Individualistic Moral Accountancy: The Ideological Foundation of Healing Societies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stages of Peace Plan Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Upcoming War With Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Deal with International Hostage Crises

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


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


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


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

Sarkozy Too Cozy With Division of Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Friedlander Peace Plan Is The Everyone Wins Peace Plan

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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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).
   
3. 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