At last, the fat is in the fire. The American press is talking about the Israel lobby. Spirited Chas Freeman has succeeded in getting up the beach, after Walt and Mearsheimer draped their bodies on the barbed wire. Writes a friend: "Check out the the Post today–it is schizophrenic: an unsigned
editorial rips the notion that the 'lobby' had anything to do with
with Freeman's demise. On the opposite page, David Broder takes the bold stand that the 'lobby' destroyed Freeman."
I noticed that editorial. It calls the lobby idea a conspiracy theory, imbalanced, absurd, and says Freeman issued a "tirade." Etc.
Here is one response to the Post. It comes from Chas Freeman himself. And now I am going to tease a piece I've written for the American Conservative (the one magazine that has been comfortable with my writing about the lobby; here's where you subscribe) which will appear in a few days. Freeman told me about his epiphany about Americans' idea of Israel years ago. He was in Abu Dhabi when he saw all over the television and newspapers a grotesque incident on the West Bank captured on a home video, in which Israeli forces dragged a Palestinian from his home and beat the hell out of him and then when he was senseless, shot him in the back of the head.
"I thought, when this hits the US
hell will break loose. Well it didn’t ever hit our press. The self-censorship
extended to a point that it was really dangerous to our society."
And meantime, Freeman was reading amazing Israeli journalists like Uri Avnery, who had no trouble exposing such atrocities, and Haaretz, which he justly describes as one of the greatest newspapers in the world.
That is all you need to know. The Washington Post and other important mainstream organs– out of ideological blindness stemming in good measure from the large number of Israel-inoculated Jews in the media at a time when Israel is our "secular religion" and a "sacred mission" for American Jews (per Dershowitz)– have funked their journalistic mission by protecting Americans from the true, thuggish face of Israel for years. And whether this behavior was conscious, orchestrated, passive, religious, or unconscious, it was an essential component of the lobby's activities. Now, surprise, the Post denies that there is an Israel lobby.
The silence from the Zionist-empowered Obamessiah speaks volumes.
Uri Avnery, who had no trouble exposing such atrocities…
I don't think I can recall Avnery breaking a story like this, or indeed breaking any stories at all, Phil. Do you happen to have any sort of reference handy?
afterthought: he might have broken it in hebrew, when he edited Haolam Hazeh, but that was decades ago, so you can't mean that.
Phil, I have no problem w/ you publishing in the American Conservative, but are you saying that you couldn't also publish such a piece in the Nation, or even American Prospect (less likely, but still)? Any opinion mag has its audience limitations, but your piece needs to appear in such publications.
Rowan, I think the point is whether Avnery is an investigative journalist — it's that he has a long history of not being afraid to write on Israeli actions that are justly considered atrocious, but never see the light of day in the U.S. media. Ha'aretz isn't perfect at all but they're willing to do the same (with certain writers).
Absolutely. This is why all stops are pulled to prevent the U.S. public from seeing these activities. Just like with our failing economy, if the mainstream public saw or came to understand how the U.S. Congress fed into and continues to feed into the matrix of power the network for Israel holds and excludes other voices the possibility of a huge backlash is real. We pay to destroy Gaza, we pay to build Gaza. We pay to destroy Gaza We pay to build Gaza. We go to war with Iraq based on neocon drive. We torture at Abu Gharib based on Israeli experience. We fund Caterpillar sales as the machines are used to build settlements, raze houses and kill American citizens. And Congresspeople can pull saved articles out of their desk drawers to show how if they stepped forward on some little issue of concern to Jewish voters regarding Israel they were trounced hard…imagine if they stepped forward on the big issues.
The Congress is unable to do anything unless the grassroots provide them cover
Rowan, I think in this case you could interchange the term "discuss" with expose if you are discussing unspoken topics.
Phil, you will never convince Witty (let alone Chris's Stools) that either you or Freeman have a deep point
much of the world gets, just not us–because there is no Lobby except in the sense of the IRA or ARP.
AIPAC should not have won its exception to the Foreign Agent Registration Act. But our whore regime, no matter who is in charge, just keeps giving exception after exception–and even in these times, goes merrily along its way. We do pay, and will pay much more in every way. That's not even mentioning a whole Palestinian peoplehood, much more innocent than us or Europe, will pay the most. Irony has lost any meaning.
Brigadier General Norman Cota: I don't have to tell you the story. You all know it. Only two kinds of people are gonna stay on this beach: those that are already dead and those that are gonna die. Now get off your butts. You guys are the Fighting 29th. – The Longest Day – 1962
Phil:
While the WaPo editorial said "what lobby" the front page news story highlighted the lobby in this never-before-seen-headline in any major US newspaper "Freeman Blames 'Israel Lobby' for Withdrawal". And Walter Pincus' story that followed was significantly more hardhitting than the NYT times story, which referred only to "pro-Israel lobbyists." Congratulations to Pincus as well as wapo national editors. I wonder what kind of discussion took place inside the newsroom to get the story placed on the front page with that headline?
