The US political establishment has just displayed what is at best considerable foreign policy naivety and at worst naked prejudice toward the Arab world. President Obama had nominated Charles Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and president of the US think tank, the Middle East Policy Council, to head the National Intelligence Council (NIC) which produces security assessments. All seven members of the Senate Intelligence Committee led a chorus of protest among legislators because of past criticisms the nominee has made of Israel. As a result, Freeman has withdrawn his candidacy on the honorable grounds that the NIC could not function properly if its chairman was under constant attack.
This is a great victory for Washington’s powerful Israel lobby and a grave defeat for US foreign policy. If nothing else, it robs the Obama administration of a man with widespread experience of the Middle East and a deeper understanding of its complexities than most of the functionaries, who guided both the State Department and the US intelligence community during the blinkered Bush years. More damaging is the perception that a small group representing the interests of a foreign country could twist the arms of the White House every time it wants.
One of Freeman’s most notable crimes in the eyes of his detractors was that he went on record in 2007 with the view that Israeli oppression of Palestinians showed no sign of ending. He also said the US had foolishly come to identify itself totally with Israel to the exclusion of relations with its other friends and allies in the region. Given the recent barbarous Israeli bombardment of Gaza, Freeman’s comments were all too prescient. Meanwhile, as even Hillary Clinton has admitted, the Obama administration has a lot of fence rebuilding to do with the Arab world.
Yet the Zionist lobbyists have managed to pick off a respected diplomat and Arabist who could have played a key role in this process, when it came to the all important intelligence assessments that will inform White House policy. Suddenly the much-criticized authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who wrote “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” have been vindicated. It seems that no substantive review of US Middle East policy via the introduction of new, well-informed individuals is possible. The Israeli tail is still entirely able to wag the Washington dog. If, indeed, Freeman can be said to represent those who are for a balanced Middle East policy, he is not acceptable to US legislators, while blatantly pro-Israeli placemen have been scattered liberally throughout every administration, including this one, and Congress. Nobody finds anything wrong with someone like Dennis Ross who headed up a hawkish pro-Israel think tank in Washington being in charge of Obama’s Iran policy. Those who protest such pro-Israel penetrations are branded anti-Semites.
The tragedy is that Washington must seek a balanced approach to its foreign policy, not least in our region. That requires a range of expertise and views. It does not do to have a preponderant pro-Israeli bloc, crushing alternative opinions. Obama may have recognized this in selecting Freeman for a key intelligence post. The Israel lobby has demonstrated its objectionable power in forcing the man to withdraw his candidacy. This bodes badly for any genuine US initiative to drive toward a just two-state Palestinian settlement. The lobby and Israel’s other friends will fight it tooth and nail.
