Miko Peled's Video- An Israeli General's son

Miko Peled's Video- An Israeli General's son
URL: http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/miko-peleds-video-israeli-generals-son.html

Miko Peled is son of Israel’s General Matti Peled, a champion of Palestinian rights. Those of you who genuinely seek to understand the complexity of Israel Palestine issue, I recommend this video on YouTube Video 1:08:31 Minutes.

Please do not assume that Jews and Muslims are anti-each other, they are not; a few are. This is good educational material for those few Jews who do not believe in human rights, but control the masses through their frightening propaganda. I am reviewing similar educational material for those few Palestinians who do not believe in human rights and use their own propaganda, and post it here on this site.  

The Palestinian right is no different than the Israeli right. They constantly blame each other and are eager to show off their muscle power, without giving a crap about long term security for Israel and justice for Palestinians, so their children can live in a better world.

To be a peace maker is to acknowledge the prejudices and conflicts, know that a few individuals drive the agenda for the whole populace, and it is usually not the will of the people. We need to hold the temptation to justify the actions of one over the other.

To be a peacemaker, we need to be free from bias, hate and ill-will, and we need to be at peace with ourselves to find peace for others.

Miko touches on Anti-Semitism at the tail end of the video. It has been my experience as well, and I will include that experience in my upcoming book, so we all can learn the little things that can cause us to fall and avoid it.  I thank God for putting me through the tests of withstanding endless harassment through emails, phone calls, and unleashing a few tormentors to exasperate me on social media. The right-wingers wanted to push me to say stupid things, so they can nail me as an “anti-Semite” and bring an end to my little peacemaking efforts.

They failed miserably, I am no anti-Semite, and prejudice is not in my blood stream. Most of you may not experience this, as you have not dealt with deeper issues beyond hello, how are you.  It’s just not the right wing Jews, the right wing Muslims have said ugly things to me for commemorating the annual Holocaust event in Dallas, a few even called me that I will not be a Muslim. I am sure most of the peacemakers out there, regardless of their religious affiliations have experienced this. We all can share and learn to stay firm and not be prejudiced, for our own heart.

I look up to Muhammad, Jesus, Gandhi, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Nanak, MLK and those guys, who are my role models. Nothing they did was for their gain; it was all for the benefit of humanity. Likewise, I have nothing to gain from anything I do, zip, nada, nothing.  I just wish to see people get along and willing to bear some abuse and humiliation in the process for the common good. This paragraph is for Miko, and all of you out there who are unselfishly serving humanity without discrimination. Keep it doing, it is the right thing to do.

Miko Peled’s presentation is fairly identical to my understanding. We have used a similar language with one exception; separating the right wingers on Jewish and Muslim side from the common people.  He speaks clearly and I relate with him, there is no malice or hatred in his language but facts. Indeed, he is a true representation of what Judaism is all about; fixing the world to be just and I hope to be a true representation of Islam, to be a just and fair with my own short comings.

At this time, I do not support the idea of one state for Israelis and Palestinians. Although I come from a nation that was split on religious lines, a major geopolitical mistake of India and Pakistan,   as mentioned in the video and the facts out there - the Jewish and Muslim children are indoctrinated that it is ok to kill the others and both invoke religion to suit their right wing agenda.

No religion puts life above religion, particularly these two; Judaism and Islam, yet they abuse their religion, enough of us need to speak out against Imams and Rabbis abusing and misquoting religion. Once the two states operate, the focus ought to be education and bring a new generation without hate, then they can form a confederation along the lines recommended in Israel Palestine confederation. At the end of the day, we all need to be fed and live a normal life where we don’t have to live in apprehension or fear of the other.

Please watch the following video and share, this is one of the best things you can do. I will share the other perspective as well. Hold your judgment; until you hear both sides, I will post the other video in a few days.

......

YouTube Video 1:08:31 Minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOaxAckFCuQ

---

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace making, foreign policy, Islam, Israel, India,  interfaith, and cohesion at work place or social settings. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike has a strong presence on national local TV, Radio and Print Media, and is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News, fortnightly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes everything you want to know about him. 

Gaza Israel conflict - November 2012

Site: www.IsraelPalestineDialogue.com

Peace hinges on justice to the Palestinians and security to the Israelis. A durable peace comes when neither is compromised.

Our foreign policy and the policy of Arab nations is the real villain in the conflict. Instead of egging each party to the conflict and causing them to dig in their bloody heels, we need to tell them to stop the non-sense and get to the table.

We, the Americans, and them the Arabs must withdraw all the support to both nations, until they sit down and show the progress. No support without results. We have caused the conflict to prolong, and we bear the responsibility to find solutions.

The bullshit theory of supporting the allies has ruined both people, we are screwing Israelis, instead of finding sustainable security for them,  we are causing them to prolong the conflict, the Arab nations are doing the same.  We can be heroes, by tying our support to progress. If Israel or Palestine does not show their ability to dialogue, we have a right to demand them to sit down and find solutions, for their own good.

I hope Obama understands this, and takes the necessary action. Everyone wants peace but we don’t do the things that take us there.

It is time to drop all the previous failed policies and go with a bold new idea. “If you two don’t show us the progress within 30 days, we are not going to support you." We need to get the Arabs and on our side and they will do it, if the outcome is good for Palestine and Israel with no gain for us.We need to be just and honest. The Jewish people want sincerity as much as the Palestinians, they don't need duplicity.

Please do not judge any one without the full picture, and it is at www.IsraelPalestineDialouge.com. If you can hold out blaming either side, then you are a true peace maker and you will find sustainable solutions. We had enough for 64 years and it is time to bring goodness to both.  

I hope to articulate the full idea in the article to be published in Huffington post next week. 

Mike Ghouse

http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/02/about-israel-palestine.html 

Obama can bring resolution to Israel Palestine conflict

Please note that this issue is mother of most of the conflicts in the world, and I am committed to finding solutions and have written over 50 pieces on the topic, and many have been published, that is a lot of time! The blog www.IsraelPalestineDialouge.com  has got most of the stuff... there is very little in it that does not contribute towards finding solutions. Why am I passionate about this? Check out the series of three articles published at Huffington post or even the note "About" at this site, to understand my Passion. I want both these people to live without the fear of the other and it is doable.

Obama can bring resolution to Israel and Palestine Conflict

URL: http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/obama-can-bring-resolution-to-israel.html

1. The first step is to call in Fatah, Hamas* and Netanyahu to the Rose Garden with no conditions.
2. Have each one place all his cards on the table, "What is that you want?"
3. Obama** (and his team, I hope I am on that team) to offer a proposal based on Security for Israel and Justice to the Palestinians.
4. Ask the parties to work towards that goal and come up with a viable proposal.
5. Call in the Arab Nations and Jewry around the world to ponder over this.
6. Develop a proposal with consensus, and offer to the publics in both nations, almost as referendum.
7. Call in Arab Nations to recognize Israel, which means ending hostilities, let the publics in those nations be a part of the campaign, after all monarchs and dictators come and go, the deal should be between the peoples of Arab Nations and Israel - the heads are merely there to carry out the will of the people. No treaty should  dependent on individuals.
8. Iran's original beef was the Palestinian issue, if we move towards solutions, Iran will be easy to work with, they may feel that they issue is addressed.
9. The mother of most problems in the world is this conflict. We blame religion, terrorism and other things in vain instead of focussing on the issue.

 

* The right wing Christians, Jews and Muslims will scream bloody murder, Obama needs to win them as well, indeed, that should be the first step, and they need to be our allies in bringing an end to this endless conflict. The other approaches have not worked before and we need them to give this approach a chance.

** Obama is the second President after Carter, who is genuine in finding a solution, unaffected by the pressures from the right. Obama has the (newly acquired) balls to tell the parties like it is. No one in the past had that, neither were they neutral. In the past the Arab Nations and we (Americans) have screwed the process by siding with each side and strengthening their stance, rather than getting them to sit and talk. We have that right, we have nothing to gain, but they do. Peace dividends are innumerable.

 

When God created Animals, he gave them horns and animal teeth to bloody each other to resolve conflicts. Did he do that with humans? No, instead he gave us a tongue to dialogue and find solutions. Do we need to use it? Heck yes!

 

MikeGhouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace making, foreign policy, Israel,  Islam, interfaith, and cohesion at work place or social settings. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike has a strong presence on national local TV, Radio and Print Media, and is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News, fortnightly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes everything you want to know about him.

Presidential candidates pledge to the flag of Israel

URL - http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/presidential-candidates-pledge-to-flag.html

The Israelis must be laughing at these guys racing to prove who is loyal to Israel.  Jews need sincerity and not duplicity to feel secure. 

Cartoon Courtesy of Sherif Arafa

was another cartoon, where the candidates were in a competition,  "who licks the most" while Netanyahu was enjoying the service. 

A genuine security is like a child in mother’s lap; safe and free from fears. Israel needs security and Palestinians justice; one does not happen without the other. 

We the Americans,  and the Arabs have screwed up peace for them (both) by supporting one against the other, instead of getting them to sit down face to face and work it out. We give them funds and we have earned the right to ask Israel to be serious, and Arabs have the right to ask the Palestinians to be serious. 

Our aid should be dependent on peace they achieve. No fits and tantrum from Netanyahu should be acceptable to compromise long term security of Israel.  No progress no monies, period. We owe it to the people of Israel and Palestine and not their bad leaders. 

We need to be prepared to explain the short term rioting by the right wingers, who will jump all over, and the responsible parties need to get them involved and have them see the long term security for Israelis and justice for Palestinians, and not the short-term appeasements.
 We must protect Israel, our ally; however, if that protection is based on injustice to either Palestinians or the Israelis, our integrity becomes questionable,  and solutions would be unsustainable. We need to be above reproach and seek justice for one and all.  If we are a sincere ally, we need to be tough on our ally to put them on the path of security. The Palestinians will yield for peace if they see our sincerity.   
----

I am please to add a few pieces of conversation from the face book:

• Najma M. Adam Salam Mike. Long time since I've commented on your blog, though I do keep up with your wonderful and necessary work. Agree with you on the above and love the cartoon. It may be a trivial detail, but I take issue with the sentence "We must protect Israel, our ally;...." WHY are we all socialized to think of Israel as our ally? WTH is Israel doing for us, really? If you get a chance to read or hear Mearsheimer and Walt's work on AIPAC and Israel, I'd highly recommend it. I'd like to advocate a just perspective -- that we protect both our allies, Israel and Palestine. And, I'd go one step further and say let's strive toward more allies internationally. This isolationist existence and sleeping with Israel while they continue instigating, murdering, and colonizing another nation and its people is what has partially led to extremists rising, IMHO. Long and short of this, Mike, is let's not say "our ally Israel" as if it is a fact. If you look at the billions of aid given to Israel (for?), it's much more accurate to say "Israel our burden".

  
  

  Mike Ghouse Dear Najma M. Adam, Salaam to you as well;
  
  Thanks for sharing your perspective, I deeply respect it. Indeed, I have kept up with the Israel-Palestine conflict fairly closely - both the people have been a victim of our (the world) bias.
  
  Indeed, our aid must be tied to progress in peace and justice, like you, I have shared that in the original note above. The ally comment is below.
  
  We did nothing till the tail end of the Holocaust, and that burns me, the scene where Jews (children, women, seniors) were pushed to the edge of pits and fired to death has been hard on me. The looks on their faces haunt me about the inhumanity in us (all of us) - where are you my friends? They silently endured the pain. In my college days, I helped a friend with answers in the exam and was caught and sat in the principal’s office… those friends did not even come by to see me. That betrayal is gnawing, I am sure all of us have been betrayed from time to time. When I see the helplessness of rape victims, when I hear a child being abused by his or her loved ones… it puts a pause in my life and I seek solutions.
  
