Posted on 03/02/2004 1:54:29 PM PST by 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.
Neocons With Dual Agendas and Divided Loyalties
All a grand conspiracy, no doubt. The source does matter, especially when citations can't be verified (do you have access to Justice Department investigation records?).
By the way, don't get me wrong, I honestly don't know what is truth or fiction in this case. Maybe these guys really are moles for Israel, or some sort of "Jewish mafia" wending their way through the halls of U.S. power and trading in classified information.
But I am rightly distrustful of people who are openly agenda-driven. Anyone with any background knows the power of a well-written hit piece.
I have also been hooked to a polygraph myself more than a few times for various colorful and acronymic security clearances, and am thus highly suspicious of anyone who claims sensitive compartmented information can be trafficked with impunity. In the context of Israel, Jonathan Pollard springs to mind (may he rot in his cell).
Overall, an interesting topic, but really, I just walked into this because I saw "Counterpunch", and well, reflex set in...
LOL, I can't really blame you for that. I winced and held my nose when I posted that link, but the alternative would have been to wade through many pages of google because most of the sources that came up were of a leftist, anti-war nature.
most of the sources that came up were of a leftist... natureThat should have told you something.
Counterpunch and Indymedia, indeed.
At FR - a Conservative website - yet.
It's amazing who paleocons will get into bed with. Remember Buchanan and Fulani? :))
You meant to say Jew-boy, didn't you?
Little Frummer boy, who suggested Mel Gibson is Holocaust Denier on Sunday
This is a quote from the article linked by you:
Is Mel Gibson a Holocaust denier? I am not asserting that he is.
Was it then a mistake or a lie on your part, Johny-boy?
Of course not: as long as it comes from someone with a Jewish name, Alberta's Child would'n hear of it. And it would matter not if the Pope of Earl of Canterberry says the same thing.
Your prejudiuces are really taking you over, honey.
What does that prove? There was also General Patton, a great American, who said, to wit, "There are people, there is vermin, and there are Jews."
That's a great mystery of smart, otherwise honeorable people who are anti-Semitic: when it comes to Jews, they leave both their minds and their hearts at the door. From Voltaire to Dostoyevsky --- all the same story.
What's more disturbing is the honesty with which you express prejudice. Your remark is nothing but taking sides. You say, "See, I an on the side of honorable peope; I cannot be wrong." That is the standard position of a scoundrel. You should be on a positon of prinicple, not people. You are screaming at the top your lungs: "I don't like Jews, and great many honorable people are on MY side."
Pathetic and not particularly bright.
As for "hunt the Neocon," that has always been a favorite on this board. It just took different names over time: USS Liberty, Israeli Foreknowlesge of Sep 11, Neocon...
Same people, same style. But ask them why they use Neocon when they actually mean Jew --- they'll accuse YOU of shutting down a legitimate discussion.
If Perle dies tomorrow, G-d forbid, all these same people will go to Jewish bankers; they'll remember of a sudden that Greenspan is Jewish -- you name it. The game will change to Hunt the Fed Chairman Who Sold Us Out to Israelis.
But now that I recall the affair better --- I think it was Arafat who overheard the conversation.
Yea... that's the ticket.
These are some extremely twisted folks who are giving "conservatism" a very bad name by abusing the emotions of patriotic Americans.
Constantine XIII: Just wait, these same bigots will bemoan that the Jews vote overwhelmingly Democratic... They will blame the Jews, the Black, the Mexicans --- all those "nonWhite people," all the while having no doubt about themselves, that they are "patriotic Americans."
Mr. Pink: you are not patriotic, and you are not an American. You are not Pink either: you are red.
I posted a bit of information about a Republican senator who was a strong adversary of Richard Perle back in the 1980s, and you immediately ascribe some kind of dishonorable motivation to both of us.
I used Jeremiah Denton to support my case (a case based on principle, not people) specifically because of his military background -- because the issue at hand involves national security. If Richard Perle had been some kind of high-ranking bureaucrat in the Department of Agriculture, and the topic of discussion here was U.S. trade policy, then I would have used someone else.
Since you seem to know Richard Perle so well, perhaps you'd like to tell us who was paying his bills while he was functioning as an "unpaid advisor" to the Bush administration.
How many Jews are you targeting in your conspiracy theory ?
We can agree on that much ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.