Thursday, March 25, 2010
The rumored turn against Israel by General Petraeus that was supposedly one of the factors behind the Obama/Netanyahu fracas has been stomped on by none other than General Petraeus himself. Mark Perry was the huckster behind this supposed scoop, and it has caused quite a stir and controversy. Here are some of the posts here that relate: Ramat Shlomo and the Silence of the Lambs (I called it from the start, thanks.), Mark Perry's Big Scoop: No There There, Max Boot: A Lie: David Petraeus, Anti-Israel, and The Insult, Decoded.
Via Carl, here's video from last night at St. Anselm College where Petraeus is asked about the flap by The American Spectator's Phil Klein (you will have to crank the volume):
Note that Petraeus says that nothing about the original (Mark Perry) blog post was correct, and he says he actually called Gabi Ashkenazi to assure him there was nothing to it and he even sent him Max Boot's Commentary post saying it had the story correct.
Philip Klein writes about it here: Petraeus Sets the Record Straight on Israel
... Petraeus continued, "So we have all the factors in there, but this is just one, and it was pulled out of this 56-page document, which was not what I read to the Senate at all."
In an effort to tamp down the controversy, Petraeus said, he spoke to Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, and reassured him that the reports were inaccurate. He also said he sent Ashkenazi a blog post written by Max Boot of Commentary, which he said "astutely" picked apart the erroneous information that's been floating around.
When asked about the claim that the perception that the U.S. is too reflexively pro-Israel puts American soldiers at risk, Petraeus said, "There is no mention of lives anywhere in there. I actually reread the statement. It doesn't say that at all."...
Max Boot must be pretty pleased with himself: From the Horse's Mouth: Petraeus on Israel
JPost story here, which takes not of the fact that Petraeus referred to Ashkenazi as "Gabi" as a sign that they are still tight: Petraeus apologizes to Ashkenazi [Update: JPost headline changed to a more appropriate, "Petraeus clarifies words to Ashkenazi"]
Update: Ben Cohen notes that there are many more than Mark Perry who have wound up with egg on their faces.
I am very glad of this, however I notice that the spin continues regardless of what General Petraeus actually wrote or said or what he feels.
The Right (Front Page) for example continues to use this as a bludgeon against Obama. The anti-Israel Left is trying to use it to belabor Israel and hard Israel/American relations.
Meanwhile, I think Andrew Sullivan, speaking of spin, has flipped out. He shamefully has referred to Jackson Diehl who wrote the excellent WAPO piece Sol linked, as "AIPAC."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/aipac-responds-ctd.html
The Atlantic should be ashamed of itself for publishing this antisemitic ****.
Note how quickly this bull is 'netted and tweeted around the world.
People are talking about flash mobs today. These started out as harmless fun - people would email each other and conjure up an instant party.
But in some cases, the mobs have turned violent.
Aren't we seeing a virtual mob forming?
Virtual mobbing against Israel's been going on since before 1948. Well, against Jews since the Middle Ages. People who put out these pernicious falsehoods know they will be picked up and spread around the world by the usual suspects.
Speaking of which....seen this?
http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/netanyahu-outdoes-himself
I thought Joyner was a sober-minded person and even a neo-con. Did he have an Andrew-Sullivan style epiphany? I called him on this on twitter and he replied "Petraeus confirmed that particular quote today but put it into some context." Right, context which completely undermines Joyners' use of it.
That article's a nasty piece of work.
Not least, it assumes the position that mainstream, bipartisan AIPAC is "Likudnik", which just isn't true.
Also I think it's all too common and all to easy to slur the Likud, the leader of which (Bibi) has recognized the two-state solution - yet we await recognition of Israel as a Jewish state by the "moderate" PA.
So arrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhh.
Also, talk about how support for Israel is a problem for the US - well, so are many moral positions. Taiwan is a problem with China. Standing up for whales and tuna is a problem with Japan. Maybe we should have just abandoned Europe to the Nazis. After all getting involved in WWII was extremely costly for the US (WWI wasn't free either for that matter.)
We could just bomb the Israelis and instantly become popular with the neonazis and the proPalestinians and Iran and probably a majority of Arabs.
Would this be the right thing to do?
Yehudit, I never heard of that author and haven't kept up with Joyner or Outside the Beltway in years, but it's funny you should mention this. Take a look at the latest National Journal poll: http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/03/bloggers_poll_t.php
Note the only "Right Leaning" blogger who answered (or at least left a comment) for the "Too lenient" choice. It jumped out at me when I saw it this morning.
In short, I don't know what happened, or if it was always thus and I never noticed.