Department of Irony

Wesley Clark raises the role of wealthy right-wing Jews in pushing toward a military confrontation with Iran and get smeared as an anti-semite. I defend Clark. Jon Chait in the virtual pages of The New Republic attacks me. But, obviously, rich right-wing Jews like the owners of The New Republic have nothing to do with the drive toward a military confrontation with Iran, right?

I will grant Chait this, insofar as Clark was trying to say that rich rightwing Jews could cause a war with Iran all on their own he's clearly overstating things. We're talking about an influential group of people, but not an all-powerful one. That said, Chait's being willfully naive if he thinks the groups I cited as pushing for military actions against Iran aren't actually pushing for such action. It's true that one can be concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and also concerned about the prospect of American or Israeli military strikes. I put myself in that category. What you need to do to get into that category is express concern about both things. That's not what JINSA or AIPAC or the rest of them are doing -- they're laying the groundwork for the initiation of war.

Comments

Where Iraq's threats beyond its immediate vicinity were illusory (WMD's) or symbolic (token pay offs to suicide bombers), Iran harbors a very real nuclear ambition, a real role in supporting terrorism in Israel and a leadership, unlike Saddam, driven by Islamic extremism. Therefore on Iraq, many in the Israeli foreign policy community understood that the war would make it harder for both the US and Israel to have the credibility, resources, and will to take on the infinitely more dangerous Iran. The case in point is in Benny Morris' piece in the Jerusalem Post where he lays out in chilling and maximal terms his worst vision of the carnage Iran can wreak. In this article, clearly calling for doing whatever is necessary to curtail the Iranian threat, he refers to the current war as "a debacle."

It may have been a neocon dream to "do Iraq," but it was hardly an Israeli policy goal.

Posted by rabbi michael bernstein | January 24, 2007 1:36 AM

It's a good thing the above comment is totally unresponsive to anything Yglesias wrote.

Posted by grh | January 24, 2007 1:49 AM

It is kinda sinister for wealthy Americans to be pushing for a war on behalf of another country.

But, in the end, they are probably right.

Israel is doomed if America doesn't take on Iran for them.

And I don't think we will.

Posted by alphie | January 24, 2007 2:30 AM

Hmm. Of course charges of antisemtism get thrown around way too often, especially by dishonest Abe, but you're far too tolerant when you say:

"insofar as Clark was trying to say that rich rightwing Jews could cause a war with Iran all on their own he's clearly overstating things. We're talking about an influential group of people, but not an all-powerful one."

"Clearly overstating things"--as in greatly exaggerrating the power of rich Jews--smells a lot to me like antisemitism at worst, insensitivity at best. And is the Israeli lobby really prepared to use their full powers to push for war with Iran? Are they going to try to punish Congresspeople who oppose it the way the would punish Congresspeople who, say, tell the truth about what's going on in the West Bank and Gaza? I don't think so.

And he did he really say "New York money people"? Was he channeling Pat Buchanan?

You better be careful, Ygelesias. You just gone put on some list at the ADL.

The Israeli lobby and the like doesn't have the power to lead us into war--it's nothing compared to the country's perceived economic and strategic interests (or, for that matter, Bush's political interests)--but it does have the power to influence the selection of the Democratic nominee's running mate, and it ain't gonna be Wes Clark, no matter how Jewish his father was. The New York money people wouldn't stand for it.

Posted by david mizner | January 24, 2007 3:10 AM

Isn't Clark half Jewish? I remember reading somewhere that his father was Jewish.

But I guess in the eyes of Marty Peretz that would make him a self hating Jew.

Posted by DonB | January 24, 2007 3:29 AM

I don't know. I guess I agree with Chait: it seems pretty clear to me that Clark was referring to a secret, powerful network of rich, telepathic Jews who can manipulate the thoughts of even the most skeptical gentile.

Posted by berger | January 24, 2007 3:31 AM

The question remains...who is driving this escalation in regards to Iran?

Not the American people.

Not most thoughtful folks I've heard who bother to seek out all the relevant information.

Instead, of the small minority of folks pushing it, a majority of them are using fallacious and unbalanced argumentation, overtly showing a desire to disappear or ignore all relevant information, and overemphasizing the threat while ignoring any actions that have shown less-than-antagonistic action by Iran.

Of this small minority of manipulators, there is no doubt the largest clique within the group would be people with the money, wherewithal, and savvy to actually believe such a deceptive strategy would or should be successful. These would be rich, "money folks" who may or may not be Zionist, pro-Israel, Jew, Turk, Polish, Rastafarian or what not, but just folks who believe they can get away with this kind of pulling wool over folks eyes when it possibly impacts millions of lives and sufferers (not any of these men unless finally caught in the act of this warmongering, propagandizing and profiteering).

Of course, in this particular case, as opposed to other cases with no obvious ethnic element (like Big Tobacco or Big Energy scandals and elite deviance and criminal behavior), the elite participants are undoubtedly greatly constituted with those who have inordinate interest in both American and Israeli power and security, and a propensity to conjunct the two, and there's no mystery or wild conspiracy that this group probably has at least a plurality of Jews who share a particular worldview.

It's not the Protocols of Zion, but a different set of Protocols that subverts popular, democratic, and liberal will in favor of elite privilege via subordination of political processes through bribery, corruption, and extortion (and enabled by increasing public and private indifference and lack of political engagement of American citizenry).

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 4:50 AM

Wes Clarke:

You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.

Chait:

The disturbing thing about Clark's comments is his observation that rich Jews are pushing for war.

Chait, a coupla years ago:

[I] decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.

OMG, you killed Jesus, you bastard!

m, rich Christians are evil because they're Christians, not because they're rich! D'OH!

Posted by max | January 24, 2007 6:56 AM

"I will grant Chait this, insofar as Clark was trying to say that rich rightwing Jews could cause a war with Iran all on their own he's clearly overstating things."

Of course, That would be similarly true, no more and no less, to any statement that US pharmaceuticals companies on their own drive US drug policies. Of course they don't do it on their own. But they do it within a political system where the views of the best organised issue-specific small group, particularly if not opposed by a group of similar resources, reliably gets what it wants from the US political system, partisan elections etc to one side. Indeed the dominance of the issue-specific small group is the basic finding of political science on American politics.

There's no more requirement to fill in all the other aspects of American politics which are relevant to the influence of the Israeli lobby on US decision-making than to fill in all the other aspects of American politics which are relevant to the influence of the farm, pharma, Cuban, gun etc lobbies on decision-making. To require an exegesis on all aspects of US politics when referring to the Israeli lobby but not to other lobbies is just another way of trying to raise the bar to prevent people from discussing their influence.

Posted by otto | January 24, 2007 7:12 AM

Matt you are seriously entering Bananas territory. Without appraoching hyperbole, I seriously doubt such figures David Duke, Norman Finkelstein, or Pat Buchanan would make the types of claims you have currently been making re: Isarael and the jews.

In response to Jonathan Chait's "attack" (I see you are now employing David Sirota tactics. Is anyone capable of disagreeing with you without attacking you?) You wrote;

"The New Republic is clearly one of the major American Jewish organizations pushing for war with Iran and this post is part of the push"

Whatever. I won't bother contesting your opinion that TNR is part of some zionist conspiracy by wealthy New York jews to take America to war with Iran at the bidding of their Israeli masters.

I don't wish to inconvencience you, But if you would please do so, could you please take the time to clarify or restate your remarks in the second half of that sentence. Do you really believe Jonathan Chait's response to you is "part of the push" toward war with Iran? please do not mince your words. I won't argue with you, I just want clarification whether or not you mean't exactly what you wrote.

Posted by DRR | January 24, 2007 7:59 AM

Matt, you're going to be in some shit now. A young Jewish enfant terrible can only be tolerated by his elders to a degree. DRR's comment above -- conscending smears, fake quotes, loaded questions, etc, -- that't he sort of shit you'll get if you keep going in this direction.

(DRR -- when you put something in quotes, it's better if its actually a quote!)

Posted by Ikram | January 24, 2007 8:27 AM

I'm kind of looking forward to the war in Iran. After that goes as badly as it's likely to given our current position, it'll pretty much end all influence Israel has over us. A few millionaires won't be able to counteract the millions in the south screaming that the Jews have stabbed us in the back. People like Marty Peretz will have to flee the country. I can't say he'll be missed. At this point, the extra bigotry won't do nearly as much harm as our "unique" relationship with Israel has to the security of our country. At what point did it become wise to start using Elders of Zion as a playbook?

Posted by soullite | January 24, 2007 8:37 AM

To Ikram,

"Matt, you're going to be in some shit now. A young Jewish enfant terrible can only be tolerated by his elders to a degree."

I am not a jew & Mr. Yglesias is one year older than me. Therefor negating the term "Elder" in any context.

"Conscending smears"

To what are you referring?

"fake quotes,"

To what are you?

"loaded questions"

Which one?

"that't he sort of shit you'll get if you keep going in this direction."

Oh yes. If Matthew Yglesias doesen't cease & desist from his bold & fearless truth telling, brazenly challenging the Zionist agenda, The knights of Israeli glory will have no choice but to...post very not nice comments on his weblog expressing their discontent & maybe writing a letter to the editor or something. With such obstacles ahead, it's amazing he's had the will to make it this far.

"DRR -- when you put something in quotes, it's better if its actually a quote!"

This was taken from the comments section in Jonathan Chait's Plank post taking issue with Matt's contentions;

-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, the Irony
posted by yglesias5 on 2007-01-24 00:49:01

"I feel like a good number of commenters have my back here. The irony factor, however, seems worth noting as, though I didn't mention it in the article, (The New Republic is clearly one of the major American Jewish organizations pushing for war with Iran and this post is part of the push.) Peretz himself is, I believe, a Cambridge MA money man, but I think some of the co-owners qualify as NY money men."

--------------------------------------------------------------

There is a chance that this yglesias5 character is indeed an entirely different person than the real Matt Yglesias, and he is merely pretending to be Matt. There's also a chance that this Ikram character, when accusing me of fabricating quotes, didn't know what he was talking about.

Posted by DRR | January 24, 2007 8:43 AM

"A few millionaires won't be able to counteract the millions in the south screaming that the Jews have stabbed us in the back."

I think you miss the essential fact that the power of the Israel Lobby is that it is not solely a Jewish cause.

The Israel Lobby is a combination of Jews who support Israel for obvious reasons and conservative Christians who support Israel due to both biblical reasons and anti-Muslim reasons.

The 'millions in the South' are actually backers of the Israel Lobby.

Posted by Petey | January 24, 2007 8:46 AM

Petey - you're not wrong about the Christian conservatives, but they can't explain the influence of the Israel lobby in the Democratic party which is in permanent opposition to conservative Christians.

Posted by otto | January 24, 2007 8:55 AM

DRR -- Thanks for pointing out the Yglesias5 quote. I don't read plank comments, so I hadn't seen it. I'll also assume that's Matt.

As for the rest of it, rest assured that my earlier comment wasn't directed at you (Apart from the bit specifically directed at you!). You're just an anonymous commentor (as am I) -- the lowest form of pundit on the web.

I do think, however, that the florid and bombastic tone of your comments (e.g "negating the term", "brazenly challenging zionit agenda"!!) suggests that something about Matt's post has really gotten under your skin. And I don't think you'll be the only one.

Posted by Ikram | January 24, 2007 9:24 AM

Mathew, you really are a weaselly anti Semite. Yeah, the Jews, especially the wealthy ones, they can manipulate those stupid and ignorant gentile political leaders just by waving a few bucks in their faces.
If you don't think that this sort of Jewish conspiracy BS isn't anti Semitism, then you are as great a fool as, and perhaps even more blinded by hatred, than Weasly Clark.
Indeed, you are a sick and sickening bastard, you filthy little prick!

Posted by Kenneth S. Besig | January 24, 2007 9:24 AM

These "anti-semitism" posts on MY's site are always very interesting.

I do think, however, that the florid and bombastic tone of your comments (e.g "negating the term", "brazenly challenging zionit agenda"!!) suggests that something about Matt's post has really gotten under your skin. And I don't think you'll be the only one.

This is an interesting point. I guess I would note that there obviously seems to be something about casual charges of anti-semitism that gets under Matt's skin; I cannot conclude otherwise given the frequency of this topic on the site. I regard MY as a rather clear-headed and thoughtful observer of Israeli policy generally, and not an anti-semite by any stretch (although being Jewish doesn't somehow automatically insulate you from such a charge). But I wonder what it is about that charge that rankles so badly--him, and other like-minded and like-situated commentators. He's obviously lambasted with all sorts of pejorative tags all over the web--but this label seems to get to him.

