The PA's Lawlessness Is The Bane of Their People

One must aim for a moral ideal, to reach a pragmatic and lasting peace.

There is a difference between the moral responsibility of the individual and collective moral responsibility.

Individuals need to be willing to take personal responsibility to keep to societal norms.  Laws depend not only on societal based standards, but also upon the moral agency of individuals to exhibit a willingness to follow the law and not scoff at the law.

Collective moral responsibility demands that we pursue peace at the societal level.

To have a partner in peace you must have a co-practitioner of moral agency.  That is, your partners in peace must have a sense of objective morals or no peace is possible. The PA's "These are the rules: I get to win!" leaves little room for negotiation or hope that any peace deal would last long enough to even celebrate it. Like giving a schoolyard bully a loaded sub machine gun, no good can come of it. So too, efforts to pursue peace with unrepentant terrorists is in itself an abandonment of collective moral responsibility.

The suffering of a people and the perceived discontent of a people create a heavy burden to society's collective sense of moral responsibility.  The pain at not helping the underdog makes one willing to make extraordinary sacrifices for peace.  Yet to do that in a way that fuels terror, not only fails to meet that objective, it actually prevents true peace from planting roots and enduring.

Contrary to the myth, a discontented people is not the breeding ground for terror. The side that the terrorists are rebelling against are not automatically the aggressors. An individual terrorist is but the conveyor of terror, but a morally and ethically corrupt society is its factory. In this sense, the moral vacuum within the terror cell creates the burden upon their own society, forcing reprisals against the entirety of their people, that they may bear the price for the worship of terror by those citizens, now terrorists, in the terror cell.  The group think of the terror cell corrupts utterly, all involved, all the way down to each terrorist at the individual level. Consequently, the leader of the terror cell is not the main evil, but each terrorist member of the cell is a corrupting force on the national moral fiber.


That means that when we feel the pain of a terroristic society, the phenomenon is not mere reaction to propaganda. We are experiencing a mass sensation of the real symptom, but not the true cause, of the discontent.  The actual cause of the discontent is the lack of morals of individual terrorists and also at the group level within those isolated terror cells. The PA has made it their business to place this moral vacuum at the political level of their nation's leadership, who brazenly attempt to fuel more and more violence and discontent. The PA leaders are terrorists in diplomatic clothing.

Yet we perceive the entire society in utter chaos and hopelessness due to the "giant" who rules over the afflicted people, even as the "afflicted" Palestinian Arabs work in the State of Israel and return to their modern apartments, to shopping centers full of multifarious foods and goods to choose from.

Until the alcoholic realizes that his best friend is not alcohol, he has no hope for a cure. Until the Palestinian leadership seek civilization building over winning their every desire by hook or by crook, their people's hopes will forever be dashed.


The PA's lawlessness is the bane of their people.  Weed out the corruption and blood lust by removing the PA from office, and you give peace a chance to take hold in the Middle East, by the grace of God.

Greater Jerusalem Includes Judea and Samaria

Happy Yom Yerushalayim, Anniversary of the Reunification of Jerusalem back in 1967! Baruch HaShem/Praise The Lord!

I have written previously about how the sign of a well thought out peace plan was of one that took into account not only secular humanistic International Law, but also religious beliefs of how the future of the West Bank should look. That way you minimize potential religious extremism by already anticipating future hot spots and preemptively avoiding them entirely by meeting those concerns as a serious part of one's diplomatic efforts to seek optimum pragmatic resolutions to the issues at stake. This is the HOLY LAND we are talking about, and you can't just divide religion from politics and synagogue from state and expect to resolve anything.

I was thinking about that when I read the Prime Minister's potentially disturbing verbal dismissal of challengers in the internal Likud Party elections. In the context of a speech about Likud Party respect for the rule of law, PM Netanyahu was reported to say, “We are not a messianic and extremist movement, but rather a national and liberal one."

Bibi needs to recall that messianic beliefs run deep in Jewish and Christian faiths, and to equate them with lawlessness does not do anyone who loves peace any favors.

Perhaps the Prime Minister meant that differently than the way it sounded, but it was a careless remark, albeit in the heat of the moment of intense internal party politics.

Bibi and his supporters must remain vigilant that he must not continue down the path that such a verbal blunder implies, in order to avoid fueling those who would blame religion and the religious for all of the world’s problems rather than as a great source for objective standards of ethics and morals.

