How Israeli Intelligence led the US and the UK to launch on Iraq

[newyorican]

It’s no secret that much of the news reported in Israel’s Hebrew-language media never reaches the mainstream American press, for the simple reason that items unfavorable to Israel generally are not translated. And, because very few Israelis break this self-imposed censorship, items from the Hebrew press that do appear may be much more newsworthy than their anemic English translations indicate.

It was a bit stunning, therefore, to read an article in Strategic Assessment, the quarterly bulletin issued by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. The report, titled “The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?” was written by Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general in the Israeli Army reserves, and said what no one seems to have dared publish since President George W. Bush decided to wage war on Iraq. Shockingly, it told the full truth about the American and British intelligence “sources” making the case for war.

In fact, according to Brom, these sources were utterly compromised by Israeli intelligence, which made the case for starting the war and kept it going as long as necessary. The retired general described Israel as a “full partner” in US and British intelligence failures that exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs in the lead up to the US-led invasion.


more...

[J B]

1. This isn't as secret as this article makes it out to be....

And I sure as hell read about this on the ENGLISH web version of Ha'aretz...

[Party of the People]

3. oops!

Thanks for posting the truth!

[WilliamPierce]

2. Good post newyorican

I suggest you read more from Victor Ostrovsky(spelling) ex-mossad officer who reveals their(Mossad) game plan.

[Resistance]

11. got any good links for that?

[newyorican]

4. Original Source Article:

The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?

by Shlomo Brom

(snip)
The prevailing supposition over the past decade was that despite the discoveries made by the UN supervisory commissions, Iraq had managed to hide operational equipment, such as surface-to-surface missiles, shells, and warheads loaded with biological and chemical warfare agents. However, all the searches carried out have failed to turn up evidence of the existence of such weapons. It can also be concluded that because weapons of this type are much bulkier and heavier than documents and small items related to projects, it would have been necessary in hiding them to involve a significant number of people. This suggests, therefore, that no operational weapons were hidden, or that if they were hidden, the concealment was on a much smaller scale.

The emergent picture has thus sparked demands within the United States and Britain to establish commissions of inquiry to investigate the performance of intelligence bodies in the context of the Iraq War. Moreover, a critical question to be answered is whether governmental bodies falsely manipulated the intelligence information in order to gain support for their decision to go to war in Iraq, while the real reasons for this decision were obfuscated or concealed. Those demanding the inquiry contend that there are two basic issues that justify such a step: the need to assess the reliability and competence of the intelligence services, and the fact that sending a country to war based on false pretenses constitutes serious injury to the democratic process.

In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure, Israel, has remained in the shadows. And yet, Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional capabilities. In addition to an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities, it was also assessed that the Iraqis were apt to use these capabilities against Israel. In actuality, of course, Israel was not attacked, either because Iraq did not have the capability or because it had no intention of doing so.
(/snip)

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v6n3p3Bro.html

[MikeGalos]

5. Wow an al-Jazeerah editorial that lies

What a shock...

If they actually bothered to find out, the major Israeli papers are generally available in English.

• The Jerusalem Post IS in English
• Ha'aretz publishes their content in both Hebrew and English
• Yidiot Achranot publishes in Hebrew only but their Editorials and key articles are reprinted in English
• Ma'ariv publishes in in Hebrew only but their Editorials and key articles are reprinted in English

And anyone who thinks stories unfavorable to Israel aren't published hasn't read the Ha'aretz website (www.haaretz.com). It is mainstream, very vocal, frequently opposed to the government and quoted often by both sides in the I/P forum.

But, hey, what do facts have to do with a good al-Jazeerah Israel bash.

[newyorican]

6. That would be #4

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.htm

[MikeGalos]

8. No

That's a major point that I'm refuting.

Now, your post is an excellent example of #4. Quite ironic!

[Aidoneus]

7. actually, it is an WRMEA editorial

Not even the right "al-Jazeera" page that I suspect you're thinking of. I caught that by looking at it for 10sec, what's your excuse?

The more interesting Israeli papers are generally in Hebrew.

Perhaps it could be said that what they say in Hebrew among themselves and then what they say in English are very different things. There should be an "Israeli Media Watch" to keep an eye on such incitement.

[MikeGalos]

9. Gee,

I notice that you couch your charge in "perhaps it could be".

Obviouslly you have nothing to back up that charge and are hoping people won't notice that.

As for "The more interesting Israeli papers", funny, but around this forum, people on both sides quote Ha'aretz - as published by the - In English.

Guess you're thinking of the Ma'alot Daily Shopper or or maybe the Herzelia Review of Books or some such as "The Most Interesting Israeli Paper" because you'd have to be down to that level to see and Israeli paper that isn't either originated in English, translated by the publisher into English or translated by the Israeli Government in their daily Editorial Summary of all editorials of all major papers in the country.

As for pots references to kettles, while you speculate on the potential need for an "Israeli Media Watch" that might back up your baseless claim, other would note that there are already several media groups that independently translate the major Arab press and find all kinds of things that don't make it out otherwise.

[tinnypriv]

10. Sorry to let the facts get in the way, but:

1. Ha'aretz does not publish the same content in English and Hebrew. They are not mirror images.

2. Er, Yediot(-h) Aharonot(-h) publishes in Hebrew only, and the Israeli government and other organisations choose which editorials and selected (not "key") articles to reprint.

3. Ma'ariv publishes in Hebrew only (did publish in english for several weeks), their editorials are sporadic, and the Israeli government and other organisations choose which editorials and selected (not "key") articles to reprint.

The latter parts of (2) and (3) are of course the point. I know it may be obvious to some, but I feel it is worth restating for you.

As for (essentially) ignored stories, here are a few which I noted in Oct:

* The "Jewish Mehan'des" (engineer)
* The fact Iran proposed opening a dialogue with Israel three years ago, and Israel rejected the offer.¹
* Israel's warning to Syria that her "regime is in danger".
* The fact the IDF has drawn up additional targets in Syria.
* Israel now becoming easily the "strongest in the Middle East" thanks to the war in Iraq.
* Israel's plan to effectively annex Abu Dis.
* The Bush Adminstration's plan to put the Roadkill into a "deep freeze".²
* The head of Israeli military intelligence saying that it is "better for Palestinian mothers to weep".³
* The "Jewish Underground" plot to blow up Mosques throughout Israel, and the rally in support of them in Jerusalem.⁴
* The chair of the Likud tabling a motion in the Knesset to outlaw co-operation with international war crime tribunals (directed at Gush-Shalom).⁵

Note that these are by no means the only ones. These are only the stories that I personally saw, considered important, and thought were high-profile in Israel and reported by credible commentators.

This is not to say I agree completely with the piece ran by al-Jazeera (this is an extremely complex topic), but you are dismissing it on no serious basis whatsoever, with little understanding of the basic facts.

...

1. I did not continue checking for this story beyond a day or so after it was reported. It may have been cited beyond the Hebrew press.
2. I brought this specifically to the attention of a senior Ha'aretz reporter, where he essentially confirmed it.
3. Note that this was picked up by Ha'aretz. However this was several days later (after it had already been front page news in Israel) and this is only because a Palestinian-focused writer chose to note the lack of reporting of the quote. The Ha'aretz piece was "re-printed" in Z Magazine (online only) in the states.
4. The part about the Mosques was noted two months later (a few days ago - i.e. in Dec), buried in the third paragraph of a wire article, on another topic. The rally remains unmentioned.
5. This was noted by Scoop.nz, re-printing a Gush-Shalom press release.