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.
I dont answer pointless, erroneous troll-strawmen questions.
You introduced the topic. I could feel your love. I wanted to ascertain its source.
Next question?
I don't think you know the answer.
I advise against putting words in other peoples' mouths.
If you've ever had it done to you, like I have, you'd know precisely why it's considered poor form.
If you can't make your point without resorting to such tactics, you don't have one.
Do you understand the use of italics in posted comments ? Did you read his comments ? Do you understand what is going on here ?
If you've ever had it done to you, like I have, you'd know precisely why it's considered poor form.
Do you think if good form to target Jews with gutter names and later feign he did not know they are Jews ? Do you have something inspiring to say about that ?
If you can't make your point without resorting to such tactics, you don't have one.
I have made my point. He has made my point. You are making my point. It is plain as day and night, light and darkness.
Yep, one can remain silent or one can remember it's Purim.
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. -William F. Buckley Jr.
a toxic condition resulting from the spread of bacteria or their products from a focus of infection
As my brother is wont to tell me, metaphors break down. But how else to describe it? Apocalyptic Islamist cells connected to terror masters in control of Iran, to strongholds within Pakistani intelligence, funded by millions from the House of Saud?
Surely these almost insignificant-seeming individual terrorist cells are not our enemy! An invisible hand guides their movements. How to strike that hand? The madrassas still churning out more than enough committed Islamists to be turned into soldiers for the cause.
Don't be silly, Vet: our Vice-President, Secretary of State, Rice --- all are Jewish, didn't you know? Most of of the State Department is on Israeli payroll -- that is why they so vigorously support Palestinians.
Ask Alberta Child --- she'll provide you with ample evidence, including the date when Bush converted to Judaism.
Johny, you should stop taling until you grow up a little and learn to think. I have not stated on this thread a single view that would allow you even begin to assess where on political/cultural spectrum I am.
The ease with which you throw accusations only shows once more that you have no respect for either Amerian tradition or Judeo-Christian values.
Insinuating that I am an anti-Semite I did not insinuate anything. I merely pointed out that you (i) cannot read, (ii) like to shoot yourself in the foot --- by deliberately misquoting an article and then providing a link to it, and (iii) are a liar, sir.
Regarding the last point, I asked whether the falsehood you perpetrated was inadvertent, and hence a mistake, or deliberate, and hence a lie. You confirmed, in the usual to you manner of uncommon clarity, that it was deliberate.
You are not a Christian --- you violate Commandments all too easily to be one. You are not Ameican, no matter what your birth certificate says -- you spit on our traditions all too easily. You are a liar --- as demonstrated on this thread.
Now, Johny, go to bed and in the future vent your anger at the Jooos eslewhere.
:):):):)
No, neither President Bush nor any of the rest converted to become Jews. Rather we have adopted them as Righteous Gentiles according to the their works.
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.