Home | Contact us | Links | Archives

Divisions Deep Over Claims Of Jewish Influence
ISSUE 64
Front Page
Feature

Somalia and Survival in the Shadow of the Global Economy

Headlines

Election Campaigning Brought To Conclusion

 

Somaliland Warns of Water And Food Shortages

 

Puntland Warlords Against Somaliland Elections

Health

Drug: The Double Edged Knife (Part 4)

 

Social, Economic Impacts Of Epidemic Intertwine

International News

Djibouti: Rights Record Poor, Says U.S.

 

US Tells Iran, Syria, N. Korea: "Learn From Iraq"

 

Kenyans Register As Refugees At Daadab

 

Ships Could Go To Horn Of Africa - Commodore Roger Girouard

 

How Do Somalis See Fall of Baghdad?

 

Divisions Deep Over Claims Of Jewish Influence

Editorial & Opinions

Somaliland Needs To Pass Monday’s Test

 

When The Sun Never Set

 

Abuse of Authority and the Misuse Of Police Force

 

Run Rayale Run!

Peace Talks

Unanimous Support For Somali Reconciliation Process In Kenya

 

Barre's Brother To Contest Somalia Top Post


James Rosen - Bee Washington Bureau 

WASHINGTON - On paper, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice run U.S. foreign policy and are responsible for the war in Iraq.

But in some circles Bush and his senior aides - white and African American Christians, one and all - stand accused of having been duped into attacking Saddam Hussein by a group of Jewish advisers whose ultimate loyalties are said to lie with Israel instead of the United States.

The claim that an influential Jewish cabal is behind the war, made in recent weeks by some mainstream politicians and columnists, has prompted countercharges of anti-Semitism by prominent Jewish organizations.

Rep. James Moran of Virginia lost his Democratic leadership post last month after telling supporters that "the Jewish community" was responsible for the war. Former Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, who is mulling a presidential run, outraged many Jews by raising the specter of divided loyalties.

Columnists, from Robert Novak to Georgie Anne Geyer, have made similar claims, while left-wing protesters and liberal magazines such as the Nation and the New Republic have followed suit.

A sign at an anti-war demonstration in San Francisco last month read: "I want YOU to die for Israel. Israel sings 'Onward, Christian Soldiers.'"

The assertions that the Bush administration is waging war for the sake of Israel thanks to the influence of Jewish advisers created a buzz last week at the annual convention of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, the country's most powerful pro-Israel lobby group.

"We know that in times of conflict when there are differences of opinion, anti-Semitic feelings come out," said Ralph Green, a delegate from Louisville, Ky. "This has been shown throughout history. We know there are people in this country who don't like Jews, who don't like Israel and who are going to blame us."

Quipped Gerald Chester, a Minneapolis delegate: "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld are all Protestants. Is there a Protestant cabal?"

Rabbi Elazar Muskin of Los Angeles said the United States has never sent soldiers to defend Israel, even when it was under direct attack in five wars. "It's just outright anti-Semitic jargon," Muskin said. "America does not go to war because of Israel."

While it has simmered largely beneath the surface of public debate in the 24/7 media coverage of the war, the nasty dispute over the role of Israel and its supporters in the war goes beyond a few partisans.

The dispute reveals deep divisions over the war among American Jews, many of whom are liberal Democrats who have opposed past U.S. military action.

And the dispute shows splits between traditional Republican conservatives who have long advocated U.S. disengagement from the world, and "neoconservatives" who first came to power under President Reagan - and are newly ascendant under Bush, especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"The idea that this war is about Israel is persistent and more widely held than you may think," New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote. "It has interesting ripples in our domestic politics. It has, like many dubious theories, sprouted from a seed of truth. Israel is part of the story."

At the center of the controversy are a handful of Jewish men: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser.

All the men are longtime leaders of the neoconservative movement, which was founded on the idea, championed by Reagan, that the United States had to confront the Soviet Union aggressively - and in recent years has changed its target to radical Islam.

All of the key figures hold senior positions in the Bush administration - at the Pentagon, in the State Department, at the White House and, in Perle's case, on the Defense Policy Board, a key group of Pentagon advisers.

Most of the controversial Bush aides are strong supporters of Israel's conservative Likud Party, now headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and several have past ties either to Likud or to Israeli companies.

Perle, in fact, resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board last week - though he remained a member - after published claims by New Yorker magazine reporter Seymour Hersch, himself a Jew, that a venture capital firm in which Perle is managing partner might profit from the war.

True to his conservative roots, Bush campaigned for president on a foreign platform of quasi-isolationism, arguing the United States could not police the world and criticizing President Clinton for foreign interventions from Haiti and Somalia to Kosovo.

But then came the Sept. 11 attacks, and Bush's tune changed. By January 2002, he was grouping Iraq, Iran and North Korea in an "axis of evil," and six months later he was talking about regime change in Baghdad.

In a speech in February, Bush hailed the virtues of spreading democracy in the Middle East. 
"A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions," Bush said. Saddam's overthrow, he said, would give other regimes "a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated."

Bush's talk of bringing democracy to the Middle East on a bayonet's edge and making a show of force to other Arab governments echoed longtime themes of both the Likud Party in Israel and some of its neoconservative supporters in the United States.

In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the control of Jordan.

The neoconservatives sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced in the wake of Saddam's ouster. They urged Netanyahu to spurn the Oslo peace accords and to stop making concessions to the Palestinians.

Lead writer of the memo was Perle. Other signatories were Feith, now undersecretary of defense, and Wurmser, a senior adviser to John Bolton, undersecretary of state.

Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern history at the University of Chicago, said he was struck by the similarities between the ideas in the memo and ideas now at the forefront of Bush's foreign policy.

Donner noted that the memo urged Netanyahu to move toward "re-establishing the principle of pre-emption rather than retaliation alone."

Pre-emption - confronting perceived threats to the United States before they attack instead of afterward - appeared last year as the centerpiece of a new strategic defense policy advanced by Bush.

Donner said the ideological similarities, along with the senior posts in the Bush administration now held by some of the memo's authors, cannot be overlooked.

"There is a natural line of connection here," Donner said. "These people have prevailed upon other people in the administration that this is the policy we should follow in the Middle East."

James Colbert, one of the eight men who signed the 1996 memo to Netanyahu, is now communications director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Studies, an influential neoconservative think tank in Washington.

Colbert finds it laughable that the document is being pointed to as proof that pro-Likud Jewish advisers have led the United States into war.

"The document, as I recall, was a kind of pie-in-the-sky dreaming about what the policy for a future Israeli government should be, simply from the perspective of those sitting over here," Colbert said Tuesday. "I don't believe it was any kind of operative plan. Certainly, it's not even directed at the U.S. government."

Robert Loewenberg, also a memo signatory, said: "The whole point of the document was indeed to roll back those Arab regimes. That's the main thing that people talk about. But what they seem to overlook is that it wasn't the United States that was supposed to do it - it was Israel that was supposed to do it!" 

James Rosen can be reached at (202) 383-0014 or jrosen@mcclatchydc.com


Home | Contact us | Links | Archives