X

Email Address:

Password:

Forgot password?
OK

Sign In | Home | Customer Service | About Us | Advertise

advanced search
  • Subscribe
  • Give a Gift
  • Renew
  • Register Online
  • Customer Service
  • Back Issues
  • Buy Articles
  • Donate
    1. The Naked Novelist and the Dead Reputation
      Algis Valiunas
      September 2009
    2. Why Are Jews Liberals?—A Symposium
      David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol and Jeff Jacoby
      September 2009
    3. The Art of Obama Worship
      Michael J. Lewis
      September 2009
    4. Clyde and Bonnie Died for Nihilism
      Stephen Hunter
      July/August 2009
    5. The Path to Republican Revival
      Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
      September 2009
  1. Why Are Jews Liberals?—A Symposium
    David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol and Jeff Jacoby
    September 2009
  2. The Naked Novelist and the Dead Reputation
    Algis Valiunas
    September 2009
  3. The Art of Obama Worship
    Michael J. Lewis
    September 2009
  4. The Path to Republican Revival
    Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
    September 2009
  5. The Path to Republican Revival
    Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
    September 2009

Advertisement



contensions.jpg
about us | contact us | archive | contributors | subscribe to commentary | advertise | RSS

A Lie: David Petraeus, Anti-Israel

Max Boot - 03.18.2010 - 3:11 PM

Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” As if to illustrate the point, consider the misleading commentary that continues to emerge, attributing anti-Israeli sentiment to Gen. David Petraeus. I already knocked down one fallacious Web item written by terrorist groupie Mark Perry on Foreign Policy’s web site. The meme has also been refuted by other Foreign Policy contributors.

But Media Matters, the far-Left activist group founded by David Brock, continues to peddle this twaddle. Its website proclaims: “On The Middle East: It’s Palin vs. Petraeus & New Poll.” They quote statements made by Sarah Palin supportive of Israel and critical of the Obama administration’s attempts to pressure Israel on West Bank settlements and then gleefully proclaim: “But that isn’t how Petraeus sees it.” The item goes on:

Speaking about the Israeli-Palestinian issue before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Petraeus said:

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests… Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas….”

Actually, that’s not what Petraeus said. Rather, it’s pulled from the 56-page Central Command “Posture Statement” filed by his staff with the Senate Armed Services Committee. A better indication of what is on the general’s mind is what he actually said. If you check the transcript of the hearing (available on Federal News Service) you will find that he doesn’t mention Israel or its settlements in his opening statement, which provides an overview of the most pressing issues that he sees affecting his Area of Responsibility. He talks about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, information operations, and cyberspace — but not Israel. The only time Israel came up was when Senator McCain asked Petraeus for his views. Here is what Petraeus said, in its entirety:

We keep a very close eye on what goes on there [in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip], 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 — 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 you would term the moderate governments in our area. And that really is about the extent of our involvement in that, Senator.

So there you have it. General Petraeus obviously doesn’t see the Israeli-Arab “peace process” as a top issue for his command, because he didn’t even raise it in his opening statement. When he was pressed on it, he made a fairly anodyne statement about the need to encourage negotiations to help moderate Arab regimes. That’s it. He didn’t say that all settlements had to be stopped or that Israel is to blame for the lack of progress in negotiations. And he definitely didn’t say that the administration should engineer a crisis in Israeli-U.S. relations in order to end the construction of new housing for Jews in East Jerusalem. In fact, his view, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is that settlements are only “one of many issues, among which also is the unwillingness to recognize Israel and the unwillingness to confront the extremists who threaten Israelis.”

I doubt that Sarah Palin would disagree.

»Back to Contentions »Back to Commentary

del.icio.us del.icio.us
Google Google
Facebook Facebook
Email This Post Print This Post Permanent Link To Article


This entry was posted on Thursday, March 18th, 2010 at 3:11 PM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Advertisement

image of latest cover
image of latest cover

FREE SAMPLE ISSUE

  • the complete archive
  • hundreds of authors
  • thousands of articles
  • American history
    since 1945

ENTER THE ARCHIVE

ADVERTISER LINKS

calling card
international phone cards
Engraved Crystal Awards and Plaques
Car Finance

Advertisement

--->

Advertisement

Commentary is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).



Home | Subscribe | About Us | Donate | Advertise | Contact Us | Legal Notices | RSS

Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved