By avoiding war, the US and Israel are inviting war or embracing defeat

By Ted Belman

In a recent post I argued that Israel’s choice, either occupy Gaza or embrace Arab “peace” plan. By this I meant Israel must decide whether it wants a peace process or a war process. It can’t avoid war and avoid the “Arab peace” initiative at the same time.

Olmert’s overtures to Syria underscores his choice.

Caroline Glick’s current column James Baker’s disciples argues that Bush has made the same choice. After discussing how Bush wants Israel to supply arms to Fatah that will be used against Israel and is intent on supplying the latest technology to Saudi Arabia and Egypt that will also be used against Israel, goes on to explain,

The Bush administration is not just asking Israel to facilitate the arming of its enemies. It is also placing restrictions on Israel’s ability to arm itself. As The Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, the Pentagon has yet to respond to Israel’s request to purchase the F-22 stealth bomber. Moreover, the US seems to be torpedoing Israel’s acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Pentagon recently voiced its objection to Israel’s plan to install Israeli technology in the jets that are to be supplied starting in 2014. Israel’s installation of its own electronic warfare systems in its F-16s and F-15s is what has allowed the IAF to maintain its qualitative edge over Arab states that have also purchased the aircraft.

THE ADMINISTRATION’S display of hostility toward Israel is unfortunately not an aberration. It is the result of a policy shift that occurred immediately after the Republican Party’s defeat in the Congressional elections in November.

After the defeat, the administration embraced former secretary of state James Baker’s foreign policy paradigm, which is based on the belief that it is possible and desirable to reach a stable balance of power in the Middle East.

As Baker sees it, this balance can be reached by forcing Israel to shrink to its “natural” proportions and assisting supposedly moderate and stable states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to grow into their “natural” proportions. Once the states of the region (including Syria and Iran, which Baker wishes to appease) have settled into their proper proportions, stability will be ensured.

She describes the inherent lack of stability in the ME and argues,

Aside from that, the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran throws a monkey wrench into any thought of regional stability. A look around the region shows just how absurd Baker’s notions truly are.

[..] Furthermore, the paragons of moderation and stability in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that Baker and his followers are so keen to strengthen are neither stable nor moderate. Both Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Saudi King Abdullah are old men of uncertain health. To “stabilize” their regimes, they wrought unholy alliances with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahabis, the only forces in Egyptian and Saudi societies that have not been flattened under their jackboots.

This week, Channel 10 reported that the Bush administration recently informed Israel and the Gulf states that it has no intention of launching military strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations. The Americans explained that they need Iranian assistance in stabilizing Iraq to pave the way for an American withdrawal from the country before Bush leaves office. Under Baker’s regency, the administration apparently now subscribes to the belief that they will be better off out of Iraq and with a nuclear-armed Iran, than in Iraq without a nuclear-armed Iran.

In the hope of avoiding war, both the US and Israel are inviting war.

June 8, 2007 | 8 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. I like Glick , she has good mind and usually is good read but remember and that includes all commentators that they have historically always backed the wrong people, the wrong policies but even when they change direction as with Glick they never admit to err.An example which still is enforce is Glicks past support(she worked for him)for BB.

    Nevermind his destroying likud as legitimate right wing party, nevermind BB accepting the lefts policies(Oslo and beyond)Land for peace concept. peace and capitulation firt to the left then to the right then back to the left again, after that arafat, and clinton, finally we got rid of him but not before he tried to sell the Golan with some addendums. Without us seeing Syrian archices we will never know; as BB is not to be believed ever!!Remember BURN ME ONCE! concept applies here. So much for Glick!

    She is right but: What to do now is big question not who and what brought us to this day which would require volumes of debate and analytical review. I don`t think Israel will start war with Syria for many reasons although personally I think this is the way to go.Israel is enslaved to and by internationalism by which we daren`t do what the world (meaning EU and America don`t want) Israel like everybody else has interests which are not less than everybody else`s. We too have wealthy self interested citizens and supporters from without who strongly influence policy and their views are heard (money talks) in corridors of Israeli power. Most want to make money , more money and more money and oppose any policy right or left they might endanger making more money. thats how it is, and always has been with few exceptions. All our major and even some minor politicians have their patron backers who use this patronage to influence politicians in order to be able to make more money. So whats a fews jews here and there sacrificed on the alter of doing business without interruption are policies that might hinder this goal.

    A war scenario might look something like this: Syria has ten thousand rockets and missiles that can reach any part of Israel. Some might have chemical and or bio warheads. Hizbolla same. Palis has there cadres with Grad rockets 25 km range or just about all negev up to ashdod and kiryatgat. Bengurion airport might be shut down as well as ashkelon port and electric power plant and other facilities too dangerous to enumerate here but needless to say it could cause human and ecological disaster if hit good. hundreds of suicide bombers might attempt and succeed to reek death and carnage on our civilians as well. the world again will do nothing to stop it if we are loosing only if we are winning. SO ADVOCATES OF WAR IN COUNTRIES NOT AFFECTED—-Do you still advocate war?My answer is yes if we do not show our hand and disregard what the world might say or do attack any enemy who openly threatens war and israel’s destruction. The verbal threat should be enough. I would even advocate use of nuke first strike in extreme cases. This policy might just bring peace and quiet at least maybe quiet.

  2. Below is the text of a voice message I’ve posted to my message board. It underscores and explains this tendency of Israel’s leftist, Freemason governments of not wanting to win wars (because Israel’s God fights for them) and recapture territory mandated for a Jewish state, that is now occupied by the Arab Muslims:

    Firstly, there have been clear indications for quite a while that Syria is preparing to attack Israel. This threat must have become more serious, AND that might be why the Olmert government is suddenly frantically investigating the possibility of entering into peace talks with Syria. In fact, I heard this morning that Olmert has offered Syria the Golan on a platter. And his ministers are outdoing each others in attempts to assure the Syrians that Israel doesn’t have plans to attack them.

    It is an attempt to avert war, because it does not fit the agenda of Israel’s leaders to fight and conquer Israel’s enemies! (Like king David would have done!)

    What do I mean by this far fetched statement?
    It can be explained by using the inconceivable situation that leftists and anarchist Jews have been demonstrating the last days in solidarity with the Arabs about the tragedy that Israel managed to win the Six Day War in 1967!!!!!
    They don’t even care to think what would have happened had Israel lost that war! Then the Sunnis & Shiites might have been killing each other in the streets of Jerusalem and not in Baghdad!

    The reason for this situation is explained by the definition of what a leftist is about in Israel and the West, namely, IT IS SOMEONE WHO FIGHTS FOR THE ENEMY!

    What most people don’t know is that the Jewish leaders who fought for a homeland for the Jews, including Theodore Herzel, were firstly, leftists and secondly, Zionists, and so were most of the Israeli governments from Ben Gurion until today.

    Being leftists they have been doing what leftists do!
    They fought for the enemy, but in a subtle way by only reacting minimally to aggression and provocative action of the enemy. [Except of course where God intervened to let Israel win – as in the major wars from 1948 to 1973]

    Why is that? It is because they need the enemy to keep them in power and to help them to achieve their goal.
    They call this goal PEACE, but it is just a cover-up for what their real agenda is, namely to establish a system and standards that are the complete opposite of God’s guidelines in the Bible for Israel and the nations.

    Elohim showed exactly what he wanted and still wants when he dispersed the people of the world when they tried to set up a one world system in Babel.

    God wants sovereign nations & Satan wants a one world system!!!

    AND here is the real problem!!!
    There are Jews among those people in the world who are conspiring to achieve a New World Order.
    AND it is this type of Jew who has for the most part been the leaders of Israel since 1948.

    But I’ll tell you more about that after this piece has run for a few days.

  3. Bhumikag, if Olmert’s offer to give away the Golan to Syria is encouraging, it is only encouraging to Syria and discouraging to Israelis. Ask youself Bhumikag, why Israelis expressed almost unanimous outrage with Olmert’s offer to Syria?

  4. well..u sound very pessimistic. i agree the situation is not that rosy and peace does seem thousands of years away but this news on Prime Minister Olmert saying that he is willing to quit Golan heights for peace is encouraging, don’t u think..? this could be THE start we have been hoping for..

  5. Charles, you have characterized democracy as typically meeting challenges the same way time and again in order to avoid being drawn into war and notwithstanding the less than satisfactory and successful results are achieved, still democracies expect a different result each time. That attitude of course is one of the classic definitions of insanity.

    We Westerners judge ourselves sane, but we take efforts to avoid war to insane lengths with the result we harm ourselves and embolden and strengthen our enemies.

    We Westerners judge radical Islamists including nations such as Iran as acting insanely for using war and threats of war as their modi operandi and vivendi, but the fact is that their efforts to achieve their objectives do succeed, forgetting of course that in doing so, they have left a swath of death, suffering and devastation behind.

    When comparing Westerners and the radical Muslim world on a sanity scale therefore without regard to Western values, morality and culture, but look only to objectives and means, it is less than clear which one is the more sane and which is the more insane.

  6. History does not repeat but often it rhymes. Every generation it seems, errs critically in its assessment of the determination of bellicose, totalitarian regimes to risk war in order to conquer and subjugate and this leads inevitably, inexorably to the war they so desperately wish to avoid. Democracies mean well; they understand the cost of war and are thus reticent to engage in them until all else fails. So despite the obvious historical precedents and clear understanding of the limitations of diplomacy, they go through the motions hoping that this time, things will be different.

    Well, this time things will not be different and both the US and Israel will be dragged into war — America for its global stature and values and Israel for its survival.

  7. Glick’s take on the issues, the problems and the dynamics of the situation vis a vis America, Israel and the Muslim Middle East as usual smacks not just of truth, but brilliance.

    The one thing I do have trouble buying into however is that Olmert’s government is so inept and foolish to be Jim Baker’s lackey and give Israel away in order that Israel can have peace. The two objectives are mutually exclusive.

    If I am wrong however and there is no one leader or no political party to put a stop to Olmert and his government, then Israelis may as well just close out the lights and leave Israel to find homes elsewhere. With the loss of Israel in such case, at least Jewish lives won’t be lost but those Israelis who do leave will soon find that they would be living lost lives.

    I would think that reading C. Glick’s words would open Israelis eyes not only to reality, but what to do about it. Is the problem that the Jerusalem Post is read by far too few?

  8. It can’t avoid war and avoid the “Arab peace” initiative at the same time.

    This is true but it is more accurate to say that Israel can’t avoid war and the war process at the same time since the “peace” process is actually a war process.

    The ideology of the Arab states and Islam demands war. That has already been stated and confirmed constantly for decades now. At issue for the Arabs is how to go about it without risking another defeat. The “peace” process for the Arabs is war by attrition.

    Once Israel is weakened and worn down then there will be an actual war. And keep in mind, even if Israel and the Arabs do not actually reach an agreement, the process itself is wearing Israel down. If at some point an agreement is reached however, it will be but a prelude to war.

Comments are closed.