# Do Israel's Interests Have Undue Influence on US Foreign Policy? (esp re NeoCons) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739 "2004-01-05T02:14:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/1 "2004-01-05T02:14:36Z")
Inspired by this [Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=232611). > [@](#): > > \*\*[What the Heck Is a Neocon?\*\*](http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180) > Max Boot > > …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 **[Commentar](http://www.commentarymagazine.com/masthead.html)y [magazine](http://www.commentarymagazine.com/), the neocon bible**. [_the monthly of the [American Jewish Committee](http://www.ajc.org/)_] > > 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\*\*](http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.28/news4.html) > _FEBRUARY 28, 2003 > By AMI EDEN > FORWARD STAFF_ > > …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](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/16/143619.shtml)…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. > > … **Washington Post** …[an] attempt to demonstrate an unprecedented political partnership between Sharon and Bush…Robert Kaiser…\*\*[“Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy.”\*\*](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45652-2003Feb8?language=printer) …[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\*\*](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45652-2003Feb8?language=printer)] > > …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… > > [[Anti-Defamation League](http://www.adl.org/) national director Abraham Foxman:] > …accept as legitimate questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of administration officials… > …it is…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](http://whiteaker.eugenepeaceacademy.org/pipermail/general-interest/2003-March/000028.html)** > [@](#): > > **TR** : 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]](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/16/143619.shtml)\*\*: > > > [@](#): > > > > - > > > > "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’](http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm)\*\*. > > > > "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? > > **RP** : 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?**](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/16/143619.shtml) > _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](http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm). > 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**] Choice excerpts from the WaPo’s Bob Kaiser article: > [@](#): > > \*\* > [Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy\*\*](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45652-2003Feb8?language=printer) > _By Robert G. Kaiser > Washington Post Staff Writer > Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01_ > > “This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman [who first recognized an independent Israel],” said Thomas Neumann, executive director of the **[Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs](http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html)** [[**JINSA**](http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=JINSA)], a think tank that promotes strategic cooperation with Israel as vital to U.S. security interests. > > “Every president since at least Nixon has seen the Arab-Israeli conflict as the central strategic issue in the Middle East,” “But this administration sees Iraq as the central challenge, and . . . has disengaged from any serious effort to confront the Arab-Israeli problem.” [Sandy Berger] > > The turning point…[was] when Bush embraced Sharon’s view…[that] Yasser Arafat’s removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority [was] a condition of future diplomacy. That was “a clear shift in policy,” Kenneth R. Weinstein…of the **[Hudson Institute](http://www.hudson.org/)**, a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud. > > …Bush appointed…[a] critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council. > > “The Likudniks are really in charge now,” said a senior government official… Neumann agreed that Abrams’s appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams’s views were shared by…Condoleezza Rice, …Cheney and…Rumsfeld. “It’s a strong lineup,” he said. > > Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state…[under] Reagan… **convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal** … > > …[Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute](http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=board_of_trustees)…: “ **Elliott’s appointment is a signal that the hard-liners in the administration are playing a more central role in shaping policy**.” > > … **David Wurmser** , [is] …a special assistant to Undersecretary of State **John R. Bolton** and **Douglas J. Feith** ,…undersecretary of defense for policy… JINSA members have included such NeoCon notables as, The Hon. **Richard Perle** , **Douglas Feith** , Hon. R. James Woolsey, Jr., Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Hon. **John Bolton**. **Richard N. Perle** , **David Wurmser** , and **Meyrav Wurmser** are also members of the [Hudson Institute’s Board of Trustees](http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=board_of_trustees). And, of course, the esteemed AEI and PNAC share members with a number of the aforementioned folks. But, that goes almost w/o saying. So the question is, do Israel’s interests have undue influence on American foreign policy via various NeoCons re the ME? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/2 "2004-01-05T03:30:28Z")
To boldly go where nobody in his right mind… A brave question, friend **Simon** , and a worthy one, and one certain to lead you into the “wilderness of mirrors”. But why even limit it to the neo-cons? For years now, American has been Israel’s best friend. Whether this loyalty is returned in kind and degree, is another question all together. It is entirely natural for us to admire Israel: its dogged determination, its resistance against odds, our sympathy for the tragedy of its foundation. With eyes half-averted, we admire the ruthless efficiency of its intelligence services, even as we wonder how much of our own intelligence has been manipulated and “played” to Israel’s advantage. Would Isreal be willing to manipulate American foreign policy to her advantage, without considering the ultimate value to the US? Of course. Who wouldn’t? Would she be willing to manipulate intelligence, media, and politicians for her own ends? Without a doubt. Then the question becomes: are the neo-cons _peculiarly_ or especially friendly to Israel? No, not really. Aside from the barking mad wing of the religious right, persons loony enough to actively foment Armageddon, the sympathy for Israel is pervasive, no more left than right (overlooking, or course, the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe…neo-Nazis, etc.). Nor would I place any special weight on the religious heritage of the neo-cons involved. The spectrum of political persuasion amongst people you could reasonably call “Jewish” is by no means limited to any “wing”. Equally, quite a few of the “neo-cons” are perfectly ordinary white-bread Christians: Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, your better class of Baptist: the kind I like to refer to in general as the Church of Christ, Accountant. To sum: does Isreal have a troubling degree of influence on American politics and policies? Goodness gracious, yes! Is this primarily, or even largely, due to the influence of any particular branch of American political thought? Heavens to Betsy, no! ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/3 "2004-01-05T06:07:15Z")
Ya know, I’m pro-Israel and everything, and I fail to see how American foreign policy could ever be coopted by intelligence by another country, but I’m with **elucidator**. This we can’t blame on the Israelis. Sure, Feith and Perle and the others are called Likudniks for a reason. They just accept that the Likud view is the “right” plan of action, not only for Israeli interests but for American ones as well. I believe that after 9/11, it has seemed to them that the fates of the two countries are more tightly interwoven then ever before. Bringing a lasting peace to the Middle East not by appeasement of despots but rather by complete reboot of the whole region and installation of democratic regimes sure sounds like a good ideal for the US, especially when two of those despotic regimes (Egypt and Saudi) were the source of the hijackers on 9/11. The only easy way to start on this was using military means. Sure, they could have gone after NGOs and used economic and political cues to force free elections and a more independent press. But when the Defense Department, the US military machine, and the ear of the President get dealt to you, the proverb of if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail applies. The place of convenience to begin was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. We had justifiable gripes (kind of), he was certainly a despot, and he was a threat to the region (kind of). Lost in translation somewhere was that he wasn’t one of the despots that had bred the Islamic terror that had bit the US. We are in a peculiar time in this country. We have a leader who has shown little inate sense of how the world works. Most of the time, we are left with the reassurance that his advisors are all good. The problem is when the advisors disagree. We had an epic battle under wraps for the majority of the last two years: Colin Powell and State versus Defense and the Rumsfeldians and the neocons. The neocons won this round – Rumsfeld had his ideas of how the world should work and how America should respond after 9/11, and these happily coincided with the neocons views in Iraq. They beat Colin Powell’s views, and everything that Bush promised during the election (the Powell doctrine, Powell’s reluctance to get involved in wars without clear exit strategies, a realpolitik avoidance of nation building) was defenstrated. We had alternate plans of actions dictated. It is just that when Rumsfeld and Rice and Feith and Perle and all the rest agreed, they drowned out the dissenters. Israel is only a happy coincidence and isn’t significantly more secure than when we started this mess. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/4 "2004-01-05T06:45:44Z")
Considering how much the US is accused of doing things mainly for money, it’s good to be accused of doing things on principle, such as when we stick up for Israel or Taiwan. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/5 "2004-01-05T19:01:04Z")
What **elucidator** said. Israel has had a disproportionate influence on US policy for quite some time now, even before Paul Wolfowitz hit puberty. Then again, it’s not the only socio-political group to have an undue influence on American foreign policy – I am still amazed at how much disproportinate influence the Cuban refugees in Florida have over American policy _vis-a-vis_ Cuba. And while I’m sympathetic to Israel’s situation, I will stand up and say that I think we’ve been playing favorites with them for too long. IMO, part of the reason there hasn’t been a workable Israel/Palestinean peace plan for so long is partially because the US is unwilling or unable to distance itself a bit more from Israel and treat both sides more equally. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/6 "2004-01-05T19:08:08Z")
> [@](#): > > **luci** posted > Then the question becomes: are the neo-cons peculiarly or especially friendly to Israel? No, not really. How many political persuasions can make these statements: …support for Israel – a key tenet of neoconservatism… …Commentary magazine, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee] ? ---
**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/7 "2004-01-05T19:20:10Z")
> [@](#): > > it’s good to be accused of doing things on principle… The principle of yielding to undue Israeli influence? You dont make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/8 "2004-01-05T21:49:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*Considering how much the US is accused of doing things mainly for money, it’s good to be accused of doing things on principle, such as when we stick up for Israel or Taiwan. \*\* On principle, they do things mainly for money! ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/9 "2004-01-06T00:33:40Z")
Maybe **adaher** assumes that the noble pols who’ve been accused of giving Israel’s interests undue unfluence in US’s foreign policy did so w/o a thought of personal gain. That is, they gave this undue unfluence because its prima facie “the right thing to do.” How 'bout it **adaher**? What’re you getting at? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/10 "2004-01-06T12:24:06Z")
Interesting developments abound. Note, with interest, Mr. Josh Marshalls _Talking Points Memo_ (without which, no citizen can hope to be adequately informed…) [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) He points out recent columns by Joel Mowbray and David Brooks that valiantly protect the “neo-cons” from the insidious attacks of anti-semites. I was, myself, taken aback by Mr. Brooks column, having seen him previously as one of the few respectable voices on the right. He had always played clean, in my recollection. I was especially taken by his humanity and intelligence in approaching the issue of “gay marriage”. (See his column in the NY Times) > **[Opinion | The Era of Distortion (Published 2004)](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-era-of-distortion.html)** > > David Brooks Op-Ed column says public belief in shadowy neoconservative influence on American foreign policy has now hardened into common knowledge; notes Wesley Clark, seeking Democratic presidential nomination, brings it up frequently; says truth... A very disappointing display of media whorishness. One can only hope Mr. Brooks has contrition and a speedy recovery. Read 'em and weep. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/11 "2004-01-06T14:39:57Z")
Too rich, too rich, LOL. from > **[Opinion | The Era of Distortion (Published 2004)](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-era-of-distortion.html)** > > David Brooks Op-Ed column says public belief in shadowy neoconservative influence on American foreign policy has now hardened into common knowledge; notes Wesley Clark, seeking Democratic presidential nomination, brings it up frequently; says truth... **con is short for “conservative” and neo is short for "Jewish"** **If you ever read a sentence that starts with “Neocons believe,” there is a 99.44 percent chance everything else in that sentence will be untrue.** He should explain these to Mr. Boot & Mr. Kristol. \*\*All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently. \*\* I wonder what exactly he’s referring to. \*\*The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it’s much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques. You can ignore inconvenient facts so rigorously that your picture of the world is one big distortion. You can live…unburdened by ambiguity. \*\* This is, more or less what’s _supposedly_ going on in the Bush Admin. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/12 "2004-01-06T15:05:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > **Then again, it’s not the only socio-political group to have an undue influence on American foreign policy – I am still amazed at how much disproportinate influence the Cuban refugees in Florida have over American policy _vis-a-vis_ Cuba.** I’m not sure why you are amazed at that. When you have a minority group that _really, really_ cares about something that’s not really important to the rest of the country, they usually get their way. They who make the most noise win, generally. The Cuba situation would be over if there was another group that really, really cared about ending the embargo. And then constantly lobbied for that and threw their support behind legislators that saw it that way. But there isn’t. There’s a smattering of groups, but they’re not nearly loud enough or large enough to make a difference. Same with Israel. Although, that’s also a case of inertia. We support Israel because we have been supporting Israel for about 30 years now and they haven’t really done anything to betray that. Plus, you have several groups that really want to support Israel for whatever reason - plus, the groups that want to end Israeli support aren’t nearly as organized or loud. Incidentally, the sugar protections are the same way. When I was working in Congress the sugar lobbyists would be there every week to drop off reports, materials, etc. showing why the protections were good and should be kept. Maybe once a month or two months, they’d meet with staff and give a detailed presentation with charts and all sorts other fun stuff. We never heard from anyone that wanted to end them. That’s largely a reason why they get kept on. The sugar lobbyists put in the effort and no one puts in the effort to oppose them. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/13 "2004-01-06T15:23:35Z")
Mowbray’s column title kind of says a lot about the column itself: “ **General Zinni, what a Ninny** ” Ad hominem for an argument before the column even begins. The whole, “Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say ‘Jews,’” is telling as well. Btw, it sparked the Pit thread opened by Reeder that inspired this thread. To paraphrase **SimonX** : Based on my readings so far, I’ve found a plethora of denials of the “Jewishness” of neoconservatism and a dearth of actual accusations. These denials are couched in terms of accusations of antisemitism. They’re also based on the idea that even though assertions as to the “Jewishness” of neoconservatism is **nowhere** in the works referenced, it’s what the authors of these works _“really meant.”_ For example Max Boot’s, "it **sometimes _sounds_ as _if_ what they _really mean_ is “Jewish conservative.”** (Maybe this an example of [Stra](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031212.html)u[sian](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=228924&highlight=strauss) extrapolation of the esoteric meanings of texts 😉 ? ) It’s important to note that these accuser/deniers like Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Boot must engage in some rhetorical gymnastics to make their case not about what was actually said, but about what they think someone else “_really meant_.” Rountchere, in GD, we call this a strawman. An interesting, topical comment by **Josh Marshall** : **It’s a conscious cheapening of the charge of anti-Semitism that should be roundly and vociferously criticized.** I’m proud that the SDMB GD is a place where these **“legitimate questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of administration officials”** can be discussed in a reasonably rational manner. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/14 "2004-01-06T15:59:24Z")
[semi-OFFtopic] The surprising thing to me is that my vehement disagreement with the neocons and our current escapades is 90% a disagreement over methods, not objectives. I, too, would like to see the worldwide proliferation of elected democracies with wide-ranging rights for the citizens and checks and balances within the governments and so forth. I’d even go so far as to agree that the nondemocratic countries that are dominated by fundamentalist Islamic nutcase ideology are a specific threat to our way of life, and that therefore these are the places where I’d most like to see democracy gain some toeholds. I don’t think we’ve done an adequate job of being politically and economically supportive of such trends when they’ve emerged, though, and I don’t think imposing democracy by force is a very reliable method. (Aside from which many of the parties who speak of imposing it seem to have a frighteningly attenuated understanding of “democracy” as evinced by their domestic politics). [/semiOFF] ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-israels-interests-have-undue-influence-on-us-foreign-policy-esp-re-neocons/222739/15 "2004-01-08T03:07:59Z")
More reaction to Mowbray > [@](#): > > \*\*[Haters, haters everywhere > \*\*](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36447) > [Zinni] is absolutely correct. …neoconservatives in the administration do come from Washington think-tanks. They inarguably have an influence that is disturbing…conservative and libertarian right… > > …since Zinni himself identifies [no one] from the neocon camp, Mowbray is forced to turn to Business Week, which distinguishes between Jewish “neocons”…and non-Jewish “key allies”…to explain Zinni’s anti-Semitism. This is absurd… But Mowbray assures us that it’s all typical, so drawing imaginary lines to slur someone’s reputation is OK since everyone knows that “neocon” is a code word for Jew. > > It seems that to some deluded minds, straightforward capitalism, classical conservativism and libertarianism are all anti-Semitic. > > . Anti-Semitism, or Jew-hating as it should more rightly be known, is reprehensible. But a false and unsupported accusation of it is equally unconscionable. > > © 2004 **WorldNetDaily**.com, Inc.