View Full Version : How the Israel lobby helped put us in Iraq
08-09-2006, 11:12 AM
The following report examines the influence of the Israel lobby in shaping US policy in the Mideast. It was prepared by two professors, one from Harvard, the other from the University of Chicago. The report shows that AIPAC influence in Washington was largely responsible for the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
When the report was released last spring the authors faced ridicule and were widely tarred and feathered as anti semitic; but a careful reading of their report shows no such thing. There is no trace of anti semitism in the paper. It merely examines the role of the Israel lobby in the clear light of reason.
The report's conclusions are sobering and I believe correct. Through intimidation, esp using the anti semitism scare tactic, the lobby has blocked a wider debate about US Mideast policy, to the detriment of our democracy and US interests in the region.
This will get the usual reacton from the knee jerks -- but that can't be helped. MG
08-09-2006, 12:05 PM
Chirp, chirp, chirp (cricket sounds). No sense in replying!
08-09-2006, 01:05 PM
No doubt Israel told the neocons Saddam had gas. The CIA and DOS and DOD all thought he did. And that was going to be the cover. Bushii had to know there was no nuke or biol danger, but the invasion was to nation build. He thought we'd find gas that and say "ah hah, smoking gun," and just ignore the fact that the gas posed no threat to America. Making his even more decietful was the fact that he probably planned to say that even if all the gas we found had already been disclosed to blix.
Whether the mossad knew saddam had no gas beyond what he's already showed blix, I'm not sure. No doubt the pushed the war.
I disagree with the link's characterization of Barak's offer. Imo it was far more generous than described. But in the end, Barak lost public support because people decided the pales would still bomb them. (which ironically is that same thing happening to olmert, and incidentally why imo he invaded lebanon. Like JFK he decided doing anything, even the wrong thing, was politically better than doing nothing.) The reasoning of the Israelies was something like, since the pales can't give up their right to return nonsense, their offer of peace is a lie. And, I can't say that was wrong or illogical. The pales may feel differently now, but olmert isn't really interested in peace as much as he is in real estate. Location, location, location.
08-09-2006, 01:26 PM
Barak campaigned in Israel as a peace candidate -- but he quickly got cold feet. You could see this in his body language when he appeared on TV with Clinton and Arafat.
I think the report's summary of the Oslo process is accurate. Israel was not prepared to give the Palestinians anything more than Bantustan status. Which Arafat could not accept. When the talks broke down over the Palestinian right of return, instead of admitting his own failures Clinton dumped on Arafat. It was so easy -- given Arafat's disheveled persona -- he always looked like he needed a bath and a shave.
Clinton's failure, as the report points out, was having no policy at all, other than rubber stamping whateer Israel wanted. And to think that Clinton entered office with such promise....
My own view is that the real hopes died with Rabin. I think the Israeli security agences, which are to the right of Attila, allowed the right wing nut to get close to Rabin because they didn't want a political settement. They were determined to maintain the status quo, whatever the cost. No surprise this has been Israel's policy ever since. No talks. No negotiations. End of story.
Which explains the continuing conflict and violence.