De Israelische Terreur 319

'Book review: "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations" Raymond Deane, The Electronic Intifada,

11 February 2008

Much debate on conflict in the Middle East is beset by contradictions and unanswered questions. These include: If the war in Iraq was motivated by oil, then why was it opposed by so many within the oil industry itself? Was the US incited by the omnipotent Zionist lobby to a war that is opposed to America's vital interests (and is the lobby omnipotent?)? Or is Israel merely a tool of the US establishment, seen as a vital defender of Western interests in the recalcitrant Orient?In his second book, Nazareth-based English author Jonathan Cook seeks to cut these Gordian knots, and in the process proposes an uncompromisingly grim diagnosis of what is happening in the world's most unstable region, and why it is happening.Borrowing analysis by Greg Palast, Cook accepts that the oil industry wished to see Saddam toppled, but maintains that it envisaged "a US-backed coup by a Ba'athist army general; the new strongman would be transformed into a democratic leader by elections held within three months." There would ensue "the creation of an Iraqi state-owned company that would restrict production, staying within quotas and shoring up Saudi Arabia's control of OPEC ... The neocons, on the other hand, wanted the Iraqi oil industry privatized so that the global market could be flooded with cheap oil and the Saudi-dominated cartel smashed."Given that Saudi Arabia is "Israel's only Middle Eastern rival for influence in Washington," the Jewish state had long desired to see the destruction of OPEC, which would also deprive the Saudis of their "muscle to finance Islamic extremists and Palestinian resistance movements." Furthermore, as far back as 1982 the Israeli newspaper Haaretz's legendary military correspondent Ze'ev Schiff (recently deceased) had written that Israel's "best" interests would be served by "the dissolution of Iraq into a Shi'ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part," a prescription that the US is attempting to fill a quarter of a century later. Israel was also wary of "strongmen" who might act as a focus to awaken the dozing giant of Arab nationalism, although Quislings are always welcome.Clearly Israeli and US neoconservative perceived interests are being met by the current Iraq war better than by its predecessor, when George H.W. Bush, advised by the wily oilman James Baker, declined to advance on Baghdad and oust Saddam Hussein, whose survival was still regarded as essential for "stability" in the region.Six months before the 2003 reinvasion of Iraq, the egregious neocon Michael Ledeen wrote: "We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize." Clearly, a cynical travesty of Schumpeter's "creative destruction" has become the motto for a breed of militaristic ideologues whose element is chaos.'

Lees verder: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9289.shtml
Mijn interview met Jonathan Cook is hier te beluisteren: http://www.stanvanhoucke.net/audioblog/pivot/entry.php?id=37#bod