Israel appears more at ease, now that American and British bombs are falling on Iraq, harvesting the lives of many innocents.
Yet despite Israel's unambiguous role in all of this, few have connected the dots regarding the role played by Israel and its mouthpieces in the United States. Israel's task was to destroy one of the few remaining countries in the region that opposed the US proxy in the Middle East. Following Iraq, Israel was promised, that next would come Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and the Palestinian resistance.
Many conveniently blame the war on the 'neo-conservatives' in the American administration, some 'embedded' in the many think tanks that have tremendous influence on the decision-making process in Washington. But the relationship between the so-called neo-conservatives and the state of Israel is yet to be exposed.
Those who recall events that preceded the war, know too well how the "doves" within the administration, at least for a short while, opposed the military option on Iraq vs. those who championed the 'total war' strategy starting in 1992 (not following September. 11, 2001 as many are lead to believe), as outlined in the 'Wolfowitz Doctrine.' Paul Wolfowitz, one of the most vibrant advocates of Israel's policy in the US government was then the undersecretary for policy in the Pentagon.
In March 1992, Wolfowitz, who was delegated to draft the "Defense Planning Guidance", outlined his ambitions instead, where he proposed that nations should be 'discouraged' from "challenging our leadership". Wolfowitz was one of the first to propose the pre-emptive war, (used by Israel in its war against the Arabs in 1967) to allegedly "prevent the development of weapons of mass destruction". Wolfowitz, who seemed to get along very well with the right wing elements within Israeli governments, 'accidentally' neglected the fact that Israel's nuclear program was active as early as 1952, with the creation of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). He worried little about Israel, but aimed at 'disarming' the sanctions devastated nation of Iraq.
The Wolfowitz proposal, which eventually gained momentum and won over the support of the administrations' big names, shamefully manipulating the September 11 tragedy to score cheap victories for Israel to subdue its rivals in the Middle East.
The neo-conservatives gained yet more ground when President George Bush appointed Elliot Abrams, described by a recent newsletter of the Washington-based Council for the National Interest on March 14, 2003 as "a convicted felon in the disgraceful Iran-Contra operation, outspoken mouthpiece for Israel and critic of the peace process." Oddly, the anti-peace advocate was made the President's new chief advisor in the Middle East.
The pro-Israeli circle in the Administration, ferocious advocates of the pre-emptive war strategy and whose duel allegiances seem to disregard the interests of the American people, was almost complete. Abrams joined the ranks of pro-Israeli war hawks, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and most notably Donald Rumsfeld, whose infamous referral to the Palestinian occupied territories as "so-called occupied territories (being) a result of a war which (Israel) won", left many pondering whether the US was at all committed to peace and stability in the Middle East.
Many people across the US must have doubted the alleged relationship between al-Qaeda and the September 11 terrorist attacks on one hand, and Iraq on the other. (Considering that even George Tenet of the CIA had bluntly told a Congress Committee that, evidence of such links proved unsubstantiated.)
Why has the United States suddenly decided to jump into the swamp of redrawing the geo-political map of the Middle East, considering that neither its oil imports nor its growing multinational corporations' influence in the region is at risk (excluding the backlash inspired by the anti-American sentiment, itself inspired by the cruelty of the Israeli army in the occupied territories. It's no secret that Israel uses American weapons to kill Palestinians, money to build and expand its illegal settlements and political backing to thumb its nose at international law and the international community.)
Zelman Shuval, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington shed some light on the answer in an article, published in the Hebrew newspaper Yediot Ahronot on January 16, 2003. Shuval, said that Israel should make 'behind the scenes' efforts to get the American administration to attack Iraq "sooner rather than later". Postponing, delaying or canceling the war, he asserted, would create "very negative consequences" for Israel.
Of course, the United States' government has its own reasons to attack Iraq: global supremacy, strategic control, oil of course, the failure of the Afghanistan war to boost the sense of security among Americans, diverting the attention from the major financial scandals involving top government officials, diverting attention from the crumbling economy and soaring unemployment. But even with these reasons, Israel, its strong Washington lobby and major players within the administration, were always on top of things, pushing for a war that was vehemently rejected by a few countries shy of the whole world.
Not only that Israel's role in this war has been overlooked, but also pro-Israeli pundits have done their best to lead the American people to look the other way from Israel's real political motives in the war. Jerry Falwell and his fanatic cronies on one hand, preached to millions about how Israel is "a key player in end times events," for, "according to scripture things are falling into place for Jesus' return ... the great Tribulation, Armageddon and the millennial reign of Christ."
In the meantime, pro-Israeli media collaborators thought of every wrong reason to justify the war, from liberating Iraq, to making the world a better place, to explaining how the war fits neatly into the "clash of civilizations" theory, a theory mainly aimed at engaging the world in a dishonest debate over cultural feuds, while the issue resides in business, power, control and politics. On the other hand, few dared to propose that Israel will not be able to carry out its illegal policies in the Middle East: land confiscation, unfair 'peace' proposition, ethnic cleansing, and coercing its Arab neighbors into accepting Israel's regional supremacy. (Who would dare say no to Israel once Iraq is occupied, and while the US military machine is present to crush any dissent? In fact, who would dare question the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands, in violation of international law, if the United States is itself occupying an Arab country, also in violation of international law?)
It was no coincidence when Secretary of State, Collin Powell rushed to address lobbyists from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, on March 30, less than two weeks after the launching of the Iraq War. Powell renewed the United States' commitment to Israel, condemned Palestinian bombings as a "cowardly acts", (no word on the murder of scores of Palestinians preceding the bombings), and assured Israel and its agents in the US of the sacred bond between his country and Israel. But most importantly, he promised a much safer Middle East for Israel after the toppling of the Iraqi government and President Saddam Hussein. Both Powell and the AIPAC members of course knew too well that Israel had, for many years, over two hundred nuclear warheads, including some thero-nuclear devices (aka, hydrogen bombs), a secret revealed by Mordechai Vanuni, a former Israeli nuclear technician, and also revealed by U-2 Spy Plane photographs. (Suddenly a fully developed arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction is no longer a concern)
Placing most of the American army in desert battles to fight an illusionary enemy, while allowing Israel to run wild, threatening an entire region and defying international law in its oppression of the Palestinian people, will by no means bring 'peace and prosperity' to the Middle East. Moreover, hypocrisy, double-standards, and most certainly, unjust wars have never achieved, neither peace nor security. What they have done is evoked yet more anger, hatred, rebellion, and, dare I say, terrorism. Perhaps before fighting terrorism in the mountains of Tora Bora, we should examine where terrorism truly originates: our own unjust policies.
Baroud is the editor of the PalestineChronicle.com and "Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion."
Look at history to prove my point. The bible is not even necessary for this. We attacked Iraq for our own reasons Israel had nothing to do with it.
Israel could defeat the whole Arab nation on its own they don't need our help. Iraq under Saddam is a threat to the stability of the whole region.
Most Arab leaders agree. Their only fear is the Muslim religion of their countries. They are afraid of Islamic uprisings and terror threats from their own citizens. Muslim Americans enjoy so much more freedom of worship in our country and never have to worry about Christian people terrorizing them. Why can't Muslims in the middle east get along with each other? If they are so religious why can't they listen to Allas teachings and bring peace to their region and live side by side with Israel. Israel is such a small part of the Arab region and yet it is their (the Arabs)worst fears. Do the Arabs live in such fear of Israel that they have no sight for a peaceful future? I'm not trying to put anybody down but it's hard when you see Israeli children being attacked by Islamic fundementalists who have no respect for God or Alla. Jihad to me is just an excuse to harm to someone, anyone for that matter. When the trade towers were attacked there were Muslims in the building too. So these people have no respect even for their own religion. The Arab world needs to join with the world to rid ourselves of these people. They are a shame to Islam. You can never terrorize a nation and expect them to give in to your demands it only fills that nation with a resolve. The US will never bow down and neither will Israel. Please answer some of my questions. Thank you
So... why would any news service that claims to be opposed to all war (except perhaps a defensive war) omit news that, if reported, might prevent a war from starting? Would it depend to any extent on who might be hoping to see a particular war started, who might be trying to prevent the war or who might be expected, by the news service's contributors or audience, to find their overall circumstances improved by such a war?
Forgive me if I have offended any authors, publishers or commentators - who may have displayed what I found to be a disturbing flexibility in their "tireless quest" for peace. At least those who have declared themselves to be our opponents would seem more ready to inform us of their true objectives.
As Salaamu Alaikum.
Name Djal if mankind pray more and laugh less and stop pretenting to be powerfull like America the world will be a better place to be but the worst is yet to come
Does any Muslim actualy believe that Sadaam was a good person, or is it only Muslim pride that has been hurt? Please, Sadaam killed millions of his own people. Is Muslim pride worth that?
Perhaps Iraq will once again become well armed - with substancially improved military technology. Who knows?
Perhaps America will, in the future, become considerably less likely to meddle in the affairs of the Iraqi republic. Who knows?
This morning I heard that at least some of the locals were cheering the invasion forces after their arrival at Saddam International. I also heard that the authorities had shut off electrical power to sections of Baghdad. Perhaps the current regime is concerned that citizens be watching too much television. Who knows?
As Salaamu Alaikum.
If U.S wants to be in a world leader position its better to be fair with Plastine people. Being a biased super power may not be accepted by 1.5 Billion moslems in this earth for long time.
Peace does not come that easily it does need certain amount of fairness eventhough you may not like them that much.
The war against Iraq was planned by pro-Israeli lobbyists in the US but the corrupt, cowardly, traitors who call themselves kings and emirs and sheiks of the Arab lands where the prophet Muhammad (phub) was born are to blame for allowing foreign troops to use their land as a base for attacks against fellow muslims and Arabs. If anything, the first targets of any jihad should be these so called 'leaders'.
My heart bleeds for the innocents caught up in this sinful game masterminded by Tel Aviv and played out through ITS proxy the US Govt.
The Iraqi PEOPLE (take note Emperor Genghis W Bush, they are humans) have been murdered by the US Govt - slowly at first, by 12 years of crippling sanctions, and now brazenly with the most powerful arsenal of weaponry the world has ever seen.Emperor Bush constantly reminds us that this is the "Civilised" World's way of dealing with rogue states. Based on his actions, my English dictionary appears to be out of date. Apparently Civilised now means arrogant, wealthy, aggressive, greedy, powerful and the having the ability and will to use these attributes recklessly without thought for the victims of its consequences (unless you include the deliberate manipulation of the facts to cover your tracks). Rogue now means a non-nuclear, impoverished, defenceless, Muslim nation which is rich in natural resources "rightfully" belonging to the US , and ruled by a monster crowned king by a regime in Washington DC.Bush may be the Emperor, but Israel is the Brutus who will stab him in the back if he deviates from the purpose they have assigned him, as they have done with many before him.After all, Ariel Sharon IS a KNOWN MURDERER of innocent civilians- see sabra & chatilla (Lebanon)
We have been able to observe, understand, document every detail, raise voices, scream and cry, ......, Is that all we can do? We have the ability and the credentials to achieve and succeed, but we do not seem to know how to draw a strategy and/or a plan to take us out of this situation of defeat and direct our energy towards "unity?????", a brighter and more secure future. It seems to me that a nation was directed and led by just a handful of guys who know their objectives and goals, very committed, and are able to plan and achieve them "I love the smart one even if he steels my lunch." I am very confident that the ability and the intelligence shown by those people are traits and characteristics are not limited to them alone. Let those who are among us with the purity of thoughts, the clearest of guidance, the best intentions of peace and humility start to strategize for us and for those who have been misled, and take us to where we ought to be.
American cant make a war with these fake
We want peace!!
In life it is ok to make a mistake, what is wrong is to make the same mistake twice. It really saddens me to see muslims suffer all arround the world what hurts more is to see muslims divded and to therefore allow such actions to carry on. I pray for the day when the Rulers of the middleeast wake up and unite and act in the interest of ALL the muslims not just thier royal family, All muslims are equal and part of the same family we must learn to unite aand pool our resources together for the greater good and then Everyone will think twice before attacking a muslim brother/nation.
Is a commitment to any political agenda - even one of promoting world peace - always best, for the sake of Allah? If peace were always best why then would the Quran indicate situations in which it was necessary to start a fight (for example in Quran 4:75)? Why must my countrymen be dependent upon Jerry Falwell's recitation of half-verses from the Quran to learn of the verses pertaining to war? (Peace be upon Jerry Falwell.)
Let me try asking my first question another way. If a tidal wave (of new Muslims, that is) were to suddenly start sweeping across the world, would the majority of Muslim scholars prefer to be securely behind the wave's crest or on the ground staring up at it? (Allahu Akbar!) It seemed like an appropriate time for me to ask such a question. I apologize if I have unduly alarmed anyone. (Peace be upon scholars.)