Op-Ed: NATO Troops in "Palestine" Will Be Another Afghanistan
Mark LangfanThe writer, who specializes in security issues, has created an original...
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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."
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.
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.
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.
For more information, please visit www.marklangfan.com