Power Versus Weakness
Hidden Meanings of the Gaza Flotilla
After the Israeli Gaza Flotilla interdiction, it is difficult to understand
the real difference between power and
weakness. On the surface, at least in
tangible military terms, Israel would appear to have had a determinative
upper hand. In fact, the alleged plight of the flotilla passengers, however
contrived, created an extended public relations nightmare for Jerusalem.
This seemingly improbable result bestowed upon Hamas and its multiple
Islamist allies (including al-Qaeda, which surely didn’t advertise its
geo-strategic links to the flotilla), a substantial measure of power.
Back on land, Gaza itself best illustrates the core issues and ironies. It
is easy to feel sorry for the “struggling Palestinians” on this still-barren
place. It is easy, after all, to forget that this is still a medieval
society constructed solely upon violence and hatred.
For the complete article (in PDF),
click
here
|
|
Mr. Obama’s Contradictions
and Israeli Survival
Earlier this month, Vice-President Biden boldly
acknowledged that Israel, “as a sovereign nation,” has the right to protect
itself against a nuclearizing Iran. In law, the precise preemptive action
that Mr. Biden had in mind is called “anticipatory self-defense”.
Now, however, a parade of high-level envoys from Washington offers Jerusalem
very different “advice.” In essence, whether one listens to visiting U.S.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, or next-to-visit National Security Advisor
James Jones, the dreary and infinitely futile message is still “tougher
sanctions.”
On
several occasions, we recall, the United Nations had already imposed
“serious” sanctions against Iran. Nonetheless, uranium enrichment has only
accelerated in that country. At no time has Tehran shown even the slightest
inclination to value a promised proper place in the “international
community” more highly than getting “the bomb.” Once again, Washington
just doesn’t get it.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
Why Palestinian Demilitarization Won’t Work:
An Informed Legal Brief
Early in his presidency,
Barack Obama declared his solid commitment to a Palestinian state. In
principle, this now oft-repeated declaration of support for Palestinian
“self-determination” might not have been unreasonable if the Palestinian side
were also committed to a “Two-State Solution”. Yet, both Fatah and
Hamas – even as they slaughter each other – continue to agree on one
central annihilatory point. This is their unchanging mantra that all of Israel
is integrally part of “Palestine”.
Ironically, therefore, the
American president, searching hopefully for a Middle East peace, is in fact
only urging the creation of yet another terror state in the region. Fashioned
officially by the so-called Quartet – the United States; Russia; the European
Union and the United Nations – this wrongheaded urging stems from a diplomatic
framework known formally as The Road Map for Implementation of a
Permanent Solution for Two States in the Israel-Palestinian Dispute.
Together with an openly insistent Palestinian refusal to reject the “Phased
Plan” (Cairo) of June 1974, and an associated no-compromise Jihad to
“liberate” all of “occupied Palestine” in increments, the Road Map
reveals another generally unforeseen danger. Lacking a full understanding of
pertinent international law and of antecedent Natural Law,
both the United States and Israel could be misled in this devious cartography
by certain erroneous expectations concerning Palestinian “demilitarization”.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
Barack Obama and Israel
As published in US NEWS & WORLD REPORT,
Friday, June 5, 2009
(“Obama’s Eloquence on Israel Pales Beside Iran’s Dreams of a Final Solution”)
Even US President Barack
Obama understands that credible threats to annihilate Israel are now
commonplace. Such threats, sometimes boisterous, sometimes subtle, originate
in several different countries. Were it not for Israel’s “bomb in the
basement” – its still-unacknowledged nuclear force - these more or less
openly genocidal warnings would portend authentically existential harms.
Applying economic sanctions
to Iran has always been foolish. Soon, Iran will join the Nuclear Club. When
this happens, Tehran’s membership may coincide with a persisting Iranian
leadership belief in the Shi’ite apocalypse. Israel, therefore, could
soon face not only more Palestinian suicide-bombers (President Obama’s
recycled plans for a “Two-State Solution” will only enlarge Palestinian
terrorism), but also a “suicide state”.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
Obama Repeating Past Mistakes: The Enduring Perils of a “Two State Solution”
In Washington, alas, there has
been too little learning from lessons of the past. Almost daily, President
Obama still repeats the tired clichés about a “Two State Solution”. In
Jerusalem, however, Prime Minister Netanyahu fully realizes that any such
plan would lead his own country only to a Final Solution.
Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge
that “Palestine” would represent another enemy
state.
Although fragmented by civil war, both Fatah and Hamas would seek closer ties to
Iran. There would also be substantial collaborations with al-Qa`idah, ties that are now
already being fashioned in
Hamas-controlled Gaza.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
Life or Death
for Israel in the Time of “Apocalypse”
Threats to literally annihilate Israel are now
unremarkable. Almost nowhere do we find any reason for camouflage or
concealment. Were it not for Israel’s “bomb
in the basement” – its still-unacknowledged nuclear force – these openly
genocidal threats would represent much more than verbal bluster.
Nonetheless, barring any last-minute Israeli preemptions (anticipatory
self-defense under international law), Iran’s ascent to full membership
in the Nuclear Club is now less than several years away.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
Deceptions of a "Nuclear
Weapons-Free World"
Why President Barack Obama's Good Intentions
Could Bring Genocidal War to Israel
In his clearly
expressed preference for a world without nuclear weapons, US President Barack
Obama certainly means well. To be sure, his idealized vision of such a world
seems at least viscerally desirable. The issue, however, is not just the
enduring and possibly irremediable security problem of strategic uncertainty
and verification, but also that nuclear weapons are not inherently evil or
even per se destabilizing. In many critical circumstances, as we should
already have learned from basic Soviet-American peace during the Cold War,
nuclear weapons can even be indispensable to the avoidance of catastrophic
war.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
Terrorism, Sacrifice and Life Everlasting:
Uncommon Insights for President Barack Obama
Dealing
with terrorism will be at the very top of our new president’s agenda. Here
it is important that he understand something odd. The core basis of
Jihadist terror has little if anything to do with strategy and tactics.
Rather, it is “normally” an expression of religious sacrifice.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
The Ultimate and Still Unforseen Dangers of a
Palestinian State
What President Barack Obama Should Know
Somehow,
despite their uninterrupted pleas for statehood, the Palestinians manage to
stand stubbornly in their own way. Time after time, whenever they seem on
the threshold of a proper Palestinian state, their leaders unleash new and
unproductive spasms of random violence. Over time, this collective
self-destructiveness has been characteristic of both Fatah and
Hamas, sometimes even when the two terrorist organizations are
systematically murdering each other.
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|
back to
top |
On Quashing
Anti-Government Dissent in Yesha Communities –
Perspectives of National Law, International Law and Jewish Law
In recent months, Israel’s Minister of Defense,
Ehud Barak, has issued several administrative expulsion orders. The point of
these orders, of course, has been to quash anti-government dissent in various
Jewish communities in Yesha (Judea and Samaria). In issuing these orders, the
IDF generally works together with ISA (Israel Security Agency) or “Shin Bet”.
My understanding is that the designated recipients are not always informed as
to the precise reason for the orders, nor have they any effective right of
appeal. Additionally, and significantly (especially in a Jewish society that
claims to be a democracy), the expulsion orders are incontestably the product
of an already-fallen government...
For the complete article (in PDF), click
here.
|