WARNING : This site is not for you if you cannot see the otherness of other and sufferings of both sides of the party in the conflict. Security for Israel and Justice for the Palestinians are interdependent, one will not happen without the other. My view focuses on building cohesive societies where no one has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. I hope and pray a sense of justice to prevail. Amen. Website www.IsraelPalestineDialogue.com | Also Check Israel Palestine Confederation a pragmatic solution

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Israel is not a loser Mr. Netanyahu.

The Israeli leadership does not have a vision and have made gross mistakes over the last several decades. The Jews across the globe need to demand the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to performance based on restoring genuine security to Israel.

Netanyahu and his friends believe in bully power that has not worked; to oppress, to crush and to teach a lesson to the Palestinians. Their way of finding a solution to a conflict is to annihilate the party to the conflict, which will never happen. That is downright animalistic. If the evil Roman Empire and the scum bag Hitler could not annihilate the armless civilian Jews, what makes them think that they can drive the Palestinians out of their homes or annihilate them?

If Israeli leaders keep threatening other nations, what should the other nations do? Commit suicide? Israel’s security hinges on security of her neighbors, Israel will not have peace unless others around her do. Netanyahu and his ilk do not have that frame of mind to grasp it. All they know is to talk tough to an eternal cheering right wing audience who rejoice killing and oppression at the cost of security and ironically in the name of security.

The Israeli leadership made serious mistakes in not supporting the Egyptian Spring, they alienated the Egyptians. A few weeks ago, I was with David Horowitz on Hannity show, he maintained that we (Americans) should have supported Mubarak. How wrong can he be? Had Israel supported the people, the equation would have been that of cooperation and Israel had a chance to say, but Mr. Netanyahu blew it. I wish the leadership represented the interests of the people?
Bombing Iran is the most idiotic scheme they have cooked up; it will ruin America and Israel both as much as it ruins the other. It will bring insecurity to Jews and Israel on a longer period. The current policies work against Israel.
Sean Hannity asks me; would you sit down and talk with the terrorist who is bent on killing you? My response remains the same, and then whom do you talk with to make peace?
Now they claim Israel is the biggest loser with the victory of Brotherhood. I don’t think so; there is a way out for all parties.
Mr. Netanyahu needs a lesson in diplomacy.

You must win the people and earn their support in the long haul, do not support dictators, none of them will be around, people do and their support is sustainable.

Drop the ridiculous idea of bombing Iran, instead do the following;

Make friends with Iran, and poof the enemy would be gone! It comes with the announcement that you will restore justice to the Palestinians and in one single stroke, the hostilities will begin to end. First, you have to earn the trust of the people including Sarkozy and Obama with your actions, then you really have to mean it.
This is serious stuff that your right winger friends do not want happen, as they stand to lose an income that fear and conflict produces for them. The 1% right wingers are holding the other Jews hostage with their policies. Watch out, the Israeli spring may be brewing to rid of your failed leadership. Remember your intelligence has been bad and unreliable. You can change this all and find a pluralistic solution.

The Jerusalem post writes that “Israel is the biggest loser from Brotherhood Egypt win”. Nope’s, that is not true, there is a way out. If our Senate and Congressional leadership goes back to zero on Middle East policy and define a clear goal of security to Israel and Justice to Palestinians, and do the things that take us there.

America will be the loser in the equation; we will completely lose our ability to be an “honest” broker if we don’t reign in on war mongering. China and Russia may jump in and we will be the losers in the end in every which way. It is in our interest to speak up and stop this war mongering and do the right thing; Justice for Palestine and security for Israel.
Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. His work is indexed at www.Mikeghouse.net and his current articles are at www.TheGhousediary.com

Saturday, November 26, 2011

How Israel Out-Foxed US Presidents By Morgan Strong

This article reflects the understanding of much of the world on the origins of unrest and its product; terrorism particularly in the Muslim world. The American policy-makers simply do not want to see this; neither the Israeli leaders (not the public) want to acknowledge this. The conflicts continue because it is profitable to that 1% of the greedy in Israel and America, they do not give a rat’s ass about the security for the Israelis or justice for the Palestinians.

If you trace back all the terrorism and conflicts, the invariable catalyst are “injustice to the Palestinians” and “security for the Jews” (not the military, but mental security) the arrogant refusal of our policy makers to see it and find solutions. The conflict has now it escalated and taking roots in countries where there is no reason to be. President Reagan gave a boost to the Talibans and the movie Charlie Wilson’s war was a good expression of the problem we have created.

It is not late, never late to restore justice to the Palestinians and genuine security to the Jews, a lot of fires around the world will extinguish as a consequence to the solution.  Most of the world knows this except the money makers on the blood of Palestinians and Jews alike. It is not about Jews or Palestinians, it is GD business to them and as responsible members of the world community we have to channel these rascals to make peace “their business”. Any ideas without appeasing or losing are welcome.

Mike Ghouse is committed to cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. His work is indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net

# # #
How Israel Out-Foxed US Presidents By Morgan Strong
November 17, 2011

From the Archive: At the G20 summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy commiserated with President Barack Obama about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Sarkozy called a “liar,” prompting Obama to say: “You’re fed up with him? I have to deal with him every day.” But struggling with Israeli leaders is not new, Morgan Strong reported.

