Posted on 03/25/2008 5:28:23 AM PDT by SJackson
McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not going back to the 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.
In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view that American Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of America's interests in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and Palestinians together at...something other than a peace process....We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."
The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"
McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.
...snip...
McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not going back to the 1967 borders as part of any peace agreement with Arab states. In 1976 McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine questioning Israel's insistence on holding on to the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank.
In recent years McPeak has echoed the Mearsheimer-Walt view that American Middle East policy is being controlled by Jews at the expense of America's interests in the region. In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, McPeak complained of that the "lack of playbook for getting Israelis and Palestinians together at...something other than a peace process....We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."
The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"
McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."
Translation (as if it's needed): Jews -- who put Israel over every American interest -- control America's policy on the Middle East. And McPeak has the audacity to accuse Bill Clinton of McCarthyism.
McPeak also claims that a combination of Jews and Christian Zionists are manipulating U.S. policy in Iraq in dangerous and radical ways: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense. So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical...."
McPeak also noted: "The secret of the neoconservative movement is that it's not conservative, it's radical. Guys like me, who are conservatives, are upset about these neocons calling themselves conservative when they're so radical."
Guys like McPeak are upset because they think Jews have too much influence.
McPeak (in his Oregonian interview) also equated terrorist organizations with neoconservative supporters for Israel:
Interviewer: "Do you think...there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"
McPeak: "Absolutely."
Interviewer: "So this is -- this is multilateral."
Instead of discussing Hamas and Hezbollah, McPeak returns to his primary target: Christian and Jews who support Israel:
McPeak: "There's an element in Oregon [sic], you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place. I think there is enough good will on the Israeli side -- I've spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli air force as a junior officer, and so -- but that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population."
In other words, American policy is the product of "religious Jews and neocons" who in McPeak's mind are just as much to blame for a lack of peace in the Middle East as are Hamas and Hezbollah.
It will be interesting to see how the Obama campaign formulates what should be its latest disavowal and dismissal of yet another anti-Israel and anti-Jewish "adviser."
...snip...
Excerpt, complete article at link
I agree, it is hopeless to expect peace in that region. But I'd sure rather have someone in the WH that looks at Israel as an ally and Hamas as an enemy than vice versa. Obama would be the latter. He's vile.
Earlier in the year, American Thinker published an article "Barack Obama and Israel" which wondered why Barack Obama seemingly had a proclivity to tie himself to people who have very problematic attitudes towards Israel.I'm sure that's just a coincidence. /sarc Thanks C from E.
Not exactly earthshaking news, considering what we already know.
Nor, of course, has hillary. So neither of them are qualified.
But at least Obama doesn't HATE the military like the clintons do.
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.