Maybe Typepad’s comment mechanism is screwy–Glenn Greenwald was not able to post the following yesterday in response to my criticism of his book, A Tragic Legacy, and sent it along to me. I’m sure I’ll have some response of my own, but I’ll get to that later. (In the morning, I try and do my paying work.) Greenwald’s writing follows:
PW: "The
failure here is that Greenwald can never bring himself to broach
an issue
that he knows to be a factor: the Jewishness of the neocons. As I
have
reported here, though it is now widely obfuscated in the wake of the
Iraq
debacle, the Jewishness of the neocon movement was openly acknowledged
in
years gone by . . .
The failure on Greenwald’s part is in refusing to
talk about religion as a
motivator. Oh, he is happy to talk about the
Christian religion as a cause
of the Iraq debacle, but he immunizes
rightwing Jews from such analysis."
(1) It is simply untrue that I "can
never bring [my]self to broach an issue
that [I] know[] to be a factor: the
Jewishness of the neocons." As but one
example, in a November, 2005
post — entitled "American neocons, WMD
Intelligence, and Israel: the
Forbidden Topic" — I wrote:
"What accounts for this climate of fear when
it comes to discussing this
issue [the role of neocons’ allegiance to
Israel] is that the ranks of
prominent, influential neo-conservatives, both
in the Government and the
media, are disproportionately Jewish. . .
.
"Thus, the use by anti-Semites of the "secret cabal" stereotype against
Jews
should not and must not prevent us from asking whether particular
individuals at the highest levels of our Government and in the most
influential positions in our media were motivated by a desire to benefit
Israel when advocating and enabling this American war. The existence of an
odious stereotype which is false and offensive as a generalization does not
and should preclude accusations against specific individuals where the
evidence warrants those accusations."
Similarly, in a February, 2007
post — entitled " Enforced orthodoxies and
Iran" — I wrote that Democratic
candidates felt substantial pressure to
take a hard-line position against
Iran because of "how vital it was for
presidential candidates to attract
contributions from New York Jewish groups
generally" and because – quoting
the New York Sun — candidates must "ensure
access to ‘the ATM for American
politicians’ — the ‘large amounts of money
from the Jewish community’ in
New York."
In the same post, in defending Wes Clark, I wrote:
"Is
there anything that Wes Clark said that is not included in these
articles
from the Sun and the Post? No, there is not. In fact, what Clark
said is but
a small subset of what these articles documented.
"It is simply true that
there are large and extremely influential Jewish
donor groups which are
agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is
the case because those
groups are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests
and they perceive it to
be in Israel’s interests for the U.S. to militarily
confront
Iran."
Surely you would agree that it is inaccurate to state that I "can
never
bring myself to broach . . . . the Jewishness of the
neocons."
(2) To the extent you are referencing my book, I do not recall
whether I
specifically made clear that the "Israel-centric neocons" whom I
describe as
exerting substantial influence on Bush’s Middle East militarism
are Jewish.
Perhaps I didn’t. But I cite extensively the statements of
Israeli Likud
officials, AIPAC and the AEI, and a whole slew of
American-Jewish right-wing
activists who represent this group. Is
there really some suggestion that I
shied away from the fact that these
Israel-centric neocons are Jewish?
(3) To the extent that your complaint
is that I don’t emphasize sufficiently
the influence on neocons of their
Jewish religion, that is most certainly
not because I am afraid to broach
that subject. After explicitly addressing
all of the above-excerpted
topics, why would I possibly suddenly be deterred
from making that
subsequent claim if, in fact, I believed it to be true?
The fact is that
I do not think that Judaism as a religion is anywhere near
the influence it
is for neocons as Christian theology is for Bush’s
Christian evangelical
base that believes in Middle Eastern militarism for
theological
reasons. Many secular Jews identify strongly with Israel for
cultural
reasons having nothing to do with religion. I don’t really think
most
neocons defend Israel or place its interests above all else for
religious
reasons. THAT is why I don’t make the argument. Because I don’t
believe it.
It is possible for someone to analyze these matters
differently than you
and/or to place emphasis on different aspects of them
without being guilty
of taboo-acquiescence or fear. As many columnists
and others have noted, I
have been as willing as anyone else to raise and
discuss the topic of the
neocons’ allegiance to Israel and the role it plays
in their advocacy. In
light of that, I would hope you would consider
the possibility that there
may be other explanations besides "fear" and
"taboos" as to why I don’t
describe these issues exactly the way you would
like.
