We don't need political pundits who claim to be experts on foreign policy to analyze the meaning of the obvious. It is all so simple: the Americans and the Israelis are the good guys; Putin, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Iran, Syria, ISIS and all other secular and religious tyrannies are the bad ones.
Good guys use their land to promote peace among the nations. Bad guys use their land to subjugate humanity to the dictates of absolute power.
Good guys are willing to sacrifice their lives to preserve our freedoms; bad guys are willing to sacrifice their people's lives to end all people's freedom.
Later this month, an event that will effect a shift in the balance of power in the world will take place unless we take immediate action. There can no longer be any doubt -.in less than twenty days, the P5+1 will seal a deal with Iran that will either put her on a a sure path to the creation of a nuclear armed terrorist state, or Iran will get another extension with which she will run out the clock.
Since the anti-Israel and pro-Muslim Obama Administration may not veto UN Security Council sanctions against Israel, it is of crucial importance to inform American Congressmen and opinion makers of Israel’s contribution to American security and economic well-being, which has been deliberately ignored by Mr. Obama and his advisers.
Although some of the data in this paper should be updated, n the whole it is current enough to be taken seriously by American officials and the media.
Dr. Joseph Sisco, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, once told erstwhile adviser PM Menachem Begin: “I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us.” American congressmen and industrialists are pragmatists, not moralists. Let’s compare in simply terms what America gives Israel and what Israel gives America.
● In November 2014, Israel Aerospace Industry (IAI) inaugurated a production line to provide wings for Lockheed Martin-produced F-35 joint strike fighters. Under a $2.5 billion industrial cooperation deal, the new facility at IAI will produce up to 811 wing sets through 2030 at a rate of four per month. But let’s get a historical overview.
● For FY2006, U.S. military grants to Israel was $2.28 billion (2.8 B). For FY2014 it’s about $3B. U.S. economic aid was $240 million. Today it’s zero.
● For FY2006, U.S. military grants to Israel was $2.28 billion (= $2.28B). U.S. economic aid was $240 million. (Note: economic aid does not go into building up Israel’s economy; most of it is used to repay pre-1974 loans for military hardware, loans that were given to Israel at a high rate of interest.)
If you have yet to conclude that Islam has spawned the most monstrous enemy of mankind, ponder the report that Spanish intelligence has intercepted messages passed between jihadists online discussing the weaponisation of the deadly Ebola virus for use against the West – something to be expected of the warriors of Islam whose mantra is the love of death.
Accordingly, consider the symptoms of the Ebola virus as indicated by the World Health Organization and the Mayo Clinic:
World Health Organization: Symptoms of Ebola virus disease. The incubation period, that is, the time interval from infection with the virus to onset of symptoms is 2 to 21 days. Humans are not infectious until they develop symptoms. First symptoms are the sudden onset of fever fatigue, muscle pain, headache and sore throat.
Mayo Clinic: Over time, symptoms become increasingly severe and may include: Nausea and vomiting • Diarrhea (may be bloody) • Red eyes • Raised rash • Chest pain and cough • Stomach pain • Severe weight loss • Bleeding, usually from the eyes, and bruising (people near death may bleed from other orifices, such as ears, nose and rectum).
Perhaps U.S. President Barack Obama should instruct the American ambassador to the United Nations to submit a resolution to the UN General Assembly denouncing any Islamic state or organization which, by propagating hostile teachings regarding non-Muslims, encourages the weaponisation of the deadly Ebola virus for use against the West.
Please read this horrendous article, linking Ebola to Islamic Burial Rituals. However, with this awesome article in mind, ponder (1) a Spanish Intelligence report that certain Islamic elements intended to "weaponise" Ebola against the West; and (2) the Iranian curse "death to America. Clearly, more than an ideological response is necessary.
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.
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.