I’m a little too late to the Chas Freeman dust up to add incremental value to the postmortem. But the debate surrounding Mr. Freeman and his attitude toward Israel did force me — even as a consistently, instinctively pro-Israel observer — to ask: Is it ever appropriate to criticize Israel’s government? If it is, under what conditions; i.e., who can articulate such criticism, and how they can do so without getting reflexively trashed?
Those questions prompted me to recall a book review published late last year in Foreign Affairs, by Shlomo Ben-Ami, once Israel’s Minister of (you guessed it) Foreign Affars. I don’t know much about Ben-Ami, beyond what the author’s blurb in Foreign Affairs told me; what I read on the Web site of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs; what I scanned quickly on the Wikipedia page devoted to Ben-Ami; and what I was able to glean from rapidly perusing scraps like this one, which showed up in a Google News search. That limited reading list suggests Ben-Ami is not without controversy, but he also has a share of legitimacy to bring to discussions/critiques of Israeli foreign policy; in particular, its relationship with and actions toward the Arab world.
Concluding his book review for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ben-Ami wrote the following.
Israel must admit once and for all that the territorial phase of Zionism has ended, dismantle most of the West Bank settlements, and help create a viable Palestinian state as soon as possible. This is Israel’s only chance to seal its 1948 victory — which has been constantly challenged ever since — before the swelling tide of Islamic fundamentalism drowns the existing Arab regimes and dooms the prospects of an enduring Arab-Israeli peace.
Ironically, Chas Freeman once suggested something quite similar: “For almost forty years, Israel has had land beyond its previously established borders to trade for peace.”
Why, then, is Ben-Ami’s criticism of Israel allowed to stand with minimal dispute, but Freeman’s is not? The answer likely hinges in part on the fact that Ben-Ami was not recommended (to the best of my knowledge) for a top U.S. government intelligence post. But there’s obviously more to it than that — and this “more” is not rocket science. Ben-Ami benefits from both his insider standing and from his cautious, balanced choice of words.
We are creatures prone to accept criticism from someone who has walked in our respective shoes. I see nothing in the biographical record to suggest Mr. Freeman has walked in the shoes of Israel’s Jewish citizenry, certainly not to the degree Mr. Ben-Ami has. (We see a similar dynamic at work when a Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist criticizes the Republican Party for close-mindedness, versus when a Nancy Pelosi or other prominent Democrat does.)
We are also creatures inclined to accept criticism when it is thoroughly balanced with recognition of our associated grievances. Ben-Ami is careful to do just that in his aforementioned book review. Mr. Freeman, in his aforementioned talk, does not. Instead, Freeman couples his trade-land-for-peace remark with the explicit claim that Israel’s “inability to find peace with the Palestinians and other Arabs is the driving factor in the region’s radicalization and anti-Americanism.”
I know how I’d react to that statement, if I were the Israeli government or a lobbyist group supporting that government: I’d point out that the “inability to find peace” is clearly not Israel’s fault alone — and that Israel’s contribution to said “inability” may be one among several factors, but it is certainly not the only such factor, quite contrary to Freeman’s use of “the” rather than “a” as qualifier for “driving factor.”
Unfortunately, that’s not the only skewed remark from Freeman’s talk. Consider this one:
We (U.S. citizens) have paid heavily and often in treasure in the past for our unflinching support and unstinting subsidies of Israel’s approach to managing its relations with the Arabs. Five years ago we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home. We are now paying with the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on battlefields in several regions of the realm of Islam.
The suggestion in that passage is not even subtle: U.S. support for Israel’s failures caused 9/11 and the subsequent disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Give me a flippin’ break.
Net: For those watching the Freeman aftermath and asking if Israel can ever be criticized without it ending someone’s public/political career, the answer is “yes.” However, such criticism will be received best if it comes from an insider who carefully qualifies his or her criticism; OR, at the very least, from an outsider who is sensitive to the reality that — guess what? — words matter; that the way we frame our argument (its style) is as critical to the acceptance of our argument as its substance.
Like I said before, it’s not rocket science.