Today’s Independent provides a classic example of the anti-Israel lobby thesis morphing seamlessly into the classic antisemitic Jewish power motif.
The article, by Rupert Cornwell, is ostensibly about the resignation of Charles Freeman as head of the National Intelligence Council. It is headlined: “ ‘Israel lobby’ blamed as Obama’s choice for intelligence chief quits”.
The opening paragraph, however, morphs the ‘Israel lobby’ into “the Jewish lobby”. It begins: “Fears over the Jewish lobby’s excess influence on US foreign policy flared anew yesterday…”.
It goes on to quote from Charles Freeman himself: “declaring he had fallen victim to what he [Freeman] called the ‘Israel lobby’ “. Next, Cornwell tells us that Freeman’s thesis “exactly reflect the thesis of” Walt & Mearshemier’s book “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” about the malign impact of “the Jewish state’s supporters”.
Cornwell then quotes Stephen Walt on the Freeman episode and Walt’s words are placed in a highlights sidebar, “For all of you who questioned if there was a powerful ‘Israel lobby’, think again”. The article ends by recalling that, “Pat Buchanan, a right-wing commentator and erstwhile presidential candidate, once described Capitol Hill as ‘Israeli-occupied territory’ “.
So, there we have it then. The Independent’s correspondent Rupert Cornwell knows better than Freeman, Walt and (even) Pat Buchanan. This isn’t all about the “Israel lobby”, its all about “the Jewish lobby”.
I suppose its quite refreshing to have these things out in the open for once, but I’m certainly looking forward to the “its only criticism of Israel” excuses on this one.
(NB – the comments thread underneath the article is quite filthy, but is that any wonder?)
Mark Gardner, Director of Communications, CST
UPDATE
The Independent published the following letter from Mark Gardner on 14 March:
The article on the resignation of Charles Freeman was headlined, “Israel lobby blamed as Obama’s choice for intelligence chief quits”. The opening sentence, however, stated, “Fears over the Jewish lobby’s excess influence on US foreign policy flared anew”.
At root, the failure to distinguish between Israelis, pro-Israelis and Jews is the same analytical meltdown that occurs in the minds of those who physically attack and threaten British Jews every time there is a flare-up in the cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. The Independent really ought to do better.
Mark Gardner, Community Security Trust
Engage 
March 13, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“Any allegations that we are anti-semitic are simply not true because Simon Kelner, our editor-in-chief, is Jewish.” — Laurie Proctor, the commercial director of The Independent in 2003
http://tinyurl.com/b7ea8w
I suppose it can now be argued that allegations of anti-Semitism are true because Roger Alton, the new editor of The Independent, is not Jewish.
March 13, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“As a Jew”, I am heartened and pleased that this antisemitism is now in the open.
Our Jewish establishment can now claim even more privileges by pointing to this type of libel and can ensure that the antizionist Jews are further marginalised both within the community and outside it.
Of course, we do run the danger that some Jews many feel the need to “speak out” against Israel which, as we know, is the most efficient way to stop this anti-Jewish feeling, but I think we have little to worry about there.
So, all in all, a very good day for the Jewish elite and their nefarious little plan to silence all but their sheep-like followers.
And people think that antisemitism is a problem for the Jews! Ha, little do they know. We have always been able to turn excretement into gold – it’s a Jew-thing!
March 13, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“Freeman was not even an anti-Zionist, just not a total Zionist puppet. Thus there was no room for him in the ultra-Zionist Obama administration.On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and “turn the US against us. “Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America.” GOD HELP THE WORLD”
This is what the Independent attracts.
It is a hoax. It is a libel. But, where does it differ from the article in question?
March 13, 2009 at 1:21 pm
“It would seem that many agree with the following view of the “Jewish Lobby’s” influence.
“In the hands of the States of to-day there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing our requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the GOYIM States have not known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade;”
“The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that the steward may be replaced like a worn-out glove.”
Truth speaking to power, no doubt
Perhaps I am wrong and there is a difference? I can’t see it myself”
Ha! Some poster has just cited a well-known text on the matter of the “Lobby”. It will be interesting to see how it is received………..
March 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“ll quality daily national newspapers registered year-on-year falls in circulation in February, with the Independent hardest hit.
Sales of the Independent News & Media title were down 18.41% year on year at a daily average of 205,964, according to figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations today.
The Independent, which became the second daily newspaper after the Financial Times to break the £1 barrier, was down 4.43% month on month. It circulated 160,620 copies each weekday in the UK last month, 2,042 in Ireland and 43,302 overseas. Full-price sales stood at 56.40% of papers circulated each day.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/06/abcs-independent
March 13, 2009 at 2:08 pm
The Independent follows in the Nazi footstep.
Antisemitic Propaganda played an important role in Nazi anti-American propaganda in 1941. Roosevelt’s “senseless” path of intervention was explicable only by reference to “a very powerful clique of political and financial power holders” who wanted to “save Jewish Anglo-Saxon democracy.”
Theodor Seibert, Das amerikanische Rätsel: Die Kriegspolitik in der Ära Roosevelt (The American Riddle: The War Policy of the USA in the Roosevelt Era) Berlin, 1941 p. 63
The same author attributed Churchill’s opposition to Nazi Germany to his “intimate personal” links to Rothschild in London. Churchill had “used his Jewish connections across the Atlantic to threaten the English people with Washington’s anger” if they refused to support war against Germany. He wrote that it was “no longer necessary to offer proof” that Roosevelt’s policies were not in the American interest but instead supported “purely Jewish interests.”
March 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm
If The Lobby was the reason for the spiking of Chas Freeman the Human Rights community has a helluvalotta ‘splainin to do…
Show me someone who thinks the Israel Lobby is why Freeman was Borked and I’ll show you someone who sleeps like a baby over the Tiannamen and Bonus Army “crackdowns” because that notorious memo from the twit, not his criticism of Israel was the “detail” that Speaker Pelosi was going to spike him for.
What a bunch of Jew-Baiting… sorry… “Antizionist”… Morons.
March 13, 2009 at 2:24 pm
My attention has been drawn to this excellent article: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0309/glick031309.php3
It has a host of other reasons as to why Freeman lost his post (mainly the depth of his relations with the Saudis and his being off message on China); and concludes with an analysis about the gathering pace of anti-Israel lobby activity in Washington.
March 13, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Here by way of positive contrast is an editorial on the same subject matter by the Washington Post which knows more about what is going on in Washington:
“Blame the ‘Lobby'”
“The Obama administration’s latest failed nominee peddles a conspiracy theory.”
“FORMER ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. looked like a poor choice to chair the Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council. A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King “Abdullah the Great,” Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask — as numerous members of Congress had begun to do — whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.”
Read it all here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html
March 13, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Mark:
As you’ve been so kind to post something by Caroline Glick, a member of “The Lobby”, I’ll post something by Chas Freeman, author of “The Email” (courtesy of “The Weekly Standard”)
Three Impossible Definite Articles before my midmorning poptart. Alice eat your heart out!
Please turn on your Reasonable Person Test filters and if you are familiar with the crackdown on the Bonus Army please sit down before reading (this email should disqualify anyone from any leadership position in US public service!):
From: ************
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:29 PM
I will leave it to others to address the main thrust of your reflection on Eric’s remarks. But I want to take issue with what I assume, perhaps incorrectly, to be yoiur citation of the conventional wisdom about the 6/4 [or Tiananmen] incident. I find the dominant view in China about this very plausible, i.e. that the truly unforgivable mistake of the Chinese authorities was the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud, rather than — as would have been both wise and efficacious — to intervene with force when all other measures had failed to restore domestic tranquility to Beijing and other major urban centers in China. In this optic, the Politburo’s response to the mob scene at “Tian’anmen” stands as a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action.
For myself, I side on this — if not on numerous other issues — with Gen. Douglas MacArthur. I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents intent on disrupting the normal functions of government, however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such folk, whether they represent a veterans’ “Bonus Army” or a “student uprising” on behalf of “the goddess of democracy” should expect to be displaced with despatch from the ground they occupy. I cannot conceive of any American government behaving with the ill-conceived restraint that the Zhao Ziyang administration did in China, allowing students to occupy zones that are the equivalent of the Washington National Mall and Times Square, combined. while shutting down much of the Chinese government’s normal operations. I thus share the hope of the majority in China that no Chinese government will repeat the mistakes of Zhao Ziyang’s dilatory tactics of appeasement in dealing with domestic protesters in China.
I await the brickbats of those who insist on a politically correct — i.e. non Burkean conservative — view.
Chas
—–
March 13, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Here is the consistently excellent Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine. This is one of his takes on Freeman. He’s done a few other posts about it. And he’s always pithy – the link here is about the longest blog post I’ve seen on his site.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/five_observations_on_the_freem.php
March 13, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Here is Caroline Gluck’s take on Charles Freeman:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1236764174357&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
March 13, 2009 at 6:11 pm
The thread to this story at the Independent is incredible.
I don’t think I have ever read such unreconstructed hard-core antisemitism as what has appeared there.
One wonders in whether hosting this “discussion” their website is breaching the law of incitement to racial hatred.
Take a look……………..but be prepared to be sick.
March 13, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Question: I love how the IL is taking all the blame in the Independent’s comments especially how AIPAC is the most powerful lobby without a thought to AARP, indisputably the most powerful lobby, and all the others. As one example if Freeman’s email commented on there being too many old people driving at twilight, the AARP would have been all over him like Green on Soylent to the point of him never being able to toss his hat in for town dog catcher. Meanwhile, he was able to make the administration’s shortlist by being a “contrarian” on Israel (not to mention an apologist for Anacostia and Tianamen). If i were The Lobby, I’d get my game together ‘ause it’s sure embarrassing to be beat in a partisan drag race, even hypothetically, by bunch of granny drivers.
March 14, 2009 at 5:07 am
Recent comments at the Independent website have included a call to “resume the gassing of Jews”.
Who is ultimately responsible for what happens there? Shouldn’t we be bringing Alton to justice?
March 14, 2009 at 8:37 am
The comments on the article seem to have disappeared. I wonder why…
March 14, 2009 at 8:42 am
For a great analysis of the Freeman affair and its antisemitic aftermath see this post by a Freeman supporter who takes Walt of Walt and Measheimer fame:
“Freeman, I can forgive. He had every reason to be angry. Walt, not now, not ever, because whatever the pale intellectual merits of his hackneyed argument may be, he and Mearsheimer know full well that their prominence on this issue has come not because they have had a single new insight but rather because they were willing and one can only believe inclined to play to a crowd whose “views” were fueled by prejudice and worse. They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago. They did what the most desperate members of academia do, they signed up to be rent-a-validators, akin to expert witnesses who support the defense of felons with specious theories served up on fancy diplomas. They would argue that they were daring to speak truth to power. In reality they were giving one crowd in particular precisely what it wanted to hear.”
Read the whole piece here:
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/12/why_freeman_himself_was_wrong_about_what_his_defeat_signified
Ditto the Independent article.
March 14, 2009 at 11:52 am
Here’s my letter to the Indy that they didn’t print:
Mearsheimer and Walt went to great lengths to manufacture a distinction between what they called the “Israel Lobby” and the older favourite of antisemitic conspiracy theory, the “Jewish lobby”.
We worried that the concept would remain the same even if it was now given an antiracist name. Rupert Cornwell’s article (‘Israel lobby’ blamed as Obama’s choice for intelligence chief quits, March 13) demonstrates that we were right to worry.
Cornwell uses the antisemitic term and the antiracist term interchangably, indicating that for him at least, they mean the same thing. And in case there is any doubt, he finishes his piece by quoting the right wing antisemite Pat Buchanan as an authority on the topic.
David Hirsh
March 14, 2009 at 1:36 pm
David thank you very much for publishing your letter.
It shows
Thank you David for publishing your letter.
Zionist leader Leo Motzkin said: “No Jews felt more helpless in the face of antisemitism than those who had done everything deliberately and enthusiastically to adopt themselves to their environment.”
Probably this is the reason, why some Jews join the ranks of the anti-Zionists. On the other hand there are those, whose Judaism is strengthened powerfully.
Those who hoped that antisemitism will pass away because of the Holocaust have to admit their error.
We must abandon that hope!
March 14, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Its astounding how the freudian slip was made into “Jewish Lobby” so suggesting an underlying prejudice based on Jews and not just lobbyists for Israel, of whom 90% aren’t Jewish.
