Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Pollard Must Be Released Immediately

The deteriorating health of Jonathan Pollard creates a crisis of conscience for the Obama Administration. Without freedom, Jonathan Pollard's very life may be at stake.  If, God forbid, he were to die in federal prison in such a case of an exaggerated sentence, without clear due process, then the administration under whose watch such a tragedy occurred would go down in infamy as the consummate force behind turning a sad tale into an historic Dreyfus Affair, American style.

US Congressman Barney Frank urged President Barack Obama on Wednesday to commute the sentence of Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard to the 25 years of his life sentence that he has served, to help Israel move forward in the peace process.

Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, initiated a letter two months ago in which dozens of congressmen expressed support for clemency for Pollard. In the letter, he wrote that freeing Pollard would create goodwill among Israelis that could be helpful when the people of Israel make difficult decisions on the peace process. (

The sum and substance is that Netanyahu's upcoming formal request is but a formality.  Pollard should already be free in the minds of many people.  President Obama should free Pollard today, if he really wants to curry Goodwill from Israel.

“If such a request were formally made, there’s obviously a legal process that would be undertaken to evaluate it,”
US State Department spokesman Philip J.
Crowley said. The US understands “this is an important issue” in Israel, he said.

What exactly does the Obama Administration understand about this matter? Do they realize that we are at a different point in the history of the Pollard incarceration than that which any Presidency has faced? In a case where many US prosecutors and judges have viewed the sentence as excessive, a man's life is at stake and everyone knows, it does not have to be if President Obama does not want it to be.  With such power comes authority and with authority, responsibility, i.e., the potential to take the blame.

Pollard is becoming more than just an Israeli issue.  Humanitarian concerns are making this an American issue as well.  If Netanyahu's official request were to be turned down
, God forbid, it would have a devastating effect on Goodwill toward the Obama Administration, and not just in Israel.

From what I've learned of the case, Jonathan Pollard probably deserves a complete pardon. A restoration of his honor, in consideration of the long overdue end to his imprisonment. From what I know about politics, anything less than a commutation would certainly go down as a mark against the Obama legacy.

Friday, November 26, 2010

The Jerusalem-Golan Bill

It is commendable to defend the welfare of Jerusalem and the Golan.

It is deplorable to fail to do the same for Judea and Samaria.

By setting the standard of defending Israel's rights to it's historic homeland selectively, the current Knesset brands itself hypocritical but with good intentions.  Mr. Prime Minister, why go merely half way? Your "Jerusalem is not a settlement" statement is true. But then neither is Hebron and the rest of Judea and Samaria a "settlement" either. The Jerusalem-Golan Bill represents only a beginning of the correct path to take in your foreign policy structure.

The Jerusalem-Golan Bill would be a good safety measure in case a left wing party ever gained control of the Knesset again, Heaven fore-fend.  It does little, however, to protect Israel from it's current government's policies taking a turn for the worse. It is historic in the sense that it helps to protect things from getting worse than today.  But today the Temple is in ruins, most of Israel's heartlands are being called settlements by it's own government, and nations still plot against Jerusalem.

Yet perhaps there is hope:

"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu responded (yesterday) to the Palestinian Authority's denial of the link between Jewish people and the Western Wall, saying the denial is "reprehensible and scandalous," according to a statement released by the PM's media adviser." (

By not defending Israel's history and rights to Biblical and current Jewish hometowns such as Beth El and Hebron, a foot in the door appears for the enemies of Jerusalem.

Why the attempt to cut off your nose? Why spite your face? Why not put your enemies on the defensive?  If you sit passively, while there are criminals to be arrested in Gaza and Ramallah, then at the very least can you not be a bit more aggressive at the negotiation table?

In a November 10th CNN interview, Israeli Ambassador to the USA, Michael Oren said:
"We' don't say to the Palestinians that you have to prove things ( for peace), We don't say Hamas is ruling half your people, get your house in order first before you sit down to negotiate. We don't say stop naming town squares after terrorists. ...praising the terrorist who killed a Knesset Member in cold blood, praising him as a great martyr. We don't say stop all of that or we won't talk to you. We say sit down, negotiate, everything is on the table, come and talk to us."

To that I ask, why the heck not say those things to them?!

It is the way of the world to take a shower with both feet in the tub.  It is the way of the current Israeli government to bathe only half the body, just in case the other half must get dirty again soon.

Perhaps it is time to learn from the clean part of your body, and complete the task you have only begun, by the grace of God.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

On the Bibi Report Tomorrow

By the grace of God, I'm scheduled to be a panelist on the Bibi Report tomorrow night (November 1st) on Blog Talk Radio.  The Live show begins at 10 PM ET, and I'm scheduled to join the panel at about 15 after the hour. This will be my 4th appearance on the show, if God wills it so.

It's a pre-election edition of the Bibi Report and my position on the show will likely be based at least in part on my October 27th post to this blog.

By the way, in case you never looked for us on Facebook, we have hundreds of members on our discussion group which has been around for a couple years, and also this year we added a Facebook Fan Page as well.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Writing a Political Epitaph: Democrats and the November 2010 Elections

If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress wish to prove that they are just as pro Israel as the Republicans, it will be proven not from now until November 2nd, but beginning on November 3rd, when the elections are over, at that time the President can prove he is Israel's friend, if he wants to.  If Obama pulls out the racist "No Jewish building in Jerusalem" card again after the elections, then that will speak volumes as to whether his administration is a "friend" to Israel or not. Until the elections, however, concerns of pre-election posturing makes an evaluation of intentions difficult.

Historically in American Congressional elections in years that the President is not running for re-election, the vote normally goes against the sitting President.  Odds are that Republicans have a better chance to win than Democrats in this coming election.  This election is not a mandate on Obama Administration policy on Israel; there are just too many issues at play to say so. Economy, health care, borders, oil spills that dwarf Katrina, and even "don't ask, but please feel free to tell."

Does America confront Iran for Israel or for its own needs? If Israel's needs were the motivating factor in that matter, then there would have been regime change in Tehran under President Bush, or the first year and a half of Obama. Therefore trading objectivity in the peace process with the Palestinian Arabs for greater support against Iran is an invalid proof of being pro Israel, as it is not for Israel's sake that America is either heeding Israel's advice regarding Iran or remaining aloof.

Military sales to the Middle East are no longer following a pure Israel foremost policy. Saudi Arabia and other countries of variable loyalty are being considered options by this Administration to proliferate advanced weapons to. This is perhaps a byproduct of the Administration's Iran containment first-before considering regime change policy.  Whether or not that is true, it does nothing to prove friendship to Israel.

That means that the only criterion remaining by which to tell whether or not Obama is a friend to Israel is in the conflict between the belligerent Arabs and democratic Israel.  The only ethical answer is in not ignoring the facts in the guise of pseudo objectivity, as President Carter had to in order to pursue his courtship with Hamas. You first must declare objective truths, then check to make sure that your policy follows it.

Is terrorism illegal or legitimate? Illegal? Then don't adulate to Hamas.

Is racism bad or legitimate? Bad? Then either say that Jews can build just like Arabs do, which I would agree with, or else nobody should build at all, which of course the PA would object to.

To be pro Israel, you merely have to be ethical and moral in your pursuit of peace. Then you'll be rewarded by being held in regard as if you actually cared about Israel.

To prove it, though, you may have to eventually apologize for past hypocritical and racist policies such as no Jewish building in Jerusalem. But that's an article for another day.

Friday, September 3, 2010

A Dangerous Gambit or True Peace?

IF the continued pursuit of a two state solution by our leaders is but an attempt to expose the partner in peace that is not there, then it is only an extremely dangerous gambit. I am concerned, however, that it could be worse than that, a foreign faith that the terrorist leaders of the PA are leopards who will change their spots.  Consider the climate in the past week...

  • Four Israelis were gunned down, one of them a pregnant woman; seven orphans were made. Hamas held a parade to a cheering crowd. Fatah chief Abbas objected to the interference to his "strategy of peace" by Hamas, not sorrow at the bloodshed. While PM Netanyahu announces that the bloodshed will not deter his path, and the next day, in an apparent effort to encourage Western leaders, Bibi promised to meet with Abbas every two weeks. I feel, however, that the formation of a biweekly social club between Netanyahu and Abbas and occasional guest star Obama, is not a peace process.

  • The great Rabbi Ovadia Yosef cursed Abbas and his terrorist cohorts. The State Department labeled that incitement, even though Rabbi Yosef was speaking to God, not encouraging zealots to take action. During the Clinton Administration, Rabbi Yosef united many religious Israelis behind the Clinton sponsored Oslo Accords and was proclaimed a man of peace. Is this how the Clinton State Department returns the favor? ...Is free speech only for those who support our current policy...? Why would a moderate speak this way of Abbas? Maybe there could be a legitimate reason for his angst? Consider the context of PA sponsored violence... As long as the West will encourage a policy of tolerance toward Israel's enemies, perhaps cursing is not the worst option to vent frustration rather than incite it literally, which the Rabbi did not do.

  • It was brought up again that Oslo Architect Yossi Beilin had no plan of final resolution. The Road Map for Peace, which is based on Oslo 2, which is based on Oslo 1 which Beilin concocted without a reasonably obtainable goal in sight, is not much more than hot air and mirrors. A two state solution in this conflict is not a solution that can bring peace.

  • A recent Poll of Palestinian Arabs had a sobering 78 percent supporting a "greater Palestine" with no state of Israel. A near exact reversal of the numbers reported by AP and friends. How is this poll data being collected and by whom? The bottom line is, there is an indication that the AP data was exaggerated and that the longer that the unobtainable two state solution is brandished as the only alternative to violence, the greater the amount of Palestinians who are at risk of becoming proponents of terror.  

The continued path towards the two state precipice is endangering the nation, inciting despair based radicalism in the Palestinian street, repeating the mistakes of history, marginalizing the heroes of yesterday and once again blood soaked the Holy Land this week. Not one sign of the path to true peace.

To use a parable, we see in troubled relationships that if there is zero hope of real change, people generally do not waste time setting up marriage counseling sessions on a biweekly basis. Either they give up hope of an ideal marriage, taking on an attitude of tolerance toward their mate, quit fighting and focus on the other aspects of life, or if they view the marriage as deeply troubled, they quit the relationship entirely.

Fatah refuses to forsake Hamas, which has sworn jihad against the State of Israel, and even if Fatah suggests that it will sever ties with Hamas, it's loyalties to Hamas run too deeply for anything other than a temporary separation from them and their jihad. Long enough to please some politicians, perhaps, but not long enough for true and enduring peace. Can any nation tolerate repeated violence against its citizenry by another nation and call that peace? So what are our leaders doing, and at whose expense?

