Mandatory Reading For Anyone Interested in the Middle East: The Israeli Lobby

[Rex Brynen]

An interesting tidbit from the Jerusalem Post:

Jan 12, 2009 14:26 | Updated Jan 12, 2009 19:09
PM: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday referred to the US decision to abstain from Thursday's UN Security Council resolution vote calling for a Gaza cease-fire, saying US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was left quite embarrassed, not voting for a resolution that she herself had prepared and organized."

...

"Early Friday morning [Israel time], [we knew that] the secretary of state was considering bringing the cease-fire resolution to a UNSC vote and we didn't want her to vote for it. Suddenly, within ten minutes it became clear that, the vote was going ahead.

"I [called the White House and] said, 'Get President Bush on the phone.' They tried, and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I'm not interested, I need to speak to him now.' He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote for it. She was left quite embarrassed."

[Tom Odom]

Pretty much classic, Rex. Arrogance and ignorance are always great partners.

Tom

[bourbon]

Lobby? What Lobby?, by Michael Scheuer. Antiwar.com, February 10, 2009.

My speech seemed well received, but in January I received a call from Jamestown's president telling me I had been terminated as a senior fellow by the Foundation's board of directors. Why, I asked? He responded by citing my comments about Obama doing the "Tel Aviv two-step" and my description of Emanuel's record, both of which he said might be in a speech by Rep. Ron Paul. My remarks about Emanuel apparently sparked particular anger among the Foundation's directors, as Jamestown's president referred to them at least three times in a short telephone conversation. In any event, the president said several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding if I remained a senior fellow, so I was getting the boot. Then he added that my every-other-week essays for Jamestown's Terrorism Focus had attracted readers and praise for the Foundation, so the directors said I could keep writing for the journal. I declined this honor, which seemingly was a bribe made in the hope that I would not speak publicly about being terminated as a senior fellow for saying the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security.

It is disappointing to see this at The Jamestown Foundation, which I see as one of the better think tanks.

[Rex Brynen]

Impartiality Questioned, Intelligence Pick Pulls Out
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A04

Charles W. Freeman Jr. withdrew yesterday from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council after questions about his impartiality were raised among members of Congress and with White House officials.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said he accepted Freeman's decision "with great regret." The withdrawal came hours after Blair had given a spirited defense on Capitol Hill of the outspoken former ambassador.

Freeman had come under fire for statements he had made about Israeli policies and for his past connections to Saudi and Chinese interests.

Freeman's own frank comment on his withdrawal here.

[Entropy]

It's too bad, I think Freeman would have been a good pick.

[Ron Humphrey]

What were the complaints or supposed issues with him?

[Entropy]

His critics made two claims:

1. He was too critical or even hostile to Israel.
2. He was not trustworthy because he worked for Chinese/Saudi entities.

On the first count, that is a matter of perspective, but those who are the most supportive of Israel are the people who most opposed this appointment. His comments in the link Rex provides are pretty frank on that score.

On the second count, he denies it. I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. A lot of it seems to come down to interpretation of a few select comments he made in the past - quotes which he and DNI Blair say were taken out of context.

[Ron Humphrey]

His critics made two claims:

1. He was too critical or even hostile to Israel.
2. He was not trustworthy because he worked for Chinese/Saudi entities.

On the first count, that is a matter of perspective, but those who are the most supportive of Israel are the people who most opposed this appointment. His comments in the link Rex provides are pretty frank on that score.

On the second count, he denies it. I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. A lot of it seems to come down to interpretation of a few select comments he made in the past - quotes which he and DNI Blair say were taken out of context.

Just wondering if anyone here actually knew of anything specific

[Rex Brynen]

An interest commentary on Chas Freeman by his son can be found online at the Washington Note: Fathers and Sons: A Spirited Defense of Chas Freeman by his Politically Divergent Son.

Stephen's Walt's comment at Foreign Policy is also interesting: On Chas Freeman's Withdrawal.

[George L. Singleton]

Egypt and Jordan have seen the light and are working with both Israel and the US.

Syria is having every week of late meeting with Israeli officials on the sidelines.

Lebanon's Christian minority government has long tried to get along with Israel, but the last few years of insanity, driven in my view by the radicals, not by Israel, has made moderation and common sense almost impossible in Lebanon.

Then their is gloomy Gus, Iran.

All of the them vs. us in the Middle East remains focused around religion and who gets what, especially the right(s) to Jerusalem.

[Ken White]

downright supportive of folks who do not toe the party line.

Washington -- which hates people who do not toe lines -- could do with a few more rebels with or without causes. We've had three Administrations in a row which put way too big a premium on 'loyalty' (or subservience...).

I think Freeman's disposed to throw a grenade or two to see if everyone is paying attention. Nothing wrong with that...

[Tom Odom]

downright supportive of folks who do not toe the party line.

Washington -- which hates people who do not toe lines -- could do with a few more rebels with or without causes. We've had three Administrations in a row which put way too big a premium on 'loyalty' (or subservience...).

I think Freeman's disposed to throw a grenade or two to see if everyone is paying attention. Nothing wrong with that...

Agreed, Ken. As NIC chair he is supposed to think outside the proverbial box especially when sitting on an NIE panel. That keeps the process somewhat honest rather than it becoming a directed exercise with a pre-determined conclusion.

Best
Tom

[Jedburgh]

ISN Security Watch, 17 Mar 09: Costs of War: The Israel Debate

.....Freeman says the episode "raises some important issues for the country […]. The standard that has been established [by my critics] is the same as the one established by the Bush administration: Tell us what we want to hear."

His critics, he charges, "seem to regard intelligence not as information relevant to statecraft but rather as information […] to be mined for use in supporting political polemics from pre-determined positions."

Freeman says the episode has damaged the chances that the administration will be able to appoint anyone else with controversial views to such a post. What his critics seem to be demanding, he says, is "a vanilla personality who will dutifully articulate, in language as banal as possible, whatever the conventional thinking of the day happens to be."

Such an exercise, he argues, vitiates the very point of the post.

"If the answers (to policymakers’ questions) are pre-determined by politics, if only a politically correct answer is acceptable, why bother doing analysis at all?"

[bourbon]

Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC, By Jeff Stein. CQ Politics, April 19, 2009.

It’s true that allegations of pro-Israel lobbyists trying to help Harman get the chairmanship of the intelligence panel by lobbying and raising money for Pelosi aren’t new.

They were widely reported in 2006, along with allegations that the FBI launched an investigation of Harman that was eventually dropped for a “lack of evidence.”

What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.

And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being “no evidence” to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that “bull****.”

[goesh]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080189.html

Report: Olmert, Livni may face war crimes charges in Norway

-another spoon to stir the little pot with

[jmm99]

A certain segment of the I Law "community" considers I Law to be incorporated into domestic (national) law en masse.

Another segment (the traditional US approach) looks at incorporation of I Law as a selective process, on say a treaty by treaty basis - and, in the case of the US, subject to override by the Constitution and by subsequent legislation. As such, when the US adopts I Law, it is treated like any other domestic law.

Based on the Israeli cases on targeted killings (which I've referenced somewhere in SWC), Israel appears to have followed more of an en masse approach in adopting I Law - as part of its organic, constitutional framework.

What the Norwegian lawyers are arguing is the concept of "universal jurisdiction" to try war crimes by any nation - whether it is directly affected or not. What this boils down to is that any investigating judge in a Code Law jurisdiction - or a prosecutor in a Common Law jurisdiction - can generate quite a bit of publicity and political spin if a broad "universal jurisdiction" is accepted in that jurisdiction.

[Danny]

The authors go only so far and are unable to close the deal. Several observations here.

First, the authors repeatedly cite "the Lobby," as if some sort of diabolical plot is being directed against U.S. interests. They, like most people, have no idea where this comes from. Since this thread has been started and feelings will no doubt be hurt regardless of what position a post takes, I'll go ahead and weigh in.

There is something called Dispensationalism, which while it had earlier Church fathers, has its beginnings in the later Church by Charles G. Finney, with American fathers such as Scofield. It currently emanates from Dallas Theological Seminary. It believes, among many other complicated things, that Israel holds a special place in God's eyes, and that His people are dealt with differently in different dispensations. A literal thousand year reign will occur in Jerusalem in the future, and the only reason that America has stayed safe is because of its protection of Israel.

It is a sort of Zionistic Christianity, and while I am a Christian (of the reformational persuasion, i.e., Calvinian), I do certaintly do not adhere to this system of belief. I personally believe that it is badly mistaken, and poor and illogical hermeneutics. It was made popular in the revivalistic era, tent meetings and the like, and - listen carefully to me now - Protestant Christianity in America is SHOT FULL OF THIS THINKING. The importance of this is impossible to underestimate. I could line up quotes ten miles long, but you will simply have to take my word for this in lieu of having the time to prove my point.

The point is that the politicians, regardless of whomever they turn to, many of them, have a constituency that believes in the special place Israel holds. Large swaths of the South, much of the midwest and rural West, believe these things.

Israel policy is fabricated to appease this constituency, not the Israel lobby, or to cite the frantic and confused paper above, "the Lobby." "The Lobby" would be utterly powerless without American Christianity having been so heavily influenced by Dispensationalism. "The Lobby" rides the coattails of this belief system in America. It might be a well kept secret among military types, but real students of American culture know these thing. Again, I could line of the quotes until I put to you sleep, and list books until your eyes went red. Do make me have to do this.

Now. While I do not hold to this view in the least, I will also observe that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and our only ally. That has counted for something among those who don't hold the religious views I explain above.

As for the charges that the U.S. has suffered strategic liability for our support of Israel, that's just plain juvenile. Our dependence on oil is a choice we have made as a result of environmentalist lobbying and reluctance to pursue other energy infrastructure such as nuclear / hydrogen. To blame oil embargos on support for Israel is like getting mad at the police when they shut down your favorite dope dealer. The solution is to get off of the dope.

As for the shared terrorist threat, I believe, whether you agree or disagree, that the militant Islamists would target the U.S. anyway for dual but at times paradoxical reasons. They hate us when our country behaves like Christians because they (according to their belief system, whether shared by other Muslims or not) must convert us, forcibly if necessary.

Paradoxically, when we behave like pagans as we are prone to do with the Hollywood trash traveling across the globe to their children, they see us as polluters of their culture and religion. And we are.

We don't have to be aligned with Israel for them to hate us. All we need is the church and Hollywood, and we have lots of both. Globalization does it for us. Trash spews from U.S. TV studios, not just Israeli TV studios.

This was neither intended to be a pro-Isael or anti-Israel diatribe, nor an anti-Muslim diatribe, nor a call to jettison support for Israel or continue support for Israel, nor a call to go to war or sit doing nothing. Nor am I defending Congressmen or charging them.

What I am trying to do is explain better than the paper does where the real seed of support for Israel comes from in the U.S. (even if I don't support this view), and where the hatred of the West comes from. Many readers will be aghast at finding out that it doesn't all revolve around Israel. Their favorite whipping boy isn't really who they think it is.

The paper was sophomoric, and the authors should have done better research. Most college kids can Google Dispensationalism, Charles G. Finney, Scofield, Dallas Theological Seminary, and so forth, and attend a few Sundays in Baptist and Pentacostal Churches. If I'm the professor, the paper gets an F. I offer this as a clinical assessment, not having a dog in this fight. My point is entirely academic, not personal. Again, I am not a believer in this line of thinking. I am just a good and astute observer of what goes on around me.

[Ken White]

...The point is that the politicians, regardless of whomever they turn to, many of them, have a constituency that believes in the special place Israel holds. Large swaths of the South, much of the midwest and rural West, believe these things.

True and more important due to numbers than the so-called Jewish lobby. Recall the Presidents that have been the greatest supporters of Israel; Truman, Johnson and Carter...

The latter spent a great deal of our money in order to defang Israel's most dangerous enemy. His latter day shenanigans to justify his Nobel not withstanding.

Paradoxically, when we behave like pagans as we are prone to do with the Hollywood trash traveling across the globe to their children, they see us as polluters of their culture and religion. And we are.

Also true and far more important to them than the Israel / Palestine issue.

Many readers will be aghast at finding out that it doesn't all revolve around Israel. Their favorite whipping boy isn't really who they think it is.

Yep. A whole lot of people are focusing on the wrong targets. Plural...

Good comment, Herschel

[Danny]

Thanks for the props, Ken. I have noticed over time that no matter how good an analyst is, the more s/he tends to focus on beltway issues and thinking, the less s/he tends to truly understand the people and thus the real source of power. It isn't a romantic notion; it's true. The source of power is in the constituency. The Pols know their own all too well, and know just how to get re-elected. The U.S. support for Israel is traced from the Pols directly back to voter sentiment. End of story. No amount of egghead reports can change that, whether we like that or not. It's just a matter of realizing what is, rather than what we wish it to be.

This is a beltway study (regardless of where it was actually conducted). The person who truly wants to understand these issues is best advised to get out of the beltway and institutions of "higher learning" and visit the American homes and churches.

ps: Sorry for the typos in the comment above. Typing too fast has its associated hazards (such as the terms "underestimate" which should have been "overestimate."

[Ken White]

that I've wondered about for some time. Being a State is confining, being a group of 'stateless persons' can be rewarding -- fiscally and emotionally...

LINK