Don't be fooled: Assad is no friend to Syria's Christian minorities

The idea that foreign policy has remained consistent by design from administration to administration is clearly false. We're not talking about a "revised" plan from Bush to Obama, we're talking about entirely different ways of framing the problem. Any continuity between the administrations is a product of the reality facing the decision makers in Washington, not evidence of a deep state commanding American foreign policy.

Where Bush thought that America could solve everything, Obama thought that America was the problem. This 1-2 punch was a total disaster for the Middle East.

 

Iran

While there are differences between Obama and Bush, as long as there is influence and lobbying by AIPAC and those who follow and are beholden to its agenda on each issue that the US faces in the region, you will also see the nexus that creates a level of consistency in many of the policies that are pursued. Even Obama, for instance, had quite a few AIPAC tools in his administration and, in particular, during his first administration. Among them, as it relates to Iran for instance, Denis Ross. More generally, Hillary (who voted for the Iraq war and was an instrumental voice in steering the US into creating the mess in Libya) was also someone who had jumped into bed with AIPAC and whatever they peddled.

While you may not agree with me, and that is your prerogative, the key point if you want to understand my perspective is that an important aspect of the "consistency" that is a hallmark of US policies is the influence of special interests groups, including as it relates to the issues we are discussing, the influence of not just AIPAC but more broadly, the pro Israeli lobby.

 

My problem is that you can't quantify just how influential any particular interest group is at any given time, not in Congress and certainly not in the White House. The President doesn't have the Israeli lobby briefing him on national security developments, he has generals and intelligence officials. The fact that an interest group exists gives very little information to work with.

 

If you want the "quantification" you allude to, start reading the article I referred to and cited from Counterpunch, called "Bush's Dual Loyalties". I am sure if you read through it, you will get all the quantification you will need. Of course, you can also read the book I cited by John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, two of America's most distinguished professors who go on to explain in rather clear terms how the Israel lobby controls and wields its influence on US foreign policy.

Even in the case of Obama, the people who were advising him included prominent voices who were carrying Israel's brief and who in many cases, for instance Denis Ross, were people who had been lobbied to be appointed to their posts by AIPAC. Or people like Hillary, who followed AIPAC's lobbying and in what she was advocating as Secretary of State. Even many of your generals working in the national security field, unfortunately, are tied to a network that is closely allied to AIPAC. People who, once they retire, look to earn much of their income working for defense contractors and other such firms and think tanks, closely allied to the same network that is beholden to AIPAC, the military industrial complex and increasingly these days, Wahhabi Arabia.

And then you have the US Congress and its influence and lobbying, where most of its members (in the words of one AIPAC's past directors, approximately 80 of them in the Senate and a similar percentage in the House) who are ready to sign a blank paper if AIPAC tells them to.

 

that was Al Qaeda, not Iran.

 

One thing, incidentally, that I want to be clear about as I describe the influence of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy, is that even though most American Jews support Israel, a majority are not in lockstep with what AIPAC peddles. Indeed, on issues that AIPAC has been most actively engaged in advocating in the past 15 years since the coalition I have mentioned, most American Jews have been working on the opposite direction. For instance, some of the most prominent voices against the Iraq war from the beginning were American Jews, with a larger percentage of American Jews opposing the Iraq war than Americans more generally. Yet, AIPAC was a very strong advocate of pushing the Iraq war. Similarly, despite massive lobbying against the nuclear deal with Iran by AIPAC, most American Jews supported that deal.

To look at the issue differently, but in ways that are actually quite telling, among the prominent candidates for the presidency in the US in the last election, only one wasn't trying to appease AIPAC and who didn't make the annual pilgrimage to appear before AIPAC to prove his fidelity to the group. That one candidate, namely Bernie Sanders, happened to be Jewish.

There are, of course, people like Obama who had a troubled relationship with AIPAC, despite having overwhelming support among American Jewish voters. But even Obama, when he wanted to become president, and during his first term in office in particular, had to go out of his way to try to prove his fidelity to AIPAC through many of his policies and appointments. He just wasn't willing to go all the way and become AIPAC's (and, by extension, Netanyahu's) tool the same way many American politicians are so clearly willing to be.

 

WTF cares?

Except in the thousands of cases where they do, like that 14 year old girl. Takes quite a particularly sh-t regime to beat up 14 year old girls because she's wearing ripped jeans.

Sure, the regime doesn't apply their lunatic, retro-grade, 6th century rules - except where people like Atena and Zahra Kazemi are concerned.

Or the bus driver who had their tongue cut out for going out on strike.

Like truth, justice, and the rule of law, for starters?

Ally? hezbollah is an iranian-bought-and-paid for criminal terrorist proxy army, who has no reason to exist on this earth other than to extend iran's cancerous, filthy hand across the mideast.

Now THAT'S someone I'd be REAL proud of as an ally, partners in genocide, wow - you iran regime apologists REALLY have a lot of friends in high places these days, and A LOT to be proud of.

