Category Archives: NATO

NATO Troops in Palestine Will Be Another Afghanistan

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu accidentally let the “cat out of the bag” when he said two months ago that, “The crumbling of the UN force on the Golan Heights underscores the fact that Israel cannot depend on international forces for its security. They can be part of the arrangements. They cannot be the basic foundation of Israel’s security.”

Netanyahu’s lawyer-like parsing of the words “cannot depend,” “basic foundation,” and “can be part of” cannot hide the fact that the words “can be part of” really only mean US troops will almost certainly “be part of” any “peace” deal in Judea and Samaria.

Palestinian Authority “President” Abbas is already on record as being totally on board with an international force deployed in the area.  Why not, he knows they’ll be there to protect Palestine Arabs, not to protect Israel.  In 2010, Nimar Hamad, Abbas’s political advisor stated that, “Abbas is open to an international force along Palestinian borders of any religion or origin.  The president said in his meetings with AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee), and with Israeli journalists and world leaders that he welcomes the deployment of an international force regardless of the troops’ religion.”  (Even Jews, just as long as they don’t want to live there…)

Abbas would never have met with AIPAC if the Israeli government hadn’t given AIPAC its total sanction and full approvals for such a meeting.  So, as early as 2010, the Israeli government has been “educating” and directing AIPAC to actively lobby US congressmen to agree to deploy and fund American troops one day in Judea and Samaria.

Then, in 2011, Abbas’ adviser disclosed that Abbas had told visiting US Congressmen “that the security of the future Palestinian state will be handed to NATO under US command.”

These American troops won’t be on a “peace” mission, but on a death march, waiting to be blown to bits by Iranian-funded suicidal terrorists in a fictional “demilitarized” Palestinian Arab State on the narrow, windy roads of Judea and Samaria.  “Fictional,” because if Israel cedes control over the planned PA State border with Jordan, and creates an Allon Plan Palestinian Arab state in Western Samaria, Hamas’ al Qaeda will start to smuggle weapons into it just as they did in Gaza.  The Western Samarian PA State will make Hezbollah’s South Lebanon seem demilitarized in comparison.

And, I, as an American Jew who warned against US troops in the Golan Heights close to 20 years ago, believe Bibi is insane if he agrees to that deployment.

While Israeli leaders may want to commit national suicide, Israel will be asking American Jews to commit communal suicide by setting them up for the most virulent anti-Semitism imaginable and charges of dual-loyalty, when the Obama “peace” turns to a new “Iraqi” war, and US troops come home in body bags.

If putting US troops in the Golan was putting them in quicksand, putting them into a Palestinian Arab state will be condemning them to a deathtrap

NATO researcher, Florence Gaub, who authored the analysis “NATO: peacekeeping in the Holy Land? A feasibility study“, wrote:

“In a nutshell, NATO’s mission in Palestine would have slim chances of success, and a high probability of failure.  One should not be blinded by perceptions of a historical opportunity and embark on an endeavor that could cost NATO credibility, prestige, money and lives simply because it seems to be a politically symbolic chance in a lifetime to establish NATO as a global security provider.”

“The territory involved presents aspects that would cause any campaign planner nightmares – densely populated, urban areas with highly intermingled conflicting populations, a volatile political ambiance where the tides can turn any second, and a very experienced opponent if it ever comes to counterinsurgency.

“Thus, this mission would need through preparation, careful planning, sufficient staffing and funding, a significant amount of political will, and would leave a very narrow margin for success.”At the current stage, and with its operations ongoing, it seems irresponsible to hasten NATO into a mission that has all the ingredients to turn into a quagmire that equals the Alliance’s involvement in Afghanistan.”

General John Allen was tasked with with “security arrangements” in the creation of the new “Afghanistan” of the Palestinian Arab state.   Gen. Allen would be well-advised to carefully read the Gaub NATO study and be thoroughly disabused of the ludicrous notion that US troops would act as a stabilizing force.

The 2010 Gaub analysis was written before the “Arab Spring”, so doesn’t factor in multiple raging civil wars in Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon where al Qaeda will fight with Hezbollah to see who gets the honor of liquidating Abbas first – if Israel actually cedes critical lands in Judea and Samaria.

US Congressmen are now likely being grossly misinformed, if not worse, by clueless American and Israeli Jews and their leaders.  These US congressmen are almost surely being told that the US troops will stabilize the area.  In fact, any US troops in the areas of Western Samaria would be adding lighter fluid to a raging fire.

Analogous question: Would putting US troops into Gaza, stop Gaza’s rockets firing into Ashkelon, or stabilize “peace”?  No, they would only give the rocket wielding terrorists more reason to fire them.

Israel’s government’s attempt to have American Jews, who don’t know the first thing about Israeli security, actively lobby for deploying US troops into an new Afghanistan-like danger zone is worse than suicidal.  AIPAC members don’t know the difference between a Kassam and a Katyusha, or the “Jordan Valley” and the “Mountain aquifer.”

But, Bibi would have these same mindless American Jews go to Capitol Hill, and strongly lobby for putting US troops into imminent danger without having the slightest idea what the risks are.

Putting American troops in Judea and Samaria will bring certain death to the US troops, catastrophic dual-loyalty risks and virulent anti-Semitism to American Jews – all this, in addition to jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel.

For more information, please visit

Replace the United Nations

By //Living in a city like Vienna, one feels as if one is in a living museum. Vienna was not only the final redoubt for European civilization in 1683, but was the heart of the system that governed international relations from 1815 to 1914, known as the Congress of Vienna. The Vienna of today, exemplifies much of what ails European foreign policy and trans-Atlantic relations: the lack of a dynamic goal and a failure to build upon roots that made the civilization great. The European Union is in disarray, and NATO is searching for a redefinition. This is happening while the United States has made no clear signal as to the future of Atlanticism, NATO, or leading the West.

The world has emerged from the so called post-Cold War era transitioning through three phases of American leadership. Phase I under the Bill Clinton presidency illustrated national security and foreign policy drift. Phase II under President George W. Bush exemplified clear national and global goals driven by events in the Middle East and Central Asia. Phase III under the Barack Obama administration is similar to Phase I, but has embraced a policy of “leading from behind.” Meanwhile, the world’s geopolitical situation has shown signs of three major threats that will require a new international order. These threats are a resurgent Russia, a rising China, and the waning and waxing fortunes of Islamic extremism. This does not count the numerous middle level and low level threats that dot the international landscape. The successful Pax Romana and Pax Britannica were much more triumphant than the multipolar order making attempts such as the Congress of Vienna or Versailles Treaty. The most successful international order maker has consistently been the United States and the Pax Americana. In order to ensure the continuance of international stability many strategic decisions must be made. One of these decisions concerns the future of American international leadership: A dynamic international system must rise to meet these challenges, a system where the United States spearheads the creation of an amplification of NATO by fostering the D.A.N—Democratic Alliance of Nations.

The United Nations, an attempt by leaders like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to inject some realism into the failed League of Nations by creating five policemen has failed. It has failed to create stability and order except in those instances backed by the use or threat of American force. The current situation in the United States is one of war weariness and fear of over extension. The president will need to gain electoral support for America’s preeminence in world affairs. A new organization, one that has credibility with the American people, could go a long way to solving all of these issues. This new dynamic organization could go by many monikers; the one used here is the D.A.N. The Democratic Alliance of Nations would model itself on NATO, and if successful could replace NATO and cease the endless bickering about the future of that historically critical organization. The basic essence of NATO would remain; this would include a supreme commander that would be an American, a rotating political head, and Article 5 would serve as a similar trigger for action. However, there would be some drastic differences as well. Only nations that were willing to employ proportional military force (not token support) would be allowed membership. The Article 5 style trigger of “an attack on one is an attack on all” would be broadened. These triggers would have to include preemptive and preventative threats, as well as a mechanism to deal with genocide, massive human rights abuses, regional despotism, rogue states, and failed states. Further, there would have to be a clear mandate that military force would and could be used under these trigger conditions. This does not mean that military force would be the first or only option; but unlike the Security Council, it would be a viable coalition response. Critical to the composition of the Democratic Alliance of Nations would be that membership be reserved for only true democracies. This would be subject to scrutiny of the founding members and include such benchmarks as working democratic constitutions; the real rule of law; a vibrant civil society; the full protection of private property; and obedience to natural law. The foundation of the organization would have to start in the Anglo sphere (United States/United Kingdom/Canada/Australia/New Zealand) which would bring in elements of both NATO and ANZUS. Membership would hopefully be expanded to states such as (but not only) those in Western and Central Europe, Israel, South Korea, and Japan. Obviously, it goes without saying that some of these nations would need to make fundamental changes in their foreign policy legal mechanisms and even political culture.

It would therefore be through the Democratic Alliance of Nations that the United States could lead the free world in a dynamic 21st century, as it had through the tribulations of the 20th. It would further the security of the United States and the American people, and would serve as a way to illustrate to the electorate that the United States is not forced to act alone nor bear the only burden. It would further enhance the political and economic connections of members for stronger ties and bonds.

Syria: Assad forces shell refugees camp inside Turkey

By Al Arabiya With Agencies//Syrian army forces shelled Syrian refugees camp Oncupinar inside Turkey, the opposition Revolutionary Council reported on Monday, as U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon condemned “terrorist bomb attacks” in the Syrian cities of Damascus and Idlib.

Turkey has not commented on the alleged cross border shelling, but a similar incident on April 9 prompted Ankara to threaten to use force to set up a safe haven for refugees within Syrian territory.

Four Syrian refugees and two Turks, a policeman and a translator, were wounded in the Kilis refugee camp in southeastern Turkey when they were hit by gunfire from across the border.

When asked on April 12 what Turkey’s response would be to conflict spilling over the Syrian-Turkish border, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded by saying that “we have several options.”

“First of all, there is an option of invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty,” he said of NATO clause which stipulates that an attack against a NATO member is considered an attack against all members.

NATO action, however, requires unanimous support from members of the North Atlantic Council, the decision-making body of the group.

Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu too said Turkey was considering “all possibilities in order to protect national security” if the violence continues to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into its territory.

In addition to taking in more refugees, Turkey has also emerged as the main haven for Syrian opposition groups and rebel fighters, but it refuses to arm the forces fighting the Assad regime.

The escalation at the border with Turkey followed a series of bombing across Syria that left more than 30 people dead.

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon condemned the “terrorist bomb attacks” in the Syrian cities of Damascus and Idlib, and noted that while there had been security improvements in areas monitored by U.N. observers, he was “gravely concerned” by the continued violence.

“The Secretary-General condemns the terrorist bomb attacks in the cities of Idlib and Damascus which took place today and on 27 April 2012, killing and injuring scores of people,” Ban’s press office said in a statement

“While noting improvements in areas where U.N. monitors are deployed, the Secretary-General remains gravely concerned by reports of continued violence, killing and abuses in Syria in recent days,” it said.