By Morgan Strong (Originally published on May 31, 2010)

At the end of a news conference on April 13, 2010, President Barack Obama made the seemingly obvious point that the continuing Middle East conflict – pitting Israel against its Arab neighbors – will end up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

Obama’s remark followed a similar comment by Gen. David Petraeus on March 16, 2010, linking the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the challenges that U.S. troops face in the region.

“The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” Petraeus said. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.

“Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”

The truth behind what Obama and Petraeus said is self-evident to anyone who has spent time observing the Middle East for the past six decades. Even the staunchly pro-Israeli Bush administration made similar observations.

Three years ago in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice termed the Israeli/Palestinian peace process of “strategic interest” to the United States and expressed empathy for the beleaguered Palestinian people.

“The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can radicalize even normal people,” Rice said, referring to acts of Palestinian violence.

But the recent comments by Obama and Petraeus aroused alarm among some Israeli supporters who reject any suggestion that Israel’s harsh treatment of Palestinians might be a factor in the anti-Americanism surging through the Islamic world.

After Petraeus’s comment, the pro-Israeli Anti-Defamation League said linking the Palestinian plight and Muslim anger was “dangerous and counterproductive.”

“Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel,” ADL national director Abraham Foxman said.

However, the U.S. government’s widespread (though often unstated) recognition of the truth behind Petraeus’s comment has colored how the Obama administration has reacted to the intransigence of Israel’s Likud government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Petraeus later tried to wiggle out of his comment, noting that it was part of his prepared testimony to a congressional committee and that he did not actually speak the words.)

The U.S. government realizes how much it has done on Israel’s behalf, even to the extent of making Americans the targets of Islamic terrorism such as the 9/11 attacks (as the 9/11 Commission discovered but played down) and sacrificing the lives of thousands of U.S. troops fighting in Middle East conflicts.

That was the backdrop for President Obama’s outrage over the decision of the Netanyahu government to continue building Jewish housing in Arab East Jerusalem despite the fact that the move complicated U.S. peace initiatives and was announced as Vice President Joe Biden arrived to reaffirm American support for Israel.

However, another little-acknowledged truth about the U.S.-Israeli relationship is that Israeli leaders have frequently manipulated and misled American presidents out of a confidence that U.S. politicians deeply fear the political fallout from any public battle with Israel.

Given that history, few analysts who have followed the arc of U.S.-Israeli relations since Israel’s founding in 1948 believe that the Israeli government is likely to retreat very much in its current confrontation with President Obama.

Manipulating Eisenhower

In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower was a strong supporter of the fledgling Jewish state and had supplied Israel with advanced U.S. weaponry. Yet, despite Eisenhower’s generosity and good intentions, Israel sided with the British and French in 1956 in a conspiracy against him.

Israeli leaders joined a secret arrangement that involved Israel invading Egypt’s Sinai, which then allowed France and Great Britain to introduce their own forces and reclaim control of the Suez Canal.

In reaction to the invasion, the Soviet Union threatened to intervene on the side of Egypt by sending ground troops. With Cold War tensions already stretched thin by the crises in Hungary and elsewhere, Eisenhower faced the possibility of a showdown between nuclear-armed adversaries.

Eisenhower demanded that the Israeli-spearheaded invasion of the Sinai be stopped, and he brought financial and political pressures to bear on Great Britain and France.

A ceasefire soon was declared, and the British and French departed, but the Israelis dragged their heels. Eisenhower finally presented Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion with an ultimatum, a threat to cut off all U.S. aid. Finally, in March 1957, the Israelis withdrew. [For details, see Eisenhower and Israelby Isaac Alteras]

David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister

Secret Nukes and JFK

Even as it backed down in the Sinai, Israel was involved in another monumental deception, a plan for building its own nuclear arsenal.

In 1956, Israel had concluded an agreement with France to build a nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. Israel also signed a secret agreement with France to build an adjacent plutonium reprocessing plant.

Israel began constructing its nuclear plant in 1958. However, French President Charles de Gaulle was worried about nuclear weapons destabilizing the Middle East and insisted that Israel not develop a nuclear bomb from the plutonium processing plant. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion assured de Gaulle that the processing plant was for peaceful purposes only.

After John F. Kennedy became President, he also wrote to Ben-Gurion explicitly calling on Israel not to join the nuclear-weapons club, drawing another pledge from Ben-Gurion that Israel had no such intention.

Nevertheless, Kennedy continued to press, forcing the Israelis to let U.S. scientists inspect the nuclear reactor at Dimona. But the Israelis first built a fake control room while bricking up and otherwise disguising parts of the building that housed the plutonium processing plant.

In return for allowing inspectors into Dimona, Ben-Gurion also demanded that the United States sell Hawk surface-to-air missiles to the Israeli military. Kennedy agreed to the sale as a show of good faith. Subsequently, however, the CIA got wind of the Dimona deception and leaked to the press that Israel was secretly building a nuclear bomb.

After Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson also grew concerned over Israel’s acquiring nuclear weapons. He asked then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Eshkol assured Johnson that Israel was studying the matter and would sign the treaty in due course. However, Israel has never signed the treaty and never has admitted that it developed nuclear weapons. [For details, See Israel and The Bomb by Avner Cohen.]

Trapping Johnson

As Israel grew more sophisticated – and more confident – in its dealings with U.S. presidents, it also sought to secure U.S. military assistance by exaggerating its vulnerability to Arab attacks.

One such case occurred after the Egyptians closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel in May 1967, denying the country its only access to the Red Sea. Israel threatened military action against Egypt if it did not re-open the Gulf.

Israel then asked President Johnson for military assistance in the event war broke out against the Egyptians. Johnson directed Richard Helms, the newly appointed head of the CIA to evaluate Israel’s military capability in the event of war against the surrounding Arab states.

On May 26, 1967, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban met with Johnson, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and CIA Director Helms. Eban presented a Mossad estimate of the capability of the Arab armies, claiming that Israel was seriously outgunned by the Arab armies which had been supplied with advanced Soviet weaponry.

Israel believed that, owing to its special relationship with the United States, the Mossad intelligence assessment would be taken at face value.

However, Helms was asked to present the CIA estimate of the Arabs’ military capabilities versus the Israeli army. The CIA’s analysts concluded that Israel could “defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, or hold on any three fronts while mounting a successful major offensive on the fourth.” [See “C.I.A. Analysis of the 1967 Arab Israeli War,” Center for the Study of Intelligence.]

“We do not believe that the Israeli appreciation was a serious estimate of the sort they would submit to their own high officials,” the CIA report said. “It is probably a gambit intended to influence the U.S. to provide military supplies, make more public commitments to Israel, to approve Israeli military initiatives, and put more pressure on Egyptian President Nasser.” [See A Look Over My Shoulder by Richard Helms.]

The CIA report stated further that the Soviet Union would probably not interfere militarily on behalf of the Arab states and that Israel would defeat the combined Arab armies in a matter of days.

As a consequence, Johnson refused to airlift special military supplies to Israel, or to promise public support for Israel if Israel went to war.

The Six-Day Success

Despite Johnson’s resistance, Israel launched an attack on its Arab neighbors on June 5, 1967, claiming that the conflict was provoked when Egyptian forces opened fire. (The CIA later concluded that it was Israel that had first fired upon Egyptian forces.)

On June 8, at the height of the conflict, which would become known as the Six-Day War, Israeli fighter/bombers attacked the USS Liberty, a lightly armed communications vessel sent on a mission to relay information on the course of the war to U.S. naval intelligence.

The attack killed 34 Americans sailors, and wounded 171 others. Israeli leaders have always claimed that they had mistaken the U.S. vessel for an enemy ship, but a number of U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Dean Rusk, believed the attack was deliberate, possibly to prevent the United States from learning about Israel’s war plans. [See As I Saw It by Dean Rusk.]

However, in deference to Israel, the U.S. government did not aggressively pursue the matter of the Liberty attack and even issued misleading accounts in medal citations to crew members, leaving out the identity of the attackers.

Meanwhile, on land and in the air, Israel’s powerful military advanced, shredding the Arab defenses. Soon, the conflict escalated into another potential showdown between nuclear-armed superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States.

On June 10, President Johnson received a “Hot Line” message from Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin. The Kremlin warned of grave consequences if Israel continued its military campaign against Syria by entering and/or occupying that country.

Johnson dispatched the Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean, in a move to convince the Soviets of American resolve. But a ceasefire was declared later the same day, with Israel ending up in control of Syria’s Golan Heights, Egypt’s Sinai, and Palestinian lands including Gaza and East Jerusalem.

But a wider war was averted. Johnson’s suspicions about Israel’s expansionist intent had kept the United States from making an even bigger commitment that might have led to the Soviets countering with an escalation of their own.

Nixon and Yom Kippur

Israeli occupation of those additional Arab lands set the stage for a resumption of hostilities six years later, on Oct. 6, 1973, with the Yom Kippur War, which began with a surprise attack by Egypt against Israeli forces in the Sinai.

The offensive caught Israel off guard and Arab forces were close to overrunning Israel’s outer defenses and entering the country. According to later accounts based primarily on Israeli leaks, Prime Minister Golda Meir and her “kitchen cabinet” ordered the arming of 13 nuclear weapons, which were aimed at Egyptian and Syrian targets.

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Simha Dintz warned President Richard Nixon that very serious repercussions would occur if the United States did not immediately begin an airlift of military equipment and personnel to Israel.

Fearing that the Soviet Union might intervene and that nuclear war was possible, the U.S. military raised its alert level to DEFCON-3. U.S. Airborne units in Italy were put on full alert, and military aid was rushed to Israel.

Faced with a well-supplied Israeli counteroffensive and possible nuclear annihilation, the Arab forces fell back. The war ended on Oct. 26, 1973, but the United States had again been pushed to the brink of a possible superpower confrontation due to the unresolved Israeli-Arab conflict.

Nuclear ‘Ambiguity’

On Sept. 22, 1979, after some clouds unexpectedly broke over the South Indian Ocean, a U.S. intelligence satellite detected two bright flashes of light that were quickly interpreted as evidence of a nuclear test.

The explosion was apparently one of several nuclear tests that Israel had undertaken in collaboration with the white-supremacist government of South Africa. But President Jimmy Carter – at the start of his reelection bid – didn’t want a showdown with Israel, especially on a point as sensitive as its secret nuclear work with the pariah government in Pretoria.

So, after news of the nuclear test leaked a month later, the Carter administration followed Israel’s longstanding policy of “ambiguity” about the existence of its nuclear arsenal, a charade dating back to Richard Nixon’s presidency with the United States pretending not to know for sure that Israel possessed nuclear bombs.

The Carter administration quickly claimed that there was “no confirmation” of a nuclear test, and a panel was set up to conclude that the flashes were “probably not from a nuclear explosion.”

However, as investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and various nuclear experts later concluded, the flashes were most certainly an explosion of a low-yield nuclear weapon. [For details, see Hersh’s Samson Option.]

Getting Carter

Despite Carter’s helpful cover-up of the Israeli-South African nuclear test, he was still viewed with disdain by Israel’s hard-line Likud leadership. Indeed, he arguably was the target of Israel’s most audacious intervention in U.S. politics.

Prime Minister Menachem Begin was furious at Carter over the 1978 Camp David accords in which the U.S. President pushed the Israelis into returning the Sinai to the Egyptians in exchange for a peace agreement.

The next year, Carter failed to protect the Shah of Iran, an important Israeli regional ally who was forced from power by Islamic militants. Then, when Carter acceded to demands from the Shah’s supporters to admit him to New York for cancer treatment, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage.

In 1980, as Carter focused on his reelection campaign, Begin saw both dangers and opportunities. High-ranking Israeli diplomat/spy David Kimche described Begin’s thinking in the 1991 book, The Last Option, recounting how Begin feared that Carter might force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and accept a Palestinian state if he won a second term.

“Begin was being set up for diplomatic slaughter by the master butchers in Washington,” Kimche wrote. “They had, moreover, the apparent blessing of the two presidents, Carter and [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat, for this bizarre and clumsy attempt at collusion designed to force Israel to abandon her refusal to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Begin’s alarm was driven by the prospect of Carter being freed from the pressure of having to face another election, according to Kimche.

“Unbeknownst to the Israeli negotiators, the Egyptians held an ace up their sleeves, and they were waiting to play it,” Kimche wrote. “The card was President Carter’s tacit agreement that after the American presidential elections in November 1980, when Carter expected to be re-elected for a second term, he would be free to compel Israel to accept a settlement of the Palestinian problem on his and Egyptian terms, without having to fear the backlash of the American Jewish lobby.”

So, by spring 1980, Begin had privately sided with Carter’s Republican rival, Ronald Reagan, a reality that Carter soon realized.

Questioned by congressional investigators in 1992 regarding allegations about Israel conspiring with Republicans in 1980 to help unseat him, Carter said he knew by April 1980 that “Israel cast their lot with Reagan,” according to notes found among the unpublished documents in the files of a House task force that looked into the so-called October Surprise case.

Carter traced the Israeli opposition to his reelection to a “lingering concern [among] Jewish leaders that I was too friendly with Arabs.”

Doing What Was Necessary

Begin was an Israeli leader committed to do whatever he felt necessary to advance Israeli security interests and the dream of a Greater Israel with Jews controlling the ancient Biblical lands. Before Israel’s independence in 1948, he had led a Zionist terrorist group, and he founded the right-wing Likud Party in 1973 with the goal of “changing the facts on the ground” by placing Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas.

Begin’s anger over the Sinai deal and his fear of Carter’s reelection set the stage for secret collaboration between Begin and the Republicans, according to another former Israeli intelligence official, Ari Ben-Menashe.

“Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David,” Ben-Menashe wrote in his 1992 memoir, Profits of War. “As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel’s back.”

Ben-Menashe, an Iranian-born Jew who had immigrated to Israel as a teen-ager, became part of a secret Israeli program to reestablish its Iranian intelligence network that had been decimated by the Islamic revolution. Ben-Menashe wrote that Begin authorized shipments to Iran of small arms and some military spare parts, via South Africa, as early as September 1979 and continued them despite Iran’s seizure of the U.S. hostages in November 1979.

Extensive evidence also exists that Begin’s preference for Reagan led the Israelis to join in a covert operation with Republicans to contact Iranian leaders behind Carter’s back, interfering with the President’s efforts to free the 52 American hostages before the November 1980 elections.

That evidence includes statements from senior Iranian officials, international arms dealers, intelligence operatives, and Middle East political figures (including a cryptic confirmation from Begin’s successor Yitzhak Shamir). But the truth about the October Surprise case remains in dispute to this day. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

It is clear that after Reagan defeated Carter — and the U.S. hostages were released immediately upon Reagan being sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981 — Israeli-brokered weapons shipments flowed to Iran with the secret blessing of the new Republican administration.

Dealing with Reagan

The Israel Lobby had grown exponentially since its start in the Eisenhower years. Israel’s influential supporters were now positioned to use every political device imaginable to lobby Congress and to get the White House to acquiesce to whatever Israel felt it needed.

President Reagan also credentialed into the Executive Branch a new group of pro-Israeli American officials – the likes of Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen and Jeane Kirkpatrick – who became known as the neocons.

Yet, despite Reagan’s pro-Israel policies, the new U.S. President wasn’t immune from more Israeli deceptions and additional pressures.

Indeed, whether because of the alleged collusion with Reagan during the 1980 campaign or because Israel sensed its greater clout within his administration, Begin demonstrated a new level of audacity.

In 1981, Israel recruited Jonathan Pollard, an American Navy intelligence analyst, as a spy to acquire American intelligence satellite photos. Eventually, Pollard purloined massive amounts of intelligence information, some of which was reportedly turned over to Soviet intelligence by Israel to win favors from Moscow.

Prime Minister Begin sensed, too, that the time was ripe to gain the upper hand on other Arab enemies. He turned his attention to Lebanon, where the Palestine Liberation Organization was based.

Lebanon War

When U.S. intelligence warned Reagan that Israel was massing troops along the border with Lebanon, Reagan sent a cable to Begin urging him not to invade. But Begin ignored Reagan’s plea and invaded Lebanon the following day, on June 6, 1982. [See Time, Aug. 16, 1982.]

As the offensive progressed, Reagan sought a cessation of hostilities between Israel and the PLO, but Israel was intent on killing as many PLO fighters as possible. Periodic U.S.-brokered ceasefires failed as Israel used the slightest provocation to resume fighting, supposedly in self-defense.

“When PLO sniper fire is followed by fourteen hours of Israeli bombardment that is stretching the definition of defensive action too far,” complained Reagan, who kept the picture of a horribly burned Lebanese child on his desk in the Oval Office as a reminder of the tragedy of Lebanon.

The American public nightly witnessed the Israeli bombardment of Beirut on television news broadcasts. The pictures of dead, mutilated children caught in the Israeli artillery barrages, were particularly wrenching. Repulsed by the carnage, the U.S. public decidedly favored forcing Israel to stop.

When Reagan warned Israel of possible sanctions if its forces continued to indiscriminately attack Beirut, Israel launched a major offensive against West Beirut the next day.

In the United States, Israeli supporters demanded a meeting with Reagan to press Israel’s case. Though Reagan declined the meeting, one was set up for 40 leaders of various Jewish organizations with Vice President George H.W. Bush, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz.

Reagan wrote once again to Begin, reminding him that Israel was allowed to use American weapons only for defensive purposes. He appealed to Begin’s humanitarianism to stop the bombardment.

The next day, in a meeting with Israeli supporters from the United States, Begin fumed that he would not be instructed by an American president or any other U.S. official.

“Nobody is going to bring Israel to her knees. You must have forgotten that Jews do not kneel but to God,” Begin said. “Nobody is going to preach to us humanitarianism.”

Begin’s government also used the tragedy in Lebanon as an opportunity to provide special favors for its American backers.

In From Beirut to Jerusalem, New York Times correspondent Thomas L. Freidman wrote that the Israeli Army conducted tours of the battlefront for influential U.S. donors. On one occasion, women from Hadassah were taken to the hills surrounding Beirut and were invited to look down on the city as Israeli artillery put on a display for them.

The artillery began an enormous barrage, with shells landing throughout the densely populated city. The shells struck and destroyed apartments, shops, homes and shacks

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Israel Palestine convention in Jerusalem

Our Pre- Elections convention will take place this year on December 12th 13th and 14th at the Ambassador Hotel in Jerusalem, Talitha Kumi in Bethlehem and Bet Hagefen in Haifa. The convention will have presentations from such notable Israeli and Palestinians as: Shlomo Ben -Ami, Sari Nusseibeh Ruth Dayan, Munther Dajani, Uri Avnery, and Ahmed Natour. In addition we will have presentations from candidates who are currently running in these historical elections. The audiences will be inspired and entertained by the world renowned peace activist and singing performer, Liel Kolet.
 Click here to RSVP

Very truly yours,

Josef Avesar
Israeli-Palestinian Confederation>

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Embarassing Presidential debate on 11.12.11



Rather than who has plans to bring lasting peace and prosperity to the World, Security to Israel and
Justice to the Palestinians, the candidates will be vying for kissing Israel; who does the most. Who is
bent on destruction and bombing others? Ultimately it amounts to screwing both Israelis and Americans. How long can they dupe the Israeli and Americans?

Has this policy been good to any one so far?

Please join me at facebook as a friend at http://ww.facebook.com/speakermikeghouse when the page opens just click the word "LIKE" next to the words "Speaker Mike Ghouse" and we become friends. This page is created to make friendships with new friends as my curent page has reached the limit of 5000 friends. Thank you.

Mike Ghouse
Committed to a cohesive America

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Jimmy Carter on Palestine Apartheid

There is always going to be a small segment of population in every group who tends to be intolerant and unwilling to hear another point of view. Jimmy Carter has done more to secure Israel than any other president, yet when he talks about the problem, the right wingers hound him. The lobby and the right wing are the true detriment to peace and security of Israel. Good Israelis and a good Jewish people understand the situation but they get mowed down by the few intolerants ones. 

A Prominent Jewish friend in Dallas quit returning my calls and emails. I ran into him in a synagogue and faced him squarely to tell me why? His anwer was simple - I don't want to talk with you, because your website has (cursing) Jimmy Carter's book review on your website. This is the kind of intolerance from a educator. Yet, they are few, but shamefully powerful enough to silence the good voices. Israel will not have peace for a long time - its squarely the doing of the 1% or less hard core extremists among Jews and the Palestinians.


Friday, October 28, 2011

ISRAEL AND HAMAS: In the Wake of the Prisoners Exchange

25 October 2011
Professor AlonBen-Meir.com

The prisoner swap in which Hamas released Israeli captive Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons suggests that Israel and Hamas recognize each other's unmitigated reality and prerogatives. The deal was unquestionably motivated by mutually beneficial political calculations made on both sides, including a desire to overshadow President Abbas' efforts to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state, to which Hamas and Israel object. Nevertheless, without an outright rejection of terror and recognition that Israel cannot be destroyed, Hamas' growth as a political force will remain limited and potentially mired in failure. Similarly, without Israel recognizing that lasting security is unlikely unless Hamas is included in the political process, efforts to advance a two-state solution will be fruitless.

The growing influences of Egypt and Turkey on Hamas, the Arab Spring and the promise of the Arab Peace Initiative all provide avenues to bridge the gaps between Israel and Hamas. To do so, the Quartet must rethink its three demands on Hamas, (renounce violence, accept Israel's existence and agree to past agreements) which will keep the two-sides mired in a dangerous status quo. Overcoming these obstacles will require new thinking to find a formula that enables each side to save face by altering their positions to move forward in a political process.

Israel's negotiations - even though through Egypt - are the first public indication that Israel recognizes it cannot militarily eliminate Hamas. Israel could not rescue Shalit through military assault, despite its pummeling of Gaza in the winter of 2008/2009. Hamas was emboldened as a result of the prisoner exchange. In a poll taken by Al-Najaf University in Nablus just after the prisoner swap was announced, 67 percent of Palestinians said that they believe that the deal "will increase the support of Hamas among the Palestinians."

Hamas has been further strengthened by the on-again, off-again Palestinian unity talks, which it has entered into without relinquishing any of its avowed positions to oppose peace with Israel. Hamas' chief, Khaled Mashaal has told reporters in the past that he would be willing to accept a two-state formula along the 1967 lines but without acting on it to bring about conflict resolution. Meanwhile, Hamas members have denigrated international efforts to gain Palestinian statehood at the United Nations and remained fiercely opposed to Israel's existence.

These inconsistent postures, including the generally self-imposed ceasefire for the past three years, have enabled Hamas to navigate international circles with the aura of possibility that it could be a partner for peace, even without espousing a unified, clear position or easing its hard-line stance as a ‘resistance movement' against Israel. This posturing forces Israel to spend disproportionately on defense and maintain a state of readiness with ever escalating debilitating financial and human cost.

However, Hamas' rise may be reaching an apex. According to the Al Najah poll, 77 percent of Palestinians believe "that the surrounding Arab and international circumstances necessitate concluding a national reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah." An equal number supported the Palestinian bid to gain statehood recognition at the United Nations. But with Hamas' Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh calling the UN gambit a mere "mirage," Hamas could in fact be blamed for the bids failure, as well as for the failure of reconciliation talks. Even more, whereas 57 percent of Palestinians expect a third intifada, the same number opposes the use of violence. Hamas' political viability could be undermined if it is blamed for another round of violence that dramatically sets back the Palestinian cause. Hamas' challenge is made more difficult as a result of the uprising in Syria which has thrust its patron, Bashar Assad in a fight for the survival of his regime.

Most importantly, Hamas' growth is contingent upon two realizations. The first is that under no circumstances can Hamas destroy Israel. Hamas knows that should it reengage in a campaign of terror against and seriously threatens Israel, Jerusalem will not hesitate to respond by decapitating its leadership, regardless of the international condemnation that would likely follow. Furthermore, until Hamas disavows violence as a tool, to achieve Palestinian statehood and its ability to shape the future of Palestine remains handicapped.

The second realization is that Hamas knows that it too cannot be destroyed. Although Hamas' public support has steadily declined in the past several years, it maintains strong grass-roots following. Whether through a unity government or free and fair elections, Hamas and its ideology of ‘resistance' will persist as a potent force in the Palestinian body politic. The question facing Hamas today is how to reconcile these two contradictory realities: that the organization will endure, but its ultimate objective-the destruction of Israel-will never be fulfilled.

A similar question regarding Hamas faces Israel. While previous and current Israeli governments know that it can wipe out Hamas' leadership, it cannot destroy its ideology, and as long as it remains on the outside of the political process, it can spoil any Israeli efforts to advance negotiations with its Fatah rival. Israel has succeeded in containing Hamas' violent activity, including rocket attacks, due to its considerable deterrence, but it is at least in part constrained by the international opprobrium that has followed its blockade of Gaza, which has further served to strengthen Hamas' position in the international arena.

This policy limbo gripping both sides hardens the status quo. At the same time, neither Israel nor Hamas is prepared to publicly recognize this fact and adjust their policies accordingly. Each side is merely treading water by maintaining these contradictory postures. What is needed is a face saving way out of this deadlock. The status quo will not produce peace or security. If Israel wants peace with Palestinians based on a two-state solution, it simply cannot leave Gaza out of the equation. Meanwhile, if a unity government is reached, and talks are currently being held between Fatah and Hamas, some in the international community are likely to withdraw Palestinian aid on the grounds that Hamas has not met the three Quartet conditions.

