Okay okay! You made your point jeff! Its all about the middle east.

KT

Natural progression. And directly because of Bush's ineptitude and malfeasance. He and his cohorts ignored the Middle East for a reason for far too long. It suited their game plan.

[SIZE=7] THE AXIS OF IDIOCY ! !

# 1. The Bush administration is also using Resolution 1559 as a barometer, U.S. officials say, acknowledging that the Lebanese government has shown neither the ability nor the willingness to deploy its fledgling army to the southern border.

If the Lebanese army does not have the ability to take on Hizbullah ( and it doesn't for two reasons ) why would it be willing to do it? Would you be willing to step into the ring against Mohammed Ali in his prime? Incidentally, the two reasons are:
1.) It would be overpowered, out gunned, and out motivated.
2. The army is part Shiite and part Sunni plus a minority of Christians. Hizbullah is practically all Shi'ite. It's not likely the Shi'ite segment of the army would be likely to want to fight against brother Shi'ites.

#2. " The best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said at a news conference with Russian President Vladimar Putin. " And that's because Hezbullah has been launching rockets out of Lebanon into Israel, and because Hezbullah captured two Israel soldiers. That's why we have violence. "

Does anyone over the age of six really believe that all of this violence is because of a few rockets launched into Israel and two soldiers captured?

Simple minds come up with simple solutions.

A.B.

Update and correction re Canadian fatalities and injuries.



C B C . C A N e w s - F u l l S t o r y :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Israeli air strike kills 8 Canadians in Lebanon
Last Updated Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:00:15 EDT
CBC News
Eight Canadians were killed and six others seriously wounded in an Israeli air raid that hit a Lebanese town on the border with Israel on Sunday, Ottawa says.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said the wounded Canadians were in critical condition after the town of Aitaroun was hit in the fifth day of fighting between the Israeli military and the Lebanese-based militant organization Hezbollah.

The victims were not immediately identified.

Lebanese TV reports said some of the victims were from the same family and had come from Canada to spend the summer holidays in Aitaroun.

Ottawa sends vessels to help evacuation

Ottawa is sending in commercial vessels to help any Canadian citizen who wishes to leave Lebanon, MacKay said.

"We are securing these vessels. They will be in the region as soon as humanly possible," he told CBC Newsworld.

The Foreign Affairs Department says 16,000 Canadians have registered with the government to say they're in Lebanon, while estimating that there are likely two to three times that many in the country.

On Sunday, for the first time since fighting began, Israeli warplanes unleashed bombs on central Beirut, as well as pounding its suburbs and striking a major power station nearby.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah — which spurred the outbreak of violence with a cross-border raid on the Israeli military — carried out a deadly rocket attack on the northern Israeli port of Haifa.

Copyright ©2006 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

http://www.cbc.ca

US Accuses Iran, Syria of Complicity in Mideast Violence
By Michael Bowman
Washington
16 July 2006

Bowman report - Download 310k audio clip

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says Iran and Syria are fomenting conflict in the Middle East by supporting Hezbollah and other militant groups.

Secretary Rice says Iran and Syria are backing terrorists and militants against Israel, as part of a larger campaign against the spread of democracy in the region. Rice spoke on CBS's Face the Nation program from the Group of Eight Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

"I absolutely see that Syria and Iran are playing a part in this," said Condoleezza Rice. "They are not even trying to hide their hand. Syria has held press conferences for Hezbollah. And Iran is the major financier of these [terrorist] efforts. Iran and Syria, like these extremist elements - Hezbollah and Hamas, do not have a future in the different kind of Middle East that the president [Bush] and his allies are building."

Another administration official, White House Counselor Dan Bartlett, speaking on CNN's Late Edition program, predicted that efforts by Iran and Syria to destabilize the region will backfire.

"What we are seeing now, in an unfortunate circumstance like this, [is] a clarification, a drawing of the lines between those forces that are for peace and stability, and those that are not," said Dan Bartlett. "And what you are going to see is further isolation of the governments of Syria and Iran, and more people joining the moderate forces. And that is a hopeful sign, as we move forward."

But some argue that Iran has been emboldened by the inability of U.S.-led forces to quell violence in Iraq. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright spoke on ABC's This Week program.

"There is no question in my mind that Iraq has diverted everybody's attention," said Madeline Albright. "We are overstretched, in terms of our troops, who are doing a terrific job. I do think that Iraq is turning out to be a huge disaster, with many unintended consequences, one of which is the fact that Iran has gained more and more influence, and is in a position to be helpful to Hezbollah that it was not before [the war in Iraq]."

But Secretary of State Rice dismisses any notion that Iran sees the United States as weak or overburdened.

"It is going to be a different kind of Middle East, a Middle East, by the way, in which there is no room for the kind of extremism that Syria and Iran represent," she said. "That is why they are striking out [fomenting conflict]. It is not a matter of [U.S.] weakness. It is because they think we are going to succeed, and they are determined to stop it. We are determined that they will not."

In the past, Hezbollah leaders have acknowledged support from Tehran.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-16-voa30.cfm

What more obvious should it have been when Bush and Condie said July 12 and all hell broke loose July 12?

I bet Bush himself kidnapped the 2 soldiers and blamed it on the others

Yep.. the Middle East problem is completely the fault of those who oppose the US taking over completely and destroying their countries. How dare they object to the US owning their lands !!

Talk about War Mongers !! And power hungry maniacs!! This crowd is more dangerous than Hitler and his Nazis ever were !

Does anyone over the age of six really believe Israel would have the cajones to launch such an INTENSE counter-attack without getting the green light from BushCo?

But I fear that the simple minds have not thought far enough into the future to consider where this is going to end up.

Like in Iraq.

There are many opportunists in the mix. Hizbullah is willing to sacrifice Lebanon and exploit the Palestinians, and so is Israel. Meanwhile the people paying the price are mostly not responsible, in any of the nations involved. It is hard to imagine an outcome that is not bad for the people, but good for those who seek power.

Same as always.

I think most of us see Israel as 'over-reacting" to the missle attacks on Haifa. But I wondering, what do you think a reasonable and responsible response could have been. I have no idea.

The real question is

As the people of the US are fed up with Bush, and probably lots are onto their tricks, how long can he keep this going when he doesn't have 90 percent popularity anymore, he is in the upper 30s low 40s.

Who will stand up and say no your not

And who is going to fight these wars, where will the soldiers come from?

While no one is watching, it would serve us right if China took us all over

According to Robert Fisk (heard one hour ago on Ian Masters' KPFK program), there is a "Mt. Meron" shown on the map, on top of which is an antenna complex that allows Israeli intelligence to monitor every aircraft movement from the Mediterranean to Iraq. A pilotless drone "spotted" the complex and fired a missile at it.

This shows the Israelis that not only can Hezbollah discover the exact location of one of Israel's most secret military air traffic control installation but that they can take it out with a pilotless drone!

Fisk also stated that the missile that hit the Israeli warship was an Iranian missile, and it hit the Israeli warship DEAD CENTER (not in the stern like is shown in the graphic)

This news indicates that Hezbollah (which was created from the ashes of Sharon's ill-conceived raid on the PLO in 1980) has matured quite a bit from a bunch of rag-tag guys in flip-flops armed with RPG-7s.

These guys have sophisticated weapons from Iran and they know how to use them.
So Israel's idea of pulverizing Hezbollah may be difficult if not impossible to do.

And attempting it will involve a lot of senseless death and destruction.

I don't know, but it still strikes me as Israel's problem, and one we should not give them any help getting free from. In fact I would do what de Gaulle did, stop selling weapons to anyone in the Mideast and stop protecting people from enemies they made for themselves. When the smoke clears, they can all work it out.

Meanwhile isolationism is looking better every day, said only somewhat tongue in cheek.

Or else we can do what Newt Gingrich thinks ....get behind WWIII,

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/...m&date=20060716



Be honest, do you really think this regional conflict between all these pissant little countries is worth a drop of American blood? This country is in serious debt, overdrawn morally and financially, and our government needs to serve the people of this nation first and foremost.

That's where the oil is though.

Beamer was right. Israel is doing Bush's bidding. And this won't end with the Middle East. Its just the tip of the iceberg. This is going to escalate.

And I know Harper, he isn't smart enough to react so definitively and on the spot without having had a heads up from his NEO CON masters when he was in Washington last week.

Suffice it to say I hope I'm wrong about where this is going but I don't think I am.

The horrific part of this is that the timing couldn't be better for Bush. Who's gonna stop him ?

The timing of all of this is interesting with Bush in Russia at the G8 summit. Wonder what Putin thinks about it?

This photo from Lebanon says it all. What a mess!

From My Home, I Saw What the "War on Terror" Meant
by Robert Fisk
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0715-26.htm




American weapons at work.

This was all so predictable. Maybe not the detail but the fact that if we went into Iraq, the violence would eventually spread throughout the Middle East. I am just numb.

It would seem that Bush has the Democrats over a barrel though. If the Dems complain too much about Israel, it could hurt them in the midterms.

I'm all for it. Let's regroup. Nothing wrong with that.

Glad I'm not Olmert.

Clearly this is not only an "over-reaction" but it has been planned for months. And it has been Okayed by BushCo. And what a coincidence that it is happening during Putin's G8 summit.

But Israel has a big problem. It is UNACCEPTABLE to allow Hezbollah to rain missiles on her cities killing innocent civilians. Yet, it is difficult if not impossible to stop them from doing so, short of flattening southern Lebanon. Doing so would be unacceptable to the civilized world.

And even if Israel provide itself with a 40 mile buffer zone (like in the 80s), the technology has improved to the point where Hezbollah will simply get 60 and 100 mile rockets from Syria and Iran.

It is a losing proposition.

I'm wondering why Israel hasn't trotted out the ARROW anti missile defense system. Instead, they are using the US Patriot missile system, the one that scored a big fat zero in the gulf war (after the CNN spin factor was removed and the actual kills accounted for).

Maybe these rockets are too small to be picked up on the radar.

So, if I were Olmert, and I'm glad I am not, I would have to face this reality and devise a low-profile ground invasion to get these guys and destroy their missiles without using the bludgeon tactics on the Lebanese civilians whose only crime is that they happen to live in the place Hezbollah operates from.

I am afraid for our children... the mushrooms could start sprouting and in our moments of distraction and weakness without a leader... our enemies could seize the opportunity to destroy us.

07.14.2006
Welcome to the Hornets' Nest

by Gary Hart


Sometime in the fall of 2002, I likened a U.S. invasion of Iraq to "kicking open a hornets' nest." I predicted that, if the Iraqis decided to fight in the cities, our casualties would be between five and ten thousand U.S. troops at least. Now, U.S. casualties exceed 20,000.

But the "hornets' nest" I predicted was not just an interminable and
intractable U.S. occupation of Iraq. It was wider war in the Middle East. The larger hornets' nest is now swarming.

By our justified overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, though unsuccessful decapitation of al Qaeda, we removed a thorn in Iran's side. By removing Saddam Hussein, we removed a thorn in Iran's other side.

But, inadvertantly and ignorantly, we empowered Iran to undertake a major intervention on behalf of the Shiite majority in Iraq. In response to our insistence that Iran not develop any nuclear capability, Iran and Syria have emboldened Hezbullah in Lebanon to energize Israel's formidable military and Hamas to do the same.

The U.S. is fighting a two front war with Afghanistan and Iraqi insurgents. Israel is fighting a two front war with Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Wouldn't you think this would be exactly the time when the nation's wisemen, those neoconservative idealists who saw the great American empire imposing democracy on the Middle East at the point of a bayonet, who secretely envisioned Iraq as our military base in the region, to be heard from? Of course, I mean Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Steven Cambone, and so many triumphalist others so present on the talk shows in early 2003. Haven't seen much of them recently.

Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are left to manage the disaster. You don't hear either one of them linking their arrogant decisions four years ago to the disaster unfolding in the Middle East.

We have some lessons in democracy to be learned here at home. Democracy does not work without accountability. Today there is no accountability in American democracy.

On the other hand, perhaps there will be in 2006 and 2008...if the Democrats recapture conviction and courage.

p.s. And, by the way, how do you like $4 a gallon gasoline?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/we...-n_b_25061.html

Hornets' nest is a good description.

"Iraq is viewed almost entirely as a neocon project, but the backstory to the war includes the purposeful bankrupting of America, which has weakened the state from the inside while the Iraq war has not only created more enemies, but left it more vulnerable to attack.... "

"... see behind the neoconservatives, to clusters of elite power which owe no allegiance to nation-states, and whose purpose all along has been calamity and the ruin of America."

Think, rather, "of globalist narco-criminals who profit by the propagation of "failed states."

-- Jeff Wells at rigorous intuition

What you suggest seems to make a lot more sense than how Israel has decided to react.

I fear these developments will be grabbed by the neocons as the perfect justification for launching a US offensive against Iran.

I would love to be wrong.


lenal

Yeah, well I'm sitting by my computer will nothing falling on my head.

I might feel differently were I sitting in Haifa.

Very hard to keep your cool and think rationally when the missiles are falling all around you.

