No Freemen under Israel lobby watch

Let’s say you are doing your job. Your manager comes and says you: “Congratulations, you are going to be promoted”. Then, from your department and other departments inside the company, people start to criticize openly the decision, start to demand that it doesn’t apply and start to dig into your past in search for dirty stuff you could have (like write your blog while you should be working)

That’s mobbing. Except if you are a politician. In politics, it is called a “lobby” and not only is permited; it is in fact what keeps the machine working.

There is nothing wrong with a lobby. Except if that lobby has so much power that is able of, not just introduce some healthy debate, but to determine the foreign policy of the country or undermine their representatives. That’s worrying. Even more if it is a lobby of another country

That’s exactly what has happen in the USA with Charles “Chas” Freeman and the Israel lobby. Freeman was the appointee by Obama for the title of President of the National Intelligence Council. Basically what this council does is coordinate the work of the different Intelligence Agencies and was created after 9/11.

Freeman was a good choice. He had experience as former ambassador in Saudi Arabia with George Bush Sr., 17 other ex-ambassadors were backing him (even some of them disagree with him, but they valued his experience) and, as the appointment didn’t need the approval of the Senate, there shouldn’t be any problems for him.

But there was a problem. In the Past, Freeman have had made declarations critical with the Israeli policy. Don’t take this wrong; they weren’t against Israeli policy, they were just critical.

Enough. For the Israel lobby that was enough to start a campaign against Freeman. First it was only disagreement with the nomination, then it turned into an unsustainable pressure. The full story is in Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

When he renounced, Freeman know exactly who to blame:

"I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government."

For the NYT, however, it isn’t so clear that all this is because the pressure -what pressure?- of the Israel lobby -what lobby?

Like the first rule of the Fight Club: You don’t talk about the Fight Club; Fight Club doesn’t exist. Likewise. Israel lobby doesn’t exist. And even if it does, the visible head of the Jews in Washington, the AIPAC, wasn’t involved for once. Kinda sorta. And this was something easy to predict:

“Just how controversial the choice would be became clear on Tuesday, when Mr. Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush, angrily withdrew his name from consideration and charged that he had been the victim of a concerted campaign by what he called “the Israel lobby.”

“What Freeman says”, as if all was a conspiracy against the Jews. In fact, these guys are experts taking the inside out and to portray their attacks as a defense against them, the primary victims. Doesn’t matter if in Gaza, in a court room, in a newspaper’s office or in Washington’s corridors. You are with them or you are an anti-semite.

But NYT fights almost alone. From The Economist to the Foreign Policy, almost everyone accepts the existance of an Israel lobby and its oversized power in Washington.

Bad side of the story is that this is not the first time this happens neither will be the last one. The worst side of the story is that Obama let it go without even facing the battle. It is not enough to ban executives to receive gifts from the lobbies, it is also necessary to combat their power in Washington.

And of course, in Palestine should be forgetting any hope of change regarding to Obama’s Israeli approach..



The cartoon is from the Jordan newspaper Al-Ghad.