Whether or not Freeman had the credentials for the job wasn’t really the question. (Writing on Jewcy, Michael Weiss had much to say abour Freeman’s "curious defenders.") It was whether his apologia for Saudia Arabia, where he served as U.S. ambassador, and China had disqualified him.

“This was not about Israel, it was about a revolving door through which Freeman rotated and was paid handsomely," said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), after Freeman withdrew his name from consideration on Tuesday. The New York congressman was referring to the idea of the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia going from serving the U.S. government, to being paid by foreign governments and then returning to government service.

“There was a steady revelation of financial conflicts of interest involving foreign powers that were troubling," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who along with Israel, led the opposition in Congress. “If it had simply been a dispute about Middle East policy, he would have survived."

To be sure, Freeman was no fan of Israel. Talking about the folly of invading Iraq in a 2007 speech, Freeman said:

"we embraced Israel’s enemies as our own; they responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists."

But so what? Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the essential "A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide," has accused said far worse things about Israel and she found a home in the Obama administration. And I’d argue she deserves it.

Still, Freeman wants the world to know it was the "Israel lobby" – or, as my friend Omri Ceren told me today, the Jews and those Christians they have corrupted – that derailed his nomination. He "exposed" this conspiratorial witch hunt Tuesday in a letter to Foreign Policy:

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East.  The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.  The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.  I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel.  It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so.  This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues.  I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that the easiest explanation for troubles befalling the goyim is, of course, the Jews. (See: An ugly bias is back: blaming Jews for financial woes.) And, as JTA’s Ron Kampeas points out, lobbyists representing Israel — I think we can call them the Israel lobby — have had no interest in really convincing Israel’s critics otherwise. Kampeas explains with an old joke:

It goes like this: “Killed Jesus? No. But only because the Romans got there first.“

Eric tells me that when he interned at AIPAC, he heard a similar take on Paul Findley, failed congressman and perennial Israel critic, who was the Walt-Mearsheimer of the 1980s, when he published his own critique of the pro-Israel lobby, “They Dare to Speak Out.“

“Forced him out of Congress? No. But if he wants to give us credit… “

The jokes are telling: After being accused of a calumny for so long, part of you wants to own it. Run the joint? Sure, I run the joint. Right now, I’m thinking of running you out of the joint.

This is not always productive (See under: Jesus). More recently, however, it has been—for the pro-Israel lobby—a happy if unintended consequence of its (shhhh!) utterly routine maneuverings in Washington. A hefty portion of power is perception and the “lobby’s” critics have been pushing perceptions of its omnipotence, in spades. (See under: Paul Findley.)

It might even help explain AIPAC’s wild growth. Control the levers of power? Sure we do. See ya at our next policy conference!

Just don’t expect to see Chas Freeman there.

The post Chas Freeman’s Jewish problem appeared first on Jewcy.

See, in the summer of 2007, I made my first trip to Israel. I was there on assignment, reporting on the reconstructive impact of American Jewish money in the year following the war with Hezbollah and also spending two days along the Gaza border. Between the border with Lebanon and the Negev, the group of journalists I was with made a stop in an Arab Israeli town where the Jewish Agency of the Joint — I can’t really remember — supported a social services center.

The project didn’t interest me much, but the surrounding poverty did. So I wandered off, roaming the neighborhood before stopping to watch a young boy and two girls play in the dirt.

When they noticed me, they shouted words I didn’t understand and took a few steps toward me. One of the kids was waving at me, holding some paper in their hand. This, I thought, was my invitation to go talk with these kids about their feelings about Jews. Not sure how I was going to accomplish that in Arabic, but I walked their way nonetheless.

The paper, it turned out, was money. I guess they thought that, based on my curly hair, I would drawn to a few bucks like a mouse to cheese. I tried to brush this affront off in the most embarrassing way—by engaging the children in some dialogue—at which point the little boy, maybe 8 years old, took off his sandal and held it up like he was going to swat me.

I recalled this experience two months ago, upon hearing that President Bush had had an even closer brush with the sole of an Arab shoe.

As a refresher: Bush was in Iraq to showcase recent security gains. While Bush was speaking at a press conference in the Green Zone, al-Zaidi, a young journalist, stood up, ripped off his right shoe and chucked it at the American president; his left shoe quickly followed, as did folk hero status for al-Zaidi. But so did jail time.

Al-Zaidi’s trial, for assaulting a foreign dignitary, began Thursday. His defense: That Bush just made him so angry that he was overcome with rage.

"While he was talking I was looking at all his achievements," al-Zaidi said. "More than a million killed, the destruction and humiliation of mosques, violations against Iraqi women, attacking Iraqis every day and every hour. A whole people are saddened because of his policy, and he was talking with a smile on his face. So I reacted to this feeling by throwing my shoes. … It was spontaneous."

Bush was insulted a lot during his eight years in office. But being physically likened to the dirt beneath an Iraqi’s foot had to rank among the worst. And unfortunately for the former president, he can’t brush the attack off like I could: on curly hair and cultural prejudices.

The post George W. Bush, Shoes, and Me appeared first on Jewcy.