Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.
The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government—and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.
“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.
If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other “adversaries of Israel” such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to “go nuclear as well,” all of which would threaten Israel’s interests.
Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.
Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.
An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.
This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”
The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.
Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:
In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.
The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.
It is also a sobering thought to consider that the “refugee” crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.
In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq—all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the “rebels” and stoking the fires of war in Syria.
The real and disturbing possibility that a psychopath like Clinton—whose policy has inflicted death and misery upon millions of people—could become the next president of America is the most deeply shocking thought of all.
Clinton’s public assertion that, if elected president, she would “take the relationship with Israel to the next level,” would definitively mark her, and Israel, as the enemy of not just some Arab states in the Middle East, but of all peace-loving people on earth.
The great news is that Palestine has become the central issue in the looming platform battle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton forces ahead of the Democratic convention. As the New York Times did a few days ago, the LA Times puts the story on its front page and says the fight could “splinter” the Democratic Party. The article is written from Clinton’s perspective: it quotes mainly Israel supporters shaking their heads over the Sanders insurgents as if they’re possessed.
The establishment just doesn’t get it. This fight is important to Sanders’s base because 1, they believe that the issue is yet more evidence of Clinton deferring to big donors. She needs wealthy rightwing Jews to keep her campaign moving. And because 2, the stakes are huge: Clinton’s hawkish positions are driven by her attachment to Israel. The NY Times has reported that Clinton was “swayed by” Benjamin Netanyahu to oppose the Iran deal, and that if it had been up to her there would be no deal. That Times reporter also said that Clinton’s most grievous mistake, support for the Iraq war, came out of concern for Israel, too.
And below I quote a Clinton State Department email showing that a political ally, said to be James P. Rubin, supported a US intervention in Syria in 2012-2013 “to help Israel,” and help the White House ease its “tension” with Israel. I.e., let’s make nice to the Israel lobby and perform another regime change, believe me it will be very easy.
First, the latest news on Hillary Clinton’s super PAC underlines the view that she’s corrupted on foreign policy: her biggest supporter is Haim Saban, the toymaker who has said, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”
Forbes reports that of $76 million her super PAC raised in the first quarter of the year, nearly 15 percent came from Saban and his wife. And Forbes dares to connect that support to Hillary Clinton’s craven speech to AIPAC, the Israel lobby, when she promised she’d invite Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House in her first month as president, and to her pledge to Saban to fight the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions), which Clinton has said is anti-Semitic.
Haim and Cheryl Saban, who top our list with $10 million in contributions, are longtime supporters of the former Secretary of State. They gave to both her Senate campaigns and donated at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. The couple also co-hosted a fundraiser for Clinton this past April with George and Amal Clooney. Tickets started at $33,400 a person….
What Saban, born to a Jewish family in Egypt, and Clinton have in common is their pro-Israel stance. In March, she gave a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee saying, “If I’m fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.” Clinton also wrote a letter to Saban in July 2015 asking for the billionaire’s “recommendations on how leaders and communities across America can work together to counter BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions],” a movement aimed to pressure Israel into accommodating Palestine’s demands.
It should be noted that among the other top 20 funders of the super PAC are other Israel supporters, including S. Daniel Abraham, Steven Spielberg ($1 million), Jeffrey Katzenberg ($1 million), Herbert Sandler ($2.5 million), George Soros, who has funded liberal Zionist groups, and Bernard Schwartz ($1 million).
Just how committed is Clinton to Israel as a homegrown political cause that will help her presidential campaign? Look at this State Department email released last year by Wikileaks–which has been going around on leftwing sites, and this Sanders site, as evidence that Clinton stoked the Syrian war. The author’s name was redacted; but Antiwar says that the email was written by Clinton ally James Rubin, who was then serving in the Cuomo administration in New York. Rubin had been on Clinton’s foreign policy team in the 2008 presidential campaign and the email shared the draft of an article he was writing for Foreign Policy. Hillary Clinton then passed the ideas along to unnamed recipients.
The email was evidently written in 2012, before Clinton left the State Department, and makes a strenuous case for regime change in Syria– which was Clinton’s position.
The very first sentence is a bald assertion of Israel’s interest in regime change:
The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.
Before long Rubin addresses Obama’s Israel problem:
With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
This is an obvious reference to the Israel lobby, which was active against Obama as he signaled a more dovish policy with Iran.
John Kerry was already undertaking negotiations with Iran. But the anonymous author of the Clinton email opposed negotiations with Iran, again citing Israel:
Negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program will not solve Israel’s security dilemma.
Here is something else very important in the email. Clinton has said during the presidential campaign that Iran is an “existential threat” to Israel. But that’s not the line in this realist email: Iran doesn’t threaten Israel with nuclear destruction, Iran would merely end Israel’s nuclear monopoly. And in order to prevent that outcome, the US and Israel might have to go to war against Iran!
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
Israel’s security means the threat posed by Hezbollah and Hamas, with backing from Iran and Syria:
Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.”
Here is more of Rubin’s analysis that the real problem with Iran going nuclear isn’t that it would attack Israel, it would just shift the power balance:
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance
And for anyone who wonders why neoconservatives like Hillary Clinton, here is the usual ideological claptrap about war won’t be easy but it will remake the middle east and they will greet us with flowers! And help Israel too. At least here Rubin addresses the Syrian people’s needs:
Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.
So Rubin was taking Israel’s side in a regional power struggle, and pledging the U.S. to go to war for that aim. BTW, Jamie Rubin has lately collaborated with neocon Robert Kagan, another Clinton ally, to support more muscular foreign policy.
Three more comments on Clinton’s foreign policy agenda.
Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today….
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA. She has been the CIA’s relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace
Next, consider that Dennis Ross is sure to be mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a Clinton administration and Ross is a favorite of the Israel lobby (not to mention chair of a Jewish people” institute based in Jerusalem that opposes intermarriage). Clinton polished up her Israel lobby bona fides by bringing Ross into the Obama administration in 2009– and Ross then argued Israel’s side in the White House for the next two years. Ross covers up for the Israeli nuclear program in his recent work of propaganda on the strength of the Israel-U.S. relationship, Doomed to Succeed.
“After Johnson, American presidents took Israeli nuclear weapons as a given but to be used only as a last resort,” Ross writes. That’s about it. Complete vagueness. This purposeful mystification is why so many on the left and the non-interventionist right want to end the official hypocrisy about Israel’s nuclear program: because we could then debate whether it’s reasonable for Israel to maintain its “nuclear monopoly” as a principal foreign policy goal, and whether the U.S. should go to war for such a policy, as Hillary Clinton’s team recommended.
Lastly, I mentioned that LA Times article on the platform battle that sees the story entirely from Clinton’s side. For instance, it mentions Sanders proxy Cornel West’s view that the 2014 Gaza war was a “massacre” but never even cites the casualty figures, including 500 dead children. Here is a great comment on that article by the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions-U.S., on Facebook:
The Los Angeles Times had an important story in its Sunday, May 29, 2016, edition deserving many rebuttals in letters-to-the-editor.
The topic was the impending platform fight at the Democratic convention over US government policy toward Israel. Top of the fold, on page 1. Despite its prominent location and length, the article never mentioned Haim Saban and his ilk financially supporting Hillary Clinton, legal discrimination against Palestinian Israelis and asylum seekers within the Green Line, the occupation and the construction of an apatheid state, Kerry’s failed peace talk initiative and the end of the two state option, Martin Indiyk blaming the Israeli government for the failed peace talks, Israel’s refusal to define its own borders, many ed-op pieces in the LA Times critical of the Israeli government, J Street, JVP, local groups like LA Jews for Peace, 42 US vetoes to protect Israel from sanctions at the UN Security Council, killing of the Goldstone Report, investigations of the IRS tax exempt status for philanthropies supporting settlers and Jewish terrorists, Avidgor Lieberman’s new role as the civilian head of the Israeli Military, and the increased US military sales to Israel totally $3.5 billion, intelligence sharing, and many violations of the Leahy and US Arms Export Acts.
So the Goldstone Report won’t go away, nor all those Gaza killings Clinton supported. Out damn spot.
Update. I revised this article to reflect the fact that Antiwar reported that the author of the State Department email released by Wikileaks was likely James P. Rubin; Rubin was passing along an article he was writing for Foreign Policy a month ahead of publication. The article was significantly less pro-Israel than the draft Rubin shared. Rubin is a Clinton ally, but was not a member of the State Department staff at the time, 2012. The original headline of the piece was “Clinton team pushed Syria war to ‘help Israel,'” which I have revised. Though Rubin appears to reflect Clinton’s ideas on foreign policy, including Syria intervention. Thanks to Scott Horton.
Tegenover NRC verklaarde PVDA-minister Lodewijk Asscher naar aanleiding van het feit dat hij onder druk van de zionistische lobby de wet liet overtreden door AOW'ers in bezet gebied financieel volledig te steunen:
De SVB herkende niet dat mensen in door Israël bezet gebied woonden en heeft ze daarom jarenlang te veel betaald. En de regeling om dat te rechtvaardigen is niet tijdig gecommuniceerd. Daar mogen individuen niet de dupe van worden en zeker geen overlevenden van de Holocaust.
Dit zijn dezelfde overlevenden die het slachtoffer waren van ondermeer de overgrootvader van de sociaal-democratische vice-premier Lodewijk Asscher. Diens collaboratie met de nazi's werd hem na 1945 door de 'de Joodse Ereraad' bijzonder'zwaaraangerekend' omdat hij door zijn 'lidmaatschap van de Joodse Raad' had 'meegewerkt aan de massamoord op Nederlandse Joden. Het werd' hem 'verboden ooit nog een functie in een Joodse organisatie uit te oefenen. Asscher was hier zo verbolgen over dat hij zijn lidmaatschap van de Joodse Gemeenschap beëindigde. Een van de gevolgen daarvan was dat hij niet op de joodse begraafplaats in Muiderberg begraven mocht worden.'
Het is buitengewoon wrang dat nu juist de kleinzoon van de man die, om zijn eigen hachje en dat van zijn familie te redden, vele tienduizenden joodse Nederlanders de dood instuurde, nu claimt de wet te hebben overtreden om 'overlevenden van de Holocaust' niet de'dupe'te laten worden, door de rechten van de Palestijnse bevolking te schenden.
De banaliteit waarmee Lodewijk Asscher vandaag de dag 6 miljoen vermoorde joden misbruikt om zijn pro-zionistische politiek te legitimeren is weerzinwekkend.
Al in 1981 zei Nahum Goldman, 12 jaar lang president van de World Zionist Organisation, met betrekking tot het joods slachtofferisme:
We zullen moeten begrijpen dat het joodse lijden tijdens de Holocaust niet langer meer als verdediging zal dienen, en we zullen zeker moeten nalaten de Holocaust als argument te gebruiken om gelijk wat we ook mogen doen te rechtvaardigen. De Holocaust gebruiken als een excuus voor het bombarderen… is een soort 'ontheiliging,' een banalisering van de onschendbare tragedie van de Holocaust, die niet misbruikt moet worden om een politiek twijfelachtig en moreel onverdedigbaar beleid te rechtvaardigen.
Vanwege zijn gematigde houding en zijn streven naar coexistentie met Israel's Arabische buren en inwoners werd Nahum Goldman tenslotte diep gehaat door de extremistische zionisten. Vrede heeft voor hen geen zin, aangezien ze als sinds de jaren van Ben Goerion met geweld uit zijn op de hegemonie in het Midden-Oosten.
In his later life Goldmann had extensive conversations with David Ben-Gurion. In his book The Jewish Paradox, Goldmann recalls a late night conversation he had with Ben-Gurion in 1956 about ‘the Arab problem’. Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann:
'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their [the Arab’s] fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance.'
(Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox: A Personal Memoir of Historic Encounters that Shaped the drama of Modern Jewry, Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, p. 99)
De vooraanstaande Joods-Israelische historicus en auteur Tom Segev schreef over hem:
Goldman believed in the limits of power and in the power of self-restraint. Thus he was in favor of postponing the Declaration of Independence, in the hope of preventing the war, and he thought that the Sinai Campaign and the Six-Day War broke out basically as a result of mistakes made by the government of Israel. After the Six-Day War and until his death, he believed that it was to Israel's benefit to withdraw from the territories. As opposed to the thesis that Israel's deterrent power would ensure its existence, he believed that only the Arabs' agreement to accept it in their midst would ensure this.
The president of the World Jewish Congress and the president of World Zionist Organization walked a tightrope between the Jewish interest and the Zionist interest, and between both of these and the interest of the State of Israel. In contrast to the founding fathers of the state, and first and foremost Ben-Gurion, Goldman tended to see Israel as one among many possible alternatives for organizing Jewish life, including Jewish life in the Diaspora.
It turns out that he was right and perhaps this was his major sin: Jews can live outside of Israel, they can live well and many of them can live better there than in Israel... He not only aroused the envy of the Israelis, but also subverted some of the basic truths of their existence.
In de ogen van de zionistische maximalisten was Nahum Goldman's 'grootste zonde' zijn overtuiging dat 'Jews can live outside of Israel, they can live well and many of them can live better there than in Israel.' Dat was vloeken in de synagoge. Het was een aantasting van de belangrijkste leerstelling van het zionisme, namelijk dat het antisemitisme alle joden op aarde dwingt naar het 'beloofde land' te emigreren. De werkelijkheid is evenwel fundamenteel anders. Dat is ook de reden waarom nog steeds de meerderheid van de mensen die zich joods beschouwt het verkiest om niet in Israel te leven. Zelfs overtuigde zionisten als Ronny Naftaniel, Leon de Winter en Lodewijk Asscher piekeren er niet over om in de 'Joodse staat' te gaan leven.
Het gevolg is dat zodra geen fatsoenlijk mens meer de Israelsiche terreur tegen de Palestijnse burgerbevolking kan negeren, er ineens vanuit het ogenschijnlijke niets het antisemitische vraagstuk actueel wordt, en in het verlengde daarvan de holocaust. Ondanks de waarschuwing van Nahum Goldman wordt telkens weer de nazi-holocaust ingezet als politiek wapen om de aandacht af te leiden, en om het onaanvaardbare schijnbaar aanvaardbaar te maken. Ook al wordt wetenschappelijk bewezen dat het antisemitisme afneemt en de haat tegen islamieten toeneemt, dan nog zal de joodse en christelijke lobby het zo presenteren alsof er aan de horizon weer gemarcheerd wordt. En op die manier wordt het lot van 6 miljoen mensen gebanaliseerd en in de strijd geworpen om de Israelische terreur een schijn van legitimiteit te geven.
In dit geheel speelt Lodewijk Asscher, net als destijds zijn overgrootvader, de rol van verrader. In zijn geval draait het om het verraad van datgene wat doorgaans normen en waarden wordt genoemd, en het recht. Lodewijk Asscher kent, net als zijn overgrootvader, geen zelfrespect, bezit geen waardigheid en is daardoor buitengewoon geschikt voor de politiek.