Friday, June 1, 2012

There is a Better Future in Annexing Judea-Samaria and Gaza

Judea-Samaria is Israel
John R. Houk
© June 1, 2012

Of course BHO’s minions in his campaign defend BHO’s foreign policy choices:

Asked to grade Obama, Romney responded: “Oh, an F, no question about that,” adding that it applies “across the board.”

Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana and ex-ambassador to India, said Romney is “misguided and misinformed.” Romney is out of step with experts in his own party who “have recognized President Obama’s accomplishments” in foreign policy, Roemer said in an e-mailed statement. (Presidential Campaigns Duel Over Candidates’ Jobs Records, by John McCormick and Alison Vekshin; Bloomberg; May 31, 2012 11:03 PM CT)

If you look at reality rather than Obama propaganda you know Romney is correct. There is nothing misguided or misinformed or out of step with fellow Republicans in the “F” grade for Obama.

No one says it better than Caroline Glick who as actually criticizing Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak for insinuating that Israel unilaterally should give up Judea-Samaria to bring peace to Israel.

Glick points out that land for peace didn’t work for Barak when he was Prime Minister in 2000 after bending to pressure to leave South Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah not only turned South Lebanon into a mini-fiefdom but eventually became the de facto rulers of Lebanon under the strings of Iran and Syria.

Glick points out that Prime Minister Sharon’s decision to unilaterally pull out of Gaza in 2005 forcing Israeli settlements to pull up roots was also an utter failure in the land for peace thinking. Hamas rooted out the PA and turned Gaza into a mini-Fiefdom constantly shooting rockets into Israel’s civilian urban areas.

Now Glick is focusing Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s idiotic comment; however as you read her article you will note the extreme failure of President Barack Hussein Obama’s in the Middle East relating to Israel, Iran, Syria and pushing the existence of a sovereign Palestine on the land of Israel’s heritage.

If Israel’s policy were to go along with Ehud Barak’s suggestion it would not bring peace to Israel. Rather it would bring a murdering bunch of Arab terrorists who have adopted the name Palestinian on Israel’s border. The murdering thugs would not subscribe to peace! Rather the thugs would be dedicated to destroying Israel and the mass genocide of Jews.

Although politically distasteful, it actually would make more sense to remove all Arabs that refuse an allegiance to Israel and permanently annex Judea-Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza. I have no doubt a war would result from such an action; however I also know at this point Israel would still win a regional war. The Jewish State of Israel could even easier shut down borders from terrorists with such an official expanded territory because sovereign nations such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt again could be held responsible for allow Islamic terrorist attack on Israeli soil. After all the whole reason the old Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization was a tactic to keep violence against Israel in perpetuity while the surrounding Arab or Muslim nations could not be held directly culpable for attacking Israel.

The failure of Obama and past American Presidents – Democrats and Republicans – is a failure to look at the big picture for the future. Now as Obama allows Iran to go nuclear in creating Weapons of Mass Destruction the scenario for a military enforced peace via annexation becomes less and less workable.

There is no doubt in my mind that a sovereign Palestine State will be yet another puppet for Iran to manage. We all know Iran’s feelings toward the Jewish State of Israel.

JRH 6/1/12

The reign of the fantasists

By Caroline Glick
June 1, 2012, 1:39 AM

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has done it again. Speaking on Wednesday at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, Barak warned that if Israel can't cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it should consider surrendering Judea and Samaria in exchange for nothing.

Even the diehard leftists in the media had a hard time swallowing his words. After all, when Barak was premier, he oversaw Israel's unilateral surrender of south Lebanon in 2000. Barak promised that by giving Hezbollah south Lebanon, Israel would force the Iranian proxy army to disarm and behave like a Western political party.


Then of course, there is the Gaza precedent.

Ignoring the lesson of Lebanon, Barak's successor Ariel Sharon reenacted his unilateral surrender policy in Gaza in 2005. Like Barak, Sharon promised that once Gaza was cleared of all Jewish presence, it would magically transform itself into a Middle Eastern version of Singapore.


Both Barak and Sharon promised that their unilateral surrender policies would do more than merely transform Hezbollah and Hamas into liberal democrats. They said that by cutting and running, Israel would earn the love of the international community, and winning the love of the likes of Washington and Brussels, they said, was the most urgent item on Israel's agenda.

Apparently Barak was referring to the same imperative when on Wednesday he said that Israel needs to act fast because, "We are on borrowed time. We will reach a wall, and we'll pay the price."

So yes, Hezbollah has taken over not just south Lebanon, but all of Lebanon. And true, there is no one in the Palestinian Authority today who is willing to accept the continued existence of Israel in any borders. But that just means we need the West to love us even more. And the only way to get the West to love us is by imperiling our very existence by handing our heartland over to people who wish to destroy our country.

Given the high value Barak and his comrades place on winning the love of the West, it is worth considering what motivates the West - or more to the point, the US, which leads the Western world.

Unfortunately, the situation is not pretty. US President Barack Obama's policies are just as irrational as the ones that Barak is urging Israel to implement in order to win Obama's support. And Obama's rationales for adopting these policies are just as divorced from reality as Barak's are.

The place where this irrationality is displayed most prominently today is in Obama's policy regarding Iran. As Michael Singh rightly noted on Wednesday in the New York Daily News, under Obama, US policy towards Iran is based on the view "that at the root of the Iran nuclear crisis is US-Iran conflict, and that the root cause of that conflict is mistrust."

THIS VIEW is pure fantasy. No Iranian leader has ever given the US any reason to believe that this is the case. To the contrary, every Iranian leader since the 1979 Islamic Revolution has made clear that the regime is dedicated to the destruction of the US and Israel.

The Iranians do not wish to destroy the US and Israel because they distrust them. The likes of Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad and all of their comrades wish to destroy Israel and the US because they hate us. They hate us because as they see it, both nations represent forces that are antithetical to their revolution's goal of Islamic world domination.

Rather than accept this fundamental, but unpleasant truth, Obama and his advisors base their policy of engaging Iran on fairy tales about nonexistent fatwas that purportedly ruled out the development of nuclear weapons. As Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon put it delicately this week, the Iranians are "laughing all the way to a bomb."

Ya'alon explained, "During talks with world powers, the Iranians have managed to enrich 750 kilograms of uranium to 3.5 percent, and 36 kilograms of uranium to 20 percent."

And while the Iranians were enriching all that uranium, according to satellite imagery published on Wednesday by the Institute for Science and International Affairs, they were destroying buildings at the Parchin nuclear site.

The buildings in question were suspected of being used to conduct high explosive tests pertinent to the development of nuclear weapons.

And yet, despite Iran's obvious bad faith, and despite the fact that the much-touted sanctions against Iran have done nothing to slow the pace of its sprint to the nuclear finish line, the Obama administration insists on clinging to the fantasy that it can convince the Iranians that they can trust the US and therefore convince them to give up their nuclear weapons program.

Lacking any substantive means of defending this Tinkerbell-fairy-dust policy towards the most pressing threat to international security today, the only thing the Obama administration can tell increasingly distressed Israeli leaders is that we should trust them. They know what they are doing.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear isn't the only price Obama has been willing to pay to fulfill his fantasy of solving Iran's conflict with the US by building trust. He is also willing to destroy any chance of Syria becoming a responsible actor on the international stage.

Obama's willingness to sit on his thumbs for 14 months as Syrian President Bashar Assad has killed as many as 15,000 of his countrymen owes in part to Obama's desire to win the trust of the ayatollahs in Tehran. Since Assad is Iran's client, any US move to overthrow him would weaken Iran. And since as far as Obama is concerned Iran doesn't have anything against the US, but simply suffers from a chronic lack of trust in Washington, it would be wrong to harm Tehran's interests by overthrowing the ayatollahs' Syrian lackey.

Obama's Syria policy is not only a product of his fantasy-based policy towards Iran. It is also a consequence of his fantasy-based policy towards Turkey. Rather than intervene early in the conflict and support pro-Western forces in Syria as an alternative to Assad's tyranny, Obama outsourced the organization of the Syrian opposition to Turkey's Islamic Prime Minister Recip Erdogan.

In Obama's fantasy world, Erdogan is a great ally of the US. The fact that Erdogan has redefined Turkey away from the West and towards Tehran and the Muslim Brotherhood; rendered incoherent NATO's strategic mission; ended Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel; used advanced US arms to kill Kurdish civilians, and threatens war in the eastern Mediterranean over natural gas deposits that do not belong to him is irrelevant. All that matters is the fantasy that Erdogan is America's friend. And since Obama embraces this fantasy, he subcontracted the formation of the Turkish opposition to Erdogan.

Lo and behold, the opposition Erdogan established was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. And now, according to a report by Jacques Neriah from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the Syrian opposition is dominated not only by the Muslim Brotherhood, but increasingly by al-Qaida. So whereas a year ago the US had an opportunity to build and shepherd into power a multiethnic, pro-Western Syrian opposition, in the throes of his fantasies about Iran and Turkey, Obama squandered the opportunity. As a result, today we are faced with the grim reality that the world might be safer leaving Assad alone than intervening to overthrow him.

THIS BRINGS us back to Barak, and the Israeli establishment that cannot rid itself of the notion that we need to give away the store to the Palestinians to win the support of the "international community," that is, to win Obama's support. But towards the Palestinians as well, Obama has embraced fantasy over reality. This week the State Department had the bureaucratic equivalent of an apoplectic fit when it learned that US Sen. Mark Kirk inserted an amendment into the State Department funding bill that will require the department to provide Congress with two pieces of information: the number of Palestinians physically displaced from their homes in what became Israel in 1948, and the number of their descendants administered by the United Nations Relief Works Agency, UNRWA.

The Palestinians claim that there are some five million refugees. They demand that Israel allow all of them to immigrate to its territory as part of a peace deal. UNRWA and the Palestinians claim that not only are the Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 to be considered refugees, their descendants are also to be considered refugees.

Estimates place the number of Palestinians alive today who were physically displaced from Israel at 30,000.

All Kirk wants is the information. And for his effort to bring some facts into the discourse about the Palestinian conflict with Israel, the State Department came down on him like a wall of bricks. In a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides wrote that Kirk's "proposed amendment would be viewed around the world as the United States acting to prejudge and determine the outcome of this sensitive issue."

As far as the State Department is concerned, until the Palestinians and Israel reach an agreement, the US must keep faith with the international community by supporting a policy regarding Palestinian refugees that is both factually absurd and deeply hostile to Israel.

This policy is in perfect alignment with the US policy on Jerusalem. In late March we learned that in the interests of not prejudging the outcome of nonexistent negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians over eastern Jerusalem, the US refuses to recognize Israeli sovereignty not only over eastern Jerusalem, but over any part of Jerusalem. The fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is of no interest. The fact that US law requires the US government to recognize that Jerusalem is Israel's capital and to locate the US Embassy in Jerusalem is irrelevant. To appease the international community, the US won't even recognize Israeli sovereignty over western Jerusalem.

So according to Barak and his associates, to prevent Israel's isolation by securing US support, Israel ought to ignore the lessons of the Lebanon withdrawal, the phony peace process with the PLO, and the withdrawal from Gaza and move full speed ahead with policies that will make it impossible to defend the country.

As for the US, to win the support of Europe, Iran and Turkey, Obama has adopted policies that enable Iran to become a nuclear power, make Assad the most attractive leader in Syria, empower the most anti-American forces in Turkey and pressure Israel to renounce its right and ability to defend itself.

Standing alone never looked so good.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
There is a Better Future in Annexing Judea-Samaria and Gaza
John R. Houk
© June 1, 2012
The reign of the fantasists

© 2012 Caroline Glick

About Caroline Glick:

I grew up in Chicago's ultra-liberal, anti-American and anti-Israel stronghold of Hyde Park. Hyde Park's newest famous resident is Barack Obama. He fits right into a neighborhood I couldn't wait to leave.

I made aliyah to Israel in 1991, two weeks after receiving my BA in Political Science from Beir Zeit on the Hudson -- otherwise known as Columbia University. I joined the Israel Defense Forces that summer and served as an officer for five and a half years.

From 1994-1996, as an IDF captain, I served as Coordinator of Negotiations with the PLO in the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In this capacity I was a core member of Israel’s negotiating team with the Palestinians.

After leaving the IDF at the end of 1996, I worked as the assistant to the Director General of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

I then returned to geo-politics serving as Assistant Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997-1998.

From 1998-2000 I went back to the US where I received a Master's in Public Policy from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in June 2000. Although I spent most of my free time hiking in New England, it did not escape my attention that the vast majority of the faculty at the Kennedy School were not particularly fond of America -- or of Israel.

In the summer of 2000 I returned to Israel and READ MORE

No comments:

Post a Comment