As for the power of editorials: does anyone pay attention to them? Has anyone's vote ever been swayed by an editorial's pick of candidates? When it comes to Israel, both wapo and the nyt editorial pages are Likudik.
Additionally, it sure was nice to see wapo columnist David Broder come out of hiding and say something moderately controversial in his support of Chas Freeman.
AIPAC should not have won its exception to the Foreign Agent Registration Act.
They don't have any kind of formal exception, do they? I thought it was just that no one was career suicidal enough to enforce the law.
Actually, AIPAC is a product of a FARA registration battle. It would not exist in its present form if its parent org, the American Zionist Council, had not been ordered to register (it shut down shortly afterwords.)
link to irmep.org
The DOJ has never again seriously enforced FARA after that showdown, least of all toward the Israel Lobby. For an exhaustive account, read "America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government" (the fore word, which is better written than the rest of the book, is by Phil Weiss).
Glenn Greenwald has a new opinion piece covering this, from the angle of the distorting effect of journalists allowing widespread and baseless grants of anonymity. Here's a snippet:
link to salon.com
Citizen,
You have me all wrong on this.
I think that an unbiased person in the position would be best, and I mean by that someone who will be a conduit for information.
I think Freeman was the wrong man for the job, a careless selection for this position.
I think Phil has gotten himself into a position where the only story that he can consider addressing is of the Israel Lobby, and as demon. That, similarly to Freeman, HINDERS his ability to address the process objectively (realistically).
He has a LARGE investment in his own 6 years lost credibility, if it turns out to be a side-show. Its still a show, its just NOT the one that the world is or should look at more than moderately.
The simultaneous Post and Times criticism of the Freeman selection and ultimate process, is information more than propaganda. It tells what the majority of the world responsibly regards as substantive.
Going to war on this might be the wrong action. Researching would be relevant, but Phil has already judged.
And Walter Pincus' story that followed was significantly more hardhitting than the NYT times story, which referred only to "pro-Israel lobbyists." Congratulations to Pincus as well as wapo national editors.
Please don't go congratulating them too soon. The Pincus piece, though more forthright, was hardly balanced. It makes absolutely no mention of all the prominent people who came out in support of Freeman (including 17 highly placed current and former intelligence officials) and offers no details of all the positive work he has done over the years, in fact doesn't mention any of the work he's done.
Pincus didn't offer any rebuttal to JINSA's false assertion, which he happily quoted, that Freeman was receiving money from foreign governments.
The piece was still heavily slanted in favor of the Lobby and its advocates.
Hardly balanced reporting.
Yet that's where we're at with our media in this country at this point in time: things have been so far in favor of Israel, the Lobby, etc., for so long, that even a cursory move away from the status quo seems like occasion to pop the champagne.
But it isn't.
Please read everything carefully, bearing in mind that the major media is itself infiltrated with agents for Israel, including at the highest echelons. The seeming "balance" is only going to go so far, and often times may in fact be intended solely to assuage the burgeoning movement against the Israel Lobby, Israel's policies, etc., without actually offering any real substance to the issue. Selective omission of crucial facts is part and parcel of this type of writing.
This is not to diminish the fact that at least the term "Israel Lobby" is in fact being uttered by the press. But that's hardly reason to celebrate, and intense pressure must still be kept on all organs of the media, until the truth about Israel, its founding, its nature and policies, etc., are widely known to the public at large.
There is still a long way to go.
I think Freeman was the wrong man for the job, a careless selection for this position.
Going to war on this might be the wrong action. Researching would be relevant, but Phil has already judged.
You just announced less than two days ago that you had no opinion because you didn't "know" Freeman, i.e. weren't familiar with his policies. I take it you've spent the time since then researching his incredible body of work, and have come to a satisfactory conclusion?
You're a real piece of work, Richard. Phil and everyone who supports Freeman are "going to war", but you've carefully considered his credentials, without preconceived bias. No, you're not "going to war", just objectively analyzing from afar.
How do you take yourself seriously? Do you, in fact? It's all just obfuscation, right?
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
@ Witty
"I think Freeman was the wrong man for the job, a careless selection for this position."
No problem with the pick for Obama's gate keeper or his pick for umbrella man over Iran policy, though, right? I won't even mention the other Obama appointees at this time.
@ Witty
"I think that an unbiased person in the position would be best, and I mean by that someone who will be a conduit for information."
You mean like when we went into Iraq to destroy Iraq's WMDs? You mean like, let's not have another IT head to say Iran isn't a direct threat, especially with nukes? OK, Witty.