ADL ~ DESPERATE FANATICS POUNDING TABLES

"Whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle such as the Intifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the 'new anti-Semitism.'

The purpose is several-fold. First, it is to discredit any charges by claiming the person is an anti-Semite. It's to turn Jews into the victims, so that the victims are not the Palestinians any longer. As people like Abraham Foxman of the ADL put it, the Jews are being threatened by a new holocaust. It's a role reversal ~ the Jews are now the victims, not the Palestinians.

So it serves the function of discrediting the people leveling the charge. It's no longer Israel that needs to leave the Occupied Territories; it's the Arabs who need to free themselves of the anti-Semitism." ~ Norman G. Finkelstein, labeled a "self-hating Jew, for his stand on Zionism.

The ADL Pounds The Table!

By Alan Sabrosky
Information Clearing House
July 13, 2009
Voice of Palestine

Fanatics, it has been observed, are those who redouble their efforts when they lose sight of their goal, or at least feel its attainment slipping from their grasp. This describes precisely the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), founded in 1913 principally to combat anti-Semitism and closely linked since its inception to the emerging Zionist movement, which increasingly has resorted to the defamation of Israel’s critics as part of its avowed mission to support “the Jewish State by advocating for Israel.”

It really isn’t surprising that the ADL, along with AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the brigade of associated organizations lobbying for Israel, should employ such tactics.

Like lawyers obliged to pound the courtroom table when law and evidence are both against their client, the ADL is faced with the uncomfortable reality that both international law and the evidence on the ground condemn Israel as a rogue state, saved from sanctions and embargoes only by US vetoes in the UN Security Council and endless references to an historical Holocaust perpetrated by Europeans, all to sidestep condemnation and culpability for their systemic oppression of Palestinians who had nothing to do with it.

Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother ~ Moshe Dayan ~Israel, A Mad Dog Too Dangerous to Bother

The New Anti-Semitism

The ADL’s shift in emphasis from justifiably combating bigotry (the “old” anti-Semitism) to being an advocate for Israel by suppressing critics and criticism of Israel’s misconduct (the “new” anti-Semitism) has been dramatic.

The difficulty is that the so-called “new anti-Semitism” is so wide-ranging in scope that it encompasses almost everyone who is not an Israeli partisan, while anyone who criticizes Israeli war crimes or the Zionist lobby’s support of Israel becomes in their lexicon an indictable accessory after the fact to the architects of the Holocaust.

SEE ANTISEMITISM AS DEFINED BY CONGRESS AND THE US STATE DEPARTMENT

The ADL understands that while the national mainstream media can be manipulated and elected politicians can be bought, none of that would matter greatly if the American public ever learned what actually happens in the Middle East.

Disinformation alone is not enough; critics need to be discredited and, if necessary, destroyed as well. Character assassination is a common place weapon. Outright lies and half-truths confuse the issues. Bribes and coercion in the form of political contributions or so-called “charitable” donations given or withheld add muscle to their efforts.

A large stable of syndicated columnists disseminate their propaganda and erode the legitimacy of their victims.

The ADL and its cohorts have enjoyed a remarkable string of successes over the years in implementing this strategy, but a series of recent developments have started to shake its pillars.

One is the growth of the internet, and with it the availability of news from sources that the Zionists can neither manage nor contain.

Irreversible damage to Israeli credibility on many levels.

Another was the brutal onslaught against Gaza in 2008-2009, conducted to applause from then-President Bush and the US Congress but an upswing in criticism of Israel, especially in the Jewish community.

Charles W. Freeman, Stellar Appointee for Chairman of NIC,
downed by the wolves of AIPAC

A third was AIPAC’s successful opposition to the appointment of a distinguished diplomat named Charles Freeman to a senior intelligence post, a success undermined in part because the timing dictated that it be done so publicly.

And the last was the election in Israel of a government that would openly and accurately be characterized as "fascist” if it had come to power anywhere else, further unsettling many of the ADL’s erstwhile supporters, who could tolerate (barely) Netanyahu’s return but viewed Avigdor Lieberman with distaste or loathing.

The Price of Arrogance

A misreading of these developments plus a measure of arrogance led the ADL to make one of the few serious missteps in its history, when it attempted to use its influence to pressure the University of California to censure a professor at the Santa Barbara campus who had used highly critical graphics of Israel’s assault on Gaza in his class.

That the professor, William Robinson, was Jewish made the ADL’s efforts more pointed, because Jewish critics of Israel are more difficult for them to counter ~ labels like “self-hating Jew” don’t go quite as far as “neo-Nazi” and the like.

Professor William Robinson, a Jew who dared speak out regarding Gaza.

