Israel: We Have A Problem

"Palestinian people's voices and aspirations must be at the centre of post-crisis governance in Gaza -- unified with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority."

"We continue to believe that a negotiated two-state solution along the 1967 lines with mutually agreed-to swaps is the best way to advance a sustainable peace."

"Beyond any military operation, defeating Hamas requires defeating an idea, which is why it is critical to present a clear vision of a better future and a path to achieve that vision."

U.S.Embassy, Jerusalem, spokesperson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Joe Biden.  Susan Walsh / AP file

Mindless pap. That ship sailed so long ago, there isn't even a wake. Do these diplomats study nothing? Thinking that whatever pops into their minds must be a solution, and that their position qualifies them to dictate to a state under existential threat how it must respond, what it must accept because this is the wish of the United States that bills itself as Israel's 'greatest friend and benefactor', supplier of funding and weaponry?

 

According to this spokesperson, Palestinian leadership for the future remains "a question for the Palestinian people". Fine. The Palestinian people view Hamas as their favourite leadership option. And as far as the Palestinian Authority is concerned (Fatah) it comes a distant second in popularity. Palestinians in Gaza consider Hamas to be their champions, despite knowing full well its performance on October 7 in Israel, raping, mutilating, killing over 1,200 Israeli children, men, women and elderly.

 

Three-quarters of Palestinians admire and support their very own terrorist group. In very fact, when Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad broke down the barrier between Gaza and Israel in their planned invasion, hundreds if not thousands of ordinary Palestinian citizens entered after them, and indulged themselves in the general melee of rape and murder and abductions. Of the 240 abducted children, women, men and soldiers, not all are in the hands of Hamas; PIJ maintains some of the hostages and so do 'ordinary' Palestinians. 

These are the people whom the United States administration and its diplomats feel will continue to make good neighbours for Israel, entitled to decide who it is they wish to be governed by. And although three-quarters of Palestinians in Gaza admire and trust Hamas, a much greater number, closer to 90 percent in the West Bank, cleave to Hamas, while rejecting the Palestinian Authority. What's the diplomatic solution from the U.S. side on that? Would they accept that if Canada, say, reflected a similar threat to the U.S.?

Two weeks ago U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the Gaza Strip must be given over to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, once 'hostilities' are over. That the solution to governing the territories "must include Palestinian-led governance and Gaza unified with the West Bank under the P.A." He too has a short memory, having conveniently forgotten up on a high memory shelf the civil war that broke out between Fatah and Hamas when the latter fought the former in Gaza, in a not very collegial manner.

U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby clarified that Washington is engaged in support of a P.A. that "has the support of all Palestinians so that they can effectively help with post-conflict governance, particularly in Gaza". What world do these people live in? If the ordinary news reader in countries far from the Middle East can read verified accounts of what is happening there that describe a situation totally unlike what these diplomats speak of, their 'solutions' are utterly risible.

In the very last election held in the territories in 2006, Hamas won the majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament, and it is obvious from polls taken by a credible West Bank polling group that were elections to be held again, Hamas, despite all that has happened, most particularly its willingness to provoke a situation that would inevitably result in tens of thousands of Palestinians being 'martyred' while Hamas invites the Israel Defense Forces to retaliate when missiles are launched from crowded civilian enclaves, would be re-elected.

It seems that Palestinians too, like the declarations made by Islamists, jihadists and Hamas and Fatah, love death more than others love life. So as long as Palestinians are satisfied to keep presenting themselves as martyrs for the greater cause of destroying Israel, Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad will continue their deadly assaults against Israel, unless and until Israel finally destroys them first. 

 

As for ideas being harder to destroy than people's lives, that's completely true. And the Koran is full of such 'ideas', fertilizing the fervently psychopathic minds of Palestinians who love to portray themselves as victims.

Getty Images

Delusional Reasoning

"We thought, naively, that regime change was the solution to the problem."
"Looking backward [sic], I would have actually left the Taliban government in power and said [to them]: 'Stay out of the way. We're here to find al-Qaeda. And as long as you stay out of the way, the special forces will go in there, they will do what is necessary to get al-Qaeda and we will leave."
"We compounded the problem by getting rid of the Taliban regime. I didn't like the Taliban regime, but why did we go there in the first place? It was because of al-Qaeda. Not because of the Taliban."
"We repeated it in Iraq. In Libya, we didn't put any ground troops in and we created an even bigger mess because there's no government whatsoever in Libya. We went back into Iraq and now for the very first time the international community is beginning to appreciate that regime change is not the solution -- hence why we're not pushing to do a regime change in Syria."
Major-General Dave Fraser, retired

Now those are pretty simple-minded sentiments. Hard to believe that they're coming from someone with this man's experience as the Canadian commander leading NATO in southern Afghanistan ten years ago. He had command of the Canadian task force along with the military alliance's expanded mission to solidify the authority of then-Afghan President Hamid Karzai to capture command of the entire country, not merely Kabul.

It was an inadvertent goal to invade, occupy and leave Iraq without its strongman to ensure that sectarian viciousness would not overwhelm the divided population. This was an errant American-led decision to remove a typical Middle East dictator leaving a vacuum that Islamist terrorism rushed to fill. Saddam was a vicious beast, but his Sunni Baathist rule was nowhere near as destructive to his majority population as has been Bashar al Assad's Shiite Baathist regime, which had it been challenged at an early enough date with aid to the rebel forces would have removed a far worse butcher than Saddam.

The Taliban, a cruelly repressive, human-rights-bashing regime of Islamists, took pride in giving haven and support to al-Qaeda and its then-leader, Osama bin Laden, who had helped drive the Russian occupation into oblivion in Afghanistan. They had much in common, not the least of which was their extreme brand of Islam and hatred of Western influence. So when bin Laden realized his astonishing success in the planning and carrying out of 9/11, and it was demanded of them that they surrender bin Laden to the U.S. they refused.

To expect the Taliban to do otherwise, is to not understand the basic fundamentals of Islam, where it represents a heretical offence against Islam to betray fellow Muslims. Islam requires of its faithful as a primary obligation to the faith that jihad be undertaken, to battle the non-Muslim West for the achievement of primacy as a force of theocracy destined to rule the world. Any attack by a non-Muslim power against Muslims is viewed as an offence against all of Islam, and Muslims are called upon to respond with jihad.

Had the U.S.-led coalition attempted to do as Mr. Fraser now feels would have been the prudent thing to commit to, the result would have been the same as what occurred in any event; the Taliban and the foreign jihadists who flocked to Afghanistan once again, this time to fight the Western non-believers (kuffar) who had set out to 'destroy Islam', were met with  Islam's determination not to be destroyed by the West, or by any source outside Islam.

Imams, mullahs, Ayatollahs, from Egypt to Indonesia, Britain to Canada, Australia to Pakistan, and throughout the ummah, incited to jihad in response to any perception that the West was positioning itself to interfere with Islamic rule.

So -- wrong, retired major-general Fraser, had you indeed "done that", it would have availed nothing.

"[Islam] believes that only Islam and the 'Camp of Kufur' [unbelief] exist, and that there is no way to reach Paradise and to be delivered from Hell except by walking in the path of our Prophet Muhammad and joining Islam. Any other way leads to Hell."
"In light of this, my believing brethren, how can it be claimed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all paths leading to Allah?!"
Sheikh Adnan Ahmad Siyami, Mecca, May 11, 2001 *

"It is impossible ever to make peace with the Jews. The Jews are defiled creatures and satanic scum. The Jews are the helpers of Satan. The Jews are the cause of the misery of the human race, together with the infidels and the other polytheists. Satan leads them to Hell and to a miserable fate The Jews are our enemies and hatred of them is in our hearts."
"Jihad against them is our worship. Muslims must ... educate their children to Jihad. This is the greatest benefit of the situation: educating the children to Jihad and to hatred of the Jews, the Christians, and the infidels; educating the children to Jihad and to revival of the embers of Jihad in their souls. This is what is needed now."
Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, Al-Damam, Saudi Arabia *

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."
Muqaddimah [Islamic historical theory], Ibn Khaldun (1332--1406) *

  * Onward Muslim Soldiers -- Robert Spencer

They Seek Them Here, There, Everywhere

"The dynamics are somewhat different."
"Some of the targets in Libya were static, such as Gadhafi's infrastructure. ISIL is all over the place and proving troublesome."
Martin Shadwick, Defence analyst

"[ISIL has swiftly altered tactics making themselves less vulnerable to air attack] Instead of the columns of vehicles that you had previously seen with flags over the top ... they are a smart adversary."
"They have seen that that is not effective for their survival. So they are now dispersing themselves to allow themselves situations to be more survivable, if you will, which requires us to work harder to locate them and develop the situation to appropriately target them."
Maj.-Gen. Jeff Harrigian, U.S. air force assistant chief of staff for operations

"We brought Canadian forward air controllers that had been trained and experienced in Afghanistan, put them on board the Aurora, and the next thing you know they were controlling jets and conducting airstrikes [in Libya]."
Brig.-Gen. Derek Joyce

Above: An US AV-8B Harrier jet launching from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island during flight operations in the Arabian Gulf   Picture: EPA

That was then, this is now. Surveillance equipment on board the Auroras back in 2011 proved useful in providing assessments of how much damage airstrikes inflicted on Libyan forces amounted to. Now, the hundreds of airstrikes on ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State groups results in the destruction of American-manufactured weapons and Hummers and instruments of war gained by defections and grabbing what fleeing Iraqi forces leave behind, to augment the weapons taken out of Libya.

But the successful initial strikes that targeted those self-laudatory, arrogant parades of black-flagged vehicles driven by jubilant fanatical jihadis are becoming few and far between. Some airstrike missions have returned to base, having found no targets to bomb. Islamic State fighters have gone underground, as why would they not, since even they don't appreciate being sitting ducks providing entertainment for foreign fighter aircrews.

Leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are adept at their type of guerrilla warfare requiring tactical alterations in their operational style, when called upon to do so. And the American aircraft that have been attacking them since August at various Iraqi sites, expanding strikes into Syria, are no longer as successful in finding their targets as handily as formerly was the case.

Aircraft from France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates Bahrain and Qatar may be filling the skies with their warning presence, but the most they can now accomplish is to see that Islamic State fighters fail to congregate in identifiable numbers to merit being bombed thus, as in Libya, giving a leg up in protection of the Kurdish peshmerga and Iraqi military.

F/A-18C Hornet, attached to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 87, preparing to launch from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) to conduct strike missions against ISIL targets in Syria   Picture: EPA/ROBERT BURCK/US NAVY/

 

They are intent in their collaboration with the United States, to prevent the Sunni Islamic State from overpowering completely the Shiite regimes in Iraq and Syria. Now that's a pretty pass for you. Added to which is Iran, working in solidarity with its Shiite dependents in Iraq and Syria, to reduce the Sunni threat from Al Nusra and Islamic State. Alliances reflecting a pact with the devil.

The aerial onslaught has reduced for the time being Islamic State's advance to a degree. A number of its headquarters have been bombed, and the oil refineries that had ensured them handsome financial wherewithal are now non-operational, but they don't lack for either recruits to the cause, nor funding from supporters. The war jets dispatched by the coalition are finding themselves having to be satisfied with meagre returns, on the other hand.

Royal Air Force jets on Tuesday, for example, attacked a mortar crew and a truck. A day later fighter jets destroyed two trucks. Some of the Royal Air Force pilots returned to their Cyprus base in a funk, without having been able to find any target worthy of attack. This time around, the targets are far different, more nimble and avoidance-skilled than those they found so obligingly vulnerable in the NATO Libyan campaign against Moammar Ghadaffi.

Obama delays Syria strike indefinitely by turning decision over to Congress

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 31, 2013, 10:04 PM (IDT)

Tags:  Barack Obama,  Syria,  US military action,  chemical weapons,  Tomahawk cruise missiles,  Binyamin Netanyahu,

Confounding tense expectations worldwide, US President Barack Obama again dodged a decision for a US strike on Syria by referring it to Congress. In a speech to the American people, Saturday, Aug. 31, he said the use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad must be “confronted not just investigated.” But then went on to say, “We are ready to strike whenever we choose. This operation is not time-sensitive. It could take place tomorrow, next week, or next month.

The US House Speaker meanwhile set Sept. 9 as the date for the debate to start.

By these words, the US president chipped away once again at US military plans for Syria - only this time, they looked like vanishing into the blue yonder, leaving Assad and his partners all the time in the world to line up their counter moves, and putting Israel in a tight spot on three counts:

1.  The hostile Iran-Syrian-Hizballah bloc comes out strengthened;

2.  Tehran can feel free to develop a nuclear bomb without fear of resolute US interference;

3.  Hizballah can celebrate its backing for the winning horse in Damascus.

4.  Binyamin Netanyahu’s six-year old policy, which was oriented on engendering understanding with Barack Obama, is in ruins, although it was endorsed by Israel’s defense ministers on the assumption that it was in the interests of national security.

As we reported earlier, President Obama confirmed Friday night that the forthcoming US military attack on Syria would be “limited” and “narrow” and not open-ended, in a  bid to avoid the risk of America being mired in the Syrian civil war.

DEBKA Weekly’s analysts calculated Thursday that by forgoing an air assault and relegating his projected military operation against Syria solely to seaborne Tomahawk cruise missiles - limited to 15 launches - the US president relinquished America’s “penetration and destruction” capabilities – depending of course on his sticking to this plan and not expanding its scope at the last minute.

The Tomahawk cruise missile has a range of 2,500 kms, weighs 450 kilos and can be fired from the five US destroyers and the four US nuclear submarines waiting in the eastern Mediterranean for orders to go.

However powerful, the exclusive use of this type of missile means that Washington has a priori sacrificed the following military objectives:

1. Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles will remain intact. The Tomahawks can damage surface structures at the bases hosting them, but not penetrate their underground storage sites.
Assad will be left in full possession of his CW arsenal.

2. Neither can Tomahawks alone cripple the Syrian Air Force or shut down its bases. They could damage runways, but only for the hours or days it would take to repair them.

DEBKA Weekly's military sources say that the Syria air force is left with six air bases still operational, out of a total of thirty. A heavier and larger missile onslaught than the limited assault planned could have destroyed them all, given the Syrian rebels a huge advantage and opened the way for a plan to impose no-fly zones over Syrian air space.
But Obama clearly chose to discard those options.

By delaying his go-ahead on military action against Syria, he gave the Assad regime time to tuck most of its air force bombers and attack helicopters away in fortified hangars early this week, safe from attack. As the hours slipped by with US action, the Syrian ruler’s self-confidence mounted.

3. Syrian missiles have likewise been hidden in underground bunkers. They include the Scud C and D missiles capable of carrying chemical warheads.

4. The big Syrian field command centers will also escape unscathed, although DEBKA Weekly’s military sources report that many of them figure as large as strategic assets on the list of targets which the Pentagon and US military chiefs originally put before the president.

Among them were the command and control centers of the Syrian army’s 4th Division and Republican Guard Division, which protect Bashar Assad and bolster his regime's hold on power.
It is not clear if the military command centers of Homs, Hama, Tartus, Latakia, the Aleppo area and Idlib remain on the final list.

Striking those targets would have shut down the Syrian military command system and seriously disrupted its operational capabilities.

A second list of 35 strategic targets was handed to President Obama by Syrian rebel commander Brig. Gen. Salim Idris, according to our sources. Their destruction was described as vital. However, not a single item on the list was approved by the president, the Pentagon on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, reflecting the distrust and disconnect prevailing between the US administration and military, and the Syrian rebel leadership.

5. Our sources say that the US military to-do list for Syria covers army artillery units, some of which participated in the chemical weapons launch of August 21 against eastern Damascus; local command and communications centers; and research institutes involved in the development and upgrade of Syrian chemical weapons.

This heavily pruned US operation, if it goes through, will leave Syrian President Bashar Assad sitting pretty with most of his military resources intact, and his hands free to continue his barbaric war on the Syrian opposition, including the use of chemical weapons, unhindered and undeterred.

It is still possible for President Obama to have second thoughts about his low-key operational plan and decide after all to land a strategic blow on Syria.