Neocons have an utter disdain for sovereignty of other nations

Using the “anti-Semitic” card to intimidate others

By Bill Ravotti
Monday, March 31, 2003

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg and his neoconservative allies have not been shy about criticizing those on the Left who resort to character assassinations against their opponents in an effort to stifle debate. Yet, it is Goldberg & Co., whining like little schoolgirls, now are using the “anti-Semitic” card in an effort to intimidate those who dare question the influence of Israel on U.S. foreign policy.

Goldberg has targeted four prominent Catholics — Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews, and Rep. James Moran (one can only imagine his private thoughts of the Pope) — who have suggested that one of the reasons the Bush administration has targeted Iraq is for the benefit of Israel’s security interests.

Wherever one stands on this issue, it should at least be open for debate.

While attacking all, Goldberg’s ire is directed most toward Buchanan and his so-called well-established “Jewish problem.” Goldberg charges Buchanan with blaming Jews for the war with Iraq with his attacks on “neoconservatives,” a phrase Goldberg described as a code word for “Jewish conservatives.”

Goldberg is twisting words and facts to fit his own agenda. It is his blame game that is fact-free in an effort to demonize his opponents instead of debating them head on.

To say one attacks neoconservatives because they are Jewish is false, and Goldberg knows this.

Neoconservative is a term that has been used for some time, and it has never been used exclusively for “Jewish conservatives.” The most ardent may be evangelical Christians like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and some are Catholics like William Bennett and Michael Novak — the designated ‘neocon theologian’ when needed to lecture Pope John Paul II on the Catholic definition of a just war.

Newt Gingrich, a non-Jew, was the most visible spokesman before his own self-destruction, and the neocon strategy is often laid out in the pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard, whose columnist include both Jews and non-Jews.

Yes, there are many neoconservative Jews (and non-Jews) inside and outside the Bush administration who, as Buchanan says, “harbor a passionate attachment to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.”

Richard Perle is the most passionate inside the administration and his ties to Israel have been well known for over 20 years.

However, engaging Perle does not equate to blaming all Jews or a hatred of another country; rather, it represents a sincere conviction to the sovereignty of one’s own country, keeping the U.S. out of other peoples conflicts and putting the national interests of America First. What is so un-American about this and will the real "Blame America First" crowd stand up?

It is also well known that Israel’s Ariel Sharon, for a variety of reasons, wanted this war with Iraq and wants the U.S. to disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya next. Fair enough, I don’t blame Sharon for wanting the U.S. to fight a war if he thinks it will benefit Israel.

However, Sharon is not our commander and chief and our leaders should not be using U.S. foreign policy or troops for the national security of a foreign state, especially when it could be detrimental to us in the long run.

Does Buchanan have a “Jewish problem”? Absolutely not. Does he have a “neoconservative problem”? You bet, and so do I.

The neoconservatives are some of the most arrogant and power-hungry people around. Far from believing in liberation, they seek to conquer to rule. Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, seeks an “imperial mission for America, whose purpose would be to oversee the emergence of successor governments in the region" and to “find the stomach to impose a new political culture on the defeated” Islamic world. Is this liberation?

The neoconservatives have an utter disdain for the sovereignty of other nations and believe they have been granted the divine authority to utilize the U.S. military to tear down and recreate the Middle East in their own image, as some sort of utopian ‘yes-man’ democratic colony.

William Bennett, a day after 9/11, wanted to invade Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China.

Goldberg, who never got close to the military himself, thinks this of U.S. foreign policy, “Every 10 years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall just to show we mean business.” Some, including Trib columnist Ralph Reiland, have called for a “War of Civilization” between the Arab world and the U.S. and Israel with “Iraq as the first step.”

Ironically, this is the same War of Civilization that al-Qaida’s bin Laden seeks.

This neoconservative doctrine is an imperialistic recipe designed for disaster, and destined to lead America into the twilight zone of perpetual war for an illusionary peace with a global coalition of ever-expanding enemies.

Bill Ravotti, a financial consultant, is a former Republican candidate for Congress who served as Pennsylvania chairman of Buchanan for President 2000. He lives in Franklin Park.