# Iraqi War - It's All About Israel - Hollings **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021 "2004-05-19T19:54:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/1 "2004-05-19T19:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s intelligence, Mossad, knows what’s going on in Iraq. It is the best. It has to know; Israel’s survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any, or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel. Source: [http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/8609339.htm](http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/8609339.htm) So according to the senior Senator from South Carolina, we are in Iraq to secure Israel. Plausible? Hollings claims that Bush wanted the domino theory to work; first Israel as the democratic beachhead secured for more than 50 years, followed by Iraq, etc. But it failed terribly when the first domino didn’t fall on time and in the correct direction. Please don’t make this a beat up Israel thread. That’s not the point. Is Hollings’ opinion a legitmate observation? Or is this op-ed for local consumption because Hollings is up for reelection this year? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/2 "2004-05-19T20:16:42Z")
Fritz Hollings isn’t seeking re-election. He’s out this year one way or the other. Certainly the Mossad has the reputation for being really good. But if they were that good wouldn’t they be better at disrupting Hamas and Islamic Jihad? I’m not sure I buy it. Even with the rumors that prominent neo-cons all love Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/3 "2004-05-19T21:11:44Z")
There’s a logical flaw there: if Iraq didn’t have WMDs, then how could it be threatening Israel? It’s conventional forces were a joke, and were easily defeated in three previous wars. The only way Iraq could have seriously threatened Israel was through non-conventional warfare. Conversely, if Iraq _did_ have WMDs, then they had the potential to, theoretically, threaten the U.S. as well, making the protection of Israel a secondary cause at best. Besides, the Mossad was pretty sure that Saddam had WMDs. They’re good, but they still screw up. I believe there’s a Parliamentary panel - the Steinitz commision - investigating the intelligence failure right now. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/4 "2004-05-19T21:28:42Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Fritz Hollings isn’t seeking re-election. He’s out this year one way or the other. Just after I posted it, I realized Hollings is retiring. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/5 "2004-05-19T22:31:15Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s a logical flaw there: if Iraq didn’t have WMDs, then how could it be threatening Israel? That was not the actual point of the strategy. In the worldview that Hollings paints, the U.S. needs a second country to join the nations embrcing democracy so that the rest will roll over. It is not considered good form to overthrow the governments of one’s allies, so Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Jordan and Egypt cannot be “converted.” Yemen is too small to make it worthwhile. Lebanon and Afghanistan are too chaotic and impoversihed. This means that (ignoring the tiny Gulf states) the “best” options are Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. Pakistan is (at the moment) a nominal ally and overthrowing its government would disrupt the balance of power issues with India. Syria and Iran tend to play nice with their neighbors, so conquering them (aside from the casualties) would fail to win us any friends. This leaves Iraq, a large country with the potential to be self-sustaining, which is sufficiently bellicose to have lost any potential friends in the region with enough persecution of its own people to provide _some_ support from Shi’a and Kurds outside the country, as the best showcase for democracy (that we can impose by force) to lead the rest of the Middle East to our triumphant goal for them. This is, pretty much, the position that the neo-cons named in the article have expressed over the last 20 - 25 years. As such, Hollings’s observations make some sense _as an expression of neo-con ideology_. My reservation would be in terms of how much President Bush bought into their beliefs and how much he used their desires as a good excuse to rationalize his own (murky) views of how to treat Iraq. Bush was agitating to conquer Iraq even during his campaign for the presidency. He may believe the neo-con doctrines, or he may simply have had a desire to knock Hussein down and secure U.S. ability to get at Iraqi oil in case Saudi Arabia erupted into flames. While Bush _might_ be a good adherent of neo-con ideology, he spent the first nine months of his term studiously ignoring Israel and the Palestinian question. I would think that a firm commitment to seeing Israel survive as the premier Middle Eastern democracy would have inspired him to discover where it was on the map before the WTC/Pentagon attacks. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/6 "2004-05-19T22:56:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Even with the rumors that prominent neo-cons all love Israel. Rumors? Have you read any of their earlier work? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/7 "2004-05-20T19:57:53Z")
IMO the main issue re the Hollings article is the extent to which other members of Congress buy into the notion that the influential Jewish neo-cons who have the President’s ear, have pushed the the Iraq policy on the strategic premise that a democratic arab state will help Israel over the long run. As the Iraq pain level grows exponentially politicans and policy makers are looking around to see who the people were that were pushing this agenda, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle are front and center. Bush has his own personal issues for wanting to give Saddam the smackdown, and is/was eminently “moldable” on this issue as the impetus was already there. Hollings thesis is that opinion is growing in Washington that the aforesaid influential neo-cons used this desire to make operational their “democratic arab state” strategy by erecting an intellectual scaffold, with the WMD’s hypotheis at the base, that spoke to the urgent necessity to neutralize Iraq. So yes, the point Hollings is making is that “it’s all about Israel” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/8 "2004-05-20T23:12:32Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It is not considered good form to overthrow the governments of one’s allies, so Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Jordan and Egypt cannot be “converted.” Jordan? Jordan already has a parliament, the National Assembly. The upper house, the Senate, is appointed by the king, but the lower house is elected – fairly and freely elected, from all I’ve heard. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/9 "2004-05-20T23:55:37Z")
> [@](#): > > WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 – the 9/11 commission – in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. [http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083](http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/10 "2004-05-21T00:14:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Jordan already has a parliament, the National Assembly. The upper house, the Senate, is appointed by the king, but the lower house is elected – fairly and freely elected, from all I’ve heard. True enough. However, if you’ll note the neo-con rhetoric, you’ll find Israel held up as the “only” democracy in the region, indicating that they do not appear to consider Jordan exemplary for their rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/11 "2004-05-22T18:31:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > My reservation would be in terms of how much President Bush bought into their beliefs and how much he used their desires as a good excuse to rationalize his own (murky) views of how to treat Iraq. Bush was agitating to conquer Iraq even during his campaign for the presidency. He may believe the neo-con doctrines, or he may simply have had a desire to knock Hussein down and secure U.S. ability to get at Iraqi oil in case Saudi Arabia erupted into flames. Your analysis is excellent. The only issue I have, potentially, is to what degree Bush’s ideology (be it fully or only partially harmonius with the neocon orthodoxy) and personal initiative really matter in the present circumstance, given the power of Cheney in shaping policy. That Bush was sanguine about invading Iraq may be relevant only to the degree that he could be more easily swayed by the neocons, who are apparently in charge. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/12 "2004-05-22T20:04:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > However, if you’ll note the neo-con rhetoric, you’ll find Israel held up as the “only” democracy in the region Ah! I was wondering who Bush was referring to when he said “Some people seem to think Muslim or brown-skinned people can’t govern themselves.” If the premise is that they can’t, then they don’t, cases where they _do_ notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/13 "2004-05-23T06:13:49Z")
The stunning irony here is that Iraq was already the only country in the Middle East that tolerated and protected Jews. Iraq was one of the only secular countries as well. ---
**Author:** ![EsotericEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e274bd/32.png) [@EsotericEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EsotericEnigma)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/14 "2004-05-23T06:25:10Z")
> [@istara](#): > > The stunning irony here is that Iraq was already the only country in the Middle East that tolerated and protected Jews. Iraq was one of the only secular countries as well. If you can call an intense and brutal oppression of any religious group seeking a political voice, “secular” would be an accurate term for how Saddam governed Iraq. Tyranical governments can also be secular. Also, I have never heard of the government of Saddam Hussein protecting Jews. Tolerating, maybe, but I’m a bit suspicious of the claim that Iraq ever actively defended them. This toleration of Jews also definitely did not extend to a toleration of Israel, if we can use relations between the two countries as a judge. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/15 "2004-05-23T06:49:56Z")
> [@EsotericEnigma](#): > > If you can call an intense and brutal oppression of any religious group seeking a political voice, “secular” would be an accurate term for how Saddam governed Iraq. It’s a totally accurate term in his case, just like for Kim Jong Il and a number of other dictators. It wasn’t a compliment. I’m sure the perception that Israel is responsible for this war has at least a foothold in the ME, and it won’t do anything positive for the country. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/16 "2004-05-23T07:29:23Z")
There is a lot to suggest the article is mostly true. However, taking a leaf from Juan Cole, there is an alternative to consider. The neo-cons being principally concerned with the security of Israel, are indifferent to democracy taking hold in the ME. The domino theory is just sales puff. Anybody with moderate knowledge of ME politics & history could tell you this. After all Turkey hasn’t infected any of its ME neighbours in decades of democracy. “Domino Theory” isn’t it proverbial for the worst of US foreign policy? No, the priority was to neutralize the threat of a powerful state hostile to Israel. If neutralizing that threat means years of chaos for Iraq, so much the better. Of course as the article points out, a lot of this cannot be said. But consider you’re dealing here with a security issue that refers to a people that came close to deliberate extermination a few decades ago. So it’s understandable that candor and frankness aren’t real priorities in Israel’s PR. It’s one reason why the US-Israel relationship comes up so often on the SD, the dynamics at work are fundamentally contradictory to the board’s ethos. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/17 "2004-05-23T18:52:42Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > It’s one reason why the US-Israel relationship comes up so often on the SD, the dynamics at work are fundamentally contradictory to the board’s ethos. I’m sorry, but I’ve seen nobody prove such ‘dynamics’ in this thread. The closest I’ve seen is that based on various guesses that the administration, composed of warmongering Zionists (or is it just a few of 'em?), went out to get Iraq because it would make Israel tickled pink. Or that Israel-via-Mossad (or is it Mossad-via-Israel?) manipulated America into a war with no exist strategy which will enflame passions in the entire middle east in order to remove a dictator who wrote romance novels and posed no real threat to their borders. f So, I’m curious, just what is this ‘dynamic’ that is contrary to the board’s ethos and how many cites can you furnish me with? (And is it not more probable that in the teeth of contrary facts some people choose to associate everything with those naughty Zionists?) ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/18 "2004-05-24T07:17:25Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I’m sorry, but I’ve seen nobody prove such ‘dynamics’ in this thread. > > The closest I’ve seen is that based on various guesses that the administration, composed of warmongering Zionists (or is it just a few of 'em?), went out to get Iraq because it would make Israel tickled pink. > Or that Israel-via-Mossad (or is it Mossad-via-Israel?) manipulated America into a war with no exist strategy which will enflame passions in the entire middle east in order to remove a dictator who wrote romance novels and posed no real threat to their borders. f > > So, I’m curious, just what is this ‘dynamic’ that is contrary to the board’s ethos and how many cites can you furnish me with? > > (And is it not more probable that in the teeth of contrary facts some people choose to associate everything with those naughty Zionists?) Dynamics 1: See the article linked from the OP. Neo-Cons/Israel Security: Isn’t this general knowledge by now? Try google with “Neo-Con” “Iraq” & “Israel” Mossad: Never heard this one, although the characterisation of SH as innocuous to Israeli security concerns is questionable. Dynamics 2: Policy precedes justifications. Said justifications are frequently wrong in fact. Cites? Watch and learn in real time, the topic is too diverse to open here. “Contrary Facts,” “everything”: Not in evidence. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/19 "2004-05-24T14:28:56Z")
* * * I read the original article. Zero facts, zero proof, only assertion. Not a Great Debate cite at all. Moreoever, the second article cited also contained zero fact and pure opinion. To wit (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I **think** the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel,” Oh, he thinks it? Obviously a basis to build a strong legal/factual case. > [@](#): > > The statements are the first to surface from a source **closely linked** to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state. Oh, a source ‘closely linked’. That means a lot, not even a member of the administration? Did this source deign to state HOW Iraq was a threat to Israel? (if there were WMD’s, then Iraq was a threat to the world, if there were no WMD, why was Iraq a threat?) And what’s the connection to the Bush adminstration? > [@](#): > > Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official – Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. Oh… a guy is friends with the trade representative. Heavy hitter. Now, your argument **Sevastapol** > [@sevastapol](#): > > Dynamics 1: See the article linked from the OP. Exactly. Zero proof, assertions about what administration members think and how they would have acted in-the-author’s-guess. > [@sevastapol](#): > > Neo-Cons/Israel Security: Isn’t this general knowledge by now? Try google with “Neo-Con” “Iraq” & “Israel” Correct, the neocons like Israel. Now, beyond guilt-by-association PROVE that they engineered this war on Israel’s behalf. > [@Sevastapol](#): > > Mossad: Never heard this one, although the characterisation of SH as innocuous to Israeli security concerns is questionable. Questionable? Without WMD Iraq was no threat to Israel. With WMD Iraq was a threat and a valid target. It’s binary, pick one. > [@Sevastapol (with bolding mine)](#): > > Dynamics 2: Policy precedes justifications. Said justifications are frequently wrong in fact. **Cites? Watch and learn in real time, the topic is too diverse to open here.** While this might fly in the Pit, it doesn’t in Great Debates. You make a lot of claims, and I do not intend to ‘watch in real time’. Give proof or retract. > [@Sevastapol](#): > > “Contrary Facts,” “everything”: Not in evidence. Evidently there is NO evidence beyond conjecture. To me, THAT seems to be in direct contravention to the board’s ethos. That and certain anti-zionists who try to make things fit into their mold without regards to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021/20 "2004-05-24T15:41:09Z")
From Juan Cole’s latest; [Monday, May 24, 2004](http://www.juancole.com/) > [@](#): > > In the wake of Gen. Anthony Zinni’s 60 Minutes appearance, it is worth looking in detail at his recent essay on what went wrong… > > \*The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was flawed. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing about the benefits of this strategic move. **That > the road to Jerusalem led through Baghdad**, when just the opposite is true, the road to Baghdad led through Jerusalem. You solve the Middle East peace process, you’d be surprised what kinds of others things will work out… > > The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, **we had to create a false rationale for going in** to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind…\* This reflects on the reasons for the war. It also reflects on the dynamics of selling those reasons. Both reflections by Zimmi support Hollings view, as stated in the OP. Specifically: - Israel’s security is the thing - The Neo-Cons care more for Israel than for truthful engagement with the public. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraqi-war-its-all-about-israel-hollings/246021.md?page=2)