tarekk
28.10.03, 22:21
:Our problem
ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM
October 6, 2003
ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM Our problem….
Justin Raimondo
Today marks the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, and it looks like we
may be in for a possible replay of that horrific disaster in which tens of
thousands lost their lives.
Yesterday, Israel bombed alleged "terrorist camps" in Syria. The excuse: yet
another suicide bombing in Israel, this time taking 19 innocent lives,
immediately claimed by Islamic Jihad (which denied having military bases in
Syria). This was one of the deadliest suicide bombings since the beginning
of the Intifada, but in principle no different from the dozens of other
vicious acts of terror that are now a feature of daily life in Israel. What
is different, however, is that Israel's strategic orientation has radically
changed.
Whereas 30 years ago, Israel was on the defensive, and to a large degree
dependent on the U.S., today they are clearly prepared to act on their own –
without waiting for Washington's okay.
That is the chief result of the Iraq war – the unleashing of Israel.
We are seeing the first fruits of our Pyrrhic "victory" in this latest foray
by an emboldened Ariel Sharon, who clearly hopes that the stalemated outcome
of the first Yom Kippur war can now be overturned.
Taken by surprise, in 1973, Israeli forces reeled from the combined Egyptian-
Syrian sneak attack. Aided by "Operation Nickel Grass," an airlift of vital
military supplies from the U.S., the Israelis held their positions and then
started to push back – coming within 43 miles of Cairo and taking the Golan
Heights before the UN called a halt. Today, it is the Syrians who have been
taken by surprise, and, this time, the Israelis may not stop until they roll
through the streets of Damascus. That, at least, is the threat implicit in
their actions.
The Iraq War, as we are beginning to discover, had nothing to do
with "Weapons of Mass Destruction," zero to do with Al Qaeda, and zilch to
do with implanting "democracy" in the inhospitable soil of Iraq. The first
phase of the second Yom Kippur War is revealing, in action, the strategic
doctrine at the heart of U.S. Middle Eastern Policy: the installation of
Israel as regional hegemon.
This doctrine was prefigured in a 1996 paper prepared for then Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a working group consisting of several
individuals who are now in top spots in the Bush Administration. "A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" recommended that Israel set
itself free from its embarrassing and debilitating dependence on U.S.
military and diplomatic support: no matter how unconditional, this support
constrained Israel and prevented it from pursuing its true interests. The
paper, co-authored by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr.,
Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser,
portrayed Syria as the main enemy of Israel, but maintained the road to
Damascus had to first pass through Baghdad:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and
Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria's
regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions
recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq."
Today, three of Netanyahu's advisors – Perle, Feith, and David Wurmser –
occupy top spots in the foreign policy councils of the Bush Administration,
where their fulsome support for the Iraq war helped implement the first part
of the plan. David Wurmser is chief aide to Undersecretary of Defence John
Bolton, who, before a single shot was fired against Iraq, was already
promising Sharon that Syria would be next. As Ha'aretz reported at the time
(scroll down):
"U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli
officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that
it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea
afterwards."
In February, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was already demanding action
against Syria. At a meeting with a delegation of U.S. Congressmen, Sharon
handed the Americans their marching orders:
"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria
should be stripped of Weapons of Mass Destruction after Iraq. 'These are
irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of Weapons Mass Destruction,
and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to
achieve,' Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American Congressmen.
Sharon told the Congressmen that Israel was not involved in the War with
Iraq 'but the American action is of vital importance.'"
But instead of being converted on the road to Damascus, the Americans were
deterred from launching future wars by the unpleasant political and military
blowback emanating from that deepening quagmire. Karl Rove's "no wars
in '04" dictum threw a roadblock in the path of the pro-Israeli
neoconservatives in the U.S. Government, who are now under siege as a result
of the Plame affair. The Israelis, enraged by this turn of events, are now
playing their trump card.
The Israeli attack on Syria is a replication of the U.S. attack on Iraq: the
claim of terrorist "links" is followed by unilateral military action – this
time, however, in defiance of the whole world, including the U.S. rather
than just the UN. The actors are different, but the principle is the same, a
similarity Israel's American amen corner will no doubt raise in order to
justify Sharon's reckless provocation. Israel, we are endlessly told, has
the right to "defend" itself – even if it means conquering and occupying all
of Palestine and driving the original inhabitants into Jordan. As "A Clean
Break" projected the plan:
"Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East
profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in
supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq."
Let's hand our Palestinian problem over to the Hashemites, say radical Likud
hard-liners and their American supporters. There is no such people as the
Palestinians, anyway, as Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz aver: they are
really just Jordanians. A Hashemite restoration in Iraq would pave the way
for the creation of a Greater Israel, fulfilling God's promise to Abraham in
the Bible:
"To your descendants I give this land from the River of Egypt to the Great
River, the river Euphrates."
Israel, with its overweening military might, would dominate the Middle East.
This is the goal of the Christian dispensationalist ministers, such as Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who believe Israeli hegemony in the Middle East
represents the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. But a prophecy, in their
view, can be self-fulfilling: it is their Christian duty, they believe, to
hurry it along.
The Christian apocalyptic vision of Armageddon in the Middle East – its
inevitability and desirability as a portent of the Second Coming of Christ –
is the key to understanding conservative Republican support for our war
policy in Iraq. The fundies are perfectly aligned with neoconservative
efforts to spread the conflict to Syria, Iran, and beyond, a development
that would fulfil not only Biblical prophecy but also the direst predictions
of anti-war advocates.
The recent report on Israel's growing military superiority out of Tel Aviv
University's prestigious Jaffee
