War
without end. That is what the Obama Administration promises the U.S.,
Israel, and the Palestinians. If the current Obama-Kerry plan for an
Israel-Palestinian deal is implemented, scores of Americans would likely
die. This was revealed recently by Secretary of State John Kerry,
particularly in a speech at the Saban Forum.
By the way, the Saban Forum Speech was made appropriately on December 7th,
the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The former head
of the Saban Center has also been chosen as negotiator.
The Obama Administration plan is very simple, assuming that everything goes smoothly–which of course it will not.
According
to the plan, the United States would gradually create and maintain the
agreement by policing an independent Palestinian state. Israel would be
protected by the U.S. forces, and Palestine would be protected from
Israel by them. And that's part of the problem, because the Palestinians
would stage a huge number of protests against and complaints regarding
Israel's actions, likely demanding more concessions.
In
addition, the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, would see the new
Palestinian state as perpetually victimized. They would mobilize any
Arab forces they could to back their complaints. It would be a
nightmare. But what the wrong-headed people in the Obama Administration
do not understand is that they would be under constant challenge. They
do not understand that no matter what they say, Hamas, Fatah, Iran,
Syria, al-Qa'ida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Salafists –and most
likely Saudi Arabia–will never accept an Israeli state.
In
other words, if Americans are on the ground, they will be targeted. Now
the question is what will they do? Will they "protect" Israel? And what
is the definition of protecting Israel? If Palestinians ignore that
they are attackers, then it is a controversy. Israel does not deserve
"protection." And what about gaps in this protection or disagreement
among the observers?
In
his Saban speech, Kerry said, "…Our commitment to Israel's security
spurred the U.S.-Israeli development of ballistic missile defense
technologies to keep Israelis safe from rockets and missiles. Those
systems and newer technologies continue to protect Israelis from the
range of threats that they still face today."
What
about a large stream of cross-border attacks? Will Americans attack
Palestinians if they violate the agreement? May I point out that at
various times Iraqi, Hamas, and Hizballah rockets have landed on Israel
with no U.S. defensive action. Again, the most important point is not
Iranian nuclear weapons but routine policing of a Palestinian state, not
to mention Israel's Lebanon-Syria border.
Are
we to believe that American helicopters, airplanes, and ground soldiers
would attack when the whole effort of this exercise had been to avoid
military commitments? How many years would this neo-mandate continue?
Will the United States intimidate certain countries if necessary?
Remember that the United States didn't even support the military
government in Egypt. So will it defend Egypt in the Sinai, which is in
cooperation with Israel?
The
United States may suffer a great number of casualties over time. Note
the 3,400 deaths of Western coalition soldiers in Afghanistan so far.
Are Western forces willing to sacrifice more than 300 soldiers a year?
In 2010, IED attacks in Afghanistan wounded 3,366 U.S. soldiers. And
that was in just one year of the war.
And
of course Americans are going to accidently kill Palestinians, both
fighters and unarmed civilians. As of February 2013, between 17,000 and
19,000 civilians died in Afghanistan. This then would create a
blood-feud. And by the way, many of these people will blame Israel.
Think
along the lines of Afghanistan. The U.S. has informed President Karzai
that it is withdrawing its forces. Karzai is not happy with that, and he
wants to reject the deal. Again, can Israel rely on American defense
even if it accepts it?
Recently,
the United States has betrayed the following countries; Egypt (wanting
to support a Muslim Brotherhood government); Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and
Turkey (supporting their side in the Syrian civil war). And it has left a
mess in Iraq. Do you think at this moment Israel is going to trust the
United States at the peak of distrust in modern times? Consider this
too, what will happen when the U.S. soldiers come back in body bags? How
long will the U.S. commitment last before dumping an independent
Palestinian State on Israel? How long will the American people accept
photos of dead Palestinians, much less dead Israelis?
Remember
clearly that there will be Turks, Iranians, Arabs, Islamists, and
Palestinians who will not to accept the solution or who will continue
fighting. And sooner or later, the United States would leave the new
state and leave Israel with a mess.
