Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Doing The Mideast Peace Shuffle
General piece by
Erik Rush
“There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.” - President George W. Bush, January 10, 2008
Geopolitics is such a complicated subject, you see, far beyond the comprehension of the average American. Those whom destiny has ordained to ameliorate the world’s geopolitical woes are far more insightful and inherently capable that you or I could ever hope to be.
I’m being facetious, of course. Without going into the promotion of that belief by politicians over the years due to spineless vacillation or their quest to keep Americans ignorant and uninvolved in the political process, I’d be interested in hearing how the Founding Fathers of this nation would have viewed the above concept, those who took on the most powerful empire on the planet and declaring that they were prepared to fight, kill and die to throw off the yoke of tyranny.
President Bush has gotten a lot of bad press from the establishment media because of who and what they are. I was forwarded some factoids the other day which, though verifiable, I was reluctant to use simply because the initial contact was a group email from a business associate.
There have been 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That’s just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
Though some claim that President Bush “shouldn’t have started this war,” consider:
FDR (a Democrat) led us into World War II. Although we were attacked, from 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
Truman (a Democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy (a Democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson (a Democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
President Clinton (a Democrat) went to war in Bosnia without United Nations or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Bin Laden has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, gotten nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Still, the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
Consider further…
It took less time for Coalition forces to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (the former Attorney general Under President Clinton) to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.
We’ve been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida in 2000.
That being said, President Bush has still proved to be a great disappointment to conservatives and Republicans in general; first, for his lack of communication with the American people and the media vis-à-vis the Iraq campaign, which gave the establishment media the opportunity to foment mistrust and animas toward the president. Second, over the last two years, Bush has made it apparent that he is a dedicated globalist, which rubs most Americans (and particularly conservatives) the wrong way. The far-Left don’t take exception to our inching toward a one-world government, but continues to malign Bush due to the objectives of their agenda and unabashed hatred of the man.
Now, the president is dancing the ridiculous and humiliating dance of attempting to broker a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israel; unfortunately the U.S. government has the latter wrapped around her finger (the billions of dollars in aid they receive per annum, you understand). Israel is at the table because she has to be; the Palestinians are there for the same reason they always have: To buy time, reinforce their terrorist infrastructure, and no doubt, to marvel at America’s gullibility and Israeli leaders having to choke back bile.
On the U.S. Bureau of Public Affairs website, there is actually a substantial synopsis to the “Roadmap to Peace” (some have dubbed it “Roadmap to Hell”). One has to actually read it to grasp just how preposterous it is. Oh, it might not be so much the belly laugh were there two factions who actually wanted peaceful coexistence, but if it is scrutinized with an eye toward what would likely transpire after the grand scheme was finally accomplished (autonomous Palestinian and Jewish states), there’s little doubt that terrorist incursions and strikes against Israel by terrorists would still occur with regularity, and there would eventually be full-scale war with the Palestinian state.
Whatever the Palestinians’ lot in life in the occupied territories (and I will concur that it is not pleasant at present), the fact remains that there are (and will be for some time to come) radical factions among the Palestinians, supported by radical Muslim nations and dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Palestinian political leaders – presuming they are not directly in league with these outfits – seldom have much control over their actions.
So the images of President Bush “at the table” with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas (also leader of the Muslim terrorist PLO Fatah party), uttering the same anemic phraseology used by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton absolutely reeks of pliant, spungiform pathos. Abbas, of course, is playing the same game as did his murderous predecessor Yasser Arafat, and no error.
There is talk of unifying against the Iranian threat, since no one in the region save for the Shia in Iraq want to be under the law of the cross-dressing mullahs in Teheran – but this is a longshot of the highest order when one considers the patience of the enemy and their dedication to liquidating every Jew in the Middle East (at the very least) above all else. Abbas’ own party faithful hail him with the stiff-armed Nazi salute, of all things.
Those who have not lost all hope for our outgoing Chief Executive back of such things as his unilateral granting of access to Mexican trucking companies in the face of the Border Crisis and more concerns about national security apropos our southern border than any time in our history might be wondering what on earth he is doing. Is Bush using the Israel-Palestinian problem to the end of his own legacy-building, similar to what Bill Clinton did toward the end of his second term? Or is he promoting that naïve globalist dance, wherein geopolitical interests theoretically become so incestuous that it simply isn’t desirable to blow anyone up anymore?
An “end to the occupation that began in 1967,” as Bush called for, is a very tall order. To many Israelis, indeed many Jews worldwide, that would be like the U.S. giving up everything west of the Mississippi. Israel sacrificed greatly for those gains, and the loss of them would put Israel in an inferior and undesirable strategic position.
And the radical Islamists (including Abbas and his ilk)? They don’t care what concessions are made. You want to know what they desire? Watch some World War II concentration camp footage.
Why these dangerous and disgraceful exercises on the part of our national government – which includes more than a few administrations? Fear of recrimination by the global community, which does not have America’s best interests at heart (nor can they be expected to), lack of moral fortitude, perhaps, and less flattering vernacular with which I’m sure you are familiar.
It’s sad and ironic, particularly when one considers that between the U.S. and Israel, we could decisively end the Palestinian conflict, the Iran nuclear conflict, rogue nations’ support of terrorists in Iraq and the occupied territories, the activities of the Taliban and al-Qaeda – indeed, most of the more profoundly dangerous aspects of the War on Terror – in a single afternoon.
HowardWasRight 
more...
more... 
