Alessan
January 2, 2004, 11:14pm
21
Are there any prominant Jewish Republicans who are not identified as “neocons”?
Arlen Spector, Senator from Pennsylvania, is regarded as a leader of the party moderates.
Yeah, but he’s named “Spector.”
OoooOOOOOooooo…
Here’s a bit from a fellow who is apparently a neo-con, a Jew, and a former Trotskyite.
**Trotskycons?**
National Review Online
On June 7, the National Post, a Canadian daily, published a rather amusing article by Jeet Heer, titled “Trotsky’s ghost wandering the White House.” The aim of the author was to illuminate two issues occasionally argued in political media: first, the scurrilous claim by a group of neofascists that the neoconservatives are all ex-Trotskyists, and second, the very real evolution of certain ex-Trotskyists toward an interventionist position on the Iraq war. In the U.S., these are fringe topics discussed only in the most rarefied circles.
The U.S. neofascists [? ] who have thrown this accusation around use the term “Trotskyist” the same way they use the term “neoconservative:” as a euphemism for “Jew.”
And the fact is that many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration — that is, they belonged to or sympathized with a trend in radical leftism that followed the principle of opposition to the Soviet betrayal of the revolution to its logical end.
This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine. Burnham was joined at NR by Suzanne LaFollette, who, piquantly enough, retained some copyrights to Trotskyist material until her death.
They acknowledged that they had evolved quite dramatically away from their earlier enthusiasms.
The second issue at hand involves the actual ex-Trotskyists who engaged with the issue of the Iraqi war. I call this group, to which I belong, the “three-and-a-half international”… Christopher Hitchens, myself, and the Iraqi intellectual Kanan Makiya…Paul Berman
To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling of Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state, as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists[? ], and Stalinists[? ] in their second childhood, make of it what they will.
— Stephen Schwartz writes for leading media around the world. His next book, an account of Jewish religious life in the Balkans, will soon appear.
Very interesting read. It is history I suppose. It’s an interesting counter point to the others of the persuasion who studied under Strauss.
Anyone have any idea who the hell the “U.S. neofascists ” are or who the stainists he’s discussing are?
“US neofascists”: Probably the Pat Buchanons of the world.
**
What the Heck Is a Neocon?**
by Max Boot
Wall Street Journal
December 30, 2002
When Buchananites toss around “neoconservative” – and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen – it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is “Jewish conservative.” This is a malicious slur on two levels.[? ] First, many of the leading neocons aren’t Jewish; Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Father John Neuhaus and Michael Novak aren’t exactly menorah lighters. Second, support for Israel – a key tenet of neoconservatism – is hardly confined to Jews; its strongest constituency in America happens to be among evangelical Christians.
There’re a number of gratuitous slams of Buchanan in this article.
I think it’s interesting that that Mr. Boot seems unable to actually say that Mr. Buchanan has used any sort of a “malicious slur” rather just that “sometimes sounds as if” he means Jewish conservative. which in and of itself, doesn’t really sound that offensive. Apparently, these “sometimes” when it sounds as if Buchanan means Jewish conservative, are offensive to the various non Jewish Neo-Cons. Pretty weak ass shit if you ask me. If Mr. Boot, or Ms. Kirkpatrick, or Bill Bennet et al were to Pit Mr. Buchanan in our humble establishment over “sometimes sounding as if” they’d be laughed at for their paranoid thin skinnedness.
But, apparently a key tenet of neoconservatism is suport for Israel.
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 based on inferences, (on the part of those issuing the denials), that even though this “Jewishness” wasn’t explicitly stated in the work they’re hot under the collar about, it’s what the author “really meant.”
IOW you pays your money and you takes your choice.
As with so many ‘labels’ they:[list=1]
[li]Lose their meaning eventually[/li][li]Are often applied to only one facet of an individual[/li][li]Are used in completely wrong situations.[/li][/list=1]
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.
I’m unfamiliar w/ the Forward.
**Israel’s Role: The ‘Elephant’ They’re Talking About**
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 …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.”** …[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…
[Anti-Defamation League 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
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] **:
"The strategic objective is the antithesis of Middle Eastern stability. The de-stabilization of ‘despotic regimes’ comes next.
"In the Arab ‘bowling alley’, one ball aimed at Saddam is designed to achieve a 10-strike that would discombobulate authoritarian and/or despotic regimes in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Emirates and sheikhdoms.
The ultimate phase would see Israel surrounded by democratic regimes that would provide 5 million Israelis – soon to be surrounded by 300 million Arabs – with peace and security for at least a generation.
"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, according to the 1996 paper, 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 wrongg 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
The strategic objectives of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East have gradually merged into a now cohesive 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 provided the geopolitical ammo by convincing 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 in their war against America.
Since then stories about the Saddam-al Qaeda nexus have become a cottage industry.
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.
[**Richard Perle,**Study Group Leader, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith , Robert Loewenberg, Jonathan Torop, David Wurmser , Meyrav Wurmser ]
Prime Minister Sharon has flown to Washington seven times in two years to meet with Mr. Bush, more frequently than any other head of state or government.
Choice excerpts from the WaPo’s Bob Kaiser article:
**
Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy**
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 [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,” said Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser. “But this administration sees Iraq as the central challenge, and . . . has disengaged from any serious effort to confront the Arab-Israeli problem.”
The turning point came last June, when Bush embraced Sharon’s view of the Palestinians and made Yasser Arafat’s removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority a condition of future diplomacy. That was “a clear shift in policy,” Kenneth R. Weinstein, director of the Washington office of the Hudson Institute , a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud.
In December Bush appointed an articulate, hard-line 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, using a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon’s political party. Neumann agreed that Abrams’s appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams’s views were shared by his boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, by Vice President Cheney and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “It’s a strong lineup,” he said.
Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration who was convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal , then pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.
Said Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute , who shares his outlook: “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] now a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Douglas J. Feith , now undersecretary of defense for policy…
JINSA members have includes 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 Institutes Board of Trustees .
Reeder ,
This overlap of those who’re involved in the Bush Admin and those who’re involved in various Israeli/ Jewish causes may well be the source of what “the hell is this frigging idiot talking about.”
I read the article and then read a few of his other articles. This one looks mainly like the work of a writer who was either against a deadline or who had other work to do and threw this together. A recent article of his claims the State Department is working to undermine GWB in Iraq. More unsupported opinions posted on the net. Anyone getting worked up about such things that are so numerous is bound to have a short life span.
rjung
January 5, 2004, 7:53pm
30
*Originally posted by Flymaster *
Al supports a Jewish state because he is Jewish. Similarly, then, one can conclude that Al is saying that the neo-cons are Jewish.
I think this is where we’re disagreeing – I read that fragment as saying “the neo-cons support Israeal because the people of Israel are Jewish.” I.e., of Israel was a nation primarily of Buddhists, the neo-cons would be less supportive of them.