Obama Flunkey Leon Panetta Comes to Israel, Threatening Us with Lies
US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta came to Israel today to pressure Israel to make more concessions --which habitually evoke more Arab demands. Panetta's technique is to lie where he thinks it useful. Which is what Hilary and Bill Clinton do too. Not to mention Obama himself. Obama's recent speech at the UN was rather favorable to Israel, considering his past statements and positions on Israel issues. Carolyn Glick pointed out that he had merely propounded a moral equation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which for him was less hostile than past speeches on Israel. But the relatively short and sweet honeymoon is over.
Panetta came to Israel, warning/threatening Israel through reporters on his plane:
"It's pretty clear, at this dramatic time in the Middle East, when there have been so many changes, that it is not a good situation for Israel to become increasingly isolated. And that is what has happened. . . . The important thing there is to again reaffirm our strong security relationship with Israel, to make clear that we will protect their qualitative military edge. . . . As they take risks for peace, we will be able to provide the security that they will need in order to ensure that they can have the room hopefully to negotiate."Note that Panetta demands that Israel take "risks for peace." We have been there before. We have taken risks. Or several Israeli governments and prime ministers have taken risks, ostensibly on our behalf [such as the ill-fated Oslo Accords]. That ended in blood and tears. It resulted in mass murder by unsatisfied Arab terrorists. Meanwhile, Panetta does not demand any risks from the Arabs, from the Palestinian Authority.
Panetta said he was confident Israel had maintained its military superiority in the region "but the question you have to ask is - is it enough to maintain an military edge if you are isolating yourself diplomatically?""Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength." [msnbc/Reuters 10-2-2011]
But he is willing for the US to help Israel keep its "qualitative military edge". This acknowledges that Israel's ostensible peace partner, the Palestinian Authority is not and will not be trustworthy once it is transformed into a state, that it may not keep the peace. That is why making concessions to the PA in exchange for "peace" means taking "risks." Now since the PA/PLO cannot be trusted to keep the peace and it continues to indoctrinate crude but effective Judeophobic hate propaganda among its population, including school children --the future generation-- then there really is no reason to take risks. But Obama and traditional State Dept policy going back to the Republican secretary of state William Rogers in 1969, has proposed a "peace" with merely "insubstantial alterations" [Rogers' words] in the pre-1967 armistice lines [the 1949 lines]. Obama is continuing the policy of Richard Nixon's secretary of state, Rogers.
Of course, Panetta warns [= threatens] Israel that it is becoming "increasingly isolated." Later in his remarks he accuses Israel: "you are isolating yourself diplomatically." This is a threat that if Israel does not do as Obama/Panetta/HClinton demand, Israel will be "increasingly isolated," since the Obama administration will make sure of it. But it would be foolish to substitute momentary approval by great powers, including a USA guided by the State Dept and Obama's ilk, for tangible security assets, which is a wooden way of saying that we need territory in mountainous Judea-Samaria for our defense, in order to have the "secure. . . boundaries" stipulated in Security Council res. 242, but also because these areas contain the ancient heartland of the Jewish homeland plus most of the age-old traditional Jewish holy places and places of great importance in Jewish/Israeli history, such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem, Herod's palace at Herodion east of Bethlehem, southeast of Jerusalem, etc. Panetta, Obama, Hilary & Bill Clinton and Co. seem not to know that all of Judea-Samaria were part of the internationally designated Jewish National Home established in international law about 90 years ago and never revoked.
A peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority allowing it to set up a state with the 1949 armistice lines as its borders would be an injustice to the Jews, not only jeopardizing their security but depriving them of their historical and religious heritage.
Israel is not necessarily becoming "increasingly isolated." Yes, Erdogan in Turkey doesn't like us and will not like us regardless of Israeli concessions to the Arabs or apologies to Turkey. We have always been "isolated" from the Arab states, when not at war with them. Yet Israel has good relations with a number of states in the Far East, Africa, South America, North America and even in Europe. Even the Arab states are now turning toward domestic and intra-Arab problems, not to mention the prospect of a nuclear Iran. However much they may detest Israel, it is not their priority concern. Despite arguments made by US diplomacy in fulfillment of the Baker-Hamilton [Iraq Study Group] Report recommendations, that the Arabs would not support action against a would-be nuclear Iran unless Israel gave the Palestinian Authority what it demanded, we have since learned from Wikileaks that a nuclear Iran was a greater concern for several important Arab govts than Israel was. So describing Israel as "increasingly isolated" was not a description of the real world but a threat of what would happen to Israel if it did not follow Obama/State Dept policy.
Panetta did utter a true statement. He said that "real security" needs both strong diplomacy and military power. This is true as a generalization. But applying Panetta's principle of Israeli "risks for peace" would not achieve "real security" but would lessen it.
The only thing positive in Panetta's remarks was that he states that a Middle East peace cannot be achieved through the UN but only through negotiations.
- - - - - - -
Panetta confirms pro-PA/PLO policy in talks in Ramallah [here]. Mahmud Abbas repeats demand for Israel to surrender before negotiations.
Panetta warns against unilateral attacks on Iran [here, contains a video of Panetta's remarks]. Does that mean that the USA under Obama doesn't want to disrupt or have anyone else disrupt, the Iranian nuclear bomb program? It probably does mean that which would be in line with previous policy.
In the video Panetta states: "I want to emphasize that there is a need and an opportunity for bold action on both sides to move towards a negotiated two state solution. There is no alternative to negotiations." "Bold action" usually means Israeli concessions. But here Panetta calls for "bold action on both sides." That may be a slight pro-Israel nuance. But in his visit to Ramallah, Panetta seemed to reaffirm support for the PLO/PA, as Saeb Erikat reported on the visit. Panetta also said that the Obama administration would not follow Congress in stopping funding of the PLO/PA over its unilateral endeavor to have a state recognized through the UN without negotiating with Israel. But if there is no funding cut off, how can Panetta and Obama bring about a PLO/PA return to direct negotiations with Israel? Will they adopt the PLO/PA's preconditions for negotiations as their own? These demands are, as is well known, a full, immediate stop to what the PLO/PA calls settlement activity, as well as accepting Obama's demand of May 19, 2011, that negotiations be based on the pre-1967 armistice lines with land swaps, which is essentially the 1969 Rogers Plan as an explicit demand.
More on Panetta in Israel [here]
Jonathan Tobin comments on Panetta's demand that Israel take "risks for peace." Tobin essentially agrees with me on this point [here].
Michael Rubin reports that the US State Dept gave Ahmadinejad's son and daughter-in-law visas to come to New York for the UN General Assembly meeting with Dad. This is relevant in view of Panetta's urging that no unilateral attack on Iran be undertaken by anyone, certainly not by Israel. It also shows the State Dept's role in being cordial to barbarians. [here]