JustASC

JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, comments on Chas Freeman’s withdrawal from consideration for the the chair of the National Intelligence Council.

What’s weird (or at least interesting) about the statement is,  in the midst of a debate over the degree to which the pro-Israel community fueled criticism of Freeman, how JINSA simultaneously reminds supporters that they were “one of the few Jewish organizations” that advocated against him, and denies the very existence of a pro-Israel “lobby” (which will be news to folks at AIPAC). Besides, they say, there’s no need for a pro-Israel lobby because the “relationship between the United States and Israel is based on shared values and shared security requirements.” Which, if true, raises the question: Why do we need groups like JINSA?

Excerpts from their statement:

As one of the few Jewish organizations that took a public position on the issue, we’d like to know if Amb. Freeman believes JINSA is part of a powerful and dishonorable lobby that distorted his record. We don’t think so.

The directorship of the NIC is not a confirmable position. The vetting process was internal – no one but Director Blair and President Obama had to be satisfied with his credentials, and clearly Adm. Blair was satisfied. So why did he withdraw? Because once he aroused public and then Congressional interest and knew he would have to explain himself outside his cozy circle, he had neither the desire nor the ability to defend being paid by Saudi Arabia and sitting on the Board of a Chinese state oil company.

It would have been illuminating to watch him try….

JINSA is an unabashed supporter of the State of Israel – though not all the policies of all of its governments – and we believe the relationship between the United States and Israel is based on shared values and shared security requirements. Lots of people stand where we stand – we don’t need a “lobby.” [You want a good lobby? Try the tobacco lobby - there is a "willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth" - and the stuff is still legal.]

In this case, however, we think Israel and any presumed “lobby” had far less effect on the outcome than the common-sensical belief that the person who is the gatekeeper of intelligence information for the President of the United States should be unencumbered by payments from foreign governments.

Maybe the problem is a definition of  lobby. The government defines “lobbyist” as “any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services” that include  ”communication (including an electronic communication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch with regard to”  the formulation of legislation, federal regulations or policies, or the the nomination or the confirmation of a person for a position subject to confirmation by the Senate.

There are certainly pro-Israel lobbyists under this definition. And there’s a less formal definition, one that includes the vast array of interest groups and nonprofits, like JINSA, that seek to influence public debate but limit their activities so that they are not required to register as lobbyists.

I think JINSA chafes at the way some, like Freeman, use ”lobby” when they mean “cabal” — the way Freeman takes the perfectly democratic and necessary act of lobbying and turns it into a synonym for “conspiracy“  — one orchestrated by a foreign government, yet. As Jake Tapper opined:

What’s perplexing about [Freeman's exit speech] is that so much of what critics objected to were Freeman’s statements, in full context. His record was picked apart like that of any other controversial nominee — sometimes fairly, sometimes not so — but only in Freeman’s case does the nominee make an allegation that a foreign power was lurking nefariously somehow behind it all. 

So, to sum up: The pro-Israel community had a problem with Freeman, spelled out by JINSA:

What he has written about Israel, and reprinted from Walt and Mearsheimer, is suspect because of his financial ties to the Saudis and appalling in its inability to differentiate between a Western democratic ally under siege from a combination of terrorists and the states that harbor and support them, and those very states and terrorist organizations.

However, not every pro-Israel activist agreed with this assessment. And he had other critics who cared less about Israel than they did about his views on other subjects. But the critics won, which is what critics set out to do. 

If Freeman wants to pin it all on a cabal “intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government,” that reveals why he was unfit to lead the NIE in the first place. 

But Jews need to own the fact that they have power in Washington — and thank God. We know what it looked like, 60 years ago, when we had none. We can’t have it both ways. Jewish groups can’t advocate for the security needs of the United States and Israel — as JINSA describes its mission — and then distance themselves from the consequences of that advocacy, good and bad.