Since
this will cost a great number of American fatalities; money, conflicts
of agreement, interpretation, and prestige in the Middle-East; and
constant American interventions, such a solution will not work. I cannot
conceive that people do not look forward in this way and rather seem to
be guided by wishful thinking that the conflict will end suddenly.
It
is no accident that Israel has never been willing to trust its security
to a third party. This is a roadmap for increased conflict.
For
example, is the U.S. air force going to bomb a building in Gaza that is
an open headquarter for Gaza rocket and terrorist attacks? Will it
aggressively go after foreign fighters, even if those foreign fighters
have attacked Americans? Will it send them to Guantanamo Bay? Will it
respond to criticism in the UN? May I point out that U.S.
counterterrorism policy has not been very aggressive of late.
Think about Benghazi.
The United States will then have two choices:
- The U.S. helps Israel, albeit with constant opposition, and alienates the Arab and Iranian and Turkish world.
- The United States will gradually get tired of the burden and walk away from it.
In other words, Israel would not benefit from what can only be called "ObamaStrategicCare."
If
you like it, no matter what you've heard, you can keep your strategic
patron or plan, you can keep your ally (Obama), and you'll save money.
No one will be able to take that away from you.
Posted: 12 Dec 2013 10:02 AM PST
Times have changed,
And we’ve often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today,
Any shock they should try to stem,
‘Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.
–Cole Porter
The first thing is that everything in the Middle East has changed. And so has the U.S. relationship with it.
Why
does the Obama administration treat the Middle East in the way that it
does? Simple, it's their culture. Think about it, previous White Houses
view the foreign policy of the United States as being set by U.S.
interests. They focus on monetization, and they think that the rest of
the world should catch up to Western life.
But
for the Obama administration, the preference of social monetization and
Western life is an arrogant construct. After all, who says that Western
society is better than any other?
Think about this, in the 1850s in India, a Hindu priest complained to General Charles Napier about the outlawing of suttee. He said, "We have a custom of burning our widows," to which Napier replied:
"This
burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my
nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and
confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect
gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
In
contemporary context–now that Islam and not British colonial doctrine
is supposed to rule–countries will burn windows again. However, since
death is usually but not always the "reward" of an erring daughter or
wife, this would not be publishable by law. And of course, the Koranic
law, or a milder version of it, should be reinforced–in other words, the
situation is like this: Colonialism has been repealed and opposing
Western customs–if only modern–are racist.
In
other words, the goal is not modernization or Westernization, but not
imposing colonial Western "modern" laws on people–and look at politics.
The right of "terrorism" is really a rational response to say the
existence of Israel. Or even the existence of a non-Shari'a Afghanistan.
The Muslim Brotherhood, or Islamism, is a pro-traditional custom
response, not a reactionary response.
Again,
Western society, culture, and civilization should not be opposed. What
does this mean? It means that Islamic traditional customs should be in
response. It is Western imposition of customs that is reactionary. It
seems that this key concept is not understood. Of course, this is what
is taught in the media, in newspapers. By the way, this is true of
European society too. If you oppose a law in Europe that makes Islamic
garb illegal, that is a racist reactionary response, according to the
new view. If you impose a law mandating that covering a woman's face is
illegal, that is a racist reactionary response. This means that
countries lose control of their own internal laws, and no nation can
exist if it doesn't do that.
If
you don't understand this–that Shari'a schools within a country can
oppose any family law that they want–you are wrong. That is the real
issue here. Once you accept that Islamist religious law should triumph,
even if the country itself is forcibly secular, you have given way. A
country that imposes public secularism–the refusal of any public
religious observance–but embraces Islamic religiosity is doomed.
And
that is what the Obama administration and many European governments
have done. For example, why is it that Islamic Iran can be a good
government when run by Islamic law?
It
is not acceptable that certain behavior which would be considered in
other places should be met with death or imprisonment. No longer do
Western states desire to transform India into a modern country, but say
to transform Turkey, Syria, or Iran, whose legitimate customs are
governed by Shari'a. In other words, the Obama administration has a new
doctrine. If Obama were General Napier, you want to keep your widow's
pyre? You can keep it.
The modern society is "victimizer," and the widow maker becomes victim because of the political cultures.
No comments:
Post a Comment