Cole, in the process of criticizing Mel Gibson for stating that “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world”:
As for the Iraq War, puh-lease. Opinion polling shows that in spring of 2003, some 75 percent of Americans wanted to go to war against Saddam’s regime. At the same time, only a little over 50 percent of American Jews supported the war. “Jews” did not cause the Iraq War. George W. Bush caused the Iraq War. He had Gentile advisers who wanted him to go for it. He had a handful of Jewish advisers who wanted him to go for it. But he is the president. It was his decision. And the American Jewish community was distinctly lukewarm about the whole idea, and very divided.
Hmm. One could easily have gotten the impression from previous posts that Cole blamed the war largely on Jews [update: that is, certain “pro-Likud” or “neoconservative” Jews, not “the Jews,” as Gibson said This is not the same thing, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But in Cole’s post, he says “‘Jews’ did not cause the Iraq War.” I’m commenting on the contrast between Cole’s own current statement and his prior writings, not trying to analogize Cole to Gibson.].
Cole on Douglas Feith: “Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon.”
Cole on Justin Raimondo’s claim that events leading up to the Iraq War “looks more like an Israeli covert operation by the day”: “because Raimundo pulls no punches, he forces us to consider the degree to which Congressional foreign policy on the Middle East in particular has become virtually captive to the Zionist lobby (just as US policy toward Cuba is captive to the Cuban-American community and its lobby). He clearly goes too far, but how far should an analyst of this [AIPAC/Franklin spy] case go?”
Cole on Ariel Sharon and Iraq: “If Sharon wanted a war against Iraq, why didn’t he fight it himself instead of pushing it off on American boys?”
Cole on the “neoconservative coup at the Pentagon”: “The Neocons wanted to knock down Saddam, Khamenei and al-Asad in hopes that those countries would be so weakened and preoccupied with internal power struggles that Sharon would have an unimpeded opportunity to pursue his dreams of Greater Israel and the final destruction of the Oslo Peace Accords.”
Cole on the “pro Likud faction at the Defense Department”: “These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel’s Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel’s ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else’s boys [implying that “pro Likud” Jews at the Defense Department didn’t think of American soldiers as “our boys’] did the dying).”
It strikes me that given that Cole has claimed that high level Jewish U.S. officials are putting Ariel Sharon’s interests over the U.S.’s, that Congressional foreign policy is “virtually captive to the Zionist Lobby,” while praising Raimondo, who thinks Israel was responsible for 9/11, that Ariel Sharon wanted to fight a war against Iraq with “American boys,” that “pro Likud” intellectuals in the Pentagon wanted to use the Pentagon as Israel’s “Gurkha regiment,” etc., one can reasonably surmise that Cole has argued in the past that “Jews,” if not “the Jews” bore a great deal of the blame for the Iraq War. Indeed, Cole’s comments have a lot in common with comments made over the years by Pat Buchanan; the difference is that Cole doesn’t seem to harbor a distaste for Jews, as such [and indeed, is always careful to disclaim anti-Semitic motive and condemn anti-Semitism]. Rather, just like Walt and Mearsheimer, my surmise is that he is so arrogant about the correctness of his own views on the Middle East that he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must be acting out of intellectually impure motives, such as misguided ethnic loyalty [or, in some cases, fundamentalist Christian religious belief], and thus he really dislikes what he thinks of as neoconservative “Likudnik” Jews, not because they are Jews, as such, but because of their misguided views on the Middle East.
Anyway, I’m glad Cole now puts responsibility (or, as he’d put it, blame) for the Iraq War where it belongs, with the president and his inner circle, albeit in a context that gives him the opportunity to reiterate an attack one of his favorite targets, right-wing Christians who support Israel. But if I were going to publish a refutation of Gibson’s thesis, Cole’s past blogging would not exactly be the first place I’d look for footnotes.
By the way, what does it say about Cole’s readers that he feels the need to go into some detail to refute Gibson’s absurd meanderings? I’m glad that Cole, who undoubtedly has a worldwide readership, went to the trouble, but I’m not so glad that the idea that the “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world” is one that he thinks is necessary to refute for the benefit of his readership.
Thanks to Stuart Buck for the pointer.
UPDATE: Here’s something else Cole wrote on the subject at hand, for what it’s worth: “American Jews were less likely to support the Iraq war than the general US population. So no one should blame ‘the Jews’ for the Iraq War. Mainly they should blame Bush and Cheney and Delay and Frist. But the case for an Iraq War was significantly bolstered by American supporters of Ariel Sharon (by no means all of them Jewish) high in the Bush Administration.”
Comments are closed.