Turkey, Israel, and the ADL

Here's a good piece by Haaretz on Turkish efforts to pressure Israel to pressure the Anti-Defamation League to take the view that there was no genocide of Armenians.

Part of what this highlights, I think, is that there are some real dangers to both Israel and to American Jewish organizations from Jewish civil society groups coming to be too closely aligned with Israeli policy. Since the Knesset cannot, in fact, control the actions of the ADL, or the AJC, or any number of other Jewish institutions in the United States, the government of Israel has a fairly strong interest in not being held accountable on the international stage for the actions of these groups. Conversely, the ADL and similar groups aren't going to want to be leaned on in this way.

Comments

Um ... haven't people heard of a thing called "Zionism"? Contrary to the claims of loony moonbats who spin wild conspiracy theories about "Zionism" (we really should get a new name ... "Zion" just sounds so sinister ... perhaps there would be less anti-Semitism if we stuck with the word "Israel" and didn't let the word "Zion" enter into things?), Zionism, the basic founding ideology of the State of Israel and the ideology without which there is no justification for Israel continuing to exist as a Jewish state (*), is merely the ideology that we Jews, like any other group of people (Zionism actually is the antithesis of the idea of Jewish Choseness, not an extention of it, as some folks claim), should have a nation-state of our own.

But as the ideology that "Jewish" is no different than any other ethno-religious grouping, why should then, e.g. American Jews, have a relationship to Israel that's any different than any other ethno-religious group has to a state that officially is of that group. Would it be, pace Inigo Montoya, conceivable that Great Britain would exert pressure on some WASP group to oppose a resolution that would be inconvinient for British diplomats in maintaining specific alliances?

So why should it be different with Jewish groups and Israel? If Israel pressures the ADL, that is a betrayal of Zionism, isn't it?

*other than the fact that, should Israel cease to be a Jewish State, considering the history of both Arab occupation of East Jerusalem and the Jewish people as a whole, what would be the guarantee that we Jews would have access to Jewish holy sites? what would the guarantee be that Jews would have a place in which to seek refuge, considering how when we needed it, the world closed its doors to us? ... and what would happen to the Jews in Israel -- a mere reversal of the tables in which Jewish Israelis are persecuted even if Palestinians maybe do slightly better is hardly justice)

Posted by DAS | August 24, 2007 10:58 AM

There are two dangers to the Jewish Community caused by recent acts of the Israel Lobby:

a) The First danger is that the people of Israel will be used as hostages to coerce the US Israel Lobby into halting actions of the US government.

Look at history.
Hitler became dictator in German with passage of the Enabling Act in March 1933. He immediately moved to exterminate his political enemies -- leadership of the Communist and Social Democratic parties.

b) However, Hitler did not move to the Final Solution against the majority of the Jews until the USA entered the war in 1942. Certainly the Nazis had intimidated and killed some Jews before then. But why did he delay his extermination campaign for 9 years?

c) I think that the Jews of Germany were used by Hitler as HOSTAGES -- to coerce American Jewish leaders into using their powerful influence with Democratic leaders like FDR -- to deter USA moves against Germany.

d) Given his racist views, I think Hitler would eventually have executed the Final Solution regardless of what the USA did -- or he would at minimum have permanently enslaved European Jews.

But when Haim Saban boasts in Haaretz that President Bill Clinton fetched soft drinks for him during visits to the White House , Haim encourages Middle Eastern countries to wonder what Haim can make a US President do for them.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 11:35 AM

1) What's interesting about various US interest groups supporting the Armenian genocide bill is that it makes no sense. Which suggests a major covert operation is going on.

2) Israel's partnership w/ Turkey is of huge importance to Israel -- yet the US Israel Lobby's most prominent sock puppet , Senator Chuck Schumer , is very publicly backing the Armenians.

3)The alliance with Turkey also brings major benefits to the US --Turkey, in fact, is ESSENTIAL to US efforts to move in on the Caspian Sea oil deposits. Yet Big Oil is letting a sizable fraction of Congress back the Armenians.

4) A moral principle is involved?? Give me a break-- we're talking about the US Congress. The Armenian genocide occurred almost 100 years ago -- Rwanda and Darfur are very recent.

5) So why is the US twisting the Turks' tail with the threat of hugely costly Armenian reparations?
Obvious answer -- the US government wants something MAJOR and the Turks aren't giving it.

Something like ,oh, a base from which to launch an invasion of Iran. It would be kinda hard to have a major buildup of US military forces in Turkey as a prelude to an attack on Iran without the Turkish government approving it.

6) An even more alarming possibility exists -- that US intelligence has discovered that the Turks are ..er..worshipping strange gods.
Turkey and Iran recently announced an electricity sharing arrangement -- a linking of their electrical grids. Except Turkey has built a series of large dams in the headwaters of the Euphrates which can generate a lot of juice. Juice which might be flowing back to Iran to run farms of uranium centrifuges.

7) If the Great White Father discovers Turkey has been covertly supporting Iran's nuclear program, then the Great WHite Father is going to be very angry indeed.

But such a covert deal would make sense for Turkey -- it lets the Turks get nuclear bombs without the danger of a proliferation program on their own territory.

8) Of course, this only works so long as the US doesn't invade Iran, raid the nuclear facilities , and discover fat Turkish fingerprints all over the computer hard drives.

9) All this is speculation of course. But if you going hunting in a snowy forest and don't find squirrel footprints then you know another predator is in the woods.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 12:19 PM

Why is a base in Turkey needed? My guess that is an US Army private cannot belch in Iraq now without Shite spies reporting it back to Tehran.
Much less land an airplane on a runway.

Yes, we have carriers in the Gulf. But you don't land B52s on them.

On the other hand, Russia and China have recon satellites, so they may tip the wink to the Iranians.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 12:31 PM

Matt,

I have been following this since I protest my Hadassah -- yes Hadassah(!) -- getting involved in denying the Armenian Genocide. It goes well beyond merely ADL and AJC.

It Haaretz out to read its own archives or stories about what has happened to Israeli scholars at Genocide conferences in Israel.

The denial of the Armenian genocide in the US, to our great great shame is 90% done by Jewish American groups. This started in the mi9d 1990's with Bernard Lewis (a "scholar who in fact is heavily involved with the Israeli right wing and the Turkish miliarists) brokering a deal between the Peres government and the Turkey nationalists in which the government of Jerusalem promised the full services of the Jewish American organizations.

If the Turks are under the impression, right out of the bogus protocols of elders of Zion no less, that "Wordlwide Jewry" is steered through the Foreign Ministry of Israel, it is the government of Israel that has insisted this is the case.

Has the ADL or the AJC EVER said a word about press reports in mainstream Turkish press every year about how Jerusalem has promised to have the Jewish American community stop genocide recognition in Washington? No. They cultivate the idea. And these pronouncement come right after join meetings between Israeli officials, Jewish American officials and Turkish officials in Ankara before the start of each congressional session.

The prohibition against bearing false witness is a religious commandment and a core ethical belief. The simple matter is our national organizations are profoundly Unrightious in this course.

Posted by Rachel | August 24, 2007 12:50 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Actually, Adolf Eichmann in 1935 was tasked with the job of determining where the Jews of Germany could be exiled to; the island of Madagascar was considered but found to be unfeasible. If the State of Israel had been formed in 1919 instead of 1949, I think that Hitler would have been quite amenable to expelling the Jews of Germany (and later Poland) to Israel which would have avoided the Holocaust.

2. Mr. Williams again flails away at his favorite target, Haim Saban, again quote mining from an interview in Haaretz. However, attached is a link to another slant on Saban from the right wing web site frontpageMagazine which accuses Saban and his buddy Martin Indyk of being appeasers who jeopardize the very existence of the State of Israel. To wit

"The very mention of Indyk, who served two stints as ambassador to Israel, sends shudders down the spine of senior members of the Israel defense and foreign policy establishment. For the past year, Indyk, in his new capacity as the head of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, has conducted a campaign to dispatch U.S. troops to intervene in the Middle East conflict. Indyk has gone so far as to say that the U.S. should sent troops or create a protectorate over the West Bank and Gaza. Such a step would place the U.S. in a virtual state of war with the Israeli army, which has always viewed some of the West Bank and Gaza as vital to the security concerns of the state of Israel.

Indyk -- who, by the way, is funded by millionaire toy inventor Haim Saban, who also catapulted Ehud Barak into his disastrous short term as Prime Minister of Israel -- is generally looked upon as the man who planned the Oslo process that gave Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population.

In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War. Indyk oversaw every step of the disastrous Oslo process with this precise policy in mind of Israel giving up land vital to her defense.

And Indyk did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so. Particularly, the PLO has never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant was finally canceled. The Palestinians have never done it, yet the foreign aid money kept rolling in to the Palestinian Authority."

However, I would agree with Mr. Williams in his claim that Mr. Saban has too much influence over Hilary, and that the influence is detrimental. However, he thinks it is detrimental because Saban is too pro-Israel and I think it is detrimental because Saban is too pro-Palestinian.

om/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={B9912417-3C64-406E-93B5-F4023069DF19}

Posted by SLC | August 24, 2007 12:50 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Actually, Adolf Eichmann in 1935 was tasked with the job of determining where the Jews of Germany could be exiled to; the island of Madagascar was considered but found to be unfeasible. If the State of Israel had been formed in 1919 instead of 1949, I think that Hitler would have been quite amenable to expelling the Jews of Germany (and later Poland) to Israel which would have avoided the Holocaust.

2. Mr. Williams again flails away at his favorite target, Haim Saban, again quote mining from an interview in Haaretz. However, attached is a link to another slant on Saban from the right wing web site frontpageMagazine which accuses Saban and his buddy Martin Indyk of being appeasers who jeopardize the very existence of the State of Israel. To wit

"The very mention of Indyk, who served two stints as ambassador to Israel, sends shudders down the spine of senior members of the Israel defense and foreign policy establishment. For the past year, Indyk, in his new capacity as the head of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, has conducted a campaign to dispatch U.S. troops to intervene in the Middle East conflict. Indyk has gone so far as to say that the U.S. should sent troops or create a protectorate over the West Bank and Gaza. Such a step would place the U.S. in a virtual state of war with the Israeli army, which has always viewed some of the West Bank and Gaza as vital to the security concerns of the state of Israel.

Indyk -- who, by the way, is funded by millionaire toy inventor Haim Saban, who also catapulted Ehud Barak into his disastrous short term as Prime Minister of Israel -- is generally looked upon as the man who planned the Oslo process that gave Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population.

In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War. Indyk oversaw every step of the disastrous Oslo process with this precise policy in mind of Israel giving up land vital to her defense.

And Indyk did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so. Particularly, the PLO has never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant was finally canceled. The Palestinians have never done it, yet the foreign aid money kept rolling in to the Palestinian Authority."

However, I would agree with Mr. Williams in his claim that Mr. Saban has too much influence over Hilary, and that the influence is detrimental. However, he thinks it is detrimental because Saban is too pro-Israel and I think it is detrimental because Saban is too pro-Palestinian.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={B9912417-3C64-406E-93B5-F4023069DF19}

Posted by SLC | August 24, 2007 12:51 PM

SLC
1) The link you provided was to David Horowitz's rabid FrontPage Magazine -- which
I consider about as reputable as an Al Qaeda web site. Readers who
want to know more can look at the front page:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Default.aspx . The article to which you linked was
dated 2004 --and was discussing incidents even farther in the past.

2) In the distant past, Haim Saban may have supported the Oslo accords. But as
Haim himself notes in his RECENT Haaretz interview, he has since moved very
far to the right. In part due to discussions with Ariel Sharon, in part due to
terrorist bombings in years past.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 2:23 PM

SLC
3) My quarrel with Haim Saban's sock puppets, Marty Indyk and Kenneth Pollack, is not
about the Palestian issue.

It is rather that I think they deliberately helped George Bush con the American people into a disastrous war in Iraq-- because Ariel Sharon thought it would help
Israel. Again ,look at their LA Times OpEd from December 2002:
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm

4) Some excerpts:
"As former U.S. government officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S.
intelligence on Iraq, we are well aware of Iraq's continued efforts to retain
and enhance its weapons capabilities. ..
...Rather, the Bush administration could take the time it needs to "study" the
Iraqi declaration, discussing its falsehoods and fabrications with allied governments
until it has lined up all the necessary political and military ducks. Once the best
case has been made and the preparations completed (probably in a few weeks),
President Bush could announce that, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 1441, we and our allies have concluded that Iraq is in material breach of the 1991 cease-fire resolution and therefore the U.S. will lead a coalition to
disarm Iraq by force...

...If there must be war, this is the best way. The problem with allowing the inspections to play themselves out is that it is a policy based on hope, and as Secretary of State Colin Powell is fond of saying, "hope is not a plan."...

...War must always be the last resort, and certainly there is more preparatory work to be done to minimize its risks and costs. But Hussein has just made it clear again that the only way to effectively disarm his regime is to overthrow it.

That leaves the president with a choice between war sooner and war later.

Indefinite inspections will only make the inevitable more difficult."

5) NOTE how Indyk and Pollack don't inform their readers that Saddam Hussein is 66 YEARS OLD at the time of their writing.

Yep, time was definitely on Saddam's side.

A few years of playing possum, the sanctions decline, a few more years of development and Saddam's ready to mount up on a white horse when he's 80 years old and lead jihad.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 2:30 PM

Re Don Williams

Since Mr. Williams likes to quote mine the Haaretz interview to prove that Mr. Saban is a right winger, I'll do the same to prove that Mr. Saban is a left wing appeaser.

1. "Would you try to talk to Hamas?

"That is something I would do. Absolutely. You have to talk to anyone who is willing to talk. But based on a realistic approach." "

2. Would you leave the Golan Heights in return for an agreement with Syria?

"The security experts have to say whether we can afford to do that or not. Emotionally, there is a problem. There was nothing there, and today it's all blooming. It would be heartrending to uproot those people. Heartrending. But I think that the final outcome with the Syrians is worth a supreme effort.

Posted by SLC | August 24, 2007 2:59 PM

Kinda beside the point, SLC.

Throughout his lengthy interview, Haim Saban constantly discusses what is in Israel's interest -- but nowhere does he discuss what is in the interest of AMERICA.

He talks about whether President Hillary will be good for ISRAEL -- but does not even raise the issue of whether she will be good for America.

He talks about his strong loyalty to Israel --but says nothing about loyalty to America. Even though he has been given dual US citizenship and made over $1 Billion here.

I'm not talking about "dual loyalty" -- Haim's loyalty all seems pretty damm one-way.

Yet this man was the largest funding source of the Democratic Party in 2000-2002 ($14 Million). The man who's raised over $1 Million for Hillary. The man who Brookings let set up a "Saban Center for Middle East Policy" to fund the deep ,objective thoughts of Kenneth Pollack and Marty Indyk.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 3:50 PM

SLC and Don Williams -- have you two ever considered going on tour? You guys should have your own show ;)

Anyway ...

It is rather that I think they deliberately helped George Bush con the American people into a disastrous war in Iraq-- because Ariel Sharon thought it would help
Israel. - Don Williams

Nope ... you have it 100% backwards. I was "there", as it were, on the ground listening to people argue that "we Jews should be happy GW Bush wants to invade Iraq ... we clever Jews have duped those Goyim into fighting a war on Israel's behalf". Now, you know when anyone is so convinced of the veracity of negative stereotypes about the cleverness of their group and spinning them as positive that something's up.

And anyway, given Saddam Hussein's track record of firing at Israel when attacked by the US, if we invaded and Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons or nukes, whom would he nuke? So how would stirring up that hornet's nest (and also destabilizing the region) be good for Israel again?

The fact is that the whole "invading Iraq was good for Israel" argument was so immensely stupid that it hardly was an impetus for the war ... the only people who were conned by that argument were certain Jews, who have more money than sense, who were so convinced of their own cleverness ("I'm Jewish, I must be clever") that they fell for this crap ... them and certain reflexive anti-Zionists paranoid about Zionist conspiracies everywhere who also figured "those Jews are so clever they'll convince us to fight one of their wars for them".

I doubt if Ariel Sharon was sincerely convinced the war would be good for Israel. I don't think he's that taken with his own cleverness to be such a dupe. But perhaps Haim Saban and even Martin Indyk (for whom I otherwise have a decent amount of respect) and certainly Keven Pollack are that taken with their own cleverness. And that's the point: Haim Saban has money and hence power. And getting the likes of Indyk and Pollack allowed Bush & CO to cast the war as something all reasonable people support ... including (given the otherwise liberal leanings in certain ways of Saban) "even the liberal" Brookings crowd.

The "all serious people agree" and "even the liberal [X]", as has been documented, were key to making the war "inevitable" and marginalizing the opposition to the war. Having the war be "secretly" viewed by some "clever" people as being for the sake of Israel was just part of the plan to sell the war.

And, I might add, that anti-Zionist nuts also were convinced that the war was being waged on Israel's behalf or even for the benefit of Israel or even were convinced segments of Israel were helping to push the war, was not a bug but a feature as it helped paint the opposition to the war as consisting of a bunch of anti-Semitic nutcases.

Let's say it all together -- the war has not helped Israel and anybody with a shred of sense knew it would not help and might hurt Israel. So why keep acting as if people who thought the war would be good for Israel were anything other than tools or dupes?

Posted by DAS | August 24, 2007 3:58 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Mr. Saban may say that he has Israels' interests at heart but proposing that the Government of Israel negotiate with Hamas and consider relinquishing the Golan Hights indicates that he is rather confused in that regard.

2. I would also point out that this same Haaretz rag that Mr. Williams likes to quote has also analyzed the current US presidential field and Mr. Sabans' gal Hilary ranks ranks well behind Giuliani and McCain as a friend of Israel. If Mr. Saban really only had Israels' interests in mind, he would be supporting one of the latter two. I would further point out that Hilary is hardly the favorite of Jews in the US, having garnered only 57% of the Jewish vote in her 2000 senate race where Democrats usually get 70%. Those folks well remember her sitting mute while Suha Arafat accused the Government of Israel of poisoning Palestinian wells.

Posted by SLC | August 24, 2007 4:09 PM

Yeah, sure, Israel never cared about the US attacking Iraq...

Right, sure...

That's why Israeli generals were regular visitors to the Pentagon during the runup to the war - not even required to sign in to visit Doug Feith!

That's why Israeli agents were up in northern Iraq dealing with the Kurds within, like, minutes of the invasion being over.

That's why everybody is working on an oil pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa.

That's why the Kurds today are helping Israel start a war with Iran by claiming the Iranians are actually invading Iraq and killing Kurdish civilians.

Bullshit. The Israelis were totally on board with an attack on Iraq, as they are totally on board with attacking Iran. Just so long as too many Israeli citizens don't get killed, the Israeli government doesn't care HOW MANY US troops get killed doing their bidding.

Sure, there are more motivations for the neocons than Israel. But Israel supports those motivations, too. "Birds of a feather".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 24, 2007 5:07 PM

Re DAS

The invasion of Iraq had little to do with Israel, Zionism, democracy, freedom for the Iraqis or any of the other nonsense spewed out by the administration. The adventure in Iraq is about oil. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. It is obvious, that the administration considers a friendly regime in Iraq to be in the US national interest, particularly as the rivalry with China intensifies over access to oil reserves as peak oil is approached.

Re Richard Steven Hack

I am afraid that even Don Williams looks like a sane commentator compared to Mr. Hack.

1. For the information of Mr. Hack, there already exists an oil pipeline from Iraq to Haifa. It's been inactive since 1948 and it is unlikely that it will be reopened in Mr. Hacks' lifetime.

2. Israeli agents have been dealing with the Kurds in Kurdistan since 1967. In this regard, they are only following the old Arab saying, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

3. The statement that the Kurds in Iraq are fomenting a war with Iran it total rubbish. They want an independent Kurdistan and a war with Iran would not advance that goal in the slightest. The problems between Iran and the US goes back to 1980 when the US embassy in Tehran was hijacked by Islamic militants and hundreds of American diplomats were held hostage. This incident had nothing to do with Israel. This is the reason why there isn't much opposition to bombing Iran in the US. We have not forgotten the hostage crisis and Iran is about as popular as AIDS.

Posted by SLC | August 24, 2007 5:45 PM

RE DAS's comment " I doubt if Ariel Sharon was sincerely convinced the war would be good for Israel. I don't think he's that taken with his own cleverness to be such a dupe"
-----------
Ariel Sharon was a general. And the most basic thing a military man knows is to hit your enemy and kill him before he gets stronger. Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor decades ago for that reason.

It makes my head hurt to cite Robert Novak, but he does carry the gossip. Here is what he was reporting in late 2002:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/column.novak.opinion.sharon/

"WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, having just returned from a week-long fact-finding trip to the Middle East, addressed the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations December 16 and said out loud what is whispered on Capitol Hill: "The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim."

The "some" are led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In private conversation with Hagel and many other members of Congress, the former general leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why U.S. forces today are assembling for war. "

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 5:58 PM

proposing that the Government of Israel [...] consider relinquishing the Golan Hights indicates that he is rather confused in that regard. - SLC

Many in Israel propose relinquishing the Golan Heights (with which, FWIW, I disagree). Does that mean they are all confused in this regard? Who appointed either of us the arbiter of what's good for Israel?

Hilary ranks ranks well behind Giuliani and McCain as a friend of Israel.

How do you rank this? AFAIC, many on the GOP would enable and even egg on in Israel a certain bellicosity that is bad for Israel in the long term. Does this mean they really support Israel? Especially if they support a foreign policy designed to bring on a battle at Har Meggiddo in which so many of us Jews are to die? Even if we believe their eschatology is bull, and even if neither McCain nor Giuliani believe in this eschatology, isn't the attractiveness of certain "hard line" Israeli policies to those who'd just assume have all us Jews (but 144,000 or so) die an indication that maybe those who support those policies are not really our "friends"?

Posted by DAS | August 24, 2007 6:05 PM

In April 2002, Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, a former Prime Minister, was invited to speak on Capitol Hill by Joe Lieberman. Netanyahu appeared as a REPRESENTIVE of Ariel Sharon's government.

In his address, Netanyahu urged the US government to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

CNN Transcript is here: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/10/se.02.html

A statement made by Netanyahu:

"First, I must state clearly that the need to topple Saddam is paramount. I think the commitment of America and Britain to dismantle this terrorist dictatorship before it obtains atomic bombs, before it obtains nuclear weapons, deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments and all sane people around the world. "

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 6:34 PM

Re DAS

Excuse me, I was quoting articles that appeared in the Haaretz newspaper. It's the commentators whose opinions were solicited by Haaretz who made this ranking. Incidentally, the paper seems to have changed its rankings somewhat since the article from which I quoted appeared. The latest version places Hilary ahead of McCain for reasons which are totally unclear.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml

Re Don Williams

Well, Mr. Williams is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, quoting Opus Dei member Robert Novak. Mr. Williams has some nerve, chastising me for quoting an article from a web site owned by David Horowitz and then turning around and quoting an article by a fascist cocksucker like Novak. I consider Novak to be even less reliable then Horowitz, who at least doesn't belong to a fascist organization like Opus Dei.

Posted by SLC | August 24, 2007 6:40 PM

This article has a series of excerpts from multiple sources --including Haaretz -- showing that in 2002 Ariel Sharon's government was pushing Bush to overthrow Saddam Hussein:

http://www.counterpunch.org/christison01252003.html

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 6:40 PM

Well, SLC, do you think Israeli politician
Benjamin Netanyahu is also a "fascist cocksucker"??

You might actually get me to agree if you twisted my arm.

Ow-- that hurts. Ok, I agree.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 6:47 PM

Re SLC's comment "even less reliable then Horowitz, who at least doesn't belong to a fascist organization like Opus Dei."
---------
In my opinion, that's because David Horowitz prefers to set up and totally control his own fascist organizations.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 6:50 PM

Alaska has oil. The Gulf of Mexico has oil. Venezuela has oil. Mexico has oil. The proceeds from Iraq's oil sales go to the corrupt Iraqi government, not to us. We didn't invade Iraq because of oil. More Iraqi oil would be on the markets today if we hadn't invaded Iraq, and just dropped the sanctions against Saddam.

Posted by SLC is an Idiot | August 24, 2007 7:32 PM

Re "We didn't invade Iraq because of oil. "
------------
I'm going to do something so ..so unbelievable that I'm downright appalled. I'm going to support a claim of SLC's. Somebody hand me a towel and a gallon of Clorox.

SLC makes a very good point that Iraq has huge oil deposits --far bigger than most other sources. Plus, Google Peak Oil. Or look at who "Chevron Condi" Rice was welcoming into Washington DC as Iraq's "Minister of Oil" a year or so ago.

So it was definitely for the oil. Partly. And while I provided citations above showing that Ariel Sharon wanted Hussein taken out, I don't think Dick Cheney -- or the people Dick Cheney/Bush work for -- give a damm what Israel wants.

But what DID interest Cheney's masters (lets drop the pretense that George decides anything ) was what the billionaire financiers of the Democratic Party wanted -- since if they could seduce people like Haim Saban over to the Republican Party, then
the Democratic leadership would have to resign itself to a career of running for county commissioner slots.

So Bush/Cheney weren't pandering for Israel so much as they were pandering to a few billionaires in the US Israel Lobby . And understandably so -- a lot of VERY wealthy people were aghast at how close Sweet Al came to snatching that $2 TRILLION tax cut away from them in November 2000. People who have nothing to do with Big Oil, Big Defense, or the Israel Lobby.

Posted by Don Williams | August 24, 2007 8:16 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Counterpunch, a far left web site, is about as reliable as frontpagemagazine.

2. I consider Bibi to be as phony as a three dollar bill. He is of a type best described by the late columnist Stewart Alsop as a phony tough, i.e. he talks big but backs down when the time for action arrives. He talked big about what a bum he considered Yasir to be but shook his hand more then any other Israeli Prime Minister. He talked big when ordering the termination with extreme prejudice of Khalad Maashal but backed down and sent an antidote for the poison used when pressured by King Hussein. He talked big about the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip but backed down during a confrontation with Ariel Sharon. By the way, based on some of his statements, it appears that Avigdor Lieberman is a nothing but a clone of Bibi minus the MIT education. So in short, I don't think that Bibi is a fascist cocksucker, I think hes' got chicken feathers where his guts ought to be.

3. I strongly suspect that Horowitzs' fascist organization has a membership of one, a far cry from Opus Dei which has thousands of members (remember that FBI traitor Robert Hansson was a member and apparently was responsible for recruiting Novak into membership; after Hanssons' arrest, Novak admitted that the former was responsible for a number of the latters' so called exclusives).

4. Incidentally, speaking of Joe Lieberman, Novak wrote a column several weeks ago trashing Lieberman as a left winger, barely distinct from Nancy Pelosi, as well as other columns praising good old boy Tom Delay, apparently, like Robert Hansson, one of his buddies.

Re SLC is an idiot

The issue is a government in Iraq which is friendly to US interests. Let's remember that China now and India in the future will be competing with us for access to oil. Given Iraqs' huge reserves, we want to be at the head of the line for access to Iraqs' oil. As both Mr. Williams and I have pointed out, peak oil is approaching rapidly, possibly as early as 2010 and either shortly before or shortly after, the demand will exceed the supply.

Posted by SLC | August 24, 2007 10:33 PM