Hamas and Israel must adopt a new strategy in order to create a face saving formula that will enable each side to adjust its positions. So what can be done?

First, as the prisoner exchange deal attests, the growing influence of Egypt in Hamas' internal calculations could serve toward an easing of direct hostilities between Hamas and Israel. Israel has a strategic interest to maintain ties with the Egyptian authorities, particularly in the military establishment. With Bashar Assad's future in doubt, Hamas too has significant interests in maintaining solid ties with its Egyptian neighbors. Egypt's role can be expanded to issues related to security and economic concerns along the Gaza-Israel and Egypt-Gaza borders, as well as along the Gaza coastline.

Second, just as Egypt has deepened ties with Hamas as its ties with Israel were placed into doubt following the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Turkey-Israel ties have deteriorated as Turkey-Hamas relations have strengthened. Israel could signal to Turkey to play a mediating role between Jerusalem and Gaza, as Israeli President Peres acknowledged it did in the prisoner swap, bolstering Israeli-Turkish relations in the process. Turkey was a quiet but key player in Gilad Shalit's release, agreeing to accept some of the released Palestinian prisoners in Turkey for exile. Turkey's assistance in helping Israel and Hamas reach sustainable security, economic and political arrangements will be essential in restarting a process of mending ties between Jerusalem and Ankara.

Third, the Arab Spring forced Israel to listen to the demands of the Palestinian street. Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank are not likely to remain silent in a region that is undergoing a transformation of epic proportions. The Palestinians street cannot be left out of the revolutionary freedom wave crossing the Middle East for long. It is in Israel's strategic and security interests - and Hamas' political interest - to keep Palestinian protests peaceful so as not to derail any hopes of riding the Arab spring's momentum to a realization of Palestinian national aspirations.

Fourth, the long dormant Arab Peace Initiative could enable Hamas to soften its stance on the political process with Israel by aligning itself with the stated position of the entire Arab League. In turn, the Israeli public, notwithstanding the objections of the Netanyahu government, should be persuaded to accept the centrality, and in fact the indispensability, of the Arab Peace Initiative in principle as the basis for renewed negotiations with Arab states and a framework for talks. Egypt, because of its proximity, centrality in Arab affairs and security interests, and Saudi Arabia because it's the custodian of Sunni Islam must press Hamas to give up violence and accept the principles of the Arab Peace Initiative.

Finally, the Quartet should re-examine its formula for engaging Hamas, particularly in connection with recognizing Israel and accepting prior agreements. There are members of the Israeli cabinet who do not renounce violence, recognize the right of Palestine to exist or accept previously negotiated agreements. To ask it of Hamas is simply a ploy to avoid the inevitable-negotiating with them. Instead of the unrealistic conditions, the Quartet should publicly state one clear condition to be accepted by the international community: Hamas must renounce violence in any form, a condition which Hamas has de-facto accepted. Challenging Hamas to rise to the occasion could spur the kind of change necessary to break the deadlock that is currently gripping the Middle East peace process.

Since the Gaza war, Israel and Hamas have been engaged in a chess game, with each side making marginal gains, and losing critical pieces in relations to the other side. Today, they are in a deadlock, with neither side able to put the other in checkmate. Egypt and Turkey, with the support of the Quartet, can help the parties find a common denominator, utilizing the momentum of the Arab Spring and the promise of the Arab Peace Initiative. Now is the time to make concerted efforts to force a game-changer, without which the region could be headed toward a dangerous and violent explosion.


Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Dynamite DNA: Palestinians Are Really Jews

This may bring a whole new different outlook on the peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. At least 70%-80% of the Palestinians are of ancient Hebrew descendent from Abraham. There is a wave of Revolution that is taking place in Palestine and this could be the proof in the pudding.


and http://blog.godreports.com/2011/09/many-surprised-by-genetic-and-cultural-links-between-palestinians-and-jews/

# # #
Palestinians Of A Jewish Origin Part One
# # #
Palestinians Of A Jewish Origin Part Two
# # #
Ok, would Israel stop destroying and bombarding the Palestinians and would Hamas stop shooting the rockets? So, the newer brother is kicking out the older brother from his house and his land... and the fight will continue as brothers or racism - Arab Jews V. European Jews.
Instead, I hope this gives hope for them to come together.
same Israelis but with different faiths?
The Indians were all Hindus once - now we are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Bahais, Jains, Buddhist... we still have a few in each segment loaded with hate while the majority lives on...
Weren't all of them Pagans before they become Jewish... I am sure, if they extropolate backwards, they all came from one or two families whehter in India or Israel.
I hope it is not another conspiracy by the right wingers to deny the rights to the Palestinians
Mike Ghouse

Monday, October 3, 2011

The Settlements by Alon Ben-Meir

The Settlements

October 3, 2011
Professor Alon Ben-Meir

Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas profess to seek a two-state solution, but still have not discussed the core issues that divide them. These issues are borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and identity, each of which I will examine in the weeks ahead. The issue of settlements continues to serve as the immediate stumbling-block to renewing negotiations. Far more than a manifestation of the territorial dispute between the two sides, the settlement issue is intertwined with the principle ideology of Israeli and Palestinian identities. Every housing unit built beyond the 1967 Green Line has physical, psychological and political ramifications, making the issue a formidable obstacle to overcome if a two-state solution is to be achieved.

From the Palestinian perspective, the settlement issue is the albatross that undermines any prospect for a viable Palestinian state. Since the Oslo signing of the Declaration of Principles in September 1993, the number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank has nearly tripled, from approximately 116,000 in 1993 to over 300,000 today. This number does not include more than 200,000 settlers in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians seek to establish a capital for their state, and where the Netanyahu government last week announced it would build another 1,100 housing units.

Physically, settlement construction confiscates land that Palestinians seek for their future state, bit by painstaking bit. Psychologically, construction sends the Palestinians a clear message: that Israel does not accept their claim to the land or their national aspirations, and has no interest in a two-state solution. Herein lies the rationale for the continued Palestinian insistence on a complete Israeli settlement freeze in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem prior to their entering into negotiations.

From the Palestinian view, if Israel were truly willing to accept a Palestinian state, it would cease construction that encroaches further into would-be Palestinian territory. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet ministers reinforce the Palestinian assertions that Israel is not interested in accepting a Palestinian state by continually invoking Israel's historic connection to the West Bank by referring to its biblical Hebrew name "Judea and Samaria."

Politically, continued settlement construction has moved Palestinian leaders further away from compromise with Israel. For any Palestinian leader to enter negotiations without a construction freeze would amount to political suicide. As more Palestinians question whether negotiations can truly lead to a Palestinian state, compromising on an issue that contradicts the very notion of the creation of their state has become a political impossibility.

From Netanyahu's perspective, settlement construction is linked with national identity. He has repeatedly placed the idea of Palestinians accepting Israel "as a Jewish state" at the center of the deliberations over renewing peace talks. From his perspective, until the Palestinians and the Arab world accept the legitimacy of this claim, peace will be impossible. Furthermore, Netanyahu can easily point to his 10 month construction freeze, during which time Abbas failed to enter into negotiations, as a justification for his refusal to accept another freeze, especially if it includes East Jerusalem.

Netanyahu fundamentally differs from his predecessors, Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, who used the word "occupation" to describe Israel's continued hold on the West Bank. Netanyahu does not view the ancient Jewish lands of "Judea and Samaria" as occupied, and certainly not East Jerusalem, and thus does not believe them to be off-limits to Jewish construction. This explains why he has expended so much political capital in opposing a settlement freeze, despite continued pressure from Washington and the international community. Netanyahu tries to justify his refusal to freeze construction by linking the settlements to Israel's national security, which an increasing number of Israelis accept at face value.

Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed that Israel cannot accept "indefensible borders," based on the 1967 lines. He highlights that Israel would be only 9 miles wide if it were to relinquish its territory in the West Bank. However, this security argument is undermined by the reality that for any agreement to be reached, Israel will have to relinquish land. Unless Netanyahu claims that a 12 or 15 mile width is more "defensible" in today's missile technology than a 9 mile width, it is difficult to comprehend what Netanyahu's "defensible borders" looks like without a continued substantial Israeli military presence in the West Bank.

If the dispute over settlements was solely based on security or political issues, it could be reconciled through good-faith negotiations. However, the settlements represent more than a security and political disagreement. The issue is viewed as a matter of the inherent historical rights and existence of each side. This is what makes this conflict so intractable. All of this begs the questions: If the settlement issue is so deeply ingrained, how can it be resolved? Is there any way the Palestinians can compromise on the issue of settlements in order to return to the negotiating table? Will the Netanyahu government cease construction and accept a Palestinian state or will it remain committed to a losing strategy that is like a self-consuming cancer?

There is absolutely no way the Palestinians will ever compromise on this issue unless they are offered a more plausible alternative. Compromising now would be viewed as a capitulation for Abbas at a moment when Palestinians believe that they have gained momentum in isolating Israel in the international community, especially on the question of the settlements. At the same time, while Israel has a historical claim to the West Bank, Netanyahu has shown no indication that he is willing to reconcile this claim with the reality that a Palestinian state must be created if a democratic, Jewish state is to remain and thrive in the region.

There will be no solution to the settlement problem until both sides are persuaded to heed to the pressure of the Quartet (the UN, US, EU and Russia), and most directly by the United States, to agree on a new rules of engagement by negotiating borders first. Borders will not only define the parameters of the Palestinian state but will also address the settlements issue. A land swap in which Israel would keep the major settlement blocs in the context of a border agreement has long-been viewed as the answer to this conundrum. This will also give Mahmoud Abbas the political cover he needs to drop his precondition of a construction freeze by negotiating borders first, as long as future construction will be limited to the settlements that will become a part of Israel in a negotiated agreement. With construction freeze out of the way, Netanyahu and Abbas will then face the moment of truth.

Mahmoud Abbas must know by now that he has been playing into Netanyahu's hand. He must change his strategy to bring him even better results. Negotiating borders will lead directly to the heart of the settlement issue, and will require their immediate resolution.

Netanyahu must know by now that his strategy to create more facts on the ground by continuing settlement construction before negotiating borders with the Palestinians in earnest has run its course. The whole world is focused on Israel's settlements' activity because they speak volumes about Netanyahu and his government's ultimate intentions.