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.
What the Chas Freeman Fight Was Really About
By PETER LEE
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.
For Who?
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Anyone who dares imply that anti-Zionism equals anti-semitism
is demanding that church and state be married together in a shotgun wedding.
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.
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.
That's a real comforting thought. Not.
But the attacks on Freeman by the Lobby have an academic footing?