Caroline Glick on a few Israel-related subjects: Livni, options and the next Lebanese war

The excellent Caroline Glick stikes back with some good articles on Israel’s political situation. Among several subjects, she comments here on Israel’s opposition leader Tzipi Livni, former Foreign Minister, who has embraced the international Left and the Palestinian cause for her own political gain, at the detriment of the interests…of her own people. Considering that during WWII six millions of her compatriots were exterminated by the nazi regime, there is only one word that can be used to describe such political action: treason. With « friends » like that, you don’t need enemies. It is one thing to be an opportunist but it is another to deliver your own people into the hands of butchers, and that is exactly what Livni is doing. What is wrong with her? She makes me think to those Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during WWII, thinking that their lives would be spared. Sometimes they were, sometimes not, especially when they became useless. There is no difference today between the Left and the Extreme-Right. It is one and the same. The words and the clothing might be different, but in the end it is all about ripping off the poor…and killing the Jews. She should think about it, because the State of Israel is the only thing that prevents the mass-extermination of Jews and that’s why so much enemies are pressing at its doors these days. In the other two articles, Glick analyses Israel’s options and the possible start of a war with Lebanon. Good work!

Tzipi Livni

Israel’s only two options

The next Lebanese War

Obama’s policy on the Middle East: Three strikes out?

Here are two videos. The first shows Obama during the adress when he uttered the famous « 1967 lines » for the borders of Israel. The second is Obama’s presentation at AIPAC a few days later when he tried to say that he didn’t say what he said… I don’t know about you but I begin to turn sour about Obama. His Cairo speech was dubious but at that time, I wasn’t ready to think that he would put into jeopardy the future of the world. I thought he would favor an evolution of the situation in the Middle East, a resolution of the conflict. But still, it was kind of strike 1. Then happened the uprisings in North Africa. At this occasion, he could have taken the opportunity to warn the world and the American public about terrorist groups or Islamist/reactionary elements that could try to take advantage of these « revolutions » to further their own agenda. Did he do it? No, he endorsed the uprisings, he vouched for them regardless of whoever was involved, whatever their political platforms were, whatever their backgrounds were. Was it enough to throw the towel with Obama? No, that could still turn out good for the world, we would have to wait and see. But still, that was strike 2. And now, with that proposition on the 1967 lines, the terrible fiasco that it produced with Netanyahu during his last visit and the vote that is coming to the UN in september, I think that’s it. Three strikes out! I don’t see how this guy could be re-elected as President for another term. The world is more unstable now since he is in office, much more than when Bush was there… Can you imagine that? But, what is Obama’s agenda anyway? Are you sure that you know what it is? Because, speaking for myself, I don’t know. Is he an Islamist? Possibly. It’s beginning to be dubious and scary. He acts almost as if he would like the Islamists throughout the Middle East to get a firmer grip on their societies, at the detriment of pro-democratic elements and the West as a whole. After you watch these two, don’t forget to watch as well the marvelous presentation that Netanyahu gave to U.S. Congress a few days later. He took the opportunity then to retort as a real head of State can only do. Continuer la lecture

Pepe Escobar on the Boiling Frogs: more insights about the Middle East uprisings

In this interview with the Boiling Frogs, Asia Times reporter and Real News Network Pepe Escobar shares his observations on the uprisings in the Middle East, more specifically on countries such as Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Tunisia. He puts into context the various roles played by western powers and interests such as France, Britain and NATO in the development in these popular revolts. In Libya in particular, Gaddafi was apparently beginning to make deals with the Chinese, and that might have created a certain uneasiness in high places in western countries. The different points he makes present a considerable amount of overlap with Dave Emory‘s assessment of the situation. This interview is certainly a good complement to what Emory has already found on the subject. In the second part of it, he then comments on the ever changing U.S. official version of the operation that killed bin Laden, taking the opportunity there to look more closely at specific details of a narrative that doesn’t seem to make sens on a military standpoint. In his opinion, and I agree with him, the operation was a PSYOPS to begin with. Read my earlier post to see how I presented it then, and this one also, when we learned that Bradley Manning might have blown the operation in advance. Why was it conducted? Because in the geo-political theater of the 21st century, Pakistan seems to be getting more and more cosy with China and Russia, and that could explain the raid on the compound. Check this post as well, where I presented the situation in that area of the world as a stage for the everlasting Anglo-Afghan War inspired by Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard game. Escobar touches several other points that are worth taking into consideration.

However, I have a critical observation to make though. His position on Israel is flawed. But in the so-called progressive sector, he is definitely not alone in that situation. In fact, the vast majority of « progressives » fall into that category, as they blame Israel for all kinds of things that are not true or inaccurate. At the very end of the interview, as he and the Boiling Frogs’s hosts wrap up, he then comments on Obama’s proposal to Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu, for a possible resolution of the conflict. Obama’s proposal presents the creation of a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, in other terms with the frontiers that were in usage before the Six-Day War. The pre-1967 borders are not defensible. You don’t need a Ph.D. in military operations to understand that. Any state, to be able to defend its borders needs some kind of natural obstacles such as mountains, forests, sea, lake, river, ravine, etc. Because otherwise, it is just impossible to defend them on open territory. Such borders are possible in the case of countries that are really close in terms of policy, regime, agenda, etc, like Canada and the U.S., and even with those two, there are problems. So you can imagine that between countries that are enemies to one another, that don’t share the same culture, religion, ideology, interests, etc, it can’t be acceptable. Furthermore, a lot of groups, governments, activists and religious extremists are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and they would just jump on the occasion to finalize what they have begun for so many years. With the pre-1967 borders, it opens the doors for the mass extermination of the Israelis and the disappearance of Israel as a country. But Escopar is just another « progressive » who thinks that it is a good idea to implement those frontiers, while Netanyahu is not stupid and will never accept that.

Here is this interview with the Boiling Frogs. Following, there is an excellent post by Sibel Edmonds exploring several leads in trying to explain the timing of the bin Laden operation. Again, the idea is presented that the U.S.-Pakistani relationship has been disintegrating for several years and that, on the opposite, a much better one is being developped between Pakistan and China.

The Boiling Frogs with Pepe Escobar

Sibel Edmonds on Pakistan-China relationship