Posts with the tag 'Israel'
John McCain on the deaths of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser:
I wish to extend my deepest condolences to the families of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. When I met the Regev and Goldwasser families in Israel, I was moved by their profound love for their sons, who were kidnapped by Hezbollah in the summer of 2006. Now we know that Eldad and Ehud made the ultimate sacrifice for the country they served and loved. In spite of this tragic loss, Israel and the United States will remain united in their struggle against terrorism. The continuing attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups supported by state sponsors of terror like Syria and Iran pose a severe threat to Israel. Our democratic ally is under siege, and these two deaths are just the latest in a long line of brave Israelis who have been killed by vicious terrorists. Though we mourn the loss of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, we are reminded by this that we must never waver in our support for Israel, and we continue to demand the re lease of Gilad Shalit, taken captive by Hamas and held illegally since the summer of 2006.
Israel cares about its sons, and so it paid a high price just to get the bodies of their brave men back…Hamas views its sons as excellent guided bombs and so much cannon fodder. They call this “asymetrical warfare” - where the weaker side will make the stronger pay a higher price than they want to bother with. This is very tough to be, but it is beatable.
We have shown in Iraq that the evil of terrorism can be defeated, even when backed by outside players - the ultimate resolution of the problem of Lebanon will require, I believe, military action. But not another foolhardhy grinding match in the hills of Lebanon…no, when push comes to shove, Israel (with US backing, if need be) must strike at the real heart of Hamas, which is in Damascus…hold Damascus hostage to a complete Syrio-Hamas withdrawal from Lebanon.
Its either act decisively, or Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser will just become two of a long line of Israeli dead.
Tags: Hamas, Israel, John McCain, Lebanon, Syria, Terrorism
July 18th, 2008
More Carteresque by the day:
Democrat Barack Obama misused a “code word” in Middle East politics when he said Jerusalem should be Israel’s “undivided” capital but that does not mean he is naive on foreign policy, a top adviser said on Tuesday.
Addressing a pro-Israel lobby group this month, the Democratic White House hopeful said: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
The comment angered Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967, as the capital of a future state. “He has closed all doors to peace,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said after the June 4 speech.
Obama later said Palestinians and Israelis had to negotiate the status of the city, in line with long-held U.S. presidential policy.
Daniel Kurtzer, who advises Obama on the Middle East, said Tuesday at the Israel Policy Forum that Obama’s comment stemmed from “a picture in his mind of Jerusalem before 1967 with barbed wires and minefields and demilitarized zones.”
“So he used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East,” Kurtzer said.
Whether or not Jerusalem should remain the undivided capitol of Israel is a debatable issue - I think it should be, because anything remotely like a retreat on the part of Israel will just be seen by the Jihadists as another signal to attack. But one can have either view and have a rational foreign policy - but you can’t have both. You can’t, that is, try desperately to mend your fences with America’s Jewish voters who might prove vital in a close November election while at the same time keeping on board your supporters who think that the Palestinians are the good guys in the Israeli-Palestinian war. Pick one, and stick with it.
Obama tried to have it both ways, and now he’s got his advisor out assuring all and sundry that it was a mistake…just a verbal gaffe…but verbal gaffes in such a serious issue can lead to dead people, and the people of the United States need to take this into consideration as they make their choice in November.
Tags: Israel, Jerusalem, Palestinians, Terrorism
June 19th, 2008
Loud and clear, as usual:
Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is ‘tiny’ compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a ’stinking corpse,’ has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States cur rently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny’.
Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.
This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.
Obama by his statement of willingness to meet with Iranian leaders without pre-conditions immediately disqualified himself in the minds of all thinking Americans from the Presidency of the United States. Never has a major Presidential candidate made such an obtuse statement - a statement so at odds with facts, logic and the way affairs between States are governed that one questions whether Obama has ever entertained a serious thought about foreign affairs. Obama, installed in the White House, would be a mere tool in the hands of whatever liberal extremists wind up in charge of foreign policy - unable to tell when he’s being conned in foreign affairs, Obama would fall into trap after trap, to the detriment of American prestige, and to the risk of the peace and liberty of the world.
The sort of policy idiocy we can expect from an Obama Administration is best illustrated by a preposterous opinion piece I read in the local paper today (unable to find a link), which figures its ok for Iran to have nukes, because the US could promise Israel to exterminate Iran if Iran ever exterminated Israel…as if the death of tens of millions is something a civilized person really contemplates; as if the Israelis will be happy, once dead, as long as they know that tens of millions of innocent Iranians are murdered, too; as if Iran’s leaders are like Russia’s leaders, possessed of a desire to lay wrapped in wealth and power, rather than a messianic desire to remake the Caliphate and usher in the end of the world…
We must have people in power who understand that some of the differences in the world aren’t the result of misunderstandings or hurt feelings - some times the differences stem from the fact that the two sides are antagonistic to each other and can’t get along while one side remains as it is. Iran’s government is cruel, inhuman and evil - it has no redeeming qualities, and there is no evidence that there are enough “moderates” in it to prevent the radicals from doing whatever they please. We can, perhaps, work out some livable arrangement between ourselves and the government of Iran - but not at the cost of an Iranian nulcear force, not at the risk of another Holocaust and not while Iran and its agents are killing Americans in Iraq. Period. End of story.
McCain understands this. Obama doesn’t. And that, really, is all we need to know for November.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John McCain
May 20th, 2008
The world we live in:
Jordanian University lecturer Ibrahim Alloush recommended on Al-Jazeera television this week that suicide bombers be equipped with small nuclear bombs.
According to a transcript provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Dr. Alloush said, “Whoever managed to get a martyrdom-seeker into Dimona, should consider how to get martyrdom-seekers into Dimona and elsewhere armed with non-conventional explosives - and perhaps even small nuclear bombs,” he stated. “We should think in this direction.”
Alloush lived for 13 years in the United States, earning graduate degrees at Ohio University and Oklahoma State University, where he earned a doctorate in economics.
Got that? He lived among us for 13 years - he knows us; he knows the truth about America and Americans…and yet he wants suicide bombers to strap on small nukes. What do you say to such a man to convince him of the error of his ways? A promise of more foreign aid? US withdrawal from Iraq? A Palestinian capitol in eastern Jerusalem? What can you really offer the man who wants suicide nukes? Nothing, except your voluntary death - there’s no talking to such a man, and our enemies are just like this. We can’t talk them down - we can only defeat them; there’s no mystery here, no ambiguities to clear up….
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Israel, Jordan, suicide bombers
May 17th, 2008
Egomaniac Barack Obama appears even more desperate today as he continues whine like a 5 year old child about Bush’s speech to the Knesset, which Obama thinks was an attack directly on him.
Barack Obama has called President Bush’s comments on appeasement “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”
Obama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest and divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists.
Obama strongly responded Friday to the comments Bush made in Israel on Thursday and McCain’s subsequent words. Obama told a town hall meeting, “That’s the kind of hypocrisy that we’ve been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer.”
Of course, the fact that Obama, by every indication we’ve received on the campaign, would be a terrorist appeaser, but let’s face it, he’s trying to make an issue out of something that really wasn’t about him specifically. No one can deny that Obama is part of a larger group of individuals who seem to believe that we can sit down for tea and biscuits with terrorists and the world will be A-OK after that. But, Obama may just not have enough experience to have a realistic understanding of the world and our enemies.
Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: “This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”
Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama’s position was a serious error. “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”
The answer is, Obama doesn’t want to talk about anything that may hurt his candidacy. He feels he is exempt from explaining himself or his positions when such positions could hurt his candidacy.
Keep crying Barack. Waaaa… Waaaa.
Tags: Barack Obama, hypocrisy, Israel, John McCain, President Bush
May 16th, 2008
This speech has really, really ticked off the Democrats - which means, of course, that it is 100% correct:
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman, and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal, and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation.
We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.
We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society. So we condemn anti-Semitism in all forms — whether by those who openly question Israel’s right to exist, or by others who quietly excuse them.
We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli’s leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction.
We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve.
The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.
This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty, including Americans and Israelis.
And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the “elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.
We know who it is who “quietly excuse them” - the people of the political left, who are always quick to point the finger of blame at the United States and Israel, as if the actions of free people defending themselves are in any way comparable to the actions of tyrants shedding the blood of innocents to further their own power. We also know who offers us “the false comfort of appeasement” - those same leftists, led now by their pied piper, Barack Obama, who sings a song of talk, talk, talk to those who only know how to kill, and who’s only delight is in the death of Americans and Israelis. We know all this - and they know all this; and so they are angry at President Bush for once again has gently called them on their cowardice and folly.
It is a terrible thing these people on the left do - far worse than sinning, in my view, is to be an accessory to sin; to encourage sin, to make sin more likely. The brutes we fight against are bad men who we pray will repent of their ways - but such a repentance and such a change is made all the harder because there are those in our midst who encourage the evil doers in their wicked deeds…who see a Kennedy saying the war was hatched in Texas, a Reid saying the war is lost, an Obama promising to surrender in Iraq and say to themselves “our deeds are good, because they are bringing us victory”. President Bush has been the rock of American and global resolve in this war, but he will leave office on January 20th, 2009 - it is our duty as patriots and as citizens of the larger world to see to it that his successor is a man with no illusions, and with the plain courage to see this noble fight to an honorable conclusion. With Bush followed by McCain, all will be well, no matter how hard the task proves - with Bush followed by Obama, all the work and sacrifice of the past 7 years will be in vain.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Israel, John McCain
May 16th, 2008
ABC News reports that Obama’s campaign is “taking issue” with a comment made by President Bush during remarks he made in Israel to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s statehood.
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” the President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
Perhaps it’s just Obama’s massive ego, but what makes him think that remark was direct at him? As the story points out, those words from the President are hardly new.
ABC News’ White House troops point out that the President has made similar statements in the past and Bush did not specifically cite Obama by name, though he did reference Sen. William Borah’s immortal reaction upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland and begun World War II, something he has not highlighted in the past.
“(The President) has said similar things before,” a White House official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz. “But it is in reference to a number of people, think Carter, others who have engaged in this or suggested it.”
White House spokesperson Dana Perino was asked if Bush’s line was a slam against Obama and she insisted, “It is not.”
“I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case,” Perino added, though the White House is keenly aware of how such statements might play during a heated political season and has steadfastly avoided commenting on the 2008 race.
It sounds to me that Obama is trying to score points with Jewish voters who are understandly wary of supporting a candidate who has the endorsement of Hamas, and whose own advisor had talks with the terror group.
The fact is that President Bush is 100% correct. Appeasement and containment don’t always work - and its dangerous to assume they do. As inexperienced as Obama may be, he should be able to recognize that. But, if he wants to have coffee and doughnuts with terror groups, then that’s his position… but don’t expect me to vote for someone like that.
UPDATE: More from Matt DiBari.
Tags: Barack Obama, Hamas, Israel, liberal lies, President Bush
May 15th, 2008
Very clear and very concise:
CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “All right, do you have any doubt about Senator Obama’s commitment to maintain a very supportive role for the United States as far as Israel is concerned?”
SEN. LIEBERMAN: “I have no doubt about that. But here’s what I want to say. Senator Obama has said he would sit down without condition with Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. That not only gives prestige to a terrible America- and Israel-hater, but it also threatens our allies in the region.
“Look, I’ll give you another example. This is an indirect step that can undermine our position in the Middle East. Earlier this year, Senator Kyl and I introduced a resolution in the Senate, which called on the administration to impose economic sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is training and equipping Iraqis that are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers, hundreds of them. … Senator Obama did not [support it]. He said it was saber-rattling. It was the exact opposite of that. It was economic sanctions. It had nothing to do with the military.”
BLITZER: “I think what he said, it would give a green light to the Bush administration to consider military action. Something like that.”
SEN. LIEBERMAN: “No way. It was the exact opposite of that. I don’t question Senator Obama’s commitment to the security of the state of Israel. I’m saying when it comes to dealing with enemies, both in the Middle East and around the world, Senator McCain has more experience, more balance, knows when to be tough, knows when to be soft.”
Its good that Lieberman points this out - think about it: in an attempt to bring non-violent pressure on the Ahmadinejad regime, Obama de-facto sided with Ahmadinejad on the apparant theory that President Bush is the greater threat to peace than the man who is sending forth his minions to murder Americans and Iraqis, and who had threated our ally, Israel, with complete destruction. This is a clear indicator that Obama subscribes to the lunatic left position that President Bush is some out-of-control war monger - with the flipside being that of course Ahmadinejad will be reasonable, just as soon as there is an American President who will be nice to him.
Democrats say that the election of McCain - a long term and very strong critic of many Bush Administration policies - will just be a third Bush term. The real strength of this accusation actually stems from the fact that Senator McCain and President Bush - unlike Senator Obama - wish for the United States to win in Iraq, not Iran’s Ahmadinejad. If “third Bush term” means “victory in the war” then, yes, I think that all patriots desperately want a third Bush term. But, of course, such accusation is nonsense - indeed, we movement conservatives are girding ourselves, once we elect John McCain, to fight him on several issues. McCain isn’t “our” man, meaning he’s not the conservatives’ choice…but he is the patriots’ choice, and we’re going to back him - if for no other reason - than the fact that he wants America to win. Fortunately, there is more than just the war to back McCain on - and, equally unfortunately, its not just the war which makes us want to defeat Obama - his creeping socialism and economic illiteracy coupled with his extraordinarily high tolerance for corruption on his side leaves us worried that he’ll not only lose the war, but wreck the nation and hand the ruins over to corrupt cronies of the Democratic establishment.
Vote McCain ‘08: quite honestly, America needs McCain to be President in 2009.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Joe Lieberman, John McCain
May 12th, 2008
Mark Steyn takes note:
By most measures, the Jewish state is a great success story. The modern Middle East is the misbegotten progeny of the British and French colonial map-makers of 1922. All the nation states in that neck of the woods date back a mere 60 or 70 years — Iraq to the Thirties, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel to the Forties. The only difference is that Israel has made a go of it. Would I rather there were more countries like Israel, or more like Syria? I don’t find that a hard question to answer. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (Iraq may yet prove a second) and its Arab citizens enjoy more rights than they would living under any of the kleptocrat kings and psychotic dictators who otherwise infest the region. On a tiny strip of land narrower at its narrowest point than many American townships, Israel has built a modern economy with a GDP per capita just shy of $30,000 — and within striking distance of the European Union average. If you object that that’s because it’s uniquely blessed by Uncle Sam, well, for the past 30 years the second largest recipient of U.S. aid has been Egypt: Their GDP per capita is $5,000, and America has nothing to show for its investment other than one-time pilot Mohammed Atta coming at you through the office window.
Jewish success against the odds is nothing new. “Aaron Lazarus the Jew,” wrote Anthony Hope in his all but unknown prequel to The Prisoner Of Zenda, “had made a great business of it, and had spent his savings in buying up the better part of the street; but” — and for Jews there’s always a ‘but’ — “since Jews then might hold no property…”
Ah, right. Like the Jewish merchants in old Europe who were tolerated as leaseholders but could never be full property owners, the Israelis are regarded as operating a uniquely conditional sovereignty. Jimmy Carter, just returned from his squalid suck-up junket to Hamas, is merely the latest Western sophisticate to pronounce triumphantly that he has secured the usual (off-the-record, highly qualified, never to be translated into Arabic, and instantly denied) commitment from the Jews’ enemies acknowledging Israel’s “right to exist.” Well, whoop-de-doo. Would you enter negotiations on such a basis?
Since Israel marked its half-century, the “right to exist” is now routinely denied not just in Gaza and Ramallah and the region’s presidential palaces but on every European and Canadian college campus.
The most crucial mistake Israel has made since the 1967 war was to unilaterally withdraw from southern Lebanon. Israel was worn out with south Lebanon - the expense, the slow bleed in lives lost, the world condemnation over Israel’s presence (with nary a peep about Syria’s much larger presence in the rest of Lebanon) - so Israel bugged out, no questions asked. For the Islamists who had been sniping at the Israeli effort, the lesson was well learned - just keep up a grinding pressure on Israel and eventually she would quit. This is why in spite of all Israel has done to fight Hamas, the fight continues - because Hamas is convinced that Israel was forced out of Lebanon by Hezbollah, and thus can be forced out of Israel, itself, by Hamas. This is the sort of situation one gets when there is a “peace process”.
The ultimate solution to the problem of Israel vs Islam is for Islam to finally accept that Israel isn’t going away - from first to last and without exception, the key to peace lies in the acceptance of the Arab leadership that they cannot and will not ever be able to remove Israel. As long as the Arab leadership keeps preaching the destruction of Israel and as long as the terrorists of Hamas, etc are fed on the concept that eventually Israel will be forced out, so the war will continue. This will require some rather strenuous economic, political, diplomatic and military efforts - key to which will be to sustain the democracy in Iraq and to force not just Syria but Syrian and Iranian backed groups out of Lebanon. Israel made an effort at this is 2006 and unfortunately made a complete hash out of it - the IDF not being built to slug it out in the mountains with a well-entrenched foe. This effort will have to be revisited - especially as a re-occupation of south Lebanon by Israeli forces which are in the process of destroying/driving out Hezbollah will recover for Israel the sense of invincibility once shared not just by Israelis, but also by the Arabs.
Hamas will also have to be taken out; and Syria brought permanently to heel; and Egypt will have to tone down the anti-Israel rhetoric or lose US aid. By use of power (military, economic, diplomatic, etc) we must force the leadership of the Arab world to admit Israel’s permanence, and that will lead to a drying up of revanchist feeling amongst the broader Arab population. Don’t be fooled by siren songs of how we can talk our way out of this - or that as long as the current leadership of the Arabs is in place that we’ll have anything better than a temporary truce. This will have to be fought out, and hard measures will have to be taken by the US and Israel, working in tandem.
Tags: Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Lebanon, Syria
May 11th, 2008
Older Posts
