Whatever his talents as a diplomat and reader of confidential cables, Chas Freeman is a fabulous writer. Here, at Helena Cobban's blog, is his speech to the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday on America's inability to make peace in Israel and Palestine. Scathing description of the peace process and of the lobby's generosity to politicians. A respect for the existence of a Jewish state. And throughout the speech, the sense that the lobby has never been so powerful, that it has spavined a president who had the best intentions.
Read the whole speech to see Freeman's statement that 9/11's perpetrators saw it as "a reprisal" for Palestinian conditions, which he describes as ghettos on the West Bank and prison in Gaza. Finally, look through this excerpt for Freeman's warning about anti-Semitism rising in the west if the current state of affairs continues.
The widening involvement of Americans in combat in Muslim lands has inflamed anti-American passions and catalyzed a metastasis of terrorism. It has caused a growing majority of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims to see the United States as a menace to their faith, their way of life, their homelands, and their personal security. American populists and European xenophobes have meanwhile undercut liberal and centrist Muslim arguments against the intolerance that empowers terrorism by equating terrorism and its extremist advocates with Islam and its followers. The current outburst of bigoted demagoguery over the construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque in New York is merely the most recent illustration of this. It suggests that the blatant racism and Islamophobia of contemporary Israeli politics is contagious. It rules out the global alliances against religious extremists that are essential to encompass their political defeat.
President Obama’s inability to break this pattern must be an enormous personal disappointment to him. He came into office committed to crafting a new relationship with the Arab and Muslim worlds. His first interview with the international media was with Arab satellite television. He reached out publicly and privately to Iran. He addressed the Turkish parliament with persuasive empathy. He traveled to a great center of Islamic learning in Cairo to deliver a remarkably eloquent message of conciliation to Muslims everywhere. He made it clear that he understood the centrality of injustices in the Holy Land to Muslim estrangement from the West. He promised a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and a judicious recrafting of strategy in Afghanistan. Few doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity. Yet none of his initiatives has led to policy change anyone can detect, let alone believe in...
Arabs and Muslims familiar with European history can accept that European anti-Semitism justified the establishment of a homeland for traumatized European Jews. But asking them even implicitly to agree that the forcible eviction of Palestinian Arabs was a morally appropriate means to this end is both a nonstarter and seriously off-putting. So is asking them to affirm that resistance to such displacement was and is sinful. Similarly, the Arabs see the demand that they recognize a Jewish state with no fixed borders as a clever attempt to extract their endorsement of Israel’s unilateral expansion at Palestinian expense.
The lack of appeal in this approach has been compounded by a longstanding American habit of treating Arab concerns about Israel as a form of anti-Semitism and tuning them out. Instead of hearing out and addressing Arab views, U.S. peace processors have repeatedly focused on soliciting Arab acts of kindness toward Israel. They argue that gestures of acceptance can help Israelis overcome their Holocaust-inspired political neuroses and take risks for peace.
Each time this notion of Arab diplomacy as psychotherapy for Israelis has been trotted out, it has been met with incredulity. To most in the region, it encapsulates the contrast between Washington’s sympathy and solicitude for Israelis and its condescendingly exploitative view of Arabs. Some see it as a barely disguised appeal for a policy of appeasement of Israel. Still others suspect an attempt to construct a “peace process” in which Arabs begin to supply Israel with gifts of carrots so that Americans can continue to avoid applying sticks to it.
The effort to encourage Arab generosity as an offset to American political pusillanimity vis-à-vis Israel is ludicrously unpersuasive. It has failed so many times that it should be obvious that it will not work. Yet it was a central element of George Mitchell’s mandate for “peace process” diplomacy. And it appears to have resurfaced as part of the proposed follow-up to tomorrow’s meeting between the parties in Washington. It should be no puzzle why the Saudis and other Arabs could not be persuaded to join this gathering....
[L]et me make a quick comment on a relevant cultural factor. Arabic has two quite different words that are both translated as “negotiation,” making a distinction that doesn’t exist in either English or Hebrew. One word, “musaawama,” refers to the no-holds-barred bargaining process that takes place in bazaars between strangers who may never see each other again and who therefore feel no obligation not to scam each other. Another, “mufaawadhat,” describes the dignified formal discussions about matters of honor and high principle that take place on a basis of mutual respect and equality between statesmen who seek a continuing relationship.
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s travel to Jerusalem was a grand act of statesmanship to initiate a process of mufaawadhat – relationship-building between leaders and their polities. So was the Arab peace initiative of 2002. It called for a response in kind. The West muttered approvingly but did not act. After a while, Israel responded with intermittent, somewhat oblique suggestions of willingness to haggle over terms. But an offer to bicker over the terms on which a grand gesture has been granted is, not surprisingly, seen as insultingly unresponsive.
