More Bad Ideas for Israel

Once again, Mr. Obama has shown himself to be inept and uneducated in international affairs, history, and basic geography. This should not be shocking, yet the media and many other allies of Mr. Obama are scrambling to do “damage control” after his loathsomely ignorant speech on the Middle East. Apparently, his words were shocking enough to incite anger both at home and abroad, and unlike the typical lazy American, the people abroad do not soon forget, or forgive.
The truth of the matter is that Mr. Obama believes whatever he wants to believe, and the facts be damned. His speech was filled with nice ideas. Nice ideas are nice—just ask any five year old about Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and elves. Nice ideas indeed, and just as fanciful, ignorant, and narrow-minded as Mr. Obama’s speech.
This is 2011, and mankind has never had more sophisticated ways of killing itself. Even so, the relatively crude katyusha rockets (developed in 1939) have come a long way, with a range of 13-19 miles and a payload of 70+ pounds. The katyusha was and is used by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel, and between 2001 and January 2009 over 8600 rockets had been indiscriminately shot at Israel, many of them the feared katyushas. That’s nearly a thousand rockets per year for nearly a decade. Worse still, the rocket batteries mount on the back of a pickup truck, making them hellishly difficult to track and destroy because of their ability to move, fire, and run in a matter of minutes. Unfortunately, that’s what 70 year old technology can do. Think of modern weaponry in relation to this discussion as we go along.
The kicker is Mr. Obama’s blind insistence on the 1967 boarders of the Israeli-Arab conflicts. Those boarders leave a veritable beachhead for terrorist activities—activities that continue despite the incoherent ramblings from Washington and condemnation from the equally impotent United Nations. Additionally, the 1967 borders leave Israel only ten miles wide at places along a strip nearly 20 miles long. Overall, this strip would be entirely within range of the katyusha rockets, and other rockets that have been favored by Hamas and the enemies of Israel. Can it get worse? Definitely. The 1967 borders also place most of Tel Aviv itself within range of a katyusha battery. It might be added that the katyushas can drop around five-plus tons of high explosives (or chemical weapons) in a 10-acre area with little or no warning. To illustrate, the power of one battery has more explosive power than the fertilizer-filled truck at the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. Additionally, the 19-mile range of these rockets would (and does) allow them to be fired from well inside Hamas territory, and out of range of IAF interdiction (assuming the IAF does not fly into Hamas airspace). In short, they can lay siege to Israeli civilians without fear of retaliation or intervention by the Israeli Airforce. (To see this partially illustrated, click here for a map of katyusha ranges in relation to Israel’s boarders) http://www.iris.org.il/images/katmap4.gif Keep in mind, the range of a katyusha can be up to 19 miles—further than the 12 miles this map suggests.)

A country ten miles wide with a pre-arranged terrorist foothold is a country that cannot be defended. Do not for a moment believe that Hamas or any other terrorist organization will keep a truce. Mr. Obama sees himself as the great unifier, the negotiator, the bringer of peace and the arbiter between nations. Yet Hamas sees Obama as neither potent, nor credible. Mr. Obama believes his truce will last, because of his view of himself and his overestimation of his abilities. The truth is that a truce will never last because terrorists don’t really care about Mr. Obama’s wishes and hollow threats, and because they don’t play by the rules. (Short list of Hezbollah terrorist attacks on Israel from Oct 2000, to Aug 2006: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hizattacks1.html )

Israel has long been on the receiving end of terrorism, racism, hate, and genocidal maniacs living within minutes of its civilians. Mr. Obama felt very free to suggest all the great things Israel could do to bring about peace—all at an enormous financial cost and security risk to Israel. Spending other people’s money is easy, and none of Obama’s misguided plans cost him anything, or endanger him at all. D.C. is under an impressive missile net, with deep bunkers, fighter jets at the ready, and an army of highly trained agents to protect the White House. Of course Mr. Obama feels it’s all a grand idea…he’s fully protected and has nothing to lose. But he’s not the one to say, and not the one to ask about such things. Ask the Israeli girl, who recently found her family of five slaughtered down to the last child by terrorists from the Arab-occupied territory. See if she thinks ceding more land to a terrorist organization is a good idea. Her opinion is far more relevant and important than that of a lame-duck president.
Israel has always traded land for peace. Nearly every U.S. president has demanded it at some point, and yet somehow Israel has always given land, and never gotten peace.
It has become the “incredible shrinking country” and yet the terror attacks have gotten more indiscriminate, and more heinous with each passing decade. (Click here for Israel’s shrinking boundaries since the British Palestinian Mandate: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PgtFNpY_3mc/S70FDV1y0rI/AAAAAAAAJ08/pqILqgegy2A/s1600/shrinking_israel2.jpg)

What Israel holds in comparison to its violent Muslim neighbors is laughable to say the least. Israel holds less than .5% of the land in the Middle East. Half a percent. One half, or less, of 1%. Muslims, many of them radical jihadists, hold greater than 99.5% of all the land in the Middle East, and an even greater portion of that region of the world. For a working definition of what this looks like, click here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PgtFNpY_3mc/S7uA9J6e9OI/AAAAAAAAJ0U/1w1MpBo9syI/s1600/israel_surrounded2.jpg

What more can Israel give up? And why should she? Do the “Palestinian” people deserve a homeland? Arguably, there is no such thing as an ethnic “Palestinian”, any more than there is anything such as an ethnic Texan or Arizonian. Bloodlines establish ethnicity, not geography. Even so, should these displaced peoples desire a homeland, let those who hold 99.5% of the land share with those who have none. To demand the vast minority to give up her share is asinine, bullyish, and absurd.

Rand Paul recently demanded that the U.S. cut funding to Israel, much in the same way that Mr. Obama wishes to pull support from the Jewish state. As previously argued (See here: http://yitzachmeyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/previously-published-in-yavapai-college.html) Israel is one of our few remaining allies in the world, and the country is an enormously stabilizing factor in the Middle East. The region has drastically and radically destabilized with each passing month, included Egypt’s enormous shift towards radical Islam and Sharia law. Libya, Syria, and other nations are not friendly towards the U.S., democracy, and the world in general. Israel is the last bastion of sanity and reason in region that holds as many as 100 million radical jihadists who love to put America and a good many other countries into Submission by the edge of the sword and the use of an AK-47. Mr. Obama’s ignorant remarks are the spittle of a self-righteous imbecile, flung in the face of a Jewish nation that lives in the shadow of a force that wants every Jew dead and Israel gone forever.

A Bad Idea for a Dangerous Time

Previously published in the Yavapai College RoughWriter, March 2011.

We live in a dangerous world. The Islamic terrorist networks are stronger, more sophisticated (in a deadly simple sort of way) and the idea of another 9/11 looms large in all of our minds. Add the newly found concept of a terrorist state and things don’t look good for us in general.
In spite of this, Rand Paul, a U.S. Senator from Kentucky (and son of Ron Paul, from Texas), made some rather irrational, loose and down right dangerous remarks.
In late January of this year, Paul suggested that the U.S. stop funding Israel monetarily and militarily during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
While he has declared his sympathy and support for Israel as a sovereign nation that should defend herself, he also is in favor of severing the $2 billion package that the United States sends to Israel annually.
To his credit, he doesn’t like the idea of borrowing that much money from China, (who does?) and his reasoning is that the ChiCom debt is consuming the U.S. economy.
While these are valid reasons for concern Paul’s method, (cutting aid to Israel), is not just a terrible idea, it’s a dangerous one.
The Middle East is a veritable boiling pot of trouble looking for an excuse to explode in widespread violence and the bright spots are few.
Iran has suffered a devastating setback to its nuclear program thanks to the ambiguously funded and brilliantly designed Stuxnet worm, but the good news ends there. Iran has recently had demonstrations in it’s own parliament demanding the execution of dissenters in the country.
Additionally the racist and hateful rhetoric pouring out of the Islamic Republic it’s clear that Iran’s nuclear intentions are anything but amiable and positive.
Iraq is a country beset with founding its own identity and existence and is not even yet strong enough to defend herself yet.
Syria is another story, as the country has no interest in a long-term peaceful agreement with Israel and has an alliance with the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Syria is a country funded by Iran itself and not surprisingly echoes the violent and hate-ridden sentiments of Iran when it comes to the nation of Israel and the US.
Lebanon has destabilized in the last few months, as the Iranian-funded Hezbollah has increased it’s choke-hold on Lebanese politics and policy.
Gaza is another hotspot, as Hamas has seized power and wants to work things out with AK-47s rather than diplomacy.
Most recently and disturbingly is the nation of Egypt, which has (in the past) generally taken a peaceful stance towards Israel and the West.
However, those days are probably gone as a recent Pew poll in Egypt suggested that a vast majority of Egyptians don’t mind the idea of becoming an extreme Islamic state akin to Iran, or Syria, with 70% supporting the idea that those who leave the religion of Islam should be killed.
Additionally, 82% of Egyptians don’t like the U.S. and more than half of those surveyed felt that the suicide bombers who killed civilians could be justified.
All this to say: The Middle East is a pressure cooker without a release valve on a runaway bonfire.
To quote a famous movie, “…our list of allies grows thin.” The region of the Middle East is not stabilizing with time and the alliances that are forming and the power centers of the realm are not friendly to democracy, the U.S., or the civilized world.
Save for Israel. The nation is one of the few democracies in the region and that doesn’t have “terrorism” as one of its main exports. It is directly in our best interests to keep Israel as strong and stable as possible in a region where stability and strength are becoming rarer with each passing year.
Throwing Israel under the bus is unlikely to inspire other nations of the world to trust us as allies.
At some point the difficult decision must be made to stick with our friends through thick and thin. When the going gets tough, do we hang tough, or do we get going?
If we want to have any chance at stabilizing the Middle East and suppressing terrorism, then Rand Paul’s advice has got to go.
Instead how about we track down the “missing” money from our budget? In 2003 alone the Financial Report of the United States Government reported, “unreconciled expenses” $24 billion dollars. That’s a heck of a lot of money—especially if it’s missing.
I suggest that rather than take money from our international allies, that our senate and congressional leaders exercise a little—no, a lot of discipline, gouge the pork from the budget and find the money that their sloppy book keeping has lost. Someone ought to head that up. Hey, Rand, you busy?