The Lobby Falters by John Mearsheimer

[Douglas Carpenter]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html


snip:

"The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.

In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down."

snip:

"Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show."

snip:"When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘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.’

Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel."

___________________

John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

-----------

link to full article in the London Review of Books:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. the New York Times did not run ONE single article on the Freeman matter until he stepped down

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html

[Idealism]

2. The thing that most bothers me about the Freeman debacle:

It sets a bad precedent when you take so much flak for appointing contrarians to mid-level positions. Bush's cronyism was legendary, and by appointing all the "Yes men" that he did, it helped bring about the necessary "intelligence" for Iraq, not to mention the era of de-regulation, lax oversight, and generally a laissez-faire system of government.

If you don't allow people to serve with controversial views on certain things, who will be there to point out when the consensus may be flawed?

[Idealism]

3. I stated this was the reason for the controversy about two weeks ago:

"Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion"

Dennis Ross, on the other hand, will not be ginning up as much fear as possible about Iranian intent we can be assured.

The "views on China" and ties to Saudi oil are just obfuscations: Many politicians (Bush family especially) have explicit ties to the Saudi royal family and their oil wealth and it didn't stop anyone from being confirmed nor having an Inspector-General file a complaint on the matter. The Tianamen Square quotes are taken completely out of context and often times falsified. Not to mention he wasn't issuing a statement on China or their human rights problems (although he did briefly mention the level of human rights in China is not close to adequate standards), but it was just a posting on China's Listserv- basically a message board. The only thing he is guilty of in regards to that is perhaps using less tact than he would if it were an official position or policy brief.