When a war ends and a people are sent into exile, the warfare ends, but the devastation lingers. If, however, after the war all non-corrupting elements of the conquered people are allowed or even encouraged to assimilate into the dominant society, then the long term harmful effects of war are minimized. A healthy influx of new ideas enters into the dominant society, enhancing it, not destroying it, because the corrupting elements were never invited to join the dominant society to begin with.
To bring peace between Israel and the Arab refugees in the territories, we must seek the method that will heal Israeli and Palestinian Arabic societies the best. Exiling this people or that cannot bring as strong a peace as seeking to allow every non terrorist to keep their home. This is not only the ethical foundation of the Everyone Wins peace plan, but it is also the clear understanding that anyone who witnessed firsthand the expulsions of the Jews of Gaza, must, by force of logic, arrive at.
Today thousands of the former residents of Gush Katif and the other former Israeli cities of Gaza are still in desperate financial distress. A recent speech by Rabbi Pesach Lerner of the National Council of Young Israel attests to the conditions that they are continuing to suffer from 4 years later. There were 10,000 Israeli evacuees of Gaza and all the kings horses and men of the West could not help them find jobs that were no longer available.
No famous peace plan other than the Everyone Wins peace plan avoids the pitfalls that were learned from the fall of Gush Katif. The Roadmap would face an infrastructure challenge 30 times greater than the Gaza evacuation did or else seek to abandon countless Israeli voters behind enemy lines. Whereas a plan to kick out the Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza would remove terrorist armies, yet create an infrastructure nightmare even greater than the Roadmap would.
It's time to look for a new method to end the madness without further delay. Raising mass discontent is not the answer. Perhaps it's time to seriously consider the Everyone Wins peace plan. It's time for applied logic and compassion to take center stage, so that the true betterment of humankind may find fulfillment on this world of ours. By the grace of God.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Jerusalem and Jewish Religious Freedom Are One
To not lend voice to all of the tools of truth is to offer truth a pale defensive effort. To deny any aspect of truth, is to pick up the mantra of the enemy and to insanely fight with oneself over the other aspects of truth that one still remembers to use to their own merit. You have embraced the enemy's deception and called it normalcy and thus weakened your overall efforts to preserve what absolutely must be preserved. To uphold that which is known to God and humankind. To put it plainly, that Jews have an historic, legal, moral and religious right to Jerusalem. Judaism itself, in fact, depends on Jerusalem.
By trying to divide either the physical Jerusalem, or the Jewish People from Jerusalem, you are violating their collective religious freedom in the most profound way possible. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jewish race. The effort to divide Jerusalem is no less than an effort to exterminate the Jewish faith from the world. Which side of this divide does the Netanyahu Administration wish to place itself?
Even as the Prime Minister said that Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem, his Intelligence Affairs Minister, Dan Meridor of Likud showed with his recent interview all that is wrong with those leaders who are insensitive to the concept of freedom to pursue one's own religion being an inalienable right.
Seemingly drawing a line in the sand, Meridor said, "The Old City with the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall will never be part of an Arab state; all the major Israeli parties share this conviction. There could be a compromise on land in Judea and Samaria. But all Israeli governments have agreed on having a united Jerusalem. This is our clear position, but we can negotiate about Jerusalem. There are no preconditions."
...he noted that the introduction of religion into a conflict that was historically defined on nationalistic ideas complicated matters. "It has become more difficult over the years because of the introduction of religion into this conflict. Arab rulers hated us in the past, but they did so because of nationalistic ideas. Since the [1979] revolution in Teheran, we hear a different tune: The Iranians, Hizbullah and Hamas fight us in the name of religion. This is very bad because people can compromise, but gods never compromise."
But Meridor also insisted that the issue of Jerusalem was not predicated on religion. "The previous pope (John Paul II) said that Jerusalem is sacred to all religions, but was promised to one people. We have no religious claim on Jerusalem; we have a national one. Jerusalem is our capital," he said.
You just said that Iran is using a religious argument to try to take your capital out from under you. Further the anti-democratic-democratically-elected Hamas denies the plain truth of your rights, using pseudo religious terms not found in the Koran to assault your claims. In other words, if this moral debate were not a battle of religious rights before, your enemies have turned this into one. To use a parable, if rioters take to the streets to loot innocent businesses, either you match their force with law enforcement, or you tell your citizens to at least protect themselves against the looters by staying off the streets.
By stating this is exclusively a secular conflict even as your enemy uses and twists religion as a tool to further their ends, you are disarming yourself before their verbal onslaught. Discapacitating your public relations at the same time as you empower their deceitful propaganda. Worse, you are disenabling dialectal pursuit of root and absolute truths. The very life preserver of moral, historic and legal rights themselves.
The majority of Israelis practice religion. This means that the many poll results that Jerusalem is considered beyond abandonment to the vast majority of Israelis are certainly true. Which also means that there is no way, no philosophic construction that could be devised that would be honestly conducive to democratic ideals that would allow the United States of America to support the separation of Jerusalem from Israel, the abrogation of the Jewish faith itself, with any shred of moral clarity or justification. If today you will try to abolish Judaism, is not the obliteration of Christianity on your agenda for the morrow?
Rather than trying to exploit any ideological weakness it can find in those few confused Israeli leaders who believe in whatever current U.S. policy happens to be, the U.S. Administration should be encouraging true democratic representation within Israeli's own government and policy making. At least that's what a true friend of Israel and bastion of democracy would do.
A call to a more hybridized political thought process on the Middle East Conflict would serve to sooner end it.
By the Grace of God.
By trying to divide either the physical Jerusalem, or the Jewish People from Jerusalem, you are violating their collective religious freedom in the most profound way possible. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jewish race. The effort to divide Jerusalem is no less than an effort to exterminate the Jewish faith from the world. Which side of this divide does the Netanyahu Administration wish to place itself?
Even as the Prime Minister said that Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem, his Intelligence Affairs Minister, Dan Meridor of Likud showed with his recent interview all that is wrong with those leaders who are insensitive to the concept of freedom to pursue one's own religion being an inalienable right.
Seemingly drawing a line in the sand, Meridor said, "The Old City with the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall will never be part of an Arab state; all the major Israeli parties share this conviction. There could be a compromise on land in Judea and Samaria. But all Israeli governments have agreed on having a united Jerusalem. This is our clear position, but we can negotiate about Jerusalem. There are no preconditions."
...he noted that the introduction of religion into a conflict that was historically defined on nationalistic ideas complicated matters. "It has become more difficult over the years because of the introduction of religion into this conflict. Arab rulers hated us in the past, but they did so because of nationalistic ideas. Since the [1979] revolution in Teheran, we hear a different tune: The Iranians, Hizbullah and Hamas fight us in the name of religion. This is very bad because people can compromise, but gods never compromise."
But Meridor also insisted that the issue of Jerusalem was not predicated on religion. "The previous pope (John Paul II) said that Jerusalem is sacred to all religions, but was promised to one people. We have no religious claim on Jerusalem; we have a national one. Jerusalem is our capital," he said.
You just said that Iran is using a religious argument to try to take your capital out from under you. Further the anti-democratic-democratically-elected Hamas denies the plain truth of your rights, using pseudo religious terms not found in the Koran to assault your claims. In other words, if this moral debate were not a battle of religious rights before, your enemies have turned this into one. To use a parable, if rioters take to the streets to loot innocent businesses, either you match their force with law enforcement, or you tell your citizens to at least protect themselves against the looters by staying off the streets.
By stating this is exclusively a secular conflict even as your enemy uses and twists religion as a tool to further their ends, you are disarming yourself before their verbal onslaught. Discapacitating your public relations at the same time as you empower their deceitful propaganda. Worse, you are disenabling dialectal pursuit of root and absolute truths. The very life preserver of moral, historic and legal rights themselves.
The majority of Israelis practice religion. This means that the many poll results that Jerusalem is considered beyond abandonment to the vast majority of Israelis are certainly true. Which also means that there is no way, no philosophic construction that could be devised that would be honestly conducive to democratic ideals that would allow the United States of America to support the separation of Jerusalem from Israel, the abrogation of the Jewish faith itself, with any shred of moral clarity or justification. If today you will try to abolish Judaism, is not the obliteration of Christianity on your agenda for the morrow?
Rather than trying to exploit any ideological weakness it can find in those few confused Israeli leaders who believe in whatever current U.S. policy happens to be, the U.S. Administration should be encouraging true democratic representation within Israeli's own government and policy making. At least that's what a true friend of Israel and bastion of democracy would do.
A call to a more hybridized political thought process on the Middle East Conflict would serve to sooner end it.
By the Grace of God.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Pollard for Robinson?
By awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to pro-violence and anti Israel Mary Robinson, the Obama Administration has found a way to not only continue to aggravate pro-Israel Jews and Christians, but has made perhaps an unintentional but seriously flawed declaration that the ways of violent protests of Yasir Arafat trumps the non violent path of Martin Luther King Jr. Besides the broad implications this may have for domestic politics and the dire consequences for Democrats to keep their majorities in congress come the next election cycle should they be viewed as anti-King, this immediately and negatively effects American influence in the Middle East. This can only lend further extremes to future Palestinian Leadership demands and complicate the impossibly difficult situation between Israel and the PA beyond repair. While I would applaud an end to the wrong minded Roadmap to Peace, it should not be done in this way.
First the reversal on Jerusalem. Next the heavy handed interference on the matter of internal Israeli infrastructure policy that was never explicitly forbidden and signed upon in the Roadmap. Now the Administration can be viewed as implicitly rubber stamping future PA sponsored violence against Israel, let alone whatever good intentions that may have been in play during this Robinson decision.
Will supporters of terror look at the President's unstated intentions or his explicit actions to justify their evil plans? If the President does not retract his decision entirely, which is the preferred option, then I would suggest that clarification should issue from the White House that support for any anti-King philosophy that Robinson may hold was not intended and is virulently rejected by this administration.
Three such faux pas in a row is not just a bad sign, it is a diplomatic disaster than needs some cleanup work to be done as soon as possible.
A couple years ago I wrote that there could be a lot of political Goodwill to be gained with Israel by granting freedom to Jonathan Pollard, and no significant political downside to releasing him. President Bush rejected this opportunity, but perhaps President Obama will not. Perhaps this can be the political life preserver that Democrats need to show they are not the Anti-Israel party of the United States of America. Come the next election cycle, the Democrats could spin that it wasn't a Republican President who had mercy on a man incarcerated for 24 years, it was a Democrat. Conversely, it could be that what may be remembered at the next election cycle will be instead that every year, month, week and day that passes with undeserving fools like Robinson getting awards, while the humanitarian plight of Pollard is ignored as he is left to rot in prison.
What will the President choose to do?
First the reversal on Jerusalem. Next the heavy handed interference on the matter of internal Israeli infrastructure policy that was never explicitly forbidden and signed upon in the Roadmap. Now the Administration can be viewed as implicitly rubber stamping future PA sponsored violence against Israel, let alone whatever good intentions that may have been in play during this Robinson decision.
Will supporters of terror look at the President's unstated intentions or his explicit actions to justify their evil plans? If the President does not retract his decision entirely, which is the preferred option, then I would suggest that clarification should issue from the White House that support for any anti-King philosophy that Robinson may hold was not intended and is virulently rejected by this administration.
Three such faux pas in a row is not just a bad sign, it is a diplomatic disaster than needs some cleanup work to be done as soon as possible.
A couple years ago I wrote that there could be a lot of political Goodwill to be gained with Israel by granting freedom to Jonathan Pollard, and no significant political downside to releasing him. President Bush rejected this opportunity, but perhaps President Obama will not. Perhaps this can be the political life preserver that Democrats need to show they are not the Anti-Israel party of the United States of America. Come the next election cycle, the Democrats could spin that it wasn't a Republican President who had mercy on a man incarcerated for 24 years, it was a Democrat. Conversely, it could be that what may be remembered at the next election cycle will be instead that every year, month, week and day that passes with undeserving fools like Robinson getting awards, while the humanitarian plight of Pollard is ignored as he is left to rot in prison.
What will the President choose to do?
Monday, August 3, 2009
Roadmap Agreements Are Not Universally Binding Under International Law
Bringing peace to nations is not a game. So why are the Roadmap Nations treating it as such? As if they can make up "house rules" of diplomacy where you can discriminate against the nation of your choice regardless of what objective norms (International Laws) say on the matter.
The new USA objection is due to concern over potentially prejudging the final outcome of a negotiated settlement. But in actuality, all that happened was not a political decision, but a decision in a court case between private litigants. To connect a court ruling on a decade old case with any future negotiation is a ludicrous suggestion at face value. No one at the signing of the Roadmap back in 2003 would ever have expected future court cases to be decided even before final status negotiations have taken place. To suggest that is to state fiction.
I start to worry where we are headed as a nation when our Foreign Affairs officials state current policy and call it International Law, when it is not. Until now the Obama Administration has been far from even handed in its treatment of Israel. But if its "experts" continue to misstate plain facts so grossly that they are viewed as either fools or liars not just by opposition political forces, but even mainstream members of foreign Parliaments, then the USA's influence in the Middle East will wane and erode along with it the hopes of participating in the bringing of true peace to the Middle East in the near future. Participating. That word is key. It implies a certain level of humility that current USA foreign policy lacks towards our best friend in the Middle East, Israel.
The court ruled that illegal housing was built on private property. In cases where the property owners were not Arabic, there was no previous protestation of the many prior decisions of the Israeli courts.
CNN reported the following declarations by the State Department:
In the United States, a State Department spokesman urged Israel to refrain from "provocative actions."
"As Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton has stated previously, the eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations under the Roadmap," said Robert Wood, referring to the 2003 "Roadmap for peace" plan.
"We urge that the government of Israel and municipal officials refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions. Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."
If any nation is discouraged from heeding its own courts because it is not preferred by other nations, would any nation listen to this? How about those non-democratic countries that are dismembering their own citizens due to highly questionable court decisions? Where is the condemnation?
What if another nation tried to threaten America IN ANYWAY for a ruling of an American court of justice? Would, COULD, America ever dare give in to such meddling? It would undermine the whole justice system to do so, and therefore it is unreasonable and ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.
This is not a matter of even-handedness or not. It is a process toward making a mockery of objective truth and justice and therefore such a path is antithetical to the American Way.
Worse it shows that America no longer cares about how it looks in the eyes of her allies. That is diplomacy gone astray. The greatest threat to the Roadmap to Peace is not an Israeli judge, but current American Foreign Policy!
Even as a critic of the false Roadmap to Peace I do not glory in this path to failure through an overdose of self contempt. A hog enjoys playing in the mud, but a diplomat should not. The Roadmap nations need to respect themselves more by either speaking more truthful statements from now on, or getting out of the game.
The new USA objection is due to concern over potentially prejudging the final outcome of a negotiated settlement. But in actuality, all that happened was not a political decision, but a decision in a court case between private litigants. To connect a court ruling on a decade old case with any future negotiation is a ludicrous suggestion at face value. No one at the signing of the Roadmap back in 2003 would ever have expected future court cases to be decided even before final status negotiations have taken place. To suggest that is to state fiction.
I start to worry where we are headed as a nation when our Foreign Affairs officials state current policy and call it International Law, when it is not. Until now the Obama Administration has been far from even handed in its treatment of Israel. But if its "experts" continue to misstate plain facts so grossly that they are viewed as either fools or liars not just by opposition political forces, but even mainstream members of foreign Parliaments, then the USA's influence in the Middle East will wane and erode along with it the hopes of participating in the bringing of true peace to the Middle East in the near future. Participating. That word is key. It implies a certain level of humility that current USA foreign policy lacks towards our best friend in the Middle East, Israel.
The court ruled that illegal housing was built on private property. In cases where the property owners were not Arabic, there was no previous protestation of the many prior decisions of the Israeli courts.
CNN reported the following declarations by the State Department:
In the United States, a State Department spokesman urged Israel to refrain from "provocative actions."
"As Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton has stated previously, the eviction of families and demolition of homes in East Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations under the Roadmap," said Robert Wood, referring to the 2003 "Roadmap for peace" plan.
"We urge that the government of Israel and municipal officials refrain from provocative actions in East Jerusalem, including home demolitions and evictions. Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community."
If any nation is discouraged from heeding its own courts because it is not preferred by other nations, would any nation listen to this? How about those non-democratic countries that are dismembering their own citizens due to highly questionable court decisions? Where is the condemnation?
What if another nation tried to threaten America IN ANYWAY for a ruling of an American court of justice? Would, COULD, America ever dare give in to such meddling? It would undermine the whole justice system to do so, and therefore it is unreasonable and ridiculous to even suggest such a thing.
This is not a matter of even-handedness or not. It is a process toward making a mockery of objective truth and justice and therefore such a path is antithetical to the American Way.
Worse it shows that America no longer cares about how it looks in the eyes of her allies. That is diplomacy gone astray. The greatest threat to the Roadmap to Peace is not an Israeli judge, but current American Foreign Policy!
Even as a critic of the false Roadmap to Peace I do not glory in this path to failure through an overdose of self contempt. A hog enjoys playing in the mud, but a diplomat should not. The Roadmap nations need to respect themselves more by either speaking more truthful statements from now on, or getting out of the game.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Middle East Peace Plan Comparison Chart
Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so perhaps I can save us all a lot of time and effort by displaying an illustration of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan in relation to the other famous peace plan ideas out there.
Just click on the image below to enhance the size and once you do, it is formatted to print in landscape orientation, so you'll have to select landscape before printing to get the whole image on a single sheet of paper.
Just click on the image below to enhance the size and once you do, it is formatted to print in landscape orientation, so you'll have to select landscape before printing to get the whole image on a single sheet of paper.
Explanation of the Questionable remarks
1) Rabbi Elon's Plan depends on the Kingdom of Jordan to enhance those civil rights, so it's a question mark whether that is an improvement or not. It can be argued either way, which may not be a good sign.
2) The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace depend on a cessation of further conflict which sadly those plans do not guarantee, merely a separation, a permanent segregation of peoples is guaranteed. That does not ensure the ability to, for example, to build a new road in Israel next to a strategic kind of hill that would be given to the Arabs. If security right at the border is not guaranteed, how peaceful is such a plan?
1) Rabbi Elon's Plan depends on the Kingdom of Jordan to enhance those civil rights, so it's a question mark whether that is an improvement or not. It can be argued either way, which may not be a good sign.
2) The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace depend on a cessation of further conflict which sadly those plans do not guarantee, merely a separation, a permanent segregation of peoples is guaranteed. That does not ensure the ability to, for example, to build a new road in Israel next to a strategic kind of hill that would be given to the Arabs. If security right at the border is not guaranteed, how peaceful is such a plan?
Analysis
I took six of the most essential aspects contributing towards the long term viability of true peace in the Middle East and showed that only Everyone Wins is a sure path to peace.
If these score were grades in a school. All other plans except the Elon plan would fail. With the Israeli Initiative/Rabbi Elon plan getting a "D" at best. The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace have pathetic levels of long term viability, significantly lower than even Rabbi Kahane's peace plan which Israelis rejected a couple decades ago as even being an option. The Kahane plan breaks even at the 50 percent level of long term viability, in my estimation.
Of these plans mentioned it would seem that only Everyone Wins is a sure plan and path to peace.
May it soon be so, by the grace of God.
I took six of the most essential aspects contributing towards the long term viability of true peace in the Middle East and showed that only Everyone Wins is a sure path to peace.
