Israel Need Not Sacrifice to Entice Palestinians to Talk Peace

Once again a United States President has tasked his Secretary of State with forging that ever elusive Arab-Israeli Peace. Let’s be honest, there is no difference between the so-called Palestinian Arabs and the Arabs living in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Tunisia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or any other Arab community. If we were dealing honestly we would not allow the recent use of the term Naqba to refer solely to the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 because it has an earlier reference from the promise to make a Jewish State through the founding after World War I of the French and British Mandate. This too was called the Great Naqba but not because of the intent to make a Jewish State in the future, that would come later. There was a far more immediate catastrophe deserving of the title Great Naqba. With the formation of the French Mandate over the lands which would become Syria and Lebanon minus the Golan Heights and mountains surrounding Mount Herman and the British Mandate over the lands which would become Jordan, Israel, Gaza, Judea, Samaria (West Bank), Golan Heights, and the mountains surrounding Mount Herman, it split the areas which under Ottoman rule were called Greater Syria. The French Mandate took the areas referred to as Syria and the British Mandate took the areas referred to as Southern Syria. The French referred to their Mandate Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, as Syrian Arabs which met with their approval. The British referred to their Mandate Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, as Palestinian Arabs and the Jewish residents simply as Palestinians. It was the splitting off the British Mandate from central Syria placing a boundary between their Arab populations and Damascus which was a pilgrimage destination for the Arabs in these areas. They also rejected being called Palestinians and demanded to retain the label as being Syrians. Later during World War II the British formed a corps fighting in North Africa and the Middle East named the Palestinian Brigade which was made up almost entirely of Jews from the lands surrounding Jerusalem, Hevron, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Akko, Jericho, Tiberius and the other towns and cities from the Jordan River valley to the Mediterranean Sea. The largest Arab Units formed during World War II served the Nazis in the Balkans and were commanded by the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el Husseini. There were also Arab revolts during World War II by Iraqis who had intended to join allying themselves with Germany but were eventually retaken by the British. Iran also allied with the German Nazis and were so enamored with the idea of the Aryan Master Race they changed the name of their country from Persia to Iran, which means Aryan.

 

Between World War I and through the period of World War II there were repeated uprisings by the Arabs of the British Mandate against the Jews. One of the particularly serious episodes spread through Hevron and Jerusalem with much of the Jewish areas in Hevron being burned down or otherwise damaged. To avoid any more difficulties for the British troops stationed in the Mandate areas the British in their infinite wisdom forced all the Jews out from Hevron and resettled them largely in Jerusalem. Many of these Jews who were driven from Hevron have had their descendants attempt to return to Hevron and reclaim their lands and homes after the Six Day War and the return of Hevron to Jewish control. In a totally futile attempt to placate the Arabs and prevent further uprisings the British made an offer to the Zionists. They promised if the Zionists would allow the lands east of the Jordan River to be used to make a state for the Palestinian Arabs population then the British promised that all of the lands west of the Jordan River would remain undivided and be used for the Jewish State. The Zionists deciding that it was best to take the guarantee of the lands west of the Jordan River as a guaranteed border for their state would be better than attempting to form a state in the entire of the Mandate lands. They also realized that there were virtually no Jews residing east of the Jordan River anyways and the few who lived on the east bank could be resettled readily on the west bank and thus Transjordan was formed and is today known as Jordan. That was the first sacrifice which relinquished all claims to 78% of the British Mandate for a guarantee that they would receive the remaining 22% of the lands and they would be indivisible in perpetuity.

 

During the debates in the United Nations over the founding of the Jewish State the Zionists agreed to sharing what had been guaranteed indivisible by the major powers and organizations of the world even if the vast majority of the lands they would receive was the Negev Desert and the majority of arable lands were to be made into a second Arab state out of the British Mandate. The Arabs refused to accept the division because they could not agree to allow any Jewish state whatsoever. Despite the sacrifice at the point of declaring the state of Israel so as to live in peace with their Arab neighbors, Israel was forced to defend herself against the combined armies from six Arab countries and numerous assorted militias at the dawn of the Jewish nations first day of existence. When the fighting ended the Israelis once again accepted the boundaries which were still less than the full amount promised twenty years earlier at the founding of the Hashemite Kingdom. The Arab League refused to accept the boundaries and insisted that the lines dividing the warring armies at the hour the truce was established be merely a set of Armistice Lines and never ever be utilized to determine a border in the future.

 

In early June of 1967 Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran for all shipping to or from the Israeli southern port of Eilat which was a casus belli under International Treaty and Laws and with their ally Syria massed troops on Israel’s northern and southern borders. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser threatened a war of genocide to drive the Jews into the sea repeating the threat for days. Israel responded to the existential threat and attacked Egyptian airfields. An immediate thrust by both Syrian and Egyptian armies was met and repulsed and though the Israeli Defense Force was advancing on both fronts the Arab news reports were claiming a great victory was in progress. Jordanian King Hussein declared war on Israel opening a third front despite Israeli pleading that the Jordanian leader reconsider informing Hussein that the reports of Egyptian and Syrian forces closing on Tel Aviv were false. King Hussein believed the Egyptian and Syrian reports figuring that the Israelis were attempting to deceive him and deny him a share of the glory and spoils of war. By the end of the Six Day War Israel was in control of the entire Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Gaza, Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Israel made peace with Egypt in March of 1979 sacrificing the entire Sinai Peninsula and offering the return of Gaza which Egypt refused thus leaving Gaza under Israeli control. The return of the Sinai Peninsula was a significant sacrifice for peace made by Israel. Israel and Jordan also made peace in October 1994 and Israel offered to return the areas gained from Jordan during the Six Day War which Jordan refused thus leaving Judea and Samaria under Israeli control. Syria and Israel have yet to make peace and an armistice enforced by the United Nations still exists.

 

Even when discussing the Israeli Palestinian peace negotiation the Israelis have done the vast majority of sacrificing. Israel removed every single Israeli from all of Gaza along with all Israeli Defense Force troops and bases surrendering complete control to the Palestinian Authority. Those who claim Israel never released control over Gaza because of the naval blockade claiming that Gaza has never been totally free of Israeli influence are misrepresenting the facts. Israel withdrew in August 2005 and there was no blockade or any other Israeli influence imposed after the disengagement. Israel had no naval blockade and had even surrendered their monitoring to the European Union of the Philadelphia Corridor which is the boundary between the Sinai and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Currently the Egyptians are responsible for monitoring the Philadelphia Corridor which is circumvented quite adequately through the existence of an extensive tunnel smuggling system. The Israeli Naval blockade was not implemented until after Hamas took control of Gaza after winning the Palestinian elections in 2006. The Israeli blockade has been ruled legal and justified by the United Nations and is recognized as lawful under the auspices of International Laws. A further sacrifice by Israel was the implementation of the Oslo Accords which allowed the establishment of self-rule for the majority of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority has total economic, security, and civil autonomy over Area A within the areas of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and economic and civil autonomy with shared security control over Area B. Only Area C is under Israeli civil, economic and security control which still allows those Palestinians who reside there to remain in their homes and farming their land and tending their flocks. Area A which is under complete Palestinian Control there are no Jews permitted to tread within its boundaries without Palestinian Authority permission. Somehow this situation has been distorted to represent total Israeli oppression of the Palestinians residing anywhere in Judea and Samaria. There is also a claim that the Israelis do not permit Palestinians to have any basic rights in the Area under Israeli control. This deceit is finally being corrected as politicians who have accepted invitations to inspect the reality in Area C have revealed the truth that Palestinians are working side by side with Israelis in the industrial parks and attending Ariel University right along with Israeli Jews and the two peoples are living side by side in peace and prospering.

 

The last example of Israeli sacrifice is one that goes beyond any of the sacrifices depicted in this article. The Israelis allowed for the Muslim Waqf to continue to manage and take charge of affairs for the Temple Mount. In return for this privilege the Waqf has overseen the destruction of millenniums of artifacts with heavy construction equipment and severe restriction placed on Jews when they are allowed to visit the Temple Mount, the holiest place on Earth for Jews. The most unkind restriction is not being allowed to pray while visiting the Temple Mount. Even appearing to pray is sufficient provocation for the Waqf officials to ban a Jew from being permitted entrance on the Temple Mount. The Waqf passed an edict defining all of the Temple Mount to be part of an all-inclusive Mosque complex defined to be an integral part of the al-Aksa Mosque. One may wonder if this definition includes the Christian Churches and other structures as well as the ancient Synagogue’s remains at the periphery of the Temple Mount which was destroyed by the Crusaders in 1099 as Jerusalem was being cleansed of Muslims and Jews.  Still, not simply exercising control over the Temple Mount and allowing for continued Islamic jurisdiction over the entirety of these holy grounds is very probably the most significant sacrifice made by Israel, especially as this sacrifice was made in the name of Jews everywhere.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

President Obama and the United States Constitution

President Obama has made his disdain for the United States Constitution well known. He complained before his first term as United States President in an interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM in 2001 that the United States “Constitution is a charter of negative liberties” and not of positive liberties. He further explained that the Constitution “says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” Keep in mind that this interpretation comes from a man who as a Professor taught courses in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, so he presumably knew what he was talking about and understood the reasons the Constitution was crafted in the manner of limiting government. Apparently Professor Obama, and we can assume President Obama, vehemently disagree with the founding fathers and their vision of limited government allowing for maximum freedoms and liberties for the people. So, perhaps we should look into the consequences of President Obama’s view of positive liberties against the founder’s ideals of negative liberties, or more accurately compare President Obama’s view of empowering government against the founder’s ideas of empowering the people.

First we will summarize the philosophies behind the founding fathers Constitutional limitations on government and how that impacts the people. The founders were strong believers in the ability of man’s capability for self-rule without having to rely on having to be ruled by their supposed betters. They were also mostly strongly religious and this enhanced their view as mankind as a noble being different from the animals and having a divine spark, a divine spirit. They believed that the Creator gave man life and with life certain rights which could not be denied by government or other men if society was to be free and have maximum liberty. As such they placed mankind above government and judged government as being a necessary evil which was best when kept as powerless as possible. Government was to only be permitted to wield those powers requested and permitted by the people. Even then, the layers of government were to have limited power by making each layer removed from the people dependent on the next closer level for its powers. Thus the people requested and allowed a set of powers to be transferred to government at the most local level which then assumed these powers and would also be tasked with adjudicating differences between contesting individuals. This local level of government would in turn permit some of these powers which were beyond their capabilities to be granted to the next level of government along with the adjudication of differences between any competing local governments. This level of the government then passed along those powers beyond their scope to the next level which also adjudicated any contentions of the lower governments. This continued until the least amount of power would be vested in the Federal Government which also adjudicated between the State Governments. Any adjudication could potentially have a judgment appealed to the next higher authority until reaching the final level of adjudications, the Supreme Court. The founders believed that all power comes from the Creator and the most powerful entity was the individual. This also implied that the individual along with the most freedoms and liberties also carried the most responsibilities. Thus, the higher up the government tree one climbs, the lesser powers relegated to each governmental level until reaching the Federal Government which would have the least power and the greatest restrictions on its powers and responsibilities of adjudication. Thus, under the United States Constitution the people are to be vested with maximum powers being permitted all responsibilities, abilities, powers and decisions with the minimal exception as listed within the Constitution. The best description was probably framed within the Bill of Rights, more specifically the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

President Obama does not believe that the government should be limited in its powers but instead believes that the government should dole out limited powers, responsibilities and options to the people while retaining maximum control at the highest levels. President Obama believes that the Constitution should empower government and dictate what it is that the government is required to perform for the people. This results in the government deciding what rights it is willing to remit to the people and what privileges it will grant to the people. As a result, the people only receive the privileges which the government determines they may be allowed and any power thus vested with the people may also be taken back by the government at their slightest whim. In President Obama’s world, the people are only granted the rights and responsibilities which the government determines or believes they are capable of while the remainder of power is retained by the government. Furthermore, the Federal Government also determines what responsibilities and powers the States are permitted who in turn decide the same for local government with the final determination of what the people are allowed granted at the local level. Since government passes down the powers, rights, responsibilities and all functions in life with strict limitations retaining the bulk of available oversights and control with itself at every level, the people are basically power starved.

The difference between the United States Constitution and President Obama’s ideas of governance are stark and somewhat counter-intuitive. When President Obama speaks about his disdain for the limitations of the constitution, he speaks that he believes that people would have more power if instead of limiting government the constitution should insist that government perform expressed function for the people. Despite intuition might have one believing that if government is commanded to provide enumerated functions for the people that the people will have more privileges and rights, the United States Constitution actually grants the people far greater flexibility, rights, powers, liberties, and responsibilities. Where President Obama’s idea of government permitting certain services to the people as demanded does allow for the people not to have to assume many, if any, responsibilities as that remains with the government as they are granting items while retaining the real control. With the Constitution written by the founding fathers begins by leaving all responsibilities with the people and as such also gives all powers, freedoms, liberties, and abilities also with the people and the people decide that which they will permit the government to possess. So, if you desire to be responsible for your own actions and taking care of your own needs and expressing yourself however you please while standing by your words, then the United States Constitution was designed for such as you. But if you wish to have all decisions and consequences taken care of by a greater power that gives you that which it decides is in your best interest and requires minimal responsibilities or efforts from you, then you would love President Obama’s world of unlimited government granting you, the people, what is best for you, well, actually granting you what is best for government.

Beyond the Cusp

Do You Love Big Brother Yet?

If you are among those who do not believe that the Federal Government has not achieved the equivalence of the Big Brother qualities from George Orwell’s book “1984”, then you probably disagree with Tea Party conservatives, not that that is necessarily wrong. It is very likely that most Tea Party chapters would probably disinvite me from their membership within a year if I were to join one of their chapters. That aside, the scandals currently demanding front page top of the fold coverage really does resemble themes from 1984 with a small flavoring of Aldous Huxley’s book “Brave New World” included. Exhibit one is the new National Security Agency (NSA) data storage complex that recently held its official ribbon cutting and was proclaimed open for business. Of course for the NSA’s meaning of open for business means that all your information is allowed in but can never leave while you may not get in or even approach the complex. This data storage complex is claimed to be capable of storing every email, instant message, Facebook post, Twitter message, phone call (cell or landline), search engine returns on your searches,  and all other electronic communication everywhere in the world in real time for the next century and beyond. Do you remember in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there were people whispering in hushed tones of the conspiracy that was listening in on everybody’s phone calls and later on monitoring all Internet traffic named Echelon? Well, that turned out to be valid paranoia as Echelon actually did exist but became obsolete before the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, thus the Echelon replacement that has probably been on line for the past couple of years even if it was just completed. There is no reason that the front end could not have been being fed all of our data while the back two-thirds were being installed. Presumably, this new Echelon on steroids complex is not only capable of monitoring and recording every electronic communication across the globe, it can theoretically even monitor your every keystroke as long as your computer is connected to the Internet including the backspace key, so they will know what you send in a message and what you rethought and deleted.

 

As this is discussed and everybody gets to add their two cents worth and the rumors and suspicions expand to the point that paranoia seems to have taken hold of everybody’s imagination, we still may not be capable of uncovering all the myriad of abilities these monitor gathering systems will actually possess. I remember the early days when the rumors of Echelon were the buzz of the conspiracy minded and it was otherwise being debunked as all in the imagination of a paranoid few. Within the decade we found out that the paranoid few were actually the well informed. So, taking that into consideration, I might tend to give credence to much of the most extraordinary theories that I hear. Why not as it can only serve to give me reason to be as careful as I can in sharing. Of course blogging is not exactly the best way to keep your head down, but at least I will not be owning the newest game systems with the camera and on-line links. Between monitoring computers and phones, using cell phones and anti-jacking car systems as GPS locators to track our movements, anything with a camera or microphone to monitor video and listen to our conversations, drilling our children through psychological testing, smart meters and appliances, networked cameras with face recognition software everywhere in public, along with whatever else their tiny little minds can invent to follow, monitor, categorize, analyze, and eventually predict future actions, why get all worked up as the Government will do what Government will do and there is little we can do to prevent them. I would rather know what they are doing than have them do everything serendipitously. Do I approve or like the idea of being under the proverbial microscope? Not really but then I have adjusted to such as after attaining ballot access for the United States House of Representatives, I have very likely been on a watch list for quite some time. Truth be told, major companies have been collecting as much information as they could in order to predict purchasing habits. I realize that this data mining by the Government is far more nefarious and invasive than most would like and it would serve them best to support candidates who will actually curb and rein in the levels of invasive monitoring without a warrant.

 

The real debate concerns exactly where will the Government go with this high level of data being available? If it were just the Government it would be one thing but it is so much more. All the way back in the good old days of the Presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower (the 1950s) the President made a speech with an ominous warning that we are now finding out was quite prescient. President Eisenhower warned that the people needed to be wary of the “Military Industrial Complex” by which he meant the large companies and the Federal Government as well as State and Local Governments. President Eisenhower foresaw a future where a group of too big to refrain companies teamed with the Government in order to apply undue pressure and influence over the public and affect their lives adversely. President Eisenhower feared a future where the Government in partnership with major corporations would have such an ability to control and influence society with such an iron fist that nobody would be beyond their controlling influence and nothing would be private from the snooping and controlling interests and invasions of this out of control behemoth. The one question we all likely have foremost in our minds is, “When will we know for certain that this has gone too far?” One sign might be the availability of a channel where they have a continuous program depicting an evil entity that has been identified as public enemy number 1 and it is advisable that when things are going poorly in your life you should tune to this special channel and yell at public enemy until you feel relieved. OK, so that might be too odd even for government. Well, how about if you begin to notice at most Starbucks there are middle age and older men and women dressed in heavy clothing regardless of the weather and season sitting there endlessly nursing a mocha java mumbling something, almost a whisper. If you get too curious and stand close to one of these poor souls you can hear them repeating slowly, painfully, endlessly, “I love Big Brother.” When these people begin to appear it is too late to worry, it is even too late to run, just join them now and maybe the government will leave you alone.

 

Beyond the Cusp