JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Joe Klein: Why I write what I write about Jewish neocons

By Ami Eden · July 30, 2008

Joe Klein talks with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg about his running feud with the “Commentary crowd” over his assertions that Jewish neocons are pushing a pro-Israel agenda at the expense of U.S. interests (recap: Round I, Round II, Round III).

His bottom line:

Listen, people can vote whichever way they want, for whatever reason they want.  I just don’t want to see policy makers who make decisions on the basis of whether American policy will benefit Israel or not.  In some cases, you want to provide protection for Israel certainly, but you don’t want to go to war with Iran.  When Jennifer Rubin or Abe Foxman calls me antisemitic, they’re wrong.  I am anti-neoconservative.  I think these people are following very perversely extremist policies and I really did believe that it was time for mainstream Jews to stand up and say, “They don’t represent us, they don’t represent Israel.”

As the interview progresses, Klein, the author of “Primary Colors” and a columnist for Time, makes clear he doesn’t actually think that Jewish neocons are purposely trying to hurt the U.S. – it’s just that in their zeal for protecting Israel they are making dangerous miscalculations:

I’m not saying that they don’t think it’s also in America’s best interest. But Israel’s best interests are in their mind and they’re doing things, they’re encouraging policies that are violent and potentially disastrous for the American people.  There’s this great book coming out called “In a Time of War,” about the West Point class of 2002, and you know, you read something like this and you want throttle Doug Feith, you just want to whoop him upside the head.

It turns out Klein even agrees with the notion that Israel’s survival is a legitimate consideration for U.S. policymakers – he just doesn’t share the doomsday view of Iran:

JG: If you believed that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, would you consider that an American national security problem?

JK: Yes.

JG: Because of the lessons of the Holocaust, as McCain says?

JK: Not just because of the Holocaust, but because of the possibility that you’re going to have a Holocaust.  I mean, I don’t want to see religious extremists launching on a democracy anywhere.  I don’t want to see hundreds of thousands of Jews and Palestinians killed because of some nutcase.

JG: But you don’t believe that that’s going to happen.

JK: No!  No!  I think that that is a really distorted and kind of crazily extremist position.

And, whatever you do, don’t lump Klein in with Mearsheimer and Walt: “I am not a Walt-Mearsheimer guy. I think Jews have a perfect right to have a lobby. I do believe that there is a group of people who got involved and had a disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy.”

Klein accuses his critics of wanting to “stifle opinions that are different from theirs.” In this case, he adds, they’re picking on the wrong pundit: “I’m certainly not going to back down.”

John Podhoretz, a neocon prince and the editor of Commentary, responds on his publication’s blog:

He says he’s not anti-Semitic but rather, anti-neoconservative. To say it is a badge of honor to stand in opposition to a person as manifestly intellectually unstable as Joe Klein has become is to understate the case. As for his use of classic anti-Semitic canards, I am happy to report that the Jewish people will long survive Joe Klein.

The question is, will Time Magazine?

UPDATE: Klein also weighed in yesterday on his own blog:

I don’t think a war with Iran is coming, thank God, but this time I am not going to pull any punches. My voice isn’t very important in the grand scheme of things, but I’m going to do my job–and that means letting you know exactly where I stand and what I believe. I believe there are a small group of Jewish neoconservatives who are pushing for war with Iran because they believe it is in America’s long-term interests and because they believe Israel’s existence is at stake. They are wrong and recent history tells us they are dangerous. They are also bullies and I’m not going to be intimidated by them.

Klein may not be intimidated, but he seems to be taking a bit more care in making his point - (i.e. “they believe it is in America’s long-term interests"). But what’s still unclear (at least to me) is why he insists on using “Jewish” to modify the term neoconservative. Is John Bolton more or less of a threat than other neocons because he’s not Jewish? What about Pastor John Hagee? Would he be more deserving of attention if he were a rabbi?

UPDATED UPDATE: Peter Wehner (National Review crowd) jumps in with a lengthy critique of Klein’s interview with Goldberg.

8 Comments | Share This | Iran, Iraq, Joe Klein

The anti-Bush world view

By Ami Eden · July 14, 2008

The New York Times has three opinions pieces today calling for a reversal in various elements of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy.

1) Barack Obama reaffirms his commitment to pulling out U.S troops from Iraq:

The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

2) James Rubin argues that the United States should open a diplomatic post in Iran:

America has not sent diplomats to Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis. Washington’s interests are managed by the Swiss government in Tehran. But as in other hostile countries, like Cuba, Washington could set up an interests section in Tehran even while formal diplomatic relations are suspended. Housed in the Swiss Embassy, this post would process visa requests and handle other consular matters.

Such an outpost should not be seen as or used for an intelligence operation. Rather, it would give American diplomats an opportunity to observe the country’s complex politics firsthand. There are no current American foreign service officers who have ever been posted there. Setting up an interests section should help ensure that American policy is not born of ignorance.

3) Roger Cohen explores (online) the Scandinavian view that the Unite States and the West have made a big mistake by shunning engagement with enemies and failing to keep channels open to Hamas and Syria:

Norway’s message to the United States is blunt: the next administration, whether headed by Barack Obama or John McCain, should pronounce the war on terror over. Because it has tended to isolate the United States, polarize the world, inflate the enemy, conflate diverse movements and limit scope for dialogue, its time has passed.

0 Comments | Share This | International, Iran, Iraq, Israel, syria

Joe Klein plays the dual loyalty card

By Ami Eden · June 27, 2008

Time magazine columnist Joe Klein has triggered a firestorm with a recent blog post asserting that the neocons and Joe Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war and tough action against Iran raises questions about dual loyalty:

The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives – people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary – plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

He also seemed to endorse the theory that the president and vice president are sending American troops to die in order to boost oil company profits:

And then there is the question – made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis – of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies.

The column drew swift criticism from members of the Commentary crowd, including Peter Wehner and Jennifer Rubin.

Klein fired back:

Then, what can one say about Jennifer Rubin, who accuses me of antisemitism? I must say that’s rather thrilling coming from the Commentary crowd. You want evidence of divided loyalties? How about the “benign domino theory” that so many Jewish neoconservatives talked to me about–off the record, of course–in the runup to the Iraq war, the idea that Israel’s security could be won by taking out Saddam, which would set off a cascade of disaster for Israel’s enemies in the region? As my grandmother would say, feh! Do you actually deny that the casus belli that dare not speak its name wasn’t, as I wrote in February 2003, a desire to make the world safe for Israel? Why the rush now to bomb Iran, a country that poses some threat to Israel but none–for the moment–to the United States...unless we go ahead, attack it, and the mullahs unleash Hezbollah terrorists against us? Do you really believe the mullahs would stage a nuclear attack on Israel, destroying the third most holy site in Islam and killing untold numbers of Muslims? I am not ruling out the use of force against Iran–it may come to that–but you folks seem to embrace it gleefully.

Furthermore, as a Jew, I find it offensive that the American Jewish Committee would support such an ideologically unbalanced publication as Commentary, one that spouts a Likudnik bellicosity that is out of sync with the beliefs of the vast majority of American Jews. A question to all concerned: When was the last time you opposed a policy, any policy, of the Israeli government–other than one that attempted to move toward peace?

Before I could tweak him, Klein was able to post this correction: “The American Jewish Committee is no longer associated with Commentary, thank God.”

As for when the last time a prominent neocon opposed a “policy, any policy, of the Israeli government – other than one that attempted to move toward peace"… How about Doug Feith playing a main, if not lead, role in cracking down on Israeli arms deals with China? It’s hard to think of any other issue that caused a bigger problem in U.S.-Israeli relations during the Bush administration – and Feith reportedly was the one delivering the hammer on Jerusalem.

This isn’t just a case of overlooking an example. There is a larger point here: Feith and his ideological brethren may have what Klein thinks is a crazy world view, but it is just that – a world view, as in China and Taiwan, Contras and Sandinistas, etc.

As for the question of fighting a war to make Israel safe, it may or may not be a bad idea – but plenty of non-Jews support the concept and it wouldn’t be the only time the United States determined that it was in America’s interest to take up arms to aid an ally. So why the talk about “dual loyalty”? At least Tim Russert was polite – and responsible – enough to raise the issue in a form of a question, and allow for a response.

Bonus: The O.U.’s D.C. blog has audio of McCain ripping Klein.

7 Comments | Share This | Bush, Iran, Iraq, Israel, pro-Israel lobby

Sheldon Adelson: White knight or white elephant?

By Ami Eden · April 11, 2008

Laura Rozen of Mother Jones reports that some conservative activists are disappointed with the organization launched by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to generate support for President Bush’s Iraq policy:

In Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, foreign-policy hawks thought they had found the conservative answer to liberal philanthropist George Soros: a deep-pocketed benefactor eager to dole out generous sums to right-leaning advocacy groups and grassroots campaigns. Adelson’s largesse, they believed, would underwrite the further advancement of conservative causes—particularly those regarding national security—and allow conservatives to do well-financed battle with ideological adversaries such as MoveOn.org. …

So last year, when Adelson helped to establish Freedom’s Watch, a group that late last summer launched a $15 million media campaign in support of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq, hopes were high—both for Adelson and for Freedom’s Watch. As former White House press secretary and Freedom’s Watch official Ari Fleischer put it in August, “The cavalry is coming.”

Almost eight months later, some Freedom’s Watch watchers are wondering whether some of the cavalry got lost. Even as the group has mounted a new campaign to coincide with General David Petraeus’ testimony on Iraq to Congress this week, there has been conservative grumbling about Freedom’s Watch—and Adelson. And several Freedom’s Watch staffers, including its first president, Bradley Blakeman, have left the group. Now Washington conservatives are worrying that Adelson may not be the white knight they had wished for.

In not-for-attribution interviews, a few conservative think tank hands and activists expressed frustration that Freedom’s Watch has yet to develop a comprehensive strategy, and they gripe that it has been slow to set up a MoveOn-style infrastructure. Freedom’s Watch hasn’t realized its full potential, they say, in part because Adelson overly involves himself in the group’s decision-making and won’t heed the good advice of…well, people like them.

4 Comments | Share This | Bush, Iraq, Politics