JTA says that the CQ story on the taping of Congresswoman Jane Harman's phone call with an "Israeli agent" back in '06, in which she allegedly offered to do her part to end the Justice Department's espionage case against former AIPAC staffers in exchange for the agent's doing his part to help her out with House leadership, represents a desperate effort to revive the government's espionage case. "A dog of a case," says the JTA's Ron Kampeas. But it's scheduled for trial in a few weeks.
Kampeas also speculates that Harman's being attacked because she took on the Republicans once. As if this is just partisan politics. The leak smells, he says. A little like Harman herself saying, its's a "recycled canard. "
We all know what a canard means. It means it's the Protocols of the Elders of Zion–old anti-semitism in new bottles. As if the Israel lobby is an invention of anti-Semites. But if the CQ story suggests anything, it suggests that–now that the neoconservatives are discredited, and Bernie Madoff has crippled many Jewish organizations–mainstream journalists may at last be tackling a large and corrupting force in our politics: the Israel lobby.
JTA and TPM both suggest that the Israeli agent in the mix is the giant California donor Haim Saban. Josh Marshall at TPM says the government's case is hurt if it is claiming that Saban is an Israeli agent in a spying case. Of course that raises the other recycled canard: dual loyalty on the part of American Jews.
Saban is emblematic of the dual loyalty problem, the extent to which Zionism has created dual loyalty in its American advocates. The star of the show one night at the AIPAC policy conference last year, Saban left Israel years ago because– like so many other Israelis– he wanted to play on a wider field, the U.S. He has called himself an ardent Zionist. Through the Saban Center at Brookings, he pushed the Iraq war among the liberal intelligentsia. Or its director of research, Kenneth Pollack, did, to disastrous effect.
Saban supported Hillary Clinton and is a powerhouse in the Democratic Party. When former California congressman, and Israel lobbyist, Mel Levine began raising money for Obama last year, there was speculation that the big fish was Saban, who lives in southern California, but who never came on board publicly for Obama. Saban is also engaged in lobbying efforts to counter the disgust over Israel's behavior among the young: for instance, through his Saban fellowships.
Saban gets away with ardent Zionism, as do American politicians, because they can say that American interests and Israeli interests are utterly congruent. We are in a war against a common foe. But of course, two countries' interests are never completely aligned.
In fairness to Saban, he is a worldly man (unlike, say, Sheldon Adelson); and it's noteworthy that Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center, has been making highly-reasonable noises about Iran recently, that we can live with a nuclear Iran.
Don't for get that Saban is huge tax cheat. Of course he did not time and paid only a penalty. The bigger you are- the more you get away with.
So the big news a few days ago that the NSA was illegally wiretapping a member of Congress . . . was that Harman? If so, the propaganda organs are in full swing, knowing more of the story, but feeding it out in controlled release to create a cover meme – those nasty Bushies were abusing their power, AGAIN! Never to mention any of the forbidden memes, which are only referred to as canards.
Let's all agree to refer to the Likud Lobby, since that is what it is, and I believe it will be easier for American Jews to criticize, and accept non-Jewish criticism of, the Likud party, than of Israel. It will be easier for non-Jews to criticize it, since the uninformed masses won't even know what Likud is, and when they ask, it can be presented as a minority position within Israeli politics, essentially Israel's Neocons. While when they hear criticism of the Israel Lobby, they might think Anti-Semitism, especially with Professor Dershonance shouting "Bigot," at the top of his lungs.
"in exchange for the agent's doing his part to help her out with House leadership"
How would an Israeli agent be in a position to help out a leading Jewish Democrat with a House leadership position? Obviously, she hoped to tap into an even more powerful Zionist network with its tentacles all the way to the top.
Two quotes from the link: “According to the CQ story, Alberto Gonzales, the then- U.S. attorney general, shut down the case because Harman was useful in lobbying on behalf of the administration’s quest for expanded eavesdropping powers.”
And:
“In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.”
So Jewish Zionist Harman is working on behalf of Israel, and working on behalf of the Bush admin’s secret police powers, and working with an Israeli agent who has pull with Nancy Pelosi. The Democrats won in 2006 as a result of a backlash against the Iraq war, which was at least partially engineered by the Israel lobby, and again in 2008 in the same atmosphere. The Republicans are now a minority, but the unelected, unregistered Israel lobby remains.
This should by now be obvious: The two-party regime works hand in glove at the axis of Jewish Zionism, it’s rank with corruption to high heaven, and its got neo-totalitarian designs. And yet average partisan sheeple from both sides still continue to point their fingers at the "opposition" for all that's wrong with American foreign policy. Brilliant.
Welcome to the U.S. Soviet. Looks like all those Americans out there buying guns by the gross aren't the dumb bumpkins the two-party regime zombies like to portray.
Look at the actions of Harman in this case. Are people still going to say my theory that support of Zionism produces symptoms and syndromes almost perfectly analogous to those produced by long term cocaine abuse is nonsense? If you ask me (and who wouldn't?) they comport almost perfectly.
"This comment never happened"
Doppler: "Let's all agree to refer to the Likud Lobby…criticism of the Israel Lobby, they might think Anti-Semitism"
The anti-Semitism accusation is going to be shouted no matter what. It’s the only card the corrupt cabal has to play. So why "Likud Lobby"? Because that's got right wing connotations? We both know that the Democrats are pregnant with Jewish Zionist corruption, even more so than the GOP, so that's just another red-herring.
Any Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) who think this problem can be solved without a massive purging of both parties have their heads in the sand. I guess it comes down to a matter of how grave one believes the Zionist threat to be. And those who don’t want both parties purged obviously don’t really care if the Zionist problem is solved. So they can hardly complain the next time Israel pulls another Gaza, or engineers an Iran war, or worse.
Ed, I don't want to be smeared as an Anti-Semite, but I'm happy to attack the Neocons and the Likud Party, and if someone calls me an Anti-Semite for that, well, I can ask them why they're trying to change the subject.
Are Jews rallying around Walt & Mearsheimer and their exposure of the Israel Lobby? No. Are Jews rallying aagainst AIPAC? A lot of progressive Jews are disgusted, are open to J Street, but don't want to attack AIPAC because of its close identification with Israel. We need an enemy to attack and publicize our attacks, without our friends and families thinking we've become Anti-Semites, or self-hating Jews, and that enemy is Likud and the Neocons. I'm not comfortable attacking Zionism, nor Jews in Government, nor Jews in journalism. It's too hard to distinguish from Anti-Semitism. But I'll attack the Neocons, and the Likud Party, as inconsistent with American values, and Jews who disagree with their policies ought to be comfortable attacking them as inconsistent with Jewish values. Zionism can reform itself. Israel can reform itself. American Jews can throw out the Neocons. And we need to do it fast before another Gaza, and before Iran is attacked.
You're right, Doppler. But the Shoah shield will overpower truth and justice, and the USA will pay big
time.
Doppler: "I'm not comfortable attacking Zionism, nor Jews in Government, nor Jews in journalism. It's too hard to distinguish from Anti-Semitism."
Then you've already lost the battle, because you've allowed the Zionists to conflate Judaism and Zionism. Shades of Zionism make no difference to hard-core Zionists; to them, an attack on Likud, or Kadima, or Labor, is an attack on Israel.
But there is nothing inconsistent about supporting the concept of a Jewish state and also kicking the Israel lobby's ass, lock, stock and barrel, in America. You just have to start thinking of Israel in the same way that most Americans think of Iran, which is to say that it has the right to exist as an Islamic state, but it doesn't have the right engineer Islamic spying rings and operations by utilizing Iranian Americans and their money as operatives, on behalf of an Islamist agenda.
The reason so many Americans are perplexed by this issue is because so many of them are Zionists, including a lot of non-Jews. But even though I have some Christian Zionist relatives, I have no problem calling them out as anti-American, and putting them under the gun, because I see the larger picture and they don’t. I’m not going to be dragged down to their level by their own ignorance and lack of patriotism, nor by what I view as their theological heresy. In fact, in my view, all three of those moral failures DEMAND their rebuke and punishment, and I’m not fulfilling my moral duty nor my patriotic duty as an American by sparing them.
But you have to be willing to burn bridges on this issue, and as far as I can tell, most Jews and most Democrats and Republicans don't have the guts to do this.
"We need an enemy to attack and publicize our attacks, without our friends and families thinking we've become Anti-Semites, or self-hating Jews, and that enemy is Likud and the Neocons. I'm not comfortable attacking Zionism, nor Jews in Government, nor Jews in journalism. It's too hard to distinguish from Anti-Semitism."
I disagree with this. Jews tend to say what they want about whomever they wish, and call themsleves verbally gifted for doing so. What do Gentiles gain from silence? We're called stupid. The term anti-Semitism means nothing to me, since I see plenty of examples of Jews not cutting WASPs slack for real or imagined sins, mostly of the past. Jews largely set themselves apart from, and at odds with, the rest of the nation on a large number of issues. Why give them a free ride when their group interests clash with, and harm, the majority?
Todd is right Ed.
Oh, great flying spaghetti whatever, more Todd speak. Laurie, I disagree with you and with Todd. "Jews tend to say what they want"; my goodness, what are they, people or something! Why isn't there a spell to make trolls disappear?
Anti-semitism is a long word describing adverse discrimination. You may be inured to being described as anti-semetic, but that doesn't disarm the rest of us from calling you out for your bigoted words.
To a rather a-political Democrat, Pelosi, by her actions, recently has revealed herself as a barrier to achieving a change in direction within the Party, away from the corrupting influence of the lobbies. Franken's fight to be seated revealed how the lobbying process works to control the direction taken by Congress. It isn't a lesson to be forgotten.
Doppler's identification of Israel-first lobby action as the Likud Lobby seems useful to me. That Israel's Labor party is equally dedicated to the military model doesn't make the appellation less true. One can build on current events and further identify it as The War Lobby, because it supports aggressive military action in order to constrain the lives of the Israeli/Palestinian people. Also, The Terrorism Lobby.
"Oh, great flying spaghetti whatever, more Todd speak. Laurie, I disagree with you and with Todd. "Jews tend to say what they want"; my goodness, what are they, people or something! Why isn't there a spell to make trolls disappear?
Anti-semitism is a long word describing adverse discrimination. You may be inured to being described as anti-semetic, but that doesn't disarm the rest of us from calling you out for your bigoted words."
Context, Margaret! When one poster says that he will not criticize a Jewish writer for fear of being called an anti-Semite, it's obvious that there is a problem.
The owner of this blog often talks of the "Jewish verbal gift" or of the inability of non-Jews to comment on "Jewish" issues. Is he a bigot or an anti-Gentile?
"When one poster says that he will not criticize a Jewish writer for fear of being called an anti-Semite, it's obvious that there is a problem." I'm sorry, I don't recognize the reference.
Phil is someone steeped in an ethos; while this is a public forum, it's also his home. One encounters the same type of badinage couched in insider terms in many different circumstances. By which I mean to indicate I experience the same type of verbal byplay in other cultures and not only ethnic ones: the jargon used by specialists in a particular field is similar, even to including pet names for those either disliked or kept beyond the inner dominion – engineers, the military, political groups, in each the same type of word play is a hallmark. Check out the Hacker's Dictionary; there's even a by-play there after a generation has passed and someone revises the lexicon to the indignation of the originals. Or military blogs – if you have a good stomach. There is a distinction that I have difficulty in verbalizing – always a warning sign – but it has to do with stuff people do to feel good that doesn't result in an adverse effect on others, as opposed to stuff people do to feel good that does have an adverse result for others.
I'm trying to figure out if the issue of derisory backchat is possible to approach on one military blog, because at times the bigotry is painful – I may end up cutting it from the list instead. Likewise, if you find it excessively unfriendly here, then the obvious action is to bug out and find some place else where you are more comfortable.
I keep channeling Alex Stein today: ?Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes. link to falsedichotomies.com
I'm not going to keep questioning you, if it appears from what has already occurred that I might; not unless unable to prevent myself because my response to something sets alarms off. (I do tend to nag.)