Opinion: Some feel such questions are best not asked.
Does the pro-Israel establishment in America have too much sway over foreign policy? That’s like asking is there too much milk in your coffee. It depends on how you like your coffee.
But, unlike coffee, any discussion of Israel’s influence is fraught with emotion that can, sadly, limit a free exchange of views in the United States.
The issue came up again recently when Charles Freeman, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, withdrew from a top intelligence post to which he had been named by the Obama administration. In a March 10 personal statement after his decision not to serve as National Intelligence Council Chairman, Freeman said he was the victim of a campaign by the “Israel lobby.” The headline in the New York Times was: “Israel Stance Was Undoing Of Nominee.”
No doubt Freeman had been critical for many years of Israel’s policies, which he thought were self-defeating. After he withdrew from the council, Freeman said it was “irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people.” He could have gotten away with that if he had substituted Turkish, or British policy, but not Israeli.
Freeman’s defenders said his views on Israel were extreme, the Times wrote, only “when seen through the lens of American political life, and they asked whether it was possible to question American support for Israel without being either muzzled or marginalized.”
In the other camp, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said Freeman showed “an irrational hatred of Israel.” The Zionist Organization of America asked for a congressional investigation of Freeman to see what he had done on behalf of Saudi Arabia. The Obama administration did not stand by its nominee, and Freeman pulled out. It was not the administration’s finest hour.
The campaign against Freeman seems to have begun on a blog posted by Steven Rosen, a former official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobbying group. Ironically, Rosen is under indictment for having passed secret material on to Israel in violation of the federal Espionage Act.
To some, discussing the power of AIPAC, or even the existence of a pro-Israel lobby, is to indulge in anti–Semitic conspiracy theories, as if caught reading “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Others argue that AIPAC is the most effective lobbying group in Washington — the National Rifle Association of foreign affairs. Washington politicians know how hot the issue is and shy away from it if they can.
Many pro-Israel organizations are caught in a bind. On the one hand they want to tell their supporters how important and effective they are in furthering and protecting Israel’s interests in the United States. On the other hand they don’t want to call too much attention lest there be a backlash.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/090406/hard-questions-the-israel-lobby
