The explicit goal or goals of the Zionist founders of the State of Israel was to restore the *dignity* asd well as the *safety* of the Jewish people.
Well, they succeeded in establishing state, and deserve a lot of credit for doing so, despite its secular foundations.
As we now see, however, Israel is being daily vilified throughout the world, Jews are being murdered even in Jerusalem, and the threat of Israel being wiped off the map becomes more palpable as a result of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
The founder of political science and its greatest exemplar is Aristotle, who wrote treatises on some 150 regimes. Alas, only fragments remain of what he wrote about Athens.
What Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, knows compared to Aristotle can be put on a postage stamp. The same may be said of postmodern political scientists vis-à-vis Machiavelli. Yes, unknown to Darwin, we have descended from Swift’s Brobdingnagians to Lilliputians to Yahoos.
Here, then, is a general outline of Aristotle’s political science, which I have distilled primarily from Book IV of his Politics.
Does the revelation of the American statesman, Newt Gingrich, concerning the “Palestinians” – his admission of their being an “invented” people – have legal implications, vis-à-vis the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 13, 1993?
In question, specifically, is the legality of relinquishing Jewish land to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), then defined as a terrorist organization under Israeli law. In question, therefore, is whether any act committed by any Israeli prime minister involving the yielding of land to the PLO constitutes, prima facie, an act of treason.
Also involved is whether previous decisions of Israel’s High Court of Justice on this issue can be reviewed in light of Mr. Gingrich’s revelation?
Let us don the hat of a political scientist and ask why Israel’s government pursues the same disastrous policy of “land for peace” regardless if which political party is at the helm?
No, it’s not the result of American pressure if only because the Oslo Agreement of 1993 was initiated by Israel, by the Labor Party, and the Likud has religiously adhered to this Agreement despite its having resulted in 15,000 Jewish casualties.
To understand why both Labor and the Likud abide by the Oslo Agreement, thus trivializing the Jewish lives Israel has lost as a result of Oslo, you have to understand how that Agreement preserves the power of both parties, because POWER is the name of the game in politics as understood by political science.
So why are both Labor and Likud willing, if not anxious, to give Judea and Samaria to Arabs – they repeatedly tell us for “peace” – even while Israel has received not peace but more terror, hence suffered more Jewish widows and orphans since Oslo 1993?
Last month – on September 1, 2014, to be exact – I wrote an article “Netanyahu, the Disciple of Shimon Peres.” The article, which ended with unanswered questions, referred to a book authored by Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now (Jerusalem: Keter, 1978). The book was publicized by IMRA (Middle East News & Analysis). IMRA described the book in striking terms, which I quoted in my article, and which bears repeating, only now I shall answer my article’s unanswered questions. Here are the key passages of IMRA’s bon mot of Peres’ book:
The following is a chillingly accurate prediction made in 1978 by none other than Shimon Peres. In it he foresaw, in precise detail, the dire perils that would result if Israel were to embark on precisely the policy he himself championed and which he continues to advocate with passion: "The establishment of such a [Palestinian] state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,800 men under arms) into Judea and Samaria; this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other [military] equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have problems in preserving day-to-day security, which may drive the country into war, or undermine the morale of its citizens. In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel's existence, to impede the freedom of action of the Israeli air-force in the skies over Israel, and to cause bloodshed among the population in areas adjacent to the frontier-line."
Now for the unanswered questions alluded to earlier, which I introduced by saying that the citizens of Israel should demand an explanation for this dramatic shift in Peres’ position: from total opposition to total support for Palestinian statehood. I asked:
The key to revolution in any state involves a basic change in the relationship between ruler(s) and ruled.
In Israel, this relationship is determined by making the entire country a single electoral district in which parties compete for Knesset seats on the basis of Proportional Representation (PR). As a consequence, Members of the Knesset (MK) are NOT individually elected by or accountable to the people in geographic constituency elections.
This institutional arrangement enabled the Likud-controlled Knesset, in October 2005, to vote in favor of the Labor Party’s policy of disengagement from Gaza, despite the fact that 70 percent of the public in the February Knesset election of that year opposed withdrawal from Gaza.
“May you live in interesting times," an expression (a curse) that may be traced back to post-World War II England, but is apt today, when times have become all too interesting – chaotic and troubling. We must be reminded of England's July 7, 2005 bombings of a bus and three tube trains that killed 52. More recently, May 2013, when a Muslim beheaded a soldier on the streets of London; and September, 2014, when a Muslim sodomized a dog and stabbed two women, beheading one of them; and October, 2014, when Scotland Yard captured four Muslims who admitted their mission to terrorize and decapitate ordinary people on city streets, and another four who were plotting to kill police officers or soldiers on London streets – a total of 218 arrests in the past 12 months alone. Britain identified a “complex web” of 60 Muslim Brotherhood organizations now operating from London, Istanbul, and Doha, Qatar.
In Turkey, in August, Islamists shelled, beheaded, crucified and shot 700 members of the Shaitat tribe because they dared to rise up in their own defense. Over the past week, a recent convert to Islam ran down two Canadian soldiers in a Quebec province, and was shot while preparing to stab a woman police officer. A Canadian soldier was shot and killed by another convert at the National War Memorial in Ottawa; the suspect was killed. A Muslim terrorist ran his car into a crowd at a railroad station in Jerusalem, wounding six adults and killing a 3-month-old baby. This was followed by rock-throwing session on a kindergarten and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s praise of the killer’s heroics. Two hospital guards at a Philippines hospital were murdered by a Muslim group. A suicide bomber killed another person in Libya, and six young people were executed and then hung, by ISIS, in Iraq.
America surely needs repeated reminding of 9/11, for which Islamist apologists persistently dismiss with a flick of the wrist. Major Hassan’s Allahu Akbar was cast aside with a flimsy “workplace violence” designation, and the stabbing and beheading of an employee at a meat-packing plant in Oklahoma was lost in the media amid all the other excitement of the times, including crimes called “scandals.” But earlier today, a hatchet-wielding, self-inspired terrorist purposely targeted four New York police officers, perhaps in keeping with the new Islamic directive discovered by Scotland Yard.
In fact, the Jihad Report shows Islamic terrorists are responsible for 78 deadly attacks during the week of October 11 - 17, 15 Allah Akbars, 630 dead and 828 critically wounded, bringing the total terror attacks since 9/11 to 24,184 – a number that changes with increasing rapidity.
This blog is an exercise in the author's First Amendment Rights as pertaining to Free Speech with all the protections as afforded & granted by the Constitution of the United States of America.
The blog owner is not responsible for content of sites linking to this blog or sites that this blog links to.
Opinions quoted on this blog or left as comments on this blog, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner.
Opinions included in articles written by anyone other than the blog owner, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner.
If you are offended by anything written, quoted, excerpted, referenced, linked to ... on this blog: Then go somewhere else.