Western leaders are happy once again that Israel is on the road toward "peace". But it's not the road to true peace. True peace means a reduction to the risk of war in the long term, not amplification of the risk of war. If all these years of negotiations are revealed to be nothing more than a cynical ploy by Fatah, what do you think will happen?

By allowing itself to be beguiled by the Fatah act, the West is setting itself up for feelings of outrage at the subsequent betrayal by Fatah of the Western values it only pretended to hold. Israel will be justified to annihilate their enemies. But is that the way of peace?

The true path to peace is not a "three strikes and you're out (via all-out warfare)" attitude (which the PA mindset allows them to tolerate). Negotiation partners must care more about the lives of their own citizens than achieving jihadist victory by other means for such a tactic to have a meaningful chance of success.

The true path to peace is through establishing at the onset of the peace process that there will be zero tolerance shown to criminals in diplomatic clothing to negotiate on behalf of the people that they themselves oppress far worse than any slander they say about you.

You cannot establish rules with people whom you know will not follow them.  So please be careful of the path that you choose.

May God soon help the world to achieve true peace.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Means and Ends in Middle East Peacemaking

By exploring the negatives of potential kinds of peacemaking we can find that elusive path to true peacemaking.

A two state solution would rob non-Muslims of their freedom of religion in PA controlled areas. The intended end and the actual end do not meet. The two state solution believes in this methodology:

  • Negotiated settlement. (for that warm and tingly feeling at the “appearance” of liberalism in action)
  • Whatever rights that are lost via negotiated settlement (such as religious freedom for Jews and the hope of non despotic leaders for Arabs) are not worth more than “Peace”, and are considered necessary sacrifices for peace.
  • A sovereign PA state may do whatever it likes within its own border, so once completed, a two state solution would silence the critics (free speech and free protest against loss of religious freedom, for example, would be endangered and see Gaza for a three dimensional example of this. Hamas has not even waited for official statehood to abuse its citizenry, are thus technically at risk of international tribunals for their oppression of their own people, and still can't stop themselves from being abusive of fundamental democratic and human rights and freedoms).

A one state solution such as Everyone Wins would unilaterally allocate the security rights of all in the territories to the Israel Defense Forces.

  • Imposed settlement. (oooh, could look bad to the international press)
  • Preservation of democratic rights for all citizens.
  • Annexed Arabic population are granted legitimate political voice and voting options.

While a negotiated settlement would seem to create new terms to solidify any peace under international law, in theory, in practice, however, injustice and contention would immediately be seared into the fabric of a PA state's political foundation from day one. Whereas an “imposed” settlement of a one state solution would bring about a boon to democratic freedoms to all who live in the territories, of all races, for the foreseeable future.

Failure to think deeply on this matter before rushing in is the cause of all the danger that exists. May all such danger come to an end soon, by the grace of God.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Demographics and a One State Solution

Moshe Arens, former Defense and Foreign Minister of Israel and a mentor of PM Netanyahu and long time Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin have come out in support of annexation of Judea and Samaria and the Arabic population there ( On the surface that would appear to be closer to my Everyone Wins Peace Plan than most other one state solutions out there. There are some differences present, however, I must admit that this is an encouraging sign that politicians and not just political theorists are considering these possibilities as a preferred mode of path towards enduring peace.

Moshe Arens discussed absorbing the entire 1.5 million Palestinian populace in the West Bank, while my plan calls for weeding out terrorists from  the benevolent people before you allow them to join the State of Israel.

Rivlin discussed a sub state comprised possibly of a bicameral yet segregated legislature.  Everyone Wins does not discriminate based on race but on lifestyle choice (whether the naturalization applicant is pro terror or pro democracy).

By contrast, the Everyone Wins evaluation system is somewhat merit based, though perhaps it is more actuarial than that, as it is based on a prospective immigrant's  "Ready To Naturalize" rating. Just as a fair system exists to structure insurance rates and credit ratings, so too this bureaucratic methodology and mathematical science can succeed to establish a fair and safe naturalization rating system. Those least likely to become terrorists are those most likely to become Israeli citizens first.

One advantage of this system is it actually creates an individualized incentive to not pursue a path of terror. This can help break down the terror malady at the societal level as well as aid in the formation of a natural incentive for families. Palestinian families that are currently divided philosophically will be empowered to encourage black sheep to join in becoming builders, not destroyers, of society, so as to not get left behind while all their family and friends gain improved employment and other opportunities. The end result is a systemic reward for those who believe in clean living, and a built in consequence for those who cling to hatred and terror.

I would also advise to call for a reversal of the Gaza giveaway policy. If you asked me 25 years ago, I may have supported giving away Gaza for a trade of claims to the West Bank, due to the love of peace and desire to avoid war. Though without the mismanagement that made homeless refugees from Gush Katif.  First you build new homes, then you transfer population to those homes.  After all, there was no history of violent ingratitude back then by the Palestinian Arabs toward their benefactors, the State of Israel. Merely a rogue organization called the PLO, which of course Israel would never be so suicidal as to allow the PLO to become the leadership of a new Arab State within the borders of Israel. Further you had a certain level of leading rabbinical support for giving up the Gaza Strip at that time, so nobody could declare it a divisive ungodly act of sacrilege to do so, even if less than optimum from a religious perspective.

Yet, the only chance to give Gaza away left when the entire political leadership of the Palestinian Authority became cheerleaders of bloodshed and sometimes orchestrators and sometimes pawns of terrorists and then the electorate unwisely reelected them and the PLO chairman with them, rather than third way candidates. There has been no peace and there has been 17 years of conflict, violence and the threat of violence even during momentary times of calm.

As there was never a Palestinian State in history, and as there is now a safe and humane way to join them to a democracy in a respectful manner, there is no moral justification to even potentially endanger the nation by giving away any territory whatsoever.

Annex the entire Judea and Samaria. Annex Gaza as well. Invite all the Palestinian Arabs who wish to join, to do so. But use a filter and get rid of the terrorists that give them a bad name and do so in a gradual manner, so as to not risk electoral demographic issues, such as using a ratio based linkage of the immigration rates of foreign born Jews with the naturalization rate of West Bank and Gaza Arabs.

Such a one state solution eliminates fears and causes for concern.

Pursuing a one state solution then becomes an optimum method to resolve the Middle East conflict and allow true peace to blossom, by the grace of God.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

A Two State Solution Is Insane

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu were previously faulted by me with regard to their continuing to follow a two state solution when it is clear to everyone who is not a politician and cares about the security of the State of Israel, that partnering with a pro-terrorist Palestinian Authority cannot possibly bring peace. And their recent interview together, with continued support for a two state solution that can only bring more misery to everybody involved, vexed me greatly.

At a time like this, when the Iranian reactor is preparing to fire up in September, I would prefer our leaders concentrated on Iran, but it is they who brought up their continued support of a two state solution to peace in the Middle East, and so I will address this now. Some of you who read this may not fully appreciate what I am writing about until the crisis with Iran is over and then politicians will have no distraction from a desire to end the conflict as soon as possible so that global commerce can improve with a Middle East that works together. By not stopping to analyze the effectiveness or rather the complete inadequacy of the two state solution, even the most sincere of world leaders are preparing to run headlong into a new crisis of their own making. While the PM suggested a year before implementation and the FM suggested more than two years, they will finalize their path to peace sooner than that.

Even the supposedly more "Right Wing" Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is continuing to support a two state solution, his talk of increased land and population exchanges for the sake of enhanced security not withstanding. Not only does his plan continue the two state terror ride, it adds the possibility of a further element of making even more people lose their homes, than Netanyahu's plan, even if they get to stay in the same land. Spreading out segregated areas does not end segregation.

I can scarcely believe that even FM Lieberman is suggesting chopping up the West Bank and handing half of it to the unrepentant PA. Like selecting the only passenger in a bus who is drunk and then handing him the keys to the bus, then telling him, "if you get into an accident, be sure to harm only yourself."

FM Lieberman began an address several weeks ago with a quote from Albert Einstein,

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,"

Then what would you call continued pursuit of a two state solution? "Can a man walk on fiery coals and his feet not be burnt?" (Proverbs 6:28)

PM Ariel Sharon put up the security wall between the Green Line territories and the West Bank to stop a constant onslaught of violence.  If you believe you can trust the PA, I'll make you a deal. Tear down that fence and wait one year.  If no violence, then you can say that perhaps there can be a partner for negotiation in the PA. But you won't take down the fence, will you? At least you won't under the current circumstances if you are not insane.

You know that the many terror cells that Abbas has not cracked down on, but the very opposite,  the terrorists that he has openly praised, are perpetually chomping at the bit waiting for an easier opportunity to strike at and kill innocent civilians, God forbid.

Your dreams are haunted by images of the terrorists pacing to and fro beyond the wall, like starved wolves that have caught the scent of blood; beyond the wall that the nations of the world criticized, the same wall that allows you to continue the precarious facade of pseudo peace negotiations with a pseudo partner in peace.

Within that wall, your citizens, assuming no two state solution,  are now out of the terrorists' reach for the most part.  The only thing that can now endanger your people from the West Bank terror cells is your policy of supporting a two state solution. Supporting the increased capacity to smuggle in arms beyond the ability that any qualified security measures can prevent.

Mr. Netanyahu, this wall that Sharon built has you feeling overly secure in pursing a path that your people cannot endure. That which was meant to preserve life has become an excuse to risk life.

Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this wall.

Although, I would first advise you to get rid of the PA and weed out the terrorists from among the innocent Palestinian Arab citizenry. Only then can any solution work.  But at that point, there is no reason for a two state solution, which would weaken efforts to protect Israelis from the next generation of potential terrorists who may arise.

The only viable long term solution from the aspect of security, is to have absolute free access for the IDF in the land that Israel must police. Even increasing the Palestinian population of the State of Israel, in a demographically safe way, would not be cause for concern, if the current government of Israel would wisely forsake the current path of trying to handcuff the IDF by planning to surrender land to an enemy.

I would suggest to rather pursue the only viable non violent method of the enemy's absolute defeat; the absorption of the benevolent sectors of the Arab population in the West Bank and Gaza and the annexation of the land. Let the Palestinian Arabs thereby be a source of strength for the State of Israel. Assimilation rather than perpetual contention.

Implementing a two state solution would not guarantee security except perhaps to create excuses to battle with increased international approval.  The problem is, the transfer of territory is not the source of the strife, the PA worship of terror is.  To create two states in such a climate is not peace, but it's mockery. It is a crime against the way of the God of Israel, Who commanded us to "Remove the evil in your midst" (which is stated repeatedly in Deuteronomy, such as in 13:6, 17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 24:27)  and "turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it." (Psalm 34:15)

But we must seek true pragmatic peace, not merely it's left wing interpretation. "My child, do not forget My Torah, and My commandments let your heart guard; for length of days and years of life and peace they add to you." (Proverbs 3:1-2)

Remove terror, do not reward it! End the segregation. Unify all peoples West of the River Jordan under the Israeli flag. Tear down the wall after removing the terrorists from the Holy Land that recently has known little but the torturous scars of rockets and walls and blood.

Then true peace can have a chance to flourish, by the grace of God.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The PA's Lawlessness Is The Bane of Their People

One must aim for a moral ideal, to reach a pragmatic and lasting peace.

There is a difference between the moral responsibility of the individual and collective moral responsibility.

Individuals need to be willing to take personal responsibility to keep to societal norms.  Laws depend not only on societal based standards, but also upon the moral agency of individuals to exhibit a willingness to follow the law and not scoff at the law.

Collective moral responsibility demands that we pursue peace at the societal level.

To have a partner in peace you must have a co-practitioner of moral agency.  That is, your partners in peace must have a sense of objective morals or no peace is possible. The PA's "These are the rules: I get to win!" leaves little room for negotiation or hope that any peace deal would last long enough to even celebrate it. Like giving a schoolyard bully a loaded sub machine gun, no good can come of it. So too, efforts to pursue peace with unrepentant terrorists is in itself an abandonment of collective moral responsibility.

The suffering of a people and the perceived discontent of a people create a heavy burden to society's collective sense of moral responsibility.  The pain at not helping the underdog makes one willing to make extraordinary sacrifices for peace.  Yet to do that in a way that fuels terror, not only fails to meet that objective, it actually prevents true peace from planting roots and enduring.

Contrary to the myth, a discontented people is not the breeding ground for terror. The side that the terrorists are rebelling against are not automatically the aggressors. An individual terrorist is but the conveyor of terror, but a morally and ethically corrupt society is its factory. In this sense, the moral vacuum within the terror cell creates the burden upon their own society, forcing reprisals against the entirety of their people, that they may bear the price for the worship of terror by those citizens, now terrorists, in the terror cell.  The group think of the terror cell corrupts utterly, all involved, all the way down to each terrorist at the individual level. Consequently, the leader of the terror cell is not the main evil, but each terrorist member of the cell is a corrupting force on the national moral fiber.

That means that when we feel the pain of a terroristic society, the phenomenon is not mere reaction to propaganda. We are experiencing a mass sensation of the real symptom, but not the true cause, of the discontent.  The actual cause of the discontent is the lack of morals of individual terrorists and also at the group level within those isolated terror cells. The PA has made it their business to place this moral vacuum at the political level of their nation's leadership, who brazenly attempt to fuel more and more violence and discontent. The PA leaders are terrorists in diplomatic clothing.

Yet we perceive the entire society in utter chaos and hopelessness due to the "giant" who rules over the afflicted people, even as the "afflicted" Palestinian Arabs work in the State of Israel and return to their modern apartments, to shopping centers full of multifarious foods and goods to choose from.

Until the alcoholic realizes that his best friend is not alcohol, he has no hope for a cure. Until the Palestinian leadership seek civilization building over winning their every desire by hook or by crook, their people's hopes will forever be dashed.

The PA's lawlessness is the bane of their people.  Weed out the corruption and blood lust by removing the PA from office, and you give peace a chance to take hold in the Middle East, by the grace of God.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Greater Jerusalem Includes Judea and Samaria

Happy Yom Yerushalayim, Anniversary of the Reunification of Jerusalem back in 1967! Baruch HaShem/Praise The Lord!

I have written previously about how the sign of a well thought out peace plan was of one that took into account not only secular humanistic International Law, but also religious beliefs of how the future of the West Bank should look. That way you minimize potential religious extremism by already anticipating future hot spots and preemptively avoiding them entirely by meeting those concerns as a serious part of one's diplomatic efforts to seek optimum pragmatic resolutions to the issues at stake. This is the HOLY LAND we are talking about, and you can't just divide religion from politics and synagogue from state and expect to resolve anything.

I was thinking about that when I read the Prime Minister's potentially disturbing verbal dismissal of challengers in the internal Likud Party elections. In the context of a speech about Likud Party respect for the rule of law, PM Netanyahu was reported to say, “We are not a messianic and extremist movement, but rather a national and liberal one."

Bibi needs to recall that messianic beliefs run deep in Jewish and Christian faiths, and to equate them with lawlessness does not do anyone who loves peace any favors.

Perhaps the Prime Minister meant that differently than the way it sounded, but it was a careless remark, albeit in the heat of the moment of intense internal party politics.

Bibi and his supporters must remain vigilant that he must not continue down the path that such a verbal blunder implies, in order to avoid fueling those who would blame religion and the religious for all of the world’s problems rather than as a great source for objective standards of ethics and morals.

When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, he said, "No other people are as connected to their capital as the Jewish people are to Jerusalem."

What then is Jerusalem? Many nations would be happier if Israel accepted that Jerusalem is merely the Western half of the city, which didn't even exist in the days of the Bible. To many Israelis, Jerusalem includes the Old City. Yet to any Bible student, its borders go even further still. “Jerusalem, mountains surround it, as the Lord surrounds His people…” (Psalm 125) For two thousand years the liturgy of the Jewish wedding has spoken of the united “streets of Jerusalem” and “mountains of Judea”. The Tabernacle rested for hundreds of years from the time of Joshua until the time of Solomon in various Samarian cities including Shiloh and Beth El and then Solomon moved it permanently to the place his father David had discovered was Divinely selected as the permanent site for holiness to commune with this world; the Temple Mount at the Eastern edge of the City called Jerusalem.  From a religious standpoint, The Holy Land begins at Jerusalem and spreads outwards from there, the mountain of the Temple of the Lord shall be the head of mountains (not the only mountain) and exalted above hills (not cut off from them). (Isaiah, chapter2, verses 3 and 2)

God’s boundaries are far broader than secular municipal maps currently show.

Jerusalem is intrinsically linked to the territories surrounding it according to Biblical prophecy. That is a serious concern of many religious people. Even non extremists ones as well, believe it or not.

Greater Jerusalem includes Judea and Samaria. From the Tomb of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the Tombs of Joseph and Rachel, the heartlands of the Bible is Judea and Samaria.

It is not extremist to say that.

It's a plain fact that anyone who opens a Bible can discern.

The key is to meet that truth honestly and still find a path to peace.

If you need help with that, write me and I can offer some, by the grace of God.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Netanyahu's Path to Peace and Everyone Wins: A Comparison of Peace Plans

While PM Netanyahu’s edits to the Quartet sponsored Roadmap to Peace make it much safer than the purist interpretation of Olmert, it is still not an optimal guarantee against future conflict. It has failed to gain full support from the political right. Why?

Perhaps his Administration’s circumspect political demeanor in regards disclosure of the details of his plans has many people concerned. Anyone who cares about the rights of Jews to live in the land of their forefathers is understandably dissatisfied if you are elected to represent them and are seen as not emphatically defending their rights; especially on the heels of the trauma wrought to the national psyche by a previous administration who assaulted those rights. Therefore the existence of this concern is in and of itself something of a failure by the current administration, to meet the reasonably anticipated emotional turmoil of the electorate; a failure to address it and thereby give hope to alleviate it. Building in Jerusalem yet intending to legalize a terrorist state within Israeli territory just doesn't do enough to win over the political right.

A failure to communicate by an eloquent speaker is often times viewed as more that it is. Implicit oversights can be seen as rejections of alternatives, because since you speak so well on every other issue, the fact that on this one core issue you do not speak, “speaks” volumes. It is in this light that I bring this critique of the current administration’s peace plan to the fore.

At a time when some nations are speaking of supporting the Saudi plan, it is vital to know where we need to go to keep improving from past mistakes and not regress to failed policies of old.  For those of you who do not know of the Saudi-pseudo-peace-plan, it is either the worse peace plan ever devised or nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at war by other means.  OK, let's be as accurate as possible, it's BOTH.

Using the same 6 criteria for lasting peace that I used as qualities of evaluation in the popular original Middle East Peace Plan Comparison Chart, I will now analyze and compare the current Netanyahu variation of the Roadmap to Peace and the Everyone Wins Peace Plan. Afterward I will present an updated peace plan comparison chart at the end of this brief essay that shows the stats on those plans and the Saudi plan as well.

A word of caution when using this evaluation.  To come to an objective judgment while reading such a review of peace plans, especially when it is being done by someone such as myself who is likely biased to present his own variation in the most positive light, you must ignore how well I do or do not communicate this to you, but maintain a focus on the facts.  To simplify this, as you read ask yourself the following:  Are these 6 criteria truly the main features required of any true peace plan.  Then you must ask yourself is my perspective on each criterion accurate when used as the lens by which you evaluate each of the peace plans mentioned here? If that is so, then the conclusions of this evaluation must take hold in your mind and find its way into an expression of political action, be it via a letter to your party leadership (Israelis) or representative in congress (Americans), etc. Your letter to your political representative can turn a blog post into a serious concern of the constituency that the leadership must consider and address. People are suffering and are in danger so we must do something, we must ask ourselves how can we help them.

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 1: Strong Against Terror?

By guaranteeing full control of Jerusalem, Netanyahu’s plan is much better than Olmert’s. The long term security of Jerusalem’s population is vastly improved. Yet by creating zones of Arabic self rule in the territories, under the current climate, is invariably creating cities of refuge for terror, even if technically a right to invade at will against terror exists in a signed treaty as per the current Likud Party platform.

The Western sensibilities against segregationist activity would be exploited to perpetuate the anti Israel media onslaught every time Israel tried to defend itself under such a plan, and likely fuel continued outrage by supporters of the PLO world wide, who would feel like they lost if the Netanyahu plan was initiated, and that would likely encourage the Palestinians to try to prove that they did not.

Criterion met? Questionable.

The best resolution to this is if there are no alternate zones, but a single democratic nation of Jews, Arabs, Bedouins, Druze and the like, just as those beyond the “Green Line” already enjoy. Anyone who would then speak of jihad would subsequently not be viewed by the foreign press as freedom fighters fighting oppression, but as alien interlopers who are trying to interfere with a good thing, the betterment of the unified State of Israel.

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 2: Enhances Arabic Civil Rights?

Unlike its policy towards Jews, Bedouins and Druze, the Roadmap as edited by Netanyahu, plans to give whole cities exclusively to Arabs and no other race. “Jewish Settlements” will not be allowed to be only for Jews, but will be expected to become more egalitarian once within the New Green Line. But Arabs, under the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap to Peace and current Obama and Netanyahu policy, have the right to be racists if they so choose. Regardless, getting cities of your own is always a good thing, so from the perspective of Arabs in the territories, the Netanyahu plan is essentially a good thing even though their leaders do not want it.

Criterion met? YES.

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 3: Secures Non-Arabic Civil Rights?

The Roadmap as edited by Netanyahu plans to give whole cities to Arabs, unlike its policy towards Jews, Bedouins and Druze… Perhaps not fair, but neither is this a certain uprooting of civil rights for those who don’t currently live in those Arab cities. Long term, however, the other races should be allowed to move into Arab cities if they want to, but that is not a pressing debate in the short term.

Criterion met? Questionable.

Netanyahu, the former Finance Minister, is apparently viewing the problem in economic terms. There must be a winner and loser. It is as if he is suggesting “Let the Arabs win here so we get security.” …Whereas I say let Everyone Win…

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 4: Does Not Threaten Israeli Infrastructure?

It may not, or it may. By creating zones that are outside of IDF jurisdiction except under hot pursuit, you are creating a framework that will inhibit intelligence gathering and reasonably could lead to severe danger to Israeli Infrastructure. However by not moving major populations such as Ariel’s Jews or Hebron’s Arabs, the Netanyahu Roadmap avoids a major economic crash that would have followed a purist interpretation of the Roadmap to Peace.

Criterion met? Questionable.

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 5: RETAINS SOCIETAL INTEGRITY Everyone Keeps Their Homes Both Jews and Arabs?

Currently plans are to close small satellite settlements but none of the major ones or those near them. That means Jews are still to be made homeless under the edits by Netanyahu to the Roadmap, just not as many Jews. That is little solace, and a failure of this criterion’s test.

Criterion met? NO.

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 6: Enhances Interracial Equality and Harmony?

Creating cities that are void of Jews in the Land of Israel is not the ideal method to achieve this.

Criterion met? NO.

* * * * *

What then is the Long Term Chance of Success if Implemented? (see peace plan comparison chart - formatted to print best in landscape orientation)

Better than Olmert’s path? Certainly.  Better than the Saudi-pseudo-peace-plan? Without Question!

But in its current form, Netanyahu's current plan appears less than 50% probable that its viability will stand the test of time.

Long term viability for peace is most likely when societal healing occurs and as many causes of long term hatreds and outrages are minimized or eliminated to the best of our ability. That is what the Everyone Wins Peace Plan is founded upon.

By integrating the Everyone Wins Peace Plan into their platform for peace, the Administration can find an optimum avenue towards lasting conflict resolution between Palestinian Arabs and Israel, by the grace of God.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Obama's Iranian Containment Strategy

In last Monday night's (March 8) Bibi Report interview I revealed a concern of mine regarding the threat to the safety of our (USA) troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan by the current Iranian regime.

A reason that the Obama Administration may not have withdrawn our troops in Iraq yet may be due to the fact that if they are viewed as preparing to about to be pulled out of the Middle East, they could possibly also be viewed as something of a closeout sale. An opportunity to easily strike at their main enemy while a perceived element of vulnerability exists may seem too good to pass up, God forbid. As Iran's leaders have called America the great Satan, which would make Israel in their estimation only Satan junior, they can wait to attack Israel. But talk of an expedited American troop withdrawal could be risky under the current standoff with Iran.

Today it may already be too late for sanctions to work. Also considering Iran's deal last week with North Korea for new missile technology, war could be sooner than expected and the plots afoot could be farther reaching than we could imagine. We just do not know.

Further, to date the only real card up President Obama's sleeve against the international terror network so far has been to harass our friend Israel for building in its own capital city. Nobody knows why the Obama administration is taking such an extreme position on Israel's right to build in its own capital. But perhaps that explains it all. Iran's leadership are being unpredictable and gaining ground… …Hmm… Perhaps the group-think in the White House these days is, let's be just as unpredictable as the Iranians. Then maybe they will fear us again. Yeah, that’s it.

It's as if some advisor to the President was watching a Lethal Weapon movie at 3AM in the morning while drunk when the crazy idea struck him that Obama and his people should pretend to be as wild and unpredictable as Mel Gibson's character was in order to scare Iran back to the negotiation table.

But the only thing anyone fears by the lambasting of PM Netanyahu about a matter previously accepted by the US Administration is whether sanity is still at play in the White House.

As it seems that our leaders are apparently off to Fantasy Island for the time being, I therefore wanted to do my part to help protect our boys in the military who are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan by at least bringing this issue to the fore and hopefully helping friendly forces to be better prepared for any potential scenarios where the Iranians target our troops first, in accordance to their stated hatred of America above and beyond their hatred of the state of Israel.

In the face of the farcical theater coming from the White House and the State Department towards our friend Israel and the peace process there, the main thing for us American citizens to do is to keep in mind the real seriousness of the predicament that the current Iranian regime is posing to the world and make sure that as many of our representatives in Congress as possible keep their eye on the true tiger, the current jihadist Iranian regime. On the other hand, we have nothing to fear from low cost housing projects in allied countries; believe it or not.

The plain fact is we don't know the intentions of Iranian leaders. Meanwhile our political leaders are pretending as if they do, when their policies would seem to indicate that they most likely do not.

God, however, knows exactly what the Iranian leaders are planning. Yet if we improve ourselves before the Lord, how could our enemies possibly succeed? As the Psalmist wrote (in 118:6 and the theme is recurrent in Psalms such as 23, 27, 56 and 112) “The Lord is with me, I shall not fear that which man can do to me.” Then when we pray for our friends in the Middle East, all that we need to remember is to also pray for the members of our armed services who are stationed there too, and request Divine Compassion on their behalf as well.

This then is a way to pursue the concept of “We the People” in a practical way, without waiting for the next elections; for rather than relying upon fallible beings such as ourselves in times like this we should place our trust only in the grace of God.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Iranian Regime Change

US Army Major General (retired) Paul E. Vallely and national security analyst Fred Gedrich in last week’s Fox News article entitled: “Time to Get Tough With Iran” call for Regime Change in Iran:

"The best way to get the Iranian regime’s attention would be to inform them that President Obama will (1) ask Congress to pass a resolution making Iranian regime change a U.S. policy (similar to what Congress and President Clinton did in passing and signing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act; (2) direct, under executive authority or with congressional permission, precise military strikes on Iranian nuclear development sites as well as regime targets like terrorist training facilities…; and (3) overtly and covertly encourage and support all Iranian opposition and freedom seeking groups to foster regime change."

As the more militarily aggressive President George W. Bush did not do this, I do not think we can expect President Obama to immediately do so, even with his self stated deadline past due. Yet the Vallely-Gedrich piece points to a direction that the Obama Administration can use in discussion with other members of the U.N. Security Council. They could say, ”Make real sanctions, or this is the direction towards which we will have to move our foreign policy.” For the Obama administration has apparently forgotten what a stick is, and Iran is not buying our carrots. This article by Vallely and Gedrich can hopefully serve to help remind the Administration how a stick is wielded.

I have said both verbally and in writing that I feel there is a greater danger to American troops than Israelis from the current Iranian Regime. Meanwhile other nations are waiting for President Obama to take the lead as they believe his country has the most at risk of any Security Council member. Yet that is only the current situation. As the Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction program moves forward, the weaker the concurrent Western response to Iranian threats, the greater the number of countries that would be at risk from a nuclear Iran.

Vallely and Gedrich concluded with:
"Let’s “hope” President Obama makes these policy “changes” before it’s too late. Global peace and security depends on it."

Regime change is the realist way to resolve this. If some practical diplomatic alternative method should be discovered by President Obama, I would be for that. A peaceful resolution would obviously be far better than a violent one. Yet when the stakes and magnitude of the potential and likely conflict with Iran continue to escalate with each and every passing scientific achievement by the Iranian WMD scientists, this is no time to experiment with pie in the sky solutions that are divorced from realistic odds of implementation in actuality.

God blessed mankind with such an intricate and beautiful world and it would be a shame if world leaders were to allow a rogue state to bring us over the brink of World War 3 with so many years of advanced warning and few serious efforts by a divided world leadership to reel in the danger via diplomatic means and with any semblance of potency.

May God guide the hearts of world leaders in the direction that humanity needs them to go.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Tonight's "Everyone Wins Peace Plan" Blog Talk Radio Interview (February 4th, 2010)

God is good to all and His mercies are upon all His creations. (Psalm 145)

My interview on "The Bibi Report" is at the 30 minute mark and lasts slightly over 20 minutes.

Their website has the blurb:
"A week in review discussion with prof. Alan Friedlander from the "Jerusalem Defender" blog, we will discuss his interesting "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan and get his views on the current events."

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Iran and a Line in the Sand

President Obama drew a line in the sand to the Iranian regime that at the end of 2009 they had better comply with the no nukes views of the United Nations. That was not successful. If it was a threat, it had no teeth, and if was a bluff, it didn't work and only made future pressurized negotiations more problematic. When an opponent likes to play hardball it is a mistake to make your image one of a superpower that cries wolf.

For an administration that prided itself as more stately than its predecessor, more open to world views and consensus building of international political leadership, the effect is devastating. To replace President Bush's carrot and stick approach you need a lot of carrots and the ability to cut off supply of them should your wishes not be complied with. In the world-governmental-view that some in the Obama administration seem to hold by, either you are able to make a consensus, or you have already lost control of the world to anarchistic rogue states. Effectively that is where the image of US Foreign Policy on Iran stands today.

The true pressure had to be applied to intransigent security council members who are staving off sanctions indefinitely. There needed to be a consensus before the Obama threat of sanctions, because by a world-government-first foreign policy the likelihood of military action replacing sanctions is staved off. Which means that if sanctions are not forthcoming, it is a rational supposition that military action isn't anywhere close to being just over the horizon.

President Obama had a nice set of cards, but not the cash to back it up. Iran is now waiting for him to fold his hand, and no longer worried that it should. That is not a good place to be.