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.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Fatah-Hamas Unity
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.
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.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Itamar Massacre A Wakeup Call
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Trust, Not Opinion, Should Form Security Policy
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.
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.
Monday, January 31, 2011
As Egypt Shakes, It Is Time for Knesset to Reconsider
If Egypt becomes an unstable "partner" in peace, following the current crisis there, the Netanyahu Administration will surely be compelled to reevaluate risk assessments that underlie the current foundations of peace making in the Middle East. The mere threat of a radicalization in Egypt, however, should serve as a reminder that, being extra cautious over forsaking strategic land for paper treaties, is at the most rudimentary level of common sense.
Any two state solution is a peace plan that ultimately places peace in the hands of external forces within other countries. If all of those countries were as stable and healthy as the United States and Canada, then perhaps the path of current foreign policy would meet the test of common sense. But totalitarianism and terroristic jihad are a threat that literally threatens nearly every country in the Middle East outside of Israel's borders. That means, that to deny innocent members of the Palestinians in the territories even a remote possibility to naturalize into the State of Israel, is to subject them to political chaos in the place of realistic democratic choice and hope.
Supporters of a two state solution are not doing the Palestinian people a favor. Detractors of a one state solution are assaulting the Palestinians' best avenue for realistic hope of living the democratic dream. By allowing the beneficent, best and brightest of the Palestinian people to join the ranks of their cousins within the State of Israel, the nation would be enriched, and those people saved from the fires of political chaos that roam beyond the border of the State of Israel, by the grace of God.
Any two state solution is a peace plan that ultimately places peace in the hands of external forces within other countries. If all of those countries were as stable and healthy as the United States and Canada, then perhaps the path of current foreign policy would meet the test of common sense. But totalitarianism and terroristic jihad are a threat that literally threatens nearly every country in the Middle East outside of Israel's borders. That means, that to deny innocent members of the Palestinians in the territories even a remote possibility to naturalize into the State of Israel, is to subject them to political chaos in the place of realistic democratic choice and hope.
Supporters of a two state solution are not doing the Palestinian people a favor. Detractors of a one state solution are assaulting the Palestinians' best avenue for realistic hope of living the democratic dream. By allowing the beneficent, best and brightest of the Palestinian people to join the ranks of their cousins within the State of Israel, the nation would be enriched, and those people saved from the fires of political chaos that roam beyond the border of the State of Israel, by the grace of God.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
PA Leadership Are Not Partners For Peace
I am dismayed at the shockingly poor advice given at the Davos summit by former President Bill Clinton to Israel.
"If I were in Israel and I had any influence, I'd want to make that deal now," he said. Referring to a comprehensive peace offer mooted by the Arab League in 2002, he said: "All these countries have offered Israel a political, economic and security partnership, not just peace, not just normalization ... but a genuine partnership." In Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Clinton said, "they've got the best partner in the West Bank that they've ever had." (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.
"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.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Pollard Must Be Released Immediately
The deteriorating health of Jonathan Pollard creates a crisis of conscience for the Obama Administration. Without freedom, Jonathan Pollard's very life may be at stake. If, God forbid, he were to die in federal prison in such a case of an exaggerated sentence, without clear due process, then the administration under whose watch such a tragedy occurred would go down in infamy as the consummate force behind turning a sad tale into an historic Dreyfus Affair, American style.
US Congressman Barney Frank urged President Barack Obama on Wednesday to commute the sentence of Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard to the 25 years of his life sentence that he has served, to help Israel move forward in the peace process.
Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, initiated a letter two months ago in which dozens of congressmen expressed support for clemency for Pollard. In the letter, he wrote that freeing Pollard would create goodwill among Israelis that could be helpful when the people of Israel make difficult decisions on the peace process. (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.
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.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Jerusalem-Golan Bill
It is commendable to defend the welfare of Jerusalem and the Golan.
It is deplorable to fail to do the same for Judea and Samaria.
By setting the standard of defending Israel's rights to it's historic homeland selectively, the current Knesset brands itself hypocritical but with good intentions. Mr. Prime Minister, why go merely half way? Your "Jerusalem is not a settlement" statement is true. But then neither is Hebron and the rest of Judea and Samaria a "settlement" either. The Jerusalem-Golan Bill represents only a beginning of the correct path to take in your foreign policy structure.
The Jerusalem-Golan Bill would be a good safety measure in case a left wing party ever gained control of the Knesset again, Heaven fore-fend. It does little, however, to protect Israel from it's current government's policies taking a turn for the worse. It is historic in the sense that it helps to protect things from getting worse than today. But today the Temple is in ruins, most of Israel's heartlands are being called settlements by it's own government, and nations still plot against Jerusalem.
Yet perhaps there is hope:
To that I ask, why the heck not say those things to them?!
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?
Why the attempt to cut off your nose? Why spite your face? Why not put your enemies on the defensive? If you sit passively, while there are criminals to be arrested in Gaza and Ramallah, then at the very least can you not be a bit more aggressive at the negotiation table?
In a November 10th CNN interview, Israeli Ambassador to the USA, Michael Oren said:
"We' don't say to the Palestinians that you have to prove things ( for peace), We don't say Hamas is ruling half your people, get your house in order first before you sit down to negotiate. We don't say stop naming town squares after terrorists. ...praising the terrorist who killed a Knesset Member in cold blood, praising him as a great martyr. We don't say stop all of that or we won't talk to you. We say sit down, negotiate, everything is on the table, come and talk to us."
To that I ask, why the heck not say those things to them?!
It is the way of the world to take a shower with both feet in the tub. It is the way of the current Israeli government to bathe only half the body, just in case the other half must get dirty again soon.
Perhaps it is time to learn from the clean part of your body, and complete the task you have only begun, by the grace of God.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
On the Bibi Report Tomorrow
By the grace of God, I'm scheduled to be a panelist on the Bibi Report tomorrow night (November 1st) on Blog Talk Radio. The Live show begins at 10 PM ET, and I'm scheduled to join the panel at about 15 after the hour. This will be my 4th appearance on the show, if God wills it so.
It's a pre-election edition of the Bibi Report and my position on the show will likely be based at least in part on my October 27th post to this blog.
By the way, in case you never looked for us on Facebook, we have hundreds of members on our discussion group which has been around for a couple years, and also this year we added a Facebook Fan Page as well.
It's a pre-election edition of the Bibi Report and my position on the show will likely be based at least in part on my October 27th post to this blog.
By the way, in case you never looked for us on Facebook, we have hundreds of members on our discussion group which has been around for a couple years, and also this year we added a Facebook Fan Page as well.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Writing a Political Epitaph: Democrats and the November 2010 Elections
If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress wish to prove that they are just as pro Israel as the Republicans, it will be proven not from now until November 2nd, but beginning on November 3rd, when the elections are over, at that time the President can prove he is Israel's friend, if he wants to. If Obama pulls out the racist "No Jewish building in Jerusalem" card again after the elections, then that will speak volumes as to whether his administration is a "friend" to Israel or not. Until the elections, however, concerns of pre-election posturing makes an evaluation of intentions difficult.
Historically in American Congressional elections in years that the President is not running for re-election, the vote normally goes against the sitting President. Odds are that Republicans have a better chance to win than Democrats in this coming election. This election is not a mandate on Obama Administration policy on Israel; there are just too many issues at play to say so. Economy, health care, borders, oil spills that dwarf Katrina, and even "don't ask, but please feel free to tell."
Does America confront Iran for Israel or for its own needs? If Israel's needs were the motivating factor in that matter, then there would have been regime change in Tehran under President Bush, or the first year and a half of Obama. Therefore trading objectivity in the peace process with the Palestinian Arabs for greater support against Iran is an invalid proof of being pro Israel, as it is not for Israel's sake that America is either heeding Israel's advice regarding Iran or remaining aloof.
Military sales to the Middle East are no longer following a pure Israel foremost policy. Saudi Arabia and other countries of variable loyalty are being considered options by this Administration to proliferate advanced weapons to. This is perhaps a byproduct of the Administration's Iran containment first-before considering regime change policy. Whether or not that is true, it does nothing to prove friendship to Israel.
That means that the only criterion remaining by which to tell whether or not Obama is a friend to Israel is in the conflict between the belligerent Arabs and democratic Israel. The only ethical answer is in not ignoring the facts in the guise of pseudo objectivity, as President Carter had to in order to pursue his courtship with Hamas. You first must declare objective truths, then check to make sure that your policy follows it.
Is terrorism illegal or legitimate? Illegal? Then don't adulate to Hamas.
Is racism bad or legitimate? Bad? Then either say that Jews can build just like Arabs do, which I would agree with, or else nobody should build at all, which of course the PA would object to.
To be pro Israel, you merely have to be ethical and moral in your pursuit of peace. Then you'll be rewarded by being held in regard as if you actually cared about Israel.
To prove it, though, you may have to eventually apologize for past hypocritical and racist policies such as no Jewish building in Jerusalem. But that's an article for another day.
Historically in American Congressional elections in years that the President is not running for re-election, the vote normally goes against the sitting President. Odds are that Republicans have a better chance to win than Democrats in this coming election. This election is not a mandate on Obama Administration policy on Israel; there are just too many issues at play to say so. Economy, health care, borders, oil spills that dwarf Katrina, and even "don't ask, but please feel free to tell."
Does America confront Iran for Israel or for its own needs? If Israel's needs were the motivating factor in that matter, then there would have been regime change in Tehran under President Bush, or the first year and a half of Obama. Therefore trading objectivity in the peace process with the Palestinian Arabs for greater support against Iran is an invalid proof of being pro Israel, as it is not for Israel's sake that America is either heeding Israel's advice regarding Iran or remaining aloof.
Military sales to the Middle East are no longer following a pure Israel foremost policy. Saudi Arabia and other countries of variable loyalty are being considered options by this Administration to proliferate advanced weapons to. This is perhaps a byproduct of the Administration's Iran containment first-before considering regime change policy. Whether or not that is true, it does nothing to prove friendship to Israel.
That means that the only criterion remaining by which to tell whether or not Obama is a friend to Israel is in the conflict between the belligerent Arabs and democratic Israel. The only ethical answer is in not ignoring the facts in the guise of pseudo objectivity, as President Carter had to in order to pursue his courtship with Hamas. You first must declare objective truths, then check to make sure that your policy follows it.
Is terrorism illegal or legitimate? Illegal? Then don't adulate to Hamas.
Is racism bad or legitimate? Bad? Then either say that Jews can build just like Arabs do, which I would agree with, or else nobody should build at all, which of course the PA would object to.
To be pro Israel, you merely have to be ethical and moral in your pursuit of peace. Then you'll be rewarded by being held in regard as if you actually cared about Israel.
To prove it, though, you may have to eventually apologize for past hypocritical and racist policies such as no Jewish building in Jerusalem. But that's an article for another day.
Friday, September 3, 2010
A Dangerous Gambit or True Peace?
IF the continued pursuit of a two state solution by our leaders is but an attempt to expose the partner in peace that is not there, then it is only an extremely dangerous gambit. I am concerned, however, that it could be worse than that, a foreign faith that the terrorist leaders of the PA are leopards who will change their spots. Consider the climate in the past week...
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.
- Four Israelis were gunned down, one of them a pregnant woman; seven orphans were made. Hamas held a parade to a cheering crowd. Fatah chief Abbas objected to the interference to his "strategy of peace" by Hamas, not sorrow at the bloodshed. While PM Netanyahu announces that the bloodshed will not deter his path, and the next day, in an apparent effort to encourage Western leaders, Bibi promised to meet with Abbas every two weeks. I feel, however, that the formation of a biweekly social club between Netanyahu and Abbas and occasional guest star Obama, is not a peace process.
- The great Rabbi Ovadia Yosef cursed Abbas and his terrorist cohorts. The State Department labeled that incitement, even though Rabbi Yosef was speaking to God, not encouraging zealots to take action. During the Clinton Administration, Rabbi Yosef united many religious Israelis behind the Clinton sponsored Oslo Accords and was proclaimed a man of peace. Is this how the Clinton State Department returns the favor? ...Is free speech only for those who support our current policy...? Why would a moderate speak this way of Abbas? Maybe there could be a legitimate reason for his angst? Consider the context of PA sponsored violence... As long as the West will encourage a policy of tolerance toward Israel's enemies, perhaps cursing is not the worst option to vent frustration rather than incite it literally, which the Rabbi did not do.
- It was brought up again that Oslo Architect Yossi Beilin had no plan of final resolution. The Road Map for Peace, which is based on Oslo 2, which is based on Oslo 1 which Beilin concocted without a reasonably obtainable goal in sight, is not much more than hot air and mirrors. A two state solution in this conflict is not a solution that can bring peace.
- A recent Poll of Palestinian Arabs had a sobering 78 percent supporting a "greater Palestine" with no state of Israel. A near exact reversal of the numbers reported by AP and friends. How is this poll data being collected and by whom? The bottom line is, there is an indication that the AP data was exaggerated and that the longer that the unobtainable two state solution is brandished as the only alternative to violence, the greater the amount of Palestinians who are at risk of becoming proponents of terror.
The continued path towards the two state precipice is endangering the nation, inciting despair based radicalism in the Palestinian street, repeating the mistakes of history, marginalizing the heroes of yesterday and once again blood soaked the Holy Land this week. Not one sign of the path to true peace.
To use a parable, we see in troubled relationships that if there is zero hope of real change, people generally do not waste time setting up marriage counseling sessions on a biweekly basis. Either they give up hope of an ideal marriage, taking on an attitude of tolerance toward their mate, quit fighting and focus on the other aspects of life, or if they view the marriage as deeply troubled, they quit the relationship entirely.
Fatah refuses to forsake Hamas, which has sworn jihad against the State of Israel, and even if Fatah suggests that it will sever ties with Hamas, it's loyalties to Hamas run too deeply for anything other than a temporary separation from them and their jihad. Long enough to please some politicians, perhaps, but not long enough for true and enduring peace. Can any nation tolerate repeated violence against its citizenry by another nation and call that peace? So what are our leaders doing, and at whose expense?
Western leaders are happy once again that Israel is on the road toward "peace". But it's not the road to true peace. True peace means a reduction to the risk of war in the long term, not amplification of the risk of war. If all these years of negotiations are revealed to be nothing more than a cynical ploy by Fatah, what do you think will happen?
By allowing itself to be beguiled by the Fatah act, the West is setting itself up for feelings of outrage at the subsequent betrayal by Fatah of the Western values it only pretended to hold. Israel will be justified to annihilate their enemies. But is that the way of peace?
The true path to peace is not a "three strikes and you're out (via all-out warfare)" attitude (which the PA mindset allows them to tolerate). Negotiation partners must care more about the lives of their own citizens than achieving jihadist victory by other means for such a tactic to have a meaningful chance of success.
The true path to peace is through establishing at the onset of the peace process that there will be zero tolerance shown to criminals in diplomatic clothing to negotiate on behalf of the people that they themselves oppress far worse than any slander they say about you.
You cannot establish rules with people whom you know will not follow them. So please be careful of the path that you choose.
May God soon help the world to achieve true peace.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Means and Ends in Middle East Peacemaking
By exploring the negatives of potential kinds of peacemaking we can find that elusive path to true peacemaking.
A two state solution would rob non-Muslims of their freedom of religion in PA controlled areas. The intended end and the actual end do not meet. The two state solution believes in this methodology:
A one state solution such as Everyone Wins would unilaterally allocate the security rights of all in the territories to the Israel Defense Forces.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
