Jewish Neocons Are Dead Wrong, Not Disloyal

There are few Americans whose ideas offend me more than Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense who played a major role in planning and promoting the invasion of Iraq. I joined demonstrations to try to stop that invasion and am appalled that the preemptive war fetishists now have their sites set on Iran. But I believe Feith, Cheney aide David Wurmser and other Jewish war planners have gotten a raw deal from those who accuse them of putting Israel's interests ahead of America's.

The dual loyalty accusation has become conventional wisdom in the anti-Israel neighborhoods of the blogosphere and has been given academic respectability by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt. In their new book, as in their original essay, the two profs report that in 2002, "Ha'aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and [Richard] Perle 'are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments...and Israeli interests.'" They note that Iraq war chronicler George Packer believed that "`For Feith and Wurmser, the security of Israel was probably the prime mover'" when they planned the war.

Elsewhere, Juan Cole once opined, "Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put U.S. interests over those of Ariel Sharon."

Those are very serious allegations, tantamount to accusing government officials of outright treason. Whoever makes them should have incontrovertible evidence. What the accusers have is circumstantial and flimsy. M&W note Feith's connections with "hardline" Israeli groups, his op-eds supporting Israeli settlers and the infamous paper, "A Clean Break," which war-for-Israel theorists claim is their smoking gun.

Feith, Perle and Wurmser are said to have co-authored "A Clean Break" for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1997 [Feith claims Wurmser is the sole author]. It calls for Netanyahu to reject the Oslo process, get tough with Syria by launching surgical strikes in Lebanon, and support the Hashemites of Jordan in their power struggle with Syria by, among other things, helping them remove Saddam Hussein from power.

That grab-bag of Machiavellian fantasies certainly captures the spirit of adventurous preemption that characterized the Iraq war. So what does that prove? Neocons favored the unapologetic use of military force and the dismantling of foreign governments in Nicaragua, Grenada, and the Balkans, not just the Middle East. It's not surprising that some of them recommended the same approach to Netanyahu. That they eventually recommended it to G.W. Bush does not necessarily reveal anything about their loyalties or motivations. All it reveals is an obnoxious, wrong-headed worldview. If Venezuela had a lot more oil and Hugo Chavez were more provocative or tyrannical, they would want to depose him, too.

Recent, impassioned chatter about dual loyalty and Mearsheimer and Walt's war-for-Israel theory has drowned out a far more important conversation about this ideology of preemptive militarism and interventionism. It gained powerful adherents right after 9/11, when Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to go after Saddam, in part because they wanted to send the message that the U.S. would not be content with attacking Afghanistan. They wanted terrorists and their paymasters to realize that the U.S. would strike its "enemies" anywhere and anytime it damned well pleased. That had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel; it had everything to do with American machismo.

Still, reasonable people can and do disagree about the extent to which Israel or its American supporters also factored into the Bush administration's decision to wage war. But it is unreasonable to accuse Feith and his pals of divided loyalties without tangible proof.

Last year, I contacted Feith to get his take on the accusations against him for a magazine article. "I confess to being a conservative," he said. "I have a conservative view of how to protect and preserve democracies. That affects my views of U.S. interests, British interests, Japan's interests and Israel's interests. There are problems inherent in the practice of democratic countries negotiating with anti-democratic entities. The parties to the negotiations differ from each other regarding goals, tactics and constraints. This applies to all democratic countries, including Israel."

He added, "The only justification for going to war with Saddam was that he was a danger to the United States and our vital interests. The President decided that the risk of Saddam's making biological or eventually nuclear weapons available to terrorists was unacceptable, especially after 9/11."

That was a tragically wrong conclusion. Did Feith and his colleagues also believe the war would benefit Israel? Of course. Because of that belief, did some of them have an extra edge of enthusiasm for the war? Probably. But how can anyone who doesn't reside in Feith's mind assert with smug certainty that Israel was his first, second, fifth or tenth priority when he helped make the case for war?

One intriguing judge of what was on his mind is Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Colonel who worked at the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia desk from 2001 to 2003. She has written ferocious criticisms of the Iraq war that mention her discomfort at the "pro-Israel, anti-Arab" attitudes of political appointees in the Defense Department and their connections with the Israeli military. But, in an email interview, she called the dual loyalty charge "simplistic, not fact-based."

"The...preemptive war push is part of neo-conservatism, but not particular to those neoconservatives, like Doug Feith...who also happen to be Jewish, " she wrote. "These folks...made their political bones as anti-communists. The so-called Islamists are seen by neoconservatives as the new communism...Neoconservatives wish to see an 'End of Evil' in a big, loud, decisive bang. We see a kind of predisposition for violent confrontation that isn't as much based on loyalty to Israel, but on something much closer to home."

To be sure, in some American neocons, that predisposition was also shaped in part by connections with hard-line Israelis who had a deep mistrust of Arabs and an abiding faith in military solutions to complex problems. In the 1980s, the dedication to Iron Israel, when combined with fierce anti-Communism and a reflexive contempt for anything advocated by the left, created a noxious mixture of ideas. Right-wing Israelis encouraged certain habits of mind in Americans who eventually joined the Bush Administration, a proclivity for shooting first and worrying about the cameras or the UN later.

Now, some American neocons want to inflict this credo of preemptive violence on Iran before Bush leaves office. It is their credo that makes them dangerous, not misplaced loyalties or a lack of commitment to the U.S.

Comments

[gilmanc]

When incontrovertible evidence becomes the norm for action rather than the exception, I'll buy what you say. However, when the US can invade nations without it, and Israel can bomb Syria without it, I do not feel that the smoking gun is required to make the accusation. If it is untrue, why not put it to a jury via a libel suit?

Oh yes, and the way to tell who is on the right of the political spectrum is to see who looks for the scapegoat.

[EspressoAtNoon]

It's not looking for a scapegoat if people are actually guilty. Some suggest that it is impossible for any individual to have dual loyalties. That viewpoint is obviously both illogical and untruthful.

If hypothetically a Chinese guy with dual citizenship is caught by the FBI committing espionage by giving U.S. secrets to China could we assume he has dual loyalties, or for politically correct purposes should we just assume that he feels that Chinese and US foreign interests are identical? If you believe he probably has dual loyalties then you have now admitted that dual loyalties are possible.

Some here like to use the old canard-argument to actually shield any member from their tribe as potentially being guilty of dual loyalty.

Since it's apparent that there will be no formal legal investigation into the misleading of the American public into war we are forced to dig into the evidence ourselves and formulate our own opinions. The more you read the more obvious it becomes.

I would NEVER expect Douglas Feith to come out and admit "I wanted to make Americans believe that all Israel's foes (Hamas, Hezbollah, their backers Iraq, Iran and Syria) were affiliated with Al Quaeda so that Americans would support invading Iraq, Iran, and Syria, thereby shifting the balance of power in the Middle East so that Israel could dictate its own terms to the Palestinians".

[Lon]

Fleshler has this one right on the money. For the most part neo-cons are ideologues who support Israel because doing so fits in with their ideology. As Kristol has shown, there are no wars that the neo-cons don't like, that their best opportunities happen to be near Israel is mere happenstance. They were trying for war with China before 9/11.

Lieberman is one who I doubt would push the policies he does if not for his felt kinship with Israel (although I don't doubt that he thinks the policies are also in the interests of the US). But for the Perles and the like it is an infantile sense that if we show we are tough enough the world will respect us, and if they don't it is because we haven't killed enough people yet. This belief in the respect flowing from a willingness to kill and die is much stronger than any support for Israel because it is jewish.

The neo-cons were quite happy to sacrifice Israelis in the Lebanon excursion because they thought it was good for US interests.

[EspressoAtNoon]

That's the biggest spin job I've seen done on these guys. The Lebanon excursion wasn't about Israel's security interests?

All the proof (their individual histories, their affiliations, their papers, their studies, their Zionist Zealotry admissions, their books, their entire lives, etc..) prove their paramount interests are that of Israel's security interests. If only they'd have spent even a fraction of this much time writing about, studying, affiliating with groups, and lobbying for America's security interests.

[Lon]

Your argument would be stronger if it actually had evidence for the points of disagreement. What actions have they supported which were not things they thought counted as studying, affiliating with groips, and lobbying for America's security interests? Do you have any evidence that their support for their stands on Iraq, Syria, Iran, Burma, China are not things that they think are in America's security interest?

If not then your complaint seems to be rather question begging. I think their actions have compromised the security of the US. But I think this is less true than the degree to which their actions have compromised the secruity of Israel. You have not given any evidence to suggest that any of their actions were not what they thought were the best thing for US security.

[Rand]

Can anyone offer an explanation, other than bigotry, as to why neocons of the Jewish faith are ALWAYS identified as "Jewish Neocons", but NON-Jews are NEVER identified by their religion?

[Lon]

Yes. Debates about the neo-cons often come up in the context as above in which the question of the role of Israel is relevant. The reason for that context is the jewish nature of so many of the neo-cons. But since some readers may not know of that correlation, it is natural to make it clear at least once for those readers unfamiliar. This is true even if the point of the article, as above, is to deny the relevance.

