William F. Buckley Jr.: Israel Frenzy - Neocons in the middle

National Review Online ^ | March 02, 2004 | William F. Buckley Jr.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It is being claimed, ever more widely, that neocon policies are determined by the advantages they bring, manifest or putative, to the State of Israel. Patrick Buchanan, in the current American Conservative, believes this ardently, while the most quoted advocates of neocon militancy, Richard Perle and David Frum, go further than merely to deny that neoconservatism is an Israel First world view. They insist that criticism of neocon policies is, at heart, anti-Semitic.

Richard Perle, co-author with Frum of The End of Evil, old acquaintances remember as being for many years on the public scene as an adamant opponent of Soviet wiles and analyst of the perils of complacent coexistence. Perle's specialty was national defense, and he was there year after year to point out, for instance, that the disarmament fetishists played into the hands of Soviet opportunists. If we unilaterally stopped testing nuclear weapons, we risked Soviet technical advantage. If we stopped deploying theater weapons in Europe, we were threatened by the Soviets' development of their SS-20 missiles and the corresponding advantages in leverage over Western Europe.

It is reasonable to say that Perle's focus on the Communist threat was central to his devising of corollary policies. It is charged now, by e.g. Buchanan, that that focus is now on Israel. That Perle and co-author David Frum rise in the morning with a map of Israel in front of them and decide what ideas, people, countries to encourage, which to discourage, based on their bearing on Israel.

Now these acts of analytical reductionism are in part owing to political realities. Pat Buchanan, who has an ear for the trenchant way of saying things, wrote ten years ago that Congress had become the "Amen corner" for pro-Israel policies. In this space, I once jocularly proposed that Israel be annexed as the 51st state, which would give us the advantage of participating in the formulation of Israeli policies which we would then automatically endorse.

Nobody who knows his way around questions the political leverage of the Jewish vote in critical states or denies the importance of Jewish patronage of favored candidates and office holders.

But the transposition of this into the position that U.S. policies are formulated because they bear directly on Israeli interests is invention. The proposal to go to war against Iraq was, concertedly, advocated in one form or another by Richard Perle. But that policy proceeded from the loins of Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, and was animated by the reiterated U.S. interest in the stability of the Near East. The Bush administration arrived at the conviction that the sepsis of which the 9/11 attack was a single, lethal thrust was a variant of the Islamic fundamentalism that had taken over the country of Afghanistan and almost certainly was festering in Iraq. Which was governed by a totalist dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and was accumulating an inventory for strikes against his neighbors and nations of the west.

Israel, by geographical proximity, would have been an obvious target of Saddam Hussein's belligerence, but not necessarily the exclusive target of it. Saddam Hussein, in the past, had attacked not Israel but Kuwait, and before that, Iran.

The hostility to Israel on the part of the Muslim community is a fact of life, but to say that the war against Iraq bolstered Israel's security is not to say that we went to war in Iraq in order to bolster Israel's security.

There was no distinctive pressure, in 2003, to send U.S. Marines to Iraq in order to destroy a regime hostile to the State of Israel. And associates of the administration would probably confess, if out of earshot, that they would not have recommended the war on Iraq except for their conviction that it was becoming a storehouse of weaponry which Saddam was entirely capable of using, whether against Kurds, Kuwaitis, Iranians, or Israelis.

The neocon movement, it is being suggested, is motivated by concern for Israel but, more, by its affinity for the Likud Party of General Sharon, which represents militant and, many believe, shortsighted policies, contrasting with policies advocated by many Israelis, including past Israeli leaders, Ehud Barak prominent among them.

It's an unreasonable polarization of opinion: 1) everything a neocon advocates is animated by a concern for Israel, and, 2) every criticism of neocon policy is animated by anti-Semitism. That is straitened thought, and should be resisted.

[quidnunc]

westerfield wrote: Perle was caught by an FBI wiretap on the Israeli Embassy diclosing classified information supplied by someone on the NSC. Why he was given a slap on the wrist and never prosecuted for this crime is beyond me.

If this really was the case Perle would not have been allowed on the Pentagon advisory panel.

[westerfield]

When I googled up for the info, that was the first source that came up. As I've already said, the facts can easily be verified elsewhere if you are so inclined, but I have better things to do with my time than do research for you.

[Alberta's Child]

Unless you have a security clearence yourself there's no way you could have access to any information which would allow you to come to any reasonably informed conclusion.

But you would?

Are you defending all these morons because you have a rational reason to do so, or are you just defending them because you refuse to believe that U.S. defense policy may have been heavily influenced by agents of a foreign government for the last 30 years?

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, sure. And agents of the Chinese government would never be allowed to steal nuclear secret from Los Alamos, either.

/sarcasm off/

[westerfield]

I have no doubt that Senator Jeremiah Denton was a first class patriot and conservative - quidnunc claiming he is part of "the lunatic fringe" is ridiculous.

[Siamese Princess]

Now compare this to the combined military credentials for all those @ssholes Westerfield listed in Post #7.

A big fat zero, correct?

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry about that -- the message was really directed at Quidnunc, but I copied you on it for your interest. ;-)

[Siamese Princess]

If this really was the case Perle would not have been allowed on the Pentagon advisory panel.

Not with the right connections.

[Scenic Sounds]

It's an unreasonable polarization of opinion: 1) everything a neocon advocates is animated by a concern for Israel, and, 2) every criticism of neocon policy is animated by anti-Semitism. That is straitened thought, and should be resisted.

And we can throw out all the neo and paleo prefixes, too, as far as I'm concerned. After that, we can start throwing out some of the other labels like nazi, gay, libertarian, commie, feminist, conservative, anarchist, liberal, progressive, libertarian, homophobic, and socialist. These labels are like little chains!!

Why can't we just deal with issues and ideas one at a time? ;-)

[Alberta's Child]

That's right. One thing those "neocons" all seem to have in common is that they would rather wear a burka than a military uniform.

[Imal]

So let me get this straight: You mean the Jews don't control the world?

[Tempest]

The latest craze on this board has gone from find the RINO to hunt the Neocon. It's all rather absurd actually that some some socalled devout conservatives whom most likely don't agree with each other on EVERYTHING conservative would attempt to place a litmus test on others around here.

Let the witchhunt begin!

[westerfield]

After doing some research on Richard Perle's career, I've speculated that he was functioning in a capacity as an "unpaid advisor" to the U.S. Defense Department because there was no way in hell he could obtain the security clearances required for an appointed position at the Pentagon. Think about the implications of that one for a minute or two.

That is the same conclusion I came to.

[quidnunc]

Alberta's Child wrote: Are you defending all these morons because you have a rational reason to do so, or are you just defending them because you refuse to believe that U.S. defense policy may have been heavily influenced by agents of a foreign government for the last 30 years?

Ah yes, "Israel's amen chorus" up there on Capitol Hill, the only "alien-occupied territory" in America.

I'm supporting the Bush administration because I'm not inclined to allow perfect to be the enemy of plenty good enoughj.

[Alberta's Child]

You might make a note to yourself that all of the characters discussed in this thread are connected to the executive branch, not Congress -- hence, the term "'Israel's amen chorus' up there on Capitol Hill" really isn't relevant here.

. . . I'm not inclined to allow perfect to be the enemy of plenty good enough.

That's probably what Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon used to say to themselves as 58,000 body bags came home from Vietnam.

[Imal]

I ask for a credible source and you cite COUNTERPUNCH!?

Sure why not? Just look what they stand for:

"CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature."

It doesn't get any more noble (or groovy) that that. So dude, chill out, maybe have a tofurky wrap, light some incense, meditate with a crystal and realign your chi.

Gaia loves you. Peace, man.

[westerfield]

Good job, attack the source instead of addressing the facts included in the article. As I've already mentioned these facts can be verified elsewhere and are a matter of public record. I have yet to see either you or quidnunc dispute any of facts contained in the article, not counting quidnunc's hysterical denial that it can't possibly be true.

[Imal]

I'm mainly just having fun, myself. Counterpunch is a hoot, I'm sure you could have done better.

As for credible sources, I haven't seen any, and I've looked. It is not wrong for quid to ask you for one, since it's much harder to "prove" he was not investigated by someone than to reveal your mysterious credible source.

In general, if you make an accusation, it is up to you to back it up. If that bugs you, you may want to consider where that puts you in the grand scheme of things.

Aside from a dearth of credible sources, there's the problem of the accusation itself. An investigation does not necessarily indicate guilt of anything, or even suspicion. Some investigations are pro forma. Everyone who gets a top secret clearance is investigated, for example.

To use a rather extreme but apt illustration: If you had been investigated for child molestation but never convicted, does that make you a child molester? If I said you were a child molester, is it up to you to prove me wrong, or me to prove I'm right?

So, maybe Perle and the rest were investigated. But that does not mean they leaked classified material.

If you have some evidence, please lay it on us. But if all you have is innuendo, you've got nothing.

[Constantine XIII]

Gah, all of this "neo-con" paranoid nonsense really irks me. If I were a lefty and wanted to divide the conservative movement, I'd invent something just like this.

[westerfield]

"The principal draftsman is Richard Perle, an aide to Sen. Scoop Jackson, who, in 1970, was overheard on a federal wiretap discussing classified information from the National Security Council with the Israeli Embassy."

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html