Tuesday, 19 February 2008

War for Israel - Fallacy Number One

I get tired of hearing the War in Iraq was "for Israel."

It seems like complete nonsense to me: I suspect it is largely driven by anti-semitism and the more common lack of appreciation for materialism (as in Marx's Historical Materialism).

So, here's the first in a series about the fallacies associated with the idea that War in Iraq was about anything other than American material interests.

Here's IHR's rationale for the war:
......the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish “neo-conservatives” holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush – who was already fervently com­mitted to Israel – resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.
And here's David Duke's take on the reasons behind The War in Iraq. He cites the oft-mentioned report "A Clean Break", saying:
The report basically argues how destruction of Iraq will protect Israel’s monopoly of nuclear weapons and give Israel a free hand to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Israel has in store.
And this is nowarforisrael.com's take on the reason for the war:
In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the policy — security for Israel." http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
I could go on and post endless variations on this theme. Suffice to say the claim about "War for Israel" is predicated upon ideas about neutralising Israel's enemies.

However, such claims forget one thing - that Iraq had no WMD, and was *not* a threat to Israel (or anyone else).

Even the IHR article quoted above claiming it was "War for Israel" admits:
As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous “weapons of mass destruction,” and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation.

So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack Iraq?
So, the fallacy is clear - if Iraq is acknowledged to not have been a threat to Israel - it cannot then be argued that Israel manipulated USA into war to remove such a 'threat to Israel'.

The "It's Israel!" crowd want it both ways here: they seek to blame Israel for pushing false intelligence on USA (they claim Israel gave false intel to US because they knew Iraq had no WMD) , and yet the supposed rationale for this deceit was an effort to draw USA into taking out one of Israel's regional enemies.

But if Israel really was dishonestly manipulating USA with trumped up evidence, then they must have known Iraq was no threat - else they weren't being dishonest. But in that case, why the Israeli need to manipulate USA into removing Israel's (toothless) enemy anyway as they knew Iraq was no threat!?