NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush Advisor: US Invaded Iraq to Protect Israel
The Inter Press Service is reporting that a former aide to President Bush who now serves as the executive director of the 9/11 commission said in 2002 that a prime motive for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to eliminate the threat Iraq posed to Israel. The comments of Philip Zelikow mark the first time a link has been publicly made by a member of the Bush administration between the invasion of Iraq and Israel. On Sept. 10, 2002 Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia QUOTE "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel." He went on to say "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell." At the time of his comments Zelikow was serving on the influential President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which reports directly to the president.

Well, it's certainly a cause I'd like to put my taxdollars behind. Besides, Israel is just as affected as many other nations, if not moreso. And it is an ally. However, I don't particularly agree with the comment that Europe doesn't care for Israel. Perhaps a large segment of the population, but most governments seem to stay out of Israeli affairs, for the most part, anyhow.

I don't care why they did it. They still suck.

I kind of assumed this was obvious.
Saddam sent money to the families of suicide bombers, was probably the one Arab leader who actually helped the Palestinians beyond words.

I kind of assumed this was obvious.
Saddam sent money to the families of suicide bombers, was probably the one Arab leader who actually helped the Palestinians beyond words.
Israel did have plans in the nineties to kill Hussein, actually. They wanted to send a few commandoes in there, and shoot him. However, this didn't work out after a military accident during training forced them to give up on the idea. Probably was best, considering that one of his sons would've taken over, who were worse.

The key words to look at are: "I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is)". NOWHERE in his quote does it say Bush said or Bush decided or Bush told me.

Jeez, at least get your facts straight.

I would say defending Israel is a good thing, what with it being a legitimate country and all, and no, you cannot blame it on the US, its the Brits fault, and possibly the Germans, Austrian-Hungarians and Serbs, what with the whole post-WWI thing and the lines in the sand and all that.

Why is it so important to assign 'fault'. Does it really matter? Solving the problem does not lie in assigning past responsibility for creating the situation now faced.

It would seem that the real difficulty lies in the fact that the Israelis are seperatists by nature. They do not have an open society so allowing those not of the Jewish faith to live in their lands and become citizens is not considered to be an option. In truth part of that is driven by fear that non-Jews will become numerous enough to gain seats and influence in the government.

There is no easy solution here, both sides have compelling and moral issues in their favor. I believe that the people on both side could live together after a time but the current political leadership is incapable of fair compromise.

The key words to look at are: "I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is)". NOWHERE in his quote does it say Bush said or Bush decided or Bush told me.

Jeez, at least get your facts straight.

stop being so paranoid--everyone knows Bush did it

What? You mean it wasn't about oil, after all? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't care why they did it. They still suck.
What Cuneo said!

Why is it so important to assign 'fault'. Does it really matter? Solving the problem does not lie in assigning past responsibility for creating the situation now faced.

It would seem that the real difficulty lies in the fact that the Israelis are seperatists by nature.

What's your source? And are you saying they're more separatist than other nationalities? What about Saudi Arabia, who won't even permit non-Muslims to SET FOOT in Mecca? What about Jordan, whose population is around 80 % Palestinian, yet continues to be ruled the Hashemite minority? Does that count as "separatist"?

They do not have an open society

Again, in comparison to what? What constitutes an open society? First, Israel is a democracy, which generally is considered one of the prime factors in an "open society". Would you say Israel's society is more open than, say, Saudi Arabia or Jordan's? Lebanon? Syria?

Second, 20% of Israelis are not Jewish (coming out to roughly 1.2 million).

so allowing those not of the Jewish faith to live in their lands and become citizens is not considered to be an option.

No, that's not the issue. As I just stated, Israel has a sizeable non-Jewish population, who are citizens and enjoy full rights under the law (although from what I understand, there is a fair amount of anti-Arab discrimination).

Compare this to the rights of the Jewish Palestinian population- oh wait... :roll:

In truth part of that is driven by fear that non-Jews will become numerous enough to gain seats and influence in the government.

The issue is not that Israelis "don't like non-Jews". There is nothing in Israel's founding legislation saying non-Jews can't become Israelis. The issue is that a Palestinian right of return would, in effect, dissolve Israel, and therefore Zionists, understandably, are against this. Furthermore, the idea that there should be a Palestinian state AND that Israel should honor a Palestinian right of return, for the average Israeli and Zionist, borders on the ludicrous, as it in effect would create TWO Palestinian states.

If anyone really believes that Israel is and was not able to handle any threat from Iraq or other nearby nation you are in denial.

The only thing that has kept Israel from dealing with the situation in the middle east to their satisfaction is the politcal fallout that would result.

Bush decided that Iraq posed a threat to the United States for any number of reasons. Perhaps he wanted to find reasons and so was more than willing to accept intelligence that supported that position. If he errored it was on the side of caution. There were mounds of intelligence that terrorists were being trained and supported by Afganistan under the Taliban. The administration at that time decided it was safer to fire a few missiles and claim 'we dun good'. The result of that type of thinking provided 9/11. If we had invaded Afganistan in a pre-emptive strike when the intelligence first rolled in, 9/11 would not have happened.

The world will never know what would have happened if the U.S. had not moved against Iraq. I prefer it that way, and I am sure President Bush does as well. One thing for sure is that a certain North African nation would not be turning over its WMD, technology, stockpiles, and withdrawing support for terrorists in training. That ought to be worth something... nah... that would mean G.W. did a good thing, could not bash him on that.

More info for comparisons:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

Arab Attitudes Toward the Refugees
The UN discussions on refugees had begun in the summer of 1948, before Israel had completed its military victory; consequently, the Arabs still believed they could win the war and allow the refugees to return triumphant. The Arab position was expressed by Emile Ghoury, the Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee:

It is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews, as the latter would hold them as hostages and maltreat them. The very proposal is an evasion of responsibility by those responsible. It will serve as a first step towards Arab recognition of the State of Israel and partition.

The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the "right" of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since.

One reason for maintaining this position was the conviction that the refugees could ultimately bring about Israel's destruction, a sentiment expressed by Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah al-Din:

It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With a greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel (Al-Misri, October 11, 1949).

After the 1948 war, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and its more than 200,000 inhabitants, but refused to allow the Palestinians into Egypt or permit them to move elsewhere.

Although demographic figures indicated ample room for settlement existed in Syria, Damascus refused to consider accepting any refugees, except those who might refuse repatriation. Syria also declined to resettle 85,000 refugees in 1952-54, though it had been offered international funds to pay for the project. Iraq was also expected to accept a large number of refugees, but proved unwilling. Lebanon insisted it had no room for the Palestinians. In 1950, the UN tried to resettle 150,000 refugees from Gaza in Libya, but was rebuffed by Egypt.

Jordan was the only Arab country to welcome the Palestinians and grant them citizenship (to this day Jordan is the only Arab country where Palestinians as a group can become citizens). King Abdullah considered the Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians one people. By 1950, he annexed the West Bank and forbade the use of the term Palestine in official documents.

In 1952, the UNWRA set up a fund of $200 million to provide homes and jobs for the refugees, but it went untouched.

The plight of the refugees remained unchanged after the Suez War. In fact, even the rhetoric stayed the same. In 1957, the Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria, passed a resolution stating:

Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason (Beirut al Massa, July 15, 1957).

The treatment of the refugees in the decade following their displacement was best summed up by a former director of UNRWA, Ralph Garroway, in August 1958: "The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die."

Little has changed in succeeding years. Arab governments have frequently offered jobs, housing, land and other benefits to Arabs and non-Arabs, excluding Palestinians. For example, Saudi Arabia chose not to use unemployed Palestinian refugees to alleviate its labor shortage in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Instead, thousands of South Koreans and other Asians were recruited to fill jobs.

The situation grew even worse in the wake of the Gulf War. Kuwait, which employed large numbers of Palestinians but denied them citizenship, expelled more than 300,000 of them. "If people pose a security threat, as a sovereign country we have the right to exclude anyone we don't want," said Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasir Al-Sabah (Jerusalem Report, June 27, 1991).

QahJoh.. I stand corrected. However I never said that Israelis "don't like non-Jews". I will also agree that there are many other nations that are much more restrictive as to who can do what and where. The point that I was trying to make, not put as well as you have, is that the main concern of Israel is Palestinian right of return. What is this 'Right of Return'? Is it the right of the Palestinians to immigrate to Israel and settle there maybe becoming citizens and gaining the right to vote? Are they permitted to do this? If there is nothing in Israel's founding legislation saying non-Jews can't become Israelis, why don't the Palestinians move in and become Israelis? In time a sufficient number of them could possibly relocate and gain a voice in the government and address their concerns 'as a people'.

I really don't view a 20% non-jewish population to be sizable. What is the percentage of non-jews in Israel that are Arab or even Palestinian?

There is no clear cut fix.

I would say defending Israel is a good thing, what with it being a legitimate country and all, and no, you cannot blame it on the US, its the Brits fault, and possibly the Germans, Austrian-Hungarians and Serbs, what with the whole post-WWI thing and the lines in the sand and all that.

Defending Israel is bad. Israel is not a legitimate country until it releases the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

QahJoh.. I stand corrected. However I never said that Israelis "don't like non-Jews". I will also agree that there are many other nations that are much more restrictive as to who can do what and where. The point that I was trying to make, not put as well as you have, is that the main concern of Israel is Palestinian right of return. What is this 'Right of Return'? Is it the right of the Palestinians to immigrate to Israel and settle there maybe becoming citizens and gaining the right to vote? Are they permitted to do this?

As of right now, I don't think most are. I don't know the specifics, but I imagine that it's at least partially similar to the US, where there's a long immigration and naturalization process- people can't just "become" US citizens, for instance.

Secondly, there's likely a very low quota on Palestinians that can become citizens, because of the demographic concerns.

Third, there's the issue of Israel being at war with the Palestinians. Security screenings and the like probably disqualify a fair number of the population from becoming Israeli citizens.

Lastly, many Palestinians (or at least a sizeable portion) don't WANT to be Israeli citizens. They don't want to be part of the "Jewish state". They want to be Palestinians in a Palestinian state.

If there is nothing in Israel's founding legislation saying non-Jews can't become Israelis, why don't the Palestinians move in and become Israelis?

Some don't want to and most can't. But it's not specifically because they're non-Jews.

In time a sufficient number of them could possibly relocate and gain a voice in the government and address their concerns 'as a people'.

Which is the main concern of Zionists and supporters of Israel, because if Israel no longer has a demographic Jewish majority, it will cease to be the "Jewish state".

I really don't view a 20% non-jewish population to be sizable.

Everything's relative. I'd say it at least disproves the notion that Israel is as separatist as you portrayed it as being.

What is the percentage of non-jews in Israel that are Arab or even Palestinian?

The vast majority of non-Jews in Israel are Arabs of Palestinian descent.

There is no clear cut fix.

What?

Defending Israel is bad. Israel is not a legitimate country until it releases the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

What constitutes a "legitimate country"?

I really don't view a 20% non-jewish population to be sizable. What is the percentage of non-jews in Israel that are Arab or even Palestinian?
About 1.2 million out of 6.5 million total population. The Israeli Arabs are represented by 4-5 political parties of their own in the Knesset and have about 15 MKs in total out of 120. They would have twice as many, if it wasn't for their habit of boycotting state elections.

So it would seem that this is a complex issue with more than one side to it and more than one side having legitimate issues. There is no clear cut fix to the problem. It can be argued on many different levels.

Thank you all for being patient with my unclear postings.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to have learned some points and hopefully my discourse has perhaps encouraged you to define your thoughts more clearly to yourself. It is the nature of a good discussion to foster growth on both sides, not necessarily to convince.

What constitutes a "legitimate country"?
1. borders
2. a soverign government
3. recognition by other states

yeah. Israel is a legitimate country
maybe rogue state would be what you're referring to
And Anbar, what post was it where you denfended Arafat, i had a good rebuttal and was hoping to see your comments?