In an Aug. 27 column in the Boston Globe, H.D.S. Greenway painted Richard Perle as representing a clear case of “dual loyalty.” He based his argument on the false claim that in a 1996 report, Perle called for the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein “to increase Israel’s strategic position.” The same day, CAMERA sent the following letter to the Globe’s Editorial Page Editor pointing out that Perle’s report made no such suggestion:
There is a serious error in David Greenway's column that should be corrected immediately. Greenway claims that a report written by Richard Perle and others for the then incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, called for "getting the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein ... to increase Israel's strategic position."
In fact, the report says nothing of the sort – I wonder if Mr. Greenway bothered even to read it.
The report does call for the overthrow of Saddam, but it calls for this to be accomplished in a joint effort by Israel, Turkey and Jordan, and it calls for a Hashemite regime to take Saddam's place (Hashemite meaning of the family of King Hussein, if not King Hussein himself). In addition, the report explicitly states that:
"Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs."
This hardly seems like a call for the U.S. to overthrow Saddam, or anyone else, as a favor to Israel.
Mr. Greenway's false claim goes to the very heart of his column, since it paints Mr. Perle, who is Jewish and was later a government official, as supporting, in 1996, US intervention against Saddam for Israel's sake – a clear case of supposed "dual loyalty."
You can read the full report by Perle et. al. here. Will the Globe publish a forthright and swift correction?
Indeed, on Sept. 2, the Globe printed the following clarification: