In what I think is quite an excellent article, The Moderate Voice’s Pete Abel analyzes the reaction to one of the controversial statements has made about Israel in the past to one that former Israel Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote in a book review last year.  He makes some conclusions about the differing severity of criticism to the statements of Shlomo’s words (light) versus Freeman’s (heavy) (emph. mine):

Concluding his book review for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ben-Ami wrote the following.

Israel must admit once and for all that the territorial phase of Zionism has ended, dismantle most of the West Bank settlements, and help create a viable Palestinian state as soon as possible. This is Israel’s only chance to seal its 1948 victory — which has been constantly challenged ever since — before the swelling tide of Islamic fundamentalism drowns the existing Arab regimes and dooms the prospects of an enduring Arab-Israeli peace.

Ironically, Chas Freeman once suggested something quite similar: “For almost forty years, Israel has had land beyond its previously established borders to trade for peace.”

Why, then, is Ben-Ami’s criticism of Israel allowed to stand with minimal dispute, but Freeman’s is not? The answer likely hinges in part on the fact that Ben-Ami was not recommended (to the best of my knowledge) for a top U.S. government intelligence post. But there’s obviously more to it than that — and this “more” is not rocket science. Ben-Ami benefits from both his insider standing and from his cautious, balanced choice of words.

I think there is some truth to this.  The quote is only but one of the many things that Ben-Ami said over his career, but you can see what a better selection of words it is compared to things Freeman has said.  Notice that there’s nothing accusatory about it.  In fact, it applauds and celebrates the creation of Israel.

In general, people liked to be told they’ve done the right thing.  This is why Ben-Ami’s words might have gotten some more consideration and less criticism.  The message is critical in itself, but is juxtaposed with acclaim for the good things of the past.

Freeman’s criticism, meanwhile, is just that, criticism.  When you tell people what they’ve done has caused their current problems, like Freeman has, they’re less likely to take you seriously.  The “we’ve done great things, but there are some current issues, so here’s a solution to fix them” approach seems destined to be more acceptable than the “we’ve done some very bad things, so here’s my solution to clean it up” approach.

Pete also says that criticism is more acceptable when it’s done by an insider.  That’s why Ben-Ami gets a pass on his criticism but Freeman doesn’t.  Again, I think he’s right.

Consider how many times a white person in the U.S. has had the racism card shoved in their face because of their criticism of the lack of parenting in some black families (I’m counting the minutes…nay…seconds when I’ll get it here for writing this paragraph).  Yet, Barack Obama or Bill Cosby can say these things, with perhaps some grumbling from dissidents, but not much else.  They’re an insider, so their own community is more likely to give a pass to what they have to say versus what a white would about the same issue, even if the criticism is exactly the same.

This second one doesn’t always happen.  A black or Israeli might be perfectly accepting of criticism from an outsider.  But more often than not, it does seem to happen.