Look, if Israel could pick one country for the US to invade to safeguard its security, it would have been Syria, not Iran or Iraq. Just as if George Bush and Dick Cheney could have picked the places for the 9/11 planes to hit, they wouldn't have chosen the Pentagon or the World Trade Center. Just as if FDR wanted to provoke a war with Japan, he wouldn't have chosen to be on the receiving end of a sneak attack that nearly crippled the Navy. Is the current administration closer to Israel than it was to the Saddam regime, or to the current regime in Iran? Like, duh. Are they driving policy? Hell, Iran and Chalabi probably had more to do with the Iraq invasion than Ariel Sharon.
Apparently, busy debunking notions that are not at issue, you guys miss the point that is at issue! This is not about "Jews" per se. Most Jews aren't "neocons"; some of their main detractors are Jewish; there are many neocons who aren't Jewish. But, regardless of religion or ethnicity, necons are distinguished by their close links to Likud and a set of policy objectives set out in the "Clean Break..." and PNAC. These folks were all against Oslo -- and worked to undermine it. This group, including not just those among them who are Jewish, are the prominent players in the Bush administration. The confusion that arises is among those who confuse "neocon" with Jews. I guess worried about that association, some cannot see beyond it! As far as the "if they were worried about Israel they would do X or Y" argument presented by Dan Loney, we don't need to speculate. In their plan (faulty or misplaced or whatever) the best way to "secure the realm" was for Israel to: George Bush didn't need to say or think: "Oh, I am doing this for Israel." This same plan was sold to Bush as being in the US interests by those who believe in the PNAC, was supported by Republican "militarists" and evangelican Christians and political strategists thinking about votes and winning elections. That is why the war in Iraq was preordained regardless of what Saddam Hussein did or didn't do in response to any UN resolutions. Cheney, Rusmfield and many others aren't Jewish. But they are believers in the necon Bible (PNAC) -- and had already acted in accordance with its dicates lobbying for the same ends long before 9/11, even before Bush was in office!
Quote: ... abandon the Oslo peace process, reassert Israel’s claims to the West Bank and Gaza Strip and remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power. Toppling Iraq’s Baathists, the paper’s authors argued, was a necessary first step toward transforming the Middle East and destabilizing other enemies of Israel in the region — namely Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. I just read the PNAC web site and found nothing like this quote. Instead of assuming that PNAC and the neocons' Middle Eastern policy is totally based on what's good for Israel, lets assume they instead advocate (1) complete support for all democracies (2) military action against all regimes and organizations that use terrorism as a policy. Under these set of guiding principles, advocating Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza (to weaken Fatah and Hama - prime practioners of terror), as well as advocating military action against Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia makes sense (as GWB said; "draining the swamp"). Maybe the links you see in the Neocons policy is not "pro-Israel" but rather "pro-democracy" and "anti-terrorism".
That quote was from the Detroit Jewish News piece, referring to the "Clean Break" paper written Netanyahou by Feith and Perle. Although several neocons have rather questionable records when it comes to handling sensitive US intelligence, I don't think of them as "Israeli spies" or arms of the Israeli government. Heck, after Feith and Perle charted the path they wanted for Netanyahou, and after he went "soft" on that path, Feith in particular began attacking him in newspaper columns for failing to ditch Oslo altogether. They have their own mind set and have found a way to make US and what they consider to be Israel/Likud interests sound synonymous.
Actually, that report concerned Syria far more than Iraq. I assume you've read it. You must have liked their suggestion that America should cut off all economic aid to Israel. I'm sure AIPAC was thrilled. With friends like that... Moreover, Wolfowitz, by far the most important "neo-con," wasn't a party to the report. The "Likudniks" as you call them (nevermind that Clinton sent James Carville to Israel to help Labor) are third-stringers. I don't happen to agree with these people, but I know for a fact they love America. Then again, so does Pat Robertson.
I have read it. Iraq was the vehicle to achieve larger objectives, one of which was to get at Syria. I don't recall that so much, although I am aware of arguments made by some among them about reducing American leverage on Israel. Basically, as passionate advocates of Likud's agenda of "Greater Israel", at the time, some among them didn't think Israel needed American aid and should not limit its options based on such considerations. Actually, before Wolfowitz's appointment under the Bush administration, Perle was his senior going back to the Reagan adminstration where he had hired Wolfowitz. Regardless, that paper didn't require many authors: its positions were being advocated constantly by all these folks, in conferences (including some aired by CSPAN that I had watched), as well as in letter to Clinton urging him to attack Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein -- which were signed by all of them (Jewish and non Jewish neocons, including Rumfield, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, et al). The "Jewish" neocons are 2nd stringers in the Bush administration, but they are the intellectual fathers of the movement. All "neocons" are Likudniks by philosophy, whether they be Jewish or not. "Likudniks" because they stood against Oslo and in support of the path that Likud was advocating. Clinton administration, needless to say, was supportive of Oslo, while the neocons were busy bashing Clinton's policies on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict!! (As you know, Clinton was very popular with American Jews and had close contacts with Labor, but he didn't have a good relationship with Likud). I am not per se questioning their "love" for America, although such questions are appropriate when it comes to some of them given. But many, I am sure, feel they "love" America. However, that "love" finds different definition and meaning depending on a host of other factors and considerations.
Here is the document. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm And yes removing Saddam was the key issue. Rather than saying saddam was Israel or US paranoia I would say he was neocons paranoia. (It isn't exactly news I would say). Both when they suggested the strategy for USA and when they suggested the strategy for Israel. And I am far more inclined to believe that neocons distorted israeli interests in order to fit with what they thought were US interests rather than the opposite.
Having read these, I totally agree.. Even the "real Israeli Likudniks" don't agree with these people, so it quite innaccurate to put the Likudnik label on them.
That is an interesting observation. I wouldn't frame quite like you did, as I believe their thoughts have deep roots in what they consider to be in Israel's interests as well, while they have managed to define US interests the same way. To remove any inconsistency between the two, they were in reality proposing a massive change in the intellectual foundation for the foreign policies of both countries! Their most resounding success has been in their ability to shift the focus of debate in American "conservative" circles, while having most of their agenda adopted by Israel and some of it by the US. Whether that is good for either of those two countries, however, is an entirely different question. In the menatime, one of the most interesting aspects of even just that paper is how it suggests the kind of alliance between Israel's Likud and traditional American conservatives! The paper suggests what occured later, a forging of an even stronger alliance between the former and the latter, based on ideology and greed. In terms of specific policies they advocated, this group wanted: 1- Oslo to be killed. Done. 2- Yasser Arafat to be stripped of legitimacy and sidelined. Done. 3- Saddam Hussein to be removed from power through American invasion. Done. 4- Engage in the US in a massive, joint US/Israeli, "anti-missle defense" project to cover all sorts of real and imaginary threats to both countries. Being Done. 5- Propogate the idea of "preemption" as a legitimate exercise of power by Israel, including Israel having the unabashed right to raid inside any Arab state (e.g., Syria) or territory (e.g. occupied terroritories). Done. 6- Forge an alliance between pro-Israeli groups and conservative factions in the US. Done, although most Jewish pro-Israeli Americans have opted to remain outside this group. 7- Work towards regime change in Syria and Iran (and later Saudi Arabia). They are still working on that prong, which was always meant to follow the Iraqi adventure they had in mind. They have, of course, not won everything they wanted, and some of the battles they won, they might now have second thoughts about! Ultimately, however, they have clear ideas about where they want both Israeli and the US to move towards. And they do have the soap box (FOX et al) on their side, along with influential politicians who pander to either or both of the militaritst and evangelical christian wings of the Republican party.
1. The Palestinians weren't in love with Oslo, either. 2. The hell? He was pretty much sacrosanct until his death. 3. Unfortunately true. 4. The insane Star Wars dream has little to do with Israel, much to do with Reagan-era Cold War boondoggerel. 5. Israel hardly needs the encouragement. If they haven't invaded Syria, it's because they have no military advantage in doing so, certainly not because they're worried that American public opinion wouldn't support them without PNAC propaganda. 6. Again, with evangelical Christianity, and the US political process putting a premium on special interest coalition-building, this didn't need a conspiracy. 7. Probably true, although the failure of the Iraq war means this is now not terribly likely to ever happen before the regimes in question die of old age.
I disagree. The majority of Palestinians supported Oslo, although the extremist faction among them tried to kill it, knowing full well that the extremist faction among the Israelis was going to take every outrage to punch at Oslo instead of the extremists! I am talking about US policy regarding Arafat. Arafat's stature has risen after Oslo, his visit to the White House and hand shake with Rabin, and his Nobel peace prize. After Bush took over, Arafat became persona non grata again here in the US with a massive effort to undermine him. (Not that I like Arafat, but here I am just describing not advocating on these issues....) check. True, but not relevant to my point. After the collapse of the Soviet empire, that dream didn't appear to have any realistic chance of becoming reality. In the meanwhile, all the individuals, companies, industries, and politicians who had a vested stake in the billions (if not trillions) that were to be spent chasing this dream, were open to finding a new enemy/threat to justify it. Enter the neocons and what they proposed for them! Since then, you are hearing all sorts of estimates about Iran being able to launch an ICBM at the US in 10 years time! And a massive plan to circle Iran, with bases all around it, to counter that threat in a version of "Star Wars" now popular in these circles. In the meantime, the US and Israel are both spending massive sums on joint projects such as the Arrow to counter the more realistic missile threats too. You misunderstand the point. Israel used to pay a heavy diplomatic price for its incursions, ala the one in Lebanon in the early 1980s. Additionally, Oslo had made the occupied territories areas that Israel shouldn't be sending troops to. These folks wanted such constraints removed. That doesn't mean there aren't other constraints, but their plan has ways to deal with those constraints as well. Step by step, even if the entire plan requires undermining international law, the US, American-EU alliances. Even if it drags the US into another round of cold war like military spending, and fuels a lot of hatred for the US around the globe. I don't like the term "conspiracy" as it relates to a plan outlined openly in writing. The only people in the dark are the average Joes who watch FOX and don't understand the agenda that is pulling the strings. Maybe, maybe not? We will see? However, I certainly hope these regimes die soon, but not quite the same way the neocons have in mind - and not for the same set of agendas either! In this regard, as it relates to Iran, the neocon agenda absolutely hurt a genuine democratic movement, while there are factions in that neocon coalition that probably don't even mind have an Iranian "bogey-man" to justify their long term plans on how to spend US funds!