Tag Archives: Israel

Romney’s Ten Commandments on National Security

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”

Governor Romney’s Ten Commandments on national security are based on his recent pronouncements, including his October 8, 2012 speech at the Virginia Military Institute.

1. American exceptionalism. Thou shall adhere to the classic US worldview, highlighting American moral and strategic exceptionalism – US global competitive edge. American moral exceptionalism is a derivative of America’s Judeo-Christian values, formulated by the early Pilgrims and the US founding fathers. Romney believes in America’s moral, economic, scientific, technological, educational, medical and military exceptionalism. He is aware that America’s best interests and the minimization of global disorder – militarily and economically – require US pro-active leadership.

2. US global leadership. Thou shall embrace US global leadership, underscoring US freedom of unilateral action, rather than subordinating US policy to multilateral considerations. The US – not the UN or any international order – is the dominant quarterback of international relations. US global leadership is critical for its economic, homeland security and military concerns. It bolsters posture of deterrence, providing a tailwind for allies, thus constraining clear and present threats posed by rogue/terrorist Islamic regimes. On the other hand, US withdrawal is interpreted as weakness, emboldening adversaries, weakening allies, fueling clear and present dangers and facilitating the recurrence of 9/11.

3. Realism. Thou shall abide by realism and experience and not by wishful-thinking and delusion. Thus, the Arab Street intensifies anti-US terrorism and not democracy. Confronting – rather than engaging – rogue regimes upgrades deterrence and reduces the threat of war. Preempting – rather than retaliating against – undeterred rogue regimes spares humanity calamitous wars. Moreover, Putin’s Russia is a rival – not an ally – of the USA. Steadfastness, not flexibility, would restrain Moscow’s imperialistic ambition, reassuring US’ East European allies. Realism requires confidence, marathon-like resolve, and clarity and not apology, hasty-wavering and ambiguity.

4. Moral Clarity. Thou shall follow moral clarity – a prerequisite for operational clarity. Do not subordinate moral clarity to political convenience. For example, Islamic terrorism is the most distinct threat to Western democracies. It must be clearly identified and not be blurred by linguistic acrobatics, such as “workplace violence,” “man-caused disasters,” or “isolated extremism.” The threat of Islamic terrorism must be lucidly presented and not be deleted from the training literature of the defense and counter-terrorism establishment. Islamic terrorism has afflicted the USA –systematically and not randomly – since the 18th century. Core American values of liberty and justice are a lethal threat to rogue and tyrannical Islamic regimes. The US is the chief strategic obstacle to megalomaniac transnational aspirations.

5. Peace through strength. Thou shall advance strength – and not pliability – in order to promote peace. Strength deters, and perceived weakness fuels, terrorism. Enhancing military capabilities – of the US and its European allies – is compulsory in order to face rising threats and deter aggression.

6. Strategic cooperation. Thou shall enhance strategic cooperation with capable, reliable, stable, predictable, democratic and unconditional allies – such as Israel – which contribute to the US in the areas of defense and commercial high-tech, intelligence, battle tactics, training and operations. Israel is the only ally resembling a US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single American on board, cannot be sunk, already deployed in an area critical to primary US interests, snatching hot US chestnuts out of the fire, saving the US taxpayer some $20BN annually.

7. Moral equivalence. Thou shall not indulge in the morally-wrong and strategically-flawed moral equivalence between the role model of counter-terrorism (e.g., Israel) and the role model of terrorism (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO); between the role model of unconditional alliance with the US (e.g., Israel) and the role model of systematic alliance with America’s enemies, such as Nazi Germany, the Communist Bloc, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden (e.g., the Palestinian leadership).

8. Iran. Thou shall prevent Iran’s nuclearization for the sake of the US – and not Israeli – interests. A nuclear Iran would traumatize the supply and price of oil; would devastate pro-US Gulf regimes; would coalesce Iran’s takeover of Iraq; would accelerate nuclear proliferation; would upgrade the military capabilities of anti-US Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador; would embolden anti-US Islamic terrorism, including sleeper cells in the US; and would devastate the US posture of deterrence.

9. Palestinian issue. Thou shall be cognizant of the secondary role played by the Palestinian issue in the Middle East. It is not the root cause of regional turbulence and anti-US Islamic terrorism, not the crown jewel of Arab policy-making and not the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As stated by Romney, the Palestinians are concerned about the existence – not the size – of Israel. He is aware of the indispensability of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria for Israel’s existence. He is also aware of the adverse impact by the proposed Palestinian state upon cardinal US interests. Hence, the unacceptability of the “two state delusion.”

10. Political correctness. Thou shall not subordinate the Ten Commandments to political correctness, expediency and global/domestic pressure.

Will Governor Romney be faithful to the Ten Commandments on national security if elected on November 6, 2012?

Ambassor Yoram Ettinger’s article reflects an Israeli-American perspective. His artlice was first published in “Israel Hayom”, October 12, 2012, http://bit.ly/RCSZQ0.

Israel Prime Minister Natanyahu Honors Christians for Their Contributions in the Rebirth and Success of Israel

While speaking a the restoration ceremony of an historic Mishkenot windmill orignally built in 1858 by Moses Montefoire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu tributed Christian Zionism with the rebirth and success of Zionism and the Jewish state. The following are excerpts from his speech.

“I don’t believe that the Jewish State and Modern Zionism would have been possible without Christian Zionism. I think that the many Christian supporters of the rebirth of the Jewish State and the ingathering of the Jewish people in the 19th century made possible the rise of Jewish Zionism – modern Jewish Zionism. We always had the deeply ingrained desire to come back to our land and rebuild it. This is a prayer of the millennia of the Jewish people – that it was made possible in the 19th century, by the resurgence of Christian Zionism and European support for Zionism, most especially in Great Britain – The PEF, the Palestine Exploration Fund, which was a scientific fund created by Queen Victoria, and the many Christian friends that we had, including Dutch people in the 19th century, Americans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, who visited the Holy Land by the hundreds, including famous writers. We spoke about the barrenness of the land and the hope that the Jews would come back to reclaim this land as part of the parable of humanity, the hope that there’s hope, and this created the practical foundation, the political foundation for the emergence of Zionism. So that’s the first component. It’s well represented here today by our Dutch friends, who have been supporting Israel with their hearts, and with everything that you can, we know the depth of this support. We appreciate it deeply. We value our friends, and we never forget them, and we think that you have helped establish here a powerful memorial to our friendship and our common ideals. So thank you.”

After speaking about two more vital components to the success of Zion, PM Natanyahu remembered the economic contribution to the refounding of Israel and his rebuilding efforts being commemorated. Hw went to honor all of past and present Jews returned, settled, and rebuilt Zion.

Next, PM Netanyahu shared a story about his childhood experiences growing up in the same neighborhood in Jerusalem where daily saw now restored windmill towering above. I still serves as a symbol of the unity of effort that Jews and non-Jews continue to make to Zionism reality.

PM Netanyahu concluded his speech by saying:

“For us, this was a constant celebration but today it is a special celebration, because we are marking the restoration of this asset which will serve all residents of Jerusalem and Israel, as well as the tourists who come here, and this is a symbol of the spirit of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a material city but it is also a city of the spirit. Here is the windmill* in the positive sense of the word. I think that the many Israelis who come here will remember the picture of Moses Montefiore and his family and will rejoice that in Jerusalem everything continues to turn, develop and prosper.”

The War Against the Jews

by Efraim Karsh

The sustained anti-Israel de-legitimization campaign is a corollary of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds. Since Israel is the world’s only Jewish state, and since Zionism is the Jewish people’s national liberation movement, anti-Zionism—as opposed to criticism of specific Israeli policies or actions—means denial of the Jewish right to national self-determination. Such a discriminatory denial of this basic right to only one nation (and one of the few that can trace their corporate identity and territorial attachment to antiquity) while allowing it to all other groups and communities, however new and tenuous their claim to nationhood, is pure and unadulterated anti-Jewish racism, or anti-Semitism as it is commonly known.

By any conceivable standard, Israel has been an extraordinary success story: national rebirth in the ancestral homeland after millennia of exile and dispersion; resuscitation of a dormant biblical language; the creation of a modern, highly educated, technologically advanced, and culturally and economically thriving society, as well as a vibrant liberal democracy in one of the world’s least democratic areas. It is a world leader in agricultural, medical, military, and solar energy technologies, among others; a high-tech superpower attracting more venture capital investment per capita than the United States and Europe; home to one of the world’s best health systems and philharmonic orchestras, as well as to ten Nobel Prize laureates. And so on and so forth.

Why then is Israel the only state in the world whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged while far less successful countries, including numerous “failed states,” are considered legitimate and incontestable members of the international community? The answer offered by this article is that this pervasive prejudice against Israel, the only Jewish state to exist since biblical times, is a corollary of the millenarian obsession with the Jews in the Christian and the Muslim worlds.

On occasion, notably among devout and/or born again Evangelical Christians, this obsession has manifested itself in admiration and support for the national Jewish resurrection in the Holy Land. In most instances, however, anti-Jewish prejudice and animosity, or anti-Semitism as it is commonly known, has served to exacerbate distrust and hatred of Israel. Indeed, the fact that the international coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the libels against Zionism and Israel, such as the despicable comparisons to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, have invariably reflected a degree of intensity and emotional involvement well beyond the normal level to be expected of impartial observers would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to concrete Israeli activities, it is a manifestation of long-standing prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the vicissitudes of the conflict.

To read more, click here.

The above excerpt originates from an article by the same title and author as first published on-line by the Middle East Forum, where the author is principal researcher. He is also research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed (Yale University Press, 2010).

Recipe for War: Unilateral Withdrawal from West Bank

By Khaled Abu Toameh

Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak believes that Israel should consider a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank if negotiations with the Palestinian Authority fail to bear fruit.

Under the current circumstances, such a move would lead to the creation of another radical Palestinian Islamic entity, this time in those parts of the West Bank that would be handed over to Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad.

Any land that is handed over to the Palestinian Authority would end up in the hands of Hamas.

In the summer of 2005, Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip, passing it to Abbas and his 40,000-strong Fatah-dominated security forces.

A few months later, thanks to a free and fair parliamentary election that was held at the request of the US and some EU countries, Hamas came to power.

One of the main reasons Hamas scored a victory in that election was because it took credit for driving Israel out of the Gaza Strip through rockets and suicide bombings.

A year later, in the summer of 2007, it took fewer than 10,000 Hamas militiamen to defeat Abbas’s security forces and bring down the entire Palestinian Authority regime in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas’s rule over the Gaza Strip has since brought more suffering and bloodshed for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Once Israel carries out a unilateral withdrawal, the same scenario is likely to be repeated in the West Bank.

Even though Hamas does not have a strong military presence in the West Bank, the movement seems to enjoy much popularity among Palestinians.

The so-called Arab Spring, which has seen the rise of Islamists to power in a number of Arab countries, has emboldened Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups, such as Islamic Jihad.

These groups have managed to attract many followers by offering themselves as the best alternative to Western-backed corrupt secular dictatorships in the Arab world.

As before, Hamas’s chances of taking over the West Bank are high after the failure of Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction to implement significant reforms or combat rampant corruption.

Fatah lost the 2006 parliamentary election mainly because of its leaders’ involvement in the embezzlement of public funds. Since then, Fatah has failed to draw the conclusions from its defeat and has not even been able to come up with a new list of capable candidates that could attract Palestinian voters.

The same Fatah men who lost the vote are, in fact, continuing to run the show in Ramallah — as if they had never lost.

Even if the Islamists do not take over the West Bank in the aftermath of a unilateral Israeli pullout, it is almost certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to prevent local gangs and clans from seizing power.

The case of Jenin, a city in the West Bank, is a good example of the weakness of the Palestinian Authority security forces, especially with regard to imposing law and order: Palestinian Authority officials have admitted that Jenin has been controlled over the past two years by Fatah militiamen and thugs who worked closely with many top Palestinian security officers, imposing a reign of terror and intimidation on the city’s residents.

A unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank could mean that Palestinian cities like Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem and Hebron would fall either into the hands of Hamas or armed Fatah gangs.

Abbas and Fayyad would not be able to do much to prevent a return to scenes of anarchy and lawlessness that were once prevalent on the Palestinian street.

The chaos and violence inside the Palestinian cities would also spill over into Israel, forcing it to launch another “Defensive Shield” type of operation, like the one in 2002, to clear the area of armed gangs.

Before withdrawing from any area, Israel needs to make sure that those who would be in charge would not run away, handing the territories to Hamas or any other local gangs. Under the current circumstances, a unilateral and unconditional withdrawal would only be a recipe for more violence and bloodshed and repression.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades. His articles have appeared in numerous newspapers around the world, including The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report and The Sunday Times of London. He cover Palestian affairs for the Jerusalem Post and serves as a producer/consultant for NBC News. His article was originally published by the Gatestone Institute on June 8, 2012.

The Crony System That Makes Israelis Poorer

By Daniel Doron

Last summer’s peaceful mass demonstrations in Israel protested economic hardships resulting from excessive government interference in the economy.

The protests were ignited by Izhak Elrov, a young religious father who started a Facebook page calling for the boycott of one consumer item, cottage cheese, which was selling in Israel for double what it cost abroad. Mr. Elrov protested that price-gouging by Israeli monopolies had inflated the price of most consumer goods and services by 100% to 300% over average European and American prices. One hundred thousand Israelis “liked” his page. Hundreds picketed supermarkets.

Mr. Elrov’s one-issue boycott eventually was taken over by populist groups demanding cheap housing and free preschool education, then it was seized upon by well-funded leftist political groups pushing an “Occupy Wall Street” anticapitalist agenda and trying to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu’s pro-market government. By summer’s end, the protests had fizzled, with many Israelis disenchanted by these hidden agendas.

But the core truth of Mr. Elrov’s lament remained. Even before the cottage-cheese boycott, the prime minister had appointed a commission to deal with Israel’s extraordinary concentration of political and economic power. The latter had become the center of public furor after an April 2010 Bank of Israel report affirmed that “some 20 family business groups, structured as pyramids, control some 25% of firms listed for trading, about half of the market share.” The report also noted that a mere handful of business groups received over 60% of Israel’s available credit, which they invested in highly leveraged and speculative real-estate ventures.

Clearly, such concentration creates great risk for Israeli financial markets. It also denies small and medium-size businesses access to credit, blocking Israel’s engines of growth. Two major regions, the southern Negev and the northern Galilee, with mostly small businesses, have suffered a permanent credit crunch. Living on average monthly salaries of $2,400, according to official figures, and having to pay for most consumer goods and services at prices similar to those in New York City, most Israeli families have difficulty making ends meet.

Unfortunately, political necessity dictated that the commission Mr. Netanyahu charged to investigate these problems was composed partly of regulators who had failed in the past to tackle excessive concentration. One result is that its final recommendations, released last month, did not call for banning all pyramid-structured holding companies. The commission called for a separation of ownership between financial and nonfinancial firms. But it fixed too high a threshold—an annual turnover of $1.6 billion dollars—for the separation. Still, even these limited recommendations could improve Israeli credit allocation and competitiveness.

Following last summer’s protests, Mr. Netanyahu appointed another commission, this one to deal with issues of preschool education, cheaper housing and lower consumer prices. As a result, “free” elementary school education was extended to children ages 3 to 6.

Mr. Netanyahu’s government recently appointed a legal group to draft legislation based on the recommendations of “the anti-concentration” commission. But that group is composed mostly of the same regulators who are halfhearted about reform. And if the recommendations get to legislators, they will face a tough battle in the parliament, where the tycoons and their powerful lobbyists will fight them.

Strong vested interests blocking progress are not unique to Israel. Everywhere, powerful elites manage to erect entry barriers that cut competition, reduce efficiency and lower productivity. Generally impoverished Islamic countries are extreme examples of the ravages caused by such entrenched elites.

Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s first prime minister to understand economics, realized that economic viability is essential to Israel’s survival and initiated bold reforms. He faces resistance from his bureaucracy and some coalition partners serving the tycoons and their lobbyists. Despite this and great challenges such as Iran and the prospect of new elections, Mr. Netanyahu could still convene a special session of parliament before the fall elections and pass the reforms he deems essential.

Mr. Doron is founder-director of The Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress (ICSEP), a public policy think tank, and a fellow of the Middle East Forum. His article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal on May 3, 2012.

Anti-Semiticism At the United Nations?

According to Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, the United Nations Human Rights Council is number one opponent of Israel. By implication, this makes the UN a most anti-semitic institutions in the world. The following is the indictment proposed by Ambassador Ettinger.

On Friday, the HRC will conclude a month long deliberation by submitting four more resolutions condemning Israel.

The HRC heard testimony from a representative of the Assad regime, in formulating one of the resolutions, which denounces Israel for, alleged, violations of human rights on the Golan Heights. At the same time, the Assad regime has already murdered 8,000 Syrian dissidents and rebels, causing tens of thousands of refugees, some seeking asylum in Israel’s Golan Heights.

The HRC was privy to testimonies from Palestinian representatives, while an increasing number of Palestinians attempt to relocate to Jerusalem, in order to avoid the ruthless rule of the Palestinian Authority. The HRC never discussed intra-Palestinian violence, which has caused substantially more fatalities than those produced during Israel’s confrontation with Palestinian terrorism. It failed to act against the PLO/Hamas-led hate-education, brainwashing Palestinian children to become suicide bombers; rewarding Palestinian mothers for raising suicide bombers; executing rival Palestinians by throwing them off high-rise buildings; spraying them with bullets from the waist down; torturing, maiming and executing Palestinian opponents; abusing Palestinian civilians as human shields; physically abusing critical Palestinian journalists; suppressing Palestinian civil liberties; and systematically and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians for terrorism, missile launching and mortar shelling.

The HRC welcomed a report by Professor Richard Falk – who accused the US Administration for complicity and cover up in the September 11terrorism – on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Prof. Falk – a Hamas sympathizer, justifying suicide bombing as a legitimate struggle – was appointed in 2008 to a six-year term as UN Special Rapporteur. Falk succeeded Professor John Dugard, who shares his worldview.

The HRC is assisted by an advisory committee, chaired by Morocco’s Halima Warzazi, who, in 1988, blocked a UN initiative to condemn Saddam Hussein’s chemical warfare against Iraq’s Kurds. The vice-chair is Switzerland’s Jean Ziegler, who co-established the “Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights” and authored books accusing the USA of being responsible for global malaise. Another advisor is Nicaragua’s Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, former President of the UN General Assembly, an admirer of Ahmadinejad, a defender of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, a friend of Fidel Castro and self-hating Americans such as Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky.

Since June 2007, Israel has been the only country to be listed on the HRC’s permanent agenda. Out of the ten permanent items on the HRC agenda, eight are organizational and procedural, one deals with global human rights and “item seven” – “the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories” – is the only one that is country-specific. The outcome of the investigation is prejudged, not subject to review. Israel – the only Middle Eastern democracy – is the only UN member to be ostracized annually, while its enemies are exempt from scrutiny.

According to former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, “there are permanent members of the Security Council and non-permanent members, but Israel is the only permanent non-member.”

80% of all 2010 UN resolutions criticizing specific countries for human rights violations were directed at Israel. Only six other UN members faced human rights criticism at all, one of which was the United States. The HRC subjected the USA to harsh criticism – by Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Russia – for, supposed, human rights violations. The HRC criticized the elimination of Bin-Laden and Israel’s defense against PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.

Simultaneously, the HRC has ignored Islamic terrorism, which has afflicted Asia, Africa, Europe and the USA. No emergency sessions and inquiries were held and no resolutions were adopted.

55% of the HRC members are Muslim countries, which contribute little to the UN budget, but dominate policy-making. The HRC is formally the guardian of human rights, but its members – e.g., Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cuba, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uganda, Djibouti, Senegal, Mauritania, Malaysia, Russia and China – deny their peoples fundamental civil liberties.

Of course, Arab ethnicity originates from the same ancient gene pool as the Jews. Although discrimination against Arabs is usually called Islamaphobia or injustice to Muslims or prejudice against Arabs, anti-Semiticism has been associated historically with the Jews. Because Jews make up a majority Israel’s population, the best label for the anti-Israel stance of the United Nations is anti-Semiticism.

