Israel & intelligence (merged thread)

[sullygoarmy]

Tom,
I figured some had already read it or reviewed it. I agree 100%. While I wasn't surprised at the reactions, it did catch me off guard was the ferocity of some of the attacks. A good, open debate can only help us in the long run, whether the political action committees agree or not.

[Granite_State]

from an earlier thread:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

[bourbon]

from an earlier thread:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Thanks, haven't looked at that in some time. George Washington was no stranger to the spy game either, he probably is the grandfather of American Intelligence.

There is one evil I dread, and that is, their spies. I could wish, therefore, the most attentive watch be kept . . .
—George Washington, March 24, 1776

Even though the book starts out by and repeating throughout the right for Israel to exist as a state, they were instantly labeled as anti-semetic and forced to cancel some of their lectures. As you can imagine, the book received instant fire from pro-Israel lobby groups. Really ashame because the book asks some hard questions and can serve as the basis for some really great discussion points.

My fear is what may happen several presidential election cycles down the road, when a critical mass builds, and the public's eyes are really opened to the depths of Israeli influence on our policy making process. I'm talking about the non book reading, which is most of it, those who don't read wonky rags like The London Review of Books or follow issues like the Middle East or counterintelligence.

I fear potential backlash against Jewish Americans. The Israel lobby would likely argue that potential backlash is exactly why articles Walt and Mearsheimer, and especially Ketchum's need to be suppressed. I would argue that it should be ironed out now to defuze any future scenario.

[Render]

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1446

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1105

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1099

http://www.nysun.com/national/harvar...i-sites/29741/

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar...nion/oe-boot29

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1143...ays_us_opinion

http://arab-lobby.blogspot.com/

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2007/usa.html

http://www.think-israel.org/plaut.cockburn.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...6-C50822DE1FBC

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6444

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/m...-disciple.html

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1894


There might be a few valid reasons for the labels.

JUST
A
FEW,
R

[selil]

snippage...

There might be a few valid reasons for the labels.

JUST
A
FEW,
R

For or against, a bunch of activist websites, blogs, and opinion pages aren't going to change many people minds.

The original article as quoted was filled with heavy citations (trust me when I say that is just as suspect). For or against, the level needed to answer or criticize the Kennedy organizations article must be of at least the same quality.

[Render]

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/research/...owitzreply.pdf

"In his response, Professor Alan Dershowitz demonstrates that the paper contains three types of major errors: quotations are wrenched out of context, important facts are misstated or omitted; and embarrassingly weak logic is employed. One of the authors of this paper has acknowledged that “none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews.”

SERIOUSLY,
R

[Ken White]

...There might be a few valid reasons for the labels.

JUST
A
FEW,
R

It would be much better if you were to post a comment in your own words to explain why you thought so. Just posting a slew of links that may or may not support a position you appear to espouse is a poor technique and is discouraged here; that kind of stuff belongs on the juvenile political blogs.

It would be appreciated if you'd refrain from the practice in the future.

Thanks

Ken

[Tom Odom]

Rather than wade through the links offered, let me just say that in trying to debate the idea that an Israeli Lobby exists and has extraordinary effect on US policies in the region, offering a series of counterpoint articles from CAMERA or a Neocon like Max Boot is a predictable tactic, one that largely buttresses what the two authors originally had to say.

Central to most of those critics is the idea that it is anti-semitic to criticize Israeli policies in the US. One of Israel's strengths has been an active debate on the very same issues within Israeli society.


It is also useful to look at the authors' rebuttal to what their critics put forward.

The Israel Lobby
From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt

We wrote ‘The Israel Lobby’ in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. We have also been gratified by the many positive responses we have received, and by the thoughtful commentary that has begun to emerge in the media and the blogosphere. It is clear that many people – including Jews and Israelis – believe that it is time to have a candid discussion of the US relationship with Israel. It is in that spirit that we engage with the letters responding to our article. We confine ourselves here to the most salient points of dispute.

Tom

[bourbon]

Former Senior CIA Operative Says Spy Agency, State Dept. Are Antisemitic, By Jeff Stein. Congressional Quarterly: Spy Talk, October 23, 2008.

Clare M. Lopez, who spent 20 years as an operative in Africa, Latin America and the Balkans, charged in an interview that "a terrible strain of anti-Semitism...has taken root and grown in the ranks of our State Department and CIA in particular."

"U.S. Middle East policy is woefully misguided, in my opinion. How could it be otherwise?" Lopzez said in an interview with the Canada Free Press web site.

"Thirty-five years of graduates from Saudi-Wahhabi-Salafi-funded Ivy League Middle East Studies programs now occupy top positions throughout our Department of State, Intelligence Community, think tanks, media, and academia itself," Lopez said.

Secretary Rice anti-Israel? Not to sound crass, but its too bad she isn't.

Syria has a proven track record of destroying Salafi Jihadists and provided intelligence that saved American lives in the wake of 9/11. Their cooperation in the reconstruction of Iraq could have easily been secured. So if Secretary Rice were indeed anti-Israel, we would not favoring regime change in Syria and subsequently not be on the side of the same guys responsible for 9/11.