Neoconservative David Brooks admits that Iraq war was necessary to ‘peace process’
(MondoWeiss) -- by Philip Weiss --
David Brooks admitted everything yesterday. He said that the peace process is the pacification of the Arab countries. And that ir required the invasion of Iraq and latterly, getting rid of Qaddafi, Assad, and Hamas. Not a word about the occupation, not a word about 25-to-1 ratio of water used, Jews to Palestinians in the West Bank. This is the neoconservative mind: the only issue is Israel's dominance in the region, and our support for it. Be thankful to Brooks for admitting it.
In fact, the current peace process is doomed because of the inability to make a categorical distinction. There are some countries in the region that are not nice, but they are normal – Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. But there are other governments that are fundamentally depraved. Either as a matter of thuggishness (Syria) or ideology (Hamas), they reject the full humanity of other human beings. They believe it is proper and right to kill innocents. They can never be part of a successful negotiation because they undermine the universal principles of morality.This is unreconstructed neoconservatism, transplanted to the Arab spring, and signalling that the Palestinians must never have self-determination, unless it's in Jordan. Notice the "universal principles of morality" -- which Brooks, who is admittedly "gooey-eyed" about Israel-- fails to apply to Israel's occupation. No, the neoconservative principle is that Arabs must be bludgeoned by a superpower into accepting the presence of Israel...MORE...LINK
...There won't be peace so long as depraved regimes are part of the picture. That's why it's crazy to get worked into a lather about who said what about the 1967 border. As long as Hamas and the Assad regime are in place, the peace process is going nowhere, just as it's gone nowhere for lo these many years.
That's why it's necessary, especially at this moment in history, to focus on the nature of regimes, not only the boundaries between them. To have a peaceful Middle East, it was necessary to get rid of Saddam's depraved regime in Iraq. It will be necessary to try to get rid of Gadhafi's depraved regime in Libya. It's necessary, as everybody but the Obama administration publicly acknowledges, to see Assad toppled. It will be necessary to marginalize Hamas. It was necessary to abandon the engagement strategy that Barack Obama campaigned on and embrace the cautious regime-change strategy that is his current doctrine.
Chris Moore comments:
Weiss is right, Brooks is essentially confessing everything here. No more claiming the Middle East wars were about 9/11; no more claiming the Middle East wars are crucial to U.S. "security"; no more claiming America is in the Middle East attempting to "spread democracy."
But he is admitting that he and his Jewish neocon clique beleived that "to have a peaceful Middle East, it was necessary to get rid of Saddam's depraved regime in Iraq" and all other "depraved regimes" that come into conflict with Israel -- "peacful" being defined as Zionist-complient, ie subserviant to Jewish supremacism, and "depraved" being defined as a failure to completely roll over for Jewish supremacism.
But of course, we know that acquiescing to Jewish supremacy never gets anything close to peace, but only encourages more Jewish arrogance and imperiousness, and ends up at Jewish depravity.
Why, just ask the persecuted Palestinians, or far that matter, the mass-murdered Russian Christians, who fell under the axe of the Jewish Bolsheviks. Not much "peace" for either of those peoples.
But Brooks is a self-serving, warlike, Israel-first, Jewish Zionist neocon, so of course he's going to define "peace" as acquiescence to Jewish supremacism. What else would one expect from such a creature?
Gee, it sure would have been nice if these scheming Jewish Zionists had simply laid all their cards on the table from the beginning. If they had, America would likely not have been bogged down in Middle Eastern wars for nearly 10 years, embroiled in what amounts to a war with Islam, and consequently wouldn't be on the cusp of economic collapse, as we are today.
But honesty instead of treachery? Nobility instead of deceit? Honor instead of cravenness? Integrity instead of double-dealings? I guess that's asking too much from creatures of a Zionist nature.
Neolibs, neocons, Zionists and their Arab statist-totalitarian puppets have re-introduced fascism into world