I cite this not to suggest that non-Arabs should adopt Arabic canons of thought, but to make a point about diplomatic effectiveness. To move a negotiating partner in a desired direction, one must understand how that partner understands things and help him to see a way forward that will bring him to an end he has been persuaded to want. One of the reasons we can't seem to move things as we desire in the Middle East is that we don’t make much effort to understand how others reason and how they rank their interests. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conundrum, we Americans are long on empathy and expertise about Israel and very, very short on these for the various Arab parties. The essential militarism of U.S. policies in the Middle East adds to our difficulties. We have become skilled at killing Arabs. We have forgotten how to listen to them or persuade them.
I am not myself an “Arabist,” but I am old enough to remember when there were more than a few such people in the American diplomatic service. These were officers who had devoted themselves to the cultivation of understanding and empathy with Arab leaders so as to be able to convince these leaders that it was in their own interest to do things we saw as in our interest. If we still have such people, we are hiding them well; we are certainly not applying their skills in our Middle East diplomacy.
This brings me to a few thoughts about the Western and Arab interests at stake in the Holy Land and their implications for what must be done.
In foreign affairs, interests are the measure of all things. My assumption is that Americans and Norwegians, indeed Europeans in general, share common interests that require peace in the Holy Land. To my mind, these interests include – but are, of course, not limited to – gaining security and acceptance for a democratic state of Israel; eliminating the gross injustices and daily humiliations that foster Arab terrorism against Israel and its foreign allies and supporters, as well as friendly Arab regimes; and reversing the global spread of religious strife and prejudice, including, very likely, a revival of anti-Semitism in the West if current trends are not arrested. None of these aspirations can be fulfilled without an end to the Israeli occupation and freedom for Palestinians.
Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, also have compelling reasons to want relief from occupation as well as self-determination for Palestinians. They may not be concerned to preserve Israel’s democracy, as we are, but they share an urgent interest in ending the radicalization of their own populations, curbing the spread of Islamist terrorism, and eliminating the tensions with the West that the conflict in the Holy Land fuels. These are the concerns that have driven them to propose peace, as they very clearly did eight years ago. For related reasons, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has made inter-faith dialogue and the promotion of religious tolerance a main focus of his domestic and international policy.
As the custodian of two of Islam’s three sacred places of pilgrimage – Mecca and Medina – Saudi Arabia has long transcended its own notorious religious narrow-mindedness to hold the holy places in its charge open to Muslims of all sects and persuasions. This experience, joined with Islamic piety, reinforces a Saudi insistence on the exemption of religious pilgrimage to Jerusalem from political interference or manipulation. The Ottoman Turks were careful to ensure freedom of access for worship to adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths when they administered the city. It is an interest that Jews, Christians, and Muslims share.
There is, in short, far greater congruity between Western and Arab interests affecting the Israel-Palestine dispute than is generally recognized. This can be the basis for creative diplomacy. The fact that this has not occurred reflects pathologies of political life in the United States that paralyze the American diplomatic imagination. Tomorrow’s meeting may well demonstrate that, the election of Barack Obama notwithstanding, the United States is still unfit to manage the achievement of peace between Israel and the Arabs. If so, it is in the American interest as well as everyone else’s that others become the path-breakers, enlisting the United States as best they can in support of what they achieve, but not expecting America to overcome its incapacity to lead.
“Pathologies of political life.” Yes. And Zionism among the most pathological.
thanks potsherd, that should have been my headline. now it is
Witty? Call for you on line 1.
Damn . . . Freeman is a great writer.
Sadly, the ‘Pathology of Politics’ played out today…! ObamaRahma from the WH’s Portico:
My latest Seminal Diary… ‘They Shoot And We Build’
“Israel’s insistence that it must have guaranteed security before peace is a political ploy. You make peace in order to have security. If you get the security you demand before peace, you don’t need peace. (Dictionary definition of ploy: a procedure used to achieve a particular result. In Israel’s case the particular result is keeping occupied Arab land).”
–Allan Hart
Not to mention that guaranteed security is an impossibility. No one in the world enjoys perfect security. But it makes an excellent excuse to put off justice to the Palestinians.
