Haaretz reports that the Palestinian Authority is facing a liquidity shortfall for September because the leading Arab contributors, which incidentally make up less than 30% of all aid to the Palestinians, have not met their pledges for 2010 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-authority-faces-cash-crunch-as-arab-states-cut-aid-1.309025). Haaretz concludes that the two major non-western donors, the Saudis who contributed 242 million in 2008 and only 30 million this year and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) which has a dismal 171/0 split, are trying to force Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.
This explanation is deeply flawed and is a perfect example of subjective journalism gone wild.
Deeply flawed because it assumes that 1) reconciliation will make it easier to achieve peace instead of re-radicalizing the moderate West-Bank faction of Palestinians who would likely be overrun as they were in 2007, by a Hamas coup and/or influence. 2) that Iran will not see this as ready-made opportunity to strengthen its hold over the Palestinians by filling the vacuum left by its Sunni adversaries by funding Fatah itself. 3) even if the Sunni Arab regimes give Hamas the benefit of the doubt, namely that they do not ascribe to their own suicidal charter and will support an equitable peace after reconciliation, will Iran just walk away from its investment in cultivating a major proxy-weapon on/in Israel?
To be sure all Arab states have an incentive to advocate for peace, so as to assuage their, often irritated, populations and their own oil filled but marginally guilty conscience. It is also true that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes on different levels of urgency for different Arab states. For example, the Saudis and other oil rich states have less domestic problems and less reason to perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, because they are not is such a great need of a scapegoat. Indeed they now see Israel as the one sane power in the region that can check the mad ambitions of Iran and the misguided dreams of Erdogan’s Turkey. Other regimes like Syria, help perpetuate the Israeli/Palestinian conflict because it helps deflect legitimate domestic rage over endemic social ills and oppression from the Assads tyrannical regime to the oppressive occupier (Israel). There are even some linkers (I strongly encourage you to view the “linkers and thinkers” series, which explores the pros and cons of the American-Israeli alliance) who argue that Iran’s impetus for supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, and nuclear weapons would be undermined by Israeli/Palestinian peace. They are right insofar that Iran would be all the more exposed for what it is, an old decrepit regime dreaming of the glory days when it ruled the middle-east. But Iran’s quest for power has nothing to do with helping the Palestinians or Pakistan, or Iraq… Iran has a second rate army and third tier economy so it requires its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, to counter Israel’s might if it can ever hope to be a hegemony in the region.
The Arab states, led by the Saudi’s, are the last ones to be fooled by Iran’s “altruistic” quest to end Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians –indeed the Iranians are relative novices, compared to the old guard Arabs, at manipulating and abusing the Palestinians out of pure unapologetic self interest.
The Arab states know that reconciliation between Hamas and the Fatah/PA/PLO means either that Hamas miraculously, separates from Iran and repudiates terror(!) or that Iran will have established its dominance over all the Palestinians through Hamas.
Given what happened last time reconciliation was attempted –Hamas and Iran won- and the fact that Hamas has actually gained strength since then, with the Turkish/Iranian alliance, it is ludicrous to assert that the Saudi’s, who discreetly offered their air space to attack Iran, would facilitate “reconciliation”.
Instead I believe the Arab states are pressuring Abbas and Fatah to stop their delay tactics and to immediately enter into the direct talks that Israel and America has been requesting all this time. Indeed the success of such pressure WOULD weaken Iran, proving that it is the Sunni-Arabs and America who are the regional movers, and that those states like Syria and Lebanon (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/08/was-syria-behind-recent-lebaneseisrael.html) which are leaning towards Iran should give review their policies.
Of course Haaretz prefers convoluted irrational explanations over the obvious one. Why? Because the correct explanation strengthens the hated Netanyahu administration by pointing out that Netanyahu and Israel want to talk, and that the US, the West, and the Arab states agree.
How cliche, the most liberal paper in Israel, and probably the whole middle-east, takes the post modern position on truth; humans are all inherently subjective and because the only purveyors of truth are human there is no one truth. Haaretz, like other media outlets encompassing the far-left, indulge in the notion that there is no one truth. Perhaps this is the premise at the foundation of their coverage of Israel.
A deeply flawed result is the bastard child of subjective journalism gone wild.
