Posts

Chas Freeman’s Jewish problem

By Brad A. Greenberg / March 12, 2009

Despite what Chas Freeman wants you to believe, what sank his nomination to chair the National Intelligence wasn’t the Israel lobby: It was the pro-Democracy lobby. I don’t mean American-flag wavers from flyover country (not that there is anything wrong with that). I mean folks repulsed by the human-rights violations of countries like China and Saudia Arabia.

Whether or not Freeman had the credentials for the job wasn’t really the question. (Writing on Jewcy, Michael Weiss had much to say abour Freeman’s "curious defenders.") It was whether his apologia for Saudia Arabia, where he served as U.S. ambassador, and China had disqualified him.

“This was not about Israel, it was about a revolving door through which Freeman rotated and was paid handsomely," said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), after Freeman withdrew his name from consideration on Tuesday. The New York congressman was referring to the idea of the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia going from serving the U.S. government, to being paid by foreign governments and then returning to government service.

“There was a steady revelation of financial conflicts of interest involving foreign powers that were troubling," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who along with Israel, led the opposition in Congress. “If it had simply been a dispute about Middle East policy, he would have survived."

To be sure, Freeman was no fan of Israel. Talking about the folly of invading Iraq in a 2007 speech, Freeman said:

"we embraced Israel’s enemies as our own; they responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists."

But so what? Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the essential "A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide," has accused said far worse things about Israel and she found a home in the Obama administration. And I’d argue she deserves it.

Still, Freeman wants the world to know it was the "Israel lobby" – or, as my friend Omri Ceren told me today, the Jews and those Christians they have corrupted – that derailed his nomination. He "exposed" this conspiratorial witch hunt Tuesday in a letter to Foreign Policy:

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East.  The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.  The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.  I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel.  It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so.  This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues.  I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that the easiest explanation for troubles befalling the goyim is, of course, the Jews. (See: An ugly bias is back: blaming Jews for financial woes.) And, as JTA’s Ron Kampeas points out, lobbyists representing Israel — I think we can call them the Israel lobby — have had no interest in really convincing Israel’s critics otherwise. Kampeas explains with an old joke:

It goes like this: “Killed Jesus? No. But only because the Romans got there first.“

Eric tells me that when he interned at AIPAC, he heard a similar take on Paul Findley, failed congressman and perennial Israel critic, who was the Walt-Mearsheimer of the 1980s, when he published his own critique of the pro-Israel lobby, “They Dare to Speak Out.“

“Forced him out of Congress? No. But if he wants to give us credit… “

The jokes are telling: After being accused of a calumny for so long, part of you wants to own it. Run the joint? Sure, I run the joint. Right now, I’m thinking of running you out of the joint.

This is not always productive (See under: Jesus). More recently, however, it has been—for the pro-Israel lobby—a happy if unintended consequence of its (shhhh!) utterly routine maneuverings in Washington. A hefty portion of power is perception and the “lobby’s” critics have been pushing perceptions of its omnipotence, in spades. (See under: Paul Findley.)

It might even help explain AIPAC’s wild growth. Control the levers of power? Sure we do. See ya at our next policy conference!

Just don’t expect to see Chas Freeman there.

POST A COMMENT

  • By Alcove-One 3/24/09 at 2:01 p.m. UTC

    Freeman’s problem with a strong US ally like Israel and his murky ties with Saudi Arabia would cloud any intel analysis he would offer. Freeman would blame the Joos if we were attacked again on his watch. If we are attacked again without his services, I would place the blame of Obama’s intel and defense policies as a whole.

    Thanks for calling me BIG pisher. Some ladies can’t keep a secret.

     

  • Brian Shuman
    By Brian 3/24/09 at 1:43 p.m. UTC

    You left out Paul Findley.

    But find me where one of these detractors, yourself included, advocated for a suitable replacement for Chas Freeman out of genuine concern that this post be filled by an able analyst, and it will be much easier to dismiss the "neocon conspiracy theory."  Laugh now, A-1.  But let’s say that the new intelligence analyst, satisfactory to all parties concerned is appointed. And he delivers a pdb that offers a summary of threats that misses something that another, better analyst (say, Michael Scheuer) might have caught. And due to that flawed analysis, we suffer another major attack that a Scheuer or a Freeman might have caught.  How are you gonna reconcile your very rightly placed affection for your flag-waving buddies in our heartland with your selling them out for a more "acceptable" analyst then?  And what happens if further, more credible stories emerge about Israeli’s with foreknowledge of said attack?  God willing, this is all hypothetical. But again, where is the overt advocacy for placing the finest analyst in this post as opposed to the most politically acceptable one? 

    Take heed, big pisher, if there isn’t more genuine advocacy for American interest and less kowtowing to "the Lobby," then somebody more charismatic than your kooky Scotsman and Texan will come along with the same kind of anger and he won’t be as easy to marginalize.  

  • By Alcove-One 3/23/09 at 8:32 p.m. UTC

    Brian – I’m so glad its a moot point and Freeman can take his place now as an anti-Zionist victim who was smeared by the Jooos. I am sure everyone from George Galloway and Ron Paul will give him an affectionate squeeze.

  • Brian Shuman
    By Brian 3/17/09 at 4:14 p.m. UTC

    Please read Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald’s meticulous tracing of the anti-Freeman furor.  A very clear trail of dredging up his "anti-democratic statements" is traceable to a former AIPAC official who spied on the U.S.  Ultimately, Freeman’s statements about China and Saudi Arabia can be construed as supportive of those regimes in much the same way that Donnie Brasco can be considered a gangster.

    From the Schumer-led senatorial cadre to the circulation of Freeman’s ages old rhetoric, please weigh the opposition’s concerns about Freeman’s positions on Israel (the country, not Steve) versus their concerns on his fitness to serve the United States of America.  The scale will tip towards Israel without wobbling.

     

  • By Alcove-One 3/12/09 at 3:32 p.m. UTC

    "what sank his nomination to chair the National Intelligence wasn’t the Israel lobby: It was the pro-Democracy lobby. I don’t mean American-flag wavers from flyover country (not that there is anything wrong with that). I mean folks repulsed by the human-rights violations of countries like China and Saudia Arabia".

    Now let’s cut through the sneering to uncover the truth. Is this the same pro-Democracy lobby who just sent Sec. Clinton to China and encourages hat-in-hand talks with Syria and Iran? Samantha Power argued for sending US soldiers to confront the IDF and you say she deserves a high level position in this Adminstration?

    And for someone who is supposedly so pro-Democracy, you called the struggle for democracy in Iraq folly.

    Those flag wavers in flyover country you sneer at were probably the only thing keeping you and I from being a lampshade (devilishly good Jewish looks is enough for some Islamo-Nazis). I’ll trust the flag waving flyover country people over a sneering "progressive" ignoramus of a writer anyday. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)

Wanna post your own comments?