Anti-Israel activists conducting smear campaign against Hagel opponents
The Washington Free Beacon reports that anti-Israel 'activists' are conducting a smear campaign against opponents of Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Secretary of Defense. And the Beacon's Adam Kredo names names.
Fenton communications chief executive officer David Fenton, the Atlantic’s
national correspondent James Fallows, former diplomat Charles ‘Chas’
Freeman, Just Foreign Policy director Robert Naiman, and American Conservative founding
editor Scott McConnell participated in a recent email exchange
dedicated to silencing Hagel’s critics, the emails reveal.
The emailers targeted recent comments made
by Elliott Abrams, a former Bush administration National Security
Council adviser who said Hagel “seems to have some kind of problem with
Jews,” a sentiment that has been echoed by several lawmakers and Jewish leaders.
“Elliot [sic] Abrams is an ardent armchair Zionist who thinks that a
commitment to Israel is an essential qualification for public service in
the United States,” wrote Freeman, a vociferous Israel critic who has dubbed Israel’s supporters in America a “fifth column.”
“Abrams doubts that Hagel has such a commitment. Abrams thus ‘has a
problem’ with Hagel,” Freeman wrote, according to the Jan. 10 email
chain obtained by the Free Beacon. “Abrams is a Jew. Ergo, he
asserts, Jews have a problem with Hagel. Logically, therefore, Hagel has
a problem with Jews. What slimy nonsense!”
“I am going to write something about this on the Atlantic’s site,” the Atlantic’s Fallows later replied.
“I cannot at the moment think of a comparable case in which: someone
with a comparably ‘reputable’ institutional pedigree (I am talking about
CFR [Council on Foreign Relations], not Abrams personally, given his
own varied background), making a comparably bald ‘bigotry’ charge in a
comparably high-stake confirmation debate—and getting away with it,”
Fallows wrote.
Robert Naiman, a frequent Huffington Post contributor with a long history of criticizing Israel who has recently authored articles
defending Hagel, asked if CFR has “some culpability by giving Abrams a
credential and institutional affiliation that helps him gain access to
mainstream media to do what he is doing.”
“I think CFR should have some standards for its fellows about
promoting civil, fact-based democratic public discourse on U.S. foreign
policy,” Naiman added.
Hagel’s allies in the worlds of media and public relations are
coordinating efforts to combat and diminish opposition voices such as
Abrams, the emails suggest.
My Mother of Blessed Memory, used to tell me to select only nice people as
friends, because one of the ways people judge others is by the company
they keep. There are tons of policy reasons why Chuck Hagel is not a
good choice for Secretary of Defense many of them have been outlined on
these pages. But I believe my mother was correct, and the people who conspire to slander those who are fighting his nomination should also be an indication of
what is in Hagel’s heart.
Chas Freeman is a radical, with radical anti-Israel views-just like his buddy
Chuck Hagel. But Freeman’s anti-Israel views were only a small part of
why he was not right for his National Security job, just as Hagel’s
views are just one item which should disqualify him for Secretary of
Defense, others include his views on Iran, terrorism, how he wants to
practically disembowel our military defense and nuclear deterrence and
much, much more.
Well, I'm shocked, just totally shocked, to find out that the Chuckster is buddy buddy with yet another anti-Semitic failure from President Hussein Obama's first term in office: Chas Freeman.
Chuck Hagel was once proud not to be numbered
among the “unequivocal, total” supporters of Israel. Hagel was once
proud of his standing as a lonely figure in American public life who
would stand up to those who unequivocally and totally supported Israel.
Hagel was once a senator who, unlike his colleagues, was proud not to
have been intimidated by “the Jewish lobby.” Hagel was proud of his
votes against pro-Israel resolutions backed by the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), aka “the Jewish lobby.” Hagel was
contemptuous of those who signed AIPAC-endorsed pro-Israel letters.
No, Chuck Hagel was not one of those “unequivocal, total”
supporters of Israel like his colleagues in the United States Senate. No
siree!
For example, during the 2002 Palestinian terror campaign
against Israel, Senator Chuck Hagel was willing to say that “both
Israelis and Palestinians are trapped in a war not of their making,” and
that “Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.” After he
left the Senate, Hagel became co-chair of the Atlantic Council. His
vice chair on the board is Chas Freeman.
Remember him? Freeman had been
forced to withdraw as a nominee for an Obama administration intelligence
post in 2009 because his hostility to Israel was so manifest. New York
senator Chuck Schumer said, after Freeman withdrew, “His statements
against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the
administration.”
Hagel evidently hasn’t persuaded Freeman to mend his ways.
Just a month ago, on December 1, 2012, here’s what Hagel’s vice chair,
Chas Freeman, declared:
In some countries, like the United States, Israel can rely
upon a “fifth column” of activist sympathizers to amplify its messages,
to rebut and discredit statements that contradict its arguments, facts,
and fabrications, and to impugn the moral standing of those who make
such statements.
So far as we know, Chuck Hagel had no problem with what
Chas Freeman said in December 2012. But in January 2013, Chuck Hagel
morphed into Mr. Unequivocal and Total Supporter of Israel.
I hope the Senate Armed Services Committee asks Chuck whether he agrees with that statement. It'll be fun to watch the worm squirm.
President Obama is expected to name Chuck Hagel his nominee for Secretary of Defense as early as Monday, as opponents prepare to fight the nomination.
White House officials and sources close to Hagel
declined to confirm to The Cable that
Hagel is the president's choice to be the replace Leon Panetta at the helm of
the Pentagon, but several sources close to the process said have told The Cable that the White House and Hagel
have been in touch on a regular basis and that Hagel is indeed the expected
pick. Decisions about the timing and logistics of the announcement are being
finalized now.
The
Cable had previously confirmed that Hagel successfully
complete the vetting process, as have Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter and former Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy.
Meanwhile, Hagel's detractors are moving forward with their campaign against
the nomination, which has been expanding ever since The Cable first
reported in November that Hagel was in consideration for the Pentagon post.
That campaign has included anonymous Senate aides calling Hagel an anti-Semite, the
Washington Posteditorial board writing that, "Chuck Hagel is not the
right choice for defense secretary," and the Emergency Committee for
Israel, which counts among its board members Weekly Standard editor Bill
Kristol, running a television ad criticizing Hagel's opposition to unilateral
sanctions against Iran. "For secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel is not
a responsible option," the ad claims.
"Even if one left aside Chuck Hagel's dangerous
views on Iran and his unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews, a dispassionate
analyst would have to conclude that the case for Hagel is extraordinarily
weak," Kristol wrote in an editorial Friday, in which he urged Obama to choose
Carter, Flournoy, or Navy Secretary Ray
Mabus.
The Log Cabin Republicans took
out a full page ad in the New York Times to oppose the potential Hagel nomination. Following
the publication of the ad, the leader of the group, R. Clarke Cooper,
resigned in what he stated was a previously planned departure. He had previously
expressed support for Hagel. Cooper and Hagel are both combat veterans.
Three Senate Republicans have come out firmly
against Hagel's potential nomination, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Dan
Coats (R-IN), and Tom Coburn (R-OK).
Cornyn said he can't vote for Hagel due to Hagel's "problem
with Israel." Coats said Hagel "has had so
much disrespect for the military." Coburn said Hagel "does
not have the experience to manage a very large organization
like the Pentagon."
Other GOP
senators have expressed reservations about Hagel without committing to a no
vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who
previously praised Hagel as a close
and dear friend,
suggested recently that
Hagel is not a real Republican. Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-SC), said on Fox News Sunday,
"There
would be very little Republican support for his nomination. At the end of the
day, there will be very few votes."
Today's Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) gave the following statement about the potential Hagel nomination to The Cable:
"I appreciate and respect Senator Hagel's record of service to our
country, especially as a decorated combat veteran," Kirk said. "While he has not yet
been nominated, I am concerned about his past record and statements,
particularly with regard to Iran and the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Should he be nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, I will join my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in a rigorous examination of these
and other issues of concern."
What bothers me about this report is that it depicts the Hagel fight as a partisan one. It ought not to be partisan. Democratic Senators who (claim to) support Israel, or who (claim to) support strong sanctions against Iran - like Schumer (NY), Menendez (NJ) and others ought to be up in arms against this nomination. That's where the pressure from constituents needs to play a role.
This nomination ought to end the way Chas Freeman's nomination ended - in ignominious disgrace. America is not a leftist country.
UPDATE 8:37 AM
Interesting comment from reader David O that I'd like to share with you (I got it by email):
I think documenting the case against Hagel will pay dividends. It will
effectively neuter him. Everybody will be closely watching him for his
attitudes toward Jews, gays, arabs, and especially Israel. A person who
is an anti-semite without a paper trail(i.e. Jimmy Carter when he was
running for President in '76)is more dangerous than a Hagel in this
context. Each gaffe and statement will be scrutinized. It could backfire
against Obama. Israel and the United States have a strong defense
relationship. This is not Turkey where the the populace is hostile.
