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 More on General Petraeus: An Honest Man Comes to his Own...

THE SPINE MARCH 26, 2010

More on General Petraeus: An Honest Man Comes to his Own Defense

BY MARTIN PERETZ

From the Horse’s Mouth: Petraeus on Israel
Posted by Max Boot on March 25, 2010

Back on March 13, terrorist groupie Mark Perry—a former Arafat aide who now pals around with Hamas and Hezbollah—posted an article on Foreign Policy’s website, claiming that General David Petraeus was behind the administration’s policy of getting tough with Israel. He attributed to Petraeus the view that “Israel’s intransigence”—meaning its unwillingness to give up every inch of the West Bank and East Jerusalem tomorrow — “could cost American lives.” His item received wide circulation though it may be doubted whether, as he now says, “It changed the way people think about the conflict.”

I tried to set the record straight with two Commentary items (see here and here) in which I suggested, based on talking to an officer familiar with Petraeus’s thinking, that Perry’s item was a gross distortion—in fact a fraud. I noted that in Petraeus’s view, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was only one factor among many affecting U.S. interests in the region and that Israeli settlements were far from the only, or even the main, obstacle to peace. I even suggested—again, based on inside information—that the 56-page posture statement that Central Command had submitted to Congress, which stated that the Arab-Israeli conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” was not the best indicator of his thinking. Better to look at what he actually told Congress—in a hearing he barely mentioned Israel (until prompted to do so) and never talked about settlements at all.

This brought hoots of derision from commentators on both the Left and the Right, who claimed that I was putting words into Petraeus’s mouth—that I was, in Joe Klein’s phrase, taking a “flying leap.” Predictably piling on were Andrew Sullivan, who said I was “glossing over” what Petraeus said, and Robert Wright, who claimed [6] that, “by Boot’s lights, Petraeus is anti-Israel.” Diana West added a truly inventive spin, by suggesting that Petraeus was a protégé of Stephen Walt, who was his faculty adviser many years ago at Princeton before the good professor won renown as a leading basher of the “Israel Lobby” and the state of Israel itself. It was from Walt, Ms. West claims, that Petraeus imbibed his “Arabist, anti-Israel attitudes.”

So who was off-base here: those of us who tried to explain the nuances of General Petraeus’s thinking or those bloggers and commentators who tried to suggest that he is a strident critic of Israel?

The answer has now been publicly provided by Petraeus himself in a speech in New Hampshire. Watch it for yourself. A good summary is provided by the American Spectator’s Philip Klein, who was present at the event and asked Petraeus to clarify his thinking.

The general said that it was “unhelpful” that “bloggers” had “picked … up” what he had said and “spun it.” He noted that, aside from Israel’s actions, there are many other important factors standing in the way of peace, including “a whole bunch of extremist organizations, some of which by the way deny Israel’s right to exist. There’s a country that has a nuclear program who denies that the Holocaust took place. So again we have all these factors in there. This [Israel] is just one.”

What about Perry’s claim that American support for Israel puts our 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.”

He concluded by noting that he had sent to General Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, the “blog by Max Boot” which, he said, had “picked apart this whole thing, as he typically does, pretty astutely.” I hope Petraeus’s comments will put an end to this whole weird episode. Those who are either happy or unhappy about the administration’s approach to Israel should lodge their compliments or complaints where they belong—at the White House, not at Central Command.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 9 comments

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

9 comments

I hadn't realized Perry was an Arafat aide. Well that's interesting. Anyway I am grateful for these statements and articles setting the record straight. Trouble is, once this stuff gets out there it's very hard to beat it back down. It's the same thing with the switcheroo on East Jerusalem and the "settlements". Hubby talked with a client from the South Side today, who says, "How about that Netanyahu," as in "How dare those Israelis flip us the bird and build new settlements in East Jerusalem." Well as we know the apartments in question hardly constitute "new settlements" and building in Jerusalem hadn't been on the table in the first place, yet the opportunity to ratchet up the "debate" has had some really serious results not least of which is a spate of anti-Israel articles and propaganda that in some cases cross the line into outright antisemitism. In certain communities this is reinforcing pre-existing bias. That has consequences here but also the hardline position is reverberating in the Middle East. There has has been fresh violence in Gaza and Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank and the Palestinians won't even come to the proximity talks let alone resume face to face negotiations. The Israelis have been presented with a set of demands; does one see corresponding "requests" of the Arabs? For example what about the illegal blockade of Israel that has been in place for decades and which has secondary and tertiary conditions with broad-ranging consequences? Unless people are really knowledgeable about the Arab/Israeli conflict - which most are not - they will assume the truthiness of even the most egregious spin and agitprop especially if it appears in apparently respectable MSM articles and blogs. Beyond that the fact that a US President who is beloved and admired by many would appear to endorse a position that hadn't been agreed to in the first place is reinforcing some dangerous misconceptions and it's upping the ante for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. I think this also has the potential to increase stress between Americans as well as further confuse an already tense domestic political situation. Re Petraeus, I had feared, since the Perry piece in particular appeared and then was repeated and spun in many other articles, that this would be seized upon as an excuse to bash Israel and American supporters of Israel and sure enough it's been widely used to accuse Americans as well as Israel itself of being a threat to the US and our soldiers, of being disloyal or even traitors. A respected Washington Post editor has been accused of being "AIPAC" by a person to whom I don't wish to give further publicity but who should be ashamed of himself. So I'm grateful for the clarification and feel the propaganda mongers owe their fellow American citizens in particular an apology. In fact I would hope that on a broad variety of topics including health care our pundits would grow a conscience and ask themselves to what degree they're fueling a poisonous political environment. Is it worth it for PR or page views? Serious publications need to have stricter standards also, not on political positions but on basic fact-checking. Publishing outright lies isn't edginess, it isn't debate - it's just lying. So one has to ask - is it worth it to appeal to the worst instincts, to mob instincts and to people who are quite probably ignorant of history and reality-based truthiness, and who lack the time probably or the inclination to study and challenge what they're served up as "fact?"

- Sophia

March 26, 2010 at 3:49pm

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

The following is from the testimony by General Petreaus to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Senator MCCAIN. Now, the present issue is over some increased construction of settlements in Jerusalem, which Israelis view within the State of Israel when the peace process is concluded; Palestinians view it as part of a new Palestinian state. Isn't the issue not the issue of settlements as much as it is the existence of the State of Israel? Its neighbors, with the exceptions - with exceptions, have dedicated themselves to the extermination of the State of Israel. Ahmadinejad has said, time after time, they want to wipe Israel off the map. Isn't it true that we - the Israelis left Gaza, on the presumption that then there would be progress, and instead they got rocket attacks? And so, maybe you could put this in a larger context for us of what needs to be done to reduce the tensions between the United States and Israel, our closest ally and friend, in many respects. So, we'd like to hear a little bit about your views on that situation and what needs to be done to defuse it. General PETRAEUS. Well, thanks, Senator. First of all, again, just a reminder for all, as you know, neither Israel nor the Palestinian Territories are in the Central Command area of responsibility. Senator MCCAIN. But, yours is all of - General PETRAEUS. Having said that, we keep a very close eye on what goes on there, because of the impact that it has, obviously, on that part of CENTCOM that is the Arab world, if you will. And, in fact, we've urged, at various times, that this is a critical component. It's one reason, again, we invite Senator Mitchell to brief all of the different conferences that we host, and seek to support him in any way that we can when he's in the Central Command part of the region, just as we support Lieutenant General Dayton, who is supporting the training of the Palestinian Security Forces from a location that is in the CENTCOM AOR, as well. And, in fact, although some staff members have, various times - and I have discussed and - you know, asking for the Palestinian territories or something like that to be added to it - we have never - I have never made that a formal recommendation for the Unified Command Plan, and that was not in what I submitted this year, nor have I sent a memo to the White House on any of this, which, some of this was in the press, so I welcome the opportunity to point that out. Again, clearly the tensions, the issues, and so forth, have an enormous effect, they set the strategic context within which we operate in the Central Command area of responsibility. My thrust has generally been, literally, just to say - to encourage that process that can indeed get that recognition that you talked about, and indeed get a sense of progress, moving forward, in the overall peace process because of the effect that it has on, particularly, what I think we would term the "moderate" governments in our area. And that really is about the extent of our involvement in that, Senator.
http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2010/03%20March/10-20%20-%203-16-10.pdf

- ndmackenzie

March 26, 2010 at 5:40pm

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

Nazi mackenzie has decided that he knows better what the General meant. In the long exchange with McCain in the Senate Report this is the only time that Israel was mentioned. Clearly if the General had believed that Israel was such a threat he would have brought it up again and again. To antisemites like mackenzie, though, this is too good a propaganda point to pass up.

- jdyer

March 26, 2010 at 6:30pm

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

All mackenzie did was provide a quote from Petraeus indicating that the Israeli-"Palestinian" problem is a matter of concern (what a surprise!), and a link for the context. What's wrong with that?

- Robert Powell

March 27, 2010 at 3:53am

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

Robert Powell "All mackenzie did was provide a quote from Petraeus indicating that the Israeli-"Palestinian" problem is a matter of concern (what a surprise!), and a link for the context. What's wrong with that?" You are right that that is all the general did, however, that is not all mackenzie did. To this antisemitic poster Petraeus' comments was meant to show Israel was "the problem" for the US. mackenzie often takes quotes out of context to make an antisemitic point.

- jdyer

March 27, 2010 at 10:12am

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

"Are the facts of the matter inconvenient to their "truth" of the matter? Journalistic ethics, anyone?" - malahat Couldn't agree more. This could, also, be easily directed at Marty. Just read any of his blog posts about the current White House since the Cairo speech, or those don't count in your book, eh? Double standard, perhaps?

- scrubby

March 28, 2010 at 8:02am

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

scrubby ""Are the facts of the matter inconvenient to their "truth" of the matter? Journalistic ethics, anyone?" - malahat Couldn't agree more. This could, also, be easily directed at Marty." Except that Marty is not writing as a journalist, here. He is a blogger with all that that implies. Sometime his posts are interesting sometimes they are not. Sometimes he is over the top, sometimes he gets it just right (when I agree with him, obviously.) This is the way of the blog. No one should take blogging as being the equivalent to acts of journalism.

- jdyer

March 28, 2010 at 11:52am

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

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking, jackson. The Spine is littered with posts of you and Marty taking other bloggers to task for doing exactly what malahat, aka b146, rightly complains about - un-journalistic ethics. Of course, it doesn't count when your narrative is being spun, or when your guy is doing the narrating.

- scrubby

March 28, 2010 at 2:27pm

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

scrubby "Your hypocrisy is breathtaking, jackson. The Spine is littered with posts of you and Marty taking other bloggers to task for doing exactly what malahat, aka b146, rightly complains about - un-journalistic ethics." Your idocy is breathtaking, scrubby. I take people to task for obsessevely attacking Marty not because of any "ethical" lapses journalistic or otherwise. And you don't seem to have noticed that the last hald dozen or so posts by Marty which were repetitive and self indulging were ignored by me and I criticized him on a couple of occasions for posting self evident comments. Whatever my view of bloggers, I have never attacked anyone for being un-journalistic. Blogging and journalism are different forms of writing; they are as different as memoirs and fiction.

- jdyer

March 28, 2010 at 3:38pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close