|
WB: The Definition of Losing +
Billmon:
It is in that sense — the sense Clausewitz used — that Israel is losing, and has probably lost, this war. There’s always the possibility that the IDF will dream up a bold, imaginative stroke to redress the balance, like the brilliant ’73 counterattack that trapped an entire Egyptian Army on the banks of the Suez Canal. But this IDF isn’t showing that kind of creativity and daring. It’s also not clear what kind of a stroke against a guerrilla army like Hizbullah could give Israel the smashing success it needs in the limited time left. ..
II. The Definition of Losing
—
I. Hirohito Watch
Yesterday I referred to the Clean Break paper, so I decided to re-read it this morning over coffee and croissants with jam.
The text melds together:
1) Discarding Olso (the clean break part)
2) Anti socialist stance, pro ‘free-market’, pro economic development, etc. seen as making Israel stronger, more independent, etc.
Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments,
liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises.
3) Along the same lines, cutting free from American aid (explicitly NOT military aid), to become self-reliant.
… to better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security.
but:
… continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-
reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs.
… a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes.
4) Military actions (the strategy part.) Essentially, getting rid of Saddam and attacking at the Northern border and claiming right of hot pursuit of Palestinians. Syria bears the brunt – drug runners, counterfeitors, terrorists, etc. (This part could use more discussion.)
5) Advice on cooperation with ‘friendly’ Arab States (e.g. Jordan) and reviewing treatment of Arabs in Israel in function of that aim.
6) The usual Orwellian double speak and fascisitic talk of transcending and rejuvenating.
The new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes “peace for peace,” “peace through strength” and self reliance: the balance of power.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity.
6) The text mentions the problem of the Israeli people:
The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts
to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically …
Israel invited active U.S. intervention … to overcome domestic opposition to “land for peace” concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly….
But then leaves them hanging, one may interpret that points 1) and 5) will take care of them.
This text is written by neo-cons in American think-tanks/Unis, and is adressed to Netanyahu, even giving him direct advice. Some passages are marked TEXT and are suggestions for a possible speech.
Where is the mystery?
The message is clear: Israel must be stronger, more agressive, stop the pussy-footing, deal with its old-fashioned people who want peace; it must re-vamp its hopeless economy; it must stop being so dependent on American aid to no good purpose; and forget minor territorial squabbles. It should not need US troops to defend it but can count on full cooperation for…the strategy – all attacks on other nations or peoples. The contradictions inherent to the whole are covered over with ‘transcendence’ and ‘renewal’.
Forward, march! (Or rather, fly.) Sonic Boom!
Israel as it is now cannot survive without US and Western support; the text lays out what Israel should do.
Until now, Israel did nothing much. It cut some social funding. It repressed the Palestinians and build a defensive and useless wall, thereby continuing what IT wants to do, that is, steal land and get rid of Arabs. That was allowed, after some hesitations. The US took care of Saddam, now it is Israel’s turn.
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (1996) – PDF
What realm, one feels like asking.
I’m sort of pushing one pov here and in my last posts, as I think it has merit and is generally not part of the discourse. It does, I think, illuminate many aspects, such as the very poor performance of the IDF, Bush’s sometimes seemingly contradictory attitudes, etc.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 30 2006 12:07 utc | 20
|