March 14, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Chas Freeman in an interview with Rupert Dreyfuss:
Q. You were confident that you could withstand this assault until just before you dropped out.
A. Oh, I could have withstood it anyway. I don’t mind criticism…
…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. And I think they’re doing Israel in.
I had a really amazing outpouring of support, privately, not just from individuals, from Jewish-Americans of other views who hope that this was going to open up room for a discussion.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/417420/interview_with_charles_freeman?rel=hp_currently
March 15, 2009 at 7:30 am
Interesting interview. Thanks for the link zkharya.
Couple of points. When asked how the leak of the announcement happened, Freeman replies “I think it was an innocent thing.”
I find it amazing that someone who has worked in the Beltway for as long as Freeman would say that. (He certainly cannot think that.) Leaks of this nature are deliberate and never innocent. And Obama’s Administration had every reason to leak. They have had several issues come up with appointments and must have figured that their pre-screening isn’t working as well as it should. In the age of the Internet they decided to let us have a go at it. Right now (thanks to Obama’s incredible popularity) they can afford this strategy; but long-term this could be disastrous.
Then there’s the characterization of the opposition “and within a day or two the Steve Rosen and Daniel Pipes crowd began piling on.” I actually didn’t even see Pipes’ thing until Freeman withdrew his nomination. My information came from very left-leaning groups. Jews for Obama (which is dominated by doves and extreme doves) was split on whether they should take a formal position opposing the Freeman appointment.
“This isn’t really a lobby by, for or about Israel.” I think on a subconscious level at least Freeman got that he was opposed as much as he was because Jews of all political stripes felt attacked As Jews. And never mind what he says about Avidgor; that part (IMO) is as much a cover as his statement that the leak was innocent. The fact is he (unlike say the Independent) gets it.
“Nancy Pelosi jumped on the bandwagon.” He even acknowledges who really killed his nomination. If you read it while knowing how the system works, this is an amazingly frank interview.
The trouble is that Freeman buries the frankness embedded so to speak in his answers with a smoke-screen of the Israel (now Avidgor) Lobby. But he knows what really happened and why. If you read the interview carefully, you will see that he knows.
Like I said, fascinating.
Regards,
Inna
March 15, 2009 at 12:44 pm
The real question, of course, is why so many people will believe this rubbish?
March 15, 2009 at 12:55 pm
From the respectable Gush Shalom……….
“AS A former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Freeman is an expert on the Arab world and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has strong opinions about American policy in the Middle East, and makes no secret of them. In a 2005 speech, he criticized Israel’s “high-handed and self-defeating policies” originating in the “occupation and settlement of Arab lands,” which he described as “inherently violent.” In a 2007 speech he said that the US had “embraced Israel’s enemies as our own” and that Arabs had “responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies.” Charging the US with backing Israel’s “efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations” and to “seize ever more Arab land for its colonists,” he added that “Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians.” Another conclusion is his belief that the terrorism the United States confronts is due largely to “the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation that has lasted over 40 years and shows no signs of ending.” Naturally, the appointment of such a person was viewed with great alarm by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. They decided on an all-out attack. No subtle behind-the-scenes intervention, no discreet protestations, but a full-scale demonstration of their might right at the beginning of the Obama era. Public denunciations were composed, senators and congressmen pressed into action, media people mobilized. Freeman’s integrity was called into question, shady connections with Arab and Chinese financial interests “disclosed” by the docile press. Admiral Blair came to his appointee’s defense, but in vain. Freeman had no choice but to withdraw.
THE FULL meaning of this episode should not escape anyone. It was the first test of strength of the lobby in the new Obama era. And in this test, the lobby came out with flying (blue-and-white) colors. The administration was publicly humiliated. The White House did not even try to hide its abject surrender. It declared that the appointment had not been cleared with the President, that Obama had no hand in it and did not even know about it. Meaning: of course he would have objected to the appointment of any official who was not fully acceptable to the lobby. The portrayal of the power of the lobby by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, has been fully vindicated.
