Obama Mideast Watch: Chas Freeman Affair

Talk about being a day late and a dollar short Scott. This story grew, ran its race, and got shelved before you even bothered to put pen to paper. It's old hat already as the rest of the US moves on to evisrating AIG for its bonuses and more importantly on a global scale figuring out how many millions of people are going to be unemployed at the end of the year. About the only people left interested in this one domestically are 'Chas' and his amen corner of Stephen Walt.
.
.
But before we move on, let's take a brief moment to realize just what Mr. Freeman was, a hired gun of the Saudi and Chinese governments.
.
.
The idea that the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia was just some poor innocent objective career civil servant is laughable at best. His years spent as head of the Middle East Policy Council included plenty of ink spilled railing against Jews and Israel, including 'The Lobby' as the MEPC's web site calls it.
.
.
Given President Obama's stand against hiring lobbyists to work in his administration, one should hardly be surprised that this candidate was deep sixed once word of his employment funding got out.
.
.
It's kind of you to publish 'Chas' own words out there for all to see. Of course, different people have different opinions on his commentary. I offer up the final two paragraphs from the Washington Post's editorial earlier this week:
.
.
"But let's consider the ambassador's broader charge: He describes "an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics." That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.
.
.
What's striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that "it is not permitted for anyone in the United States" to describe Israel's nefarious influence. But several of his allies have made themselves famous (and advanced their careers) by making such charges -- and no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention. Crackpot tirades such as his have always had an eager audience here and around the world. The real question is why an administration that says it aims to depoliticize U.S. intelligence estimates would have chosen such a man to oversee them."
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03384.html

Despite the predictable (and annoyingly elementary) dissent by resident troll-blog, Jacob, above, as a fervent reader of any news Middle East related, I testify that this is a novel story to me. I did not read about this anywhere prior to your posting, Scott, and I think it is an important topic to discuss. Thank you for bringing it to the forefront. I am curious as to why such news did not appear as a major headline as it involves the most important aspect and region of our foreign policy.
.
In America, it has become blatantly obvious that you are allowed to criticize God, but not Israel. The Israeli lobby has been effective in equating, amongst powerful political circles and in America's collective conventional wisdom, the interests of Israel with that of America's. This absurdity resonates in Freeman's resignation, Obama's kowtowing at the AIPAC conference during his campaign, the blatant one-sidedness of the news media when blaming Hamas for all the ills in Gaza, the ridiculous spins intended to victimize Israel while it targets and threatens Iran continuously, amongst many, many other things Israel-related. His list of misdeeds by the pro-Israeli lobby is very accurate, indeed. "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." This is a great assessment of the Israeli lobby's M.O.
.
As for Obama, Scott, I think he still has a lot of walking to do. Superficial pledges to "change" are quickly disintegrating into more of the same with a shiny new cover. His gatekeeper, Rahm Emmanuel, volunteered in the Israeli army. Hillary Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran and is heavily influenced by her pro-Israel benefactors. For a man who campaigned on a promise to divert from the politics of old, he did not stand up to this special interest lobby here. Now I've read Federalist X by James Madison. I understand that this is an initiative Democracy where lobbies are entitled to power because of their efforts, but this concept doesn't extend to an Israeli lobby that retains power through lies, libel, manipulation of facts, viewpoint discrimination and restriction of factual information flow to the citizenry. The Israeli lobby directly shapes, if not mandates, our foreign policy and our futures to the detriment of Americans, Arabs, and Persians while benefiting Israel.
.
Again, I challenge pro-Israeli advocates to use substantive fact as a basis for argument and not general smears (for example, in Jacob's postings).

"No American president--none--has ever entered office with a clearer determination for Middle East peacemaking and an equitable political and cultural sensitivity to both sides in the conflict."
•
Really? Not even Carter? I'm no fan of Carter, but he actually accomplished something in the ME. I know Obama is the political Messiah and is nuanced (whatever the hell that means), but ethusiasm that results in hyperbole can quickly pass into untruths.
•
Nick,

How is it you haven't heard of this story. JB (who isn't a troll, and if he is, then you are the king of the trolls) was right--this isn't a newsflash. And I find it hard to believe that an astute news observer such as yourself (you once claimed to remember a statement uttered by Condi Rice 7 years ago when she was NSA) could miss such an obvious "Israel lobby controls the U.S." story.
•
And where are JB's "smears?" Just about everything he wrote is factual or verifiable. At any rate, Freeman's problem wasn't that he wasn't pro-Israel, it was that he was so consistently anti-Israel. If having one-sided, pro-Israel diplomats is a problem, then surely having one-sided, anti-Israel diplomats is a problem as well.

So which part of 'Chas' history isn't true Nick? That he worked for a Saudi financed think-tank? That he worked for the Chinese government? That he received remuneration from both of these entities?
.
.
Since this is a blog discussing the Middle East, I ignored Mr. Freeman's commentary about the Tiennman Square massacre, in which he is described as saying that the Chinese were soft on the demonstrators.
.
.
As for the so-called Israel lobby, given that AIPAC publically stated it had no formal position on his appointment, where is its campaign?
.
.
Try using something other than a table next time Nick.

Jacob wrote:
"But before we move on, let's take a brief moment to realize just what Mr. Freeman was, a hired gun of the Saudi and Chinese governments."
.
CGTX will take you for your word, Jacob. But, I've seen you propagate far too many lies here whereby your integrity and credibility are as existent as the lost city of Atlantis. As for being a blog troll, by definition that is someone who visits and refreshes this blog frequently and posts flames of a pseudo-intellectual and ad hominem nature against the blog writer. I mean, if you get a lamb and rice dish and it tastes funky to you, do you continue spooning it into your mouth? What is Jacob's objective exactly? To sit here and demean any virtuous thing Scott does so that his viewpoint is disregarded? Sounds exactly like the modus operandi of pro-Israeli advocates outlined by Freeman and myself above. *scoffs*

Charles Freeman is the former head of the Middle East Policy Council, a think tank financed by the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia. In addition to the MEPC's usual budget, it received gifts of $1.0 million each from King Abdullah and al-Aweed bin Talal.
.
.
But why take my word for it Nick. Just because you haven't seen the articles doesn't mean that they don't exist. I know its only mainstream media, but both the New York Times and Washington Post have reported on the story.
.
For almost four years, Freeman served on the advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), receiving $10,000 a year for his service. The communist government of China, along with other state-owned companies, are majority stakeholders in CNOOC.
.
Freeman until recently was president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank. The Republicans claim in their letter the Saudi government funds the organization and therefore paid his $87,000 annual salary.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502952.html

It's clever how guilt by association is a tactic used by both the Israeli lobby and McCain during his campaign. Let's just see how this pans out...

I've only been reading this blog for a couple of months, but I have to say I'm really disappointed. Perhaps it is up to the author to decide what content to post, but it seems that this entry is far from fair. Mr. Freeman, while a capable bureaucrat, has been for a number of years a lobbyist on behalf of the Saudi government. This, before anything else, indicates his inappropriateness for any position which may have an editorial effect on the information published by the national security establishment.

Whether or not pro-Israel lobbies decried his position on Israel, having a significant (and I would argue that even thousands of dollars per year is such) relationship with a foreign government, particularly one such as Saudi Arabia or China, is unacceptable. The fact that he has become almost paranoid regarding the undue influence of AIPAC on his career is sad, as such a tone probably won't help him in the future.

You guys missed all the debate about this on swampland: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/08/the-assault-on-chas-freeman/. Jacob's comments would have been shredded over there.
.
Freeman cannot be considered a "hired gun of the Saudi's" any more than someone working at a charity funded by the Gate's Foundation can be considered a hired gun of Bill Gates. As for Freeman's associations with China; they are just that, associations. His comments are frank and brutally realist, but I think we all would have appreciated some brutally frank assessments of the intelligence prior to the Iraq War.
.
...intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on Israel is the ultimate service to protect and defend the state of Israel.
.
This is no different than someone who views intimidating those who would otherwise speak their mind on the US as the ultimate service to protect and defend the nation. Everyone seems to have missed this larger issue in the Freeman case, in that assaulting those who dare to criticize Israel is no different than assaulting those who dare to criticize the US. Holding ones love for Israel as the preeminent qualification for appointment is no different than considering ones love for the US as the preeminent qualification for the Presidency. "Is he patriotic enough?" should not be the supreme question we ask our presidential candidates, and yet it arises as an issue nearly every election cycle, even becoming the primary strategy as it did for the right in the last election.
.
And that's the point. We've seen this corrupted criteria before. It's the same war on critical thinking that emanated from the right for the last decade. Instead of engaging in debate, the debater is torn down. Instead of fostering dialogue, free thinking is quashed. Criticize US policy and you must hate America; Protest the war and you must not be patriotic; Speak bad about the troops and you should be tried for treason. Or how about: Obama is a closet Muslim with radical views and radical associations; Obama hates America because Rev. Wright hates America; Liberals are unpatriotic because they favor social programs. And now: Chas Freeman has questionable ties to the Saudis and Chinese.
.
A majority in the US resisted and rejected these politics in the last election, and yet criticism of Israel is still off the table. Why? Partly because it lands you with the ugly label of anti-Semite, and partly because the media eats this stuff up. And the truly sad part is that countries become stagnant and stale when criticism becomes forbidden.

