Charlie Rose

Frank T  11/01/2008 02:37 AM Report

Khalidi is no different from the general run of blame-throwing Palestinian hacks. One of the (many) reasons Palestinians have marched themselves down so many dead ends is the abject failure of their intellectuals, who've been so busy speaking "truth to power" that they've forgotten to speak it to their own people. Khalidi is no exception, and as someone who's fed Palestinian mythology for decades, he's just as thoroughly implicated in the mess as any masked gunman. (His rants are virulently anti-Israel- and anti-American - propaganda.)

[There is certainly no shortage of similar virulence in these posts.\

Snazel  10/30/2008 04:48 PM Report

I look forward to seeing this interview again, given the current "controversy".

My memory of this interview is it seems to me Khalidi isn't a radical at all, or at least didn't say radical things during the interview. When I have time to rewatch this via the website, I am fairly confident I will come to the same conclusion.

Can I not disagree with a man, and still have respect for his point of view?

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION: Are the McCain claims that Khalidi is a dangerous person to have any kind of assocation to legitimate, or are they exaggerated?

paul crames  04/30/2008 02:22 PM Report

listeners should try to understand Indyk's Zionist commitment to the Jewish people's cause:

Home > Archives > Dec_2000 > How Are the Mighty Fallen! U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indykâ??s Lost (and Found) Security Clearance

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2000, Page 51

Special Report

How Are the Mighty Fallen! U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indykâ??s Lost (and Found) Security Clearance

By Andrew I. Killgore

Martin Indyk, Americaâ??s ambassador to Israel, is a Zionist. Israeli newspapers reported that Indyk declared himself such when he went to Israel in 1995 as the first American Jewish ambassador to the Jewish state.

Indykâ??s security clearance was lifted by the State Department in September for â??suspected violationsâ?? of security standards. Despite its restoration in October, a thousand questions ariseâ??along with a sense of astonished awe that such a high-flying star in the Zionist apparat currently dominating Washington could fall to earth, even temporarily. Moreover, the post-restoration ambassador kept such a low profile at Octoberâ??s Sharm el-Sheikh summit as to be virtually invisible.

Born in London and reared and educated in Australia, Indyk already held high academic and intelligence positions â??down underâ?? before moving to Israel. There he is said to have worked for right-wing Likud Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

But it was in Americaâ??s capital that Indykâ??former deputy director of research at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israelâ??s Washington, DC lobby, and the first executive director of the AIPAC-spin-off Washington Institute for Near East Policyâ??leapt to a sudden stardom. In 1993 newly elected President Bill Clinton appointed Indyk chief Middle East adviser on the National Security Council. After having lived in New York and Washington for a decade, Indyk benefitted from a speeded-up process, to acquire U.S. citizenship only 10 days before assuming his new duties.

Following his first ambassadorial assignment to Israel, Indyk returned to Washington in 1995 as head of the Department of Stateâ??s Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Then, in 1999, he returned to Israel a second time as U.S. ambassadorâ??reportedly at the request of Israelâ??s new prime minister, Ehud Barak, the successor to Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, with whom Indyk apparently had little affinity.

During his suspension, Indyk was prohibited from reading classified documents and was permitted to enter the State Department only with an escort to assure he abided by his security restrictions.

No evidence was found of espionage or compromise of classified information, assured the Israel-leaning New York Times and Washington Post. Since Jewish American Jonathan Jay Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1986 for spying for Israel, this disclaimer has become standard, if misleading. But just because unauthorized cameras or eyes perusing classified documents are careful to leave no evidence doesnâ??t necessarily mean that spying hasnâ??t taken place.

Indykâ??s 1995 declaration that he is a Zionist exemplifies what Georgetown University emeritus professor Hisham Sharabi calls the â??verbal paradigmâ?? practiced by Israel and its supporters, obviously including Indyk. The practitioners of this paradigm preserve the premise that â??Israeli and U.S. interests coincideâ?? through rigorous mental compartmentalization and a refusal to employ or even listen to words that conflict with their basic theme.

