Thursday, November 22, 2012

Matt 24 watch, 179i: "There is no substitute for victory" -- why the latest ceasefire/truce is doomed to fail, and why defending one's civilian population on the installment plan against genocidal opponents cannot work

Hamas et al plainly view the achievement of a ceasefire as a victory, i.e. they see the pressure from the Obama administration used to get the premature ceasefire as stopping Israel from defeating them, so that they can get back to business as usual:  
terrorism that targets Israeli civilians, behind the shield of the people of Gaza held hostage

And in particular -- given that the pivotal point used to enforce the halt obviously was that a ground invasion by Israel would cause civilian deaths in Gaza -- they have been reinforced in their view that targetting civilians while using one's own civilians as human shields is an effective strategy. 

This is of course a double war-crime.

Not that you would learn this from the major international news and views coverage.

Geller has captured Hamas Tweets that show the underlying attitude of the terrorists:
Alqassam Brigades ‏@AlqassamBrigade
Oh, Zionists, #Netanyahu's government dragging you for hell, you have the choice whether to stay in hell or escape, go back home in Germany. 
We told you #IDF that our blessed hands will reach your leaders and soldiers wherever they are, "You opened the Gates of Hell on Yourselves"
"Go back home to Germany" is of course a lie -- most Israeli Jews are or are directly descended from the 820,000 Jews of the Middle East driven out by Arab states in the aftermath of the UN partition vote in 1947, the genocidal attack by five Arab armies under the Arab League in May 1948, and Israel's victory. So, Israel is first and foremost legitimate as a land of settlement of refugees who cannot go "home" to genocidal Arab countries. The pretence that Israel is a racist colonial settlement from Germany etc is a lie.

The tweets also make it plain that Hamas views the ceasefire as having saved them so that they can renew the conflict later on their own terms -- as Mohammed did with a truce with Mecca (i.e. he broke it at a time of his choosing, on some flimsy excuse or other, to renew his attacks). Hamas' aims, of course, are terroristic and genocidal. 

This, in a context where within several months Iran is liable to cross the red line to nukes. 

So, we must ask, if the Obama regime is so unwilling to allow terrorists to be decisively defeated and rooted out now, what would their attitude be in the face of an Iran that is or "could" be nuke armed? 

(Which is likely to be so within months.)

Where also, it is quite clear that Hamas sees itself as being shielded from the consequences of its terroristic rocketing of Israel, so it is not being deterred or contained. 

Indeed, the weapons being used in its terror bombardment are plainly getting worse and worse.

The Obama regime cannot be ignorant of these factors, and so its fundamental hostility to and undermining of Israel and Jews in general -- the targets of the genocidal ambitions of both Hamas and Iran -- lies exposed.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but there comes a time to face hard facts that have become evident. The Obama White House is conniving at shielding genocidal, war-crimes committing terrorists, is treating them as though they were legitimate partners, and is running out the clock on Iran. With highly predictable, all but certainly horrific consequences.

If you doubt me, observe this (and do read the wider context) from Israel Matzav: 
In an earlier post, I reported that President Obama refused to back an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza unless Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed that ousting Hamas would lead to Abu Mazen taking over Gaza, and being given  a 'state' in much of Judea and Samaria as well. Assuming that post is correct, I concluded that Prime Minister Netanyahu refused to take the bait, and chose to let Hamas live another day rather than letting Abu Mazen have his 'state' without negotiations. I wrote that was probably the right decision for Israel. And if that's true, I still believe that [--> in the face of such alternatives] Prime Minister Netanyahu made the right choice.

In short, if this summary -- and the diplomatic exchange discussed looks convincing -- the alternatives offered to Israel by Obama and Clinton were (i) another round of installment plan conflict, or (ii) establishing, right away, without proper negotiations that could give any reasonable assurance of genuine peace, a larger terrorism-driven and genocidal Palestinian Arab state that would predictably serve as a platform for onward war against Israel. (Let us not forget, EVERY "land for peace" deal or retreat with the Palestinian Arabs or their close allies since 1993 has simply provided a further platform for attacking Israel, with Gaza itself as exhibit no 1.) 

Such willful obtuseness in the teeth of obvious but unwelcome facts is astonishing. And, revealing.

 The bottomline is plain, as Douglas MacArthur long ago put it: there is no substitute for victory.

But that ill-judged attempt is exactly what is going on, in a world that willfully looks on and refuses to face the unpleasant truth about Hamas, its ideology, and its behaviour as well as its backers in Iran.

We are saying "peace, peace," where there is no peace.


As usual, in the face of the obvious build up of an aggressive power.

Paraphrasing George Santayana, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its worst chapters, but by and large that is exactly what we insist on doing. That is why we make the same mistakes over and over and over, and it is why we keep getting into the same sort of messes again and again.

The alternative?

First, draw the red line with Iran, then make it plain to the Palestinian Arabs that any further resort to terrorism would be a fatal mistake. Then, from a position of strength, negotiate with credible, moderate partners, to find a reasonable solution.  

Where, since Jordan is already a Palestinian Arab State carved out of the lands of the League of Nations mandate -- it is about 3/4's of the original post WWI "Palestine" -- and has a proved track record of moderation, the best solution probably would be to bring the West Bank Palestinians under the government of Jordan. Indeed, that was where Israel and Jordan were headed in 1986, which is why the first "Intifada" happened at that time. The terrorists do not want a settlement with Israel, they want a radical "solution" based on the genocidal destruction of Israel per the infamous "prophetic" Gharqad Tree hadith in the Hamas Covenant, Article 7:
”The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind the stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
So, it is likely that Obama and Clinton offered Israel a cruel dilemma, and more ominously, it is clear that the situation with Iran is out of control. This last means that either Israel will have to attack it alone in a high-risk strike, or the world will have to face a genocidal, apocalyptic global conquest regime that backs terrorists and sits on the world's oil jugular vein, the Straights of Hormuz.

Boiling down: we are about to put ourselves in the situation the feckless leaders of the major powers put themselves into in the 1930's, when they allowed Hitler to arm himself and step by step secure a devastatingly dangerous strategic position. 

As in, we refuse to learn from history and insist on making the same blunders over and over again.

Churchill's speech on the occasion of Neville Chamberlain's infamous declaration of -- having signed away Czechoslovakia to Germany at Munich -- "peace in our time," is all too grimly apt:
"that this house approves the policy of His Majesty's Government by which was averted in the recent crisis and supports their efforts to secure a lasting peace," [means that in reality] the Government had "sustained a total and unmitigated defeat," and that "a disaster of the first magnitude has befallen Great Britain and France."
"And do not suppose this is the end," he warned. "This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in olden time."

Having thus fortified myself by the example of others, I will proceed to emulate them. I will, therefore, begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing. I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which I must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have . . . .

We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has  befallen Great Britain and France. Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant Nazi Power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted.

The road down the Danube Valley to the black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics - not only power military politics but power economic politics -- radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot . . .
That is what we face in our time, as Iranian dissident, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi has warned us all:

So now, we face a case where already, given the aggressive and apocalyptic genocidal intent of Iran, war cannot be averted; it can only be postponed to the advantage of a prospective nuclear-armed, terrorism backing genocidal power sitting on the world's oil jugular vein, the Straights of Hormuz.

(As in, thank you, Mr Jimmy Carter, for the "gift" that keeps on giving; for over 30 years now: an Iran that went through a radical revolution and ended up in the predictable control of the radical, ruthless Mullahs.)

We live in a willfully blind, suicidally feckless civilisation. END