It's been a wild day at work and I'm going back to work momentarily....
You will recall that last weekend, I reported on the letter written by 43 (hopefully former) members of Unit 8200 in which they decried their unit's 'harming innocent Palestinians.'
Wednesday's New York Times has an op-ed from James Bamford, who spent a considerable amount of time this summer interviewing Edward Snowden for Wired Magazine. Bamford claims that Snowden told him that information about 'Palestinian Americans' was routinely shared with the IDF's Unit 8200.
Among
his most shocking discoveries, he told me, was the fact that the N.S.A.
was routinely passing along the private communications of Americans to a
large and very secretive Israeli military organization known as Unit
8200. This transfer of intercepts, he said, included the contents of the
communications as well as metadata such as who was calling whom.
Typically,
when such sensitive information is transferred to another country, it
would first be “minimized,” meaning that names and other personally
identifiable information would be removed. But when sharing with Israel,
the N.S.A. evidently did not ensure that the data was modified in this
way.
Mr.
Snowden stressed that the transfer of intercepts to Israel contained
the communications — email as well as phone calls — of countless Arab-
and Palestinian-Americans whose relatives in Israel and the Palestinian
territories could become targets based on the communications. “I think
that’s amazing,” he told me. “It’s one of the biggest abuses we’ve
seen.”
Bamford goes on to tie Snowden's 'revelations' into the 8200 scandal.
It appears that Mr. Snowden’s fears were warranted. Last week, 43 veterans of Unit 8200 — many still serving in the reserves — accused the organization of startling abuses.
In a letter to their commanders, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
and to the head of the Israeli army, they charged that Israel used
information collected against innocent Palestinians for “political
persecution.” In testimonies and interviews given to the media,
they specified that data were gathered on Palestinians’ sexual
orientations, infidelities, money problems, family medical conditions
and other private matters that could be used to coerce Palestinians into
becoming collaborators or create divisions in their society.
The
veterans of Unit 8200 declared that they had a “moral duty” to no
longer “take part in the state’s actions against Palestinians.” An
Israeli military spokesman disputed the letter’s overall drift but said
the charges would be examined.
The data was transferred pursuant to an agreement between the NSA and the government of Israel.
I'm not in favor of - and I don't believe that the information was used - just to harass people. On the other hand, if it's used to fight terrorism, I don't really have a problem with allies sharing information that way. Obviously, it's not admissible in court. But it can be used to stop terror attacks before they happen.
When you don't share information, the result is that people like the Tsarnaev brothers, about whom the governments of Russia and Saudi Arabia both claimed to have 'warned' the United States, but about whom no one had any solid evidence until after the Boston Marathon terror attack.
Report: Obama's National Security Adviser refuses to meet with Israel's ambassador to the United States
The Obama administration claims to be the most pro-Israel administration ever. The facts belie that claim. Here's another one: Obama's National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, refuses to meet with Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. Dermer has been in Washington for six months and has yet to meet with Rice.
Dermer, a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has
been in Washington since October and presented his credentials to Obama
in December. Nonetheless, and in a departure from the practice of
previous national security advisers and previous Israeli envoys, Rice
has not met with him.
Dermer has been identified with Republican politics in the past. He
was a protégé of Republican pollster Frank Luntz and helped firm
Netanyahu’s ties to American Republicans. In the 2012 election, while
working for Netanyahu, he helped arrange Republican candidate Mitt
Romney’s campaign visit to Israel. According to the liberal-leaning The New Republic, Dermer "epitomized the Netanyahu government’s hostility to Barack Obama and his administration."
Israel Radio's diplomatic analyst, Chico Menashe, reported that prior
to naming him ambassador to Washington, Netanyahu's people checked with
the White House to ensure that Dermer's past affiliation would not pose
a problem. They were reportedly assured that it would not.
Dermer did meet in recent months with Rice's deputies.
This past weekend, Dermer addressed a Las Vegas meeting of the
Republican Jewish Coalition, a group funded by gambling billionaire
Sheldon Adelson.
Also taking part in the event were four Republican potential
presidential candidates, including former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
In response to a question whether Rice was boycotting Dermer,
officials in Washington said the ambassador had not asked for a meeting
with Rice.
It amazes me that they even had to check....
Maybe Dermer hasn't asked for a meeting because the protocol is that Rice is supposed to ask. Or maybe he doesn't want to ask and be told no.
A White House official emailed some reporters to say that President
Obama's team met today to discuss the ongoing situation on Ukraine. It
appears President Obama did not attend.
"The President's national security team met today to receive an
update on the situation in Ukraine and discuss potential policy options.
We will provide further updates later this afternoon," reads the full
statement.
According to Time magazine's Zeke Miller, Obama skipped the meeting.
"Obama did not attend the meeting, but WH official says he has been
briefed by Susan Rice and his national security team," says Miller.
Imagine if this were an announcement that Iran has developed nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
P.S. Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons for a promise that the United States would protect its sovereignty.... Think about that, Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Hamas-loving Malley to join National Security Council
Robert Malley, who was forced to resign from the Obama campaign after it came to light that he was negotiating with Hamas, has been named to the National Security Council. Fortunately, it sounds like he will have very little to do with Israel, at least for now.
Now,
Mr. Malley is coming back to the White House, administration officials
said on Tuesday. This time, he will manage the fraying ties between the
United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf, a job that says a lot
about how America’s role in the Middle East has changed.
As
a senior director at the National Security Council, Mr. Malley will
help devise American policy from Saudi Arabia to Iran. It is a region on
edge, with the Saudis and their Sunni neighbors in the gulf fearful
that the United States is tilting away, after decades of close ties with
them, toward a nuclear accommodation with Shiite Iran.
With
his many contacts throughout the Arab world, Mr. Malley, who has been
program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the
International Crisis Group, would seem well suited for such a post. But
he has also been something of a lightning rod in a field that can be
culturally and ideologically treacherous.
Malley is just one link in a chain of Obama foreign policy advisers who have led Hamas to endorse Obama. And there was plenty in Malley's background
that should have tipped Obama off to the likelihood that Malley had
these kinds of links, if he had bothered to check that background.
A
little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of
Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a
person's family background -- after all, who would want to be held
responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives
share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a
commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the
role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very
interesting father.
His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World.
He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.
Simon
Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for
him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours
with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat.
He was, according
to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism
wave against the West. His efforts were so damaging to France that
President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.
Malley
has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the
next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has
served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve
an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle
East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel
billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy
staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems
to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and
weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.
Now that Obama is a lame duck, he can appoint Malley to whatever position he wants.
Glenn Greenwald tells Israel's Channel 10 that Snowden has lots more secrets about Israel - US relations
Israel's Channel 10 television interviewed Glenn Greenwald on Monday night regarding Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle blower who is currently in Russia. Among other things, Greenwald said that Snowden has many secrets about Israel's relations with the US that have not yet been disclosed.
US NSA spied on Israel, but also shared information
The New York Times reports that documents turned over to the media by Edward Snowden show that the United States National Security Agency spied on Israel, but also shared raw intelligence with the Jewish state.
As at the school lunch table, decisions on who gets left out can cause
hurt feelings: “Germans were a little grumpy at not being invited to
join the 9-Eyes group,” one 2009 document remarks. And in a delicate
spy-versus-spy dance, sharing takes place even with governments that are
themselves important N.S.A. targets, notably Israel.
The documents describe collaboration with the Israel Sigint National
Unit, which gets raw N.S.A. eavesdropping material and provides it in
return, but they also mention the agency’s tracking of “high priority
Israeli military targets,” including drone aircraft and the Black Sparrow missile system.
The alliances, and the need for stealth, can get complicated. At one
highly valued overseas listening post, the very presence of American
N.S.A. personnel violates a treaty agreed to by the agency’s foreign
host. Even though much of the eavesdropping is run remotely from
N.S.A.’s base at Fort Gordon, Ga., Americans who visit the site must
pose as contractors, carry fake business cards and are warned: “Don’t
dress as typical Americans."
...
Some of Mr. Snowden’s documents describe the exploits of Tailored Access
Operations, the prim name for the N.S.A. division that breaks into
computers around the world to steal the data inside, and sometimes to
leave spy software behind. T.A.O. is increasingly important in part
because it allows the agency to bypass encryption by capturing messages
as they are written or read, when they are not encoded.
In Baghdad, T.A.O. collected messages left in draft form in email
accounts maintained by leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq, a militant
group. Under a program called Spinaltap, the division’s hackers
identified 24 unique Internet Protocol addresses identifying computers
used by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, making it possible to
snatch Hezbollah messages from the flood of global communications sifted
by the agency.
The N.S.A.’s elite Transgression Branch, created in 2009 to “discover,
understand, evaluate and exploit” foreign hackers’ work, quietly
piggybacks on others’ incursions into computers of interest, like
thieves who follow other housebreakers around and go through the windows
they have left ajar.
In one 2010 hacking operation code-named Ironavenger, for instance, the
N.S.A. spied simultaneously on an ally and an adversary. Analysts
spotted suspicious emails being sent to a government office of great
intelligence interest in a hostile country and realized that an American
ally was “spear-phishing” — sending official-looking emails that, when
opened, planted malware that let hackers inside.
The Americans silently followed the foreign hackers, collecting
documents and passwords from computers in the hostile country, an
elusive target. They got a look inside that government and
simultaneously got a close-up look at the ally’s cyberskills, the kind
of intelligence twofer that is the unit’s specialty.
Report: NSA shares unredacted information about US citizens... with Israel
Take this with a grain of salt, because given that the US extensively spies on Israel, it doesn't really make sense that they would be sharing unredacted intelligence information about US citizens with the Israeli government. But this report in al-Guardian under Glenn Greenwald's byline claims that the United States does in fact share unredacted personal information about US citizens with the government of Israel.
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA
and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over
intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of
American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the
use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy
of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls
this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the
information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized
state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
I wonder how Obama can find a way to blame Bush for that one.
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA
analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the
Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection",
it says.
Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the
material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the
Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the
data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.
"This
agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and
shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a
legally binding instrument according to international law," the document
says.
In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA
spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was
included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the
agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules
governing privacy.
"Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA's surveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights," the spokesperson said.
The NSA
declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including
whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
And how did the NSA get this information?
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata
of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such
communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in
surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone
located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been
positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent
resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic
passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic
communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's
surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA
on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a
sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US
persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access
only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
I don't know what data is being provided, but my guess is that what interests the Israeli government is information regarding US citizens who come here to assist 'Palestinian' terrorism - like International Solidarity Movement members. I'm fine with that.
But the Israeli government may also be interested in the activities of US citizens who live in Israel while they are in the United States. While I understand that might be necessary for people with security clearances, let's just say that it doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.
The sources for a book by New York Times reporter David Sanger regarding the development of the Stuxnet computer worm by the United States and Israel, and for a New York Times story by the same reporter that was based on the book, were senior members of the White House staff, according to a report in Monday's Washington Times (Hat Tip: Shy Guy via Jawa Report).
The scores of State Department emails from the fall of 2011 to the spring of 2012 do not reveal which officials told Mr. Sanger, but they do show an atmosphere of cooperation within the administration for a book generally favorable toward, but not uncritical of, President Obama. For example:
“I’m getting a bit concerned about the pace of our interviews — or lack of pace, to be more precise — for the book,” Mr. Sanger said in an email Oct. 30, 2011, to Michael Hammer, a senior State Department public affairs official. “The White House is steaming away; I’ve seen [National Security Adviser Thomas E.] Donilon many times and a raft of people below. Doing well at the Pentagon. But on the list I sent you starting on Sept. 12 we’ve scheduled nothing, and chapters are getting into final form.”
Mr. Sanger’s book debuted in June 2012 and brought an immediate call from Republicans to investigate the leaks. They charged that administration officials jeopardized an ongoing secret cyberattack by tipping off Iran’s hard-line Islamic regime about war plans.
They also charged that Obama aides were leaking sensitive materials on other issues, such as the Navy SEAL-CIA raid to kill Osama bin Laden, to burnish Mr. Obama’s credentials as commander in chief as the 2012 election approached.
...
Mr. Sanger wrote a June 1, 2012, article on Stuxnet that was adapted from his book, which debuted later that week. In the story, he quoted “participants” in White House meetings on whether to continue attacking Iran with Stuxnet, which somehow had broken free into the Internet.
“At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s ‘escape,’ Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised,” the story said.
“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.”
Republicans said those passages alone are evidence that Obama aides broke the law by publicly disclosing a covert program.
With the story and book in print, State Department public affairs on June 7 sent to department officials a transcript of a floor speech delivered by Sen. John McCain that week. The Arizona Republican accused the administration of deliberately leaking secrets to portray Mr. Obama as a “strong leader on national security issues” in an election year.
