US bans Israel to sell its own radars to China and India, but according to your conspiracy Israel is so powerful that can order US to attack any country it wishes?
It is because US does not want any of its competitors to achieve any advance technology... but still Israel supply US tech to china and may be also to India illegally ...by doing so they are just spitting on the pot which is giving them money, weapon and protection from all sort of illegal activities...
And by the way, before US invasion in Iraq, Israel explicitly told the US that Iran is bigger danger than Iraq and that Iran should be dealt first.
That was just from above... but all the israeli zionist and neocons in the USA has masterminded it... n attacking iraq and dividing it into 3 part was at 1st developed by a israeli zionist in 1982...
for your info ...
United States foreign policy
Brian Whitaker reported in a September 2002 article [8] published in The Guardian that
"With several of the Clean Break paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to transcend its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it."
John Mearsheimer wrote in March 2006 in the London Review of Books that the 'Clean Break' paper
"called for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle 'are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ... and Israeli interests'."[9]
Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in the New York Times that[10]:
"Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make 'a clean break' from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, 'The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.' It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and 'Jewish interests' are not the main reason for it now."
Buruma continues[10]:
"What we see, then, is not a Jewish conspiracy, but a peculiar alliance of evangelical Christians, foreign-policy hard-liners, lobbyists for the Israeli government and neoconservatives, a number of whom happen to be Jewish. But the Jews among them -- Perle, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, et al. -- are more likely to speak about freedom and democracy than about Halakha (Jewish law). What unites this alliance of convenience is a shared vision of American destiny and the conviction that American force and a tough Israeli line on the Arabs are the best ways to make the United States strong, Israel safe and the world a better place."
Daniel Levy described the paper and the influence its authors came to yield on US foreign policy[11]:
"In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The 'clean break' was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of 'Hashemite control in Iraq.' The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush."
An October 2003 editorial in The Nation criticized the Syria Accountability Act and connected it to the 'Clean Break' report and authors[12]:
"To properly understand the Syria Accountability Act, one has to go back to a 1996 document, 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,' drafted by a team of advisers to Benjamin Netanyahu in his run for prime minister of Israel. The authors included current Bush advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. 'Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil,' they wrote, calling for 'striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.' No wonder Perle was delighted by the Israeli strike. 'It will help the peace process,' he told the Washington Post, adding later that the United States itself might have to attack Syria. But what Perle means by 'helping the peace process' is not resolving the conflict by bringing about a viable, sovereign Palestinian state but rather - as underscored in 'A Clean Break' - 'transcending the Arab-Israeli conflict' altogether by forcing the Arabs to accept most, if not all, of Israel's territorial conquests and its nuclear hegemony in the region."
Commentator Karen Kwiatkowski [1] has pointed to the similarities between the proposed actions in the Clean Break document, and the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Patrick J. Buchanan,[5] in reference to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the report, wrote that "Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish 'the principle of preemption,' has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States."
George Packer, in his 2005 non-fiction analysis of the Iraq war The Assassins’ Gate, explicates the Clean Break report "through the lens of Wurmser’s subsequent AEI-published volume, which argued (in 1999) that America’s taking out Saddam would solve Israel’s strategic problems and leave the Palestinians essentially helpless."[13]
Phyllis Bennis [14] has pointed to the similarities between the proposed actions in the Clean Break document, and the subsequent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
Sidney Blumenthal wrote in August 2006 that
"In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process."[6]
Taki writes in the September 2006 issue of The American Conservative[15] that
"recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word. Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America’s official adoption of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go."
But I thought most of problems are because of Israel.
What about Yemen? Poorest Arab country. For sure its Israel's fault. No?
I dont care about your poverty problems, I just wondered because u said that all problems are because of Israel.
Being poor is not the problem ... every one knows this is cause of british... they kept colonizing the place for centuries but did not do any development in the region... but all the major conflict's root cause is israel...
Most of Libya's oil belongs to British Petroleum.
