Jun 1, 2010
There is no lack of people who jumped on the Israeli piracy attack wagon. Few sort to find out the truth according to international law. For Israel this is no suprise. It is the costom of such Anti semites to jump at the slightest excuse and ram propaganda down peoples throats. Many would deny Jews the right to peace taking an active part and support to terrorist organisations. Its Harvest time. Time to seperate the whey from the chaff as they say.
San Remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea
Feel free to read and study it online: http://books.google.co.il/books?id=-janjtEKr7UC&dq=San+Remo+Manual+on+International+Law+Applicable+to+Armed+Conflicts+at+Sea,+12+June+1994:&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=iw&ei=bPYETJ9yhZM405PthQU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
According to the
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.
Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.
Here’s the bottom Line:
A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
Note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel’s intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the &ldquorotesters” and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.
The laws of the sea indicate that Israel was withinin her bounds when she boarded the ship
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:
The Gaza Flotilla and the Maritime Blockade of Gaza Legal Background – May 31, 2010 (From Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self-defense to fend off such attacks.
The harm done by speech is even worse than the harm done by stealing or by cheating someone financially: money lost can be repaid, but the harm done by speech can never be repaired. For this reason, some sources indicate that there is no forgiveness for lashon ha-ra (disparaging speech). This is probably hyperbole, but it illustrates the seriousness of improper speech. A Chasidic tale vividly illustrates the danger of improper speech: A man went about the community telling malicious lies about the rabbi. Later, he realized the wrong he had done, and began to feel remorse. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything he could to make amends. The rabbi told the man, "Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds." The man thought this was a strange request, but it was a simple enough task, and he did it gladly. When he returned to tell the rabbi that he had done it, the rabbi said, "Now, go and gather the feathers. Because you can no more make amends for the damage your words have done than you can recollect the feathers."
The person who listens to gossip is even worse than the person who tells it, because no harm could be done by gossip if no one listened to it. It has been said that lashon ha-ra (disparaging speech) kills three: the person who speaks it, the person who hears it, and the person about whom it is told. (Talmud Arachin 15b). The gravest of these sins of tale-bearing is lashon ha-ra (literally, "the evil tongue"), which involves discrediting a person or saying negative things about a person, even if those negative things are true. Indeed, true statements are even more damaging than false ones, because you can't defend yourself by disproving the negative statement if it's true! Some sources indicate that lashon ha-ra (evil speech) is equal in seriousness to murder, idol worship, and incest/adultery (the only three sins that you may not violate even to save a life)
Jun 1, 2010 5:27am
Apr 21, 2010
Netanyahu at his best
Even those who aren't particularly sympathetic to Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, could get a good measure of satisfaction from this interview with British Television during the retaliation against Hamas' shelling of Israel.
The interviewer asked him: "How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?" (A nasty question if there ever was one!)
Netanyahu: "Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?"
Interviewer: (Falling into the trap) Why not?
Netanyahu: "Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima... Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in
Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?"
Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave another interview and was asked about Israel's occupation of Arab lands. His response was, "It's our land". The reporter (CNN or the like) was stunned - read below "It's our land..." It's important information since we don't get fair and
accurate reporting from the media and facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.
"Crash Course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict."
Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation. These were compiled by a Christian university professor:
BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY... (It takes just 1.5 minutes to read!)
It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew -- it doesn't matter.
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of Islam.
2... Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 lasted no more than 22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship rights as everyone else.
10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey...
13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the
Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.
15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to
people of all faiths.
16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem
synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.
19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be. What will we tell our grandchildren about what we did when there was a turning point in
Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference?
Apr 21, 2010 5:57am
Mar 13, 2010
Palestinian Prime Minister to Israeli Audience: You Make Concessions, We Don't
Gloria-Center.org – 2010-02-04
Imagine this. You're prime minister of a regime that isn't yet a state. You are praised in the Western media as a great moderate man of peace. You represent a people who the U.S. president says is in an intolerable situation. You supposedly want a country of your own. Indeed you've announced you will get a state in two years, something conceivable only if your negotiating partner agrees. You're dependent on contributions from Western democratic countries that want you to make a deal. Your rivals have seized almost half the land you want to rule and work tirelessly to overthrow your regime and very possibly to kill you personally.
But here comes a big opportunity.
You are invited by your negotiating partner to its most important meeting of the year. All the other side's top leaders and opinionmakers are listening to you.
And that country's second most powerful leader has just made a very conciliatory speech praising you personally, urging peace, offering concessions, and telling his own people they must be ready to give you a lot.
What do you do?
Make a warm conciliatory, confidence-building speech, showing by substantial offers that you, too, are willing to compromise; stretching out your hand in order to build friendship and ensure you get a country?
Hey, we're talking about the Palestinians here! And as I say over and over again: anyone who thinks the Palestinian Authority (PA) is going to make peace hasn't been paying attention to what they say and do.
So here is what PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told the audience at the Herzliya Conference, held at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), following Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's conciliatory speech:
–Israel must immediately start pulling out of the rest of the West Bank, without getting anything in return.
–It must immediately stop all construction on settlements, including apartments now being completed.
–Israel's army should never enter PA-ruled areas. Even if the PA refuses to arrest those who have murdered Israelis or won't stop planned attacks, Israel's army must do nothing, despite the 1993 agreement between the two sides permitting this. Fayyad said this isn't necessary because the PA is taking care of these matters. But this makes no sense: when Israel sees that to be true it never orders incursions in the first place.
–Israel should end its blockade of the Gaza Strip, even though the Hamas movement ruling there refuses to make a deal with the PA, openly announces its goal of destroying Israel, and smuggles in as many weapons as possible. Moreover, as soon as it feels secure again, Hamas will launch new attacks on Israel. Fayyad claimed, however, that if Israel did so, the PA could then build government institutions in the Gaza Strip, though it has no control whatsoever there.
–He openly stated that his goal was to mobilize international support and create such a strong state apparatus that the world would pressure Israel to end any presence in the West Bank or east Jerusalem, apparently without the Palestinian side giving anything.
–While Barak said that the “roughness” of the region made it harder to give the Palestinians everything they wanted (for example, the PA could be overthrown by Hamas; subverted by Iran and Syria; unwilling or unable to stop cross-border attacks), Fayyad responded that once Israel left all of the West Bank the region would become more stable and peaceful. That's a rather questionable assertion.
It is true that he ended by saying:
“The Israeli people have a long history, they have pain, they have ambition, and like you, we Palestinians have our own history. Right now we are going through lots of pain and suffering. And we have one key aspiration, and that is once again to be able to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security.”
Yet he addressed none of the points in Israel's own peace plan: an official end to the conflict if there is an agreement; resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine; an end to incitement (which would be easy to do) to kill Israelis; limits on the militarization of a Palestinian state; or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian Arab Muslim state (the PA constitution says that Islam is the country's official religion).
This was not an extremist speech or one seeking conflict. Fayyad is probably the most moderate guy in the PA leadership. He was doing about the best he could. But that's the point. He has no base of support, isn't a member of Fatah, and doesn't really represent Palestinian thinking. He is in office for one reason only: the Western donors demand it. Fayyad, and arguably the PA leadership as a whole, don't want a new war with Israel. But Fatah will sponsor one if it thinks such a step is advantageous or needed to out-militant Hamas.
Equally, Fayyad couldn't go any further than he did because he knows that his Fatah bosses, Palestinian constituents, and Hamas enemies would throw him out if he offered the slightest concession to Israel and demanded any less than everything they want.
We will see how much progress Fayyad makes over the next two years in building strong and stable institutions. Yet it should be understood that what he is doing is not a way to convince Israel that both sides can reach a compromise peace but to persuade the world to force Israel to make compromises without the PA having to do so.
The irony is that it doesn't matter what Barak says, except to show the world that Israel wants real peace and to encourage Israeli voters to back Labor as a party that balances a strong desire for peace with a smart sense of security for the country.
Barak warned the right-wing in Israel that it would be a mistake to oppose a genuine two-state solution, an outcome that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu-like Barak–has accepted. But the defense minister also urged the left-wing not to be naïve.
Here's a fascinating example of how the world generally interprets the situation. Read this paragraph from the Washington Post coverage carefully:
“But there was a common thread, too, with each acknowledging an international consensus on the idea of two nations. Barak said that Israel risks becoming 'an apartheid state par excellence' if it does not negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood soon, and Fayyad said the work being done in the West Bank on governance needs to be matched by political progress.”
The two statements are supposed to be parallel. Barak says: Israel must get rid of the West Bank for its own good. Fayyad says: progress must be made in negotiations, in the context of a speech in which he asked for a long list of Israeli concessions and offered nothing in exchange. These statemens are not parallel. A parallel statement would be if Fayyad had said something like:
The Palestinians risk becoming permanently mired in violence and backwardness unless they negotiate terms for Israel feeling secure in giving up the territory.
Since 1993 not a single Palestinian leader has ever made a speech to his own people like Barak's, never said that they should have to give up something to get a state, never urged the media and public debate to become more moderate.
Four days before Fayyad's speech, here is the Friday prayer sermon given in Nablus by the imam appointed there by Fayyad and broadcast on the television Fayyad controls:
“The Jews are the enemies of Allah and [Muhammad], the enemies of humanity in general, and of the Palestinians in particular…. Jews will always be Jews. Even if donkeys cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl, and snakes cease to bite, the Jews will not cease to be hostile to the Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad said: 'Whenever two Jews find themselves alone with a Muslim, they think of killing him.' Oh Muslims, this land, these holy places, and these mosques will only be liberated when we return to the Book of Allah, and when all Muslims are prepared to become mujahideen for the sake of Allah, in support of Palestine, its people, its land, and its holy places.”
How can this be reconciled with Fayyad's claim that the sole aspiration is “to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security”?
Note that this is a Palestinian Authority, not a Hamas, cleric speaking. Note, too, that while Fayyad's speech is covered around the world, sermons like these are never quoted in the Western media. This is not to say that the sermon is real and Fayyad's views are fake, it is to say that the sermon is meant to shape Palestinian politics and public opinion and what Fayyad says is meant to shape Israeli and Western politics and public opinion. Fayyad, a figurehead, is not going to make anything change and he isn't even going to try. Nor does Fayyad have any control over the ruling party, Fatah, whose leadership is still hardline on goals and negotiations, though not on more immediate issues.
The Israeli audience applauded Fayyad because it does want peace and prefers him to all the worse alternatives, especially Hamas but also those in Fatah. Yet few have any illusions that peace is at hand or that Fayyad is going to deliver it.
* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Mar 13, 2010 3:28am
Mar 12, 2010
(Reassessment of Middle East Policy)
Straight from the Jerusalem Cloakroom #233
Feb. 5, 2010
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger
"Second Thought," Jerusalem
1. An assessment of the politically- correct Western policy-making, media commentaries and conventional wisdom raises the following questions:
*Is the Palestinian issue the crux of Middle East turbulence?
*Is the Arab-Israeli conflict the core cause of anti-Western Islamic terrorism?*
*Are Arab leaders preoccupied with the Palestinian issue and with the Arab-Israeli conflict?
*Is the Arab-Israeli conflict "The Middle East Conflict"?
*How valid is the contention that, in the Middle East, on words one does not pay custom, hence the awesome gap between rhetoric and reality?!
2. An analysis of Middle East politics during the last 1,400 years documents the following:
Since the 7th century, inter-Arab and inter-Muslim conflicts in the Muslim Middle East - between North Africa and the Persian Gulf - have been the role model of state-sponsored terrorism, hate-education, inherent domestic and regional violence, endemic unpredictability, instability, volatility, fragmentation, religious and political intolerance, suppression of human rights, nepotism and treachery.
3. Aijaz Zaka Syed, the opinion editor of Dubai's "Khaleej Times," asserts (Al Aharam weekly, Jan. 20, 2010) that "more Muslims than non-Muslims have been killed in macabre attacks carried out in the name of Islam." Nearly 50 people were killed and 500 injured during the December 29, 2009 terrorist attack on a Karachi religious procession. But more than the loss of lives - "that has long become a daily mayhem" - it is the devastation wreaked on the country's biggest city that will haunt Pakistan for a long time to come. "Thousands of businesses, shops and commercial establishments were destroyed in no time, incurring losses worth billions of dollars, [in addition to] the attack on the heavily attended volleyball match in the troubled Northwest Pakistan, which killed 75 villagers and left scores maimed…"
"None of those watching the match, or attending the Karachi procession had anything to do with the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq. They had no sympathy or affiliation whatsoever with the US and the West. Then why have they been targeted?
"How does it help the cause of these so-called defenders of Islam, when they target innocent Muslims and non Muslims? This death cult is the ultimate injustice…
4. Jordanian economist, Yusuf Mansur writes ("Creative Jordan" website, July 25, 2009) that "Arabs are ruled by a cartel of authoritarian regimes, practiced in the arts of oppression. Arab unity is as elusive as ever. Inter-Arab divisions are bitter…Hardly any of the 21 Arab states can plausibly claim to be a genuine democracy. Therefore, Arab regimes rely on repression in order to stay in power…
"The political instability of the Arab world is in turn connected to another problem: the missing glue of nationhood…Egyptian diplomat, Tahsin Bashir, called the new Arab states of Middle East 'Tribes with Flags.' In countries as different as Lebanon and Iraq, ethnic, confessional or sectarian differences have thwarted programs of nation-building. That is why Iraq fell apart into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish fragments after the removal of Saddam despite decades of patriotic indoctrination. Syria could follow suit if the minority Alawi sect of the ruling Assad family were somehow to lose control of this largely Sunni country. Sudan has seen not one, but two, civil wars between its Arab-dominated centre and the non-Arab minorities in its south and west…
"Up to a million citizens of the Arab world may have perished violently since 1990… The disturbing point for the future is that none of the underlying causes of conflict enumerated above has disappeared. On the contrary, each appears to be taking on the characteristics of a chronic condition…Political and social discontent is in danger of tipping into violence – even into revolution."
5. The aforementioned facts, along with current Middle East events, produce the following observations:
*The Arab/Muslim Middle East is the abode of anti-Western values, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of Israel's policies and existence.
*Western values such as freedom of expression, religion, press, market and the Internet constitute a lethal threat to Arab/Muslim regimes.
*The Arab/Muslim Middle East constitutes a potent threat to vital Western interests.
*Anti-Western terrorism is a natural derivative of inter-Arab/Muslim terrorism and values. Why would terrorism against the infidel be less savage than terrorism against fellow-Muslims? !
*A strong Jewish State enhances deterrence in face of inherent Middle East violence, extending the strategic hand of the West, bolstering relatively-moderate regimes and restraining rogue regimes.
*Agreements concluded in the Arab/Muslim Middle East cannot be more credible and durable than the policies of Arab/Muslim regimes. Why would Arab/Muslim regimes comply with agreements signed with the infidel, while they do not comply with most agreements signed with fellow-Muslims? !
*The inherent instability, and the violent unpredictability, of Arab/Muslim Middle East regimes and policies feed the fragility of Middle East agreements.
*Is it reasonable to assume that Arabs would accord the Jewish State a durable-peace, which they have not been able to accord one another?!
*The proposed Palestinian state – against the backdrop of the 50 year track record of Fatah, PLO and Hamas – would merge naturally into the violent nature of the Middle East. A Palestinian state would constitute fuel – and not water – to Middle East turbulence.
*Inter-Arab/Muslim reality – of no comprehensive inter-Arab peace since the 7th century - dictates steep security requirements for the Jewish State.
*Inter-Arab/ Muslim reality dictates a thorough reassessment of Western policy toward the Middle East in general and the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue in particular.
Mar 12, 2010 5:33am
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.
5, 4 children
Israel, Non Us, Israel
Shares by Type:
| Message (1)
Showing shares tagged with:
, zionist more
|SHARES FROM ELI'S NETWORK
\\nZEN was suspended by
Eric with no warning. We
don\\\'t know any reasons
nor how long it will
about it on the forum but
my post was immediately
deleted. 2 threads and
petitions about Zen also.
And 2 her help-groups.
\\nThe HORD has begun its
own orphanage Primary
School in March 2010 in
the rural Bussiwa village
in kamuli district.
People live in small
grass hatched houses,
often large families in
one room. The
people who live in these
rural villages a...
\\nHELP orphans in Uganda
!!!\\r\\n WHAT DO THESE
KIDS EXPECT FROM THE
WORLD ??!!! What can a
helpless child under the
age of 12 expect from his
lonesome world, other
than food, proper sleep,
non-ragged cloths and
quest for knowledge?...
Also when the n...
\\nCare2 ACTION: Free the
arctic, activists )
Apolonia - 12 hours
ago - thepetitionsite.com
\\r\\nWe need to let the
Russian Government know
that illegally boarding
Recently a petition to
request the deportation
of extremists from the UK
was put on to the
Immediately, Kit objected
to this and demanded its
removal.Why was this
petition removed? Was it
racist? Had it called for
the deportation of all...
\\nPlease sign this
petition to commemorate
cptn Vitold Pilecki in
HiI would like to share a
video I made about a very
cute sunbird family, was
nesting on our
shootings took place in
Tucson, I have heard the
left ranting and raving
against Governor Sarah
Palin, talk radio and
pundits in America.
Liberals have been like