Frank Gaffney’s girl problem


At Breitbart’s Big Peace, Frank Gaffney, a Reagan era assistant secretary for defense, wonders if the U.S. led attack on Libya presages an attack on … Israel.

Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ longstanding role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts, in accordance with the Gaddafi Precedent.  He warns Israel that it must immediately take steps to dismantle its presence inside the internationally recognized State of Palestine lest it face U.S.-enabled “coalition” military measures aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the will of the international community.

Unfortunately, such steps will not result in the ostensibly desired end-game, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.”  If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gaddafi Precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome than the two-state “solution”:  Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional conflagration, with possible worldwide repercussions.

For one thing, the mere fact that the United States is no longer seen as guaranteeing Israel’s security would probably prove a sufficient inducement to war for those like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah’s Lebanon and Hamas’ Gaza itching to finish the job of eliminating the hated “Zionist entity” in their midst.  The same might well prove to be the case for other states in the region if, as seems likely, the Muslim Brotherhood fills yawning vacuums of power in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen and possibly Saudi Arabia and Libya.

How much more irresistible would such temptation be if the United States were actually raining down cruise missiles on Israeli targets in the West Bank, as it has done on Libyan ones at the behest of the Arab League and UN Security Council?  Suffice it to say, Israel’s back would surely be against the wall in short order, facing the sort of existential threat it has not known since 1973 and that most Israelis only expected to eventuate when the Iranian mullahs at last got the Bomb.  Under such circumstances, we must expect that Israel would employ its own nuclear forces, with devastating and unknowable consequences.

I know. I know.

I would start with the phrase "the mere fact that the United States is no longer seen as guaranteeing Israel’s security" — what mere fact? Since when? The Obama administration has amped up security guarantees, on Iran, on missile defense, on everything. There are differences over diplomacy, for sure, deep differences — but security hasn’t been touched. And believe me, neither has the perception of U.S. guarantees of such. Israel’s neighbors are acutely aware of the depth of the Israel-U.S. security relations.

I would start with that, but these imaginings are so off the wall loony-tunes, it’s hard to start anywhere. As Andrew Sullivan puts it:

What kind of fevered mind leaps immediately from Libya to … Israel?

The kind of fevered mind that has a woman-in-power thang, apparently. My emphases:

Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mesdames Clinton, Power and Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” 


I am praying that Barack Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisors will not take us all down a road that seems ripe for another, ominous application of this precedent, with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, for the United States and for freedom-loving people elsewhere.

Maybe Gaffney could use a little less praying and a little more Megilla reading, given the season.

He’d learn how history treats conspiracy-minded former assistant advisers who mess with the counsel of strong women.

Recommended from JTA