Debating Chas Freeman
The son of Chas Freeman, President Obama’s pick for National Intelligence Council chairman, has a message for his father’s detractors: I want to punch you in the nose.
"They are low-lives," Charles Freeman writes of his dad’s critics. "And if you’re among them and by chance read this: I still want to punch you in the face. You’d deserve it, you schmucks."
More to the point, the younger Freeman says "the attack by groups interested in issues about which he’s been impolitic in the past doesn’t particularly surprise him (or me). My Dad has been vocal on the dangers of established maxims about blind faith (in Israel) and blind antagonism (with China). That will get you in trouble quick, and it has, if you have any political sensibility. The problem with — and the great virtue of — my Dad is that he has no political sensibility at all."
The editors of the National Review, apparently not afraid of the younger Mr. Freeman’s fist, write an editorial critical of the appointment of Freeman, calling the elder Mr. Freeman "a Saudi apologist, and a savage critic of Israel. He also argues that Beijing did not strike down the Tiananmen Square protesters with sufficient swiftness. Barack Obama proposes to make him head of the National Intelligence Council. It’s an abominable appointment."
Freeman, the NR writers say, "has distinguished himself as a rabid Israel-hater who regards the Jewish state’s defensive measures as the primary cause of jihadist terror. He is a shameless apologist for Saudi Arabia (where he once served as U.S. ambassador) despite its well-documented record of exporting terrorists and jihadist ideology. And he is a long-time sycophant of Beijing, where he served as Richard Nixon’s interpreter during the 1971 summit and later ran the U.S. diplomatic mission."
Freeman in 2006 wrote of the U.S.-Israel relationship, "We have paid heavily and often in treasure for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel’s approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago, we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home. We are now paying with the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines on battlefields in several regions of the realm of Islam, with more said by our government’s neoconservative mentors to be in prospect."
Is Mr. Freeman, President Obama’s New National Intelligence Commission Chair, asserting that al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because of the U.S.’s support of Israel?
That would be a remarkable assertion for a U.S. policymaker to make, considering the myriad reasons al Qaeda has given for the attack. (In his 1996 fatwa, for example, Osama bin Laden railed against all sorts of U.S. allies, including the Saudi regime.)
Freeman has his supporters, including Joe Klein, Jim Fallows, and Andrew Sullivan, all of whom argue it’s precisely Freeman’s contrarian nature that will enable him to be good at questioning group-think in the intelligence community. Seventeen former ambassadors wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal arguing that the "free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual."
Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair — who picked Freeman — says "Director Blair selected Ambassador Freeman because he thought he would be the best person for the job. He is a distinguished public servant with a wealth of expertise in defense, diplomacy and intelligence — all skills that are necessary to producing first rate assessments."
Still, many wonder about Freeman’s ability to produce first rate assessments, especially given his long relationship with the rulers of Saudi Arabia (whom Mr. Freeman has not held accountable in recent years, as far as I can tell, for the rise of al Qaeda or for that terrorist organization’s wrath).
In that 2006 speech, Freeman said that "Israel excels at war; sadly, it has shown no talent for peace."
Israel, Freeman said, has had for 40 years "land beyond its previously established borders to trade for peace. It has been unable to make this exchange except when a deal was crafted for it by the United States, imposed on it by American pressure, and sustained at American taxpayer expense. For the past half decade Israel has enjoyed carte blanche from the United States to experiment with any policy it favored to stabilize its relations with the Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors, including most recently its efforts to bomb Lebanon into peaceful coexistence with it and to smother Palestinian democracy in its cradle."
Critics calls this a rather one-sided view of the problems in the Middle East.
"Despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection," Freeman said.
Of a peace proposal floated by Saudi Arabia, Freeman said, "history and the Israeli response to date both strongly suggest that without some tough love from Americans, including especially Israel’s American coreligionists, Israel will not risk the uncertainties of peace. Instead, it will persist in the belief, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that it can gain safety through the officially sanctioned assassination of potential opponents, the terrorization of Arab civilians, and the cluster bombing of neighbors rather than negotiation with them."
What do you think?
– jpt

Email
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
I find Charles Freeman’s views on Israel to be entirely one-sided. I can think of numerous declarations by Arab states, organizations, and terrorist groups declaring their intent to destroy the state of Israel. When has Israel ever made such a declaration about any of its neighbors? In fact, when Israel had a chance to destroy Egypt in the 1967 war, they stopped short. I forget what Israeli statesman made this quote concerning Hamas and the recent war, but in essence, he said, “If Hamas stops firing, the war will end. If we stop firing, every Israeli will be dead.”
I certainly don’t think Israel is perfect or that it has acted flawlessly in every situation. But the lack of balance in Freeman’s statements clearly shows his bias.
Posted by: brian weaver | March 9, 2009, 10:15 am 10:15 am
The thing that stands out to me in the Freeman father and son’s’ remarks, as well as their defenders, is the barely disguised attempt to make this about Jews
They ignore that 87 Chinese & Chinese-American scholars reportedly oppose Freeman, as well as lawmakers and prominent members of the GOP. Instead, they use suggestive terms like schmuck, Israel firsters–and mock the Jewish community’s concern about anti-Semitism in their blogs and op-eds.
