This article caught my eye because I am doing a presentation on Saudi Arabia today for one of my political science classes. While this is not exactly about Saudi Arabia, I wonder if any politician connected to countries like Saudi Arabia, or any politician openly sharing their sentiment that might differ from the “norm” will ever be given a break. We talk about having bipartisanship, different viewpoints, and all these great things about “mixing ideologies” for greater representation…and here is a former ambassador stepping down from a post because the pro-Israeli lobbyist argue that his “biased” and “hatred” like position for Israel is unsuitable.
So much for our free country.
New York Times
Mr. Freeman had long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally. In 2006, he warned that, “left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them and enrage those who are not.”
He did not soften his tone even on Wednesday, saying in an interview that “Israel is driving itself toward a cliff, and it is irresponsible not to question Israeli policy and to decide what is best for the American people.”
The critics who led the effort to derail Mr. Freeman argued that such views reflected a bias that could not be tolerated in someone who, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, would have overseen the production of what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments destined for the president’s desk.
Some of Mr. Freeman’s defenders say his views on Israel are extreme only when seen through the lens of American political life, and they asked whether it was possible to question American support for Israel without being either muzzled or marginalized.