Is U.N. anti-semiticsm to be explained merely as the result of a majority of Muslim nations represented on the UN Security Council? Another factor may be that Israel has yet to bow to the Arab/Muslim demand to submit to their rule of all Palestine or get out of the land. The two-state solution seems a useful tool to that end. Why else would Israel’s previous efforts to give back the land in accordance with UN Resolutions 181 & 242 have been thrown in the dust by Palestinian and Arab leaders when Israel made its reasonable demands to ensure the safety and prosperity of its citizens?

Jerusalem: Ultra-Orthodox Men Suspected of Attacking 70 Yr Old Women Who They Thought Was a Missionary

According to a report in Haaretz (February 29), “Police suspect that a group of ultra-Orthodox men brutally attacked a 70-year-old woman in her home in Jerusalem’s Nahlaot neighborhood on Monday, apparently believing her to be a Christian missionary. The victim spoke to Haaretz from Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Kerem, last night. She said that her attackers accused her of hosting secular, non-Jewish women in her home. The incident occurred on Monday evening around 9 P.M. A number of men in ultra-Orthodox garb forced their way into the woman’s apartment in the Haredi neighborhood. They tied the woman’s arms and then punched her on her body. The victim said the beating lasted half an hour, and that the intruders also vandalized her home before disappearing. She said the men stole her cell phone and computer. The woman, who lives alone, was left on the floor with a broken ankle, a shattered and bleeding hand, a swollen face and internal bleeding. The victim said that, just before the attackers started to pound her, they accused her of hosting secular women. She said that she holds such meetings to teach these women about Judaism. ‘I try to move them closer to Judaism,’ she explained yesterday. ‘The house looked as though there had been a pogrom in it,’ said Nahum Bernstein, a volunteer police worker who was one of the first on the scene. ‘It was shocking. We found an elderly woman tied on the floor, with bruises on her face, a fractured hand and a broken ankle.’ He said the woman was very confused, but managed to indicate that the attack had religious motivations. Jerusalem police searched the area after the incident. They are continuing their investigations.”

Source: Caspari Media Review, March 8, 2012.

Ron Paul On Middle East Foreign Policy and Israel

The following video presents an interview on Ron Paul’s Middle East foreign policy. Journalist Jack Hunter, who copnducted the interview, focused on Paul position concerning Israel. It is rather enlightening considering the the esclusion of Paul to the recent Republican Jewish Coalition presidentail debate. A second video offers additional perspective at least one possible reason why some establishment Republicans are both distorting Paul’s policy statements, like his statement about Isael’s creation of Hamas, and his the opposition’s motivation. It should be further noted that Paul actually credited the United State’s government using Israel as a proxy in the creation of Hamas just like it did Al Queda and others. (Watch this video of Paul’s statement to Congress.)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhAGZIv22Us?rel=0&w=420&h=315]

Did you hear the reason? Governments and special interest groups like Hamas have no reason or motivation to stop the endless conflict. This means they have reason and motivation to foment conflict: money and power. That is our tax dollars and the their authorized empowerment for conflict, which as you will see is sourced by our federal government’s dictates of power.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjVOu3BWIqE?rel=0&w=420&h=315]

If you would like to read a good article on other aspects of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, read “Ron Paul Counters Obama Policy on Israel, Middle East” by Thomas R. Eddlem.

Abraham and the Impossible

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Torah tells us that Abraham was extremely old and that Sarah was beyond child-bearing age. Indeed, the Gemara says she had no womb! The distinguished Rabbi Akiva Tatz, a physician and a philosopher, offers a familiar as well as unfamiliar commentary:

“When these two people, totally devoid of any possibility of having a child, were told that they would in fact have a child, they laughed. And a child was born. And his Divinely-given name was “Yitzchak”—Hebrew for ‘He shall laugh.’ Is this a clue to the extraordinary tragedy-preceding triumphs of the Jewish people over their adversaries during the past millennia?

Jews begin where the impossible ends. This tells about Jewish faith or trust in God, because that’s precondition of achieving the impossible. Unfortunately, most Jews today are trapped in the language and limitations of politics, which of course precludes the impossible?

Ever since Aristotle, pundits have defined politics as the “art of the possible.” However, what is deemed possible depends very much on the intellectual and moral character of the politician. Polls in Israel indicate that 80 to 90 percent of the Jews in this country regard Israeli politicians as “corrupt,” by which they mean that these politicians pursue their personal or partisan interests at the expense of the national interest (an old story antedating Machiavelli). In other words, Israeli politicians are little men whose horizon extends no further than the next election. Thoughtful Jews place no faith in politicians. Let’s return to Abraham and the Torah.

The akeida (the binding of Yitzchak recounted in Genesis) reveals Abraham as the prince of faith, of unsurpassed trust in God. Abraham, the first Jew, was tested as no other human being. His test, to paraphrase Rabbi Tatz, was to sacrifice his son for whom he had waited into extreme old age, and in whom he saw the ascendancy of a great and noble people. This same Abraham, after teaching the world that human sacrifice was wrong—Abraham, whose entire personality was loving kindness—how could he possibly slaughter his beloved son? “Beyond the emotional level, the intellectual level was no less difficult—it made no sense, and Abraham, the discoverer of ethical monotheism, was a man of supreme intellectual power. God (HaShem) had promised him progeny from Yitzchak—how could there be a contradiction in the Divine?”

The Kabbalah expresses an even deeper problem. As Rabbi Tatz puts it, “Avraham knew that HaShem did not want this sacrifice (as the verse states: ‘V’lo alsa libi—which I never intended’) as one knows the mind of the beloved—and he was correct. In fact, ultimately, HaShem prevented him from carrying it out! So he had all levels of his consciousness crying out that this action could not be done, and HaShem said to him, in effect, ‘Yes, all that you feel and say is true, but kill him anyway’! That’s a test!? That’s facing the impossible! And Abraham proceeded to do the impossible.

“The result? The impossible occurred, the miraculous manifested. We are told in the Torah that Yitzchak was spared, he climbed off the altar, and a ram was offered in his stead. But we are told in the Midrash: ‘Efro shel Yitzchak munach le’fanai—the ashes of Yitzchak lie before Me’; in a higher dimension, he was sacrificed! Not the ‘ashes of the ram’ but the ‘ashes of Yitzchak’. He became an ‘olah temimah’—a pure, burnt offering.

“The impossible paradox—a man who lives physically in this world, but spiritually in the next, simultaneously! And the qualities of the father and the son live on in the Jewish people—the ability to yield the emotions, the intellect, the entire personality to HaShem in emuna (faith), and the gift of being able to live in a physical world and transcend it at the same time.”

This is Not blind faith. This faith springs from recognizing God as the Creator of heaven and earth, hence from rational trust in His providence. From the father of the Jewish people we learn that whatever the ordeal or suffering is inflicted upon us, it is intended for our ultimate good by a just and gracious God. We must bear in mind that suffering is the spur of self-examination, reflection, insight, and transcendence. The heights of human perfection are not a gift but an achievement requiring the greatest trials of the human spirit.

What is true of the individual is true of the nation. The ordeal of the Jewish people appears endless. Two thousand years of dispersion, persecution, and Holocaust issuing in the rebirth of Israel, but an Israel tormented by bloodthirsty Arabs who, aided by virtually the entire world, are dedicated to Israel’s annihilation. Yesterday by war, today by a deadly “peace process.”

After centuries of Jew-hatred still rampant in the democratic world, only shallow, effete, and “Establishment” Jews can ignore the genocidal war being waged against Israel. Iranian president Ahmadinejad is only the most conspicuous instrument of anti-Semitism: Eisav sonei Yaakov. Even nations in the democratic world have honored this murderous tyrant.

How can Israel stand up to this worldwide hatred of the people who gave mankind the Book of Books? How can Israel withstand such envious and implacable animosity?

Our Prophets and Sages tell us that this period will be one of great trials for Israel. But soon Israel will break the Covenant of Death of which Isaiah speaks. Soon the lies of the “peace process” will be swept away and the truth will emerge from Zion. Only keep faith with the God of Abraham. Sacrifice your doubts and fears and dare the impossible. Soon we shall have the last laugh on our enemies!

Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer, Paul Eidelberg is founder and president of the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (I-ARI) with offices in Jerusalem and Philadelphia.

A Critical Analysis of Netanyahu’s September 23, 2011 Speech to the United Nations

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President
Israel-America Renaissance Institute

Part III. Netanyahu’s Self-Entrapment

Netanyahu’s September 23, 2011 speech to the UN revealed a prime minister trapped in the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 13, 1993. Step by step that agreement led him to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria on June 14, 2009 Bar-Ilan University, and without any expression of outrage from that religious institution or by the public at large. How did Netanyahu trap himself in this ignominious as well as anti-Jewish cul-de-sac?

In March 1993, Israel’s government was headed by Labor Party chairman Yizhak Rabin. In that month, the Central committee of the Likud party convened and appointed Benjamin Netanyahu as its leader. An eminent Likud member proposed a resolution to the effect that a future Likud Government would not be bound by any Labor-government agreement that compromised the security of Israel. This resolution was intended to short circuit Labor’s desire to recognize the PLO, the first step toward establishing a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu rejected the resolution on the grounds that a democracy must honor its agreements. This was an utterly fallacious opinion since no government is bound to an agreement that may eventually lead to its destruction. Nevertheless, the present writer was asked by a prominent Likud figure whether the United States had ever violated a treaty with a foreign power. I consulted my constitutional law books and unsurprisingly found that the U.S. government had in fact reneged on a nineteenth-century agreement with China, and that the government’s decision had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thus, on May 6, 1882, an Act of Congress was approved which declared that after ninety days from the passage of the Act, and for a period of ten years from its date, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States is suspended, and that it shall be unlawful for any such laborer to come to, or, having come, to remain within the United States.” The Court ruled, with regard to the treaties of the country, that “circumstances may arise which would not only justify the Government in disregarding their stipulation, but also demand, in the interests of the country, that it should do so; [of which] there can be no question. Unexpected events may call for a change in the policy of the country.”[1]

At first blush it appears that Netanyahu succumbed to his ignorance of the law governing treaties. However, common sense alone dictates that if one party to an agreement repeatedly violates that agreement—as the PLO did on an almost daily basis—the other party has every right to abrogate the agreement at its own discretion. Of course, to have abrogated Oslo would have required politically courageous prime minister on the one hand, and a very different policy toward the Palestinians on the other.

Whatever the case, Mr. Netanyahu entrapped himself in the Oslo Agreement six months before that agreement was consummated. It should also be emphasized that the legality of the agreement was challenged by eminent Israeli citizens in a 78-page petition drafted by Attorney Howard Grief and submitted to the High Court of Justice (file HC 33414/96). The Court, notoriously left-wing, dismissed the suit as non-justiciable without discussing the merits, even though the petition accused the government of having violated several laws of the Knesset included sections 97, 99 and 100 of the Penal Law, which designates and prohibits four kinds of acts as treason:

1. the category of acts which “impair the sovereignty” of the State of Israel—section 97(a);

2. the category of acts which “impair the integrity” of the State of Israel—section 97(b);

3. the category of acts under section 99 which give assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

4. the category of acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

The punishment prescribed in the Penal Law for the first three kinds of acts of treason is death or imprisonment for life. Yielding Jewish land to the PLO does appear to be a prima facie violation of the treason law. This said, let us make a thought-experiment.

If a Prime Minister of Israel signs an agreement with his country’s enemy, an agreement that requires him to obscure the murderous creed and history of the enemy and even lie about the enemy’s bellicose intentions, a train of untoward consequences will follow affecting that Prime Minister’s successors. Suppose he is followed by six prime ministers. If the sixth prime minister were to reveal the truth about the enemy in question, he would be impugning the integrity of each and every one of his predecessors. And if a prima facie case could be made that that agreement constitutes a violation of the law governing treason, then, if that sixth prime minister revealed the truth about his country’s enemy—with whom that first prime minister entered into said agreement—he would be impugning all his predecessors, casting upon them the taint of treason. This is a mendacity trap from which no prime minister can readily escape.