  The Palestinians were thrown in to wretchedness for three generations, we (the world) kept blaming every one and but did nothing, and that burns me. They don’t have a home land in their own land, they don’t have a passport, they don’t have an identify, how humiliating that must be! Of course there are a lot more tragedies out there, but you get attached with some and they become a part of you without dimuniting the other tragedies.
  
  Israel is our ally, when the Arabs were out to annihilate them in 1967 (it’s a war thing and every damned warring nation is guilty of that including us). Israel needed us, and we did the right thing in supporting them, and that bondage has grown over the years. If you recall the Presidents before that did not support Israel. But our allyship does not mean that we should be unjust to the Palestinians, absolutely not. I am in the front supporting the rights of the Palestinians and Jews.
  
  I have been not kind to Netanyahu. Netanyahu is not Israel, he is an opportunist politician, he is not for Jews or Israel, and he is for himself like Madoff. But we cannot shirk our responsibility to Israel and Palestinians because of Netanyahu or Abu Mashaal.
  
  I have always stood up for the people who are wronged. I have been chewed out by a few right winger Jews for standing up with Palestinians on the Gaza massacre, held prayers… and have been chewed out by right winger Muslims for commemorating Holocaust every year. Right wingers do not represent humanity, they are for themselves and we don’t have to mirror them. It is about humanity and not politics. I feel the pain for both people and if we fail to feel that, something about humanity is missing in us.
  

  Mike Ghouse Carol Duff, it has happened after the war as well. I felt the same pain when the Rohingis were returned back to ocean by Bangladesh, if they went back to their home Burma, they would have been slaughtered.. All people have suffered, we need to see them as fellow humans and feel their anguish and pain, that completes the humanness in us, makes us a better being.

Mike Ghouse is committed to cohesive societies.
www.IsraelPalestineDialogue.com
www.MikeGhouse.net

Comrades, Join the “Peer Progressive” Movement!

Thanks tot the Scientific American for giving a boost to the Israel Palestine confederation

Fed up with Obomney? Sick of both Democrats and Republicans? Do you see the parties’ similarities—their cowardly hawkishness and craven obeisance to deep-pocketed donors–as more significant than their differences? Looking for a fresh new approach to governance and social problem-solving? Then you might consider becoming a “peer progressive.”

Peer progressives believe that “peer netw
orks,” consisting of many people of roughly equal status freely swapping ideas and information, can accomplish things that top-down, centralized, hierarchical organizations can’t. Peer progressives “believe in social progress, and we believe the most powerful tool to advance the cause of progress is the peer network.”

That quote comes from the new book by science writer Steven Johnson: Future Perfect: The Case for Progress in a Networked Age (Riverhead Books), which I just reviewed for The Wall Street Journal. Future Perfect is a manifesto both for optimism—which has become my favorite ism—and for the peer progressive movement. Peer progressives resist left wing faith in Big Government and right wing faith in Big Business. They believe in the wisdom of crowds, especially crowds exchanging diverse viewpoints.

Johnson cites research suggesting that a large, diverse group often comes up with better solutions to problems than a smaller, homogeneous group with a higher average IQ, a phenomenon summarized as “diversity trumps ability.” Johnson elaborates: “When groups are exposed to a more diverse range of perspectives, when their values are forced to confront different viewpoints, they are more likely to approach the world in a more nuanced way, and avoid falling prey to crude extremism.”

Diversity, Johnson elaborates, “does not just expand the common ground of consensus. It also increases the larger group’s ability to solve problems.” Peer progressives favor diversity not just for traditional liberal reasons, to counter sexism, racism and other prejudices, but because “we are smarter as a society—more innovative and flexible in our thinking—when diverse perspectives collaborate.”

Peer networks predate the Internet; Johnson sees them at work in the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and other periods of extraordinary creativity. But the Internet and other digital technologies–which reduce the costs, time and effort of communication–have turned out to be astonishingly effective enablers of peer networks. Hence we get Internet-catalyzed marvels ranging from Wikipedia and Kick Starter to the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements.