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
It's Not the First Time Syria is Behind a Lebanese/Israel Conflict
The Lebanese Army took responsibility for Tuesdays attack on an routine Israeli patrol, that left Israeli Lt Col. Hariri and three Lebanese soldiers dead. While violence on the Northern border is common, this event was unique for two reasons. First it was the most violent incident since the 2006 war, instigated by Hezbollah, that left Beirut in ruins, and caused thousands of Lebanese and Israeli casualties. Second, the UN actually laid the blame on Lebanon. No one disputes the narrative. The IDF was cutting down a tree on the internationally recognized Israeli side of the blue line after having informed the Lebanese of their intentions to do so. The Lebanese responded that they dispute this blue line and that they warned Israel.
The fact that the Lebanese army had the temerity to initiate an attack on Israel after experiencing 10-1 casualties in the 2006 war is astonishing; to do so under the nose of the UN peacekeepers is simply inexplicable. It’s one thing if Hezbollah was directly responsible, after all they are now being blamed by the tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri. A war with Israel -and the inevitable civilian casualties that come with Hezbollah terror tactics- would be a small price to pay for a distraction the emotions of which could be used to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. But despite that fact that the officer who ordered the Lebanese sniper ambush was a Shiite with close ties to Hezbollah, this act was committed blatantly and unapologetically by the Lebanese army. It was an act of war not by a proxy but a recognized state.
Why would Lebanon put themselves in a position of being pounded into dust by Israel, while giving Israel an excuse to preempt Hezbollah’s eventual attack?
This may very well be explained by an underreported power shift, reported by Debka.com (http://debka.com/article/8946/) in the region following the July 30th meeting between Lebanon’s current PM, Saad Hariri ( the son of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri), Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the tyrant of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Following their meeting in Beirut, Damascus, reportedly, cut ties with the Iran backed Shia Hezbollah. It seems some deal was cut between the most vocal opponents of Shia Iran, the Sunni Saudis, and opportunist Syria.
This agreement not only weakens Iran’s position -which explains the Saudis involvement- in the region by eliminating the contiguous land route between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also allows Saad Hariri to turn his back on his major political opponents, Hezbollah, as he is now supported by Syria.
Indeed many have questioned why Hariri would ever ally with the group many suspected of being involved with murdering his father. It seems that until now Hariri had no choice, it was either accept that Hezbollah was backed by both Syria and Iran, and thus unassailable, or launch a failed civil war. Until now he collaborated with Hezbollah, no longer (?).
If Syria has in fact shifted its support from Hezbollah to Lebanon it would have to assuage its erstwhile ally Iran for two reasons. One, Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Syria, and supports it against Israel. Two, its relationship with Iran is a bargaining chip to be used with the West. So even though it agreed to shift its support in return some tantalizing incentives including by not limited to the following three incentives.
-One it regains the political hold in Lebanon that it lost in 2005, and the vacuum of which was filled by Iran with a revamped and expanded Shia Hezbollah. Two, the 2005 Hariri assassination is blamed on Hezbollah, not on the obvious suspect Syria. Three, Saudi Arabia and America, which is probably pulling the strings, offers Syria serious concessions, tying Palestinian/Israeli peace with the Golan etc.-
Still.
Syria is hedging its bets and authorized an attack on Israel which shows Iran that their relationship with Syria is still valuable. Because even though they have shifted their support from Hezbollah to the Sunni PM Hariri, Syria is still willing to use its newly reestablished clout to menace Israel’s northern border.
Syria which recently salvaged its relationship with Turkey has somehow leveraged its relatively small position in the middle east to its absolute benefit. As far as Syria’s actions jeopardizing Lebanon by using it as a tool against Israel. Well it won’t be the first time.
The fact that the Lebanese army had the temerity to initiate an attack on Israel after experiencing 10-1 casualties in the 2006 war is astonishing; to do so under the nose of the UN peacekeepers is simply inexplicable. It’s one thing if Hezbollah was directly responsible, after all they are now being blamed by the tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Hariri. A war with Israel -and the inevitable civilian casualties that come with Hezbollah terror tactics- would be a small price to pay for a distraction the emotions of which could be used to lay the blame on Israel’s doorstep. But despite that fact that the officer who ordered the Lebanese sniper ambush was a Shiite with close ties to Hezbollah, this act was committed blatantly and unapologetically by the Lebanese army. It was an act of war not by a proxy but a recognized state.
Why would Lebanon put themselves in a position of being pounded into dust by Israel, while giving Israel an excuse to preempt Hezbollah’s eventual attack?
This may very well be explained by an underreported power shift, reported by Debka.com (http://debka.com/article/8946/) in the region following the July 30th meeting between Lebanon’s current PM, Saad Hariri ( the son of the assassinated Rafiq Hariri), Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and the tyrant of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Following their meeting in Beirut, Damascus, reportedly, cut ties with the Iran backed Shia Hezbollah. It seems some deal was cut between the most vocal opponents of Shia Iran, the Sunni Saudis, and opportunist Syria.
This agreement not only weakens Iran’s position -which explains the Saudis involvement- in the region by eliminating the contiguous land route between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also allows Saad Hariri to turn his back on his major political opponents, Hezbollah, as he is now supported by Syria.
Indeed many have questioned why Hariri would ever ally with the group many suspected of being involved with murdering his father. It seems that until now Hariri had no choice, it was either accept that Hezbollah was backed by both Syria and Iran, and thus unassailable, or launch a failed civil war. Until now he collaborated with Hezbollah, no longer (?).
If Syria has in fact shifted its support from Hezbollah to Lebanon it would have to assuage its erstwhile ally Iran for two reasons. One, Iran is a major supplier of weapons to Syria, and supports it against Israel. Two, its relationship with Iran is a bargaining chip to be used with the West. So even though it agreed to shift its support in return some tantalizing incentives including by not limited to the following three incentives.
-One it regains the political hold in Lebanon that it lost in 2005, and the vacuum of which was filled by Iran with a revamped and expanded Shia Hezbollah. Two, the 2005 Hariri assassination is blamed on Hezbollah, not on the obvious suspect Syria. Three, Saudi Arabia and America, which is probably pulling the strings, offers Syria serious concessions, tying Palestinian/Israeli peace with the Golan etc.-
Still.
Syria is hedging its bets and authorized an attack on Israel which shows Iran that their relationship with Syria is still valuable. Because even though they have shifted their support from Hezbollah to the Sunni PM Hariri, Syria is still willing to use its newly reestablished clout to menace Israel’s northern border.
Syria which recently salvaged its relationship with Turkey has somehow leveraged its relatively small position in the middle east to its absolute benefit. As far as Syria’s actions jeopardizing Lebanon by using it as a tool against Israel. Well it won’t be the first time.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Are the Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians Really Pursuing Nuclear Weapons, Or...
Over the past year the “moderate” Arab nation block of Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have patently publicized their intent to pursue “peaceful” nuclear energy.
Jordan's nuclear ambitions stretch back to 2007 when King Hussein of Jordan declared their nation's peaceful ambitions to acquire nuclear energy (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178500). Recently Hussein has ostensibly ratcheted up his attempts, and even publicly admonished Israel for using its international political connections to hinder Jordan's nuclear ambitions (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10321361.stm).
Meanwhile the Saudis too, are already in the process of establishing the prerequisite infrastructure, which the Saudis call "a renewable energy complex" (www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173730).
Additionaly, there has been some Egyptian movement towards acquiring "peaceful" nuclear technology going back almost two decades. More recently, Egypt has displayed a new found earnestness when they signed a contract with an Austrian firm to find a suitable location in Egypt for the construction of an experimental nuclear energy plant (http://www.nuclearsafety.org/index.php/component/content/article/15-headlines/291-egypt-signs-160-million-deal-with-australias-worleyparson-for-nuclear-energy-plan).
It is no surprise that as the Shiite non-Arab Iranians move closer to becoming a nuclear power, the "moderate" Sunni Arab nations increase their efforts to acquire weapons in order to stave off Iranian domination. It is not an arbitrary correlation.
Of course the assumption is that the Arab states are not all of a sudden pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, but rather, like Iran, they use that terminology to cover up their true intentions. In other words as the Iranians get closer to developing "peaceful" nuclear power we can expect increased efforts by Arab states to acquire “peaceful” nuclear power.
But how credible are the attempts of these Arab states -all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- to obtain nuclear weapons?
Iran is one thing. It has actively pursued weapons since the 1979 Islamic-revolution (please see Khomeini’s Ghost, for more on this). Iran has significant international alliances with nuclear powers willing to share. Like China, Pakistan, Russia, and especially North Korea, Iran has an exponentially growing domestic know-how. They are succeeding for these reasons, and these reasons alone.
The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians, have NONE of the above. So if the Arab nations have unrealistic ambitions, what is behind their nuclear rhetoric?
Their motives can be interpreted in two ways.
1. The Arab nations are notorious for their delusional rhetoric. For example during their 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel they reported great victories over the radio, prompted at times by their leaders, while in actuality they were suffering extraordinary defeats (please see the Arab Mind by Raphael Patai). I do not want to go into more detail here, because, despite the many blood libels and propaganda commonly spread in these countries (MEMRITV), I believe that this time they are more calculated in their actions.
2. By ratcheting up their talk of pursuing nuclear energy, aka nuclear weapons, they indirectly, but unambiguously, affirm the notion that Iran's nuclear drive is creating yet another problem -a regional nuclear race, lending further credence to the anti-proliferation argument applied to Iran.
In other words they do not want Iran to have weapons and are doing everything to focus the international community’s efforts on stopping Iran.
What does this mean?
There are two ways at looking at this -from a sanctions standpoint and from a tactical strike perspective.
On one hand their actions are helping galvanize the sanctions movement supported by the Obama administration and most other countries.
Yet the more sanctions that are successfully passed (passed is not synonymous with effective), the more passive the international community becomes in actually stopping Iran. This is because they feel like they are doing enough (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html ).
This passivity in turn makes it more difficult to take the only action that will actually stop Iran, a tactical strike.
Or the international community may get the hint and recognize publicly what they know privately: A nuclear Iran would cause such a range of negative consequences that they may actually not repeat history, and support a strike. Not that they would have to raise a finger -Israel will, as usual, do the dirty work. On the contrary, don’t raise a finger, against Israel that is.
Predictably the skeptic will respond:
1.“Let Israel disarm first”. Or, “Iran is only protecting itself from Israeli/American nuclear aggression”.
The very fact that the Arabs, yes the Arabs, have responded to Iran’s actions as a real and immediate threat, should give us a clue as to the real difference between Israel and other countries. Israel will not be the first to use weapons, or use weapons as an umbrella to protect themselves from international terror and Iran… As for America, America could have already attacked Iran.
2.“Look at North Korea, there nuclear weapons are not such a big problem."
Oh, but you forget that it was North Korea that helped Iran along the way to near nuclear armament. The consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will only accelerate that process.
If the Arabs are on to Iran's game what excuse does the rest of the sane world have?
Jordan's nuclear ambitions stretch back to 2007 when King Hussein of Jordan declared their nation's peaceful ambitions to acquire nuclear energy (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178500). Recently Hussein has ostensibly ratcheted up his attempts, and even publicly admonished Israel for using its international political connections to hinder Jordan's nuclear ambitions (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10321361.stm).
Meanwhile the Saudis too, are already in the process of establishing the prerequisite infrastructure, which the Saudis call "a renewable energy complex" (www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173730).
Additionaly, there has been some Egyptian movement towards acquiring "peaceful" nuclear technology going back almost two decades. More recently, Egypt has displayed a new found earnestness when they signed a contract with an Austrian firm to find a suitable location in Egypt for the construction of an experimental nuclear energy plant (http://www.nuclearsafety.org/index.php/component/content/article/15-headlines/291-egypt-signs-160-million-deal-with-australias-worleyparson-for-nuclear-energy-plan).
It is no surprise that as the Shiite non-Arab Iranians move closer to becoming a nuclear power, the "moderate" Sunni Arab nations increase their efforts to acquire weapons in order to stave off Iranian domination. It is not an arbitrary correlation.
Of course the assumption is that the Arab states are not all of a sudden pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, but rather, like Iran, they use that terminology to cover up their true intentions. In other words as the Iranians get closer to developing "peaceful" nuclear power we can expect increased efforts by Arab states to acquire “peaceful” nuclear power.
But how credible are the attempts of these Arab states -all members of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- to obtain nuclear weapons?
Iran is one thing. It has actively pursued weapons since the 1979 Islamic-revolution (please see Khomeini’s Ghost, for more on this). Iran has significant international alliances with nuclear powers willing to share. Like China, Pakistan, Russia, and especially North Korea, Iran has an exponentially growing domestic know-how. They are succeeding for these reasons, and these reasons alone.
The Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians, have NONE of the above. So if the Arab nations have unrealistic ambitions, what is behind their nuclear rhetoric?
Their motives can be interpreted in two ways.
1. The Arab nations are notorious for their delusional rhetoric. For example during their 1967 and 1973 wars with Israel they reported great victories over the radio, prompted at times by their leaders, while in actuality they were suffering extraordinary defeats (please see the Arab Mind by Raphael Patai). I do not want to go into more detail here, because, despite the many blood libels and propaganda commonly spread in these countries (MEMRITV), I believe that this time they are more calculated in their actions.
2. By ratcheting up their talk of pursuing nuclear energy, aka nuclear weapons, they indirectly, but unambiguously, affirm the notion that Iran's nuclear drive is creating yet another problem -a regional nuclear race, lending further credence to the anti-proliferation argument applied to Iran.
In other words they do not want Iran to have weapons and are doing everything to focus the international community’s efforts on stopping Iran.
What does this mean?
There are two ways at looking at this -from a sanctions standpoint and from a tactical strike perspective.
On one hand their actions are helping galvanize the sanctions movement supported by the Obama administration and most other countries.
Yet the more sanctions that are successfully passed (passed is not synonymous with effective), the more passive the international community becomes in actually stopping Iran. This is because they feel like they are doing enough (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-do-latest-unsc-sanctions-on-iran.html ).
This passivity in turn makes it more difficult to take the only action that will actually stop Iran, a tactical strike.
Or the international community may get the hint and recognize publicly what they know privately: A nuclear Iran would cause such a range of negative consequences that they may actually not repeat history, and support a strike. Not that they would have to raise a finger -Israel will, as usual, do the dirty work. On the contrary, don’t raise a finger, against Israel that is.
Predictably the skeptic will respond:
1.“Let Israel disarm first”. Or, “Iran is only protecting itself from Israeli/American nuclear aggression”.
The very fact that the Arabs, yes the Arabs, have responded to Iran’s actions as a real and immediate threat, should give us a clue as to the real difference between Israel and other countries. Israel will not be the first to use weapons, or use weapons as an umbrella to protect themselves from international terror and Iran… As for America, America could have already attacked Iran.
2.“Look at North Korea, there nuclear weapons are not such a big problem."
Oh, but you forget that it was North Korea that helped Iran along the way to near nuclear armament. The consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons will only accelerate that process.
If the Arabs are on to Iran's game what excuse does the rest of the sane world have?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Saudi Arabia and Israel! Really?
The Timesoline ://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece reported Saturday that Saudi Arabia has established a narrow corridor for Israel, or America, for use to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Intelligence sources (http://www.debka.com/article/8845/) are reporting that the Saudis have run drills preparing to stand down their comprehensive air defenses for just such an eventuality. Predictably, the Saudis denied the "accusation".
Though Israel and America continue their petty quibbling over the flotilla debacle -spurred on by an inept Obama administration- and are unlikely to take advantage, I would like to attempt to evaluate the Saudis offer, from the Israeli perspective.
First, Israel should never forget that it was the Saudis, not the Iranians, who first helped establish the framework and infrastructure for international Islamic terror that plagues Israel. Moreover, the Saudis, though improved, have an abysmal human rights record. For that reason alone Israel should be weary.
Two, the Saudis, and most Arab nations, refuse to recognize the state of Israel, but now realize that it is precisely the non-existent Israel that stands between them, the Sunni Arabs nations (excluding Lebanon, and to a lesser degree Syria), and the tyrannical Shiite Mullahs of Iran.
Three, the Saudis as well as the other Arab nations were shocked by the speedy emergence of the non-Arab alliance that sandwiches them between Iran and Turkey (http://www.debka.com/article/8845/). Past Ottoman oppression and Iranian aspirations may be overlooked by the deprived Israel-hating Arab street, but the elites of the Arab nations know who their enemy really is.
So what should Israel do?
First, should Israel make the necessary decision to attack Iran, there will be serious repercussions for Israel. On the diplomatic front, there is no shortage of anti-Israel sentiment. Even in America, there are those on the far-left who savor the opportunity to bolster their highly questionable claim that Israel is a strategic liability America (please see post series "the thinkers and the linkers", for more on this). Ironically, the very Arab nations that Israel will save will likely be the first to condemn Israel.
On the military front, while it is not clear that an Israeli attack will be completely successful, it is clear that Iran will let loose its proxy terror apparatus, Hezbollah and Hamas. These organizations have amassed a spectacular arsenal of terror weapons that can reach every part of Israel. What many do not realize is that if these terror organizations do what they do best -kill civilians- successfully, Israel will be forced to step back from its usual highly measured a restrained approach to battle. Perhaps replicating what NATO and all other countries do on regularly -put their Israeli civilians and soldiers first. This would necessitate the complete elimination of Hezbollah, Hamas, and countless human shields.
Who knows how Erdogan-dominated Turkey would react?
Therefore.
