WHITE HOUSE CONTRADICTORY POLICY RE. JIHADISTS - FIGHT THEM EVERYWHERE, BUT GIVE THEM A STATE IN PALESTINE - The idea of partitioning Israel for the creation of a jihadist state is not only illegal, but potentially disastrous.

• The US president vows to fight jihadists
• But at the same time he demands they be given a state.
• Irony is that a Palestinian state would certainly become a terror state.
• The president pressures for the partition of Israel, the US strongest ally in the ME.
• But his envisioned Palestinian state would position itself against the United States.
• Palestinians are a radicalized group that will align themselves with either Iran or ISIS.

The following article by expert Louis Rene' Beres makes a key mistake: 

 

He mentions that if a Palestinian state is created, Israel would need increased security measures, including a bolstered nuclear arsenal. 

That is absurd, since Israel could not use nuclear power to fight against terror and urban warfare militants.  And conventional military weapons are of limited use against jihadists who regard their human shields as powerful psychological and diplomatic weapons against Israel. 

The idea of an Islamic Palestinian state must be stopped before it happens.

 

A massive military attack by Arab states would not be necessary to bring down Israel.  All they need is to sustain a jihadist military and economic war of attrition, using ordinary terror against the civilian population, airports, and economic centers. 

The mere threat of the Gaza terror tunnels almost succeeded recently in depopulating the Israeli communities across the border.

Why aren't there terror tunnels (yet) from Arab towns in Judea and Samaria (Palestinian Authority in the West Bank)?  Because - unlike Gaza -  Israel still exercises some control over the area.

  

We have repeatedly witnessed the most powerful armies in the world become helpless in a fight against Islamist groups armed with just hate and low-tech weapons.  It has happened in Afghanistan and in other areas of the Middle East. 

 

It's good for Israel to have a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against its genocidal neighbors, such as Iran, but it would be useless against a protracted war by jihadists operating across all its borders, from Lebanon and Syria in the north, all along the Palestinian State, and then south, in the already brewing Sinai and Gaza.

 

And for how long could Israel afford such a situation?  The latest operation against Gaza cost the state of Israel over $2.5 billions, and it lasted for only a few weeks.   That's just the military cost, without taking into account the effects on the economy in general, and human casualties.  More than 70 Israeli lives were lost.

 

By reasons of geography, politics, and a world-concerted effort to bully and isolate Israel, the country's situation is precarious.    But instead of supporting Israel, the White House is leading the pack.

 

It is downright irrational to promote Israel's partition for the creation of a Palestinian state, which would become another dysfunctional Middle East state to be used as a platform for terror - not only against Israel, but against Jordan and other countries as well. (Blogger)

 

A partitioned Israel would be only 9 miles wide at its narrowest point, and according to White House wishes, it would also be cut in two to allow for a land corridor between Ramallah and Gaza.

 

Image - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/6337#.VDghBpstCM9

http://www.marklangfan.com/

 

 

 Decrying Obama's Two-State Solution

 

By Louis Rene' Beres

 

In Washington, foreign policy has sometimes been constructed upon madness, but more commonly, upon mediocre visions, hackneyed phrases, childish metaphors, and flagrantly empty witticisms.

 

Recently, US President Barack Obama, speaking at the UN General Assembly, and addressing refractory issues of Middle East peace between Israel and the Palestinians, repeated his ritual call for a “Two-State Solution.” This tired presidential plea is plainly bound to fail.

 

There is also overwhelming irony to this clichéd plea. Mr. Obama remains correct in affirming determination to fight barbarous jihadi foes called Islamic State (IS), yet his corollary call for “Palestine” could create another jihadist state.

 

The Hamas-supporting White House making distinctions without a difference

Image source http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/

 

The president should finally understand that it makes no sense to fight against jihadi enemies in one chaotic theater of regional conflict, while simultaneously seeking to install similar adversaries in another.

 

Whatever final allocation of power might ultimately emerge between Fatah and Hamas forces in an evolving “Palestine,” that newly sovereign state would quickly position itself solidly against the United States.

 

In view of ongoing, complex, and sometimes crosscutting cleavages between Sunni and Shi’ite forces throughout the region, it is also plausible that Palestine, intentionally, or under expectedly coercive duress, would sooner-or-later become part of a growing IS axis.

 

Alternatively, in an always uncertain Middle East, it could wind up as a thoroughly willing client, or merely subordinated proxy, of Iran.

Credo quia absurdum. “I believe because it is absurd.” In the pervasively uncertain Middle East, almost anything is possible.

 

On September 11, 2001, celebrations of American distress were evident all over Gaza and the West Bank, and in those Palestinian areas controlled by both Hamas and Fatah.

 

Nothing has changed. America, despite its consistently misplaced largesse toward the Palestinians, and in spite of its unceasing willingness to look away from egregious Palestinian crimes, remains conspicuously loathed by virtually all Palestinians.

 

Inevitably, it should be plain. Mr. Obama’s stubborn adherence to a “two-state solution” will backfire. Somehow, despite their endlessly plaintive pleas for “justice,” and also their crudely choreographed efforts at shifting blame from the Arab murderers to the Israeli victims, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas always block their own way forward.

 

From the beginning, from the very start of their lascivious excursions into “sacrificial” terror, both the PA and Hamas, whenever they seem on the threshold of what appears to be a sensible path to independence, lurch backward, confused, into relentlessly new cyclical spasms of shallow vitriol and random violence.

 

Always, Israel’s ceasefires with Hamas remain tentative; that is, in force until the Islamic Resistance Movement (derivative kin of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood) can re-organize its next round of rocket attacks upon Israeli schools, hospitals and playgrounds.

 

Always, these predictably unproductive terror attacks fail to generate any legal or geo-strategic benefit for the Palestinian people (quite the contrary), but, nonetheless, and without a scintilla of expected progress, they remain celebrated as a presumptively obligatory tactic of jihad.

 

Back in Washington, President Obama, in essence, demands that an enemy Palestinian state be carved from the still living body of Israel. Quickly, this rabidly anti-American 23rd Arab state would seek aggressive extensions across the Green Line. How do we know this? Their leaders announce it openly, again and again, unashamedly, as if it should be obvious to everyone. They do not pretend otherwise.

 

On October 1, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, Hamas Political Bureau senior member, stated in Arabic-language newspaper Al-Ayyam: “Some have said that Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine.”

It isn't the "occupation" that causes terror but the mere presence of Jews in the Middle East.  Arab terror existed even before the Israeli state's reconstitution in 1948.
 

For a long while, the official PA map has displayed all of Israel as a part of Palestine. President Obama, in his persistent misunderstanding of Palestinian ambitions, should also recall (1) that Arab terrorism arrived well before the alleged Israeli “occupation” (actually, even before codified Jewish statehood in May, 1948); and (2) that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 – three years before West Bank and Gaza even fell into Israel’s unwitting hands.

 

What was it, exactly, that the PLO was intending to liberate before there were any “Israel occupied territories?” It’s a really basic question, one that no Palestinian leader or supporter would still dare to answer straightforwardly.

 

Now, more than ever, Israel remains the front line position of anti-terrorist engagement, for the United States in particular, and for the West, in general. Still, having little choice in the matter, it remains the lead “canary” in the “mine.” Once current warnings are fully discarded, and this bird falls to the bottom of its cage, Palestine could become an utterly optimal beachhead for further Islamist terror assaults against “unbelievers.”

 

Let President Obama and the West take heed. The “old days,” when a Palestinian movement could still abide a variety of non-jihadi elements, including even openly Marxist parties, are long gone.

Israel's security
 

Naturally, after Palestine, Israel’s security, which would remain absolutely vital to US security in the region, would require (1) a more comprehensive nuclear strategy involving certain deterrence, preemption, and war fighting refinements; and (2) a corollary and interpenetrating conventional war strategy. Without such strategic improvements, America – not just Israel – could be placed at substantially greater risk than before.

 

After Palestinian statehood, strategic circumstances in the region could become markedly less favorable to Israel and the United States. Then, the only convincing way for Israel to deter large-scale conventional attacks would be by maintaining and enhancing pertinent conventional capabilities. Always, Jerusalem would require an upper-hand in what IDF planners will more formally call “escalation dominance.”

 

Adversarial escalations must be anticipated. A strong conventional capability will always be needed by Israel to deter or to preempt enemy conventional attacks. By definition, however, Mr. Obama’s “two-state solution” would critically impair Israel’s strategic depth, and thus the IDF’s indispensable capacity to wage conventional warfare. 

 

Ironically, after Palestine, if frontline enemy states were to perceive an Israeli sense of expanding conventional weakness, this could strengthen Israel’s nuclear deterrent. 

 

If, however, enemy states did not perceive such a sentiment among Israel’s key decision-makers, these states, animated by Israel’s presumed conventional force deterioration, could then feel encouraged to undertake certain newly attractive attack options.

 

Logically, the end result of any such attack, one spawned by either correct or incorrect perceptions of Israel’s post-Palestine conventional weaknesses, could be: (1) defeat of Israel in a conventional war; (2) defeat of Israel in an unconventional (chemical/biological/nuclear) war; (3) defeat of Israel in a combined conventional/unconventional war; or (4) defeat of Arab/Islamic state enemies by Israel in an unconventional war.

 

For Israel, even the seemingly “successful” fourth possibility could quickly become intolerable. The probable consequences of any regional nuclear war, or even a chemical/biological war in the area, would be calamitous, for the victor, as well as for the vanquished. Here, beyond any reasonable doubt, traditional notions of “victory” and “defeat” would lose their more usual military meanings.

 It follows directly from all such informed reasoning that President Barack Obama’s call for a Two-State Solution in the Middle East could ultimately prove starkly injurious to the United States and Israel. For the Jewish State, more ominously, it could become another Final Solution.

————

Author - LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) lectures and publishes widely on Israeli and American security matters. Born in Zürich, Switzerland, on August 31, 1945, he is the author of ten major books on international relations and international law, and is a frequent contributor to leading journals of law, military strategy, intelligence, and counterintelligence. Professor Beres’ latest popular writings on jurisprudential and strategic matters can be found in The Atlantic; US News & World Report; The Jerusalem Post; Israel National News; and The Washington Times. His most recent academic writings were published in The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College; The Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; The Brown Journal of World Affairs; and Oxford University Press.

 

Source - http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63601238
Cartoon - http://www.drybonesblog.blogspot.ca/

Partitioning Israel - For peace?  Or for its destruction?

Israel is the area in red.  All green areas are Arab countries.

Related

How Israel protects Nato member Greek Cyprus, by Mark Langfan
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/6337#.VDghBpstCM9

US pursuing the destruction of Israel
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2013/12/us-government-pursuing-destruction-of_27.html

How the US State Department has been undermining Israel's security and existence
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2014/09/lee-kaplan-how-us-state-department-has.html


October 10, 2014 - White House supports Palestinian terrorist government - By David Rubin
The Hamas-Fatah leadership meeting was praised by U.S. State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki as “a positive step”. So that we won’t doubt that its words will also be followed by actions, the Obama administration has already pledged approximately $118 million to rebuild Gaza after Hamas's latest terror war on Israel.

The stated rationale is that the money won’t go to Hamas, but will instead go through the PA “government of technocrats”.  (This is just wishful thinking or wink-wink outright deception.)

If Israel were to suddenly announce its support for ISIS, Americans would certainly, and correctly, feel betrayed. Similarly, the consistent American support for Israel’s enemies Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad is an ongoing act of betrayal of a loyal ally, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

Read more - http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/6341#.VDhFQZstCM8

***************************************************************************