Sunday 5 April 2009

Freeman: Israel's policies destructive to US

link

The following is a Press TV interview with former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles W. Freeman on the controversy surrounding his nomination and subsequent withdrawal form chairing the US National Intelligence Council:
"...Press TV: Did it bother you that President Barack Obama remained silent when you were criticized for this position? Did you expect more of this administration and its “policies of change”?
Freeman: well I think that I was obviously disappointed that I did not have support from the White House. But as I understand it is the way this administration works, I really shouldn't have been surprised. ..........

Press TV: You expressed your dissatisfaction in your writings, saying that it actually bothers you to see that this small group of people are working in the interests of a foreign government on your soil. Why do you think they singled you out and prevented you from taking this post? Why were they intimidated a figure like you?
Freeman: Well, I do not think that they are working on behalf of a foreign government, but that they are working on behalf of a faction in a foreign country, which is even worst.
What is it that they objected to about me? Well I am critical of the Israeli policy. I believe Israel's policies are destructive to American interests and also to Israeli interests.
I do not see how Israel can continue to survive in the long term as a state in the Middle East if it is not prepared to deal with respect and consideration with its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians
.
I think it is not an act of hostility to Israel to be critical but an act of friendship, and the failure to observe that, see that and agree with that is what I think is most detestable about this group of people. ........

Press TV: What about current President Barack Obama's Nowrouz message to the Iranians? How would you view that? And what about the response that it got from Iranian officials?
Freeman:Well, I think it was in the nature of pre-negotiating step, and that both sides made it clear- he in his message and the Iranian government in its response- that pre-negotiation is not negotiation and that there are serious issues that need be addressed between the two countries and that neither side is in a position to pick and choose its agenda and has to address the agendas of both parties.
Press TV: What does it take for the betterment of ties between Tehran and Washington?
Freeman: Well it takes first of all the abandonment of a monotonous and strident message that the previous administration sent to Iran. ....President Obama has not repeated this litany. On the contrary, he has held out the possibility of broad discussions. Those discussions are not going to be easy.....On the United States side there are also serious issues having to do with the way in which Iran has exercised its growing influence in the region and the relationship that it has with the enemies of Israel, who are by our own decision our own enemies as well. There will be a serious need to address the question of security in the [Persian] Gulf. ......
Press TV: What about the Israeli lobby or the Likud lobby, or AIPAC? Are they going to stand in the way of the betterment of ties between Washington and Tehran?
Freeman: I think this element that is the far-right in Israel and its sympathizers here see Iran as the only serious threat to Israel's existence. I think that they are wrong about that.
I think that Iran's actions are the most serious threat to Israel's existence. I don't believe that Iran intends to attack Israel, whatever it may say for political effect. The fact is that there is a danger that Israel will insist on its agenda.
I don't think that the Obama administration is ready to cooperate with that. That is already an advance over the previous administration.
There are other questions with regards to the Israeli relationship with Iran in the past of course, because Iran is not Arab and lies behind the Arab world from the Israeli perspective.
Iran and Israel had a very close relationship. I suppose if that relationship were open to an Israeli government that had resolved the Palestinian issue for example, they would seize on it with alacrity and Iran and Israel would once again have good relations not withstanding their recent history.
So I am sure that one should not assume unrelenting hostility from either Israel or the Israeli lobby here to an improvement in relations with Iran under some circumstances. ..."

Posted by G, Z, & or B at 11:56 AM

No comments: