The Israel Lobby Goes After Another Obama Appointee

The Israel lobby in Washington - AIPAC et al - exercise a collective veto on Middle East appointees in the U.S. government. Every Middle East official must pass the pro-Israel litmus test or else face a campaign of vilification and slander.

israel lobby home book o45P7 19672

Even campaign consultants have to adhere to this test. During the Obama campaign, the then senator was advised - by amongst others - Robert Malley - a Middle East official under Clinton. Malley's "crime" was that he dared to have an anti-Zionist father (A French Jew who ran a leftist French publication that criticized Israel) and that he called for negotiations with Hamas. He was thrown overboard by the Obama team.

It was Bill Clinton that ushered in the Israeli litmus test when he appointed Martin Indyk - a former lobbyist for the Israel lobby AIPAC and the founding president of the lobby's "think tank" the Washington Institute - and also raised the profile of the ultra-Zionist Dennis Ross. Clinton replaced the standard for Middle East expertise and language skills with fidelity to Zionism.

Bush raised this up with the appointment of Elliot Abrams to the Middle East desk at the National Security Council. Abrams has no background in the Middle East. He studied Russia in college, and his prior government work was on Latin America during the Reagan administration. And he lied to Congress about Iran-Contra. His only "qualification" is his fanatical devotion to Revisionist Zionism.

And Obama has continued the trend with the assignment of Jeffrey Feltmen as assistant secretary to the Near East and the placement of a former AIPAC president to run America's public diplomacy efforts in the Arab world. Who better to market America to the Arabs than a fanatical, professional Zionist?

The decline of Middle East expertise in the U.S. government is a direct result of the Israel lobby. Zionists are deeply suspicious of anyone who studies Arabic and Arab culture for fear that those people during the course of their studies may have grown sympathetic to the Arab point-of-view. And the Israel lobby does not want that, it wants a 100% monopoly on sympathy for Israel. Thus the Arabists have been marginalized and replaced by fanatical Zionists with no expertise in the Middle East.

And whenever someone is nominated for a post who is slightly sympathetic to the Arab view, he/she is immediately under attack for their views and the lobby stops the appointment. Take the past case of Chas Freeman:

Chas Freeman - a former high-level envoy to China who translated at the Nixon-Mao meeting and a former Arabist who served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War - looked like he very may well have buffed efforts by American Zionists to deny him the post of Director of National Intelligence.

Freeman has committed himself to a lifetime of service to the United States, serving more than in China and Saudi Arabia but in numerous other nations. He is widely respected within the foreign policy establishment, but because he has uttered a few timid criticisms of Israel in the past pro-Israelis in the American media and the Israel lobby are trying to prevent his placement. The pro-Israel lobby has been very effective in making criticisms of Israel a cardinal sin in American politics by blocking the appointments - through pressure and sympathetic voices in the media - of any official who isn’t entirely in league with Israel. Most recently, the Israel lobby pressured the White House to retract the nomination of Anthony Zinni to be the ambassador to Iraq because Zinni is known to oppose the military option against and Iran.

With regards to Freeman, the thinking was that if their pressure on the Obama White House was going to work, Freeman would have been removed as a candidate before the Senate was informed of his nomination. The nomination does not require Senate confirmation, only notification. The Senate was informed, but the effort to dislodge Freeman has not ceased. It has in fact broadened to now encompass Nation Review - the most prominent conservative - and also neo-con - publication.

And The Weekly Standard reports that New York Senator Chuck Schumer - one of the most vocal pro-Israel voices in Congress - called White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to voice his concerns over Freeman’s Middle East views.

And 10 Republican members of Congress have asked an independent investigator to investigate who funds Freeman’s Middle East think-tank. This investigation is proper, the American people should know how is funding Freeman.

But the point here is that all this may actually succeed in toppling Freeman, all because he criticized Israel. And then they protest when people speak about an Israel Lobby!

In the end, Freeman was actually stopped by the lobby. And now that lobby has a problem with Freeman's nominee replacement. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports:

Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.

In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel.

A few months ago, boisterous protests by the American Jewish community helped foil the appointment of Chaz Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, citing his "anti-Israel leaning."

The next attempt to appoint an intelligence aide, in this case, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel, also resulted in vast criticism over his not having a pro-Israel record.

American Zionists are urging Obama to cancel Hagel's appointment because of what they call a long and problematic record of hostility toward Israel.

The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton A. Klein, described Hagel's nomination as such: "Any American who is concerned about Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons, maintaining the Israeli-U.S. relationship and supporting Israel in its legitimate fight to protect her citizens from terrorism should oppose this appointment."

Republican Jews have also protested Hagel's appointment, citing an incident in 2004 when Hagel refused to sign a letter calling on then-president George Bush to speak about Iran's nuclear program at the G8 summit that year.

In August of 2006, Hagel refused to sign a letter requesting the UN declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

In a speech at the conference of self-declared "pro-peace, pro-Israel" lobby J Street, Hagel spoke about his views on the issue of Israel and the Middle East.

"The United States' support for Israel need not be - nor should it be - an either-or proposition that dictates our relationships with our Arab allies and friends. The U.S. has a long and special relationship with Israel, but it must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships," Hagel said.

Yes, Virginia, there is an Israel lobby.