The Gaddafi Precedent applied to Israel

In my post Why is the west attacking Gaddafi I wrote, Apply that to Israel. All the Palestinians have to do is start a war. As soon as Israel moves to suppress with all means at its disposal, the UN will pass a similar resolution authorizing the use of force. This is very ominous for Israel’s right of self defense and for a negotiated solution. First the UN is trying to declare settlements illegal. Next it will support Palesine within ’67 lines. Then the Palis will attack us requiring us to defeat them which defense will justify a Chapter VII resolution. Frank Gaffney picked it up and ran with it. T. Belman

by Frank Gaffney, BIG PEACE

There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama Administration has just undertaken in its war with Muamar Gaddafi. How it will all end is just one of them.

What I find particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Qaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a UN Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, one of the prime-movers behind the resolution that authorized the use of force against Gaddafi and a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States abstain, rather than veto the Palestinians’ gambit. She is joined in that recommendation by a kindred spirit at the Obama National Security Council, Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power, and by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as First Lady.

This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as the all of the other non-permanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”

Suddenly, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens are on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its longstanding position: Its state must be (to use Hitler’s term for ethnic cleansing) judenrein – requiring the removal of all Jews from the sovereign territory of Palestine. And, thanks to the international affirmation of the so-called 1967 borders, the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas and Company need no longer accede to one of the anticipated solutions of the “peace process,” i.e., the relinquishing by Israel of territory in the Negev, so as to accommodate the permanent presence of Jewish communities (a.k.a. “settlements”) on land claimed by the Palestinians.

For its part, Israel refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities it rightly sees as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish State itself.

Hamas, which controls Gaza, seizes this moment to forge a united front with Abbas’ Fatah. The latter, of course, runs the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank of the Jordan River. It is the faction that has – with considerable help from Israel and U.S.-trained and -armed security forces – managed on the West Bank largely to keep a lid on its rivals for power, Hamas. But whatever their differences on the tactics of how to destroy Israel (Iran-backed Hamas seeks to do so with violence as soon as possible; Fatah has long pursued a two-phase strategy: first, induce Israel to relinquish territory through the peace process, then use that land as the launching pad to “drive the Jews into the sea”), the ultimate objective is precisely the same: judenrein throughout the Middle East.

The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” their land. As with the Gaddafi Precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.

Turkey, which is technically still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, joins forces with Britain and France, applaud this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the UN Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.

Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mesdames Clinton, Power and Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify, and are prepared to enforce, the President’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his hostility towards Israel. They appeal to his sense of history and his oft-expressed sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland to trump his political advisors’ concerns about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election.

Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ longstanding role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts, in accordance with the Gaddafi Precedent. He warns Israel that it must immediately take steps to dismantle its presence inside the internationally recognized State of Palestine lest it face U.S.-enabled “coalition” military measures aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the will of the international community.

Unfortunately, such steps will not result in the ostensibly desired end-game, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gaddafi Precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome than the two-state “solution”: Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional conflagration, with possible worldwide repercussions.

For one thing, the mere fact that the United States is no longer seen as guaranteeing Israel’s security would probably prove a sufficient inducement to war for those like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah’s Lebanon and Hamas’ Gaza itching to finish the job of eliminating the hated “Zionist entity” in their midst. The same might well prove to be the case for other states in the region if, as seems likely, the Muslim Brotherhood fills yawning vacuums of power in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen and possibly Saudi Arabia and Libya.

How much more irresistible would such temptation be if the United States were actually raining down cruise missiles on Israeli targets in the West Bank, as it has done on Libyan ones at the behest of the Arab League and UN Security Council? Suffice it to say, Israel’s back would surely be against the wall in short order, facing the sort of existential threat it has not known since 1973 and that most Israelis only expected to eventuate when the Iranian mullahs at last got the Bomb. Under such circumstances, we must expect that Israel would employ its own nuclear forces, with devastating and unknowable consequences.

Needless to say, I hope the Gaddafi Precedent 1.0 will work out better than seems likely to be the case in Libya. Even more importantly, I am praying that Barack Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisors will not take us all down a road that seems ripe for another, ominous application of this precedent, with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, for the United States and for freedom-loving people elsewhere. A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.

March 21, 2011 | 21 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

21 Comments / 21 Comments

  1. According to UN-Watch, March 8, 2011, Libya is still active in the UN HR. I include this slightly edited excerpt from that issue:
    Najat Al-Hajjaji, a representative of the Libyan regime, chaired the HR two-year planning committee in the near past. Al-Hajjaji is still with the office of Navi Pillay (the U.N. high commissioner for human right) as one of the Human Rights Council’s investigators on human rights violations by mercenaries. Currently Gadhafi is using mercenaries to kill his own people. Pillay is refusing to comment on this, according to Fox News.

  2. Anyone will use any reason to blame Israel for anything, but I don’t think Obama has the leadership capabilities, he is here for a reason or a season, we have to learn to handle him. He won’t successes in much as he is directly apposed to the Almighty, as well as Bibi and Sarah Palin, has hasn’t got a chance.

  3. Since we are wildly speculating here, let me cast another (very) farfetched scenario.

    France (and the EU) is eager to take advantage of the diminished international influence of the U.S. and to reassert herself in the world scene. So, if I were Sarkozy, when that anti-Israel R2P resolution hits the UN Security Council, I would cast a veto. That would be the first time France’s voice at the UN trumps America’s.

    Imagine the splash…and the unforeseen consequences!

  4. He will not be relelected. I have no doubt that the Republicans will be in the WH unless they shoot themselves in the foot. Have you noted that the probable electees have been swarming to Israel and they show strong support.

    Israel seems to be one of the few things that garners bi partisan support in the U.S. congress and as long as Congress remains united in their support of Israel no American president can totally harm Israel. The President and the U.S. State Department can still make life uncomfortable for Israel, however.

  5. Obama can possibly harm Israel in small ways during the remainder of his presidency; however, there is no way that the harm could be dangerous because of the US Congress. He will not be relelected. I have no doubt that the Republicans will be in the WH unless they shoot themselves in the foot. Have you noted that the probable electees have been swarming to Israel and they show strong support.

    Hopefully, after they regain the WH, we can pull our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan andconsentrate on the head of the snake, Iran. My advise at that point would be to arm the Iranian Kurds and other minority parties in Iran and encourage a real revolution.

  6. paul:

    Yes, the attacks on Lybia are easily seen as a gateway to attacks on Israel. How else to explain completely ignoring the influence handed over to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and eventually Lybia

    Attacks on Canada, Mexico, and the Bahamas are more likely. Much more accessable.

  7. Yamit’s 1st principle on American politics.

    I don’t care who the president is; from Israel’s POV there must not be afforded to any of them a second term.

  8. Yes, the attacks on Lybia are easily seen as a gateway to attacks on Israel. How else to explain completely ignoring the influence handed over to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and eventually Lybia? Who else but the same Muslim Brotherhood is waiting in the wings in Lybia too? So what if Turkey vetoes NATO participation? What did they say when the UN granted license for a No Fly Zone? The rational thing to do would be for everyone to sit this thing out and let the Lybians fight it out realizing that the “civilians” being confronted by Qaddafi aren’t worthy of anyones concern or protection. This can only be the endorsement of an anti-Israeli front in Lybia that is more fluid and reactionary than represented currently by Qaddafi.

    Where will the disease of anti-semitism take the West next? If the Muslim Brotherhood and what they represent are able to finish Israel off, where will they turn their attention next except the West?

  9. I agree with yamit that there are many less overt and less risky options available to Obama to cripple Israel that will not raise red flags in Congress and kill his chances for re-election.

    However, I wouldn’t put anything past the current goon in the WH.

    By the way, a more revealing way to look at the operation in Libya is to refer to it by its mastermind rather than by its target — and it ain’t Hilary:

    The Power Precedent.

  10. I understand the theoretical being discussed here. Obama is no friend of Israel but he will not go to war with Israel. It simply will not happen it is political suicide in the USA.

  11. Turkish minister says Turkey did not join operation

    Turkey vetoes NATO action in Libya

    Turkey has vetoed NATO’s participation in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya, they have made it clear that they are not happy with the operation (Hat Tip: Joshua I). The countries that are acting there are acting individually.

    Turkish State Minister & Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Ar?nç said that Turkey did not join the international operation against Libya.

    When asked by journalists whether Turkey would take part in the air strike against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s forces, Ar?nç said, “the prime minister and the foreign minister have already indicated earlier that Turkey did not join the operation. A crisis desk has been established at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to follow developments.”

    “We hope that situation will back to normal in Libya as soon as possible,” he told reporters.

    “There are several countries which came into prominence in implementing the UN resolution. Turkey fulfils its responsibilities. We wish that the United Nations had made such resolutions and countries had taken action in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and the other regions,” he concluded.

    Israel Radio reported at 5:00 am that Turkey has vetoed NATO participation in the Libyan action – the countries that are acting there are doing so individually. What could go wrong?

  12. Putin to Belman:” READ MY LIPS “

    Putin: Libya Attack is ‘Like a Crusade’

    Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Monday that the international coalition lined up against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi reminded him of “a crusade.” He said that while it was true that Qaddafi had failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, it was no reason for the allies to attack and invade the country.

    According to Putin, the attack on Libya was a sign for Russia to beef up its own defenses, in order to prevent a similar invasion of the country.

  13. What I find particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Qaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-to-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

    I see America accomplishing the same thing through proxy surrogates not directly. America could provide a nuclear umbrella over all of our Arab and Muslim enemies including a missile defensive shield. Thus allowing Iran and others the tactical advantage with their missiles and long range rockets. Politically this is the best option against Israel.

    Part of this scenario is already developing whereby America is allowing Iran to get nukes and the Arming to the teeth our enemies along with financial aid and training.

  14. Simon Tisdall’s world briefing

    Libya conflict: war on Gaddafi is personal – and he is unlikely to retreat

    Capturing or killing the Libyan leader has now become an end in itself for the western allies

    It’s unlikely Muammar Gaddafi has watched the 1971 British film Get Carter, in which Michael Caine plays vengeful London gangster Jack Carter, who embarks on a violent rampage before being killed. But as the west’s military might bears down on Libya, the Libyan leader might find the story line instructive.

    This war is personal now. Its primary, stated aim is to halt the regime’s attacks on Libyan civilians. But David Cameron and other leaders have made it plain they also want the Libyan dictator removed from power. The US and its allies will not relent until they “get Gaddafi” and their nemesis is captured, jailed or dead.

    This is a familiar scenario. When international disagreements deteriorate to the point when Washington feels it has no choice but to use massive military force, the person held most responsible is ruthlessly hunted down. Read whole Article

  15. Curiously Libya was a member in good standing on the UNCHR.

    replaced in 2006 by Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

    Libya puts down not peaceful protests of the masses but a well armed rebellion. Few ask who is rebelling and why? Who armed them and why? What’s in it for EU and Nato to remove Gaddafi and with whom? What’s in it for Obama?

    If a nation and their leaders take ideological positions, shouldn’t one expect some consistency? Therefor this aggression by EU and America against another sovereign nation is not ideological it is something else not said in public. It may be that each EU, America and any Arab member of this coalition of aggressors have all different motivations but come together here in common interests even though they may all seek different goals and results. Removing Gaddafi seems to be what they all have in common. Question then is why now?

    Could it be as a political distraction to shield them from domestic considerations. All of the Leaders of the three major Aggressor nations have leaders who are polling at 35% or less. Nothing like a little controlled easy victory conflict to raise polling numbers from the patriotic multitudes.

  16. One important point that should be highlighted is that the Gaddafi Precedent will be applied to Israel only while Obama is in power. If the Republicans win the next elections, then the Gaddafi Precedent will no longer be relevant. Obama has hurt the State of Israel beyond belief in the sense that Israel is afraid to move in any significant way against any of these terrorists whether it is in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Iran, or in Lebanon. As a matter of fact, that is why Ha-shem has now taken matters into his own hands and he is crippling the arab states one by one until he finishes them all off.

  17. It is well that you play devil’s advocate and examine the unintended consequences of empowering the corrupt and islamified UN’s ability to undermine the sovereignty of individual nations.