Below the jump I append an email being circulated by Israel lobbyists to attack the appointment of a good man, and an Arabist, Charles Freeman, as the head of the National Intelligence Council under Obama. The email was sent out by "US 4Israel." I wonder what they want? The money quote:
Note that Freeman is being attacked at the Wall Street Journal, by neocon Gabriel Schoenfeld, as a "China-coddling Israel-basher." Since when did Schoenfeld care about China? I think he's just using that issue to gain a wider audience. US 4Tibet. US 4Darfur. Another Israel-firster leading the charge against Freeman is Steve Rosen, the former AIPAC guy charged with giving secrets to you-know-who. And it appears that Jeffrey Goldberg is on the Freeman case, too. The neocons/neolibs regroup, but they're a lot closer to the margin now, praise the lord.
2 additional thoughts. 1, Freeman's meaning: By dragging their feet forever on the 1967 parameters (2 states), the Israel lobby has allowed the 1948 conversation to boil up in the discourse–basically, why the hell did we recognize partition in the first place when the Arabists in our own government told us it would guarantee generations of bloodshed?
2, You know I can't get enough of Jeffrey Goldberg, as the most important Jewish journalist. It's interesting to me that he is sacrificing his chance to be the Tom Friedman of his
generation, i.e., leader of mainstream liberal Jewish opinion, notwithstanding his high platform; because his views are just too
unreconstructed, Holocaust-tinged. The new wave is the Josh
Tenenbaum-Dennis Gaitsbory Jews, the guys who literally lose sleep over the idea of Avigdor Lieberman making policy; these agonized people are the new fulcrum of American Jewish attachment to Israel. The scribe who leads them must also lose sleep over Lieberman. Goldberg doesn't. He loses sleep over Father Coughlin and the Gestapo. That's how he sees the world. And slowly but surely he will become less important.
Pls
fw this email to pro-Israel friends in California, Georgia, Indiana,
Maine, Montana, Maryland,Oklahoma & Utah. Thank you.
was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989-1992. Here are quotes
(emphasis added) which are characteristic of his hostile attitude
towards Israel:
Saudi Ambassador to America" because of his promotion of the interests
of Saudi Arabia and informed that: "He shares Board membership with
executives from major multinationals with major markets in Saudi Arabia
and the Arab world…" link to www.americanthinker.com
chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Freeman would have the
major influence on the intelligence briefings presented to the
president (remember the damage caused by the National Intelligence
Estimate, the NIE, in 2007, which erroneously downplayed the dangers of
Iran), and would be called upon often to give direct briefings to the
President.
president who seeks to maintain an Israel policy that is even passively
benign (not out to hurt Israel) simply does not select someone like
Freeman to the top intelligence post — someone like Freeman to depend
upon for securing intelligence information.
members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence know how
concerned Americans are by the possible appointment of Freeman. Please, address them with courtesy; some are very warmly predisposed to Israel. Phone or fax are better than email. Explain:
- Freeman's appointment would be detrimental to the true interests of the US and the Western world.
-
Freeman would seriously undermine support for the only democracy, and the bastion of Western values, in the Middle East.
-
Israel
is at the forefront of the fight against radical jihadism, which is of
concern to all democracies. Israel should not be weakened, as Freeman
would seek to do. -
Freeman's perceptions of Israel are badly skewed and dangerous.
Gotta love those talking points at the end.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Please contact members of the committee to express your support of President Obama's choice of a highly qualified American patriot.
Of course this is the way the Obama administration "balances" the horrific choice of Israel-firster Dennis Ross as Hilary Clinton's main Iran diplomacy advisor. . .
Perhaps there is hope. But it's hard to believe in.
The weird thing about Goldberg's complaint in particular is the phrase "It would be inappropriate to appoint an official of AIPAC to run the National Intelligence Council". Martin Indyk, before he became Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser for the Middle East, not only was employed directly by AIPAC, but was Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an institution founded by AIPAC.
Perhaps (a) I missed Goldberg's complaints about the inappropriateness of Indyk's appointment. Or perhaps (b) Goldberg thinks that there is some crucial difference between running the National Intelligence Council and being a National Security Adviser which means it is inappropriate to have a former advocate in one post but not in the other. Or perhaps (c) Goldberg only invents these "rules" when people seen as pro-Arab are up for appointment.
I vote for (c) – any other views?
I just emailed one of my senators who is on the National Intelligence Committee. Lucky from my past experience if I get more than boiler plate AIPAC talking points on the Freeman pick.
Well, David, his central point is that the AIPAC receives no funding from Israel, which balances AIPAC connections in favor of such who receive funding from the Saudis. That means they can be disregarded.
Interestingly he uses a visual balancing device by paralleling the two counterarguments.
Could this be connected a d) you are looking for? The key is foreign funding.
I loved the "unforgivable sin".
"Below the jump I append an email being circulated by Israel lobbyists to attack the appointment of a good man, and an Arabist, Charles Freeman, as the head of the National Intelligence Council under Obama."
Do you know Freeman or is he a good man simply because he's an Arabist on the Saudi payroll and anti Israel?
Do you take any Saudi money Phil?
Apparantly, Phil is doing this because of his pure hatred of Jews.
Based on Citizen's letters, he is lucky to get a boiler plate AIPAC talking points on the Freeman pick, rather then being rightfully tossed in the trash.
Mr. Freeman is even more amazing than I first thought. Read this speech he gave. He is obviously at 'look at reality squarely and call it what it is' truth-to-power kind of guy. I can see why Israel-firsters are so frightened, and why he would be great for America. Two loyal Americans in two key positions: General James Jones as National Security Adviser and Chas Freeman as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, now that's change I can believe in. :)
Argg. I forgot to put the link in: speech.
Thanks for the links, Colin. I contacted my Senator to support Freeman and am contacting as many of the other names on the list that I can.
Excellent!
Phil: "why the hell did we recognize partition in the first place when the Arabists in our own government told us it would guarantee generations of bloodshed?"
Gore Vidal says John F. Kennedy told him that Truman did it to repay the wealthy Jewish donors who sent him a "suitcase full of cash" at a time his whistle-stop express was too broke to pay the train engineers.
Here's the key – and very valid – point made by Jeffrey Goldberg that should disqualify Freeman from further consideration:
"Freeman is well-known for his hostility toward Israel, but what's more substantively troubling about this report is the obvious inappropriateness of hiring a well-known advocate for the interests of Middle Eastern autocracies to produce national intelligence estimates for the Obama Administration."
" … of hiring a well-known advocate for the interests of Middle Eastern autocracies …"
Mr. Goldberg's phrasing is in error. I'd like to think it's innocent, but some Zionists have a tendency to mistake the interests of foreign powers for our own. The correct wording is
" … of hiring a well-known advocate for American interests in the Middle East …"
LeaNder:
But Goldberg says the opposite – he says explicitly that it would be inappropriate to appoint an AIPAC person to such a post DESPITE the fact that AIPAC receives no foreign funding. My question is why he doesn't raise this argument with respect to Martin Indyk, who actually did work for AIPAC.
Colin is right. No one should be worrying whether Freeman is good for Israel. What they should be asking is whether he's good for America?