Charles Freeman Done In by Israel Lobby

By Amitabh Pal, March 12, 2009

The Israel lobby claims another victim.

Charles Freeman, slated to head the National Intelligence Council, angrily withdrew himself from consideration. What is astonishing is the bluntness of his departure statement, coming as it does from a former diplomat (Freeman was ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the Bush I Administration).

“The libels on me and their easily traceable e-mail trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired,” Freeman stated in his farewell blast. “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.”

Now, Freeman wasn’t above reproach. He made some weird statements about the Tiananmen Square crackdown that could be taken as an apology for the Chinese regime. (He insists they were taken out of context.) And even Progressive Media Project contributor Professor Asad AbuKhalil says that Freeman was too chummy with the Saudi royal family.

But make no mistake. Freeman was taken down for his past criticism of Israel.

“Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, who led the fight against Freeman. “His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the Administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing.”

Other lawmakers joined Schumer in pressuring the Obama Administration, and pro-Israel groups mounted a campaign. As the headline on the New York Times piece on his departure reads: “Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post.”

“In the U.S., you can advocate torture, illegal spying, and completely optional though murderous wars and be appointed to the highest positions,” Glenn Greenwald writes at Salon. “But you can't, apparently, criticize Israeli actions too much or question whether America's blind support for Israel should be re-examined.”

One fascinating aspect of the whole Freeman imbroglio was the length of time it brewed in the blogosphere before percolating into the mainstream media. Freeman had an interesting array of people blogging to defend him, from Andrew Sullivan and Joe Klein to James Fallows and Joshua Micah Marshall. In addition, a group of retired diplomats and a bunch of former intelligence officials came out in his support. Unfortunately for Freeman, there weren’t too many legislators willing to publicly speak out for him.

”It's pretty clear that in this case—which was a very important one—Obama flunked,” states Inter Press Service’s Jim Lobe, who has covered the Israel lobby for years. “Nor was it only Obama. The fact that, in contrast to a very distinguished group of retired diplomats, including former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering, no major Democratic lawmaker was willing to speak out in defense of Freeman is as remarkable as it is deplorable.” 6

What’s most dispiriting about this whole mess is that it yet again shows the influence of the Israel lobby, as well as its bipartisan nature. The energy level of the debate over U.S. policies toward the Middle East, already quite atrophied, will further decline.

“The worst aspect of the Freeman affair is the likelihood of a chilling effect on discourse in Washington, at precisely the time when we badly need a more open and wide-ranging discussion of our Middle East policy,” writes Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, who had his own run-in with the Israel lobby a few years ago due to a highly critical book. “This was one of the main reasons why the lobby went after Freeman so vehemently; in an era where more and more people are questioning Israel's behavior and questioning the merits of unconditional U.S. support, its hardline defenders felt they simply had to reinforce the de facto ban on honest discourse inside the Beltway.”

Chalk up another victory for the Israel lobby.

Comments

Here's a test of my admittedly harsh criticism of the Progressive on this issue. Will it set aside its deep concerns for poor Chas Freeman long enough to condemn the disgrace known as Durban II? Rank anti-Semitism is on the march. Now not only the U.S. and Canada, but even Italy, Germany, the EU and others are ready to ask of Durban, "have you at long last, sir, NO SHAME?" Will the Progressive join them?

Here, read this from Contentions.

Death Knell for Durban II?
The wind seems to be shifting on Durban II. Following the withdrawals of Canada, the U.S., and Israel, now the EU is mulling a boycott. According to the Jerusalem Post, it is not just the Czech-led EU presidency, which repeatedly voiced its support for Israel’s right to defend itself in the Gaza war, and which now is “very skeptical about the direction the final [Durban II conference] papers” have taken. Anti-Durban themes are being heard from the German foreign minister (”I am in favor of canceling participation in the conference unless the documents are changed substantially within the next hours and days”); as well as the foreign ministers of Italy (whose country will not take part unless ”radical changes” are made in the texts to remove “aggressive and anti-Semitic statements”) and the Netherlands (the current text ”limits itself to Israel-bashing, anti-Semitism, limiting freedom of speech and other dubious texts”).

At a time when Israel-bashing and anti-Semitism are spinning out of control, some European leaders seem to be, if belatedly, stepping up to the plate.

Next question: When will European leaders learn to address nasty problems before they get so big and threatening?

Submitted by JonBurack on Tue, 03/17/2009 - 7:10am.

CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012

February 2012

Progressive Matt

The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House