by Isi Leibler
In light of the
opposition generated when former Senator Chuck Hagel’s candidacy for
defense secretary was initially mooted, most analysts predicted,
mistakenly, that President Barack Obama would not proceed with the
appointment.
The decision to appoint
such an extreme isolationist to this position sends a chilling signal
about the broad direction of Obama’s foreign policy during the next four
years.
But there are particularly disconcerting connotations for American Jews and Israel.
For a start, by
appointing a person with such a consistent track record of disdain for
Israel, it is evident that Obama has no inhibitions or concerns about
alienating and distressing the vast majority of Jews who voted for him
and whom he now takes for granted.
Obama is nominating a
man who accused “the Jewish lobby” of disloyalty, of harboring dual
allegiances and acting as a fifth column by supporting Israel. The views
are similar to the anti-Semitic stereotypes described by authors Walt
and Mearsheimer in their notorious book “The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy."
Beyond this, Hagel’s
senatorial voting record in relation to Israel, even declining to
endorse Senate resolutions broadly supporting Israel, would place him as
one of the most hostile senators in recent times.
What makes Hagel’s
nomination as defense secretary even more alarming is that he also has a
consistent track record of totally opposing any actions against Iran,
including sanctions.
For six months before
the election, Obama repeatedly pledged that he would not merely
“contain” Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but would ensure that Iran would
never develop a nuclear bomb. Yet Hagel explicitly promoted a policy of
“containment” as opposed to military action.
Given this context, one
is entitled to query how Obama could appoint Hagel, whose record on
this issue was so diametrically opposed to his own stated position? Or
has Obama’s position changed?
What sort of message
does this send to Iran? The Iranian state-owned Press TV referred to
Obama’s nomination of the “anti-Israeli ex-Senator Chuck Hagel as the
next defense secretary,” pointing out that “he has consistently opposed
any plan to launch military strikes against Iran.” The Iranian Foreign
Ministry said this suggested potential “practical changes” in U.S.
foreign policy which would bring about an improvement of relations
between Washington and Tehran.
Obama was certainly
aware that prominent mainstream Democrats were opposed to such an
appointment. The New York Times conceded that even “some Obama aides had
doubts about the wisdom of the choice,” and the liberal Washington Post
made it clear that it considered Hagel an inappropriate nominee for the
position.
Alan Dershowitz, who
supported Obama during the election, stated that the appointment would
send a mixed message to the mullahs and embolden those who assumed that
Obama was bluffing, thus increasing the likelihood of needing to resort
to the military option. He maintained that the Hagel nomination was “not
only a mistake for Israel” but “a mistake for America, a mistake for
world peace.” He said the move would undermine Israeli confidence in
Obama’s commitment to ensure that Iran never becomes a nuclear power and
would reinforce Israeli fears that the country was on its own.
Ed Koch, former
Democratic New York mayor, who also endorsed Obama, cynically told the
Algemeiner Jewish newspaper that he had anticipated that the president
would renege on support for Israel, but “it comes a little earlier than I
thought.” He said the nomination “will encourage the Iranian nuclear
project and the jihadists” in the belief that “America is beginning to
desert Israel,” adding “I’m sure the Arabs are drinking orange juice and
toasting Hagel’s good health.”
The American Jewish leadership is deeply distressed.
AIPAC did not formally
comment on the issue, stating that “AIPAC does not take positions on
presidential nominations.” Yet there is no doubt that the leaders who
need to maintain access to the Pentagon were privately anguished and
bitterly opposed to the Hagel nomination.
Interestingly, the nonpartisan heads of major Jewish organizations uncharacteristically condemned Hagel’s views unequivocally.
ADL head Abe Foxman
initially accused Hagel of statements “bordering on anti-Semitism.”
After the nomination, while reiterating that Hagel would not have been
his first choice, he said he “respects the president’s prerogative” but
still needed to be “convinced” that Hagel’s positions were in fact
“misunderstood.”
The American Jewish
Committee’s David Harris remarked that “we have concerns,” and urged the
Senate to “fully probe” the nomination. Rabbi Marvin Hier, head of the
Simon Wiesenthal Center, said the Hagel appointment sent the wrong
message to the Iranian mullahs and called on him to apologize for his
“hateful statements” on Israel.
In contrast, when trial balloons about Hagel were initially floated, Jews on the Left aggressively promoted his candidacy.
New York Times
columnist Tom Friedman lauded Hagel as an ideal candidate, dismissing
his former hostility to Israel and offensive remarks on the Jewish
lobby. He also lambasted Jewish critics, whom he accused of either being
motivated or manipulated by the Israeli far Right, and having the
chutzpah to label them as McCarthyists for daring to question Hagel’s
political bona fides.
Friedman’s fellow
columnist Roger Cohen described Hagel as “a quite a strong friend of
Israel” and castigated unrepresentative “well-organized and remorseless”
extreme right-wing Jewish leaders who endorsed those who “propel Israel
into repetitive many wars of dubious strategic value,” saying they were
behind the campaign against Hagel’s nomination.
Similar views were
expressed by Peter Beinart in his Open Zion blog, who effectively
campaigned for Hagel’s candidature. J Street launched a slogan, “Smear a
Bagel not Chuck Hagel,” and was supported by the Israel Policy Forum
and Americans for Peace Now.
The National Jewish
Democratic Council, which in 2007 had alleged that Hagel had “a lot of
questions to answer about his commitment to Israel,” stated that despite
having “expressed concerns in the past, we trust that when confirmed
former Senator Chuck Hagel will follow the president’s unrivaled support
for Israel.”
The reality is that the
vast majority of Jews, including Democrats, are deeply distressed with
the choice. Dershowitz claims that 95 percent of the Jewish community
opposes the appointment.
Yet while Jews have a
particular reason to dislike Hagel’s approach, his selection has far
wider global implications. There are concerns that Obama is renewing his
former policy of “engaging” rogue states and appeasing Islamic
extremism.
There will undoubtedly
be some tough cross-examination in the Senate, and Hagel will in all
likelihood play down or modify some of his previous positions. He
already insists that his remarks have been distorted and that his
statements always represented “unequivocal, total support for Israel.”
But while his confirmation is far from a certainty, with the Democrats
controlling the Senate, the odds are in his favor.
The Israeli government
has, correctly, not commented on what is clearly a U.S. domestic issue.
But we should be under no illusions. If Hagel’s appointment is
confirmed, the newly appointed defense secretary will have a clear track
record of appeasing the Iranians, reaching out to Hamas and being
highly critical of pro-Israeli influence in Washington. The appointment
will signal that Israel’s relationship with the Obama administration may
be more turbulent than we had hoped.
Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=3212
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment