Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government

Sto cercando notizie in merito al ruolo avuto dalla Israel Lobby nel 
convincere Obama a fornire armi agli insorti siriani.
 
A mio parere gli USA non hanno alcun interesse a destabilizzare 
ulteriormente il M.O., soprattutto in un momento in cui hanno bisogno di 
accorciare le linee a causa della crisi economica, dunque qualcuno deve 
averlo convinto con argomenti connessi alla sua rielezione: sembra che 
la nota Lobby non sia estranea a queste pressioni.
 
E' da notare che il progetto di disarticolare i paesi arabi per 
dissolverne il peso politico e militare nell'area è di pura marca 
neocon, si tratta dunque di imperialismo vecchia maniera.
 
Si noti anche come questa strategia miri a fare tabula rasa dei rivali 
mediorientali di Israele piuttosto che alla costruzione di rapporti 
positivi con essi attraverso la risoluzione del conflitto 
israelo-palestinese e la fine dell'occupazione.
 
Che un tale progetto sia di aiuto ad Israele solo un fascista può pensarlo.
 
Se avete altre fonti da segnalare...
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Lobby Pushes for US Action Against the Syrian Government
 
James Morris Dares to Mention the Taboo History
 
By Stephen J. Sniegoski
The Passionate Attachment
February 13, 2012
 
In Russia Today’s recent Crosstalk program on Syria, guest James Morris 
was brave enough to incisively point out the taboo fact that the Israel 
lobby has been in the forefront in pushing a hardline interventionist 
approach for the US toward that divided country. The host and the two 
other guests on the show pooh-poohed the idea on the grounds that (in 
their minds) it would not be in Israel’s national interest to topple the 
secular Assad regime and possibly bring about an Islamist state that 
could be even more hostile to Israel. But when one moves from 
speculation to an analysis of the actual position of members of the 
Israel lobby, one can see that Morris was completely correct. Moreover, 
Morris was completely correct in pointing out that the Israel lobby’s 
position has nothing to do with ending oppression, and everything to do 
with Israeli security, as members of the Israel lobby have perceived 
Israel’s interest (which might not be the same as the Crosstalk threesome.)
 
The neoconservatives, the vanguard of the Israel lobby, have especially 
been ardent in their advocacy of a hardline, interventionist position 
toward Syria. Evidence abounds for this finding, but it is best 
encapsulated by an August 2011 open letter from the neoconservative 
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (an organization which claims 
to address any “threat facing America, Israel and the West”) to 
President Obama, urging him to take stronger measures against Syria. 
Among the signatories of the letter are such neocon luminaries as: 
Elliott Abrams (son-in-law of neocon “godfather” Norman Podhoretz and a 
former National Security adviser to President George W. Bush); the 
Council on Foreign Relations’ Max Boot; “Weekly Standard” editor Bill 
Kristol; Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under 
George W. Bush and an author of the “Clean Break” policy paper); Joshua 
Muravchik (affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute [AEI], the 
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and “Commentary”); 
Frederick W. Kagan (AEI, co-author of the “surge” in Iraq); Robert Kagan 
(co-founder of the Project for the New American Century PNAC); James 
Woolsey (head of the CIA under Clinton and chair of the Foundation for 
Defense of Democracies); Randy Scheunemann (former President of the 
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and foreign affairs adviser to John 
McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign); Reuel Marc Gerecht (former 
Director of the Project for the New American Century’s Middle East 
Initiative and a former resident fellow at AEI); Michael Makovsky 
(advisor to the propagandistic Office of Special Plans, which was under 
Douglas Feith); John Hannah (senior fellow at the Washington Institute 
for Near East Policy [WINEP] and a former national security adviser to 
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney); and Gary Schmitt (AEI and former 
President for the Project for a New American Century).
 
As Morris notes in his presentation, elimination of the Assad regime in 
Syria was not an idea conceived by either the neocons or the broader 
Israel lobby; rather it can be traced back to the Israeli Likudniks, 
being articulated by Oded Yinon in his 1982 piece, “A Strategy for 
Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” In this article, Yinon called for 
Israel to use military means to bring about the dissolution of Israel’s 
neighboring states and their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and 
sectarian groupings. Yinon believed that this would not be a difficult 
undertaking because nearly all the Arab states were afflicted with 
internal ethnic and religious divisions. In essence, the end result 
would be a Middle East of powerless mini-statelets that could in no way 
confront Israeli power. Lebanon, then facing divisive chaos, was Yinon’s 
model for the entire Middle East. Yinon wrote: “Lebanon’s total 
dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire 
Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is 
already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on 
into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is 
Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the 
dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary 
short term target.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 51)
 
What stands out in the stark contrast to the debate taking place today 
is that Yinon’s rationale for eliminating the dictatorial regimes in 
Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with 
their oppressive practices and lack of democracy, but rather was based 
solely on Israel’s geostrategic interests-the aim being to permanently 
weaken Israel’s enemies. The neoconservatives took up the gist of the 
Yinon’s position in their 1996 Clean Break policy paper, whose authors 
included neocons Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, which was 
presented to then incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It urged 
him to use military force against a number of Israel’s enemies, which 
beginning with Iraq would include “weakening, containing, and even 
rolling back Syria.” Once again the fundamental concern was Israeli 
security, not liberty and democracy for the people of those countries. 
(“The Transparent Cabal,” p. 90)
 
Numerous neocons before and after 9/11 expressed the need to confront 
Syria in order to protect the security of both the United States and 
Israel, whose interests they claimed coincided. And this position on 
Syria was concurred in by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, one 
month before the US invasion of Iraq, identified it, along with Libya 
and Iran, as an ideal target for future US action. Sharon stated: “These 
are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons [of] mass 
destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make 
that easier to achieve.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 172)
 
A month after Bush’s 2004 re-election, Bill Kristol would emphasize the 
key position of Syria in the “war on terrorism.” He wrote in the “Weekly 
Standard” that because Syria was allegedly interfering with America’s 
efforts to put down the insurgency in Iraq, it was thus essential for 
the United States “to get serious about dealing with Syria as part of 
winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East.” (Quoted in “The 
Transparent Cabal,” pp. 253-254)
 
The close ties between Syria and Iran would begin to provide a 
fundamental reason for the neocons’ desire to take action against Syria. 
It was this factor that shaped neocon thinking on the Israel’s July 2006 
incursion into Lebanon. Some months after the Israeli invasion, neocon 
Meyrav Wurmser would affirm that it was neocon influence in the Bush 
administration that was setting US policy on Lebanon, with the aim being 
a direct Israeli confrontation with Syria. “The neocons are responsible 
for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space,” Wurmser stated. 
“They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it 
was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one 
backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight 
directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and 
important ally should be hit.” Furthermore, “If Israel had hit Syria, it 
would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened 
it and [changed] the strategic map in the Middle East.” (Quoted in “The 
Transparent Cabal,” p. 278)
 
And any action by Iran to protect its Syrian ally would provide a casus 
belli for the United States to attack Iran, which is what the neocons 
sought. Michael Ledeen opined, “The only way we are going to win this 
war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus and they are 
not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist 
proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. 
Only the United States can accomplish it.” (Quoted in “The Transparent 
Cabal,” p. 279)
 
Bill Kristol argued the same point in his article, “It’s Our War,” 
underscoring the need for direct American involvement in the ongoing 
conflict. America “might consider countering this act of Iranian 
aggression [arms provided to Hezbollah] with a military strike against 
Iranian nuclear facilities.” (Quoted in “The Transparent Cabal,” p. 279)
 
As can be seen, the goal of eliminating the Assad Baathist regime has 
existed among Israeli Likudniks and the neocons for some time. And it 
currently propels the demand for militant action against the Syrian 
government. Moreover, action taken against Syria has become viewed as a 
way of seriously weakening Iran (perceived as a much more dangerous 
enemy), or even leading to war with it. That Israel might not benefit 
from regime change in Syria, and that some in Israel might actually fear 
such a development, does not alter the obvious fact that the neocons and 
much of the overall Israel lobby support it. And it is they who affect 
the policy of the United States.
 
http://thepassionateattachment.com/2012/02/13/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 
 

 convincere Obama a fornire armi agli insorti siriani.
 
hai informazioni sulle mosse della Syrian Lobby?