Beyond the Cusp

April 26, 2015

Israel Will Not Protect the World Alone This Time

Filed under: Act of War,Administration,Advanced Weapions Systems,Air Strike,Amalekites,American People Voice Opinion,Anti Missile System,Apocalypse,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Appointment,Armed Services,Army,Ayatollah,Ayatollah Khamenei,Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,Ayatollahs,Breakout Point,Civilization,Command,Compulsary Service,Conflict Avoidnce,Coverup,Ditherer in Chief,Domestic NGOs,Egyptian Military,EMP Device,European Pressure,Executive Order,Foreign Funding,Foreign NGOs,IAF,ICBM,IDF,Internal Pressures,International Politics,Iran,Iranian Military,Iranian Pressure,Iraq,Iraqi Military,IRGC,Islam,Islam,Islamic Pressure,Israeli Capital City,Israeli Interests,Jerusalem,Jihad,Jimmy Carter,John Kerry,Leftist Pressures,Military,Military Intervention,Mohammad Mosaddegh,Mohammad-Rezā Pahlavi,Muslim World,Non Binding Resolution,North Korean Pressure,Nuclear Program,Nuclear Proliferation,Nuclear Scientist,Nuclear Sites,Nuclear Weapons,Nuclear Weapons,P5+1,Permanenet Members,Persia,Plutonium Production,Politicized Findings,Politics,President Obama,Promised Land,Rebel Forces,Russian Pressure,Saddam Hussein,Saudi Arabian Pressure,Secretary of State,Secular Interests,Security Council,State Department,Supreme Leader,Syria,Taqiyya,Threat of War,Twelvers,United Arab Republic,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,Uranium Enrichment,Weapons of Mass Destruction,WMD,World Without Zionism or America — qwertster @ 2:39 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Back when Saddam Hussein was actually developing nuclear weapons material and was having the perfect nuclear reactor being built by profiteering interests from France and had bunkers constructed by an equally monetarily enterprising German company and believing they had the world fooled as the Europeans were more concerned by their bottom line and the United States was apparently blithely ignorant of the Iraqi game; so the weight of dispatching the central items of what was potentially the Iraqi nuclear weapons development central point, the reactor was relegated to the Israelis acting alone. The Iraqis were not using the technically challenging uranium differentiation system, which in the early 1980s was a rather daunting challenge, and instead was opting for a plutonium producing reactor. This left the Iraqis with what was apparently an unfettered romp to develop nuclear weapons while appearing to remain compliant to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) of which Iraq was a signatory. And so it remained until the morning of June 7, 1981 when the Israelis launched “Operation Opera” to destroy the French built and almost ready to have its nuclear fuel rods installed Osirak Reactor which was capable of producing weapons grade plutonium. The entirety of the Western world opposed any attack on the reactor or accompanying buildings as the Europeans relied on Iraqi oil or had too numerous business dealings and other profitable relations which may have faced difficulties or potential cancellation should Iraq suspect the Western powers in any way supported any such attack. Even within Israel there were the expected and usual detractors against Israeli actions including the then leader of the opposition Labor Party Shimon Peres, Yitzchak Shamir predicting extreme and non-survivable reactions and backlash as well as those in the cabinet who also opposed any attack for various reasons chief of which was the effect it would have on the peace treaty with Egypt. Prime Minister Menachem Begin still pushed the idea for an intervention to destroy the reactor forward in hopes the Cabinet would eventually see there was no other viable choice. There were logistics problems which had to be overcome such as but not limited to removing external fuel tanks on the F-16s in order to equip them with the heavy munitions necessary for the attack, assign F-15s to guard the bombers to, from and during the attack in case of Iraqi countermeasures, as well as training the pilots to fly on the floor to avoid being detected by any Arab radar and choosing a route which would also minimize detection. The final trigger which finally won approval for the attack was the knowledge that the fuel rods had been prepared for shipment from France to Iraq which if installed would have resulted in a radioactive cloud from any assault making the vote a now or never choice. This changed the critical opposition to now support the attack. The original attack date was set but it became necessary to call off the attack and reschedule it for the next month. Fortunately this setback still permitted the attack to be set before the fuel rods were to be installed in the reactor or even be stored in close proximity to the reactor buildings themselves. The Osirak Reactor was destroyed and Israel faced censure at the United Nations with President Ronald Reagan refusing to use the American veto to protect the Israelis as he too felt betrayed by their attack without first having received his approval, something he had all but assured was not forthcoming even had it been sought. The remainder including the Western world’s great reliefs and their acclamations and thanks, even if belated, that they were not facing a nuclear armed Saddam Hussein in either the first or second Gulf Wars.


Looking at Iran one might be tempted to claim that it seems like, if we may be permitted to steal a quotation from Yogi Berra, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” This time it’s not Iraq but their neighbor, Iran. It is not Saddam Hussein but rather the Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. This time it is a Shiite ruler not a Sunni ruler though it is once again an adversary of Saudi Arabia. And just like the last time, the Saudis Royals are not about to launch any attack, especially not on their own and highly unlikely they would ally with and accompany the Israelis. The United States is once again against any such attack and threatens to withhold any usual protection at the United Nations Security Council should Israel choose to ignore their opposition and attack anyways. The Europeans are once again all after the rewards of trade agreements they are already salivating over as the United States takes the brunt of any criticisms for the near obvious bad deal of a lifetime as President Obama is willing to take the scorns and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune if it permits him to construct a new kingdom in the Middle East to replace the old alliances with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel with one where the United States and Iran share the hegemony with Iran the hegemony taking care of the Middle East and the United States free to attend to other concerns. This alliance comes complete with other supporting characters including but not limited to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and potentially Yemen and whichever other nations the ever slowly devouring appetite of the Ayatollahs set their attentions towards. Additionally, the Russians are playing the role of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and beyond with an unsurprising echo of the Soviet past with the Russian President being Colonel Putin formerly of KGB fame and China will be China taking advantage of any situation the world inadvertently creates, like the need by Iran for an outlet to sell their crude oil. Thus the world is hurling full steam ahead towards a nuclear armed nation which remains the inheritors of the Persian Empire’s proud historic past with all of its attitude of empire which they traded in order to name themselves after the Nazi master race Aryan, or Iran in Farsi, and add to such the trait and heritage of the potentially suicidal belief patterns of Shia Islam and these nations central to permitting this nuclear arming of such a nation all claim Israel has lost it and gone over the deep end when they claim that perhaps a second look might be a good idea.


There have been more than just a few articles which point to the fact that the world is relying on good old Israel to ride over the hill and rescue the world from itself once more. They even point to the fact that there exist a number of Sunni nations including but not limited to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States which would potentially offer their assistance or at least give spiritual support. There is some bad news for the world; it is going to take a whole different level of support if they really expect Israel to suffer the ramifications of and the promised denunciations, trade embargoes, United Nations sanctions, and other barbs and mistreatments in size and scope potentially previously unimagined. Israel has stated that they are quite capable and up to the task of striking and setting the Iranian nuclear program back potentially months or even for over a year or even two years. That is not the question; the question is whether it is worth the severe and unprecedented ramifications that is the main concern for Israel. Israel has to weigh whether it will be beyond her ability to guarantee that Iran has too much to lose by using their nuclear weapons once they develop and build them, whether that be in ten months or the ten years that President Obama promises, making it thus worth the price which would be guaranteed in the retaliatory strikes by Hamas, Hezballah, Syria, IRGC and a guarantee that Iran will use their first nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv no matter what the cost even should it require using it from aboard a ship making a suicide run for the shoreline beaches of Tel Aviv. The consequences of assaulting the Iranian nuclear sites are well known to Israel as well as her neighbors in the Middle East. These are the very same consequences which have intimidated the other nations who, like Israel, will be threatened by a nuclear weapon armed Iran. It is this threat which may well lead to a nuclear weapons arms race throughout the Middle East and North Africa with Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and even the Gulf States leading the way. This too must also be included in the Israeli calculus. The one thing heard repeatedly is that there is no threats which Israel could use to deter the Iranians from carrying out their threat to launch a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv once they have sufficient a store of nuclear weapons to follow up with further strike should Israel retaliate.


That leads us to the question of exactly what threats could Israel utilize to prevent a nuclear attack by the Iranians once they are sufficiently armed. The unfortunate, or potentially advantageously, truth about the threats which would be most effective on Iran is that they would also be very disconcerting and threatening to the rest of the Muslim world. It is obvious that should Iran drop any nuclear weapons anywhere, or everywhere, across Israel that Israel would strike every population center across all of Iran, Syria, Shiite Iraq and Hezballah portions of Lebanon and thus these would not be sufficient deterrence to prevent an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. But then peer pressure may be exactly what might be required to pressure Iran from striking at Israel. The first targets Israel needs to assure Iran will be targeted beyond her borders should be every holy shrine and city in all of Shia Islam. Going beyond this point would be potentially dangerous for Israel as it would also potentially push what might be uncomfortable allies throughout the Muslim world forcing them to become an ally with Iran against Israel. Still, some concern might be given to such targets as to the two cities which Iran has placed as their most prized desire in all the world and the reason that Iran and Saudi Arabia are so set against one another, Mecca and Medina. These are the most prized cities in all of Islam and before World War I were under the care of the Hashemite Royal Family. That changed with the fall of the Ottoman Empire when the Saudi Royal Family forcibly took control of Mecca and Medina. This was the reason behind the British promise to grant the Hashemite family a kingdom in exchange for their assistance during World War I and thus Jordan today ruled by a Hashemite King. Such a threat though of destroying Mecca and Medina would be a counter attack as a last ditch response after a disastrous attack which had likely destroyed the majority of the Israeli population and economic centers simply by striking central Tel Aviv with any nuclear weapon. With such damage already inflicted on Israel there would be so little left to risk as Israel as a functioning nation would be in serious jeopardy. In a perfect world Israel would not be facing such a predicament but then again in a perfect world President Jimmy Carter would not have given the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the support in dethroning the Shah and thus the Ayatollahs would not be in power in Iran. But in a really perfect world the United States would not have overthrown the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh placing the Shāh Mohammad-Rezā Pahlavi into power reestablishing the Iranian Royal family. Perfect worlds can be so confusing and lead to a tangled web that takes some serious untangling. I guess the world would never be a perfect place and then who knows if we would actually really like what a perfect world might give us as result, who knows.


Beyond the Cusp


October 9, 2014

Why the United States Cannot Return to Greatness

You will hear how the United States will make a comeback and return to sane governance just as it did after President Jimmy Carter brought the nation to the brink of economic meltdown and had much of the public pessimistic to the point that the ‘Misery Index’ which had been used as a guide for politicians became a household word and was updated on many daily newscasts. Part of the reason that the United States recovered after President Carter was because they elected Ronald Reagan rather than trust President Carter a second term. President Obama was given a second term but there were some mitigating circumstances such as weak opposition by the Republican Party, the media almost taking a supportive position in backing the campaign of President Obama and foreign policy lapses had yet to prove disastrous and devolving to the threatening level it had with President Carter who faced a hostage crisis where Iran had held Fifty-two Embassy diplomats and citizens for 444 days, until President Reagan’s Inauguration Day. Had the foreign policy missteps by President Obama and his administration been made more evident before the election for his reelection, then he might have had a far more difficult time. Some may remember that the one area which Candidate Romney performed well was on foreign policy where President Obama made his best retort claiming when Romney answered that Russia was the United States number one adversary that, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for twenty years.” The clincher came not from President Obama but from the moderator Candy Crowley countered when Romney claimed that President Obama had not called the assault on the Consulate in Benghazi a terror attack and when Romney repeated his claim after President Obama challenged him to read the transcript and Crowley exclaimed with great authority and emphasis, “He did in fact call it an ‘act of terror.” That ended any challenge Romney might further make over Benghazi as he had been deflated and his argument flattened giving President Obama the impetus he needed to win that debate and escape any further claims on Benghazi, the subject had been poisoned.

Still, if anyone thinks that President Obama would not have received a far better bid for reelection than had Jimmy Carter no matter how the debates went or who he was running against obviously has no idea how almost completely President Reagan won that election, it was a virtually unanimous electoral vote except for the District of Columbia and Georgia, Minnesota, Maryland, Rhode Island, Hawaii and West Virginia. The electorate of the United States has witnessed a sea of change in the past ten years as certain critical demographics have changed with much of that change coming during President Obama’s time in office. Do not get this wrong, President George W. Bush made some huge influences which gave the changes an initial impetus which would have forced much of the change even without any additional shoves which they have received since. We need to remember that the prescription drug assistance granted to those who received government aided medical insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid very soon became the largest single government giveaway program. Sometime during the years when President Bush was in office the percentage of American citizens who were dependent on government at some level surpassed the fifty-percent fulcrum point where it had been theorized that their votes for increased government contributions to their pockets. This was predicted longer ago than many people are probably aware as it was said by Alexis de Tocqueville explaining the breaking point which would inevitable come and destroy the nation he saw as the most exemplary governance in existence when he stated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

There was one Founding Father who foresaw and gave the resolution that would treat this eventuality when Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter upon receiving his copy of the Constitution in which Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” And earlier in the letter he commented on the frequency such watering the tree of liberty would require, he mentioned his view of the purity of purpose of the American Revolution and the necessity of the purifying fire of refreshment where he wrote, “And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.” Yes, that is what Thomas Jefferson predicted, that the government of men would so far run adrift from the founding principles that every twenty years the nation would require the reset of another revolution and the reinstatement of the Constitution anew. Well, perhaps Thomas Jefferson was wrong though a serious inspection of the governance of the United States over the years there have been the historians who have made a convincing argument that the twenty year measure may not have been as ridiculous as we might think. Even if the measure of twenty years may appear too drastic, would one offer the same argument should one suggest that perhaps a two century timeframe were the measure in place of twenty years?

Whatever the measure one might place, it matters not. The fulcrum point has been surpassed and the preponderance of weight of votes are now likely to be cast in favor of retaining the programs and expanding the payments and the loosening the requirements as the first grants greater funds into their pockets and the latter brings more people into the program thus guaranteeing its continuation and potentials for increased funding. Once we see evidence that the balance has gone to the side of those who receive more from the government than they pay in taxes of all varieties plus those who are dependent on government, state, federal, county, or other elected body for their salaries compared to those whose tax payments are greater than payments received from government programs, then as long as the former vote at an equal or greater percentage than the latter the government will continue to grant greater payments while increasing taxes as those paying the taxes will have been silenced at the ballot box. The predictions that this point was surpassed during the Presidency of George W. Bush may have been correct but when the line was crossed is not as important as whether it was crossed. The numbers of Americans who were collecting the majority of their funds from government; be they welfare, disability, salary or other forms of receipt of government payments; passed the tipping point by a sufficient margin that there may be no turning back. The demographics of the next Presidential election in the United States may prove just as important as who actually wins the election. Once the demographics are studied and become known we may be seeing numerous articles signaling the death of the America which so impressed Alexis de Tocqueville causing him to state as well as to give an ominous warning in the same quote with, “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” What would Mr. Tocqueville conclude visiting America’s churches and listening to the preaching within today? Would he surmise that the greatness persists or would he fear the empty pews and the generally milquetoast sermons and preaching just as empty as the pews signify the demise of American greatness?

Beyond the Cusp

May 5, 2012

Why Everyone Insists Israel Sacrifice for Peace

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 Borders,2012 Elections,Administration,Ahmadinejad,Anti-Israel,Anti-Zionist,Arab World,Arabs,Ayatollah,Ayatollahs,Bedouin Tribes,Blood Libel,Borders,Boycott,Building Freeze,Building Freeze,Checkpoints,Condemning Israel,Defend Israel,Democracy,Disengagement,Divestment,Egypt,Elections,England,Europe,European Union,Fatah,Fatah Charter,France,Gaza,General Assembly,Germany,Government,Green Line,Hamas,Hate,Hezballah,History,Holy Sites,Human Rights,IDF,Iran,Iraq,Islam,Islamic State,Israel,Jehrico,Jenin,Jerusalem,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jihad,Jimmy Carter,Jordan,Judea,Judean Hills,Kotel,Lebanon,Media,Middle East,Mount of Olives,Mount of Olives Cemetary,Muslim Brotherhood,Muslim World,Muslims,Myth,Negev Desert,Netherlands,NGO,Non Governmental Organization,Old City,Oslo Accords,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Partition Plan,Peace Process,PLO,PLO Charter,Politics,Pre-Conditions,Protests,Recep Tayyip Erdogan,Recognize Israel,Refugee Camp,Refugees,Religion,Samaria,Sanctions (BDS),Saudi Arabia,Secretary General,Secretary of State,Security Council,Settlements,Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process,State Department,Syria,Taqiyya,Tel Aviv,Temple Mount,Temple Mount,Terror,Transjordan,Turkey,Two State Solution,United Nations,United States,UNRWA,West Bank,Western Wall,World,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 5:49 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

One significant element which has remained a constant in all facets of the drive to reach peace; either the general recognition and peace between the Arab nations with Israel, or the more specific recognition and peace between the Palestinians and Israel, is that the links in this chain are forged upon Israeli concessions and rarely if ever Arab or Palestinian concessions. This has become such an accepted norm that nobody even bothers to mention this in the discussions and discourse, let alone actually question why this is so. Well, perhaps it is time to take a slightly deeper inspection of this phenomenon along with a few other misconceptions.

The first item which most people are unaware is that the Oslo Accords signed on September 13, 1993, by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was an agreement between the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) and the nation of Israel, there was no Palestinian Authority yet established. All subsequent negotiations, agreements and other interactions were to be held between the PLO and Israel, not the Palestinian Authority and Israel. These Oslo Accords spelled out a five year period in which the two sides were to negotiate the “permanent status issues” leading to Palestinian autonomy. These parts of the negotiations were to begin no later than the third year of the negotiations. The Oslo Accords were to lead to a final agreement by the end of the five year period and held no powers past that five year period. If one were to be technical, the Oslo Accords are really on life support being extended through the two sides and the rest of the world choosing to continue as if the Oslo Accords were open ended and were to continue indefinitely until they attained their intended mission. Truth be told, the Oslo Accords died and were no longer applicable as of September 14, 1998, meaning they have been dead for over a decade. This necessitated the Oslo II agreement was signed in 1995 which divided the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) into areas A, B and C and divided up the civilian and security responsibility of each.

The main points of the Oslo Accords are defined in a Declaration of Principles (DoP). These were to govern the process by which power and responsibilities were to be transferred in stages by Israel to the Palestinians via the PLO as the negotiations reached certain agreements though the DoP does not set any preconditions or prejudgments upon the final arrangements concerning  Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders. Such determinations are even forbidden from being included within any interim arrangements which may be set on the path to the final agreement. It is also stipulated in the DoP that Israel retains all responsibility for all foreign interactions, security, defense of borders and Israel’s position on Jerusalem was to remain unchanged as the ancient and eternal capital of the Jewish people. Israel retained the responsible for security along the international borders and the crossing points into Egypt and Jordan. Many of these points came under assault with intent to modify them and force Israeli concessions and relenting on the rights which had been reserved by the Oslo Accords exclusively to the Israeli side.

Obviously, the Oslo Accords have run their course over three times their intended length and have somehow generated the Palestinian Authority which has, for all intended purposes, replaced the PLO in the negotiations with Israel. Another item from the original Oslo Accords was the insistence that the PLO submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist. In return, Rabin gave a letter to Arafat confirming Israeli recognition of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and authorized the beginning of negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process. To this day the PLO Charter has yet to be amended and retains the denial of Israel’s right to exist. There have been show votes stating intent to follow up with a committee to rewrite these sections of the Palestinian Charter made when the Palestinian National Council had observers witnessing their procedures but no committee was ever formed nor were any changes ever proposed, let alone made.

Since the beginning of the Oslo Accords there have been almost countless times where the negotiations have broken down, most often when a final solution seemed so close a moderator could almost taste it. This scenario became a theme which was repeated at Camp David, in Taba, in Paris and in such plans as Oslo Accords I, Oslo Accords II, the Hebron Protocol, Wye River Memorandum, Camp David 2000 Summit, the Roadmap to Peace, and numerous less famous intermediate meetings, intents and related futile measures. One of the recurring reasons for each failure was Yasser Arafat making additional demands during the final negotiation which he was fully aware would never be agreed to by the Israeli negotiators. Often the demand made was for the repatriation of over four million Palestinian Arab refugees within Israel proper and not the Palestinian areas, the division of Jerusalem to be used by both countries as their capital, full ceding of the Temple Mount, Old City and the areas including the Kotel (Western Wall and plaza) to Palestinian control, release of all prisoners held by Israel including terrorists convicted of murder, or some combination of these and other thrown in simply because he could. When the Israelis predictably balked at the sudden demands at the eleventh hour, Yasser Arafat would denounce the Israelis as intransigent and would walk out in obvious state of agitation. This is what leads to the near constant series of demands being placed upon the Israelis and not the Palestinian side.

The obvious surface reason that the vast majority of the demands have been placed at the feet of the Israelis has been that the majority of demands have been made by the Palestinians. The Israeli demands have remained fairly consistent and included the peace treaty signify the end of all claims and violence; borders which allow Israel to be defendable; full settlement of refuges within the new Palestine with a possibility for a very limited number within Israel; universal access for all religions to holy sites; and more recently Israel has added Palestinian State must be demilitarized and recognize Israel as the Jewish State. Meanwhile, the Palestinian negotiators have steadily incorporated their wildest extreme dream positions on permanent status issues as their preconditions upon which they demand Israel meet before the two sides enter into negotiations. This has even gone beyond anything ever sought by the Palestinians, even when speaking to their own people with the one exception being the eradication of Israel and the Jews living within, an ideal solution often spoken about in Arabic while never breached when speaking in English, but have shifted even further after President Obama pressed Israel for further concessions beyond anything ever previously demanded. The main pair which President Obama first spoke and have now mysteriously become standard demands by the Palestinian leadership are a total building freeze on all lands beyond the Green Line or contested by Israel and the Palestinians and acceptance of the 1949 Armistice Lines (also referred to as the 1967 Lines or the Green Line) as the starting borders with negotiated exchanges of land for land in setting final borders, after all, the Palestinians could not demand anything less severe than the demands made by the President of the United States.

The powers of individual European governments, the European Union, the United Nations, the United States, numerous Arab and Muslim countries, and anybody else adding their two-cents worth have almost universally placed the onus of making concessions in order to restart the Palestinian-Israeli final status negotiations on the Israelis. Such demands have included combinations of removal of roadblocks, removal of checkpoints, building freeze in the West Bank, remitting control of more lands over to the Palestinian governance, releasing terrorists and prisoners early, and anything which could be qualified as confidence building measures. The reason these demands are virtually always aimed towards the Israelis has a logical and easily explained reasoning, the Palestinians have never met even the initial requirements which they had promised to execute when they signed the original Oslo Accords. The most obvious of these has been the removal of the call for the eradication of all of Israel and building their Palestinian dream state on all the lands from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea. On the other hand, Israel has made numerous concessions over the years including but not limited to a ten month building freeze in Judea and Samaria, removal of numerous roadblocks and/or checkpoints, release of prisoners, turning lands over to complete Palestinian control such as almost all of Hevron, and even the complete evacuation of every Jewish resident and IDF troop from the Gaza Strip turning it over to the Palestinians along with following this with continued humanitarian aid of food and medical supplies, fuel, and other critical aid in order to avoid hardships upon the Palestinian people of Gaza. Israel has proven that they are willing to be flexible and bending to extremes in order to facilitate peace. The Palestinians have made it evidently clear they are unwilling to make even the slightest concession and have declared, in Arabic of course, that even should they ever reach and sign a peace agreement with the Israelis, they still will reserve their “right” to continued violence and terrorism until they have liberated all of Palestine from the River to the Sea. The Palestinians consider current negotiations which have been held over the last ten to fifteen years as simply having been negotiations intended to defeat the Zionists in stages. The Palestinians are willing to accept a state along the 1967 Lines, followed by another state which incorporates the Negev under the Bedouins, and an additional Arab state in the Galilee Valley on and on until Israel has been erased, even Tel Aviv then unifying all of these states under the Palestine flag. The entire world is fully aware of all of this and realizes Israel honestly and truly desires a lasting, permanent, and real peace while the Palestinians will only accept the replacement of the Zionist state with a Palestinian Arab Muslim state. The Palestinian leadership has expressed their intent to form a true Islamic state with Sharia Law and all that implies. The many different entities which have made demands of Israel to facilitate and aid the Palestinians in acquiring the initial requirements for stage one and after this has been accomplished they will also be likely to support each step on the way to erasing Israel with as much vigor as they currently spend on Israel. And these wonderful people who wish only to pursue “Peace” will work diligently to eradicate the side willing to make concessions as to try and force the Palestinian side to make any concession has proven too difficult, and if there is anything these vultures for peace desire is the easy path, and all the better if the path leaves these vultures a dead body to peck apart and feed upon in the end.

Beyond the Cusp

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at