Back in 2006, as Condoleezza Rice sought to overcome the “sequentiality” of the Road Map and proceed immediately to final status negotiations, Cal Thomas asked what evidence she had that if Palestinians had a state, they would not simply “complete the mission of killing the Jews and throwing them out.” The Secretary of State responded by citing opinion polls:
Well, you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they’re perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace.
It wasn’t true then, and a new poll released yesterday offers further reason to doubt it.
In the joint poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) and the Truman Research Institute at Hebrew University, Palestinians were asked the following:
There is a proposal that after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the settlement of all issues in dispute, including the refugees and Jerusalem issues, there will be a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people. Do you agree or disagree to this proposal?
The percentage of Palestinians agreeing to recognize two states for two peoples — after settlement of “all issues in dispute” — is only 49.8 percent (of whom only 5.6 percent “definitely agree”).
Three months ago, PCPSR and the Truman Institute polled a specific two-state solution — patterned on the 2000 Clinton Parameters, but modified to cover 100% of the West Bank. A total of 57% of Palestinians disagreed with the following proposal (edited here for space):
A state in Gaza and more than 97% of the West Bank, with equal land from Israel for the other 2+%; a “strong security force” and an international force to protect the state and monitor its borders (but no army); a capital in East Jerusalem; sovereignty over all Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem and all of the Old City, other than the Jewish Quarter and the “Wailing Wall;” an unlimited “right of return” for refugees to the new state; compensation for all refugees for their “refugeehood” and loss of property; an “end of conflict” statement; and recognition of Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples.
The above proposal goes beyond what Israel is likely ever to endorse, since it does not (among other things) provide for defensible borders, which the U.S. has formally promised Israel multiple times. Together with the new poll, however, it indicates that — whether framed as a comprehensive proposal effectively covering the entire West Bank or framed simply as an abstract matter (a Palestinian state and settlement of “all issues”) — the two-state solution does not command the approval of a majority of Palestinians.
That will be worth a nice bonus in riyals.
I guess Dennis Blair will not be able to claim that statement of his long-time friend Freeman’s was read “out of context”.
Wow. I mean, *wow*.
Of course, no one will hear about it. You can bet your ass that the NYT will never print that.
And the Jews voted significantly for B. Hussein Obama.
Go figure.
Don’t worry, Bundmeisters. Washington, D.C. is still Israeli-occupied territory. You should be rejoicing, and in fact I’m sure you’re doing exactly that right now.
The Jew-eating rabbit on Hamas kids’ show Pioneers of Tomorrow was killed recently by Israel. There’s a need for a replacement that Mr. Freeman might be perfect for.
John Hartland
we are rejoicing and celebrating Purim
remembering the destruction of Haman, and of course this modern day Haman
Chas Freeman
Figures “John Hartland” would show up. Wheres the old grump?
big setback for some of Obomba’s core supporters.
Mr. Freeman is a terrible writer. Obama has been spared from having to read daily assaults on the English language.
As George Orwell wrote, “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
Freeman is right. At least now the Lobby is being outed.
Cat’s outa the bag.
Well, I have to confess that I was wrong. I opposed Freeman like any thinking person would, and I abhorred the things he had said concerning the governments of Saudi Arabia and China, and Israel. Also I knew that his Middle East Research Council (or whatever it’s called) had lauded the Walt-Mearsheimer quackery. But I wasn’t aware of any quotations actually from *him* in support of the W-M hypothesis. I asked if I was wrong, that someone should let me know.
Turns out that someone was Chas Freeman himself.
On another note, can I be considered an honorary Jew and gain admission to the Lobby? Apparently the Lobby runs the world and is pretty much omnipotent, and they do it so skillfully that only the real geniuses like John Hartland and Grumpy Old Man know the truth. That’s pretty impressive.
I’m glad Freeman has withdrawn. I wish his father had done so, but we live in an imperfect world.
Did lester write that speech for Freeman? I guess not.