If these score were grades in a school. All other plans except the Elon plan would fail. With the Israeli Initiative/Rabbi Elon plan getting a "D" at best. The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace have pathetic levels of long term viability, significantly lower than even Rabbi Kahane's peace plan which Israelis rejected a couple decades ago as even being an option. The Kahane plan breaks even at the 50 percent level of long term viability, in my estimation.
Of these plans mentioned it would seem that only Everyone Wins is a sure plan and path to peace.
May it soon be so, by the grace of God.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Land For Peace Is Reward For Belligerence
I have mentioned before my rejection of the concept of land for peace as not only not leading to peace but actually being a fuel to the fire of terrorism. This concept applies equally to avoiding war when seeking peace with belligerent foreign nations as well.
Reuters today printed an article on Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad's take on Syria and the annexed Golan Heights:
Let's remember some of the contemporary history of the Golan Heights. On April 24, 1920 The Golan was declared a part of the Jewish Homeland by the Balfour Declaration's Mandate For Palestine (Palestine back then referred to Jews more often than Arabs). A couple years later due to political pressures of the time, Britain cut off Trans-Jordan and the Golan from the land West of the River Jordan (Which included all Green Line Israel, West Bank and Gaza). The Jews did not like this, but accepted this for the sake of preserving their rights to at least some of the land. This proved to be a bad precedent as Britain again began to whittle away at the "gift" they were preparing to give Israel until they gave only half of Green Line Israel.
If you find someone's property and return it to them, is it really a gift? If someone found your lost collection of expensive watches and returned only one would you merely be grateful or ask where the other watches were?
After various Syrian attempts to illegally interfere with Israel's water supply during the 1960s, in 1967 Syria threatened to attack Israel using the Golan as a launching ground even before the Six Day War began. Israel later won the Golan in the war. Israel deliberated long and hard, until 1981 before annexing the Golan. Israel depended on it too much, and Syria, frankly, no longer deserved it.
My question is what has changed since then? The new Assad is more verbally abusive against Israel than his violent father was. That's all that's changed.
While PM Netanyahu is opposed to territorial compromise of the Golan, a year ago, Syrian head Assad considered the possibility of some territory remaining in Israeli hands, whether or not that is the current stated foreign policy of Syria. It is important to openly express support for Bibi's policy of no territorial compromise on the Golan so that it is clear to everyone that Israel, not just Bibi, is unwilling to support laying the foundation of a new war in the Middle East.
In further comments published on Friday, Arad said he could not rule out some form of Palestinian state emerging in the next few years -- he mentioned 2015 -- but said that it would be a "fragile structure. A house of cards."
Message to PM Netanyahu. If you and your staff believe that a Palestinian state would be unstable, then why pursue a Palestinian state at all when there are safer ways out there? As I mentioned earlier, the current stated plan for peace with the Arab Palestinian refugees is a prescription for a subsequent war. Your people need you to stand strong.
Reuters today printed an article on Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad's take on Syria and the annexed Golan Heights:
"If there is a territorial compromise, it is one that still leaves Israel on the Golan Heights and deep into the Golan Heights," Arad said, noting also the plateau's water resources.
Let's remember some of the contemporary history of the Golan Heights. On April 24, 1920 The Golan was declared a part of the Jewish Homeland by the Balfour Declaration's Mandate For Palestine (Palestine back then referred to Jews more often than Arabs). A couple years later due to political pressures of the time, Britain cut off Trans-Jordan and the Golan from the land West of the River Jordan (Which included all Green Line Israel, West Bank and Gaza). The Jews did not like this, but accepted this for the sake of preserving their rights to at least some of the land. This proved to be a bad precedent as Britain again began to whittle away at the "gift" they were preparing to give Israel until they gave only half of Green Line Israel.
If you find someone's property and return it to them, is it really a gift? If someone found your lost collection of expensive watches and returned only one would you merely be grateful or ask where the other watches were?
After various Syrian attempts to illegally interfere with Israel's water supply during the 1960s, in 1967 Syria threatened to attack Israel using the Golan as a launching ground even before the Six Day War began. Israel later won the Golan in the war. Israel deliberated long and hard, until 1981 before annexing the Golan. Israel depended on it too much, and Syria, frankly, no longer deserved it.
My question is what has changed since then? The new Assad is more verbally abusive against Israel than his violent father was. That's all that's changed.
While PM Netanyahu is opposed to territorial compromise of the Golan, a year ago, Syrian head Assad considered the possibility of some territory remaining in Israeli hands, whether or not that is the current stated foreign policy of Syria. It is important to openly express support for Bibi's policy of no territorial compromise on the Golan so that it is clear to everyone that Israel, not just Bibi, is unwilling to support laying the foundation of a new war in the Middle East.
In further comments published on Friday, Arad said he could not rule out some form of Palestinian state emerging in the next few years -- he mentioned 2015 -- but said that it would be a "fragile structure. A house of cards."
Message to PM Netanyahu. If you and your staff believe that a Palestinian state would be unstable, then why pursue a Palestinian state at all when there are safer ways out there? As I mentioned earlier, the current stated plan for peace with the Arab Palestinian refugees is a prescription for a subsequent war. Your people need you to stand strong.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins
The following is the main text of the missive that was sent to Benjamin Netanyahu four months ago. My thanks for the e-mail that Major General, US Army Ret., Paul E. Vallely sent to Bibi on my behalf. I received e-mail confirmation from Bibi's staff back in March that it was handed to Bibi himself, who sent his personal thanks to me, but no further comment was given at that time.
I only mention this at this time in order to enable the readership to better understand where I am coming from so perhaps you could be better inspired by Heaven to offer suggestions that may help us find a common ground between the current Israeli peace initiative and the plan that Hashem/God gave me, so that we may find that one elusive yet perfect path to world peace that the Lord has promised to bring to mankind.
I only mention this at this time in order to enable the readership to better understand where I am coming from so perhaps you could be better inspired by Heaven to offer suggestions that may help us find a common ground between the current Israeli peace initiative and the plan that Hashem/God gave me, so that we may find that one elusive yet perfect path to world peace that the Lord has promised to bring to mankind.
* * * * *
Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins
By Alan Friedlander
In pursuit of a peace plan to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, we need to find something that ends not only the causes of conflict but also ends the foundations of terrorism. The "Oslo Accords" have failed to bring peace, only pseudo legitimacy to the PLO.
The current peace initiative, the "Roadmap to Peace" is little more than a roadmap to roadblocks and has only succeeded in giving pseudo legitimacy to Fatah and a terrorist haven to Hamas. Not surprising, the efforts by the political left wing to evict innocent Israeli Jews from their homes seemingly for the sake and lone true benefit of unrepentant terrorists has elicited a stronger reaction than ever before from the political right to instead evict West Bank Palestinian Arabs from their homes. The tit for tat cycle does not end on the path that current American Foreign Policy travels. The further the Roadmap is pursued, the deeper entrenched animosities will grow, bringing the conflict closer to the prospect of resolution being possible exclusively by full scale war.
The time is ripe for Change. Change from the failed policies of a bygone era, to a true path towards regional conflict resolution. First let's create a wish list of the goals of the new path to peace.
The Ten Commandments of an Ideal Peace Plan:
- To secure an end to terrorist armies within a stone's throw of Israeli cities.
- To maintain West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabic control of their cities
- Allow Palestinian Arabs the retention of their homes.
- To allow Israeli settlers to keep their homes as well.
- Free Palestinian Arabs in the short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps.
- Maintains Israel's military control over all the land and resources West of the Jordan River.
- Guarantee freedom of religious access to non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, etc.) to ancient and historic holy sites.
- Eventually allow West Bank and Gaza Palestinians to join their cousin Israeli Arabs within the "Green Line" by also having a right to vote in the State of Israel.
- Not to overwhelm Israeli's economy or infrastructure, nor significantly alter electorate configuration to give unfair advantage to naturalized Arabs and risk disruption of the entire democratic process.
- Put an end to the unhealthy segregationist environment that both sides are currently caught up in.
Effecting Real Change
The peace plan alternative must be as moderate and evenhanded as possible without ignoring the key needs of Israel, external and internal security, and religious freedom in order to be a politically viable option.
Everyone Wins
The "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Whereas previous one state solutions called for relocating masses of people, this plan calls for no segregation whatsoever. Nobody has to give up their homes, neither Jews nor Arabs (except for terrorists and those who support them). Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis without overwhelming the Israeli economy and infrastructure.
The key to making this work is twofold. First: Setting the categorization of the level of security risk of each naturalization applicant. The ones who are at zero risk are immediately placed in cue and await a corresponding number of immigrants to raise enough quota to allow them entry as naturalized Israelis. Second: Setting a fair and an appropriate ratio. If current demographics in Israel are that 15% of Israelis are Arabs, then the ratio could be set at 15%. That is, for every 100 immigrants, 15 West Bank and Gaza Arabs who are not a threat are allowed in. So if in a given year there are 100,000 Jewish immigrants, 15,000 friendly Arabs would naturalize.
Once true peace exists, I would expect that Jewish immigration will likely increase by no less than 300% of current rates. Plus financial stability and growth will be at unheard of levels. The ability to power infrastructure growth and the greater Jewish immigration numbers will allow a corresponding expansion of the Arabic naturalization process that is at the core of this solution. Israel can thereby naturalize more Arabs faster and safer than currently possible. Thus the entire conflict will come to an end that much sooner, by the grace of God.
By implementing the principles of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan the Israeli government can find a single and straight path towards peace. If you agree, then we must be prepared to shout out loud and clear in support of the peace plan that seems to be the most consistent with the will of God and the needs of humankind, no matter how simple its author may be.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Preliminary SWOT Analysis of the PM's Plan
The Prime Minister must answer what is the extent of Palestinian Independence in his plan under International Law before his plan can even be called an option. Resolving all the internal strife between Israelis and West Bank and Gaza refugees is wonderful. But increasing the potential for external strife (regional war) is not a peace plan.
I am not trying to nor trying to encourage a rushing to judgment against the duly elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Perhaps after the Iranian issue becomes more calm than it is today, it will become easier for news agencies to receive clear communication on this matter from the PM's office and also the PM's office will have more time to present the current peace plan with all its nooks, crannies and variations to the public.
Yet, I cannot remain silent, even as I wish I could. Silence can be a sin in such a circumstance. Hopefully, the PM will accept my words for their good intent, as the Holy Sages of the Talmud said, "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone."(Avos/Ethics of the Fathers 4:1) My concern over saying nothing is that there should be open debate and honest discussion, and consequently also the potential opportunity to perfect any peace plan that is presented.
In academic circles, generally scholars humbly send in their thesis papers to other co-practitioners of their trade for assessment. Or, as in my case, nowadays scholars who are pressed for time can at least create a blog such as this one to discuss the matter and allow some sort of public review and chance to receive criticism. By denying the possibility of any real critical review, previous peace deals fell apart as their underlying theories were untested until it was too late, when it was time to actually put them into practice. So my public critique of the PM is not an effort to defame him in any manner, but to put even my very critique of his plan to the test so that I can offer even better quality aid to him the next time I open my mouth, pen, or computer. While my reverence for his office is present, the greater calling is to do the will of God and the needs of humanity, and so I comment thusly.
As the revealed aspects of his plan, as per the text that I have received so far, have been a bit sketchy, here then is a very preliminary SWOT Analysis of PM Netanyahu's peace plan (but really this sort of appraisal is for the Prime Minister's office or the Foreign Ministry to run via an objective agency or think tank and then communicate to the public when toting their plan)...
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Opportunities:
Threats:
So, it appears to me that Bibi and his administration have come up with a sincere and strong peace plan that in its current form may begin nicely, yet does not address all of the present and pending issues in its wake, and thus creates a false sense of opportunity where, unfortunately, none exists.
I urge the Prime Minister to reread the letter that I sent him four months ago concerning the Everyone Wins Peace Plan and consider incorporating some elements therein to his plan in order, by the grace of God, to enrich and strengthen the chance for true and lasting peace.
I am not trying to nor trying to encourage a rushing to judgment against the duly elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Perhaps after the Iranian issue becomes more calm than it is today, it will become easier for news agencies to receive clear communication on this matter from the PM's office and also the PM's office will have more time to present the current peace plan with all its nooks, crannies and variations to the public.
Yet, I cannot remain silent, even as I wish I could. Silence can be a sin in such a circumstance. Hopefully, the PM will accept my words for their good intent, as the Holy Sages of the Talmud said, "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone."(Avos/Ethics of the Fathers 4:1) My concern over saying nothing is that there should be open debate and honest discussion, and consequently also the potential opportunity to perfect any peace plan that is presented.
In academic circles, generally scholars humbly send in their thesis papers to other co-practitioners of their trade for assessment. Or, as in my case, nowadays scholars who are pressed for time can at least create a blog such as this one to discuss the matter and allow some sort of public review and chance to receive criticism. By denying the possibility of any real critical review, previous peace deals fell apart as their underlying theories were untested until it was too late, when it was time to actually put them into practice. So my public critique of the PM is not an effort to defame him in any manner, but to put even my very critique of his plan to the test so that I can offer even better quality aid to him the next time I open my mouth, pen, or computer. While my reverence for his office is present, the greater calling is to do the will of God and the needs of humanity, and so I comment thusly.
As the revealed aspects of his plan, as per the text that I have received so far, have been a bit sketchy, here then is a very preliminary SWOT Analysis of PM Netanyahu's peace plan (but really this sort of appraisal is for the Prime Minister's office or the Foreign Ministry to run via an objective agency or think tank and then communicate to the public when toting their plan)...
Strengths:
- The PM's plan ends the dangers of missiles firing at Israeli cities.
- It ends the dangers of roving bands of terrorists destroying holy sites such as happened with the Tomb of Joseph.
- It increases the economic welfare of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians Arabs.
Weaknesses:
- It keeps the noses of the nations in Israel's business. Does any Israeli like this status? If the (non terroristic) Palestinians were all absorbed into Israel instead, it would be an internal matter under International Law and an end to external interference. Such independence is a good place for an open democracy like Israel to be in. The plan was supposed to resolve this, but in my opinion it does not cover all potentialities.
- It creates a veil of immunity to the just prosecution of terrorists based in the West Bank and Gaza that their Arab brethren inside Israel do not have.
- It has an element of bias, as it creates an artificial limit on where Jews are allowed to settle in their historic homeland. Israel set no such limits on Arabs within the Green Line, so Jews on the other side of the Green Line should enjoy at least the same courtesy and rights as Israeli Arabs do.
Opportunities:
- It can remove a huge monkey off the back of the State of Israel that is impeding its finding an economic and prestigious place among the nations of the world.
Threats:
- War.
- Perpetual international interference in internal Israeli affairs.
- Consequently the monkey actually remains on the back with people scratching heads and asking why. Thus the opportunities that the PM's plan offers, as I have heard it, while well meaning are fallacious in character.
So, it appears to me that Bibi and his administration have come up with a sincere and strong peace plan that in its current form may begin nicely, yet does not address all of the present and pending issues in its wake, and thus creates a false sense of opportunity where, unfortunately, none exists.
I urge the Prime Minister to reread the letter that I sent him four months ago concerning the Everyone Wins Peace Plan and consider incorporating some elements therein to his plan in order, by the grace of God, to enrich and strengthen the chance for true and lasting peace.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
PM's Plan Less Than Ideal In Its Current Form
Perhaps I am understating the intensity of my objection to his current plan, but presumably Prime Minister Netanyahu intends to elucidate further details of his plan, assuming the Palestinian leadership even comes to the table. Still I do not wish to remain silent when perhaps my inaction could contribute to the evil that could come should the plan be implemented in its current form due to the diminishment of IDF authority in keeping the peace.
To illustrate a main issue that needs some editing, let's imagine if the plan in its current apparent form were implemented completely...
The Israeli press celebrates, a new day has dawned now that the Palestinians have signed away the right to complain about further land concessions.
Then the mayor of (a small town in the West Bank) objects to the Palestinian Authority's renunciation of rights to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and he leads an open rebellion against Israel, encouraging terrorist groups to use his town as a safe haven. The PA police claim they do not have strong enough weapons to put down the violence. The Israeli Defense Ministry claims that the PA does have enough weapons. After the violence escalates, the Israeli government authorizes military action. Several Arab states protest Israel's attack on the "defenseless (by law) Palestinians civilians". (Since the PM's plan calls for a demilitarized PA, technically, all West Bank Palestinians would remain civilians, whether or not they are part of an authorized militia.) Resolutions are brought forth at the United Nations and pass against the aggressive Israeli ("over")reaction.
Problem: Now, as a full fledged state, Palestinians have FULL member status and rights in the U.N.
Arabs states feel more empowered to act against Israel militarily in order to "enforce the law".
Result: The threat of war is increased, if not guaranteed by implementation of the PM's plan in its current form.
This is just one potential work-around by foes of Israel to such a shared security plan. The only solution can be one in which the IDF retains absolute authority and at the same time the concept of Palestinian terrorists being "defenseless civilians" rather than the worst of criminals, is completely removed from the table.
The Everyone Wins peace plan, for example, is consistent with such an ideal resolution. So this aspect of the PM's plan still needs some editing before being used in actual practice.
To illustrate a main issue that needs some editing, let's imagine if the plan in its current apparent form were implemented completely...
The Israeli press celebrates, a new day has dawned now that the Palestinians have signed away the right to complain about further land concessions.
Then the mayor of (a small town in the West Bank) objects to the Palestinian Authority's renunciation of rights to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and he leads an open rebellion against Israel, encouraging terrorist groups to use his town as a safe haven. The PA police claim they do not have strong enough weapons to put down the violence. The Israeli Defense Ministry claims that the PA does have enough weapons. After the violence escalates, the Israeli government authorizes military action. Several Arab states protest Israel's attack on the "defenseless (by law) Palestinians civilians". (Since the PM's plan calls for a demilitarized PA, technically, all West Bank Palestinians would remain civilians, whether or not they are part of an authorized militia.) Resolutions are brought forth at the United Nations and pass against the aggressive Israeli ("over")reaction.
Problem: Now, as a full fledged state, Palestinians have FULL member status and rights in the U.N.
Arabs states feel more empowered to act against Israel militarily in order to "enforce the law".
Result: The threat of war is increased, if not guaranteed by implementation of the PM's plan in its current form.
This is just one potential work-around by foes of Israel to such a shared security plan. The only solution can be one in which the IDF retains absolute authority and at the same time the concept of Palestinian terrorists being "defenseless civilians" rather than the worst of criminals, is completely removed from the table.
The Everyone Wins peace plan, for example, is consistent with such an ideal resolution. So this aspect of the PM's plan still needs some editing before being used in actual practice.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Reaction to the Iranian Election Outburst
Even those that were previously threatened by Iran should feel compassion towards the terror and bloodshed of recent days. The Iranian leadership has only proven that they do not speak for God, as their disregard for the respect due towards the hallowed "Likeness of God" (tzelem Elokim) that is found in each human being, is so complete, that they even brutalize their own citizens.
May God protect the righteous of the world from the bloodthirsty and soon bring true peace to every land.
May God protect the righteous of the world from the bloodthirsty and soon bring true peace to every land.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
A Different State of Mind: Let True Peace Be Your Objective
What can one make of the public statements of the leaders of Israel and America in recent weeks supporting a Two State Solution in the unofficially annexed Israeli territory issue? Solution to what? If true peace is the goal, then how can a Two State path be any sort of road to a fair and lasting solution?
"I, like Rahm Emmanuel, come from a family of Etzel fighters whose symbol was a map of the land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan river. I was taught that the Jewish people have a historic, national, religious and legal right to all the land. "To this day, I believe in the right of the Jewish people to the entire land. I feel a deep, undying connection to the ancient land of Israel - Judea and Samaria - to places I was taken to as a girl after the Six Day War when we thought Jews and Arabs could live together in harmony between the River Jordan and the sea. I share and respect this sense of justice in our claim to the land. But my objective is different," Livni explained. (Jerusalem Post: Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, May 4, 2009)
We see from Tzipi's statement that she truly believes, as I do, that under International Law all disputed territories in Israel are Israel's by way of a defacto annexation. Implicitly, then, it is only because Israel has been trying to give parts of it away that this whole "dispute" even exists. Only because a significant percentage of Israelis wish to continue the fantasy of a Palestinian state being a boon for peace does the entire concept continue as foreign policy.
The current path of the government of Israel would seem to be one of attempting to enter an aberrant state of mind hoping to enable dreams of things that cannot possibly be. Thereby they forsake the one thing that absolutely must be, true peace. In the ideologically bold, but still inexperienced President Obama, Israel's leaders have found someone who is willing to suspend his sense of political realism and embrace the blatantly unrealistic Israeli leftist dream of an independent Palestinian State and run with that as the foreign policy of the USA.
This erroneous path by the Obama Administration is a reactionary one that was made in the wake of statements that have come from Israel's leadership in the recent times. I do not believe it an attempt to force anything on Israel as some on the far right have claimed. The recent statements coming out of Washington are positions stated in Israel by parties like Labor and Kadima. They were not stated by Washington until the Netanyahu Administration publicly went along with it.
Tzipi Livni now represents the opposition forces from the Israeli political Left, and she apparently agrees entirely with my analysis of International Law, yet she proposes an alternate objective. Her current goal, apparently as well as the Netanyahu Administration's current I-don't-care-about-anything-but-stopping-Iran Policy is to offer up the unrealistic and false hope of peace with a Hamas-infected Palestinian government.
It's like demanding of a fire to only swallow up half of your home. Talmudic and International laws, however, call for something a tad more reality based. Such as: Put out the fire or flee from it! Do not depend on miracles.
President Obama's campaign spoke of Hope. Let that Hope be a true thing to believe in and live by, not a false path that ends in yet more needless bloodshed, when we need only will ourselves toward true peace in order to obtain it.
Israel has the legal right to end and disband the Palestinian Authority immediately and begin the integration of non-violent sectors of the Palestinian people into the State of Israel. Applicants for naturalization will be accepted or rejected not on how they entered this world, but on whether they choose to live and let live in it.
Jews and Arabs are already living in harmony. On the other side of the "Green Line". If you move that Green Line to encompass all peoples West of the River Jordan, then peace and harmony will encompass everyone.
Everyone's goal has to be peace! And the vehicle to get us there must no longer ignore the facts!
Jews and Arabs do get along when they are in a true democracy (see USA and Israel as examples). The Palestinian Authority is terminally bloodthirsty and corrupt. The Holy Land legally belongs to Israel if she will only dare to believe it.
To achieve reality based hope, we must enter a different state of mind.
We must let true peace be our objective. By the grace of God, soon we shall.
"I, like Rahm Emmanuel, come from a family of Etzel fighters whose symbol was a map of the land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan river. I was taught that the Jewish people have a historic, national, religious and legal right to all the land. "To this day, I believe in the right of the Jewish people to the entire land. I feel a deep, undying connection to the ancient land of Israel - Judea and Samaria - to places I was taken to as a girl after the Six Day War when we thought Jews and Arabs could live together in harmony between the River Jordan and the sea. I share and respect this sense of justice in our claim to the land. But my objective is different," Livni explained. (Jerusalem Post: Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, May 4, 2009)
We see from Tzipi's statement that she truly believes, as I do, that under International Law all disputed territories in Israel are Israel's by way of a defacto annexation. Implicitly, then, it is only because Israel has been trying to give parts of it away that this whole "dispute" even exists. Only because a significant percentage of Israelis wish to continue the fantasy of a Palestinian state being a boon for peace does the entire concept continue as foreign policy.
The current path of the government of Israel would seem to be one of attempting to enter an aberrant state of mind hoping to enable dreams of things that cannot possibly be. Thereby they forsake the one thing that absolutely must be, true peace. In the ideologically bold, but still inexperienced President Obama, Israel's leaders have found someone who is willing to suspend his sense of political realism and embrace the blatantly unrealistic Israeli leftist dream of an independent Palestinian State and run with that as the foreign policy of the USA.
This erroneous path by the Obama Administration is a reactionary one that was made in the wake of statements that have come from Israel's leadership in the recent times. I do not believe it an attempt to force anything on Israel as some on the far right have claimed. The recent statements coming out of Washington are positions stated in Israel by parties like Labor and Kadima. They were not stated by Washington until the Netanyahu Administration publicly went along with it.
Tzipi Livni now represents the opposition forces from the Israeli political Left, and she apparently agrees entirely with my analysis of International Law, yet she proposes an alternate objective. Her current goal, apparently as well as the Netanyahu Administration's current I-don't-care-about-anything-but-stopping-Iran Policy is to offer up the unrealistic and false hope of peace with a Hamas-infected Palestinian government.
It's like demanding of a fire to only swallow up half of your home. Talmudic and International laws, however, call for something a tad more reality based. Such as: Put out the fire or flee from it! Do not depend on miracles.
President Obama's campaign spoke of Hope. Let that Hope be a true thing to believe in and live by, not a false path that ends in yet more needless bloodshed, when we need only will ourselves toward true peace in order to obtain it.
Israel has the legal right to end and disband the Palestinian Authority immediately and begin the integration of non-violent sectors of the Palestinian people into the State of Israel. Applicants for naturalization will be accepted or rejected not on how they entered this world, but on whether they choose to live and let live in it.
Jews and Arabs are already living in harmony. On the other side of the "Green Line". If you move that Green Line to encompass all peoples West of the River Jordan, then peace and harmony will encompass everyone.
Everyone's goal has to be peace! And the vehicle to get us there must no longer ignore the facts!
Jews and Arabs do get along when they are in a true democracy (see USA and Israel as examples). The Palestinian Authority is terminally bloodthirsty and corrupt. The Holy Land legally belongs to Israel if she will only dare to believe it.
To achieve reality based hope, we must enter a different state of mind.
We must let true peace be our objective. By the grace of God, soon we shall.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Invalid Roadmap
The Roadmap to Peace that the new administrations in the USA and Israel currently seem to believe as still containing merit, is, in fact, already dead. The Benjamin Netanyahu of a decade ago would ask, where is there hope of reciprocity in this path with these pseudo partners in peace? Because Fatah still embraces Hamas, and Hamas is an unrepentant terror organization, the current Palestinian Authority leadership is nothing but a pure continuation of the PLO of old.
It is exasperating to consider the current diplomatic intentions of both countries. The path to false peace is when political leaders of nations become lovers of advancing diplomatic processes in the general realm of peacemaking rather than gaining true and substantial achievements in the realm of actual peace. The entire intent of International Law is to PREVENT CONFLICT between nations, not to enshrine an eternal state of war with pretend legitimacy. You cannot say that because the U.N. Security Council supports a path that leads to war and calls it peace, that it is now a legitimate peace plan and indeed consecrated as International Law itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. A treaty between nations cannot include the suicide of one of those nations. That would violate Fundamental Law (Jus Cogens). For example, when American demanded an unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945, that did not grant the USA a right to commit genocide against the Germans once they surrendered. If the roles had been reversed and the USA had to surrender to the Nazis. And the USA knew for a fact that Nazi Germany would only slaughter USA citizens if the USA surrendered, then such a document of surrender would be a violation of the Jus Cogens of the citizens of the USA. Similarly, if a peace treaty were to be signed with any ACTIVE enemy of Israel by any government of Israel that Israel should surrender land to it, and/or if a U.N. Security Council Resolution were to call such a peace treaty absolute law, the treaty would STILL remain invalid, because it would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens.
Allow me to clarify that my intent is not to attack PM Netanyahu with abandon. I have confidence that he can come to the correct conclusions on his own without my having said anything. I feel that all he needs is a few days, weeks or months to reacquaint himself with the Palestinian leadership for him to come to the same realization that I am at. What I am trying to do by speaking about this now is to help breakdown the false philosophy of those political opposition forces that are trying to encourage him to make extremely unwise and unhealthy choices for his constituency, and what negative implications that would mean for the national security of both Israel and the USA if, God forbid, he heeded their advice, which again, at the end of the day I hope and feel that he won't.
Hamas believes it is entirely legitimate to attack Israeli civilians whenever it pleases. Fatah passively supports Hamas. And even if you want to say that Hamas can be dealt with and Israel can simply sign a peace deal with Fatah, then I would remind you that Fatah itself is still truly a terrorist organization, whether or not it is currently politically expedient to admit that as the national foreign policy of the USA and Israel. If you disagree with me then please forgive me if I pain you with the use of logic. If even now Fatah is not committed to ending terror, then how can they ever be trusted to do so? If even now Fatah is not against Hamas, when the Palestinian leaders of Fatah are supposedly with their backs to the wall and suffering greatly, and have the Israeli army almost at their beck and call to wipe out Hamas, or at least eliminate the main terror cells within Hamas controlled territory so that Fatah could rule peacefully. If even now Fatah is not committed against terror, then they can never be expected to police against future terror groups that may arise to demand 100% of the land of Israel from the Israelis. Thus any peace deal signed with FATAH, not just Hamas, would be invalid from the get go as such a deal would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens of the people of Israel.
The Quartet sponsored, and current foreign policy of the USA and Israel is the "Roadmap to Peace". But all these governments have thus far backed a losing horse. If you need to gamble with the safety of the citizens of Israel, how about at least putting your money on a pony that can win? But one thing is certain, the Roadmap to Peace is an Invalid Roadmap.
It is exasperating to consider the current diplomatic intentions of both countries. The path to false peace is when political leaders of nations become lovers of advancing diplomatic processes in the general realm of peacemaking rather than gaining true and substantial achievements in the realm of actual peace. The entire intent of International Law is to PREVENT CONFLICT between nations, not to enshrine an eternal state of war with pretend legitimacy. You cannot say that because the U.N. Security Council supports a path that leads to war and calls it peace, that it is now a legitimate peace plan and indeed consecrated as International Law itself. Nothing could be further from the truth. A treaty between nations cannot include the suicide of one of those nations. That would violate Fundamental Law (Jus Cogens). For example, when American demanded an unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945, that did not grant the USA a right to commit genocide against the Germans once they surrendered. If the roles had been reversed and the USA had to surrender to the Nazis. And the USA knew for a fact that Nazi Germany would only slaughter USA citizens if the USA surrendered, then such a document of surrender would be a violation of the Jus Cogens of the citizens of the USA. Similarly, if a peace treaty were to be signed with any ACTIVE enemy of Israel by any government of Israel that Israel should surrender land to it, and/or if a U.N. Security Council Resolution were to call such a peace treaty absolute law, the treaty would STILL remain invalid, because it would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens.
Allow me to clarify that my intent is not to attack PM Netanyahu with abandon. I have confidence that he can come to the correct conclusions on his own without my having said anything. I feel that all he needs is a few days, weeks or months to reacquaint himself with the Palestinian leadership for him to come to the same realization that I am at. What I am trying to do by speaking about this now is to help breakdown the false philosophy of those political opposition forces that are trying to encourage him to make extremely unwise and unhealthy choices for his constituency, and what negative implications that would mean for the national security of both Israel and the USA if, God forbid, he heeded their advice, which again, at the end of the day I hope and feel that he won't.
Hamas believes it is entirely legitimate to attack Israeli civilians whenever it pleases. Fatah passively supports Hamas. And even if you want to say that Hamas can be dealt with and Israel can simply sign a peace deal with Fatah, then I would remind you that Fatah itself is still truly a terrorist organization, whether or not it is currently politically expedient to admit that as the national foreign policy of the USA and Israel. If you disagree with me then please forgive me if I pain you with the use of logic. If even now Fatah is not committed to ending terror, then how can they ever be trusted to do so? If even now Fatah is not against Hamas, when the Palestinian leaders of Fatah are supposedly with their backs to the wall and suffering greatly, and have the Israeli army almost at their beck and call to wipe out Hamas, or at least eliminate the main terror cells within Hamas controlled territory so that Fatah could rule peacefully. If even now Fatah is not committed against terror, then they can never be expected to police against future terror groups that may arise to demand 100% of the land of Israel from the Israelis. Thus any peace deal signed with FATAH, not just Hamas, would be invalid from the get go as such a deal would be predicated upon an implicit and highly credible assumption of impending violation of Jus Cogens of the people of Israel.
The Quartet sponsored, and current foreign policy of the USA and Israel is the "Roadmap to Peace". But all these governments have thus far backed a losing horse. If you need to gamble with the safety of the citizens of Israel, how about at least putting your money on a pony that can win? But one thing is certain, the Roadmap to Peace is an Invalid Roadmap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