That kind of language appeals to white supremacist groups like Stormfront, David Duke etc, but it doesn’t sit well with moderate Americans who know how to exercise critical thinking.
The far Right and far Left have become strange bedfellows over Israel, and perhaps some are testing the political boundaries of a new presidency.
Posted by: Suzanne | March 9, 2009, 10:35 am 10:35 am
Charles Freeman is absolutely correct in his analysis of Israel. America’s support for Israel was the primary reason why Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11. Bin Laden has repeatedly said that in numerous videos. The rest of the world, including our European friends and media in Europe routinely discuss the fact that America’s support for Israel was the main cause behind 9/11 attack. The Jewish Lobby is attacking Chas Freeman because Freeman had the courage to speak out the truth: We must end our blind support for Israel. We must end our $5billion annual subsidy to Israel, which is a wealthy nation by Western standards. The support for Israel is essentially the result of pressure from the tiny, but very powerful Jewish Lobby.
Posted by: John | March 9, 2009, 10:37 am 10:37 am
i remember freeman being supportive of China murdering the Tiananmen square students with tanks
do we really want a man who views it as government’s right to murder those who protest?
Posted by: Realilty | March 9, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am
Why do we send them billions in taxpayer dollars each year when Americans are in need?
Do we ever question people in the goverment (wolfowitz, perle, emanuel, steve israel, feith) about being too pro-israeli? How can Stever Rosen say anything, he’s a traitor and a spy for Israel.
Israel is another country and America is stupid for providing unconditional support for Israel.
Great choice in Chas Freeman, time for American to focus on healing itself rather than a foreign nation known as ISrael
Posted by: joe six pack | March 9, 2009, 10:46 am 10:46 am
So it is “bad” if someone has a “blind faith” in Israel, but what if that “blind faith” is in The One?
Posted by: James Danley | March 9, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
Blame everything on Israel…and yet we have about 1-2 major allies in the world and Israel is the strongest. When Iran needs taking care of, Israel will be forced to do America’s bidding…and I’m sure all the anti-semites will be out front, rabidly against Israel for that too. Disgrace.
Posted by: Rev | March 9, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am
Let me start by stating that I may not be the most devout Jew but at least I can acknowledge that we cannot leave peace in the middle east to the children over there. I am the 4th person to comment on this article and I already see where this is going. Because Mr. Freeman proposes ideas contrary to that of US policy since 1948, the readers blast him as an anti-semite and unbalanced. How does serving the US in Saudi Arabia make one biased? Instead, this reader argues that Mr. Freeman is an American first and he is proposing some NEW ideas about what is best for this country based on his vast experiences. There can be no denying that what we have tried so far has not worked. Using arguments about firnge Islamist groups negates the fact that for too long our policies have fed the propaganda of the very enemies that set out to challenge us. Doing things the same way and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Posted by: DrKatz | March 9, 2009, 10:57 am 10:57 am
When has allegiance to Israel became a litmus test to serve our government? Steve Rosen, an indicted spy for Israel, has the temerity to call Freeman un-American because of Freeman’s views on Israel? Take a look at those attacking Freeman– Marty Peretz, Jeff Goldberg, Rich Lowry, and other agents of Israel. When the terrorist Bin Laden is saying loud and clear in his videos that he attacked us because of our support for Israel, why is it unacceptable to say that? After all, that is the truth.
Posted by: Brad | March 9, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
Lets worry about America and its Problems Instead Of Catering to Israel All the Time. lets Fix our Country AMERICA FIRST!
Posted by: Angie in PA | March 9, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
Jake
Your work holds out the possibility that mainstream journalism can redeem itself, and, possibly, save the nation.
Posted by: Manny | March 9, 2009, 11:06 am 11:06 am
Freeman says Israel has failed in 59 years to make peace with any of its neighbors? What of its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan? Israel returned the entire Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a promise of peace. Freeman ignores the historical fact that in 1967, Israel offered to return Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan and the Arab League responded with its famous “Three No’s: no peace with Israel, no end to terrorism and no negotiations.” As for 9/11, both Richard Clarke (Against All Enemies) and Lawrence Wright (The Looming Tower) have emphatically stated that Al Qaeda’s primary reason for attacking the US was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden later sited a litany of other complaints, only one of which involved Israel.
The bottom line is this: do we want a man in such a powerful position who is a paid lobbyist and spokesperson for Saudi Arabia? After all, the Saudi’s supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers and continue to fund schools worldwide which teach Wahabism and Jihadism.
Posted by: Peter Burman | March 9, 2009, 11:06 am 11:06 am
I am a Jewish American doctor married to a Lebanese Arab women for 19 years. We have been to Israel many times and have also been to the West Bank. I am sick of the pro-Israel propaganda by the right wing jewish organizations and media fronts that do not represent the views of mainstream Jews. Sadly, blind support for Israel has enabled it to continue its illegal occupation of West Bank and expansion of settlements. What has terrorism got to do with stealing Palestinian lands and building homes for Jews? Also, why are we debating attacking Iran for trying to build a nuclear weapon (yes, they are trying), when we never speak of the fact that Israel has over 200 nukes?
Posted by: Jon | March 9, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
So it’s OK for Rahm Emmanuel, a former member of Israeli armed forces, to serve in the highest level of goverment? It’s OK for Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, both investigated by FBI, for passing secrets to Israel to work for our government! It’s OK for Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams, agents of a foreign government to work for our government! But it is not OK for Chas Freeman, a real American patriot, to work for us!
Posted by: MikeL | March 9, 2009, 11:14 am 11:14 am
Repost of earlier post:
The thing that stands out to me in the Freeman father and son’s’ remarks, as well as their defenders, is the barely disguised attempt to make this about Jews
They ignore that 87 Chinese & Chinese-American scholars reportedly oppose Freeman, as well as lawmakers and prominent members of the GOP. Instead, they use suggestive terms like schmuck, Israel firsters–and mock the Jewish community’s concern about anti-Semitism in their blogs and op-eds.
That kind of language appeals to white supremacist groups like Stormfront, David Duke etc, but it doesn’t sit well with moderate Americans who know how to exercise critical thinking.
The far Right and far Left have become strange bedfellows over Israel, and perhaps some are testing the political boundaries of a new presidency.
Posted by: Suzanne | March 9, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am
There is no benefit or upside to the United States to having Isreal for an ally, and isreal has never wanted any regional peace since peace would thwart their territorial ambitions.The US needs to cut off the checks to Israel and get a realistic policy.
Posted by: john u | March 9, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am
Everyone is biased. It is not that I like Charles Freeman’s support of Chinese suppression of human rights, but I must agree on Israel. Our support of Israel and constant intervention in the Middle Eastern states is what has made us a target for terrorists.
Why is anyone who disagrees with our policies on Israel always labeled an anti-semite?
Israel is one of our strongest allies, but what have they done for us lately besides inflame an already dangerous situation?
Obama can’t pick a bleeding heart for every post. Differences of opinion are what will generate new ideas and compromises. I’m sure the Obama administration knew about his past, but picked him for a reason.
Posted by: Pete | March 9, 2009, 11:24 am 11:24 am
jpt writes:
“Is Mr. Freeman, President Obama’s New National Intelligence Commission Chair, asserting that al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because of the U.S.’s support of Israel?”
Smart fellow if he IS so asserting, since “Zionist-Crusaders alliance” looms large in OBL’s piece.
On the other hand, Obama promised AIPAC that Israel is “sacrosanct”, and has upped arms aid to Israel by 25%.
On the OTHER-other hand, Admiral Blair has a history, under Clinton (Indonesia), of flouting “civilian” authority. President schmesident.
Posted by: Human Intelligence | March 9, 2009, 11:27 am 11:27 am
Mr. Jake Tapper:
I have tremendous respect for you as a journalist and I sincerely believe you are one of the best in the business. Please tell us, Mr. Tapper, when will we see that day when great American journalists have the courage to speak the truth? Mr. Tapper, you and many other fine journalists write about many issues but engage in self-censorship when the topic of Israel comes up. Mr. Tapper, kindly tell us why the media does not debate the issue of $4 billion in annual aid to Israel when by all standards Israel is a very rich country? Why the media never discusses that our government looks the other way when Israel continues to steal Arab land? Also, Mr. Tapper please tell us why the media never shows the great destruction Israel caused on the captive, helpless population of Gaza including the death of over 1300 in response to the stupid rocket attacks by Hamas which killed 2 Israeli in 18 months. And, for the record, I condemn Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, but I believe Hamas was firing the rockets because of Israel’s refusal to open the borders of Gaza. Israel has a stranglehold od Gaza. Thank you, Mr. Tapper.
Posted by: Al | March 9, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
“Why is anyone who disagrees with our policies on Israel always labeled an anti-semite?”
For the very same reason that anybody who disagrees with the “Obama” organization is labeled a ‘racist’ … it shuts down critical discussion.
Posted by: Human Intelligence | March 9, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am
Freemans views on china strike me as the one compelling reason to disgard the reasoning that i might have held…that a diversity of points of view is always a good thing if they are reasoned and well founded, I am not sure this one fits the bill…and a kid who wants to sove his fathers problems with his fists and hot temper..might be an indication of his fathers own philosophy
Posted by: cowgirl | March 9, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
So, joe six pack, you want to keep American billions here – for our ailing economy? How did you feel about D’OhBama’s first-week-legislation sending 90o million dollars to foreign countries to provide abortions? Hmm..? Don’t you think we could have used THAT money a little better? Where’s the outcry?
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services.
President Obama says he doesn’t want family planning to be used as a “political wedge.”
Obama said in a statement that family planning aid has been used as a “political wedge issue,” adding that he had “no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”
The policy says any organization receiving U.S. family-planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development cannot offer abortions or abortion counseling.
“It is time we end the politicization of this issue,” Obama said. “In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.”
