Reply to Lady Catherine Ashton and Those of Like Minds

European Union Foreign Minister Lady Catherine Ashton proclaimed regarding Israeli moves to grant full legal status to three communities founded within Judea and Samaria, “I am extremely concerned about the decision of the Israeli authorities regarding the status of the settlements of Sansana, Rechelim and Bruchin in the occupied Palestinian territory. I call upon them to reverse this decision. The EU has repeatedly called on Israel to end all settlement activity. Settlements are illegal under International Law, an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution.” She further complained that such actions went against the wishes of the Quartet and their mission as peace builders and “expressed concern about unilateral and provocative actions, including continued settlement activity.”

The United States State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland speaking to reporters basically echoed Lady Ashton’s rebuke of the Israeli actions stating, “We are, obviously, concerned by the reports that we’ve seen. We have raised this with the Israeli Government and we are seeking clarification. You know where we are on settlements. We don’t think this is helpful to the (peace) process and we don’t accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity.” Unsurprisingly, France and Jordan condemned the Israeli decision as did United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon whose office released the following statement, “The Secretary-General is disappointed that such a decision comes at a time of renewed efforts to restart dialogue,” Rounding out the top tier of the regular condemning of Israel is Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee member and lead negotiator Saeb Erekat who said that the Palestinian Authority may ask the United Nations Security Council for a condemnation of Israel’s move. None of these statements or positions came as even the slightest of surprises as these are the same people and groups which would decry if a Jew were to add a deck to the back of their house or remodeled their kitchen with new appliances.

I would like to take a moment to address those who are almost constantly demanding that Israel take self-destructive and injurious actions in order to prove their desire for a real peace yet do not even request the Palestinians come to the negotiation table. I would like to answer their claims that Israel has not made sufficient quantity or quality of sacrifices to satisfy the Arabs or the rest of the World. I would like to clarify the lies that are presented as fact in reference to the Israeli obligation to reestablish a Palestinian State for the Palestinian refugees who deserve to have their state returned to them. So let us start and try taking these items one at a time.

Starting with the last item, namely that it is an Israeli obligation to reestablish a Palestinian State for the Palestinian refugees who deserve to have their state returned to them. No matter what actions Israel could implement, they would never be able to reestablish a Palestinian State. A Palestinian State has either never before existed or was established when the British founded Transjordan which continues to exist today as the country of Jordan. Either way a Palestinian state cannot be reestablished as either the one which was established continues to exist thus is not in need of being reestablished or one never has existed thus cannot be reestablished. The main reason behind those professing the need for Israel to reestablish a Palestinian State where one has never existed is to establish a falsity of a preexisting Palestinian State in the minds of the world public thus allowing the inference that Israel had conquered the State of Palestine some time in their manufactured history thereby supplying the call for the return of their stolen land for a country named Palestine to be somehow accurate. This call and insistence that there once was a Palestinian State which was destroyed by Israel in 1948 and then again in 1967 is a bald faced deceit being plied in order to lead to the destruction of Israel in stages, the stated plan of the PLO and Hamas as well as the other myriad of terror groups gathered against the Jewish State and Jews worldwide. Pushing this deception is simply an attempt to destroy the Jewish people starting by destroying Israel as the first step towards completing a genocide which has been ongoing throughout much of human history. This has nothing to do with a Palestinian State as much as it has to do with the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

Concerning the proposal that Israel has not made sufficient quantity or quality of sacrifices to satisfy the Arabs or the rest of the World, let us first list the sacrifices made by Israel and the Jewish People since 1900 to the present. The initial lands set aside in trust by the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Charter, the Peel Commission, the Versailles Treaty, and numerous other documents and treaties included all the lands from the Mediterranean Sea to the western edge of Iraq. These lands included all of what today is Israel, Gaza, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), and Jordan. These lands which were the British Mandate were in truth mandated to become the state for the Jews which Britain was tasked with facilitating the immigration of Jews from wherever they resided in the World in a voluntary manner through enticement and being under the protection of the British Empire until such time as the Jewish population grew to become the dominant peoples when a Jewish State was to then be established. The inks had barely dried on many of the documents and treaties validating this obligation when the British decided, to quiet Arab rioting and disruptions reward the recently exiled Hashemite family who had aided Britain against the Ottoman Empire during World War I with the country of Transjordan. The British made a promise at this juncture that all of the remaining twenty-two percent of the British Mandate lands would be reserved for the Jewish State. That remaining lands was all of the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. So, the Jewish People already surrendered under force of the British Empire all the British Mandate lands east of the Jordan River to the western edge of Iraq. This included seventy-eight percent of the lands which were theoretically held in trust for the Jewish State. This was only the initial surrender of land which was legally reserved or belonging to the Jewish State, now for the rest.

When the United Nations General Assembly suggested in November of 1947 that the Jews allow for another Arab State to be given as an Arab State and the Jews settle for only half of the remaining lands promised with two-thirds of the land given for the Jewish State being the Negev Desert and much of the remaining land being a small strip along parts of the coast near Tel Aviv and the northern mountains of Samaria while the Arabs were to receive the fertile valleys of the central lands and half of the shore line of the Mediterranean. The Jewish authorities were willing to accept this suggestion but the Arab powers declined this deal and declared a war of total annihilation against the nascent Jewish State as soon as it was declared in May of 1948. When the Arab war failed to destroy the Jewish State a peace was signed establishing the Green Line as a temporary armistice line that, at the insistence of the Arab powers, was demanded to never be considered or used to imply or be in actuality as a border. The reason around this was the Arab countries were determined not to recognize the Jewish State thus Israel could not be allowed to have recognized borders. The theory was that should they succeed in denying a universally recognized border it would be easier to challenge and destroy Israel in the future. After the peace was established, Israel’s neighboring countries returned to their terror style guerrilla warfare which had been being waged against the Jews of the area since the early 1920s if not earlier. At this time and over the next decade numerous Arab countries expelled their Jewish citizens often confiscating their property, jewelry, savings, businesses, and anything of value allowing them a suitcase or two which were to only contain clothing.

When Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal and barred all shipping from using the waterway the British and the French requested Israel to ally with them to reopen this vital waterway. When time ran out on the demand and the Egyptian President refused to concede to the demands from Britain and France, Israel fulfilled their part in the agreement while Britain and France moved to deploy troops and while Israel was taking the entire Sinai Peninsula the Egyptians relented and reopened the Suez Canal. The closing of the Suez Canal was the equivalent of an act of war which would have allowed Israel to retain the land gained but Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula almost immediately upon the request of the other World Powers, especially President Eisenhower who lead the demands upon Israel. When in 1967 the Egyptians closed off the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, they were breaking International Law and treaties thus committing an act of war. Egypt and Syria had both massed troops on Israel’s northern and southern borders while threatening to annihilate the Jewish state. By the end of the Six Day War and after Jordan joined the fight beside Egypt and Syria; Israel had once again taken the Sinai Peninsula as well as Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and the Golan Heights. According to International Laws it would be permissible for Israel to annex the lands gained in a defensive conflict. Despite being legally entitled to incorporate the acquired lands, Israel offered to return all the areas lost by each country during the conflict in exchange for peace and a treaty. Despite the three no’s of the Khartoum Declaration; no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel; Israel offered to return both the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza to Egypt and Judea and Samaria to Jordan when each made their peace with Israel. Egypt accepted the return of the Sinai Peninsula while rejecting the Gaza Strip and Jordan refused to reestablish their influence over Judea or Samaria releasing their claims ceding the lands to Israel. So, Israel gave back the Sinai Peninsula which is many times the size of Israel itself. Do not pretend that Israel has not sacrificed any areas of land in order to make peace with their Arab neighbors. Israel has returned the Sinai Peninsula twice even though anybody interpreting International Laws honestly and seriously would be forced to grant that subsequent to the Six Day War Israel had a legal right to retain possession of the Sinai Peninsula but chose to return the area as a gesture of good faith. Israel already offered to return the Gaza Strip and the West Bank but the Arab nations in negotiations relented any claim to these lands which means they were ceded to Israel, period. Even if Israel retains these lands lost to her in a war she was forced to fight in self-defense, Israel is under absolutely no obligation to grant citizenship to those people living in these areas, especially in the West Bank as they had been granted Jordanian citizenship thus are free to return to their countries of origin, Jordan and Egypt.

In regard to the first concept that Israel must take self-destructive and injurious actions in order to prove their desire for a real peace, this demand is about as disingenuous as it gets. A quick reading of the United Nations declarations, almost all of which are nonbinding, will reveal they all refer to the establishing of boundaries which allow for a secure and defensible border securing Israel’s determined requirements. Technically, this determination could allow Israel to declare that the Jordan River is necessary to assure a defensible border as a maximum claim but minimally the first ridge of the Judean and Samarian ridge are the absolute minimal requirement to protect Israel and her citizens from coming under direct sniper fire as well as placing spotters on these ridges overseeing all of the plains to the sea who could adjust artillery and other indirect weapons fire. The Green Line, the armistice line which the Arabs insisted should never be used to designate a border is also indefensible which leaves Israel so vulnerable to attack cutting the country in halves that they truly are suicidal borders. Before the Six Day War there were documented reports of sniper fire from the Golan Heights from Syrian snipers and Muslim snipers also shot at Jews who happened to come within their line of sight from their vantage points in East Jerusalem. The numbers of infiltrations by suicide bombers and terrorist teams to attack Israelis were near impossible to prevent before the Six Day War but have been successfully curtailed significantly since the building of the anti-terror fence. So, at a minimum Israel would need to retain at least the lands west of the fence and also need to retain at least a military presence along the Jordan Valley and western shore of the Jordan River. Demanding any less shows a complete disregard for the people of Israel and likely reveals an antagonism towards the Jewish State that can only be interpreted as a modern day anti-Semitism, nothing less.

All of the people who make endless and repetitious demands that Israel surrender this or give back this or establish another Arab state or release terrorists from detention and never make a single demand of the Arab side of the equation reveal their true aims through their one sided and critical singular attention to Israel while forgiving any behavior by the Arabs and Palestinians. Those who hold Israel to the strictest of standards while ignoring similar and worse actions by the rest of the world reveal their true colors through such specialization of their convictions. It has gone beyond rhyme and reason how much of the world demand of Israel total and complete capitulation to the Palestinians while asking the Palestinians if there is anything else they would like them to press Israel to surrender. Between much of the European ruling class, the world leaders controlling the United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations related Agencies and NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) and the Islamic apologizers, the demands upon Israel are slowly evolving into an endless list of suicidal demands with no coexistent requests made of the Palestinians and have relinquished their rights to claim the title of peace-makers. They are plain and simple agents for the Palestinians against the safety or even the continued existence of Israel. My suggestion is simple, just pose the simplest of requests of the Palestinians, ask that they recognize that Israel has the right to exist as the Jewish State. Once you get the Palestinians to agree that the Jews have any right to self-determination, then we will talk of what Israel needs to do to make peace. I bet you will claim that I ask the unreasonable and impossible. If what I ask is impossible, then what can we make of your request for Israel’s destruction through the cuts of a thousand concessions?

Beyond the Cusp

Mahmoud Abbas and the Great Lies Told

Starting yesterday meetings sponsored by King Hussein of Jordan in Amman were to be held for a couple days between Israeli and Palestinian representatives in an effort to restart negotiations, preferably official direct negotiations, between the Israelis and the Palestinian authority in time to meet the January 26 deadline for meeting the Quartet’s schedule for initial filings of proposals. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had quite a bit to say about his expectations and hopes for both the meetings and the potential negotiations. We will first quote his words and then try to discern exactly what they both meant and implied.

Abbas told reporters, “Allah willing, results of this meeting will be revealed in the coming two days, and based on that we will set the suitable grounds for resuming negotiations. This would be positive, and we hope Jordan will succeed. The Palestinian demand is well-known, which is for the Israelis to accept the identified references for the peace process, and to stop settlement expansion. If that happens, we will be ready to resume negotiations.”

Where Mahmoud Abbas has made a statement that on the surface sounds extremely hopeful and straightforward, there is a large elephant of a problem hidden within the innocent reference of, “The Palestinian demand is well-known, which is for the Israelis to accept the identified references for the peace process,…” This little aside hidden just past halfway through Mahmoud Abbas’s statement could pass by most readings without gaining much attention, especially in how he follows it up with a misleading reference as if it is the only demand he has made of Israel when he added, “…and to stop settlement expansion.” As is often the case, the Devil is in the details and, as usual, it is in the unspoken details. So, what exactly is Mahmoud Abbas making reference to when he demands, “…accept the identified references…”

As Mahmoud Abbas further stated, “the identified references” only start with his referred statement, “stop settlement expansion.” There are other unspoken and implied demands which have been mentioned in numerous different combinations and order, always feeling out how far the Palestinian Authority spokespeople can state safely without appearing to have unreasonable demands. Obviously, these demands are far more freely stated when speaking to friendly crowds in Arabic than is ever stated publically in English or Hebrew. For complete lists one often will need to reference those organizations such as MEMRI and PMW which translate much of that spoken, written, and telecast on radio or television in Arabic (or Farsi or other foreign languages) to Arab or Muslim crowds and audiences.

So, what exactly are the real demands that Mahmoud Abbas demands that the Israeli government grant the Palestinians in order for negotiations to begin? There is, of course, the stated demand that all Israeli building in the Settlement areas be suspended completely until a resolution of negotiations no matter how long that takes. Building in Jerusalem and its suburbs are included in the building ban including areas around the Western Wall, the Old City including the Jewish Sector and the rebuilding of any Synagogues which had been destroyed during the Jordanian occupation. Mahmoud Abbas also has stated he intends for the building ban to include all of the suburbs of Jerusalem even if they are parts which even the Palestinians have previously agreed were going to remain as a part of Israel. There is a demand for the release of every Palestinian prisoner held in Israeli custody. Another demand has been the complete removal of all IDF, Police, Border Guards and other enforcement personnel from all of the “occupied” (contested) lands. Israel will be required to accept the “1967 borders” (1949 temporary Armistice Lines which the Arab negotiators insisted were never to be construed as borders in any manner for all time as doing so would be a recognition of Israel) as the initial start for negotiating borders and should the Palestinians refuse to grant any land swaps, these would be the final boundary lines between the Palestinian State and Israel. Adding to this, the Palestinians have already stated they demand they retain all of the Old City of Jerusalem, the entire Temple Mount, the Western Wall and the plaza adjacent to the Western wall where they have plans to build houses and shops. There is also their long running demand that absolutely no Jew will be allowed to reside, work, visit or in any way be allowed upon any piece of sovereign Palestinian Lands. This demand would leave Kever Yosef (Joseph’s Tomb), the Machpelah (Cave of the Patriarchs), Kever Rachel (Rachel’s Tomb), and near countless other Jewish Holy Sites completely outside of the reach of any Jew no matter if they are Israeli or from another country. The Palestinians have already begun to implement their plan to have every Jewish Holy Site be recognized as a Muslim Holy Site through their newly won membership in UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and thereby remove any legitimacy of Jewish requests for access to these sites. There are a number of other demands, some of which have only been mentioned in speeches made during meetings of the Palestinian Parliament or in speeches given to local Arab audiences, some of which can be researched through some of the monitoring organizations such as the two mentioned earlier. Saving the best demand for last, even better than making every Jewish holy site Muslim and denying their Jewish historical evidence, there is the “Right of Return” which is a demand to allow anybody who can trace any ancestry to qualify as a Palestinian as per the rules of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), which is a separate United Nations entity solely for Palestinian refugees and completely separate from UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) so as to allow for a completely separate set of rules to be implemented in order to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee situation into a massive and constantly spreading open wound that the Muslim and Arab societies could use to assault Israel and be ready to inundate Israel once the world is convinced to agree that all the UNRWA refugees are to be allowed to return to live inside Israel, even if they had never been in or even seen Israel in their entire life. When taken objectively, the Palestinian demands as preconditions for negotiations is nothing more and nothing less than a complete set of demands that Israel capitulate on every single contention before negotiations begin to resolve these same issues. Should Israel agree to these demands in full which Mahmoud Abbas has referred to consistently for close to ten years now, adding items whenever anybody accidently or intentionally mentions a new demand on Israel such as the building freeze and the acceptance of the 1967 Lines which originated from the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who made these demands of Prime Minister Netanyahu early in President Obama’s first two years in office when he was acting seemingly with the premise that Israeli intransience was responsible for the lack of a Middle East peace, Israel would cease to exist.

The only good that can be taken from the litany of demands from the Palestinians is that no matter how many more items are added, they will not get any more self-destructive for Israel in their considerations of them. The current set would be the death of Israel as a homeland for the Jews. The one thing that is often added by Mahmoud Abbas and his cohorts from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and many others throughout the world, not just the Muslim world but the world, is that even if peace is finally attained, the Palestinians have promised and demanded of themselves that even then they cannot and will not give up on their resistance until they free all of Palestine from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. With that addendum being attached to any peace treaty, why would anybody ever even consider negotiations, yet the Israelis still hold out hope that there can be negotiations held without preconditions. Abbas has answered them by claiming that he has not made preconditions, these are just small matters required to be met before negotiations can begin without preconditions. Such a deal!

Beyond the Cusp

Arguments For and Against American Troops Protecting Israel

Lately Israel has been the target of even more contentious arguments and disagreements than the excessively high level it normally occupies. Much of this stemmed from the Occupy Movement where Israel and Jews were brought forward as agents who were working against the general population and controlling much of the media, Wall Street, banks, businesses in general, much of the machinations of governments throughout the world, and the foreign policies of the most Western countries and the United States in particular. The rest has come out of the Republican Presidential Debates where it has been argued that Israel and those who support her have held an inordinate amount of sway over government policies, especially when the question is foreign aid to Israel and military support for Israel. Somewhere in the blizzard of new items concerning Israel, somebody put forth the idea that it would be a serious mistake and should never even be considered to send American soldiers to protect Israel. This is important now due to the distinct possibility that they may be involved in a war with Iran or any of the surrounding nations, all of which appear to be growing even more threatening towards Israel, as the continuing Arab nightmare vaults Islamist interests into positions of leadership in these countries. With this item getting some degree of discussion, perhaps the use of American troops in the defense of Israel past, present and future should be discussed and clarified.

We should initially look at the past in order to quantify the place the United States has held in Israeli history. Initially, President Harry Truman ignored the vast majority of his advisors, especially those from the State Department, when he instructed the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Robinson Austin to vote favorably for United Nations Resolution 181 which would lead to the founding of the State of Israel. President Truman went the extra mile by recognizing the nascent Jewish State, Israel, immediately after David ben Gurion declared statehood. During the two years of war that ensued immediately after the declaration of Israeli statehood by numerous Arab countries including Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, the United States continued to enforce their arms embargo on Israel. Israel depended mostly upon France and Jews world-wide who smuggled arms and supplies to Israel, including some Americans. When Israel allied with France and Britain to free the Suez Canal after Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized the waterway stating intent to deny the use of this vital route to Asia for non-Muslim European countries, President Dwight David Eisenhower not only continued the arms embargo on Israel, but also insisted that Israel immediately return the entirety of lands taken in their part of this military confrontation. This demand was made despite the fact that the closing of the Suez Canal from use by any country was considered to be a Casus belli for war by international laws, treaties and agreements. This had technically made the Israeli actions to be committed in a defensive act and not as an instigation of war, thus Israel easily could have claimed to retain the lands in question as the international rules of war at that time.

It was not until after the 1967 Six Day War that the United States altered their relationship with Israel. During the Six Day War the United States was still enforcing that very same arms embargo and Israel was critically dependent on France, Germany, and to some extent, England, for their weapons and resupplies. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was fully involved in managing the United States actions in Viet Nam and thus mostly ignored the conflict instigated by Egypt and Syria against Israel. Despite Jordan entering the war in response to requests and promises of sharing the spoils of victory extended by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Israel managed to defeat the combined armies of these three countries in six days and had taken control over the Golan Heights from Syria; Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt; and Judea, Samaria, and Benyamin (aka West Bank) from Jordan. Impressed, perhaps even amazed, with the seeming ease with which Israel defeated its combined enemies in the six Day War, President Lyndon Baines Johnson made a tactical decision which was the beginning of the Israeli American close ties and military cooperation. Despite the new definition of Israel as a close and vital ally, when Israel was caught flatfooted by Egypt and Syria in 1973 and the onset of the Yam Kippur War, President Richard Milhouse Nixon, under advice from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger designed to make Israel feel vulnerable making future pressures more potent, delayed resupplying Israel with the munitions and other weapon systems to replace the rapidly depleted Israeli inventory until the situation became harmfully critical. Since then, most of the military aid given by the United States to Israel has been made with the proviso that Israel spend the vast majority on systems and armaments manufactured by the United States and that should Israel make modifications to such systems that the plans be made available to the United States if so desired by the United States.

Throughout all the conflicts between Israel and her enemies there has been one vital truth that needs mention, namely that never has Israel requested or expected the United States to supply troops to fight alongside the IDF in any capacity. Truth be told, Israel has actually insisted that American troops never be used and have stated they would refuse any offer by the United States to send soldiers to assist Israel in any conflict. The IDF in all its capabilities has, on occasion, trained in joint training exercises. These training exercises have been held in the United States, Israel, and other allied countries of the United States. In the spirit of complete honesty, yes, there have been soldiers from the United States military who have fought as part of the IDF in the past. Every case of such has not been done as assignments of the military commanders of the United States. In every case the people in question have either been retired from the military of the United States, taken a leave in order to assist Israel (usually having to deny that their leave was taken to facilitate their joining in the IDF defense of Israel and such denials have been blindly accepted in every case I am familiar with), or resigned from their service in the militaries of the United States to join the IDF. The most famous of these people was Colonel David Daniel “Mickey” Marcus who served in the IDF during the 1948 Israeli War for Independence. Colonel Marcus became the first Commanding General of the IDF and died in a friendly fire incident as he approached a sentry at night and was shot suspicious that he may have been attempting to infiltrate the IDF positions. The sentry spoke no English and Colonel Marcus spoke no Hebrew which was the root of the misidentification. His story is the theme of the 1966 movie “Cast a Giant Shadow”.

Currently, there exists a squad of American troops in Israel at the insistence of the United States. These troops are manning a highly advanced X-band radar system, also known as an AN/TPY2, which is a powerful phased array radar that is designed to track ballistic missiles through space and provide ground-based missiles with the targeting data needed to intercept them. The United States refused to allow the Israelis to operate the system as it is considered to be a highly secret system which the United States did not wish to allow the Israelis to have access which may lead to their reverse engineering of this advanced and highly technical system. Israel was, obviously, ready, willing, and claimed able to operate this radar system but the United States insisted that the IDF not have access to the unit and provided American personnel to man the radar. These radar operators are not to be used for any combat mission beyond caring and operating the X-band radar system.

The fact is that Israel has not only never requested that the United States or any other country send their soldiers to assist Israel in any manner for her defense. Israel has demanded that nobody who is not an Israeli be made to fight for Israel and that she will fight her own battles. Yes, Israel will ask for aid in the supply and arming of the IDF and has made urgent pleas a small number of times when the Israeli logistics was found to be lacking the necessary depth necessary to meet the resupply demands during times of conflict. The reason for such need becomes evident when one remembers that Israel is barely larger than the state of New Jersey yet has been forced to fight wars on a far larger scale. This is necessitated as Israel exists surrounded by existential enemies sworn to the destruction of the Jewish State and the whole-scale slaughter of her Jewish citizens should they ever lose just one conflict. The fact that Israel has not asked for and has honestly and forcefully refused to accept having soldiers from other countries assist in defending against whatever the odds or the size and scope of the forces which have unified intending their wholesale slaughter is beyond belief, but it is the truth and will always remain truth. Whenever anybody claims that the United States must never send American troops into harm’s way in the defense of Israel, know that they are constructing a strawman argument and are knowingly lying in order to grandstand at Israel’s expense. They are offering their insistence of not getting involved in an Israeli war simply to play on people’s fear of sending our troops into such danger despite the fact such a situation will never ever come to fruition. Those making such arguments need to be outed for the use of a lie that borders on being a blood libel against Israel by implying that there exists an Israeli expectation for others to fight their battles for them. Such has never been and will never be the case. Where Israel may ask for assistance, it would be limited to addressing the situation which presented a threat to more than merely Israel. Such a case is the Iranian nuclear weapons program. But there are those who believe, or at least will claim, that the Iranian nuclear bomb would solely be a threat to Israel and that Iran has no other targets in mind. That is why Iran is working so diligently to produce missiles that are able to carry a warhead to any point on the globe and not limiting their designs on being able to target only Israel.

Beyond the Cusp