Nothing much surprises me anymore. When Elliott Abrams actually called Chuck Hagel an anti-Semite, I didn't even bat an eye. It has become clear and evident that we now live in a world when the charge of anti-Semitism by a twicely convicted (of illegally withholding information from Congress in the Iran Contra affair) lawyer actually holds weight. I wonder how Israel feels about his role in selling weapons to Iran? Betcha they weren't too thrilled.
I think we knew we were in trouble when George W. appointed Abrams to Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs and promotion to be Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy. How can someone who actually participated in the selling of arms to Iran contrary to US law actually go anywhere but to blogsphere or the internet radio circuit?
The greater discussion though should center on why does this nation require a pro-Israel position in order to secure an appointment? I don't think that Chuck Hagel is overtly biased against Israel. I actually think that Chuck Hagel is probably too pro Israel for my taste. If we look at the reality of the situation, the oppression of a whole population based upon faith and ethnicity, supporting the country that is doing the oppressing hardly deserves military funding, unequivocal support and best friend status.
The dialogue should naturally segue into a discussion of why is absolute, unquestionable support for what many nations consider to qualify as "war crimes" a requirement for an appointment to the position of Defense Secretary. Perhaps a balanced approach wouldn't make the US be the butt of many jokes within the international community as Bibi continues to spit in the face of Israel's greatest benefactor.
Are we so far gone that unless we are congratulating Israel for dropping white phosphorus on a civilian population, we better just keep our mouths shut? I believe the statement "Our relationship with Israel is special and historic" is not one of an anti-Semite. Claiming AIPAC is intimidating is not anti-Semitic, it is the truth and voting against resolutions or legislation that serves nothing and solves nothing is also not anti-Semitic. Allowing and providing support to a nation that specifically discriminates against another population in order to promote land expansionism, is definitely racist.
UPDATE: In a segment of All Things Considered, Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations and Host Melissa Block who challenged Abrams:
Block: You consider him to be an anti-Semite?
Abrams: I think if you look at the statements by Hagel and then you look at the statements by the Nebraksa Jewish community, about his unresponsiveness to them, his dismissal of them, his hostility to them, I don't understand really how you can reach any other conclusion, that he seems to have some kind of problem with Jews.
Abrams offered as evidence of anti-Semitism, Hagel's suggestion that supporters of Israel are not loyal to the United States. Interesting issue. Hagel said to Aaron David Miller:
'I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel."