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!?


Trausti said...

First comment: Don't get stuck talking to yourself. Let the nazi bitches hunt you down, so that you can show them how they can be shut up by using facts.

Solo said...

(It aggravates the crap out of me to have to register with google in order to comment, but I understand.)

In view of your facts how do we explain Israeli intelligence that indicated Iraq did have WMD? Perhaps they'd been infiltrated by neocons? This article calls it incompetence. (Gee, where have I heard that before?)
I call it convenient. Some elements of the Israeli govt and/or intelligence services definitely wanted the Iraq war or they've been completely infiltrated by US interests. Which seems more likely?

odlanyeR said...

Hey, tons of wisdom and sound perspectives while having fun at it!!!

By the way ...., don´t forget LnL, I´ll have one eye up and oppened up to measure and calibrate the south american perspectives you may be tempted to post from time to time. I must certainly trust in your best judgement ..... as to keep those "scissors" locked up in the drawers should any difference arise up.

Best of luck always, anyways!!

Greg Bacon said...

Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack
Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam

JERUSALEM, Aug. 16, 2002
(CBS) Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.



To use the brutal words of Ranaan Gissin, an aide to then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon: "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose."

Maybe not Israel's purpose, but what about the rest of the civilized world?

And this article:

Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region
By James Bennet

New York Times
February 27, 2003

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week that after Iraq, the United States should generate "political, economic, diplomatic pressure" on Iran. "We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after" a war, he said.

"The shock waves emerging from post-Saddam Baghdad could have wide-ranging effects in Tehran, Damascus, and in Ramallah," Efraim Halevy, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's national security adviser, said in a speech in Munich this month.

Until recently, Mr. Halevy was the chief of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency. He said, "We have hopes of greater stability, greater enhanced confidence from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic shores of Morocco."

Israelis have also suggested that that an Iraq war may salvage their economy and even prompt the opposition Labor Party to join Mr. Sharon's coalition in a new government of national unity.

Source: Global Policy.org

Anonymous said...

LnL, you know damn well that Israeli thinktanks called for attacks on Iraq, Iran , Syria and Lebanon. And published their proposals back in 1996. but your still up to your old tricks eh ?
oh well.. you can't help that your born with those particular hereditary genes.
You know what they say, you are what you eat, Thus considering you are jewish and gay and such, I assume your ancestors preferred rats ass.

how's that for hatespeech ? LOL

Oh and Trausti.. þú svikari þinn fólk fyrir gyðingalegur kisa