NATO Troops in "Palestine" Will Be Another Afghanistan
Published: Arutz Sheva -Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:27 PM
Calling them a stabilizing force is ludicrous. The scenario is quite different, as would be the catastrophic results.
Mark Langfan
The writer, who often writes on security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at www.marklangfan.com.
► More from this writer or from the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies website:
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu accidentally let the "cat out of the bag" when he said two months ago that, “The crumbling of the UN force on the Golan Heights underscores the fact that Israel cannot depend on international forces for its security. They can be part of the arrangements. They cannot be the basic foundation of Israel’s security.”
Netanyahu's lawyer-like parsing of the words "cannot depend," "basic foundation," and "can be part of" cannot hide the fact that the words "can be part of" really only mean US troops will almost certainly "be part of" any "peace" deal in Judea and Samaria.
Palestinian Authority "President" Abbas is already on record as being totally on board with an international force deployed in the area. Why not, he knows they'll be there to protect Palestine Arabs, not to protect Israel. In 2010, Nimar Hamad, Abbas's political advisor stated that, "Abbas is open to an international force along Palestinian borders of any religion or origin. The president said in his meetings with AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee), and with Israeli journalists and world leaders that he welcomes the deployment of an international force regardless of the troops' religion." (Even Jews, just as long as they don't want to live there...)
Abbas would never have met with AIPAC if the Israeli government hadn't given AIPAC its total sanction and full approvals for such a meeting. So, as early as 2010, the Israeli government has been "educating" and directing AIPAC to actively lobby US congressmen to agree to deploy and fund American troops one day in Judea and Samaria.
Then, in 2011, Abbas' adviser disclosed that Abbas had told visiting US Congressmen "that the security of the future Palestinian state will be handed to NATO under US command."
These American troops won't be on a "peace" mission, but on a death march, waiting to be blown to bits by Iranian-funded suicidal terrorists in a fictional "demilitarized" Palestinian Arab State on the narrow, windy roads of Judea and Samaria. "Fictional," because if Israel cedes control over the planned PA State border with Jordan, and creates an Allon Plan Palestinian Arab state in Western Samaria, Hamas’ al Qaeda will start to smuggle weapons into it just as they did in Gaza. The Western Samarian PA State will make Hezbollah's South Lebanon seem demilitarized in comparison.
And, I, as an American Jew who warned against US troops in the Golan Heights close to 20 years ago, believe Bibi is insane if he agrees to that deployment.
While Israeli leaders may want to commit national suicide, Israel will be asking American Jews to commit communal suicide by setting them up for the most virulent anti-Semitism imaginable and charges of dual-loyalty, when the Obama "peace" turns to a new "Iraqi" war, and US troops come home in body bags.
If putting US troops in the Golan was putting them in quicksand, putting them into a Palestinian Arab state will be condemning them to a deathtrap
NATO researcher, Florence Gaub, who authored the analysis"NATO: peacekeeping in the Holy Land? A feasibility study", wrote:
"In a nutshell, NATO's mission in Palestine would have slim chances of success, and a high probability of failure. One should not be blinded by perceptions of a historical opportunity and embark on an endeavor that could cost NATO credibility, prestige, money and lives simply because it seems to be a politically symbolic chance in a lifetime to establish NATO as a global security provider."
"The territory involved presents aspects that would cause any campaign planner nightmares - densely populated, urban areas with highly intermingled conflicting populations, a volatile political ambiance where the tides can turn any second, and a very experienced opponent if it ever comes to counterinsurgency.
"Thus, this mission would need through preparation, careful planning, sufficient staffing and funding, a significant amount of political will, and would leave a very narrow margin for success.
US Congressmen are now likely being grossly misinformed, if not worse, by clueless American and Israeli Jews and their leaders.
"At the current stage, and with its operations ongoing, it seems irresponsible to hasten NATO into a mission that has all the ingredients to turn into a quagmire that equals the Alliance's involvement in Afghanistan."
General John Allen was tasked with with "security arrangements" in the creation of the new "Afghanistan" of the Palestinian Arab state. Gen. Allen would be well-advised to carefully read the Gaub NATO study and be thoroughly disabused of the ludicrous notion that US troops would act as a stabilizing force.
The 2010 Gaub analysis was written before the "Arab Spring", so doesn't factor in multiple raging civil wars in Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon where al Qaeda will fight with Hezbollah to see who gets the honor of liquidating Abbas first - if Israel actually cedes critical lands in Judea and Samaria.
US Congressmen are now likely being grossly misinformed, if not worse, by clueless American and Israeli Jews and their leaders. These US congressmen are almost surely being told that the US troops will stabilize the area. In fact, any US troops in the areas of Western Samaria would be adding lighter fluid to a raging fire.
Analogous question: Would putting US troops into Gaza, stop Gaza's rockets firing into Ashkelon, or stabilize "peace"? No, they would only give the rocket wielding terrorists more reason to fire them.
Israel's government's attempt to have American Jews, who don't know the first thing about Israeli security, actively lobby for deploying US troops into an new Afghanistan-like danger zone is worse than suicidal. AIPAC members don't know the difference between a Kassam and a Katyusha, or the "Jordan Valley" and the "Mountain aquifer."
But, Bibi would have these same mindless American Jews go to Capitol Hill, and strongly lobby for putting US troops into imminent danger without having the slightest idea what the risks are.
Putting American troops in Judea and Samaria will bring certain death to the US troops, catastrophic dual-loyalty risks and virulent anti-Semitism to American Jews - all this, in addition to jeopardizing the existence of the State of Israel.
For more information, please visit www.marklangfan.com
Posts
