Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

Press release 05/01/07

English http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/press_releases/1167948066

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/press_releases/1167948733 òáøéú

The deadly raid in Ramallah is an aggressive and dangerous provocation. This is not the way to build a cease-fire, nor anyway helpful to advance peace.

At the very hour when the Prime Minister of the State of Israel held with the President of Egypt a meeting, which is supposed to bring us back on the route to peace, somebody had decided to send soldiers, bulldozers and helicopter gunships to conduct a deadly midday raid into Ramallah. The largest Israeli force to enter this city in the past four years conducted a prolonged gun battle in Ramallah's main square, in front of international TV crews, and killed four Palestinian inhabitants. It was an act of heavy-handed aggression which immediately wiped out Olmert's so-called "gestures" to President Abu Mazen (none of which, incidentally, was carried out).

Either somebody deliberately intended to create a deadly provocation, or it was an unbelievable show of stupidity and incompetence. In both cases, the dire result is the same, as is the conclusion: this is not the way to build a ceasefire, and certainly not the way to advance towards peace. If the deadly IDF raids into the West Bank cities are not stopped, there will also be no quiet in Sderot and on the Gaza Strip border, and all of us will sink deeper into the abyss of hatred and bloodshed.

Israel's Bad Influence

by Charley Reese
Scott Ritter, a former U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, has written a book, Target Iran, in which he accuses the Israeli government and its American lobby of pushing the U.S. into attacking Iran.

Ritter writes, "Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel." He accuses some members of the lobby of dual loyalty and urges that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee be required to register as a foreign agent.

He also blasts the Israeli lobby for its use of the Holocaust and for crying anti-Semite every time Israel is criticized. "This is a sickening trend that must be ended," he writes.

By coincidence, an Israeli general has verified everything Ritter says. According to an article published in Today.az on Jan. 2, Israeli Brig. Gen. Oded Tira published a statement urging an all-out effort by Israel and its lobby to push a U.S. attack on Iran.

"President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," the general is quoted as saying. "As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iran issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

The general urges the Israeli lobby to turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran. The lobby must also approach the Europeans, he adds, so Bush won't find himself isolated, and he calls for Israel to "clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the U.S. to strike Iran."

As Ritter says, a U.S. war in Iran will be a war made in Israel.

Of course, Israel's American supporters, most of whom are ignorant of nuclear energy, ignorant of the history of Israel and ignorant of the people in the Middle East, will trot out their usual specious arguments.

But let's lay out the undeniable facts. Israel considers Iran its main threat. Israel wants a U.S. attack against Iran. The Israeli lobby does what the Israeli government tells it to do. Anybody who claims the Israeli lobby is just another lobby is either ignorant or lying. The Israeli lobby is the second most, if not the most, powerful lobby in America.

So, sit back and watch the Israeli amen corner start the propaganda to push America to war with Iran just as it did in the case of Iraq. It will try to have you believe that Iran can make nuclear weapons as easily as baking cakes. The truth is that even if Iran decided to seek nuclear weapons, the Iranians are a good 10 years away from having any. The truth is that Iran, even if it had nuclear weapons, is no threat to the U.S.

All of which reminds me of my favorite undiplomatic comment by a diplomat. Some time ago at a private party in London, the French ambassador said of Israel, "Why does the world put up with such a sh*tty little country causing so much trouble?" Outraged British Zionists demanded his recall, but the French government ignored them.

Sooner or later, Americans are going to wake up to the fact that Israel's influence on the American government is detrimental. If Israel wants a war with Iran, let the Israelis fight it. Of course, seeing how poorly they did against Hezbollah, I suspect that the Israelis, despite their public threats, would not choose to fight the Iranians.

In my opinion, Americans who want American youth to die and bleed for the benefit of a foreign country are guilty of more than dual loyalty.

george

I come to you with cap in hand. Please be generous or I will kick your shins and seduce your sisters.

Your knowledge on this issue is remarkable. But I'm even more impressed by the level-headed analyses that you forward out of this knowledge. Whatever you've been reading, I'd like some. Please advise.
But that would constitute an extra charity above what I'm about to ask.

Let me introduce the dilemma this way. Casey is being replaced by Petraeus. My knowledge of this fellow emerges from Thomas Ricks' Fiasco (McCain, speaking at the AEI yesterday, recommended that everyone there read it...they ought to, it's a very smart, deeply researched, non-partisan and brings no visible axes to grind) and Petraeus is one of the few commanders portrayed in the book who come out looking good, and Petraeus comes out probably better than anyone else. I gave my copy to Thomas, so I think I remember the details correctly...he did his doctorate on historical insurgencies and while posted in Iraq applied his understandings to unusually good effect. He also tried to convince others in this enterprise, those above and parallel, to deal with the population and problems emerging per his understandings of the best ways to go about this difficult task. In that, he wasn't so successful.

So, his appointment looks wise and hopeful, if not too late. Yet, for reasons related to much of what you have been discussing here, serious doubts about what the Bush crowd are now up to are clearly merited.

The central question is the degree to which Bush administration policy (in the middle east most acutely) is being influenced/determined by the Likud element in Israel and its powerful circle of interest groups in America.

We know, for instance, from the recent book on Colin Powell, that before the outset of the war when Powell was arguing against other voices, that he expressed to another (perhaps Armitage, I've forgotten) that "Bush is under the sway of the JINSA crowd". That was a new acronym for me. If you check their site, and look at the wikipedia entry, you'll find many of the same key names that turn up with AIPAC, the Project For a New American Century...the crowd of folks we've come to know as neoconservatives. Influencing American policy, foreign, domestic and military in directions deemed favorable to Israel (from the Likud perspective, importantly) is their raison d'etre. So far as I can discern things, it looks very much like Bush next week will announce a plan which derives as much from Frederick Kagan as anyone else.

You've been very balanced in your previous analyses here of Israel's historical complicity in their own present dilemmas.

Thus we are to my request. Please describe your perception and understanding of what policy goals this administration is forwarding in the middle east that are NOT derived from out of this same set of Likud-friendly or Likud-inspired or Likud-like beliefs. If not already clear, I'm asking you to avoid a perspective which, in its possible support for either Bush or the Republican party, will miss or excuse critical factors.

Your sisters' irish innocence is at stake.

Olmert apologized for the raid into Ramallah, but pointed out that the raid was necessary to stop terrorists who have killed Israelis. He also pointed to Israel's restraint in the face of the continual rocketing by the Pals.

I doubt that the USA would be so restrained in the face of similar attacks on our country.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/809795.html

Blatham, of course Israel is urging preemptory attacks on Iran. What would you expect in light of Amadinejad's statements about wiping out Israel. Had he made those statements about the USA, we would have already attacked Iran.

george, Your knowledge of Israel is first rate, and I agree with everything you've written so far. You seem to have a handle on facts that seems to evade some people that disagree with you, but after some reading and visit to Israel last October, you're right on the mark. I have no axw to grind with Jews or Israel, but their past and current history doesn't speak well of their aparthied country.

So much more to read since i last looked into this thread. I have noticed, in skimming, though, the mention of Bernard Lewis. Mr. Lewis' point of view needs to be taken with a great deal of salt. His primary area of study has been the Osmanli Empire (referred to by most western historians, and Mr. Lewis as the Ottoman Empire--a term which derives from Arabic, not Turkish). I've read several of Mr. Lewis' books, and while they are admirably well-written, they show a carelessness of scholarship which makes the entire body of Mr. Lewis' work suspect.

In The Muslim Discovery of Europe, for example, he retails, without comment or criticism, the hoary old Muslim denial of defeat at Tours (732) on the basis that the force encountered by Charles Martel was just a raid, a reconnaissance in force. The Franks under Charles turned out their entire feudal levy, called in the feudal levy of the Burgundians, and called on the Lombards to send an army, which amounted at least to a few thousands. The entire Frankish force numbered at the least 15,000, and very likely more than 20,000 men--this was the largest European army assembled west of Greece since the collapse of Roman authority in western Europe. The Umayyad (Muslim dynasty in al Andalus--what we would call Spain) force was at least as large, and possibly larger. The "Moors" (a reasonable term to use for the Muslim force, who were made up of Berbers and other northern African tribesmen, and not Arabs) had waited until the harvest had come in, which is hardly the action of a raiding force--it is the sensible logistical act of a full-fledged army on campaign. The battle did not take place until October. The Muslims and the Franks faced each other for a week before joining battle--once again, something which no raiding force would have been able to do in the face of the entire levy of the Franks and Burgundians. The battle itself when it was finally joined, lasted all day. After a terrible slaughter on both sides, the two armies faced one another in their lines the following day, and the Muslims were only able to withdraw without molestation because the Franks feared a trap, and had drawn in their lines. Martel spent three years driving the Muslims back over the mountains, and the final Muslim invasion in 735 was quickly driven out.

Certainly Gibbon's assertion that Charles Martel had "saved Christendom" is a silly and exaggerated statement. But Lewis, in selectively quoting certain Muslim chroniclers (not even all Muslim commentators dismiss the battle), errs in the opposite direction. In another work, he writes: The Arab historians, if they mention this engagement at all, present it as a minor skirmish . . . --this is patently false, and represents a failure on the part of Mr. Lewis to critically and honestly review the particular Muslim sources on which he relies.

In the same book, Lewis speaks of the seige of Vienna in 1683. Lewis correctly places the "German" force at about 80,000 (the force was led by the Polish King Jan Sobieski--John III--and most of the troops were Polish and Lithuanian). However, he then retails Turkish accounts which place the Turkish force at 40,000--even Turkish sources place the entire expedition at 130,000. For those unfamiliar with military practice in those days, there would be a force defending the beseiged city (the Austrians), and there would have been a besieging force--this is the 40,000 mentioned by Lewis, and there would be a "covering army," to protect the besieging force, and that would have been the original 130,000, less wastage (casualties in the campaign up to the arrival at Vienna) and less the 40,000 man beseiging force. Lewis than baldly takes Turkish accounts which refer to 15,000 men "absent sick" (those felled by disease or wounds), and claims that there were only 25,000 Turks to face "the Germans," and when he comes to the battle, subtracts the 15,000 men once again, and claims there were only 10,000 Turks to face Sobieski. He twice mentions the 80,000 "Germans," attempting to suggest that there were 160,000 Europeans in all.

It is one of the most hacked up accounts one could imagine--and it does not even agree with all Turkish accounts. Once again, Lewis uncritically leans on selected Muslim accounts which either cast the Muslims in an heroic light, or attempt to excuse any failure on their part.

Just a few weeks ago, i read (or tried to read) his book What Went Wrong about Muslim-Western relations. While, to be fair, there is no doubt that Lewis is well-read in Muslim sources, and can be considered a western expert on the subject of the Turks and the Osmanli empire, his egregious errors in his historical narrative from the western point of view are appalling. He speaks of Napoleon's landing in Egypt, in 1798, and then states that Nelson and the Royal Navy destroyed the French navy "a few years later." I was astounded when i read that. Napoleon landed in Egypt in July, 1798, and the Battle of the Nile, or the Battle of Abourkir Bay as it is also known, took place on August 1 (the battle in which Nelson defeated the French fleet)--less than a month after the French landing. What is even more significant is that Napoleon managed to escape Egypt on a French frigate in 1799, in time to land in France, and make his way to Paris, where he joined a conspiracy against the government in which he was able to seize personal power. Yet Lewis would have us believe that the Royal Navy attacked French naval forces "a few years later"--that is an inexcusable failure of basic knowledge in history, especially as the consistent French defeat of Mameluke and Turkish forces broke the back of Turkish authority in Egypt, and Sidney Smith's eventually victory over the French lead to the beginning of English authority in Egypt and the middle east.

Mr. Lewis is usually (although not always) on solid ground when he discusses matters which are purely a part of Muslim history, and especially Turkish history. When it comes to the relationship between Islam and the West, his casual, continual gross errors of historical narrative lead me to put little credence in his analyses.

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington



ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters", according to several Israeli military sources.



The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open "tunnels" into the targets. "Mini-nukes" would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

"As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished," said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad's assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation


link

The mess we inherited and now face in the Middle east and the Gulf region is largely the result of past misdeeds and crimes of Great Britain, France , and Germany, and, as well, some inherently rigid and (now) backward elements in the structure of Moslem Society and governance - about which much has been written. This mess, of course is nested in the growing confrontation between the Moslem World and the West that I believe is destined (with or without our Iraqi intervention) to dominate the early part of the new century. I know, beyond doubt, that Cheney, Powell, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and others are well aware of all this

I believe that the foolish appellation of a "War on Terrorism" was probably the result of a misguided, narrow focus on 9/11 and an attempt to soften the idea of a confrontation with Islam in a public mind already muddled with the euphemisms of political correctitude. I also believe the focus on WMD was an unfortunate side effect of an understandable, but unwise, attempt to give PM Blair domestic political cover (with the UN) for his support of our intervention.

In short, I don't believe that Israel's activities had much to do with our intervention, though they undoubtedly agreed with, welcomed and supported the enterprise, both diplomatically and politically. Domestically the (odd in my view) affinity of American Evangelicals for the most extreme versions of Zionism (rejected even by most Israelis) certainly lessened the political problem of motivating the American electorate (or a part of it). It is entirely possible that this contributed to Bush's (and his advisors) failure to outline the basic issues (at least as I see them) to the American public (and to the world).

The alternative view of a nefarious conspiracy and a dull, credulous White House doesn't ring true to me. Even government isn't often that stupid. In particular, I can't imagine that coming from Cheney, Powell, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, et. al.

In summary, I believe I have outlined a theory for the war that is both compelling and known to the "neocons", and also quite independent of Israel interests. I can't be sure it was this that motivated the decision, but it seems much more likely to me than the alternative you suggest.

For me the interesting question is how such bright men managed to execute it all so badly. They failed to credibly explain their motives to public and allies alike. They overestimated their potential support from our European Allies. They too easily became distracted and entangled in Tony Blair's domestic political problems, and sought political cover for him with a UN that would never give it, and distorted their (unstated, but best) motivating argument for the intervention in the process. They underestimated the challenge of post war recovery, and completely failed to craft a strategy for it and for integration with the war plan. They unwisely decided to destroy all of the organs of the former Iraqi government (itself a key part of the reason for intervening there) without any provision or capability for quickly replacing them. They appointed as post-war proconsul a nonentity who had no power or voice.


]

Blue, the article from which you quoted concludes with the following.


"Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran's nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a "second Holocaust".

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that "Israel must be wiped off the map"."


Blue, considering Ahmadinejad's statements, etc., do you blame Israel for planning an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and why?

Advocate, here's what I think, this guy makes sense. BERLIN (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog called on the United States Tuesday to set an example to the rest of the world by cutting its nuclear arsenal and halting research programs.

"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

"In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point," ElBaradei told Stern in the interview released ahead of publication.

Blue, thanks for your reply. However, it doesn't answer my questions. Would you please answer them.

Advocate, I find Israel and America to be the antagonist mass murderers. Once that confession is made I believe we can pacify the world. Ahmadinejad agrees with El Baradei. Olmert and Bushie do not.

I don't think anyone other than you believes Ahmadinejad.

A agree that the USA has been a mass murderer. It is false to say that Israel has been one.

I gather from your reply that you feel that Israel should not take preemptive action against Iran, despite Ahmadinejad's statement.

I would be very interested to learn of the uniform standard by which you reached that pair of conclusions, and of just which historical events you include and exclude from your analysis.

The USA killed over 3 million in Nam, and about 600,000 in Iraq. That is big-time mass murder.

Israel may have killed a few hundred here and there. Hardly mass murder! Compare that with, say, Assad I, who killed 20,000 Syrians who he considered disloyal.

Advocate,

Very odd arithmetic. You compare the total casualties of two lengthy wars fought by the United States, on behalf of others, with what?
--- not the total casualties in the wars Israel has fought over the same period.
--- not the mortality among Palestinians induced by Israeli seixures of land and property, and restrictions on movement of people and public services
--- not the innocents slaughtered in Israel's unjustified invasion of Lebanon

Instead you compare it with an arbitrarily assumed "... few hundred here and there". Where the hell did you get that nonsense?

You also ignore the factor of scale and just what the countried are able to undertake. Israel's population is under 6 million: that of the U.S. is well over 300 million.

You say that Israel's invasion of Lebanon was unjustified. In the face of that nonsense, there is little more to say.

Advocate, from what Ahmadinejad has said he wants a nuclear free ME and international arms treaties. Non-proliferation. There's no proof Iran is is breaking the Non-proliferation treaty yet on Bushie's suspicions sanctions were brought against them. That sure makes the UN Security Council and the treaty itself look a sham. Israel and the US and others are the ones known to have defied the treaty. As ElBaradei points out the double standards got to end.

Blue, you imply that Israel should take a chance that Ahmadinejad is telling the truth, and that he does not intend to wipe out Israel. I don't think any country in Israel's situation would buy into your view, especially considering A's background.

Once again, when you are caught in the trap of your own distortions and misstatements of fact, you find an excuse to change the subject and run away from the conclusion. A persistent, but shameful technique.