They were your own words, Mr. Freeman, that sunk your nomination. Own them.
This from the Volhk Conspiracy is worth quoting to those who say the Israel Lobby made Obama do it to Freeman:
“Ironically, the members of the so-called Israel lobby are Americans, who believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of the United States, on moral grounds, practical grounds, or, usually, both. Unlike Freeman and other members of the “Saudi Lobby,” they are not paid by a semi-hostile, repressive, dictatorial foreign government to be a de facto propaganda agent, nor would the vast majority of them want to take money from the likes of Saudi Arabia and China. The chutzpah of someone who has been paid by such foreign governments to promote their political and business interests in impugning the integrity and patriotism of those who have not is something to behold.”
I knew the Freeman family many years ago. They are not anti-semitic. Freeman is angry with supporters of Israel who derailed his nomination to the NIC. He gave them a tongue lashing. What did you expect? I was good friends with his son and daughter-in-law. I don’t believe that he is anti-semitic. I am Jewish, by the way.
Mr. Podhoretz, you would be more persuasive if you focused on issues rather than labels.
I posted this on another thread before the above quote came to light:
“This whole episode is so perfect. The Obama administration inexplicably appoints a man to an important position whose appointment is objectionable on multiple levels. People naturally do object, ostensibly the price of living in a democracy. These objections are brushed aside by some who defend the appointment to the hilt. The apologists smear anyone who utters a discouraging word as allegedly members of a nefarious Lobby. The very concept is completely self-reinforcing and as more and more information becomes available to seemingly warrant the underlying criticism, this is just processed as further proof of the conspiracy. And when the Administration finally pulls the appointment, it is not confirmation of the legitimacy of the criticism, but yet even more proof of the conspiracy, like some pathetic feedback loop. It is of course purely coincidental that the very same people that endlessly tilt at the same “lobby” windmill see in Freeman evidence of their ever-present bete noire. Far better than to acknowledge one’s own morbid obsessions.”
I guess we can add Freeman himself to this charcaterization. I realize that people may now try to claim that this is just an angry reaction to supposedly dirty tactics, if dissent in a democracy can be so described, and statements (many) supposedly taken out of context, but Freeman did make a number of extreme anti-Israel statements (among others) before this whole controversy, did go out of his way to publish the M/W Israel Lobby paper, and in defending the choice to do so, expressly claimed that the Lobby (his own term) acted to allegedly repress criticism. It is certainly possible to express a similar view of Middle East politics and policies without engaging in this type of rhetoric, and many, many American Jews with their typical left-leaning tendencies could be dependibly counted on to do just that despite claims about Lobbys and so forth. As to Freeman he was exactly what he was claimed to be, more than anything, way too partisan and intemperate for his job.
Jake Tapper, the White House correspondent for ABC News, had a great take:
“What’s perplexing about this that so much of what critics objected to were Freeman’s statements, in full context. His record was picked apart like that of any other controversial nominee — sometimes fairly, sometimes not so — but only in Freeman’s case does the nominee make an allegation that a foreign power was lurking nefariously somehow behind it all.”
Spot on, as usual, ian – you explain the paranoid self-referentiality that’s infected Freeman and so many of his defenders quite sanely and clearly: It’s a self-justification machine powered by self-escalating hatred. The dangers it poses to all concerned when given a position of influence and power should never be underestimated. It’s always preparing the grand excuse for some unimaginable crime, and dares its targets to ever more desperate defensive measures that can in turn fuel the engine. I hope that this destruction on launch and the ugly passions that have erupted around it makes at least some of the proponents of some new approach in the Middle East think hard about what they’re getting into and just how much they’re risking.
This is, as John Podhoretz usefully points out, the quintessence of an anti-Israel, anti-semite. The bitter irony here is that a man with this amount of (formerly) barely concealed animus toward America’s primary ally in the Mideast, a man who might also might (charitably) be described as possessed of his own decidedly eccentric policy views annealed whilst serving as a flunky/go-fer for the Saudis, came VERY CLOSE to being the person in charge of producing the President’s daily intelligence briefing.
If there may be said to exist a “silver lining” to this saga, it might consist in the fact that the President’s foreign policy and intelligence team is at least now revealed as the “gang that can’t shoot straight.” Hopefully, this debacle swill embolden Republicans in Congress to further scrutinize the foreign policy motives of the administration and find out whom is beholden to whom.
Well, all that’s clear is that someone is in denial…
Did you read that first sentence of his?
Has the guy been conducting some quiet investigation on the side into the emails of those against his appointment?
He came out and declared a quasi conspiracy against his appointment, and said he had the evidence to prove it.
I’m rolling on the floor laughing at this clown.
The “contrarian” argument was always bogus. James Fallows brought it up and pointed to an interview of Freeman by Dan Froomkin at the Nieman Watchdog website. There was nothing contrarian in that interview. It was one Bush administration critic lobbing softballs to another Bush administration critic and allowing him hit home runs (in that context.) I don’t know if Fallows actually read the interview or simply took Froomkin’s word that Freeman was a contrarian, but Freeman was remarkably predictable in all of his responses.
Contrarian, in this context, means contrary to the Bush administration. Nothing more.
how is that anti semetic?
As per a subsequent post by Jennifer Rubin on Ms. Paglia’s blaming of the Obama staff rather than Obama–The pick of Chas Freeman should not be blamed on Blair. Blair would not have picked him without Obama’s support, and that support was strong and evident in the initial attempts to promote him on Capitol Hill. Obama loves supporters of tyrany, particularly those who are anti-Israel. But he is also good at throwing people under the bus, as he has done here. Further, he has just become (and hence the US has become) the largest state sponsor of terrorism with the nearly $1 Billion he is sending to Hamas (aka aid to rebuild Gaza). That will free up a lot of the Iranian money for weapons purchases to use against both Isreal and their Fatah rivals, right?
Kent Lyon — correct about Blair. Freeman had Obama’s full approval, regardless of who initially floated his name. It is simply non-credible for the administration (even getting Blair’s office to do it) to claim that Blair “appointed” Freeman without the OK of the Oval Office. Doesn’t work that way.
I note that, regrettably, even this more realistic understanding of the scenario doesn’t make Blair’s judgment look very good. I wonder how long he’ll last as DNI.
There has been a real misunderstanding of the job Freeman was nominated to (NIC chairman), which is not involved in intelligence analysis, briefing the president, or advising him on strategic issues. That said, we still dodged a bullet here, and possibly even a bigger one than if Freeman HAD been proposed for a more operational role. The NIC chairman, whom most people couldn’t name if they were being waterboarded, watches over the strategic direction of the INTELLIGENCE community. He looks at its focus and resources in the context of our national objectives, and is in a position to have a strong influence over those aspects of intelligence — if he has the ear of the president, and an “in” with Capitol Hill.
So far, the latent power of the NIC chairman has not been effectively wielded, which frankly is probably a good thing. Freeman wielding it would have been alarming. Imagine this guy looking at our reconnaissance satellite constellation and having an opinion on “how much is enough.” Imagine him, with his personal ties to senior Chinese officials, getting a broad-scale view of our national intelligence effort against China, and being in a position to wedge himself between DOD and the Oval Office on that matter — or on other similar ones. We are justified in suspecting that he would be neither judicious nor even-handed in considering such issues as our intelligence exchanges with the Arab nations, as compared to each other, or as compared to Israel.
Guys like Freeman who are so deeply “embedded” with foreign governments can have their uses, in intelligence as in other fields. But you don’t put them in charge — or in a position to overly influence the boss. You put them where their utility matters, and their vulnerabilities don’t; and that is NOT at the head of the NIC table. That Blair didn’t see that tells me that, for all his Washington and theater command experience, he’s not quite ready to be DNI.
So, it will go to Jeremiah Wright after all? Congratulations, Barry!