Cale Hahn at Israpundit is going on about American relations with Israel. He thinks America is being a treacherous ally. Especially the ISG (Iraq Study Group - James Baker leading the charge.)
In regards to Israel, the ISG report states, "The US will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the US deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict." Such a statement makes one wonder how many divisions Israel has operating in Iraq and Arab countries.
It is, in point of act, Washington 's tacit acknowledgement to the Islamic world it is prepared to use its influence to once again force Israel into further concessions and territorial withdrawals.
Only America, as Israel 's historic friend and ally, possesses the influence over Israel to force her into additional territorial withdrawals. That Washington has been the catalyst for the majority of "peace initiatives" in the Middle East is a matter of record. The pattern has been the same for Madrid, Oslo, Hebron, Wye, Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David, Taba, the Road Map and the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals:
Islamic leaders, aware of US influence over Israel , tell the US the key to securing its interests in the Mideast is "resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Washington, in turn, persuades, bribes or strong-arms Israel into accepting terms and withdrawing from territory under the guise of a "peace process". Muslims then violate the agreements and the territory becomes safe havens from which they launch attacks against Israeli population centers. This pattern is unchanged, and is a blueprint for the ISG's strategy of redeeming American influence in the Middle East.
He contines in the same vein:
Immediately following the publishing of the ISG report, several disturbing events occurred:
-James Baker proposed a US-organized conference dubbed Madrid-2, promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq but will actually focus on Islamic demands for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Judea , Jerusalem , Samaria and the Golan. Iran and Syria will be invited to the conference. Israel will not.
-Newly appointed US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates characterized Iran's nuclear weapons program as motivated by deterrence against a nuclear armed Israel. Never mind that Ahmadinejad and Iran 's rulers have stated their intent to "wipe Israel off the map" in the very near future.
-Without consulting the Israeli government, Washington officially disclosed Israel 's possession of nuclear weapons.
- Newly empowered Congressional Democrats are secretly meeting with Hamas.
The sheer brazenness of the American treachery is staggering.
I beg to differ. I think the Israeli treachery is staggering. Here is why:
The treachery was on Israel's part for not taking the Bekaa Valley last summer despite numerous hints in public (many more and more direct in private I'm sure).
Syria said it would have to get involved if Israel took the Bekaa. Iran said it would come in too.
Sure it would have hurt Israel much more than the war did because of unpreparedness (a lot more dead soldiers). However, it would have rid Israel of two very big problems at little extra political cost to America or Israel (America would have handled Iran, being closer to the scene of action).
Now America is saying screw you.
I think a new government could fix this.
Tell me again why there aren't mass demonstrations against the government? Cell phones stopped working, the internet has been shut down, no one can find the time to organize, Israelis can't find the streets, or they think the current government is not bad enough to be worth political action?
Bush wants the double crosser Olmert out of power and Likud back in power. Here is what I think happened: The deal was - Bush gets Israel time, Israel moves on Bekaa in an effort to goad Syria and Iran into the war. Olmert does the preliminary moves on Bekaa - recon, special forces, small unit action (company size), helicopter insertions, etc. to make it look like something was going to happen. However, no movement in strength ever happened. Olmert was just using the war to punish Hizballah. So finally Bush shut the war down. Olmert is too political (what if the Israeli people really find out how totally unprepared the Army is?) and too tactial. Swatting flies instead of burying the manure.
If Israelis care about Israel, take to the streets in Israel. As an American all I can do is sit on the sidelines and cheer (or boo as the case requires and my understanding allows).
Olmert is Israel's Jonah. Time to throw him overboard.
Israpundit has another bit on American "treachery".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4358
Comments
I've never heard of "Israpundit" before, so I can't think of a single reason to give a flying fig what he/she thinks.
Y'know, I'm getting sick -- way past getting sick -- of every pea-brained leftist in the developed world thinking it's OK to (well) pee on the USA. So, "Israpundit" -- such an original name! -- you got problems with this particular guard dog? Fine, get yourself another.
Rhodium Heart · December 26, 2006 11:42 PM
Surpisingly enought the Israpundit guys would be considered a far right blog in Israel.
On top of that the piece quoted was written by an American.
It does sound an awful lot like a lefty screed written by a rightwinger.
One of the most interesting things for the raids and bombing that Israel *did* do in the Bekaa is that it was, actually, able to do them in what was considered 'the most heavily defended air corridor on the planet'. Now, since I am not a conspiracy theorist, that really does leave you with a few basic options:
1) All of the equipment for SAMs went, suddenly, non-functional. Unfortunately any sort of EMP from either a nuclear device or specialized EMP weapon would have had larger effects that would be noticed.
2) None of the Israeli jets could be targeted and shot at. Possible. Not likely unless it was...
3) Not manned or not armed or not there. Each of which has its own implications, but would all indicate Hezbollah teething pains in making the transition from terrorist organization to military organization. Really, a military is not a great terrorist organization and a terrorist organization is not a great military organization. You can be either, but it is very difficult to be both, especially with limited manpower and resources.
And the earlier Israeli sudden flyovers for raids into Syria, bring up the question of just what DOES Syria have in the way of anti-air capability... or any conventional capability at all? And if their money isn't going to upgrade and keep up their conventional military, which they haven't done a new round of tank upgrades since, apparently the mid- to late-1980's or very early 1990's, then just where *has* it gone? Certainly not to air or anti-air capability. Iran more than adequately funds and equips most of Hezbollah, though I am sure Syria does some of that, too, what with supernotes to help extend cash funds. Perhaps into, WMDs?
Israel knows far better than I do... but my guess is on that last. And the implications of a sudden escalation by Syria would also show its lack of conventional capability... and inabilitly to escalate in-depth.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I've never heard of "Israpundit" before, so I can't think of a single reason to give a flying fig what he/she thinks.
Y'know, I'm getting sick -- way past getting sick -- of every pea-brained leftist in the developed world thinking it's OK to (well) pee on the USA. So, "Israpundit" -- such an original name! -- you got problems with this particular guard dog? Fine, get yourself another.