RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama, McPeak and Israel
March 30, 2008 6:59 PM
How is it that Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak (Ret.) gave an interview to Shalom TV -- "America's first national Jewish cable television network covering the panorama of Jewish life"?
It starts when the Clinton campaign sent around a story by The American Spectator.
(That gives you an idea of where the Clinton campaign is, right now, given the fact that the Spectator at one point was devoted to exploring the Clintons' transgressions, personal and political. The magazine continues to be quite a source of criticism, as with a recent column by magazine founder and editor in chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., who recently wrote of Bill and Hillary Clinton: "They skirt the law. They defy ethical standards. Most brazenly, they lie when there is no reason to lie, and they deploy a whopper when a little white lie would be perfectly adequate and even understandable." Or see the January 1994 "Living With the Clintons: Bill's Arkansas bodyguards tell the story the press missed", a story of some historical significance.)
So, the Clinton campaign sent out an American Spectator story by Robert Goldberg, vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, which assailed McPeak, a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as "anti-Israel and anti-Jewish."
Goldberg took issue, not with anything Obama had said, but with comments McPeak had made in a 2003 interview with the Oregonion in which McPeak says he would put the North Korean crisis as a higher priority than Iraq.
"I don't think we have anything like a strategy for the Middle East," McPeak says as one of the reasons why North Korea should be a higher priority. "And what we're doing in Iraq ought to be a piece of a larger undertaking. And it has all the aspects of a kind of a slapdash pickup fight, you know, where - I mean you always call audibles in war, but we're drawing the plays on the ground in the huddle here. We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . . something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. . . . We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that."
The Oregonian reporter asks: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"
"New York City," replied McPeak. "Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."
Says the reporter: "Actually I was thinking of the larger lack of a Middle East strategy. Does that emanate out of the State Department or out of the White House, combination of both, is it a personality struggle, what's - what's going on?"
McPeak: "I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible."
Reporter: "Do you think . . . there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"
McPeak: "Absolutely."
Reporter: "Yeah. So this is - this is multilateral."
McPeak: "There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place. I think there is enough good will on the Israeli side - I've spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli air force as a junior officer, and so - but that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population - I think there's enough good will there - I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well. But there's enough good will, I would hope, on both sides that you can get the majority into some kind of a big tent, and make something better than what you've got now. If you do that, you'll still have radicals on both sides doing stupid things, but that is basically a problem in internal security. Hopefully. You can handle it with police. But if you don't do that, I don't see any way to put together a strategy for the Middle East. I mean it's just kind of a linchpin..."
Goldberg's other evidence was an article McPeak wrote about Israel's borders in Foreign Affairs Magazine in 1976.
The Republican Jewish Coalition called for Obama to fire McPeak.
"By choosing to have a military advisor and national campaign co-chairman like Gen. McPeak, serious questions and doubts are once again being raised about Sen. Obama's positions and judgment on Middle East issues," said RJC executive director Matt Brooks.
Brooks said McPeak had "resorted to old stereotypes and unfortunate language by blaming the lack of progress with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process on the undue political influence of American Jewry ... Rather than putting the blame where it belongs -- on the Palestinian leadership and their continued reliance on terror, Gen. McPeak finds it more convenient to blame American Jewry and their perceived influence," said Brooks. "This is the same dangerous and disturbing canard being promoted by the likes of Jimmy Carter and authors Mearsheimer and Walt in their book, 'The Israel Lobby.'"
In a follow-up story in the Oregonian, Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama agrees with every position their advisers take" and Obama disagrees with what McPeak said about the power of pro-Israeli voters.
Hence, now we have Gen. McPeak going on Shalom TV. "I decided a long time ago that I was on Israel's side," declares Gen. McPeak. "I'm a long-term admirer of Israel and consider myself a friend of Israel."
McPeak says, "It would serve everyone's purposes for Israel to remove itself from occupied territories in conditions that represent a negotiated solution agreeable to both sides. What Israel's security requires is peace with its neighbors, and a failure to get to a negotiated solution on the occupied territories has prevented peace. There's enough blame on both sides, and even blame for the United States. I would like the United States to play a constructive role to bring about progress in the [peace] process."
Of the influence of Jews on policy in Israel, McPeak said, "American Jewry has some influence, just like [American] Irish have influence about Ireland policy, just like the National Rifle Association has something to say about our arms policy. I don't object to interest groups or lobbying groups exercising influence. I think our government takes account of the various kinds of competing interests that are represented in our country, and then acts in a way that is consistent with our own best interest."
Regarding the RJC, McPeak says, "You'll have to check with them [on] what they're trying to do here. Or with the Clinton campaign. This has the smell of politics, doesn't it?"
What do you think?
