From NewMajority.com
March 12, 2009

CHAS FREEMAN'S UGLY GOODBYE

--Noah Pollak

Two thoughts on the demise of Chas Freeman, the first on the way we debate Israel, and the second on the claim by many of Freeman’s defenders that being a “realist” was his true sin.

The Freeman episode solidified what had been inchoate in previous Israel-related debates, such as over the recent Gaza War and the emergence of the left-wing lobbying group J Street. The true fallout from Walt and Mearsheimer seems not to be the exposure of a conspiracy that manipulates American policy – it is the provision to one side of the debate of a ready-made excuse for its political failure and an inflammatory argument against its opponents.

The new Israel Lobby paradigm is very simple: when Israeli actions, such as Operation Cast Lead, are condemned, or a public figure who has harshly criticized Israel is defended, the democratic legitimacy of the opposing side is called into question. Instead of debating them on the merits, Chas Freeman’s critics have been portrayed as ruthless enforcers of orthodox opinion about Israel; they are not participants in a controversy, but illiberal destroyers and silencers of debate, not to mention treasonous advocates for foreign interests.

This method has the added benefit of being impervious to refutation: having cast opposition to Freeman as Israel-obsessed, his rejection can be dismissed as another example of the Lobby’s ability to manipulate American politics. Of course, Freeman’s comments on Israel have nothing whatsoever to do with the financial investigation he faced which seems to have been an important factor in his withdrawal, or the outrage of those who could be said to be members of the China Lobby over his statements about the Tiananmen Square Massacre. But saying that you were scalped by the Israel Lobby is so much more dramatic and ennobling than the pedestrian embarrassment of having to admit that your financial dealings with foreign interests disqualified you from sensitive work, or that an array of people disputed your appointment for a variety of reasons.

And then there is the claim that Freeman’s true sin was being a foreign policy realist, putting him in the crosshairs of the neocons. But since when has realism involved the outright admiration of despots? It turns out that the people who are most conspicuous in apologizing for tyrants tend to also be most conspicuous in their condemnations of the Jewish state, a thriving democracy in the heart of a region dominated by autocracies. It is interesting that the very things the Chas Freemans of the world find perfectly justifiable in Saudi Arabia and China form the basis of their condemnation of Israel: that Israel mistreats minorities, that it abuses its power, that its behavior is too self-interested, that it refuses -- in defiance of its superior regional power, as any realist would acknowledge -- to submit itself to the demands of the Arabs.

Would Chas Freeman apply his Tiananmen Square principle to the Palestinian intifada? Can anyone imagine him lauding “Bibi the Great” (he once called the Saudi king “Abdullah the Great”) because of the accomplishment of some superficial reform?

The claims that Freeman was attacked for his “realism” are self-serving. They are an attempt to apply a sheen of doctrinal sophistication to what are simply a set of ugly opinions. Freeman isn’t actually a realist about Saudi Arabia and China -- he is an admirer of their successful thuggery and despotism. And he certainly isn’t a realist about Israel, an American client whose military power put an end to the decades of state-versus-state wars that culminated in an Arab oil embargo in 1974, a dire challenge to American interests. If they care at all about protecting the reputation of their school of foreign policy, realists should not allow Chas Freeman to portray himself as a martyr to their cause.

© 2009 NewMajority.com

http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=64f610eb-2719-4b75-b3e1-e4062e94f6b1

The use of "turnspeak" by the first comment is classic. The very propaganda tactic used by the Lobby is projected onto the Lobby's critics. I'm sorry, but 8 years of Karl Rove has pulled the curtain back on that ploy.

With all due respect, Prof. Walt, do you really think she is a good example of the Israel Lobby (you really seem to be arguing here that it's not the Lobby, but just Martin Peretz, who has a lot of power) derailing someone's career?

She is currently the second person listed on the State Department's "Senior Leadership" page:

http://exchanges.state.gov/about/senior-leadership.html

So are you saying that Ms. Romanowski is now a right-wing Likudnik, or are you saying that the number two person listed on the State Department's "Senior Leadership" page is not an "important foreign policy position"?

It has to be one of the two, right? Or...

