February 1992, Page 38

What They Said: Israel and Its "Amen Corner"

(Excerpts from an interview with Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan by host Jim Lehrer on the NacNeil/Lehrer Newshour Dec. 13, 1991 on PBS.)

Q: An area in which you've drawn fire this week is the area of Jewish Americans. William Buckley, in an article in the National Review this weeks, has raised some questions about your attitudes toward Jews, and he says it is impossible to defend you against the charge that some of the things you have said in the past were anti-Semitic. Have you read this article, first of all?

A: No.

Q: Well, he cites several examples. Let's take one of them. It was your comment before the Middle East war that there were only two groups beating the drums for the war in the Mideast, and that was the Israeli Defense Ministry and its "amen corner" in the United States, and then you went on to say later that "kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzalez, and Leroy Brown were going to do the fighting." Now, Buckley says this: "There is no way to read that sentence without concluding that Pat Buchanan was suggesting that American Jews manage to avoid personal military exposure even while advancing military policies they uniquely engineered." Now, is that what you meant when you said that?

A: First, Mr. Buckley is quoting from two separate columns. The phrase "McAllister, Murphy, Gonzalez, and Leroy Brown" was in response to an editorial in The Economist, which says the Americans have to do this even if it's going to take a million troops, and I said it's not going to be British boys; it's going to be Americans with the names of McAllister, Murphy, etc. Now, why isn't that anti-Polish or anti-Italian or anti-German?

Q: Well, my question is what did you mean? Did you mean what he says?

A: Of course, not. . . What I mean, look, if you take the armed forces of the United States, I think the idea that Irish and Hispanics and Blacks represent the majority of the ground troops is accurate. It's a good phrase. There's nothing wrong with it. . .

Q: So he's wrong when he claims that was anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish?

A: Yes, he is.

Q: You have also said that Congress is an Israeli-occupied territory. Now, what do you mean by that?

A: I said that on the "McLaughlin Group," in response to a question, Jim. They said, "Do you think that the Congress will resist this demand for further aid?" I said-threw out a crack I'd heard-I said, "No, the Congress of the United States is Israeli-occupied territory." What I meant by that is the most powerful lobby in Washington, which Congress can't stand up to, one of the most powerful, is certainly the pro-Israeli lobby. It has got its way in this town year in and year out. And I don't think the automatic votes of the Congress of the United States for $3 billion and $4 billion worth of aid to Israel are necessarily in the national interest of the United States, and that comment, which is to ridicule the subservience of the Congress of the United States, is perfectly valid.

Q: Do you believe there are members of Congress who are voting the interest of Israel over the interest of the United States?

A: No, I think they're voting the interest of a powerful lobby which they can't stand up to in many cases, one of many. They cave in to lobbies all over this city. I think the Congress of the United States, where it's got brave men on both sides, is an institutional coward and that, when a powerful lobby can influence and defeat them back at home and they can't get much support on the other side for a vote, many of them, who will even tell you privately-"I can't stand up to that kind of heat," they will vote for it.

Q: But why have you singled out this particular-if you say there are many powerful lobbies?

A: Well, this was a question that was thrown to me on the "McLaughlin Group" aout Israeli aid. Should I have talked about the National Rifle Association at that point?

Q: No, but I mean, this-there's a pattern, as you know, that-or this is what William Buckley was talking about. Why don't you just state what your position is right now? Toward Jews and Israel. . . Let's put it very specifically. If you were president of the United States, how would you change US policy towards Israel, and why?

A: Well, my view with regard to Israel is Israel is entitled to peace, to security, to recognition, to a lifting of the Arab embargo, and to revocation of that 1975 revolting "Zionism equals racism" resolution. I also believe that the Palestinian people are entitled to justice, to self-determination, and not to be dispossessed from land on which they and their ancestors have lived a thousand years. I do not believe my government should subsidize Israeli socialism, which we have done. And I do not believe we should subsidize a policy on the West Bank, on the Jordan River, which denies the Palestinian people rights which I support from Lithuania to Croatia. That's my view on Israel. With regard to the American-Jewish community, I think they are entitled to every constitutional right. I think they are good Americans as I am. I would be against any kind of racial or ethnic quota that keeps them out of colleges. . . They are entitled to political activity just as I am, but I also believe that Pat Buchanan is entitled to stand up and speak out against any kind of political lobby, whether it's Greek lobby, aid for Greece, or whether it's the pro-Israeli lobby, aid for Israel, without being called vile names.

Q: And you think that's happened to you?

A: Let me tell you something, Jim. . . This little flap is 18 months old. . . Buckley's talking about an 18-month-old column. Let's forget that. When this broke, I made that wiseacre crack about the amen corner. It was wiseacre and it was very funny. You know what happened as a consequence of that? People called newspapers that carried my column and said, "drop Buchanan." AIPAC listed five conservative columnists who were acceptable.

Q: That's the Jewish-

A: The pro-Israeli lobby, right. I went out to speak in the country and a little girl from the Junior League said I get these horrible calls from New York about you. People there, individuals who are pro-Israeli, go around the country and speak in synagogues and say, call CNN and get Pat Buchanan taken off the air. Those kinds of tactics, in my judgment, are un-American. They are done in the name of the First Amendment and they violate the spirit of the First Amendment. You know me. I've been in this town for 25 years, 30 years. I'm controversial, I am sometimes insensitive, I am tough and I am hard, but I think that this type of thing is beyond the pale. And I will say this. When this whole incident broke 18 months ago, I have never received more public support and private support from journalists in my entire life. People that I've argued with for years called and said, "Pat, stand in there." This is what Bill Munroe of NBC said in the Washington Journalism Review. He described this as an attempt at journalistic murder of a career. And that's what it is. And I'm going to stand up to this. Well, right now I'm running the campaign, but, you know, I think I stood up to that. It was an effort to smear me, intimidate me, and silence me. It didn't do the last two. I guess it did some damage on the first count, but that's where I stand.

< Prev		Next >