Zionists Against McPeak

Obama campaign co-chairman Merrill A. McPeak, a retired Air Force General, has been accused of harboring anti-Israel views for his outspoken criticism of the on the influence of the Israel Lobby in the U.S. and the Christian Zionist movement on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. This faulty deduction of logic is based primarily on a 1976 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs, where he critiqued the occupied territory policies of Israel, following the 1967 Six-Day War.

In the article, McPeak affirms that Israel is entitled to “indefensible borders” for matters of territorial security. However, Israel neglected to recognize the border-lines drawn by UN Resolution 242, which visualized that “secure and recognized boundaries might be placed along the lines obtaining before the outbreak of the hostilities.” In response, McPeak called for serious attention to the possibility that Israel might demilitarize the “occupied territories” in order to foster better negotiations with Palestine and the other Arab states.

Nowhere in the article does McPeak question the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state. He simply states that the strategy of territorial aggrandizement and militarization of the occupied territories may be detrimental to the security of Israel, its relationship with the other Arab nations, and the overall political stability of the region.

Whatever pernicious logic was used to deduce that McPeak is somehow anti-Israel is so blatantly off the mark it’s maddening. This is exactly the type of Ad Populum argumentation that aims at the pro-Israel emotions of the masses, which provoke unfounded outcries of anti-Semitism or anti-Israel claims.

Mr. McPeak, in his written response to the anti-Israel criticism, affirms that he is a “long-time admirer (and think myself [McPeak] a friend) of Israel.” He qualifies this statement by stating his past commitments to Israel in the fields of defense and security. McPeaks defends his 1979 article by reaffirming its thesis:

No set of realistically achievable geographic borders produces safety for Israel. Rather, the security requirement is that any of the territory taken in the Six-Day War and given back as part of a peace settlement should be effectively demilitarized.

There is indeed something wrong when the free-market place of ideas is tainted by paranoia and a resistance to intelligible discussion and structured criticism. When a Colonel in the Air Force (McPeak was a Col. when he wrote the article) cannot make critical suggestions about military policies of an ally without being lambasted as anti-Israel, there’s nothing but harm done to the faith and security of both Israel and the United States.

The accusation that McPeak hates Israel is slanderous and undeserving of attention. Moves like these, whatever their motivation or intention, should be thoroughly disapproved and their propagators properly discredited.