Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.[1] A promoter of aggressive “pro-Israel” U.S. foreign policies, Stephens previously worked as editor of the rightist Jerusalem Post and appears regularly on Fox News.[2]

Stephens’ move to the New York Times in April 2017 was met with derision on the left and the right, prompting both the Times publisher[3] and editorial page editor[4] to pen letters defending the hire. Long associated with neoconservative advocacy and rightist “pro-Israel” groups like the Tikvah Fund, Stephens has also been heavily criticized for inaccuracies on a range of issues, including notably climate change, the subject of his first column[5] for the Times, which was widely ridiculed[6] as inaccurate.[7]  On the right, critics have targeted Stephens for his criticism of Donald Trump, whom Stephens ridicules[8] for the “enormity of his stupidity.” The shrill Islamophobic activist Pamela Geller lambasted the “out of touch” Times for hiring the “rabid anti-Trump elitist Bret Stephens.”[9]

Obama = Trump

Stephens, like many other neoconservatives, was an early and vocal opponent of Trump, as he was Barack Obama. Both presidents, according to Stephens, are “epic narcissists who see themselves as singularly suited to redeem an America that is not only imperfect but fundamentally broken.”[10] Stephens also wrote, “The candidacy of Donald Trump is the open sewer of American conservatism.”[11]

In December 2017, Stephens wrote, “Tax cuts. Deregulation. More for the military; less for the United Nations. The Islamic State crushed in its heartland. Assad hit with cruise missiles. Troops to Afghanistan. Arms for Ukraine. A tougher approach to North Korea. Jerusalem recognized as Israel’s capital. The Iran deal decertified. Title IX kangaroo courts on campus condemned. Yes to Keystone. No to Paris. Wall Street roaring and consumer confidence high. And, of course, Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. What, for a conservative, is there to dislike about this policy record as the Trump administration rounds out its first year in office?”

In answer to his question, Stephen wrote: “Trump is empowering a conservative political culture that celebrates everything that patriotic Americans should fear: the cult of strength, open disdain for truthfulness, violent contempt for the Fourth Estate, hostility toward high culture and other types of ‘elitism,’ a penchant for conspiracy theories and, most dangerously, white-identity politics.”[12]

In late 2017, Stephens told an interviewer on MSNBC that he felt he could no longer vote Republican due to Trump’s support for Arizona candidate for Senate, Roy Moore, who ran despite allegations of sexual misconduct that included a sexual encounter with a minor. “I think I speak not only for myself but for many other people that I could never vote ever again for a party that is making an open endorsement of a man against whom there are credible accusations of pedophilia. Any of us who have teenage children know exactly what we would do with a 32-year-old man who made sexual advances on our children. This is one of those moments in history where people will look back and say that is the moment of shame.”[13]

Stephens frequently speculates about Trump’s mental stability. He told fellow New York Times correspondent Gail Collins, “I’m not expert enough to say at what point mental decline slides into senility or dementia, but there’s clearly been a decline. … There’s also the matter of his emotional state. Again, I’m in no position to make a diagnosis but I’m not alone in suspecting that he meets most of the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder. And the frequently unhinged and spasmodic tweets suggest a guy who isn’t in control of himself.”[14]

But others questioned Stephens’ consistency on this point. Simon Maloy of Media Matters for America noted, “That damning assessment of Trump’s faculties, however, doesn’t stop Stephens from trusting that the out-of-control and potentially mentally unwell president can nonetheless competently pursue policy goals Stephens happens to favor.” Maloypointed out that Stephens enthusiastically supported Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. Stephens wrote, “Trump’s courageous decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal will clarify the stakes for Tehran. Now we’ll see whether the administration is capable of following through.”[15] Quipped Maloy about Stephens’ inconsistency, “We have a curious situation in which a New York Times columnist feels that the president is too unstable to be trusted with a Twitter account, but is capable of renegotiating complex diplomatic frameworks and pursuing regime change in the Middle East.”[16]

Neoconservatism

Stephens advocates views that are largely in line with the foreign policy agenda espoused by neoconservatives, particularly with respect to U.S. Middle East policy. He has often levelled harsh criticism at elected officials who differ with neoconservatives on Israel and the Middle East, including both Republicans and Democrats.

Part and parcel of his neoconservative outlook is Stephens’ aggressive “pro-Israel” discourse. While Stephens supported Trump’s decisions to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to withdraw unilaterally from the Iran nuclear deal, he emphatically argued that Donald Trump was “bad for Israel.” He reasons that the embassy move did nothing materially to help Israel and that withdrawing from the Iran deal made Israel only marginally safer. On the other side of the ledger, wrote Stephens, Trump “shows no interest in pushing Russia out of Syria. He has neither articulated nor pursued any coherent strategy for pushing Iran out of Syria. He has all but invited Turkey to interfere in Syria. He has done nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to arm Hezbollah. He shows no regard for the Kurds. His fatuous response to Saudi Arabia’s murder of Jamal Khashoggi is that we’re getting a lot of money from the Saudis. He speaks with no authority on subjects like press freedom or religious liberty because he assails both at home. His still-secret peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians will have the rare effect of uniting Israelis and Palestinians in their rejection of it. Is any of this good for Israel?”[17]

Stephens’ concern for Israel goes beyond U.S. policy. In March 2019, as new elections in Israel drew closer, he made clear his hope that incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would fall. Comparing Netanyahu to disgraced U.S. president Richard Nixon, Stephens acknowledged what he saw as Netanyahu’s achievements, but stated that “just as Nixon’s achievements in domestic and foreign policy were undone by skullduggery and paranoia, Netanyahu’s legacy has been permanently tarred by his apparent corruption, his appeals (or indifference) to bigotry and his demonization of his political opponents.” Oddly, Stephens went on to state that “with the creation of the first serious opposition party in a decade, Israelis have also shown that they are committed to competitive democratic institutions and a meaningful political alternative.”[18] Stephens seemed to have simply forgotten that in 2015, the election in Israel was hotly contested, at least as much as the more recent one is, and that, while the prior election in 2013 had not featured a real rival (although even so, Netanyahu had been forced to form a coalition with a rival party to secure his victory), the one before it saw Netanyahu come in second to the Kadima party, although that party failed to form a governing coalition.[19]

Stephens often attacks those who disagree with his neoconservative outlook. An obvious target has been Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a conservative libertarian who often opposes military intervention. In a sarcastic column written during the 2016 Republican presidential primary race, Stephens called on Republicans to vote for Paul, arguing that what Republicans needed as a “nominee in 2016 is a man of … glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.”[20]

Attacks on Critics of the Israel Lobby

Stephens frequently targets thjose who question the U.S.-Israel relationship. In March 2019, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress—Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)—came under fire for alleged anti-Semitic remarks when she criticized the “Israel lobby” for stifling debate on U.S. policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict. While Omar’s defenders asserted that her words had been decontextualized and imbued with false meaning,[21] critics, both Republican and Democrat, heaped accusations against her.

Stephens was an enthusiastic participant in that attacks. “Omar, I suspect, knows exactly what she is doing.” he wrote, adding a conspiratorial-tinged insight: “As the criticism of Omar mounts, it becomes that much easier for her to seem like the victim of a smear campaign, rather than the instigator of a smear. The secret of anti-Semitism has always rested, in part, on creating the perception that the anti-Semite is, in fact, the victim of the Jews and their allies. Just which powers-that-be are orchestrating that campaign? Why are they afraid of open debate? And what about all the bigotry on their side?”[22]

Stephens has been using similar arguments for many years. In a May 2006 speech titled “Meet the Israel Lobby” at his alma mater the University of Chicago, Stephens took aim at noted international relations scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer for their controversial 2006 paper, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” which argued that lobbyists who worked on Israel-related issues in the United States had undue influence over U.S. policy in the Middle East, to the detriment of the United States. Stephens bombastically exclaimed: “Let’s be clear: What professors Walt and Mearsheimer have produced under the guise of disinterested scholarship is a demagogic, disingenuous, distorted, bigoted, factually inaccurate, analytically flawed, and intellectually wretched piece of work.”[23] It is an enduring peculiarity of the defenders of the one-sided U.S.-Israel relationship that they consistently fail to address the particulars of the criticisms of that relationship.

According to Stephens, intellectuals who criticize Israel are not necessarily antisemitic but do help “pave the way” for growing antisemitism. He cites the case of Walt and Mearsheimer: “Professors Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, whose paper on ‘The Israel Lobby’ is now being turned into a book, have complained that ‘anyone who criticizes Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy … stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-semite.’ Maybe. But earlier this week, former Klansman David Duke took the opportunity to tell CNN that he does not hate Jews but merely opposes Israel and Israel’s influence in U.S. politics. He even cited Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer in his defense. Would they exonerate him of being an anti-Semite?”[24]

According to Stephens, while it might be the case that critics sometimes apply the antisemitic label unfairly merely because of criticism of Israel, this does not mean their positions are defensible. He writes: “So let’s also concede that it is not anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism. … Yet simply because opposition to Zionism ideologically or Israel politically isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic, it doesn’t therefore follow that being anti-Zionist or anti-Israel are morally acceptable positions.”^[25]

On the Obama Administration

During the Obama presidency, Stephens repeatedly argued that the administration presided over a U.S. “retreat” from world affairs, which was a central argument of his book, America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming World Disorder.[26] In the book, Stephens argued that the international system is “a world in which the economic, diplomatic, and military might of the United States provides the global buffer between civilization and barbarism.”[27] He asserted that after “Barack Obama took office in 2009,” the United States became “more reluctant than it has been for decades to intervene abroad, judging that there is better security in inaction than action.” He added: “Traditional allies of the United States, uncertain of its purposes, are beginning to explore their options in what they suspect is becoming a post-Pax Americana world, encouraging freelancing instincts which Washington has a diminishing ability to restrain.”[28]

A scathing review of the book from the American Conservative stated: “Devoid of any new ideas, America in Retreat recycles old clichés in a confused and misleading way as part of an effort to revive and advance the neoconservative agenda at a time when it seemed (at least for a while) to be in decline, while at the same time bashing and trying to marginalize current and potential enemies of the cause.”[29]

At a March 2014 event at the New York-based Tikvah Fund—whose board has included figures like Elliott Abrams and Bill Kristol—Stephens compared the United States’ supposed “retreat” from the world to salted peanuts. “Henry Kissinger once had a wonderful line about retreat from Vietnam. He said, ‘It’s like salted peanuts.’ And so, once you embark on the process of retreat, it’s hard to know where to stop,” he opined.[30]

In an October 2014 column, Stephens lambasted Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry for not publicly meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalonduring his visit to Washington. “The good news here is that at least there’s one kind of quarantine this administration believes in. The bad news is that it seems to give more thought to pursuing personal vendettas against allies like Israel than it does to waging effective military campaigns against enemies like ISIS,” he declared.[31]

Stephens went on in the piece to praise Saudi Arabia for signaling their intent to lower their dependence on the United States and posited that Israel should take similar steps. “At least the Saudis understand the value of showing they’re prepared to be, as someone once wrote, co-dependent no more,” Stephens proclaimed. “Israel needs to look after its own immediate interests without the incessant interventions of an overbearing partner. The administration needs to learn that it had better act like a friend if it wants to keep a friend. It isn’t as if it has many friends left.”[32]

Stephens also strongly supported Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial March 2015 speech to Congress. “The president collects hard favors from allies and repays them with neglect and derision. He is eager to accommodate the political needs of authoritarian leaders like Iran’s Hasan Rouhani but has no use for the political needs of elected leaders like Mr. Netanyahu,” he wrote in a February 2015 column for the Journal.

Stephens further argued in the same article that Netanyahu needed to make the speech to demand respect and secure continued U.S. support for Israel. He stressed: “Above all, Mr. Netanyahu needs to speak because Israel cannot expect indefinite support from the U.S. if it acts like a fretful and obedient client to a cavalier American patron. The margin of Israel’s security is measured not by anyone’s love but by the respect of friends and enemies alike. By giving this speech, Mr. Netanyahu is demanding that respect. Irritating the president is a small price to pay for doing so.”[33]

Iran

Stephens strongly opposed the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 world powers that resulted in a comprehensive nuclear agreement in July 2015. Having been a consistent and vocal critic of the deal and the process for getting there, he applauded President Trump for withdrawing from the pact in May 2018. In March 2015, Stephens wrote that “the deal being contemplated now … is neither prevention nor containment. It’s facilitation.”[34] Stephens has argued that if the United States had pursued more aggressive policies towards Iran, a better deal could have been reached. “If you had, again, the kind of sanctions backed by a realistic threat of military force, then we could have had a much, much stronger deal,” he said in April 2015.

However, in a December 2014 interview with the Weekly Standard, Stephens stated that he cannot see “any Iran deal” that he would be willing to support. “Iran will never agree to the only deal I would be able to support, which would be a complete and verifiable dismantlement of all nuclear capabilities along the lines of the terms imposed on Libya in 2003/04,” he opined.[35]

Stephens expressed support for Israel launching military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities regardless of U.S. pressure against such an action. In an April 2015 interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Stephens argued that Israel made a “fundamental mistake back in 2012” and “lost a real window of opportunity when they could have conducted a much more successful military strike against still weaker targets.” He added: “My own view is that ultimately, Israel is better served by acting than by simply being handed fait accomplis.”[36]

During the interview, Stephens agreed when Hewitt said that “we are suggesting military force” as an alternative to a nuclear deal with Iran. “There are all kinds of military actions that are well, well, well short of another Iraq war. And yes, I understand the argument. Yes, there are always unforeseen consequences to any military strike. I get it,” Stephens said. “The real issue is, is that menu of unforeseen consequences really worse than the foreseeable result of a threshold nuclear Iran contending with a soon-to-be threshold nuclear Saudi Arabia in a Middle East where states are dissolving.”[37]

After Iran and the P5+1 sealed the comprehensive nuclear deal in July 2015, Stephens proclaimed: “Iran will get its money. It will redouble its bad behavior. And sooner or later it will probably get its bomb. The most Congress can do now is to lay a political predicate for the next president to disavow the deal. Good luck.”[38]

In July 2015, the Intercept reported on an “off-the-record call to formulate strategies for defeating the pending nuclear deal with Iran” between Stephens and members of the ardently “pro-Israel” Christians United For Israel. Stephens detailed during the call how members of Congress should be convinced to oppose the deal, saying: “Someone should say, this is going to be like your vote for the Iraq War. This is going to come back to haunt you. Mark my words, it will come back to haunt you. …This vote will be a stain. You will have to walk away from it at some point or another. You will have to explain it. And some of you may in fact lose your seats because of your vote for this deal.”[39]

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald said of Stephens’ remarks: “First, note the bizarre equation of support for the war in Iraq with support for a peace deal with Iran. Second, since when do neocons like Stephens talk about the Iraq War as something shameful, as a ‘stain’ on one’s legacy? … Third, yet again we find journalists at newspapers claiming the pretense of objectivity who are in fact full-on activists: here, to the point of colluding with a right-wing group to sink the Iran Deal—there’s nothing wrong with that on its own terms, other than the conceit that journalism is distinct from activism.”[40]

Hardline “Pro-Israel” Positions

Stephens is an ardent advocate of hardline “pro-Israel” policies and has scolded the Obama administration and the Democratic Party for allegedly being anti-Israel. In March 2015, he wrote for the Journal: “The Democratic Party is on the cusp of abandoning the state of Israel. That’s a shame, though less for Israel than it is for the Democrats.” He added: “That means the GOP is now the engine, the Democrats at best a wheel, in U.S. support for Israel. The Obama administration is the kill switch.”[41]Among Stephens strongly held policy views is his opposition to Palestinian statehood. In an interview with the conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Stephens described former Israeli Prime Minister and Likud leader Ariel Sharon as “the most significant prime minister Israel has had since the founder, David Ben-Gurion.” Stephens praised Sharon’s often militarist policies toward the Palestinians, arguing that he had “defeated the Palestinian intifada and proved, therefore, that there is a military solution in the face of suicide terrorism, or other kinds of terrorism.” Regarding the George W. Bush administration’s hawkish stance on Palestinian issues, Stephens said, “I think this administration has been head and shoulders above its predecessors in being shrewd about [Yasser] Arafat, shrewd about the Palestinians, shrewd about what needs to happen, in order for the Palestinians to present some kind of realistic … for there to be some kind of realistic prospect of peace between the Palestinians and Israel.”[42]

In March 2014, Stephens argued that religious considerations prevent Israel from agreeing to the formation of a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. “A Christian pastor [speaking at an AIPAC event] said, ‘The land was promised to Israel, therefore, I’m for it.’ That’s a consideration, by the way, when Israel considers the cost-benefit analysis of ceding land for so-called peace, remembering that one of the reasons that millions of Americans love Israel is because it has the land, not because it’s prepared to give it up,” Stephens declared.[43]

One writer for LobeLog said in response to Stephens’ remarks: “Stephens’ advocacy of a Christian Zionist belief that no land should be given up would seem to eliminate the possibility of such a [two-state] solution. And that, of course, suggests that Stephens favors a one-state solution which then begs the question of whether Palestinians should be accorded equal rights or whether they would be relegated to pseudo-autonomous Bantustans of the kind apartheid South Africa tried to impose on most of its black majority in the 1970s and 1980s.”[44]

Stephens and Anti-Semitism

Stephens has criticized Jewish Americans for supporting Barack Obama and for not being sufficiently “pro-Israel.”  He said at a March 2014 event: “Thank God I was born a Jew because otherwise I’d be a raging anti-Semite … [be]cause I tear my hair out all the time at my fellow Jews. But rare is it in history that we’ve been blessed to live in a country where we can say anything we want and actually get away with it. And it is a scandal, it seems to me, if we fail to live up to the promise of our American citizenship to do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.”[45]

Commented one journalist: “To be clear, Stephens isn’t just comparing his anger and frustration with Jewish liberals (who comprise the mainstream of American Jewry) to the bigotry of anti-Semites. He’s also stoking an anti-Semitic trope that Jews can never be entirely loyal to their country of citizenship because they should dedicate themselves at least as much to Israel’s security.”[46]

In 2012, he added his voice to a chorus of neoconservative writers who decried President Barack Obama’s decision to nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as defense secretary during his second term. Stephens wrote at the time: “Prejudice—like cooking, wine-tasting, and other consummations—has an olfactory element. When Chuck Hagel, the former GOP senator from Nebraska who is now a front-runner to be the next secretary of Defense, carries on about how ‘the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,’ the odor is especially ripe.”[47]

A broad spectrum of critics panned the effort by Stephens and other “pro-Israel” figures to paint Hagel as an anti-Semite. As Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post at the time: “I direct Stephens and others to page 426 of Anita Shapira’s new book, Israel: A History. She writes that when the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 withheld $10 billion in loan guarantees, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir ‘enlisted the help of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. Congress, but in vain.’ Shapira is professor emeritus at Tel Aviv University. It is true, as Stephens writes, that Jews are not the only ones who support Israel, and it is likewise true that not all Jews support Israel—or at least the current government of Benjamin Netanyahu. But Stephens’s real beef with Hagel is not over speech but policy.”[48]

One writer concurred, opining that the “ugly, facts-optional anti-Hagel campaign was never about Israel. … Neocon attacks on President Obama—as channeled through the likes of Bill Kristol, the Emergency Committee for Israel, Jennifer Rubin , Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, etc. and so on—are about American power. They are about how a certain (pretty well discredited) ideology envisions the use of American power in the world, and they are about how power is shared within America’s borders.”[49]

 

SOURCES

[1] Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens, http://topics.wsj.com/person/S/bret-stephens/5463.

[2] Wall Street Journal, “Press Room: Bret Stephens Will Speak at Symposium VI,” National Homeland Defense Foundation, March 5, 2008; Wall Street Journal, “Bret Stephens,” “Who We Are: Bret Stephens,” http://topics.wsj.com/person/S/bret-stephens/5463.

[3] Hadas Gold, “New York Times publisher sends personal appeal to those who canceled over Bret Stephens,” Politico, May 12, 2017, https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/05/12/new-york-times-bret-stephens-column-cancel-paper-238338

[4] Erik Wemple, “New York Times editor pens weak, vague response to critics of Bret Stephens’s op-ed on climate change,” Washington Post, April 30, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/04/30/new-york-times-editor-pens-weak-vague-response-to-critics-of-bret-stephenss-op-ed-on-climate-change/?utm_term=.7ec4d34dee82

[5] Bret Stephens, “Climate of Complete Certainty,” New York Times, April 28, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

[6] Dana Nuccitelli, “NY Times hired a hippie puncher to give climate obstructionists cover,” Guardian, April 29, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/apr/29/ny-times-hired-a-hippe-puncher-to-give-climate-obstructionists-cover

[7] Robinson Meyer, “The Newest New York Times Columnist Has Flip-Flopped on Climate Change,” The Atlantic, April 26, 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/bret-stephens-climate-change-nyt-flip-flop/524361/

[8] Bret Stephens, “How Trump May Save the Republic,” New York Times, May 12, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/opinion/how-trump-may-save-the-republic.html

[9] Pamela Geller, “New York Times hires a ‘conservative’: rabid anti-Trump elitist Bret Stephens,” Geller Report, April 23, 2017, https://gellerreport.com/2017/04/times-conservative-stephens.html/

[10] Bret Stephens, “Trump Is Obama Squared,” Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-obama-squared-1459207095

[11] Bret Stephens, “Staring at the Conservative Gutter,” Wall Street Journal, February 29, 2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/staring-at-the-conservative-gutter-1456791777

[12] Bret Stephens, “Why I’m Still a NeverTrumper,” New York Times, December 29, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/why-im-still-a-nevertrumper.html

[13] Joe Concha, “NYT’s Bret Stephens says he can never vote Republican again,” The Hill, December 5, 2017,

[14] Gail Collins and Bret Stephens, “Is Trump Crazy Like a Fox or Plain Old Crazy?” New York Times, December 5, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/opinion/is-trump-crazy-like-a-fox-or-plain-old-crazy.html

[15] Bret Stephens, “A Courageous Trump Call on a Lousy Iran Deal,” New York Times, May 8, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/trump-courageous-iran-decision.html

[16] Simon Maloy, “Bret Stephens and the #NeverTrump farce,” Media Matters for America, May 9, 2018, https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/05/09/Bret-Stephens-and-the-NeverTrump-farce/220167

[17] Bret Stephens, “Donald Trump Is Bad for Israel,” New York Times, December 26, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/opinion/trump-israel-foreign-policy.html

[18] Bret Stephens, “Time for Netanyahu to Go,” New York Times, March 1, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/opinion/netanyahu-israel-indictment.html

[19] “Israeli Elections: Electoral History (1949 – Present)” Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-electoral-history

[20] Bret Stephens, “Rand Paul for President,” Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579501441901549788.

[21] Mitchell Plitnick,” Ilhan Omar: Anatomy Of A Smear,” Lobelog, March 5, 2019, https://lobelog.com/ilhan-omar-anatomy-of-a-smear/

[22] Bret Stephens, “Ilhan Omar Knows Exactly What She Is Doing,” New York Times, March 7, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism.html

[23] Bret Stephens, “Meet the Israel Lobby,” University of Chicago, May 3, 2006, http://israel.uchicago.edu/bret_stephens_speech.pdf.

[24]  Bret Stephens, “The Road to Tehran: Polite Society Helped Pave the Way for Iran’s Holocaust Conference,” Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2006.

[25] Bret Stephens, “The Road to Tehran: Polite Society Helped Pave the Way for Iran’s Holocaust Conference,” Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2006.

[26] Lee Smith, “America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming World Disorder,” The Weekly Standard, December 8, 2014, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/america-retreat-new-isolationism-and-coming-world-disorder_820771.html.

[27] Robert McFarlane, “BOOK REVIEW: ‘America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder’,” Washington Times, December 29, 2014, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/29/book-review-america-in-retreat-the-new-isolationis/.

[28] Lauri Regan, “America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder—A Review,” American Thinker, November 18, 2014, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/emamerica_in_retreat_the_new_isolationism_and_the_coming_global_disorderem__a_review.html.

[29] Leon Hadar, “Neoconservatism’s Theory Gap,” The American Conservative, December 18, 2014, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/neoconservatisms-theory-gap/.

[30] Eli Clifton, “Bret Stephens Dishes Candidly about Jews, Israel, and Withdrawal,” Lobelog, May 28, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/bret-stephens-dishes-candidly-about-jews-israel-and-withdrawal/.

[31] Bret Stephens, “Bibi and Barack on the Rocks,” The Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-bibi-and-barack-on-the-rocks-1414451799.

[32] Bret Stephens, “Bibi and Barack on the Rocks,” The Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-bibi-and-barack-on-the-rocks-1414451799.

[33] Bret Stephens, “A Speech Netanyahu Must Give,” The Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-a-speech-netanyahu-must-give-1422924115.

[34] Bret Stephens, “Israel and the Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-israel-and-the-democrats-1425340271.

[35] Lee Smith, “America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming World Disorder,” The Weekly Standard, December 8, 2014, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/america-retreat-new-isolationism-and-coming-world-disorder_820771.html?page=2.

[36] Hugh Hewitt, “The WSJ’s Bret Stephens On The Iran ‘Deal,’” April 7, 2015, http://www.hughhewitt.com/the-wsjs-bret-stephens-on-the-iran-deal/.

[37] Hugh Hewitt, “The WSJ’s Bret Stephens On The Iran ‘Deal,’” April 7, 2015, http://www.hughhewitt.com/the-wsjs-bret-stephens-on-the-iran-deal/.

[38] Bret Stephens, “The Iran Deal’s Collapsing Rationale,” The Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deals-collapsing-rationale-1437436211.

[39] Glenn Greenwald, “Listen to WSJ’s Bret Stephens Secretly Plot With ‘Pro-Israel’ Evangelical Group Against Iran Deal,” The Intercept, July 30, 2015, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/listen-wsjs-bret-stephens-secretely-plot-pro-israel-evangelicals-killing-iran-deal/.

[40] Glenn Greenwald, “Listen to WSJ’s Bret Stephens Secretly Plot With ‘Pro-Israel’ Evangelical Group Against Iran Deal,” The Intercept, July 30, 2015, https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/listen-wsjs-bret-stephens-secretely-plot-pro-israel-evangelicals-killing-iran-deal/.

[41] Bret Stephens, “Israel and the Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-israel-and-the-democrats-1425340271.

[42] “Hugh Hewitt interviews Bret Stephens about Ariel Sharon,” transcript posted on Kesher Talk, http://www.keshertalk.com/archives/2006/01/hugh_hewitt_int.php.

[43] Eli Clifton, “Bret Stephens Dishes Candidly about Jews, Israel, and Withdrawal,” LobeLog, May 28, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/bret-stephens-dishes-candidly-about-jews-israel-and-withdrawal/.

[44] Eli Clifton, “Bret Stephens Dishes Candidly about Jews, Israel, and Withdrawal,” Lobelog, May 28, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/bret-stephens-dishes-candidly-about-jews-israel-and-withdrawal/.

[45] Eli Clifton, “Bret Stephens Dishes Candidly about Jews, Israel, and Withdrawal,” Lobelog, May 28, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/bret-stephens-dishes-candidly-about-jews-israel-and-withdrawal/.

[46] Eli Clifton, “Bret Stephens Dishes Candidly about Jews, Israel, and Withdrawal,” Lobelog, May 28, 2015, http://www.lobelog.com/bret-stephens-dishes-candidly-about-jews-israel-and-withdrawal/.

[47] Bret Stephens, “Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Problem,“ Wall Street Journal, December 167, 2012.

[48] Richard Cohen, “The Tarring of Chuck Hagel,” Washington Post, January 7, 2013.

[49] Emily Hauser, The Anti-Hagel Campaign Was Never About Israel,” Daily Beast, January 7, 2013, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/the-anti-hagel-campaign-was-never-about-israel.html .