Israel Frenzy (William Buckley gives Pat Buchanan the flat of his blade)

Town Hall ^ | March 4, 2004 | William F. Buckley, Jr.

[quidnunc]

It is being claimed, ever more widely, that neoconservative policies are determined by the advantages they bring, manifest or putative, to the state of Israel. Patrick Buchanan, in the current issue of 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 worldview. They insist that criticism of neocon policies is, at heart, anti-Semitic.

Richard Perle, co-author with Frum of "An End to 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 10 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.

-snip-

[Andy from Beaverton]

Pat's been crazy for a long time, just like his brother Hank.

[BenLurkin]

Guess I'm just simplistic but in my view Israel is God's chosen nation. World events will be driven by its fate for many years to come - probably until the end of the earth.

God's plan is clear. Those who stand against Israel are God's enemies.

[GeronL]

I think Buchanan is nuts on this issue, he has an Israel obsession. I get the impression that we are almost ignoring Israel in this administration.

[GeronL]

His book Right from the beginning was rather good. Its after that he began this drift down to paranoidville.

[KOZ.]

i've heard that before. to defend somebody because they God's 'chosen' people, i think it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Sabertooth]

Still the unchallenged Pointless Excerpt king, I see.

Here:

Israel frenzy
William F. Buckley (archive)

March 3, 2004 |

It is being claimed, ever more widely, that neoconservative policies are determined by the advantages they bring, manifest or putative, to the state of Israel. Patrick Buchanan, in the current issue of 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 worldview. 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 10 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 officeholders. 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. And the latter 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 that 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 Gen. Ariel 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.

William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor-at-large of National Review, a Townhall.com member group.

©2004 Universal Press Syndicate

Contact William F. Buckley | Read Buckley's biography
LINK

[DentsRun]

Guess I'm just simplistic but in my view Israel is God's chosen nation.

All of us are a bit simplistic. My simplistic view is that it's the duty of all Americans to put America first.

[BenLurkin]

God will defend Israel with or without our help. We just don't want to be on the wrong side of the conflict.

[h.a. cherev]

My simplistic view is that it's the duty of all Americans to put America first.

I guess it's up to each of us to define what "America First" means. And who's to say I'm right and you're wrong? Or visa-versa?

For example, I might say that I think a strong Israel is in America's best interests because of our "shared values". You might think our aid to Israel and other foreign countries is best spent at home. We can each defend our points of view without convincing the other. Is it possible to agree to disagree and respect the others opinion without accusing anyone of duel loyalty or anti-Semitism?

[Cold Heat]

Since 9/11, Israel has become much more of a focal point to the enemy, and therefore to us.

Saddam used the crap out of our relationship with Israel to incite hatred, as did and do other wacko's in the area like Bin Hidin.

We are intertwined with them, whether we like it or not.

Pat Buchanan is antiwar. He believes our defense of Israel is what is leading us into new wars.

Perhaps he could be correct, because if Israel were not there at all, then the Moslem's would like us better????????????

Nah! I think not.

[DentsRun]

I guess it's up to each of us to define what "America First" means. And who's to say I'm right and you're wrong?

Since 9-11 I've seen perhaps a dozen stories talking about the deep emotional ties some Jewish neoconservative policy makers in the Bush administration have to the state of Irael. Given the widely differing experience of America and Israel, it's no surprise that from time to time their national interests are going to run in different directions. Which makes me wonder, how does someone with deep emotional ties to another country keep that from coloring the advice he gives the president?

Now the answer might be as simple as this. "Of course, I put America first. No question about it." If that's the answer, fine. I'm not cynical. I'll take them at their word. I'd just for once like to hear them say it. It's the fact that some people so vehemently deny there can ever be the slightest daylight between the interests of the two countries that tends to make me suspicious.

[Texasforever]

Still the unchallenged Pointless Excerpt king, I see.

When the hell are you going to stop being a thread nanny? What are you a 12 year old girl?

[DentsRun]

God will defend Israel with or without our help. We just don't want to be on the wrong side of the conflict.

Well, I want us to be on the right side in the conflict too. It's just that when I see some here attacking not only Bush, Rumsfield and Zinni as sellouts but Sharon too, I begin to wonder who is far out enough for them. Sometimes I get the impression that they're not only not on the American side, they're off the edge on the Israeli side too.

[Sabertooth]

When the hell are you going to stop being a thread nanny? What are you a 12 year old girl?

Hiya, Nanny Kettle.

[Texasforever]

I saw your tongue sticking out when you posted that. Saber change your name to pussycat. It fits you better.

[Sabertooth]

I saw your tongue sticking out when you posted that. Saber change your name to pussycat. It fits you better.

Just slicing and dicing me tonight, Tex. Whew.

You got opinions? Post 'em. I'll do the same.

Don't anticipate, however, that you can hang with the crowd of dishonest nasties with whom you like to make common cause, flapping from thread to thread and dragging your bait along with you, and then show up as Mr. Clean and fool anyone.

When you're not affecting your cyber-thug mode, you're an occasionally interesting poster. Tonight ain't one of those nights for you.

[Texasforever]

When you're not affecting your cyber-thug mode, you're an occasionally interesting poster. Tonight ain't one of those nights for you.

She says with her little arms tightly crossed. Saber your act is so lame it qualifies for handicapped parking.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

LOL

[Texasforever]

I am sick of his passive aggressive nanny tactics.