Chas Freeman may be a “progressive” imperialist, but he is an imperialist nonetheless. Obama’s imaginary “good intentions” unfulfilled, a need for greater understanding, an underlying congruity of interests, all of this thwarted by the pathologies of political life in the United States. Ah, if only we could eliminate the pathological influence of The Lobby, everything would be honky dory. Some of his specific proposals are good, certainly an improvement over current US policy. In the long run, however, the US needs to get rid of the underlying rot that is empire. The US has over 750 bases worldwide, few, if any, of which are a result of the Zionist lobby. The US has been at the empire business long before the Zionists gained such prominence. Freeman’s talk was what one might expect from an intelligent, anti-lobby, liberal imperial spokesman. A recommendation for specific policy changes within the overall framework of the American Empire. I continue to be amazed at the extent to which Mondoweissers laud Freeman and deride Chomsky.
Point well taken, Keith. However, I’ve not seen any Mondoweissers argue in behalf of those 750 US bases around the world, nor have they somehow affirmed US imperialism generally. Chomsky has been derided by Mondoweisers only as to how he uses said US imperialism to explain away the one-sided US foreign policy regarding Israel while ignoring or contesting the heavy influence of the Israel Lobby.
CITIZEN- As for Mondoweissers not denying the 750 bases, has anyone at Firedoglake denied that Israel/Palestine is important? In fact, Firedoglake discusses the Israel/Palestine issue more than Mondoweiss seeks to integrate Israel/Palestine into the big picture of imperial geo-strategy. My subjective impression is that I am one of the few commenters that mention empire and geo-strategy as a contributing factor. My point being that there seems to be a tendency here to blame the lobby for all of the problems in the Middle East, including US foreign policy. Chas Freeman’s speech continues that tradition.
As for Chomsky, I have grown weary of the gratuitous swipes directed at him. Case in point. I continue to see comments out of the blue directed at him because of his opinion that a two state settlement is more viable at this point in time than a one state settlement. Supposedly, his opinion represents a significant obstacle to a just one state settlement, hence, he is working against a just settlement. This is not because of something he posted on Modoweiss for discussion, rather it is because of some statement attributed to him by someone. On the other hand, Chas Freeman recommends supporting the Arab peace initiative of 2002 which is more or less based upon the international consensus (blocked by US/Israel) which calls for a two state settlement. How many times has Chas Freeman been criticized on Mondoweiss for not advocating for a one state settlement?
another point, Keith —
In the Radoshs’ tributes to Harry Truman, they narrate how, from Truman’s era and forward, Jewish elite put strenuous effort to the task of cleansing the State Dept of Arabists and replacing them with Israel-friendly personnel.
Rumsfeld cut his political teeth by writing letters to the right people in order to exempt the ZOA from being required to register as a foreign agent.
zionist influence has been a critical factor in US foreign policy for over a century. we’re just learning about it, is all.
to be sure, much of the CIA’s hijinks might be in a separate category. I’d love to have a talk with someone like Richard Frye, Iran specialist who started out with OSS, got fed up with it post-war, when OSS agents evolved into CIA. Frye dropped out, taught at Harvard, did a great deal of work in and about Iran. What I’d like to ask Frye is, what was it about OSS that so disturbed him?
well Keith, if you track the zionization of American evangelical Christians & its impress on US government and foreign policy, you will find a congruence going back to the late 1800s. link to onlinejournal.com
:link to digitalcommons.liberty.edu
I’m a bit disappointed in Mr. Freeman’s speech.
I’ll start from the end and work my way up to the beginning.
1. Mr. Freeman said:
First, this has been the standard view of the U.S. government over the years, to wit, Israel’s security. Of course, the security of other people in the Middle East to live in physical and economic safety is rarely mentioned by U.S. representatives, be they politicians or bureaucrats.
Mr. Freeman adds, “as well as friendly Arab regimes”. Here Mr. Freeman ignores the fact that such attacks on these regimes are a direct result of the refusal of the natives to live in fear under the boot of an American supported junta. Further bolstering his standard US government line, Mr. Freeman refers to these regimes as “friendly”. They surely are friendly to the US given the billions they receive on an annual basis, but why can’t the US encourage democracy in the “Arab world”? Why is it that Mr. Freeman is only interested in preserving Israel’s democracy?
He goes on to mention the “spread” of “religious strife” throughout the world. Last I checked, that spread has its origins in the United States’ own Global War on Terror which helped demagogues and bigots throughout the western world exploit existing fears and ignorance toward Arabs and Muslims.
In other words, one would have had to be hard pressed to find such concerted opposition to Muslims in a country like Switzerland prior to 2001. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for at least 63 years and current religious “strife” in the west can mostly be attributed to America’s own actions and the rhetoric of its leaders. That is not so say that Muslims/Arabs were welcomed or accepted in the west prior to 9/11. Certainly Hollywood’s repeated depictions of Arabs as savage murderers and sexual perverts didn’t help.
2.
Of course it is off-putting. But, it’s not off-putting because the people of the Middle East are unreasonable. It should be off-putting to any human being, whether Arab or not, Muslim or not. Alas, the phraseology in that paragraph is a bit awkward.
3.
I contend that such racism and Islamophobia did not stem from Israel’s own political discourse, but more accurately due to the existence of Israel and the Lobby’s work on behalf of Israel in the United States. That is to say that the United States wasn’t exactly a beacon of tolerance toward the brown savages of the Middle East. It’s just that thanks to the interests of the Israel Lobby, the United States found it politically expedient to support said rhetoric. And it’s not unique to Muslims or Arabs, as the interment camps in which Japanese Americans were held showed. Islamophobia in the west has its roots in both the Israel Lobby and largely as of late in the Global War on Terror.
I may be nitpicking, but I feel strongly about point #1. It seems no matter where U.S. officials go, they can’t help but utter that standard line regarding “friendly Arab regimes” and “Israel’s security”.
P.S.
It seems to me that Mr. Freeman can’t help but add to the caricaturization of Arabs and Muslims, caricatures which are already common throughout the west, caricatures which form the corner stone of any good propaganda campaign.
I understand the distinction he is attempting to make between the two forms of negotiations, but — whether intentionally or not — he is doing nothing but spreading the anti-Arab equivalent of the stereotype of the Jew as a scheming and calculating merchant.
Furthermore, while it is possible that Mr. Freeman sought to communicate the fact that Arabs don’t like being cheated and manipulated, he inevitably made it seem as though the distinction between haggling, dickering and bartering are concepts exclusive to Arabs. That makes him an Arabist, whether he refuses to see himself as one or not.
AVI- Your points are well taken. Throw in eljay’s comment regarding Obama, and I think you guys have covered some of Chas Freeman’s more egregious misrepresentations of reality.
Freeman was doing great with what the Americans haven’t been doing to understand Arabs but he showed he doesn’t either when he described the Saudi sense of fair play when he wrote :
“… Saudi Arabia has long transcended its own notorious religious narrow-mindedness to hold the holy places in its charge open to Muslims of all sects and persuasions. This experience, joined with Islamic piety, reinforces a Saudi insistence on the exemption of religious pilgrimage to Jerusalem from political interference or manipulation. ”
Notwithstanding the granting of “permission” to other Muslim sects to fulfill their Haj pilgrimage duties, Freeman is obviously unaware of the various official Saudi fatwas declaring Shia Muslims that constitute about 40% of Middle East Muslims as well as 20% of its own population apostates and heretics. He obviously has no clue what the 2 million Shia are going through in Saudia’s eastern province.
Freeman details the failed American diplomacy and how the important Arabs are absent from the current negotiations circus between Israel and the Palestinians but disregards how the Arabs are tripping over each other in their rush to enter into business dealings with Israel. He hasn’t realized that the Arabs don’t care about the Palestinians any more than the Americans do. His biggest mistake is in thinking that the conflict has to do with Arabs versus Israel and not between Palestinians and Israelis. Arabs have been part of the Palestinians’ problem from the start and for as long as people will continue thinking that the solution is in the Arabs’ hands, the stalling will go on and Israel will remain on its joy ride. Freeman writes nice, as Philip said, but he also doesn’t know what makes Arabs tick.
wow, just wow. i love him.
ANNIE- Nothing to criticize? You agree with it all?
I’m not Annie, but I think you’re missing the point . . .
Can you show me another (working) DC-insider who has publicly criticized Israel to the same degree and with the same precision as Freeman?
How’s right now for a biblical moment. Has all the prerequisites – good versus evil, a cast made up of all living beings and featuring one epic scene after another, which, assuming everything goes well, could lead to one of these moments in history when, seemingly out of the blue, Turnabout. One has to reckon, of course, with the many times in history when conditions were said to be just right, yet nothing much came of it. With this in mind, but just in case indeed this is a biblical moment, what about this?
this:
that right now while the Mideast Conflict is center stage, that the way to end said conflict is for Jewish colonizer and colonized Palestinian to sit down together for the purpose of working things out based on one equals one with liberty and justice for all.
could you make it next week? Have a painting job to finish this week . . .
Good essay on why the Israel lobby is so powerful by James Petras
The State and Local Bases of Zionist Power in America
Any serious effort to understand the extraordinary influence of the Zionist power configuration over US foreign policy must examine the presence of key operatives in strategic positions in the government and the activities of local Zionist organizations affiliated with mainstream Jewish organizations and religious orders.
. 08.31.2010
There are at least 52 major American Jewish organizations actively engaged in promoting Israel’s foreign policy, economic and technological agenda in the US (see the appendix). The grassroots membership ranges from several hundred thousand militants in the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) to one hundred thousand wealthy contributors, activists and power brokers in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In addition scores of propaganda mills, dubbed think tanks, have been established by million dollar grants from billionaire Zionists including the Brookings Institute (Haim Saban) and the Hudson Institute among others.
