By Ted Belman
Today (Apr 21/09) I had a private conversation with Douglas Feith and Frank Gaffney Jr. It came about due to a conference call that was arranged by the Center for Security Policy of which the latter is the President.
The subject of the call was Feith’s recent book War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. Feith as you may recall was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on 911. As such he was in the thick of things.
-
Of all the players in the planning of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism, few were more integral—or more controversial—than Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense and chief strategist on Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon policy team. Feith’s new book, WAR AND DECISION: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (HarperCollins Publishers, April 8, 2008), offers the most thorough, rigorous, and searching exploration yet of the administration’s actions—drawing extensively on conversations and previously unseen memos among Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Bremer, Franks, Cheney, President Bush and others, and Feith’s own detailed meeting notes.
I am looking forward to reading it.
That aside, there were technical difficulties that left me as virtually the only person on the call.
Feith explained that the first thing that the administration had to decide after 911 was what to do about it. It could seek revenge against al Qaeda who they believed perpetrated it or it could seek to act to prevent future attacks. It chose the latter.
911 was the first terrorist attack seeking major loss of life and destruction. Until then each attack had been more limited. 911 came a few months a two-day bio-terrorism exercise, code-named “Dark Winter”, was held at Andrews Air Force Base, Washington D.C. It was described as follows;
-
This is a fictional scenario. The background to the story goes like this: six months earlier, the U.S. lifted sanctions against Iraq and ceased enforcement of the “no-fly zones.” Since then, Saddam Hussein has aggressively worked to strengthen his military forces, including imports of equipment and material that could be used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Several top scientists from the former Soviet bio-weapons program have been recruited to Iraq. Al Daura, a vaccine plant outside Baghdad, closed by U.N. inspectors after the Gulf War, is now back in full production. Officially it manufactures vaccines against Foot & Mouth disease, but western intelligence sources suspect that it’s actually weaponizing germs for warfare.
This exercise envisaged a small pox epidemic in the US, killing millions, as a bi-product of this scenario. It was much on the minds of the planners following 911.
Everyone understands why Afghanistan was attacked first but wonders why Iraq was second, so I asked.
Feith says it really was the fear of WMDs getting into the hands of terrorists. Many on the left argued that Bush lied and that there were no WMD based on Report on Iraq’s WMD published in 2004. Feith said that the report was misrepresented in the press because the reporters were not given a summary and had no time to read it. They went with one finding, namely that no WMD’s were found. Feith says that such reporting was very misleading because the report actually said that the WMD’s may have been hidden and in any event could be reproduced in six weeks.
But what about Iran and North Korea? He said that the administration could not go to war with either of them without resorting to all other possibilities first, like inspections, sanctions and negotiations. The US on the other hand had already exhausted all such possibilities with Iraq so it could proceed to war. It was not because Iraq was expected to be a “cakewalk”.
He totally debunked any notion that the US went to war to protect Israel.
I asked him why war was not declared on Islam and he said that the US couldn’t go to war against Islam. It had to work with people and forces in the Muslim world who were against the activities of the Islamists. I suggested that so far the US has found that such a policy has little to show for it. He agreed. He also said that a major component of the war was to win hearts and minds, to fight them on the idealogical battlefield. I suggested that the US failed in that too and he agreed. Then we were cut off. I hope to talk with him again. I want to zero in on Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Insights Feith reveals in WAR AND DECISION:
-
Details on the previously unreported debate over whether creating a democratic Iraq should be defined as a U.S. strategic goal—an idea that was opposed by Rumsfeld and Feith.
The real story of the Pentagon policy office’s controversial briefing that criticized the CIA’s analysis of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.
Feith’s explanation of the rationale for the Iraq war and his frank evaluation of mistakes made on all sides—mistakes that have damaged the war effort that Feith continues to support.
The first detailed account of the inner-circle debate over whether and how to deal with the threat from Saddam Hussein—including the unreported story of when the President judged war to be inevitable.
An accurate account of Iraq postwar planning—a topic widely misunderstood by the media.
The first detailed account of the Defense Department’s plan to avoid a prolonged military occupation by launching a new Iraqi government—a plan that was approved by the President and later buried by policy disputes among senior officials.
The first extensive report on the government’s grimmest analysis of the downsides of war in Iraq—a document produced by Donald Rumsfeld and his staff.
The first insider’s view of Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon and its often-tumultuous relationship with the CIA, the State Department, the media, and the White House.
How personalities, philosophies, analyses, bureaucracy, and clashing agendas affected hundreds of key decisions at the administration’s senior levels.
Stories from Afghanistan you haven’t heard—including one bold U.S. decision not to act that may have saved Hamid Karzai’s presidency.
The truth about the allegations that the Pentagon wanted to “anoint” Ahmed Chalabi as ruler of Iraq—a detailed account that upends the common story of most recent books and news articles.
Yamit, thanks for joining in.
I am somewhat bemused by your first point amounting to a bit of a psychoanalysis of myself. It is not the first time other commenters, rather then challenge me head on with the points I made, have chosen to challenge my views by trying to analyze what makes me say the things I say and attribute to me biases or fears that I do not have.
Like other commentors, who have engaged me in this fashion Yamit, you too are completely off the mark.
I do not shy away at times from joining others, such as Steve and yourself in denouncing certain people and in this case, Pres. Bush as being antisemitic out of fear or insecurities as to how I will be perceived by both Jews and non-Jews.
I refuse to accept your views for the reasons I state.
The Jewish shtetl mentality (Jewish fear of speaking out against antisemitism too loudly) that you attribute to me, is one that I have denounced many times on these Israpundit pages and in private e mails to a number of Jewish organizations engaged in pro-Israel/Jewish advocacy which to my mind are influenced by that mentality.
That is not to say that I am not concerned about how I am perceived by Jews and non-Jews as regards the issues I deal with here and in other forums. I certainly am and have no doubt you too have that concern.
My concern is that I am perceived by both those who concur or disagree with my views, as having made my point or accusation as the case may be, in a fair, objective and credible fashion consistent with and not overreaching the evidence at hand.
In the case of accusing Pres. Bush of being antisemitic, I believe you and Steve have been influenced too much by your subjectivity including your own biases and fears that lead you to too quickly reach for antisemitism to explain what moves certain people to speak out against Israel or take positions that generally can be perceived as not being in Israel’s interests.
The evidence for you and Steve accusing Pres. Bush of being antisemitic, falls far short to justify your views. There is plenty of evidence available however to explain Pres. Bush’s thinking as regards Israel without concluding he is antisemitic.
There is a reality, in part due to the world’s double standard as applied to Jews that demands that Jews exercise caution in accusing anyone of being antisemitic.
Accusing people of antisemitism too often with too little evidence and with too little to be gained by making such accusation, only plays into the hands of antisemites who make the claim that no account should be taken of Jews who accuse people of antisemitism for their anti-Israel views, because all Jews make that empty accusation reflexively at the drop of a hat.
That does not mean however that Jews should shirk from vigorously speaking out against anti-semitism and specific anti-semites when the case or accusation can be fairly made on the evidence available. It is further adviseable that such accusation should be made in a way and in a context that will register with listeners of all faiths and cultures and that something positive can be gained by it.
In the case of you and Steve accusing Pres. Bush of being an anti-semite, apart from my view there is no objective and credible evidence, at least far from sufficient objective and credible evidence to make your accusation stick and further there is little that can be gained by your making that accusation.
It is my view therefore that you and Steve open yourself up to having your objectivity and fair mindedness questioned when you make such accusation of antisemitism against President Bush.
As to your references to the thinking of Bernard Lewis, my views are not completely in accord with his and certainly not with his conclusion that it is ideological antisemitism that attracts Jews to join the antisemites to attack Jews and for non-Jews to feel they can criticize or attack Jews with impunity. There are far more factors at work that Lewis ignores by his zeroing in on his analysis of anti-semitism past and present.
I will save my more detailed critique of Lewis’ analyses for another time.
Bill; con’t Criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitism so long as it is “similar to that leveled against any other country.” I use the double standard rule in defining the New antisemitism. One can only briefly overview Bushes 2 terms to see how Israel has been singled out and leaned on by bush where other countries have been given a golden pass. Bushes close association with those individual and groups most negative to Israel.
New antisemitism is the concept that a new form of antisemitism is on the rise in the 21st century, emanating simultaneously from the left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel.[1] The term has entered common usage to refer to what some writers describe as a wave of antisemitism that escalated, particularly in Western Europe, after the Second Intifada in 2000, the failure of the Oslo accords, and the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The concept generally posits that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel by various individuals and world bodies is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with an international resurgence of attacks on Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs.
Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.[
No one needs a peace settlement: neither the Saudis, nor the Syrians, Palestinians, or Egyptians. The Egyptians tolerate Hamas’ smuggling of weapons into Gaza in the typically Arab fashion of mildly bugging an enemy (Israel, in this case) and watching how to benefit from the enemy’s problems. Egypt doesn’t want other Arab countries to establish peace with Israel, but wants to remain the regional arbiter, a conduit between Israel and the Muslim world. An independent Palestinian state in the West Bank is Jordan’s nightmare, since it would galvanize Jordan’s Palestinian majority and break the monarchy. The Saudis offered a ridiculous peace plan they know Israel wouldn’t accept, but Israel bends over backwards to show her good faith about the plan no one intended to succeed. The US doesn’t need peace: the peace process balances the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but once peace ensues, US actions could only be considered anti-Muslim.
Israel’s fixation on peace with the Palestinians is absurd. The other Arabs don’t care much about the Palestinians. If Israel signs a peace deal with Palestine, other Arabs will see the peace as a product of the Palestinian struggle rather than of Israeli goodwill – thus, an Israeli defeat. After the Palestinians soundly defeated Israel and obtained statehood, other Muslim nations might be emboldened to fight Israel. Syria is a much bigger problem than Palestine. Though not capable of defeating Israel, Syria can shower her with missiles while enjoying Iran’s nuclear protection against Israeli retaliation. A peace treaty with Syria, even in exchange for the Golan Heights, will only remain on paper.
Israel cannot count on any country. America embargoed arms shipments to Israel during the 1948 war, came to the brink of fighting Israel on behalf of Egypt in 1956 and 1967, and only helped Israel in 1973 to counter the expansion of Soviet influence in the Middle East. That year, at the peak of the Cold War and during the largest Middle East war ever, the Europeans closed their airspace to the American airlift to Israel. At a critical time, Israel could be left without a foreign sponsor. It is senseless to abide by the wishes of an American administration and relinquish the meager strategic depth of defense now if American support is not assured later.
America equips and finances the PLO-Fatah to fight democratically elected Hamas. Would that create goodwill among the Palestinians? Supporting the doomed Fatah is immoral and counterproductive.
The UN favored Jews after the Holocaust. The Soviet Union supported a socialist Israel. American Jews lobbied vehemently. The result? The world community further partitioned Israel in 1947 and gave the essential Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria to semi-nomadic Arabs whom the sensible king of Jordan did not want to absorb.
The tiny, indefensible speck of land was still deemed too much for the Jews. The US has strict visa quotas for Muslims. France forcibly assimilates them. Arab countries isolate Palestinian immigrants and push them out. Yet the world insists that Israel accommodate 1.3 million Palestinian Muslims who will breed to 35-50% of her population in fifty years. In about a century, the Jewish state shrinks from almost Eretz Israel back to Arab Palestine with a significant Jewish population.
The anti-semites are refuted. There is no world Jewish conspiracy. Jews are too stupid for that.
Steve, you really have become disagreeable.
Big woop that you agree with me on one small thing, which happens incidentally to pertain to an unlikely theoretical possibility only.
Your now characterizing America as immoral and selfish is utter rubbish.
Unlike the EU that has sought to distance itself from its Christian principles, America tries to incorporate those principles.
Of course America’s positions on some issues appear to be immoral and selfish, but America is far less immoral and selfish then are so many other nations.
America has given more charity, welfare and assistance to underdeveloped nations and nations temporarily in need, then any other and that includes Muslim nations, which is far more then even oil rich Muslim nations have ever given.
If you want to speak of immoral and selfish, judged by Western norms, there are far far better examples in this world, then America and that includes a number of Western nations.
Disagree with me if you will, but as far as I can see no useful purpose will be served by carrying this discussion any further.
Maybe we can seriously discuss issues on some other post on some other topics, but your seriousness has gone out of this one.
Bill thanks. I’m sorry I questioned your honesty.
Bill, you wrote: “As for your predictions that America will abandon Israel, I quite agree if it should ever come to the point that Israel must die in order for America to live.”
Good. At least we agree on this one thing. America, purportedly a Christian nation, is an immoral and a selfish nation. A friend will give his or her life for a friend. Israel must die in order for America to live.
Steve, why so suddenly nasty?
In my haste I obviously misquoted you.
What in the world makes you jump to the extreme to question my honesty as opposed to attributing my mis-quoting you to an innocent and unintended mis-speak?
Then again, in your analyses of the Pres. Bush’s motivations respecting various situations involving Israel and America as deriving from his being an antisemite, I have noted that you are given to draw more extreme, rather then sober conclusions.
Stating that you have gone through my comment to you point by point, does your silence in that regard mean that you now concur with what I had to say? If not, where do we differ?
As for your new point, characterizing Pres. Bush as an evil doer, why jump to that extreme conclusion instead of attributing his errors that have not only hurt Israel and nations other then Israel, but have hurt America as well, to some personal failings such as his possibly lacking in insight or good judgment, which seems more realistic then branding him an evil doer.
Furthermore, evil is usually associated with Satan and Satan is reputed to be anything but a fool.
Pres. Bush has been stumbling and reeling from too many pillars to too many posts to be in the same league as Satan.
I suggest you re-evaluate what makes Pres. Bush tick as poorly as he does.
Bill, I am going through your response point by point. First, why do you misquote me? It leads me to question your honesty.
You wrote:
I wrote:
“It does not make me feel good.” It does not make me feel better or good. You say I am given to venting. Fine. I’m not sure “venting” is the right word. I prefer, I am given to condemning evil. I am given to condemning evil doers like George W. Bush, not because it make me feel good or better but because we are obligated as Jews to condemn evil doers like Mr. Bush. Why do you maintain it makes me feel good or better?
Steve, in trying so hard to justify your views, that you have wrongly taken exception to mine.
Regarding my sympathy for Palestinians for example. I qualified the statement, which you ignored. I do have sympathy for the poor and misbegotten of the world and not just the Palestinians. How I respond, if I respond at all to that feeling, depends on a great many factors, some of which I alluded to as regards the Palestinians.
Of course the Palestinians are Israel’s enemies. It is they who have cast themselves as such, while the West, including Israel continue to pretend they are decent people at heart who want what the West and Israel want as regards peace in the shape of the Road Map. I have noted many times that the West’s and Israel’s understanding of the end of the Road Map with an independent Palestinian state, is not the same vision the Palestinians have. Their vision is to have all of Israel in one fell swoop or to achieve that goal in stages. Israel’s neighbors in my view secretly have the very same vision.
I could have all the sympathy in the world for the Palestinians, but still that doesn’t come close to my sympathies for Israel. Choosing one side or the other, obviously I am on the side of Israel to do all it takes to not make any deal that risks Israel’s wellbeing, security and chances to not just survive, but thrive for the forseeable future and well beyond.
Israel to this day craves peace and needs peace. The problem as I noted before is that for so long as the core stumbling blocks of Jew hatred and Islamic thinking that all land once Islamic, but lost to Islam must be returned remain and are not removed, there is little chance of any peace being reached that has a decent chance of surviving and allows Israel to be secure and thrive.
Your are quite wrong to say, “Little doubt you are greatly angered and irritated by the command in our Torah to Moses and Johshua to not have any sympathy or pity for the wicked peoples inhabiting ancient Canaan”
That command came at a time long ago when the world was far more brutal then it is today and when might made right in a world of kill or be killed. The Jews had no choices then. Today the world still often operates on the principle of might makes right, but there are usually options other then kill or be killed.
You say that you are given to venting because it makes you not just feel better, but makes you an alert living Jew than a self-deluded dead Jew.
Whatever works for you Steve. The problem is however if you are too quick to hurl accusations of antisemitism at those who disagree with you or at the leaders of America, Canada and the U.S., every time they take Israel task for one thing or another, even if unfairly which they often do, you will not be taken seriously.
I am saying simply that one and especially a Jew should be cautious and not accuse anyone of antisemitism unless the probability is that there is no better explanation. When it comes to American policy and that of Canada vis a vis Israel and the Palestinians, there are many other plausible explanations for why they act the way they do vis a vis Israel that can be attributed to reasons running from self interest to outright delusions and foolishness.
America’s war on Islamofacism at home and abroad, declared by Pres. Bush for example that promised to deliver so much in the wake of 9/11, has delivered so little. There are plenty of reasons for America’s failures in that regard, most of which have nothing to do with Israel.
As to nations being guided in their policies and deeds by self interest, nations, especially Western nations do not necessarily abandon all morality to advance their self interest. Most nations today are concerned about optics and to that extent are anxious to create impressions or perceptions that they act justifiably, lawfully and morally.
I quite disagree with your statement “calling America Israel’s friend is not saying much” and your characterizing America as being treacherous vis a vis Israel.
Clearly there are problems and in some cases serious problems with Israel’s relationship with America, but you are exaggerating well beyond what the situation is and that which you have evidence to prove.
As for your predictions that America will abandon Israel, I quite agree if it should ever come to the point that Israel must die in order for America to live. That point is not even on the horizon so why do you say it?
and some in the case of America, a that is viewed by someght be viewed as immoral or amoral. When it comes however to nations acting in their self interest, morality becomes a relative word.
He likes you Ted. My guess is he did not appreciate my observations. Little doubt Douglas Feith thinks I did a lousy job capturing his worldview, his moral pragmatism, his Realpolitik, where it come to Israel. That being the case, I will post it once again:
Douglas Feith wrote
I apologize for my grammatical errors. I run a small business during the day so I am often in a hurry. Thanks.
Thanks for your response Bill. Since you are a Jew, I will address you one Jew to another. To give you a little idea where I am coming from, I consider myself politically conservative, though I am liberal in many areas as well; particularly when it comes to the oppressed “innocent” and poor. I have much compassion for animals and their needless suffering. I could also do better in this regard. I do not consider myself a religious Jew — I am not fully observant — I try. I do however take the great wisdom of our ancient prophets to heart. I believe in the God of our fathers.
We are pretty far apart, you and I. Not entirely; but on most things. I will try to address your points one at a time:
You wrote:
But for one exception, I cannot allow myself to have sympathy for the Palestinian Muslim Arabs — they are my enemy — any more than I could allow myself to have sympathy for Germans during the second world war. How much sympathy did the Allies have for German civilians when they, in response to Nazi atrocities, firebombed (actually it was “terror-boming”) whole German cities, killing, maiming and displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians? Were the Allies wrong?
My exceptions are those one or two, perhaps three “Palestinians” that defy this Jew-hating jihadist ideology the Palestinian Authority is propagating, just as I would make an exception for those few Germans that defied Adolf Hitler and Nazism in word and in deed often at the risk of their lives. These Germans I feel sympathy for. These very few Palestinians I feel sympathy for. The rest, we must not feel sympathy for. Little doubt you are greatly angered and irritated by the command in our Torah to Moses and Johshua to not have any sympathy or pity for the wicked peoples inhabiting ancient Canaan; the Canaanites, Perizzites, Hittites, Girgashites (sp?), etc. I see no difference between the Canaanites who sacrificed their children to the false god, Molech and the Palestinian Muslims who sacrifice their sons and daughters to the false god, Allah.
You wrote:
I join this small minority, with perhaps one or two exceptions. In general, I agree with the way you’ve described this small minority. I need to know the details however.
I think you know my answer. Absolutely. Yes. Again, anti-Semitism or Jew-hatred is a relative term. I believe Israel and the Jews have many enemies. That’s not to say I feel we are besieged at the moment, though I believe in time Israel will be besieged (literally) by most if not all nations on the globe. It is good, I think, to view the world realistically. I am a realist. To think we do not have many enemies Bill, defies history. We do.
It does not make me feel good. It makes me feel responsible. Alert. Awake. Better to be an alert living Jew than a self-deluded dead Jew.
American is supportive of Israel, relatively speaking, financially and in the diplomatic realm though she has also turned against Israel and often and supported Israel. I appreciate the diplomatic support when it is there. Still, in the final analysis, I believe the U.S. will turn on Israel as most of Europe has turned against Israel already. America does what is in her own self-interests. Washington was right. But this is not always moral or right.
People that are guided by self interest are generally immoral people. If it is in America’s self-interests to supply Israel with aid and weapons because Israel is a military power to be reckoned with in the region or because of the power of domestic American Jewish activism or whatever, then America will continue to both support Israel and work to undermine Israel. I am against American aid to Israel. Particularly economic aid. Israel is not a third world country. I would like to see Israel wean herself from American aid. Aid comes with strings. I would like to see Israel as self-sufficient as is possible. This would include the manufacture of a good fighter similar to the F-16. For our own survival, the Jews need to be self-sufficient as much as is possible.
America may be the best friend Israel has “on earth,” but that is not saying much. I look at nations like I look at individuals. A friend sticks by a friend, as you say, through both thick and thin. Where was America during the Holocaust? America has proven herself to be a treacherous friend over the years to a whole host of nations. America, when she feels it is in her intersts to drop Israel, she will drop Israel. America will not stand by Israel when the going gets tough.
On this we agree (I think). Bush lies about our enemies to the American people to his eternal shame and discredit, in large part because Bush family is financially corrupted by our enemies and because Bush is a very little pusillanimous man. Remember, daddy Bush helped George W. escape active, perhaps life-threatening, military service. Bush might not be where he is apart from the backing or an aspiring young Bush by Saudi Wahhabi princes, BCCI, etc. Bush Sr. is also corrupted by Saudi Wahhabi money, he and his Carlyle Group friends. These are not good people, the Bushes.
Steve, thanks for your comments. I still disagree.
Regarding your concurrence with Abe Foxman that there are degrees of anti-semitism, I generally concur because that is just stating the obvious.
When you begin approaching what might be described as milder anti-Semitism, the line distinguishing a possible anti-semite from a non-antisemite becomes increasingly blurred. People’s perceptions and thus views are shaped by a number of factors such as the way their brains are wired, political leanings, sympathies and the like, none of which alone or taken together amounts to their views being shaped by any antisemitism on their part.
There is for example nothing antisemitic per se in feeling and expressing sympathy for the miserable plight of the Palestinians.
I have that sympathy.
My sympathy however does not blind me to the fact that not all Palestinians are deserving of sympathy. It does not blind me to the fact that according to polls over the last several years, the majority of Palestinians support the aims of Hamas to destroy Israel and retake all the land and further support suicide bombing as a legitimate tactic against Israel. It also does not blind me to the fact that the Palestinians through their leaders and own cultural Jew hatred are largely responsible for their own misery. Much blame for the Palestinian plight can be assigned to the Palestinians’ Arab brethren, not that they, like the Palestinians would for a minute accept any accountability in that regard.
Israel’s responsibility for the plight of Palestinians comparatively speaking is in my view a very minor contributing factor when viewing the situation in its historical context.
Regardless of the reasons for the plight of the Palestinians, that plight calls for a solution.
The West, led by America, Britain, Russia, France and the UN, being the so called Quartet, push the two state solution bound up in the Road Map. It is not a new idea, but rather the evolutionary point we are at since the two state solution was first introduced via the November 1947 UN Partition Resolution. This Road Map is supported by many Jews and indeed by the GOI, regardless of whether that support is at the behest of America, on Israel’s own initiative or a combination of both factors.
A small minority of voices, many on Israpundit have stated that the two state peace paradigm is impossible and therefore the solution must be found in Israel expanding to include J & S and later Gaza with both her existence and her borders recognized and Palestinians being induced with the support of the Arab nations to either pledge allegiance first and foremost to Israel or be voluntarily transferred to Arab and other nations.
Neither solution will work at this point, because both are completely undermined by the Palestinian and Arab culture of Jew hatred that no one, not even Israel wants to talk about. That Jew hatred is the elephant in the room of every meeting convened to discuss and negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians and any chance of peace is trampled by that Jew hatred before the parties even leave the room.
Thus we have this dangerous and potentially even more dangerous and deadly status quo stalemate.
This leads me to speak of Pres. Bush. I disagree that he has no sympathy for Jewish suffering.
Of course America, like Canada and the EU have previously criticized and condemned Israel for its efforts at self defence. While staunchly expressing support for Israel’s right to defend herself, these Western nations beat Israel over the head with the phrase “disproportionate force”, that is meaningless, except to the extent that it has meaning in its political effect and in creating false impressions of Israel in the eyes of the world.
Are you going to call the leaders of all these nations anti-semitic? What is to be gained by doing so other then making you feel good with such venting?
Since I do not agree with you that Bush is callous about Jewish death and suffering, I do not agree that Bush’s views amount to any form of anti-semitism.
I maintain that America does have an overarching policy of support for Israel and that support is evidenced by America’s financial assistance, their stance supporting Israel at the UN, the attitudes of most Americans and the views held by American leaders in the Congress and the Senate.
Of course there are those in the American government who appear to be more pro-Arab/Palestinian then pro-Israel. The American State Department has provided more then a little evidence that an anti-Israel bias shapes their views. Antisemitism may play a role in their thinking, but as I see it their anti-Israel bias seems to come more from their assessment that America’s best interests are served by catering to the whims and wishes of the OPEC nations, gaining allies of sorts from the likes of Saudi Arabia and general fear that to stand firm against Arab wishes can so inflame not only the Muslim Middle East, but the Muslim world against America and American interests and prestige would fall even faster then it is.
I am however speaking of the overall support for Israel that America provides in saying that America is the best friend Israel has got. As I have explained a number of times before, the definition of friend in the geopolitical sphere is not the same as the word friend connotes in interpersonal relationships where friends stick by friends through thick and thin.
Israel’s war with the Palestinians and the ongoing tensions between Israel and her Arab neighbors including Egypt and Jordan with whom Israel has a poor facsimile of a peace agreement is part of and thus one more battlefront in the West’s war with fundamentalist Islamofacists.
The Bush administration’s war against Islamofacism is failing because the Bush administration, like America’s previous administrations for reasons that have been well canvassed by many writers, are willfully blind to the realities that the Muslim Islamofacist culture of Jew hatred of which the Palestinians are a part, also incorporates Christian, American, Western and non-Muslim hatred.
Because America feels so desperate to cultivate friends and allies amongst the Muslim world and most predominantly Saudi Arabia to help to combat Islamofacism, they extend undue deference to the beliefs and sensitivities of the Saudis and other Arab nations America befriends.
The reasons why the Bush administration and former American administrations have pushed Israel as they have and criticised and condemned Israel at times, is not because of antisemitism.
The reasons are different and far more complex, that have been rolled up into a ball of tangled knots that makes logic an impossible task. America needs to untangle and unravel that ball of complex reasons, keep reasons that are good, get rid of bad reasons and for once, applying crystal clear logic to crystal clear facts, see just what they are really dealing with.
By the way Steve, I am Jewish.
Bill, I do not generally refer to Mr. Bush as an anti-Semite, in large part because there is no positive way of determining what is and is not in the man’s heart. I am thereby compelled to listen to the president’s anti-Israel statements, as well as observe his anti-Israel actions.
I believe Yamit correctly states, Mr. Bush is no less anti-Semitic than any previous U.S. president and I might add, perhaps no more anti-Semitic.
For me, Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism are relative terms. On this I agree with Abe Foxman — one of the few instances whereby we agree. According to Foxman, there are degrees of anti-Semitism. For instance, not every anti-Semite wakes up in the morning vowing, “Today I’m going to get a Jew.” I suspect this is the case with this president.
Yet there is no escaping the fact, George W. Bush has NO sympathy for Jewish suffering. I will never forget, nor forgive all the scoldings and condemnations from the Bush White House, pre-September 11, 2001, in the midst of some of the bloodiest suicide bombings we had seen in years against the Jews of Israel. We heard condemnations of “excessive and disproportionate” responses to terrorism — often Sharon bombed empty buildings — and demands for restraint in the face of horrific jihadist atrocities in buses, open markets, restaurants, discos, etc. After 911, we continued to hear these condemnations from Bush, Powell, Rice, White House spokesmen and State Department officials, sprinkled with the occasional “Israel has a right to defend herself.”
I personally consider Bush’s callousness to Jewish death and suffering a form of anti-Semitism. Don’t you? If you don’t, may I ask why you do not consider it anti-Semitism? Are you a Jew Bill? How can you tolerate this callousness to Jewish death on the part of Mr. Bush if you are indeed a Jew?
You refer to “Palestinian mis-steps, lies, empty promises and Jew hatred….” Wouldn’t Mr. Bush disagree with your characterization of “Jew-hatred” on the part of the Palestinians? Mr. Bush calls arch-terrorist and Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas, a “man dedicated to peace,” not a man dedicated to hate. Bush says Palestinian mothers want the same things for their children as Jewish mothers want for their children. What gives? Why does Mr. Bush lie to the American people about our enemies since obviously this is not in any way the case?
Fair enough. Thanks for reading it. It is a phony war because the real enemy is not named. Instead we fight a tactic or a proxy.
There is nothing extreme in my position. The vision speech and the Roadmap were the price for Arab support for invasion of Iraq. So I call that paying their price as opposed to wanting to solve the conflict to have better friends.
The US is fighting the terrorists and trying to stop their funding. So far so good. But they are tolerating the fact that SA is not stopping their wealthy princes from supporting terror. Meanwhile SA supports Madrassas which preach terror.
You might be interested in What War on Terror. In it I link to two articles I wrote A Unifying Theory and Perfecting the Unifying Theory..
Ted, I did not find Codevilla’s article profound at all. Quite the opposite.
It is almost an hysterical denunciation of the Bush administrations response to 9/11 to justify Codevilla’s view that it is a phony war, which I found he made no good case for.
If I set my mind to it, I think I might be able to do a better job of it, if I were to characterize the Bush war post 9/11 as Codevilla has.
Codevilla may have the right idea, but he has woefully failed to make a convincing argument with his article.
Given his credentials, I am frankly surprised at how he has gone about trying to make his case.
Almost every paragraph in his lengthy treatise that covers far far more territory then he has to to make his case. The article is replete with Codevilla’s summary take on facts not cited, but which necessitates Codevilla’s assumption that the the reader is entirely familiar with the facts he considered and satisfied that Codevilla has cited all relevant facts.
Similarly Codevilla’s conclusions again almost in every paragraph are stated by him as if he is stating the obvious. Again Codevilla’s conclusions are devoid of any factual references that would lead the reader to his conclusions, save for his summary take on and characterizations of facts he does not specifically cite.
I am frankly surprised that Middle East Quarterly accepted his article for publication. I would have expected ME Quarterly would have told Codevilla to focus on less territory and cite the facts upon which he bases his conclusions and insights rather then summarily characterizing or summarizing facts not brought to the reader’s attention.
I disagree with your statement:
This is very close to saying that the overarching policy of America is to pay the price Arabs demand for their co-operation and that is to agree to Arab demands that Israel can be readied for the chopping block.
For the same reasons I take issue with the extreme statements by Steve and Yamit on the issue of anti-semitism, I take issue with your take on the matter as set out in your above quoted words.
Bill. Please read Codevilla’s article . It was written as early as Fall 2002 and it is profund.
I totally agree with your position on antisemitism. I do not for a moment believe Bush is antisemitic.
But I disagree with this
I think that what drives US policy is not that they believe that settling the Arab/Jew problem will make their job on winning friends and influence in the ME easier but that as the price of Arab cooperation they are required to force Israel to capitulate to Arab demands. I also see it as Arabs blackmailing Europe and America on pain of further terror attacks, to lean on Israel.
Codevilla puts it this way.
Yamit, I still disagree with you and Steve on this.
More fundamental to my disagreement with both of you, is that neither of you recognize the damage done to Jewish credibility and perceptions in the eyes of most Americans when Jews call President Bush antisemitic.
The vast majority of Americans do not see President Bush in that light at all. Most Jews do not and certainly Israel herself does not so accuse President Bush.
For Jews to call President Bush or anyone else who is not generally known as being antisemitic given this circumstance, only blows back to those who say that and they get labelled as being extremists not worth listening to.
Further such rhetoric serves to reinforce the view held by already too many American leftists, liberals and various striped small lettered political leaning people, that Jews tend to reflexively call anyone who disagrees with them antisemitic and thus little or no account should be taken of such accusations.
That is what I meant by saying Steve cheapens the word antisemitic by indiscriminately hurling that accusation at people who are not generally seen as antisemites, be they Presidents or not.
Ted, I generally do agree with the brief statement excerpted from I gather Codevilla’s article which I have not read.
I do not however see that as the consequence of an American anti-Israel policy. Rather I see it as the consequence of an unrealistic American perception of the problems America has in the Middle East, the Americans’ perception that if they bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians that America will have gone a long way to improving their position in the Middle East.
