Obama has yet another problem. His newest advisor blames American Jews for war in the Middle East. Not Israelis. American Jews.
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles...3523709,00.html
This is really getting ridiculous. The man isn't at all who I thought he was.
I like the way the article quotes the "Oregonion". Is that paper affiliated with the Onion?
Seriously, I found the Israel News article suspiciously vague. They mention the Oregonian interview and say that "McPeak argued that the influence exerted by American Jews is responsible for the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process," but since they don't actually quote the interview on that point it's hard to tell whether McPeak really argues that or that's just the reporter's take on his argument.
So I chased down the Oregonian interview (here). It's long and I've only skimmed it, so I won't draw any permanent conclusions, but my initial impression is that the Spectator has spun him a bit, and the Israeli reporter has spun that even further.
I did a search on "Israel" to make sure I read all the paragraphs about Israel. (I first tried searching for "Jew", but McPeak never uses that word at all, though the Spectator article does.) The strongest comment he makes along those lines is the one quoted in both articles: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.
It's clear that McPeak thinks that AIPAC has influenced American foreign policy for the worst. That's a controversial argument on its own, which one might agree or disagree with, but it's quite a jump from that to saying he "blames American Jews for war in the Middle East". It's actually three jumps: from the words in the interview to the Spectator article, from the Spectator article to the Israeli News article, and from the Israeli News article to Michael's comment here.
I'd be curious to know what Michael thinks of McPeak after reading the actual interview. To me -- and as I said, I've only skimmed it -- he sounds pretty reasonable. But then I'm probably less pro-Israel (and certainly less pro-AIPAC) than just about anyone on this forum, so I'm not sure what my opinion is worth here.
OK, I've read the whole interview now.
Interesting stuff. Not my cup of tea, of course -- I'm rather a radical anti-militarist, and Gen McPeak is obviously an old warrior -- but his view of the strategic situation in the Middle East seems pretty sensible to me.
How anyone spins this as "blaming American Jews for war in the Middle East" is beyond me. If anyone still thinks that after reading the whole interview, please explain it to me.
I don't see anything hugely objectionable in his framing of the problem in the Mideast. I do see a problem in his domestic view. It seems to me it's not "New York and Miami" so much as a whole lot of fundamentalist churches scattered through the rural and suburban landscape of America that present the immovable core of the American tendency to sometimes allow Israel's choices to lead our interests.
In that light, "New York and Miami" is coded speech (to borrow a term from the race-grievance school) for "Jews," and inappropriately scapegoats them. Down that path lies ugliness.
This, however, I think is totally wrong and vastly overstates our influence:
" You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at ... something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. ... We [n]eed to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."
Emphasis added.
I also have no idea what he's talking about here:
"There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack."
I blame the reporter for not asking for clarification. Unless everyone knows something about Oregon I don't.
O/T, I'm honestly curious if, as a "radical anti-militarist" you also would consider yourself anti-military? Is it possible to split that difference, and if so, how do you know when you've done it?
Thanks, Cal.
I like your take on it, and I think you've stated it very well.
I see your point about "New York and Miami" being coded speech, and it ought to be treated like any coded speech. I think you and I are probably pretty near on that. On the one hand, yes, it can lead toward ugliness and it's something we ought to point out and watch out against. On the other hand, when a guy says something like that -- and I am intentionally applying this to both sides -- we shouldn't just grab it and dismiss him as a racist unless there's something more substantial to go with it.
I do think it's a problem when our foreign policy gets led by attaching itself too strongly to the interest of certain other countries. It's not a problem limited to Israel -- Saudi Arabia is another prominent example, in my mind -- but Israel happens to be the one for which we're affected most right now. It's a hard topic to discuss fairly since on the one hand there really is anti-semitism among the commentariat and on the other hand advocates of a pro-Israeli policy can be quick to hide behind accusations of anti-semitism in order to avoid defending their policy.
Maybe bringing up all the fundamentalist churches makes that conversation easier, and I should take a cue from you on that. But for me at least, the real problem is about the power of lobbies, which is why I like to focus on AIPAC (which does not represent all Jews nor only Jews). If there really is a significant portion of the population in favor of a policy, I find that more legitimate than when a small interest group is able to push its influence thanks to money and close association with members of Congress. For me, the parallel here is lobbies like agribusiness, auto manufacturers, trial lawyers, teachers unions, AARP, etc., taking positions that may be broadly related to national interest and pushing us in directions that favor a narrow interest at the expense of the general public. In that respect, I really want to say the problem is special interest groups with money, but in the case of AIPAC I have to be careful not to say that, because it sounds like coded speech.
I completely agree with you that McPeak vastly overstates American influence and responsibility on the Palestinian problem. That was one of the points where I think he's way off-base. For me that's just a symptom of the broader error of activist internationalism generally.
I too have no clue about the Oregon reference. The page we read was the full transcript, which was clearly linked from an Oregonian article about the interview, but the link to the article was dead. Maybe it's explained in the article? I don't know. Possibly he meant to suggest that there's some radical element anywhere but since he was addressing an Oregon paper he said "in Oregon" as a way of saying "even right here".
I'll have to answer the "anti-military" question separately. If I forget, give me another nudge.
I've written an answer. Currently debating whether to post it here, send you an email, or post it on Benzene.
Mark, if you post that on your website please drop a note here. I'm curious to read you perspective if you make it public.
I put it over there.
Commenting by HaloScan
