I received a strong reaction–both positive and negative–to my show last week criticizing the terrorist tactics of the Palestinian Arabs who focus most of their ire (strapping bombs on their children and in ambulances, raining missiles, etc.) on Israeli civilians while protecting terrorists with “human shields” to force Israel to shoot women and children in order to capture bloodthirsty killers. Now, of course, there is a cease fire.
While the cease fire can only be considered a good thing, we still have an elected Palestinian Government dedicated to “wiping Israel off the map” and Palestinian citizens voting for Israel’s destruction over their own well-being including an independent state and a permanent peace. Why would people vote for hopelessness, despair, war and destruction over a better life for them and their children? I’ve never understood this.
Critics of Israel claim Israel alone, unlike all the other nations of the earth, has no right to self defense when attacked. They usually argue, as a listener “Joe” Singh on my blog did, that Israel has an “illegal military occupation of palestinian land.” But what does this mean? Why is conquering territory in a defensive war considered “illegal” by Israel and legal by France over Alsace-Lorraine and the USA over California and Texas? How are Jewish settlements on formerly empty hills Palestinian any more than Israeli? How is Israel any less “legitimate” than the United States of America whose early settlers killed, by force or disease, 90% of the native inhabitants? Isn’t the Jewish claim to the land–which is older than the Arab claim–superior to the white man’s claim to American soil?
And how can Israel possibly reach out its hand and allow free movement of people that are sworn to the destruction of the Jewish State? It is really a good idea to hand one’s children over to a group of people that has killed some of them and swears they will do so again until all are gone? Why should Israel give ANY concessions to a bloodthirsty Palestinian Government until it shows it wants peace and can actually control the violence?
In essence, while I support an independent Kurdistan and an independent Jewish State (the Kurds and Jews have been persecuted for millennia and have no other refuge) and I have no problem with even an independent Basque State, the need for another independent Arab State — the 23rd or 24th in a region that already has land encompassing 600(!) times the State of Israel–is less clear to me. So while I do support yet another independent Arab State in Gaza and much of the West Bank, I DO not support its creation at the cost of sacrificing Israel to it.
“Joe” Singh strongly disagrees with me, as you can see from our discussion posted on the November 21 blog. I’ve invited Mr. Singh on the show with me today to discuss these matters further. All of you are welcome, of course, to join in the lively debate, whether you agree with me, Mr. Singh, or you have your own views on the matter.
The Bush misadventure in Iraq has not only cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars: it has also helped America’s two greatest enemies–Al Qaeda and Iran–achieve power that five years ago, they never would have dreamed of.
Iraq has turned from a toothless mild irritant to a major-league civil war with Al Qaeda (representing Sunnis) and Iran (representing Shiites) both directing forces on the ground to attack us and each other.
The only way to decrease Al Qaeda and Iranian power in Iraq is to leave all areas except an independent democratic and oil-rich Kurdistan (which I have long supported). I support continued aid to the new Kurdistan and the recognition of it as an independent state. We can supply it with arms and aids so we don’t need American troops there, but I suspect it will soon become one of our greatest, most stable, and democratic allies in the region, second only to Isreal.
The rest of Iraq will fall into an extremely bloody civil war. But here’s the kicker–after murdering the Iraqis that helped our troops (a real problem, which is why we should encourage the independent Kurdistan to take in these refugees as the price for our recognition)–Iran and Al Qaeda will be kiling EACH OTHER, rather than Americans until the bloody partition of Iraq is achieved.
Leaving our troops in Iraq cannot stop the growing civil war. It will only prolong it. And it will bring about the bloodiest Sunni-Shiite conflict since the Iran-Iraq War of 1982 where a million died. There’s only one good thing to be said about that awful war: no Americans died in it!
It’s an awful solution. But it’s better than any alternative. And the longer we wait to act, the worse the conflagration will become.
Perhaps after the Shiite/Sunni boundaries are drawn in blood across the Iraqi landscape, the Iraqis will work in their respective two states to abolish foreign (i.e. Al Qaeda and Iranian) influence. This is my hope and prayer and realistically, it may or may not happen. But it will be an Iraqi decision to make, not ours.
In the meantime, we can keep troops in Kurdistan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia (sorry, Osama, I don’t believe in giving in to terrorism) to attack, through selective bombing, Special Forces, and intelligence, any incipient terrorist threat from Iraq to the rest of the world.
I share the sentiments of Virginia’s new Senator James Webb. And for all of you who feared he was too conservative for the Democratic Party, check out what he says below in The Wall Street Journal:
- 4/25/2019 Radio Inside Scoop
- 4/18/2019 If This Is All Okay, Do We Owe Nixon an Apology?
- 4/11/2019 Lawlessness: Trump’s Essence
- 4/8/2019 Trump Immigration Policy Ironically Leads to Increase in Migrations [Fox & Friends]
- 4/4/2019 Trust and Fear
- 3/19/2019 Biden, Women: Lots of Good 2020 Dem Choices [Fox and Friends}
- 12/6/2018 Democracy in Peril
- 11/29/2018 Mueller’s Closing In
- 11/26/2018 How Low Can We Go?
- 11/20/2018 Trump Unhinged