It was inevitable. 

Hamas and Fatah have signed a reconciliation agreement leading to a unity deal with elections planned for no later than September. Israeli president, Shimon Peres called it, “a fatal mistake that will ruin the chances for the establishment of the Palestinian Authority as a country."

I call it a blessing in disguise. We should not interrupt our enemy while they get it wrong.

This agreement sings like Pavarotti. It exposes the false facade, the teeth of this Palestinian Authority (PA) jaw trap, for the whole world to see and realize.  Can you imagine signing peace with Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, only to see it annulled a short time later by the next Palestinian, Hamas-inspired ruler? Wouldn't it be easier, less risky to renounce it now, before letting it grow and solidify, before consenting to the rule of terrorists over Judea and Samaria?

It's no secret. Hamas enjoys wide support among the Palestinian population in Gaza and in the West Bank. Hamas represents a critical share of the Palestinian population in these areas.  Had real democracy been put into action in these territories Hamas could have gained a significant share or even a majority of the votes, the same as they had in 2006. The latest Hamas-Fatah agreement can only elucidate and bring to the fore what was not apparent to those peace-seeking naïve leaders of the West.

Let's not bury our heads in the sand. Hamas is as Palestinian as an orange is to orange juice.  And one can't form a representative Palestinian government without sharing power with these blood-thirsty terrorists who keep calling for Jihad against all Jews. Signing a peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, with a person pretending to be in charge, with a government that does not represent, or does not even rule over half of its people is not worth the paper the agreement is signed on. This type of an agreement is exceedingly unstable. It's a ruse.

Fatah activist Kifah Radaydeh, who was interviewed on PA TV, could not have said it clearer.

"...we perceive peace as one of the strategies," he said. "…It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine (i.e., the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea)." 

When it comes to their intentions vis-à-vis Israel, Kifah Radaydeh has been candid; Hamas has been forthright; the PA and its president have been deceptive. They fooled the Israeli left, they fooled the world; they gained sympathy and support for their fake cause.

Not anymore. Should the Hamas-Fatah reunion take place the rest of the world will confront a new PA. The world will face up to an uncompromising Islamic regime that does not take cover behind a fake façade.

Had unambiguous logic dominated the thinking of existing world powers, the Hamas-Fatah reunion would have helped the US and the EU put down that crack pipe and get a grip on reality. They would realize that blaming the Jewish state for lack of progress in the peace process with the Palestinians is like accusing Poland for instigating World War II, or holding the US responsible for setting off a war with al Qaeda on 9/11. They would realize that a majority of Palestinians are the ones who give Palestinians their bad name. They would recognize that peace in the Middle East will come when we all speak Esperanto, that agreements with unstable Islamic regimes are as dead as Latin.

The Hamas-Fatah reunion should serve as a revelation. It should help the Israeli government and the rest of the world realize that even if this reunion does not materialize at this instant it is a semi-dormant volcano ready to erupt at any moment in the very near future. 

You can't be safe living next to an active volcano unless you dismiss the Pompeii experience.  You can't make peace with a PA that changes its colors every other season unless you don't mind paving the road to an all out deadly war.

 BIO
Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government.

Add Comment
 
 
Modern laws of war, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, were defined in the aftermath of World War II. They were based on paradigms established throughout previous world military conflicts, where wars were fought between regular armies, and where death and suffering of non-combatant civilians reached a point of incredibility.
The Geneva Conventions laws of war were designed to protect non-combatants, including former but ineffectual ones such as POWs, or other enemy soldiers who could no longer pose a danger or a threat to the opposing side.  The laws ruled out attacks on civilians, on doctors, ambulances or hospital ships displaying a Red Cross, a Star of David, or a Red Crescent. They prohibited the firing on a person or a vehicle bearing a white flag, since that indicated intent to surrender or a desire to communicate.
Laws of war can work as long as both sides to a military conflict respect them, and as long as the initiator of the war does not include genocide, ethnic cleansing, as his war objective or as his key agenda item. They can work providing that no side to the conflict uses the laws to their military advantage, advancing their aggressive warlike acts by using ambulances to transport troops and weapons, shooting behind human shields, behind protected symbols like a white flag, from inside a mosque, from a hospital, next to a UN post, or from a school.
Laws of war place a great deal of emphasis on intentions. They take into account the fact that even when no side to a military conflict has any intentions of violating the law, civilian deaths and suffering are inevitable. Collateral damage and deadly mistakes do play a remarkable part in the hail of fire.  But, as long as care is taken and intentions are aimed at avoiding or minimizing such unfortunate casualties, errors and accidental collateral damage are not classified as war crimes.
In general, the wise people who defined the nature of war crimes, understood that wars are natural means to resolving conflicts when talking and diplomacy have been exhausted and have come home empty-handed.  These judicious folks understood that wars are temporary states of affair; peace would be following the fighting, and life will go on in the war's aftermath. Consequently, they classified long-term and severe damage to the natural environment, in excess of the concrete and direct overall military advantage, as war crime too.
Unfortunately, the Geneva Conventions failed to provide guidelines for what constitutes a proper defense in the special case where an aggressor's ideology revolves around the realization of the most prevalent of war crimes, a genocidal holocaust of an entire nation, where the aggressor's tactics draw on all of the Geneva Conventions, only in reverse.
How do you respond to the Hamas terrorist regime whose aspirations call for the killing of your women, children, or any other breathing Jew?
Responding in kind violates the Geneva Conventions.
How do you respond to a terrorist regime that hides behind human shields, fires rockets, mortar, missiles into civilian targets from civilian structures, from mosques, or from other sanctuaries protected by the Geneva Conventions?
Shooting back in self-defense violates the Geneva Conventions.
How do you defend yourself when the threat over your head is existential, when you know that losing a single war amounts to a permanent death for your entire nation with no possibility of a comeback?
 Could you ignore some of the Geneva Conventions when defending yourself? Could you have more leeway in interpreting the rules without being subject to criminal prosecutions? Could you be forgiven if the alternative you face is unending criminal assaults on your civilian population?
How do you defend against an enemy whose soldiers dress in civilian clothes, pretending to be innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire?
Should you be prohibited from targeting them?
The Geneva laws of war must be amended. These laws should recognize that self-defense against the worse kind of war criminals requires more leeway in interpreting how the object of the criminal assault may act upon, and what is a proper self-defense under these conditions.
Hamas and Hezbollah employ the Geneva Convention laws of war as a weapon against Israel, knowing that not only can they violate the rules or disregard them, but rather utilize them in gaining military advantage.  Their criminal strategy merely gains momentum since Israel's self-defense response is subdued by the same rules.
Tolerating the utilization of human shield as an effective weapon encourages the use of human shield. Tolerating exploitation of privileged places (like mosques, hospitals, schools, and similar buildings as base for launching rockets and mortar) encourages the use of these tactics.  Using ambulances for the safe movement of troops and war material rewards this action. Taking part in active battle while pretending to be civilians, knowing that Israel will hesitate targeting the violators, all encourage the use of these war crimes.
If Hamas and Hezbollah opt for war crime tactics, responsibility for their own civilian casualties must rest with them and only with them, especially in the case where Israeli response in self-defense inflicts unintentional civilian casualties in Gaza, Lebanon, or any other war-criminal state. The enemy must realize that using the Geneva conventions laws of war will not protect those who use them as a weapon in an aggressive war they initiate.
The Geneva Conventions laws of war must be amended. They should make certain that terrorist states who exploit and abuse these conventions by utilizing them to advance their illegal aggression, will not be able to do so. They should realize that a law-abiding state like Israel—a state whose fight against an enemy that violates every rule on the books, is a self-defense struggle for survival—should not be held responsible for unintentional civilian casualties assumed by the aggressive violator.
Add Comment
 
 
Left-leaning ideology is an ideology obsessed with rooting for the underdog, the poor, the deprived, the loser. As a rule, the flag bearers of this standpoint are quite aggressive—even to the point of turning violent—in their quest for saving the world from its villains. They represent David against Goliath, Don Quixote against the windmills, "Good" against "Evil"—or so they believe.
There is a problem, though, with the left-leaning approach. Equating "Good" with the underdogs and the losers, "Evil" with the successful and the winners, is not always proper. Losers, in most cases, have brought the misery upon themselves through their own actions, and the successful, more often than not, have worked hard and legitimately before attaining their status. Of course, there are cases to the contrary, nevertheless, profiling by picking "good" and "evil" based on "poor" and "successful" respectively, is ironic, wrong and improper.
What's more, as soon as the left-leaning ideologue realizes his dream—David has defeated Goliath and is no longer the underdog—the zealous advocate for human justice no longer supports his former hero. David has now become Goliath—a subject of abhorrence, a target for hate speech and action. Angel Gabriel has become the devil, only because he is no longer the underdog.
It is true that the state of Israel used to be a favorite among many left leaning personalities up until she won the Six-Day War in 1967. That war changed the geography of the Middle East. Israel's, unexpected, but magnificent triumph, over several, better-equipped Arab enemies, transformed her image from the underdog to the occupier. All of a sudden, the nation of Palestine, which had not existed before 1967, the smallest community of the huge Arab nation, became its own nation. A splinter set of Goliath's teeth, a former aggressor turned loser became a favorite of the left, while the winner, the former underdog, the David, became the villain—It had won and therefore it was no longer the smaller fry.
And this is one bad reason why the "poor" Palestinians and the Hamas war criminals are admired by the misguided left. These leftists sympathize with the weak, the poor, and the "oppressed". They feel for the ones who have been violating international law. They see eye to eye with those attacking Israeli civilians with rockets and mortar, shooting at school buses, shooting behind human shields, behind protected symbols like a white flag, from inside a mosque, from a hospital, from cemeteries, next to a UN post, or from a school. After all, The Geneva Conventions laws of war were designed by the powerful against the weak. Consequently, it's time for the weak to show its resolve, to reject the will of the powerful, to ignore the rules while insisting on having the "powerful" comply with the slightest comma.
The same is true with Islam in Europe and in the US. The "religion of hate and hubris" is referred to as the "religion of peace" by those leftists who view it as the little, innocent deer who try to survive in a jungle ruled by the Judeo-Christian carnivores (It's actually just Christian, but the title of Judeo-Christian makes it for a more appetizing target of hate). When politically incorrect statements spill the beans, tell the true objective of where Islam is headed—world domination, Sharia Law, Dhimmi status imposition on all infidels, religious intolerance, subjugation of women, to name a few great qualities—the left ideologues cry foul. "You can't insult Islam," they say, "even when you tell the truth." Islam is the underdog now.
Islam treats the left as its vehicle of useful idiots; the left is being manipulated as an instrument for achieving Islam's final objective. The left leaning ideology is the Achilles heel of the Western democracies. The rest of us must wake up and understand that this virus can become deadly, just as it did in Hitler's Germany and in Lenin's Russia. We must develop early resistance, a vaccine, not a politically correct one. We must undermine the leftists' credibility by proving that the underdog may deserve its feat; the underdog may not always have the truth on his side; the underdog may be evil just like Islam, like llamas, like Hezbollah, like al Qaeda, just like the rest of the world's innocent death seeking martyrs.
Add Comment
 
