By Bret Stephens - WSJ
The former secretary of state offers a dubious defense of Chuck Hagel and his comments about the Jewish lobby.
Colin Powell thinks Chuck Hagels use of the term Jewish lobby was an innocent mistake for which he should atone by writing Israel lobby 100 times on a blackboard.
That term slips out from time to time the former secretary of state told David Gregory on Sundays Meet the Press. Mr. Powell also thinks that when Mr. Hagels critics go over the edge and say because Chuck said Jewish lobby he is anti-Semitic thats disgraceful. We shouldnt have that kind of language in our dialogue.
OK I get it. An errant slip of the tongue isnt proof of prejudice. We have all said things the offensiveness of which we perhaps didnt fully appreciate when we opened our mouth.
Like the time when according to Bob Woodward Mr. Powell accused Douglas Feith one of the highest-ranking Jewish officials in the Bush administration and the son of a Holocaust survivor of running a Gestapo office out of the Pentagon. Mr. Powell later apologized personally to Mr. Feith for what he acknowledged was a despicable characterization.
Or the time when according to George Packer in his book The Assassins Gate Mr. Powell leveled another ugly charge at Mr. Feith this time in his final Oval Office meeting with George W. Bush. The Defense Department had too much power in shaping foreign policy Powell argued and when Bush asked for an example Powell offered not Rumsfeld the secretary who had mastered him bureaucratically not Wolfowitz the point man on Iraq but the departments number three official Douglas Feith whom Powell called a card-carrying member of the Likud Party.
Anyway on this business of hypersensitivity to prejudicial remarks real or perceived here is Mr. Powell in the same interview talking about what ails the Republican Party:
Theres also a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party. What do I mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor Alaskas Sarah Palin say that the president is shuckin and jivin thats a racial-era slave term. When I see another former governor New Hampshires John Sununu say after the presidents first debate when he didnt do well he said he was lazy. 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 theres a third word that goes along with it.
So lets get this straight. Mr. Powell holds it disgraceful to allege anti-Semitism of politicians who invidiously use the phrase the Jewish lobby. But he has no qualms about accusing Mr. Sununualong whose side he worked during the George H.W. Bush administrationof all-but whispering the infamous N-word when he called Mr. Obamas first debate performance lazy.
Its hard to decide whether Mr. Powell is using a double standard hypocritically or inadvertently. Ill assume the latter since he seems to have missed the reason why Mr. Hagels nomination to be secretary of defense has run into so much opposition.
Consider the following hypothetical sentence: The African-American lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Would this pass Mr. Powells smell test?
Or this: Im a United States senator not a Kenyan senator. Such a statement would be considered as so weird and unwonted that no amount of spinning (lets say it was uttered in the context of a discussion of U.S. policy toward Africa) would have saved the person making it from immediate disqualification.
Now maybe someone can explain how thats materially different from Mr. Hagels suggestion that The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here and Im a United States senator not an Israeli senator.
One of the arguments Ive come across recently is that theres nothing unwarranted about using the word intimidate and that its something all lobbies do. Remarkably however a Google GOOG -0.12search yields zero results for the phrases the farm lobby intimidates the African-American lobby intimidates or the Hispanic lobby intimidates. Only the Jewish lobby does that apparently.
There is also the argument that supporters of Israel really do intimidate politicians on Capitol Hill. The word itself means to make timid or fearful to frighten and to compel or deter as if by threats. It would be interesting to see valid evidence that any group commonly associated with the Israel lobby ever employed such Mafia-like tactics. What Ive seen instead are crackpot allegations such as the letter I recently received charging that the Jewish lobby was responsible for William Fulbrights 1974 senatorial defeat in Arkansas. Who knew?
In the meantime maybe Mr. Powell could show that hes as sensitive to the whiff of anti-Semitism as he is to the whiff of racism. If George Packers description of Mr. Powells last meeting with President Bush is inaccurate he should publicly disavow it. If its accurate he should publicly apologize for it. Nobody questions where Mr. Powells loyalties lie. If he has called the loyalties of other patriotic American public servants into question that would be to use his word disgraceful.
Write to
bstephens@wsj.com
