Schumer describes Hagel’s come-to-Jesus moment

Israel/Palestine
on 61 Comments

The two Chucks bro’ down, as reported by the WSJ blog:

Defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel “almost had tears in his eyes” when Sen. Chuck Schumer explained during a private meeting his objection to Mr. Hagel’s use of the term “Jewish lobby,” Mr. Schumer recalled Wednesday.

During a 90-minute meeting [on January 15] shortly after Mr. Hagel’s name was floated for the spot, Mr. Schumer, a Democrat, “asked him about all the things he said that had troubled me, troubled you, troubled any of us who are supporters of Israel,” he said.

Politico’s Maggie Haberman reports that Schumer described the meeting in a breakfast speech in New York at the Association for a Better New York and the Downtown Alliance: 

“He struck me as sincere, and you know, you have to be sitting there at the meeting obviously, but I also told him when he used the word Jewish lobby what it meant to Jewish people,” [Schumer] added.

“And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that’s a double standard. And I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but it harkens to the old days.

“And he really, you know, he almost had tears in his eyes when he understood. So I believe he will be good.”

Schumer noted that there is “not a major Jewish organization against” Hagel.

“The main fight on Hagel is coming from the neocons, who you know well. And they resent Hagel’s apostasy on Iraq. You may remember — the neocons helped push Iraq — and Hagel was one of the first Republicans to say Iraq wasn’t working. And he was right. But that’s where it’s coming from.”

Yes and why did you support the neocons’ idea of remaking Iraq, Senator?
 
Interesting that in Schumer’s view it’s not the term Jewish lobby that rankles– after all, he cites all the Jewish organizations behind Hagel– it’s that non-Jews are not allowed to criticize it. Much as Elliott Abrams asserted to Brian Lehrer. So, I would respond, Are Jews as an American community persecuted outsiders, as we were in Russia in a historical memory that is so fresh to Senator Chuck Schumer; or are we empowered and accountable for our actions–i.e., is criticism allowed? This fundamental misprision of our power, our position is the error here. 
 
P.S. Schumer has said that his name means Guardian in Hebrew; and he’s Israel’s Guardian. The commitments he extracted from Hagel at that meeting were itemized at the time by Schumer here.

61 Responses

  1. Citizen
    February 21, 2013, 10:56 am

    “Schumer noted that there is “not a major Jewish organization against” Hagel.”

    “Two American Jewish organizations call for further review of Hagel statements”:
    link to haaretz.com

  2. bob
    February 21, 2013, 11:25 am

    “And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that’s a double standard. And I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but it harkens to the old days.

    Sen. Schumer, are you discussing the old days of having a life with more resources compared to the vast majority of the population who toiled under crippling manual labor under serfdom? Here, again, is the trope of a lack of Jewish agency. Are we going to see this extend into banking again, and how this was forced by the church? Lets not pretend that banking wasn’t a far better life than toiling a short and rough life in the fields. This trope, strangely, seems to extend to modern day Israel, where all military actions are described “in response” to an external action, and measures on that action are merely “in defense.” Can the Israeli state have agency? No. Apparently, the regional second strike nuclear power lacks agency and is merely an object that is acted upon by far weaker nations that surround it.

    We can agree that Soviet pograms were terrible, senator Schumer. Now, why do you feel that an American needs to feel the pain that Russians gave to Jews? Why is this collective pressure OK to you, while you admonish Hagel for being insufficiently sensitive to you? Its not even the same people that Schumer is conflating. Terrible. All Hagel can do is sit and cry.

    • Woody Tanaka
      February 21, 2013, 12:36 pm

      Schumer: “I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that’s a double standard.”

      That would only be true if the people who balk at the Israel lobby are okay with every other lobby. That’s not true, by a long shot for most people. I, for one, find the NRA’s lobbying as negative, if not more so, than that of the Israel lobby. It’s not who’s doing it; it’s what they’re seeking to do that’s the issue, one that Schumer can’t see or doesn’t want to see.

    • American
      February 22, 2013, 9:28 am

      “”“And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that’s a double standard. And I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but it harkens to the old days.””

      Well first, the ‘everyone’ “except” Jews could do this, that and the other isn’t true.
      Jews were not the ‘only’ people in Russia or elsewhere in history who suffered discrimination and persecution.

      BUT— more important than that is what they (their leadership) is doing now that they ‘aren’t discriminated against.
      They are ‘abusing’ what they have in America—-just like Israel is abusing being the Jewish State . They are the ones with the “double standard”—meaning Jews/Israel come first in all matters in the US and in Israel—and the world.
      I would say there is always/has always been a blowback eventually to abuses of these kinds —-but then when there is a blowback to US Zionist and Israel the Schumers will claim it is for no reason except people hate Jews—-didn’t have anything to do with what they did in the US or Israel.

    • EUR1069
      February 22, 2013, 10:37 am

      @bob: there were NO pogroms in the Soviet period. In fact, Russian Jews never had it better between 1918 and 1948. The Bolshevik party leadership, the army command, the GPU/NKVD staff was overwhelmingly Jewish by ethnic composition. Moreover, the Commissar death squads under Leo Trotsky (Bronshtein) and Yakov Sverdlov were responsible for wiping out 1.5 million Don Cossacks, family members included in a brief period of 1919-1920, ostensibly as a payback for the pogroms under the Tsarist regime. With their full loyalty to the new rule the Jews were fully emancipated into the Soviet society. There was a temporary backlash based on accusations of “double loyalty” (sounds familiar?) after Ben Gurion & Golda Meir bamboozled Stalin into supporting Israel’s bid for statehood in the UN with promises of a Socialist state in the Middle East. But in hindsight who could accuse the Old Man for being naturally alert?

