There is also a clear double standard. There are plenty of people in government who have strong ties to AIPAC. In fact, our major politicians in this country fall over themselves to seek its favor. This organization clearly has ties to Israel, yet I have not heard of anyone associated with this organization and who would be considered for a senior post criticized for having too close ties to Israel. In fact we have too many people working on our middle east policy who associate with extremely pro-Israel thinktanks to have an effective policy in the region.

otrain, I read your post regarding why so many pro-Israel supporters have a problem with Chas Freeman. I don't think it is because of he saw the middle east problem in "black and white" and that he did not understand the complexity of the situation. It is quite the opposite, for these critics, the issues involving Israel are Black and White, and it was Mr. Freeman who understood the complexities. I have read some recent writings of Mr. Freeman, and it is very clear he fully understands the complexities. The problem is rather than being "anti-Israel", what he offers is some "tough love", though I know some would disagree. While I don't completely agree with some of his statements, I generally agree with his thesis that the governments of Israel constantly do things to support their siege mentality with dealing with their Arab neighbors and that they are much better at waging war than making peace.

An objective view of history would show that the government of Israel has done just about anything to tick off its neighbors and then cry that it is the "victim". This goes from border scrimmages with Syria, to collective punishment, to creating the environment in the occupied territories (especially Gaza) for Islamic extremists to thrive at the expense of Palestinian moderates. Israel was prepared to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for Gilead Shalit, but only recently started releasing prisoners to Mahmood Abbas. Who has gotten more prisoners released in the last few years, the Palestinian Authority or Hizbollah? What lessons do you think the Arabs have learned?

Chas Freeman is right that there is a very limited criticism of Israel in this country. If you don't think there is a strong pro-Israeli lobby in congress, ask Cynthia McKenney, who after she sharply critcised Israel found a primary opponent, another Black woman, seriously funded by persons from New York. Why would these New Yorkers be so concerned about a house district in Georgia?

The bitter irony is that in Israel, you have a much more honest debate and there are some Israeli politicians who if they were in the U.S. would be called "anti-semitic" by the pro-Israeli lobby in this country. It is clear that the neo-conservatives have taken the Likudniks view. From Rumsfield's term "so-called occupied territories" to Bush's recognition of "facts on the ground" - the legitimizing of Israel's colonization of the West Bank, in violation of International law. It is made worse when Ohmert brags that all he has to do is call and Bush beckoned to his whim.

Eileen Fleming, Author,
Founder: http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"

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.
.
This is called an illogical conclusion. Simply because the hyper pro-Israel voices don't win every time doesn't mean they don't possess substantial influence and command over the public narrative on Israel and the appointment of officials with influence over Mid East policy. Are you really suggesting that there are zero aberrations in the way this country publicly discusses Mid East policy? Everything is just A-OK to you then?