COVERITLIVE.COM

10:04

Fred Barbash-Moderator - Good morning. In my wonderfully long career in journalism, the two topics that have always provoked the most emotion are abortion--and Israel. The controversy over the past few days revolves around a man slated for an important but relatively low-visibility job as chair of the National Intelligence Council. Charles Freeman, whose comments and affililations, were critical of Israel, ultimately withdrew, or was withdrawn..and now there is a heated debate over whether he was "blackballed" by supporters of Israel or simply viewed as not competent.

In any case, the question remains, as I raised it in Arena, whether the Freeman episode is another example of intolerance for open debate about Israel--or not.

What do you think?

Another topic today is Congress "spiking popularity"--up to 39 percent approval rating by Gallup...Nothing to brag about except it's some twenty points higher than it was a few months ago.

Why?

10:07

Fred Barbash-Moderator - Here's what Stephen Walt at Harvard had to say on Freeman in Arena:

"
The United States can tolerate honest debate about Israel, and it would be much better for both countries. Indeed, most Americans would welcome open and honest discourse on this important issue. It is the hard-line elements in the Israel lobby that can't tolerate honest discussion, and have to try to silence, smear or marginalize anyone who raises doubts about the current "special relationship." Why do they do this? Because the case they are defending is so weak. Not the case for Israel's existence, which is embraced by virtually everyone (including Freeman), but the case for backing it no matter what it does and for never saying a critical word in public. That policy has tarnished America's image around the world, facilitated terrorist recruiting, and encouraged Israel to persist in policies (like building settlements) that have placed its own future at risk. And that's why these groups went after Freeman so vehemently: to remind others in Washington that independent thought on this issue is not going to advance your career.

Freeman isn't the first public servant to get blackballed by the lobby, and he probably won't be the last. And so long as honest discussion is so difficult, U.S. policy will remain stuck in the same familiar ruts and both the United States and Israel (to say nothing of the Palestinians) will suffer."

10:09

Fred Barbash-Moderator - And here's what Arena contributor Mickey Edwards said:

"
Freeman's problem is not a matter of constrained debate but of limited competence. The great danger for an academic or policy "specialist" is the possibility that preconception or bias will color one's ability to dispassionately evaluate all relevant information. Freeman too often mistakes the trunk for the elephant -- an irritant in a teacher but a danger in a government official in a position to influence national policy. David Broder's assessment aside, it is Freeman's poor grasp of reality, not AIPAC, that is the relevant issue and Freeman's absence from government is not a loss."

10:10

Fred Barbash-Moderator - And here's how Yousef Munayyer responded:

"

The Obama Administration has stood strong in the face of its critics in
recent days and weeks, well, most of them at least. There is one set of
critics the Administration has yet to stand up to - the Israel lobby.

There was little doubt that Freeman was qualified for the job. It wasn't
shortfalls in his resume that upset his opponents; rather it was his ability
to honestly assess the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

In 2007, Freeman was quoted saying that "the brutal oppression of the
Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending". Yet this
assessment, based on the reality that a 42 year occupation of Palestinian
territory which has only become deeper and less retractable due to continued
settlement expansion, is precisely what drove so many pro-Israel types to
oppose Freeman's appointment.

Even as the Secretary of State had just returned from a trip to Israel where
she criticized the demolition of Palestinian homes and the building of
settlements, the Obama Administration in Washington took a familiar stance
and effectively told Freeman "you're on your own with this one buddy".

Before Freeman was sidelined there was the smear campaign against the
esteemed Palestinian- American professor Rashid Khalidi who came to know the
Obamas in Chicago. Khalidi's name was dragged through the mud in the days
and weeks before the election in a last ditch effort to connect President
Obama with terrorism. Before him was Robert Malley who served as a member of
the American negotiating team at Camp David in 2000 and was initially
advising the Obama Campaign on Israel-Palestinian Affairs until he was
deemed to be too politically costly. Similarly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who
probably has more foreign policy experience than all the others combined,
faced a similar fate. What they all have in common is their belief that the
Israeli occupation is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

The Administration's hands-off attitude toward this type of controversy is
sending the message to the Middle East that this President doesn't have the
political capital on this issue necessary to mediate the conflict. That can
only lead to more bloody conflict into the future."

10:12

Fred Barbash-Moderator - Sorry about the formatting on Yousef's post

10:13

Fred Barbash-Moderator - So folks: Apart from Freeman--do you believe the topic of Israel is "too hot" for open and honest debate in Washington? Do people who disagree with Israeli policy--get unfairly treated? Piled on. Thoughts?

10:14

[Comment From Jen]
In answer to your question Fred...in a word "yes"

10:15

[Comment From Dan]
I'll admit to needing to do some research on all of Mr. Freeman's discussions on Israel, but from what many of the players are writing he comes across as being underqualified for such a position. However, that said, it is hard for anyone to criticise Israel, but I wouldn't say it is because of one lobbying firm.

10:16

Fred Barbash-Moderator - Thanks Dan. You raised the "Israel lobby" issue....tactfully I might add.

10:19

Fred Barbash-Moderator - I will say this...In my years as an editor at the Washington Post, there wasn't a story that went by during any sort of conflict in and around Israel, when we weren't besieged by unhappy readers on both sides. If we ran a picture of suffering Palestinians, were heard en masse from folks wondering where the picture of the suffering Israelis were..and the other way around as well. It was a full time job responding to readers about that..and it seemed that no matter what we said and did, each side was convinced we were insufferably biased.

Page 1 Next >