Politico  |  March 10, 2009

Freeman Hits 'Israel lobby' On Way Out

By Ben Smith

President Barack Obama's controversial pick for a top intelligence post blasted the "Israel lobby" on his way out the door Tuesday, intensifying a debate on the role Israel's allies played in the latest failed Obama appointment.

Charles W. Freeman Jr.'s abrupt withdrawal from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council came after he drew fire on a number of fronts - including questions about his financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia.

But the most heated opposition came from supporters of Israel - and Freeman's departure shows Obama's reluctance to signal a change to a U.S. policy in the Middle East that centers on standing beside Israel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama jettisoned aides and backed off statements that appeared to imply a change in the Bush Administration's firm support for hawkish Israeli governments.

As president, Obama dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Middle East last week with a tough message for the Palestinians, saying it was hard for Israel to make peace with people who are hurling rockets into their country.

And the attacks on Freeman, in the end, hinged primarily on the question of Israel, something the Democratic senators who helped break the back of the nomination Tuesday made clear.

"His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration," said Senator Chuck Schumer in a statement. "I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing."

Hours before the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, expressed his "regret" at Freeman's withdrawal, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told Blair he was concerned about "statements that [Freeman]'s made that appear either to be inclined to lean against Israel or too much in favor of China."

In particular, Freeman has described "Israeli violence against Palestinians" as a key barrier to Mideast peace, and referred to violence in Tibet last year - widely seen in the United States as a revolt against Chinese occupation - as a "race riot."

Freeman left no doubt about where he places blame in a written statement after his withdrawal.

"The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East," he wrote.

"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."

Freeman's departure echoed moments during last year's presidential campaign when Obama - generally willing to ignore the daily political tempests - abandoned aides and advisers who drew strong, persistent criticism on the question of Israel, which became, in the politics of the presidential campaign, a proxy issue for more general toughness on Islamic terrorism.

He forced an informal advisor, former Clinton administration peace negotiator Rob Malley, to resign after he met with Hamas officials on behalf of the International Crisis Group. And he distanced himself from Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been, briefly, a high-profile campaign figure. Later Obama, asked about his views on Israel, dismissed Brzezinski as "not one of my key advisers."

Pro-Israel groups and congressional critics were at pains to avoid labeling the Freeman withdrawal as a scalp for the "Lobby," stressing instead the role Freeman's financial ties played in his fall. Saudi royals financed Freeman's think tank, and he served on the board of a Chinese state oil company.

"I think he would have been able to withstand that if it was just a policy difference," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a leading congressional critic. "What was fatal was a lack of disclosure."

"Some may see the hand of the 'Israel Lobby,'" said Ira Forman, the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "But given Freeman's lack of intelligence experience, and his willingness to offend multiple constituencies, that would be a terribly simplistic view of the world."

But the campaign against Freeman certainly originated in pro-Israel circles - though Freeman was nominated after those concerns became known.

The first public opposition to the pick came on the blog of Steve Rosen, a former lobbyist for the pro-Israel group AIPAC who is facing trial for mishandling classified information. The story was driven on the website of The Weekly Standard by the magazine's blogger, Michael Goldfarb, a former aide to Senator John McCain and an outspoken Israel hawk.

But Jewish and pro-Israel organizations largely decided not to make the fight against Freeman a public crusade, though they were the first, and fiercest, Freeman opponents and made their views known privately.

"The vast majority of the Jewish community [were] very careful not to make this a Jewish community issue," said a top official at one major pro-Israel organization.

And indeed, some officials said Israel's allies might be winning the Freeman battle at the expense of larger goals.

"This is another example of what I call the 'cosmic oy vey,'" said Aaron David Miller, a former longtime Mideast policy official. "It's an inability of many in the pro-Israeli community to understand the fundamental commitment of this government to Israel."

"If the pro-Israeli community wants to worry about something, let them worry about the predicament the Israelis are now in" with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, he said.

But with the news of Freeman's withdrawal, some in that community were glad to take credit.

"What it showed is that there's no place for that kind of hostility to America's closest friend and most loyal ally," said a top official at a major Jewish organization who had worked against the choice.

Freeman and his allies were quick to place blame.

"If they withdraw his appointment prior to the conclusion of [Freeman's formal vetting] that would be seen as abject caving in on people who are extreme partisans of Israel," Nicholas Veliotes, a former Ambassador to Egypt, and one of 17 former diplomats who signed a letters supporting Freeman, said Tuesday before the withdrawal was announced.

Another prominent former diplomat who, like Veliotes, signed a letter supporting Freeman warned that the withdrawal would be perceived "right or wrong as a major victory of Israel lobby, and it will be read in a substantial part of the Arab or Palestinian world as 'these guys - [the Obama administration] -- can't broker a peace.' "

And Freeman warned in his emailed statement that the campaign against him ran counter to American interests.

"I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so," he wrote. "This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States."

One place where Freeman found no defenders, though, was the Obama White House - which prepared talking points and dossiers to defend other troubled nominees - but which stayed on the sidelines during the Freeman fight.

"The political people, and the [National Security Council] didn't seem to be in the loop on this," said one official who spoke to Obama aides about the question.

Original article here.