Iraq, Israel and WMD dossier
Published 21 February 2008
A scribbled reference to Israel in the margin of a withheld draft of the Iraq dossier is revealed. Chris Ames who has doggedly pursued the government on the issue responds
The Guardian has today revealed the contents of the margin note that the Information Tribunal allowed to be removed when ordering the Foreign Office to publish the John Williams draft of the Iraq dossier.
It reveals that a senior government official or minister suggested at the time of the dossier (September 2002) that Israel had brazenly flouted the UN’s authority in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. A reference to Israel in the margins of the Williams draft is linked to an assertion in the text that Iraq is unique in this respect. It is clear that the author of the reference thought that the same charge might be levelled against Israel.
The Guardian has obtained a copy of the witness statement given to the Tribunal by Neil Wigan, Head of the Foreign Office’s Arab, Israel and North Africa Group. He told the Tribunal:
"I interpret this note to indicate that the person who wrote it believes that Israel has flouted the United Nations authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein."
Wigan asserted that the comment would ‘seriously damage Britain’s bilateral relationship with Israel’. He stated that Israel would believe that the FCO had compared it with Saddam Hussein’s regime and that this would confirm its view that elements of the FCO are prejudiced against it.
I attended the Tribunal hearing in December and was aware that Wigan was giving evidence in secret. When the Tribunal issued its decision last month it ordered that the note should be removed from the document, which was finally published on Monday. It also kept secret its reason for doing so, although it stated that it related to the exemption under Section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act, that publication would damage international relations.
When Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, originally blocked my 2005 FOI request for the Williams draft, he made no mention of this exemption, relying instead on the Section 36 exemption relating to government confidentiality.
The Foreign Office has refused to say who wrote the marginal note, saying that it does not comment on leaked documents. It is clear from documents on the Hutton Inquiry website that Straw was one of a small number of people within the Foreign Office who followed the drafting of the dossier at this time. He almost certainly saw the Williams draft, which the FCO described as ‘advice to ministers’.
Labour MP Lynne Jones said: "The Government's timid refusal to make an accurate reference to Israel's flouting of UN authority over its WMD shows their lack of objectivity on breaches of international law, which damages our Country's moral authority.
"The reticence over this issue is mirrored by the unwillingness to push for enforcement of human rights provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement."
Plus don't miss Martin Bright's analysis The truth is more tawdry than the lies
Post this article to
This article was originally published on newstatesman.com at 11:29 on 21 February 2008
More related to The Iraq Dossier Saga
Was it Campbell?
- By Chris Ames
- 07 May
Iraq dossier - watchdog ruling
- By Chris Ames
- 24 April
The woman who nearly stopped the war
- By Martin Bright
- 19 March
See all in The Iraq Dossier Saga
57 comments from readers
-
Cybertiger
21 February 2008 at 14:03 "... that Israel had brazenly flouted the UN’s authority in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. "
In my opinion, hypocrisy and the double standard are represented bilaterally on the wings of a nuclear tipped boomerang fired by Israel.
-
ikotubo
21 February 2008 at 14:04 The irony is that in spite of its supposed historical commitment to democracy and human rights, Europe has always been on the wrong side whenever there have been grave human rights violations. Take its relations with Hitler and the Nazis: Europe seemed quite happy to see millions of Jews destroyed, until it became apparent to the British government that Hitler would not stop at Calais. And now, to compensate for that complicity, Europe has adopted the view (previously the preserve of the Taleban wing of the Christian right in America - if you see what I mean) that Israel can never be wrong. Thus, even even the most flagrant breaches of established rules of international law (human rights included) are to be "explained," "excused," or "justified," if not ignored altogether.
-
Serosch
21 February 2008 at 15:32 This should come as no surprise as most of the Labour Party are members of the shadowy Friends of Israel group.
This group has a stanglehold on the British Government, and is a real threat to Democracy in this country.
-
nawawimohamad
22 February 2008 at 03:47 I can only conclude that Britain is being subjugated by Israel.
-
ikotubo
22 February 2008 at 04:12 Israeli leaders have been brilliant at playing the 'anti-semitism' card, and a Europe ridden with a guilt complex following their inability/unwillingness to stand up to Hitler has only been too eager to indulge them. And the result is that Israel has become your quintessential 'spoilt child'. And like any spoilt child, it does as it pleases - in Israel's case, quite literally.
-
PlanetStarbucks
22 February 2008 at 10:34 ikotubo,
I think your analysis is wrong, at least in terms of policy. Europeans are told from an early age that they are all culpable for the Holocaust but the leaders couldn't care less, see their attitude to the slave trade or other atrocious human rights abuses carried out for king and country that get no attention. Israel is so high on the list due to the influence of rich Zionists in the upper echelons of Western society; it was defined by the Balfour declaration and continues to this day.
The anti-Semitism card does enter into it because it's part of the classic game of divide and conquer. Zionism is mixed with Judaism until not even secular Jews can define themselves without Israel. Therefore an attack on Zionism becomes an attack on Judaism across the board. This is analogous to blaming all Pakistani men for Islamic fundamentalism. This is creating the mentality where ethnic groups stick together to defend themselves against all others. The government perpetrates this divide as to ensure we are too separated by dissent to ever mount an effective campaign for change.
-
ikotubo
22 February 2008 at 11:13 To PlanetStarbucks: Thanks for your rejoinder. In spite of our difference of emphasis, I'm sure we both agree that the influence that certain Zionists exert on Western democracies (particularly Europe and the United States) is not only unhealthy but is quite dangerous. I'll never forget the role that these individuals played in the Iraq catastrophe: not even the supposedly robust Constitutional checks-and-balances in America could stop them.
And thanks for reminding me of Europe's role in the slave trade; it merely confirms my earlier point - that historically, they have never failed to be on the wrong side of grave human rights violations.
-
Amihai
22 February 2008 at 12:08 If a short hand written note brings out so much venom and stored anger at Israel – notice, not at Britain! – by posters, I wonder, how much more anger and even hate is found deep in the hearts of these posters, and what is the true source of this hate of this tiny – geographically and demographically – Jewish state, indeed, the nation-state of the Jewish people…..!
-
ikotubo
22 February 2008 at 14:23 To Amihai: It may have taken you longer than I'd anticipated, but you certainly haven't disappointed me - with your pathetic 'anti-semtism' slur, that is. But guess what: I (and I suspect many others out there) am not going to be silenced by those who seek to stifle public debate. So I say, damn you and damn your odious Zionist views!
-
Amihai
22 February 2008 at 17:15 Mine, Ikotubo, is the view of the vast majority of the members of my people, the Jewish people, who honestly ask: What is behind the deep sitted hatred expressed towards our tiny nation-state of Israel. This story is a perfect example! A British predicament about the way Britain manages its affairs being blamed on the Jewish state of Israel. Do you have a reational explanation to this stored anger at us, Jews?
-
ikotubo
22 February 2008 at 17:35 Amihai: I'm not going to respond to your silly questions, because as you should know, there are countless Jews out there who find your worldview rather sickening and deeply abhorent; the 'self-haters,' as you'd describe them. That's how thoroughly ludicrous your position is!
-
Cybertiger
22 February 2008 at 18:10 "Do you have a reational explanation to this stored anger at us, Jews?"
I have faith in the trinity of Amihai, Avihu and Mr. Katz. I also believe that one of these Holy Cuckoos of Jerusalem ... is clucking preposterously ... again.
-
Amihai
22 February 2008 at 18:40 Don't you find it a bit odd, Ikotubo, that posters here blame the Jewish state for the bad governance of Great Britain?
Jews worldwide, and we are only 12 to 15 million people, find this expression of venom and stored anger and true hate towards our tiny - geographically and demographically - nation-state more than just a bit odd, as you have noticed.
For people who consider themselves the champions of human rights and human decency, it would be appropriate for the New Statesman, its readers and posters to be a bit introspective and ask themselves the question: Who they are and what is the source of the attitude they express towards the Jewish people and its state, even when Israel has nothing to do with the matter at hand!!
Would you my friend do so, and perhaps even appologize to the Jewish people for your expressions here?
-
ikotubo
22 February 2008 at 19:16 Amihai : Ok, since you insist, I'll oblige. So here goes: Poor little vulnerable Israel - yes, the same one with one of the strongest military forces on earth, with over 200 nuclear warheads to match, which consistently treats the basic principles of international law with contempt, whose leaders have no qualms with murdering peace activists, UN and even Red Cross staff, who commit daily atrocities against the longsuffering Palestinian people, and who face 'existential threats' from stone-throwing Palestinian kids. Satisfied?
-
Amihai
22 February 2008 at 19:35 My previous post still stands unchallenged:
If a short hand-written note brings out so much venom and stored anger at Israel by posters – notice, not at Britain about which the story is written! – I wonder, how much more anger and even hate is found deep in the hearts of these posters, and what is the true source of this hate of this tiny – geographically and demographically – Jewish state, indeed, the nation-state of the Jewish people…..!
I would only add that this exchange takes place here, at the site of one of the British publications championing the ideas of human rights and human decency, and I must assume the people who read it for the most part subscribe to these ideals.
How sad, how sad indeed that this appears to be the face of the British left today, the face of those calling for the harmonizing between supposed socialism with Islamism and/or anti-Jewish racism!
-
ikotubo
22 February 2008 at 20:11 What a pity, Amihai, that your apparent commitment to ''ideas of human rights and human decency'' does not extend to the Palestinian people. Again, damn you, and to hell with your odious and abominable worldview.
-
outthere
23 February 2008 at 02:50 That Israel's position re non-compliance with UN resolutions should be examined at the same time as other nations seems quite rational to me?
-
outthere
23 February 2008 at 02:55 Were the UK, US and others like Australia to treat Israel the same as other Middle East states in terms of compliance with UN resolutions, the world would be a much different place. Could the influence of AIPAC, Friends of Israel, as well as the compliant media have anything to do with this?
-
ikotubo
23 February 2008 at 09:18 outthere: Thanks for a great post! It's the so-called 'guilt complex': Because Europe let the Jews down during the late 1930s, there is a determination to over-compensate for that. And that means Israel can now do as it pleases - quite literally. Secondly, as you've so rightly noted, enormously powerful groups such as AIPAC have ensured a stranglehold on the political establishment and the media in the United States - so much so that even those Jews who dare to express the mildest concern are labelled 'self-haters.'
These are the reasons why, as you've pointed out, it isn't even possible for a Western government to examine Israel's non-compliance with UN Resolutions ALONGSIDE other countries. How can this be right in a democracy?
-
Amihai
23 February 2008 at 10:01 Why is it that when I read posts such as those of Ikotubo, written without any shame, I hear echoes of the fictional Protocols of the Elders of Zion of the 19th century…? Hence, my post above still stands unchallenged:
"If a short hand-written note brings out so much venom and stored anger at Israel by posters – notice, not at Britain about which the story is written! – I wonder, how much more anger and even hate is found deep in the hearts of these posters, and what is the true source of this hate of this tiny – geographically and demographically – Jewish state, indeed, the nation-state of the Jewish people…..!
"I would only add that this exchange takes place here, at the site of one of the British publications championing the ideas of human rights and human decency, and I must assume the people who read it for the most part subscribe to these ideals.
"How sad, how sad indeed that this appears to be the face of the British left today, the face of those calling for the harmonizing between supposed socialism with Islamism and/or anti-Jewish racism!"
-
ikotubo
23 February 2008 at 11:21 Amihai: Again, poor you!
-
KBuck
23 February 2008 at 11:56 The big Israel-non-mention is how the very invasion of Iraq was for Israeli security ("regional security" as the government has put it). The preposterous suggestion of an Iraqi missile attack on our forces in Cyprus was beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel.
At the time over 80% of Conservative MPs (who carried the vote in the Commons) were in Conservative Friends of Israel.
For some relatively small beer that lobby, (through the likes of Levy, introduced to Blair by an Israeli diplomat), have successfully groomed a succession of party leaders.
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s19s116&SecId=116...
"There is something deep in our Party’s DNA that believes in Israel" - David Cameron
-
KBuck
23 February 2008 at 12:17 "I was brought up with a very strong understanding that the future of Israel matters not just to Israel itself but matters to the whole of the world and I will continue to do what I can both to defend Israel and to protect the security of Israel’s borders"
- Gordon Brown
http://www.lfi.org.uk/news///Speech_by_Gordon_Brown
Simply conflate Israeli security with "world" security and also British security with "world" security and you have British soldiers dying in Iraq for Israel - invading an impoverished country a continent away which was no threat whatsoever to the UK.
-
Amihai
23 February 2008 at 12:30 ...indeed, without any shame, as I posted above!
-
dotconnector
23 February 2008 at 19:43 Ethnocentric, exclusive, monopolistic, conspiratorial, subversive, imperialistic...
-
Cybertiger
23 February 2008 at 20:13 Israel will be the death of us ... all of us ...
-
KBuck
23 February 2008 at 20:39 Most of fictitious information in Colin Powell's UN speech on Iraqi WMD was fed to the US by the Israelis straight through Sharon's own office in Washington. Not content with merely lobbying - they provided fraudulent intelligence in order to goad the US/UK into war. But there are no consequences in our relations with them for that - none whatsover.
-
KBuck
23 February 2008 at 20:45 Sharon's office in Israel I meant.
-
Amihai
24 February 2008 at 04:20 Why is it that when I read posts such as those of Ikotubo and Kbuck written without any shame, I hear echoes of the fictional Protocols of the Elders of Zion of the 19th century…? Hence, my post above still stands unchallenged:
"If a short hand-written note brings out so much venom and stored anger at Israel by posters – notice, not at Britain about which the story is written! – I wonder, how much more anger and even hate is found deep in the hearts of these posters, and what is the true source of this hate of this tiny – geographically and demographically – Jewish state, indeed, the nation-state of the Jewish people…..!
"I would only add that this exchange takes place here, at the site of one of the British publications championing the ideas of human rights and human decency, and I must assume the people who read it for the most part subscribe to these ideals.
"How sad, how sad indeed that this appears to be the face of the British left today, the face of those calling for the harmonizing between supposed socialism with Islamism and/or anti-Jewish racism!"
-
simon
24 February 2008 at 06:55 there is only one chief beneficiary and culprit behind the crimes of the iraq and afghani wars, the transformation of the New British Labour party into our New National Socialists and nearly all the corruption in america and its client, britain since the modern day burning of the reichstaag that was 911 - israel
Amihal is a perfect example of those jewish people in britain who hold their loyalty to the apartheid state of isreal above that of their loyalty to britain. His mission is to twist, turn, spin, whine, evade, re-direct, block, plead, threaten, whateve it takes
If he was a muslim he would be called a traitor.
If he was a muslim he would be in jail.
If he was a muslim he would be facing torture in the chief client state of isreal - the us of a.
Israel controls our country by corruption, intimidation and skill
We have been betrayed by thieves and liars.
-
bootcamp
24 February 2008 at 11:13 Kbuck - bang wrong. I knew it wouldn't be long until someone came out with drivel along those lines. How would creating a regional hegemony for Iran aid Israel? Obviously it wouldn't and didn't - which is precisely why Israel argued against the war in Iraq. But then, that doesn't really fit your narrative does it?
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 15:09 bootcamp - "drivel"? - what, a Guardian article mentioning Sharon's feeding the US WMD lies, remarkable quotes by Cameron and Brown? I didn't make them up.
There is an attempt to rewrite history - nobody wants to be associated with the disaster of Iraq - least of all do the Israelis want the finger pointed at them. Years after the invasion, and having discovered it didn't work out - even for their security... apparently they were against it all along!
Never mind the lobbying at the time... the fraudulant intelligence... apparently they were saying - attack Iran instead. Yes they were saying attack Iran and still are - but it wasn't an instead. Note how Iran is now a threat to "world" security - yet again the world is expected to protect Israel.
There's ample evidence to the contrary.
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 15:12 I see your site has an article which shows how it works
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41314
"The European Union is considering new steps to deepen its cooperation on scientific research with Israel, despite admitting that previous funds earmarked for that purpose have gone to firms operating illegally in the Palestinian territories"
Israel can do no wrong!
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 15:22 Here's Israel (Sharon) saying don't attack Iraq -
"Several hours ago, US and allied military forces began their attack against the Iraqi tyrant, Saddam Hussein. The goal of this attack is the overthrow of a despot who possesses weapons of mass destruction and who has sown death, ruin and destruction among his people and among the entire world. This attack is part of the international struggle being led by US President George Bush against a global axis of terror...I hope and believe that the successful conclusion of the American campaign in Iraq and the uprooting of the evil terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein will mark the beginning of a new era, one that is better for our region and for the entire world!"
-
bootcamp
24 February 2008 at 15:41 Obviously, Israel would be enthusiastic to condemn their closest ally in the world once the war started! With so many conspiracy theorists bouncing around, you'd have thought people might appreciate that countries actually discuss some things behind closed doors...
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 15:46 It was a mystery to me why only 12 Conservative MPs voted against the war in which there was no UK security interest at all - until I visited the Conservative Friends of Israel website and discovered that in similar massive numbers they were nearly all members. A party even headed by Michael Howard who is Jewish.
We've even got at least one MP who's served in the IDF and taken the oath of willingness to die for the Israeli state - when he voted for the war who's security was he voting for?
Let us look at the people who took the decision... Blair (bankrolled by Levy from before he became party leader), Straw (Jewish ancestory "lifelong friend of Israel"), and Goldsmith.
The decision certainly wasn't taken for British security.
In answer to the usual cries of anti-semitism - try this site -
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 15:53 Britain - one of only two countries in the whole world which refused to call on Israeli to stop bombing Lebanese civilians. At least in the US the power of Israeli lobby is known about - here any mention of it is taboo... obviously you're a NAZI if you say the Jewish-Zionist lobby here even exists... let alone that it has undue influence...
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 16:07 Like I say, it doens't have to be as overt as invading Iraq 'for Israel'... its invading Iraq for "world" security... all it needs is a bit of conflation and everyone agreeing at Friends of Israel meetings how, "uprooting of the evil terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein will mark the beginning of a new era, one that is better for our region and for the entire world!"
There was no UK security interest in invading Iraq. No Bush-Hussein family business to settle. And we were hardly going to get any oil.
-
ikotubo
24 February 2008 at 16:21 KBuck: You've clearly been wasting your energy and intellect trying to have a debate with these people; the same people who want the world to believe that stone-throwing five-year-old Palestinian kids pose an "existential threat" to Israel - yes, you guessed it, the same Israel with a formidable military machine, complete with over 200 nukes. Is it really worth having a debate with people like these?
-
aflatoon
24 February 2008 at 16:51 the question is that how can the antiarab,antipalestine &antimuslim policies of the british government will be taken by the 3rld world.does this not make a silent assent of the worst human rights violation;does this not make the british govt policies look like supporting israel in holding on to the occupied terrorities in violation of the un resolutions.is there any legal or moral obligation of the rulers of that once great country holding to the apron strings of the dishonest ,soulless, and conscienceless super power .you shall be judged & found not only wanting but supporting the worst crimes & atrocities in history. arman najmi
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 17:06 Here's another CONTEMPORARY source - Aluf Benn diplomatic correspondent of the Israeli daily Ha'aretz.wrote...
"Israeli leaders are overjoyed at the prospect of a U.S. invasion -- but it isn't good politics to admit it."
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/08/28/iraq/inde...
You should read the whole article... written at the time, not a several years later rewrite of history.
As for the fraudulant intelligence about WMD provided by Israel - that's a matter of congressional record - not known to be anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. Odd thing to do when they were against the invasion.
-
bootcamp
24 February 2008 at 18:20 I fail to see how the contemporary opinion of an Israeli journalist (who, obviously, is part of the Zionist media agenda and therefore not to be trusted) is more valuable than the actual testimony of a US administration offical. I'm not defending Israel's manifold crimes (or indeed, those of Hamas or anyone else) - just pointing out that sometimes things are as clear cut as you'd like them to be.
This story reveals ill-judged British government attempts to avoid souring relations with an ally, I don't understand why you're trying to link it to some it to Israel actually wanting the Iraq War to take place, for which there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
-
KBuck
24 February 2008 at 18:56 Did you read my link? Its a good contrast with yours - which digs up some Iranwas-the -greater-threat noises - and tries to twist those into a claim that those amounted to a don't-attack-Iraq campaign by Israel.
You don't address any of the evidence I've provided.
Also Israel is not an ally of the UK. Either formally or in deed.
-
bootcamp
24 February 2008 at 19:19 Yes, of course Israel considers Iran the greater threat. While Iraq did hurl a few unprovoked scuds at Tel Aviv, Iran indicates on a regular basis that that it would like the country disappear and funds terror attack on it. Nobody would pretend they were running a peacenik campaign, it just manifestly wasn’t in their interests for Iran to become a dominant regional power – but as I said, their regional strategic interests don’t bare any relation to the story here.
Not sure what that links tells us. At the time he thought some Israeli military figures might have supported the invasion – and that political figures were split. If they ended up counselling the US against military action, then it’s pretty clear in hindsight what conclusion they came to.
-
KBuck
25 February 2008 at 05:51 Okay lets quote from the how-it-looked-at-the-time link - where you're "not sure what that link tells us"...
"From an Israeli perspective, it is hard to conceive of a more desirable move. It would rid the country of one of its worst enemies, Saddam Hussein, and uproot a strong pillar of Arab nationalism and rejectionism. On the other hand, it is in Israel's interests not to appear as a warmonger, and to avoid any impression that the U.S. is going to war on Israel's behalf....Moreover, in a worst-case scenario, Israel would not want to take the blame for an American failure. "
-
KBuck
25 February 2008 at 05:59 Now lets assemble the evidence:
On the US side we have the massive Israeli lobby including AIPAC and the neocons in the administration pushing for war as well as Israel spies providing fraudulant WMD intelligence.
And in the UK we have a strongly pro-Israel Prime Minister funded by the Jewish-Zionist lobby ("Lord Cashpoint") deciding with his small circle of Zionist advisors to attack Iraq. A decision confirmed in the Commons by an opposition where support for Israel is, according to Cameron, "in the DNA" of the party.
-
KBuck
25 February 2008 at 06:07 And on the not-me-gov side of the argument we have - not anything even like a "Don't invade Iraq" quote. The BEST the Israelis can come up with is that the word Iran was being mentioned at the time which we're now supposed to construe as they were saying don't-invade-iraq.
Even your article contains this quote
" on Aug. 16, 2002 by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Hussein] more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of weapons of mass destruction."
That is just so don't-attack-Iraq.
-
KBuck
25 February 2008 at 06:16 BTW Iran is no more a threat to Israel than Iraq was... they know they could live with a nuclear armed Iran if they had too - but if they have puppets who might be stupid enough to go to war to defend their regional nuclear monopoly and annexation of even more Palestinian land - then why not play the threat card again. It worked last time.
-
Serosch
25 February 2008 at 13:09 The role of the Zionist lobby in British Politics needs to be investigated, however no journalist will dare do so.
-
Madav Katz
25 February 2008 at 16:00 Hallo. It's me again. Amihai, Nadav and Avihu - remember the first time I heard anti-jewish hatred. The person said 'you know Israel may not be entirely right in every way'. How sad, how very sad.
-
Amihai
25 February 2008 at 17:40 I don't know who you are "Madav Katz", but if you were a Jew, Israeli or otherwise, you would know you mispell your own name, attempting to be who you are not! I Therefore I suggest that you cease playing games and begin to address the subject at hand - if you are capable of doing do: the way internal British documents are being handled, and try to avoid blaming Israel, as some here do, for the way Britain is government! Amihai
-
Amihai
26 February 2008 at 14:12 Even if Ahmadinejad doesn't use the bomb - if he ever gets his hands on one - there is no question that this threat looming over our heads is liable to undermine the whole concept of Israel being the only safe haven for the Jewish people. Under the circumstances, it is important for Israel to avoid collective punishment of the population of Gaza, lest it lose international support for its efforts to block the Iranian nuclear program.
Without making light of the power of the Israeli Air Force and its excellent pilots, this is not something we should be doing on our own. Israel needs the cooperation, consent and support of the United States and the European Union in order to defend itself.
Israel is the only member of the United Nations that is being openly threatened with destruction - not just as a country but as a Jewish state. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who never loses an opportunity to sow hatred against the Jews, is busy drumming up support for the annihilation of Israel with remarks like, "Israel is a dried-out rotten tree that can be knocked down in one storm," "The countdown has begun for the destruction of Israel," and "It is very doubtful that the Holocaust happened, but if it did, why should the Middle East have to pay the price?"
The president of Iran has a mouth like a sewer. Even the UN secretary-general says he is shocked. Maybe he is, but how come neither he nor the Security Council has issued a word of condemnation? The world doesn't remember, or maybe it never sunk in, that Hitler also started out with hatred of the Jews. He rose to power on the back of this hatred, and brought upon us a world war that killed 50 million people on four continents.
Ahmadinejad, like the wily salesman in a Persian bazaar, has managed to dupe the UN agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency into believing that Iran's nuclear research is for peaceful purposes only and not for building a bomb. He has recruited the aid of South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, Libya and other Israel-loving countries to save himself from sanctions. Without the votes of China and Russia in the Security Council, for example, Iran will come out as pure and untouched as the driven snow.
Even worse, Iran is getting help from these supposedly respectable countries and reputable international companies to obtain the materials he needs for nukes and missiles. From time to time, the president can't resist putting these long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads on parade, just so everybody can see what's what.
The fact that the reactors, the centrifuges, the uranium-enriching facilities and other nuclear-related research centers are scattered underground in a variety of locations proves that Iran has learned something from Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. We are on the top of their list, not only as a target but even more so, as a threat and an obstacle.
On more than one occasion, secret envoys have been sent to reassure Israel that Ahmadinejad is not omnipotent. Yes, he is the president, but his "rebbes," the real rulers of Iran, would chop off his hands before letting him get near the launch button.
According to Prof. Itamar Rabinovich, a former ambassador to the United States, Israel has reason to be worried. Not only because the president of Iran is openly pushing for its destruction, but because he is peddling his hate to Islamic fundamentalists everywhere.
In Rabinovich's opinion, Israel doesn't have too many options for dealing with the Iranian president's threats. It could submit a complaint to the international court in the Hague, which can take years, and by that time, Ahmadinejad will be in an old folks' home. It could also demand that the Security Council issue a condemnation or call for Iran's nuclear program to be forcibly stopped. The trouble is that in a forum like the Security Council, Israel is liable to lose.
Another possibility is for Israel to get parliamentarians of European Union countries to convince their governments to stop selling bomb-making materials to Iran. But the most important thing of all is to make the U.S. Congress understand the dangers that loom over its sane allies in the region. From what we are hearing these days, the next American president is not going to be as friendly or involved in the war on Islamic extremism as George W. Bush.
From some corners, Israel is being reassured that the threats to destroy it are all talk. This is not the opinion of Prof. Bernard Lewis, who advises that the Iranian threats be taken very seriously, because there is an apocalyptic Shia sect out there liable to wake up and do something to hasten the arrival of its messiah, Imam al-Mahdi. It is no coincidence that Hassan Nasrallah is also prophesying the coming destruction of Israel based on such messianic beliefs. (Y.Marcus)
-
angrywelshman
26 February 2008 at 17:25 Amihai you won't win people to your corner if you post things this long - no-one attributes so much importance to your opinion that they will take time to read your ramblings.
-
idunno
26 February 2008 at 19:38 @amihai:
I don't hold Israel responsible for our government's lies and deception over Iraq. Even if Israel did feed our politicans lies, it was Blair and his pals who swallowed them. If our governments choose to behave like puppets, they are to blame, not Israel. And it is therefore our business to investigate these issues, regardless of what Israelis think.
But equally, I don't give a toss if your nasty little nuclear-armed racist rogue state sometimes feels a little unloved buy its neighbours (who have suffered far more destruction at your hands than vice versa - bet you didn't get a Christmas card from Lebanon last year, eh?), nor do I think for a moment we should base our foreign policy on your ravings about the "coming destruction of Israel", any more than we should base our policy on the ravings of the largely impotent and entirely idiotic Iranian leader.
And don't you recognise the irony in your concern that "Hassan Nasrallah is also prophesying the coming destruction of Israel based on such messianic beliefs", when your entire statelet is based on bronze age prophecies and 20th century ethnic cleansing?
And although I note your statement that "under the circumstances, it is important for Israel to avoid collective punishment of the population of Gaza, lest it lose international support...", don't you think you might do a little more to encourage a more positive view of Israel if you suggested that Israel should avoid collective punishment of the population of Gaza because it's immoral, because it's illegal, because it's a war crime, and because your policy of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing over the last 40 years has created nothing but misery for both sides?
As for Bernard Lewis, isn't he the same old Orientalist who supported the Iraq invasion?
-
gnuneo
03 March 2008 at 19:21 well spoken idunno.
however all this seems to me to be part of a chess game far deeper than most conspiracists look at - who can seriously imagine that blair actually believed the 'dossier' about iraq's WMD? Even the CIA regarded it all as utter bunk.
no, this is a win-win for the true anti-semites, the ones who are attempting to make Israel the no.1 enemy of the world (and specifically the Islamic States).
that many of them are even Israeli themselves (but so driven by fear and delusional beliefs they are willingly offering their people up to the Altar of Armegeddon!) is largely immaterial - the true game is using them as pawns - and like all the best Great Games, the pawns actually believe they are moving the Major peices themselves!
and, inevitably, they will turn themselves into scapegoats for policies the western elites had decided upon themselves.
i point out that the PNAC report was aimed at making the US the global hegemonic power, not in securing Israels supposed 'security'.
but to get back to the original article, and the original comments, is it not interesting that just because some argue that Israel be held to the same account in International Law as its neighbours, there is an instant barrage of accusations of "anti-semitism" - this is profoundly ridiculous, and illustrates clearly either the power of the Israeli propagandistic machine, or that posters such as Nadav are actually members of Stormfront (a right-wing white-supremecy group) out to deliberately smear Jews with their ridiculous and utterly unbalanced postings.
both of which have profoundly disturbing consequences.
-
rupaloop
05 March 2008 at 17:01 Isn't it marvellous how an article primarily about the Iraq invasion and the ignorance of our own ex-dear leader has turned into an argument about the legitimisation of the Israeli state?
-
Cybertiger
09 March 2008 at 21:58 @loopyrupa
"... an argument about the legitimisation of the Israeli state?"
What would an illegitimate state be called? Of course, Israel would fit the bill!
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
