Regime Change of the PA Via Annexation

Were I a member of the Netanyahu Administration I would have voted against the building freeze in the territories. They are sending a confusing message of negotiating against their own position even before the PA regime returns to the negotiation table with them. This was only to placate a foreign power, not in pursuance of good policy for their people. The destructively self effacing courtship of friendship from the anti Jewish PA must cease so that Israel’s penchant for kindness and patience no longer be used against it by anyone. Fair play begins with being willing to play by the rules.

The Israeli government’s blunder, however, has a silver lining that is found in their special treatment of East Jerusalem in the face of Western linkage of East Jerusalem with Judea and Samaria. It illustrates that they believe that the State of Israel, at least potentially, has absolute authority over the lands conquered in the defensive Six Day War, otherwise how could they assume that their annexation of East Jerusalem is valid? Thus the silver lining in the dark cloud that the Netanyahu Administration performed is that they have incidentally taken a real step in disputing those who erroneously say that U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 make lands conquered in defensive wars barred from annexation by the defensive conquerors. One of the leading foundations in the conflict over the territories is this very dispute.

To briefly explain the basics of that dispute in International Law, those who argued that defensive conquest is illegal since the passage of Resolution 242 are standing upon the implicit but not explicit gist of the resolution’s wording and matters of current political expediency alone, whereas those who say defensive wars are legal means of territorial annexation cite actual historic precedents. As even an explicit law forbidding defensive conquest would only be a “customary law”, while returning strategic land to a belligerent regime would be aiding and abetting the self destruction of the innocent nation(s) who heed the implicit command of resolutions like 242, which would violate the most profound of International Norms in existence (Jus Cogens) toward their own populace. Humanity, if it is to continue to morally and ethically progress in its great journey through time, cannot bear such crimes against it.

Allow me to ask you this: A man that loves his wife does not mind if she makes a few mistakes here and there. A man that hates his wife does not tolerate any wrong that she does unless he depends on her for something, whether that is for his continued prestige, care of his children, avoiding the loss of his fortune to divorce expense or the like. So what does Abbas have that makes the Netanyahu Administration desire to put up with him?

If Abbas leaves, there is fear that Hamas would take over? How can they not if every time there is an election Hamas gains more and more strength? But that is not Israel’s concern. The Arab people subjugated by the PA voted for their terrorist leaders rather than less offensive third party candidates like Hanan Ashrawi’s party. Now third party alternatives will likely never again gain the attention of the Palestinian press thus solidifying the hold of the current terroristic PA configuration in perpetuity for as long as the PA will exist. You owe such voters nothing from a foreign policy aspect. Thus when forming your policy towards Palestinian Arabs only humanitarian concerns should be considered in relation to their dire political plight and bleak future if the PA should remain their masters, God forbid.

Standard regime change cannot fix this problem. The regime once removed would likely be replaced by a worse regime. So what you have then is essentially an entire national entity lost to the prospect of achieving true peace through negotiation. Therefore negotiation itself has been made a mockery and even an impediment toward the pursuit of actual regional peace by the will of the Palestinian voters themselves as interpreted by their petty and corrupt leaders. Acknowledge that as long as you hope for the PA to change, there is no hope.

Consider that if you annex only small portions of the West Bank, you abandon thousands of good Arab people within the PA to an endless reign of despotic rulers. It would not be compassionate to ignore their plight. Abraham asked God to spare an entire evil city if only ten good people could be found in it. Many thousands of Arabs voted against Hamas. Do they all deserve abandonment?

Let’s put the answer out there plainly. Do not replace Abbas, remove him and his whole regime entirely. Annex the territories and bring democracy and peace simultaneously to the Israelis and Arabs living there. If demographic concerns still haunt, then a plan like the Everyone Wins Peace Plan can treat that even in the context of such a massive annexation by way of a staggered naturalization process. Either way, you could then have true peace and liberty for all, by the grace of God.

Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution

Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said, "Those who reject the two-state solution will not bring a one-state solution. They will bring one conflict, not one state. A bloody endless conflict."

Excuse me, but isn't that what the Oslo Accords accomplished? Is that not the very fruit that it brought upon Israel? Isn't that what the Roadmap to Peace (Oslo 3) ended up doing, especially before the security fence was built?

Has it been so long since the first Intifada began that people have forgotten what it was like when Arab refugees didn't try to kill Israelis?

Answer this: Why, when Arafat was a fugitive for the first three decades of his terroristic career, there was no intifada? Why when Arafat underwent a PR makeover and was a pseudo partner in a pseudo peace process, why then did Israel stop looking over its borders with fear, but then start looking within its borders for the most clear and present dangers?

Arafat created a goon squad of terrorist abusers of the national psyche. Did anyone really believe that whitewashing the high crimes of the PLO by calling them by the designation of "diplomats" would bring Israel closer to peace?

Oslo 1, Oslo 2, the Roadmap. Wrong thought processes were at play that conceived these plans, which have brought these decades of endless violence. Like a battered wife who clings to her abusive husband. She should not cower behind the locked bathroom door each night hoping for her husband to calm down. She should leave or call the police.

By continuing to advocate the pursuit of a "one-state solution" you are essentially telling your people to sit there and take it; for eternity. This is peace? This is madness!

Bad policy such as this hopes to placate the abuser long enough so that the victim can just be left alone for a scant few moments of respite from his limitless rage. But no practical plans for long term security are on her agenda. Taking dangerous risks without a clearly obtainable goal is a classic symptom of the faulty reasoning that often affects the thought processes of victims of abuse. For example following up Oslo 1 with Oslo 2, then Oslo 2 with the Roadmap would be an expression of this disorder at the political level.

The healthier choice would have been seeking national consensus on the vital issues at play rather than forcing through the Knesset a left wing agenda.

To have true freedom from bloodshed, you must first inculcate true freedom of the heart and mind. As God told Yehoshua (Joshua) repeatedly, "Be strong and courageous".

Not only has the violence continued, your reaction has you pointed in the wrong direction to fix the problems...

Why should Arabs keep their homes and not Jews? Is this justice?

Why should Israel be forced into "Auschwitz Borders" as your friend Abba Eban used to call them? Is this security?

Why should you have to give anything to get peace? Should peaceful intentions not be shared by both partners?

Currently only one side is committed to peace and freedom of the other side if they should reach a peace deal, while the other guys refuse to accept even the notion of a Jewish State. Is this a true path to peace?

You have been strong and courageous to make sacrifices for peace. Now be strong and courageous to encourage the forsaking of the failed paths of national self destruction, leaving them as history. Only this new direction is a path that can lead to healthy and true peace.

Soon may it be so, by the grace of God.

Israeli Settlements Are Forever - Manifest Foreign Policy Is Not

As we discussed before, according to both Talmudic and International Laws, the Land of Israel is not only promised to the Jews, but legally belongs to them.

On Wednesday, Clinton insisted ''our policy on settlement has not changed.''''We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity. Ending all settlement activity current and future would be preferable,'' she told reporters after talks with Mubarak. (NY Times)

So what the Secretary of State is saying is that the Obama Administration does not care what "religions" say or even what "laws" say, only what the expedient needs of its self chosen foreign policy is. Is that what she's trying to communicate or am I missing something?

Reminds me of something I learned about Manifest Destiny. You make up a political ideology, and that becomes your law. Your current belief system trumps religion, history, law and common standards of fair play.

Ask a Native American if that is always a good thing.

Invite me to Washington and I'll explain it all to you.

P.S. I only eat Kosher.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East under the Obama Administration - Nine Months Later

Siding with Israel over Iran does not mean that it's OK to sell out American principles on peace in the Middle East.

I don't mean to be pessimistic on a new administration. Generally it's good to give people a chance to get some experience and confidence going on their new job. Still, when the new kid on the block repeatedly foments controversy, it's hard to ignore what is going on.

Why does it seem that every time Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton make a statement in favor of Israel we need to tell ourselves to wait 24 to 48 hours until there is a retraction of some kind?

There needs to be ideological consistency out the White House. You can't blame Iran for being dangerous and then turn around and support Hamas.

On the matter of Iran, as said before, if there is military action against Iran, I would hope that it were by the US not Israel -not for Israel's sake, but for the well being of our troops overseas who are easier targets than anyone in the Land of Israel is. I don't care if they are holding guns, these brave soldiers are young Americans who are potentially in harm's way. America can and should protect it's own.

The prime responsibility of an American President is as Commander in Chief of the military. Iran's current regime is a potential threat to many members of that military.

Whereas the prime goal of foreign policy is to further national interests in a way that does not harm our allies, otherwise few trusted allies we would have, indeed. The territorial dispute in Israel should have zero to do with the foreign policy we show towards a world class dangerous regime in a different part of the Middle East. Please don't confuse the two.

Every time a tough statement is made against Iran, the current practice of this White House is to make some sort of corresponding verbal slight against Israeli rights to their land. If this is a calculated choice, it would be an effort at even handedness for the sake of even handedness, in a way that is not even handed at all.

Separate these two theaters of conflict within your foreign policy to prevent one large theater of war from believed intertwining interests that never existed until some foolish speech writer linked it all into a hodgepodge of pseudo even handedness and outright untruthfulness. The goal is to avoid conflict, not hasten it.

Please consider that perhaps the unintended message of this methodology is speaking louder than the intended message. The enemies of civilization tend pick and choose that which they want to hear. Therefore the upholders of civilization must be more circumspect in their speech.

Peace Cannot Be Founded Upon the Destruction of Societies

When a war ends and a people are sent into exile, the warfare ends, but the devastation lingers. If, however, after the war all non-corrupting elements of the conquered people are allowed or even encouraged to assimilate into the dominant society, then the long term harmful effects of war are minimized. A healthy influx of new ideas enters into the dominant society, enhancing it, not destroying it, because the corrupting elements were never invited to join the dominant society to begin with.

To bring peace between Israel and the Arab refugees in the territories, we must seek the method that will heal Israeli and Palestinian Arabic societies the best. Exiling this people or that cannot bring as strong a peace as seeking to allow every non terrorist to keep their home. This is not only the ethical foundation of the Everyone Wins peace plan, but it is also the clear understanding that anyone who witnessed firsthand the expulsions of the Jews of Gaza, must, by force of logic, arrive at.

Today thousands of the former residents of Gush Katif and the other former Israeli cities of Gaza are still in desperate financial distress. A recent speech by Rabbi Pesach Lerner of the National Council of Young Israel attests to the conditions that they are continuing to suffer from 4 years later. There were 10,000 Israeli evacuees of Gaza and all the kings horses and men of the West could not help them find jobs that were no longer available.

No famous peace plan other than the Everyone Wins peace plan avoids the pitfalls that were learned from the fall of Gush Katif. The Roadmap would face an infrastructure challenge 30 times greater than the Gaza evacuation did or else seek to abandon countless Israeli voters behind enemy lines. Whereas a plan to kick out the Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza would remove terrorist armies, yet create an infrastructure nightmare even greater than the Roadmap would.

It's time to look for a new method to end the madness without further delay. Raising mass discontent is not the answer. Perhaps it's time to seriously consider the Everyone Wins peace plan. It's time for applied logic and compassion to take center stage, so that the true betterment of humankind may find fulfillment on this world of ours. By the grace of God.

Jerusalem and Jewish Religious Freedom Are One

To not lend voice to all of the tools of truth is to offer truth a pale defensive effort. To deny any aspect of truth, is to pick up the mantra of the enemy and to insanely fight with oneself over the other aspects of truth that one still remembers to use to their own merit. You have embraced the enemy's deception and called it normalcy and thus weakened your overall efforts to preserve what absolutely must be preserved. To uphold that which is known to God and humankind. To put it plainly, that Jews have an historic, legal, moral and religious right to Jerusalem. Judaism itself, in fact, depends on Jerusalem.

By trying to divide either the physical Jerusalem, or the Jewish People from Jerusalem, you are violating their collective religious freedom in the most profound way possible. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jewish race. The effort to divide Jerusalem is no less than an effort to exterminate the Jewish faith from the world. Which side of this divide does the Netanyahu Administration wish to place itself?

Even as the Prime Minister said that Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem, his Intelligence Affairs Minister, Dan Meridor of Likud showed with his recent interview all that is wrong with those leaders who are insensitive to the concept of freedom to pursue one's own religion being an inalienable right.

Seemingly drawing a line in the sand, Meridor said, "The Old City with the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall will never be part of an Arab state; all the major Israeli parties share this conviction. There could be a compromise on land in Judea and Samaria. But all Israeli governments have agreed on having a united Jerusalem. This is our clear position, but we can negotiate about Jerusalem. There are no preconditions."

...he noted that the introduction of religion into a conflict that was historically defined on nationalistic ideas complicated matters. "It has become more difficult over the years because of the introduction of religion into this conflict. Arab rulers hated us in the past, but they did so because of nationalistic ideas. Since the [1979] revolution in Teheran, we hear a different tune: The Iranians, Hizbullah and Hamas fight us in the name of religion. This is very bad because people can compromise, but gods never compromise."

But Meridor also insisted that the issue of Jerusalem was not predicated on religion. "The previous pope (John Paul II) said that Jerusalem is sacred to all religions, but was promised to one people. We have no religious claim on Jerusalem; we have a national one. Jerusalem is our capital," he said.


You just said that Iran is using a religious argument to try to take your capital out from under you. Further the anti-democratic-democratically-elected Hamas denies the plain truth of your rights, using pseudo religious terms not found in the Koran to assault your claims. In other words, if this moral debate were not a battle of religious rights before, your enemies have turned this into one. To use a parable, if rioters take to the streets to loot innocent businesses, either you match their force with law enforcement, or you tell your citizens to at least protect themselves against the looters by staying off the streets.

By stating this is exclusively a secular conflict even as your enemy uses and twists religion as a tool to further their ends, you are disarming yourself before their verbal onslaught. Discapacitating your public relations at the same time as you empower their deceitful propaganda. Worse, you are disenabling dialectal pursuit of root and absolute truths. The very life preserver of moral, historic and legal rights themselves.

The majority of Israelis practice religion. This means that the many poll results that Jerusalem is considered beyond abandonment to the vast majority of Israelis are certainly true. Which also means that there is no way, no philosophic construction that could be devised that would be honestly conducive to democratic ideals that would allow the United States of America to support the separation of Jerusalem from Israel, the abrogation of the Jewish faith itself, with any shred of moral clarity or justification. If today you will try to abolish Judaism, is not the obliteration of Christianity on your agenda for the morrow?

Rather than trying to exploit any ideological weakness it can find in those few confused Israeli leaders who believe in whatever current U.S. policy happens to be, the U.S. Administration should be encouraging true democratic representation within Israeli's own government and policy making. At least that's what a true friend of Israel and bastion of democracy would do.


A call to a more hybridized political thought process on the Middle East Conflict would serve to sooner end it.

By the Grace of God.

Pollard for Robinson?

By awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to pro-violence and anti Israel Mary Robinson, the Obama Administration has found a way to not only continue to aggravate pro-Israel Jews and Christians, but has made perhaps an unintentional but seriously flawed declaration that the ways of violent protests of Yasir Arafat trumps the non violent path of Martin Luther King Jr. Besides the broad implications this may have for domestic politics and the dire consequences for Democrats to keep their majorities in congress come the next election cycle should they be viewed as anti-King, this immediately and negatively effects American influence in the Middle East. This can only lend further extremes to future Palestinian Leadership demands and complicate the impossibly difficult situation between Israel and the PA beyond repair. While I would applaud an end to the wrong minded Roadmap to Peace, it should not be done in this way.

First the reversal on Jerusalem. Next the heavy handed interference on the matter of internal Israeli infrastructure policy that was never explicitly forbidden and signed upon in the Roadmap. Now the Administration can be viewed as implicitly rubber stamping future PA sponsored violence against Israel, let alone whatever good intentions that may have been in play during this Robinson decision.

Will supporters of terror look at the President's unstated intentions or his explicit actions to justify their evil plans? If the President does not retract his decision entirely, which is the preferred option, then I would suggest that clarification should issue from the White House that support for any anti-King philosophy that Robinson may hold was not intended and is virulently rejected by this administration.

Three such faux pas in a row is not just a bad sign, it is a diplomatic disaster than needs some cleanup work to be done as soon as possible.

A couple years ago I wrote that there could be a lot of political Goodwill to be gained with Israel by granting freedom to Jonathan Pollard, and no significant political downside to releasing him. President Bush rejected this opportunity, but perhaps President Obama will not. Perhaps this can be the political life preserver that Democrats need to show they are not the Anti-Israel party of the United States of America. Come the next election cycle, the Democrats could spin that it wasn't a Republican President who had mercy on a man incarcerated for 24 years, it was a Democrat. Conversely, it could be that what may be remembered at the next election cycle will be instead that every year, month, week and day that passes with undeserving fools like Robinson getting awards, while the humanitarian plight of Pollard is ignored as he is left to rot in prison.

What will the President choose to do?

Roadmap Agreements Are Not Universally Binding Under International Law

Bringing peace to nations is not a game. So why are the Roadmap Nations treating it as such? As if they can make up "house rules" of diplomacy where you can discriminate against the nation of your choice regardless of what objective norms (International Laws) say on the matter.

The new USA objection is due to concern over potentially prejudging the final outcome of a negotiated settlement. But in actuality, all that happened was not a political decision, but a decision in a court case between private litigants. To connect a court ruling on a decade old case with any future negotiation is a ludicrous suggestion at face value. No one at the signing of the Roadmap back in 2003 would ever have expected future court cases to be decided even before final status negotiations have taken place. To suggest that is to state fiction.

I start to worry where we are headed as a nation when our Foreign Affairs officials state current policy and call it International Law, when it is not. Until now the Obama Administration has been far from even handed in its treatment of Israel. But if its "experts" continue to misstate plain facts so grossly that they are viewed as either fools or liars not just by opposition political forces, but even mainstream members of foreign Parliaments, then the USA's influence in the Middle East will wane and erode along with it the hopes of participating in the bringing of true peace to the Middle East in the near future. Participating. That word is key. It implies a certain level of humility that current USA foreign policy lacks towards our best friend in the Middle East, Israel.

The court ruled that illegal housing was built on private property. In cases where the property owners were not Arabic, there was no previous protestation of the many prior decisions of the Israeli courts.

CNN reported the following declarations by the State Department:

In the United States, a State Department spokesman urged Israel to refrain from "provocative actions."

"As Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton has stated previously, the eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations under the Roadmap," said Robert Wood, referring to the 2003 "Roadmap for peace" plan.

"We urge that the government of Israel and municipal officials refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions. Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."

If any nation is discouraged from heeding its own courts because it is not preferred by other nations, would any nation listen to this? How about those non-democratic countries that are dismembering their own citizens due to highly questionable court decisions? Where is the condemnation?

What if another nation tried to threaten America IN ANYWAY for a ruling of an American court of justice? Would, COULD, America ever dare give in to such meddling? It would undermine the whole justice system to do so, and therefore it is unreasonable and ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.

This is not a matter of even-handedness or not. It is a process toward making a mockery of objective truth and justice and therefore such a path is antithetical to the American Way.

Worse it shows that America no longer cares about how it looks in the eyes of her allies. That is diplomacy gone astray. The greatest threat to the Roadmap to Peace is not an Israeli judge, but current American Foreign Policy!

Even as a critic of the false Roadmap to Peace I do not glory in this path to failure through an overdose of self contempt. A hog enjoys playing in the mud, but a diplomat should not. The Roadmap nations need to respect themselves more by either speaking more truthful statements from now on, or getting out of the game.

Middle East Peace Plan Comparison Chart

Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so perhaps I can save us all a lot of time and effort by displaying an illustration of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan in relation to the other famous peace plan ideas out there.

Just click on the image below to enhance the size and once you do, it is formatted to print in landscape orientation, so you'll have to select landscape before printing to get the whole image on a single sheet of paper.

Explanation of the Questionable remarks
1) Rabbi Elon's Plan depends on the Kingdom of Jordan to enhance those civil rights, so it's a question mark whether that is an improvement or not. It can be argued either way, which may not be a good sign.
2) The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace depend on a cessation of further conflict which sadly those plans do not guarantee, merely a separation, a permanent segregation of peoples is guaranteed. That does not ensure the ability to, for example, to build a new road in Israel next to a strategic kind of hill that would be given to the Arabs. If security right at the border is not guaranteed, how peaceful is such a plan?

Analysis

I took six of the most essential aspects contributing towards the long term viability of true peace in the Middle East and showed that only Everyone Wins is a sure path to peace.

If these score were grades in a school. All other plans except the Elon plan would fail. With the Israeli Initiative/Rabbi Elon plan getting a "D" at best. The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace have pathetic levels of long term viability, significantly lower than even Rabbi Kahane's peace plan which Israelis rejected a couple decades ago as even being an option. The Kahane plan breaks even at the 50 percent level of long term viability, in my estimation.

Of these plans mentioned it would seem that only Everyone Wins is a sure plan and path to peace.

May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

Land For Peace Is Reward For Belligerence

I have mentioned before my rejection of the concept of land for peace as not only not leading to peace but actually being a fuel to the fire of terrorism. This concept applies equally to avoiding war when seeking peace with belligerent foreign nations as well.

Reuters today printed an article on Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad's take on Syria and the annexed Golan Heights:

"If there is a territorial compromise, it is one that still leaves Israel on the Golan Heights and deep into the Golan Heights," Arad said, noting also the plateau's water resources.

Let's remember some of the contemporary history of the Golan Heights. On April 24, 1920 The Golan was declared a part of the Jewish Homeland by the Balfour Declaration's Mandate For Palestine (Palestine back then referred to Jews more often than Arabs). A couple years later due to political pressures of the time, Britain cut off Trans-Jordan and the Golan from the land West of the River Jordan (Which included all Green Line Israel, West Bank and Gaza). The Jews did not like this, but accepted this for the sake of preserving their rights to at least some of the land. This proved to be a bad precedent as Britain again began to whittle away at the "gift" they were preparing to give Israel until they gave only half of Green Line Israel.

If you find someone's property and return it to them, is it really a gift? If someone found your lost collection of expensive watches and returned only one would you merely be grateful or ask where the other watches were?

After various Syrian attempts to illegally interfere with Israel's water supply during the 1960s, in 1967 Syria threatened to attack Israel using the Golan as a launching ground even before the Six Day War began. Israel later won the Golan in the war. Israel deliberated long and hard, until 1981 before annexing the Golan. Israel depended on it too much, and Syria, frankly, no longer deserved it.

My question is what has changed since then? The new Assad is more verbally abusive against Israel than his violent father was. That's all that's changed.

While PM Netanyahu is opposed to territorial compromise of the Golan, a year ago, Syrian head Assad considered the possibility of some territory remaining in Israeli hands, whether or not that is the current stated foreign policy of Syria. It is important to openly express support for Bibi's policy of no territorial compromise on the Golan so that it is clear to everyone that Israel, not just Bibi, is unwilling to support laying the foundation of a new war in the Middle East.

In further comments published on Friday, Arad said he could not rule out some form of Palestinian state emerging in the next few years -- he mentioned 2015 -- but said that it would be a "fragile structure. A house of cards."

Message to PM Netanyahu. If you and your staff believe that a Palestinian state would be unstable, then why pursue a Palestinian state at all when there are safer ways out there? As I mentioned earlier, the current stated plan for peace with the Arab Palestinian refugees is a prescription for a subsequent war. Your people need you to stand strong.