Land for Peace is Fuel for Terror

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.

How to Deal with International Hostage Crises

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


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


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


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

Palestinian Leaders Indicate Trust in the IDF

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.

Making Peace With Syria

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, INN) 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.