LEAKED Documents Reveal US Sees Israel As A SPYING THREAT

[Segami]

The Obama administration views Israel as one of the top spying threats facing its intelligence services, leaked documents reveal. A secret budget request obtained by The Washington Post from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden lumps Israel alongside U.S. foes Iran and Cuba as “key targets” for U.S. counterintelligence efforts. The document suggests Israel does not believe U.S. assurances that its interests are aligned with Israel's on crucial issues such as Iran and peace talks with the Palestinians.

“To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the Community,” reads the FY 2013 congressional budget justification for intelligence programs. “In addition, we are investing in target surveillance and offensive CI [counterintelligence] against key targets, such as China, Russia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and Cuba.”

The White House and the Israeli Embassy did not respond to requests for comment. The revelations come as no surprise to Georgetown University's Paul Pillar, who retired as the national intelligence officer for the Near East in 1995 after a 28-year career in U.S. intelligence. Israeli spying, he said, has remained a major threat since U.S. citizen Jonathan Pollard received a life sentence in 1987 in a massive spying case that gravely strained relations between the two countries.

“Israel should be assumed to continue to have an aggressive intelligence collection operations against the United States,” Pillar said. While much information is collected through traditional political contacts, “I would personally have no doubt that that is supplemented by whatever means they can use to find out as much as they can about what we're doing, thinking, deciding on anything of interest to Israel, which would include just about any Middle Eastern topic.”

The issues of continued Israeli settlement construction and Obama's strong interest in reaching a negotiated settlement to avoid a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, Pillar said, are two issues where U.S. and Israeli interests “certainly diverge,” he said. Spying, he said, could give Israel “warning indicators” before any public decisions, and enable the country to put its “political machine in action” and get the United States to reconsider. “If I were in [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's shoes and had his perspective,” Pillar said, “I would spare no effort to try to collect every bit of intelligence I could, in secret as well as openly.” He said the public revelations won't impact U.S.-Israeli relations.


cont'


http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/319513-leaked-documents-reveal-us-sees-israel-as-a-major-spying-threat

[Segami]

1. “Don't expect any statement by the White House press secretary tomorrow that says,...

'Oh my gosh, we are really upset with the Israelis for trying to spy on us'. You're never going to hear anything like that, because politically it is hazardous for basically any American politician – and certainly an incumbent American administration – to underscore ... the divergence of U.S. and Israeli interests.”

[Scurrilous]

2. Thanks!

K & R

[WillyT]

3. K & R !!!

[Lurks Often]

4. Don't know why this surprises anyone

Israel's intelligence agencies exist to protect Israel and knowing what the world's most powerful country is doing or might do, is certainly something Israel would be interested in. I don't doubt that Israel has at least a few people within most of the European governments as well.

Just about about every country in the world puts it's interests first and the interests of friends and allies second. Why do people expect otherwise.

[geek tragedy]

5. The Israelis are proud of their spying on us. Look at their collective national pity party

for that scumbag traitor Jonathan Pollard.

[Chan790]

8. I came here just to point out that we've known Israel spies on the US since Pollard.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure the Israelis know we spy on them too. It just makes sense...we also presumably spy on the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Mexico and the ambassadors of the General Assembly of the UN. It's solid preventative foreign policy...and I'd wager most of them spy on us too. (Not the UN ambassadors or the UN itself obviously...but certainly the nations those ambassadors represent.)

[snappyturtle]

6. Well, isn't this interesting. Thank you Segami and thanks

too for seperating the paragraphs ....my old eyes are happy.

K&R

[Zorra]

7. No shocker here. A tiny country, whose populace is largely made up of the descendants

of remnants of survivors of a vicious, brutal, systematic, legally sanctioned extermination campaign. A populace historically persecuted and oppressed worldwide because of ignorant hatred and bigotry.

A country surrounded by hostiles.

Israel spying on other is countries a no brainer; it is the primary responsibility of a democratic government to protect its citizens.

There's an old saying ~ "Just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you".

In Israel's case, and in the realm of oppressed minorities as well, it is reasonable to turn this cliche around:

"Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're paranoid."

I totally get what Pillar is saying.

[HappyMe]

9. Not surprising.

We spy on other countries, other countries spy on us. Been that way for a long time.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. I love the long line of apologists here. Such Democratic values.

"Everybody spies on everybody. It's all good."

I would actually like to know who or what Israel is spying on in this country (USA), and what they use the intelligence for?

Blackmail?


Hey, but they're just protecting their interests.

Anybody that buys into that is no Democrat and probably accepts, or even willfully invites, the NSA into their lives like indolent herd animals.

[UTUSN]

11. Well, let's see: Key in overthrowing Jimmy CARTER/check. Surveilled CLINTON/check. n/t

[kentuck]

21. Assisting in blocking Barack Obama...

/check.

[BlueStreak]

12. It is more likely that Israel is behind the chemical weapons than Assad

Notice all the "official" statements don't claim that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons. They say our intelligence is "forces loyal to Assad". That's a huge difference, because that could be anybody.

Ask yourself who had more to gain by stoking an escalation?

How does that help Assad? It doesn't help him at all. I challenge anybody to come up with any scenario where this helps Assad.

Now Israel? That's a different matter. Obama has been pushing Israel to get serious about the peace process, and peace is the last thing they want. Notice how that process is completely off the table now. And Israel would love any opportunity to do a bombing run on Iran. Once the Cruise missiles start flying, they will have their opportunity. Somebody in Syria will send a SCUD into Israel. Israel will say that was sponsored by Iran and then they will do a bombing raid of Iran.

Anybody who thinks America's interests align with Israel's is nuts. Those guys are at the center of most of our international problems and that tail has wagged this dog for more than half a century.

[geek tragedy]

13. Except for the complete lack of evidence or plausible explanation

of how Israelis managed to sneak into a civil war zone with chemical munitions.

Crazy talk.

[maddezmom]

14. Can't believe some of the stuff being posted lately

[geek tragedy]

16. the fruits of community moderation. nt

[SidDithers]

41. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[BlueStreak]

17. Israel could very easily pull that off. They have done much more difficult missions before

I don't mind if you dismiss me as "crazy talk". But if you want to have any credibility, you should at least share with the gentle readers your insights as to why Assad has more to gain by doing thin than the Israelis do.

I await your thoughtful analysis.

[geek tragedy]

22. Who said the command came from Assad rather than someone else in

Syria's military?

I have no love for the Israeli government, but they prefer Assad to the head-choppers and face-eaters.

Also, you seem to think the effective military deployment of chemical munitions is something one can do McGyver style.

[BlueStreak]

25. They were delivered in a rocket shell

Are you seriously arguing that Israel cannot do these things:

1) Put special ops forces on the ground within Syria

2) Equip them with mobile missile launchers

3) Load those missiles with their own brew of chemicals that match any signature they want to match

4) Get in and out without being detected

5) Then use this to push Obama's buttons

If you think Israel doesn't have the capability to do that, then please say so unambiguously. That would be a really absurd position to take because obviously Israel does have such capabilities, and has never been shy about using them.

You can certainly make the argument why you don't think Israels would be involved in a "Gulf of Tonkin" style operation here. I don't have any evidence either way. But if you are arguing a) Israel can't do that, or b) Israel wouldn't do that, you are way out there.

If you are arguing, "Yes, of course Israel could, and they have done things like that before, but I don't believe they did in this particular instance.", that could certainly be a reasonable argument, and you should explain why you think that.

Please make your position more clear.

[geek tragedy]

26. I don't think anyone has that capability in the real world.

Only in Hollywood.

[BlueStreak]

35. Thank you for clarifying.

That is an outlandish position and and your response indicates a fundamental lack of knowledge of the Israeli capabilities. Please take some time and study some of the operations they have conducted in the past. You will find that the scenario I outlined is easily within their capabilities.

Hell, several American journalists have traveled inside Syria, some of them close enough to have launched these rockets, and escaped with their lives. If an unarmed reporter can get in and out, Israeli commandos can. I guarantee you that.

Just for the record, your argument is that Israel could not pull off such an operation, rather than arguing they could but didn't.

[geek tragedy]

37. I don't dispute that they could get commandos/operatives in there.

The rest of it sounds like an episode of '24.'

[Cali_Democrat]

28. You've seen too many movies. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

31. Pepe Escobar answers those questions here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023561620

[geek tragedy]

33. Sorry, I'm not going to read Putin's mouthpiece for answers on Syria. nt

[Junkdrawer]

36. Stick to the US, Britain and Israel and all doubt is gone...

Easy as pie.

Considerably harder if you read accounts from ALL sides, examine motives, and keep an open mind.

[geek tragedy]

39. I don't take what Kerry is saying seriously either.

Bottom line is that Syria is beyond fucked, Syrians are beyond fucked, that conflict won't be resolved by the outside world, and eventually it will end with the Sunnis massacring the Allawites on a horrific scale.

Not our problem.

[Segami]

15. 'The Art Of Misdirection'....you never see it coming and..

when you do, its always a tad too late!

[BlueStreak]

18. Jujutsu has been around a long time

It is easier to redirect existing movement than to create movement yourself.

[Segami]

20. Political Jujitsu,...most applicable...IMO.

[BlueStreak]

29. A very old trick.

A gentleman who will not be named did that to enrage the German population against the Jews. The Americans did that in the Gulf of Tonkin to create a pretense for escalating in Vietnam.

And then of course we have the Bush administration with their yellowcake, WMDs and mushroom clouds. In that case, just telling lies was sufficient. They didn't actually have to kill a bunch of people to get things started.

It is easy to stoke the fears of the population. It takes much longer for the truth to come out, and it is always way too late.

Here is a more complete list of false flag operations over the centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

and

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/infowars/terrorstorm/false_flag_history.php

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Where is your proof Israel is behind the chemical weapons attacks in Syria?

[BlueStreak]

30. They have more of a motive than Assad.

Where is your proof that Assad did this?

[Cali_Democrat]

32. So you have no real proof?

Got it.

[BlueStreak]

40. Nor do you.

The administration is not even arguing that Assad ordered this. They carefully use the term "forced loyal to Assad". I put it to you that in such a war zone, it is practically impossible to reliably know just where loyalties lie.

And the administration's argument seems to hang on claims by the same agency that has been lying to Congress, collecting information illegally, and using this material to spy on wayward spouses and such. Only a completely brain-dead authoritarian would take that sort of claim at face value given everything that we have learned over the past year.

[Cali_Democrat]

42. Again....you still offer no proof Israel was behind the chemical weapons attacks

It was nothing more than an outlandish accusation on your part backed up by absolutely nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously.

[BlueStreak]

43. You have no proof either, and your story doesn't even make sense

At least my speculation makes some sense. I have clearly identified it a speculation. The idea that Assad would have done this on his own is absurd. If Assad did it, it was because he was pressured to do so by one of his backers (Russia, Iran) as part of a broader strategy to expand turmoil in the region by suckering Obama into a stupid move. That's the closest I can come to Assad's fingerprints on it.

This is a game of liar's poker played out on the world stage. Believing anybody's claims at face value is -- well, just not very smart. The UK parliament had the good sense not to take the bait. It appears that either Obama isn't so clever or else he agreed to do this as part of the negotiation to get Israel to the peace table (for what good that ever does.)

[Cali_Democrat]

44. "You have no proof either"

I never made any accusation in this thread, unlike you.

What did I speculate about in this thread? Nothing.

You're the one engaging in wild speculation.

Again, you cannot be taken seriously.

[BlueStreak]

45. Pray, tell us your theory of who did the chemical attacks and why

I await a lucid explanation of why Assad would have done this, considering he has the upper hand in the civil war and the last thing he needs at this point is American intervention.

Am I asking too much when I look for a lucid explanation?

[Cali_Democrat]

48. I really don't know because I haven't seen any evidence

Again, I don't make outlandish accusations with no evidence to back them up.

I'll leave that up to folks like you who don't care about their own credibility.

[BlueStreak]

49. So you are happy sitting on the sidelines while this administration takes us into another war

because you just don't know what to think?

OK. You are welcome to that position. My view is that we should challenge weak claims presented by our government, especially when the consequences are so grave.

[Cali_Democrat]

50. Again. I have not seen any evidence of who used the chemical weapons

so don't make ridiculous claims like you.

Sorry.

[BlueStreak]

52. Isn't that reason enough to oppose a rush to war?

[Cali_Democrat]

53. Of course. I'm opposed to any strike on Syria. Where did you get the idea I wasn't? n/t

[BlueStreak]

55. What is the problem with considering a range of possibilities?

As I see it, the LEAST likely scenario is that Assad, who has the upper hand in this conflict, would take an unnecessary military action that he knew would be likely to bring Americans into his domain in a most unwelcome way. That seems preposterous on the face of it. But that is exactly what this administration is trying to sell us. The Brits didn't buy it, and we should not either.

But if Assad didn't order that action, how did it happen? As I mentioned up-thread, there are several possibilities that seem far more likely than Assad unilaterally deciding to do this. One of those is that Israel did it. That is certainly not the only possible explanation, and I'd be happy to go over the other 2 or 3 plausible scenarios that spring to mind. But this thread was specifically about the fact that some people in our government rightly, IMHO, regard Israel as either an enemy or at best a conditional ally whose interests often are quite different from ours.

Again, if you are willing to call a dispassionate discussion of the possibilities an "outlandish accusation", then you are arguing, essentially, that we cannot ever discuss anything other than the "company line". What would be the point of a discussion forum, then?

[SidDithers]

38. Kevin Barrett? Is that you?...nt

Sid

[DevonRex]

47. Russia. nt

[kentuck]

19. Why is this top secret?

I assumed it all along.

[kentuck]

23. And one of the biggest threats is....

Great Britain.

I think all countries spy on each other?

[dionysus]

24. isn't that common knowledge? even allies spy on allies.

[BlueStreak]

46. I think the point is that Israel made the top-6 list

and the other 5 are clearly enemies of America, or at best unreliable, unpredictable, "sometimes" allies.

I consider Cuba far less of a threat to my well-being than Israel.

China, Russia, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan -- all about the same threat as far as I'm concerned, but for completely different reasons in every case.

[Iggo]

34. Um...duh.

[malaise]

51. Hmmmmmm

No cutting of aid or embargo here

[Enrique]

54. i see potential for RWers to go crazy over this