Read essay [PDF]
Walt, Freeman express respect for the existence of Israel, and as a Jewish haven, if not in-your-face Jewish state. And, presumably express respect for genuinely defensive efforts. And, presumably express recognition of multiple enemy relationships on multiple fronts, which make the effort to defend a different one than if Israel had a single adversary.
In political life, we only have the present forward. 2002 was a carelessly missed opportunity (appreciated as a potential “Sadat in Jerusalem”, but still understandably distrusted as a practicality as it occurred while Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs and others were actively shelling Israeli civilians and still undertaking suicide bombing missions, which were NOT assertively stopped or even condemned by the Arab world. For Hamas, they were the whistle stops on its electoral street cred campaign.)
129 words
Witty, you’re never going to be able to twist Walt’s and Freeman’s words into a justification for the outright slaughter of and land theft from native Palestinians.
Don’t even bother. You’re pretty on your own when it comes to coming up with good reasons for burning Palestinian children to death with white phosphorous.
In political life, when it comes to Israel, we only have 1936. 44 words
“Arab diplomacy as psychotherapy for Israelis”
Splendid phrase!
“The effort to encourage Arab generosity as an offset to American political pusillanimity vis-à-vis Israel …”
Aside from any other factor, it is difficult to encourage generosity from people when you are at the same time vilifying and insulting them.
Holocaust survivors have claimed and received from numerous European states reparations and compensation in the tens- if not hundreds of billions of dollars.
If the concept of compensation for stolen or lost property and disrupted lives and enforced work is good enough for Jews to have been able to make and receive funds these past 55+ years, how about Israel being required to pony up for its own sins against the Palestinians.
Israel has these really cute little trick: Yes, yes, Palestinians should receive compensation for land we Israelis stole from them. You, you Arabs and Americans, YOU pay it.
phooey with that.
My momma didn’t raise no freier, and no complaints from this quarter if Obama practices musaawama trading with Bibi — if I were Obama, I’d be plenty happy never to see Netanyahu again.
>> President Obama’s inability to break this pattern must be an enormous personal disappointment to him. He came into office committed to crafting a new relationship with the Arab and Muslim worlds. His first interview with the international media was with Arab satellite television. He reached out publicly and privately to Iran. He addressed the Turkish parliament with persuasive empathy. He traveled to a great center of Islamic learning in Cairo to deliver a remarkably eloquent message of conciliation to Muslims everywhere. He made it clear that he understood the centrality of injustices in the Holy Land to Muslim estrangement from the West. He promised a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and a judicious recrafting of strategy in Afghanistan. Few doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity. Yet none of his initiatives has led to policy change anyone can detect, let alone believe in…
Pure bullshit. Obama’s “sincerity” is an enormous joke. He has presented a well-crafted façade of compassion, tolerance, peace and willingness to co-operate, but he has done nothing to demonstrate that there is any substance beneath that façade.
eljay – on the one hand — Parthemore & Miller :link to cnas.org
drafted what I believe is the blueprint for Obama’s “gamechanger” strategy re Iran; it’s essentially a gotcha tactic, calculated to pin blame on Iran no matter what Iran does. That’s been the touchstone for my assessment, like yours, that “Obama’s “sincerity” is an enormous joke.”
On the other hand, the other day I came across an essay by Navy War College Historian David Kaiser, about how Obama handles anger — not necessarily his own, ie. not a personal assessment of Obama’s psyche, but of how Obama handles the nation’s anger. A worthwhile read.
When you consider that Anger essay in light of the way all Israeli society is calculated to induce paranoia and psychic dystopia, one becomes a bit more grateful to live in the good ole USA.
except in light of the fact that paranoia and psychic dystopia is also rampant here in America, how can anyone who’s aware of this be grateful to live in the good ole USA? Yes, one should be grateful for being alive at moment when a better world not only is possible, it’s doable, but otherwise, for too many of us could as well be stop the world, I want to get off.
>> On the other hand, the other day I came across an essay by Navy War College Historian David Kaiser, about how Obama handles anger — not necessarily his own, ie. not a personal assessment of Obama’s psyche, but of how Obama handles the nation’s anger. A worthwhile read.
Thanks for the tip – I’ll look it up and give it a read.
Discussion of P-I peace process going on now (7:55 AM EST) on CSPAN’s Washington Journal; Daniel Levy v Amjad Atallah
Levy: If the settlement building continues to be built within window view of Palestinians in the ground three weeks into the negotiations, what will this fact on the ground do to credibility of the pie in the sky process? Obama has actually chosen to be the mediator; this is new. This shows actual importance to the US for the first time.
People are calling in…
Oops, Atallah said that, not Levy.
Levy: Obama’s activity yesterday shows it is the consensus it is in the American self-interest to resolve the I-P issue; there’s a win-win as US goal is Israel’s (he says in effect).
Atallah: Is the US the good guy honest broker, or the imperialist bad guy?
Levy: There’s no Palestinian at the table today that is an elected Palestinian offical representative–a crisis of legitimacy to the Palestinians.
Caller: How do you keep a Jew out of their biblical land?
Levy: Yesterday, the Palestinians argued that Palestinians do not object to Jews living in a Palestinian state, but under what framework/status there? Should both states be exclusive ethnocracies?
Levy: There’s no taking the Jew out any of the land involved. The contention raises the question of exclusivity for either state.
Host reads WSJ OPed on economic boom going on in the WB.
The important point is Pals have taken up the role of self-governance.
Atallah: True, but its all built on sand; we’ve been there before; it’s a captive market for the Pals as Israel has in the past shut down Pal economic activity in 24 hours. It’s not much better than things were in 2000.
Levy: Be great to see more economic recovery but has nothing to do with resolving the political problem. 1s or 2ss?
Caller: Settlements are not to be tampered with; have biblical
authority. I love Israel, I love America. Obama is destroying the relationship between US and Israel. Too far off from the bible.
Hamas, PLO, Gaza srip are terrorists; throwing rockets into Israel daily; want Israel destroyed.
Levy: We draw inspiration from biblical prophecy, but if Israel chooses to define itself as biblically authorized, others who are democratic have to take a step back on such a view, and base their view on realpolitics. True answer is 2 state solution living in real world; coexistence will be hard.
Atallah: This results from a cynical bargain made with Christian Zionists to enhance US support within US. Vision of warrior state until Apocolypse upsets secular US citizens.
Caller: Hamas cannot be brought in democratically; they are out to kill Israel. Shia and Sunni are killing each other. Palestinians need to show they can control their Israel haters.
Atallah: Hate rhetoric on both sides does not help. Palestinian violence must be understood in context of the occupation.
Levy: I would give Israel more credit as to what it has achieved; Israel’s existence is not threatned as it is too strong. Occupation
makes it easier to rally extremism. It’s more important to save lives than to save land. The Palestinian narrative needs to be addressed. The US is working with extremists in both Iraq and Afghanistan now.
Citizen – thanks for this.
when the replay is available, worth careful review are additional comments on the cynicism of American zionists in ‘supporting biblical Israel’ are extremely important. It was a beautifully crafted decimation of the Caller’s outpouring of emotional support for Israeli messianism.
That caller represented the second- most important American constituency regarding ME foreign policy issues. That caller is the product of over 100 years of zionist propaganda efforts in the United States.
Brilliant speech. It’s crystal clear why AIPAC had to marshal every resource to torpedo his appointment. He would have been a firebrand in the dialogue about attacking Iran.
Freeman does a good job of linking the ‘contagiousness’ of Israeli Islamophobia [nice understatement -- as if it's just an inexorable natural process] to ‘a revival of anti-Semitism in the west if current trends are not arrested.’
He seems to lose the plot, though, when he claims that O’Bomba ‘promised a … judicious recrafting of strategy in Afghanistan. Few doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity.’
The illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was in its eighth year when O’Bomba took office. Aping Dick Cheney, the Nobel Peace Laureate decided to surge another 30,000 troops into the quagmire, where they are now getting killed by the score every week.
Far from a ‘judicious recrafting,’ the Afghan charnel house is the rock upon which O’Bomba’s presidency has foundered, just as surely as Lyndon Barack Johnson’s re-election prospects were dashed by the slaughter in Vietnam.
‘Sincerity?’ The ACLU has sued O’Bomba for putting American citizens on execution lists, a heretofore unexampled escalation of tyranny.
Meanwhile, the Western endorsement of US ‘wars of choice’ via multinational participation in the Afghan occupation sends a powerful signal to the Arab world that the US and its NATO allies are not to be trusted. In this conclusion, they are quite correct.
Despite the religious congruities mentioned by Freeman, I doubt that the West has any constructive role to play in the I-P situation, given its deep-seated conflicts of interest and demonstrated contempt for international law. One illegal occupier proposes to bring another to heel? Yeah, right!
Easy to see why Freeman was axed by AIPAC et al; question is why did Obama go along with slamming Freeman as unfit because he’s an “Arabist?”
