Chas Freeman

Chas Freeman, who withdrew as nominee for the National Intelligence Council.  He claims that he was opposed mostly by the Israel lobby.  Andrew Sullivan is up in arms:

It is a minor appointment, but even minor appointments in the president's own staff cannot proceed if the appointees question the p.c. line on Israel. The enforcement of this orthodoxy even in minor appointments - to the extent of character assassination - is what makes this a news story. And the repercussions of that orthodoxy for future foreign policy, especially with Iran, are enormous.

Thankfully this was just a minor appointment.  But this brings up larger points:

1. Unless you are being appointed ambassador to Israel, your support that country does not matter.
2. Nominees are not rejected for criticizing Iran, China, Russia, India, Mexico, and many other countries.  Israel does not deserve special treatment, especially after the mess they made in January.
3. We've been supporting Israel since the beginning, and look how much the situation has improved.  Right...

I'll close with some more remarks from Andrew Sullivan, who I think has quite nicely summarized it:

This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East. This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington. Even when the horrifying Gaza assault was going on, it became evidence of anti-Semitism to find the civilian casualties morally repellent and the siege itself counter-productive. This kind of intimidation must end.