Setback for America’s pro-Israel hawks
– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. –
“The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending … Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians, it strives to pacify them … American identification with Israel has become total.”
These are excerpts from a 2007 speech by Charles (Chas) Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, whose appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council was announced on February 26 and is turning into a test case for the strength of Washington’s right-wing pro-Israel lobby.
Signs are that its influence might be waning under the administration of President Barack Obama. Does that mean the days of unquestioning American support for Israel are coming to en end? Probably not.
But the furious reaction to Freeman’s appointment from some of the most fervent neo-conservative champions of Israel points to considerable concern over the possible loss of clout.
In his new job, Freeman will be responsible for compiling intelligence from the the United States’ 16 intelligence agencies into National Intelligence Estimates, detailed and lengthy analyses that play a key role in shaping U.S. foreign policy.
The initial drumbeat of criticism came from conservative pro-Israel bloggers, including Steve Rosen, former policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Rosen has been indicted for giving “national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it,” legalese for spying.
Obama: plus ça change?
Robin Shepherd is a senior research fellow at Chatham House in London. The opinions expressed are his own.
Which part of the word “change” did Barack Obama not understand? A year from now it is a question that many outside America will be asking about his foreign policy.
American forces will still be in Afghanistan; the handover in Iraq will continue, with some troops coming home as they would have under President Bush; U.S. support for Israel will remain unchanged, while the Annapolis process begun under Obama’s predecessor continues to take its course.
The “war on terror”, though repackaged under a different name, will have shown no signs of abating. The world will still be sleep-walking its way towards a nuclear armed Iran, with America unable to rally China and Russia to participate in meaningful sanctions. Tensions with a neo-authoritarian Russia will have shown no signs of abating as commitments to NATO allies and partners, particularly on Russia’s periphery, take precedence over temptations to appease the Kremlin.
How, the world will ask, did the candidate of change become the president of continuity?
Cynical? Perhaps. New American presidents always inherit baggage from their predecessors. It would certainly take more than a year for Obama to unburden himself from a legacy as fraught as the one he was bequeathed.
The bigger question is this: does Barack Obama bring to the White House a vision for change in foreign affairs which will so fundamentally re-jig the puzzle?
This article paints a lovely picture of what could potentially come…the most salient point being that people’s expectations are not necessarily tempered by a realistic outlook of the challenges that Obama faces.
Nonetheless, despite the “cure” mentality that many hold concerning Obama, the voter choice in the election represented the only choice that had the realistic potential for a positive outcome. McCain and Palin would have only furthered the disastrous course Bush set the U.S. on.
Separately, I’m very tired of hearing that Bush succeeded in stopping a terrorist attack on U.S. soil again, as if after 9/11 any other President would have ensured that a second attack occurred. Please. The man had few successes and an endless list of failures.
To the question of: does Barack Obama bring to the White House a vision for change in foreign affairs which will so fundamentally re-jig the puzzle?
Time will tell; but it is certainly a positive thing to hope. The real lesson here is that people need to properly manage their expectations if their hopes are not fulfilled.
The Israel-right-or-wrong crowd may be losing a bit of influence but Israel’s interests are still being looked after in high places. Look at Dennis Ross in his new post in charge of a region that includes Iran. Will he engage in even-handedness? You bet he won’t. So one could say its an even trade, Freeman on one hand, Ross on the other.
And Clinton’s visit to Ramallah did not indicate one millimetre of change on the tried-and-true course.