Publisher of Atlanta Jewish Times resigns January 24, 2012, eleven days after his editorial advocating Mossad assassinate Barack Obama

Andrew Adler suggested three options available to Israel: launch a pre-emptive war against Hamas and Hezbollah, attack Iran's nuclear facilities or "order a hit on the president in order to preserve Israel's existence."  (Adler's despicable column was discovered by Gawker.)

Of course, Adler has been condemned by the leaders of many prominent Jewish lobby and advocacy organizations.  He is also said to be under investigation by the Secret Service.  Nonetheless, this story has remained below the radar screen in much of the so-called mainstream media.  The NYTimes referred to the incident on January 24, 2012.

Adler offered a televised apology, which prompted one editorialist to note that it was a little sad to see a grown man cry.  Considering that Adler urged the assassination of the President of the United States, the only thing that we should be sad about is that Adler is still at-large.  He is lucky not to be a Muslim, wouldn't you say?

More on the legacy of Dennis Ross, Peace Processor

Head of the main pro-Israel think-tank in Washington generously approves Obama's UN speech.

"Instead, with no discussion of Israeli settlement activity, building in Jerusalem, or the difficulties of Palestinian movement through checkpoints, Obama limited himself to one side of the story. In essence, the punishment meted out to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas for rejecting Washington's request to shelve his UN gambit was that Obama came to New York as Israel's ally, not as an impartial mediator of peace diplomacy."

A sensible commentary on the stupid season that followed the death of M.H. Fadlallah

Haim Saban profiled in New Yorker

AIPAC sees the Obama Adminstration's statements as a matter of "serious concern"

Here is AIPAC's recipe for dealing with Israel, "America's closest ally in the Middle East":

• U.S. should immediately defuse tensions with Israel.
• Make no public demands on Israel; work privately.
• Don't impose any deadlines on Israel.
• Don't criticize Israel.

The statement makes no attempt to reflect U.S. interests, which implies that U.S. interests must coincide with Israel's. Moreover, there is nary a mention of the recent actions of the Netanyahu government, including the rude welcome extended to the U.S. Vice President. Instead, all the onus is on the White House, which aIPAC condescends to lecture as though Barack Obama were an impetuous schoolboy.

Should U.S. taxpayers win IRS tax deductions for donations to a foreign army?

The Friends of the IDF is a registered 501 (c)3 charity, which means that donations to the charity are used to subsidize a foreign army. This is a very strange use for U.S. tax dollars.

Congressman Delahunt blows the whistle on graceless Ayalon

Danny Ayalon, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, has once again demonstrated his diplomatic grace. Ayalon honed his skills as the Israeli Ambassador in Washington. In January, he was forced to apologize twice (the first apology was rejected) for his attempt to demean the Turkish Ambassador to Israel. Ayalon's charm offensive continues. He blocked efforts by U.S. Representative Bill Delahunt to hold meetings with Israeli officials. Ayalon, who channels Jabotinsky, was miffed that Delahunt was visiting under the auspices of J Street, the sensible alternative to AIPAC. Ayalon, it should be recalled, spurns the notion that Israel is occupying the West Bank, which he glosses as "disputed territory". He views J Street as "anti-Israel", a perspective shared by the Prime Minister of Israel.

[A bit more on the Delahunt mission here.

["(J-Street) has sparked questions over whether American Jews, who voted overwhelmingly for Obama, should push Israel to accept risks as they bargain with Palestinian leaders.

"“If you are not living in Israel, if you are not serving in the army . . . is that a morally tenable posture to take?’’ said Robert Leikind, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Boston office."

Mr. Leikind thinks U.S. citizens who "really" support Israel have no moral right to a view on what U.S. policy should be vis-a-vis the the Arab-Israeli conflict unless they become Israelis. This is an absurd stance that would disqualify almost any opinion on how the U.S. spends its resources and protects its resources in the world. J-Street argues that the U.S. has a keen interest in a settlement of the core conflict, and if the U.S. needs to use some muscle to implement a solution, then so be it. Mr. Leikind doesn't like that stance.]

Sounding like spoiled children accustomed to having their way, Israel PR squad complains former Irish Pres. Mary Robinson will be honored by WH

Leading in the outrage is Abraham H. Foxman, long past his sell-by date, who frets that awarding the distinguished Irish woman a Medal of Freedom is ill-advised. Foxman complains that "While Mary Robinson may have accomplishments to her credit, she also, unfortunately, has an animus toward Israel as evidenced by her tenure as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights." Foxman, who seems to spend many of his waking hours penning letters to the editor, complains that Robinson commits the sin of seeing of both sides to the conflict. For instance, in a radio interview, cited in the Anti-Defamation League statement signed by Foxman, Robinson is reported to have said: "On the Palestinian side, they are the victims, etc. On the Israeli side, they feel they are the victims, in some measure." "In some measure," how dare she deny Israelis full victimhood?

No doubt spoiled by the doting attentions of George Bush and Bill Clinton, some of Israel's supporters will not brook any criticism of Israel, ever the victim. One blogger opines that Ms. Robinson "was not properly vetted" by the White House. Surely, the White House should only honor guests who revere Israel unconditionally! This sort of willful aversion to painful truths has long impeded the shaping of a sensible U.S. policy.

If the hosting of Mary Robinson highlights the antics of Israel's spoiled supporters it is an instructive moment, and a reminder why a more balanced U.S. policy is welcome indeed. Finally, the award of the Medal of Freedom to Robinson, who has often been pointedly critical of conveniently selective outrage in the face of morally outrageous behavior, is itself commendable.

Truth telling will go a long way in exposing the contradictions between U.S. goals vs. Netanyahu and co. channeling Jabotinsky

"'I don’t think the peace process will be advanced by hiding natural disagreements, disagreements within the family,' [Obama] said, adding that he does not believe the past eight years of the Bush administration did much to promote peace."

The statement is from the July 13, 2009, White House meeting between Obama and leaders of major Jewish organizations and lobby groups.  See Laura Rozen for attendees.

Former Defense Minister Moshe Arens: Don't give in on settlements

Arens argues that the Israeli right to live in Judea and Samaria is a principle. He argues that giving up this right will put Israel on a slippery slope dealing with the U.S. He urges Netanyahu to forswear compromise and, in the end, he is confident that Israel's "staunch supporters" in the U.S. will stand by the Zionist state. He sees this as a test for the American Jewish leadership, and for the people of Israel as well.

So here we have it: Israel should continue to colonize the West Bank and East Jerusalem even if doing so leads to a reduction of U.S. support, or even a severe crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations. In the end, Israel's friends in the U.S. will smooth it all over.

As Arens himself notes, unease is growing in Israel about relations with the U.S. One suspects that many Israelis will receive the Arens' perspective with skepticism and alarm. Moreover, one senses that both Barak and Netanyahu will work to salve difference not to highlight them, as Arens proposes. Nonetheless, Arens' points are important because he reveals precisely the sort of categorical claims that no doubt inhabit cabinet debates in Israel.

Squashing dissent in New Mexico: Billboard company apparently folds under pro-Israeli activists' pressure

Mondoweiss: Billboards criticizing US aid to Israel taken down under pressure

Coalition site.


Mondoweiss

Mearsheimer on Chas Freedom and related topics

Glenn Greenwald has offered valuable commentary in Salon on the Chas Freeman affair, including this item

The distorting effect of anonymity - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

AIPAC hid behind the skirts of anonymity while fueling the attacks on Chas Freeman. After reading the Greenwald piece, the dishonesty of the WaPo editorial is hard to deny.

More on the campaign against Chas Freeman and it consequences

Paul Pillar is a highly respected but now intelligence analyst.  He was the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005.  

"The main impact of this affair on intelligence work is not likely to involve the Arab-Israeli dispute, even though it is what concerns those who shot down Freeman. The most important facts and patterns about that tragic conflict are an open book; we don't need the National Intelligence Council to tell us the implications of continued expansion of Israeli settlements, the consequences of rockets fired at Israelis, or the effects of unending occupation on the emotions of those under occupation. The main effects will instead come, perhaps subtly and invisibly, with other issues on which a dominant policy imperative emerges -- such as the Iraq war, though not necessarily with as intense an environment as what the Bush administration created to sell that initiative. The effects will consist of intelligence officers being at least marginally less willing than they otherwise would be to challenge the ethos surrounding the policy and to point out ways in which the policy might be misguided. Some such policies will be misguided, will come a cropper, and will lead to the usual recriminations about how intelligence failed."

