 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 4, 2009 at 14:33:25
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 1/4/09: by Robert Parry Page 1 of 5 page(s) |
|
|
1
For the past three decades, Israel has charted a course that invites its own destruction by relying on two risky propositions: first, that it could extend its security perimeter beyond the reach of a devastating missile attack, and second, that it could permanently control the political debate inside its crucial ally, the United States. srael’s current assault on Gaza is only the latest manifestation of this dangerous strategy, but – whether or not Israel succeeds in its stated goal of stopping the launching of short-range Hamas rockets – the more troubling writing for Israel remains on the wall. If Israel continues to engender hatred across the Muslim world – and thus feeds the growth of Islamic extremism – eventually some radical government or group will get hold of a missile or some other means of delivering a payload against Tel Aviv that would wreak mass devastation. In that event, Israel would almost surely turn to its sophisticated nuclear arsenal and launch a massive retaliatory strike. But to what end? Whatever counter-devastation could be delivered, it would not solve the strategic dilemma facing Israel. 
Indeed, retaliation would likely make matters worse by engendering even a stronger determination among Muslims to eliminate whatever would be left of Israel. The situation might even be beyond the military power of the United States to set right.
Yet, this Israeli conundrum is not discussed inside the United States, where – for the past three decades – American neocons have led a powerful propaganda apparatus that demonizes any public figure who dares question hard-line Israeli strategy.
Even Americans with strong affection for Israel are denounced as “anti-Semites” or “pro-terrorist” if they challenge the Israel-is-always-right conventional wisdom that dominates modern Washington, where Democrats and Republicans alike line up to pander to the annual American-Israel Public Affairs Committee conference.
Former President Jimmy Carter, for instance, has become almost a political pariah although he arguably did more than any U.S. official to advance Israel’s security by negotiating the Camp David accords in 1978.
However, it was that event – the agreement between Israel and Egypt, returning the Sinai to Egypt in exchange for a lasting peace commitment – that marked the strategic turning point for both Israel and the United States.
Begin’s Fury
Though Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the peace deal, he was furious over the pressure Carter put on him.
Begin – who had led a Zionist terrorist group before Israel’s independence in 1948 and founded the right-wing Likud Party in 1973 – decided he must take steps to prevent Carter from pushing for a broader Israel-Arab peace deal in a potential second term.
Begin’s views were described by Israeli intelligence and foreign affairs official David Kimche in his 1991 book, The Last Option. Kimche wrote that Begin’s government believed that Carter was overly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and was conspiring to force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.
“Begin was being set up for diplomatic slaughter by the master butchers in Washington,” Kimche wrote. “They had, moreover, the apparent blessing of the two presidents, Carter and [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat, for this bizarre and clumsy attempt at collusion designed to force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
Kimche continued, “This plan – prepared behind Israel’s back and without her knowledge – must rank as a unique attempt in United States’s diplomatic history of short-changing a friend and ally by deceit and manipulation.”
Begin particularly dreaded the prospect of a second Carter presidential term.
http://www.consortiumnews.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 4 comments |
|
Who will play Begin and who Sadat?
Mr. Parry, if indeed Obama could triangulate peace talks, how can we expect the results with Olmert and Hamas? Leaders like Rabin (OSLO) and Sharon who in their efforts to reasonably see the need for disengagement met with their deaths for it. Yes I believe Sharon was likely a victim of foul play. With the Lukid and Hamas I do not beleive anything can happen other than temporary cease fire. Wouldn't Obama have to exert enormous pressure on Israel and do you think he is willing to take on the Lukid, AIPAC and domestic NEO-CON waiting to crucify him as a muslim sympathizer? It seems to me that Israel should continue the disengagement as agreed and make the cocessions, the palestinian people may also disengage from the influence of Hamas. by Patrick Lafferty (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 557 comments [316 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:11:53 PM  (0+)
|
|
Looming Catastrophe Not Necessarily Israel's
From what you say, Carter was no friend of Israel and George H W Bush committed treason to elect Reagan. Unlike the USA, Israel's Parliament can act quickly to deal with a traitor, ie Barak's ouster when he and Clinton tried to negotiate away part of Jerusalem. Why should Israel trust any American initiative? The people are kept ignorant and the leadership is a bunch of snakes. by Jason Paz (68 articles, 88 quicklinks, 112 diaries, 1386 comments [97 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:53:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mr. Paz
A point on which we agree. HOORAY. Now that you and I share commonality on this point(s) of keeping the people ignorant and the fact that America's representatives have no intention of helping Israel or Palestine, can we now begin to see that the good honest people of Israel, Palestine and America who IMHO can and would get along fine if not for the governments and the economic disaster vultures in whose interest it is to create chaos and then offer their sad solutions that are killing not the vultures who paint in privacy, but the many good honest people that I will humbly claim you and I are a part. This is the part that saddens me. We are kept in a maze of distorted and false truths that cannot be answered but with more chaos. Kindness. It is a sad commentary that we should have such a difficult time seeing it's advantages. Our children are watching us. Remember that. peace by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:49:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Both U.S. and Israeli leaders are "snakes"
Jason Paz, I too am pleased to see we at least agree that the (American) people are kept ignorant and that the (American) leadership is a bunch of "snakes" (no offense to the animals, which I love). by David Salaam Goldstein (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:18:27 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