Nothing has changed since Truman ignored his state department as full of “Arabists.” Obama has built his own jail via Penny Pritzker and his chosen gate keeper Rahm I, and chosen domestic strategist, Axlerod, the latter having the former (IDF tank maintainence guy) as his chosen Godfather under Jewish religious law. So too, Truman was dependent on Zionist support in 1948 to defeat Dewey, who was ony too willing to pander to the Zionists to become POTUS.
CHAS FREEMAN: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS- My first comment was based upon a quick skimming of Freeman’s speech, hence, necessarily brief. This is an important topic and Freeman an iconic figure to some Mondoweissers, therefore, I wish to comment in more depth. In addition to my comments, the comments of Avi and Eljay are highly relevant.
Let us begin at the beginning. In response to the topic of “…current American policies in the Middle East, with an emphasis on the prospects for peace in the Holy Land,” Freeman titled his speech “America’s Faltering Search for Peace in the Middle East: Openings for Others?” Bullshit right from the get-go. As if the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and other imperial activities (leaving aside Israel/Palestine for the moment) could even remotely be described as a “Faltering Search for Peace.” Right away you know that you are dealing with an imperial apologist, a spokesperson for empire.
“The Oslo accords were a real step toward peace….” Tell that to Edward Said (may he rest in peace), Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, or anyone else familiar with the accords. What chutzpah! What hasbara! This sets the tone for the artful blending of fact and fiction to produce his calculated narrative.
“Since the end of the Cold War, the interaction between Israel and its captive Palestinian population has emerged as the fountainhead of global strife.” Tell that to the former Yugoslavia. Tell that to Cuba and Hugo Chavez. Tell that to all of the victims of neoliberal globalization. No empire here folks, just the Israeli lobby.
“The essential militarism of U.S. policies in the Middle East add to our difficulties.” Essential militarism? ESSENTIAL MILITARISM!? I guess that if you are going to be an empire you are going to have to kill a lot of people, and yes, that does add to OUR difficulties. Smoothing over the reality of empire is something that a career diplomat must be concerned with. Point well taken.
“(Arabists) were officers who devoted themselves to the cultivation of understanding and empathy with Arab leaders so as to be able to convince these leaders that it was in their own interest to do things we saw as in our interest.” Wow! That about says it all. No nonsense about democracy here folks! Leaders who understand that it is in their interest to do what we see as in our IMPERIAL interests. Can you spell SATRAP?”
On and on it goes. There are some good points too. I think he highlights the plight of the Palestinians quite well. His analysis of the “peace process” is spot on. His support of the Arab initiative of 2002 is helpful. In short, while he represents an improvement over the status quo, he does not represent a fundamental change in imperial policy.
This brings me to a conclusion of sorts. To set the stage, let us review Freeman’s disingenuous comments on Obama. “President Obama’s inability to break this pattern must be an enormous personal disappointment to him. He came into office committed to crafting a new relationship with the Arab and Muslim worlds. His first interview with the international media was with Arab satellite television. He reached out publicly and privately to Iran. He addressed the Turkish parliament with persuasive empathy. He traveled to a great center of Islamic learning in Cairo to deliver a remarkably eloquent message of conciliation to Muslims everywhere. He made it clear that he understood the centrality of injustices in the Holy Land to Muslim estrangement from the West. He promised a responsible withdrawal from Iraq and a judicious recrafting of strategy in Afghanistan. Few doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity. Yet none of his initiatives has led to policy change anyone can detect, let alone believe in…”
When I first read this, I almost wretched. Perhaps Phil should run this by Paul Street for his comments. Why say crap like this? Why criticize the Obama administration on one and only one area of foreign policy, then exonerate Obama for any responsibility for the policies of his administration? As an aside, I somewhat agree that Obama is not to blame. He seems to me to be mostly a front man for Wall Street who sells policy decisions formulated by others, not all that involved in the decisions themselves. His focus is his career, and that is about it. But I digress. The reason seems simple to me. He wishes to separate Obama the man from the Obama administration. Why? So that Obama can extricate himself by a change in personnel. In other words: Hire me! Hire me! Hire me!
Make no mistake, Chas Freeman is a skilled wordsmith with lingering ambitions. Had he given up on a foreign policy career/influence, he would have likely savaged Obama for his actual policies as indicated by the facts on the ground.
Final comment. I continue to be perplexed at the enthusiasm for Chas Freeman, imperial apologist/spokesman on the Mondoweiss website. Can it be some sort of obsession with the Lobby as the source of all evil? In any event, I would think that the similarity between a liberal imperialist and a liberal Zionist was sufficiently obvious to not require comment.
Good points. My only caveat–you meant “retched”, not “wretched”. I say this as a fellow wretched retcher.