Posted by DJ Ninja | January 24, 2007 10:00 AM

"To require an exegesis on all aspects of US politics when referring to the Israeli lobby but not to other lobbies is just another way of trying to raise the bar to prevent people from discussing their influence."

Otto, no one's requirining an "exegisis on all aspects of US politics." We're asking that Clark not greatly exaggerate its influence. Sorry, but disccussions of rich Jews DO require a senstitivity and smarts that discussions of Big Pharma do not. There's a context here, 5000 years of history, and the notion that a cabal of Jews secretly run the world is pretty much the definition of antisemitism.

I'm surprsised to find myself on this side of the argument; usually I'm the one blasting Abe Foxman and the other anti-antisemtism hucksters.

In any case, I'm happy to give Clark the benefit of the doubt; I don't think he's an antisemite, and he too smart to think rich Jews have the power to create war with Iran. Clumsy phrasing: give the dude a break.

We're all doing the the AIPAC a favor by talking about Wes Clark instead of Israel's seige of Gaza, WHICH NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT!

Posted by david mizner | January 24, 2007 10:19 AM

The label gets to a lot of us. I would guess it would get to Matt even more considering being called a "self-hating Jew" is somehow not unpolite enough to be used by mainstream journalists and commentators (see Cathy Young). Critiquing any Israeli policy like they do in Israel is enough to get you called an anti-Semite here, which is enfuriating. It seems to be that it's TNR policy to act like AIPAC doesn't exist and isn't powerful despite members of Congress calling it the second most powerful and influential lobby in the US (after the AARP), that out of all left-of-center publications they don't bow to the Israeli right the most, that they don't write more about Israel than just about any country where we are not actively at war (every two to three days seems to have an article like "What do they think about John McCain in Israel," etc.), act like Israel is the only country suffering from suicide terrorism (Sri Lanka has to deal with the group that uses the most suicide bombers, the Tamil Tigers) and pretend that Palestinian terrorism or the lack of a well-functioning Palestinian state are not to any extent the product of Israeli policies. Never mind that TNR is owned by a bigot who spends his time saying hateful things about Arabs, calling all Palestinians terrorists and equating all critiques of Israel with anti-Semitism while ignoring real anti-Semitism (like the fact that Putin's popularity to a large extent hinges on anti-Semitism).

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2007 10:22 AM

Another weird thing about anti-Semitism in America:

Real anti-Semite Mel Gibson "says Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" and then has the #1 movie in America.

Non-anti-Semite Tony Judt advocates a binational state of Israel-Palestine and then gets called an anti-Semite (implying being a "self-hating Jew") and then gets fired from TNR for being anti-Semitic.

In conclusion, American society these days, especially TNR, teaches us that real anti-Semitism = irrelvant and non-anti-Semitic critiques of Israeli policy = anti-Semitism.

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2007 10:34 AM

I doubt Matt is self-hating - he seems to regard himself quite well, in fact. It's his attitude toward the rest of the Jewish community that can be inquired after - when he feels comfortable with reducing a policy to being driven by a Jewish clique (or, hey, cabal), he's happy to descend to a 1930s outlook of conspiracism and ethnic reductionism. Someone as self-congratulatory as MY might otherwise have considered the numerous other influences that impact policy, the longstanding enmity we've had with Iran, the concern of Europe on this, the fears of proliferation being spurred by an Iranian bomb, and Iran's real relationship with an increasingly headstrong Hezbollah.

Naw, that's too much work. Why bother when we can talk about "The Jews"?

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 10:36 AM

This is the best: Without appraoching hyperbole, I seriously doubt such figures David Duke, Norman Finkelstein, or Pat Buchanan would make the types of claims you have currently been making re: Isarael and the jews.

Well, as long as you say haven't approached hyperbole....

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 10:38 AM

"It's his attitude toward the rest of the Jewish community that can be inquired after."

I failed to read where Yglesias said all Jews, even a majority of Jews, wanted to bomb Iran. You also mention "ran's real relationship with an increasingly headstrong Hezbollah," yet Hezbollah is only of concern to this administration because it is an enemy of Israel (the Bushies seem to have completely forgotten the Lebanese people exist). The fact that TNR ignores their whole role in putting out hyperbolic doomsday scenarios of the Iranian bomb makes them just intellectualy unserious.

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2007 11:00 AM

LOL. Clark's remark was weird and dumb, which is bad enough in my opinion. I'll criticize pro-Likud jerks who call anyone who disagrees with them antisemitic some other time.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 24, 2007 11:00 AM

Clark's comments are no different from an observation that James Dobson, and other right-wing evangelical Christians, gets to determine who sits on the Supreme Court.

Everyone knows that money talks in our political system. Everyone knows that if you're a reliable source of funding and support, you can acquire an inordinate amount of power in our system. Even a child understands this.

One way of mustering popular support against an agenda item is to point out that it is supported, not by a democratic majority, but by moneyed folks who have an inordinate amount of political power. For example, you might point out that the campaign against doing something about global warming is largely funded by Exxon/Mobil. Or you might point out that Plan B contraception is being held up in the FDA due to pressure from right-wing Christian conservatives. Or you might point out that the campaign against the estate tax is being funded by a small group of ultra-wealthy families. Or you might point out that there's a big push towards war with Iran by right-wing "pro-Israel" hawks. All of this is normal political discourse.

I can't accept the notion that it's fair game to point out this sort of inordinate influence, unless the people you have in mind are Jewish, in which case criticism is off-limits because it evokes anti-semitic tropes. That seems rather senseless.

Posted by Steve | January 24, 2007 11:05 AM

It's his attitude toward the rest of the Jewish community that can be inquired after

Do the Likudnik neo-cons--who seem to be the ones always making these sorts of charges--pause for a breath before launching into fulminations about the evils of identity politics and the Dems dependence on such politics? Or is the general idea that you just go straight on through and hope no one notices?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 11:06 AM

I guess I would note that there obviously seems to be something about casual charges of anti-semitism that gets under Matt's skin; I cannot conclude otherwise given the frequency of this topic on the site.

It's odd, really. It's like how some people get upset when you casually accuse them of racism. I never understood that.

Posted by Steve | January 24, 2007 11:09 AM

So, do the posters want to ecourage Matt's opinions on the relative effect of pro-Israel lobbying groups on US foreign policy, or not?? I, for one, am tired of the cries of anti-semitism that come up every time a "discussion" ripples from one comment or another. What ever happened to a discussion on the merits? And if there ARE no merits, as many here would seem to believe, then explain WHY there are none.

Posted by DC | January 24, 2007 11:19 AM

Silly you. I'm a Democrat. I volunteered for one of our new freshmen and I despise the Likud.

Paradoxically, I also think the regime in Tehran could pose a real threat, since I don't find Christian or Jewish fundamentalism the only frightening varieties of religious zealotry.

If your head hasn't yet detonated, read on.

If Matt wants to make people's Jewishness the issue he, however unwittingly, facilitates nastier versions of what he is trying to say. He helps to create an environment more conducive to Mel Gibson types, whether he cares to acknowledge this or not. He helps to legitimate the conflation of identity with politics, which is a necessary prerequisite for bigotry.

And, lest you forget, Hezbollah has already killed hundreds of Americans and Argentinians (or as some here would put it, "Jews"). And, don't think I didn't notice that you only, however weakly, managed to combat one of the four points I made.

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 11:34 AM

It's odd, really. It's like how some people get upset when you casually accuse them of racism. I never understood that.

Gosh, Steve, good point. What insight.

Anyway, my point is: Presumably MY gets accused of being all sorts of things, all the time, and some of them probably worse than being an anti-semite. But his blog is not littered with an itemized list of these other offenses. I just found it curious.

Posted by DJ Ninja | January 24, 2007 11:40 AM

Presumably MY gets accused of being all sorts of things, all the time, and some of them probably worse than being an anti-semite.

Maybe--and I'm just suggesting this, not saying it's necessarily true--your assumptions are wrong.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 11:42 AM

I, for one, am tired of the cries of anti-semitism that come up every time a "discussion" ripples from one comment or another.

DC, I think MY's readers can be forgiven for taking up an issue that MY brought up in the first sentence of this post.

Posted by DJ Ninja | January 24, 2007 11:43 AM

Maybe--and I'm just suggesting this, not saying it's necessarily true--your assumptions are wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Posted by DJ Ninja | January 24, 2007 11:44 AM

It's really kind of frightening to see these characters show up in the blog comments and start tossing wild accusations at Matt, for defending what to me was a clearly factual and non-bigoted statement from Clark.

I honestly don't get it. The American Jewish community is, on average, one of the most liberal and anti-war demographic groups in the country. Someone like Mel Gibson, who complains that "Jews start all the wars in the world," is a delusional bigot.

But someone who points out that a small group of wealthy and well-connected "Friends of Israel" are advocating confrontation with Iran is stating the bloody obvious. Nobody's talking about the Protocols of Zion. We're talking about the ADL, AIPAC, TNR, the Weekly Standard, Benny Morris, Joe Lieberman. This stuff is right out there in the public domain. They are justifiably concerned about Israel's security, but their hawkish instincts have failed both Israel and the United States time and again.

Few people are openly calling for an attack on Iran, but a great many are saying things that attempt to justify an attack on Iran. To claim this is not part of a push for war is extraordinarily disingenuous. To claim that Yellow Journalism can't start a war would indicate a complete lack of awareness of American History, not to mention what happened in this country 4 years ago.

Clark pointed out that Israeli opinion is divided. This isn't about hating Israel or hating Jews. It's about preventing a pointless and stupid war that a great many Israelis and Jews also want to prevent. Period.

Jon Chait is a brilliant writer on domestic issues, and his intentions are probably good, but he is proving himself to be the textbook example of a useful idiot when it comes to foreign policy. The false accusations of anti-semitism from the Right are now reaching levels that put liberal identity politics to shame.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 24, 2007 11:49 AM

Sorry, Mr. Ninja, but I don't expect Matt intended to inquire of his readers whether they think he's some variety of anti-semite.

Posted by DC | January 24, 2007 11:55 AM

And, don't think I didn't notice that you only, however weakly, managed to combat one of the four points I made.

Gawd, I hope you're a Communications major. I count two "points"--(1) MY hates the Jews , and (2) there are other interests that influence our Iran policy--and I more than half-agree with the second. But the audience for think-y pieces seems to be pretty crappy, and so people (here, Clark, I assume) make crappy arguments because they feel they have to do so to be understood.

I don't know how deep our institutional enmity towards Iran is. I occasionally hear Big Media commentators mention it, but that claim is usually off-hand and it's always immediately accepted. It would be interesting if someone in the media actually looked at it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 11:58 AM

That part was directed toward RealityMan - I had cited four other reasons to which our concern about Iranian proliferation.

Let me put it this way - we've had to regard them as an enemy since 1979 and, as with Iraq, there has undoubtedly been an institutionalization of that premise.

I never really said that MY hates the Jews, incidentally; my concern with him is more as someone who - wittingly or not - discusses Jews in such a manner as to impugn any of them who are less chill about Iran than he is. If Ahmadinejad acts on his promise to wipe Israel off the map, people like Matt will have to carry that on their souls for a long long time.

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 12:14 PM

LaFollette, is it really so hard for you to understand the difference between some Jewish organizations and publications supporting an attack on Iran - which is indeed "bloody obvious" - and the two much more problematic points that Clark made and Matt agreed with: 1) that rich Jews are funding candidates who support war on Iran and 2)that this, in and of itself, may cause Bush to launch such a war?

Posted by Sheldon | January 24, 2007 12:20 PM

La Follette progressive has it right. It's totally obvious there is a group of wealthy Jews trying to drive us toward war with Iran, and lobbying up a storm to do it. They are supported by a fair number of worried Israelis. Then one can debate about the exact influence of this group -- it's more than zero, and less than total. The "anti-semitism" charge obviously doesn't come from disagreement about the exact level of influence, so much as from violating the taboo on mentioning Jewish influence at all. Not to mention from pointing out that war with Iran would pretty obviously not be in the interests of the United States.

I do think that the plight of military-industrial ex-cold warriors (cf. Cheney) casting around for someone to have a big geopolitical struggle with also contributes significantly to our messed-up Iran policy. The Likudnik influence is pushing these guys in the direction they want to go anyway.

I am, by the way, Jewish. But you know, I hate myself.

Posted by MQ | January 24, 2007 12:23 PM

This is a tricky issue. It is certainly true that wealthy right-wing Jews are pushing for war with Iran, and the role of israel in the equation means that their Jewishness is not incidental. But it is also true that anti-semitism is quite reeal in the US, more so, I think, than many coastal liberals appreciate. In my experience, a lot of the ugly old ideas of Jewish cabals are alive and well among white Southerners, among otehrs.

Again, while Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is indefensible, it would be foolish to deny that a certain amount of the greater criticism it receives compared to other indefensible regimes is motivated specifically by its status as a Jewish state.

Of course, spurious accusations of anti-Semitism like those in this thread don't help address these real problems, and the phenomenon described in the original post helps even less. One of the tragic ironies of this whole situtaion is that the Peretzs, Morrises, etc. are probably doing as much as anyone to fuel increased anti-semitism and undermine Israel's survival.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 24, 2007 12:36 PM

"If Ahmadinejad acts on his promise to wipe Israel off the map, people like Matt will have to carry that on their souls for a long long time."

Ahmadinejad lacks the power to do so in the Iranian foreign policy apparatus even if Iran had nukes. In addition, as Juan Cole pointed out, it might not even be possible in Persian to say "whipe Israel off the map."

To some of the comments above, Hezbollah did kill Americans and Argentinians - a while ago. The Hezbollah attack on American and French barracks took place about a generation ago. Hezbollah is not at war with the US unless you consider Israel some kind of proxy for us, which it is not. The CCP and the PLA killed Americans during the Korean War, but we are not currently at war with them.

To review, "you just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers." He did not say, "1) that rich Jews are funding candidates who support war on Iran and 2)that this, in and of itself, may cause Bush to launch such a war?" Now, you may think he means rich Jews are funding Hillary Clinton, but you would be putting words in his mouth. You cannot deny that there are rich Jews in New York who support groups like AIPAC, who support other groups that shout down moderate rabbis and Jews and try to silence moderates in Hillel, etc. These fundraisers aren't secret. Personally, I would have liked it if Clark mentioned how groups like AIPAC have made a deal with the devil by aligning themselves with Christian conservatives who want to see the second coming of Christ, thus leading to the deaths and eternal damnation of all Jews. However, the fact he didn't mention that doesn't mean what he said isn't real.

Everyone knows, for instance, that rich, old Cuban expats in Florida and New Jersey and their money drive our stupid Cuban policy and help keep the embargo in place. The Indian lobby used its money to kill a bill in the House denouncing the state-sponsored pogrom against Muslims and Christians in Gujarat. Nobody denies these forces exist; hell, Zakaria recently did a piece on the Indian lobby for his show on PBS. The Armenian lobby is also rather influential. It is not politically incorrect to due so. Nobody can deny the Indian lobby is using its money to apply pressure for passage of Bush's nuclear deal with India or that the Armenian lobby has tried to get the US to put pressure on Turkey to fess up to the Armenian genocide and such.

We only deny this pressure exists with regard to Jews because of the parallels to old anti-Semitic screeds that pre-dated democratic practices like lobbying. Back then, all ethnic and cultural groups, including Jews, lacked the ability to lobby their repressive governments for change. The idea of the international Jewish conspiracy was used to make Jews look more powerful than they were and blame all problems on them, thus making them look privileged compared to the majority. Today, the majority of ethnic or cultural groups have lobbying organizations. It's not part of a conspiracy if every other group does it too. It is foolish, however, to deny it exists and that some organizations are better at it than others. That's how AIPAC became the lobby Congressional members called the 2nd most powerful lobby in DC.

Clark did not say this pressure will single-handedly push to the country towards war with Iran. However, the likes of TNR are trying to lay the intellectual foundation to make such a war, if it does happen, look palatable and reasonable. TNR has a history of trying to silence dissenting opinions on Israeli policy, such as its firing of Tony Judt and Peretz's rampant accusations of everyone from Jimmy Carter to bunny rabbits of being anti-Semitic.

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2007 12:45 PM

Right on, lemuel pitkin.

Posted by Reality Man | January 24, 2007 12:46 PM

If Ahmadinejad acts on his promise to wipe Israel off the map, people like Matt will have to carry that on their souls for a long long time.

Tom, that's absolutely ridiculous. Statements like that are part of the problem.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 12:49 PM

Reality Man's man's comment is really good.

Let me add to it: we have an increasingly authoritarian foreign policy that is impervious to the popular will. It is unsurprisingly that narrowly focused lobbies can influence it. The Israel lobby, granted, is not the only one. Rather, I think what bothers many (me) about it in particular is that it is, in a way, the most visible one: the press arm of the lobby is the one that sells the policy to the voter, or, now that its failed selling the policy proper, sells the idea of not abandoning the policy too quickly. I consider the Israel lobby the catalyst for the war because it created the ideological framework for it. Try to imagine how the other elements of this war coalition (war profiteers, extremists bent on direct military control of the world's oil, opportunistic oil companies) would have gone about selling it.

(I've waded into another "anti-Semitic" trope by suggesting the lobby has a press arm)

By the same token, what is the constituency for "peace" or "multilateralism" or even "realism" in our foreign policy? The only bulwark against neocon foreign policy was the Bakers of the world, who put oil over Israel. Once they and the State Department and the intelligence services were shoved aside or subverted, there were no popular groups, no constituencies, who actually put their money where their mouths are to participate in lobbying the government for a sane foreign policy.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 1:02 PM

On the contrary my Californian friend, having denied that Iran was up to it, he would indeed have something to answer for, just as he tries to hold Iraq war advocates to task. Can't have it both ways.

Cole's reading of Ahmadinejad is laughably wishful and selective - one quote amidst a hall's worth of paraphernalia hoping for a world without Israel and the US. He only says this stuff every other week. And anyone who professes to know the balance of power in Iran is kidding us - it's clearly so convoluted that even the Iranians don't quite know how exactly it is divided.

The notion that Hezbollah has changed in some fundamental way from the 80s and the 90s is absurd. It represents a threat, however latent right now, and it bears close, careful attention. Even in its neighborhood, Hezbollah has the ability to throw the region into chaos as occurred over the summer. Perhaps you still think I'm Netanyahu, RealityMan, but I rather think that the interests of regional stability would call for us to take reasonable steps to keep those maniacs from becoming even more bold - have you noticed what they are trying to do in Lebanon?

All these other lobbies you cite never seem to make the radar of most people who decry the Israel lobby as if it is an organization with special powers, as though Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did not arrive in office with their own ironclad, ideological conceptions about things, or that the United States government hasn't had a policy of preventing proliferation for decades.

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 1:03 PM

On the contrary my Californian friend, having denied that Iran was up to it, he would indeed have something to answer for, just as he tries to hold Iraq war advocates to task.

So how many bodies are you (or Chait or Peretz or...) good for in Iraq, friend? Assuming, say, 100K civilian dead. And is it affecting your eating and sleeping at all? I'm betting not.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 1:06 PM

He helps to legitimate the conflation of identity with politics, which is a necessary prerequisite for bigotry.

Please explain the nature of Israel, its government, its people, and its mission. Then get back to me about the conflation of identity and politics.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 1:10 PM

Tom:

They had a "policy of non-proliferation for decades"? Elaborate on what, exactly, they've achieved in that regard (preventing the spread of phantasmal WMD doesn't count). I'll give you a chance to respond, but my expectations are low and I expect others to hoot you off this comment thread.

Also, please refresh your memory as to the chronology of this past summer's Lebanon events and see if Hezbollah primarily "threw the region into chaos." To wit, acquaint yourself with the sequence of events (1. raid on Israeli border unit 2. Israeli bombing compaign 3. Hezbollah missile response). To put this sequence in proper perspective, see subsequent Post and Times article on Nasrallah's apparent surprise at the Israeli escalation. I ask you to do this in good faith.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 1:18 PM

Aren't we touchy? My stance on Iraq isn't at all the question - it's blindingly obvious that if you call something wrong (as I think MY is doing with Iran) you can be held to account for it later - Left or Right. If that's going to be a rule, MY isn't going to be able to stand above it.

Jimm - Israel isn't at issue - the position of Jews in America is. Conflating people's identity with their politics in a multi-ethnic society is a nasty business. This may explain why folks here assume everyone who shows any degree of disagreement with them is a Likudnik. Far easier to do that than to recognize the real spectrums of opinion.

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 1:19 PM

Nonproliferation studies aren't my specialty, but succeeding US governments have assisted or taken the primary role in persuading South Korea and Taiwan not to proliferate, and assisting in the removal of nuclear weapons from post-Soviet states, notably Ukraine and Kazakhstan. This is a cardinal and worthwhile thread in our foreign policy tapestry, and Bush's abuse of it doesn't invalidate it any more than the shitty band up the block's rendition of "Black Dog" should make you swear off Led Zeppelin.

Quite apparently, I know the sequence as well as you, but we assign different weights to succeeding events. If Nasrallah miscalculated amidst the Israeli action in Gaza, he's all the more the fool, and a dangerous fool at that.

I don't much care about echo chamber hooting, in any event. Life goes on.

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 1:23 PM

That's the point Tom. Wes Clark quite clearly isn't conflating Jews with anything since he remarks that the Jewish community is quite divided (i.e. has a real spectrum of opinion). He then goes on to say that some far right rich Jewish folks are pushing a particular agenda that he finds unwise. I'm sure Wes doesn't limit these far right rich folks just to Jews either, if you were to sit down and chat it out with him. Money has an inordinate influence on our politics, it's not surprising that people with money Jew or not are thus exercising that influence. The more money, the more influence, as it currently stands.

Also, I'm glad to see you're starting to do the mental gymnastics involved in seeing how a multi-ethnic, free and liberal society like ours is seems unable to allow free discussion on Israel while the ethnically exceptional state of Israel has lot of free flowing debate on all sides about the proper course forward. There's something wrong with that picture, and it starts with the premises.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 1:25 PM

Jimm - Israel isn't at issue...

By the way Tom, this lead-in of yours is quite rich in this discussion (chuckling). Pretzel?

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 1:27 PM

Tom-

...the two much more problematic points that Clark made and Matt agreed with: 1) that rich Jews are funding candidates who support war on Iran and 2)that this, in and of itself, may cause Bush to launch such a war?

1) Considering that Clark has been actively talking to campaign donors and considering a run for President, I suspect that he knows quite a bit more than you or I as to whether there is any truth to that statement. It strikes me as very likely that there are, in fact, wealthy Jewish donors who are pushing a more confrontational policy with Iran. It is not, I suppose, "bloody obvious" that all of them "support war on Iran," but the hysteria unquestionably serves the agenda of those who want war, whether deliberately or not.

2) This is just simply a caricature of what Clark said.

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

I understand why the "money people in New York" wording rings a few alarm bells, but there's nothing else to see here. Clark does not say that the political donors "in and of themselves" are determining US policy. He's saying that there is a great deal of pressure on political candidates to support confrontation with Iran, and he thinks that this pressure will achieve its goal.

Clark also seems to be saying that this group that wants to confront Iran has disproportionate political influence within the broader Jewish community, which is actually divided on the issue. I read that as him trying to make it clear that he's complaining about the Israel Lobby, not about "The Jews".

This is not an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Absent a pattern of similar anecdotes about Clark, it's fairly absurd to impute Jew-hatred from this presumably paraphrased quote.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 24, 2007 1:27 PM

Jimm makes an essential point. Clark didn't say it was "Jewish" money. Complaining about the ostensible anti-Semitism of Clark's remarks betrays a bad conscience.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 1:28 PM

Tom writes:

"This may explain why folks here assume everyone who shows any degree of disagreement with them is a Likudnik."

Likudniks assume "everyone who shows any sign of disagreement with them" to be an anti-Semite.

Posted by ndm | January 24, 2007 1:31 PM

If that's going to be a rule, MY isn't going to be able to stand above it.

Right, but if all that "being held to account" means is mild embarrassment for the first three weeks that people are impolite enough to bring it up, and a requirement that one writes a few self-serving essays on how he shouldn't really be called to account (see Chait, Jon), then maybe MY wouldn't (and shouldn't) mind being held to account for whatever Israel related dystopian fantasy you're wittering on about.

In fact, in the spirit of the generosity that is a prerequisite for Broderistic politics, I hearby announce that--on those terms--I'm willing to held to account for the sacking of Rome. One of them, anyway. You're getting three free weeks of mild embarrassment! And, of course, denials in the face of that charge; probably of the form "Aren't We All Responsible for that Sacking?"

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 1:32 PM

LaFollette:

Shit, that's an obvious point that rarely gets made (though I made this point in a letter in response to Deborah Lipstadt's recent libel of Carter in the Post): who knows better about the power of the Israel lobby -- the commander of NATO and former presidential candidate, or a writer for what it's literary editor and purple-prosed warmonger, Leon Wieseltier, called a "a nice little Jewish magazine", The New Republic.

That is part of the maddening effrontery of advocates for Israel in this country: they can just go around publicly calling ex Presidents (ones who negotiated Camp David, moreover) and heads of our armed forces "anti-Semites".

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 1:35 PM

There's something I find a little disingenuous in what MY writes, and I think some commenters are using it to get a rhetorical foot in the door.

He says, correctly calling out warmongers masquerading as concerned citizens:

"It's true that one can be concerned about the prospect of a nuclear Iran and also concerned about the prospect of American or Israeli military strikes. I put myself in that category. What you need to do to get into that category is express concern about both things."

The problem with this is that I haven't seen MY expressing concern about Iran.

That said, he shouldn't be expressing such concern. I think he correctly doesn't want to pull a Friedman and pretend to have some say in the policy decisions that he obviously doesn't have. Instead, the chief goal must be to simply assume the worst about the Bush admistration -- that they want an attack on Iran at all costs -- and stop them from pursuing this presumed aim at any cost, without even thinking a moment about Iran. Iran itself must be treated as a lesser problem of secondary importance for the obvious reason that our own (as opposed to Israeli) intelligence appraisal gives us ten years to address the prospect of their being able to acquire nuclear weapons.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 1:45 PM

Good point Brendan, but never accept the established frame. I keep mentioning the Grand Bargain offer by Iran a few years back because part and parcel in it was frank admission that they were ready and willing to negotiate giving up their nuclear program voluntarily (along with recognizing Israel). We are not limited to a belligerent path that kicks Iran to the curb (unrealistic as the assumptions underlying this path are) - no, we can be deeper and more proactive, bring Iran into the fold in a shared understanding, accomplish synergistic positive outcomes in the region including less tension and conflict by going beyond just single-mindedly obsessing on Iran's nuclear program or belligerent rhetoric aimed at Israel (these two always go together, since it's primarily Israel that is threatened by regional nuclear capability, not us).

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 1:52 PM

PS Kenneth Pollack, the Director of Research at Haim Saban's Center for Middle East Policy-- who I referenced above -- was also the author of the 2002 best-selling book "The Threatening Storm".

This book was much cited by those pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

A few quotes from Mr Pollack's book which now appear ..er..not quite true:
----------
"Since then, defectors have revealed that Saddam had concealed quite a bit more than even the inspectors realized and that soon after ousting them he resumed his WMD programs to retain and surpass the capabilities he had amassed before the Gulf War"
------------
"Finally, there is the problem of Saddam's nuclear program. Iraq knows how to build a nuclear weapon and did so in 1990; the only thing it was missing was the fissile material, the uranium. Because Iraq has natural uranium deposits, all the Iraqis need to do is to build a process to enrich that uranium to weapons grade and then enrich enough to make one or more Hiroshima-sized weapons"

---------
"Today,we have information from key defectors and a consensus among knowledgable experts that the Iraqis are hard at work on such a [nuclear weapons development ]program and that they have
all the know-how and the technology to do it. The only question is how long it is going to take them."

[Bmastiff comment: Truly a hilarious statement, given Kay's report.

Possible reasons why Israeli billionaire Haim Saban has not fired such an embarrassing "Director of Research" is left as an exercise for the reader. ]

Posted by bmastiff | January 24, 2007 1:52 PM

It bears mentioning that my point of entry in this isn't really about Clark - whom I view as a clod, but not really a bigot.

I've seen no shortage of discussion about Israel at any level, but when it comes back to tired old tropes, it is a fair question as to whether longstanding biases are seeping in again. It happens all the time in Europe. This axiomatic article of faith that rich New York Jews must be a pivotal factor in the decisions of a WASPish Texan is curious enough. This fixation on the secretive and the conspiratorial, coupled with an avowed disinterest in the far blander factors that are behind the US-Israel relationship (a relationship sealed during the administration of Richard Nixon, an incontestable anti-Semite) makes folks useful idiots for the serious purveyors: the Buchanans and the Dukes. I know for a fact that Clark is quite proud of the rabbis in his family, but he's gone and made a clod of himself.

ndm - Likudniks believe Israel is entitled to the West Bank and Gaza. That I assuredly do not.

Tim - All I'm pointing out is that rules are reciprocal. If you have a point to make amidst all your wittering about why Iranian proliferation is no big thang, by all means get to it. All you've communicated so far is hostility.

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 1:54 PM

Tom says:

"This axiomatic article of faith that rich New York Jews must be a pivotal factor in the decisions of a WASPish Texan is curious enough".

That's an absurd straw man. Who said they were New York Jews, or even all Jews? It was, rather, a question of personnel at nodes of power in OVP (including the VP himself), the Pentagon, and the CIA. Do I need to trot out the list?

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 1:58 PM

Tom,

On the contrary my Californian friend, having denied that Iran was up to it, he would indeed have something to answer for, just as he tries to hold Iraq war advocates to task. Can't have it both ways.

So in order to not have whatever it is you think he should carry on his soul for a long time, MY has to:

a) Promote war with Iran; and
b) Not talk about the Iran policy of AIPAC, the ADL, TNR, etc as being at all influential?

I actually agree with you about Professor Cole's "translation" of Ahmadinejad's statements - he bent over backwards to miss the obvious and finally gave up after Ahmadinejad kept repeating the same threats, in different ways. (He was spouting off about the "imminent demise" of the Zionist regime just yesterday - how's that supposed to happen? from the intifada? sure.).

And I think on this issue, Cole was coming from a similar place where MY is - they don't want justification for a pre-emptive attack on Iran when it's not remotely necessary seeping out into the public consciousness.

And that's the key - it is NOT remotely necessary to attack Iran now - and hopefully not ever. It would be a disaster - as even Patrick Clawson (and Ray Tanter - and a host of other "Iran hawks") notes.

But I disagree with you about the balance of power in Iran - it is all the Mullahs - not the President - with the foreign policy power. Aside from that, Ahmadinejad is losing lots of favor at home. It's actually his "demise" (politically speaking) that's imminent - which is something I'm hoping for, rather than keeping him in place to spout of more crazed rhetoric that up the chances for war.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 2:00 PM

All I'm pointing out is that rules are reciprocal

No, they should be, often are not in practice, at least in a multi-ethnic, free and liberal society, which is what I've been pointing out, along with the importance of presenting all information, not slanting it in the pursuit of violence or any other favored agenda.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 2:01 PM

Jimm:

You're preaching to the choir. My essential point is that a debate on Iran can be deferred without risk.

Which should beg the question of our rhetorical opponents: then why are the Israelis so worried?

My answer to this is that the Israelis see their political window of opportunity closing, Democratic pusillanimity notwithstanding.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 2:01 PM

I miscommunicated that last thought. Rules should be reciprocal, in theory and according to human notions of justice, especially in multi-ethnic, liberal free societies. Often, these rules are not reciprocal, and those with greater power and/or money are "exceptional", especially in societies that are not multi-ethnic, liberal and free, but in free societies as well.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 2:04 PM

My essential point is that a debate on Iran can be deferred without risk.

I understand, but my point is that we should not defer or kick Iran off to the side, but include them as a primary player in a strategy to accomplish multiple synergistic positive outcomes in the region.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 2:06 PM

Tom laments "this fixation on the secretive and conspiratorial". Are we supposed, instead, to debate the publicly stated rationales for our current foreign policy? That is so pollyannaish as to be wilfully naive.

As for the statement about "the Buchanans, the Dukes"...are we really to believe that someone as prominent as Clark (to reiterate, commander of NATO, serious presidential candidate) is a tool in their hands? That bespeaks an exaggerated sense of Buchanan's or Duke's power, to say the least.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 2:07 PM

Jimm:

"Synergistic, positive outcomes" are not a realistic political goal at this time.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 2:08 PM

My answer to this is that the Israelis see their political window of opportunity closing

I think they see themselves as a tiny country representing about a third of the world's Jewry, a historically oppressed, disperesed and slaughtered ethno-religious group, within Shahab-3 range of a country seeking nuclear capability, and whose chief spokesman keeps spouting off about wiping them off the map/erasing them from the pages of time/imminent demise, etc...

It's not always easy to react calmly under those circumstances.

If you're looking for someone who's window of opportunity is closing, look no further than President Bush, Dick Cheney, Rove, etc... Their the ones whose days are numbered, and they might be looking to go out with a flourish.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 2:09 PM

"Synergistic, positive outcomes" are not a realistic political goal at this time.

Then you are certainly not the choir.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 2:13 PM

All joking aside, I'm talking about forming alternative strategy, and promoting it, as a means of politics, as something political candidates and parties should do in justifying their appeal to our votes, not what we can convince Bush to do, though I would try and convince the Republicans in Congress.

Posted by Jimm | January 24, 2007 2:15 PM

brendan -

Perhaps the Israelis have Graham Allison's assessment in mind (Google him before you assume he's a neocon) that aspects of Iran's program may be far more advanced than we know.

Or perhaps there is no real escalation in rhetoric - they're repeating what they've said, because whatever hope recent events in Iran inspire it may not, to them, offset their fears about what the Iranian government is capable of.

SoCal - Here we have a conflation of people who seek war with people who regard the Iranian program as something worthy of deep concern, who don't think war is a good option. I'm in the latter camp and, just as Iraq war opponents resented being conflated with the ANSWER people, I don't especially cotton to the conflation that happens here as a matter of routine.

Thankfully, you seem fairly concerned about Iran, though you see it as less likely to act than do I.

What I'd like to see from MY is a commitment to ask the hard questions about Iran, rather than a blithe cherrypicking. Iran is a hell of a puzzle and a hell of a challenge and I freely admit that easy answers are unavailable. There's good and unsettling news that comes out of there every day, and the stakes require us to examine it carefully and not to demagogue those whose analyses lead them in different directions.

This seems a decent note upon which to close. Good luck all.

Posted by Tom | January 24, 2007 2:16 PM

All I'm pointing out is that rules are reciprocal.

And all I'm trying to do is get you to define your terms. If you mean that MY will, per Radar, have to suffer an increase in income and successively more prestigious positions, then your general argument seems confused.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2007 2:21 PM

SoCalJustice says

"It's not always easy to react calmly under those circumstances."

If that's the case, all the more reason to keep their advocates away from our foreign policy.

But I don't think you meant this. The Israelis are neither irrational nor stupid, much less panicky, in embarking on an aggressive foreign policy and wanting to bomb Iran.

Posted by brendan | January 24, 2007 2:34 PM

But I don't think you meant this.

Well, if you think I mean that I somehow want AIPAC to be assisting (or the sole voice behind) Bush with talking points, polls, decision making, etc... with respect to Iran, then you would be wrong.

I disagree though - I think Israelis (and Americans) do sometimes act irrationally and stupidly, for that matter. And I do think a lot of them - in both countries - are acting panicky about Iran.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 24, 2007 2:51 PM

This fixation on the secretive and the conspiratorial, coupled with an avowed disinterest in the far blander factors that are behind the US-Israel relationship (a relationship sealed during the administration of Richard Nixon, an incontestable anti-Semite) makes folks useful idiots for the serious purveyors: the Buchanans and the Dukes.

I just simply don't buy this at all, Tom. There's nothing secretive and conspiratorial about campaign donations and articles in major media outlets. And implying that the US can't walk back from a policy inaugurated by Nixon is bizarre. Nixon's Cold War maneuvering does not explain why the US continues, year after year, to make its relationship with Israel one of the two or three most important factors in our interactions with every other country in the region.

There is a very strong, hawkish pro-Israel lobby that drowns out many of the other viewpoints on Middle East policy. The answer is more complicated than that, but that's the one sentence summary. It's not a secret conspiracy, and it's not deliberately malicious to US interests, but it is, in fact, influential.

A "useful idiot" is a well-intentioned person who carries water for extremists by attacking the moderate opposition to the extremists and wrongly assuming that the extremists share their good intentions. I don't think anyone here is going easy on the genuine anti-semites. You and Chait, however, seem to be giving a great deal of leeway to the people who