Monday, January 31, 2011

As Egypt Shakes, It Is Time for Knesset to Reconsider

If Egypt becomes an unstable "partner" in peace, following the current crisis there, the Netanyahu Administration will surely be compelled to reevaluate risk assessments that underlie the current foundations of peace making in the Middle East.  The mere threat of a radicalization in Egypt, however, should serve as a reminder that, being extra cautious over forsaking strategic land for paper treaties, is at the most rudimentary level of common sense.

Any two state solution is a peace plan that ultimately places peace in the hands of external forces within other countries.  If all of those countries were as stable and healthy as the United States and Canada, then perhaps the path of current foreign policy would meet the test of common sense.  But totalitarianism and terroristic jihad are a threat that literally threatens nearly every country in the Middle East outside of Israel's borders.  That means, that to deny innocent members of the Palestinians in the territories even a remote possibility to naturalize into the State of Israel, is to subject them to political chaos in the place of realistic democratic choice and hope.

Supporters of a two state solution are not doing the Palestinian people a favor.  Detractors of a one state solution are assaulting the Palestinians' best avenue for realistic hope of living the democratic dream. By allowing the beneficent, best and brightest of the Palestinian people to join the ranks of their cousins within the State of Israel, the nation would be enriched, and those people saved from the fires of political chaos that roam beyond the border of the State of Israel, by the grace of God.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

PA Leadership Are Not Partners For Peace

I am dismayed at the shockingly poor advice given at the Davos summit by former President Bill Clinton to Israel.

"If I were in Israel and I had any influence, I'd want to make that deal now," he said. Referring to a comprehensive peace offer mooted by the Arab League in 2002, he said: "All these countries have offered Israel a political, economic and security partnership, not just peace, not just normalization ... but a genuine partnership." In Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Clinton said, "they've got the best partner in the West Bank that they've ever had." (

First of all, the Arab League idea is strategic suicide, a plan that I have previously described as the worst attempt at a peace plan in history, at best. Secondly, Israel does not need a security partnership with the despotic Arabic leadership about her, rather Israel needs them to keep their missiles and homicide bombers to themselves and leave Israel's border security alone. Thirdly, the best partners in peace are the innocent Palestinians who are being oppressed by the same chaotic, corrupt and criminal leadership that President Clinton is currently fawning over.

Only the innocent Palestinian working class
, that possess a track record of 40+ years of peacefully working side by side with Israelis to build civilization upon the Holy Land are proven to be candidates for long term peace.

The best chance at true and lasting peace that Israel has is to annex the territories, filter out the terrorists, and absorb at a safe pace the good people among the Palestinians.  This will also protect the Palestinian Arabs from the same petty and cruel Arabic national leaders that President Clinton is suggesting Israel form a "security" partnership with.

Why the disconnect from the realities of the Middle East conflict?  What happened to you Mr. President?

By consenting to only partner with people one can trust one's back to, Israel would find a faster and more enduring path to peace and conflict resolution in the Middle East, by the grace of God.