=====================================================
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14695
=====================================================
War Without End
The global war against terror from a British perspective
----------------------------------------------------------------
A War for Israel?
By Jeffrey Blankfort
When Malaysian Prime Minister Mathahir Mohammed declared at an
international Islamic Conference in Kuala Lumpur in mid-October that"
today the Jews rule the world by proxy [and] They get others to fight
and die for them,"1 the reactions in the U.S. and the West were
predictable. It was "a speech that was taken right out of the
Protocols of Zion," according to one Israeli commentator 2 and
Mathahir would be accused of imitating Hitler and insuring that
"Muslims around the world are similarly being fed a regular diet of
classic big lies about Jewish power." 3 Big lies? Given Israel's
unchecked dominion over the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors over
the past half century, supported in every way possible by the United
States, one can assume that Muslims, not to mention intelligent
non-Muslims, have no need for additional instruction as to the extent
of Jewish power. As further proof of its existence, if such were
needed, there would be no attempt to measure the Malaysian prime
minister's words against the reality of the times to determine if
there was anything accurate in his assessment. If Mathahir could be
accused of anything, it would be of being sloppy historically and
using too broad a brush. The Jews, as such, control nothing. A segment
of American Jewry, however, has been able, with few exceptions, to
shape U.S. Middle East policy since the mid-Sixties. Given America's
position as a major world power, and now its only superpower, that is
not a small achievement. Over the years, that segment, the organized
American Jewish community--in short, the Israel lobby--has amassed
unparalleled political power through skillfully combining the wealth
of its members 4 with its extraordinary organizational skills to
achieve what amounts to a corporate takeover of the U.S. Congress plus
veto power over the presidency.
There is virtually no sector of the American body politic that has
been immune to the lobby's penetration. That its primary goal has not
been to improve the security and well being of the United States or
the American people, but to advance the interests of a foreign
country, namely Israel, may be debated, but it was acknowledged, in
part, more than a dozen years ago by Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio)
who complained to an annual conference of the National Jewish
Community Relations Advisory Council that "There's only one issue
members [of Congress] think is important to American Jews-Israel." 5
It was no secret that Israel had long been interested in eliminating
the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and redrawing the map of the
Middle East to enhance its power in the region. 6 Initiating that
undertaking became a task for key individuals in and around the White
House with deep roots in right wing Israeli politics. The attack on
the World Trade Center supplied the opportunity. That Iraq had nothing
to do with it was immaterial. The lobby's propaganda apparatus would
make the American people believe otherwise. The first step has been
completed. Saddam Hussein has been removed, not by Israel, but by the
U.S. and its "coalition of the willing." From the perspective of the
Israelis and one must assume, the lobby, it is better that American
and foreign soldiers do the shedding of blood, Iraqis and their own,
rather than those of Israel, the world's fourth ranked military power.
Such an accusation will most assuredly draw cries of "Blood libel"
from the likes of the Anti-Defamation League, but it is a conclusion
that one can readily draw from the facts. The degree to which the
present Iraq situation, as well as the first Gulf War, can be
attributed to efforts of key individuals and the major Jewish
organizations that constitute the lobby is what this article will
examine. * * The lobby's existence and power well predate its
alliance with what may be called its Christian fundamentalist
auxiliary which has given it unprecedented influence over both
Congress and the White House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13th, 2003, during a House appropriations subcommittee
hearing on foreign aid, of which Israel has long been the dominant
recipient 7, Secretary of State Colin Powell took the extraordinary
step of assuring members of Congress that a "small cabal" of
pro-Israeli American Jews was not orchestrating President George W.
Bush's drive toward war. "The strategy with respect to Iraq has
derived from our interest in the region and our support of U.N.
resolutions over time," Powell said, in response to a question from
the subcommittee's Republican chairman, Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe. It is
not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere, that is
telling President Bush or me or Vice President Cheney or [National
Security Adviser Condoleeza] Rice or other members of the
administration what our policies should be. 8 In fact, there is a
cabal that has been driving U.S. foreign policy under the Bush
administration, and some of its members, notably Elliot Abrams and
Michael Ledeeen, were part of the last cabal that operated in
Washington under the Reagan administration, the one that brought us
the Iran-Contra scandal. This one, however, is not nearly as
secretive. Ironically, Powell has been and remains one of its favorite
targets and his frequent public humiliations at the cabal's hands have
led seasoned observers to wonder why he hasn't resigned.
On this occasion as he had on others, Powell played the loyal soldier,
joining in what Ha'aretz's Nathan Guttman described as the Bush
Administration's "every effort to play down Israel's role in the
future military conflict.to remove any suspicion that the decision to
go to war with Iraq is a pro-Israeli.step.
"But, as hard as the administration tries," he wrote, "the voices
linking Israel to the war are getting louder and louder. It is claimed
the desire to help Israel is the major reason for President George
Bush sending American soldiers to a superfluous war in the Gulf." 9
The loudest among them may have been the free-swinging old line
"conservative," Pat Buchanan who charged "that a cabal of polemicists
and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars
that are not in America's interests... What these neoconservatives
seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for
Israel," Buchanan wrote in the March 24 issue of the magazine he
edits, the American Conservative. Because of his history of advocating
right-wing causes, his comments were largely ignored by the forces
mobilizing against the war.
Another of those voices was syndicated columnist Robert Novak who
several months earlier had written that "in private conversation with.
members of Congress, the former general [Sharon] 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." 10
Support for a U.S. attack on Iraq was not limited to Sharon or his
Likud Party:
In a September 12 dialogue with Rabbi William Berkowitz at the Center
for Jewish History, former Israeli Labor prime minister and then
foreign minister Shimon Peres was asked what he thought of the
administration's response to Iraq. Peres, likening the situation to
the next world war, replied:
Why speak about an attack when you are defending freedom as you did in
World War I, World War II and now in [World War] III?.....I don't
think this is a campaign against Iraq, neither their people nor the
land, but against a terrible killer, a dictator who already initiated
two aggressive wars - one against Muslim Iran for seven years at a
cost of 1 million [lives] and against an Arab Kuwait..... Who saved
Kuwait? The Arab League? You gave Japan an improved Japan, and you
gave Germany a better Germany and the Marshall Plan. I believe the
strength of freedom is equal to the strength of the United States. I
don't see anybody doing the job. So I justify the American position
fully. The president speaks loud and clear. 11
One may speculate whether Powell would have raised the issue had he
not been asked but apparently he felt the need to clear the air
following an uproar that occurred ten days earlier when Virginia
Democratic Congressman Jim Moran claimed that: "If it were not for the
strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we
wouldn't be doing this." 12
As could be expected, his comment was condemned by the White House and
congressional Democratic leaders including Senate Minority leader Tom
Daschle and Democratic House Whip Nancy Pelosi, two long-time loyal
devotees of the Israeli cause. Six local rabbis and Washington Post
columnist Marc Fisher called on him to resign, with the latter
comparing the congressman's remarks to a speech Adolf Hitler delivered
to the German parliament in 1939, accusing "Jewish financiers" of
plunging Europe into a world war. 13
"Moran is symptomatic of a problem that we have been watching for
several weeks and months," lamented Abraham Foxman, national director
of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), "and that is that the charge that
the Jews are instigators and advocators of military action has moved
from the extreme into the mainstream," This shift, he added, is
emboldening people such as Moran to "have the chutzpah to say such
things."
"It's out there and therefore we are concerned," Foxman said. "If, God
forbid, the war is not successful and the body bags come back, who's
to blame?" 14
Fueling such anxieties, the Jewish weekly Forward noted, was "the
increasing media focus on the White House's concern with protecting
Israel and the views of Jewish hawks within the administration." 15
While the mainstream press condemned Moran's remarks, columnist
Michael Kinsley 16 pointed out that "The thunderous rush of
politicians of all stripes to denounce Moran's remarks as complete
nonsense might suggest to the suspicious mind that they are not
complete nonsense" and that Jewish organizations were being
hypocritical since they were posting comments on their own web sites
lauding the Israel lobby's ability to get things done. Wrote Kinsley:
... Moran is not the only one publicly exaggerating the power and
influence of the Zionist lobby these days. It is my sad duty to report
that this form of anti-Semitism seems to have infected one of the most
prominent and respected-one might even say influential-organizations
in Washington. This organization claims that "America's pro-Israel
lobby"-and we all know what "pro-Israel" is a euphemism for-has
tentacles at every level of government and society. On its Web site,
this organization paints a lurid picture of Zionists spreading their
party line and even indoctrinating children. And yes, this
organization claims that the influence of the Zionist lobby is
essential to explaining the pro-Israel tilt of U.S. policy in the
Middle East. It asserts that the top item on the Zionist "agenda" is
curbing the power of Saddam Hussein. (emphasis added) The Web site
also contains a shocking collection of Moran-type remarks from leading
American politicians. 17 The site he was referring to is that of
AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel's official
Washington lobbying arm that, which, in testament to its power, is
generally referred to in the halls of Congress simply as "the lobby."
From a one-man office when it was founded 50 years ago, AIPAC has
grown into an organization of 85,000 members with activists in every
Jewish community in the United States. Each Spring it holds a national
three-day conference in Washington. "It's climatic Congressional
Dinner attracts hundreds of congress members and dozens of foreign
ambassadors," writes Forward editor J.J. Goldberg "all of them eager
to curry good will with AIPAC and the Jewish community. Lest the point
be lost, the dinner chairperson always reads a `roll call' naming
every senator, every representative, and ambassador present in the
hall. followed by private receptions by lawmakers courting Jewish
campaign support." 18 The organization does not contribute money to
candidates directly but advises numerous Jewish PACs and wealthy
Jewish donors as to the campaigns where their money might be the most
useful to Israel. AIPAC holds similar conferences, but on a smaller
scale, around the country in the winter, with local officials from the
respective regions being honored as invited guests. It so happened
that AIPAC's annual conference last year followed the Iraq invasion by
a week. Since " AIPAC is wont to support whatever is good for Israel,
and so long as Israel supports the war," wrote Ha'aretz's Guttmann,
"so too do the thousands of the AIPAC lobbyists who convened in the
American capital." 19 The Washington Post's Dana Milbank did not go
quite that far, but noted that the meeting put a spotlight on the Bush
administration's "delicate dance with Israel and the Jewish state's
friends over the attack on Iraq". While, "officially," he wrote, AIPAC
had no position on the merits of a war against Iraq before it started,
as delegates were heading to town, the group put a headline on its Web
site proclaiming: "Israeli Weapons Utilized By Coalition Forces
Against Iraq." The item featured a photograph of a drone with the
caption saying the "Israeli-made Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle" is
being used "by U.S. soldiers in Iraq." 20
A parade of Israeli as well as top Bush administration officials
--Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, political
director Kenneth Mehlman, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, one
of the rare non-Jewish neocons, and Assistant Secretary of State
William Burns -- appeared before the AIPAC audience. The meeting,
attended by about 5,000 people, according to Milbank, including half
the Senate and a third of the House -- was reportedly planned long
before it became clear it would coincide with hostilities in Iraq.
"This is not about Iraq," AIPAC spokesman Josh Block insisted. "This
is about going to Congress and lobbying for the Israeli aid package." 21
House Whip Pelosi, who had reversed her early tepid opposition to the
war and was now on the bandwagon, made a point of condemning anyone
who sought "to place responsibility for this conflict on the American
Jewish community." In her speech to AIPAC, she expressed America's
"unshakable bond" with Israel in a variety of ways at least a dozen
times. Echoing the neocon agenda, she condemned "Syria's and Iran's
bankrolling of terror and the development of weapons of mass
destruction" which she declared to be "a clear and present danger." 22
There was d‚j… vu atmosphere about the AIPAC gathering. A dozen years
earlier, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, AIPAC leaders
acknowledged that the lobby "had worked in tandem with the [first]
Bush administration to win passage of a resolution authorizing the
president to commit U.S. troops to combat." A Wall Street Journal
article at the time noted that the "behind-the-scenes campaign avoided
AIPAC's customary high profile in the Capitol and relied on
activists-calling sometimes from Israel itself-to contact lawmakers
and build on public endorsements by major Jewish organizations."
"Yes, we were active," AIPAC's director Tom Dine, told the paper.
"These are the great issues of our time. If you sit on the sidelines
you have no voice." 23
And, to be sure, money had its role with Democrats who had benefited
from large contributions form pro-Israel PACs being among the swing
votes. Having "pro-Israel liberals behind the resolution made it
easier to hold moderate Republicans as well." 24
While the U.S. Congress was divided over going to war in 1990, "there
is one place in the world which is longing for war, said retired Major
General Matti Peled, a former Knesset Member and, before his death, a
leader of the Israeli peace camp, "and that is Israel. Every
commentator finds it his duty to join the party of the war-mongers.
Arrogant statements about the slowness of the Americans are heard
every day." 25 Anti-war activists paid no attention to such statements
or to the activities of the Israel lobby then nor have they since. 26,
While they chanted "No Blood for Oil!," in national protests on
October 25th, Kinsley, a mainstream liberal, described the situation
as "the proverbial elephant in the room..Everybody sees it, no one
mentions it." 27 A month before the war, the Forward's Ami Eden,
commenting on Kinsley's piece noted that what was "once only whispered
in back rooms. [was] lately splashed in bold characters across the
mainstream media, over Jewish and Israeli influence in shaping
American foreign policy."
"In recent weeks," he wrote, "the Israeli-Jewish elephant has been on
a rampage, trampling across the airwaves and front pages of respected
media outlets, including the Washington Post, The New York Times, the
American Prospect, the Washington Times, the Economist, the New York
Review of Books, CNN and MSNBC.
"For its encore," he added, "the proverbial pachyderm plopped itself.
smack in the middle of "Meet the Press," NBC's top-rated Sunday
morning news program." 28 It occurred on February 23, when host Tim
Russert read from a February 14 column by veteran journalist Arnaud de
Borchgrave, editor at large of the Washington Times, who argued that
the "strategic objective" of senior Bush administration officials was
to secure Israel's borders by launching a crusade against its enemies
in the Arab world. One of Russert's guests was Richard Perle, at the
time, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a key advisory panel to
the Pentagon, as well as a fellow of the influential pro-Israel,
American Enterprise Institute. Of, perhaps, even more significance,
Perle had been a founder of JINSA, the Jewish Institute of National
Security Affairs, a little known neo-con think tank that will be
examined later in the article. Russert turned to Perle and addressed
the question: "Can you assure American viewers across our country that
we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for
American security interests?" And then came the bombshell: "And what
would be the link in terms of Israel?" Both Perle and Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who has family in Israel, have been
routinely described in the press as the "architects" of the war on
Iraq, so the question was addressed to the right person.
Clearly Perle was not prepared. Squirming slightly he replied: "Well,
first of all, the answer is absolutely yes. Those of us who believe
that we should take this action if Saddam doesn't disarm -- and I
doubt that he's going to-- believe it's in the best interests of the
United States. I don't see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel
with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we'd
live in a much safer international security system because democracies
do not wage aggressive wars."
I'll leave that contradiction for another time and note, as did the
Forward's Eden, that:
it was a startling question, especially when directed at Perle, the
poster boy- along with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and
Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith - for anti-semitic critics
who insist the United States is being pulled into war by pro-Likud
Jewish advisers on orders from Jerusalem.
"But Russert is no David Duke, nor even a Patrick Buchanan. If Russert
is asking the question on national television, then the toothpaste is
out of the tube: The question has entered the discourse in elite
Washington circles and is now a legitimate query to be floated in
polite company. 29
In a length front page story, the Washington Post's Robert Kaiser
described what appeared to be an unprecedented political partnership
between Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush, headlined "Bush and Sharon
Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy." "Over the past dozen years or
more,." Kaiser wrote, "supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved
into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations
that provide financial and political support for Israel." 30
*
The leadership does not necessarily reflect overall Jewish opinion. A
poll to gauge Jewish opinions on the war - conducted a month before it
broke out - found that 56 percent of Jews were supportive of the war
which corresponded to that of the general public. The rate was said to
be even higher immediately afterward, corresponding to increased
support for the war among the American populace in general. 31 Concern
about appearances, however, had earlier led members of the Conference
of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, a Jewish
umbrella group with 52 member organizations, to refrain from taking a
bellicose stand.
"Just as we have not issued a public statement, we do not think it's
the right time for the Presidents Conference to issue a public
statement either," American Jewish Committee executive director David
Harris told the Forward in October of 2002. "Our interest here is to
not be out ahead of the administration." (Emphasis added)
In contrast, the liberal American Jewish Congress had no such
reservations. "The final statement ought to be crystal clear in
backing the president having to take unilateral action if necessary
against Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction," Jack Rosen,
president of the American Jewish Congress, told the paper. The
AJCongress had already issued its own position supporting the "U.S.
administration in its stated position to intervene in Iraq to ensure
that Iraq is no longer a threat." 32
But already, in March of 2002, Mortimer Zuckerman, the chair of the
Jewish President's conference and editor publisher of U.S. News and
World Report and the N.Y. Daily News, had made his position clear, He
was supporting the administration's budding plan to remove Saddam:
The next target in the war's phase, clearly, will be Iraq. The West's
lackluster efforts at nonproliferation have done little more than
delay the inevitable-a Baghdad with nuclear weapons.The United States
is prepared to take the risks, and is right to do so, in forcing a
change in Iraq. 33
By late October, he was eager to get it on:
The only way to force Iraq to get rid of its terrible weapons is to
rid the country of the regime that builds them. Washington must not
pause. in its push to depose Saddam. We are in a war against
terrorism, and we must fight that war in a time and place of our
choosing. The war's next phase, clearly, is Iraq. 34
Zuckerman would write six more editorials in the weeks leading up to
the war, each more emphatic than the one before in calling for
Saddam's head. If Zuckerman's opinions carried unusual weight, it was
because the Conference of Presidents is the Jewish body whose task it
is to lobby the White House and the Executive branch while AIPAC
focuses on Congress. As could be expected, accusations that Israel and
its supporters within the government were orchestrating U.S. policy
towards Iraq led to accusations of anti-semitism and raised questions
as to what extent criticism of Israel, American Jews and Jewish
officials working in the White House would be tolerated. Lawrence
Kaplan, senior editor of the New Republic, declared that references to
Jewish and Israeli pro-war pressure were reminiscent of Buchanan's
claims in 1990 that only soldiers with non-Jewish names would be
killed in a war being pushed solely by Israel and its American "amen
corner." 35 The ADL's Foxman told the Forward that while it was
legitimate to raise questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of
certain administration officials it was obligatory to note that not
all the hawks were Jewish and it was most definitely not kosher to
portray these individuals and Jewish organizations as composing "a
shadowy Jewish conspiracy that controls American foreign policy." "It
is an old canard that Jews control America and American foreign
policy," Foxman said. "During both world wars, anti-semites said that
Jews manipulated America into war. So when you begin to hear it again,
there is good reason for us to be aware of it and sensitive to it." 36
Foxman was correct regarding the world wars but this time there seems
to be more than enough proof that a significant number of Jewish
aficionados of Israel played a decisive part in getting the U.S. to
invade and occupy Iraq.
Retired General Anthony Zinni, former head of the military's Central
Command which includes the Middle East, appeared to be on the same
page as Mathahir. Zinni first raised questions about attacking Iraq in
1998, suggesting that a "fragmented, chaotic Iraq. could happen if
this isn't done carefully [which] is more dangerous in the long run
than a contained Saddam is now," a warning that caused Wolfowitz, then
a dean at Johns Hopkins, but active behind the scenes, to attack him
in print.
Zinni was simply reiterating what had been the policy of the first
Bush administration and that prior to the attack on Saddam had been
repeated not only by former members of the elder Bush's cabinet such
as Secretary of State James Baker, and National Security Advisor Brent
Snowcroft, but by the elder Bush himself.
(This is worth noting because the first Bush and members of his
administration had strong ties to the oil producing countries and the
industry and had this truly been "a war for oil" they could have been
expected to support it. As it happened, those who insisted that it was
about oil, ignored this apparent flaw in their argument.)
As the Washington Post reported, "The more he listened to Wolfowitz
and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni
became convinced that interventionist "neoconservative" ideologues
were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't
understand.
I think the American people were conned into this. I don't know where
the neocons came from -- that wasn't the platform they ran on.
Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice
president. 37 Zinni is a harder target for the U.S. media than
Mathahir so most of the pro-war shills in the mainstream media chose
to ignore him. Not, however, Joel Mowbray, a right-wing ideologue from
the National Review whose attack on Zinni appeared on line:
Discussing the Iraq war with the Washington Post last week, former
General Anthony Zinni took the path chosen by so many anti-Semites: he
blamed it on the Jews.
"Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle
East didn't say `Jews.' He instead used a term that has become a new
favorite for anti-Semites: `neoconservatives.' As the name implies,
`neoconservative' was originally meant to denote someone who is a
newcomer to the right. In the 90's, many people self-identified
themselves as `neocons,' but today that term has become synonymous
with `Jews.' 38
Despite Mowbray's assertion that to criticize the neo-cons is thinly
disguised anti-semitism, he is correct in noting that the term has
become synonymous with a certain group of Jews. The miniscule handful
that are not, such as former CIA chief James Woolsey, long-time
Washington insider Frank Gaffney, former Congressman Newt Gingrich and
Undersecretary of State John Bolton, are unabashed Israeliophiles.
Russian-born Max Boot, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations
and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, a veritable neocon
house organ, did not wait for Zinni's comments to realize that the
inevitable criticism of the neocons' role in producing the Iraq
quagmire had to be stopped.
It is a "malicious myth," that the "Bush administration is pursuing a
neoconservative foreign policy." Boot wrote in Foreign Affairs. "If
only it were true!" Showing contempt for the intelligence of his
readers, he trotted out one of the weaker argument the neocons have
used in their defense, that while their numbers in the Bush
administration "seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons
have no representatives in the administration's top tier." 39(Bush
advisor Karl Rove is technically not there either, but no one would
argue that he carries no clout with the president).
"The contention that the neocon faction gained the upper hand in the
White House has a superficial plausibility," wrote Boot, "because the
Bush administration toppled Saddam Hussein and embraced democracy
promotion [sic] in the Middle East," but these policies, he would have
us believe, are not the result of neocon cajoling, but rather an
outgrowth of the September 11 attacks and the decision by Bush that
the U.S. "no longer could afford a 'humble' foreign policy." That's
their spin. Let's see how well it holds up in the light of the facts.
The neocon movement arose during the early 1970s among a small group
of disgruntled liberals and former Trotskyists, some of whom had
studied under Professor Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. The
group was almost exclusively Jewish, and was defined by "their
attachment to Israel [and to] the Reaganite right's hard-line
anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and
willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of
other nations to promote democratic [sic] values (and American
interests)," all of which "would guarantee Israel's security." 40
They were opposed as well to the Nixon administration's policy of
d‚tente and the easing of tensions with the Soviet Union which meant
U.S. acquiescence to its influence over the East Bloc states. The
neocons wanted to challenge the Soviets through a massive build-up of
this country's military strength and a willingness to use American
power to further America's hegemonic interests, not dissimilar, as we
shall see, to the agenda of the Project for a New American Century.
The neocons became in effect the intellectual arm of the Reagan
administration.[Elliot] Abrams, as undersecretary of state for Latin
American affairs, was a key figure in the effort to counter the
Sandinistas in Nicaragua., Perle. spearheaded the drive to deploy
Pershing missiles in Western Europe [and] the overall guru formulating
these policies was Paul Wolfowitz.
Well, the same team is back guiding the decisions of the Bush
administration in its war against terrorism and in challenging Iraq to
give up its weapons of mass destruction. Judging by his past record,
Abrams can be expected to be a strong advocate for linking Israel's
war against terrorism to America's war in muscular terms made familiar
by the neocons. 41
Quite a different appraisal than that offered by Boot.
There is probably no more appropriate place to begin our probe of the
neocons than with Perle who came to be known as "The Prince of
Darkness" while serving as Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Reagan
administration and who has been described by Joshua Micah Marshall as
the neocons' eminence grise," whose "acolytes..are also Jewish,
passionately pro-Israel, and pro-Likud. And all are united by a shared
idea: that America should be unafraid to use its military power early
and often to advance its interest and values." 42
Since the invasion of Iraq, Perle has been involved in several
scandals, including a conflict of interest situation which caused him
to resign as chair of the Defense Policy Board, but remain as a
member. I will, however, limit this article to examining his role in
fomenting the present war in Iraq.
To do so, we need to go back to 1975 and the administration of Gerald
Ford. In that year, Ford, like Richard Nixon before him, tried his
hand at achieving a Middle East peace settlement and was confronted
with an intransigent Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, then in his
first tour of office.
In March of that year, exasperated with Israel's behavior, Ford had
made a speech calling for a "reassessment" of U.S. policy towards
Israel On the advice of his secretary of state, none other than Henry
Kissinger, Ford "conspicuously delayed delivery of weapons to Israel,
including the F-15 fighter plane [and] suspended negotiations for
pending financial and military aid to Israel" 43
Within White House circles, a consensus for a peace plan was emerging
that "looked very much like UN Resolution 242 and the Rogers Plan"
that would have required Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders,
with provisions that its security would be guaranteed. The idea was
for President Ford to make a major speech, spelling out America's
basic interests in the Middle East and those interests required
Israel's withdrawal. 44
It was not to be. As J.J. Goldberg noted in his book, Jewish Power,
"Rabin and his aides entered the Kissinger negotiations as hard
bargainers with a clear sense of the bottom line.And one of the most
potent weapons at their disposal was the American Jewish community." 45
Two years before, after the end of what the Israelis describe as the
Yom Kippur War, with an Arab oil embargo causing gasoline shortages
and widespread resentment around the country, the General Assembly of
the Council of Jewish Federations voted to launch an emergency
public-relations campaign in behalf of Israel. It would be endowed
with a $3 million emergency public-relations fund and administered by
a special task force on Israel. The campaign would combine the
"national clout and know-how of the major [Jewish] agencies with the
local resources of the federations and community-relations councils" 46
As Goldberg describes it, "President Ford was the first to taste its
power, when he spoke about his `reassessment' of U.S.-Israel
relations. Within six weeks, Ford gave up the idea after 76 senators
signed a letter, drafted by AIPAC, demanding that he "back off." 47
The letter's key paragraph put the president on notice that:
within the next several weeks, the Congress expects to
receive your foreign aid requests for fiscal year 1976.
We trust that your recommendations will be responsive to
Israel's urgent military and economic needs. We urge you
to make it clear, as we do, that the United States acting
in its own national interests stands firmly with Israel
in search for peace in future negotiations and that this
premise is the basis of the current reassessment of U.S.
policy in the Middle East. 48
Senator Charles Mathias, (R-MD) acknowledged that due to lobbying
pressure, "Seventy-six of us promptly affixed our signatures although
no hearings had been held, no debate conducted, nor had the
administration been invited to present its views. Mathias added that
"as a result of the activities of the [Israel[ lobby, congressional
conviction has been measurably reinforced by the knowledge that
political sanctions will be applied by any who fail to deliver." 49
Despite their victory in this situation, certain Jewish supporters of
Israel in Washington were determined that such a potential crisis in
U.S.-Israel relations would not to be allowed to happen again. Enter
Perle and JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
As a staffer for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson in 1972,
Perle had been working with others in Washington to draft a law
linking U.S.-Soviet trade relations to the right of Jews to emigrate
from the Soviet Union. 50
Much to the displeasure of President Nixon and Secretary of State
Kissinger 51 who saw the resulting Jackson-Vanik amendment as
interference in the president's ability to determine foreign policy,
their effort would ultimately prove successful. Now, in 1976, it
appears that Perle had a larger goal: to insure that the maintenance
of the military power and security of Israel would become an integral
part of U.S. foreign policy.
JINSA's actual origins are as murky as the activities it carries out,
but the organization that Perle established together with Max
Kampelman, "an arms control negotiator whose old law firm is a U.S.
agent for Israeli government military interests." 52 was the precursor
of the more well known Project for a New American Century and the well
from which has emerged the collection of Jewish neocons and their
fellow travelers whose signatures and thumb prints are all over
America's current adventure in Iraq as well as its threats against
Syria and Iran.
According to its web site, JINSA has a two-fold mandate:
1. To educate the American public about the importance of
an effective defense capability so that our vital
interests as Americans can be safeguarded and
2. To inform the American defense and foreign affairs
community about the important role Israel can and does
play in bolstering democratic interests in the
Mediterranean and the Middle East.
Its activities in behalf of the first mandate it has done out of the
public's view. Other than the Wall Street Journal article in 1992,
JINSA's existence was virtually unknown even to the political left
until an article by Jason Vest appeared in the Nation in September,
2002. 53
It is JINSA's second mandate that demands our attention. "Under a
program called "Send a General to Israel," hundreds of thousands of
dollars of tax-deductible contributions bankroll an annual tour of
Israel by retired U.S. generals and admirals." 54 Judging from a look
at JINSA's board of advisers, at least 25 of these ex-generals and
retired admirals have subsequently been recruited into the
organization as have executives from a number of the major arms
manufacturers. Consequently, it was no surprise when a JINSA prot‚g‚,
former General Jay Garner, was named the first U.S. pro-consul in Iraq
following the fall of the regime.
As Vest noted:
almost every retired officer who sits on JINSA's board of
advisers or has participated in its Israel trips or signed
a JINSA letter works or has worked with military
contractors who do business with the Pentagon and Israel.
While some keep a low profile as self-employed
"consultants" and avoid mention of their clients, others
are less shy about their associations. 55
In other words, what JINSA represents can best be described as the
Military-Industrial-Israeli complex.
Sitting on its board, in addition, are such public figures as former
UN ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, former CIA chief James Woolsey ,
former Congressman Jack Kemp, Michael Ledeen, an un-indicted
co-conspirator in the Iran-Contra affair and former Congressman
Stephen Solarz, a very important player who we will look at later in
the article, and, of course, Perle. Of all those recruited into the
ranks of JINSA, none would be prove to be more important than *****
Cheney, the former congressman who served as Secretary of Defense in
the first Bush administration.
Looking towards the future, JINSA makes sure it is not just generals
and admirals who get the grand tour. It also provides a study program
in Israel for cadets and midshipmen from the Naval Academy, West Point
and the Air Force Academy, from whose ranks will come the next
generation of generals and admirals.
It should be noted that both of these programs are in keeping with the
practice of Jewish organizations and federations across the country
that routinely send public officials, such as mayors, supervisors,
city councilors, police chiefs, etc.--the pool from which future
members of Congress are likely to arise-on all expense paid trips to
Israel, thereby virtually assuring their support for the Jewish statee
in the future. No base is left uncovered.
JINSA has been "industrious and persistent," writes Vest, and has
"managed to weave a number of issues -- support for national missile
defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful
weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in
general -- into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its
core."
On no issue, he points out is the organization's "hard line more
evident than in its relentless campaign for war -- not just with Iraq,
but `total war,' as Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in
Washington, put it [in 2001]. For this crew, "'regime change' by any
means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian
Authority is an urgent imperative." 56
Interviewed for David Horowitz's Front Page web site at the year's end
Ledeen's message had not changed.
When asked about the Israel-Palestine conflict, Ledeen disingenuously
replied:
I don't follow it, as you know," then added that "I don't think it is
possible for anyone to do anything meaningful about it until we have
defeated the terror masters in Tehran, Damascus and Riyadh, because
the terrorism against Israel gets a lot of support from those evil
people. In other words, you can't solve it in situ, it's part of a
regional war. Maybe, once we have liberated the Middle East and the
peoples have a chance to make their own decisions, it will be easier. 57
Those in government who dissent and who insist that differences may
exist between the security interests of the United States and those of
Israel can expect to be publicly trashed and called on the carpet by
an Israeli-friendly Congressional committee - whether it is Powell or
someone from the State Department, from the CIA or the military or
ex-military as in the case of General Zinni.
If there was a single "smoking gun" that led to accusations against
the neocons that the attack on Iraq was a war for Israel, it was the
revelation that in 1996, Perle directed a task force that included two
other high ranking American Jewish neocons, current Undersecretary of
Defense Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, senior adviser to John
Bolton, Under-Secretary for Arms Control and International Security,
that produced a white paper for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. It was entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing
the Realm" and the name referred to putting an end to Israel's
negotiating with the Palestinians and the concept of trading land for
peace.
The paper, which might have been lifted from JINSA's web site,
advocated the overthrow by Israel of Saddam Hussein as the beginning
of an Israeli policy to redraw the map of the Middle East in Israel's
favor, a task that is now, apparently being carried out by U.S.
soldiers in Israel's behalf. This effort, it said, "can focus on
removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Iraq's future could affect
the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly."
"Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically,"
said the paper, which was commissioned by the Jerusalem-based
Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), where
Wurmser was working at the time. Presumably Israel was to have a say
as to who would do the dominating.
Well before 9-11 and before the junior Bush could even formulate the
thought, the paper called for "reestablishing the principle of
preemption."
It didn't stop there. "Israel can shape its strategic environment.by
weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria by sponsoring proxy
attacks in Lebanon and striking at selected targets in Syria. "Given
the nature of the regime in Damascus," the paper argued, "it is both
natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace"
and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan
Heights."
But what surely must raise the question of "dual loyalties," a charge
which quickly subjects the questioner to accusations of
"anti-semitism" from Jewish organizations are statements such as this
that appear in the text: We have for four years pursued peace based on
a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a
world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and
behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with
fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence
between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to
annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now."
Our claim to the land -to which we have clung for hope for 2000
years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no
matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the
unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their
territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the
future. (Emphasis in original) 58
In 1999, Wurmser would publish a book (with a foreword by Perle)
called "Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein."
It provides a detailed description of a dramatically improved Middle
East, from the hawk point of view, after regime change in Iraq.
With the invasion of Iraq, it became apparent to some in Israel, that
the U.S. had adopted the Clean Break crew's agenda. Within a week of
the invasion, former Israeli Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, now his
country's Defense Minister, was calling for the U.S. to neutralize all
those countries in the region with whom Israel had not signed a peace
treaty. 59
Two weeks later, Mofaz was still singing that tune, as Ha'aretz's Brad
Burston wrote:
"That while Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took on Syria in an
oratorical shock and awe campaign this week, Israel gave signs of what
it would like to see Washington do to bring Damascus to heel, and what
the Jewish state could gain from the effort. The Americans have taken
out a 'yellow card' on them, and were right to do so." 60
Mofaz was referring to a soccer referee's warning card for players who
have broken the rules of the game, and, if infractions continue, may
be expelled.
According to Burston, Mofaz "set out a long list of demands he said
the [U.S.] administration would be asked to press on Syria."
Mofaz's statements attracted the attention of the Financial Times of
London which reported that even: "Before the war against Iraq was
launched, members of Israel's rightwing government had been open in
expressing their hope that the U.S. would next turn its attention to
Syria, saying it harbors anti-Israeli militant groups, and also to
Iran, for providing weapons and military support to such groups." 61
The article quoted from an interview that Mofaz had given to the
Israeli daily Maariv in which he said, "We have a long list of issues
that we are thinking of demanding of the Syrians and it is proper that
it should be done through the Americans."
"It starts from removing the Hezbollah threat from southern Lebanon."
and for "an end to Iranian aid to Hezbollah through Syrian ports."
The headlines in the Israeli press made no effort to hide the government's
agenda, nor the Sharon government's arrogance in expressing it.
Mofaz was not just speaking for himself. Less than a month into the
invasion of Iraq, beneath the headline, "Israel to U.S.: Now deal with
Syria and Iran," Ha'aretz's Aluf Benn, wrote:
"Two of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior aides will go to
Washington for separate talks this week and suggest that the United
States also take care of Iran and Syria because of their support for
terror and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction." 62
They must have been buoyed when in the week following the invasion,
Secretary of State Powell announced to delegates at AIPAC's annual
conference, that Syria and Iran are "supporting terror groups" and
will have to "face the consequences."
Was it any wonder then that Israel's first air raid on Syria in 30
years was greeted sympathetically by both the president and members of
Congress? While "ostensibly, it was retaliation for an atrocious
Palestinian suicide bombing;" in journalist David Hirst's view, "it
was also a blatant attempt by Israel to recast itself as an
operational ally of the U.S. in `reshaping' the region, and in
punishing an autocratic regime in Damascus that, in the neocons' view,
was next for treatment." 63
So it is hardly a surprise that 2004 dawned with Syria in Washington's
cross-hairs. In what can only be described as a Pavlovian response to
Israel's wish list, both houses of Congress last year approved the
Orwellian Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act.
While technically calling for the Bush administration to apply
sanctions against Syria if it does not cease support for what Israel
and Washington consider to be terrorist organizations, eliminate what
they allege to be its weapons of mass destruction, and end its
occupation of part of Lebanon, the act essentially gives both Israel
and the administration the go-ahead to do whatever either government
wants to a country that has never attacked or ever posed a threat to
the U.S. The votes, 389-4 in the House, and 89-4 in the Senate, should
be an embarrassment to any country that pretends to be a democracy.
And yet in the climate of an American election season, the
significance of those votes has been almost completely ignored.
Not only did passage of this act represent another major victory for
the neocons it also served notice that their agenda had been adopted
by the leading American Jewish organizations. Those that had any
questions about it were content to keep them within the community.
Without the presence of Cheney in the White House, the neocons' road
to power would have been far more difficult, and this is where his
recruitment into JINSA paid off.
In 1991, the organization had given him its "Distinguished Service
Award" and he was declared to be "excellent" on issues of U.S.-Israeli
security cooperation, according to JINSA's director of special
projects Shoshana Bryen. 64
If he was a neocon at the time, he failed to show it, telling the
Senate Budget Committee in February of 1990, "America should continue
to anchor its strategy to the still-valid doctrines of flexible
response, forward defense [and] security alliances. Even the
extraordinary events of 1989 do not mean that America should abandon
this strategic foundation," certainly a statement more Powell than
Perle. 65
By the time he became the Veep, however, he was firmly on board and
feeling impregnable. News of Wurmser's participation in the Clean
Break project and questions raised in the press didn't stop Cheney
from adding him to his security staff last September, joining a team
led by another Jewish neocon, national security adviser, Lewis
"Scooter" Libby.
Wurmser, described in the Forward 66 as "a neoconservative scholar
known for his close ties to the Israeli right. boasts a complex
network of relationships to a variety of pro-Likud think tanks and
activist groups [and] has frequently written articles arguing for a
joint American-Israeli effort to undermine the Syrian regime."
"The vice president undoubtedly chooses staff whose views are
compatible with the policies of the administration," wrote Judith
Kipper, a Middle East scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations,
in an e-mail to the Forward. "The question is, how does the vice
president's [national security staff] function in relation to the
president's national security staff and how important policy decisions
are made in the White House. While the vice president has a critical
role to play, the secrecy surrounding his unusually large
foreign-policy staff raises many questions which the American public
needs answered." 67
To this date, they haven't been.
Not only did Cheney bring Wurmser as well as Feith into the
administration, "It was Cheney's choices [as opposed to Powell's] that
prevailed in the appointment of both cabinet and sub-cabinet
national-security officials," as Jim Lobe has pointed out, including
securing the Deputy Defense Secretary position for "his own prot‚g‚,
Paul Wolfowitz. 68
Libby, "a Wolfowitz prot‚g‚, is considered a far more skilled and
experienced bureaucratic and political operator than
[Condaleeza]Rice," writes Lobe. "With several of his political allies
on Rice's own staff - including deputy national security adviser
Stephen Hadley and Middle East director Elliott Abrams - Libby "is
able to run circles around Condi," according to a former NSC official
cited by Lobe.
As former CIA agents Bill and Kathy Christison summed it, up "the Bush
administration. is peppered with people who have long records of
activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy
in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with
existing U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli
loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at
the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and
Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the
vice president's office." 69
As noted earlier, Israel loyalists, outfitted as lobbyists, worked
behind the scenes to drum up public and Congressional support for the
first Gulf War and were happy when the U.S. started bombing Iraq in
1991. They weren't pleased with the results. Like their friends in
Jerusalem, they had wanted Saddam taken out completely and the
sanctions did not meet their standard of what was required. They did
not spend their time writing letters to the editor.
He has been called "Wolfowitz of Arabia" in jest by the New York
Times' Maureen Dowd, 70 and, with respect, "the intellectual godfather
of the war.its heart and soul" by Time's Mark Thompson. 71 If the war
on Iraq is anybody's war it is Paul Wolfowitz's.
Wolfowitz is also no stranger to Israel or to Israelis. As a teenager
he lived briefly in Israel, his sister is married to an Israeli, and
"he is friendly with Israel's generals and diplomats." 72 He is also
"something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative movement"
and a close friend of Perle's. 73 In 1992, as Under Secretary of
Defense for policy in the Clinton administration, he supervised the
drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Having objected to
what he considered the premature ending of the war, his new document,
contained plans for further intervention in Iraq as an action
necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian
Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and threats from terrorism.
It called for preemptive attacks and since "collective action cannot
be orchestrated," the U.S. should be ready to act alone. The primary
goal of U.S. policy would be to prevent the rise of any nation that
could challenge U.S. supremacy. The document was leaked to the New
York Times, which condemned it as extreme and it was supposed to have
been rewritten. As we will see, the original concepts are now part of
the current National Security Strategy. 74
In 1996, as noted above, the scene shifted to Israel and we had Perle,
Feith and Wurmser preparing the Clean Break paper for Netanyahu when
Bush Junior was four years from arriving in office.
Then in September of 2002, during the buildup to the invasion, the
Glasgow Sunday Herald reported that it had discovered "A secret
blueprint for U.S. global domination [which] reveals that President
Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to
secure regime change even before he took power in January 2001." 75
What it was describing was the Project for a New American Century
(PNAC) and it even had a web site which spelled out its plans until
they were subsequently removed. That it was discovered by a Scottish
newspaper was another telling commentary on the state of American
journalism.
Founded in June of 1997, following the Clean Break by a year, part of
PNAC's plan was for the U.S. to take control of the Gulf region with
overwhelming and deadly military force. "While the unresolved conflict
with Iraq provides the immediate justification," the PNAC document
explains, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the
Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." [My
emphasis] 76
As information about PNAC made its way slowly into the mainstream
media, ABC Nightline's Ted Koppel could no longer avoid it. On March
5th, he told his audience, that "Back in 1997, a group of Washington
heavyweights, almost all of them neo-conservatives, formed an
organization called the Project for the New American Century.
They did what former government officials and politicians frequently
do when they're out of power, they began formulating a strategy, in
this case, a foreign policy strategy, that might bring influence to
bear on the administration then in power, headed by President Clinton.
Or failing that, on a new administration that might someday come to
power.
They were pushing for the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And proposing
the establishment of a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian
Gulf, linked to a willingness to use force to protect vital American
interests in the Gulf.
All of that might be of purely academic interest were it not for the
fact that among the men behind that campaign were such names as, *****
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. What was, back in 1997,
merely a theory, is now, in 2003, U.S. policy. Hardly a conspiracy,
the proposal was out there for anyone to see. But certainly an
interesting case study of how columnists, commentators, and think-tank
intellectuals can, with time and the election of a sympathetic
president, change the course of American foreign policy."(My emphasis)
There was something different about this operation, however.
Politicians out of power may plot how to return to power, but this
group was more than that. It had been organized and was largely being
run by the Jewish neocons whose activities we have been following,
plus neocon journalists and neocon think-tank members with a long
history of connections to the Israeli right wing and whose faces and
opinions dominate the TV screens when issues of U.S foreign policy are
under discussion. And as indicated above it had the support of the
leading American Jewish lobbying organizations.
Heading up PNAC was William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard,
the leading journal of the neocons and Robert Kagan, a columnist for
the magazine as well as for the Washington Post whose columns in the
Post and whose joint columns with Kristol in the Weekly Standard have
maintained a steady drumbeat for Washington to send more U.S. troops
to Iraq and keep to its original unilateralist position.
Asked by Koppell if "part of the, larger vision that you and your
colleagues had, or have to this day, is the, removal, either by force
or otherwise, of the current power structure in Iran?," Kristol replied
I think that would be great. I hope we can do it otherwise.
And I think we can do it otherwise than by force. I think
getting, rid of Saddam would help there. But, no, we will
have to leave American troops in that region, I think in
Iraq for quite a while. It's a good investment. I think it
helps keep stability in the area. And it helps strengthen
the forces of freedom in the area.
In February of 1998, PNAC wanted to let President Clinton and the
American public know its position on Iraq, but since, despite Koppel's
statement to the contrary, the group and its plans had not yet come to
the public's attention, it used the letterhead of the Committee for
Peace and Security in the Gulf, a largely paper organization that had
been put together in 1990 "to support President Bush's policy of
expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait." It read, in part:
Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And
despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the
determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his
weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop
biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by
these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said
that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have
said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century.
Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in
possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them
-- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must
assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger
to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.
It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our
objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are
limited to sanctions and exhortations. Saddam must be overpowered; he
will not be brought down by a coup d'etat. 77
The letter called on the president to "recognize a provisional
government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi
National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of
Iraq" (presumably incorporated in the person of their favorite, Ahmed
Chalabi).and providing it with the "logistical support to succeed.
The signatories acknowledged that:
In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and
misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior
political motives. (My emphasis). We believe, on the contrary, that
strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the
national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must
succeed. We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save
ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of
mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.
Heading the list of over 40 signatures, and were its authors, Stephen
Solarz and Perle with the rest, beginning with Elliot Abrams,
following alphabetically. Among the others were both Feith and
Wurmser, who at the time was heading the Middle East desk at the
American Enterprise Institute. It included most of the board of JINSA
and Wolfowitz, as well as soon to be Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
who must have become aware of the direction in which the center of
power was moving and what opportunities it would provide.
For those who believe the Iraq invasion was launched in Israel's
behalf, Solarz could well compete with the Clean Break Three to be the
war's poster-boy, given his record in Congress.
Representing Brooklyn in 1980, Solarz sent a newsletter to his Jewish
constituents, headlined "Delivering for Israel," in which he boasted
how he was able to obtain an additional $660 million in aid for Israel
under difficult circumstances. "It is a story," in Solarz's own words,
"of how legislative maneuvering and political persistence managed to
prevail over fiscal constraints and bureaucratic resistance."
What were the "fiscal restraints?" Solarz acknowledged that it was "a
time of double digit inflation, with all sorts of domestic programs
facing severe cutbacks in spending." After describing the ins and outs
of his successful maneuvering, he reminded his constituents of his
devotion to Israel:
When I was first elected to Congress six years ago (1974) I
deliberately sought an assignment on the Foreign Affairs Committee
precisely because I wanted to be in a position to be helpful to
Israel. it is only the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the
House, and the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate who are
really in a position to make a difference where it counts-in the area
of foreign aid upon which Israel is so dependent. 78
For Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, PNAC assembled a book, edited
by Kristol and Kagan which seems to have been adopted as the agenda
for the Bush administration. It as entitled "Present Dangers: Crisis
and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy" and among its
contributors were the now familiar names of Perle, Wolfowitz, and
Abrams. 79
In his chapter on the Middle East, Abrams laid out the "peace through
strength" concept and argues that U.S. military strength and its
willingness to sue it will remain "a key factor in our ability to
promote peace." He called for a pre-emptive toppling of Saddam, as did
other contributors.
"Strengthening our major ally in the region, Israel, should be the
base of U.S. Middle East policy," wrote Abrams, "and we should not
permit the establishment of a Palestinian state that does not
explicitly uphold U.S. policy in the region."
In their introductory chapter, on Regime Change, Kristol and Kagan
selected Iraq, Iran, North Korea as well as China countries that
needed to be confronted. They concluded that the U.S. will have to
intervene abroad "even when we cannot prove that a narrowly construed
'vital interest' of the U.S. is at stake."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bush threatens to attack Iran to protect Israel:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14691
JINSA/PNAC Neocons Ready to Expand Iraq War to Syria/Iran:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14644
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350
===========================================
April 21, 2004
Bush Outsources Mideast Policy
by Patrick J. Buchanan
"Speaking of the Palestinians, they were dealt a lethal blow," exulted
a jubilant Ariel Sharon, "It will bring their dreams to an end."
Sharon was bragging about his trip to Washington where he bullied Bush
into selling out the Palestinians as thoroughly as Neville Chamberlain
sold out the Czechs at Munich.
"Sharon Got It All" blared a banner headline in Israel. Indeed, he
did.
And Raging Bull celebrated his diplomatic victory by ordering up a
Saturday night hit on Abdel Rantisi, the Hamas leader who replaced
Sheik Yassin, whom Sharon had assassinated by Apache gunship in March
as the crippled sheik was being wheeled out of a mosque after dawn
prayers.
As he surely intended, Sharon left the Arab world with the clear
impression that the Americans had given a green light to his
"extrajudicial" killings. Sharon seeks to make his war on the
Palestinians America's war. If Bush lets him succeed, we are finished
in the Middle East.
But how did Sharon, under a cloud of scandal and corruption, at the
end of his tether, badger Bush into abdicating our role as "honest
broker" of Mideast peace, and into signing on to a "Sharon Plan" even
a Palestinian quisling would reject?
According to the New York Times, Sharon threatened not to come to
Washington unless Bush, in advance and in writing, agreed to
capitulate. "In a moment of diplomatic brinkmanship," writes James
Bennet, Sharon threatened to cancel his trip if Bush refused to give
him "the guarantees he wanted in exchange for his plan to withdraw
settlers from the Gaza Strip."
Still, one must marvel at Sharon's savvy in sizing up Bush, and at the
man's chutzpah. Look at what he got for giving up less than nothing.
Gaza was captured from Egypt in 1967. Though almost all Israelis wish
to be rid of it, 7,500 Jewish squatters have moved into the enclave
that is home to 1.2 million Palestinians. Israelis now occupy 20
percent of Gaza, though they are but one-half of 1 percent of the
population.
However, under the occupation, Hamas has flourished in Gaza and
Israeli troops have been tied down there. About to be forced out of
Gaza by Hamas, as Israel was forced out of Lebanon by Hezbollah,
Sharon decided to get Bush to reward him for doing what he had to do.
Sharon's ultimatum: In return for giving up Gaza, Bush must give him
title to more desirable Palestinian lands on the West Bank.
Bush, who once traded Sammy Sosa away, agreed. Only this time he
traded America's reputation for honest dealing for a few words of
fatuous praise from Sharon about what a great battler against
terrorism he is. All to help Bush and Rove carry the south Florida
condos.
But John Kerry is not a man easily out-pandered.
"That Bush's move was good politics," writes Dana Milbank of the
Washington Post, "was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's
quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters."
"I think that could be a positive step," said Kerry of the Bush
sell-out of the Palestinians. Our first presidents were George
Washington and John Adams. Now we have on offer George Bush and John
Kerry. Does that not tell you something about what has become of the
old republic?
What did Bush give up? None of the Palestinians driven out of their
homes by the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin and during the 1948 war
will ever be allowed to return. Palestinian rights in that 78 percent
of Palestine that is already Israel, and in the sectors of the
remaining 22 percent Sharon plans to annex, are forfeit forever. At
Camp David, Ehud Barak offered Arafat a more generous peace than Bush,
under Sharon's direction, is willing to give the Palestinians.
Second, major Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, planted
by Sharon in violation of international law, which every U.S.
president has called "obstacles to peace," are now deeded to Israel.
Like Lord Balfour, Bush is surrendering title to Arab lands he does
not own and surrendering Palestinian rights that are not his to give up.
As for the Sharon Wall that snakes in and out of the West Bank,
incorporating Palestinian fields, olive groves, homes and villages,
Bush no longer insists it be confined to Israeli territory.
What does the mini-Munich mean? The great Zionist land thief has
gotten America's blessing to keep his stolen goods. George Bush has
out-sourced his Mideast policy to Tel Aviv. The custodian of our
reputation for decency and honor in an Arab world of 22 nations is now
Sharon. As for Palestinians who put their faith and trust in the
United States, they have been exposed as fools.
Can anyone in the White House believe that Bush's capitulation is
anything but a formula for endless war and enduring hatred of an
America that cannot say no to Ariel Sharon?
Any Arab leader who signed on to this Sharon-Bush plan, which cedes
huge swatches of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem to Israel and
leaves Palestinians in bantustans walled in with Israeli concrete,
would be regarded as a traitor to his people, and deservedly so.
============================================
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=2350
============================================
.
|
