« Parking Reform | Main | Working for the Clampdown »

Pollack vs. Power

25 Feb 2008 12:45 pm

Spencer Ackerman flags a Shmuel Rosner article on Samantha Power in which she responds to allegations that she hates Jews, etc., etc. The article's not terrible, but anything that refers to Noah Pollack, who's been peddling these smears, as a "yound and talented writer," is bound to be at least somewhat problematic. To make a long story short, though, first Obama was an anti-semite because Zbigniew Brzezinski is an anti-semite. Then Obama was an anti-semite because Robert Malley is an anti-semite. And now according to Pollack it's Power who who's tainted by Jew-hatred.

In part, you're just seeing tawdry political smears against a popular and charismatic progressive politician. But in large part we're just seeing Episode 7,000 of one of the longest-running shows in the U.S. foreign policy debate in which nobody is allowed to say that any Israeli actions have caused anyone to suffer, have been responsible for any problems for the United States, have in any way contributed to the inability to reach a peaceful settlement of the conflict, etc.

It'd be nice to see the Obama campaign actually punch back on this kind of thing. To note that if Commentary's out to get you, it's probably because you're doing something right. Something like, perhaps, dissenting from the maniacal Commentary worldview that's done so little over the past seven years to make the United States or Israel more secure. Instead, they're kind of slinking away apologetically lest they offend the broad middle of American (and Jewish) opinion on Israel which certainly wants the U.S. to take a "pro-Israel" posture but certainly doesn't define that posture in a Commentaryish way as involving a limitless commitment to securing West Bank settlements and avoiding diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran. It's a pretty a disappointing lack of vision on Obama's part, though I'm hardly seeing a better alternative.

Share This

Comments (95)

Referring to Pollack as a "yound and talented writer" is problematic, indeed, on several levels.

Yes, the Likud lobby is going to need to be confronted at some point, but this is another one of those "Could you please wait until AFTER he's elected?" moments.

Matthew wrote: "Instead, they're kind of slinking away apologetically lest they offend the broad middle of American (and Jewish) opinion on Israel which certainly wants the U.S. to take a "pro-Israel" posture"

There is evidence against the claim that the "broad middle of American" opinion wants a "pro-Israel" posture. American in general want a balanced approach. Although the board middle of Jewish American opinion do want a "pro-Israel" stance and will advocate feircely for such a position where as the board middle of American opinion isn't so motivated.

Commentary's single positive contribution to American culture is of course the Annie Hall joke about its merger with Dissent. Indeed, with the same sequence also containing the "Why don't you get William F Buckley to kill the spider", it's refreshing to see how little things change.

On the other hand Chris, let us not forget the Christian fundies who are also backing Israel full tilt, in order for Jesus to return and the Jews to convert/die. As the election and reelection of our President shows, they are a large and influential group of voters themselves.

And I'm with you, Mr. LaBonne, on recognizing that it's unrealistic and counter-productive for Barack to take on the Likud lobby before he takes office, but the difficulty is discerning whether or not that is a fight Barack will indeed take on once he is in office. Unfortunately, the lobby for an even-handed approach to the West Bank and Gaza isn't quite so popular as to be able to assure his reelection or prevent the Congress from blocking any attempts to reduce the Likud lobby's influence. So will Barack take on this very difficult fight? I hope so, I think MY hopes so, but we're left to try and figure that out without any evidence in our favor.

Anyway, I thought the article was illuminating but I didn't like the part MY mentioned and, especially, the part where the NIE was labeled "pathetic." I also extremely disliked Power's rebutting the charge that it is "pathetic." Since when did it become CW in the Democratic foreign policy establishment that intelligence that doesn't favor Israel's goals is suddenly suspect?

Oops, and by "rebutting" I meant "not rebutting" - that is, she didn't contest the NIE being labeled pathetic. It might very well be pathetic, but I doubt Shmuel Rosner, the article of the piece, or Samantha Power have seen any better intelligence that contradicts it.

Fortunately, Obama and his foreign policy advisers have a lot more sense than MY et al. "Punch back"? What ever for? No one is supporting "limitless commitment to securing West Bank settlements", etc.

On the other hand, it's not hard to see why most Americans are not impressed by the "even-handed" nonsense. On one side we've got a legitimate democracy with a dominant secular culture that's very familiar and compatible with ours, and whose citizens seem to like us a lot. On the other, a loosely-defined, violent and chaotic mob lead by competing tribal mafias, which danced in the streets to celebrate on 9/11. We should be "even-handed"?

So is it your position Robert Powell that you do not seek to be even-handed (i.e. fair)? If that is the case, then you have confirmed the world's knock on our policy in the Middle East.

Actually existing Zionism is a disgrace.

I wonder if they're going to claim David Axelrod is a Jew-hater next.

Anyway, one thing that bothered me is that Power seems to have accepted -- at least for the purposes of talking to Rosner -- the view that Ahmadinejad is the Big Enchilada of Iran.

Yes, the Likud lobby is going to need to be confronted at some point, but this is another one of those "Could you please wait until AFTER he's elected?" moments.

