ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Obama turns to the Jews

The New York Times reports that because the American people have made their opposition to the war clear, Obama is using the Jewish lobby to lean upon Congress:
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, plans to dispatch 300 of its members to Capitol Hill on Tuesday as part of a broad campaign to press Congress to back President Obama’s proposed strike on Syria, the group said Monday....

 Mr. Obama and his secretary of state have repeatedly invoked Israel in their arguments for a strike. The White House has reached out to Aipac, as well as to the Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who held a conference call on Monday to discuss lobbying strategy.

Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York, said five members of Congress had called to consult with him in the past four days.

“There’s nothing sinister, nothing conspiratorial, nothing wrong with the lobbying arm relating to Israel and the Middle East supporting the president on this issue,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League’s national director. “You don’t need a phone call from the prime minister to understand that Israel’s interest is with the United States taking military action because it’s a message to Iran. You don’t have to be a nuclear physicist to figure out where Israel stands.”
Abe Foxman can tell himself that there is nothing wrong if he likes. But the fact remains that Obama is openly attempting to use the Jewish lobby to supersede the clearly expressed will of the American people to leave Syria alone. And my impression is that it would not be good for the Jews in America for that lobby to demonstrate that Congress is, as some observers have put it, Israeli-occupied territory.

Israeli diplomat Zvi Rafiah is correct to be concerned: "We should not be the one that pushes the American people to do or not do anything they want or don’t want."

The ADL's Foxman may be right to say "Israel’s interest is with the United States taking military action". The problem is that it is clearly not in the American interest, and AIPAC, the ADL, and the Conference of Presidents are demonstrating that organized Jewish opinion cannot be trusted to put American interests ahead of Israeli ones.

Labels:

173 Comments:

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 10:21 AM  

Anti-Semite! Nazi! Boo! Hiss!

And now we will have Christian zionists and Jews rushing to assure us that this could not possibly be happening and we are all Very Bad Jew Haters for noticing.

Anonymous Krul September 10, 2013 10:31 AM  

I can understand a Christian Zionist like GWB going for this kind of thing, but Obama? Why is he stumping for a crusade?

Maybe the Israel is leaning on him, but the article makes it look like it's the other way around: The Israel lobby isn't calling on Obama to get their war, he is calling on them. Besides, Obama belongs to Wall Street, not Israel (a lot of Jews there, sure, but a lot of gentiles too, and in either case I seriously doubt their loyalty trumps the profit motive).

BTW Nate has a relevant post on all this as it relates to Russia and the international balance of power.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 10:31 AM  

Israel:

Hey! Lets you and him fight!

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 10:32 AM  

The question I have is who is leaning on whom?
The White House has reached out to Aipac, as well as...
Let's be clear... initiated by the White House... not the "Israel" lobby. and the second quote.
“You don’t need a phone call from the prime minister to understand that Israel’s interest is...
Meaning that he DOES NOT have the support of the Israeli government and that the Israeli government is NOT pushing this.

I will point out like I did in the last thread that AIPAC announced their support on Rosh Hashanah, where most Jews (even non observant ones) would be likely to miss the news.

I am certain that this Syria mess does not have the support of the Jewish community. I would be interested to see an opinion poll on this.

So Vox - if the "Jewish Lobby" doesn't have the support of the Jews is it still the "Jewish Lobby?"

Anonymous Krul September 10, 2013 10:32 AM  

Corrected link: Nate's post.

Anonymous Annalitic September 10, 2013 10:36 AM  

"Meaning that he DOES NOT have the support of the Israeli government and that the Israeli government is NOT pushing this. "

Your tea leaves are the awesome-est.

Blogger Dystopic September 10, 2013 10:39 AM  

I don't understand how a Syrian strike is in Israel's interest anyway. Sending a message to Iran seems pointless if all it's going to do is inflame the region and create more terrorist attacks on Israel. All that would accomplish is to put more fuel on the Middle Eastern fire.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 10, 2013 10:40 AM  

ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 10:32 AM
The question I have is who is leaning on whom?



while the directional arrow between the President and AIPAC can be discussed in this particular instance, pretending that AIPAC overtly lobbying elected Congressmen to do EXACTLY WHAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS DO NOT WANT THEM TO DO can be construed *as anything other than* Israel attempting to manipulate the American government to the harm of the American people ( and so, you are a vessel for cursing now ) is no longer tenable.

and, of course, once it has been revealed that AIPAC works against the interest of the electorate, that also suggests that there are many cases where AIPAC certainly does initiate action.

but you and Sam keep spinning away. maybe birdbrain is stupid enough to fall for your lies.

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 10:46 AM  

The question I have is who is leaning on whom?

There isn't any question. As I pointed out, Obama is asking the Jewish lobby to help him lean on Congress. The Jewish lobby is supporting Obama against the American national interest.

I am certain that this Syria mess does not have the support of the Jewish community.

You also expressed your opinion that AIPAC didn't support it. So, your track record here appears to be unreliable.

Meaning that he DOES NOT have the support of the Israeli government and that the Israeli government is NOT pushing this.

And now you're observably incorrect again. From the NYT article: "Mr. Netanyahu’s government strongly supports an American strike to punish President Bashar al-Assad of Syria". Did you even read the article? If so, then why are you saying something that is provably false?

Do you really think repeatedly saying things that are factually untrue is an effective means of combatting anti-semitism?

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 10:48 AM  

American Foreign Policy

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 10:49 AM  

I am certain that this Syria mess does not have the support of the Jewish community. I would be interested to see an opinion poll on this.

So Vox - if the "Jewish Lobby" doesn't have the support of the Jews is it still the "Jewish Lobby?"


Well, do you consider CAIR to be the Islamic lobby?

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 10:51 AM  

As I pointed out, Obama is asking the Jewish lobby to help him lean on Congress. The Jewish lobby is supporting Obama against the American national interest.

No, see here Vox, they can't possibly be the Jewish lobby because not every single Jew supports them.

I must say, Chelm's goal post moving is quite impressive.

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 10:51 AM  

if the "Jewish Lobby" doesn't have the support of the Jews is it still the "Jewish Lobby?"

Doesn't have the support of what Jews? The leading Jews in Congress, the ADL, the major Jewish organizations, and the Israeli government are all lined up with AIPAC on this.

I understand many, perhaps even most, non-elite Jews may not support the war. But they appear to count even less to the elite Jews than non-elite Americans do to Congress.

Anonymous Krul September 10, 2013 10:52 AM  

ChelmWiseman - I am certain that this Syria mess does not have the support of the Jewish community.

Maybe, but it hardly matters. The difference between powerful Jewish lobbyists and the Jewish community is probably analogous to the difference between top Republican politicians and the conservative community, or the difference between Washington and the rest of the country for that matter.

Anonymous The other skeptic September 10, 2013 10:53 AM  

Meanwhile, WRE part MCLXIII.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 10:55 AM  

Chelm,

If AIPAC is not the Jewish lobby, as you have asserted us it is not, two questions:

If AIPAC is not the Jewish lobby, what organization is the Jewish lobby?

If AIPAC is not the Jewish lobby, for whom is it lobbying?

Blogger kudzu bob September 10, 2013 10:58 AM  

Some people contend that Jewish influence was behind America's involvement in the First and Second World Wars. I'm not an historian and have no opinion on the matter worth airing; but if an unprovoked U.S. attack on Syria proves to be another step on the road to a Third World War, we'll all know exactly who was responsible.

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 11:01 AM  

You also expressed your opinion that AIPAC didn't support it. So, your track record here appears to be unreliable.

You have twice ignored the fact that I missed the news because AIPAC intentionally tried to slide it past even their own membership. (I am not a member of AIPAC) I found and corrected my error quickly.

Did you even read the article? If so, then why are you saying something that is provably false?

Did you read the article? But while those reports could not be confirmed...

Bibi is not shy about what he wants the US to do... why would he be shy here?

I still think you are missing the point of this whole story in favor of your standard Jews are bad knee jerk reaction. This thing is huge... why are the standard alliances breaking apart? Why isn't Israel in the Obama admins corner on this one? Why does AIPAC, which usually has the support of its constituents (not the whole Jewish community ) feel they need to sneak around on this one? This is weird and you are not even asking the right questions.

But by all means... Jews are bad because __________

Whatever.

Anonymous Krul September 10, 2013 11:02 AM  

VD - As I pointed out, Obama is asking the Jewish lobby to help him lean on Congress.

The question is "Why?" Why does Obama want this war?

It's clear that Israel supports it, but I don't see any reason to think that Israel is the primary motivator.

Anonymous stats79 September 10, 2013 11:02 AM  

Do you really think repeatedly saying things that are factually untrue is an effective means of combatting anti-semitism?

From what I can tell, that has always been the game plan. And until recent history, not particularly successful.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:05 AM  

Bibi is not shy about what he wants the US to do... why would he be shy here?

Because he knows that this war is massively unpopular with the American people, and he does not want future support for Israel to be compromised. Which it might be if the American people realized that Israel wants us to fight Syria.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:06 AM  

"I still think you are missing the point of this whole story in favor of your standard Jews are bad knee jerk reaction. "

There is no "jews are bad" accusation here Chlem. Your insecurity is making you read morality into it where there isn't.

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 11:06 AM  

By the way, the article provided another answer to Sam's question about past Jewish lobbying for US military involvement in the Middle East:

"Mr. Rafiah, who served in Washington during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, recalled lobbying Congress directly to press the White House to intervene."

Anonymous Tallen September 10, 2013 11:07 AM  

The short term social impact will not be in Israel's favor - more bombings and rocket attacks. Long term social impact doesn't look good either, replacing the secular administration of Bashar Assad with assorted terrorists including Al Qaeda.

On the other hand, the Qatari LNG pipeline through Syria to the EU might provide a long-term economic benefit to Israel. Follow the money.

Anonymous stats79 September 10, 2013 11:08 AM  

It's clear that Israel supports it, but I don't see any reason to think that Israel is the primary motivator.

Look, chuckle head, Israel and the neo-cons have been pushing for this since the late 80s. Project for a New American Century, Securing the Realm: A Clean Break? Netanyahu and the neo-cons have been fairly open about their plans for 30 years. I'm with Vox on this, do you really think that repeating things that are factually untrue is an effective means of combating anti-semitism?

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:10 AM  

This thing is huge... why are the standard alliances breaking apart?

You mean the USA and the UK? Because the Brits have finally realized that playing globocop is a bum deal.

Why isn't Israel in the Obama admins corner on this one?

They are.

Why does AIPAC, which usually has the support of its constituents (not the whole Jewish community ) feel they need to sneak around on this one?

Because they know how unpopular this war is, and they don't want to alienate supporters.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:12 AM  

There is no "jews are bad" accusation here Chlem.

Well, scoobius, Wheeler, and grinder haven't shown up yet.

Anonymous stats79 September 10, 2013 11:13 AM  

Because he knows that this war is massively unpopular with the American people, and he does not want future support for Israel to be compromised.

Chutzpah. Jews always overplay their hand.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 10, 2013 11:15 AM  

Israel will fight to the last American, in a war that is none of their concern, for no hope of gain.

It has become anti-semitic to say that US policy in the Middle East ought to be what is best for the United States and not necessarily what is best for Israel. As long as that is true, I will be considered anti-semitic.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:16 AM  

"On the other hand, the Qatari LNG pipeline through Syria to the EU might provide a long-term economic benefit to Israel. Follow the money."

That pipeline is literally what the whole conflict is about.

Qataris want the pipeline... syria doesn't.. Saudi does... russia doesn't Israel does..

If you look... the positions on the pipe line exactly line up with the positions supporting or attacking Assad.

Anonymous Roundtine September 10, 2013 11:19 AM  

The American foreign policy establishment is jumping the shark (globally and domestically) and Israel doesn't have to do much to overplay its hand. If they are seen openly pushing for a war that both the right and left oppose and make the issue about Israel, they risk becoming the issue, at which point they lose control of the foreign policy debate. Anti-semitism only works as a political charge if the other side agrees with the charge.

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 11:21 AM  

I found and corrected my error quickly.

And I give you credit for that. But the point is that your opinion on what the elite Jewish organizations will do or not do is obviously less than perfectly reliable.

Did you read the article? But while those reports could not be confirmed...

Observably more accurately than you. Have you not yet learned it is insane to even think about trying to play that game with me? The reports that could not be confirmed were this: "Israeli newspapers reported Monday that President Obama urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to get personally involved in lobbying Congress. The reports said that Mr. Netanyahu had called several members himself."

The "unconfirmed reports" did not concern this: "Mr. Netanyahu’s government strongly supports an American strike to punish President Bashar al-Assad of Syria for his apparent use of chemical weapons, and as a warning to his Iranian patrons."

I still think you are missing the point of this whole story in favor of your standard Jews are bad knee jerk reaction.

And I have shown that you are repeatedly saying things that are provably untrue. There is no mystery here. Israel is, quite wisely, afraid to come out and demand American military action because of the overwhelming American opposition to a war on Syria. It looks like the Israeli Jews understand what the American Jews do not, which is that it would be a huge mistake to openly set Israeli interests against American interests.

Jews are bad because __________

Jews are bad WHEN they believe American interests should be dictated by Israeli interests. Jews are bad WHEN they lie and deceive rather than tell the truth. Would you disagree with either of those statements? Chelm, you're the one who keeps insisting that everything Jewish has to be monolithic. Not me.

Anonymous Krul September 10, 2013 11:23 AM  

Re: stats79,

I don't care about anti-semitism and I didn't say anything that's factually untrue, you moron.

More pertinently, Obama isn't a neoconservative. If he were then that would provide an explanation - as I pointed out earlier - but as it is I don't know what his motivation is beyond embarrassing himself.

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 11:23 AM  

But by all means... Jews are bad because __________

Spare us your cries of victimhood. He's not saying Jews are bad. He said it's not good for Jews to be seen pushing America into an unpopular war due to the actions of prominent Jews who are regarded as speaking for the Tribe in one form or another. Live by the group identity, die by the group identity.

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 11:24 AM  

There is no "jews are bad" accusation here Chlem.

Really?

Vox quotes:
organized Jewish opinion cannot be trusted to put American interests ahead of Israeli ones.

The Jews have already worn out their welcome in Western Europe and Russia. (Seriously, the level of anti-semitism I have observed from the UK to Eastern Europe is off the charts by US standards and that's not even counting the Muslims.) Neither China nor Japan appear to be susceptible to their patented form of influence-peddling. And yet, many elite Jews appear to be determined to treat their safe haven of America with all the care and respect that a wildcat mining company with 25-year mineral rights to national parkland treats the environment.

It would appear that publicly taking a certain [anti-Jewish] political position is sufficient to render an internationally famous gay activist the equivalent of a straight white conservative Christian male in the eyes of the mainstream media, an evil to neither be heard, seen, or spoken of.

That is just this week. I am sure you are right, its just me being insecure.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:26 AM  

People... America wants the pipeline built through syria because it will pressure Russian oil exports.

This isn't complicated.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:30 AM  

"organized Jewish opinion cannot be trusted to put American interests ahead of Israeli ones."

Organized american opinion cannot be trusted to put Israeli interests ahead of American ones.

Now do you see why that is not an insult or attack?

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 11:31 AM  

As if such a pipeline has any hope of surviving the internal violence of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda fighting it out in a post-Assad scenario. The only way such a pipeline could be built and survive is for Assad to accept it as the price of his survival and that ain't gonna happen as long as Uncle Vladimir opposes it.

Anonymous cds September 10, 2013 11:32 AM  

"People... America wants the pipeline built through Syria because it will pressure Russian oil exports."

Correct. The Israel angle is (mostly) a red herring. This is about Putin versus Obama for the international badass title.



Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:33 AM  

"As if such a pipeline has any hope of surviving the internal violence of Hezbollah and Al Qaeda fighting it out in a post-Assad scenario."

Dummy.

Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah both want the pipeline.

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 11:34 AM  

That is just this week. I am sure you are right, its just me being insecure.

Those are all factual statements, Chelm. Are you attempting to claim the factual statements are false? Or are you attempting to claim that the behavior described therein is not bad?

If you're just going to cry anti-semitism and repeatedly lie in an inept and easily disproven manner, you're not going to do much good for the Jews.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:34 AM  

People... America wants the pipeline built through syria because it will pressure Russian oil exports.

Except for McCain. He doesn't give a damn about pipelines, he just wants to bomb someone.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:36 AM  

Sorry... Its a Gas pipeline... not oil.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:38 AM  

Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah both want the pipeline.

Why would Hezbollah want a pipeline that their Iranian patrons do not?

Anonymous David of One September 10, 2013 11:38 AM  

This last February, Rand Paul expressed concern about weapons being funneled through Benghazi to Turkey to Syria and to the "Rebels".

Being mindful that the "rebels" in this context may have been, and to some small degree still, Syrian. It would appear that now most "rebels" are not Syrian.

If Mr. Paul's concern has some basis in reality from February, then all of what we are seeing now makes more sense. The Administration (sic "O") is covering their ass via mis-direction so as to destroy the weapons they are responsible for putting into US enemy hands.

We are talking boatloads of US provided weapons.

This then would be an all out attempt to keep reality from being discovered on the world stage.

Rand Paul's concerns from early this year would definitely seem to go a long way to explaining what we are seeing now.

Rand has said in February:

"Sen. Paul: Well, the thing is that they have interviewed the captain of the ship. A ship from Libya sailed for Turkey a week before the ambassador was killed. It was full of arms. And they interviewed the captain and he actually specifically talks about the distribution of the arms to Syrian rebels. So it sounds to me as if this is a story that's been reported in the London times, the New York Times, and really I think the administration needs to answer: Are they involved with running guns through Turkey to Syria."

The threat is multi-faceted:

1. If Assad captures these weapons then the world stage exposure can easily be set against O and his cronies.
2. Turkey's involvement and subsequent fallout would be considerable.
3. If the "rebels" are responsible for the recent mass killings of the civilian population ... then they would continue to use US provided assets against any and all throughout the region.
3. Putin more than likely had O over a barrel and something was likely given for this "way out" for the Pulitzer Wiener to save his "reputation" regardless of the impact to the US.

An interesting side note is that it is being reported that the "rebels" are against Assad's gas arsenal being given over to a third party as part of the Putin solution.

If the intent is to first continue the cover-up and then destroy the weapons given to the "rebels" then it is imaginable that interested parties in the region would be for destruction of those "rebel" held arms under the guise of attacking Assad.

Reference: Rand Paul Interview February 2013

Based on Rand's and other information along this line of thinking, Glen Beck laid out this theory on his morning's radio broadcast today.

Anonymous cheddarman September 10, 2013 11:41 AM  

Here's wondering if those 300 lobyists dispatched by AIPAC will have dossiers supplied by MOSSAD/NSA detailing all the embarrassing/career ending activities of about 300 members of the U.S. House and Senate...

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 11:41 AM  

Jews are bad WHEN they believe American interests should be dictated by Israeli interests.

Does this apply to all Jews or just American Jews? What if a French Jew believes this, is he bad? Are Christian Zionists bad when they put Israeli interests ahead of American interests or does this only apply to Jews?

Jews are bad WHEN they lie and deceive rather than tell the truth. Would you disagree with either of those statements?

You mean when they get involved in politics. This is what people who are involved in governments do. They lie and deceive, Jews are no different from anyone else in this regard.

Chelm, you're the one who keeps insisting that everything Jewish has to be monolithic. Not me.

I have never claimed any such thing.

The "unconfirmed reports" did not concern this: "Mr. Netanyahu’s government strongly supports an American strike to punish President Bashar al-Assad of Syria for his apparent use of chemical weapons, and as a warning to his Iranian patrons."

Yes, but there is no source for that either and it comes after a statement about Israel deliberately trying to stay on the sidelines of the debate. NYT is not a friendly source for Netanyahu, so they can not be relied upon to portray him accurately. Stop pretending that they are.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:43 AM  

"Why would Hezbollah want a pipeline that their Iranian patrons do not?"

gah... you're correct... Hezbollah is fighting with Assad. I was basically contradicting my own self.

regardless if there is a war and the pipeline is built.. there will be massive assets there to protect it.

But it doesn't matter because Russia will never let it be built.

Anonymous Will Best September 10, 2013 11:43 AM  

@ Nate

That sounds like a problem for Europe rather than the US. And if the US was really interested in a gas play it would build its own pipes, liquefy it, and sell it to Europe.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:45 AM  

Its not a solution to a problem for Europe. Its a serious problem for Russia.

And the US would very much like to see EU dependence on russian gas reduced.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:46 AM  

Are Christian Zionists bad when they put Israeli interests ahead of American interests or does this only apply to Jews?

Yes.

When are you planning on answering the questions I've asked you?

Blogger JartStar September 10, 2013 11:47 AM  

Vox: Is someone bad when they do X?
Chelm: You mean when they do Y, and it isn't bad because everyone else is doing it too!

Teenage logic at its finest.

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 11:49 AM  

Dummy.

Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah both want the pipeline.


Fool. Even if that were true, neither wants the other to control it.

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 11:51 AM  

You mean when they get involved in politics. This is what people who are involved in governments do. They lie and deceive, Jews are no different from anyone else in this regard.

So Jews are not bad when they act...badly, because other people also act badly? Oy.

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 11:52 AM  

gah... you're correct... Hezbollah is fighting with Assad. I was basically contradicting my own self.

Ok, I'll retract the "fool" accusation.

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 11:55 AM  

Those are all factual statements, Chelm. Are you attempting to claim the factual statements are false? Or are you attempting to claim that the behavior described therein is not bad?

I would dispute the factual basis..

1. You have only supposition to support they accusation that Israel is in favor of a Syria war. If Israel is not behind it then it follows that the "elite Jews" are pursuing their own interest (like all elites everywhere) not Israel's.
2. Mostly correct (and I agree with the sentiment) but the "patented form of influence peddling" remark suggest that influence peddling is something unique to "elite Jews" and not to elites otherwise.
3. You are way overstating the case. The only evidence I saw was that he was uninvited from a conference and someone on some blog said his career had ended. According to one of the commenters on the thread, he was still on TV in Russia

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:55 AM  

So Jews are not bad when they act...badly, because other people also act badly? Oy.

Also because of the holocaust.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:56 AM  

"Ok, I'll retract the "fool" accusation."

thanks. and in return I'll answer your question. Al Qaeda doesn't control anything. Is a like a knight that is moved around by others... Just as Hezzobolah is a knight that is moved around by the Iranians.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 10, 2013 11:57 AM  

This whole pipeline stuff is just nonsense. Pipelines are expensive and extremely vulnerable. Anybody and everybody can take turns rendering the pipeline useless. They only make sense in peaceful places. No amount of military/police can make a pipeline safe. The bigger the pipeline and the longer the pipeline, the more vulnerable it is to serious disruption.

Anonymous zen0 September 10, 2013 11:57 AM  

krul wonders : More pertinently, Obama isn't a neoconservative. If he were then that would provide an explanation - as I pointed out earlier - but as it is I don't know what his motivation is beyond embarrassing himself.

There is another lobby in town, krul.

The Saudi lobby. Obama bows to King Abdullah.


Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 11:59 AM  

"This whole pipeline stuff is just nonsense. Pipelines are expensive and extremely vulnerable. Anybody and everybody can take turns rendering the pipeline useless."

Oh sure.. the geo political positions matching up with the pipelines supporters and detractors are totally coincidental.

I mean there are LOTS of reasons for Qatar to support the Syrian Rebels...

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 11:59 AM  

Sorry Josh, missed your question, this is the only one I see:

Well, do you consider CAIR to be the Islamic lobby?

I consider them to be the American political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Anonymous Salt September 10, 2013 11:59 AM  

That pipeline is literally what the whole conflict is about.

Yup! Syria is a puppet in this whole affair. A necessary puppet, but a puppet nonetheless.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 11:59 AM  

1. You have only supposition to support they accusation that Israel is in favor of a Syria war. If Israel is not behind it then it follows that the "elite Jews" are pursuing their own interest (like all elites everywhere) not Israel's.

Factually incorrect.

To be sure, Israel is not putting obstacles in the way of a US strike, and there is strong support from the Israeli public. A poll last week by the conservative daily paper Israel Hayom found that two-thirds of Israelis are in favor of such a strike, even though roughly the same percentage of respondents said it would likely draw Israel into the war. 

From here .

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 12:01 PM  

Al Qaeda doesn't control anything. Is a like a knight that is moved around by others... Just as Hezzobolah is a knight that is moved around by the Iranians.

That's fair...to a point. It's difficult to put the terrorist genie back into the bottle and such groups are notoriously difficult to control when their own interests diverge from their sponsors'. Nice pipeline you've got there...be a shame if something happened to it...

Anonymous Bashar al-Assad September 10, 2013 12:02 PM  

Syrian Presidency @Presidency_Sy

#Assad: Once Western countries stop supporting terrorists&pressure puppets like Saudi Arabia&Turkey, problem in Syria will be solved easily.
6:12 AM - 10 Sep 2013

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 12:05 PM  

Additionally, neither wants the other side to control it. Say Assad caved and agreed to the pipeline. He could (and would) shut it down (either outright or via fake opposition attack) whenever Uncle Vladimir said "Gazprom". Conversely, say the opposition wins and builds the pipeline: Hezbollah isn't going away and that's alot of pipeline to protect from random rockets and bombs. The pipeline is a foolish pipe dream at this point.

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 12:05 PM  

Factually incorrect.

To be sure, Israel is not putting obstacles in the way of a US strike, and there is strong support from the Israeli public. A poll last week by the conservative daily paper Israel Hayom found that two-thirds of Israelis are in favor of such a strike, even though roughly the same percentage of respondents said it would likely draw Israel into the war.


You are seeing what you want to see here. This supports my point. The fact that they even have to phrase it like this indicates that there is not clear support from the Israel.

They are not putting obstacles in the way of a US strike? Not exactly an ringing endorsement.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 10, 2013 12:05 PM  

It does not make sense that Israel would want el-Assad to be replaced in Syria by even worse jihadists. Clearly, the Israelis are worried about any of their neighbors having chemical weapons. (It is always better when you are the only country with chemical or nuclear weapons in a region. They are much more effective when they are not used against you.)

The Israelis are just trying to curry favor with Obama by backing him up after he let his fat mouth overload his skinny ass. The more the US gets dragged into Mid-East conflicts, the better it serves Israeli interests. The tricky part comes when trying to satisfy the Israelis and the Saudis at the same time.

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 12:06 PM  

Does this apply to all Jews or just American Jews? What if a French Jew believes this, is he bad? Are Christian Zionists bad when they put Israeli interests ahead of American interests or does this only apply to Jews?

To American Jews. That is the context. Who gives a flying fuck about French Jews? Perhaps you do, being Jewish, but since I am neither French nor Jewish, I don't care at all.

Yes. Christian Zionists are bad when they put Israeli interests ahead of American interests. However, they appear to be considerably less inclined to do so. Even Sarah Palin, who is as Christian Zionist as they come, is not supporting a Syrian adventure.

You have only supposition to support they accusation that Israel is in favor of a Syria war.

No, I have cited evidence of direct statements being reported in major newspapers.

the "patented form of influence peddling" remark suggest that influence peddling is something unique to "elite Jews" and not to elites otherwise.

That's completely false. A reference to a specific form of influence peddling necessarily implies that there are other forms utilized by other groups. All power elites peddle influence one way or another, and you would have to be historically ignorant to fail to recognize that the Jewish form reliably follows the particular model that we observe in the USA today.

You are way overstating the case.

I was simply quoting the article cited. Perhaps the author was incorrect.

I have never claimed any such thing.

You have repeatedly attempted to take my statements about specific Jews, or specific groups of Jews, and attempting to apply them to all Jews.

Yes, but there is no source for that either and it comes after a statement about Israel deliberately trying to stay on the sidelines of the debate. NYT is not a friendly source for Netanyahu, so they can not be relied upon to portray him accurately. Stop pretending that they are.

I caught you out blatantly misrepresenting the NYT article, Chelm. And I can, and will, easily find reports of the Netanyahu government's support for American military action in Syria from other sources, so banking on the NYT misrepresenting the Israeli government's position was an unwise move on your part.

How do you think you are helping the Jewish people or combating anti-semitism by repeatedly attempting to deny that which is so easily proven? I am genuinely curious.

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 12:07 PM  

Rule 1: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Someone translate for Chelm.

Anonymous Will Best September 10, 2013 12:07 PM  

Its not a solution to a problem for Europe. Its a serious problem for Russia.

And the US would very much like to see EU dependence on russian gas reduced.


1) Russia is dead unless it starts breeding
2) EU collectively is a larger economy than the US
3) If its a problem the US would like to address we could use US workers inside the US to build infrastructure in the US, rather than pissing away billions knocking over and propping up unstable regimes.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 12:09 PM  

Sorry Josh, missed your question, this is the only one I see:

Thanks for answering.

I also had two other ones.

If AIPAC is not the Jewish lobby, as you have asserted us it is not, two questions:

If AIPAC is not the Jewish lobby, what organization is the Jewish lobby?

If AIPAC is not the Jewish lobby, for whom is it lobbying?

Anonymous Krul September 10, 2013 12:09 PM  

zen0 - The Saudi lobby. Obama bows to King Abdullah.

Combined with the pipeline this makes the most sense.

Ironic isn't it? Obama using the Jewish lobby to get the US to fight Saudi Arabia's war...

IIRC the House of Saud was deeply involved in the Bush administration as well.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 10, 2013 12:12 PM  

cds September 10, 2013 11:32 AM
Correct. The Israel angle is (mostly) a red herring. This is about Putin versus Obama for the international badass title.



Obama was never in the running for that title.

i would agree that the Jews are not the prime mover behind the move for action against Syria ( Ron Paul from 2012 ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1soDiUMeFY

this does nothing to ameliorate the FACT that they are aiding and abetting the neo-cons and Saudi against the interest of the American people.

or are you seriously asserting that CAIR alone has the marketing moxie to get this done?



Nate September 10, 2013 11:33 AM
Dummy.
Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah both want the pipeline.



Dummy.

Al Qaeda and Hezzbollah will both murder the hell out of each other TO PREVENT THE OTHER from controlling that pipeline. and, as long as both orgs have a presence anywhere along it's length, the pipeline will be subject to sabotage by the terror group that doesn't have influence.

and that's presuming that Hezbollah wants it in the first place. as Josh points out, Hezbollah's patron Iran stands foursquare against it.

otoh, now i relax to Ministry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JRxVov_0a0



in an earlier thread someone asserted that we needed to show force in Syria in order to keep this from spinning into something larger; this assertion is strategically incompetent.

BY inserting ourselves into Syria we risk drawing in Russia.

in the same way that the great powers inserting themselves into the Balkan crisis precipitated WW 1. you ONLY get a great war when opposing great powers BOTH choose to involve themselves ... otherwise all you get is a client state or a long, drawn out civil insurrection a' la Russia in Afghanistan.

and make no mistake, Russia is not likely to back down on this. especially after you see the vid of Obama from the G20 meetings.

there are strategic arguments to be made for engaging Russia in Syria. i haven't yet seen Obama or any of the pro-war factionaeries make any strategic arguments to that effect. most of them don't even acknowledge the obvious Russian consequence.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 12:12 PM  

You are seeing what you want to see here. This supports my point. The fact that they even have to phrase it like this indicates that there is not clear support from the Israel.

Two thirds of the Israeli public supports a strike. How is that not clear support?

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:13 PM  

" Nice pipeline you've got there...be a shame if something happened to it..."

Nice bank account you've got there.

Be a shame if you were broke tomorrow.

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 12:13 PM  

So Jews are not bad when they act...badly, because other people also act badly? Oy.

Vox: Is someone bad when they do X?
Chelm: You mean when they do Y, and it isn't bad because everyone else is doing it too!

Teenage logic at its finest.


Not what I said, try reading more closely.

I said like everyone else... some people are good, some people are bad. But Vox seeks out Jews to point out they are bad. He doesn't seek out Christian Zionists... he doesn't refer to the Elite Christian Zionists patented brand of influence peddling.

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 12:14 PM  

Two thirds of the Israeli public supports a strike. How is that not clear support?


Same amount want to get rid of Obama care, doesn't make it policy.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 12:15 PM  

The Jewish hamster might be the strongest on known existence.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:15 PM  

"It does not make sense that Israel would want el-Assad to be replaced in Syria by even worse jihadists. "

Yes it does. When you realize that Israel wants the pipeline.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:17 PM  

"l Qaeda and Hezzbollah will both murder the hell out of each other TO PREVENT THE OTHER from controlling that pipeline. and, as long as both orgs have a presence anywhere along it's length, the pipeline will be subject to sabotage by the terror group that doesn't have influence."

Hezzbolah and Al Qaeda do what they are told. Everyone stands to make a great deal of money from that pipeline except the Russians.

Consequently... it would be perfectly typical to see Iran get cut in for some of the loot... and see that money filter to down to Hezz. Same for Saudi and Al Qaeda. Everyone wins but Russia.

Which is why Russia isn't going to rely on any of its so-called Allies here. It will be involved directly.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 12:18 PM  

Same amount want to get rid of Obama care, doesn't make it policy.

Nice goal post moving. No one is trying to argue what the "official policy" of Israel with regard to the USA bombing Syria. We are saying that they support it.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:18 PM  

That's just how Arabs work.

Anonymous The Ref September 10, 2013 12:18 PM  

Same amount want to get rid of Obama care, doesn't make it policy.

15 yard penalty and loss of down for moving goalpost

Blogger Ephrem Antony Gray September 10, 2013 12:19 PM  

When the unions, the AARP, Wall Street, the environmentalists, etc, do it, it's bad, but when the Israel Jews do it, suddenly it's not?

Just sounds like team loyalties to me. I'd never be offended if Orthodox Christians were lobbying congress. Though of course, we're too frickin' poor to have the kind of money necessary for that.

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 12:20 PM  

How do Persians work, Nate?

Blogger Ephrem Antony Gray September 10, 2013 12:21 PM  

Next thing you know Obama is going to be on T.V. trying to whip up 'White Redneck' racism against Arabs...

'Smart' 'Diplomacy'

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 12:21 PM  

But Vox seeks out Jews to point out they are bad. He doesn't seek out Christian Zionists... he doesn't refer to the Elite Christian Zionists patented brand of influence peddling.

He's not seeking out anything. It's in the new York freaking times. It's a news story. If he was quoting from a rense or veterans today article you might have a point.

And the reason he's not talking about Christian zionists is that that have been mysteriously quiet on this

Anonymous Krul September 10, 2013 12:22 PM  

Nate - Everyone stands to make a great deal of money from that pipeline except the Russians.

Does the US? Or is the US merely acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel here?

Anonymous Stilicho September 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

When the unions, the AARP, Wall Street, the environmentalists, etc, do it, it's bad, but when the Israel Jews do it, suddenly it's not?

He's moved beyond that. Now it's that Vox is bad for pointing it out about the Jews, but not everyone else.


Anonymous civilServant September 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

You don’t have to be a nuclear physicist to figure out where Israel stands.

Indeed.

AIPAC, the ADL, and the Conference of Presidents are demonstrating that organized Jewish opinion cannot be trusted to put American interests ahead of Israeli ones.

Why would anyone think they would act otherwise?

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:24 PM  

"Does the US? Or is the US merely acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel here?"

The US interest is in reducing European dependence on Russian Natural Gas. Its the old cold war mentality of trying to screw over Russia because Russia is screwing over Europe.

Anonymous Abe Foxxman September 10, 2013 12:25 PM  

Mr. Day:


Why do you want to kill six million Jews?

Blogger Ephrem Antony Gray September 10, 2013 12:25 PM  

the Christian Zionists will never support the action of a Marxist crypto-Muslim president even if he is trying to do what Israel wants.

And if this fails (it probably will) it will simply prove what some of us have known all along:

1. The Jewish-Israeli lobby does actively try to work against American interests if that is in Israel's interest
2. said lobbies have about as much influence as any other major lobby, which is to say, a bit, and only when combined with other lobbies and strong leadership from above.

