Glick – A pact signed in Jewish blood

October 18, 2011

Regardless of any liberal slant of mine…. I believe that Israel needs a death penalty for terrorism to avoid creating future incentives for Israeli abductions. That said I disagree with Glick and other Conservative pessimism concerning the Shalit deal.

(Caroline Glick) …Netanyahu’s decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale.
WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas’s position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas’s patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas’s leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.
Hamas’s leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood’s oppressor.
With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas.
But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.
According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas’s leaders decamping to Egypt.
What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface.
Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria…. (h/t Calev Ben Yefuneh)

Does Glick really believe that the only way Hamas can go from Syria to Egypt is by Israel’s consent? Schalit would of been tortured for years while the thousands of captives in Israeli jails would of been treated humanely at the expense of the tax payer with Red Crescent visits. These terrorists that are freed are now targets for extermination as opposed to living martyrs in jails. Does Glick really believe that the Palestinians have any shortage of future terrorists? I don’t see any mistake on Bibi’s part. This deal was a one time offer. Any negotiating partner with Egypt will be gone shortly. Barry Rubin says:

“The number 1000 is impressive but most will be chosen by Israel, meaning they will be prisoners with the lightest sentences and crimes — in other words, people who would have been released anyway during the next year or two. Israel rejected Hamas’s demand to release those being called “arch-terrorists” who were major organizers of attacks or responsible for a larger loss of life….”

It was a good deal. Here is EOZ Agreeing with this. Israelly Cool disagrees. You can read why here: Elder of Ziyon Misses The Point by Israellycool:

From 10million.org:

On the night of January 1, 1970, a group of Fatah terrorists infiltrated Metula from Lebanon and abducted a night watchman named Shmuel Rosenwasser. The terrorists, together with the abduction victim, withdrew to Kfar Kila which is located about two kilometers west of Metula in Lebanon. This was the first abduction attack perpetrated by a Palestinian terror organization inside Israel.
This terror attack was perpetrated to mark the anniversary of the Fatah’s first terror attack (placing a demolition charge at Israel’s national water conduit). January first was also considered the anniversary of the organization’s establishment. The Fatah claimed responsibility for the abduction several days after the attack and demanded that the State of Israel release 100 terrorists incarcerated in Israel while giving first priority to the terrorist Mahmoud Hijazi
Mahmoud Hijazi was a terrorist who served in the Fatah organization. On January 7, 1965 Hijazi commanded the Fatah’s first terror attack. Hijazi’s terror squad, which included 5 additional terrorists, detonated an explosive device at the water institute in moshav Nechusha situated in the Ela Valley in Israel. Hijazi was wounded and apprehended.
He stood trial at a military court which sentenced him to death. Hijazi appealed this verdict in the military appeals court, which ordered a retrial. During the trial, Hijazi demanded to be recognized as a prisoner of war. The court turned down this request and in May 1966, Hijazi was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Hijazi was only the second person in Israeli history to be sentenced to death, after Adolf Eichmann.
The decision to swap him for Rosenwasser was only a one-to-one swap. However, and in retrospect, that was the decision that emboldened Palestinian Arabs to continue to kidnap Israelis in order to bargain for Israel’s release of other terrorists.
The Rosenwasser abduction was followed by a number of others kidnappings and attempted hostage taking, such as a 1974 attack in Beit She’an where terrorists broke into a family home for the purpose of taking them hostage and negotiating a release of terror prisoners. The 1974 Ma’alot massacre started off as a hostage drama as well. Even though Israel did not capitulate in any of the attacks on Israeli soil and usually killed the terrorists, their incentive to mount hostage-taking attacks did not lessen.
The prisoner-exchange train had already left the building in 1970. It is not possible to turn the clock back. Even if the current Israeli government had publicly announced that Shalit was considered dead and that there will be no negotiations, the public pressure in Israel would not have closed the door and Hamas would have waited for a different government to renew its demands.
For these reasons, I do not accept the argument that it is possible to remove the incentive for kidnappings by refusing to negotiate. The terrorists will continue no matter what.

I should probably also give the other argument… (and also say that I have never disagreed with Glick before… and have full respect for her)

(Princess Pana)
* After his release in 1996, Abbas ibn Muhammad Alsayd was involved in three terror attacks in Netanya, including the Park Hotel Passover massacre on March 27, 2002, in which 31 people were murdered and 155 wounded.

* After his release by the Netanyahu government as a “goodwill gesture” to Yasser Arafat, at the behest of Bill Clinton in 1998, Iyad Sawalha perptrated the June 5, 2002 bus bombing at the Megiddo junction, murdering 17 people and wounding 42.
* Seven months after his release, Ramez Sali Abu Salmim blew himself up in Jerusalem’s Café Hillel on September 9, 2003, murdering 7 young people and wounding over 50.
* Matsab Hashalmon was released from jail as part of the “Tennenbaum deal” on January 29, 2004. Three months later, on August 31, 2004, he masterminded the attack on two buses in Beersheba, that killed 16 civilians and wounded scores of others.(MORE)

as you can see… even I am not sure Bibi made the right decision… I’m not even sure Bibi is sure.


Caroline Glick blasts NeoCons and explains the Jacksonian foreign policy model

August 13, 2011

THE NEOCONSERVATIVE preference for populist forces over authoritarian ones propelled leading neoconservative thinkers and former Bush administration officials to enthusiastically support the anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square in Cairo in January. And their criticism of Obama for not immediately joining the protesters and calling for Mubarak’s removal from power was instrumental in convincing Obama to abandon Mubarak. Between those who predicted a flowering liberal democracy in a post-Mubarak Egypt and those who predicted the empowerment of radical, Muslim Brotherhood aligned forces in a post-Mubarak Egypt, it is clear today that the latter were correct. Moreover, we see that the US’s abandonment of its closest ally in the Arab world has all but destroyed America’s reputation as a credible, trustworthy ally throughout the region. In the wake of Mubarak’s ouster, the Saudis have effectively ended their strategic alliance with the US and are seeking to replace the US with China, Russia and India. In a similar fashion, the neoconservatives were quick to support Obama’s decision to use military force to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi from power in March. The fact that unlike Syria’s Bashar Assad and Iran’s ayatollahs, Gaddafi gave up his nuclear proliferation program in 2004 was of no importance. The fact that from the outset there was evidence that al-Qaida terrorists are members of the US-supported Libyan opposition, similarly made little impact on the neoconservatives who supported Obama’s decision to set conditions that would enable “democracy” to take root in Libya. The fact that the US has no clear national interest at stake in Libya was brushed aside. The fact that Obama lacked congressional sanction for committing US troops to battle was also largely ignored. Neoconservative writers have castigated opponents of US military involvement in Libya as isolationists. In so doing, they placed Republican politicians like presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the same pile as presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. The very notion that robust internationalists such as Bachmann and Palin could be thrown in with ardent isolationists like Paul and Buchanan is appalling. But it is of a piece with the prevailing, false notion being argued by dominant voices in neoconservative circles that “you’re either with us or you’re with the Buchananites.” In truth, the dominant foreign policy in the Republican Party, and to a degree, in American society as a whole, is neither neoconservativism nor isolationism. For lack of a better name, it is what historian Walter Russell Mead has referred to as Jacksonianism, after Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the US. As Mead noted in a 1999 article in The National Interest titled “The Jacksonian Tradition,” the most popular and enduring US model for foreign policy is far more flexible than either the isolationist or the neoconservative model. According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world, and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and maintaining its standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does. THE US president that hewed closest to these basic guidelines in recent times was Ronald Reagan. A Jacksonian president would understand that using US power to overthrow a largely neutered US foe like Gaddafi in favor of a suspect opposition movement is not a judicious use of US power. Indeed, a Jacksonian president would recognize that it would be far better to expend the US’s power to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad – an open and active foe of the US – and so influence the nature of a post-Assad government. For all the deficiencies of the neoconservative worldview, at least the neoconservatives act out of a deep-seated belief that the US is a force for good in the world and out of concern for maintaining America’s role as the leader of the free world. In stark contrast, Obama’s foreign policy is based on a fundamental anti-American view of the US and a desire to end the US’s role as the leading world power. And the impact of Obama’s foreign policy on US and global security has been devastating. Read the whole thing.
It will be interesting to see if Caroline endorses anyone in the Republican primaries. Note that the main principle of Jacksonian foreign policy is one that Obama has rejected: American exceptionalism.


The US is different from the rest of the world, and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same? There goes the Jeane Kirkpatrick doctrine.