Uri Avnery on the Lobby story: 'Who is the dog and who is the tail ?'

''The question, therefore, is not whether the two professors are right in their findings. The question is what conclusions can be drawn from them. ''

''LET'S TAKE the Iraq affair. Who is the dog? Who the tail?
The Israeli government prayed for this attack, which has eliminated the strategic threat posed by Iraq. America was pushed into the war by a group of Neo-Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge influence on the White House. In the past, some of them had acted as advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu.
On the face of it, a clear case. The pro-Israeli lobby pushed for the war, Israel is its main beneficiary. If the war ends in a disaster for America, Israel will undoubtedly be blamed.
Really? What about the American aim of getting their hands on the main oil reserves of the world, in order to dominate the world economy? What about the aim of placing an American garrison in the center of the main oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What about the immense influence of the big oil companies on the Bush family? What about the big multinational corporations, whose outstanding representative is Dick Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from the "reconstruction of Iraq"?
The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American-Israeli connection is strongest when it seems that American interests and Israeli Interests are one (irrespective of whether that is really the case in the long run). The US uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the US to dominate Palestine.''


Gert said...

While Uri's article is interesting and very well written, I reserve judgement on the influence of Israel on the decision to go to war in Iraq. Sure, the Iraq war was a g-dsent for the Israelis because it knocked out one of Israel's longstanding foes. Sure, Sharon had pleaded with the US to do so. Still, aren't we simply connecting dots, in the same way some of the wingnuts are "proving" that "the war on terror is working"?

Interesting read, though.

Sophia said...

Gert, Avnery's point on the Iraq war is to illustrate the intimate intrication of both israeli and US interests.
I believe when you have this kind of situation, not being able to distinguish between your own interest and the interest of the other (it happens in human relationships) you may be willing to do things that are not in your interest PROPER.

Dr Victorino de la Vega said...

Saddam had nothing against the US or Texan oilmen for that matter.

Since 1948, Israel and its friends in Washington be they “brethren”, gentiles or moon-bats, had called for the elimination of the original Baath party of professor Mitchell Aflaq (later known as the “pro-Iraqi” rightwing Baath) for they feared the progressive potential of a truly modernizing Pan-Arab party that would “encircle” Israel and build rockets and missiles…or even worse nuclear plants!

Eisenhower and Nixon (and Reagan to a lesser extent) supported the Baath party for a very simple reason: they needed a muscular Republican Arab ally to help in the fight against communist subversion, and were thus willing to ignore Israel’s objections.

After the fall of the Berlin wall, the Baath lost its utility in the eyes of Washington’s foreign policy establishment, whereas Israel’s hatred remained as strong as ever…

The Israelis and Washington’s Neocons finally got rid of their Baathist nemesis: now US marines and Israeli civilians have to deal with the rise of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which their own governments have deliberately brought to power…

Sophia said...

Dear Vic,

I haven't seen any post from you since a while. Do you still around the Caribbeans ?

Your point about the Baath couldn't be more accurate. I remember all the longing for social justice that was around me when I was a teenager and our parents were seeing the rise of secularists movements in the middle east. My father was a great critic of all religions and all clerics.
I can see now that this ideal we dreamed of was taken from us. It is gone not because we have not been able to sustain it but because it was fiercely fought by obscurantists Arabs with big money accounts, by Israeli and by the US which, while mildly tolerating and even supporting Saddam, was also supporting the muslim brotherhood across the Arab world.

Coming from a socialist progressive family, I remember that the brotherhood was seen as a very conservative group, anti-communist, anti-change, anti-progress... Well now they can afford the luxury of appearing in the eyes of Arab citizens as the true revolutionnaries, thnks to Bush and co.

Gert, a blogger commentng on one of my posts and reflecting on Joshka Fisher's carreer, said that yesterday's revolutionnaries are today's politicians and today's politicians are tomorrow's reactionnaries. I think that the brotherhood and allied movements in the middle east, including Al-qaeda, followed the inverse trajectory and they are now wrapped with the dignity of the revolutionnaries fighting the ennemy of Arabs and Muslims. It makes me sad !

Anyway, I am waiting for one of your new posts, soon I hope.

Since March 29th 2006