      • bob
        February 22, 2013, 6:33 pm

        You are right. In addition, I’ll add with Yuri Sklezine:

        “Personally, we did not engage in any pogroms, we tried to prevent pogroms…So if the Jews, all of them, do not plead guilty to the social revolution, then the Russians, all of them, will not plead guilty to the Jewish pogroms” (Slezkine 187).

  3. Bumblebye
    February 21, 2013, 11:50 am

    Okay. I learn another new word. “Misprision” isn’t a mispritn!

    Misprision – Merriam-Webster Onlinewww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misprisionCached – Similar
    b : concealment of treason or felony by one who is not a participant in the treason or felony. c : seditious conduct against the government or the courts. 2 …

    and

    Misprision | Define Misprision at Dictionary.comdictionary.reference.com/browse/misprisionCached – Similar
    a neglect or violation of official duty by one in office. 2. failure by one not an accessory to prevent or notify the authorities of treason or felony. 3. a contempt …

  4. justicewillprevail
    February 21, 2013, 11:59 am

    Everyone could live in Moscow? When was that? Everyone could be a farmer? Tell that to the Palestinian farmers dispossessed and ethnically cleansed. And now, it is offensive and discriminatory to mention the Israel lobby, the one which has nearly all the senators on its payroll, the one which presumes it decides who gets what post, the one that demands money and weapons in never ending amounts? To even mention it is tantamount to advocating the persecution of an entire people? Wow. Meanwhile the real unmentionable destruction which this whole charade is a cover for, is that of the Palestinians.

  5. Kathleen
    February 21, 2013, 12:06 pm

    Schumer “Israel’s guardian” Says it all. As you have pointed out Phil Schumer readily voted for the Iraq war and helped sell it to the American people. Schumer was one of the leads on taking down Charles Freeman. His “guardian” status for the US has and should come into question as well as many of our other Reps who support Israel no matter what they do. They would be better friends of Israel by standing up to this lobby. A much better friend. Am hearing the one state, one person, one vote demand more and more.

    Those who support Israel no matter what they do have every right to lobby but where it comes into serious question is how often they lobby to protect Israel’s illegal activities which undermine the US’s national security. When you lobby in this way it is wrong. Israel’s security over the US’s. And the fact that the I lobby pulls financial support and public support of Reps who have tried to stand up to the wrongs of the Israeli government and US support for these crimes against humanity

    • peeesss
      February 21, 2013, 1:31 pm

      Schumer, The Guardian, says there is not “a major Jewish organization” against Hagel’s nomination but its the “Neo Cons”. Please tell me one neo con that is not a fawning lapdog for Israel. A supporter of all Israeli policies, its murderous assault upon the Palrestinian people for the past 6-7 decades. The Israeli govt. itself pushed hard for US military action in Iraq. AIPAC was in the forefront as is its custom in pushing the Israeli/Zionist agenda . Be it Frum, Perle, or McCain, Graham, Jew or Gentile,, neo cons, Zionists supporters all.

  6. amigo
    February 21, 2013, 12:29 pm

    Duplicitous definition

    Zionism.
    Israel firsters
    Hasbarists.

    To name just a few

  7. David Doppler
    February 21, 2013, 1:36 pm

    “Come to Jesus?” That headline just baits people into ethnic and religious confrontation. Why not stick to the war of ideas?

    • Woody Tanaka
      February 21, 2013, 1:50 pm

      “‘Come to Jesus?’ That headline just baits people into ethnic and religious confrontation. Why not stick to the war of ideas?”

      Put a sock in it. It’s an expression that has a non-religous meaning.

      • Dan Crowther
        February 21, 2013, 3:33 pm

        As one of my favorite characters from the Wire, Norman, said: “He had one of those “road to damascus moments”

        That better?

      • Woody Tanaka
        February 21, 2013, 3:59 pm

        It’s the same. In both cases they’re expressions that have taken on non-religious meanings, even though they originated as religious things.

    • tear-stained uzi
      February 22, 2013, 11:11 am

      You’re right, it oughta say, “Hagel’s come-to-Moses moment.”

      “And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that’s a double standard. And I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but it harkens to the old days.

      “And he really, you know, he almost had tears in his eyes when he understood. So I believe he will be good.”

      [emphasis mine]

      Note the shift from “Jewish people” to “those of us who are pro-Israel.” Also, as far as foreign nation lobby power goes, Israel is to “everyone else” as General Motors is to Segway. Yeah, Chuck, let’s hear you make the case for more affirmative action for American Jews.

      • john h
        February 24, 2013, 3:48 am

        Just call it what it is purported to be, “Hagel’s come-to-Israel moment”.

  8. sardelapasti
    February 21, 2013, 2:54 pm

    Doppler – sorry to say, it’s that ridiculous special so-called sensitivity, in fact a primadonnaish craving for attention –to the point of ignoring general language and culture and insisting that a teeny minority’s supposed concepts replace what was perfectly fine even for it until yesterday– that makes both Zio and non-Zio “identity” freaks so unbearably irritating.

  9. kalithea
    February 21, 2013, 3:36 pm

    “come to Jesus” moment? Uh, that sounds pretty insulting for all Christians since that moment is considered the pinnacle of Christian awakening. So basically Schumer is stating that something as petty and mindless as surrendering to the Jewish Lobby and begging forgiveness for even questioning or criticizing the reach and authority this Lobby OBVIOUSLY has is tantamount to the highest spiritual Christian awakening where one renounces sin to embrace Jesus?

    So then in Shumer’s mind these two experiences are equal. He just couldn’t have come up with something from his own religious persuasion or something like Oprah’s a-ha moment? Noooh, because prostrating oneself before the Lobby can’t be anything less than a “profoundly” religious awakening that should leave one humbled, teary-eyed or blubbering.

    Reality check: It’s more like initiation into the cult that shields Zionism from all criticism. Zionism is INTOLERANT of any and all resistance. It cannot and should not be criticized and especially challenged. Hmmm, sounds like a new religion to me…

    ALL MUST SURRENDER (especially their brain) AT ITS ALTAR. Wow! Scaaaarey.

    • Woody Tanaka
      February 21, 2013, 3:58 pm

      kalithea, It’s just an expression that has a non-religious meaning, and I’m sure that’s what Schumer meant, and had no theological intent, no more so than someone who’s not Jewish referring to something as being “kosher” and not meaning according to the laws of Kashrut.

    • john h
      February 24, 2013, 3:53 am

      Exactly, kalithea. But don’t expect too many others to get your first paragraph.

  10. bob
    February 21, 2013, 3:54 pm

    Good article

    link to jewishpress.com

    …snip…

    Schumer provided inaccurate information about other matters Wednesday morning. He said that “there is not a major Jewish organization against Hagel.”

    That’s not true.

    The Zionist Organization of America and the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) have been on record opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel since President Obama first named him as his choice for secretary of Defense.

    The centrist American Jewish Committee has been at least softly opposed to Hagel’s nomination even before the nod was officially given by the president. Back in December, the AJC’s president, David Harris said, “what message would it send to have a Pentagon chief who has very different views on strategies for dealing with Iran, the central foreign policy challenge of our time, than the White House has had to date? Or questions the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist group at the same time the Administration is urging the European Union to add the group to its terrorism list?”

    And the politically centrist, Democratic Party-leaning Anti-Defamation League joined the AJC in strongly questioning the nomination after information about some of Hagel’s comments, in particular that he was recorded as saying that the “U.S. State Department is an adjunct of the Israeli Foreign Ministry,” at a speech at Rutgers University in 2007.

    AIPAC NOT TAKE POSITIONS ON NOMINATIONS
    Much has been made of the lack of opposition by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but AIPAC never takes a position on a political nomination. The absence of one in this situation should give no comfort to Hagel supporters, or signal anything else to those who have questions and are looking to organizational leadership for direction.

    A source close to AIPAC provided The Jewish Press with a lengthy explanation for why AIPAC was sitting out the Hagel debate.

    The celebration by the pro-Hagel sycophants suggesting that AIPAC’s long standing policy of not lobbying on nominations is somehow meaningful is truly evidence of how little they understand the organization or the pro-Israel community. AIPAC didn’t have to endorse Cynthia McKinney’s opponent for the pro-Israel community to know that she was hostile to Israel and favored terrorists and totalitarians and despots over democratic allies.

    To understand how AIPAC feels about people like Hagel and Cynthia McKinney, all one has to do is open their eyes. The organization’s longstanding policy not to rate or endorse candidates is the same as not lobbying on nominations.

    Chuck Hagel’s record on issues important to the pro-Israel community is dismal. He spent years literally bragging about it, and now he says there is not a shred of evidence to show that hostility. That comment is as sincere as his apology for his attacks on gay rights and on openly gay Americans. Likewise his slurs suggesting American Jews, who along with tens of millions of non-Jewish Americans are part of America’s the pro-Israel lobby, are somehow less than completely loyal to America, is truly disgusting and evidence of bigotry.

    So what organizations was Schumer thinking of that don’t oppose the Hagel nomination? Maybe he meant J Street or Jewish Voice for Peace.

    Then again, Schumer also predicted after his White House meet-up with Hagel that the nominee would wow the crowds at the confirmation hearings. Schumer said then, “he’s going to allay the concerns of many people.” True, but the senator probably did not mean allay the concerns of those who feared Chuck Hagel might become the U.S. secretary of defense.

    And there’s this: while Schumer described himself as having given a meaningful tutorial to Hagel on the anti-Semitic associations with dual loyalty and the pain caused by stereotyping, when Schumer – falsely – assured his audience Wednesday morning that “no major Jewish organizations oppose Hagel,” he then explained who did.

    “The main fight on Hagel is coming from the neocons, who you know well. And they resent Hagel’s apostasy on Iraq,” Schumer said. “You may remember — the neocons helped push Iraq — and Hagel was one of the first Republicans to say Iraq wasn’t working. And he was right. But that’s where it’s coming from.”

    Ah, yes, the evil neocons. Isn’t that a derogatory code word for a particular religious minority group?

  11. dbroncos
    February 21, 2013, 3:59 pm

    Hagel could have offered plenty of reasonable counter arguments to Schumer’s criticisms. He could have suggested that the injustice of the ongoing subjugation and destruction of Palestinian society is not and will never be justified by Jewish suffering in the past. He could have pointed to what US support for Israel has cost Americans, directly or indirectly (how many Iraq and Afghan war vets have committed suicide this month?). Instead, he chose to sit in his chair and cry. I wonder if the pain and suffering Hagel actually witnessed in Vietnam rendered a similar kind of submission and misty eyed surrender that he showed in Chuck Schumer’s office based on Schumer’s description of the history of the oppression of Jews in Russia?

    • Citizen
      February 22, 2013, 10:21 am

      @ dbroncos
      Look at the vast difference between Hagel’s life and Schumer’s. What they each suffered, and paid for–individually, directly, not as historical members of a group. Need I say more? Abstract suffering by association is just not the same as direct, personal suffering for whatever cause.

  12. bob
    February 21, 2013, 4:15 pm

    Phil Weiss:

    You know, the real meat of this story is on the dichotomy of power between the Christian Zionists, the GOP, and the Israeli lobby.

    You have covered how Hagel has appeased Schumer et. al. You have covered how his alleged “anti-Israeli” positions have been debunked, such as the USO port. You have covered how AIPAC backed off.

    What is interesting, is to see Daniel Pipes moan about how AIPAC is sitting on their hands, while CUFI is doing the heavy lifting. Combine that with the residual GOP rage from Hagel’s critical stances in years past that Jon Stewart covered last night.

    In other words, put in one list the people who’s butt Hagel kissed andwho backed off, and put on another list who is still furiously trying to knock off Hagel. This is a good way to visualize power. CUFI can’t do it. McCain can’t do it. Hagel felt no need to kiss their butts, either.

    • bob
      February 21, 2013, 6:38 pm

      Made a few revisions and forgot some edits.

      First sentence should read
      “You know, the real meat of this story is on how Hagel’s confirmation reflects power within the beltway between Christian Zionists, the GOP, and the Israeli lobby.”

      • Annie Robbins
        February 21, 2013, 7:34 pm

        bob, you might be interested in this link from the other day:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        btw, i am curious if you believe what pipes says is true, that aipac is “silent.”

      • bob
        February 21, 2013, 7:38 pm

        Annie:

        Thanks for the link. So far, there isn’t much to go on regarding AIPAC and Hagel. So far, Nightflower or not, I have to have some foundation to it. Right now, I see speculation that AIPAC is somehow not silent.

        In comparison, the Christian lobby seems ignored in comparison to how Hagel prostrated himself to people like Senator Schumer.

        I would love to see some new information that would change this perspective.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 21, 2013, 8:21 pm

        bob, there’s been so many posts about hagel unless you read the site regularly it’s easy to miss a lot of the information. i’d start w/alex’s article here:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        and open the links. the meaning of nightflower is they bloom in the dark. i assume you know the origin of that term wrt the lobby. there are also several good mjrosenberg posts about aipacs involvement w/hagel.

        wrt CUFI, did you open the last links in that hagee article. it explains the investment of israel in the christian zionist movement in this country, for the explicit purpose of providing support for israel, because obviously the potential support in terms of numbers is much greater in christians than jews. in this regard i think many activists and people who follow this topic (including me) think of CZ support as an extension of the lobby. therefore, in examples like the SNL link link to mondoweiss.net when they hear graham they see it as an extension of the lobby. so when hagee says they streamline the message where do you think the messgae comes from, when the executive director of CUFI is listed as one of the most powerful jews in the country?

        read the links in the last 2 paragraphs. millions have been invested by israel in nurturing the that community.

        there’s also a bunch of stuff in this old thread you may find interesting link to mondoweiss.net

      • bob
        February 22, 2013, 3:16 am

        Annie:

        I read this site regularly. I just do not post regularly. I like your articles.
        Let me ask you something. Make two lists list.

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

        Clearly the groups still fighting the nomination do not have the power to stop the nomination. The ones who Hagel placated and showed fealty to, did.

        Groups like CUFI are arguing, but they’re not going to be able to stop it. The Neoconservatives do not have the same access to power under Obama as they did under G. W. Bush.

        This is a terrific lens into power dynamics in the beltway today.

      • Hostage
        February 22, 2013, 4:59 am

        Groups like CUFI are arguing, but they’re not going to be able to stop it. The Neoconservatives do not have the same access to power under Obama as they did under G. W. Bush.

        The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), The American Jewish Committee (AJC), and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are still publicly opposing the Hagel nomination. Those are the major Jewish and Zionist groups that Hagel has pandered to in order to save his nomination:
        * Poll: A Plurality Of Americans Think Hagel A Bad Choice For Secretary Of Defense, February 21, 2013
        link to zoa.org
        *ZOA Praises ADL, AJC Call For Further Review of Hagel’s Record, February 20, 2013
        link to zoa.org

        P.S. The Republican Jewish Coalition is also still publicly opposed:
        *Hagel Reportedly Said US State Department Under the Control of Israel, RJC: Hagel must respond – before the Senate votes
        link to rjchq.org

      • bob
        February 22, 2013, 8:50 am

        Thats right, Hostage:

        I actually list the ZOA and others above at 3:54

        You also have a whole collection of Pro-Israeli groups and congress people senators who have turned around on Hagel, and Israeli representatives disagreeing how he was “bad for Israel.” There are a lot of these people. That said:

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

        Clearly the groups still fighting the nomination do not have the power to stop the nomination. The ones who Hagel placated and showed fealty to, did.

      • Citizen
        February 22, 2013, 10:30 am

        @ bob
        So, Liberals hold the sway in the Beltway? The fact that Obama has the popular vote?

      • bob
        February 22, 2013, 5:47 pm

        So, Liberals hold the sway in the Beltway?

        Obama isn’t a liberal, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
        I’m not sure why the conversation has to keep moving away from these two points.

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

      • peeesss
        February 22, 2013, 6:26 pm

        He groveled completely to the Jewish, Israeli, Zionist lobby. In particular to Graham and Cruz. He showed a litle spine to neo con McCain.

      • Hostage
        February 23, 2013, 1:10 am

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

        Clearly the groups still fighting the nomination do not have the power to stop the nomination. The ones who Hagel placated and showed fealty to, did.

        Hagel undoubtedly had to grovel to Schumer, Cardin, Boxer, Feinstein, Levin, Lautenberg, et al. and every one else who expressed some reservations over his stated positions. You can’t be more Catholic than the Pope, and CUFI can’t hold itself out as being more Zionist than Schumer. So Schumer has been a key endorsement. That being said, the Jewish groups aren’t necessarily trying to flip the votes of people like Schumer and Cardin at this point. They obviously want to lay down a marker and weaken Hagel politically, even if they can’t succeed in blocking his nomination. They did the same thing after Obama’s 2009 speech at the Cairo University and after his “1967 borders plus agreed swaps” speech in 2011.

        FYI, here’s B’nai Brith’s statement of on-going concern over the suitability of Hagel:
        *B’nai B’rith Urges Senators to Carefully Review Hagel Responses and Record Before Confirmation Vote for Defense Secretary
        link to bnaibrith.org

        So all of the mainstream Jewish Lobby organizations are still trying to keep things in an uproar.

      • bob
        February 23, 2013, 3:22 am

        Hostage: So all of the mainstream Jewish Lobby organizations are still trying to keep things in an uproar.

        Not all by a long shot. Its more of what Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post says, that the appointment is a move to the left. It is more than just the left, as we have even seen prominent Netanyahu mouthpieces accept Hagel. We even have official Israeli spokespeople publicly approve of Hagel. So, what is going on here?

        From your words, and people you miss, its not all mainstream Jewish Lobby organizatons. Your words:

        grovel to Schumer, Cardin, Boxer, Feinstein, Levin, Lautenberg, et al. and every one else who expressed some reservations over his stated positions.

        You had a very visible shift of support to Hagel in he media. You see a break where Jewish lobby figures that are associated with the Democratic party, you know, the party where “2/3 of Democratic money comes from Jewish donors” or 60 percent of the money raised from private sources, have lined up to support Hagel. In fact, the senate confirmation was an effort by the congresspeople to gain access</a< to some of this money.

        Even some conservative pro-Israeli lobby organizations have taken positions that have backed away from removing him as an option. Let us not forget that Obama made an effort to assuage AIPAC, and that White House lobbying of AIPAC may explain why group is not going great guns so far against Hagel nomination. Let us also recall that Hagel prostrated himself in front of the lobby for votes. AIPAC is the key group here, and people are speculating what it is that they are doing. MJ Rosenberg, as mentioned on this site, suggests AIPAC “chooses to keep the Hagel onslaught going in order to show who is in charge. “This is what we can do.” No doubt that message has been received in all the right places. Jim Lobe gives a laundry list of reasons why AIPAC has pulled back. So, while AIPAC have their fingerprints on the smear Hagel campaign, they have backed off for strategic reasons. These reasons certainly remind us of the lessons AIPAC learned in 1992, and they extend to some other high profile right-wing lobby organizations. The RJC, similarly, are letting it go through, but they want to make an example. The Republican Jewish Committee wanted a “very difficult and bruising nomination battle.” Very tough warning.” Neoconservative Ari Fleischer is angrily resigned to it. The language I do not see here is to stop it. Even the confirmation hearing was seen as a visible attempt of making this pain visible was to reinforce behind the scenes deals. It is to make an example from a candidate they are letting through.

      • Hostage
        February 23, 2013, 5:53 pm

        Not all by a long shot.

        It’s time for you start answering some questions instead of just asking them. If you don’t consider the B’nai B’rith, the ADL, the AJC, and the ZOA to be the major organs of “the Jewish Lobby”, then who are you talking about exactly? Why would AIPAC need to lift a finger when the Jewish Lobby and its constituency are in full “dog whistle” mode?

        Hagel didn’t have to grovel before Steve Clemons or Ari Fleischer, because they don’t have a vote (or dues paying members).

        The fact is that he was required to repeatedly and publicly repudiate any positions or statements that these Jewish organizations disliked regarding the possibility of the use of a force against Iran, and the unconditional nature of US government support for Israel.

        Those groups will still be able to use their political clout to undermine any administration policy or official, including Hagel, once he is confirmed.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 23, 2013, 9:39 pm

        Annie:…..Let me ask you something.

        not til you answer my question first bob. again:

        when they hear graham they see it as an extension of the lobby. so when hagee says they streamline the message where do you think the messgae comes from, when the executive director of CUFI is listed as one of the most powerful jews in the country?

        you first!

      • bob
        February 24, 2013, 5:46 am

        It’s time for you start answering some questions instead of just asking them. If you don’t consider the B’nai B’rith, the ADL, the AJC, and the ZOA to be the major organs of “the Jewish Lobby”, then who are you talking about exactly? Why would AIPAC need to lift a finger when the Jewish Lobby and its constituency are in full “dog whistle” mode?

        Reread my post. Especially this part.

        Even some conservative pro-Israeli lobby organizations have taken positions that have backed away from removing him as an option. Let us not forget that Obama made an effort to assuage AIPAC, and that White House lobbying of AIPAC may explain why group is not going great guns so far against Hagel nomination. Let us also recall that Hagel prostrated himself in front of the lobby for votes. AIPAC is the key group here, and people are speculating what it is that they are doing. MJ Rosenberg, as mentioned on this site, suggests AIPAC “chooses to keep the Hagel onslaught going in order to show who is in charge. “This is what we can do.” No doubt that message has been received in all the right places. Jim Lobe gives a laundry list of reasons why AIPAC has pulled back. So, while AIPAC have their fingerprints on the smear Hagel campaign, they have backed off for strategic reasons. These reasons certainly remind us of the lessons AIPAC learned in 1992, and they extend to some other high profile right-wing lobby organizations. The RJC, similarly, are letting it go through, but they want to make an example. The Republican Jewish Committee wanted a “very difficult and bruising nomination battle.” Very tough warning.” Neoconservative Ari Fleischer is angrily resigned to it. The language I do not see here is to stop it. Even the confirmation hearing was seen as a visible attempt of making this pain visible was to reinforce behind the scenes deals. It is to make an example from a candidate they are letting through.

        ——————————————-

        Annie:

        not til you answer my question first bob. again:

        Look above at my post to Hostage.

        If yo can provide some new substantive info. I’m all ears.

        So far, this is clear and the information is all over this site, its just not put together to show how in a neat location, the groups who were placated and assuaged, and the groups people ignore because they dont have power.

        Whats Phil’s new article?

        Elliott and Rachel Abrams try to sound like… liberal Zionists

        The neocons are scurrying left, because they realize that their little platform on the right is dissolving. Last week Chuck Schumer condemned the neocons– his former buddies on Iraq, he threw them under the bus. So is it any surprise that Elliott Abrams is praising Yair Lapid’s centrist surge in Israel, speaking on New York’s public radio station? And distancing himself from the settler movement that he stood up for again and again under George W. Bush.

        Exactly what I said above.

        Theyre ignored because they dont have access to power. No need to kiss their butts.

        This isnt exactly a controversial statement I’m making, its just not synthesized in to a neat package. Hostage and Annie, reread my points here.

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

        Clearly the groups still fighting the nomination do not have the power to stop the nomination. The ones who Hagel placated and showed fealty to, did.

        This speaks, directly, to the power dyamic inside the beltway today.
        Neoconservatives do not have the same access to power under Obama as they did under G. W. Bush. I’ve cited reasons above. Just to put it here again

        Obama made an effort to assuage AIPAC, and that White House lobbying of AIPAC may explain why group is not going great guns so far against Hagel. Hagel prostrated himself in front of the lobby for votes.

        AIPAC “chooses to keep the Hagel onslaught going in order to show who is in charge. “This is what we can do.” No doubt that message has been received in all the right places. Jim Lobe gives a laundry list of reasons why AIPAC has pulled back. So, while AIPAC have their fingerprints on the smear Hagel campaign, they have backed off for strategic reasons. These reasons certainly remind us of the lessons AIPAC learned in 1992, and they extend to some other high profile right-wing lobby organizations. The RJC, similarly, are letting it go through, but they want to make an example. The Republican Jewish Committee wanted a “very difficult and bruising nomination battle.” Very tough warning.” Neoconservative Ari Fleischer is angrily resigned to it. The language I do not see here is to stop it. Even the confirmation hearing was seen as a visible attempt of making this pain visible was to reinforce behind the scenes deals. It is to make an example from a candidate they are letting through.

        You had a very visible shift of support to Hagel in he media. You see a break where Jewish lobby figures that are associated with the Democratic party, you know, the party where “2/3 of Democratic money comes from Jewish donors” or 60 percent of the money raised from private sources, have lined up to support Hagel. In fact, the senate confirmation was an effort by the congresspeople to gain access to some of this money. (sources above)

      • bob
        February 24, 2013, 11:50 am

        Annie:

        Let me simplify this. I really feel we are running parallel here. You links from AIPAC to CUFI does not prove total control from AIPAC. I don’t think you suggest this. In fact, I think you would agree with my point below

        Lets move forward and assume there is solid proof that AIPAC directly controls CUFI.

        Moving forward, the links above show how AIPAC has backed off, and are letting the nomination go through. Yet, AIPAC et. al. are strategically using pain in this nomination. They are letting the nom through, but they are using an overall strategy to make this a difficult process. AIPAC is not alone in this.

