|
Townhall...
UN Intervention Into
Libya an Ominous Precedent For Israel
By Frank Gaffney
There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama
Administration has just undertaken in its war with Muammar Gaddafi. How
it will all end is just one of them.
Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the
Gaddafi Precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify
and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally:
Israel.
Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:
It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a UN Security Council
resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of
statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration
reprise roles they played in the Council’s recent action on Libya: U.S.
Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges
that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians’
gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral
affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the
past argued for landing a “mammoth force” of American troops to protect
the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least
to her days as First Lady.
This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding
Security Council members - Russia, China, Britain and France - as well
as the all of the other non-permanent members except India, which joins
the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with
overwhelming support from what is known as the “international
community.”
With a stroke of the UN’s collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel
Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong
side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority
(PA) insists on its longstanding position: The sovereign territory of
Palestine must be rid of all Jews.
The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned
“settlements” now on Palestinian land, or to remove the IDF personnel,
checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their
inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish State itself.
Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front
and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine. There, as in
Gaza (and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called “Arab
awakening”), the winner will likely be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose
Palestinian franchise is Hamas).
The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help
to “liberate” their land. As with the Gaddafi Precedent, the first to
act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of
force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the
West Bank by the Israelis. Turkey (which is still a NATO ally, despite
its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism) is joined by Britain and
France - two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel - in
applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They
call on the UN Security Council to authorize such steps as might be
necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.
Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies - Mesdames Clinton, Power and
Rice - align to support the “will of the international community.” They
exemplify, and are prepared to enforce, the President’s willingness to
subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and
his personal hostility towards Israel. The concerns of Mr. Obama’s
political advisors about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the
2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian
right to a homeland.
Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’
longstanding role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama
acts, in accordance with the Gaddafi Precedent. He warns Israel that it
must immediately take steps to dismantle its unwanted presence inside
the internationally recognized State of Palestine, lest it face the
sort of U.S.-enabled “coalition” military measures now underway in
Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on
the West Bank - and beyond, if necessary - in order to fulfill the
“will of the international community.”
Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired
end-game, namely “two states living side by side in peace and
security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct
possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences,
application of the Gaddafi Precedent to Israel seems certain to produce
a very different outcome than the two-state “solution”: Under present
and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with
possible worldwide repercussions.
At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of
the Gaddafi Precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests.
Even if a positive outcome is somehow forthcoming there, should Barack
Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisors be allowed, based
on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they
would surely precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught
with truly horrific repercussions - for Israel, for the United States
and for freedom-loving people elsewhere.
A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current
crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head
off such a disastrous reprise.
Read it at Townhall
|
|
|
|
