Amb. Chas W. Freeman’s withdrawal of his appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council continues to reverberate.
Via Andrew Sullivan are CNN videos of “Freeman on the Israel Lobby with Zakaria” — former Amb. Freeman, “the man too dangerous to be allowed into the US government:
Glad of it. It’s a welcomed public focus on the Israel Lobby and in particular, AIPAC – the same group that has denied its own existence.
Robert Dreyfus via TomDispatch posits:
“Is the Israel lobby in Washington an all-powerful force? Or is it, perhaps, running scared? Judging by the outcome of the Charles W. (“Chas”) Freeman affair this week, it might seem as if the Israeli lobby is fearsome indeed. Seen more broadly, however, the controversy over Freeman could be the Israel lobby’s Waterloo.Though Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, strongly defended Freeman, the two men got no support from an anxious White House, which took (politely put) a hands-off approach..”
Is the Israel Lobby Running Scared?
Or Killing a Chicken to Scare the Monkeys
By Robert DreyfussJudging by the outcome of the Charles W. (“Chas”) Freeman affair this week, it might seem as if the Israeli lobby is fearsome indeed. Seen more broadly, however, the controversy over Freeman could be the Israel lobby’s Waterloo.
Let’s recap. On February 19th, Laura Rozen reported at ForeignPolicy.com that Freeman had been selected by Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, to serve in a key post as chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). The NIC, the official in-house think tank of the intelligence community, takes input from 16 intelligence agencies and produces what are called “national intelligence estimates” on crucial topics of the day as guidance for Washington policymakers. For that job, Freeman boasted a stellar resumé: fluent in Mandarin Chinese, widely experienced in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, and an ex-assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration.
A wry, outspoken iconoclast, Freeman had, however, crossed one of Washington’s red lines by virtue of his strong criticism of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Over the years, he had, in fact, honed a critique of Israel that was both eloquent and powerful. Hours after the Foreign Policy story was posted, Steve Rosen, a former official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), launched what would soon become a veritable barrage of criticism of Freeman on his right-wing blog.
Rosen himself has already been indicted by the Department of Justice in an espionage scandal over the transfer of classified information to outside parties involving a colleague at AIPAC, a former official in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and an official at the Israeli embassy.
[.]
Before long, staunch partisans for Israel on Capitol Hill were getting into the act. These would, in the end, include Representative Steve Israel and Senator Charles Schumer, both New York Democrats; a group of Republican House members led by John Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, and Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican Whip; seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and, finally, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who engaged in a sharp exchange with Admiral Blair about Freeman at a Senate hearing.
[.]
On March 10th, Freeman bowed out, but not with a whimper. In a letter to friends and colleagues, he launched a defiant, departing counterstrike that may, in fact, have helped to change the very nature of Washington politics. “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,” wrote Freeman. “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.”
Freeman put it more metaphorically to me: “It was a nice way of, as the Chinese say, killing a chicken to scare the monkeys.” By destroying his appointment, Freeman claimed, the Israel lobby hoped to intimidate other critics of Israel and U.S. Middle East policy who might seek jobs in the Obama administration.
[.]
In his interview with me, Freeman noted the propensity members of the Israel lobby have for denying the lobby’s existence, even while taking credit for having forced him out and simultaneously claiming that they had nothing to do with it. “We’re now at the ludicrous stage where those who boasted of having done it and who described how they did it are now denying that they did it,” he said.
Running Scared
The Israel lobby has regularly denied its own existence even as it has long carried on with its work, in stealth as in the bright sunlight. In retrospect, however, l’affaire Freeman may prove a game changer. It has already sparked a new, more intense mainstream focus on the lobby, one that far surpasses the flap that began in March, 2006, over the publication of an essay by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt in the London Review of Books that was, in 2007, expanded into a book, The Israel Lobby. In fact, one of the sins committed by Freeman, according to his critics, is that an organization he headed, the Middle East Policy Council, published an early version of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis — which argued that a powerful, pro-Israel coalition exercises undue influence over American policymakers — in its journal.
