One of the best things to come out of the Chas Freeman affair is the combination of non-Zionist leftwing Jews and realist gentiles. The two groups have gotten over political/cultural differences and are beginning to feel real loyalty to one another out of a sense of an American interest and shared contempt for the neocons. This combination disposes of the anti-semitic smear entirely and encourages lots of folks to come forward. Best evidence of this is Glenn Greenwald's vigorous defense of Chas Freeman in this interview by Hugh Hewitt at townhall. It begins with a question about Freeman's role at the Middle East Policy Council, where he was bought and paid for, as Dershowitz claimed, by the Saudis:
GG:
No, I just don’t think that for a position that pays somebody, a
lifelong diplomat of that stature, $76,000 dollars a year, that there
ought to be an assumption that he’s been corrupted by that amount of
money. I mean, I think that it’s a reasonable issue to raise, I think
he ought to be asked about it, but the idea that that ought to be
disqualifying, if you look at the person who’s running the State
Department right now, and the involvement of her family with all sorts
of foreign governments, and like I said, the Bush family, I just think
it’s incredibly disingenuous to suggest that that level of ties to the
Saudi regime ought to disqualify somebody for a position like that….
HH: Now you also write that what I find most mystifying is that, “Israel-centric fanatics actually think it’s a good thing for Israel to impose these sorts of Israel-based loyalty tests and orthodoxies on American politics.” Is Chuck Schumer an Israel-centric fanatic?
GG: Oh, definitely.
HH: Is Rahm Emanuel?
GG: Yes, I think Rahm Emanuel is.
HH: Joe Lieberman?
GG: Yeah, absolutely.
HH: Hillary Clinton?
GG: No, I wouldn’t say Hillary Clinton is.
Related posts:
{ 36 comments }
I guess the Left's honeymoon with Obama is officially over (did he REALLY need such fairweather friends anyway?).
So now the Left is without a party to manipulate. Good luck with that! :-)
Slandering the Left still Suzanne? Frankly, I don't recall anyone, especially amongst the ones I call as the "true" Left, never had any delusions about Obama. They were a little less pessimistic, but men of Leftist stature such as Alexander Cockburn never had a doubt that Obama would not "change" a thing. I remember John Ross's scathing article on Obama a few months back.
I never knew the Left had a marriage with Obama in the first place. Abunimah, Khalidi, all left in the dirt by a certain President. I just read Abu'Khalil's description of Freeman and although he found Freeman quite impressionable, he called him a "Saudi apologist".
PS It also wasn't just "the Left", or the ones who are labeled that by the press, who were swept by Obama. I know plenty of conservatives who wanted to believe in him too.
Good for Hugh to do this interview. He's a GOP party man, but rises beyond that at times.
Obama faces an Israeli regime weighted in favor of Likud policy, which is contrary to the USA's & Quartet's policy–here is the Likud policy: http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
What will Obama do? Still an open question.
Will he actually have the balls to use economic leverage, which the USA has?
I'm betting no.
But hoping yes.
He could work around I-P by talking to Iran and Syria, simultaneously, he could use the bully pulpit to
stop the settlements for a start.
Glenn Greenwald is more of an outraged libertarian than a liberal, Suzanne. He has worked on projects with the Cato Institute, and he has always called things as he sees them with Obama.
Again, why all the attacks on critics rather than substantive responses? You also never acknowledge any merit to the arguments others make. It may be you are just angry and lashing out. However, based on experience with similar argumentative styles in other contexts, it also will persuade many readers that you fear your case is weaker than you acknowledge.
Sorry Ben..if the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard couldn't make a case for Israel that wasn't instantaneously exposed as a threadbare hoax, torn into confetti and thrown in his face, you can hardly expect much better from the likes of Suzanne, an awkward, transitional hominid lurking in the foliage, subsisting on gathered stones and filth.
"And only a portion, a small portion of it was actually funded by the Saudi government."
…as it turns out, the rest was funded by the actual Saudi princes. All of it.
So now, was this statement a flat-out lie or was it just a deception?
How typical of the so-called "left". Supporting the Tiananmen massacre a "stray comment"? How shameful!
And how shameful all this talk about "interests"? Would you kill your own mother if it were in your "interests"? Your friend? A passer-by on a street? A 7-11 clerk?
What depravity!
Speaking of "depravity" the clownish hebraic nutcase arrh, who believes the long discredited fairy tale of exodus and sees nothing wrong with israeli thugs invading other people's land and crippling or killing them during a protest has a soft spot for the activists of Tiannamin Square!
A joke in exceptionally poor taste.
Yes, it doesn't speak well for Dershowitz either. He's made better arguments in court for clients with weak cases. His approach on this issue is to just pound on the table and project his own weaknesses on others. Such an approach won't impress judges favorably or, increasingly, it seems much of the public who pay attention to his act.
Ben, I'd describe Glenn more as a CIVIL libertarian, something that's grounded in his background in constitutional law. libertarians tend to believe in minimal centralized government, whereas civil libertarians tend to believe central government is the only agency capable of enforcing the laws that are there – preferably both fairly and justly. By definition, they believe in CIVILITY and, by extension, in CIVILIZATION. but many pure libertarians tend to be too cynical and suspicious of any central authority to put much stock in fair enforcement of any rule, regardless of how just.
More precisely, I'd say that civil libertarians believe that government can -and should be -made a fair instrument of civic duty, whereas many libertarians (of the ones I encountered and read) seem to value personal liberty over civic duty. May be because they can't all agree on where that duty lies, it being a very large tent.
Glenn's special – and consistent – message is the importance of accountability. Not only for the three branches of government, but for the fourth rail – the press. It is for the later that he has been reserving his worst ire – and justly so. that he does so well, that I sometimes feel almost sorry for his target wimp-of-the-day. as for the rest of us, well, we get to cower behind Glenn – urging his to the barricades. Is that a funny image or what?
In your comments, Greenwald didn't defend Freeman. He went after the Lobby.
It was Blair's staff, that is true. Doubt travels in odd ways.
LOOK IN THE MIRROR relative to the exagerated creation of doubt.
Are you organizing a smear campaign against Emanuel?
Why, Richard?
Just because Emanuel's parents were high profile terrorists and he appears cut from the same cloth?
A silly response, among many R.
Emanuel is his own person.
Are you committed to justice as a principle, R, that extends to all parties?
Are your own actions of any import? Do they affect anything? How do you expect?
"Are you committed to justice as a principle, R, that extends to all parties?"
Absolutely.
And I don't think you can honestly claim that a candidate who was the child of Islamic Jihad terrorists (as opposed to a child of Irgun terrorists) would ever in 1700 years be considered for a post as presidential chief of staff
I notice Phil mentions a shared "American interest" (one day you will stop claiming to be the whole of 'America', which from the point of view of the other inhabitants of the continent, is racist and arrogant, but that's another story), yet he fails to mention the Jewish-Israeli interest, which perhaps unfortunately for me lies close to my heart.
In terms of the geopolitical point I tried to make earlier, it is precisely its heritage as a colonial bridgehead — not some ideological preference, whether 'conservative' or 'liberal' — that makes Israel into a besieged and ultimately doomed entity (not to mention, a miserable place to live).
Geopolitics should not be regarded as the preserve of 'the Right', any more than geography is. Also, it so happens that the Anglo-Jewish people I feel closest too are what you might call 'left Reform', and just as prone to Atlantism i.e., dependence on the Anglo-American heritage, as the ostensible Leftists here at MondoWeiss, because they perceive it as more 'progressive' than Eurasism. So I clearly have a lot of explaining to do.
Good point on Islamic Jihad.
His post has a different role than a National Security post.
By justice to all parties, I include Israelis, including settlers (who deserve their day in court just as Palestinians do).
A prejudicial "justice" isn't it, even if all conclusions seem "obvious" to you.
But Richard
You want to insist that "justice" means that an issue is adjudicated by Israeli courts. That's preposterous. The highest judicial body on earth says the israelis have to tear down the illegal wall, pay reparations to the victims and completely evacuate the settlements, every ONE of which is illegal. The matter doesn't become "controversial" just because israel disagrees with the law and finds it inconvenient to its land theft ambitions.
Israel's own human rights bureau Bt'Selem also evaluated the matter of the separation wall. They published a 300 page study titled "Land Grab." Again—not controversial.
But you certainly hit the nail on the head, Richard—at least in my book. "Justice as a principle that applies to ALL parties." Trouble is—if you really apply this principle, the whole view of things changes dramatically.
Thus, if it is permissible for America to bomb buildings in iraq full of innocent people because they are "symbols of the regime" then it is entirely legal for al qaida to bomb symbols of the United States regime like the WTC, which housed offices of raytheon and boeing—therefore qualifying it as "a military installation" by US standards.
If using indiscriminate weapons like suicide bombing and quassam missiles qualifies as "targeting civilians" then indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs (dropped by the IDF by the hundreds of thousands on Southern Lebanon) is unquestionably "targeting civilians."
If the US has the "right" to kill many civilians in its effort to perform an extra-judicial assassination of bin laden, then certainly an effort to kill the FAR greater monster George Bush through efforts that result in civilian fatalities is also entirely acceptable.
If smashing into Arab homes and dragging terrified families out into the night so their homes can be blown to pieces is a policy you support, then naturally, I support JEWISH families being dragged from their homes, brutalized and cast to the four winds, because someone covets their land.
And so forth.
"And I don't think you can honestly claim that a candidate who was the child of Islamic Jihad terrorists (as opposed to a child of Irgun terrorists) would ever in 1700 years be considered for a post as presidential chief of staff"
Irgun never attacked American interests nor is it an issue or concern in 2009. Islamic jihad is. This non-issue has no bearing on American policy and it's not something that would ever be discussed at any policy roundtable.
Given all that, what's your point???
Suzanne
Islamic jihad never sank a US naval vessel, murdering 34 Americans and injuring 174 more.
Ring a bell?
While we're at it, the Iranians never downed one of our civilian passenger jets, murdering 299 passengers and crew. The US did that.
(you frothing, Nazi imbecile)
I think r's point is well put.
America was outraged by the deaths of thousands of innocent American civilians over a political beef, so in response we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians over a political beef.
Pot, meet kettle.
Greenwald is a Lockean 'liberal' as I recall it; in today's terms, at least to me, this makes him a sort of 'conservative', in that Lockean liberalism is based on the preservation of the existing distribution of property, but with many peripheral freedoms preserved as much as possible for the entire populace, or at least most of it.
"But you certainly hit the nail on the head, Richard—at least in my book. "Justice as a principle that applies to ALL parties." Trouble is—if you really apply this principle, the whole view of things changes dramatically. "
Justice for all on title cases means their day in court. By that term, I do mean that Palestinians deserve their day in court in Israeli courts for land that is in recognized Israel.
And, justice for all on title cases means that Jews that had previously been dispossessed of their residences during the British occupation (in Hebron and Safed) and during the Jordanian occupation (all of the West Bank) also get their day in court.
And, by justice for all, I advocate for the recision of the series of Israeli laws in the 1950's that enacted the prohibition against Palestinian return to their abandoned residences (whatever the cause).
You do I hope understand that in the West Bank areas that are under Palestinian control, it is currently illegal to sell land to Jews.
It would be wonderful if you were opposed to ethnic cleansing on principle, that YOU apply to all in your thinking, rather than selectively.
The "remedy" of forced removal from homes is a further INHUMANE remedy, that doesn't solve the question of realizing consent according to a legal "reasonable man" test.
You adopt the political approach rather than the legal, that sadly confuses issues of sovereignty with issues of title. The equation of issues of sovereignty with individual rights is the fascist formula whether right-wing or left-wing.
There is no international court that has afforded equal due process before the law to settlers, or to Palestinians, yet. If you are suggesting that one form to address questions on a case by case basis, that would be a good recommendation after issues of sovereignty are determined. (What is the jurisdiction(s) of governance? What is the body of law and process of governance?)
"I do mean that Palestinians deserve their day in court in Israeli courts for land that is in recognized Israel."
I think by now that is recognized by all involved as a totally ludicrous charade. These "courts" you speak of have legalized the kidnapping, torture and daily brutalization of Palestinians and exist in large measure as a byzantine, Kafka-esque system designed to deprive Palestinians of any equitable sharing of land, water or other vital resources. This is the opinion of the mainstream human rights and legal community. Again, asking Nazis to adjudicate fair claims of their victims is obviously unworkable from every angle.
"And, justice for all on title cases means that Jews that had previously been dispossessed of their residences during the British occupation (in Hebron and Safed) and during the Jordanian occupation (all of the West Bank) also get their day in court."
Fine by me–though this is more obfuscation. They are not living as refugees and there is no movement for their repatriation, assuming they WERE forcibly displaced. That said, if they can prove they were forced from homes they wish to return to, they absolutely have that right. I defend them 100%
"And, by justice for all, I advocate for the recision of the series of Israeli laws in the 1950's that enacted the prohibition against Palestinian return to their abandoned residences (whatever the cause)."