- jpt
March 30, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (49)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
hopesprings52: You are right. Arafat was given a completely fair option - he refused an incredibly generous offer for no sane reason, and he had a devastating impact on the peace process.
and so did we. five years ago we sent troops into a pre-emptive war on iraq, threw away our own civil liberties in the process, committed atrocities that were broadcast all over the world, created a concentration camp at gitmo, and we are still mired in a seemingly endless war. why? because of the project for a new american century and chicken hawks at the defense dept. who led the bush administration by the nose - and told them we would be out of iraq in weeks, if not months. what do you think those atrocities at abu ghraib have done for the chance for peace in the middle east or anywhere else in the world? or the war in iraq?
this blog "Obama, McPeak and Israel" is a perfect example of how the middle east is presented in the media - not as an issue that can discussed in sane or reasonable terms - but as fodder - anyone who does not agreee with the Likud position is labeled a bigot. can anybody remember another time in history where religion was used in this way by a very powerful media machine?
Does anybody consider the passage below to be fair and balanced journalism?
Obama, Israel and the Jewish Vote (One Year Ago)
Political Punch 3/4/07 It end as follows:
"As the campaigns compete for Jewish support, it would be political malpractice for rivals [SIC] campaigns to not send this blog entry around to big pro-Israel donors."
These are the words of an unbiased journalist?
Posted by: Mara | Mar 31, 2008 12:07:24 AM
"Just because Bush and his foreign policy team blew it on Iraq"-hopesprings52
--------------------------------------
Well said..Ask those 4000 soldiers' love ones how they feel about someone just blew it argument!!
We need better Judgements among our Leaders!!
We need a President who cares about America and her people!!Choise is clear!! Obama the true Leader!!
OBAMA08!! YES WE CAN!!
Posted by: RC | Mar 30, 2008 11:53:54 PM
Just because Bush and his foreign policy team blew it on Iraq does not mean that we should swing completely in the other direction. It's important to understand the history of what has taken place in the Middle East and not slide into the anti-America, anti-Israel camp. The tragedy is that Bill Clinton was so close to bringing peace to the region but Arafat, Hamas and the Islamic militants didn't want it. It would be a huge mistake for the pendulum to slide into a Carter/McPeak/Brezinski/Rev. Wright interpretation of the Middle East.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Mar 30, 2008 11:44:59 PM
Bill O'Reilly and Fox taking on the "opportunistic "screamer" who are doing the bashing of others."
Now that's a real treat!!! Billo reporting on himself!!!
Obama 2008 -- Yes, WE CAN!!!
Posted by: Jackt51 | Mar 30, 2008 11:43:38 PM
Well said Mara!! They are worried and should be as America is close to choose a great Leader for this Nation that is making them nervous!! No more lost lives and trillions of Dollars for fake cause! No more Lost lives for Democracy that only Valid when supported by them!! Lets deal the facts Head On! Find the true culprits, punish them and let the World live in Peace! As a Leader of the free World, this great Nation deserves a great leader! America is ready for Obama!!
OBAMA08!! YES WE CAN!!
Posted by: RC | Mar 30, 2008 11:42:26 PM
There atr many unanswered questions on Obama's views on Isreal and Palestine, especially after listening to Wright for 20 yrs.
How about a piece about: Obama is acting magnanimous saying I don't agree with Laehy and others, Hillary should stay in the race as long as she wants, when behind the scenes he is calling people such as super delegate Bob Rankin and telling them he wants to end this NOW. See article on fox news.com; Bill Clinton says to chill
Posted by: rob | Mar 30, 2008 11:41:58 PM
SJ:
Your double negatives don't help make your case.
But I interpret your ramblings as saying that you believe the hate emails that are circulating that claim Obama is a Muslim "Manchurian Candidate" and that his true political leanings won't come out until he is in the White House.
Well, I have a bridge to sell you. This fodder for the rabid clintonistas who refuse to believe that she cannot win the nomination without stealing it, is simply bull pucky.
Obama 2008 -- Yes, WE CAN!!!
Posted by: Jackt51 | Mar 30, 2008 11:40:34 PM
Ryaple,
I wrote one of the original posts, where I misspelled tsunami, which ppsmith has apparently lifted in full and posted under a different name. It sounds like others are doing the same. Unfortunately, that dilutes the quality of these blogs and makes me not want to participate.
My blog was not favorable to Obama but it does not contain any racial bigotry which is what I see happening with other comments by this characacter. I'm not sure what the copy and paste writer is after, but its not rational discussion.
Sorry.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Mar 30, 2008 11:38:37 PM
Hopesprings,
That's a pretty simplistic way to summarize Israeli / Palestenian relations. One peace deal that fell off the table means it's all of the Palestenians fault? 50+ years of fighting / horrific things done from both sides and it's all the Palenstenians fault becuase of a blown peace deal in 2000? I completely disagree. I guess that makes me anti-semetic according to your logic.
Posted by: ryaple | Mar 30, 2008 11:36:11 PM
First, McPeak is definitely wrong on one point - we did have a strategy for the Middle East - the Project for a New American Century - led by academic neocons, none of whom had ever been in a war - most of whom were passionately devoted to the protection of the Israeli state - and some of whom are still advising John McCain. And it was arguably the most collosal military failure in the history of the United States. So, to paraphrase Reagan, is Israel safer today than it was five years ago, before America spent at least $2 Trillion dollars and thousands of lives were lost to build an Islamic govenment in Iraq? NO. It is less safe.
Second, this may be a surprise, but that war is still going on. And it's not going well, despite what McCain says "from the ground": “The U.S. State Department on Saturday tightened restrictions on embassy staff in Baghdad, ordering all employees to sleep inside reinforced structures and to use only armored vehicles when traveling in the Green Zone due to incoming rocket fire. Two American citizens have been killed and several wounded by rocket or mortar attacks this week as the heavily fortified area has come under steady fire ... The announcement came two days after embassy personnel were advised to remain under "hard cover at all times" and required to wear helmets and other protective gear if they ventured outside.” (AP 3/30/08)
So why does the News Correspondent link to Bill Clinton's bimbos, and troll for ethnic and religious bigotry rather than report on what is happening in the Middle East? Or, why doesn't this blog comment on John McCain's position on the Middle East, and why he was unable to even see what was happening while he was in the country - even though military blogs were reporting the divisions at the time?
To fuel more hatred and venom? This is not reporting - this is just another attempt to fire up a lynch mob.
Posted by: Mara | Mar 30, 2008 11:29:17 PM
I don't agree with hate language whether it comes from Wright of Hagee....I think that all Democrats should try to avoid painting either candidate with these words.
I do not believe Obama is a racist. I do believe he was someone who did not think it was important for 20 years to stand up to the false teachings of his minister. And then when his political life was on the line was able to successfully distract Americans from the fact by demanding they all talk about race.
I have a lot of trouble getting around that one.
McPeak is a really poor choice to listen to for any kind of advice. Obama would be wise to get a little distance from him.
Posted by: Jackie | Mar 30, 2008 11:15:41 PM
Anyone who says that America is not balanced enough in the Middle East because of pressure from the "Jewish lobby" or America just needs to lean on Israel more to get peace or these two sides just want to keep on pummeling each other - is missing the point. In 2000, Barak (with the support of most Israelis and Jews worldwide) tried to give away the whole shebang to the Palestinians for a real peace. Arafat threw it back in his face. The frustration of many Jews is that this fact is not fully understood by the Carters, the McPeaks, the Rev. Wrights. Or maybe they do understand that fact and care to dismiss it. If so, why?
Posted by: hopesprings52 | Mar 30, 2008 11:15:27 PM
@Al et al.
Let's not forget that Hamas do NOT speak for the majority of Palestinians. Things are bad enough as they are, no need for overstatements.
Posted by: Niels | Mar 30, 2008 11:15:13 PM
McPeak is a political opportunist and certainly not a true reflection of our military.
He is also the guy that until very recently had the same views of Iraq as John McCain.
The ridiculous sideshow of him calling Bill Clinton McCarthy and then handing the mic to Obama is proof that he is one of Obama's attack dogs when Obama wants to pretend he is not orchestrating the attacks.
This guy has a lot of baggage. he wasn't very popular with his own men. I think he will do Obama more harm than good in the long run.
Posted by: Jackie | Mar 30, 2008 11:05:32 PM
Why wait until June, let's impeach Obama now. Get him out of the Senate and get him and his wife out of the country.
Trust has to be earned, and they have not earned it.. We, the People of The United States of America do not trust Barack Obama. Go Away!!!! Please!!!!! Go Away!!!!
Posted by: smk | Mar 30, 2008 9:31:35 PM
senator obama wants to increase the capitol gains
tax to 28%.
In this country we are trying to
do away with the capital gains tax, and Obama wants to raise it.
Posted by: steve | Mar 30, 2008 9:27:02 PM
I think Israel should try to isolate Hamas as the ideological aggressor in the conflict, which means they should try to act like a white dove as much as possible for some considerable time.
that might be easier if Israel's people were not constantly being bombed and killed by hamas. also being a white dove did not work too brilliantly earlier in europe either. that is why they say, never again. also, most Israelis are not hawks and i think you probably already know that. however, there is only so much that can be done when another party is trying to kill you. what about hamas' responsibility to its own people? hamas does not seem to care...
Posted by: al | Mar 30, 2008 9:25:07 PM
Who IS this guy Obama, and why is he starting to scare me?
Posted by: Just Askin | Mar 30, 2008 9:19:39 PM
Mark,
Sean Wilentz, the author of your great story you posted, is a Clinton supporter who went before the House to argue against Bill Clinton's impeachement. Pretty fair bit of journalism don't you think?
Posted by: Ryaple | Mar 30, 2008 9:18:43 PM
So you would advocate either killing them all or allowing them to pillage at will? or what exactly? You are such a genius, go solve the problem, and good luck having Hamas cooperate with you. Maybe then you would understand what Israel is up against. Or maybe you would wait until the unthinkable happens to the Jews again. How soon we forget.
Posted by: al | Mar 30, 2008 8:55:41 PM
Post a comment
