Subj: Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel

Date: 4/3/04 10:38:59 AM Pacific Standard Time

From: hectorpv@comcast.net

To: hectorpv@comcast.net



Friends,

Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel

The neocons got the US into the war on Iraq for Israel’s sake, now the 9/11 commission is headed by a pro-Israeli neocon ( a fringe neocon) by the name of Philip Zelikow, who actually admits the Israeli motivation for the war. As the article by Paul Skerry points out:

"Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation."

It so happens that Zelikow is closely connected to the Bush administration and the neocons. Sperry points out that "In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.." Philip Zelikow also co-authored a book on German reunification with Rice.

An article by Emad Mekay documents that Zelikow revealed that helping Israel was the real purpose of the war on Iraq.

"’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 organization.

"‘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."

Zelikow was not telling the exact truth here. Iraq was never a military danger to Israel. But the neocons/Likudniks planned to attack Iraq because the destabilization/disarmament/occupation of Israel’s Middle East enemies would enhance Israel’s security even in regard to the Palestinian demographic threat.

So here you have it: the head of the September 11 commission once publicly acknowledged that the Iraq war was fought for Israel, but held that the government wanted to hide that motive. Obviously, as head of the commission he will do his best to keep that motive hidden.

Let’s summarize a bit here.

Israeli Likudniks developed the idea of a plan to destabilize the Middle East through a war that would begin with Iraq.

Neocons had been pushing for a US war against Iraq throughout the 1990s.

Bush administration neocons such as Wolfowitz focused on attacking Iraq from the very start of the Bush administration.

Neocons used September 11 to push the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection lie.

Neocons pushed the WMD lie—especially relying on the neocon controlled Office of Special Plans to provide bogus intelligence derived from neocon tool Ahmed Chalabi and from Israel itself.

Now it appears that an individual who openly admitted that the Iraq war was for the sake of Israel directs the 9/11 commission.

But despite all of this evidence, it is still deemed "anti-Semitic" to point out that neocons or Israel had anything to do with the war on Iraq. Needless to say, it is the neocons who are pushing this lie too.

_________________________

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

March 31, 2004

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

By Emad Mekay



http://www.atimes.com



Front Page

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

By Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US 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 US 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 US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam 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 September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.

"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 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the US.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of US-4 billion.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former president George H W Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.

Richard A Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings. Clarke said that Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.

Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official - Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the Muslim Middle East.

Aside from his position on the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the September attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.

In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.

That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange - they [Iraqi officials] were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis," according to Zelikow.

He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the US, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.

"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".

"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?' Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."

To date, the possibility of the US attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said that they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.

"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."

Others say that the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. "They [the administration] made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.

Still, Brown says that Zelikow's words carried weight. "Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz, or Rice or [Secretary of State Colin] Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.

(Inter Press Service)

See the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at the following URL:

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

NO US SOLDIER SHOULD BE DYING IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL:

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

FBI agent confirms Clarke's charges:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14334

Israel Connection Cover-up:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14269

Subj: Iraq in Israel's Grand Strategy

Date: 4/7/04 7:15:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time

From: hectorpv@comcast.net

To: hectorpv@comcast.net

Sent from the Internet (Details)



Friends,

Iraq in Israel’s Grand Strategy

As this article points out, the US attack on Iraq fits into a Zionist grand strategy of weakening Arab neighbors, which was conceived long before the independence of Israel in 1948. To me this appears like a very logical foreign policy for the Jewish state to hold, though it doesn’t help the US to advance this goal.

The neocon aim for attacking Iraq is now revealed quite openly in the major media--that Bush neocons were targeting Iraq for an attack prior to September 11 and that the terrorist attacks provided the pretext to implement their plans. What is still taboo is the neocon connection with Israel. But the neocons have been closely tied to the Israeli right. The original flagship of the neoconservative movement was _Commentary Magazine_, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, which has as its stated purpose the protection of Jews and Israel. Neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser even advised then Prime Minister Netanyahu to attack Iraq in 1996 in their "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" policy paper. [http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm ]

In Israel, a military attack on Iraq had been discussed by Oded Yinon in a 1982 policy paper entitled, "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which proposed a plan for the destabilization and fragmentation of Israel’s Middle East enemies. [http://www.theunjustmedia.com/the%20zionist_plan_for_the_middle_east.htm]

As the following article points out, the idea of weakening and dissolving Israel’s Middle East neighbors was not just a Likudnik idea but has been a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, being promoted by David Ben Gurion himself. "It is against this backdrop that Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and its attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement."

Zionist support for the Kurdish effort to weaken Iraq actually began in the 1930s, before the state of Israel existed, and blossomed in the 1950s and 1960s. "By the end of the 1950s and the early 1960s, Israel became the primary source of arms and military training for the Kurds in their fight against the Iraqi central government. While full details have yet to be revealed, thousands of Mossad agents and Israeli military personnel were located throughout northern Iraq under different covers (military advisors, agricultural experts, trainers, and doctors); Israeli support for the Kurds peaked during the second Gulf War after the Kurdish takeover of strategically important and oil rich Kirkuk. The secessionist movement, however, quickly collapsed after heavy military blows from the Iraqi army before the United States imposed changes that ended control of the centralised government and established an area of Kurdish sovereignty."

Israel’s goal has been not simply to weaken external enemies but to weaken the position of the Palestinians—the internal demographic threat that poses the greatest danger to the Jewish supremacist state. The reason for this is that the Arab states provide spiritual and material aid to the Palestinian cause. Without outside aid the Palestinians would give up hope. The author writes: "Sequential wars with the Arab world have given Israel opportunities to exhaust the Arab world, as well as tipping the demographic and political situation against Palestinians. Even regional wars which Israel has not participated in have benefited Israel and weakened the Palestinian national movement The first and second Gulf War are a few examples." Of course, some of Israel’s wars have involved the expulsion of Palestinians and the occupation of Palestinian lands. Even the US war on Iraq in 1991 had this effect, although Israel was not involved. "Finally, the second Gulf War of 1991 resulted in the expulsion of the Palestinian community from Kuwait, which formed one of the primary arteries of Palestinian income and power in the occupied territories."

With Israel grand strategy in mind, it is apparent that the current war on Iraq has already significantly weakened Israel’s external enemies as well as the Palestinians, even if the US is unable to establish a puppet regime in Iraq.

_____________________________________

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2003/634/op2.htm

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 17 - 23 April 2003 (Issue No. 634)

Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/634/op2.htm

Israel: the ultimate winner

Saleh Abdel-Jawwad* examines, why Israel wanted the war against Iraq

An important question which continues to surface in the war against Iraq relates to Israel and the effort by the Zionist lobby to push the war option on the American administration as well as the American public. In other words, what are the goals that Israel seeks to achieve from the war in Iraq and how will it impact the Palestinian file?

First, Israel regards any strike against the Arabs, and particularly a chief enemy like Iraq, a major blow to the Arab order as well as weakening the position of the Palestinians. After the Camp David Accords in 1979, Egypt operationally removed itself (and continued to do so until present) from the 'Arab/Israeli' conflict, while intertwining its interests with the United States. Since then Israel has shifted its attention to Iraq, given its status as the sole remaining Arab country to have a powerful mix of resources unavailable to other Arab regimes: petrol, financial assets, plentiful water supplies, significant fertile soil, a sufficiently large population, a clear nationalist political agenda, and military, industrial and scientific infrastructure.

Second, war against Iraq will likely lead to dissolution of the country, even if this is not an immediate American plan. Such dissolution would be in accordance with Israel's vision of the region, and would greatly enhance Israel's power. This regional vision is based on a 19th and 20th century orientalist perspective of the Middle East. According to this view the region is seen as a mosaic composed of many ethnic groups, cultures and nationalities. Furthermore, Iraqi residents are also divided along Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, and Christian lines. Likewise there are powerful regional, denominational, and tribal allegiances concentrated around economic and politically important cities such as Baghdad, Tikrit, Basra, and Mosul. A mosaic perspective of Iraq would reject Arab national ideology and the relationship of Palestine to the Arabs. It would also legitimise Zionism, based on the idea of Jewish nationalism and power for the weak.

Abba Eban succinctly described Israeli Zionist ideology in this respect, in his collection of writings entitled The Voice of Israel. Eban contests the assumption that the Middle East represents a cultural unit, and that it is incumbent upon Israel to integrate within this unit. Instead he 'clarifies' that the Arabs always lived disparately and that the short periods of unity only took place under the power of the sword. He continues by describing how political divisions were not introduced by Western colonialism, and stresses that the cultural and traditional ties which unite Arab countries are insufficient to form the base upon which political unity can be achieved.

For this reason, successive Israeli governments have adopted policies based on the principle of supporting non-Arab ethnic minorities such as the Kurds in Iraq or the Maronites in Lebanon. Literature on the Zionist movement -- particularly those published at the end of the 1930s and the beginning of the Arabisation of the Palestinian question -- indicate that the Zionist leaders in general, and yeshiva leaders in particular, placed their hopes and concerns on establishing relationships with every minority within the Arab world and neighbouring non-Arab countries.

Since the end of the 1930s, Ben Gurion articulated some principles which would become indisputable Zionist tenets:

1.The Arabs are the primary enemy of the Zionist movement. To confront this chief enemy, it is necessary for Zionism to search for allies in the East to stand with its allies in the West. These are needed to act as a counter force and support the power of the Zionist project when faced with this (primary) confrontation. At the end of the day it is a 'bloody struggle between us and them'. Therefore, any group or sect which opposes Arab nationalism -- "the primary enemy of the Jewish people"-- or is prepared to fight against it, is an ally which helps Zionism implement its settlement and state-driven policies.

2.The Jewish people, who have been subjected to the terrorism and oppression of various governments, and particularly those who lived in Arab countries, perceive all minorities and groups "oppressed" by the Arabs or Muslims as allies and partners. Thus the need to free oneself from this oppression is felt and in common to both.

The two principles above form the basis of what is known as the 'Theory of Allying the Periphery.'

3.After the establishment of the state of Israel, Ben Gurion hoped to develop this theory further and create a ring of adversaries around the Arab countries. He focused his on attention on building strategic relationships with Turkey, Iran and Ethiopia (Encirclement Theory). He also aimed to expand the links of this encirclement against the Arab world by expanding Israel's relationships with other Asian and African countries. The most recent phase of this policy focuses on India -- largely as a result of Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, the emergence of Hindu revisionism in India, and the desire to penetrate India's enormous market.

Ben Gurion's ideas (the Theory of allying the periphery and the Theory of encirclement) which were formulated with other Zionist leaders, have provided the basis for interacting with allies in regards to the Arab world.

It is against this backdrop that Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and its attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement. In sharp contrast it failed to gain allies amongst the Coptic community in Egypt primarily because of the historical continuity of the Egyptian state.

Communications with the Kurds began at the end of the 1930s. The responsibility of establishing contacts with the Kurds fell to the infamous Zionist intelligence operative Rubin Shiluah -- one of the important planners and thinkers of the strategy of "allying the periphery".

Shiluah, who at the time was living as a spy in Iraq -- under the guise of studying at a Jewish school in Baghdad -- would take trips to the mountainous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. The relationships he formed there towards the end of the 1940s were primarily with Kurds who were willing to help Iraqi Jews reach Palestine through Turkey.

By the end of the 1950s and the early 1960s, Israel became the primary source of arms and military training for the Kurds in their fight against the Iraqi central government. While full details have yet to be revealed, thousands of Mossad agents and Israeli military personnel were located throughout northern Iraq under different covers (military advisors, agricultural experts, trainers, and doctors); Israeli support for the Kurds peaked during the second Gulf War after the Kurdish takeover of strategically important and oil rich Kirkuk. The secessionist movement, however, quickly collapsed after heavy military blows from the Iraqi army before the United States imposed changes that ended control of the centralised government and established an area of Kurdish sovereignty.

Similarly, Israel supported the Shah of Iran in its struggle against Baghdad. The beginning of Israel's relationship with the Shah was formed when the Mossad, acting in accord with British (MI6) and American (CIA) intelligence, worked to bring about the collapse of the democratically elected Iranian leader Mossadeq in 1953. Their role remains a secret to this day. The relationship forged with the Shah enabled Iran to be the primary importer of Israeli products until the rise of Khomeni. Israel also played a role in training the SAVAK, the infamous and brutal intelligence service which protected the Shah.

Likewise, Israel has worked closely to monitor Iraq, and has done everything in its power to prevent it from developing nuclear capabilities. In this context, Israel destroyed the Iraqi reactor during its assembly in France in 1977. It also assassinated scientists who worked in the Iraqi nuclear programme -- most notably the Egyptian scientist Yehya El-Mashd who was assassinated in Paris. They also assassinated the brainchild of the Super Canon in Brussels, and destroyed the Usaris Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. At the same time Israel provided arms to Iran during the first Gulf War.

Israeli enmity towards Iraq precedes the Saddam Hussein regime -- originating after Iraq participated in the 1948 War. At the time, Iraq was the sole country participating in the war which refused to participate in the negotiations leading up to the Rhodes Armistice agreement in 1949. Likewise, Iraq sent reinforcements to the Jordanian front in 1967. In addition, Iraq continues to refuse to acknowledge UN Resolution 242 and was actively engaged in the defense of Damascus in 1973.

Third, war as an end in and of itself, is an ever- present Israeli objective. Sequential wars with the Arab world have given Israel opportunities to exhaust the Arab world, as well as tipping the demographic and political situation against Palestinians. Even regional wars which Israel has not participated in have benefited Israel and weakened the Palestinian national movement The first and second Gulf War are a few examples.

The War of 1948 resulted in the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians, representing 87 per cent of the population to come under Zionist control. The War of 1956, according to declassified Israeli documents, relating to the Kufr Qasem Massacre, sought to facilitate a new wave of expulsions and to bring about the occupation of the West Bank. The expulsion of 400,000 Palestinians during the 1967 War, and the subsequent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, further facilitated Israel's ambitions as a regional powerhouse. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 also resulted in dangerous demographic changes for Palestinian refugees. Of the 450,000 Palestinians living in Lebanon in 1982, no more than 250,000 remain today. (Had the war not taken place, the number of Palestinians in Lebanon would have reached at least 650,000). Not to mention the social, morale and political subjugation the Palestinians in Lebanon faced as a result of that war.

The first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran also disempowered the Palestinian cause: the Arab world was split into two camps, Arab resources were squandered, oil income was depleted, and Arab attention was taken away from the Palestinian question. This all negatively impacted the Palestinian position.

Finally, the second Gulf War of 1991 resulted in the expulsion of the Palestinian community from Kuwait, which formed one of the primary arteries of Palestinian income and power in the occupied territories. In my opinion, Yitshak Shamir sought, through the implementation of the 1990 Massacre, to exploit these events by creating a dynamic that would result in the expulsion of West Bank residents. The massacre took place within the Haram Al-Sharif compound three months before the outbreak of the 1991 Gulf War. Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinian demonstrators, killing twenty. Yet at the time, the American administration which hoped to preserve the Arab alliance in the war against Iraq, was one of the main reasons which prevented Shamir from realising his plans.

* The writer is a professor at Beir Zeit University.

Also, see the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at http://www.nowarforisrael.com

NO US/UK SOLDIERS SHOULD HAVE TO DIE IN IRAQ FOR ISRAEL TO GET OIL:

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

Behind The Scenes Of The Iraq War

http://www.rense.com/general37/behind.htm

Behind The Scenes

Of The Iraq War

Behind The Scenes Of The Iraq War

Pravda.ru

4-17-3



The plan for the Iraq war, which has erupted in the face of opposition from the entire world, was drawn up at least decades ago, by Israeli strategists In its attempt to realize its strategy of destabilizing or dividing the Middle Eastern Arab states, Israel has Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia on its list of subsequent targets. As these lines are being written, the United States of America has begun striking at Iraq. Despite the fact that most countries of the world, and even the majority of the USA's allies, opposed it, the US administration was determined for the strike to go ahead. When we look behind the scenes of this insistence, it seems that Israel and its powerful lobby in the US, have the greatest share in the make-up. In fact, Israel's policy aimed at the fragmentation of Iraq has lengthy historical roots- The Age-Old Israeli Plan to Divide Iraq An ambitious report entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," which appeared in the World Zionist Organization's periodical Kivunim in February 1982 disclosed a strategy aimed at making the whole of the Middle East a kind of "living space" for Israel. The report, drawn up by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist and formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel, set out the scenario of the "division of Iraq" in these terms: Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria- Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past- In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. 1) This was not the only announcement of the Israeli plan to atomize Middle East, including Iraq. As Israel Shahak, the notable Israeli scholar known for his dedication to a peaceful solution in the Middle East, explained that Yinon was just echoing the views of Israeli hawks: The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze'ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha'aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the "best" that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: "The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part" (Ha'aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old. 2) Thus, the plan was a serious one and this has been confirmed by the age-old Israeli support to non-Arab or non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim Arab states. The rebellious Kurds of northern Iraq was one of these strategic allies of Israel. During their revolt against the Baghdad regime, 1961-75, they have been financially and militarily supported by Israel. Israelis would love to see them carve up the northern part of Iraq, no matter how bloody and devastating such a civil war would be. However, the revolt failed in 1975, after loosing the support of its major patron, the Shah. Fifteen years later, a new opportunity arose for Israel, an opportunity from the ambitions of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Israel's Role in the Gulf War Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, after his bloody war against Iran in the 80's, invaded Kuwait in a sudden attack on August 1, 1990, giving rise to an international crisis. Israel headed the list of those forces that encouraged that crisis. Israel was the fiercest supporter of the attitude adopted by the United States in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait. The Israelis even regarded the United States as moderate, and wanted a harsher policy. To such an extent in fact that the President of Israel Chaim Herzog recommended that the American use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the Israeli lobby in the United States was working to bring about a wide-ranging attack on Iraq. This whole situation encouraged the idea in the United States that the attack against Iraq under consideration was actually planned in Israel's interests. Pat Buchanan summarized this idea in the words "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States." Israelis had also initiated a serious propaganda campaign on the issue. Since this campaign was largely waged in secret, Mossad also entered the equation. Rogue Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky provides important information on this subject. According to Ostrovsky, Israel had wanted to wage war with the United States against Saddam long before the Gulf crisis. So much so in fact, that Israel began to implement the plan immediately after the Iran-Iraq war. Ostrovsky reports that Mossad's Psychological Warfare department (LAP - LohAma Psychologist) set about an effective pro-war campaign using misinformation techniques. 3) A Mossad Agent Describes the Gulf War Ostrovsky describes how Mossad used agents or sympathizers in various parts of the world in this campaign. Among the tools employed in the campaign were the horrible massacres done by missiles launched against civilian targets in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. As Ostrovsky makes clear, Mossad's later use of these missiles as a propaganda tool was quite peculiar, since those missiles had actually been directed towards their targets by Mossad, with the help of information from US satellites. Having supported Saddam throughout his war with Iran, Israel was now disclosing his crimes. Ostrovsky writes: The Mossad leaders know that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he'd been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear. 4) The Israelis were so determined on this matter, and with regard to the United States, that on August 4, 1990, Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy issued a diplomatically worded threat to William Brown, the American ambassador to Israel, stating that Israel "expects the U.S. will fulfill all of the goals it set for itself at the beginning of the gulf crisis," in other words that it attack Iraq. According to Levy, if the United States failed to do so, Israel would act unilaterally. 5) It would be of enormous benefit to Israel to have the United States engage in the war and for Israel to remain entirely uninvolved: and that is indeed what happened. Israel Forces the USA to War However, the Israelis were actively involved in the United States' war plans. Some US staff officers involved in planning Operation Desert Storm received fine tactical advice from the Israelis that "the best way of wounding Saddam was to strike at his family." The Mossad-inspired propaganda campaign reported by Ostrovsky set up the necessary public backing for the Gulf War. It was again Mossad local assistants who lit the touchpaper for the war. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm, run by Tom Lantos of the Israeli lobby, prepared a dramatic scenario to convince members of Congress on the subject of war against Saddam. Turan Yavuz, a noted Turkish journalist, describes the incident: October 9, 1990. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm organizes a sitting in Congress on the subject of "Iraq's Barbarities." A number of "eye witnesses" brought to the session by the lobbying firm maintain that Iraqi troops killed new-born babies in the hospital wards. One "eye witness" describes the savagery in enormous detail, saying that Iraqi soldiers killed 300 new-born babies in one hospital alone. This information deeply disturbs the members of Congress. This works to President Bush's advantage. However, it later emerges that the eye witness brought by Hill and Knowlton to Congress is in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. Nevertheless, the daughter's account is sufficient for members of Congress to give Saddam the nickname "Hitler". 6) This leads to just one conclusion: that Israel played an important role in the United States' to wage its first war on Iraq. The second one is not much different. The Pretext of "War Against Terrorism" Contrary to popular belief, the plan to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime by force was prepared and placed on Washington's agenda long before the genesis of the "war against terrorism," which emerged in the wake of September 11. The first indication of this plan emerged in 1997. A group of pro-Israeli hawkish strategists in Washington D.C. began to put forward the scenario of the invasion of Iraq by manipulating the "neo-con" think-tank, called PNAC (Project for The New American Century). The most notable names in the PNAC were those of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who as defense secretary and vice-president would be the most influential figures in the George W. Bush administration. An article titled "Invading Iraq Not a New Idea for Bush Clique: 4 Years Before 9/11 Plan Was Set" written by William Brunch and published in the Philadelphia Daily News, sets out the following facts: But in reality, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997 - nearly four years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took office. An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998. 7) Is Oil the Real Objective? Why were the PNAC members so determined to attack Iraq? The same article continues: While oil is a backdrop to PNAC's policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn't seem to be the driving force. [Ian] Lustick, [a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert,] while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war's proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation. "I'm from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq," said PNAC's Schmitt. "The oil market doesn't need disruption." Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israel- 8) This, therefore, is the principal motivation behind the plan to attack Iraq: to serve Israel's Middle East strategy. This fact has also been identified by other Middle East experts. Cengiz ?andar, a Turkish Middle East expert, for instance, describes the real power behind the plan to attack Iraq thus: ... Who is directing the attack on Iraq? Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are the "senior level" backers of the attack. Yet the rest of the iceberg is even richer and more interesting. There are a number of "lobbies." Heading these lobbies are the Jewish Institute for Security Affairs team, pro-Likud and Israeli-right and known for their close relations with US arms manufacturers. These have close relations with the "arms lobby," Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics and Israeli military industries ... JINSA's fundamental principle is this: America's and Israel's security are inseparable. In other words, they are the same thing. JINSA's objective is not solely the overthrow of the Saddam regime in Iraq: it also supports the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Egyptian and Iranian regimes with a logic of "total war," and the subsequent importation of "democracy." ... In other words, a number of American Jews on the same wavelength as the most extreme factions in Israel at the moment comprise the hawks in Washington. 9) The Israeli Strategy for The Muslim Middle East In short, there are those in Washington who are encouraging a war aimed first at Iraq and then at Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The most distinguishing feature of these is that they are lined up alongside, and even equivalent to, the "Israeli lobby." No matter how much they speak of "American interests," these people are actually supporting Israeli interests. A strategy of waging war against the whole of the Middle East and turning all the peoples of the region against it cannot be to the United States' advantage. The adoption of such a strategy can only be possible if the United States is bound to Israel, by means of the Israeli lobby, which is profoundly influential in this country's foreign policy. It is for these reasons that behind the strategy which began to be set in motion after September 11 and is aimed at re-arranging the entire Islamic world, lies Israel's strategy for dominating the Middle East. Ever since its foundation, Israel has aimed at restructuring the Middle East, making it manageable and secure to itself. The search for security is of course a legitimate one, but the way that Israel chose to achieve this end is wrong: From the beginning, Israel decided to establish security behind an "iron wall" that would separate itself from the Arabs, and most important of all, protect the lands that Israel occupied through methods of invasion, colonization and depopulation. This strategy of reaping the wind had its consequence as a century of constant clash between Israelis and Arabs. Had Israel chosen a peaceful path to secure its existence, by building good relations with its Arab neighbors and refraining from aggression, Jews and Muslims could peacefully co-exist in the Middle East, as they have done before for centuries. However, the radical Zionist ideology still denies any chance to peace and relentlessly tries to transform the whole Middle East to create a "living space" for Israel. It has been using its influence in the United States for that purpose in recent years, and to a large extent directs Washington's Middle East policy. The post-September 11 climate gave Israel the opportunity it had been seeking. Pro-Israeli ideologues who for years had been propounding the falsehood that Islam itself - not some militant radicals who use Islam as a shelter - posed a threat to the West and the United States, and who encouraged the mistaken concept of a "clash of civilizations," have been trying to incite the United States against the Islamic world in the wake of September 11. As early as 1995, Israel Shahak of the Jerusalem Hebrew University wrote former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin's obsession with "the idea of an Israeli-led anti-Islamic crusade". Nahum Barnea, a commentator from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, stated that same year that Israel was making progress "[to] become the Western vanguard in the war against the Islamic enemy." 10) All that has happened in the years which have followed is that Israeli hawks have made their intentions even clearer. The political climate in the wake of September 11 prepared the ground for this intention to be made a reality. The Only Way to World Peace: An Islamic Union The situation may be summarized as follows: Israel's aim is to reshape the Middle East in line with its own strategic interests. In order to do this, it needs a "world power." That power is the United States; and Israeli hawks, thanks to their influence there, are trying to wage a militant American strategy against the Islamic world. Although Israel is a small state with a population of only 4.5 million, the plans drawn up by Israeli strategists and their counterparts in the West are directing the world affairs. What needs to be done in the face of this? 1) "Counter lobby activities" need to be adopted in the face of the Israeli lobby's influence in the United States in order to develop dialogue between the United States and the Islamic world and to invite it to seek peaceful solutions to Iraq and similar problems. A wide section of the United States wishes to see their country adopt a fairer Middle East policy. Many statesmen, strategists, journalists and intellectuals have expressed this, and a "peace of civilizations" movement must be carried forward in cooperation with them. The approach inviting the US administration to peaceful solutions must be carried forward at governmental and civil society organization level. 2) A reconciliation between Israel and the Muslim Middle East must be sought. There are many "peaceniks", i.e. pro-peace Israelis, too. Many Israeli statesmen, religious leader, opinion leaders and many Jews from all around the world are urging the Israeli state to refrain from its brutal occupation and accept a just peace to live along with their Arab neighbors. Cooperation with them, especially on the inter-faith level, should be initiated and encouraged. One thing should never be forgotten: The rise of radicalism, enmity and violence is bad for all parties. 3) Alongside all this, a deeper rooted solution lies in a project which can resolve all the problems between the Islamic world and the West and deal with the fragmentation, suffering and poverty in the Islamic world and totally alter it: An Islamic Union. Recent developments have shown that the whole world, not just Islamic regions, stands in need of an "Islamic Union." This Union should heal the radical elements in the Islamic World, and establish good relations between Muslim countries and the West, especially the United States. This Union, can find a solution to the mother of all problems: The Arab-Israeli conflict. With Israel retreating to its pre-67 borders and Arabs recognizing its right to exist, there can be real peace in the Middle East. And Jews and Muslims - both Children of Abraham and believers in one true God - may peacefully co-exist in the Holy Land, as they have done during the past centuries. Then, Israel would need no strategy to destabilize or divide the Arab States. And it will not have to face the results of occupation in forms of terrorism and constant fear of annihilation. Then, both the Israeli and Iraqi (and Palestinian) children may grow up in peace and security. That is a Middle East that any sane person should work to see. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1- (ed.) Israel Shahak, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East; from Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982 Special Document No. 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8); 2- (ed.) Israel Shahak, The Zionist Plan for the Middle East; 3- Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception, pp. 252-254. 4- Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception, p. 254 5- Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison, p. 356. 6- Turan Yavuz, ABD'nin K?rt Kart? (The US' Kurdish Card), p. 307 7- William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003 8- William Bunch, "Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique" Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003 9- Cengiz ?andar, "Iraq and the 'Friends of Turkey' American Hawks", Yeni ?afak, September 3, 2002. 10- Israel Shahak, "Downturn in Rabin's Popularity Has Several Causes", Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1995.

In addition to the following, also be sure to access the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at the following URL:

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

Canadian mag IDs Jewish neo-cons:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14384

Additional articles appear on the 'Israel/Palestine' message via the following URL:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewforum.php?f=10

FBI agent confirms Clarke's charges:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14334

Israel Connection Cover-up:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=14269

Subj: Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel

Date: 4/3/04 10:38:59 AM Pacific Standard Time

From: hectorpv@comcast.net

To: hectorpv@comcast.net



Friends,

Head of Sept. 11 Commission Said Iraq War for Israel

The neocons got the US into the war on Iraq for Israel’s sake, now the 9/11 commission is headed by a pro-Israeli neocon ( a fringe neocon) by the name of Philip Zelikow, who actually admits the Israeli motivation for the war. As the article by Paul Skerry points out:

"Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations – er, negotiations – over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation."

It so happens that Zelikow is closely connected to the Bush administration and the neocons. Sperry points out that "In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.." Philip Zelikow also co-authored a book on German reunification with Rice.

An article by Emad Mekay documents that Zelikow revealed that helping Israel was the real purpose of the war on Iraq.

"’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 organization.

"‘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."

Zelikow was not telling the exact truth here. Iraq was never a military danger to Israel. But the neocons/Likudniks planned to attack Iraq because the destabilization/disarmament/occupation of Israel’s Middle East enemies would enhance Israel’s security even in regard to the Palestinian demographic threat.

So here you have it: the head of the September 11 commission once publicly acknowledged that the Iraq war was fought for Israel, but held that the government wanted to hide that motive. Obviously, as head of the commission he will do his best to keep that motive hidden.

Let’s summarize a bit here.

Israeli Likudniks developed the idea of a plan to destabilize the Middle East through a war that would begin with Iraq.

Neocons had been pushing for a US war against Iraq throughout the 1990s.

Bush administration neocons such as Wolfowitz focused on attacking Iraq from the very start of the Bush administration.

Neocons used September 11 to push the Al Qaeda/Saddam connection lie.

Neocons pushed the WMD lie—especially relying on the neocon controlled Office of Special Plans to provide bogus intelligence derived from neocon tool Ahmed Chalabi and from Israel itself.

Now it appears that an individual who openly admitted that the Iraq war was for the sake of Israel directs the 9/11 commission.

But despite all of this evidence, it is still deemed "anti-Semitic" to point out that neocons or Israel had anything to do with the war on Iraq. Needless to say, it is the neocons who are pushing this lie too.

_________________________

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

March 31, 2004

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

By Emad Mekay



http://www.atimes.com



Front Page

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

I'm not an America Firster - more of an America Laster, actually. But I can't help thinking what the result would have been if the Zionists had been forced to invade Iraq themselves instead of having US economic draftees to it for them, while at the same time keeping the Palestinians under occupation. It would have made their disaster in Lebanon look like a picnic.