Zionist Jews control our fake democracy! Face the fact and the truth!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subCon%5CtrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

White man's burden

By Ari Shavit

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals,

most of

them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of

history.

Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say

it's

possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the

group),

is skeptical

1. The doctrine

WASHINGTON - At the conclusion of its second week, the war to liberate

Iraq

wasn't looking good. Not even in Washington. The assumption of a

swift

collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime had itself collapsed. The

presupposition that the Iraqi dictatorship would crumble as soon as

mighty

America entered the country proved unfounded. The Shi'ites didn't rise

up,

the Sunnis fought fiercely. Iraqi guerrilla warfare found the

American

generals unprepared and endangered their overextended supply lines.

Nevertheless, 70 percent of the American people continued to support

the

war; 60 percent thought victory was certain; 74 percent expressed

confidence

in President George W. Bush.

Washington is a small city. It's a place of human dimensions. A kind

of

small town that happens to run an empire. A small town of government

officials and members of Congress and personnel of research institutes

and

journalists who pretty well all know one another. Everyone is busy

intriguing against everyone else; and everyone gossips about everyone

else.

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town:

the

belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a

small

group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost

all of

them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz,

Douglas

Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who

are

mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that

political

ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the

right

political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights

and

grit. The philosophical underpinnings of the Washington

neoconservatives are

the writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They also

admire

Winston Churchill and the policy pursued by Ronald Reagan. They tend

to read

reality in terms of the failure of the 1930s (Munich) versus the

success of

the 1980s (the fall of the Berlin Wall).

Are they wrong? Have they committed an act of folly in leading

Washington to

Baghdad? They don't think so. They continue to cling to their belief.

They

are still pretending that everything is more or less fine. That things

will

work out. Occasionally, though, they seem to break out in a cold

sweat. This

is no longer an academic exercise, one of them says, we are

responsible for

what is happening. The ideas we put forward are now affecting the

lives of

millions of people. So there are moments when you're scared. You say,

Hell,

we came to help, but maybe we made a mistake.

2. William Kristol

Has America bitten off more than it can chew? Bill Kristol says no.

True,

the press is very negative, but when you examine the facts in the

field you

see that there is no terrorism, no mass destruction, no attacks on

Israel.

The oil fields in the south have been saved, air control has been

achieved,

American forces are deployed 50 miles from Baghdad. So, even if

mistakes

were made here and there, they are not serious. America is big enough

to

handle that. Kristol hasn't the slightest doubt that in the end,

General

Tommy Franks will achieve his goals. The 4th Cavalry Division will

soon

enter the fray, and another division is on its way from Texas. So

it's

possible that instead of an elegant war with 60 killed in two weeks it

will

be a less elegant affair with a thousand killed in two months, but

nevertheless Bill Kristol has no doubt at all that the Iraq Liberation

War

is a just war, an obligatory war.

Kristol is pleasant-looking, of average height, in his late forties.

In the

past 18 months he has used his position as editor of the right-wing

Weekly

Standard and his status as one of the leaders of the neoconservative

circle

in Washington to induce the White House to do battle against Saddam

Hussein.

Because Kristol is believed to exercise considerable influence on the

president, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald

Rumsfeld, he is also perceived as having been instrumental in getting

Washington to launch this all-out campaign against Baghdad. Sitting

behind

the stacks of books that cover his desk at the offices of the Weekly

Standard in Northwest Washington, he tries to convince me that he is

not

worried. It is simply inconceivable to him that America will not win.

In

that event, the consequences would be catastrophic. No one wants to

think

seriously about that possibility.

What is the war about? I ask. Kristol replies that at one level it is

the

war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime

that

has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper

level it

is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East. It is a war

that is

intended to change the political culture of the entire region. Because

what

happened on September 11, 2001, Kristol says, is that the Americans

looked

around and saw that the world is not what they thought it was. The

world is

a dangerous place. Therefore the Americans looked for a doctrine that

would

enable them to cope with this dangerous world. And the only doctrine

they

found was the neoconservative one.

That doctrine maintains that the problem with the Middle East is the

absence

of democracy and of freedom. It follows that the only way to block

people

like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is to disseminate democracy

and

freedom. To change radically the cultural and political dynamics that

creates such people. And the way to fight the chaos is to create a new

world

order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready

to

use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is

what

the war is about. It is being fought to consolidate a new world order,

to

create a new Middle East.

Does that mean that the war in Iraq is effectively a neoconservative

war?

That's what people are saying, Kristol replies, laughing. But the

truth is

that it's an American war. The neoconservatives succeeded because

they

touched the bedrock of America. The thing is that America has a

profound

sense of mission. America has a need to offer something that

transcends a

life of comfort, that goes beyond material success. Therefore, because

of

their ideals, the Americans accepted what the neoconservatives

proposed.

They didn't want to fight a war over interests, but over values. They

wanted

a war driven by a moral vision. They wanted to hitch their wagon to

something bigger than themselves.

Does this moral vision mean that after Iraq will come the turns of

Saudi

Arabia and Egypt?

Kristol says that he is at odds with the administration on the

question of

Saudi Arabia. But his opinion is that it is impossible to let Saudi

Arabia

just continue what it is doing. It is impossible to accept the

anti-Americanism it is disseminating. The fanatic Wahhabism that

Saudi

Arabia engenders is undermining the stability of the entire region.

It's the

same with Egypt, he says: we mustn't accept the status quo there. For

Egypt,

too, the horizon has to be liberal democracy.

It has to be understood that in the final analysis, the stability that

the

corrupt Arab despots are offering is illusory. Just as the stability

that

Yitzhak Rabin received from Yasser Arafat was illusory. In the end,

none of

these decadent dictatorships will endure. The choice is between

extremist

Islam, secular fascism or democracy. And because of September 11,

American

understands that. America is in a position where it has no choice. It

is

obliged to be far more aggressive in promoting democracy. Hence this

war.

It's based on the new American understanding that if the United States

does

not shape the world in its image, the world will shape the United

States in

its own image.

3. Charles Krauthammer

Is this going to turn into a second Vietnam? Charles Krauthammer says

no.

There is no similarity to Vietnam. Unlike in the 1960s, there is no

anti-establishment subculture in the United States now. Unlike in the

1960s,

there is now an abiding love of the army in the United States. Unlike

in the

1960s, there is a determined president, one with character, in the

White

House. And unlike in the 1960s, Americans are not deterred from

making

sacrifices. That is the sea-change that took place here on September

11,

2001. Since that morning, Americans have understood that if they don't

act

now and if weapons of mass destruction reach extremist terrorist

organizations, millions of Americans will die. Therefore, because

they

understand that those others want to kill them by the millions, the

Americans prefer to take to the field of battle and fight, rather than

sit

idly by and die at home.

Charles Krauthammer is handsome, swarthy and articulate. In his

spacious

office on 19th Street in Northwest Washington, he sits upright in a

black

wheelchair. Although his writing tends to be gloomy, his mood now is

elevated. The well-known columnist (Washington Post, Time, Weekly

Standard)

has no real doubts about the outcome of the war that he promoted for

18

months. No, he does not accept the view that he helped lead America

into the

new killing fields between the Tigris and the Euphrates. But it is

true that

he is part of a conceptual stream that had something to offer in the

aftermath of September 11. Within a few weeks after the attacks on the

Twin

Towers and the Pentagon, he had singled out Baghdad in his columns as

an

essential target. And now, too, he is convinced that America has the

strength to pull it off. The thought that America will not win has

never

even crossed his mind.

What is the war about? It's about three different issues. First of

all, this

is a war for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That's

the

basis, the self-evident cause, and it is also sufficient cause in

itself.

But beyond that, the war in Iraq is being fought to replace the

demonic deal

America cut with the Arab world decades ago. That deal said: you will

send

us oil and we will not intervene in your internal affairs. Send us oil

and

we will not demand from you what we are demanding of Chile, the

Philippines,

Korea and South Africa.

That deal effectively expired on September 11, 2001, Krauthammer says.

Since

that day, the Americans have understood that if they allow the Arab

world to

proceed in its evil ways - suppression, economic ruin, sowing despair

- it

will continue to produce more and more bin Ladens. America thus

reached the

conclusion that it has no choice: it has to take on itself the project

of

rebuilding the Arab world. Therefore, the Iraq war is really the

beginning

of a gigantic historical experiment whose purpose is to do in the Arab

world

what was done in Germany and Japan after World War II.

It's an ambitious experiment, Krauthammer admits, maybe even utopian,

but

not unrealistic. After all, it is inconceivable to accept the racist

assumption that the Arabs are different from all other human beings,

that

the Arabs are incapable of conducting a democratic way of life.

However, according to the Jewish-American columnist, the present war

has a

further importance. If Iraq does become pro-Western and if it becomes

the

focus of American influence, that will be of immense geopolitical

importance. An American presence in Iraq will project power across

the

region. It will suffuse the rebels in Iran with courage and strength,

and it

will deter and restrain Syria. It will accelerate the processes of

change

that the Middle East must undergo.

Isn't the idea of preemptive war a dangerous one that rattles the

world

order?

There is no choice, Krauthammer replies. In the 21st century we face a

new

and singular challenge: the democratization of mass destruction. There

are

three possible strategies in the face of that challenge: appeasement,

deterrence and preemption. Because appeasement and deterrence will not

work,

preemption is the only strategy left. The United States must implement

an

aggressive policy of preemption. Which is exactly what it is now doing

in

Iraq. That is what Tommy Franks' soldiers are doing as we speak.

And what if the experiment fails? What if America is defeated?

This war will enhance the place of America in the world for the

coming

generation, Krauthammer says. Its outcome will shape the world for the

next

25 years. There are three possibilities. If the United States wins

quickly

and without a bloodbath, it will be a colossus that will dictate the

world

order. If the victory is slow and contaminated, it will be impossible

to go

on to other Arab states after Iraq. It will stop there. But if America

is

beaten, the consequences will be catastrophic. Its deterrent

capability will

be weakened, its friends will abandon it and it will become insular.

Extreme

instability will be engendered in the Middle East.

You don't really want to think about what will happen, Krauthammer

says

looking me straight in the eye. But just because that's so, I am

positive we

will not lose. Because the administration understands the

implications. The

president understands that everything is riding on this. So he will

throw

everything we've got into this. He will do everything that has to be

done.

George W. Bush will not let America lose.

4. Thomas Friedman

Is this an American Lebanon War? Tom Friedman says he is afraid it is.

He

was there, in the Commodore Hotel in Beirut, in the summer of 1982,

and he

remembers it well. So he sees the lines of resemblance clearly.

General

Ahmed Chalabi (the Shi'ite leader that the neoconservatives want to

install

as the leader of a free Iraq) in the role of Bashir Jemayel. The

Iraqi

opposition in the role of the Phalange. Richard Perle and the

conservative

circle around him as Ariel Sharon. And a war that is at bottom a war

of

choice. A war that wants to utilize massive force in order to

establish a

new order.

Tom Friedman, The New York Times columnist, did not oppose the war. On

the

contrary. He too was severely shaken by September 11, he too wants to

understand where these desperate fanatics are coming from who hate

America

more than they love their own lives. And he too reached the conclusion

that

the status quo in the Middle East is no longer acceptable. The status

quo is

terminal. And therefore it is urgent to foment a reform in the Arab

world.

Some things are true even if George Bush believes them, Friedman says

with a

smile. And after September 11, it's impossible to tell Bush to drop

it,

ignore it. There was a certain basic justice in the overall American

feeling

that told the Arab world: we left you alone for a long time, you

played with

matches and in the end we were burned. So we're not going to leave you

alone

any longer.

He is sitting in a large rectangular room in the offices of The New

York

Times in northwest Washington, on the corner of 17th Street. One wall

of the

room is a huge map of the world. Hunched over his computer, he reads

me

witty lines from the article that will be going to press in two hours.

He

polishes, sharpens, plays word games. He ponders what's right to say

now,

what should be left for a later date. Turning to me, he says that

democracies look soft until they're threatened. When threatened, they

become

very hard. Actually, the Iraq war is a kind of Jenin on a huge scale.

Because in Jenin, too, what happened was that the Israelis told the

Palestinians, We left you here alone and you played with matches

until

suddenly you blew up a Passover seder in Netanya. And therefore we are

not

going to leave you along any longer. We will go from house to house in

the

Casbah. And from America's point of view, Saddam's Iraq is Jenin. This

war

is a defensive shield. It follows that the danger is the same: that

like

Israel, America will make the mistake of using only force.

This is not an illegitimate war, Friedman says. But it is a very

presumptuous war. You need a great deal of presumption to believe that

you

can rebuild a country half a world from home. But if such a

presumptuous war

is to have a chance, it needs international support. That

international

legitimacy is essential so you will have enough time and space to

execute

your presumptuous project. But George Bush didn't have the patience to

glean

international support. He gambled that the war would justify itself,

that we

would go in fast and conquer fast and that the Iraqis would greet us

with

rice and the war would thus be self-justifying. That did not happen.

Maybe

it will happen next week, but in the meantime it did not happen.

When I think about what is going to happen, I break into a sweat,

Friedman

says. I see us being forced to impose a siege on Baghdad. And I know

what

kind of insanity a siege on Baghdad can unleash. The thought of

house-to-house combat in Baghdad without international legitimacy

makes me

lose my appetite. I see American embassies burning. I see windows of

American businesses shattered. I see how the Iraqi resistance to

America

connects to the general Arab resistance to America and the worldwide

resistance to America. The thought of what could happen is eating me

up.

What George Bush did, Friedman says, is to show us a splendid

mahogany

table: the new democratic Iraq. But when you turn the table over, you

see

that it has only one leg. This war is resting on one leg. But on the

other

hand, anyone who thinks he can defeat George Bush had better think

again.

Bush will never give in. That's not what he's made of. Believe me, you

don't

want to be next to this guy when he thinks he's being backed into a

corner.

I don't suggest that anyone who holds his life dear mess with Dick

Cheney,

Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush.

Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the

neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the

neoconservatives

marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and

they

sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the

masses

demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you

the

names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-

block

radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island

a year

and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

Still, it's not all that simple, Friedman retracts. It's not some

fantasy

the neoconservatives invented. It's not that 25 people hijacked

America. You

don't take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill

Kristol

and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential

columnists. In

the final analysis, what fomented the war is America's over-reaction

to

September 11. The genuine sense of anxiety that spread in America

after

September 11. It is not only the neoconservatives who led us to the

outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a

very

American combination of anxiety and hubris.

--------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison01252003.html

January 25, 2003

Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore:

Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq

by BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON

former CIA political analysts

Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in

the

Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part

of

their intention in promoting war against Iraq (and later perhaps

against

Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee

Israel's

security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a

regional

balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel's favor, and in general

creating a

more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite

the

neo-cons' own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose

going

to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the

Bush

administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel

is

pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S.,

or even

hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest

any

Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration

war

planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-

Semite.

Just whisper the word "domination" anywhere in the vicinity of the

word

"Israel," as in "U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East" or "the

U.S.

drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,"

and

some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot

out

charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old

czarist

forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.

This is tiresome, to put it mildly. So it's useful to put forth the

evidence

for the assertion of Israeli complicity in Bush administration

planning for

war with Iraq, which is voluminous, as the following recitation will

show.

Much of what is presented below could be classified as circumstantial,

but

much is from the mouths of the horses themselves, either the neo-con

planners or Israeli government officials, and much of it is evidence

that,

even if Israel is not actively pushing for war, many Israelis expect

to

benefit from it, and this despite their fear that a war will bring

down on

Israel a shower of Iraqi missiles.

The evidence below is listed chronologically, except for two items

grouped

separately at the end. Although deletions have been made for the sake

of

brevity, and emphasis has been added to occasional phrases and

sentences, no

editorial narrative has been added. The evidence speaks for itself.

"Benjamin Netanyahu's government comes in with a new set of ideas.

While

there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the

opportunity to

make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on

an

entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic

initiative.To secure the nation's streets and borders in the

immediate

future, Israel can [among other steps] work closely with Turkey and

Jordan

to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous

threats.

This implies a clean break from the slogan, 'comprehensive peace' to

a

traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power. Israel can

shape

its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by

weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can

focus on

removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli

strategic

objective in its own right, as a means of foiling Syria's regional

ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently

by

suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq..Since Iraq's

future

could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it

would

be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the

Hashemites

in their efforts to redefine Iraq. Israel's new agenda can signal a

clean

break by abandoning a policy whichallowed strategic retreat, by

reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation

alone

and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel's new

strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that

grant

Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most

needed:

to rejuvenate its national idea.Ultimately, Israel can do more than

simply

manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or

victories will grant Israel the peace it seeks. When Israel is on a

sound

economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it

will no

longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it.

As a

senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: 'Israel must rejuvenate

and

revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important,

if not

the most important, element in the history of the Middle East.'

Israel-proud, wealthy, solid, and strong-would be the basis of a truly

new

and peaceful Middle East."

"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," policy paper

written

for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, mid-1996, under the

auspices

of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and

Political

Studies. Authors included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David

Wurmser,

now all policymakers in or policy advisers to the Bush administration

"Iraq's future will profoundly affect the strategic balance in the

Middle

East. The battle to dominate and define Iraq is, by extension, the

battle to

dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run.Iraq

tried to

take over its neighbor, Kuwait, a catastrophic mistake that has

accelerated

Iraq's descent into internal chaos. This chaos has created a vacuum in

an

area geostrategically central, and rich with human and natural

resources.

The vacuum tempts Iraq's neighbors to intervene, especially Syria,

which is

also driven to control the region.Iraq's chaos and Syria's efforts

simultaneously provide opportunities for the Jordanian monarchy.

Jordan is

best suited to manage the tribal politics that will define the Levant

in the

wake of failed secular-Arab nationalism.IfJordan wins, then Syria

would be

isolated and surrounded by a new pro-western Jordanian-Israeli-Iraqi-

Turkish

bloc.It would be prudent for the United States and Israel to abandon

the

quest for 'comprehensive peace,' including its 'land for peace'

provision

with Syria, since it locks the United States into futile attempts to

prop-up

local tyrants and the unnatural states underneath them. Instead, the

United

States and Israel can use this competition over Iraq to improve the

regional

balance of power in favor of regional friends like Jordan."

"Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power

Strategy for the Levant," policy paper written for an Israeli think

tank,

the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, December

1996,

by David Wurmser, now a State Department official in the Bush

administration

"In the [occupied] territories, the Arab world, and in Israel, Bush's

support for Sharon is being credited to the pro-Israel lobby, meaning

Jewish

money and the Christian right.[in April 2002] state department

professionals

convinced Bush that it was important to quell the violence in the

territories before assaulting Iraq. The U.S. military supported that

view,

emphasizing the critical importance of the ground bases in Saudi

Arabia and

Egypt, for the success of the mission. But according to a well-placed

American source, the weather vane turned.Vice President Dick Cheney,

Defense

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz,

asked Bush

what kind of coalition-shmoalition he needed to win the war in

Afghanistan.

They calmed his concerns by saying there's no chance the situation in

the

territories will shake the regimes of Mubarak in Egypt and the

Abdullahs in

Jordan and Saudi Arabia.Last Saturday [April 20], the president

convened his

advisors in Camp David, for another discussion of the crisis in the

territories and Iraq. They decided to sit on the fence."

Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz, April 26, 2002

"It echoes the hawks in the Bush administration, but Israel has its

own

agenda in backing a US attack on Iraq. As Egypt and other Arab allies

issue

vehement warnings to dissuade Washington, Israel's fear is that the US

will

back off. 'If the Americans do not do this now,' said Israeli Deputy

Defense

Minister and Labor Party member Weizman Shiry on Wednesday, 'it will

be

harder to do it in the future. In a year or two, Saddam Hussein will

be

further along in developing weapons of mass destruction. It is a

world

interest, but especially an American interest to attack Iraq. And as

deputy

defense minister, I can tell you that the United States will receive

any

assistance it needs from Israel,' he added. Viewed through the eyes

of

Israel's hawkish leaders, however, a US strike is not about Iraq

only.

Decisionmakers believe it will strengthen Israel's hand on the

Palestinian

front and throughout the region. Deputy Interior Minister Gideon Ezra

suggested this week that a US attack on Iraq will help Israel impose a

new

order, sans Arafat, in the Palestinian territories. 'The more

aggressive the

attack is, the more it will help Israel against the Palestinians. The

understanding would be that what is good to do in Iraq, is also good

for

here,' said Ezra. He said a US strike would 'undoubtedly deal a

psychological blow' to the Palestinians.Yuval Steinitz, a Likud party

member

of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, says he sees

another

advantage for Israel. The installation of a pro-American government in

Iraq

would help Israel vis-a-vis another enemy: Syria. 'After Iraq is taken

by US

troops and we see a new regime installed as in Afghanistan, and Iraqi

bases

become American bases, it will be very easy to pressure Syria to stop

supporting terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad,

to

allow the Lebanese army to dismantle Hizbullah, and maybe to put an

end to

the Syrian occupation in Lebanon,' he says. 'If this happens we will

really

see a new Middle East. It might be enough not to invade Syria but just

to

have an American or UN blockade so that no one can ship weapons to

it,'

Steinitz adds.Mr. Ezra predicts a US strike would 'calm down the

entire

region' by eliminating 'the extremism of Saddam.'"

Ben Lynfield, Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2002

"As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq, its

most

hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East that

sees

the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq as merely a first

step in

the region's transformation. The argument for reshaping the political

landscape in the Mideast has been pushed for years by some Washington

think

tanks and in hawkish circles. It is now being considered as a possible

US

policy with the ascent of key hard-liners in the administration, from

Paul

Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon to John Hannah and Lewis

Libby

on the vice president's staff and John Bolton in the State

Department,

analysts and officials say. Iraq, the hawks argue, is just the first

piece

of the puzzle. After an ouster of Hussein, they say, the United States

will

have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran, will be in a better

position to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will be able

to

rely less on Saudi oil. The thinking does not represent official US

policy.

But increasingly the argument has served as a justification for a

military

attack against Iraq, and elements of the strategy have emerged in

speeches

by administration officials, most prominently Vice President Dick

Cheney.A

powerful corollary of the strategy is that a pro-US Iraq would make

the

region safer for Israel and, indeed, its staunchest proponents are

ardent

supporters of the Israeli right-wing. Administration officials,

meanwhile,

have increasingly argued that the onset of an Iraq allied to the US

would

give the administration more sway in bringing about a settlement to

the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though Cheney and others have offered

few

details on precisely how.In its broadest terms, the advocates argue

that a

democratic Iraq would unleash similar change elsewhere in the Arab

world.'Everyone will flip out, starting with the Saudis,' said Meyrav

Wurmser, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson

Institute in Washington [and another author of the 1996 policy paper

written

for Israel, above]. 'It will send shock waves throughout the Arab

world.

Look, we already are pushing for democracy in the Palestinian

Authority,

though not with a huge amount of success, and we need a little bit

more of a

heavy-handed approach,' she said. 'But if we can get a democracy in

the

Palestinian Authority, democracy in Iraq, get the Egyptians to improve

their

human rights and open up their system, it will be a spectacular

change.

After a war with Iraq, then you really shape the region.'"

John Donnelly and Anthony Shadid, Boston Globe, September 10, 2002

"Slowly, President Bush's war plan against Iraq is emerging from the

thick

fog. At first it looked like a collection of hazy slogans, but

gradually it

is becoming clear that it has definite, if hidden, aims.The war plan

of the

Bushies makes sense only if the US leadership is ready (more than

that, is

actually longing) for the occupation of Iraq in order to remain there

for

many, many years.But in the eyes of Bush and his advisers, this is a

very

worthwhile investment that would yield immense benefits. Among others:

The main objective of the American economy (and therefore of

American

policy) is the oil of the Caspian Sea.

The existence of a secure American base in the heart of the Arab

world will

also enable Washington to bully all the Arab regimes, lest they stray

from

the straight and narrow.

The new situation will destroy the last remnants of Arab

independence. Even

today, almost all the Arab countries are dependent on America.

A massive American physical presence in their midst will put an end to

any

pretense of Arab power and unity.A grandiose, world-embracing, yet

simple

and logical design. What does it remind me of?In the early 80's, I

heard

about several plans like this from Ariel Sharon (which I published at

the

time). His head was full of grand designs for restructuring the Middle

East,

the creation of an Israeli 'security zone' from Pakistan to Central

Africa,

the overthrow of regimes and installing others in their stead, moving

a

whole people (the Palestinians) and so forth. I can't help it, but the

winds

blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no

proof

that the Bushies got their ideas from him, even if all of them seem to

have

been mesmerized by him. But the style is the same, a mixture of

megalomania,

creativity, arrogance, ignorance and superficiality. An explosive

mixture.

Sharon's grand design floundered, as we know. The bold flights of

imagination and the superficial logic did not help; -Sharon simply did

not

understand the real currents of history. I fear that the band of

Bush,

Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle and all the other little

Sharons

are suffering from the same syndrome.Sharon may believe that he will

be the

big winner of such an American move, though history may show that he

brought

a historical disaster on us. He may succeed in exploiting the ensuing

anarchy in order to drive the Palestinians out of the country. But

within a

few years Israel could find itself surrounded by a new Middle EastA

region

full of hatred, dreaming of revenge, driven by religious and

nationalist

fanaticism. And in the end, the Americans will go home. We will be

left here

alone. But people like Bush and Sharon do not march to the beat of

history.

They are listening to a different drummer."

Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, CounterPunch.org, September 10,

2002

"Ever since the Bush administration ordered the CIA to nurture the

exiled

Iraqis, nothing happens to them by accident. [Jordanian] Prince

Hassan

didn't just happen to drop in [on a meeting of Iraqi exiles in

London]

because he was in town. The Hashemite dynasty has never given up its

dream

to revive the Iraqi throne. It could be a great job for Hassan, whose

older

brother [the late King Hussein] denied him the Jordanian kingdom at

the last

minute. It's true that restoring a monarchy in Iraq does not exactly

fit the

Bush administration's vision of a democratic Middle East. But there

are

signs that it fits some old dreams of a few of the key strategists

around

the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triangle running America's Iraq policy. A few

weeks

ago, Richard Perle invited the Pentagon chiefs to a meeting with

researchers

from a Washington think tank.According to information that reached a

former

top official in the Israeli security services, the researchers showed

two

slides to the Pentagon officials. The first was a depiction of the

three

goals in the war on terror and the democratization of the Middle East:

Iraq,

a tactical goal; Saudi Arabia, a strategic goal; and Egypt, the great

prize.

The triangle in the next slide was no less interesting: Palestine is

Israel,

Jordan is Palestine, and Iraq is the Hashemite Kingdom."

Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar, Ha'aretz, October 1, 2002

"The summer of 1993 saw the emergence of two contradictory paths

concerning

Israel and its place in the Middle East. The signing of the Oslo

agreement

raised hopes for Israel's integration into a web of political,

security and

economic cooperation with its Arab neighbors. At the same time,

Harvard

Prof. Samuel Huntington published his essay, 'The Clash of

Civilizations,'

in which he argued that the conflicts around the world would no longer

be

over ideology, but over culture instead. 'Islam has bloody borders,'

Huntington wrote, counting Israel as a 'Western creation' on the fault

lines

of the conflict, along with Kashmir and Bosnia. The idea was accepted

enthusiastically by the Israeli right wing. It also had some

supporters on

the left, most noticeably Ehud Barak, who described Israel as a

Western

fortress in the region, 'a villa in the jungle.' As of now, it appears

that

the argument was settled in favor of the clash of civilizations

theory,

which has taken over the political and security establishment in

Israel.The

appeal of the clash of civilizations theory is also expressed in the

Israeli

enthusiasm for the expected American assault on Iraq, in the hope of

showing

the Arabs who's the boss in the region. Israel is the only country to

absolutely support the American decision, and has urged it to act,

and

quickly.The tangible result of the change in consciousness has been

deepening Israel's dependence on American defense and economic

support.

Sharon led that policy. The same Sharon says there are no free lunches

in

policy and is now begging for aid from Washington, trying to point

the

American cannon in the direction of its next target after Iraq."

Israeli correspondent Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz, November 14, 2002

"The embrace of U.S. President George W. Bush is Ariel Sharon's chief

asset

as he vies for another term of office as prime minister. Sharon is

finding

it hard to show any achievements during his 20 months in power.The

only card

left in his hand is the diplomatic card, as personified by Israel's

good

relations with the White House, and all of Sharon's campaign revolves

around

it. Sharon and his cronies are now asking the voters for an extended

period

of grace, and are promising that next year will be the year that

counts. All

of their hopes and expectations are pointed toward Washington: an

American

attack on Iraq is seen as the lever which can extricate Israel from

its

economic, security and social quagmire. It is hoped that the removal

of

Saddam Hussein from power will set in motion a 'domino effect,' will

end the

Palestinian Intifada, bring about the end of Yasser Arafat's regime

and

eradicate the threat to Israel from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah."

Israeli correspondent Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz, November 18, 2002

"To understand the genesis of this extraordinary [uS global] ambition,

it is

also necessary to grasp the moral, cultural and intellectual world of

American nationalism in which it has taken shape. This nationalism

existed

long before last September, but it has been inflamed by those attacks

and,

equally dangerously, it has become even more entwined with the

nationalism

of the Israeli Right.The banal propaganda portrayal of Saddam as a

crazed

and suicidal dictator plays well on the American street, but I don't

believe

that it is a view shared by the Administration. Rather, their

intention is

partly to retain an absolute certainty of being able to defend the

Gulf

against an Iraqi attack, but, more important, to retain for the US

and

Israel a free hand for intervention in the Middle East as a whole.

>From the

point of view of Israel, the Israeli lobby and their representatives

in the

Administration, the apparent benefits of such a free hand are clear

enough.

For the group around Cheney, the single most important consideration

is

guaranteed and unrestricted access to cheap oil, controlled as far as

possible at its source. [A]s alternative technologies develop, they

could

become a real threat to the oil lobby, which, like the Israeli lobby,

is

deeply intertwined with the Bush Administration. War with Iraq can

therefore

be seen as a satisfactory outcome for both lobbies.[W]hat the

Administration

hopes is that by crushing another middle-sized state at minimal

military

cost, all the other states in the Muslim world will be terrified into

full

co-operation in tracking down and handing over suspected terrorists,

and

into forsaking the Palestinian cause.The idea, in other words, is to

scare

these states not only into helping with the hunt for al-Qaida, but

into

capitulating to the US and, more important, Israeli agendas in the

Middle

East.'The road to Middle East peace lies through Baghdad' is a line

that's

peddled by the Bush Administration and the Israeli lobby. It is just

possible that some members of the Administration really believe that

by

destroying Israel's most powerful remaining enemy they will gain such

credit

with Israelis and the Israeli lobby that they will be able to press

compromises on Israel. But this is certainly not what public

statements by

members of the Administration, let alone those of its Likud allies in

Israel, suggest.It's far more probable, therefore, that most members

of the

Bush and Sharon Administrations hope that the crushing of Iraq will

so

demoralise the Palestinians, and so reduce wider Arab support for

them, that

it will be possible to force them to accept a Bantustan settlement

bearing

no resemblance to independent statehood.From the point of view of the

Arab-Israeli conflict, war with Iraq also has some of the character of

a

Flucht nach vorn, an 'escape forwards,' on the part of the US

Administration. On the one hand, it has become clear that the conflict

is

integrally linked to everything else that happens in the Middle East,

and

therefore cannot simply be ignored, as the Bush Administration tried

to do

during its first year in office. On the other hand, even those members

of

the American political elite who have some understanding of the

situation

and a concern for justice are terrified of confronting Israel and the

Israeli lobby in the ways which would be necessary to bring any chance

of

peace. When the US demands 'democracy' in the Palestinian territories

before

it will re-engage in the peace process it is in part, and fairly

cynically,

trying to get out of this trap."

Anatol Lieven, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for

International

Peace, London Review of Books, December 2002

"If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq,

here's a

hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with

implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle

East.

The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives:

controlling

the flow of oil and ensuring Israel's continued regional military

superiority.[Patrick] Clawson [a policy analyst with the Washington

Institute for Near East Policy], whose institute enjoys close ties

with the

Bush administration, wascandid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-

Hussein

Iraq in 1999: 'U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make

significant profits,' he said. 'We should not be embarrassed about

the

commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq

into the

world economy.'...But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil

market is

not necessarily the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners

determined to elevate Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign

policy

goals, would be to destroy any remaining perceived threat to the

Jewish

state: namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran.In 1998, [David] Wurmser,

now

in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if

[iraqi

opposition leader] Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly,

no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for

an

anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. 'It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel

and

provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel,'

he

said. 'This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western

coalition.' [Richard]

Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of

pro-Israeli groups was 'at the forefront with the legislation with

regard to

Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to

focus

its attention on Saddam Hussein.'Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel

Sharon

has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November interview

with the

Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day

after'

the Iraq war ends.[T]he hard-liners in and around the administration

seem to

know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would

not

be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. 'One can only

hope

that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster,

please,' [Michael]

Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August.

'That's

our mission in the war against terror.'"

UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times,

December 1,

2002

"The immediate and laudatory purpose of a United States military

campaign

against Iraq is to stamp out the regime of Saddam Hussein, the world's

most

psychopathic ruler, and to strike a blow against terrorism and the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As such this is a

welcome move

from Israel's standpoint, whatever the consequences.[T]he American

planners,

who display considerable disdain for most of the Muslim and Arab

worlds,

seem to think that the forcible removal of Saddam's evil regime and

the

consequent implantation of an American military presence in the wild

Middle

East will project a civilizing or liberating influence. They are not

alone;

not a few progressive Arab thinkers (and many Israelis) appear to

welcome

this American deus ex machina into the region."

Israeli military/political analyst, Yossi Alpher, bitterlemons.org,

December

23, 2002

"I thinkthat the conquest of Iraq will really create a New Middle

East. Put

differently: the Middle East will enter a new age. For the time being

this

will happen without us, as long as there's no Palestinian solution.

Many

peoples in the region are ruled by frightened dictators who have to

decide

whom to fear more, the terrorists or the war against terrorism. Asad

fears

for his legitimacy due to the war against terrorism. Arafat can also

lose

his legitimacy. The Saudis gave money for terrorism due to fear. No

terrorist-sponsoring country is democratic.In those countries [that

support

terrorism] there will be revolutions. Television will play a role like

in

the collapse of the Iron Curtain. This will happen with the

Palestinians,

too. The Arab world is ripe for internal revolution like the USSR and

China

in the past decade."

Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, bitterlemons.org, December

23,

2002

"Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, having just returned from a

week-long fact-finding trip to the Middle East, addressed the Chicago

Council of Foreign Relations Dec. 16 and said out loud what is

whispered on

Capitol Hill: 'The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go

through

Baghdad, as some may claim.' The 'some' are led by Israeli Prime

Minister

Ariel Sharon. In private conversation with Hagel and many other

members of

Congress, the former general leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S.

assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi

regime.

That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a

major

reason why U.S. forces today are assembling for war.As the US gets

ready for

war, its standing in Islam, even among longtime allies, stands low.

Yet, the

Bush administration has tied itself firmly to Gen. Sharon and his

policies.In private conversation, National Security Adviser

Condoleezza Rice

has insisted that Hezbollah, not al Qaeda, is the world's most

dangerous

terrorist organization. How could that be, considering al Qaeda's

global

record of mass carnage? In truth, Hezbollah is the world's most

dangerous

terrorist organization from Israel's standpoint. While viciously

anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on

the

destruction of Israel.Thus, Rice's comments suggest that the U.S. war

against terrorism, accused of being Iraq-centric, actually is

Israel-centric. That ties George W. Bush to Arik Sharon.What is

widely

perceived as an indissoluble Bush-Sharon bond creates tension

throughout

Islam.On balance, war with Iraq may not be inevitable but is highly

probable. That it looks like Sharon's war disturbs Americans such as

Chuck

Hagel, who have no use for Saddam Hussein but worry about the

background of

an attack against him."

Robert Novak, Washington Post, December 26, 2002

"With a scandal chipping away at his government, Prime Minister Ariel

Sharon

changed the subject to Iraq this week and found his country eager to

listen.Mr. Sharon's remarksseemed to strike a chord with Israeli

voters, who

are concerned about an Iraqi attack and still traumatized by the

events of

1991, when 39 Iraqi missiles landed in the country.To some Israeli

commentators, the week's events highlighted the lingering effects of

the

first war with Iraq, and how Mr. Sharon, an incumbent prime minister

with an

unmatched reputation for toughness, is the likely beneficiary of any

debate

over a second one. 'What happened in 1991 is an unfinished chapter,'

said

Asher Arian, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute in

Jerusalem.

'The Israeli public feels it has a score to settle. When Sharon talks

about

Iraq, it has enormous resonance.'Part of the explanation for the

positive

reception of Mr. Sharon is the genuine fear that many Israelis harbor

of an

Iraqi attack.The other factor, commentators here say, is the looming

memory

of the Persian Gulf war of 1991. For Israelis, proud of their

military

successes over the years, that war was a different experience. At

American

insistence, they endured Iraqi missile attacks without fighting back.

'The

gulf war was the first time in Israel's history where people had to

hide and

run way,' said Itzhak Galnoor, former commissioner of the Israeli

civil

service. 'For Israelis to be helpless, that was very traumatic.'"

Dexter Filkins, New York Times, December 29, 2002

Authors' note: Given the prevailing atmosphere in the United States

for

debate on Israel, the frequency with which critics of Israel are

accused of

malicious ethnic motives, and the widespread skittishness about

associating

Israel or American Jews with war planning against Iraq, the following

items

are of particular interest. The first of these items reports a clear

Jewish

effort to suppress any evidence of Jewish support for war. The second

is

evidence, from a non-Jewish perspective, of the effect of the silence

imposed on critics of Israel.

"A group of U.S. political consultants has sent pro-Israel leaders a

memo

urging them to keep quiet while the Bush administration pursues a

possible

war with Iraq. The six-page memo was sent by the Israel Project, a

group

funded by American Jewish organizations and individual donors. Its

authors

said the main audience was American Jewish leaders, but much of the

memo's

language is directed toward Israelis.The memo reflects a concern that

involvement by Israel in a U.S.-Iraq confrontation could hurt

Israel's

standing in American public opinion and undermine international

support for

a hard line against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. 'Let American

politicians fight it out on the floor of Congress and in the media,'

the

memo said. 'Let the nations of the world argue in front of the UN.

Your

silence allows everyone to focus on Iraq rather than Israel.'An

Israeli

diplomat in Washington said the Israeli government did not request or

fund

the efforts of the Israel Project and that Israeli leaders were

unlikely to

follow all the advice. 'These are professional public relations

people,' the

diplomat said. 'There's also a political-diplomatic side.' The Iraq

memo was

issued in the past few weeks and labeled 'confidential property of

the

Israel Project,' which is led by Democratic consultant Jennifer

Laszlo

Mizrahi with help from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and

Republican

pollsters Neil Newhouse and Frank Luntz. Several of the consultants

have

advised Israeli politicians, and the group aired a pro-Israel ad

earlier

this year. 'If your goal is regime change, you must be much more

careful

with your language because of the potential backlash,' said the memo,

titled

'Talking About Iraq.' It added: 'You do not want Americans to believe

that

the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to

protect

America.' In particular, the memo urged Israelis to pipe down about

the

possibility of Israel responding to an Iraqi attack. 'Such certainty

may be

Israeli policy, but asserting it publicly and so overtly will not sit

well

with a majority of Americans because it suggests a pre-determined

outcome

rather than a measured approach,' it said."

Dana Milbank, Washington Post, November 27, 2002

"[We need to] demystify the question of why we have become unable to

discuss

our relationship with the current government of Israel. Whether the

actions

taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly

inclusive

form of self-immolation remains an open question. The question of

course has

a history.This open question, and its history, are discussed

rationally and

with considerable intellectual subtlety in Jerusalem and Tel

Aviv.Where the

question is not discussed rationally, where in fact the question is

rarely

discussed at all, since so few of us are willing to see our evenings

turn

toxic, is in New York and Washington and in those academic venues

where the

attitudes and apprehensions of New York and Washington have taken

hold. The

president of Harvard recently warned that criticisms of the current

government of Israel could be construed as 'anti-Semitic in their

effect if

not their intent.' The very question of the US relationship with

Israel, in

other words, has come to be seenas unraisable, potentially lethal,

the

conversational equivalent of an unclaimed bag on a bus. We take cover.

We

wait for the entire subject to be defused, safely insulated behind

baffles

of invective and counterinvective. Many opinions are expressed. Few

are

allowed to develop. Even fewer change."

Joan Didion, New York Review of Books, January 16, 2003

Kathleen Christison worked for 16 years as a political analyst with

the CIA,

dealing first with Vietnam and then with the Middle East for her last

seven

years with the Agency before resigning in 1979. Since leaving the CIA,

she

has been a free-lance writer, dealing primarily with the Israeli-

Palestinian

conflict. Her book, "Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on

U.S.

Middle East Policy," was published by the University of California

Press and

reissued in paperback with an update in October 2001. A second book,

"The

Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story," was published

in

March 2002.

Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis

side of

the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National

Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central

Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia,

South

Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the

CIA's

Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. They can

be

reached at: christison@counterpunch.org

-----------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

No More Wars for Israel - http://nowarforisrael.com/