The other day on "All Things Considered," NPR anchor Robert Siegel quoted Marty Peretz to Chas Freeman. Siegel said that Peretz said it would be crazy for Marty Peretz himself to be put in an intelligence position–he's too in the tank for Israel, by his own admission–and so the same standard should hold for Chas Freeman: he's too in the tank for Saudi Arabia. Freeman rejected the comparison, saying that the money he's gotten from the Saudis is minimal and that Peretz has demonstrated a devotion to Israel that in no way compares to his own position on the Middle East.
Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that Freeman was a foreign service officer for 30 years and is an iconoclastic thinker, two things you'd want in an intelligence chief. Let's talk about Siegel's argument. Siegel was saying: If an Israel-loving Jew were about to get his hands on the steering wheel, people would freak out about that too. But this is simply not true. And I can prove it.
In 2003, when I still worked at the NewYork Observer, Hussein Ibish, then of the American-Arab Discrimination Committee, pointed me to Elliott Abrams's book, Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, and said that it contained passages arguing that Jews must stand apart from the country they live in, except when in Israel. Abrams was then the head of Middle East policy at the National Security Council. After talking to Ibish, I walked to my bookshelf; I had bought Abrams's book because of his rage against intermarriage and then wrote this linked piece for the Observer in August 2003, questioning whether Abrams, who has family in Israel, was too much of a religious separatist to have anything to do with Middle East policy.
I quoted this passage from Abrams's book:
the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews,
faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are
to stand apart from the nation in which they live…. [Jews] are
in a permanent covenant with God and with the land
of Israel and its people.”
To his great credit, my editor Peter Kaplan put the piece on the front page of the Observer (3 years before I got shown the door there because I'm an anti-Zionist). I sent the piece along to Abrams but he declined to comment. Didn't want a brushfire.
Needless to say, no one in the mainstream media picked up on my article. Robert Siegel did not call Abrams to ask him if he was too in the tank with Israel to do his job.
Just as no one has called Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, the son of a member of an Israeli terrorist organization, who went off to put on an Israeli army uniform during the Gulf War I and serve on an Israeli base, on the issue of whether he's too in the tank for Israel. Nor Jeffrey Goldberg on his Israel service. Nor Chuck Schumer or Steve Israel or Howard Berman–the pack whom Glenn Greenwald rightly describes as Israel-centric fanatics who supported the disastrous Iraq war and rode Freeman out of town on a rail.
So the answer to Siegel is: Consciously or not, you're misleading your listeners. This golden standard you embrace is not one you ever sought to impose during the neoconservative era. And I don't think you're a neocon. But in whose service are you asking this question?
Tons of people have asked about those people. They haven't demonstrated irrational or negligent lapses that indicate unfitness for the job.
Congresspeople are ELECTED. If they people that elect them are confident in their service, then they are fit for the job.
I personally think that you have in no way substantiated that Rahm Emanuel has been derelict in his performance. His position is solely in service to the President, and it is solely his discretion as to fitness or performance metrics.
You are fishing with regard to Emanuel as far as I can tell. Obama's appointment of respected intellectually independant staff in key point positions, indicates that Obama is committed to fair and balanced judgements, and diplomatic efforts. The Ross appointment is the only one that I could see questioning.
And, as MANY others have pointed out about the paranoid exagerated insults of Emanuel, and prospectively Ross, maybe you're dead wrong. Maybe their spirit of performance is as agent and professional competence, rather than censoring per their agenda.
With Abrams, the question of conflict of interest (a MUCH BETTER term than the fascistic "dual loyalty") is more relevant, and in prescience and hindsight probably did confirm that his judgement was flawed. (Again, I personally regard the neo-cons as too CONSERVATIVE generally, which in recent history has frequently included military adventurism. The thesis "the war was for Israel" is still an exageration of a secondary element.)
Phil—you need to come clean already and confirm your beliefs to less informed readers of your blog: You seem to be against the existence of Israel, and you seem to support its becoming a different state, with a different name and demographic.
Your cheap, non-relevant shot at Rahm's "terrorist" parents characterizes your mindset. So please stop beating around the bush about your true sentiments. :-)
the double standards are just a reflection of the hypocrisy and dishonesty, that's all…
Chas Freeman was too "in the tank" for the Saudis, but Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross aren't too in the tank for the Israelis? Why didn't Siegal ask that question of the other side? Is it because he is Jewish? How many other Jewish media operatives play similar games to keep the American people in the dark?
How about a little balance, say even to a ratio of 1:1000, Arabists to Zionists? And how about a little balance, say with a similar ratio of America-firsters to Zionists?
No, can't have that. With the Zionist fifth column, its all or nothing. (And they wonder why so many people with nothing despise them.)
Meaning? It is only for Obama to choose, if Rahm Emanuel brings the necessarily capabilities for the performance? A president's choice can't be questioned?
In other words, had Obama chosen Chas Freeman, you wouldn't question fitness or experience for the job? You wouldn't consider him as suspect of bias?
Why don't we need evidence that Emanuel vs Chas Freeman is "respected and intellectually independent".
Why do you keep insinuating that Chas Freeman must have a sinister agenda, while you seem to suggest Emanuel cannot have an agenda at all, other then serving the president? How do you define: intellectually independent?
So basically, while Obama's selection of Ross is the only thing you think could be questioned, you somehow assume, if looked closer into, in the end it would ultimately turn out as pure hysteria and that Phil and many others may well be dead wrong? What evidence leads you to your assumption? It feels like some kind of moderate "good versus evil" or "Zionists" versus "Antisemites" (pro Arab bias)?
What exactly of Ross' former administrative performance suggests the above assumption to you. What shows us he is "intellectually independent". Is Iran the reason you ultimately give Ross' the benefit of doubt?
Are you aware of this little piece of knowledge in our larger puzzle: Is Admiral Blair Next?
Israel has always had a very limited ability to collect hidden information in Iran. More than that I do not wish to say. What they know of things like the Iranian nuclear and missile programs are largely the result of others' efforts. The reason why the Israeli and US estimates reach such different conclusions is the persistent and "traditional" habit of IDF intelligence of"worst casing" every single shred of supposed information and then compiling those shreds into a pastiche satisfactory to their collective fear. This is reminiscent of the analytic technique of the neocons in the campaign to sell the Iraq War to the American people.
***************************************************************************
Concerning "double loyalty" I surely can understand your suggestion that it feels "fascist". The problem is you don't address the reason why Phil uses the term or his larger argument.
As I think you are aware that many early Zionists embraced Europe's right wing argument. They argued at the time that antisemitism was the justified and somehow understandable expression of egoistic tendencies of every nation, a fact that showed that Zionism was the only solution and antisemitism, as something to worry about, only a distraction from this basic fact, for which Eretz Israel was the only solution.
I basically support your term "conflict of interest". So why do you think the people attacking e.g. Ross or Rahm Emanuel ultimately have no point, while you admit in Abrams (& a series of others) it may have been a valid point?
Questioning Emanuel's fitness for being the president's chief of staff in light of the criticisms of Freeman's fitness to be an intelligence analyst is more than fair. Freeman never joined another nation's military and pledged to kill for it, but Emanuel has. Emanuel's service to Israel is no different than John Walker Lindh's service to the state of Afghanistan, making Emanuel's fitness to be a member of the executive branch questionable. If the voters in a congressional district in Illinois want to vote for someone with dual loyalties, that is their choice, but having the president pick a person with such obvious dual loyalties to serve as his right hand reveals more than people want to acknowledge.
"Concerning "double loyalty" I surely can understand your suggestion that it feels "fascist". The problem is you don't address the reason why Phil uses the term or his larger argument. "
I certainly did address the term.
I described that there are a FEW individuals for whom what Phil calls "dual loyalty" is actually a conflict of interest. An active conflict of interest is a very valid reason to disqualify an INDIVIDUAL for an official position.
Emanuel is a member of the presidential staff. HE determines who he wants on it. His performance has not indicated any bias that distracts from Obama's policies.
