A Point of View: Blaming the Jews as a form of intimidation

At a time when both Israel and American Jews are struggling about how to manage the growing threat of a nuclear Iran, it is fascinating and disturbing to see how the canard that America's war in Iraq was a product of Jewish influence is alive and well. The connection is not a coincidence.
 
The notion of powerful Jews working for their own interests against the interests of their own country has a long and sordid history, even in America. The most famous example was the speech Charles Lindbergh gave in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941 claiming that Jews were driving America to war against Germany to serve their own interests. At the time, millions of Americans heard and sympathized with his message.

Soon after America attacked Iraq in 2002, US Congressman Jim Moran gave a speech in Virginia in which he blamed "neo-conservative" Jews for bringing the US to war. He spoke of their serving Israel's interests against those of their own country. Unlike in 1990, when Pat Buchanan futilely blamed the first Gulf War on Israel’s "Amen Corner", this time around the "blame the Jews" theme had a certain resonance, and sometimes in unexpected circles.

The most well-known advocates of this idea were Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who, in their book "The Israel Lobby," blamed the Jews for just about everything they saw wrong in the Middle East. So no surprise there.

More recently, however, Time magazine journalist and long-time political correspondent, Joe Klein, said much the same thing. It was the neo-conservative Jews together with their partners in Israel who pushed the war on America. Joe Klein is no anti-Semite. He even calls himself pro-Zionist and, in an interview with Jeffery Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine said that he supported Israel's counterterrorist activities in the West Bank after the wave of suicide attacks in 2002-3 and would support Israeli military action in Gaza.

And yet, Klein distorts history in two ways: the attitudes and power of the neo-cons, and Israel's role in the US decision to go to war.

One can legitimately and strongly disapprove of neo-conservative views, as Klein certainly does. But to suggest that they supported the war to serve Israel is to misread the long history of neo-conservatism and unjustly accuse individuals who have always thought first about what's good for America. Whether it was their strong anti-Soviet views during the Cold War or their current drive to spread democracy around the world, it was driven by their perception of what's good for their country and, indeed, the world. 

They may be wrong but they are Americans and democrats above all. Israel fits in simply because it is the great outpost of democracy in the Middle East and because it is a great ally of the US.

Similarly, Klein's notion that the power of Jewish neo-cons drove us into war is belied by the fact that the real power lay with George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, George Tenet and Condi Rice, none of whom are Jewish. To suggest that the power lay with the Jews is strange, to say the least.

Moreover, attributing the war to Israel is also nonsense. The Israelis were extra careful at the time not to influence or to be seen to be influencing US decision-making. One reason for this standoff approach was because of an ambivalence about a military conflict. On the one hand, Israelis would be happy if Saddam Hussein, who launched missiles against Israel in the first Gulf War, would be taught a lesson. But, some Israeli experts cautioned early on that a war could strengthen Israel’s greater enemy in the region, Iran.

So how is it that this idea of the war as the Jewish neo-conservative's baby is so prevalent? I believe it's largely an effort to intimidate American Jews from speaking out on a very different and graver threat, to America and the world, but also to Israel -- a nuclear Iran. And make no mistake, in conversations among American Jews there are remarks to the effect: if we were blamed for the war in Iraq where we had no clear interest or involvement, what would happen if war would break out over Iran, where the Jewish interest is fundamental.

In light of these various efforts at intimidation, it is important to reiterate some essentials:

1. A nuclear Iran would be a disaster not only to Israel but to the entire world, particularly because it would lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. 

2. None of us, Israelis or American Jews, want a military conflict. Indeed, the best way to avoid a situation where a military option may be considered is to strengthen sanctions and put pressure on Iran (together with incentives) to resolve this peacefully.

3. If, however, the world does not act in time, then it will be the ultimate test of "Never Again." With Israel in jeopardy as never before, where will the world stand?

So the answer to Joe Klein and others is: we are not warmongers, we want a diplomatic resolution of the problem; but we will not be intimidated, first because it is in the interest of the world to stop Iran now, and second because this time around, if the international community fails to act, the Jewish people have the ability to defend themselves in the face of a murderous foe.