 
It takes place every night.
At 9 PM New York time Piers Morgan takes to airwaves at CNN where he interviews celebrities, politicians and newsmakers. Recently, he was in Israel, where he dedicated the full hour to a face-to-face with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The next night he talked to PLO representative to the U.S., Maen Rashid Areikat who responded to Netanyahu’s claim that Israel had no partner for peace.
The PLO representative made it clear.
“The Palestinians have already made an enormous compromise for the sake of peace,” he claimed. “They have agreed to a two-state solution.”
Wow! Silly me! Why didn’t I think of that? Why did this down-to-earth veracity never cross my mind?
I guess, my logical reasoning points me to believe that when one offers to give away something he is not in the possession of and will never be, he engages in a con game. For all I know, Israel could play along, provided that con games are in fashion nowadays. Israel could counter offer:
“Dear Mr. Areikat, our deal is even better than a two-state solution. We offer Hawaii, Saudi Arabia and Norway, and if you are not fully satisfied, we will throw in New Jersey and the Brooklyn Bridge, merely for dessert.”
Problem is, rules in the Middle East are not symmetric. The Arabs are allowed to lie, to pretend, to double-cross. They are allowed to commit war crimes by claiming “resistance.” They can be charming in English when speaking to western reporters and politicians, then be contradictory, reversing their positions when speaking in Arabic to their own people.
In contrast, should Israel attempt any of these tactics, the sky will open and the acid will pour down in a tornado-packed thunderstorm.
Sorry, the Jewish state is not allowed to play by the same rules… Damn!
Case in point — the massacre in Itamar, an Israeli settlement in the Samarian hills, and its aftermath—it took place a couple of weeks ago. Palestinian terrorists broke into the home of Udi and Ruth Fogel and murdered the parents and their three children.
The killers slit the sleeping children’s throat, stabbed them in the heart, then stabbed the parents. Following the horrific slaughter, Palestinians in the Gaza strip handed out candy and pastries, celebrating their great triumph.
The Al-Qassam Brigades, a branch of Hamas, argued that the murder of Israeli settlers was permitted by international law. (Note the key rule they are playing by. They are allowed, I guess). A day later, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, voiced doubt that the killers could have been Palestinian “The slaughter of people like this by Palestinians,’’ he claimed, “is unprecedented.’’
Really? Or does he get an F in history?
No F. He knows he is lying. Al-Malki merely employs the “swindling rule,” another tenet allowed under Palestinian’s constitution.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas went on Israel’s Channel 2 and condemned the massacre. He was a loveable peacemaker on Israeli TV, a charming idol among the Israeli left. He called it “a disgraceful act, inhuman and immoral.” The world, including left leaning Israelis were impressed. “Abbas is a partner for peace,” they concluded. How could Netanyahu claim otherwise?
But wait.
Abbas never made it clear, never said it in Arabic to his own people. He did not try to stop the continuous incitement against Israel in the Palestinian towns.
On the contrary, he failed to cease his glorification campaign of Palestinian terrorists and child killers. In fact, he kept on idolizing them as heroes, role model martyrs.
What’s more, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad honored female terrorists, including a terrorist who placed a bomb in a bus station. His praise for those terrorists came only a few hours before a bomb was placed at a bus stop in Jerusalem killing one woman and injuring 50. Fayyad later condemned that attack in English.
There is plenty of evidence that incitement and brainwashing of the young, teaching hatred of Jews and of Israel, rewriting of history and falsifying truths constitutes a full-fledged industry within the Palestinian territories. The celebrations in Gaza in the wake of the latest massacre in Itamar merely serve to highlight that point.
When the Palestinian Authority talks about the two-state solution, they are saying that they want Israel to dismantle its West Bank security check-points. They want the West Bank cleansed of Jews.
They want more freedom of movement and ease in launching terror attacks on Israeli civilians. They dream of cooking the next phase — unifying the two-states under a single Islamic regime.
If you don’t believe it, go learn Arabic. Listen to what they say in their own language; find out what lies they teach their young. Understand their con game.
1 Comment
 
 
The latest escalation of rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza on Israel’s civilian population is a new phase in the unremitting conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Israel’s retaliatory response to these attacks has not been successful in breaking them off or slowing them down. On the contrary, rocket and mortar attacks seemed to have gained momentum in response to Israel’s reaction. The irony of it all comes to light with Hamas’s announcement that it will cease its offensive if Israel puts a stop to its acts of violence against Gaza.

Apparently, Hamas has gained expertise in playing a victim who retaliates in self-defense. The fact that they have been initiating inexhaustible acts of violence against the Jewish state since who knows when is notwithstanding.

Israel must not act on Hamas’s fake offer.

This is not a sincere offer: it’s a test. Hamas knows that once they cease their fire, Israel will stop retaliating. There is no need for their seemingly peaceful proclamations. Nevertheless, Israel’s acceptance of that fake offer will signal a weakness and lack of resolve on Israel’s part. It will be interpreted by Arabs as a license to kill Jews without bearing any consequences.

The next peace initiative must come from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Israel should be the one making conditional ceasefire offers to Hamas, not the other way around. These offers should trail one more campaign to defeat and humiliate Hamas. Peace offers must be made from a position of strength. Otherwise they encourage and invite more aggression, since they signal a noteworthy weakness, a surrender.

Historical examples bear out proofs that appeasing a ruthless enemy induces further hostilities, whereas offering peace to a vanquished foe provides for stability and true peace in its aftermath.

So far, Israeli responses to Hamas’s attacks were confined to destroying buildings, tunnels and other inorganic targets. This must change. Israel should destroy these structures regardless of other terror acts by Hamas. Tunnels dug under the border between Gaza and Israel constitute serious acts of aggression on their own. They must be destroyed as soon as they are discovered.

Israel should stop retaliating. The Jewish state should get down to eradicating— go after the evil leadership, make it personal, issue a fatwa on their heads, help them meet with their 72 Virgins, sooner rather than later. Once these Hamas terrorists feel the heat on their own skin, they will come to their senses; they will make genuine efforts to cool it; they will beg for an unconditional ceasefire.

There is only one way Israel should deal with Hamas — make them an offer they can’t refuse.

Add Comment
 
 
As forces loyal to Libya’s ruler, Moammar Qadhafi, continued their drive eastward toward the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, The Arab League has called for an urgent “humanitarian based” no-fly zone over Libya to be imposed by the US and its European allies.
Sunday talk shows on the major TV networks across the U.S. paraded Arab and Middle East expert-guests who argued that foreign (i.e., Euro-American) intervention in the Libyan civil war should be limited to an imposition of a no-fly zone. The experts explained that any introduction of Euro-American troops or even military advisors on the ground in Libya may backfire in view of the fact that the rest of the Arab world may interpret that move as a western imperialistic attempt to influence and control events, tilt the situation toward western interests.
Aside from this senseless paranoia, typical of Arabs’ stance toward NATO in general and the U.S. in particular, an imposition of a no-fly zone is not a trivial, riskless matter. It requires a phased approach, where its first chapter involves the destruction of the entire Libyan air defense systems including military airports, military aircraft, ground-to-air missile batteries, radar systems, command and control systems, and more. In short, phase one is a “shock-and-awe” stage resembling the first days of the Iraq war.
In other words, imposition of a no-fly zone is a full-scale assault. It’s a war. People will be killed, some of whom will be innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. And even if mistakes never come about, Libyan President Moammar Qadhafi will make certain that pictures and movies of staged massacres become major hits on Youtube, al Jazeera, and the rest of the international media. He will play to turn public opinion against the U.S. and Europe. After all, movie production of seeming massacres presented as authentic news is an Arab specialty.
The Arab League wants the U.S. and NATO to launch a war on Qadhafi, to help the Libyan rebels defeat the dictator, while, all the while, making it look as if the Libyan people, on their own, were able to overthrow their ruthless tyrant.
Although most people find the above plan reasonable, in spite of the risk involved, I tend to see it as a shortsighted, unfortunate design.
My first problem has to do with the question of responsibility.
Why should the Euro-American forces lead the way? Where is the formidable Egyptian military? Where is the best American-trained, American-equipped Middle Eastern war machine? If the Egyptians can’t handle such a “simple humanitarian act,” what was the purpose of building their military up to that sky-scraping level? Why do the Arabs always look to the West to take care of their own dirty laundry? And why is the West willing to go ahead and comply? Are they our naughty children? Are we their Jewish mama?
The Arab League wants the U.S. and NATO to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. The Saudis want the U.S. to bomb Iran for their own sake. The Palestinian Arabs want the U.S. to force Israel to hand them out an independent state, cleansed of Jews, without consenting to non-violence, without  ceasing their anti-Semitic incitement, or the need to abide by any former agreement with the Jewish state, without ending the conflict by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.
When will these Arabs grow up, take matters into their own hands, for their own good, help each other while utilizing their huge wealth, and behave more like the responsible western-minded caring people?
The U.S. and Europe should stay out of Libya. If the Arab League wants a no-fly zone over Qadhafi’s head, let them have our permission; let them go ahead and move on it — not the other way around. In its aftermath, no Arab propaganda will be able to blame the West for its imperialistic, satanic tendencies. An imposition of a no-fly zone by a neighboring Arab country like Egypt will be a welcome shift of a long-lasting paradigm. Can you imagine an Arab country going to war for the sake of protecting human rights? What a fabulous dream.
Except, there is a greater issue.
We all want Qadhafi to go. (Some wish that he moves to Venezuela, others want him to go to hell.).
At the same time, the no-fly zone, even if imposed by the U.S. and its European allies, does not guarantee the realization of that objective. Qadhafi may still win. He may still massacre the defeated rebels, their families, their relatives, their friends, and all those suspected of colluding against him. His winning odds are north of 50 percent even in the absence of air power.
If we go to war (and as I argued earlier, an imposition of a no-fly zone is war), then let’s win; let’s go directly after the tyrant; let’s bomb his tent, kill his sheep; let’s demand his surrender lest he prefers his 72 Virgins. Let’s go after the real target; let’s pull off our true objective. It’s easier, it’s simpler, it’s less risky.
Forget the no-fly zone. Let’s just win!

Short Bio
Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications,  a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University, as well as an Intelligence officer at the IDF and the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org
Add Comment
 
 
In his latest article in Time Magazine titled “Roadmap to Reform” Joe Klein has made several malicious allegations.  He claimed that the U.S. can support democracy and redress historic wrong in Egypt only if Israel respects the territory and demographic rights of the Palestinians. He went on to claim that the West Bank settlements are illegal. He was wrong on both accounts.

Joe Klein and others like him who are obsessed with Israel’s “wrongdoings” find reasons to blame Israel for any natural or political disaster regardless of whether there is any logical connection. Shark attacks, bombing of Christian churches in Egypt, the global great recession, the Iraq war, even 9/11 are all claimed to be Israel’s doings by these “experts.” How one can link the Egyptian revolt — the citizens’ call for democracy, the insistence on better standard of living, the desire for elimination of corruption — to Israel’s policies in the West Bank, is beyond reason.

Does Joe Klein even know that Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza strip brought about a huge immigration by Arabs to that territory, tripling its population from 950,000 to 3,000,000+ between 1967 and 1994 due to an Israeli “Marshal Plan” which brought about an exponential increase in the area residents’ standard of living?

Does he know that in the years of 1967-1994 there were no roadblocks, there was free movement by Arabs, who traveled  to Israel for work, shopping, and pleasure?

Does he know that it all ended following the Oslo Accords and Yasser Araft’s return to the area, his taking control of a Palestinian autonomy and his initiation of a terror war?

Does he know that in consequence of Araft’s rule, corruption, and terror management, the West Bank’s GDP in 2003 was reduced by 90 percent comparing to its 1992 level?

Klein’s conjectures are not only contrary to logic; they are the perfect reversal of common sense. The PA regime is more like Mubarak’s, given its leaders’ corruptive culture and the impact of their terror atmosphere on their residents’ standard of living, while, on the other hand, Israel’s influence and control in 1967-1994, in the absence of the PA’s incitation and encouragement of terror activities has been a blessing to the Palestinian Arabs.

Klein’s assertions regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are simply incorrect.

Israel conquered the West bank in a defensive war. International law, spelled out by the charter of the League of Nations, states that the status of territories occupied in consequence of a defensive war shall remain in dispute as long as there is no peace agreement between the warring parties. Accordingly, the conquered territory is disputed rather than occupied. And Israel’s control over the West Bank is legal.

What’s more, international law states that a territory conquered in a defensive war may be used to maintain security in the absence of a peace treaty. The conquering party may resettle it if it had been driven out of the area (like East Jerusalem, Hebron, Gush Etzion) in an earlier war. Besides, UN Resolution 242 states clearly that in the absence of peace between Israel and the Arabs, Israel may develop and settle any public unoccupied land.

This public unoccupied land was never owned by a Muslim Palestinian state, since no Muslim Palestinian state had ever existed. Four hundred years prior to the end of Word War I in 1917 this land was occupied and owned by the Ottoman empire; then between 1917-1948 it was controlled by the British, and following the 1948 war between Israel and the Arab states, the kingdom of Jordan occupied — and, I must say, illegally absorbed — the same territory.

An Arab Palestinian authority has never owned public land in Judea and Samria, (a.k.a. the West Bank) or the Gaza strip. The Jews were the only legitimate local resident owners before the Roman Empire’s conquest of the land. After the Romans drove the Jews out of Israel and renaming the territory, the only owners were foreign imperialists who took control of Palestine after defeating a former imperialist occupier.

Public unoccupied land in Judea and Samaria had never been in possession of a Palestinian Arab authority or government. Israel captured the land from its illegal possessor, the Jordanian Hashemite kingdom, in a defensive war.

In the absence of peace between Israel and any Palestinian authority, it has been Israel’s legally justified right to maintain its sovereignty over these territories, develop and settle them, as long as the Israeli government has not deported or displaced the original residents.

It should be noted here that Palestinian Arabs were able to challenge the Israeli government concerning land use and ownership and that several of these challenges were successful. Consequently, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the Israeli government to reverse position and hand the land over to its rightful owners whenever it found such land grab illegal or unjust.

Klein should do his homework before publishing his erroneous conclusions. He was not only wrong when it came to the question of legality; he was dishonest when it came to the issue of logical reasoning. He did not understand international law concerning legality of Israel’s sovereignty over territories captured in a defensive war, and he conditioned U.S. support for democracy in Egypt on Israel’s ceasing its “occupation” of the West Bank.

The only part Joe Klein has forgotten is the fact that the U.S. foreign policy is driven by self-seeking interests rather than distorted morality. If any moral conditions are needed for U.S. support of an Egyptian democracy it is a call for democracy in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Syria, Jordan, Iran and any other Muslim dictatorship that enjoys American support

Short Bio
Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications,  a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University, as well as an Intelligence officer at the IDF and the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org
Add Comment
 
 
Since the early 80's the US has been arming and training the Egyptian army as if it were the most vital member of NATO. What's more, the US has done so free of charge to the Egyptians as the American taxpayer shelled out the bill. This Egyptian military machine is now the most formidable Muslim force in the Middle East, a close second to Israel. It is a military machine to be proud of, to be scared of, to be intimidated by. But why? Why does Egypt require this kind of lethal power? Does anybody pose a threat to the Egyptian nation? Are they subject to potential genocide? Does Iran want to wipe them off the map? What is the purpose of this arms buildup? And why has the US been gifting it?
Egypt does not need all these weapons, unless, of course, the Egyptian regime falls and is taken over by warmonger Islamists who hate the US, the West and Israel, then deploy its military machine against the hated infidels, against the ones who "stole" the holy land from its "true owners"—the Muslims.

This American policy of beefing up and training the Egyptian armed forces is downright unjustified. True. It serves the American arms industry. It's an indirect subsidy, designed to keep the production line full of zip. But so is a policy, which lets Afghans grow opium and cocaine in order to keep their economy going, or a hypothetical course of action allowing Latin American drug lords operate freely, since their venture boosts their country's balance of payment. Does the end justify the means? Does arming the military dictatorship in Egypt serve world peace?

In fact, it could have, if the Egyptian government were stable, secular, rational and democratic. But as recent events have proven, other than being secular, it's not stable and it is in conflict with US human rights ideals.

And this is where US policy has been failing.

Recent events in Egypt have confirmed that a peace agreement between Israel and an Arab dictator may not be a stable state of affairs. It could easily turn into a short-lived episode if the people, over whom these dictators rule, replace their chief with a new government via a popular revolt, a military coup, or with an American model of a peaceful process. Even before the recent revolution in Egypt, when events pointed out to a peaceful transition of leadership due to Mubarak's age, the Israeli anxiety was moving up the Richter scale, owing to the uncertainty involving the next leader's stance towards peaceful relations with the Jewish state.

Unlike a secular democratic regime—where continuity of foreign policy, observance of international agreements signed by an earlier administration, and a rational political process involving checks and balances—an autocratic rule is a one-man-show—where policy discontinuity, in the face of regime change, is the rule rather than the exception.

And when this man, this dictator, rules over a Muslim mob, many of whom view Jihad, Sharia Law, supremacy, suppression of women, anti-Semitism as their guiding light, then the emergence of the next Islamic militancy is highly probable. It would not matter that a democratic regime may replace Mubarak's. It would not matter that the Muslim Brothers may not capture the top job in a newborn democracy. These radical Muslim extremists will be able to manipulate the next democratic government and dictate policy behind the scene, especially if Muhammad Elbaradei, an adversary of Israel, captures the top job. And they will control a powerful military, built and propped up by the American tax payer, only to have this army turn on the hand that feeds it.

American policy in the Middle East is blind. Sometimes, I feel, its planning and reasoning are functioning at half speed. Despite their painful Iranian experience, American leaders are unable to see the teeth of that Islamic jaw trap. They do not understand that democracy and political Islam are contrary to each other. Jimmy Carter, pushing the Shah out and insisting on democracy in Iran, was responsible for the rise of Khomeini and his religious thugs. Barak Obama's silence and lack of support for the latest attempt by Iranians to free themselves of Ahmadinejad's dictatorship made it easier for the Ayatollah's regime to solidify its hold on oppressive power through hubris and violence.  Obama's insistence on Mubarak's departure and transfer of power to the "people" may very well give rise to a regime, hostile to America, to the West and to Israel.

The concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a shortsighted vision that comes back to bite the believer, once the common enemy is defeated. The post-Mubarak regime in Egypt may not be the enemy of the enemy anymore. Whether in charge or behind the scene, the Muslim brotherhood will play an important role. They may facilitate the fashioning of an anti-west Egyptian policy towards Iran. The massive American military aid to Egypt may turn into a boomerang, just as American support of the Mujahidin forces in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet army smoothed the progress to breeding the al Qaeda monster.

Both, Obama and Clinton have claimed that they were putting pressure on Mubarak. They kept telling him to move faster on the road to greater freedom, higher standard of living for his people. They have claimed that they could foresee the danger; they could foresee the approaching unrest; they could hear the hissing sound of the escaping air of frustration; they warned Mubarak of the eruption of the volcano lest he lets out gradual measures of democratic and human rights policies.   

But to no avail. They could not "help" Mubarak see the light. Why? Why is the inconsistency? Why did the US administration invoke a policy of transforming the Egyptian army into the most formidable Muslim force in the Middle East, a force that might turn against the US and Israel? Why did they do it while fearing an uprising, which might give rise to a hostile leadership?

There is no doubt that US foreign policy in the Middle East is misguided. The Obama administration has a propensity to rely on the unreliable. The American administration keeps on pressuring Israel: "Make tangible concessions; make peace with Abbas; do your part in fashioning a Palestinian state."

And here we go again. Is the Palestinian leadership stable? Is it democratic? Will the peace document they sign live beyond the existing Palestinian Authority? How long will this unstable Palestinian regime take hold? Will the next leadership be peaceful and secular?

The answer to all of the above is "probably not."

Democracy cannot take hold in a society consumed with a sharply ingrained corruption, or in a culture filled with widespread, deep-rooted Islamic religious devoutness. Putting pressure on Mubarak to leave now, before he has a chance to ensure that the next regime is governed by secular democratic principles is a huge mistake.

President Obama may want to listen to the people who know best—the Iranian people. They know they made a mistake back in 1979; they understand the consequences of a hasty departure of a dictator who leaves behind no democratic infrastructure; they know that a political vacuum at the top provides an ideal opportunity for a small, but organized group to move in and hijack the revolution. They regret it now, yet it's too late for them.

Still, Mr. American President, it may not be too late for you! Short Bio
Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications,  a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University, as well as an Intelligence expert. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org

Dr. Avi Perry
www.aviperry.org
Add Comment
 
 
It happens no less than once a day. Someone, somewhere blames the Jewish state for not doing enough, not taking a chance on peace.

This is not the only false indictment. Israel is condemned as racist; it’s regarded as the latest incarnation of Nazism—mostly by those who are practicing that exact feat. But minimizing the efforts Israel is allocating for the peace process with its neighbors is also voiced by Israel’s friends. And that’s why it requires a different treatment, a more educated dealing. It requires an intelligent, truth teaching, since the accusation is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the special circumstances faced by the Jewish state.

The ones pressuring Israel to do more, to concede further for the sake of peace, are those who view the world via their own secure setting.

America is not under the threat of genocide, neither does it face a (high) probability of costly war on its own soil where there is no place to hide — not even in the remote suburbs of the state of Wyoming, Oregon or Nebraska.

When a U.S. leader takes a chance on security, committing a blunder in consequence, he or she pays a price, but the world does not end. The lesson learned makes America stronger and safer. On the other hand, when an Israeli leader falls for a false promise, fake guarantees by conceding security measures or territory for the sake of fictitious peace, the result could be disastrous. It could even metastasize into a catastrophe, another Holocaust, an end to the Jewish state.

You might say that I am paranoid. But history is my compass.

Following the 1956 war between Israel and Egypt, then-President Eisenhower bore down on Israel. He made its forces withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula while restricting Egyptian military from building up its forces there. Hhe also provided security guarantees in the form of American military involvement in case Egypt violated the non-militarized nature of the Sinai buffer zone.

In 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser braced himself for a final solution to the Jewish state. He ordered the removal of the UN peace force from the Sinai (with which the UN complied straight away), marched his military onto the peninsula and, with the help of the Soviet Union, made preparations for transforming the Jewish state into the next Auschwitz. All this while  President Johnson failed to stir up memories of his predecessor’s guarantees.

The only act preventing another Holocaust was Israel’s decision not to take any chances, even at the price of being referred to as the aggressor, by launching a first and overwhelming strike.

In 1973, Israel’s military intelligence assigned low probability to a coordinated Syrian-Egyptian attack, even when all raw intelligence pointed out to its coming. The Israeli intelligence chief blocked out the fact that even low probability for a recurrence of a Holocaust requires some form of life insurance.

What’s more, several hours before it had grown evident that a Syrian-Egyptian attack was imminent, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir rejected launching a preemptive strike or even the calling up of the military reserve units for fear that the international community would deem such an act an aggression.

These grave errors in judgment brought about a catastrophe that threatened the existence of the Jewish state. As it was, Israel survived. But in the aftermath, there were 2,500 Israelis dead. In a country with a Jewish population amounting, then,  to a little over two million, the number of war-dead represented 0.125%, which is equivalent to having over 310,000 American casualties in a single three-week war.

This history illustrates that risk-taking for the sake of peace may carry either a painful, but manageable lesson for a country like the U.S., or a catastrophe with the possibility of no comeback for a country like Israel.

Given the dichotomy associated with potential risk-taking consequences, it’s no wonder that Israeli leaders must be more risk-averters than any others in the world today.

It has been shown that when the Arabs lose a war to Israel, they view it as a temporary setback to their eternal struggle of Islamizing the Holy Land. In contrast, should Israel lose, it will cease to exist.

When world leaders, the politically left media and the rest of the ignorant public begin to understand the logic that guides decision-making in the face of potential consequences, they will peter out their unjustified criticism of the Israeli government’s unbending, stubborn insistence on security measures. These measures include but not limited to the following conditions:

Ending the conflict by having Arabs’ recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, demilitarizing the West Bank if it becomes a Palestinian state, assuming Israeli control over the Jordan Valley in case a Palestinian state in the West Bank is established and forbidding Iran from having access to nuclear weapons. These must be fulfilled before any peace concessions are mulled over.

Unfortunately, the only logic guiding world leaders today is Machiavellian. Objective reasoning is an ideal reserved for poetry, or maybe not even that. The world will continue to “misunderstand” the Israeli perspective, the risk involved in making bold concessions for the sake of a promise, where consequences have the potential of turning catastrophic.

You may understand Israel’s special conditions if you can imagine living with your family and young children in a neighborhood infested with child molesters who insist on not being recognized as such, or not being monitored. These brutes with their criminal past may even announce their sick intentions by claiming their right to free speech; they may even demand that you make concessions. That you let your young children play in the street, hopefully unaccompanied, so as to fashion a seeming ordinary setting.

If you can imagine that, chances are you will understand. You will then break off criticizing the Jewish state for being too cautious, for not relying on the unreliable, for not paving the road to a national suicide.

Add Comment
 
 
Recent WikiLeaks revelations exposed the hypocrisy exercised by Arabs when it comes to the words they verbalize in public or in Arabic as opposed to what they say in private or in English.
WikiLeaks has shown the Saudis to side with Israel against Iran and its nuclear ambitions by making it known that Israel is not the only concerned nation, anxious about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s aspirations. These unearthed publications revealed a truth, long claimed by leaders of the Jewish state, that Iran poses a threat to the rest of the world, including its Muslim neighbors. It cannot be refuted now. The bully from the Persian Gulf is not only an Israeli concern. Dealing with it forcefully is the masked wish of most Arab leaders as they have secretly pleaded with the U.S. to take aggressive action against Iran.
Most recently, WikiLeaks has confirmed the covert cooperation between the PA’s and the Israeli security forces. The June 13, 2007, memo from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has made clear that during the civil war in Gaza that ended with the Hamas takeover, the Israeli security service was provided with all the intelligence that Abbas’ internal security agency collected on Hamas. The Fatah security forces sided with Israel against their Hamas brothers.
Surprised?
Not quite.
Hamas has long complained about Fatah’s cooperation with the “reviled Israeli Security Agency”. As it goes, most of the world’s Muslims view any collaboration between Arabs and Israelis as indistinguishable from the titanic crime of blasphemy. Prior to the WikiLeaks revelations, Fatah, in its efforts to save its authenticity, denied it had cooperated with the Jews; the PA believed they could get away with a bald-faced disclaimer, since there was no clear proof. There is one now, and Abbas must find a way to recover from this “horrific setback.”
There are two dichotomous options available to the PA president. He may keep denying that his forces have collaborated with the Israelis, or he can say, “Yes, we have done it; we still do it; we will keep on doing it.”
Let’s look at the consequences of each side of this troubled coin.
Denial in the face of cool and hard evidence may convince those who want to believe the lie. Years of brainwashing, teaching Jew-hatred in schools, rubbing out Jewish history and Jews’ connection to the land of Israel, persistent Nazi-style anti-Semitism — all have contributed to a deep-rooted mindset. This way of thinking, this paradigm, marks anyone who collaborates openly with the Jews — regardless of the merits or the benefits of such joint effort — as a traitor, a scum of the earth, a dreg of humanity. Those who want to believe the denial will use their cemented prejudice as a source of counter-evidence. They will accept the PA word as a final cut. No argument and no proof will change their mind.
On the other hand, there are skeptics (including opposition forces), even within the Palestinians. They include Hamas members, open-minded folks, and some “experienced” individuals within the Palestinian Arab masses who do not trust the PA. These groups pose a risk to Abbas and his colleagues. Their numbers may grow, leading to dwindling popular support — not a safe outcome for the deniers.
The second option available to the PA is admitting to the truth: “Yes we have collaborated with Israel. It was our best option when trying to protect the life and livelihood of our citizens from Hamas terror. It was the right move when trying to steer clear of constant war, destruction and never-ending Jihad. We want to live in peace and security, grow our economy, improve our standard of living. And if collaboration with Israel facilitates and promotes this cause, so be it.”
But, wait a minute…
Arab leaders who attempted this paradigm shift paid with their lives. King Abdullah (the present king’s great grandfather) of Jordan and Anwar Sadat are best historical proofs that the risk they had taken was deadly. And unfortunately, Abbas would face the same outcome should he dare walking in Anwar Sadat’s shoes.
The PA may not be able to admit to collaborating with Israel against Hamas, even in the face of hard evidence. They may not be able to stand up and declare in Arabic, in public, “yes, we have done so.” They may not be able to reverse years of brainwashing. They may fail the truth test.
And if they do fail the test, it will constitute one more proof that true peace in the Middle East is an impossible dream, a mirage. If Arab leaders are unable to bridge over and bulldoze the hate-chasm that they have cultivated for the past one-hundred years, then any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians may have little chance of being realized today. If they fail the test, but nonetheless, a peace miracle comes to pass in spite and against all odds, it may certainly never subsist beyond the next inevitable Palestinian regime change.
I wonder. Will the Palestinians fail the truth test? Or will WikiLeaks bring about a paradigm shift in the Middle East?
Add Comment