The
nominating process will be interesting. Watching Hagel squirm about
Israel, being forced to play up his zionist credentials. This is why a
Hillary was more dangerous than Hagel. Hillary is "perceived" as a
friend of Israel. Hagel is known as a foe. He will be forced to watch
each and every step he takes. How can Obama proclaim he has Israel's
back if Hagel's future actions/statements contradict "official" policy.
One
final and VERY IMPORTANT point. In all of my research on Hagel, the one
thing that was surprising was his staff turnover. He would yell and
call people incompetent f***ers and replace staff every two weeks. This
type of bull in the china shop mentality tends to blow up in the
Washington Culture of PC career minded types who like to leak about
fights, intrigue and explosions which maine their bosses. He may explode
and implode at the same time.
Well, Freeman is back, at Russia Today, of all places, accusing Israel of looking to shoot 'Palestinians' for sport around election time. You can't make this stuff up.
Aren't you glad he doesn't chair the US National Intelligence Council
For those who didn't figure out yet what happened, no I am not on a plane to the US. I collapsed in exhaustion last night. For those who recognize the picture in this post, you may even know why. For those who don't recognize the picture in this post, you will understand shortly.
Very early in his term, President Obama nominated Chas Freeman (pictured) to chair the US National Intelligence Council. Had Freeman gotten the position, he would have provided Obama with intelligence analysis like you are about to see below. Fortunately for all involved, Freeman was forced to decline the position by powerful bloggers like yours truly who exposed his disregard for the lives of Chinese dissidents and the extent to which he was (and is) in the pockets of the Saudi royal family.
On Wednesday, Chas gave the Hisham B. Sharabi memorial lecture to the Jerusalem Fund at the 'Palestine Center' in Washington. He thus joined other notable Jew haters in academia like John Mearsheimer, Richard Falk and John Dugard who have been deemed anti-Israel enough to give the Sharabi lecture. All of the other lecturers except for one have been 'Palestinians' or 'Israeli Arabs.' Here's a sampling of what Chas had to say:
Over the course of centuries, the Jews of the diaspora were grievously persecuted by Christians. This experience helped to inspire Zionism. It culminated in the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust. Meanwhile, under Byzantium and the Caliphate, all but a few of the Jews of Palestine sought refuge in conversion to Judaism’s successor faiths: Christianity and Islam. As an ironic result, the homegrown descendants of Palestine’s original Jewish population – the Palestinians –now suffer because newcomers proclaim them to be interlopers in lands they have inhabited from time immemorial. And yet another Jewish-descended diaspora – this time, Christian and Muslim – has been ejected from Palestine to suffer in exile. Not even the most imaginative writer of fiction could have composed an account of traumatic suffering and human tragedy comparable to that which Zionists and Palestinians have undergone and continue to inflict on each other.
In other words, the 'Palestinians' have rights to the Land of Israel ahead of the Jews because they are Jews who chose to stay here but converted to Islam (there are very few Christians left here - forget that one). Got it?
Obfuscatory euphemisms are, unfortunately, the norm in the Holy Land. But rhetorical tricks can no longer conceal the protracted moral zero-sum game that is in progress there. A people without rights confronts a settler movement without scruples. A predatory state with cutting-edge military technology battles kids with stones and resistance fighters with belts of nails and explosives. Israel’s Cabinet openly directs the murder of Palestinian political leaders. There have been about 850 such extrajudicial executions over the past decade. Israel is vigorously engaged in the collective punishment and systematic ethnic cleansing of its captive Arab populations. It rails against terrorism while carrying out policies explicitly described as intended to terrorize the peoples of the territories it is attacking or into which it is illegally expanding. Meanwhile, the elected authorities in Palestine – indeed, most Palestinians – associate themselves suicide bombers and unguided missiles that indiscriminately murder Israeli civilians. Each side has suspended moral constraints in order to cause the other to suffer in the hope that it will capitulate to such coercion. To a distressing extent, moreover, each side has also been able to enlist unreasoning support for its cause and the indiscriminate condemnation of the other by powerful supporters abroad.
Holy moral equivalence Batman! I can tell you that I live here, and this paragraph is so detached from reality, it's pathetic.
As always in such mayhem, truth and the law have been the first to go missing. Israel regularly attributes to others the very things it itself is doing. It has become notorious for its refusal to accept objective scrutiny or criticism. It routinely rebuffs international investigators’ examination of allegations against it, even when mandated by the U.N. [United Nations] Security Council. Instead, it stages self-indulgent acts of self-investigation calculated to produce exculpatory propaganda. As a result, Israeli government spokesmen – who once were presumed to represent the intellectual integrity for which Jewish scholars have always been renowned – now have no credibility at all except among those committed to the Zionist cause. Meanwhile, regional and international respect for the rule of law, especially humanitarian law, has been greatly degraded. This is a special irony.
