Obama Adviser: Jews Hinder Peace UPDATED

March 26th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Nice: yet another adviser to Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama has shown his true face. This time it’s General Merrill “Tony” McPeak, Obama’s senior military adviser and co-chair of his presidential campaign. McPeak is a longtime Israel critic, but became famous recently for comparing Bill Clinton to Senator Joe McCarthy. YNet shows just what kind of person McPeak is: to call him anti-Israel is to put it mildly.

The examination of McPeak’s career, undertaken by conservative magazine American Spectator among others, revealed that the general adopted a harsh anti-Israeli line in interviews he submitted to and articles he published. According to the magazine, beyond his affinity for alcohol, which saw him detained for drunk driving a year ago, McPeak also appears to take great pleasure in slamming Israel and pro-Israel Jews.

In an interview with The Oregonion about five years ago, McPeak argued that the influence exerted by American Jews is responsible for the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. According to the general the problem was New York and Miami. “We have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it,” he said.

In the same interview, McPeak spoke of his personal experience with Israel.

“I’ve spent a lot of time in Israel, worked at one time very closely with the Israeli Air Force as a junior officer,” he said, “but that’s maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population.”

McPeak also charged that Jews and Christian Zionists manipulated American foreign policy in Iraq.

Combine everything we know about Obama’s advisers when it comes to Israel, and his own Israel past, and I think it’s safe to say that Obama isn’t a friend of Israel. Hot Air summarizes:

McPeak’s formulation uses a little more subtlety than most of the Jewish-cabal conspiracy theorists, but the thrust is the same. Jews and “Christian Zionists” operate from a concern for the interests of Israel over America. It’s not that protecting the region’s only democracy and our strongest ally somehow doesn’t fall within our own interests, but that this group of Americans act against our national interests to manipulate American policy at the expense of our country.

Basically, Jews and Christian Zionists are traitors, according to McPeak.

I’m sure some of Obama’s supporters will quickly argue that this too doesn’t matter, since words don’t matter, but it’s interesting to see that the more one looks at Obama and his circle of advisers, the more one can’t help but notice a certain theme, something they all have in common.

And it’s not that they’re moderates.

UPDATE

TNR (via Holly):

Time to lose McPeak

I don’t think McPeak tells us much about what kind of president Barack Obama would make. And I certainly don’t think Obama endorses his views on McCarthy-ism and the outsized influence of some South Florida condo commandos. (I doubt the Obama campaign even knew about the latter before yesterday.) But I do think he’s become a liability for the campaign, and that he should be canned.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Rudi666
    March 26th, 2008 at 16:32
    Reply | Quote | #1

    The Marc Ambinder post at Atlantic sums up the issue in a different light.

    As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre ‘67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify. Tony McPeak’s verbal gymnastics do not make a "Jewish problem" for Obama.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.