Jeffrey is traveling in the Middle East so this post is really a note of his. He is not, he assures us, accusing Charles Freeman of dual loyalty. He is making the following point:

What I'm suggesting is that Freeman suffers from clientitis, which is a disease sometimes seen in former American ambassadors to Saudi Arabia (among other places). "Clientits" is a common Washington ailment, and it manifests itself in different ways. In the case of diplomats, it causes them to over-identify with the viewpoints of the countries in which they serve.

I think this is exactly the point, and it's a valid worry about Freeman. But why isn't it also a worry about, say, Dennis Ross?

Here's a man who is in charge of the Iran docket - the most explosive of them all, and on which Israel has a very strong position. And what was Ross doing before he took this job? Ahem:

After leaving his position as envoy, Ross returned to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow. He became chair of the Jerusalem-based think tank, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency in 2002.

Click on the links to see what these groups are. If Freeman is vulnerable to clientitis, why isn't Ross? Don't get me wrong: it seems to me that Ross is an asset to the administration, and is perfectly capable of separating his past employment from his current duties. But why, then, isn't Freeman? Or are these questions that are only raised when the client isn't Israel?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.