ISRAEL ACT NOW

Scenario I:
The newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched his campaign platform with three major points:

1. Nuclear Iran

2. Economic Recovery

3. Security of Israel

He refused to accept the Palestinian State as a possible outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict before the elections. He gave us hope before the elections, the hope that has vanished after the Bar-Ilan University speech.

He has accepted the Palestinian State, he is now removing the Jewish outposts, they are removing roadblock and checkpoints, and they are removing Israeli Soldiers from the four major cities in Judea and Samaria. I hope I do not have to remind you of the ramifications of all those actions taken by our newly elected Prime Minister.

The question is what is the difference between Likud-led coalition and Kadima led coalition? Perhaps the question of unified Jerusalem that Netanyahu has said should be united Jewish Capital. But frankly, I do not believe Netanyahu since he has changed his mind so many times since he was elected Prime Ministers that I believe he might agree to Jerusalem becoming a capital of the second Palestinian State.

That said there is no difference between Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert they are both cowards when it comes to saying NO to Washington. Israel is left with no leaders that can protect it rights on the ground.

Scenario II:
The newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the newly elected president of the United States are engaged in a serious tactical maneuver.
The new Obama Administration is engaging the Muslim world, but at the same time distancing itself from the Israel. The question is why?

If Iran does not stop its nuclear program Israel will have to attack militarily the Iranian Nuclear Sites. The backlash against Israel is well known (huge), but United State’s interests in Iraq and Afghanistan might take a smaller backlash since Washington has distanced itself from Israel and even putting unprecedented pressure on the Jewish State. The Muslim world will not blame the United States for its cooperation with Israel.

Furthermore, the Arab world might be keener at helping the United States in the region if they see Israel being pushed around by the United States. That is why Netanyahu, Obama, Mitchel, Lieberman, Clinton, and others are playing this show of clash between Israel and the United States.

After all, Arab-Israeli conflict is Arab-Israeli Conflict not Persian-Israeli Conflict and they would love to see Iranian Nuclear Ambitions Destroyed.

The question is which of the scenarios is more realistic in this situation? I know the first one sound more realistic unlike the dream world of the second scenario. But the one certain thing in the political world is that it is very uncertain and any developments are possible.


What do you think?

by Prof. MK Arieh Eldad

Once upon a time, there was such a state.

"I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. There's an Arab nation. I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. That's a colonial invention. Since when were there Palestinians? I think there's only an Arab nation. Until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the southern part of Greater Syria."
If I had said this, I would undoubtedly be called a Jewish nationalist, a racist, and worst of all - detached from reality. Yet, note well, these words were spoken by former MK Dr. Azmi Bishara in an interview with Yaron London several years ago. Bishara is a leader of Israeli Arab citizens who openly identify with the enemy, and who was forced to flee Israel under suspicion of aiding Hizbullah in wartime.

When Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his Bar-Ilan speech, he could have used these words. He could have ripped the mask of deception from the terrible historical lie that we have taken to our hearts as if it were written on the Tablets of the Law given at Sinai. "Two States for Two Nations" has become holy dogma and anyone who challenges its validity is suspected of blasphemy.

But even if we assume that Netanyahu wished to speak in terms acceptable to Europe and the United States, rather than to fight a battle which he considered lost, still it would have been better had he not deceived his listeners with the scam known as "a demilitarized state."

When I heard the speech, my initial reaction was: "There ain't no such animal." Of course, I don't mean nano-states such as Andorra or the Vatican, which have themselves chosen not to maintain an army. There is no real state in the world defined as a demilitarized state. And Netanyahu did not make do with a misleading general statement, he went into details: the state won't have missiles and rockets and planes, and will not be able to sign treaties.

The more I listened to this and said to myself that there is no such thing, I was reminded of something quite bothersome. Was there once such a state? And then one of my friends reminded me there had been.

"It will be forbidden to Germany to maintain or build fortifications... in this territory (West of the Rhine).... It is forbidden for Germany to maintain an army.... the German army will not include more than seven infantry divisions.... It is forbidden for Germany to import or export tanks or any other military hardware.... The German naval forces will be limited and are not to include submarines. The armed forces of Germany will not include any air forces.... In the political realm, Germany is forbidden to enter into any treaty with Austria."

So it was written and sealed in the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was signed on June 28, 1919, as part of the Paris Peace Conference following the First World War. Essentially, Germany became a demilitarized state and was also limited from a political perspective.

So what happened? Did the "demilitarized" status prevent the Second World War and, worst of all, the destruction of European Jewry?

By 1922, an agreement between Russia and Germany had been signed in the Italian city of Rapallo. The agreement was open and met the terms of the Versailles Treaty, but the conference that prepared it was secret; and there, Soviet Russia and Germany agreed on joint establishment of weapons factories, poison gas and ammunition. German army officers were sent to Russia to be trained in the use of weapons that were forbidden to be maintained in Germany. In Germany, civilian factories were refurbished into arms factories, funded, as it were, by private individuals, not the state.

When I heard about the widespread activity of Jews in the Obama court and about the extreme anti-Israeli stance they are taking, and about the anger of the extreme Left in Israel over Netanyahu's speech - in that he did not express a willingness to take in Arab refugees, give away Jerusalem and dismantle settlements, all as a prepayment for negotiating with the enemies of Israel - I again thought of the Rapallo Treaty. It was the Jewish foreign minister of Germany, Walther Rathenau, who stood behind the agreement that years later gave Nazi Germany its powerful war machine. And it was Erhard Milch, the son of a Jewish father, who subverted the Versailles Treaty and, in the guise of civilian aeronautic companies and flying clubs, established Lufthansa, which during the war became the Luftwaffe, the German air force that in weeks overcame Poland and France and bombed London in the Blitz. The Jewish people can be trusted to bring forth warped members who will arm the "demilitarized Palestinian state", if one should ever come to be.

The lesson being that there is no political power that can prevent a sovereign state from doing whatever it wants. Netanyahu knows that if ever a Palestinian state should, Heaven forbid, be established, Israel will not be able to declare war on it if it should choose, for instance, to sign an international tourism agreement with Cyprus or a transfer-of-technology agreement with Iran. If pipes are manufactured in Tulkarm, Israel will not be able to start a war that can be justified in the eyes of the world if steel cutters turn the pipes into Kassam rockets. Since nothing other than Israeli force could possibly preserve demilitarization, Netanyahu is deceiving the people of Israel and promising them something that cannot be delivered.

But all of the above is not the main thing. The main thing is that Netanyahu has recognized the right of Arabs to establish a sovereign state in our homeland. None of his conditions and reservations can hide this abomination. Whoever recognizes the right of his enemy to establish a state in his homeland has abandoned all principle and all that is left to do is argue over the price. Whoever has left his religion and changed his faith cannot insist on observing the commandments of what is no longer his faith. Whoever has abandoned his patrimony has no basis on which to insist on continuing to build on its lands.

Coming to the elections in Iran we had elections take place in Lebanon. Before the elections in Lebanon majority of experts gave the victory to Hezbollah but their surprise Hezbollah lost to the pro-Western camp of Lebanon. That was a huge blow to Ayatollah’s regime in Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who poured billions of dollars to Lebanon in support of Hezbollah. The problem they faced was what would have happened if hard-line lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lost to the reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi. You might rightly ask he is the same as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when it comes to the nuclear programs so he cannot be a reformist. I will address this legit question a little bit further into the post. But coming back to what if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did lose what could have been the consequences for the world, U.S.A., Israel, Syria, Radical Islam in the Middle East and around the world? In simplistic terms it would have been different for everyone. For the U.S.A. it would mean that they have a better dialogue partner to open the diplomatic channel and shun Israel off. For Israel it would have been a huge blow since majority of its offense against Iranian nuclear programs is built upon Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hateful speeches “wipe Israel of the map” and denial of Holocaust. Thus, by eliminating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad it would stump Israel in its efforts to isolate and eventually attack Iran. For radical elements it would probably be about the same support financially and militarily because we have to remember Mir Hossein Mousavi would have remained under the Ayatollah who as we know is the Supreme Leader who makes all of the final decisions. Suffice it say, election of Mir Hossein Mousavi under previous conditions would have meant that the ugly face of the regime would have been covered by Mir Hossein Mousavi supposed reformist stance, that would have allowed for them to complete their nuclear program. Therefore, the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a at the minimum a positive outcome for the efforts to stop Iranian Nuclear Program.

I want to clarify or perhaps highlight that the president of Iran is not leader of the country Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say in everything including foreign and domestic policies. With that in mind, what is the meaning of what is happening in Iran as we speak?

1. The Ayatollahs of Iran are split (this is major).

2. People are tired of poverty, isolation, and oppression.

3. Mir Hossein Mousavi reborn!

Beginning with the first point, Ayatollahs are split in two camps Khamenei and Rafsanjani. The reason for the split is because Khamenei enjoys stability under hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thus he wants to keep him at all costs. On the other hand, Rafsanjani camp is terrified by Ahmadinejad’s militarization of the government and the country. Majority of the key posts in Iran have been given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad friends from Basij and other organizations when he took over after Khatami. Thus, this contributed to the power decline of the Ayatollahs of Iran. We have to understand that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not religious leader he is a hardcore thug. This threat to their power made Ahmadinejad as an unlikable character to the Rafsanjani camp. So we have Ayatollah Khamenei who likes the stability with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Rafsanjani whose power is declining. This has never occurred since 1979, although protests have taken previously the Ayatollahs were always as one against the protesters. (This factor or a crack is different and it is important to take a note of it)

The second point, that the people of Iran are tired of poverty, isolation, and oppression and now the arranged vote. For all of its faults we have to give Iran credit for having legit elections in the past. After all, Khatami became the president in 1997 even though he was not supported by the Ayatollah Khamenei. The Iranian people took the dire economic situation because it was their choice when it came to the elections; we have to understand that economy might not be number one factor when people are voting. But this time around it was different. The elections were engineered no doubt about it. The landslide itself explains that it was rigged. If it was a close race the protesters might have been alright with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad winning but when they saw unbelievable the over 60% win it was the blow to the core of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Furthermore, when the religious supreme leader approved the elections as the divine outcome it has made people even more irritated. In other words, the religious supreme leader is covering a false election by using the divine. Dishonesty and Divine is oxymoron. The people of Iran finally decided it was enough since the supreme leader is now untruthful so they began to revolt.

Well in order to revolt you need a figure behind who you can stand and support. That brings us to the point number three, Mir Hossein Mousavi reborn! The reason, I use the word reborn because Mir Hossein Mousavi has changed between who he was coming to the elections and who he is now after the elections. As I have mentioned above that if Mousavi won the elections and became Iranian president at the first place he would have been just a cover up for the Ayatollah Khamenei regime. But this cannot happen anymore since the threshold has been passed and is at the point of no return. Mousavi has openly challenged the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The Ayatollah has threatened Mousavi with excommunication or exile. The Ayatollah Khamenei when addressing the nation during the prayers was not joined by neither Mousavi nor Rafsanjani the head of a very power council in Iran. Rafsanjani’s family members are being arrested. But more importantly the people who protested at the beginning with “Where is my vote?” not they protest by saying “Death to Khamenei.” We can clearly see that the situation in Iran has deteriorated beyond imaginable. Mousavi understands that he cannot be the Mousavi who was going into the elections (under Khamenei figure) and this is not what people want. So he will change. That said, we have a post-protest Mousavi effect that has taken place. He does not have another option because the people does not want the old regime of the Khamenei nor they want the old Mousavi; they want reform.

Last but not least, is whether this protest will overcome the Khamenei or it will be overcome by Khamenei? Honestly, I do not think anyone knows and I am not an exception. But one thing is for sure that Iran is not going to be the Iran we knew prior to the election of 2009. Once there is a crack no matter how much you cover it or glue it, it will remain there forever as a vulnerability of the Ayatollah Khamenei Regime. That said I wish the people of Iran strength and continued determination that they have demonstrated already. After all, tenths of lives have been lost already. I hope you realize your dream of freedom if that is what you seek.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7d68GM6xzA


Benjamin Netanyahu: full speech on Palestinian state
Below is the full transcript of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister's, speech in which he said he would accept a Palestinian state if it was unarmed.

Published: 10:19PM BST 14 Jun 2009

"Honoured guests, citizens of Israel.
Peace has always been our people's most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.

We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.
Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.
The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilise Israel's economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.
And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.
I share the President's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.
I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: "Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem. I call on the Arab countries to co-operate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximise its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.
The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.
Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to co-operate and to develop it.
I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbours, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let's begin negotiations immediately without preconditions. Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.
We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbours. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realise that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in ploughshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.
I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.
If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education – most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquillity, creativity, opportunity and hope.
If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?
In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?
In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home "This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms." Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.
Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognise the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.
In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.
The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.
Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.
The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.
All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.
Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.
Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.
We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.
We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.
The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.
In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hizbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to "liberate" the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa. Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.
Achieving peace will require courage and candour from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side. The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: "Enough of this conflict. We recognise the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace." I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.
Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel's continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.
The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries. Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel's borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.
So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognise our rights. In a moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognise their rights. But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.
The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust – a suffering which has no parallel in human history. There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occurred. This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defence. But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged. As Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel's Declaration of Independence: "The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books."
But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.
In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.
These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us. I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.
This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognise this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel. I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarisation. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarised with ironclad security provisions for Israel. Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza. We don't want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.
In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hizbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.
It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarised.
On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.
Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarised: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.
Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.
I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem. And here is the substance that I now state clearly: If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.
Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.
The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.
But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.
Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbours. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.
If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel – we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.
Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction. Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.
With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.
Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders. Our microchips are powering the world's computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. If only our neighbours would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.
I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realise the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: "nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more."
With God's help, we will know no more war. We will know peace."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5535664/Benjamin-Netanyahu-full-speech-on-Palestinian-state.html

In the Middle East words and phrases have different meanings from those in the West. For example peace (West) means truce (Middle East). For Israel’s partners’ peace in Western terms for them means reconciliation; for reconciliation to occur there must be no foreign occupation of any part of Dar-al-Islam. That is exactly why they portray Israel as foreign occupants and migrants from Europe. That is exactly why they deny the Jewish History to Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, Hebron, and other places that belong to Israel. In other words, deception is a major ingredient of their diplomatic war against the west.

With that in mind, here are some facts about the “Two State Solution”.

1. It means Second Palestinian State in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria (Jordan #1).

2. The right of return of the so-called Palestinian refugee (around 4,000,000 people) into mainland Israel.

3. JudenFree Judea and Samaria same as Gaza.

4. The end of Israel.

1. Look at the British Mandate of Palestine it incorporates present day Israel and Jordan; that was partitioned into “two-state for two people,” and ratified by the League of Nation the predecessor of the United Nations. Thus, Jordan is the first Palestinian State.

2. The United Nations recognized around 800,000 from 1940s- refugees from the Muslim lands but does not specifically say they were Jewish. The United Nations also recognizes around 600,000 so-called Palestinian refugees. But the major difference between the two of them is that the Jewish Refugees number remained the same but the Palestinian Refugees are accumulating number from 600,000 to now around 4,000,000. How is that possible? Well the U.N. based on unexplainable reason adds every Arab descendent from those 600,000 to that number. Well shouldn’t they use the same treatment for the Jewish Refugees there were absorbed by Israel and other countries?
With that in mind, 4,000,000 Arabs returning to Israel will make majority Arabs in Israel then Jews thus the end of the Jewish State.

3. Can someone explain to me one thing because I still don’t get it, why do the Jews had to leave Gaza or have to leave Judea and Samaria in the final settlement solution? While at the same time Israel has to absorb millions of Arabs? And how is it justified? Because in my understanding this is the repression of the Jews by the World Community who are supporting this including E.U., Russia, U.S.A. and other members of the quartet. This solution is blatant discrimination and suppression of the Jewish People in the only Jewish State in the world. This solution will bring apartheid where Jews will become second class citizens.

4. I do not think you have to be a political or strategic analyst to understand that this means the end of Israel.

Therefore, whoever is supporting the “two state solution” is not supporting Israel and Jordan but supporting Jordan and Palestine, thus the destruction of Israel.

The issue of the national security is not a static but an evolving matter. Therefore the approach towards the subject of the national security requires ongoing improvement or refinement in order to engage them accordingly. Indeed at the strategic level, there is a paradox of whether to address immediate threats with low plausibility now or wait until those threats might become highly plausible in the future. To illustrate this paradox, the strategic doctrines that denote the nation’s vital interests that unsurprisingly flow into the concept of containment, will be discussed.


I would like to use the anthropological term age grade that incorporates a certain age phases (infancy, childhood, adolescence, the college years, young adulthood, middle ages, and old age)[1] in analogy with United States’ evolution in regards to the national security strategy in order to give a little context. Before the Independence from the Great Britain, future United States was in its infant stage heavily depending on its parent support. Than arrived the childhood stage during that time the Great Britain was overwhelmed by the wars in Europe. As a child future United States learned how to depend on itself while the parent was busy with grown up affairs and did not pay enough attention to the child. Once the parent wanted to reestablish authoritative bond that once existed, the future United States was in the adolescence stage; thus heavily resisted its parent’s authority to bow to the demands. That brought the war of Independence in which the United States became a newly established sovereign country. In other words, the U.S. has moved out of its parents house, therefore as a newly established country the vulnerabilities are everywhere and capabilities to mitigate them are miniature.


Accordingly, the U.S. entered its college years in which it learned to “navigate the ship-of-state through these troubled diplomatic waters.”[2] During the college years the U.S. has utilized its inherent location (the detached and distant situation) to formulate its foreign policies.[3] As a result, the first four policies emerged Exceptionalism, Unilateralism, the American System, and Expansionism. During those periods the United States’ defined immediate threats that should have been addressed accordingly, things like pirates or any threat that was within close proximity to its borders. But as the time went the proximity has changed as the national interests of the United States have amplified. It came to a point that a tiny strip in the east has occupied the lands from Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean (water’s edge theory).


During college the United States has simultaneously began the young adulthood years, but after finishing college that stage was quite different in terms that it had began its real job. In other words, it has began to embark on the world stage by McKinley’s progressive imperialism, by sending its fleet around the world, and its first major involvement (alliance) with other countries breaking away from the notion of entangling alliances and that the U.S. does not hunt for monsters abroad.[4] As years passed by another war was plunged upon the United States but this time the exception to the rule has become a rule. The entangling alliances were there and the U.S. did not withdraw back to its hemisphere. The U.S. has finally entered its middle ages with the Era of Containment (inhibition) and Global Meliorism (charity) surpassing the Era of Liberal Internationalism. At its middle ages, the United States enjoyed economic, political, and social hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and a significant influence around the world. That has become hegemony after the Soviet Union collapsed, thus ending the Cold War (unipolar moment). [5] As a result the Containment Era had ended but the Era of Global Meliorism took more aggressive posture. That has also contributed to rapid globalization trend that has contributed to the geopolitical shrinking of the globe.[6]


[1] Conrad Phillip Kottak, On Being Different: Age and Generations (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008), 187.
[2] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 2.
[3] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 3.
[4] Jay Tolson, “The New American Empire?” USNewsClassroom (January 13, 2003), 4, 5.
[5] Jay Tolson, “The New American Empire?” USNewsClassroom (January 13, 2003), 8, 9.
[6] Francis P. Sempa, “U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed,” American Diplomacy.org (April 19, 2004), 12.

In an important bid to show the support of Israel we have to mobilize and vote for freedom and against deception and tyranny.

Please cast your vote for Israel at:

http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/US/EN/

At this time Israel is standing at 47% while a state that never existed nor exists now is at 53%.

Dear readers,

As you might have noticed, Israel Act Now has gone through some changes recently.

1. There is a new a tool added on the top right corner; the Search Bar that will help you locate specific posts, words, and phrases within the blog.

2. Also, under every post you will find a small button (called share) on the bottom left corner; it will allow you to bookmark and share specific posts with friends or foes of Israel by using facebook, delicious, twitter, and digg, among others.

3. Furthermore, due to a request from one of our readers, I have changed the style and size of the font for better readability. (Thanks for the advice)

4. Last but not least, there is a little bit of work needs to be done to launch a “poll” that seems to be a very difficult task due to the template design.

Hopefully these changes will be in your benefit to help your visit experience become more efficient and easy. After all, the blog is about the Middle East the most complicated and volatile region of the world, thus, by at least making the blog user friendly it will enhance effectiveness of our quest towards factual information.

By the way, if you have any suggestions or questions regarding the changes or any other aspects of the blog, I will gladly take them into the consideration.

Kind Regards,




Jewish Refugee

IsraelActNow@gmail.com

Since Day One in the office he began selling Israel short when he called Abu-Mazen before any other leaders.

He and his VP made trips to the Middle East and have not visited Israel.

The pressure that is put on Israel is disproportionate with the pressure on the other side.

The anti-Israeli trend is here and the trend is strong.

I just want to say that not all the Jews have voted for him; yes it is true that we are only the minority against the 80% who did vote. Also, not all the Americans voted for him as well. At times it upsets me when non-Jews care more for the Jewish State of Israel then the Jews themselves. But at the same time, I would like to thank those people for understanding what it means for Israel to remain a Jewish State.

The reason I am writing this article is because I hear the soreness and pain from the Israeli Jews who think that we have betrayed Israel on November 4th 2008.

Once again we are the 20% of the Jews and

We support Israel,

We support Judea, Samaria, Golan Heights, Aza, and above all, United Jerusalem to remain Israel,

We support the growth within Israel we do not call them settlements or outposts we call them Israel,

We are against appeasement and capitulation (THREE STATE SOLUTION) yes three states Jordan is the first Arab State why should there be two more in Aza, Judea, and Samaria?

WE SUPPORT ISRAEL!

As far as the 80% of them what can we do, they are still our brothers and sisters? Let’s hope that come next elections into the congress 2010 and presidential elections 2012 they make the right decisions. One might rightfully say there is going to be a lot of damage done to the American-Israeli relationship and Israeli security during those years. I agree but we are Jews the nations of great fortitude that has outlived all the world empires and I do not see a reason why that would change now.

After all, Israel was, is, and will always be God Willing!

Jewish State was before the Babylonians and after them.

Jewish State was before the Greeks and after them.

Jewish State was before the Romans and after them.

Jewish State was before the Islamic Empires and after them.

Jewish State was before the United States and it will be so after United States.

That said, don't worry Obama is here for maximum of 8 years but the Jewish State is for Eternity.

Israel > Obama