Kerry reportedly offering U.S. troops to secure borders of “new state of Palestine”

KERRY-ABBAS.jpg

If this report is accurate and this ever actually happened, it would be a disaster. The Christian Science Monitor is right to reference Power’s infamous 2008 quote below, because U.S. troops protecting the border of the new jihad state of “Palestine” would inevitably end up fighting against Israel — after all, “Palestine” would not consider itself to be threatened by Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or Syria. The U.S. would end up directly abetting the “Palestinian” jihad. “Israeli-Palestinian peace talks: Is Kerry offering up US troops?,” by Anna Mulrine for the Christian Science Monitor, January 3:

Secretary of State John Kerry is proposing to offer up US troops to help secure the borders of the new state of Palestine, according to some unconfirmed news reports coming out of Israel.

How plausible is the possibility? And would it be a good idea, or, as some military analysts argue, would the White House would be “nuts” to consider it?

The US troops would be tasked with helping to prevent anti-Israel forces from coming out of Jordan and reaching Israel, according to Debkafile, an Israeli intelligence and security news service.

Palestinian officials are demanding that Israel move its forces from the Jordan Valley, where the US troops would be stationed. This point may have proved pivotal in the US administration’s reported decision to offer them up.

Samantha Power, then a Harvard professor and now the US ambassador to the United Nations, seemed to indicate in a 2008 interview with Harry Kreisler of the University of California at Berkeley”s Institute of International Studies that crisis in the region could possibly be ameliorated by the introduction of US troops to provide security needs.

To head off a human rights crisis in the West Bank and other Palestinian territories “may mean, more crucially, sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — literally billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine. In investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support, I think, what will have to be a mammoth protection force … a meaningful military presence,” she said. “Because it seems to me at this stage — and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which we”re seeing there — is that you have to go in as if you”re serious. You have to put something on the line.”…

U.S. can fight al Qaeda in Iraq without troops: Kerry
Prague locals want "Palestinian" embassy out after envoy killed in mysterious explosion
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Compared to similar cards, this card has lower fees, especially for those with bad credit.
    , Genuine members of the exclusive activities such as software upgrades.
    A surety bond is issued by an insurance company and states that the company is insuring a third party against
    malfeasance of the contractor.

  2. says

    Jordan is ‘Palestine’…most of the original ‘mandate’ of UK is now the Kingdom of Jordan. Only a small part is now ‘Israel’. The ‘Palestinians’ can go to Jordan if they don’t like being in Israel.

    Kerry and Obama are dangerous, delusional maniacs. The world is going mad when Putin is the only one left with a head tightly screwed on.

  3. says

    An American force of “peacekeepers” sent to protect the “Palestinians” from whatever.

    Imagine the poor bastards that draw this duty. Shot at from the front by various Islamic nut cases and shot at from the back by the peace loving “Palestinians”.

    Think we got trouble in Afghanistan now, with our “allies” killing us? If this happens it’s gonna take that phenomenon to a whole new level.

  4. says

    Kerry reportedly offering U.S. troops to secure borders of “new state of Palestine”

    If this report is accurate and this ever actually happened, it would be a disaster. The Christian Science Monitor is right to reference Power’s infamous 2008 quote below, because U.S. troops protecting the border of the new jihad state of “Palestine” would inevitably end up fighting against Israel — after all, “Palestine” would not consider itself to be threatened by Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or Syria. The U.S. would end up directly abetting the “Palestinian” jihad.
    ……………………….

    That’s *exactly* what I was thinking. What are American troops going to do when the “Palestinians” start using them as cover for attacking Israel? Are we going to allow ourselves to be used to protect “Palestinian” missile installations firing rockets into Israel?

    Are we going to fire on our own Israeli allies to support violent jihadists?

    I shudder to think.

    More:

    The US troops would be tasked with helping to prevent anti-Israel forces from coming out of Jordan and reaching Israel…
    ……………………….

    *Really*? If this is the case, then why wouldn’t we be securing Israel’s borders, rather than that of a “Palestinian” state?

    Also, look at how UNIFIL troops in Lebanon have been circumvented, manipulated, and even co-opted over the years to enable Jihad and threaten Israel.

    Can we be sure the same would not happen here?

    More:

    Palestinian officials are demanding that Israel move its forces from the Jordan Valley, where the US troops would be stationed…
    ……………………….

    Clearly, the “Palestiniians” believe that we will be much easier to circumvent than the Israelis themselves. I would take issue with that if I believed that we wouldn’t be hamstrung by the same sort of bs that has enabled Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    More:

    Samantha Power: To head off a human rights crisis in the West Bank and other Palestinian territories “may mean, more crucially, sacrificing – or investing, I think, more than sacrificing – literally billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine. In investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support, I think, what will have to be a mammoth protection force … a meaningful military presence,” she said. “Because it seems to me at this stage – and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which we’re seeing there – is that you have to go in as if you’re serious. You have to put something on the line.”…
    ……………………….

    She was right the first time, when she let slip “sacrifices” before she caught herself. That’s *exactly* what any American troops dropped into that nest of vipers would be.

    And the idea that the “Palestinians” are under threat of genocide from the Israelis could not be more grotesque projection. It is, instead, the “Palestinians” who regularly attack and vow to destroy the state of Israel.

    The idea that we might be directly enabling that sickens and enrages me. Madness…

  5. says

    Very concisely, presented right here, we’ve got the socio/political essence of America’s present problems:

    The likes of a Samantha Power being a Hahvahd [phonetic] professor says a lot about that ‘august’ Harvard Univ., and the likes of a John Kerry actually being our appointed and politically confirmed Secretary of State fairly shrieks the incompetent but oh, so politically correct “attitude” of our new demographic. Add the “Hillary Factor”….?

    What a helluva mess we’re [Americans] in right now.
    This very dense and spreading cloud of busy-busy-busy “affirmative action” will take a generation or more to correct, if that is even possible.

    But the blinders firmly affixed about their eyes and inside their smug, small minds prevents these new politicians from being conscious of their own shortcomings.

    They [those so affirmatively actioned] are a self-reconfirming solidly entrenched tumor.

  6. says

    Israel must hold the military high ground.

    Israel *must* retain control of the heights of Judea and of Samaria, and of all of Jerusalem/ Mt Zion, and of the Jordan Valley. And one must also stress, the Golan Heights. Israel would be in a *terrible* position right now, given events in Syria, if they had given Syria the Golan.

    Anyone who knows the geography of eretz Israel and the neighbourhood knows that.

    I’m not a soldier. I’m not a military strategist. I’m a middle aged housewife, fifty years old. But history and geography were always my best subjects at school and I know enough to know that those places I have just named constitute Military High Ground. If Israel controls those, she can survive and defend herself…just. If she does not…well, let’s just say that those who are pressuring Israel to hand over all those territories to genocidally-Jew-hating Mohammedans, are either fools or else are, themselves, evil Jew-haters.

    http://israeliminx.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/outstanding-explanation-why-israel-cant-withdraw-to-its-pre-67-borders-line/

    Why Israel can’t withdraw to its pre ’67 borders line

  7. says

    The idea that we might be directly enabling that sickens and enrages me. Madness…
    ————————————————————–
    Ditto graven, my sentiments exactly. Kerry is delusional to begin with as far as considering “Palestine” as a state. But to even consider deploying our troops to defend a fictitious border is nothing short of insane. Israel is the one we should be protecting.
    This from Arutz Sheva;
    “Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis (Likud-Beytenu) warned Friday that significant changes may be looming in the coalition government’s future, due to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace deal that would have Israel completely withdraw from the Jordan Valley over the course of 10 years.

    Akunis, who is close to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and has recently emphasized the importance of the Jordan Valley, claimed US pressure could break apart the coalition, reports Yisrael Hayom.

    “The main problem threatening coalition unity is Kerry,” claimed Akunis. “The problem is only growing amid a one-sided agreement, which harms the coalition’s existence in its current formation, even after concessions Israel would make.”
    Akunis reports that Kerry’s proposed deal “expresses an assertive American position.” His comments come as Kerry is set to launch a January diplomatic “offensive” to force Israeli concessions.

    “For whatever reason (US President) Barack Obama and Kerry don’t understand that precisely things done under the strongest American pressure, such as releasing murderers and ceding the (Jordan) Valley, leads to the exact opposite results of what was expected by the State Department,” declared Akunis.

    Akunis stressed that there is a wide Israeli consensus concerning the strategic necessity of maintaining a Jordan Valley presence.

    Despite this, “the Americans are doing the exact opposite and hitting the most sensitive points of the Israeli public,” warned Akunis. “It’s a lack of understanding regarding Israeli society, and as I said, it puts the current coalition formation in danger.”
    End Quote…………
    Kerry is a buffoon; he has done more to jeopardize Israel’s safety than any “Palestinian” has.

  8. says

    Absolutely correct Davegreybeard. I can think of no worse situation (except perhaps Somalia) in which to place our soldiers. But then again, maybe this this OBummer’s plan for attrition in the military. This would be an absolute catastrophe; and I would pity those still on active duty who happen to draw this particular AO.

    We, the normally quiet people, are going to have to make our opposition to this cf even more adamantly than we made our opposition to attacking Syria.

  9. says

    Jessie James wrote:

    Ditto graven, my sentiments exactly. Kerry is delusional to begin with as far as considering “Palestine” as a state. But to even consider deploying our troops to defend a fictitious border is nothing short of insane. Israel is the one we should be protecting.
    ………………………………..

    Yes, Jessie James”that we might be using US troops to enforce a policy that throws Israel to the wolves is appalling beyond belief.

    More, from Arutz Sheva:

    “For whatever reason (US President) Barack Obama and Kerry don’t understand that precisely things done under the strongest American pressure, such as releasing murderers and ceding the (Jordan) Valley, leads to the exact opposite results of what was expected by the State Department,” declared Akunis.
    ………………………………..

    Thanks for posting this.

    As to the results being the opposite of the “what was expected by the State Department”, this is the *best* possible spin’that this is more suicidal cluelessness from America, which envisions a peaceful “Palestinian” neighbor for Israel.

    But given the increasing hostility toward Israel from Obama and now directly from Kerry as well, one has to wonder if this is something darker than starry-eyed naïvité.

  10. says

    EYESOPEN wrote:

    Absolutely correct Davegreybeard. I can think of no worse situation (except perhaps Somalia) in which to place our soldiers…
    ………………………………

    In some ways this is even worse, EYESOPEN. Somalia placed us in a horrific nest of vipers on a humanitarian mission, but as horrifying as that was, at least it didn’t put us in the position of defending the very people who will threaten us against our own allies.

    This would be rather like sending in American troops to protect the Nazis against the Czechs or the Poles. There is *no way* this could lead to anything good.

    I am *in no way* minimizing this horrific aspect of it when I say that the fact that this policy would put American troops in terrible harm’s way is almost the least of it. It would also give them a grotesque mission that if “successful” would leave the world an even worse and more dangerous place.