The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Is Israel about to be Sold Down the River?
Of all the states who have stood by the United States through thick and thin, none has been more steadfast than has Israel. What other country would have allowed scud missiles to rain down on its cities without lifting a finger, simply because the United States wanted them not to aggravate a fragile Gulf War alliance of Arab states? If missiles were raining down on our citizens, would we want our government to not defend itself because, say, England or China asked us not to? Hell, no.
Which is why I find this news to be particularly disturbing; it appears that the Baker-Hamilton Realpolitik forces are winning the day in the battle for the President's ear. And if Gateway Pundit's report is accurate, the big loser appears to be Israel:
Many people think that Israel may one day have to be the country that "pulls the trigger" to keep Iran from going nuclear. I do not necessarily agree, but it may be the case. So one wonders how Olmert could possibly be a party to the abdication Jerusalem--is it just because Syria or Saudi Arabia might say that they won't interfere if Israel attacks Iran? If so, it is a fool's errand, because Syria will interfere: you can bank on it.
Yes, I can understand that a Palestinian state would be a good thing for peace--at least on paper, according to the thinking of the UN Realpolitik crowd. But what they seem not to grasp is that there is a Palestinian state today, which has held elections; yet the only thing they seem to be interested in is to kill Jews for more land.
At the very least, any discussion about Jerusalem ought to include a possibility of an "international" peacekeeping presence a la postwar Berlin. I could possibly get my arms around that. But to simply hand over Jerusalem and the West Bank to the Palestinians in exchange for lame assurances from well-known backstabbers--when much blood has already been shed for these territories in 1967 and 1973--is not something that a President of the United States should be advocating--especially a Republican President, and just as Republicans are beginning to make inroads into the Jewish-American voting demographic.
It is probably too late to suggest that President Bush back off of this ridiculous proposal, if indeed he is about to make a case for it in Annapolis; but it will never work: the sad truth is that it will never be "enough" for the "Palestinian cause" (or more accurately the Western Elites' 'cause celebre') until every last Israeli is killed or deported to other points of the globe. Meanwhile, a President who is walking a precarious tightrope in this Long War is going to lose a lot of credibility with both his conservative base and with Jewish Americans.
From where I sit, the best that can be hoped for it that this ends in a stalemate--as all the other Presidents' attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable have ended. But it is hard to fathom why President Bush would advocate this level of appeasement in the first place. What has Condi been smoking?
Which is why I find this news to be particularly disturbing; it appears that the Baker-Hamilton Realpolitik forces are winning the day in the battle for the President's ear. And if Gateway Pundit's report is accurate, the big loser appears to be Israel:
This was sent to me from Israeli sources this morning:Brit Hume is suggesting on Fox News Sunday that the President's thinking may be that a Palestinian state is a necessary step towards solidifying an alliance of the "moderate" Arab states against Iran. But Syria--reportedly a party to these "talks"--is a close ally of Iran, and Hezbollah operates without impunity in Lebanon because of Syrian support. So: we are backing away from our support of Israel on Jerusalem and the West Bank for... what exactly? Assurances of Syrian support against Iran? Has the President and Olmert not been paying attention to what happened when the Israelis abandoned Gaza? The Palestinians propmtly marched in, elected terrorists to lead the country, and started lobbing missiles into Israel. Yes the Dome of the Rock is important to Muslims; but it is also important to Judaism. To simply hand Jerusalem to the Palestinians would be the height of folly.According to the leading correspondent covering the Israeli Prime Minister's Office, Shimon Shiffer of Yediot Ahronot (Israel's largest newspaper), President Bush's address at Annapolis "will not be easy for Israeli ears." In Friday's magazine, he argues, in an article co-authored by his colleague Nahum Barnea, that Bush will call for "the establsihment of a Palestinian state, the end of 'occupation,' and a return of Israel to the 1967 borders, leaving an opening for land swaps."Now, check this out...
The authors explain that Olmert knows that "this text cannot be changed."
If the report is true, and both of these reporters have direct access to Olmert, then Bush is close to abandoning the April 2004 gurantees on settlement blocs and "defensible borders" that he gave in writing to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. That letter was all Israel received for pulling 9,000 Israelis out of their homes in the Gaza Strip. That was the quid pro quo. Back in 1967, President Lyndon Johnson insisted that Israel was not expected to fully withdraw from the territories it captured in the Six Day War (in a war of self-defense) and this US position was enshrined forty years ago in the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242.
It is difficult to believe that Bush, who is known for his consistancy and loyalty, would make this change and demand full withdrawal. In Sunday's Maariv newspaper, Ben Caspit, its chief foreign affairs correspondent, is reporting that there is a struggle in Washington today over the contents of the Bush Annapolis address, with the Saudis, Rice, and Israel all pulling in different directions. Today, Bush's old friend Sharon is in a comma in an Israeli hospital and cannot comment on such a change should it occur.
But it is also difficult to explain the sudden decision of the Saudis to attend Annapolis at the level of foreign minister, unless someone in the administration gave them some guarantees.
This morning Syria announced that it is planning on attending the talks this week, after the issue of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights was added to the agenda.
It looks like this tip was accurate.
It could be a devastating week for Israel.
Many people think that Israel may one day have to be the country that "pulls the trigger" to keep Iran from going nuclear. I do not necessarily agree, but it may be the case. So one wonders how Olmert could possibly be a party to the abdication Jerusalem--is it just because Syria or Saudi Arabia might say that they won't interfere if Israel attacks Iran? If so, it is a fool's errand, because Syria will interfere: you can bank on it.
Yes, I can understand that a Palestinian state would be a good thing for peace--at least on paper, according to the thinking of the UN Realpolitik crowd. But what they seem not to grasp is that there is a Palestinian state today, which has held elections; yet the only thing they seem to be interested in is to kill Jews for more land.
At the very least, any discussion about Jerusalem ought to include a possibility of an "international" peacekeeping presence a la postwar Berlin. I could possibly get my arms around that. But to simply hand over Jerusalem and the West Bank to the Palestinians in exchange for lame assurances from well-known backstabbers--when much blood has already been shed for these territories in 1967 and 1973--is not something that a President of the United States should be advocating--especially a Republican President, and just as Republicans are beginning to make inroads into the Jewish-American voting demographic.
It is probably too late to suggest that President Bush back off of this ridiculous proposal, if indeed he is about to make a case for it in Annapolis; but it will never work: the sad truth is that it will never be "enough" for the "Palestinian cause" (or more accurately the Western Elites' 'cause celebre') until every last Israeli is killed or deported to other points of the globe. Meanwhile, a President who is walking a precarious tightrope in this Long War is going to lose a lot of credibility with both his conservative base and with Jewish Americans.
From where I sit, the best that can be hoped for it that this ends in a stalemate--as all the other Presidents' attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable have ended. But it is hard to fathom why President Bush would advocate this level of appeasement in the first place. What has Condi been smoking?