[.]
In his blog at Foreign Policy, Walt reacted to Freeman’s decision to withdraw by writing:
“For all of you out there who may have questioned whether there was a powerful ‘Israel lobby,’ or who admitted that it existed but didn’t think it had much influence, or who thought that the real problem was some supposedly all-powerful ‘Saudi lobby,’ think again.”
What the Freeman affair brought was unwanted, often front-page attention to the lobby. Writers at countless blogs and websites — including yours truly, at the Dreyfuss Report —
[.]
This new attention to the lobby’s work comes at a critical moment, which is why the toppling of Freeman might be its Waterloo.
[.] As a start, right-wing partisans of Israel have grown increasingly anxious about the direction that President Obama intends to take when it comes to U.S. policy toward Israel, the Palestinians, Iran, and the Middle East generally. Despite the way, in the middle of the presidential campaign last June, Obama recited a pro-Israeli catechism in a speech at AIPAC’s national conference in Washington, they remain unconvinced that he will prove reliable on their policy concerns. Among other things, they have long been suspicious of his reputed openness to Palestinian points of view.
[.]
Since the election, many lobby members have viewed a number of Obama’s top appointments, including Shapiro, who’s taken the Middle East portfolio at the National Security Council, and Kurtzer, who’s in line for a top State Department job, with great unease. Take retired Marine general and now National Security Advisor James L. Jones, who, like Brzezinski, is seen as too sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view and who reputedly wrote a report last year highly critical of Israel’s occupation policies; or consider George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, who is regarded by many pro-Israeli hawks as far too level-headed and even-handed to be a good mediator; or, to mention one more appointment, Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell and now a National Security Council official who has, in the past, made comments sharply critical of Israel.
Of all of these figures, Freeman, because of his record of blunt statements, was the most vulnerable. His appointment looked like low-hanging fruit when it came to launching a concerted, preemptive attack on the administration. As it happens, however, this may prove anything but a moment of strength for the lobby. After all, the recent three-week Israeli assault on Gaza had already generated a barrage of headlines and television images that made Israel look like a bully nation with little regard for Palestinian lives, including those of women and children. According to polls taken in the wake of Gaza, growing numbers of Americans, including many in the Jewish community, have begun to exhibit doubts about Israel’s actions, a rare moment when public opinion has begun to tilt against Israel.
Perhaps most important of all, Israel is about to be run by an extremist, ultra right-wing government led by Likud Party leader Bibi Netanyahu, and including the even more extreme party of Avigdor Lieberman, as well as a host of radical-right religious parties. It’s an ugly coalition that is guaranteed to clash with the priorities of the Obama White House.
As a result, the arrival of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government is also guaranteed to prove a crisis moment for the Israel lobby. It will present an enormous public-relations problem, akin to the one that faced ad agency Hill & Knowlton during the decades in which it had to defend Philip Morris, the hated cigarette company that repeatedly denied the link between its products and cancer. The Israel lobby knows that it will be difficult to sell cartons of menthol smooth Netanyahu-Lieberman 100s to American consumers.
Indeed, Freeman told me:“The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.’ This isn’t really a lobby by, for, or about Israel. It’s really, well, I’ve decided I’m going to call it from now on the [Avigdor] Lieberman lobby. It’s the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with.”
So here’s the reality behind the Freeman debacle: Already worried over Team Obama, suffering the after-effects of the Gaza debacle, and about to be burdened with the Netanyahu-Lieberman problem, the Israel lobby is undoubtedly running scared. They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test of their strength is yet to come.
—“A game-changer?”
—“They succeeded in knocking off Freeman, but the true test of their strength is yet to come”
Or could it be….?
that we should
….consider l’affaire Freeman the first conspicuous salvo in the effort to sabotage the Obama administration’s outreach to Tehran.”
AIPAC Takes Another Scalp
What the Chas Freeman Fight Was Really About[.] Let me tell you what it all means, MJ. As far as Israel’s lobbying position in Washington, zip.
Israel’s access to buckets of U.S. money and shiploads of arms is secure as long as the grass grows and the rivers run, no matter what it does with settlements on the West Bank or to the people of Gaza.
The real significance of the fight against Freeman takes us away from the traditional need to affirm the right of Israel to exist, enjoy America’s commitment to its continued survival, and consume its yearly entitlement from the U.S. budget. It has everything to do with trying to disrupt Obama’s initiative to engage with Iran — an initiative that has the active encouragement of Russia, probably tacit support from China, and the active interest of Iran itself.
Iran has an interesting battery of carrots to offer the United States. Beyond helping keep the lid on in Iraq by moderating the behavior of the majority Sh’ia against the Sunni, an active Iranian role in Afghanistan could do the United States a world of good, especially in opening some kind of second front against the Taliban in the opium heartland of western Afghanistan and providing an alternative to the risky Pakistan route for U.S. and NATO supplies into Afghanistan.
But rapprochement with Iran is anathema to the Israeli government, since it would replace the current situation–where it is assumed that the interests of Tel Aviv and Washington are identical and, if there is a conflict, Israeli priorities should prevail because it has the most at stake — to a more complicated arrangement in which Israel’s position might be downgraded to that of just another stakeholder, whose interests might be compromised by Washington for the sake of its geopolitical objectives and bilateral dealings with Iran.
The Israel lobby are Masters of the Universe, so nothing will deter as they go from strength to strength.
Let’s take a look at the news out of Israel:
Lieberman inches closer to foreign ministry as coalition deal cements
“Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman, a far-right politician whose policies have raised Arab ire and international concern, was designated on Monday as foreign minister in a governing pact with Benjamin Netanyahu.”
: : : :
Alas, the police —it appears Mr. Avigdor Lieberman’s tenure as FM will be short.
Here’s the real agenda.
Ashkenazi in U.S.: IDF must prepare to strike Iran
“During a visit to Washington, D.C., Ashkenazi met with Dennis Ross, the designated U.S. envoy to the Persian Gulf, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the Iranian issue.
The IDF chief told Ross that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. He said that a diplomatic approach to Iran’s contentious nuclear program must be taken first, but said Israel must also prepare for other possibilities.”
{ED: there we go again — dictating American foreign policy. And speaking with forked tongue..}
Pentagon chief: Israeli attack on Iran would endanger Mideast
“On the eve of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi’s visit to the United States for talks on Iran’s nuclear program, his American counterpart, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, warned last Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran might lead to escalation, undermine the region’s stability and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf “who are under the threat envelope right now.”
Asked by interviewer Charlie Rose of PBS television what would happen if Israel attacked Iran, Mullen, referring to the frequent statement that “all options are on the table,” said such an “option generates a much higher level of risk in terms of outcomes in the region and it really concerns me.”
{ED: But…there’s always a but}
“Mullen commented favorably on President Barack Obama’s plan to begin a dialogue with Iran, but said that if this dialogue fails and Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the U.S. might take military action. Though America’s ground forces are “stretched” in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has a “very strong” strategic reserve in the air force and the navy, he noted.
Mullen said that he and Ashkenazi are “by and large” in agreement on Iran’s progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons – namely, that it will not happen before 2010 – and that any discrepancies between the Israeli and American estimates are insignificant. He said the two men have been in agreement on this issue for the “better part of the last six months or so. There was a time that we weren’t, but we’ve actually worked pretty hard to understand where we both are and so I think generally, we’re in agreement.”
[.]
: :
Ah, Mr. Dreyfus — observe, here and now…
Israel’s greatest fear is in being demoted from their Mid-East perch as the superpower bully, armed with over two hundred nukes; Mullen’s doublespeak and Dennis Ross, the gate-keeper and a co-founder of AIPAC.
Prep the bunkers. Israel has the means to sabotage. They continue to spy.
Just like a spider on the wall. They’ll know what secretary of defense Robert Gates whispers to President Obama…and that’s before Mr. Gates moves his lips:
