FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

I was surprised to read that AIPAC, the so-called “Israel lobby” in the US (full disclosure: to which I am a contributor) has come out squarely in favor of an American strike against the Assad regime.

The powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC is planning to launch a major lobbying campaign to push wayward lawmakers to back the resolution authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, sources said Thursday.

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would “send a message” to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group.

In the past AIPAC has generally stayed close to the official positions of the Government of Israel. Unlike some other Jewish organizations, it has not in general taken the attitude that American Jews know better than Israelis what’s good for Israel.

But the official Israeli position on an American strike on Syria is neutral. For example, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said this Tuesday:

We aren’t getting involved in what is happening in Syria. What happened there crossed a red line from the Americans’ perspective, but we aren’t supporting, or involved in, a possible strike…

NY Times bureau chief Jodi Rudoren published an article yesterday in which she claims that “Mr. Obama’s limited strike proposal has one crucial foreign ally: Israel.” But she provides little evidence for this. Rather, she argues that Israel is happy with the continued stalemate between the forces of Assad, Iran and Hizballah on one side, vs. Sunni Jihadists on the other. True or not, this does not imply support for Obama’s military initiative, which increasingly appears to be intended to tilt the conflict toward the rebels.

The Obama Administration has been working hard to get the support of US Jewish groups, whom it believes are influential with Congress:

The message from the two senior administration officials to Jewish leaders during a large conference call September 3 was clear: The Obama administration, said deputy national security advisors Ben Rhodes and Tony Blinken, believed that congressional approval of military action would send an important message to Iran, Israel’s most feared rival in the region.

“It is very important for us that we achieve a supportive vote in Congress,” said Blinken.

The two officials stopped short of directly calling on the Jewish community to put its weight behind President Obama’s request to authorize the use of military power against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. But the message was loud and clear, and at the call’s conclusion, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, promised his umbrella group would issue a supportive statement.

But he also cautioned the two advisors: “We don’t want to turn this into an Israel-centric issue.”…

A statement put out by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, shortly after made this point clear. “Simply put, barbarism on a mass scale must not be given a free pass,” the statement said. …

Other Jewish groups also quickly fell in line with the new consensus supporting an attack against Syria. The Anti Defamation League issued its own strong statement of support for Obama and urged Congress to “act swiftly” to approve the resolution. The Republican Jewish coalition, in a rare show of support for the president, issued a call to its members to reach out to their elected officials and “ask them to support the upcoming resolution.”

It seems that the administration got what it wanted — despite the fears of the Jewish establishment that it would be painted as calling for war, and blamed for any negative results of Obama’s actions, as was (unfairly) the case with the Iraq war.

I think that this is a mistake on the part of AIPAC and the other organizations. Although there are arguments for and against intervention in Syria, I don’t see this as an Israeli or Jewish issue. Rudoren said that,

On Syria, in fact, Israel pioneered the kind of limited strike Mr. Obama is now proposing: four times this year, it has bombed convoys of advanced weapons it suspected were being transferred to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia that Israel considers a major threat.

But in fact Israel’s strikes — which were precisely targeted to achieve very specific objectives — were not at all like the planned American attack, which seems to be intended to teach a lesson about President Obama’s seriousness, and has no concrete military objective.

I am also not convinced that this will send a useful message to Iran. Surely the best message to Iran would be an ultimatum to stop its nuclear program or face military action. The involvement in Syria simply provides extra time to Iran to continue its progress toward a deliverable weapon, and conveys the inability of the administration to plan and carry out even a small action without an extended and public political process.

Israel is not responsible for the barbaric actions of the barbarians that it is unlucky enough to have as neighbors. Israel’s sole responsibility in this connection is to take steps to protect its people, which it will do regardless of whether the US decides to punish the regime or not.

Israel simply does not have a dog in this fight.

This administration has pushed a ‘peace process’ that is both in opposition to the rights of the Jewish people in international law and highly dangerous to Israel’s security. It has supported Islamic radicals in Turkey and Egypt, also to the detriment of Israeli security. Despite promising to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it has allowed it to delay a reckoning to the point that it may already be impossible to stop the regime. It has even prevented Israel from taking action to protect itself! There is ample proof by now that the Obama administration is no friend to Israel or the Jewish people.

Now it has decided that Jewish support can be useful against the embarrassing possibility that Congress may make Obama look even more indecisive and unleaderly than he already does — and we fall all over ourselves to help him!

Keep in mind that if anything ugly hits the fan, then despite the care that AIPAC et al are taking to not make it appear that this as an “Israel-centric”  issue, that is how it will be spun, even by administration officials (who will speak anonymously, of course).

I simply don’t understand — and this isn’t the first time — why US Jews and Jewish organizations seem to be so anxious to support this administration, even when there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama Administration, Syria

There was a great deal of speculation just prior to the 2012 US election that it was the perfect time for Israel to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. It was thought that President Obama would be constrained by the oncoming election from punishing Israel, for which there was great sympathy in the US. It was expected — and it has turned out to be true — that the President’s oft-expressed ‘love’ for Israel would become much ‘tougher’ in his second term, and that there would not be a better time for Israel to strike.

It didn’t happen, and now a well-connected Israeli general explains why. The following article by Ma’ariv journalist Rotem Sela appeared on the Israeli news site mida yesterday, in Hebrew. My translation follows:

Exposed — Giora Eiland: Netanyahu was about to attack Iran, Obama cast a veto

Exclusive: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about to order an attack on Iran [last October] but canceled the operation following American pressure, according to Gen. Giora Eiland (res), former head of [Israel’s] National Security Council.

Eiland, who made the claim two weeks ago at a closed meeting, added that “Israel has the real capability to destroy the nuclear program of Iran,” and that it is possible that the veto cast by the Americans was connected to the presidential race in the US that was in its final stages.

By Rotem Sela

“At that time the Prime Minister thought that we had reached a critical point on Iran, and planned to launch an attack,” Eiland said at a meeting August 19. He noted that “Although Israel does not in principle need American permission for military action, except when the US unequivocally demands that Israel refrain from a specific action,” such a demand was made at a meeting between Netanyahu and American officials, where it was made clear that the planned attack was not acceptable, leading to its cancellation.

Since the cancellation of the attack, the Iranian nuclear program has continued to progress. Today, Eiland said, Israel again faces a difficult choice. “Time has passed, and Israel stands at exactly the same critical junction, with less time to choose between bad and worse choices [lit: between plague and cholera].” He added that “not deciding is also a dramatic decision.”

In a discussion with us, Eiland confirmed that “on very many subjects Israel can do things independently. For building in Jerusalem, attacking Gaza, or other things in our sector, we don’t have to ask the Americans before we act,  even though they may not like what we do. Nevertheless, when we are talking about things that touch broad American interests, we can’t act in opposition to their judgment. And he confirmed that Netanyahu had come to the conclusion then that it was necessary to preempt, and attack Iran.

The best outcome for Israel would be an American attack on Iran, suggests Eiland. “The lack of American enthusiasm to act in Syria indicates that the possibility of this is unlikely.” The question of permission for an Israeli attack is still open. “There are variables that have changed since last year, in particular internal matters in the US, which was then in the final stages of an election.” At that precise time, Obama was in difficulty as a result of his failure in the first televised debate with Romney. It’s possible that he preferred to avoid igniting a war which might damage his campaign. …

Would today’s circumstances permit Netanyahu to attack? It’s hard to say. But while the story of Syria and Obama’s hesitation captures the headlines, it is important to remember that the real drama remains the countdown to the Iranian bomb.

The combination of an unfriendly US president, at a time of existential threat from a not-entirely-rational enemy which is on the verge of going nuclear, is something of a perfect storm. The fact that Obama is also proving weak and indecisive, as well as lacking in understanding of the importance in the Mideast of intangible factors like honor, shame and deterrence, does not increase my confidence that he will make the right decision when the time comes (if it isn’t already here).

What is particularly distressing is the degree to which a sovereign state like Israel can be forced to compromise the most critical decisions because of domestic American politics.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Obama, Iran

The surprising saga of Barack Obama and Chemical Bashar continues with new twists and turns. First the President threatened, practically promised, a punitive (although strategically insignificant) missile strike in a matter of days, and then his people leaked precisely what it would be like in shocking, unprecedented detail — permitting Assad to vacate likely targets.

Israel placed its armed forces on alert, after threats from Iran, Syria and Hizballah, although — thanks to Israel’s credible promise of disproportionate response to any provocations — retaliation against it was considered unlikely. Israelis queued for gas masks and possibly even cleared the junk out of some bomb shelters.

Then the British Parliament embarrassed its PM by refusing to authorize the use of force against Syria. And the next day, Obama announced that he had decided to ask for the approval of Congress before taking action — and Congress is away on vacation until September 9.

How unfair! I can imagine the Syrians worrying about whether they ought to move their missiles back to their usual places, while Israelis stuff all the old baby strollers and lawn furniture back into their bomb shelters.

I have been watching the extended display of Western weakness and indecision, along with the unusual spectacle of Obama supporters calling for military action (at least, as long as he was) with interest.

It should be clear that — like most of the unrest in the Middle East today — the Syrian conflict has nothing to do with Israel, unless someone gets really stupid. Israel has done its best to remain neutral except insofar as it has acted to prevent the transfer of game-changing weapons to Hizballah.

But it seems to be just too tempting for some to resist trying to make Israel part of it in one way or another. For example, here is a piece of NPR’s morning newscast today, during which Hamlet Obama’s latest non-action is analyzed (my transcription):

Mara Liasson: What happened was the President changed his mind. He saw what happened in Great Britain, he knew he wasn’t getting the support of the United Nations Security Council, and, uh, although the White House insists they don’t need congressional approval to act, they are not legally required to get it, he felt that going to Congress would put any military action on a much stronger footing. It would also be consistent with the position that he’s taken all along, in favor of presidents going to Congress first. And especially with a public that’s deeply ambivalent about military action, he decided that a full debate with the people’s representatives was the best way to go. …

Wade Goodwyn: Will he get any support from Congress?

ML: Well, that’s the big question. If the vote was held right now I think the answer would be ‘no’, he’d lose. That’s what makes this such a hugely risky move on the President’s part, because a failure would weaken him immensely, the way it has for Prime Minister Cameron. But lots of members of Congress reacted favorably, as you said, to the decision to come to them, you know 200 of them had signed a letter demanding that he do so. But there are still many Republicans, especially in the House, who won’t approve of anything the President wants to do, and there are many Democrats who are against military action. And even in the Senate, where support for the President’s position is considered stronger, there are lawmakers like Lindsay Graham and John McCain who say they will vote ‘no’ because the tailored, limited, shot-across-the-bow type of military action that the President is describing won’t be effective.

So the public, as I said, is deeply ambivalent — for many members it is a lot tougher to vote ‘yes’ on this than ‘no’ — and the President is going to have to spend the next week or two working this very hard, and enlisting allies like Israel to help him sway members. [my emphasis]

Oh, please. Don’t drag Israel (and certainly not the ‘Israel Lobby’) into this! Except insofar as she has to be prepared to deter opportunistic attacks, Israel could not care less whether Obama  bombs some empty buildings to ‘teach Assad a lesson’. Whatever Obama does or does not do will be — or should be — based on his perception of US interests.

It is not Israel’s job to “help sway members” of Congress. Israel is not responsible for the barbaric behavior of Assad or his opponents, it is not responsible for anything that Obama does, and will not be responsible for anything that Assad and his allies may do to the US in return.

Maybe I’m paranoid, but I smell an attempt to position Israel to take the blame if something goes wrong with this already highly problematic exercise.

Update [1105 PDT]: The President and Secretary of State Kerry are both explicitly trying to relate this to Israel.

Technorati Tags: Syria, Obama, Israel

Antenna of the US AN/TPY-2 X-band radar system set up in the Negev. It is ostensibly there to monitor Iranian missile launches, but it can also see a small aircraft taking off from anywhere in Israel. Only American personnel are allowed anywhere near it.

By Vic Rosenthal

The Washington Post has a document that it says it obtained from Edward Snowden which it calls the ‘black budget’ of the various US intelligence services. It has published only a small part of the material “after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods.”

The Post notes the growth of the CIA budget to almost $15 billion in 2013, which I have to admit is a remarkable number, comparable to the GDP of Jamaica or Mozambique, and 50% more than that of the NSA — which, after all,  has to read our email and listen to our phone calls. The total for all the intelligence agencies is $52.6 billion, close to the GDP of Croatia.

But naturally, the first thing I did was search for ‘Israel’ and here is what I found on pages 4-5:

Investments

Although the budget is declining, the mission is not. Prioritizing our requirements was a key element to produce a budget that meets customer needs, supports critical capabilities, addresses gaps, and helps to maintain a strategic advantage. In the FY 2013 NIP [National Intelligence Program] budget, the IC [Intelligence Community] makes targeted investments in:

…

o Counterintelligence (CI). To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the Community. In addition, we are investing in target surveillance and offensive CI against key targets, such as China, Russia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and Cuba. [my emphasis]

Wait, what?

We are making “targeted investments” (read: spending more money) in spying on these ‘targets’ and attempting to prevent them from spying on us — and Israel is a “key target” in the company of  China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba!

This is just plain astonishing, considering that the other “key targets” encompass most of the main threats against US security today.

Keep in mind that unlike Russia, China and Iran, Israel’s main goal is survival, not expansion of its influence. Unlike Iran and Pakistan, it does not harbor terrorists or operate world-wide terrorist networks. Unlike Cuba, it is not a semi-hostile nation a few miles from US borders. Unlike China, it is not engaged in massive theft of intellectual property. The Israeli people are probably among the most pro-American in the world, and the government is remarkably ‘flexible’ — in my opinion, too much so — when called upon to subordinate its own interests to the demands of the US.

The Post suggests that the emphasis on Israel is because “[it] is a U.S. ally but has a history of espionage attempts against the United States.” So do many allies, and as has recently become clear from new documents released in the Pollard case, Israel’s interests — unlike, say, Iran’s — are not in subverting or damaging the US, but in collecting information about threats against itself coming from Arab nations, Russia, Iran, etc.

The obsessive interest in Israel surely can’t be about the ‘peace process’. I mean, really, how important or potentially dangerous is this when compared to the aggressive spread of radical regimes in the Muslim world, the possible implosion of Egypt, or a Syrian civil war that has so far taken about 100,000 lives including children killed by Sarin gas?

And as far as threats go, are they watching the infiltration of Hizballah into South and Central America? Now there’s a threat to the US!

For once, I can’t blame Obama. This has been going on for years (viz., the Pollard case).

No, there is really only one explanation for this fixation on Israel by the US intelligence community. If I may be permitted a technical term, they are batshit crazy.

Technorati Tags: US Intelligence Community, CIA, Israel

Bashar al-Assad. The tail of the snake.

As the expected ‘limited’ Western strike against Syria draws closer, I admit to a degree of unease.

After all, Western use of military force since 1945 has been fraught with incompetence and failure. There is a basic misunderstanding of what it is for and how to employ it.

War is about crushing regimes and occupying territory. It is not about applying pressure in precisely calibrated ways. There are too many unintended consequences. Generals can (usually) tell you how to achieve military objectives, but political ones are another story. Even very bright people are often surprised by the outcome after what was intended as a surgical intervention turns into chaos.

I am not saying that military force is never appropriate. Just that it should be reserved for big objectives.  And ‘punishing’ Assad for using chemical weapons — but being careful not to remove him from power — is not a big objective. It is more about appearance than reality.

It is also kind of absurd, seeing that Assad already killed some 100,000 Syrians with impunity with ‘conventional’ weapons. Suddenly he needs to be punished?

Another interesting thing about the Western plan is that it has been described publicly in great detail before being executed. This is certainly an innovation in military strategy, unless everything that has been leaked is deliberately false (but I don’t think so)!

It is as if the object is to appear to be taking action without actually doing serious damage (except to our military budget, since each Tomahawk costs about $1.5 million). Assad will have plenty of time to move expensive vehicles, aircraft, etc.

The purported function of this attack is to send a message about red lines. But nobody will be fooled, and the message to Assad will be, at best, “be more careful next time”.

If we must attack Syria, then we should destroy as much of her military capabilities and stock of weapons of all kinds as possible, force Assad out, and allow the various factions to split the country into ethnic enclaves. The trick would be to do this without allowing too many dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of terrorist factions. This would probably require Western ground troops and be expensive and difficult. The US and Europe don’t have the cash or the will to do this.

Some have expressed anxiety that any provocation, even a minimal one, will cause Assad to respond by attacking Israel. Here we need to consider the possibility that Obama will tie Israel’s hands as Bush I did during the 1991 Gulf War. You will recall that several Iraqi scuds hit the Tel Aviv area, and although the US promised that it would take out the launchers, it proved unable to do so. Mass casualties were only miraculously avoided.

PM Netanyahu has warned Assad that Israel would respond strongly to any attack. Although Netanyahu folded under Obama’s demand to release more than 100 convicted terrorists in order to please the PLO, there are limits (somewhere). I cannot imagine that an Israeli government that allowed Syrian missiles to kill its citizens without a response would survive.

We should keep in mind that an ineffective or partial Israeli response would play into Assad’s hands — he has been claiming all along that Israel is behind the insurgents. So any response short of one strong enough to end his regime (or his life) would simply help him make his point.

We know that the US doesn’t want to go that far. So as usual, Israel is placed in a tough spot. It will need to be prepared to defy the US, and to credibly convince Assad that it will do so if necessary.

Actually, there is an entirely different approach that the  West could (but won’t) take. Here’s what Melanie Phillips thinks:

The most important argument used to support attacking Assad’s regime is that, by bringing it down, the west would deal a grievous blow to Iran, Syria’s puppet-master, which itself poses such a terrible threat to the region and the world.

But this is yet anther incoherent and essentially weaselly proposition. The intention, don’t forget, is not to get rid of Assad but merely to deter him. Weakening him, however, will not hit Iran. It may well merely drive Assad further into Iran’s embrace, and in the process strengthen the influence of Russia over the region – already increasing exponentially as the Middle East and Muslim world gaze at the wreckage of American influence and cosy up instead to the toughest guy on the block.

There is only one way to hit Iran – and that is to hit Iran. Attempting to weaken Iran by striking at Assad is to look at the problem the wrong way round. To neutralise the puppet Assad, the west has to strike the puppeteer, Iran.

Unfortunately, we are even less likely to “cut off the head of the snake” than to step firmly on its tail.

Technorati Tags: Syria, Iran