While the American Jay Jonathan Pollard is well into his third decade in an American jail for giving security information to its ally Israel, the USA is now suffering international disapproval for secretly spying on many or all of its allies. How common is all of this spying?
From Ruthie Blum, Israel Hayom:
As a result, she and her counterparts would have done well to take certain precautions that come with the job. As British Ambassador to Lebanon Tom Fletcher tweeted last week, "I work on assumption that 6+ countries tap my phone. Increasingly rare that diplomats say anything sensitive on calls."Then, last Friday, another classified document leaked by Snowden emerged. This one dealt with an attempt in May 2012 to hack into the communications network of the Élysée Palace, during the final weeks of Nicolas Sarkozy's presidency. What it revealed is that France had suspected the United States of being behind the cyberattack. More strikingly, it showed that the National Security Agency had denied any involvement in the incident by hinting that the Israeli Mossad was the likely culprit. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is probably pleased as punch with this particular leak, as it comes on the heels of a Washington Post article claiming that Turkey supplied Iran with the names of several Iranians cooperating with the Mossad. It is likely that these were the same "Israeli spies" whose executions were reported last April by Iran's state media.That Turkey is no longer Israel's ally is a given. Providing damning information to Iran, then, is in keeping with its hostility to the Jewish state in particular and the West in general.But, for the United States to cast aspersions on Israel's covert operations is not only a travesty; it brings to mind another case of the U.S. and France ironing out their political differences by using Israel as a scapegoat. Interestingly, it was also made public due to technological gadgets.Technology makes it easier to do and harder to trace.
 |
| Photo: Avi Ohayon, GPO |
Caroline Glick:
The problem is that we are maintaining allegiance to a policy paradigm that is based on inaccurate strategic assumptions.Glick is right. The Obama policy is bad for Israel. I don't even think it's good for the future of the United States of America.
Amidror spelled them out.
Israel is operating under the assumption that there is a cause and effect relationship between our actions and Europe’s. To wit, if we ditch the phony peace talks, they will destroy our economy.
But there is no cause and effect relationship between Israeli actions and European actions. Europe made hostility toward Israel the centerpiece of its unified foreign policy without connection to Israeli actions. So undertaking strategically damaging talks with the Palestinians to appease Brussels is a fool’s errand...Israel is a victim, not a partner in the US’s Syria policy. Israel is weakened by Obama’s success.
As for Iran, it is now inarguable that the US’s primary objective is not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is to prevent Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear installations. Here too, success for Obama requires Israel to be imperiled.
Finally, our experience has shown us that peace is not a possible outcome of Obama’s pro-Palestinian policy. The only beneficiaries of administration’s use of European economic blackmail to force Israel to make strategically suicidal concessions to the PLO are the PLO and Hamas, and the anti-Semitic forces in Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment