President Bush did not at first advocate eliminating Saddam in 2000 (nor did Tony Blair) and in that year, too, Condoleeza Rice wrote that there was no need to panic about Saddam who had been ‘severely weakened’. As late as 2001, the authors say, Cheney told Paul Wolfowitz, a terrific champion of Israel and already Rumsfeld’s deputy, to ‘stop agitating for targeting Saddam’. One Republican accused Wolfowitz of being ‘like a parrot. It was getting on the President’s nerves.’ This was not a Jewish plot, the authors underline: ‘Rather the war was due in large part to the lobby’s influence and especially its neoconservative wing.’ Nor was it about oil — as Alan Greenspan, of all people, has just claimed. This contention has angered Noam Chomsky, for whom controlling oil was the chief incentive for the war, who attacked their article for not challenging the American imperium. Actually, the authors point out, ‘Saddam was eager to sell his oil to any customer willing to pay for it,’ and while the Saudis supported Gulf One, ‘they feared that a war would lead to the break-up of Iraq and destabilise the Middle East’. In any event, they add, a possible Shia triumph in Baghdad disturbed the Saudi Sunnis partly because such a victory would benefit Iran.
I have noted my points of disagreement, but this densely footnoted and courageous book deserves praise rather than abuse. The Israeli liberal daily Haaretz stated that it would be irresponsible to ignore [the earlier article’s] serious and disturbing message that the Israeli government must understand that the world will not wait forever for Israel to withdraw from the territories, and that the opinions expressed in the article could take root in American politics if Israel does not change the political reality quickly.



Comments
graeme a
March 17th, 2009 12:41amJust a couple of points -
Mr Mirsky - your allegation of Israeli "war crimes" in Israel is based on nothing more empiric than Hizbollah propaganda. The cluster weapons were used against the Hizbollah fighters. Some civilians were hurt by them, but these are a quantity that is insignificant to the conflict. Your conclusion based on "numbers of Lebanese civilians killed" uses casualty figures published by the Hizbollah precisely for the consumption of the likes of you.
Israelis have no problem whatsoever with fair and balanced criticism. Israelis do have a problem with their rebuttal being lumped as "inability to accept criticism" and especially with most of this criticism being the mere deligitimization of the rights of Jews to national self determination (ie - anti-Zionism)
We are extremely tired of Jewish or ex Jewish persons in the diaspora using their Jewishness as a means to endow their statements with added validity and righteousness as they jump on the bandwagon of the hordes of trendy bleeding heart Israel bashers.
I say all this as a member of the IDF (reserve) serving for over 20 years with middle officer rank and intimately acquainted with how the IDF fights, its RoE and the efforts it makes to avoid civilian casualties.
I will add that when I have nothing but immense pride in Israel and the IDF in light of their achievements facing anything ranging from Islamic Jihad to the Western Left.
Report this comment
israeli
September 30th, 2007 4:43pmI would just like to make the point that the reason why Israel (and Israelis) so often seems to reject any criticism is not because we are particularly thin skinned, but because we know that our enemies are looking for any and all ways to weaken us as a means to achieving their final goal of destroying us, and weakening any source of foreign support is one way of doing this. To outsiders it may seem that we are very strong, we feel very vulnerable and know at what price this strength is achieved and the eternal vigilance it demands.
Report this comment
tihson
September 28th, 2007 5:23pmThe trouble with Jonathan Mirsky's thesis is that Ariel Sharon, person with unrivalled experience in the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics cautioned Bush privately prior to 1993 about the dangers of the US invading Iraq, for a number of reasons, including the unlikelihood of democracy taking root there and the danger of strengthening Iran. As to WMD, we shall probably never know the truth. They may have been transported to Syria before the invasion began in as stated in the admittedly hearsay testimony of the former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada.
Report this comment
tihson
September 28th, 2007 5:22pmThe trouble with Jonathan Mirsky's thesis is that Ariel Sharon, person with unrivalled experience in the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics cautioned Bush privately prior to 1993 about the dangers of the US invading Iraq, for a number of reasons, including the unlikelihood of democracy taking root there and the danger of strengthening Iran. As to WMD, we shall probably never know the truth. They may have been transported to Syria before the invasion began in as stated in the admittedly hearsay testimony of the former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada.
Report this comment