I wrote: "...and yet criticism of Israel is still off the table."
.
Which should read: "...and yet questioning Israel's actions or expressing support for the Palestinians are considered by some to be equivalent to criticism against Israelis and Jews as a whole, thus eliminating you from consideration for public office."

Jacob:

That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map.
.
This is called an illogical conclusion. Simply because the hyper pro-Israel voices don't win every time doesn't mean they don't possess substantial influence and command over the public narrative on Israel and the appointment of officials with influence over Mid East policy. Are you really suggesting that there are zero aberrations in the way this country publicly discusses Mid East policy? Everything is just A-OK to you then?

"It's clever how guilt by association is a tactic used by both the Israeli lobby and McCain during his campaign. Let's just see how this pans out..."
.
.
Guilt by association indeed Nick. Given that this was an appointed position, that didn't require any confirmation hearings, 'Chas' must have been feeling quite guilty to up and walk away on his own volition.

Didn't miss a thing in the swamps, Nathan. I read and participated in that debate already.
.
.
If I were you, I would try peddling a better story than pushing the idea that a Saudi financed think tank discussing the Middle East is equivelent to someone working for the Bill & Melinda Gates charity.
.
.
Maybe, and just maybe, if you had Chas working as a lobbyist for Microsoft on potential monopolistic practices you might find some equivelant. As for objectivity? He was hired to lead an advocacy organization espousing the views of the Saudi Government. They may be brutal, they may be frank, but they certainly aren't any more real than his opposite numbers declare at their own think tanks.
.
.
Indeed, he was a hired gun, for both the Saudi's and the Chinese. What is quite concerning Nathan is your idea that Mr. Freeman's views are considered acceptable, apparently as a lobbyist and as someone who would hold a key position in intelligence, but those Americans who raise questions about his competency and objecitivity, are considered corrupt.
.
.
Charles Freeman took the revolving door from his ambassadorship in Riyadh, and turned it into a job as a lobbyist for the Saudis. On day two of Obama's administration, the President himself stood at the podium stating how going forward this would change. No longer would lobbyists rotate in and out of the government.
.
.
Apparently for some, such declarations don't mean too much, especially when one can hang the idea that it's "THE LOBBY's" fault.

"Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you. Opposition is True Friendship."-William Blake, "Marriage of Heaven and Hell" 1796
.
The Freeman affair is case in point; messengers are usually always 'shot' when they challenge conventional 'wisdom' of the status quo.
.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official."-Theodore Roosevelt
.
On George Washington's birth date, his Farewell Address has been read aloud in Congress ever since 1896:
.
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate justification."
.
Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty [which prohibits] U.S. assistance to any country trafficking in nuclear enrichments equipment or technology outside of international safeguards.
.
Every American politician is aware of Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons development, stockpile, and launch capabilities, but due to the influence of AIPAC "it is business as usual in Washington: criminal wrongdoing continues to corrupt America's core values, rule of law, and Middle East policy, as the Israel lobby's crosshairs shift almost completely to Iran." -page 155, "Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal"
.

Eileen Fleming, Author,
Founder: http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"

Nathan wrote:
"We've seen this corrupted criteria before. It's the same war on critical thinking that emanated from the right for the last decade. Instead of engaging in debate, the debater is torn down. Instead of fostering dialogue, free thinking is quashed. Criticize US policy and you must hate America; Protest the war and you must not be patriotic; Speak bad about the troops and you should be tried for treason. Or how about: Obama is a closet Muslim with radical views and radical associations; Obama hates America because Rev. Wright hates America; Liberals are unpatriotic because they favor social programs. And now: Chas Freeman has questionable ties to the Saudis and Chinese."
.
Excellent commentary, Nathan!

This column is Alice in Wonderland claptrap by someone who agrees with Freeman's raging anti-Israelism. Good riddance to bad rubbish in Freeman!

At the end of the day, the fact is that US policy should not be made by anyone that blindly supports any cause - pro-Israel, anti-Israel, or otherwise. It is important that debate take place, but that debate should always reflect opinions on both sides of an issue. American Jewish disapproval of Freeman, in my opinion, is largely based on his perceived inability to acknowledge that an issue as complex as middle east politics is not black and white. Anyone who thinks it is has no business making foreign policy, because one side or the other will always object when it comes time to act on US recommendations.
.
persionadvocat - I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist commenting on "In America, it has become blatantly obvious that you are allowed to criticize God, but not Israel." In most of the free world (including, for instance, Denmark) it is OK to criticize a deity, as long as it is not a cartoon of Allah, in which case Muslims across the world will protest until the perpetrator is appropriately chastised.
.
I do not have a problem with criticism of Israel, as long as it is based on facts. Once people begin to use 'Israel''Jews' and 'Zionists' interchangeably, or use blanket statements like 'Israel's racist apartheid' or 'brutal occupation' it becomes immediately evident that they have some sort of agenda and that they are attempting to express their opinions as facts.
.
I would argue that criticism is the most convincing when it is apparent that the speaker understands the point of view of the other side, and disagrees with it, rather than implying that the other side is completely wrong - such slanted and close-minded criticism generally comes across as bigotry, and is therefore often denounced.

It is clear to my that it is the supporters of AIPAC who are behind the attack on Chas Freeman. Despite of his close ties to China and even Saudi Arabia, when he announced his withdrawl, those against him cited his "anti-Israeli" statements, not his ties to China or Saudi Arabia.

There is also a clear double standard. There are plenty of people in government who have strong ties to AIPAC. In fact, our major politicians in this country fall over themselves to seek its favor. This organization clearly has ties to Israel, yet I have not heard of anyone associated with this organization and who would be considered for a senior post criticized for having too close ties to Israel. In fact we have too many people working on our middle east policy who associate with extremely pro-Israel thinktanks to have an effective policy in the region.

otrain, I read your post regarding why so many pro-Israel supporters have a problem with Chas Freeman. I don't think it is because of he saw the middle east problem in "black and white" and that he did not understand the complexity of the situation. It is quite the opposite, for these critics, the issues involving Israel are Black and White, and it was Mr. Freeman who understood the complexities. I have read some recent writings of Mr. Freeman, and it is very clear he fully understands the complexities. The problem is rather than being "anti-Israel", what he offers is some "tough love", though I know some would disagree. While I don't completely agree with some of his statements, I generally agree with his thesis that the governments of Israel constantly do things to support their siege mentality with dealing with their Arab neighbors and that they are much better at waging war than making peace.

An objective view of history would show that the government of Israel has done just about anything to tick off its neighbors and then cry that it is the "victim". This goes from border scrimmages with Syria, to collective punishment, to creating the environment in the occupied territories (especially Gaza) for Islamic extremists to thrive at the expense of Palestinian moderates. Israel was prepared to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for Gilead Shalit, but only recently started releasing prisoners to Mahmood Abbas. Who has gotten more prisoners released in the last few years, the Palestinian Authority or Hizbollah? What lessons do you think the Arabs have learned?

Chas Freeman is right that there is a very limited criticism of Israel in this country. If you don't think there is a strong pro-Israeli lobby in congress, ask Cynthia McKenney, who after she sharply critcised Israel found a primary opponent, another Black woman, seriously funded by persons from New York. Why would these New Yorkers be so concerned about a house district in Georgia?

The bitter irony is that in Israel, you have a much more honest debate and there are some Israeli politicians who if they were in the U.S. would be called "anti-semitic" by the pro-Israeli lobby in this country. It is clear that the neo-conservatives have taken the Likudniks view. From Rumsfield's term "so-called occupied territories" to Bush's recognition of "facts on the ground" - the legitimizing of Israel's colonization of the West Bank, in violation of International law. It is made worse when Ohmert brags that all he has to do is call and Bush beckoned to his whim.

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/mar/1274.html
.
The article above complements Scott's blog very well. FHMadvocat - very good post.