Entangled Alliances

photo credit: reubenaingber

There are two pro-Israel lobbies in America.

One is a modest group of think tanks, politicians and generally liberal media commentators who, though strongly supportive of Israel, are nevertheless extremely critical of its policies towards Palestine and of the opinion that these policies hurt not just the Palestinians but Israel itself.  They support Israel in the true sense – looking after its objective interests rather than instinctively supporting the illogical mania of its politicians.  They are not very powerful, nor are they that influential, especially in political circles.

The second group is the “pro-Israel” lobby, and if my use of quotation marks to distinguish them isn’t clear now, then I hope by the end of this post it will be.  The “pro-Israel” lobby is a vast network that includes numerous political and public committees,  right-wing media commentators and members of Congress – both Democratic and Republican.  They believe in the literal sense of supporting Israel – in other words America must back Israel in everything it does, even if it does something that is not only bad for the peace process but harmful to its own interests as well. If Israel does it, it must be right – this is their logic. Anyone who dares to criticise Israel’s policies, no matter how reasonably, is labelled as an anti-zionist or, worse, anti-semitic. This is regardless of the source of the criticism – you may be an Ivy League professor and respected expert on the Middle East, but dare to challenge Israel policy and you’ll become the victim of a ferocious campaign to discredit and smear you. Being Jewish won’t save you from these modern day McCarthyites either : you’ll simply be dismissed as a self-hater. The “pro-Israel” lobby has a stranglehold on U.S. Middle East policy and prevents any meaningful debate of the issue, at least any debate that involves criticism of Israel itself. Indeed, genuine political criticism rarely survives the co-ordinated assault of lobbyists and powerful “pro-Israel” Congressmen. This point cannot be emphasised enough. It is almost impossible for even-handed critics of Israel to play a political role in America’s handling of the issue, so powerful is this lobby and the politicians who serve it. As far as America’s crucial role in the Middle East goes, it is therefore one of the greatest threats to the peace process.

All of the above has been correct for a long time. But it is particularly relevant right now, as a recent victory by these modern day McCarthyites has cast into doubt whether Barack Obama can really change the tone of America towards the Israel/Palestine issue and whether the U.S. can escape from the grip of the “Pro Israel” lobby in time to rescue any hopes of a successful peace process.

I am talking about the withdrawal of Charles Freeman from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, an issue which the traditional media largely ignored but which has been analysed in admirable detail across the blogosphere (choice highlights:   Glenn Greenwald’s detailed accounts here and here;  Stephen Walt’s eloquent, expert take here and here)

The controversy around Charles Freeman centres, unsurprisingly, around his opinion on the Israel/Palestine situation. Here’s a sample of the views that stoked the ire of the “Pro-Israel” lobby:

Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection. Instead, with each decade, Israel’s behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess. Israel and the Palestinians, in particular, are caught up in an endless cycle of reprisal and retaliation that guarantees the perpetuation of conflict in which levels of mutual atrocities continue to escalate. As a result, each generation of Israelis and Palestinians has accumulated new reasons to loathe the behavior of the other, and each generation of Arabs has detested Israel with more passion than its predecessor

You see that? No anti-zionist smears, no extremist ranting, no one-sided hatchet job, just a poignant, realistic assessment that includes the inarguable observation that Israel’s policies are damaging Israel- a point the veracity of which has only been strengthened by the recent atrocities inflicted on  the inhabitants of the Gaza strip.

For daring to profess such views while seeking an important national security role, Freeman was subjected to a vicious, co-ordinated attack by the usual attack dogs of the “pro-Israel” lobby – Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, , Jonah Goldberg of  National Review, Marty Peretz on his New Republic blog, and Steve Rosen.  Rosen, who was arguably the architect of the “nuke Freeman” strategy, is a leading official at “pro-Israel” lobby powerhouse “AIPAC” – the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. He is also, if you can believe it, currently on trial for breach of the Espionage Act allegedly caused by leaking classified US information to Israel.  So much for the special relationship! Yes, these are the kind of people who have just forced Obama’s hand.

The media attacks were merely one half of the attack strategy, however. The political smear campaign involved people like Republican congressman Ron Kirk – leading recipient of AIPAC money -and, most disgraceful of all, New York Democratic Senator Chuck Shumer. Schumer, a long time lapdog of AIPAC, not only contacted White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to complain about Freeman but has now sent out a nauseatingly self-aggrandising press release boasting about his role in his withdrawal.

A key dishonest narrative that no doubt aided the efforts of the “pro-Israel” lobby to appear sincere rather than pathetic is the claim, made by most of Freeman’s attackers, that they were chiefly concerned with, amongst other things, Freeman’s financial ties to Saudi Arabia and his less-than-tough comments on China. Now I happen to have serious problems with Freeman’s views in that regard, since I consider China to be one of the chief dangers to the world; their appalling human rights record and current sponsorship of brutal regimes speaks for itself. They certainly need no apologists. But the idea that the chief spearheaders of the “Nuke Freeman” movement were using such attack points as anything other than a thin cover for their real concern is as laughable as it is sickeningly deceitful. Matthew Yglesias put this best:

But the habit of turning around and acting indignant when people point out that what’s motivating this fight is Freeman’s views on Israel is really pretty silly. When you hear that indicted former AIPAC director Steve Rosen, The New Republic, Commentary, Eli Lake, and Chuck Schumer are spearheading opposition to something you don’t say to yourself “they must be concerned about the human rights situation in China!” This is an organization dedicated to human rights in China and this is a good government group, and they don’t seem very interested one way or another in Freeman.

To take a step back for a moment, there are two crucial points to be made at this junction. The first is that even had this ruthless, dishonest smear campaign not ended in victory, the message still would have been sent. Ezra Klein made this point a few days ago, when it seemed that Freeman might survive the assault:

But for Freeman’s detractors, a loss might still be a win. As Sullivan and others have documented, the controversy over Freeman is fundamentally a question of his views on Israel. Barring a bad report from the inspector general, Chas Freeman will survive and serve. But only because his appointment doesn’t require Senate confirmation. Few, however, will want to follow where he led. Freeman’s career will likely top out at Director of the NIC. That’s not a bad summit by any means. But for ambitious foreign policy thinkers who might one day aspire to serve in a confirmed capacity, the lesson is clear: Israel is off-limits. And so, paradoxically, the freethinking Freeman’s appointment might do quite a bit to silence foreign policy dissenters who want to succeed in Washington.

The second crucial point is that this is a real blow to those who hoped that the election of Obama would see a new dawn in America’s treatment of Israel – the beginning of a new strategy to treat it as a fair equal in the peace process instead of a couldn’t-be-closer ally who can do no wrong. Before this controversy, the signs were encouraging: in particular, Obama’s appointment of the  tough-but-neutral George Mitchell as envoy to the middle East signalled to the world that a new, even-handed approach to the peace process had taken the stage. But now that Obama has allowed himself to be brow-beaten by the likes of Steve Rosen, where does this leave us? Taking on Israel’s new Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – a right-winger who doesn’t believe in the two-state solution – is going to require a lot of courage and a willingness to defy the old, ultra-favourable perceptions about Israel that took precedence in the Bush years. But these are exactly the same qualities that Obama has failed to show over the Freeman debacle. True, some have mentioned the possibility that this capitulation to the “pro-Israel” lobby is simply a way of allowing them to expend all their energy and capital too soon on a single cause, and that in future Obama will turn round and say “not this time, AIPAC” . Perhaps this is true. God, I hope it’s true. But the most likely interpretation is surely: meet the new discourse. Same as the old discourse.

So what we have witnessed over the last few days is not just another successful, McCarthyite vendetta by those whose grip on Washington evidently does not seem to have loosened too much since Obama’s inauguration, though boy did we see that. But we also witnessed a grim foreboding of  a possible future for the Middle East that sounds like a lot like the failed past. Read the entrails of this controversy and you’ll see, written in the lifeblood of the failed Israeli/American discourse, a warning; a warning that any hopes of a two-state solution might well flounder on America’s inability to see Israel in the same light as the rest of the international community. Maybe America will find the strength to overcome the “pro-Israel” lobby. I hope so – because the peace process may depend on it. On that note, I’ll give the last word to Freeman himself, who has responded to his victorious attackers with a statement which is really worth reading in full:

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US 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. 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.

How true.