Israel working behind scenes to get Iraq contracts - Washington sources

[Herschel]

Israel assumed a long time ago, perhaps as a result of hints from the US, that it would not be included in the list of countries eligible to participate in Iraqi reconstruction tenders. Israel is now working behind the scenes with the Bush administration and the US Congress to obtain access to these projects, Washington sources told “Globes” yesterday.

Israel Ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon responded, “No comment” to a “Globes” question on the subject.

cut

Israel is demanding, however, that it be given the opportunity to serve as a subcontractor in telephony, infrastructures, irrigation, and other projects, and as a supplier of inputs.

Israel claims that it meets the criteria for participating in the tenders, since it supported the US war in Iraq, although, at the request of the Bush administration, Israel never expressed its official support. Furthermore, according to press reports, the two countries are cooperating militarily with regard to the war in Iraq.

cut

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=750148&fid=942

=====================

Surely our most reliable ally should reap some benefit.

[Resistance]

1. better grab some loot

before the BFEE takes it all!

[pistoff democrat]

2. Yeah, they already

got the Iraqi scud missiles; how greedy to want to be a full partner in the area in which they live. But, really, I guess the missiles were all Israel gets!

[Resistance]

3. I'm not sure greed is the primary concern

When you're so significantly involved in the murders of Iraqis -- so great in number that the U.S. has to demand the cessation of civilian body counts due to bad PR -- I'd say the greed to be counted in on the loot dividends is of less significant importance. But, that's just me.

[pistoff democrat]

4. You're saying the United States now IS Israel?

Remember George I and his gulf war. The Iraquis gifted Israel with many scud missiles but did not fight back due to US pressure.

Your post to which I am now responding doesn't seem to recognize that the US and Israel are in fact separate countries. Is that your position?

[Resistance]

5. do you deny

that Israel is significantly involved in the recent American-led invasion of Iraq?

[Gimel]

7. A non-participant

Israel had no part in the invasion, as you surly know. However, Israel remains an ally.

[Resistance]

8. as everyone here knows, (well almost everyone)

U.S. and Israeli planners converged on the decision to invade Iraq. These plans are not kept secret or anything.

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

[Resistance]

9. more

Clean Break or Dirty War? Israel’s Foreign Policy Directive to the United States

Executive Summary

Great changes are seldom achieved without a plan. The Israeli policy paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (ACB) was authored by a group of policy advisors to Israel. Subsequently, nearly all members ascended to influential policy making positions within U.S. government, media, and academic circles. Many of the ACB policies such as toppling the government of Iraq are now in full implementation and present new challenges to the global community. Others, such as the reform of Israel’s economy have been abysmal failures, but generate little visibility or impact outside of Israel.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq is such a singular success for Israel that pro-Israel leaders and pundits in the United States have had to restrain their glee that a long and arduous effort to topple Iraq’s government and neutralize the state has finally borne fruit.

Although Iraq is only one challenger to Israel, an accelerated Israeli effort to discredit, disrupt, and undermine other Arab governments, many in the midst of democratic reform, is moving forward rapidly.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beanball]

13. Israel

is a great country,but her leaders are a bunch of blood thirsty thugs."justice grinds slowly,but grind it does."

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Why is it shit?

Is it also anti-Israel shit to point out that Sharon's govt prior to the invasion of Iraq was begging the US to do it? Of course there was behind the scenes involvement in the invasion. Why wouldn't there have been?

Violet...

[Gimel]

17. That is false

The US was begging Israel not to become invoved in self defense. Israel's concern was that defending it's citizens is not the primary interest of the US. You've heard false reports.

[pistoff democrat]

19. Right!

Remember how Israel had to endure the Iraqui scud missiles because Washington begged them to? Just immoral...

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Nope. It's not...

What I said was that Sharon's govt was begging the US to invade Iraq. And while I'm sure that legitimate self-defence of Israel (and that doesn't involve *preventative* attacks on other states) isn't any more a concern for the US than the self-defence of any other state that's allied with it, to portray Israel as not being allowed to take measures to protect its citizens against attack is just not true at all. Otherwise how do you explain SAS troops deployed to Israel to assist in protecting it against any missile attacks that may have happened? Are they just a figment of our collective imaginations? Was I dreaming when an ex-Israeli PM who visited here a few months ago publicly thanked the SAS for their assistance? Maybe it's just more 'anti-Israel' shit? ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

22. Since you have offered

You ahve offered no proof that your statements are true. Having lived through those months here in Israel, I can assure you that whatever you mean by SAS troops, Israel accepted no other help than instructions on setting up the Patriot Missile batteries, one was donated from Germany, but the remainder were from the US.

No troops were here in combat missions, so I guess you have been imagineing a lot, from what I understand of your post.

Repeating your claim "that Sharon's govt was begging the US to invade Iraq" doesn't make it anymore true than it was the first time. In fact, as I said, Israel prefers to defend itself. Restraint would have been needed in the event of an attack, as was the case during the attacks in which 29 scud missiles struck Israel, it's cities and villages. Israel was on the verge of a counter attack during that war, which would have been legitamite. Due to the understanding with the US administration, Israel restrained itself.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. You think I imagined it?

Uh, okay, but it really doesn't surprise me that an Israeli would have had no idea at the time what the SAS were doing, as the SAS don't tend to publicise what they do until much later in the piece. I also didn't imagine a former Israeli PM visiting here and thanking the SAS for their assistance, and seeing as how I live here, I think I'm more than qualified to know what happens here. You said you don't know what the SAS are. If yr of the belief that they're yr traditional combat troops who'd be stomping around in a highly visible manner, yr mistaken. Some were in Israel, and I might spend some time tomorrow searching out the article I read about it, but what they did in parts of Iraq to destroy missile sites that were a threat to Israel was widely reported. Here's a start, but yr going to have to spend the $$ to retrieve the articles if you continue to claim I imagined things...

Here's an extract of one:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has phoned Prime Minister John Howard to thank him for the role played by Australian special forces sent deep into Iraq to destroy missile sites aimed at Israel.


http://newsstore.f2.com.au/apps/newsSearch.ac?kw=SAS%20and%20Israel&page=1&sy=smh&kw=SAS+Israel&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1year&so=relevance&st=dc&sf=text&sf=author&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=0&clsPage=1

I'm sorry, but destroying missile sites aimed at Israel isn't considered by you to be assistance to Israel in protecting itself? How does that work?

As for what you said denying that Sharon's govt ever begged the US to attack Iraq, articles about it were posted in this forum earlier in the year and anyone who was round here then would probably have read them. If yr saying they don't exist, I'll go wading through the archives at the old DU, though because the search function isn't available it could take me some time to find them...

Violet...

[Gimel]

36. That's entirely different

Now you have changed your claim. Now you say the SAS were in Iraq. Of course, I know that. I know that was the first thing that was attended to once the invasion was made. That wasn't your claim, however. You said:

how do you explain SAS troops deployed to Israel to assist in protecting it against any missile attacks

Israel is not Iraq, as you should well know.

The US made sure that no missiles were going to strike Israel, because if they had, tthere was a very probable chance that Israel would have struck back.

[Jack Rabbit]

39. This seems irrelevant to the present discussion

Violet, you are correct in stating that Sharon and his ministers supported the invasion and would like to see the Bushies go on into Iran, Syria and maybe one or two other states as well. Okay, so what does that have to do with Israel desiring contracts to be awarded by the colonial regime in Baghdad?

What the SAS may have done on Israel's behalf seems to have even less to do with the matter. Least relevant to any discussion would be what General Sharon said to Prime Minister Howard about destroying missiles aimed at Israel. To my knowledge, the only missiles found by anyone that even raised a question about Iraq possessing banned weapons were the al-Samoud missiles found by UN weapons inspectors before the invasion. Those were no threat to Israel by any stretch of the imagination.

[Gimel]

41. The SAS

Seeing as how the SAS is the British Special Air Service:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/28/ret.sas.profile/index.html

and not a US military unit, and certainly was never stationed in Israel.

"to portray Israel as not being allowed to take measures to protect its citizens against attack is just not true at all."



This was the condition that Israel put on it's non-participatory role during the second gulf war. Israel reserved the right to respond if attacked. That is why there was a concerted effort to destroy any scud missile launchers that were found. The search for them was well publicized in Israel (and yes, as part of the coalition, SAS planes may have participated in this). After all, Israelis were very tense at that point, even expecting attack on the first day of the conflict.

This, however, is not Israel "begging" for the Americans to attack. Most Israelis were angry about the war, because they assumed that they would be under fire again. Absolutely, no foreign forces were stationed in Israel.

[Gimel]

11. So?

This says nothing about Israel's invovement in the war in Iraq.

[Resistance]

47. yes it does.

[Gimel]

6. Isreal stands

in the free economy. Now people here are calling it "grabbing loot". A contract to provide labor to produce essential products is not stealing by any means. It really casts the "land grab" theory in a whole different light as well.

[Darranar]

10. How is supporting an unjust, immoral, and illegal war being...

"our most reliable ally"?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Good question...

I'm also wondering if it's considered 'anti-Israel' to question how people come to the conclusion that Israel is the most reliable ally of the US? While it's indisputable that Israel is one of the leading client-states of the US, they're not the only one, and I'd take an educated guess that some of these other leading client-states are much more inclined to blindly follow the US lead on just about everything rather than Israel....

This exclusion of some states from tendering for contracts is more divisive crap from the Bush regime that's not in the best interests of the Iraqi people nor of the international community. And get this for a joke. Only a day after exluding nations from the tendering process it comes out that Bush is demanding that nations like France, Russia and Germany write off Iraq's debts to them...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/1071125590331.html

Kind of interesting. Is Canada an ally of the US or not? It would seem that the Bush regime sees Canada as a foe...

Violet...

[Gimel]

45. Ally that refused

to accompany the US into the Iraqi war. Thinking on their own this time, not following blindly. Good for them. Bush might try to exclude them from the "spoils" however.

[Gimel]

18. So the same

could be said for Germany and France who are angry at being left out of the financial contracts. Israel, however is a natural regional partner, and since the power in charge is the US, it isn't considering the "moral" undercurrent.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Your right, ma'am

The position taken by Germany and France stinks. After complaining about the theives being allowed into the bank when they should not have been, they are now complaining that they aren't getting their share of the loot.

It would be much more seemly if they demanded the thieves withdraw and leave the loot where they found it.

Meanwhile, the thieves still don't have any right to traffic in stolen goods. No one -- not France, not Germany, not even Israel -- should be contracting to buy stolen goods from the thieves.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I don't think so...

Apart from the fact that Darranar's question: 'How is supporting an unjust, immoral, and illegal war being "our most reliable ally"?' wasn't addressed at all, because it's a question I'd like to see an answer to as well, I don't see reconstruction as being a case of thieves looting Iraq and trafficking in stolen goods. Tendering out for reconstruction jobs such as telephone services, infrastructure, etc is something that we should all agree has to happen no matter what our stance on the invasion itself was. If we oppose reconstruction in Iraq, aren't we biting our noses off to spite our faces? Reconstruction is something that has to happen and as far as I'm concerned seeing the US made the mess in the first place, it should be footing the bill for all of it. And those tenders should be going out to those who are best at doing what needs to be done instead of this nonsensical US attitude of rewarding those who gave support to it's illegal invasion and automatically rejecting those nations that spoke out against it. If Germany and France were demanding that they be awarded some of those tenders, it'd be a different matter than what they're complaining about, which is the fact that German and French tenderers won't even be considered at all. So I fail to see how their position stinks at all. Ideally it's the Iraqi people who should have the power to decide who gets to do the reconstruction work, and the US should not be benefitting from it at all, but this list of approved countries is what stinks to high heaven,. Though I think there are contracts that should go to Israeli firms due to their expertise in areas like technology and stuff, anyone who argues that they should get those contracts because they're the bestest ally of the biggest and toughest bully on the block leave my skin crawling...

Violet...

[Darranar]

30. I agree, Violet...

However, Jack Rabbit makes a very good point that the US-installed government is little more than a group of puppets trying to help the thieves steal the loot.

They really shouldnt be awarding contracts to anyone, but there's no way to stop them and no way to, at this point, remove them. Choosing the lesser evil, I'd prefer them involving the international community as soon as possible. A the very least, that will pave the way for a US withdrawal and a UN takeover. I suppose the best that can be hoped for is a Democratic victory in '04.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. That is my entire point

Of course, France and Germany should be allowed to help in any way possible. So should Israel.

However, this should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people. They are the ones who should have the say in who is awarded the contracts and on what basis. Otherwise, Iraqi resources will be used to "shoulder the cost" of Iraqi reconstructions and it will end up in the hands of those very thieves. If those thieves aren't removed, then we will soon see Iraq's natural assets sold to them by a colonial administration acting on behalf of the Iraqi people who want them out of their country.

For that reason, an international administration whould assume power sooner rather than later. Proper reconstruction cannot begin until the Bushies relinquish power. Any contract awarded now should be voided and any sale of Iraqi assets to foreign concerns approved by Bremer and his puppets should be nullified.

