M. J. Rosenberg accuses Jonathan Chait, and by extension everyone opposed to the appointment of Chas Freeman, of failing to "get beyond the ethnic pull" of Israel. Rosenberg goes on to say that "in Obama's America, it is harder and harder to take seriously those who approach issues ethnically." I'm stunned by how presumptuous this is. Is it possible those opposed to Freeman's appointment simply prefer Israeli democracy to Saudi authoritarianism, and are thus troubled by an appointment of someone who seems to hold precisely the opposite view? That's my problem with the appointment. Chait articulated his own objections, which centered on Freeman's support for the massacre at Tienanmen Square. But Rosenberg doesn't believe him, saying that "None of the bloggers in question had any interest in Freeman's views on China until Steve Rosen (and some of his colleagues) decided to stir up the opposition to Freeman because of his alleged lack of fidelity to the [Israeli] occupation." Is this now a legitimate form of argument -- to dismiss everything a person has written and insist that they have some ulterior, hidden motive for their positions? And yet while Rosenberg accuses Chait -- and everyone else who has written on this subject -- of lying about their motives, he lies himself, flagrantly:
In fact, I hear that the offending China quotes were only discovered in the context of a Google Nexis/Lexis search to find incriminating material to block Freeman's appointment because of his Middle East views. China was not even an afterthought. That should be obvious unless one believes that Rosen, Goldfarb, Goldberg, Peretz, Goldberg again and Scheonfeld suddenly developed a deep and simultaneous concern about human rights in China.
Who does he hear this from? I'm interested, because I was the person who first published that note, and I know precisely where it came from. It was not to be found on Google or Nexis, but if Rosenberg had even bothered to read it, he would know this. He would also be forced to grapple with the content of that note instead of rebuking those who were troubled by Freeman's views for their alleged indifference to human rights in China. It is, after all, Freeman, not us, who is indifferent to human rights in China -- and Saudi Arabia. If some of those who oppose Freeman's nomination are, in Rosenberg's view, not concerned enough with the rights of Palestinians, let him write that, but it is insane that in the course of his defense of Freeman's vile position on China he should accuse us of indifference to human rights in that country. And it's a lie. And with Freeman's ties to the Saudis coming up at today's White House briefing and a bipartisan call in Congress for an investigation of those ties -- it's not at all clear that Freeman's appointment is a done deal.