That assumes the the UN is objective. I don't believe anyone outside of the Third World and the 'non-aligned' countries considers that to be the case. Let's start with the most blatant indicator: Guess which UN member is the only one that can never serve on the Security Council. And guess which UN member is the subject of as many UN resolutions as all other countries combined. And no, it's not because we're so terrible. Far more Arab civilians have been killed in the 'Arab spring' than have been killed in the last 20 years in Israel.
Humanitarian law and the law of war are arguably the supreme moral artifacts of Atlantic civilization. Jewish lawyers made a disproportionate contribution to the crafting of both. The resulting legal principles were intended to deter the kinds of injuries and injustices that European Jews and other minorities had long suffered and to protect occupied populations from persecution by their occupiers. Both objectives are very relevant to contemporary Palestine. It is, however, hard to find any principle of due process, the several Geneva Conventions, or the Nuremberg trials that has not been systematically violated in the Holy Land. Examples of criminal conduct include mass murder, extra-judicial killing, torture, detention without charge, the denial of medical care, the annexation and colonization of occupied territory, the illegal expropriation of land, ethnic cleansing and the collective punishment of civilians, including the demolition of their homes, the systematic reduction of their infrastructure and the de-development and impoverishment of entire regions. These crimes have been linked to a concerted effort to rewrite international law to permit actions that it traditionally prohibited, in effect enshrining the principle that might makes right.
Saudi Arabia's damage control in the New York Times
Chas Freeman tries to do some damage control for 'our friends the Saudis' in connection with the Wikileaks disclosures. After all, it must be very embarrassing for the Saudis to be seen publicly agreeing with Israel.
Israel, for its part, has been quick to assert that the leaks show that it and the Gulf Arab states have a common outlook regarding Iran. “More and more states, governments and leaders in the Middle East and the wider region and the world believe this is the fundamental threat,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when asked about the cables.
“No one will now be able to allege that Israel is acting irresponsibly,” wrote Aluf Benn, a columnist for the Israeli daily Haaretz. “When the King of Saudi Arabia and the King of Jordan call for lopping off the head of the Iranian snake, no one will believe them when they denounce an Israeli operation.” But there is little to back up such claims. Israel has long wanted the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. It has also strongly implied that if Washington refuses to do so, it will go ahead on its own — in a manner calculated to leave the United States no choice but to join it in war with Iran.
The Gulf Arabs want to forestall Iranian nuclear ambitions, but they are willing to defer to American judgment about how best to achieve that, and they certainly don’t want it to result in a war in their own neighborhood. Clearly, this is a very different position from the one held by Mr. Netanyahu.
The only difference between the Arab position and the Israeli position is that the Israelis may try to deal with Iran themselves, while the Arabs, despite billions of dollars in sales of military equipment from the United States, are in no position to do so. They don't know how to use what they bought.
Israel would rather that the United States dealt with Iran. The Arabs agree. If the United States will not deal with Iran, Israel may try to do so. The Arabs will cheer silently on the sidelines. That's the reality. If the US or Israel don't deal with Iran, the Arab countries have no option of doing so themselves. That's the only difference in their attitudes.
There are other ways in which the Arabs and Israelis are at odds on Iran policy. The leaks show that Gulf Arab rulers are concerned above all that a nuclear-armed Iran would have greater prestige in the region and ever-greater influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. The nuclear weapons themselves, they feel, are primarily a threat to Israel and American forces in the region.
Really? Then why are the Gulf Arab countries suddenly all so anxious to build nuclear plants? Isn't it because they feel totally exposed to and threatened by Iran? Isn't because they want to at least have some possibility of protecting themselves, even if they don't really know how to use it?
Yes, Israelis fear that Iran might gratuitously attempt another Holocaust by attacking them. But the leaked documents also show that one of the main worries Israel has about Iran’s nuclear ambitions is that it could lose its regional monopoly on nuclear weapons, limiting their leverage on a whole range of issues. One doubts the Gulf Arabs share that concern.
We don't even know for sure that Israel has nuclear weapons although everyone thinks that we do. But even if we have them, it's not the monopoly on them that we'd be afraid of losing. It's not a matter of prestige or bragging rights. It's the consequences of losing the monopoly namely the increased threats under which we'd live. There's no other country in the world whose very existence gives rise to resentment.
'Our friends the Saudis' should be honest with their own people. Now their true colors have been shown and what we're seeing is an effort to cover them up again. Chas Freeman is their best foot soldier in the United States. At least he isn't part of the national intelligence apparatus.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
