United Kingdom: 12 Tribes of Israel
Divided Kingdom: 931 BC 1 Kings 12
Israel Under King Solomon
Alexander's Conquests
Roman Empire
After more than 600 years the religion of Islam Emerged!
Ottoman Empire
Ottoman Empire after WWI (Notice the creation of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and so forth) CREATION
British Mandate of Palestine "Israel and Jordan" (The Real Two State Solution)
U.N. Partition Plan (The Unjust Occupation of the Jewish Homeland Began)
Armistice Lines 1949-1967 (After the war initiated by the Arab neighbors, note Armistice Lines are not Politically Recognized Borders)
Six Day War 1967 (Second Trial to destroy the Jewish Land, note defensive war)
Land for Peace or Diplomatic Suicide of Israel
Image 11: Six Day War 1967 (Second Trial to destroy the Jewish Land, note defensive war)
Image 13: The Final Peace Solution a.k.a. Farewell Israel
Map Sources:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://
www.preceptaustin.org/map%2520of%2520tribes%2520of%2520israel.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.preceptaustin.org/
biblical_maps.htm&usg=__T1w5rUes1dJjsbmi29_zDXWYg7o=
&h=500&w=367&sz=68&hl=en&start=44&um=1&tbnid=rg6_CcIIQR2TEM:
&tbnh=130&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dold%2Bisrael%2Bmap%2Bduring
%2Bsalomon%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D42%26um%3D1
Divided Kingdom: 931 BC 1 Kings 12
Israel Under King Solomon
Alexander's Conquests
Roman Empire
After more than 600 years the religion of Islam Emerged!
Ottoman Empire
Ottoman Empire after WWI (Notice the creation of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and so forth) CREATION
British Mandate of Palestine "Israel and Jordan" (The Real Two State Solution)
U.N. Partition Plan (The Unjust Occupation of the Jewish Homeland Began)
Armistice Lines 1949-1967 (After the war initiated by the Arab neighbors, note Armistice Lines are not Politically Recognized Borders)
Six Day War 1967 (Second Trial to destroy the Jewish Land, note defensive war)
Land for Peace or Diplomatic Suicide of Israel
Image 2: Divided Kingdom: 931BC1Kings 12
Image 3: Israel Under Solomon
Image 4: Alexander's Conquests
Image 5: Roman Empire
After more than 600 years the religion of Islam Emerged!
Image 6: Ottoman Empire
Image 7: Ottoman Empire after WWI (Notice the creation of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and so forth) CREATION
Image 8: British Mandate of Palestine (The Real Two State Solution)
Image 9: U.N. Partition Plan (The Unjust Occupation of the Jewish Homeland Began)
Image 10: Armistice Lines 1949-1967 (After the war initiated by the Arab neighbors, note Armistice Lines are not Politically Recognized Borders)
Image 11: Six Day War 1967 (Second Trial to destroy the Jewish Land, note defensive war)
Image 12: Land for Peace or Diplomatic Suicide of Israel
Map Sources:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://
www.preceptaustin.org/map%2520of%2520tribes%2520of%2520israel.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.preceptaustin.org/
biblical_maps.htm&usg=__T1w5rUes1dJjsbmi29_zDXWYg7o=
&h=500&w=367&sz=68&hl=en&start=44&um=1&tbnid=rg6_CcIIQR2TEM:
&tbnh=130&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dold%2Bisrael%2Bmap%2Bduring
%2Bsalomon%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D42%26um%3D1
1. You start by making an assumption about a subject or an object.
2. Then over the course of time you start to have people who are telling you that the assumptions are really true. And because of their position in the society people at large believe them.
3. Eventually because you see the subject or an object (externally) that makes you forget what is not seen (internally).
The visible the tangible obviously displaces the invisible and the intangible. So why bother with something you cannot see when you have so many of those that you can see http://www.irmep.org/, http://www.jewwatch.com/, and so forth.
The truth is being forgotten!
If you are stating the truth, the passage of time has no effect. Truth does not change in the course of time. But if you make an assumption, it?s your own idea; it?s your own opinion; with the course of time almost inventible you going to have to start lying. Because you are going to have to bolster your argument, particularly because people are starting to question; so in order to quell the people they had intensify the argument. And when that does not work then they have to again amplify the argument, ?if you do not do that then you are really in trouble.? Time is enemy of falsehood; time is not the enemy of truth. Truth becomes truer with passage of time. It was true yesterday the day before, it is true today, and truth loves time. Truth gets stronger with time but falsehood is afraid of time because time wears it down so it is inevitable that you are going to have to continue upping the ante and eventually you are going to have to start torturing people. Just like communism in the Former Soviet Union or when the Nazi?s gave a death penalty to those who would help Jews. After all, not every German was a Nazi. That is history, eventually if the people are rising against your assumptions; you as a ruler will have to start torturing people. Because how else do you keep a falsehood going. You only can fool people for so long and after you fool them you start exterminating them.
At the end of the day, the notion that the "Western World (U.S.A.) is hated because of Israel" is false. To the contrary, Israel is hated because of the Western World. An excellent question would be WHY!
It is simple
Israel is a democratic state that follows the rule of law.
Rule of Law has several factors:
1. Identity as a citizen
2. Voting as the primary action or behavior of the citizen
3. Regular political competition and contestation for power
4. Lively Party System
5. Orderly transition of power, finally;
6. Loyal Opposition
In other words, it is the only Western Style country in the Middle East. The Middle Eastern Governments feel threatened by Israel being in the middle and what it represents. If the majority of the Middle Eastern countries have a free vote tomorrow you will see those governments removed. My heart goes with the people of Iran who have been cheated during the recent elections thus breaking the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Not only they were cheated, they were not even allowed to peacefully protest.
Women in Israel have all the rights that are enjoyed in the Western Style Democracies. I hope I do not have to go into detail about the horrendous treatment of women in the Middle East.
Tolerances vs. Intolerance there are about 1.5 million Arabs living in Israel (Green Line). On the other hand if you count the Jewish population in the Middle East except Israel you will not count more than couple of hundreds of people in each country with an exception of Iran (20,000-25,000). Furthermore, since 1948-present there has been 850,000 Jewish Refugees from those lands. The question is how come no one talks about those refugees or the reparations for those refugees?
How come I cannot go to some Arab countries because I have an Israeli stamp in my U.S. Passport? I would really like to see some of the old places in those lands. After all there were indigenous Jewish communities for thousands of years residing in those places.
We as Americans should be proud of our contributions for the State of Israel, the forefront of Western values in the Middle East and remember that no relationship is a one way street; Israel taking from U.S. and that’s it. There is so much that the United States and humanity at large receives back from Israel; from basic things like cell-phones innovations and computer parts to alternative energy like solar panels and advanced search algorithms for Google. If I am not mistaking, the U.S. congress in 1998, has said that the Israeli intelligence services have provided more information than the CIA. I do not think you have to be financial analysts to figure out of what amount of money (in billions) we are talking about. It is wrong for us to make assumptions that are baseless.
That said, people who make assumptions that are baseless and erroneous are at best ignorant or at worse .....??
I have tried to use completely different angles that might have contributed to a little bit of chaos. But this subject is huge and equally important that this paper, book, or for that matter hundredth of books would not be enough to cover the real situation on the ground. But what I do want you take out of this (of course if you read it) whether you agree or disagree with me is a question; perhaps a desire for a question; to challenge what I have said or at least be a little bit more aware of the reality on the ground in the future. We all have personal lives (family, school, jobs, and so forth) we are bombarded with information 24/7 but that does not give us a right to remain ignorant. Just because you do not know a law it does not mean you are exempt if you break it.
If you have questions or comments please don’t hesitate to write me back.
Resources:
Falsehood versus Truth comes from Rabbi Friedman.
The other information come from variety of other sources.
2. Then over the course of time you start to have people who are telling you that the assumptions are really true. And because of their position in the society people at large believe them.
3. Eventually because you see the subject or an object (externally) that makes you forget what is not seen (internally).
The visible the tangible obviously displaces the invisible and the intangible. So why bother with something you cannot see when you have so many of those that you can see http://www.irmep.org/, http://www.jewwatch.com/, and so forth.
The truth is being forgotten!
If you are stating the truth, the passage of time has no effect. Truth does not change in the course of time. But if you make an assumption, it?s your own idea; it?s your own opinion; with the course of time almost inventible you going to have to start lying. Because you are going to have to bolster your argument, particularly because people are starting to question; so in order to quell the people they had intensify the argument. And when that does not work then they have to again amplify the argument, ?if you do not do that then you are really in trouble.? Time is enemy of falsehood; time is not the enemy of truth. Truth becomes truer with passage of time. It was true yesterday the day before, it is true today, and truth loves time. Truth gets stronger with time but falsehood is afraid of time because time wears it down so it is inevitable that you are going to have to continue upping the ante and eventually you are going to have to start torturing people. Just like communism in the Former Soviet Union or when the Nazi?s gave a death penalty to those who would help Jews. After all, not every German was a Nazi. That is history, eventually if the people are rising against your assumptions; you as a ruler will have to start torturing people. Because how else do you keep a falsehood going. You only can fool people for so long and after you fool them you start exterminating them.
At the end of the day, the notion that the "Western World (U.S.A.) is hated because of Israel" is false. To the contrary, Israel is hated because of the Western World. An excellent question would be WHY!
It is simple
Israel is a democratic state that follows the rule of law.
Rule of Law has several factors:
1. Identity as a citizen
2. Voting as the primary action or behavior of the citizen
3. Regular political competition and contestation for power
4. Lively Party System
5. Orderly transition of power, finally;
6. Loyal Opposition
In other words, it is the only Western Style country in the Middle East. The Middle Eastern Governments feel threatened by Israel being in the middle and what it represents. If the majority of the Middle Eastern countries have a free vote tomorrow you will see those governments removed. My heart goes with the people of Iran who have been cheated during the recent elections thus breaking the fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Not only they were cheated, they were not even allowed to peacefully protest.
Women in Israel have all the rights that are enjoyed in the Western Style Democracies. I hope I do not have to go into detail about the horrendous treatment of women in the Middle East.
Tolerances vs. Intolerance there are about 1.5 million Arabs living in Israel (Green Line). On the other hand if you count the Jewish population in the Middle East except Israel you will not count more than couple of hundreds of people in each country with an exception of Iran (20,000-25,000). Furthermore, since 1948-present there has been 850,000 Jewish Refugees from those lands. The question is how come no one talks about those refugees or the reparations for those refugees?
How come I cannot go to some Arab countries because I have an Israeli stamp in my U.S. Passport? I would really like to see some of the old places in those lands. After all there were indigenous Jewish communities for thousands of years residing in those places.
We as Americans should be proud of our contributions for the State of Israel, the forefront of Western values in the Middle East and remember that no relationship is a one way street; Israel taking from U.S. and that’s it. There is so much that the United States and humanity at large receives back from Israel; from basic things like cell-phones innovations and computer parts to alternative energy like solar panels and advanced search algorithms for Google. If I am not mistaking, the U.S. congress in 1998, has said that the Israeli intelligence services have provided more information than the CIA. I do not think you have to be financial analysts to figure out of what amount of money (in billions) we are talking about. It is wrong for us to make assumptions that are baseless.
That said, people who make assumptions that are baseless and erroneous are at best ignorant or at worse .....??
I have tried to use completely different angles that might have contributed to a little bit of chaos. But this subject is huge and equally important that this paper, book, or for that matter hundredth of books would not be enough to cover the real situation on the ground. But what I do want you take out of this (of course if you read it) whether you agree or disagree with me is a question; perhaps a desire for a question; to challenge what I have said or at least be a little bit more aware of the reality on the ground in the future. We all have personal lives (family, school, jobs, and so forth) we are bombarded with information 24/7 but that does not give us a right to remain ignorant. Just because you do not know a law it does not mean you are exempt if you break it.
If you have questions or comments please don’t hesitate to write me back.
Resources:
Falsehood versus Truth comes from Rabbi Friedman.
The other information come from variety of other sources.
Dr. Steve Carol
Throughout the six decades since the re-establishment of Israel, an often repeated claim in made that “Israel is a draining liability on the United States.” This claim is bogus and an examination of the facts hopefully will consign this charge to the trash-heap where it belongs.
Further adding to the problem are statements made by and the conduct of Israel's leftist leaders since 1993 create the false impression that Israeli-American ties constitute a one-way relationship. The impression is given that the U.S. gives and Israel merely receives and thus must constantly bow to “American pressure” as personified by the U.S. State Department.
The truth is that the relationship is a two-way partnership. For example:
• In 1952, as the Cold War got underway, U.S. Army Chief-of-Staff Omar Bradley called for the integration of Israel into the Mediterranean Basin area, in light of the country's location and unique capabilities.
• In 1967, Israel defeated a radical Arab, pro-Soviet offensive, which threatened to bring about the collapse of pro-American Arab regimes and disrupt oil supply, thus severely undermining the American standard of living. The U.S. gained valuable military information from analysis of captured Soviet equipment, including SAM-2, SAM-12, Mig-21 aircraft, and Soviet T-54 battle tanks. In fact, Israel gave an entire squadron of MiG-21s to the U.S. which was dubbed the “Top Gun” squadron and used by the U.S. Air and Naval forces for training purposes. Since 1967, Israel transferred captured Soviet weapons systems to the U.S. Pentagon after every conflict: 1967, 1967-70, 1973, 1982, 1990 (Scud remnants from the Gulf War), and 2006 (remnants of Iranian supplied missiles.
• In the 1967-1970 1000 Day War of Attrition, the IDF, armed with American aircraft successfully defeated a Soviet-supplied air defense system, pointing out the deficiencies in Soviet air-defense doctrine to US defense planners. Israel shared captured military equipment include P-2 radar and Soviet tanks with the U.S. military.
• In 1970, Israel brought about the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Jordan, at a time when the U.S. was tied up by wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, thus preventing the fall of the pro-American Hashemite regime and the installation of a pro-Soviet radical Palestinian terrorist regime.
• In 1973 – thanks to U.S. re-supply, but without U.S. forces, Israel defeated Soviet-trained and equipped Egyptian and Syrian forces. Israel again shared captured Soviet equipment, including T-62 battle tanks with the U.S. Israel emerged as the only reliable ally where U.S. troops could land, where U.S. equipment can be pre-positioned, where the U.S. has friendly port facilities (in Haifa and Ashdod) in the entire Middle East region. This too has saved the U.S. billions of dollars.
• 1970s - Joseph Sisco, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, assistant to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during the latter’s shuttle diplomacy, told the Israeli author and military expert, Shmuel Katz: “I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us.”
• In 1981, Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, delaying Saddam Hussein’s quest for nuclear weapons. It thus provided the U.S. with the option of engaging in conventional wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003.
• The vice president General Dynamics which produces the F16 fighter jets has stated that Israel is responsible for 600 improvements in the plane's systems, modifications estimated to be worth billions of dollars, which spared dozens of research and development years.
• In 1982, Israel destroyed Soviet anti-aircraft batteries in Lebanon that were considered immune to American weapons. Israel promptly shared the operation's lessons, estimated to be worth billions of dollars.
• Former Secretary of State and NATO forces commander Alexander Haig has stated that he is pro-Israeli because Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.
• During the first Gulf War 1991, Israel provided invaluable intelligence, an umbrella of air cover for military cargo, and had personnel planted in the Iraqi desert to pick up downed American pilots.
• General George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence has publicly declared that “Israel is worth five CIA’s.” He further stated that between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants. During the same period Israel provided the U.S. with $50-80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the U.S.
• In 2005, Israel provided America with the world's most extensive experience in homeland defense and warfare against suicide bombers and car bombs. American soldiers train in IDF facilities and Israeli-made drones fly above the "Sunni Triangle" in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, providing U.S. Marines with vital intelligence.
• In September 2007, the IAF destroyed a Syrian-North Korean nuclear plant, extending the US’s strategic arm. It provided the US with vital information on Russian air defense systems, which are also employed by Iran. It bolstered the US posture of deterrence and refuted the claim that US-Israel relations have been shaped by political expediency.
• In 2009, Israel shares with the US its battle-tested experience in combating Palestinian and Hizbullah terrorism, which are the role model of anti-US Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. US GIs benefit from Israel’s battle tactics against car bombs, improvised explosive devices and homicide bombing. An Israel-like ally in the Persian Gulf would have spared the need to dispatch US troops to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
• Israel has relayed to the U.S. lessons of battle (during the Cold War – Soviet military doctrine) and counter-terrorism (including aircraft security, homicide-suicide bombings) which reduce American losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevent attacks on U.S. soil, upgrade American weapons, and contribute to the U.S. economy. Without Israel, the U.S. would have been forced to deploy tens of thousands of American troops in the eastern Mediterranean Basin, at a cost of billions of dollars a year.
• Senator Daniel Inouye has recently (2005) argued Israeli information regarding Soviet arms saved the U.S. billions of dollars. The contribution made by Israeli intelligence to America is greater than that provided by all NATO countries combined, he said.
• Israel's utilization of American arms guarantees its existence, but at the same time gives U.S. military industries, such as Boeing and General Dynamics, a competitive edge compared to European industries, while also boosting American military production, producing American jobs, and improving America's national security. Japan and South Korea, for example, preferred the "Hawkeye" spy plane and the MD-500 chopper, both purchased and upgraded by Israel, over comparable British and French aircraft.
• The American industries want U.S. aid to Israel to continue. The bulk of the $1.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel must be spent in the United States. That provides jobs for some 50,000 U.S. workers. Virtually all of the $1.2 billion in annual economic aid goes for repayment of debt to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years. This debt is now close to being liquidated.
• Innovative Israeli technologies have a similar effect on American civilian, including computer-related industries and agricultural industries, which view Israel as a successful research and development site.
• Members of the U.S. Congress leaders, then Vice President Dick Cheney, and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are aware of Israel's unique contribution to U.S. interests. But, in fact, they all wonder why the post-1993 Israel does not use its impressive contribution as leverage, in sharp contrast to the pre-1993 Israel.
• In contrast to our commitments to Korea, Japan, Germany and other parts of the world, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year – including backup and infrastructure – is estimated to be about $200,000 per year, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone are on the order of $5 billion a year.
Throughout the six decades since the re-establishment of Israel, an often repeated claim in made that “Israel is a draining liability on the United States.” This claim is bogus and an examination of the facts hopefully will consign this charge to the trash-heap where it belongs.
Further adding to the problem are statements made by and the conduct of Israel's leftist leaders since 1993 create the false impression that Israeli-American ties constitute a one-way relationship. The impression is given that the U.S. gives and Israel merely receives and thus must constantly bow to “American pressure” as personified by the U.S. State Department.
The truth is that the relationship is a two-way partnership. For example:
• In 1952, as the Cold War got underway, U.S. Army Chief-of-Staff Omar Bradley called for the integration of Israel into the Mediterranean Basin area, in light of the country's location and unique capabilities.
• In 1967, Israel defeated a radical Arab, pro-Soviet offensive, which threatened to bring about the collapse of pro-American Arab regimes and disrupt oil supply, thus severely undermining the American standard of living. The U.S. gained valuable military information from analysis of captured Soviet equipment, including SAM-2, SAM-12, Mig-21 aircraft, and Soviet T-54 battle tanks. In fact, Israel gave an entire squadron of MiG-21s to the U.S. which was dubbed the “Top Gun” squadron and used by the U.S. Air and Naval forces for training purposes. Since 1967, Israel transferred captured Soviet weapons systems to the U.S. Pentagon after every conflict: 1967, 1967-70, 1973, 1982, 1990 (Scud remnants from the Gulf War), and 2006 (remnants of Iranian supplied missiles.
• In the 1967-1970 1000 Day War of Attrition, the IDF, armed with American aircraft successfully defeated a Soviet-supplied air defense system, pointing out the deficiencies in Soviet air-defense doctrine to US defense planners. Israel shared captured military equipment include P-2 radar and Soviet tanks with the U.S. military.
• In 1970, Israel brought about the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Jordan, at a time when the U.S. was tied up by wars in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, thus preventing the fall of the pro-American Hashemite regime and the installation of a pro-Soviet radical Palestinian terrorist regime.
• In 1973 – thanks to U.S. re-supply, but without U.S. forces, Israel defeated Soviet-trained and equipped Egyptian and Syrian forces. Israel again shared captured Soviet equipment, including T-62 battle tanks with the U.S. Israel emerged as the only reliable ally where U.S. troops could land, where U.S. equipment can be pre-positioned, where the U.S. has friendly port facilities (in Haifa and Ashdod) in the entire Middle East region. This too has saved the U.S. billions of dollars.
• 1970s - Joseph Sisco, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, assistant to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during the latter’s shuttle diplomacy, told the Israeli author and military expert, Shmuel Katz: “I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us.”
• In 1981, Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, delaying Saddam Hussein’s quest for nuclear weapons. It thus provided the U.S. with the option of engaging in conventional wars with Iraq in 1991 and 2003.
• The vice president General Dynamics which produces the F16 fighter jets has stated that Israel is responsible for 600 improvements in the plane's systems, modifications estimated to be worth billions of dollars, which spared dozens of research and development years.
• In 1982, Israel destroyed Soviet anti-aircraft batteries in Lebanon that were considered immune to American weapons. Israel promptly shared the operation's lessons, estimated to be worth billions of dollars.
• Former Secretary of State and NATO forces commander Alexander Haig has stated that he is pro-Israeli because Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.
• During the first Gulf War 1991, Israel provided invaluable intelligence, an umbrella of air cover for military cargo, and had personnel planted in the Iraqi desert to pick up downed American pilots.
• General George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence has publicly declared that “Israel is worth five CIA’s.” He further stated that between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in U.S. military grants. During the same period Israel provided the U.S. with $50-80 billion in intelligence, research and development savings, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the U.S.
• In 2005, Israel provided America with the world's most extensive experience in homeland defense and warfare against suicide bombers and car bombs. American soldiers train in IDF facilities and Israeli-made drones fly above the "Sunni Triangle" in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, providing U.S. Marines with vital intelligence.
• In September 2007, the IAF destroyed a Syrian-North Korean nuclear plant, extending the US’s strategic arm. It provided the US with vital information on Russian air defense systems, which are also employed by Iran. It bolstered the US posture of deterrence and refuted the claim that US-Israel relations have been shaped by political expediency.
• In 2009, Israel shares with the US its battle-tested experience in combating Palestinian and Hizbullah terrorism, which are the role model of anti-US Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. US GIs benefit from Israel’s battle tactics against car bombs, improvised explosive devices and homicide bombing. An Israel-like ally in the Persian Gulf would have spared the need to dispatch US troops to Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
• Israel has relayed to the U.S. lessons of battle (during the Cold War – Soviet military doctrine) and counter-terrorism (including aircraft security, homicide-suicide bombings) which reduce American losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevent attacks on U.S. soil, upgrade American weapons, and contribute to the U.S. economy. Without Israel, the U.S. would have been forced to deploy tens of thousands of American troops in the eastern Mediterranean Basin, at a cost of billions of dollars a year.
• Senator Daniel Inouye has recently (2005) argued Israeli information regarding Soviet arms saved the U.S. billions of dollars. The contribution made by Israeli intelligence to America is greater than that provided by all NATO countries combined, he said.
• Israel's utilization of American arms guarantees its existence, but at the same time gives U.S. military industries, such as Boeing and General Dynamics, a competitive edge compared to European industries, while also boosting American military production, producing American jobs, and improving America's national security. Japan and South Korea, for example, preferred the "Hawkeye" spy plane and the MD-500 chopper, both purchased and upgraded by Israel, over comparable British and French aircraft.