I don’t think President Obama is a bad man, merely a weak man, the type who BiBi was referring to when he said that “America can be so easily moved.” Obama made a point of involving Egypt (who along with Israel has kept up the blockade on Gaza), as well as Jordon, who can be easily blackmailed thru taking away, its foreign aide, and yet no one there represents the people of Gaza. Obama learned to play the game quickly after his speech in Cairo, he sent his Cabinet out to meet with the various Jewish groups to let them know he was only kidding. He spoke about the killing of the settlers, but wouldn’t utter a word about Furkar Dogan, or any other murders committed by Israeli soldiers. For a fine/donation from Blackwater, they got off scott free, but then again, it seems alright to kill Arabs with impunity. The Arab world knows it cannot believe anything he promises. He, like Bush, would never be a fair broker. Like my mother once said, “Don’t listen to the words, because words can be lies, watch the actions, and his actions have shown Obama has once again, through his fidelity and devotion to BiBi, made America the slave of Israel. His forefathers must be so disappointed, just like those of us who voted for him.
Nir Rosen slams Obama’s speech about Iraq in his interview on Democracy Now.
link to democracynow.org
“in many lives life was better for Iraqi’s under Saddam”
“SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And Nir, well, talk about that suffering. I mean, there was a—you’ve documented closely the civil war that gripped Iraq a few years ago, as well as the refugee crisis that the war spurred. What has Iraq gone through in these past seven years?
NIR ROSEN: It’s become a [inaudible]. There’s not a [inaudible] I meet that hasn’t [inaudible] touched by [inaudible] having a loved one killed or beheaded or wounded in an explosion. There’s not a trip I make to Iraq where I don’t have to delete somebody’s name from my cell phone because they’re dead. Every time, there’s a few new names. Everybody has been touched by it.
Life, in most ways for people, has gotten much worse. In terms of services, most places here have one hour of electricity a day. People can’t go to sleep at night—it’s like 120 degrees—until 3:00 in the morning or quite late, because they’re waiting for the power to come back just so they can turn on the AC on. No sewage, dirty water, mounds of trash on the street. Baghdad and other areas are heavily militarized, which means that every minute or so when you’re driving, you get stopped by police or army. They search your car. Now, on the one hand, it’s reassuring; on the other hand, it’s just one more indignity and hassle the Iraqis have to go through to survive. And they don’t have the chance to think about the future. They have to think, in many cases, just about how am I going to get electricity today, how am I going to travel what should be a fifteen-minute trip across town that will take four hours because the city is so destroyed and shattered.
And, of course, there’s constant killing still, with silenced pistols, with magnetic sticky bombs, as they’re called. Nobody knows who’s doing it or why. Some of it’s mafia-related. Some of it’s political parties feuding with each other. Some of it, of course, is terrorist-related. Life remains quite scary for many Iraqis.
So, you have a competing trend, however, because despite the violence that’s quite scary, you also have life improving significantly since the peak of the civil war—people out until quite late. There’s a curfew at midnight in Baghdad, but until then, you have people out in many neighborhoods. It’s quite normal. New shops being opened, new cafes. Those who have money are no longer afraid to display their wealth. Obviously that’s a sign that criminal gangs are less of a threat than they used to be.
And you do have an Iraqi security force which is relatively competent and able to take out militias. And, in fact, they get many tips from citizens. I was talking to an Iraqi intelligence officer in one neighborhood and asking him if he was worried about the militias coming back, and he said no. Just recently, a former militia leader returned from Iran to the neighborhood, and he got over a hundred calls on his SIP line from people in the neighborhood letting him know.
So there are some improvements, but obviously Iraq deserves much better than this. In many ways, life was better under Saddam, certainly in terms of security, the cleanliness of the street. But I think it’s offensive to be celebrating this or even to be paying much attention to this day. It’s an artificial milestone. You still have 50,000 soldiers here. They consider themselves combat troops. I’d say that—their general says they’re combat troops on a non-combat mission. But they’re still authorized to to take preemptive action against any perceived threat. And in Mosul, it’s a real war. A friend of mine who’s on a base up there got killed—nearly got killed by a mortar just last night. In other parts of the country, you still see American military vehicles on the roads on patrol unescorted. So the Americans are still engaged in combat, and you have 4,000 American special forces troops who are going out with Iraqi special forces. Basically they can kill whoever they want, whenever they want. They’re nominally beholden to Prime Minister Maliki, but in fact they operate pretty much independently.
KATHLEEN- For a gut wrenching reaction to Obama’s speech from an Iraqi woman blogger, go to link to iraqiwomanblues.blogspot.com
KATHLEEN- Oops, I goofed! It’s link to arabwomanblues.blogspot.com