At this time of war and contentious claims, raw sentiment is often palpable. Words can be hurtful. They reveal feelings long held dormant.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in a May 7, 2004, column for the state newspaper of Columbia, South Carolina, by the 82-year-old Senator Ernest Hollings. In this piece Hollings accused President Bush of invading Iraq "to secure Israel" and "to take the Jewish vote from the Democrats."
He argued that former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, all of whom are Jewish, were trying "to guarantee Israel's security."
Senator George Allen of Virginia, Senate Republican campaign chairman, accused Hollings of making "anti-Semitic, political conspiracy statements." Despite several opportunities to recant, Hollings refused to do so.
Hollings, of course, is not alone. The Internet is filled with innuendo of precisely this variety. But for a distinguished senator to make comments of this kind is truly remarkable.
The anomalous nature of his statement is evident in the 1998 legislation proposed by the Clinton administration and passed by the Congress for the replacement of Saddam Hussein and the pacification of Iraq. Senator Hollings supported this act.
Is it possible that the same view about Iraq has different partisan meaning? Is it possible that Hollings challenged the Bush decision because of what he considers the Jewish architects of the war within and without the present administration?
Most significantly, on any level, the Hollings comments are simply preposterous.
Richard Perle does not have a position in the Bush administration. Paul Wolfowitz does not have authority to make administration policy unilaterally. And Charles Krauthammer is not William Randolph Hearst declaring "you make the war and I'll make the headlines."
It should also be noted that a secure Iraq may remove one of Israel's many Middle East enemies, but it does not assure her security as any daily reading of newspapers can attest.
Last, the idea that Bush called for the invasion of Iraq in order to obtain the Jewish vote is a calumny that goes well beyond hard hitting political exchange. Moreover, even if Bush did receive the Jewish vote, the numbers are certainly not large enough to be decisive. But if Bush does exceedingly well with Jewish voters in 2004, he is still unlikely to get more that 40 percent of that vote, a high water mark approximated by Reagan in 1984.
What Hollings' view reflects is a reflexively anti-Jewish belief so common among anti-Semites. Paranoia is evident along with attributions about Jewish power and behind the scenes influence.
This Hollings statement is a rather strange way to conclude a 38-year Senate career. He has created a political tsunami that could threaten future elections in South Carolina and possibly the national elections as well. Inez Tenenbaum, the Democratic state education superintendent and designated Hollings successor, is already on the defensive.
While anti-Semitism has raised its ugly head in the Middle East and Europe, it has been quiescent in the United States. I'm convinced the Hollings statement is aberrational; nonetheless, it is important to lance the boil of this miasma. Whatever Hollings's reputation may have been, it's time to repudiate his words unequivocally.
Whether he decides to express remorse at some point is irrelevant. He has opened a Pandora's box of discredited opinion that hasn't any place in polite society. "It cannot happen here" has happened. Now it's necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again.
©2004 Herbert London
Herbert London is reachable through www.benadorassociates.com .
Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend