Jerusalem Defender

Tell the Quartet: The Oslo Accords are Over

2012-01-15T17:02:00.000-08:00

The Quartet of nations have given Israel and the Palestinian Authority two months from the time that they renew talks (which began two weeks ago) to report on agreed borders. Rather than continue with wistful dreams of everybody sharing the land as two separate countries, Israel needs to face the reality that the Palestinian Authority is a failed enterprise in governorship whose allegiance to terror trumps any indicated leanings toward democratization. Israel must re-accept responsibility of it's legal possession of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and begin to form new policy from there.

According to the Knesset's website, the Oslo Accords:

"main concern was on Israeli withdrawal from the territories of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, in order to allow the establishment of a Palestinian Authority for self-government for an interim period until permanent arrangements would be established."

Well Israel has certainly tried that.

In six weeks from today, does anyone believe that Israel will be in a position to demarcate permanent borders with the Hamas loving Palestinian Authority? There are too many daggers up their sleeves to expect that any time soon. In the exact opposite extreme of what the Oslo architects expected and intended, the more that the Palestinian Authority is given, the more bloodthirsty and terror loving it becomes.

If Israel's government arrogantly agrees to borders with the Palestinian Authority despite the known impending terror that such an act would strengthen, then they would be abandoning their responsibility to the well being of their own people.

If Israel's government cruelly abandons helpless Arab refugees to a fledgling terrorist government, they should not feel morally superior that they benefited the Palestinian People, even if that is what that people and the U.N seem to be asking for. It is not mercy to feed the urge of someone addicted to poison. Nor is there moral justification if someone told you to administer the poison. Neither is it peace to give territory with the intention that at least we can use full scale war against them if they keep attacking us.

Israel must know that under International Law, Israel is NOT required to heed the whims of the Quartet that would lead to such travesties of justice and certain violence.

Israel's current policy of attempting to honor the ghostlike remnants of the Oslo Accords is the very cause of the U.N. continuing to badger Israel over settlements. You are guilty in their eyes only because you listened to them, which means you admitted that they were right.

Israel must respectfully and patiently reeducate the Quartet as to the true intention of International Law, and clarify misunderstandings that have arisen over U.N. Resolution 242 since the implementation of the Oslo Accords.

Respectfully and patiently reeducate, without raising a voice in anger. Though perhaps tough words are justified for a people waiting almost 2000 years to be treated fairly, it is best to not seem like extremists. Nor to flatter the wicked, Heaven forbid. Rather be respectful and patient as per the way of diplomacy as first taught by King Solomon in first verse of the fifteenth chapter of the book of Proverbs: "A gentle answer removes wrath, but an infuriating word raises anger."

Remind the Quartet of the goal and the means to the establishment of true and lasting peace. May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

No Hope for a Negotiated Settlement with Fatah

2011-10-26T22:16:00.000-07:00

I was aggravated when somebody suggested that Hamas showed an act of moderation when they demanded that 1027 criminals be released before granting Gilad Schalit his inalienable rights of life and liberty. Hamas abused the system openly. But Fatah is, in a sense, even worse. At least you know where you stand with Hamas. Fatah is in a constant game of subterfuge when they speak and only admit the truth when they believe the press is not listening.

Abbas tipped his hand as a terrorist in diplomatic clothing, as brilliantly pointed out by the Prime Minister. In his recent speech at the U.N., Bibi said,
"President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that's odd. Our conflict has been raging for -- was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the -- I guess that the settlements he's talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be'er Sheva. Maybe that's what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn't say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict."

Former President Bill Clinton said that there has been no one more ready to speak peace than Abbas among the Palestinian Arabs. Which illustrates my point that if this foot dragging, obfuscating Abbas who flees from sincerity in negotiations is the very best of the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, then there is no hope for a negotiated settlement with the Palestinian Arab people. Unilateral Israeli actions are the only option that remain. I have advocated that the next action should be naturalizing the non terrorists among the Palestinian Arabs, while bringing the terrorists to justice.

PM Netanyahu's only error was to say that there will not be peace if he cannot sit down and negotiate with Abbas. That is not true. There actually cannot be peace so as long as Israel continues to believe that negotiations with terrorists can lead to peace.

The main role that Abbas now serves is to be the one who slanders his Israeli benefactors before the world stage. How does that advance peace? How does that increase security?

Israel has legitimate claims to all of the land that the Palestinians reside on and those claims would have to be forsaken by Israel for the Palestinians to gain a legal claim to the land. Without facing that truth, there can be no justice. Remember that for a case of questionable rights, the PLO has claimed an absolute right of blood vengeance against those who disagree with them.

The onus has been on the Palestinian Authority to prove it can live among civilized nations. Not merely corruptly run an economy, nor insincerely manipulate the world press. Perhaps that is enough for some of their less than righteous third world friends at the U.N., but that is not what civilized nations do. God has allowed history itself to ask of the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, could they, in the course of 18 years of negotiations, stop killing people for even one year? ...They have failed that test.

Because peace depends on truth and justice, Abbas will never find it. And President Clinton said that Abbas is the best that the Palestinian Authority has to offer. So that even if you were to hold elections today, there is no reasonable expectation that there will be anything but a worsening of the possibility for a negotiated settlement. This is why PM Netanyahu seeks international pressure on Abbas to be flexible. What other hope is there? But this is not the cure to the disease, this is that very thing which sustains the malady.

Every day that Israel tries to negotiate rather than dismantle the terrorist infrastructures, they are putting their own citizens in jeopardy; on a daily basis. For what? And if Abbas is the best and the best is not sincere about a negotiated settlement, then what does that mean?!

Unfortunately this brings us to one conclusion...

So long as the Palestinian Authority exists. Peace will not.

Legislation to Avoid Future Long Term Captives

2011-10-22T23:48:00.000-07:00

How ironic that the radicalization of the Egyptian government led to an act of chesed/kindness as negotiators, that aided in the safe return of Gilad Schalit, albeit for sinister intent. Egypt, without the moderate Mubarak, desires to strengthen Hamas over Fatah, and they got their way with the release of key Hamas operatives from Israeli jail cells. Another victory for radicals was also scored when Hamas won a PR victory at America's expense. They placed an onus on the Obama Administration to explain the delayed release of the physically ill Jonathan Pollard or appear more cruel than Hamas was to Schalit. Hamas perhaps hope to seem more reasonable and diplomatic than the USA, even though the USA is the pinnacle of Western Civilization, and Hamas is merely a terrorist organization. It may deflate the wind in Hamas' sails if Pollard were to be released soon, so if for no other reason, perhaps it's time to expedite Pollard's release to improve America's foreign standing.

* * * * *

Before Gilad's release, I began to write an appeal to members of the Israeli government to not transfer the 1027 terrorists to Hamas for Gilad Schalit's safe release, but I reconsidered and did not publish it. As the Talmud says, In the same way that it is a Mitzvah to say something that will be listened to, it is also a Mitzvah not to say something that will not be listened to. (Yevamos 65b) The time was not right for a reminder of how bad it is to refuel Hamas. But as the great relief of Gilad being home sinks in, the great danger the government risked will sink in as well. When emotions no longer rule policy, lawmakers will face the need to do something to avoid this from ever happening again. At that point, I could present my philosophic position of national security before nobility without seeming callous to the plight of Gilad Schalit, nor to the emotional sensibilities of those who prayed for him, and I was one of them.

Repeat after me, "it is wrong to release unrepentant murders out onto the streets for any reason." You want to get someone from the clutches of a group of terrorists? King David attacked kidnappers (I Samuel 30), he did not negotiate with them. Have a SWAT team ready to go behind enemy lines, if necessary. Then declare a shoot on sight order against all terrorists in the targeted zone/neighborhood while also offering freedom from death and even amnesty of any form of prosecution of those suspects who protect the hostage. This will allow a reasonable chance that the hostage would survive such a paramilitary operation.

But how to avoid needing such emergency measures?

I suggest two simultaneous pieces of legislation. Instituting a death penalty for terror attacks, and passing a law forbidding future prisoner exchanges involving terrorists could be the preventative measures that Israel needs.

If the Knesset only passes a death penalty against future acts of terrorism, it would not change the fact that Israel has over 5000 Palestinians in her jails, prodding Palestinians to attempt another kidnapping, God forbid.

If the Knesset only passes a prohibition on prisoner exchanges, in the face of the disproportionate nature of the current capitulation to terror (albeit for the noblest of reasons), Palestinians could assume that such a law prohibiting exchanges could be repealed in the face of a new peak in national emotions.

Only by passing both measures at the same time, could a mere change of law help prevent future kidnappings of Israelis. For then it would be clear that a new day had dawned in the State of Israel. May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

Gilad Schalit is FREE!

2011-10-18T09:00:00.000-07:00

Baruch HaShem/Thank God, that Gilad is back home at last, and it is sure a relief to have him safe again. For the sake of the national psyche, it is good to zone out from all the politics of the matter and enjoy the formerly endangered lost soldier's redemptive return home to safety.

This festival of Sukkos/Sukkot/Tabernacles is called "yom simchasaynu / day of our joy", so let us allow it to be so and let's consider the implications of this trade with Hamas on another day. Today would have been his 1941st day in armed captivity, but HaShem/God had other plans.

Image courtesy of Gilad.org

No Cities of Refuge for Terror

2011-08-21T17:00:00.000-07:00

The Knesset must no longer consider any peace plan that prevents the IDF from protecting Israeli citizens. If one hopes that the terrorist leaders of the Palestinian Arabs will change their spots anytime soon, then he or she are on a path towards disappointment. The sooner the Palestinian Authority is not merely rebuked, but disbanded entirely, the sooner true peace will have a chance to flourish in the Middle East.

Likud members of parliament have been discussing giving slightly less land than Labor or Kadima would, but apparently they have indicated that they still plan to give out strategically valuable land the moment Abbas would sign a "peace" deal. But the Knesset must no longer beg the Palestinian leadership to come to their senses and return to the negotiation table. They must not stand outside the U.N. waiting for a defeated, demoralized Abbas to now make nice and pretty please take more concessions from us.

I join with the members of the Israeli Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria movement in calling for a change of intended policy by any and all members of the Knesset who are willing and able to speak these simple truths. I ask, further, that Gaza be taken back as well from the hands of the terroristic Hamas and restored as a peaceful land that people of all races and creeds are welcome to settle in.

Gaza today is a depot for missiles. A point of aerial attack against the civilians of Southern Israel. It is a perpetual threat for soldier abductions, with one such abductee being held hostage even today. Today is Gilad Shalit's 1883rd day (over five years) under armed captivity. With Fatah's marriage to Hamas, it does not take a prophet nor a military expert to predict that this is where Judea and Samaria are headed, God forbid, if the Palestinian Authority is granted the freedom that Israel gave to Gaza, God forbid. Such freedom is anarchy and is not protected under International Law. You don't have to be a rabbi or a priest to know that such anarchy is against God's will as well.

Let the members of Knesset speak the bold truth. The hope for political autonomy for the Palestinian Arab people West of the Jordan River has been slain by Palestinian Authority terror. Let the land and all peoples upon her rest from terror and share economic prosperity. Naturalize the Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza who forsake terror, in a gradual way that does not destroy the Israeli economy, infrastructure, nor political balance. Let all peoples unite under the democratic flag of the state of Israel.

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

The Flaw with Fatah

2011-06-19T22:45:00.000-07:00

If you believe that Fatah is a suitable partner for peace, then it makes sense what the Knesset is currently trying to do. Plead with Fatah to negotiate and pressure them to not go unilateral at the United Nations. If you believe that Fatah is just in a mood and are behaving naughty, yet they can return from their current ways of trying to join Hamas into the Palestinian Authority, then current foreign policy may be justifiable. If you believe that sooner or later Fatah will come to their senses and be reasoned with, then the debate between PM Netanyahu and President Obama becomes understandable.

Problem: What if Fatah is irredeemably passive toward terror?

This is important. Unless Fatah is trustworthy, then everything we are hearing from every government in the world that discusses this is currently a misdirection. A discussion of the wrong topic entirely, not a true path to peace.

If you believe that Fatah is not a true partner in peace, has not been a true partner in peace for a long time, and or that Fatah never was a true partner for peace, then you are frustrated with the political theater at play and are perhaps ready to consider an alternative, such as the Everyone Wins Peace Plan. The Everyone Wins Peace Plan calls for the removal of the Palestinian Authority from the peace process and the gradual naturalization of all West Bank and Gaza Arabs who eternally foreswear terrorism.

If the moderate Fatah are not even potential partners for peace at some distant date in the future due to systemic corruption beyond hope of repair, then the question would no longer be 'How much to give to the Palestinian Authority?' Indeed, what can possibly be given to the Palestinian Authority with the dismal content and record of their leadership? Not even Gaza alone can be given to the Palestinian Authority.

The question we face is, is the embrace of Hamas only a current policy of Fatah, or revelation of their true character?

Liberty for the Palestinian Arab can only come once they abandon, and are enabled to abandon, the failed leadership that abandoned them long ago. For with the establishment of a faulty electoral system that allows votes for terror to count, a false veneer of legitimacy has been given to the Palestinian Authority when they are in fact rebels against their benefactors' investments and violators of their constituencies' trust and the main cause for strife in the Holy Land today.

Fatah-Hamas Unity

2011-04-29T11:49:00.000-07:00

All of the efforts at peacemaking throughout the past 18 years have been turned into farcical theater by Abbas' unholy deal with Hamas. By walking away from the negotiation table, and tossing a grenade at it, the chaotic Hamas long ago abandoned their hopes of a legal claim to the Gaza Strip. By allowing a Hamas-Fatah unity government, with Hamas even this week pledging never to negotiate, the PA has essentially not only forsaken the path to peace, they have made counterfeit their claim to the West Bank and Gaza.

Israeli President Shimon Peres said yesterday that the Palestinian Authority Made a “Fatal Mistake” when it made a unity deal between Fatah and Hamas. Fatah would be allowed to negotiate while Hamas would be sanctioned to simultaneously perform terror.

Peres continued, “The United Nations does not have neither the moral permission, nor the legitimate justification to accept a terroristic group.”

“Unite for peace, don't make comprise (with Hamas). Don't make a division that legitimizes destruction...”

Even though Peres just last week said : "We don't need more peace plans, we need to implement peace,"

But we see now, that continuing to base peacemaking upon the ashes of Peres' Oslo Accords, is the foundation of the current crisis.

Israeli leaders such as National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau and MK Danny Danon are in favor of partial annexations of areas in the West Bank. I do like Danon's idea to officially repeal the Oslo Accords that Hamas spits on, but mere partial annexation? Area C is an Oslo Accord relic, not a border to carve Judea and Samaria by.

The Right has to understand that half measures could fuel the fire, when the fire needs to be put out entirely. Stop piling sandbags at a time you need to wage a full counterstrike. Full annexation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Israel can no longer think about forcing the creation of a Palestinian State and merely going about their business within the Green Line. There may remain only three stark choices before the State of Israel.

Israel could accept the status quo or a variant of it, which would entail eternal enmity with Gaza until an eventual war settles things.
Israel could toss out all the West Bank and Gaza Arabs and potentially provoke a war. OR,
Israel could filter out terrorists through an even handed bureaucratic process and naturalize the rest of the West Bank and Gaza residents in a manner that does not overwhelm the economy or infrastructure or political balance within the State of Israel (i.e. the Everyone Wins peace plan). This is the best hope for peace. The best option that remains.

You may say, OK, I agree in principle with everything that you have to say about the Everyone Wins peace plan, but how to legally annex the West Bank and Gaza under the current political situation after Gaza was already given away?

Under International Law, Jordan and Egypt performed acts of Cession from The West Bank and Gaza, with the intent to give it to people of a non state entity within the rule of the State of Israel. Effectively, this means that the territory belongs to the State of Israel unless given by Israel through treaty to a fully fledged State. Otherwise the default Succession and ownership falls to Israel. This is because Cession can only occur with a fully fledged state and the only full state left involved, since Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims, is the State of Israel. Israel thus has the legal right to annex Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip in their entirety.

Now what will Israel do?

Perhaps they should implement the Everyone Wins peace plan as soon as possible? May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

Itamar Massacre A Wakeup Call

2011-03-17T21:43:00.000-07:00

I was too emotional from the massacre in Itamar to comment before now. PM Netanyahu said everything right in his interview following the barbaric slaying of most of the Fogel family in their sleep in the town of Itamar. But speech is only one of four things that need be done by political leadership in Israel.

At the physical level a manhunt for the terrorists, and a change of policy to something more in line with improved security. Turning to God is also a good idea that everyone can do. A little soul searching at a personal level to increase the spiritual security of the people is always a good thing after traumatic calamities such as these. This restores an inner sense of security that such woeful events seek to remove from the hearts of all who hear of it, in addition to the grace from Heaven that it may bring in its wake.

Finally, a change of policy from one that trusts the PA to secure peace to one that entrusts the IDF to do so, is a healthier form of national security than current policy. Yes, the Prime Minister correctly labeled the Palestinian Authority as inciters of hate and violence. But the Prime Minister did not mention that his administration's current policy is to trust "our backs" to the PA and those that they incite. "Our backs" in this case, are the throats that were slit and the chests that were stabbed and the pure hearts that were stilled. "Trust" is the "Security Fence/Wall" that was not built around Itamar. "Trust" is in the continued tolerance of PA abuse of media as a tool for hate, calling for international pressure against the PA, rather than calling for Knesset legislative action against the PA.

The Prime Minister's speech felt right, at the time. But there is a need for his overall policy to begin to feel more right as well. May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

Trust, Not Opinion, Should Form Security Policy

2011-03-01T01:13:00.000-08:00

When forming a nation's security policy, one should not look to opinion polls as to what is the best means to defend your people. Security is founded in the establishment of safety measures that one can trust. Risking all for whim based values is not a pragmatic method to secure national defense. Consequently, values one can trust such as Biblical ethics and historical legal precedents are advisers that are more likely to lead one to healthier choices than the latest U.N. resolution generally would.

If most of the United Nations member states think Israel should give up the West Bank in a land for peace deal, ignore it. If the United States Department of State considers Settlements an obstacle to peace (if they are Jewish), then do not listen to them.

Would a parent select a babysitter based on her popularity at high school or only according to the parent's ability to trust the babysitter alone with the child? Thus how can any nation be expected to run its policies based on "opinion polls" such as these?

Netanyahu is not Mubarak and Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) is not the Sinai peninsula. John Locke not only spoke of the right to rebel against tyranny, but of the need to do so in a moral manner. To establish law and order, not enshrine anarchy. A PA state would be a Mubarak style regime at best until Hamas took over and then it would be pure anarchy. By all means embrace the winds of change, but do not treat our democratic friend Israel like a despotic regime and attempt to declare illegitimate their rights to their God given land.

As mentioned before, whether or not Israel elects to use it, Israel has the authority to annex the entire West Bank if she would choose to, under Biblical injunctions and International Law as well. The current Israeli Administration has been against that up until now. But that is the only (legal) reason why Israel has not done so.

The PA has openly declared that it does not plan to match Israel's magnanimity toward her neighbors, nor her own citizens. You do not have to be familiar with International Law to understand this. We all know that if Israel would annex the West Bank she would use it to promote peace for all of its citizens of any race, and if the PA would claim it, they would exclude those whom they choose to and prepare for eventual jihad.

America wrote on it's Liberty Bell, the words of God through Moses, "...And you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants..." (Leviticus 25:10) The nation of that Biblical message must uphold that message, not just for the nations of the world, but for herself as well. Liberty begins in the Holy Land. That liberty begins with a state of mind, the ability to keep what is yours so that you have something that you can share with everyone. Not give it to those who would never share it with anyone.

By forsaking the Land that God gave, the power to help others would be limited. By keeping the land, the ability to help others would be strengthened. Incidentally, the nation's security depends on it. May Israel soon do what is in its best interest, and thereby do what is best for all peoples in the region, by the grace of God.

As Egypt Shakes, It Is Time for Knesset to Reconsider

2011-01-31T21:08:00.000-08:00

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.

PA Leadership Are Not Partners For Peace

2011-01-27T19:11:00.000-08:00

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." (Jpost.com)

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.

Pollard Must Be Released Immediately

2010-12-22T23:03:00.000-08:00

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. (Jpost.com)

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.

The Jerusalem-Golan Bill

2010-11-26T08:30:00.000-08:00

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." (Jpost.com)

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 10^th 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.

On the Bibi Report Tomorrow

2010-10-31T19:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Writing a Political Epitaph: Democrats and the November 2010 Elections

2010-10-27T20:26:00.000-07:00

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.

A Dangerous Gambit or True Peace?

2010-09-03T15:01:00.000-07:00

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.

Means and Ends in Middle East Peacemaking

2010-08-17T11:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Demographics and a One State Solution

2010-07-26T18:32:00.000-07:00

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 (Haaretz.com). 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.

A Two State Solution Is Insane

2010-07-11T18:16:00.000-07:00

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.

The PA's Lawlessness Is The Bane of Their People

2010-06-24T23:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Greater Jerusalem Includes Judea and Samaria

2010-05-12T17:45:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-04-25T17:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Obama's Iranian Containment Strategy

2010-03-15T21:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Iranian Regime Change

2010-02-28T21:33:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2010-02-04T22:11:00.000-08:00

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.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rapturereadyradio/2010/02/05/the-bibi-report-no-more-excuses-live-show-thurs-9p

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."

Iran and a Line in the Sand

2010-01-31T11:45:00.000-08:00

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.

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan in Halacha

2009-12-28T17:38:00.000-08:00

A common theme that a couple of the religious critics of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan have expressed is that peace plans to the right of my plan follow Halacha (Talmudic Law) and mine does not in relation to not allowing gentiles to have dominion in the Holy Land. Here is where they are mistaken according to my understanding of Talmudic Law.

Are Arabs allowed to be accepted in the Holy Land by the Jewish people?

1) The Biblical injunction against allowing idolators to possess the Holy Land (Lo Techanem) only applies to adding groups and entire populations to the land, not individuals. (for more on this study tractate Avodah Zarah, Mishnah 1:8 and the Gamora 21a) So, for example, to bring this back to current events, the concept of an Arabic "right of return" to the Land of Israel would not be acceptable under this concept.

Saving Lives (pikuach nefesh) is the more pressing concern, however, as Security realities preclude an Arabic "right of return" therefore the Arabic "right of return" is forbidden due to clear cut danger to life concerns and thus the prohibition is even more severe than the concept of Lo Techanem alone would prohibit and is absolutely forbidden under Biblical injunction.

2) Maintaining current demographic ratios via a staggered naturalization process connected to Jewish immigration rates (i.e. the heart of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan) would not be Biblically prohibited.

3) Any rabbinical restrictions that would be glossed over, due to the fact of the realities on the ground, and the probable leadership of a secular government in this process cannot override the fundamental command of preservation of life. Every day that true peace is delayed more lives are at risk. It would be a violation of Biblical law to even consider delaying a TRUE peace plan.

Moshiach (the Messiah) could come up with a better plan, I admit. But we are prohibited to wait until he comes for such an optimal plan due to the danger of life that would entail (unless he should show up before you finish reading this...). Since that is the case, we must run with whatever peace plan that is politically VIABLE within the context of allowing for primal halachic standards. Rabbi Kahane's plan, unfortunately, does not meet that test.

Of the currently well known peace plans, Everyone Wins allows for primal halachic standards, while showing the most concern for the indigenous Arabic population (as well as the indigenous Jewish Population) of any halachically acceptable plan.

This makes Everyone Wins the most politically liberal interpretation of halachic standards in the context of any peace plan out there.

That means that Everyone Wins' political viability is unmatched by any other halachically acceptable peace plan over the long term.

That also means that unlike a Kahane type plan, it does not require a political revolution to occur.

This way of a "politically natural" redemptive process is consistent with the concept (in Isaiah 44:22) "return to me for I have (already) redeemed you."

Thus the three main standards that would uphold halachic concerns in our search for a true peace plan would be:

a) being strong for security (and against terror),

b) allowing Judaic religious freedom in any part of the land, and

c) political viability so that the first two goals can be achieved as soon as possible.

The emphasis in religion should be on morals and ethics and it all starts with the preservation of life. That is the intent of Talmudic Law. And so may it be our collective aspiration, by the grace of God.

Regime Change of the PA Via Annexation

2009-12-02T15:10:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-12T16:00:00.001-08:00

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 "two-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

2009-11-04T16:23:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-31T22:48:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-17T17:32:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-31T21:24:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-10T16:49:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-03T16:44:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-24T14:06:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins

2009-07-03T14:21:00.000-07:00

The following is the main text of the missive that was sent to Benjamin Netanyahu four months ago. My thanks for the e-mail that Major General, US Army Ret., Paul E. Vallely sent to Bibi on my behalf. I received e-mail confirmation from Bibi's staff back in March that it was handed to Bibi himself, who sent his personal thanks to me, but no further comment was given at that time.

I only mention this at this time in order to enable the readership to better understand where I am coming from so perhaps you could be better inspired by Heaven to offer suggestions that may help us find a common ground between the current Israeli peace initiative and the plan that Hashem/God gave me, so that we may find that one elusive yet perfect path to world peace that the Lord has promised to bring to mankind.

* * * * *

Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins
By Alan Friedlander

In pursuit of a peace plan to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, we need to find something that ends not only the causes of conflict but also ends the foundations of terrorism. The "Oslo Accords" have failed to bring peace, only pseudo legitimacy to the PLO.

The current peace initiative, the "Roadmap to Peace" is little more than a roadmap to roadblocks and has only succeeded in giving pseudo legitimacy to Fatah and a terrorist haven to Hamas. Not surprising, the efforts by the political left wing to evict innocent Israeli Jews from their homes seemingly for the sake and lone true benefit of unrepentant terrorists has elicited a stronger reaction than ever before from the political right to instead evict West Bank Palestinian Arabs from their homes. The tit for tat cycle does not end on the path that current American Foreign Policy travels. The further the Roadmap is pursued, the deeper entrenched animosities will grow, bringing the conflict closer to the prospect of resolution being possible exclusively by full scale war.

The time is ripe for Change. Change from the failed policies of a bygone era, to a true path towards regional conflict resolution. First let's create a wish list of the goals of the new path to peace.

The Ten Commandments of an Ideal Peace Plan:

To secure an end to terrorist armies within a stone's throw of Israeli cities.
To maintain West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabic control of their cities
Allow Palestinian Arabs the retention of their homes.
To allow Israeli settlers to keep their homes as well.
Free Palestinian Arabs in the short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps.
Maintains Israel's military control over all the land and resources West of the Jordan River.
Guarantee freedom of religious access to non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, etc.) to ancient and historic holy sites.
Eventually allow West Bank and Gaza Palestinians to join their cousin Israeli Arabs within the "Green Line" by also having a right to vote in the State of Israel.
Not to overwhelm Israeli's economy or infrastructure, nor significantly alter electorate configuration to give unfair advantage to naturalized Arabs and risk disruption of the entire democratic process.
Put an end to the unhealthy segregationist environment that both sides are currently caught up in.

Effecting Real Change

The peace plan alternative must be as moderate and evenhanded as possible without ignoring the key needs of Israel, external and internal security, and religious freedom in order to be a politically viable option.

Everyone Wins

The "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Whereas previous one state solutions called for relocating masses of people, this plan calls for no segregation whatsoever. Nobody has to give up their homes, neither Jews nor Arabs (except for terrorists and those who support them). Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis without overwhelming the Israeli economy and infrastructure.

The key to making this work is twofold. First: Setting the categorization of the level of security risk of each naturalization applicant. The ones who are at zero risk are immediately placed in cue and await a corresponding number of immigrants to raise enough quota to allow them entry as naturalized Israelis. Second: Setting a fair and an appropriate ratio. If current demographics in Israel are that 15% of Israelis are Arabs, then the ratio could be set at 15%. That is, for every 100 immigrants, 15 West Bank and Gaza Arabs who are not a threat are allowed in. So if in a given year there are 100,000 Jewish immigrants, 15,000 friendly Arabs would naturalize.

Once true peace exists, I would expect that Jewish immigration will likely increase by no less than 300% of current rates. Plus financial stability and growth will be at unheard of levels. The ability to power infrastructure growth and the greater Jewish immigration numbers will allow a corresponding expansion of the Arabic naturalization process that is at the core of this solution. Israel can thereby naturalize more Arabs faster and safer than currently possible. Thus the entire conflict will come to an end that much sooner, by the grace of God.

By implementing the principles of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan the Israeli government can find a single and straight path towards peace. If you agree, then we must be prepared to shout out loud and clear in support of the peace plan that seems to be the most consistent with the will of God and the needs of humankind, no matter how simple its author may be.

Preliminary SWOT Analysis of the PM's Plan

2009-07-01T17:49:00.000-07:00

The Prime Minister must answer what is the extent of Palestinian Independence in his plan under International Law before his plan can even be called an option. Resolving all the internal strife between Israelis and West Bank and Gaza refugees is wonderful. But increasing the potential for external strife (regional war) is not a peace plan.

I am not trying to nor trying to encourage a rushing to judgment against the duly elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Perhaps after the Iranian issue becomes more calm than it is today, it will become easier for news agencies to receive clear communication on this matter from the PM's office and also the PM's office will have more time to present the current peace plan with all its nooks, crannies and variations to the public.

Yet, I cannot remain silent, even as I wish I could. Silence can be a sin in such a circumstance. Hopefully, the PM will accept my words for their good intent, as the Holy Sages of the Talmud said, "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone."(Avos/Ethics of the Fathers 4:1) My concern over saying nothing is that there should be open debate and honest discussion, and consequently also the potential opportunity to perfect any peace plan that is presented.

In academic circles, generally scholars humbly send in their thesis papers to other co-practitioners of their trade for assessment. Or, as in my case, nowadays scholars who are pressed for time can at least create a blog such as this one to discuss the matter and allow some sort of public review and chance to receive criticism. By denying the possibility of any real critical review, previous peace deals fell apart as their underlying theories were untested until it was too late, when it was time to actually put them into practice. So my public critique of the PM is not an effort to defame him in any manner, but to put even my very critique of his plan to the test so that I can offer even better quality aid to him the next time I open my mouth, pen, or computer. While my reverence for his office is present, the greater calling is to do the will of God and the needs of humanity, and so I comment thusly.

As the revealed aspects of his plan, as per the text that I have received so far, have been a bit sketchy, here then is a very preliminary SWOT Analysis of PM Netanyahu's peace plan (but really this sort of appraisal is for the Prime Minister's office or the Foreign Ministry to run via an objective agency or think tank and then communicate to the public when toting their plan)...

Strengths:

The PM's plan ends the dangers of missiles firing at Israeli cities.
It ends the dangers of roving bands of terrorists destroying holy sites such as happened with the Tomb of Joseph.
It increases the economic welfare of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians Arabs.

Weaknesses:

It keeps the noses of the nations in Israel's business. Does any Israeli like this status? If the (non terroristic) Palestinians were all absorbed into Israel instead, it would be an internal matter under International Law and an end to external interference. Such independence is a good place for an open democracy like Israel to be in. The plan was supposed to resolve this, but in my opinion it does not cover all potentialities.
It creates a veil of immunity to the just prosecution of terrorists based in the West Bank and Gaza that their Arab brethren inside Israel do not have.
It has an element of bias, as it creates an artificial limit on where Jews are allowed to settle in their historic homeland. Israel set no such limits on Arabs within the Green Line, so Jews on the other side of the Green Line should enjoy at least the same courtesy and rights as Israeli Arabs do.

Opportunities:

It can remove a huge monkey off the back of the State of Israel that is impeding its finding an economic and prestigious place among the nations of the world.

Threats:

War.
Perpetual international interference in internal Israeli affairs.
Consequently the monkey actually remains on the back with people scratching heads and asking why. Thus the opportunities that the PM's plan offers, as I have heard it, while well meaning are fallacious in character.

So, it appears to me that Bibi and his administration have come up with a sincere and strong peace plan that in its current form may begin nicely, yet does not address all of the present and pending issues in its wake, and thus creates a false sense of opportunity where, unfortunately, none exists.

I urge the Prime Minister to reread the letter that I sent him four months ago concerning the Everyone Wins Peace Plan and consider incorporating some elements therein to his plan in order, by the grace of God, to enrich and strengthen the chance for true and lasting peace.

PM's Plan Less Than Ideal In Its Current Form

2009-06-30T22:45:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I am understating the intensity of my objection to his current plan, but presumably Prime Minister Netanyahu intends to elucidate further details of his plan, assuming the Palestinian leadership even comes to the table. Still I do not wish to remain silent when perhaps my inaction could contribute to the evil that could come should the plan be implemented in its current form due to the diminishment of IDF authority in keeping the peace.

To illustrate a main issue that needs some editing, let's imagine if the plan in its current apparent form were implemented completely...

The Israeli press celebrates, a new day has dawned now that the Palestinians have signed away the right to complain about further land concessions.

Then the mayor of (a small town in the West Bank) objects to the Palestinian Authority's renunciation of rights to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and he leads an open rebellion against Israel, encouraging terrorist groups to use his town as a safe haven. The PA police claim they do not have strong enough weapons to put down the violence. The Israeli Defense Ministry claims that the PA does have enough weapons. After the violence escalates, the Israeli government authorizes military action. Several Arab states protest Israel's attack on the "defenseless (by law) Palestinians civilians". (Since the PM's plan calls for a demilitarized PA, technically, all West Bank Palestinians would remain civilians, whether or not they are part of an authorized militia.) Resolutions are brought forth at the United Nations and pass against the aggressive Israeli ("over")reaction.

Problem: Now, as a full fledged state, Palestinians have FULL member status and rights in the U.N.

Arabs states feel more empowered to act against Israel militarily in order to "enforce the law".

Result: The threat of war is increased, if not guaranteed by implementation of the PM's plan in its current form.

This is just one potential work-around by foes of Israel to such a shared security plan. The only solution can be one in which the IDF retains absolute authority and at the same time the concept of Palestinian terrorists being "defenseless civilians" rather than the worst of criminals, is completely removed from the table.

The Everyone Wins peace plan, for example, is consistent with such an ideal resolution. So this aspect of the PM's plan still needs some editing before being used in actual practice.

Reaction to the Iranian Election Outburst

2009-06-22T21:36:00.000-07:00

Even those that were previously threatened by Iran should feel compassion towards the terror and bloodshed of recent days. The Iranian leadership has only proven that they do not speak for God, as their disregard for the respect due towards the hallowed "Likeness of God" (tzelem Elokim) that is found in each human being, is so complete, that they even brutalize their own citizens.

May God protect the righteous of the world from the bloodthirsty and soon bring true peace to every land.

A Different State of Mind: Let True Peace Be Your Objective

2009-05-05T17:58:00.000-07:00

What can one make of the public statements of the leaders of Israel and America in recent weeks supporting a Two State Solution in the unofficially annexed Israeli territory issue? Solution to what? If true peace is the goal, then how can a Two State path be any sort of road to a fair and lasting solution?

"I, like Rahm Emmanuel, come from a family of Etzel fighters whose symbol was a map of the land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan river. I was taught that the Jewish people have a historic, national, religious and legal right to all the land. "To this day, I believe in the right of the Jewish people to the entire land. I feel a deep, undying connection to the ancient land of Israel - Judea and Samaria - to places I was taken to as a girl after the Six Day War when we thought Jews and Arabs could live together in harmony between the River Jordan and the sea. I share and respect this sense of justice in our claim to the land. But my objective is different," Livni explained. (Jerusalem Post: Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, May 4, 2009)

We see from Tzipi's statement that she truly believes, as I do, that under International Law all disputed territories in Israel are Israel's by way of a defacto annexation. Implicitly, then, it is only because Israel has been trying to give parts of it away that this whole "dispute" even exists. Only because a significant percentage of Israelis wish to continue the fantasy of a Palestinian state being a boon for peace does the entire concept continue as foreign policy.

The current path of the government of Israel would seem to be one of attempting to enter an aberrant state of mind hoping to enable dreams of things that cannot possibly be. Thereby they forsake the one thing that absolutely must be, true peace. In the ideologically bold, but still inexperienced President Obama, Israel's leaders have found someone who is willing to suspend his sense of political realism and embrace the blatantly unrealistic Israeli leftist dream of an independent Palestinian State and run with that as the foreign policy of the USA.

This erroneous path by the Obama Administration is a reactionary one that was made in the wake of statements that have come from Israel's leadership in the recent times. I do not believe it an attempt to force anything on Israel as some on the far right have claimed. The recent statements coming out of Washington are positions stated in Israel by parties like Labor and Kadima. They were not stated by Washington until the Netanyahu Administration publicly went along with it.

Tzipi Livni now represents the opposition forces from the Israeli political Left, and she apparently agrees entirely with my analysis of International Law, yet she proposes an alternate objective. Her current goal, apparently as well as the Netanyahu Administration's current I-don't-care-about-anything-but-stopping-Iran Policy is to offer up the unrealistic and false hope of peace with a Hamas-infected Palestinian government.

It's like demanding of a fire to only swallow up half of your home. Talmudic and International laws, however, call for something a tad more reality based. Such as: Put out the fire or flee from it! Do not depend on miracles.

President Obama's campaign spoke of Hope. Let that Hope be a true thing to believe in and live by, not a false path that ends in yet more needless bloodshed, when we need only will ourselves toward true peace in order to obtain it.

Israel has the legal right to end and disband the Palestinian Authority immediately and begin the integration of non-violent sectors of the Palestinian people into the State of Israel. Applicants for naturalization will be accepted or rejected not on how they entered this world, but on whether they choose to live and let live in it.

Jews and Arabs are already living in harmony. On the other side of the "Green Line". If you move that Green Line to encompass all peoples West of the River Jordan, then peace and harmony will encompass everyone.

Everyone's goal has to be peace! And the vehicle to get us there must no longer ignore the facts!

Jews and Arabs do get along when they are in a true democracy (see USA and Israel as examples). The Palestinian Authority is terminally bloodthirsty and corrupt. The Holy Land legally belongs to Israel if she will only dare to believe it.

To achieve reality based hope, we must enter a different state of mind.

We must let true peace be our objective. By the grace of God, soon we shall.

The Invalid Roadmap

2009-04-03T14:14:00.000-07:00

The Roadmap to Peace that the new administrations in the USA and Israel currently seem to believe as still containing merit, is, in fact, already dead. The Benjamin Netanyahu of a decade ago would ask, where is there hope of reciprocity in this path with these pseudo partners in peace? Because Fatah still embraces Hamas, and Hamas is an unrepentant terror organization, the current Palestinian Authority leadership is nothing but a pure continuation of the PLO of old.

It is exasperating to consider the current diplomatic intentions of both countries. The path to false peace is when political leaders of nations become lovers of advancing diplomatic processes in the general realm of peacemaking rather than gaining true and substantial achievements in the realm of actual peace. The entire intent of International Law is to PREVENT CONFLICT between nations, not to enshrine an eternal state of war with pretend legitimacy. You cannot say that because the U.N. Security Council supports a path that leads to war and calls it peace, that it is now a legitimate peace plan and indeed consecrated as International Law itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. A treaty between nations cannot include the suicide of one of those nations. That would violate Fundamental Law (Jus Cogens). For example, when American demanded an unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945, that did not grant the USA a right to commit genocide against the Germans once they surrendered. If the roles had been reversed and the USA had to surrender to the Nazis. And the USA knew for a fact that Nazi Germany would only slaughter USA citizens if the USA surrendered, then such a document of surrender would be a violation of the Jus Cogens of the citizens of the USA. Similarly, if a peace treaty were to be signed with any ACTIVE enemy of Israel by any government of Israel that Israel should surrender land to it, and/or if a U.N. Security Council Resolution were to call such a peace treaty absolute law, the treaty would STILL remain invalid, because it would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens.

Allow me to clarify that my intent is not to attack PM Netanyahu with abandon. I have confidence that he can come to the correct conclusions on his own without my having said anything. I feel that all he needs is a few days, weeks or months to reacquaint himself with the Palestinian leadership for him to come to the same realization that I am at. What I am trying to do by speaking about this now is to help breakdown the false philosophy of those political opposition forces that are trying to encourage him to make extremely unwise and unhealthy choices for his constituency, and what negative implications that would mean for the national security of both Israel and the USA if, God forbid, he heeded their advice, which again, at the end of the day I hope and feel that he won't.

Hamas believes it is entirely legitimate to attack Israeli civilians whenever it pleases. Fatah passively supports Hamas. And even if you want to say that Hamas can be dealt with and Israel can simply sign a peace deal with Fatah, then I would remind you that Fatah itself is still truly a terrorist organization, whether or not it is currently politically expedient to admit that as the national foreign policy of the USA and Israel. If you disagree with me then please forgive me if I pain you with the use of logic. If even now Fatah is not committed to ending terror, then how can they ever be trusted to do so? If even now Fatah is not against Hamas, when the Palestinian leaders of Fatah are supposedly with their backs to the wall and suffering greatly, and have the Israeli army almost at their beck and call to wipe out Hamas, or at least eliminate the main terror cells within Hamas controlled territory so that Fatah could rule peacefully. If even now Fatah is not committed against terror, then they can never be expected to police against future terror groups that may arise to demand 100% of the land of Israel from the Israelis. Thus any peace deal signed with FATAH, not just Hamas, would be invalid from the get go as such a deal would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens of the people of Israel.

The Quartet sponsored, and current foreign policy of the USA and Israel is the "Roadmap to Peace". But all these governments have thus far backed a losing horse. If you need to gamble with the safety of the citizens of Israel, how about at least putting your money on a pony that can win? But one thing is certain, the Roadmap to Peace is an Invalid Roadmap.

Jerusalem Defender: The First 50 Posts

2009-03-11T18:29:00.000-07:00

Due to the fact that, by the grace of God, this blog has reached the 50 post milestone (this entry being post number 51) and many of the older posts may be needed by those researching the Everyone Wins Peace Plan, it occurred to me that a table of contents may be needed.

Whereas previously I only advertised on the the Internet for this blog, as of this month I am now running an ad in an upcoming edition of Viewpoint magazine. So our readership numbers may greatly increase and some of the new readers may not be used to "reading backwards" in the reversed chronological order of your average blog entry.

Therefore this post is something of an introductory post for those who are not as experienced with the format of the blogosphere as most of Jerusalem Defender's current readership is...

(Please note that as always, you can sign up for a free subscription to Jerusalem Defender blog's Atom-feed at this link: http://jerusalemdefender.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default for those of you who know what an Atom-feed is.)

Post #50 - March 2, 2009
The Spirit of a True Peace Plan

Post #49 - February 2009
The Everyone Wins Peace Plan Answers the Critics

Post #48 - January 2009
Religious Parties Unite!

December 2008
The Bearing of Leadership: National and Religious ...
(Full title: "The Bearing of Leadership: National and Religious Parties, Let Your Platforms Bloom")
Finally Action in Gaza: Now Make it Final!
Ending the Era of Weakness: Annex the West Bank an...
(Full title: "Ending the Era of Weakness: Annex the West Bank and Gaza")
Hybridized Political Thought on the Middle East Co...
(Full title: "A Statement of Hybridized Political Thought on the Middle East Conflict")
The Violence at Beit Hashalom: How the Olmert Admi...
(Full title: "The Violence at Beit Hashalom: How the Olmert Administration is Inciting Radicalism")
The Problem With Kadima: A Lesson in Pseudo Politi...
(Full title: "The Problem With Kadima: A Lesson in Pseudo Political Centrism")

November 2008
The Saudi Peace Plan is Roadmap to Armageddon

October 2008
Compassionate Zionism
The Difference Between Racists and the Enraged

September 2008
Land for Peace is Fuel for Terror
Ezekiel's Jerusalem
The Unsubstantial Nature of Past Peace Plans

August 2008
Israeli Settlements Are Legal Under International ...
(Full title: "Israeli Settlements Are Legal Under International Law")
Foreign Policy Toward Russia

July 2008
Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological...
(Full title: "Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological Foundation of Healing Societies")
Healing Societies: The Ideological Foundation of t...
(Full title: "Healing Societies: The Ideological Foundation of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
The Upcoming War With Iran
MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon is Now Aware of the Everyon...
(Full title: "MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon is Now Aware of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
How to Deal with International Hostage Crises

June 2008
Sarkozy Too Cozy With Division of Jerusalem
A Critique of the Elon Plan and a Summary of the E...
(Full title: "A Critique of the Elon Plan and a Summary of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
Palestinian Leaders Indicate Trust in the IDF
A United Jerusalem is the Only Chance for True Pea...
(Full title: "A United Jerusalem is the Only Chance for True Peace")
Russia & Iran: Avoiding a New Cold War

May 2008
Making Peace With Syria
The Friedlander Peace Plan Is The Everyone Wins Pe...
(Full title: "The Friedlander Peace Plan Is The Everyone Wins Peace Plan")
A Statement Against Arrogance
The Friedlander Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy f...
(Full title: "Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 3: The Friedlander Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy for Peace
A Discussion on the Mechanics of the Naturalizatio...
(Full title: "Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 2:
A Discussion on the Mechanics of the Naturalization of West Bank and Gaza Arabs to the State of Israel)
A New and Revised One-State Solution to Peace in t...
(Full title: "Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 1: A New and Revised One-State Solution to Peace in the Middle East")

April 2008
A Comparison of Peace Plans
An Alternative Peace Plan
Why I Still Reject Kahanism Despite Palestinian Su...
(Full title: "Why I Still Reject Kahanism Despite Palestinian Support of Terrorism")

March 2008
How the Palestinians Can Redeem Themselves
Palestinians Choose Violence Over Peace
Succession in International Law
The Massacre At Mercaz Harav Yeshiva

January 2008
Diaspora Jews Are People Too
A Democratic Messianic King
The Iranian Dilemma

December 2007
The Definition of True Peace: Truth
Jerusalem & Jus Cogens
Temple Mount Is the Holiest Site in Judaism
Temple Time?
The Pollard Fiasco
Judaism and Jewish National Loyalty
Post #1 - Jewish Freedom of Religion and Jerusalem

The Spirit of a True Peace Plan

2009-03-02T16:01:00.000-08:00

A true peace plan should create peace first inside and then out, not outside and then in. As we find in the Kaddish prayer “He who makes peace in His Heights should make peace between us and upon all Yisrael.” Why do the Rabbis of the Talmud place “we”, i.e. societal peace, before “all Yisrael” i.e. national peace? One would have thought that if we achieve external and global peace, we would instantly have Heaven on Earth even in private matters. But the Rabbis are teaching us an important lesson. Only once societal peace is assured, then can world peace be sure to follow.

Using this lens let’s look at what would have happened at the societal level if the Oslo Accords would have been successful. The left would have rejoiced as the right wing mourned. Now let’s consider what if the right wing had succeeded with a Kahane type plan. The right would have rejoiced as the left wing mourned. In either scenario only one side wins and perforce the other side MUST lose.

This is akin to the battle for property in the West Bank. The extreme Left wishes to make the West Bank Jews homeless, while the extreme Right wishes to make the West Bank Arabs homeless (the kinder and gentler Israeli Initiative Peace Plan wishes them to relocate their homes to the Kingdom of Jordan, but as far as the Arab’s current homes go, it is similar in effect as the Kahane plan). In either scenario again we find only one side can win and perforce the other side MUST lose.

But this is why peace has been elusive in the Middle East. The truth path to peace is not an economic equation. Its calculus should not and cannot be determined in mere economic terms of victor and vanquished. Its methodology is rather found in compromise, and not in seeking absolute terms.

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan is such a true peace plan.

The right can rejoice that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan secures an end to terrorist armies within a stone's throw of Israeli cities, it allows settlers to keep their homes, it also maintains the State's control over all the land and resources West of the Jordan River, and it guarantees freedom of religion to non-Muslims.

The left can rejoice that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan maintains West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabic control of their cities and allows the retention of their homes, it also frees them short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps, and it eventually allows them to join their cousins within the Green Line by having a right to vote in the State of Israel.

Everyone will rejoice that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan will put an end to the unhealthy segregationist environment that both sides are currently caught up in. The Everyone Wins Peace Plan also removes the main pan-Arabic excuse to discriminate financially against the State of Israel. This will only snowball the effectiveness of the plan at ending the conflict that much sooner, as improved finances and security means increased Jewish immigration rates which allows the expansion of the Arabic naturalization process that is at the core of this solution.

“May He who makes peace in His Heights soon make peace between us and upon all Yisrael, and let us say Amen.”

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan Answers the Critics

2009-02-23T21:27:00.000-08:00

By the Grace of God.

The political right wing of Israel needs to settle on a viable path to peace as soon as possible. The ideas that the left has offered so far have been nothing more than Roadmaps to roadblocks. If the Right can find a workable solution to the decades old quagmire, then, considering the current political environment, they are primed to be able to build the political consensus needed to implement such a plan.

This must be a priority of the right; especially the religious parties. According to Talmudic law, a physical messianic war is not mandatory before world peace can come. Positive prophecies must occur, yet negative prophecies can be forestalled or even rescinded with penance and good deeds. (Maimonides, Fundamentals of the Torah, chapter 10)

Which would seem to indicate that the messiah can come even without a physical war of Gog and Magog (as was foretold in Ezekiel chapters 38 & 39). If this interpretation is true, then to avoid seeking a peace plan and waiting for a War of Armageddon as a geo-political fix-all would violate the commandment of “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19.16) Therefore the theoretical vehicle towards peace that we use must resolve not only all major secular issues it must also not preclude the resolution of religious ideals as well. It must be pragmatic and yet prophecy-friendly as well. Only in this way can Israeli Jew and Gentile, Arab and Bedouin, Religious and Secular achieve a lasting and secure peace that not only prevents external threats, but serves to heal internal trans-societal rifts.

Rabbi Benny Elon’s Israeli Initiative peace plan does not end false accusations against Israel of Arabic land grabbing, but the Everyone Wins Peace Plan does. In fact, any Kahane type plan, that seeks to toss out all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, that is not implemented only following a massive, map changing war, would not likely serve to eliminate false accusations against Israel, but would likely, Heaven forefend, only increase such slander and libel. We need to work towards bringing forth a peace plan that resolves all the problems at once, and yet does not depend on an apocalyptic war to smooth out any ruffled feathers that may remain when all is said and done.

“Apartheid State” (and other such false claims like that) would simply not hold water when the Palestinians have been accepted into Israeli society. At that point if anyone criticizes Israel, they would be criticizing the homogenized Jewish/Arabic post-conflict democracy of the Israel of tomorrow. The key is in removing terrorists and their supporters from Palestinian Arab applicants of naturalization into the State of Israel, plus doing this at a rate that does not overwhelm Israel’s immigration and naturalization infrastructure, nor significantly alter electorate configuration to give unfair advantage to naturalized Arabs. Once you do that, not only is it safe to integrate Palestinian Arabs into Israeli society, it would help to remove international animosity and slander against Israel and delegitimatize discrimination in favor of Palestinian Arabs and against Israeli Jews and Arabs as viable foreign policy. The façade of hating Israel as a pseudo-legitimate way to get away with anti-Semitism would crumble and people and nations would simply have to admit bias against Jews or pack their bags and go home. Israel’s new nickname among its former critics would then be, the “Humanitarian State.”

By implementing the principles of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan the Israeli government can find a single and straight path towards secular redemption and the requisite freedom for its citizens to choose to pursue religious salvation. As I mentioned before, however, should any peace plan that does not surrender Jewish holy sites be enacted before my peace plan could be, we should support it wholeheartedly, and not pursue the Everyone Wins Peace Plan as the better policy for the State of Israel. Life must come before anybody’s personal honor, so let me be clear on this point to any and all readers, students or fans of mine who end up in positions of power with the capacity to help implement “Everyone Wins” in actual practice. “Everyone Wins” should not be used as a hammer or an anvil to create headaches for the government of Israel. In such a case we should help the Israeli hasbara movement and help explain that true peace is good, however bumpy the road is.

Practical good-peace is better than theoretically perfect-peace. For if peace is not in the realm of actuality then it is not true peace. But if Israel should find itself in a new peace venture that does not lead to peace, then we must definitely be prepared to shout out loud and clear in support of the peace plan that seems to be the most consistent with the will of God and the needs of humankind, no matter how simple its author may be.

Religious Parties Unite!

2009-01-23T12:32:00.000-08:00

In order to fully represent the religious concerns of all Jews the world over for the continued free access to holy sites throughout the West Bank and especially enhancing freedom of worship at the Temple Mount, the religious parties must unite to offer one loud and clear voice that accurately expresses worldwide Jewish religious aspirations, rather than through many small voices that sometimes are at odds with each other, asking for things that appear to be at the polar opposite of the other party.

This is what needs to be done...

First on the Rabbinical level, a Bais Din (rabbinical court) of 5 or most likely 7 of the most premiere politically outspoken and heeded sages should formed. Each of these rabbis would then select an alternate rabbi to fill in for themselves if they are unable to continue in their duties. This advisory council of rabbis will increase the collective power of rabbinical thought, even through their surrendering of the great deal of individual power that they currently hold over their respective parties. Having this bais din of rabbis will mitigate libel (loshon hora) against individual rabbis, as it will be perceived that it is the Torah itself that is speaking, not any one person with any single agenda. The perceived agenda would then be Hashem/God's will alone. Imagine the sanctification of God's Holy Name (Kiddush Hashem)!

Second, all parties that revere the advice of the rabbis should unite into a single party. This small council of rabbis will replace the large body of less renown rabbinical advisers who currently offer direction. All those current rabbis and members of all the parties involved in this United Religious Party will instead hold a single conference to vote on political advice to give to the executive bais din of 5 to 7 gedolim (great sages) mentioned above. Except for those great rabbis on the executive bais din, all members of such a conference should run according to the concept of one man, one vote. But the lone communication point to the members of Knesset should be via the executive bais din. A single voice, a single direction.

Third, the political leaders chosen to become members of Knesset should still be chosen by the will of the people, the executive bais din should have the right to veto a candidate's eligibility (which would take place quietly, before the votes of the party voters are cast). An announcement can be made before the vote of people who have decided at the last minute to not run after all (whether truthfully it is of their will or of the bais din's command will not be disclosed) which would be a nice way to exclude those that the bais din has rejected without embarrassing anyone in public.

Fourth, the candidates must be trustworthy and trusted. Trustworthy to do the will of the people and bais din, trusted to act without consent of even the executive bais din if national security, timely diplomacy, natural disasters or other such pressing matters preclude their taking the time to inquire of the most preferred methodology as per wishes of Bais Din.

Every party has its own bias. If Judaic religious freedom is to have the most effective advocacy, which is the very reason I started this blog in the first place, then it needs its own party to represent it. A party should not just be a clique that represents a single stream of constituents, rather it should be a representative body for all the people. All the people in this case, are all the religious people. Therefore the religious party of the State of Israel must be a religious party for all the religious Jewish people.

The Bearing of Leadership: National and Religious Parties, Let Your Platforms Bloom

2008-12-31T16:44:00.000-08:00

The newly revised National Union party in Israel is a breath of fresh air. Five parties joining into one is essential to not only serve to consolidate political power for the parties involved, but to offer true democratic choice to the voters of Israel. When there are dozens of parties running, having parties that stand for more than a single issue is a vital prerequisite for such to occur.

The reason why there have only been three parties that have actually led an Israeli government, despite the fact that hundreds of parties have been created over the past sixty years, is because only a handful bothered to make a political platform broader than one or two issues. Just as when voters look for leadership qualities in potential heads of state and those candidates who lack that charismatic aspect never seem to get into the real contest because they usually lose support long before the elections arrive, so too voters look for parties that seem competent enough to handle all the affairs of state, not just their pet issues. This is true for any party.

Because of the natural variety of opinion to be found in a mixture such as the new National Union party offers, they are bound to be more ready to represent a broader knowledge base and finer leadership qualities than other national parties have in the past. Consequently, they should garner more votes than any party on the right has in a long time; which is the opposite direction that the new Jewish Home party is currently going in. By giving extraordinary weight to former National Religious Party members, they are currently giving the appearance of a party that is trying to cling to a smaller base of political issues.

Likud did a similar thing by marginalizing right wing elements in the party, and only after that did they start to fall in the polls. But this sort of behavior does not simplify or purify the image of a party to the voter, rather it destroys the demeanor of leadership that a mainstream party must present if it is to become an upper echelon party in Israel's political future. If you are in a political party on the Israeli political right or true political center (Left wing Kadima, please sit down), then take my advice and let your political platforms bloom with diversity.

Finally Action in Gaza: Now Make it Final!

2008-12-29T18:53:00.000-08:00

I wish to offer congratulations to the Kadima led government on overcoming the lethargy that restrained them and their now actively allowing the IDF to do its job and defend the citizens of the State of Israel. Action in Lebanon ended a long time ago and there is no reason to allow any failure there to make one hesitant to act in self defense if needed.

What goals do I seek from the assault on Hamas?

Destruction of all rocket launcher infrastructure, including ports at sea, or concealed tunnels to Egypt, if that is where the new arms are coming in.
Rescue Gilad Shalit.
Regime change in Gaza.

Pro-Abbas people in Israel and the USA are constantly whining about how he is at risk of being overwhelmed by Hamas. Time to call their bluff and eliminate his opposition. Give him a chance to renounce terrorism without opposition. If even in an environment without fear he echoes Arafat's policies, then that would prove to the left that he is not a partner in peace. Something people to the right and center already know.

If Olmert, Barak and Livni do not completely remove Abbas' enemies, Hamas, from power in Gaza, then they are effectively admitting that:

Abbas is not a true partner in peace,
that they need to allow Abbas the Hamas scapegoat eternally to cover up Abbas' terrorist leanings (don't notice the kinder and gentler terrorist (at Jerusalem's northern suburbs) when you have the pro-Iranian terrorist in Gaza), and
they have zero faith that Abbas will ever truly leave his terrorist ways behind him unless they hurry up and give up a lot more land than Likud ever would.
there is almost no hope for Olmert, Barak and Livni ever coming to their senses.

Perhaps if my three test goals are achieved by the current leadership in Israel, then there would be indication of hope (in the long term) for Olmert and Livni. But in the immediate future, at least, no matter what happens in Gaza, I do not expect endorsing them for reelection as the top party in Israel any time soon. This matter should have been resolved many months, and many thousands of rockets, and much, much pain, cost and fear, ago. Under no circumstances should they be rewarded with a vote for Livni at this time at least, even if you disagree with me and support their beliefs. It is just rewarding bad leadership and thus not good public policy to give them any real political clout in the very next government.

May the God of Israel protect His people from all harm!

Ending the Era of Weakness: Annex the West Bank and Gaza

2008-12-19T11:14:00.000-08:00

A couple of days ago the man who is likely to be the next Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu said:

"...the era of weakness of the Livni-Olmert government is over". "What the citizens of Israel have been witnessing in the last few months is an ongoing weakness, a willingness to give up everything in exchange for nothing..."

"The government releases 1000 terrorists without any return. It makes concessions in Jerusalem, it is willing to return to the 1967 lines - and the most incredible thing, it is willing to absorb thousands of Palestinian refugees into Israel. I plan to make it clear to President Sarkozy and to all our friends and foes across the globe: this policy is going to end."

"A Likud government led by me will restore security to the people of Israel, will restore pride and determination to our policies. We will stand decisively for a united Jerusalem and defensible borders in every diplomatic arena. We will not agree to have a single refugee from 1948 enter the sovereign state of Israel, not to Ashkelon, not to Jaffa, not to Acre, or any other place".

My reaction is fourfold. Two praises and two admonitions to Mr. Netanyahu.

First, good analysis by Bibi regarding the Olmert-Livni government.

Two, it is nice to hear he wishes to return Israel to a policy of strength against terror.

Three, the down side of Bibi's Theory of Reciprocity, is that once the other side does actually comply, the pendulum of concessions swings back towards you. Yes to Jerusalem, but what about Hebron and the other Holy places of the West Bank?

Four, he should not call Palestinian refugees in foreign lands by the title refugees as it could seem to some that he is referring to West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabs who are still technically refugees under International Law. It is OK to refer to West Bank and Gazan Palestinians as refugees, because it removes the false stigma of "Occupied Territories". Israel is not the occupying force, the Palestinians are residing on unofficially annexed Israeli land.

Well, Bibi can remove both of my criticisms at the same time by merely Annexing the West Bank and Gaza with a simultaneous enactment into Israeli law of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan as their mode of resolving the refugee problem. Now that there exists a safe way to take in refugees, they morally should, because now it is merciful, not weak, to do so, but only if in accordance to a non-suicidal naturalization plan such as found in the Everyone Wins plan. Such mercy towards Palestinian Arabs would also be just, so that no one should ever compare Olmert's sin of allowing terrorists to fire at civilians indiscriminately with the lofty goal of aiding refugees.

One more issue Mr. Netanyahu raised in his statement.

"The era of weakness is about to end, and it will me my friends and I in the Likud who put an end to it and restore security to the people of Israel", Netanyahu concluded.

Bibi has to realize that humility is good, even in politics. Mentioning God's help at this point would not hurt him with Israel's religious and traditional voters, and serve to indicate that he is not at risk to fall into Ariel Sharon's trap of arrogance. Sharon "made" the settlements and felt that entitled him to take them apart as well. But the truth is that everyone in life is just God's messenger on the path that they freely choose to follow. The path we choose. But the force of causation is to God alone.

A man of Truth and Strength requires Humility and Compassion as well, in order to be an ideal leader.

Hybridized Political Thought on the Middle East Conflict

2008-12-08T18:36:00.000-08:00

A Statement of Hybridized Political Thought on the Middle East Conflict

By Alan Friedlander

By the grace of God, I was blessed to write previously from a religious perspective on why there should be Israeli concern for Arabic civil rights in the West Bank and Gaza, even as land-for-peace is rejected as an option in a peace process. India is a country that knows all too well how the surrender of land to a single disgruntled ethnic group to form a country of their own does not guarantee a lasting peace. I wrote from a religious perspective on this eight months ago, not in an effort to force my religious viewpoint on anyone, Israeli or Arab, religious or secular, rather my call for the disentitlement of Arabs to absolute control of the territories that they currently occupy is due only because their claims are legally unequal to Israeli claims even according to non-sectarian international legal principles as well. It is this fact that international law and the Jewish faith have a common ground in realities on the ground in the Middle East Conflict that gives a cause for hope to find a greater consensus towards lasting peace in any peace process that will seriously consider both perspectives at the same time.

Did you ever wonder why Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the USA decided to quote mainly from political philosopher John Locke when writing the Declaration of Independence? Benjamin Franklin personally knew several members of the French Enlightenment. So why did they skip the Philosophes of their day to quote a philosopher of the previous century? You see, in political thought, in ancient times, religion preceded secularism. During and following the Enlightenment, secularism preceded religion. But between those ages, in the early Modern Period, political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke openly considered both perspectives in unison, in what I consider a generally healthier dose of hybridized thought, which outclasses mainstream secularist myopia that burdens many political theorists today. Hobbes and Locke, if they lived today, would outclass today’s philosophers in their ability to evaluate modern issues that stand in the way of successful peace processes and thereby be more readily able to create a new philosophic direction to cure such woes. In the Enlightenment, religion was labeled (libeled?) as less rational. But, even assuming so, in the pursuit of finding a true peace methodology, "Rationalism" alone does not adequately address the causes and does not accurately predict future reactions of opposing religious belief systems and the disparate people who possess them.

Jews are bidden, by the Creator of All, to be a ‘light unto the nations’ (Isaiah 42.6 & 49.6); implicit in this is the need for Jews to not hate or discriminate against gentiles as a chosen policy. Only true enemies of creation (such as terrorists) deserve the dispensing of hatred as policy, as per: "Those who hate You, O Lord, I hate and with those who contend against You, I shall contend.” (Psalm 139.21).

Because the ways of peace requires dealing with peoples of other religions, it is not a lack of faith to seek secularly acceptable standards for international relations. Indeed, the way of the Torah is to avoid conflict by finding a compromise solution that does not compromise one’s faith. In other words, evaluate each potential peace solution in the guiding light of the Torah, even if every last minutia is not found in the Torah. Seeking hybridized political standards in diplomacy, therefore, is consistent with the Torah attitude towards political philosophy.

I am not suggesting placing any other philosophy on par with God’s Holy Word. I mean that those who refuse to listen to religion or those that refuse to listen to any ideas from those who are not religious are leaving themselves bereft of the full picture and also the very goal of the Torah’s path to peace itself. Simply put: by hearing all sides, a common ground can be found. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes knew at least that much.

True enemies of Israel, according to Western/Lockean Theory, would be those who try to extinguish Israeli Life, Liberty, or Property; Heaven forefend. Life corresponds to true peace, Liberty relates to the right to pursue religious freedoms such as for Jews to worship at their holy sites without danger, and Property is land and the buildings upon it and the potential prosperity that they can bring.

Assuming friendly Arabs respect the concept of everyone sharing evenhanded Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property Rights, and of all Israelis being protected under IDF rule and Jews worshipping at their holy sites, then so too Israelis must be prepared to acknowledge that West Bank and Gaza Arabs are people too, and like Israeli settlers they should be allowed to keep their homes and have affordable and legitimately achievable access to good jobs and economic improvement. But I want even more than such basics for them. To fulfill the Lord's Will, it appears to me that we must go beyond our current achievements for their betterment, but of course, only once West Bank and Gaza Palestinians as a whole go beyond their current rabid levels of opposition to even the most fundamental Israeli and non-Islamic rights in the Holy Land.

On that fateful day, when the knowledge of the Lord and tolerance of others are ingrained into Palestinian society more deeply than the worship of terror is today, then these wonderful things can occur. Then we can ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to truly respect Arabic Palestinians. This process would be hastened by a program that weeds terrorists out of normative Palestinian society.

Achieving true regard for and from West Bank and Gaza Arabs, in such an enlightened age of post-terrorism, comes by advocating an end to their current segregation from normative Israeli Arabic society. Tearing down a fence may not be enough to bring economic and other forms of equality fast enough to make them feel a part of the State of Israel. Yes, that is important. Trust me on this. Imagine if you were one of them.

Once we agree to the same goal, i.e., to transition West Bank and Gaza Arabs from refuges to immigrants as soon as possible, and that everyone in the territories who rejects terrorism deserves to keep their home and not fear eviction, Jew and Arab alike, then the only real question is what step to take next to help integrate the Arab immigrants into Israeli society. The best vehicle to this, in my opinion would be to allow a natural enhancement to the current level of immigrant Palestinian Arab civil rights in Israel, and I suggest that this should be by giving them the right to vote in Israeli elections, just as their cousins over the Green Line enjoy today, but only in a way that is not demographically destructive to the State of Israel.

Further Reading (full URLs of the above hyperlinks)…
http://jerusalemdefender.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-i-still-reject-kahanism-despite.html
http://jerusalemdefender.blogspot.com/2008/08/israeli-settlements-are-legal-under.html
http://jerusalemdefender.blogspot.com/2008/05/discussion-on-mechanics-of.html
http://jerusalemdefender.blogspot.com/2008/06/critique-of-elon-plan-and-summary-of.html

-

In honor of my mother, Sarah bas Yosef HaCohain, 13 years since her passing to the World of Truth

The Violence at Beit Hashalom: How the Olmert Administration is Inciting Radicalism

2008-12-05T11:05:00.000-08:00

The ill advised forced evacuation at Beit Hashalom took place today. It did not have to. It could and should have been delayed until a less sensitive time, assuming that the people settled there needed to be moved for the sake of the greater good of the nation, which, of course, they did not.

It was all the clumsy provocation of Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak.

As the United Nations representative was placing all the blame on "Settler Extremists", Prime Minister Olmert was busy praising the real culprit, Ehud Barak.

Not only the rough handling of the situation caused this violent reaction, but it was done at the same time that Israel is being attacked by rockets from Gaza, and several weeks following an either dishonest or impotent declaration by Kadima Party leader and PM candidate Tzipi Livni that if the violence occurred they would react. In an act of lunacy, or evil, or stupidity and probably in a combination of all the above, Livni's effective reaction to Hamas terror as implemented by Ehud Barak, and cheered on by Olmert, was to punish Israeli settlers for the crimes of Hamas.

I am not stating that they chose this as policy, but such was the obvious inference of the emotional reaction that would ensue from a crackdown on law abiding settlers at the same time when seemingly limitless patience is shown to terrorists. According to Lockean Theory, it may be possible to claim that the settlers had a legal right to defend themselves against such a move, in such a time as was perpetrated by the Israeli government. A government must protect its people, not subject them to such cruelty.

Further, innocent Arabs whom this government wishes to give a country to, had to deal with vandalism. If this government does not help its own citizens, nor people who they do not consider citizens, then there is no one gaining any benefit from this government!

A government that does not defend its citizens, but rather allows the enemies of its people to wantonly attack without reprisal and then implements poorly timed policies against its own people, does not deserve to be in power. Must not remain in power.

Massive non-violent rallies and possibly labor strikes must take place until the elections are pushed forward sooner than the current February timetable.

No longer is the Kadima Party/Labor Party government merely a national security risk, but now it has become an internal security issue as well; freely chosen by Israel's current leadership. The time has come for Israel to freely choose better leadership. It would be a mistake to assume this is the last foolhardy trick that the current government has up its sleeves.

The reaction required in the face of these matters is that loyal Israelis should do whatever non violent acts that are required to force elections to be held immediately!

