Chas Freeman's Son Lets Steve Rosen and Company Have It
This is a great piece by Chas Freeman's son. It's not just great because I love to see kids defend their parents (yes, I even loved it when Julie Eisenhower went out on to the White House lawn and defended #37 with all she had).
But it also gets right to the point about Freeman. Unlike his critics, he is not driven by politics. He's sometimes right and sometimes wrong but he is motivated by his belief in what is best for America.
I also admire that young Freeman does not point out that his wife and his kids (Freeman's favorite people in the world, his grandchildren) are conservative Jews. Freeman is not the type to mention that. I am.
Also, Andrew Sullivan on Freeman:
And Juan Cole on bullying.
"This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East. This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington. Even when the horrifying Gaza assault was going on, it became evidence of anti-Semitism to find the civilian casualties morally repellent and the siege itself counter-productive. This kind of intimidation must end. And again: it is not as if Freeman is being given the job that, say Dennis Ross has. It is that a man with these views has any right to be in any American government at all. Of course he does. Obama was not elected to continue the policies toward Israel of George W. Bush.
"I repeat: if there are serious financial conflicts of interest, Freeman should withdraw. I also find some of Freeman's realist statements, even as contrarian, a little too brutal for my taste. But I also believe that somneone whose views push the envelope against recent US policy in the Middle East is an important asset for the United States right now. And I find the hysyerical bullying of this man to be repulsive."
Didn't Julie Eisenhower end up supporting Obama?
March 7, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
She maxed out for Obama.
March 7, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A long way from the halls of old Ike and scary den of Nixon. But that's the point. Hurrah for democracy.
March 8, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama stands by Freeman. The Pro-Israel hardliners will do their best to smear him like they did to Juan Cole. Freeman actually sounds perfect for the NIC job.
March 7, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has very little to gain from standing by Freeman and offending supporters of Israel, one of his key constituencies. Almost certainly, he wouldn't have made the selection at all had he known how offensive it was to most supporters (just as he wouldn't make an appointment that would be highly offensive to most African Americans or any other key constituency - that's what politics is all about). Obama is pragmatic - not an ideologue like Freeman.
I predict the appointment will be withdrawn within the week - just look at his previous appointments that have hit rough waters.
If this happens, progressives should be glad - Freeman is not at all in tune with our philosophy - he's a realist who believes that might makes right, and is cozy with homophobic and oppressive dictatorships.
March 7, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We were lead to believe during the campaign that Obama was going to bring a diversity of new voices into the foreign policy discussion in his administration. Realism was one school of thought we could have used a lot more of during the last administration, since realists have a useful knack of throwing cold, skeptical water on loopy grand schemes, progressive and otherwise.
Anyway, Freeman is not being hired as a policy maker, but as head of the NIC. An unsentimental realist bastard, without noticeable attachments to the various causes, crusades and enthusiasms that drive much of US foreign policy, is exactly the sort of person Obama needs in that position. He's the sort of man most likely to give Obama the straight, unvarnished dope on the intelligence questions Obama poses to him.
Freeman is also an Israel skeptic, which is something Obama desperately needs in an administration now filled with people like Emanuel, Ross, Clinton and Biden.
Obama had better hang on here. If the noisy complaining of Chait, Rosen and company succeeds in bringing Freeman down, they will taste blood and Obama will be perceived as weak. He will be harassed to no end, and won't be able to take two baby steps on his Middle East policy without getting sign-off in triplicate from every noisy chearleader for Israel in the country. He would also send a signal to the new reactionary Israeli government that they can expect to get away with anything. He needs, of course, to send exactly the opposite signal right now.
March 7, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see the issue differently from you, and I stand by my prediction that the appointment will be withdrawn within the week.
Anyway, I'd like to correct you on one point. You refer to "the new reactionary Israeli government". Israel's new government has not been formed yet. Whatever government is patched together under their Parliamentary system is not going to be reactionary, but will be representative of a broad cross-section of Israeli society, a society on the whole far more progressive than our own, according to all opinion polls.
March 8, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, right now it looks like the government is going to be lead by Netanyahu, and include an important role for Lieberman. I count that as reactionary. The center-right party Kadima now occupies a space toward the left on the strange, rightward moving Israeli spectrum. The formerly significant center-left parties are dying out, and the left parties have almost no influence.
We might have different notions of progressive. I don't think that a country that is occupying, colonizing and ethnically cleansing foreign territory is to be counted as on the whole progressive, even if that country has progressive elements in its laws on, say, abortion rights.
March 8, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Describing Israelis are "far more progressive" than Americans seems more complicated than this single phrase. About social programs certainly, but what else did you have in mind?
March 8, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of this was hashed out on a previous thread, but a few comments are in order.
As I've said before, I really can't get too excited about Chas Freeman either way; all I know is what I've read over the past week or so. I do think Sullivan is being a bit too mild when he says his cardinal sin is to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in. That's a bit cute. He seems to blame Israel more than just in part. I'd say he blames Israel quite a bit (it's "talent for making war") with scarcely a mention of the state of war Israel has faced from its Arab neighbors over the past 60 years. But despite my disagreement, nothing I've seen places him so far outside the mainstream to question his fitness for what appears to be a non-policymaking position. I do wonder, however, how much of what he has to say about the I/P conflict is shared by MJ. Other than the fact that he is opposed by AIPAC, there seems little reason for his support from IPF.
But if Sullivan's characterization of Freeman's views of I/P is a bit more mild than the reality, his reference to the "hysterical bullying" he finds "repulsive" is way over the top. What have Freeman's critics done other than to criticize his views as expressed in his writings and speeches? It's not as though we're witnessing a character assassination Republican-style.
And while we're on the subject of character assassination, what I do find "repulsive" is the line of attack (from Freeman's son, MJ and others) that Freeman's opponents, and supporters of Israel in general, are somehow disloyal Americans. As a poster on the previous thread noted, a small "cabal" of Cuban Americans has held American foreign policy hostage over a far more narrow, provincial concern, but are not accused of being less than loyal. So too, supporters of Israel, even those with whom I vehemently disagree (Feith, Peretz, Perle) are entitled to advocate for their view of what America's policy should be in the Middle East without having their loyalty called into question. That is a dangerous road and one that I am disappointed MJ chooses to tread.
Finally, since when does being a lifelong Republican enhance one's credibility on these matters???
March 7, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The number of American Jews who support Israeli positions against the Palestinians is much greater than those Miami Cubans. The support for the anti-Castro group has been mostly a right wing effort. Support for Israel is bipartisan and quite widely spread in this country, and now with a significant number of non-Jews coming aboard. Very different situations.
March 8, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Were Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy" disloyal Americans?
Of course they were.
March 8, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive conscience writes Whatever government is patched together under their Parliamentary system is not going to be reactionary, but will be representative of a broad cross-section of Israeli society
I agree that the likely right wing government does indeed represent a broad cross-section of Israeli society. This is the problem. Most Americans, and more importantly most American Jews, have lost touch with where Israeli society is today. Consider that 90% of the population supported the Gaza slaughter, 75% say they would not live in a neighborhood that included Arabs, about 30 to 40% support the transfer option and even a sizeable minority see the Palestinians as Amaleks (and therefore, according to some rabbis, God's enemies deserving of extermination).
If Americans were really aware that this is a broad cross-section of Israeli society then I think we would reconsider how far we are willing to go in their support.
March 8, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink