by John J. Mearsheimer . But more and more reading, especially The National Review and Commentary, has lead me to believe most commentators who would be lumped with the "Israeli lobby" are not only not directed from Israel but that their "pro-Israel" polices arise from domestic political considerations more than any special loyalty to Israel. After all if the primary motivation was Zionist, wouldn't they be in Israel?But for some time I have noticed a disturbing trend. Israel and some of commentators have become more abrasive and accusatory. If find myself more and more offended by Israel's demands that we accept their versions of events. Rarely is there any attempt to woo Americans. I believe that this attitude is behind the repetitively low support for Israel's actions After all Americans barely bat an eye at oppression far greater than the Israeli's inflict of the Palestinians.
But with the Charles Freedom incident there truly does appear to be the outlines of a conspiracy. There is no question that the attacks on Freeman originated from ardent supporters of Israel. But, any careful reading of the attacks along with other writings by the same authors make it clear that the attacks were largely motivated by domestic political considerations, unrelated to Israel.
If people would just say something like this, all would be probably be fine. The problem is that authors like Ron Radosh and the Washington Post editorial board made the declarative statements that the motivation for those who led the opposition to Freeman was not his statements about Israel. This is simply false and obviously false. Supporters of Israel risk actually forming a conspiracy to lie about the events leading to Freeman's withdrawal.
Times of economic insecurity such as now are dangerous times. Politics can lurch quickly between extremes and people are looking for a scape goat. If the question of whether there is a conspiracy involving Jewish supporters of Israel, changes to what is the nature of the conspiracy, the danger of Pogrom against the Jews would greatly increase.
Supporters of Israel need to work on their message. Focus on the people at large, not just the powerful. And studiously avoid actions that could give demagogue an place to start.
Ron Radosh, it seems went beyond his lies about the Freeman incident to suppressing my similar post in regards to his article. I submitted two versions, both of which seem to have been rejected. They are provided below. Believe me it is far better to let your opponents express their opinions, odious though they may be, than to have them quietly advancing their agenda.
Update: Both comments were posted in the comments section provided for Mr. Radosh's article.. I also corrected some spelling and grammar errors.
Here is why this article and especially the Washington Post editorial is dangerous to American Jews. I was aware of the Freeman controversy early on, precisely because I read the New Republic, and Commentary. The attacks against Freemen did start with people who consider themselves proponents of a conservative policy regards to Israel.
Freeman’s attitude towards China has, sadly, been the de facto policy of the United States, since Bush, the lesser evil, sent secret emissary to China shortly after the massacre of the protesters in Beijing and certainly was pursued with more vigor by Clinton, Bush, the greater evil, and Clinton again as Secretary of State.
Saudi Arabia is our oldest and most helpful ally in the middle east. We have such close ties with them that we constantly play down their own involvement in terrorism and the spread of violent Islam.
By denying these facts which are are easily available to anyone who reads wider than the Washington Post deniers of the strong influence of proponents of a right wing Jewish policy are just feeding into the conspiracy nonsense regarding Jewish partisans of conservative Israel party.
After reading the Washington Post editorial I myself was wondering why the Washington Post was denying the the opposition was lead by proponents of a conservative policy regarding Israel, when those proponents themselves where claiming credit.
There should be a response to dark claims of an Israel lobby conspiracy which are obvious untruths. But this very message is distorted by seeming to deny that the attacks against Freeman were started by people who opposed his Israel policy.
Here is why this article and especially the Washington Post editorial is dangerous to American Jews. I was aware of the Freeman controversy early on, precisely because I read the New Republic, and Commentary. The attacks against Freemen did start with people who consider themselves proponents of a conservative policy regards to Israel.
Freeman’s attitude towards China has, sadly been the de facto policy of the United States, since Bush sent secret emissary to China shortly after the massacre of the protesters in Beijing and certainly was pursued with more vigor by Clinton, Bush, and Clinton again as Secretary of State.
Saudi Arabia is our oldest and most helpful ally in the middle east. We have such close ties with them that we constantly play down their own involvement in terrorism and the spread of violent Islam.
By denying these facts which are are easily available to anyone who reads wider than the Washington Post deniers of the strong influence of proponents of a right wing Jewish policy are just feeding into the conspiracy nonsense regarding Jewish partisans of conservative Israel party.
After reading the Washington Post editorial I myself was wondering why the Washington Post was denying the the opposition was lead by proponents of a conservative policy regarding Israel, when those proponents themselves where claiming credit.
There should be a response to dark claims of an Israel lobby conspiracy which are obvious untruths. But this very message is distorted by seeming to deny that the attacks against Freeman were started by people who opposed his Israel policy.
