So you are saying that Rumsfeld offering weapons to Iraq was a good thing?

The idea of American support for Iraq back then is way, way overblown. The vat majority of Iraq's arms came from the Soviet Union throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with a much smaller component being French. The idea that the United States armed Iraq is absurd. (Even stupider is the notion among some circles that the United States helped Saddam Hussein and the Baath party in 1968 when they seized control of the country. There is zero evidence to support that idea.)

In the 1980s there was, however, a widely shared perception among U.S. diplomats, the Europeans, and most Arab countries that if Iran won the war against Iraq the result would be a catastrophe for the region. I agree. So providing some limited help to Iraq in the 1980s wasn't a bad idea.

--Dreyfuss

Since most of the Israelis I know view Iran not Iraq has a much bigger threat to them I was surprised by your post.  However, I noticed there is absolutely no proof of your statements.

I went online and put in Israel and Iran. What came up was that Israel was responsible for 9/11, that the Mossad is going to get an Arab to use a nuclear weapon in the U.S. to allow for an attack on Iran.  That the neo-Cons are responsible for the Iraqi war.  

Unless you want to say how you know what you claim your item seems like one among many anti-Semitic claims about the all powerful. sly Israel Jews.

We should all try to bear in mind that Mr Dreyfuss is talking about the contents his book.

The weapons issue is distorted when one ignores the fungibility of foreign aid. In fact, with the encouragement of the U.S., the Saudis and Kuwait both floated Iraq loans that kept the country going while Saddam fought his disastrous war. The extent of the aid was a secret until last year, when Kuwait and Saudi Arabia quietly made their claims for amounts loaned to Iraq (as well as reparations) -- and the amount is well over 60 billion dollars.

It is unimaginable that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have loaned to this extent without consulting with the U.S. Listing who Saddam got his weapons from doesn't tell you where he got his money from: looking at the foreign aid claims does.

I do speak for both, at times, Purple.  I see merit in the cases both sides make...

I would like to have a discussion of the Middle-East in terms of the regional dynamics.  But it seems Israel-Palestine ends up dominating the discussion.  And that discussion usually leads nowhere in a circular motion...

but I find myself impatient with the circular motion, which truly and tragically seems to be, in several senses, a death spiral.

If the conversations here reflect the reality of what is happening in that region of the world, I don't hold out much hope...and I really am an optimist at heart.

It is nice to see that anti-Semitism does not bother you.

The Shah sold oil to Israel when the Arabs would not.

Israel is a small country surrounded by 9 countries that have tried at various times to exterminate it.  I know that does not bother you Brian but since I have family living there it is of concern to me.  It also leads Israel to look for support anywhere it can find it.  

I'm going to mostly agree with Daniel. That said, Israel has made plenty of mistakes in who its supported in the past. Supporting the Falange in Lebannon was a mistake, and yes, helping Hamas in the begining was a mistake. But as Daniel said, if you're in their position, you take what you can get when you can. The important thing is that after a country makes a decision, it's able to look back in a rational and moral way and think about whether it was right or wrong. Israel has by and large gone through this kind of soul searching.

On Israel and Hamas, you could argue even in retrospect that Israel's support of an indigenous Palestinian leadership in Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank was the right move and allowing Arafat to come back during Oslo was the big mistake.

>>Israel is a small country surrounded by 9 countries that have tried at various times to exterminate it.

Good grief how many times am I going to hear this nonsense! In 1956, Israel attacked Egypt unprovoked. According to Israeli historian Avri Shlaim, Ben Gurion visited France before the attack and had a rather ambition for re-drawing up the whole region in Israel's favor. The plans (from this meeting) are preserved and available for anyone to see. How exactly does this show Israel as a country threatened, instead of a country that does the threatening?

In addtion, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. Lebanon did not invade Israel.

(sorry I reposed, but my blocks are never formatted as paragraphs unless I use the <p> tags.)

Wait a minte. Daniel, I greatly respect your opinions, but I think you're going a bit far with the anti-Semitism meme here. It's one thing to oppose Israel (whether that opposition is justified or unjustified), and another to be anti-Semitic. I also don't think it's anti-Semitic to point out where Israel's (rather important) role in regional politics has led it to play hardball in games like Iraq's war with Iran. If you have beef with the facts, by all means point that out.

In the larger context the point is well taken - the US has always messed around in much of the region's politics, often with the knowledge and consent of various of the regional players, which means that we play neither the role of bystander nor evil interloper. It does, however, make our actions on our part leave a big footprint (particularly when they are schizophrenic). In my experience this is something Americans have a very hard time understanding, and that unwillingness to own up to the complexity of our role drives affected non-Americans nuts.

very intellectually honst of you to fail and mention 1967 and 1973.

>>very intellectually honst of you to fail and mention 1967 and 1973.

In 1967, Israel attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground.

Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.'

(http://www.cactus48.com/1967war.html)

Israel used the rheoric of Arab leaders to claim it was threatened. I personally do not think it was.

Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 to get back the land Israel got from the 1956 war.

Even if you call '73 and '67 examples of Arab aggression (which I in no way concede), the fact tha Israe clearly invaded in '56 in '82 certainly should underminde the ridiculous assertion that Israe was a little besieged country that only tried to protect itself.

... but Labor and Peace Now and other groups today debate whether Likud party foreign policy is the best for Israel or not - why can't we debate about what's the best foreign policy for any given country. If someone feels a government's foreign policy is not the best for that country's security, you are being pro the people of that country if you are trying to change to a policy that you feel would make the people of that country safer.

The fact that SCIRI does not denounce the United States or kill our troops does not make them "pro-American" or worthy of U.S. support. Certainly it is not worth a single more American soldier's life to keep SCIRI and its ilk in power in Baghdad.

Given that a group that is not truly pro-American will be in power in Baghdad unless the US or someone else can install an obvious puppet, would you rather have SCIRI in power with 150,000 US troops as the ultimate source of military power in Iraq or without those US troops. 

For one, in March 2003, the United States had a shot at maybe putting in a complete puppet.  It didn't work out that way, but at the time maybe one would have thought it could have worked.

For two, what would Iran look like if instead of the Iranian army, Iran had the same political structure but armed force was held and nearly monopolized by the US army?

Would that be worth the death of one more US troop?

I would say maybe, maybe not.

Iran is not a direct threat to the US, but Iran threatens US "regional interests". Given how the US perceives its regional interests there certainly is an argument that US troops occupying any Middle East country is in itself a good thing.

I am still looking for a reason not to ignore the nationalist/Islamist dichotomy.  The US would gladly overturn the Islamist government in Iran if it could install a nationalist government that would, at least at first, have no power beyond its borders.  Then that nationalist government would attempt to grow back into a normal nation the same way the Islamist government in Iraq will.

Blowback?  The point was never to install an Islamist or Nationalist government.  The point was to breath during the window that the new government of whatever ideology is too weak to pursue a mainstream foreign policy. 

I do not want to see another mass slaughter of Jews, so I am in favor of evacuating Israeli Jews to the US and providing them citizenship when the Israeli state collapses . . . .

Firebug, I think the chance of Israel collapsing (at least in the foreseeable future--all states collapse at some point in their history) is pretty slim. I have faith that the Arabs will eventually come to grips with the fact that the Jews are there and have as much right to be there as anyone. I think, though, that the Israelis must also eventually come to grips with the fact that the Palestinians are also there and also have a right to be there--and as much of a right to self-determination as the Jews do. I have a strong feeling that once the Palestinians have an acceptable, viable state, relationships between the Arab world and Israel will vastly improve. That's one reason I get so impatient with the constant delays in the decades-long peace process.  

As charges fly back and forth about anti-Semitism and Zionist extremism in response to Dreyfuss's posts, does anyone else get a kick out of the strange coincidence of last names?

You realize that you are more hostile to Israel than Hamas, right?

Nope. I do not favor mass murder of anyone. Hamas obviously intends to kill every Jew they can get their hands on, if they get the chance, regardless of what their current leaders are saying in public. Likewise, the Israeli Likud fanatics want to drive the Palestinians all out of the West Bank and Gaza, no matter what concilatory gestures are made in public. Vladimir Jabotinsky, one of the founding fathers of the Zionist movement, openly advocated what he called an "Iron Wall" to oppress the native population. He spoke openly of colonialism in a time when that was considered acceptable. Likewise, numerous Arab leaders have advocated the murder of all Jews in the Middle East. The fanatics on both sides want to kill each other. I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in a neighborhood where half the people wanted to murder the other half (and vice versa). Some people live there because they have no choice, but a lot of people do it because they are violent religious fanatics.

I expect its Jewish character to dissipate - simple demographics will guarantee that.

I don't think it will reach that point. By that time, Benny Morris and Bibi Netanyahu will have tried to deport all the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan, which will spark a major war.

We, too, are the products of racist settler colonialism.

True, but there are some differences. First of all, we do not engage in severe ongoing oppression of Indians. Most of the real dirty work was done over a century ago. We don't currently force them to stay on the reservation and keep them from becoming US citizens if they want to. Nor do we steal their water, bulldoze their houses, or force them to pass armed checkpoints whenever they cross the street.

Furthermore, people in the Middle East have longer memories - and longer grudges - than people in the civilized world. Osama bin Laden is still pissed off about the Crusades and the Reconquista of Spain.

But even groups that began dedicated to its destruction have acknowledged its right to exist, at least as a group of people if not as a state.

If Israel chose the South African solution - create a unitary state where Jews and Palestinians alike have the same civil, political, and economic rights - it might work. I'm not holding my breath. Personally, I think that the lunatics on both sides will hold out until the bitter end.

The Zionists would have done far better to seek to immigrate to, and improve the conditions in, Anglosphere countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia) where anti-Semitism was less severe to start with

To amplify: Would the Zionists have been better off during WWII if they had had a homeland (which would undoubtedly have been Hitler's #1 target, as well as being beseiged by the Grand Mufti and other fanatics) or if they had worked before the war to try to ease immigration restrictions for Jews seeking to enter the US?

To amplify: Would the Zionists have been better off during WWII if they had had a homeland (which would undoubtedly have been Hitler's #1 target, as well as being beseiged by the Grand Mufti and other fanatics) or if they had worked before the war to try to ease immigration restrictions for Jews seeking to enter the US?

A tedious question. The English Speaking World is where we Americans are, today. And Israel is where it is, brought to the rest of this Wicked Ol' World by the US and UK. Oh yeah, the Holocaust Museum's On The Mall, and I could quote Winston Bleedin' Churchill if ya' want. Maybe soma yoos could take this over to felgrau.com.

PS: Blowin up weddins don't make ya many friends, ya' here.

Is Roger Morris a zero? 

"It's a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States, and the (CIA's) involvement there was really primary," Morris says.

... 

Morris, who resigned from the NSC staff over the 1970 U.S. invasion of Cambodia, says he learned the details of American covert involvement in Iraq from ranking CIA officials of the day, including Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Archibald Roosevelt.

I'm having trouble understanding this paragraph from Arnold Evans:

"Blowback? The point was never to install an Islamist or Nationalist government. The point was to breath during the window that the new government of whatever ideology is too weak to pursue a mainstream foreign policy."

Who or what is doing the breathing here? The US? The US wants to take a breather while the new Iraqi government is too weak to pursue a mainstream foreign policy? What is 'mainstream' in this case?

The difference between the United States and Israel is that United States is the world's superpower.  No country or even non-state actors like Al Qaeda can threaten America's existence.  The United States should not model itself from a country that can never lose a war and is surrounded by enemies.

You are joking right?  Nasser was amassing the Egyptian army on Israels border.

Quoting Begin is amusing too.  He was not only not in power but he headed the opposition party that was not to gain power until the Arab World evicted virtually all of its Jews.  It was the arrival in Israel of the so called Arab Jews that propelled Isreal's Likud Party to power.  It is the Israelis who know the Arabs best who are most hostile to making peace with them.  

Begin and Likud are regularly seen as a great obsticle to peace as they were the ones to demanded the keeping of "Judea" and "Sumaria".  It was Begin who was prepared to drive the Arabs out of "Judea" and "Sumaria".

If it makes you happy to be the propaganda of murders feel free.

Most of the vitriol directed at Israel, which demands Israel live up to standards no other country, especially Arab ones, are asked to live up to, that ignores the murder of Israels, and the threats to Israel is anti-Semitism.  It is simply the casual indifference to the murder of Jews.

Daniel, I agree with you that a lot of the criticism of Israel is (or at least borders on being) anti-Semitic. And we do tend to hold Israel to very high standards, particularly compared with the standards to which we hold third-world countries, including Arab countries. However, I would say we tend to hold ourselves and all our closest first-world allies to very high standards too. Look at the criticism you see directed at the US on this site for instance. I think some of the double-standard applied to Israel (compared to Arab countries) is actually the result of us thinking of Israel as more like ourselves. This isn't necessarily anti-Semitic. However, like I said before, some of the bitter anger directed at Israel in criticising its real flaws seems to suggest some anti-Semitism.

I would add that there is a legitimate issue with Israel being a Jewish state and being in control of a large non-Jewish population that would prefer not to live in a Jewish state. Israelis (particularly those on the left) certainly struggle with this dilemna when they wonder if Israel can remain a liberal democracy while also being a specifically Jewish state, particularly if its Palestinian population continues to grow or if the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza ever were incorporated into a greater Israel. There are interesting issues to work through in this issue, but it's hard to talk about it rationally because of the emotions it raises on both sides.    

Yes a lot of the arms to Iraq were supplied by other countries other than United States.  However, United States support was not overblown because other countries did not supply the Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq used the chemical weapons against the Kurds of Iraq, and the Iranian who were fighting in Khuzestan of Iran.  You need to understand the psychological issues that are present in the region and have an understanding of ethical and racial backgrounds and histories. 
One of the most important psychological effects that came from the war that people tend to miss is the number of casualties on the Iranian side (750,000 + out of 1 million total causalties) due to the chemical weapons.  This war seems over but it is not over for the people that are still suffering from the effects of the chemical weapons supplied by the United States to Iraq.  There are veterans that are still dying from these weapons.  Kids are born mutilated and others living in the areas are not perfectly healthy.
So when you talk about irony, you should know it’s the truth behind political actions. It can be find everywhere, however, the people that suffer from these actions are the less powerful countries, such as iran and iraq. 

The reason we are not engaged in ongoing oppression of Native Americans (itself debateable) is that we were fortunate enough to encounter them at a time when genocide was fair game, as long as it happened on the frontier.

Probably the real reason we destroyed native American civilization is that we brought them Eurasian diseases against which they had no immunity. Some archeologists speculate that 95% of the native American population was wiped out by European diseases racing ahead of the Europeans themselves. When Europeans encountered many native American groups for the first time, the native Americans were already decimated by massive catastophic epidemics, and were often living in a sort of "post-nuclear" condition and therefore were ill-equipped to defend themselves.  This view of native American history is still controversial, but it seems to be gaining in acceptance.

I'd be happy to see Southern Efficiency,  Daniel Greenbaum, Zionista or any pro-Zionism poster prove me wrong by endorsing a unitary state with equal rights.

Arab citizens of Israel are an enfranchised community.  There are Arab parties, and Arab MKs elected in broader parties, in the Israeli parliament.  On the other hand, exactly what sort of multiethnic civil society do you see coming from an Arab triumph over Zionism, Jews and Israel?  Present Israeli policy does not reject Arab national rights in former British Mandatory Palestine, but the foreign policies of all but three out of 22 member nations of the Arab League maintain the rejection of "the Zionist entity." 

Two Peoples; Two States.  What's the problem?  Why is it so difficult to acknowledge Jewish national rights equal to Arab national rights in both peoples' native region?  (Or the national rights of other non-Arab Middle Eastern peoples, for that matter?)  Is it the stubbornly ignorant insistence that Jewish identity is limited to its relgious component?  Is it the chronic suspicion of Jewish interests as incurably nefarious, instilled in Western culture from the Gospels, through Luther, to Voltaire, Dickens and Orwell?  It gets to be like arguing with dittoheads over the "special rights" platform of the "homosexual agenda."