I told you so: The U.S. is not abandoning Israel

Told you my bullshit detector was pegged on high over yesterday’s report that claimed if Iran didn’t attack U.S. installations, we’d stand by as they retaliated if Israel bombed their nuke sites. Reuters reports today that I was right.

“It’s incorrect, completely incorrect,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told Reuters while accompanying President Barack Obama on a campaign trip in Ohio. “The report is false and we don’t talk about hypotheticals.”

Without naming its sources, Yedioth said Washington had approached Tehran through two unidentified European countries to convey the message that the United States would not be dragged into fighting if Israel carried out threats to attack Iran.

Yedioth said the United States told Iran it should in return refrain from retaliating against U.S. interests, including its military in the Gulf.

In Jerusalem, an Israeli official, who asked not to be identified, described the report as illogical.

“It doesn’t make sense,” the official said. “There would be no need to make such a promise to the Iranians because they realize the last thing they need is to attack U.S. targets and draw massive U.S. bombing raids.”

Note that Carney is not equivocating, as he does when a reporter asks him something that is true. He’s flat-out denying it.

Never, ever, EVER accept a story as big as this one with unidentified sources that only one news outlet is reporting. It’s a dead giveaway that it’s not true.

This entry was posted in American Scene, Iran, Israel, Middle East. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to I told you so: The U.S. is not abandoning Israel

  1. Cynic says:

    Meryl,

    Given Carney’s previous behaviour and Obama running for re-election there is the probability that what he denied is not quite right.
    Also when taking into consideration the attitude of Foggy Bottom with regard to the Corries and the judge’s decision in the recent judicial action against the IDF one wonders what would be the end result of an Israeli strike.
    From what we have seen State and the CIA don’t exactly do things in accordance with US interests so it’s hard to know exactly how the various organs of govt., will react.
    Let’s face it the Middle East so used to its cultural taquiya doesn’t American pronouncements at face value and is quite adept at playing the lying game (in waiting).
    Something like Johnson’s inaction when Egypt closed off the Straights of Tiran and blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat in 1967 after he and the Brit’s Harold Wilson had given Israel their support previously?
    Who knows whom and what to believe before it happens?

  2. Cynic says:

    Oops! left out take in cultural taquiya doesn’t American

  3. No. The article is bogus. It has two unnamed sources and no other news media has published the same charge. I am not saying that Obama is a great supporter of Israel. But I am calling bullshit on the Yedioth Ahronoth report. Note that the unnamed sources are from two European nations. It’s bullshit. They won’t name the sources, no other news media can confirm this report, and the White House denies it vehemently.

    It is not true. You can’t point to other incidents in history and use them as a backdrop to say that this is a true report. Find me evidence of its truthfulness. Relevant evidence. Otherwise, I stand by my call: It’s bullshit.

  4. Russ says:

    That this particular report might not be correct does not demonstrate that Obama is not abandoning Israel. On the pro-Israel side you can put the large amount of weaponry we’ve sold to Israel. But this report is believable because of all of the public ways that this administration has distanced itself from that nation.

    Start with the Cairo speech, add in the public scoldings of Netanyahu, the total lack of pressure on the Palestinians, the recent downgrade of a joint military exercise and the most recent removal of pro-Israel elements from the Democratic platform, and only way you can credibly believe that “we are not abandoning Israel” is if you accept that we’ve already done so. And this really matters. Weaponry increases the likelihood of Israel surviving an attack, but the distancing rhetoric increases the probability that an attack will come.

    At the least, it would have been reasonable to get an explanation.

  5. You are conflating two separate arguments. The issue is whether or not the U.S. is abandoning Israel, not whether or not Obama is abandoning Israel. I called bullshit on the Ynet story that said the U.S. was going to act as cowardly as the European nations who sought protection from terrorists by allowing them to operate against Israelis without stopping them.

    If you have something to say about what I wrote, say it. But I’m not going to rehash the Obama administration’s attitude toward Israel. I’ve been writing about that on my blog for nearly four years now.

  6. Cynic says:

    Meryl,

    I received this following mail from Barry Rubin which is rather long so I will mail mit to you but basically he is not too happy

    But here’s the thing that upset me just as much. The title of the section under which Israel appears is entitled, “Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions.” There is only one sentence about all the Middle Eastern countries other than Israel! It is of vital importance for U.S. interests, and for Israel, too, that the United States continues to maintain good cooperation with a dozen specific Arab states. The platform is an insult to America’s Arab allies, who have been dissed by Obama as he has tended to help or support their enemies.
    ……
    Sounds pretty good? But consider the following issues:

    –Jerusalem is not mentioned at all. In previous platforms, the Democrats supported the idea of Jerusalem as being and remaining Israel’s capital and an undivided city. The platform may adhere to U.S. official policy but not to the party’s historic position but not to the promises Obama made to Jewish voters at AIPAC and elsewhere. This switch has made headlines in Israel with even left-wingers angry and upset.

    And in some cases, especially regarding Gaza, he has not really supported Israel’s right to defend itself in practice. I will leave the Iran issue and U.S. behavior in the UN for your own evaluation regarding this point but one could compile a long list of items in each case.

    I will analyze the platform’s broader view of the region in another article but again note that except for a vague promise of support for the Persian Gulf Arab states to defend themselves, the platform sees no other “alliances” or “partnerships” other than Israel. This section is thus just to titillate Jewish and pro-Israel voters. If they read it closely it would have the opposite effect.

  7. You are still not responding at all to the subject of this post. You are bringing up a different topic. I don’t see how your reposting Barry Rubin’s take on the DNC platform has anything to do with my pointing out that the report in Ynet was false. The report was false. It’s a binary choice: True or false. It has nothing to do with the DNC platform.

    You are making an entirely different argument, and I will not be bothering to answer any other comments that do the same.

  8. Russ says:

    What I was responding to was the title of your post: “I told you so: The US is not abandoning Israel.” It is entirely possible for the article to be false without it meaning what your title says.

  9. Then you’re still off the mark, because as was demonstrated, the U.S. is NOT abandoning Israel.

Comments are closed.