In their 1996 policy paper, "A Clean Break: A Strategy for
Securing the Realm" - written for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu, no less! — Perle, Feith and Wurmser recommended that Israel
find pretexts for waging wars of aggression that would roll back its
Arab neighbors.
"The centerpiece of their recommendations was the
removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step into remaking the Middle
East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel." [Bamford,
p. 262]
Arguably treasonous? Yes, especially when you consider the following
observations by Bamford:
"It was rather extraordinary for a trio of
former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government
officials to become advisers to a foreign government. More unsettling
still was the fact that they were recommending acts of war in which
Americans could be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose
of the attacks from the American public." [p. 263]
Bamford also devoted a few pages to Douglas Feith, noting his
friendship with Joseph Churba, an associate of Rabbi Meir Kahane of the
terrorist Jewish Defense League, as well as his worsening pro-Israel
and anti-Arab extremism, which he brought into the Department of
Defense under President George W. Bush. [pp. 278-82]
Thus, was it an accident that the Pentagon's Policy Counterterrorism
Evaluation Group, headed by Feith (and derisively called Feith's
Gestapo Office by Colin Powell), seized upon shards of evidence already
discounted by the officially responsible intelligence agencies in order
to claim that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda? Was it mere
coincidence that, by providing such bogus intelligence to justify
regime change in Iraq, Feith was able to advance the centerpiece of his
"Clean Break" recommendations for Israel from inside the Department of
Defense?
Even worse, there's evidence to suggest that the "Clean Break"
proposals shaped the Bush administration's obsession with regime change
in Iraq. Consider the eyewitness testimony of former Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill, who attended the very first meeting of Bush's National
Security Council. Beyond being devoted to the Middle East, even that
very first meeting was scripted.
Scripting explains why Bush would ask National Security Adviser,
Condoleezza Rice: "So, Condi, what are we going to talk about today?
What's on the agenda?" [Ron Suskind,
The Price of Loyalty, p. 72] As if he didn't know! And Rice responded on cue: "How Iraq is destabilizing the region, Mr. President." [Ibid]
But, that's not all. According to Secretary O'Neill, Bush stated that
he was going to tilt toward Israel by pulling out of the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Moreover, when Secretary of State Colin Powell objected that
such a pullback "would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army," Bush
responded: "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify
things." [Ibid] According to Bamford, it was "Clean Break" Perle and
Saddam-obsessed Paul Wolfowitz, who were able to fill Bush's
"sympathetic ear" with such pro-Israel ideas. [Bamford, p. 282]
To his credit, by listing "Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Abrams, Kristol,
Kagan, Krauthhammer, Wurmser, [the convicted felon] Libby and
Lieberman," Fish has identified many of the American Jewish
neoconservatives, whose pro-Israel warmongering has brought great harm
to the U.S. and Israel — not to mention Iraq. They are, indeed, part
of the powerful Israel Lobby in America.
Moreover, although Fish accurately summarizes the views of the war's
critics, when he says, "The war was a huge mistake and is causing us no
end of trouble at home and the world at large," I believe the war was a
crime — for which Bush and Cheney should be impeached, tried and
convicted, before being subject to criminal prosecution.
I believe they deserve a Nuremberg-type trial that also would examine
the supporting role played by America's neocons - Jewish or not. After
all, wars of aggression are still illegal under international law.
Unfortunately, Professor Fish construes attacks on the Israel Lobby to
constitute evidence of anti-Semitism. First, he summarizes the war
critics's views by asserting, "The lobby that led us into [war] is a
'de facto agent for a foreign government' - Israel." Then he suggests
that such criticism is anti-Semitic, because, "Members of that lobby
are largely, though not exclusively, Jewish. And that's where the
anti-Semitism comes in. Or does it?"
But, curiously, Fish is not content to construe attacks on the largely
Jewish Israel Lobby as evidence of anti-Semitism. He also seems to
believe that the attacks on the lobby - by critics who do see it as the
"de facto agent" of Israel - are indistinguishable from attacks on
Israel. And by implying their similarity, Fish is able to invoke a
recent study, which demonstrates that "anti-Israel sentiment
consistently predicts the probability that an individual is
anti-Semitic." [Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small, "Anti-Israel
Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe,"
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50 No. 4, August 2006, p. 548]
Moreover, Fish also is impressed with their conclusion that "Those with
extreme anti-Israel sentiment are roughly six times more likely to
harbor anti-Semitic views than those who do not fault Israel on the
measures studied." [Ibid, p. 550]
What were the "measures studied?" Four statements/questions addressed
to five hundred respondents in each of ten different European
countries. Three blame Israel for exacerbating Israeli-Palestinian
relations and the fourth justifies the attacks on Israeli civilians by
Palestinian suicide bombers. Any respondent who answers all four by
condemning Israel or exculpating the Palestinians is deemed to be
extremely anti-Israel.
According to Kaplan and Small, the more severe a person's anti-Israel
sentiment, the more likely was the respondent to affirm anti-Semitic
beliefs, such as "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own
kind," "Jews have too much power in the business world," "Jews are more
loyal to Israel than to this country," or deny that "Jews are just as
honest as other business people." [Ibid, p. 551]
And, as their data shows, "only 9 percent of those with anti-Israel
index scores of 0 report harboring anti-Semitic views, but the fraction
of respondents harboring anti-Semitic views grows to 12, 22, 35, and 56
percent for anti-Israel index values of 1 through 4, respectively."
[Ibid, p. 555] Thus, their conclusion: "When an individual's criticism
of Israel becomes sufficiently severe, it does become reasonable to ask
whether such criticism is a mask for underlying anti-Semitism." [Ibid,
p. 560]
Wow! Even if we put aside questions about Professor Fish's weak links
connecting attacks on the Israel Lobby to attacks on Israel and, thus,
the Kaplan/Small study linking severe anti-Israel sentiment with
anti-Semitism, the Kaplan/Small study still has some explaining to do.
And, no, I'm not disputing their contention that individuals who agree
with disparaging generalizations about Jews are anti-Semitic. Were
someone to tell me, "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their
own kind," I'd want to immediately disabuse that individual of his
anti-Semitism, if he was a close friend or relative, or try to avoid
his company in the future.
But, I'm troubled by the Kaplan/Small data that shows: "Even among
Jewish respondents, one sees an increase in anti-Semitic responses as
the anti-Israel index increases."[p. 555] Do they really mean to
suggest that, if you are a Jew and you are troubled by Israel's
behavior toward the Palestinians, you're probably an anti-Semitic Jew?
More significantly, let's imagine how the Kaplan/Small conclusion —
"When an individual's criticism of Israel becomes sufficiently severe,
it does become reasonable to ask whether such criticism is a mask for
underlying anti-Semitism." - would stand up, were Israel to do
something absolutely despicable.
Let's imagine — simply to test the Kaplan/Small conclusion — that
Israel not only acted on the "Clean Break" recommendations made by
Messrs. Perle, Feith and Wurmser, but actually rolled back Arab forces
by using nuclear weapons. Could the predictably enormous and relentless
anti-Israel outcry that followed be dismissed as merely "a mask for
underlying anti-Semitism?" I don't think so.
Getting back to reality, would the world be engaging in widespread
anti-Semitism, were it to respond very negatively to an Israeli
preemptive nuclear attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? Or, put another
way, would Kaplan and Small ever be justified in using negative answers
to the question, "Would Israel ever be justified in launching a
preemptive nuclear strike on Iran's nuclear program?" to record
anti-Israel sentiment as a predictor of anti-Semitism? As soon as one
contemplates that question, it becomes painfully obvious that it really
does matter how precisely questions purporting to measure anti-Israel
sentiment are crafted. Yet, nothing found in the Kaplan/Small study
demonstrates such precision.
Such, then, are the limitations of the Kaplan/Small study and Stanley
Fish's embrace of it. But Professor Fish would also do well to keep one
additional consideration in mind. Many of the critics (including this
critic), who opposed the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq and who were
disgusted by the Israel Lobby's role in promoting it, were the same
critics who gladly acknowledged that the majority of American Jews
opposed going to war.
Thus, one can hardly be considered an anti-Semite for excoriating the
policy advanced by a handful of American Jews while applauding the
policy supported by the majority of such Jews.
Walter C. Uhler
is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been
published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow
Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the
Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).
waltuhler@aol.com
Writings 
Writing for the New York Times online on March 4, 2007, 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
