Freeman’s nomination: Conflict of interest? Whose interest?

March 16, 2009

Grubeiz@comcast.net

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida:

When Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton was asked during her recent visit to the Middle East how she felt about the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements she expressed a mild objection to a serious form of oppression: annexation of an occupied territory which is expected to become a viable independent state. Building settlements on Palestinian land was characterized by Clinton as “unhelpful”.

Clinton’s weak response to Israel’s land grabbing illustrates the intimidation that Israel faces high level American officials with. Even President Obama himself seems unable to speak his mind on Israel’s occupation.

This week some commentators had a field day analyzing the implications of a political battle demonstrating the extended reach of the pro-Israel lobby into the White House.

A former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles W. Freeman, speaks bluntly about the harm associated with Israel’s occupation, unconditional support by the US and the fear of criticizing the Zionist state.

In recent days, Freeman received a political blow from the Israeli lobby when he learned that his nomination for heading the National Intelligence Council was problematic. The ambassador withdrew his nomination anticipating a negative campaign from Israel’s supporters. Freeman blamed the American Israeli Public Action Committee, (AIPAC) for derailing his appointment.

Freeman’s critics associate him with a Middle East think tank that received funds from Saudi Arabia and with a Chinese government owned corporation.

A legitimate professional association with China and Saudi Arabia should not be a reason for concern. It was the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, who carefully chose Freeman for a position that requires creative thinking.

Should we be worried to include a staff sympathetic to Palestinians in our national intelligence? Are we satisfied to run US policy by a uniformly pro-Israeli structure? Where is “group think” leading America’s national security?

When one realizes the extent to which Freeman was blunt in his commentary on Israel, it becomes clear that he is unique in willingness to confront opposition. The following quote illustrates his candor: “... as long as the United States continue to unconditionally provide the subsidies and political protection …there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.”*

Like many farsighted Americans, Freeman sincerely cares about Israel. He does not wish to see Israel self-destruct by a festering occupation; he also does not wish to see US national security undermined as Israel unravels due to its high-risk occupation policy. He says: “...left to its own devices the Israel establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them and enrage those who are not.”

Many thoughtful Israelis are of the same mind as Freeman’s regarding the counter- productive consequence of the occupation.

Like any patriotic American, Freeman expects Israeli concerns not to trump US national strategic interests: “...it’s irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American People.”

The Freeman debacle is prognostic. It is not surprising to see yet another high-level Obama political appointment nipped in the bud; especially that congressional approval is not even required. It is an indication that the US administration is overwhelmed with domestic issues, and subsequently unable to spend energy on introducing change to the Middle East. The Freeman incident may be a significant system failure which strengthens risky Israeli interference in US foreign policy.

The inability of the White House to stand up to AIPAC and its followers in the Freeman affair is discouraging to those who wish to see positive change in the Holy Land. With the widespread presence of Israel’s promoters in Washington, one wonders if President Obama has the muscle to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu, the next prime minister of Israel, to come to the peace table.

Freeman’s flexible stance on Iran is also problematic to Israel’s hawks. He, like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Dennis Blair advocates a “soft power” approach in dealing with Tehran’s nuclear issue. Will the administration be able to contain the efforts of the Israel lobby to discourage dialogue between Washington and Tehran? Israel’s war minded worry that if Iran opens a new chapter of relations with America, it would be at Tel Aviv’s expense. America is not ready for war with Iran, but Israel regrettably seems to be.

When compared with other abortive political nominations, Freeman’s “deviation” was conceptually unique. The failure of this particular nomination was not a result of evasion of tax laws, ignoring employment regulations, committing a sexual scandal or for some other wrongdoing. Freeman is being punished for a laudable predisposition: putting America first.

Ambassador Freeman has challenged a taboo by opposing the Israeli occupation and linking it to the threat of US national security.

AIPAC opposed Freeman’s candidacy on grounds of conflict of interest. Whose interest did AIPAC have in mind first: Israel or the US?

* The three quotes were reported in a March 12, New York Times article, by Mark Mazetti and Helene Cooper, entitled “Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post”.