SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Don't Let Chuck Hagel's Hardline Israel Critics Sink His...

PLANK DECEMBER 18, 2012

Don't Let Chuck Hagel's Hardline Israel Critics Sink His Nomination

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

According to reports, which likely stem from White House leaks, Barack Obama is considering former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. The White House has probably not made up its mind and is using the leaks to gauge the opposition. If that’s the case, then the strategy is working as intended. The stories of Hagel’s looming nomination have aroused intense opposition--but almost exclusively from individuals and organizations that back Israel’s right-wing government and find Hagel’s views on Israel repellent.   

These critics include the Republican Jewish Coalition, which is funded by gambling mogul and greater-Israel proponent Sheldon Adelson; the Zionist Organization of America, which also opposes a two-state solution; and a sundry collection of fellow travellers, including the Weekly Standard, Commentary, and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. "Hagel has made clear he believes in the existence of a nefarious Jewish lobby that secretly controls U.S. foreign policy,” one Republican aide told The Weekly Standard. “This is the worst kind of anti-Semitism there is.”

I know something about Hagel. I spent several months talking to him and to people who know him for a profile I wrote for The New Republic in 2007 when he was considering running for president. I can’t confidently say that he would make a good or great Secretary of Defense, but I can say with confidence that Hagel is a honorable man who served with distinction as a senator and that his foreign policy views, including his positions on Israel and its American lobby, are, if anything, a reason to support rather than oppose his nomination.  

Elected to the Senate from Nebraska in 1996, Hagel styled himself a Reagan conservative. He ran in on a platform of tax cuts, but he was really closer to an “old guard” Midwestern Republican.  He was not knee-jerk anti-government, especially when it came to farm programs. He was anti-abortion because he had to be in order to get elected in Nebraska. His opposition to the Kyoto global warming treaty was also in line with Nebraska’s farm interests who feared it would raise petroleum prices.

On foreign policy, though, Hagel was his own man. He became interested in foreign policy after returning from Vietnam where he had served as an infantryman and had been twice wounded. He returned to finish college, where he read widely on the subject, and harbored doubts about American intervention, that would burst forth later. Once elected to the Senate, Hagel asked for a seat on the Foreign Policy Committee, which was thought to be a backwater under Sen. Jesse Helms.

Unlike some Prairie Republicans, Hagel was a committed internationalist who saw NATO, the United Nations the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund as essential to American foreign policy. He wanted the United States to exert influence internationally, but by working with other countries. And like another Vietnam vet, Colin Powell, he was cautious about sending American troops into war.  Even during his first term, while styling himself a hawk and supporting the Iraq Liberation Act, he cautioned that “the military option alone will not work.”

Hagel first took issue with George W. Bush’s foreign policy after the President used the term “axis of evil” to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union address. Hagel thought the term precluded any attempt at diplomacy. He backed the Congressional resolution in October 2002 authorizing the administration to use force against Iraq, but on the basis of assurances from Powell and Bush that the administration would use the threat to war to buttress diplomatic efforts. His Senate speech in favor of the resolution presciently warned that “we should not be seduced by the expectations of dancing in the streets after Saddam’s regime has fallen.”

As casualties mounted in Iraq, Hagel became an outright opponent of the war. He saw Bush making the same mistakes in Iraq that Lyndon Johnson had made in Vietnam – attempting to achieve a phantom victory by escalation. Always outspoken, Hagel hinted in 2007 that Bush should be impeached. These words spelled the end of Hagel’s presidential aspirations in the Republican party. In June 2007, Hagel announced that he was retiring from the Senate. Out of office, Hagel taught foreign policy at Georgetown, served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, and chaired the Atlantic Council, a headquarters for Washington internationalism.

In Washington today, Hagel’s views are mostly associated with those of Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Hagel calls himself a “principled realist.” He remains skeptical of American attempts to foster democracy through unilateral intervention. He calls for the United States to create a “new world order” by reforming and reshaping international organizations to take account of the rise of countries like China, India, and Brazil. He wants the United States to understand the limits of its power to unilaterally effect events, whether in Syria or Iran. He backed the Obama administration’s decisions to leave Iraq and to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014. He has energetically backed the “peace process” and a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine.

This last position is what is now causing Hagel trouble. He stands accused of recommending that the United States talk to individuals, groups and countries that are seen as enemies of Israel. In 2002, he urged Bush to meet with Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat. “We cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue,” he wrote in the Washington Post. In 2007, Hagel sent a letter to Bush advocating direct talks with Iran to “create a historic new dynamic in U.S.-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranian to react to the possibility of better relations with the West.”

In 2009, Hagel was one of eight notables to sign a report to Obama recommending that the United States shift “its objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior.” The U.S. should “offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement’s views and test its behavior.” Hagel and the other signatories (including Brzezinski, Scowcroft, Lee Hamilton, Carla Hills, and Paul Volcker) also called for the U.S. to encourage rather than block “Palestinian national reconciliation” between Hamas and Fatah as long as Hamas was willing to accept President Mahmoud Abbas’s role as “chief negotiator” with Israel.

There are, of course, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans who would disagree with Hagel’s stands on these issues. But these are not reason to block someone from being Secretary of Defense. For starters, Hagel would not be in charge of America’s diplomacy--that job falls to the Secretary of State. Beyond that, Hagel has the right approach. When America has refused to talk to adversaries, or to adversaries of its allies, it has courted disaster. That was certainly the case with the American decision not to recognize China after the Chinese revolution. If the United States had had relations with China in 1950, the Korean War might not have occurred, or might have been much shorter.    

America had to break relations with Iran after the hostage crisis in 1979, but two decades later, the United States was ignoring overtures from Iran that could have eased tensions. Similarly, if the United States had not appeased Israel in 1975 by refusing to talk to the PLO, the U.S. might have been in a position to bring the PLO into Camp David in 1978 and to cut short the war in Lebanon in 1982. On the other side, the United States’ willingness to maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War may have prevented World War III. Hagel may have been too optimistic about the results of such diplomacy, but he was right about the dangers of avoiding diplomacy altogether.

