Cohen, Aaronovitch and the Neocon school of thought

On 13 June 2013, the internationally renowned Israeli Jazz saxophonist, Gilad Atzmon, said this at his own blog:

“The Neocon school of thought that pushed the English-speaking Empire into Iraq was largely a Jewish Diaspora, Zionist clan. It’s also no secret that the second Gulf War was fought to serve Israeli interests… 

Similarly, it is well established that when Tony Blair decided to launch that criminal war, Lord Levy was the chief fundraiser for his Government while, in the British media, Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were busy beating the drums for war. 

And again, it was the exact same Jewish Lobby that was pushing for intervention in Syria, calling for the USA and NATO to fight alongside those same Jihadi forces that today threaten the last decade’s American ‘achievements’ in Iraq.”

Hey, Gilad, blow the whistle why don't you? 

Here's a sample of Nick Cohen's output in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. This just after millions marched against the looming war:

"When Saddam is sent to rendezvous with a judge in The Hague, or a rope on a lamppost... Iraqi democrats and socialists have discovered that their natural allies in the European Left don't want to know them. They must add THE SHAMELESS STOP THE WAR COALITION to the enemies list...

You're never going to hear democratic Iraqi voices if you rely on the anti-war movement... The Iraqis must now accept that they will have to fight for democracy without the support of the British Left. Disgraceful though our failure to hear them has been, I can't help thinking that they'll be better off without us." (The Observer - 16 February 2003) 

"THE LEFT BETRAYS THE IRAQI PEOPLE BY OPPOSING WAR... The anti-war movement is a private party... Rather than make a brutal argument that would lose it the moral high ground, the anti-war movement prefers to deal with the Iraqi opposition by ignoring it...  

The Iraqi opposition had a right to expect support. The alternative it offers to Saddam's secular tyranny is not Islamic theocracy. The INC and the London conference of exiles both want a democratic Iraq that gives a voice to the suppressed Shia; a federal Iraq that allows autonomy for the Kurdish minority; and a secular Iraq that can contain the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam.  

When I put this programme to my democratic and secular comrades, they turn nasty. I hear that the peoples of Iraq will slaughter each other if Saddam goes; that any US-sponsored replacement will be worse...  

I expect that some Telegraph readers regard the British Left as good for nothing... As it is, the only people who won't be welcome in Baghdad if a free Iraq comes against the odds are the Iraqis' immensely condescending friends in the Stop the War coalition." (The Telegraph - 14 Jan 2003) 

'The peoples of Iraq will slaughter each other if Saddam goes; that any US-sponsored replacement will be worse.' 

Those who opposed the war were right weren't they, Nick? And you, in your contemptuous dismissal of any who could not countenance it, were so very, very wrong. Millions of dead and terribly injured Iraqis, most of whom will have been innocent of any crime, can attest to that.

As can thousands of young, similarly innocent soldiers sent to kill and die by foam-flecked politicians and journalists who had never known war themselves.

Here’s David Aaronovitch: 

“If I'd been a marcher, I would gloat, too. Ever since the weekend it's been like one long sugary Coca-Cola ad: ‘We are the world, we are the people'...

A woman more or less explained it. ‘Saddam is not threatening us,’ she told the Telegraph reporter, ‘The government should spend the money on British jobs, hospitals and the rural economy.’ Not in my name. Not in my back yard…

Do you really believe that this parroted ‘war about oil’ stuff is true?"

 I sure do, Dave, I did then and I do now - see Wolfowitz and Greenspan below.

"What did you feel about the marchers wearing stickers bearing the Israeli flag and the words ‘the fascist state'?" 

Spot on, I'd say.

"How about the equivalence used by Tony Benn, as in, ‘If there are inspectors in Iraq, I want to see inspectors in Israel, inspectors in Britain and inspectors in America'?"

Spot on squared.

"Do you agree with Harold Pinter that the US is ‘a country run by a bunch of criminals ... with Tony Blair as a hired Christian thug'?"

Yep, I'd agree with that all right, with many multicoloured knobs on.

"Is there any word in that sentence, apart from Tony, Blair and Christian, that isn't quite mad?"

I think subsequent events have informed us all as to the sanity of the contestants in the 'Stop the War' versus warmonger contest, Dave.

"Perhaps you can explain the extraordinary speech by Charles Kennedy MP… His speech was all about how unconvincing Blair's arguments were. ‘I have yet,’ he said, ‘to be persuaded that the case for war against Iraq has been made.’ IT’S BEEN MADE, CHARLES."

Hang on, Dave, this is a 2 February 2003 essay, seven weeks to go before the invasion commences.
Did you know something we didn't?

"Stop blathering on about how ‘people are suspicious and scared’ and tell them what you think ought to be done. Or is there a serious case for war, but you didn't want to say so in front of a million demonstrators? 

Back to those demonstrators, and just to ask, do you believe that Blair should act on your demands because so many people turned out on Saturday? If so, do you also think he should halt plans for the housing of asylum seekers in Lee-on-Solent because, at the same time as you marched, one-third of Lee's entire population took to the streets to demand no asylum seekers in their town?

I most certainly do think they should've halted said plans IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED! Do you see how contemptuous a 'former' Commie of Jewish extraction is of our most earnest wishes if they don't happen to coincide with his own?

Oh, yes, Dave, I'm with the foreigners-must-learn-to-wipe-their-own-behinds-and-b*gger-off-back-where-they-came-from brigade on this one.

"You could still be right and I could be mistaken."

 You're getting there, Dave.

 "A war could be far bloodier than I imagine."

 It was bloody all right. The aftermath still is.

"The consequences far worse than I believe they will be."

Far worse than a bloodthirsty armchair warrior led his readership to believe anyway.

"It is just possible that a new Iraqi government, instead of moving towards democracy, might be a corrupt oligarchy."

 BINGO!

"All I can say is that the signs look relatively promising in both Kosovo and Afghanistan.” 

Oh, really? That wouldn't be the same Afghanistan where 454 British youngsters died because a***holes like you and Nick Cohen thought it would be a damn fine thing to invade, would it?

The one country history tells us not to invade, Bush, Blair and a gaggle of exuberant media whores on both sides of the Atlantic got the hots for.

“My dear boy, as long as you don’t invade Afghanistan you’ll be absolutely fine,” said Harold Macmillan to Alec Douglas-Home, prior to the latter taking over as Prime Minister.

As of November 2015, the Taliban is back in charge of much of Afghanistan.

And Kosovo, where  Clinton, Blair and co., fought FOR the Albanian Muslim, AGAINST the Christian Serb? Well, 'since the end of November (2014), an estimated 50,000 Kosovans have left this small Balkan nation of 1.8 million, mainly headed for Germany.'

They'd be refugees, I reckon. Refugees fleeing, it would seem, from their own Albanian Muslim endeavours in a Kosovo that is, to all intents and purposes, now exclusively theirs.

“Over Bosnia, Kosovo and over Afghanistan, voices on both the Left and Right have been consistently raised to object to the use of force… Most often they have belonged to the purely selfish, the pathologically timid, or to those who somehow believed that however bad things were in Country X, the Americans were always worse… I want (Saddam Hussein) out, for the sake of the region and therefore, eventually, for our sakes, but most particularly for the sake of the Iraqi people who cannot lift this yoke on their own…  

The argument that Saddam's removal will of necessity lead to 'chaos' or the democratic election of an unsuitable Islamist government is… pretty disgusting."

Doesn't look so disgusting from here, Dave. You see, that’s well nigh precisely how it turned out. Funny how those who disgust the oh-so sure can, so often, turn out to be oh-so right, isn’t it?

"The Iraqi people, however, can't shift their tyrant on their own… It has to be the Yanks. I do not believe that George Bush is the manic oil-chimp of caricature."

Got that wrong, then.

Much later in the day, Aaronovitch’s fellow Jews spilled the beans:

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

Iraq swims on a sea of oil!

Wolfowitz would probably figure in a photo finish with Richard Perle (also Jewish) in the who-was-most-responsible-for-forcing-Gulf-War-2-upon-the-world stakes, so his intervention here cannot be dismissed lightly.

Aaronovitch continues:

"His administration really does have a view that it is necessary to remove Saddam pour décourager les autres. It will, they have convinced themselves, show resolve, deter state terrorism, discourage proliferation and permit the building of a rare non-tyranny in the Arab world. There is something to be said for all this."

 Ha-ha! Irony alert!

"If, in a few weeks time, the Security Council agrees to wage war against Saddam, I shall support it.” (The Observer - 2 February 2003)

Of course you will, Dave, you were always destined to do so. Some of us are aware of this.

And what have Dave and Nick been up to recently, we wonder? 

A cynic might say they've been putting the icing on the cake. Before Angela Merkel waved the red flag at the alien hordes with a sign saying 'swamp us,' above her head, Calais was the big thing in the refugee playground.

The hysteria about Calais is the fear of foreigners, or racism!

We could take every single person!

Bomb the f*** out of a load of innocents minding there own business one minute, beckon in their relatives the next. 

Yeah, that'll definitely make the third world think we're wonderful. I mean, how would you feel about those who voted for a leadership that destroyed your home and livelihood, your certain place in the world and, possibly, your loved ones as well? Personally, I wouldn't think much of them at all.

Even if  they don't hold such things against you and ISIS-in-disguise doesn't slip through in their thousands, many will be very bitter indeed. And if most end up taking take what they can get with little, if any, consideration of the consequences for the indigenous population, it really won't be much of a surprise, will it?

Aaronovitch and Cohen know that the future isn't likely to be a bed of roses for those amongst whom an aggressive and disgruntled incomer will settle. Their sneering contempt for those who didn't agree with the sabre-rattlers twelve years ago, was as inappropriate then as their sneering contempt for the little Englander is now. As for the pity-the-poor-immigrant b***ocks, it'd be nice if, once in a while, they showed a little more sensitivity to the needs and feelings of the British majority. You know, the people who gave their ancestors sanctuary not so long back?

Don't hold your breath, ladies and gents. Just as the warmongers' lack of sympathy for the Stop-the-War effort has unleashed hell in the Middle East, their lack of sympathy for Europe's native peoples may, very likely, result in a similar catastrophe in northern Europe in the not too distant future. If it does, trust me, the chickenhawk media and their political counterparts won't give a damn. As long as the doomsday scenario plays out beyond the confines of the political bubble in which they operate, your plight won't loom large in their disapproval ratings.

There are many ways to destroy your enemies. Bombs and bullets are quicker, but displacement, the melting pot and the loss of homogeneity that results, are at least as effective in the long run.

Check out Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture, if you want to know what an off-message literary lion of the Jewish persuasion thinks of the West's brutish behaviour towards others in recent times. 
I can only see one flaw in his excellent presentation of the facts. He makes no mention of the fact that the prime movers in the Neoconservative movement that forced Gulf War 2 upon the world were Jewish.

Never mind, I'm happy to rectify that little omission with the help of a somewhat less reticent Jewish gentleman.

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 intellectuals, most of them Jewish...

Here's another: