Chas Freeman can't stand up to Israel

http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2010/07/chas-freeman-cant-stand-up-to-israel.html#links

You all remember Chas Freeman, President Obama's abortive nominee to head the National Intelligence Council, don't you? On Tuesday, Chas debated the US - Israel relationship with Robert Satloff. You can guesswhich side Chas took. But he didn't hold up very well, explains David Frum.

As was, today was no catastrophe. It was however something of a disappointment. Freeman of course argued the case for Israel as a strategic liability. His case amounted to this:

* Aid to Israel costs US taxpayers money.
* Allowing Israeli firms to bid on US defense contracts costs US jobs.
* Terrorists sometimes cite Israel as a motive.
* Many Arab leaders complain about Israel to US leaders and diplomats.

As net assessments go, this is feeble stuff. To make his case, you’d think Freeman would want to debunk the usual arguments in favor of Israel’s strategic value.

...

But here was the real shocker. The last question of the lunch asked Freeman: Supposing everything he said were true, what would follow? Freeman’s advice: The US should make some portion of future economic aid to Israel conditional upon a cessation of settlement activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

I’ll confess: I was agog. That’s it? That’s IT? You arraign Israel as a succubus upon the American taxpayer, a cause of terrorism, a fomenter of hatred between the US and upwards of a billion Muslims … and your solution is to threaten to cut economic aid by some percentage? Freeman’s recommendations are so pathetically disproportionate to Freeman’s analysis as to raise one of two suspicions:

1) Freeman’s private recommendations are much more ferocious than his public recommendations, or

2) Freeman’s detraction of Israel is more in the nature of angry venting than considered analysis. Freeman’s friends and admirers always note two things about him: an incisive intelligence and a harsh mouth. Could it be that his disappointment over the failure of his nomination as chair of the National Intelligence Council has temporarily loosened an over-voluble mouth – without altogether quelling a superior brain that inwardly knows better?

Hmmm.

I'm more inclined to the first explanation than the second one. It's been over a year since he was forced to withdraw his nomination. He's just warming up.

Satloff's side of the debate is here.