I don't know-- he's going to have to do something to combat the anti-Semitic smear, or at least I hope he does.

Robert Powell,
The dancing by a small few after 9/11 was certainly abhorrent, but why do you think their mindset has been swayed that way? Do they hate us because we're free? And why do you think their society has degenerated into seeming chaos? (I think that claim is excessive, but certainly Palestinian politics are messed up.)

The must been a nice session of status quo fellatio offered up in that hotel room. Change we can believe in?

An anti-Semite used to be someone who hates Jews. Now, it's someone whom Jews hate. i.e. Jews in denial about Israel. Colin Powell, Jimmy Carter, Condi Rice, Walt and Mearshimer, the State Dept., the CIA, half the Pentagon, Senators Lugar, Hagel, etc., etc. they're all anti-Semites.

The hunt for anti-Semites is a hunt for pockets of Resistance to the New World Order like Nazis going house to house.

Re Yglesias

Of even greater concern to supporters of the State of Israel, which club quite obviously doesn't include Mr. Yglesias, is the presence of Robert Malley on the list of Obama advisers.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-israel-hating-advisor-robert.html

Mr. Malley is a second generation antisemite as his Syrian father showed him the way.

Re Trevor

The only people that Mr. Trevor considers to be antisemites are David Duke and Don Black.

Re abb1

Our Israel bashing numbnuts, Mr. abb1, is a disgrace to the human race.

The hunt for anti-Semites is a hunt for pockets of Resistance to the New World Order like Nazis going house to house.

Dick Lugar and Coling Powell are in concentration camps?

And here I was think they were fabuously well off, successful public figures with a history of supporting and/or making bad policies and facing little or no consequences for their lack of judgment.

Shocking, indeed. Of course, the ZOG is probably coming after you, next, Trevor. Don't let them take away your guns!

Seriously - kudos to Power to standing up to this kind of reporting.

At the end of the day, I really don't think the postings of anyone, whether young and talented, or merely "young and talented," on a blog on Commentary's website amounts to all that much.

Obama will get 75-80% of the Jewish vote the way all Democratic nominees have.

Here is another article about Obama adviser Robert Malley which also mentions some of Senator Obamas' other Israel bashing hangers on like George Soros.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html

Nice of SLC to show up and make Matt's points for him. What a maroon.

SLC

"Mr. ------ is a second generation antisemite as his Syrian father showed him the way."

What is it that makes you such a miserable hate-monger?

SLC,

Obama is poised to take the same, if not more, of the percentage of the American Jewish vote as Democratic nominees have done time and time again, recently.

No amount of fear mongering from a place like Commentary, or the American Thinker, or settler websites like Israel National News or Israel Insider - or whatever - will make a shred of difference.

Obama has already been positively received by even the NYSun and Martin Peretz - which means he might even do better than usual amongst Democrats.

Mr. Malley is a second generation antisemite as his Syrian father showed him the way.

SLC, you know Mr. Malley's Syrian father is Jewish, right?

And his mother's last name is Silverstein.

So he doesn't have the same views as Dennis Ross - also on Obama's advisor team, btw - he is one of many voices Obama will, and should, listen to.

Dick Lugar and Coling Powell are in concentration camps?

Why, concentration camps come later; for a while you'll be just wearing an emblem of some sort.

And it is already against the law to boycott Israeli products, you can be jailed for that - for up to 10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_political_boycotts_of_Israel#United_States_Office_of_Antiboycott_Compliance

Re Trevor's comment "An anti-Semite used to be someone who hates Jews"
--------
Yes, but the current Definition is:

"Anyone who wins an argument with
Norman Podhoretz"

So, abb1, you're of the opinion that Dick Lugar and Colin Powell are wearing some kind of emblem?

Even though no one can see it?

Even though Lugar goes to the Senate every day?

And even though Colin Powell goes to his country club every day or whatever, and routinely deposits his checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking fees?

So when are the "roundups" coming?

I'd like to warn my friends on Trevor's list.

As for your other "point," quite the non-sequitor - but don't you boycott Israeli products? I don't think you're going to jail for that. Notice even your link labels it "antiboycott" compliance. How Orwellian, I suppose.

Accusations of anti-Semitism + evolving attack based on the insinuation that you're a (dun dun DUN) Muslim = need to take a really moderate tone on Israel.

It would be great to see him take a really strong Progressive line on the Middle East generally. But can't you just see the attack ad that would come out of it?

Maybe a couple of names in his list are wrong, but of course many people do wear that emblem.

So, you're a lawyer, tell me: if I own a company and I refuse - yes, for political reasons - to buy from an Israeli supplier - should I go to jail for 10 years? How would you characterize this law?

Pollack never claimed that Obama was an antisemite, or that Zbig was, or that Power was or that Malley was. The antisemitism shtick is a spin on the kind of legitimate concerns he brought up, when he asked:

"Does anyone think that if the time comes that Power has President Obama’s ear, she will advise him to do anything other than repudiate America’s greatest ally in the Middle East in favor of appeasing its greatest enemy? And here’s an even better question: Does Barack Obama have a single adviser who would tell him to do anything else?"

Criticizing Israel's policies is not antisemitic. but antisemitism is not a legitimate way to criticize either Israel or her Jewish supporters.

I'm also puzzled as to the way some of the commenters here fully expect Obama, who has unambiguously pledged his support of the Jewish state and her security, to renege on his word. This shows very little faith in the man's integrity. Do you claim that his declarations to his Jewish supporters, and others who care about the survival of Israel, is just a ruse?

People who genuinely care about the survival of Israel should start by paying no attention to the screeds of the usual Israel-lobby suspects like Pollack. They represent not the interests of Israel, but only those the Israeli right wing, whose policies are a prescription for disaster for Israel. If you genuinely care about Israel, you should be denouncing these people. You should also start asking why positions that are a matter of everyday debate in Israel are routinely smeared as antisemitism in the US. Anybody who claims to be a supporter of Israel but fails to denounce, or actually participates in, such smears is revealed as a stinking hypocrite.

So, Steve, you are speaking as one who cares deeply for Israel's interests.

What are those interests and how are they to be achieved? Power, in her thought experiment, suggested this:

"it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/2093

What do you think, is it in Israel's interests that the US invest billions of $ in Palestine and send a great military force to protect the Palestinians against Israel? Do you think Obama is likely to follow that advice?

Rosner is a Labor guy. Right, left - doesn't matter, there's no right and left in Zionism anymore, if ever was. Ethnic monomania is a disgrace.

If I were an Israeli I would be active in Peace Now. That should tell you sufficiently where I'm coming from. And no, I'm not going to debate with you. Spew to your heart's content.

"Obama has unambiguously pledged his support of the Jewish state and her security..." because he is an entirely sensible political leader who shares the basic attitudes of the vast majority of reasonable minded Americans about Israel and the Pals.

It is not "fair", or sensible, to be "even handed" between groups which represent friends and allies with much in the way of shared values on one side; and people who hate us, and aspire to the values of our enemies on the other. The Pals' idea of a great leader was Saddam Hussein. These are the folks who equate blowing up school buses with "fighting for justice", and developed the manipulation of mentally defective children into being suicide bombers. But we should really be treating them "equally"? This is a new form of mental illness.


Hmm, would that be the former American ally against Iran and recipient of American military aid Saddam Hussein?

The contortions of these right-wing creatures are funny to watch. The consequences of their insanity are not so funny, though.

Maybe a couple of names in his list are wrong, but of course many people do wear that emblem.

Of course? They do? What emblem?

Is this an imaginary emblem?

Or, for that matter, an emblem that prevents anyone on Trevor's list from you know, being hugely successful in their careers (or as an institution) compared to the average citizen of the United States?

Really - these people have no more power to label someone offensive and untouchable as people in the far-left (or far-right) camp.

Samantha Power about to lose her job? No.
Condi Rice going to be fired? No.
State Department dissolving? No.
Half the Pentagon falling into the Potomac? No.
Are there new openings at Harvard and U. of Chicago because these guys were fired? No.
Openings in the Senate? No.

So what emblem are these people wearing that is like the one the Nazis made the Jews wear?

And I'm not sure what any of this has to do with business owners deciding to comply with, or not, the Arab boycott of Israel.

It's a law designed to bolster, for right or wrong, portions of U.S. foreign policy.

It's a law which you've admitted does not affect you one bit, by the way. I mean, are you a business owner?

And here's advice, as a lawyer - should you become a business owner that is in a position to do business with an Israeli company, but do not want to, just don't. You will be fine. As are 99.99% of companies that make that same decision, for whatever reason.

What does that have to do with Zbignew Brezinski being placed in a concentration camp in Manhattan by Noah Pollack?

Reality check on Israel and the Palestinians:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20856
What David Shulman is bravely fighting, is what the self-appointed "friends" of Israel are supporting. They should be ashamed, except they HAVE no shame.

And now according to Pollack it's Power who who's tainted by Jew-hatred.

He never claimed that. He did accuse her of being too anti-Israel for his taste. He never, however, called her a Jew hater or called her anti-Semitic in any of the writings pointed to or that I've seen. Please provide some substantiation of this claim.

It's disgusting when people pretend that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. Surely they shouldn't be allowed to do that. But Pollack hasn't done that here. He's simply said that she isn't pro-Israel enough for him. It's disgusting to me as well when Mr. Yglesias or others falsely claim that someone has equated criticism of Israel with Jew-hatred.

"Does anyone think that if the time comes that Power has President Obama’s ear, she will advise him to do anything other than repudiate America’s greatest ally in the Middle East in favor of appeasing its greatest enemy?

Will America diss the class president and go to the dance with a loooooser?? Ohmygod! Stay tuned!

In the real world, our foreign policy is not a popularity contest, nor is it simply a matter of stupidly supporting 'friends' and smiting 'enemies'. Our friends work against us, and our enemies' interests align with our own. Noah Pollak may or may not be calling us anti-semites, but he is insulting our intelligence with sloganeering and tacky insinuation.