The details are available elsewhere (see links below), but the ADL ended up with mud on its organizational face when the campus community rallied around Professor Robinson and the administration rejected (albeit belatedly) their effort.

When it looked like the ADL’s action would succeed, the international director of a pro-Zionist group called “Stand With Us” had stated “that the investigation against sociology professor William I. Robinson could set a precedent for more action against Israel critics at other universities.”

When it didn’t end the way they expected, they turned out not to be good losers, putting this spin on the outcome at their website: If you are concerned about our college campuses, here is an important bulletin: UCSB professors are free to peddle propaganda designed to indoctrinate students with their personal prejudices.

Neither professional conduct codes nor intellectual standards set limits on this freedom. Anything goes. This anarchy is defended in the name of “academic freedom.”

Anarchy is obviously anything they consider antisemitic, including breathing.

One must concede that pro-Zionist groups are better than most at identifying propaganda and prejudice, if only because they themselves indulge in so much of it.

They just aren’t used to losing, but they had better get ready to lose a good deal more in the future. Too much is happening that they cannot either conceal or finesse, and images from Gaza and elsewhere tell a tale to Americans and others that all of the verbiage from the Zionist propaganda machine simply cannot counter indefinitely.

A school of Police Cadets being sworn in, wiped out, 40 young men dead

But perhaps ADL and company have the right of it in one respect, and the new definition of anti-Semitism is any criticism of any domestic or foreign policy of the state of Israel, or of any action on the part of some Jews in the Diaspora in support of Israel.

So be it.

In that case, the rest of us need to understand that the oppression of Palestinians and the victimization of Israel’s neighbors are crimes that cry out for opposition, no matter what label their perpetrators try to hang on it.

And if opposing those crimes is now anti-Semitism, according to the ADL, then anti-Semitism in its new form has become a badge of honor to be worn with pride by people of conscience everywhere.

Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net .

Click on thIS link to read other articles by Dr. Sabrosky

If Telling the Truth Makes Me an Anti-Semite;
Then Call Me an Anti-Semite.

By Barbara L.
Snippits and Snappits
May 26, 2009

"The Missiles ,the bombs the helicopter gunships etc.etc.all carried Jewish symbols and yet we can't refer to them as being Jewish without it being antisemitic."

Do you remember when the word "nice" that used to MEAN something? Or "gay" was a happy light feeling rather than a sexual deviance?

It is my belief that if a word is misused enough that its TRUE intention is lost, or if it is abused enough especially at the cost of truth and ethics, then USE IT.

In today's world I am proud to call myself antisemitic if it means I can say, "YES, these bombs are from Israel courtesy of the States, and YES they were kissed by pretty little Jewish girls from Israel."

If being antisemitic means I can say what was done in Gaza by the Talmudic Zionist-driven satanic rabbinical leaders and the IDF and IOF, then I will choose antisemitism.

If being antisemitic means I can say I side with the victims instead of the oppressors, victims being driven into extinction for political greed and religious hatred, then I am proud to be antisemitic.

If I curse a caterpillar tank adorned with the star of David tearing down a Palestinian farm and centuries old olive groves being ripped up and sold elsewhere, throwing entire families into poverty, then call me antisemitic.

If being antisemitic means calling a spade a spade and saying, You are starving the people of Gaza and sending back 250 tons of food and boats of medical necessities; they are dieing because of your brutality", then I am antisemitic.

If I boycott and advocate the boycott of Israeli goods, I am proudly antisemitic.

If I weep for handsome young Bessem Ibrahim Abu Rahmeh, slaughtered at Bilin for calling out "Listen we have children and Israelis with us", or decry the murder of Rachel Corie, the attack on Tristan Anderson, then I am antisemitic.

If I point a finger at those behind all this, say the Mossad is largely behind 911, or that the Jews attacked the USS Liberty and Israelis are the greatest terrorists of all, behind the Bolshevik Red Terror that killed 100 000 000 Christians and Catholics, now living in a nation built on theft and nourished on blood, I am antisemitic.

And if I point to the terrorism that is rife in America, created by B'nai Brith that is an arm of the Freemasons of Scottish Right Illuminati, NOT JEWISH in final goals, and controls AIPAC as well as the ADL and JDL, and works to change our western society and subjugate us all to NWO conditioning, then I am again proudly antisemitic.

If I point out that most of the Jews in Israel are NOT of Semitic blood, but are Ashkenazim from Europe, Russia, North America, Africa, etc etc, then I am antisemitic.

Now THAT one really confuses the hell out of me!

This word "antisemitic" is overused to the nth degree whenever one becomes dangerous to the status quo's wishes. I have done my homework for 40 years and no longer buy the lies.

By the way, I also am a humanist enough to thoroughly appreciate anyone who has a good soul and heart no matter where they come from or what their race so do not call me a hater of the Jews or Americans or anyone else.

There are great movers and shakers for the peace movement from all parts of the globe.

It is the Zionist owned media that keeps everyone from knowing of their existence.

I reserve my antisemitism for the criminals amongst us who use that word "antisemitism" like a sword to cut with and a shield to hide behind as they kill and ruin the young men of our country by sending them out to destroy others while they sit back and profit and wait for the arrival of Lucifer and their evil New World Order.

Until people begin to THINK about things this way and stop CARING about such labels, these creatures will continue to suck our life source and kill with impunity the innocent of the planet.

And get away with it.

I also believe, if we are still around, 10 ~ 15 years from now, those of us who have NOT stood up and spoken out and said, "YES, I am antisemitic, I stand for decency and human values", we will feel, deep in our souls, shamed.


CARTOONS BY CARLOS LATUFF, Honorary Palestinian

THE FREEMAN AFFAIR ~ PART FOUR

My $.02 is in the dark green.

John Mearsheimer - The Lobby Falters

Posted: 23 Mar 2009 11:43 AM PDT

Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates.

Charles Freeman is a career diplomat who rose quickly through the ranks. As the man who translated for President Nixon in his 'realpolitik' trip to China, in 1972, and who then rose to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman's fate has been a mere sideshow overshadowed by President Obama's struggles with the economy.

Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but has publicly criticized Israeli policy and America's special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that 'as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.'

Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalize the intelligence community, which had been very politicized in the Bush years.

At first, nobody noticed when the new director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, nominated Freeman for chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, the man who sorts fact from fable before advising the President.

Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama.

The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman's views of the Middle East, he said, 'are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship'.

Interesting, since Chas Freeman, school chum and close friend of Papa Bush, worked together with him during his Presidency.

Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.

This is the usual pack of pro-Zionist media, like slavering wolves trying to hamstring a stag, chasing and nipping at its heels until one of them manages to get the fatal bite.

The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as 'America's Pro-Israel Lobby') wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer.'I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,' Schumer said, 'and I am glad they did the right thing.'

It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman's finances.

In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment 'beyond the pale'.

"Let there be no doubt ~ the United States of America stands with the State of Israel also because it is in our national interests to stand with the State of Israel." ~ Nancy "impartial" Pelosi.

Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama's pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.

With Rahm Emanuel and Joe Lieberman advising him, and thoroughly owned by Zionism, of course Obama did what he does best when challenged ~ played golf, walked the puppy, anything but stand for the proper thing to do.

The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman's resignation. Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organization 'took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it'.

Why would anyone believe that lot about anything, even a weather report? These critters could have stains all over their shirts and still deny they were into the jam bottle! And frequently have. Up until this event, they tried to deny their own existence.

The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman's resignation was something dreamed up by 'Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists."

Charles Freeman, known for his forthright honesty, has served his country with honour and high ethics during his long Diplomatic career. With this low blow, the Washington Post sinks to a new journalistic low, if that could be possible.

Those crazy bloggers are always making up things. Remember the Holocaust! Some of them actually deny the Holocaust! Conspiracy theorists, who can believe a word they say. And they had the NERVE to make this story public when we, the legitimate media had ignored it hoping no one would notice what AIPAC was up to.

In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hard line supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac.

Let me see if I get this right. Bloggers are ok if you can USE them and trust them to keep their mouths shut about their sources! But if they actually tell the truth, they are conspiracy theorists and thereby unethical and unreliable.

Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwords: 'Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.'

Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen's role in bringing Freeman down.

On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair.

Make up your mind, Washington Post!

If you are going to lie, at least be consistent about it!

There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: 'The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.'

Freeman's critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close - maybe even improper - ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn't stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it.

Israel's supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tienanmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman's pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.

Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position?

Here's the main reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates.

Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since.

DEAR READERS,

THIS NEXT POINT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

CONSIDER THIS THE NEXT TIME ISRAEL TALKS

ABOUT IRAN WHICH, WITH NETANYAHU

IN POWER, IS FREQUENTLY!

The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran's nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.

An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America's present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalize anyone who criticizes the special relationship.

If Freeman hadn't been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention ~ the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down ~ while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere.

Freeman's opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition.

Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them.

IN SHORT, THE INTERNET ENABLED A SERIOUS DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES ABOUT AN ISSUE INVOLVING ISRAEL. THE LOBBY HAS NEVER HAD MUCH TROUBLE KEEPING THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST IN LINE, BUT IT HAS FEW WAYS TO SILENCE CRITICS ON THE INTERNET.