Here's what you said, sir:

"making uncritical support for the "special relationship" a de facto criterion for public service in important foreign policy positions."

Whereas before you said of Ms. Romanowski:

"suspect(ed) of being insufficiently supportive of the Jewish state"

So is it that she is now a true believer in "uncritical support for the 'special relationship'" (call it right-wing likudnik, ultra-zionist, or whatever descriptor you prefer so that it's not a "false dichotomy") between the U.S. and Israel, or is she just not in an "important foreign policy position"?

You intimate the latter, naturally::

"but it's worth noting that she doesn't appear to be in a position where she'd have a direct influence on major policy issues involving the Middle East."

But it's clear that you did not actually read her bio - which states this:

"In the career Senior Executive Service, Ms. Romanowski has 27 years of experience in three key national security agencies in the U.S. government. She came to the Department of State in June 2003 to establish a new office to oversee and manage the high-profile Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and served as its founding Director. For nine months she also served as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs."

You'll notice that is well after the scenario you describe with Martin Peretz.

Or maybe you read did read her bio, but you are saying being "founding director" of a State Department office called the (high-profile, no less!) "Middle East Partnership Initiative" (or, for that matter, "Acting Deputy Assistant Sec'ty in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affiars") is somehow not a position with a "direct influence on major policy issues involving the Middle East"?

I can't imagine you'd actually argue that.

And she's been promoted to an even higher position at State since then.

She's really just not that good example of someone who has been railroaded out of important foreign policy positions (let alone ones with a direct impact on the Middle East) by the Israel Lobby.

S. Walt wrote "...though his views were in fact no more critical than comments frequently made by more moderate Israelis. Indeed, if Freeman were Israeli, he could write a regular column in Ha'retz and nobody would bat an eye."

A good illustration of how little you know about Israel.

The critical quotes attributed to Mr. Freeman, that I read were largely one sided and FEW Israelis would share his views.

And Haaretz is a paper few people in Israel bother to read so of course "nobody would bat an eye."

But more to the point Israeli newspapers are generally held in low esteem in Israel, much like other places in the world, and practice tabloid journalism. That is they use rumour and innuendo to generate headlines and interest,with little regard for the truth. Ha'Eretz follows that tradition and most of their editorials reflect an extreme and very extreme left wing point of view within Israel which regardless of the it's merit in no way is reflective at any level of the general views held by the public. Editorials in Israel are not usually reflective of any general held point of view, but are presented from extreme points of view to provoke, or in more charitable interpretation to stimulate, a public debate.

I would again point to the recent election results. Instructive is, Meretz Yahad the left wing party which would most agree with the general content of Mr. Freeman's statements got LESS THAN 3% OF THE VOTE.

Mr. Walt you understand little of our (Israeli)struggles, our culture or our history.

So please Mr. Walt stop saying that you are representing widely held or moderate Israeli views and you do so with our best interests at heart. You do neither.

discourse on this issue is changing and that is all to the good. It didn’t move fast enough to save Freeman, but maybe it can move fast enough to rescue the United States

Professor, this is just a wishful thinking, Freeman is the Patriot and he is realistically saw that there is nothing left to save of the State and resigned. I really respect this Guy's realistic decision, Patriots don't need to be saved, they are themselves the saviours if there is anything left to be saved. And you still try to save the State?!
Follow the Patriot's path Mate!
Be at least as courageous as the ex-soviets, dissolve the State!

Grand Sen~or.

What we need to do is aggressively push back against the Making-The-World-Safe-For-Israel groups when they go after scholars and the like who dare voice a less than orthodox position. Particularly, we need to hammer down on AIPAC, and remind everyone over and over again whenever they try to slander someone as "anti-semitic" that these are Americans dedicated to serving the interests of a foreign nation. It's not illegal, but they have way too much pride for such a position, and need to be taken down a notch.

In the meantime, what would be nice would be if the US would come up with a single, clear platform of goals they want to see in a final solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, then declare that none of the participants is getting any goods unless they get cracking on it. I suppose the second part is unlikely, though, when you have a Congress with massive pro-Israel tendencies; they'd just pass the aid right over the resistant President's head.

If character assassination is the crime, then there are MANY criminals in public discourse.

Where were Freeman's supporters, arguing assertively for his skill, character, freedom from prejudice? The very vast majority of posts relative to his candidacy related to who was opposing it, rather than ANY statements of support of appropriateness for the job.

Why do you engage in character assassination of those that considered a gamut of concerns (including Israel) in their formation of doubt? (Pelosi for example). And, in the context of opposing character assassination as political means?

What specifically are you aware that was misrepresentative?

Do you believe that a man less outspoken but still committed to full uncensored data interpretation and transmittal upstream, cannot be found, one that there is no conspicuous basis for objection?

The anger of this story is all that has seen the light of day on the blogosphere, not the content of the discussion.

I can imagine Phil Weiss writing an insightful dramatically written piece on this describing Freeman's clear appropriateness for the job, as context for the story on the heat from and on the Israel Lobby, but ONLY after the fact. All silent on Freeman's behalf during the argument.

"I share your anger", is not the same message as "I actively support you".

Dr. Walt,
Why should U.S. even have a normal relationship with Israel?

It is a country that has imprisoned part of its population based on ethnicity/religion; has flouted more than 70 U.N. resolutions; attacked 3 of its neighbors in the last 3 years: Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza (although the latter would better be described as its own concentration camp), without much regard for civilian casualties. [Note I am not saying that they targeting civilians, only that the Israelis cavalierly did not much bother if many of the Arab lower-species civilians/cockroaches were murdered.]

Please have a look at Noam Chmosky's (a real upstanding moral Jew, btw) website for details:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090119.htm

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090124.htm

Would you advocate that the U.S. have a "normal" relationship with Apartheid South Africa? Should the U.S. have had a normal relationship with Nazi Germany?

We should stand up for U.S. principles and the real basis of civilization: protection of the weak and oppressed, which, in this case, are the Palestinians.

Yes, they carry out terrorism against Israel which is wrong, but Israel denies them the right to even have a defense department -- no air force, no army, no navy. Plus the Palestinians do not get $3,000,000,000.00 per year from U.S. taxpayers for their military. What should they do? Please remember Americans carried out terrorism against the Brits when they were fighting the revolutionary war. Even a few brave Jews carried out terrorism against Nazi Germany.

These "terrorist" anti-Nazi Jews are glorified (properly) in Edward Zwick's movie 'Defiance'.

Hamas is using "the wrong means to fight for a just cause", as Gideon Levy (the true moral compass of Zionists) stated in his letter in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (see below).

So, had we any backbone, we should have an antithetical or adversarial relationship with Israel, until they renounce Apartheid and militant oppression, and dismantle settlements, and abide by U.N. resolutions, and give reparations to ethnic-cleansed Palestinians.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056269.html

Last update - 09:35 18/01/2009
Gideon Levy / An open response to A.B. Yehoshua
By Gideon Levy

Click here for more articles by Gideon Levy

Dear Bulli,

Thank you for your frank letter and kind words. You wrote it was written from a "position of respect," and I, too, deeply respect your wonderful literary works. But, unfortunately, I have a lot less respect for your current political position. It is as if the mighty, including you, have succumbed to a great and terrible conflagration that has consumed any remnant of a moral backbone.

You, too, esteemed author, have fallen prey to the wretched wave that has inundated, stupefied, blinded and brainwashed us. You're actually justifying the most brutal war Israel has ever fought and in so doing are complacent in the fraud that the "occupation of Gaza is over" and justifying mass killings by evoking the alibi that Hamas "deliberately mingles between its fighters and the civilian population." You are judging a helpless people denied a government and army - which includes a fundamentalist movement using improper means to fight for a just cause, namely the end of the occupation - in the same way you judge a regional power, which considers itself humanitarian and democratic but which has shown itself to be a brutal and cruel conqueror. As an Israeli, I cannot admonish their leaders while our hands are covered in blood, nor do I want to judge Israel and the Palestinians the same way you have.

