Beyond the Cusp

August 23, 2016

Philippine President Duterte Against the World

 

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took office on June 30, 2016, elected partially on his promise to bring an end to the drug trade which was destroying his nation and the people’s nation. He has gone directly to work on this promise but now is facing threats from the United Nations as well as the United States State Department. Just yesterday we were giving the United States Department of State credit and now we face the great let down as they join the United Nations Human Rights experts all of whom are denigrating the efforts of President Duterte in freeing his people from the ravages of the illegal drug trade. His efforts to clean the Philippines of this scourge has run into a difficulty which the United Nations Human Rights experts and United States Department of State as they protest the deaths of five-hundred drug suspects have who have been killed in gun battles with police. If this number shocks you, then we might ask a simple question. What part of the statement distresses one? Is it the fact that gun battles have broken out between suspected drug criminals? Is it that these suspected drug traffickers were killed extra-judicially without being found guilty by a trial in a court of law? Was it the number of drug suspects killed is so high at five-hundred? Was it something we may have missed in our quick summary? Perhaps we should slow down in the rush to judgement and place this number into perspective of the accomplishments Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in his eight weeks in office first and then discuss these introduction statements in context.

 

Yes, five-hundred were killed in gun battles in eight weeks, a total of nine suspected drug criminals each day. We agree that such is a bit shocking but what is even more shocking are the success numbers of efforts thus far which place all in sharp contrast. Thus far over four-thousand-four-hundred drug suspects have been arrested and are awaiting trial. That is a large number of arrests and that is not even the slightest bit of the success. Between those arrested and those who chose to resist arrest and died in violent gun battles approach five-thousand drug suspects out of action, that is nothing compared to this final statistic. There have been an astonishing almost six-hundred-thousand drug suspects and related operatives who have turned themselves over to authorities simply surrendering. This astounding and likely unexpected success has resulted in overcrowding in Philippine jails which were never expected to hold such numbers. We believe that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will find some alternative by which these suspects will be housed at military bases or other emergency facilities and many will likely be processed, then charged, followed by some very reasonable bails being set and the least offenders freed on their own recognizance and told they will be notified of their court date which they will be expected to present themselves or face additional and likely more serious charges of disobeying the courts. Meanwhile, after taking in the scope of the problem, is there any doubt that those who decided their odds were better in a shoot-out than a trial were actually the most guilty and the highest ranking drug lords and their security forces, the central core of what was obviously an enormous problem in the Philippines which President Duterte has delivered on a dangerous and difficult promise and done so spectacularly.

 

The one important and further ramification of the United Nations and United States State Department charges of human rights abuses and extra-judicial executions prompting threats to charge President Duterte with crimes against humanity and potentially genocidal practices are as ridiculous and they are familiar to us here. President Duterte had gone after and looking like having cleaned-up some dangerous and hard-core criminal enterprises which likely were costing the Philippine population numerous lives and making for a society where lawlessness was posing a threat and difficulty for those desiring to live in peace and security. Such a drug problem had to result in challenges to the authority of the government and pose serious threats to the Philippine citizens, especially those trying to be law abiding. Further, such a criminal enterprise must have been a huge drain on the economy and further made life difficult for the average law abiding citizens with lives threatened by such lawlessness in a similar manner as faced in Israel from terrorism and President Duterte and his government was threatened with the exact same threats as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli governance is threatened with as Israel fights terrorism. Even spookier was that the charges emanated from the United Nations human rights experts and the United States Department of State, the identical entities which make Israelis fighting terrorism appear to be a criminal enterprise against innocent terrorists just as the Philippine fight was criminalized as they brought innocent drug lords to justice.

 

The difference was the reaction from the Philippine President when compared to the passive and almost acquiescing apologetic Israeli reactions. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took on his detractors from the United States and United Nations head-on and bluntly called them out. He challenged the United States on their fatal and very public shootings of black men in the recent past challenging to know how what he was doing was any different than these shootings by the police in the cities of the United States. He also brought up the viral picture of the five-year-old Syrian boy, Omran Daqneesh, which has gone viral online (see montage below). He stressed the lack of any progress and the lack of evidence that the people of Syria were being relieved of the heavy toll from the civil conflicts encompassing every corner and area of Syria where numerous disparate groups are warring each against the others with there being at least four distinct groups, Russia, Bashar Assad, Hezballah, Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, Sunni Fighters, Islamic State and the Kurdish Militias for starters plus who knows who else. The big threat was that perhaps the Philippines would be better served separating from the United Nations as their efforts in Syria, Darfur, Libya and formerly in Rwanda, Central African Republic and the myriad of other trouble spots past and present which the United Nations had proved less than effective and in many cases where United Nations troops caused more problems than they relieved including running food for sex scandals in numerous places and their inability to enforce any order and being basically nonfunctional. President Duterte challenged the United Nations threatening to set up a group of nations initially with suggesting China and African nations to form a new international body. Perhaps Israel should assist with the formation of an actual international group of like-minded nations as a replacement for the United Nations though simply making agreements with select nations on a one-by-one nature and forge alliances more directly.

 

Five Year Old Syrian Omran Daqneesh sitting in Ambulance in Aleppo Syria After Being Pulled from Beneath Rubble of Collapsed Building from Bombing Attack

Five Year Old Syrian Omran Daqneesh
sitting in Ambulance in Aleppo Syria
After Being Pulled from Beneath Rubble of
Collapsed Building from Bombing Attack

 

Those who have followed or had direct experience with the United Nations and/or the United States State Department realize how much these sanctimonious organizations have rules of their own and definitions which they adjust to fit their preferred targets. Both organizations would rather target democratic states as their accommodations are often of a higher level of comfort and these targets are far more sensitive and less likely to shoot first and ask questions rarely. These organizations would prefer Israel to Gaza, Syria or most other areas in the Middle East. They would prefer to inspect Egypt from Alexandria or Cairo than the Sinai Peninsula or anywhere in Libya or the Sudan. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf States are preferable to Yemen and almost anywhere is preferable to northern Nigeria where Boko Haram works their horrors. Europe is preferable to anywhere in the Third World.

 

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte

 

Their field inspections are more tailored to five star hotels than actual trouble spots. Their hypocrisy is only out done by their padded expense accounts’ and even that is a close race. They both avoid making accusation about police states such as China, Turkey, Myanmar or Turkey outside the main cities and even those are losing their luster. With the fine beaches and five star resorts in the Philippines and Israel, it is no wonder these two organizations have redundant subgroups all but assigned to giving first class air fare, placing these inspection bodies with reservations along the Tel Aviv beaches or the gorgeous resorts all along the northern Philippine Islands and Manilla. It is difficult to take almost anything either the United Nations or United States State Department accuse certain nation of being guilty of when these adjudications are more attuned to vacation season than actual criminal activities. What a world we reside in and we owe President Duterte a tip of our hats for making such needful accusations against the two grandest fraudulent hypocritical organizations on the planet.

 

Beyond the Cusp 

 

July 19, 2016

Some Ideas Never Die; Such as the Oslo Accords

 

Truly some ideas never die even when they have long passed their use-by-date. The Oslo Accords are one such set of ideas which died the day that President William Jefferson Clinton handed to Yasser Arafat, after beating Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak into complete submission, everything he had demanded and Arafat walked out without a word and started the Second Intifada. It was later revealed that Arafat had planned the Second Intifada as the Palestinian answer to not getting their demands at the Camp David negotiations and still insisted that Israeli resistance to a common peace was the reason for the violence. Over a thousand Israelis were murdered and tens of thousands were injured, many with permanent and severe damage from the bombings with bolts and screws lodged permanently next to their spines, hearts and other organs or jammed into their brains all inoperable due to location. Many lost limbs, an eye or both eyes and other disfigurements. The Second Intifada, on top of Arafat refusing to make peace even after his terms were met, defined the situation and should have been the post mortem for the Oslo Accords. Arafat’s understudy and successor, Mahmoud Abbas, has often made clear to any willing to translate his Arabic speeches that the only peace he will allow Israel is the peace of the grave. As the pro-Palestinian protesters throughout Western countries chant ad-nauseam, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine must be free.” The word ‘free’ in this chant has a double meaning, the obvious that all of Israel is Palestine and secondly that every Jew will have been eradicated as Palestine must be Judenrein. Abbas has flatly stated even in English that should they be forced into accepting a shared state beside Israel, it will simply serve as the launching pad for the remainder of the conquest and eradication of the Zionist Entity. Even his saying Israel is difficult for this man and his band of minions.

 

What is truly sad is not only the number of Western leaders who remain sold on the Oslo two states for two peoples principle; it is the number of Israeli military and intelligence leadership who also are still sold on these lies and deceptions. There never has been any Oslo agreement because the understanding of the two sides were as divergent as possible. Israel saw them as the opportunity for peace and cooperation and the Palestinian leadership, with the support of the Arab world behind them, saw it as taqiyyah, a deceit used against an infidel in order to advance Islamic interests and conquest. The concept of taqiyyah is well established and understood by any first year graduate student in Middle Eastern studies programs; and if not, they should find a different area of study. The problem is that peace is such a universal and central structure in Western thought and philosophies, as are negotiations and dealing honestly and forthrightly, that to believe that things are otherwise is difficult, though possible if one tries and concentrates on exactly what the other side says to their own people. What makes things more difficult is that the liberal leftist media and populations refuse to allow themselves, under any circumstance, to believe that peace might be impossible to attain in any situation. If the left today were faced with the onset of World War II, they would negotiate and negotiate until the free world consisted of some small atoll in the South Pacific surrounded by Japanese and German naval vessels, and they would be negotiating still. There is also the little fact that Israel is seen as the Jew amongst nations and as such has a separate and impossible set of expectations which are made worse by the leftist Jews, such as those who make up J-street and other similar groups, who also apply this absurd demand that Israel sacrifice and sacrifice with no end to how much or how far the sacrifice demanded be, as they are not the ones who will pay the price. Some have even gone so far as to claim, what do the Israelis have to lose in sacrificing for peace as they can always come and live in the United States. This is, in and of itself, an absurd piece of illogic not to mention, history has shown what happens when Jews face death and try to rely on the good graces of the Western nations.

 

We recently read an article on Politico targeting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over his disagreement with the outspoken and mostly retired military and intelligence corps, and how such a disagreement is leading Israel dangerously close to fascism. It was the author’s, and we trust the editors’ as well, that Israelis would be better led by its military and intelligence officers than under their elected leader. The article is titled Netanyahu vs. the Generals and went on and on endlessly stating the same tired logic as if repetition and quoting every last individual supporting the spitefulness against Netanyahu would eventually wear the reader down. The piece might actually be the opening shot across the bow announcing the candidacy of Ehud Barak for Prime Minister. Small hint to those in agreement, should Israelis have a choice between Ehud Barak and virtually any moderate or even extremist right wing politician, Barak would lose convincingly. Where his reputation is not nearly that of Guy Fawkes, the disasters attached to his time as Prime Minister preclude his ever holding that position for as long as Israelis have memories of his atrocious policy choices, of which the hasty and disorganized routing retreat from Lebanon is just the beginning of the highlight reel. For the record neither of us supported Likud and in one case, at least, Bibi Netanyahu was much of the reason why as there are numerous other Likud members who would very easily garner our votes, but that is up to the Likudnics to decide. We realize that changes take time, so time will tell.

 

British Mandate as prescribed division between Arab State of Jordan and Jewish State of Israel

British Mandate as prescribed division between Arab State of Jordan and Jewish State of Israel

 

As far as peace with the Palestinians, we need realize that the term Palestinian once meant the Jews residing under British Mandate rule while at those times the Arabs were known as Arabs or Palestinian Arabs as compared to Palestinian Jews. One also need remember that this was during the period when both Jordan and Israel were simply the Mandate. Eventually the plan was enacted and Jordan became the Arab State and Israel the Jewish State. The most obvious difference was Israel permitted Arabs, whether practicing Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other or no religion, to remain residing with full rights as citizens, while Jordan expelled any Jew ever to come within their area under their control. That was made most evident after they conquered by force of arms in an offensive war parts of Judea and Samaria, renamed it West Bank, and evicted every last Jew under pain of death, gifting their lands to people favored by the government and destroyed every Synagogue and Jewish religious academy within said lands. The adopting of Palestinian by the Arabs was just one part of their adoption of all of Jewish history with some simple adjustments in an effort to claim them and not the Israelites, the Jews, were the earliest surviving peoples from these areas. Anybody familiar with Judeo-Christian religions knows this to be a deceit and even more so if they are knowledgeable of Islamic and Arab history, as the Arabs did not venture forth from the Arabian Peninsula until the Seventh Century. That date is almost, if not, two millennia after the Israelites arrived from their Exodus from Egypt; one might be familiar with this as there is a book of the Old Testament with the same name. If we were to count from the times when Abraham first arrived in the land, we would need close to another half of a millennia if not more. Their deceit can only last as long as people continue to give their lies credence, which they do at their own peril. Such brings us to our next discussion, the awakening of the Western World.

 

For most of the past century plus the casualty of Islamic violence has been the Jewish communities in the area of Israel both before the birth of the nation in 1948 and continuously afterwards starting with the invasion by multiple armies the morning of her birth. India and Russia had rather publicly covered conflicts and numerous African nations have also been subjected to violence as have much of the Balkans. Then there have been the intra-Islamic violence. It has only been the turn of the Twenty-First Century which has brought continued and sustained Islamic violence to the Western World. What is going to be instructive is exactly how the developed world reacts to the onslaught of Islamic violence. Of further interest will be whether or not their views and demands upon Israel are altered even in the slightest as a result of these experiences. Russia has shown Israel a fair degree of respect and freedom to act as necessary while not giving full measure as they also keep relations with the Muslim nations such as with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria; for it is with Syria they hold their Mediterranean warm water Atlantic Naval ports.

 

Beyond this, the longest standing restrictions on Islamic activities belong with Japan. Many are unaware but Japan has always refused Muslims permanent residence status in their lands. Further, Muslims may not own property, may not operate a business and the worship of Islam is banned. Needless to point out but no Mosque may ever be built on Japanese soil. Muslim tourism is permitted but any Muslim tourist caught conducting any form of Islamic instructions or otherwise attempting to spread the word of Islam is summarily and immediately deported along with their entire family; and if with a group, then the entire group is deported. The Japanese treat Islam as if it were a dread plague that once taking a foothold could threaten life on their islands. If the news is accurate, and we see no reason to disbelieve our sources, Cuba has recently refused permission for a Mosque to be built on their island, Cuba, that’s right, Cuba! Angola is but the first in alphabetical order of African nations enacting some limit if not outright ban on Islam.

 

In Europe the latest trend has been in opposition to Angela Markel‘s open door policy for Muslims with Norway having deported many hundreds resulting in a better than 50% drop in felonies. This is allowing their police to attend to other functions rather than putting out crime emergencies twenty-four-seven for the first time since the ‘refugees’ began arriving. Additionally there have been reports of attacks against Mosques and Muslims with some areas becoming so unfriendly that the Muslims are deporting themselves back to their home nations. The Czech Republic has flat banned Islam from their country declaring it to be an evil. Muslims in Ireland have reached the conclusion that they are less than welcome and in Belfast, as a start, the Muslims have been departing for home sweet home and this appears to be the trend across all of Northern Ireland. The British Home Secretary is preparing legislations which, though not expressly stating their application to Muslims, are aimed at curtailing anti-social behavior and allowing greater leeway in deporting or using other lesser methods to control an out of hand situation. The Polish Defense League has issued a warning to Muslims against their continuing certain behaviors and sixteen states have drafted legislation banning Sharia. A number of states in America are entertaining laws banning Sharia or any foreign code of laws all aimed at preventing the use of Sharia. China has imprisoned twenty-two Imams for preaching hate and anti-China themes and has executed eighteen jihadists. China is additionally stamping out any campaigns for separatism especially in the largely Islamic western province of Xinjiang. Muslim prayers are banned in government buildings and schools in China. Our last example of such measures comes from the Netherlands where a group of Ministers of Parliament are calling for the closure and destruction of all Mosques. One Minister stated “We want to clean Netherlands of hateful Islam.” He did not differentiate hateful Islam from any other form of Islam. Speaking on behalf of the right wing Party for Freedom, a nationalist party, Minister of the Dutch Parliament Machiel De Graaf stated, “All Mosques in the Netherlands should be shut down. Without Islam the Netherlands would be a wonderful, safe country to live in, as it was before the arrival of Muslim ‘refugees’.”

 

The world appears to slowly be awakening to the real face of Islam; a violent and unruly cult more desirous of ruling the world than of acting in what the rest of the world believes is a religious manner. Every other previous imperialist religion, Christianity, Shinto, Hindu and any others, have all been reformed and now stand side by side with all these religions seeking peaceful coexistence and mutual assistance. The exception to this rule is obvious, Islam. When Mosques are discovered in numerous countries to contain more rifles, grenades, bombs and bomb making material than prayer rugs and prayer books, then there is a definite problem. As the developed world realizes, along with the rest of the world, this threat for what it is, it is hoped that they will apply their learned knowledge to the situation in Israel. This could finally allow the solution which should have been applied immediately after the Six Day War, Israel attaining her originally promised borders, which includes the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and those previous Jordanian citizens and their families deported to the Arab nation of their choosing willing to receive them, or into Syria. The double standard cannot be continued after the truth has been driven home that Islam does not play well with others and is treacherous to the continued health of any nation it inhabits. What is good for the European nations and the world in general must, in all fairness, also be permitted Israel. To do otherwise is pure anti-Semitism, and this time that is an accurate accusation and an accurate application of the terminology.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

June 6, 2016

A Zionist Begs to Differ

 

Reading an Arutz Sheva Editorial by Dr. Martin Sherman titled, INTO THE FRAY: Like manna from heaven – for Israel’s detractors we would like to copy any number of quotes from the start and recommend the remainder of the editorial to our readers as well as respond ourselves.

Former Prime Minister and former Defense Minister, Ehud Barak stated on Channel 10 program from May 20, 2016 stated, “Israel has been infected by the seeds of fascism …There are no serious leaders left in the world who believe the Israeli government.”
Head of opposition, Yitzhak Herzog, Knesset, May 23, 2016, proclaimed, “Today we have a country afflicted with ultra-nationalistic extremism, infected with the seeds of fascism and chauvinism.”
Nabil al-Arabi Secretary-General of the Arab League, Cairo May 28, 2016, observed, “Israel has truly become today the last bastion of fascism, colonialism and racial discrimination in the world.”
Former defense minister Moshe “Bogie” Yaalon, Resignation speech, May 20, 2016, retorted, “I fought with all my might against the phenomena of extremism, violence and racism in Israeli society that are threatening our national resilience and are seeping into the Israel Defense Forces; in fact already harming it… But to my great regret, extremist and dangerous forces have taken over Israel and the Likud party.”
Mahmoud Abbas, Head of the Palestinian Authority, Cairo, May 28, 2016, accused, “Today Israel is suffering a process of ongoing radicalization and increasing extremism, which has brought criticism from senior Israelis against their government. They all say that Israel behaves in a fascist and racist manner. They say so. Like the deputy chief of staff of the IDF said ‘Our behavior is reminiscent of the behavior of the Nazis prior to WW II’”.

 

These are a few examples all of which have followed Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Deputy Chief of Staff General Yair Golan who stated in a speech given on Wednesday evening, May 4, 2016, at the start of Yom Hashoah, or Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, at a kibbutz in central Israel near Netanya where he stated, “If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance, it’s the recognition of the horrifying processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then; seventy, eighty, and ninety years ago; and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016. There is nothing easier than hating the other. There is nothing easier than raising fears and sowing terror. There is nothing easier than becoming callous, morally corrupt and hypocritical.”

 

This original commentary drew the ire of a number of people both public and private and led to a rift in the halls of power as the Prime Minister found the comments repulsive while then Defense Minister not only condoned the Generals’ right to freedom of speech but encouraged other military brass to freely speak out against the government they serve if they have any doubts or contrary opinions. This quickly led to replacing Moshe Ya’alon as Defense Minister. Where military personnel do possess freedom to express themselves in private settings and not in their capacity as an officer, when appearing representing their position in the military they may not speak against the government elected by the people that they serve under. Generals and other military brass do not make policy nor do they have the right of criticism against the government and the policies they make, their job is to carry out the policies and commands which come from that government. Theirs is duty and country before all else and they are to appear loyal and dutiful whether they agree with the elected governing coalition or not. If generals in the military are speaking against the government, then what is to prevent lesser ranks from speaking out against the general and on and on down the command chain as once that chain is broken at one point, it weakens every other point in the chain below potentially leading to chaos within the ranks. Generals need to act with the same deference to the elected governance as they expect from those serving under them as they serve under the civilian government, not coequal. The Prime Minister was well within his rights and acted properly when facing blatant insubordination and IDF Deputy Chief of Staff General Yair Golan also should have been punished and forced to retire or face a general courts martial for gross insubordination and disrespect for the chain of command.

 

Unfortunately, in a democratic and free society there are no measures by which retired leaders of the military, intelligence community and other areas of government where while in service insubordination is punishable, no such restraints exist. The same can be said of those politicians who sit in the opposition. As long as those challenging the sitting government are retired from service and not in any manner a member of the active or call-up reserves, they are free to speak their minds and oppose any government but should be restrained to mitigate their comments by adding a disclaimer that these are personal views and are not in any means to be considered officially supported by their former military, intelligence or other enforcement community which is by its nature subordinate to the government while they remain in service under any means including ready reserves as such position still bestows upon them the privilege and responsibilities of their rank. Still, there is a seeming preponderance of retired military and intelligence as well as law and border enforcement personnel who are more than ready to denounce and otherwise protest vociferously any Zionist or nationalist governments and position while seemingly there are none who take an opposite view ever quoted or mentioned in the media coverage. One would have to believe that the entirety of military, enforcement and intelligence personnel are diametrically opposed to the current government and have always held views which could only have made their ability to serve with full belief, trust, confidence and command authority under any Zionist, nationalist or right leaning government during their time of service. One can only wonder why more command officers have not retired in protest if they find the nation, society and government to be such an anathema to their strongly held views. How are the people to have faith that these officers would follow orders if their personal feelings are that the government is wrong in all its views and is destroying their nation? Such officers should be weeded from service as they would be ineffective at commanding with conviction.

 

Military discipline within the ranks is of paramount importance which any Commissioned Officer or even Non-Commissioned Officer will attest. There is not functional military if a soldier can disregard their responsibilities simply because they disagree with some politics. That goes just as much for the soldiers who claim their politics prevents them from operating beyond the Green Line as it does for especially the Generals at the highest levels of command that they support their commands as they are presented by the civilian government without any dissenting or questioning of these commands as long as they are legal commands. Legal commands have absolutely nothing to do with an officer’s political beliefs; they simply need not be outside of those limitations in place by war crimes laws or constitutional restraints. An officer has every right to refuse an order to cleanse a town, village or other area of life as that constitutes a war crime. On the other hand, being ordered to quell a riot in a location which includes people with whom the officer had strong feeling of sympathy protesting a political view the officer concurs with does not mean that they can refuse to carry out the order. Sure they could request not to be placed in such a situation and may explain their discomfort but discomfort be damned, if they are still given such an order they are to carry the order out to the best of their abilities. They may have been given the order expressly because they sympathize with the protesters as the officer giving the order chose them in order to assure that minimal force and largely coercion and discourse be used and force as an absolute last resort. This is further why the officer in such a case even without further explanation should carry out the order as another officer might take such an order and use force as their first option as they disagreed with the protest and had a visceral contempt for the protestors. Such also would be a reasonable reason not to give the assignment to the second officer and why the first officer would be preferred for the task.

 

Often military orders when they reach the lower rank individuals make little sense and it is not until well up the chain of command that a general pattern and potentially a feel for the reasoning and the goals becomes intelligible but even that is often nowhere near the whole picture. For the whole picture one may have to go well beyond even the theater commanding general to the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff or even the President in the United States military. With separate commands for the Air Force, Marines, Army and Navy it is possible that no one branch of the service understands the entirety of the mission. The nice thing is that one need not know everything for the entire mission to succeed; all one need know is what exactly is their part in the bigger picture and doing what they were told, preferably without undue questions. After all, how many questions can one have when told to hold both sides of a bridge until relieved? Eventually, when ammunition and hopes running equally low it may come to mind to call headquarters and inquire as to when one might expect to be relieved. They likely will not like their answer.

 

There will be some who may ask what about initiative and taking additional tasks onto oneself and their individual unit. That may or may not work to one’s advantage. Let’s take a hypothetical situation using that bridge example. While holding the bridge the Sergeant or Lieutenant notice another bridge about half a mile upstream and decide to hold both bridges. What these brilliant tacticians were unaware of was that there would be a train transiting that very bridge they took upon themselves to also hold and Command has a massive bombing and artillery barrage planned to take out the bridge with the train in transit. Their men would probably not enjoy being on the wrong end of such an assault which is why you hold the bridge you were ordered to hold and nothing more.

 

This is also why military personnel in their official capacity are not to express their ideas on policies; even those which may not initially appear to have any military consequence. Everything stated by a high ranking military officer has a political slant whether intended or not. Where things like it is raining or what a nice sunny day may appear innocent enough, once again they should clear such statements all the way up their chain of command if that is what is required to have their wording properly approved, and that means every word, even reciting the first three lines of a poem, in French, the poem “Chanson d’Automne,” which means “Autumn song.”

“When a sighing begins
In the violins
Of the autumn-song”

This would have been a disastrous poem for an allied officer to have recited on the BBC anytime too far in advance of the D-Day invasion of France as it was also the trigger signal that the invasion was imminent and the individual French Underground units were to prepare to destroy their assigned rail lines and bridges. We would not have wanted them reacting to key words too far in advance.

 

Military personnel of all ranks are to be subordinate to the civilian government and should show support despite any misgivings they may have simply as a deference to the will of the public and to keep morale within the ranks. Probably part of the reason there exist enlistees who express conflicting desires such as serving in an elite unit but only if it is not in certain sensitive areas. Where do they honestly think that elite units spend most of their time, Tel Aviv beaches? With some high ranking military officers speaking out against the government or being overtly critical of certain public views and equating these views with the views of pre-Nazi Germany right before Hitler came to power has ramifications beyond disregard for the people and the government. Such outlandish, and likely false equivalence, makes for bait and ammunition for those who are opposed of the government and wish to use such quotes in support of the BDS movement or for United Nations condemnation of Israel. It should be noted that amongst the quotes at the beginning of the article is one by Mahmoud Abbas which is so similar in content and slant that one could be excused for believing he was another high ranking Israeli and not the leader of a terrorist group operating within the Palestinian Authority, as Abbas still heads Fatah and the PLO, both designated terror entities at some time in the past and present (the PLO still is considered a terror group) and used a direct quote from the Deputy Chief of Staff of the IDF who was credited with the quote, “Our behavior is reminiscent of the behavior of the Nazis prior to WW II.” His direct quote from his speech on the evening at the start of Yom Hashoah, or Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day was, “If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance, it’s the recognition of the horrifying processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then; seventy, eighty, and ninety years ago; and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016. There is nothing easier than hating the other.” True, Abbas did not quote him directly but used his words to make the tie in that the Israelis are acting like Nazis and there is nothing that can refute his misquote of carrying a similar message as stated by Deputy Chief of Staff General Yair Golan. His words were the dissenting and condemnation of Israel used this time. Who wishes to step forward and give the next anti-Semite the golden quotes with which to hang us all? If Israelis allow our political differences to bring us to voicing condemnation of our beloved Israel which are more vile and damning because our own are saying them, then we may as well pack our bags and be prepared to be thrown from our own blessed lands.

 

Whether you desire to believe that Judea and Samaria are the core, the heart of our ancient lands does not alter the proof that they are exactly that. It does not take a Biblical scholar to realize that Jericho, Jerusalem, Shechem, Hebron, Gezer, Debir, Azekah, Ayalon, Gibeon, Ai and the rest on the map below which shows simply amongst the initial cities conquered by Joshua after crossing the Jordan River.

 

Cities Conquered by Joshua as Recounted in Kings In the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament

Cities Conquered by Joshua as Recounted in Kings
In the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament

 

Quite a convincing argument when the Bible paints a picture with its words and historians make maps directly from the historic records as to where these ancient, and often continued to modern times, were located and what resulted from Biblical times. Where we are not claiming that these conquests grant Israel rights to all the lands conquered between Moses, Joshua, King David and King Solomon; but what we would claim is the lands promised by the world including the then Arab League after World War I and placed on paper by the British, adopted by the League of Nations, Ratified in the Anglo-American Treaty and accepted by the United Nations under Article 80. These agreements granted Israel the remaining lands of the British Mandate after 78% was taken from west of the Jordan River and used to fashion the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan which upon their independence renamed the area Jordan leaving the remaining 22% west of the Jordan River for the Jewish State. When after their genocidally inspired and declared invasion of the nascent State of Israel the morning of May 15, 1948 as seven Arab Armies from, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen joined the Arabs under the Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini leading Arabs from within and outside of the State of Israel upon his return from Berlin where he spent much of World War II and was returned by the British; the peace was made with Jordan occupying Judea and Samaria and Egypt occupying Gaza and Syria occupying the Golan Heights, lands originally denoted for Israel (though some debate the Golan Heights claiming they were belonging to the French Mandate and thus Syria and Lebanon would decide their fate). The entire time these Israeli lands were occupied, there was no clamor for the founding of a Palestine State for Arabs and this was only decried after the Arabs again attacked Israel in 1967 intending to, as stated by Egyptian leaders, “Drive the Jews into the Sea;” and when Israel liberated her lands not perishing before the Arab armies, then came the idea to make another Arab state carved from lands known to belong rightfully to Israel. Biblically or treaties made in the Twentieth Century, the lands west of the Jordan River belong rightfully and legally to Israel. That is the reason that the Arab League and the Arab groups such as the PA refuse to take their claim before any world court as they know the truth which reveals their falsehoods and pretenses for what they are, naked aggressions attempting to destroy a member state of the United Nations, one which the United Nations appears unprepared to judge and treat with equal fervor they do the lie intended to destroy and replace the Jewish State and murder its Jewish population. The Arab powers in 1948 claimed they would complete the Final Solution which Hitler failed to accomplish and that should tell all who are acting as the Nazis despite what leftist and self-despising individuals might claim in making their political ambitions known. The truth is that the leaders of the Arab rejectionists promised their people in 1948 that they would slaughter the Jews and enjoy their spoils. They have not altered that promise or a single letter since and state so in the Charter of the PLO as well as Hamas and Hezballah. As their promise is the elimination of Israel, the murder of her Jewish populations, and for Hamas and Hezballah this should be followed by the elimination of Jews worldwide while conquering the world for Allah; these leaders cannot accept a two state solution as they are fully vested in a single Arab state solution and a form of the Final Solution for the Jews. That is what has made any compromise impossible and even if the Jews were to offer to withdraw to Tel Aviv, the Arab leaders would continue to claim the right to reject the Jewish presence on their sacred lands, the lands the Arabs conquered somewhere in the Seventh Century which still leaves the Jews the initial claimants by any living people. Am Yisroel Chai.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.