Neocons’ naked agenda (is shared by many Dems)

on 10 Comments

One of the most shocking and clarifying things about the Chuck Hagel nomination is the degree to which neoconservative warmongers have had to shed the pretense that they are interested in anything but Israel. I always said this was their core concern; that Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz became neoconservatives because of importance of American military support for Israel, that the neocons pushed the Iraq war in part because Saddam had attacked Israel. Now Bill Kristol, who of course heads the Emergency Committee for Israel, and who had once bragged of purging the Republican Party of Arabists, shows that his only concern about Hagel is Israel:

Hagel claimed, his record shows “unequivocal, total support for Israel.”

This is unequivocal, total nonsense.

Chuck Hagel was once proud not to be numbered among the “unequivocal, total” supporters of Israel. Hagel was once proud of his standing as a lonely figure in American public life who would stand up to those who unequivocally and totally supported Israel. Hagel was once a senator who, unlike his colleagues, was proud not to have been intimidated by “the Jewish lobby.” Hagel was proud of his votes against pro-Israel resolutions backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), aka “the Jewish lobby.” Hagel was contemptuous of those who signed AIPAC-endorsed pro-Israel letters.

No, Chuck Hagel was not one of those “unequivocal, total” supporters of Israel like his colleagues in the United States Senate. No siree!

Idrees Ahmad writes:

This kind of piece might be useful for rallying the troops, but I wonder how it is received by the wider public (assuming it reads the Weekly Standard). Kristol is saying that the only acceptable position is to be an ‘unequivocal’ supporter of Israel and in his view Hagel has fallen short. Is this indictment likely to persuade the average non-Israel-right-or-wrong American that Hagel is a horrible person? Or is the function of Weekly Standard simply to relay the Israel lobby’s markers to the political class? 

When Chuck Schumer endorsed Hagel yesterday, after getting a list of promises about Israel, Kristol called Schumer a “cheap date:”

And what about the rest of the Hagel discourse, where he boasts that he’s not a senator from Israel and the like? Was it all just a rare moment of Hagelian insensitivity?

So it was insensitive for Hagel to suggest that others (neocons) care about Israel? But what about if those others actually tilted our foreign policy. Echoing Kristol, Jennifer Rubin reminds readers of what I have often also reminded readers of, that Schumer has called himself a guardian for Israel:

So maybe Schumer figured this is an easy give to the White House and he can afford to drop his “guard” duty for Israel. ( ”He repeats ad nauseam that his name derives from the Hebrew word “shomer” (guard).”) But wait. Schumer here risks stepping out (or being pushed out) too soon, and opening the door to potential rivals to seize the mantle of sober leadership on the Middle East. A longtime Democratic operative with a pro-Israel group told me he was surprised Schumer got pushed out so soon given how numerous the issues about Hagel’s record and comments are. “When you have a series of these death bed — confirmation bed — conversions you really have to wait for the hearings. His [Hagel’s] veracity is yet to be tested.”

As Steve Walt has said, Since when did it become an oath of office for a federal official to support a foreign country? I have to believe the neocons have hurt themselves here; and maybe Americans will actually embrace Hagel’s statement that he’s not a senator for Israel:

‘I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator.’ I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States — not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that. Now I know most senators don’t talk like I do.”

But even Chris Matthews is avoiding this central issue. He describes the neocons as “hawks” these days, eliding them with all Republican militarists, and last night on his show Sam Stein of Huffington Post described some of the Democrats’ questions of Hagel on Iran and Israel as “legitimate concerns.” This is a measure of how deeply enmeshed the Israel lobby is in the Democratic Party. Hagel’s pathetic declaration of support for Israel came in a letter to Barbara Boxer, a liberal Senator from California, who is Jewish. Or there’s Democratic operative Ann Lewis, who once said, apropos of the Middle East conflict, “The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.” Wait, maybe that is not our role? Maybe people are waking up to this delusion?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

10 Responses

  1. seafoid
    January 16, 2013, 10:30 am

    Maybe Podhoretz is all about Israel but the neocon agenda is wider. Christopher Caldwell is an editor at the Weekly Standard and has a column in the FT. As well as Israel he specialises in dissing taxation and climate science .

  2. gingershot
    January 16, 2013, 11:27 am

    The ONLY thing that matters is that Obama and Hagel stop Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby from forcing/mousetrapping the US into an attack on Iran – THAT’S IT.

    It’s a ‘single issue’

    If an Iran attack is stopped, Israeli Apartheid is without any effective cover and will be taken care of how Apartheid South Africa was taken care of – and then the Israeli Lobby no longer has any cover as well.

    With the Netanyahu-hoaxed/mousestrapped pushing of the US into a war with Iran STOPPED – it’s all over for Israeli Apartheid

    Let’s keep our eye on the PRIZE – it’s Iran. The rest are dominoes

    It’s formulaic;

    Hagel ‘ON’ = Iran ‘OFF’ = Israeli Apartheid ‘OFF’ = Israeli Lobby ‘OFF’

    (The Israeli Lobby ‘OFF’ = the 2nd American Revolution)

    • Sin Nombre
      January 16, 2013, 3:05 pm

      gingershot wrote:

      “If an Iran attack is stopped, Israeli Apartheid is without any effective cover and will be taken care of….”

      Presumably you mean because the Iran issue is a diversion. But what’s to stop other diversions from appearing? Say, an assault into Lebanon “to deal with Hezbullah” followed by an extended occupation? Or a renewed “need” to re-occupy Gaza?

      • thetumta
        January 16, 2013, 7:37 pm

        The Israelis are only up for attacking defenseless “cockroaches in a bottle” in Gaza. They have no more stomach for scorpions in Lebanon. Some of them still appreciate that Hezbollah didn’t close the “Hammer and Anvil” the last time. They can slaughter defenseless civilians from the air, but if they venture too far north on land, someone will grab them by their “belt-loops”.

  3. radii
    January 16, 2013, 1:35 pm

    Hagel’s number one job is to the brake on israel

    • jimmy
      January 16, 2013, 4:56 pm

      I think you are right

      obama is not going to forget what nutty tried to do..

      pay back is a bitch

  4. jimmy
    January 16, 2013, 4:54 pm

    so is israel the only country on earth that is contested..

    you know I remember reading an interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…in the Asian times in 2003 i think which he stated he supported a 2 stated solution

  5. Citizen
    January 19, 2013, 11:15 am

    When Hegel gets vetted under the camera eye of CSPAN for all of us to watch, I hope somebody plays this video clip–and his words on Palestinians “in chains,” and terrorism as merely a tactic of victims pushed to the edge sans other recourse don’t get edited out beforehand:

    • Annie Robbins
      January 19, 2013, 3:17 pm

      wow that’s one kicka** hagel speech citizen.

      • Citizen
        January 20, 2013, 4:23 am

        It sure the f*** is. Imagine if even some of it comes out during the broadcast vetting for Sec Of Defense. It just might if a few questioning him injected too much ziocain in the back hall before they sat down to vet him.

Leave a Reply