The Un-American Conservative
Noah Pollock is in rare form in this Commentary Post – utilizing all the tired, typical old strawmen and red herrings against “paleos” and the unabashedly critical conservative voices at the American Conservative magazine who dare to come out against the boiler plate pro-Israel inanities of the Commentary crowd. Writes Pollack:
In my opinion, a magazine that attempts to undermine the democratic legitimacy of the contribution of Jews to the public debate by repeatedly referring to them as a “fifth column” is indeed an un-American publication. TAC also publishes the embarrassing conspiracy-theorizing of Philip Giraldi, a man whose writing is almost entirely dedicated to exposing what he believes are the Israeli or Jewish plots manipulating U.S. policy. The attempt to write one religious or ethnic group out of the debate by assigning them membership in conspiracies and imputing to them dual loyalties is indeed un-American, and there should be nothing controversial about saying so. [emphasis added]
Is that what the writers at the American Conservative are doing? I’ve read a lot of columns by a wide variety of writers at TAC, from Daniel Larison to Pat Buchanan, and I am having a very, very difficult time recalling when a single one of them referred to the “contribution of Jews to the public debate” as a “fifth column.” I have heard the Israel Lobby referenced as a “fifth column” but I certainly haven’t heard TAC’s writers calling out all Jewish contributions to the public debate as such. Of course, I’m looking for evidence and reason, two things Pollack is wholly lacking.
And that’s the point of Pollack’s rhetoric. Just insert “Jew” wherever the word “Israel” pops up and you can basically call out your opponents and critics as anti-Semites without actually having to overtly state it – and sometimes insinuations are simply more powerful than outright statements. This is what the Commentary crowd does whenever pressed with legitimate criticism of Israel. This is the neoconservative playbook on dissent management. This tactic is tragic and foolish because it really is important to have a wide variety of voices and opinions on the Israel/Palestine debate. Dissent from the status quo is necessary. If we only have the gung-ho pro-Israel hawks debating with other gung-ho pro-Israel hawks then we don’t have a debate, we have an echo chamber. If we only have the neocon talking points to reference when debating whether or not to bomb Iran – it should be telling that we’ve even gotten to that point – then we’re rarely given an opportunity to dig into the deeper historical truths of that nation. And without history we have the Iraq invasion all over again.
Now to get to the meat of this post, it seems that Pollack considers Buchanan’s critique of the Israel lobby as “un-American” to be rather “un-American” itself. Would the proper response be for me to call out Pollack as un-American in turn? Then perhaps someone could level a similarly vapid retort against me. As Andrew points out, this becomes “a slightly comic and self-defeating cycle in which those who call others un-American are thereby called un-Americans in turn.”
This is the problem with such a line of attack. Buchanan and Pollock both fail miserably in their various critiques (of each other and that dreaded “fifth column”) not so much because they lack for details – Buchanan’s column is rather flush with names and dates; Pollack is all hyperbole – but because they both overshadow any relevance by decrying their fellow citizens as “un-American.” This is where I run into difficulty when I hear the Glenn Beck’s of the world railing on about the coming totalitarianism of Obama, or when conservatives claim that liberals or anti-war conservatives are somehow not as patriotic as their more hawkish counterparts. This sort of denouncement is of the hyper-testosterone variety, which is why it is much more common to hear pro-war types denouncing anti-war types as being un-American or unpatriotic or what have you. Liberals mock and deride conservatives all the time, but it’s rarely over their patriotism.
Now, I don’t doubt for a second either Pollack’s or Buchanan’s love for this country. They both have different visions of what it means to be American, or at least different visions of where our priorities should lie. Nor do I doubt the existence of a very strong, very real Israel lobby that is well connected and powerful and quite capable of torpedoing Chas Freeman’s appointment. That there is any doubt about this strikes me as particularly odd. That Freeman’s name was sunk by anything other than the pro Israel crowd is basically unthinkable. Who else and for what other really good reason could Freeman have been swept aside? No other foreign policy lobby is as active or as strong as AIPAC and especially now that we’re more embroiled than ever in the Middle East, and Israel is more entrenched than ever in its own political trenches, it is of vital importance for Israel to have friendly faces in the intelligence community.
Enter AIPAC. Since when do these organizations not act in their own self-interest? That’s the very purpose of them to begin with. AIPAC is like any other strong lobby. This isn’t some massive “Jewish conspiracy” a la The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is meat and potatoes – every man for himself, pure and simple politics. Israel wants American aid and friendship, which is why they have a lobby in the first place. They also happen to be very well connected in the American government, to power-brokers who no doubt still love America but also have a great affinity for Israel, like Joe Lieberman and countless others.
Now, the existence or purpose of the Israel Lobby doesn’t speak at all to the merits or qualifications of Chas Freeman. I believe he was a good choice for the job, and I keep hoping that our foreign policy apparatus will become better rounded for the sake of America and our allies, including Israel, because at this point we’ve learned that this sort of one-dimensional approach to the Middle East and to Israel just isn’t working. The Israel Lobby is only a “fifth column” because of continued American delusions about the importance of maintaining a constant military presence in the Middle East to begin with. If American interests were shifted away from the region, you can count on American interest in Israel gradually drying up. This is important because this day will, out of necessity, come and Israel needs to be on better ground to face its arrival. Israel needs to be less dependent on America if they want to survive, just like America needs to be less dependent on foreign oil if we want to survive. The fact of the matter is that Israel shouldn’t count on sustained support out of Washington. A better solution is a lasting peace, and while Israel is not the only one responsible for such a peace, as the stronger party involved (is there any dispute that Israel is the stronger party between Israel and the Palestinians?) they hold the vast majority of the burden, whether or not that’s fair. Their burden is certainly far greater than America’s in this matter.
And, quite frankly, I don’t care if I’m smeared as un-American in saying so.
Update. Daniel Larison weighs in and asks a good question:
On a related matter, does Andrew actually disagree with anything Mr. Buchanan said in his latest column on Freeman?
I wondered that also, since aside from Buchanan’s use of the “un-American” critique it was a fairly sharp column all around. I just think Buchanan playing the un-American card, after it has been dealt him so many times over, is a bit silly…
Update II. Scott McConnell defends TAC:
Commentary blogger Noah Pollak has produced a post attacking TAC for what he considers “un-American” language criticizing the lobby. TAC takes its polemical manners seriously, and Pollak’s charge deserves an answer.
He links to one Pat Buchanan syndicated column, on the TAC website, though he flags another website’s title for the column. He claims the magazine “repeatedly” refers to “Jews” as a “fifth column”—asserting “the attempt to write one religious or ethnic group out of the debate by assigning them membership in conspiracies and imputing to them dual loyalties is indeed un-American, and there should be nothing controversial about saying so.”
But TAC had done nothing of the kind. It published the phrase “fifth column” in a Justin Raimondo piece four years ago about convicted spy Larry Franklin. This was a focused and limited usage—unless Pollack wants to imply that all American Jews support Israeli espionage against the United States, a position that really would be absurd. Another syndicated Buchanan column, published in TAC last summer, said, “Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran.” One can debate the language—though it sadly obvious that Israel hopes for an American war against Iran—but clearly “Israel and its Washington fifth column” refers to a very specific group of people, including bellicose Christians. No honest reader could conclude that it referred to “the contribution of Jews to the public debate”—unless, of course, Pollak seeks to insinuate that all American Jews are pushing the United States to attack Iran, a truly loony proposition.
There is a deeper motive to Pollak’s attack. A monumental sea change is underway in the American Jewish community. For many years, liberal Jews more or less let AIPAC or Commentary or The New Republic speak for them on the issues of Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East. That’s over. J Street has emerged as a new pro-peace PAC to challenge AIPAC. It opposes the war with Iran that Pollak would like to start. So do dozens of important bloggers—M.J. Rosenberg, Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Philip Weiss, Tony Karon, Josh Marshall, and David Bromwich, to name a few. Joe Klein, the popular Time writer has been challenging Freeman’s attackers. Taken together, these writers are challenging the entire Likudnik ideological complex that stretches from Jerusalem to the offices of Commentary and The Weekly Standard.
Hey E.D. A. Sullivan gets you and Freddie all confused. Below is A.S. and the post from the evening. Have fun.
17 Mar 2009 06:39 pm
We Judge Because We Care
E.D. Kain responds to Shirky and me:
I can’t understand the career journalists who talk with such knowing disdain and casual disregard as their industry goes down in flames. Yes, everyone wants to appear with it and cool and ahead of the curve, but when you say that you value something and yet essentially cheer its demise, that’s pretty lame. Many journalists aren’t just whistling past the graveyard, they’re chortling past it. Perhaps I’m misreading, but I don’t actually see grim humor in the face of great sadness. I see a ton of people not wanting to be seen as one of the ones who didn’t get the memo. The fear of being someone who doesn’t realize his or her industry is dying seems a great deal more meaningful to many journalists than the sadness of the collapse of an at times great and much loved American industry. Better to mock the rubes, it seems, than to mourn the loss.
The hostility Kain senses isn’t due to schadenfreude induced glee, it’s from frustration built up over the years because those who foresaw the media blood bath coming – often bloggers and others familar with new media – were repeatedly ignored, and still are.Report
Bob,
Yeah, I know, I emailed him about it earlier. But, er, uhm…what does that have to do with this post?Report
Nothing, just some information I thought you might be interested in. So fing sorry!Report
What evidence do you have to support such a statement?Report
Gosh Bob, a little sensitive. I’m only messing with you…
Roque – what evidence do you have that it’s not?Report
What kind of idiotic answer is that? One would think that you’re simply being flip and not interested in “advancing debate and understanding of any number of issues” like you say in your mission statement.
You were the one who said that the AIPAC was the most powerful lobby. Did you just pull that idea out of your sleeve because it fits into your prejudices?Report
They may not be the “most powerful” lobby, but in terms of foreign policy and influence they have a very, very disproportionate amount of power. If you are truly denying this then well, big surprise. The problem I have debating you on this subject, Roque, is that you are very partisan. You have very entrenched ideas and beliefs on this matter, and you basically just take whatever you disagree with and apply your basic, unchanging, immovable beliefs to those arguments. Which is fine, but I’m well aware of everything you say. I’ve heard all those arguments before and so I guess I just get bored hearing them again. And again. And again.Report
So now they’re not the most powerful, but the “most disproportionate.” You should get your story straight.
I’m not denying anything; I’m just asking you to support what you say in the interests of “advancing debate and understanding of any number of issues,” etc. etc.
Yes, Israel has a lobby. But so do other countries and other industries in the US. You say Israel’s lobby is the most powerful or the most “disproportionate,” depending… Do you have any reason for saying this besides your own prejudice? I doubt it. If I’m wrong, then show me.
You do have a problem debating me on this subject and it’s not because I’m “partisan” and you’re not. I don’t get which “party” I’m a “partisan” of. You must mean only mean that I have my mind made up in this matter and you use the word, “partisan” because it sounds more intellectual to you. But, if you think you don’t have “entrenched ideas and beliefs on this matter” that your beliefs are the result of open minded inquiry and mine are simply “partisan” hackery then you’re more deluded than I thought.
You can hardly support your opinions apart from saying that “everybody knows,” like you do here. When challenged, you just say that you can’t debate me because I’m wrong.
Your “boredom” comes off like a cop-out to me.
Let’s see if you can answer a simple question: What evidence do you have to support such statements about the Israel Lobby?Report
Ugh. Roque. My “boredom” is with your particular line and means of argument. You want evidence of a strong Israel lobby? Do you see any other country in the entire bloody world who benefits as much from the United States militarily as Israel? Do you know of any other nation with as many deep, deep ties to the politicians and intelligence community? I mean, read a book why don’t you? Do you know how close Israel and the CIA have been? Do you know how much we’ve relied on the Israeli intelligence community, or that they have done some pretty significant spying on us? (Which is all fine and good – all fair’s in love and war). Not only that, but you know I think it’s OK that they have a strong lobby. I think it’s natural. I don’t think there’s anything conspiratorial or despicable about it. I just think kowtowing to Israeli interests so often is not always in the best interests of either Israel or the United States. The belief in military solutions is wrong in my humble opinion. The obvious effects of Israeli pressure on US political entities to walk in lock-step with Israeli decisions to continue to use military solutions is obvious.
What kind of “proof” do you want? Are you asking for quantifiable data that shows the “power” level of each foreign lobby on the US government? Really? You never once have supplied anything near that precise for any of your arguments. I would direct you to the dialogue over Israel itself; to the aid given; to the fact that Presidential candidates feel compelled to address American concerns first and Israeli concerns second in their campaigns. Etc. etc. etc. And so on, and so forth.Report
Ugh. ED Kain.
I want any kind of proof you can come up with. I never said anything about “quantifiable data.” You make an empirical claim, after all. There must be some evidence. I certainly do provide proof for my arguments. I never just say “everybody knows” like you do.
My arguments against you are based on Occam’s Razor. This is also considered “proof,” even if it is not “quantifiable data.”
You seem to take the intelligence cooperation and military aid between Israel and the US as some sort of evidence for the “power” or “disproportionate” power of the Israel Lobby, which is detrimental to our own interests. This is the main point, not the limits you see in “military solutions.” Anyone can criticize Israel’s policies but attributing “disproportionate” power to Israel’s advocates in the US, when none exists, in opposition to our own “true interests” is what I call an updated Elders theory.
How about Saudi Arabia? Or China? Especially now that Freeman has been in the news for having such “deep, deep ties” to these nations. Don’t we have “deep, deep ties” with other allies as well? Why would such ties with Israel be so suspect in your mind?
I suppose that in your mind we have been caught “kowtowing to Israeli interests” in the bipartisan support the Congress gave to Israel’s recent Gaza operation. You can’t imagine that Senators would have written such a resolution without undue pressure from the Zionists. Or is the “kowtowing to Israeli interests” shown in the rejection of Chas Freeman’s appointment? In your mind, this couldn’t be a matter of his incompetence and his own financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia. It is prima facie evidence of the “disproportionate power” of the Israel Lobby.
This is where I say that Occam’s Razor is applicable.
Here’s some information about US military aid [Congressional Budget Justification FOREIGN OPERATIONS Fiscal Year 2008]:
It’s true that Israel gets far more military aid than other nations, although Egypt and Jordan are right up there too. But you take this as evidence of the “disproportionate power” of the Israel Lobby. I don’t see the logic there. I can see that Israel is a longstanding ally and that they are “critical to the Global War on Terror.” I say we’re doing the right thing in supporting Israel because their fight is our fight. We’re allies.
I hope you’re bearing with me here. Israel’s position today with respect to the fight against radical Islam is analogous to GB’s position with respect to the fight against Nazism in the late ’30s-early ’40s. GB was receiving a disproportionate amount of US aid then. The Elders theory was that “International Jewry” was manipulating Roosevelt’s government since such aid to GB was not in our “true interests.”
See what I mean about the updated Elders theory? See what I mean about Occam’s Razor?
By the way, I’m not accusing you of Jew-hatred. I just think that you’re trying to achieve political correctness. I don’t believe that you have any special animus against Israel or Jews.Report
I hope you’re bearing with me here. Israel’s position today with respect to the fight against radical Islam is analogous to GB’s position with respect to the fight against Nazism in the late ’30s-early ’40s.
See. That’s why I can’t take your argument seriously. Or at least that’s one reason.
Now, once again, I do support Israel, but not in any fight against the “war on terror” which is such an absurd and ludicrous apparition I’m surprised you even bring it into this. Israel has been fighting Arab nationalists long prior to any advent of the American “war on terror.” And the two are separate beasts, though both part and parcel of a larger US military/economic expansion into the ME. Trust me, if Israel didn’t happen to be located right in the center of our oil interests we wouldn’t be so supportive of them, though admittedly a large part of our support is also due to the sheer number of Americans who have emigrated there or who know or are related to Israelis.Report
I didn’t bring in the term “War on Terror.” It was from the Congressional Budget Office report that I quoted.
I don’t accept the term either, but I can see that we’re in a war with radical Islam, which uses terror as a legitimate tactic in their view. This is why I say Israel’s fight is our fight. This is why Israel is in an analogous position to GB back in the 30s-40s. Why is this so absurd in your mind?
How can you possibly “support Israel” apart from the war against radical Islam? It doesn’t make any sense.
Every time I challenge you, you shift ground. Before, you were saying that Israel and its infamous Lobby were exercising undue influence on the US government, somehow. I showed you that the simple application of Occam’s Razor tends to refute this. You now shift ground and say that Israel is some kind of cat’s paw for the US in protecting its oil interests, [i.e., Israel is “both part and parcel of a larger US military/economic expansion into the ME.”]
You can’t have it both ways unless you’re advocating a conspiracy theory. See. That’s why I can’t really take you seriously.Report
It isn’t that Sullivan simply disagrees with Buchanan’s piece, he claims is contains “several truly vile comments.” He can’t name one. It is doubtful he read the column before his response…Report
“That Freeman’s name was sunk by anything other than the pro Israel crowd is basically unthinkable. Who else and for what other really good reason could Freeman have been swept aside?”
Well, Pelosi was opposed to the appointment because of Freeman’s views on China. Rep. Wolf said the same thing.
You might want to rethink your use of the word “unthinkable.” To quote The Princess Bride, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
If you can’t imagine any other reason, that’s up to you. But there’s loads of objective evidence that there were other reasons.
Furthermore, if it was simply a matter of being insufficiently pro-Israel, “The Israel Lobby” would have sunk or tried to sink George Mitchell and Samantha Power. They didn’t (or, more accurately, they couldn’t).
The fact is that Freeman had lots of nasty positions on lots of things and that’s what did him in. Contra the conventional wisdom of an all-powerful Israel Lobby, being insufficiently pro-Israel is not enough to sink anyone’s nomination anymore.Report
@ Roque Nuevo–
Please STFU re: Occam’s Razor. We get it; you understand logic.
Please support this assertion:
I can see that we’re in a war with radical Islam
You are more correct when you say this:
Israel’s fight is our fight
And you ignore Kain’s argument as to why exactly their fight is our fight. Oil is a secondary issue, but
a large part of our support is also due to the sheer number of Americans who have emigrated there or who know or are related to Israelis
Now there is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, some of us, on occasion, disagree with the IDF’s means toward this end. That’s all. It doesn’t make us anti-Semitic. It doesn’t make us un-American.Report
@Cam:
Radical Islamists declared war on us and have attacked us. You can see the al Qaeda statements/fatwahs/declarations of war from 1996/1998. Many other instances.
I say that Israel is fighting radical Islamists, like we are.
I have never called anyone anti Semitic or anti American for disagreeing with the “IDF’s means toward this end.” You can disagree with the IDF to your heart’s content and I’ll never call you anti Semitic. This is how ED Kain wants to frame my opinions, in spite of my multiple denials. He wants us to believe that people want to silence him and others for bravely criticizing Israeli policy, etc. This is absurd. Nobody does such a thing. Nobody is trying to stop anyone from dissenting as ED Kain imagines. His repeated invocations of the Israel Lobby’s nefarious power is what I call anti Semitic. This is the topic of my comments here, not dissenting from IDF policy.
This “Israel Lobby” theory of politics is unsubstantiated and belongs to the realm of conspiracy theory. For historical reasons, I call a conspiracy theory involving Jews “anti Semitic.” These theories have played important roles in persecuting Jews since the Middle Ages. My whole point is to get people like ED Kain to recognize this and thereby understand the “Commentary crowd.”
I think that if ED Kain were Jewish, the same alarm bells would go off in his own mind when confronted with “Israel Lobby”-type conspiracy theories.
Note that I do not attribute any Jew hatred to ED Kain personally. I say that he’s just trying to be politically correct and has accepted the Israel Lobby theory as part of his ideology because it sounds “critical” to him.Report
Roque: My piece upblog explains in painstaking detail, with numerous citations, why AIPAC is a more active and influential lobby than any other foreign policy lobby. It also makes clear that there is nothing conspiratorial or nefarious about this conclusion, at least in the sense that E.D. has expressed it. Finally, it explains that AIPAC is actually one of the most honest and, yes, valuable interest groups around; the problem is that there are no other remotely credible foreign policy interest groups that focus on Middle Eastern policy. In other words, the problem isn’t AIPAC – quite the opposite, actually; the problem is that no one has organized in a manner that allows them to provide a credible alternative vision for Israel policy.
This dilemma, by the way, is one that exists with respect to many, if not most, policy debates of any nature, which is why American policy (foreign and domestic) has a tendency to exacerbate unintended consequences.Report
Whether or not the “Israel Lobby” is real is neither here nor there. What matters is the fact that any public criticism of Israeli military action provokes a lightning storm of irrationality. People start making asinine comparisions (“what if Tijuana started bombing San Diego”) and tossing off perjoratives (anti-Semitic, un-American, anti-democratic).
Writers can get away with it easier, but for politicians, Israeli-Arab relations is a third rail. I don’t speculate on why this is the case, I just observe that it is the case.Report
Exactly, Mark. It’s not nefarious at all. My point here was that the Israel lobby is strong and is acting in its own, rational self-interest like all interest groups do. My further point was that we need a diversity of voices in our foreign policy community because what AIPAC thinks is right for Israel may not actually be the case.
Roque, you may boil my arguments down to my trying to be “hip” or “politically correct” or whatever but you’re wrong. I just disdain the sort of ME echo chamber we’ve had at the top levels of government these past few decades….Report
“AIPAC is like any other strong lobby. ”
Hardly. AIPAC was originally financed by the Jewish Agency, the settlement division of the Israeli government. It collaborates with a foreign government to influence US policy. It has an office in Jerusalem. Although nobody blogging here has ever probably read the 1963 Senate testimony on foreign agent activity in the US, the main theme was why AIPAC and its founder, Isaiah Kenen, stopped registering as agents of the Israeli government. At that precise time, individuals within and around this lobby were financing Israeli nuclear arms development in direct contravention of the Kennedy nonproliferation drive. AIPAC has broken many laws to gain the power it has. This fact-free discussion aside, the Internet is doing a fairly good job at gradually revealing how AIPAC came to be.
No discussion of AIPAC should ever commence without a thorough review of its now deceased parent, the American Zionist Council.
(Look it up).Report
That doesn’t sound very different than any other foreign policy lobby, except (as I mentioned before) in its scope and efficacy. AIPAC is an effective lobby. There are numerous reasons for this. And yes, there’s a very mixed history between the Israelis and the US in terms of working together and at odds. There is absolutely nothing surprising at all about “foreign agents” being members of AIPAC or that it has an office in Jerusalem. In fact, I would be surprised if it didn’t have an office in Jerusalem as this would be pretty odd for a foreign policy lobby whose interest is tied directly to Israel. And foreign agents abound in all governments and it’s just the way the game is played. It’s not sinister, it’s life.Report
Wow, E.D. – accused of asserting an “updated Elders theory” and of engaging in a “fact-free discussion” to bolster AIPAC in the same thread! That’s a record!Report
Yes. I know. It’s because I’m obviously a pro-Israel Jew hater. Actually, that’s not impossible. You’ve got people like David Duke who loathe Arabs but not as much as they loathe Jews so they take the whole “enemy of my enemy” approach.
For the record, though, I have a lot of respect and admiration for both Arabs and Jews and couldn’t give a flip about AIPAC other than the fact that I think it would be healthier to have a counterweight to their hawkishness.
(All this, of course, due to my flagrant nihilism…)Report
This isn’t about “Israelis and the US in terms of working together”. Americans working in close coordination with a foreign government have to disclose their activities and funding at the Department of Justice. AZC/AIPAC blew that off, mainly by intimidation. Other foreign country lobbyists, like Venezuela’s, have been jailed under FARA (last year).
American citizens, working as unregistered foreign agents, have broken important US laws while working for AIPAC. You can call that effective. Bernie Madoff was an effective investment manager. Until the law caught up within him.
It is to be remembered that there are only two foreign lobby officials under indictment right now under the Espionage Act. They are AIPAC’s.
On a happy note, you’ve won a free copy of the book “Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal”. Send an address to books@inre.org, and your complementary copy will arrive by media mail.Report