Obama Intel Pick Withdraws, Blasts Israeli Lobby

[TruthSeeker]

Charles Freeman withdrew (today) from consideration to be Obama's National Intelligence Council Chairman after criticism from pro-Israeli journalists and bloggers. He released the following statement:

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

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.


Message from Charles Freeman - WSJ.com

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Quite disappointing.

I understand why though, the Neo-Cons and right wing nuts would have had a field day with the Obama administration, and given that the economic crises is in no way guaranteed to be fixed in Obama's term, more cannon fodder for the Neo-Con-Nazis come election time.

Not that I am convinced that Obama would radically alter US policy towards Israel anyway, but even slightly more even handedness would be a relief from the utter depravity and unfairness that has characterized US policy in the Mid East, and may I add in South Asia as well.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I posted Freeman's statement because it is a rather clear expression of the experience of anyone in US public life who even mildly criticizes Israel. In my opinion the stranglehold that pro-Israeli Americans exert on US communications, both entertainment and news, as well as on both political parties through fund raising and officeholding, is the primary reason the US is not able to constructively and fairly arbitrate Middle Eastern disputes. This has been going on for so long that I cannot see a way to overcome it. My only idea is the one I've expressed several times here before. Somehow Palestinian-Arab-Muslim opinion makers have to get a counter message out there. The best mechanism for this would be a non-violent "civil rights" protest by the Arab populations of Israel and the West Bank. These populations are treated as second class citizens by Israel. If only the "nose of America" could be rubbed in this fact, maybe the Israeli lobby would lose its moral high ground and some American compassion for the victims of Israel could be developed. Sadly, no Palestinian non-violent moral leader has appeared on the scene yet.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I posted Freeman's statement because it is a rather clear expression of the experience of anyone in US public life who even mildly criticizes Israel. In my opinion the stranglehold that pro-Israeli Americans exert on US communications, both entertainment and news, as well as on both political parties through fund raising and officeholding, is the primary reason the US is not able to constructively and fairly arbitrate Middle Eastern disputes. This has been going on for so long that I cannot see a way to overcome it. My only idea is the one I've expressed several times here before. Somehow Palestinian-Arab-Muslim opinion makers have to get a counter message out there. The best mechanism for this would be a non-violent "civil rights" protest by the Arab populations of Israel and the West Bank. These populations are treated as second class citizens by Israel. If only the "nose of America" could be rubbed in this fact, maybe the Israeli lobby would lose its moral high ground and some American compassion for the victims of Israel could be developed. Sadly, no Palestinian non-violent moral leader has appeared on the scene yet.

TS:

The impact would still be minimized through minimal or 'back pages' media coverage. Unless alternate avenues of propagating the message such as through Al Jazeera English and the BBC are widely accessible, I doubt the message would sink into the American public.

The difference in coverage of the recent Gaza invasion by the Israelis, between the American media and the media in the rest of the world says it all.

The Two I's define US policy in the Mid East and South Asia now - Israel and India (both also close partners in their own right), and the media continues to push the necessary message - demonizing those opposed to the I's and giving a free pass to the excesses of the other.

 

[TruthSeeker]

TS: The impact would still be minimized through minimal or 'back pages' media coverage. Unless alternate avenues of propagating the message such as through Al Jazeera English and the BBC are widely accessible, I doubt the message would sink into the American public.

I agree with you that it is a very tough assignment to successfully counteract the Jewish-Israeli lobby in the US. I am not optimistic. That means both the US, and the peoples of the world who care about fairness with respect to the Palestinians, will continue to be frustrated by the lack of "progress" in the Middle East. In this respect, I feel about my American politicians like the Pakistanis feel about their own politicians, neither put their own people first when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Intelligence Pick Blames 'Israel Lobby' For Withdrawal​

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 12, 2009; A01

The withdrawal of a senior intelligence adviser after an online campaign to prevent him from taking office has ignited a debate over whether powerful pro-Israel lobbying interests are exercising outsize influence over who serves in the Obama administration.

When Charles W. Freeman Jr. stepped away Tuesday from an appointment to chair the National Intelligence Council -- which oversees the production of reports that represent the view of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies -- he decried in an e-mail "the barrage of libelous distortions of my record [that] would not cease upon my entry into office," and he was blunt about whom he considers responsible.

"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," Freeman wrote.

Referring to what he called "the Israel Lobby," he added: "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." One result of this, he said, is "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."

Freeman's angry rhetoric notwithstanding, the controversy surrounding the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia was broader than just Middle East politics. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair's choice of Freeman prompted a storm of complaints about his recent commercial connections to China and questions about whether he was too forgiving of that nation's leaders.

But most of the online attention focused on Freeman's work for the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money, and his past critical statements about Israel. The latter included a 2005 speech he gave to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, where he referred to Israel's "high-handed and self-defeating policies" stemming from the "occupation and settlement of Arab lands," which he called "inherently violent."

Only a few Jewish organizations came out publicly against Freeman's appointment, but a handful of pro-Israeli bloggers and employees of other organizations worked behind the scenes to raise concerns with members of Congress, their staffs and the media.

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, "took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it," spokesman Josh Block said.

But Block responded to reporters' questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: "As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background."

Yesterday, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which tried to derail Freeman's appointment, applauded his withdrawal. But it added: "We think Israel and any presumed 'lobby' had far less effect on the outcome than the common-sensical belief that the person who is the gatekeeper of intelligence information for the President of the United States should be unencumbered by payments from foreign governments."

There was plenty of debate about that within the blogosphere immediately after Freeman's withdrawal and the publication of his e-mail.

Jonathan Chait wrote irreverently on his New Republic blog, "The old spin was that Freeman's nomination, and the failure of his critics, shows how evil the Israel lobby is. . . . The new spin will be that Freeman's, ahem, resignation shows the Israel lobby is even more powerful and sinister than we thought."

And Stephen Walt, one of two writers who in 2006 famously described the influence of the Israel lobby as dangerous, chimed in on ForeignPolicy.com: "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 . . . think again." (Foreign Policy is owned by a subsidiary of The Washington Post Co.)

Time's Joe Klein opined that Freeman "was the victim of a mob, not a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives -- abetted by less than courageous public servants . . . [who have] made Washington even less hospitable for those who aren't afraid to speak their minds, for those who are reflexively contentious, who would defy the conventional wisdom."

The White House, which had sidestepped questions about Freeman twice in one week, said little yesterday. "I don't have anything to add from what Admiral Blair discussed yesterday in accepting Mr. Freeman's decision that his nomination not proceed and that he regretted it," press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

The White House did not respond last night to a question about outside influence on personnel decisions.

The earliest cry of alarm about Freeman's appointment -- a week before it was announced -- came from a former AIPAC lobbyist. Steve Rosen wrote Feb. 19 on his blog that Freeman was a "strident critic of Israel" and described the potential appointment as "a textbook case of the old-line Arabism" whose "views of the region are what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry."

Rosen said yesterday that he had been "quite positive" about President Obama's previous appointments for Middle East positions but that he was "surprised" about Freeman. The appointee's "most extreme point of view," he said, was not what he had expected for the head of the NIC.

Rosen has a unique position in Washington. A former chief foreign policy lobbyist for AIPAC, he and a colleague were indicted by the Bush administration in 2005 on suspicion of violating the Espionage Act, the first nongovernment employees ever so charged. AIPAC cut him loose, and a trial date has been set for May.

Meanwhile, Rosen is limited in what he can do. He said he cannot talk to AIPAC employees, nor can he lobby Congress. He has talked to "a number of journalists" who called him about Freeman, but not members of Congress. He did not answer when asked yesterday whether he has talked to Hill staff members.

Rosen's initial posting was the first of 17 he would write about Freeman over a 19-day period. Some of those added more original reporting, while some pointed to other blogs' finds about Freeman's record. In the process, Rosen traced increasing interest in the appointment elsewhere in the blogosphere, including coverage by Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, and Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic.

Interest also was growing among members of Congress.

On March 2, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) wrote Blair to raise concerns based on what he had read about Freeman's positions. Two days later, he called for Blair to withdraw the appointment.

Also on March 2, the Zionist Organization of America called for support of a letter by Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) that called on the DNI inspector general to investigate Freeman for possible conflicts of interest because of his financial relations with Saudi Arabia. That letter, signed by Kirk and seven other congressmen, including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), was sent to Inspector General Edward Maguire on March 3.

Close observers of the events consider that request a turning point in the effort to stop Freeman's candidacy, and Rosen's blog began focusing almost exclusively on the appointment.

On Monday, the seven Republicans on the Senate intelligence committee wrote Blair to protest his choice, which was not subject to Senate confirmation, and threatened to review the NIC's work as long as Freeman chaired that body.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting one day later, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told Blair of his own concerns, and he added that the controversy "is not going to go away until you or Ambassador Freeman find a way to resolve it." Hours later, Freeman withdrew.

Freeman explained his decision last night on National Public Radio: "It became apparent that, no matter what the National Intelligence Council or the intelligence community might put out under my chairmanship, I would be used as an excuse -- if something was said that wasn't politically correct -- to disparage the quality and the credibility of the intelligence."

washingtonpost.com

 

[TruthSeeker]

Walter Pincus ^^^^ writes above a reasonably balanced article. It is interesting however that he is careful to portray the arguments against Freeman as not coming from the "Israeli Lobby" but from other sources, perhaps Jewish, but not an "official" lobby. Pincus and Klein are Jewish American news reporters/commentators who always take the pro-Israeli line on issues and never tell their readers that they are Jewish, and may be biased.