I don't even like Samantha Power. Nevertheless, every time she's writing something, she'll be thinking about how it's going to reflect on that brand-new antisemitic emblem she's wearing now. Is it going to make it shinier or dimmer? Will her speaking arrangements be canceled, like it happened to other people? Is she going to start getting hate-mail, death threats? Will she lose her tenure somehow? Yes, I imagine it is somewhat similar.

Getting remarks about shame from someone spouting cheap propaganda like Steve LaBonne is rich. He's either lazy or stupid, but neither is an adequate excuse for spreading lies in defense of genocidal fascists as he does above.

As everyone who cares about the facts knows, Iraq was a client state of the USSR, not the US. Although we weren't exactly broken hearted when they attacked our de facto enemy in Khomeini's Iran, he did it with tens of billions of dollars worth of Warsaw Pact equipment. During the period 1973-1990, we supplied exactly .45% (that's POINT four-five percent) of Iraq's weapons. That amounted to some spare parts and ammunition, and some satellite photos of Iranian dispositions at a point that it looked like they were going to win the war. But then, we also sold Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Iran during the same period. Iraq got a lot more from the French, the Germans, and several Dutch firms. Our official policy was perhaps best summarized by George Schultz: "It's a shame they can't both lose."

The lie that we "supported" Saddam is so easily refuted that its persistence can only be explained in terms of the moral failings of the dupes and rogues who repeat it.

Noah Pollak goes into denial mode.

abb1,

The operative word in your last post is "imagine."

Ok, so instead of being "like" the Nazis, it is nothing like the Nazis.

If the only thing a Jew had to worry about in 1930's Germany was the occasional speaking engagement being cancelled... Walt and Mearsheimer had one speaking engagement cancelled (by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs) because the organizers wanted a balanced panel. Personally, I disagree with that decision (and have heard Prof. Walt speak several times, with no alternative perspective provided). And the two have been granted a variety of platforms - many, many more than they have been denied (which remains at one, I believe - but even if it is 10, they have given many, many more speeches on their book than that).

It's laughable to claim that the free speech of these professors are being denied somehow.

If you guys want to make these people out to be way more powerful than they are - fine. No one's stopping you. It doesn't reflect reality, though.

And when Samantha Power loses her tenure, I'll take you seriously on this topic. I'll buy you lunch, if you want, and you can explain to me how the careers of everyone Trevor listed has been ruined by a noise machine you view to be akin to the Nazis.

However, since everyone/thing he listed is not only totally secure in their job and livelihood, but thriving (Yes, Hagel is not seeking another term, but it has nothing to do with this topic), I don't think it will happen.

Trevor, on the other hand, needs to collect all his guns and head for the hills before the "Cohen" (or Chertoff) Act is passed and enforced when the ZOG sends in the dark skinned FBI agents into his house to take them away.

From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt -- much as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe of Iran. By 1961, the Kassem regime had grown more assertive. Seeking new arms rivaling Israel's arsenal, threatening Western oil interests, resuming his country's old quarrel with Kuwait, talking openly of challenging the dominance of America in the Middle East -- all steps Saddam Hussein was to repeat in some form -- Kassem was regarded by Washington as a dangerous leader who must be removed.

In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies -- chiefly France and Germany -- resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s ''Health Alteration Committee,'' as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. ''Almost certainly a gain for our side,'' Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein, then a 25-year-old who had fled to Cairo after taking part in a failed assassination of Kassem in 1958.

According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.

The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Kassem and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad -- for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq.

But it wasn't long before there was infighting among Iraq's new rulers. In 1968, after yet another coup, the Baathist general Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr seized control, bringing to the threshold of power his kinsman, Saddam Hussein. Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505EFDB103EF937A25750C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

For documents about the turn to support Iraq in the 1980s by the Reagan administration, the non-profit National Security Archive is helpful.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Ah, I see. Hey, a hyperbole in a blog thread! Call the cops!

And don't forget when you're there to also look at material about Bush I's support for Saddam right up until the invasion of Kuwait. (In fact his administration sent friendly signals which Saddam may have misinterpreted as a green light for that invasion.)

Mill was right- conservatives are the stupid party.

Robert Powell is an interesting specimen. To really find his kind of ignorant viciousness in other countries you'd have to go back to the French hard right during the Algerian war, or perhaps the Sunni military elite in Iraq while they were slaughtering the Kurds during the eighties. It's a truly repellent mixture of cruelty and stupidity that, fortunately, only comes along once in a while.

abb1,

Ah, I see. Hey, a hyperbole in a blog thread! Call the cops!

Ok, so you admit you are full of it.

Not that it matters, but attacks from the usual suspects (Commentary, Abe Foxman, etc..) have been trending towards backfiring in a huge way, anyway, for quite some time.

Helping turn movies and books they don't like into record breakers and best sellers.

They're really just not all that good at stifling or shutting down their perceived opponents. I'm not saying they don't try, or "they don't exist." They exist and they try hard.

They just absolutely suck at it.

Not all of them suck. What about Finkelstein/Dershowitz story. Anything having to do with Dershowitz, his threats to that British teaching union, for example.

ReSoCalJustice

"SLC, you know Mr. Malley's Syrian father is Jewish, right?"

I was not aware of this but so what. Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are also Jewish and virulently anti_Israel. They also play footsie with Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson.

Re Steve Labonne

I am rather disappointed in Mr. Labonne whose comments against some of the pseudoscience crap posted on many of the Scienceblogs blogs I much admire. On that issue, we march shoulder to shoulder. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on Middle East issues, hopefully not disagreeably.

Re abb1

Mr. abb1 is a piece of filth.

First, if you're going to slander somebody, you might at least spell his name correctly (it's Pollak not Pollack), such elementary accuracies might help convince people that you've actually read what he's written, which you clearly haven't.

Second, if you're going to embark on an ignorant, ill-informed, semi-psychopathic rant, you should at least base your ravings on something which the object of your blubberings has actually said. As Noga has kindly pointed out "To make a long story short, though, first Obama was an anti-semite because Zbigniew Brzezinski is an anti-semite. Then Obama was an anti-semite because Robert Malley is an anti-semite. And now according to Pollack it's Power who who's tainted by Jew-hatred" has absolutely nothing to do with what Pollak actually wrote, as everyone here would know had you deigned to quote any of it, which you are clearly too cowardly (or lazy) to do.

Ironically, your paranoiac assertion that people are not allowed to say what, in fact, they say all the time, often in national bestsellers and the op-ed pages of major newspapers, tends to confirm one's suspicions of antisemitism rather than assuage them. But I digress.

Sorry to be disagreeable then, SLC, but this

Mr. Malley is a second generation antisemite as his Syrian father showed him the way.
shows you're in no position to call anybody else a "piece of filth".

Tell me, is David Shulman an antisemite?

I was not aware of this but so what. Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are also Jewish and virulently anti_Israel.
And on your planet that makes them anti-semites, right? And I guess the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews are also anti-semites? And yet you're really too dim to understand that you're exemplifying the disgusting tactic, that you like to pretend doesn't exist, of conflating (quite illegitimately) opposition to Israeli government policy with anti-Semitism?

Wake up and take a hard look at what you're really supporting, and with whom you're consorting. It's not a pretty picture.

Re Steve LaBonne

1. I never heard of David Shulman. A google search turns up several individuals with that name so I have no idea to whom Mr. LaBonne is referring.

2. Apparently Mr. LaBonne is rather new to this blog. Mr. abb1 has a long history of Israel bashing and borderline antisemitic rants going back at least as long as I started coming here.

3. I have posted 2 links to articles accusing the Malleys pere and fis with antisemitism. A google search turns up many more. Just for the information of Mr. LaBonne and others, the Malleys were expelled from France for seditious activities by then President D'Estaing, not noted as a great friend of the State of Israel.

4. Mr. Malley has spread lies and distortions about the events that occurred in 2000 at the Camp David negotiations which are totally contradicted and discredited by the renditions of both Dennis Ross and former President Clinton.

5. Despite Mr. LaBonnes' disagreeable attitude, I refuse to respond in kind.

Not all of them suck. What about Finkelstein/Dershowitz story. Anything having to do with Dershowitz, his threats to that British teaching union, for example.

Dershowitz helped convince DePaul to not grant tenure to a Professor who had repeatedly expressed his solidarity with Hezbollah and expended much energy on his own various campaigns and personal attacks, a man who several other universities had already decided against giving permanent employment status.

What a hard sell. Super impressive.

Meanwhile, Dershowitz' attacks on Walt/Mearsheimer, like 99% of his other targets, have had a boomerang effect.

What about his threats to that British teaching union? A small group of activists got something passed in some kind of committee that the larger body later decided to overturn.

What did Dershowitz do? Did any of those teachers lose their jobs? Did any of them go to jail? Are they wearing an emblem?

It's a pretty a disappointing lack of vision on Obama's part, though I'm hardly seeing a better alternative.

Matt, we're waiting to see if your own book pulls its punches on this topic.

Re Steve LaBonne

"And I guess the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews are also anti-semites?"

No, these clowns are merely sick individuals, just like their Christian counterparts the Fred Phelps family.

Read the NY Review article to which I liked above to find a superb piece by Avishai Margalit about Shulman. Then go to Amazon and buy Shulman's book, "Dark Hope", of which Margalit's essay (is he yet another anti-semite?)is a review. You have a lot of harsh reality to catch up to after all the propaganda you've swallowed. If you want to support the current Israeli government you should at least do it with your eyes wide open so you know just what you're supporting.

And that's all I'm going to post here. It's not fair to hijack Matt's comment thread any further.

If you want to support the current Israeli government you should at least do it with your eyes wide open so you know just what you're supporting.

Oh, he's got some open eyes, he disapproves of the current government because it's too humane and would like to see something on the nature of Yisrael Beiteinu at the helm. He'd bitch about them if they actually arrived to. No one is going to out cheerleading Jewish Israel or outbid him on hating the Arabs.

All right, one more comment. I don't believe for a moment that SLC, or most staunch American supporters of Israel, are the kind of people Ed Marshall depicts them as being. I believe they are simply very ill-informed about the unpleasant reality on the ground in the occupied territories.

Re Steve LaBonne

"If you want to support the current Israeli government you should at least do it with your eyes wide open so you know just what you're supporting."

