Are we sure Colin Powell was on “Meet the Press” yesterday to help Chuck Hagel? Because he could have done a much better job by just staying home:
David Gregory: He referred to a “Jewish lobby,” saying it intimidates a lot of people on Capitol Hill. What kind of thinking does that reflect? Can you understand pro-Israel Senators being concerned by that comment?
Colin Powell: They shouldn’t be that concerned. That term slips out from time to time. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has occasionally used the same thing. And so, Chuck should have said “Israeli lobby” and not “Jewish lobby,” and perhaps he needs to write on a blackboard a hundred times “It is the Israeli lobby.” But there is an Israeli lobby. There are people who are very supportive of the state of Israel. I’m very supportive of the state of Israel. So is Senator Hagel, and you’ll see that in the confirmation hearings. But it doesn’t mean you have to agree with every single position that the Israeli government takes.
Powell’s oddly dismissive attitude aside, the fact that Hagel uttered the words “Jewish lobby” is not the only problem here. It’s the context that matters–the idea that, as Hagel suggested, there is a cabal of influential Jews who “intimidate” Washington politicians into taking pro-Israel positions. Hagel could have substituted the term “Jewish lobby” with “Israel lobby” (or “Israeli lobby,” as Powell bizarrely dubs it) and it wouldn’t make his message any less Walt-and-Mearsheimer-esque.
At NRO, Eliana Johnson calls Powell out on another glaring contradiction:
Powell’s bizarre defense of Hagel took an even more troubling turn as he decried the “dark vein of intolerance” in some parts of the Republican Party. In particular, he singled out former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former New Hampshire governor John Sununu for their racial insensitivity, charging that they “look down on minorities.” Palin attacked the Obama administration for withholding information on the Benghazi scandal, accusing the president of doing a “shuck and jive”; “That’s a racial-era, slave term,” Powell said. Sununu slammed the president’s first debate performance against Mitt Romney, calling Obama “lazy and detached”; “Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans, but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is ‘shiftless’ and then there’s another word that goes along with it.”
One might think that a modicum of self-awareness would prevent Powell from making such charges after flippantly dismissing the concerns raised by many in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities. Don’t such remarks just — woopsy daisy! — “slip out from time to time”? And if Powell finds the use of slave-era terminology offensive, one wonders why he has difficulty understanding that, among Jews, the imputation of dual loyalties rankles, even if “it many not mean anything to most Americans.”
So by Powell’s logic, calling President Obama “lazy and detached” is a symptom of the GOP’s “dark vein of intolerance”–but espousing dual-loyalty myths about the so-called “Jewish lobby” is an understandable slip-of-the-tongue that could happen to anyone. I can’t tell if the “common slip-up” argument is just Powell freelancing or if this is actually going to be Hagel’s defense during the confirmation hearings. But if it’s the latter, we’re in for an interesting show.
It was a Freudian slip not a mere mistake.
Kudos to Eliana Johnson (daughter of Scott Johnson of powerline.com) and NRO. It is darkly ironic that Catholic Conservative WIlliam F. Buckley's National Review is more philo-Semitic and pro-Israel than virtually all popular Jewish dominated print and electronic media. Jewish liberals are a curse on Israel and a curse on America.
I'm also sad to say that I would look first to Evangelical Christian organizations to standing up for Israel, not to the mainstream organizations such as ADL, AJC and the Jewish Federations, none of which does much of a job representing even purely domestic Jewish issues. Not even the supposedly "fearsome" AIPAC has chosen to do battle over this matter. And of course it is best not to mention the many shameful Jewish organizations standing proud with the Arab terrorists such as J Street and Rabbis for Human Rights. Maybe Commentary should start focusing some light on the abject failure of American mainstream Jewish organizations to both defend Israel and to preserve Judaism in this country.
Powell is now on board with the race card. What exactly about the Hagel nomination has anything to do with Obama's race? It is clear that Powell is no longer a Republican. Perhaps that is payback for how he was ignominiously dismissed from the Bush administration. Come to think of it, Powell was the most vociferously anti-Israel member of Bush's cabinet. Condi Rice came in a close second. What is that with black leaders? Could it be that they are as insensitive to their own prejudices as they accuse conservative Republicans, not only white ones but black ones as well?
The simple fact is that if the critics of the Boy President were racist, if the TEA Party was comprised of racists, then someone like Allen West would not be so highly regarded by us. n nFor that matter, if the increasing number of Black ministers who are upset with Mr. Obama were racists, well umm, logic doesn't need to apply to The Gilded One, I guess…
wait for the Connecticut Lobby: Pratt & Whitney and Electric Boat Senator Blumenthal (I thought he was very smart to say he will focus on defense spending issues, on Fox News Sunday)
[["or 'Israeli lobby,' as Powell bizarrely dubs it"]] — good catch Alana, but I don't think this is bizarre at all, I think it is quite deliberate. Dispassionately take this apart grammatically and you will see exactly what Powell is doing here: n nIsrael is the nation-state, and one who is a member of the "Israel Lobby" is an American who is supportive of said foreign country called "Israel." "Israeli" is an adjective which refers to things which belong to said foreign country called "Israel", including its citizens — i.e. "an Israeli", "an American." n nThe difference between being a member of the "Israel Lobby" and the "Israeli Lobby" is which country one is loyal to, with the latter indicating a primary loyalty to Israel, not America. This is the so-called "Israel First" argument, and Powell is too bright not to know that. Particularly when he had to deal with issues of Black Nationalism in the racial quagmire that was the US Army of the mid-70s. n nNote the distinction Powell makes between "Israel" and "Israeli" here: n[["But there is an Israeli lobby. There are people who are very supportive of the state of Israel."]] n nPowell is essentially saying that there are two groups — there is a group of Israeli citizens advocating for their country and then there is a *second group* of people, including Powell & Hagel, who "are very supportive of the state of Israel." n nThere are all kinds of logical fallacies here, but what he is essentially saying is that a loyal American who supports Israel has to support Hagel and Obama because the true loyalties of anyone who doesn't truly lie with Israel and not America.
exactly n nor that the "black lobby" always cries racism when entitlements, welfare and food stamps are discussed. n nfeh
Powell is and always has been a political opportunist big time. He stands for nothing and has nothing of note to say. Sadly, seems like even our military establishment produces PC fools, of which Powell is a prime example.
Could Powell be positioning himself for the SecDef nomination? If Hagel can't get it, well Powel is a 4 star General….
Powell is and always has been nothing but a political opportunist trading on the race card. He is to be ignored by the wise.
Typical Powell.