Friday, October 22, 2004
krauthammer would say anything -- and i mean anything -- to ensure the popular mandate that the neocons would make of a second term. (his november 3 column, should bush win, is sure to say something self-congratulatory -- shortly followed by some variation of "we're obviously doing something right -- on to iran!") forays into wishful thinking are not unusual for this man when he badly enough wants what he says to be true.
it isn't that his ilk will have no outlet under kerry, who has positioned himself to continue most of the american militarist/interventionist foreign policy that they adore. it's that krauthammer is in a sweet spot where he is, and wants nothing less than to jeopardize it with change.
antisemitism has been a recurrent epithet hurled at those who question the rise of the neoconservative movement -- not because anyone knows or cares that some members (such as krauthammer, kristol and wolfowitz) happen to be jewish, but because they feel they need to suppress with polarizing charges any challenge to their doctrine. moreover, the charge is doubly effective in any criticism of american policy toward israel.
and it's quite sad, as it dissipates the damning power that the charge of antisemitism should surely retain.
kerry is, and always has been, one of many senators closely aligned with israel and attentive to aipac, the israeli government lobby in washington. there's no reason to believe kerry would change decades of american support for israel.
what he might change, however, is the bush administration's unquestioning support of likud, the israeli hawk party led by ariel sharon which has relentlessly pursued a murderous but futile solution to the palestinian resistance in the occupied territories with bush turning a blind eye. there is an israeli left, messianic zionism is not the only israeli viewpoint, and we can engage both left and right.
moreover, kerry might free DoJ prosecutors to look into possible spying operations being carried on by israel through aipac, which could prove very damaging to neoconservatives like douglas feith and michael ledeen, who have incorrectly conflated likud's political interests with america's national interests and funneled sensitive information on american strategy to israel.
would either of those changes constitute antisemitism? hardly. and yet krauthammer screams like a child stung: accusing kerry of enacting policies he hasn't even discussed, accusing kerry of (what else?) supporting terror by talking with power centers on both sides, accusing kerry of "sacrificing israel" as though he would hand over israeli sovereignty to arafat.
this propagandistic blather is designed to scare those americans (like myself) who view friendship with israel as an important part of american foreign policy into voting for bush. and why? so that investigation of the aipac spy scandal can be repressed; so that likudnik policies can be promoted; so that the neoconservatives who have betrayed their country can be unaccountable for their treason. and yet glenn reynolds says without qualification: I think he's probably right.
no wonder bush still draws 47% in the polls.