I hate to fall short of Mr. LaBonnes' expectations but I don't support the current Israeli Government, whose incompetence is equaled only by that of the current US Government (and perhap by the PA, given their egregious defeat in the Gaza Strip at the hands of Hamas).

"Read the NY Review article to which I liked above to find a superb piece by Avishai Margalit about Shulman."

Based on a cursory reading of the Margalit article, I would not call Mr. Shulman antisemitic. I would call him naive. Like all too many on the left, he thinks that if only the Government of Israel were nice to the Palestinians, their affection would be returned in kind. This is just as naive as Avigdor Liebermans' quaint notion that if only the economic condition of the Palestinians was improved, peace would be at hand. Unfortunately, the Palestinian terrorists aren't interested in nice or improved economic conditions. They are only interested in fighting and killing. Until such time as they are willing to cease and desist, there will be no peace.

Well Steve, called that one wrong didn't you. He wouldn't even settle for Lieberman and Beiteinu and outbid them.

"It would be great to see him take a really strong Progressive line on the Middle East generally."

What does a "Progressive" line on the Middle East mean? Back when you folks used to call yourselves liberals (before you damaged that brand with domestic policies that laid waste to American cities), the liberal line was pro-Israel. It was only after the Arab states and the Palestinian movement became aligned with the Soviet Union in the 1960's that you started the gradual shift to a pro-Arab bias.

The internationalist left (of which it takes some stretching of the imagination to include American liberals) was always anti-zionist as far back as the 19th century when it was strictly theory.

The breaking point between liberals and what I'll call for the sake of argument "progressives" was the 1967 war. Your anti-vietnam war liberal suddenly took a break from denouncing Johnson and imperialism to cheer on American arms actually conquering territory and anyone serious on the left did a collective WTF. The New Republic of course started denouncing the "new anti-semitism" (which is still new after all these years) of not seeing the beauty of it all.

I get your politics, the world is a big game of Risk and you like your allies (where they came from or whatever is unimportant). When you start trying to make a universalist, moral case (which is what liberals are supposed to do) for zionism the whole house of cards starts falling apart. That's why you don't hear that argument, it doesn't exist. You have to start talking about something and anti-semitism is the handiest club. Oppositionalism is probably what nudged the liberals of the day into a reflexive defense of Israel. The people who were loudly anti-Israel were anti-semitic John Birch types and if they were against it, you didn't want to be hanging out with them.

Matt,

Come on now. Really? From you we hear a plea for fairness in writing about a presidential candidate's advisors? Please. Also, it would be nice if you could link to a post of Noah's that actually does accuse Power of anti-Semitism. And no, she is not an anti-Semite or a hater of Israel. But Senator Obama is running for president and not everyone in the blogosphere is in holy smokes and gee whiz love with the man. Not yet at least.

Eli

Ed Marshall,

Most of the weapons Israel won the Six-Day War with were of French, not American origin, so your explanation doesn't hold water. But you are right that the Six-Day War played a role. Leftists like to support perceived underdogs, and after that war, all of a sudden, Israel didn't seem as pathetic as it did in 1948. But again, the real difference was that the Arabs had become aligned with the Soviet Union, and, later, the Palestinians (who hadn't made much of a fuss about being occupied by the Egyptians and Jordanians up until 1967) became favored Leftist revolutionaries.

Remember, kids: SLC is just a very good troll from the white-supremacist, anti-semitic underbelly of the internets. It's no more than a parody Kahanist.

Re Robert Powell's comment "The lie that we "supported" Saddam is so easily refuted that its persistence can only be explained in terms of the moral failings of the dupes and rogues who repeat it."
-----------
Explain this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld#Reagan_Administration

SLC, I was not aware of this but so what. Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are also Jewish and virulently anti_Israel.

Accepting this argument - for the sake of argument only - I believe your point was that Malley was anti-Semitic because he was of Arab descent.

Rather, he is half-Mizrahi and all Jewish. I wouldn't dispute that there are many Jewish critics, even virulent ones, of Israel, Israeli policies, Zionism, etc.

I don't think everyone can be lumped together, on either side of this debate. I think categorizing Malley and Finkelstien as equivalent is wrong.

Speaking of Finkelstien, and this is for abb1, if you think being virulently anti-Israel is the only thing gets you in trouble at DePaul, try googling a guy named Thomas Klocek. It's clearly a two way street there.

Matt: "It's a pretty a disappointing lack of vision on Obama's part, though I'm hardly seeing a better
alternative."

You just figuring that out, Matt?

How many times here have I pointed out Obama's pandering to the AIPAC crowd? Granted, it's less than Clinton's - who is the AIPAC crowd favorite, even over McCain - but it's still pathetic.

The reality is no politician in the race except Ron Paul (who was irrelevant anyway) has even tried to clearly distance him- or herself from uncritical support of Israel. They know damn well - or at least have been so informed by their political advisers - that this would be political suicide. You can argue over whether it really would be or not, but you can't argue that this is not the perception.

Powell: "On the other, a loosely-defined, violent and chaotic mob lead by competing tribal mafias, which danced in the streets to celebrate on 9/11."

