Israel to be condemned in public and applauded in private
On the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Canada last Saturday, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had this to say about Iran: “Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react pre-emptively.”There's actually more to it than that. The G-8, the G-20 and the whole world full of hypocrites will publicly condemn Israel for taking out Iran's nuclear capability. But in private, they will all applaud.
In the face of Ahmadinejad’s open defiance and alarm over continued arms development, are European and other world leaders truly concerned over a potential Israel strike that might cripple Iran’s nuclear capability?Read the whole thing.
“Iran’s nuclear weapons program is something everybody else hopes someone else will take care of,” says Mark Heller, Tel Aviv University’s principal research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies. “And it’s a tacit admission on Berlusconi’s part that they — Europe, the U.S. and all the rest – are not really designed to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program. I’m guessing that he and maybe many others in the G-8 and elsewhere — including in the Arab world — are hoping Israel will do that.”
The sense of urgency is growing because of increasing levels of uranium enrichment Iran is achieving, bringing the rogue state closer to having a nuclear weapon.
A U.S. National Intelligence report assessed that Iran suspended weaponization in 2003 but continued with enrichment. “They were turning enriched uranium into a nuclear weapon — essentially transforming a huge, unwieldy mass into a usable nuclear weapon,” Heller continues. “When that report was issued, everybody else including the Europeans — who are not normally given to hysteria — made light of the assessment and said they didn’t understand the basis for it.“It is slowly dawning that there’s no chance of getting the ‘crippling sanctions’ Hillary Clinton once called for to threaten the stronghold of power in the Iranian regime. Conventional wisdom has become: either bomb Iran or there will be an Iranian bomb.”
So when an argument for more time to resolve the issue is put on the table, comments like Berlusconi’s indicate time is neither a luxury nor a neutral factor at this juncture.
...
And so in hushed tones the U.S., Europe, and sections of the Arab world support a military strike against Iran, and the perception is that Israel will be the subcontracted hit man.
The message to Israel: Don’t bore us with the details. Do what you have to do and we’ll condemn you in public and applaud you privately.
What's not discussed is what price the 'international community' will attempt to extract from us as 'punishment' for doing what they are all hoping we will do. A 'Palestinian state'? Going back to the 1949 armistice lines? Giving the Golan to Syria? These are the real issues we have to be ready to face. It's bad enough that the 'international community' expects us to be their hit men and absorb the almost inevitable Iranian (and Hezbullah and Hamas) response. But what's really unconscionable is that they will then try to extract a price from us for doing what they wanted us to do all along.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:36 AM
2 Comments:
Punishing Israel for doing what people want Israel to do has become cast in stone by now as the way to treat the Jewish state.
Israel was punished by G.H.W. Bush and James Baker for not responding to Saddam's scud missiles. They rewarded the Arab world for allowing America to save an Arab country from another Arab country instead.
Israel is punished for making concessions (no matter how big or small). Big concessions are punished by the world acting as if Israel didn't do a thing and small concessions are punished by not being big enough. (If the small concessions had been big enough, the concessions would have been treated as if they hadn't happened at all, of course.)
Israel is asked to take "big risks" (the Obama administration absolutely loves to use this term when it comes to Israel ONLY) while Israel is forbidden to take almost any action at all in self-defense when the "big risks" turn deadly for Jewish lives.
The Obama administration actually uses the term "big risks for peace" usually, which is even more ridiculous because there's no peace for Israel involved in any of the peace plans that have been presented.
Obama sees Israel's statehood as just flat out wrong from the beginning so he wants to see Israel pay horrid prices and take on excessive danger in exchange for nothing but more costs and more danger to Israel.
Netanyahu and the rest of the government coalition MUST be reassured that most Isarelis support them and understand that the game is fixed 1000% against Israel when Obama and the rest of the world start pounding on the Jewish state.
If Israel just says "NO!!!" to Obama, Americans are going to back Israel against Obama. A lot of people are saying "NO!!" to Obama these days and it's actually healthy for America's allies to do this right now. He won't be in that office forever.
Obama may in office for eight years. Its necessary to be prepared for it. And Israel will have to safeguard its national interests regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
Post a Comment
<< Home