The diplomat is smart and knows that without the Christian Zionist types, their influence is not great enough.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick September 10, 2013 12:26 PM  

OT:This explains much about Richard Dawkins.

Anonymous ChelmWiseman September 10, 2013 12:26 PM  

I caught you out blatantly misrepresenting the NYT article, Chelm. And I can, and will, easily find reports of the Netanyahu government's support for American military action in Syria from other sources, so banking on the NYT misrepresenting the Israeli government's position was an unwise move on your part.

How do you think you are helping the Jewish people or combating anti-semitism by repeatedly attempting to deny that which is so easily proven? I am genuinely curious.


I did not misrepresent anything. The NYT article is thinly sourced and not at all clear about what the Israeli government supports. (no one is because Israel is deliberately not saying!) I am sure you can find other anti-Likud media that would say the same thing. Doesn't make it correct.

I genuinely do not believe that either the israeli government or American Jews as a whole are in favor of a Syria strike. It is a reasonable position to take. If that position is correct - then your argument regarding AIPAC is no longer valid, because they clearly have some other agenda.

Most people don't want to start bombing Iran either, but Israel has been very vocal about what it wants the US to do there. Why would they act differently with respect to Syria? Plus Israel has bombed Syria in the past, if they wanted to hit they they could and no one would cry about it.

I just think the Jew blinders you sometimes wear are getting in the way of the real story here.

Anonymous Tallen September 10, 2013 12:27 PM  

It's important to clarify that there are two pipelines at play here. In theory only one of them will be built, but both of them are supposed to go through Syria. The end connection is the EU, the "split" if both were built would be Syria, and the source options are Qatar and Iran.

Assad, being backed by Russia and Iran supports the Iranian pipe to the detriment of the Qataris. A new administration in Syria backed by the US (pressured by the EU, Israelis, Qataris and Saudis) would theoretically accept the Qatari pipeline to the detriment of the Iranians (and Russians who currently supply most (all?) of the EU's LNG).

In a more sane environment (read: no jihadis involved), both pipelines might be constructed, there would be market competition and everyone would "win." In fact, being the hub/switch, the Syrians might benefit the most from such a scenario. Any new administration in Syria might go down that road for that very reason, in which case we can expect both sources of LNG to further the social squabbling.

Anonymous GreyS September 10, 2013 12:29 PM  

Obama doesn't have to rely on the Jews to get this done, sometimes all it takes is a grassroots effort.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:32 PM  

"Does the US? Or is the US merely acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel here?"

actually now that I think about it... didn't Kerry say something about the middle east financing the foreign adventure this time?

Certainly sounds like the US may indeed have a financial interest.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 12:32 PM  

I just think the Jew blinders you sometimes wear are getting in the way of the real story here.

Please, tell us the real story.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 12:33 PM  

actually now that I think about it... didn't Kerry say something about the middle east financing the foreign adventure this time?

He did.

Of course Cheney also said Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq foreign adventure.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:34 PM  

"In a more sane environment (read: no jihadis involved), both pipelines might be constructed, there would be market competition and everyone would "win." "

Everyone wouldn't win. The Russians would lose big as it would cost them their LNG monopoly.

Anonymous Tallen September 10, 2013 12:38 PM  

The Russians would lose big

Hence the quotes around "win." Obviously there's no single big winner, but if the US decides to topple Assad and set up a regime more sympathetic to the Qataris, Russia stands to lose more than if both pipelines were constructed.

Putin doesn't seem especially eager to get in a fight over this, my estimation is he'd go along with both pipes and play some other angle to maintain Russian dominance over the market in Europe.

Anonymous civilServant September 10, 2013 12:43 PM  

Those are all factual statements, Chelm. Are you attempting to claim the factual statements are false? Or are you attempting to claim that the behavior described therein is not bad?

He means that any implication that these actions are wrong is morally wrong.

organized Jewish opinion cannot be trusted to put American interests ahead of Israeli ones."

Organized american opinion cannot be trusted to put Israeli interests ahead of American ones.


Now do you see why that is not an insult or attack?


He would not see the statements as morally equivilant.

Anonymous cds September 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

"Obama was never in the running for that title."

True, but America is. Or, at least it should be. And even Obama wants to look tough when confronted by the scary dude from the KGB.

"or are you seriously asserting that CAIR alone has the marketing moxie to get this done?"

Heck no. I'm saying that Obama will make the right noises to appease the Israelis, but he ain't going to war for Bibi. He will try to stare down Putin, though.

But that's just what I think. I am (thankfully) not privy to Obama's deepest thoughts.


Anonymous Jack Amok September 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

Doesn't have the support of what Jews? The leading Jews in Congress, the ADL, the major Jewish organizations, and the Israeli government are all lined up with AIPAC on this.

I understand many, perhaps even most, non-elite Jews may not support the war. But they appear to count even less to the elite Jews than non-elite Americans do to Congress.


And here we see the danger of groupism. When you insist on identifying yourself as part of a group that explicitly lobbies as a group, you open yourself up to being tarred with the same brush as the most visible lobbyists you lend your name to.

It's nice to get the bennies when the lobbying works in your favor, but there's a price to be paid.





Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

"Putin doesn't seem especially eager to get in a fight over this, my estimation is he'd go along with both pipes and play some other angle to maintain Russian dominance over the market in Europe."

Given that he sent some freakin' anti-ship missiles to Syria... and do remember military tacticians tend to refer to carriers as "missile magnets"... I think Putin demonstrated he's quite willing to go to war over this.

Anonymous zen0 September 10, 2013 12:50 PM  

AIPAC is as far removed from the influence of the Israeli government as the "Syrian" rebels are removed from the influence of Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 12:51 PM  

"Heck no. I'm saying that Obama will make the right noises to appease the Israelis, but he ain't going to war for Bibi. He will try to stare down Putin, though."

way to late for that. Obama has already folded like a cheap suit.

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 12:52 PM  

But Vox seeks out Jews to point out they are bad. He doesn't seek out Christian Zionists... he doesn't refer to the Elite Christian Zionists patented brand of influence peddling.

I don't seek them out, I merely happen to have noticed a front page story on the mainstream media's primary organ that supports my observations. And I don't pay much attention to the Christian Zionists don't run the Federal Reserve and they aren't trying to get the US military involved in another war on behalf of Israel.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 10, 2013 12:58 PM  

Tallen September 10, 2013 12:38 PM
Putin doesn't seem especially eager to get in a fight over this,




you are WAY out of the news loop on this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601648/russia-cancels-syria-lobbying-mission-to-d.c.-more-russian-war-ships-reportedly-head-for-mediterranean/

we can debate whether or not Putin actually IS ready for a shooting war or whether he's just trying to seem that way.

but he's DEFINITELY fronting like he's ready. question is, punk, do you feel lucky? do you think that's a bluff?

Anonymous civilServant September 10, 2013 1:04 PM  

I think Putin demonstrated he's quite willing to go to war over this.

Wars are fought between armies. Not between posturing task forces.

If the pipeline is the real issue then the proper way to deal with it is to allow it to be built and then sabotage it with "terrorist" actions. Carriers are not the only missile magnets.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

"but he's DEFINITELY fronting like he's ready. question is, punk, do you feel lucky? do you think that's a bluff?"

Exactly.

Putis is effectly sending this message:

Attacking Syria is the same as Attacking Russia.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 10, 2013 1:08 PM  

civilServant September 10, 2013 1:04 PM
If the pipeline is the real issue




just because it's the main issue does NOT mean that it's the only issue.

i sincerely doubt that either Russia or Iran are interested in losing influence in the ME. and taking down their proxy, Assad, would do just that.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 1:08 PM  

"If the pipeline is the real issue then the proper way to deal with it is to allow it to be built and then sabotage it with "terrorist" actions."

I have already explained why the "terrorist" actions you speak of won't happen.

The very real terrorist organizations will be benefiting directly from the pipelines.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 1:09 PM  

"i sincerely doubt that either Russia or Iran are interested in losing influence in the ME. and taking down their proxy, Assad, would do just that."

I agree with that as well. The Pipeline is the main issue as far as Saudi and the US are concerned though.

Anonymous Anonymous September 10, 2013 1:09 PM  

I myself am curious to see how Russia will respond if the U.S. intervenes. Russia has both a natural gas pipeline (if one agrees that Iran, Russian and Syria have been working together to get this done), and a port, or more precisely a Material-Technical Support Point in Tartus (which I believe is their only port in the Mediterranean).

G Beck makes the case that the U.S. is only interested in a limited military intervention to cover up for some misplaced chemical and/or other weapons that somehow came into the possession of those fighting in Syria.

I don't know if the true facts will ever surface, but i continue to find it interesting that our president, who vowed to "end the state of perpetual war" is now so quick to jump in because people were killed with chemical weapons.

Anonymous Tallen September 10, 2013 1:10 PM  

I think Putin demonstrated he's quite willing to go to war over this.

There's a difference between willing and eager. I note by all accounts he's still withholding full delivery of those S-300 SAM systems to the Syrians. The warship buildup indicates he might put up a fight if the Assad regime is toppled and Russia can't gain influence with the next group in power, but until then he seems content to negotiate.

Also consider how much moral (and economic in some ways) credit Putin builds up with the world if he "encourages" Assad to permit both pipelines. The Qataris get most of what they want, which cuts the legs out from under the rebels, the Israelis get most of what they want, the EU gets cheaper LNG, Russia looks like a peacemaker and the USA comes off looking like a big bad bully. Will it go that far? Probably not, but you can bet there are Russians doing cost-benefit analyses for Putin who will tell him that a dual-pipe solution is cheaper for Russia than getting into a slugging match with the USA over Syria even if they do win.

Anonymous cds September 10, 2013 1:12 PM  

Remember this?

Mittens: "Russia is one of the biggest foreign policy threats that we face"

Barry: "The '80s called. It wants its foreign policy back."

--Room erupts with laughter--

Oops.

Anonymous civilServant September 10, 2013 1:13 PM  

The very real terrorist organizations will be benefiting directly from the pipelines.

So insert an unreal terrorist organization.

Blogger James Dixon September 10, 2013 1:22 PM  

> If that position is correct - then your argument regarding AIPAC is no longer valid, because they clearly have some other agenda.

Chelm, assuming I'm willing to give that position the benefit of a doubt, what possible other agenda could they be pursuing? If you can come up with a reasonable answer, I might be give it further consideration.

Blogger Joshua_D September 10, 2013 1:26 PM  

Chelm. Dude. Stop.

Anonymous bob k. mando September 10, 2013 1:45 PM  

question for Chelm:
IF i stipulate that American Jewry is, in the main, against US involvement in Syria ...

WHERE is the pushback? are there any rabbis speaking out against AIPAC? are there any synagogues speaking out against attacking Assad? are there any Jews in Hollywood raising a ruckus?

ARE YOU using your blog to advocate against it? ( didn't you have a blog? i don't see it now )

it's all well and good to try to claim that every public jewish group is "No true Jewboy" ... but all that does is remind us of debates with atheists and marxists.

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 10, 2013 1:55 PM  

This whole Syria thing is completely insane. Everyone's lost their mind. I say we go back to grumbling about tattoos.

Anonymous 11B September 10, 2013 2:04 PM  

I am certain that this Syria mess does not have the support of the Jewish community. I would be interested to see an opinion poll on this.

Chelm, here is an article in the Jerusalem Post on an opinion poll in Israel about a potential strike on Syria.


The US and European countries should attack Syria, but Israel should not be involved in the assault, two polls in weekend Hebrew newspapers found.

While polls in the US and United Kingdom have found overwhelming opposition to their countries attacking Syria, a Gal Hadash poll published in Israel Hayom found that 66.6 percent of respondents would be in favor of American and European military intervention in Syria.

Anonymous Alexander September 10, 2013 2:09 PM  

Aha! You've been hoisted 11B - obviously nobody would ever ask someone else to do something dangerous without being willing to do it to, so that poll is clearly false and malicious.

Anyway, I expect the anti-war Jews to publicly protest right around the same time I catch sight of all those moderate Muslims.

Anonymous Eric C September 10, 2013 2:12 PM  

The US and European countries should attack Syria, but Israel should not be involved in the assault, two polls in weekend Hebrew newspapers found.


Nate -
Israel:

Hey! Lets you and him fight!


Ayup.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben September 10, 2013 2:16 PM  

AIPAC are a bunch of self appointed leaders. They certainly don't speak for me.

Anonymous Hardscrabble Farmer September 10, 2013 2:33 PM  

A couple of days ago there was a post here about some Brooklyn Jew who called anyone who kept their children out of public school bad. That people have an obligation to shitcan their children and even their children's childrens lives on the alter of the greater good of public schools. I had never heard of her before so I dug around a little bit to see what else she had written and found this quote-

"The adjustment back to America is not easy. No one in Ohio understands me. Am I an American Jew or a Jewish American? If, hypothetically, America and Israel were to go to war, who would I fight for? I ask these questions."

Now I'm not stupid enough to think that a writer for Slate has any influence in DC, but I find that like others of her tribe- Rahm Emanuel, e.g.- have dual loyalties.

I cannot understand why so many Jews in America cannot grasp why this is a problem for other Americans, or why it is problematic for us to point this out when they feel so free about speaking of their own dual loyalties. Having someone ten generations deep in your country who still holds allegiance to a country not of their birth is a problem and it isn't a problem of some elites or some lobbies, it's a problem of virtually the entire population of them. Catching them out in the open with their comments isn't anti-semitic, it's pro patria.

Anonymous allyn71 September 10, 2013 2:36 PM  

"Does the US? Or is the US merely acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Israel here?" - Krul September 10, 2013 12:22 PM


I have been pointing this out in previous posts on the subject and Nate has been doing it repeatedly in this thread but we will go over it one more time.


The Qatari natural gas field is the largest NG find in the world. The nearest large market for this NG is the EU. Qatar is a puppet state of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia controls OPEC and has a defense agreement with the US in exchange for the petrodollar that makes the US dollar the world reserve currency. So in answer to your question, it is in the US interest to support the petrodollar and retain world reserve currency status for the US dollar.

The Saudi's want US help getting the pipeline through because of the $ involved and the US wants their support propping up the petrodollar that allows us to maintain the welfare/warfare state. The only way the status quo can be maintained is for the west and their proxies to control the energy markets and therefore keep the US dollar on top which allows the Fed to keep printing $85 billion a month.

The Russians have an energy monopoly over the EU and are dependent on that for their ongoing rebuilding. They can't afford and have no intention to allow "market competition" to determine their fate. The Russian mafia oligarchy isn't going to play fair. Maintaining the competitive advantage is a vital national interest for Russia.

For everyone suggesting that it is a neocon plot, well yes it is but it just isn't for the hell of it, the "neocon plot" as desribed by Gen. Wesley Clark post 9/11 and has been unfolding since is to ensure US domination of the region to ensure survival of the petrodollar. It is all about the $.

Every other issue including the Isreal/Iran one is tangental to that core issue, the petrodollar. Of course Isreal is happy if the US attacks Iran and weakens Syria. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that. That doesn't change the fact that this is a US/Suadi gig over the fate of the petrodollar. That is why Obama is asking for help from the Israeli's selling this and not the other way around. We want this more than the Israeli's, we are calling in a chit, one that aligns with Isreali interest.

This is a thug, gangland turf war on a global level.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben September 10, 2013 2:38 PM  

Farmer, that jew should make aliyah. Unfortunately, there are jews who support the strike because it's good for Israel but that refuse to admit that what they're doing is traitorous.

It's no different than Mexicans that support the interests of mexico over the US.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 2:39 PM  

"This is a thug, gangland turf war on a global level."

Yup.

Anonymous Anonymous September 10, 2013 3:07 PM  

The lesson here seems to be that, if the Israelis and the Saudis both want the same thing, the American people are just out of luck. We might be able to outvote one of them, but not both.

Anonymous George of the Vibrant Jungle September 10, 2013 3:08 PM  

zen0 - The Saudi lobby. Obama bows to King Abdullah.

Bows? Hell, that Lying Scum in the White House (LSWH) is in bed performing unnatural acts with a train of Saudis. And Bernanke is naked just outside the bed hooting and hollering and egging him on.

Anonymous Hardscrabble Farmer September 10, 2013 3:10 PM  

FUBAR Ben, I wish they'd all make Aliyah, alas, they are here.

What I'd love to see- really and trulio- is an organization- scratch that, a single Jew in the US stand up to AIPAC, the ADL, the whole vipers nest and call them out for what they are. At least Benedict Arnold won a few for our side before he became the most despised man in US history- back when people were actually taught that subject in school. Of course it won't ever happen because- and understand when I say this I concur- people are more loyal to their kith and kin than to those who are not members of their tribe. This is why multicultural empires always collapse in division.

Blogger tz September 10, 2013 3:42 PM  

One can always pray that the truth will be revealed and a conversion can happen on the Road to Damascus. There is precedent if not president. Perhaps a new coat-check for a stoner will see the light but be blinded by it anyway. Pray always.

Blogger Joshua_D September 10, 2013 3:53 PM  

Nate, allyn71,


Question about the US/Saudi/Qatar vs. Russian/Syria Iran idea. Why would Qatar need to go through Syria? Why not just go north through Iraq into Turkey? Is a large portion of this pipeline already built or something?

Blogger Hacked acctount 2018/19? hcaacked! September 10, 2013 3:57 PM  

Speaking of stateside interests, is it not historical for a failing country to start or keep everyone diverted and busy with wars? Wars that American cannot afford with the U6 jobless stats, labor participation rates and the general dismal place in America's history.

Anonymous Alexander September 10, 2013 4:00 PM  

Tz,

Don't need to walk no road to Damascus...

...when you can carpet bomb it instead.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben September 10, 2013 4:05 PM  

I am only one jew and I totally oppose AIPAC. There isn't anything wrong with having good diplomatic and trade relations, but when you actively lobby to send another nation's men to fight your wars, you are pure scum. That type of behavior indicates that you view Americans as cannon fodder.

It is very distressing to see scumbags like Dan Senor push for another war and no one challenging him. It's like if you challenge the Dr. Strangeloves then you're viewed as weak. Never mind that this guys and gals have never been in combat.

