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.

[mr.pink]

We can agree on that much ...

It's great when we all can agree, I've strangely found areas where I can agree with both TQ and V, and now you've found agreement with me.

I'm almost ready for a Kumb-by-yah thread.

[af_vet_1981]

It's great when we all can agree, I've strangely found areas where I can agree with both TQ and V, and now you've found agreement with me. I'm almost ready for a Kumb-by-yah thread.

Are you on board with Alberta Child's conspiracy theory ?

[Alberta's Child]

I don't know what you mean by "conspiracy theory," but the only person that is really the target of my ire is Richard Perle.

[mr.pink]

Are you on board with Alberta Child's conspiracy theory ?

I haven't read it yet, but it seems to have gotten harsh reviews. But as we've all learned lately, harsh reviews don't necessarily equate to box office failure.

Which specific post are you referring to? let me know and I'll try to read it at somepoint soon and then comment.

Much thanks.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Geez, over 60 posts on a Buckley thread, and nothing about a word of the day. How about sepsis?

[af_vet_1981]

I don't know what you mean by "conspiracy theory," but the only person that is really the target of my ire is Richard Perle.

You 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? "

"All these [people]" cannot refer to one man. I ask you again who are "all these Jews" you are targeting in your conspiracy theory ? Are there other Jewish members of the Bush Administration you are including ?

[mr.pink]

Geez, over 60 posts on a Buckley thread, and nothing about a word of the day. How about sepsis?

LOL...."sepsis"?....didn't Bubba have the entire Oval Office medicine cabinet filled with ointments to combat that? ;o)

Such a shame that clumsy goobers like Frum and J Goldberg are allowed within 1,000 ft of the NR building. The Buck must puke...er, regurgitate when he takes time to really think about the outrage.

[Alberta's Child]

There are multiple strings of posts on this thread -- the one in which I was referring to "all these people" was a response to a post about the group that Westerfield mentioned in one of the early messages.

It's funny how the phrase "conspiracy theory" always comes up in this kind of thread. For some people here, I suspect that the whole Pollard case was considered a "conspiracy theories" right up until the day he was convicted.

[af_vet_1981]

• This is exactly what the Bush Administration brought upon itself by allowing a Jew like Richard Perle to have any input whatsoever in the Iraq issue --
• Are you defending all these Jews 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?
• 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.
• That's right. One thing those Jews all seem to have in common is that they would rather wear a burka than a military uniform.

  I would like to know for the record which Jews in the Bush Administration you are targeting.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Jonah Goldberg, despite inauspiciously getting his start as Scandal Boy, is very funny and very smart. Clumsy? Maybe a little.

[sarasmom]

Pollard is the ultimate loyalty litmus test for anti-USA, liberal, socialist, Jewish/other perverted extremist activists.
Support Pollard?
I consign you to hell with him.
Next question?
Some things are very simple.
Attempts to complicate simple truth are fairly construed as evil lies.
Pick a side, and do not deviate.
The choice is for /or against.
With the USA or aganst the USA.
Nuanced ambiguity is vastly overrated.

[mr.pink]

You're right..."clumsy" is an unfair descriptive for Jonah and upon reconsideration I'll submit the adjective "adolescent" instead...hopefully he'll grow up and exchange smarmy/cuteness for responsible substance when he reaches his late forties.

One would have to think that the best teacher in the world is somewhere in the building, or if not, availible by tel.

[af_vet_1981]

Next question?

Why is it only Jews that you target by ethnicity or religion in your religious comments ?

[Alberta's Child]

If you want to continue with a conversation here between adults, you will do the following:

1. Use the "Abuse" function to ask the Admin Moderator to remove Post #69.

2. Post your questions with accurate quotes from my previous messages.

[af_vet_1981]

I quoted you accurately in italics. I substituted a more honorable name for the targets of your gutter words. I would like you to publicly identify the others in the Bush Administration you are targeting with your accusations.

[Alberta's Child]

I think you are going to have to answer all those questions yourself, since I had no idea all these people were Jewish until you just told me so.

[af_vet_1981]

I think you are going to have to answer all those questions yourself, since I had no idea all these people were Jewish until you just told me so.

You have already answered my question for all the world to see.

[tpaine]

NutCrackerBoy wrote: Jonah Goldberg, despite inauspiciously getting his start as Scandal Boy, is very funny and very smart. Clumsy? Maybe a little.

______________________________________


Not smart, not funny, just clumsy, -- and dumb.. -- He'll never grow out of dumb.

CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1088708/posts

[Alberta's Child]

OK -- great.

[sarasmom]

"Why is it only Jews that you target by ethnicity or religion in your religious comments ?"

I dont answer pointless, erroneous troll-strawmen questions.
Next question?