That would be the Iranians who held candle-lit vigils in sympathy with the US after 9/11.

Anybody who reads the reports of Westerners who have been to Iran recently knows that most of the Iranian people do not dislike Americans.

On the other hand, the first thing former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said about 9/11 was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

Oh, and not to mention the Israels who were caught by police filming the collapse of the towers and high-fiving each other as it happened...

The High-Fivers
More proof the Israelis were shadowing the 9/11 hijackers
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10528

"Of particular interest is the coverage by The Forward, the oldest newspaper of the Jewish community in North America. They reported on one key aspect of the Israeli-9/11 connection: the story of the five employees of a moving van company apprehended hours after the twin towers were struck. They had been observed in Liberty State Park, New Jersey, overlooking the Hudson, with a clear view of the burning towers. A woman had seen them from the window of her apartment building overlooking the parking lot: they came out of a white van, and they were jumping up and down, high-fiving each other with obvious glee. Their mood, it could be said, was celebratory. They were also filming the towers as they burned, and taking still photos.

The woman called the cops, who put out a "be on the lookout" alert. I’ll let Christopher Ketcham, author of a blockbuster new report appearing in Counterpunch, tell the rest of the story:

"At 3:56 p.m., twenty-five minutes after the issuance of the FBI BOLO, officers with the East Rutherford Police Department stopped the commercial moving van through a trace on the plates. According to the police report, Officer Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli approached the stopped van, demanding that the driver exit the vehicle. The driver, 23-year-old Sivan Kurzberg, refused and 'was asked several more times [but] appeared to be fumbling with a black leather fanny pouch type of bag’. With guns drawn, the police then 'physically removed’ Kurzberg, while four other men – two more men had apparently joined the group since the morning – were also removed from the van, handcuffed, placed on the grass median and read their Miranda rights. They had not been told the reasons for their arrest. Yet, according to DeCarlo’s report, 'this officer was told without question by the driver [Sivan Kurzberg], 'We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.’ Another of the five Israelis, again without prompting, told Officer DeCarlo – falsely – that 'we were on the West Side Highway in New York City during the incident.'"

This is, I believe, the most detailed account yet published of what actually happened that fateful day, and Ketcham clearly shows that the Israelis were certainly aware of why they had been stopped. The cops practically had to drag them out of the van at gunpoint, and it is surely suspicious that they immediately starting denying any role in "the incident." How did they know they weren’t being stopped for a traffic violation? No wonder they were held for 71 days, mostly in solitary confinement, and interrogated. Some repeatedly failed polygraph tests when questioned about possible surveillance activities. The FBI agents who interrogated them reportedly called them "the high-fivers," because of their odd behavior at Liberty State Park.

The Forward confirmed that the company they ostensibly worked for, Urban Moving Systems, of Weehawken, New Jersey, was in all likelihood a Mossad front. Dominik Suter, the owner, fled to Israel the day after a police raid on his office. The five detained Israelis were sent back to Israel, where they claimed to be innocent victims of harassment. Here they are on an Israeli talk show. Of course they don’t mention any of the above, or that they were found to have multiple passports in their possession, along with $4,700 stuffed in a sock and maps of New York City highlighted in certain spots. Ketcham quotes one local law enforcement official as saying

"It looked like they’re hooked in with this, it looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

What did Dershowitz do?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/56cb5b92-10a7-11dc-96d3-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1


A top American lawyer has threatened to wage a legal war against British academics who seek to cut links with Israeli universities.
...
"I will obtain legislation dealing with this issue, imposing sanctions that will devastate and bankrupt those who seek to impose bankruptcy on Israeli academics," he told the journal.

"Eventually I will obtain laws stripping citizenship of all of them," he didn't add.

Leftists like to support perceived underdogs, and after that war, all of a sudden, Israel didn't seem as pathetic as it did in 1948.

Israel had significant military advantage in 1948 as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Thanks to El Cid, Steve LaBonne, and Don Williams for demonstrating the utterly transparent basis of the "US support for Saddam" cannard in gossip, innuendo, and misinformation.

On the one hand, tens of billions of dollars worth of the latest Soviet hardware, from rockets and tanks, through high tech electronics and artillery, to Mig-29's.

On the other hand, shadowy CIA "approval", loan guarantees towards the purchase of surplus US grain, some satellite imagery, and a picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rummy. Oh yeah, "pistols, some medieval spiked hammers, and a pair of gold cowboy spurs." Wow!

If the purpose of the exercise wasn't slandering the United States and running interference for the legacy of a genocidal maniac, you guys would be great comedians.

According to wikipedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Foreign_affairs
In foreign affairs, Saddam sought to have Iraq play a leading role in the Middle East. Iraq signed an aid pact with the Soviet Union in 1972, and arms were sent along with several thousand advisers. However, the 1978 crackdown on Iraqi Communists [27] and a shift of trade toward the West strained Iraqi relations with the Soviet Union; Iraq then took on a more Western orientation until the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

So, yeah, apparently he was a Soviet client between 72 and 78. That's 6 years out of about 40.

