Search This Blog

Friday, July 11, 2008



There can be no doubt of the value of the prisoner exchange with Hezbollah that will return the bones of dead Israeli soldiers to Israel and to Lebanon. Even the handful of live enemies returned to Lebanon including Samir Kuntar do not mitigate the psychological and emotional need for closure with respect to the dead in both Israel and Lebanon. We may hope and pray that a successful exchange of bones and blood with Hezbollah will quickly inspire some good will in Gaza, despite the more immediately urgent strife and tension there. Perhaps in the workings of HaKadosh BaruchHu, the return of Samir Kuntar alive to Lebanon will result in the return of Gilad Shalit alive to Israel from Gaza. May it be so, and soon, and we may say, "AMEN".


Two articles in the July 12 issue of the Jerusalem Post address peace prospects with Syria and Lebanon and speak specifically to the return by Israel of Mount Dov (Shaba Farms) and the Golan, speaking even to the possibility of a promise of a warmer peace from Syria towards Israel (by return of the Golan) than the cold peace Israel has with Jordan and Egypt. Har Dov might conceivably be turned over to the United Nations according to a Plan conceived by the French. According to Nicholas Sarkozy, President of France, the UN would be Caretaker to this parcel until Lebanon and Syria settle their ownership dispute. Israel won this parcel from Syria during the famous Six-Day War of 1967, just as Israel won the Golan then in some of the bloodiest of necessary war. It is suggested that in following the French Plan Israel would send a positive signal to both Lebanon and Syria.

(Setting aside issues such as current Israeli settlements on Har Dov, whether or not it is Syria or Lebanon from whom Israel won Har Dov, how safe Israelis would be there if the UN became Caretaker, how quickly Hezbollah would infiltrate Har Dov....)

(Setting aside the ludicrous suggestion of warm peace with Syria overnight or anytime soon....)

The question must be asked, "When it comes to "land for peace", why is it that Israel, the perennial victim of Arab and Muslim aggression, must return parcels of land -- land that once belonged to Ancient Israel itself -- land won in our time in defensive warfare -- in order for a semblance of peace, warm, cold, or otherwise? When Israel returned the entirety of Sinai to Egypt, Israel won a cold peace with Egypt and set a precedent that Arabs and indeed Any Nation can wage war on Israel and expect no tangible consequences. This is the basis on which the lopsided, one-sided "land for peace" policy has dogged Israel for decades -- decades of decadence, violence, loss of face, loss of faith, loss of trust, and deep corruption. There is no greater example of this than the unilateral withdrawl from Gaza, which devastated the Jewish residents of Gaza, which set an additional precedent that ethnic cleansing against Jews is acceptable realpolitik, and which has led to incessant Intifada in Gaza and Judea-Samaria.

If Israel's enemies want a real and a warm peace with Israel, it is their turn to offer their land for true peace! If a precedent is necessary here, then let Egypt show the way by selling or even gifting ten percent of the Sinai to Israel! Let Syria offer to sell or gift the Golan to Israel! Let Syria and Lebanon together "settle" their own dispute over Har Dov by together either selling or gifting Har Dov to Israel! And this should not be perceived as a remarkable suggestion! If there is anything remarkable at all, it is the blinded eyes by which the World has brought so many, even in Israel, to find Israel to be at fault, Israel as Occupier, and Israel as Agressor -- all this, when History proclaims exactly that it is Israel that has fought again and again and again defensively for it's very life! That Israel transformed from Victim to Victor does not change the reality Israel fought defensively against massive aggression seeking to annihilate Israeli life from the face of the Earth. Nor does reasonable assertion of Victory by Israel make Israel the source of wrongdoing. Lebanon and Syria waged multiple wars on Israel, seeking Israel's destruction -- and they lost! Israeli victory was contingent on taking and holding specific strategic parcels of enemy territory, and there is no reason that any enemy should even have the chutzpah to think that such territory be returned! If Israel's "friends" favor such territorial returns, then Israel should question their alleged friendships! If Israelis favor that these strategic parcels be returned to Lebanon and Syria, then the drunken self-absorpiton of these Israeli's is no excuse for Israel itself to surrender!


In another story in the July 12 Jerusalem Post it is pointed out that the video footage and photographs of this week's Iranian missle launching exercise were doctored, using "photoshop" or some such similar computer method, just as similar doctoring techniques were used by Hesbollah and Hamas to distort events within the past several years, such as the falsification of the reality of an Israeli aerial bombing in Beirut during the 2006 Lebanon War and such as the hoax at Netzarim Junction in Gaza in September of 2000, when the shooting death (allegedly by Israeli soldiers) of an Arab boy in the arms of his father proved in fact to be a fake and a fraud.

Despite Iran's military advancements, it is not yet likely that Iran is the threat it boasts itself to be. This cannot be taken for granted; but, it is the likely reality. One is reminded of the Israeli tactic during the 1947-48 War of Independence to bomb the Arab troops with empty coca-cola bottles from the handful of Piper Cub aircraft that made up the Israeli Air Force at that time of Israel's inception. It seems Israel's enemies have learned this tactic and has used it with extraordinary result in the media.

Not that real missiles equate to empty coca-cola bottles -- except to the extent that their capabilities are exaggerated and cause over-reaction of one kind or another, be that over-reaction fear and withdrawl, or fear and engagement.

It is inevitable that many Arab countries will have nuclear capabilities in the next decade or two. European nations, especially France, are already engaging with Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan to build nuclear reactors for the production of electrical power. We know Russia is behind the Iranian nuclear effort, which is the superpower thorn in the side of bringing about a regime change in Iran. And this is the truth of it! It is inevitable that, sooner or later, Iran will have a nuclear power capability. For that matter it is not at all unlikely that sooner or later Iraq will also have a nuclear power capability, either under American aegis or under European aegis.

So the Iran question really boils down to the need for regime change in Iran that will cease military nuclear objectives, and to the need for this regime change to occur quickly enough so that the nuclear capability and the missile capability are not sufficiently refined to be a real threat to the Middle East Region. This means Russia must be dealt with one way or another, not merely Iran....