Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological Foundation of Healing Societies

Supporters of Two State Solutions typically state that there will be no method to stop terrorist violence until there is the surrender of land in some sort of a treaty. Even though there has never been any capitulation to terror in history that was as effective to halt terror as police action is (such as building walls and fences or actual military usage).

What then is the theoretical philosophic foundation to this reasoning? The needs of individuals are subservient to the needs of society. Take away the societal frustration of no land for peace, and individual would-be terrorists will start breeding doves and loving their former enemies.

In the real world, however, it is the needs of individuals that direct the course of societal streams of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Take away the feelings of lack of opportunity and personal sense of injustice and loss of freedom, and societal problems will seem far away to the individual. So to heal a society, one must first treat the molecular structure of the society, that is, individual families and then the very atoms themselves, the individuals within those families.

Thus we have it that the foundation of healing a society is the antithesis of Two State Solution advocacy.

Another logical argument toward this point would be to ask: historically, how did Palestinian society degrade from a peaceful group of refugees into the public worship of terrorism as a legitimate form of resistance. Individuals forsook morality and chose evil. History tells us it was not a societal decision to become terrorists in creed. It was the growth of distinct bunches of individuals, not in any single neighborhood or town, but multifarious seedlings of terror worship popping up here and there.

I blame the misappropriation of American and Israeli Tax dollars by the Palestinian Authority, in the administration of the broadcast of pro-terrorist, society perverting television programming, as the fuel to the fire that created the terrorist loving predicament that exists in Palestinian Arabic society today. But it was only a fuel that was ignited by countless tiny individual flames, due to a mass loss of self responsibility by countless individual Palestinian Arabs. It was not a thousand families grouping together to become one massive terrorist network, rather it was one thousand families with one thousand individual black sheep who veered off the path of those who seek to uphold truth and life. And it was the one thousand families whose failure to deliver sufficient consequences to the chaotic lovers of terror in their midst. And only then was it a societal breakdown by leaders who not only did not condemn the evil of individual terrorists, but both clergyman and politician actually encouraged individuals to die the “death of the brave.”

Thus we have it that the foundation of healing a society is INDIVIDUALISTIC MORAL ACCOUNTANCY.

Individualistic Moral Accountancy is also the antithesis of Two State Solution advocacy, which claims that an ill society must be nurtured in order for its families and individuals to desire to behave morally. Therefore we can say that Two State Solution advocates are pushing a fallacious belief and are attempting to label it as our only hope. The time for such small thought has passed. The actual best hope for peace is for lovers of peace everywhere to mobilize and to publicly forsake such erroneous thought from now on and for all time. Let them declare that the age of Individualistic Moral Accountancy has arrived.

Healing Societies: The Ideological Foundation of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan

To what can my support of the Rabbi Elon Israeli Initiative Peace Plan be compared to? Like two women who were told that the infant on the table before them is the long lost child of one of them, only it is not certain which one is the true mother. Surely if the baby were at risk of falling off the table, no matter which mother could reach the child before it were harmed, surely then both mothers would rejoice at the success of the other woman, for success means the infant’s safety.

In this parable, Rabbi Elon’s peace plan is the woman who is closer to the table. His plan is more developmentally mature in it current stage of progression than mine is at this point in time, hence, it demands even my support. So, egos or jealousy have no place in this matter. Of course, if Rabbi Elon’s plan could, in actuality, not just theoretically, bring lifesaving peace, then of course I would and do fully support it, and certainly at the expense of any possible accolades towards me or the plan that God inspired me to form, so that the Lord-God’s Reverence for Life could best be honored.

Stages of Peace Plan Development

1. Conception
2. Publicity
3. Acceptance
4. Implementation

On the above chart, Rabbi Elon’s plan is bordering on stage number 3; while mine is less developmentally mature at this point, currently somewhere between 1 and 2.

But what if in that above parable with the infant, the woman who was closer to the endangered infant had bags in her hands, so that she must either drop the bags or else the other woman must push past her and grab the child before it is too late. The Kahane-esque underpinnings of the Israel Initiative are its conceptual weakness, its baggage. If my belief is true, that the Everyone Wins peace plan is a more conceptually mature plan than the Israeli Initiative is, and therefore has a greater long term chance for success, then certainly my plan would then demand priority of support, even by Rabbi Binyamin Elon himself, to edit the Israeli Initiative according to the guidelines that God blessed me to write about.

Until now there were two mainstream ways of looking at prospective peace in the Holy Land.

1) Two States West of the Jordan River formula peace plans such as the current Roadmap to Peace and the repeatedly failed Oslo Accords assume that the West Bank and Gaza are completely different from the “Green Line” territories of Israel. These plans ignore the rights of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. This ignores Biblical texts, thousands of years of history, current societal realities, and the settlement policies of the past 40 years.

2) The Rabbi Meir Kahane peace plan essentially assumes that all Arabs on the other side of the Green Line are squatters who have no rights to any of the land that they possess, in the spirit of the Bible’s treatment of those evil nations who dwelt in the Land of Canaan before the Hebrews came to possess the land. Still, rather than battle the Palestinians, Rabbi Kahane proposed paying the Palestinians to relocate. More out of a sense of magnanimity at the face of Palestinian discomfort than as a recognition of Palestinian rights to their land. This has been rejected by Israeli society from being considered a viable policy.

But the more that is invested into hopeless two state options, and the more blood that is shed, the more likely public opinion would return to this concept as an option. Though, I would suggest not waiting and instead embarking on a new course, so that the bloodshed on both sides may cease all the sooner. Also while less offensive to Primal International Laws of self defense than the Roadmap to Peace, Kahane's plan is still not as law abiding overall as the Everyone Wins peace plan. Now I do not mean to suggest that the United States entered into a foreign policy directly opposed to International Law. But the current Roadmap to Peace blueprint naively called for trusting leopards to change their spots, terrorists to reform into law abiding leaders. This created even from the onset that a probability would exist that the law would be ignored by the Palestinian Arab leadership that could not care less for objective International Norms that do not directly benefit them. Placing adherence to Jus Cogens/Fundamental International Law completely into the hands of terrorists is foolhardy. It is based upon the fallacious legal notion of placing lesser customary law in priority above higher primal law, for the sake of political expediency.

To be kind to those who earnestly labored for peace via the false peace plans, before now there were only Two State Solutions and Kahane based One State Solutions. Now, in Everyone Wins, a true third way exists.

The Everyone Wins peace plan assumes that the concern over the political demarcation known as the Green Line is the main problem. Why? Because, while the venue of the solution is political, that much is true, the cause of the problem is not political, but rather societal in nature. One society being understandably somewhat obsessed with demographic concerns and the other society overwhelmed by an undercurrent of terror. Therefore discussing political lines in the sand rather than methods of healing societal rifts is, in fact, a main reason that Kahane-esque peace plans do not escape my criticism of having begun in an adverse manner.

By attempting to sever this people or that from their homes, neighborhoods, and societal foundations, mass discontent is raised and true peace cannot gain a foothold. Everyone Wins views all the land as one, and all the people as one democratic entity. Only terrorists are considered a foreign body that must be excised because society itself cannot bear them. Therefore we can say that the solution to peace in the Holy Land has been so very elusive not because many good intentioned people did not seek a fair answer, but merely because they were asking the wrong question. The question of ‘how do you stop the conflict’ is well meaning but too general to guide one to a direct path to peace. The correct question is, ‘what method will heal Israeli and Palestinian Arabic societies the best?’

By using antiquated theoretical models, upon which all Two State Solutions are based, good people have been running away from true peace. But the good news is, once we all start on the right path and in the right direction together, things are going to get very, very good, very soon. So may it be God’s will.

The Upcoming War With Iran

In the past few days, several stories seemed to conflict on whether a war with Iran is imminent. Over the weekend (July 12) the Jerusalem Post reported that Iran said that: "Iran would "destroy" Israel as well as 32 US army bases in the region" if any nation attacked it." On Sunday (July 13) the UK Times reported that President Bush would support an Israeli attack on Iran if Israel proposes an effective plan that President Bush likes. Yesterday, (July 15) JTA reported that Israel Defense Minister "Barak will likely reschedule his U.S. visit for early August".

Now clearly Israel and the USA both feel that Iran with the current regime in charge is a seriously clear and present danger, worthy of a preemptive use of military force. And the preferred window for warfare in the Middle East is generally in the Spring and Fall. So unlike other predictions of an Israeli strike only after the American elections, and no later than the holiday of Chanukah (that is, sometime between mid-November and the last week in December of this year) to me it would seem more likely for an attack even sooner.

If so, then why would they (Israel and America) delay discussion of war plans until next month? Certainly it does not take a military machine such as Israel weeks to come up with a suitable plan of attack. Also, the USA could have sent Israel weaponry years ago, as soon as both countries came to the same impression of the Iranian threat. So it is unlikely that this delay is about arming Israel in preparation for their attack on Iran. Rather, the Israeli delay would seem more likely to be an effort to allow American forces in the Persian Gulf time to create new defenses and to strengthen existing bunkers so that they would suffer minimal casualties from an Iranian missile attack.

Assuming that all of this is, at the very least, plausible, this would then lead one to assume that the Bush Administration sees the upcoming war as a scenario such as this:

1. Israel destroys a handful of Iranian nuclear research sites.
2. Iran strikes US armed forces in Iraq and other places in the Persian Gulf.
3. The USA is drawn into a war with Iran.

It would seem to me that this would be a politically astute move for an unpopular President. He would be "forced" to defend our troops from certain destruction if Iran would be allowed to fire missile after guided missile indiscriminately. But such a move would also be a more risky plan for American troops. If Israel is the one to strike Iran, then the Iranian Missile Silos would be more likely to survive and thus remain able to strike at our boys overseas. Most American soldiers in the Persian Gulf would be in harms way. But if America strikes Iran first, the Iranian Missile Silos would be destroyed first, and the vast majority of our boys (and girls) would be spared the risk of death.

It was reported yesterday (JTA) that America's "Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton said the United States should assist Israel in any strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. ‘We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is compelling logic to make it as successful as possible,’ wrote Bolton"

It may be the less popular move in today's political climate, but for our Commander In Chief, it would be the right move, the best move possible in the predicament that we find ourselves in.

Iran has essentially said that under any likely scenario, Iran will attack American forces in the Persian Gulf. That is an implicit declaration of war. American interests would be best served if we treated it as such.

We've lost too many of our troops already to take a policy of literally hiding our heads in the sand as our first line of defense and as a pseudo best option in the upcoming war with Iran.

MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon is Now Aware of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan

It started a couple of weeks ago when I mentioned to Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel that the next time Rabbi Elon comes to town he should please let me know. Rabbi Lerner asked why. I said that I wished to discuss and compare peace plans with him. Rabbi Lerner then volunteered to personally deliver a letter to Rabbi Elon for me. This past Sunday, 3rd day of the Hebrew month of Tamuz, I was asked by Rabbi Elon's Webmaster if they could publish my "interesting and helpful letter" on their website. A brief excerpt of the seven page missive can be found on their website at this link.

To me, it's not about accolades. If Rabbi Elon's peace plan can prevent future conflict, then we should rejoice that peace has arrived the moment it is accepted. But with the stakes so high, I took the pessimistic side and developed my variation of his peace plan to serve as a backup option for politicians like MK Elon to use rather than allow a return to extreme two state burdensome conceptions in the guise of peace plans from taking over the agenda as they have in the past.

"They tried to heal the breakage of the daughter of my people in a light mannered way, saying 'Peace, Peace', but there was no peace. ...We hoped for peace, but to no good avail; for a time of healing, but behold: TERROR!" (Jeremiah 8.11 & 15)

In fact, as it would save more lives if his plan is accepted right away, I hope and pray that he is successful. To my students and fans I ask that you please do not applaud for my honor more than you cheer for the cause of peace. It is enough for my efforts that God has already given me the immense satisfaction of having helped make a safety net of sorts to Rabbi Elon's great work. But if a more liberalized version of Rabbi Elon's plan is needed in order for a One State Solution to be a viable political option, then it is vital that a plan such as Everyone Wins be developed to perfection BEFORE it is needed. I welcome any fellow political scientists or publishers who feel the same way to contact me. What can you do? Spread the word, so we can prepare the path for peace together!

"And say 'Prepare the path, prepare the path! Clear the road! Remove the stumbling block from the path of My people.'" (Isaiah 57.14)

How to Deal with International Hostage Crises

I would have thought with former war hero Ehud Barak on board as Defense Minister, the Olmert Administration would have become a bit wiser when dealing with hostage crises. Unfortunately the recent "live murders for deceased hostages" idea must rank as one of the most foolish foreign policy ideas that I have ever heard. While the hallowed remains of fallen soldiers should always be sought out, the safety of the living must take top priority.


How should one deal with an international hostage drama? Never placate. Then should one command an immediate assault as soon as a hostage is taken? I suggest that the best first response is to not flinch. If it looks like you will rush to placate or to battle each time there is a hostage taken, then whenever the other side wants you to do something, it knows which button to press to get the desired results out of you. Rather there should be an understanding that there is likely to be a heavy price to pay in the near future for anyone who takes a hostage and does not repent before Israel acts to recover it's missing citizen(s). The first stage, when possible, should be a small task force assault to try to get the hostage out alive with as little collateral damage as possible. If the first stage fails, there must be an eventual military battle against the offending neighborhood, without primal concern for the safety of the hostage, because at this stage of the dilemma, national security must take priority over individual safety.


The terrorist kidnappers try to collectively hold the entire country hostage. This must never be allowed. If everyone knew that the entire neighborhood that the terrorists were hiding in would be at risk of being leveled, codependents to terroristic kidnappings would be few and far between.


The families of Israel should not be made to regret that their children died for such a foolish government. Rather it is the enemies of Israel who must be made to rue the day that they ever thought about kidnapping her citizens if she is to be protected from the risk of such evil ever reoccurring again. God protect us all.