Given that verbal compulsion, it would seem only natural for Indyk to treat the Israeli officers with whom he has dealt over the past five years in both Washington and Tel Aviv as constituting no danger to U.S. interestsâ??and thus to let them see classified U.S. intelligence as a matter of course. That, in fact, is the very basis for Indykâ??s recent troubles, according to an article by Israeli military expert Zeâ??ev Schiff in the Hebrew-language newspaper Haâ??aretz.

The trouble with the premise that â??Israeli and U.S. interests coincide,â?? of course, is that it is not true. Israel has its own interests, as does America. Pollardâ??s espionage resulted in some of our stolen secrets reaching the Soviet Union. Indeed, the holy of holies of all intelligence organizationsâ??sources and methodsâ??were revealed to the Soviet Union by Israel via Pollard.

The intriguing questionâ??assuming Schiff is correctâ??is why the Indyk case surfaced when it did. Have some U.S. secrets that the always aggressive Israeli intelligence service may have purloined or been given by Indyk come back to haunt or damage the U.S. from a third or fourth party?

If that is the case, and the â??Friends of Israelâ?? in the U.S. media cannot keep it quiet, the abiding conflict between U.S. and Israeli interests finally may be revealed. For its own interests, the United States very badly needs that to happen.

To be watched closely.

Andrew I. Killgore, a retired career foreign service officer and former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, is the publisher of the Washington Report.

Home > Archives > Dec_2000 > How Are the Mighty Fallen! U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indykâ??s Lost (and Found) Security Clearance

paul crames  04/30/2008 02:21 PM Report

« No Such Thing As Too Much Bernie Aronson | Main | How American's Founding Fathers Would Fight Back Against The Bush Administration »

You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mikeâ??I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."â??Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

â?¢

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."â??Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

â?¢

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: Iâ??m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."â??Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

June 16, 2007

Why Martin Indyk Is Director Of The Saban Center for Middle East Policy And You're Not

Because unlike you, he can write this for the Washington Post without giggling:

One might expect that [Mahmoud Abbas\ would denounce Hamas's coup and call for international intervention to restore his control.

This is also impressive non-giggling work by Indyk:

Hosni Mubarak's regime turned a blind eye to the importation of weapons and money that helped ensure Hamas's takeover.

Or...

Egypt transfered a large quantity of arms and ammunition to PA security organizations in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, with Israel's approval...

The shipment included 2,000 AK-47 rifles, 20,000 magazines and two million rounds of ammunition.

UP NEXT: Indyk denounces Iraq for invading the United States.

Posted at June 16, 2007 02:46 PM | TrackBack

Comments

The Hysteria of murder, hell, I can't even read it without giggling. It's ALL just sign posts on the Highway to Hell. (could be a stop sign, it looks HEXagonal.)

Posted by: Mike Meyer at June 16, 2007 05:51 PM

Which Power Ranger is he?

I think Pollack is Green Ranger.

Posted by: Jon H at June 16, 2007 09:15 PM

{Sigh.}

This brings to mind an awkward moment at American Footprints when I put Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross in the same basic camp as Elliott Abrams. Much eye-rolling from other commenters at my wild, paranoid oversimplification.

But, in fact, on most points of analysis having to do with Palestinian issues, there's no daylight at all -- particularly now that the internal contradictions of the Oslo project have run their course to complete, if clear, ruin.

Posted by: Nell at June 17, 2007 05:41 AM

Sami Joseph  01/22/2008 02:01 AM Report

I am baffled by Rashid Khalidi's attitude towards Hamas. He conveniently forgot that Hamas is the legitimately elected government. As for Martin Indyk, he is the arch Zionist who peddles sugar-coated sweet talk as if he is taking a dispassionate stand - what a masterpeice of deception.

Michael Lang  01/21/2008 01:49 PM Report

I have never understood the logic behind the two state solution, because there is barely enough arable land there to support one country, let alone two The best solution is to form one country and the best solution for the Palestinians is to renounce violence, insist on full Israeli citizenship and peacefully march for full assimilation. The Palestinians need a Gandhi to lead them to the promised land because trying to fight a well armed Israel head to head is foolish. The Jews and the Palestinians share a Semitic ancestry and have the same love and respect for education. When I was in graduate school , we had students from Israel and Palestine in my class and unless someone told who was from where, I could not tell the deference. They both had the same semitic features and they both even used the same hand gestures and facial expressions when arguing. So I think Martin's fear that the Jewish race in Israel will somehow be diluted if the Palestinians become full citizens in the state of Israel is unwarranted. I think the people of the state of Israel, which will have incorporated all the Palestinians as full citizens under one government, will be as racially pure ,with pure semitic blood flowing through their veins as before and isn't that what we all want.

Christopher  01/19/2008 12:58 AM Report

I also thought that Martin was very cool and could have taken the bait of Rashid's comments on the occupation Palestine. When Rashid was critical of the Gaza situation, Martin remained cool and assumed intelligence of the listenners (ie how to handle Hamas in Gaza is not easy for Israel...) Memo to Martin, good move. Charlie Rose viewers are pretty smart, we know there is no easy solution to Gaza. Martin could have ranted and raved about the rockets landing in Sderot, he did not. The 1.5 million there will suffer one way or another as a result of the Hamas coup.

Christopher  01/19/2008 12:46 AM Report

By the way, I must give credit to Martin and Rashid for the discussion not becoming a screaming contest. It was a very good debate.

Christopher  01/19/2008 12:43 AM Report

Why can't we judge the past? Everytime something is critical of the US, "we can't judge the past". It seems that the guest which has the best grasp of the situation on the ground is Rashid Khalidi. Anyone for a third intifada? The new settlements must stop and the West Bank must be "normalized"(remove roadblocks, give financial support). But Rashid is disconnected from the situation in Gaza. How can Israel treat Gaza gently when they receive rocket fire constantly from Gaza? By the way "twisting ourselves into a pretzel" was a good line. Rashid is a good commentor. He really makes good points. He reflects the Western (non-US) point of view. I would like to close that contrary to what Chalie and Martin say "better late than never", the fact is that Bush really only paid lip service on his Midle East tour, nothing more. Charlie has stop looking for positive in everything, especially when there is no positive.

yasmin  01/18/2008 01:11 PM Report

400,000 should be 450,000

yasmin  01/18/2008 01:01 PM Report

Let's correct the lies/distortions in Aaron's post:

1. Distortion: "Israel's PM Olmert stated to the Israeli Government that it's [sic\ failure to remove "illegal" settlement outposts was a "disgrace"."

Reality: Israel has illegal settlements with over 250,000 settlers on the most fertile West Bank land containing almost all of its water. It has about 200,000 settlers in East Jerusalem - a total of 400,000 Israelis living on stolen Palestinian land. In the past weeks, it announced the construction of a new illegal settlement, and the expansion of an existing one, despite its obligations under the Roadmap to freeze the building of settlements. These settlements together with roads on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel, an illegal Wall and hundreds of checkpoints and roadblocks, cut off Palestinians from 40% of the West Bank, steal water, and separate Palestinians from land, jobs, medical care, relatives, and friends. The ongoing construction of the Wall is stealing additional land. The tiny outposts are hardly a meaningful concession.

2. Distortion: "Israel does not exist at all on Arab or "Palestinian" maps."

Truth: Israel does not recognize or respect Palestinians' rights to their own land. Its maps use terms like Judea and Samaria, not the West Bank and Gaza. It has not declared its own borders, wishing to annex as much of Palestinian land as it can.

3. Distortion: "Israel has already returned territories it won in defensive wars."

After its formation, Israel attacked Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Tunisia, Iraq and Lebanon (the last of which it occupied for 18 years), and currently maintains an illegal, brutal military occupation of Palestinian territory. The formation of Israel was achieved through massacres and ethnic cleansing. Israel characterizes all of these as "defensive", yet all of them were in retaliation for Israeli violence, including the initial violence necessary for its establishment in 1948.

4. Lie: "it's [sic\ fascist, imperialist neighbors, including the return of active oil wells."

Reality: Israel is the colonial enterprise here, being formed by settling and stealing land from indigenous people. It was created with help of imperial Britain, and is currently maintained only by Western (i.e. US) support.

4. Fiction: "giving away Gaza, Israel gave away territory it purchased before 1948."

Truth: ah, the myth of "disengagement". A mere 7000 settlers were TRANSFERRED TO WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS, and Gaza was turned into a prison, after which Israel rained death from the sky in Operation Summer Rains. Controlling borders and movement in Gaza constitutes occupation under international law, so the occupation of Gaza has not ended.

yasmin  01/18/2008 12:29 PM Report

Why does Charlie have someone like Martin Indyk on the show to give "the Israeli perspective", or for "balance" when Indyk merely uses the pulpit to propagandize and lie to the American public over and over again. Rashid is an academic. Why not an Israeli academic willing at least to tell the truth? It's annoying and boring to listen to Indyk over and over again.

Charlton Price  01/17/2008 08:01 PM Report

Charlie...Items of complaint about the Khalidi-Indyk show:

1) The correct pronunciaton of his name is KHA-lidi(with an Arabic "kh" sound)

2) "The Iron Cage" is not a NEW book. It's been out for more than a year.

3) Martin Indyk was an apologist for the AIPAC, and a Israeli propaganda organizaton called something like the Washington Center for MidEast Policy. Presumably he's now given a mentle of scholarship because he's at Brookings.

4) There are not "two sides to every story." The Arab-Israeli story has six or eight sides. But the Charlie Rose Show always has a Dennis Ross or an Indyk or an Israeli ambassador or our ambassador to Israel (present or former)to give the Israli side, presumably one of two sides.

5) Your questioning technique last night was in your most objectionable smart-graduate-student, pseudo-knowledgeable type. Like your rudeness in conversation with Richard Holbrooke some weeks back. At a number of points your questions or comments apparently were based on assumptions about the situation that are factually questionable or incorrect. These are too numerous to mention in this short comment.

kathy mae  01/17/2008 06:27 AM Report

Paul and Aaron,

Paul I do not understand anything you are talking about. It would be helpful, for those of us who are not as well imformed as you seem to be, to state yours views in laymans terms. Please simplify your comments, dummy down, assume we don't know enough to follow your comments. As far as editing you can write your comments in an aol write mail, or notepad, edit, then copy and paste it in here.

Aaron awesome analogy, I enjoed reading your post. Although I might not agree with some of your conclusions I do agree that our foreign policy sucks, and Bush is a Dweeb, but I view the world through more liberal eyes. Here's hope for solutions through peaceful means. Peace is a win win for all. The past is the past, let's move forward.

Kathy Mae

AARON BENEZRA  01/17/2008 03:59 AM Report

TECHNICAL comments intended to improve this "Leave Your Comment" treasure at this site: (1) there should be an 'edit' capability to correct or modify an original posting that one has made, and (2) more attention should be paid to the "report abuse" function so that the privilege of commenting does not deteriorate into name-calling, tit-for-tat, derision, and ranting that unfortunately characterized much of the board postings of the previous site.

AARON BENEZRA  01/17/2008 03:58 AM Report

SPECIFIC CORRECTION: (to earlier posting, should read: [a satire analogizing USA to Israel\.... BREAKING NEWS! BUSH ANNOUNCES:

AARON BENEZRA  01/17/2008 03:44 AM Report

A N A L O G I Z I N G U. S. A. T O I S R A E L

BUSH ANNOUNCES: "U.S. TO WITHDRAW FROM SOUTHWEST!"

(reductio ad absurdum?)

On the second anniversary of the American unilateral withdrawl from Guantanamo, President Bush just announced, "It is high time that the American occupation of Mexicano Land come to an end." Bush expressed his sincere and absolute trust in Luis Posada Carriles and the government [previously terrorist organization\ and people of "la Raza". "The borders will be respected and will require no security fence," said Bush. Kissing Hugo Chavez on both cheeks and thanking him for his support, Bush added, "For the American settlers returning to the US, trailer parks and tent cities will be established in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida panhandle." "It's a win-win situation," said Bush, "We won't have to police the border any longer - a UN force of Cubans, Venezuelans, and Chileans will do that - and we can re-populate the Gulf states (less Texas of course) to make up for the population losses due to the terrified departures brought on by Hurricane Katrina." "The two-state solution of an American nation and a Mexicano nation living in peace and security side by side will come to an agreement on my watch."

"As to the loss of oil fields and even my own Texas home - well, I know it'll be tough for some; but, "oil and land for peace" has been American policy for three decades. The Monroe Doctrine is ancient history and contrary to the philosophy of the World Community and the New World Order. From "Sea to Shining Sea" is not PC and I won't have any of it. As to the Mexican Map that shows all of North America as "La Raza" - I think it's a pretty map; in fact a nice old Mexican woman, who used to cook for Laura and me in the White House, knitted me a beautiful blanket with just such a map on it to commemorate my first term in office, and when PBS's "Antique Roadshow" came to the White House, that very blanket was estimated to be worth more than I dare mention as an historical one-of-a-kind that will only appreciate in value. That said, this Map is only decoration and I take it as such. And it is a disgrace that our government hasn't done more to freeze the growth of new American settlements or stunt the natural growth of existing settlements in the western territories to keep to our agreements to the World Community and the Road Map . Venceremos! Viva la Raza! On to Kinnabunkport!"

A.B.E.

01/17/08

Comment: The above hypothetical is offensive and ridiculous -- or is it? In the past 72 hours President Bush has called for an end to Israeli "occupation" of "Palestinian Land", has kissed a Saudi Prince on both cheeks; and Israel's PM Olmert stated to the Israeli Government that it's failure to remove "illegal" settlement outposts was a "disgrace". Israel does not exist at all on Arab or "Palestinian" maps. Israel has already returned territories it won in defensive wars to it's fascist, imperialist neighbors, including the return of active oil wells; and in giving away Gaza, Israel gave away territory it purchased before 1948. Every "fiction" in the above satire has been a reality to Israel, by analogy, and the Bush Push for a 2008 Plan seeks to finalize Israeli surrender of the historical territory promised to Israel by the Balfour Declaration. Given the hatred the world has expressed towards both Israel and the USA, and given growing inflammation of the US-Mexico border issue and the related illegal immigration issue, and given the tense relations between the US and much of South America, the apparently ridiculous scenario above could be viewed as having it's precedent in American policy towards Israel today and dating back to the Carter presidency. It is worth noting that during the Carter Administration, not only did Carter "negotiate" the return of the Sinai to Egypt; but, President Carter also negotiated the surrender of the Panama Canal to Panama (completed in the last year of the Clinton presidency), thus signaling the death of the Monroe Doctrine. In the past few decades there has been increasing pressure for the US to completely quit the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, cloaked recently in the garb of the worldwide movement to close the prison camp there in which Al-Quaeda terrorists are incarcerated. If the current trend to "accommodate" our southern neighbors continues in the same wake, then the scenario painted above may conceivably come to pass. It is, after all, a PC scenario....

paul_crames  01/17/2008 03:33 AM Report

occupation is an occupation; warcrimes are warcrimes; you don't do collective punishment; Indyk is wrong: no occupation is a shared interest of anybody, it is the sole interest of the occupier.

paul_crames  01/17/2008 03:33 AM Report

remember to read the NIE; every war ends in a negotiaton: so, do talk to Iran. And remember the old song: "From the river to the sea....".

paul crames  01/17/2008 03:33 AM Report

Mr. Mehlman:

Mr. Guiliani is a 'fraud' according to the firefighters who risked their 'asses' and died:

http://conservativesagainstrudy.com/2007/07/29/fightfighters-call-giuliani-a-fraud/

Guiliani wants to play his role, but America needs trued leadership not cowards like him or Bloomberg that built their riches on Brahmin family names.

best

Paul J Crams

Anton Grambihler  01/17/2008 03:13 AM Report

The United States must start treating Israel the same as all other Nations. This includes forcing Israel to abide by International Laws, United Nations Resolutions, and allow the Palestine People to return to their Land, their Homes, and their Livelihood.

The United States must stop providing Israel with Billions of dollars in Aid as long as they have unregulated non-conventional weapons and have not signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until the United States Enforces the Laws equally on all people.

When the Nazis Terrorists continued to violate International Law after Land was taken from Czechoslovakia and given to them, they were forced to accept unconditional surrender. Nothing less must be accepted from Israel.