The residents of Gaza have never had ownership of "their own piece of land," as you have claimed. We left Gaza because of our own interests and needs, and then we imprisoned them. We cut the territory off from the rest of the world and the occupied West Bank, and did not permit them to construct an air or sea port. We control their population registrar and their currency - and having their own military is out of the question - and then you argue that the occupation is over? We have crushed their livelihood, besieged them for two years, and you claim they "have expelled the Israeli occupation"? The occupation of Gaza has simply taken on a new form: a fence instead of settlements. The jailers stand guard on the outside instead of the inside.

And no, I do not know "very well," as you wrote, that we don't mean to kill children. When one employs tanks, artillery and planes in such a densely populated place one cannot avoid killing children. I understand that Israeli propaganda has cleared your conscience, but it has not cleared mine or that of most of the world. Outcomes, not intentions, are what count - and those have been horrendous. "If you were truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs," you wrote, "you would understand the present war." Even in the worst of your literary passages, and there have been few of those, you could not conjure up a more crooked moral argument: that the criminal killing of children is done out of concern for their fates. "There he goes again, writing about children," you must have told yourself this weekend when I again wrote about the killing of children. Yes, it must be written. It must be shouted out. It is done for both our sakes.

This war is in your opinion "the only way to induce Hamas to understand." Even if we ignore the condescending tone of your remark, I would have expected more of a writer. I would have expected a renowned writer to be familiar with the history of national uprisings: They cannot be put down forcibly. Despite all the destructive force we used in this war, I still can't see how the Palestinians have been influenced; Qassams are still being launched into Israel. They and the world have clearly taken away something else from the last few weeks - that Israel is a dangerous and violent country that lacks scruples. Do you wish to live in a country with such a reputation? A country that proudly announces it has gone "crazy," as some Israeli ministers have said in regard to the army's operation in Gaza? I don't.

You wrote you have always been worried for me because I travel to "such hostile places." These places are less hostile than you think if one goes there armed with nothing but the will to listen. I did not go there to "tell the story of the afflictions of the other side," but to report on our own doings. This has always been the very Israeli basis for my work.

Finally, you ask me to preserve my "moral validity." It isn't my image I wish to protect but that of the country, which is equally dear to us both.

In friendship, despite everything,

They were instrumental in bringing the Iraq War about. The suicidebomb-weapon, sometimes called 'the poor mans missile', got perfected in Palestine and Lebanon, and in Iraq found its greatest use ever. It came to Afghanistan in 2005 and later Pakistan. Allthough it is kind of taboo -- or perhaps Israel don't like to acknowledge that its enemy are able to make all these punches (and therefore enforces the taboo)(You say :"Oh they have no such control in the media to be able to do that" I say: "No?") -- it is a logical thought that many of those doing it are the ones with a motive, the Palestinians who in Iraq wanted to make a punch at Israels only ally on the face of the Earth, now when Israel itself is so difficult to hit. Now can you imagine all those Americans driving convoys up and down the country, and often very inexperienced - compared to the 3 year drafted israelis - exposing themselves and making easy tragets of themselves --- it must have been easy picking for all those who was brought up in a camp in Lebanon, without citizenship or any other rights, living destitute life there, unable to make a punch at those who have stolen their land. And likewise in Afghanistan and Pakistan we hear of many Arabs being present. If not Palestinians then Iraqies or someother Arabs, who have learned the trade in Iraq.

Now they have two fronts (3 with Pakistan), and they can turn up or down of the attacks on any of these fronts to confuse their enemy, Israels only ally on the face of the Earth.
And when the Americans start to withdraw troops in Iraq, it would be an ideal opportunity to increase the attacks in this country.

Americans! You must do something about the colony called Israel situated in the middle of Arabia - of all places - with an inhabitable surface area the size of Delaware and the adjacent Cecil County in Maryland. It is unheard of that such a tiny entity should be allowed every now and again to vrec havoc on U.S. common sense, its national interests, and its relations with that crucial part of the world.

Israel's right to govern itself and decide its own affairs constitutes the greatest security peril that the world have seen since WW2.

"How about people who think the United States and Israel should have a normal relationship, one similar to our relations with other democracies, and who believe that this would be better for the United States and Israel alike?"

Israel isn't a democracy, Stephen. It is a Jewish state. One can't be an ethnocentric state and a democracy at the same time.

