Do Israel's Interests Have Undue Influence on US Foreign Policy? (esp re NeoCons)
, I'd do it something little more like this:
What the Heck Is a Neocon?
...support for Israel -- a key tenet of neoconservatism...
The National Security Strategy that he released in September -- which calls for "encouraging free and open societies on every continent" -- sounds as if it could have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine
, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee
One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests... The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view...[called] "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger
, Brent Scowcroft
and James Baker III
...[Neocons] think..."realism" presents far too crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. ...[suggesting] we need to promote our values...[because] liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East...
...[Neocons] embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives.
Here's an interesting article that covers quite a bit of ground on this issue. Granted, it doesn't cover the ground thoroughly, but it is a nice survey.
Israel's Role: The 'Elephant' They're Talking About
FEBRUARY 28, 2003
By AMI EDEN
...the Israeli-Jewish elephant has been on...respected media outlets... Washington Post, The New York Times, the American Prospect, the Washington Times, the Economist, the New York Review of Books, CNN and MSNBC. ...the proverbial pachyderm...in the middle of "Meet the Press,"...
Tim Russert read from...the Washington Times, Arnaud de Borchgrave
...that the "strategic objective"...was to secure Israel's borders by launching a crusade to democratize the Arab world.
[Then asked Richard Perle:]
"Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests?" Russert asked.
"And what would be the link in terms of Israel?"
...a startling question, especially when directed at Perle... If Russert is asking...on national television, then...The question...is now a legitimate query to be floated in polite company.
...[an] attempt to demonstrate an unprecedented political partnership between Sharon and Bush...Robert Kaiser..."Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy
." ...[including] a paragraph outlining a supposed rightward shift among American Jewish organizations.
"Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel" [Kaiser
...January 25... the Economist
published a lead editorial urging Bush to ignore "so-called friends of Israel who will accuse Mr. Bush of 'appeasement' the moment he pushes hard for territorial compromise." [available by subscription only]
Several Jewish commentators have...[warned] that subtle and not-so-subtle antisemitic undertones permeate the new wave of anti-war criticism. ...critics have charged these writers with unfairly playing the antisemitic card [to silence] opposition...
national director Abraham Foxman:]
...accept as legitimate questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of administration officials
...legitimate to question where the Sharon government or American Jewish groups stand on the war
, the...line is... [portraying] these entities as a...Jewish conspiracy...[controlling]American foreign policy.
...American Jews are sometimes too quick to assume that antisemitism is at play
"It is an old canard that Jews control America and American foreign policy. During both world wars, antisemites said that Jews manipulated America into war. So when you begin to hear it again, there is good reason for us to be aware of it and sensitive to it."
Choice excerpts from the hard to find MtP transcript:
'Meet the Press' -- February 23, 2003
: Richard Perle, there's been discussion about the role of Israel and the formulation of American foreign policy regarding Iraq. Let me show you an article from The Washington Times, written by [Arnaud de Borchgrave]
"The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The de-stabilization of 'despotic regimes' comes next.
"The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank. The document was titled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
"Israel...would 'shape its strategic environment', beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein.
"Prominent American opinion-makers who are now senior members of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint."
Can you assure American viewers across our country that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?
: Well, first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe that we should take this action if Saddam doesn't disarm- and I doubt that he's going to - believe it's in the best interests of the United States. I don't see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we'd live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars
Choice excerpts from the Arnaud de Borchgrave article:
A Bush-Sharon Doctrine?
Arnaud de Borchgrave
Monday, Feb. 17, 2003
...strategic objectives of the U.S. and Israel...have...merged into a...Bush-Sharon Doctrine.
...Washington's "Likudniks" — Ariel Sharon's powerful backers in the Bush administration — have been in charge of U.S. policy in the Middle East since President Bush was sworn into office.
In alliance with Evangelical Christians, these policy-makers include some of the most powerful players in the Bush administration.
Mr. Sharon...[convinced] Mr. Bush that the war on Palestinian terrorism was identical to the global war on terror. Next came a campaign to convince U.S. public opinion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were allies...
...senior members* of the Bush administration participated in the discussions and the drafting that led to this 1996 blueprint
Prime Minister Sharon has flown to Washington...more frequently than any other head of state or government [in those two years].
*[ Richard Perle,Study Group Leader, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser ]