AIPAC Notches Gun Belt: Freeman out at NIC, shot down by Alledged Spy Steven Rosen, past director of American Israel Political Affairs Committee

Foreign Policy has posted Charles Freeman's withdrawal statement quoted in full at the end of this post.

Freeman, Obama's pick to chair the National Security Council, would have brought an independent perspective on foreign policy in general and the Mid East especially. As such his views could not be tolerated by the powerful Israeli right-wing lobbying group AIPAC.

For a brief rundown on the dust-up see this fine post from Freeman's son (and oft time political opponent.)

For a great deal more detail via Max Bleumenthal go here.

Wikipedia offers the following brief about Rosen, AIPAC, and espionage.

Main article: Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal

In April 2005, AIPAC policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman were fired by AIPAC amid an FBI investigation into whether they passed classified U.S. information received from Franklin on to the government of Israel. They were later indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel. ^[21][22]

In May 2005, the Justice Department announced that Lawrence Anthony Franklin, a U.S. Air Force Reserves colonel working as a Department of Defense analyst at the Pentagon in the office of Douglas Feith, had been arrested and charged by the FBI with providing classified national defense information to Israel. The six-count criminal complaint did not identify AIPAC by name, but described a luncheon meeting in which, allegedly, Franklin disclosed top-secret information to two AIPAC officials.

Here's Freeman's statement on withdrawing.

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

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.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

Why Did The US Leak Israeli War Plans?

In a three-pager today the New York Times has co-operated in the leaking of a shocking amount of information about the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program and Israeli/US reactions to it.

Why do I say "co-operated"? The Times goes out of its way to make that co-operation clear when they state, "Several details of the covert effort have been omitted from this account, at the request of senior United States intelligence and administration officials, to avoid harming continuing operations." Clearly that implies that any information leaked in the article was approved by the administration.

This raises several interesting questions;

(ONE) Why was the information leaked NOW?
(TWO) Was the leak approved by the Obama team?

In an attempt to consider these questions lets look at the major points of the leak.

(Leak 1) Last year Israel requested bunker busting bombs and permission (from the United States) to fly over Iraq. Bush hemmed and hawed on the bombs (but allegedly hasn't delivered) and allegedly gave an emphatic NO to the flyover. Instead he supposedly told the Israelis of new covert actions the US was undertaking against Iranian nuclear enrichment specifically and against Iranian infrastructure generically.

What are the possible reasons for leaking this information?

(A) It may make GWB appear to be more level-headed then most would believe as he prepares to leave his reign to the judgments of history.

(B) In light of recent action in Gaza what does releasing supposed plans by Israel to attack Iranian nuclear sites say to AIPAC, Israel and its Arab foes? There are multiple possibilities here.

(b1) Making public an American slap-down of these Israeli requests may be an attempt to show an administration slightly more neutral in the ongoing conflict than is generally assumed. If so this would upset AIPAC and current Israeli leadership and might also be an attempt to influence the upcoming Israeli elections. A side benefit would be the making public of American "respect" for the sovereignty of Iraq; the US had only very questionable authority (if any) to allow a flyover.

(b2) If one assumes reasonable persons control Iran (and that assumption is, in my opinion a valid one), then the exposure of serious Israeli intentions to attack Iran's nuclear facilities could be expected to have a cautionary effect on Iranian leadership.

Note some delicacy here in that (b1) and (b2) are not all mutually exclusive; these possible goals could be targeted with the same leaked information; making the US appear more even-handed regarding Gaza, showing respect for Iraqi sovereignty, and providing a cautionary tale to Iranian leadership.

The wild card here is the potential effect upon domestic Israeli politics. The actions taken in Gaza are being given less support by the Israeli population than similar previous actions. What effect does the image of an Israeli government stopped from bombing Iran only by US actions have on the internal Israeli political situation? One could make equally solid arguments that it benefits either hawks or doves, certainly it complicates those upcoming elections. Perhaps this will be clarified by future Israeli reactions to these leaks, but the leak was given without any certainty as to their effects in this regard. In that sense the leak was a bold action. In its lack of concern for Israeli political players it may also signal a move away from past knee-jerk support for AIPAC and Likudniks towards a more neutral stance. Dick Cheney this was not!

It appears to me that (Leak 1) smacks of both subtlety and boldness in the use of intelligence that has NOT been a trait of the administration over the last 8 years. On (Leak 1) it appears to me that it likely was approved by, and probably conceived by, the Obama team and indicates a far more delicate use of intel, media, and popular opinion than we have seen in the past. If it was conceived by the Obama team the obvious benefit to GWB's reputation can only be considered a brilliant stroke.

(Leak 2) The leak indicates that Bush was briefed on contingency plans to bomb Iranian facilities but he never instructed the military to move beyond the contingency stage. It gives credit to SecDef Gates for convincing Bush that an overt attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be "ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view."

What are the possible reasons for (Leak 2)?

(2a) It counters the wide spread rumors that Bush had ordered the military beyond contingency planning for overt attacks on Iranian soil, and thus it again makes GWB appear a bit more reasonable than commonly seen.

(2b) It makes Gates, who Obama has picked to remain as SecDef, look particularly reasonable and intelligent.

Perhaps there is a pattern here. If Obama wants to lend support for his choice at SecDef its not unwise to do so in such a way as to make GWB look a bit better as well. Additionally Obama can be seen here to have made a wise decision regarding Gates; that he was not simply chosen for bipartisanship but for a calm steady hand at SecDef.

(Leak 3) "Several years ago, foreign intelligence services tinkered with individual power units that Iran bought in Turkey to drive its centrifuges" ... "An engineer in Switzerland, who worked with the Pakistani nuclear black-marketeer Abdul Qadeer Khan, had been “turned” by American intelligence officials and helped them slip faulty technology into parts bought by the Iranians." .... "A number of centrifuges blew up, prompting public declarations of sabotage by Iranian officials." There is also much non-specific talk about high tech experimental covert methodology to attack Iranian infrastructure.

(3a) One can only assume that the "engineer in Switzerland" was already burned before this was leaked and that Iran already knew exactly how and by whom those centrifuges were sabotaged. This seems to be a leak of no real significance, probably used to pad the release, and, via the use of unimportant detail, to hide the real intended uses of the article; Leaks ONE and TWO.

(3b) Talk of super secret high tech abilities perhaps increases paranoia in the Iranian command and control structures and, perhaps, provides some domestic strokes to the US intel community.

(Leak 4) "The United States did give Israel one item on its shopping list: high-powered radar, called the X-Band, to detect any Iranian missile launchings."

(4a) Again one must assume that this information is already well known to Israels foes. After all this entire article was reviewed by "senior United States intelligence and administration officials", and information was omitted "to avoid harming continuing operations. " This also appears to be essentially useless detail lending a sense of authenticity to the entire leak.

I think the article is the work of Obama's team, perhaps driven by Gates, and it indicates that Gates (a former head of the CIA) has found a leader who is interested in using intelligence as a force in and of itself instead of simply using it to build a domestic drum beat for military action. That conclusion, which might be altered by future events, is the most optimistic I have been in ages.

An Open Letter to Chris Murphy

To see the 5 remaining Liberal voices left in the House who risked AIPAC's rath today (and the 22 others who were not quite so brave) click here.

Chris:

Your vote today to support H RES 34 was VERY disappointing.

While the wording was (deliberately) innocuous you know in your heart that was a vote to turn a blind eye on the atrocities Israel is committing in Gaza. To think that you have only been there two years and you are already afraid of AIPAC; its a real shame.

You are treading a fine line, perhaps one you don't care about anymore, and are dangerously close to losing the support of the NetRoots who were responsible for your first election.

Peace

Atrocities in Gaza

NYT delicately reports on Gaza Atrocities

International aid groups lashed out at Israel on Thursday over the war in Gaza, saying that access to civilians in need is poor, relief workers are being hurt and killed, and Israel is woefully neglecting its obligations to Palestinians who are trapped, some among rotting corpses in a nightmarish landscape of deprivation.

Antoine Grand, head of Red Cross operations in Gaza, said his group’s workers came under Israeli fire on Thursday. He said a convoy of two trucks, one clearly marked as Red Cross and the other from the Ministry of Health, was taking medical equipment to the southern city of Khan Yunis, followed by 13 ambulances heading to the Egyptian border.

He said the convoy’s movement was “fully coordinated with Israel. I did it myself.” And it was during the three-hour lull, at 3:30 p.m., he said, when they stopped in front of the checkpoint that the Red Cross vehicle was shot at from a tank.

The United Nations declared a suspension of its aid operations after one of its drivers was killed and two others were wounded despite driving United Nations-flagged vehicles and coordinating their movements with the Israeli military. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, called for an investigation by Israel for a second time in a week after the more than 40 deaths near a United Nations school from Israeli tank fire on Tuesday.

The International Committee of the Red Cross reported finding what it called shocking scenes on Wednesday, including four emaciated children next to the bodies of their dead mothers. In a rare and sharply critical statement, it said it believed that “the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded.”

At the United Nations, members of the Security Council voted Thursday night to approve a resolution calling for “an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire” that would lead to the “full withdrawal” of Israeli forces from Gaza, the passage of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and an end to the trafficking of arms and ammunition into the territory.

Fourteen nations approved the measure, with the United States abstaining.

“Look at the conditions in Gaza: more and more, it resembles a big concentration camp,” Cardinal Renato Martino, the head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said in an interview published Wednesday in Il Sussidiaro.

John Holmes .... said the Gaza authorities counted 758 fatalities, among them 257 children and 56 women. The injured totaled 3,100; of them 1,080 were children and about were 465 women.



Times Online reports of Israeli use of Phosphorus Weapons

Israel is believed to be using controversial white phosphorus shells to screen its assault on the heavily populated Gaza Strip yesterday. The weapon, used by British and US forces in Iraq, can cause horrific burns but is not illegal if used as a smokescreen.

“These explosions are fantastic looking, and produce a great deal of smoke that blinds the enemy so that our forces can move in,” said one Israeli security expert. Burning blobs of phosphorus would cause severe injuries to anyone caught beneath them and force would-be snipers or operators of remote-controlled booby traps to take cover. Israel admitted using white phosphorus during its 2006 war with Lebanon.

The use of the weapon in the Gaza Strip, one of the world’s mostly densely population areas, is likely to ignite yet more controversy over Israel’s offensive, in which more than 2,300 Palestinians have been wounded.

The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas, but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: “If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.”

White phosphorus: the smoke-screen chemical that can burn to the bone

— White phosphorus bursts into a deep-yellow flame when it is exposed to oxygen, producing a thick white smoke

— It is used as a smokescreen or for incendiary devices, but can also be deployed as an anti-personnel flame compound capable of causing potentially fatal burns

— Phosphorus burns are almost always second or third-degree because the particles do not stop burning on contact with skin until they have entirely disappeared — it is not unknown for them to reach the bone

— Geneva conventions ban the use of phosphorus as an offensive weapon against civilians, but its use as a smokescreen is not prohibited by international law

— Israel previously used white phosphorus during its war with Lebanon in 2006

— It has been used frequently by British and US forces in recent wars, notably during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Its use was criticised widely

— White phosphorus has the slang name “Willy Pete”, which dates from the First World War. It was commonly used in the Vietnam era.

Many non-western sources are also accusing Israel of using Cluster Bombs. The use of these weapons remains a rumor but it should be remembered that Israel used cluster bombs in Lebanon just a few years ago and that Israel (and the United States) have refused to sign treaties banning their use.

Palestinain Refugees circa 1948

Thanks Juan Cole
(click map for a larger image)