The Nation, considered by many to be one of the leading leftist magazines, has published an article that can be described only with outrage. This article, A Costly Friendship by Patrick Seale, furthers the meme of the neocon conspiracy to the nth degree, bending the entire episode in Iraq so that it may seem to suit Israeli interests.
Alarmist? Read these for yourself:
“Right-wing Jewish neocons–and most prominent neocons are right-wing Jews–tend to be pro-Israel zealots who believe that American and Israeli interests are inseparable (much to the alarm of liberal, pro-peace Jews, whether in America, Europe or Israel itself). Friends of Ariel Sharon’s Likud, they tend to loathe Arabs and Muslims. For them, the cause of “liberating” Iraq had little to do with the well-being of Iraqis, just as the cause of “liberating” Iran and ending its nuclear program–recently advocated by Shimon Peres in a Wall Street Journal editorial–has little to do with the well-being of Iranians. What they wished for was an improvement in Israel’s military and strategic environment.
The Iraq crisis has made their names and organizations familiar to every newspaper and magazine reader: Wolfowitz and Feith, numbers 2 and 3 at the Pentagon; Richard Perle, former chairman and still a member of the influential Defense Policy Board, sometimes known as the neocons’ political godfather and around whom a cloud of financial impropriety hangs; Elliott Abrams, senior director of Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, with a controversial background in Latin America and in the Iran/contra affair; and their many friends, relations and kindred spirits in the media, such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan of The Weekly Standard, and in the numerous pro-Israel think tanks, such as Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Project for the New American Century, the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (born out of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and many others. As has been observed by several commentators, 9/11 provided the neocons with a unique chance to harness (some would say hijack) America’s Middle East policy–and America’s military power–in Israel’s interest by succeeding in getting the United States to apply the doctrine of pre-emptive war to Israel’s enemies.”
And that is just the beginning. Mr. Seale spares no blows at the Jews, making a case that is hard to defend. This next one is a serious leap of prejudice as well:
“Concerned to insure Israel’s continued regional supremacy, and at odds with what they saw as distasteful opponents, such as Islamic militancy, Arab nationalism and Palestinian radicalism, the neocons argued that the aim of US policy in the Middle East should be the thorough political and ideological “restructuring” of the region. Exporting “democracy” would serve the interests of defending both the United States and Israel. A “reformed” Middle East could be made pro-American and pro-Israeli. All this seems to have amounted to an ambitious–perhaps over-reaching–program for Israeli regional dominance, driven by Israel’s far right and its way-out American friends.
First of all, does Mr. Seale really think that Israelis were afraid of Iraq, or that Iraq could influence Israel’s regional military superiority? Well, he didn’t ask any Israelis, did he? No, Mr. Seale was too busy painting his portrait of the neo-Elders of Zion to realize that Iraq was basically off of Israel’s threat-radar screen. Proof? I was there. More? Ask anyone else who has any knowledge of Israeli strategic assessments.
Moreover, to insinuate that the administration and the majority of Americans that support Israel are “way-out” is one of the most obnoxious, idiotarian suggestions I have read in quite some time.
I could go on and on fisking this article, tearing it apart into shreds of anti-Semitic rants and illogical statements (my favorite being, “Saddam’s Iraq was the only Arab country that might in the long run pose a strategic challenge to Israel” or his statement that Egypt posed no threat to Israel in the early ’60s) but sometimes it is better to just throw out the trash.
Don’t get me wrong: criticizing the US/Israeli alliance is fine by my book, but some knowledge and accuracy would be expected from a magazine of this caliber.
If this type of filth is printed in “The Nation,” I feel we may find a rebirth of the Nazi-Soviet alliance on the horizon.