Johnson is especially hopeful that peer networks can revitalize—even revolutionize—politics. He suggests how peer networks might thwart attempts by the rich and powerful to hijack U.S. democracy. We might move closer to “direct democracy,” in which we vote for laws and policies rather than for politicians who are supposed to represent our interests but too often don’t.

Political peer networks are springing up all over the world. Take for example the Israeli-Palestinian Confederation, which calls for incorporating Israel and Palestine into a Swiss-style confederation. The Confederation plans to hold an online election in December to form a virtual parliament. Saleem Ali, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Vermont, notes in National Geographic that the Confederation represents an attempt to “move beyond the stagnation of one-state/two-state fixes.”
The underlying principles of peer networks have been explored by other writers. Johnson’s evangelical anti-authoritarianism reminds me a bit of the journalist Kevin Kelly, whose 1994 book Out of Control insisted that because nature organizes itself without any centralized control, we should too. But whereas Kelly came off as a bit of a crank, Johnson has a knack for sounding reasonable.

Couple of caveats: One, Johnson neglects to address the potential of peer networks for solving two of our biggest problems: militarism and climate change. In my Wall Street Journal review, I urged Johnson and other peer progressives to start thinking of ways to tackle the problems of warfare and excessive fossil-fuel consumption.

Caveat two comes from my friend and colleague–my peer!–Andy Russell, a historian of technology at Stevens Institute of Technology. Andy objects to Johnson’s claim that the Internet is itself the product of a peer network. Johnson calls Arpanet, the Pentagon-funded network that gave rise to the Internet, a “radically decentralized system” and a “network of peers, not a hierarchy.”

Wrong, says Andy, who has done lots of research on the development of standards for the Internet. “The evidence is pretty clear that the Arpanet and Internet were designed and built through a hierarchical process,” Andy writes. “In fact its hierarchy (and well-heeled sponsor, the Department of Defense) was the single factor most responsible for the Internet’s success: it kept at bay the factions unleashed by democracy in international standards committees.”

Steven Johnson no doubt welcomes this sort of criticism. This is exactly how peer networks are supposed to work. Johnson presents his vision of the future, Andy and I respond with our quibbles, others respond to us, we bicker, resolve our differences, agree to disagree, reach compromises, come up with new ideas and march bravely toward a more prosperous, peaceful future.

Illustration credit: http://www.charteredbanker.com

About the Author: Every week, John Horgan takes a puckish, provocative look at breaking science. A former staff writer at Scientific American, he is the author of four books, including The End of Science (Addison Wesley, 1996) and The End of War (McSweeney's Books, January 2012). Follow on Twitter  

URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/10/08/comrades-join-the-peer-progressive-movement/

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Israel’s National Security: Myths And Reality

 A serious heart to heart dialogue is warranted, all I see is myths manufactured on both sides. Real and genuine security comes when the people take time to know each other, then conflicts will fade and solutions will emerge. I continue to admire professor Ben-Meir's approach towards solutions.

Mike Ghouse
Israel Palestine Dialogue.com

Israel’s National Security: Myths And Reality

Professor Alon Ben-Meir
Oct 9, 2012

Israel’s national security has, and for good reason, continues to be of prime concerns not only to its citizens but to world Jewry and many of its friends and allies around the globe. Israel has every reason to be weary of its enemies, who have time and again demonstrated that they are not worthy of trust and remain committed to Israel’s destruction both in word and deeds. For this reason, many Israelis have become increasingly more pessimistic and skeptical about the prospect of peace and for that matter, its durability even when achieved. 

This argument, however cogent it may be, has lost much of its significance as time and circumstances have changed. To be sure, although Israel’s military power remains central to its national security, no territorial depth or continued military buildup provides Israel the ultimate security it needs. In the final analysis, Israel’s security rests on peace with the Arab states, and its formidable military prowess must now be used to secure that peace, however elusive it may seem.

There are those who suggest that Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank will make Israel vulnerable to rocket attacks from the mountains overlooking Israel's population and industrial centers in the coastal strip below, rendering the country indefensible. As one critic wrote citing an American military expert, "’modern weapon systems, most of them with components which require line-of-sight emplacement, if deployed in the [Judean and Samarian] mountains…’ [Israel’s] present width in the central sector of the country would be reduced from 40-55 miles to 9-16 miles… [which] would render the country indefensible.” To support this argument there are those who simply take at face value the statements made by right-wing Israeli officials who link territorial depth to national security without examining the real relevance between the two, especially in the context of the West Bank and the territorial depth involved.

Against the one “American military expert” there are hundreds of Israeli military experts who disagree with this argument. No one is suggesting that a peace agreement, in and of itself, provides Israel instant security. Indeed, any peace accord will have to be implemented in stages that would entail quid-pro-quo requiring both sides to fully adhere to all provisions of the agreement, especially on the matter of national security concerns to Israel. Thus, security measures will have to be in place including, for example, the stationing of an international peace force, led by the United States, stationed along the borders with Jordan replete with enforcement capabilities. More important, however, is Israel’s deterrence and its own military that has and can prevent any violation of an agreement with the Palestinians.

With today’s military technology and the proliferation of short and medium range rockets (ranging from three miles to three hundred) in the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah, “modern weapon systems,” regardless of where they are placed, can hit every population center in Israel. Therefore, whether the distance from the mountains of the West Bank is ‘40 to 55 miles or reduced to 9 to 16 miles’ will hardly make any difference. What will make, in the final analysis, a real difference are Israel’s retaliatory capabilities and the potential unacceptable damage that Israel can inflict that would persuade the enemy from provoking Israel.

Ask yourself, why have the Palestinians in the West Bank, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have refrained from provoking Israel in any serious manner since the Palestinians in the West Bank suffered from the Israeli onslaught in the wake of the Second Intifada in 2000, Hezbollah in 2006 and Hamas in 2009? Hamas and Hezbollah in particular have not as of yet recovered from the destruction they sustained, and for them to re-engage Israel militarily would be nothing short of suicide. This is the reason why the Palestinian Authority opted to forsake violence to achieve its political objectives by peaceful means and the reason behind the relative calm that has prevailed. If one adds to that the element of the peace agreement, the likelihood of a new conflagration will become increasingly less desirable.

The issue is not where the border is finally drawn. Successive Israeli governments have sold the myth to the Israeli public linking the borders to national security, when in fact building settlements, such as Ariel, deep into the West Bank is ideologically motivated and has little if anything to do with national security. Indeed, what makes the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state defensible is not as much where the final border is finally established, but continued Israeli deterrence and, in particular, on the establishment of a comprehensive peace and normal relations in which both sides develop, over time, a vested interest. Any claim to the contrary is baseless regardless of what the ultimate intentions of the Palestinians are, as many Israelis contend.

It is a common belief in Israel that the Arabs, especially the Palestinians, cannot be trusted. They further argue that even if an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is achieved today the Palestinians will annul it as soon as they feel that its dissolution will work to their advantage. Many Israelis insist that the Palestinians are inherently committed to Israel’s destruction and that for the Palestinians, forging a peace agreement will amount to nothing more than a tactical move while waiting for a better day to realize their ultimate goal to bring about the destruction of Israel. The question is, however, who would make peace on the basis of trust alone? Trust can be cultivated only through a constructive and ongoing relationship that only peace can foster.

Let us assume for a moment that the lack of trust is the main obstacle to making peace. The question is, when will the day come when both sides begin to trust each other? Will it come after developing trade, commercial, cultural, scientific and diplomatic ties, or will it come when the occupation continues, the settlements expand, multiple checkpoints remain in place and thousands of Palestinian prisoners languish in Israeli jails ? Defying Israel today does not come from religious beliefs, albeit Hamas and others find it convenient to create such a link to convey their convictions. Indeed, notwithstanding the religious component of the conflict, the people, including the Palestinians want to live. They know that there is no virtue in dying in vain, especially when the prospect of destroying Israel is virtually non-existent, and more than anything else, when they have something to hold onto, like an independent state of their own.

Israel is and remains, for as far as the eye can see, a military power that no individual Arab state or combination of states can overwhelm militarily, and if they try they will do so at their peril. At no time in its history has Israel been stronger militarily. This mighty military prowess can and will be used to deter, defend or go on the offensive should Israel’s security be threatened. For this reason Israel cannot mortgage its security to a third party, it must remain vigilant, powerful and ready at all times to take any legitimate military action deemed necessary to ensure its survival.

Such a military power however can and indeed must also be used to reach out to the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab states from a position of strength. Otherwise, what is the point of such a military prowess if it does not advance peace? Israel will become increasingly more isolated, gradually evolving into a garrison state with ever diminishing friends and allies. As it is, there is not a single country in the whole world, including the US, that supports the occupation and calls on Israel to end it for its own sake.

Meanwhile Israel is gradually losing its soul and its resonance as it was envisioned by its founders. It is time for the Netanyahu government to be honest with the public and stop covering for the expansion and the building of new settlements in the name of national security.

Click here to read this article and more on AlonBen-Meir.com.

Gates lashes out at Israel and warns against military strike on Iran

I am glad, finally a Republican had the common sense and the guts to speak out, most of the Republicans know that the aggressive stance of a few among us is wrong, but simply do not have courage to say, what is wrong is wrong.

Those few like, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Cain, Bachman, Huckabee and others even surprise Israelis for the pro-Israeli mouthing they do. Neither moderate majority of Israelis, nor the Jewry around the world is in favor of endangering Israel through Netanyahu’s’ bully pulpit. Loot at the way the American Jews dumped these men and women in the primaries and nearly 70% of Jews are with Obama, the sane man on the Middle East Policy. Netanyahu’s policies will render Israel insecure for generations to come; he has pushed Israel into isolation. I seriously doubt if he represents the view of a majority of Israelis and Jews around the world.  

Gates is right, and I have been talking about the same in numerous write ups as well as speaking out on Hannity Show at Fox News. I predict the timid ones will find a shepherd in Gates.

War is wrong, it will destroy Israel, Iran, others and US.  The common man gets screwed, while Cheney, Bush and others have their own safe heavens, they will never have to worry about losing the job, putting their hungry kids to bed or getting their home foreclosed.

Secretary Gates, you are a true American hero and a supporter of Israel and the peace.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer committed to build cohesive societies.

#  # #

Former US defense secretary lashes out at Israel, warns against military strike on Iran
Israel ‘does not have a blank check to harm American interests,’ says Robert Gates — who last year called the Jewish state an ungrateful ally

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-does-not-have-a-blank-check-to-harm-american-interests-says-former-us-defense-secretary/

The United States needs to tell Israel that it does not “have a blank check to take action that could do grave harm to American vital interests,” according to former US defense secretary Robert Gates.

Gates, who served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama from 2006 through 2011, was quoted by the Virginian-Pilot as warning against a military strike on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, saying it could “prove catastrophic.”

Neither the United States nor Israel is capable of totally destroying Iran’s nuclear program, Gates said, and any strike would ultimately backfire.

“Such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable,” he said. “They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert.”

Speaking at a forum in Norfolk, Virginia on Wednesday, Gates added, ”The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.”

Gates, who served in the Central Intelligence Agency for 26 years before becoming secretary of defense, suggested letting the United Nations attempt to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

Last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued at the United Nations General Assembly in New York for the international community — and especially the United States — to warn Iran against passing a “red line” in nuclear enrichment beyond which military measures would be taken. The Obama administration has firmly rejected the idea of red lines, but has said it will stop Iran attaining nuclear weapons.

Last year, shortly before he stepped down as secretary of defense, Gates harshly criticized Netanyahu’s government and called Israel an ungrateful ally of the United States.