Sunday, September 06, 2009

'Defiant' Israel Dares To build Homes In Its Own Country

The Israeli government has gone ahead with approving homes in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and in Israel's capitol of Jerusalem and the Obama Administration is angry. The nerve of those Jews!

“We regret the reports of Israel’s plans to approve additional settlement construction,” Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said. “As the President has said before, the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and we urge it to stop.”

Another US official said: “In the end America will be forced to do what is necessary to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians back to the negotiation table. But the Netanyahu Government has proven difficult to work with.”

Settlement growth has been a key impediment to the peace talks. The Jewish settlements, built on land earmarked for a future Palestinian state, are strongly supported by much of the right-wing constituency that elected Mr Netanyahu.

'Settlements' bubba? That's a funny word to use for established communities that have been in existence for over forty years since 1967 and were in existence for hundreds of years until until 1948 when the Jordanian Army with its British officers and arms ethnically cleansed every Jew from the area. And who says the land in question is 'earmarked for a Palestinian state'? Sounds like a bit of editorializing to me.

Fine, this is the London Times and while they're better than some, like most of the Brit press they're usually not exactly objective when it comes to Israel.

But let's examine this cockamamie linkage at face value. Let's imagine that Israel decides to comit national suicide. Let's say they were to stupidly go along with Obama's program, make refugees out of half a million of its citizens and turn East Jerusalem over to the Arabs. No, let's get even crazier. Israel frees all of the convicted Arab murderers in its prisons, turns over the Golan to Syria and accepts limitless numbers of genocidal 'refugees' into Israel. That's the letter of the Saudi/Arab League plan Obama endorsed in violation of the Road Map, and according to the Arabs, its in every detail.

Why would anyone imagine that this would result in 'peace'? Are Hamas and Hezbollah going to close shop, forget about annihilating the Jews and get to work selling felafels? Is Fatah going to forgo 'the right to the struggle'? Is Iran suddenly going to shelve its nuclear weapons program and stop financing and fomenting Islamist terrorism world wide? Are the Saudis going to quit financing hardline wahabi mosques all over the world that endorse violent jihad against the West?

No. They'll simply attempt to massacre the Jews and chalk up a victory if they're successful..and move on to the next target. Middle East peace for these folks has never been about a state for the Palestinians or about 'settlements'. It's always been about annihilating the Jews, because the Arabs can't abide Jews living amongst them in peace and equality.

As Caroline Glick and John Bolton have both pointed out, time is rapidly running out on Iran and they are well past the point where sanctions - especially the watered down nonsense the UN is likely to approve - will make any difference. Now that they developed solid fuel rockets, Iran will have a deliverable nuclear weapon that can hit Europe within 6 months or so.

Obama's response? Arguing over Israel building homes in `settlements'and in East Jerusalem instead of doing anything at all to stop Iran's headlong rush to a nuclear weapon.

As a matter of fact, Obama's even screwed the pooch one better.

In September, the president will be chairing the UN security council. And he's decided, according to Obama's UN Ambassador Susan Rice that the Council will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries. And he's decided to take Iran and its nukes off the Security Council Agenda.

This seemingly innocuous language has two profoundly disturbing features. First, UN documents indicate that the Security Council is currently dealing with over 100 issues. While “non-proliferation” is mentioned, “disarmament” is not. Similarly, a UN Secretariat compilation “forecasting the Council’s program of work” for the month of September — based on prior activities and requests — lists non-proliferation specifically in relation to Iran and North Korea and does not list disarmament. But in light of Obama’s wishes, a tailor-made subheading will likely be adopted under the existing entry “maintenance of international peace and security.” The new item will insist on simultaneous consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and make no mention of particular states.

This is no trivial technicality. The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

I've explained before in detail why I don't think the Netanyahu government ought to bother to make any major deals with Obama.

Aside from the fact that he's already proven that he can't be trusted to keep agreements, inherently Obama simply isn't part of their fan club. Just like his closest friends, advisers and associates.

It's about time Israel decided to be a little 'defiant', especially since Obama has shown them they have little to lose at this point. They're far better off hunkering down and waiting Obama out then knuckling under.


B.Poster said...

The United States recently approved new subdivisions in Houston, TX. Subdivisions and dwelling places are coming up all over the place. I suppose America is going to halt settlement expansion now. After all, this is land that the American Indian once lived on. In addition, at one time the land in questions was a part of Mexico. This land is earmakred for an American Indo/Mexican State.

We're not about to stop building on this land nor should we. Israel should not stop building on its land either.

Finally, "hunkering down" might be an okay option, however, I'm not sure. The Europeans and the Russians especially can bring significant pressure on Israel, even without the US. Even if Israel had the benefit of a government in America that opposed the creation of another Arab state, America's power is probablly not sufficient to thwart the plans of the EU, Russia, and the Arabs. As such, I don't think hunkering down is the best option. I think Israel should annex Gaza and Samaria. American forces are spread to thin elsewhere and they lack the training and leadership that would be necessary to defeat Iarael on the battlefield even if the American Government wanted to try and stop Israel they would be unable to do so. Could Russia stop Israel? Probably but they have have their own problems to contend with. As such, I don't think they will either. In any event, once Israeli forces are firmly entrenched in Gaza and Samaria, it would be very difficult to get them out.

Rahel Jaskow said...

I'd like to suggest a more accurate Hebrew version for the flag's text: "Al tidrokh alai."

In Hebrew:

אל תדרוך עלי

(The Hebrew word "litzod" is more in the direction of marching.)