A new book by an Iraqi scholar argues that the Jews persuaded US President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, as part of a global Jewish conspiracy rooted in the Torah and ancient history, according to a report in Palestinian media outlet Al Watan Voice.
The book, by Dr. Mohammad Hussein Al-Falahi, was published by Dar Djlah in Oman, Al Watan Voice writes.
Interest in the Iraqi people occupies a large proportion of Jewish thought, Al-Falahi argues, with “about 350-400 pages” of the Torah devoted to the Babylonian exile.
According to the report, Al Falahi argues that many of those in Bush’s inner circle, including Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, were Jews who forced the former US President to invade Iraq because this was a “central and strategic goal of world Jewry”. Other figures in the “global Jewish order”, such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, were also instrumental in persuading Bush to invade Iraq, Al Falahi says.
Al Falahi argues that the relationship between Iraq and the Jews is an ancient one. It is characterized by a negativity that stems from the Babylonian Exile 2500 years ago, when Jews from the Kingdom of Judah were captives in a region of central-southern Mesapotamia (corresponding to modern-day Iraq).
The Jews, according to Al Falahi, are convinced that the Iraqis are to blame for the destruction of the Jews during the Babylonian Exile, and also believe that the Iraqis will destroy the modern-day State of Israel.
As evidence, Al Falahi quotes Isaiah 14:29, which he says the Jews interpret as referring to Iraq:
"Do not rejoice, O Philistia, all of you, Because the rod that struck you is broken; For from the serpent's root a viper will come out, And its fruit will be a flying serpent." The Jews, Al Falahi says, are trying to destroy modern Iraq as a preemptive strike, so that the Iraqis will not have the capability of becoming a threat and invading and destroying Israel.
He cites the Thora and Quran as evidence for his claims.
Are you a Jew or Muslim? Logically, you have to be one of either to believe the "evidence".
Saying people do a thing because of the book they follow doesn't require believing the book, just that the people in question believe it.
Exactly. This invalidates the whole point this weirdo is making.