Israel critic is reported appointment to top intelligence post

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A former ambassador to Saudi Arabia with a history as a critic of Israel will reportedly be named to a top intelligence post in the Obama administration.

ForeignPolicy.com reported Thursday that Chas W Freeman Jr., who served as U.S. ambassador to the Saudi kingdom from 1989-1992 and is currently the president of the Middle East Policy Council, will be the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which plays the leading role in producing national intelligence estimates. The publication reported Freeman has told associates that in the role, he would occasionally accompany director of national intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair to give the president his daily intelligence briefing.

In 2005 remarks to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, Freeman said that "as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected. Israeli occupation and settlement of Arab lands is inherently violent."

He added, "And as long as such Israeli violence against Palestinians continues, it is utterly unrealistic to expect that Palestinians will stand down from violent resistance and retaliation against Israelis. Mr. Sharon is far from a stupid man; he understands this. So, when he sets the complete absence of Palestinian violence as a precondition for implementing the road map or any other negotiating process, he is deliberately setting a precondition he knows can never be met."

In 2008, in a speech to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Security Studies Program, he said, "We have reflexively supported the efforts of a series of right-wing Israeli governments to undo the Oslo accords and to pacify the Palestinians rather than make peace with them."

more

[Chulanowa]

1. We need more like this

Not just critics of Israel, but critics of China, of Saudi Arabia, many other nations. I can't feel comfortable if chunks of my government are slobbering all over other countries, sorry. Honest criticism is a strength in this case.

[mikehiggins]

2. The problem with government by grown-ups is sometimes

people start looking honestly at problems.

Just as killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis did not endear us to the moslem world, Isreal's calculated responses to Palestine aggression results in the same popularity.

Israel, of all nations, should know how hard it is to suppress a popular insurrection. If not, let them ask the Brits how it worked out for them in, oh yeah. Israel.

[Jefferson23]

3. Well that is a step in the right direction.

[shira]

4. Settlements aren't the barrier to peace this man thinks they are...history doomed to repeat itself

Settlements were disbanded altogether in Sinai 1982 and Gaza 2005. Israel offered to do so in 2000. In both 2000 and 2005, the reaction to Israel ending and disbanding settlements was for Palestinians to escalate violence. These facts are self-evident. It takes a suspension of rational thought to believe the I/P conflict is mostly about settlements. You'd think people would learn from the past.

[Jefferson23]

5. The occupation needs to end and yes, you'd think people would

learn from the past by now.

[IndianaGreen]

6. The only thing that is self-evident is that Israel continues to build and expand settlements

in the Jordan Valley. If Israel intended to withdraw from those lands in exchange for peace, why build the settlements in the first place?

Israel ia a pathological liar!

[iconicgnom]

7. I say that you're being unreasonable.

Simply put, the settlements are unjustifiable. It beggars common sense to suppose that they aren't causative of bad feeling and intense friction.

[shira]

8. never said they were justifiable

my points still stand, however.

[iconicgnom]

9. no, your point doesn't "still stand".

how blind can you be?

[shira]

10. please look again at post #4

what part do you disagree with?

[iconicgnom]

11. I think you should learn how to stand down, when your "side" has the cards.

There should be some sense of live and let live.

I say that you're full of shit when you say that "Settlements aren't the barrier to peace this man thinks they are". The settlements are in fact a barrier to peace. Yes, your "side" has an absurdly disproportionate military advantage. It can build the settlements with impunity, and do whatever it pleases. It can kill the mouse already, and eat it, or it can keep it alive to play more games with. But please, don't talk about "peace", about how the settlements aren't a barrier to peace. Don't pretend that you want "peace", when your "side" is doing this.

[Idealism]

13. To hear shira tell it, Palestinians are the biggest barrier to peace n/t

[shira]

15. the biggest obstacle isn't land.....this is a religious issue

Palestinian extremists simply do not want Jews ruling an inch of land in that territory. It doesn't matter what Palestinian moderates want....they're not in charge and when they voice their opinions about peaceful coexistence, they get knee-capped or killed as collaborators.

Settlements and occupation could have ended with CD/Taba 2000, and they actually did in Gaza 2005. Made zero difference, didn't it? If the PA was interested in peace, they certainly wouldn't have ordered an escalation of violence as a response to CD/Taba 2000 and Gaza 2005. If it were about land, the proper response would have been to do something or anything positive with each situation. They responded with more war. Anyone who believes a different result will follow the next time Israel offers up something is operating on blind faith alone - and not dealing with reality.

[iconicgnom]

16. your argument is false in so many ways I'm not going to touch it.

[shira]

17. of course you won't

what makes you think the next BIG concession(s) Israel makes will be followed by a move toward real peace by the PA?

[iconicgnom]

18. What could you mean by "the next BIG concession(s)"???

You, the absolutist who brazenly claims, and claims again and again, that settlements (and so one) aren't a barrier to peace, it's ... "Palestinian extremists".
You, the absolutist for whom the removal of some occupation troops coupled with the tightening of a total seige on a coveted terroritory is considered to be a "BIG concession" (haha).

Shira, I wonder whether you have any idea of how extreme your views are, how absolutely inimical they are to even the thought of "peace". I've never before tried to communicate with someone who so completely turns the world on its head - and I don't know how to do it. Frankly, I cannot believe it - I cannot believe that you're trying to be honest, with us, with yourself. Rather, I see a fat housecat pretending to be "terrorized" by a mouse, because the fat housecat enjoys the game. But in the end we all know that the fat housecat will kill the mouse and won't even bother to eat it, being full already.

[shira]

19. Gaza 2005 wasn't big?

The Taba 2001 deal wasn't big?

They weren't big opportunities for the PA to prove it was interested in peace, not war?

[iconicgnom]

20. They aren't even on the scale.

You speak of nothing more than tactical maneuvers, with the focus being on propoganda value -- ease off a bit here, in a showy maneuver, while putting the screws in deep as they can possibly be over there. Controlling the narrative, while chocking the life out of what is left of Palestine and the Palestinian people.

I don't see any pity, any concern for fellow human beings, being displayed. The language of the narrative is controlled, but cold as ice.

One side of the mouth whining out pretexts like "rockets", and "terrorists", and "existential threats", and how Israel is the perpetual victim - even while the other side of the mouth crows about total military superiority, total ownership of the land and sky, where "we could have killed them all" is proud proof of humanity, of restraint, and where "we could have taken it all" is proud proof that taking it continuously in bits and bites, squeezing the hope out of Palestinian life, is a "BIG concession".

It hurts to watch.

[shira]

26. Taba 2001 and Gaza 2005

were serious moves by Israel that should have been reciprocated by a serious move towards peace by the PA. The PA called for an escalation in violence in both cases - situations in settlement activity and occupation could have ended for good. At no other time in 60 years had this been offered. The PA proved decisively they were not interested even in further negotiation or moves toward peace.

This isn't rocket science.

Do you think a call for more escalation in both cases was warranted? Would you have congratulated the PA in both cases for not even considering movement toward a settlement in both cases?

[iconicgnom]

29. The settlements are a barrier to peace.

Those of you who deny it in the face of reason are so full of shit it oozes from your teeth when you speak.

It's a learning experience - coming face to face with the monstrousness of your blindness, which I suppose is typical of a huge number - shows me just how much help the remaining Palestinians need from the rest of the world, to face this thing.

[shira]

30. if settlements are a barrier to peace

then why didn't the REMOVAL of settlements in Gaza or Israel's agreement to end settlements at Taba 2001 lead to something positive from PA leadership? The PA response was an escalation in violence both times. Israel proved with Sinai '82 that its removal of settlements was sincere. The PA didn't even pretend to move in the direction of peace. This isn't even debatable.

Tell me please, what makes you think the PA will move into the direction of peace the next time Israel proposes to end, or actually does uproot a significant number of settlements? Can you provide ANY evidence that shows the PA will react positively to such a move?

If settlements are a barrier to peace, there should be no question about the PA's willingness to make peace based on end to settlements, right?

Be honest.

[iconicgnom]

32. Your thesis, that settlements aren't a barrier to peace, is insane.

It isn't a thesis that can be seriously held by an impartial observer. There's no people of any country on the planet who could be expected to willingly stand aside and allow encroaching settlements of racist occupying forces to take over their land, their country -- while the majority of their family, their friends, their fellow citizens, are forced to flee this ethnic cleansing. To take their chances as refugees. There's more than just a right to self-defense in opposition to such as that, there's an instinct for survival that commands self-defense.

Deny it as you might, there's no way that the majority of Israeli citizens don't understand the evil of ethnic cleansing. There's no way that the majority of Israeli citizens are innocent because ignorant of the evil they have been engaged in, building these settlements.

Regarding your simplistic reasoning. The fact is that to anyone of sound mind (not, e.g., obsessed with a racist credo) the absurdity of your supposed conclusion, that "settlements aren't a barrier to peace", is enough to prove the absurdity (insofar as the reasoning is sound, not a non sequitor) of any "self evident" premises that you might concoct in an attempt to "prove" it. Logic 101.

[Shaktimaan]

36. I thought we were discussing settlements?

There's no people of any country on the planet who could be expected to willingly stand aside and allow encroaching settlements of racist occupying forces to take over their land, their country -- while the majority of their family, their friends, their fellow citizens, are forced to flee this ethnic cleansing. To take their chances as refugees.

What are you referring to here? The discussion has centered around settlements thus far. I don't know what the above is supposed to reference... what "ethnic cleansing" are you talking about?

[azurnoir]

22. So your claim is that the PA should have been "peaceful"

in the face of Israel committing an on going act of war via a blockade of the coastal waters off Gaza?
No to mention a blockade of Gaza's airspace?

[shira]

27. There was no sea/air blockade at the time

In fact, months after the Gaza 2005 pullout, the "Crossings Agreement" was signed, in which the PA took control of the Rafah crossing instead of Israel. It wasn't until Hamas was in power and then reneged on all past PA anti-terror agreements that Israel took action.

You think the PA had good reason to escalate violence after the Gaza 2005 pullout?

[azurnoir]

31. Not until Hamas took over Gaza your sure right?

The crew intends to travel into the Gaza strip, past the international waters boundary, the 1996 Oslo accords boundary (20 nautical miles from the Gaza coast), the 2002 Bertini agreement boundary (12 nautical miles and 22.2 km from the Gaza coast) and the current "Fishing Limit" imposed by the Israeli navy since October 2006.

Legally, the group says there should be no problem passing each of these lines since Israel disengaged from the Gaza strip in 2005 and should no longer its control airspace and territorial waters.

The initiative hopes to draw attention to the continued de facto occupation of Gaza. In an interview with Ma'an on Saturday, a spokesperson for the group in Israel said that the crew expects to be stopped by the Israeli navy shortly after they cross from international waters into Gazan territorial waters, which according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, extend 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) from an area's shoreline."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=218618

The airline was grounded in October 2000 following the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada and was forced to move to El Arish International Airport in December 2001, after destruction by Israeli military forces. of the runway at its previous base, Yasser Arafat International Airport, where it operated limited services.
2001-2002
On December 12th 2001 GZA was bombed by the Israeli army, which warplanes hit the control tower. In January 10th 2002, the 60 million USD runway was competely destroyed by the Israeli army, shattering hopes for the resumption of flights to the airport in the forseeable future.

http://www.gazaairport.com/history.html

Hamas did not take over Gaza until June of 2007

[azurnoir]

14. The disagreement is with the abridged version of the facts

the settlements in Gaza were disbanded in 2005 and Israel took its boots off the ground temporarily. however Israel kept in place a blockade of both air space and the coastal waters off Gaza these are commonly called at least when perpetrated against Israel acts of war and the resulting violence should be viewed from that stand point.

As to the disbanding of the Sinai settlements yes that did happen and there has been violence from Egypt as a result

These facts are self-evident. did you have your hand over your heart when you typed that?

[Shaktimaan]

35. what you wrote here supports shira's argument.

Shira is saying that the settlements have, historically, not impacted the peace process in either direction. There was no indication that the state of the settlements, whether they exist, don't exist or existed and then were disbanded, has any effect.

The Palestinians decision to attack Israel has never been noticeably influenced by settlement activity... they have pretty much always just attacked when they had the opportunity. Conversely, Egypt was able to make peace with Israel regardless of the Sinai's settlements. A peace which has held up very well, despite your confusing comment. When exactly has the government of Egypt attacked Israel since 1979? Do you really think that attacks from Egypt increased as a result of the Sinai settlements being disbanded?

Terrorism from Gaza increased after Israel pulled out in 2005. The dismantling of the settlements has absolutely no effect on the peace process, in other words. And you are agreeing. You are saying that there were then other, different reasons for the Palestinians to begin increasing terrorism... namely that Israel had not yet met all of their demands. Because there will ALWAYS be another reason to attack Israel... then whatever that reason is will become the "biggest obstacle to peace" even if it is just Israel's existence in Palestine.

What about before there ever were settlements or any Israeli control of these areas and the coastal waters and airspace? Was there less terrorism then? Well, no, there wasn't.

Essentially, Shira is saying that Egypt was able to make peace despite settlements because Egypt was ready to make peace. And the Palestinians are continuing to increase terrorist attacks regardless of whether Israel builds a new settlement or disbands an old one because they are not ready to make peace yet.

[iconicgnom]

12. This is a very hopeful sign.

[Purveyor]

21. AIPAC will be working overtime to scuttle this appointment. We shall soon see

what influence they maintain with the Obama Admin.

[oberliner]

23. Good luck to AIPAC in their endeavours

Doesn't seem like a great choice - a bit too tied up with the Oil and Defense Lobbies.

Presides over the MEPC whose board of directors includes executives from ExxonMobil, Boeing, and The Carlyle Group.

[azurnoir]

25. Those posts will have to be abandoned

for Freeman to fill the post however here is a link to the group Freeman iss "guilty" of being a member of the Mid East Policy Council

http://www.mepc.org/main/main.asp

would you feel the same about an AIPAC member?

[Scurrilous]

24. Lobby Out To Defeat Obama Appointment: Too Evenhanded

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/lobby-out-to-defeat-obama_b_169204.html

[Purveyor]

28. Thanks for posting this article link. eom

[Scurrilous]

33. Chas Freeman for NIC: Lots at Stake

<snip>

"A thunderous, coordinated assault against one of President Obama's intelligence picks is now underway. It started in a few right-wing blogs, migrated to semi-official mouthpieces like the Jewish Telegraph Agency, and today it reached the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, in the form of the scurrilous piece by Gabriel Schoenfeld, a resident scholar at some outfit called "the Witherspoon Institute."

The target is Charles ("Chas") Freeman, the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, former top Defense Department official during the Reagan administration, and president of the Middle East Policy Council, whose wide-ranging experience stretches from the Middle East to China. Freeman is slated to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the arm of Admiral Dennis Blair's Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The NIC is the body that includes a host of analysts called national intelligence officers who are responsible for culling intel from sixteen US agencies and compiling them into so-called National Intelligence Estimates. It's a critical job, since NIE's -- often released in public versions -- can have enormous political and policy impact. Cases in point: the infamous 2002 Iraq NIE on weapons of mass destruction and the 2007 NIE on Iran that revealed that Tehran had halted its work on nuclear weapons.

If the campaign by the neocons, friends of the Israeli far right, and their allies against Freeman succeeds, it will have enormous repercussions. If the White House caves in to their pressure, it will signal that President Obama's even-handedness in the Arab-Israeli dispute can't be trusted. Because if Obama can't defend his own appointee against criticism from a discredited, fringe movement like the neoconservatives, how can the Arabs expect Obama to be able to stand up to Israel's next prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu?"

more

[oberliner]

34. Hey they used your name

You should really charge a fee!

[Shaktimaan]

37. But...

I thought it was impossible for any US politician to criticize or stand up to Israel in any way or AIPAC would crush them? I thought that Israel was dictating all US foreign policy and we had to run appointees by them first for approval?

:sarcasm: