In this article I am going to critique some fundamental views expressed by a staunch opponent of the US wars in the Middle East, who has performed extremely valuable and courageous service in opposing US war policy in the Middle East...
Cole, who is a college professor, dares to do what few of his peers are willing to do: present his views (most frequently on his weblog, "InformedComment") on current Middle East issues which necessarily touch the taboo topic of Israel and contradict the position of the Israel lobby.
As a Middle East specialist, Cole is capable of writing very informative pieces on that region, which go into far greater depth than I have the expertise to do. It is certainly not in his view of the Middle East per se where I find flaws in his interpretation, but in his assessment of the United State policy, especially the role of the neoconservatives and the broader Israel Lobby, an area in which I have done considerable research (e.g. my book, "The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel"), and where my Ph.D. background in US
diplomatic history would be of some relevance.
Although mentioning the role of some American Jews in regard to shaping American Middle East policy, Cole still tends to downplay it. The flawed elements in his thinking on this crucial area are especially encapsulated in his recent article, "The Decline of the Israeli Right and the Increasing
Desperation of the 'Anti-Semitism' Charge.".......
Cole is obviously a sincere opponent of US/Israel wars in the Middle Eas and of the American-supported Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, but since he is operating from within the current paradigm-Jewish powerlessness and universalistic Jewish beneficence-his analysis, despite his expertise and honesty on the Middle East developments, has significant flaws.
To Cole, at least in his explicit writing, the culprits of the pro-war policy are on the Right – the acceptable demons of American liberals. This includes the Likudniks (and other parties of the Israeli Right), the neocons, and the American right, along with assorted oil people, the military-industrial complex, etc.
But this rightist attitude, he maintains, is quite contrary to the liberal views of most Jews and is actually harmful to the real interests of Israel. Cole writes that the "divide between liberal Jewish Americans and the Israeli Right has lurked as an issue since the Likud Party first challenged Labor dominance in the late 1970s. It is now coming to a boiling point, even as Israel's reputation in the world is sinking. As rightwing policies more visibly fail, the Likudniks are flailing
around making fools of themselves by smearing critics of those policies as racists."
Cole continues along this vein......
While his writing here contains elements of the truth, it would seem that most national security policies pushed by the Israeli Right have substantial support from mainstream American Jewish organizations, which consist of numerous individuals who are considered liberals or progressives. And it should be added that the use of the anti-Semitic smear is nothing new, but a long-time staple of mainstream Jewish groups, such as the Anti-Defamation League....
Jews who support "progressive" measures in the US do not necessarily apply a comparable "progressive" universalist standard to Israel's actions. Cole criticizes the smearing of Jimmy Carter as anti-Semitic by "the likes of Alan Dershowitz," and it is quite obvious that the insignificant role that
Carter was allowed to play in the 2008 Democratic Party Convention because of his critical views of the Israeli occupation had nothing to do with the Israeli or American Right but rather liberal Democrats' desire for the votes and money from liberal American Jewry. Obviously, there were no votes or money to be had from right-wing Jewish pro-Israel conservatives who were going to support McCain with his gaggle of pro-Likudnik neocon advisors.
In using Alan Dershowitz as an example, Cole is explicitly referring to an American Jew who justifies almost every oppressive move made by Israel but is, nonetheless, known as a liberal civil libertarian. Cole does the same when he lambastes "Leon Wieseltier's unsubstantiated and shameful attack on
Andrew Sullivan" for anti-Semitism; Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, is an American liberal in good standing. In short, the very examples that Cole chooses to provide serve to disprove his contention that Israel's hard-line policies are opposed by progressive Jews...
.... how different is J Street from AIPAC? J Street's executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, castigates as anti-Semitic Mearsheimer and Walt's portrayal of a powerful Israel Lobby. Ben-Ami also rejects theUN-sponsored Goldstone report's critical depiction of Israeli war crimes in the December 2008-January 2009 incursion into Gaza-a report that was endorsed by the overwhelming majority of countries of the world. http://original.antiwar.com/
Ben-Ami, however, was less severe here than Dershowitz, who referred to Richard J. Goldstone, the UN report's author, as a "moser" – a Jewish traitor – who deserves to be killed by loyal Jews. (The late Yitzhak Rabin wasbranded a "moser" by leading Israeli rabbis before his assassination by a
Jewish extremist.)
Regarding the "two state solution," J Street specifically talks about incorporating the major West Bank Jewish settlements into Israel, instead of having Israel return to its 1967 borders. In short, there is no evidence that J Street is willing to support any type of Palestinian state that differs in any significant way from what Israeli governments have proposed in the past, which essentially is a non-viable state that is, understandably, completely unacceptable to the Palestinian people. It should also be observed that J Street differs but slightly from AIPAC on Iran. If diplomacy and UN sanctions fail to bring concessions, J Street advocates the strong sanctions advocated by Congress, which could likely
serve as a step toward war...
..........Cole writes: "This Iraq strategy, which intended to stop the Rabin peace process and prevent the return of Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians for their state, was laid out by RichardPerle, Douglas Feith, and other Neoconservatives in a white paper for Bibi Netanyahu in 1996. Many of the authors were subsequently put in high officeby Bush-Cheney and pushed for an American war on Iraq with dirty tricks and false propaganda in 2002-2003. They included Canadian gadfly journalist
David Frum, who authored Bush's 2002 'Axis of Evil' speech in consultation with Perle."
Now to point out that some of the neocons successfully persuaded the US to go to war to aid the interests of a foreign country is avery strong charge, and the specifics cited by Cole make this activity more extreme and more obvious than anything alleged about Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Owen Lattimore, or any other presumed agent of Stalin, who as far as I know were never accused of making actual open contact with the unlamented Soviet dictator.
However, after making this very extreme, but true, anti-PC statement, Cole.... explicitly denies the primary role for the neocons in bringing about the war on Iraq.
He writes: "The mostly Jewish Neoconservatives were only one faction in the Bush-Cheney coalition that wanted regime change in Baghdad... However influential, they were not 'in control' and most Jewish Americans opposed their ideas and policies."
In reality, however, while the neocons did not represent a majority of American Jews, they were certainly the driving force for war. It was their war agenda and they promoted and implemented it through their bogus war propaganda.
The other groups citedby Cole were, at most, simply supporters of the war. The Christian Right,
for example, definitely provided support for the war once it became an issue, boosting poll numbers in the pro-war direction, but it would be hard to name one Christian Rightist who played a role in developing and disseminating the Middle East war agenda before it reached the national spotlight, and then promoted and implemented it from within the Bush administration, whereas the number of neocons involved at these key levels was legion.
Even more can be said against any Big Oil role, the rationale for which has never been even spelled out in a consistent fashion. Some proponents of this view claim that Big Oil wanted to gain control of Iraqi oil, while others maintain just the opposite, that Big Oil wanted to eliminate this
supply in order to raise oil prices. As philosopher of science Karl Popper commonsensically pointed out, any theory that cannot be falsified by empirical evidence is ipso facto invalid.
Furthermore, the proponents of the Big Oil argument are loath to point out any alleged Big Oil person not intimately connected with the neocons-such as Cheney-who was significant in pushing for war. However, the cronies of the elder Bush, such as Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, who have been traditionally tied to Big Oil, were cool towards or opposed to the attack on Iraq. And, of course, prior to 9/11 when the neocons were promoting a war on Iraq, Big Oil was trying to
eliminate the sanctions on Iraq.
Regarding the military-industrial complex, this argument could presumably be trotted out for any war since large sums of money are always spent as a result of war. But why was Iraq targeted? Why not just have a war scare with Russia or China since war scares always bolster military expenditures?
