But Freeman’s real offense (and the president’s if he were to appoint him) is that he has questioned the loyalty and patriotism of not only Zionists and other friends of Israel, the great swath of American Jews and their Christian countrymen, who believed that the protection of Zion is at the core of our religious and secular history, from the Pilgrim fathers through Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. And how has he offended this tradition? By publishing and peddling the unabridged John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, with panegyric and hysteria [through the Middle East Policy Council of which he is president]. If Freeman believes that this book is the truth he can’t be trusted by anyone, least of all Barack Obama. I can’t believe that Obama wants to appoint someone who is quintessentially an insult to the patriotism of some many of his supporters, me included. [emphasis added]Is the selection of Freeman another example of Obama's vetting committee at work? We have already seen that if enough questionable appointments are made, some will get through--whether past actual committess or just the general public. Is there any reason to hope that Freeman will be thrown under the bus?
Gabriel Shoenfeld notices a disconnect in the choice of Freeman:
Schoenfeld concludes:
Unsurprisingly, Mr. Freeman has views about Middle East policy that differ rather sharply from those held by supporters of the state of Israel. More surprisingly, they also differ rather sharply from the views -- or at least the views stated during the campaign -- of the president who has invited him to serve.Pundits have written that as Obama is required to make actual decisions, his true beliefs and policies will become more and more clear. Nevertheless, the choice of someone like Freeman, who among other things defends China's actions in the Tiananmen Square in massacre in 1989.
While President Obama speaks of helping the people of Israel "search for credible partners with whom they can make peace," Mr. Freeman believes, as he said in a 2007 address to the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs, that "Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them." The primary reason America confronts a terrorism problem today, he continued, is "the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation that is about to mark its fortieth anniversary and shows no sign of ending."
Schoenfeld concludes:
If someone with such extreme views has been appointed to such a sensitive position, is this a reflection of Mr. Obama's true predilections, or is it proof positive that the Obama White House has never gotten around to vetting its own vetters?Read the whole thing.
Either way, if those complaining loudest about politicized intelligence have indeed placed a China-coddling Israel basher in charge of drafting the most important analyses prepared by the U.S. government, it is quite a spectacle. The problem is not that Mr. Freeman will shade National Intelligence Estimates to suit the administration's political views. The far more serious danger is that he will steer them to reflect his own outlandish perspectives and prejudices.
"Extreme views"!? My god, Schoenfeld likes in lala land. And if you agree with him, please, do yourself and the rest of us a favor, and travel the world. Talk to East Asians, Indians, Russians, South Americans, Africans, etc., about the Israeli government and IDF.
ReplyDeleteYou'll see that it is the views of Schoenfeld and his ilk that are extreme. They are discredited, and will only become more so as time passes. Pro-Israeli government views will join the trash heap of history, along with ideas supporting South African apartheid, Japanese racial superiority, Latin American class and racial bigotry, Indian casteism, etc.
If you do not see this, sadly, you are a fool. Such a conclusion is inescapable for all those who have traveled and read widely. Sorry to have to break it to you, rather than you discovering it yourself.
The fact that Mr. Schoenfeld readily summons facts to support his opinion as opposed to you, who resort to ad hominem attacks, is all anyone should need to form their own opinion--without ever having to walk out the door.
ReplyDeleteFacts aplenty are found in books you could read, (e.g., "The Case Against Israel" or "Beyond Chutzpah"), but a blog comment is too tiny a place for them.
ReplyDeleteAnd an ad hominem attack is one that bypasses a person's ideas to assault the person him or herself. I said that Schoenfeld "li[v]es in lala land" solely on account of his ideas; and that you or anyone else would be a fool for failing to see that his ideas, not Freeman's, are "extreme".
But the fact that you attack the person and can do no better than say go read a book--without even bothering to quote what you claim is relevant--is exactly why what you write is nothing more than an ad hominem attack.
ReplyDeleteAnd your excuse is a cop out.
And now Freeman is being vetted.
ReplyDeleteIf the Freeman appointment supposed to be any better than the other ones Obama has made?
And if you are talking about facts, the link above includes the following about Freeman:
ReplyDeleteAnd it is becoming increasingly difficult for the administration’s apologists to maintain that this is all a right-wing, pro-Israel plot to get Freeman . We have voices as diverse as a former deputy chairman of the NIC (“Can you imagine if I had stood up and explained away Tienanmen Square? He does not have the intellectual fire power to sort through the intelligence and reach a plausible conclusion”) and Human Rights Watch questioning the appointment.