• The American industries want U.S. aid to Israel to continue. The bulk of the $1.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel must be spent in the United States. That provides jobs for some 50,000 U.S. workers. Virtually all of the $1.2 billion in annual economic aid goes for repayment of debt to the United States, incurred from military purchases dating back many years. This debt is now close to being liquidated.
• Innovative Israeli technologies have a similar effect on American civilian, including computer-related industries and agricultural industries, which view Israel as a successful research and development site.
• Members of the U.S. Congress leaders, then Vice President Dick Cheney, and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are aware of Israel's unique contribution to U.S. interests. But, in fact, they all wonder why the post-1993 Israel does not use its impressive contribution as leverage, in sharp contrast to the pre-1993 Israel.
• In contrast to our commitments to Korea, Japan, Germany and other parts of the world, not a single American serviceperson needs to be stationed in Israel. Considering that the cost of one serviceperson per year – including backup and infrastructure – is estimated to be about $200,000 per year, and assuming a minimum contingent of 25,000 troops, the cost savings to the United States on that score alone are on the order of $5 billion a year.
I have created a separate page for all the videos that used to be posted on the main page Israel Act Now. The link http://middleastruth.blogspot.com/ will take you to the page where you can find all the videos (exclusively), you can also find the tab that can take you there right under the title among home and resources tabs. There are two reasons that I have decided to do that:
1. The blog's speed had increased enormously by separating videos from the articles; that will allow you to surf the main page Israel Act Now with more ease.
2. Secondly, you can locate the videos that you might have liked in the past a lot faster.
As always, if you have any suggestion that can increase the quality of this blog you are always welcome to write me at israelactnow@gmail.com
Regards,
Jewish Refugee
1. The blog's speed had increased enormously by separating videos from the articles; that will allow you to surf the main page Israel Act Now with more ease.
2. Secondly, you can locate the videos that you might have liked in the past a lot faster.
As always, if you have any suggestion that can increase the quality of this blog you are always welcome to write me at israelactnow@gmail.com
Regards,
Jewish Refugee
Shoula Romano Horing - Apr 18, 2008
The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle
Upon returning from the Annapolis Conference, where Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas pledged to reach a peace agreement by the end of 2008, the Prime Minister warned that failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
His reasoning is based on his fear regarding the so called “demographic threat” to Israel from “a faster growing Palestinian population.” Since 2003, he has been warning that “ if a Palestinian state was not established, in just another few years, more and more Palestinians will say: “There is no place for two states between the Jordan and the sea and they would want the right to vote” and “then Israel would face a South African struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”
Such possible scenario is difficult to contemplate, because the residents of the West Bank and Gaza are not citizens of Israel, but residents of internationally disputed areas with Jordanian and Egyptian passports. These areas were never legally annexed to Israel. I cannot recollect an example in recent history where the international community forced a sovereign state to grant non-citizens the right to vote, regardless of the individual or collective wishes of its citizens.
The question still remains whether Israel should be afraid of being demographically overwhelmed and swallowed by the Palestinian population in the next 15 years.
Recently published demographic research seems to suggest that this fear has been based on fraudulent data and highly questionable predictions from the Palestinian Authority’s Central Bureau of Statistics in 1997.
In 1997, the bureau projected that the Arab population west of the Jordan River would, by 2015, outnumber the Jewish population. It pegged the 1997 Arab population of the West Bank at 2.4 million, Gaza at 1.43 million and the Israeli Arab population at 1.33 million. for a total of 5.16 million Arabs West of the Jordan River. This number was, to Zionist eyes, ominously close to Israel’s Jewish population at the time of 5.24 million.
These Arab population numbers were immediately adopted by such prominent Israeli demographers as the University of Haifa’s Arnon Soffer and the Hebrew University ‘s Sergio Della Pergola, who have both warned that by 2020 Jews will make up only between 40 and 46 percent of the overall population of Israel, plus the territories west of the Jordan River. Largely in reaction to these statistics, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, at the urging of Ehud Olmert, decided to unilaterally withdraw the Israeli army and Jewish settlements from Gaza in 2005.
The sky-is-falling crowd got a surprise in January at the Herzilya Conference with the release of a new study by California researcher Bennet Zimmerman and Israeli strategist Yoram Ettinger. It questioned the PA’s 1997 findings, citing inaccuracies in data collection and incorrect assumptions that led to predictions that ignored Arab emigration and overstated the Arab birth rate.
Their new study concluded that the Jews currently constitute 67 percent of the population west of the Jordan River, excluding Gaza. Jews would be 60 percent of the population if Gaza is included.
In 1948, the Jewish population in Palestine was only 48 percent.
Fertility falloff
The new study suggests there are only 1.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and not 2.4 million as the Palestinians claim. Zimmerman and Ettinger assert that the PCBS totals include double-counts like the 230,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem, and the 105,000 Palestinians who received blue Israeli cards in 1997, who were already included in the Israeli-Arab population. In addition, the data collected by the Palestinians includes 325,000 Palestinians who reside abroad. This is akin to counting the 800,000 Israeli natives who now live in the United States as part of Israel’s population.
The 300,000 Palestinian births that were predicted never occurred, and the 236,000 people predicted to move into the PA territory between 1997 and 2003 never materialized. During this time, 74,000 people left PA areas, likely prodded by Chairman Yasser Arafat’s corruption and conflict with Israel.
The new study suggests that the demographic establishment and the Israeli government prefer to also ignore the quick drop in natural growth and fertility rate among the Palestinians. According the UNRWA, the Arab fertility rate in the West Bank has plummeted from 5.4 children per woman to 3.24, while the Jewish fertility rate rose to 2.7 children per woman. Among the reasons for the drop are the introduction of family planning with 52 percent of married Arab women using birth control, a rising median age of marrying couples, higher divorce rates, better education and careers for women and the move from villages to cities. This falloff is consistent with the one taking place throughout the Muslim world.
Inside Israel, immigration from France and the former Soviet Union, coupled with a rise in the Jewish birthrate, kept the Israeli Arab population stable at 20 percent for the last dozen years. Inside the “Green Line,” or Israel’s pre-June 1967 borders, Jews make up 76 percent of the population and other non-Jewish immigrants account for another 4 percent.
Inside the city of Jerusalem, Jews make up 68 percent of the population, while the city’s fertility rate among the Jewish and Arab population is equal for the first time at 3.9 children per woman. Many researchers believe that the Jewish population in Jerusalem and inside Israel is even higher, because the Israeli Central Statistics Bureau include thousands of non-citizen Palestinian residents in the population data.
Thus, it seems that the Jewish majority is assured to continue well into the future inside Israel, Jerusalem and west of the Jordan River.
Tilting the scales
For any Israeli government to give up the strategic hills of the West Bank, thereby exposing the country’s main population centers to daily missile attacks from a future Palestinian state, and to divide Jerusalem, including the Old City, in order to get rid of the Arab neighborhoods based on unsubstantiated fears seems incredible and irresponsible.
For any government to rely on the data provided by the Palestinian Authority, which is notorious for its revisionist view of Jewish (and Arab) history, is naïve and self- destructive. It is disheartening to think that the PA’s propaganda has again been successful in manipulating Israel’s public and political debate and in psychologically intimidating the Israeli government into capitulating to the Arab agenda.
The ongoing negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which includes discussing the future of the Arab refugees who fled in the 1948 and 1967 wars to the surrounding Arab countries, will only hasten the nightmare scenario Olmert fears most.
Allowing 3 million Palestinians — the 650,000 refugees from 1948 and their descendants — to immigrate into Israel would bring an end to the Jewish state demographically, and, thankfully, no Israeli government would agree to this. However, even agreeing to let these refugees emigrate to a future Palestinian state in the West Bank will upset the demographic scale west of the Jordan River.
Historically, being numerous is not one of the Jewish people’s notable characteristics. To argue that a demographic threat justifies territorial withdrawals is similar to arguing that Israel should disband the country, close its doors and leave the Middle East based on being surrounded by numerous hostile Arabs on all sides. In response to this baseless fear, how do we explain Israel’s ability to survive and even flourish in the Middle East with a population of just 5.4 million Jews surrounded by more than 300 million Arabs?
Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is an attorney, a speaker and a radio talk show host. Her e-mail address is Shoula1@aol.com.
The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle
Upon returning from the Annapolis Conference, where Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas pledged to reach a peace agreement by the end of 2008, the Prime Minister warned that failure to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
His reasoning is based on his fear regarding the so called “demographic threat” to Israel from “a faster growing Palestinian population.” Since 2003, he has been warning that “ if a Palestinian state was not established, in just another few years, more and more Palestinians will say: “There is no place for two states between the Jordan and the sea and they would want the right to vote” and “then Israel would face a South African struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.”
Such possible scenario is difficult to contemplate, because the residents of the West Bank and Gaza are not citizens of Israel, but residents of internationally disputed areas with Jordanian and Egyptian passports. These areas were never legally annexed to Israel. I cannot recollect an example in recent history where the international community forced a sovereign state to grant non-citizens the right to vote, regardless of the individual or collective wishes of its citizens.
The question still remains whether Israel should be afraid of being demographically overwhelmed and swallowed by the Palestinian population in the next 15 years.
Recently published demographic research seems to suggest that this fear has been based on fraudulent data and highly questionable predictions from the Palestinian Authority’s Central Bureau of Statistics in 1997.
In 1997, the bureau projected that the Arab population west of the Jordan River would, by 2015, outnumber the Jewish population. It pegged the 1997 Arab population of the West Bank at 2.4 million, Gaza at 1.43 million and the Israeli Arab population at 1.33 million. for a total of 5.16 million Arabs West of the Jordan River. This number was, to Zionist eyes, ominously close to Israel’s Jewish population at the time of 5.24 million.
These Arab population numbers were immediately adopted by such prominent Israeli demographers as the University of Haifa’s Arnon Soffer and the Hebrew University ‘s Sergio Della Pergola, who have both warned that by 2020 Jews will make up only between 40 and 46 percent of the overall population of Israel, plus the territories west of the Jordan River. Largely in reaction to these statistics, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, at the urging of Ehud Olmert, decided to unilaterally withdraw the Israeli army and Jewish settlements from Gaza in 2005.
The sky-is-falling crowd got a surprise in January at the Herzilya Conference with the release of a new study by California researcher Bennet Zimmerman and Israeli strategist Yoram Ettinger. It questioned the PA’s 1997 findings, citing inaccuracies in data collection and incorrect assumptions that led to predictions that ignored Arab emigration and overstated the Arab birth rate.
Their new study concluded that the Jews currently constitute 67 percent of the population west of the Jordan River, excluding Gaza. Jews would be 60 percent of the population if Gaza is included.
In 1948, the Jewish population in Palestine was only 48 percent.
Fertility falloff
The new study suggests there are only 1.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank, and not 2.4 million as the Palestinians claim. Zimmerman and Ettinger assert that the PCBS totals include double-counts like the 230,000 Arab residents of Jerusalem, and the 105,000 Palestinians who received blue Israeli cards in 1997, who were already included in the Israeli-Arab population. In addition, the data collected by the Palestinians includes 325,000 Palestinians who reside abroad. This is akin to counting the 800,000 Israeli natives who now live in the United States as part of Israel’s population.
The 300,000 Palestinian births that were predicted never occurred, and the 236,000 people predicted to move into the PA territory between 1997 and 2003 never materialized. During this time, 74,000 people left PA areas, likely prodded by Chairman Yasser Arafat’s corruption and conflict with Israel.
The new study suggests that the demographic establishment and the Israeli government prefer to also ignore the quick drop in natural growth and fertility rate among the Palestinians. According the UNRWA, the Arab fertility rate in the West Bank has plummeted from 5.4 children per woman to 3.24, while the Jewish fertility rate rose to 2.7 children per woman. Among the reasons for the drop are the introduction of family planning with 52 percent of married Arab women using birth control, a rising median age of marrying couples, higher divorce rates, better education and careers for women and the move from villages to cities. This falloff is consistent with the one taking place throughout the Muslim world.
Inside Israel, immigration from France and the former Soviet Union, coupled with a rise in the Jewish birthrate, kept the Israeli Arab population stable at 20 percent for the last dozen years. Inside the “Green Line,” or Israel’s pre-June 1967 borders, Jews make up 76 percent of the population and other non-Jewish immigrants account for another 4 percent.
Inside the city of Jerusalem, Jews make up 68 percent of the population, while the city’s fertility rate among the Jewish and Arab population is equal for the first time at 3.9 children per woman. Many researchers believe that the Jewish population in Jerusalem and inside Israel is even higher, because the Israeli Central Statistics Bureau include thousands of non-citizen Palestinian residents in the population data.
Thus, it seems that the Jewish majority is assured to continue well into the future inside Israel, Jerusalem and west of the Jordan River.
Tilting the scales
For any Israeli government to give up the strategic hills of the West Bank, thereby exposing the country’s main population centers to daily missile attacks from a future Palestinian state, and to divide Jerusalem, including the Old City, in order to get rid of the Arab neighborhoods based on unsubstantiated fears seems incredible and irresponsible.
For any government to rely on the data provided by the Palestinian Authority, which is notorious for its revisionist view of Jewish (and Arab) history, is naïve and self- destructive. It is disheartening to think that the PA’s propaganda has again been successful in manipulating Israel’s public and political debate and in psychologically intimidating the Israeli government into capitulating to the Arab agenda.
The ongoing negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which includes discussing the future of the Arab refugees who fled in the 1948 and 1967 wars to the surrounding Arab countries, will only hasten the nightmare scenario Olmert fears most.
Allowing 3 million Palestinians — the 650,000 refugees from 1948 and their descendants — to immigrate into Israel would bring an end to the Jewish state demographically, and, thankfully, no Israeli government would agree to this. However, even agreeing to let these refugees emigrate to a future Palestinian state in the West Bank will upset the demographic scale west of the Jordan River.
Historically, being numerous is not one of the Jewish people’s notable characteristics. To argue that a demographic threat justifies territorial withdrawals is similar to arguing that Israel should disband the country, close its doors and leave the Middle East based on being surrounded by numerous hostile Arabs on all sides. In response to this baseless fear, how do we explain Israel’s ability to survive and even flourish in the Middle East with a population of just 5.4 million Jews surrounded by more than 300 million Arabs?
Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is an attorney, a speaker and a radio talk show host. Her e-mail address is Shoula1@aol.com.
It is really pathetic when media, politicians, and just every day people refer to Israel as an Imperialist or Expansionist occupier. If this is the case than Israel is worst Imperial occupier in the world because it comprises of less than 1% of the Middle East; I cannot even see Israel on the World Map. All I see is a dot and number that refers to a key in which Israel is written after that number.
So the next time when someone refers to Israel as an expansionist entity, for sake of common sense correct them because it is very insulting. After all we live in the 21st century, if you want to see an empire Google Greek, Roman, Ottoman, and other expansionist Empires.
For those of you who are still struggling with the idea that Israel is not an expansionist empire I will try to put things in better perspective.
1. Israel is slightly smaller than the State New Jersey
2. Israel land area is: 20,330 sq km compare the world 148.94 million sq km; compare to France 640,053 sq km; compare to Egypt land: 995,450 sq km: compare to Russia land: 16,995,800 sq km; compare to Great Britain land: 241,590 sq km; compare to Jordan 91,971 sq km: compare to U.S. 9,161,923 sq km.
3. The land area of Israel by size is surpassing countries like Swaziland, Micronesia, Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, British Virgin Islands, and other nascent countries.
4. It’s like comparing the size of the earth to the size of sun.
I hope by putting things in perspective it will help those who humiliate the real expansionist empires such as Russian, Persian, or British Empires.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding Israel not being an Imperialist or Expansionist entity please do not hesitate to e-mail me at israelactnow@gmail.com. I know it can be difficult at times to use common sense but it does not mean we can remain ignorant. In fact opposite is true.
So the next time when someone refers to Israel as an expansionist entity, for sake of common sense correct them because it is very insulting. After all we live in the 21st century, if you want to see an empire Google Greek, Roman, Ottoman, and other expansionist Empires.
For those of you who are still struggling with the idea that Israel is not an expansionist empire I will try to put things in better perspective.
1. Israel is slightly smaller than the State New Jersey
2. Israel land area is: 20,330 sq km compare the world 148.94 million sq km; compare to France 640,053 sq km; compare to Egypt land: 995,450 sq km: compare to Russia land: 16,995,800 sq km; compare to Great Britain land: 241,590 sq km; compare to Jordan 91,971 sq km: compare to U.S. 9,161,923 sq km.
3. The land area of Israel by size is surpassing countries like Swaziland, Micronesia, Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, British Virgin Islands, and other nascent countries.
4. It’s like comparing the size of the earth to the size of sun.
I hope by putting things in perspective it will help those who humiliate the real expansionist empires such as Russian, Persian, or British Empires.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding Israel not being an Imperialist or Expansionist entity please do not hesitate to e-mail me at israelactnow@gmail.com. I know it can be difficult at times to use common sense but it does not mean we can remain ignorant. In fact opposite is true.
Two States for Two Peoples; Two State Solution; No Apartheid; and Self-Determination
Those slogans represent an important declaration for an establishment of the second Arab-Palestinian State (first being Trans-Jordan; Jordan; Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). But I am not going to discuss the point; because of the Jordan, Arab-Palestinians do not deserve a second state. I will try to discuss this reason from a different perspective; so for a second forget about that the Two State Solution is already implemented. Let us start from the scratch; there is a tiny strip of land from Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. Two Peoples, Jews not Israelis and Arabs not Palestinians have a conflict amongst each other regarding the control of that land.
Majority of the world side of the story:
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations “General” Assembly approved a plan; Resolution 181 note to resolve “Arab”-“Jewish” “Conflict” by partitioning the remaining 22% of the British Mandate of Palestine into two States, one “Jewish” and one “Arab.”
Jewish Side of the Story:
We accept the Partition
Arab Side of the Story:
We oppose the Partition
The outcome of the disagreement between the Arabs and the World was a military invasion of 7 Arab Nations onto the 650,000 people newly established Jewish State. The period between 1948 through 1949 became known as the Israel’s War of Independence.
The territorial outcome of the war was that Egypt “occupied” Gaza Strip and Jordan “occupied Judea and Samaria (distorted name West Bank). This territorial arrangement is also referred to as the pre-1967 borders to which the European Union, Russia, China, United States, and other U.N. members are aspiring Israel to return and establish a second Palestinian state on Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
Question #1:
How come the so called Palestinians (Arab) did not revolt or commit suicide attacks against the occupiers of the so-called Palestinian Land for the sake of Self-Determination? I mean after all, Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) not Israel.
Before I ask another question I would like to include another historical event that took place.
After the Egyptians closed the Strait of Tiran (Declaration of War); after Syria day and night bombarded Jewish farms in the North of Israel from the Golan Heights (Declaration of War); after Egypt and Syria amassed military equipment with Soviet Union’s help close to the Israeli Borders (Declaration of War); after Egyptians expelled the United Nations Peace Keepers from Sinai Peninsula that were supposed to be there to make sure that war does not erupt in the first place (so much for U.N. peace keepers they leave when they are actually needed). Well after several declarations of wars Israel has finally came to its sanity and launched a pre-emptive attack on the aggressors. Even though Jordan was warned not to intervene; they attacked Israel. Even though the war is called the Six-Day War it was actually the Six-Hour War since Egyptian and Syrian Air Force was destroyed within hours of the defensive Israeli attack.
The territorial outcome of the defensive war Israel acquired:
1. Jewish People had finally United Jerusalem
2. Jewish People liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordanians
3. Jewish People liberated Golan Heights from Syria
4. Jewish People liberated Gaza Strip
5. Jewish People acquired Sinai Peninsula
From historical perspective the liberated lands were the major military invasion points for all the invaders of the Jewish Country. Let go back to our analysis of the outcomes; the Arabs were extremely infuriated due to the embarrassing losses incurred. They thought long and they though hard and the came up with a good strategy.
1. Emergence of the Palestinian Nation
2. Pre-1967 borders for the Palestinian State
3. Jerusalem as they Capital of the Palestinian State
“The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. “
Zuheir Mohsen Palestinian leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979
Question #2
So how come the so-called Palestinians did not create a Palestinian State between 1949 and 1967; they had 18 years to do so?
Those slogans represent an important declaration for an establishment of the second Arab-Palestinian State (first being Trans-Jordan; Jordan; Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). But I am not going to discuss the point; because of the Jordan, Arab-Palestinians do not deserve a second state. I will try to discuss this reason from a different perspective; so for a second forget about that the Two State Solution is already implemented. Let us start from the scratch; there is a tiny strip of land from Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. Two Peoples, Jews not Israelis and Arabs not Palestinians have a conflict amongst each other regarding the control of that land.
Majority of the world side of the story:
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations “General” Assembly approved a plan; Resolution 181 note to resolve “Arab”-“Jewish” “Conflict” by partitioning the remaining 22% of the British Mandate of Palestine into two States, one “Jewish” and one “Arab.”
Jewish Side of the Story:
We accept the Partition
Arab Side of the Story:
We oppose the Partition
The outcome of the disagreement between the Arabs and the World was a military invasion of 7 Arab Nations onto the 650,000 people newly established Jewish State. The period between 1948 through 1949 became known as the Israel’s War of Independence.
The territorial outcome of the war was that Egypt “occupied” Gaza Strip and Jordan “occupied Judea and Samaria (distorted name West Bank). This territorial arrangement is also referred to as the pre-1967 borders to which the European Union, Russia, China, United States, and other U.N. members are aspiring Israel to return and establish a second Palestinian state on Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
Question #1:
How come the so called Palestinians (Arab) did not revolt or commit suicide attacks against the occupiers of the so-called Palestinian Land for the sake of Self-Determination? I mean after all, Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) not Israel.
Before I ask another question I would like to include another historical event that took place.
After the Egyptians closed the Strait of Tiran (Declaration of War); after Syria day and night bombarded Jewish farms in the North of Israel from the Golan Heights (Declaration of War); after Egypt and Syria amassed military equipment with Soviet Union’s help close to the Israeli Borders (Declaration of War); after Egyptians expelled the United Nations Peace Keepers from Sinai Peninsula that were supposed to be there to make sure that war does not erupt in the first place (so much for U.N. peace keepers they leave when they are actually needed). Well after several declarations of wars Israel has finally came to its sanity and launched a pre-emptive attack on the aggressors. Even though Jordan was warned not to intervene; they attacked Israel. Even though the war is called the Six-Day War it was actually the Six-Hour War since Egyptian and Syrian Air Force was destroyed within hours of the defensive Israeli attack.
The territorial outcome of the defensive war Israel acquired:
1. Jewish People had finally United Jerusalem
2. Jewish People liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordanians
3. Jewish People liberated Golan Heights from Syria
4. Jewish People liberated Gaza Strip
5. Jewish People acquired Sinai Peninsula
From historical perspective the liberated lands were the major military invasion points for all the invaders of the Jewish Country. Let go back to our analysis of the outcomes; the Arabs were extremely infuriated due to the embarrassing losses incurred. They thought long and they though hard and the came up with a good strategy.
1. Emergence of the Palestinian Nation
2. Pre-1967 borders for the Palestinian State
3. Jerusalem as they Capital of the Palestinian State
“The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. “
Zuheir Mohsen Palestinian leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979
Question #2
So how come the so-called Palestinians did not create a Palestinian State between 1949 and 1967; they had 18 years to do so?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Netanyahu has betrayed the Jewish State of Israel or did he?
