Once again the tragic pulverization of the Muslim leadership has revealed itself in the mumblings and fumblings that have followed the launch of the new Israeli military campaign to annihilate the Palestinian people that dare to seek an end to Israel's illegal occupation of their lands or even those that simply dare to exist with a modicum of self-respecting defiance of Israeli fascism. Over 400 people killed so far by Israel's military machine, so carefully aided and abetted by the US and its European allies. So where are the voices of the Muslim world? Where is some action to show that they will not allow Israel to commit genocide of the Palestinians? A few muted declaratory protests are all that have come so far. Is the Muslim World really so helpless in the face of Israeli abuse backed by the US?
No. The helplessness of the Muslim world is a myth. The reality is that the Muslim leadership primarily Arab in the context of Palestine has chosen to be pulverized into submission to the US and its more belligerent western allies. After all, despite numerous incidents of aggression and abuse at the hands of the US and Israel, the Arab leadership barring some exceptions like Syria continues to rely financially and militarily on the US and Europe. Their weapon systems are from these parts and their financial assets continue to lie primarily in the banking systems of the west. Both these facts could, of course, be used as a source of pressure also but that would require a strong and defiant Arab leadership and that does not seem to be on the horizon. Yet just imagine what a withdrawal of financial assets from the west would do! And just imagine how many arms industries would feel the pinch, and maybe even go under, if the Arab states did not buy their weapon systems! And one has not even begun to see the already-demonstrated-in-the-seventies power of oil.
But none of these elements of defiance will come into play so the Israelis will have a free hand in killing Palestinians by the hundreds unless some western states with a genuine conscience and commitment to human rights, like some of the Nordic states or Canada, move forcefully but their power is limited partly by politics and partly by their still existing guilt over the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of the European monster of Nazism. It is indeed a supreme irony that the belated rejection of this European crime is allowing states to accept attempted genocides today be it of the Bosnian Muslims, the Palestinians or the Muslims of Gujarat.
Perhaps an even greater tragedy is that the Muslim leadership has lost its will to stand up against all this abuse. If the Arabs would have taken their resources out of the west and invest it effectively in the Muslim World, especially the poorer but more technically competent Muslim states, the global picture would have been different today. If the Arab world would have stopped hosting US armed forces, so many murderous global designs of this unilateralist imperial power would have been undermined. For those Arab states that have security fears from their neighbourhood, surely dialogue and security pacts with strong Muslim states could have been a more viable alternative. As for purchasing of western weapon systems, if they are truly needed and alternatives are not considered viable, the dependency works both ways and could be exploited by the purchaser also.
But all this is mere day dreaming or wishful thinking. Or is it? After all the uplifting example of Hezbollah's success against Israel; the Iranian nation's steadfastness against US bullying; and even Syria's dignified and assertive reaction to one US bombing attack on its territory that should put a militarily much stronger Pakistan to shame. At another plane, there is the Mahatir economic miracle and political assertiveness. Again, at a time when Pakistan's leadership continues to bow ever lower to the US, a look in the easterly direction of Malaysia would not be amiss. Of course, if we could only have learnt some lessons from our long standing Chinese friends, we would have perhaps traversed less tumultuous paths.
But today we have reduced the country into a place where the rich and influential break all rules; where their children defy any institutional standards or procedures for jobs; and where repression and power grabbing are the norms, with rulers wanting absolute power be they in uniform or in civvies. Is it any wonder then that there is no spirit left to defend against external or internal threats to our existence? The powerful grab all and move back to their nests abroad while the rest turn in despair to prayer and the life hereafter in their pillaged state.
Coming back to the self-created helplessness of the Muslim world in the face of the incessant abuse and violence unleashed by Israel and the US, one may well ask where the UN is today. Clearly it's Security Council has been reduced to an organization that is here to defend only the US and its allies and their agendas. That is why Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has been reduced to whimpering a protest against the latest Israeli attempt at genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. First they starved them of all amenities including basic health, food and water and now they are moving in with military attacks while the US prevents any international condemnation through the UNSC.
But the UNSC has become a highly contentious political body for some time now especially in the face of the demise of bipolarity. After all, look at its absurdities on the terrorism issue. While the UNSC's Committee on Taliban and Al Qaeda is Muslim-specific, the Counter Terrorism Committee is not. Yet one has seen no efforts to put the Hindu RSS and VHP violent extremist groups on the terrorist list. Nor has any thought even been given to state terrorism that the US is perpetrating in Iraq and Pakistan; that Israel is carrying out in Palestine; and that India is continuing in Occupied Kashmir. It is no wonder then that the UN feels under siege and has to barricade itself behind concrete in countries like Pakistan despite the fact that our soldiers die for the UN in the largest numbers and we continue to pay our UN contribution which helps pay the fattened salaries of the UN personnel that seem to regard Pakistan as a hostile land! Even the windows have been bricked up. What a farce! The UN may as well leave Islamabad since at the moment it is merely adding to our already many miseries. If it distrusts the people of Pakistan so much it should also look elsewhere for Blue Berets in the future.
But which Pakistani leader will have the national dignity to stand up for Pakistan? Where is the voice of protest on these counts by affected states like Pakistan? Our official voice is too busy seeking subjugation before the US grand design. That is why when US Secretary of State Rice calls India she calls her equivalent external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee (who seems to have discovered the true spirit of Islam suddenly); but when she calls Pakistan she calls the president directly!
Yes, like so many of the resource-rich and financially powerful Muslim states, the militarily powerful and potentially resource-laden Pakistan has also been pulverized psychologically into a state with a muted and whimpering voice. Despite the military capability, our leaders are not prepared to defend their people against the daily US drone attacks, that are shrinking the space for moderation in the country (the frivolities of our leaders was so clearly laid out by Farrukh Saleem in his last column, but even that was simply one part of a much wider absurdity gripping our leaders). How are we expected to effectively raise our voice for the Palestinians then? And is it any wonder that Muslim people are being massacred with impunity today?
The writer is a defence analyst.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/31/2008 12:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But none of these elements of defiance will come into play so the Israelis will have a free hand in killing Palestinians by the hundreds -- unless some western states with a genuine conscience and commitment to human rights, like some of the Nordic states or Canada, move forcefully but their power is limited partly by politics and partly by their still existing guilt over the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of the European monster of Nazism.
And partly by their near-total emasculation by their leftist fifth-columns. Or their sadly under-funded and dilapidated militaries.
The Institute for Strategic Studies is best known for one of their 'researchers', Miss Maria Kiani, who seduced the British Defense Attache Brigadier Andrew Durcan. He was recalled back to London in disgrace.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/31/2008 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Posted by: john frum ||
12/31/2008 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Britain has removed its military attache from his post in Pakistan after he lost the confidence of the British High Commission, officials said.
Britain's Sun newspaper had alleged Mr Durcan had formed an "inappropriate relationship" with a suspected female Pakistani spy.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/31/2008 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The writer is a defence analyst.
Actually a whorehouse madame, but in Pakistan that's probably the same thing.
THE current situation in Swat is such that any sign of peace in the valley has been washed away. The people are living through the most miserable phase of its history. No doubt, the valley has witnessed invasions, turbulence and chaos from the time of Alexanders invasion in 327 BC to the formation of Swat state in 1917.
However, at least in living memory the present chaos engendered by militancy has no parallel. It has adversely affected the physical and cultural environment, the economy, tourism, trade, governance and social life in the valley.
Unfortunately, in all this, women have been the worst sufferers. The militants obscurant version of Islam begins and ends with womenfolk. According to their belief, women are the source of all sins. A cleric while delivering the Friday sermon in Marghazar village was heard telling his flock, My fellow Muslims, listen! The prices of daily commodities are rising because women abandon their homes and loiter about in the markets.
In fact, the Fazlullah-led militants have announced a complete ban on female education from Jan 15, 2008 on FM radio. Some days ago, they announced that no government or private educational institution would be allowed to enrol girls and that all schools and colleges should stop educating them by Jan 15. Schools found violating this ban would be blown up. Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan somewhat modified the announcement saying that schools would remain closed until an Islamic curriculum was devised for imparting education to girls.
Parents and students have lost hope of schools reopening in this volatile atmosphere. The militants have usually been seen to follow up on their words and, despite the armys presence, there have been no signs of the restoration of peace and harmony.
The militants have bombed or torched more than 100 girls schools and colleges to forcibly stop 80,000 girls from going to school in the district. There were 10 high schools, four higher secondary schools and four degree-awarding colleges and a network of primary schools across the district for girls and women, besides a postgraduate institution for young men and women to study at the masters level.
Against the culture of keeping womenfolk away from development, the rulers of Swat state (1917-1969) encouraged female literacy, the first step on the way to progress, by establishing girls schools and colleges. The valley had the highest female literacy rate as compared to neighbouring districts.
After the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, their repressive activities started getting support in the Pakhtun areas of Pakistan along the Durand Line. Swat is among the more recent victims of Talibanisation. The secular nature of Swati society is slowly and gradually leaning towards extremism.
The clergy first started speaking against girls and womens education through unauthorised FM radios and at public gatherings. But as they got more emboldened, they attempted to stall female education and eliminate the presence of girls and women in the market through fiercer means including bomb blasts. Many schools have been destroyed in this way.
Then they turned their wrath on women doctors and the female nursing staff in hospitals warning them to observe strict purdah, confine themselves only to wards for women and not to attend calls on their cellphones. The medical superintendent of a group of hospitals complied with the order and circulated a notice to the entire female staff telling them to do as they had been told. Women patients and visitors were also advised to conform to Taliban instructions.
Militants also ordered the segregation of students at the Saidu Medical College, telling the principal to keep away women students from research labs after a certain time. Meanwhile, another college refused to take in women because of the continuous threats of the militants from 2007 onwards. Militants regularly monitor hospitals and colleges. In fact, working women and those attending school or college, or going to the doctor or in the marketplace are given a bad character by the militants.
Indiscriminate mortar shelling has hit houses and killed and injured civilians. In these, the toll for women casualties has been higher since they are more often at home, while unannounced road obstructions or curfews have made sudden medical emergencies, especially among pregnant women, difficult to be attended to. As a consequence women have lost their newborns as they have not been able to make it to the hospital in time. Besides, with their men also casualties of militancy, many of them are losing breadwinners in the family.
The threatened closure of educational institutions has proved to be the last nail in the coffin. The mindset of the militants who routinely resort to the violation of fundamental rights in order to accomplish their goal is clear and their misused and illegal authority has led them to establish a state within a state. Swat is not a no-mans-land and is very much an integral part of the country. By tradition its inhabitants are not religious bigots. In fact, society in Swat is more civilised and accommodating of opinions than the rest of the Pakhtun belt. Islamabad should understand that and break its silence to take assertive action against the militants if it does not want Talibanisation to engulf the area and paralyse the entire structure of society.
Where are all the international and national human rights organisations and women rights groups? They must raise a collective voice against this victimisation of Swati women and girls. It is also time for the media to take drastic steps to highlight the current lot of Swati women whose repressive treatment should also serve as a wake-up call for women parliamentarians to take an active part in rescuing them from the spread of a venomous culture.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/31/2008 11:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Turn Swat into a prison for all inhabitants. No one in, no one out. Then they can wallow in thier righteousness to their heart's content.
December 29, 2008: Several hundred Egyptian border police sealed five breaches in the security wall between Gaza and Egypt. Hamas refused to allow Palestinian wounded to go to Egypt for medical care (which Egypt was ready to provide), while Egyptian border police fired on uninjured Palestinians trying to flee Gaza. Egypt, like most Arab nations, refused to absorb any Palestinian refugees from the 1948 Israeli war of Independence. Israel, however, absorbed the equal number of Jews driven out of Arab nations after 1948.
Israeli smart bombs and missiles continue to fall, and Palestinian casualties are over 1,100. About 10,000 Israeli ground troops, including nearly a thousand armored vehicles, are assembled near the Gaza security fence. Hamas admitted that the attacks had made a serious dent in their rocket supply. On the first day of the bombing. Hamas fired over 110 rockets and mortar shells into southern Israel, but that fell to twenty the next day. And today there is no increase in Hamas rocket attacks. So far, Israel has hit at least 300 targets in Gaza, usually with one smart bomb or missile. Hamas appears to be surprised at the detailed targeting data the Israelis had assembled. Meanwhile, Israeli UAVs constantly circle over Gaza, apparently collecting new targeting data for additional attacks. Hamas has brought more of its 122mm BM-21 rockets out and tried to fire them. These weigh 150 pounds and are nine feet long. These have 45 pound warheads, and have a maximum range of over 20 kilometers. Because they are unguided, they are only reliably effective if fired in salvos, or at large targets (like cities, or large military bases or industrial complexes.) Hamas has been getting these rockets from Iran, and they are smuggled in via the dozens of tunnels under the Gaza-Egyptian border.
A ground assault is more dangerous for Israel, exposing more Israelis to possible injury. But only by sending in the ground troops can Israel unearth all of the Hamas rocket arsenals, workshops and headquarters. While Hamas has long prepared to defend against an Israeli ground assault, the Israelis have also trained hard and long to carry these operations out effectively. Who is better prepared will soon be revealed.
Israel is apparently trying to cripple Hamas military capability, forcing the terrorist organization to devote resources to rebuilding, instead of attacking Israel. Israel also hopes that anti-Hamas Palestinians will rise up and give power to Fatah. This is a long shot. Meanwhile, a ground offensive would recover lots of valuable intelligence, as well as capturing some key Hamas operatives (who could be used to trade for an Israeli soldier kidnapped two years ago.) Israel has an opportunity here to demoralize Hamas, and their Shia ally Hezbollah in Lebanon (both are supported by Iran, who will also take a beating if Hamas does not win some kind of "victory.")
The response in the Arab world is not quite what Hamas expected. Because Hamas is seen as a puppet of Shia Iran, many mainstream Sunni Islamic radicals are not terribly upset that Hamas is getting hammered. In Iraq, a Sunni suicide bomber attacked a pro-Hamas demonstration (killing two and wounding 16). There are still over 20,000 Palestinians in Iraq, and they are generally hated because of Palestinian support for Saddam Hussein and his murderous Baath Party. Most Palestinians are also Sunni.
A surprising opinion piece out of the UK. Besides my opinion that Israel has the right to conduct operations (and follow through this time) unhindered by hypocritial international pressure, I have only two words to add to the epilogue:
Israel is entitled to defend its civilians against rocket attacks, but its military options are constrained and shrewd diplomacy would serve its interests.
Conor Cruise O'Brien, the Irish statesman and historian, once wrote: "The best way for a democracy to deal with what is called political violence is to set aside its supposedly political character and concentrate on its criminal aspect as an armed conspiracy." O'Brien, who died this month, had particular sympathies with the security dilemmas faced by Israel. And in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza this week, Israeli politicians are plainly adopting a similar diagnosis to his.
No democratic government should underestimate the provocations that Israel has endured from relentless shelling of its civilians. For the nearly 400 Palestinian deaths so far that have resulted from Israel's attacks this week, Hamas must accept a large share of responsibility. A comprehensive peace settlement is as far away as ever, and Israel is justified in seeking to constrain Hamas's capacity to inflict harm. But Israel's leaders would do well to consider how a political strategy might reinforce the prospects for an eventual negotiated settlement.
Israel's military campaign has so far met with some success. Khaled Mashal, Hamas's leader in exile, is reportedly willing to renew the ceasefire if Israel halts its bombardment. Israel will reasonably respond that this is scarcely a concession. The entire rationale of the Middle East peace process is to trade land for peace. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. It has secured not peace, however, but a renewed campaign against its civilians. International suggestions that Israel's campaign is driven by domestic imperatives are accurate, though that is hardly surprising. Hamas's activities have themselves affected Israeli politics, by seemingly substantiating the warnings issued by Binyamin Netanyahu, the hawkish leader of Likud. The Government of Ehud Olmert is responding to the demonstrable failure of disengagement to provide for Israel's security.
Hamas's conduct has made it more difficult for Israel to plan on an early withdrawal from the West Bank. The goal for Israel in targeting Hamas is to hamper the ability of terrorist groups to operate. By doing so, Israel will be pursuing more than a narrow security imperative. Preventing Hamas's attacks should hasten withdrawal from the West Bank and enhance the prospects for the eventual creation, as justice and equity demand, of a sovereign Palestinian state.
But as they consider a 48-hour humanitarian ceasefire to allow aid to enter Gaza, Israel's leaders will be reflecting on an unenviable range of choices. If Israel persists with an aerial campaign, then the very success of its actions so far will have diminished the number of military targets and increased the risk to civilians. Israel has a right to defend itself but criticism from some European governments that disproportionate force is being used might soon become more persuasive in these circumstances. The use of ground troops would be risky, owing to the inevitable casualties that Israel would suffer. But the third option, of withdrawing after initial successes, would recall the inconclusive and politically damaging Lebanon campaign of 2006.
There are two ways in which politics might be brought to bear on this conflict. Pressure by an intermediary - possibly Egypt, or Tony Blair in his capacity as Middle East envoy - on Hamas to announce a ceasefire, and Israel to respond, is necessary. But it will be a temporary palliative, even if successful, while Hamas's rejectionist aims are unchanged. An armed conspiracy must be confronted. But - as the remarkable turn in the fortunes of Iraq this year suggests - it can also be undermined by shrewd diplomacy. Israel should reiterate willingness to move speedily to a territorial accommodation, even with a Hamas-led government, conditional on a permanent abandonment of violence or else.
#1
" Israel should reiterate willingness to move speedily to a territorial accommodation, even with a Hamas-led government..."
This is just another asshole spewing. Israel already gave these turds all of Gaza what the hell other territory are they supposed to cede to Hamass????? Tel Aviv?????? Or should Israel re-conquer the West Bank and give that to Hamass?
More and more of the same mindless drivel that refuses to recognise the singular point that Hamas wants ALL of Israel and will stop for nothing less.
#2
But - as the remarkable turn in the fortunes of Iraq this year suggests - it can also be undermined by shrewd diplomacy. Israel should reiterate willingness to move speedily to a territorial accommodation, even with a Hamas-led government, conditional on a permanent abandonment of violence
Two key points the writer clearly missed:
1. Diplomacy in Iraq was based on the results of the Surge, ie an increase in military force, and
2. Israel, as the writer remarked above, made the territorial concession when it pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, and reaped war. Thus, it now finds itself in the position were war must be fought, the alternative having been proven a failure.
Beyond that, it's a lovely piece wherein it is admitted that Israel had done all that could be done short of war before Operation Cast Lead began, and yet the writer insists Israel really mustn't wage war nonetheless. "Do be good sports and bare your necks for the knives," that sort of thing, dontchaknow. The rulers of Britain have never forgiven those uppity Jews for not being wiped out the moment British troops gave up the Mandate in May, 1948.
If only it were a parable, the endless confrontation between Israel and its enemies would be the case of the hedgehog and the fox. The fox, said the Greek poet Archilochus, knows many things, while the hedgehog knows one big thing.
Once upon a time -- say, from modern Israel's first stages in the early 20th century until the 1973 Yom Kippur War -- it was the Jews who played the role of the hedgehog. Zionism, for all of its factions and facets, revolved around the straightforward idea of getting and keeping a state. Doing so required land, people and arms, the more of each the better. Only secondarily was it about legitimacy, peace, economic growth, cost-benefit ratios or any other, more delicate, ingredients in the overall makeup of modern statecraft.
This was a heroic period in the movement's history, not because it was without folly, setback or tragedy, but because Zionism was able to achieve most of its historic objectives against large odds. It was helped along by enemies who, implacable though they were in their hatred of the "Zionist entity," were beset by their own internal power struggles. To describe the Arab states of this period as "foxes" is a stretch, since they tended to be incompetent. But it was a fox-like form of incompetence, in that the Arabs were trying their hand at many things.
Today, however, it is Israel that has assumed the role of the fox. It defeated the second intifada in 2005 and then promptly withdrew its settlements and soldiers from Gaza. It bombarded Lebanon for 34 days in 2006 not for the bald sake of victory (a word that appears to have been banished from the Western military lexicon), but for a much more ambiguous goal of "quiet." Israel pursues an identical aim in its current conflict against Hamas, where it previously attempted to walk the fine line between squeezing Gaza economically without quite prompting a humanitarian crisis.
All this fine-tuning of policy is in some ways natural to any state that has achieved basic national objectives and must balance competing domestic and international interests. But Israel's problem is that it hasn't yet fully achieved its national objectives. Its borders remain subject to revision. Its claim to statehood is denied by roughly a third of the world's governments. The United States continues to maintain its embassy in Tel Aviv, notwithstanding countless congressional resolutions.
By contrast, it is Israel's enemies who have become the hedgehog, none more so than Hamas. Since winning parliamentary elections in 2006, Hamas has delivered a diet of economic ruin to the Palestinian people. In the run-up to the current fighting, Hamas was roundly warned -- by Israel, by the Egyptians, even by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas -- not to renew its rocket barrages against southern Israel.
But Hamas knows one big thing, which it labels "resistance" or, for Western audiences, "ending the occupation." Just what that means was made clear by Palestinian cleric Muhsen Abu 'Ita in a televised interview. "The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine," he said, "is one most splendid blessings for Palestine."
This kind of genocidal incitement is more than idle ranting: Gigantic ambitions sustain political movements through hard times. Hamas is also sustained by the insight that Israel's considerable military capabilities are unlikely to be matched by political will. It believes that whatever attacks come will be tempered by a host of humanitarian and diplomatic considerations. It believes that Israel wants to avoid a public relations debacle (so Hamas will do everything it can to engineer or fabricate one). It believes that the weight of international sympathy will be on its side. It believes, too, that the last thing Israel wants is to reoccupy Gaza, with all the costs and complications that entails.
Hamas believes, in short, that while Israel will do many things, and do them well, it will not do the main thing. And that, in turn, means that as Israel exhausts its target list, as eventually it will, the storm will pass. Then the green flag of the movement will fly defiantly over the tallest building left standing, its prestige hugely boosted -- and Israel's commensurately diminished -- throughout the Muslim world.
Does all this also mean that Israel's attacks amount to a fool's errand? Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert likes to point out that no Hezbollah rockets have fallen on Israeli soil since August 2006 -- never mind that Hezbollah is both politically and militarily more powerful today than it was before the war. A similar outcome in Gaza would be equally disastrous.
This is not a counsel of restraint, of which Israel has shown more than enough through years of provocation. It is merely to point out that no ingenious conceit can disguise the fact that war offers no outcome other than victory or defeat. This is one big thing that Hamas understands, and that Israel must as well. The fox cannot beat the hedgehog. But the bigger hedgehog can -- and in this case must -- defeat the smaller one.
Hamas' missile attacks on Israel last week, and Israel's thunderous re sponse, may only be the prelude for the next big Middle East confrontation between America and Iran - and a defining moment for the new Obama presidency. Imagine if, in the summer of 1941, Adolf Hitler had approached Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt with this deal: I will cease hostilities and leave the British Empire alone, if you leave me alone to finish my extermination of the Jews. Expect Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to offer a similar deal to Barack Obama come January.
Officially, the offer will be Iranian cooperation with the West in Iran's nuclear program, possibly including United Nations inspections - if the United States reverses course on its support for Israel, including its actions against Hamas in Gaza. Iran expert Ze'ev Maghen of Bar-Ilan University thinks this may be what top Iranian officials are preparing to offer the West in a kind of crude devil's bargain. In short, Iran's price for getting along with America, "the Great Satan," will be our acquiescence in the destruction of "the Little Satan," Israel.
Would Obama accept such a pact? Certainly many on his foreign-policy team, including Vice President Joe Biden, are on the record urging direct talks with Iran as a path to resolving the nuclear impasse - even if others on his team, like Hillary Clinton or Rahm Emanuel, resist. The problem is that Iran will clearly see a US policy of direct talks on the nuclear issue as a green light to its larger ambitions.
The violence in Gaza should remind us of who really pulls Hamas' strings, namely Iran. Iran wants to be the first nuclear power in the Middle East, and it wants to destroy Israel. What few Americans realize, including (it seems) key Obama foreign-policy aides, is that Iran doesn't need to achieve the first objective in order to secure the second.
Iran doesn't have to rely on a nuclear bomb to annihilate Israel. It simply has to continue to close the Hamas-Hezbollah-Syrian noose around the Jewish state, until Israel is forced to allow Palestinians to reenter Israel and perhaps offer them citizenship, which could lead to the effective end of the "Zionist entity." But Tehran knows this can't be done without US acquiescence. The mullahs will certainly assume that an offer for direct talks will open the door to charging a price for peace in Iraq and future Iranian nuclear cooperation: namely, that America stand idly by while Israel gradually ceases to be an independent Jewish state.
The actual timetable and details - such as an Obama administration forcing Israel to return to pre-1967 borders, or forcing it to accept Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, or yielding on "the right of return" for Palestinians - don't matter. What counts is that Iran will get the credit for crippling and then perhaps, ultimately, eradicating Israel and for tricking the Americans into helping Iran to do it. In 2006, Ahmadinejad disclosed the outline for such a deal in an open letter to President Bush, stating that Muslim hostility to the West will never cease until the West abandons its support for Israel. Sooner or later, he is bound to make a similar offer to President Obama, this time possibly including a deal on Iran's nuclear program.
The problem, of course, is that such an offer will be worthless. Iran has systematically lied to UN and European Union officials and cheated on agreements on its nuclear program for years. Why should it change now? If Iran can fool the new administration into unwinding its policy of support for Israel, then it will see no reason why it can't bluff its way into completing a bomb. All the same, the pressure will be on Obama for some kind of "accommodation." Time and the willpower for a military option, such as bombing Iran's nuke sites, is running out. Since 2005, the Bush administration has tried every diplomatic avenue for that accommodation short of direct talks, without much result. The temptation to start direct talks as the crucial next step will be almost overwhelming.
Obama has said Israel has a right to self-defense and to an undivided Jerusalem. But he has a life-long association with the New Left, which has an instinctive hostility to Israel as the representative of an "imperialist" West. And the New Left has had a sympathy for Palestinian activists no matter how militant - like Obama's friend Rashid Khalidi. We also know Obama's view of Iran, that it's "a tiny country" that doesn't "pose a serious threat to us." The harm Iran can do to Israel is another matter. The Hamas-Hezbollah-Syrian noose around Israel's neck is tightening. Even if the Olmert government somehow manages to degrade Hamas' military strength, that still leaves Hezbollah and Syria, with Iran lurking in the background. Will America take a firm stand to prevent the noose from closing - even if that means dealing with a permanently hostile Iran?
