June 1992, Page 30

Media Bush and Baker Bashing

Middle East Statements by Israel's American Apologists Reveal Motives Behind Anti-Bush Media Campaign

An all-out mainstream media campaign against President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker opened last year when they made it clear they would be tying U.S. aid to Israel to Israeli cooperation in the peace process. As in the case of similar campaigns against Republican President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright in 1974, Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Republican Sen. Charles Percy in 1984, little of the torrent of criticism by Israel's apologists in the mainstream media is focused on the Middle East policies of their victims.

Since these Middle East policies would be supported by a vast majority of informed Americans, the criticism focuses instead on virtually everything else, at home and abroad, that can be blamed, fairly or unfairly, on the victim. Thus the unremitting current focus on U.S. economic problems in the mainstream press, despite the evidence from all "leading economic indicators" that the U.S. began pulling out of its 1990-91 recession about the time the media "discovered" it.

A careful reading of statements by lobbyists and writers who support Israel's Likud government and its demands on the U.S. government, however, reveals the Middle East motivation behind much of the Bush and Baker bashing that fills the pages of The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times, not to mention the nightly news programs of CBS and the radio talk shows of pro-Israel hosts. Here's some of what Israel's apologists are saying and writing about the Bush and Baker Middle East policies.

Executive Director Thomas Dine at annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), April 5, 1992:

"It was President George Bush who decided in late August to utilize Israel's human needs as a lever to stop Israeli settlements completely in the territories, including parts of Jerusalem. . . Sept. 12 will be a day that lives in infamy for the American pro-Israel community. . . There are those who dismiss us with four-letter vulgarities who think somehow we will be intimidated and just go away. But we are not going away."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, Feb. 6, 1992:

"The substance of U.S. policy is astonishing. The Bush administration is trying to topple the only democratic government in the Mideast."

Former AIPAC Legislative Director Douglas Bloomfield in Washington Jewish Week, April 2, 1992:

"Using opinion polls like stilts, Bush stood up last September and proclaimed himself a lonely soul under siege from the Jews. . . The president's nationally televised attack was. . . an ugly outburst that unleashed a wave of anti-Semitism he later said surprised him. . . He never tried to make amends for the nationally broadcast attack with a nationally televised apology. I find it odd that he had almost nothing nice to say about Israel until his public standing hit rock bottom. When he was riding high, he had only angry words to say, including questioning the loyalty of Jewish Americans. . . One Jewish Republican leader told me the other day, 'Bush will be credited with the rehabilitation of anti-Semitism.' If the president's partisan supporters feel that way, imagine how the rest of the Jewish community feels. . . And speaking of prejudice, there are few if any in this city who believe the denials by the secretary of state and his aides that he made the derogatory statement about Jews widely attributed to him. If he or any other cabinet incumbent had said the same thing about blacks ('F--- them! They don't vote for us.') to justify a public policy, he would have been forced to resign immediately. Not only has there been no forced resignation in this case, there hasn't even been an admonition from the president that such language and attitudes will not be tolerated in his administration. . . The bridges between Jews and Republicans are in danger of collapsing under the weight of Bush's anti-Israel policies. . . It's going to take a lot more than a letter [from Bush to a Jewish supporter] to turn things around."

Columnist William Safire, The New York Times, April 2, 1992:

"I can confirm that Mr. Baker did say that, with the same vulgarism that made it so memorable, to two high officials on two different occasions. President Bush and his top staff know he did; it has been agreed that everybody would deny it was ever said. But James Baker said it-twice-and meant it. (Years from now, memoirs will confirm this; I'll remind you.)"

Novelist Mark Helprin in The Wall Street Journal, April 15, 1992:

"Mr. Baker has done poorly all around the world, but he has compounded his mismanagement of America's policy in the Middle East by gratuitously perceiving his own failures as the consequence of friction with American Jews-friction that, being non-existent, he then set out to create. . . The secretary of state holds a high and dignified office, and no one who speaks of any group of Americans as Mr. Baker has deserves to retain it. Who am I to suggest that such an august and powerful presence depart? Well, put it this way: I may be little-but I'm right."

Columnist A.M. Rosenthal, March 24, 1992:

"In the Middle East, Mr. Bush has left Saddam Hussain in power, Iraq's nuclear capacity still in existence, millions of Iraqis hunted and starved in the mountains and swamps. Now Mr. Bush is destroying the Israeli-Arab peace talks by demonstrating the one thing he has managed to make clear about his foreign policy: his determination to cancel Israel's status as an ally or even worthy friend of the United States."

Jerusalem correspondent Joel Bainerman in the Washington Jewish Week, April 9, 1992:

"The 'window of opportunity' President Bush proclaimed was created in the Middle East after the Persian Gulf war is indeed a unique opportunity: an opportunity for Bush and his secretary of state to carry out a secret foreign policy. . . In a classic case of media manipulation, Whit House officials leaked information accusing Israel of giving China a Patriot missile and legally selling American weapons and military technology to third countries. Whether or not these claims are true or false is not as important as the administration's actions. . . If Israel is guilty, wouldn't the logical response have been to take a senior Israeli official aside and tell him in the sternest manner, 'What you did is reprehensible, and you will pay a heavy price' and leave it at that?. . . When President Bush spoke about a New World Order, he must have been referring to America's new role as Middle East coordinator."

Correspondent Nadia Lourie, Boston Jewish Times, April 16, 1992:

"Besmirching Israel over arms shipments, even if the charges were false, hurt. The tactic was hardly needed by the Bush/Baker team to apply pressure on Israel, although it seemed to dovetail nicely with Mr. Bush's obvious dislike of Mr. Shamir, and Mr. Baker's apparent dislike of Jews."

< Prev		Next >