Michael Tomasky is a leading mainstream political journalist who generally avoids discussing the Israel lobby or Israel’s profound influence over American policymaking. But today in a Daily Beast piece urging intervention in Syria, even he has to acknowledge the Israel factor; and note that Tomasky forcefully distinguishes between American and Israeli interests:
I should note that Israel sees things differently, taking a [pro-Assad] devil-we-know approach, and obviously Israel’s interests are going to be taken into account to some degree by any US administration. But the US has different interests here. Assad is indeed a threat to US security, albeit an indirect one, because of his alliance with Iran. Combining that with the humanitarian impulse will likely outweight Israel’s concerns.
So much for “no daylight” between Israel and the U.S. There’s daylight. The mainstream needs to talk about this issue. Now Tomasky, why is Iran a threat to U.S. security?
I’m not sure he’s accurate in assessing Israel’s position. Some Israelis (eg Caroline Glick, on Capitol Hill last year) were explicit in explaining that Israel preferred Assad overthrown. Others I’m not so sure. There is an Israeli stream of thought that would prefer fundamentalist chaos 0r Gaza type rule in Syria to a fairly secular-Iran aligned regime.
I think Israel would perfer to leave Assad in place. The US position will be determined more by the Saudi support for the rebels than by the Iranian support for the regime IMO. Someone should remind them what happened the last time they helped the Saudis arm Sunni “freedom fighters” against a secular regime.
Assumes Iran is a threat to U.S. security.
I suspect Israel is avoiding direct support of intervention in Syria, just the way it avoided openly supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Which says nothing about what Israel may be saying — and doing — behind the scenes.
Israel reportedly smuggling weapons to Syria through Iraqi Kurdistan: Syrian sources.
I suspect Israel is avoiding direct support of intervention in Syria
hmm, cat’s already out of the bag, 18 hrs ago:
In joint appearance with Peres in Washington, Clinton condemns Syria for using attack helicopters to quash uprising
link to haaretz.com
video: msnbc link to video.today.msnbc.msn.com
Peres on Syria interview: Future without Assad is ‘better’
yesterday the blatant israel op ed pressure began. here is one example:
link to huffingtonpost.com
another:
link to jpost.com
I read that Russia recently supplied those attack helicopters to Syria…..didn’t try to confirm it so it may or may not be true.
Moon of Alabama, relying on a Pentagon report, says the helicopters in question have already been delivered to Syria but have not yet been put into operation. Syrian Army Is Now Taking The Initiative.
If I may nuance your statement lysias, what MoA says is
“Pentagon sources suggested that Mrs. Clinton, in her remarks at a Brookings Institution event, was referring to a Russian-made attack helicopter that Syria already owns but has not yet deployed to crack down on opposition forces. While these helicopters, known as Mi-24s, are flown by Syrian pilots, Russia supplies spare parts and provides maintenance for them.”
“Assad is indeed a threat to US security, albeit an indirect one, because of his alliance with Iran.”
Exactly. How is Iran a threat to the US again? Israel wants war with Iran but doesnt want a stable govt in its ally Syria? I don’t buy for a second that Israel and the US arent on the same page in re to Syria.
Whoa Glenn Greenwald hits another one out of the morals park
link to salon.com
“Today’s defense of President Obama from Andrew Sullivan is devoted to refuting Conor Friedersdorf’s criticism of Obama’s drone program. Says Sullivan:
What frustrates me about Conor’s position – and Greenwald’s as well – is that it kind of assumes 9/11 didn’t happen or couldn’t happen again, and dismisses far too glibly the president’s actual responsibility as commander-in-chief to counter these acts of mass terror.
This is exactly backward. I absolutely believe that another 9/11 is possible. And the reason I believe it’s so possible is that people like Andrew Sullivan — and George Packer — have spent the last decade publicly cheering for American violence brought to the Muslim world, and they continue to do so (now more than ever under Obama). Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?
Just consider what one single, isolated attack on American soil more than a decade ago did to Sullivan, Packer and company: the desire for violence which that one attack 11 years ago unleashed is seemingly boundless by time or intensity. Given the ongoing American quest for violence from that one-day attack, just imagine the impact which continuous attacks over the course of a full decade must have on those whom we’ve been invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting.”
I would appreciate if anyone could tell me, why is Syria and Iran a threat to the security of the USA?!
Iran did not attacked an other nation since centuries and has no intention of doing it now. We keep interferring in iranian affairs and on our urging Saddam Hussein waged a long war against them, with weapons, including chemical ones, supplied by us.
Syria was attacked and attacked again by Israel, israeli agents infiltrated all parts of their government and according to reliable sources, are now active to cause uprising to overthrow Assad.
We are the attackers and we complain about our security?
>> We are the attackers and we complain about our security?
Aggressor-victimhood is one of the many “shared common values” America and Israel possess. Pin the victim down; beat her and rape her; and then, when she slaps and punches you, loudly whine, bitch and moan about her aggression and your need for self-defense…and then beat her and rape her some more.
Aggressor-victimhood is a tough gig, but America and Israel are determined to get the job done, dadgummit!
Slightly on topic..since I don’t care what Israel wants.
I got this survey from the DNC this am…
link to my.democrats.org
It asks my first and second biggest issues and then wants me to check off which which ‘group I identify” with”….Jewish, Africian, Seniors, LBGT,Students, Latinos etc,etc.
I think I will check off Native American as my identity group and send them a big check and maybe they will start pandering to the Indians…
I am alittle confused by this. On the surface it sounds from Tomasky’s article that the Isr. government is favoring the Syrian government. But then Lysias and Annie have pointed to articles saying the opposite in practice: sending arms, encouraging the Arab league to get involved, the HPost article saying an embattled Syria weakens its ability to counterattack in case Iran is attacked. And the JPost article quoting Net. on intervention: “That’s a decision for the leading powers who are now talking about it,” he said, avoiding a direct answer. “The less I say as prime minister of Israel, the better. The more I speak about it, I will be causing damage to the people we want to help.”
So it sounds like on the surface the Isr. government is neutral, but in fact wants to or is trying to help the “intervention” under the table.
Well, Al Qaeda seems to support the rebels in Syria. ‘Dead’ al Qaeda’s No 2 backs rebels in Syria:
Britain claims presence of al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.
Another one of those videos made with Adobe video software before the Arab version was ready? I caught one two years ago by looking at the metadata and version no.
RE: “I should note that Israel sees things differently, taking a [pro-Assad] devil-we-know approach, and obviously Israel’s interests are going to be taken into account to some degree by any US administration. But the US has different interests here. Assad is indeed a threat to US security, albeit an indirect one, because of his alliance with Iran.” ~Michael Tomasky
FOR INSTANCE, SEE: Inside A Foundation For Defense Of Democracies Sponsored Junket To Israel, By John Walbridge, lobelog.com, 6/11/12
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to lobelog.com