2006 February 13 Monday
Israeli Intelligence Chief Worries Saddam Was Better For Israel

Head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency Yuval Diskin says Israel may end up missing Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq.

When asked about the growing destabilisation of Iraq, Mr Diskin said Israel might come to rue its decision to support the US-led invasion in 2003.

"When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos," he said.

"I'm not sure we won't miss Saddam."

Maybe Diskin notices that Shia dominated Iran is Israel's most feared enemy and that a Shiite theocracy in Baghdad makes that situation worse by greatly reducing the threat Iraq poses to Iran. Maybe Diskin figures a chaotic place with lots of terrorists running around is a lot worse than a place with a strong central dictator.

A tape was made of Diskin talking to some West Bank settler seminary students.

The TV station said the tape came from a closed meeting about a month ago between Diskin and Jewish seminary students at Eli, a hardline Jewish settlement in the West Bank near the city of Nablus.

Diskin's voice was heard on the tape. "Sometimes when you dismantle a system in which a tyrant controls his people by force," he said, commenting on the US-led offensive against Saddam, "and it breaks into pieces and generates chaos, you get a situation like in Iraq.

"Is the situation better in Iraq today compared to what it was before?" he asked. "From the Israeli point of view, we could come around to missing Saddam," he added.

But the neocons assure us that democracy in Arabia is just the cure for what ails them.

Diskin also thinks that Israel's leniency toward its own Jewish terrorists harms Israel.

Jewish terrorism is a "cancer" that Israel is lenient in tackling, according to Israel's Shin Bet chief.

"Understand that a Jew who carries out terrorism is ultimately much more of a cancer in the nation than an Arab who carries out terrorism," Yuval Diskin said in a recent closed-door briefing to army cadets, a recording of which was aired this week by Israel's Channel 10 television.

Asked by his audience, which included West Bank settlers, whether the Shin Bet hunts suspected Jewish radicals, Diskin said they receive better treatment than Palestinians or Israeli Arabs held in similar cases.

"I do not see an equality in the way the system handles them, even when they are accused of the same kind of crime," Diskin said.

The Israelis need to separate themselves from the Arabs. The intertwining of Arab and Jewish communities driven by the Jewish religious folks determined to settle in land they think God gave them is corrupting them.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 February 13 05:20 PM  MidEast Arabs Versus Israelis


Comments
Jim said at February 13, 2006 6:43 PM:

religious fanatics of any persuasion are terrifying

John S Bolton said at February 13, 2006 10:08 PM:

The facts from actual regimes show that materialist faiths which warrant unlimited aggression are more lethal than spiritual ones. Islam is very much different from the general range of spiritual faiths of 'any persuasion'.
The moslem faith is one of aggression.
Freedom for the moslem, as such, means freedom for aggression; for their
faith of aggression.
Civilization is primarily freedom from aggression. When public policy is organized around spreading freedom for the moslem as such, this will spread freedom for aggression; yet loyalty to civilization is the actual value which should be sought.
Israel will be affected negatively insofar as freedom for aggression by the moslem is built up, unless other countries become preferentially targeted. That would be contrary to the spirit of Islam though, and that which builds up freedom for the moslem as such, as aggressor, will not constrain moslem aggression, to pass over Israel.

Jorge D.C. said at February 14, 2006 1:07 AM:

Israeli Intelligence Chief Worries Saddam Was Better For Israel

Well the grass is always greener. Not just for this Intel Chief but for a lot people it seems. Saddam's career already gets glossed over by the Left and increasingly by the middle.

How quickly we forget. The man was a menace. And not that old. He could've been in power another 25 years.

If you want a barometer reading on the decline of Western Civilization take a close look at the trial of Saddam and compare it to Nuremberg. Only a culture without confidence (multiculturalist) hands over Saddam to the local nation-buildees for prosecution and punishment. What a fiasco.

And if you go back further for comparisons than WWII: Teddy Roosevelt would've personally shot Saddam. Andrew Jackson would've hanged him immediately after lifting him out of that rabbit hole. And both would've been unequivocally correct in their actions.

daveg said at February 14, 2006 8:55 AM:

There is a great comment on this topic here (Antony Lowenstein).

Interestingly, they dicuss the extensive use of Israeli intellegence by Wolfowitz in the pre-Iraq war build up. This is documented in James Risen's new book.

This is disturbing as clearly Israel would have an there own interests and biases when it comes to middle eastern geopoltical matters.

Derek Copold said at February 14, 2006 3:20 PM:

Yet another opportunity for anti-war conservatives to say "I told you so, you f***ing fools."

Randall Parker said at February 14, 2006 7:10 PM:

Jorge D.C.

Saddam ceased to be a menace years ago. His country was economically declining and his military was falling apart.

Ned said at February 15, 2006 6:51 AM:

In many ways, Saddam reminds me of Adolf Hitler. Not just that both were tyrants who stomped hard on anyone who got in their way (in Germany or Iraq). Both bullied their neighbors (Hitler - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland; Saddam - Kuwait and Iran). Yet in the 1930's, many in the West regarded Soviet Communism rather than Naziism as the true threat to Europe. These naive folks turned a blind eye to Hitler's crimes on the grounds that Nazi Germany was a "bulwark against Bolshevism" that would keep the Communists out of Eastern (and Western) Europe. And Hitler, despite his misdeeds, did fulfill this role. The inevitable consequence of Germany's defeat was that Soviet Communism burst from its boundaries and forcibly overran half of Europe. Only the American and British armies kept the Soviets from going all the way to the Atlantic. And it took almost fifty years to get them out.

Now, Saddam. He, too, committed monstrous crimes against his own people and his neighbors. But he did serve to keep two very dangerous forces in check - Islamic fundamentalism and Iranian expansionism. Saddam was the tip of the Sunni spear pointed at the Shiites. Now that he is gone and the Iraqi military is pretty much gone too, it should come as a surprise to no one that forces he suppressed are rising again. Iran, with a fanatical theocratic government, is now the leading military power on the Gulf. (Iran held a similar role under the Shah, but he was friendly to the US and Israel and didn't bother anyone except the fundamentalists). The Iranians won't be so foolish as to mess with Iraq with American and British forces there. With Saddam gone and the Iraqi Shiites coming to power, the Iranians are rather pleased with the way things are turning out in Iraq, so why should they bother? But watch out when the Western forces leave. Iran, allied with a sympathetic Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, will be free to go after Kuwait and the real prize, Saudi Arabia. All that oil, plus the Islamic holy sites. Not to mention a repressed Shiite minority to be "liberated" from Wahabi oppression. This will send the corrupt and decadent Saudi royalists squealing to Washington (again) to save their sorry regime. It might also force a rather unlikely alliance between Israel (the regional superpower) and some of the Sunni regimes to oppose iranian expansionism.

Daveg said at February 15, 2006 7:17 AM:

The Saddam trial is obvoiusly a joke, but what is interesting is the crimes he is being charged with are, all thing relative, fairly minor.

I think the current charge involes the death of some 127 people. That is surely not a great thing, but it is no Hitler. There must be dozens of dicators in the world that have the blood of more than 127 peeople on their hands.

And if these are the types of number we are going to see one really does have to question the wisdom of "liberating Iraq" at the cost of some 25,000+ Iraqis AND 2000+ Americans. It takes a lot of incidents involving 127 people to reach 25,000 + 2000. A helll of a lot of incidents.

Maybe the trial will get to the "mother load" of dead people, but so far I am not seeing it.

Bob Badour said at February 15, 2006 7:59 AM:

Is it possible the prosecutors have multiple cases against Saddam and chose the one with the best evidence?

Bob Badour said at February 15, 2006 8:00 AM:

Is it possible the prosecutors have multiple cases against Saddam and chose the one with the best evidence?

daveg said at February 15, 2006 9:48 AM:

Is it possible the prosecutors have multiple cases against Saddam and chose the one with the best evidence?

Absolutely. Still, it is an underwhelming start to the prosecution. I will continue to watch and wait.

It is starting to remind me of the Milosovic prosecution which has been going for four years and really hasn't turned up much of anything, let alone an ethnic cleansing.

But, it is very much early days in the Saddam trial.

daveg said at February 15, 2006 10:03 AM:

To clarify my position, even if Saddam was a murdering dictator, I don't think that we should have invaded the country to "liberate" the people.

The liberation argument is just the current justification for the war given by the "war party." I am simply questioning this weak justification.

If we want to "rescue" people around the world there are many other countries with people we could rescue for far less money and with far less loss of life. Mexico would be a good candidate to start with.

The only justification that made sense for Iraq was the WMD case, but that turned out to be untrue.

Bob Badour said at February 15, 2006 4:26 PM:

Yes, I agree. Democratization, to me, was always secondary to the WMD and amounted to the answer to "Now what?" after taking out the regime.

The day the anarchy broke out, I knew we lost regardless.

Big Bill said at February 15, 2006 8:39 PM:

Well, you can see it coming. Things go to hell in Israel, and rather than realizing they never should have muscled America into invading with all of their generals and colonels filling up Pentagon hallways, they start blaming us for all the chaos and unrest. Everyone forgets that they breathed a sigh of relief when they got us to fight and die in Iraq instead of them. By the end of this mess they'll have their hands out for another 20 or $30 billion, guilt tripping us for how we let them down, how we caused this whole fiasco, and how they are just the innocent victims. On top of that, we're going to have to take in at least 50 to 100,000 nutcase Iraqi Muslims who claim they were on our side all along and they can't live in Iraqi more since they'll be killed, and (again, just like the Israelis) they will say it's all our fault.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright