Beyond the Cusp

August 24, 2013

Worldwide Struggles to Continue to Intensify

There are numerous contests in numerous fields spanning from military contests to economic contests to diplomatic posturing to impose one’s influence. These disparate struggles have escalated and in all appearances will continue to escalate for the time being. Often people talking about this phenomenon want to compare the situation in the world today to the fall of the Roman Empire and equate their presumed imminent collapse of the United States for whatever reason they assign from financial to ecological or whatever their heart’s desire with the loss of the influence of Rome as the preeminent power of their age. There are so many reasons that such a comparison is ridiculous not the least of which is the United States is nowhere near collapse of any foreseeable kind. Has the United States appeared to take a break from their role of world’s police force and become preoccupied with their own internal problems and various difficulties? The obvious answer is yes, only a fool would not have picked up on this occurrence. So, what exactly are these disparate struggles over, who is contesting and is capable of achieving the leadership in their theater and what does it all mean for the future?


The most obvious arena of contests is the Arab and Muslim worlds. Some of these struggles are internal such as the current unrest in Egypt. Then there is the Palestinian Israeli conflict which is sometimes misperceived and called a peace process, it is a war in which only one side is permitted to attack and the other is denounced and demands for it to cease any military action they take even if it is in an effort of self-preservation. The main struggle in this theater is currently focused in Syria and currently is rapidly spreading into Lebanon. In one particular manner this struggle also is taking place in Egypt. There are three sides to the contest with the most active being the Iranian Shiite axis which in addition to Iran includes Hezballah, Iraq, the Syrian military and President Bashir Assad, and the terrorist forces which are controlled by the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps). Another front is the Sunni forces which favor militant Islam and has two dominant faces, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda. The Muslim Brotherhood is still behind much of the fighting in Egypt where they have recently been removed from ruling over Egypt by the Egyptian military which is attempting to place a more secular type of governance that will require excluding the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence in any future government. In Syria the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda are allied and working together despite the numerous experts’ opinions that claim these two are contesting against each other for control. This would not be the first time that the experts’ opinions did not exactly match the real world, especially in the Middle East. The final front is another Sunni Islamist force headed by Saudi Arabia which is the lead in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. This group has a longer ranged view for their taking power in the world where they rely on their oil wealth to slowly purchase influence and through positions such as chairs at prestigious universities and forming political groups and institutes through which they exert their influence. The basic analysis of the contest in the Arab and Muslim worlds breaks down primarily along a Sunni-Shiite divide with a secondary struggle between the most powerful of the Sunni nations jostling to take and retain the lead.


In Europe the struggles are along financial and economic roles where Germany holds the most prevalent and strongest financial health. At the other end of the spectrum are Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and to a lesser extent a number of other countries who are facing economic, budget or banking difficulties. France and England both are financially sound with the English having the advantage of not having completely converted to using only the Euro which is partly responsible for their economic health. The unknowns in this group are the numerous nations that were formerly behind the Iron curtain and who are experiencing potentials for great growth once they establish updated infrastructure. The positioning in Europe will come down to Germany, France, Britain and Poland with Russia also attempting to gain some leverage though they are often seen as being outside of the European theater. This is also one of the theaters where the United States has a finger in the pie though it is often not welcomed by the Europeans.


Africa and South America are both future powers. South America appears to be blossoming more quickly than is Africa but both are more likely to be distant future powers. Of these nations Brazil and Argentina would be seen as the leaders. In Asia the preeminent powers are obvious, China and India. These have been the leading powers of Asia throughout most of history with some sharing at times with Thailand and Siam for examples. There are other nations that are worthy of note which include but are not limited to Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea. Still, the obvious item of most importance is where the United States is headed and what that means for the future and will the United States be reasserting themselves.


Well, what has come over the United States is something that the world has witnessed before and it is not anything like the fall of Rome. The United States has entered one of its take care of the home front introvert modes where the United States is concerned with internal problems and politics while leaving foreign policy on ignore wherever and whenever possible. The United State has entered such periods before and they always take care of themselves. The first one came after the United States faces some problems with a declining Spanish colonial empire where, after routing the Spanish Navy, the United States gained some colonial properties and protectorates. After this brief worldly encounter the United States returned to her sleep mode allowing the world to take care of itself. This worked out splendidly and resulted in World War I. Eventually the United States entered World War I and though they had minimal effect they like to claim their entry into the war facilitated its conclusion. The United States returned to their cocoon after World War I so fast that they barely had any influence over the Treaty of Versailles. The United States signed the treaty, signed some additional treaties and papers and sat on the sidelines while the League of Nations was formed and the United States never took the bother of joining the League of Nations.


With the United States back on auto-pilot and taking care of internal matters while ignoring the rest of the world things got dicey largely due to unfinished business and strict and overly punishing terms from World War I landed Europe and eventually Asia in World War II. The United States gave sitting out this war a good try or at least the citizens did until they were shaken by the attack on Pearl Harbor. World War II resulted in a new alignment of world power with Europe no longer in the lead. The new leadership fell initially to the United States and the Soviet Union and later China. This initiated the Cold War where the United States and the Soviet Union engaged through secondary players and contested in a series of proxy wars such as Korea and Viet Nam to name the two best known. But it was another front where there was a proxy contest that played out between the Soviets and the Americans and that was the Middle East. It is that final arena which will become a major issue going forward.


The real question is will the United States retake her position as a world super power or is she entering a long term hibernation of introspection. That will remain a question until after the next Presidential elections in 2016. The result of that election will determine the future of more than just the United States but also whether or not another World War looms in the near future. Should the American people decide to continue with their preoccupation with internal affairs and simply pretend the world will take care of itself then the future could be very dark. The United States will very likely rebound from their current financial difficulties but to do so will take some extreme measures which may demand the full attention of the American political field then the world will act rudderless with the separate influences battling for the lead positions. There is a good chance that we might witness another expansion of Islam if one of the interests currently manages to extend their influence sufficiently that they unite much of the Muslim world behind them in a new caliphate then such an expanse would be inevitable. For this reason the two arenas which bear watching are the Middle East and the United States domestic scene. The inspection of the United States should concentrate on the importance placed by the news media on world events against domestic issues. The Middle East will be easier to understand as the fight over Syria will be one major contest with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran as the powers whose influence will indicate the direction. The wild card in the Middle East is Israel which only needs to survive to stand as an obstacle to any grander dreams the Islamic powers might desire to achieve as in order to solidify a preeminent position and be crowned the leader of the new caliphate will necessarily need to defeat Israel, no small task. Strange as it may seem but, the continued peace and ability to avoid yet another World War one only need watch two nations, the United States and Israel. If Israel continues to exist as the Jewish state then the chances of another World War are greatly minimalized. Without Israel the world will need to hope that the United States wakes up to her rightful place in the world and take her position seriously and takes the responsibilities of a super power to heart. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that the United States will remain in her introvert mode and the world will end up dependent upon a small nation that so many nations in the world love to hate, Israel.


Beyond the Cusp


May 13, 2013

How Can One Compromise with Those Holding Such Positions?

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 Borders,1967 War,24/7 News Reporting,Administration,AFP,Al-Jazeera,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Arab League,Arab World,Arabs,BBC,Blood Libel,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Consequences,Defend Israel,Disengagement,Europe,European Governments,Executive Order,Fatah,Galilee,Gaza,General Assembly,Government,Green Line,Haaretz,Hamas,History,Holy Sites,Human Rights,IDF,International Court of Justice,International Criminal Court,Intifada,Iran,Islam,Islamic Jihad,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jordan,Jordan River,Jordan Valley,Judea,Judean Hills,Kotel,League of Nations,Lebanon,Mahmoud Abbas,Mainstream Media,Media,Media Bias,Media Censorship,Middle East,Misreporting,Mount of Olives,Mount of Olives Cemetary,Muslim Brotherhood,Muslim World,Myth,Nablus,NGOs,Old City,Oslo Accords,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Media,Palestinian Media Watch,Partition Plan,Peace Process,Peel Commission,PLO,Political Talk Shows,Politics,Pre-Conditions,Promised Land,Recognize Israel,Refugees,Religion,Response to Terrorism,Samaria,San Remo Conference,Settlements,Statehood,Television News,Temple Mount,Terror,Terrorist Release,Transjordan,United Nations,UNRWA,Versailles Treaty,War of Independence,Washington Post,West Bank,Western Wall,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 4:41 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the leading representatives with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, Jibril Rajoub, was giving an interview on Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen TV when he allowed the truth to leak out. Mr. Rajoub when queried as to whether the Palestinian would ever plan to return to negotiations with the Israelis replied that negotiations would be considered only if the Palestinian Authority’s preconditions are met. It was in further explaining what he viewed as the Palestinian Authority’s desire in place of negotiations that he stated, “Listen. We as yet don’t have a nuke, but I swear that if we had a nuke, we’d have used it this very morning.” Rajoub is the Deputy Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee and chairman of the Palestinian Authority Olympic Committee. This should make for some serious doubts as to the sincerity of any position including compromise with the Israelis the Palestinian leadership express in interviews given to western media outlets. As many other as well as we have pointed out, if only the world would take the time, investing some effort even if only to satisfy curiosity and translate what the Palestinian spokespeople express when speaking in Arabic translating and placing them in their reports with equal prominence they give their articles denouncing Israeli efforts at self-defense, the public would be well served in making an informed and balanced evaluation of the realities of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Unfortunately, it appears that truth and honest reporting are the first two casualties in the mainstream media coverage of virtually all things concerning the Middle East and its relevance and importance to the current world struggles.


In another recent television appearance, another senior PA official, Sultan Abu al-Einein on Palestinian Authority TV stated about the recent stabbing murder of Evyatar Borovsky by a Palestinian terrorist recently released from Israeli custody, Salam al-Zaghal, “We salute the heroic fighter, the self-sacrificing Salam al-Zaghal. He insisted on defending his honor, so he went against the settler and killed him. Blessings to the breast that nursed Salam Al-Zaghal.” Such comments being broadcast on Palestinian, Lebanese, Egyptian and other Arabic broadcast media are far from being the exception, they are by far the rule. It is solely due to the willful negligence of our Western mainstream media that prevents such claims from being widely known and the hidden truth behind who are the true impediments to peace being more broadly recognized. When covering the Middle East much of the media either omits information or represents misinformation unchallenged as if it were fact. There is a near constant drumbeat claiming that the presence of Israeli communities on established Palestinian claimed land which prevents any possibility for peace and stands in the way of negotiations. What is not explained are the facts that the Palestinians not only claim the areas known as the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem but also the rest of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, the Galilee and all of the land that makes up Israel, every single square inch. The Palestinian leadership reserves the right to continue the resistance until all of Palestine is freed which is an actual declaration that the terrorist attacks must continue even after any peace accord which may be signed in the future. Whenever this fact is admitted in the Western media it is portrayed as belonging only to Hamas and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority are represented as being moderates who are willing to make peace. The unfortunate truth is that the Fatah, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority and the entire Arab League all hold fast to their claim to replace all of Israel with an Arab state and the eradication of any trace of Judaism as their only acceptable goal. Since the Khartoum conference of 1967 the entire Arab World has held to the Declaration of the Three No’s; No peace, No negotiations, and No recognition. Such a position does indeed make holding peace talks rather difficult.


The truths which are lost because of the ruse known as the Palestinian’s claim to reconstruct their ancient homeland called Palestine are that there never was in all of history such a place as Palestine, the British used the term Palestinian to describe the Jews who resided within the British Mandate, The Balfour Declaration addressed the rights of the Arab populations residing within the British Mandate, Transjordan (currently called Jordan) was created as the Arab State for those Arabs living within the British Mandate and required the Jews to relinquish their legal claim to 78% of the British Mandate, Israel was not required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 to relinquish any of the West Bank but to relinquish only those lands acquired as a result of the 1967 War that were not determined by Israel to be vital for secure borders. Of the lands under UNSC Resolution 242 Israel has already relinquished well over 75% of the area by returning the Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptians, and lastly the original conflict was never between the Israelis and the Palestinians but between the Arab World and Israel.


Even should one look at the Oslo Accords one would almost immediately draw some interesting conclusions. The Oslo Accords drew three distinct areas within what is often referred to as the West Bank, and was historically referred to as Judea, Samaria and Benyamin (which kind of explains why those wishing to prevent Israel from claiming these areas had to rename them), into three separate areas, A, B, and C. Area A was given over to complete control of the Arabs under the auspices of the PLO and Yasser Arafat. Area C was given over to total Israeli control. Area B was jointly controlled by both the Arabs and the Israelis. This makes an obvious demarcation suggesting the intended solution originally was that Israel required all of Area C as their minimum needs to have basic security and the Arab population already, as it existed, was concentrated within Area A. This left Area B which held some concentrations of Arab villages and farms, some open lands, and some lands claimed by Jews who had their lands confiscated by the Jordanians after the 1948 war which the Arabs referred to as the war to eradicate the Jews and Israel calls their War of Independence, which gives some insight to the perspectives of the two sides. Since Area B was placed under dual control one might be led to think that these were the lands disputed between the two sides as originally observed when the Oslo Accords were enacted. It also would be prudent to believe that the negotiations should have been over where the border should be placed in order to fairly divide the lands within Area B. Instead we have muddied the original intents to the point that there have been discussions of granting the Palestinian Arabs a corridor across the Negev Desert so that their areas near the Jordan River have easy access without entering Israel to Gaza and the Mediterranean Sea, never mind that by doing such Israel is cut in two and is no longer contiguous, as long as the Palestinian areas are contiguous everything should be wonderful. There was a period when Mahmoud Abbas felt he had such a strong position he began claiming the entirety of Jerusalem as the capital city for the Palestinians. Fortunately, somebody managed to disavow him of such a felonious concept. All of this is a prime example of how far removed today’s perceived realities are from the original ideas of the Oslo Accords, let alone from the decisions, treaties, conferences, and even the White Papers which were all ratified soon after World War I and blessed by the League of Nations, the United States, Russia, and even the leadership of the Arab World, King Faisal. Sometimes time worsen wounds, not heals them.


Beyond the Cusp


April 27, 2012

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

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at