Defeating Freeman: A Patriotic Duty
Those who successfully challenged the nomination of Charles W. Freeman, Jr. to become chairman of the National Intelligence Council should be praised for an act of high patriotism. It would have been disastrous for the United States to have, as the person responsible for overseeing "policy-neutral intelligence assessments" for the president, a zealot who is anything but policy-neutral when it comes to two of the most important areas of international conflict.
Freeman not only has extremist views regarding the Middle East and China, but he has been beholden to lobby groups that are anxious to influence intelligent assessments regarding Saudi Arabia and China. Freeman bowed out when it became clear that his highly questionable financial ties to the Saudi and China lobby would be deeply probed by inspectors general, congressional staffers and the media. He couldn't handle the truth about his financial ties to these lobbies which do not serve the interests of the United States. The heavy thumbs of the powerful Saudi and Chinese lobbies would have subtly, and perhaps invisibly, weighed on Freeman's intelligence assessment.
Freeman is an ideologue who apparently believed that China should have been more aggressive in its crackdown on the peaceful Tiananmen Square protestors. At the same time, he has been critical of American support for Israeli efforts to stop violent terrorists from blowing up Israeli schools buses and firing rockets at Israeli kindergartens. There is only one rational explanation for why a smart intelligence official would be so irrational as to express more sympathy for brutal Chinese repression of peaceful dissent than for Israeli self-defense against violent terrorism: Freeman has been bought and paid for by lobbies that he does not wish to alienate. He has a long history of playing the tunes selected for him by those who have paid him. He is an ideological zealot when it comes to the Middle East. Senator Charles Schumer correctly characterized his views as "over the top" and an "irrational hatred of Israel."
Freeman acknowledged that he is deeply and emotionally committed to a fundamental change in US policy toward Israel. That is certainly his right as a private citizen or even as an elected official. But his extremist views would not have served him, or our nation well, as the person responsible for what are supposed to "policy-neutral intelligence assessments." An ideologue with such heavy financial baggage is simply incapable of policy-neutrality, and he should have known that.
If there was ever any doubt about his neutrality, he eliminated it by his over-the-top reaction to those who challenged his qualifications for the job based on his record. He railed against "the Israel lobby" blaming it, and it alone, for his failure to get the job. He ignored those human rights advocates who were outraged by his defense of the Chinese repression of the Tiananmen demonstrators and his unwavering support for the most repressive regime in the Middle East. He ignored environmentalists who worried that he was far too beholden to oil interests. And he ignored patriotic Americans who support the U.S. policy in the Middle East because they believe it is good for America, for democracy and for the war against terrorism.
Freeman was not alone in invoking the "power" of the Israel lobby and accusing it of unpatriotic actions. He teamed up with Stephen Walt, the discredited academic who has recently made a career of blaming all of America's ills on "The Lobby." Here is how Walt gleefully put it: "For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful 'Israel Lobby' or admitted that it existed but didn't think it had much influence...think again." Walt ignored the fact that the powerful Saudi, China and foreign oil lobbies were supporting Freeman because they believed, quite correctly, that his assessment of intelligence would be anything but neutral when it came to protecting their interests. He also ignored the fact that AIPAC--which Walt considers the puppet master of the Jewish Lobby--took no position on the Freeman nomination, and that those who opposed it included critics of Israeli policies.
So let me understand the Freeman-Walt position. When the Saudis, the Chinese and foreign oil lobbies (with a small "l") exercise their influence, that is freedom of speech and the right to petition the government. But when the Israel Lobby (capital "L") challenges an appointment, such action is "dual loyalty," "un-American" and "unpatriotic." Their other position is that any time people of diverse backgrounds and views independently challenge a government decision that relates to the Middle East, this represents the collective action of the notorious and powerful Israel Lobby, rather than the heartfelt views of individual patriotic Americans.
The truth is that the Freeman appointment was bad for America, bad for peace in the Middle East, bad for human rights in China, bad for Tibet, bad for the environment, and bad for "policy-neutral intelligence." Those who challenged it performed a patriotic duty. They should be praised for helping the Obama administration avoid a serious blunder that threatened to compromise the president's ability to act in the interest of the United States on the basis of policy-neutral intelligence. All Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
More American blood will be shed to prop up yet another apartheid regime in Israel. When will this madness end? So long as the Israeli lobby rules Washington, we will not see a bright, war-less day.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lee03132009.html
What the Chas Freeman Fight Was Really About
By PETER LEE
While there is an "Israel Lobby", or perhaps better a "Likudnik Lobby" that has a "hammerlock" on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, it serves the interests not only of Likudniks but also of U.S. imperialists, that is, generally speaking, the U.S. military-industrial complex, which of course is closely related to, and in many respects indistinguishable from, the Israeli military-industrial complex. It is really this complex which has had the foreign policies of both countries in a "hammerlock" for decades, and that power is exerted to create militaristic policies that lead to one war after another in the pursuit of regional hegemony. The "Israel Lobby" has the power it has, not only because it is well-organized and skilled in manipulating the levers of political power, but also because it is supported by these interests which profit from a militaristic foreign policy. This leads to the appearance of a "tail wagging the dog" situation " that is, the appearance that Israel is controlling U.S. foreign policy, which is forever being touted by anti-Semites as proof that sinister, clever Jews are controlling this country for the benefit of Israel. The truth is that the dog and its tail are one animal. The military-industrial complex of both countries is benefitting, but the countries themselves, and their people, far from benefitting, are in the grip of militarists and being subjected to an unending series of wars.
Equating blind support for Israel's Zionist hardliners to American patriotism is beyond the pale.
Until those who support Israel recognize it's responsibility and culpability in this conflict and cease in painting anyone who disagrees in blind support of Zionism in Israel as an anti-semite...it is they who will never be viewed as credible. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, it's what is keeping the conflict alive. But the truth has a way of coming out any way. Mr. Dershowitz, you serve no good when you close your eyes to it.
There are a lot of people in the United States AND Israel who would like a fair resolution to this conflict and have no desire to enable the hardliners on either side. You'd be more respected on this topic if you'd try to be one of them.
A patriotic duty? Never let it be said Dershowitz lacks chutzpah. I recall his involvement in the O.J. Simpson trial as a member of Simpson's "dream team." I think it was Dershowitz who filed a motion to have the charges against Simpson dismissed on the grounds there wasn't a "shred of evidence" linking Simpson. Not suprisingly, Judge Ito disagreed.
"Defeating Freeman: A Patriotic Duty"
For Who?
Israelis of course.
We all know that only appointments approved by AIPAC can be considered "neutral".
Dershowitz wrote:
'When the Saudis, the Chinese and foreign oil lobbies (with a small "l") exercise their influence, that is freedom of speech and the right to petition the government. But when the Israel Lobby (capital "L") challenges an appointment, such action is "dual loyalty," "un-American" and "unpatriotic."'
You're being disingenuous.
The main difference between those lobbies is this: With regards to all three countries, a large spread of opinion exists in the American public. With regards to China and Saudi Arabia, the diversity of public opinion is reflected by the diversity of views among Congressional representatives.
With Israel, however, while there is a similarly wide spread of opinion about Israel among the American public (a 50-50 split, more or less, as to whether the US and Israel's interests are one and the same), this diversity is NOT reflected by our Congressional representatives. Loyalty to Israel and loyalty to the US are assumed to be one and the same. There seems to be near unanimous agreement at the highest levels of government that this is a truism, not to be questioned.
Freeman's defeat serves only to underscore the power of that orthodoxy.
good posting
Just because Freeman has financial ties to Saudi Arabia and blames Israel unilaterally for mid-East conflict and for anti-American sentiments in the Islamic world should disqualify him for a position in the administration. Those "talented European settlers," as he refers to Israelis (not counting those who have lived in the area since Biblical times or the million or so ethnically cleansed from the countries of the mid-East), should move back to Poland or the Ukraine, I guess. Freeman has yet to address where the talented European settlers, like Freeman's ancestors, who settled America should go.
" blames Israel unilaterally for mid-East conflict "
link please.
This is what he advocates for peace between Israelis and Palestinians:
The framework proposed by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah at Beirut in 2002 offers Israel an opportunity to accomplish both. It has the support of all Arab governments. It would exchange Arab acceptance of Israel and a secure place for the Jewish state in the region for Israeli recognition of Palestinians as human beings with equal weight in the eyes of God, entitled to the same rights of democratic self-determination and domestic tranquility within secure borders that Israelis wish to enjoy. The proposal proceeds from self-interest. It recognizes how much the Arabs would gain from normal relations with Israel if the necessary conditions for mutual respect and reconciliation could be created.
He does NOT refer to Israelis as "telented European settlers". He refers to the founding fathers of Israel... the Zionists, who saw themselves as colonial settlers. They certianly were not native to the land. Here is the paragraph:
The talented European settlers who formed the state of Israel endowed it with substantial intellectual and technological superiority over any other society in the Middle East. The dynamism of Israel's immigrant culture and the generous help of the Jewish Diaspora rapidly gave Israel a standard of living equivalent to that of European countries. For fifty years Israel has enjoyed military superiority in its region. Demonstrably, Israel excels at war; sadly, it has shown no talent for peace.
At the end of the 19th century, there were approximately 10,000 Jews and 250,000 Arabs living in Palestine. Except for their descendants everyone else who has moved in since is a settler, including substantial numbers of Arab settlers in addition to Jewish settlers. Yet Freeman focuses only on Jewish settlers. Further, by characterizing them as "settlers," he fails to distinguish between those who legally purchased property from squatters or invaders.
In the quote you reference, Freeman states "Demonstrably, Israel excels at war; sadly, it has shown no talent for peace." Knowing that the wars of which he speaks were initiated against Israel by the Arab nations of the mid-East (aided by Soviet arms and finances) with the stated objective of the destruction of Israel and the elimination of Jews from the region, the only reason the state of Israel even exists is because Israel has excelled militarily at self-defense. Israel has behaved in many reprehensible and deplorable ways, but to say that they have no talent for peace when they have been attacked repeatedly (1948, 1951, 1967, 1973, etc. by the combined forces of the Arab nation could make one think that Freeman has a biased view of the situation.
Yes, we all know how excellently the policies of recent past have 'good for peace' in the Middle East.
My liberal friends, you need to realize that Israel's cause is the liberal cause. The Mid East country where social justice, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and free markets are respected is Israel. Read Orwell's "Why I Write" about how the cause of Socialism is to defeat Naziism.
For goodness sake, Israel's enemies are ruthless killers, bent on ending western society. You say that America's "interest" lies with abandoning Israel and placating the terrorists and those who support/harbor them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Abandonning Israel would embolden terrorism and encourage its further use to attack America and its interests abroad.
The US should not abandon its Saudi, Pakistani, or any other allies. We need a detente with both Iran and Syria. And we need to encourage peace in Israel like Clinton and Bush I did (not bush II). But we cannot do any of that by simply declaring Israel no longer our ally. That is crazy. What kind of country -- or person for that matter -- leaves a good friend because you are seeking a new, unestablished friend?
None of the Arabs who live in Israel want to live anywhere else (including a prospective Palestinian state). And you know why? Because life is freer in Israel than it is in Arab countries. It is remarkable but true.
Very true. Thank you for a sober opinion.
You call them terrorists we call them freedom fighters. Hamas did not exist until the 1980's when it became apparent that Israel would never give back the land it stole in the '67 war. Perhaps you could tell us why Israel continues to build illegal settlements in the West Bank and is now bulldozing houses in East Jerusalem? Israel blockades Gaza and then blames the Palestinians for not building their economy. Israel is South Africa (20 years ago) on the Mediterranean.
Freedom fighters dont specifically target civilians with the express purpose of killing them. Those are terrorists.
America's uncritical support of every single Israeli action is bad for Americans, and bad for Israelis too.
The extremist far right wing of the Israeli body politic wants to expand settlements in the West Bank, effectively ending any chance for a two-state solution. The only alternatives would then be a one-state solution, which would force Israel to either give up its Jewish identity or become an oppressive apartheid state, or simple acceptance that the Middle East is not going to achieve peace within our lifetimes.
If America could bring itself to express disapproval of Israel's settlement expansion, or Israel's indiscriminate killing of civilians, as in the war on Gaza, it would push everyone a lot further down the path to peace.
"Uncritical" support is not what I advocate. The comments here expressly advocate the US ending its relationship with Israel; other comments, such as this one, have a hostile suggesting that America should do the same. But none of these comments recognize that Israel is an ally of the US for good reasons, even if its an ally that needs to be influenced to do what is in everyone's best interest.
Israel is a country where social justice, freedom of conscience/speech/markets are only for the Israelis. That does not make it a democracy.
They started mowing down the homes of Palestinians and segregating them into ghettos long before any Palestinian lifted a hand against them. Then they act surprised the Palestinian people are disaffected and attack them. It's genocide at a snails pace.
That said...the hardliner leaders on both sides only pay lip service to the desire to resolve the conflict because it serves to keep them in power but they have no wish for peace or democracy...their people do, but they do not.
And until the United States and Europe has the guts to tell Israel they have to stop treating Palestinians like second class citizens, or not even citizens as is the case, nothing will ever change. Freeman could have been that change in the dynamic but the hardliners that want the world to ignore Israel's fault in this conflict won again.
clevelandchick ;
Does the US democracy apply to non-Americans? Can every one from around the world get freely into the US? Can Hispanic illegal immigrants live freely in the states and practice crime? Can I come to the US and throw stones on the Mexican's fence that you are building today and bleed the eye of one of the guardians there by a stone? Tell me if I can then I'll pave my way to see if you're correct. I think you are not
All Israelis are equal before law. The Israeli court is one of the highest and most known in justice. Foreigners are coming to play clashed with military and police forced at the security fence that is being built now and are not punished as being expected in the US. In that sense Israel is more democratic than the US.
Israel segregating no one in ghettos although the Arabs lifted their hands on Jews long before even Israel was established. If the Israelis were genocide the Arabs then the conflict with the Palestinian would have been years ago. When Arabs attacked Jews by mortars, Kassams (even now days) and suicide bombings you didn't raise your voice. But when Israel hits back to rescue hers citizens you cry loudly. Very pathetic.
2) This won't solve the conflict. As long as the Arabs in Palestine will wish to annihilate the Israelis there won't be peace but only hot pieces.
Before the US and your Europe tell something to Israel you should tell them to stop their own wars, Saddam didn't threat to invade the US. Why you bombed Somalia? They didn't suicide bombed you, but some Egyptians and Saudis, your "best friends".
"Palestinians" are not second class because they are not Israeli citizens. They are occupied civilians and Israel treats them with the best respects until they choose to give a chance for terror. Let me remind you that there wasn't any "Palestinian people" before 1967 but the Jewish people living there. Palestine was already divided by the British occupiers in 1922 when they created "the Kingdom of Trans Jordan" given as a state to the Arabs in Palestine. The western part of Palestine, from the Jordan River to the sea, was intended to be given to the Jews but the British occupiers failed to complete their mission. This is the source of the conflict. The flavor is that the hard lines Arabs refuse to accept Israel as legal state. You can't blame the Jews for that.
3) And until the United States and Europe has the guts to tell Israel they have to stop treating Palestinians like second class citizens, or not even citizens as is the case, nothing will ever change. Freeman could have been that change in the dynamic but the hardliners that want the world to ignore Israel's fault in this conflict won again.
Well, yes, by definition, Israel grants its social justice, free conscience/speech/markets to its citizens, not foreigners. The Arabs living in Israel have no interest in leaving because of this.
The Arabs in the occupied territories are there because their leadership won't give up terror as a tactic and won't give up the idea that they can re-colonize Israel. There was no anti-Jordanian terror when Jordan occuppied the West Bank from 1948-67. How come?
I agree with you that hard liners on each side are not being helpful, but Israel, presented with a reasonable person on the other side, will reach a reasonable peace deal.
They recently stopped advertising for Professor Halper and his tour, not even the very Pro-Israel Sydney Morning Herald would defend them.
Israel is a democracy. It contains many political parties with a wide spectrum of views about how to approach the great issue of an eventual Palestinian settlement, as well as many more mundane policies. It has human rights groups which put the Israeli security forces under as intense and critical a scrutiny as any overseas counterpart. It has law professors who debate the legality of Israeli settlements and military operations in the West Bank and Gaza. But sometimes you wouldn’t suspect this from the actions and attitudes of its most prominent defenders abroad.
Here in Australia, we’ve just learnt that the respected Australian Jewish News has rejected advertisements that promote a speaking tour by Israeli professor Jeffrey Halper, who campaigns against the bulldozing of Palestinian homes. Sydney’s progressive Emanuel Synagogue has also cancelled a talk by the professor, because some people objected to what he would have said.
Mr Freeman is a widely respected former diplomat with expertise on both East Asia and the Middle East, from postings in China and Saudi Arabia. Unlike the previous failed Obama appointments, the problems with Mr Freeman clearly stem from his outspoken, independent views rather than tax arrears, suspected abuse of office or conflicts of interest. His withdrawal augurs badly for Mr Obama’s administration as it shapes up to dealing with a new Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu.
Combat decorated American vet here...see...
questioning israel is NOT anti semitic, and some of my BEST friends have tried. Period.
any half assed 2nd Lt could tell you that. Yet....here we are.
Israel is a country...not a religion. As I understand...Israel is practicing a theocratic deomocracy, at best...which is not a democracy AT ALL (reminds me of Pakistan)...period. I think J. Carter had it right.
Cheers
Thank you for your service. Just wanted to say that.
freesia2...acknowledged...
Thank you for your service and your continued courage,
Anyone who dares imply that anti-Zionism equals anti-semitism
is demanding that church and state be married together in a shotgun wedding.
Excellent analogy.
Thank You sir for your services to this great nation.
Your comments are very right on the mark about Pakistan. I am reading a by Tariq Ali: The Duel, America on the flight path of American Power.
It may surprise people, but secretly many of the people responsible for establishing and then upholding the disgrace that Pakistan became love to compare the similarities between Pakistan and Israel. Both were created for a religious group and much bloodshed occured to make its creation possible.
Even though Pakistan does not recognize Israel, in the 80s, the Mossad was allowed to operate on Pakistani territory and intelligence was exchanged between Mossad and the ISI.
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. In Israel, there are Arab parties who run for parliament; there is a public education system extended to people of all faiths; the religious laws of diet, work, family, etc. are not legal requirements at all. None of this is true elsewhere in the Muslim world so your comparison is flat out, undeniably wrong.
Israel is an ally because it shares American values of freedom, hard work, and an open society. When was the last time there was a protest of Jews in Pakistan against government policy?
Israel suffers at the hands of the same terrorists would who end the United States and its military.
I technically shouldn't even express an opinion. I think I'm not as well versed in the intricasies of the entire American-Israel relationship as I should be, and doubt I could give credible debate with the posters here, much less an attorney like Alan Dershowitz.
But I regret the loss of a voice that doesn't go lockstep with all things Israel. And please don't come at me with any accusation of antisemitism. Please. This doesn't have to do with Jewish anything. It has to do with a separate nation who somehow my own country's policies always have to support, whether it's in our best interest or not. And sometimes I feel that our entire difficulties with the middle east begin and end with a lopsided reflexive support of Israel.
So to know that someone was literally run out of job because he has dissenting views bothers me on some gut level. Obama wants, and feels need of, views that help him get a more 360 degree scope of a situation. Not even to agree necessarily. But so he can sharpen his own perspective and clarify it. And I think we may have lost a window Obama could have used for a better view.
See Sam Sedaei's Profile
Mr. Dershowitz, with due respect, as someone who expects more sophistication and nuances from a Harvard professor, you never fail to disappoint me with your simplistic way of looking at the Middle East. The way you use the term "terrorist" in vagueness and without definition is a clear example of that. You keep silent when AIPAC literally writes bodies of legislation and gets officials into office, but you're afraid that, god forbid, someone might bring more even-handedness to a relatively inconsequential position in government? You speak up NOW? You speak against rockets from Gaza but don't recognize that rockets are at least in part a response to Israel's imposing of blockade on Gaza. What did the West Bank get for not throwing rocket? illegal Israeli settlements in violation of international law and 4th Geneva Convention. Your response to that? silence. Stephen Walt is most certainly not "discredited," except by you. But you are discredited on anything that relates to the Middle East and will lose your ever-diminishing legitimacy if you don't begin to take a position that's no longer so nakedly imbalanced that it's almost comical.
Incorrect. Walt and Mearshimer's position on Israel has found no academic footing, just a stronghold among dissatisfied liberals with too much free time between WTO protests.
What did the west bank get, you ask? How about an offer for **everything it could hope for** at Camp David! A Palestinian state, money to resettle, etc etc.! But Arafat had to say no because Israel would not resettle all the 1m refuges (which Arab govts have purposedfully left in squalor in order to use them as political tools to destroy Israel) within Israel proper. Please, please do not say that it was not a fair deal that was offered. Clinton's memoirs -- written without any need to satisfy any political constituency -- unequivocally bash Arafat.
So ya, being peaceful towards Israel gets you something good. And sending missiles into Israel gets you something bad.
Why should Dersh speak up against AIPAC drafting legislative proposals? Obviously, many are rejected (see SA 629, 630, etc). If the United States Congress wants to pass a bill, then bully for the interest group that drafted it.
And what is with these ad hominen on Dersh's credibility? Are you a blogger or engaging in a bar fight? If you stick to issues sir, we are all better off.
"If the United States Congress wants to pass a bill, then bully for the interest group that drafted it."
That's a real comforting thought. Not.
"Incorrect. Walt and Mearshimer's position on Israel has found no academic footing, just a stronghold among dissatisfied liberals with too much free time between WTO protests."
But the attacks on Freeman by the Lobby have an academic footing?
Camp David ? Your repeating AIPAC rhetoric
"We offered them everything and they refused" has long-since been discredited, and not just by the Palestinians. But also, among others, by former Israeli Foreign Minister and negotiator at Camp David, Shlomo Ben Ami, who said: "if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well".
By Robert Malley, a member of the US delegation at Camp David who said: "The Camp David process was the victim of failings on the Palestinian side; but it was also, and importantly, the victim of failings on Israel's (and the United States') part".
By his colleague in the US delegation, Aaron Miller, who said of Camp David: "we listened to and followed Israel's lead without critically examining what that would mean for our own interests, for those on the Arab side and for the overall success of the negotiations... our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel."
By Amos Malka, head of Israeli military intelligence, who said that "we offered Arafat everything but he refused" was deliberate Israeli misinformation......
Palestinian leadership has said it's willing to accept the pre '67 borders as basis for negotiation. Israel rejectionism has been the greatest deterrent to peace over the last 40 years.
The Camp David negotiations were where the Palestinians are overwhelmingly blamed for rejecting Barack's "generous offer", history was also rewritten to shed Palestinians in a negative light.
Here are the FACTS about the Camp David "offer."
Palestinians conceded their claim to 78% of historical Palestine, and agreed to form a new state on the remaining 22%, which is comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
- Israel proposed that 69 settlements, populated by 85% of West Bank settlers would be annexed by Israel. These settlements would reduce the Palestinian state by 10%, not to mention severely disrupt travel and daily life in the West Bank.
- Israel proposed "temporary control" of yet another 10% of land that housed the most extreme of settlers. Essentially this means that a foreign power would control the land of another sovereign nation.
- The remaining areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints, forcing Palestinians to live on bantustans or reservations (like South Africans or Native Americans), in a non-contiguous state.
- Palestinians were also expected to relinquish land considered most essential for trade and tourism.
- Israel would maintain very vital controls over Palestinian water, Palestinian borders, and Palestinian airspace.
The "offer" made to Palestinians was nothing more than subjecting them to live on bantustans, like those of South
Read the fine print. Arafat did and realized that the 5% that Israel wanted to hold onto would turn the West Bank into bantustans and leave Israel still in full control of the region. This would not have been a free and autonomous state. This was engineered by Dennis Ross and, it seems, was well know to everyone except you. Also, with Hilary running for senator for NY, Bill was not likely to blame Israel for anything. Hopefully, all of this one-sided support of a brutal oppressor will now change with the appointment of George Mitchell.
good points
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
