pro-Palestinian thread, part 2

Great Debates
421

Bullshit.
According to Dennis Ross, who led the process, the figure is correct. According to non-named (but naturally pro Israel sources who, we are assured, actually exist :rolleyes:) it is wrong.

Survey Says… XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
But it says a lot about your argument that you believe that a proven racist liar of a mass murderer is on the same level of credibility as Dennis Ross.

**
Pay attention.** *I have already tried to educate you on this topic and remove your ignorance, do not repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again. * Stop saying whatever sounds good to you and at least figure out if it is true or not. As I already tried to inform you, Israel tried for peace before '48, after '67 Israel offered back the territories and was met with the Three Noes, and despite your new fiction, there was an entire series of attempts with the full force of the Israeli government behind them. Learning what you’re talking about before you make counter-factual claims really isn’t a bad idea.

Yet again, I have already pointed out your ignorance on this point and tried to educate you. Stop fighting against learning.

Not only did the PA have direct control over the supermajority of Palestinians, it had its own armed police force whose members were often involved in attacking Israel.

As already pointed out, actual, factual property rights would prove the UN to be liars.
As already pointed out, actual, factual passages in the 4th Geneva Convention explicitly authorize the methods of the occupation.

Really? You’re not sure?
Here’s a hint: when I say “authorizes”, I mean “authorizes.”
I know, who’d a thunk it???

What I said is 100% factual - conduct ranging from internment to temporary confiscation of land are 100% clearly and unambiguously authorized by the 4th GC to safeguard the security/military necessity of the occupying Power. And despite rabid Troofer bigots like Falk, not only is ‘resistance’ (that ever-so-coy euphemism by which you mean targeting civilians while you’re being offered peace deals) not allowed, but as it constitutes a threat to the security of an occupying Power then absolutely draconian measures may be taken to thwart it.

Fiction. Falk is not an expert on the subject. This is proven by the fact that he is obviously, blatantly wrong on the facts, which even a quick glance at the 4th GC would confirm. He is a spectacular fool and a raging bigot divorced from reality and given to outrageous bouts of lying and hyperbolic bombast, and what’s more, his credibility is totally destroyed by his proven inability to interpret data. The fact that Falk is a Troofer speaks volumes to those of us paying attention, and it is no surprise that you want to handwave it away while still trying to use him as a source. Of course, yet again, as the actual GC shows that Falk is a bigoted liar using falsehoods to sell an agenda, your argument crashes and burns. Yes yes, even if you commit even more appeal to authority fallacies and point to the school that he used to teach at.

I mean, really, this is basic logic. The facts are at issue and he is demonstrably wrong, so you try to change the subject to the guy’s employer. The man’s credibility is at issue when it comes to interpreting facts, and you want to avoid it via fallacy. You are ignoring, of course, the massive flaws inherent in the appeal to authority fallacy (ya know, why it’s a fallacy n’ such?).

422
  1. OK, here’s the member of the Clinton negotiating team who states otherwise, with a linky :

he final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak’s approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel’s position in the event of failure, and resolved not to let the Palestinians take advantage of one-sided compromises, the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward at Camp David were never stated in writing, but orally conveyed. They generally were presented as US concepts, not Israeli ones; indeed, despite having demanded the opportunity to negotiate face to face with Arafat, Barak refused to hold any substantive meeting with him at Camp David out of fear that the Palestinian leader would seek to put Israeli concessions on the record. Nor were the proposals detailed. If written down, the American ideas at Camp David would have covered no more than a few pages. Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general “bases for negotiations” before launching into more rigorous negotiations. According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank; Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967 Israel equivalent to 1 percent of the West Bank, but with no indication of where either would be. On the highly sensitive issue of refugees, the proposal spoke only of a “satisfactory solution.” Even on Jerusalem, where the most detail was provided, many blanks remained to be filled in.

and here’s another report :

In reality, Palestinian officials and American sources – the latter wisely avoiding Israeli condemnation by talking anonymously – have pointed out that the figure of 96 per cent represented the percentage of the land over which Israel was prepared to negotiate – not 96 per cent of the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Left out of the equation was Arab east Jerusalem – illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six Day War – the huge belt of Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories.
Along with the obligation to lease back settlements – built illegally under international law on Arab land – to Israel for 25 years, the total Palestinian land from which Israel was prepared to withdraw came to only around 46 per cent – a far cry from the 96 per cent touted after Camp David.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barak-shares-blame-for-camp-david-failure-says-clinton-aide-678667.html
2. I’m quoting a mamber of the Clinton ngotiating team, not Arafat. Your source is Dennis Ross, a Jewish-American neoconservative who’s bee involved for decades with Likudniks like Feith, Wolfowitz etc. and is a member of organisations who exist to push the most maximal right-Zionist agenda on the US government. He’s currently advocating bombing Iran, for instance.

  1. Here’s an Orthodox rabbi to explain the reality to you :

But at a meeting of the Arab League in Khartoum on 1 September 1967, the Arab world responded with ‘the three “no”s of Khartoum’: no peace, no recognition and no negotiations. This left Israel no choice but to continue to occupy Palestinian lands. Had Palestinians not resorted to violence in resisting the occupation, the story goes, they would have had a state of their own a long time ago.The story is a lie. Israel’s military and political leaders never had any intention of returning the West Bank and Gaza to their Arab residents. The cabinet’s offer to withdraw from Arab land was addressed specifically to Egypt and Syria, not to Jordan or the Palestinians in the territories. The cabinet’s formal resolution to return the Sinai and the Golan in June 1967 said nothing about the West Bank, and referred to Gaza as ‘fully within the territory of the state of Israel’. With only a murmur of dissent, the cabinet, led by Yigal Allon and Moshe Dayan, and the then prime minister, Levi Eshkol, committed itself to policies that would allow only local forms of autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza, an arrangement they believed would in time allow them to establish the Jordan River as not only Israel’s security border but as its internationally recognised political border as well.
The decision to retain control of the territories was taken days after the end of the 1967 war, and was not a response to Palestinian terrorism, or even to Palestinian rejection of Israel’s legitimacy. Zertal and Eldar cite a report by Mossad officials, prepared at the request of the IDF’s intelligence division and presented to the IDF on 14 June 1967, which found that ‘the vast majority of West Bank leaders, including the most extreme among them, are prepared at this time to reach a permanent peace agreement’ on the basis of ‘an independent existence of Palestine’ without an army. The report was marked top secret, and buried.

Here’s an Israeli historian, a Jewish historian and the head of the UN negotiating team at the time making some of the same points :
For example, Benny Morris wrote that the Arab leaders “hammered our a defiant, rejectionist platform that was to bedevil all peace moves in the region for a decade.” Still, he laid some of the blame with Israel, saying that “*n part [the Arab] stand was a response to Israel’s unwillingness or inability to consider withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza as part of any peace settlement”[2]—an interpretation echoed by UNTSO Chief of Staff General Odd Bull.[3]
The “Arab rejectionist” view has, however, been challenged. Historian Avi Shlaim argues that the conference was in fact “a victory for Arab moderates who argued for trying to obtain the withdrawal of Israel’s forces by political rather than military means”. Shlaim asserts that Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations to mean “no formal peace treaty, but not a rejection of peace; no direct negotiations, but not a refusal to talk through third parties; and no de jure recognition of Israel, but acceptance of its existence as a state” (emphasis in original). Shlaim claims that the conference marked a “turning point” in Arab-Israeli relations, noting that Nasser urged Hussein to seek a “comprehensive settlement” with Israel. Shlaim acknowledges however, that none of this was known in Israel at the time, whose leaders took the “three noes” at face value.[4]

You might also want to read up on the Greater Israel or Whole Land of Israel movement. It was politicl parties like this one (led by a former Jewish terrorist who eventually became leader of Israel) and various Israeli religious parties that have held the balance of power in Israel since the early 1950s, preventing any good-faith peace negotiations as they could always collapse any government that attempted them. That’s why Barak couldn’t make any public offer in 2000, he wouldn’t have remained in his job for another five minutes.
4. The Palestinian police force is an excellent example of the kind of thing Isrel has done to prevent any kind of effective Palestinian governance. They even got notoriously Israel-friendly George Bush upset over that particular issue :
Mr Dahlan gave a five-minute synopsis of the Palestinian view of the security situation and the difficulties he faces because the Israelis have destroyed much of the Palestinian security infrastructure. At the end of the briefing, Gen Mofaz, jumped in. “Well, they won’t be getting any help from us; they have their own security service,” he said. Mr Bush turned on Gen Mofaz.“Their own security service? But you have destroyed their security service,” he said. Gen Mofaz remained firm. “I do not think that we can help them, Mr President,” he said. Mr Bush replied: “Oh, but I think that you can and I think that you will.” A similar confrontation followed with Mr Sharon.

5. The UN are now liars because they don’t share your reading of international law? Here’s how the rest of the world views the law as it applies to the situation :
Resolution 446 (1979)
of 22 March 1979

  • The Security Council,*

  • Having heard* the statement of the Permanent Representative of Jordan and other statements made before the Council,

    Stressing the urgent need to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

    Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

    1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

    2. Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and the consensus statement by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976 2/ and General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967, 32/5 of 28 October 1977 and 33/113 of 18 December 1978;

    3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;

    4. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be appointed by the President of the Council after consultations with the members of the Council, to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

    5. *Requests * the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 1 July 1979;

    6. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission.

    7. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene in July 1979 to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/BA123CDED3EA84A5852560E50077C2DC
and I really don’t get how you’re using the Geneva Conventions, something Israel claim don’t apply to them, to justify all the illegalities of the occupation. Here’s part of another UN resolution making the same point :

  1. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

    1. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5AA254A1C8F8B1CB852560E50075D7D5
6. Rabid bigots don’t generally get to become emeritus professors or acknowledged by their peers as experts in their field.

423

First off, seriously, do you not realize how disgusting a tactic it is to repeat non-truths about someone like Ross while you try to use his ethnicity (ZOMG! He’s a Jewish-American!!!) as a slur as you, yet again point to people being Israelis or Jews as some sort of reason to bolster an argument. Do you really not know what it’s called when you use someone’s nationality or ethnicity to make your argument?

And, it should be pointed out for those reading along that not one word in your argument should be trusted at face value, let alone your interpretations. I’m talking facts here. Ross wants to bomb Iran? Really?

[

](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/09/AR2009060903131.html?wprss=rss_politics)

Bomb Iran?

[

](Dennis Ross: How to Stop Iran From Getting Nukes)

Of course, most of the rest of your post is nonsense (not just outright fiction like your claims about Ross). You quote someone saying that the Israelis were waiting for Final Status talks to create a comprehensive package since the in-stages process of Oslo resulted in unmitigated disaster for them. Obviously, your shitty argument goes, that shows they were operating in bad faith. If they were operating in good faith, they’d have made the exact same mistake yet again. :rolleyes:

You quote Henry Siegman and pretend that he’s an Orthodox Rabbi (as if that means shit to anybody but someone who is making decisions based on race/religion/ethnicity). Of course, he’s not. He’s also a vile liar who repeated the canard of “Jews only” roads. Unsurprisingly, he also lies about the Three noes (equally unsurprisingly you repeat his claims)

[

](Khartoum Resolutions of 1967)

And your very convenient lack of comprehension of my 100% factual claims that prove that the UN deliberately disregarded clear international law doesn’t surprise me either. Of course it is very lucky that you don’t understand that I said the 4th GC explicitly authorized internment, etc… and instead your have quite fortunately misunderstood it to mean that the UN just interpreted it differently. :smack:

And then there’s also your deliberate attempt to distort the issue by choosing figures dealing with the PA’s “police” force. When faced with the clear fact that the PA’s armed thugs who were called police were often involved in directly attacking Israelis, you claim that just shows how bad Israel was and how much they did to hurt the peace process.

Your shameful defense of Troofer Falk takes the cake. Here is a man who supported the Ayatollah Khomeni’s revolution and championed the goodness of his character. A man who publicly supported the idea that Bush was complicit in 9/11. A bigoted liar who actually claimed that Israel was “Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust”. And, predictably, you again use the appeal to authority fallacy.

I’m not going to waste any more time at all. Readers can figure out for themselves what’s going on and why I don’t need to spend more time on the garbage you’ve posted.

424

By the way, I should probably elaborate a bit more on the mendacity inherent in Siegman’s (sometimes) use of the honorific “rabbi”. To non-Jews, this might not mean much, but the distinction is important. One can be ordained all right, and have a right to a title. But a rabbi is defined by his role within the community, not a degree. It’s a set of behaviors, not a diploma. And it’s telling that the appellation which hasn’t fit since the Korean War is quite often dropped when he (or others) aren’t trying to trade on his title (much like Dick) to try to grant artificial weight to his claims.

Let’s look a bit more at Mr. Siegman, known liar where Israel is concerned.

[

](Breaking News - Headlines & Top Stories | The Star)

425

Inexact phrasing on my part, I agree. Nonetheless the point stands, editorial choices in US media commonly favor Israel in presentation.