Freeman's prospective conflict of interest created doubt in the integrity of a National Security position that is a sole information path for intelligence summary. It was Blair's determination, not Congress's.
The right-wing portions of the Israel Lobby rationally believes that questions relative to Iran are URGENT now, that there is no latitude for later discovered bias. They do adopt the Cheney "doctrine" of extreme risk aversion (but only in selected areas).
Obama does adopt an extreme risk aversion in some cases as well. Iran is probably one of them, but he prefers to find out more before shooting, thankfully.
I've been wondering for a long time how fringe rightwingers & leftwingers think they are going to woo a population whom they have contempt for. You people hate EVERYBODY but yourselves and your flavor-of-the-month cause.
WHY would the general populace even listen to you when they know you look down on them? (in fact, they don't)
A chief of staff’s primary job is to serve as the gatekeeper to the President, controlling the flow of information and people into the Oval Office. Constrict that flow too much and you deprive the President of opposing points of view; increase it too much and you drown him in extraneous detail and force him to arbitrate disputes better settled at a lower level.
His Israeli-born father, Benjamin, was a member of the Irgun, a militant Zionist group from which the modern Likud Party eventually emerged. His mother, Marsha, was a civil-rights activist who was arrested several times. “We were attacked because we were white Jews with African-Americans,” Ezekiel said. When Martin Luther King, Jr., marched in Chicago in 1966, and was pelted with eggs, Marsha and her children marched along with him. Ezekiel told me that he knew Rahm would take the job of chief of staff because of Marsha’s father, Herman Smulivitz, a boxer and a union organizer. It was Herman who instilled in Rahm a commitment to service, and Rahm was particularly close to him.
"If you got into public life to affect policy, and to affect the direction of the country, where could you do that on the most immediate basis? Everybody knows: chief of staff.”
So what was he doing in an IDF uniform sorting tank tracks? While his birth country was at war?
"So what was he doing in an IDF uniform sorting tank tracks? While his birth country was at war?"
This only seems to be on the minds of fringe losers, but I'll answer anyway….he was doing the same thing your wounded hero Tristan Anderson was doing…defending a cause he believed in.
By the way, Jews aren't the only Americans to hold dual citizenship and serve in another army–I can think of a couple of Greek-Americans, and an Iraqi-American that I know of personally. But I'm sure your hypocritical old self could care less.
The only reason that most Jews joined the Civil Rights movement was in order to leverage the relatively much larger number of blacks on behalf of breaking the WASP establishment (which the Zionists incorrectly portrayed as their oppressors) so that Jewish Zionists would have less resistance when setting up their Zionist fifth column.
Jewish Zionists (the overwhelming majority of Jews in America) don't give a damn about the quest for racial equality (just look at their beloved Israel) other than as a means of employing divide and conquer strategies, and creating an environment sympathetic to their claims of victimhood and other shakedown schemes.
"Is it good for the Jews," is always the first and foremost question, which is essentially a collectivist version of "what's in it for me?"
"Jewish Zionists (the overwhelming majority of Jews in America) don't give a damn about the quest for racial equality (just look at their beloved Israel) other than as a means of employing divide and conquer strategies, and creating an environment sympathetic to their claims of victimhood and other shakedown schemes."
Ed, do you have any evidence in support of this statement? Or do other bloggers have any evidence supporting or refuting it? I've known some pretty passionate Jewish civil rights advocates, and would not be inclined to impute Neocon motives to them. I mean, have you read or overheard Jews saying they want to promote civil rights in order to undermine the existing power structure in order to make for a more minority friendly environment so they can thrive? Or are you just making a series of inferences, based on the way things have turned out, and the hypocrisy of the Progressives Except for Palestine ("PEP") faction?
Interesting info about Rahm's mother Marsha, could we have a link?
Somehow I feel that he decided to serve in the Israeli army during Desert Strom doesn't really count for "conflict of interest". I vaguely remember Israeli's were paralyzed with fear Saddam would target Israel with chemical warfare at the time. Rushes to insulate the houses and gas-masks everywhere. …
But it didn't happen. Ordinary rockets though. …
The cynic would say, did Saddam know the people in the occupied territories (Gaza, J.S.) had no gas mask and no material for insulation?
*******************************************
Obama does adopt an extreme risk aversion in some cases as well. Iran is probably one of them, but he prefers to find out more before shooting, thankfully.
And you think that Freeman would have hindered the process of finding out more? Is it always about finding out more? Why can't we simply assume there would be just the same balance of power as in the cold war. Why should they be less rational, than Israel? Remember the lands both East and West were the targets. What would you do in such a case. Wait till you are the aim? What lesson did North Korea teach? With a bomb you are safer.
At the moment it looks as if there is much more continuity than change, that's why articles like Cohen's are important.
***************************************
I hope you understand, I don't support the Rahm hysterics, but still I think you equally mistrust Freeman on flimsy evidence. Or more precisely you are attracted to a smear tactics scenario that to me looks utterly right wing.
His use of the term, he later said he repented, but I think during the last 8 years many non-Jews learned against initial resistance what phenomenon the term tries to describe. And no it's not a Protocol variant. And no, it's not antisemitic, we are simply questioning if the whole West should adopt a Isreal-centric-danger-scenario outlook: pan-Islamist forces threatening to destroy the West, with all its waves of anti-Arab hate propaganda.
That doesn't mean either,the hate-preaching should be watched.
Thanks Doppler, the problem is,I think Chris Moore is beyond reach. While his his neat little simplistic tale seems to be attractive to quite a few here, if that weren't the case, I would completely ignore him. Admittedly I mainly scroll on after the first sentence. The closer he gets to the real conflict now, the more this mindset seems to disappear.
But that he is lured back like a bee to the honeypot, is a sure sign, he is a classic case.
The problem is Americans can't see how close he is to the Nazi arguments, they don't read that stuff, if it's translated at all. Citizen even thinks he has huge knowledge about Russia. I wonder what gives him this impression. The same is true for much of Joachim's work. They are really trying to explode a very specific conflict now into a grand theory about: The Jews and the Israelis. And yes, I think that's dangerous.
If it doesn't work in physics why should it work with humans?
Suzanne: "This only seems to be on the minds of fringe losers, but I'll answer anyway….he was doing the same thing your wounded hero Tristan Anderson was doing…defending a cause he believed in."
I have no doubt Emanuel was defending a cause he believed in. The sorry part is the cause he believed in was Israeli, not American.
LeaNder demonstrates why Leftists can never be trusted to realize the goals of the anti-Zionist movement: they may ultimately be willing to temporarily dump the Zionists after others have done the heavy lifting of revealing them for what they are, but they will never take pro-active measures against their fellow “revolutionary” Jewish partners in crime, no matter how fascist the Zionists get. The most the Left will ever do is keep its fingers to the wind and perhaps shuffle away from the bad boy, with future plans of re-sparking the partnership.
And THAT is what makes the Left so dangerous: it has no firm principles, no conscience, no soul, other than its dedication to "permanent revolution" (aka tantrum) with its Jewish lover — all in rebellion against God (ie peace, prosperity, order). Like the Zionist, the Left is addicted to the methamphetamine called chaos, and never wants to grow up.
Trinstan Anderson never supported the Iraq War, while Immanuel supported both the Gulf War & the Iraq War–instead of serving with US military during the Gulf War, he chose to don an IDF uniform and work in a civilian support unit servicing IDF military equipment. He also favored universal service for all American youth, with one option being the military, and was a director in Freddie Mac, which was a conduit and banker for sub-prime mortgages leading up to the current economic situation.
He also has been the spear carrier for major restrictions on the 2nd Amendment's right to own firearms.
"I have no doubt Emanuel was defending a cause he believed in. The sorry part is the cause he believed in was Israeli, not American. "
The other sorry part is that Jew haters appear to have a genetic mutation that causes them to obsess over stuff that the rest of society could care less about. haha!