Wait a minute. I thought al-Zarqawi was a leader of the Iraqi "insurgency." Why would an Iraq "insurgent" want to target Israel? Mainstream Media Misanalysis Alert from UPI, with thanks to JS:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the jihadist terrorist leader in Iraq, is preparing bases and logistics to extend his campaign against Jordan and Israel, a top Israeli policy adviser has warned: a clear sign that senior Israelis now judge that the U.S. war in Iraq has not made Israel any safer."It would be a cardinal error for Israel to conclude that after the U.S. war in Iraq, the region to Israel's east is moving in the direction of greater stability and, therefore, Israel can take the risk of conceding its strategic assets in the West Bank," claims Ambassador Dore Gold in a new policy paper just published by Israel's Institute for Contemporary Affairs.
"Were Israel to withdraw from the strategic barrier it controls in the Jordan Valley, then Israeli vulnerability could very well attract more global jihadi elements to Jordan, who would seek to use the kingdom as a platform to reach the West Bank and then Israel," Gold continues.
"Zarqawi now wants to destabilize Jordan, but clearly seeks to target Israel as well," Gold adds. "Dismissing the value of Israel's security fence, Zarqawi's organization has declared: 'the separation wall...will feel the might of the mujahidin,' hinting that Israel could face the same waves of insurgent volunteers that have entered Iraq'."
There are many reasons why Israel should not even think of giving up what we have all, preposterously, been taught to call "the West Bank," the name the Jordanians gave the area after seizing it in 1948, for the same motives that led the Romans to rename Jerusalem as "Aelia Capitolina" and Judea as "Syria palestinorum" or "Palestine" (an adjectival form). These include the legal, moral, and historic claims of Israel, which are superior to the claims of all others, and which were recognized by the highly intelligent men who served on the League of Nations' Mandates Commission -- itself a body very far from the corruption, moral and financial and every other kind, of the latter-day unsaintly United Nations.
One more reason is given in the article above -- that the relentless Lesser Jihad (that directed at the Infidel state of Israel) has not abated, and that the danger from the East remains.
To refresh everyone's memory, the Israelis were never convinced that Iraq was the main threat -- they were always focussed on Iran. They were right then in their estimate of what was a threat not only to them, but to the entire Infdiel world, and they remain right now, as they keep trying to focus the attention of American policymakers not on making bus schedules that run from Gaza to the "West Bank" more frequent and more open to all (why, the better to blow you up, my dears), and not on worrying about "democracy" in Cairo or Damascus (for god's sake, how innocent can you be, how naive, how unaware of the real Middle East, and how deserving of Edward Cecil's humorous old-hand epitaph "Here lies one who tried to hustle the East" which serves as the epigraph to his "Memories of an Egyptian Official"), instead of spending days and nights planning to deal with Iran.
It was not Israel that was most eager to see Saddam Hussein gone, but rather those two countries that had most feared him, and had most to gain from his regime coming to an end. These were Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In the case of the latter, the egregious Prince Bandar was outrageously made privy to all sorts of secrets and secret meetings -- even inviting himself to one, unannounced -- but the Saudis assumed that while Saddam Hussein would be deposed, the Sunni dominance would remain. They are now terribly worried, because that did not come to pass. As for the wily Iranians, things for them just couldn't be better. The Americans are killing, and being killed by, the Sunnis, and show no signs of comprehending that they cannot conceivably build an "Iraq" army or an "Iraqi" police force, because the Shi'a and Kurds have already not only thoroughly taken over most of the relevant units, but have trained and armed their powerful militias, and are now ready to take power in more ways than are provided by the ballot-box which the Americans have been making such a godawful fuss about.
Why does it matter? Because in the instant rewriting of history the usual brigade of Israel-haters will invoke the word "Neo-Cons" (a ridiculous term, whether used by those who apply it to themselves or those who denounce it), meaning supporters -- Jewish supporters (to people of this type, there cannot possibly be any other kind), and thus try to pin the tale of blame for the Iraq tarbaby on the presumably Jerusalem-supporting donkey, and the usual false cabal (Wolfowitzh Perle, Feith) trotted out and people named Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush carefully ignored. That Gucci-loafered man of the people, Pat Buchanan, the very type of a devotee of Father Coughlin and other pre-World War II nasties brought vividly to life by John Roy Carlson in "Under Cover," when not defending Demjanjuk or mourning the death of Generalissimo Franco, seems not to have much to say about the Jihad but plenty to say about those "Neo-Cons." He is merely sinister and silly; those he attacks, the Spreaders of Democracy, have merely been ignorant and arrogant and silly -- but not sinister.
When Dore Gold uses the word "destabilize" he helps set up in some minds the idea that "instability" in the Muslim countries, and especially Iraq, is a thing to be avoided. No it isn't. It is from the Infidel point of view highly desirable. Instability, verging on chaos, civil strife, the possiblity of others coming in with money, men, and weapons -- all highly desirable. And if a fever-pitch of Sunni fear of the Shi'a can be whipped up just before the Americans take care of those Shi'a nuclear weapons close to completion -- well, the timing would be perfect. But let's not wait much longer. This is getting ridiculous.
Hello all,
Actually I am not so sure that Israel is the next target per say as long term strategy.
Although people here think that much has not been achieved in Iraq ...they would be incorrect in that assumption. Permit me to make 2 points:
1) THE biggest change has been for the Sunni to painfully see that his Shia brothers (& sisters)prefers to help (or at least sit on the fence) the Infidel rather than them....shock... horror.
Had the shia chosen to fight with the sunni against the coalition, the infidel would have been routed and already left the land of the 2 rivers......BUT THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN....the sunni had been left to fend for hisself.....a gross injustice from the muslims perspective.
The rift therefore between the shia and sunni is now probably wider now than in anytime in History and this event will prove significant...ehhh..if properly managed.
2) The balance of power between these two has changed in the ME. Although worldwide there are many more sunni than shia...where it really matters....around the birthplace of Islam the balance of power has changed and the sunni (read saudi arabia) is very worried.
This change can be seen by the sunni attacking soft shia targets in preference to hated infidel Amerikans over the past few months.
I think that the Saudi (who traditionally rely on others for their security) may well want the infidel shield to protect themselves from the shia (read Iran).
The Infidel may well have a unique opportunity to extract the most valuble info on who they are funding, where they are, what the target are , when , where the hardware is etc. etc. etc. as exchange for this protection.
So, don't pull out yet....wait for a bit longer and see what develops....I thinks that attacks on the Israelis may happen ....but they are a red herring...a distraction and diversion from the real target....the shia.
And why am I telling you this.....I absolutely abhor violence...I hate it....but I hate attacks on the Ahmadi more.
I agree with that, Naseem. Although Iran has always been a worry to Saudi royalty, it is even more so now, should Iran gain a foothold in Iraq.
The Iraqi Sunni are also starting to realize that by supporting Sadr and his Iranian backed hardliners, They are commiting suicide.
Regarding Israel, the grand experiment of giving Gaza over to the (no such thing as) "Palestinians" will not stop attacks on Israel by Jihadists. It was never the reason for them. The world can now see this, and see the real reason for these attacks.
The west bank will never be turned over. It should never have been demanded in the first place, because it was every right of Israel to annex the land when it was attacked in 1967.
No other country in the world which had to annex land from it's enemies due to attack has ever had to. why should this be demanded of Israel?
Because the Muslims and Islam demand
DEATH to America
DEATH to Jews
DEATH to Christians
DEATH to Infidels
After all
Islam demands nothing more than..
Genocide for ALL NON Muslims
Mercy for NONE
Bombings for civilians
Beheadings for Jews
Gassing for Infidels
Destruction of the WEST..
Rape of all women.
So the world will be at peace...
Doesnt anyone see the INSANITY of Islam...
Doesnt anyone see the DANGER islam is to ALL mankind...
Desnt the LEFT Understand the muslims dont want to be "Friends" ...
The muslims and Islam wants ALL DEAD!!!
Those with a taste for the purely emotive and the hysterical expression of their own feelings should refrain, at least here. It does no good --except possibly help the cause of those who, like the busy beavers of CAIR, marching to their own particular 7th-century Arabian drummer, would deeply wish that this website never existed, and will do what they can to discredit it. Why make it easier for them?