Israel 'may rue Saddam overthrow' (BBC)

[Canuckistanian]

The head of Israel's domestic security agency, Shin Bet, has said his country may come to regret the overthrow of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Yuval Diskin said a strong dictatorship would be preferable to the present "chaos" in Iraq, in a speech to teenage Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

He also said the Israeli security services and judiciary treated Arabs and Jewish suspects differently.

A Shin Bet veteran, Mr Diskin took over as Shin Bet's chief in May.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696038.stm

[Tesha]

1. Did anyone ever doubt this?

Did anyone ever doubt this?

We've turned Iraq into the world's largest recruiting station
for Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists (NB: not necessarily
the same people!)

And unlike the U.S. military, they appear to be having no trouble
recruiting soldiers for their war(s).

Tesha

[Canuckistanian]

2. Not only a recruiting station, but a training ground

I heard somewhere that bomb attacks are videotaped and later analyzed by the insurgents to see which methods work best. They also have a strict policy that the videotapers do not get involved directly with the attacks (presumably so they can't get implicated in any 'war crime' investigations).

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. What they can't say is, that they fully expected the US to take Iran

and Syria. So the job is not finished. Only by going after the trifecta of rogue countries would Israel be truly safe.

But we are now a wrench in the works for them because the deeper we get into the investigations, the worse off Israel may be if we find conspiratorial ties through A.I.P.A.C.

I have no idea what they were thinking. They must think Republican voters are a bunch of patsies for falling for it and we're a bunch of pussies for not being able to stop the madness.

[megatherium]

12. I favor a different story.

We didn't invade Iraq for Israel's sake. Instead, we invaded Iraq for Iran's sake. I have read that four different operatives were sent by Ahmed Chalabi to approach US intelligence people, with claims about the existence and location of Iraqi WMD, and to claim that the Iraqi populace would welcome us. US intelligence only found out later these "defectors" were really Chalabi's agents. Chalabi wanted us to depose Hussein for his own purposes -- he wanted to become the Iraqi leader. But it is known (I gather) that Chalabi is an Iranian agent; he spent time in Iran after our invasion.

The logic of this fits together: Hussein was a mortal enemy of the Iranians; and the Iranians know that once we were in Iraq, we would be tied down (if need be, by Shiite insurgents; but as yet the Iranians have not played that card).

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. If there was even an ounce of credence to the Chalabi fooled the US

theory, he would be dead man walking.

[megatherium]

21. so who promulgated that theory and why?

It's deragotory to the Bush people. I have the impression that there's a faction in the Bush administration that still supports Chalabi but another faction that believes he's an Iranian agent (accusing him of sharing with the Iranians the secret that we were able to read their codes).

[IndianaGreen]

7. Iraq is this century's Spanish Civil War

As in Spain, new tactics and military technology is being battle-tested by both sides, to be used elsewhere. We are already seeing several news stories from Afghanistan noting that the Taliban is now using tactics and methods proven successful by the Iraqi insurgency. We are on the verge of losing the war in Afghanistan!

[megatherium]

13. As predicted two years ago by knowledgable people

such as Mike Scheuer (who wrote Imperial Hubris under the name "Anonymous").

Your analogy to the Spanish Civil War is very apt, and very ominous: the Spanish Civil War was soon followed by WWII. I fear a major war is soon to come in the Middle East, one that will require a WWII-scale committment from the US. I fear that this war will be in part provoked by the US -- but I also think that we are approaching a tipping point where the war will happen regardless of our wishes or interests. But I believe that Islamist groups and regimes will be as much to blame for the conflagration when it occurs as we will be.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Everybody wants war!

The neocons want war. The Christian Zionists want war. The Islamic radicals want war. Add to that the simmering anger of the entire Muslim world at the Christian West, and the rampant Islamophobia in Europe and America, and all you need is a match to be lit.

Millions of innocents will suffer or die when this self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon comes to pass.