More iran-purchased terrorist groups. Had iran's fascist regime had ANY brains, they would not have set their animals loose in iraq and marginalized the sunnis there, who rose up for form....isis. Good move there, unless they wanted to create such a thing as a ruse to ethnically cleanse syria, a wretched, horrific tactic I would certainly not put past the khamieni filth regime.

Because most sane humans prefer not to be mass murderers, and live a quality existence.

Funny how Israel is the 5 MM-strong tiny country surrounded by 500 MM muslims who want to destroy her - yet you do not support that underdog. So much for credibility or consistency...

 

Says who, you? You can't even accurately describe iran, the sh-thole you live in, and you're pretending to have an idea what american jews think on the other side of the planet LOL? Utterly laughable and clueless.

Another boring lie.

Uh, not really.

The usual crap canard that the jews control the US government. Do these people ever get their lies will never be embraced by people who know better, as in 99% of the US?

This one is beginning to make me think it is lying about where it lives, that it is connected to iran in any way - it just keeps peddling the same far left/mondoweiss/electronic intifada sourcebook crap/garbage one sees all over the web.

 

https://lobelog.com/aipac-bristles-at-obamas-reminder-of-iraq-war-lobbying/
AIPAC Bristles at Obama’s Reminder of Iraq War Lobbying

Of course, once the Iraq war became such a fiasco, AIPAC tried to engage in revisionism and distance itself from what it was doing at the time.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-us-jews-support-iran-nuclear-deal-j-street-poll-finds/
Most US Jews support Iran nuclear deal, J Street poll finds

 

I certainly did not. I'll dedicate the bottom of this post to a quick look at it's claims.

A book is a big ask, but I'll look into it.

So there's clearly a favorable slicing of the data happening in the first sentence here. Albright, by definition the most senior State Department official dealing with the peace process, has never been especially pro-Israeli, and has been accused of being quite anti-Israeli. I'm not going to chase down the nameless Israeli-agents he describes here.

Yeah, I don't doubt this at all. American administrations tend to be quite pro-Israeli, and George Bush was the most pro-Israeli of all.
So what? How are we supposed to make the leap from pro-Israeli in sentiment to Israeli double agent?

That's my chief problem here. There's not way to quantify the influence of the pro-Israel lobby as opposed to the influence of base pro-Israeli sentiment. That's why I like to avoid discussions of individual intentions, it leads us down a black hole of unknowables. Best to focus on policy.

So let's look at America's three biggest moves in the last 30 years and look for anything that cannot be construed as in American interest, but can be construed as in Israeli interest.

First, Desert Storm. Pushing Saddam out of Kuwait. Indeed, we can call it the general policy of defend gulf states against Saddam. Certainly the Israelis didn't like that Saddam was stirring up trouble, but can that really be construed as the reason the US pushed him out? Does anyone believe that the American executive branch was, what, paid off? Or that they had a general pro-Israeli bent which saw them wanting to push Saddam out of Kuwait? Doesn't seem likely.
Second, the War in Afghanistan. It's pretty clear why the US got involved here, though the nature of that involvement can be said to be neoconservative. Also totally unclear why Israel would care all that much.
Third, the invasion of Iraq. The question here is, which was crucial in getting the US to invade Iraq, Israeli meddling or the general neoconservative plan for the Middle East? Was the neoconservative plan complete implausible from the American perspective? I really don't think so.

Aight, I think that you and I need to be a little clearer on where you stand here. What is the nature of Israeli influence on our system? Are they controlling our politicians in some manner to enact pro-Israeli policy, or are they convincing them to? Can the actions of the American state not be construed to be plausibly in American interests? Are our foreign policy decision makers thinking primarily of Israeli interests or American interests? I just want to understand what exactly you think is happening.

 

At the outset, let me say that there are aspects of this issue that recall the whole question: "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" But a few points to clarify my thinking:
1- The American public isn't all that "in tune", if you will, with international events or even simple geography in many cases. Their sentiments aren't formed in a vacuum; they are developed by the kind of interest groups I have referred to.
2- Even if the "civic class" model of American government was to function properly, you would need a more or less free exchange of views on such subjects. You would need to make sure that there are no "artificial barriers to competition" -- here specifically in the arena of exchange of views and public discourse on matters relating to Israel. But a host of mechanisms have been developed to not only shoot down the message, but also the messenger, when it comes to debates on Israel. And that is on top of the monopoly that the pro Israeli groups already enjoy within the American establishment and media. Hence, whatever sentiments might exist, they aren't going to be subjected to the kind of challenge any idea needs to be subjected to in a truly democratic system.
3- As I have alluded to, there is a difference between some general pro Israeli sentiment, as may be found among most American Jews for instance, and following the agenda and policy prescriptions of AIPAC. On this point, on many of the issues I am referring to which have become US policy pursuant to AIPAC lobbying, you don't even have a majority of American Jews on the side of the policy being pursued. Of course, with a drum beat of lies, propaganda and scare mongering all funded, subsidized and carried out by organs affiliated to these interest groups, you might forge a temporary majority of an otherwise clueless American public on their side, but none of the policies I am particularly highlighting are ones that follow any true public sentiment or clamor on the part of the public.

The Israeli lobby, which has a web of affiliated connections to other lobbies, works in many different ways, but its main ability to influence politicians derives from the following: a) its influence over "major donors" to both parties; b) its ability and penchant to engage in character assassination against politicians that refuse to tow its line, branding them with various labels; and c) the fact that they fund and have influence over a host of think tanks, defense contractors, law firms and other such entities which not only act as a revolving door between the so-called private sector and the establishment, but offer rather cushy jobs even for those politicians and policy-makers who might get into electoral trouble for following their lead. That then means "crossing AIPAC" offers little benefit, and a lot of headache for a politician, while being a loyal tool is quite beneficial both in terms of winning office and afterwards.

 

"Counterpunch" she says, just hilarious. Why don't you link to abbot and costello news next.

Sorry charlie, you're just dishonest; no iranian is reading that website. You are a far left american living in the states who hates Israel and jews. You've been EXPOSED.

 

Blah blah blah AIPAC bad squawk! Blah blah blah AIPAC bad squawk! Blah blah blah AIPAC bad squawk!

The parrots repeating the counterpunch/electronicintifada garbage website conspiracy crap that the jews are so, so powerful got boring about 20 years ago.

Go defend iran's genocide in syria on some other forum.

 

Blah blah blah AIPAC squawk! Blah blah blah AIPAC squawk! Blah blah blah AIPAC squawk!

Walt and mearshmer the two de-bunked morons....heard it all 1,000 times before...boring.

Go deflect from iran's genocide and slaughter in syria, iraq and lebanon somewhere else.

 

You're being used here, this is a thread about syria, and some trolling individuals are doing everything they can to deflect the topic, as they do in every situation, onto Israel.

These dishonest individuals are busy claiming jews have undue influence on other national governments while doing everything possible to deflect how iran is running 4 other countries. Don't get suckered into a meaningless, empty conversation about alleged jewish lobbying, which is the respite for the antisemites/Israel haters, focus on the OP which is syria and iran;s contributions to the mass genocide there.

 

Obama was more attuned the the J Street Jews than the hardliners. Netanyahu denounced Obama for that more than once.

 

The official June 25, 1996 statement by the United States named members of Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz) as responsible. In 2006, a U.S. court found Iran and Hezbollah guilty of orchestrating the attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing

 

Here's an article that explains the position of Syrian Christians regarding the civil war:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/most-syrian-christians-aren-t-backing-assad-or-rebels

Seems the most objective opinion on this matter I've read so far.

Please post the list of names of:
1. major donors that have been influenced by the pro-Israel lobby (and how exactly have they been influenced)
2. politicians whose character has been assassinated by the pro-Israel lobby (and who the assassins are, names, dates, the why and the how of the matter for each case separately)
3. the host of think tanks, defense contractors, law firms and other such entities that act as revolving doors and sources of cushy jobs (and details about each case, of course)
4. loyal tools who benefited

Please also post lists as above for every lobby in the US. Then we'll be able to compare and determine once and for all which lobby - if any - has the greatest influence over American foreign policy.

 

Every year there is an AIPAC list of how much money is paid to Congressmen and Senators. The numbers are shocking.

 

I don't need to do research that has already been done and which is covered in many sources which you can read for yourself. But just to help you along:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/...-technology-and-business/#vXDmFga7GFiEU4mq.97
Meet America’s Top 20 “Zionaires”: Billionaires Who Support Israel

Of course, among the major donors the one who is the most outlandish and hawkish when it comes to Iran/Israel issues, and once even advocated "nuking Iran", the name that pops to mind immediately is Sheldon Adelson, who donates a lot of money to both Republican candidates but funds several anti-Iran organizations and other think tanks.

https://www.thenation.com/article/g...on-funds-mysterious-anti-iran-pressure-group/
GOP Mega-Donor Sheldon Adelson Funds Mysterious Anti-Iran Pressure Group

 

Incidentally, everything I have said about how the Israeli lobby operates is covered in depth in the book I mentioned, by two of America's most distinguished scholars on US foreign policy and politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

 

AIPAC is the front for what is a much more influential collection that together constitute what is referred to as the Israel lobby. Hence, even their donations are merely the tip of the iceberg and don't tell the full story. All one needs to do is actually read the "Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy." If you can't get your hands on the book, that work follows a long article published by these authors in the New Yorker which can be accessed I suppose through the web.

 

I very much doubt that the list shows the amount of money paid to Congressmen and Senators. It shows the amount of money spent for lobbying purposes. If you think otherwise, please link (or name a source) to the list with names of Congressmen and Senators paid by AIPAC and how much was each of them paid.

Shocking? Not really. The most was around 5 millions. The numbers grew during Obama's presidency, probably to counter JStreet and the Arab Lobby. Liberia spends more.

Unlike some, I thing lobbying is a legitimate and useful activity. Promoting one's interests is only natural.

 

Let me see if I can find any of the lists.

Here

http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all

 

The top contributors list is a bit surprising. I wonder what the national association of realtors wanted?