My impression of Freeman is that he’s an intelligent and reasoned individual, the kind of person you’d want to have in charge of gathering intelligence assessments from the United States’ collection of 16 different intelligence agencies. Freeman made a point of saying to Fareed that he thought the term “Israel Lobby” was a false one and that “Likud Lobby” was more accurate - he said there is a vocal group of think tanks and politicians who continually push the United States to support the most hawkish elements of Israeli politics, embodied by the right-wing Likud party. Freeman noted that within Israel there is a diverse range of opinions on Palestine, the Middle East and the Peace Process, a far broader spectrum than you find expressed in America.
I think he is onto something – I’ve read articles in Israeli media, like in the newspaper Haaretz, and statements from Israeli peace and human rights groups that are far more critical of anything you’d find in the American mainstream media or from our politicians - the type of comments that here would bring the accusations that you are ‘anti-Israel’ or worse ‘anti-Semitic’.
Its odd that Israelis would be more critical of their nation that Americans, especially when we are not shy about being critical of other countries like France, Russia, or Mexico to name just a few (though disturbingly we seem to be less and less willing to take a critical view of China). Freeman spoke his mind and paid the price for it. But as he explained, in his view, he was just trying to question the ‘conventional wisdom’ of various foreign policy positions (something I admire since it is what I try to do here). Sadly he won't have the chance to do that as chair of the National Intelligence Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment