An insidious but steady drumbeat can be discerned over the last several weeks that seeks to link Israel with the United States decision to launch the Iraq War. Back in 2003, it was Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who charged that the Israeli government was "the first inciter for the war against Iraq." About the same time, Patrick Buchanan alleged in his American Conservative magazine that "a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests." He went on to blame them for "colluding with Israel to ignite those wars."

On the liberal side, Chris Matthews, who hosts MSNBC’s "Hardball", echoed Buchanan when he spoke about "conservative people out there, some of them Jewish…who believe that if we don’t fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger." The newest wave in 2004 is often more subtle but also far more mainstream. Thus, in May 2004, CBS’s "60 Minutes" interviewed General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the US Central Command, who blasted the civilian leadership in the Pentagon for faulty strategy in Iraq. Steve Kroft of CBS then added fuel to the fire of Zinni’s attack by asserting that the neo-conservatives among the civilian leaders in the Pentagon had an agenda to "strengthen the position of Israel."

Another variation on the Israel theme is the assertion made by Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist, that General Zinni heard from administration officials that the Iraq War would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process because "the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad." According to this thesis, the Iraq War would chiefly help Israel’s drive to obtain peace on reasonable terms--still a benefit to Israel.

The main charge by the current detractors of Israel is that the primary interest of the Bush administration in going to war against Saddam Hussein was to defend Israeli security interests. Bush critic Richard Clarke, who previously served in the administration, also mentions the Israel factor as one of five rationales of the Bush administration for the Iraq War, but at least he sets it aside as a main consideration, preferring instead to focus on the concern with finding a long-term alternative to Saudi Arabian oil.

For critics of President Bush in the heat of an election year, who reject the notion that the Iraq War was fought over weapons of mass destruction, the War on Terrorism, or over human rights and a promise of a democratic Iraq, the Israel factor is a useful instrument for bashing the administration by ascribing the war to alien considerations having nothing to do with US interests.

It is important to remember that Iraq is one of several Arab countries that have in the past constituted Israel’s "eastern front." Historically, they include Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. But whereas Syria devoted almost its entire ground order-of-battle to wars with Israel, Iraq sent only expeditionary forces that never exceeded one-third of its total army in 1948, 1967, and 1973. Further, by 2003, the Iraqi army had been severely degraded in both military manpower and equipment. Continuing UN sanctions made Iraqi rearmament difficult. The Iraqi missile threat was considered minimal. Thus Iraq was clearly not Israel’s primary concern.

In contrast, there was one state that threatened Israel about which Israeli statements were unmistakably clear: Iran. Israel used language with respect to Iran that it never used regarding Iraq. Thus, in 2004 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Iran "the main existential threat to Israel." Clearly, if Israel wanted to get into the business--which it did not--of prodding the US to go to war on its behalf, it would have chosen Iran and not Iraq.

The critics of the neo-conservatives in America charge that they constitute a cabal that dragged America into the Iraq War in order to serve the ideological agenda of the Israeli Likud party. Thus, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi branded Elliot Abrams, who serves on the National Security Council, as "an American Likudnik." Maureen Dowd explained to the readers of the New York Times that the neo-conservatives seek to make sure that US foreign policy "is good for [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon," who heads the Likud party.

Like the charge that the Iraq War was promoted by Israel, the Likud connection has been shown to be groundless. For example, in November 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz met with the authors of the Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan that envisions Israel withdrawing to the 1967 lines--a stand which is anathema to the Likud party. Writing with David Frum, Richard Perle proposed that the US use its influence to help broker the creation of a Palestinian mini-state "with its capital in part of Jerusalem." The redivision of Jerusalem is overwhelmingly opposed by most Israelis and certainly by the members of the Likud party. In contrast, the Pentagon’s Douglas Feith has criticized the concessions of former Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in the pages of Commentary. In short, there is no uniform neo-conservative position on Israel. Consequently, there is no set policy on Israel among neo-conservatives that has been coordinated with the leadership of the Likud party. The Likud/neo-conservative cabal is a myth.

Many neo-isolationist critics of the Iraq War do not understand why America is fighting wars all of a sudden in the distant Middle East. Partly for that reason, they think America’s War on Terrorism was caused by considerations related to Israel. During most of the twentieth century, the main threats to US national security emanated from the European continent, as evidenced by the decisions of past American administrations to enter World Wars I and II, and to extend the US military umbrella over Europe during the Cold War.

Given the global pattern of non-conventional weapons proliferation, the spread of long-range delivery systems, and the sources of the current wave of international terrorism, the Middle East has replaced Europe as the region that poses the greatest threat to the American heartland. That fact has nothing to do with the purported lobbying efforts of a group of American citizens that has been singled out by irresponsible commentators. In the late 1930s, a group of racists charged President Roosevelt, the British, and the Jews with forcing America into war. Their intellectual offspring are doing the same 70 years later.-Published 15/7/2004©bitterlemons-international.org

Dore Gold is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is the author of Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Regnery, 2003) and Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos (New York: Crown Forum, forthcoming November 2004).