Despite its many mistakes in dealing with Tehran, the Bush administration never yielded to the temptation of the devil's bargain. We'll soon find out if Obama is made of the same stuff.
#1
All this blather is based on a false supposition: that Obama Hussein and the USA can "force" Israel into suicide. Israel is an independent state, and can't be forced to do anything. A cessation of US support would be a blow, but not a terribly serious one. Other states would fill the vacuum. I could see India stepping up, for example.
#2
I don't know about that. Israel's economy is not in strong shape. We provide a few billion in military aid, money that is rather fungible, and taking that away would hurt the Israelis.
In the short term the Israelis could withstand the Paleos. In the longer term, a lack of US support, coupled with increasing (and increasingly open) Iranian support for the Paleos, would indeed draw the noose tighter. That has a snowball effect: less immigration into Israel, more emigration out, slower economy, etc., etc.
If this is where Iran has been going it's clever, but of course it depends on finding an American president who would strike the bargain. Perhaps Bambi is that one, in which case, look out.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/31/2008 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I have to agree with Scooter. Israel isn't going down without a fight. The worst thing Iran could do is to back them into a corner. It would be glass parking lot time for Tehran.
I also have a bone to pick with the author's history. Hitler did offer to let the Brits keep their empire in exchange for letting him dominate the continent (FDR wouldn't have been involved because the US wasn't at war with Germany then). Churchill had the spine to tell him to pound sand. Sadly, that appears to have used up most of the spine in Britain.
#5
Well,
Maybe Obama will cut a deal with Ahmadini-Baby.
However, this will not really change anything fundamentally. - While the US under Obama can economically and militarily make us seriously hurt, I don't think this can finish us in only four years. and I think by this time there would be another republican at the white house.
Even if the US completely abandons us, in my view this will lead to a no holds barred nuclear confrontation between Israel and the Arabs
Remember Massada?
Any American politician and the American President have to realize that most of us (Israeli's) have nowhere to go and we will fight to the end (and if we have to take a few hundred million Arabs with us -so be it !).
It doesn't sound very nice but life isn't always fare.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/31/2008 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We also know Obama's view of Iran, that it's "a tiny kitty country" that doesn't "pose a serious threat to us."
#7
Any American politician and the American President have to realize that most of us (Israeli's) have nowhere to go Unfortunately, that is NOT the case judging from what gets into the MSM.
#9
If Sloe Joe and the Magic Man think that their big surprise is the abandonment of Israel and cuddling up to the Muzz, they are going to see a complete turn over in Congress in two years. And, they may be prosecuted for war crimes.
#10
Let me destroy this country, and I will cooperate. Of course I already agreed to cooperate, then changed my mind, but I won't change my mind again, honest!
You know they only offer this insult because our leaders keep coming back for more.
#11
So with Israel outta the way, who moves into the top spot on their list? If Barry wants to know the answer to that one, tell him to look in a miirror.
#12
It would be glass parking lot time for Tehran.
I'm afraid so. If the US no longer supports Israel, what's to stop them and what choice would they have? There would be a much better chance for peace if we'd glass Tehran for them just to make sure it gets done right. Peace through strength, you know. Maybe we could give 'em a little Hiroshima or Nagasaki and then ask if they want to talk.
Now that America has shown us all that affirmative action even works in politics, Ive compiled a list of things that you can probably expect to happen. These predictations are 80% gleaned from information all of us have access to, and 15% gut instinct based on many years of research, historical study, and being glued to current affairs. The other 5% is just anger at my countrymens stupidity I admit it.
Websites and mass emails offering free grants, courtesy of the government and Obamas wealth redistribution. Actually, this ones a freebie, because I have an email with a date and timestamp of literally minutes after Obama was declared the winner, offering exactly that.
Israel will understand this election was the end of any type of assistance, military or otherwise, from the U.S., and will stop holding back their defense at the request of the American administration. Look for a first strike on Iran soon, as well as increased activity by the Israeli military in general. Israel is on her own now, and God help us all because of it.
Look for Iranian retaliationagainst American targets. That goes doubly for other terrorist organizations. We just elected a man with the full endorsement of every major terrorist group in the world as leader of the free world. Its the political equivalent of hiring a child molester to babysit your kids while you leave for the weekend. Not only is HE going to have fun with your child, but hell probably sit and watch while his friends come over and do it too.
Look for far-left justices appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively tying up the entire government in a trifecta of liberal humanism, the buzzwords of which remain empty platitudes like hope and change, and the ultimate goal of which is socialismand soon, sharia law.
Military cases of troops being tried and convicted for killing the enemy in combat will continue to riseand the conviction/plea-bargain rate will stay at nearly 100%, as the government seeks to use the best men and women this country has to offer as sacrificial lambs on the altar of global appeasement. Those brave and honorable men who currently reside in prison cells across the country, stripped of their rank, their careers, families, and their good name, will not taste free air again for many years. Their sacrifices and their stories will be forgotten by the general public, remembered only by those of us who continue to fight for them.
Look for the slow but steady erosion of rights you have enjoyed for your entire livesall the while being told its for your own good. Restrictions on gun ownership, home schooling, encouraged dependence on the ever-growing federal government. More nanny-state provisions will be put into place to protect the disadvantaged and the poor, (read: lazy, uneducated, unwilling to better themselves) even while groups like the unborn, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and terminally ill are slowly pushed toward euthanasia. Of course, this will be done with feel-good phrases like death with dignity, not wanting to be a burden, and merciful release from suffering, all of which ignore the basic fact that we are killing people without their consent for the good of the people. Before you tell me Im crazy, lets just remember that Barack Obama was the ONLY senator in the Illinois state senate to vote against providing medical care for babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive an abortion. Also, look for taxes to go up. Yes, theyll go up.
You think the economy is bad now? Just wait. Youll have the most expensive free health care ever. Bread lines arent just for Russians anymore.
We have traded experience for color, freedom for slaveryand the irony is that the average American sheeple thinks their vote somehow righted an ancient wrong, somehow ENDED the spectre of slavery and ushered in some beautiful era of liberty. In reality, we are about to be less free than you ever thought possible.
I watched the faces of those crowded into the mob (excuse the pun) in Chicago. They stared at Obama like he was a god, an idol, a panacea to their every want and need. We have truly failed as a nation if we are at the point where we feel we must look to one man to take care of us all, to be our father figure and our sugar daddy. We have lost not only the can-do attitude of past generations, but the MUST-do attitude of our forefathers. We have allowed ourselves to become reduced from Patrick Henrys proud cry of liberty or death to the sniveling, whining idea that we are owed something. We have gone from being the honorable defenders of freedom, to being told we are the problem.
The eyes of Obama and McCain were also telling. McCain acted with class and grace in his concession speech, offering the most honorable response Ive seen yet. I dont agree with all of McCains positions, but it cannot be denied that the man has served his nationat permanent and severe detriment to himselffor half a century. His eyes were clear and sincere, honest. His speech underlined the very reasons why, of the two men offered, he was hands down the best choice.
On the other hand, Obamas eyes were cold, calculating. His manner was smug and still carried the arrogance he has always had. His facial expression was one of barely disguised disdain for everything people like me believe in. His body language was smooth, polishedtoo much so. He talked of patriotism as though it is a value he is familiar withand yet, his horrifying attitude toward the country he now leads is as well-documented as his friendships with those who seek its demise. He is charismatic to those who dont know what to look for, and he is inspiring to those who cannot or will not think for themselves. However, too many who voted for him are guilty of the most dangerous kind of hypocrisy. You see, we are told daily that we must not see color, just mankind. (We are all family, you knowor so were told.) And yet Barack Obama was handed the White House on a silver platter by a fawning media, a bevy of foreign donors (who, to this day and in violation of U.S. election laws, remain nameless and unaccounted for), and a populace who voted based on color instead of right and wrongeven in the face of the most damning evidence against a Presidential candidate in many years, perhaps ever.
It is said that the people receive the government they deserve. Sadly, I fear thats correct. We have become complacent, unwilling to see the writing on the wall, content to frolic in the warm water without bothering to notice that its been getting hotter by the minute. We are two seconds from a rolling boiland perhaps it is already too late.
So, liberals, enjoy your victory. Jump around. Have a party, file for your free grants. Scream Gimme my handout! and make fun of those of us who fought to make sure your messiah didnt get access to the most powerful position in the world. Just remember when it all comes crashing down: You own the White House, the Congress, and soon the Supreme Court. You have no one to blame but yourselves for the mess you just created.
As for me, Im buying my handguns this week so I have an answer for those who will come try to take them.
#1
Cool out Kit. I know I sound like a broken record, but OHB is Jimmah Carter. The essay's main points are all Carteresque: betrayal of Israel; cowtow to Iran; eviscerate the military; erosion of rights; one-party hubris; personal arrogance. In four years the American people threw this assclown down the stairs and did not look back for nearly 30 years.
Posted by: regular joe ||
12/31/2008 17:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Carter was fought at every turn, and beaten at most. Hussein O won't get a free lunch.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
