L’affaire Freeman sonne-t-elle, sinon le glas, au moins le d\u00e9but du d\u00e9clin de l’influence du Lobby<\/em> pro-isra\u00e9lien, le fameux AIPAC qui fait la loi au Congr\u00e8s des Etats-Unis? C’est l’enseignement que Justin Raimondo tire de l’affaire Freeman, sur Antiwar.com<\/em> le 13 mars<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLa th\u00e8se est simple: pour avoir la peau de Freeman, le Lobby<\/em> est sorti au grand jour, ce qui est le contraire du bon fonctionnement d’un lobby<\/em>. Si l’influence se fait \u00e0 d\u00e9couvert, ses aspects les plus insupportables sont \u00e9galement \u00e0 d\u00e9couvert, et la question se pose alors de savoir combien de temps cela est effectivement supportable.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe nixing of Charles \u00ab\u00a0Chas\u00a0\u00bb Freeman from a post as head of the National Intelligence Council is not, as is commonly averred, a victory for the Israel lobby. It is, instead, a Pyrrhic victory that is, a victory so costly that it really amounts to a defeat for them. Sure, they managed to keep out a trenchant critic of their Israel-centric and grossly distorted view of a proper American foreign policy, and, yes, they managed to smear him and put others on notice that someone with his views is radioactive, as far as a high-level job in the foreign policy establishment is concerned. And yet and yet <\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThey the Lobby have now been forced out in the open. A lobby, says Steve Rosen, the ringleader of the get Freeman lynch mob, is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun. If so, then the Israel lobby is slated for oblivion, because as frenetically and pathetically as they tried to mask the centrality of their involvement, and as much as they tried to make this about other issues (his alleged ties to Saudi Arabia, his supposed views on China), everybody knows it was really all about Israel and Freeman’s contemptuous view of the special relationship which requires us giving Tel Aviv a blank check, moral as well as monetary. As a foreign policy realist, he thinks we ought to put our own interests first, in the Middle East and elsewhere, not those of a foreign country, no matter how much political clout and campaign cash its American fifth column can muster.<\/em> […]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe real fanatics are the Israel-firsters, who have used every subterfuge, no matter how low, to maintain their parasitic grip on the American policymaking process. The really dangerous ideologues are the Likudniks and their American amen corner who willfully distort and deform American policy into a means to empower and succor a militaristic settler colony that is increasingly anti-democratic and aggressive. The Freeman affair has exposed the Israel lobby for precisely what they are: it has flushed them out of the woodwork, and brought them in from the shadows. That in itself is a great victory, one that means much more in the longterm than anyone presently imagines.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’avis est int\u00e9ressant pour sa valeur de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence subjective. Raimondo est un acharn\u00e9 anti-Lobby<\/em>, d\u00e9non\u00e7ant constamment l’influence d’Isra\u00ebl \u00e0 Washington; il a plut\u00f4t tendance \u00e0 la grandir qu’\u00e0 la minimiser; d’o\u00f9 sa tendance \u00e0 faire du Lobby<\/em> une puissance inexpugnable… S’il juge que le Lobby<\/em> a remport\u00e9 une victoire \u00e0 la Pyrrhus avec la d\u00e9part de Freeman, c’est que le sentiment a un certain fondement, qu’il est sans doute partag\u00e9. Dans ce domaine de l’influence, o\u00f9 tout est question de perception et de communication, un tel sentiment est un \u00e9v\u00e9nement important qui va contre la puissance du Lobby<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl est vrai que les \u00e9chos, hors des cercles directement int\u00e9ress\u00e9s \u00e0 l’affaire, partisans ou adversaires du Lobby<\/em>, ces \u00e9chos vont souvent dans le sens du constat que l’affaire Freeman a plut\u00f4t ouvert un affrontement \u00e0 d\u00e9couvert qu’elle n’a conduit \u00e0 une victoire (du Lobby<\/em>) sans autre cons\u00e9quence. Par exemple, c’est l’avis de Richard Silverstein, du Guardian<\/em>, le 11 mars<\/a>: \u00abChas Freeman’s resignation is the first skirmish in what will be a long war between the Obama administration and the Israel lobby.<\/em>\u00bb; ou bien, celui de Rupert Cornwell, dans The Independent<\/em> du 13 mars<\/a>: \u00abFears over the Jewish lobby’s excess influence on US foreign policy flared anew yesterday after a former diplomat and strong critic of Israel backed out of a key national intelligence post, saying his appointment by President Barack Obama had been torpedoed by a campaign of lies against him.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl est vrai que, dans ce court affrontement, la fr\u00e9n\u00e9sie et l’absence de mesure du Lobby<\/em> et de ses diff\u00e9rents relais dans leurs actions contre Freeman sont apparues manifestes. D’o\u00f9 la perception de l’exc\u00e8s et de l’impudence de ces interventions, qui ont fait ressentir effectivement l’aspect grotesque et insupportable de l’influence du Lobby<\/em> en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. De ce point de vue, le cr\u00e9dit de l’administration Obama est en jeu. C’est effectivement ce que nous observions le 11 mars<\/a>, nous interrogeant nous aussi sur la possibilit\u00e9 que cette victoire du Lobby<\/em> soit effectivement \u00e0 la Pyrrhus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tIl y a une cause g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 cette \u00e9ventuelle \u00e9volution, et cette cause g\u00e9n\u00e9rale joua \u00e0 notre sens un r\u00f4le important dans l’exc\u00e8s de la r\u00e9action du Lobby<\/em>. Il est manifeste aujourd’hui, avec la crise g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qui s’est install\u00e9e, que la politique bushiste et isra\u00e9lienne droitiste de confrontation fond\u00e9e sur le manich\u00e9isme des positions m\u00e9langeant l’approche des n\u00e9o-conservateurs et celle du complexe militaro-industriel appara\u00eet de plus en plus grotesque, d\u00e9plac\u00e9e, voire stupide et obsc\u00e8ne. Qu’il soit r\u00e9alis\u00e9 ou pas, ce fait existe avec toute la puissance de la crise et il p\u00e8se sur toutes les situations, toutes les attitudes, tous les comportements. Chez ceux qui sont partie prenant de l’ancienne politique, il d\u00e9clenche des r\u00e9actions souvent excessives, \u00e0 la mesure de leur crainte pour la viabilit\u00e9 de cette politique. A notre sens, cela a \u00e9t\u00e9 le cas du Lobby<\/em>, qui a r\u00e9agi hyst\u00e9riquement \u00e0 la nomination de Freeman et a ainsi effectivement perdu son avantage principal qui est l’action dissimul\u00e9e. Comme Cornwell le rapporte dans The Independent<\/em>, l’un des auteurs du livre qui fit scandale en 2007 (The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy<\/em>) peut effectivement affirmer aujourd’hui que la th\u00e8se du livre est totalement confirm\u00e9e : \u00abFor Stephen Walt, one of the book’s authors, the Freeman row has proved the point. As he put it yesterday: For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful Israel lobby,’ or who admitted that it existed but didn’t think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful Saudi lobby,’ think again.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 13 mars 2009 \u00e0 11H23<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" L’affaire Freeman sonne-t-elle, sinon le glas, au moins le d\u00e9but du d\u00e9clin de l’influence du Lobby pro-isra\u00e9lien, le fameux AIPAC qui fait la loi au Congr\u00e8s des Etats-Unis? C’est l’enseignement que Justin Raimondo tire de l’affaire Freeman, sur Antiwar.com le 13 mars. La th\u00e8se est simple: pour avoir la peau de Freeman, le Lobby est… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[7599,3003,3090,2774,3816,4337,8166,3121],"class_list":["post-70602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-aipac","tag-freeman","tag-influence","tag-israel","tag-lobby","tag-raimondo","tag-stephen","tag-walt"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}