In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. The neoconservatives were already determined to topple Saddam before Bush became President. Nor were they able to generate much enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush Administration.
Specifically, the events of that fateful day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war to topple Saddam.
At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on September 15, Wolfowitz advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the United States and bin Laden was known to be in Afghanistan.
We do not have the full story yet, but scholars like Lewis and Fouad Ajami of John Hopkins University reportedly played key roles in convincing Vice President Cheney to favor the war. With Bush and Cheney on board, the die for war was cast. Their efforts were partly aimed at keeping pressure on Bush and partly intended to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside of the government. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in the Washington Post that after we were done with Afghanistan, Syria should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq.
For example, Libby visited the CIA several times to pressure analysts to find evidence that would make the case for war, and he helped prepare a detailed briefing on the Iraq threat in early that was pushed on Colin Powell, then preparing his infamous briefing to the U.
Security Council on the Iraqi threat. Libby was drawing only the worst conclusions from fragments and silky threads.
The Office of Special Plans was tasked with finding evidence that could be used to sell war with Iraq. He wrote articles in the s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the occupied territories. Netanyahu did not implement their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon advocating that the Bush Administration pursue those same goals.
Even so, there is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in shaping the decision for war. Dreams of Regional Transformation The Iraq war was not supposed to be a costly quagmire. Rather, it was intended as the first step in a larger plan to reorder the Middle East.
This ambitious strategy was a dramatic departure from previous U. Most U. Although the neoconservatives were eager to pick a fight with Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed. And even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasized that he would go slowly in implementing it. Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardize these valuable connections, and thus undermine the larger war on terrorism.
Second, Syria was not on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war e. Resolution , and it was no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with Syria would make the United States look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states.
Finally, putting Syria on the American hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to pressure Syria, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first.
Putting Iran in the Crosshairs Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely adversary to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as an existential threat. But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.
As usual, there were a bevy of articles by prominent neoconservatives making the case for going after Iran. But Washington has had little success, and Iran seems determined to get a nuclear arsenal.
As a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure on the U. Israeli officials also warn they may take preemptive action should Iran continue down the nuclear road, hints partly intended to keep Washington focused on this issue. One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on U. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China, or even a nuclear North Korea, then it can live with a nuclear Iran.
And that is why the Lobby must keep constant pressure on U. If their efforts to shape U. In short, there are ample grounds for U. In particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy in the Middle East.
But that is not going to happen anytime soon. By preventing U. This situation gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathizers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism around the world. We do not need another Iraq. There is a moral dimension here as well.
Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians. The inability of the U. Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these vital issues paralyzes the entire process of democratic deliberation. But efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned by those who believe in free speech and open discussion of important public issues.
This course raises the awful specter of Israel one day occupying the pariah status once reserved for apartheid states like South Africa. Ironically, Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U. But there is a ray of hope. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide.
Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored forever. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U. There were also many resolutions that never came to a vote because Security Council members knew that the United States would veto them. Given the difficulty of criticizing specific Israeli actions in the Security Council, criticism has often come from the U.
General Assembly, where no state has a veto. Also see Aaron D. Aruri, Dishonest Broker: The U. Some of the things that the Israeli government later said and did were unlikely to change this perception. No other issue shapes the regional perceptions of America more fundamentally than the issue of Palestine. Lakhdar Brahimi, the former U. House of Representatives, October 1, , p. It is also worth noting that some 50 retired American diplomats wrote a letter in May to President Bush similar to the letter that the British diplomats sent to Tony Blair.
This article provides an excellent discussion of the problem. There are a huge number of articles on the internet dealing with the Franklin Affair. Rogan and Avi Shlaim, eds.
There were slightly more than 15, Jews in Palestine in Arabs comprised the vast majority of the remaining population. McCarthy, Population of Palestine, p. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come. Also see Flapan, Birth of Israel, pp. Also see Morris, Righteous Victims, pp. There can only be one purpose in colonization. This is a natural reaction and nothing will change it. They did not exist. International Security, Vol. Also see the map Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians at Camp David, a copy of which can be found in Roane Carey, ed.
Also see ibid. Also see Chomsky, Fateful Triangle, p. Morris reports p. Of those 3, deaths, 1, were bystanders, 1, were killed while fighting the Israelis, and the circumstances of deaths are unknown. During the same period, Israelis were killed by the Palestinians, of whom were children. Of those deaths, were civilians and belonged to Israeli security forces. These comments were based on an interview in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on November 14, Petersburg Times, December 16, According to Haim Levenberg, of the casualties from Jewish terrorism in Palestine during were civilians.
The other were police and soldiers. Levenberg, Military Preparations, p. Furthermore, it was Jewish terrorists from the infamous Irgun who in late introduced the practice of placing bombs in buses and large crowds. In , Israeli intelligence forces bombed a U.
Shlaim, Iron Wall, pp. The figure two years earlier was 28 percent. See Steven M. AIPAC was ranked number 4 in a similar study conducted in See Jeffrey H. March 5, ; James D. Battah, eds. Foreign Policy, trans. James A. Also see James D. Wherever there is major political fundraising in this country, you will find American Jews playing a significant role. The position was eventually filled by Elliot Abrams, a fervent supporter of Israel. Jewish groups are also targeting high schools.
Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs. Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. It appears your browser does not have it turned on. Please see your browser settings for this feature. EMBED for wordpress. Mearsheimer and Stephen M.
Mearsheimer , S. Middle East policy is its intimate relationship with Israel. The authors argue that although often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U. View via Publisher.
Save to Library Save. Create Alert Alert. Share This Paper. Background Citations. Methods Citations. Results Citations. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. The Showdown That Wasn't: U. International Security. How influential are domestic politics on U. With regard to Middle East policy, how important a role do ethnic lobbies, Congress, and public opinion play in influencing U. Perspectives on Politics.
0コメント