426

No content.

427

Is there a possiblity that this is because Israel holds the moral high ground, by U.S. standards?

428

If the ugliest impulse is the standard. Otherwise, no.

429

Well, let’s just assume that what you consider the ugliest standard is, by U.S. standards, the moral high ground.

By Occam’s Razor, it’s easier for me to believe that you’re wrong than that American media is under Jewish control.

430

False dichotomy.

431

Then why do (assuming for the sake of argument) editorial choices in US media commonly favor Israel in presentation? Are the editors forced to do so, ordered to do so, or do they want to do so? The first two options are dubious at best (they require some mechanism of control and an explanation of why the editors tolerate it), and a good explanation for the third is that the editors find Israel’s actions to be more worthy of support.

Fact is, if you want to make a claim that Jews control the media, prepare to have it challenged.

432

So you stated falsely (a.k.a. “inexact phrasing”) that American media were suppressing the story in question.

Now you’re retreating to the claim that “US media commonly favor Israel”, since you haven’t shown that the American media reports painted Israel any more favorably over this case than the BBC.

“I was wrong” just isn’t in your lexicon, is it?

433

Not that I expect a substantive reply, but seeing as Dick doesn’t have the ahem… balls to even try to back it up, I don’t suppose you have anything to back up this claim of the Jews controlling US foreign policy via a secret veto

434

My feelings exactly.

435

They don’t have a secret veto, if any administration tries to appoint somebody they don’t like to a position that has some kind ofrelevance to Iserael they publicly lobby away until the person gets the boot, like Chas Freeman recently.

“The reality of Washington is that our political landscape finds it difficult to assimilate any criticism of any segment of the Israeli leadership,” said Robert W. Jordan, who was ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2001 to 2003.

That’s a diplomatic way of putting it from a US diplomat. :slight_smile:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html

436

Is this in reference to the request for evidence about the Israeli veto, or any of the other (ahem) questionable statements you have made?

Because I am sure we would all welcome a few examples of people selected for US political office who were vetoed by Israel. A short description of how the veto was imposed would also be welcome.

ETA - a real cite. You know, a real name of a real person who was really vetoed by Israel.

I am assuming you also have evidence that Mr. Freeman’s financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia played no part in his failure to be nominated.

Regards,
Shodan

437

No, none at all. Israel jumped up and down till he got the boot, so the reality of the situation is that they have a de facto veto on anybody they don’t like. There isn’t a single person that gets one of these jobs that doesn’t have some kind of relationship somewhere that the finger can be pointed at, the idea Freeman got the boot because of something he did with China or the Saudis is laughable. Exactly how big are the Free China/Free Saudi Arabia lobbys in Washington?

*Prior to the announcement that the Freeman appointment was terminated, Max Blumenthal documented that the man leading the anti-Freeman assault was Steve Rosen, the long-time AIPAC official currently on trial for violations of the Espionage Act in connection with the transmission of classified U.S. information intended for Israel. Blumenthal also quotes foreign policy analyst Chris Nelson as follows:
Freeman is stuck in the latest instance of the **deadly power game long played here on what level of support for controversial Israeli government policies is a “requirement” for US public office. ** If Obama surrenders to the critics and orders [Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair] to rescind the Freeman appointment to chair the NIC, it is difficult to see how he can properly exercise leverage, when needed, in his conduct of policy in the Middle East. That, literally, is how the experts see the stakes of the fight now under way.
Blumethal also suggested that right-wing Israel fanatics in the U.S. are particularly interested in controlling how intelligence is analyzed due to their anger over the NIE’s 2007 conclusion that Iran had ceased its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

 “It’s clear that Freeman isn’t going to be influenced by the lobby,” Jim Lobe, the Washington bureau chief of Inter Press Service, remarked to me. “They don’t like people like that, especially when they’re in charge of products like the NIE. So this is a very important test for them.”
 	       Blumenthal further noted that the leader of the anti-Freeman crusade in the House, Rep.  Mark Kirk, is Congress' top recipient of AIPAC donations.   Identically, Greg Sargent previously reported that, in the Senate, "concern" over Freeman [was expressed by Sen. Chuck Schumer directly to Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel](http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/white-house/schumer-privately-tells-white-house-hes-concerned-about-freeman-on-israel/).
       Does anyone doubt that it's far more permissible in American political culture to criticize actions of the American government than it is the actions of the Israeli Government?   Isn't that rather odd, and quite self-evidently destructive?
        
       **UPDATE II**: [Andrew Sullivan on "The Freeman Precedent"](http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/the-freeman-pre.html):
       
 Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. **Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden.** Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel. More to the point: the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared. The fact that Obama blinked means no one else in Washington will ever dare to go through the hazing that Freeman endured. And so the chilling effect is as real as it is deliberate.
 	       Actually, Obama's DNI, Adm. Blair, did defend Freeman, but only today, and it's true that no other Obama officials did.  As usual, it was a bipartisan onslaught of government officials marching in lockstep loyalty to AIPAC mandates, with nobody outside of some bloggers and online writers defending Freeman.  Though I was just [arguing yesterday that the rules for discussing Israel in the U.S. have become more permissive](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/09/freeman/index.html), and I still think that, this outcome was probably inevitable given the refusal of virtually all influential Beltway factions to deviate from mandated loyalty to the right-wing Israel agenda.  That it was inevitable doesn't make it any less grotesque.*
438

II: Chuck Schumer – who supported Bush’s nomination of Michael Hayden for CIA Director despite his key role in implementing Bush’s illegal eavesdropping program, and supported Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General despite his refusal to say that waterboarding was torture – is now boasting about the role he played in blocking Freeman’s appointment, all based on Freeman’s crimes in speaking ill of the U.S. Israel:
Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position. His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing.
That’s certainly evidence that (a) Freeman was forced out, and (b) his so-called “statements against Israel” were the precipitating cause.

       **UPDATE IV**: Lynch mob leader Jonathan Chait of Marty Peretz's magazine, who spent the [last week denying](http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/09/freeman-forever.aspx) that Israel was the driving force behind the attacks on Freeman, [brings himself to acknowledge the truth](http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/10/chas-freeman-is-out.aspx) now that Freeman has been vanquished for his blasphemy:
       
 Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful, and **was a key element in the pushback against Freeman**, and that it is not always a force for good.
 	       What I find most mystifying is that Israel-centric fanatics actually think it is a good thing for Israel to impose these sorts of Israel-based loyalty tests and orthodoxies on American politics.  Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly [want the U.S. Government to be "even-handed"](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/20/israel/) in the Israel/Palestinian dispute and [substantial portions of Americans do not favor American policies towards Israel](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/14/friedman/#postid-updateA3).  Isn't it rather obvious that at some point, there will be a substantial and understandable backlash as Americans watch people like Chuck Schumer openly boast that anyone who makes "**statements against Israel**" that he deems "over the top" will be disqualified from serving in our Government, despite a long and distinguished record of public service and unchallenged expertise?
        
       **UPDATE V**: Good for Charles Freeman for going down with a fight, issuing an [impassioned and highly persuasive statement/warning](http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit) about what the failure of his appointment, which he says he terminated, means for the U.S.:
       
 I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that **we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country** as well as to our allies and friends.
 The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is **a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired,** still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The **aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.**
 There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group **so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.** I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to **adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.**
 The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone **decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.**
 	       Freeman's full statement is [here](http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit).  How anyone thinks that it is helpful to Israel to impose these blatant litmus tests of Israel-loyalty on American politics is truly mystifying.  Foreign policy expert [Larry Rothkopf says](http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_withdraws) that the failure of Freeman's appointment "cost the United States intelligence and policy communities the benefit of a truly unique mind and set of perspectives" and "have also contributed to what can only be characterized as a leadership crisis in the U.S. government."  Judging by Freeman's statement today, Rothkopf is absolutely right.
439

So, no evidence then.

Regards,
Shodan

440

But lots of insinuation.
That’s like, even better.

Oh, and, I figure I might as well post some more facts for those reading along who might have been fooled by Dick’s exercise in creative writing.
I will quote directly from the 4th Geneva Convention (in the public domain).

[

](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)

So, when Falk tells you that targeting civilians is not only “resistance”, but allowed, it’s clear that he has the knowledge to know that’s wrong, and he’s lying deliberately.
When the UN claims that the occupation is illegal, it’s clear that they have the knowledge to know they’re wrong, and they’re lying deliberately.
When the UN claims that Jerusalem is “illegally” occupied by Israel, people should realize that Jordan occupied it and the UN didn’t strip it from them, that the Palestinians never had private property rights or sovereignty over it, and that when they claim it’s a Palestinian possession they have the knowledge to know that it’s wrong and they’re lying deliberately.