Five comments on Chas Freeman
1. What does Obama think about what’s happened? An interesting piece in Slate suggests one of the reasons for leaking candidates’ names before finalising them is to gauge opinion on the prospective appointment. The Freeman appointment got a lot further down the road than a leak, of course, but the principle still applies. Could Obama have been using the National Intelligence Council position as a barometer to test how the interested parties would react? Or is that granting him too much foresight? Certainly, he’s already got into trouble in making appointments, partly because of a lack of foresight and partly because of the difficulties in having to make so many new appointments (one of the strange quirks of the American system). In any case, I’m not sure it means much vis-a-vis policy, given that the role of the NIC director – properly understood – is to dispassionately deliver intelligence assessments and then let the policy-makers do their stuff.
2. In this sense, surely even Freeman’s defenders would acknowledge that he doesn’t seem to be the most dispassionate guy around. This goes further than Israel, of course. His comments on China were troubling (although he had expressed regret), and he certainly seemed to be a bit too intimately connected to the Saudi government. Had he had a similar relationship with the Israelis, we know what the response of Freeman’s defenders would have been.
3. Still, at risk of offending some of my comrades, I have to confess that I accept the existence of a strong Israeli lobby. I don’t think there’s anything sinister about all this – they’re just very good at playing the game – but it does trouble me, particularly as AIPAC and friends are clearly tied to a narrow Likudnik perspective on Israel. As an Israeli citizen, it frustrates me that the American Jewish community can potentially have more influence on what happens here than I can. Because of this, I’m pleased with the creation of J-Street and the Israel Policy Forum, who are doing a good job in putting some balance back in the game.
4. AIPAC & friends might have overplayed their hand. Post-Gaza, it’s clear that the IP debate in the US is much more open than it used to be (although still nowhere near as open as it is here). When you also take into account the various espionage allegations floating around, AIPAC would be well advised to tread carefully. If they become a self-fulfilling prophecy, the result would be potentially catastrophic for American Jewry. As is his style, Obama seems to be maintaining a studious distance from the furore; that might not remain the case once the new Israeli government comes to power. Rather than a reminder of the ever-present strength of AIPAC, we might be witnessing its last, violent eruptions.
5. I agree with Stephen Walt’s paradox about the future of Israel without a powerful lobby ‘supporting’ it in the States. “The irony is that people like me have more confidence in Israel than they do: I think Israel can survive and prosper if it has a normal relationship with the United States instead of [sic] special one.” I would add one point: the lobby is surely partly driven by the guilt of American Jewry, the guilt that they’re over there and not over here. If they really cared, they would come to the land to build it and be built by it. As things stand, they are able to live out a fantasy, one in which they can shape the future of the promised land without laying down true roots on its soil, while at the same time avoiding its realities. This is the tragedy of the unresolved relationship between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora; it is to be hoped but not expected that the representative bodies of the Jewish people will try and solve this problem.
8 comments8 Comments so far
Leave a reply
interesting remarks
“As an Israeli citizen, it frustrates me that the American Jewish community can potentially have more influence on what happens here than I can.”
Not really … Look who 80% of them voted for … and I still think most of American Jewry really doesn’t care AIPAC (or care to be represented by their ideals/aspirations)
Until this country is able to stand on her own two feet ‘properly’, outside forces (be them Jewish or not) will always have as much, if not more, sway than us simple Israelis here.
Alex, the answer to Americans (potentially?) having more influence on Israel than Israeli citizens do is not to disavow AIPAC while expressing pleasure at J-Street and the Israel Policy Forum. That doesn’t change anything – all it means is that Americans *whom you like more* will have influence over the same issues they should not.
The answer is fairly simple – End American “aid” to Israel. This money does so much more harm than good (for Israel), stifling the local Israeli industry and economy more than it stimulates it, creates a patron-client relationship that effectively forbids Israel from pursuing its own policies (domestic, international, trade, diplomatic and other), without this unwelcome outside intervention.
Avram – Israel can stand on its own two feet. Alone. It just hasn’t been given the chance yet (who knows when?).
LB – Agreed
LB – not agreed.
Supporting J Street is not the same as just having guys I like more to influence things. The fallacy here is that AIPAC and its allies already have influence and unless this influence goes away, the best possible route is to have some sort of balance. It is not the “global optimum”, true, but a “local” one.
Now, another fallacy is to claim that the source of American influence is the American money. This is hardly true. While I agree that American aid to Israel should be eliminated (or at least reduced to something less outrageous than what it is currently) most support Israel gets from the US is political in nature. Since “right-wingers” are not going to drop this support, it is incumbent on the “left-wingers” to counterbalance it.
P.S. If and when Israel is forced to stand on its feet to a greater extent it will pursue more sensible policies.
Peter – The meaning of this political influence will be next to nothing if it is not backed up by American money. So while. yes, AIPAC has more influence now – if you remove its raison d’etre (securing American foreign aid for Israel) – it will not have nearly as much influence.
To go slightly off topic – right-wingers/left-wingers/anyone who doesn’t actually make the move to Israel – their influence in general should be eliminated. Israel needs to support itself, and make decisions on its own – without the influence of Jews (or others) abroad. This is not because right or left-wing policy is better than the other – it’s a principle – J-Street or AIPAC want to influence Israelis politics, there is a very simple way for them to do so – make Aliyah, and vote.
“The meaning of this political influence will be next to nothing if it is not backed up by American money”
LB, this is simply wrong. I am afraid you don’t really understand the nature of the American Israeli relationship. Money is the symptom, not the root of the problem.
No, Peter, I understand it very well. Money is a symptom of the problem – but it is also the cause, the very thing that is limiting Israeli independence.
America will still want to influence Israel, of course, as will the American Jewish community – but money is the only ticket in (donations from American Jews amount to very little in the grand scheme of things). Israel does not want outside influence, if it doesn’t come with money – that is one reason Europe has no real foothold in Israel. That is why the US had far less influence 40 years ago. If Israel doesn’t get something from that country (see France pre-67) – that country, to Israel is little more than talk.
You’re making the common mistake that many outside of Israel make (without knowing where you are) – thinking that the world can change everything in Israel at whim (it can only do that militarily – not likely anytime soon).