        Under this strategy, you can let the “useful idiots” out to run a full ahead campaign. These less powerful groups can, because they lack the teeth to stop the nomination. They can only inflict pain.

        So, I think everyone can agree that breaking this down into 1) who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination, and 2) what groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination lets you see power in the beltway.

        This is especially important as I see a growing strategy to use the useful idiots, like CUFI, to take the focus off groups like AIPAC, so the nightflower can do its work.

        So, lets break this down. This is very helpful to visualize power within the beltway.

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

      • bob
        February 24, 2013, 5:27 pm

        (Your comment is awaiting moderation.)

        I’m not sure why other posts are getting though, but my responses here have been hung up since this morning. Perhaps I need to resubmit? If not, then delete anything you find redundant, mod.

        Hostage: Ill summarize the comments that are hung up in moderation.
        Rerear my post, I answer points, and it is far more complex than So all of the mainstream Jewish Lobby organizations are still trying to keep things in an uproar.
        Also, read below.

        ——

        Annie:

        Let me simplify this. I really feel we are running parallel here. You links from AIPAC to CUFI does not prove total control from AIPAC. I don’t think you suggest this. In fact, I think you would agree with my point below

        Lets move forward and assume there is solid proof that AIPAC directly controls CUFI.

        Moving forward, the links above show how AIPAC has backed off, and are letting the nomination go through. Yet, AIPAC et. al. are strategically using pain in this nomination. They are letting the nom through, but they are using an overall strategy to make this a difficult process. AIPAC is not alone in this.

        Under this strategy, you can let the “useful idiots” out to run a full ahead campaign. These less powerful groups can, because they lack the teeth to stop the nomination. They can only inflict pain.

        So, I think everyone can agree that breaking this down into 1) who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination, and 2) what groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination lets you see power in the beltway.

        This is especially important as I see a growing strategy to use the useful idiots, like CUFI, to take the focus off groups like AIPAC, so the nightflower can do its work.

        So, lets break this down. This is very helpful to visualize power within the beltway.

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

      • Annie Robbins
        February 24, 2013, 5:52 pm

        • Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?

        i don’t think he had to grovel to anyone for the nomination, i think he was top pick. i have stated before (twice at least) hagel’s MO at the hearing was likely orchestrated by specialists at the white house for the benefit of an appearance most likely to succeed, and create less ammunition for his detractors in the senate. probably with the tv public too. so i don’t really perceive, what you’re characterizing as a ‘groveling’ as indeed groveling. i think he’s putting on an act and probably has no problem personally with taking the advice of the experts as to how to appear. he knows it’s in the bag.

        • What groups remain unsatisfied and are still fighting the nomination?

        i think the lobby is very much remains unsatisfied. they’ve chosen to remain in the back seat (some of them) to save face, because they know what everyone else knows, it’s in the bag. it’s probably being stretched out to get more concessions out of the WH.or something.

      • bob
        February 24, 2013, 6:05 pm

        Annie:

        I find it extremely difficult to have a discussion where my replies take either a very long time to get approved, or are stuck awaiting moderation. I have sent you an email. I hope to continue this there.

        i don’t think he had to grovel to anyone for the nomination
        White House and Hagel sourced above making concessions. There are many links above regarding those events.

        i think the lobby is very much remains unsatisfied. they’ve chosen to remain in the back seat (some of them) to save face

        To be clear, the lobby is a loose coalition, and it is a group that disagrees with each other at times. People with pro-Israeli interests are certainly disagreeing now. Why?

        That is the key part of you are missing. Who are those people, and how does that speak to power?

      • sardelapasti
        February 24, 2013, 6:13 pm

        Bob – “Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to for nomination?”

        Obama and his owners, duh.
        I think you want to reword as “Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to at the committee hearings”

      • bob
        February 24, 2013, 6:39 pm

        sardelapasti :

        That is definitely a valid point, but it also goes outside of the hearing. “enforcing Sen. Schumer’s ‘behind the scenes’ deal with Hagel”

        But, there is more. You have the very visible shift of support to Hagel in he media. You have how the Hagel hearing was senators’ audition for donors. You have White House lobbying of AIPAC . AIPAC’s dislike for the limelight on this very well publicized fight is important here, too.

      • Hostage
        February 24, 2013, 8:42 pm

        Reread my post. Especially this part.

        Your analysis misses the point that the goal of these lobbies is to control the agenda on their issues, regardless of who gets appointed.

        It wasn’t in their interest to waste their political capital derailing the Hagel nomination at the risk of waging another battle over the person Obama might choose to replace him.

        The fact is that Obama and Hagel have capitulated and publicly subscribed to the Lobby’s view on the all of the key issues that are near and dear to the Lobby’s heart.

      • Avi_G.
        February 25, 2013, 12:39 am

        bob says:
        February 24, 2013 at 6:05 pm

        I find it extremely difficult to have a discussion where my replies take either a very long time to get approved, or are stuck awaiting moderation. I have sent you an email. I hope to continue this there.

        bob, forget about having a discussion. It would be nice if initial comments were approved in a timely manner (At least within 5 hours) instead of awaiting moderation NEVER to be approved.

        Something happens on weekends and some of my comments just sit there awaiting moderation and waiting, and waiting. I still have comments from three weeks ago that are awaiting moderation.

        As I understand it, Annie is not the only moderator. So, I wouldn’t single her out.

        Anyway, usually when a comment is in violation of the policy, the moderator deletes it and it disappears, which has only happened to me twice or thrice, four times at the most.

        But, that is not the case here.

        And yes, it is very frustrating, to say the least.

      • Hostage
        February 25, 2013, 1:05 am

        I think you want to reword as “Who was Hagel compelled to grovel to at the committee hearings”

        To be blunt, the Constitution does stipulate that the Senate must advise and consent to the appointment. It is traditional for the nominee to “make the rounds” and to grovel or pander to the Senators holding the swing votes in person.

      • bob
        February 25, 2013, 2:21 pm

        This statement will be the last one from me, since it takes so long to get a message through, if it gets through at all.

        Hostage: Your analysis misses the point that the goal of these lobbies is to control the agenda on their issues, regardless of who gets appointed.

        The “lobby” is not in lockstep here. That is a key point. See below.

        Hostage: So all of the mainstream Jewish Lobby organizations are still trying to keep things in an uproar.

        This statement is incorrect. All pro-Israeli groups are not in unison here.

        You can see who was assuaged and who wasn’t and look at power in the beltway.

      • Hostage
        February 25, 2013, 11:21 pm

        The “lobby” is not in lockstep here.

        Why don’t you want to admit that the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and the B’nai Brith, are the organs of “the Jewish Lobby” that Hegal offended? Unlike AIPAC and CUFI, there just aren’t any Christian Zionists in their ranks or controlling their agendas. Other than JVP and J-Street, “the Jewish Lobby” is in perfect lockstep on a joint approach to the nomination and to the underlying policies on Iran and the special relationship with Israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        February 26, 2013, 1:16 am

        I still have comments from three weeks ago that are awaiting moderation.

        avi, i just saw this comment here. if you have a comment from weeks ago, or even 5 hrs ago, put a ‘reply’ below it. the reply will go to the top of the list. comments that are buried 3 weeks back no moderator will ever see unless they happen to be on the thread.

        more importantly if you are on the site at a time comments are clearing, that is a good time to alert a mod you have an old comment waiting. sometimes there are pockets (pages) of comments that get ‘lost’. i saw a comment today from cliff, one minute after another of his, complaining about it not being cleared. link to mondoweiss.net

        one minute time? wtf. so yes comments often go 5 hrs because as far as i know the site doesn’t have the funds to hire 24/7 mods. i don’t think paid mods exist (or if they do it’s news to me). it’s all a labor of love for the comment section. sorry it’s not good enough. don’t know what else to say.

  13. Elliot
    February 21, 2013, 5:21 pm

    P.S. Schumer has said that his name means Guardian in Hebrew; and he’s Israel’s Guardian.
    Typical Zionist anachronism. Schumer is Yiddish not Hebrew.
    Sounds like he cobbled that together from nothing. His ancestors in Europe were likely shoe makers along with Schumacher and Schumann.
    link to houseofnames.com

  14. James Canning
    February 21, 2013, 5:39 pm

    Schumer thinks “everyone could live in Moscow, except Jewish people”? Rubbish. Central Asians were not allowed to live in Moscow, or Leningrad. After they completed their years of conscriptive labor building facilities in those cities (and others).

  15. James Canning
    February 21, 2013, 5:42 pm

    I think Schumer was correct to cite the neocons as the primary opponents of the Hagel nomination for Defence.
    Schumer, of course, would not want to discuss the fact the neocons set up the illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq, as a way to “protect” Israel.

  16. ToivoS
    February 21, 2013, 6:38 pm

    Funny Schumer would mention that Jews were not allowed to live in certain cities in 19th century Russia. Yes that was discrimination. Now how many cities in Israel ban Palestinian residence? How many neighborhoods in Jeursalem and Tel Aviv are completely free of Palestinians?

    If Hagel shed any tears listening to this bullsh*t then it must have but been due to exasperation and frustration of having to submit himself to such humiliation.

    • talknic
      February 22, 2013, 7:18 am

      … and how many neighbourhoods in Palestine are completely free of Palestinians

  17. American
    February 22, 2013, 9:47 am

    “I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative”..Schumer

    So, so, so bizarre…….of course it’s a ‘negative’ you idiot……’the lobby’ is people with the privilege of US citizenship who literally lobby for a Foreign Country’s benefit EVEN when it is detrimental to the US……who demand billions of taxpayers money for ‘their people’ and ‘only’ their people in Israel, they dont lobby for anything for America or Americans benefit.
    The “Lobby is what leads to Hoyer telling Israel the dire financial straits of Americans won’t means any cuts in aids for Israel….that’s not a huge Negative for Americans?
    The old ”nation within a nation” canard isn’t a canard for the Lobby and the Zionist…it’s a real practice and belief.

  18. Citizen
    February 22, 2013, 10:38 am

    Always fun to see Jewish Zionists like Schumer play with the likes of all-American Hagel. Shows what you need to pursue in college to be a player, not a tool goy dufus.

  19. EUR1069
    February 22, 2013, 10:42 am

    They won’t rest until the humiliate Hagel to the bone & drag him through the mud. Like they would say in the CSI: “it’s personal now.”

Leave a Reply