An axis of embarrassment

April 24th, 2007

It’s a certainty that Saddam had chemical weapons, and a possibility that he had biological weapons and nuclear material. What happened to it?

Melanie Phillips, no crank or conspiracy theorist, describes how it went to Syria and why the story is not widely known:

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Technorati Tags: ,

With a ceasefire like this, who needs a war?

April 24th, 2007

Sunday, I suggested that the supposed “ceasefire” by Palestinian terrorists didn’t exist. Today HonestReporting points out that, despite media reports that suggest that Israel is “straining the ceasefire”, it’s the Palestinians that haven’t ceased firing. Here are some links showing terrorist activity in the month of April alone:

Technorati Tags: ,

A speech for Israel’s Prime Minister

April 23rd, 2007

In his Yom Hazikaron (Memorial Day) address, Israeli PM Olmert said:

We will weigh with great seriousness every diplomatic initiative, we will take advantage of every chance, we will be prepared for far-reaching compromises, and even for very painful concessions, as long as our vital and existential interests are safeguarded, in order to fulfill our burning ambition for peace. — Ha’aretz

To whom is he speaking? Not to a majority of Israelis, who understand that concessions, compromises, withdrawals, and prisoner releases just lead to more of the same. And not to Palestinians or the Arab nations, who know that no matter what compromises Israel makes, they will not be satisfied and there will not be peace.

Here is what the PM of Israel should say:

Insofar as Israel is the legitimate expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, a fully sovereign nation which does not bear the responsibility for the failures of the Arab nations with respect to themselves and the Palestinians and refuses to pay the price for them, I assert the following:

We will not accept phony initiatives or imposed plans. We will strike disproportionally at terrorists and preemptively at any nation that plans to attack us. We passionately desire peace, but we will make no concessions for future promises of peace, only in return for realized peace.

In particular, we demand the immediate release of the hostages held by Hamas and Hezbollah. If they are not released within 12 hours, we will begin taking escalating military action against Hamas and Hezbollah personnel and infrastructure. There will be no prisoner exchanges.

Would this cause a diplomatic and journalistic stir? Of course. And worse, if Israel’s enemies find it necessary to test her resolve. But the forces in the world that want to see Israel gone will be the same before and after. Only now — if Israel were to consistently follow this policy — they would have to adjust their world-view to one in which Israel is a permanent fact. And then maybe from that point we could begin a constructive dialogue for peace.

How would Israelis react to this? I think the reaction of the people to Hezbollah’s attack last summer shows that they are prepared for sacrifice and struggle. What they are not tolerant of is having their sovereignty, their peace, and their self-respect chipped away a little at a time, unrequited concession by unrequited concession.

I waive my copyright; any Israeli PM may use this speech free of charge.

Technorati Tags:

Anatomy of a troll

April 23rd, 2007

Trolls are nasty creatures that live under bridges. They’re also people who post deliberately insulting or false messages in online forums, hoping to get angry responses. This turns them on. Or something. Here’s one explanation of trolls and trolling.

Recently a friend of mine posted a message on some kind of list about recent antisemitic incidents in France. Here is what he got in return:

Read the rest of this entry »

Has Syria chosen the military option?

April 23rd, 2007

Last week I quoted a Syrian statement that more or less threatened war if the Golan Heights were not returned. And I’ve mentioned the fact of the Syrian military buildup, particularly in the areas of short and medium range missiles.

It’s important to understand the significance of this. The obvious interpretation is that the Syrians believe that in light of Israel’s poor performance in last summer’s war and their own military strength, Israel can be threatened into giving up the Golan.

Another possibility is that Syria wants to make it impossible for Israel to take credit for a Golan peace initiative. Any such initiative could now be presented as another Israeli surrender in the face of military pressure, like the withdrawals from South Lebanon and Gaza.

Finally, there is one other possibility, much more worrisome. Assad may have decided, like Nasser in 1967, that a regional war will be to his advantage, and he is beginning to set the stage to justify such a conflict on the basis of Israel’s ‘intransigence’. The take-it-or leave-it presentation of the Arab Initiative in a form which Israel simply cannot accept is also evidence that the Arabs have decided to choose the military option over negotiations with Israel.

This does not represent a change in attitude in the Arab world, which has stayed more or less the same since 1948. The only thing that has changed very recently is the new Arab perception that Israel can be defeated militarily.

Therefore, because of the strategic importance of the Golan in the event of war it is extremely important that Israel does not bow to pressure and return control of it to Syria. Rather than reducing the chance of war, this would increase it.

Technorati Tags: , ,