Here, you go MUCH further than any pro-Palestinian advocate I can think of. Certainly, right of return is inviolable and can not be bargained away. Of course, at this point, Jewish majority in israel is finished. I have no problem at all with that. Didn't know you were a one-stater. I think it's a sensible position and we have to agree with Tony Judt and others that a state based on religious affiliation is an anachronism.
"You do I hope understand that in the West Bank areas that are under Palestinian control, it is currently illegal to sell land to Jews."
Israeli land is under the control of the Jewish National Fund and can not be sold to non-Jews. Again, I'm happy with either FAIR remedy–a Palestinian state able to decide its own laws and self-determination or a single state with equal laws for all citizens.
"It would be wonderful if you were opposed to ethnic cleansing on principle, that YOU apply to all in your thinking, rather than selectively."
The Palestinians HAVE been ethnically cleansed and ARE being ethnically cleansed by the Israelis. This is a crime. You either oppose it or you don't.
"There is no international court that has afforded equal due process before the law to settlers, or to Palestinians, yet. If you are suggesting that one form to address questions on a case by case basis, that would be a good recommendation after issues of sovereignty are determined. (What is the jurisdiction(s) of governance? What is the body of law and process of governance?"
Plain crazy. If a violent contingent of thugs from Montana fly to Madrid and start forcing Spaniards from their homes, it doesn't require a high court to examine the matter "on a case by case basis." They are plainly outlaws and their rights to the land they have confiscated are zero.
dear witty. i liked your comment on the ha'aretz article re: unity palesinian govt.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070949.html
"Emanuel is his own person."
Yea, verily, but according to EXODUS the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons unto the third and forth generations. Maybe any president who worships an awesome god should wait for Rahm's grandson to grow up before appointing an Emanuel chief of staff.
"Charade" or not. If you respect the sovereignty of the law of the land, you got through the due process that the law affords. If you wish to work to change the law, you do so via the means that are legal.
As I stated, but you didn't acknowledge, there are SERIOUS deficiencies within Palestinian law concerning equal due process, that also need reform.
With a consented agreement that reduces or eliminates the status of mutual aggression, and failure to recognize the other's sovereignty at all, then the reforms to law are possible.
In a state of war, radical changes to current Israeli law are remote.
By recision of the 1950's law, I mean that Palestinians residents get their day in court. The recommended remedy is compensation.
What that causes is the clarification of title, CONSENT, that then can never be questioned subsequently as due process on a color-blind manner has occurred.
The significance of courts is that they are about specific cases (NOT a political generalization) and require evidence to convince, NOT Zionist nor Palestinian "solidarity" decree. There are likely to be relatively few cases in which direct title can be substantiated by a prior title holder. It is DIFFICULT to individually substantiate a certain title to land that one resides on but does not own (a not small portion of the basis of Palestinian title claims). And, I DO go farther than most even very liberal Zionists in regarding it as valid for a class action to be relevant, resulting in a likely transfer from Israeli state to Palestinian state or some collective entity(s), in order to PERFECT title.
The ambiguity is what creates the lack of consent. It creates the opportunity for fanatics, haters, fascist applications of "progressive" thought, to be considered valid.
But, a prerequisite to that resolution is recognition OF Israel at definable boundaries, by ALL parties.
Even if that recognition is conditional on title review and urged relocation of settlers (but not forcefully compelled, on the humane theory that forced removal is a THIRD WRONG, and that those that desire to perfect title AND remain as Palestinian citizens as a minority with full civil rights in Palestine, should be allowed to).
Boy, I made a lot of typos on that one.
"Charade" or not. If you respect the sovereignty of the law of the land, you go through the due process that the law affords. If you wish to work to change the law, you do so via the means that are legal.
As I stated but you didn't acknowledge, there are SERIOUS deficiencies within Palestinian law concerning equal due process, that also need reform.
With a consented agreement that reduces or eliminates the status of mutual aggression then the reforms to law are possible.
In a state of war, radical changes to current Israeli law are remote.
By recision of the 1950's law, I mean that Palestinians residents get their day in court. The recommended remedy is compensation.
What that causes is the clarification of title, CONSENT, that then can never be questioned subsequently as due process on a color-blind manner has occurred.
The significance of courts is that they are about specific cases and require evidence to convince, NOT Zionist nor Palestinian "solidarity" decree. There are likely to be relatively few cases in which direct title can be easily substantiated by a prior title holder. It is DIFFICULT to individually substantiate a certain title to land that one resides on but does not own (a majority of the basis of Palestinian title claims are by residence.). I DO go farther than most even very liberal Zionists in regarding it as valid for a class action to be relevant, resulting in a likely compensation from Israeli state to Palestinian state or some collective entity(s), in order to PERFECT title.
The ambiguity is what creates the lack of consent. It creates the opportunity for fanatics, haters, fascist applications of "progressive" thought, to be considered valid.
But, a prerequisite to that resolution is recognition OF Israel at definable boundaries, by ALL parties.
Even if that recognition is conditional on subsequent title review and urged relocation of settlers.
Good rational exchange by R and Richard Witty. Jurisdiction always applies from a line going straight back to a recognized sovereign entity. Laws, the interpretation of them, the legal process, including those pertaining to the law of property (and
conflicts of laws, contracts, equity, real estate, crime, tort, etc., ) are so derived.
At core the history of the legitimization of Israel as a state involved the jurisdiction of international entities. To the extent this jurisdiction is yet today denied is the extent of ambiguity that creates the lack of consent. The natives, the Palestinians never had a seat at the table (effectively ignoring their boilerplate protection even in the Balfour Declaration given to England's banker).
But the international entity ruled, and so it now must again be the decider, to right the wrong it created to make a right.
Israeli and Palestinian land laws, including those derived from
the former Ottoman Empire, etc., are merely an aspect of the tracing of title involving application of
Conflicts Of Law.
The practical reality is that the future internationally constituted high court will first reaffirm the right of Israel to exist at the '67 borders, ( Otherwise, nothing will change except the endless pointing of fingers back each past century to pre-biblical days.), followed by the right of the Palestinians to exist
with a fully equal state denied them for so many decades.
However, just as the Palestinians have to accept this practical fate in their
history, Israel does too–it cannot have its cake (a justified state with borders recognized in the eyes of the world) and eat it too– by demanding Israeli land law (or security blanket, or Likud charter) trump all.
The same international body that rubber-stamped Israel must convene or recognize an uber-court and use international law again to establish via class actions who has title to what land.
The USA has a great responsibility here, both as to its own citizens who's taxes enable Israel to do whatever it wants, and to Israel, who will listen to nobody else, and to the world community since
it too has a big stake here.
As the world's only current superpower, the USA needs to aggressively pursue at the UN and around the Middle East the two state solution, incorporating an uber court aspect to decide by international law
the property disputes left vague by any peace contract.
Here, as reminder is the interplay of super-national bodies, giving validity other than that by force of arms or by unilateral action, e.g., Truman & the USSR's recognition) to the right of the modern state of Israel to exist:
(Following the birth of Zionism in 1897 and its acceptance by the unilateral British Balfour Declaration,) the League of Nations adopted the British Mandate of Palestine after World War I, which was "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…" In 1947, following years of communal strife, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.
Richard, just in case you are still around here, what exactly do mean by above. I can be obstinate too.
*****************************************************************************
Relying on a possibly wrong interpretation:
You mean, that Freeman's trustworthiness, his abilities and experience, his mental capabilities for such a job, has only been "claimed" by "Blair's staff" and behind the dirty political business as usual, there might be real
What would the ultimate evidence, proof you demand would need to consist of?
I cut part of the phrase but one word and a point too much, it seems:
might be real concern?
Too fast again:
You mean, that Freeman's trustworthiness, his abilities and experience, his mental capabilities for such a job, has only been "claimed" by "Blair's staff" and behind the dirty political business as usual, there might be a real concern?
LeaNder, sorry, what are you getting at? You know Freeman's credentials and history. You have no conclusion regarding why he was booted?
You keep misunderstanding me, citizen. I want to know what Richard Witty considers missing in his credentials an history. Or what makes him suspect that the attack was justified to save the US from "cooked evidence"?
OK
Sorry, Leander.
Perhaps Witty will answer–Witty, considering all that is known about Freeman's career, why do you think he would cook evidence as ShrubCo did( to get us into the Iraq war)? Are you afraid he would look closely at any data offered up to say we shouldn't attack Iran, or allow Israel to do so? Fess up. Clarify. If you didnt favor Freeman appointment, tell us exactly why.
Comments on this entry are closed.