THIS HAS a significance which goes far beyond the already far-reaching implications of the affair itself. Many people in Israel, who view the establishment of the new rightist government with apprehension, cite as their main fear the danger of a clash with the new Obama administration. Such a clash, they believe, could be fatal for Israel’s security. But the rightists deride such arguments. They assert that no American president would ever dare to confront the Israeli lobby. The captive congressmen and senators, as well as the supporters of the Israeli government in the media and even in the White House itself, would sink on sight any American policy opposed by even the most extreme right-wing government in Israel. Now the first skirmish has taken place, and the President of the United States has blinked first. Perhaps one should not rush to conclusions, perhaps Obama needs more time to find his bearings, but the signs are ominous for any Israeli interested in peace. It may be too early to call this episode the Rape of Washington, but it is certainly vastly more important than Katsav’s sexual escapades.
BY THE WAY, or not by the way, a word about my trip to London. I went there to lend support to a group of Jewish personalities, well-known in academic and other circles, who have set up an organization called “Independent Jewish Voices”. Recently they published a book called “A Time To Speak Out”, in which several of them contributed to the debate about Israel, human rights and Jewish ethics. The views expressed are very close to those current in the Israeli peace camp. But when they offered their book for presentation in the Jewish Book Week, they were rudely rejected. In protest, they convened an event of their own, and that’s where I spoke. I believe that it is of utmost importance that such Jewish voices be heard. In several countries, including the US, groups of brave Jews are trying to stand up to the Jewish establishment that unconditionally supports the Israeli Right. In the US, several such groups have sprung up, some quite recently. One of them, called “J Street”, is trying to compete with the formidable and notorious AIPAC. It is important for governments and peoples to know that the unconditional support for the Israeli Right does not represent the majority of Jews in the US, the UK and other countries. The Jewish public is far from monolithic. The majority is liberal and believes in peace and human rights. Until now this was a silent majority, out of fear of a repressive establishment. It is indeed “a time to speak out”. I believe that it is in the interest of Israel to support these groups – and that their activities are somewhat more important than Mr. Katsav’s exploits.
This from the “American Firster Charles Lindbergh
“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.
The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.
It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.
No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.
Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.
Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.
I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.
We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.
They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.
Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms “fifth columnist,” “traitor,” “Nazi,” “anti-Semitic” were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.
Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.
There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step”
Spot the difference…..
March 15, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“The Jewish public is far from monolithic. The majority is liberal and believes in peace and human rights. Until now this was a silent majority, out of fear of a repressive establishment”
“Repressive establishment” – The Board of Deputies? What is this guy on?
Again with the idea that we must disabuse non-Jews that not all Jews think alike. I know; we’ll also make a statement that, since it is spring, not all Jews drink the blood of gentile babies; not all Jews clip gold coin, not all Jews are bankers.
If we don’t, well, we all know what to expect, and it will be “our” fault……..
March 16, 2009 at 6:49 am
So how does Gush Shalom explain the lack of fuss made about James Jones, George Mitchell, and Samantha Power? Does Gush Shalom feel that these are Likudniks to the core or something?
Regards,
Inna
March 16, 2009 at 10:52 am
In the interview with the Nation, it is implied that “the Lobby” made the choice to go after Freeman even though they were unhappy with some other appointments. In other words, the others were appointed because “the Lobby” chose not to wield its “power”.
As someone whose views I respect deeply commented to me onece. When it comes to Israel and Palestine, brains fly out the window. Or, as friends of mine used to chant in the 70’s ( never knew why, but it made me smile then) “paranoia for the masses, not just the ruling classes” (it rhymes when sung in a northern accent”)
March 24, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Well when you have Chuck Schumer and former AIPAC lobbyist Steven Rosen (who is a traitor to America) that have the power to lobby a presidential appointee to step down, what do you expect them to be called?
The truth is antisemitic get over it already.
March 24, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Herein lies the problem: Many Jews in America support Israel and there is nothing wrong with that, but groups like the Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai-Birith (Jewish freemasonry) incorrectly conflates the interests of Israel with all Jews.
March 24, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Yes maasanova, and we’re all supposed to believe that no one within the Beltway has a problem with an appointee who is peachy keen with using the military to brutally suppress an peaceful and articulate protest (and a protest over people not getting their contractual due no less) in the heart of the US capital. Whatever we do, we cannot mention that. We can’t ask the question about what pinheads thought that someone with views like that was well suited for a position critical to US security. To do so would provide answers that would leave us rightfully questioning the competence of the president’s advisors – and that’s a question that we had better damn well be asking ourselves if we want this administration to succeed, cause for the next four years, that’s the only one we’ve got.
But I suppose that tidbit makes it that much easier to blame it on The Lobby, eh?
March 27, 2009 at 1:05 am
You must be kidding. Bush and Cheney were in bed with the Saudis and Clinton was up to his eyeballs in Chinese generals. Israel does back door deals with both contries.
Hypocrisy is what it boils down to.
March 24, 2009 at 11:39 pm
And of you don’t have a problem Chas Freeman’s support of using the army to break up this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_army
…you’d have some serious nerve having a problem with JFK, albeit the one from the Mirror Universe, sending out the troops to break up this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom
Different meeting, very different alternative reality, same principle. Elephant. Say hello to the room.
March 24, 2009 at 11:59 pm
maasanova Says:
“Herein lies the problem: Many Jews in America support Israel and there is nothing wrong with that, but groups like the Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai-Birith (Jewish freemasonry) incorrectly conflates the interests of Israel with all Jews.”
Well, I am a ard carrying member of the ADL and am alsoa US veteran. Got problem with that, maasanova?
That you think the ADL is “Jewish freemansonry” whatever that means, tells me that you are an ignorant bigot. The only people worried about freemasonry are members of the Opus Dei who used to be accused of “conflating the interests of the Vatican with all Christians.” But we don’t want to go there, do we, maasanova?
March 27, 2009 at 12:53 am
Jacob,
No but you seem to have a problem with what I said. Why is that?
I know many Jews who don’t agree with the t-shirts that the IDF made about sodomizing and raping Arabs and shooting pregnant women.
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/racist-and-sexist-military-shirts-show-the-fruits-of-israeli-militarism.html
Oh yes Jacob. What does your Jewish Freemanson group with it’s life long extremist leader Abe Foxman have to say about this antisemitism?
March 27, 2009 at 2:12 am
The Haaretz piece Weiss draws on is much better than his. The Israeli sociologists and military personnel he quotes out of context are mulling over what to do about this phenomenon. They are very worried about it.
Whereas you, Maasanova, are using these t-shirts to make your cheap, gleeful point – that in order for non-Israeli Jews to be taken seriously on antisemitism, Israeli Jews must act impeccably. That is racist. You work it out.
March 27, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Everything is racist to this blog, except for when it comes to Jewish racism.
It’s very tired and let me tell you that many people know longer care about how your group’s cries of “antisemitism” “racist” or “bigot”. Israel has some serious problems it refuses to address and if non-Israeli Jews want to be dragged down with Israel then so be it.
June 7, 2009 at 6:32 pm
What is your evidence for ‘Jewish racism’ not being racism for the purposes of this site, which looks at antisemitism on the left?
What is your reason for thinking that Jews outside Israel are responsible for whatever happens in Israel and deserve what they get? Does this apply to all religions or just Jews?
How would non-Israeli Jews avoid being ‘dragged down’? Can I sign up for a test? Who decides whether my views are acceptable and gives me a pass from the ‘dragging down’ that is to come?
June 7, 2009 at 5:54 pm
[…] with surgical gloves June 7, 2009 — Mira Vogel See Harry’s Place. It’s not the first time The Independent have mingled their ‘Israel lobby’ stuff with racist references to […]
September 4, 2009 at 4:40 pm
It’s a shame that you don’t care about what happened to almost one million jewish refugees of the middle east and the maghrebi states in 1947-1948 and onwards, as you seem to care more about the arabs of the Former British mandate of Palestine than what we went through in far greater numbers than the arabs.
PS and don’t say that we were coerced to leave our homeland in the arab world by Israeli agents because we weren’t
May 16, 2011 at 9:34 am
[…] Less funny, of course, would be a Britain in which accusations of being “Zionist-led“ became a regular part of electoral campaigning. (As opposed to the current situation, where the Guardian and the Independent newspapers merely refer to American presidents and Capitol Hill in this manner. Such as here and here.) […]
July 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm
[…] should know that Rupert Cornwell has “previous form” in his anti-Israel endeavours. Engage Online has a thorough fisking of an article of his in the Independent from back in 2009. Here are the […]