Blogger tz September 10, 2013 4:08 PM  

@VD And I don't pay much attention to the Christian Zionists don't run the Federal Reserve and they aren't trying to get the US military involved in another war on behalf of Israel.

I have a picture of Grue from Despicable Me, with a yellow "mike-and-Ike" candy with eyes and goggles running the Fed. And AIPAC.

Have you heard of Gary North and Doh! - Minion! theology?

Anonymous Gen. Kong September 10, 2013 4:20 PM  

allyn71's explanation appears plausible. It doesn't fully explain the rabid support for war-mongering on the part of AIPAC, ADL, et al though. It's one thing to express some generalized, tepid support for such an adventure, while thinking that it would be good for the home team (Israel) if Asaad went down and the pipeline went in. Their great enthusiasm for the project implies that they (and the home team) are in on the deal in some way and stand to profit.

Whether it's AIPAC, the ADL, or the House of Saud, the bottom line is that Sam Donaldson's triumphalist crowing in the wake of D'Won on d'downlow's re-incoronation is accurate: It's OUR country now! Even the polite Nigerian Musloid who sawed off the head of the hapless chump Brit soldier on the streets of Londonistan (but was sorry he had to do it in front of the women) got it right: ""Remove your governments - they don't care about you."

Anonymous Tallen September 10, 2013 4:27 PM  

Why would Qatar need to go through Syria? Why not just go north through Iraq

I don't have a source that addresses this question. I would speculate either the terrain is unsuitable (check a topo map of northern Iraq and eastern Turkey) and/or the local populace (Kurds, not really beholden to any of national government) is unsuitable. Given the amounts of money involved with LNG production/distribution and propensity for interested parties to wage small wars if locals object to their plans, I would lean towards the geographic factor.

Anonymous allyn71 September 10, 2013 4:38 PM  

Josh,

Iraq is under Iranian influence. If there is a pipeline through N. Iraq (and there is one planned) it will be under the Iranian/Russian influence and therefore a threat to the petrodollar. Here is a quote from a recent Russian Times article that explains much of the global politics of the pipelines.

"The South Pars gas fields – the largest in the world – are shared by Iran and Qatar. Tehran and Doha have developed an extremely tricky relationship, mixing cooperation and hardcore competition.

The key (unstated) reason for Qatar to be so obsessed by regime change in Syria is to kill the $10 billion Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, which was agreed upon in July 2011. The same applies to Turkey, because this pipeline would bypass Ankara, which always bills itself as the key energy crossroads between East and West.

It’s crucial to remember that the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline is as anathema to Washington as IP. The difference is that Washington in this case can count on its allies Qatar and Turkey to sabotage the whole deal.

This means sabotaging not only Iran but also the 'Four Seas' strategy announced by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2009, according to which Damascus should become a Pipelineistan hub connected to the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean."

http://rt.com/op-edge/iran-pakistan-syria-pipeline-843/


It is crucial to remember that is not only about who profits from it, but who is loyal to the petrodollar.

Just for kicks it is worth mentioning that the only three countries that have openly advocated for selling oil in something besides US dollars are:

Iraq- Saddam started taking payment in Euro's in 2000. In 2003 US launches attacks.

Libya- Qadafi openly advocated for creation of "Muslim Union" that sold oil in gold backed dinar currency. In 2011 US launches attacks.

Iran- Currently sells oil in non-dollars out of bourse opened in 2008. Announced trade deal with India of Oil for Gold. US attacks ????

Anonymous allyn71 September 10, 2013 4:55 PM  

If you want to do some more research on this read up on the:

Asian Energy Security Grid

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)


Iran and Russia control 20% of the world oil reserves and 50% of the natural gas reserves. Enough to threaten the petrodollar.

Anonymous Big Bill September 10, 2013 4:59 PM  

"Israeli diplomat Zvi Rafiah is correct to be concerned: "We should not be the one that pushes the American people to do or not do anything they want or don’t want."

I worry about American Jews. They are getting hung out to dry. TheIsraelis don't want to push the war. The Pritzkers and Crowns can push Obama's buttons since he is their protege. Obama seems a little less than enthusiastic to be a complete tool for them, in spite of the fact that they fill the ranks of his closest advisors.

The Prince seems to be getting a little shaky and the natives are restless. Such times post particular problems for Court Jews and (by extension) to the workaday Jewish chumps further down the food chain.

But do regular Jewish chumps see the danger of being so far ahead of the Israelis and the American Nation? Can they hit the road with a sack full of gold and a couple spare passports like the Rubashkin crowd? Can they work from within and challenge the knee-jerk warmongering of the Jewish elite?

I don't think so. If things get ugly, I expect they may find themselves on the road like the poor German ethnics who were expelled from countries all over Europe and Eurasia immediately after WWII. They were followed, robbed, raped and murdered all their way back to Germany proper.

And it really won't matter what their personal politics are. Many of the poor German ethnics had been forced out of Germany by circumstances, religion or politics hundreds of years before WWII, were completely disconnected from Hitler and National Socialism, yet were driven out by the millions nonetheless.

I pray it does not come to that.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 5:18 PM  

"Question about the US/Saudi/Qatar vs. Russian/Syria Iran idea. Why would Qatar need to go through Syria? Why not just go north through Iraq into Turkey? Is a large portion of this pipeline already built or something?"

Look at a map. Brutal terrain in south eastern turkey. not easy to do. Easier than WWIII? probably. Honestly I don't know why that's not the plan. Both planned pipelines go through syria.

Anonymous 11B September 10, 2013 5:25 PM  

Re to this thread being a discussion on Russia, the petrodollar, etc.

During the Cold War it would have been a no brainer to have a knee-jerk anti-Russian attitude. But now, I don't know. What is coming out of Washington this past decade with its globalist, multiculti-worshipping, gay marriage, democracy-spreading gobbledygook is hard to stomach. Therefore, I can't jump aboard the Syrian Express just to deal a strategic blow to Russia.

Russia seems to be re-Christianizing at a time when the West is going off its rocker. So what if the EU is dependent upon Russia for gas? American influence has seemed to pussify the Europeans into something that I don't even recognize. Maybe Russia can have a more positive impact.

So instead of rooting for a strategic defeat of Russia, maybe it's time to root for the hastening of the collapse of the present incarnation of the USA. People on this blog often discuss losing their country and how it might be better to secede into white-enclaves. So anything that can speed up this process is probably better for us than a continuation of the status quo. The last thing I want is for this incarnation of the USA to keep spreading its filth worldwide.

Anonymous allyn71 September 10, 2013 5:33 PM  

11B

Just to be clear, I agree with you and have previously stated so in these pages. I would rather pay the piper now and restore honest money and have a foreign policy that avoids "foreign entanglements" as stated by the founding fathers (see Ron Paul for modern version).

I hope that you don't conflate my description of the strategic movements as support for the US response. In my opinion our current system is immoral and unsustainable and many problems we face as a people can be tied directly to the unholy alliance between the US and the Saudi's that spawned the petrodollar.

When you make a deal with the devil, don't be suprised when the devil comes calling for his due.

Blogger Nate September 10, 2013 5:44 PM  

"Therefore, I can't jump aboard the Syrian Express just to deal a strategic blow to Russia."

I am not advocating anything and I hope you don't think I am.

I am simply pointing out what is actually going on. It was never my intent to convince anyone that bombing syria or screwing Russia was a good idea.

Anonymous Josh September 10, 2013 5:51 PM  

Look at a map. Brutal terrain in south eastern turkey. not easy to do. Easier than WWIII? probably. Honestly I don't know why that's not the plan. Both planned pipelines go through syria.

Probably because the kurds live there, and if there's one thing iraqis, Iranians, Turks, and Syrians all agree on, it's hating kurds

Anonymous scoobius dubious September 10, 2013 6:02 PM  

"our current system is immoral and unsustainable and many problems we face as a people"

Our biggest problem as a people, of course, is that we are no longer really 'a people' in any meaningful sense.

Anonymous civilServant September 10, 2013 6:05 PM  

The Russians have an energy monopoly over the EU and are dependent on that for their ongoing rebuilding.

Is this dependency so Nate?

Anonymous zen0 September 10, 2013 6:07 PM  

Moshe Feiglin: Israel's Interests Must be Independent of America's

I do not understand the Israelis who are eager for a US attack on Syria. They are confused, willing to be at the receiving end of missiles and later down the road, the object of tremendous diplomatic pressure (to "prove" America's balanced approach to the Middle East) just to preserve the US hegemony in our region.

These people suffer from a blurred sense of identity: It diffuses their ability to identify an Israeli interest that is independent and not contingent upon an American interest. I have the utmost respect for the US. But Israel must be able to look in the mirror without seeing stars and stripes.


Anonymous civilServant September 10, 2013 6:39 PM  

These people suffer from a blurred sense of identity: It diffuses their ability to identify an Israeli interest that is independent and not contingent upon an American interest.

Are there any Israeli interests that are not dependent and contingent upon American capabilities? Can they even pay for their own military without American financial support?

It is not the identities that are blurred.

Anonymous Anonymous September 10, 2013 6:40 PM  

The Russians have an energy monopoly over the EU and are dependent on that for their ongoing rebuilding.

Excuse my historical cluelessness, but when did this happen? It seems like not that long ago the USSR was falling apart because it couldn't produce anything anymore under communism, so I assume it wasn't supplying most of Europe's energy back then. How did they get a monopoly so fast?

Also, it seems like just yesterday everyone was freaking out over Peak Energy. But now there's so much natural gas that countries might go to war to keep it from flowing too freely and driving prices down. What's the deal?

Anonymous zen0 September 10, 2013 6:57 PM  

@ civil servant:

Can they even pay for their own military without American financial support?

Yes, they can. Feiglin is one of the Jews who sees American aid as debilitating.

Its America that needs Israeli technology, not the other way around.

Are there any Israeli interests that are not dependent and contingent upon American capabilities?

That is not what was said.

Anonymous Bird on a wing September 10, 2013 7:01 PM  

Chelm, I haven't been reading this blog very long, but I did notice a difference in the language used in this post versus the previous one on 8 Sept.

I agree with you that there seemed to be connotations of anti-Jewishness in that last post, but they were odd and lacked clarity, so I read the comments, where Vox made an effort to justify some of his observations.

It appears to me that Vox deliberately chose to make use of higher level qualitative language in this post. For instance:

And my impression is that it would not be good for the Jews in America for that lobby to demonstrate that Congress is, as some observers have put it, Israeli-occupied territory.

"Some observers" would not necessarily include Vox. He seems to be a person who would come right out and say that if he did indeed believe it. This is a meta comment on something the general American public could clue into, which would have an adverse affect on their perception of Israel/Jews.

I noticed that all the statements you objected to came from the 8 Sept post. The post with unclear language.

Also, I would note that Joel Pollack (who is Jewish) has been posting some observations over at Breitbart that are very similar to the ones Vox has posted here. His most recent post is titled, "Note to Pro-Israel Groups: If Your Strategy Depends on Obama, Start Over."

Anonymous VD September 10, 2013 7:55 PM  

"Some observers" would not necessarily include Vox. He seems to be a person who would come right out and say that if he did indeed believe it. This is a meta comment on something the general American public could clue into, which would have an adverse affect on their perception of Israel/Jews.

I would. I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I am somewhat troubled by the obvious Jewish overrepresentation in Congress, but I don't think we actually know the extent to which AIPAC and other lobbying groups possess influence there. That's why this vote on Syria is so important in this regard; it will tell us who has more influence over the Congress, the people or the Israel lobbyists.

We already know, per TARP, that the Wall Street has more influence over Congress than the American people. We simply haven't previously had the clear-cut opportunity to learn if the same is true of Israel, because in the past, American public opinion was usually in line with the Israel lobby's position.

I just want to know what the truth happens to be.

Blogger Robert What? September 10, 2013 9:47 PM  

Believe me, not all Jewish Americans are on the side of Abe Foxman. In fact many of us despise him and believe American interests trump Israeli interests.

Anonymous 11B September 10, 2013 11:10 PM  

Can they even pay for their own military without American financial support?

Yes, they can. Feiglin is one of the Jews who sees American aid as debilitating.

Then why does Rand Paul catch all sort of hell whenever he advocates cutting all foreign aid to all nations, Israel included? If Israel doesn't need our aid, why can't we simply stop providing it? A couple years of that aid could build us a fence across our Southern border.

I for one believe Israel doesn't need the aid. They might be the most dynamic economy on Earth. Taking that aid probably hurts their ability to make their own decisions. However, I am surprised that her supporters, at least those in the USA, won't even consider ending this aid. So it does make them seem dependent upon Uncle Sam. At least it does from a distance.

Anonymous Grinder September 10, 2013 11:41 PM  

RobertW September 10, 2013 9:47 PM
Believe me, not all Jewish Americans are on the side of Abe Foxman. In fact many of us despise him and believe American interests trump Israeli interests.


Why do so many termites crawl out of the woodwork long enough to state what should be obvious? Not all Germans in NS Germany hated jews either but it didn't stop the leadership of world jewry 'declaring war' on Germany in 1933 nor did the allies stop to distinguish the 'good' from 'bad' Germans when firebombing cities into ruins. I see constant comments from anonymous jews of claimed support for American values as the Founding Fathers envisioned them but AIPAC and ADL and other jew orgs in USA seem to only repeat the same lines as ever without any visible complaint from those they represent. It seems that the true blue good jews are so very much in the minority to be as insignificant as the jew lovers of Germany and the Japanese opposed to Tojo who lived in Nagasaki and Hiroshima the day before atom bombs blew them to shit. The greater interest of survival of the white race urgently requires the removal of jews from our white countries notwithstanding some collateral damage to these hypothetical good jews. This includes all of them until some practical method of sorting out the good ones becomes available. This is still better than the fate awaiting non-jews who are guilty of treason.
Keep an eye on the countries of Europe with the surge in anti-immigration parties. The predictable resistance and active hostility against those at the forefront of anti-immigration sentiment by jews in every one of those countries will not go unnoticed by fed up Europeans. They will remember those who tried to destroy patriotic Europeans and will become further receptive to a blanket expulsion of jews. Assuming we survive the coming conflict that could become WWIII. The jews are determined to have their war against Syria (fought and paid for by stupid white countries)

Anonymous Rex Little September 11, 2013 2:29 AM  

I'm puzzled by one thing: how does a US strike on Syria benefit Israel? If we take out Assad, a bunch of militant Islamists take over. This benefits Israel. . . how?

All I can think of that makes any kind of sense is that they're worried Assad is close to ending the war and they want to prolong it. As long as Assad and the rebels are fighting each other, none of them can make trouble for Israel.

Blogger Unknown September 11, 2013 4:12 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ron September 11, 2013 11:11 AM  

@Rex

It doesnt benefit Israel at all. And if it did, Obama would definitely not push for it. This is done to benefit Istanbul and Riyadh. The Obama administration and all his little bought and paid for whores from the Jewish community are using us as an excuse. The truth is, its better for us if Assad stays in power.

Blogger Ron September 11, 2013 11:13 AM  

@Robert

You absolutely deserved the response Grinder gave you.

Anonymous Tallen September 11, 2013 12:17 PM  

when did this happen? It seems like not that long ago the USSR was falling apart because it couldn't produce anything anymore under communism, so I assume it wasn't supplying most of Europe's energy back then. How did they get a monopoly so fast?

The EU relies on imports to supply their energy needs. Russia gave one domestic company (Gazprom) a monopoly on liquid national gas exports. Thanks to fracking and tech advances in energy extraction, other players besides Russia have been making headway into the EU market so Russia's influence there has actually been on a downward trend. Russia has planned to adapt in several ways: they are growing more domestic LNG suppliers besides Gazprom, preparing to give those businesses export licenses (thus ending Gazprom's monopoly in that regard) and reaching out to feed new markets in the Far East. It's quite impressive actually, how constructive the Russians are being.

Anonymous 11B September 11, 2013 1:25 PM  

I'm puzzled by one thing: how does a US strike on Syria benefit Israel? If we take out Assad, a bunch of militant Islamists take over. This benefits Israel. . . how?

The real goal is taking out Iran. But so far the US has opted not to attack Iran over its nuclear ambitions. However, the Iranians might be prompted to make some sort of foolish move if their friends in Syria are attacked. If so, then this would be the Ft. Sumter-like moment the hawks need to launch an attack on Iran. And even the Israelis want Iran taken out.

Also, if Iran is hit and Assad still reigns in Syria, he'd give safe haven to Hezbollah who might be used by the Iranians to launch unconventional retaliatory strikes on Israel. With Assad gone and Al-Qaeda presumably in charge, I don't know if that would happen. I don't think Al-Qaeda likes the Shias. So I don't know if they would retaliate on behalf of Iran.

Anonymous civilServant September 11, 2013 2:32 PM  

Yes, they can. Feiglin is one of the Jews who sees American aid as debilitating.

Most Jews seem either to disagree or to be unwilling to enact this view.

Its America that needs Israeli technology, not the other way around.

Some time ago a Jew posted on this blog the opinion that the Roman seige of Masada was actually a Jewish vitory that eventually brought down the Roman Empire. Your assertion seems of a similar vein.

Anonymous E. PERLINE September 12, 2013 9:55 AM  

The Jews in New York are getting wise to Obama but their liberalism is making the process too slow. The Jews in Israel are further along but they still depend on the Great American Benefactor.

Here is a thought for them to consider:
The President of the US is a plant by Muslim sympathizers. Appearing to renounce Islam is a permitted tactic, because it's pro-Muslim. By protecting Iran's nuclear development he is buying time for them to brandish the weapon against the US and of course, Israel. The president of the US will be revered by Allah as the greatest terrorist of them all.

Blogger Robert What? September 12, 2013 8:55 PM  

Grinder, Besides the fact that you dislike Jews, I'm not sure of the point of your screed. What am I supposed to do that would gain your acceptance other than die? (Although being a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner it won't happen without a fight.) I tried getting on the secret "Jew Phone" we all share to call Bernake to yell him to stop counterfeiting our currency but he must have been out at the time.

Blogger Robert What? September 15, 2013 4:16 PM  

Please explain

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts