(cross-posted at Talking Points Memo)
I wanted to wait until some of the anger and violent emotion over the Freeman issue had cooled before I (very gingerly) brought this up.
First -- as a basis for the rest of this discussion, here are my views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
I believe in a two-state solution and in the right of both Israel and Palestine to security and self-determination.
I am, and have always been, strongly opposed to Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I think the Israeli settlements on the West Bank should be dismantled. I think the Israeli government should agree to talks with the elected governments in both Gaza and the West Bank. I think Israeli citizens who happen to be Arabs, and Israeli citizens who are ultra-Orthodox Jews should have the exact same rights and privileges (and obligations*) as other Israeli citizens.
On the other side, I think Hamas and Hezbollah should stop shooting rockets into Israel. I think that while Hamas has done some good things for its people, it has also done tremendous harm with its repressive and violent behaviors toward its own people. I think Fatah is a corrupt dinosaur that has done very little to further the interests of the Palestinian people.
I think our government should tie aid to Israel and to the Palestinians first to willingness to meet and talk, and then to progress toward a peaceful resolution.
Just as I am smack in the middle on Israel and Palestine, I was smack in the middle on the appointment of Chas Freeman. I read articles and essays that supported Freeman and ones that attacked Freeman. And then I decided to go to the primary source, so I read what Freeman himself said [see links to his statements at the bottom of this diary]. My take-away on from his own words is that he is an excellent advocate for the point of view he represents; but he has seemingly no ability to understand those who have a different point of view.
I decided, therefore, that I would be happy if someone like Freeman were part of an advisory group on issues of China and the Middle East, that it would be good to have his views as part of the mix, but I wouldn't want him as lead person on either issue.
And this is where my question of progressives' hypocrisy comes in. It seems to me that Freeman's criticism (for the most part justified) of Israel has won him the support of many progressives who are incensed by Israel's occupation of the West Bank and treatment of the Palestinians. I understand that completely.
But these same progressives, these same people who are outraged by Israel's behavior, accept Freeman's statements supporting the Chinese government suppression of dissent in their country and repression of the Tibetan independence movement.
In the first case, with Israel, this particular group of progressives take a moral stance. In the 2nd case, with China, they cite realism as the basis of their support for Freeman.
Freeman is praised for his ability to see events from the Chinese point of view, for understanding the Chinese government, history and culture. But he is not criticized for his lack of understanding of the Tibetan view, or the point of view of those, often imprisoned, Chinese who have spoken out for democracy and freedom.
Similarly, Freeman is praised for understanding the Palestinian point of view and zeroing in on the broad set of problems resulting from Israeli occupation. But he is not taken to task for his lack of understanding of the history of Israel and the underpinnings of their aggressive stance toward their neighbors.
I am not so inconsistent. I think China's treatment of Tibet and their violent suppression and imprisonment of dissenters is as morally repugnant as Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
We might, as a country, choose to ignore the Chinese government's behavior because we need China's support right now. And we might, as a country, choose to pressure Israel to behave better because we have the means to do this.
But we should make those choices with eyes wide open, admitting our inconsistency and acknowledging that these are hard and complicated choices in a world full of competing interests and emotional/cultural clashes.
Links to Freeman's statements:
On China & Tibet (see 10th full paragraph for statement on Tibet)
http://www.mepc.org/...
On China, dissidents and Tian’anmen Square:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/... (this source is a blog supportive of Freeman which got his statements, ironically, from the Weekly Standard. They felt that the WS had actually done a service for Freeman in that people reading these statements would end up with a high opinion of Freeman.)
On Israel/Palestine (I agreed with almost everything Freeman said here, but he showed remarkable ignorance in understanding Israel's history and cultural imperatives):
http://www.mepc.org/...
* I cite "obligations," because so many of the ultra-Orthodox in Israel exist on government support but refuse to give anything back.