|
Below, you'll find extensive information on leading
surely he hath borne our griefs mp3 articles and products to help you on your way
to success.
Your Covenant With Death - Your Agreement With Hell . . . The
By Doug Krieger, Fri Dec 9th
b>By Doug Krieger A STRATEGIC AND ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE This week (ending December 3, 2005) in Washington, D.C., theUnited States and Israel, after a three-year hiatus, resumedtheir "Strategic Dialogue." This is different--very different.Something far more significant has commenced between the twoallies facing the likes of a burgeoning insurgency fed by anIranian President who insists that "ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OF THEMAP" and a resurgent Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas (BaathistSocialist-Shiite-Sunni) alliance whose intentions mirror thoseof Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a "World Without Zionism"(Haaretz).
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claimed theStrategic Dialogue had broken off for "logistical reasons"--notbecause tensions over upgrading Israel's Harpy anti-radar aerialdrones, originally purchased by China in the mid-'90s under EhudBarak's regime, were the actual cause of the estrangement(Israel sent the degraded drones back to China; ipso facto, it'stime to strategize (PINR)). Frankly, the US and Israel areharping about something else . . . IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP Targeting March of 2006, IDF Military Intelligence Chief, MajorGeneral Aharon Ze'evi, and Ariel Sharon have given officialnotification: Israel is not apt to abide the diplomaticineptitude of the French, Germans, and British with the Iraniansin stemming the inevitable WMD and the delivery systems now inplace to fulfill the visions of Ahmadinejad, Osama ben Laden,and Zarqawi on behalf of Israel--let alone the aspirations of"democratic reforms" fashioned by Egypt's Islamic Brotherhood(BBC)! "'If by the end of March 2006, the international community(i.e., the inane efforts of the British, French, andGermans) does not manage to use diplomatic means to blockIran's effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer beany reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and itwill be possible to say that the international attempts tothwart [Iran's efforts] have failed,' Ze'evi said." (December 2,2005, Haaretz) Indeed, the pivotal Brits (perennial toadies ofthe US-Israeli Axis) have no need to fear a politically defunctEU aghast at what an attack on Iran might engender throughoutthe Moslem World--at least not according to John Laughland inICH: "Will an attack on Iran put unacceptable strain on Euro-Atlanticrelations? Will Britain be forced further onto the horns of thedilemma it has striven to avoid, namely to be forced to chosebetween the US and the EU? No. US and British policy has ensuredthat the EU will itself be in such turmoil over the next yearthat it will not be able to respond in any meaningful sense to anew act of Anglo-American aggression." As the "watch and see" Israelis reach "maximumvulnerability"--the US-Israel "special relationship" may, likethe Syrian-Iranian Defense Pact of early 2005 (Fox News),evolve--by necessity--into a far more sinister tool of Westerncolonial imperialism. The Moslem World--and think not that Istereotype all Moslems into that "world"--is fixated,notwithstanding the ineffective fringe of moderate-secularIslam, upon the awful and inevitable prospect: THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT This is a huge enchilada to swallow; thence, we shall dismemberthis wildebeest in four stages: (1) The nature of such a DefensePact; (2) The circuitous route through Israel's history it'staken; (3) Allies behind the pact; and (4) The eschatologicalimperative embedded within an ultimate security agreementbetween the US and Israel (let alone the scores of nations whowill sign on to such an arrangement). No, I don't wish to soundpresumptuously prophetic; however, if you still can't see theelephant in the picture (having been mesmerized by the whitecrane taking a free ride atop the pacaderm) then let me disabuseyou of your preposterous pigeon-vision perspective and get a bitstereoscopic: BEHOLD, THE ELEPHANT COMETH! First, let's be clear, the aforementioned "strategic dialogue"between the USA and Israel is designed to put Iran on notice:The Elephant Cometh. Secondly, there's no need to hide theobvious--nothing like putting the whole world on notice, forwe're about to see the wave peak: The Sea Change Cometh! Now, Herr Hitler in Mein Kampf said he intended tokill the Jews--grief, he meant what he said. Well, today youhave Radical Islamicists (who need little "doctrinal platform"from the Koran to launch their aspirations)--double grief, theyintend to "Wipe Israel off the map." Next, you have theCommercial West, led by the political chutzpah of the USA andthe shock and awe of history's most awesome military machineever to countenance the planet--under girded by the recalcitrant"Bush Doctrine"--an amalgam of victorious democraticenforcement, buttressed by theJudeo-Christian-Evangelical-Zionist-Neocons, with the corporateelite picking up the rear, hoping they'll get the contracts fromthis hyphenated juggernaut and the oil from not only Iraq, butalso Iran et al. Forgive, but at this juncture, the altruistic peaceniks--youknow, the Air-head America Radio types--who have thesupercilious notion that a unilateral and immediate pullout ofAmerican troops from Iraq and the entire Middle East, along withkeeping "international accords" and the like, will somehowregain American stature and alleged credibility in the world.Look, let's just cut to the chase: The US Congress hasspoken--401 to 3. We're staying put! The Israelis and the US know that their "strategic-specialrelationship" is not built on thin air--but upon a host ofplatitudes: Shared values; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Cold Warallies; pioneer spirit (settlers); only democracy in the MiddleEast; over a million Israelis holding dual US citizenship(approximately ¼ of the nation); both are terrorized byterrorists--the same ones; Israel's identification with theWest, ad nausea, ad infinitum. Whoops, and as the MoslemWorld sees it: Shared Western decadence and heretical religiousaffirmations--right smack in the midst of the 10/40 Corridor,the Holy Land which Saladin et all took fair and square from theCrusaders way back when! "Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepeningand strengthening of ties with the United States has always beena central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defensepolicy. In this context, the possibility of establishing aformal defense pact, with the United States hasarisen from time to time . . . since the end of the Cold War andwith the progress made in the peace process, some complexelements have been added . . . it is clear that the nature ofsuch a pact in the current period would be significantlydifferent from one during the Cold-War era" (Yair Evron, JaffeCenter for Strategic Studies-Strategic Assessment). This only gets more specific . . . as Mr. Evron--way back inOctober 1998--outlines the reasons for such a "Defense Treatybetween Israel and the U.S." (minor
editing): 1. When Israel-Syria negotiations are resumed, a defensepact is likely to serve as part of American'compensation,' offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal fromthe Golan Heights, or within the framework of Americanguarantees for developing a 'package' of security measures,which would undoubtedly constitute a central component of suchan agreement. 2.The subject of a defense pact, might also arisewithin the context of the possible 'leakage' into the region(Note: Veiled allusion here to, at the time, Iraq, and assuredlyIran and even Syria--my edit) of nuclear materials or weaponsfrom Russia . . . a defense pact would be likelyto moderate or preclude the development of dangerous conditions. 3.Assuming the peace process continues, it is likely that aregional security system will be established; animportant component of this regime would be (predicated) on (an)Israeli-U.S. defense pact. Again, Mr. Evron's perceptions regarding such a defense pactclearly grasps the overall strategic understanding between theUSA and Israel; however, if you would--strategic peculiarity--ofa defense pact occupies an "above and beyond" all Memoranda ofUnderstanding, all elements of the existing strategic alliancebetween the two, and, most definitely, all existingmilitary-cultural-religio affinities to wit: "The idea of a defense treaty arose again in the 1970s and inthe 1980s. During the Cold War period, the U.S. viewed Israel asa 'strategic asset' and a stabilizing influence in the region .. . Israel clung to this perception in the hope that mutualstrategic interests would serve as a foundation strong enough toformalize defense relations between the two countries, despitethe absence of a solution to the problem of the territoriesoccupied in 1967. The 1982 Lebanon War and the continuation ofthe regional conflict, however, prevented such formalization,and it appeared that the U.S. would not be prepared to protectIsrael's borders if those borders included the occupiedterritories. In the absence of a formal defensetreaty, Israel's status was defined, for the first time,as a Non-NATO Ally in early 1987." (ibid. Yair Evron) Be very clear--the U.S. and Israel know perfectly well what sucha DEFENSE TREATY entails. During the Peres government (and, whoknows, sounds like Sharon-Peres will have a government again iftheir Kadima party wins in March, 2006--same time that Iran getsthe bomb) in 1996 Israel pressed for just such an accord. But,that expectation was placed on the back burner when Netanyahutook over as Prime Minister. BARAK - CLINTON - AND THE DEFENSE PACT Never mind, Ehud Barak, strolling around Camp David withPresident Clinton back in 2000 knew precisely the cost of such aDEFENSE PACT. Bruce Riedel, Clinton's Special Assistant for NearEast and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Councilspelled out the financial ramifications and parameters of theelusive pact in an article found on bitterlemons.org. Riedel spent time with Barak's aides, Danny Yatom and ZviShtauber, in formulating the "defense agreement and thecompensation package" that Israel would receive if theystructured a peace deal with the U.S. Riedel related how theIsraelis came to Camp David prepared--they "placed a draft ofthe DEFENSE AGREEMENT on the table along with a detailed list offinancial and security requests" (Aluf Benn, Haaretz). Now,listen how Aluf Benn puts it: "According to Riedel, Barak wanted a contractual format for thestrategic relations between the U.S. and Israel, which haddeveloped substantially over the years but lacked a formaldimension. His proposal was to sign an agreement inwhich the U.S. would agree to come to Israel's aid in the eventof future attacks and then get the pact ratified by the AmericanCongress and the Knesset." Is that clear enough? O.K. let's spell it out: (1)$15 Billion in American aid--primarily upgrading the IDF (2)$10 Billion to compensate the Palestinians (3)$10 Billion forbuilding desalination plants in Israel, the Palestinian stateand Jordan TOTAL: $35 Billion Ultimately, the befuddled Riedel pondered . . . "Two years after Camp David (2002) the tragedy of the missedopportunity that the summit presented is clearer than ever.Imagine a Middle East without the Intafada and with a peaceagreement buttressed by an enormous reconstruction fund, akin tothe Marshall Plan that President Truman used to rebuild Europeafter World War Two" (ibid. Aluf Benn). PERES AND THE ELUSIVE US-ISRAEL PEACE PACT Remember, the 82-year old Peres has wanted a US-Israeli DefensePact for a long time--positioning himself in the newSharon-Peres Alliance provides ample space to conclude such apact. Back in 1995 Dore Gold contemplated Peres' US-Israel DefensePact in "Is a Mutual Defense Treaty Between Israel (and) theU.S. Needed?" He cautioned: "Israel and the United States have already been allies withoutan alliance. But taking the relationship one step further to aformal treaty? In the past, Israel had no pretensions of beingable to defend itself against the Soviet Union; thusU.S.-Israeli ties complemented the IDF's independent militarypower. But in the context of an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty, anew strategic relationship could evolve into a substitute forIsrael's self-defense capability; with enormous implicationsbeyond the peace process itself . . . the essence of a formalIsraeli-U.S. alliance is the recognition that an attack onIsrael is an attack on the United States itself. And if that isthe case, it can be argued that a treaty reduces the need for anindependent Israeli deterrent capability. Why not depend on theretaliatory power of American submarines in the Mediterranean?The alliance could thus become a useful instrument to get Israelto sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." WHY IS ISRAEL HESITANT IN SIGNING THE DEFENSE PACT WITH THEUSA? Interesting, isn't it . . . for decades Israel has "gone italone" - while increasingly relying upon the USA's benevolenceand "strategic cooperation" on many fronts . . . but there'salways been that slight, yet profound hesitancy to take thefinal leap into the DEFENSE PACT? A sample of conflicted Israelileaders has repeatedly warned: "I don't recommend that any one of us accept as a substitute(for Israel's positions in the territories) even entering NATO,international guarantees or American soldiers" (Moshe Dayan,1981) "No army is a substitute for the IDF in protecting Israel'ssecurity" (Yitzhak Rabin, memoirs) (Dore Gold, Jewish NewsWeekly, 1995)
About the author:Doug is a member of the "Last Days Network" . . . a group ofevangelical pundits providing news and analysis on Religion inPolitics. "Applied Biblical prophecy," apostasy and deception,the impact of the American New World Order System, and theinfluence of the Religious Right and Left upon Americanculture--are topics discussed by the group. Fullview/graphics/links @ http://www.the-tribulation-network.com
|
