The Clean Break Report, Israel and the Neoconservative Dual Loyalty Debate

In 1996, a group of neocons wrote a report intended as advice for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It called for a clean break with the peace process, rolling back Syria, and removing Saddam Hussein from power, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.

Amongst those who contributed, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, now number three at the Pentagon, David Wurmser, now in the State Department, and Meyrav Wurmser.

It was no more than a mental exercise done in a think tank, um, uh, by a group of people.

Um, yes, many of us are Jewish. There's no need to apologize for that.

Um, uh, most of us, all of us, in fact, are pro-Israel.

Uh, some of us more fiercely so than the oth- than, than others.

But we have no problem also criticizing Israel.

That, that paper in 1996, the, the Clean Break paper, that was the paper that led to accusations of, of dual loyalty.

Charges of dual loyalty touch on raw emotions.

Professor Eliot Cohen is one of America's top military historians.

We met as the progress of the war seemed in the balance.

In a narrow military sense, the achievements look, you know, pretty remarkable.

Um, you know, 50 miles outside Baghdad, a lot of bad things that could have happened haven't happened yet.

Professor Cohen is also an advisor to the Pentagon and has been involved with both the AEI and the Project for the New American Century.

You've expressed some concern over the idea that this is all a conspiracy whipped up by a group of, quotes, "neoconservative hawks" who are somehow allied to Israel, and you've expressed- Well- ... worries about that.

Explain what you're concerned about. Look, sometimes the word neoconservative is used when what they really would like to say is Jew.

They being? People who use that kind of language.

And as a Jew, I find it offensive.