"with some solid reportage by Walter Pincus"

The Pincus article is not nearly as solid as many are making it out to be. It makes absolutely no mention at all of the many prominent people who came out in support of Freeman (including 17 former U.S. ambassadors, including the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, and 7 intelligence officials) and offers no details of all the positive work he has done over the years, in fact doesn't mention any of the work he's done.

Pincus didn't offer any rebuttal to JINSA's false assertion, which he happily quoted, that Freeman was receiving money from foreign governments.

Hardly solid reporting.

Allan (or Brad?),

you are wrong again. (how is the weather in Tel Aviv, btw?)

A version of the Israel Lobby was published in London Review of Books:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

be sure to read the critique by Massing:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=19062

The basic message of the articles is that AIPAC wields an inordinate amount of influence and though supposedly representing a wide cross-section of pro-Israel Jewish voices (dovish to hawkish) in the US is in fact run by a
small clique of its administrators and tends, strongly, to favor the more right-wing militant and expansionist policymakers in Israel.

eg. from the New York Review article (by Massing):

====
"AIPAC claims to represent most of the Jewish community. Its executive committee has a couple of hundred members representing a wide spectrum of American Jewish opinion, from the dovish Americans for Peace Now to the militantly right-wing Zionist Organization of America. Four times a year this group meets to decide AIPAC policy.

According to several former AIPAC officials I have talked to, however, the executive committee has little real
power. Rather, power rests with the fifty-odd-member board of directors, which is selected not according to how well they represent AIPAC's members but according to how much money they give and raise.

Reflecting this, the board is thick with corporate lawyers, Wall Street investors, business executives, and heirs to family fortunes. Within the board itself, power is concentrated in an extremely rich subgroup, known as the
"minyan club." And, within that group, four members are dominant: Robert Asher, a retired lighting fixtures dealer in Chicago; Edward Levy, a building supplies executive in Detroit; Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell, a construction materials dealer in Mobile, Alabama; and Larry Weinberg, a real estate
developer in Los Angeles (and a former owner of the Portland Trail Blazers). Asher, Levy, and Mitchell are loyal Republicans; Weinberg is a Scoop Jackson
Democrat who has moved rightward over the years.

The "Gang of Four," as these men are known, do not share the general interest of a large part of the Jewish community in promoting peace in the Middle East.
Rather, they seek to keep Israel strong, the Palestinians weak, and the United States from exerting pressure on Israel. AIPAC's director, Howard Kohr, is a conservative Republican long used to doing the Gang of Four's bidding. For many years Steven Rosen, AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues, was the main power on the staff, helping to shape the Gang of Four's pro-Likud beliefs into practical measures that AIPAC could promote in Congress. (In 2005, Rosenand fellow AIPAC analyst Keith Weissman left the organization and were soon after indicted by federal authorities for receiving classified national security information and passing it on to foreign (Israeli) officials.)"

====

Great post again Prof. Walt. People here seem to focus on the little tiny things, ignoring the big picture, which is that the Israel lobby is real, powerful and harmful for America's national interest. What else explains the unconditional support for a little country of 7 million people that provides nothing in return other than the fury of 200 million Arabs, no to mention that of hundreds of millions of Muslims. BTW, are you going to to respond to David Rothkopf's delusional rant from yesterday?

The features of the book that I found rational were that the Israel Lobby was described as not monolithic, contained a wide variety of voices, priorities, ideological boundaries.

And, that the Israel Lobby conducted nearly entirely legal and even normal efforts to influence its policy goals, which is the definition of a lobby.

Walt's criticism was that the lobby was too effective for his tastes, was the gist that I determined.

There are other ways to see that relative to the arguments that "THE" Lobby proposes (in spite of acknowledgement of diversity of conclusion, goal and approach within "THE" Lobby).

1. Where is the alternative? Where are the artfully expressed contrasting arguments? Where is the better mousetrap? Why aren't individuals like Professor Walt presenting their content theses more effectively?

The question of who is the messenger is potentially a corrupting distraction that silences others in the name of suggesting to empower.

Is the failure to successfully present better alternatives that are adopted on merit an acknowledgement of negligence on the part of dissent?

Freeman wasn't the first

It looks like he is not going to be the last either with such a bunch of realists like yourselves;->

Take Freeman's withdrawal as a slap on your faces as well;->

this case shows that discourse on this issue is changing and that is all to the good. It didn’t move fast enough to save Freeman

Wait! wait! always somebodyelse (a Lobby?!) has to do your job, such realists yourselves - coached-potato-realists;->>
If you don't know how to own your Patriots you are already history. I can imagine the Lobby laughing at you with her...;->>

You must be feeling really desperate expecting support/solutions from journalists;->

I know you are asking each other "What can we do?!" in confusion.
You can cut the ground under their feet, if you will.

Freeman! advise those Guys Mate! Maybe they listen to you...
Here read Freeman again and again to understand why he has withdrawn:

It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

Voila Ecce Homo!
Grand Sen~or.

AIPAC has consistently claimed it wants revitalized debate and openly represents the will of the Israeli people, yet when I check the official roster of donors I see individuals like Paris Hilton's heir repeated all over the list.

These are rich, often sternly ingrained Zionists who most of the time happen to be more uncaring and racist towards the plight of others and the people of Palestine or Middle East.

They push the theory and ideas that the Saudi Lobby actually has more power than AIPAC. But how does this square with the facts, when we look at the reality of discourse here?

Why was Mohammed Omer tortured nearly to death and why do we have a Patriot Act, if AIPAC is actively seeking a debate?
http://www.workers.org/2008/world/gaza_0717/

AIPAC calls Israel a democracy yet it more closely resembles an ethnocracy : A dictatorship run by wealthy Zionists and again I raise the call...

How is this good for America, how is this good for foreign policy and how is not listening to the opposing side good at all for the CIVILIZED world?

When will they seek to engage the other side?

Walt's cognitive dissonance doesn't allow him to quote from several Congress people who opposed Freeman's nomination that they did so, and put a hold on his name, because of letters from 17 leading Chinese dissidents, his position on Tien An Mien square, Chinese support of Darfur, and the revolving door nature of his (ahem) taking Saudi money. Of course some didn't like his views on Israel, but that is only a part of the story.

It is, however, inconvenient for Walt to acknowledge that while continuing to peddle his pseudo-speciating fable about the "Israel Lobby" In contrast Walt is not only ok with what I might call the 'Saudi lobby" if I were to take a leaf from his book, but in addition Walt takes money (directly or indirectly) from the Saudis.

It is a very old propaganda trick to accuse others of what one is doing. The Saudi Lobby is doing exactly that with respect to the so-called Israel lobby. There is only one significant difference; if there is an Israel lobby, it is home-grown, while the Saudi lobby is quite openly paid for by the Saudis. If one wants to talk treason....

By the way, Freeman is in the classic pattern, also seen in Jim Akins, of former US Ambassadors to Saudi Arabia returning as puppets of the Saudis, making public arguments inimical to US security interests. The inside joke in Washington used to be that "freeze in the dark" Akins was the Saudi amhassador to the US.

David Sternlight, Ph.D.
Los Angeles

(For identification purposes only, the writer is the former Chief Economist of a major international oil company, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations until his retirement, and a close observer and analyst of US Middle East and Inter-Arab policy for 30 years.)

"Blaming the Jews" Doesn't Always Work - Wesley Pruden
Charles W. Freeman Jr. is the well-paid shill for the Saudis and the Chinese who was stopped just before he was to assume the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, where he would have directed the preparation of intelligence briefings for the president. Mr. Freeman has had a long if not distinguished career in berating the Israelis for struggling for survival and apologizing for Chinese repression of dissidents struggling only to breathe free. In a speech in 2005 he described Israel as the aggressor in the Middle East, and two years later accused the U.S. of "embracing Israel's enemies as our own."
When Mr. Freeman surrendered to the inevitable and withdrew his name from consideration, he distributed a two-page rant casting himself as a martyr to Jewish perfidy and treachery, done in by a Jewish lobby. Blaming "lobbyists" is an odd excuse for Mr. Freeman, who is himself a lobbyist. He runs a think tank, the Middle East Policy Council, with money supplied by Saudi Arabia, which he lovingly describes as a kingdom ruled by the beneficent "Abdullah the Great."