It was all about China. Not Israel.

Well, that’s alright then.

Though it doesn’t explain why the pro-Israel/armchair Likudnik crowd, aided by the highly esteemed Mr Rosen, were so upset by Mr Freeman. But one must take their word for it that despite their oodles of online brickbats and the allegations of private approaches to Congressmen by some AIPAC personnel (the bit that really works, as was the case during the Bolton fiasco in 2005 when his opponents called Senators directly), this Israel/Lieberman Lobby had nothing to do with it!

Keep hyperventilating Ian…

http://crooksandliars.com/node/26654

As many of you may know, Charles Freeman has “has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed.”

What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freeman’s appointment, in a February 19 blog titled “Alarming appointment at the CIA.” Within hours, the word was out; and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve’s stature and credibility could have made this happen.

Even those who backed the Freeman appointment acknowledge Steve’s leadership in this effort. For example:

Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, calls Steve “the leader of the anti-Freeman brigade.”
The director of policy for the Israel Policy Forum calls him the “quarterback” of the effort.
Max Blumenfeld of The Nation Institute calls him “leader of the campaign against Freeman’s appointment.”
I congratulate Steve and am proud of this early achievement by the Forum’s newly created Washington Project.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Pipes

“

First it was Rush, then Freeman, next week there will be some other manufactured outrage to draw our attention away from the looting. Enough.

The fact that THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, of the President’s own party had, for all her many grievous errors, been a long time outspoken supporter of human rights in China and that the proposed appointee had spoken (yes in context, in expressing his personal opinion, not analyzing the mindset of the Chinese government) is cited almost nowhere even though this obviously should have been enough to disqualify said appointee. Moreover, the finanacial associations with Saudi Arabia and China and the almost deranged temperment should have been disqualifying for any minimally sentient being. The fact that they weren’t speaks very poorly of the quality of intelligence analysis, Freeman or no, that the United States will be getting in the coming years.

Moreover, the supposed “Lobby”, has from the very beginning had much, much, much less influence on U.S. policy than many of its more or less sane detractors, and even than some of its members claim. The U.S. foreign policy establishment has been very hostile to Jewish interests since the 30s and to the State of Israel since its inception. That the U.S. has been less so than other nations speaks more to the values of the American people and the, however attenuated, recognition of U.S. interest than to the influence of the “Lobby”.

You also claim that it is self-evident that the Freeman appointment was undone by objections by pro-Israel supporters. However you seem a bit too willing to believe this, a belief coincidentally or not which plays directly into the Freeman’s own self-serving claims that his apppointment was improperly prevented solely due to his “unorthodox” opinions on Israel. You therefore claim that there is an “overwrought” denial of “influence.” Recall however that Freeman’s apologists want to make this all about Israel and have a very different thing in mind when they talk about “influence,” which they do not represent in innocuous terms. In that case demonstrating that there were a number of objections about Freeman and that Israel was not all there was to it constitutes an important rebuttal to a malacious claim and not some irrational timidity.

On that point, faced with accusations that Freeman was libelously attacked for “daring to speak”, it is not an “overwrought denial” but a devastatingly effective argument to put the accusation to the test and show, as has been done, that members of Congress were not driven to oppose Freeman due to some sort of lobby or due to Israel alone or even primarily. Thus whether the opinion of Israel’s supporters in fact played a key role in the Freeman withdrawal is not simply intuitive but requires evidence. Unfortunately too much of the professional commentary on this issue has gone the intuitive route, and thus accepted one of the Freeman apologists’ core contentions while ignoring the full scope of the criticism he was being subjected to.

As to whether claims of anti-semitism are also overwrought, I will respectfully disagree. There is a school of thought that believes that claims of anti-semitism are always overwrought but I am not a member.

My question is so what? Israel is sacred territory, a historically defining entity to to American Jews, both secular and religious. Should they not have opinions on policies that affect Israel? Are they not entitled to these opinions? And are they not entitled to them both as Jews and as Americans?

The sensitivity and even the denial on this issue remind me of the sensitivity to Bill Clinton’s statement about the voting in the South Carolina Democratic primary. In consequence, Bill Clinton went from being described by black leaders as “the first black president” to being widely described by black politicians as a racist. Absurd.

Same with this and the overwrought denials of influence and accusations of anti-semitism around the Freeman issue.