The rightwing Republican case against Hagel doesn’t stop there.  His opponents have repeatedly cited what Hagel told former peace negotiator Aaron David Miller, which Miller quoted in his 2008 book, The Much Too Promised Land.  Citing AIPAC’s clout,  Hagel told Miller, “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” The Republican Jewish Coalition saw Hagel’s statement as evidence of a “visceral sentiment” against Jews and Israel. Another critic called it an “anti-Semitic meme.” But referring to AIPAC as a Jewish organization is about as scandalous as referring to the NAACP as an African-American organization; and any reporter who has covered foreign policy on Capitol Hill learns very quickly that Senators and House members have taken positions on Middle East issues not out of conviction, but out of fear of retaliation from AIPAC.  

The attempt by the Republican Jewish Coalition and The Weekly Standard, which still holds a special grudge against Hagel for opposing the Iraq war, may not succeed in derailing Hagel’s nomination. AIPAC has been quiet to date on Hagel’s potential nomination, and J Street, its liberal counterpart, has actively backed Hagel, who spoke at its 2009 conference. So has Aaron David Miller. One key indicator of Hagel’s chances at confirmation will be whether John McCain speaks out in his favor. The two men used to be very friendly –Hagel was the co-chair of McCain’s presidential campaign during 2000 – but fell out over the Iraq war. If McCain backs Hagel, then Obama may be willing to risk the controversy that the pro-Netanyahu groups are likely to foment. But if the Republicans coalesce against Hagel, as they did against Susan Rice, Obama may worry that the nomination fight will overshadow his efforts to evade the fiscal cliff.  

Hagel should not get a pass because he is a Republican who backed Obama, or was a wounded Vietnam vet, or has views on foreign policy that are close to Obama’s. There is the overriding question of whether he can run the Defense Department. Former Rep. Les Aspin was second to no one in his grasp of defense budget intricacies, but he failed as Secretary of Defense because he lost control of the bureaucracy and couldn’t deal with the inter-service rivalries. The same could happen to Hagel who would come to the job without the administrative background that Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, or William Perry brought. But it would be a travesty if Hagel were turned down for the job because he had voiced views on Israel and AIPAC that are widely held in Washington, but infrequently expressed. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 73 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

73 comments

Democrats get the Dept of Transportation in Republican administrations and Republicans get the Dept of Defense in Democratic administrations. Doesn't seem like an equal trade unless, of course, you are of the belief that there aren't qualified Democrats to serve as Sec of the Dept of Defense. Obama has appointed two Republicans to his cabinet, Gates at Defense and LaHood at Transportation (he also appointed Gregg at Commerce but Gregg withdrew). Here's a rundown on recent cross-party cabinet members: • George W. Bush: Democrat Norman Mineta, transportation secretary. • Bill Clinton: Republican William Cohen, defense secretary. • George H. W. Bush: none. • Ronald Reagan: William Bennett was a Democrat when appointed as education secretary in 1985, but the following year, he became a Republican and has remained a conservative Republican voice ever since. I don't believe Bennett qualifies as a cross-party cabinet member inasmuch as he believes most Democrats are traitors or worse. • Jimmy Carter: Republican James Schlesinger, who served as defense secretary under Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, was tapped by Carter as America's first energy secretary. • Richard Nixon: Daniel Patrick Moynihan served as ambassador to the United Nations, which at the time was not a Cabinet-level position. This was before Moynihan entered politics. • John F. Kennedy: Republicans C. Douglas Dillon as treasury secretary and Robert McNamara as defense secretary. • Dwight D. Eisenhower: Labor Secretary Martin Patrick Durkin, who was replaced in 1953 by fellow Democrat James P. Mitchell, a so-called "Democrat-for-Eisenhower." • Franklin D. Roosevelt: Republicans Frank Knox as secretary of the Navy and Henry Stimson, secretary of war.

- rayward

December 18, 2012 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess we are going to be stuck with another SecDef who wrongly believes solving the Israel/pal conflict will solve all other problems, and really wonder why anyone listens to Zbigniew Brzezinski, BUT, I have always been a Hagel fan, and he certainly has the backbone to "deal with the inter-service rivalries". I think a former Vietnam grunt facing down all those generals would be inspirational to our military services. However, it is always good to remember that SecDef IS now part of the Executive Branch's foreign policy team, with possibly more influence than SecState. So much of the USA's foreign policy still seems aligned with weapons sales. Also, fwiw, at one point (2008?), Hagel was the only person in DC that Angela Merkel trusted. Ask Steve Coll and Fouad Ajami to give Hagel a crash course in the 2012 reality of Political Islam. I have been following this at Commentary (they are flogging Hagel at every turn), and read Bret Stephens WSJ op-ed earlier today (it's free!). I sensed Stephens is willing to give Hagel a new hearing. Hamas' Meshal's recent rocketpalooza was a serious eye-opener to the intransigence of Hamas.

- K2K

December 18, 2012 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Forget it. "Jewish lobby?" Enough said, appoint a Democrat. Let me be clear: people who argue for a two-state solution and talking to Iran, I agree with on principle. But, "Jewish lobby" is more than a bridge too far. And also I agree with Rayward. Why do Republicans get to control the big bucks and the big power? There is no fatter plum than "defense." Speaking of suckling on the Federal tit, to quote one of our oh-so-erudite Catfood Commisars.

- Sophia

December 18, 2012 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has always been seriously committed to nuclear non-proliferation, which is how he got so close with Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, and Susan Eisenhower.

- K2K

December 18, 2012 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sam Nunn would be a much better choice, IMHO.

- Tristan

December 18, 2012 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Chuck Hagel is an example of "the worst kind of anti-Semitism there is" then I think we can confidently conclude that Jews could not possibly be any safer in this world. The right-wing Israel lobby and the right-wing gun lobby sound just alike. Every piece of legislation that does not further the interests of the NRA is a mortal threat to all our freedoms. Every politician who doesn't want to give Likud governments everything they want is a mortal threat to Jews. Yawn. Get bent. The United States would be a lot safer at home and abroad if we stopped listening to both.

- DC Spence

December 18, 2012 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Appoint Michele Flournoy. She has earned it. Hagel will not gain the administration any bipartisanship points from the Repubs and, unlike Gates, he isn't the most obviously qualified person for the job. If anyone is, its Flournoy.

- MAR1962

December 18, 2012 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is good reporting. But the important point is, did Hagel say anything incorrect on a Sunday talk show occuring in less time after the events at issue than it takes to find out the details about Sandy Hook (which happened on our own soil)?

- Nusholtz

December 18, 2012 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought I posted a comment, but I don't see it here. I think that attributing the number of toxic comments that Hagel has been heard saying to "pro-Netanyahu" and "hardline Israel" is a real smear. See for instance the op-ed by Bret Stephens in the Wall St Journal (Dec 18), and the analysis there.

- yerubal

December 18, 2012 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yerubal: the juxtaposition of "Bret Stephens" and "analysis" made my head spin. Please, if you have anything to say, say it. But don't refer people to the WSJ or, worse, Stephens; it's a waste of retina energy reading the reference. Why not a certain Clinton, H., as Secretary of Defence?

- icarus-r

December 18, 2012 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus-r: Looks like Clinton, H. is done with government service -- at least for a couple of years. Agreed on Bret Stephens. Why not quote Charles Krauthammer or John Bolton?

- DC Spence

December 18, 2012 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ya'll are surprised that BHO probably appoints a Repub at Defense, proposes cuts in SS that Repubs reject and gives them SS cover for other cuts, pre-negotiates away his fiscal cliff advantages??? On what planet have you been for four years?? You're getting the results of what you elected: slow drift to the right in feckless negotiations. Unless the economy subsequently goes south, at which point you get a rapid rightward move that may last for a generation.

- drofnats1

December 18, 2012 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is really funny. All those who voted for a Republican for President like K2K because they are soooo "pro Israel" are now telling us that a Republican is anti Jewish. How could that be, aRepublican anti Israel?

- arnon1

December 18, 2012 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For my part, the only NE Senator I trust is Bob Kerrey the former Senator. Does any one here remember NE Senator Roman Hruska, they guy who said that even us "mediocre people" need representation. He went on to say (and tied is seldom quoted) that we cant all "be Brandeises or Cardosos."

- arnon1

December 18, 2012 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I recommend Bob Kerrey for the defense Department. He is from NE but he is not mediocre. That's more than one can say for Chuck Hagel. John Judis isn't that much better than Stephen as news analyst. And Stephens gives the impression that he knows a lot more about what he is writing about even if you disagree with him.

- arnon1

December 18, 2012 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There may be no reason concerning the holy land not to nominate Hagel, but it also gets you nothing, bipartisanwise--GOPers who care about foreign policy think he's a turncoat--and I see no evidence he'd make a good secretary (in particular that his understanding of the greater [and regular] middle east is up to the job--though I will admit his warning about 'dancing in the streets' is something [it seems pretty minimal, in retrospect]). So why bother? Bob Kerry, sure, I guess. Isn't he, like, maybe a war criminal, though? I know his other, much more positive biographical details--that part still bothers me, even if I never was able to nail down the story to my satisfaction. My apologies to Mr. Kerry if my suggestion is inaccurate.

- Curran1

December 18, 2012 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bob "Kerrey." Sorry.

- Curran1

December 18, 2012 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" In 2002, he urged Bush to meet with Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat. " Clinton played host to Arafat more than 17 times, hugged him and fostered him as a world leader. We saw how well-judged and richly-rewarded that turned out to be. 2002 was the height of the suicide bombing Intifada in Israel. A really good timing for an American president to make nice to the Palestinian leader who had spurned Clinton's peace initiatives and in response launched a bloody onslaught on Israeli buses. Is this an example of the thoughtful and honorable policies of this candidate? And what exactly was the mistake in calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea an axis of evil? Just because W. Bush said it, does it mean it is automatically wrong?

- Noga

December 18, 2012 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Noga regarding Hagel's attitude toward the Palestinians in 2002, though obviously not about the Axis of Evil--there's no sensible geopolitical linkage between those three countries, which were either geographically and strategically separated, or else sworn enemies who'd fought the nastiest war of the second half of the twentieth century against each other. It's also an example of 'out-party homogeneity bias' ('y'all aren't the same as us, and are in the opposition, so as far as we're concerned, you're the same) and crude foreign policy thinking of the type that fucked us in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The statement also unnecessarily made North Korea more paranoid and even more focused on creating their nuclear deterrent, at a time when our attention and resources were focused elsewhere and we couldn't respond militarily--at a critical moment in the process, I'd add. In short, W's statement was pretty much profoundly stupid foreign policy on all possible levels. There, Noga, is that enough?

- Curran1

December 18, 2012 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bob Kerry, sure, I guess. Isn't he, like, maybe a war criminal, though? I know his other, much more positive biographical details--that part still bothers me, even if I never was able to nail down the story to my satisfaction." Bob Kerry's own reaction to the incident (his anguish and disgust with himself) tells me that he was no "war criminal." I think too that he would make a splendid Defense Secretary.

- arnon1

December 18, 2012 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" I'd add. In short, W's statement was pretty much profoundly stupid foreign policy on all possible levels. There, Noga, is that enough?" Not really. Was it wrong, factually or morally, to refer to those three malevolent regimes as evil?? I don't get the explanation about there being "no sensible geopolitical linkage between those three countries". What "sensible geopolitical linkage" was there between Germany, Italy and Japan? Aren't North Koreans involved in Iran's nuclear program? If you take axis to mean only an openly acknowledged alliance among three countries, then perhaps the term was not perfectly accurate, perhaps. "Evil" can be evil, even when the devil is out of the picture, you know. But I appreciate your agreement with my reading of Hagel's attitude toward the Palestinians in 2002. Such thinking with regards to Palestinians from him is much more worrying than a mere disagreement about W's terminology.

- Noga

December 18, 2012 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From a Hagel endorser: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/13/top_five_reasons_obama_should_pick_chuck_hagel_for_secdef "5: He's got the right enemies. Hagel does have one political liability: Unlike almost all of his former colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn't been a complete doormat for the Israel lobby." (Note the choice of language: Hagel's critics are "his enemies". And what's the enemy called? "The Israel lobby.")

- Noga

December 18, 2012 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the danger with Bob Kerrey is that he would get bored with the job after two years and drop it. But otherwise he would be a very interesting nominee.

- ironyroad

December 18, 2012 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hagel would obviously be a signal that Obama is resigned to a nuclear Islamic Iran. As if the US, especially Obama, hasn't been conciliatory enough to Iran over the years. Can we live with the results of that? It is disingenuous of Hagel to recommend that we modify Hamas's behavior. Can we? He really has no intention of confronting Hamas, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood opposed to a 2-state solution to the Israel-Arab conflict. So, John Judis, too, is disingenuous in his professed support for the 2-state solution to Palestine, if he would grant legitimacy to Hamas and Iran. Friends of Israel, other beleaguered Middle Eastern peoples, opponents of Islamism, and true Middle East democrats have good reason for concern about the direction of Obama foreign policy. Although we should be leery of repeating the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, the US still has an important balancing role to play in the region.

- amidut

December 18, 2012 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I appreciate your polite response to my intemperate post. (TR really put it better than I did, about the Axis of Evil. Good foreign policy is often to 'walk softly, and carry a big stick.' W had a lot of swagger, but the our stick turned out not to be so effective. And that was a problem) Beyond that, I will respond, in part, by saying that I don't think the nuclear cooperation between Iran and North Korea is anything like as important as the strategic alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan (two of those major military and industrial powers); Iran wouldn't declare war in solidarity with North Korea. In the World War, by contrast, there was even tactical cooperation between Germany and Japan during the assault on Singapore, if memory serves. I do believe in evil, at least as a practically useful concept, but expressing it is not necessarily helpful, diplomatically--in fact, usually not. It didn't help Chavez when he called Bush II the devil; the neutral diplomats and foreign leaders hated it. Bush's (Frum's) line, and the surrounding speech, played into the snobby European image of our US leader (and, by extension, our policy, as it were) as a cowboy evangelical (they generally don't realize over there that he was a completely fake cowboy, and that his 'ranch' was not a ranch because it had/has no cattle), and also oversimplified important issues American citizens (and, it turns out in retrospect, he, himself) needed to understand about their foreign policy. All that's in addition to the important strategic mistake of putting NK 'on our list' at a time we were making our military resources unable to deal with them (and when they were already close to a bomb--I would have much preferred walking softly, there, and then threatening to carpet bomb Pyong-yang and their nuclear facilities if when time allowed, though I admit that 'plan' has problems of its own). In short, it alienated both friends and allies, and wasn't helpful in the long term to an assessment of the situation. I would describe Salafist Islamism as evil, at least some of the time. It doesn't mean that the political dynamics are such that it's helpful for Americans to call them out that way--we can't just stamp the movement out, the way we helped do with the Nazis. Our cards must be played with care, and with an eye to the real limitations of US power and influence in a world in which Europe and other capitalist governments no longer need us (and don't bother to spend enough on their own militaries to be reliable allies, other than for basing rights, etc), and our own Defense spending is unlikely to exceed 5.5% of GDP.

- Curran1

December 18, 2012 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What "sensible geopolitical linkage" was there between Germany, Italy and Japan?" Noga, The above 3 nations agreed in writing (the Tripartite Pact) that they would work on common goals. Hitler took the Pact so much to heart that he declared war on the U.S. 4 days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I don't think North Korea, Iraq, and Iran have signed such an agreement. Again, G.W. Bush comes off as a supreme ignoramus. Here's the Tripartite Pact, signed in 1940 in Berlin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact

- magboy47.

December 19, 2012 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BUsh's axis of evil was a phrase coined to remind people of the axis powers in WW2. Of course, as Magboy said there were formal treaties between Germany, Japan and Italy just as there were formal treaties between the allies. In the case of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea there was no comparable treaty agreement. Iraq went to war with Iran. Still all three powers were nasty, lawless and tyrannical and in that sense evil, but they weren't allied in any formal sense.

- arnon1

December 19, 2012 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is the story of "The axis of evil": "David Frum The phrase was attributed to former Bush speechwriter David Frum, originally as the axis of hatred and then evil. Frum explained his rationale for creating the phrase axis of evil in his book The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush. Essentially, the story begins in late December 2001 when head speechwriter Michael Gerson gave Frum the assignment of articulating the case for dislodging the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in only a few sentences for the upcoming State of the Union address. Frum says he began by rereading President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "date which will live in infamy" speech given on December 8, 1941, after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. While Americans needed no convincing about going to war with Japan, Roosevelt saw the greater threat to the United States coming from Nazi Germany, and he had to make the case for fighting a two-ocean war. Frum points in his book to a now often-overlooked sentence in Roosevelt's speech which reads in part, "...we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again." Frum interprets Roosevelt's oratory like this: "For FDR, Pearl Harbor was not only an attack—it was a warning of future and worse attacks from another, even more dangerous enemy." Japan, a country with one-tenth of America's industrial capacity, a dependence on imports for its food, and already engaged in a war with China, was extremely reckless to attack the United States, a recklessness "that made the Axis such a menace to world peace", Frum says. Saddam Hussein's two wars, against Iran and Kuwait, were just as reckless, Frum decided, and therefore presented the same threat to world peace. In his book Frum relates that the more he compared the Axis powers of World War II to modern "terror states", the more similarities he saw. "The Axis powers disliked and distrusted one another", Frum writes. "Had the Axis somehow won the war, its members would quickly have turned on one another." Iran, Iraq, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, despite quarreling among themselves, "all resented power of the West and Israel, and they all despised the humane values of democracy." There, Frum saw the connection: "Together, the terror states and the terror organizations formed an axis of hatred against the United States." Frum tells that he then sent off a memo with the above arguments and also cited some of the atrocities perpetrated by the Iraqi government. He expected his words to be chopped apart and altered beyond recognition, as is the fate of much presidential speechwriting, but his words were ultimately read by Bush nearly verbatim, though Bush changed the term axis of hatred to axis of evil. North Korea was added to the list, he says, because it was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, had a history of reckless aggression, and "needed to feel a stronger hand"." Curran and magboy: As I indicated in my previous comment, the term "axis"may have been used inaccurately, if it meant to imply an strong analogy to the historical Axis, which seems to be the case. But, and Frum explains, the earlier Axis was very much on his mind when he wrote the speech.

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 7:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is sharp and to the point: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/hagel-not-an-anti-semite-just-a-slob.html "I reserve the term “anti-Semite,” like the term “anti-Israel,” for those bigots who deserve it. There are too many blatant anti-Semites and anti-Zionists in the world today—and I will not function as their recruitment agent by adding to their ranks. I also refuse to dilute the power of the accusation through inaccurate overuse. Just as calling the nationalist clash between Israelis and Palestinians “racism” and “apartheid” drains those words of their meaning, calling Chuck Hagel anti-Semitic based on two indelicate Jewish-lobby-oriented quotations is rhetorical overkill. Without rehashing the entire debate, as senator, Hagel was more of an Israel skeptic than an enthusiastic Israel friend, no Ted Kennedy, or John McCain, or Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton was he. And for that reason, snarky comments about the “Jewish lobby” and about being a “United States Senator” and “not an Israeli Senator” rankle. Prejudice has a pedigree. Just as we winced when Biden as a candidate called Obama “articulate”—because of the twisted history that had many people questioning black people’s brains and eloquence, respectful American leaders should not stir the hornet’s nest around the Israel lobby question. " Without having anything to say about the matter from any other aspect, my curiosity is rather piqued as to why a Democratic President goes to look for his Defense Secretary among the Republicans. Didn't Clinton do the same when he appointed William Cohen?

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the Hagel nomination doesn't make it, Obama could always try to tap Jimmy Carter or, perhaps, Walt and Mearsheimer for a joint appointment, or Brzezinki or James Baker (if he's still alive). After that, it'll be hard to find people who have a more visceral hostility toward Jews and Israel than this select group. The fact that J-Street supports Hagel speaks for itself. The fact that Israel is coming up against Iran in the next few months and Obama want someone like Hagel in the driver's seat also makes clear how much Obama cares about covering Israel's back. Anybody who still believes in "outreach" to the ayatollahs and Hezbollah is a deluded idiot, not fit to run a candy store, let alone the Dept of Defense. The fact that TNR publishes a hit piece like this accusing the "Jewish Lobby" of smearing Hagel makes me want to puke. I've had it.

- willjames77

December 19, 2012 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The fact that J-Street supports Hagel speaks for itself. " 77: It is indeed a dead giveaway. How they have the gall to define themselves as a pro-Israel organization defies comprehension. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3756.htm "In a recent column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, columnist Dr. As'ad 'Abd Al-Rahman wrote about the Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, arguing that its importance is in that it provides the U.S. administration with "political and media ammunition" against Israel, especially in the absence of an Arab lobby in the U.S." Funny how it emerges that the "pro-Israel, Pro-peace" J-street, de-facto, acts in lieu of an Arab Lobby.

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The fact that J-Street supports Hagel speaks for itself. " 77: It is indeed a dead giveaway. How they have the gall to define themselves as a pro-Israel organization defies comprehension. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3756.htm "In a recent column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, columnist Dr. As'ad 'Abd Al-Rahman wrote about the Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, arguing that its importance is in that it provides the U.S. administration with "political and media ammunition" against Israel, especially in the absence of an Arab lobby in the U.S." Funny how it emerges that the "pro-Israel, Pro-peace" J-street, de-facto, acts in lieu of an Arab Lobby.

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't understand why the double posting. Sorry about that.

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hagel as "anti-Semite" is risible. But he's never run anything remotely like the DOD, and for that matter neither has Kerry. Both are good guys with great grunt cred, but is that really who we want at the top of a critical and gigantic bureaucracy that's facing really tough down-sizing choices and a probable turning point in US foreign policy simultaneously? Flournoy is probably the best choice among the obvious candidates, unless O can pull off a total surprise option. Why not Petraeus? At least he knows the turf.

- Robert Powell

December 19, 2012 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RP: Rumsfeld and Cheney both had "run" big organizations and both proved abysmal at the job. It seems to me what you need in the position is not so much a CEO as a Chairman of the Board; someone with capacity to make deals and to get the squabbling cats to drink from the same saucer. I don't know much about Hagel - other than that he was committed the heresy of opposing Iraq after it became impossible for sane people to continue to support it - but I suspect that Jennifer Rubin's blogs or McCain "scoffing" at Hagel's being a Republican are not going to hurt his chances much. Obama was forced to give up on Rice - assuming he really wanted Rice in the first place - and I suspect he will not have his hands forced this time. More to the point, I think that the strategy might very well be to draw out Republican crazies in the Senate - this is not about the Mooslim Kenyan Anti-colonial communist Democrat, but rather a decorated war veteran and a reliably conservative (he voted to convict Clinton for Heaven's sake) former Republican Senator from Flyover Country. The confirmation hearings alone are likely to depress Republican numbers by half a dozen points among Independents.

- icarus-r

December 19, 2012 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The stories of Hagel’s looming nomination have aroused intense opposition--but almost exclusively from individuals and organizations that back Israel’s right-wing government and find Hagel’s views on Israel repellent. Add to Hagel's opponents the Washington Post editorial board. No mention of Israel in the editorial. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html

- sighthnd

December 19, 2012 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".. he was committed the heresy of opposing Iraq after it became impossible for sane people to continue to support it -" If supporting Iraq war was so popularly insupportable as to be insane, how is it "heresy"to oppose it? Doesn't that rather suggest conformity with a popular position, the very opposite of what "heresy" means? ______________ " Obama was forced to give up on Rice - assuming he really wanted Rice in the first place -" If Obama wasn't sure he wanted Rice in the first place, how could he be "forced" to give her up? Doesn't "forced to give up" mean that one's explicitly acknowledged wishes are deliberately and aggressively thwarted? I saw a pair earrings I liked. They were OK but a little too pricey and I wasn't sure about the quality of the silver. As I stood debating whether I really liked them enough to pay that price, some other woman came in and bought the pair. Do I feel as if I were FORCED to give them up?

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good Noga. I almost bought those earrings myself. icarus--Rumsfeld was a disaster because he was TOO good. He managed a real revolution in DOD in terms of planning and procurement, rearranging the force structure to reflect realistic needs, and more. It ultimately redounds to Dubyah's undying discredit that he allowed Rummy to overrule Powell and State, throw out ten years of CENTCOM planning, appoint and play along with overt incompetents like Gen's Franks and Sanchez, authorize Bremer's rule of error--well, you know the story..... We need an accomplished manager and creative thinker at DOD. They're out there, but probably not amongst the ex-Senators. I still think Petraeus is the best available talent for the job, scarlet letters be damned.

- Robert Powell

December 19, 2012 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The stories of Hagel’s looming nomination have aroused intense opposition--but almost exclusively from individuals and organizations that back Israel’s right-wing government and find Hagel’s views on Israel repellent." To some people Israel is the only issue that matters. These folk are obsessed with the Jewish State.

- arnon1

December 19, 2012 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some people here complain that those who oppose Chuck Hagel have deficient analytic powers. They point to Stephens article as proof even though he wasn't analyzing but documenting Hagel's views on what he calls the "Jewish lobby." Only Jews pace Hagel have no right to lobby their elected officials. Hagel also doesn't differentiate between a "Jewish lobby" and a pro Israel lobby which even Mearsheimer and his ilk took such pains to do. Judis' article btw reads like an endorsement of Hagel for some imaginary higher office: "On foreign policy, though, Hagel was his own man. He became interested in foreign policy after returning from Vietnam where he had served as an infantryman and had been twice wounded. He returned to finish college, where he read widely on the subject, and harbored doubts about American intervention, that would burst forth later. Once elected to the Senate, Hagel asked for a seat on the Foreign Policy Committee, which was thought to be a backwater under Sen. Jesse Helms." Hagel is a Christ like figure being threatened by those "perfidious Jews." This is what Judis article and some comments here that support this view amount to.

- arnon1

December 19, 2012 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps some people are not really aware of the difference between analysing and documenting. As some people do not seem to be able to make the difference between a heresy and a truth universally acknowledged ...

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I still think the 'axis of evil' term was a little misleading in the sense that two of the three powers in the original axis (Axis 1.0, so to speak) were significant industrially and technically advanced societies and the third was politically weak but historically it held some of the origins of European civilization. Leaving aside the question of express political alignments vs. informal liaison, no member of the Axis 2.0 had/has anything remotely like the scientific, military, and educational capabilities that Nazi Germany could draw on -- because it was Germany, essentially.

- ironyroad

December 19, 2012 at 7:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It appears that if a state, though declaratively and effectively devoted to wiping out another state, and financing terrorism and aggression, if it does not meet the standards of modernity and industrialization of Nazi Germany, cannot and is not to be described as evil.

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 8:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And, speaking of evil: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bad-egg-article-1.1157764

- Noga

December 19, 2012 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Chuck Hagel Out of Consideration for Secretary of Defense Nomination?" http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/19/chuck-hagel-out-of-consideration-for-sec Ed Krayewski|Dec. 19, 2012 5:12 pm "Former Republican Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel may no longer be President Obama’s favored pick to run the Defense Department, sources told theFree Beacon. Hagel immediately drew a frosty reception from observers who criticized him for advocating in favor of direct unconditional talks with Iran and for backing sizable cuts to the defense budget. Those who have worked with Hagel and have an intimate knowledge of his managerial style also expressed concerns about his possible appointment. The Free Beacon uses multiple unnamed Washington sources to “corroborate” the view that Chuck Hagel is a poor manager and a foreign policy lightweight. There are also accusations that Hagel is an anti-Semite being floated in the media, no doubt helped by an “endorsement” from Iran. Last week I explained a few positive points about a potential Defense Secretary Hagel; he opposed the war in Iraq, and has said as recently as last year that it was time for America to “start heading toward the exits”. Nevertheless I recommended cautious pessimism. Meanwhile, CATO’s Christopher Preble explained last week why a potential Hagel nomination ought to be welcome news to anyone tired of decades of U.S. foreign interventionism. Preble also said he didn’t “put much stock in the neoconservative echo chamber’s claim that Hagel will have a tough time being confirmed,” so maybe there’s hope to be held out after all. Ed Krayewski is an associate editor at Reason 24/7."

- arnon1

December 19, 2012 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't say it was entirely wrong, but I wasn't thinking of the nature of evil so much as the way in which the term 'Axis' obscures -- whether by ignorance or design -- the hostility between Iraq and Iran left over from a brutal war 15 years earlier in which Iraqi missiles had rained down on Teheran. This fact had in turn something quite important to do with the later rush to war in 2002/3 and its consequences: the Iranian regime's ambivalence about our invasion (they liked the idea of Saddam being taken out, but . . . ); the way Teheran used Curveball, pushed by Chalabi and the Iraqi National Council, to help tart up the shaky intelligence on WMD; how the current Shi'a dominated Iraqi government will do nothing to prevent Iranian assistance flowing to Syria. I think that if anyone had said back in 2003 that our problem would be in ten years that the Iraqi state that we helped bring into being is now a major stumbling block in some critical foreign policy issues, would have stared at as if they were mad.

- ironyroad

December 20, 2012 at 2:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"they would have been stared at as if . . . "

- ironyroad

December 20, 2012 at 2:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe the Israelis, behind the scenes, warned of such a possibility.

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 6:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only place where Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is a frequent guest is on MSNBC's Morning Joe, where his daughter, Mika, serves as a co-anchor of sorts. Today he was there again, calling the criticism on Hagel "vicious" several times, and bristling rather visibly when Bob Woodward challenged him, with the utmost respect, on his attempt to suggest that Hilary Clinton is not to be blamed for the failure of security at Benghazi. At the same time he was saying that Clinton was not really doing a good job as SoS because she had an agenda (human rights, gender equality, etc). He is all for a macho duo like John Kerry and Hagel, taking on the world and resisting that vicious pressure to push America into war with Iran. Let the men do what men do, is the ultimate message. What do women know about resisting the Israel Lobby and preventing war between China and Japan??!! You know that a person has reached a level of stunted thinking and personal bitterness (he owes his failure as a political bigwig to the Jews, you know) when he can only express himself repeating tired cliches, over and over again. I sometimes wonder if he is homesick for the old Poland, where the Jews knew their place and would never attempt to confront and sideline the poritz.

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 8:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2012/12/19/knowing-chuck-hagel-from-his-supporters-and-his-opponents/ "Knowing Chuck Hagel from his Supporters and his opponents" is a summary by Radosh that, for whatever reason, zeroes in on this post by John Judis. Well then. Perhaps Hagel is the trial balloon that will lead to Michele Flournoy's nomination. She IS highly qualified, (and her husband is also highly qualified). But, one never knows. If not SecDef, then why not Hagel as NSA, the post that Zbig once held. I just want Sheila Bair as SecTreas.

- K2K

December 20, 2012 at 8:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fwiw, seems the USA is selling bunker buster bombs to the UAE. What I see is Obama aligning with the Sunni monarchies to break Iran's Shi'a arc, even though that means also aligning with MB in Egypt because that is what the monarchies want. But the USA weapons sales to those monarchies is also a sign that the USA wants them to play a critical role in any Iran action. As to the blowback from Sunni Islamism? see Afghanistan 1979-2012.

- K2K

December 20, 2012 at 8:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let Hagel be nominated and appointed. I'm thinking, perhaps all that formal and explicit anti-Israel animus might work out in favor of Israel. It will take out the guessing out of game and Israelis may benefit from knowing for sure what and who they have to deal will. It may excite some new thinking on their part. And completely unrelated: As I was watching the news last night with my daughter (13 years old), we saw Obama speak about Republican intransigence regarding the fiscal crisis. She said: He looks so exhausted and almost old. So different from when started as president, when he was so full of energy and hope. The same thought occurred to me, that he looked kind of defeated. But then, after Newtown, who isn't?

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga is arguing like a Likudnik: "The worse the better." All ideologues from Marx and Lenin to Castro and Akhmadinejad. Often though the worst isnevervthecworst and merely hides more of the worst.

- arnon1

December 20, 2012 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm wondering whether boredom is the mother of stupidity.

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If supporting Iraq war was so popularly insupportable as to be insane, how is it "heresy"to oppose it? Doesn't that rather suggest conformity with a popular position, the very opposite of what "heresy" means?" I'm assuming Noga was bored when she wrote this. I was not aware that "heresy" referred exclusively to opposing "a popular position"; I always thought that it referred, or at least ALSO referred, to dissent from dogma. I don't think, for example, that the Inquisition much cared for "the popular position" in dealing with heresy and heretics; Mary Tudor certainly did not. I guess there is always room to learn something new. In any event, the reason Chuck Hagel is being attacked by Republicans is that the position he adoted in opposing the Iraq war, and the position he has adopted in respect of Iran, while popular, goes against the orthodoxy of the Republican Party. In the same vein that a Republican politician that comes out in favour of tax increases against the rich - a popular position - might well be viewed by elements in his or her party as heretical, for opposing dogma. Until, of course, the high priest changes the dogma. "If Obama wasn't sure he wanted Rice in the first place, how could he be "forced" to give her up? Doesn't "forced to give up" mean that one's explicitly acknowledged wishes are deliberately and aggressively thwarted?" I have no idea where you are going with this, other than thinking yourself clever for having found some sort of an inconsistently. As I noted, "assuming" that Obama really wanted Rice - it is an assumption, not a fact, because I am not in his head - the way Rice was dropped suggests that he was forced to drop her. At least that is what some staffers have suggested. You were clearly bored making these two comments; whether that explains the rest of your oeuvre, who knows.

- icarus-r

December 20, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My point, icarus, was intended to show your grandiloquence for what it is -- empty rhetorical flourishes, which may sound clever to you, but are in fact so full of inconsistencies and inner contradictions that they are quite meaningless. I knew of course that you would do a lot of heavy lifting, attempting to prove that you were really so much above our mediocre capacity to comprehend your superior savoir-faire. I look forward to having plenty more encounters with your inebriated verbosity, and pointing out these little exercises in blah-blahing. However, I have to admit I am impressed at how familiar you are with the ways of the Inquisition and how clever of you to manage to insert Mary Tutor into the mix. A man for all seasons, clearly.

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"your grandiloquence" blah blah - stopped reading after this. You really are bored.

- icarus-r

December 20, 2012 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oy. You really know how to hurt my feelings, icarus.

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Radosh comments on what you can tell about Hagel from his supporters and opponents, and he includes paragraphs about this piece by Judis. See http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2012/12/19/knowing-chuck-hagel-from-his-supporters-and-his-opponents/

- yerubal

December 20, 2012 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm wondering whether boredom is the mother of stupidity." Stupidity is the mother of stupidity; boredom is the stepmother of boredom. It is too lazy to give birth to children of her own.

- arnon1

December 20, 2012 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...the Jewish lobby,” which he went on to say “intimidates a lot of people up here.” What do they mean when they accuse "The Lobby"of "ïntimidating"? In what way is this intimidation carried on? Does the Lobby threaten to slander them? Does the Lobby threaten to publicize certain secret information about them that will destroy their reputation? Does the Lobby threaten some physical punishment? If Hagel as a public persona, over decades of serving his country faithfully and bravely, has been espousing, openly and proudly, certain positions that are hostile to the Lobby's priorities, in what way is it "vicious"" or "intimidating" for journalists and other media and public personalities who are sympathetic to the Lobby, to talk about it just as openly and proudly? Is there one law for Hagel (and his current admirer Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski) who can make their opinions known and pursue their influence where they can to act on them, and another law for Hagel's critics to make THEIR opinions known and pursue their influence? Who are these fabled Lobby, anyway?

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 7:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is ironic. http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-is-the-guy-chuck-hagel-didnt-want-to-be-an-ambassador-because-he-was-aggressively-gay/ "Ambassadorial posts are sensitive,” Hagel said. “They are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay, like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job.” It appears Hagel was being vicious against a nominee for a political position on account of his ... lifestyle. Not political views. Not integrity. Not competence. But ... just because he was gay. But that was 15 years ago. Perhaps he has learned to moderate his distaste for those who are different from him since.

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-chuck-hagel-controversy/266503/ Jeffrey Goldberg weighs in. Good comment thread.

- K2K

December 20, 2012 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How does this relate to Hagel? This is how: Maybe, at this point, what we need are American officials who will speak with disconcerting bluntness to Israel about the choices it is making. If the Jewish Home party becomes a key part of Netanyahu's right-wing ruling coalition, you can be assured that there will not compromise coming in the forseeable future (it's almost impossible to forsee compromise now.) Maybe the time has come to redefine the term "pro-Israel" to include, in addition to providing support against Iran (a noble cause); help with the Iron Dome system (also a noble cause); and support to maintain Israel's qualitiative military edge (ditto), the straightest of straight talk about Israel's self-destructive policies on the West Bank. Maybe Hagel, who is not bound to old models, could be useful in this regard." This is what I meant when I wrote earlier that "Let Hagel be nominated and appointed. I'm thinking, perhaps all that formal and explicit anti-Israel animus might work out in favor of Israel. It will take out the guessing out of game and Israelis may benefit from knowing for sure what and who they have to deal will. It may excite some new thinking on their part." Maybe Jeffrey Goldberg, too, is "arguing like a Likudnik: "The worse the better." :)

- Noga

December 20, 2012 at 10:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I seriously doubt that Goldberg, who is being a little unrealistic here, has the same premises in mind you do.

- arnon1

December 20, 2012 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-former-officials-including-ambassadors-to-israel-support-hagel/ "Senior former officials — including ambassadors to Israel — support Hagel appointment" "A group of former top-ranking US diplomats insists few are ‘more qualified, more non-partisan, more courageous or better equipped to head the Department of Defense’" By Haviv Rettig Gur December 21, 2012, 1:52 am add Cuba, Iraq War 2, and women's pressure to have a woman in one of the top 4 cabinet posts to the Hagel-o-phobia, for want of a better word., (WSJ op-ed was the Iraq2 equivalent of Swiftboating.) Was waiting to see if Mayan Prophecy was going to be noticeable, and was catching up on Times of Israel: good news. Ayalon is staying on despite Liberman's departure. Maybe someone finally realized Ayalon's work on the Jewish refugees from muslim countries is really important. and that appeasing Turkey is not. btw, the USN flotilla that had been off Syria is now approaching homeport in Virginia. Guess someone else drew the short straw on Syria's chemical weapons.

- K2K

December 21, 2012 at 3:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, I seriously doubt your capacity to think and speculate with any level of reliability or pretension to thoughtfulness, after the way you exhibit yourself on these pages. In simpler words, who cares what you doubt or what your premises are.

- Noga

December 21, 2012 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"......who cares what you doubt or what your premises are." It's your premises that are the issue, and you are the one who cares. Why else reply to me.

- arnon1

December 21, 2012 at 7:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps because you excel at baiting?

- Noga

December 21, 2012 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You excel at nothing.

- arnon1

December 21, 2012 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like I said, baiting. What an idiot.

- Noga

December 21, 2012 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not that it matters that much anymore, apparently, but here are reports from his constituents, as reported from the rather left wing Jewish Algemeiner: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/21/nebraska-jews-recall-senator-chuck-hagel-as-unfriendly-and-unmovable-on-israel-didnt-give-a-damn-about-the-jewish-community/

- yerubal

December 22, 2012 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/12/martin-peretz---an-appreciatio.php "...The fact is, he [Peretz] has been fighting this fight for nearly fifty years. As a man of the Left, he has fought the fight for Israel and Jewish rights, increasingly alone for nearly fifty years, and has done so despite what must have been enormous personal costs as his comrades all jumped ship, and in many cases, joined the cause of Israel's enemies. ..." Glick's post is a fine summary of how America's left went over the palestinian cliff. Fitting to post it at the magazine Martin Peretz kept going all these years, just when tnr is no longer about anything serious.

- K2K

December 28, 2012 at 6:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close