Here is a perfect example of the trend I was talking about earlier, which makes it impossible for Israel lobbyists to use the term "antisemite" to stop their critics: good Mark Shields criticizing Israel on the News Hour last night. Shields's statements underline my point that There are many, many secret sharers in Washington of Chas Freeman's view that Israel has gone off a cliff, taking us with it. Is Shields an antisemite? No one would ever accuse him of that! Shields:
I think there's no question Charles
Freeman had made statements which gave his critics and his opponents
ammunition.
But I think that for somebody to express as he did the very factual statement
that the oppression and brutalization of the Palestinians was not only not
right, but was not in the long-term interest of — an occupation was not in the
long-term interest of the state of Israel or the United States of America was
speaking very truthfully.
And I think that that — he was doing a service to both Israel and to America
and to peace by so doing.
I think that the administration, when David Broder called to find out, as the
nomination was still very active, very alive, if they still supported him and
said, "We'll get back to you on that," did not cover itself with either glory or
courage in the way they handled it. If they wanted to drop him, drop him, but
don't pretend that he's not your choice.
Oppression and brutalization. Would Shields have said this stuff before? I think not. I think Walt and Mearsheimer, and Jimmy Carter, and Iraq and Gaza, and now Chas Freeman, are giving the secret sharers more and more freedom to come out and call a spade a spade.
Which is why I think that AIPAC, which is completely on the defensive on this issue, and anyone who's charted the three-year curve here knows that it will only get worse, should invite Mearsheimer and Walt to a debate at the May policy conference. It would be a, electrifying, and b, would put AIPAC on the high ground, willing to debate the issue on its merits. (Thanks to Yakov for tip.)
