One of the disturbing aspects of the Chas Freeman appointment is how it has exposed the true agenda of Israel’s critics. Outside of Israel, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of this appointment. And yet the anti-Israel Left applauds it. I hardly think that these people have any sympathy for Freeman’s views of China or Saudi Arabia. But in the end it’s his antipathy towards Israel. Jonathan Tobin observes:
For these leftists, it’s no longer enough to bash Israeli right-wingers or to support the Israeli left in its efforts. Whether I agree with them or not, that’s a legitimate position for an American Jew to take, but when Rosenberg and his ilk start backing Chas Freeman and apologizing for Walt and Mearsheimer that’s something very different. Their argument these days seems to be that the best way to be “pro-Israel” is to back anyone — and I do mean anyone — who will attack Israel.
And then there’s been – what’s been even more shameful – the silence of the media. Jennifer Rubin:
And yet the major news outlets turn a blind eye. Perhaps, like the New York Times, which chose to ignore Reverend Wright’s rantings for weeks, the MSM would rather not raise the curious story of Chas Freeman. It is not the role of the media to cover for the president’s egregious missteps, you say? Well, welcome to the media in the Age of Obama. Not even an appointment as bizarre as Freeman nor the controversy it has engendered is worth a story — because that might start the public buzzing over what a shill for the House of Saud, an Israel-basher, and apologist for Chinese thuggery is doing in an administration as high-minded as this one.
To my mind, Freeman’s admitted acceptance of money from Saudi Arabia makes him guilty of, at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. This is the sort of thing that any responsible publication would point out. But instead we have silence. And those who mention the appointment often attribute Freeman’s opposition to being “pro-Israel” or “neocons” as if Freeman’s ties are only of concern to those groups. (see memeorandum)
But let’s go back a few years and recall when Elliott Abrams was picked by the Bush administration to be director of Middle East affairs? Well the New York Times wasn’t so reticent about his appointment or his background.
Elliott Abrams, a pugnacious conservative and passionate advocate of Israel, is no stranger to Washington’s policy wars. But Mr. Abrams’s selection this week as President Bush’s director of Middle Eastern affairs at the White House plunged him into one of the sharpest disputes in the nation’s capital — the one in the administration over how to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A few months later the Washington Post featured a front page article (enthusiastically quoted by Pat Buchanan) listing the number of Bush administration officials with strong ties to … Israel. The article “Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy” appeared Feb. 9, 2003 and was written by Robert Kaiser. It featured this:
Some Middle East hands who disagree with these supporters of Israel refer to them as “a cabal,” in the words of one former official. Members of the group do not hide their friendships and connections, or their loyalty to strong positions in support of Israel and Likud .
One of Abrams’s mentors, Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, led a study group that proposed to Binyamin Netanyahu, a Likud prime minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999, that he abandon the Oslo peace accords negotiated in 1993 and reject the basis for them — the idea of trading “land for peace.” Israel should insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the biblical land of Israel, the 1996 report suggested, and should “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”
Besides Perle, the study group included David Wurmser, now a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, and Douglas J. Feith, now undersecretary of defense for policy. Feith has written prolifically on Israeli-Arab issues for years, arguing that Israel has as legitimate a claim to the West Bank territories seized after the Six Day War as it has to the land that was part of the U.N.-mandated Israel created in 1948. Perle, Feith and Abrams all declined to be interviewed for this article.
So when do the MSM feel the need to question one’s commitment to American interests? Apparently receiving major funding from Saudi Arabia to run an organization devoted to making Saudi Arabia look good is no cause for concern. No vetting necessary. But deviate from the foreign policy consensus a bit too much in favor of Israel and the alarm bells go off. Glad to know that the media’s past that silly dual loyalty stuff.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