“What price did the administration apparently pay to proliferate such a presidential persona highly valued in an election year?” he said. “Access. Access to senior administration officials who appear to have served as anonymous sources divulging extremely sensitive military and intelligence information and operations.”
...
Asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on June 3, 2012, whether the administration leaked to him to bolster the president’s image, Mr. Sanger said:
“I spent a year working the story from the bottom up, and then went to the administration and told them what I had. Then they had to make some decisions about how much they wanted to talk about it.
“All that you read about this being deliberate leaks out of the White House wasn’t my experience. Maybe it is in other cases,” he said. “I’m sure the political side of the White House probably likes reading about the president acting with drones and cyber and so forth. National security side has got very mixed emotions about it because these are classified programs.”
Said Mr. McCain: “I don’t know how one could draw any conclusion but that senior members of this administration in the national security arena have either leaked or confirmed information of the most highly classified and sensitive nature.”
I think there was more to this than Obama trying to portray himself as a strong President on national security. Around the time that the administration started leaking seriously to Sanger (note the December 2011 date above - Stuxnet was discovered in late 2010), the Senate rejected Obama's attempts to stop sanctions against Iran 100-0. It was known that Obama was pressuring Israel (and continues to pressure Israel to this very day) not to attack Iran. It was known that the Obama was having problems raising campaign funding from Jewish donors. This wasn't just about portraying Obama as strong on national security. It was also about portraying Obama as pro-Israel and as willing to do something to stop Iran.
In an interview excerpted in Der Spiegel, former NSA analyst turned whistleblower Edward Snowden says that the NSA and Israel jointly developed the Stuxnet worm, which attacked Iran's nuclear facilities (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Shortly before he became a household name around the world as a
whistleblower, Edward Snowden answered a comprehensive list of
questions. They originated from Jacob Appelbaum, 30, a developer of
encryption and security software. Appelbaum provides training to
international human rights groups and journalists on how to use the
Internet anonymously.
...
"In mid-May, documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras contacted me,"
Appelbaum said. "She told me she was in contact with a possible
anonymous National Security Agency (NSA) source who had agreed to be
interviewed by her."
"She was in the process of putting questions together and thought
that asking some specific technical questions was an important part of
the source verification process. One of the goals was to determine
whether we were really dealing with an NSA whistleblower. I had deep
concerns of COINTELPRO-style entrapment. We sent our securely encrypted
questions to our source. I had no knowledge of Edward Snowden's identity
before he was revealed to the world in Hong Kong. He also didn't know
who I was. I expected that when the anonymity was removed, we would find
a man in his sixties."
"The following questions are excerpted from a larger interview that
covered numerous topics, many of which are highly technical in nature.
Some of the questions have been reordered to provide the required
context. The questions focus almost entirely on the NSA's capabilities
and activities. It is critical to understand that these questions were
not asked in a context that is reactive to this week's or even this
month's events. They were asked in a relatively quiet period, when
Snowden was likely enjoying his last moments in a Hawaiian paradise -- a
paradise he abandoned so that every person on the planet might come to
understand the current situation as he does."
"At a later point, I also had direct contact with Edward Snowden in
which I revealed my own identity. At that time, he expressed his
willingness to have his feelings and observations on these topics
published when I thought the time was right."
...
Interviewer: Did the NSA help to create Stuxnet? (Stuxnet is the computer worm that was deployed against the Iranian nuclear program.)
Snowden: NSA and Israel co-wrote it.
I suppose this is no great surprise - we suspected it all along.
Russia is defying America by granting Edward Snowden, who exposed some
of the most classified secrets of our government, safe haven as he
continues to elude capture.
...
This comes on top of Russia defying America’s wishes in the Syrian
civil war, with Russia once again reasserting its presence in the Middle
East after having been essentially expelled from there in the 1970s (a
product of Henry Kissinger’s masterful diplomacy).
Russia was an early and strong supporter of the Assad regime, while
America is a late and weak supporter of the rebel groups. President
Obama wants Russia to help us; Putin wants Assad to win. And thanks in
good measure to Russia, Assad (and hence Iran) is winning.
The Syrian debacle comes in the aftermath of Obama scrapping in 2009 a
missile-defense system the Poles and the Czech Republic had agreed to
house despite Russian threats, as a way to pacify Putin. (“The U.S.
reversal is likely to please Russia, which had fiercely opposed the
plans,” CNN reported at the time.)
Add to that Putin’s support for Iran’s nuclear ambitions and his crackdown at home. (The Washington Postwrites
that in “an attempt to suppress swelling protests against his rigged
reelection and the massively corrupt autocracy he presides over, Mr.
Putin has launched what both Russian and Western human rights groups
describe as the most intense and pervasive campaign of political
repression since the downfall of the Soviet Union.”). Taken all
together, you can see that the Obama “reset”–which at the dawn of the
Obama administration was described as a “win-win” strategy for both nations–has been a rout for the Russians.
The best line I saw about Russia's behavior in the Snowden affair was this one on Twitter (I've added a link to the Super Bowl ring story):
How is the American government supposed to get Russia to give up Edward Snowden when Putin won't even give up a Super Bowl ring?
— Bryan Cranston (@BryanCranston) June 25, 2013
The appointments of Rice and Power not only represent the ascension of
women to top roles on Obama’s national security team, but the rise of
two officials who have made human rights a priority — at a time when the
U.S. faces an agonizing decisions over Syria where President Bashar
Assad has killed tens of thousands of civlilans.
...
People close to Obama expect Republicans on the Hill to continue
their anti-Rice drumbeat, but they have no authority to stop her
selection — the position is one of the few at the senior level that
requires no Senate confirmation. Power, however, will face confirmation
hearings for her nomination.
Obama is eager for that fight, and was embittered by the attacks
against Rice to an extent unmatched by nearly any other episode in his
fight-filled presidency.
Conservatives responded quickly — and negatively — to the Rice pick.
Power was forced to resign from Obama's campaign in March 2008 after
calling former Secretary of State and then Obama rival Hillary Clinton a
'monster.'
But in the Jewish community, Power is better known for another
undiplomatic 'slip of the tongue.' For those who have forgotten or for
whom the name doesn't ring a bell, let's go to the videotape.
Rice may be drawing the attention, but Congress can do nothing to stop Rice's nomination and it's a lot less worrisome to Israel's supporters than Power's nomination.
It's important to try to defeat Chuck Hagel and John Brennan's nomination, but at the end of the day, I'm not convinced it matters. One person makes all the decisions in the White House (okay, maybe Michelle has a say too), so it doesn't really matter who is else is in charge. Case in point: The Syrian rebels.
In congressional testimony on Thursday, US Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta, who is retiring, and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both said they supported a plan last year by
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David
Petraeus to provide weapons to the rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian
President Bashar Assad.
Their comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee came in
response to a question from Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona,
who has been a leading critic of the Obama administration for failing to
do more to help the Syrian rebels who are heavily outgunned by Assad’s
forces.
Their response to McCain’s question about whether they supported the Clinton-Petraeus plan was direct and terse.
“We do,” said Panetta. “We did,” said Dempsey.
That
means the White House was presented with unified support for sending
arms by the top members of Obama’s national security team outside the
White House staff.
Asked about disagreement over whether to arm the rebels, State
Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters at a briefing
today that she won’t comment on “internal policy discussions.”
Administration
officials, such as Nuland, have said that the US assistance to the
Syrians is limited to humanitarian aid and non-lethal equipment for the
rebels, while some other nations may be providing weapons.
The point of this post isn't to determine whether or not the US should arm the Syrian rebels. I have my doubts on that question as well, mainly because I don't believe it's possible to arm the rebels without arming al-Qaeda and other Islamists.
The point of this post is to tell you that - unsurprisingly given the size of his ego - there is only one decision maker in the White House and his middle name is Hussein. Oh - and he's not an expert in anything military or anything involving US national security. And he loves Muslims.
The Israel Policy Forum, which used to be a pro-Israel but Left-leaning organization, has apparently decided to go all the way and ape J Street. Here's part of an email that was sent to their mailing list by Chair, Peter A. Joseph, and Executive Director, David A. Halperin in support of Chuck 'Help Me Fight the Jewish Lobby' Hagel.
Senator Chuck Hagel, rumored to be President Obama’s nominee to serve as Secretary of Defense, is under attack for his views on Israel. Certain Jewish organizations and conservative commentators have voiced concerns about his support for Israel, even coming close to calling him anti-Semitic for his remarks about the “Jewish lobby.”
We are pasting below the entirety of Senator Hagel’s wide-ranging remarks to the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) on December 4, 2008. None of his remarks to us suggested he is anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Far from it.
To be sure, any concerns regarding Hagel’s views should be aired by those in our community. But as they were outlined in his IPF address in 2008, his ideas are not outside the mainstream.
His statement that “The United States cannot impose peace in the Middle East, but I don’t believe any way you come at this, there will be peace in the Middle East without the United States,” is exactly right.
Regarding Iran, he recognized that: “(Iran) support(s) terrorists, they support Hezbollah, they’ve got their tentacles wrapped around every problem in the Middle East that is anti-Israel, anti- the United States. Those are realities. Those are facts.”
His description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the “strategic epicenter” of the Middle East have been subsequently reflected by CENTCOM chief General James Mattis, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former CIA Director General David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who have all similarly identified resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute as critical for advancing regional stability and American interests.
None of this should be considered dangerous for the United States or the State of Israel.
Hagel should be applauded for his service to date, and given a chance to answer the considerable charges that have been leveled at him in a nomination hearing.
Hagel has served his nation as a veteran and a dedicated public servant. As a Senator he fostered strong ties on both sides of the political aisle, and created a reputation as an experienced, honest and independent-minded thinker. These are all qualities that make for a fine candidate to serve as Secretary of Defense.
Of course, much of the outcry against Hagel stems from a passage in Aaron David Miller's book, The Much Too Promised Land, in which Hagel is quoted as saying that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” Though that wording is unfortunate, it is also regrettable that the exuberant manner in which Hagel’s potential nomination is being vilified could be a case in point.
How wrong is the Israel Policy Forum? Consider this.
1. “It is my opinion that [the George W. Bush
Administration] is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations
I’ve ever seen personally or ever read about.” (November 2007)
2. “Peace comes through dealing with people.
Peace doesn’t come at the end of a bayonet or the end of a gun.” (after
meeting with Syrian dictator Hazef al-Asad in Damascus in December 1998)
3. In July 2002, Hagel staked a wrong-headed position in support
of Yassir Arafat, who was later isolated by the U.S. Government for
supporting violence against Israel during the second Palestinian
intifada. In an opinion-editorial in the Washington Post, Hagel wrote
that the U.S. was erroneously “making Yassir Arafat the issue,” that
Palestinians could not be expected to make democratic reforms as long as
“Israeli military occupation and settlement activity” continue, and
that “Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.”
4. In calling upon President Bush to push for an
immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, Hagel said:
“This madness must stop…. How do we realistically believe that a
continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend — the
country and people of Lebanon — is going to enhance America’s image and
give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace
effort in the Middle East?… Our relationship with Israel is special and
historic. But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and
Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false
choice.” Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, he said, was “tearing Lebanon apart.”
Here's Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy responding to President Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for President. Obama, says Gaffney, is a national security disaster.
Messiah's times: Obama seeking advice on Egypt from bipartisan panel, including (gulp!) former Bush NSC official
I think this is a first. President Obama has invited a bipartisan panel of experts, which was among the few groups to warn of the coming crisis in Egypt, to advise him on how to handle what's going on in Egypt. The panel includes (gulp!) former Bush administration National Security Council official Elliott Abrams.
Several foreign policy scholars and former officials have been urging the U.S. administration for months to prepare for the end of the Hosni Mubarak era and the instability that would accompany it.
Now that the administration has found itself scrambling the past few days to, first, try to avert a bloodbath in Egypt and more broadly, figure out what to do amid a hugely complicated power transition there with much at stake for the U.S., it's worth noting the people who have been pleading for policy attention on this issue long in advance. Chief among them, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Michele Dunne, a former NSC and State Department Policy Planning official, and the Brookings Institution's Robert Kagan, who co-chair a bipartisan working group on Egypt.
...
To their credit, the National Security Council's top Middle East hands Dennis Ross and Dan Shapiro met with Dunne and Kagan in November to discuss the issue (at a stuck moment of the peace process which has remained stuck), and other democracy and human rights specialists in the administration, including the NSC's Samantha Power and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East democracy issues Tamara Wittes, have frequently met with them. But the regional advisors' priorities mattered most, advocates believed, and to a great extent, much of their focus (as for that of the principals above them, and indeed, the wider policy community and media) has been on the peace process, and looking at Egypt through the prism of its role in supporting the peace process.
Just got late word that Dunne, Kagan and others from their group including former Bush NSC Middle East hand Elliott Abrams, as well as George Washington University Middle East expert Marc Lynch, have been invited to the White House Monday.
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