The Problem With Kadima: A Lesson in Pseudo Political Centrism

2008-12-01T20:03:00.000-08:00

Israel National News reported last week Deputy Prime Minister, Retired Colonel and Kadima Party member Otniel Schneller's call for the fortification of the schools in Ashkelon to protect them from Gazan rockets. That call is symbolic of the mire that the Kadima Party has become stuck in. To act one needs conviction. To possess conviction, one needs a moral or ethical base. To achieve their targeted goals, Kadima party members had to leave their philosophies behind them and go full throttle towards "peace". They used "peace" as their objective standard. Yet as their current usage of the term "peace" is linked to the failed philosophy of Land-For-Peace, Kadima's objective standard is inherently flawed. This well meaning declaration by Schneller reveals the troubled core of Kadima's pseudo political centrist nature.

Without the popular, if not always wise, instincts of Ariel Sharon leading them, Kadima has become a party that speaks tough, but does little. The antithesis of effective leadership, Kadima's leaders like to walk loudly and carry a sponge stick. They lift their sponge sticks at the enemies of Israel and say, "Don't make me use this." Then two days later they say to Israel's enemies, "Sorry, I didn't mean to scare you. Let's discuss more one sided concessions to prove that we truly want peace."

Two weeks ago it was reported that Kadima's latest leader Tzipi Livni said that Israel will do something if the shelling continued. Livni said, "There is no such thing as a partial ceasefire... If the ceasefire violations continue, Israel will see no impediment to action." It was assumed that she meant to actually do something against that group of naughty and elusive 'partners in peace', Hamas, and not towards all those 'offensive' school buildings in Ashkelon. So far that assumption is looking like overly wishful thinking.

Last week PM Olmert made some noises about peace in our time (in an apparent attempt to justify Kadima inaction to the threat against Israeli citizens) immediately before he lost his last shred of political legitimacy as voices from parties on the left as well demanded his resignation following the Attorney General Mazuz declaration of intent to indict him. As there seems to be no real difference in his policies and Livni's stated intentions, I find no reason to rush to eject him and replace him with Livni. I support the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and a Livni Premiership would not offer Israel's National Security a significant enough enhancement to warrant an exception to this rule. The real guilt lies with the Kadima Party itself and unless elections are hastened, which I believe they should be, then I do not join in the chorus that Olmert leave office immediately over crimes that he has yet to be found guilty of in a court of law. Rather, Olmert should leave office immediately in conjunction with hastening the upcoming elections. Why wait for February? The Israeli elections should be held immediately so that a real peace process can begin. A party cannot lead if it has lost its way.

Kadima's position on national security just does not make any sense. But again, I am looking at this from a perspective of one who assumes that a government wishes to protect its own citizenry. Perhaps the suggestion to fortify schools is so that Ashkelon residents can at least have a few vicarious hours of respite from terror knowing that each day their kids are safe for a few hours, at least until it's time for the bus ride home each evening; God protect. Again this is only today's apparent meaning to the weak Kadima perception of National Security. Tomorrow perhaps some more radically imbecilic statement will issue forth from Kadima leadership like plastic pearls of wisdom on a hot stove top.

God knows, even if Kadima clearly does not.

One never really knows what to expect from Kadima; not because they are so perfectly moderate in their political beliefs so that no one to the right or left can fathom their brilliant wisdom, but the very opposite, because they are so weakly attached to any guiding philosophy whether right or left. This is a complete breakdown of the entire centrist mandate that their constituency originally voted for.

Kadima's weak leadership has allowed the practiced national security policies of Israel to become extremely left wing in character. The only way to even the balance scale of Israeli leadership is for politically moderate voters in Israel to shift their political support to the politically right parties in order to tip the scale back towards the middle and restore the proper political equilibrium to the Knesset. How far to the right this shift requires the Israeli voter to go depends on how far Kadima's inaction, and the potential actions of the enemies of Israel reacting to weak Kadima leadership, serve to pull Israeli security out of kilter between now and the elections. Therefore to enhance National Security and the hope of real peace, I recommend that Israel should hold elections immediately.

The Saudi Peace Plan is Roadmap to Armageddon

2008-11-16T21:51:00.000-08:00

Let’s look at the recent timeline of the news wires on the Saudi Arabian Peace Plan of 2002 which calls for Israel to pull back its settlements to the 1967 Green Line border demarcation, which Abba Eban had named the "Auschwitz lines".

In March 2007 JPost reported that, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel was willing to make "sweeping, painful and tough concessions" to encourage dialogue with its enemies.

Well, how about making the concession that land for peace peace-deals do not work and then immediately holding elections?

March 22, 2007 Jerusalem Post citing AP spoke of the USA wanting the Saudi peace plan amended to fit with the Roadmap to Peace.

The Roadmap already being a peace plan which fails to guarantee protection of Jewish rights to their holy sites.

March 29, 2007 Haaretz reported that Arab states unanimously approve Saudi peace initiative.

Saudi Arabia gave an ultimatum of Israeli acceptance or else no peace, indicating a rejection of the entire concept of negotiations toward peace. Thus this plan should be called the Saudi Ultimatum Plan, and rightly leave the hallowed word “peace” out of the whole sordid affair.

October 19, 2008 NY Daily News quoting AP Ehud Barak said that Israel was considering the Saudi peace plan

October 23, 2008 IsraelNationalNews.com Shimon Peres praised the spirit of the Saudi Plan
November 12/13, 2008 BBC and JTA reported that Shimon Peres lauded and praised the Saudi plan The Saudi-led peace initiative is a "serious opening for real progress," Shimon Peres told a United Nations gathering.(JTA)
November 16, 2008 JPost: 'Obama to endorse Arab Peace Plan'

Clearly, from a close read of all his statements on the matter, Peres intends that Israel should try to edit the plan somewhat closer to the imperceptibly less offensive Roadmap to Peace. Yet the Saudi plan is build upon zero compromise by the Arab League. Where are Olmert, Livni, Barak and Peres trying to lead Israel? I do not care anymore about how noble their intentions may be. Look at the precipice before you, People!

The current Israeli government itself is leading President Elect Obama in this direction. This makes the statements by the current Israeli government insidious as it is an attempt to preempt the likely right leaning results of the impeding elections. A party placing its agenda before the best interests of the voters clearly loses it mandate. The Obama Administration should keep in mind that it is the current Resigned Prime Minister Olmert led government of Israel that is “changing its mind” and that change is non representative of the will of the people of the State of Israel.

It is vital that before Obama’s Middle East Policy is solidly in place that a more rational alternative is presented by key leaders in the Israeli government opposition. The time has come for the Israeli Right to decide firmly on an alternative peace plan that protects Jerusalem and run with it.

Compassionate Zionism

2008-10-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

By the Grace of God, I have long preached political moderation. In my last post I reiterated my opposition to Kahanism as a practical guide to solving the conflict in the Middle East, yet validating the anger of pro-Kahane-ists as non-racist in genre. Still, one may wonder in the context of this discussion why and how I can support the Rabbi Elon Israeli Initiative Peace Plan which is based on what I have professed to believe to be a bed of an erroneous core of Kahanism.

I wish to clarify, as previously stated, that if Rabbi Elon’s plan is successful, I would support it to protect human life that much sooner. In recent times, every year, many people have lost their lives to the current conflict. The moment it truly ends, support for all other peace plans that could keep people second guessing a peace plan should be abandoned. Once there is true peace we must embrace it, and not look to further any individual or individual group’s agenda and or prestige. We must keep in mind that the stoking of coals too quickly after they die may only serve to reignite them.

Implicitly, I intended to say the following, and I will now state it explicitly: If Rabbi Elon’s plan succeeds in its current unedited state, then I am open to allow for the possibility that I am wrong, and would be willing to declare my peace plan suggestions as a mere theoretical discussion that no one should attempt to later try to replace Rabbi Elon’s plan with. But to my limited understanding, it seems to me that it would take a miracle or a catastrophic war to allow a reasonable likelihood of success for the Israeli Initiative in its current form, and in Judaism, depending on miracles is unwise and waiting for a war is detested.

If only one aspect of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan finds its way into an edited version of the Israeli Initiative, I suggest it would be that it should be made clear to the world that the State of Israel has compassion for its refugees, be they Israeli citizens, future Israeli citizens, or rejected applicants who are never to become naturalized citizens.

God’s Honor is the soul that I have attempted to imbue into the Everyone Wins Peace Plan, while at its heart is the dignity of those that He has created. To coin a phrase to describe the heart and soul of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan: Compassionate Zionism.

The Difference Between Racists and the Enraged

2008-10-20T12:12:00.000-07:00

There are those who would wrongly brand anything remotely related to Kahane-ism as Jewish racism. Previously I wrote about my rejection of pure Kahanism as an option in the creation of a peace policy. Yet there exists a need to allow people the right to be wrong, and then discern between problem racists and sad situations. Those who go to extremes against people who are not truly extreme but only extremely angry, are themselves guilty of intolerance. Such is the opposite of the kind of consensus building needed during peace policy configuration.

Someone who survived the Holocaust can be excused if they have a grudge against Germans, even though that is not a policy for the rest of us to share. Someone who lost a relative to a terrorist bomb can be excused if they have a grudge against Arabs, though that is not the policy for Israel as a nation to pursue. Such racism is not based on arrogance, which could have no end, but trauma based misdirected anger, which could heal and be overcome in time.

Did you doubt that I would have the same standard toward Jews as I do towards Palestinians? To show those on the wrong path patience, despite their flaws, and give them a chance at redemption even in the face of a mistaken direction that they freely chose?

I believe terrorists are the scum of the Earth. Their breeding pool is from true racists and anti-Semites. But enraged people do not automatically become racists and then terrorists.

For those who have been wronged by groups of a given nation, a compartmental view is called for. I believe you must divide terrorists from normative Arabic society in your mind and Nazis from normative Germanic society as well. Whereas others viewing such traumatized people should not be so quick to accuse them for this hatred. Just as it is difficult for anyone to think straight when they are angry, imagine how hard it is to think straight if you were ALWAYS angry. Imagine if such a person perceived that their own government contributed towards the continued enemy reign of terror? Does that make someone a racist?

Anger is only right against real racists, not the sadly mistaken. They need pity, understanding, patience and advice from people who are less overcome by anger as to the correct path that they should take. It also would not hurt this healing process if their government would take their cries of anguish seriously rather than treat their concerns as fringe wrath and incitement.

Yet those who try to blame any pro-Kahane-ist without taking to heart their needs and concerns with at least an equal amount of respect as they would have for Palestinian “moderates” who reject passive resistance and call for violent intifada, such people, whether leftist or not, are extremists themselves, for they desire free speech only for those who fit within their own philosophic range of thought. They call for justice, only if it benefits those they have selected as normative, rather than using objective truth as their guide. Further, they thereby lose the wisdom that could have been gained by listening to right wingers. As the Talmud says, “Who is wise: whoever learns from anyone” (Avos 4.1)

Such belief by anti Kahane-ists is inherently illogical in its basis, and therefore their hatred of Kahane supporters is as wrong as Kahane-ism is itself. They are not evil incarnate, just as Kahane supporters are not. But they are likewise wrong, only from the other side of the equation. Both sides need to stop the blame game and end their intolerant anger because only by ENDing ANGER can one get rid of that which ENDANGERs the State; internal strife that interferes with peacemaking. As King David said, “Remove yourself from anger and abandon rage, do not strive only for your detriment.” (Psalms 37.8)

The difference between what is suitable for public policy and what represents itself as an individual's opinion is that in public policy we generally must seek a centrist answer with no extreme rhetoric to the right or left, in order to induce a deep-rooted procedure of toleration pursuant to evenhanded and upright diplomatic processes. That is the test that one must meet before attempting to address such broad political issues such as when starting a movement or in the creation of a peace process.

If I am right, do not credit me on this observation but God’s Holy Torah, as all this is implicit in the language of the Talmud. We find that Maimonides (in Deios) said of centrism, “The straight path is the middle road.”

Land for Peace is Fuel for Terror

2008-09-19T15:12:00.001-07:00

Land-for-peace, peace plans which demand of the non aggressor state loss of land are the antithesis of the path to a true and lasting peace. Therefore any such peace process, including the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace only serve to strengthen the hold of terrorists within the Palestinian side. That means extremism within Palestinian leadership is encouraged by current Western Policy in the Middle-East. Some supporters of Palestinians have been afraid to face the truth, perhaps out of fear that putting Arabic rights at Israel’s mercy would risk loss of Arabic rights. Yet for those who know her, Israel’s mercy is its most potent character trait. The moment the gangster-like tactics of terror stop, the violence will end, and peace will come soon, it’s that simple.

Is not the goal of Western Foreign Policy to seek peace which will bring economic prosperity to all? But before you can bring actual peace, you must face the actual truth of things. This conflict is not Israel and the Palestinians with equal claims. Like the person who knows he is losing an argument, so he begins to shout his opinion louder rather than restating it more logically, because there is not enough logic to support it. So too is the people that resort to violence against a peaceful democracy rather than pacifistic civil disobedience. Is Israel’s human rights record truly comparable to China’s? Did Palestinians before the Intifada fear for their lives from the Israel’s military machine? No. The truth, for those who care to hear it is no. The truth is the Palestinian Arabic choice for terror proves that they know deep down that they have no equal claim to the land as does Israel.

The West Bank, by International Law, is Israel’s already (defacto annexation pending final status determination). If this is true, then the idea of avoiding any Israeli land for peace, peace process is not just right wing propaganda, but the basis for any real path to peace. Not just from the concept of being fair to Israel, but from the reality that today’s injustice brings tomorrow’s war. It does not matter which sides looses today’s negotiation. If there is objective International Law to back up a claim that is entirely ignored, there will likely be violence in the future unless a true peace process is implemented instead. A peace process such as the Everyone Wins peace plan, that endeavors to meet the needs of the bi-societal – specific, internal and delicate – healing processes before it tries to carve up territories and attempts to write out maps.

It is unjust to support terror. Land for Peace has become a symbol of a reward for Palestinian Terror, rather than what it should have been from the start, a required gift to a needy people. There should have been a grassroots movement by the Palestinian Arabs to express humble gratitude of a refugee nation over being given a new homeland by its benefactor, Israel. For if a Palestinian state is founded upon the ravenous bloodshed of terror then its future would be fleeting at best, logistically speaking. Morally speaking, support of terror makes the Palestinians’ the aggressor even if Israel has more power and also makes the Palestinian case wrong even before you review the facts. Legally speaking, once you do review the facts, however, it is clear that Israel has more legal rights to the land than the Palestinians under International Law. Allow me to illustrate:

The state is the primary actor in International Law. Individuals, when severed by International Legal Standards from statehood, are not complete entities to International Law, per say, as they are not in the hallowed designation of “State”, whereas individuals within a state are generally viewed as subservient to the greater needs of the greater state in which they reside, unless a universally accepted fundamental Jus Cogens law is clearly violated. Freedom of religious expression, for example, is not currently listed as a universal Jus Cogens law, even though it as I have argued it should be and it is very clearly a Human Right. (This explains why the U.N. is slow to react to Human Rights abuses throughout the world.) An example of this concept is found by refugees who are former members of a state that has completed the legal act of Succession or Cession (as is the case of Jordan in regards to the entire Arabic population of the West Bank, both Judea and Samaria). To keep this essay from getting too long, let’s cite the example of England who used this same premise to keep Northern Ireland as it’s own after its peace deal with the IRA; the full state comes first. But after terror is used by the conquered party, certainly then, no sane nation would assume that the attacked nation had even less rights because it was being terrorized. England certainly did not feel this way. Neither should Israel be made to forsake land for peace due to threat or fiction.

Further you can argue that Ireland was a full state itself before being conquered by England, whereas the Palestinians Arabs were not a full state, but members and former citizens of either Jordan (West Bank) or Egypt (Gaza Strip) before becoming refugees, nations that have abandoned their lands. Israel thus has even more right to the West Bank and Gaza than England has to Northern Ireland. Yet where is the international pressure for England to clear out of Ireland? Is something less than evenhanded afoot? Is it right wing to say emphatically, YES? Or it is simply correct to say so?

Yet political left and right are irrelevant to the issues at play here. Consider the source that tells you this. God blessed me with the Everyone Wins peace plan not only out of my desire to stop the bloodshed and protect Jewish religious rights to their land and Holy sites, but also from my desire to allow everyone, Jew and Arab alike to keep their homes, and out of a desire to enrich the civil rights of West Bank and Gaza Arabs. The only way to do all this is by facing the absolute truth of the matters at hand. That as of today Israel is the logistic, moral and legal owner of the entire Judea and Samaria.

True, it is unjust to support terror. So too, it is also unjust to support being heavy handed against the true land owner, Israel, in any final status negotiations. The restoration of moderation in attitudes toward Israel by those currently biased against her, is a must, just for a basic perception of the plain facts to occur.

The bottom line is, Israeli land-for-peace, peace deals are clearly fuel for terror and the world need only correctly identify the real aggressor in the conflict for true peace to come. For so long and with so much bloodshed the wrong way to peace has been pursued. The time has come to try it the right way.

Ezekiel's Jerusalem

2008-09-08T16:54:00.000-07:00

We spoke of the brief lifespan of previous (land for peace) peace plans from a pragmatic, logic-based discussion in the context of International Law. Now we are going to discuss why they do not work from a religious perspective.

What if you knew what was going to happen before it happened? What if there was a prophecy that the current Roadmap to Peace would fail? What if Israel is absolutely destined to rule the land west of the Jordan River and you also believe that it is wrong to throw the thousands upon thousands of innocent men women and children amongst the Palestinians out of their homes and into the street; what would you do?

What if the only alternative to an apocalyptic war, was to find a way to keep Palestinian Arabs in the Holy Land, yet somehow also allow Israel to police the entire land west of the River Jordan. If you believed this were about to happen and you believe in fair play, then you would surely seek a peace plan that somehow allows the Palestinians to keep their homes in the post-prophecy-come-true Israel of tomorrow.

Most of the world’s population believes that there is a God, and in fact, a slight majority believes there is only one Deity, the God of Abraham. Yet most of them are probably not extremely conversant in the later prophets. If you look at the last chapter in the Book of Ezekiel, you will find that Jews are destined to rule the entire land in the vicinity of the immediate North and South of Ancient Jerusalem. The borders of Ezekiel’s Jerusalem based state of the future, in fact, encompass the entire West Bank, all of Judea and Samaria as well as the land within the Green Line.

There are three Peace Plans that are potentially consistent with Ezekiel’s prophecy. Rabbi Binyamin Elon’s Israeli Initiative, Rabbi Meir Kahane’s plan, and the Everyone Wins peace plan. Of the three of them, Everyone Wins is the most liberal, the most to the political center, and thus the most likely to win the broadest long term political support to last eternally. Of the three of them, Everyone Wins is the only one that allows for a Palestinian Arabic presence in the Holy Land, within the context of Ezekiel’s words. Effectively speaking, Everyone Wins seeks to allow a place for Palestinians within the utopian world of the Israel of tomorrow, unlike any other peace plan to its right or to its left. Every other peace plan to the right or left, are attempts at complete amputations of the Arabs from the Jews or the Jews from the Arabs. But Everyone Wins is a surgery, removing only the unhealthy parts (terrorists), so that the rest may live in serenity, together, forever.

People say that due to their fiery nature, religion and politics do not mix. Yet if the most controversial belief systems on Earth of religion and politics are not both addressed satisfactorily, in the context of claim and counter claim that oftentimes encompasses both belief systems, then how can any peace deal hope to find real success?

If you are a religious person, I am now going to ask a lot of you. I am asking you to have faith that God did not create man to live in a state of perpetual war, but that we should cast aside all prejudices and find eternal peace. The faith I speak of is in the conviction to act. A change of policy from that which we think is right, to that which God knows is best. That is true faith.

Have the faith to believe, and the courage to act.

The Unsubstantial Nature of Past Peace Plans

2008-09-07T21:48:00.000-07:00

When Benjamin Netanyahu said (Arutz Sheva, April 22, 2008) that he was going to ignore any peace deal signed by Olmert upon what aspect of International Law was he basing this on? After all, if treaties signed by two nations are superior to even U.N. resolutions, as I stated in my previous post, then what is the legal justification for his statement? First of all, even if an outgoing leader signs a document, if it is unlikely to ever be ratified, it is not in the same classification of potency as a fully completed peace deal. Secondly, if the incoming leader can illustrate clearly that the most fundamental of International Laws was violated, Jus Cogens, then even a fully completed peace deal could become obsolete.

Whoa, what am I saying here?! Am I saying that all the peace deals in the past had the potential to become obsolete as soon as the next government that disagreed with it came into power? If so, then that would mean all these peace deals Israel has been running after was just for the sake of the POSSIBILITY of a few months of peace. Let’s consider this closely…

Let’s define peace between nations. The ideal form of peace would be one that does not just put an end to belligerence, but would also establish active friendship. An end to belligerence alone is a cold peace, essentially all but a cold war. Such a situation exists between Egypt and Israel. Active partnership exists between Israel and Jordan on several but not all matters. While not utterly perfect, the Israel-Jordan peace deal represents the current prototype of what is needed for a peace deal to be successful in the Middle East. We don’t know if the cold peace with Egypt is strong enough to keep Egypt out of a war between Israel and Syria, so we are caught in a perpetual wait and see mode to find out if there really is peace after all. What benefit does this bring to Israel? The only sure thing it did was to bring more oil to OPEC.

What is the physical difference between the peace deals? In the peace deal with Egypt, Israel had to withdraw from a large amount of territory, for a promise by Egypt to be nice from now on. While with Jordan, Israel withdrew from much less territory than Jordan relinquished (even though they could have gotten the peace deal done without giving up even a drop of land). This implies that when the non belligerent side (Israel) is tough during negotiations, they get true peace, and if they cede more territory than their former adversary, that is, if they show weakness, then they get cold peace at best. Such is the nature of the rough and tumble Middle-East.

Scientifically speaking, though, from a mere two cases alone we cannot base any conclusive statistical proof, except for the fact that the peace agreement between England and the IRA is almost a duplicate model of the Israeli-Jordanian pact. The non-belligerent side, in that case, England, stayed tough, did not give up land, and they got a complete dismantling of the IRA as well.

This would lead one to think that any peace deal that Syria would agree to in the near future would not likely have a chance at bringing true peace. Until Syria is prepared to forsake the Golan, no real movement towards peace should be expected on that front. Further still, this implies that the current Roadmap to Peace is at its heart, a failed attempt at peace, even in a theoretically perfectly ideal installation of the terms in the noblest of land-for-peace, peace plans.

So, yes, all land-for-peace, peace plans are high risk for minimal gain. There is no true expectation for peace by any the politicians involved except by the most left wing of dreamers. If so, then why do they do it? Perhaps due to a perceived lack of a viable alternative vision, but, I believe not due to intentional mischief. They cannot deal with the idea of eternal war, so they keep taking risks hoping to one day find a real solution for peace.

I would liken this to an electrician with a box of fuses, one of which he knows is good, so he keeps plugging in a different one into the socket hoping that this is the one that will restore power to the room, meanwhile everyone stands there in the dark.

These peace hungry politicians dredge forward and despite their near exhaustion and exasperation at the whole affair and continue onward with little trust in the very work they slave over year after year to achieve.

Certainly, if my suppositions are correct, all this seems like so very little motive to force thousands of people out of their homes over. It just does not seem worth it, settling for a less than optimum form of peace, when they should be seeking to use a peace plan that is the least likely to have long term causes to be regretted and repealed. They should not have to settle for so little.

Thank God, now that there exists a much more true path to peace, they no longer have to.

Israeli Settlements Are Legal Under International Law

2008-08-27T21:11:00.000-07:00

When U.N. leaders call continued Israeli settlement unproductive and illegal, upon what are they basing this on? Under International Law Israel is the legal guardian of the land, they can literally do as they please; if so, then why all the whining that Israeli settlement activity is wrong?

In practice, they are placing political progress in the pursuit of the current peace process, ahead of fundamental International Law, i.e. increasing Israeli security, which settlement expansion, if nothing else, does precisely that.

But the theoretical basis of the assumption that Israeli settlements are a ‘bad’ thing rests on the concept that West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabs view it as bad. In other words, as Israeli settlement activity offends Palestinian society, it is “illegal” because it is unproductive towards the current peace process. The current peace process, however, is not a law; it is merely an initiative that the U.N. supports.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that just because the UN supports something it is to be considered the absolute law, and in fact, as that would remove free will from individual nations, the pursuit of a peace policy that endangers national rights, is illegal itself!

The right of nations to pursue their own agreements and treaties with their neighbors without threat of violence is the foundation of the entirety of International Law, and other than Jus Cogens / Primal Law, nothing is more potent than a treaty between nations in International Law. Therefore there is no basis in International Law for such an erroneous belief as to force feed a peace deal that is not in the best interests of the nation involved.

In other words, when U.N. leadership says that it is illegal for Israel to pursue settlement, they are really saying it is politically inconvenient, and if any of them truly believe that it is illegal then they are mistaken. International Law need not bow to global politics; actually it is the reverse that must occur so that law and order may properly function in the world.

We see why Israel goes to America for evenhanded mediation, not the U.N., as the U.N. not only does not take Israeli societal preferences as an equal and counterbalancing claim to Palestinian societal preferences, but the U.N. has been ignoring the very law it claims to represent, in regards to Israeli claims in the face of Palestinian Terror.

But aren’t settlements an encroachment on Palestinian land?

No, according to the U.N. itself even this has not been established yet.

According to U.N. resolutions, (which carry a third tier legal status of importance, below Jus Cogens and Treaties) Israel and the Palestinian Arabs have to determine the borders, and that means NO BODY ELSE can determine the borders. As shown by the fact that there have been no U.N. ratified objections targeted against Palestinian settlement expansion, this proves clearly that there is no real law against the concept of "settlement expansion", per say. Except if done by Israelis. Therefore we see that objective standards such as law have been thrown out the window whenever the topic of Israeli settlements are raised at the U.N.

As long as Israel has an evenhanded policy in settlement expansion, there is no reason to believe that anything truly wrong is being done by settlement expansion. And as expansion of settlements decreases security risks for Israel, settlement expansion should be considered enshrined and protected within the category of Jus Cogens itself. Therefore even if Israel, for example, were to halt all Palestinian expansion and continued only Israeli expansion, as a policy against terror, they would have a theoretical “right” to do so, however politically improbable it may actually be.

Foreign Policy Toward Russia

2008-08-24T22:16:00.000-07:00

As I wrote less than two months ago, Russia has shown willingness in the past to play chicken with the safety of its people in foreign borders, having assumed that no one would risk Russian wrath, and having accepted that performing violence against anyone who dares threaten citizens of Russia is perfectly legitimate, even if poor judgment placed them in harm's way to begin with.

Unfortunately, Georgia did not read or take my warning to heart. I am hoping other countries in the West will not make the same mistake. The Russian action against Georgia should have woken everyone up. There is no need to even mention my warning save for the fact that all this was so predictable that even a simple fellow such as myself could figure it out.

I do not blame Russia alone for the events in Georgia. Either the Russians in North Ossetia should be moved to Russia or the territory should be transferred to Russia in peaceful negotiations. The timid or careless reaction by the EU to the decades long pressure build up between Russia and Georgia is the main reason this matter has come to bloodshed.

Diplomatic ideals must give way to the imperative of preventing live warfare. It is vital to make Russia tell its workers to leave Iranian reactor sites or else. The West may be on track for another cold war with Russia, but it is more than wise to make sure that nothing worse than a cold war transpires. Don't worry about the West being painted as a bully towards Russia. Just work to make sure everyone lives to read the history books that discuss these events of today.

Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological Foundation of Healing Societies

2008-07-30T20:43:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-20T11:27:00.000-07:00

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

Conception
Publicity
Acceptance
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

2008-07-16T17:34:00.000-07:00

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:

Israel destroys a handful of Iranian nuclear research sites.
Iran strikes US armed forces in Iraq and other places in the Persian Gulf.
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

2008-07-08T18:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-07T17:14:00.001-07:00

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.

Sarkozy Too Cozy With Division of Jerusalem

2008-06-23T19:00:00.000-07:00

In the news today, France's leader spoke out in a healthy and tough stand against Iran, and just in case we would start to think him too wise beyond his years, in the interests of even-handedness he also made a foolish statement so he could remain on par with many other world leaders. Sarkozy said that:

"There can be no peace without recognising Jerusalem as the capital of two states and the guarantee of freedom of access to the holy places for all religions," (AFP)

First of all, this statement of Sarkozy shows ignorance of the strife between PA goals for Jerusalem, and Israeli goals for Jerusalem. The destruction of Joseph's tomb, and countless other offenses, prove that the PA is untrustworthy to share secular control over religious institutions. Only Israeli control can guarantee freedom of religion for non-Muslims. Sarkozy's first statement on Jerusalem, of shared political centers, contradicts his second statement on Jerusalem, that there should be freedom of religion in the holy city.

Secondly, the Sarkozy statement seems something of a paraphrase of a quote from Isaiah, but misses the intent of God's statement entirely...

"And the children of foreign lands who join themselves to the Lord to serve Him and to love the Name of the Lord, to become his servants unto Him... I will bring them to My holy mountain, and I will gladden them in My house of prayer... for my House will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples. The word of my Lord, God, Who gathers in the dispersed of Israel: I shall gather to him even more than those already gathered to him." (Isaiah 56.6-8)

The prophecy implies both the facts of today and of recent history, that Israel must be in possession of "The House" and only then can it be a house of prayer for all.

Not only Jewish freedom of religion depends on it.

A Critique of the Elon Plan and a Summary of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan

2008-06-20T15:11:00.000-07:00

The Rabbi Binyamin Elon peace plan, despite a few issues that bother me, is currently the best peace plan widely known in the world today, while the “Roadmap to Peace” is an assault on Jewish Human Rights in the form of freedom to practice Judaism in their own land. The Palestinian Authority has failed to show any indication that they intend to keep the International Laws of Succession and safeguard Jewish freedom of religious access to their religious landmarks and holy sites, as was proven, for example, with the desecration of the Tomb of Joseph and countless other examples. Further, and more urgent, every time the IDF surrenders more control, more people have died on both sides.

Even if the Roadmap is scrapped, there has to be a good alternative peace plan waiting in the wings, so that any other plans even worse than the Roadmap do not ever get a chance to gain strength. I feel the need for an alternate peace plan is vital to avoid further desecration of God’s Holy Name and needless bloodshed. If my plan is unacceptable for whatever reason, at least the Elon plan does not placate terrorists. Yet here are the main reasons that I was unsatisfied with the Elon plan and wrote up a whole new plan, by the grace of God...

Issue 1

Involving another country, effectively takes control of peace out of the hands of Israel and places it into the hands of that other country. Not only does the Elon plan depend on Jordan to change their policy and allow mass immigration, (which they may view with as much disdain as Israel views the Saudi plan) but it also depends on Jordan to keep the peace in their own country and should that fail, there is a danger of Israel being pressured to take back terrorists into their country, because to the UN, why would Israel’s sovereignty be more important than Jordan’s? True peace should bring more stability, not less, more order, not more potential for randomness and chaos. This is the first issue I have with the Elon plan.

Issue 2

In my variation of one state solutions such as the Elon peace plan, which I call the “Everyone Wins” plan, nobody loses their homes except for terrorists and those who support them. Now even if at the end of the day this means only a minority of Palestinian Arabs keep their homes, as it does not discriminate due to race, but moral choice, it is much more politically acceptable to the mainstream than any variant of a Rabbi Kahane plan. The Elon plan which seeks to toss every Palestinian Arab out of the West Bank and Gaza, has the negative appearance of a Kahane style plan. Not that Rabbi Kahane was a racist. Indeed, if everybody listened to him many lives would have been spared, more Arabs than Jews, even. Yet, the unfortunate reality is that any Kahane-esque plan causes a knee-jerk reaction in the left, and makes it morally difficult for the politically moderate to give their full support. We must deal with actualities in order to implement loftier ideals. We cannot ignore how the electorate feels. This is the second issue that I have with the Elon plan.

Issue 3

Is this how you treat your friends? Remember that Abraham prayed for even just ten people out of a whole city, if they are righteous. So how can anyone suggest tossing out so many potentially good people without giving them a chance to prove themselves innocent of terror?

Real Change

To do more than win over just a few politicians, but to actually change American Foreign Policy you need to offer a non-offensive (to American sensibilities) alternative to current foreign policy. The peace plan alternative must be as moderate and evenhanded as possible without ignoring the key needs of Israel, external and internal security, and religious freedom.

Everyone Wins

The "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Whereas previous one state solutions called for relocating masses of people, this plan calls for no segregation whatsoever. Nobody has to give up their homes (except for terrorists and those who support them), neither Jews nor Arabs. Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis without overwhelming the Israeli economy and infrastructure.

The key to making this work is twofold. First: the categorization of the level of security risk of each naturalization applicant. The ones who are at zero risk are immediately placed in cue and await a corresponding number of immigrants to raise enough quota to allow them entry as naturalized Israelis. Second: setting a fair and an appropriate ratio. If current demographics in Israel are that 15% of Israelis are Arabs, then the ratio could be set at 15%. That is, for every 100 immigrants, 15 West Bank and Gaza Arabs who are not a threat are allowed in. So if in a given year there are 100,000 Jewish immigrants, 15,000 friendly Arabs would naturalize.

Once true peace exists, I would expect that Jewish immigration will likely increase by no less than 300% of current rates. Plus financial stability and growth will be at unheard of levels. The ability to power infrastructure growth and the greater Jewish immigration numbers will allow Israel to naturalize more Arabs faster and safer than currently possible. Thus the entire conflict will come to an end that much sooner, by the grace of God.

Palestinian Leaders Indicate Trust in the IDF

2008-06-14T21:01:00.000-07:00

As reported in yesterday’s edition of the Jewish Press (page 69, citing MAAN News), PA negotiator Qurei recently gave something of an historic revelation. He suggested that if things do not improve in the current Roadmap guided peace process, the Palestinian leadership may press for a single bi-national state. Back in 2004 he revealed his personal preference for this, but never before in the context as a spokesman for West Bank and Gaza Palestinian opinion at large. While the terrorist PA leaders mean this as a negative, as a threat to compel the Israelis to give up more than they are willing to, or to overwhelm the Israeli immigration infrastructure as in the underhanded and evil spirit of the Saudi Arabian “peace” plan, this statement does serve a good purpose, as far as fans of the Everyone Wins Peace Plan are concerned. It shows without a doubt that the idea of the IDF being the leading security force over Palestinians is not a real issue of contention. Palestinian Arabs, even the militants among them, do not consider a dominant IDF a negative in a future unified State of Israel. So for all those who were concerned for Palestinians not feeling oppressed following any peace deal, they need no longer worry that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan was over the top in suggesting that the Israel Defense Force be the supreme security force over the all Israeli citizens, even the newly immigrated West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabs. This Qurei statement implicitly tells us that Palestinian militants know that once they stop attacking Israelis, the IDF will not be used against them.

This Qurei statement also shows that this conflict is not about the giant oppressing the shepherd. It’s not about Israel violating Palestinian Human Rights every second. It’s about the cynical use of peace processes as a “strategic choice” (Arafat’s words). It’s about the gullibility of governments and news organizations, and a terrorist organization (PLO / PA) that knew how to play them in concert with a willing accomplice in the form of a UN instigating Arab League. The idea of this conflict being the fault of “both sides” is the biggest hoax in recent world history.

The PA card of terror as foreign policy has been revealed.

A United Jerusalem is the Only Chance for True Peace

2008-06-13T13:39:00.000-07:00

The Roadmap to Peace is founded upon a fallacy. The UN initiative to seek a land for peace deal and settle the differences between Israelis and Palestinians by division of the Holy Land is at the heart of all the problems involved in making peace work. It is no wonder that most Israelis and Palestinian Arabs have lost hope for current peace talks to be successful.

When forming a peace plan you cannot simply make a hodgepodge checklist of issues to cover in negotiations and then hope they will be somehow be achieved through mutual compromise by the parties involved here and there and along the way. You need to offer solutions that have the best chance to succeed, that take into account the highly improbable areas and treat them as non-options for inclusion. Every other peace plan that I have heard of, besides the Everyone Wins Peace Plan, requires the surrender of at least parts of Jerusalem by one side or the other. Everyone Wins rejects the concept of people leaving their homes, and says that everyone should share Jerusalem.

The first stage of Sharon/Kadima Party's support of the Roadmap has not only created a terror state in Gaza, but hundreds of families STILL remain homeless years later. The government is so busy fighting terror and negotiating down a path that leads nowhere, that it doesn't take the time or allocates the resources needed to help the citizens that they dispossessed of their land. The same mistakes are being repeated over and over. Rather than starting off on the right foot of humanitarianism, the governments of Israel and her friends allows it to take a back seat to politics. Isn't this how we got into this situation in the first place? The beginning of conflict is in the unjust application of dissatisfaction and disfranchisement. If Western governments value the right to vote everywhere the world over, then how can they value so much less the right to a roof over one's head?

The crisis for former Gazans is only getting worse, as time makes donors forget, even as the government still does not provide housing and jobs for the forcibly displaced and unemployed.

Some of the disturbing quotes of the homeless of Gaza upon receiving food for the Spring holidays from a charity drive by National Council of Young Israel and Mosdot Yad Ezra:

"Imagine opening the refrigerator and seeing it full," said one woman, "We were able to enjoy the true spirit of the holiday. It was the first time that we had to worry about having ample room in the freezer since the expulsion."

"All of a sudden we had food in the house," said one woman, "My children thought that my husband had finally been able to find a job."

"Someone from America cared," said a man from Nitzan, "It was almost as if people had forgotten about us."

"In the beginning everyone remembered - now only you," said one of the mothers whose family received food.

"We were always givers, not takers," said another man, "We didn't want to be in this situation - it wasn’t by choice."

"My husband died in 2004 in a terrorist attack," remarked one woman, "On behalf of myself and my seven children, thank you. May you always be able to be on the giving side and not on the receiving side."

* * * * *

Good, innocent people, made homeless. For what!?! If only it were for peace, but history has shown it was in order to create a terrorist state and for our politicians to be self satisfied that they are "working for peace" even as they incidentally torture the innocent with their sick preoccupation with the fallacious Roadmap to Peace!!

The Roadmap seems to reject the hope of true peace and would seem to be a roadmap to a homelessness crisis and mass destitution of untold proportions. No true friend of Israel should support it even a moment longer!

Russia & Iran: Avoiding a New Cold War

2008-06-06T14:51:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year, I mentioned that pressure needed to be brought down on Russia's support of Iran's nuclear project so that Iran would not be encouraged to ignore Western political pressure. But there is another reason as well. CNN reported today that a key Israeli government member gave Iran an explicit warning of ceasing their nuke program, or else Israel will attack. If things stay on the same path, and Israel does have to perform a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear installations, it is vital for American interests that no Iranian based Russian workers are involved in the matter.

Russian leader Putin has shown willingness in the past to play chicken with the safety of his people in foreign borders, having assumed that no one would risk Russian wrath, and having accepted that performing violence against anyone who dares threaten citizens of Russia is perfectly legitimate, even if poor judgment placed them in harm's way to begin with. American and her allies must make it clear to Russia, that if any of their workers were to become casualties in any conflict between Iran and Israel, then Russia would have no legitimate option for vendetta under international norms and beliefs. What do you think Russia's reaction would be if Iran was attacked and some of its people were killed in the process?

The current situation is a risk for a 21st Century cold war, where Russia could be tempted to openly support terror orientated governments in the name of pseudo "justice". Russia must be made to understand that it is its own fault if it fails to adequately remove it workers from harm's way. Indeed, even Iran would not be in danger of an Israeli strike if not for Russia pushing the timetable of Iran's nuclear program ahead of any attempts by the West to seek peaceful solutions to the burgeoning conflict. It may already be too late to avoid further conflict in the Middle East, but let's make sure it does not become a decades long cold war between East and West as well.

Making Peace With Syria

2008-05-25T12:32:00.000-07:00

Why would Syrian dictator Assad wish to forsake all of his terrorist cronies in Damascus for the sake of a mere majority of the Golan Heights, when he had always demanded all of the Golan? The timing is puzzling of Assad's new willingness to give up the equivalent of an extra army in his land for the sake of only part of what he has always claimed was entirely his. Especially when you take former Israeli Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Barak's opinion into account. From today's Jerusalem Post:

According to the defense minister, Assad's first priority is the survival of his regime. His second priority is getting the international tribunal into 2005's assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri canceled, a tribunal that is expected to point an accusatory finger at the highest echelons of the Syrian government.

Third, according to Barak, is securing a "special status" for Syria in Lebanon, followed by getting itself into the good graces of the US and the West. Only after all those interests does the Golan Heights enter Assad's list of priorities. (Herb Keinon's, 'Peace not a priority for Damascus', Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2008)

It is vital that the Knesset stops any pseudo peace plan with Syria that current Israeli Prime Minister Olmert may try to run through. In 2006 Olmert pledged to never give up the Golan in any peace deal with Syria. (April 24,

2008, Israel

National News) Now Olmert, under investigation, and eager to make a mark of some kind of positive legacy before he may have to leave office abruptly, announces discussions to give up most of Golan, the territory that borders Israel and Syria.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the likely next Prime Minister of the State of Israel pledged to ignore any peace deal Olmert signs with Abbas. (April 22,

2008, I

NN) Let's hope he intends to do the same toward any possible deal with Syria as well, though it is more problematic from an International Law perspective. Abbas is not a head of State, Syria's Assad is. That has huge implications in International Law. It would be significantly more difficult to change a signed deal between two heads of state. The two most potent forms of International Law are Jus Cogens/primal rights, and also treaties between two officially recognized states. So it is vital that any false peace plan be stopped before it is signed.

Despite what Olmert has done in the past I have nothing against him doing good for his people, and getting a little honor along the way with it. But the giving of strategic land to an unrepentant regime that historically has only used the exact territory in question as a platform to wage war from is the worse thing Olmert could try to do to his people. What is Olmert thinking? For the sake of true peace in the Middle East, we cannot assume that Olmert, under such serious pressure, is fully thinking this through. Assad's closest ally is Iran of all countries.

Even if Assad agrees to forsake terror, he has a signed treaty with Iran that if any country attacks Syria, Iran will attack that country. Now that Israel took out Assad's secret nuclear program, there is no hope for Syria individually to defeat Israel via a surprise attack, at a moment when Assad's hatred for Israel is at its peak over the embarrassing nuclear set back at the hands of Israel. Yet Assad knows that if he attacks Israel, he forces Iran to fight Israel as well, God forbid. Ahmadinejad may be telling Assad even now, the price for fulfillment of that scenario is optimum strategic advantage, which for Iran would be Syrian control of the Golan. We need to seek paths to perpetual peace, not empower potential pretexts for war!

Syria must reject terror bases in its land, it must desire peaceful relations, and it must give up its constant demands for the Golan as a prerequisite for its civilized behavior. Paradoxically, then Israel would be empowered to consider some sort of land for friendship deal if they so choose to. But not land for peace. Land for peace, in an age of terror, is nothing less than fuel for terror. A pseudo justification used by enemies of peace to deceive their people that Israel is still their enemy, when all Israel wants to do is the same as any other Western nation wants to do; business with its neighbors and never war.

Assad, on the other hand, wants his people distracted from their lack of freedom, and the only way to do that is if Israel is an enemy. Therefore, we must assume that any attempt to get peace exclusively on condition of gaining the Golan when Iran is primed to attack Israel at the slightest excuse, is nothing other than a preparation for war in the immediate future by the leaders of both Syria as well as the silent partner in this sorted affair, Iran. All friends of peace should be opposed to such a disgusting perversion of the concept of peace, and discourage Israeli leadership from making such a tragic mistake!

When dealing with people like Assad, you do not seek common ground, you make them leave their philosophy of evil and chart a new course. The path toward the concept of true peace is education of all sides of what objective peace is. Such as no backstabbing, no support of terror, and a host of other concepts that you and I take for granted, but corrupted people may not fully grasp. That is why evenhanded mediation with terrorists only strengthens them, not the cause of true peace.

The Friedlander Peace Plan Is The Everyone Wins Peace Plan

2008-05-22T15:30:00.000-07:00

By the grace of God, if others wish to call my peace plan, the Friedlander Peace Plan, I will let them. First, the name consistently differentiates between itself and the (Rabbi) Elon Peace Plan, which is also a One State Solution but of a different character. Second, the original Germanic meaning of Friedland is "peaceful land", which is the goal of any peace plan. Indeed, both are valid reasons to continue to call it by my surname, yet... in an attempt in having at least the appearance of a basic level of humility, except where appropriate I will endeavor to refer to my peace plan as the "Everyone Wins Peace Plan", and I will tell you why later in this post, but first I want to mention what I didn't name it. I did not name it according to the first idea that came to me, the freedom peace plan or the liberty peace plan for several reasons:

Freedom plan sounds more like a phone service commercial advertisement than a realistic path to peace. And I did not want to make this very serious path to peace sound like a joke.
As one person's freedom is an other's anarchy, and as terrorists deal mainly in anarchy, the meaning of liberty has a different connotation than when the Declaration of Independence speaks of liberty, for example. Freedom, to the radical Islam that Hamas deals in, is a danger in the hands of others (non-Islamic people), and is used exclusively as a self reference when referring the term to itself (true freedom is when they can do what they want, they are essentially arguing).
By calling the plan by the name Friedlander, I placed an address label on it. As this plan has no other source text than an Internet based blog, it is not as easy to research as the other peace plans, so therefore I placed a moniker that could aid in better directing inquiries from interested parties toward the source of the plan. Nevertheless, in the interest of keeping my head from swelling and necessitating the usage of a larger hat size, I figured that for myself at least, I would still have to come up with another descriptor for this peace plan.

The reason why the Friedlander Peace Plan can be called the Everyone Wins Peace Plan is that you can argue it from either the right or the left and it still remains flexible enough to be the best plan available.

An argument from the right would include that the Everyone Wins Peace Plan secures an end to terrorist armies within a stone's throw of Israeli cities, it allows settlers to keep their homes, it also maintains the State's control over all the land and resources West of the Jordan River, and it guarantees freedom of religion to non-Muslims.

From a left point of view, the Everyone Wins Peace Plan maintains Palestinian control of their cities and allows the retention of their homes, it frees them short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps, and it allows them to join their cousins within the Green Line by having a right to vote in the State of Israel.

From a centrist perspective that everyone can agree with, the Everyone Wins Peace Plan ends the unhealthy segregationist environment both sides are currently caught up in. The Everyone Wins Peace Plan also removes the main pan-Arabic excuse to discriminate financially against the State of Israel. This will only snowball the effectiveness of the plan at ending the conflict that much sooner, as improved finances and security means increased Jewish immigration rates which allows the expansion of the Arabic naturalization process that is at the core of this solution.

When you compare the Everyone Wins Peace Plan it to all the others, no other peace plan comes close to being so politically acceptable to as broad a base as this plan does. That, in my opinion, is the most important factor when choosing a path by which to avoid perpetual war. The wider the support a peace plan has, the less the likelihood of rebellion against the process once everyone is deeply invested in more ways than merely financial.

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy for Peace

A Statement Against Arrogance

2008-05-16T13:31:00.000-07:00

The Talmud teaches in Ethics of Fathers, one should be as clear as possible in their teachings to that students do not stumble on a misinterpretation. The Talmud (first chapter of Sotah) also relates how God despises Yuhara/haughtiness comparing it to idolatry and adultery. Ethics of the Fathers further says in the first chapter that whoever who tries to increase their name, decreases it. Indeed, self promotion for its own sake is against the Torah. So I state for the record that I do not intend in any way to teach arrogant self promotion by calling the peace plan that God gave me after my own name. No one has taken me to task over this as of this writing, but in the spirit of the Talmudic concept of avoiding sinful appearances I speak.

It is the nature of the times and this mode of communication that self promotion is required just to present a dialog. Naming the peace plan that God inspired me to compose after my Father’s last name while it does have an aspect of honor one’s father, inescapably honors myself as well, I cannot escape that fact, but that is not why I did it. In fact, if I am true to myself and know my own feelings, it is because of the exact opposite reason that I did not care for my own honor that I chose to do things this way. If I wanted to be hailed as a genius by my peers, I would have taken the long but honorable method of pursuing the publication of articles in peer review journals of Political Science. I would have taken the time to have written books to better market my career and fill my wallet, if that was my main goal with this recent campaign of mine to promote the Friedlander Peace Plan. In this blog, however, we are not entertaining self promotion but in fact discussing the avoidance of bloodshed, as well as the avoidance of loss of religious rights and property rights for all who are at risk.

The Halacha/Talmudic Law states that if someone who is naked is drowning, we do not demand that they clothe themselves before we rescue them, but we push aside the normal practice of avoiding nudity in order to save a life. Every day millions of people are at risk. I simply could not wait until a career opportunity would present itself, but as soon as the idea was fully formulated, I spoke it. I began to write an extended essay on this a year ago, but I had to work though some paradoxes until God had mercy on me and gave me the inspiration to present this idea publicly beginning as of a month ago. I could not just sit still while countless people were in danger!

So if in any way I went over the line of arrogant self promotion as a byproduct of some aspect of low self esteem on my part, then I apologize and accept the full responsibility for my words and actions and if the Lord wills it, I do intend to make amends, if at all possible. If my words, however, lead in any way to true peace in the Middle East, then I request here and now that credit should be given to where it truly belongs, to those who made me, to God and to my parents and mentors, such as Rav Aharon Soloveichik.

The Friedlander Peace Plan: An Evenhanded Policy for Peace

2008-05-14T17:31:00.000-07:00

Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 3

By Professor Alan Friedlander

In the creation of the Friedlander Peace Plan, an effort has been made to try to form a peace plan for an electorate that currently votes for terrorists, the Palestinians, and for a nation that is adamant about keeping its current ethnic mix, the Israelis. There is a general lack of trust because Palestinians and Israelis are fighting over the same territory. If seen from a perspective of victor and loser, which is the natural baggage that comes as an intrinsic aspect of territorial disputes, then only one side can truly win and the other side therefore must lose. This makes compromise politically impossible without creating a loser, or two vaguely confused combatants with so many minor wins and losses along the way that the meaning of the victory is run away in the downpour of endless compromise, leaving only the taste of defeat in the mouths of both sides. In other words, any two-state solution based peace deal is guaranteed to dissatisfy at least one side and probably both. In other words, any two-state solution peace initiative is guaranteed to be a temporary solution until the next conflict arises.

Meanwhile, all other one state solutions believe in shipping one nation or the other to another country, tearing asunder civil rights such as the right to reside in one's own property and the right to vote, thus also creating dissatisfaction on both a societal as well as a national scale. Therefore any true peace deal must minimize feelings of dissatisfaction that are caused by any one side "losing" the negotiations, and also any peace deal must be able to create a permanent solution, otherwise all gains will eventually be lost and the cycle of violence would not cease, God forbid.

By naturalizing West Bank and Gaza Arabs, but in a corresponding ratio based system to Jewish immigration, both key individual national desires of full political rights for Palestinians in the territories and an end to security risks for Israelis will be met. Both sides would also benefit from peace without withdrawal, which makes no political losers on a national scale, plus the right in many cases to keep a family homestead that has existed for dozens and dozens of years, no losers on a societal scale. The newly united State of Israel would experience a massive investment surge from overseas companies and industries, the likes of which have never been seen in the country before.

Anticipating and tracking any change in the status quo of the rate of immigration is crucial to keep this peace deal fair. First the electorate must set the ratio. If currently there are more than 5 Jews for every Arab. So would 2 Arabs admitted to the State of Israel for every 10 Jews admitted be what the electorate would choose? Whatever the numbers, and I am not in a position right now to make any solid suggestions on what the will of the people should be or is in this regard, nevertheless I feel that the ratio should not necessarily be considered written in stone. Through the wise fluctuation of the ratio rate of immigration and naturalization on a sliding scale in favor of the "disadvantaged" population it is possible to avoid major potential causes for flare ups in the future. It is certain that a ratio too extreme in either direction would be a costly mistake for which there is no need to extrapolate.

If I am ever quoted on this, allow me to point out that I never said terrorists should be granted citizenship. No country would make a citizen out of wanton felons, let alone murderers. But also that Palestinians have clearly been reacting to a series of Israeli and Western leaders supporting terrorists in diplomatic clothing such as Abbas. Such Palestinian leaders are PLO terrorists, not true moderates. Therefore peace negotiations in the past have taken unfair turns. All because the stand President Bush took against Hamas' take over in Gaza, was how pseudo moderates like Abbas should have been dealt with as well. It was the Western support of Arafat and Abbas that created the group psychological phenomena that propelled terror into the sphere of political option in the minds of Palestinian voters. Only by having zero tolerance toward fake diplomats such as Abbas can then the rise of true moderate, third way candidates be seen amongst the Palestinians and become widely acceptable to the public. This is an essential step in the local self governance that is necessary in primarily Palestinian Arab populated regions in the West Bank and Gaza, in order to allow Palestinian towns to be added one by one to the body of the State of Israel.

It should be clearly understood that all other peace deals have been begun by taking the first step with the wrong foot. The beginning of peace does not come by the placation of terror; that is its anathema. If your goal is trying to keep people from dying or losing their homes, then please let these words that I have told you take on meaning in your heart.

What do I answer to those who say, well what if in the end it turns out that most Palestinians utterly and eternally reject peace in support of terror. Will all this effort have all been in vain? To them I say: What of the flowers among the thorns? What of the innocent ones among them? Abraham, the forefather of Jews and Arabs prayed for those innocent trapped among the guilty. It's time that Abraham's descendants on both sides showed more respect for his legacy, and this most sacred family tradition.

A Discussion on the Mechanics of the Naturalization of West Bank and Gaza Arabs to the State of Israel

2008-05-11T20:25:00.000-07:00

Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 2:

A Discussion on the Mechanics of the Naturalization of West Bank and Gaza Arabs to the State of Israel

By Professor Alan Friedlander

In regard to this policy of Arabic absorption upon which the Friedlander version of the One State Solution depends... Obviously, and even Arab Israelis would agree that you cannot allow entry into the State of Israel and grant the right to vote to terrorists with blood on their hands or those who support terror. This then brings us back to the concern we raised before that, according to that March 19, 2008 NY Times poll, now a majority of West Bank Palestinian Arabs support terror against Israel. So how is it possible for a significant enough number of Palestinians in the territories to be eligible to become naturalized Israelis even in the eyes of their own Arab cousins in Israel?

Again, the good part of bureaucracy comes to the rescue. To best illustrate first we need to categorize the intensity of the problem, and next we prioritize the organization of the Arabic naturalization rate according to a Score of the Level-Of-Probable-Innocence (L.O.P.I. Score, to coin a phrase) of each immigration applicant. The higher the L.O.P.I. Score rating, the better chance they have to become an Israeli.

Categorization:

Terrorists with blood on their hands or their sponsors are the worst and are ineligible to become Israelis by any standard. They are inhuman.
Terrorists without blood on their hands are only slightly better. They look forward to murdering someone.
Avid supporters of terror who curse the existence of the State of Israel. Their hatred is deep.
Supporters of terror who are only doing so out of frustration and would likely stop if the frustration stopped.
Supporter of terror for political reasons. In the sick, Pro-Hamas culture, if you support terror, then your stock goes up in the eyes of the government. We have seen this in history in the cultures of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It may mean more food on their tables each week.
Those courageous Palestinian Arabs who stand up to peer pressure and reject any connection whatsoever with terrorism, even though they are ostracized by their own neighbors.

A L.O.P.I. Score of 3 or less means they are ineligible to become Israeli citizens. Level 4 supporters may end up being rejected by both Jewish and Arab Israelis as being potential immigrants, but perhaps not. Level 5 would get some opposition from the political right, but certainly less than level 4. I would think most would agree that level 6 Arab applicants are a highly desirable crop of potential immigrants.

How to determine the difference between a level 5 and a level three terror supporter? For some in these categories it could be as simple as asking them to pledge support of Israel and foreswear terror as a legitimate form of civil disobedience in the world. Those close to terror may not be able to take such a citizenship pledge, while for those far from terror in their hearts it may be very easy for them to take such a pledge.

For those in between categories; the externally indefinable citizenship applicants, how do we determine their true colors? One would need to know certain classified security secrets that I currently have neither access to, nor do I desire access to, that only Israel and the United States governments are privy to, in order to be able to offer any form of coherent and specified advice. Suffice it to say that the advice of King David from Psalm 131 holds true here, concerning not venturing too deeply into matters greater or more complex than one’s expertise. But fear not, there are those who could answer this query already in place in our governments. The major question is whether this query ever gets asked as a matter of actual policy. Let’s hope the answer is positive.

Prioritization:

Very simply, a L.O.P.I. Score of 6 or something very close to that equals being accepted as soon as a corresponding amount of Jewish immigrants come to Israel as well.

What to do with those who are terrorists? Bring them to justice. The others whom all Israelis, Jew, Arab, all groups alike collectively reject, those rejects who pose no active danger to the State, yet reject the idea of joining the State civilly, should not be kept in a segregated camp in perpetuity, but be given provisions and financial compensation and sent on their way (out of the country), in the spirit of pardoning sinners as on the Biblical Jubilee. This should be done with as much compassion as possible, all according to the nature of the crimes and the will of the people at the time such an event would occur.

But in all these matters I do not pretend that a professor sitting in New York City can judge what is best for Israelis better than they can themselves. This is a matter for Israelis, Jews, Arabs, Bedouins and everyone else in the State of Israel, to decide. This Professor is merely offering examples based upon a theoretical model of another way to go on the path to end violence as swiftly and perpetually as possible, toward a truly just and lasting peace; may God grant it speedily and in our days. Amen.

A New and Revised One-State Solution to Peace in the Middle East

2008-05-11T19:58:00.000-07:00

Toward an Evenhanded Policy for Peace in the Holy Land, Part 1:

A New and Revised One-State Solution to Peace in the Middle East

By Professor Alan Friedlander

When seeking an end to belligerence the goal is to remove as many current and as many potential causes for feelings of outrage by either side of the conflict. Yet previous peace plans either favored one side or the other.

Previous one-state solutions ended in selecting a segregated victor and a losing side which then becomes a rejected, exiled nation; as if a Wandering Jew syndrome must be perpetuated with either Jewish settlers or Arab settlers of the West Bank and Gaza being arbitrarily chosen as the collective scapegoat for some ancient sin that has long been erased from Israel. I find other one-state solutions only politically reasonable, whether or not morally so, immediately following the massive war in which the refugee issue first arose, such as in this case, back in 1967. Thus the other one-state solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are inherently archaic. To wait for some kind of a messianic war to legitimize such a one-state solution to end violence while innocent people are in danger would be to ignore the Lord’s command: “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19.16)

Whereas two state solutions are all based on the assumption that two groups of married couples should share a single bed at the same time, and each time one man rolls over in his sleep, the second man thinks that the first man is making a play for his wife. Only the bed in this parable is merely a twin-size bed, and physically unable to contain two married couples peacefully. Such a commune-esque concept cannot work spiritually in a Holy Land, nor physically succeed whether we talk of a tiny proverbial bed or we speak of the political division of a small but cherished land.

I find two-state solutions bubbles of false hope and an invitation for bloodshed on more than one level. As we have seen in Northern Ireland, only once the very thing that the IRA rejected that England should be accepted as the dominant power occurred did peace break out. Peace came to Northern Ireland only through a one-state solution. Thus two state solutions are a codependency to terror. You take away the two-state solution and then when you begin a real peace process, it will stand a chance to succeed. Only then do we find that terrorists are no longer viewed falsely as freedom fighters but are seen correctly as the murdering terrorists that they are.

Though the comparison of England and Israel ends there, as Israel was not a colonial power taking away another nation’s rights, as happened between England and Ireland, the Palestinians are former Jordanians and Egyptians who were abandoned by their former governments, and have yet to be taken in by Israel.

With hindsight we can see clearly how all two state solutions, including the current Roadmap, are guaranteed to fail in the real world. Had they succeeded in signing a paper piece of paper and called it a treaty, it would never have worked long term “on the ground”.

The Friedlander Peace Plan changes all that. Under this new and revised one-state solution as the peace plan of choice, Jews and Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza must be allowed to become one people with the Israelis. It may not be an easy transition to becoming one state, but however dysfunctional it may or may not be at first, that’s the small price of democracy for you. A smaller price than the seemingly endless years of bloodshed have been until now.

A Comparison of Peace Plans

2008-04-16T23:10:00.000-07:00

A peace process should have the potential to lead to actual peace. If it does not, then it should not be considered a viable option even on a temporary basis. Each time a peace deal fails radical elements become even more radicalized. True lovers of peace, should therefore have zero tolerance for fake peace processes.

Two State Solution Based Peace Plans

Madrid Talks
Oslo Accords 1 & 2
Roadmap to ?Peace?

All of these have thus far been unworkable. From an International Law perspective, any compromise of Jewish religious sites, with no true expectancy of Palestinian compliance with Succession laws, is illegal from the start. The reason the Quartet are forcing Israel into a continued cycle of violence rather than using a more workable plan is perhaps threefold...

Israeli governments literally asked for it.
The potential economic boon for all nations from a peace deal is just too alluring to ignore.
The focus is on assembling a united world against Iran, so even International Law itself needs to take a back seat, they apparently argue.

One State Solution Based Peace Plans

The Friedlander Peace Plan, as briefly described in the previous post. This requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Nobody has to give up their homes. Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis.

The Binational Solution, which is supported by many right wing Israelis, and parts of this plan have been accepted even by some American Republicans, including former Presidential candidate, Sen. Sam Brownback. Essentially it calls for Arabs in the East Bank of the Jordan and Jews on the West Bank, in the spirit of the Balfour Declaration. This is consistent with some aspects of Kahanism, in that the Arabs relocate; only in this case it is to a legally declared target country. Such a target country's population would increase in Palestinian favor, rather than what would occur in being sent to a random country. Thus Palestinians would at least get the benefit of increased political power from this forced exile than what they currently have in the West Bank.

The Saudi Plan calls for a Palestinian Right of Return whereby the goal is possibly to overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel with an influx of many immigrants of Palestinian descent, who have been living in Arab lands since either 1967 or as far back as 1949. The ultimate result would be to vote in a Hamas like government over the entire state of Israel, not just Gaza. The Saudi plan, therefore, is consistent with terrorism. ...If there should be a Palestinian Right of Return, it must be decided upon by Israelis, all Israelis. Jew and Arab alike. The Friedlander Plan allows for this debate as to whether there should be further Palestinian immigration in the future, but the Saudi plan attempts to prejudge, preempt, forestall and force dangerous and economically destructive immigration practices down Israel's collective throat. Saudi Arabia could become a force for peace in the future, but this current plan of theirs doesn't come close to fulfilling that role.

Thus out of all the plans reviewed, the Friedlander Peace Plan sounds like the most fair and therefore the best plan of all of these. It seems to be the most consistent with true American values, and therefore should be the selected vehicle of American Foreign Policy towards the Palestinian issue. I recommend that all parties involved adopt this plan immediately.

An Alternative Peace Plan

2008-04-09T20:12:00.000-07:00

"Israeli Government Supports Kahanism - Only Against the Jews! ...Enough! ... Here is the Alternative Peace Plan You Have Been Waiting For!!"

"An Alternative Peace Plan" by Alan Friedlander

In the March 30th 2008 Israel National News article, "Livni in Favor of Paying Jews to Leave East-of-Wall Towns" Left wing Jewish supporters describe the ethnic cleansing of the East Jerusalem suburbs of Jews as "relocating (them) back (home) to Israel." Either Kahanism is legitimate or it is not. If it is, then it is stupid to do it against yourself. I claim, however, it is not, so even against the "other side" I do not support ethnic cleansing and even by non-violent means. The key question then is what then is the alternative? An important question to address as for the sake of the lack of a workable alternative alone did Israel succumb to the dreadful Oslo Accords.

In an effort to end the cycle of self-destructive false peace deals, by the grace of God, I will suggest an alternative that is consistent with democratic ideals and does not embrace relocating any one who desires to live in peace.

The current roadmap to a Two State Solution is unworkable in practice and under International Law.

A One State Solution has previously been rejected by Israeli governments due to fear of a potentially overwhelming Palestinian Arabic birthrate.

Many Palestinians in the West Bank wish they were full fledged Israelis, but the Israeli governments have refused to allow them such an option.

But there exists a missing key that has eluded opponents of a One State Solution that is hidden deep within the recesses of bureaucratic organizational theory.

It is completely possible and even likely to workout a completely evenhanded policy of immigration rates between Jews and Arabs that will allow the slow but sure immigration of West Bank and Gaza Arabs into the State of Israel, without endangering the State one iota. I have written an extended work up of how this can work exactly, but skipping to the key point, all that needs to be done is to tie West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. As there are more Jews world wide that plan to "one day" make Aliyah than there are Palestinian Arabs who reside in the West Bank and Gaza, it does not take a mathematician to see how this can work out.

A major problem with this plan, you may say, is that at the current rate of immigration, this plan could take decades to complete. I would answer, well, if it took 60 years to get into the current quagmire, then 30 years doesn't seem like such a long time to work things out slow, sure, safely and fairly. But the truth of the matter is, once there is true peace, and people know that 1) Israel will not be endangered not just by Arabs, but by any weak leadership in the future, and 2) the economy will improve exponentially after such true peace occurs, then the Aliyah/Jewish immigration rate will more than triple current immigration rates and correspondingly hasten Palestinian redemption as well.

If this occurs, it will not be because you heeded the good advice of this political scientist, but because you heeded the Holy Word that the God of the Jews commanded through His servant, Moses, (Exodus 12.49) "A single law you shall have for the native born and the stranger who dwells among you."

Why I Still Reject Kahanism Despite Palestinian Support of Terrorism

2008-04-01T19:34:00.000-07:00

You may be wondering the following: If I am blaming the majority of Palestinians for supporting terror in their hearts and with their votes, then why do I still reject Kahanism despite Palestinian Arabic support of terrorism. It's simple, the Bible says that there should be a single law and single ordinance for the stranger and the native of the land (Numbers 15.16). Kahanism removes voting rights from Palestinian Arabs. Not all Arabs would be ejected from Israel under Rabbi Meir Kahane's plan, those who swore allegiance can stay, only without voting rights.

Obviously whoever is chomping at the bit for bloodshed has no place in the Israel of the future. So what Kahanism is effectively saying is that those Israeli Arabs who befriend Israel should be rewarded with no right to vote. The Torah is always current. The Torah is always vibrant. Therefore how can a belief system like Kahanism fit within the context of a Torah nation that exists in an age of democracy? To have less democracy than the Kingdom of Jordan is not the way to honor the God of Israel. Therefore, in my opinion, pure Kahanism is inconsistent with Torah ideals.

That being the case, why do more than a few religious Jews support Kahanism? Because they are grasping at halachic straws out of desperation at the seemingly endless cycle of bloodshed, and we all know how important saving lives is to Judaism. Judaism is all about life (Deuteronomy, Chapter 30). The one thing that is true about Kahanism is that it is an effective method to eliminate immediate danger to the state of Israel by eliminating the policy of accommodation to terrorist organizations like Fatah that recent Israeli governments seem to be willing to put up with. Long term though, where does Kahanism place the friends of Israel? Where is the Jewish Light unto the Nations? Where then is the sanctification of God's Holy Name for which Jews have been willing to be martyred over throughout history? Only by focusing on God's long term plan for the Jewish people can we rise above knee jerk reactions to punish any relatives of our enemies, even if they wish to befriend us. But such a reaction misses a very important concept in the nature of God himself...

We are commanded to emulate the Lord of Yisrael. What then is His nature? Come and see that the nature of the God of Israel is not like the nature of mortals of flesh and blood. What is the nature of flesh and blood? If a man has a mortal enemy he will endeavor to destroy him and any and all who support him, lest they rise up again to cause danger at some later date. But what does God do with His enemy? Which nation is God's greatest enemy in the Bible? Amalek would be a good choice for God's eternal nemesis (Deuteronomy 25.17-19). Now even though there are some nations that were so perverted that God forbade their entry into Judaism, lest they harm the spirituality of His people, God did not prohibit the Jews from accepting a true convert from Amalek. Why? For the Lord is filled with kindness. Also, the Almighty Lord knows that His enemies cannot harm Him. Whereas with the enemies of His people, to those He is not so forgiving of. But of His own enemies? God is forgiving of the truly sincere penitent.

As we are commanded to emulate God (Deut. 28.9), we must accept that it would take a direct prophecy from God or the equivalent in order for Jews to be empowered to reject "true converts" i.e. true friends, from any specific nation. Therefore we must cultivate and not utterly reject true friendships wherever we may find them. The first step is stopping the violence by eradicating the forces of terror. But then what? We have to plan for the day after victory. You do that with the Will of God toward your friends in mind. I can understand if you may bear skepticism at the likelihood of success, but neither should you reject the possibility thereof.

Today you may think of peace loving Palestinian Arabs as the brothers and sisters of our enemies, and potential enemies of the future. But when we keep our faith in God close to us, it keeps the heart too warm to become cold to our friends. May God bless us with true friendships and true peace speedily in our days.