Wallace: " . . . He says 'wipe off the map' and of course, I asked him, over and over, about that. He says, in effect, hey . . . it's perfectly sensible if there is a Holocaust -- and let's buy the fact that there was a Holocaust -- where did the Holocaust take place? Did it take place in an Arab neighborhood? Did it take place in Jerusalem? No. It took place in Germany. Then it seems to me, under those circumstances, take Israel, the Zionist entity, he called it, move it to Germany. Move it to Europe, that's where it happened. Move it to the United States."
Hannity: "Do you think that's a legitimate argument?"
Wallace: "It's an argument."
It's an argument? Never mind the over 3-millennia-old Jewish connection to ancient Israel. Or that Jews migrated to and legally acquired land under the Ottoman Empire, under the British Mandate, or by buying land from Arabs in the area long before the United Nations partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab nations. Or that pogroms against Jews occurred both in European and Arab countries before the modern State of Israel.
Is Wallace soft on Jew-hating? Years ago, Wallace arranged for a dinner with himself, Seagram CEO Edgar Bronfman, Nation of Islam's firebrand anti-Semitic, Judaism-is-a-gutter-religion Rev. Louis Farrakhan, and their wives. Wallace, according to The Wall Street Journal, wanted to reach out to Farrakhan, " . . . to take tentative steps toward a rapprochement between blacks and Jews. . . . The dinner party was by all accounts warm and cordial. . . . By the time good-nights were said . . . it was agreed that Farrakhan's son-in-law . . . and someone from Mr. Bronfman's camp would explore opening a hotel in Washington . . . operated by black people and financed in part with money raised by Mr. Bronfman." But a few days after the meeting, Farrakhan resumed his public attack against Jews, and the deal was off.
If Wallace is soft on anti-Semitism, he's positively hard on the U.S. military. Wallace and ABC's Peter Jennings, in 1987, appeared on a PBS panel discussion. The moderator offered a hypothetical. You are covering a war, and you learn of the enemy's plans to attack U.S. soldiers. Do you warn the Americans? An emphatic Wallace said, "No, you don't have the higher duty [as an American citizen]. . . . No, no. You're a reporter . . . ." Jennings ultimately concurred with Wallace.
An outraged co-panelist, a Marine colonel, said, "I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're 200 yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans. . . . But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists."
With all due respect, Mr. Wallace, you are in your 61st minute. It's time.
Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust" | Katie Pavlich