Written by Winston P. Nagan   

Even before President Obama publically nominated former Senator Chuck Hagel as his choice for the important post in his administration, Secretary of Defense, the detractors were already launching a public relations attack on the Senator. Among the most unfortunate of the misrepresentations, which targeted the Senator, was the accusation by Senator Graham that Senator Hagel held views that were not in the mainstream of American political discourse. In the past, Senator Graham developed an enviable reputation as a Republican who had a decent respect for social and political fact. Regrettably, he has gravitated to that extreme section of the Republic right wing that no longer cares about fact and believes only in faithful adherence to extreme ideological predispositions. His attack on Senator Hagel was that in his view, Senator Hagel’s complete and uncritical support of our ally Israel was lacking. Since it was lacking he was no longer in the mainstream and by implication not sufficiently qualified as a patriot to fulfill this important cabinet post.
Senator Graham was in effect singing to the chorus of AIPAC and other extremists’ supporters of the right wing Netanyahu likud party in Israel. The problem that this raises is whether an official may be qualified to hold a position of policy importance in the government of the United States and be explicitly committed to the national interests of the nation he serves. In short, what Graham and certain elements of the Netanyahu lobby in Washington appear to insist upon is that the patriotism and the single-minded attention in the first instance to the basic interest of the nation represent a disqualification for high office. Implicit in their view it seems is that the official should hold a position of Israel first and the U.S. second. It is by no means clear that Israel is the 52nd state of the U.S. and therefore the fundamental policies vital to Israel are the same as those of the U.S. Similarly, it cannot be the case that the U.S. is now a colony of Netanyahu’s Israel. Actually, Israel has interests that are distinctive and important to it. The United States has interests that are important and vital to it as well. This means that while both states may have shared interests in particular issues, which overlap, not every American interest is of importance to Israel and not every Israeli interest is significant for the U.S. A politician who recognizes such differences according to the Graham litmus test is unqualified for service in his own country, for this and no other reason.
Senator Hagel has brought to his role as Senator a viewpoint that in large measure was conventionally Republican and conservative leaning. However, he is in a tradition of American political thought that is influenced by the idea of pragmatism and the further notion that the idea of truth is often contingent and not frozen in a cake of reified ideological structures. Such pragmatism is often stimulated by the idea that the public policies of the nation must be steeped in a respect for the realism of fact in the real world and an appreciation of the meaning of such political facts in the light of the best values and ideals of the American political experience.
Let us use one illustration of Senator Hagel’s alleged lukewarm concern for Israel. The Senator raised concerns about the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006. Central to his concerns were the problem that the United States had to face in the light of Israel’s attack on Lebanon. Israel was an ally of the U.S., Lebanon was an ally of the U.S. It was clear that the Senator’s concerns required an explanation of the Israeli attack on Lebanon with the U.S. sitting around as a bystander. The Senator also understood that since Lebanon was a longstanding ally of the U.S. there would clearly be consequences for U.S. interests because of the Israeli attack. While AIPAC and its supporters were cheering on the attacks on Lebanon, inside Israel a significant body of opinion began to see these attacks as a political disaster. Hagel’s concerns were certainly no more strident than the concerns inside Israel itself. How on earth could we now claim that his expression of concern is an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic concern? In fact, a thoughtful effort to think through what is best for Israel, which includes the avoidance of a political and diplomatic disaster, could be seen as supportive of real Israeli interests. In this sense, the positions taken by some of these extremist groups and parroted by Republican operatives would appear to be a reaction that hasn’t given a thought to what real Israeli interests are and how we as friends can facilitate the clarification of those precise interests. My view of the Israeli attack on Lebanon was that it was an opportunistic effort to get Iran to commit itself to the defense of its puppet, Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. If Iran had come in, the U.S., which was already in Iraq, would have been forced to broaden the ground war in the region. Our problems in Iraq would have been multiplied enormously had we also had to contend with armed hostilities against Iran at the same time.
It has also been suggested that because the Senator has acknowledged the realism of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians as a consequence of the Israeli occupation, that somehow or other he is soft on terrorism. Most Israelis understand that there has to be some sort of accommodation and settlement with the Palestinians. This is a position long held by the government of the United States and most governments around the world. To facilitate a move toward accommodation and agreement means that we must exhaust whatever avenues there are to generate communication and accommodation. Even General Petraeus has mentioned that the lack of movement toward a peace settlement with the Palestinians provides a calling card for extremist terrorist activities. In my view, it is in Israel’s interest to reach a settlement as soon as possible. It is an interest that is shared by the Palestinians. This clearly cannot be a repudiation of American mainstream thinking.
Senator Hagel has been accused of being soft on the Iranians. The implication is that we need the hardest possible show of resolve in dealing with Iran and its possible nuclear ambitions. One of the cardinal principles of world order is that we should do everything possible that reason permits to avoid conflict and promote cooperation. In short, modern practice has tended to stress the importance of cooperation among the states that constitute a world community. The Senator has probably thought that difficult though the Iranian situation is, we have not yet exhausted the possibilities of a peaceful resolution of the crisis. That is a call that can quite reasonably be made, as indeed is the call that it cannot reasonably end in a peaceful resolution of the problem. Mr. Netanyahu recently came to the United States, prior to the election, demanding that the Obama Administration organize an attack on Iran. The President responded by firmly rejecting this initiative indicating that this was not a time for bluster. This at least seems to suggest that we have not completely given up on a negotiated settlement however difficult it may appear. We cannot always assume that the Iranian situation internally will always remain intransigent. Even in the tightly controlled world of the Ayatollahs there are points of disagreement about the strategies and tactics relevant to the future of Iran.
The Senator has also brought a sense of realism to the public discourse when he notes that we ought where possible to cultivate better relations with the Arab and Muslim populations of the world. This does not mean that in order to cultivate a more nuance footprint for the United States in the Islamic world that those who seek such an outcome are necessarily anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. In the longer view of history, it would be in Israel’s interest to be at peace with its Arab and Muslim neighbors. Indeed, it would be in the interests of the Arabs and the Muslims to be at peace with Israel. In Israel, there is a small but courageous and vocal human rights and peace movement. What moves them is the idea of peace between Israel and its neighbors. We should be relieved that President Obama has nominated a courageous, thoughtful, and brave man to serve as our Secretary of Defense in these difficult times. I sincerely hope that Senator Graham who is an intelligent man will withdraw his proclamation of opposition to this important and highly qualified man.

By Winston P. Nagan