A near-universal theme throughout the Arab press is the way in which the American-led war against the Iraqi regime serves the interests of the Jews and the state of Israel. Some press sources claim the United States foreign policy is hostage to Israeli or Jewish power-brokers, and others simply note the effects the war will have on the Israeli-Arab conflict.
The Saudi Arabian Arab News printed a feature article at the start of this month entitled, “War? Mazeltov!” The article contains, after a first paragraph ridiculing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (“Sharon listened to Wolfowitz, gave a sub-human grunt and wiped his drooling saliva from his grotesque belly....”), a concise review of the view held by the vast majority of the Arab world, and some of the Western world as well. The Saudi newspaper “Exclusive” feature states:
“There is no doubt in any objective and honest person’s mind that there is a link between the US-led war on Iraq and Israel. That link seems to be growing with various revelations that cite the agenda which the neocons in the American administration share with the Likud Party in Israel. The neocons, a group of extreme ultra-right conservative politicians, mostly Jews, have basically taken over American foreign policy for the sake of protecting the Jewish state. There is a list of countries and regions in the Middle East that such leading neocons as Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Perle, Wolfowitz and the ex-prime ministers of Israel regard as targets for destruction. They include Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran.”
The Saudi writer forthrightly asks and answers, “For whose benefit and advantage will there be endless wars in a region that holds nothing important for America except for oil, which is sold to it anyway? Who would benefit from such enmity between the West and Islam and by putting the clash of civilizations into high gear? One simple answer — one country, one man, one party: Israel, Sharon and Likud.” The article makes the Arab point of view clear: “What these neoconservatives seek is to shed American blood in order to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.” Having ended each paragraph with a word hinting at a traditional Jewish celebration song, the Saudi article concludes with: “Hava nagila hava.”
A Jordan Times editorial from the end of last month was entitled, “Kowtowing to Israel, Again” and claimed, “Jordan has been warning for months that Israel would take advantage of a war in Iraq to impose its ‘changes’ to the roadmap for Mideast peace already endorsed by the international community.” According to the Jordanian paper, “it is of paramount importance that the international community be reminded that the core problem in the Middle East is the Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Citing “His Majesty King Abdullah”, the editorial says, “democracy, prosperity and stability will never come to this region unless the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is solved.” The article goes on to note the delays in the Roadmap’s formal presentation, saying, “All these delays point to two things: US policy makers' utter lack of understanding of what this region really needs, and Israel's firm control on America's Middle Eastern policy.”
Al-Ba'ath newspaper of Syria states simply that the war in Iraq completes “the goals and objectives of the Zionist brutality, to redraw the map of the region and dominate its resources.” The editors of the a-Sharq newspaper of Qatar concurred with the views of their Saudi, Syrian, Jordanian and other colleagues when they wrote, at the end of last month, that the military occupation of Iraq is part of the “Zionist scheme in the region... and might be the first motive for the Likud, Jewish, and Zionist group represented in the U.S. Administration by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and head of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon Richard Perle.”
The Beirut daily an-Nahar puts recent heavy-handed US statements regarding Syria’s involvement in terrorism and in assistance to Iraq in the Israeli context, as well. An article in the Lebanese newspaper states that US threats directed at both Syria and Iran cannot be viewed in isolation from Israel, which is eager to get Washington to target both countries once it is finished with Iraq. The way Israel will do this, the an-Nahar article says is through “the usual ploy” of playing up the threat those states pose. Unlike the Saudi piece, the Lebanese article does not claim that the US is motivated by Israeli interests, but that “the current Bush administration’s perception of US interests in the region and Syria’s role is identical to Israel’s [interests].”
In the special section of the Albawaba.com website on the Iraq war, entitled, “Aggression Against Iraq”, the Arab website notes another interesting link between Israel and Iraq: “Lieutenant-General Jay Garner, 64, the coordinator for civilian administration in Iraq, put his name in October 2000 to a statement blaming Palestinians for the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian violence and saying that a strong Israel was an important security asset to the United States. The statement was sponsored by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa).... Richard Perle, one of the architects of the US invasion of Iraq, is a member of the institute’s board of advisors, as was Vice President Dick Cheney before he took office in 2001.” Accordingly, Albawaba.com says, many American politicians feel that “Garner’s strong ties with Israel... disqualifies him from becoming governor of Iraq after the war.”
“With Garner and maybe Chalabi, Israel seems to be the most benefiting nation from the war....” Albawaba.com adds, “As usual, the Arabs will pay the price…”
In Egypt, the al-Ahram daily carried an article analyzing what the results of the Iraq war may be. Among the regional effects, the Egyptian analyst writes, will be “to encourage the hard-line government in Israel to try to impose its dictates....” as well as the US attempting to redraw the map of the Middle East “in keeping with its interests and Israel’s....” This, the article says, may well trigger violent Arab backlashes.
Israeli Knesset member Azmi Bishara, writing in the Egyptian al-Ahram Weekly, takes a somewhat different view of the outcome of the Iraq-Israel linkage. He is encouraged by the Arab resistance to the American and British forces and believes that it will “force the Israelis to rethink their regional schemes. Some Israelis have forgotten the Lebanon lesson. Now they may have to think again about Palestine.”
The Saudi Arabian Arab News printed a feature article at the start of this month entitled, “War? Mazeltov!” The article contains, after a first paragraph ridiculing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (“Sharon listened to Wolfowitz, gave a sub-human grunt and wiped his drooling saliva from his grotesque belly....”), a concise review of the view held by the vast majority of the Arab world, and some of the Western world as well. The Saudi newspaper “Exclusive” feature states:
“There is no doubt in any objective and honest person’s mind that there is a link between the US-led war on Iraq and Israel. That link seems to be growing with various revelations that cite the agenda which the neocons in the American administration share with the Likud Party in Israel. The neocons, a group of extreme ultra-right conservative politicians, mostly Jews, have basically taken over American foreign policy for the sake of protecting the Jewish state. There is a list of countries and regions in the Middle East that such leading neocons as Podhoretz, Bennett, Ledeen, Perle, Wolfowitz and the ex-prime ministers of Israel regard as targets for destruction. They include Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran.”
The Saudi writer forthrightly asks and answers, “For whose benefit and advantage will there be endless wars in a region that holds nothing important for America except for oil, which is sold to it anyway? Who would benefit from such enmity between the West and Islam and by putting the clash of civilizations into high gear? One simple answer — one country, one man, one party: Israel, Sharon and Likud.” The article makes the Arab point of view clear: “What these neoconservatives seek is to shed American blood in order to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.” Having ended each paragraph with a word hinting at a traditional Jewish celebration song, the Saudi article concludes with: “Hava nagila hava.”
A Jordan Times editorial from the end of last month was entitled, “Kowtowing to Israel, Again” and claimed, “Jordan has been warning for months that Israel would take advantage of a war in Iraq to impose its ‘changes’ to the roadmap for Mideast peace already endorsed by the international community.” According to the Jordanian paper, “it is of paramount importance that the international community be reminded that the core problem in the Middle East is the Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Citing “His Majesty King Abdullah”, the editorial says, “democracy, prosperity and stability will never come to this region unless the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is solved.” The article goes on to note the delays in the Roadmap’s formal presentation, saying, “All these delays point to two things: US policy makers' utter lack of understanding of what this region really needs, and Israel's firm control on America's Middle Eastern policy.”
Al-Ba'ath newspaper of Syria states simply that the war in Iraq completes “the goals and objectives of the Zionist brutality, to redraw the map of the region and dominate its resources.” The editors of the a-Sharq newspaper of Qatar concurred with the views of their Saudi, Syrian, Jordanian and other colleagues when they wrote, at the end of last month, that the military occupation of Iraq is part of the “Zionist scheme in the region... and might be the first motive for the Likud, Jewish, and Zionist group represented in the U.S. Administration by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and head of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon Richard Perle.”
The Beirut daily an-Nahar puts recent heavy-handed US statements regarding Syria’s involvement in terrorism and in assistance to Iraq in the Israeli context, as well. An article in the Lebanese newspaper states that US threats directed at both Syria and Iran cannot be viewed in isolation from Israel, which is eager to get Washington to target both countries once it is finished with Iraq. The way Israel will do this, the an-Nahar article says is through “the usual ploy” of playing up the threat those states pose. Unlike the Saudi piece, the Lebanese article does not claim that the US is motivated by Israeli interests, but that “the current Bush administration’s perception of US interests in the region and Syria’s role is identical to Israel’s [interests].”
In the special section of the Albawaba.com website on the Iraq war, entitled, “Aggression Against Iraq”, the Arab website notes another interesting link between Israel and Iraq: “Lieutenant-General Jay Garner, 64, the coordinator for civilian administration in Iraq, put his name in October 2000 to a statement blaming Palestinians for the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian violence and saying that a strong Israel was an important security asset to the United States. The statement was sponsored by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa).... Richard Perle, one of the architects of the US invasion of Iraq, is a member of the institute’s board of advisors, as was Vice President Dick Cheney before he took office in 2001.” Accordingly, Albawaba.com says, many American politicians feel that “Garner’s strong ties with Israel... disqualifies him from becoming governor of Iraq after the war.”
“With Garner and maybe Chalabi, Israel seems to be the most benefiting nation from the war....” Albawaba.com adds, “As usual, the Arabs will pay the price…”
In Egypt, the al-Ahram daily carried an article analyzing what the results of the Iraq war may be. Among the regional effects, the Egyptian analyst writes, will be “to encourage the hard-line government in Israel to try to impose its dictates....” as well as the US attempting to redraw the map of the Middle East “in keeping with its interests and Israel’s....” This, the article says, may well trigger violent Arab backlashes.
Israeli Knesset member Azmi Bishara, writing in the Egyptian al-Ahram Weekly, takes a somewhat different view of the outcome of the Iraq-Israel linkage. He is encouraged by the Arab resistance to the American and British forces and believes that it will “force the Israelis to rethink their regional schemes. Some Israelis have forgotten the Lebanon lesson. Now they may have to think again about Palestine.”