I had that same odd thought last night at the hospital...as a 'mercy' helicopter took off.....as I listened to that sound, I wondered how it might feel to hear that sound amplified and incessantly droning on while missiles and bombs were dropping all around you.......what if this conflict invaded us?

It was an eerie thought and I hope one that we won't experience, but for all involved in this conflict: the Israelis, The Lebanese, The Palestinians etc... that is exactly what they are living with and as you essentially say Jeff it may be a no win situation.

Israeli and Arab TV News Show Different Sides of War

Very true. But thought about far reaching consequences should guide the actions of the Israeli military. The deaths of innocent civilans won't help their cause, IMO.
From a NYT article I just read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/world/mi...cnd-policy.html

"The White House counselor, Dan Bartlett, in St. Petersburg with President Bush, was asked by CNN what sort of restraint the United States expected.

“We’re not going to get into specific tactical decision-making,” he said, “but what we’re saying is, let’s not lose sight of the broader context.”

Mr. Bartlett said the survival of Lebanon’s young democratic government was crucial, as was Israel’s right to self-defense. But he said Israel needed to concentrate carefully on targets clearly linked to Hezbollah."

And what if Hezbollah targets are nestled within the civilian population? No easy answers.

You are usually right. So why would you be wrong this time?It already is happening.

Article from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/world/mi...cnd-policy.html

I wonder how long it will take Rice to decide the time is right for her to "make a difference"?


Rice Says Israel May Need to Prolong Offensive

By BRIAN KNOWLTON, International Herald Tribune

Published: July 16, 2006


WASHINGTON, July 16 — Israel may need to prolong its offensive in Lebanon to further reduce the threat from Hezbollah, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today, as some Democrats called on her to travel to the region immediately to help defuse the crisis.

Ms. Rice appeared to support a longer-term Israeli effort to inflict decisive damage to Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon. She also said she was considering a trip to the region.

“A cessation of violence is crucial, but if that cessation of violence is hostage to Hezbollah’s next decision to launch missiles into Israel or Hamas’s next decision to abduct an Israeli citizen, then we will have gotten nowhere,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Ms. Rice’s remarks appeared to put the United States at odds with most of its allies, which have urged an immediate halt to the far-flung Israeli strikes in Lebanon that followed attacks by Hezbollah militants in northern Israel.

But in St. Petersburg, Russia, the Group of 8 leading industrialized countries issued a statement that sought to bridge the differences. “These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos,” it said, an apparent allusion to Hezbollah and its Iranian and Syrian supporters.

It then added, “We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint.”

The White House counselor, Dan Bartlett, in St. Petersburg with President Bush, was asked by CNN what sort of restraint the United States expected.

“We’re not going to get into specific tactical decision-making,” he said, “but what we’re saying is, let’s not lose sight of the broader context.”

Mr. Bartlett said the survival of Lebanon’s young democratic government was crucial, as was Israel’s right to self-defense. But he said Israel needed to concentrate carefully on targets clearly linked to Hezbollah.

But by joining its voice to the Group of 8 statement, the United States carefully avoided tying its own hands. At a news conference a few hours earlier, President Bush sidestepped repeatedly when asked whether he supported Lebanon’s call for an immediate cease-fire.

A day earlier, after he met with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Bush bluntly blamed Hezbollah for provoking the crisis, while Mr. Putin said that “the use of force should be balanced,” a comment taken as critical of Israel.

The crisis has revived domestic criticism that the Bush administration, burdened and distracted by the war in Iraq, has dangerously ignored broader regional tensions.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright — speaking with unusual candor considering the traditional injunction in American politics against speaking ill of United States foreign policy while the president is abroad — said of the Bush administration, “I’m stunned, I’m frankly stunned that they have not been involved” more in the region.

“I wish that the secretary had announce that she was leaving St. Petersburg and going with other foreign ministers to the region to begin shuttle diplomacy,” she said on the ABC News program “This Week,” referring to Ms. Rice. “We can’t wait for the violence to stop.”

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, agreed that Ms. Rice should head to the region immediately. “We’re late into this game,” he told Fox News. “This could spin out of control to such a degree that we could have a major, major war in the Middle East.”

When Ms. Rice was asked later whether she might engage in the sort of shuttle diplomacy made famous by her predecessor Henry Kissinger, she replied, “I’m thinking about it.”

“I certainly stand ready to do so when I believe that I can make a difference.”

But, she added: “We first need a way ahead. Let’s recognize that simply going in and shuttling back and forth, if you don’t know where you’re trying to go, is not going to help.” It was vital, Ms. Rice said, to work with the United Nations and other parties “to lay a foundation so that we don’t have continual further crises.”

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has urged Mr. Bush to send Ms. Rice to the region, Time magazine has reported, citing an unidentified British official.

American lawmakers have mostly defended Israel’s response to the Hezbollah attacks.

“We need to stand firm with our friends the Israelis,” Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, said on Fox News. “They are protecting themselves.”

A Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, supported the Bush administration’s response but suggested an additional line of action: for Mr. Bush to send two former presidents, his father and Bill Clinton, to the region. “I think it would be a masterful diplomatic stroke,” Ms. Feinstein told CNN.

Both Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush pointed fingers at Syria and Iran for supporting and perhaps guiding Hezbollah, as well as militants of Hamas, who now controls the Palestinian government.

“They’re all — Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas — trying to destabilize democratic and moderate forces, trying to throw the region into chaos,” Ms. Rice said. “They can’t be allowed to do that.”

Mr. Bartlett said Group of 8 countries increasingly agreed that Hezbollah was to blame for the Lebanon crisis, adding, “What you’re going to see is a further isolation of the governments of Syria and Iran, and more people joining the moderate forces” in the region.

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said he considered the Syrian-Iranian link to Hezbollah’s attacks speculative. “We take this very seriously, but we want to see facts,” he said on CNN. “Whenever we ask for facts, there are not too many, if any.”

But a senior Republican senator, Trent Lott of Mississippi, said on CNN that he hoped Syria and Iran would understand “that using their surrogate Hezbollah will not succeed, and in the end it may backfire.”

Isn't the problem here that the armed militias (Hezbollah) were supposed to have been disbanded according UN 1559 after Israel withdrew? The Lebanese government isn't strong enough military to accomplish that on it's own apparently. If they ask for help, who does the UN send? Does anyone disagree that Syria is capable of controlling it's borders and can stop Hezbollah from being resupplied?

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm:

An ambitious 1996 Middle East policy paper A Clean Break recommended toppling the government of Iraq, "rolling back" Syria and Iran, and "electrifying" support for Israel in the US Congress in exchange for new missile defense contract opportunities. Three of the eight authors have since become prominent policymakers in the U.S. government.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

printed out unedited (its too hard to keep clicking, then links disappear later on)

A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:



striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.


paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.


striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

Article here Mag, by Karen Kwiatkowski with reference to the "clean break" strategy.

July 15, 2006

Israel Makes Its 'Clean Break'

by Karen Kwiatkowski


I removed myself from TV and the Internet for a few days, and when I got back, Israel had morphed the attacks on Gaza and the odd buzzing of Damascus into a full-scale assault into Lebanon, and escalated her military threats to Syria.

John Bolton is a happy man today. That blubbering bundle of self-righteousness, speaking from the UN, is totally on board with Israel’s attacks, and her security strategy.

Justin Raimondo, as usual, is prescient and correct. "A Clean Break: Strategy for Securing the [Israeli] Realm" is progressing as planned. Re-read the whole document, if you wish. It’s just an idea, a recommendation, written by a group of passionately pro-Israel Americans for a particular Likud candidate in 1996.

Who knew?

There are dead Gazans, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Israelis, ruined infrastructure everywhere, and crushing hopelessness. There is a sense that calling for peace and love in a time of war and hate is childish at best, and at worst, treason. In their own words, the Israelis are simply conducting a bloody "settling of accounts." How Old Testament of them!

The so-called Christian and liberty-loving country of the United States has truly suffered little – so far – for Israel’s lack of neighborliness.

Sure, billions of US tax revenues in aid to Israel cost us all a little something. Most foreign aid is a counterproductive and unconstitutional waste, and our aid to Israel is no exception. Sure, America has been betrayed in the past. Israel has repeatedly conducted espionage against the U.S. Israel’s government has sold and shared U.S. classified military technology with our competitors and enemies. Israel has even attacked us militarily a time or two. The most flamboyant of the Israeli attacks on her loyal benefactor was the 1967 attempt to sink the U.S.S. Liberty, including all souls on board. Was there a message here?

As the Pentagon franticly designs some kind of reasonable US citizen evacuation plan for the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon, while trying to ensure safety and tactical advantage for the entire Middle East deployment, surely intelligent men and women in the service of the United States share doubtful glances as they receive their orders. As the U.S. Marine Corps kicks into high gear, it does so with a foreboding memory of the last time we went to Beirut in response to an aggressive Israeli security strategy

Israel’s hawks have long recognized that the co-optation, or barring that, the destruction of Iraq was necessary for a more permanent approach, the clean break, the assertion of Israel’s monopoly of force in the Middle East. Our country, for only two trillion dollars and a few hundred thousand dead and maimed on all sides, has facilitated the destruction of Iraq.

Were we really needed for the next phase, launched this week?

I think not. My sense is that the reasonable minds in Washington, New York, and around the world had succeeded in maintaining a compromise of a long corrupted American foreign policy in the Middle East, dating from before the Carter Doctrine. The compromise was, and is, that we would permanently base within and preside over a shattered Iraq, but would support no further expansion of the war into Israel’s second phase target, Syria, or her third phase target, Iran.

I suspect that my conclusion was shared by those controlling Israel’s foreign policy. "A Clean Break" – the strategy apparently being implemented before our eyes – was not only about Israel’s security. It was very significantly about Israel’s independence from the United States.

Many in America oppose the U.S. knee-jerk, unquestioning support for Israel. Many more worry that the Israeli lobby is unusually influential in Washington, while remaining hidden and unaccountable to average Americans. Still others are alarmed that Israel’s constant war mentality has become our new American model, and that Iraq and our own borders have become our own occupied territories, teeming with terror and constituting a never-ending threat to our lives, prosperity and value system.

Some even wonder why no-one has told President George W. Bush that we do not currently have any treaties or formal alliances of defense with Israel – and that if Bush wishes to defend Israel against her enemies, he will either need to personally don a uniform and get on an airplane to Tel Aviv, or else defy the Constitution yet again.

However, there may be a bit of good news in this story. That uniquely Christian idea that we may be graced when we do not deserve it may be in evidence here, amidst the terror and hate we ourselves have facilitated in the Middle East.

If we can pierce the emotion, we may recognize that with Israel’s independent action this week – a cruel slap to her perceived enemies, and a betrayal of American interests in the Middle East – she has indeed progressed into a new phase of independence.

She has achieved a clean break. For many years, Israel has been completely competent to behave as a nation among nations, but she has, as American and European mothers and fathers know only too well, been afflicted with we facetiously call "failure to launch."

She has wanted a generous parent on the Security Council, to provide warmth and aid, validation and protection, a sympathetic ear and a devoted advocacy. Perhaps, as Israel executes her "Clean Break," America – led by the next Congress of the United States – can finally begin to truly celebrate Israel’s independence, and like tired parents, reorganize our own lives and objectives and dreams accordingly.


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kwiatkowski.php?articleid=9306

Thanks, DWB04...

Wish we could toss the whole lot of them into one of those stretchable, puncture-proof trash bags and toss them onto the top of the trash pile of history...

War? What is it good for? Absolutely nothing...

Say it again!

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=59449

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060719/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

We sElect an Idiot to represent US...

Israel Makes Its 'Clean Break'
by Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kwiatkowski.php?articleid=9306


Karen Kwiatkowski Ph.D., Is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel.

As I have pointed out many times, the recipe we are following for disaster can be found right here, read it if you have any interest in your future. It was authored by the people who brought us the Iraq quagmire, which is also part of the plan the document describes.

Looking Back at Lebanon With Anger - at the U.S.

A Lebanese American couple who fled strife say America should have
intervened in the fight. By Teresa Watanabe.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/e5b...Io30G2B0HiTw0EV

Bombs Fall, Misery Deepens

BEIRUT-Lebanon is facing a vast humanitarian crisis, with half a
million people displaced. By Megan K. Stack.
http://email.latimes.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/e5b...Io30G2B0HiTm0EL

World Health Organization: Lebanese Residents Displaced by Israeli Bombardment Expected to Top 900,000:

We go to Beirut to get a report from Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/18/1442244


'It is madness. Why is no one doing anything to stop this?':

A humanitarian disaster is unfolding in southern Lebanon where the Israeli war machine, determined to destroy Hezbollah once and for all, has been pounding the scruffy villages that dot these stony hills and valleys.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14048.htm

Israel's path to total war

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Despite dire warnings by certain US politicians, such as Senator John Warner, the Bush administration has failed to call on Israel to halt its offensive, opting instead to focus on Syria and Iran - reminding one of the Vietnam War when Moscow or Peking (Beijing) were often blamed for the efforts of the North Vietnamese.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14038.htm

- Crooks and liars
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/0...aration-of-war/