War Launched to Protect Israel--Zelikow remarks uncovered by IPS

[Gloria]

Just posted in the new World Media Watch....


1//Inter Press Service March 29, 2004

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083



WAR LAUNCHED TO PROTECT ISRAEL – BUSH ADVISER

Emad Mekay


WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.



(MORE)

[bluestateguy]

1. Then where were the Israeli troops?

Hmmm?

[Must_B_Free]

2. wrong forum for anti semitism

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[adriennui]

8. do you mean

shiite?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[bluesoul]

14. Jim at his finest

Oh my...

[Djinn]

6. sigh

despite what you may have been bombarded with Israel does NOT equate to Jewish - criticism of Israel does not therefore equate to criticism of Jews.

It's a fairly easy logical step but one that's completely alien apparently

[Gloria]

3. Not "anti-semitism"--this topic has been discussed repeatedly...

This news service is legitimate and seems to have uncovered some new info.

Get a grip.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Just because he said it doesn't make it true.

[adriennui]

7. israel, the convenient scapegoat

if the war was to protect israel we would have gone after syria and iran rather than iraq... anyone ever hear of hezbollah?

there are some folks who believe israel is the source of all evil, pourquoi?

it's so easy and so irrational. major acts of terrorism seem to have one common denominator and it certainly isn't israel.

[aquart]

9. But it does let the oil-worshipping Texans off the hook, don't it?

[RainDog]

10. ever hear of Perle and Frum's book?

they call for attacks on syria and iran..and they were also targeted by Bush in his speeches, in case you forgot...

Of course, Perle and Frum also call for Bush to acknowledge how in bed he is with Saudi Arabia, but that's another issue... .

Saddam Hussein was an sob...and even tho he was our sob for a long time, after selling him weapons, we "flipped him" by the first Iraq war (remember April Gilespie?) but by occupying Iraq, we accomplished quite a few goals...

1. Iraq could no longer chose to demonate petrol in euros

2. We would have a base in the middle east which was not Saudi Arabia (remember, one of bin Laden's demands was that we withdraw from S.A., and no doubt the House of Saud would like to have that issue out of their hair to remove a source of outrage among Saudi Wahhabists.

3. With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is technically (since Afghanistan is only "ours" in Kabul), surrounded on two sides, and Iran is working on nukes in some form or another...

4. Israel's Likud faction is on record noting that it is preferable to them to have Iraq dissolve into three factions which could war among themselves, rather than target Israel.

5. Yes, Israel has also launced strikes on Iran, and with Iraq now a base for military action by the U.S., I'm sure the hope is to force Iran into scaling back its nukes, and agreeing to agressive IAEA monitoring.

6. Perle, one of the neocon architects, was uncovered by Sy Hersh back in the 70s, regarding his sharing of classified info with Netanyahu's faction...which would seem to indicate to me that Perle seems to meld American and Israeli interests....

7. There was a mid-term election in the U.S., and Iraq was a way to make democrats look weak if they didn't support the invasion, so making the invasion an issue at that time, with Bush's popularity up after Afghanistan, make it easier to invade...plus a refusal to support the invasion might cause a loss of support for dems among Jewish voters...

Israel and America (and the U.K.) have long standing relations

So, please, it is not anti-semitism to acknowledge the obvious.

Some of the above, in fact, (except for the American raw politics and Perle's actions in the 70s) can be argued as reasons to invade Iraq...or at least to threaten invasion.

the problem, for me, is that Iraq was not tied to Al Qaeda, and therefore, unless Bush lied about the reasons, Americans were not likely to support such an invasion, which is also a violation of the Nuremberg principles which we helped to write, btw, after Hitler used trumped up charges to invade nations at will and bring the entire world into a war.

The other problem, for me, is that diplomatic pressure, combined with rhetorical threats, might have been able to accomplish changes in Iraq, if "democracy" were really the issue...but that was not in keeping with Bush's desire to wage war.

Diplomacy is also not the way Likud engages in politics, is it? Oh, and Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowksi noted that, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Israeli generals basically had an open door to the Office of Special Plans, which was given the task of inventing reasons to invade...the Israelis didn't even have to sign in to the OSP offices at the Pentagon...

The cynical way that the Bush republicans manipulated this issue was spectacularly disgusting, and ultimately harmful, imo, to our entire governmental structure.

To further deny that there was any pressure from our strongest ally in the region, who also had an interest in such an invasion is particularly naive.

Considering all the players in the middle east, I definitely support Israel...but not Likud...and the problem with Israel now, just like the problem in America now, is that both govts are controlled by right wing extremists who create as many enemies as they destroy...which does not solve the problems of either country.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Very good summary.

[keithyboy]

11. You'll never hear about this from the media...guess why.

FOX will never mention it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. I don't want to guess

Why not tell me?