Israel should make it clear that the Arabs -who will benefit greatly from such an attack- that Israel will not be both their whipping boy and their savior.
Israel should attempt to gain concessions from the Arab nations. Recognition may be a pipe-dream, but putting pressure on Hamas, the PLO/PA, for peace- real peace- is a legitimate option. Also, written guarantees to completely halt all anti-Semitic anti-Israel incitement (thus blood libels/organ harvesting, kill the Zionists, bad, criticism, like that found in the New York Times, ok, for more on this please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html) that is regularly displayed and taught in all Middle-Eastern Arab nations (check out memriTV). Finally, the establishment of direct economic ties which is a prerequisite for Middle-Eastern development and eventual peace.
Of course the Saudis may not agree to such concessions, which is why Israel needs the Obama administration to wake up and reassert America’s rightful role as the only great AND just power in the universe. Many Americans, the pragmatic ones anyway, see the opportunity here, we should not overlook it. Besides, as in the past, Israel will be on the front line defending Western interests. But America needs to do its part.
Hopefully the above steps if taken and carried out may actually turn the Iranian crises, into a pivotal moment in history that could prevent another Iran from arising in the Middle-East.
Though Israel and America continue their petty quibbling over the flotilla debacle -spurred on by an inept Obama administration- and are unlikely to take advantage, I would like to attempt to evaluate the Saudis offer, from the Israeli perspective.
First, Israel should never forget that it was the Saudis, not the Iranians, who first helped establish the framework and infrastructure for international Islamic terror that plagues Israel. Moreover, the Saudis, though improved, have an abysmal human rights record. For that reason alone Israel should be weary.
Two, the Saudis, and most Arab nations, refuse to recognize the state of Israel, but now realize that it is precisely the non-existent Israel that stands between them, the Sunni Arabs nations (excluding Lebanon, and to a lesser degree Syria), and the tyrannical Shiite Mullahs of Iran.
Three, the Saudis as well as the other Arab nations were shocked by the speedy emergence of the non-Arab alliance that sandwiches them between Iran and Turkey (http://www.debka.com/article/8845/). Past Ottoman oppression and Iranian aspirations may be overlooked by the deprived Israel-hating Arab street, but the elites of the Arab nations know who their enemy really is.
So what should Israel do?
First, should Israel make the necessary decision to attack Iran, there will be serious repercussions for Israel. On the diplomatic front, there is no shortage of anti-Israel sentiment. Even in America, there are those on the far-left who savor the opportunity to bolster their highly questionable claim that Israel is a strategic liability America (please see post series "the thinkers and the linkers", for more on this). Ironically, the very Arab nations that Israel will save will likely be the first to condemn Israel.
On the military front, while it is not clear that an Israeli attack will be completely successful, it is clear that Iran will let loose its proxy terror apparatus, Hezbollah and Hamas. These organizations have amassed a spectacular arsenal of terror weapons that can reach every part of Israel. What many do not realize is that if these terror organizations do what they do best -kill civilians- successfully, Israel will be forced to step back from its usual highly measured a restrained approach to battle. Perhaps replicating what NATO and all other countries do on regularly -put their Israeli civilians and soldiers first. This would necessitate the complete elimination of Hezbollah, Hamas, and countless human shields.
Who knows how Erdogan-dominated Turkey would react?
Therefore.
Israel should make it clear that the Arabs -who will benefit greatly from such an attack- that Israel will not be both their whipping boy and their savior.
Israel should attempt to gain concessions from the Arab nations. Recognition may be a pipe-dream, but putting pressure on Hamas, the PLO/PA, for peace- real peace- is a legitimate option. Also, written guarantees to completely halt all anti-Semitic anti-Israel incitement (thus blood libels/organ harvesting, kill the Zionists, bad, criticism, like that found in the New York Times, ok, for more on this please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html) that is regularly displayed and taught in all Middle-Eastern Arab nations (check out memriTV). Finally, the establishment of direct economic ties which is a prerequisite for Middle-Eastern development and eventual peace.
Of course the Saudis may not agree to such concessions, which is why Israel needs the Obama administration to wake up and reassert America’s rightful role as the only great AND just power in the universe. Many Americans, the pragmatic ones anyway, see the opportunity here, we should not overlook it. Besides, as in the past, Israel will be on the front line defending Western interests. But America needs to do its part.
Hopefully the above steps if taken and carried out may actually turn the Iranian crises, into a pivotal moment in history that could prevent another Iran from arising in the Middle-East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
