I've pointed out several times on this blog that contrary to those who argue that Israel somehow pushed the U.S. into war with Iraq, Israeli leaders actually thought Iraq was a distraction from the much greater threat of Iran. Here's a piece on the same theme:
Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.
Wilkerson, then a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, recalled in an interview with IPS that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, Wilkerson says, "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy – Iran is the enemy."
Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."
The warning against an invasion of Iraq was "pervasive" in Israeli communications with the administration, Wilkerson recalls. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence, and private citizens.
It's true, as the article suggests, that American neoconservatives prepared a policy paper for Binyamin Netanyahu arguing "for a more aggressive joint U.S.-Israeli strategy aimed at a 'rollback' of all of Israel's enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Hussein and putting a pro-Israeli regime [update: sic, no one was naive enough to think that, they were hoping for a regime at least willing to live and let live, and perhaps sign a peace treaty] in power there." But this has been consistently misrepresented as reflecting the Likud's position, as expressed by its American allies. Quite the opposite; this was the American neoconservatives' position, and they were trying to get their friends in Israel to go along with them. Israel's view on such things does have some influence in Washington, and the neoconservatives were unsuccessfully looking for allies for their crusade to spread American power and democracy (in that order).
Why unsuccessfully? With the partial exception of Natan Sharansky, who has been for some time a rather marginal figure in Israeli politics, no important Israelis have ever even come close to endorsing the neoconservatives longstanding goal of spreading American influence through the use of force to establish pro-American democratic regimes. If anything, Israeli policy has consistently erred on the other side, preferring to deal with dictators like Arafat and Sadat and King Hussein who can impose peace without worrying about public opinion, rather in trying to encourage democracy and having to make peace with democratic regimes. While neoconservative foreign policy may be too idealistic, Israeli foreign policy, Likud, Labor, Kadima, or otherwise, is if anything too cynical.
Short and sweet, the Likud is not neoconservative, and neoconservative foreign policy, while pro-Israel and hawkish, is otherwise not much like Likud's. "Experts" who fail to recognize this very basic fact simply don't know what they are talking about.
That still leaves the possible argument that even if the neocons weren't acting in concert with Israel, they still believed that they were acting on behalf of Israel, as opposed to U.S. interests. But since the neoncons have supported just about every proposed or actual use of U.S. military force for the last 35 years, and their underlying ideology presupposes the aggressive use of military force by the U.S. to spread democracy, to attribute neocon support for toppling Saddam primarily to concern for Israel makes one wonder why the necons bothered opposing the Panama Canal Treaty, supporting aid to the Contras, opposing nuclear arms negotiations with the Soviet Union, supporting U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia, and so forth and so on. Just a thirty-year smokescreen so they could get George Bush to intervene on behalf of Israel when the moment presented itself? Not likely.
∈
The problem is that American policymakers took the interests of a foreign state into account when making policy. That's a bad thing.
Anyway, surely, FDR considered Great Britain's interests in deciding to prepare for war with Nazi Germany, but that hardly means that FDR was acting on behalf of Britain at the expense of the U.S. That's only inherently a "bad thing" if you think that U.S. allies' interests are not worthy of any consideration when making foreign policy, and that doesn't make any sense because of course it's a good thing if your allies don't get annihilated.
But you are correct that my link might not be the best choice, it's a bit sloppy.
I agree with your point about what Israeli leaders to the extent those leaders privately tried to warn off Bush II against an invasion of Iraq and overthrowing Saddam at that point. However, leading Israeli political figures did support the US invading Iraq in public statements, didn't they? This is why I also believe Israel is often more beholden to the US than the other way around.
I also think back to how the Reaganites used Israel to conduct their Iran-contra affairs and then criticized Israel with back story/off the record comments to reporters during the Bush I administration when the Iran-contra trials were held.
If you read any of Mearsheimer's work, that is exactly what he does think. Which is why he finds the influence of the lobby troubling.
Note that I'm not arguing with your main point - there's little evidence Israel somehow caused us to go into Iraq. But that's not quite the same as saying the Israel Lobby, broadly defined, did not.
We should have used the opportunity given us by bin Laden to push for the dissolution of the State of Israel in favor of a nation based on something more than the guilt felt over the historical treatment of Jews. Or maybe we should just start insisting that Israel actually live up to the terms of the human rights declarations in their own constitution? Still, we'd have to change the name...
In any case, a two state solution is *never* going to work. All that will do is create two countries perpetually at war...which we already have. We need to *force* the Arabs and Israelis to live together in peace, and the only path to that goal goes straight through Jerusalem. Now *that* would have been a sensible use of our military power, rather than squandering it on Iraq or Iran.
