At a March 3, 2003 anti-war
forum in Reston, Virginia, Rep.
James Moran (D-Va.) told a crowd
of about 120 people, “If it were
not for the strong support of
the Jewish community for this
war with Iraq, we [the United
States] would not be doing
this.”
The White House, several
congressional Democratic
leaders, the Republican Jewish
Coalition, and the National
Jewish Democratic Council
condemned Moran’s remarks. Much
of the mainstream media also
chimed in with their
condemnations of the seven-term
congressman, and ultimately, he
was forced to apologize.
In the 3/24/05 issue of the
widely circulated and highly
influential US News and World
Report, editorialist Gloria
Borger criticized Moran and
attempted to rebut his claims.1
The article is very important
because it expresses in a very
simple way the ideological line
put out by much of the
mainstream media as to why,
allegedly, one should not blame
the Jewish-Zionist lobby for
helping to drive the US into the
Iraq war.
As we shall soon see, it was in
fact the Jewish-Zionist power
elite and their Gentile allies
that were behind this push for
war with Iraq. Although the
evidence in support of this
claim is abundant, it is rarely
discussed in the mainstream US
media tribute to the ability of
the Jewish-Zionist power elite
to tailor and even censor the
news.
Before reading my rebuttal, I
strongly urge the reader to
study the Borger article
so as to get a first hand
understanding of her arguments.
The essay begins by giving an
account of what was said by
critics of the Iraq war, like
Congressman Moran and Pat
Buchanan, about Jewish-Zionist
involvement in the drive for an
invasion of Iraq. In a tone of
condemnation, Ms. Borger
sarcastically claims: “In this
conspiratorial world view, these
men [the Jewish, neoconservative
Iraq war architects] have a
master plan connived years ago
to do Israel’s bidding and get
rid of Saddam Hussein.”
The major architect of the Iraq
war, Paul Wolfowitz, did
formulate a plan to invade Iraq
years before it took place in
2003. In 1977, Wolfowitz was put
to work on the Limited
Contingency Study. Its
ostensible purpose was to
examine possible areas of threat
in the Third World. Even as far
back as the late 1970s, he
claimed Iraq was a direct
military threat. As Wikipedia,
The Free Encyclopedia points
out, the Limited Contingency
Study laid the groundwork for
the 2003 invasion of Iraq.2
The respected online source
further points out that
Wolfowitz’s attachments to
Jewish-Zionist agendas are deep
and go back a long way, even
into his teen years good
evidence that his plan for a US
invasion of Iraq and the
interests of Israel are linked.3
Borger herself offers evidence
that these pro-war functionaries
had a plan to invade Iraq years
before the actual invasion took
place. She writes: “But what of
those Jewish neoconservative
hawks lurking inside the [Bush]
administration? Didn’t some of
them write memos in the late
1990s calling for, among other
things, the overthrow of Saddam?
Yes.” Thank you Ms. Borger for
bolstering my case.
Borger mentions Pat Buchanan’s
comments in a very negative
tone: “...it was a polemic in
his magazine declaring that a
small cabal of neoconservatives
with ties to the administration
are willing to ‘conscript
American blood to make the world
safe for Israel’.” In her view,
Buchanan’s statements are
self-evidently false, and they
should be utterly rejected by
every intelligent American
The war is in fact to a very
large extent about Israel
interests, as before the war
began, former Supreme Allied
NATO Commander, General Wesley
Clark, admitted as much to a
respected British news source.
He acknowledged that President
George W. Bush's war plans
serve, first and foremost,
Jewish-Zionist interests. Being
privy to the thoughts and
beliefs of those in the highest
levels of government, his
comments carry authoritative
weight: "Those who favor this
attack now tell you candidly,
and privately, that it is
probably true that Saddam
Hussein is no threat to the
United States. But they are
afraid at some point he might
decide if he had a nuclear
weapon to use it against
Israel."4
Furthermore, after the war was
in progress, the American
general in charge of American
forces in Iraq, General Tommy
Franks, revealed that the
protection of Israel was a major
reason as to why the US went to
war. In the words of a Jewish
Telegraphic Agency press
release: “The threat of a
missile attack on Israel was one
reason justifying a pre-emptive
strike against Iraq, Gen. Tommy
Franks said.” 5
Borger continues. “Never mind
that if it were up to the
Israelis, the United States
would be looking toward regime
change in Iran or Syria.” In
other words, the invasion of
Iraq is not about Israel’s
interests, because the Israelis
would want the US to take action
against Iran or Syria.
The Israelis were, and are, in
fact pushing for US action
against Iran. For example, in
the June 25, 2003 issue of the
pro-Zionist and highly
influential Wall Street Journal,
former prime minister of Israel
Shimon Peres insisted that the
US, Europe, Russia and the U.N.
should take serious action
against the Iranian nation.6 The
Jewish-Zionist ADL, which is a
defacto agent of Israel, is now
pushing for the world to act
against Iran.7
Borger continues. “And never
mind that this cabal is actually
a bunch of predictable hawks who
also urged action in Kosovo and
Bosnia on behalf of Muslims.
Forget all that.”
Here, I believe, is a formal
statement of her argument.
“These (largely Jewish)
neoconservatives pushed for
military action in Kosovo and
Bosnia aggressive military
actions that in no way serve
Israel’s interests. Therefore,
it is not fair to say that they
pushed for military action
against Iraq for Israel’s
interests.”
This is highly misleading, if
not patently false. The Jewish
political scientist, Benjamin
Freedman, revealed a major facet
of the neoconservative agenda.
He pointed out how in recent
times Jews have played a
decisive role in conservative
Republicanism and
neo-conservatism. Ginsberg
reveals what lies behind the
conservative mask: “A number of
Jews ascertained for themselves
that Israeli security required a
strong American commitment to
internationalism and defense.
Among the most prominent Jewish
spokesman for this position was
Norman Podhoretz, editor of
Commentary Magazine. Podhoretz
had been a liberal and a strong
opponent of the Vietnam War. But
by the early 1970s he came to
realize that continued American
support for Israel depended upon
continued American involvement
in international affairs” from
which it followed that American
withdrawal into [isolationism]
represented a direct threat to
the security of Israel. This was
one major reason that Podhoretz
broke with liberals...”
Thus, one of the main
contentions of neo-conservatism
is that a highly interventionist
US foreign policy in areas other
than the Middle East will
safeguard the interests of
Israel. If the US pursues an
overall interventionist foreign
policy it will be more likely to
intervene on Israel’s behalf if
the Zionist nation needs it.
This evidence directly
undermines Borger’s claim. Just
because the hawkish neocons
advocated military action in
Kosovo and Bosnia ”military
actions that do not overtly
serve Israel’s interests in no
way disproves the theory that
their advocacy of the US
invasion of Iraq was for
Israel’s welfare. Their overall
aggressive, interventionist
agenda in areas other than the
Middle East is ultimately tied
to the welfare of Israel.
In her ongoing attempt to
discredit the theory that the
Zionist lobby drove the US into
the Iraq war, she asks this
rhetorical question: “Still,
doesn’t Bush’s long-standing
preference for Sharon have more
to do with his disgust with
Yasser Arafat than his deep
affection for Richard Perle?”
Bush’s dislike of Yasser Arafat
may have played a role in
driving him into the
neoconservative camp, but
monetary contributions from
Jewish Republicans undoubtedly
also played a role in driving
him into the pro-Iraq war,
pro-Zionist camp. As Jewish
scholars S.M. Lipset and E. Raab
note, one quarter of Republican
Party contributions come from
Jewish sources.9
Furthermore, Bush’s main
advisors and top men are members
of the ardently pro-Zionist,
pro-Israel Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (JINSA).
Undoubtedly this also played a
significant role in prodding
Bush to accept Richard Perle’s
Zionist agenda for Iraq.
The distinguished British
journalist, Robert Fisk, pointed
out in the respected British
news source, The Independent,
that: "Only The Nation among all
of America's newspapers and
magazines has dared to point out
that a large number of former
Israeli lobbyists are now
working within the American
administration, and the Bush
plans for the Middle East--which
could cause a massive political
upheaval in the Arab world--fit
perfectly into Israel's own
dreams for the region. The
magazine listed Vice-President
Dick Cheney--the arch-hawk in
the US administration--and John
Bolton, now undersecretary of
state for Arms Control, with
Douglas Feith, the third most
senior executive at the
Pentagon, as members of the
advisory board of the
pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (Jinsa)
before joining the Bush
government. Richard Perle,
chairman of the Pentagon's
Defense Policy Board, is still
an adviser on the institute, as
is the former CIA director James
Woolsey."
Fisk continues: "Michael Ledeen,
described by The Nation as one
of the most influential 'Jinsans'
in Washington, has been calling
for 'total war' against
'terror'--with 'regime change'
for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi
Arabia and the Palestinian
Authority. Mr. Perle advises the
Defense Secretary, Donald
Rumsfeld--who refers to the West
Bank and Gaza as 'the so-called
occupied territories'..."
Continuing with this line of
thought, Fisk adds: "Jinsa's
website says it exists to
'inform the American defense and
foreign affairs community about
the important role Israel can
and does play in bolstering
democratic interests in the
Mediterranean and Middle East'.
Next month, Michael Rubin of the
right-wing and pro-Israeli
American Enterprise
Institute--who referred to the
outgoing UN human rights
commissioner Mary Robinson as an
abettor of 'terrorism'--joins
the US Defense Department as an
Iran-Iraq "expert."
Fisk then reveals the Jewish
director of Jinsa: "According to
The Nation, Irving Moskovitz,
the California bingo magnate who
has funded settlements in the
Israeli-occupied territories, is
a donor as well as director of
Jinsa."
Finally, Fisk points out that
President Bush will not reveal
to the American public the
influence Jinsa has on his
foreign policy: "President Bush,
of course, will not be talking
about the influence of these
pro-Israeli lobbyists when he
presents his vision of the
Middle East at the United
Nations..."10
In her further attempt to
disprove the hypothesis that
Bush and his pro-Zionist
colleagues lied the American
public into the Iraq war, she
proclaims: “Let’s face it: Bush
is no conniving conspirator. If
anything, he’s a deeply unsubtle
man who forms visceral and
stubborn assessments of leaders”
and Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong
II are at the top of his
bad-guys list.
Contrary to what she writes, new
evidence suggests that Bush is
indeed a conniving conspirator
that attempted to lie us into
the Iraq war. According to a
recent AFP press report: “US
military intelligence warned the
Bush administration in February
2002 that its key source on
Al-Qaeda’s relationship with
Iraq had provided ‘intentionally
misleading data,’ according to a
declassified report.”
The article continues:
“Nevertheless, eight months
later, President George W. Bush
went public with charges that
the Iraqi government of Saddam
Hussein had trained members of
Osama bin Laden’s terror network
in manufacturing deadly poisons
and gases.
Commenting upon this sad state
of affairs, Democrat Carl Levin
was forced by the evidence to
state the obvious: “This newly
declassified information
provides additional dramatic
evidence that the
administrations pre-war
statements were deceptive.” 11
Furthermore, Kim Jong II’s North
Korea, a dangerous enemy of the
US, has publicly admitted that
they have nuclear weapons.12
Yet, Bush did not order an
invasion of North Korea. But
Bush did order an invasion of
Hussein’s Iraq, ”a nation that
did not have nuclear weapons
that could threaten the US. The
one country that Hussein’s Iraq
did pose a threat to was
Israel,” further evidence that
Bush’s pro-war Iraq policy
serves the interests of Israel.
Once again, in an attempt to
discredit the hypothesis that
the Zionist lobby prodded the US
into the Iraq war, Borger
claims, with a rhetorical
question, that the president’s
advisors were not fooled by
Zionist functionaries to go to
war with Iraq. “Were the
president’s top advisers
hoodwinked?,” Borger asks.
The president’s top advisers
were not “hoodwinked” or
“bamboozled” into driving the US
into the Iraq war. As we showed
previously, these advisers are
all men with an ardently
pro-Zionist, pro-Israeli
outlook, and they are members of
the ardently pro-Zionist JINSA.
These Bush advisers are actively
involved with pro-Zionist
interests.13
Borger goes on to quote Saddam’s
Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq
Aziz: “The reason for this
warmongering policy toward Iraq
is oil and Israel.”
Aziz has it perfectly correct.
One of the main reasons for the
war was oil for Israel. From
another respected Internet news
source, we read: "[The] minister
for national infrastructures [of
Israel] Joseph Paritzky was
considering the possibility of
reopening the long-defunct oil
pipeline from Mosul to the
Mediterranean port of Haifa.
With Israel lacking energy
resources of its own and
depending on highly expensive
oil from Russia, reopening the
pipeline would transform its
economy."
The article continues: "It is
understood from diplomatic
sources that the Bush
administration has said it will
not support lifting UN sanctions
on Iraq unless Saddam's
successors agree to supply
Israel with oil." The authors
add this most cogent
observation: "All of this lends
weight to the theory that Bush's
war is part of a master plan to
reshape the Middle East to serve
Israel's interests. Haaretz
quoted Paritzky as saying that
the pipeline project is
economically justifiable because
it would dramatically reduce
Israel's energy bill."14
Borger then lists what she
claims is the real reason why
the US went to war with Iraq:
“So when a White House aide
suggests that this president
believes that confronting
tyranny is in our interest and
coincides with our values, we
say there must be more to it. If
confronting tyranny is truly the
reason as to why Bush wants war,
then we should expect that he
would have threatened Israel
just as ardently that he
threatened Iraq. For decades,
Israel has exercised tyrannical
oppression over the Palestinian
people, but Bush has not
declared war on Israel. He is
allied with Israel.
If confronting tyranny was a
reason as to why Bush goes to
war, then we should expect that
he would have invaded North
Korea, an oppressive Stalinist
entity and enemy of the US that
does have weapons of mass
destruction.15 But Bush never
ordered an invasion of North
Korea. Of course, North Korea
does not directly threaten
Israel. Bush chose to invade a
nation that did not have any
weapons of mass destruction that
threaten the US. Saddam’s Iraq
posed a threat to Israel. All of
this is further evidence that a
primary motive to invade Iraq
was for Zionist-Israeli
interests.
Finally, Borger reveals to her
readers “the truth.”
Jewish-Zionist forces are not in
any way to blame for driving the
US into the Iraq war: “Here is
what is true: Jewish Americans
hold no monolithic view about a
possible war with Iraq. One
survey conducted by the American
Jewish Committee shows that 59
percent of Jews approve of a
possible war while 36 percent
disapprov,numbers that mirror
the public at large.”
Here is what she is arguing.
While a majority of Jews were in
favor of the war, slightly more
than a third of Jews opposed the
war. So you cannot blame all
Jews for driving the US into the
Iraq war. Furthermore, since the
relative percentage of Jews who
favored the war were similar to
the relative percentages of
non-Jews who favored going to
war with Iraq, you cannot blame
the Jewish Community for driving
the US into the Iraq war.
Since the Jewish Community in
general wields a
disproportionate share of the
power and influence in the US,
it is not fair to compare the
percentages of Jews who favored
the war with the percentages of
non-Jews who favored the war,
show they are similar, and then
conclude that the Jewish-Zionist
lobby played no major role in
driving the US into the Iraq
war. Since the Jewish-Zionist
Community has a disproportionate
share of political power and
influence in the US, their
wishes, activities and agenda
often play a more significant
role than that of the public at
large. So, by the mere fact that
a majority in the Jewish
Community favored the war is
highly significant in a
political sense because they
have a disproportionate share of
the political power in the
United States.
In all fairness, it must be
emphasized that all American
Jews were not and are not in
favor of this war, and the
entire American Jewish community
is not responsible for driving
the US into the Iraq war. And
furthermore, there are a number
of Jews who are ardently opposed
to this war and they openly
condemn Bush’s pro-war policies.
But the fact of the matter
remains is that certain powerful
groups of Jews with strong
Zionist sympathies in collusion
with powerful pro-Zionist
non-Jews did in fact drive the
US into the Iraq war because it
served Zionist-Israeli
interests.
Borger then goes on to admit
that, yes, these Jewish
neoconservative hawks did write
memos in the late 1990s calling
for the overthrow of Saddam’s
regime. But these memos, she
claims, should not be looked
upon as George Bush’s reason and
master plan for invading Iraq.
According to Borger, they have
no significance whatsoever,
because George Bush has told the
American people that the reason
he invaded Iraq was to bring to
an end the tyrannical regime of
Saddam Hussein for the welfare
of the world. To believe
otherwise, Borger continues, “is
to believe that George Bush is a
liar.” According to Borger’s
view, Bush is honest and he told
the American people the truth as
to his real reasons for invading
Iraq.
As stated previously, we now
have evidence that George Bush’s
pre-war statements were
knowingly deceptive, and that he
may very well have lied the
American people into the Iraq
war.16
Borger then goes on to quote one
of the spokesmen and luminaries
of the Jewish-Zionist Community,
Elie Wiesel, as to the “real”
reason why the US invaded Iraq.
The great Holocaust guru argues
that appeasing Saddam Hussein
would not have led to peace. To
the contrary, in order to spare
the world further horror and
oppression, the US had to
destroy Saddam’s regime. In
order to bolster his argument,
the great moral beacon then
invokes the Hitler analogy: “Had
Europe’s great powers intervened
against Adolf Hitler’s
aggressive ambitions in 1938
instead of appeasing him in
Munich, humanity would have been
spared the unprecedented horrors
of World War II.”
As the political psychologist
Kevin MacDonald has noted in his
work, this is an age-old Jewish
tactic clothing sectarian Jewish
interests in universalistic
moral rhetoric in order to make
it more appealing to the
non-Jewish world.17 If Wiesel
were truly interested in ridding
the world of dictatorial
oppression, he would be calling
for sanctions against his fellow
Jews in Israel for their
oppression of Palestinians just
as he called for war against
Hussein’s Iraq.
Gloria Borger’s article shows
how pro-Zionist functionaries in
the US media mislead and
bamboozle their readership in
order to protect Jewish-Zionist
interests.
Footnotes
1. Gloria Borger, “Blaming the
Cabal,” US News and World
Report, 24 March 2003. Online:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/030324/24pol.htm
2. s.v. Paul Wolfowitz, online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz
3. ibid.
4. US assumes UK help in Iraq,
says general, Guardian
Unlimited, 20 August 2002,
online:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,777700,00.html
5. Jewish Telegraphic Agency
press release, ranks: “Threat on
Israel justified pre-emption,”
Cleveland Jewish News.com, 10
August 2004. Online:
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2004/08/10/news/world/aaa.txt
6. Shimon Peres, “We Must Unite
To Prevent An Ayatollah Nuke,”
The Wall Street Journal, 25 June
2003.
7. See the ADL’s advertisement
in The New York Times. Online:
8. Benjamin Freedman, The Fatal
Embrace: Jews and the State
(University of Chicago Press,
1993), pp. 204, 231.
9. Lipset, S.M., & Raab, E.,
Jews and the New American Scene
(Harvard University Press,
1995).
10. Robert Fisk, “Bush is intent
on painting allies and enemies
in the Middle East as evil,”
Independent, 10 September 2002.
Online :
http://www.news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=332011
For the original article from
The Nation that Fisk refers to
and exposes the considerable
number of pro-Zionist,
pro-Israel lobbyists within the
Bush administration, see Jason
Vest, "The Men from JINSA and
CSP," The Nation, 2 September
2002. Online:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020902/vest
11. American Free Press release,
“US intel on Iraq-Quada ties
intentionally misleading:
document,” 7 November 2005.
Online:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051107/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqintelligence
12. Sang-Hun Choe, Associated
Press Writer, “North Korea Says
It Has Nuclear Weapons,”
Associated Press release, 10
February 2005.
13. See footnote 10.
14. See Jane’s, “Oil from Iraq:
An Israeli pipedream.” Online:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.htmlml.
See also Ed Vuillamy, “Israel
seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil,”
Guardian Unlimited, 20 April
2003. Online:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html
15. See footnote 12.
16. See footnote 11.
17. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture
of Critique: An Evolutionary
Analysis of Jewish Involvement
in Twentieth-Century
Intellectual and Political
Movements (Praeger, 1998).