When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, he said, "No other people are as connected to their capital as the Jewish people are to Jerusalem."

What then is Jerusalem? Many nations would be happier if Israel accepted that Jerusalem is merely the Western half of the city, which didn't even exist in the days of the Bible. To many Israelis, Jerusalem includes the Old City. Yet to any Bible student, its borders go even further still. “Jerusalem, mountains surround it, as the Lord surrounds His people…” (Psalm 125) For two thousand years the liturgy of the Jewish wedding has spoken of the united “streets of Jerusalem” and “mountains of Judea”. The Tabernacle rested for hundreds of years from the time of Joshua until the time of Solomon in various Samarian cities including Shiloh and Beth El and then Solomon moved it permanently to the place his father David had discovered was Divinely selected as the permanent site for holiness to commune with this world; the Temple Mount at the Eastern edge of the City called Jerusalem.  From a religious standpoint, The Holy Land begins at Jerusalem and spreads outwards from there, the mountain of the Temple of the Lord shall be the head of mountains (not the only mountain) and exalted above hills (not cut off from them). (Isaiah, chapter2, verses 3 and 2)

God’s boundaries are far broader than secular municipal maps currently show.

Jerusalem is intrinsically linked to the territories surrounding it according to Biblical prophecy. That is a serious concern of many religious people. Even non extremists ones as well, believe it or not.

Greater Jerusalem includes Judea and Samaria. From the Tomb of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the Tombs of Joseph and Rachel, the heartlands of the Bible is Judea and Samaria.

It is not extremist to say that.

It's a plain fact that anyone who opens a Bible can discern.

The key is to meet that truth honestly and still find a path to peace.

If you need help with that, write me and I can offer some, by the grace of God.

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

While PM Netanyahu’s edits to the Quartet sponsored Roadmap to Peace make it much safer than the purist interpretation of Olmert, it is still not an optimal guarantee against future conflict. It has failed to gain full support from the political right. Why?

Perhaps his Administration’s circumspect political demeanor in regards disclosure of the details of his plans has many people concerned. Anyone who cares about the rights of Jews to live in the land of their forefathers is understandably dissatisfied if you are elected to represent them and are seen as not emphatically defending their rights; especially on the heels of the trauma wrought to the national psyche by a previous administration who assaulted those rights. Therefore the existence of this concern is in and of itself something of a failure by the current administration, to meet the reasonably anticipated emotional turmoil of the electorate; a failure to address it and thereby give hope to alleviate it. Building in Jerusalem yet intending to legalize a terrorist state within Israeli territory just doesn't do enough to win over the political right.

A failure to communicate by an eloquent speaker is often times viewed as more that it is. Implicit oversights can be seen as rejections of alternatives, because since you speak so well on every other issue, the fact that on this one core issue you do not speak, “speaks” volumes. It is in this light that I bring this critique of the current administration’s peace plan to the fore.

At a time when some nations are speaking of supporting the Saudi plan, it is vital to know where we need to go to keep improving from past mistakes and not regress to failed policies of old.  For those of you who do not know of the Saudi-pseudo-peace-plan, it is either the worse peace plan ever devised or nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at war by other means.  OK, let's be as accurate as possible, it's BOTH.


Using the same 6 criteria for lasting peace that I used as qualities of evaluation in the popular original Middle East Peace Plan Comparison Chart, I will now analyze and compare the current Netanyahu variation of the Roadmap to Peace and the Everyone Wins Peace Plan. Afterward I will present an updated peace plan comparison chart at the end of this brief essay that shows the stats on those plans and the Saudi plan as well.

A word of caution when using this evaluation.  To come to an objective judgment while reading such a review of peace plans, especially when it is being done by someone such as myself who is likely biased to present his own variation in the most positive light, you must ignore how well I do or do not communicate this to you, but maintain a focus on the facts.  To simplify this, as you read ask yourself the following:  Are these 6 criteria truly the main features required of any true peace plan.  Then you must ask yourself is my perspective on each criterion accurate when used as the lens by which you evaluate each of the peace plans mentioned here? If that is so, then the conclusions of this evaluation must take hold in your mind and find its way into an expression of political action, be it via a letter to your party leadership (Israelis) or representative in congress (Americans), etc. Your letter to your political representative can turn a blog post into a serious concern of the constituency that the leadership must consider and address. People are suffering and are in danger so we must do something, we must ask ourselves how can we help them.


* * * * *

Peace Criterion 1: Strong Against Terror?

By guaranteeing full control of Jerusalem, Netanyahu’s plan is much better than Olmert’s. The long term security of Jerusalem’s population is vastly improved. Yet by creating zones of Arabic self rule in the territories, under the current climate, is invariably creating cities of refuge for terror, even if technically a right to invade at will against terror exists in a signed treaty as per the current Likud Party platform.

The Western sensibilities against segregationist activity would be exploited to perpetuate the anti Israel media onslaught every time Israel tried to defend itself under such a plan, and likely fuel continued outrage by supporters of the PLO world wide, who would feel like they lost if the Netanyahu plan was initiated, and that would likely encourage the Palestinians to try to prove that they did not.

Criterion met? Questionable.

The best resolution to this is if there are no alternate zones, but a single democratic nation of Jews, Arabs, Bedouins, Druze and the like, just as those beyond the “Green Line” already enjoy. Anyone who would then speak of jihad would subsequently not be viewed by the foreign press as freedom fighters fighting oppression, but as alien interlopers who are trying to interfere with a good thing, the betterment of the unified State of Israel.

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 2: Enhances Arabic Civil Rights?


Unlike its policy towards Jews, Bedouins and Druze, the Roadmap as edited by Netanyahu, plans to give whole cities exclusively to Arabs and no other race. “Jewish Settlements” will not be allowed to be only for Jews, but will be expected to become more egalitarian once within the New Green Line. But Arabs, under the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap to Peace and current Obama and Netanyahu policy, have the right to be racists if they so choose. Regardless, getting cities of your own is always a good thing, so from the perspective of Arabs in the territories, the Netanyahu plan is essentially a good thing even though their leaders do not want it.

Criterion met? YES.


* * * * *

Peace Criterion 3: Secures Non-Arabic Civil Rights?


The Roadmap as edited by Netanyahu plans to give whole cities to Arabs, unlike its policy towards Jews, Bedouins and Druze… Perhaps not fair, but neither is this a certain uprooting of civil rights for those who don’t currently live in those Arab cities. Long term, however, the other races should be allowed to move into Arab cities if they want to, but that is not a pressing debate in the short term.


Criterion met? Questionable.


Netanyahu, the former Finance Minister, is apparently viewing the problem in economic terms. There must be a winner and loser. It is as if he is suggesting “Let the Arabs win here so we get security.” …Whereas I say let Everyone Win…


* * * * *

Peace Criterion 4: Does Not Threaten Israeli Infrastructure?

It may not, or it may. By creating zones that are outside of IDF jurisdiction except under hot pursuit, you are creating a framework that will inhibit intelligence gathering and reasonably could lead to severe danger to Israeli Infrastructure. However by not moving major populations such as Ariel’s Jews or Hebron’s Arabs, the Netanyahu Roadmap avoids a major economic crash that would have followed a purist interpretation of the Roadmap to Peace.


Criterion met? Questionable.


* * * * *

Peace Criterion 5: RETAINS SOCIETAL INTEGRITY Everyone Keeps Their Homes Both Jews and Arabs?

Currently plans are to close small satellite settlements but none of the major ones or those near them. That means Jews are still to be made homeless under the edits by Netanyahu to the Roadmap, just not as many Jews. That is little solace, and a failure of this criterion’s test.


Criterion met? NO.

* * * * *

Peace Criterion 6: Enhances Interracial Equality and Harmony?

Creating cities that are void of Jews in the Land of Israel is not the ideal method to achieve this.

Criterion met? NO.

* * * * *

What then is the Long Term Chance of Success if Implemented? (see peace plan comparison chart - formatted to print best in landscape orientation)

Better than Olmert’s path? Certainly.  Better than the Saudi-pseudo-peace-plan? Without Question!

But in its current form, Netanyahu's current plan appears less than 50% probable that its viability will stand the test of time.

Long term viability for peace is most likely when societal healing occurs and as many causes of long term hatreds and outrages are minimized or eliminated to the best of our ability. That is what the Everyone Wins Peace Plan is founded upon.

By integrating the Everyone Wins Peace Plan into their platform for peace, the Administration can find an optimum avenue towards lasting conflict resolution between Palestinian Arabs and Israel, by the grace of God.

Obama's Iranian Containment Strategy

In last Monday night's (March 8) Bibi Report interview I revealed a concern of mine regarding the threat to the safety of our (USA) troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan by the current Iranian regime.

A reason that the Obama Administration may not have withdrawn our troops in Iraq yet may be due to the fact that if they are viewed as preparing to about to be pulled out of the Middle East, they could possibly also be viewed as something of a closeout sale. An opportunity to easily strike at their main enemy while a perceived element of vulnerability exists may seem too good to pass up, God forbid. As Iran's leaders have called America the great Satan, which would make Israel in their estimation only Satan junior, they can wait to attack Israel. But talk of an expedited American troop withdrawal could be risky under the current standoff with Iran.


Today it may already be too late for sanctions to work. Also considering Iran's deal last week with North Korea for new missile technology, war could be sooner than expected and the plots afoot could be farther reaching than we could imagine. We just do not know.


Further, to date the only real card up President Obama's sleeve against the international terror network so far has been to harass our friend Israel for building in its own capital city. Nobody knows why the Obama administration is taking such an extreme position on Israel's right to build in its own capital. But perhaps that explains it all. Iran's leadership are being unpredictable and gaining ground… …Hmm… Perhaps the group-think in the White House these days is, let's be just as unpredictable as the Iranians. Then maybe they will fear us again. Yeah, that’s it.


It's as if some advisor to the President was watching a Lethal Weapon movie at 3AM in the morning while drunk when the crazy idea struck him that Obama and his people should pretend to be as wild and unpredictable as Mel Gibson's character was in order to scare Iran back to the negotiation table.


But the only thing anyone fears by the lambasting of PM Netanyahu about a matter previously accepted by the US Administration is whether sanity is still at play in the White House.


As it seems that our leaders are apparently off to Fantasy Island for the time being, I therefore wanted to do my part to help protect our boys in the military who are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan by at least bringing this issue to the fore and hopefully helping friendly forces to be better prepared for any potential scenarios where the Iranians target our troops first, in accordance to their stated hatred of America above and beyond their hatred of the state of Israel.


In the face of the farcical theater coming from the White House and the State Department towards our friend Israel and the peace process there, the main thing for us American citizens to do is to keep in mind the real seriousness of the predicament that the current Iranian regime is posing to the world and make sure that as many of our representatives in Congress as possible keep their eye on the true tiger, the current jihadist Iranian regime. On the other hand, we have nothing to fear from low cost housing projects in allied countries; believe it or not.


The plain fact is we don't know the intentions of Iranian leaders. Meanwhile our political leaders are pretending as if they do, when their policies would seem to indicate that they most likely do not.


God, however, knows exactly what the Iranian leaders are planning. Yet if we improve ourselves before the Lord, how could our enemies possibly succeed? As the Psalmist wrote (in 118:6 and the theme is recurrent in Psalms such as 23, 27, 56 and 112) “The Lord is with me, I shall not fear that which man can do to me.” Then when we pray for our friends in the Middle East, all that we need to remember is to also pray for the members of our armed services who are stationed there too, and request Divine Compassion on their behalf as well.


This then is a way to pursue the concept of “We the People” in a practical way, without waiting for the next elections; for rather than relying upon fallible beings such as ourselves in times like this we should place our trust only in the grace of God.

Iranian Regime Change

US Army Major General (retired) Paul E. Vallely and national security analyst Fred Gedrich in last week’s Fox News article entitled: “Time to Get Tough With Iran” call for Regime Change in Iran:

"The best way to get the Iranian regime’s attention would be to inform them that President Obama will (1) ask Congress to pass a resolution making Iranian regime change a U.S. policy (similar to what Congress and President Clinton did in passing and signing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act; (2) direct, under executive authority or with congressional permission, precise military strikes on Iranian nuclear development sites as well as regime targets like terrorist training facilities…; and (3) overtly and covertly encourage and support all Iranian opposition and freedom seeking groups to foster regime change."

As the more militarily aggressive President George W. Bush did not do this, I do not think we can expect President Obama to immediately do so, even with his self stated deadline past due. Yet the Vallely-Gedrich piece points to a direction that the Obama Administration can use in discussion with other members of the U.N. Security Council. They could say, ”Make real sanctions, or this is the direction towards which we will have to move our foreign policy.” For the Obama administration has apparently forgotten what a stick is, and Iran is not buying our carrots. This article by Vallely and Gedrich can hopefully serve to help remind the Administration how a stick is wielded.

I have said both verbally and in writing that I feel there is a greater danger to American troops than Israelis from the current Iranian Regime. Meanwhile other nations are waiting for President Obama to take the lead as they believe his country has the most at risk of any Security Council member. Yet that is only the current situation. As the Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction program moves forward, the weaker the concurrent Western response to Iranian threats, the greater the number of countries that would be at risk from a nuclear Iran.

Vallely and Gedrich concluded with:
"Let’s “hope” President Obama makes these policy “changes” before it’s too late. Global peace and security depends on it."

Regime change is the realist way to resolve this. If some practical diplomatic alternative method should be discovered by President Obama, I would be for that. A peaceful resolution would obviously be far better than a violent one. Yet when the stakes and magnitude of the potential and likely conflict with Iran continue to escalate with each and every passing scientific achievement by the Iranian WMD scientists, this is no time to experiment with pie in the sky solutions that are divorced from realistic odds of implementation in actuality.

God blessed mankind with such an intricate and beautiful world and it would be a shame if world leaders were to allow a rogue state to bring us over the brink of World War 3 with so many years of advanced warning and few serious efforts by a divided world leadership to reel in the danger via diplomatic means and with any semblance of potency.

May God guide the hearts of world leaders in the direction that humanity needs them to go.

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

God is good to all and His mercies are upon all His creations. (Psalm 145)

My interview on "The Bibi Report" is at the 30 minute mark and lasts slightly over 20 minutes.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rapturereadyradio/2010/02/05/the-bibi-report-no-more-excuses-live-show-thurs-9p

Their website has the blurb:
"A week in review discussion with prof. Alan Friedlander from the "Jerusalem Defender" blog, we will discuss his interesting "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan and get his views on the current events."

Iran and a Line in the Sand

President Obama drew a line in the sand to the Iranian regime that at the end of 2009 they had better comply with the no nukes views of the United Nations. That was not successful. If it was a threat, it had no teeth, and if was a bluff, it didn't work and only made future pressurized negotiations more problematic. When an opponent likes to play hardball it is a mistake to make your image one of a superpower that cries wolf.

For an administration that prided itself as more stately than its predecessor, more open to world views and consensus building of international political leadership, the effect is devastating. To replace President Bush's carrot and stick approach you need a lot of carrots and the ability to cut off supply of them should your wishes not be complied with. In the world-governmental-view that some in the Obama administration seem to hold by, either you are able to make a consensus, or you have already lost control of the world to anarchistic rogue states. Effectively that is where the image of US Foreign Policy on Iran stands today.

The true pressure had to be applied to intransigent security council members who are staving off sanctions indefinitely. There needed to be a consensus before the Obama threat of sanctions, because by a world-government-first foreign policy the likelihood of military action replacing sanctions is staved off. Which means that if sanctions are not forthcoming, it is a rational supposition that military action isn't anywhere close to being just over the horizon.

President Obama had a nice set of cards, but not the cash to back it up. Iran is now waiting for him to fold his hand, and no longer worried that it should. That is not a good place to be.

The Everyone Wins Peace Plan in Halacha

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

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

• 1) The Biblical injunction against allowing idolators to possess the Holy Land (Lo Techanem) only applies to adding groups and entire populations to the land, not individuals. (for more on this study tractate Avodah Zarah, Mishnah 1:8 and the Gamora 21a) So, for example, to bring this back to current events, the concept of an Arabic "right of return" to the Land of Israel would not be acceptable under this concept.
  
  Saving Lives (pikuach nefesh) is the more pressing concern, however, as Security realities preclude an Arabic "right of return" therefore the Arabic "right of return" is forbidden due to clear cut danger to life concerns and thus the prohibition is even more severe than the concept of Lo Techanem alone would prohibit and is absolutely forbidden under Biblical injunction.



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regime Change of the PA Via Annexation

Were I a member of the Netanyahu Administration I would have voted against the building freeze in the territories. They are sending a confusing message of negotiating against their own position even before the PA regime returns to the negotiation table with them. This was only to placate a foreign power, not in pursuance of good policy for their people. The destructively self effacing courtship of friendship from the anti Jewish PA must cease so that Israel’s penchant for kindness and patience no longer be used against it by anyone. Fair play begins with being willing to play by the rules.

The Israeli government’s blunder, however, has a silver lining that is found in their special treatment of East Jerusalem in the face of Western linkage of East Jerusalem with Judea and Samaria. It illustrates that they believe that the State of Israel, at least potentially, has absolute authority over the lands conquered in the defensive Six Day War, otherwise how could they assume that their annexation of East Jerusalem is valid? Thus the silver lining in the dark cloud that the Netanyahu Administration performed is that they have incidentally taken a real step in disputing those who erroneously say that U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 make lands conquered in defensive wars barred from annexation by the defensive conquerors. One of the leading foundations in the conflict over the territories is this very dispute.

To briefly explain the basics of that dispute in International Law, those who argued that defensive conquest is illegal since the passage of Resolution 242 are standing upon the implicit but not explicit gist of the resolution’s wording and matters of current political expediency alone, whereas those who say defensive wars are legal means of territorial annexation cite actual historic precedents. As even an explicit law forbidding defensive conquest would only be a “customary law”, while returning strategic land to a belligerent regime would be aiding and abetting the self destruction of the innocent nation(s) who heed the implicit command of resolutions like 242, which would violate the most profound of International Norms in existence (Jus Cogens) toward their own populace. Humanity, if it is to continue to morally and ethically progress in its great journey through time, cannot bear such crimes against it.

Allow me to ask you this: A man that loves his wife does not mind if she makes a few mistakes here and there. A man that hates his wife does not tolerate any wrong that she does unless he depends on her for something, whether that is for his continued prestige, care of his children, avoiding the loss of his fortune to divorce expense or the like. So what does Abbas have that makes the Netanyahu Administration desire to put up with him?

If Abbas leaves, there is fear that Hamas would take over? How can they not if every time there is an election Hamas gains more and more strength? But that is not Israel’s concern. The Arab people subjugated by the PA voted for their terrorist leaders rather than less offensive third party candidates like Hanan Ashrawi’s party. Now third party alternatives will likely never again gain the attention of the Palestinian press thus solidifying the hold of the current terroristic PA configuration in perpetuity for as long as the PA will exist. You owe such voters nothing from a foreign policy aspect. Thus when forming your policy towards Palestinian Arabs only humanitarian concerns should be considered in relation to their dire political plight and bleak future if the PA should remain their masters, God forbid.

Standard regime change cannot fix this problem. The regime once removed would likely be replaced by a worse regime. So what you have then is essentially an entire national entity lost to the prospect of achieving true peace through negotiation. Therefore negotiation itself has been made a mockery and even an impediment toward the pursuit of actual regional peace by the will of the Palestinian voters themselves as interpreted by their petty and corrupt leaders. Acknowledge that as long as you hope for the PA to change, there is no hope.

Consider that if you annex only small portions of the West Bank, you abandon thousands of good Arab people within the PA to an endless reign of despotic rulers. It would not be compassionate to ignore their plight. Abraham asked God to spare an entire evil city if only ten good people could be found in it. Many thousands of Arabs voted against Hamas. Do they all deserve abandonment?

Let’s put the answer out there plainly. Do not replace Abbas, remove him and his whole regime entirely. Annex the territories and bring democracy and peace simultaneously to the Israelis and Arabs living there. If demographic concerns still haunt, then a plan like the Everyone Wins Peace Plan can treat that even in the context of such a massive annexation by way of a staggered naturalization process. Either way, you could then have true peace and liberty for all, by the grace of God.

Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution

Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said, "Those who reject the two-state solution will not bring a one-state solution. They will bring one conflict, not one state. A bloody endless conflict."

Excuse me, but isn't that what the Oslo Accords accomplished? Is that not the very fruit that it brought upon Israel? Isn't that what the Roadmap to Peace (Oslo 3) ended up doing, especially before the security fence was built?

Has it been so long since the first Intifada began that people have forgotten what it was like when Arab refugees didn't try to kill Israelis?

Answer this: Why, when Arafat was a fugitive for the first three decades of his terroristic career, there was no intifada? Why when Arafat underwent a PR makeover and was a pseudo partner in a pseudo peace process, why then did Israel stop looking over its borders with fear, but then start looking within its borders for the most clear and present dangers?

Arafat created a goon squad of terrorist abusers of the national psyche. Did anyone really believe that whitewashing the high crimes of the PLO by calling them by the designation of "diplomats" would bring Israel closer to peace?

Oslo 1, Oslo 2, the Roadmap. Wrong thought processes were at play that conceived these plans, which have brought these decades of endless violence. Like a battered wife who clings to her abusive husband. She should not cower behind the locked bathroom door each night hoping for her husband to calm down. She should leave or call the police.

By continuing to advocate the pursuit of a "two-state solution" you are essentially telling your people to sit there and take it; for eternity. This is peace? This is madness!

Bad policy such as this hopes to placate the abuser long enough so that the victim can just be left alone for a scant few moments of respite from his limitless rage. But no practical plans for long term security are on her agenda. Taking dangerous risks without a clearly obtainable goal is a classic symptom of the faulty reasoning that often affects the thought processes of victims of abuse. For example following up Oslo 1 with Oslo 2, then Oslo 2 with the Roadmap would be an expression of this disorder at the political level.

The healthier choice would have been seeking national consensus on the vital issues at play rather than forcing through the Knesset a left wing agenda.

To have true freedom from bloodshed, you must first inculcate true freedom of the heart and mind. As God told Yehoshua (Joshua) repeatedly, "Be strong and courageous".

Not only has the violence continued, your reaction has you pointed in the wrong direction to fix the problems...

Why should Arabs keep their homes and not Jews? Is this justice?

Why should Israel be forced into "Auschwitz Borders" as your friend Abba Eban used to call them? Is this security?

Why should you have to give anything to get peace? Should peaceful intentions not be shared by both partners?

Currently only one side is committed to peace and freedom of the other side if they should reach a peace deal, while the other guys refuse to accept even the notion of a Jewish State. Is this a true path to peace?

You have been strong and courageous to make sacrifices for peace. Now be strong and courageous to encourage the forsaking of the failed paths of national self destruction, leaving them as history. Only this new direction is a path that can lead to healthy and true peace.

Soon may it be so, by the grace of God.

Israeli Settlements Are Forever - Manifest Foreign Policy Is Not

As we discussed before, according to both Talmudic and International Laws, the Land of Israel is not only promised to the Jews, but legally belongs to them.

On Wednesday, Clinton insisted ''our policy on settlement has not changed.''''We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity. Ending all settlement activity current and future would be preferable,'' she told reporters after talks with Mubarak. (NY Times)

So what the Secretary of State is saying is that the Obama Administration does not care what "religions" say or even what "laws" say, only what the expedient needs of its self chosen foreign policy is. Is that what she's trying to communicate or am I missing something?

Reminds me of something I learned about Manifest Destiny. You make up a political ideology, and that becomes your law. Your current belief system trumps religion, history, law and common standards of fair play.

Ask a Native American if that is always a good thing.

Invite me to Washington and I'll explain it all to you.

P.S. I only eat Kosher.

US Foreign Policy in the Middle East under the Obama Administration - Nine Months Later

Siding with Israel over Iran does not mean that it's OK to sell out American principles on peace in the Middle East.

I don't mean to be pessimistic on a new administration. Generally it's good to give people a chance to get some experience and confidence going on their new job. Still, when the new kid on the block repeatedly foments controversy, it's hard to ignore what is going on.

Why does it seem that every time Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton make a statement in favor of Israel we need to tell ourselves to wait 24 to 48 hours until there is a retraction of some kind?

There needs to be ideological consistency out the White House. You can't blame Iran for being dangerous and then turn around and support Hamas.

On the matter of Iran, as said before, if there is military action against Iran, I would hope that it were by the US not Israel -not for Israel's sake, but for the well being of our troops overseas who are easier targets than anyone in the Land of Israel is. I don't care if they are holding guns, these brave soldiers are young Americans who are potentially in harm's way. America can and should protect it's own.

The prime responsibility of an American President is as Commander in Chief of the military. Iran's current regime is a potential threat to many members of that military.

Whereas the prime goal of foreign policy is to further national interests in a way that does not harm our allies, otherwise few trusted allies we would have, indeed. The territorial dispute in Israel should have zero to do with the foreign policy we show towards a world class dangerous regime in a different part of the Middle East. Please don't confuse the two.

Every time a tough statement is made against Iran, the current practice of this White House is to make some sort of corresponding verbal slight against Israeli rights to their land. If this is a calculated choice, it would be an effort at even handedness for the sake of even handedness, in a way that is not even handed at all.

Separate these two theaters of conflict within your foreign policy to prevent one large theater of war from believed intertwining interests that never existed until some foolish speech writer linked it all into a hodgepodge of pseudo even handedness and outright untruthfulness. The goal is to avoid conflict, not hasten it.

Please consider that perhaps the unintended message of this methodology is speaking louder than the intended message. The enemies of civilization tend pick and choose that which they want to hear. Therefore the upholders of civilization must be more circumspect in their speech.