Now, the interesting question comes up:

If Robert Powell had been in charge of U.S. foreign policy, would he himself have approved all the U.S. aid to Saddam Hussein he now denies as having mattered?

Oh, and everyone but me is a hate-America pro-genocide poopy head!!!

abb1,

"he didn't add."

Indeed. So again, we're not in the realm of "like nazis," except in the fevered imaginations of some.

You guys should relax a bit, and stop turning your enemies into demi-gods. If you want to feed their malformed, giant egos, keep at it.

According to figures assembled by the Stockholm International Peace Institute, Soviet/Warsaw Pact arms shipments to Iraq between 1973 and 1990 ranged between $1.3 and $2.9 billion per year, for a total of $303.1 billion.

France's total was $5.6 billion.

Similar figures for the US ranged from $0 (every year '73-'82, plus '89-'90) to a one-year high of $125 million in 1988 (as described @ 7:58 above) for a total during the entire period of $200 million, or .45% of the total.

I would not have approved ANY aid to Ba'athist Iraq, and in fact protested the aid we did supply in 1988, as well as supporting Iran's demand for UN redress of Iraq's use of wmd's against them. So did other people. LOTS of other people recognize that making excuses and running interference for a regime like that of Saddam Hussein's is a major moral disgrace. Doing it out of ignorance isn't much of an excuse these days. The facts are out there, you know.

Steve W. said: "Since when did it become CW in the Democratic foreign policy establishment that intelligence that doesn't favor Israel's goals is suddenly suspect"

The NIE is not suspect because it "doesn't favor Israel's goals". It's suspect because it distorted and misrepresented the facts, as one of its redactors freely admits:

1. http://www.nysun.com/article/70818

"The director of national intelligence is backing away from his agency's assessment late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear program, saying he wishes he had written the unclassified version of the document in a different manner.

..the intelligence director, Michael McConnell, said, "If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would change a few things." He later added, "I would change the way we describe the Iranian nuclear program. I would have included that there are the component parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant, had halted."

2. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203019385690&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


"...What McConnell is now saying amounts to the very opposite: Yes, runs the amended narrative, we think the Iranians may have halted what we narrowly, foolishly and misleadingly defined as their nuclear weapons program four years ago, we're not sure if they've restarted it, but the fact is that we led you all astray with our definition of that program in the first place."

3. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/world/europe/26diplo.html?ref=world

"Mr. Khazaee brought up a new report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Friday, which said that... questions still remained about the program’s ultimate purpose.

...In particular, he singled out new documents supplied by the West and presented by the agency to Iran this month that included a schematic diagram showing what appeared to be the development of a warhead that could accommodate a nuclear device.

Mr. Khazaee said that they were forgeries made by a terrorist group and that officials in Tehran doubted the documents’ authenticity the moment they heard the names in them"

Correction: that Warsaw Pact total was $30.301 billion. Sorry, decimal in wrong place, point remains the same.

Via the Federation of American Scientists:

U.S. officials insisted in 1989, for instance, on playing down the importance of a scandal involving an Atlanta-based bank and more than $5 billion in unauthorized loans to Iraq, including $900 million guaranteed by the U.S. government. They even intervened in the case to prevent indictment of the Central Bank of Iraq while the Persian Gulf War was raging.

Despite stiff opposition from some officials inside the administration, senior policymakers pushed ahead with $1 billion in fresh agricultural credits for Iraq under a Commodity Credit Corp. program. They also pressed for continued Export-Import Bank financing despite congressional sanctions and kept sharing intelligence information with Baghdad until a few weeks before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Then, in the wake of the gulf war when Congress began demanding more information about the prewar conduct of U.S. policy toward Iraq, administration officials tried to hide their embarrassment under a cloak of national security and created what Gonzalez has called a `coverup mechanism' to keep investigators at bay.

Link from above:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920325wp.htm

And always helpful to recall the tenor of yesteryears:

Congress Backs Curbs Against Iraq

By STEVEN A. HOLMES, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: July 28, 1990

...The House and the Senate defied the Bush Administration today and voted to impose economic sanctions on Iraq, citing what lawmakers viewed as the human rights violations and increasingly bellicose policies of President Saddam Hussein's Government.

The Senate took the stronger action, voting 80 to 16 to cut off $700 million in United States loan guarantees that the Baghdad Government uses to purchase American wheat, rice, lumber and cattle as well as commercial goods like tires and machinery.

''We shall not give to the Iraqis the kind of special treatment you reserve for friends, for allies,'' said Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato, Republican of New York, who drafted the measure approved by the Senate. ''We've waited for Hussein to take a more humane course and it has not been done. He is a butcher, a torturer, a manipulator.''

The House, by a vote of 234 to 175, first approved a similar measure restricting loan guarantees to Iraq. But, after the pleas of representatives from rural districts, the House voted 208 to 191 to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the sanctions if he determines they cause more harm to American farmers than they do to the Hussein Government...

...In recent days Mr. Hussein had threatened to use military force against members of OPEC he felt had been exceeding their production quotas and thereby keeping the price low. He massed troops on the border with Kuwait, creating a crisis atm