The American Jewish Commitee has responded to Charles Freeman’s rant against the "Israel Lobby" with a pretty harsh rebuttal, saying he "could dish it out but can’t take it," that he’s a "charter member of the Saudi Fan Club" and he is "scapegoating the ‘Israel Lobby.’" The kicker quote: "If Freeman’s conspiratorial rant reflects the quality of his analysis and his temperament under pressure, it’s just further evidence that he wasn’t the right man for this critical job." Here’s the full statement:[[READMORE]]
AJC rejected charges made by Ambassador Charles Freeman blaming the “Israel Lobby” for his decision to withdraw his acceptance of the position of chair of the National Intelligence Council.
Freeman was formerly the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the chair of the Middle East Policy Council, funded in part by the Saudi government. His foreign policy views drew considerable scrutiny.
He lavishly praised Saudi King Abdullah as “Abdullah the Great,” callously stated that the Chinese government’s Tiananmen Square crackdown was a “monument to overly cautious behavior,” demonstrated consistent hostility toward Israel, and bizarrely argued, “What 9/11showed is that if we bomb people, they bomb back.”
AJC Executive Director David A. Harris issued the following statement:
Apparently, Chas Freeman can dish it out but can’t take it.
Like all appointments to key national security positions, Freeman’s merited public scrutiny. His views on ‘Abdullah the Great,’ on Israel, on September 11, and on Tiananmen Square were a matter of public record, and respected officials on both sides of the aisle raised legitimate concerns about them.
Ambassador Freeman could have defended those beliefs in an open debate. Instead, he chose to fire off nasty emails scapegoating the ‘Israel Lobby’ for his own decision to withdraw.
The only “libels” and “smears” here are Freeman’s tired clichés about a nefarious ‘Israel Lobby’ that stifles debate. In truth, it’s Freeman, a charter member of the Saudi Fan Club, who wanted the debate to be silenced – since he found himself on the losing side once it started.
If Freeman’s conspiratorial rant reflects the quality of his analysis and his temperament under pressure, it’s just further evidence that he wasn’t the right man for this critical job.
