First, the Zionist Neo-conservatives crafted a paper to describe their intention for securing the realm by invading Iraq.
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
Then they crafted an announcement on Afghanistan as a Pakistani-enabled threat:
The “Taliban Option,” coming as it did partly as a result of shifts in Pakistani politics, themselves intertwined within an ascending spiral of corruption and governmental inefficiency, meant falling into an endless series of concessions to extremist parties. After a certain point it probably becomes difficult even for the policymakers to know whether a particular decision is a conscious policy act or merely another mollification. The consequences of Islamabad’s policy for Pakistan already are serious, and fraught with major risks just ahead.
With its very roots founded in Zionism, the Neo-conservative concept of the projection of unilateral U.S. military power as a force of good was converted to the unquestioning support of Israeli Zionism after the wars of 1967 and 1973. Since 1967 Zionism became the religion of Neo-conservatism and has since taken on a tone of religious fanaticism in U.S. politics. Zionism has now become the primary tenant of u.s. foreign policy in the middle east. The JINSA doctrine of "U.S. and Israeli interests are the same" has become a self--fulfilling prophecy through the efforts of the U.S. Neo-conservative movement.
The Foundation
Leo Strauss is considered the founder of Neo-conservatism. His political teachings at the University of Chicago were based on deception for political gain, as shown in his teachings on "noble lies and deadly truths". Where he taught his belief that
"the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth"
Leo Strauss was a Zionist (warning pdf file)
By age seventeen, he was a convert to "simple, straightforward political Zionism" of the Jabotinsky variety.
-Henry L. Feingold, "The Condition of American Jewry in Historical Perspective: A Bicentennial Perspective," American Jewish Year Book 76, 1976(?) Page 91
(jabotinsky was a founder and early leader of the militant Zionist underground organization, Irgun. He also founded the "Mule Brigades" that fought in the British Army against the Ottoman Empire to help secure Palestine as the home of Jewish immigrants. He founded the "Revisionist Zionism" movement which is currently attempting to remove all Palestinians from the West Bank)
note: Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the New York Times
Leo Strauss' life work was to promote and defend Zionism by utilizing a strong, internationally focused, U.S. military platform for the defense of Israel.
-------------------
Norman Podhoretz is considerd to be one of the "Fathers of neo-conservatism" due to his work as editor-in-chief of Commentary Magazine from 1960-1995.
Norman Podhoretz was one of the original signatories of the "Statement of Principles" of the Project for the New American Century. Podhoretz received the Guardian of Zion Award from Bar-Ilan University on May 24, 2007.
is a monthly American magazine on politics, Judaism, social and cultural issues; founded by the American Jewish Committee in 1945. By 1960 its editor was Norman Podhoretz, a liberal at the time who moved sharply to the right in the 1970s and 1980s becoming a strong voice for the anti-communism left. The magazine was one of the leading voices of neoconservatism by 1976
the American Jewish Committee was founded in 1906 and strictly anti-Zionist until the war of 1967. With views similar to famed political theorist Hannah Arendt it is likely that the AJC became zionist after it was apparent that Israel stood a "fighting chance" against the Arabs.
In 2000, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold, cited AJC as playing a central role in Israel's gaining acceptance into the UN's Western Europe and Others Group.
------------
Irving Kristol, is considered the "Godfather of Neo-conservatism". He was an editor and then the managing editor of Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952. Irving Kristol was NOT a zionist. His views likely aligned more-or-less with those of Hannah Arendt who opposed Israel's declaration of statehood in 1948, believing that it could not win a war against the Arabs.
Due to his Anti-zionist views prior to the six-day war of 1967 and the October war of 1973, he invariably was removed from power. He would no longer write on international efforts of the neo-conservative movement but would focus on "social and domestic policy."
As he related in 2006:
In 1965, through a series of circumstances that need not be recounted here, the stars became properly aligned so that my wish could become a reality. Dan Bell and I were able to start a new magazine devoted exclusively to domestic social and economic policy.
He was removed in preparation for the 1967 war and "the complete Zionization, as it might be called, of the American Jewish community".
as reported in the New York Times in 1974,
Part of the answer lies in the progressive erosion of the objections to Zionism which originally gave rise to the divisions. Thus none of the three varieties of anti-Zionism has stood the test of time. All of them were born before the state of Israel actually came into being, and whatever the merits of their respective arguments against the founding of a Jewish state, once such a state existed, the only meaning anti-Zionism could have in practice was to advocate its dissolution. Since, moreover, the Arabs were explicitly promising not merely to dismantle the Jewish state but to drive its inhabitants into the sea, Jews who took the anti-Zionist position inescapably found themselves lending support to the massacre of other Jews.
--------------------------
The Rise of the Zionist Neoconservatives
Israel became a central cause for these neocons after its victory in the 1967 war turned most of them into born-again Zionists. Neocons like the Rostow brothers and Ben Wattenberg, who served in the Johnson administration, helped LBJ drum up support for the Vietnam War among Jewish liberal Democrats who had been opposed to that military adventure. This was done by convincing such liberals that only a militarily strong and perpetually interventionist America can guarantee the security of Israel.
The corollary was that a strong Israel is a strategic asset" as far as American interests in the Middle East are concerned, helping Washington to contain Soviet expansionism in the area. This was reduced to the neoconservative dogma that what is good for Israel is good for America, and vice versa. Neocons have treated questioning of this dogma as the equivalent of a declaration of war and immediately have sought, by innuendo, to brand such questioners as "anti-Semitic."
. . .
In 1972, they mobilized their support behind the late Senator Henry Jackson from Washington. Both Humphrey and Jackson represented staunch anti-Soviet and pro-Israeli positions in the party.
Senator Jackson's aides, Richard Perle and Elliott Abrams, who later became major figures in the Reagan foreign policy team, attempted to torpedo any effort by the Nixon and Carter administrations to improve relations with the Soviet Union or to launch peace efforts in the Middle East. From Jackson's office, the two led the campaign to use the issue of Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union to sabotage detente between Washington and Moscow.The result was Jackson-sponsored legislation denying the Soviet Union a "most favored nation" status unless it permitted increased Jewish emigration. Ironically, that move not only froze the Nixon-era detente, it also froze the emigration of Soviet Jews.
-------------------------- Richard Perle a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, as well as the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). A member of the Committee on U.S. Interests in the Middle East he was a co-signer of a February 26, 1992 ad in the New York Times that criticized George Bush Sr's pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions in the pursuit of peace treaties.
-------------------------
Elliott Abrams Son in law of Norman Podhoretz, former member of the American Jewish Committee, National Advisory Council and founding member of the Committee on U.S. Interests in the Middle East.
February 26, 1992 COMMITTEE OF FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS RUNS PRO-ISRAEL AD
The Committee on US Interests in the Middle East runs a full-page ad in the New York Times. The ad says: "We advocate support for a US policy toward Israel that would—in contrast to current American policy—reflect the traditional, strong American support for the legitimacy, security and general well-being of the Jewish State: a proven, valuable, democratic friend and ally of the United States."
-------------------------
Paul Wolfowitz a leading neoconservative.[5] As Deputy Secretary of Defense, he was "a major architect of President Bush's Iraq policy and ... its most hawkish advocate." Author of the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" this advocacy of unilateral imperialism was promoted by the neocons as an alternative strategy to Israeli peace negotiations via treaty concessions but was framed as relating to the securitization of oil interests
In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel."
The Wolfowitz doctrine, through the efforts of Neo-conservatives in 1998 became the Bush Doctrine.
---------------------- John Bolton is currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He is also involved with a broad assortment of other conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). As Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State (1989–1993) he led in the successful effort to rescind the UN resolution from the 1970s that had equated Zionism with racism.
---------------------
Lewis (Scooter) Libby Studied under Paul Wolfowitz at Yale, a signatory to the "Statement of Principles" of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), was given the nickname "germboy"
After becoming Cheney's chief of staff in 2001, Libby was reportedly nicknamed "Germ Boy" at the White House, for insisting on universal smallpox vaccination
he co-authored the Wolfowitz Doctrine.
Libby was born to an affluent Jewish family in New Haven, Connecticut; his late father, Irving (or Irve) Lewis Liebowitz, was an investment banker.
---------------------
How The Zionist Neo-conservatives Implemented a 40-year Policy
Michael Lind wrote in Britain's The New Statesman (April 7), the neo-cons are "products of the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history"
. . .
(Dick) Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney's right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.
note: reference to Irving Kristol's roots in Trotskyism
Then, 9/11 happened and we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, which country is next???
--------------------
In the Name of Zionism
The Egyptian government believes July will be a decisive month that may see an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a senior Egyptian security official speaking to WND.
The official said Egypt has already implemented security measures that take into account an Israeli strike against Iran within the next month or so.
Israel, June 6, 2010
Israel recently approached the United States with new requests for security-related purchases, Haaretz has learned. The requests included Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM ) bombs for the Israel Air Force, as well as a significant expansion of the emergency stores held by the U.S. army in Israel.
The priority list reflects the security threats the defense establishment believes Israel will face in the next few years, i.e. the eventuality of a prolonged war, which would necessitate using the IAF widely to attack many targets, along with ensuring enough spare parts and supplies.
Israel also requested JDAM bombs, seeking to significantly increase the number of such munitions already in its arsenal. The JDAM bombs have been used increasingly in recent operations, including in the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008.
Israel is also seeking to increase the amount of gear held by the American army in their emergency stores in Israel by 50% - from $800 million to $1.2 billion. The Obama administration placed the stores in Israel in December, as part of a number of steps to improve U.S. assistance to Israeli security. To date, $600 million worth of American emergency equipment has been placed in Israel.
The American stores hold rockets, bombs, aircraft ammunition and armored vehicles, along with other weapons. The gear fully matches equipment already used by the Israel Defense Forces and is cataloged upon arrival to ensure quick and easy access at a time of need, pending permission from the United States. The American move has a dual purpose: bringing military equipment closer to areas in which Americans might need to fight, and assisting the U.S. ally should the need arise.