"When that happens, those in Congress and elsewhere who acquiesced in the character assassination of Chas Freeman -- or even worse, participated in it -- should ponder two things about intelligence. First, they should ask how they could expect intelligence officers to show superlative courage in bucking political orthodoxy when they showed so little themselves. Second, they should reflect on how their own pusillanimity in the face of the lobby that gunned down Freeman has made it even less likely that intelligence officers will be able to muster such courage in the future."

Also: Freeman on NPR.

What the exit of Chas Freeman exposes

Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post - NYTimes.com

This is by no means scientific, but it is nonetheless instructive to scan the reader's responses to the Times above-the-fold story on the exit of Chas Freeman. An overwhelming number of the hundreds of comments are critical of the pro-Israel lobby, critical of President Obama for allowing his administration to be bowled over by Israel right-or-wrong zealots and frustrated with the fact that U.S. officials must be subjected to a pro-Israel loyalty test when the appropriate criteria should be loyalty to America. The readers are often critical of politicians, not least Senator Charles Schumer, whose nexus with WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is an important part of the story.

Steven J. Rosen, who helped to mobilize the posse of vigilantes that worked to lynch CF before he could assume his chairmanship of the NIC, is identified in the NYT story as a former senior official at AIPAC, which describes itself as "America's pro-Israel lobby". Several readers found it passing strange that Rosen's indictment (under the Espionage Act) for illegally receiving, while he was an AIPAC employee, classified documents and passing them on to Israel went unnoticed in the Times story. I do too.

Also see this predictably hostile editorial in Wapo that describes Freeman's exit statement as a "grotesque libel against Americans who support Israel". In fact, Freeman's criticism was hardly directed toward Americans who support Israel. Here is the relevant section of Freeman's statement:

"There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."

Freeman is clearly focusing on those who arrogate to themselves the duty to protect "Israel's interests" and to insure that Israel's privileged relationship with the U.S. remains intact, even when the bonds of that relationship jeopardize other U.S. national interests. It is obvious that many American friends of Israel are distressed and concerned by some actions of Israel, including the recent assault on Gaza, and they do not necessarily approve of, nor identify with the agenda of the high-profile lobby groups that arrogate to themselves the right to speak for them or for Israel.

The Post argues that Nancy Pelosi was the major foe of CF's appointment, and accepts AIPAC's announcement that it took "no formal position" on the appointment. (Other lobby groups were less reticent to claim responsibility, as illustrated by the ZOA memo of March 11, 2009.) Citing examples of U.S.-Israeli policy disagreements, the editorial elides the constaints that often harness discussion of U.S. policy in areas that are deemed to affect Israel.

Finally, and as David Broder notes also in Wapo, Chas Freeman disappeared "without a squawk" from President Obama. In this episode, and in several others, Barack Obama gives the appearance of former Iranian President Muhammad Khatami. Like Khatami, he was swept into office with extraordinary and wide-ranging support, offering a rhetoric of reform that inspired hope, and yet ultimately may prove a profound disappointment as did the Iranian leader. Khatami's failed because he lacked the will and the political courage to stand up to opponents who sought to undermine his agenda and to continue business as usual. In several recent instances, including the Freeman episode, Obama has shown the same unfortunate trait.

Is a serious discussion of U.S. policy in the Arab-Israeli zone possible in Washington? Chas Freeman's exit

As you may now be learning, yesterday Chas Freeman withdrew his name as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Ambassador Freeman has been pelted for weeks by a number of predictable accusations and fabrications, most of them hurled by right-wing pro-Israel journalists, politicians and other self-appointed guardians of America's special relationship with Israel. That many of these figures have also expressed their skepticism about the appointment of former Senator George J. Mitchell as a Presidential Envoy is instructive.

Of course, what these vigilantes most feared was that the irascible and brilliant Freeman would shed the rose-tinted spectacles that obscure the not infrequent divergence of U.S. and Israeli interests. In my experience, Chas Freeman is one of those rare Washington figures who combines a first-rate mind with a willingness to call it like it is, even when it is impolitic to do so. His fiery departure statement is required reading. Freeman raises important questions about the limits of debate in Washington as well as the survival of the smear and slander campaigns that became so familiar during the unfortunate presidency of George H. Bush.

The distressing Freeman episode does not augur well for President Obama's announced quest for a settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict. This episode reveals that a serious discussion of U.S. policy in the Arab-Israeli zone may no longer be possible in Washington. (See Salon for some of the cast of players in the smear campaign.)

Dennis C. Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, showed a strong backbone in naming Freeman to the NIC and sticking with him to the end. He may mitigate the damage that has been done by naming a new chair of the NIC who also approaches Arab-Israeli issues with realism and with a commitment to protecting U.S. interests, first and foremost.

See the thoughful early comment James Fallows: The end for Freeman - James Fallows

Bob Simon and 60 Minutes under attack for calling it like it is

Watch this candid interview between Charlie Rose and Bob Simon, filmed prior to the 60 Minutes segment. It is rare to hear such candor, even in a relatively obscure corner of public television. Simon, by the way, lived in Tel Aviv for ten years.

Related commentary from Muzzle Watch.

Predictably,Israel's rightwing supporters have leveled predictable charges of bias and prejudice in an attempt to discredit CBS and 60 Minutes. See Camera , which avers dedication to "accuracy" in Middle East reporting, but in fact typically attacks any and all reporting that deviates from Israel-does-no-wrong; or the ADL, which accuses CBS of a "hatchet job."

As I noted in an earlier post, if you believe that reports like Bob Simon's deserve to be heard then make yourself heard. See the earlier post for contact info to CBS.

On this site I have consistently noted that the Israeli colonization of the West Bank is illegal. This is a position that is widely held in the world, including by the EU. Equally important, the purpose of the settlements is expressly to make a two-state solution impossible. Bob Simon argues that the situation has passed the tipping point. Perhaps he is right, and, if not, the tipping point is close. From the standpoint of U.S. interests in the Middle East and vis-a-vis the Muslim world, it is certainly important for the U.S. to be on the right side of the settlement issue. There is no room for waffling. Without a firm and stern U.S. stance, those forces in Israel that support a two-state solution will be thwarted. This is a point the Senator George Mitchell understands all too well.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has gone through some sort of out of body experience and has publicly repudiated his own long support for the settlements, argues that no peace is possible if Israeli settlements remain. He is certainly right. Olmert, or any other leader committed to a two-state solution will need to be pushed by the U.S. Otherwise, they will not be able to stand up to domestic pressures in Israel. This is a point that serious observers like Bernard Avishai have argued, as readers of From the Field will know.

Adam Shatz: The Clarion Fund and its Obsession

As many of you know, in recent weeks a shadowy group tied to the tax-exempt Clarion Fund have circulated 28 million copies of "Obsession", a 2006 video. The video is designed to heighten fears about violent Muslims and raise the alarm about "radical Islam."

The film is complementary to efforts by other activists to alert the public of "Islamo-facism," a term that is indiscriminately applied to denote a variety of Muslim groups and activities. Shatz has done a bit of detective work to determine who stands behind the Clarion Fund. He notes that the group avoids an express endorsement of John McCain, but its narrative fits well with whispering campaigns intended to lined Barack Obama to Islam and to Muslim extremists. Even so, it remains to be determined whether the group's effort to influence the upcoming U.S. election is a violation of IRS regulations. Tax-exempt groups under section 501 (c) 3 of the IRS Code are specifically prohibited by IRS regulations from seeking to influence political campaigns.

Here is the relevant IRS standard:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."
LRB · Adam Shatz: Short Cuts

J Street : Media Advisory: New Survey of the American Jewish Community

J Street : Media Advisory: New Survey of the American Jewish Community
J Street's survery of American Jewish opinion is an eye-opener, especially when compared to the position staked out by hardline groups such as AIPAC. (The scienific poll included 800 respondents.)

Sample finding:

Q.30 (IF SUPPORT ACTIVE ROLE) Would you support or oppose the United States playing an active role in helping the parties to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict if it meant the United States publicly stating its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs?

Total

Strongly support 41

Somewhat support 45

Somewhat oppose 11

Strongly oppose 3

Total Support 86

Total Oppose 14