Friday
May222009
2 special envoys prove well-heeled - USATODAY.com
Issandr El Amrani
> 2 special envoys prove well-heeled - USATODAY.com - It pays to be a Zionist: "Dennis Ross, a "special adviser" whose portfolio includes Iran, was paid $818,000 in 2008, his disclosure statement shows. Ross, a former U.S. envoy to the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, took in $421,775 for speeches, including $214,605 from Israeli and Jewish groups, the disclosure form shows."
Reader Comments (4)
I don't understand the point of connecting large sums of money with "zionism" whatever that means. If Jew=Israel=money were not such a concern, why did you draw attention to Ross and not Holbrooke who took in twice as much money. In addition, most of the article was about Holbrooke. I suppose since this is about the middle east you decided to highlight this but I fail to see your point here besides some nefarious connection. All of these guys get huge amount of money for speaking engagements and consulting. What does that mean? He isn't qualified because he spoke to Jewish groups and got money for it? If you had objected to content of his speeches, that would be a fair argument. But why make this connection? you don't like him at all, which is fine, you hate his policies, which is also fine, but implying this $JewIsrael connection is disgusting.
The implication is not the one you draw, but rather -- and this is true of much of the think tank industry in the US -- is that if you are a known strong supporter of Israel, you will easily find a job at one of the many think tanks funded by pro-Israel millionaires like Haim Saban, you will get lucrative speaking fees, and all sorts of benefits. Pro-Palestinian people do not have that kind of support network. (In the Arab world, a similar support network exists for Saudi-funded media - this is not a uniquely pro-Israel phenomenon.)
Also, it's offensive and rather base to immediately attack me as an anti-semite because I highlight this phenomenon. This is not a \"jew$\" attack at all. It's simply a reminder that in certain professions (politics, media, some academia) it can be quite career-damaging to have taken strong positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, notably because one is often unjustly attacked as anti-Jewish rather than anti-Israel (or US) policies. It's perfectly ok to talk about the money and power of the pro-Israel / Likudnik American Jewish community, and to do so openly.
But it pays even better to be Holbrooke. What does that tell you? '
and what does being a "zionist" mean? Maybe holbrooke is a zionist because he accepts the legitimacy of the state of Israel as a state like others....or maybe Arafat was because accepted Israel...and when Hamas does the same under some religious condition...will they be zionists? But what you are really implying about 'zionists' is that Ross and people more to the right favor Israel at the expense of US national interests....I'm not sure any president or congress would allow that to happen and these individual don't have that type of power.
and this isn't a 'let's pull out the anti-semite card because he doesn't like Israel'...that's not at all my position and never has been and given my political views, it never will be....but what you don't even get is that comes through in your posts and you don't even know it. and what's even scarier is that you don't realize it.
i have shown some of the most aggregious posts to non-Jewish friends who hold similar political views and they too agree. Finally, what's surprising is that you are the first to pick up one word in a NYTimes article by some American Jewish journalist who uses an inappropriate word to describe something about the middle east and jump on it as being zionist-pro-israel and typical of the NYTimes. If I agreed with your conclusions, I would urge to read what you write with the same level of scrutiny.
I understand some of the posts may be seen as such, and that has become a risk I am willing to take. I don't really think I need to rehash here the extensive damage people like Ross have done to the perpetuation of the conflict, to American foreign policyin the region, as has done more generally the pervasive bias towards of a publication like the NYT. I don't accept your \"we can't define who is a zionist\" argument, especially when explicit adoption of Zionism as an ideology by many politicians, journalists etc. is commonplace. And yes, absolutely, I think the dual loyalty issue has to be raised, especially after policies led by zionists for zionist reasons (PNAC, Clean Break, GW Bush policies in the first term at least) have been so disastrous. So let us be clear: I am implying nothing, I am stating unambiguously that we are seeing people in US government positions who at times put Israel ahead of US interests, or confuse the two.