Chas Freeman has bowed out as Obama’s Director of the National Intelligence Council after strong criticism from pro-Israel hawks and others. Now a controversy is again erupting over, you guessed it, the influence that the pro-Israel lobby (”The Lobby”) has over US politics. It used to be that social security was seen as the ‘Third Rail’ of US politics but now it seems that any mention of Israel brings about a virtual fist fight among every conceivable walk of life.
Let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR- some of the criticism of Israel and it’s policies (and those who champion them) is born of an underlying anti-semitism, but the almost constant insinuation from right-leaning, pro-Israel hawks, that any criticism of Israel is per se anti-semitic, is a lazy, lame lie which diminishes the very real anti-semitism that does exist. No nation, including Israel and the US, are above criticism or reproach. I personally support Israel’s right to exist and right to defend itself but increasingly, I find many of it’s policies to be self-defeating and even in some cases, reprehensible. Does that make me anti-semitic? Absolutely not. Just as my criticism of some US policy does not make me un-American.
Adding to the controversy is the fact that Chas Freeman sent a letter to Foreign Policy, which slammed the Israel Lobby (AIPAC?) as being the primary actors behind the firestorm of criticism which erupted when Freeman was tapped by Obama and Adm. Blair, to head the NIC. I think that there is probably some truth to that, but there was also vocal criticism of Freeman’s lax attitude towards human rights in China, among other things. That said, no one could argue that Freeman wasn’t qualified for the NIC post. More on the Freeman mess, here.
Needless to say, it didn’t help much when Chuck Shumer came out yesterday and bragged that he was the primary force behind preventing Freeman from being Director of the NIC and that the basis of his opposition was Freeman’s past statements criticizing aspects of Israeli policy.
For an excellent, but clearly progressive, take on the Freeman debacle, check out Glen Greenwald’s commentary on the issue. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it’s worth a read.
Stumble It!
7 responses so far ↓
1 tehehehe // Mar 12, 2009 at 8:32 am
Maybe you didn’t notice the full context of Greenwald’s commentary. Yes, he did support Freeman. But ALL of the commentary he offered was to rail against the “Isareli lobby” and say that Jews (he didn’t mention their religion, buthe made it evident) were opposed to Freeman. As if that was all it took to justify appointing Freeman to the position!
If you are “anti-Jewish lobby” then you are “qualified to bring a fresh look to foreign policy”.
Greenwald pointed out that Schumer characterized Freeman’s comments “over the top”, but kindly neglected to repeat the comments that Freeman has made….comments that WERE over the top. You CAN be a critic of Israel and not be anti-semite. Problem is, anti-semites are critical of Israel. Freeman certainly looks like an anti-semite from a neutral, objective analysis. Is he qualified to be head of NIC? Yes. But that doesn’t mean he should be, or that he is “the most qualified”.
http://www.mepc.org/whats/conf.remarks.pdf
There are many who are “anti-Israel”, or at least neutral, in Obama’s Administration. Certainly Hillary is at least neutral (she not only kissed Mrs. Arafat, she has criticized Israeli policy and called for a Palestinian state). Panetta, head of intelligence, is no slobbering supporter of Israel either!
I am “glad” you recognize the right of Israel to exist. It is good that you think they have a right to self-defense. I mean, that PROVES you are not anti-semite!
I will grant you that the Israeli lobby is strong. And I will grant that, as a group, those of Jewish heritage exercise more “power” within our society than their numbers justify. But NONE of that even suggests that our willingness to assist Israel in defending its territory is a misplaced priority. We need but look around at the parade of nations, all lead by dictators or monarchs, most being repressive, to see how wrong we would be to embrace these reprehensible governments. Israel may not be a “perfect” nation, and its policies may be “off” on occasion, but it is the only democracy among the group.
I find it odd that some who criticize the US history of “consorting with evil dictators”, want us to align more closely with Syria, Iran, Jorda, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE. Since when did evil dictators, to whom we are not supposed to “render” terrorists, become superior to democracies, where the “people” freely elect their leaders?
2 tehehehe // Mar 12, 2009 at 8:38 am
Speaking of libbies, how about the “Catholic” lobby?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_us/spending_kennedy_legacy
3 tehehehe // Mar 12, 2009 at 8:54 am
While Mid-East policy can be debated at leangth, supporting alternative energy production is supported by a stong majority of citizens!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96S164O0&show_article=1&catnum=0
4 stacyb // Mar 12, 2009 at 10:40 am
All lobbies can be potentially problematic, left, right whatever. They can also be an important voice for different constituencies and do some good. I think the only problem is when a couple of prominent lobbies become so powerful and monied and influential that they exert undue influence on politicians. Unfortunately, the way our political system is set up (candidates paying tends, hundreds of millions to get elected, re-elected), it practically ensures that some lobbies will become too powerful.
I don’t have any problem with the idea of a strong, pro-Israeli lobby- my problem is really when any lobby tries to wield too much influence over any given policy to the degree where people, appointees or programs can’t even voice an opposing view. I do think that at times, many associated with AIPAC seem to think that the US should never question Israeli policy and at times, it seems that Israel is more of a priority to them than what is best for America. The US and Israel certainly have many joint concerns and interests and that is why we are so supportive of them and rightly so (monetary and otherwise), but there are times where our interests may diverge and there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
An example on the left is the teachers unions- I wholeheartedly support teachers and the important work they due, but they have become so inflexible that unless a politician pushes only their narrow agenda, there is hell to pay politically. And we are seeing a perfect example of that with Obama’s statements yesterday about education and teacher accountability- the teachers union was *outraged* that any administration, let alone a Democratic one, would dare suggest under-performing, unqualified teachers face consequences.
5 tehehehe // Mar 13, 2009 at 8:02 am
I think that we have a lot more in common in our views than it might outwardly appear in an initial discussion on this topic. I think we both recognize the facts, and the potential pitfalls. And we know it is not just this issue, but many related issues.
Speical interest groups represent minority opinions. They do not typically represent the majority, because that kind of obviates the needs for a lobby effort. Lobbyests are there to represent the ideas of a small activist group. Teachers and Israel both fall into that circle, as do plum growers and rose importers. And the interests of those minority opinions do not always coincide with the interests of the majority. And lobbyest therefore sometimes work in a manner, or push a polciy, that permits them to exercise a “disproportionate” degree of influence. Its not illegal, but it is not always in the best interests of the majority of citizens.
Much as I hate them, however, lobbyests do work to overcome the “tyranny of the majority”. They fulfill an important constitutional role in permitting the citizen to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Lawmakers are supposed to “keep their eye on the ball”, however, and represent the interest of the nation, and only attend to the interest of the minority when it does not conflict with the interests of the nation as a whole. Politicians, being human, are sometimes weak in that regard. Too weak, too often.
6 stacyb // Mar 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Yes, it’s easy to demonize lobbyists and those they represent because some of the largest, most powerful ones gives the others a bad name.
I do think that the whole lobbyist system, like everything else in Washington politics, has become grossly abused- the most monied, influential lobbies (insurance, trial lawyers, AIPAC, teachers unition, Big Pharm, agribusiness, etc)get disproportionate amount of perks and quid pro quos from the politicians, for obvious reasons while smaller lobbies that represent minority interests (rose importers as you mentioned, also groups like immigrant strawberry farmers, people with more obscure deadly illnesses, very small businesses etc). What ends up happening, is a sort of “tyrrany of the minority” ends up being either a “tyrrany of the monied majority” or a “tyrrany of the monied minority” and still the folks, organizations and interests who may have fewer members, less cash and political influence, are still left to fall through the cracks. That’s a long-winded way of saying, “money talks”.
7 Paul // Mar 14, 2009 at 9:57 am
This expanding controversy actually did not hit the MSM until thursday or friday although the internet had been abuzz with it for almost a month . I wonder why not? The msm is so biased in its reporting on Israel. God forbid anyone question Israel’s policies about anything.
Leave a Comment