[Peptobismol]

During the first Gulf war, Israel was asked not to respond to Saddam's scud attacks against it's population centers, in order to maintain the unity of the coalition forces. Israel complied and consequently the Arab forces that fought against Saddam's did not leave the coalition. In other words, Israel ignored it's own self interest and put It's American ally's interest ahead of it's own.

Yet this is how Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Adviser) wants to handle the Palestinian Israeli conflict:

That's the lesson I have learned. Look, the Palestinians are too weak to make concessions. The Israelis are too strong to make concessions. Neither side is prepared to move first in a significant way. Each one distresses the other. Only someone like the United States that has good offices with both -- and to some extent, both are dependent on the United States, both in some respects are clients of the United States -- has the necessary leverage to act decisively Zbigniew Brzezinski: "Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power"

He said this in the context in which he was somewhat critical of Obama for not exerting enough pressure on Israel during his first year of presidency while he had the least to worry about a back-lash from "the Jewish lobby".

Sounds catchy, doesn't it? But is it valid? Let's seee ....

He claims that it's in America's best interest to do so. But is it? Let's see ... What is it that the Palestinians want .... ? Hamas openly admits that they want to end the quest of the Jewish people to have self determination by destroying Israel. The PA, although they don't openly admit it, want exactly the same thing. They openly say they would never recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people and they insist on the so called "right of return" demand which would equally end the idea of the Jewish nation state.

So, if Zbigniew would have his way and Israel would make even more concessions (than it has made already), would the conflict end? Of course NOT! After all, the Palestinians objective of destroying Israel would still not be met. It would only whet their appetite to demand yet more concessions from Israel in order to make their goal of destroying Israel easier. And the Zbignew's of this world would line up along their side yet again, claiming that only Israel is the one that has to make concessions. And where would that end ... ?

A simple analogy illustrates the absurdity of Zbigniew's stance: what would he do if he had to arbitrate in the following dispute:

Claimant 1: He stole my property, I will settle for nothing less than his death ...

Claimant 2 (who is much stronger than claimant 1): I did not steal his property, it isn't his, but if he is willing to drop his insistence that this is a fight to the death (my death) then I am willing to give him part of the property. Otherwise, I will defend myself tooth and nail and he gets nothing ...

Which party is the one that has to be made to compromise? Zbigniew would insist that claimant 2 is the one that has to be forced to compromise. But would it solve the conflict?

Lesson: If ever people like Brzezinski gain position of influence over American policy, Israel too better learn to look after it's own interests, first and foremost.

[Ifroham4]

Zbig has called for IAF to be shot down over Iraq if they are on their way to attack Iran.

[Lt_Apple]

Everything this man says suggests that to him Israel is the enemy. Here is an extract of conversation between him and Fareed Zacharia of CNN ...

BRZEZINSKI: I think it all depends on how determined, clear- headed and explicit the United States is. If we drift, if we fuss, the word's over, if we are ambiguous, it could end up very, very badly. If the United States is clear cut, if it makes it very clear to the Iranians that they're not going to be a part of the global community, if they persist in violating the NPT.

But, if at the same time we don't offer them only the choice of capitulation or strangulation, which would force them to lash out, and if we at the same time make it clear that if they continue with their investigations and research and perhaps weapons development, we will, in any case, guarantee the security of the Middle East, including that of Israel. The way we have done it for Japan and South Korea, very effectively over the years.

ZAKARIA: Yes. We've put in a nuclear umbrella over the -

(CROSSTALK)

BRZEZINSKI: Yes, and we did it for Europe against the Soviet Union. We can do it here, too.

So we don't need to go to war, and we have to make that very clear to our Israeli friends. We're not going to go to war. They're not going to go to war by flying over our airspace over Iraq. We're not going to support them. If they do it, they'll be on their own. The consequences would be theirs, because the price we'll all pay if they start a massive war, which the Iranians interpret as being done with our connivance, would be disastrous for us in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in terms of oil, stability in the Middle East more generally Who is he kidding? He talks about offering a nuclear umbrealla "to our Israeli friends". Yet he seems to be scared out of his wits to confront Iran which hasn't yet got nuclear weapons. So how does he expect us to believe that he would support protecting Israel with a nuclear umbrealla AFTER Iran acquires nuclear weapons?

Who is our Zbigniew trying to fool?