Posted by JewishRefugee
Scenario I:
The newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched his campaign platform with three major points:
1. Nuclear Iran
2. Economic Recovery
3. Security of Israel
He refused to accept the Palestinian State as a possible outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict before the elections. He gave us hope before the elections, the hope that has vanished after the Bar-Ilan University speech.
He has accepted the Palestinian State, he is now removing the Jewish outposts, they are removing roadblock and checkpoints, and they are removing Israeli Soldiers from the four major cities in Judea and Samaria. I hope I do not have to remind you of the ramifications of all those actions taken by our newly elected Prime Minister.
The question is what is the difference between Likud-led coalition and Kadima led coalition? Perhaps the question of unified Jerusalem that Netanyahu has said should be united Jewish Capital. But frankly, I do not believe Netanyahu since he has changed his mind so many times since he was elected Prime Ministers that I believe he might agree to Jerusalem becoming a capital of the second Palestinian State.
That said there is no difference between Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert they are both cowards when it comes to saying NO to Washington. Israel is left with no leaders that can protect it rights on the ground.
Scenario II:
The newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the newly elected president of the United States are engaged in a serious tactical maneuver.
The new Obama Administration is engaging the Muslim world, but at the same time distancing itself from the Israel. The question is why?
If Iran does not stop its nuclear program Israel will have to attack militarily the Iranian Nuclear Sites. The backlash against Israel is well known (huge), but United State’s interests in Iraq and Afghanistan might take a smaller backlash since Washington has distanced itself from Israel and even putting unprecedented pressure on the Jewish State. The Muslim world will not blame the United States for its cooperation with Israel.
Furthermore, the Arab world might be keener at helping the United States in the region if they see Israel being pushed around by the United States. That is why Netanyahu, Obama, Mitchel, Lieberman, Clinton, and others are playing this show of clash between Israel and the United States.
After all, Arab-Israeli conflict is Arab-Israeli Conflict not Persian-Israeli Conflict and they would love to see Iranian Nuclear Ambitions Destroyed.
The question is which of the scenarios is more realistic in this situation? I know the first one sound more realistic unlike the dream world of the second scenario. But the one certain thing in the political world is that it is very uncertain and any developments are possible.
What do you think?
The newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched his campaign platform with three major points:
1. Nuclear Iran
2. Economic Recovery
3. Security of Israel
He refused to accept the Palestinian State as a possible outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict before the elections. He gave us hope before the elections, the hope that has vanished after the Bar-Ilan University speech.
He has accepted the Palestinian State, he is now removing the Jewish outposts, they are removing roadblock and checkpoints, and they are removing Israeli Soldiers from the four major cities in Judea and Samaria. I hope I do not have to remind you of the ramifications of all those actions taken by our newly elected Prime Minister.
The question is what is the difference between Likud-led coalition and Kadima led coalition? Perhaps the question of unified Jerusalem that Netanyahu has said should be united Jewish Capital. But frankly, I do not believe Netanyahu since he has changed his mind so many times since he was elected Prime Ministers that I believe he might agree to Jerusalem becoming a capital of the second Palestinian State.
That said there is no difference between Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert they are both cowards when it comes to saying NO to Washington. Israel is left with no leaders that can protect it rights on the ground.
Scenario II:
The newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the newly elected president of the United States are engaged in a serious tactical maneuver.
The new Obama Administration is engaging the Muslim world, but at the same time distancing itself from the Israel. The question is why?
If Iran does not stop its nuclear program Israel will have to attack militarily the Iranian Nuclear Sites. The backlash against Israel is well known (huge), but United State’s interests in Iraq and Afghanistan might take a smaller backlash since Washington has distanced itself from Israel and even putting unprecedented pressure on the Jewish State. The Muslim world will not blame the United States for its cooperation with Israel.
Furthermore, the Arab world might be keener at helping the United States in the region if they see Israel being pushed around by the United States. That is why Netanyahu, Obama, Mitchel, Lieberman, Clinton, and others are playing this show of clash between Israel and the United States.
After all, Arab-Israeli conflict is Arab-Israeli Conflict not Persian-Israeli Conflict and they would love to see Iranian Nuclear Ambitions Destroyed.
The question is which of the scenarios is more realistic in this situation? I know the first one sound more realistic unlike the dream world of the second scenario. But the one certain thing in the political world is that it is very uncertain and any developments are possible.
What do you think?
by Prof. MK Arieh Eldad
Once upon a time, there was such a state.
"I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. There's an Arab nation. I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. That's a colonial invention. Since when were there Palestinians? I think there's only an Arab nation. Until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the southern part of Greater Syria."
If I had said this, I would undoubtedly be called a Jewish nationalist, a racist, and worst of all - detached from reality. Yet, note well, these words were spoken by former MK Dr. Azmi Bishara in an interview with Yaron London several years ago. Bishara is a leader of Israeli Arab citizens who openly identify with the enemy, and who was forced to flee Israel under suspicion of aiding Hizbullah in wartime.
When Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his Bar-Ilan speech, he could have used these words. He could have ripped the mask of deception from the terrible historical lie that we have taken to our hearts as if it were written on the Tablets of the Law given at Sinai. "Two States for Two Nations" has become holy dogma and anyone who challenges its validity is suspected of blasphemy.
But even if we assume that Netanyahu wished to speak in terms acceptable to Europe and the United States, rather than to fight a battle which he considered lost, still it would have been better had he not deceived his listeners with the scam known as "a demilitarized state."
When I heard the speech, my initial reaction was: "There ain't no such animal." Of course, I don't mean nano-states such as Andorra or the Vatican, which have themselves chosen not to maintain an army. There is no real state in the world defined as a demilitarized state. And Netanyahu did not make do with a misleading general statement, he went into details: the state won't have missiles and rockets and planes, and will not be able to sign treaties.
The more I listened to this and said to myself that there is no such thing, I was reminded of something quite bothersome. Was there once such a state? And then one of my friends reminded me there had been.
"It will be forbidden to Germany to maintain or build fortifications... in this territory (West of the Rhine).... It is forbidden for Germany to maintain an army.... the German army will not include more than seven infantry divisions.... It is forbidden for Germany to import or export tanks or any other military hardware.... The German naval forces will be limited and are not to include submarines. The armed forces of Germany will not include any air forces.... In the political realm, Germany is forbidden to enter into any treaty with Austria."
So it was written and sealed in the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was signed on June 28, 1919, as part of the Paris Peace Conference following the First World War. Essentially, Germany became a demilitarized state and was also limited from a political perspective.
So what happened? Did the "demilitarized" status prevent the Second World War and, worst of all, the destruction of European Jewry?
By 1922, an agreement between Russia and Germany had been signed in the Italian city of Rapallo. The agreement was open and met the terms of the Versailles Treaty, but the conference that prepared it was secret; and there, Soviet Russia and Germany agreed on joint establishment of weapons factories, poison gas and ammunition. German army officers were sent to Russia to be trained in the use of weapons that were forbidden to be maintained in Germany. In Germany, civilian factories were refurbished into arms factories, funded, as it were, by private individuals, not the state.
When I heard about the widespread activity of Jews in the Obama court and about the extreme anti-Israeli stance they are taking, and about the anger of the extreme Left in Israel over Netanyahu's speech - in that he did not express a willingness to take in Arab refugees, give away Jerusalem and dismantle settlements, all as a prepayment for negotiating with the enemies of Israel - I again thought of the Rapallo Treaty. It was the Jewish foreign minister of Germany, Walther Rathenau, who stood behind the agreement that years later gave Nazi Germany its powerful war machine. And it was Erhard Milch, the son of a Jewish father, who subverted the Versailles Treaty and, in the guise of civilian aeronautic companies and flying clubs, established Lufthansa, which during the war became the Luftwaffe, the German air force that in weeks overcame Poland and France and bombed London in the Blitz. The Jewish people can be trusted to bring forth warped members who will arm the "demilitarized Palestinian state", if one should ever come to be.
The lesson being that there is no political power that can prevent a sovereign state from doing whatever it wants. Netanyahu knows that if ever a Palestinian state should, Heaven forbid, be established, Israel will not be able to declare war on it if it should choose, for instance, to sign an international tourism agreement with Cyprus or a transfer-of-technology agreement with Iran. If pipes are manufactured in Tulkarm, Israel will not be able to start a war that can be justified in the eyes of the world if steel cutters turn the pipes into Kassam rockets. Since nothing other than Israeli force could possibly preserve demilitarization, Netanyahu is deceiving the people of Israel and promising them something that cannot be delivered.
But all of the above is not the main thing. The main thing is that Netanyahu has recognized the right of Arabs to establish a sovereign state in our homeland. None of his conditions and reservations can hide this abomination. Whoever recognizes the right of his enemy to establish a state in his homeland has abandoned all principle and all that is left to do is argue over the price. Whoever has left his religion and changed his faith cannot insist on observing the commandments of what is no longer his faith. Whoever has abandoned his patrimony has no basis on which to insist on continuing to build on its lands.
Once upon a time, there was such a state.
"I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. There's an Arab nation. I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. That's a colonial invention. Since when were there Palestinians? I think there's only an Arab nation. Until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the southern part of Greater Syria."
If I had said this, I would undoubtedly be called a Jewish nationalist, a racist, and worst of all - detached from reality. Yet, note well, these words were spoken by former MK Dr. Azmi Bishara in an interview with Yaron London several years ago. Bishara is a leader of Israeli Arab citizens who openly identify with the enemy, and who was forced to flee Israel under suspicion of aiding Hizbullah in wartime.
When Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his Bar-Ilan speech, he could have used these words. He could have ripped the mask of deception from the terrible historical lie that we have taken to our hearts as if it were written on the Tablets of the Law given at Sinai. "Two States for Two Nations" has become holy dogma and anyone who challenges its validity is suspected of blasphemy.
But even if we assume that Netanyahu wished to speak in terms acceptable to Europe and the United States, rather than to fight a battle which he considered lost, still it would have been better had he not deceived his listeners with the scam known as "a demilitarized state."
When I heard the speech, my initial reaction was: "There ain't no such animal." Of course, I don't mean nano-states such as Andorra or the Vatican, which have themselves chosen not to maintain an army. There is no real state in the world defined as a demilitarized state. And Netanyahu did not make do with a misleading general statement, he went into details: the state won't have missiles and rockets and planes, and will not be able to sign treaties.
The more I listened to this and said to myself that there is no such thing, I was reminded of something quite bothersome. Was there once such a state? And then one of my friends reminded me there had been.
"It will be forbidden to Germany to maintain or build fortifications... in this territory (West of the Rhine).... It is forbidden for Germany to maintain an army.... the German army will not include more than seven infantry divisions.... It is forbidden for Germany to import or export tanks or any other military hardware.... The German naval forces will be limited and are not to include submarines. The armed forces of Germany will not include any air forces.... In the political realm, Germany is forbidden to enter into any treaty with Austria."
So it was written and sealed in the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was signed on June 28, 1919, as part of the Paris Peace Conference following the First World War. Essentially, Germany became a demilitarized state and was also limited from a political perspective.
So what happened? Did the "demilitarized" status prevent the Second World War and, worst of all, the destruction of European Jewry?
By 1922, an agreement between Russia and Germany had been signed in the Italian city of Rapallo. The agreement was open and met the terms of the Versailles Treaty, but the conference that prepared it was secret; and there, Soviet Russia and Germany agreed on joint establishment of weapons factories, poison gas and ammunition. German army officers were sent to Russia to be trained in the use of weapons that were forbidden to be maintained in Germany. In Germany, civilian factories were refurbished into arms factories, funded, as it were, by private individuals, not the state.
When I heard about the widespread activity of Jews in the Obama court and about the extreme anti-Israeli stance they are taking, and about the anger of the extreme Left in Israel over Netanyahu's speech - in that he did not express a willingness to take in Arab refugees, give away Jerusalem and dismantle settlements, all as a prepayment for negotiating with the enemies of Israel - I again thought of the Rapallo Treaty. It was the Jewish foreign minister of Germany, Walther Rathenau, who stood behind the agreement that years later gave Nazi Germany its powerful war machine. And it was Erhard Milch, the son of a Jewish father, who subverted the Versailles Treaty and, in the guise of civilian aeronautic companies and flying clubs, established Lufthansa, which during the war became the Luftwaffe, the German air force that in weeks overcame Poland and France and bombed London in the Blitz. The Jewish people can be trusted to bring forth warped members who will arm the "demilitarized Palestinian state", if one should ever come to be.
The lesson being that there is no political power that can prevent a sovereign state from doing whatever it wants. Netanyahu knows that if ever a Palestinian state should, Heaven forbid, be established, Israel will not be able to declare war on it if it should choose, for instance, to sign an international tourism agreement with Cyprus or a transfer-of-technology agreement with Iran. If pipes are manufactured in Tulkarm, Israel will not be able to start a war that can be justified in the eyes of the world if steel cutters turn the pipes into Kassam rockets. Since nothing other than Israeli force could possibly preserve demilitarization, Netanyahu is deceiving the people of Israel and promising them something that cannot be delivered.
But all of the above is not the main thing. The main thing is that Netanyahu has recognized the right of Arabs to establish a sovereign state in our homeland. None of his conditions and reservations can hide this abomination. Whoever recognizes the right of his enemy to establish a state in his homeland has abandoned all principle and all that is left to do is argue over the price. Whoever has left his religion and changed his faith cannot insist on observing the commandments of what is no longer his faith. Whoever has abandoned his patrimony has no basis on which to insist on continuing to build on its lands.
Coming to the elections in Iran we had elections take place in Lebanon. Before the elections in Lebanon majority of experts gave the victory to Hezbollah but their surprise Hezbollah lost to the pro-Western camp of Lebanon. That was a huge blow to Ayatollah’s regime in Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who poured billions of dollars to Lebanon in support of Hezbollah. The problem they faced was what would have happened if hard-line lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lost to the reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi. You might rightly ask he is the same as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when it comes to the nuclear programs so he cannot be a reformist. I will address this legit question a little bit further into the post. But coming back to what if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did lose what could have been the consequences for the world, U.S.A., Israel, Syria, Radical Islam in the Middle East and around the world? In simplistic terms it would have been different for everyone. For the U.S.A. it would mean that they have a better dialogue partner to open the diplomatic channel and shun Israel off. For Israel it would have been a huge blow since majority of its offense against Iranian nuclear programs is built upon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hateful speeches “wipe Israel of the map” and denial of Holocaust. Thus, by eliminating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad it would stump Israel in its efforts to isolate and eventually attack Iran. For radical elements it would probably be about the same support financially and militarily because we have to remember Mir Hossein Mousavi would have remained under the Ayatollah who as we know is the Supreme Leader who makes all of the final decisions. Suffice it say, election of Mir Hossein Mousavi under previous conditions would have meant that the ugly face of the regime would have been covered by Mir Hossein Mousavi supposed reformist stance, that would have allowed for them to complete their nuclear program. Therefore, the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a at the minimum a positive outcome for the efforts to stop Iranian Nuclear Program.
I want to clarify or perhaps highlight that the president of Iran is not leader of the country Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say in everything including foreign and domestic policies. With that in mind, what is the meaning of what is happening in Iran as we speak?
1. The Ayatollahs of Iran are split (this is major).
2. People are tired of poverty, isolation, and oppression.
3. Mir Hossein Mousavi reborn!
Beginning with the first point, Ayatollahs are split in two camps Khamenei and Rafsanjani. The reason for the split is because Khamenei enjoys stability under hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thus he wants to keep him at all costs. On the other hand, Rafsanjani camp is terrified by Ahmadinejad’s militarization of the government and the country. Majority of the key posts in Iran have been given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad friends from Basij and other organizations when he took over after Khatami. Thus, this contributed to the power decline of the Ayatollahs of Iran. We have to understand that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not religious leader he is a hardcore thug. This threat to their power made Ahmadinejad as an unlikable character to the Rafsanjani camp. So we have Ayatollah Khamenei who likes the stability with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Rafsanjani whose power is declining. This has never occurred since 1979, although protests have taken previously the Ayatollahs were always as one against the protesters. (This factor or a crack is different and it is important to take a note of it)
The second point, that the people of Iran are tired of poverty, isolation, and oppression and now the arranged vote. For all of its faults we have to give Iran credit for having legit elections in the past. After all, Khatami became the president in 1997 even though he was not supported by the Ayatollah Khamenei. The Iranian people took the dire economic situation because it was their choice when it came to the elections; we have to understand that economy might not be number one factor when people are voting. But this time around it was different. The elections were engineered no doubt about it. The landslide itself explains that it was rigged. If it was a close race the protesters might have been alright with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad winning but when they saw unbelievable the over 60% win it was the blow to the core of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, when the religious supreme leader approved the elections as the divine outcome it has made people even more irritated. In other words, the religious supreme leader is covering a false election by using the divine. Dishonesty and Divine is oxymoron. The people of Iran finally decided it was enough since the supreme leader is now untruthful so they began to revolt.
Well in order to revolt you need a figure behind who you can stand and support. That brings us to the point number three, Mir Hossein Mousavi reborn! The reason, I use the word reborn because Mir Hossein Mousavi has changed between who he was coming to the elections and who he is now after the elections. As I have mentioned above that if Mousavi won the elections and became Iranian president at the first place he would have been just a cover up for the Ayatollah Khamenei regime. But this cannot happen anymore since the threshold has been passed and is at the point of no return. Mousavi has openly challenged the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The Ayatollah has threatened Mousavi with excommunication or exile. The Ayatollah Khamenei when addressing the nation during the prayers was not joined by neither Mousavi nor Rafsanjani the head of a very power council in Iran. Rafsanjani’s family members are being arrested. But more importantly the people who protested at the beginning with “Where is my vote?” not they protest by saying “Death to Khamenei.” We can clearly see that the situation in Iran has deteriorated beyond imaginable. Mousavi understands that he cannot be the Mousavi who was going into the elections (under Khamenei figure) and this is not what people want. So he will change. That said, we have a post-protest Mousavi effect that has taken place. He does not have another option because the people does not want the old regime of the Khamenei nor they want the old Mousavi; they want reform.
Last but not least, is whether this protest will overcome the Khamenei or it will be overcome by Khamenei? Honestly, I do not think anyone knows and I am not an exception. But one thing is for sure that Iran is not going to be the Iran we knew prior to the election of 2009. Once there is a crack no matter how much you cover it or glue it, it will remain there forever as a vulnerability of the Ayatollah Khamenei Regime. That said I wish the people of Iran strength and continued determination that they have demonstrated already. After all, tenths of lives have been lost already. I hope you realize your dream of freedom if that is what you seek.
I want to clarify or perhaps highlight that the president of Iran is not leader of the country Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say in everything including foreign and domestic policies. With that in mind, what is the meaning of what is happening in Iran as we speak?
1. The Ayatollahs of Iran are split (this is major).
2. People are tired of poverty, isolation, and oppression.
3. Mir Hossein Mousavi reborn!
Beginning with the first point, Ayatollahs are split in two camps Khamenei and Rafsanjani. The reason for the split is because Khamenei enjoys stability under hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thus he wants to keep him at all costs. On the other hand, Rafsanjani camp is terrified by Ahmadinejad’s militarization of the government and the country. Majority of the key posts in Iran have been given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad friends from Basij and other organizations when he took over after Khatami. Thus, this contributed to the power decline of the Ayatollahs of Iran. We have to understand that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not religious leader he is a hardcore thug. This threat to their power made Ahmadinejad as an unlikable character to the Rafsanjani camp. So we have Ayatollah Khamenei who likes the stability with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Rafsanjani whose power is declining. This has never occurred since 1979, although protests have taken previously the Ayatollahs were always as one against the protesters. (This factor or a crack is different and it is important to take a note of it)
The second point, that the people of Iran are tired of poverty, isolation, and oppression and now the arranged vote. For all of its faults we have to give Iran credit for having legit elections in the past. After all, Khatami became the president in 1997 even though he was not supported by the Ayatollah Khamenei. The Iranian people took the dire economic situation because it was their choice when it came to the elections; we have to understand that economy might not be number one factor when people are voting. But this time around it was different. The elections were engineered no doubt about it. The landslide itself explains that it was rigged. If it was a close race the protesters might have been alright with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad winning but when they saw unbelievable the over 60% win it was the blow to the core of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, when the religious supreme leader approved the elections as the divine outcome it has made people even more irritated. In other words, the religious supreme leader is covering a false election by using the divine. Dishonesty and Divine is oxymoron. The people of Iran finally decided it was enough since the supreme leader is now untruthful so they began to revolt.
Well in order to revolt you need a figure behind who you can stand and support. That brings us to the point number three, Mir Hossein Mousavi reborn! The reason, I use the word reborn because Mir Hossein Mousavi has changed between who he was coming to the elections and who he is now after the elections. As I have mentioned above that if Mousavi won the elections and became Iranian president at the first place he would have been just a cover up for the Ayatollah Khamenei regime. But this cannot happen anymore since the threshold has been passed and is at the point of no return. Mousavi has openly challenged the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The Ayatollah has threatened Mousavi with excommunication or exile. The Ayatollah Khamenei when addressing the nation during the prayers was not joined by neither Mousavi nor Rafsanjani the head of a very power council in Iran. Rafsanjani’s family members are being arrested. But more importantly the people who protested at the beginning with “Where is my vote?” not they protest by saying “Death to Khamenei.” We can clearly see that the situation in Iran has deteriorated beyond imaginable. Mousavi understands that he cannot be the Mousavi who was going into the elections (under Khamenei figure) and this is not what people want. So he will change. That said, we have a post-protest Mousavi effect that has taken place. He does not have another option because the people does not want the old regime of the Khamenei nor they want the old Mousavi; they want reform.
Last but not least, is whether this protest will overcome the Khamenei or it will be overcome by Khamenei? Honestly, I do not think anyone knows and I am not an exception. But one thing is for sure that Iran is not going to be the Iran we knew prior to the election of 2009. Once there is a crack no matter how much you cover it or glue it, it will remain there forever as a vulnerability of the Ayatollah Khamenei Regime. That said I wish the people of Iran strength and continued determination that they have demonstrated already. After all, tenths of lives have been lost already. I hope you realize your dream of freedom if that is what you seek.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7d68GM6xzA
Benjamin Netanyahu: full speech on Palestinian state
Below is the full transcript of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister's, speech in which he said he would accept a Palestinian state if it was unarmed.
Published: 10:19PM BST 14 Jun 2009
"Honoured guests, citizens of Israel.
Peace has always been our people's most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.
We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.
Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.
The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilise Israel's economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.
And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.
I share the President's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.
I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: "Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem. I call on the Arab countries to co-operate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximise its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.
The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.
Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to co-operate and to develop it.
I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbours, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let's begin negotiations immediately without preconditions. Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.
We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbours. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realise that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in ploughshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.
I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.
If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education – most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquillity, creativity, opportunity and hope.
If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?
In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?
In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home "This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms." Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.
Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognise the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.
In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.
The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.
Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.
The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.
All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.
Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.
Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.
We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.
We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.
The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.
In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hizbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to "liberate" the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa. Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.
Achieving peace will require courage and candour from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side. The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: "Enough of this conflict. We recognise the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace." I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.
Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.
The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries. Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel's borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.
So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognise our rights. In a moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognise their rights. But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.
The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust – a suffering which has no parallel in human history. There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occurred. This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defence. But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged. As Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel's Declaration of Independence: "The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books."
But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.
In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.
These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us. I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.
This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognise this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel. I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarisation. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarised with ironclad security provisions for Israel. Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza. We don't want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.
In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hizbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.
It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarised.
On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.
Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarised: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.
Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.
I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem. And here is the substance that I now state clearly: If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.
Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.
The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.
But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.
Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbours. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.
If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel – we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.
Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction. Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.
With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.
Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders. Our microchips are powering the world's computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. If only our neighbours would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.
I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realise the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: "nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more."
With God's help, we will know no more war. We will know peace."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5535664/Benjamin-Netanyahu-full-speech-on-Palestinian-state.html
Benjamin Netanyahu: full speech on Palestinian state
Below is the full transcript of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister's, speech in which he said he would accept a Palestinian state if it was unarmed.
Published: 10:19PM BST 14 Jun 2009
"Honoured guests, citizens of Israel.
Peace has always been our people's most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.
We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.
Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.
The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilise Israel's economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.
And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.
I share the President's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.
I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: "Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem. I call on the Arab countries to co-operate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximise its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.
The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.
Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to co-operate and to develop it.
I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbours, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let's begin negotiations immediately without preconditions. Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.
We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbours. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realise that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in ploughshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.
I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.
If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education – most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquillity, creativity, opportunity and hope.
If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?
In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?
In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home "This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms." Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.
Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognise the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.
In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.
The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.
Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.
The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.
All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.
Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.
Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.
We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.
We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.
The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.
In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hizbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to "liberate" the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa. Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.
Achieving peace will require courage and candour from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side. The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: "Enough of this conflict. We recognise the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace." I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.
Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.
The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries. Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel's borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.
So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognise our rights. In a moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognise their rights. But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.
The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust – a suffering which has no parallel in human history. There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occurred. This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defence. But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged. As Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel's Declaration of Independence: "The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books."
But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.
In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.
These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us. I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.
This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognise this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel. I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarisation. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarised with ironclad security provisions for Israel. Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza. We don't want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.
In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hizbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.
It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarised.
On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.
Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarised: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.
Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.
I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem. And here is the substance that I now state clearly: If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.
Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.
The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.
But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.
Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbours. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.
If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel – we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.
Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction. Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.
With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.
Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders. Our microchips are powering the world's computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. If only our neighbours would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.
I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realise the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: "nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more."
With God's help, we will know no more war. We will know peace."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5535664/Benjamin-Netanyahu-full-speech-on-Palestinian-state.html
In the Middle East words and phrases have different meanings from those in the West. For example peace (West) means truce (Middle East). For Israel’s partners’ peace in Western terms for them means reconciliation; for reconciliation to occur there must be no foreign occupation of any part of Dar-al-Islam. That is exactly why they portray Israel as foreign occupants and migrants from Europe. That is exactly why they deny the Jewish History to Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, Hebron, and other places that belong to Israel. In other words, deception is a major ingredient of their diplomatic war against the west.
With that in mind, here are some facts about the “Two State Solution”.
1. It means Second Palestinian State in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria (Jordan #1).
2. The right of return of the so-called Palestinian refugee (around 4,000,000 people) into mainland Israel.
3. JudenFree Judea and Samaria same as Gaza.
4. The end of Israel.
1. Look at the British Mandate of Palestine it incorporates present day Israel and Jordan; that was partitioned into “two-state for two people,” and ratified by the League of Nation the predecessor of the United Nations. Thus, Jordan is the first Palestinian State.
2. The United Nations recognized around 800,000 from 1940s- refugees from the Muslim lands but does not specifically say they were Jewish. The United Nations also recognizes around 600,000 so-called Palestinian refugees. But the major difference between the two of them is that the Jewish Refugees number remained the same but the Palestinian Refugees are accumulating number from 600,000 to now around 4,000,000. How is that possible? Well the U.N. based on unexplainable reason adds every Arab descendent from those 600,000 to that number. Well shouldn’t they use the same treatment for the Jewish Refugees there were absorbed by Israel and other countries?
With that in mind, 4,000,000 Arabs returning to Israel will make majority Arabs in Israel then Jews thus the end of the Jewish State.
3. Can someone explain to me one thing because I still don’t get it, why do the Jews had to leave Gaza or have to leave Judea and Samaria in the final settlement solution? While at the same time Israel has to absorb millions of Arabs? And how is it justified? Because in my understanding this is the repression of the Jews by the World Community who are supporting this including E.U., Russia, U.S.A. and other members of the quartet. This solution is blatant discrimination and suppression of the Jewish People in the only Jewish State in the world. This solution will bring apartheid where Jews will become second class citizens.
4. I do not think you have to be a political or strategic analyst to understand that this means the end of Israel.
Therefore, whoever is supporting the “two state solution” is not supporting Israel and Jordan but supporting Jordan and Palestine, thus the destruction of Israel.
With that in mind, here are some facts about the “Two State Solution”.
1. It means Second Palestinian State in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria (Jordan #1).
2. The right of return of the so-called Palestinian refugee (around 4,000,000 people) into mainland Israel.
3. JudenFree Judea and Samaria same as Gaza.
4. The end of Israel.
1. Look at the British Mandate of Palestine it incorporates present day Israel and Jordan; that was partitioned into “two-state for two people,” and ratified by the League of Nation the predecessor of the United Nations. Thus, Jordan is the first Palestinian State.
2. The United Nations recognized around 800,000 from 1940s- refugees from the Muslim lands but does not specifically say they were Jewish. The United Nations also recognizes around 600,000 so-called Palestinian refugees. But the major difference between the two of them is that the Jewish Refugees number remained the same but the Palestinian Refugees are accumulating number from 600,000 to now around 4,000,000. How is that possible? Well the U.N. based on unexplainable reason adds every Arab descendent from those 600,000 to that number. Well shouldn’t they use the same treatment for the Jewish Refugees there were absorbed by Israel and other countries?
With that in mind, 4,000,000 Arabs returning to Israel will make majority Arabs in Israel then Jews thus the end of the Jewish State.
3. Can someone explain to me one thing because I still don’t get it, why do the Jews had to leave Gaza or have to leave Judea and Samaria in the final settlement solution? While at the same time Israel has to absorb millions of Arabs? And how is it justified? Because in my understanding this is the repression of the Jews by the World Community who are supporting this including E.U., Russia, U.S.A. and other members of the quartet. This solution is blatant discrimination and suppression of the Jewish People in the only Jewish State in the world. This solution will bring apartheid where Jews will become second class citizens.
4. I do not think you have to be a political or strategic analyst to understand that this means the end of Israel.
Therefore, whoever is supporting the “two state solution” is not supporting Israel and Jordan but supporting Jordan and Palestine, thus the destruction of Israel.
The issue of the national security is not a static but an evolving matter. Therefore the approach towards the subject of the national security requires ongoing improvement or refinement in order to engage them accordingly. Indeed at the strategic level, there is a paradox of whether to address immediate threats with low plausibility now or wait until those threats might become highly plausible in the future. To illustrate this paradox, the strategic doctrines that denote the nation’s vital interests that unsurprisingly flow into the concept of containment, will be discussed.
I would like to use the anthropological term age grade that incorporates a certain age phases (infancy, childhood, adolescence, the college years, young adulthood, middle ages, and old age)[1] in analogy with United States’ evolution in regards to the national security strategy in order to give a little context. Before the Independence from the Great Britain, future United States was in its infant stage heavily depending on its parent support. Than arrived the childhood stage during that time the Great Britain was overwhelmed by the wars in Europe. As a child future United States learned how to depend on itself while the parent was busy with grown up affairs and did not pay enough attention to the child. Once the parent wanted to reestablish authoritative bond that once existed, the future United States was in the adolescence stage; thus heavily resisted its parent’s authority to bow to the demands. That brought the war of Independence in which the United States became a newly established sovereign country. In other words, the U.S. has moved out of its parents house, therefore as a newly established country the vulnerabilities are everywhere and capabilities to mitigate them are miniature.
Accordingly, the U.S. entered its college years in which it learned to “navigate the ship-of-state through these troubled diplomatic waters.”[2] During the college years the U.S. has utilized its inherent location (the detached and distant situation) to formulate its foreign policies.[3] As a result, the first four policies emerged Exceptionalism, Unilateralism, the American System, and Expansionism. During those periods the United States’ defined immediate threats that should have been addressed accordingly, things like pirates or any threat that was within close proximity to its borders. But as the time went the proximity has changed as the national interests of the United States have amplified. It came to a point that a tiny strip in the east has occupied the lands from Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean (water’s edge theory).
During college the United States has simultaneously began the young adulthood years, but after finishing college that stage was quite different in terms that it had began its real job. In other words, it has began to embark on the world stage by McKinley’s progressive imperialism, by sending its fleet around the world, and its first major involvement (alliance) with other countries breaking away from the notion of entangling alliances and that the U.S. does not hunt for monsters abroad.[4] As years passed by another war was plunged upon the United States but this time the exception to the rule has become a rule. The entangling alliances were there and the U.S. did not withdraw back to its hemisphere. The U.S. has finally entered its middle ages with the Era of Containment (inhibition) and Global Meliorism (charity) surpassing the Era of Liberal Internationalism. At its middle ages, the United States enjoyed economic, political, and social hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and a significant influence around the world. That has become hegemony after the Soviet Union collapsed, thus ending the Cold War (unipolar moment). [5] As a result the Containment Era had ended but the Era of Global Meliorism took more aggressive posture. That has also contributed to rapid globalization trend that has contributed to the geopolitical shrinking of the globe.[6]
[1] Conrad Phillip Kottak, On Being Different: Age and Generations (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008), 187.
[2] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 2.
[3] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 3.
[4] Jay Tolson, “The New American Empire?” USNewsClassroom (January 13, 2003), 4, 5.
[5] Jay Tolson, “The New American Empire?” USNewsClassroom (January 13, 2003), 8, 9.
[6] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 12.
I would like to use the anthropological term age grade that incorporates a certain age phases (infancy, childhood, adolescence, the college years, young adulthood, middle ages, and old age)[1] in analogy with United States’ evolution in regards to the national security strategy in order to give a little context. Before the Independence from the Great Britain, future United States was in its infant stage heavily depending on its parent support. Than arrived the childhood stage during that time the Great Britain was overwhelmed by the wars in Europe. As a child future United States learned how to depend on itself while the parent was busy with grown up affairs and did not pay enough attention to the child. Once the parent wanted to reestablish authoritative bond that once existed, the future United States was in the adolescence stage; thus heavily resisted its parent’s authority to bow to the demands. That brought the war of Independence in which the United States became a newly established sovereign country. In other words, the U.S. has moved out of its parents house, therefore as a newly established country the vulnerabilities are everywhere and capabilities to mitigate them are miniature.
Accordingly, the U.S. entered its college years in which it learned to “navigate the ship-of-state through these troubled diplomatic waters.”[2] During the college years the U.S. has utilized its inherent location (the detached and distant situation) to formulate its foreign policies.[3] As a result, the first four policies emerged Exceptionalism, Unilateralism, the American System, and Expansionism. During those periods the United States’ defined immediate threats that should have been addressed accordingly, things like pirates or any threat that was within close proximity to its borders. But as the time went the proximity has changed as the national interests of the United States have amplified. It came to a point that a tiny strip in the east has occupied the lands from Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean (water’s edge theory).
During college the United States has simultaneously began the young adulthood years, but after finishing college that stage was quite different in terms that it had began its real job. In other words, it has began to embark on the world stage by McKinley’s progressive imperialism, by sending its fleet around the world, and its first major involvement (alliance) with other countries breaking away from the notion of entangling alliances and that the U.S. does not hunt for monsters abroad.[4] As years passed by another war was plunged upon the United States but this time the exception to the rule has become a rule. The entangling alliances were there and the U.S. did not withdraw back to its hemisphere. The U.S. has finally entered its middle ages with the Era of Containment (inhibition) and Global Meliorism (charity) surpassing the Era of Liberal Internationalism. At its middle ages, the United States enjoyed economic, political, and social hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and a significant influence around the world. That has become hegemony after the Soviet Union collapsed, thus ending the Cold War (unipolar moment). [5] As a result the Containment Era had ended but the Era of Global Meliorism took more aggressive posture. That has also contributed to rapid globalization trend that has contributed to the geopolitical shrinking of the globe.[6]
[1] Conrad Phillip Kottak, On Being Different: Age and Generations (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008), 187.
[2] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 2.
[3] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 3.
[4] Jay Tolson, “The New American Empire?” USNewsClassroom (January 13, 2003), 4, 5.
[5] Jay Tolson, “The New American Empire?” USNewsClassroom (January 13, 2003), 8, 9.
[6] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 12.
In an important bid to show the support of Israel we have to mobilize and vote for freedom and against deception and tyranny.
Please cast your vote for Israel at:
http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/US/EN/
At this time Israel is standing at 47% while a state that never existed nor exists now is at 53%.
Please cast your vote for Israel at:
http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/US/EN/
At this time Israel is standing at 47% while a state that never existed nor exists now is at 53%.
Dear readers,
As you might have noticed, Israel Act Now has gone through some changes recently.
1. There is a new a tool added on the top right corner; the Search Bar that will help you locate specific posts, words, and phrases within the blog.
2. Also, under every post you will find a small button (called share) on the bottom left corner; it will allow you to bookmark and share specific posts with friends or foes of Israel by using facebook, delicious, twitter, and digg, among others.
3. Furthermore, due to a request from one of our readers, I have changed the style and size of the font for better readability. (Thanks for the advice)
4. Last but not least, there is a little bit of work needs to be done to launch a “poll” that seems to be a very difficult task due to the template design.
Hopefully these changes will be in your benefit to help your visit experience become more efficient and easy. After all, the blog is about the Middle East the most complicated and volatile region of the world, thus, by at least making the blog user friendly it will enhance effectiveness of our quest towards factual information.
By the way, if you have any suggestions or questions regarding the changes or any other aspects of the blog, I will gladly take them into the consideration.
Kind Regards,
Jewish Refugee
IsraelActNow@gmail.com
As you might have noticed, Israel Act Now has gone through some changes recently.
1. There is a new a tool added on the top right corner; the Search Bar that will help you locate specific posts, words, and phrases within the blog.
2. Also, under every post you will find a small button (called share) on the bottom left corner; it will allow you to bookmark and share specific posts with friends or foes of Israel by using facebook, delicious, twitter, and digg, among others.
3. Furthermore, due to a request from one of our readers, I have changed the style and size of the font for better readability. (Thanks for the advice)
4. Last but not least, there is a little bit of work needs to be done to launch a “poll” that seems to be a very difficult task due to the template design.
Hopefully these changes will be in your benefit to help your visit experience become more efficient and easy. After all, the blog is about the Middle East the most complicated and volatile region of the world, thus, by at least making the blog user friendly it will enhance effectiveness of our quest towards factual information.
By the way, if you have any suggestions or questions regarding the changes or any other aspects of the blog, I will gladly take them into the consideration.
Kind Regards,
Jewish Refugee
IsraelActNow@gmail.com
Since Day One in the office he began selling Israel short when he called Abu-Mazen before any other leaders.
He and his VP made trips to the Middle East and have not visited Israel.
The pressure that is put on Israel is disproportionate with the pressure on the other side.
The anti-Israeli trend is here and the trend is strong.
I just want to say that not all the Jews have voted for him; yes it is true that we are only the minority against the 80% who did vote. Also, not all the Americans voted for him as well. At times it upsets me when non-Jews care more for the Jewish State of Israel then the Jews themselves. But at the same time, I would like to thank those people for understanding what it means for Israel to remain a Jewish State.
The reason I am writing this article is because I hear the soreness and pain from the Israeli Jews who think that we have betrayed Israel on November 4th 2008.
Once again we are the 20% of the Jews and
We support Israel,
We support Judea, Samaria, Golan Heights, Aza, and above all, United Jerusalem to remain Israel,
We support the growth within Israel we do not call them settlements or outposts we call them Israel,
We are against appeasement and capitulation (THREE STATE SOLUTION) yes three states Jordan is the first Arab State why should there be two more in Aza, Judea, and Samaria?
WE SUPPORT ISRAEL!
As far as the 80% of them what can we do, they are still our brothers and sisters? Let’s hope that come next elections into the congress 2010 and presidential elections 2012 they make the right decisions. One might rightfully say there is going to be a lot of damage done to the American-Israeli relationship and Israeli security during those years. I agree but we are Jews the nations of great fortitude that has outlived all the world empires and I do not see a reason why that would change now.
After all, Israel was, is, and will always be God Willing!
Jewish State was before the Babylonians and after them.
Jewish State was before the Greeks and after them.
Jewish State was before the Romans and after them.
Jewish State was before the Islamic Empires and after them.
Jewish State was before the United States and it will be so after United States.
That said, don't worry Obama is here for maximum of 8 years but the Jewish State is for Eternity.
Israel > Obama
If you do not have time to watch the whole video which I do recommend; the most revealing part of the video is from 20:45 to the end.
The 21st century has experienced two nuclear device testing and both of these tests took place in North Korea. Recently, North Korea has tested a nuclear device and several short-range missiles that broke out the havoc around the world. The implications of this act of disobedience from North Korea can take our discussion in several different directions. But the title surprisingly “thanks” North Korea for its disobedience. One might rightfully ask who in the right mind would thank for such a provocative act.
Well, it is not a secret that North Korea, Iran, Syria, and other countries are pursuing the development of the weapons of mass destructions. On the other hand, we have countries like U.S., China, Russia, and other countries that are pursuing or supposedly pursuing non-proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction. So we have two camps that are opposing each other or supposedly opposing each other.
With that in mind, let’s throw in another factor into the equation; that would be Israel that is threatened by the members of the former camp (Iran and Syria). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently visited Washington where he was asked or pressured to delay or forget about the potential military strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities due to the diplomatic track that would take place between Tehran and Washington in order to resolve the standoff between Iran and Israel, U.S., U.N., E.U., Russia, and others. The only problem is that the time is running out before Iran will actually have a functional (deliverable) nuclear device and Israel whose very existence is threatened cannot afford for this to happen. Therefore, we have a dilemma when does Israel know that diplomatic track has lost its ground hence, the green light to strike Iran. I am one of those people who are called pessimists but I like to call myself realist, therefore I believe that the diplomacy has already failed even before it began. But the world that we live in is very complex, especially with the new administration in Washington that has made it even more complex. The president of the United States has asked or ordered the prime minister of Israel to halt potential military strike on Iran to give the diplomacy a chance. Israel does not want to say no but it understands that there are limits for goodwill; that is when goodwill contributes to suicide.
Netanyahu returns to Israel perplexed as to what to do and when? But comes May 25, 2009 and North Korea has increased the tensions to a whole different level. Thus, North Korea takes priority over Iran due to close proximity to the nuclear device.
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!
WHAT? WHY?
How can a small country like North Korea draw so much attention? The answer is simple. NORTH KOREA IS A CASE STUDY IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER! A PRECEDENT!
With the new administration advocating non-proliferation and the fast track negotiations with the Russians regarding the renewal of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on one side and rogue states like North Korea and Iran blatantly challenging the order on the other side. There is a dilemma of its own. What should the new administration do? Well there are three tools of power that are: Diplomatic, Economic, and Military. In regards to North Korea and Iran Diplomatic and Economic tools were already used, but the new administration wants to try the diplomatic and economic tracks once again in hopes that it will be different. But as Benjamin Franklin once said “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
The only aspect that is different now is that instead of Iran being the country that would be approached to cease its nuclear progress it would be North Korea. So Washington is going to have the chance to demonstrate how the diplomacy will work with North Korea before Iran. Let us remember that there are higher stakes in Asia-Pacific than in the Middle East. The second largest economy in the world Japan is at stake. South Korea another important country is at stake. So let me guess Washington will force South Korea to surrender territories and share its capital with North Korea? Or it would force South Korea to sponsor North Korea’s regime by sending them money, construction materials, food, and other supplies so North Korea does not fall into humanitarian crisis? In other words sponsor your own suicide. Why not that is what Israel is ordered to do if it’s wants United States to stop Iran.
That said, thanks North Korea for your swiftness. If the United States fails to stop North Korea that is significantly smaller in its territory, resources, and population than there should be no doubts left in Israel or around the world that Washington will not be able to stop Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In other words, diplomacy will fail and Iran will acquire its weapons because if North Korea is not stopped the Iranian leadership will draw conclusion that Iran is also eligible. Thus, Israel has green light to strike Iran; the last or the default tool that is called military.
The time is running out for the new administration to prove its capabilities.
Well, it is not a secret that North Korea, Iran, Syria, and other countries are pursuing the development of the weapons of mass destructions. On the other hand, we have countries like U.S., China, Russia, and other countries that are pursuing or supposedly pursuing non-proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction. So we have two camps that are opposing each other or supposedly opposing each other.
With that in mind, let’s throw in another factor into the equation; that would be Israel that is threatened by the members of the former camp (Iran and Syria). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently visited Washington where he was asked or pressured to delay or forget about the potential military strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities due to the diplomatic track that would take place between Tehran and Washington in order to resolve the standoff between Iran and Israel, U.S., U.N., E.U., Russia, and others. The only problem is that the time is running out before Iran will actually have a functional (deliverable) nuclear device and Israel whose very existence is threatened cannot afford for this to happen. Therefore, we have a dilemma when does Israel know that diplomatic track has lost its ground hence, the green light to strike Iran. I am one of those people who are called pessimists but I like to call myself realist, therefore I believe that the diplomacy has already failed even before it began. But the world that we live in is very complex, especially with the new administration in Washington that has made it even more complex. The president of the United States has asked or ordered the prime minister of Israel to halt potential military strike on Iran to give the diplomacy a chance. Israel does not want to say no but it understands that there are limits for goodwill; that is when goodwill contributes to suicide.
Netanyahu returns to Israel perplexed as to what to do and when? But comes May 25, 2009 and North Korea has increased the tensions to a whole different level. Thus, North Korea takes priority over Iran due to close proximity to the nuclear device.
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!
WHAT? WHY?
How can a small country like North Korea draw so much attention? The answer is simple. NORTH KOREA IS A CASE STUDY IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER! A PRECEDENT!
With the new administration advocating non-proliferation and the fast track negotiations with the Russians regarding the renewal of Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on one side and rogue states like North Korea and Iran blatantly challenging the order on the other side. There is a dilemma of its own. What should the new administration do? Well there are three tools of power that are: Diplomatic, Economic, and Military. In regards to North Korea and Iran Diplomatic and Economic tools were already used, but the new administration wants to try the diplomatic and economic tracks once again in hopes that it will be different. But as Benjamin Franklin once said “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
The only aspect that is different now is that instead of Iran being the country that would be approached to cease its nuclear progress it would be North Korea. So Washington is going to have the chance to demonstrate how the diplomacy will work with North Korea before Iran. Let us remember that there are higher stakes in Asia-Pacific than in the Middle East. The second largest economy in the world Japan is at stake. South Korea another important country is at stake. So let me guess Washington will force South Korea to surrender territories and share its capital with North Korea? Or it would force South Korea to sponsor North Korea’s regime by sending them money, construction materials, food, and other supplies so North Korea does not fall into humanitarian crisis? In other words sponsor your own suicide. Why not that is what Israel is ordered to do if it’s wants United States to stop Iran.
That said, thanks North Korea for your swiftness. If the United States fails to stop North Korea that is significantly smaller in its territory, resources, and population than there should be no doubts left in Israel or around the world that Washington will not be able to stop Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In other words, diplomacy will fail and Iran will acquire its weapons because if North Korea is not stopped the Iranian leadership will draw conclusion that Iran is also eligible. Thus, Israel has green light to strike Iran; the last or the default tool that is called military.
The time is running out for the new administration to prove its capabilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment