Not Another War in Iraq

“In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 52 — 1788

Today a watched a show on Fox News called “The Five.” It’s an hour long talk and opinion show featuring five Fox personalities. Today’s show featured Dana Perino a former G.W. Bush press secretary, Kimberly Guilfoyle a former San Francisco prosecutor, Eric Bolling a former oil trader and business analyst, Bob Beckel a Democrat operative and campaign manager for Walter Mondale, Andrea Tantaros former vice president at a public affairs firm in Manhattan where she advised Fortune 500 corporations on crisis management and media strategy, and a guest, Jesse Watters a Bill O’Reilly producer.

The Five is a show where topics of current interest are covered in 5 to 7 minutes segments called “blocks.” It is also a show where people tend to talk over one another and really do not listen well to what the other person is saying.

Yesterday (June 16^th) there was a very heated debate on what to do in Iraq. Each of the co-hosts and Watters had strong opinions ranging from doing nothing to military intervention to assist the Maliki government. Also each on them had at least one point that I could agree with. However, one of the things that irritated me was Beckel’s lack of accurate knowledge of the history of the region and his constant pension for blaming George W. Bush for the mess Iraq is in today.

Yes, it was during the Bush administration that we invaded Iraq to find alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Of course on the other side there were those blaming Obama for the problems in Syria and Iraq caused by the rise of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq/Levant (ISIS). The blame game is totally counterproductive in find a solution as to what U.S policy should be and the immediate actions the United States must take, if any. In other words there was plenty of heat, but a small amount of light.

To mediate a conflict being it a business deal, civil suit or a war the parties involved cannot spend their time and efforts reliving the past. If they serious they must try to find a solution that will work and leave the blame game to the historians. It is much too early to write a history of involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan while he major players are still alive. Any history will be tainted by the agenda of the participants be they pro or con.

Of course to make a wise and workable plan you need to take into consideration the history and culture of the region. In essence you need to back to the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632 — some 1,382 years ago and the conflict over his successor. This is when Islam broke into two warring factions — the Sunnis supported the succession of Abu Bakr, the prophet’s friend and he Shiite Muslims who felt the rightful successor was the prophet’s son-in-law and cousin, Ali bin Abu Talib. This conflict lies at the heart of the problem.

The latest Iraq war is between Iraq’s pro-Iranian Shiite government and pro-Al Qaeda Sunni rebels. It boils down to Iran vs. Al Qaeda, radical Shiites versus radical Sunnis. The first rule of foreign policy is if your enemies are killing each other, don’t step in to stop them.

What we’ve seen in Syria, and now in Iraq, is the early phase of a 30-year civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, which will go from region to region, country to country, tribe to tribe. Fighters will become increasingly radical and brutal, and they will be fueled by Arab oil money. For them, it is a fight about religion, power, geography and resources. And it could well be a fight to the finish.

America has a choice: We can be caught in the middle of this generational war, propping up this side or that, sometimes switching sides. Or we can figure out what our underlying strategic interests in the region are and find a way to achieve them that doesn’t involve U.S. forces or military assistance.

Sadly, our leaders are spending their efforts blaming each other for what went wrong rather than finding a way out of the mess. It’s like listening to your kids arguing, “It’s not my fault, he started it”. “No, it wasn’t me, she’s the one who started it!”

Iraq is descending once again into a brutal civil war, and what’s Washington doing? Wringing its hands and blaming the other guy! Bush supporters say it’s all Obama’s fault for failing to leave a residual force and negotiating a Status of Forces agreement in Iraq after we won the war. Obama supporters say the original sin was Bush’s flawed decision to invade Iraq over a decade ago.

Enough already! Let’s just agree it’s everybody’s fault. Bush shouldn’t have gone into Iraq and Obama shouldn’t have gotten out. There is plenty of blame to go around for past mistakes, but we are where we are and the question now is, what do we do?

An important but often forgotten test for American foreign policy decisions is what is in our country’s national interest. It’s not about what is best for Iraq or Afghanistan or anyone else. The question is what’s best for America. We have three sustaining vital strategic interests in the Middle East: oil, terrorists and Israel. We want their oil, we don’t want their terrorists and we want Israel to survive in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood.

Oil

As the region descends into generational civil war, Shiites and Sunnis will target each other’s oil fields and refineries. Unless we’re prepared to occupy the entire region for decades, we should face the fact we, America plus the world, are not going to get our oil from a war zone. Arab oil will no longer be cheap, abundant or secure, and it is unlikely to be so ever be again.

At a minimum, America needs to be energy independent. We should work with our Canadian and Mexican allies to create a North American energy corridor. In the last several years American technology, perseverance and ingenuity have developed ways to find, extract and bring to market our own oil and natural gas. American shale energy is so plentiful it will satisfy our own needs and soon be enough to make us the energy supplier to the world. American oil and natural gas can replace Arab oil and gas, but only if we have the political will to take the shackles off the American energy industry. There is violence today in Iraq, and experts are talking about a new floor of $5-per-gallon gasoline. We can no longer hold our economy hostage to warring tribes in the Middle East.

Fracking and horizontal drilling can be done safely and environmentally responsibly if we require the best industry practices. The same goes for drilling in Alaska and off our shores. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline, immediately, would show the world that America has set out on a different course and is committed to developing an alternative to Middle East oil. Of course this will not help Europe, but their problem, not ours.

Terrorists

Some say we must re-engage in Iraq to prevent Al Qaeda from seizing control and using it as a launching pad for attacks against Americans. That’s the same argument the same people used to justify our decade-long, unsuccessful, nation-building efforts in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has established a presence in dozens of countries throughout North Africa, the Middle East, the Levant, the Arabian Peninsula, all the way to South Asia. Al Qaeda can use countries from Libya to Syria to Pakistan to threaten Americans; an American military presence in all of them is unrealistic.

To keep terrorists from our shores, we must commit to securing our borders and focus our intelligence-gathering on possible terrorists rather than the broad American public. Our airline security system gives Granny from Grand Rapids, who is taking the grandkids to Disney World, the same level of scrutiny it gives a young man who has traveled multiple times to the tribal regions of Pakistan. We gather intelligence on hundreds of millions, rather than zeroing in on those with terrorist profiles. By focusing on everyone, we’re focusing on no one. Our current system wastes time and resources. We need to fix it.

Israel

We may not have a formal defense treaty with Israel, but we do have moral and strategic interests in helping it survive in a dangerous neighborhood that is about to get even more dangerous. We should do everything possible to give Israel the tools it needs to defend itself. Period.

Some say we’ve paid too high a price in Iraq to lose it now. Nearly 4,500 Americans lost their lives and tens of thousands were injured in the Iraq War. They and their families will bear the mental and physical scars of battle for their lifetimes. We’ve spent well over a trillion dollars in American treasure in oil-rich Iraq. All of that is true, and it’s tragic. But it is also in the past. There is nothing we can do to erase that, and very little we can do to “save” Iraq.

The brutal truth is we wanted Iraq to be a democratic and free nation more than the Iraqis did. There are 65,000 American-trained and equipped soldiers in the Iraqi Army running away from 2,000 Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) insurgents. The sight of Iraqi soldiers taking off their uniforms and throwing aside their weapons in hopes of blending into the crowd as Al Qaeda/ISIS advances says it all. The Iraqi military and government are not failing for lack of numbers, funds, training or equipment. They’re failing for lack of will. We handed them democracy on a silver platter, and they didn’t want it so they will not fight for it. Democracy needs cultural and historic ties to liberal thinkers. Our republic had its roots in England’s Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance. Once these ideas are embedded in the hearts and minds of the people they will willing fight to carry them forward and build a society based on them.

Our main concern in Iraq today is the 20,000 American civilians who are still there. They are vulnerable, and we should do everything possible to bring them home quickly and safely. No one wants to see the YouTube video of black-masked, machete-wielding Al Qaeda terrorists ready to strike at blindfolded, kneeling Americans.

What we have failed to understand throughout our wars of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we see war and peace through a different lens than our enemies do. Americans see peace as the normal state of affairs, with war occurring when peace breaks down. When war does break out, we believe it is temporary and that peace will be restored when it is over. We believe in wars that have winners and losers and, perhaps most importantly, that every war eventually ends.

The people we have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq do not see war and peace the same way. For them, war is never over. Peace is merely a pause while both sides regroup to fight again.

Some of our brave men and women who bore the brunt of battle in Iraq are now questioning whether their sacrifices were in vain. What they must remember is they weren’t fighting for Iraq, or for its various tribes. Our soldiers and sailors and marines and pilots fought for America. They fought nobly, and bravely. If there is any failure, it is not with America’s military, but with our political leaders.

America made many of the same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan that it did in Vietnam. Americans are once again war-weary, and once again determined not to send our troops to fight for dictators who don’t like us in countries that don’t matter. Hopefully the lesson sticks this time. We must adhere to the advice of our first president — George Washington when he said:

“My ardent desire is, and my aim has been to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home.”

Just because there is no U.S. military solution for Iraq isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card for President Obama to do nothing. All too often he sets up the straw man argument: We don’t want to go to war, so therefore we do nothing.

The United States has vital strategic interests in the region — oil, terrorists and Israel — that will not be met if the president uses the excuse of no boots on the ground to do nothing. Lobbing a few missiles into Iraq or bombing a few areas may look like “action,” but neither will do anything to change the battle’s outcome. America’s national security does not always mean sending in the Marines, but it does mean taking concrete steps to guarantee our vital interests.

If the president fails to do so, he cannot hide behind the excuse that Iraq was Bush’s war, and losing it was Bush’s failure. If he fails to take the steps available to him to develop American energy resources, to protect Americans from terrorist attacks and to offer full support to our ally Israel, it will be on his watch, and on his head.

Are You Ready For a World Governed by Islamic Law?

“I have been ordered to fight the people until they all say: ‘None has the right to be worshiped other than Allah.’” — Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59

Are you ready for a world dominated by Islamic law? On July 9, the international political group Hizb ut-Tahrir will meet for the “UK Khilafah Conference” in London. During the gathering, meetings will focus upon ways in which a caliphate can be instituted. A caliphate is an Islamic state that draws its authority from, and is based upon, Sharia law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which stands for the “Party of Liberation” in English, is an international political organization that seeks one, unified Muslim state that is dominated by Muslim law. This particular group stands firmly planted against the United States, accusing the Super Power of colonization, among other offenses.

Additionally, the group would like to see Israel, which it deems “illegal,” be dismantled. Below, you can see a graphic that the group is using to promote the conference.

You can watch the conference’s “trailer” for more. In it, you’ll notice that the group targets Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, among others, for assisting in “colonialism” and “oppression.” Also, look out for the words, “An Islamic call spanning the globe.” Watch below:

Sometimes a word, like a faded Hollywood starlet, makes a surprising return to the spotlight and so it is for caliphate. The word owes its renewed popularity to Glenn Beck, who first raised the possibility of a new caliphate on his Fox television show. Suddenly, the word went from relative obscurity to become one of Google’s most searched words, as revolution erupted in Egypt and the world began to wonder what would emerge from the anger in Egypt’s streets.

Simply, a caliphate is a form of government. More precisely, it is an Islamic state that draws its authority from, and is based upon, Sharia law. Get used to hearing the word; it is the form of government advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

What exactly a caliphate looks like depends on whether you are a Sunni or a Shia Muslim. Sunnis believe a caliphate should be a constitutional republic, whose leaders are elected by Muslims. Shias believe the head of state is divinely chosen via a lineage of religious clerics called Imams. Within Egypt, Sunnis outnumber Shias. But, either way will involve the rule of Sharia law, its just a matter of how it is imposed.

Those who dismiss the idea of a caliphate in Egypt are discounting the country’s history. Egypt is hardly a stranger to such a form of government; it was part of the Ottoman Empire from the early 16th century until in the late 19th century. The Ottoman Empire was the last great caliphate. It didn’t transition to a secular government model until 1924.

With almost four hundred years of history as a caliphate, it’s not surprising then that Egypt’s penal code is written and based upon Islamic law. Perhaps this is to be expected in a country where an estimated 90% of the people are Muslim. What is surprising is that Egypt’s government is, or at least has been, a secular model. But will it remain so?

Given the country’s history and the religion of the overwhelming majority of its people, the stage may be set for the return of a caliphate, rising out of the present turmoil. And what that means to you probably depends on who you are. A caliphate may sound fine if you are Muslim. It might chaff a little if you’re not. Christians and Jews were treated as second-class citizens under the Ottoman Empire. Certainly to the American mind, raised to believe in the “wall of separation between church and state” as articulated by Thomas Jefferson, a caliphate is an anathema. Under a caliphate of any color organizations like the ACLU, Code Pink, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Alliance (LGBT). There are no civil liberties and homosexuality is a crime punishable by death under Sharia.

If the possibility of a caliphate in Egypt sounds improbable, consider these facts: Egypt’s current government is in collapse, the largest and most organized opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood, champions Islamic law and Egypt was once part of a caliphate.

It never works out well to ignore history or facts. The dramatic changes in Egypt cannot be denied nor can the implications for the entire region. An improbable word has made a comeback. The government it represents might not be so far behind.

Historically, Caliph (Khalifa) is the title given to those individuals who succeeded Muhammad after his death as the leader of the Muslims. The Arabic word khalifa means successor, and the full title khalifatu rasulil-lah means “successor to the messenger of Allah”. The Caliph is to be the political, military and administrative leader of all Muslims. The Caliph is the Pope, President and General of the Islamic world all wrapped into one. The office and government of the Caliph is known as the Caliphate (Khilafat). The Caliphate is the only form of government fully sanctioned within early Islamic theology. The purpose of the Caliphate is to govern the Islamic world under the Islamic Sharia law. Caliphs were also referred to with other titles such as Imam al-Ummah (leader of the Muslim community) or Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful).

From Muhammad’s death until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, various Caliphates or dynasties ruled the Islamic world. The most significant Caliphates in historical order were the Rashidun, the Abbasid, the Umayyid, and finally the Ottoman. At times in Muslim history, there have been rival claimants to the title Caliph in different parts of the Muslim world. Although the purpose of the Caliphate is to unify all Muslims worldwide, rarely has this genuinely been the case. Islamists however often downplay this fact and instead portray the first thirteen hundred years of Islam through a highly idealized lens:

From the first moment of its creation, the Islamic State implemented the Sharia comprehensively, conducted the affairs of the society solely according to Islam, and propagated Islam throughout the world for over thirteen centuries. Occasionally internal tensions fractured the integrity of the State, but incidents were short-lived. Throughout its thirteen centuries of existence, the Khalifa continued as a single indivisible entity that united all the Muslims under a single authority.

Today the Caliphate does not exist other than as a theoretical government that would govern the Islamic world under Islamic law. It was on March 3, 1924 that the last Caliphate—the Ottoman Caliphate—was officially abolished by the first President of the Turkish Republic, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. It is essential that anyone trying to understand the present global Islamic movement understand the psychological impact that the abolition of the Caliphate has had on Muslims worldwide and how these factors are presently playing out throughout the Muslim World.

All Muslims regard themselves as members of one ummah, or community of Muslim believers. This concept dominates the Muslim world and mind. This sense of community and loyalty to Muhammad and Allah extends even beyond family and other societal ties. Thus, we find that Muslims do not hesitate to kill family members who give up the Islamic faith despite being their own blood and flesh. They consider it their duty to do so.

Add to this the simple fact that the Islamic sacred traditions are filled with prophecies foretelling the triumph of Islam over the whole world:

Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they all say: ‘None has the right to be worshiped other than Allah.’” —Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59, Narrated Abu Huraira.

The eventual conquest and complete Islamicization of the earth is as natural of an expectation for most Muslims as the rising of the Sun. Theologically, Muslims have a sense of divine entitlement, believing that complete world domination is their calling and destiny. Therefore, for the past eighty plus years, since the actual abolition of the Caliphate, the Muslim believer has a felt a deep disorder in the power balance of the world. Rather than a united Islamic Empire under a Caliph, the Islamic World has existed as a network of underachieving and defeated nation states. They see the modern Muslims states in the Middle East as a product of the evil of the Western powers (despite being secular states, Muslims often see the West as being exclusively Christian nations) who divided up the Islamic Caliphate. This was Osama bin Laden’s view of the west and one of his big issues was to drive the United States and other western powers out of Saudi Arabia. It is also the goal of the al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the African Peninsula (AQAP).

At the same time, too often they have been ruled by corrupt third-rate dictators, like Moammar Qaddafi, who live in luxury while their people live in difficult circumstances. Again, they often see these tyrants as being installed or supported by the evil Western powers. A people who viewed themselves as the world’s foremost superpower for over thirteen hundred years have been a divided network of backwater nation states for nearly a century now with many existing on the oil they produce. And to compound this emotional blow, this humbling has taken place during the 20th century, a time when numerous other nations—particularly those founded on Judeo-Christian principles—have excelled in everything from government to human rights, scientific breakthroughs, prosperity, education, military and who can list everything else? So it has been the combination of the relative prosperity and advancement in so many parts of the non-Muslim world contrasted with the complete deterioration of the once thriving Islamic Empire that has been on display as the shame of the Muslim World. Add again to all this the fact that the Muslim world is an Eastern culture, where honor and shame mean everything. All in all, the psychological impact and the resentment of the Muslim world regarding all that we have discussed is nearly all consuming.

And of course, where does this resentment and pent-up anger fall? For in such a drastically disordered world, conspiracy theories and blame-shifting are the only tools sufficient enough to cope. Muslims then blame all of their ills on Israel (or as it is so often referred to as: “The World-Zionist Conspiracy”) as well as the various imperialist Western colonizing powers of the last and previous centuries. In order to remedy their shame and refusing to entertain the truth of the real root of their problems, many Muslims have seen no alternative other than painting themselves as victims of Western imperialist “crusader” forces.

Looking back upon the pre-colonial days of Islamic Empire, two thoughts are often seen to emerge in the modern Muslim mind: The first is to recapture the former glory, and the second is to punish those who have withheld it for so long. All of these aspirations are most often summarized negatively in the overthrow and destruction of Israel and the West, while they are expressed positively in the messianic expectations concerning the coming of the final Caliph, referred to as the Mahdi.

For additional comments and video you can visit Joelstrumpet.com where there is an interesting video on the coming of the Anti-Christ.

Obama Drinks Guinness while Benjamin Netanyahu Addresses Congress

“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East!” — Benjamin Netanyahu, May 24, 2011, before a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

While President Obama gave it the old college try while visiting a pub in Moneygall, Ireland by drinking Guinness and getting his monstrous black limousine stuck on a a steep driveway Benjamin Netanyahu was getting ready to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

Not since Winston Churchill addresses a joint session of Congress in January

Winston Churchill addresses a joint session of Congress in January 1942

1942 has a foreign leader gotten such unanimous acceptance and applause. The Israeli prime minister did a very good job. He connected with the members of Congress. There was applause more than 50 times, half of those standing ovations.

Netanyahu moved the debate where it needs to go: to the threat posed by Iran, the sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Assad’s Syria, a jihadi regime working overtime to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

He then went on to emphasize that he and other Israelis are willing to accept a Palestinian state. It is acceptance of a Jewish state by Palestinians and other Arabs that is lacking. In such a circumstance, how can there be progress toward peace? As Netanyahu said, to loud applause (and with President Obama clearly in mind), peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. And Israel does not have a negotiating partner. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s extermination. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas will not even sit down and talk with Israelis face to face.

This speech had more truth in it than Congress has heard in years. Netanyahu stood up, just as he promised, and told the unvarnished truth about what it will take to make peace with the Palestinians.

Early in the speech he established that Israel is not only a true democracy, but that all of the Arabs that live in Israel enjoy real democratic rights, which is unparalleled in the Middle East. He went on to say with vigor:

“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East!”

Here are some of the Highlights from Netanyahu’s speech.

On Israel’s unique standing in the Middle East:

“In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.”

“My friends, you don’t have to — you don’t need to do nation- building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.”

“In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.”

“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.”

On the ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions:

“A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar… The tremors have shattered states. They’ve toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting.”

“Now, this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty. These extraordinary scenes in Tunis, in Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. We must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out, as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then.”

“The brief democratic spring in Tehran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. And it’s this same tyranny that smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution and inflicted on that long- suffering country the medieval rule of Hezbollah.”

“So today the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. And like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty.”

On being interrupted by a young female Code Pink protester yelling “No more occupation and Israeli war crimes!”

“You know, I take it as a badge of honor, and so should you, that in our free societies you can now protest. You can’t have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This is real democracy.”

“So as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the Middle East and Iran, that they’ll be able to do what that young woman just did — I think she’s young; I couldn’t see quite that far.”

On the Iranian nuclear threat:

“When I last stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.”

“Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam.”

“A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world.”

“See, I want you to understand what this means, because if we don’t stop it, it’s coming. They could put a bomb anywhere. They could put it in a missile; they’re working on missiles that could reach this city. They could put it on a — on a ship inside a container; could reach every port. They could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway.”

“Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads on the stand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.”

On confronting that threat:

“The ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. In that same year, Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. And this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.”

On the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

“So far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.”

“Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.”

“President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people — and I told you, it wasn’t easy for me — I stood before my people and I said, “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.”

“Those six words will change history. They’ll make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end; that they’re not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it.”

“And those six words will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.”

On the demographic/geographic conditions for peace:

“In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.”

“The border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.”

“Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.”

“The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the president’s clear position on these — on this issue.”

“Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated.”

On Hamas:

“Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaeda. That we will not do.”

“So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate. Make peace with the Jewish state. And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations; it will be the first to do so.”

On the United States’ special role in the world:

“My friends, the momentous trials over the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike. I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.”

You can read the full text and watch the complete video of Netanyahu’s speech by clicking here. When you watch the speech note that when Bibi says that “Jerusalem must never again be divided” Speaker Boehner is clapping and Biden's hands remaining together on the surface in front of him. I imagine Biden's response mirrors that of the Administration.

I close this post with a personal anecdote about Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu was a captain in the IDF before going on to earn his M.S. degree from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1977, and studying political science at Harvard University. While in the IDF he served with my partner in the civil engineering firm I was part owner of. My partner, a Sabra and citizen of the U.S. related this story to me.

The story takes place during one night when my partner was leading a patrol along the border with Jordan to detect any Palestinian terrorist infiltration. It was a cold, dark night and the patrol stopped to get warm and drink some hot tea. While they were resting and enjoying their tea and snack they were jumped by several men dressed in black and wearing balaclavas. The assaulting men pointed their assault rifles at them and told them to get on the ground. They then informed the men of my partner’s patrol they were all dead. Once the patrol was lying prone on the attackers removed their balaclavas and it was Bibi Netanyahu leading a crack anti-terrorist team to check on the performance of the patrol. After a thorough dressing down by Netanyahu the patrol was allowed to get up and continue their nightly rounds with a greater sense of duty and security. Netanyahu understood the threat from the PLO terrorists and he wanted to make sure the men and women of the IDF did.

Netanyahu did not only talk the talk, he walked the walk.

Chris Wallace gets it Wrong

"For what is meant by saying that a government ought to educate the people? Why should they be educated? What is the education for? Clearly, to fit the people for social life — to make them good citizens. And who is to say what are good citizens? The government: there is no other judge. And who is to say how these good citizens may be made? The government: there is no other judge. Hence the proposition is convertible into this — a government ought to mold children into good citizens, using its own discretion in settling what a good citizen is and how the child may be molded into one." — British author, economist and philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

During an Interview with Herman Cain, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Cain what he would do about the “Right of Return” of the Palestinians to the “occupied territories.” You can watch the complete interview by clicking here. Wallace’s question regarding Israel comes at 08:42 into the video.

I think Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday is one of the better interviewers among the various news channel hosts. He is prepared, and pushes pretty hard with everybody, though not in an obnoxious fashion. He chooses to remain the interviewer, and not become the story. Unfortunately, Wallace injected himself into an interview Sunday, with the use of language that can be best described as inflammatory and historically inaccurate.

In an interview with newly announced GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain, Wallace asked a few questions about Cain's support of Israel.

He then asked him about the Palestinian right of return. When Cain seemed unaware of the issue, Wallace tried to clarify the issue for him that the right of return was for the Palestinians who were "kicked out" by Israel in the 48 war. Wallace’s question to Cain was:

“Do you think the Palestinian refugees, the people who were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able or should have any right to return to Israeli land?”

This statement is evidence that Wallace is unaware of the circumstances of the 1948 war or the history of the refugees since that war.

The 1948 war began with Arab attacks the day the U.N. passed the partition resolution in November 1947, which was accepted by the Zionists, and rejected by the Arabs in mandate Palestine and the Arab nations. The war escalated when 5 Arab armies invaded in May 1948 when the British withdrew, with a goal of wiping out the Jewish presence. About 600,000 Arabs abandoned homes in the war that went on for over a year. Very few of them were kicked out or driven out by the Zionists.

That did happen, but only in a few places. The great majority of the Arabs left due to other circumstances — fleeing a war zone where hand to hand close range fighting was going on, or because they were encouraged to do so by the invading Arab armies, telling them to come back to their homes after the Zionists were eliminated. All the contemporary news accounts of the day, and statements by Arab leaders support this conclusion.

While this war was going on, an equal number of Jews in Arab countries — Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other Arab countries — were driven from their homes and their countries. Most of the Jewish refugees moved to Israel, and were accepted as full citizens. None of them lingered in refugee camps for decades. The treatment of the Arab refugees by Arab nations was different. Many were never resettled, and many never obtained citizenship in their new countries. Many were never allowed to work, but were forced to remain in stagnant camps, funded by the UNWRA, (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) where indoctrination of future generations consisted mainly of blaming Israel for their plight.

Israeli official sources, foreign press, officials present at the time and historians have claimed that the refugee flight was instigated by Arab leaders. For example, Yosef Weitz wrote in October 1948: "The migration of the Arabs from the Land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion — it was a tactic of war on the part of the Arabs.” Israeli historian Efraim Karsh wrote, "The logic behind this policy was apparently that 'the absence of women and children from Palestine would free the men for fighting', as the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Abd al-Rahman Azzam put it." In his book, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Karsh cited the substantial, active role the Arab Higher Committee played in the exoduses from Haifa, Tiberias, and Jaffa as an important part of understanding what he called the "birth of the Palestinian refugee problem."

A May 3, 1948 Time Magazine article attributed the exodus from the city of Haifa to fear, Arab orders to leave and a Jewish assault. The Economist attributed the exodus from Haifa to orders to leave from the Higher Arab Executive as well as expulsion by Jewish troops.

In the case of the village of Ein Karem, William O. Douglas was told by the villagers that the cause of their flight was twofold: first, it was caused by fear that came out of the Deir Yassin massacre, and second because "the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave. It apparently was a strategy of mass evacuation, whether or not necessary as a military or public safety measure."

Khalid al-`Azm who was prime minister of Syria from December 17, 1949 to March 30, 1949 listed in his memoirs a number of reasons for the Arab defeat in an attack on the Arab leaders including his own predecessor Jamil Mardam Bey:

“Fifth: the Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge in adjacent Arab countries, after terror had spread among their ranks in the wake of the Deir Yassin event. This mass flight has benefited the Jews and the situation stabilized in their favor without effort. Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homeland, while it is we who constrained them to leave it. Between the invitation extended to the refugees and the request to the United Nations to decide upon their return, there elapsed only a few months.”

After the war, a few Arab leaders tried to present the Palestinian exodus as a victory by claiming to have planned it. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Said was later quoted as saying: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

The Arab National Committee of Haifa, the Arab leadership in Haifa in 1948, wrote and delivered a report on the flight of roughly 60,000 Arabs from Haifa. The report said, "The removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town was voluntary and carried out at our request."

"Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring, brotherly states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down," wrote Habab Issa of Al-Hoda, the leading newspaper for Lebanese Maronites in the United States. A Muslim weekly newspaper in Beirut similarly reported, "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders?” The Arab States and Lebanon amongst them, did it!"

Mahmoud Abbas, at the time Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, would later recall: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

In 2009, veteran opponent of Israel, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, wrote about his vision for a One-state solution, saying that the Arabs fled "in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 — violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus." He added that "it is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. (I suggest Chris Wallace take time to read the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus by clicking here.

After the 1948 War the population east of the Jordan River contained over 400,000 Palestinian refugees who made up one-third of the population; another third of the population was Palestinians on the West Bank. Only one third of the population consisted of the original inhabitants of Trans-Jordan, which meant that the Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics and played a critical role in the political opposition. Since the 1950s, the West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem that was the key issue of Jordan's domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled "life or death" for Jordan and would remain the country's overriding national security issue.

King Hussein feared an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom. The Palestinian factions were supported variously by many Arab regimes, most notably Egypt's President Nasser, who gave political support; and Saudi Arabia, which gave financial support. The Palestinian nationalist organization Fatah started organizing attacks against Israel in January 1965, and Israel was also subject to repeated cross-border attacks by Palestinian Fedayeen; these often drew reprisals that killed and injured Jordanians. The Samu Incident was one such reprisal. Jordan had long maintained secret contacts with Israel concerning peace and security along their border. Due to internal splits within the Jordanian government and population however, many of King Hussein's orders to stop these raids were not obeyed, and some Jordanian commanders along the Israeli-Jordanian border began giving the Palestinian raids passive assistance.

On September 18, during the time of turmoil, Syria tried to intervene on behalf of the Palestinian guerrillas. President Hafez al-Assad told his biographer, Patrick Seale, that Syria's intervention was only to protect the Palestinians from a massacre. The Syrians sent in armored forces equivalent to a brigade, with tanks, some of them allegedly hastily rebranded from the regular Syrian army for the purpose. Other Syrian units were the 5th Infantry Division (with the 88th and 91st Tank Brigades and the 67th Mechanized Brigade with over 200 T-55 tanks) and Commandos. They were under the command of the Palestine Liberation Army's (PLA) Syrian branch, whose headquarters were located in Damascus, and which was controlled by the government. They were met by the 40th Armored Brigade of the Jordanian Army. The Syrian Air Force, under orders of Assad, never entered the battle. This has been variously attributed to power struggles within the Syrian Baathist government (pitting Assad against Salah Jadid), and to the threat of Israeli military intervention.

As King Hussein dealt with threats by both Palestinian refugees in his country and invading Syrian forces, the king asked "the United States and Great Britain to intervene in the war in Jordan, asking the United States, in fact, to attack Syria, and some transcripts of diplomatic communiqués show that Hussein requested Israeli intervention against Syria." Timothy Naftali said. "Syria had invaded Jordan and the Jordanian king, facing what he felt was a military rout, said please help us in any way possible."

A telegram indicates that Hussein himself called a U.S. official at 3 a.m. to ask for American or British help. "Situation deteriorating dangerously following Syrian massive invasion", the document said. "I request immediate physical intervention both land and air to safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Jordan. Immediate air strikes on invading forces from any quarter plus air cover are imperative."

On 21 September the Syrian 5th Division broke through the defenses of the Jordanian 40th Armored Brigade, and pushed it back off the ar-Ramtha crossroads. King Hussein was thrown into a near panic. On 22 September the Royal Jordanian Air Force began attacking Syrian forces, which were badly battered as a result. The constant airstrikes broke the will of the Syrian force, and on the late afternoon of 22 September the 5th Division began to retreat.

Whatever the case, the swift Syrian withdrawal was a severe blow to Palestinian hopes. Jordanian armored forces steadily pounded their headquarters in Amman, and threatened to break them in other regions of the kingdom as well. The Palestinians agreed to a cease-fire. Hussein and Arafat attended the meeting of leaders of Arab countries in Cairo, where Arafat won a diplomatic victory. On September 27, Hussein was forced to sign an agreement which preserved the right of the Palestinian organizations to operate in Jordan. For Jordan, it was humiliating that the agreement treated both sides to the conflict as equals. This was the beginning of the “Black September” movement, a terrorist organization that would plague the world with airline hijackings, bombings and the massacre at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

Of the 600,000 original Arab refugees, perhap 75,000 are alive today. Yet the Palestinians claim 5 million refugees. They do this because alone among the refugee populations of the world, the U.N considers descendants of the original refugees, whether 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation, as refugees, even though they never even set foot in Israel in their lives. The Palestinians and Arab nations blame Israel for the plight of the refugees, but it is their cynical use of the refugee issue, that has kept alive a refugee population 63 years after a war, and embittered Palestinians from ever accepting a Jewish majority state of Israel.

The Palestinians want to flood Israel with five million "non-refugee refugees" in order to become a majority in Israel and change the character of the state. All the so-called foreign policy experts who have looked at ways to resolve the conflict, and all the U.S. Presidents who have spoken about the issue, including Obama on several occasions, have argued that Palestinian refugees would need to be resettled in a new Palestinian state, or in Arab countries, or Western countries, with some compensation provided, assuming a two state solution that ended the conflict could be achieved.

Since the 1948 War of Independence there have been numerous peace conferences and accords. None of them have worked and they never will. Just as there will never be “peace” between India and Pakistan or the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka so there will never be peace between Islamic nations and the Jews. Judaism is the sworn enemy of Islam. The best you can hope for is the absence of war and this can only be achieved by a strong Israel with secure and defensible borders. As George Washington said; “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” And for Israel to be prepared for war it needs defensible borders and a committed, unified population.

Calling for a right of return to Israel is part of a strategy to end the Zionist state, the same strategy that created the refugee situation in the beginning. There are consequences to starting wars and losing them. Click here to read more.

Wallace might want to read up a bit, and then tell his viewers next week that his statement was incorrect.

The Cognitive Dissonance of the American Jew

When the fox fails to reach the grapes, he decides he does not want them after all, an example of adaptive preference formation, designed to reduce cognitive dissonance — The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena. In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs.

Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

A classic example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern "adaptive preference formation. [Source: Wikipedia and Science Daily]

The most prevalent example of cognitive dissonance is the attitudes and beliefs of the American Jew when it comes to Israel. I say American Jew because the Jews in Israel (Israelis) so not have this same physiological disease and there aren’t many Jews left in Europe.

For generations the American Jew has supported liberal, progressive, socialist and even communist ideologies. They have done this out a sense of justice and more so empathy. They are more in tune with the philosophies Marx, Lenin and the Fabian Socialists than of Locke, Burke, Smith or Frederic Bastiat. They have this ideology because of their generally higher levels of education, especially in the area of the arts where empathy rules and logic is looked upon as a conservative value.

A perfect example of this can be found in the great novel by Herman Wouk, The Winds of War and his sequel War And Remembrance. One of the main characters in the books is Aaron Jastrow, an intellectual Jew living in Italy. Jastrow has written several acclaimed and scholars books and sees himself as a person of some prominence. AS the war clouds gather over Europe Jastrow is warned several times by his niece’s fiancée, Leslie Slote, U.S. State Department official to get his affairs in order and return to the United States.

As the plot unfolds Jastrow keeps ignoring Slote’s warnings by claiming that Jew have always been able to weather the storms of history and that Hitler was really no different than other anti-Sematic tyrants of the past. This is Jastow’s cognitive dissonance (CD). When Hitler invades Poland and WWII breaks out in full Jastrow still claims to be safe in Italy. Finally after much persuasion by his niece, Natalie, and Slote Jastrow finally consents to return to the U.S. But, he has one problem — through neglect he has allowed his passport to expire and he must get a new one issued at the Embassy in Rome. Before this can happen Pearl Harbor is attacked, and Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. Now Jastrow is an enemy alien in a nation where a state of war with his country of citizenship.

Throughout the books as Jastrow is moved from an internment camp at Baden Baden to the “model” Jewish ghetto at Theresienstadt and finally to Auschwitz where he is murdered in he gas chamber and his body burned in the ovens.

All through the novels and the mini-series Wouk a Jewish naval officer who served in the Pacific) shows Jastrow in a constant state of denial as to what would happen to him if he did not take action to save himself and his niece. To me Aaron Jastrow, through the eyes of Herman Wouk, displayed the ultimate example of CD that affects so many American Jews today or as I like to call it the “Aaron Jastrow Syndrome” (AJS).

Last week in his speech before the State Department (an arm of our government with a long history of anti-Semitism) Obama dropped a bombshell by saying:

“So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

What the president had said is essentially that rather than borders and boundaries being established as an end result of negotiations, the two states that will be created should be based on the 1967 lines, a conclusion that gives the Palestinian Authority its own desired boundaries — and takes away from Israel the necessary buffer zone it gained after the 1967 war, and from which it has been able to prevent attacks on its own people.

It is akin to the policy in which the Obama administration focused on their demand that Israel give up settlements, leading Fatah and Abbas to adopt a position that, until then, they were willing to negotiate. Ultimately, it put them in a corner from which they could not back down.

Moreover, the newly developed Hamas-Fatah “unity government” agreement has already made it clear that the Palestinian leadership will not honor the requirement that the existence of a Jewish state in the region must be accepted. As the president put it, “how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?” Not only have the PA leadership not provided “a credible answer to that question,” they have in effect done the exact opposite — made it clear that they will never do what is required.

In effect, the president is rewarding Abbas for his bad behavior, after the PA leader’s own recent op-ed in The New York Times in which he revealed his intransigence. Statehood, as he perceives it, is not an end in itself, but is put forth as the new means for waging a continuing war against Israel. That is why Jackson Diehl’s article in The Washington Post is so important. Diehl points out: “Desperate to jump-start an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Obama administration and its European allies are piling pressure on Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, demanding that he offer a plan, concessions — something — that will provide the basis for starting negotiations with Palestinians.” As I said in a previous blog post there are two things you not do in public — make love and make peace. You can read more on this issue by clicking here.

Today I watched Obama address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) where he clarified and somewhat modified his previous remarks on Israel, but did not deviate from his comments on the 1967 borders. He received a standing ovation for the AIPAC crowd of Jewish donors. To me this was like Hitler telling the same audience he was ordering some great new ovens from Krupp and would be used to bake matzah.

Obama said to the AIPAC Crowd:

"There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations,"

"What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately," he added, saying his remarks were no different than a "well-known formula" that has been worked on for a generation.

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”

There has been talk of peace between Israel and its Muslim neighbors for 63 years and the same old, tired sayings and proposals are brought out. What Obama did do that was different was to tell the Muslim states he was on their side of this issue and wanted to pressure Israel into a corner.

Obama is an anti-Semite. He was mentored in Chicago by Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan — both virulent anti-Semites. His sympathies lie with the Islamic states and those at AIPAC just could not see it or choose to ignore it due to AJS. This is tantamount to people saying Hitler was not going to be influenced by the likes of Himmler, Heydrich, Julius Streicher and the rest of his NAZI cohorts. People who thought that were like Aaron Jastrow.

The American Jew just can’t let go of his devotion to the Democrat Party — no matter the consequences. I know because I had a Jewish partner who was born in Israel, fought in the 1973 war on the Golan Heights as a tank commander and still suffered from AJS.

The President of the United States has willingly and with forethought placed our long term ally, Israel, whose existence America has guaranteed since 1948, in an untenable situation by his attempt to impose a course of action that, if not followed by Israel, will further inflame the Muslim world and cause international sentiment to turn against Israel.

President Obama is attempting to force a settlement on terms dictated by the Arabs in the Middle East. By setting as a pre-condition the surrender of territory commensurate with the pre-1967 boundaries in any negotiations with the Palestinians, he has instead guaranteed further conflict.

Mr. Obama, the “smartest and ablest person to ever occupy the Oval Office” (as confirmed by his demeanor and sycophants in the media), either is naive and overweening (synonymous with the Left) or unaware of the failures throughout history caused by intimidating one's ally into giving up land in exchange for peace with someone bent on their destruction. I believe it’s the later. After all a community organizer doesn’t have to study any history beyond the 1965 and the civil rights movement.

However, in case the President wasn't aware, about this time 73 years ago there was an eerily similar situation taking place in Europe. Czechoslovakia was a country formed out of the re-drawing of boundaries after the horrific slaughter of World War I and the surrender of Germany and Austria. Much of the Czech border was adjacent to what was left of Germany. But it was defensible border against a nation which for decades exhibited a particularly aggressive stance against its neighbors.

The new nation quickly developed its own economy, government and military while avoiding much of the financial and political chaos taking place in Germany during the 1920's and 30's. However, along its border with Germany was a region called Sudetenland which contained many ethnic Germans, who for the most part were quite content to live within the boundaries of Czechoslovakia.

Adolf Hitler upon assuming power in Germany almost immediately began to cast his eye on recapturing and re-instituting the old German-speaking Empire in Europe. Once he realized that the other strong Western European powers would not stand in the way of his immediate ambitions, such as the re-occupation of the Rhineland (controlled by France), he cast his eye toward Czechoslovakia.

In April of 1938, Hitler, together with his allies in the Sudeten Nazi party, issued a demand that Sudetenland by made autonomous and allied with Nazi Germany. A request if granted would leave Czechoslovakia nearly unprotected, as almost all its border defenses were located in this region, as well a large portion of its industry. The Czech government refused to acquiesce to these absurd demands.

Hitler then, knowing that the governments of France and the United Kingdom were set on avoiding war at any cost, ratcheted up his demands and threatened to begin a war by invading Czechoslovakia. Both France and Britain advised the Czech government to accede to Hitler's demands or they would not support them in the event of a war.

Hitler and his henchmen then began to foment unrest in the Sudetenland, which prompted military action by the Czech army in an attempt to restore order. Hitler then claimed that the Czechs were indiscriminately slaughtering Sudeten Germans (a wholly false accusation). He demanded that the French and British acquiesce to the German takeover of the region. They agreed and issued an ultimatum to the Czechs, making their commitment to Czechoslovakia's existence contingent on accepting Hitler's demands.

The Czechs reluctantly accepted; however Hitler then increased his demands once more insisting that the claims of ethnic Germans in Poland and Hungary also be satisfied which would have the effect of further decreasing not only the border with Germany but also that of Poland to the north and Hungary to the South. The remaining Czechoslovakia could not survive in such a diminished state.

The Czech government refused these new demands and began to mobilize its military. On September 28, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlin, appealed for a conference with Hitler on this matter along with France and Italy. Czechoslovakia was not invited.

A deal was reached the next day. The German army was to occupy the Sudetenland by October 10, 1938, and an international commission would decide the fate of the other disputed areas; Hitler agreed that he had no further designs on the country and would leave the balance of the Czechoslovakia in peace. The allies would therefore guarantee the survival of the remainder of the country.

Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could resist Nazi Germany alone, as they would not honor their defense agreements with Czechoslovakia or submit to the annexations and the terms of the Agreement. Given that option the Czechs capitulated.

Neville Chamberlin flew back to London and proclaimed this Agreement, now known as the "Munich Pact", together with a new peace treaty with Germany as "Peace in our time."

1. Within six months Czechoslovakia ceased to exist as:
2. October 1938: Germany occupies the Sudetenland
3. October 1938: Poland occupies parts of northern Czechoslovakia
4. November 1938: Hungary occupies parts of southern Czechoslovakia
5. March 1939: The remaining Czech territories were annexed and became part of Germany

Hitler having so successfully intimidated and bullied the European allies over Czechoslovakia and other territory then set his sights on Poland which was invaded in September of 1939 thus triggering the most devastating war in the history of mankind.

It is not a casual observation to notice how many parallels there are with the saga of Czechoslovakia and today's Israel.

Many of the immigrants to the new state of Israel in 1946-1948 originated in the cauldron that was Europe in the 1930's and 40's. They and their progeny remember what happened to Czechoslovakia and other countries that relied on the guarantees of so-called allies for their survival. Israel is surrounded by those whose primary ambition is to destroy and annihilate the people of that country. Barack Obama, by his recent actions, has forced a major question to be asked: will the United States reprise the role of France and Britain in 1938? Will Israel be intimidated and bullied into accepting terms that will have as their end-game the dissolution of the country?

Despite numerous efforts over the past forty years by Israel to negotiate and surrender some land, among other concessions, nothing has or will accomplish peace with the Palestinians and Muslim radicals unless and until all parties have an equal commitment to peace and most importantly respect for each other. How can this happen when Hamas and Hezbollah, both deemed terrorist organizations, are the main parties of any negotiations with Israel.

It would do well for the President to understand not only history but human nature before he attempts to satisfy his misguided ambition for an exalted place as the savior of the Middle East. His ham-handed attempt to force a settlement by appeasing the radical Arab street at the expense of Israel will only lead to a potential world-wide conflagration as Iran and it's jihadist allies will only be emboldened to seek more concessions and ultimately war.

So far the only potential Republican candidate for the Presidency to give a clear evaluation of Obama’s misguided Middle East policy has been Sarah Palin. You can see her remarks on FNC by clicking here.

For reactions from Israel click here

Did Obama Throw Israel Under The Bus?

Did Obama Throw Israel Under The Bus?"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." — George Washington from his Farewell Address, 1796

The State of Israel is a parliamentary republic in Western Asia, located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan and the West Bank in the east, Egypt and the Gaza Strip on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area. Israel is the world's only Jewish-majority state, and is defined as a Jewish and democratic state in its Basic Laws.

Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states invaded the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states, and has occupied territories, including the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The border between Israel and the neighboring West Bank is not formally defined by the Israeli government, as a result of a complex and unresolved political situation. Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, but efforts by elements on both sides to solve the problem diplomatically have so far met with only limited success.[Source: Wikipedia]

Following World War II, the British withdrew from their mandate of Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states, an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. Subsequently, the Israelis defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions between the two sides. The territories Israel occupied since the 1967 war are not included in the Israel country profile, unless otherwise noted. On 25 April 1982, Israel withdrew from the Sinai pursuant to the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. In keeping with the framework established at the Madrid Conference in October 1991, bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Palestinian representatives and Syria to achieve a permanent settlement. Israel and Palestinian officials signed on 13 September 1993 a Declaration of Principles (also known as the "Oslo Accords") guiding an interim period of Palestinian self-rule. Outstanding territorial and other disputes with Jordan were resolved in the 26 October 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace. In addition, on 25 May 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982. In April 2003, US President Bushon, working in conjunction with the EU, UN, and Russia — the "Quartet" — took the lead in laying out a roadmap to a final settlement of the conflict by 2005, based on reciprocal steps by the two parties leading to two states, Israel and a democratic Palestine. However, progress toward a permanent status agreement was undermined by Israeli-Palestinian violence between September 2003 and February 2005. In the summer of 2005, Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip, evacuating settlers and its military while retaining control over most points of entry into the Gaza Strip. The election of HAMAS to head the Palestinian Legislative Council froze relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Ehud Olmert became prime minister in March 2006 and presided over a 34-day conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon in June-August 2006 and a 23-day conflict with HAMAS in the Gaza Strip during December 2008 and January 2009. Olmert, who in June 2007 resumed talks with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, resigned in September 2008. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu formed a coalition in March 2009 following a February 2009 general election. Direct talks launched in September 2010 collapsed following the expiration of Israel's 10-month partial settlement construction moratorium in the West Bank. Diplomatic initiatives to revive the negotiations through proximity talks began at the end of 2010. [Source: CIA Fact Book]

I was just 12 years old when the state of Israel was created some 63 years ago. On May 14, 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel. The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq—attacked Israel, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War; Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command; Yemen declared war but did not take military action. After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established. Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. About 700,000 Palestinian refugees were expelled or fled the country during the conflict. Israel was accepted as a member of the United Nations by majority vote on May 11, 1949.

Since that day in 1948 Israel has been engaged in three wars, wars that threated the very existence of the nation. Arab nationalists led by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser refused to recognize Israel, calling for its destruction. By 1966, Israeli-Arab relations had deteriorated to the point of actual battles taking place between official Israeli and Arab forces. In 1967, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula since 1957, and announced a partial blockade of Israel's access to the Red Sea. Israel saw these actions as a casus belli for a pre-emptive strike that launched a Six-Day War, in which Israel was able to occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. Jerusalem's boundaries were enlarged, incorporating East Jerusalem, and the 1949 Green Line became the administrative boundary between Israel and the occupied territories.

As the Arab states lost in the 1967 war against Israel, Arab non-state actors came to have a more central role in the conflict. Most important among them is the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), established in 1964, which initially committed itself to "armed struggle as the only way to liberate the homeland". In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks against Israeli targets around the world, including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.

On October 6, 1973, as Jews were observing Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel. The war ended on October 26 with Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering massive losses. An internal inquiry exonerated the government of responsibility for failures before and during the war, but public anger forced Prime Minister Golda Meir to resign. Israel was on the verge of losing this war. They had lost part of their vaunted air force to Egypt’s Soviet supplied antiaircraft missiles and the IDF had lost numerous tanks in he battles with the Syrians on the Golan Heights. Without the resupply efforts from President Nikon Israel, especially of M-60 battle tanks, Israel might not have prevailed in this war. Since the 1973 War the Israelis have maintained their occupation of the Golan and will not give it up.

In 1982, Israel intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to destroy the bases from which the PLO launched attacks and missiles at northern Israel; that move developed into the First Lebanon War. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon in 1986, but maintained a borderland buffer zone until 2000. The First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule, broke out in 1987 with waves of violence occurring in the occupied territories. Over the following six years, more than a thousand people were killed in the ensuing violence, much of which was internal Palestinian violence. During the 1991 Gulf War, the PLO and many Palestinians supported Saddam Hussein and Iraqi missile attacks against Israel, though Israel did not participate in that war. When I was in Israel the hotel I stayed at in Tel Aviv was about a half mile from the spot where a SCUD missile landed near the headquarters of the Israeli Air Force.

In 1992, Yitzhak Rabin became Prime Minister following an election in which his party promoted compromise with Israel's neighbors. The following year, Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas, on behalf of Israel and the PLO, signed the Oslo Accords, which gave the Palestinian National Authority the right to self-govern parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The PLO also recognized Israel's right to exist and pledged an end to terrorism. In 1994, the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed, making Jordan the second Arab country to normalize relations with Israel. Arab public support for the Accords was damaged by the continuation of Israeli settlements and checkpoints, and the deterioration of economic conditions. Israeli public support for the Accords waned as Israel was struck by Palestinian suicide attacks

At the end of the 1990s, Israel, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, withdrew from Hebron, and signed the Wye River Memorandum, giving greater control to the Palestinian National Authority. Ehud Barak, elected Prime Minister in 1999, began the new millennium by withdrawing forces from Southern Lebanon and conducting negotiations with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and U.S. President Bill Clinton at the 2000 Camp David Summit. During the summit, Barak offered a plan for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected it. After the collapse of the talks and a controversial visit by Likud leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, the Second Intifada began. Sharon became prime minister in a 2001 special election. During his tenure, Sharon carried out his plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip and also spearheaded the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier.

In July 2006, a Hezbollah artillery assault on Israel's northern border communities and a cross-border abduction of two Israeli soldiers sparked the month-long Second Lebanon War. Two years later, in May 2008, Israel confirmed it had been discussing a peace treaty with Syria for a year, with Turkey as a go-between. However, at the end of the year, Israel entered another conflict as a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel collapsed. The Gaza War lasted three weeks and ended after Israel announced a unilateral ceasefire. Hamas announced its own ceasefire, with its own conditions of complete withdrawal and opening of border crossings. Despite neither the rocket launchings nor Israeli retaliatory strikes having completely stopped, the fragile ceasefire remained in order.

Since 1948 I have been a supporter of the State of Israel. In fact at one point in my life I wanted to go to Israel and join in the fight against the Arab States. This feeling was enhanced when I read the book Exodus and saw the 1960 film of the same name.

For 63 years Israel, a nation 7.5 million inhabitants, has been defending itself against many more millions of Arabs who want to destroy her. The Arab nations surrounding Israel have vowed not to rest until Israel is wiped off the face of the earth.

After the 1967 war Israel gained the territory known as the West Bank, an area of approximately 32 miles wide, stretching to the banks of the Jordan River. The West Bank also includes the city of Jerusalem. They also gained the strategic ground of the Golan Heights that overlooks the Sea of Galilee — a heights that would give Syria a tactical advantage over Israel fro artillery and rocket launches. The third piece of land Israel gained was a small strip of land abutting the shores of the Mediterranean Sea known as the Gaza Strip. This gives Israel a total land mass of just over 8,000 square miles.

Two days ago President Obama gave a speech where he stated he wanted Israel to back to the pre 1967 borders, something Israel will never do He proposed a two state solution with the Palestinians having their own sovereign nation. In essence he wanted Israel to return to borders they could not defend. This will never happen.

Next Tuesday, four days after he meets with President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu will address Congress. With Israel now confronting a triple-security threat that leaves the country more vulnerable than at any time since the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, it is imperative for the Israeli leader to stand firm.

Netanyahu's planned "peace initiative" has been undermined by recent events. With its peace treaty with Egypt fraying since Mubarak's forced departure, Gaza will surely become a Hamas arsenal. Reconciliation between Hamas, sworn to Israel's destruction, and the Palestinian Authority, too weak to resist, will trap Israel between Palestinian pincers in Gaza and the West Bank. Looming in September is United Nations recognition of Palestinian statehood, another step in that organization's persistent delegitimization of Israel.

Pressure continues to mount, from the international community and from the Obama administration, for Israel to relinquish the West Bank for a Palestinian state — and, presumably, "peace." That is a delusion.

It is time for Netanyahu, in his address to Congress, to decisively reject the seductive but menacing mantra of "land for peace." His recent declaration that the Palestinian Authority can have peace with Israel or with Hamas, but not both, was reassuring. His conditions for peace, recently outlined to the Knesset, sounded firm: Palestinian recognition of Israel; its refugee problem to be solved outside Israel's borders; settlement blocs to remain part of Israel, with Jerusalem as its united capital. But they are insufficient.

The West Bank mountain ridge forms the major land barrier against an attack from the east that could decimate the coastal plain (including Tel Aviv), where 70 percent of Israelis live. The widely despised Jewish settlements located there are not the primary obstacle to peace; enduring Arab hostility to a Jewish state is. Between 1948 and 1967, there were no settlements — and still no peace.

The prime minister might use his opportunity to remind the world that the West Bank, biblical Judea and Samaria, is the biblical homeland of the Jewish people. Two thousand years of ancient Jewish history unfolded there. If there is Jewish land anywhere in the world, it is there.

Until after the 1967 Six-Day War, however, this land was Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). Only then, following yet another failed Arab attempt to annihilate the Jewish state, could Jews return to live in their historical homeland. More than 300,000 Israelis have done so. Surrounding settlements with a Palestinian state will destroy them and undermine Israeli security. The alternative — Israeli expulsion of tens of thousands of Jews who live outside the settlement blocs — is no better. To me this sounds more like Poland in 1940 than a move towards peace in 2011. Where is Obama’s knowledge of History, or is just so anti-Semitic that he just doesn’t care.

Finally, given relentless international efforts to delegitimize Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu might remind critics that Jewish settlement, protected by international guarantees ever since 1922, is fully consistent with international law.

The League of Nations Mandate then cited "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the legitimacy of grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." After Great Britain lopped off three-quarters of Palestine for Trans-Jordan (the first Palestinian state), Jews were assured the right of "close settlement" in the remaining land west of the Jordan River. That right has never been rescinded.

Article 80 of the United Nations Charter explicitly protected the rights of "any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties." Drafted in 1945 by Jewish legal representatives (including Ben-Zion Netanyahu, the Prime Minister's father), it preserved the rights of the Jewish people to settle in all the land west of the Jordan River.

Settlement critics often cite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, adopted in 1949 in the shadow of the Holocaust, as a restriction on settlement. They are mistaken. Drafted to prevent a repetition of the forced Nazi and Soviet deportations of civilian populations, it declared that an "Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

The international lawyer Prof. Eugene V. Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School and Undersecretary of State, stated in 1990:

“The Convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices of the Nazis and the Soviet Union during and before the Second World War — the mass transfer of people into and out of occupied territories for purposes of extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example....The Jewish settlers in the West Bank are most emphatically volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" to the area by the Government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population it is the goal of the Geneva Convention to prevent.“

Ambassador Morris Abram, a member of the U.S. staff at the Nuremburg Tribunal and later involved in the drafting of the Fourth Geneva Convention is on record as stating that the convention:

“Was not designed to cover situations like Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, but rather the forcible transfer, deportation or resettlement of large numbers of people.”

Similarly, international lawyer Prof. Julius Stone, in referring to the absurdity of considering Israeli settlements as a violation of Article 49, stated:

“Irony would.be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49, designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that. the West Bank. must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49.”

This provision has no applicability to Jewish settlements. Neither during nor since the Six-Day War did Israel "deport" Palestinians from the West Bank or "transfer" Israelis there. Settlers acted on their own volition to restore a Jewish presence in the Jewish homeland — precisely as Zionist kibbutzniks had earlier done in the Galilee and Negev.

After the Six-Day War, Security Council Resolution 242 permitted Israel to administer the West Bank until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. (In case anyone has noticed, that has not yet happened.) Even then, Israel would be required only to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" — not from "the territories" or "all the territories."

The absence of "the," the missing definite article, was not accidental. The result of prolonged negotiation, it meant that Israel would not be required to withdraw from all the territory that it had acquired during the Six-Day War; indeed, precisely such proposals were defeated in both the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech should be framed with reminders of these international guarantees, the historic Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel, and the menacing security situation that Israel will confront should its ancient homeland be abandoned. The consequences for Israel of surrendering its legitimate security and its historic and internationally guaranteed land claims would be dire, if not fatal.

But if his past is prologue, then Netanyahu is likely to revert, once again, to what Harvard Yiddish scholar Ruth Wisse has aptly called "the Diaspora strategy of accommodation." This is precisely what Jewish statehood was intended to terminate.

Netanyahu's willingness to sacrifice Jewish land, first demonstrated when he capitulated to Clinton administration demands under the Oslo II Accords, is a disturbing harbinger. Last year he acceded to President Obama's insistence on a ten-month freeze on settlement construction — in return for nothing. Even after the freeze expired, with no discernible Palestinian willingness to resume peace negotiations, Netanyahu tacitly acquiesced to its continuation.

The other day I heard a liberal caller on a radio talk show argue that Netanyahu should talk with the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah in the pursuit of peace. When asked if the British should have talked with Hitler prior to the NAZI invasion of Czechoslovakia he responded yeas and that because the British did not talk with and try to understand Hitler the Second World War could have been prevented. This caller sounded like an educated person, but where did he get his education? He knew nothing of the Munich Conference or Chamberlin’s “peace in our time” statement after Hitler had bamboozled him. This is an example of the state and depth of knowledge the American people have of both the roots and caused of WWII and the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Appeasement paved the way for one horrific Jewish tragedy. It is imperative for Israel's Prime Minister to state, clearly and unequivocally, that the Jewish state will not become another Czechoslovakia, sacrificed by "friends" to please its enemies. Clinging to the fantasy of land for peace can only deepen Israel's alarming vulnerability.

When Obama made his speech on Israel last week he demonstrated a definite pro-Palestinian position, something he should not have done if he expected ant sort of productive peace negotiations to develop. He has taken a position that will embolden the PLO, PLA Hamas and Hezbollah to push Israel for more and more appeasement. He has shown his himself to be definitely on the side against Israel. You can view a video interview with Democrat Congressman on CNN by clicking here. You will also know the absolute ignorance demonstrated by the CNN interviewer regarding the history of Israel. This is the state of knowledge the American people are getting from the media today.

Tea Party Rep. Allen West has just issued a response to Obama‘s announcement that he backs the Palestinians’ demand that Israel redraw its borders to where they were in 1967. Not only did he call the move the “most egregious foreign policy decision” the administration has made, but he also feared this “could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”

“The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism,” West said in an e-mail.

“Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.”

He concluded with some harsh criticisms: “President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”

West has been an outspoken supporter of Israel in the past. Back in December he delivered a speech at the Americans Against Hate Pro-Israel Conference in Fort Lauderdale, FL:

Obama needs to learn that there are two thing you do not do in public —make love and make peace. Obama has shown himself over and over again to be an incompetent amateur when it comes to foreign affairs. Libya and Israel are just the latest examples.