Two thoughts on the demise of Chas Freeman, the first on the way we debate Israel, and the second on the claim by many of Freeman’s defenders that being a “realist” was his true sin.
The Freeman episode solidified what had been inchoate in previous Israel-related debates, such as over the recent Gaza War and the emergence of the left-wing lobbying group J Street. The true fallout from Walt and Mearsheimer seems not to be the exposure of a conspiracy that manipulates American policy – it is the provision to one side of the debate of a ready-made excuse for its political failure and an inflammatory argument against its opponents.
The new Israel Lobby paradigm is very simple: when Israeli actions, such as Operation Cast Lead, are condemned, or a public figure who has harshly criticized Israel is defended, the democratic legitimacy of the opposing side is called into question. Instead of debating them on the merits, Chas Freeman’s critics have been portrayed as ruthless enforcers of orthodox opinion about Israel; they are not participants in a controversy, but illiberal destroyers and silencers of debate, not to mention treasonous advocates for foreign interests.
This method has the added benefit of being impervious to refutation: having cast opposition to Freeman as Israel-obsessed, his rejection can be dismissed as another example of the Lobby’s ability to manipulate American politics. Of course, Freeman’s comments on Israel have nothing whatsoever to do with the financial investigation he faced which seems to have been an important factor in his withdrawal, or the outrage of those who could be said to be members of the China Lobby over his statements about the Tiananmen Square Massacre. But saying that you were scalped by the Israel Lobby is so much more dramatic and ennobling than the pedestrian embarrassment of having to admit that your financial dealings with foreign interests disqualified you from sensitive work, or that an array of people disputed your appointment for a variety of reasons.
And then there is the claim that Freeman’s true sin was being a foreign policy realist, putting him in the crosshairs of the neocons. But since when has realism involved the outright admiration of despots? It turns out that the people who are most conspicuous in apologizing for tyrants tend to also be most conspicuous in their condemnations of the Jewish state, a thriving democracy in the heart of a region dominated by autocracies. It is interesting that the very things the Chas Freemans of the world find perfectly justifiable in Saudi Arabia and China form the basis of their condemnation of Israel: that Israel mistreats minorities, that it abuses its power, that its behavior is too self-interested, that it refuses — in defiance of its superior regional power, as any realist would acknowledge — to submit itself to the demands of the Arabs.
Would Chas Freeman apply his Tiananmen Square principle to the Palestinian intifada? Can anyone imagine him lauding “Bibi the Great” (he once called the Saudi king “Abdullah the Great”) because of the accomplishment of some superficial reform?
The claims that Freeman was attacked for his “realism” are self-serving. They are an attempt to apply a sheen of doctrinal sophistication to what are simply a set of ugly opinions. Freeman isn’t actually a realist about Saudi Arabia and China — he is an admirer of their successful thuggery and despotism. And he certainly isn’t a realist about Israel, an American client whose military power put an end to the decades of state-versus-state wars that culminated in an Arab oil embargo in 1974, a dire challenge to American interests. If they care at all about protecting the reputation of their school of foreign policy, realists should not allow Chas Freeman to portray himself as a martyr to their cause.
10 responses so far
1 JJWFromME // Mar 12, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Here’s Jon Chait at the New Republic: “Of course I recognize that the Israel lobby is powerful, and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.”
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/10/chas-freeman-is-out.aspx
After our nation’s experience of the past war, you can’t be surprised if Neoconservatives and hawkish, pro-Israel lobbyists develop a reputation. And I would say that just because J Street wants to settle Middle East problems peacefully doesn’t make them “Left Wing.” Not wanting to fight unnecessary wars isn’t “left wing.” Look up Burke, Edmund some time.
2 danbmil99 // Mar 12, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I don’t know much about Freeman, but the debate on both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue is at a very high emotional temperature. I’m hoping the NM platform doesn’t encore the mindless Israel support of the neo-cons. It needs to be more nuanced and realistic about what can be achieved to bring peace to that region, and it needs to be willing to push Israel beyond its comfort zone.
3 pampl // Mar 12, 2009 at 4:28 pm
All the J Street bloggers ARE left wing, though. Or at least, all the ones I remember, maybe I’m forgetting some.
At any rate, if we’re interested in a non-mindless platform then we’ll need to avoid the kind of “debate” that featured prominently in the Freeman flap. Criticizing US-Israel policy: good, speculating about a powerful, shadowy Zionist Lobby that controls all the media and has dual loyalties: not good.
4 sinz54 // Mar 12, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Here are some perfectly good reasons why the U.S. should support Israel over the Palestinians, without needing any pressure from any alleged “Israel lobby”: 1. Israel is a democratic, Western-oriented, country, with a vigorous private sector. Its people honor and prize scholarship and learning. The Palestinians have never demonstrated anything comparable. 2. Israel has the most powerful armed force in the Middle East, perhaps the most capable intelligence service in the Middle East, and the only nuclear strike force in the Middle East; it’s good to have that firepower on our side. 3. On 9-11, those four American jetliners were NOT hijacked by Jews. 4. Hezbollah, close ally of HAMAS, was directly implicated in the Khobar Towers bombing that killed many Americans. 5. No civilized people chooses to be led by terrorists. That the Germans chose to do so in the 1930s, and the Palestinians of Gaza chose to do so in the 2000s, tells you that they were not acting civilized.
5 dragonlady // Mar 12, 2009 at 5:58 pm
This is a good article. Freeman’s own letter withdrawing his nomination showed why he should NOT be head of US intelligence. Intel chiefs need to be objective and dispassionate with their analysis for the good of the country, and not let their political ideology predispose them towards certain conclusions. Blaming the Jews is a tired mantra. Even Senate Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein were wary of the nomination.
6 ottovbvs // Mar 13, 2009 at 6:14 am
L’Affaire Freeman was barely on the national radar but it certainly hasn’t passed un-noticed in Washington reinforcing as it does the power of the Israeli lobby to harm nominees of whom the disapprove. Since Pollak is a fully paid up member of this group his comments can hardly be regarded as model of objectivity. Ultimately I suspect that this is likely to be counterproductive. Why? Human nature. It’s hard to believe that Blair, who after all is not a typical poster at Kos, not to mention the rest of the administration’s security and foreign policy establishment are not going to fairly ticked about this. Is this bullying likely to make them more or less receptive to the views of Israel and its lobbyists in the US. If anyone would give five seconds to thinking about how they would react….the question answers itself. In the wider sense that it all reinforces the growing sense in the country that US foreign policy is dictated by the interests of Israel it’s also likely to produce another contrary reaction in that policy makers in their interactions with Arab states like Saudia Arabia and Egypt will be bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of over favoring Israel. I realize both of these results are likely to be somewhat invisible and nuanced but that doesn’t make them any less likely. But then Pollak I suspect doesn’t do nuance.
7 sw // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Is it surprising that a slashing condemnation of Israel comes from someone named “Otto”? The fact that the Islamists are its most bloodthirsty practitioners of contemporary anti-Semitism is not lost on Europeans. I suspect that many are only too eager to revive the bracing murderousness of their grandfathers.
“A growing sense in the country that US foreign policy is dictated by the interests of Israel” … what country? France? lland? Deutschland, mein junge?? Otto is zehr gut at doing the ol’ Goebbels rag .. you know, repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie, and then the sheeple’ll think it’s truth. Only problem is, we’re not all woolly quadrupeds.
8 sw // Mar 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm
lland should be lland. Sorry.
9 sw // Mar 13, 2009 at 1:02 pm
The Netherlands, for heaven’s sake. Hans Brinker. Theo Van Gogh, and the other Van Gogh. lland.
10 sinz54 // Mar 14, 2009 at 7:08 am
ottovbs: The notion that the Freeman affair will “provoke” U.S. officials like Blair into being more pro-Arab is laughable. International diplomacy is determined by issues of POWER. Blair already has his world view. His pro-forma support of Freeman is a standard part of any Administration’s kabuki theater; Blair has probably forgotten about it already and moved on. And if Obama himself strikes back at Israel just because one of his appointments gets shot down, that would speak volumes about w petty Obama is.
You must log in to post a comment.