The arab and persian muslim states will crumble under the weight of their own inadequacies once we stop propping up that travesty of a government in Israel and demonstrate that we actually give a shit about the important things in life.
How in the world would they think they'd be successfull at this - he doesn't say a regime that doesn't hate Israel quite so much, but a pro-Israeli regime????
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
This is not true. Neoconservatives argue for a robust use of the military whose foremost purpose is to deter threats to the security of the United States. I haven't read any neoconservative who feels that democracy only flowers out of the barrel of a gun except as seen in Haight Ashbury film clips. Democracy may indeed follow regime change but military force is certainly not a prerequisite for it.
Oh ... pshaw. We took over a country the size of France and have occupied it for years with fewer than 4000 fatalities.
Look, folks, nobody is going to be able to think clearly about this until we start thinking clearly about the Iraq campaign. There is no justification for thinking Iraq has been anything but a military success. A PR debacle, yeah. And while I've no doubt that Israel would have preferred us to take on Iran, the truth is that by taking Afghanistan and Iraq out of the equation, we eliminated both lines of supply and communication and logistical flows, weakening Iran as well as directly removing two countries that were actively hostile.
Jew.
He said cynically.
Results of a yahoo search on "commentary magazine":
Commentary
The home of neoconservatism.
www.commentarymagazine.com
In any case, a two state solution is *never* going to work. All that will do is create two countries perpetually at war...which we already have. We need to *force* the Arabs and Israelis to live together in peace, and the only path to that goal goes straight through Jerusalem. Now *that* would have been a sensible use of our military power, rather than squandering it on Iraq or Iran.
The arab and persian muslim states will crumble under the weight of their own inadequacies once we stop propping up that travesty of a government in Israel and demonstrate that we actually give a shit about the important things in life."
I am having some difficulty following your logic.
Why is it in the interests of the US to push for the dissolution of a sovereign nation with which we have had a long, peaceful relationship, which has never sponsored terrorism against US interests, and is the only democratic government in the Mideast?
Assuming that the "two state solution" will only create a state of perpetual war between the Palistinian state and Israel, how is that substantively different that what is occurring now? A Palistinian state at least offers the chance that eventually enough of its citizens will realize that constant attacks on and retaliation from Israel do not improve their lives and their children's lives and so stop the attacks. While the absence of war is not peace, it is an improvement.
By "Arabs" I assume you mean Palistinians and Egyptians, who, like the Jews, are also Semites. Do you include the Druize among those you call "Arabs", who are neither Muslim nor Christian, and are not ethnically Arabs? Do you include the Coptic Christians and Lebonese Christians among those you designate as "Arabs"? What of the ruling tribe in Syria? According to their intrepretation of Islam, they can drink wine, eat pork, and women do not have to be veiled. This intrepretation of Islam developed during their association with the French during the Protectorate following WWI, in which they took advantage of the educational opportunities and technological advantages offered by the French, and so were able to take power once the French withdrew.
How do we "force" them to "live together in peace"? There are "Arab" Muslims and Christians, and Israeli Jews, Christians and Muslims. In Iraq, the Sunnis, Shi'a and Kurds, and their various factions, and the foreign fighters entering Iraq are, at least, all Muslims. However, we are having difficulty in stopping them from expending a great deal of time and effort at killing each other and engaging in ethnic cleansing -- which efforts are directed much more against each other than against US and Collition Forces (even though the US press fails to report that very much). Why would any "force" be more effective in bringing peace between Israelis and the various groups you label "Arabs"? Aside from the peace of the grave, I am unaware of any way of preventing groups intent on murdering each other from doing so, until enough people in those groups realize that continuing the mutual murdering does not improve their lives and the lives of their children. However, the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" approach isn't one I favor as a policy for the US government or military.
What is the "travesty" of the government of Israel? That it is a fairly secular democracy? That it supports a high level of education, including cutting edge scientific research? That it supports a high standard of living for its citizens? That it provides somewhere for Jews (both religious and secular) to immigrate to when they wish to escape systematic persecution in other nations? Is it that the government of Israel is an international voice exposing and denouncing persecution of Jews?
While I agree that many of the Muslim governments (Sunni and Shia) will eventually fall due to their own inadequacies, how much carnage is acceptable until then? In the 20th Century, Communist governments killed between 100 and 200 Million of their own peoples, and largely the US did nothing. How high a body count among Muslims is acceptable in the 21st Century before the US should consider trying to stop the carnage, even if we cannot "force" them to "live in peace"?
And, what are the "important things in life" you refer to?
In framing your answer, please note that I am not Jewish, and have no connections to Israel. I, also, feel not the smallest bit of "historical guilt" about what has happened to Jews. My ancestors were from Kansas, Maine and Quebec. They never participated in pogroms -- possibly because there were no Jews around to persecute. In any event, I feel no obligation to atone for my ancestors since they didn't persecute Jews.
In framing your answer, also please consider that the facts are much more complex than you appear to realize, and no simplistic solutions exist. Further, I do not believe that the US can, or should, be the World's Policeman. However, that does not mean that the US should do nothing, or flog itself when its efforts are not as successful and casualty free as it would hope for.
Your ancestors still quite likely persecuted Jews. There most likely were no Jews around to persecute in Maine and Quebec because the mother country England expelled its Jews in 1290, and the mother country France expelled its Jews in 1394. The expulsion of Jews from England started with an accusation that Jews ritually murdered a young man from Norwich, which led to a period of anti-Jewish persecution. French Jews were persecuted before their expulsion from France, as well.
Why is it in the interests of the US to push for the dissolution of a sovereign nation with which we have had a long, peaceful relationship, which has never sponsored terrorism against US interests, and is the only democratic government in the Mideast?
Our relationship with Israel hasn't been all that peaceful, and the government of Israel isn't helping to secure either US interests in the region or the interests of humanity. And if you think Israel is really all that democratic, they pray tell me, what of Gaza and the West Bank? Did the internees there vote themselves behind razor wire?
What is the "travesty" of the government of Israel? That it is a fairly secular democracy? That it supports a high level of education, including cutting edge scientific research? That it supports a high standard of living for its citizens? That it provides somewhere for Jews (both religious and secular) to immigrate to when they wish to escape systematic persecution in other nations? Is it that the government of Israel is an international voice exposing and denouncing persecution of Jews?
The problem with the State of Israel are not only that it is effectively a theocracy that not only denies, in practice, the human rights of non-Jews that are guaranteed in their own Constitution, but that it could not continue to do so without the support of the United States. If you think that Israel is a paragon of humanity, you need to read study history a bit more.
The displacement of the Palestinians by the initial creation of the State of Israel/Protectorate, and later by the Israeli government (in effective collusion with the surrounding Arab states) is going to go down in history as one of the world's greatest humanitarian failures.
Assuming that the "two state solution" will only create a state of perpetual war between the Palistinian state and Israel, how is that substantively different that what is occurring now?
It's *not* different, that's my point.
By "Arabs" I assume you mean...
Don't be obsequious. You know exactly what I mean. I mean those groups of people in the Middle East who want to shove every Jew into the Mediterranean. Obviously, the peaceful ones aren't a problem.
What of the ruling tribe in Syria?
What of them? While I applaud their relative modernism, they do not represent the majority POV.
How do we "force" them to "live together in peace"?
However, we are having difficulty in stopping them from expending a great deal of time and effort at killing each other and engaging in ethnic cleansing -- which efforts are directed much more against each other than against US and Collition Forces (even though the US press fails to report that very much). Why would any "force" be more effective in bringing peace between Israelis and the various groups you label "Arabs"?
Our failure in Iraq has more to do with poor tactics and strategy than any other factor. We failed to provide what we said we would provide (security and democracy), and it turned into a free-for-all.
However, the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" approach isn't one I favor as a policy for the US government or military.
Further, I do not believe that the US can, or should, be the World's Policeman. However, that does not mean that the US should do nothing, or flog itself when its efforts are not as successful and casualty free as it would hope for.
I didn't say we should *invade Israel*. We should have used the leverage we had with all the states in the region to peacefully dissolve the State of Israel, and use US forces to guarantee the peace. As to policing the world, my view is simple. We have the power, therefore we have the responsibility as well, to keep the peace.
While I agree that many of the Muslim governments (Sunni and Shia) will eventually fall due to their own inadequacies, how much carnage is acceptable until then?
Who said carnage is a necessary result? In any case, the rest of this paragraph seems to bolster my case.
And, what are the "important things in life" you refer to?
Oh, I don't know...maybe the right of all people, Jew, Arab, or otherwise to the natural rights that this country was supposedly founded upon?
Believe me, I am aware that my view is not a particularly popular view.
The fact is that during the first 25 years of its existence Israel got very little support from the U.S. government. Yes, there is extensive foreign aid now, but also aid for Egypt, even though this is not reciprocated by Egyptians.
Your comments about the Palestinians being displaced does not take into account their constant raids on Jewish settlements during the Mandatory period. The land for the settlements was obtained in a strictly legal fashion, from Arab landowners who sold the land willingly and at high prices. All but a few (about 600) of the fellahin families who were squatting on the land that was purchased were given equivalent land elsewhere in Palestine. (This is conceded for example in the book on The Palestinian People by Kimmerling and Migdal.) The arrival of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine brought a great deal of economic growth to the area, enabling prosperity for both Arabs and Jews. None of this served to dissuade the Palestinians from constantly attacking the settlements; because the British were reluctant to intervene, a Jewish military force evolved which became the IDF. The present situation of the Palestinians is almost entirely their own fault.
Paging Juan Cole, paging Juan Cole . . . .
I was actually thinking of the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel.
And as far as what the Palestinians have done or not done, don't you realize that your arguments are exactly what's perpetuating the violence?
The State of Israel never had any right to exist in the first place. It was set up on a basis of nothing more than remorse for the Jews without any consideration at all for the people currently living in that territory. Please note that I am not arguing against Judaism or Jews, or for Arabs or Islam; I am only against the current structure of the State of Israel.
Now you can see Israel has the same basis as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, none of which are going to dissolve in favor of the "aborigines" who were displaced. To me, the question is what can Israel do, going forward, to compensate the previous residents: have an annual "Sorry Day" like Australia, or perhaps allow the Palestinians to set up casinos, like the U.S.
The line of communication for what? Even those who argue that Iraq was a threat realize Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda. Not to mention that Iran is much stronger now - we just took out its main regional rival; aside from Israel, it is now the predominant power in the region.
Do you seriously think whatever is left when we leave Iraq is not going to be hostile? It is possible, but hardly likely.
Unfortunately for Israel, the natives are still around in large numbers. And it's a bit late to bring in smallpox etc.
I've heard it all before.
Shouldn't we be guided, instead, by our national self-interest?
I can't see how our national self-interest is served in any way by having the land on which the current state of Israel sits being in the hands of the Israeli government.
I can see how it is in our interest to have access to oil from nearby countries but I don't see how having Israel configured as is furthers that interest.
If you really think that the US has made the situation in the middle east more stable by its actions over the past four years, you must be on another planet. Senior military leaders say publicly that our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Iraq becomes more unstable every day - by nearly everyone's account. Because of US actions Iran's quest for hegemony in the region is far closer to a reality today. Sorry, your claims just don't wash.
So you are saying that Israel has the power of nuclear blackmail. There is no reason why the USA can't stand up to Israel in the same manner that the USA has stood up to other nuclear powers.
The USA's support for Israel has been beyond all sense and reason. As I pointed out, none of the other 14 members of the UN Security Council ever supported any of the approx. 40 US vetoes of proposed resolutions aimed at Israel in the period 1972-2006. To me, that says it all. The USA wasn't always so pro-Israel. In the Suez Crisis of 1956, the USA supported Egypt's Nasser against Israel, Britain, and France.
Well, I suppose you might well find that unlikely if you're the credulous sort who spends his nights sleeping, when he should be worrying about things like grassy knolls and the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel.
Your ancestors still quite likely persecuted Jews. There most likely were no Jews around to persecute in Maine and Quebec because the mother country England expelled its Jews in 1290, and the mother country France expelled its Jews in 1394.
I'll stick with my original statement. My ancestor who arrived in Maine was born on an island off the coast of Scotland in the 1600's, went to Scotland for work, was empressed into the Royal Navy, and jumped ship in Maine. It's not clear where the ancestors in Quebec originated in France, but arrived there at about the same time Louis XIV cleared out the prisons of Paris and sent them off to be colonists. Both events were long after England and France had expelled their Jews, and long after the Spanish Crown expelled the Spanish Jews in 1492. Later their descendents moved to Kansas. I believe I am correct in concluding that it is difficult to persecute a group that isn't around. And, in any event, I see no reason to feel guilt for something my ancestors might have done over 500 years ago.
Amper, while I appreciate your sincerety, I did not mischaracterize your remarks. I quoted them in full and responded by citing facts and raising questions your assertions ignored. I suggest that you study history more. My duties required studying the history of the CENTCOM, and I have benefitted from discussions with people who have devoted their lives to the histories of the peoples, cultures and areas that are now the nations in that area.
You cite the declarations of rights in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. I am not aware that that is a legal document -- in the same sense that the US's Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is a political document. And, while I will acknowledge that Israel has not always met the standards stated in its Declaration, its human rights record is remarkable, far exceeding the standards of customary or codified International Law. The cases of all persons detained by Israel are reviewed each 6 months by its civilian courts. An attorney is provided. There is a right of appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court. And, the civilian courts can, and have, ordered the release of detainee who is no longer considered to be a threat. No Muslim country provides anything close to such rights.
I am curious that you "applaud the[] relative modernism" of the Syrian ruling tribe. Were I to describe the interrogation methods the Syrian Ba'athist Party and security forces routinely use, this post would be deleted. When Mr. Buckley, the CIA agent in Lebanon, was tortured to death over about 2 weeks -- which was videotaped - the persons doing that had been trained in the methods used by Syrian agents. I have viewed a few hours of the tape. That the same persons also eat pork, drink wine and allow their women to go out unveiled hardly seems to support your applause for them.
You asked:
And if you think Israel is really all that democratic, they pray tell me, what of Gaza and the West Bank?
Israel withdrew from Gaza. Hamas, whose founding documents call for the destruction of Israel and all persons living there, and war upon all "infidels" (which appears to include all Muslims who do not follow their particular Sunni doctrine, in addition to Christians, Jews, Hindi, non-believers, etc.) fought a civil war with Al-Fatah and took over Gaza. Daily rocket and mortar attacks are launched from Gaza on Israeli civilian settlements. And, much of the West Bank has been turned over to the Palistinian Authority to govern.
The displacement of the Palestinians by the initial creation of the State of Israel/Protectorate, and later by the Israeli government (in effective collusion with the surrounding Arab states) is going to go down in history as one of the world's greatest humanitarian failures.
The creation of Israel, with a partition between Jewish and Palistinian lands in accordance with the UN resolution, was greeted by declarations of war on Israel by all of the surrounding countries. Almost immediately radio broadcasts in Arabic warned that anyone found there would be executed, including women, children and invalids. The Palistinians were told to leave, that they would be provided places to live and food, and could return after the Arab Armies had exterminated the Jews. Since the Arab Armies had been trained and equipped by the French and British, that seemed to be the likely result. It took little effort by the Israeli government to induce the Palistinians to leave. The same broadcasts continue even today. And, the descendents of those who left remain in the camps, and are taught that once the Jews are exterminated they can go back.
By "Arabs" I assume you mean...
Don't be obsequious. You know exactly what I mean. I mean those groups of people in the Middle East who want to shove every Jew into the Mediterranean. Obviously, the peaceful ones aren't a problem.
I was not being "obsequious" -- or sarcastic, which I believe is the word you meant. Please identify "the peaceful ones"? There are Lebanonise Christian factions that work with Israel, in trying to expel the Syrian agents still in Lebanon, and in fighting Hezabola, the Iranian backed Shia group that controls most of southern Lebanon. Jordan, which has the West Bank as a buffer with Israel, and a convenient place to send the Palistians still in Jordan, and which has its own internal security problems, has no interest in fighting Israel. Egypt got back the Sinai oil fields and other things like a buffer protecting the Suez Canal, in the Camp David Accords. Although these groups are not engaged in active, open hostile actions against Israel, that's far from concluding that they are "peaceful" towards Israel, or wouldn't support an open attack if Israel was vulnerable and it served their interests. Hamas' weapons are smuggled through the Sinai to Gaza. That Egypt fails to take effective actions to stop that hardly qualifies as "peaceful."
As to policing the world, my view is simple. We have the power, therefore we have the responsibility as well, to keep the peace.
Under that standard the US should send troops into the Central African Republic, to depose its self-appointed Emperor, into Uganda, to eliminate the rebels there who kidnap children and force them to become soldiers or sex-slaves, into Peru to fight the Shining Path, and to all the other places where there is insufficient "peace." Would that include the suburbs of Paris when there are riots, or preventing Hugo Chavez from remaining in power for the rest of his life, which eliminating a free press and independent judiciary, while seizing private property and imprisoning opponents as he sees fit?
I gather from your comments and willingness to deploy the US military under the standard you state that you have never served, never deployed, and never heard a bullet whiz past your head. I have personal experience with all those. I am unwilling to agree to you being brave with my blood under such a vague standard as ensuring "peace" all over the world. Using the military to protect important US interests is a much stricter standard. And, while I think it's a good policy, even under that standard mistakes can be made. You have provided no good reason why the US should so deeply intervene into Isreal, whether militarily, diplomaticly, economically, or otherwise, to ensure that it is dissolved, and no good reason to conclude that the results of doing so would either improve the stability of the Mideast or serve US interests.
No, my intent is not to argue with you. Rather, my intent was to see if you could support your assertions with cogent argument supported by facts. If your position is not "popular", you should consider the possibility that your arguments fail to persuade because they are not compelling, and you fail to support your arguments with facts. I do not contend that Israel is some "is a paragon of humanity." Rather, I contend that US support for Israel benefits US interests. I acknowledge that there are conterveiling factors to such support, but contend that promoting or allowing the elimination of Israel would result in even a worse situation. It is always possible to make the Mideast a less stable and more radicalized region. The Shah of Iran was not a "paragon of humanity" either, but look what resulted when, in the name of promoting human rights, the US withdrew its support and forced the dissolution of his government. This is a historical example of the result of the US forcing the dissolution of an allied government in the Mideast. Why do you conclude that a similar result would not occur if Israel was dissolved?
WB, if you really think that's what I said, you must not be a native speaker. But I doubt that's the issue --- just a convenient attempt to avoid what I did say. Just to be clear, what I did say is that to imagine the Iraqi Campaign has been anything but an amazing military success is ahistorical and ignorant.
You did, however --- no doubt purely by chance --- happen upon a real point: the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq did destabilize the Middle East.
Considering that the stability that was diminished included active military operations against the US civilians, military, and diplomatic corps, a long-term war of attrition between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that was killing dozens or hundreds every year, a history of genocidal attacks against Kurds, Turkman, and Shi'a and the first widepread use of lethal chemical weapons in 60-80 years, it escapes me why continued "stability" was in any way desirable. The "stable" situation in the Middle East was no longer tolerable.
Yes, the war destabilized the Middle East. That was its point. The first essential of any attempt to improve a situation is that the situation must change.
Only people who can't read imagine that Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda. All the various commissions ever concluded was that Iraq had no "operational" ties, which is in itself a term of art: it means that Iraq didn't direct al Q operations, and al Q didn't habitually co-ordinate its operations withy Iraq.
Iraq was, hoever, a source of logistic support, financing, safe haven and medical care.
This notion further assumes that al Qaeda was the only organization attacking the US, which is also false. Recall that Klinghoffer's murderer had safe haven in Iraq. Recall further that Iraq had made an active and concerted attempt to assassinate a US president, was engaged in active, if low-level war against US forces in the region at the time, and was flagrantly violating the terms of the cease fire.
Iraq was a threat whether or not it had an operational relationship with al Qaeda.
As to "lines of communication" --- consider, for example, that members of the Talib and al Qaeda were able to move easily from Afghanistan to Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, overland. They no longer can.
Not to mention that Iran is much stronger now - we just took out its main regional rival; aside from Israel, it is now the predominant power in the region.
Yup; similarly, after the fall of Manchuria, Okinawa, and the Philippines, Japan was the pre-eminent force in East Asia.
Iran, the "predominant" power, is cut off from many sources of supply, is being forced into gas rationing, is being forced to put down mass riots and insurrections with deadly force, and is finding that its people aren't thrilled with the rather draconian social controls that are being imposed.
The reference is right here. Are you saying that this reference is wrong?
And we wonder why we're called "The Great Satan."
. . . because the mother country England expelled its Jews in 1290, and the mother country France expelled its Jews in 1394.
Yes, whoever my ancestors may have slaughtered, they don't seem to have had the opportunity to have slaughtered any Jews, who weren't around. Still, a female relative in the Quebec to Kansas branch (not an ancestor) married a Jew. A Jew marrying into a devout Roman Catholic family which had 7 priests - 5 of whom were Society of Jesus. So, perhaps there was some "persecution."
Actually, one of the reasons I enjoy reading the comments on this site is that there are commentators, like yourself, who have studied subjects and provide facts. I was aware of the English and French expulsions of the Jews, but have not found any good histories. Can you recommend some?
I learned of the Spanish expulsion of its Jews somewhat by accident while deployed by Savajevo. The Jews there, among themselves, still speak a medival Spanish dialect. I learned that their ancestors came to Sarajevo when expelled during the Inquisition because the Turkish Empire, as was common of Muslim kingdoms of that time, did not particularly discriminate in religious grounds -- as long as non-Muslims paid the religious tax for being infidels, they were free to worship as they pleased. It is my impression that some of the Spanish Jews were decendents of Jews expelled by England and France, who moved to Spain while it was still largely under Muslim control. However, I haven't seen any histories about that.
You are butting your head against a wall by replying to Amper, who neither knows nor cares about the history of the region. (This is why I know longer reply to self-confessed Holocaust denier Farfaman.) If he knew more, he would know that Israel, like Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria were carved out of the vanquished Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations after the first world war.
There was already a substantial Jewish population in the region that the Arabs called South Syria and the Jews called Palestine. This population dated back to the 1200s, and was increased by a wave of Jewish immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries. The latter immigrants developed agriculture and jobs, which brought Arabs from other parts of the region.
Unlike the other countries established after the end of WWI, Israel was not given independence immediately. The League gave Britain a mandate over this area to develop a Jewish state there -- "Jewish" in the sense of ethnicity, not to religion. The lie that the Jews are simply a religious group is a mainstay of Arab propaganda, and is belied by several thousand years of history.
He would also know that Britain promptly violated the mandate by establishing the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (now Jordan) in about 2/3 of Palestine.
He would also know that Israel is not a theocracy. Arabs -- both Muslim and Christian -- have been part of every Israeli government since the state was founded. No Israeli prime minister has or high official has ever come from any of the religious parties, and the majority parties, the press, and the judicial branch tend to be run by militant atheists. His "proof" in the form of Israel's declaration of independence is ludicrous -- there is not one mention of G-d in the entire declaration. The closest is
I do agree, though, that Israel can do better on its promise in that Declaration to
To date, Jewish holy places and the practice of the Jewish religion receive a much lesser degree of protection than does Islam and its holy sites.
Rather, in a blog such as this (which isn't an echo chamber for a particular ideology), many people read the blog and comments seeking to increase their knowledge. The merits and demerits of various contentions, and their factual or lack of factual support become obvious to those wanting to learn. Amper made his (or her) assertions, and was challenged to support them. The result is now there for all others to read Amper's assertions and the responses.
Obviously, Israel isn't a theocracy. The current President of Israel is either a Christian or Muslim (I don't recall which at the moment, but remember that he isn't Jewish).
I am also familiar with the Zionist (back to Palistine) movement of the late 19th Century in the US and Europe. It was a secular movement, predominently socialist, in its political philosophy. In the US it had a counter-part in the Ethical Cultural School established in NYC, originally to provide a first rate education to the children of working class parents. Only later, partly in response to anti-semitism which denied some educational opportunities to Jewish children, did the school increasingly admit middle and affluent children. For a while, one of the school's board members was the father of J. Robert Oppenheimer and his brother Frank, both of whom graduated from the school. In the 1920's, some of the school's board members were founding members of the NAACP. While the school emphasized teaching ethics, it was completely secular and integrated by gender, religious affiliation (or lack of one) and race. However, over the years the economic status of its students went from about 90% working class to about 10% working class.
Perhaps Amper will take my challenge to actually study the history of the Mideast, or more likely he (or she) won't. However, many others will see the comments, including yours, and decide to do so, and you will have helped spread the facts to others, making the effort worthwhile.
Thank you for taking the time to do so.
That is just an excuse for ducking my point about no other UN Security Council member ever supporting a US veto of a proposed resolution aimed at Israel in the period 1972-2006.
In the period 1988-1997 there was an unbroken string of ten 14-1 US vetoes of resolutions aimed at Israel. Some of these resolutions charged Israel with violations of international law: the Fourth Geneva Convention, previous Security Council resolutions, and Israel's treaty obligations.
It is unfair to interpret an abstention as always representing "low-key" opposition.
The most consistent abstainer was Britain, and Britain's abstentions could have just been a favor to the USA.
That makes no sense at all -- if most Council members are on our side, then why amend or withdraw the resolution? If most members are on our side, then the resolution will pass unless another permanent member vetoes it.
Israel has nuclear weapons capable of reaching cities throughout Europe and Asia. By allying with Israel, the U.S. exerts some moderating influence on Israel, . . .. How's that for realism, Mearsheimer and Walt?
</blockquote>
Wow - that is seriously unhinged.
Are you suggesting that Israel might launch a nuclear attack on Europe or somewhere in Asia? If not, I can't imagine why in the world you would note that their nuclear weapons could reach that far. In any event, if Israel does present a credible nuclear danger to Europe and Asia, that is nothing more than an argument that the United States should immediately launch a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel and obliterate it.
I mean, when Saddam was rumoured to be building a nuclear arsenal, we didn't continue to sell him billions of dollars in arms and provide aid to try to "moderate" him, did we?
Let me be clear - I am not advocating erasure of Israel - only responding to the argument advanced by DB that we better be nice to Israel let they start launching missiles into Paris or something.
So once more, every security council resolution about Israel that was vetoed by the US deserved to be vetoed. And for what it's worth, so did any number that the US did NOT veto. The US should be proud, not ashamed, opf being the sole voice of decency when one-sided and misleading resolutions have been introduced.
I only said that a "systematic" holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way(s) of identifying Jews and non-Jews. And calling me a holocaust denier is just an ad hominem attack.
Asking Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, previous Security Council resolutions, and Israel's treaty obligations is "one-sided and misleading"? You are really sick.
(Next up from Larry, "There must not have been any slavery in the U.S., because who could tell which people were slaves?")Saying that you're wrong because you're a holocaust denier would be an ad hominem. Pointing out to other people that you're irrational and therefore not worth having a discussion with is not an ad hominem; it's a friendly piece of advice. Discussion presupposes that the other person is willing to listen to reason and incorporate new information into his views; you're not, so discussion with you is pointless.
You're more enamored of your theories than of reality; it's hardly limited to the Holocaust. You pat yourself on the back for brilliant insights simply because you've had them, whether they're true or not. You congratulate yourself for inventing legal theories that don't win, simply because you're the one who invented them. You misread legal cases constantly, and when lawyers explain, you ignore them because you think you're smart. In short, a waste of time.
Finally how can we as a world stand by and let these things constantly happen.
Perhaps because historically, factually, morally, ethically, legally and militarily, the acts are nothing alike. This of course does not stop people who care nothing about history, facts, morals, ethics, law or military reality from positing false equivalence between the two.
You may be pleased to know that this group includes a great number of Israeli politicians and academics, who are prolonging the conflict and increasing deaths and misery on both sides under the illusion that they are being merciful.
In the face of an opinion, neither logic nor facts will prevail with a person who has made up and closed their mind.
Yes, you have demonstrated that quite well. Your fallacious attacks referring to what you believe is my lack of knowledge about Israel in general are proof of that. Your misdirection and false conflation of my points with matters irrelevant to this particular discussion reinforces this.
Your assertion that you know more about the situtation in the Middle East than I do does not necessarily make it so, nor does the assertion, even if true, necessarily mean that you are the ultimate authority on the subject--your lack of knowledge about the background of Shimon Peres, and the assertion that Zionism can in some way be characterized as a "secular" movement (regardless of the secular political leanings of early Zionists) are a clear indicator that you don't actually know as much as you say you do.
What the Nazis did was like going to another state, rounding up a whole bunch of blacks at random, and trying to guess which ones were slaves.
The issue of Jew identification in the holocaust, which should be an important part of holocaust studies, has been almost completely ignored. A book titled "IBM and the Holocaust" tried to address the subject but flopped.
The Nazis did not even know what a Jew is. We still don't know what a Jew is.
Zionism was opposed by nearly all of the Jewish religious authorities. The religious Zionist movement was a distinct minority both in the Zionist world and in the Orthodox world. Zionism is still opposed today by the strictly Orthodox, though only the pseudo-Orthodox Neturei Karta call for the abolition of the state. Support for political Zionism is one of the major dividing points between so-called Modern Orthodoxy and the Yeshiva world.
The fiercely secular, socialist anti-religious Labor Party has governed the state from the time of independence in 1948 until the first Likkud victory in 1948. Likkud is also run by secularists. No Jewish religious party has ever held more than a few seats in the Knesset, and until Uri Lupolianski was elected mayor of Yerushalayim a few years ago, no religious Jew had ever been elected to significant office in Israel.
But persist in your belief that Zionism is not a secular movement. And in your illusion that clinging to this belief in the face of documented fact somehow establishes your superior knowledge. It just points out that you lack both the intellectual honesty and the intellectual curiosity to take wjflag up on his challenge.
Yeah, that happened too. But how did they know which people were black? How could they tell? It's a mystery to Larry.
What do you mean, "We," paleface?
I didn't say "which people were black" -- I said "which blacks were slaves." Duh.
I forgot -- you're the one with the crystal ball who can identify Jews.
For a self-styled expert, Farfaman chooses to ignore quite a bit about life in Europe -- especially Eastern Europe -- that would have made it much easier to tell Jews from gentiles.
That is just anecdotal evidence.
It is alleged that some of the "Jewish" victims of the holocaust were so un-Jewish that they did not even think of themselves as Jews.
To carry out a "systematic" holocaust, the Nazis not only needed the ability to reliably identify Jews, but needed the ability to reliably identify non-Jews as well.
This issue of the identification of Jews and non-Jews should be central to holocaust studies but has been almost completely ignored.
Yes. They were the ones with Jewish identity papers, who attended shul rather than church, had Jewish identity papers, lived in the Jewish areas, had Jewish identity papers, had Jewish names, had Jewish identity papers, dressed like Jews, had Jewish identity papers, lived in the Jewish areas, had Jewish identity papers, were pointed to by neighbors as Jewish, had Jewish identity papers, were identified in the censuses as Jewish, had Jewish identity papers, had Jewish parents, had Jewish identity papers, were circumcised, had Jewish identity papers, spoke Yiddish, had Jewish identity papers... Real tough. Major crystal balls required. You're a freaking genius.
Way to go -- when you can't answer the message, attack the messenger.
What is this nonsense about Jews running around Europe with "Jewish identity papers"? Where is this documented?
If the Nazis could identify all the Jews by means of "Jewish identity papers," then why did Edwin Black claim that his book "IBM and the Holocaust" -- which was a flop -- solved the mystery of how the Nazis identified the Jews?