Jones was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian security issues over the past year, and his special job was to work with Fatah's
Even more troubling, he's an advocate of placing a NATO peacekeeping force in Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) as a buffer between the Israel Defense Forces and Fatah. And Jones also is against Israel's demand to retain extensive security control over the territories even after a Palestinian state is established:
Israel has worked hard over the past year to persuade the Bush administration to accept its proposals on security arrangements. Israel's main argument was that its major population centers are vulnerable to rocket and suicide attacks from the West Bank, and that security control of the Jordan Valley is essential to prevent weapons from being smuggled into the West Bank. Israel also demanded complete demilitarization of the future Palestinian state, Israeli control of border crossings and Israeli early warning stations in the mountains.
In response to Israel's claim that the Palestinians cannot be trusted with responsibility for security, Jones, a former NATO commander, proposed a NATO-based international force that would later transfer control to the Palestinians.
Israeli officials say that such a force sounds wonderful, but in practice cannot provide the intelligence necessary to prevent terror.
What this means on the ground is that instead of the IDF being able to operate against terrorists who attack Israeli civilians, arrest suspected terrorists or pre-empt planned attacks, they would have to rely on an international force to do the job. An dthat international force would operate as a buffer fo rthe Palestijnians, essentiually giving them a free ride to plan and carry out attacks and then flee behind their NATO protectors. Imagine the idea of Palestinians shooting at Israelis in a suburb like Gilo and then fleeing behind their NATO protectors...with the IDF unable to pursue them or do anything to stop that attack from recurring.
Nor would NATO buffer do a damned thing to stop heavy arms from coming in and being deployed right nexst to Israel's main population centers. The failure of the international force in Lebanon to implement UN Resolution1701 and stop Hezbollah from rearming or redeploying in its old bases is a pretty good indicator of what sort of 'restrictions' a NATO force would impose on al-Aqsa or any other Fatah forces.
This is fairly close to another Obama adviser's vision of invading Israel and enforcing a solution to establish a Palestinian state.
The Israelis are suicidal if they agree to this.
8 comments:
I don't think the Israelis would ever agree to this nor do I think it could be implemented. NATO cannot even be counted on to honor its committments to Afghanistan nor could it assist the de facto member state of Georgia when it was invaded by Russia. I simply don't see its members being willing to commit the necessary forces for such a mission as this and the Americans simply don't have the forces right now to commit to such a mission.
NATO is seen as being a primarily American organization. The Americans are percieved by the world and by the Arabs as being overly pro Israel. Whether or not this is a fair perception is another matter entirely. The point is these NATO forces would be seen as being in the tank for Israel. In addition to this, any American troops would be under constant threat from Arab terrorists. In summary, I don't envision a scenario where the Arabs would agree to have a NATO force nor do I see NATO members being willing or able to make the committments to sustain such a force.
The Israelis would never agree to this. IDF forces are better trained, better led, and more technologically savy than either American or European forces. If the IDF is removed and NATO forces are inserted, these forces would be inferior to the IDF in every conceivable way. It makes no sense from Israel's perspective.
It does not make sense from America's perspective either. The US does not have the forces to commit to the mission and even if they did the forces would be under constant threat from Islamic terrorists. Support for the mission would qucilkly sour among NATO members after the American and European forces come under attack a few times. Besides I don't see any European nation wanting to do any thing that might have even the slightist possibility of being to the benefit of Israel.
In summary, it won't happen. The Americans don't have the forces to spare. The Europeans aren't going to want to put their people in harm's way. The Arabs don't trust NATO or America. NATO and American forces are inferior to Israeli forces. Neitehr the Arabs or the Israelis would agree to having a NATO force. Even if they did, the forces aren't there. My we have one stupid general in Mr. Jones.
I don't think Jones is stupid. I think he has been put in a position to come up with a solution to a situation in which there is no solution.
The idea here is to placate the Saudis, who are really upset with Rahm Emmanuel.
If this NATO thing does come off, then terror organizations will form on both sides of the NATO line. The Arabs will target Israelis, the Israelis will target NATO. And if the NSA can't anticipate that outcome, then I retract my first statement and will indeed go with stupid.
IT IS TIME TO GET ISRAEL OFF OUR BACKS...IT SHOULD BE SHOUTED FROM THE HILLTOPS...NO MORE MONEY..YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN ISRAEL
'Off our backs' Anonymous 9:39AM?
Hardly what I'd call a very patriotic sentiment, not at all in the interests of the US..of course, I'm assuming you're a patriotic American who's merely misinformed..
Naftali2,
It is my understanding that NATO's official policy is that a NATO force would only be put in place in the context of a peace agreement between Israel and the "Palestinians." According to what I've read on this the Israelis think it is a wonderful idea but they don't think the NATO forces could generate the intellegence that Israel needs to properly combat its enemies. This seems like a polite way of saying "thanks but no thanks. Your forces are inferior to ours. We will use our own military to defend our country."
I probably should retract my statement about calling General Jones "stupid." He is no doubt very smart. One does not rise to his position without being intellegent.
I think it would be more accurate to say that if he thinks a NATO force at this time is a viable option his ideology has blinded him to reality. If a NATO force is inserted, Israel would likely target it. The Israelis are better trained, better led, and more technologically savy than any Aemrican or NATO force is. The Israelis could and would defeat it quite easily, if it ever came to that point. God willing it would not.
In addition to this, the Arab terrorist would target the forces as well. Eventually the forces would take casualties at the hands of Islamic terrorists. The public outcry to bring them home or get them out of the region would grow to a fever pitch quite quickly. Americans are unlikely to support more military operations, at this time or at any time in the near future.
Even if the Israelis and the "Palestinians" got to a point where both sides wanted a NATO force, the forces are not available. Aemrican troops are busy elsewhere. The forces aren't available right now. The Europeans are not going to commit troops to this type of mission. NATO members will not even honor their committments to Afghanistan. There is no reason to expect them to honor comittments to a mission in the West Bank.
Frankly I look for NATO to be disbanded within the next two years or so. NATO members aren't honoring their commitments to Afghanistan. De facto NATO member Georgia was attacked and NATO did nothing but stand by and allow Georgia to be raped. Then NATO governments did nothing while Georgia got vilified in the media. The smaller members of NATO, as well as prospective members members, have to be asking themselves if NATO can be counted on to assist them in a time of need. I would not be surprised if NATO is disbanded by 12/31/2010. I would be surprised if it lasts much longer than that.
In summary, a NATO force in the West Bank would have negative utility for the US and NATO. The forces would be targeted by Islamic terrorists and their would be no support for it among the populations of the US or NATO countries. Even if there was a call for it from Israel and the Arabs the troops are not available. It can't happen. The media pundits who constantly talk about this are; a.) trying to write something controversial to get people in a tizzy so they can generate an audience. Also, they need to take every opportunity to get in an anti-american dig in. Stories like this present a good opportunity for them to do so. b.)They are idiots. c.)There ideology leads them to erroneous conclusions. I think it is a combination of a and c.
Finally, the Americans are seen as being heavily pro-Israel. I think the perception is inaccurate. I don't think America is as pro-Israel as many non Americans seem to think. Nevertheless this is the perception. NATO is seen as being an American organization. I think this is inaccuarate but it is what people think. The other members of the Quartet would only agree to a NATO force if the Americans did not participate in it!! We're back where started. The troops aren't available nor is their much support for it.
Anonymous,
Israel is not on our backs. In fact, a better argument could be made by Israelis "to get America off our backs."
Very often America has acted to restrain Israel. This may have prevented Israel from achieving a decisive victory over its enemies. Israel's enemies know that America will take actions to attempt restrain Israel when it is trying to defeat its enemies. This likely serves to embolden them.
The best approach for the United States government would be to get off of Israel's back and allow the Israelis to destroy their enemies and our enemies once and for all.
The governments of the US and Europe have constantly meddled in the Arab/Israeli war. As with most Government meddling, they only make matters worse. The American and European governments should get off of Israel's back and not interfere with them while they destroy our mutual enemies.
While the case could be made that America is on Israel's back, the notion that Israel is on America's back does not seem remotely accurate.
As for the money to Israel, no more money to Israel might not be such a bad idea. With the money sent to Israel the US seems to gain undue influence over the affairs of a foreign country who is a stalwart ally. While this money probably benefits a select few Israelis, I think in the aggregate it has negative utility for Israel as a whole, as the money enables the US and other nations who have substantial influence over US policy to place unhelpful restrictions on Israeli actions.
Our alliance with Israel is the most expensive and most dangerous alliance in our nation's history.We are hated by one billion Muslims and we were attacked on 9/11 because of our support of Israel's brutal occupation, oppression and enslavement of the Palestinians. We need to end our alliance with Israel and become an honest broker for peace in the Middle East,rather than the pathetic lapdog for Israel that we have been for too long.
Hello Ray, and welcome to Joshua's Army.
I find your post interesting on several levels.
If I take your meaning correctly, your basic theory is that if the US ends all support for Israel and perhaps even uses its military might to impose a settlement to the Arab's liking, the world's 1.3 billion Muslims would become American allies and end Islamic terrorism against the West and throughout the world.Further, you state that 9-11 was caused because of our support of "Israel's brutal occupation, oppression and enslavement of the Palestinians".
Let's take a stroll through history, shall we?
The US alliance with Israel actually dates from after the '67 war. Before that, as Lyndon Johnson said, the US was neutral in thought, word and deed, and sent no aid to Israel, even when it was attacked by a seven-Arab-nation jihad in 1948 in clear violation of the UN charter( after Truman grudgingly okayed voting to make Israel a state) with the announced aim of driving the Jews into the sea.
And as a matter of fact,President Eisenhower actually intervened against Israel in the 1956 war and imposed a settlement, although he did put in place for Israel as part of the settlement some security guarantees via the UN that were later ignored( which is what led to the '67 war in the first place)
So, were the Arabs allied with the US before our alliance with Israel?
Uhh...nope. During WWII they were Nazi sympathizers. And during Eisenhower's term, they became Soviet client states allied with the Soviets against the US.
Let's move to more recent times. Are you seriously suggesting that the 1979 Khomeni-ist Islamic Revolution, the taking of our hostages,the brutal killing of Americans by Iran's client Hezbollah and the chants of 'Death to America' and the 30 year defacto state of war between Iran and America are 'because of Israel'?
As for 9/11, Osama bin-Laden himself didn't even mention Israel when he took credit for 9/11. His main gripes were US troops in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East - 'Palestine' was an afterthought that came a lot later.
And you might remember that America has spent billions helping Muslims in Bosnia, in not forcibly contesting the Arab's theft of millions in US property when they nationalized their oil industries and formed OPEC, in aid to Muslims victimized by the Tsunami, a trillion dollars and 4,000 US lives to liberate Muslims in Iraq even at the expense of the Christians there and annual aid to the Muslim world that dwarfs what we give Israel, especially when you consider that 75% of the aid given to Israel is spent here in the US.
It hasn't bought us any good will because the Islamic mindset will always need someone to blame and demonize for their failed states and miserable status. If Israel didn't exist,the Arabs would have had to invent it.
So your premise that nasty 'ol Israel is the reason the Arabs hate us is demonstrably false.
In terms of our alliance with Israel, the idea that it's been `expensive' and `dangerous' to the US is obviously a fallacy when you look at the facts..although I'm assuming,perhaps naively, that you're a patriotic American like myself with America's interests at heart.
Lastly, you mention 'Israel's brutal occupation, oppression and enslavement of the Palestinians.'
Pray tell me how a country can 'occupy' territory that never belonged to anyone in the first place? Read your history.
As for 'brutal' , you might want to compare how Israel treated the Arabs within its borders and contrast that with the ethnic cleansing of almost every Jew in the Arab world after 1948.
If the Israelis were even half as brutal as the Palestinians and behaved the way any other nation would when its women and children are deliberately targeted by cowardly terrorists,the death toll among the Palestinians would be in six figures and there would be no 'Palestinian Authority ' today.
King Hussein killed more Palestinians during Black September than the Israelis have in the whole period since 1967, an dyou might want to read up on wholesale expulsions and repression of Palestinians from almost every Arab country in the Middle East.
Odd that you would focus your hatred on the one country that has actually given the 'Palestinians' a single dunam of land to call their own, and where Israel's own Arab citizens enjoy political freedom and rights denied to them in the rest of the Middle East.
I spent a considerable amount of time on you Ray because the fallacies and illogic your thinking represents is unfortunately quite prevalent in some circles,particularly in some sectors of the incoming Obama Administration.
You may get what you want, but it will cost America one of it's best allies and ultimately weaken us.Rest assured that our enemies would not be sated with the destruction of Israel.
ff
Post a Comment