Moreover, not every major war industry actually benefited from the Iraq War since expenditures on some sophisticated weapons systems were reduced as defense money was shifted to more mundane military needs for the occupation. Actual evidence showing that a consensus of major defense industries was pushing for the war on Iraq before the build-up for war occurred is not
available, as far as I know. Further, the military brass were rather hesitant to launch a war (and significant retired military leaders took even a dimmer view); they consequently came in for strong criticism from neocons such as Richard Perle.
.........While Cole accepts the fact that the neocons and Likudniks planned for and promoted the war on Iraq, he maintains that this policy has been an utter failure.......
The failure of this strategy is hardly evident. The neocon agenda assumed that Iran would be the next target after Iraq. Due to opposition in the US, largely from the traditional American foreign policy establishment and various economic interests (and those who held this viewpoint within the
Bush and Obama administrations), the attack on Iran has not yet materialized, despite the pro-war efforts of the broader Israel lobby (which transcends the neocons) and Israel itself. However, the US is certainly edging closer to war on Iran-and Professor Cole seems to see such a war as a definite possibility in his writings on his "Informed Consent" weblog.
Regarding the current situation in Iraq, although the Shiites are in charge, the country is not a unified pro-Iranian state, with resistance from the Sunnis resurfacing-giving definite indications of a possible civil war. http://america-hijacked.com/
ategy/
Moreover, Israel has gained strong influence in quasi-independent Kurdistan. In short, what has emerged in the once anti-Israel, unified country of Iraq is an ethnically fragmented state, just as the Likudnik planners of the strategy had foreseen, with one element being strongly influenced by Israel. Iraq's army will likely be preoccupied with maintaining domestic order, or engaged in internecine struggles, and will not have the time nor capability to threaten the IDF. In short, I would judge the Iraq part of the neocon/Likudnik war agenda to have been close to a total success as it achieved the expected ends......
As I was getting to the end of Cole's article, I began to wonder if I was missing something. Was Cole providing a hidden message between the lines, as writers have been wont to do in situations where censorship exists?
A few things just didn't add up... then he moved on to a real zinger. When criticizing pro-Zionist neocon David Frum, who happens to have been born and raised in Canada, Cole writes: "But I will complain about David Frum's dual loyalties. I am very suspicious of a rightwing Stephen Harper-style Canadian becoming so influential in the United States. I like my Canadians in their normal, sane estate. I fear he may be influencing my country in directions that benefit rightwing Canadian politicians and war industries in Ottawa."
Yes, of course, "Canadian" David Frum, author of Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, is obviously trying to influence American foreign policy for the benefit of "rightwing Canadian politicians" to help well-known "war industries" in Ottawa. Such dual loyalty is obviously disturbing. This would be a good gag for Jon Stewart's Daily Show...
And digging beyond the obvious, Frum is actually not much of a conservative; in fact, he maintains that conservatives need to modernize and not be so fixated on such outdated things as the Constitution. Right or wrong, this position, needless to say, is about the polar opposite of American conservatism, though it fits in with the thrust of neoconservatism, as well as much of modern liberalism.
Frum also illustrates his divergence from American conservatism in his Time Magazine article entitled "Republicans Must Embrace the Vital Center," which trashes the hard-line conservatism of CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) whose attendees had the audacity to give the most votes in their presidential poll to Ron Paul, who happens to oppose the wars in the Middle East. ...
Before becoming an American citizen, newcomer Frum, in his 2003 article "Unpatriotic Conservatives: A war against America," condemned as anti-American those individuals who had labored in the conservative vineyard for decades, such as Pat Buchanan, because they now dared to
oppose the war in Iraq. It is apparent that Frum's conservatism is not attuned to what has passed in the US as conservatism; rather, his "conservatism" is neoconservatism which has as its litmus test an Israel First foreign policy (in contrast to the traditional conservative penchant
for "America First.") ...
Full story
Posts
