Bill Bennett and I are in total agreement about the viral infection that has crippled our society called relativism. Doing what is right, what is effective is far more preferable than having a "cushy" agreement.
I continue to believe we have become too PC to win and Sgt. T.F. Boggs speak my sentiments when it comes to the report reached by old men - see my previous memo entitled "Tired Ideas From Tired Old Men" dated 12/6. (See 1 below taken from latest RJC Bulletin.)
Because of Sec. Gates' sui generous revelations about Israel's nuclear weapon status, Olmert decided to acknowledge same and end the nation's policy of ambivalence. Gates did so without informing Israel and Olmert without consulting with the Cabinet. Olmert chose to make his remarks while in Germany as the Iranian conference denying The Holocaust took place. Olmert further went on to equate other "civilized" nations with nuclear weapons with Iran's claim that it would use weapons to wipe Israel off the map. Olmert reminded the Iranians, Israel possessed an equal capability.
Perhaps the U.S. could meet with Iran for the purpose of enlightening them about the Holocaust and hold the meeting on neutral ground in Germany. Say at one of the concentration camp sites that never existed.
More warnings to Syria and Iran over Lebanon from Sec. Rice as three Qassam rockets fall on Israel during continued cease fire. Probably launched by a few Palestinian school kids out for a day's fun after their studies on how to kill.
Kirk Douglas, the venerable actor turns 90 and celebrates with a small party of 100 family and honored guests and friends.
I served on the Board of Visitors a small unique college with Joyce Rumsfeld and at various board meetings I got the opportunity of meeting her husband and having a few brief chats with him. I also followed his successful business career.
As Cal Thomas points out (see 3 below) Rumsfeld is far better than his detractors have painted him out to be and though he might have been abrasive and prickly he will be missed. He tried to change the Pentagon and that is beyond any mortal. Granted he also made some monumental mistakes but the far left doesn't believe in being strong and rejects the mere thought there are times when you have to prove you are willing to fight and even die for what you believe in and post 9/11 was such a time.
I suspect we will now fight harder to extricate ourselves rather than to overcome the growing radical Islamic menace through the mistaken belief terrorists are rational and will succumb to rational conversations and adhere to commitments. We are in denial and thus will blind ourselves and like Israel, it is all Rummy's fault.
Dick
1)The Iraq Study Group should go back to school
The much-ballyhooed report by the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group was predictably flawed. William Bennett described the report this way: "In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority."
Bennett wrote, "This is the triumph of the therapeutic, where bipartisanship — a hug across the aisle — has become a higher value than justice. . . the moral, the good, and the just take a backseat to collegiality. Does history really give a hoot about bipartisanship? Who cares whether they are getting along? The task is to do the right thing, especially in war. But, when relativism is the highest value, agreement becomes the highest goal, regardless of right and wrong."
T.F. Boggs is a 24-year-old sergeant in the Army Reserves, back home from his second deployment to Iraq. He complained that the "old men" of the Iraq Study Group held unrealistic expectations and his take on what's at stake in Iraq is right on:
"I thought old people were supposed to be more patient than a 24 year old but apparently I have more patience for our victory to unfold in Iraq than 99.9 percent of Americans. Iraq isn’t fast food--you can’t have what you want and have it now. To completely change a country for the first time in its entire history takes time, and when I say time I don’t mean 4 years. . . Like I told a reporter buddy of mine: War sucks but a world run by Islamofacists sucks more."
One problem with the ISG report is that it drags the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the subject of Iraq. Israel has nothing to do with the internal rivalries of the groups in Iraq, the long-standing conflict between Sunni and Shiite, or the continued arming of terrorists in Iraq by Syria and Iran. The Israeli- Palestinian conflict is a totally different issue, and at his press conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair last week, President Bush explained – again – what is really going on in that conflict: [emphasis added]
What's important is for people to accept the goal of two states living side-by-side for peace. And what has changed in the Middle East is that Israel and Palestine -- at least the current leadership. . . accept that goal.
. . . One of the reasons why there hasn't been instant success is because radicals and extremists are trying to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. Why? Because democracy is a defeat for them. That's what I strongly believe. I find it interesting that when Prime Minister Olmert reaches out to Palestinians to discuss a way forward on the two state solution, Hezbollah attacks Israel. Why? Because radicals and extremists can't stand the thought of a democracy. And one of the great ironies is that people in the Middle East are working hard to prevent people in the Middle East from realizing the blessings of a free society in their democracy.
And so, no question progress has been spotty. But it's important for people to understand one of the reasons why is, is because radicals are trying to prevent it, and they're willing to kill innocent people to prevent progress. . . And now the fundamental question is, can we help the moderates prevail? And make no mistake about it, radicals and extremists will kill in order to stop the progress. And that's what's difficult. But it should be a signal to those of us who have got the comfort of liberty to understand the consequences of this ideological struggle we're fighting. One of the consequences is denial of a Palestinian state. This is ironic, isn't it -- I think it is, and it's sad.
2) A few blonde jokes :
Blonde took a ruler to bed to see how long she slept.
Blonde put a stamp on a fax.
Blonde tripped over a cordless phone.
Blonde watched can of orange juice for 20 minutes because it said concentrate.
Blonde thought if she spoke her mind she would be speechless.
Blonde thought she could not dial AM on her radio in the evening.
Blonde came to sign which said Airport Left and she turned around and went home.
3) Donald Rumsfeld: The Exit Interview
By Cal Thomas
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld leaves office Friday, Dec. 15 after six turbulent years of rebuilding the military for a post-Cold War era, while simultaneously overseeing service members he calls, "the best led, the best equipped, the best trained, the most capable... in the world." As we met in his office on the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, he was reflective about the past and worried about the future.
Rumsfeld regrets using the phrase "the war on terror": "I say that because the word 'war' conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes (like) a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way."
It's not a war on terror, he adds, because "Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control."
Rumsfeld believes much of the public still does not understand the intensity of the struggle. He says he hasn't read the entire Iraq Study Group Report, just the summary and news accounts, but has this take on the conflict: "I personally believe that the consequences of allowing the situation in Iraq to be turned over to terrorists would be so severe... because Iraq would become a haven to plan attacks on the moderate countries in the region and the United States. (It would) diminish the ability of the United States to provide protection for the American people."
Many commentators have tried to compare this war with World War II, or Vietnam. Rumsfeld, however, prefers the Cold War comparison because, like the Cold War "which lasted 50 years, you couldn't say (in the middle of it) whether you were winning or losing. There aren't straight and smooth paths. There are bumpy roads. It's difficult. The enemy has a brain. They're constantly making adjustments."
About opposition, Rumsfeld recalled a time, "when Euro-communism was in vogue and people were demonstrating by the millions against the United States, not against the Soviet Union. And yet, over time, people found the will - both political parties and Western European countries - to persist in a way that ultimately led to victory."
Rumsfeld's implication is clear: the same leftists who opposed U.S. strategy in standing against communism now stand in opposition to America's position against Islamofascism. If they were wrong about communism, might they also be wrong about today's enemy?
Rumsfeld reflected upon World War II, which, as a boy, he remembers as a time when the entire country got behind the effort. To critics, who have called for more troops in Iraq, he says, "(Such people) are often thinking World War II and the (former Defense Secretary Caspar) Weinberger Doctrine, which is valid in a conflict between armies, navies and air forces. The problem with it, in the context of a struggle against extremists, is that the greater your presence, the more it plays into extremist lies that you're there to take their oil, to occupy their nation, stay and not leave; that you're against Islam, as opposed to being against violent extremists."
His greatest concern is that the public is not sufficiently prepared mentally for another domestic terror attack. He says there are "two centers of gravity. One is in Iraq and the region; the other is here." The "here" to him centers on the way the media report the story and focus mainly on opposition to administration policies and not on the objectives of the enemy, who he describes this way: "They're deadly. They're not going to surrender. They're going to have to be captured or killed. They're going to have to be dissuaded (and) people are going to have to be dissuaded from supporting them, from financing them and assisting in their recruitment, providing havens for them."
"We're in an environment where we have to fight and win a war where the enemy is in countries we are not at war with," he says. "That is a very complicated thing to do. It doesn't happen fast. It means you have to invest the time, effort and ability."
Rumsfeld seems to agree with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that Iraqis and their government must ultimately run their own country. He likens it to an adult holding a child's bicycle seat for fear the child will fall: "You know if you don't (eventually) let go, you'll end up with a 40-year-old who can't ride a bike. Now that's not a happy prospect."
He'll consider writing a book about his experiences over many years in Washington and adds this about today's volunteer military: "when the uniform personnel look back five, 10, 15 years from now, they're going to know they've given these folks an opportunity to succeed in an environment that is not a repressive political system, but a free political system."
That legacy has yet to be determined. As with the Cold War, the end won't come on the watch of those presidents and defense secretaries who fought it. Donald Rumsfeld, a cold and hot warrior, understands the enemy. His principled stand against them will be proved right.
Dick
Monday, December 11, 2006
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Appeasement - not a sensible life jacket!
Nothing changes the chemistry of a relationship between two friends faster than the failure of either to perform according to expectations, written or otherwise. This is true in marriage, business, politics and diplomacy - life in general.
Olmert's failure, in Lebanon, altered Israel's relationship with the Bush administration in ways that are psychologically irredeemable. Olmert may or may not understand, though,I suspect he does. Publicly and politically Olmert feels compelled to maintain a position of denial. If nothing else, Lebanon made more acceptable the case argued by others that Israel's intransigence is the root cause of the Middle East's problems. Though Jimmy continues his buffoonery even the title of his new book, outrageous as it may be, adds support to this argument.(See 1 below.)
On the other hand, Bush's failed policies in Iraq and the loss of the election, for whatever reason, have now weakened him and allowed the Baker Group to enter the picture with their call to negotiate with our enemies. Beyond that nothing new was really proffered. Should we engage Iran and Syria, we will be doing so from a position of weakness and realistically must lower our expectations. In the process, the leverage we have over Israel becomes more meaningful and will, most likely be used as a bargaining chip.
The Baker Report clearly states we cannot continue to fight as we have been and adds we cannot win militarily in any case. The mood of the American public, whether intended to be or not, nourishes Baker's viewpoint. The fact that Baker's Group has said what it has, tends to make their case a fait accompli in today's media driven world. We shall never know, because the path of withdrawal has been determined as being our next directional course. The '08 election will only add emphasis and urgency.
GW's dismissal and departure of those upon whom he has relied and the downgraded influence of others who still remain has provided cracks in what had been an impenetrable support wall. Some would argue this is good because it allows the sunshine of those in disagreement - the so-called realists - to seep in while others would argue conversely they fear the policies of the so-called realists who are deemed - defeatists.
The road to Damascus has now been elevated and lighted as one of the key components to stabilize Iraq.
In order to bring Syria along two basic approaches are being debated:
A) Inform Assad he has one last chance to behave by renouncing and demonstrating, meaningfully, his withdrawal of support from Hezballah and Hamas and we, in turn, will support him with wider diplomatic recognition and aid and will press Israel to negotiate the return of Golan. If Assad fails to take the bait, we will inform him that we will isolate him politically and financially. Call this the velvet glove approach.
B) Strengthen Assad, whose leadership position is tenuous at best, be softer, more accommodative and stroke him. Call it the white dove approach.
Assad is no fool, understands the conundrum we are in and may decide his relationship with Iran is the better route. Factually, he already is in control of Lebanon and is capable of bringing down the government should he choose to press forward. Support of Hamas and Hezballah costs him some money but continues to weaken Israel and makes them more susceptible to negotiation.
Either way, since those seemingly gaining the upper hand - the realists - have linked Israel's conflict with the Palestinians as the bane of the problem, Israel stands to become the sacrificial lamb and the Golan could become one of Syria's negotiated prizes.
As for the Palestinians, statehood and return of more land, recognition of East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital will again be offered. The Palestinians can get most of what they want and still remain a threat to Israel because promises mean little in that region of the world and once our interests and diminished influence have moved elsewhere they most surely will mean less. Gaza is a good example. Land for peace brought Qassam rocket attacks and now, massive weapon smuggling.
Finally, Iran understands they, most likely, will achieve nuclear status by default, their influence in the region should rise while their threat to wipe Israel off the map should remain operative. Why, then, would Iran negotiate anything meaningful? Sec. Baker admitted, after being authorized by GW, that he proposed to Iran we hold a tete to tete but came away empty handed.
The bump in the orad with respect to seeking a resolution with the Palestinians is that Hezballah has again stated they want more, ie. the right of return and they remain unflinching in their unwillingness to recognize Israel etc. Perhaps pressure can be brought to alter Hamas' posture but it would be an act of forcing a horse to reluctantly drink and most agreements reached on that basis usually deteriorate once the parties have left the area of the stream. Furthermore, is this the case when the parties applying the pressure do so more from weakness than strength. (Baker should know about this for that is part of his own diplomatic legacy.)
Meanwhile, Israel stand the risk of being downgraded as a supported/supportable democracy, its relationship with America will become more tenuous in terms of our nation's willingness and/or ability to influence matters in the region. Israel's capability to effectively defend itself, which is already highly suspect in my opinion in the event of an all out and co-ordinated attack on it by Iran, Hezballah and Hamas, will be further degraded.
The entire picture, as of the moment, looks increasingly bleak and the pronouncements by the "realists" have added little by way of a solution. If a military option is unrealistic in Iraq and against Iran , negotiations with Syria and Iran are unlikely to produce anything meaningful, we will not have the time to stabilize Iraq even if doable and the ticking of the '08 elections begin driving decisions as it gets louder; one might conclude it is time to get out the forks and prepare to eat crow again. As for Israel, they have already been forewarned by the incoming Sec. of Defense, they are on their own in terms of Iran's nuclear status.
A pretty sad state of affairs that did not have to be but GW tried to swim upstream, made mistakes along the way and the tide of "aginners" grew and grew and grew. One day the tide will engulf them too because appeasement is not a sensible life jacket. Chamberlain tried it and the struts on his umbrella were crushed by German tanks.
In (1) below, Jonathan Tobin tries to explain why Republicans thought they had captured the Jewish vote when Carter was seeking a second term. Tobin also tries to understand Carter's antipathy towards Israel.
I am no psychiatrist but no doubt, as Tobin points out, Jimmy still smarts from the anti-Carter vote when he sought re-election. Carter, by his own admission in his first book, is a mean spirited, get even type personality.
I also believe, Carter does not cotton to those who are willing to be strong. He may be a strong willed person but he projects a rather pathetic and weak persona. I remember the picture of him on his knees exhausted after a jog in Germany about the time of the Iranian Embassy takeover.
Furthermore, as a result of his bible education, I believe he casts himself in the role of the lamb and, as a result of his lost presidential effort, aligns himself with the Palestinians as a victim. A victim of circumstances beyond his control. Carter sees Israel as the lion, as the nation that has consistently defeated its attackers. But a nation that accomplishes this goal, even against all odds, also runs the risk of those they defeat, over time, being morphed into victims. The Palestinians have become expert at portraying themselves as victims. Victims of everyone and everything but never their own cupidity, intransigence, stupidity in following the leadership they have consistently chosen and their tragic story goes on and on. Carter was a victim of an Iranian takeover. The foundation of which he, no doubt, believes was laid by his predecessor.
But why should Palestinians change since it has brought their leaders untold riches and financial support, world recognition beyond their numbered importance and a West, always willing to pull their chestnuts out of the fire? Meanwhile the Palestinian family in the street is the real loser but for some inexplicable reason they seem to relish seeing their own children blow themselves up in the senseless glory of killing Israelis. Perhaps Carter and the Palestinians are driven by something stronger than love - self-deceit
Blaming Israel for the plight of the pitiful Palestinians and Jewish voters who overwhelmingly shifted their temporary allegiance to the Republicans and thereby, helped defeat him, is a thinly disguised attempt to even the score. Nobel Winners can also be losers for in the final analysis they too are human and have frailties. Don't we all.
Dick
1) What's the Matter with Jimmy?
By Jonathan Tobin
Coming to grips with the 39th president's malevolent obsession with Israel
Only a few weeks ago, American Jews proved once again that they are, next to African-Americans, the most loyal constituency that the Democratic party can claim.
As the last few elections have illustrated, despite the efforts of Republicans to highlight their support of Israel, as well as their foes' shortcomings, the huge majorities Jews give the Democrats are only marginally effected by such advocacy.
But the GOP never gives up, in part because they know that within their living memory, there was one national election in which such appeals actually did succeed.
The year was 1980, and in that pivotal contest Ronald Reagan achieved nearly 40 percent of the Jewish vote. Like a sacred home-run record, the number teases the Republicans engendering hopes that are dashed every time they try to equal it.
But after all this time, during which the predicted swing to the Republicans never happened, maybe we have been posing the wrong question about Reagan's record. Instead of asking what prevents a repeat of 1980 for the Republicans, we should instead be pondering what extraordinary catastrophe afflicted Democrats in that one year?
The answer can be summed up in just two words: Jimmy Carter.
Despite presiding over a ceremony celebrating Israel's first peace treaty with a neighboring Arab country, it was antipathy to the sage of Plains, Ga., more than any passing affection for Reagan that determined the Jewish vote in 1980. And there is little doubt that the widespread perception of his hostility toward Israel was decisive in creating a Jewish swing vote that has never been replicated in a national election. The Democrats' magic formula for success since then is simple: Keep Carter off the ballot.
Rejected in his bid for re-election, Carter has been forced to settle for the unofficial title of the most self-righteous man in America. Through good deeds, such as his championing of causes like Habitat for Humanity, and his relentless and often shameless pursuit of publicity on human rights and democracy controversies around the globe, Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize. This gives him a permanent platform from which to pontificate on any and all subjects in his typically sanctimonious manner.
Yet though his interests may span the globe, there is one to which he has returned over and over again: the Middle East and Israel's conflict with the Arabs. And what he has been increasingly preaching lately is a scathing indictment of Israel as an oppressive "apartheid" state.
The latest reminder of this pre-eminent theme of Carter's post-presidential career is a new book titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, in which he sets forth his thesis of Israeli perfidy.
While the titles of some books are misleading, Carter's is not. He actually attempts to make a case that a democratic Israel, whose Jewish majority has never been given a moment's peace from the day of its birth 58 years ago, is analogous to the oppressive white minority that ruled South Africa.
It is a charge so preposterous, and so lacking in reason or sense, that were this the work of any ordinary American it would not likely be given a hearing outside of the fever swamps of the far right or left, where anti-Zionist minorities dwell.
Instead, the book is being promoted on a national tour during which the ex-president has been interviewed on virtually every major national news program, and given a treatment that can only be described as presidential. Indeed, on NBC's "Meet the Press" where the normally fair-minded Tim Russert usually manages to put the leaders of both parties on the defensive, Carter's slander of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans who love Israel as an all-powerful "lobby" determined to squelch all dissent went unchallenged.
As for the content of the book, it's part memoir and part half-baked history. As many reviewers have already noted (most notably, Alan Dershowitz in the Forward), it is a collection of distortions, errata and falsehoods that would fill a small volume itself.
They add up to an account that disregards Jewish rights to the land, dismisses consistent Jewish acceptance of compromises, ignores a century of Palestinian terrorism and mischaracterizes the persistent Arab rejection of Jewish statehood. The conflict for him is one long account of Israeli violence and Palestinian suffering. For him, the Jews can do virtually no right and the Palestinians no wrong. Since Arab terror doesn't register in Carter's brain, Israeli self-defense can be put down as "oppression."
This Orwellian compendium of slander aimed at Israel is punctuated by accounts of Carter's own involvement in diplomacy and visits to the area.
The book is revealing in one respect. For all of his supposed love for humanity, it appears the Israelis are the one exception to his famous religious goodwill. Though Carter praises the murderous Syrian dictator Hafez Assad and Palestinian arch-terrorist (and fellow Nobel winner) Yasser Arafat, he simply loathes almost every Israeli he meets. And he isn't shy about noting instances in which they have committed the gravest of sins: ignoring his advice.
For instance, he describes in detail a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin after Carter had left office. Forced by protocol to receive the ex-president, Carter admits that he then subjected the Israeli (whom he obviously despised) to a lecture about his shortcomings. Carter expected Begin, who had been the victim of previous such lectures during the Georgian's presidency, to debate him as he had in the past. Instead, the wily Israeli simply listened politely, and then made it clear that the meeting was over. Decades later, Begin's courteous dismissal of Carter's ill-informed tirade apparently still stings.
A perplexed Dershowitz wonders what would lead "a decent man" to write such a manifestly false book? While I'm not as convinced of Carter's decency as Dershowitz, it's a good question that deserves more scrutiny than the book itself.
I don't know the complete answer, but it is clear from his book that the former president bitterly resents the Israelis lack of acceptance of his ideas. Their stubborn refusal to sell their own survival short has bred in him an anger that seems to grow with every passing year.
And perhaps he also harbors a grudge against American friends of Israel whose votes helped sink his presidency. Indeed, Republicans still use Carter as a symbol of Democratic perfidy, even though most mainstream Democrats have disavowed his crusade against Israel. He remains a symbol of what may happen should their party ever truly betray its Jewish supporters.
But what Israel's friends in both parties cannot afford to do is to give him a pass for this latest outrage. No past good deeds or the intrinsic respect we all hold anyone who has served as president should prevent us from labeling him as the liar and hater that he has become.
Dick
Olmert's failure, in Lebanon, altered Israel's relationship with the Bush administration in ways that are psychologically irredeemable. Olmert may or may not understand, though,I suspect he does. Publicly and politically Olmert feels compelled to maintain a position of denial. If nothing else, Lebanon made more acceptable the case argued by others that Israel's intransigence is the root cause of the Middle East's problems. Though Jimmy continues his buffoonery even the title of his new book, outrageous as it may be, adds support to this argument.(See 1 below.)
On the other hand, Bush's failed policies in Iraq and the loss of the election, for whatever reason, have now weakened him and allowed the Baker Group to enter the picture with their call to negotiate with our enemies. Beyond that nothing new was really proffered. Should we engage Iran and Syria, we will be doing so from a position of weakness and realistically must lower our expectations. In the process, the leverage we have over Israel becomes more meaningful and will, most likely be used as a bargaining chip.
The Baker Report clearly states we cannot continue to fight as we have been and adds we cannot win militarily in any case. The mood of the American public, whether intended to be or not, nourishes Baker's viewpoint. The fact that Baker's Group has said what it has, tends to make their case a fait accompli in today's media driven world. We shall never know, because the path of withdrawal has been determined as being our next directional course. The '08 election will only add emphasis and urgency.
GW's dismissal and departure of those upon whom he has relied and the downgraded influence of others who still remain has provided cracks in what had been an impenetrable support wall. Some would argue this is good because it allows the sunshine of those in disagreement - the so-called realists - to seep in while others would argue conversely they fear the policies of the so-called realists who are deemed - defeatists.
The road to Damascus has now been elevated and lighted as one of the key components to stabilize Iraq.
In order to bring Syria along two basic approaches are being debated:
A) Inform Assad he has one last chance to behave by renouncing and demonstrating, meaningfully, his withdrawal of support from Hezballah and Hamas and we, in turn, will support him with wider diplomatic recognition and aid and will press Israel to negotiate the return of Golan. If Assad fails to take the bait, we will inform him that we will isolate him politically and financially. Call this the velvet glove approach.
B) Strengthen Assad, whose leadership position is tenuous at best, be softer, more accommodative and stroke him. Call it the white dove approach.
Assad is no fool, understands the conundrum we are in and may decide his relationship with Iran is the better route. Factually, he already is in control of Lebanon and is capable of bringing down the government should he choose to press forward. Support of Hamas and Hezballah costs him some money but continues to weaken Israel and makes them more susceptible to negotiation.
Either way, since those seemingly gaining the upper hand - the realists - have linked Israel's conflict with the Palestinians as the bane of the problem, Israel stands to become the sacrificial lamb and the Golan could become one of Syria's negotiated prizes.
As for the Palestinians, statehood and return of more land, recognition of East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital will again be offered. The Palestinians can get most of what they want and still remain a threat to Israel because promises mean little in that region of the world and once our interests and diminished influence have moved elsewhere they most surely will mean less. Gaza is a good example. Land for peace brought Qassam rocket attacks and now, massive weapon smuggling.
Finally, Iran understands they, most likely, will achieve nuclear status by default, their influence in the region should rise while their threat to wipe Israel off the map should remain operative. Why, then, would Iran negotiate anything meaningful? Sec. Baker admitted, after being authorized by GW, that he proposed to Iran we hold a tete to tete but came away empty handed.
The bump in the orad with respect to seeking a resolution with the Palestinians is that Hezballah has again stated they want more, ie. the right of return and they remain unflinching in their unwillingness to recognize Israel etc. Perhaps pressure can be brought to alter Hamas' posture but it would be an act of forcing a horse to reluctantly drink and most agreements reached on that basis usually deteriorate once the parties have left the area of the stream. Furthermore, is this the case when the parties applying the pressure do so more from weakness than strength. (Baker should know about this for that is part of his own diplomatic legacy.)
Meanwhile, Israel stand the risk of being downgraded as a supported/supportable democracy, its relationship with America will become more tenuous in terms of our nation's willingness and/or ability to influence matters in the region. Israel's capability to effectively defend itself, which is already highly suspect in my opinion in the event of an all out and co-ordinated attack on it by Iran, Hezballah and Hamas, will be further degraded.
The entire picture, as of the moment, looks increasingly bleak and the pronouncements by the "realists" have added little by way of a solution. If a military option is unrealistic in Iraq and against Iran , negotiations with Syria and Iran are unlikely to produce anything meaningful, we will not have the time to stabilize Iraq even if doable and the ticking of the '08 elections begin driving decisions as it gets louder; one might conclude it is time to get out the forks and prepare to eat crow again. As for Israel, they have already been forewarned by the incoming Sec. of Defense, they are on their own in terms of Iran's nuclear status.
A pretty sad state of affairs that did not have to be but GW tried to swim upstream, made mistakes along the way and the tide of "aginners" grew and grew and grew. One day the tide will engulf them too because appeasement is not a sensible life jacket. Chamberlain tried it and the struts on his umbrella were crushed by German tanks.
In (1) below, Jonathan Tobin tries to explain why Republicans thought they had captured the Jewish vote when Carter was seeking a second term. Tobin also tries to understand Carter's antipathy towards Israel.
I am no psychiatrist but no doubt, as Tobin points out, Jimmy still smarts from the anti-Carter vote when he sought re-election. Carter, by his own admission in his first book, is a mean spirited, get even type personality.
I also believe, Carter does not cotton to those who are willing to be strong. He may be a strong willed person but he projects a rather pathetic and weak persona. I remember the picture of him on his knees exhausted after a jog in Germany about the time of the Iranian Embassy takeover.
Furthermore, as a result of his bible education, I believe he casts himself in the role of the lamb and, as a result of his lost presidential effort, aligns himself with the Palestinians as a victim. A victim of circumstances beyond his control. Carter sees Israel as the lion, as the nation that has consistently defeated its attackers. But a nation that accomplishes this goal, even against all odds, also runs the risk of those they defeat, over time, being morphed into victims. The Palestinians have become expert at portraying themselves as victims. Victims of everyone and everything but never their own cupidity, intransigence, stupidity in following the leadership they have consistently chosen and their tragic story goes on and on. Carter was a victim of an Iranian takeover. The foundation of which he, no doubt, believes was laid by his predecessor.
But why should Palestinians change since it has brought their leaders untold riches and financial support, world recognition beyond their numbered importance and a West, always willing to pull their chestnuts out of the fire? Meanwhile the Palestinian family in the street is the real loser but for some inexplicable reason they seem to relish seeing their own children blow themselves up in the senseless glory of killing Israelis. Perhaps Carter and the Palestinians are driven by something stronger than love - self-deceit
Blaming Israel for the plight of the pitiful Palestinians and Jewish voters who overwhelmingly shifted their temporary allegiance to the Republicans and thereby, helped defeat him, is a thinly disguised attempt to even the score. Nobel Winners can also be losers for in the final analysis they too are human and have frailties. Don't we all.
Dick
1) What's the Matter with Jimmy?
By Jonathan Tobin
Coming to grips with the 39th president's malevolent obsession with Israel
Only a few weeks ago, American Jews proved once again that they are, next to African-Americans, the most loyal constituency that the Democratic party can claim.
As the last few elections have illustrated, despite the efforts of Republicans to highlight their support of Israel, as well as their foes' shortcomings, the huge majorities Jews give the Democrats are only marginally effected by such advocacy.
But the GOP never gives up, in part because they know that within their living memory, there was one national election in which such appeals actually did succeed.
The year was 1980, and in that pivotal contest Ronald Reagan achieved nearly 40 percent of the Jewish vote. Like a sacred home-run record, the number teases the Republicans engendering hopes that are dashed every time they try to equal it.
But after all this time, during which the predicted swing to the Republicans never happened, maybe we have been posing the wrong question about Reagan's record. Instead of asking what prevents a repeat of 1980 for the Republicans, we should instead be pondering what extraordinary catastrophe afflicted Democrats in that one year?
The answer can be summed up in just two words: Jimmy Carter.
Despite presiding over a ceremony celebrating Israel's first peace treaty with a neighboring Arab country, it was antipathy to the sage of Plains, Ga., more than any passing affection for Reagan that determined the Jewish vote in 1980. And there is little doubt that the widespread perception of his hostility toward Israel was decisive in creating a Jewish swing vote that has never been replicated in a national election. The Democrats' magic formula for success since then is simple: Keep Carter off the ballot.
Rejected in his bid for re-election, Carter has been forced to settle for the unofficial title of the most self-righteous man in America. Through good deeds, such as his championing of causes like Habitat for Humanity, and his relentless and often shameless pursuit of publicity on human rights and democracy controversies around the globe, Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize. This gives him a permanent platform from which to pontificate on any and all subjects in his typically sanctimonious manner.
Yet though his interests may span the globe, there is one to which he has returned over and over again: the Middle East and Israel's conflict with the Arabs. And what he has been increasingly preaching lately is a scathing indictment of Israel as an oppressive "apartheid" state.
The latest reminder of this pre-eminent theme of Carter's post-presidential career is a new book titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, in which he sets forth his thesis of Israeli perfidy.
While the titles of some books are misleading, Carter's is not. He actually attempts to make a case that a democratic Israel, whose Jewish majority has never been given a moment's peace from the day of its birth 58 years ago, is analogous to the oppressive white minority that ruled South Africa.
It is a charge so preposterous, and so lacking in reason or sense, that were this the work of any ordinary American it would not likely be given a hearing outside of the fever swamps of the far right or left, where anti-Zionist minorities dwell.
Instead, the book is being promoted on a national tour during which the ex-president has been interviewed on virtually every major national news program, and given a treatment that can only be described as presidential. Indeed, on NBC's "Meet the Press" where the normally fair-minded Tim Russert usually manages to put the leaders of both parties on the defensive, Carter's slander of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans who love Israel as an all-powerful "lobby" determined to squelch all dissent went unchallenged.
As for the content of the book, it's part memoir and part half-baked history. As many reviewers have already noted (most notably, Alan Dershowitz in the Forward), it is a collection of distortions, errata and falsehoods that would fill a small volume itself.
They add up to an account that disregards Jewish rights to the land, dismisses consistent Jewish acceptance of compromises, ignores a century of Palestinian terrorism and mischaracterizes the persistent Arab rejection of Jewish statehood. The conflict for him is one long account of Israeli violence and Palestinian suffering. For him, the Jews can do virtually no right and the Palestinians no wrong. Since Arab terror doesn't register in Carter's brain, Israeli self-defense can be put down as "oppression."
This Orwellian compendium of slander aimed at Israel is punctuated by accounts of Carter's own involvement in diplomacy and visits to the area.
The book is revealing in one respect. For all of his supposed love for humanity, it appears the Israelis are the one exception to his famous religious goodwill. Though Carter praises the murderous Syrian dictator Hafez Assad and Palestinian arch-terrorist (and fellow Nobel winner) Yasser Arafat, he simply loathes almost every Israeli he meets. And he isn't shy about noting instances in which they have committed the gravest of sins: ignoring his advice.
For instance, he describes in detail a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin after Carter had left office. Forced by protocol to receive the ex-president, Carter admits that he then subjected the Israeli (whom he obviously despised) to a lecture about his shortcomings. Carter expected Begin, who had been the victim of previous such lectures during the Georgian's presidency, to debate him as he had in the past. Instead, the wily Israeli simply listened politely, and then made it clear that the meeting was over. Decades later, Begin's courteous dismissal of Carter's ill-informed tirade apparently still stings.
A perplexed Dershowitz wonders what would lead "a decent man" to write such a manifestly false book? While I'm not as convinced of Carter's decency as Dershowitz, it's a good question that deserves more scrutiny than the book itself.
I don't know the complete answer, but it is clear from his book that the former president bitterly resents the Israelis lack of acceptance of his ideas. Their stubborn refusal to sell their own survival short has bred in him an anger that seems to grow with every passing year.
And perhaps he also harbors a grudge against American friends of Israel whose votes helped sink his presidency. Indeed, Republicans still use Carter as a symbol of Democratic perfidy, even though most mainstream Democrats have disavowed his crusade against Israel. He remains a symbol of what may happen should their party ever truly betray its Jewish supporters.
But what Israel's friends in both parties cannot afford to do is to give him a pass for this latest outrage. No past good deeds or the intrinsic respect we all hold anyone who has served as president should prevent us from labeling him as the liar and hater that he has become.
Dick
Friday, December 8, 2006
Post it on the refrigerator and drive your kids nuts!
My friend, Elliot Chodoff, has agreed to talk to our community and will be our lead-off speaker Jan 28, '07. (See 1 below.)
The 12/8/'06 WSJ, has an op ed written by Shelby Steele, entitled: "Our Unceasing Ambivalence." It is outstanding and is one of the most lucid explanation of why, as I have maintained, we have become too PC to win.
In his piece, Steele begins by pointing out how far we have drifted from what the definition of victory means. As I have said many times, relativism has made mush of our moral values, our education system and just about everything it touches. In my world, one and one still makes two and not some relative figure approximating it and yes, there are times when there should be no discussion about what is right and wrong.
Steele goes on to describe the "confusing" consequences of our being the only dominant world power and our inability to come to grips with its implications. He points out third world non-aligned powers were able to play the game of ingenue during the Cold War, as they eventually aligned with whatever power offered them the most financial support etc.. When the Cold War ended, some Islamic nations felt they had lost their leverage and their reduced status relegated them to a position of "invisibility." Feeling they had fallen out of history's path some of these nations got back into the game of "relevance" by embracing the ideology of "menace." Steel writes: "Worse than evil is invisibility."
Consequently, we are at war against menace not Islam and this makes bargaining inevitable. (Thus, the conclusive demand of the Baker Group to negotiate with Iran and Syria - my comment.)
As a sole superpower, Steele suggests, we view our sacrifice through the prism of our responsibility because our survival as a nation is not threatened. (Although in my view, eventually we will come to realize it is - again, my comment.) He supports his argument by stating, only a reluctant superpower would enter a fray with a commitment to fight until they can escape and talk of "draw downs and redeployment."
In Iraq we rushed to war to save its people from the radical Islamic menace but because of our ambivalence in the way we have fought and now the growing possibility of leaving before accomplishing our objective, we could actually make "paper tiger" enemies more formidable.
In a side op ed piece, Daniel Henninger writes with the '08 election looming on the horizon the view of defeating the enemy at home may become more important than defeating the enemy abroad. Henninger is suggesting, Democrats understand they would benefit should the Iraq albatross remain around the Republican's neck through the '08 election. Republicans , seeking to retain the White House, might well be driven more by that desire than the cost and demands of defeating terrorism.
Certainly, one cannot deny, '08 politics will drive decisions and that is no way to fight a war, particularly an increasingly unpopular one that seems to be going nowhere in terms of meeting our pronounced objective.
As a parent, can you imagine the impact on your children if you posted a family and neighborhood poll pertaining to their behaviour on the home refrigerator each day. That is how our media driven , short term focused society now drives our political initiatives and that is why we have become too PC to win until it will probably be too late.
And, some equally insightful comments by Rosner. (See 2 below.)
Dick
1) Cease Fire: Until a Child is Killed
By Elliot Chodoff
The cease fire arranged last week between Israel and the Palestinians is, in the eyes of the media and the Israeli government, holding. If one ignores the 15 kassam rockets fired by the Palestinians since the cease fire went into effect, this has been a quiet week. At least nobody has been killed.
That the cease fire is only a temporary pause in the fighting is known to all the players in this tragedy. Hamas, whose leader, PA Prime Minister Haniyeh told an audience in Teheran this week that his organization will never recognize Israel or its “usurper Zionist government” nor will it accept agreements made with “the Zionist enemy in the past.” He promised that Hamas will continue to fight on for the liberation of Jerusalem.
On the Israeli side, the security forces, led by the IDF and other arms, have vehemently opposed the cease fire, knowing that its only purpose is to provide a respite for the terrorist organizations to recover from the blows inflicted on them during IDF operations in the past months. The lull has permitted the terrorists to reorganize and replenish their arsenals, and to acquire new weapons and munitions, smuggled across the Egyptian border into Gaza.
Also, as anticipated, the terrorists are preparing the ground in Gaza for war. As the IDF painfully learned this past summer in Lebanon, allowing an enemy to prepare fighting positions and to dig in properly in preparation for battle raises the cost of the subsequent fighting. Daily, the IDF watches across the line as the sworn enemies of Israel, who have sworn to wipe it off the map, prepare for war.
So why is the government refusing to act and how long will the situation hold? The answer to the first question is simple: the Israeli government would prefer to have some international support when it is forced to send troops into what is likely to be an extremely bloody battle in Gaza against the terrorists there. Israel’s political leadership is well aware that the Europeans (and the new Baker team in American foreign policy as well) will take a dim view of any military offensive against the terrorists unless it is justified first by the loss of Israeli lives. Maybe.
In the meantime, having been burned by their abysmal decision making in the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon, they would prefer to defer the decision for as long as possible. After all Chanukkah is around the corner, and miracles can always happen.
The answer to the second question is equally simple: when the first kassam rocket hits a playground or kindergarten filled with children, and kills at least one of them. We consider this “policy” by the Israeli leadership both morally corrupt and contrary to every principle of statehood. If the state does not exist to provide security to its citizens, it will lose legitimacy sooner rather than later, as Israel’s current leaders already have as a result of their blatant absence of vision and responsibility.
2) Baker's brew
By Shmuel Rosner
WASHINGTON - U.S. forces are deployed today in 150 countries, out of 193. That is an instructive statistic that was mentioned this week by a U.S. official who wanted to assess the possible influence of the Baker-Hamilton Commission on American policy. "So at most, we'll leave one of them," he said with a somewhat bitter smile. He knows, everyone knows that in the end the U.S. will leave Iraq, bruised and battered. Unless President George W. Bush decides otherwise.
"Our president," remarked that same official, has already proven in the past that he "is made of tough stuff." He has not always fulfilled the expectations of journalists and other people in the know.
Bush is seeing Baker's smile and it drives him crazy, said an acquaintance of the president. Don't believe the nice words, the polite smiles, nor the longstanding relationship between Baker and Bush's father, whom Baker accompanied as early as the 1980 presidential race when Bush Sr. lost to Ronald Reagan.
Advertisement
"Bush doesn't like it when people tell him what to do," said the acquaintance. "Anyone who wants to have an influence has to whisper quietly into his ear, not humiliate him in public; look at [Vice President] Dick Cheney."
And truth be told, what happened to Bush this week was no less than a made-for TV humiliation. You failed, the commission composed of Baker, Hamilton and the other members told the president. This is what has to be done in order to get out, if that's even possible. And they also said: You have no choice - adopt all the conclusions. If this commission made one mistake, it lies in this paragraph, and in the fact that it made no fewer than 79 recommendations.
Had it made only four recommendations, and Bush had rejected two, he would have been harshly criticized for rejecting half the recommendations. If he rejects 39 out of what there is now, he can still claim that he carried out 40 recommendations, a considerable number.
The Middle East. A mission
The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission can be weighed on all sorts of scales, and opinion is also divided regarding Baker himself. "I don't think he's against Israel," said a senior Israeli official who has met Baker quite a number of times. "It's clear that Baker had it in for Israel," said another official of the same rank, in the same government ministry.
Anyone who rummages through Baker's history will find him that at several junctures, he acted against the Israeli government. But the question remains: Is it Israel that he doesn't like, or is the policy of the governments against which he acted. Baker was one of the main figures who urged Ronald Reagan to insist on selling the AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s. He also had a good reason: Then prime minister Menachem Begin had leveled public criticism, in Washington, against the transaction that the president wanted. In a power struggle of this type, Baker thought, Reagan should not be allowed to lose.
The more familiar conflict, the one with the Yitzhak Shamir government over the settlements and the loan guarantees, is also not difficult to explain. And regarding the famous expletive, "F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway," this was blown out of proportion. Aggressive people like Baker sometimes say things behind closed doors that do not accord with the rules of good manners and ceremony.
But a tradition is already developing. Baker always has good reasons, but he will always be found on the other side of the intersection. He was looking for Iraq and found Israel. He could have chosen differently, since if tomorrow a lasting peace should prevail between Israel and the Palestinians, the U.S. forces would still be stuck under terrorist fire in Iraq.
But the issue raised by Baker in the report for whose content he is chiefly responsible, and in which he is the conductor and the player on most of the instruments, does in fact deserve an examination - and then a reexamination. The Bush administration will not be the first to deliberate over it. To what extent is the Israeli-Arab conflict central to the Middle Eastern imbroglio?
In discussions conducted by senior administration officials in Arab capitals, even in recent weeks, they heard the old familiar refrain: Take care of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demonstrate involvement, promote the handling of it. Some of them believe that the time has really come to act - or at least to look as though they are trying to do more. Two days ago, when the report was published, the names of potential "envoys" were once again tossed into the air, experienced "mediators" who will embark on flying visits among capitals and leaders. Most of the suggestions are unrealistic. That is the way to create an atmosphere of progress, even if it isn't very useful. Perhaps Baker himself? Perhaps Colin Powell? Perhaps Bill Clinton?
Baker would probably be glad to accept this job, but it is doubtful whether U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would agree to something that would turn her from a bellwether into an apprentice. Powell, as was already proved when he served as Secretary of State, and as an Israeli who worked with him a great deal remarks, "doesn't understand a thing about the Middle East."
And what about Clinton? A U.S. State Department official who was asked about it burst out laughing. First of all, he does not believe that Bush would appoint his predecessor. Second, he doesn't think that Hillary Clinton will allow her husband to take such a sensitive job on the eve of presidential elections in which she plans to run. And moreover, the official asked, "Isn't Clinton the guy who already mediated and failed?"
The White House. Ranking
This is not the first time that James Baker is urging an American president to withdraw U.S. forces from a Middle Eastern country. In 1983, after 240 U.S. Marines were killed in a lethal explosion in Lebanon, he was among the leaders of those urging Ronald Reagan to fold up the flag and withdraw. Secretary of State George Schultz and Reagan himself were opposed. But the coalition they were facing, including Baker, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and members of Congress, had the upper hand in the end.
Reagan, like George W. Bush today, considered such withdrawal a capitulation to terror - but was forced to accept reality. The pill was sweetened by the victory of the Americans in Grenada, which managed to sweep away the harsh impression left by events in the Middle East, and gave Reagan smooth sailing toward the 1984 presidential elections, without being haunted by the ghosts of those killed in Lebanon.
"In hindsight," wrote Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon, "this withdrawal seems inevitable." Perhaps people will write the same in the future about the difficult decisions Bush will be making in the coming months. Cannon himself this week was mentioned in an article by another historian, Douglas Brinkley, the one who wrote the history of Jimmy Carter's presidency - one of five historians who tried to predict for The Washington Post "What will history say?" about Bush. An ambitious and somewhat silly assignment.
Brinkley, the abovementioned historian, wrote in his article about a dinner with Cannon, during which they talked about Bush. Cannon warned him about making a premature judgment. What if Osama bin Laden is suddenly caught? What if North Korea suddenly decides to abandon its nuclear program? Brinkley, like most of his colleagues who participated in the newspaper project, was nevertheless unable to resist the temptation. Bush, he wrote, reminds him of Herbert Hoover, who did not react as he should have to the profound economic recession that paralyzed America in the early 1930s.
What's the connection? Hoover did too little after the recession, Bush did too much after 9/11. At least that's what Brinkley thinks.
The Saban Center. A seminar
Anyone who wants to count the blows absorbed by Israel this week in Washington has to begin with the resignation of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. That was only a few days ago, and already ages ago. Since then - the hearing of the incoming Secretary of Defense, who cannot promise Israel that Iran will not attack, followed by the Baker-Hamilton report that presents Israel as more of a problem than a partner.
A group of influential Israelis and Americans will be participating, starting today, in the annual forum of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which this year is discussing "America and Israel Confronting a Middle East in Turmoil." Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni will address the forum, as will Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman and chief of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin. But the real stars will be Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In spite of the increasing talk and the somewhat childish enthusiasm about the possibility that rising star Senator Barack Obama will decide to run for the Democratic nomination as well, Hillary Clinton continues for the time being to lead confidently among her party's electorate, and she is also closing the gap against leading Republican candidate John McCain in the general surveys. However, she is still far from victory, and every joint appearance with her husband only emphasizes the difficulties awaiting her.
Chuck Todd, editor of The Hotline (Washington's daily news briefing on U.S. politics) wrote about Clinton's chances last week in a skeptical tone, comparing her and her husband to the legendary baseball player Joe DiMaggio and his brother, Dom DiMaggio, also an outstanding player, who didn't succeed in entering the Baseball Hall of Fame mainly because his brother's shadow clouded his achievements.
The panel in which Hillary Clinton will participate, "U.S. Strategy in the Middle East: What Works, What Doesn't," is of particular importance mainly in light of the Baker-Hamilton report and its recommendations, which return U.S. policy to the days of Madrid-style regional summits and talks with anyone possible. If Clinton thinks that a regional summit is a good idea, maybe she will try to implement it in the future. By doing so she will be presenting a position that differs from that of the new Israeli ambassador Sallai Meridor - and of the Israeli government, which this week decided that the bilateral route is the proper one for those who are "serious" about the peace process.
The Washington Institute. An ambassador
The story about the meeting of former Israeli ambassador David Ivry with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California has already become a legend. The events of recent weeks restored Ivry to life for two reasons: first, Pelosi has become the senior Democratic legislator de facto, and is about to become the first woman to head the U.S. House of Representatives. And second, the new Israeli ambassador, Meridor, reported for work in Washington. Anyone looking for ways to compare him with his predecessors always begins with a story about Ivry - from there, everything becomes much clearer.
Ivry came to Washington with an invincible background: commander of the Israel Air Force, deputy chief of staff, director general of the Defense Ministry. "The ultimate emissary to the Pentagon," snickered a former senior official in the U.S. administration this week. Here, Ivry is not considered a model of tremendous success as an ambassador. And here is the story about Ivry and Pelosi, a liberal legislator from the West Coast.
Pelosi invited Ivry to her office for a meeting, or maybe he invited himself. Before they began to discuss current issues, they spent a minute on the usual small talk. Pelosi pointed to the wall, to show Ivry the picture hanging there. A difficult picture. The Chinese demonstrators of Tiananmen Square, and the tanks approaching them on their way to the brutal crushing of one of the most important demonstrations of the 20th century.
Ivry glanced at the picture, and as a veteran military man who had difficulty overcoming an old habit, uttered only one short sentence, which left Pelosi in shock: "That's a T-72."
Meridor will probably not experience such mishaps. He is more polished, more communicative than Ivry. This week, at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, he successfully got through his first public appearance. Afterward, some of the audience stood around trying to guess what kind of an ambassador he will be. Following is a selection of diagnoses we heard from them: He may be less "nice" than his predecessor, Danny Ayalon, and it's not certain that he will excel at the "CNN test" like him, but he will be better than Ayalon in discussions with senior administration officials, who will listen to his assessments seriously. Someone suggested that Meridor would be an ambassador in the style of Itamar Rabinovich - a fluent if not outstanding speaker, and a respected statesman. That is an interesting possibility, which depends on one unknown that has still not been made clear: Rabinovich had a real portfolio, and received exceptional powers from then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. He also worked with the Clinton administration, whose relations with Rabin were among the closest ever between a U.S. president and an Israeli prime minister - perhaps the closest. (The stories about the wonderful friendship between former prime minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush are no more than a popular legend for natives and friends.)
Meridor is dependent more than anything else on how Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wants to conduct his relations with Washington, and how Washington wants to conduct its relations with Israel. This week it was the second question that was the greater unknown.
Dick
The 12/8/'06 WSJ, has an op ed written by Shelby Steele, entitled: "Our Unceasing Ambivalence." It is outstanding and is one of the most lucid explanation of why, as I have maintained, we have become too PC to win.
In his piece, Steele begins by pointing out how far we have drifted from what the definition of victory means. As I have said many times, relativism has made mush of our moral values, our education system and just about everything it touches. In my world, one and one still makes two and not some relative figure approximating it and yes, there are times when there should be no discussion about what is right and wrong.
Steele goes on to describe the "confusing" consequences of our being the only dominant world power and our inability to come to grips with its implications. He points out third world non-aligned powers were able to play the game of ingenue during the Cold War, as they eventually aligned with whatever power offered them the most financial support etc.. When the Cold War ended, some Islamic nations felt they had lost their leverage and their reduced status relegated them to a position of "invisibility." Feeling they had fallen out of history's path some of these nations got back into the game of "relevance" by embracing the ideology of "menace." Steel writes: "Worse than evil is invisibility."
Consequently, we are at war against menace not Islam and this makes bargaining inevitable. (Thus, the conclusive demand of the Baker Group to negotiate with Iran and Syria - my comment.)
As a sole superpower, Steele suggests, we view our sacrifice through the prism of our responsibility because our survival as a nation is not threatened. (Although in my view, eventually we will come to realize it is - again, my comment.) He supports his argument by stating, only a reluctant superpower would enter a fray with a commitment to fight until they can escape and talk of "draw downs and redeployment."
In Iraq we rushed to war to save its people from the radical Islamic menace but because of our ambivalence in the way we have fought and now the growing possibility of leaving before accomplishing our objective, we could actually make "paper tiger" enemies more formidable.
In a side op ed piece, Daniel Henninger writes with the '08 election looming on the horizon the view of defeating the enemy at home may become more important than defeating the enemy abroad. Henninger is suggesting, Democrats understand they would benefit should the Iraq albatross remain around the Republican's neck through the '08 election. Republicans , seeking to retain the White House, might well be driven more by that desire than the cost and demands of defeating terrorism.
Certainly, one cannot deny, '08 politics will drive decisions and that is no way to fight a war, particularly an increasingly unpopular one that seems to be going nowhere in terms of meeting our pronounced objective.
As a parent, can you imagine the impact on your children if you posted a family and neighborhood poll pertaining to their behaviour on the home refrigerator each day. That is how our media driven , short term focused society now drives our political initiatives and that is why we have become too PC to win until it will probably be too late.
And, some equally insightful comments by Rosner. (See 2 below.)
Dick
1) Cease Fire: Until a Child is Killed
By Elliot Chodoff
The cease fire arranged last week between Israel and the Palestinians is, in the eyes of the media and the Israeli government, holding. If one ignores the 15 kassam rockets fired by the Palestinians since the cease fire went into effect, this has been a quiet week. At least nobody has been killed.
That the cease fire is only a temporary pause in the fighting is known to all the players in this tragedy. Hamas, whose leader, PA Prime Minister Haniyeh told an audience in Teheran this week that his organization will never recognize Israel or its “usurper Zionist government” nor will it accept agreements made with “the Zionist enemy in the past.” He promised that Hamas will continue to fight on for the liberation of Jerusalem.
On the Israeli side, the security forces, led by the IDF and other arms, have vehemently opposed the cease fire, knowing that its only purpose is to provide a respite for the terrorist organizations to recover from the blows inflicted on them during IDF operations in the past months. The lull has permitted the terrorists to reorganize and replenish their arsenals, and to acquire new weapons and munitions, smuggled across the Egyptian border into Gaza.
Also, as anticipated, the terrorists are preparing the ground in Gaza for war. As the IDF painfully learned this past summer in Lebanon, allowing an enemy to prepare fighting positions and to dig in properly in preparation for battle raises the cost of the subsequent fighting. Daily, the IDF watches across the line as the sworn enemies of Israel, who have sworn to wipe it off the map, prepare for war.
So why is the government refusing to act and how long will the situation hold? The answer to the first question is simple: the Israeli government would prefer to have some international support when it is forced to send troops into what is likely to be an extremely bloody battle in Gaza against the terrorists there. Israel’s political leadership is well aware that the Europeans (and the new Baker team in American foreign policy as well) will take a dim view of any military offensive against the terrorists unless it is justified first by the loss of Israeli lives. Maybe.
In the meantime, having been burned by their abysmal decision making in the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon, they would prefer to defer the decision for as long as possible. After all Chanukkah is around the corner, and miracles can always happen.
The answer to the second question is equally simple: when the first kassam rocket hits a playground or kindergarten filled with children, and kills at least one of them. We consider this “policy” by the Israeli leadership both morally corrupt and contrary to every principle of statehood. If the state does not exist to provide security to its citizens, it will lose legitimacy sooner rather than later, as Israel’s current leaders already have as a result of their blatant absence of vision and responsibility.
2) Baker's brew
By Shmuel Rosner
WASHINGTON - U.S. forces are deployed today in 150 countries, out of 193. That is an instructive statistic that was mentioned this week by a U.S. official who wanted to assess the possible influence of the Baker-Hamilton Commission on American policy. "So at most, we'll leave one of them," he said with a somewhat bitter smile. He knows, everyone knows that in the end the U.S. will leave Iraq, bruised and battered. Unless President George W. Bush decides otherwise.
"Our president," remarked that same official, has already proven in the past that he "is made of tough stuff." He has not always fulfilled the expectations of journalists and other people in the know.
Bush is seeing Baker's smile and it drives him crazy, said an acquaintance of the president. Don't believe the nice words, the polite smiles, nor the longstanding relationship between Baker and Bush's father, whom Baker accompanied as early as the 1980 presidential race when Bush Sr. lost to Ronald Reagan.
Advertisement
"Bush doesn't like it when people tell him what to do," said the acquaintance. "Anyone who wants to have an influence has to whisper quietly into his ear, not humiliate him in public; look at [Vice President] Dick Cheney."
And truth be told, what happened to Bush this week was no less than a made-for TV humiliation. You failed, the commission composed of Baker, Hamilton and the other members told the president. This is what has to be done in order to get out, if that's even possible. And they also said: You have no choice - adopt all the conclusions. If this commission made one mistake, it lies in this paragraph, and in the fact that it made no fewer than 79 recommendations.
Had it made only four recommendations, and Bush had rejected two, he would have been harshly criticized for rejecting half the recommendations. If he rejects 39 out of what there is now, he can still claim that he carried out 40 recommendations, a considerable number.
The Middle East. A mission
The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission can be weighed on all sorts of scales, and opinion is also divided regarding Baker himself. "I don't think he's against Israel," said a senior Israeli official who has met Baker quite a number of times. "It's clear that Baker had it in for Israel," said another official of the same rank, in the same government ministry.
Anyone who rummages through Baker's history will find him that at several junctures, he acted against the Israeli government. But the question remains: Is it Israel that he doesn't like, or is the policy of the governments against which he acted. Baker was one of the main figures who urged Ronald Reagan to insist on selling the AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s. He also had a good reason: Then prime minister Menachem Begin had leveled public criticism, in Washington, against the transaction that the president wanted. In a power struggle of this type, Baker thought, Reagan should not be allowed to lose.
The more familiar conflict, the one with the Yitzhak Shamir government over the settlements and the loan guarantees, is also not difficult to explain. And regarding the famous expletive, "F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway," this was blown out of proportion. Aggressive people like Baker sometimes say things behind closed doors that do not accord with the rules of good manners and ceremony.
But a tradition is already developing. Baker always has good reasons, but he will always be found on the other side of the intersection. He was looking for Iraq and found Israel. He could have chosen differently, since if tomorrow a lasting peace should prevail between Israel and the Palestinians, the U.S. forces would still be stuck under terrorist fire in Iraq.
But the issue raised by Baker in the report for whose content he is chiefly responsible, and in which he is the conductor and the player on most of the instruments, does in fact deserve an examination - and then a reexamination. The Bush administration will not be the first to deliberate over it. To what extent is the Israeli-Arab conflict central to the Middle Eastern imbroglio?
In discussions conducted by senior administration officials in Arab capitals, even in recent weeks, they heard the old familiar refrain: Take care of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demonstrate involvement, promote the handling of it. Some of them believe that the time has really come to act - or at least to look as though they are trying to do more. Two days ago, when the report was published, the names of potential "envoys" were once again tossed into the air, experienced "mediators" who will embark on flying visits among capitals and leaders. Most of the suggestions are unrealistic. That is the way to create an atmosphere of progress, even if it isn't very useful. Perhaps Baker himself? Perhaps Colin Powell? Perhaps Bill Clinton?
Baker would probably be glad to accept this job, but it is doubtful whether U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would agree to something that would turn her from a bellwether into an apprentice. Powell, as was already proved when he served as Secretary of State, and as an Israeli who worked with him a great deal remarks, "doesn't understand a thing about the Middle East."
And what about Clinton? A U.S. State Department official who was asked about it burst out laughing. First of all, he does not believe that Bush would appoint his predecessor. Second, he doesn't think that Hillary Clinton will allow her husband to take such a sensitive job on the eve of presidential elections in which she plans to run. And moreover, the official asked, "Isn't Clinton the guy who already mediated and failed?"
The White House. Ranking
This is not the first time that James Baker is urging an American president to withdraw U.S. forces from a Middle Eastern country. In 1983, after 240 U.S. Marines were killed in a lethal explosion in Lebanon, he was among the leaders of those urging Ronald Reagan to fold up the flag and withdraw. Secretary of State George Schultz and Reagan himself were opposed. But the coalition they were facing, including Baker, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and members of Congress, had the upper hand in the end.
Reagan, like George W. Bush today, considered such withdrawal a capitulation to terror - but was forced to accept reality. The pill was sweetened by the victory of the Americans in Grenada, which managed to sweep away the harsh impression left by events in the Middle East, and gave Reagan smooth sailing toward the 1984 presidential elections, without being haunted by the ghosts of those killed in Lebanon.
"In hindsight," wrote Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon, "this withdrawal seems inevitable." Perhaps people will write the same in the future about the difficult decisions Bush will be making in the coming months. Cannon himself this week was mentioned in an article by another historian, Douglas Brinkley, the one who wrote the history of Jimmy Carter's presidency - one of five historians who tried to predict for The Washington Post "What will history say?" about Bush. An ambitious and somewhat silly assignment.
Brinkley, the abovementioned historian, wrote in his article about a dinner with Cannon, during which they talked about Bush. Cannon warned him about making a premature judgment. What if Osama bin Laden is suddenly caught? What if North Korea suddenly decides to abandon its nuclear program? Brinkley, like most of his colleagues who participated in the newspaper project, was nevertheless unable to resist the temptation. Bush, he wrote, reminds him of Herbert Hoover, who did not react as he should have to the profound economic recession that paralyzed America in the early 1930s.
What's the connection? Hoover did too little after the recession, Bush did too much after 9/11. At least that's what Brinkley thinks.
The Saban Center. A seminar
Anyone who wants to count the blows absorbed by Israel this week in Washington has to begin with the resignation of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. That was only a few days ago, and already ages ago. Since then - the hearing of the incoming Secretary of Defense, who cannot promise Israel that Iran will not attack, followed by the Baker-Hamilton report that presents Israel as more of a problem than a partner.
A group of influential Israelis and Americans will be participating, starting today, in the annual forum of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which this year is discussing "America and Israel Confronting a Middle East in Turmoil." Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni will address the forum, as will Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman and chief of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin. But the real stars will be Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In spite of the increasing talk and the somewhat childish enthusiasm about the possibility that rising star Senator Barack Obama will decide to run for the Democratic nomination as well, Hillary Clinton continues for the time being to lead confidently among her party's electorate, and she is also closing the gap against leading Republican candidate John McCain in the general surveys. However, she is still far from victory, and every joint appearance with her husband only emphasizes the difficulties awaiting her.
Chuck Todd, editor of The Hotline (Washington's daily news briefing on U.S. politics) wrote about Clinton's chances last week in a skeptical tone, comparing her and her husband to the legendary baseball player Joe DiMaggio and his brother, Dom DiMaggio, also an outstanding player, who didn't succeed in entering the Baseball Hall of Fame mainly because his brother's shadow clouded his achievements.
The panel in which Hillary Clinton will participate, "U.S. Strategy in the Middle East: What Works, What Doesn't," is of particular importance mainly in light of the Baker-Hamilton report and its recommendations, which return U.S. policy to the days of Madrid-style regional summits and talks with anyone possible. If Clinton thinks that a regional summit is a good idea, maybe she will try to implement it in the future. By doing so she will be presenting a position that differs from that of the new Israeli ambassador Sallai Meridor - and of the Israeli government, which this week decided that the bilateral route is the proper one for those who are "serious" about the peace process.
The Washington Institute. An ambassador
The story about the meeting of former Israeli ambassador David Ivry with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California has already become a legend. The events of recent weeks restored Ivry to life for two reasons: first, Pelosi has become the senior Democratic legislator de facto, and is about to become the first woman to head the U.S. House of Representatives. And second, the new Israeli ambassador, Meridor, reported for work in Washington. Anyone looking for ways to compare him with his predecessors always begins with a story about Ivry - from there, everything becomes much clearer.
Ivry came to Washington with an invincible background: commander of the Israel Air Force, deputy chief of staff, director general of the Defense Ministry. "The ultimate emissary to the Pentagon," snickered a former senior official in the U.S. administration this week. Here, Ivry is not considered a model of tremendous success as an ambassador. And here is the story about Ivry and Pelosi, a liberal legislator from the West Coast.
Pelosi invited Ivry to her office for a meeting, or maybe he invited himself. Before they began to discuss current issues, they spent a minute on the usual small talk. Pelosi pointed to the wall, to show Ivry the picture hanging there. A difficult picture. The Chinese demonstrators of Tiananmen Square, and the tanks approaching them on their way to the brutal crushing of one of the most important demonstrations of the 20th century.
Ivry glanced at the picture, and as a veteran military man who had difficulty overcoming an old habit, uttered only one short sentence, which left Pelosi in shock: "That's a T-72."
Meridor will probably not experience such mishaps. He is more polished, more communicative than Ivry. This week, at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, he successfully got through his first public appearance. Afterward, some of the audience stood around trying to guess what kind of an ambassador he will be. Following is a selection of diagnoses we heard from them: He may be less "nice" than his predecessor, Danny Ayalon, and it's not certain that he will excel at the "CNN test" like him, but he will be better than Ayalon in discussions with senior administration officials, who will listen to his assessments seriously. Someone suggested that Meridor would be an ambassador in the style of Itamar Rabinovich - a fluent if not outstanding speaker, and a respected statesman. That is an interesting possibility, which depends on one unknown that has still not been made clear: Rabinovich had a real portfolio, and received exceptional powers from then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. He also worked with the Clinton administration, whose relations with Rabin were among the closest ever between a U.S. president and an Israeli prime minister - perhaps the closest. (The stories about the wonderful friendship between former prime minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush are no more than a popular legend for natives and friends.)
Meridor is dependent more than anything else on how Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wants to conduct his relations with Washington, and how Washington wants to conduct its relations with Israel. This week it was the second question that was the greater unknown.
Dick
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Tired Ideas from Tired Old Men!
The Baker report is slowly coming out and it reflects pretty much what was already leaked - tired ideas conjured up by tired old men. I will not dwell on the substance of the report because you will be getting an ear full of that in the ensuing days.
One should never jump to conclusions but it would appear that Baker and company have concluded we cannot accomplish our goal in Iraq, we should have a regional meeting of all interested parties to resolve the Middle East muddle and be out of Iraq after first increasing our efforts to assist the Iraqi military in defending their own people. The report broke no new ground and came up with nothing particularly profound except to acknowledge that the king is naked. The report is typical Baker - negotiate with your enemies because they exist, notwithstanding the fact that in doing so nothing positive will likely be accomplished because we negotiate from weakness with enemies who have no reason to help us. When you don't hold aces and aren't likely to be dealt any, fold your hand,cut your losses, pick up your remaining chips,lick your wounds and take comfort in the fact that you gave it your best.
The incoming Sec.of Defense also laid down black crepe as well if you assume, by his exact words, he presupposed our inability or unwillingness to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear status.
It is possible that GW could conclude the region and its oil are no longer strategic neccesseities considering the costs. So lets abandon the Middle East and let the Europeans dicker with it. After all what have we accomplished there - spent blood and money, have gained nothing but enemies even among our supposed allies. That would be a bizarre outcome but presidents are human and can tire of being pounded, hounded and bullied and GW's party could equally tire of losing power.
This leaves Israel with some difficult choices to make and but realistically speaking, they always had them. Nothing new has really changed unless Olmert and Livni foolishly thought, as I believe they did, the Europeans and ourselves would solve the problem of Iran because a nuclear Iran presents such a momentous and cataclysmic threat to the world. Europe and the U.S. may still solve the Iranian problem but if Olmert and Livni are betting the "kibbutz" on it happening, they are fools.
Israel has two choices: It can either hope, pray and do nothing or it can attempt to do what the U.S. and Europe should have been doing - go after Iran's military, air force and nuclear facilities. The U.S.and Europe chose to seek a victory in the U.N. This presents an awesome challenge for a tiny nation with poor present leadership and planning both civilian and military. (See 1 below.)
If things are not bad enough in Iraq, a report reveals the British Marines retreated after engaging a well dug in force of Taliban in Afghanistan.
But matters are actually about to get worse with Sen. Carl Levin soon to be in charge of the Senate's Armed Services Committeee.
I am surprised Kirk Kerkorian hasn't opened a casino in Gaza on the Egyptian border with Israel considering all the cash that is flooding in to finance terrorism. (See 2 below.)
If one simply stands back and looks objectively at the collective reaction of democratic, supposedly powerful, nations reactions to the challenge being presented them by powerful despotic regimes and stateless Islamic terrorists one can only shake their head in dismay
I thought I would end with Ed Koch's views. Why? Because he ought to know something about lawlessness. After all, when he was mayor of New York, it was moving in the same direction as Iraq - rampant crime was taking a big bite out of The Big Apple!(See 3 below.)
Dick
1) Probe: IDF top echelons failed at all levels during war
By Amos Harel
The upper echelons of the Israel Defense Forces failed at every level during the recent war in Lebanon, Major-General (ret.) Amiram Levine said in a report presented to the general staff in November.
Levine, who was appointed by the IDF to examine the conduct of the northern command during the war, was highly critical in his report. He described serious flaws in the conduct of senior officers and said that Northern Command had failed in its mission of protecting the northern communities.
The meeting in which the report was presented was acrimonious and accompanied with heated exchanges between Levine and other senior officers. Levine said that one of the serious flaws in the conduct of the IDF during the war was its preference to the use of air power over ground forces.
He also said that the call up of reservist units and their deployment was
delayed to the point where it gave Hezbollah an advantage in countering a
ground offensive.
In his assessment of GOC Northern Command at the time of the war, Major
General Udi Adam, who resigned two months ago, Levine said that he was
insufficiently assertive in conducting the fighting.
Levine described the way Northern Command managed the war as a collection of unrelated events, rather than a concentration of force, and he said this led to an uncoordinated military effort.
Regarding the role of deputy Chief of Staff, Moshe Kaplinsky, and the Chief of Operations at the General Staff, Gadi Eisenkot, now GOC Northern Command, Levine said that as ground forces commanders serving under a chief of staff with an air force pedigree, they should have played a more influential role.
He was also critical of the Ground Forces Command, headed by Major General
Benny Gantz, which Levine said had not prepared the forces adequately.
Levine concluded that the way the IDF was deployed during the war was flawed and that the aims of the war were not achieved. He said that the IDF did not adequately prepare for the possibility that thousands of missiles would be launched against Israel.
2)Hamas officials have managed to smuggle more than $66 million in cash
through the Rafah border crossing in the past eight
months, a member of the Hamas-led government revealed Wednesday.
Meanwhile, sources close to the Hamas-led government claimed that Hamas
representatives recently held talks with officials from the US Democratic
Party at a secret location.
The sources told the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency that Hamas
representatives have also been holding secret talks with European government
officials, including Britain and France.
Palestinian Authority Planning Minister Samir Abu Aisheh of Hamas said the
cash that was brought by Hamas officials was handed over to the PA Finance
Ministry. He also revealed that the Hamas-led government has managed to pay
69% of the salaries to the PA's 160,000 civil servants during the same
period.
Altogether, the Palestinians have received $318 million in international aid
since Hamas took over despite international sanctions imposed on the
Palestinians, the minister said, noting that most of the money was channeled
through the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
This is the first time that a senior Hamas official reveals the total sum of
money that has been smuggled into the Gaza Strip through the Rafah border
crossing. Several Hamas ministers, legislators and officials have managed to
smuggle
suitcases full of millions of dollars through the border crossing.
The most recent case occurred last week, when PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud
Zahar returned from a 14-day Arab and Islamic tour carrying $20 million in
cash. A week earlier, two Hamas legislators arrived at the Rafah border
crossing each carrying $2 million in cash.
The report about contacts between Hamas and American and European officials
comes in the wake of the breakdown of negotiations between Hamas and Abbas's
Fatah party over the formation of a Palestinian unity government.
According to the report, Hamas has succeeded in convincing European
officials to accept the Islamist movement's plan for a long-term hudna
[truce] with Israel as a substitute for recognizing Israel's right to exist.
The report quoted sources close to Hamas as saying that the Europeans have
bought the idea of solving the Israeli-Arab conflict on the basis of a hudna
rather than the principle of land for peace.
The sources claimed that many European governments have shown interest in
"flexible" statements by some Hamas leaders lately, including remarks by
Syria-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to the effect that his movement was
prepared to offer Israel a hudna in return for the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state on the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and east
Jerusalem.
In another development, Abbas appears to have retracted his threat to
dismiss the Hamas-led government and call early elections. Only days after
he announced that the talks with Hamas over the formation of a unity
government had reached a
dead end, Abbas sent a message to Hamas expressing his desire to pursue his
efforts to establish a new coalition.
PA Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Eddin Shaer said Wednesday that Abbas's
message was relayed to Hamas through the director of the PA chairman's
bureau, Rafik Husseini.
Shaer said Hamas was prepared to resume the talks with Abbas from the point
where they stopped. "We don't want to go back to square one," he said. "We
want to move forward with the talks, not 10 steps backward. All what's left
now is to name the members of the new government."
3) Iraq Will Not Go Away
By Ed Koch
Iraq will not go away. The Democrats won a substantial victory in the November election, and it was Iraq that made it possible. The American public voted in support of "a new direction." They are entitled to have that. What that new direction should be is now the debate. We have learned that two days before his "resignation" was announced and one day before the November 7th election, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled, according to The New York Times, "submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction."
Rumsfeld wrote, "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment."
The discussion now is what options are available, and which should be implemented. The revelation of the leaked Rumsfeld memo comes just days before the report of the Baker commission. The options proposed by the Baker commission will undoubtedly overlap in great part with Rumsfeld's suggestions. According to The Times, Rumsfeld proposed "modest troop withdrawals...redeploying American troops from" vulnerable positions in Baghdad and other cities to safer areas in Iraq or Kuwait where they would act as a "quick reaction force," "consolidating the number of American bases" in Iraq to 5 from 55 by July 2007," "to punish provinces that failed to agree with the Americans by withdrawing economic assistance and security," "set a firm withdrawal date." He describes the latter as a "less attractive option[s]."
Some experts contend that had Rumsfeld and the President made the options and discussion of them public before the election, the results of the election might have been different. We will never know. I personally doubt it, because it appears that the American public is so tired of the war that it really wants out without delay. The public is more than signaling, it is demanding, that American soldiers be removed from harm's way and that we no longer act as the self-appointed guardian of the people of every country's right to live in safety and peace and permitted to practice Western values which are so different with respect to individual freedoms from those of radical Islam.
Indeed, Europe and even some institutions in the U.S. have already demonstrated their willingness to roll over like a beta wolf before the attack of the alpha wolf and beg for pardon, as they did in the case of the caricatures of Mohammed by a Danish newspaper. There were few Western world leaders willing to applaud or stand with the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said, "We will not apologize, because we live in Denmark under Danish law, and we have freedom of speech in this country. If we apologized, we would betray the generations who have fought for this right, and the moderate Muslims who are democratically minded."
Indeed, the willingness to submit to threats of retaliatory terror caused many in the U.S. as well as Europe to criticize Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks denouncing Muslim violence, particularly in seeking religious conversions.
The favored use of violence was stated succinctly by the number one al-Qaeda operative in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who, before he was killed by an American bomb, said, "Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute." Those infidels include Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. Christians and Jews are permitted to pay tribute if they do not convert, the Muslim faith recognizing Jesus and Moses as prophets; those not believing in one God must convert or die.
The Western nations are weary of war. We should all recall how easy -- with the exception of England and Russia -- it was for the Nazis to subjugate all of Europe during World War II. The Europeans did not have the heart in many cases or the willingness to prepare for the struggle to resist Nazi attackers and occupation. Indeed, had the U.S. not been led by F.D.R., we might very well have similarly succumbed, the nation then being so divided philosophically on the dangers posed by the Nazis, then facing us and the rest of the world.
So today, we are divided on the dangers facing us posed by Islamic terrorism. There are those who fight many of the defensive measures taken by the Bush administration in waging the war that could last for decades -- 30 or more years. They will not willingly relinquish a single citizen's right guaranteed in times of peace relating to freedom of speech and freedom from government intrusion, e.g., security measures governing privacy, telephone conversations, records, etc.
Americans are justifiably tired of the situation in which our regional allies -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey -- and our NATO allies decline to join us in Iraq with boots on the ground, leaving the U.S. to suffer the casualties on the battlefield. The American public is understandably fed up and believes "enough is enough." So now we must decide what to do.
First, we must acknowledge that we are witnessing a civil war in Iraq. What else can it be with Sunnis and Shia killing each other? The Times reported on November 29th, "In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said...Shiite revenge was swift. Shiite fighters fired about a dozen mortar shells into the predominately Sunni Arab neighborhood of Adhamiya in northern Baghdad, wounding at least 10 people."
So it goes, on and on. Yet President Bush and his administration refuse to call it a civil war. It is like the Korean War with the North Koreans and Chinese which the Truman administration refused to describe as a war, calling it a "police action." The first item on any future agenda is to accept the truth and the facts on the ground.
We appear to be losing the war in Iraq. Henry Kissinger said on BBC television, "If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control...I don't believe that is possible."
I have suggested that we inform our allies we are getting out unless they come in and fight shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Iraq. That proposal, which I made many months ago, has received little support. My second proposal is that we demand an immediate vote by the Iraqi parliament on whether or not the U.S. should keep its military forces in Iraq and under what conditions -- acceptable to our military command -- as they relate to the rules of engagement. If they refuse to take such a vote, we should announce that we are unilaterally leaving and start our withdrawal. If they vote that we should stay, then we should set our conditions for doing so, one of which being the arrest of cleric Moktada al-Sadr, whose militia continues to attack and kill American soldiers and Sunnis, and is a major part of the ongoing Iraqi civil war. Taking the parliamentary vote becomes even more critical with the release this week on CNN of "A new survey conducted by Iraqi pollsters [which] shows the daily violence is escalating Iraqi demands that U.S. troops leave. More than half the 2,000 Iraqis surveyed said they want all U.S. troops out now. And almost half the remainder want a withdrawal to begin immediately." Nic Robertson of CNN reported, "Members of the independent survey team [were] trained by the U.S. State Department."
Unimportant, except for the pleasure it would give Americans and the justice involved, would be the stripping of the Presidential Medals of Freedom given to L. Paul Bremer, who three years ago, disbanded the Iraqi army which, like Humpty Dumpty, does not appear to be capable of resurrection, and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, who destroyed the CIA's capability to accurately advise the president on Iraq and its possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Dick
One should never jump to conclusions but it would appear that Baker and company have concluded we cannot accomplish our goal in Iraq, we should have a regional meeting of all interested parties to resolve the Middle East muddle and be out of Iraq after first increasing our efforts to assist the Iraqi military in defending their own people. The report broke no new ground and came up with nothing particularly profound except to acknowledge that the king is naked. The report is typical Baker - negotiate with your enemies because they exist, notwithstanding the fact that in doing so nothing positive will likely be accomplished because we negotiate from weakness with enemies who have no reason to help us. When you don't hold aces and aren't likely to be dealt any, fold your hand,cut your losses, pick up your remaining chips,lick your wounds and take comfort in the fact that you gave it your best.
The incoming Sec.of Defense also laid down black crepe as well if you assume, by his exact words, he presupposed our inability or unwillingness to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear status.
It is possible that GW could conclude the region and its oil are no longer strategic neccesseities considering the costs. So lets abandon the Middle East and let the Europeans dicker with it. After all what have we accomplished there - spent blood and money, have gained nothing but enemies even among our supposed allies. That would be a bizarre outcome but presidents are human and can tire of being pounded, hounded and bullied and GW's party could equally tire of losing power.
This leaves Israel with some difficult choices to make and but realistically speaking, they always had them. Nothing new has really changed unless Olmert and Livni foolishly thought, as I believe they did, the Europeans and ourselves would solve the problem of Iran because a nuclear Iran presents such a momentous and cataclysmic threat to the world. Europe and the U.S. may still solve the Iranian problem but if Olmert and Livni are betting the "kibbutz" on it happening, they are fools.
Israel has two choices: It can either hope, pray and do nothing or it can attempt to do what the U.S. and Europe should have been doing - go after Iran's military, air force and nuclear facilities. The U.S.and Europe chose to seek a victory in the U.N. This presents an awesome challenge for a tiny nation with poor present leadership and planning both civilian and military. (See 1 below.)
If things are not bad enough in Iraq, a report reveals the British Marines retreated after engaging a well dug in force of Taliban in Afghanistan.
But matters are actually about to get worse with Sen. Carl Levin soon to be in charge of the Senate's Armed Services Committeee.
I am surprised Kirk Kerkorian hasn't opened a casino in Gaza on the Egyptian border with Israel considering all the cash that is flooding in to finance terrorism. (See 2 below.)
If one simply stands back and looks objectively at the collective reaction of democratic, supposedly powerful, nations reactions to the challenge being presented them by powerful despotic regimes and stateless Islamic terrorists one can only shake their head in dismay
I thought I would end with Ed Koch's views. Why? Because he ought to know something about lawlessness. After all, when he was mayor of New York, it was moving in the same direction as Iraq - rampant crime was taking a big bite out of The Big Apple!(See 3 below.)
Dick
1) Probe: IDF top echelons failed at all levels during war
By Amos Harel
The upper echelons of the Israel Defense Forces failed at every level during the recent war in Lebanon, Major-General (ret.) Amiram Levine said in a report presented to the general staff in November.
Levine, who was appointed by the IDF to examine the conduct of the northern command during the war, was highly critical in his report. He described serious flaws in the conduct of senior officers and said that Northern Command had failed in its mission of protecting the northern communities.
The meeting in which the report was presented was acrimonious and accompanied with heated exchanges between Levine and other senior officers. Levine said that one of the serious flaws in the conduct of the IDF during the war was its preference to the use of air power over ground forces.
He also said that the call up of reservist units and their deployment was
delayed to the point where it gave Hezbollah an advantage in countering a
ground offensive.
In his assessment of GOC Northern Command at the time of the war, Major
General Udi Adam, who resigned two months ago, Levine said that he was
insufficiently assertive in conducting the fighting.
Levine described the way Northern Command managed the war as a collection of unrelated events, rather than a concentration of force, and he said this led to an uncoordinated military effort.
Regarding the role of deputy Chief of Staff, Moshe Kaplinsky, and the Chief of Operations at the General Staff, Gadi Eisenkot, now GOC Northern Command, Levine said that as ground forces commanders serving under a chief of staff with an air force pedigree, they should have played a more influential role.
He was also critical of the Ground Forces Command, headed by Major General
Benny Gantz, which Levine said had not prepared the forces adequately.
Levine concluded that the way the IDF was deployed during the war was flawed and that the aims of the war were not achieved. He said that the IDF did not adequately prepare for the possibility that thousands of missiles would be launched against Israel.
2)Hamas officials have managed to smuggle more than $66 million in cash
through the Rafah border crossing in the past eight
months, a member of the Hamas-led government revealed Wednesday.
Meanwhile, sources close to the Hamas-led government claimed that Hamas
representatives recently held talks with officials from the US Democratic
Party at a secret location.
The sources told the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency that Hamas
representatives have also been holding secret talks with European government
officials, including Britain and France.
Palestinian Authority Planning Minister Samir Abu Aisheh of Hamas said the
cash that was brought by Hamas officials was handed over to the PA Finance
Ministry. He also revealed that the Hamas-led government has managed to pay
69% of the salaries to the PA's 160,000 civil servants during the same
period.
Altogether, the Palestinians have received $318 million in international aid
since Hamas took over despite international sanctions imposed on the
Palestinians, the minister said, noting that most of the money was channeled
through the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
This is the first time that a senior Hamas official reveals the total sum of
money that has been smuggled into the Gaza Strip through the Rafah border
crossing. Several Hamas ministers, legislators and officials have managed to
smuggle
suitcases full of millions of dollars through the border crossing.
The most recent case occurred last week, when PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud
Zahar returned from a 14-day Arab and Islamic tour carrying $20 million in
cash. A week earlier, two Hamas legislators arrived at the Rafah border
crossing each carrying $2 million in cash.
The report about contacts between Hamas and American and European officials
comes in the wake of the breakdown of negotiations between Hamas and Abbas's
Fatah party over the formation of a Palestinian unity government.
According to the report, Hamas has succeeded in convincing European
officials to accept the Islamist movement's plan for a long-term hudna
[truce] with Israel as a substitute for recognizing Israel's right to exist.
The report quoted sources close to Hamas as saying that the Europeans have
bought the idea of solving the Israeli-Arab conflict on the basis of a hudna
rather than the principle of land for peace.
The sources claimed that many European governments have shown interest in
"flexible" statements by some Hamas leaders lately, including remarks by
Syria-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to the effect that his movement was
prepared to offer Israel a hudna in return for the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state on the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and east
Jerusalem.
In another development, Abbas appears to have retracted his threat to
dismiss the Hamas-led government and call early elections. Only days after
he announced that the talks with Hamas over the formation of a unity
government had reached a
dead end, Abbas sent a message to Hamas expressing his desire to pursue his
efforts to establish a new coalition.
PA Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Eddin Shaer said Wednesday that Abbas's
message was relayed to Hamas through the director of the PA chairman's
bureau, Rafik Husseini.
Shaer said Hamas was prepared to resume the talks with Abbas from the point
where they stopped. "We don't want to go back to square one," he said. "We
want to move forward with the talks, not 10 steps backward. All what's left
now is to name the members of the new government."
3) Iraq Will Not Go Away
By Ed Koch
Iraq will not go away. The Democrats won a substantial victory in the November election, and it was Iraq that made it possible. The American public voted in support of "a new direction." They are entitled to have that. What that new direction should be is now the debate. We have learned that two days before his "resignation" was announced and one day before the November 7th election, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled, according to The New York Times, "submitted a classified memo to the White House that acknowledged the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq was not working and called for a major course correction."
Rumsfeld wrote, "In my view, it is time for a major adjustment."
The discussion now is what options are available, and which should be implemented. The revelation of the leaked Rumsfeld memo comes just days before the report of the Baker commission. The options proposed by the Baker commission will undoubtedly overlap in great part with Rumsfeld's suggestions. According to The Times, Rumsfeld proposed "modest troop withdrawals...redeploying American troops from" vulnerable positions in Baghdad and other cities to safer areas in Iraq or Kuwait where they would act as a "quick reaction force," "consolidating the number of American bases" in Iraq to 5 from 55 by July 2007," "to punish provinces that failed to agree with the Americans by withdrawing economic assistance and security," "set a firm withdrawal date." He describes the latter as a "less attractive option[s]."
Some experts contend that had Rumsfeld and the President made the options and discussion of them public before the election, the results of the election might have been different. We will never know. I personally doubt it, because it appears that the American public is so tired of the war that it really wants out without delay. The public is more than signaling, it is demanding, that American soldiers be removed from harm's way and that we no longer act as the self-appointed guardian of the people of every country's right to live in safety and peace and permitted to practice Western values which are so different with respect to individual freedoms from those of radical Islam.
Indeed, Europe and even some institutions in the U.S. have already demonstrated their willingness to roll over like a beta wolf before the attack of the alpha wolf and beg for pardon, as they did in the case of the caricatures of Mohammed by a Danish newspaper. There were few Western world leaders willing to applaud or stand with the Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said, "We will not apologize, because we live in Denmark under Danish law, and we have freedom of speech in this country. If we apologized, we would betray the generations who have fought for this right, and the moderate Muslims who are democratically minded."
Indeed, the willingness to submit to threats of retaliatory terror caused many in the U.S. as well as Europe to criticize Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks denouncing Muslim violence, particularly in seeking religious conversions.
The favored use of violence was stated succinctly by the number one al-Qaeda operative in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who, before he was killed by an American bomb, said, "Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute." Those infidels include Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. Christians and Jews are permitted to pay tribute if they do not convert, the Muslim faith recognizing Jesus and Moses as prophets; those not believing in one God must convert or die.
The Western nations are weary of war. We should all recall how easy -- with the exception of England and Russia -- it was for the Nazis to subjugate all of Europe during World War II. The Europeans did not have the heart in many cases or the willingness to prepare for the struggle to resist Nazi attackers and occupation. Indeed, had the U.S. not been led by F.D.R., we might very well have similarly succumbed, the nation then being so divided philosophically on the dangers posed by the Nazis, then facing us and the rest of the world.
So today, we are divided on the dangers facing us posed by Islamic terrorism. There are those who fight many of the defensive measures taken by the Bush administration in waging the war that could last for decades -- 30 or more years. They will not willingly relinquish a single citizen's right guaranteed in times of peace relating to freedom of speech and freedom from government intrusion, e.g., security measures governing privacy, telephone conversations, records, etc.
Americans are justifiably tired of the situation in which our regional allies -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey -- and our NATO allies decline to join us in Iraq with boots on the ground, leaving the U.S. to suffer the casualties on the battlefield. The American public is understandably fed up and believes "enough is enough." So now we must decide what to do.
First, we must acknowledge that we are witnessing a civil war in Iraq. What else can it be with Sunnis and Shia killing each other? The Times reported on November 29th, "In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said...Shiite revenge was swift. Shiite fighters fired about a dozen mortar shells into the predominately Sunni Arab neighborhood of Adhamiya in northern Baghdad, wounding at least 10 people."
So it goes, on and on. Yet President Bush and his administration refuse to call it a civil war. It is like the Korean War with the North Koreans and Chinese which the Truman administration refused to describe as a war, calling it a "police action." The first item on any future agenda is to accept the truth and the facts on the ground.
We appear to be losing the war in Iraq. Henry Kissinger said on BBC television, "If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control...I don't believe that is possible."
I have suggested that we inform our allies we are getting out unless they come in and fight shoulder-to-shoulder with us in Iraq. That proposal, which I made many months ago, has received little support. My second proposal is that we demand an immediate vote by the Iraqi parliament on whether or not the U.S. should keep its military forces in Iraq and under what conditions -- acceptable to our military command -- as they relate to the rules of engagement. If they refuse to take such a vote, we should announce that we are unilaterally leaving and start our withdrawal. If they vote that we should stay, then we should set our conditions for doing so, one of which being the arrest of cleric Moktada al-Sadr, whose militia continues to attack and kill American soldiers and Sunnis, and is a major part of the ongoing Iraqi civil war. Taking the parliamentary vote becomes even more critical with the release this week on CNN of "A new survey conducted by Iraqi pollsters [which] shows the daily violence is escalating Iraqi demands that U.S. troops leave. More than half the 2,000 Iraqis surveyed said they want all U.S. troops out now. And almost half the remainder want a withdrawal to begin immediately." Nic Robertson of CNN reported, "Members of the independent survey team [were] trained by the U.S. State Department."
Unimportant, except for the pleasure it would give Americans and the justice involved, would be the stripping of the Presidential Medals of Freedom given to L. Paul Bremer, who three years ago, disbanded the Iraqi army which, like Humpty Dumpty, does not appear to be capable of resurrection, and George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, who destroyed the CIA's capability to accurately advise the president on Iraq and its possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Dick
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Is the ghost of Chamberlain alive and well?
The report "Smoking Gun (see 1 below) was sent to me by a dear friend. To actually see the three videos and/or read the report you will have to go to the American Jewish Congress web page site. The report is very lengthy, over 80 pages, and is broken down, because of its length, in sections.
See 2 below for a report from Stratfor's Friedman re Cuba post Castro who is finally dying.
Ne'eman writes about the prospect for Lebanon's democracy to survive and the fact that there is basically little hope it will without western intervention, which is most unlikely. (See 3 below.)
I am trying to arrange for Brigette Gabriel to speak. If you would like to see what she has to say you can do so by entering youtube.com/watch. She has written a best seller which describes her flight from the Palestinians to Israel and her experience.
The Baker report will be released tomorrow and is supposed to urge we have direct talks with Syria and Iran. If this is correct, somewhere along the way, those who came together in unison seem to have ignored the multitude of direct talks in the past on the part of the Europeans and our own rebuffed past attempts by Carter and Clinton. Iran and Syria have broken all their commitments, have lied to the UN and the Europeans endlessly but Baker and company persist in arguing we need to talk. Iran and Syria have no reason to help pull our chestnut out of the fire.
Now come Chirac and Merkel, basically pleading with Syria, to make nice and quit fomenting the overthrow of the Lebanese government. (See 4 below.) When will world leaders get real? Until they do, they look like fools and simply prove the ghost of Chamberlain still stalks the halls of Europe's capitals and even some alleys of DC.
Nominee Gates stated today that Iran might well attack our troops and a report by Memri supports his comments.(See 5 below.) Is Iran, The Mouse That Roared?
Does former Israeli Ambassador Ayalon know something or is he extrapolating previous comments and doing some wishful thinking? (See 6 below.)
Jeff Ballabon reminds Jimmy of his former words and poses the question what has changed? Ballabon believes Israel's leadership buckled and thus, have brought this new anti-Israel attitude on themselves, in the process. (See 7 below.)
Dick
1)The Smoking Gun
We have charged in previous emails and on our website that, by hiding behind “human shields,” Hezbollah and other terrorist groups have been placing civilians at risk and that the blood of these civilians is on their hands if civilians are killed and injured in the ensuing conflict. Today, New York Times has published a just-declassified report from Israel, based on evidence seized in Lebanon and on video footage, showing Hezbollah’s consistent pattern of intentionally placing its fighters and weapons among civilians. Most shocking of all, the report shows that Hezbollah terrorists were well aware of the civilian casualties that would ensue and callously disregarded the consequences.
Because the American Jewish Congress worked closely with the Israeli military both to see that the report was compiled and to ensure that it was brought to public attention, we are able to present a copy of this extraordinary, shocking report on our website.
2) Cuba After Castro
By George Friedman
It is now apparent that Fidel Castro is dying. He is 80 years old, so that should not be surprising. The Cubans are managing his death as if it were a state secret -- hiding the self-evident -- but that is the nature of the regime, as it is the nature of many governments. The question on the table is whether the Cuban government can survive Castro's death -- and in either case, what course Cuba will follow.
The Communist regime, as we have known it, cannot possibly survive Castro's death. To be sure, Fidel's brother Raul will take over leadership; the Cuban Communist Party, the military and intelligence system, and the government ministries will continue to rule. But the regime that Castro created will be dead. It will be dead because Castro will be dead, and whatever survives him cannot be called the same regime. It will have been fundamentally transformed.
Fidel Castro's departure from the stage, then, leads to two questions. First, what will the future hold for Cuba? And second, will that matter to anyone other than the Cubans?
The Death of a Dream
Under Fidel, the Cuban regime had an end beyond itself. Fidel believed -- and, much more significantly, enough of his citizens and international supporters believed -- that the purpose of the regime was not only to transform life in Cuba but, more important, to revolutionize Latin America and the rest of the Third World and confront American imperialism with the mobilized masses of the globe. Fidel did not rule for the sake of ruling. He ruled for the sake of revolution.
Raul was a functionary of the Castro regime, as were the others who now will step into the tremendous vacuum that Fidel will leave. For Raul and others of his class, the Cuban regime was an end in itself. Their goal was to keep it functioning. Fidel dreamed of using the regime to reshape the world. His minions, including his brother, may once have had dreams, but for a very long time their focus has been on preserving the regime and their power, come what may.
Therefore, on the day that Fidel Castro dies, the regime he created will die with him and a new regime of functionaries will come into existence. That regime will not be able to claim the imaginations of the disaffected and the politically ambitious around the world. The difference between the old and the new in Cuba is the difference between Josef Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev. It is not a difference in moral character but of imagination. Stalin was far more than a functionary. He was, in his own way, a visionary -- and was seen by his followers around the world as a visionary. When the Soviet Union fell into the hands of Brezhnev, it fell into the hands of a functionary. Stalin served a vision; Brezhnev served the regime. Stalin ruled absolutely; Brezhnev ruled by committee and consensus. Stalin was far more than the state and party apparatus; Brezhnev was far less.
Brezhnev's goal was preserving the Soviet state. There were many reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union, but at the core, the fact that mere survival had become its highest aim was what killed it. The Soviets still repeated lifelessly the Leninist and Stalinist slogans, but no one believed them -- and no one thought for one moment that Brezhnev believed them.
It has been many years since Fidel's vision had any real possibility of coming true. Certainly, it has had little meaning since the fall of the Soviet Union. In some ways, the death of Che Guevara in Bolivia was the end. But regardless of when the practical possibilities of Cuba had dissolved, Fidel Castro continued to believe that the original vision was still possible. More important, his followers believed that he believed, and therefore, they believed. No one can believe in Raul Castro's vision. Thus, the era that began in 1959 is ending.
The ascent of Raul raises the question of what hope there is for Cuba.
Fidel promised tremendous economic improvements, along with Cuba's place in the vanguard of the revolution. The vanguard now has disintegrated, and the economic improvements never came in the ways promised. When Fidel took power, he argued that it was economic relations with the imperialists that impoverished Cuba. By the end of his rule, he had come to argue that it was the lack of economic relations with the imperialists that impoverished Cuba -- that the American embargo had strangled the country. That was absurd: Cuba could trade with Canada, the rest of Latin America, Europe, Asia and wherever it wanted. It was not locked out of the world. It wasn't even locked out of the United States, since third parties would facilitate trade. But then, Fidel was always persuasive, even when completely incoherent. That was the foundation of his strength: He believed deeply in what he said, and those who listened believed as well. Fidel was writing poems, not economic analysis, and that kept anyone from looking too closely at the details.
Now, the poetry is ending, and the detail men and bean-counters are in charge. They don't know any poems -- and while they can charge the United States with bearing the blame for all of the revolution's failures, it is not the same as if Fidel were doing it. Regimes do not survive by simple brute strength. There have to be those who believe. Stalin had his believers, as did Hitler and Saddam Hussein. But who believes in Raul and his committees? Certainly, the instruments of power are in their hands, as they were in the hands of other communist rulers whose regimes collapsed. But holding the instruments of power is not, over time, enough. It is difficult to imagine the regime of functionaries surviving very long. Without Fidel, there is little to hope for.
A Question of Control
The future of Cuba once meant a great deal to the international system. Once, there was nearly a global thermonuclear war over Cuba. But that was more than 40 years ago, and the world has changed. The question now is whether the future of Cuba matters to anyone but the Cubans.
Geopolitically, the most important point about Cuba is that it is an island situated 90 miles from the coast of the United States -- now the world's only superpower. Cuba was a Spanish colony until the Spanish-American war, and then was either occupied or dominated by the United States and American interests until the rise of Castro. Its history, therefore, is defined first by its relationship with Spain and then by its relationship to the United States.
From the U.S. standpoint, Cuba is always a geographical threat. If the Mississippi River is the great highway of American agriculture and New Orleans its great port to the world, then Cuba sits directly athwart New Orleans' access to the world. There is no way for ships from New Orleans to exit the Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic Ocean but to traverse two narrow channels on either side of Cuba -- the Yucatan channel, between Cuba's western coast and the Yucatan; or the Straits of Florida, between the island's northern coast and Florida. If these two channels were closed, U.S. agricultural and mineral exports and imports would crumble. Not only New Orleans, but all of the Gulf Coast ports like Houston, would be shut in.
Cuba does not have the size or strength in and of itself to close those channels. But should another superpower control Cuba, the threat would become real and intolerable. The occupation of Cuba by a foreign power -- whether Spain, Germany, Russia or others -- would pose a direct geopolitical threat to the United States. Add to that the possibility that missiles could be fired from Cuba to the United States, and we can see what Washington sees there. It is not Cuba that is a threat, but rather a Cuba that is allied with or dominated by a foreign power challenging the United States globally. Therefore, the Americans don't much care who runs Cuba, so long as Cuba is not in a politico-military alliance with another power.
Under Spain, there was a minor threat. But prior to World War II, German influence in Cuba was a real concern. And Castro's Communist revolution and alliance with the Soviet Union were seen by the United States as a mortal threat. It was not Cuban ideology (though that was an irritant) nearly so much as Cuba's geopolitical position and the way it could be exploited by other great powers that obsessed the United States. When the Soviet Union went away, so did the American obsession. Now, Washington's Cuba policy is merely a vestige from a past era.
Without a foreign sponsor, Cuba is geopolitically impotent. It cannot threaten U.S. sea-lanes. It cannot be a base for nuclear weapons to be used against the United States. Its regime cannot be legitimized by the fact that the international system is focused on it. That means that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cubans, under Castro, have been trying to make themselves useful to major powers. Havana approached the Chinese, and they didn't bite. The Russians may be interested in the future, but they have their hands full in their own neighborhood right now. Countries like North Korea and Iran are in no position to exploit the opportunity.
The Cubans have had to content themselves with playing midwife to the leftist movements in Venezuela and Bolivia. The Latin American left in general continues to take its inspiration from Fidel's Cuba. Now, this does not create a new geopolitical reality, but it does create the possibility of one, which is what Fidel has been working on. If Fidel dies, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia are not going to turn to Raul for inspiration and legitimacy. Rather, Raul is going to be looking to Venezuela for cheap oil, while Chavez claims the place of Fidel as the leader of the Latin American left.
So, if Cuba is no longer to be the center of the Latin American revolutionary left, then what is it? It will become an island of occasional strategic importance -- though not important at the moment -- with a regime of functionaries as inspiring as a Bulgarian Party Congress in 1985. Cuba with Fidel was the hope of the Latin American left. Cuba without Fidel is tedious method, a state with a glorious past and a dubious future.
Past as Prologue
Certainly, Raul and his colleagues have superb instruments with which to stabilize Cuban security, but these are no better than the instruments that Romania and East Germany had. Those instruments will work for a while, but not permanently. For the regime to survive, Cuba must transform its economic life, but to do that, it risks the survival of the regime -- for the regime's control of the economy is one of the instruments of stability. Raul is not a man who is about to redefine the country, but he must try.
We are, therefore, pessimistic about the regime's ability to survive. Or more precisely, we do not believe that the successor regime -- communism without Fidel -- can hold on for very long. Raul Castro now is reaching out to the United States, but contrary to the Cuban mythology, the United States cannot solve Cuba's problems by ending the trade embargo. The embargo is a political gesture, not a functioning reality. End it or keep it, the Cuban problem is Cuba -- and without Fidel, the Cubans will have to face that fact.
3) Lebanese “Democratic” Collapse
By Yisrael Ne’eman
The “Democratic” forces led by the Christian Maronite, Druze and Sunni factions in Lebanon stand little chance of overcoming the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis in the latest confrontation between the Hezbollah and the pro-west Lebanese government led by Fuad Siniora. There are two simple reasons: First, they do not have the weapons, where as Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and the Hezbollah are armed to the teeth and secondly they are not willing to die for the type of Lebanon they are said to desire – liberal, pluralistic and with full individual freedoms. Also, who are their allies? Supposedly, the moderate Sunni Arab regimes should be showing support, meaning – Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. None of the above mentioned are democracies.
Election practices in Egypt are suspect and should the average citizen express himself at the polls it is suspected the Moslem Brotherhood would make a powerful showing. Jordan is a monarchy where the king can dismiss parliament and Saudi Arabia is an oppressive monarchical oligarchy where 2,500 members of royalty rule and women are second class citizens. Saudi Arabia is the universal nesting grounds for the Wahhabist movement – the ideological home grounds of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. These regimes are viewed as corrupt American-European lackeys, the proof being their alliance with the West. Are these role models for the forces of democracy in Lebanon?
There is an illusion (delusion?) of possible European influence on the Lebanese resulting from trade and tourism, but this is of no concern to Iran, Syria or the Hezbollah. Although the continuing demonstration of thousands demanding the resignation of the Siniora government has so far been relatively peaceful, serious violence could flare at any moment and no one – not the “moderate” Sunni Moslem states nor the Europeans will be sending troops to save the Cedar Revolution democratic movement. The EU has troops in south Lebanon where they (esp. the French) are far more worried about Israeli over flights than they are concerning Hezbollah smuggling of arms/ammunition, rockets and launchers across the border from Syria. And let us not forget that the US is bogged down in Iraq and completely out of the picture. The Americans have horrendous memories of the Oct. 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut by a suicide-homicide bomber. Furthermore the Americans are so despised that any direct steps taken by Washington to try to influence events in Lebanon will only backfire.
Late last month Minister Pierre Gemayel became the sixth prominent Lebanese figure to be assassinated by the pro-Syrian/Iranian forces in Lebanon in less than two years. The murders will continue and at best there will be verbal condemnations, investigations, declared intents of boycotts but no action taken. The new direction is being set by the Baker- Hamilton committee “Iraq Study Group” which has a “realist” approach to foreign policy. It is so realist it believes in engaging both Syria and Iran (and Hezbollah by proxy) in negotiations for Middle East peace and security. British PM Neville Chamberlain did the same in the 1930s to ensure a stable Europe and “peace in our time”.
Not that Nasrallah is having an easy time of it. He overplayed his hand this past summer and ended up in an unplanned war with Israel. Worse yet for him, Hezbollah was forced into the open. Previously the pro-Iranian Shi’ite party was working from within the government to undermine Western influence. They held south Lebanon firmly and had built an impressive social and military infrastructure.
Last month Hezbollah and the secular Amal Shi’ites quit the Siniora government in an attempt to bring it down. That having failed, Nasrallah is screaming “democracy” due to his own self imposed non-representation. Switching tactics, he orchestrated a massive demonstration of 800,000 on Friday to demand the government’s resignation followed by an imposed vigil of thousands to besiege Siniora and his cabinet in central Beirut, so far without results.
But the game is far from over. To call off the vigil will cause Nasrallah enormous damage, resulting in loss of face and possibly loss of support. It must be remembered that moderate Shi’ites also exist, even if they are afraid to oppose the Hezbollah publicly. Syria and Iran have every intention of winning.
So far Nasrallah is calling for peaceful massive pressure to force out the pro-West government, but if that does not succeed, armed confrontation should not be ruled out. Sudden violent turmoil in Lebanon may very well offer the Tehran-Damascus axis the opportunity to intervene. After all, if the Baker - Hamilton recommendations include negotiations with Syria and Iran to ensure stability in the Middle East, then what better “proof of goodwill” could be shown than for the two powers to send “peace keeping” forces, end the Lebanese chaos and guarantee that all factions, including the Hezbollah of course, are represented in the government. Certainly it could be argued, that having Nasrallah in the government under national unity circumstances is far preferable to the present paralysis with the Hezbollah “being forced” to take to the streets.
Such a “moderate” and “peaceful” solution will be considered a more “positive” outcome than physically opposing the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis.
4) Merkel and Chirac urge Syria not to meddle in Lebanese politics
By Reuters
The leaders of France and Germany yesterday urged Syria not to interfere in Lebanon but to contribute constructively to efforts aimed at bringing peace and stability to its neighbor.
"France and Germany call for an end to all interference in the affairs of Lebanon," German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Jacques Chirac said in a joint statement issued after a meeting in Mettlach, Germany.
"They wish that Syria will no longer support forces that want to destabilize Lebanon and the region," the statement said.
"Through a change in its behavior Syria can hope to develop the normal relations it desires with the international community, including the countries of the European Union."
The leaders of the two European Union heavyweights also "called on all parties in Lebanon to be aware of their responsibility to find their way back to dialogue so that all problems can be resolved by the country's democratic institutions."
Merkel and Chirac also expressed their full support for Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Lebanon's army deployed more soldiers in Beirut on Monday after the killing of a pro-Syrian Shi'ite Muslim demonstrator raised fears anti-government protests could turn into sectarian violence.
5) MEMRI: Iran Military Leaders Discuss Targeting U.S. Troops
Top Iranian Military Commanders: In Case of Attack on Iran, We'll Target
U.S. Troops in Gulf; U.S. Warships "Have No Maneuverability and Are Easily
Sunk"; Iranian Suicide Squad Commander: We'll Carry Out Suicide Operations
in Gulf Countries
To mark Iran's Basij Week and Navy Day, in late November 2006, Iranian
Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi and Iranian
Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Commander Admiral Sejad Kouchaki both
threatened that Iran would strike U.S. military targets in the Gulf in the
event of an attack on Iran. IRGC Commander Safavi made threats against "the
200,000 U.S. troops" stationed in the region, threatened to close the
Straits of Hormuz, and said that Iran had not yet given orders to the Iraqi
people to fight against the U.S. troops in Iraq. IRGC Navy Commander
Kouchaki threatened to sink U.S. warships in the Gulf.
In addition, Firooz Rajai-Far, commander of the Martyrs Brigades, commander
of an Iranian volunteer suicide bomber organization, threatened that her
group would carry out suicide operations in the Gulf countries if the latter
permitted the U.S. military to use U.S. military bases in those countries to
launch an attack on Iran.
The following are the main points of reports on the threats:
IRGC Commander Safavi: 200,000 [U.S.] Troops In Their 33 Bases Are Highly
Vulnerable
To mark Basij Day, on November 21, 2006 IRGC Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi
said, "Any time it wants, Iran can implement its control of the Straits of
Hormuz, from whose waters 17 million barrels of oil [per day] leave [the
region]...
"The Americans are sunk in the quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq, and there
is no way for them [to move either] forward or backward. Assuming they
attack Iran, [then] their 200,000 troops, in their 33 bases, are highly
vulnerable. American politicians and military commanders both know this.
"They can start a war, but [the decision to] end [the war] will not be in
their hands. In the meantime, we still have not told the Iraqi people to
act... "(1)
Iranian Navy Commander: "American Warships Are Heavy... And Easily Sunk"
On November 27, 2006, the Iranian news agency Mehr reported that IRGC Navy
Commander Admiral Sejad Kouchaki had said, "We are fully monitoring the
route taken by the American [warships in the Gulf], and because American
warships are heavy, they have no maneuverability, and are easily sunk." (2)
Iranian Suicide Bomber Organization Threatens Suicide Operations Against
U.S. Targets in Gulf
On November 20, 2006, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai reported: "An extremist
Iranian group is threatening to carry out suicide operations in the Gulf
countries that are allies of the U.S., in the event that the U.S. uses its
own bases in these countries to attack Iran." (3)
The paper quoted the commander of the Kataeb Al-Istishhadiyeen (Martyrdom
Brigades) organization, Firooz Rajai,(4) as saying: "If the [U.S.] bases in
the [Gulf] countries are used by the American forces as a point of departure
for an attack [on Iran], these [countries] should not expect to enjoy
security while we [Iran] have none." She added: "If some of the [Arab Gulf]
countries provide America with bases or camps for them to use for conducting
an attack against Iran, is it logical for them to expect security?"
The report also said: "Rajai further clarified that the Martyrdom Brigades,
which was founded in 2002, currently included 56 volunteer suicide bombers,
and was independent and unconnected to the [Iranian] government or the IRGC.
"She said that she had been one of the students who took over the U.S.
Embassy [in 1980] after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and that she would
be willing to do it again were [the Embassy] to reopen."
Rajai has been in the Iranian media a number of times, as leader of an
Iranian organization of volunteers who have registered to carry out suicide
operations against American targets and interests in the region:
* On May 27, 2004, the reformist daily Sharq reported that Rajai-Far was an
activist for a local Iranian organization called Hizbullah, and quoted her
as saying that "martyrdom operations are the only option to expel the
Americans and British from Iraq." (5)
* On June 5, 2004, Sharq reported that Rajai-Far had been one of the
organizers of a conference for signing up volunteers for suicide operations
against American targets in Iraq and against Israel. The report also said
that she had been among the "students who support the line of Imam Khomeini"
in their occupation of the U.S. Embassy.
Sharq also quoted Rajai-Far as saying, "The violence of martyrdom operations
is the same as the violence of the war, and there is no escape from [this
violence]. Although the target of the [martyrdom] operation is military,
civilians may also be killed - and this is exactly what the Americans do.
When civilians are killed in their [the Americans'] attacks, they blame the
inaccuracy of their weapons, and act innocent."6
Endnotes:
(1) Fars news agency, November 21, 2006,
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8508300470 .
(2) Mehr news agency, November 27, 2006,
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=412831.
(3) Al-Rai (Kuwait), November 20, 2006.
(4) It should be noted that Firooz Rajai, quoted here by Al-Rai, appears to
be the same individual who is known to the Iranian media by her full name,
Firooz Rajai-Far.
(5) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 723, "Iran's Revolutionary Guards
Official Threatens Suicide Operations: 'Our Missiles Are Ready to Strike at
Anglo-Saxon Culture... There Are 29 Sensitive Sites in the U.S. and the
West...'" May 28, 2004,
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP72304 .
(6) Sharq (Iran), June 5, 2004.
6) Ayalon says US won't let Iran go nuclear
By GIL HOFFMAN
The defense establishment is wrong in its opinion that the US will not undertake a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear installations and will allow Teheran to obtain nuclear weapons, according to former ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon.
Ayalon, who returned to Israel last month after four years in Washington, disputed the security assessment published in Tuesday's Post that the chances of an American strike were low. He said US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested otherwise when they said publicly that no options were off the table when it came to preventing the nuclearization of Iran.
"I am absolutely certain that the US will not allow Iran to go nuclear, because this is a direct challenge to the most vital interests of the US in the region and beyond," Ayalon said. "There is a deep understanding of this among American strategic thinkers and political leaders in both parties."
"It's true that the focus right now is on a diplomatic solution and all avenues will be exhausted there, but we all should take seriously Bush and Rice's statements that all options are on the table, because they're not just posturing," he said.
Ayalon stressed that the US would not act based on Israel's interests, but on its own. He said acquiring nuclear weapons would allow Iran to continue its aggressive expansion with complete impunity. Iran had proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority and the Iranian regime wanted to drive the US out of the region completely, he said.
According to Ayalon, the US also has an economic interest in stopping Iran because with nuclear weapons, Teheran could control the flow of oil, which could devastate the US economy and the entire international community.
"A nuclear Iran would threaten the world order, because it could ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," Ayalon said. "I disagree with the assessment in [Tuesday]'s Jerusalem Post, because in my estimation, the president, the State Department and the National Security Council do not subscribe to the notion that Iran is bound to be nuclear, that it cannot be stopped and that it must be accommodated. Such a notion is a self-fulfilling prophesy that would allow Iran to become nuclear."
Ayalon also disagreed with the assessment that the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq study group led by former US secretary of state James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton slated to be presented to Bush on Wednesday would be bad news for Israel. A defense official said this week that if the report called for the US to engage Iran, Israel would eventually be left alone to confront the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
"Even if the report recommends engaging Iran, the talks would be about Iraq and not in reference to the Iranian nuclear program," Ayalon said. "Iran hopes to get a nuclear green light in return for its cooperation on Iraq, but the American administration and Congress will not let this happen."
A senior cabinet member who recently returned from a visit to Washington went even further and predicted that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be part of the American exit strategy from Iraq. He said the US would use an attack on Iran to explain its need to withdraw from Iraq.
Meanwhile, former CIA director Robert Gates, who has been nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday that US "military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort." He said the US should first use diplomacy and work with allies to deal with the problems posed by Iran.
"I think that we have seen, in Iraq, that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable," he said.
Gates suggested that Iran could respond to a US attack by closing the Persian Gulf to oil exports and "unleash a significant wave of terror" in the Middle East, Europe and US. He said the US could not promise Israel that Iran would never launch a nuclear attack.
Asked whether he believed Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, Gates said he was not sure, because "the risks for them [the Iranians] are enormously high. I don't think anybody can provide that assurance."
Gates told the senators that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and its leaders were lying when they said the program was strictly civilian.
"Yes, sir, I do," he answered when asked at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether he believed Iran was seeking a nuclear weapons capability. Asked if he believed Iran's leaders were lying, Gates responded, "Yes, sir."
While Iran had not been helpful in Iraq, it could do a lot more to hurt US efforts there, he said. As an example, he said Iran could provide chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups.
Also, he said, Iran's "ability to get Hizbullah to further destabilize Lebanon, I think is very real."
As for Syria, Gates said a US attack on that country would unleash a wave of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
It would have "dramatic consequences for us in the Middle East," Gates said. "It would give rise to greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. It would immediately complicate our relations with every country in the region."
7) Jimmy Carter: “I oppose a Palestinian State”
By Jeff Ballabon
This was Carter, THEN:
… I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980).
———-
…we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America’s own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel’s security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests.We are committed to Israel’s right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and committments. (Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980).
What has changed in the last 25 years? Not Israel’s 1948 independence. Not the 1967 war. Not the cynical, ignominous treatment of Arab refugees by the Arab world.
So why, 25 years later, is Israel’s right to exist a matter of debate, while Palestine’s right to exist is presumed by everyone from the United Nations to Jimmy Carter to George Bush to Ehud Olmert?
Why, when the Palestinian leaderships - PA and Hamas - the first imposed and the second popularly elected, demonstrate that their chief characteristics are, respectively, corrupt thuggery and bloody holy war, why then is endless-concession-making, negotiating, retreating, disengaging, humanitarian-aid-giving, appeasing Israel viewed as the “destabilizing factor?”
Did a massive land-grab by Israel precede Carter’s new book? On the contrary: a massive land-surrender preceded the book. And, in fact, when it retreats, morally, intellectually, politically, physically, Israel does become the destabilizing factor - or at least surrenders its role as the stabilizer of the world’s most volatile region.
What has changed is Israel’s own resolve. Why should anyone else fight to support a nation whose political elite takes every opportunity and advantage we give it and squanders it? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which sacrifices its soldiers rather than vanquishes its enemy? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which has ceased believing in itself? Which cravenly begs forgiveness on the rare occasions it actually defends its citizens? Why should anyone fight for a Jewish homeland which seems bent on denying its Jewishness? Why should anyone care about a state which retreats from its victories? Which sheds its democratic veneer to brutalize and displace its most patriotic and committed citizens, its idealists, its pioneers? Why should anyone care for an Israel that is willing, even eager, in its quest for a “secular revolution” to declare that the Jewish heritage is an albatross, that Judea and Samaria are a burden, and that Jerusalem is negotiable? That the State of Israel is, in fact, seeking to disengage from the Holy Land?
The turning point, perhaps the catalyst, was Oslo; the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak plan to (in Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross’ terminology) dispense with the “mythologies” in order to negotiate. How very modern and enlightened and liberal and civilized. And how very destructive and foolish and deadly. The ideas, the principles, the vision, the morals, the truths which they disdain as mythologies were and are the very heart of Israel’s national aspiration. It was the vision that kept Jews alive through millenia of diaspora and dispersion, crusade, expulsion, forced conversion, blood libel and pogrom, and, finally, Holocaust And the heart may be romanticized as the seat of emotion, but only the hopelessly deluded excises it and thinks the body will survive. Only the deluded excises the heart. Or the suicidal.
What has changed, in consequence, is the resolve of Israel’s enemies as well. And, because they are not burdened by the selfish inanity of modern liberalism, they have not lost their willingness to suffer and to sacrifice. The suicides they are committing are anything but deluded; their terror is a winning strategy. Rather than eliciting disgust and fury, rather than being condemned as unutterably barbaric, the use of civilians as targets, children as bombs and grandmothers as bunkers has even brought them the sympathies of the deluded West. Not only in the corridors of the UN or the salons of Europe - but even in those enlightened liberal precincts in Israel where the stubborn, unruly Jewish “mythologies” have long since been relegated, surrendered, sublimated to an oh-so-superior modern Israeli multicultural consciousness.
Dick
See 2 below for a report from Stratfor's Friedman re Cuba post Castro who is finally dying.
Ne'eman writes about the prospect for Lebanon's democracy to survive and the fact that there is basically little hope it will without western intervention, which is most unlikely. (See 3 below.)
I am trying to arrange for Brigette Gabriel to speak. If you would like to see what she has to say you can do so by entering youtube.com/watch. She has written a best seller which describes her flight from the Palestinians to Israel and her experience.
The Baker report will be released tomorrow and is supposed to urge we have direct talks with Syria and Iran. If this is correct, somewhere along the way, those who came together in unison seem to have ignored the multitude of direct talks in the past on the part of the Europeans and our own rebuffed past attempts by Carter and Clinton. Iran and Syria have broken all their commitments, have lied to the UN and the Europeans endlessly but Baker and company persist in arguing we need to talk. Iran and Syria have no reason to help pull our chestnut out of the fire.
Now come Chirac and Merkel, basically pleading with Syria, to make nice and quit fomenting the overthrow of the Lebanese government. (See 4 below.) When will world leaders get real? Until they do, they look like fools and simply prove the ghost of Chamberlain still stalks the halls of Europe's capitals and even some alleys of DC.
Nominee Gates stated today that Iran might well attack our troops and a report by Memri supports his comments.(See 5 below.) Is Iran, The Mouse That Roared?
Does former Israeli Ambassador Ayalon know something or is he extrapolating previous comments and doing some wishful thinking? (See 6 below.)
Jeff Ballabon reminds Jimmy of his former words and poses the question what has changed? Ballabon believes Israel's leadership buckled and thus, have brought this new anti-Israel attitude on themselves, in the process. (See 7 below.)
Dick
1)The Smoking Gun
We have charged in previous emails and on our website that, by hiding behind “human shields,” Hezbollah and other terrorist groups have been placing civilians at risk and that the blood of these civilians is on their hands if civilians are killed and injured in the ensuing conflict. Today, New York Times has published a just-declassified report from Israel, based on evidence seized in Lebanon and on video footage, showing Hezbollah’s consistent pattern of intentionally placing its fighters and weapons among civilians. Most shocking of all, the report shows that Hezbollah terrorists were well aware of the civilian casualties that would ensue and callously disregarded the consequences.
Because the American Jewish Congress worked closely with the Israeli military both to see that the report was compiled and to ensure that it was brought to public attention, we are able to present a copy of this extraordinary, shocking report on our website.
2) Cuba After Castro
By George Friedman
It is now apparent that Fidel Castro is dying. He is 80 years old, so that should not be surprising. The Cubans are managing his death as if it were a state secret -- hiding the self-evident -- but that is the nature of the regime, as it is the nature of many governments. The question on the table is whether the Cuban government can survive Castro's death -- and in either case, what course Cuba will follow.
The Communist regime, as we have known it, cannot possibly survive Castro's death. To be sure, Fidel's brother Raul will take over leadership; the Cuban Communist Party, the military and intelligence system, and the government ministries will continue to rule. But the regime that Castro created will be dead. It will be dead because Castro will be dead, and whatever survives him cannot be called the same regime. It will have been fundamentally transformed.
Fidel Castro's departure from the stage, then, leads to two questions. First, what will the future hold for Cuba? And second, will that matter to anyone other than the Cubans?
The Death of a Dream
Under Fidel, the Cuban regime had an end beyond itself. Fidel believed -- and, much more significantly, enough of his citizens and international supporters believed -- that the purpose of the regime was not only to transform life in Cuba but, more important, to revolutionize Latin America and the rest of the Third World and confront American imperialism with the mobilized masses of the globe. Fidel did not rule for the sake of ruling. He ruled for the sake of revolution.
Raul was a functionary of the Castro regime, as were the others who now will step into the tremendous vacuum that Fidel will leave. For Raul and others of his class, the Cuban regime was an end in itself. Their goal was to keep it functioning. Fidel dreamed of using the regime to reshape the world. His minions, including his brother, may once have had dreams, but for a very long time their focus has been on preserving the regime and their power, come what may.
Therefore, on the day that Fidel Castro dies, the regime he created will die with him and a new regime of functionaries will come into existence. That regime will not be able to claim the imaginations of the disaffected and the politically ambitious around the world. The difference between the old and the new in Cuba is the difference between Josef Stalin and Leonid Brezhnev. It is not a difference in moral character but of imagination. Stalin was far more than a functionary. He was, in his own way, a visionary -- and was seen by his followers around the world as a visionary. When the Soviet Union fell into the hands of Brezhnev, it fell into the hands of a functionary. Stalin served a vision; Brezhnev served the regime. Stalin ruled absolutely; Brezhnev ruled by committee and consensus. Stalin was far more than the state and party apparatus; Brezhnev was far less.
Brezhnev's goal was preserving the Soviet state. There were many reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union, but at the core, the fact that mere survival had become its highest aim was what killed it. The Soviets still repeated lifelessly the Leninist and Stalinist slogans, but no one believed them -- and no one thought for one moment that Brezhnev believed them.
It has been many years since Fidel's vision had any real possibility of coming true. Certainly, it has had little meaning since the fall of the Soviet Union. In some ways, the death of Che Guevara in Bolivia was the end. But regardless of when the practical possibilities of Cuba had dissolved, Fidel Castro continued to believe that the original vision was still possible. More important, his followers believed that he believed, and therefore, they believed. No one can believe in Raul Castro's vision. Thus, the era that began in 1959 is ending.
The ascent of Raul raises the question of what hope there is for Cuba.
Fidel promised tremendous economic improvements, along with Cuba's place in the vanguard of the revolution. The vanguard now has disintegrated, and the economic improvements never came in the ways promised. When Fidel took power, he argued that it was economic relations with the imperialists that impoverished Cuba. By the end of his rule, he had come to argue that it was the lack of economic relations with the imperialists that impoverished Cuba -- that the American embargo had strangled the country. That was absurd: Cuba could trade with Canada, the rest of Latin America, Europe, Asia and wherever it wanted. It was not locked out of the world. It wasn't even locked out of the United States, since third parties would facilitate trade. But then, Fidel was always persuasive, even when completely incoherent. That was the foundation of his strength: He believed deeply in what he said, and those who listened believed as well. Fidel was writing poems, not economic analysis, and that kept anyone from looking too closely at the details.
Now, the poetry is ending, and the detail men and bean-counters are in charge. They don't know any poems -- and while they can charge the United States with bearing the blame for all of the revolution's failures, it is not the same as if Fidel were doing it. Regimes do not survive by simple brute strength. There have to be those who believe. Stalin had his believers, as did Hitler and Saddam Hussein. But who believes in Raul and his committees? Certainly, the instruments of power are in their hands, as they were in the hands of other communist rulers whose regimes collapsed. But holding the instruments of power is not, over time, enough. It is difficult to imagine the regime of functionaries surviving very long. Without Fidel, there is little to hope for.
A Question of Control
The future of Cuba once meant a great deal to the international system. Once, there was nearly a global thermonuclear war over Cuba. But that was more than 40 years ago, and the world has changed. The question now is whether the future of Cuba matters to anyone but the Cubans.
Geopolitically, the most important point about Cuba is that it is an island situated 90 miles from the coast of the United States -- now the world's only superpower. Cuba was a Spanish colony until the Spanish-American war, and then was either occupied or dominated by the United States and American interests until the rise of Castro. Its history, therefore, is defined first by its relationship with Spain and then by its relationship to the United States.
From the U.S. standpoint, Cuba is always a geographical threat. If the Mississippi River is the great highway of American agriculture and New Orleans its great port to the world, then Cuba sits directly athwart New Orleans' access to the world. There is no way for ships from New Orleans to exit the Gulf of Mexico into the Atlantic Ocean but to traverse two narrow channels on either side of Cuba -- the Yucatan channel, between Cuba's western coast and the Yucatan; or the Straits of Florida, between the island's northern coast and Florida. If these two channels were closed, U.S. agricultural and mineral exports and imports would crumble. Not only New Orleans, but all of the Gulf Coast ports like Houston, would be shut in.
Cuba does not have the size or strength in and of itself to close those channels. But should another superpower control Cuba, the threat would become real and intolerable. The occupation of Cuba by a foreign power -- whether Spain, Germany, Russia or others -- would pose a direct geopolitical threat to the United States. Add to that the possibility that missiles could be fired from Cuba to the United States, and we can see what Washington sees there. It is not Cuba that is a threat, but rather a Cuba that is allied with or dominated by a foreign power challenging the United States globally. Therefore, the Americans don't much care who runs Cuba, so long as Cuba is not in a politico-military alliance with another power.
Under Spain, there was a minor threat. But prior to World War II, German influence in Cuba was a real concern. And Castro's Communist revolution and alliance with the Soviet Union were seen by the United States as a mortal threat. It was not Cuban ideology (though that was an irritant) nearly so much as Cuba's geopolitical position and the way it could be exploited by other great powers that obsessed the United States. When the Soviet Union went away, so did the American obsession. Now, Washington's Cuba policy is merely a vestige from a past era.
Without a foreign sponsor, Cuba is geopolitically impotent. It cannot threaten U.S. sea-lanes. It cannot be a base for nuclear weapons to be used against the United States. Its regime cannot be legitimized by the fact that the international system is focused on it. That means that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cubans, under Castro, have been trying to make themselves useful to major powers. Havana approached the Chinese, and they didn't bite. The Russians may be interested in the future, but they have their hands full in their own neighborhood right now. Countries like North Korea and Iran are in no position to exploit the opportunity.
The Cubans have had to content themselves with playing midwife to the leftist movements in Venezuela and Bolivia. The Latin American left in general continues to take its inspiration from Fidel's Cuba. Now, this does not create a new geopolitical reality, but it does create the possibility of one, which is what Fidel has been working on. If Fidel dies, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia are not going to turn to Raul for inspiration and legitimacy. Rather, Raul is going to be looking to Venezuela for cheap oil, while Chavez claims the place of Fidel as the leader of the Latin American left.
So, if Cuba is no longer to be the center of the Latin American revolutionary left, then what is it? It will become an island of occasional strategic importance -- though not important at the moment -- with a regime of functionaries as inspiring as a Bulgarian Party Congress in 1985. Cuba with Fidel was the hope of the Latin American left. Cuba without Fidel is tedious method, a state with a glorious past and a dubious future.
Past as Prologue
Certainly, Raul and his colleagues have superb instruments with which to stabilize Cuban security, but these are no better than the instruments that Romania and East Germany had. Those instruments will work for a while, but not permanently. For the regime to survive, Cuba must transform its economic life, but to do that, it risks the survival of the regime -- for the regime's control of the economy is one of the instruments of stability. Raul is not a man who is about to redefine the country, but he must try.
We are, therefore, pessimistic about the regime's ability to survive. Or more precisely, we do not believe that the successor regime -- communism without Fidel -- can hold on for very long. Raul Castro now is reaching out to the United States, but contrary to the Cuban mythology, the United States cannot solve Cuba's problems by ending the trade embargo. The embargo is a political gesture, not a functioning reality. End it or keep it, the Cuban problem is Cuba -- and without Fidel, the Cubans will have to face that fact.
3) Lebanese “Democratic” Collapse
By Yisrael Ne’eman
The “Democratic” forces led by the Christian Maronite, Druze and Sunni factions in Lebanon stand little chance of overcoming the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis in the latest confrontation between the Hezbollah and the pro-west Lebanese government led by Fuad Siniora. There are two simple reasons: First, they do not have the weapons, where as Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and the Hezbollah are armed to the teeth and secondly they are not willing to die for the type of Lebanon they are said to desire – liberal, pluralistic and with full individual freedoms. Also, who are their allies? Supposedly, the moderate Sunni Arab regimes should be showing support, meaning – Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. None of the above mentioned are democracies.
Election practices in Egypt are suspect and should the average citizen express himself at the polls it is suspected the Moslem Brotherhood would make a powerful showing. Jordan is a monarchy where the king can dismiss parliament and Saudi Arabia is an oppressive monarchical oligarchy where 2,500 members of royalty rule and women are second class citizens. Saudi Arabia is the universal nesting grounds for the Wahhabist movement – the ideological home grounds of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. These regimes are viewed as corrupt American-European lackeys, the proof being their alliance with the West. Are these role models for the forces of democracy in Lebanon?
There is an illusion (delusion?) of possible European influence on the Lebanese resulting from trade and tourism, but this is of no concern to Iran, Syria or the Hezbollah. Although the continuing demonstration of thousands demanding the resignation of the Siniora government has so far been relatively peaceful, serious violence could flare at any moment and no one – not the “moderate” Sunni Moslem states nor the Europeans will be sending troops to save the Cedar Revolution democratic movement. The EU has troops in south Lebanon where they (esp. the French) are far more worried about Israeli over flights than they are concerning Hezbollah smuggling of arms/ammunition, rockets and launchers across the border from Syria. And let us not forget that the US is bogged down in Iraq and completely out of the picture. The Americans have horrendous memories of the Oct. 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut by a suicide-homicide bomber. Furthermore the Americans are so despised that any direct steps taken by Washington to try to influence events in Lebanon will only backfire.
Late last month Minister Pierre Gemayel became the sixth prominent Lebanese figure to be assassinated by the pro-Syrian/Iranian forces in Lebanon in less than two years. The murders will continue and at best there will be verbal condemnations, investigations, declared intents of boycotts but no action taken. The new direction is being set by the Baker- Hamilton committee “Iraq Study Group” which has a “realist” approach to foreign policy. It is so realist it believes in engaging both Syria and Iran (and Hezbollah by proxy) in negotiations for Middle East peace and security. British PM Neville Chamberlain did the same in the 1930s to ensure a stable Europe and “peace in our time”.
Not that Nasrallah is having an easy time of it. He overplayed his hand this past summer and ended up in an unplanned war with Israel. Worse yet for him, Hezbollah was forced into the open. Previously the pro-Iranian Shi’ite party was working from within the government to undermine Western influence. They held south Lebanon firmly and had built an impressive social and military infrastructure.
Last month Hezbollah and the secular Amal Shi’ites quit the Siniora government in an attempt to bring it down. That having failed, Nasrallah is screaming “democracy” due to his own self imposed non-representation. Switching tactics, he orchestrated a massive demonstration of 800,000 on Friday to demand the government’s resignation followed by an imposed vigil of thousands to besiege Siniora and his cabinet in central Beirut, so far without results.
But the game is far from over. To call off the vigil will cause Nasrallah enormous damage, resulting in loss of face and possibly loss of support. It must be remembered that moderate Shi’ites also exist, even if they are afraid to oppose the Hezbollah publicly. Syria and Iran have every intention of winning.
So far Nasrallah is calling for peaceful massive pressure to force out the pro-West government, but if that does not succeed, armed confrontation should not be ruled out. Sudden violent turmoil in Lebanon may very well offer the Tehran-Damascus axis the opportunity to intervene. After all, if the Baker - Hamilton recommendations include negotiations with Syria and Iran to ensure stability in the Middle East, then what better “proof of goodwill” could be shown than for the two powers to send “peace keeping” forces, end the Lebanese chaos and guarantee that all factions, including the Hezbollah of course, are represented in the government. Certainly it could be argued, that having Nasrallah in the government under national unity circumstances is far preferable to the present paralysis with the Hezbollah “being forced” to take to the streets.
Such a “moderate” and “peaceful” solution will be considered a more “positive” outcome than physically opposing the Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah axis.
4) Merkel and Chirac urge Syria not to meddle in Lebanese politics
By Reuters
The leaders of France and Germany yesterday urged Syria not to interfere in Lebanon but to contribute constructively to efforts aimed at bringing peace and stability to its neighbor.
"France and Germany call for an end to all interference in the affairs of Lebanon," German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Jacques Chirac said in a joint statement issued after a meeting in Mettlach, Germany.
"They wish that Syria will no longer support forces that want to destabilize Lebanon and the region," the statement said.
"Through a change in its behavior Syria can hope to develop the normal relations it desires with the international community, including the countries of the European Union."
The leaders of the two European Union heavyweights also "called on all parties in Lebanon to be aware of their responsibility to find their way back to dialogue so that all problems can be resolved by the country's democratic institutions."
Merkel and Chirac also expressed their full support for Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
Lebanon's army deployed more soldiers in Beirut on Monday after the killing of a pro-Syrian Shi'ite Muslim demonstrator raised fears anti-government protests could turn into sectarian violence.
5) MEMRI: Iran Military Leaders Discuss Targeting U.S. Troops
Top Iranian Military Commanders: In Case of Attack on Iran, We'll Target
U.S. Troops in Gulf; U.S. Warships "Have No Maneuverability and Are Easily
Sunk"; Iranian Suicide Squad Commander: We'll Carry Out Suicide Operations
in Gulf Countries
To mark Iran's Basij Week and Navy Day, in late November 2006, Iranian
Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi and Iranian
Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy Commander Admiral Sejad Kouchaki both
threatened that Iran would strike U.S. military targets in the Gulf in the
event of an attack on Iran. IRGC Commander Safavi made threats against "the
200,000 U.S. troops" stationed in the region, threatened to close the
Straits of Hormuz, and said that Iran had not yet given orders to the Iraqi
people to fight against the U.S. troops in Iraq. IRGC Navy Commander
Kouchaki threatened to sink U.S. warships in the Gulf.
In addition, Firooz Rajai-Far, commander of the Martyrs Brigades, commander
of an Iranian volunteer suicide bomber organization, threatened that her
group would carry out suicide operations in the Gulf countries if the latter
permitted the U.S. military to use U.S. military bases in those countries to
launch an attack on Iran.
The following are the main points of reports on the threats:
IRGC Commander Safavi: 200,000 [U.S.] Troops In Their 33 Bases Are Highly
Vulnerable
To mark Basij Day, on November 21, 2006 IRGC Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi
said, "Any time it wants, Iran can implement its control of the Straits of
Hormuz, from whose waters 17 million barrels of oil [per day] leave [the
region]...
"The Americans are sunk in the quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq, and there
is no way for them [to move either] forward or backward. Assuming they
attack Iran, [then] their 200,000 troops, in their 33 bases, are highly
vulnerable. American politicians and military commanders both know this.
"They can start a war, but [the decision to] end [the war] will not be in
their hands. In the meantime, we still have not told the Iraqi people to
act... "(1)
Iranian Navy Commander: "American Warships Are Heavy... And Easily Sunk"
On November 27, 2006, the Iranian news agency Mehr reported that IRGC Navy
Commander Admiral Sejad Kouchaki had said, "We are fully monitoring the
route taken by the American [warships in the Gulf], and because American
warships are heavy, they have no maneuverability, and are easily sunk." (2)
Iranian Suicide Bomber Organization Threatens Suicide Operations Against
U.S. Targets in Gulf
On November 20, 2006, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai reported: "An extremist
Iranian group is threatening to carry out suicide operations in the Gulf
countries that are allies of the U.S., in the event that the U.S. uses its
own bases in these countries to attack Iran." (3)
The paper quoted the commander of the Kataeb Al-Istishhadiyeen (Martyrdom
Brigades) organization, Firooz Rajai,(4) as saying: "If the [U.S.] bases in
the [Gulf] countries are used by the American forces as a point of departure
for an attack [on Iran], these [countries] should not expect to enjoy
security while we [Iran] have none." She added: "If some of the [Arab Gulf]
countries provide America with bases or camps for them to use for conducting
an attack against Iran, is it logical for them to expect security?"
The report also said: "Rajai further clarified that the Martyrdom Brigades,
which was founded in 2002, currently included 56 volunteer suicide bombers,
and was independent and unconnected to the [Iranian] government or the IRGC.
"She said that she had been one of the students who took over the U.S.
Embassy [in 1980] after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and that she would
be willing to do it again were [the Embassy] to reopen."
Rajai has been in the Iranian media a number of times, as leader of an
Iranian organization of volunteers who have registered to carry out suicide
operations against American targets and interests in the region:
* On May 27, 2004, the reformist daily Sharq reported that Rajai-Far was an
activist for a local Iranian organization called Hizbullah, and quoted her
as saying that "martyrdom operations are the only option to expel the
Americans and British from Iraq." (5)
* On June 5, 2004, Sharq reported that Rajai-Far had been one of the
organizers of a conference for signing up volunteers for suicide operations
against American targets in Iraq and against Israel. The report also said
that she had been among the "students who support the line of Imam Khomeini"
in their occupation of the U.S. Embassy.
Sharq also quoted Rajai-Far as saying, "The violence of martyrdom operations
is the same as the violence of the war, and there is no escape from [this
violence]. Although the target of the [martyrdom] operation is military,
civilians may also be killed - and this is exactly what the Americans do.
When civilians are killed in their [the Americans'] attacks, they blame the
inaccuracy of their weapons, and act innocent."6
Endnotes:
(1) Fars news agency, November 21, 2006,
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8508300470 .
(2) Mehr news agency, November 27, 2006,
http://www.mehrnews.com/fa/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=412831.
(3) Al-Rai (Kuwait), November 20, 2006.
(4) It should be noted that Firooz Rajai, quoted here by Al-Rai, appears to
be the same individual who is known to the Iranian media by her full name,
Firooz Rajai-Far.
(5) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 723, "Iran's Revolutionary Guards
Official Threatens Suicide Operations: 'Our Missiles Are Ready to Strike at
Anglo-Saxon Culture... There Are 29 Sensitive Sites in the U.S. and the
West...'" May 28, 2004,
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP72304 .
(6) Sharq (Iran), June 5, 2004.
6) Ayalon says US won't let Iran go nuclear
By GIL HOFFMAN
The defense establishment is wrong in its opinion that the US will not undertake a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear installations and will allow Teheran to obtain nuclear weapons, according to former ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon.
Ayalon, who returned to Israel last month after four years in Washington, disputed the security assessment published in Tuesday's Post that the chances of an American strike were low. He said US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested otherwise when they said publicly that no options were off the table when it came to preventing the nuclearization of Iran.
"I am absolutely certain that the US will not allow Iran to go nuclear, because this is a direct challenge to the most vital interests of the US in the region and beyond," Ayalon said. "There is a deep understanding of this among American strategic thinkers and political leaders in both parties."
"It's true that the focus right now is on a diplomatic solution and all avenues will be exhausted there, but we all should take seriously Bush and Rice's statements that all options are on the table, because they're not just posturing," he said.
Ayalon stressed that the US would not act based on Israel's interests, but on its own. He said acquiring nuclear weapons would allow Iran to continue its aggressive expansion with complete impunity. Iran had proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority and the Iranian regime wanted to drive the US out of the region completely, he said.
According to Ayalon, the US also has an economic interest in stopping Iran because with nuclear weapons, Teheran could control the flow of oil, which could devastate the US economy and the entire international community.
"A nuclear Iran would threaten the world order, because it could ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," Ayalon said. "I disagree with the assessment in [Tuesday]'s Jerusalem Post, because in my estimation, the president, the State Department and the National Security Council do not subscribe to the notion that Iran is bound to be nuclear, that it cannot be stopped and that it must be accommodated. Such a notion is a self-fulfilling prophesy that would allow Iran to become nuclear."
Ayalon also disagreed with the assessment that the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq study group led by former US secretary of state James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton slated to be presented to Bush on Wednesday would be bad news for Israel. A defense official said this week that if the report called for the US to engage Iran, Israel would eventually be left alone to confront the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
"Even if the report recommends engaging Iran, the talks would be about Iraq and not in reference to the Iranian nuclear program," Ayalon said. "Iran hopes to get a nuclear green light in return for its cooperation on Iraq, but the American administration and Congress will not let this happen."
A senior cabinet member who recently returned from a visit to Washington went even further and predicted that attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be part of the American exit strategy from Iraq. He said the US would use an attack on Iran to explain its need to withdraw from Iraq.
Meanwhile, former CIA director Robert Gates, who has been nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday that US "military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort." He said the US should first use diplomacy and work with allies to deal with the problems posed by Iran.
"I think that we have seen, in Iraq, that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable," he said.
Gates suggested that Iran could respond to a US attack by closing the Persian Gulf to oil exports and "unleash a significant wave of terror" in the Middle East, Europe and US. He said the US could not promise Israel that Iran would never launch a nuclear attack.
Asked whether he believed Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, Gates said he was not sure, because "the risks for them [the Iranians] are enormously high. I don't think anybody can provide that assurance."
Gates told the senators that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and its leaders were lying when they said the program was strictly civilian.
"Yes, sir, I do," he answered when asked at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether he believed Iran was seeking a nuclear weapons capability. Asked if he believed Iran's leaders were lying, Gates responded, "Yes, sir."
While Iran had not been helpful in Iraq, it could do a lot more to hurt US efforts there, he said. As an example, he said Iran could provide chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups.
Also, he said, Iran's "ability to get Hizbullah to further destabilize Lebanon, I think is very real."
As for Syria, Gates said a US attack on that country would unleash a wave of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
It would have "dramatic consequences for us in the Middle East," Gates said. "It would give rise to greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. It would immediately complicate our relations with every country in the region."
7) Jimmy Carter: “I oppose a Palestinian State”
By Jeff Ballabon
This was Carter, THEN:
… I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because in my own judgement and in the judgement of many leaders in the Middle East, including Arab leaders, this would be a destabilizing factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States interests. (Jimmy Carter at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference, February 25, 1980).
———-
…we oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The United States, as all of you know, has a warm and unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America’s own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel’s security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer to the world. A strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests.We are committed to Israel’s right to live in peace with all its neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism. We are committed to a Jerusalem that will forever remain undivided with free access to all faiths to the holy places. Nothing will deflect us from these fundamental principles and committments. (Source: First anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty / White House joint conference, March 23, 1980).
What has changed in the last 25 years? Not Israel’s 1948 independence. Not the 1967 war. Not the cynical, ignominous treatment of Arab refugees by the Arab world.
So why, 25 years later, is Israel’s right to exist a matter of debate, while Palestine’s right to exist is presumed by everyone from the United Nations to Jimmy Carter to George Bush to Ehud Olmert?
Why, when the Palestinian leaderships - PA and Hamas - the first imposed and the second popularly elected, demonstrate that their chief characteristics are, respectively, corrupt thuggery and bloody holy war, why then is endless-concession-making, negotiating, retreating, disengaging, humanitarian-aid-giving, appeasing Israel viewed as the “destabilizing factor?”
Did a massive land-grab by Israel precede Carter’s new book? On the contrary: a massive land-surrender preceded the book. And, in fact, when it retreats, morally, intellectually, politically, physically, Israel does become the destabilizing factor - or at least surrenders its role as the stabilizer of the world’s most volatile region.
What has changed is Israel’s own resolve. Why should anyone else fight to support a nation whose political elite takes every opportunity and advantage we give it and squanders it? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which sacrifices its soldiers rather than vanquishes its enemy? Why should anyone else fight for a nation which has ceased believing in itself? Which cravenly begs forgiveness on the rare occasions it actually defends its citizens? Why should anyone fight for a Jewish homeland which seems bent on denying its Jewishness? Why should anyone care about a state which retreats from its victories? Which sheds its democratic veneer to brutalize and displace its most patriotic and committed citizens, its idealists, its pioneers? Why should anyone care for an Israel that is willing, even eager, in its quest for a “secular revolution” to declare that the Jewish heritage is an albatross, that Judea and Samaria are a burden, and that Jerusalem is negotiable? That the State of Israel is, in fact, seeking to disengage from the Holy Land?
The turning point, perhaps the catalyst, was Oslo; the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak plan to (in Clinton negotiator Dennis Ross’ terminology) dispense with the “mythologies” in order to negotiate. How very modern and enlightened and liberal and civilized. And how very destructive and foolish and deadly. The ideas, the principles, the vision, the morals, the truths which they disdain as mythologies were and are the very heart of Israel’s national aspiration. It was the vision that kept Jews alive through millenia of diaspora and dispersion, crusade, expulsion, forced conversion, blood libel and pogrom, and, finally, Holocaust And the heart may be romanticized as the seat of emotion, but only the hopelessly deluded excises it and thinks the body will survive. Only the deluded excises the heart. Or the suicidal.
What has changed, in consequence, is the resolve of Israel’s enemies as well. And, because they are not burdened by the selfish inanity of modern liberalism, they have not lost their willingness to suffer and to sacrifice. The suicides they are committing are anything but deluded; their terror is a winning strategy. Rather than eliciting disgust and fury, rather than being condemned as unutterably barbaric, the use of civilians as targets, children as bombs and grandmothers as bunkers has even brought them the sympathies of the deluded West. Not only in the corridors of the UN or the salons of Europe - but even in those enlightened liberal precincts in Israel where the stubborn, unruly Jewish “mythologies” have long since been relegated, surrendered, sublimated to an oh-so-superior modern Israeli multicultural consciousness.
Dick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)