This perception driven American policy has met only with failure after failure. Instead of advancing her interests, America has seen her interests only further prejudiced.
Nonetheless America persists in these same kind of policies that hurt not only Israel but America as well.
Why?
One possible reason for this exercise in futility is that America’s allies (highly doubtful I know) in the form of the Saudis, OPEC, Egyptians, Jordanians and perhaps others, continue to lead America to believe what it wants to believe which is that if they steadfastly pursue such policies that will ultimately bring about peace in the region between Palestinians and Israel, America will finally turn a corner and see their fortunes rise in the Middle East, not only with these so called allies, but with America’s enemies in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
If I am right that these American allies are using America in this fashion by convincing them to believe in these false hopes, it is a great strategy to advance the interests of Israel’s enemies to ultimately weaken Israel to the point that they are finally in position to tell America to get stuffed as regards any American desire for Israel’s contuinued existence and join together to deliver the final genocidal blow against Israel.
One of the significant flies in that ointment is that the Palestinian mis-steps, lies, empty promises and Jew hatred that cannot be controlled for long manifests in violence and that continuously gets in the way of the Arab dream for Israel’s ultimate demise.
I do not agree that all of America looks at Israel as a sacrifical lamb. I frankly do not see that as any overarching major inarticulate premise of American foreign policy either.
There is considerable support that successive American administrations have thrown Israel’s way since 1967, when it took the place of France as Israel’s primary benefactor, military and financial supporter. Further, there is considerable support amongst the American populace for Israel’s welfare, security and continued existence. It is not feasible for American leaders to flout the will of the people in that regard.
Having said that, while I do not see Israel’s ultimate demise as being a cornerstone of America’s Middle East policies, I do not deny and have often written both critically and bitterly about certain American policies that I see that have or could put Israel at far greater risk then need be to satisfy American interests, if at all.
That America continues to pursue its policies as regards not just Israel but with respect to the entire Middle East in spite of all the evidence that such policies are not only dangerous for Israel, but not working for America, is pure folly.
It is that point that I think must be driven home, time and again to the American people and the American administration to bring their their attitudes and perceptions to accord better with reality and thus adapt their overarching strategies and policies to be more reality based.
Bill you accept the notion that America must serve its own interests and if need be pressure Israel. Let’s think about that for a moment. According to Codevilla,
I think we all agree on this. Furthermore, The US agreed to a Palestinian state and the Roadmap as the price for Arab support for the invasion of Iraq.
America looks at Israel as a sacrificial Lamb. America can be faulted for sacrificing its friend and ally to maintain itself. This is not morally correct nor is in America’s long tern interests. America should find another way to get its way short of sacrificing Israel.
Bill I agree with Steve; Bush is as antisemitic as any Previous president and that includes Papa Bush! Left or right in America has little to do with Israel in that all policies of the American Government since 1948 have been hostile to Israel and this has more to do with their Jew Hatred than it does with your so called Interests! We have our own Uncle Toms and the list is long just look at almost all of the visible jews that have reached positions of influence and power who invariably initiate and implement policies inimical to Israel. I would rather deal with the Gentiles at least I would have no unwarranted expectations from them re: Jews or Israel. Jews always try to be more Catholic than the Pope and we find them our worst enemy. If I were’t Jewish I would probable Hate Jews myself as it is I only hate Jewish traitors. The list is too long for this Posting.
Steve, you cheapen the word antisemite by so accusing Pres. Bush.
Further resorting to extreme accusations that Pres. Bush is determined to destroy Israel, will not win the day. Most people including myself do not believe that of Pres. Bush or the others you mention.
There are sound reasons for America’s Middle Eastern and Israel-Palestinian policies, including pressuring Israel to concede ground, with both territorial concessions and agreements that do negatively impact on Israel’s present and long term security.
Those reasons have to do with American self interest and their efforts at geopolitical positioning themselves to their own advantage on the world stage.
America is pro-Israel.
The ongoing Israel-Palestinian war creates instability in the Middle East and impacts not only Israel, but the West as well. America’s efforts to bring about peace between Israel and Palestinians is part of America’s efforts to balance Israel’s interests for security with her own interests.
The balanced policy Americans seek on the narrow geopolitical balance beam means America is always fighting to keep or regain its balance.
That all too frequently does not auger well for Israel because America, in my view too much sees its own problems in the Middle East bound up in the Israel – Palestinian war and too much sees its own fortunes in the region bound up in achieving success in bringing about peace between Israel and Palestinians.
America is only fooling itself in this regard. There are some hopeful signs that reality is beginning to weigh in on America.
In Congress there was concern as to just what welfare monies were provided the Palestinians and some talk, if not efforts to ensure those monies were put to the use intended. Of recent note, American reaction to Jimmy Carter’s personal peace initiative, including his speaking to Hamas about peace with Israel has been viewed very negatively.
Although I spoke with him one on one for just over an hour, he started by some prepared remarks (20 min) and I finally asked a question and he took 15 min to answer and so on. So I got to ask few questions. I wanted to zero in on Saudi influence, Haliburton and the oil politics and finally the war on terror.
To me this stuff is really, really horrible. It is as if you lot are really in a neocon circle and part of their agenda. Why not read some Emperors New Clothes?
If only Ted Belman´s questions had followed the Yugoslav trail.
Why the war against Yugoslavia and Milosevic? I would love to know Feith’s answer.
Why the support for:
Tudjman?
For Izetbegovic and therefore in that case for Bin laden. Bin Laden in the 90s after leaving the Sudan was building his base in Bosnia thanks to Izetbegovic and to all those who supported Izetbegovic.
Having built his base there he was taken by US to Afghanistan. THERE he finished his org building and launched his attack, ie 9.11.
So do you really all mean to say the US had NO hand in 9.11?
Or is this “conspiracy”.
Ted Belman is so respectful to these bastards and as a result missed the opportunity to ask real questions. Really makes me very angry.
steve: Thanks to our being told so often that Islam is a peaceful religion, it is de rigueur to assume the majority of Muslims are peaceable and there’s only a fringe group of nasties –– the ones we call radicalized Muslims or Islamists or fanatics or freedom fighters. It says something about our mindset that we haven’t been able to settle on a name when we’ve been in a war with Islam for now seven years ever since 911.: “You can’t fight an enemy you’re afraid to offend.”
Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians is totally different from America’s problems with terrorists. Israel helps America a bit by absorbing some of the hatred and hurts by giving Muslims another pretext for anti-American sentiment.
America’s problems with Islamic terrorists are cultural. Islamists are jealous and, being unable to rise themselves, want to bring America down. Israeli-Muslim conflict, on other hand, is rational. Arabs consider Palestine their land. The Jews came and took it from them. Muslims have no agenda of exterminating the world Jewry, but only driving it out from the Islamic world. America can solve its problems with Muslims by cultural expansion rather than isolationism, and convert Muslims to the Western culture like it converted the Russians. Ideological expansion will not work for Israel; a conflict over rational ends has to be solved by rational means. If Israel wants to take the land other people consider theirs, she must be prepared to use unrestricted force against them.
With Israel pays with real concessions for the fictional American support. The US needs to show the Arab clients its power over Israel, and kicks her around just for the fun of it: witness the squabble over a few dozen hamlets frightfully dubbed “illegal outposts.” As if the Arab attacks on Israel from 1929 onwards have anything to do with those hamlets erected as a protest against the Oslo capitulation. American politicians sell Israel to placate Arabs, such as by boosting the peace process after the Iraqi debacle. The Carter-Rice ilk uses Israel to vindicate their silly theories, and Clinton pushed for the peace process to cover his deviatory conduct. If not for US pressure, Israeli governments wouldn’t even think of giving the Arabs Judea and Samaria and partitioning Jerusalem.
Incidentally, our tactical goals partially agree with a major aim of American anti-Semites: divestment from Israel. For utterly different reasons we, too believe that Israel must abandon the US aid and live on her own. Financial responsibility would signify the return to Israel’s fundamental political doctrine: Only the IDF is responsible for Israel’s safety. Israel doesn’t need Star Wars weapons to extinguish Palestinian terrorism; good old napalm would do. Israel does not need cutting-edge weapons against regular Arab armies: nuclear bombs are good enough.
I read that article in 2002 and was blown away by it. I had forgotten that he commented on the peace process. He sure got that right.
Codevilla wrote:
Let’s take these (Bush’s war on Israel; his “Peace Processes”) one at a time. Codevilla wrote:
Thank for the Codevilla article. http://www.meforum.org/article/503 I’ll take a look at it.
Steve you are absolutely right. I wanted to go after the question of Islam and referred him to an article by Codevilla in which he called it a phony war. Feith disagreed with this adjective. I had many things I wanted to press him on but didn’t get the chance.
I intend to read the book because he says that he says that all the sound bites we have come to believe are wrong. This book is based on his notes and memos of the meetings.
Ted, you wrote:
You asked Mr. Feith some good questions. If not a war against Islam, why at least is it not a war against “Islamo-fascism” or (John McCain’s) “Islamic terrorism”
see http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080421/NATION/438135169/1002
or a war against radical Islam?” Though these terms fall well short of the mark, aren’t they better than George W. Bush’s “War on terrorism?” Isn’t terrorism a tactic rather than an enemy? I do not know Douglas Feith. I’ve not followed him or his distinguished career; neither him nor Pearle nor Wolfowitz.
You believe this book is worth reading? I am a member of audible.com. His book is available on audio. I have downloaded Richard Clarke’s book “Against All Enemies.” I left off part way through the apologetic. I’m not sure if I will finish it. Early on he spoke of Al Qaeda having tarnished a beautiful religious tradition; Islam. Why shouldn’t we conclude Feith’s book isn’t simply another partisan apologetic? Feith is described by Israel’s enemies as a “strong supporter of Israel.” Has he been a strong, consistent supporter of Israel?
Mr. Bush laid out the terms of the battle only days after 911. In a September 20, 2001 speech before a joint session of Congress and the American people, Bush said in part:
Is it any wonder why Americans are confused? Bush refuses to define our enemy. Then to add insult to injury, only days after this speech, Bush declared war on Israel. Bush laid out his “vision” for a Palestinian jihadist-killer state in the Holy Land, for the expulsion of Jewish families from Jewish land only because they are Jews. This is Mr. Bush’s vision; a Jew-free Palestinian terrorist state at Israel’s collective throat.
If there is anything I will never forgive Feith, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer, Kristol and all the others, it is their deafening silence in light of the betrayal, the criminality on the part of this pusillanimous U.S. president; his desire to appease America’s murderous enemies; to sell out America’s only reliable ally and friend in the Middle East. As God is my witness Ted, these men have been cravenly silent, Feith included. Why not ask Feith why he is shamefacedly silent in light of this extraordinary and rank appeasement by Bush? This would be my question. Where have these little men (Feith, Kristol, Krauthammer, Pearle, Wolfowitz, etc.) been for seven long years as Bush has sought to destroy and lay waste to Israel? Why is Bush determined to destroy Israel’s her security, other than that he is an anti-Semitic self-professed Christian? Did Mr. Feith mention these betrayals in his book?
Otherwise, why should I spend my money or my time on Feith?