debate on a matter as consequential as U.S. policy towards Israel. We've been doing that for many years now. But it's so much worse that the people who have been defining and dictating those limits are themselves extremists in every sense of that word when it comes to Israel and U.S. policy towards that country. Their demands that no distinctions be recognized between Israeli and Americans interests have been uniquely destructive for the U.S."
Its great that a more rational palette of ideas on Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran are palatable than under the Bush administration.
But, the pendulum swing is NOT the balance.
It is still true that Hamas shells or permits (possibly actively encourages) the shelling of civilians. Hezbollah still promotes rejection of Israel or Israelis (desiring to be Israelis, not Palestinians). Iran still trains, arms, funds proxy militias, and yesterday announced a test firing of a missile with range to Tel Aviv, in the same week it announced that it had enough fissile uranium to construct a bomb (if it wanted to).
It claims that it NEVER attacked another state, but only can state that honestly if it regards Israel as not a state.
It could be a productive peer. Or, it could be a provocative lying antagonist.
The questions are NOT answered yet.
This whole saga focused on just 'one' man seems to be coming to a head — Noticing that we 'now' have our [undoubtedly] AIPAC enabled:
"…Dem Congressional Leaders [are] now telling White House They’re Concerned About Freeman…"
This fight is now not about asking for balance in our govenment, but instead it's become the pushing back of the 'ISRAEL lobby' to have the right to effectively PURGE our government. Frankly I think that chilling!
Plus, while we've been focused on Freeman what's happening to the recruitment process over at the State and the Pentagon Departments?
Witty: "It claims that it (Iran) NEVER attacked another state, but only can state that honestly if it regards Israel as not a state."
Are you in favor the Israelis bombing Iranian nuclear facilities to stop them from building a bomb? If Israel does and Iran retaliates against Israel, do you want to see the United States jump into the fray on Israel's side and start bombing Iran too? Israel currently has a 300-to-nothing advantage in nuclear weapons over Iran. How big a nuclear advantage does Israel need to feel secure? Would you support bombing Iran if Russia sells it a S-300 air defense missile system?
Glenn Greenwald linked above notes:
"Freeman is being dragged through the mud by the standard cast of accusatory Israel-centric neocons (Marty Peretz, Jon Chait, Jeffrey Goldberg, Commentary, The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, etc. etc., etc.), subjected to every standard, baseless smear, as a warning to others who think about challenging U.S. policy towards Israel in a similar way… Indeed, some of them, early on, were perfectly honest about the fact that Freeman's views on Israel is what has motivated their opposition, including the Israel-based "concerns" over the appointment voiced by Sen. Chuck Schumer to Rahm Emanuel. And — demonstrating that these taboos are still formidible — Schumer's sentiments have since been echoed by unnamed "Democratic leaders." Chuck Schumer, along with Dianne Feinstein, single-handedly enabled the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General"
—
"Accusatory Israel-centric neocons"? How many on the list above are actually accusatory Israel-centric NEOLIBERALS? The reason this is important is because the Neocon/Neoliberal MINDSET is what is at issue here. And both the Democrats and Republicans have succumbed to that mindset.
It's not really even an issue of liberal vs. conservative, as Greenwald's (intentional?) omission seems to imply; it's an issue of a STATE OF MIND: namely, delusional Washington's belief in its inherent right to SOCIALLY ENGINEER AT GUNPOINT. And nearly all fanatical interventionists, from Left to Right, suffer from a delusional belief in that "entitlement."
This mindset goes way beyond the issue of Israel. It goes to the profound ideological corruption of the entirety of Washington.
"Are you in favor the Israelis bombing Iranian nuclear facilities to stop them from building a bomb?"
I don't know what to think. I'm definitely afraid.
My preference would be engagement with Iran in a way that diverted it from becoming a nuclear power.
Phil has posted on Indian Point reactor I believe (probably less than 10 miles from his home). For a long time, I've been an anti-nuclear power and anti-nuclear weapons proponent. (Israel definitely tried by patience and consistency.)
I do believe that Iran shifting to a nuclear power (power and weapons) will be destabalizing in the region.
When India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, that was also, and very dangerous on numerous occassions.
It creates a "gun in every house" law but each verbally "sworn" never to use them. But, as Iran and Israel don't talk to each other directly, there is no way to diffuse conflicts that escalate quickly.
Jesus! My posts are now being moderated at Yglesias… Un-freakin-believable…
The raving luntic SLC gets to post and I get moderated… Is Yglesias turning into some AIPAC miserable hack…? I've really lot my respect for that guy…
I'm replying to his comment that basically because Jim Jones, Sam Power and Mitchell got through that all is well… that the Israel forces can't be all that bad…
Here's what I'm being 'moderated' for… Un-freakin-believable…
I am blue eyed and circumcised, which would confuse both Milbank and Heydrich.
""Are you in favor the Israelis bombing Iranian nuclear facilities to stop them from building a bomb?"
"I don't know what to think. I'm definitely afraid."
I am too. I don't think the US will bomb Iran on its own however. What I really fear is that Israel will launch its own attack. Iran in response will launch missiles at Israel, which will then bring the US into the war on Israel's side. This will result in a major mid-east war. The straits of Hormuz will be shut tight. A few American ships will be sunk and some aircraft carries banged up.
In the meantime, the whole Arab world will erupt. The price of oil will go to $200 or $300 a barrel. The entire world will fall into a thirties-type depression. When we recover, we will be a much poorer, less influential and less democratic country.
We're already in a 30's style depression.
During depressions, society changes. New people become rich. New people become powerful. Some crash.
Iran is struggling deeply partially because of the low cost of oil now. Even when oil was high, the oil subsidy didn't sufficiently support their economy. I don't know why.
Maybe THEY are seeking some instability to increase the market price of oil. Who knows?