When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back.

The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter's footsteps, but with sharper elbows.

After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of 'unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country whose aim is to prevent any view other than its own from being aired'.

'There is,' he continued, 'a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.'

Freeman's remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn't good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman's appointment without leaving any fingerprints.

But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.

THUS, AN ORGANIZATION WHICH PREFERS TO WORK UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS, THANKS TO MR. FREEMAN, HAS BEEN OUTED AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE OUTED, UNDER THE BRIGHT LIGHT OF THE DAY.

John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

THE FREEMAN AFFAIR ~ PART TWO

PLEASE WATCH THIS FILM. EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF THE
FREEMAN SITUATION EVEN THOUGH MY
$.02 SAYS SHE IS WRONG ON A FEW "MINOR" DETAILS,
THE REST IS BANG ON.

WHY THE JEWISH PEACE MOVEMENT
GOT IT ALL WRONG ON FREEMAN

Mar 14th, 2009 by Richard Silverstein

I think it’s useful to do a little debriefing in the aftermath of the Chas. Freeman affair in terms of who got it right and who didn’t. So first of all kudos to Phil Weiss, Spencer Ackerman, Glenn Greenwald, Greg Sargent, M.J. Rosenberg, Ben Smith, Chris Nelson, Jim Lobe, Laura Rosen, Steven Walt, and others who reported the hell out of this story. Jewish Voice for Peace was also one of the few groups which spoke out for Freeman. We were right, but for reasons beyond our control we didn’t prevail.

But my real concern is examining the mistakes made by our side. First, I really want to take to task the Jewish peace groups like Brit Tzedek, Americans for Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, and especially J Street for turning tail and running from this fight as fast as their little feet would carry them. One of my readers, Walter Ballin, has done me the favor of posting J Street’s timorous response to his question on the matter and it’s unfortunately very instructive:

The appointment and subsequent withdrawal of Chas. Freeman from a senior national intelligence post this week is just the latest example of Israel policy as political football.

J Street stayed out of this fight. First, we – probably like many of those who did comment – did not know enough about Freeman or his positions to really take a stand. Further, on principle, we objected to making our government’s intelligence apparatus a political battlefield. Remember, it was politicized intelligence that helped mislead the U.S. into Iraq.

I’m sorry but it’s J Street’s job to “know enough” about candidates for government jobs that significantly impact U.S. relations with Israel. This is a cop out of the first order and frankly I don’t believe it. Getting up to speed on Chas. Freeman’s views wasn’t that hard a task.

Second, it was the lobby that “politicized” this appointment not Obama or Freeman. If you refuse to fight on the terms the other guy establishes then you’ll never end up in the fight. They chose the battleground. It doesn’t give us the luxury of refusing to engage. On the contrary, this was a major battle with the lobby, and those groups whose job it is to act as a counter to the most pernicious behavior of the lobby folded up their tent and went home.

Now, however, in the aftermath of the battle and Freeman’s withdrawal, many are interpreting the incident as a victory for those who would make their view of what it means to be pro-Israel a standard for service in the U.S. government.

To that I personally – and we at J Street – object.

You can object all you want. But again, the opponents set the terms. They won. They get to define what their victory means. You can disagree all you want. But since you absconded, it looks a little lame to come in after the fact and say their victory doesn’t mean what they say it means. Besides, even those on our side of this understand that this victory will have toxic effects in the future. The only question is whether the toxicity is small or large. But it is and will be toxic.

The principle at stake here is critical: It cannot be a litmus test for service in the American government that you have never criticized Israel or its policies publicly.

Once again, that’s precisely the argument the other side made and it carried the day. You weren’t there. They were. Sorry, but this is more lameness.

This really isn’t about Chas. Freeman or the statements he’s made. Again, we took no position on his nomination.

Why are you running away from Freeman as if he had leprosy? At most, he was somewhat overbearing in the manner in which he expressed himself about Israel. But none of his views are at great variance with those of J Street’s leaders. Again, I think it’s most unfortunate that J Street spent more time objecting to the messenger than understanding that the message was what was really important.

…Some are strutting proudly today at the personal destruction of someone who – in their view – is a real foe of Israel. In their view, intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on Israel is the ultimate service to protect and defend the state of Israel.

They’re wrong. Israel’s no better off with only meek friends in positions of power in the United States. Frankly, all friends, Israel included, need to hear the hard truth sometimes.

And sure would’ve been nice if you’d said that when it could’ve helped Freeman and our side.

Others are clamoring that the failed appointment is the death knell of hope that President Obama may engage in meaningful diplomacy and conflict resolution in the Middle East.

They’re wrong, too. President Obama has already shown his determination to bring about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s appointed George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East Peace and lived up to his promise to engage from Day One in resolving the conflict.

Easy to say. But what happens when and if Obama finally bites the bullet and tells Israel to freeze the settlements and the lobby goes into real overdrive (not the ham-handed campaign it waged against Freeman). Everyone will have in the back or front of their mind the “job” the lobby did on Freeman. You couldn’t fault Obama for pulling punches after the shellacking they gave Freeman. And make no mistake, they WILL pull punches. J Street’s role is to encourage the administration NOT to pull its punches. So where were you when we needed you?

What is important to me is that the Obama team not draw the lesson from this episode that they simply need to be more careful vetting of appointees to make sure they’ve never criticized Israel.

And you think that WON’T come into play in future appointments given the experience on this one?

…I also feel strongly that if I see Israel or the United States following a misguided path, it’s not simply my right, but my obligation to speak out. Does that mean that I will never again be able to be in public service?

Given the treatment meted out to Freeman, it might.

Neither Israel nor the United States is served when free discussion and debate about foreign policy is stifled because people fear for the impact on their career of speaking openly.

Presidents and our country are best served by public officials willing to look critically at all sides of an issue that impacts the United States. In particular, those charged with gathering and sorting through intelligence to guide our foreign policy must be able to look at all sides of an issue.

Once again, you’ve got the issues but only expressed the right view after the horse left the barn.

I hope that the President and his team will ensure that subsequent choices for this and other sensitive intelligence and foreign policy positions have impeccable credentials and real independence. I further hope they choose people with the guts to speak truth to power and to force uncomfortable facts into foreign policy debates too often guided by political agendas.

Finally, I would say to friends of Israel that a litmus test for public service that rules out all those who have ever publicly questioned a policy or action of the government of Israel is of no service to the country you love. Without a hard look at the facts and the clock, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic homeland, is at grave risk.

I want to add that J Street is not the sole group at fault. The others I listed above were also derelict in their duty.

In the Brit Tzedek conference call with Dan Kurtzer, a caller asked where the Jewish peace lobby was on the Freeman issue. Steve Masters, the group’s chair, conveniently chose not to respond. But silence doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. We don’t support these groups so they can sit on their hands when we need them to be most vigorous and pro-active. So some serious boos to APN, Brit Tzedek and J Street. As far as Israel Policy Forum, to their credit they allowed M.J. Rosenberg to write extensively in support of Freeman. They probably could have muzzled him (though knowing M.J. it might not have worked) but didn’t. So kudos to him for his courage.

Finally, the Obama administration also got this one wrong. They didn’t battle for Freeman as they should have. During the campaign, whenever the other side launched a salvo Obama’s people were there to return fire. Here, whenever the pro-Israel right launched a salvo, no one responded. It may’ve been a mid-level appointment and I realize that administrations may not be used to fighting for candidates that low on the totem pole. But once the enemy engaged, it was Obama’s job to reply. He didn’t and the Republican right and Israel lobby carried the day.

The reason why fighting for Freeman was critical wasn’t so much Freeman or the NIC director’s position. It was the symbolism and its impact on future decisions and relationships. I personally can’t believe that Obama and the Jewish peace groups allowed Steve Rosen to have such a cheap victory. This is one of the worst practitioners of pro-Israel street fighting. Someone under indictment for passing U.S. secrets to Israel. This guy starts a fight and you say: “Sorry, not my fight?” I’m sorry, but that’s not the way I see it.

So Steve Masters, Jeremy Ben Ami, Ori Nir, etc. you made a mistake on this one.

THE FREEMAN AFFAIR ~ PART ONE

By Robert Dreyfuss
16 March, 2009

(As always I put my $.02 worth using the darker green. This is an important read. It shows the basic mechanics of how AIPAC and the Zionist lobby maintain their stranglehold over the politics of every country they manage to attain power in. There is a reason this group, by whatever name they went by at the time, have been reviled throughout history! From all I have read of Charles Freeman, he was one of the few "good guys" left who had honour and integrity, a good man for any post in government. This crack in the Zionist AIPAC armor MUST BE EXPOSED AND KEPT ALIVE, not brushed away by their manipulated media!)

Judging by the outcome of the Charles W. ("Chas") Freeman affair this week, it might seem as if the Israeli lobby is fearsome indeed. Seen more broadly, however, the controversy over Freeman could be the Israel lobby's Waterloo.

Charles W. Freeman, Stellar Appointee for Chairman of NIC,
downed by the wolves of AIPAC

Let's recap. On February 19th, Laura Rozen reported at ForeignPolicy.com that Freeman had been selected by Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, to serve in a key post as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). The NIC, the official in-house think tank of the intelligence community, takes input from 16 intelligence agencies and produces what are called "national intelligence estimates" on crucial topics of the day as guidance for Washington policymakers. For that job, Freeman boasted a stellar resumé: fluent in Mandarin Chinese, widely experienced in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, and an ex-assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration.

A wry, outspoken iconoclast, Freeman had, however, crossed one of Washington's red lines by virtue of his strong criticism of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. (Oh, MY LORD!!! FREEMAN IS NOT A YES MAN!!) Over the years, he had, in fact, honed a critique of Israel that was both eloquent and powerful. Hours after the Foreign Policy story was posted, Steve Rosen, a former official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), launched what would soon become a veritable barrage of criticism of Freeman on his right-wing blog.

Rosen himself has already been indicted by the Department of Justice in an espionage scandal over the transfer of classified information to outside parties involving a colleague at AIPAC, a former official in Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon, and an official at the Israeli embassy. His blog, Obama Mideast Monitor, is hosted by the Middle East Forum website run by Daniel Pipes, a hard-core, pro-Israeli rightist, whose Middle East Quarterly is, in turn, edited by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute. Over approximately two weeks, Rosen would post 19 pieces on the Freeman story. (The pack was out for blood!)

The essence of Rosen's criticism centered on the former ambassador's strongly worded critique of Israel. (That was no secret. Freeman had repeatedly denounced many of Israel's policies and Washington's too-close relationship with Jerusalem. "The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending," said Freeman in 2007. "American identification with Israel has become total.")

But Rosen, and those who followed his lead, broadened their attacks to make unfounded or exaggerated claims, taking quotes and emails out of context, and accusing Freeman of being a pro-Arab "lobbyist," of being too closely identified with Saudi Arabia, and of being cavalier about China's treatment of dissidents. They tried to paint the sober, conservative former U.S. official as a wild-eyed radical, an anti-Semite, and a pawn of the Saudi king. (An age old technique, if you cannot find REAL blackmail material, and there is no chance of succeeding with assassination, you dig up a grain of sand and blow it into a mountain to make the enemy come across as unreliable.)

From Rosen's blog, the anti-Freeman vitriol spread to other right-wing, Zionist, and neoconservative blogs, then to the websites of neocons mouthpieces like the New Republic, Commentary, National Review, and the Weekly Standard, which referred to Freeman as a "Saudi puppet." From there, it would spread to the Atlantic and then to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, where Gabriel Schoenfeld called Freeman a "China-coddling Israel basher," and the Washington Post, where Jonathan Chait of the New Republic labeled Freeman a "fanatic." (You, of course, realize that should one of these people come out as Islamophobic, the press would protect their right to free speech!)

"We [the Zionists] have it all under such control that no one. No one or no-body can reach people unless it is done through our media control. (Who has had control of the mass media in the 20th century? Chairman of ABC pp Leonard Goldenson, President of CBS; James H. Rosenfield, Chairman of RCS; David Sarnoff, Chief Executive of NBC; Fred Silverman, President of PBS; Lawrence Grossman, Chairman of Time; Arthur Heiskell, Editor of U.S. News & World Report; Marvin Stone, Chief Executive of Dow Jones; Warren H. Phillips, Editor of Newsweek; Lester Bernstein, President of TV Guide; Walter Annenberg, President of New York Times; Sulzberger family; TV program producer, Norman Lear. These and more all are Zionists!) We have it sewed up!” ~ Harold Wallace Rosenthal from the Harold Wallace Rosenthal Interview 1976)

Before long, staunch partisans for Israel on Capitol Hill were getting into the act. These would, in the end, include Representative Steve Israel and Senator Charles Schumer, both New York Democrats; a group of Republican House members led by John Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, and Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican Whip; seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and, finally, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who engaged in a sharp exchange with Admiral Blair about Freeman at a Senate hearing.

Though Blair strongly defended Freeman, the two men got no support from an anxious White House, which took (politely put) a hands-off approach. Seeing the writing on the wall ~ all over the wall, in fact ~ Freeman came to the conclusion that, even if he could withstand the storm, his ability to do the job had, in effect, already been torpedoed.

Whatever output the National Intelligence Council might produce under his leadership, as Freeman told me in an interview, would instantly be attacked. "Anything that it produced that was politically controversial would immediately be attributed to me as some sort of political deviant, and be discredited," he said. (Or something might happen to him or a member of his family rendering Freeman, himself, a laughing stock or not to be trusted. This is precisely what happened to Ted Kennedy.)

On March 10th, Freeman bowed out, but not with a whimper. In a letter to friends and colleagues, he launched a defiant, departing counterstrike that may, in fact, have helped to change the very nature of Washington politics.

"The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths
of dishonor and indecency and include
character assassination, selective misquotation,
the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication
of falsehoods, and an utter disregard
for the truth," wrote Freeman.
"The aim of this lobby is control of the policy
process through the exercise of a veto over the
appointment of people
who dispute the wisdom of its views."

Freeman put it more metaphorically to me: "It was a nice way of, as the Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys." By destroying his appointment, Freeman claimed, the Israel lobby hoped to intimidate other critics of Israel and U.S. Middle East policy who might seek jobs in the Obama administration.

ON TRIUMPHS, HYSTERIA AND MOBS

It remains to be seen just how many "monkeys" are trembling. Certainly, the Israel lobby crowed in triumph. Daniel Pipes, for instance, quickly praised Rosen's role in bringing down Freeman:

"What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freeman's appointment," wrote Pipes. "Within hours, the word was out, and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve's stature and credibility could have made this happen."(Insert two fingers down throat, gag, and feel righteously nauseous.)

The Zionist Organization of America, a far-right advocacy group that supports Israel, sent out follow-up Action Alerts to its membership, ringing further alarm bells about Freeman as part of a campaign to mobilize public opinion and Congress. Behind the scenes, AIPAC quietly used its considerable clout, especially with friends and allies in the media. (They excercise their considerable clout behind the scenes because it would not withstand public scrutiny.) And Chuck Schumer, who had trotted over to the White House to talk to Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, later said bluntly:

"Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

Numerous reporters, including Max Blumenthal at the Daily Beast website and Spencer Ackerman of Firedoglake, have effectively documented the role of the Israel lobby, including AIPAC, in sabotaging Freeman's appointment. From their accounts and others, it seems clear that the lobby left its fingerprints all over Freeman's National Intelligence Council corpse.

Indeed, Time's Joe Klein described the attack on Freeman as an "assassination," adding that the term "lobby" doesn't do justice to the methods of the various lobbying groups, individuals, and publications: "He was the victim of a mob, not a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives."

On the other hand, the Washington Post, in a near-hysterical editorial, decided to pretend that the Israel lobby really doesn't exist, accusing Freeman instead of sending out a "crackpot tirade." Huffed the Post, "Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister 'Lobby'... His statement was a grotesque libel."

The Post's case might have been stronger, had it not, just one day earlier, printed an editorial in which it called on Attorney General Eric Holder to exonerate Steve Rosen and drop the espionage case against him. Entitled "Time to Call It Quits," the editorial said:

"The matter involves Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former officials for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC... A trial has been scheduled for June in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Holder should pull the plug on this prosecution long before then." (So is it possible to conclude that Rosen acted out of opportunism on many levels not patriotic altruism?)

In his interview with me, Freeman noted the propensity members of the Israel lobby have for denying the lobby's existence, even while taking credit for having forced him out and simultaneously claiming that they had nothing to do with it. "We're now at the ludicrous stage where those who boasted of having done it and who described how they did it are now denying that they did it," he said. (Isn't it amazing how that works! It is time we goyim woke up and saw what they are and their view that we are dumb schmucks to manipulate to their will because we cannot think for ourselves!)

RUNNING SCARED

The Israel lobby has regularly denied its own existence even as it has long carried on with its work, in stealth as in the bright sunlight. In retrospect, however, l'affaire Freeman may prove a game changer. It has already sparked a new, more intense mainstream focus on the lobby, one that far surpasses the flap that began in March, 2006, over the publication of an essay by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt in the London Review of Books that was, in 2007, expanded into a book, The Israel Lobby. In fact, one of the sins committed by Freeman, according to his critics, is that an organization he headed, the Middle East Policy Council, published an early version of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis ~ which argued that a powerful, pro-Israel coalition exercises undue influence over American policymakers ~ in its journal.(Above link leads to video presentation of The Israel Lobby on Google.)

In his blog at Foreign Policy, Walt reacted to Freeman's decision to withdraw by writing:

"For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful 'Israel lobby,' or who admitted that it existed but didn't think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful 'Saudi lobby,' think again."

What the Freeman affair brought was unwanted, often front-page attention to the lobby. Writers at countless blogs and websites ~ including yours truly, at the Dreyfuss Report ~ dissected or reported on the lobby's assault on Freeman, including Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe at Antiwar.com, Glenn Greenwald in his Salon.com column, M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Peace Forum, and Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss. Far more striking, however, is that for the first time in memory, both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran page-one stories about the Freeman controversy that specifically used the phrase "Israel lobby," while detailing the charges and countercharges that followed upon Freeman's claim that the lobby did him in.

This new attention to the lobby's work comes at a critical moment, which is why the toppling of Freeman might be its Waterloo.

As a start, right-wing partisans of Israel have grown increasingly anxious about the direction that President Obama intends to take when it comes to U.S. policy toward Israel, the Palestinians, Iran, and the Middle East generally. Despite the way, in the middle of the presidential campaign last June, Obama recited a pro-Israeli catechism in a speech at AIPAC's national conference in Washington, they remain unconvinced that he will prove reliable on their policy concerns. Among other things, they have long been suspicious of his reputed openness to Palestinian points of view. (Oh, my goodness, Obama might have a humanitarian bone in his body!)

No less important, while the appointments of Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state and Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff were reassuring, other appointments were far less so. (As I have said before regarding Palestine, the Zionists do not want PART, they want TOTAL CONTROL! Anything less sets their sociopathic brains into a panic.) They were, for instance, concerned by several of Obama's campaign advisers ~ and not only Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who were quietly eased out of Obamaland early in 2008. An additional source of worry was Daniel Shapiro and Daniel Kurtzer, both Jewish, who served as Obama's top Middle East aides during the campaign and were seen as not sufficiently loyal to the causes favored by hardline, right-wing types. (Above point taken.)

Since the election, many lobby members have viewed a number of Obama's top appointments, including Shapiro, who's taken the Middle East portfolio at the National Security Council, and Kurtzer, who's in line for a top State Department job, with great unease. Take retired Marine general and now National Security Advisor James L. Jones, who, like Brzezinski, is seen as too sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view and who reputedly wrote a report last year highly critical of Israel's occupation policies; or consider George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, who is regarded by many pro-Israeli hawks as far too level-headed and even-handed to be a good mediator; or, to mention one more appointment, Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell and now a National Security Council official who has, in the past, made comments sharply critical of Israel.

Of all of these figures, Freeman, because of his record of blunt statements, was the most vulnerable. His appointment looked like low-hanging fruit when it came to launching a concerted, preemptive attack on the administration. As it happens, however, this may prove anything but a moment of strength for the lobby. (The weakest is always the one they go for first, culling of the herd, sending out a message to others, ad nauseum.)

After all, the recent three-week Israeli assault on Gaza had already generated a barrage of headlines and television images that made Israel look like a bully nation with little regard for Palestinian lives, including those of women and children. According to polls taken in the wake of Gaza, growing numbers of Americans, including many in the Jewish community, have begun to exhibit doubts about Israel's actions, a rare moment when public opinion has begun to tilt against Israel. (After the March 13, 2009 shooting of Tristan Anderson, only days before the 6th anniversary of the murder of Rachel Corrie, things could continue to snowball.)

Perhaps most important of all, Israel is about to be run by an extremist, ultra right-wing government led by Likud Party leader Bibi Netanyahu, and including the even more extreme party of Avigdor Lieberman, as well as a host of radical-right religious parties. It's an ugly coalition that is guaranteed to clash with the priorities of the Obama White House.

As a result, the arrival of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government is also guaranteed to prove a crisis moment for the Israel lobby. It will present an enormous public-relations problem, akin to the one that faced ad agency Hill & Knowlton during the decades in which it had to defend Philip Morris, the hated cigarette company that repeatedly denied the link between its products and cancer. The Israel lobby knows that it will be difficult to sell cartons of menthol smooth Netanyahu-Lieberman 100s to American consumers.

Indeed, Freeman told me:

"The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term 'Israel lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for, or about Israel. It's really, well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with." (Lieberman has frequently proposed using nuclear force to blast the Palistinians from the planet. This man, a former bouncer, is the man AIPAC wishes to dictate North American policies via their influence.)

So here's the reality behind the Freeman debacle: Already worried over Team Obama, suffering the after-effects of the Gaza debacle, and about to be burdened with the Netanyahu-Lieberman problem, the Israel lobby is undoubtedly running scared. They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test of their strength is yet to come.

Robert Dreyfuss is an independent investigative journalist in Alexandria, Virginia. He is a regular contributor to Rolling Stone, the Nation, the American Prospect, Mother Jones, and the Washington Monthly. He is also the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Henry Holt/Metropolitan). He writes the Dreyfuss Report blog for the Nation magazine.

Copyright 2009 Robert Dreyfuss