[daleo]

16. I am afraid you may be right

I have been getting this sense lately too. I think the cartoon thing shows how close to the edge the world is getting. It just seems to be getting irrational on all sides. Provocateurs who want war are taking advantage of the latent fear and loathing that seems to have developed.

[Tesha]

19. The matches are already lit.

> and all you need is a match to be lit.

The matches are already lit. The only remaining question
is: When they fall, how many will fall on the gasoline?

Tesha

[TomClash]

26. We can win the War militarily

but probably not politically. It is an old story.

I don't see the Spanish Civil War connection except on the military side, as the blitzkrieg was actually first developed during that War.

[wookie294]

3. How come I knew this back in 2002 ?

The Iraq war is making the antiwar people look like geniuses (even though it didn't take much brains to know invading Iraq would be a complete disaster).

[DELUSIONAL]

18. with the Internet there is a "I told you so" record

and the anti war protests were covered on the Internet -- not by the mainstream media. The rolling candle light vigil just prior to the invasion was really impressive -- millions of people turning out at 7:00 local time. But that was just a "focus" group to da chimpster.

The fall out of the invasion of Iraq was a no brain-er to predict.

[bemildred]

25. Yeah. I'm tempted to dig some of that stuff up from a few years back.

I know damn well a lot of us said that exactly that what is happening would happen. And it's been a quick ride to the bottom too.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Most people in the world may rue it

apart from Halliburton and similar coprorations, the Iraqi politicans who were in exile, and Bush and his cronies.

[htuttle]

6. Well, duh. That's what Saddam was hired for!

Anyone remember how State Department types in the early '80's used to refer to Saddam Hussein as a 'bulwark against radical Islam'?

Well, looks like they were right...

[WinkyDink]

8. No, it is WE who will---and do---rue that day.

[Ian David]

10. The VAST majority of American Jews and Israelis opposed the war...

from the very begining.

The poll has been posted here a few times on DU somewhere.

Anyway, this isn't "Late-Breaking News."

[Canuckistanian]

24. I thought it was newsworthy

How many times do you hear an Israeli official saying that Iraq is a disaster?

Anyways, Iraqis themselves have said the same thing about Iraq needing another "strong man" to be able to keep the peace again. Most Iraqis know that cultural differences will keep them fighting for decades.

This isn't exactly a popular opinion in the West.

[Wordie]

27. Wrong.

Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq?
By Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy, Jewish Voice for Peace; Joel Beinin, Professor of Middle East Studies at Stanford University; and Cecilie Surasky, Director of Communications, Jewish Voice for Peace

...Israel's role is debated whenever American policy in the Middle East is discussed. This is inevitable, because Israel is America’s key ally in the region and because the Israel-Palestine conflict is the focal point of attention for virtually anyone who cares about the Mideast. Some critics of the war on Iraq maintain that the decision to go to war was made largely to advance Israeli interests. Others maintain that Israel had nothing to do with it. The evidence suggests, however, that neither of these views is accurate.

The neocons and Israeli support for the war
We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Many of the neocons are Jewish, though not all of them. But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq.

A number of key figures among the neocon wing of the Bush Administration were involved in writing an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. This paper listed removing Saddam Hussein from power as an “an important Israeli strategic objective.” It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward war on Iraq, simply didn’t think about this. Writers involved in the “Clean Break” paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were powerful proponents, in and out of government, for the war on Iraq.

Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.”Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other reports indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_237.shtml

The article goes on to discuss the many other reasons for the war. None of those reasons, however, overrides the truth of the above paragraphs: that the Israeli government and Israelis in general vigorously supported the war. Let's not try to revise the truth of the matter, now that it's become inconvenient.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Wrong.

Israel
Israeli public opinion is not convinced that a war with Iraq is needed. A 13 February Haaretz Newspaper poll shows that only 46% of Israelis support waging war against Iraq without a second U.N. resolution, and 43% oppose such an action. Of those 43% of the Israelis who oppose unilateral action, 20% oppose a U.S. attack against Iraq under any circumstances.

more...

The Israeli government was split, the stronger members supporting the war, some supporting America's decision, and others wanting no invasion. The governments around the world were more supportive of the invasion, than were their people, with the exception of the US (57% in favor).

And, let's not revise the truth, that some are trying to blame this war squarely at the feet of Jews and Israel! American Jews, in step with the rest of the American population, initially supported military action against Iraq, that has changed to 80% now being against the war in Iraq.

[Wordie]

31. nah...

Ha'aretz: Enthusiastic IDF awaits war in Iraq

Monday, February 17, 2003 Adar1 15, 5763

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The Prime Minister's Office ascribes little importance to the diplomatic hurdles America must overcome in the UN Security Council on the path to a war against Iraq. Israel estimates that the date of attack depends only on logistical considerations, when the deployment of U.S. troops is complete, and that the war will begin at the end of February or the beginning of March. No delays or any kind of influence are expected from the coalition negotiations.

The military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq, seeing it as an opportunity to win the war of attrition with the Palestinians. According to their approach removing Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat from his position will signify Palestinian surrender. Major General Amos Gilad, Coordinator of Government Activities in the West Bank and Gaza, expressed the army's position Saturday, saying that a U.S.-led attack on Iraq would remove the Iraqi threat, and would be an example for "the removal of other dictators closer to us who use violence and terror."

Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such as National Security Advisor Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel's other enemies: Arafat, Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar Assad, the ayatollah in Iran and maybe even Muhammar Gadaffi. Along with these leaders, will disappear terror and weapons of mass destruction.

There is also excitement in the IDF's planning department over the standoff between the U.S. and its NATO allies. A paper distributed to the army's upper echelons even spoke of an opportunity to remove the pro-Palestinian Europeans from the Middle East. A senior source said Saturday that the U.S. will punish the Europeans for their back-stabbing on the road to Baghdad, and will no longer ask them for input regarding Israeli concessions. (emphasis mine)

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/106122.php

AND:

CounterPunch

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.

The article then goes on to provide a voluminous record of Israeli support, and even complicity in planning, the Iraq War. Note that due to the 4 paragraph limit, I am only able to post a small portion of the quotes, there are many of them. Well worth reading the entire article, imho.

"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.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

"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 remarks seemed 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

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: [e-mail]

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

So, this info seems to refute your claims, bta. And I really recommend that counterpunch article, for quite a comprehensive discussion of the issue.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. ummm..yeah...

I have read the CounterPunch crap before....oddly enough, I read it on a neo-nazi site. And, anyway, your articles support my assertion. The powerful few were in favor, but the public was not.

It is nothing more than anti-Israeli propaganda crap to lay the blame the war in Iraq at the feet of the Jews/Israel (depending on where your source comes from). There is no doubt that many in the Israeli government are as odious as those in the US government. The only problem is that the Israelis are willing to be used as a puppet by this administration. They foolishly think that Bush cares about Israel, he does not, he NEEDS Israel...he needs her for propaganda, a scapegoat, and to piss off the left.

[Wordie]

33. Still nah...

First, that a neo-nazi site might quote from a counterpunch article in no way indicates that the material presented in it is inaccurate or questionable in any way. And the counterpunch quotes (from haaretz and other media sources, quoting Israelis) refer repeatedly to the support for the war among not only the Israeli government, but the public as well. Again, I urge others to read the entire article.

What I believe is more subtle than the usual either/or question about whether to blame the war in Iraq on the Jews/Israel. I think Israel was just one factor among many concerns; the original article I posted gets it just about right when it points out that the neocon hawks in the US government surely did have Israel in mind, and the Israeli government also pushed for it, but there were other compelling reasons for the war as well. And I also would have to agree that the US neocon hawks may not represent the average Israeli, and I would even go further than you do: no matter to what degree Israel may have been pushing for the war, it was the responsibility of those in the US administration to resist that pressure. Unfortunately, because those neocon hawks did have quite a strong hand in setting the policy and cherry-picking the evidence, this did not happen.

Curiously, I agree with you also that Bush is unlikely to really care much about Israel. However, I'm not certain I agree with your reasons. Bush's base sure cares about Israel, and this may have quite an influence on him. Some of the strongest support for the war came from US evangelicals.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. we're just going to have to disagree

The site didn't "quote" that article, it reposted it. I am not saying that discredits it (other things do that), it shows a convergence of like opinions. I gave you a source, also from Ha'aretz, that shows the public was not as in favor as the war as some are trying to make them out. And, you still have shown that a few of the powerful were in favor, I said that; however, there were others in the Israeli government, much like ours (actually considerably more), who were not in favor.

Do this: google : Israeli support for the Iraq war. You will find all kinds of 'interesting' links...read those links...see if you can find the problem (other than the link itself). Also, although you are not British, do read...The Persistence of Anti-Semitism on the British Left.

[Wordie]

36. I'm really curious, can you provide links to your contention that *more*

in the Israeli government were against the war? (Although in some ways I'm not certain that is entirely relevant, if those elected, such as Sharon, were actively pushing it.)

[barb162]

29. I think Bush and Cheney were looking for a war with Iraq before they

ever got elected. Bush had a "thing" about going after Hussein, finishing off the Gulf War Daddy never "finished" and also the assassination attempt on the elder Bush by Hussein. And oil. Those two jerks were going to find a way to start a war one way or another.

[Wordie]

37. Maybe, but so were many elements in Israel looking for that war...eom

[barb162]

30. I think that Plitnick etal article is an incorrect analysis

And I think this one from 6/3/04 is better. Beside that, Bush and Cheney wanted the O-I-L

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-25.htm

Wartime Witch Hunt:
Blaming Israel for the Iraq War
Dore Gold


An insidious but steady drumbeat can be discerned over the last several weeks charging that the primary interest of the Bush administration in going to war against Saddam Hussein was to defend Israeli security interests. This newest wave is often more subtle but also far more mainstream than what was voiced in this regard just last year.
snip

[Wordie]

35. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is a hasbara organization, barb.

It acknowledges that fact itself. The entire purpose of hasbara sites is to present the Israeli POV in the best possible light. Many consider such sites to be propagandist (I do). Please indicate in the future when you are quoting or posting articles from such sites so people can make their own judgements about the quality of the material presented.

And for further info on which to form one's judgement about the writer, it's important to note that he was an advisor to both Sharon and Netanyahu.

[MrPrax]

11. That was the intention...

Israel's longterm survival 'under the status quo' is dubious anyway...a regional shakedown was expected and planned--Israel will continue to spin the wheel and HOPE an 'new' player will emerge to save them .

[gauguin57]

17. Lalalalala can't hear you lalalalala

I'm in bed with the covers over my head.

"Iran making nukes."

"Israel will rue destabilization in Iraq and Gaza."

"Sunnis and Shiites clashing all over the Middle East."

Lalalalala I'm SCARED people!

[Ben Ceremos]

20. Calm down.

The Middle East will take care of itself. You have to take care of your own crazies.

[Amonester]

22. Yep. Only tiny minorities of extremist lunatics want total war.

Because they fantasize about deities with different names but same goal: to control the masses minds, thoughts, whereabouts, bank accounts, and taxes to amass only for themselves, and the sheer fraction of cronies who support them or believe in their daily puke of endless lie$/manipulation$ (on BOTH $side$).

And if the$e lunatic$ can't get their total control in peace time (we, peaceful humans, all know it cannot happen this way), no doubt they will do everything wrong they can think of, in order to create conflict$ everywere there aren't any, even at the ri$k of blowing up the entire human race in fume$, if they can't get their way to control it a$ they $ee fit.

We all know who the$e tiny minoritie$ are (or thi$ tiny minority...).

**'s 'base' & "ex"-CIA's operative$ (??)

Get ready for WW-Armageddon (brought to us by... a minority of crazy lunatic$) :cry:

[Rex]

23. Well DUH! When WWIII starts next month he will wish

the old bastard was still in charge!