Customer Reviews

Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Amidst the flood of neo-conservative diatribe, I found this book a refreshing attempt to present an oppressed viewpoint that has no place in the mainstream American media (in print or on screen). No matter how you turn it, there is merit that the Bush Administration would win hands down the title of being the most pro-Israel in US history. Whether by continuously pretending to championing a Palestinian state, paying lip-service to continued Israeli violations of international law since 1947, not doing something about the construction of an apartheid wall that eats up what remained of Palestinian territory, not lifting a hand about continued Israeli settlement of an increasingly shrinking Palestinian promised state, etc. One could be pro-Israel or anti-Israel, but one can only be blind to ignore the basic fact which has to do with the 60-year occupation of Palestinian land by Israel and the on-going attempts to take possession of the land. An occupation that does not differ at all from colonial settler occupations elsewhere in the world.

If you are an objective reader and nither pro or anti-Israeli this work is a very good illumination about the role of America (through special policies towards Israel) in Middle East chaos and instability. It keeps Israel armed to the hilt with no meaningful desire for Peace. Another fantastic work on the subject is "The Israel Lobby" by Walt and Mersheimer- A MUST READ

Jonathon Cook places the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the perspective
of Israeli and neo-con foreign policy. Of course, Iran is next on the
list. I see no reason why President-to-be Obama won't follow through,
even if he cuts our losses and gets out of Iraq. The tight links
between Israel and the neo-cons and between the neo-cons and the US
foreign policy establishment are laid out in detail.

The Book:

In "Israel and the clash of civilizations Jonathan Cook argues that the prevalent view of Iraq's fate - that its civil war was a terrible and unforeseen consequence of the US invasion and a series of bad decisions made by the occupation regime - is profoundly mistaken. Rather, civil war and partition were the intended outcome of the invasion and seen as beneficial to American interests, or at least they were by a small group of ultra-hawks known as the neoconservatives who came to dominate the White House under President George W.Bush. The neoconservatives' understanding of American interests in the Middle East was little different from that of previous administrations: securing control of oil in the Persian Gulf. But what distinguished Bush's invasion of Iraq from similar US attempts at regime change was the strategy used to achieve this goal.

This distinctive new strategy for regime overthrow adopted by the White House originated far from Washington, and was apparently opposed by most of the country's senior military command and by the Sate Department under Colin Powell. In the early 1980s Israel's security establishment has developed ideas about dissolving the other states of the Middle East to encourage ethnic and religious discord. This was in essence a re-imagining of the regional power structure that had existed under the Ottomans - before the arrival of the European colonialists and their forced reordering of the Middle East into nation states - but with Israel replacing the Turks as the local imperial power. In this way, hoped Israel and the neocons, large and potentially powerful states such as Iraq and Iran could be partitioned between their rival ethnic and sectarian communities.


Comment:

Writing from within (Nazareth), Jonathan Cook has an unrivaled vantage point for his arguments. It is easy to see why he is labeled an extreme leftist by those whose actions and motives he questions in his books. For an objective and interested reader on the other hand, his books provide insights and enhances understanding.

As I write this review Iran's cleric leaders try to deal with the fallout of the contested elections. In televised "confessions" the western media is blamed for instigating the street protests going into the second week now. What is described as false accusations by the West, - looking into history it is clear that what the clerics fear had happened in Iran in 1953, - bears a deeper meaning for those looking beyond the daily headlines. No one country, politician or point of view (or journalist) can accurately convey even a small measure of objectivity on the whole spectrum of events (historical and present). We should be grateful to writers who present to us their inside knowledge the way they experience it, without demanding omniscience. Yes, we also must oppose Islamic fundamentalism, which is the symptom of the problem not the cause, but we must have the courage to confront one of the root causes nurturing Islamic fundamentalism today, - the enslavement of a whole people for generations. "Israel and the clash of civilizations focuses on Israel and its allies' motives. It is a book that will deepen an objective readers understanding of a very complex issue. What more can one ask for?

Jonathan Cook, a journalist, has written an interesting book. Its strength lies in its shrewd analysis of the Zionist state's schemes to dominate the Middle East. Its weakness lies in the unrealistic treatment of the other forces in the region.

Cook sees nothing wrong with Hamas or with the fascistic Iranian government. He also ignores the problems of Islamic fundamentalism and of terrorism, and the role of the Saudi state in funding and promoting fundamentalism and terrorism. Does he think that those who oppose fundamentalism and Sharia Law are `Islamophobes'?

He notes that the British state supported Zionism from the start of the last century, and that the Macmillan government gave Israel the nuclear bomb after Suez. But he does not mention that the British state has supported Israel ever since, never more than under Blair and Brown. He also ignores the US-British-Israeli alliance and the EU's role in backing Israel.

The only acceptable and effective regime change is from within, by class struggle. Occupation by outsiders produces only a war of all against all, the sectarian chaos of feuding warlords and clans, as in pre-revolutionary China and now in occupied Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the US-British-Israeli alliance aims to do the same to Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Israel's government wants not `two states for two peoples', but `five states for two peoples'; the core, Israel, surrounded by a ring of armed settlement blocs, and then by four isolated Bantustans for the Palestinians.

Of course, we must oppose the US, British and Israeli states' wars for power and oil in the Middle East. But we must also oppose Islamic fundamentalism.

If this type of material was better available in the western education systems, the neocons and their allies would have a harder time using their sound bites like `axis of evil' and `weapons of mass destruction' to rally the troops.

All too often, well meaning, poorly educated and ill-informed patriots rally to the flag to fight wars in places they couldn't even find on a map just a few weeks before.

Only after countless thousands are killed or maimed, and millions displaced, do they ask themselves `what the hell am I doing here anyway'? All too late the neocon's intentions are exposed and the returning patriots receive less than a hero's welcome.

During the 1990's the neocons would have us believe that Iranian woman were getting their faces slashed by razors for wearing lipstick in public places. I was in Tehran during the 90's and noted the high percentage of woman wearing lipstick. In fact it was quiet pleasant to take an evening stroll around the city parks and watch the families chatting, having an Ice cream and generally enjoying themselves. Just a decade earlier America had backed `good old boy' Saddam Hussein to murder hundreds of thousands of Iranians in a proxy war that included the use of chemical weapons.

More recently during the Medicare debates, one neocon advised that `Americans didn't need a medical care system like Britain or North Korea'. Exactly who was the target audience here? Is it possible to find any Americans that would believe the upmarket `cradle to grave' medical systems available in Britain (and most Western countries) are even vaguely similar to those in North Korea? These neocons must be fishing for dummies.

While there are one or two points that are cogent most of the information contained in this book are baseless piffle based on anonomous sources, Naom Chomsky's writings, blogs, Lancet and the commentary section of the LA Times. To say the least most of the "facts" contained in the book must be held suspect or viewed with a jaundiced eye. The author obviously holds an extreme leftist political point of view that screams from the pages of the book. Additionally, the author seems to hold a significant bias against persons of jewish ancestry that, again, makes reading this book suspect. My recommendation would be to read something that is based on real facts, without so much bias and a provides decent and well thought out analysis - of which this book has little to none.

Why are there so few (only 19) Arab states and so many (1) Jewish states. Why would the United Nations have taken a land where both Jews and Arabs lives, split it into two separate states, instead of giving the entire land to the Arab state. This blatantly biased book makes no pretense of objectivity and its author recently sought to ban Israeli films from a netural Canadian film festival. If you believe Israel should be eliminated and an Iranian/Arab state instituted where women have few if any rights, you will like the book. Otherwise skip it.

The author's central contention is that Israel and the Jewish Lobby in the US collectively exercise complete control over the US. This control was exercised to get the US to attack Iraq, and in the near future, to also attack Iran - all for Israel's benefit. And the proof offered by Cook? Don't be silly. Since when do hardline critics of Israel need proof to substantiate their claims? Arguably the most ridiculous aspect of this book is that the invasion of Iraq has been detrimental to Israel by strengthening Iran. Very likely, Israel would have anticipated this outcome. Further, various reports suggest that Israel advised the US not to invade Iraq for this very reason. As we now know, Iraq had absolutely no WMD (a fact of which Israel was very likely aware prior to the invasion), so it is difficult to see what threat Iraq posed to Israel, and therefore what Israel gained from the invasion. As for the potential confrontation with Iran, Cook conveniently overlooks the fact that it is not just the US and Israel, but the entire world - including much of the Arab world - that is concerned by Iran's nuclear development. In writing this piece of fiction, it appears that Cook has carefully read the notoriously anti-semitic Protocols of Zion, and adapted them to fit (his warped version of) current events. That is, everything is a Jewish conspiracy. Interestingly, far left wingers (like Cook) now hold extremely similar views in this regard that were once the exclusive domain of far right wingers. Critics of Israel like to accuse Jewish people of silencing debate about Israel by playing the anti-semitism card. With people like Cook around, it is little wonder Jewish people associate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism.