Washington holds Israel back
DEBKAfile: Rice urges Israel to give diplomacy a chance. For Olmert time is running out
June 27, 2006, 1:31 PM (GMT+02:00)
On her way to Pakistan Tuesday, June 27, the US secretary of state referred to the standoff over the kidnapped 19-year old Israeli soldier and the continuing massing of Israeli troops on standby on the Gaza border.
She said: “There really needs to be an effort now to try and calm the situation.”
US ambassador Richard Jones said he is catiously optimistic about the prospects of recovering Corp. Gilead Shalit.
DEBKAfile’s sources: This approach may work for Iraq. Only last week, the remains of brutally murdered US hostages, Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca, of the 101st Airborne Division, were discovered near Yusufiya after a tense US military search was mounted. But Rice and her colleagues in government kept their cool.
From Washington, Israel’s reaction to the kidnap of Gilead Shalit is viewed as overly excited, if not hysterical, and certainly not grounds for embarking on total war against the Palestinians. Likewise, the concentration of Israeli armored strength on Gaza’s border appears not only unnecessary but counter-productive in that it reduces prime minister Ehud Olmert’s room for maneuver in negotiating the Israeli hostage’s release.
The big difference here is that when the American military blunders, it is admitted, freely debated in the national discourse and attempts are made to repair the damage. Israelis find it hard to admit to military mistakes, despite the testimony of the soldiers involved, and are counting on a massive operation to rescue the missing soldier to make up for the IDF fiasco at Kerem Shalom.
The abduction of Gilead belies the assurances Olmert and his Kadima party gave the electorate months ago that security was improving, the Palestinian terror war was waning and the pull-back from the Gaza Strip was a success and a lever for future West Bank withdrawals.
Olmert is now caught on the horns of a bitter dilemma of his own making. By refusing to bargain and release Palestinian prisoners and declaring that time is running out for an “extensive military operation,” he has put the IDF on a roll towards major action in the Gaza Strip. But Washington is telling him to hold his horses, in other words, to pull up and turn his speeding rollercoaster right round.
What the three key men, Olmert, defense minister Amir Peretz and chief of staff Lt.-Gen Dan Halutz, should have done immediately after the Palestinian attack on the army post and abduction was to launch pinpoint raids in the Rafah district of southern Gaza.
Turning round now would be tantamount to an Israeli capitulation.
One word: impotence.
Comment by Shy Guy
— June 27, 2006 @ 6:08 am
We cannot go forward without building a new leadership, a new party if you like.
Having just looked at the writings of Ami Isseroff I am struck by how this peacenik and apologetic theme runs through Israeli society.
You remember the time when those wonderful Jewish youth (and some older people as well) took on Sharon’s Stasi as they kicked the Jewish youth out of their homes in Gaza and they were not only fighting against people like Amira Hass and Isseroff and the Guardian and the BBC etc etc.
There is no doubt that without a new leadership the Israeli state will go down.
Also I believe, Olmert is a slave to the objective situation. He is a little boy in a small boat whipped around by mighty ocean waves.
We urgently need a party which can fight for an independent line, I would begin with a fight against the philosophy of Isseroff.
Such a party or leadership will conscously operate the United Front.
This involves:
Tell Rice and Bush to butt out. This is a Jewish boy and this is a Jewish affair, not an American affair.
Take back the Gaza at once by military action.
Arrest all of the leadership of the PA, which includes Fatah and Hamas. Offer to send them all to the US!
Form a unity with the Israelis and the military on any step forward they take but campaign urgently on our own independent programme.
Oppose the Demographic Big Lie that both Isseroff and Olmert base their political perspective on.
Follow the line put forward by Joseph: Arabs can have autonomy, but NO Palestinian state.
I would add insist on the demand that Britain recompense the Jewish nation for betraying their Mandate and giving Jordan free to the Arasbs.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 27, 2006 @ 7:35 am
This is merely a guess, but — It might be that Olmert asked Madam Rice to issue this restraining order.
That way, he is prohibited from taking any action that he really does not want to take anyway, and at the same time can argue to an infuriated Israeli nation that he had no choice.
He has stated openly that “we are tired of defeating our enemies”. Madam Rice is, whether invited or not, trying to spare him from going against his own aspiration to lose.
Comment by ATimeToSpeak
— June 27, 2006 @ 9:18 am
[…] Israpundit says that “Turning round now would be tantamount to an Israeli capitulation.” He’s right. […]
Pingback by Euphoric Reality :: Pro-military, pro-America, anti-stupidity.
— June 27, 2006 @ 10:19 am
The Dance of Escalation and Reaction…
Once again, we are asked to decide if the struggle against Islamic fascism, exemplified by their use of terror as a tactic, is indeed a war, or should more accurately be known as a series of disconnected, modified police actions….
Trackback by ShrinkWrapped
— June 27, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Felix, you got it right. As I state in a prior blog, Rice has two standards: 1. One for the US and 2. One against Israel.
When the 1st rocket hit Sderot, the IAF should have flattened the northern towns in Gaza.
I wonder if Olmert has to have a quarom to decide if it’s time to go to the rest room?
Comment by Ed D
— June 27, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
It’s very clear that America holds Jewish life very cheap!
It’s time Israel got a leader with balls who could stand up to the US and insist on self defence.
Comment by Jerusalem Posts
— June 27, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
JP
I believe deep in my heart that leader is not going to emerge spontaneously. We have to appproach the problem in a different way. We have to conscously, step by step, build a new party based on new principles.
Comment by Felix Quigley
— June 28, 2006 @ 6:00 am