Could Gadhafi be used as a precedent against Israel?
Forgive my self-centeredness, but one of my first thoughts upon hearing of the NATO action against Libya was to wonder if the same thing could - God forbid - happen to Israel. I wasn't the only one. Frank Gaffney lays out the scenario. Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:Read the whole thing. Yes, unfortunately, this could, God forbid, happen.
It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a UN Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, one of the prime-movers behind the resolution that authorized the use of force against Gaddafi and a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States abstain, rather than veto the Palestinians’ gambit. She is joined in that recommendation by a kindred spirit at the Obama National Security Council, Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power, and by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as First Lady.
This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as the all of the other non-permanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”
Suddenly, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens are on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its longstanding position: Its state must be (to use Hitler’s term for ethnic cleansing) judenrein – requiring the removal of all Jews from the sovereign territory of Palestine. And, thanks to the international affirmation of the so-called 1967 borders, the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas and Company need no longer accede to one of the anticipated solutions of the “peace process,” i.e., the relinquishing by Israel of territory in the Negev, so as to accommodate the permanent presence of Jewish communities (a.k.a. “settlements”) on land claimed by the Palestinians.
For its part, Israel refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities it rightly sees as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish State itself.
Hamas, which controls Gaza, seizes this moment to forge a united front with Abbas’ Fatah. The latter, of course, runs the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank of the Jordan River. It is the faction that has – with considerable help from Israel and U.S.-trained and -armed security forces – managed on the West Bank largely to keep a lid on its rivals for power, Hamas. But whatever their differences on the tactics of how to destroy Israel (Iran-backed Hamas seeks to do so with violence as soon as possible; Fatah has long pursued a two-phase strategy: first, induce Israel to relinquish territory through the peace process, then use that land as the launching pad to “drive the Jews into the sea”), the ultimate objective is precisely the same: judenrein throughout the Middle East.
The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” their land. As with the Gaddafi Precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.
Turkey, which is technically still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, joins forces with Britain and France, applaud this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the UN Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.
Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mesdames Clinton, Power and Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify, and are prepared to enforce, the President’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his hostility towards Israel. They appeal to his sense of history and his oft-expressed sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland to trump his political advisors’ concerns about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election.
Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ longstanding role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts, in accordance with the Gaddafi Precedent. He warns Israel that it must immediately take steps to dismantle its presence inside the internationally recognized State of Palestine lest it face U.S.-enabled “coalition” military measures aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the will of the international community.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Libyan no-fly zone, Libyan regime change, Muammar Gaddafi, Samantha Power, Susan Rice
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:43 AM
11 Comments:
Gadhafi doesn't have nukes.
I thought a similar thing when I looked at what happened with Libya. If anything, Libya appears to be an engineered stalking horse for Obama; he can use the same pattern for other important crises.
If you think about it, the coincidence is just simply too improbable. The 'palis' marching towards defacto state recognition in the UN GA, the turning of a crisis into an opportunity, as a template to use against the others.
This requires coordination. It requires setting traps, and playing people and countries. Inventing false crises, and engineering outcomes.
I don't believe in conspiracies. They rarely have much factual basis. Something stinks in this. I smell a rat.
If something like this comes to pass, whereby Israel is on the wrong side of the legalistic and military framework of the UN, the best choice may be a temporary pull back to the 67 lines. You know the arabs are going to launch an attack anyway. Let them. Then you will have a defensive war, and you will take land. Which you will not agree to "give back", under any circumstances. Simultaneous with this, an Israel doctrine should be articulated. One which indicates that overwhelming and completely disproportionate force will be used in all future conflicts to repel any and all threats, and any land, air, or sea space used to launch attacks will be considered forfeit and Israel will take this over and annex it. Any and all "residents" of these areas will be removed and transported to an arab country elsewhere.
You have to make the deterrent so painful, that they have no choice but not to do something stupid. Right now, its not.
And Israel must be able to completely fend for itself. We in the US failed our allies collectively when we voted Obama and his minions into power. We will fix this in 2012, but until then assume that DC is hostile to the very existence of Israel.
One major difference: Israel, being the third most powerful army, would likely be capable of returning fire and severely damaging the majority of the UN fighting force. Also, China, India, and the US citizens would be in a fury
To safeguard against this threat Israel must move to annex Yesha and strengthen its nuclear arsenal and institute a first strike policy against any coalition of powers seeking to destroy the Jewish State.
If Israel, G-d forbid, has to stand against the entire world, then it should be prepared to take its enemies down with it.
Boker tov, Eliyahu.
If Obama attempted that, there'd be immediate massive political turmoil in the United States. Probably most. if not all the Republican Senators and Congressmen, and many Democrats who still have integrity and decency, would raise hell about such a wicked, disgraceful thing.
I'm no lawyer but I do believe that an excellent prima facie case for the illegality of such a Presidential order could be readily made. Bilateral Treaties, Memorandums of Understandings, the arguable obscurities of Resolution 242 and subsequent resolutions-all these and more would stand against the legality of such an order.
The new Republican majority in the House would probably immediately bring impeachment charges against Barack Obama. The Dems control the Senate, barely, and could stop or delay any Senate trial. But that's longer term. Obama's attempting to do this would immediately bring about a political war within Congress, the like of which hasn't been seen since the pre-Civil War 1850's.
All that aside, outside of Congress, on Main Street America, the Tea Party and millions of like-minded patriotic Americans would have spontaneous demonstrations and rallies bigger and more numerous than even before the last elections. The revulsion of the American people to such an order and such a stab-in-the-back attack would be unmistakeably plain and clear. Obama & Co. and the Congress would be sharply reminded that We the People are still the rulers of America.
Also, I really believe -and I'm speaking as a military veteran with many other veteran and some active service friends- that large numbers of American servicemen and women would not obey orders to attack Israel or shoot at Israeli servicemen/women. There'd be huge numbers of officers in the services immediately resigning their commissions rather than obey such an order or participate in carrying it out.
As I see it, Obama and a good number of his administrations appointees certainly do hate Israel and Jews in general. There's no lack of animus or desire to hurt Israel on their part.
But we "silent majority" Americans know what we believe and who our friends are and aren't. History shows what happens when the American people are really infuriated and stirred into action. We become implacable and the majority of the American people would simply not stand for such a wretched, wicked act to be done.
I am afraid this is exactly what might be coming. The U.S. is currently under the control of a man who is in league with the enemies of freedom. The path we are going down leads only to destruction. The brave Americans had to defeat the Red Indians in order to create the great nation we live in today. In order to spread the light of freedom, the Israelis must prevail just like the Americans did.
Exactly the same thing occurred to me Carl. What really irks me is that once again the West is doing the Arab league's dirty work for them. They have enough tanks and planes of their own, why can't they use them to sort their own problems out?
Could happen, Israel unfortunately needs to be cognizant of this without being paralyzed and choose its battles. If the choice comes down to a fight or suicide, choosing suicidal appeasement to the Palestinian resistance axis isn't an option either.
Israel's strategy vis a vis Hamas and Fatah is already primarily defensive; Hamas is interdicted and surrounded; Fatah is left mostly alone and supervised via security contacts, decreasing roadblocks, and periodic operations. Israel acts within international norms.
Granted that the international community can reasonably be compared to a self-righteous brothel, adherence to norms is not a guarantee of anything. But so far, the nations require a big military action to wrap their consensus around and lead up time to agree to action.
Israel's military confrontation with a Hamas-Fatah coalition intent on using diplomatic mechanisms to strip Israel of operating independence will have to be strategically manageable with clear objectives achievable by Israel and its ground forces--no more Hail Mary operations launched by air and rocket hoping for the best diplomatically as an end game.
Military operations blithely conceived to "mow the grass" without actual reoccupation of territory could wind up being not only provocative moving forward but lacking the strategic counter-threat to proposed lowest common denominator international consensus to start reversing the UN recognition of statehood on the ground.
Israel has to be in place territorially so that proposed war of the nations against Israel would find it difficult to separate israeli targets from the Palestinian beneficiaries.
Ideally Israel finds an actual ally. The United States under Obama is less than reliable when impotent and potentially less than that when muscular.
I can't believe that such ignorance about the Obama Administration can be so pervasive in both the US and Israel. My only advice is for these purveyors of gloom and doom is get real and at a minimum try to separate facts from fiction. Indeed, read the Wikie Leaks dealing with this issue and you will understand the detailed background on why the Obama Administration used its first Veto to stand alone with Israel against the UN repudiation of Israel's settlement policies. US policy on the need for the Palestinian's and Arab Government's to recognize Israel as a Jewish state will not change.
Absolutely, & not only that, but lest one thinks that Congress's "power of the purse" could stop Obama by controlling the purse strings, do take note of the little tyrannical signing statement Obama made a point of attaching to the Omnibus bill he signed - basically, he said a categorical no way to Congress reserving the right to withhold funds for military in the case of putting our troops under FOREIGN command when in, get this, the event that not even one US military adviser approved. That's right, Obama said that he had the right to authorize funding putting our troops under foreign command when not even 1 adviser nor Congress approved. Really.
Post a Comment
<< Home