I find it disturbing how careers can be ruined for resisting AIPAC. He makes a good point that the debate about Israel is freer in Israel and Europe than it is in America.
Oh, the debate is plenty free - it’s just that certain views or the way they are expressed have consequences. Nobody would, for instance, expect to find Rush Limbaugh in an administration job no matter who gets elected.
Some of the things Freeman has said (like our support of Israel being a proximate cause of 9/11) are sufficiently disturbing that an administration would be well served by consulting his views when he chooses to publish them, and leaving him to his own devices otherwise.
Yes, they are disturbing, and we ought to be disturbed. Perhaps had we been disturbed earlier, we might not have been attacked. Who’s to say? But the question is not heretical, it is a valid question worthy of debate. I speak as one who supports Israel to a large extent, but I am not at all pleased at the degree of influence she has on our foreign policy. I wish that Israel shall continue, but do not wish to be the guarantor.
Sooner or later, if peace is to be had, someone has to take the last blow, and not strike back. Otherwise, its not the last blow, but simply another. By and large, I think that role best behooves the stronger of the two antagonists.
But that an American adviser in foreign policy can be nullified in deference to a foreign country, however much sympathy I may have for that country, is too much. I’m agin it.
Really? Funny that. I think it behooves the grotesquely immoral one to reform first. But as they say, the Palestinian Arabs have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
He was sent off for being a complete monster. He took money (a lot of it) to support the cause of repression and subjugates moral judgement for power and wealth. And not just about the MIddle East: China, too. His nonsense idea to the effect that massacring demonstrators was “Burkean” is an insult to the very memeory that Edmund Burke.
By all accounts Freeman was an experienced diplomat widely respected in the foreign policy community as an honest and original thinker. He would have been very useful in the intelligence process preventing the kind of groupthink which led to disaster in Iraq, Vietnam and elsewhere.
This will widely and correctly be perceived as an example of the Israel lobby flexing its muscles and vetoing someone who has been occasionally critical of Israel. It will undermine the credibility of the Obama administration around the world and in the Muslim world in particular which in turn will make more difficult for the US to make progress in Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
The only good thing to come out of this was to shed some much needed spotlight on the Israel lobby and its tactics. Freemancertainly wasn’t reticent in this regard:
Selective misquotation? How is this misquoting him?
Now, it seems to me that most people thought that the major grievance of bin Laden was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia - certainly bin Laden seemed to say so in his public pronouncements. And back in 1998, Freeman did state that our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks.
It isn’t unreasonable to ask what caused his change of thinking regarding our support of Israel given these pronouncements - and given the position he will hold. And if he isn’t willing to answer this, perhaps he’s better off delivering his tirade and moving on.
Interesting takeby Dan Fleshler which somewhat contradicts the prevailing wisdom about the issue. He says that AIPAC was heavily involved in this affair but that its power and influence is sometimes exaggerated. He has apparently written a book expanding on the latter theme.
Actually the Palestinian issue has always been a major grievance of Al Quaeda as well. I don’t find anything objectionable in the quote. I think US policies towards Israel have clearly played a role in fomenting Islamic extremism and that is basically what Freeman is saying. Whether you agree with that or not I don’t think it is something that should be considered beyond the pale.
As said, I largely support Israel, but am not foolish enough nor willfully naive enough to believe that she is entirely the victim in each and every instance. You are welcome to such opinions, if they give you comfort. I suppose.
Perhaps those are worthy concerns, perhaps not. Is it your contention that he was hustled offstage due to his opinions regarding China? And if not, isn’t that pretty much an irrelevant distraction, seeing as the debate centers about Israel’s influence on American foreign policy?
Again, this is from Charles Freeman some years ago.
Now, these statements are somewhat at odds with each other - so people did ask some questions about them. This is to be encouraged in an open society, isn’t it?
Now, Ambassador Freeman hasn’t answered these criticisms except to dismiss them outright as selective misquotations - which I think is quite unfair.
I agree. But they are not victims mostly because they choose to fight back. And functionally speaking, they have in fact met your criteria, as their major foreign policy style has been to toss the ball back into the Arab’s court and play the long game.
The debate may be. From my perspective, he was criticized as much for his China ties and policy as anything else, and the fact that he simply had such strong and close ties (financial, of course, but also personal history of working with/for tyrants) that his objectivity was in doubt. I can assure you that whatever happened on Capital Hill, my circles were criticizing him (and lettting our people know in no uncertain terms we would not accept him) for much more than his Israel stance.
And “your circles” would be who, exactly?
Quasi-conservatives who do not strongly identify as Classic conservatives, Neocons, or Evangelicals. Most actualy would probably identify as Libertarians, although not fanatical about it. Think Instapundit and Volokh.
Mr Moto,
Freeman’s critics weren’t asking him to clarify his views or explain how they have evolved; they were flat-out condemning him as unacceptably radical and unfit to serve. In any case I don’t think the selective misquotation that he talks about has to do with his views on Israel. Rather they refer to some statements about China that he supposedly made. According to the NYTimes article:
The article makes clear that the whole controversy was being pushed by the Israel lobby. Apparently it was kicked off by a blog post by Steven Rosen ,formerly of AIPAC, who is now under indictment for passing classified information to Israel.
While we’re on the topic of selective misquotation… where did he say this?
Please see my post #10.
I was afraid you’d say that. He didn’t say anything about the embassy attacks at all in that article and certainly didn’t say that Israel had ‘nothing to do with’ them.
Selective misquotation indeed.
Um - this symposium was in late 1998. So when Freeman was discussing a campaign of violence directed against us by bin Laden, it couldn’t have had anything to do with events three years later. It would have been in the context of what was happening then.
And to refresh your memory - the embassy bombings were on August 7, 1998 - followed by a retaliatory cruise missile strike by the US later that month.
This doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t say what you claimed he said.
You may have inferred it, but the inferrence that he was talking about the embassy attacks specifically is questionable and the inferrence that he meant “our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks” is obviously incorrect.
You also said he ‘stated’ our support of Israel had nothing to do with the embassy attacks. You know perfectly well he stated no such thing.
Normally I wouldn’t make a big deal about such innacuracies if they aren’t key to the point you’re making, but when the topic is selective misquotation, I think it’s highly relevant.
The problem I and a number of other people have isn’t that Freeman didn’t always support Israel. Nobody does, including the US government (e.g. President Johnson and every Administration since have opposed the Settlements). Israel is a huge red herring. The problem is not in Israel or with Israel.
The problem is that Freeman almost always supports the Saudis. And the Chinese. He’s in bed with both. He lauds both. He writes paeans to Mao. He talks of “Abdullah the Great” of Saudi Arabia. Not a problem for most people. But it’s a huge problem for the head of the NIC. The head of NIC is like Caesar’s wife, he has to be free of even the appearance of impropriety.
But in Freeman’s case, it’s more than just an appearance. Saudi Arabia has the lowest polity score on the planet, meaning it is the most totalitarian state in existence. They whack peoples heads off and chop off hands at a rate of knots. Women are legally a subservient quasi-slave class, unable to drive a car or walk unaccompanied. The laws are a morass of special privileges for the ruling family.
And Freeman wants to tell us how wonderful the Saudis and Chinese are? Freeman takes millions from the Saudis to spread their good news?
YMMV, but I don’t want a man like that whispering in the President’s ear … and my objections don’t have a thing to do with Israel. They have to do with China and Saudi Arabia.
Finally, people seem to want to make a big deal out of the fact that he was opposed by, among others, Jews and Jewish organizations. Everyone who has ever been nominated for Senate approval has been opposed by his opponents, and supported by his supporters … are we surprised?
Nor does this prove anything about the strength of the “Jewish Lobby”. Freeman withdrew before the battle was even joined, saying:
I would put it slightly differently …