Obama’s memorandum reversing the policy comes the day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave a woman autonomy over her pregnancy during the first trimester. Watch CNN’s Bill Schneider on how Obama is handling abortion issue »
The memorandum reverses the “Mexico City policy,” initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.
The policy, referred to by critics as “the global gag rule,” was initially announced at a population conference in Mexico City.
Reversing the previous administrations’ stance on the policy was one of Clinton’s first acts as president in January 1993 and the very first executive order issued by Bush on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Don’t Miss
Obama backs ‘right to choose’ on Roe anniversary
Critics, including Planned Parenthood, called Bush’s move a “legislative ambush.”
He defended his action, saying, “It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion.”
The group Population Action International praised Obama’s move, saying in a statement that it will “save women’s lives around the world.”
“Family planning should not be a political issue; it’s about basic health care and well-being for women and children,” the group said.
“Women’s health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama’s actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don’t have access to family planning.”
Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president’s action.
“Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.
“This is a stunning reversal of course from the president’s campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities.”
The Culture and Media Institute reported that, as of January 28, 2009, just five days after President Obama overturned the policy banning federal funding of overseas abortion providers, the major media outlets has given scant coverage to the controversial decision. And no wonder. Most Americans don’t want their tax dollars funding groups like Planned Parenthood here at home. As the Gallup Poll shows, they don’t don’t like it any more overseas.
President Obama has had the cooperation of the press in keeping this pro-abortion move mostly beneath the radar. Will the Gallup Poll results prod journalists toward reporting the issue? Don’t bet on it.
Posted by: suze | March 9, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
It has been clear since at least 2000 when Sharon successfully sabotaged the peace talks with his calculated violation of Islam’s Haram al Sharif, that the Israeli conservatives who dominate Israeli politics have committed their country to an almost purely militaristic strategy to achieve their goals, goals that don’t include exchanging the Golan for peace with Syria, and a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
Chas Freeman’s frustration likely is more with the US Government’s behavior, until now, in enabling these Israeli policies without question or condemnation. The 2006 invasion of Lebanon and the more recent Gaza operation are illustrative. His willingness to speak truth to power would be a welcome change.
Posted by: Don | March 9, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
For those that assert we are on the terrorists radar because we have supported peace talks with in the middle east countries..I say to you, we have been on their radar for many years, Iran hostages for instance, the terrorists have struck across the globe..not just the united states…If you think by abondoning our support of isreal…we will be safe..is a foolish way to think..and bespeaks of cowardice
Posted by: cowgirl | March 9, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
chas is also part of Iranian lobby. The rise of Iranian lobby in Obama admin is remarkable.
go ahaed and read this report, Chas is all over this report:
This report documenting the rise of what can accurately be described as the “Iran Lobby” in Washington,
D.C. is derived entirely from unclassified open sources and describes in detail the activities, linkages, and objectives of this alarming alliance between NIAC, CAIR and others that is aimed at co-opting America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and specifically with Iran. Understanding the involvement of the Tehran regime in the foundation and continuing activities of organizations like these and their allies will become increasingly important to understanding the extent of the regime’s influence on American foreign policy decisions regarding Iran.
Posted by: frieda | March 9, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
oops, they deleted my link in my pervious post. Well the report is called:
CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES By Clare M. Lopez titled:
RISE OF THE ‘IRAN LOBBY’
Tehran’s front groups move on—and into—
the Obama Administration
google it!
Posted by: frieda | March 9, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
Sad to see this country which has produced so many great journalists, but only few have dared speak against the destructive infuence of the jewish lobby and our Israel policy. Great journalists like Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and many others remained silent in the face of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Our politicians are in the pocket of the Israel lobby, who by their control of the media and finance has a hammerlock on the Congress.
Posted by: heidi | March 9, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
Salon Article:
There is, by design, definitely a chilling effect to these smear campaigns. Freeman is being dragged through the mud by the standard cast of accusatory Israel-centric neocons (Marty Peretz, Jon Chait, Jeffrey Goldberg, Commentary, The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb, etc. etc., etc.), subjected to every standard, baseless smear, as a warning to others who think about challenging U.S. policy towards Israel in a similar way. Ultimately, though, I think that each time one of these swarming, hate-campaigns is swatted away, they incrementally lose their efficacy, emboldening others to risk their weakening wrath.
Ultimately, the greatest weapon to defeat these campaigns is to highlight the identity and behavior of their perpetrators. Just consider who is behind the attack on Freeman; how ugly and discredited are their tactics and ideology; and, most importantly, how absurd it is, given their disgraceful history, that they — of all people — would parade around as arbiters of “ideological extremism” and, more audaciously still, as credible judges of intelligence assessment. Sullivan compiled a comprehensive time line demonstrating that the attacks on Freeman originated and were amplified by the very same people for whom American devotion to Israel is the overriding if not exclusive priority and who have been so glaringly wrong about so much. Though they have since tried, with characteristic deceit and cowardice, to disguise their agenda by pretending to oppose Freeman on other, non-Israel grounds (such as their oh-so-authentic concern for Chinese human rights), that masquerading effort — as Matt Yglesias notes here — is so transparently dishonest as to be laughable.
Indeed, some of them, early on, were perfectly honest about the fact that Freeman’s views on Israel is what has motivated their opposition, including the Israel-based “concerns” over the appointment voiced by Sen. Chuck Schumer to Rahm Emanuel. And — demonstrating that these taboos are still formidible — Schumer’s sentiments have since been echoed by unnamed “Democratic leaders.” Chuck Schumer, along with Dianne Feinstein, single-handedly enabled the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General despite Mukaseky’s refusal to say that waterboarding was torture (and Schumer even voted to confirm Michael Hayden as CIA Director despite his overseeing Bush’s illegal NSA program). Yet Obama appoints someone who is critical of Israel and who questions American policy towards Israel, and Schumer springs into action by calling Rahm Emanuel to express “concern” over the appointment.
It’s not a mystery what is behind this attack on Freeman. As Spencer Ackerman wrote last week:
Basically, Freeman’s major sin is that he doesn’t take a simplistic or blinkered view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a number of mostly-right-wing Jewish writers at Commentary, the Weekly Standard, the Atlantic and The New Republic have been arguing that he’s not fit to serve.
That’s really the crux of the issue here: are we going to continue to allow these actual extremists to define “extremism” and dictate the acceptable range of views when it comes to Middle East policy?
As Ackerman noted the other day, one of the leading anti-Freeman generals is AIPAC’s Steve Rosen, who has been indicted for passing American secrets onto the Israeli Government. That’s almost satire: an AIPAC official accused of spying for a foreign country purporting to lead the charge against Freeman based on Freeman’s “extremism” and excessive ties to another Middle Eastern country.
Posted by: Bob | March 9, 2009, 12:31 pm 12:31 pm
As Ackerman noted the other day, one of the leading anti-Freeman generals is AIPAC’s Steve Rosen, who has been indicted for passing American secrets onto the Israeli Government. That’s almost satire: an AIPAC official accused of spying for a foreign country purporting to lead the charge against Freeman based on Freeman’s “extremism” and excessive ties to another Middle Eastern country.
Posted by: bob | March 9, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
Obama finds yet another person that seems to run countercurrent to his campaign pandering.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 9, 2009, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
Refreshing. About time someone was inside who would challenge old, timeworn and discredited policies.
Posted by: Brian | March 9, 2009, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
OK, Freeman, junior, come SAY that to my face. We don’t like your father’s policies, get over it. He’s tragically wrong about every single aspect of middle east policies. I mean, 9-11 is somehow fundamentally OUR fault? Why? Because we took it from fundamentalist islamists since 1983? What the heck have WE done?
Posted by: Jeff Weimer | March 9, 2009, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
the strength of the pro Israel lobby in America comes from Christian conservatives, not the Jewish population.
If you want to believe that rich Jews in America have that much political power, well, continue to feed your biases, but the truth is really the Christian religious conservatives both have the power to affect political issues and use it to protect Israel.
Posted by: nigel | March 9, 2009, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
“Obama finds yet another person that seems to run countercurrent to his campaign pandering.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow”
=======================
Of course. Obama is trying the good cop bad cop routine. Get all these far left partisans in place and have them do the battling.
Then Obama can try to act like it isn’t his fault and he is a moderate which he is NOT. Most intelligent people can see Obama is a far left liberal but some americans are still stuck on stupid and are fooled by thin facades like this.
Posted by: Cryos | March 9, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
“Why is anyone who disagrees with our policies on Israel always labeled an anti-semite?”
For the very same reason that anybody who disagrees with the “Obama” organization is labeled a ‘racist’ … it shuts down critical discussion.
Posted by: Human Intelligence | Mar 9, 2009 11:30:53 AM
===========================
Touche.
Posted by: Cryos | March 9, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
interesing article.
Chas Freeman and the end of anti-semitism
Chas Freeman’s appointment is important in sociological terms. Freeman is the latest heir to a realist tradition in foreign policy that–while Jews have been adherents of it–has a gentile cast because it is associated with opposition to the recognition of Israel in 1948 and, more recently, the Walt and Mearsheimer analysis of the pro-Israel stranglehold on foreign policymaking in the Middle East.
In Jacob Heilbrunn’s book, They Knew They Were Right, he speaks of the neocons in very sociological terms. They were City College of New York Jewish boys who felt excluded by the WASP establishment. They had resentment over that exclusion. They built a “parallel establishment,” and lo, they matched the WASP tragedy that was Vietnam with the tragic war they pushed, against Iraq/the Arab world.
When this was pointed out by critics of the Iraq War, the Israel lobby smeared the critics in sociological terms, as anti-semites whose pedigree extended to Father Coughlin and other isolationists. It was gutter-fighting, and it was effective. Realism became an outsider tradition. John Mearsheimer has been repeatedly censored in the last couple years. Steve Walt, too, till he got his blog at Foreign Policy. Never forget that Dana Milbank in the Washington Post wrote a disgusting column that said these men were white-knuckled blue-eyed Germanics– implying they were Nazis. And Yivo gave over its stage to a denunciation of Walt and Mearsheimer as antisemites, and not a word about the Iraq war tragedy that motivated them, let alone an invitation to them to respond.
Posted by: larry | March 9, 2009, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
Israel is our ally and we must support Israel. Israel is fighting the terrorists that hate us and would like to take our freedom away. Aid to Israel must be increased. We give only $5 billion a year to Israel and they really need the money.
Posted by: Josh | March 9, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
Being anti-Israel means being anti-American because America and Israel have same interests. People like Chas Freeman should not be appointed to such a position because Chas is anti-American because he is anti-Israel.
Posted by: Josh | March 9, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
Chas Freeman and the end of anti-semitism
——————-
This miscreant only legitimizes Obama’s long held anti-semitic views and history. You know the one that the press buried.
The video of the speech suppressed by the LA Times, who after three excuses found one they could stick with to with hold release. Their description of the event was overtly anti-semitic, and Obama was heard to say to the person chairing the event, “Israel has no god given right to the land”.
Obama spent 20 years in a church fomenting anti-semitism, racism and ant-american hatred. It handed over the church newsletter to a hamas leader who wrote a lengthy blame Israel for everything front page article. The church honored Louis Farakkan who is a known, vocal anti-semite.
Somehow these 2 decades were dismissed and not representative of Obama.
Let me remind you that when Bush, or any republican planned to speak at ‘BOB JONES UNIVERSITY”, just a speech, every thought of every person who had ever passed through those doors was attributed to Bush.
There are additional hires in the Obama administration who are outspoken critics of Jews and Israel.
This is a travesty.
Alan Dershowitz, by every measure a strong liberal, has expressed deep concerns about Obama’s approach to Israel.
Recently democrats in New York, such as Mort Zuckerman, expressed concern about their support for HIllary based on her statements supporting Israel, and her turnabout in words and policy since taking office.
John Chait of the the Washington Post and the New Republic, very liberal papers and magazines has expressed grave concerns.
He discusses Freemans support for the Chinese Government in the Tianaman Square Massacre, only wishing they had stepped in sooner.
This is a fringe mentality that blames the US and Israel for 9/11, instead of blaming 19 radical terrorists with box cutters, and calling them out for their radical ideology that includes “wiping israel off the face of the earth”
Seldom reported is the hatred for Jews is instilled from birth in most muslim countries. It is taught in school.
Every one also has manged to forget that Sadaam Hussein would offer $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber who attacked Israel.
Obama is dangerous and corrupt. He has had little examination of his history and ideology in the media.
He was given the media gift of accepting, without question the numerous “election conversion” issues such as a sudden support for Israel.
This appointment is dramatic and dangerous.
It is a reflection of a long held, long demonstrated anti-semitic ideology.
There will be devastating, world wide consequences.
If you have any questions about any of this do the research. If your goal is to twist and distort in order to support Obama no matter what there is no arguing with you.
All information is easily available on the net.
Posted by: BO Needs to Go | March 9, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
American support for Israel has been premised on a willful blindness to the root cause of the conflict — that Israel is a religious state motivated by the belief that G-d is their real estate agent, Palestinians be damned.
Until Israel either grants Palestinians the right to vote or lets them have a state with territorial integrity, then nothing Israel is doing is consistent with our AMERICAN values of democracy, decency, and pluralism.
Yet the incredible activism of Israel-firsters has blinded most Americans to the fundmental roots of the conflict.
If you don’t believe me, you’re invited to visit the West Bank and see for yourself what fascism looks like.
Posted by: Dave | March 9, 2009, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm
Islam-Judaism-Christianity all claim their ethical roots from Abraham yet they are the ones having violent relationships.
Freeman has expressed the attitude of Israel’s sons, Simeon and Levi against their peaceful neighbors (Genesis 34). Is not there a lesson of Esau’s peace response to Jacob? (Genesis 33)
Most of these detractors are unaware of Ishmael and Isaac peaceful relationship, (Genesis 25:9) Maybe they just recognize true history.
Posted by: e | March 9, 2009, 3:43 pm 3:43 pm
Obama has betrayed Israel. Jewish Americans supported Obama because he told us he is a srong supporter of Israel, and now he appoints an antisemite like Chas Freeman. Jewish groups gave him more than 70% of his campaign money and without our media support Obama would not have been elected. We need to activate our media to bring down Obama. Israel is in danger and America must attack Iran because Iran is an existential threat to Israel
Posted by: Ben | March 9, 2009, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
“American support for Israel has been premised on a willful blindness to the root cause of the conflict — that Israel is a religious state motivated by the belief that G-d is their real estate agent, Palestinians be damned.”
Palestinians use the exact same argument, even use instances in the Bible for their argument. Islam also teaches that once land is taken by muslims, it is always Islamic land, only occupied by infidels. They believe this about Israel, Spain, South Eastern Europe, anything that was once in Muslim control.
“Until Israel either grants Palestinians the right to vote”
Palestinians do vote. Hammas voted into power?
“or lets them have a state with territorial integrity”
There are territories controlled by Palestinians. It’s on a map.
“then nothing Israel is doing is consistent with our AMERICAN values of democracy, decency, and pluralism.”
I think before America gets behind a Palestine, they need to renounce violence to advance their political views. Hard thing to do when the voted in party (Hammas) proclaims that it will not stop until there is no more Israel.
“If you don’t believe me, you’re invited to visit the West Bank and see for yourself what fascism looks like.”
I immediately cannot tell if your talking about Palestinians or Israeli’s with that statement. Are you talking about the deal Palestinians reached with Israel that, if the Israeli’s pulled out of the West Bank, Palestinians would not use it to launch rockets, which they promptly did within a week?
Posted by: KR | March 9, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
“Jewish Americans supported Obama because he told us he is a srong supporter of Israel, and now he appoints an antisemite like Chas Freeman.”
Jewish Americans vote 75% Democratic regardless of candidate.
Posted by: Ryan C | March 9, 2009, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
The biggest problem with Freeman is not his views or his candor, but his paymasters. This guy works for the Saudis and the Chinese and Obama wants to give him access to sensitive intelligence. I can’t say I’m surprised, but I always knew Obama was out to ruin the country.
Posted by: Willis | March 9, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
President Jimmy Carter, a man who has devoted his life helping the poor since leaving Whitehouse, came under vicious attack by jewish groups for criticizing Israel’s settlements in the West Bank. Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist by David Horowitz, an agent of Israel, for criticizing Israel’s barbaric treatment. Bishop Tutu, a Nobel winner, was called an antisemite for criticizing Israel’s Apartheid policies in West Bank. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, two prominent professors from Univ of Chicago and Harvard, respectively, were called antisemites for writing about the influence of Israel Lobby. In summary, a lobby representing a tiny minority has been waging a vicious war against decent people speaking out against Israel’s criminal behavior.
Posted by: Karen | March 9, 2009, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
i dont think chas is the man for the post. his retrospective renditions of history are disturbing; this is not merely limited to the arab/israel issue. look at the guys opinions! he is a radical who is wildly set in his beliefs.
also, for all the anti-israel people, please remember that the idf has shown more restraint and sensitivity toward civilians than any other military in history (according to various military specialists). yes, civilians have been killed – and i am as outraged as anyone! BUT, if 5-10 attacks/missiles were threatening USA civilians every day, we would take action, too.
sometimes, the anti-israel people are exceedingly set in their beliefs. wonder why? my money is on anti-semitism.
Posted by: jro | March 9, 2009, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
Just one question, where is anything he said about Israel wrong?
Posted by: douglas | March 9, 2009, 9:09 pm 9:09 pm
There are even people in Israel who feel this way. Freeman is clearly a conservative — he was 41′s Ambassador to SA — so I’m puzzled conservatives are in a dither. I thought the Right was tired of political correctness — or is it just certan types of political correctness? Israel manages to tolerate dissenters in its government; I think we can handle one or two.
I’m guessing the Mainstream Alternative Media need this to push the Obama-is-incompetent narrative along — except this isn’t even an Obama appointment. You’ll get more traction blaming him for the stock market. Just keep in mind as you hang it around his neck — it has a habit of roaring back after a while.
Posted by: dr | March 10, 2009, 12:25 am 12:25 am
The mendacity of Liberals like DR saying that Freeman isn’t even President Obama’s pick!?! Did you read the first sentence from this post? Stop trying to deflect and protect for the President. He made another bad pick. Especially this one who runs in the anti-Isreali crowd that seems so passe on college campuses right now. Obmama’s buddy Khalidi pushed this stuff at Columbia, which may be the most anti-Isreali university in the world. It is more of the same from Obama and his ilk.
Isreal is a democracy that has the values of the US and stands as a friend and supporter of the US. We don’t need someone hostile to their freedom.
Plus his stance on China is ridiculous. They should have put down the protesters faster? Wow. You Liberals really bend over backwards to support a pick that goes against all civil liberties in a communist state. Reminds me of the USSR praise from the Left-wingers in the 70′s and 80′s.
Posted by: Brian | March 10, 2009, 8:23 am 8:23 am
How many mulligans does Obama get from the press before they start reporting the fact that he does not possess the intelligence or judgment to be President of the United States.
Mr. 57 states is in way over his head and even one of his biggest supporters, Warren Buffet, is calling him out on his amateurish handling of this economic crises that he and his Fannie/Freddie supporting democratic friends help create.
Cabinet picks dropping like flies,tax cheats,and making fools of themselves in front of the world,Hillary”We have had
democracy longer than Britain”Clinton telling China money trumps human rights.
Hope and Change my A$$.
The press needs to get off it’s knees
and start being the “watch dog” of the government instead of the “lap dog”.
Posted by: Baxter Greene | March 10, 2009, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
Chas Freeman is a brilliant man who realizes, unlike most in the government, that the US should not make it’s marching orders from Israel. And that disagreeing with Israel’s policies does not make one anti-semetic. Certainly some of his comments are not balanced. But, when does a pro-Israeli official get reprimanded for showing Bias? Never!
I am saddened that he has withdrawn his nomination. He would have been a welcome breath of fresh air.
Posted by: MLB | March 10, 2009, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
Seems there are really two problems at the core of this issue, both rarely discussed as the political jockey for power and to convince themselves they are on the right side.
The first is whether God dictates that the land where the state of Israel now stands actually belongs to the “sons of Israel.” Crucial to this is what defines the “sons of Israel.” Whether either the people who follow Jewish religion or the leaders of the current Israeli state are the true sons of Israel is something I’m not convinced of, and is not fully clear in the Bible. Whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not, it’s fair to question whether the Israeli authorities are those to whom this land of Israel was promised.
The second crucial issue is why do the jewish people feel that only they can defend themselves, and that a state dominated by them must exist to guarantee their survival? Why must a state dominated by one religion or ethnicity exist? That heart of Zionism is such an “un-American” idea, a rejection of everything we stand for. The world community failed the Jewish people in the face of Nazi terror, and it’s not hard to see how that horrific failure allowed the explosion of Zionist ideology and the creation of the modern State of Israel. We need to address that failure, though, to get back to our American ideals that see no one religion or ethnicity as better than the others while defending all. We have to reject the idea that one religion or ethnicity must dominate its nations’ politics in order to be safe. Otherwise we are little more than the fundamentalists that we rail against.
This means being an ally of the security of the people in Israel, while rejecting at the same time the very idea that only Jews can be counted on to defend Jews. This is not anti-Semitic, it is a rejection of the heart of Zionism. It is only anti-Semitic if the Zionists are right, that we will fail to defend the Jewish people (in the same way we should defend all of mankind). We must prove the Zionists wrong, without playing their game.
Rockets and suicide bomber attacks are unacceptable, but may God enlighten those Jewish souls who see everything through the Zionist reality. May He enlighten us all to be strong forever in the face of hatred and a lust for power based on identity, and give true faith back to the Zionists.
I wonder how many people think the Jewish people brought the Holocaust upon themselves? If so, then your anti-Semitism is atrocious, for no people could ever deserve such terror. But I also wonder whether the actions of those driven by the Zionist philosophy that is sure only Jews can be counted on, whether this and the policies that derive from it are laying the foundation of hatred and resentment that the Holocaust fed on. We must stop this process, and see the big picture, for the sake of Jewish people and us all. We must destroy the very heart of Zionism, by giving all people a sense of faith. This is America’s noble calling – not defending the state of Israel. May God enlighten our hearts.
Posted by: mark | March 10, 2009, 11:54 pm 11:54 pm
It’s a sad day for America when no one can question the input of Israel in American politics. Can anyone deny that they are a powerful special interest?
America must focus on its needs, not those of a foreign power, no matter how much they spend to bribe our politicians with campaign contributions.
Israel viciously attacked Lebanon and now Gaza, killing innocent women and children. All they are good at is war.
Posted by: Drew | March 11, 2009, 9:44 pm 9:44 pm
It looks clear to me that there are two camps here: one group support Chas’view about Isreal, another against the other group’s view. It is equally clear to me, this is something doesn’t need further discussion if we were in a noncontrolled media and political environment. Chas is right! But look what has happened to his nomination. World’s fact can be twisted according to a small group’s interest, domastically and internationally. However, I expect this to be changed sooner or later. I am utterly sick of this manipulation of the fact, and believe there are many of same minded, proud, descent people share the same view of this issue. the patience is running thin.
Leave China out of this, we all know what is the core issue here and what brought down Chas’nomination.
Posted by: wagner | March 13, 2009, 12:59 am 12:59 am
Thanks for EXPOSING THE ISRAEL LOBBY!Why is it that the moment someone questions Israel’s policies they are ruthlessly attacked and labeled anti Sem. who brought religion into this matter? it’s time to focus on America’s interests in the world and not do the bidding of any one country. Mr. Freeman your voice will be heard and needed even more now.
Posted by: Penelope | March 14, 2009, 4:23 am 4:23 am
As a Jew, I fully believe that the very definition of Anti-Semitism is being against the destruction of the Palestinians as a people and a culture. G-d has bestowed us the land of Israel in order to kill every Palestinian.
The same goes for every single Iranian.
Posted by: Sampson | December 17, 2009, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
I do not understand the ignorance of individuals thinking Israel attacked Lebanon? This is so funny to me because of the lunacy of the thought process. If you hate Israel just say it, but don’t fabricate news. Lebanon has historically supported terrorist groups within it’s borders despite the support of it’s citizens. Lebanon has let down it’s citizens by supporting the killing of INNOCENT Israeli’s and it’s bit them because Israel broke the political leash . I say back off Israel, and let them be. Put yourself in their position. Imagine living in a neighborhood where everyone hates you, tried to kill you and your children and consistently tries to damage the property you LEGALLY purchased from the exact neighbors that hate you!
Posted by: Mike | December 31, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
this chas guy is so full of beans. he is a hater — a naked player, not at all subtle.
he is not fit for any government. strike that — he would have made a good minister of public information for saddam.
todd
Posted by: Todd | December 5, 2010, 4:15 am 4:15 am