If you have not heard that Romney is a mormon candidate, or seen members of the religious right characterized by their religion, then you are reading a limited set of materials. The identification makes sense when the rest of the discussion might be confusing if it is not made clear.

[Rand]

You fail to answer why Cheney is never referred to as a "Christian Neocon". I could also ask why the PM of Italy is often, here at Huffington Post, called "the Jew", while the Italian PM is NEVER called "the Catholic"

And thanks for making it clear that, in your opinion, Jewish = Pro-Israel

[oldprotestor]

"Can we handle the truth?"

"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
--Schopenhauer

Quoted from Ray McGovern http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern09272007.html

What seems to be forever lost in some of these discussions is distinction regarding the continual conflation of dual ethnic identities and dual-citizenship.

How many members of Congress and the administration hold Israeli passports and have Israel citizenships? How many members of Congress and the administration hold passports and have dual citizenships in countries other than Israel? Especially, vis-a-vis about 2% of Americans being Jewish.

The other issue that seems to often end up being conflated, whether intentional or not, is the implication that Jewish and Zionist are synonymous.

The following resources are provided for those who do not get their opinions predigested from Fox, CNN, the NYT or WaPo, etc. and who might actually be intellectually curious:

--American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America by Chris Hedges
--Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans--Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild by Greg Palast
--Freedom Next Time by John Pilger
--Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East by Howard Friel, Richard Falk
--Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel
--The Case Against Israel (Counterpunch) by Michael Neumann
--The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf
--The Host and The Parasite: How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America by Greg Felton
--The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
--The Power of Israel in the United States by James Petras
--The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein
--They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby by Paul Findley
--What Every Person Should Know About War by Chris Hedges

[NOMOREWAR FORISRAEL]

Don't leave out how JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) Neocon Douglas Feith co-wrote the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel document with fellow JINSA/PNAC Jewish Israel firsters Richard Perle and David Wurmser (see pages 261-269/321 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book via the following URL):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com

A question was posed to Congresswoman Jane Harman about the Mearsheimer and Walt book (www.israellobbybook.com) this past Saturday at the townhall meeting she attended:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/7/184833/326

http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com

[Dap]

One of te best screeds of sophism and half truths I witnessed.

[batguano]

Uh, wha me say, sir?
******

So, the Neocons, who are well known supporters of Israeli/Zionist interests and goals, who were also planners of the disaster in Iraq for the Bush regime, were only looking out for America, and had no secondary agenda to aid Israeli or Zionist goals? Nor I suppose do they follow and support the oft-stated plan for "war without end" in the middle east pushed for by most pro-Israeli groups and Neocon "leaders"? Neither I suppose does AIPAC, the AEI, FDD or the other pro-Israeli lobbyist groups and "think tanks", that many of these "dual-loyalty" neocons belong to or support, push for "pro-Israeli" policies and actions and attempt to subvert our foreign policy? Neither does the actions of Israel proper seem to be always going in the direction of continued conflict, occupation and colonization, right? Your defense of these Jewish or Zionist "Neocons" who were instrumental in getting America bogged down in Iraq (when many other options were open and supported by others) and their possible dual loyalty or pushing policies that would "benefit" Israel (or the Israeli right-wing) is really disingenuous and clutching at straws. They cherry picked intel, manufactured intel, supressed any point of view to the contrary, and worked real hard to make this thing happen, but all the "circumstantial" or other evidence pointing to a dual agenda, or leaning to Israeli goals is bunk? You would do better in defending the true interests of Israel to denounce their perfidy and the un-American policies they pushed and are STILL PUSHING for war with Iran! The knee-jerk reflex to defend anything "Jewish" or Israeli" is many times NOT good for either Israels or Americas long term interests, or jews. In this case these war-mongers have much blood on their hands, both Iraqi and American, and your support and weak defense of them and their actions is misplaced at best.

[Salvage]

This is quite interesting. Are you honestly contending that Fleshler was "defending" these people or offering "support and weak defense of them and their actions?" Think he was pretty clear that he loathes them as much as you do. You don't get the point, do you? All the rhetoric you just piled on might make you feel better because it reduces a complex set of circumstances to one cause, but the cause that all Americans should worry about is that these people have never met a war they didn't want to fight...Bill Kristol has even advocated attacking Burma!

[samstone]

General Tommy Franks in front of news reporter; " Douglas Feith is the dumbest f#%king man on the the face of the planet".
Reporter; General, were on the record would you like to rephrase that?
General Franks; " NO".

[RabbiOmar]

I am reminded of Einstein's comment when his theory of relativity was new. Einstein said, "If I'm right, the Germans will call me a German and the French will call me a citizen of the world. If I'm wrong, the French will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." I opposed the Iraq war before it happened and I realize that most Jews did not oppose the war before it happened. However, I note that Jews are more vunerable to the dual loyalty charge than Irish-Americans, British-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Pakistani-­Americans, Iranian-Americans, etc.

[Andreas]

You are right.

Other 'hyphenated Americans' (Kevin Phillips) maintain strong loyalties to their respective 'homelands', too.
Consider the German-American backlash against FDR because of 'his' war against Germany.
(The homeland of most Jewish-Americans is Russia, Poland or Germany, not Israel, however)

The US' peculiar relationship to the state of Israel should be the issue.

Israel will find it much easier to negotiate with Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestinians when their country is not viewed as an American carrier.

[Lon]

What reason do you have to believe that most jews did not oppose the war before it happened. There were certain "jewish leaders" who supported the war, but I suspect that support for the war among jewish americans was weak.

[Rand]

Actually, Lon, the very notion of "Jewish leaders" is laughable

We're a religion with no hierarchy, in which congregations hire and can fire their rabbis just like any other employee (Unless, of course, the specific contract under which the rabbi was hired precludes this)

Any so-called "leader" is self-proclaimed or "annointed" as such by the press

Most polls, as well as my own experience (Admittedly, it may be slanted, as one often associates with more folks who agree than disdagree with one's own positions), indicate that Jewish Americans have been, from the beginning, slightly more opposed to the war than the population in general. In fact, the ONLY religious or ethnic group which has opposed the war at a higher rate is the American Muslim community

[OrvilleHLarson]

Sorry, Mr. Fleshler, but I disagree.

Many neocons are not merely Jews, but Zionists.
These people are rabidly devoted to Israel's interests, even when those interests conflict with America's interests.

And, of course, these same Zionist neocons--not to mention the Israel lobby in general--are pushing for an attack on Iran. Why? Iran's no threat to America (they don't have nukes), so why is that? Maybe because they regard Iran as an enemy of Israel?

[Stirner]

Do the Zionist neocons, such as Kristol, understand that they are feeding a growing resentment against ALL Jewish Americans? The political distinction between Jewish "Zionists" and Jewish people in general is not self-evident. For those who do not see, or wish to see, this distinction, (and given the fact that American Jews are known to be able to claim Israeli citizenship), then all Jewish Americans can be held suspect of having divided loyalties. Sad, but true.

[Andreas]

"The political distinction between Jewish "Zionists" and Jewish people in general is not self-evident."

I think it is VERY self-evident. A Jew is a child of a Jewish mother, and a Zionist, at least in these days, is a war-mongerer and/or religious fundamentalist.

I consider myself to be a non-zionist supporter of Israel. That means I support the idea of a state for the Jews, but not a JEWISH state.

Right now, citizenship in Israel is limited to Jews (and a small minority of old-stock Christians, Muslims, Armenians and other small tribes). I think that's wrong and amounts to apartheid. Also, it's a distinct form of religious fundamentalism in an era of enlightened, secular states.

There is NO (culturally predominantly) Christian country in the world that limits its citizenship to Christians (although some make it hard for all foreigners to immigrate)

Among Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia, the US' other principal ally in the region, doesn't accept Jewish citizens, I don't know about Iran (Iran does have a Jewish population with its own representative in the Iranian parliament, though)

I assume many Jewish Americans do have a special relationship to Israel because there's not a single European Jew who didn't lose a family member to the Holocaust.
I don't assume that means they blindly support every policy of its current government.

Theodor Herzl's Zionism was progressive, secular, socialist and internationalist. Jews should live in harmony with their neighbors in a non-religious state.

Today's Zionism is militaristic, racist, paranoid and a creature of the MIC in Israel and the US.

Many Christians, like Rumsfeld, H.R.Clinton, Murdoch support it, while many Jews like Chomsky, Hersh, Feingold, Sanders oppose it.

[ProfessorDuh]

Agreed. The neocons are disloyal as well as dishonest.

[RWitty]

Thanks for the sober and humane article, Dan.

[drx]

The dual loyalties question can't be answered with respect to neocons because the question assumes that all neocons are of one mind. While shared policy beliefs may define many individuals as neocons, the answer to the question of loyalties could be different in the case of each individual. One neocon might feel a profound loyalty to Israel that even exceeds his or her loyalty to the United States, while another neocon might see a good outcome for Israel as desirable, but not something that should ever take precedence over the interests of the United States. I think its safe to say that gradiations of loyalty and its complexities could vary a great deal from one person to the next.

[EspressoAtNoon]

True, each person is an individual. When you read about some of these guys though it's like they've had tunnel vision regarding Israel security for most of their lives.

In Colin Powell's autobiography he stated that at the State Dept they referred to these neo-cons in the White House and in the Pentagon as the "JINSA crowd". They were all members of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and it was apparent to him that Israel's security was a common obsession with each of them.

[timm0]

Why can't they be both dead wrong AND disloyal?

If their decisions on behalf of this nation are tainted even slightly by the contradictory interests of another nation, then accusations of treason are fair game.

[Plowboy]

These men are not stupid. If I knew that they were putting out lies, they surely did.
But they were not disloyal to their country. They were only disloyal to mine.
And it does no good pretending otherwise.

[Nonamnesiac]

You are 100% wrong -- Feith, Crystol, Wolfowicz, Pearle, Lieberman are all ideological vassals of Israel, worried more about Israel than the US.

As an American Jew, what I really despise about them is they represent an insignficant percentage of American Jewry. According to the polls, American Jews, by the largest percentage of any religion in the US except Moslems, oppose the war and oppose the likes of Pearle, etc. We all knew despicable jerks like them when we were growing up and KNOW they are loyal to Israel first.

They rationalize that what's good for Israel is good for the US and therefore argue they are not traitors. These cowardly chicken-hawks are traitors as are those whom they serve -- Bush and Cheney.

[EspressoAtNoon]

I agree with you. And the point is Mearsheimer and Walt state in "The Israel Lobby" that American Jews were more against the war than the American society at large.

They focus on the pro-Israel ideologues, but those who critique the book try and suggest they are making sweeping statements about Jews in general, which they NEVER did. In fact, the authors did the complete opposite.

That's why I believe it's a disservice when bloggers like Fleshler try and defend the undefendable - the neo-cons. Their individual histories are available for everyone to see and each is a fervent Zionist Zealot who'd been screaming for war with Iraq years before 9-11.

[dapaul]

According to an American Jewish Council poll on Iraq in 2003, 59% of American Jews supported the Iraq war, with 36% opposed. That's a majority of the American Jewish population who supported the war. Not to mention that almost 100% of the American Jewish leadership supported the war and actively lobbied for it.

[Nonamnesiac]

An American Jewish Committee poll in 2006 showed 70% of Jews opposed the war. In 2005 66% of Jews opposed the war. In 2003, more than 59% of the American people supported the war. http://www.cjp.org/page.html?ArticleID=98136

I'm not trying to defend the neocons and chicken-hawk Jews who supported and support the war. I'm saying a much larger percentage of American Jewry has opposed and currently oppose the war than any religion other than Moslems.

Also, I'm not sure about the accuracy of any American Jewish Council poll. The American Jewish Council is a far right, pro-Israel organization. http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.789093/k.124/Who_We_Are.htm

[outnow]

The author Shlomo Avineri worte a letter on behalf of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard who worked for the CIA and provided millions of pages of highly classified documents to his Israeli handlers. Pollard received and is serving a life sentence in 1987.

He states in his letter that as in the Iran-Contra affair in the United States, it appears that both of our countries have a penchant for letting cowboys run sensitive intelligence operations. Colonel Oliver North was given a "slap on the hand" while Pollard serves life in prison.

"I hear American Jews talking about being accused 'dual loyalty.'" ..."Only Jewish people have used this phrase in the context of the Pollard affair - because you, not the non-Jews, somehow feel, deep in your heart, that despite all of your material success and intellectual achievements, you may not be seen by non-Jews as being Americans."

"Zionism grew out of the cruel realization that for all of their achievements and successes, when the chips are down Jews in the diaspora became vulnerable and defenseless, are seen as aliens - and will always be seen as such."

This article caused a firestorm ten years ago in both Israel and the USA. Avineri complains that equal justice was not accomplished for Mr. Pollard by either country. Israel only reluctantly acknowledges the actual spy status created with Pollard. The CIA has video tapes and a confession and a guilty plea.

A conflict-o­f-interest is a conflict of interest. "There is no doubt that some branches of our intelligence apparatus have run wild and that some very senior officials and politicians will have to pay for this folly and the irresponsibility involved in the affair," continues Mr. Avineri.

I couldn't agree more. When will Cheney and Feith be held to account?