See also post number 24.

[Gimel]

37. I'm sure, however,

that the Iraqis would be glad to have their country put back together again. Maybe it'll turn out for the better. They should naturally have a lot of the decision making power. If they won't do business with Israel (which is intollerable bias and counter to fair trade practices) then secondary contracts should of course be allocated to Israel.

[Gimel]

46. Contracts

Contracts and sub-contracts, which is what Israel seems to be aiming for, should go to those who have expertise in the particular manufacturing, but that may put several countries in the running for a single contract. Israel is located not far from Iraq, was injured during the first Gulf War, and should be on both counts able to benefit from work contracts that are available. As a close neighbor, and in the interests of building a stronger Middle East, Israel should be looked for to give assistance and to receive contracts.

The Iraqi people themselves may not be able to decide such issues at the present time. Outside advisors should be sought. Israel won't be considered for primary contracts because of the Iraqi animosity, fed by Saddam's propaganda, but closer economic ties are only natural for such close neighbors. Later, of course, Iraqis will be taking the lead in their own interests. I think that for the present time, they will lean heavily on advise from Western counties in rebuilding their economy.

[Lithos]

29. It is always about money

On a side note, had a debate with a Freeper at work today. It centered on whether or not Germany, France and Russia (funny how he only considered those countries) should forgive the Iraqi debt.

The issue was whether such a debt is odious or not. Of course most of it is, but it is just as odious as the debt and travesty Bush and Blair are incurring for the Iraqi people through their fancy laundering scheme to enrich their cronies.

However, I argued that I don't think Germany, France or Russia should forgive the debt to the current US installed government as it would only be used to free up more loot to profit Bush and Blairs cronies and not the current people of Iraq. (The Freeper only heard that I thought they shouldn't forgive and not the dissonance of Bush's position for making such a demand). Rather, these countries should do so only to a real UN supported regime who will make sure such a gift is properly used.

Do I think that these countries are taking such an altruistic stance? Of course not, though there is a certain amount of effort to maintain some leverage over the US in Iraq, though certainly there is a good deal of truth about your comment about thieves.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Nor do I believe they should take an 'altuistic' stance

EDITED for typing

Of course, firms should be paid for their goods and services if they contract to provide them.

However, my point is that by contracting with the colonial administration, France, Germany, Israel and whoever else is legitimizing the theft of Iraqi resources and assets. Most of those contracts are going to Bush's cronies. As long as he determines who rules Iraq, that will be the case.

The war was not fought for any stated reason -- those were all deliberate lies -- but to set up business opportunies for Bush's corporiate pals. Any contracts open by the Bushies will be to ultimately build Iraq's infratstructure to benefit companies like Halliburton. The internatinal community should be making it as difficult as possible for Halliburton to profit from this enterprise. The situation calls for international noncooperation with the Bush Administration and with the colonial regime in Baghdad.

The Iraqi people are resisting the colonial occupation of their country. The international community that opposed the invasion last winter should continue to stand by the Iraqi people now. That means there should be no trafficking in stolen Iraqi resources or assets with the colonialists.

[Lithos]

40. I agree

Bush and his cronies should not profit from looting Iraq and the International Community shouldn't legitimize the facade Bush has erected that this war was for the Iraqi people.

L-

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Dissenting

We should look forward to the day when Israel will be a respected member of the community of nations. When that happens, an Iraqi government that is responsible to and serves the interests of the Iraqi people will welcome Israel's goods and services in mutual benefit to both nations.

However, no such Iraqi government exists today. This is not to say that one has in recent years. Nevertheless, Iraq has been subject to a foreign invasion predicated on deliberate lies told by a tyrant whose real purpose was to lay hands on that nation's natural wealth in order to enrich his friends.

If the Iraqi people are better off under Bush's colonial occupation than they were under Saddam, it is only because one might hold thieves to be morally superior to murderers. No one should say that the Iraqi people face bright prospects under this arrangement; no one should be so deluded as to believe Iraq is a free and sovereign nation with foreign troops patrolling the countryside to protect Western corporate power; no one should be so naive as to believe that Bush -- the same G. W. Bush who came to power through fraud and manipulation after losing an election, the same G. W. who tramples on the Bill of Rights using the September 11 attacks as a pretext, the same G. W. Bush who betrays his nation by telling lies as he sends brave young men and women to fight a war of colonial piracy -- no one should believe that this tyrant is the least bit interesting in laying the groundwork for a democracy in Iraq.

Bush wouldn't know democracy if it bit him in the ass; and someday, it will.

Meanwhile, Bush, through his colonial viceroy and handpicked governing council of quislings, plots to sell Iraq's resources and assets out from under the Iraqi people. Bush and his cronies have no right to profit from these stolen goods. They have no right to saddle the Iraqi people with future debt. They have on right to enter into any agreement without the consent of the people.

When the Bushies leave Iraq and turn power over a responsible Iraqi government, then let the bidding for contracts begin. Until then, there is no legitimate authority in Iraq. The world should wait to be able to contract Iraq's reconstruction with a real Iraqi government. Until then, the world should shun the colonialists and war criminals who presume to know better what is best for Iraq than the Iraqi people themselves.

[pistoff democrat]

20. Thank you for the excellent analysis.

Hopefully, the new democratic adminisration will do this in January 2004.

It's a very tough business, however, to change from a Saddam-Hussein type system to a responsible Iraqi government.

What do you think will be the best ways of doing so?

Thanks in advance.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Answers

The only answers that can be given are for what ought to be done now. This isn't going to happen. Bush would never allow it. As for what ought to be done in January 2004, we'll have to wait and see how much the situation in Iraq has deteriorated before developing any plan.

Otherwise, if we could wave a magic wand and depose the junta in favor of reasonable men now, my ideas would run on these lines:

The United States could never have the credibility to reconstruct Iraq and shouldn't be in a position to try. The UN should take over the reconstruction effort as soon as possible.

All contracts awarded by the Bush Administration should be cancelled, all sales of Iraqi assets nullified and all debt incurred by the colonial regime declared odious. There is no reason for the Iraqi people to have to pay bills run up by thieves. Iraqi resources shall belong to the Iraqi people. The Iraqi Governing Council should be dissolved. Bush, his aides and their cronies should have as little to say about Iraq reconstruction as possible. If they don't like it, we'll remind them they're lucky not to be in front of an international tribunal.

The new international reconstruction administration will be responsible for Iraq's international security during the transitional phase from US colony to sovereign state. An international peace force will be responsible for guarding Iraq's borders during this period. The international administration will select an interim government from all parties in Iraq, including insurgents. This new interim government will have the power to open bidding for contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and to arrange for Iraq's internal security as Iraq's army is rebuilt in order to guard Iraq's borders from any foreign aggression. A constitutional convention will be called. Upon the adoption of the constitution, free elections will be held. As the new government takes control, the international force responsible for guarding Iraq's borders will depart.

All of this will be done on a published timetable. The schedule will be subject to change as conditions warrant.

[pistoff democrat]

26. Mr. Rabbit

May I suggest you send your resume to the democratic contenders...get in on all of them before the nominee is chosen and get a government job. Reasonable people such as yourself are needed!

[begruntled]

28. what is the deal here...

"Israel is now working behind the scenes with the Bush administration"

it is like this just came in today. They have been behind the scenes since before we invaded, and swooped right in to take advantage of various business ventures just after the war was "over".

Our "reliable" ally has been on the ground since the beginning. The news is really misleading. They have been trying to hide the collaboration. Now it seems they are going public with what is in fact OLD NEWS.

[pistoff democrat]

31. Whew!

My juices were going; I was starting to google; then, I thought, nah, this is too much even for I/P - thanks to whomever; begruntled is also outtahere.

:party:

[bemildred]

34. I agree Sir.

This is PR drool.
The question is what is the spin aimed at?

[pistoff democrat]

35. Hey, spin this! LOL

"George and Laura Bush with Sami Amin Al-Arian during the 2000 campaign in Florida. Al-Arian is charged with 50 counts of terrorism. Al-Arian even went to a White House briefing with Karl Rove."

Those Israelis are so R/W - LOL LOL LOL - try attacking that source:

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=299

[bemildred]

38. That's pretty funny.

Do you have any idea why we would be hearing in public
about US-Israeli cooperation in Iraq now, where before they
were keeping it quiet?

[Resistance]

42. for the most part it is still quiet

[bemildred]

43. Yeah, maybe so.

Whole new media circus going on anyway.

[number6]

44. they sould stay out

bad politics and diplomacy, but ah, thats what the Bu$h
mis-administration is all about ...

[Resistance]

48. The Iraqi people are the ones who should benefit

nobody else.