Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Ben Wing
Recent Activity
-
Ben commented on the article |
Sigh.
Charles, thank you very much for your post. Very few pro-Palestinian writers seem willing to acknowledge the things you mention.
I agree with you that some defenders of Israel use "every rhetorical bullet in their arsenal" as you say, e.g. Alan Dershowitz. But I think the majority simply want people to make an honest evaluation of Israeli behavior in the same way that they judge the behavior of other countries. It's very frustrating to hear people continually screaming "war crimes!!!!!!!!!!! IDF intentionally targets civilians!" while completely ignoring the enormous amount of effort the IDF goes to in order specifically to *not* target civilians, and not even bothering to make minimally fair comparisons between what the IDF does and what countries like the U.S. and Britain have done in similar circumstances. AFAIK the vast majority of anti-Israel left-wingers read *ONLY* other left-wing sources that share the same bias as they do, while firmly believing that it's only the non-left-wing sources that are biased. Many left-wing sources I've read seem unable to acknowledge even the most obvious instances of cases of bias on "their" side, e.g. the pervasive anti-Israel bias at the U.N. and the enormous amounts of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. (For info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Palestine_and_the_United_Nations
) -
Ben commented on the article |urk, sorry, that got misformatted.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html
FORMER ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. looked like a poor choice to chair the Obama administration's National Intelligence Council. A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King "Abdullah the Great," Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask -- as numerous members of Congress had begun to do -- whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.
It wasn't until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government." Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel -- and his statement was a grotesque libel.
For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board. According to a report by Newsweek, Mr. Freeman's most formidable critic -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- was incensed by his position on dissent in China.
But let's consider the ambassador's broader charge: He describes "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.
What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to describe Israel's nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them. -
Ben commented on the article |
OK now folks, for a slightly more mainstream view, here's the Washington Post editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031103384.html
FORMER ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. looked like a poor choice to chair the Obama administration's National Intelligence Council. A former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King "Abdullah the Great," Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask -- as numerous members of Congress had begun to do -- whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.This StoryBlame the 'Lobby'The Country's LossDebate the Editorial Board This StoryCharles Freeman Orchestrated His Own FallOn Point: A Parting Shot That Maligns Obama, TooHe Blames the Israel Lobby. But the Job Wasn't Worth It.Blame the 'Lobby'The Country's LossView All Items in This StoryView Only Top Items in This Story It wasn't until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government." Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel -- and his statement was a grotesque libel.For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board. According to a report by Newsweek, Mr. Freeman's most formidable critic -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- was incensed by his position on dissent in China.But let's consider the ambassador's broader charge: He describes "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to describe Israel's nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them. -
Ben commented on the article |You didn't answer my first question.
(a) Do you believe that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is racist?
(b) Do you believe that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is more important than the vast majority of other issues that should have been addressed at the conference? -
Ben commented on the article |why do you guys have so much righteous anger over things like this? are you helping the peace process one bit, or are you just using the opportunity to "prove" to yourselves how "inhuman" the IDF is?
let me ask you, Charles and Aref -- if I went to Gaza and protested the way that Hamas forces innocent Palestinian civilians to act as human shields, by inserting myself between Hamas and the civilians, what do you think would happen? -
Ben commented on the article |
Charles, I find your logic just completely bizarre. Do you really believe that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is (a) racist, and (b) more important than the vast majority of other issues that should have been addressed at the conference? Are you aware of the enormous amount of unquestionably anti-Semitic signs, statements, etc. at that conference? Are you really willing to defend the efforts of those who tried to hijack this conference to make it a referendum on Israel (and no other country, e.g. Sudan)?
These are not rhetorical questions, I really want to know what you think. -
Ben commented on the article |Jeremy, I don't know what your ideas are about non-violently dealing with militants and I'm interested in hearing them summarized.
But I have to ask you the same question I ask so many others -- how much have you actually researched the history of Israel? It's frustrating to see so many people on the left who criticize Israel and think they know exactly what *should* be done, but haven't looked into what actually has been done already. For example, during the 70's and 80's Israel was able to keep a lid on terrorism through a combination of positive developments for the people of the West Bank and Gaza as a whole (e.g. economic development) and and all sorts of non-violent (albeit not overly pretty) methods to directly suppress militants, e.g. informers, bribes, administrative detention, etc. They also tried to attack the root of the problem by eliminating anti-Israel propaganda from the educational curriculum, but early on had to cede control over this as there was so much protest from the Palestinians.
Starting with the Oslo Process in the 90's, however, these "precise" means became largely unavailable once Israel ceded political control over much of the West Bank to the PA, and following the enormous increase in terrorism starting in 2000 or so, Israel had nothing but blunt instruments left -- roadblocks, army incursions, bombings, etc. It's rather ironic that the same people who so strongly criticized these tactics were the ones pushing so hard for the process that led to the use of these tactics in the first place!
Eventually Israel did find a non-violent solution -- the security barrier -- but the leftist critics rail against it, too ("Apartheid wall"). -
Ben commented on the article |
I understand what you're saying. I think, however, in this situation, given its enormous complexity and the tendency for people on all sides to react with such strong emotions, it's simply not helpful to use terms like "death squads". All it does is further ramp up the already excessive emotional level.
What I'm seeing among the progressive community is a stronger and stronger tendency to make quick moral judgments, coupled with less and less inclination to make any real attempt to learn the history behind the present situation, the intentions of the various actors, or the biases of all parties involved (very much including organizations such as the U.N.). Reporters, unfortunately, behave in the same way, and it seriously cripples the quality of the reports they produce.
It's easy to see why these two tendencies are coupled. It's also easy to see why neither one is helpful, and why the vast majority of Israelis think that the prevailing opinion of the rest of the world is wrong (I imagine Michael will agree with this sentiment). -
Ben commented on the article |
Aref, that's really an obnoxious comment. Michael is not a troll, any more than James is, and calling someone a troll just because they disagree with you is a cowardly way of trying to censor them.
James, the basic problem with your logic is that you seem willing to direct your criticism only at certain actors (Israel) but not at others (Palestinians), and to direct it at greater measure towards some (Israel) than others (U.S.). To me this is hypocritical rather than praiseworthy. Do you not see how selective your rage is? -
Ben commented on the article |
James, are you really interested in figuring out the best way to find peace or do you just want to cherry-pick quotes to satisfy a pre-conceived view? Israel is full of people on all sides, including some who criticise their own country extremely loudly. AFAIK there is exactly one organization on the Palestinian side that seriously attempts to criticise the behavior of its own people. Recent reports even from organizations like Amnesty International direct nearly all their criticism onto Israel.
Where do I see you demanding a "no torture policy" of Hamas and the PA (not to mention Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, ...)? Have you even looked into these issues? I'd be more willing to accept that you are acting in good faith if you stopped using blogs that employ terms like "Apartheid Wall" as your basic sources of info, and actually made an attempt to locate and investigate differing points of view.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits