Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

what if? « Previous | |Next »
July 6, 2004

What if the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq doesn’t work. Is there a US fallback plan, if the client Allawai regime is unable to hold Iraq together? It would appear there is no US backup plan. The neocons think they don't need one. Freedom will prevail. Democracy will flourish.

There is a back up plan in place and it is run by Israel. So argues Semour Hersh.

He says that Israel has been among the most enthusiastic supporters of the US invasion of Iraq. It is acutely aware that the American-led occupation would face a heightened insurgency, fearful that the security situation in Iraq was nearing collapse, concerned that the American war against the insurgency was continuing to founder and aware that the occupation would end badly.

Israel is aware that none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders have shown an ability to govern the country or to hold elections. It views the region as hostile. Israel is convinced that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and that, with Syria’s help, it is planning to bolster Palestinian terrorism as Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip. Israel sees Moqtada al-Sadr, theIraqi Shiite militia leader as a “stalking horse” for Iran. Moqtada al-Sadr owes much of his success in defying the American-led coalition to logistical and communications support and training provided by Iran.

So Israel is taking action on its own.That involves making the Kurd's allies and an instrument of Israeli policy. If a regime hostile to Israel came to power in Iraq Hersh says that Israel would unleash the Kurds on it. Does that mean an independent Kurdistan with close ties to Israel? Hersh says:

"Israel’s overwhelming national-security concern must be Iran. Given that a presence in Kurdistan would give Israel a way to monitor the Iranian nuclear effort."

The danger of Plan B is a divided Iraq. And an independent Kurdistan run by Israel in a divided Iraq concerns Turkey, Syria and Iran. Do the latter then strengthen their ties to the Palestinians?

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:56 AM | | Comments (4)


ah, the Jews again. Why am I surprised?

Just providing a counterbalance to this in my own little way.

As far as I aware they reside in Melbourne Australia. Or have I got that wrong.

Are you suprised that they go on about Israel so much?

Your position looks like this: it is okay that they can can on about Israel from a hawkish perspective, but if I put a different view then that is an example of global anti-semitism.

All I'm doing is questioning your view that criticism of Israel represents anti-Semitism that is poisoning minds across the world and creating a new generation of hate.

AS I said its all about deliberative democracy. But you have not time for that either.

No, Gary, I have not equated all criticism of Israel with antisemitism. I have, however asserted that:

A) when such criticism is so virulent that it would deny the legitimicy of Israel's existance as a Jewish state, and/or

B) such criticism employs gross double standards of expectation that makes demands of the Jewish state that it does not make of others

Then the threshold separating legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism in the guise of antiZionism is passed.

But, once again you avoid my prior query, either through convenience or obtuseness.

The AIJAC people have an obvious interest in what's going on in the Middle East. They are Jews and care deeply for what is happening to their kin in that troubled part of the globe. But, you have no such familial/tribal affinity. You are neither Jewish nor a Arab. You have no direct dog in this fight, so to speak. So why the obsessive interest. Why the intense kneejerk pro-Arab partisanship that you almost daily exhibit?

And, once again you lapse into political science-speak. Deliberative democracy? Holy shit, Gary, you live in Adelaide, South Australia. You participate in an Australian democratic system that is open, lively and free. But, your Australian franchise rights are completely irrelevant to the goings on a half a globe away in the Middle East. You won't be voting for the Knesset any time soon, and even if you were an Arab, you wouldn't be voting for anything real in any of the 22 Arab states because none of them is a democracy.

So, I challenge you to explain how this catch phrase "deliberative democracy" provides any sort of rational explanation for your obsessive partisanship towards a region and dispute in which you have no political role?

VOS, you write:
"The AIJAC people have an obvious interest in what's going on in the Middle East."

Yes. But what you choose to ignore is that the AIJAC try to influence public opinion in Australia, and they are constantly criticising those voices in Australia that express views different to their very conservative ones.

Deliberative democracy is about widening the public discussion beyond what liberalism allows.