Yes, Virginia, David Brooks is a Neo-Con

[laststeamtrain]

Yes, Virginia, David Brooks is a Neo-Con
Jim Lobe

<snip>

Yet, when push comes to shove, Brooks appears very much anchored — especially when it comes to Israel — in the neo-conservative worldview, as his most recent column on Israel, “A Loud and Promised Land,” that was published last Friday. Most of the op-ed consists of a rather endearing and balanced portrait of Israelis and their social interaction and culture based on his nearly annual (!) visits to the country. “As an American Jew,” he writes, “I was taught to go all goody-eyed at the tought of Israel, but I have to confess, I find the place by turns exhausting, admirable, annoying, impressive and foreign.”

But then, in his penultimate paragraph, the following assertions catch you up:

“Today, Israel is stuck in a period of frustrating stasis. Iran poses an existential threat that is too big for Israel to deal with alone. Hamas and Hezbollah will frustrate peace plans, even if the Israelis magically do everything right.” {Emphasis mine.]

“This conflict will go on for a generation or more….”

This analysis, of course, very much reflects the Likud view of matters at the moment — namely, the total futility of any peace process and the durability of not just the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but of the larger Israel-Arab conflict, as well. It is precisely what Netanyahu can be expected to tell Obama when he makes his first visit here next week during the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

Now, it’s important to give Brooks, who called himself a “neocon incrementalist” in a July 2006 op-ed, “Onward Cautious Soldiers” — in which he implicitly criticized Kristol’s efforts to rally public opinion behind an attack on Iran — his due. In a brief review of his writings on the Israel-Arab conflict over the past five years, it’s pretty clear that he backed Ariel Sharon on disengaging from Gaza (just as Kristol did). And, unlike Charles Krauthammer and other hard-liners who called for Israel to “finish the job” in both Lebanon and Gaza against Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in January, respectively, Brooks was considerably more cautious and skeptical. Brooks also supported Condoleezza Rice’s Annapolis process in November, 2007, while most neo-conservatives poured scorn on the initiative as Munich-style appeasement. Finally, he has been far less enamored with the efficacy of overwhelming armed force against such popular movements and much more sensitive to the counter-productive impact of such displays on global public opinion than most neo-cons. But, as reasonable and agreeable as he sounds, Brooks sees the world primarily through neo-conservative eyes.

<more>

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=245

[Demeter]

1. Frankly, My Dear, I Don't Give A Damn