President Barak Obama, a Few Notes on Your Speech

Well Mr. Obama, the big speech has been given. Many people around the world were impressed with it, particularly those that have been enthralled with the "new Tutankhamen," (as the Egyptians refer to you) from the start; while most others took your speech with a grain of salt. All in all your speech didn't offer much new, what it did was put into clear terms what's been said all along. And by the way, it doesn't seem that it made the Muslim world too happy to hear. While you spoke about accepting Iranian nuclear power (which Israel has a severe problem with as you know), and about freezing Israeli settlements (another debatable issue discussed below), what you really focused on is much the same as has been said in the past by your predecessor, albeit in a much more conciliatory manner.

So you've called on the Muslim world to give women equal rights. I might be wrong on this one, but I think that many may interpret that as directly criticizing their way of life, for in most Muslim nations a women's status is dictated by the modern interpretation of Islamic law. And calling for the Palestinians to stop incitement against Israel and telling them it's difficult to take the moral high ground when they're launching missles at sleeping children and blowing up old women on busses was probably also a tough pill to swallow. Though don't get me wrong, we appreciate it being said, and it was about time you said it, and they heard it.

So all in all, while your speech was wrapped in silk, to many Muslims it seems more like you were preaching morality than you were trying to build bridges. And a little disclaimer here, I didn't actually watch your speech, per say. I saw the twitter feed based on the hash tag #cairospeech. Which gave me the micro-blogging of hundreds of tweeters, American, Arab and Israeli. So I speak based on the comments and reactions I saw real-time on the twitter feed during your speech.

During your speech you also made quite a few comparisons. And the tragic thing about comparisons in the Middle East conflict is that in they end they always appear to make a moral equivalence between two completely opposing worlds. For example, during the second Intifada when innocent Israeli civilians were massacred wholesale due to terrorist attacks that were planned and executed to maximize civilian casualties, Yasser Arafat would say to the world that he condemns all death, both Palestinian and Israeli thereby making a moral equivalence between Palestinian suicide bombers that purposely murdered children in pizza parlors, and Israeli soldiers that inadvertently killed Palestinian civilians while trying to prevent these same terrorists from conducting their murder.

And sad enough none other than the Secretary General of the United Nations took that exact line, stating on many occasions "We condemn the death of all civilians, Palestinian and Israeli." Thereby making it UN public policy to make a moral equivalence between homicidal maniacs out to massacre children and the army of a sovereign nation doing its best to stop these murders. Its all right to express sorrow for the death of innocent Palestinians, if not absolutely necessary. But the moral equivalence thing just doesn't go over very well. As a matter of fact, it’s a key factor in ripping the moral fabric of society we've worked so hard to sew together.

Moving on to your comparison between the Palestinian's struggle for a nation to those of African American's struggle for freedom over the years. You said "For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation." However, thank g-d the Palestinians have never been enslaved. At least not by the Israelis. Nor are they the children of slaves. No, Palestinians became refugees not as a result of their being sold into slavery by Israelis or being bought, sold or traded by Israelis. They became refugees by a geo-political situation created when their forefathers rejected a two state solution and continued on to try to eradicate the Jewish state. Many will claim that this Jewish state was built on stolen Palestinian land, this is a serious falsehood I shall address in another entry, for Jews owned vast swaths of land across this nation before 1948. And of course, while poor, and stateless, the Palestinians are not slaves.

Furthermore, until 1948 what are today called the Palestinians (before 1948, Jews were also Palestinians) were equal citizens of the Middle East on par with those found in any other Middle Eastern land. The land lacked any national sovereignty, something which is ignored by most, and relic of years past. For as we all know, there is not an inch of land in this world today without some sort of sovereignty.

The Arabs that fled in 1948 at the calls of other Arab nations and ended up refugees whether in the West Bank or Gaza strip were not enslaved. And while from 1948 until 1967, when the Gaza strip was in the hands of the Egyptians, Palestinians had no rights and lived under a cruel oppression managed by the Egyptians, as can be read about here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244034989178&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, under Israeli possession, while being occupied, the Palestinians obtained more freedom and rights than they ever had under the Egyptians.

If you feel the need to compare an Arab or Muslim people that are enslaved today there is no lack of examples, but certainly the Palestinians do not fit the profile. People are regularly enslaved in Muslim nations. Do a Google search for yourself you'll see no lack of background. Full blown slavery can be found in any number of places in the Muslim world, such as with the Dinkas in southern Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Sudan), and through bonded labor as is commonly practiced in Pakistan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1357_slavery_today/page4.shtml).

While more subtle forms of enslavement can be found in almost any Arab nation where people are kept as unpaid servants and beaten at their "employer's" whim much like any one of dozens of incidents in Saudi Arabia, such as the incident that can be seen here: http://www.a1saudiarabia.com/Maid-beaten-tortured-and-kicked-out/ . And then we have Sudanese refugees that managed to escape from murder and enslavement in their own country often find a similar fate in other Muslim countries like Egypt as can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_refugees_in_Egypt.

So in all honesty Mr. President, to make a direct comparison of the plight of the Palestinians refugees with the "African American's struggle for freedom over the years" is extremely disingenuous. As a matter of fact, not only is it disingenuous, but stating this indirectly implies that Israel is in fact the slave master. And while we all know your speech was geared towards the Arab world, it was no less significant to Israelis. Even more so, making this implication to the Arab world to them in some way justifies all of that same libel and incitement you so admirably called to end. And that you didn't or couldn't see that is not only disappointing, it's significantly concerning.

What for me that was interesting about your speech isn't what you said; it was what was mysteriously missing, as has been lacking throughout your numerous calls for peace between Israel and Palestinians. And it was, is and apparently shall continue to be the deep dark secret that everybody wants to keep under wraps. And that is, just how do you assume to make peace between the "Palestinians" when in fact you have two diametrically opposing governments in the two territories that are earmarked to become the new Palestinian state? Or in other terms, what about Hamas? Now of course, we all heard you say that "Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist," but you speaking these words doesn't actually solve the problem. Nor does it actually address the problem.

The problem of Hamas. The problem of other nations funding, arming and training Hamas. The problem of the hidden war of Iran against Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. And of course, the issue of a nuclear Iran already at war with Israel and who has already called to destroy Israel. Was there a reason you didn't speak of this? Was it due to your trying to "build bridges" with Iran? And if this is so, does that mean that you are willing to accept Iranian support for these insurgent armies against Israel and their obtaining nuclear technology as a conciliatory measure? We all know that you said that Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear power. But is that an honest addressing of the issue? When the jump from "peaceful" nuclear power to nuclear weapons is negligible? When Iran just last month launched a vehicle into space, an event that is interpreted by all to be a significant stage in the building of a vehicle capable of carrying a nuclear warhead? Are these not obstacles to peace?


We in Israel have heard an awful lot about how are settlements are supposedly the main obstacle to peace. But we have a different idea, we tend to think that it is Arab and Muslim rejectionism and their ongoing funding, training and arming of militants to fight against Israel, and the indoctrination of Muslim children into a culture of hate for Israel around the world that are the obstacles to peace. The settlements? It would seem they're more of a symptom, not the problem.

But I don't want to discuss the settlements. They're not for me to discuss. They are for the Israeli and Palestinian governments to negotiate over. I'll agree, it is a sensitive issue. But to demand that Israel completely stop all construction, in existing settlements seems to me to be pushing it, particularly when you have yet to answer just how you intend to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians with Hamas stuck in the middle like the big pink elephant it is.

Yes Mr. Obama, your speech had its merits, and its faults. You spoke from the heart, and reiterated many things said already in the past, albeit in a more conciliatory manner. Most of your demands seem reasonable, but the comparisons need to stop. Whether it be between the Palestinian plight and that of African Americans struggling to break the bond of slavery; or comparing the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of a maniac bent of eradicating them from the face of the earth to the suffering of Palestinians as a result of Arab refusal to accept the existence of the State of Israel, even though they possess all the rest of the Middle East.

I have to admit, your good. And we very much appreciate your efforts. But I'll have to kindly ask you to refrain from making comparisons, they never work out. I recommend that you argue each issue on its own merits, or beware of falling into the trap Mr. Annan fell into (or perhaps consciously accepted); that of making a moral equivalence between terrorism that targets and massacres innocent people to the army of a sovereign nation trying to prevent these terrorist from succeeding in murdering their civilians. For that would be like making a comparison of those that caused the death of Americans that were murdered on 9/11, to the American soldiers in Afghanistan today fighting against the Taliban and fanatic Islam. I also suggest working on that answer about peace with Hamas. For the way we see it, it just isn't going to happen.

Peace Doesn't Come For Free

With all the chatter of the past few weeks, the vast number of statements made by the American administration directly addressed to Israel, I feel the need to discuss something that while out there, still remains unspoken.

I'm sure that many who read the title of this blog post assume I'm referring to Israel, and the need for Israel to make painful concessions to achieve peace. Whether that peace be with the Palestinians, finally giving over to them the reigns to their own future, without the interference of Israel, the Syrians and Lebanese, who in fact are pretty much one and the same seeing how Lebanon is a puppet government controlled by Syria (and Iran), the nations of the Arab League, none of which who still need to make peace directly border Israel, but who certainly have a role in the peace process, or with Iran, who ever since revolution of 1979 has made Israel their sworn enemy.

Indeed, Israel knows only too well that to reach a "peace agreement," with these various parties it will need to make what they call "painful concessions." As a matter of fact, its public knowledge just how much Israel is willing to give up in its quest for peace. What they're willing to sacrifice, and where are the so called "Red Lines." Israel has declared this information time and again. It's been printed and published thousands of times in publications in probably every major city in the world, its been beaten to death in the Israel press, and its been hashed out between the parties.

Of course, as they say, the devil might be in the details, but it can safely be said that about 98 percent of what Israel is willing to give has already been bundled and ready to roll. All that remains is a few feet north or south around the Sea of Galilee, deciding what settlement blocks in the West Bank will remain in Israeli control in return for Israel giving land to the soon to be new State of Palestine, and some other issues.

Though curiously enough, what isn't clear is just what Israel's "peace partners" are going to give in return. After all, negotiations is a two way street. And furthermore, the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza strip didn't just happen to fall into Israeli possession from the sky. They were captured in the course of defensive wars forced upon Israel by these very same countries. The same countries that went on to swearn "No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, and No negotiations with Israel" in Khartoum in 1967 following the war.

As a matter of fact, many of these nations don't believe they need to give anything. The Palestinians say that they gave enough, 75% of the land of Palestine which eventually became the State of Israel. Though its curious as to why they don't then include the State of Jordan. For Jordan before its creation by the British was as much part of Palestine as what is modern day Israel. And not only that, but the Palestinians insist that in fact Jerusalem is theirs, and should be the capital of the State of Palestine. Even though no such "state" has ever existed in the past, and Jerusalem has never been the capital of any nation besides Ancient Palestine (the Jewish state two millennia ago) and modern Israel. As a matter of fact, when Israel came into possession of Jerusalem as a result of the six day war in 1967 , it was neglected, in disrepair, and unwanted by anyone.

Ever more so, the current American administration insists that the onus is strictly on Israel to accept what they term a "two state solution," even before negotiations have been restarted with the Palestinians. Obama Barak has forcefully made this clear, as has Joe Bidden, and Rahm Emanuel. In fact, it's become the latest craze these days. The French have chimed in, together with the Germans and half the world. But when Israel dares to condition this acceptance on the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state by it's "peace partners," the Palestinians , the world frowns and raises their voices just a little bit higher. In fact, even though as I mentioned above Israel came into the possession of the West Bank and Gaza strip as the result of the Arab and Muslim states refusal to establish an Arab state in 1948 alongside Israel, and the ensuing wars, and the fact that Israel retained these pieces of land for the purposes of negotiations (anybody who wants to disagree with that is more than welcome, it doesn't change the fact that its true), the world still seems to think that it is only Israel's responsibility to make any type of concession what so ever. That Israel should just give back this land without any real type of concession from those same countries and peoples that have killed Israeli children for decades, and furthermore, and have faith in guarantees by third parties like the UN and other parties that have time and again proven worthless.

Doesn't sound like much of give and take to me. It sounds to me like a one man show, how much is Israel willing to give. Well it's about time that the Palestinians make it clear just what they're willing to give too. After all, it takes two tango.

And then there's Syria; always the bride's maid and never the bride. For decades every time it seemed like there might be progress with the Syrians, all of the sudden attention moved back to the Palestinian track. Syria also thinks that they should only get and have no need to give. An interesting passage I found in Wikipedia states "In May 1967, Hafez al-Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

Syria lost the Golan Heights as a result of the 1967 war, which the Arabs initiated and Israel pre-empted. Since then, Syria's partners in crime Egypt and Jordan have come to make peace with Israel. Israel gave Egypt the Sinai Peninsula, and stopped trying to force Jordan to take back the West Bank (within whose possession it was prior to the war).

Over the years Syria has become a haven for terrorist organizations who openly call to kill not only Israelis, but Jews. These groups carry out attacks against Americans, and anybody else they deem deserving. Hezbollah is a regular fixture in Damascus, and the Hamas puppet government in Gaza is run by remote control by Khalid Meshal, also in Damascus.

So now Syria wants the Golan Heights back, but they don't want to give anything in return. They host a number of terrorist organizations and insist they have every right to do so, even after they make "peace" with Israel.

As a matter of fact, almost unanimously among the Arab and Muslim nations, the concept of Israel relinquishing territory to Palestinians, Syrians, or any other entity isn't perceived as a "peace" move. They call it "Liberation." If you pay close attention to their rhetoric when interviewed by the BBC, SKY News or CNN, you'll hear them talk about the "Liberation" movement.

Now you tell me, in the process of "Liberation," are their honest negotiations to come to an equitable and conciliatory agreement? What they actually mean, and I don't think I'm just making a blind assumption hear, is forcefully "liberating" the land through missles, killing, intimidation and terror.

Now I'd like to move on to what has become known as the Arab Peace Initiative.

It's undeniable that for true peace to rein in the Middle East the other Arab and Muslim nations must be part and parcel and brought into the fold. These same nations were the ones that attacked Israel upon its creation. Continued to wage war over the course of generations swearing to never recognize Israel, demonized (and continue to demonize) Israel and Israelis to their their children, and regularly provide funding, weapons and training to terrorists that to this day attack Israel and kill Israelis. The Arab Peace Initiative was put together as a first step by the Arabs to show that they had come to accept that Israel was a fait accompli, so it would seem. And while it is doubtful that any agreement would change the attitude and approach of these nations to the Jewish state for generations (much like in Egypt and Jordan, two countries with peace treaties with Israel, yet whose media and government officials attacked Israel on a regular basis), it can no doubt be considered a significant event the fact that they have even agreed to contemplate "peace."

And that’s great. It really is. And yet, there still is that old, nagging problem we spoke of above. The Arab Peace Initiative is filled with primarily talks about what Israel is going to give the Palestinians and the Arab nations, and how this is going to take place. But it doesn't much discuss just what the Arabs are going to give in return besides "peace" and "normalization".

And while peace and normalization might seem clear to many reading this post, I can guarantee you that it means something completely different to the parties who wrote this initiative.

Now granted, as opposed to the Palestinians and Syrians which are trying to get something back; besides pride, the Arabs don't have much to ask from the Israelis. But the Arab Peace Initiative is, as we stated a few sentences earlier, an inventory of what Israel is going to give everybody else. Once again, a whole lot of taking, but not much giving.

Now I move to the Iranians. The Iranians, well what can I say. How many of you out there know that pre 1979, before the Islamic Revolution and the overthrow of the Shah, Israel and Iran were allies. Indeed they were. They had a military relationship. And in Eilat, Israel built fuelling stations on the docks from which it would pump out oil from Iranian tankers into Israeli refineries. These stations are still there today and stand as a testament to this historic friendship. Though these days they're lucky if they operate more than a few times a year. And they're definitely not pumping from Iranian ships.

Yes, Iran has made it known on many occasions just how far it is willing to go to achieve peace with Israel. Mahmud Ahmadinejad has stated on many occasions, in many controversial ways his desire to see the State of Israel removed from the maps of the world. While many kind souls attribute that to poor translation, we in Israel translate it as a threat of mass destruction and annihilation at the first opportunity. With that said, there's not much to add about peace negotiations with Iran, unless something shocking takes place, Iran will continue to fund, arm and train the Hezbollah and Hamas, and have them wage their war of attrition in their effort to kill as many Israelis as possible, with the ultimate goal of one day, somehow, bringing about the destruction of the Jewish state.

And now we come to the events of the past few weeks. It seems that the American administration has taken the same exact position of each and every one of these Arab and Muslim nations. That is, that it is up to Israel, and Israel alone, to compromise and make painful concessions, make it publicly clear that Israel is ready to do absolutely everything that is demanded of them, in order to obtain what is sold to us as peace. We've heard the American administration say numerous times that it expects Israel to publicly accept the "two state solution," but rejects Israel's condition that the Palestinians publicly acknowledge and accept that one of these states, Israel, is and will remain a state for the Jews.

We've heard how it is now expected that Israel sign on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the same exact demand that our friend Mahmud Ahmadinejad has been making of us, with absolutely no regard for the fact that North Korea signed that exact same treaty, then continued on to provide nuclear technology and know-how to Iran. Didn't seem to do a lot of good. Seems all it would do for Israel would be to rob it of another strategic asset, its nuclear ambiguity. In fact, it seems like many of the demands coming from the American administration are identical to those we hear from the Arab and muslim nations.

We hear today that the American administration is committed to the Syrian track (peace process). And yet have yet to hear a single concession that Syria is going to make if Israel withdrawals from the Golan Heights and gives it back to Syria, a piece of land that was captured as part of a defensive war and of whose strategic importance is undeniable.

In fact, it seems that the only thing that Israel is going to get in return from the peace process, so they say, is Peace. Which if it is real, sustainable genuine peace might be a very good start, but we in Israel believe we need more than some esoteric one-sided promise by our "peace partners" before we give back strategic assets that help protect our country that were taken in a defensive war and are being used as bargaining chips to obtain a comprehensive and long lasting peace.

The problem with the Arab and Muslim nations is that they don't want to give anything for peace. Usually it seems like they don't even want peace. The Palestinians want Israel to get the hell out of the territories, yet aren't ready to promise that they'll give up trying to make Israel another Muslim state. And the Syrians have the same attitude.

Pay very close attention to these words: The use by the Arab and Muslim peoples of the word Liberation is a clear indication that they see the "liberation" of their conquered territory being a process not of peace, but of war. And that the "peace" process is really only a stage in the greater battle for this "liberation," as confusing as that may sound.

And furthermore, when they speak of "Occupied Territory," they are not only referring to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, they are also referring to the land belonging to the sovereign State of Israel.

This is not some right wing propaganda as some will assert, this is documented fact. And furthermore they say one thing to the English press, and another to their own people.

Now I don't want to be the buzz kill here. I know the American administration is all gung ho and is going to accomplish with the wave of their magic wand what 60 years and I don't know how many presidents didn't manage to accomplish. But I think that it is important seeing how the American administration has come to the conclusion that it is Israel and only Israel that has to give something for peace, the exact same stance of all the Arab and Muslim nations that have been attacking Israel for decades, that it be made absolutely clear that Israel is not going to fold under pressure because the American administration has come to the conclusion that something has got to give, and if its not the Arab and Muslim states then it shall be Israel.

Again, we are in a peace process, a negotiation process. And in a negotiation process there is give and take, there are concessions, by both sides. And at the end of that negotiation process Israel must come out with the clear public acceptance and acknowledgement by the Arab and Muslim world that they shall accept Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, they shall stop funding, training and arming terrorists then sending them to Israel's borders, and they shall finally, once and for all give up an claims, hopes or aspirations of stripping Israel, whether through war or a "democratic" process, of its Jewish character. The word Liberation must be removed from their vocabulary, (as I would recommend for all the world, the word Martyr).

And then there's Iran. The American administrations for decades has been at covert and overt war with Iran, and Iran has been at war with America. In the past few years Iran has created an insurgent army and sent their mercenaries to every corner of their earth. They have fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their proxies are well trained and armed to the teeth holding both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip hostage, they are threatening every Sunni nation in the Middle East, have operations in Sudan and South America, and yes, have aspirations to be the main power broker in the Middle East.

Iran has threatened, time and time again, the total destruction of Israel. The nations of the world have for years publicly attempted and miserably failed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear know how and developing nuclear capabilities. In no uncertain terms will Israel sit idly by and watch the very powerful and very dangerous nation that uses insurgency in countries around the world to sow panic, death and destruction and regularly attacks Israel through its proxies to obtain nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, the attempt by the American administration to link peace with the Palestinians with the Iranian nuclear issue is both unacceptable and absurd. Iran is a power hungry nation that uses the Palestinians as an excuse. Getting rid of that excuse by creating an unsustainable peace with a weak government rejected by their own people (Fatah). is not going to have any impact on Iran's desire to develop weapons of mass destruction nor their continual growth.

In Israel, we find it hard to understand how the American administration is ready to compromise with an oppressive, totalitarian regime run by religious fanatics that executes children, oppresses women and minorities, and kills American soldiers (Iran), and in the process of trying to pacify this same nation is willing to weaken on the only, free and democratic nation in the entire Middle East by putting public pressure from every direction.

Israel knows it has to make sacrifices to achieve peace with its neighbors. It is willing and able to do so. It has openly declared this, and made it public record just how far it is willing to go to do so. But peace doesn't come for free, negotiations require more than one side to make sacrifices, and it's about time that the Israeli public and the world itself start to understand just how far Israel's "Partners in Peace" are willing to go. We want it public, we want it clear, and we want it undeniable. We're not willing to accept anything less.

For our part, we demand the whole nine yards. No more Jihad, no more war of liberation, and no more dressing it up for western consumption by refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state or demanding that Israel drop its Jewish character to make it a State for all of its people.

We in Israel want peace, we want to live our lives, to work, to develop. We don't want to send our children to war. We don’t' want to run for bomb shelters, we don't want to have gas masks in the house. Yes, we want to be loved and accepted by all, really, we just want to be loved. And we're willing to do a hell of a lot to achieve that.

But we're not willing to settle for second best. For a deal backed by flimsy guarantees made by the UN, NATO, the Quartet, or the US. We've been down that road. We saw what happened when we unilaterally pulled out of Gaza. We saw what happened when Condoleezza Rice forced us to pull our forces out of the Philadelphia route between Gaza and Egypt, we saw what happened when the UN made haughty promises at the end of the Second Lebanon war only to be followed by Hezbollah rearming to the teeth and using their hegemony to silently overthrow Lebanon. And we've experienced throughout history the results of depending on others to protect us.

We want peace with our neighbors, always have. But not at any cost. So if you please, don't try to make this a one man show. It's not only up to Israel to make sacrifices and concessions, it's up to everybody. Take the rhetoric down a notch, and try working with us.

Obama, American Policy, and Israel

For quite a while now Israel has been trying to understand just what is the Obama's administration's approach to Israel. It's been an enigma to say the least. Before the elections his sympathies were touted as being pro-Palestinian, with a number of his ideological and spiritual models being vehemently anti-Israel such as Bill Ayers, or Obama's spiritual leader Jeremiah Wright. For the most part, we in Israel supported Obama, and admired his charisma. And while we had concern regarding his international policies, we were certain that for America, domestically he was a good choice.

Regarding Israel, since his elections the signals have been at best unclear. From one side Obama states that he fully supports Israel and understands its position. However slowly the signals have been appearing that the Obama administration has a plan of its own regarding Israel the Middle East. And many of the things that have been expressed through the media and attributed, directly or indirectly to the American administration seem to indicate this plan.

I myself, as a native born American who lives in Israel find many of these issues puzzling. I'd like to discuss these issues which include:
· Declarations regarding a two state solution
· The seemingly conditioning of American support in preventing Iran from going nuclear on progress in the Israeli Palestinian peace process

Declarations Regarding a Two State Solution

To start with, while the Arab Israeli conflict, and the issue of Palestinian statehood impact the Arab Nations, Muslim nations, Israel and the Palestinians, it seems that regarding peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the American Administration has publicly made a number of declarations that are geared towards one country and one country only, Israel.

At the current AIPAC conference, Rahm Emanuel stated "Two states is only solution," while Vice President Joe Bidden stated "Israel must support a two-state solution." A demand while admirable, is one sided and does not take into consideration Israel's necessity in preventing another two decades of conflict because the Palestinians, while supporting a "two state" solution, refuse to recognize one of those states as being the Jewish State of Israel. This is a subject that is becoming very hot these days, and the American administration has started to use strong language. As quoted from Ha'aretz Daily:

"Gen. James Jones, national security adviser to President Barack Obama, told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be "forceful" with Israel."

In Israel, we wonder, just what does he mean by forceful. And we also wonder, that while Israel is the state which has always said it wanted peace, and made every reasonable effort to achieve peace, why it is that it is against Israel all of the sudden that America wants to use its "force."

Furthermore, another stance that puzzles many Israelis is that, while Israel has a democratically elected government with the authority, ability and desire to make peace, and the support of the vast majority of its citizens to do so, the Palestinian representatives that America chooses to deal with have no democratic mandate, no willingness to recognize Israel as a sovereign state for the Jews, or any ability to uphold any agreements it may make. In fact, the Palestinian people clearly showed who they support by giving the mandate to govern them in certified democratic elections to a terrorist organization, which subsequently violently overthrew its other elected party in Gaza and launched missles on Israeli civilians from behind its own civilian population, leading to a tragic loss of life and the rampant destruction in Gaza.

So my first question directly to the American administration is, just who is it you want us to hold negotiations with?

In fact, I've written a very basic if thorough peace on Israel's issue of the two state solution which can be read here: http://anothermudpit.blogspot.com/2009/04/two-state-solution.html.

And I can tell you that Israel whole heartedly supports a two state solution. However, it will not agree to this two state solution unless and until the Palestinian authorities publicly and undeniably recognize that one of these two states, Israel, is the state for the Jews. Want to get negotiations up and running? There's your in.

The Conditioning of American Efforts to Prevent Iran from going Nuclear

This is the second side of the coin. And it can't be denied that for some reason the American administration thinks that Iran obtaining and possessing nuclear weapons is only bad for Israel. And furthermore that the Arab and Muslim issues with Israel existing as a State is due to Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

In fact, Arab and Muslim nations have been rejecting the existence long before Israel ever occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. How is that? Well they waged a war of destruction against the nacent Jewish state from the moment it declared itself independent in 1948. At that time Israel accepted the creation of a "Palestinian" state alongside the Jewish state, the Palestinians and their Arab brethren rejected it. As a matter of fact, every war that Israel has been involved in some way or another stem from the fact that these same nations refuse to accept Israel as a fait accompli. The war in 1956, 1967, 1973, Israel's invasion of Lebanon as the result of rocket fire into Israel from Lebanon from Yassar Arafat's Fatah.

To this day, it is not the Palestinian refugee Israel that drives Arab and Muslim aggression worldwide, that's only a convenient excuse. As matter of fact, in 1967 in Khartoum Arab leaders reached what is known as the three noes consensus, no recognition, no peace and no negotiations with the State of Israel.

And that was when Gaza was in the possession of Egypt, while Jordan controlled the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

I understand the American administration, they have some serious problems these days. Pakistan is about to fall to the Taliban, and the entire Pakistani arsenal is about to fall into the hands of the very same people that flew planes into the twin towers. They're sick of all the conflict in the Middle East, and much like the Arabs before them (and the Europeans before them), are starting to blame the Jewish state. For it seems to be the obvious conclusion, if not the easiest.

After all, Israel is a democratic nation that can be reasoned with and even threatened. While the Muslim states have proven themselves time and again inflexible, and willing kill themselves and everyone around them before giving in to their demands. So it makes sense to lean on Israel, doesn't it?

After all, that's what Condoleezza Rice did, twice. The first time at the Rafah conference, in which she managed to threaten and intimidate Israel into giving control over the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza to the hands of the UN. Which shortly thereafter went running with their tails between their legs when Hamas violently overthrew Gaza. Hamas then continued on to smuggle enough weapons under the border to arm all of Canada. That worked out really well for Israel. The result, as we all saw, was the death of thousands in a war wanted only by Hamas and Iran.

Or how about the second time, when Condoleezza Rice took the initiative to force a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in which the UN once again took upon itself the mission of protecting Israeli interests, calling to disarm Hezbollah, then sitting around as they smuggled medium and long range missles, to the point where today they have twice as many missles as they did before the war. Which means that the next round, and there will be a next round will be much more destructive and cost many more lives.

Twisting Israel's arm hasn't worked wonders in the past. And it has become clear that it is not in Israel's interest to be forced into any more decisions it deems as problematic. And with all due respect to the American administration, and we all have very much respect for them, Israel will not again allow itself to be forced to make a compromise that in the end will come back to bite it in the ass. I myself, as both an American and a moderate Israel, fully support the Israeli government in standing strong in its beliefs, if indeed the demands being made upon Israel are not mutual, nor are they conducive to a realistic and sustainable peace, not matter what the price. And surveys have shown that I am not alone.

Now getting back to the issue of Iran. Its hard for me to fathom, not as an Israeli, but as an American, just how the new American administration seems to be moving forward with the normalization of ties with a state like Iran. In the American Media, we've been led to believe that it is Israel's "Crying Wolf" that has led to the overblown, paranoid view of Iran being dangerous. In fact, in a recent New York Times Op Ed column by Roger Cohen titled "Israel Cries Wolf," (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcohen.html - I'll provide an analysis of this Op Ed at a later time) Cohen said "What’s going on here? Israel, as it has for nearly two decades, is trying to lock in American support and avoid any disadvantageous change in the Middle Eastern balance of power, now overwhelmingly tilted in Jerusalem’s favor, by portraying Iran as a monstrous pariah state bent on imminent nuclear war."

That's funny, is he talking about the same Iran that in 1979 overtook the American Embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days? And the same group of "students" that conducted the takeover of the American embassy and the taking of hostages that was led by none other than Iran's sitting president Mahmud Ahmadinejad?

So now the American people are to believe that the demonization was of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which executes children, persecutes religious minorities, killed hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq, funds Hezbollah which bombed the American Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 American soldiers, and has set up cells ready to attack not just Israeli interests but American interests, in Egypt, Lebanon, half of south America, Europe (yes Europe), and pretty much every other country in the world, was all part of a bigger plot by the Israelis running for more than 20 years attempting to portray Iran as a Pariah state to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons?

As a matter of fact, I believe all the hype that's been published in the media has quietly taken its que from the American administration. One which believes that bridge building is of the utmost importance. Even if it means compromising on the human rights of hundreds of millions of people around the world, and providing Iran, a country with an extensive and documented history of terrorism, the ability to obtain nuclear weapons and wield them in the Middle East, obtaining power over friendly Arab nations, and threatening, in public and openly, the existence of the State of Israel.

And today, for some odd and inexplicable reason, the American administration has gotten it in their minds that by forcing Israel, and only Israel into make concessions, while accepting the position of the entire Arab and Muslim world in its entirety, will somehow assist it in prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Does that seem logical to anyone? And as a side note, those same nuclear weapons pose just as much, if not more of a threat to the Arab nations of the Middle East (not to mention Europe). A fact which these Arab nations are well aware of, even if their public pronouncement may not reflect that.

No, the only connection between an unsustainable peace agreement with the weak Fatah government that will in time undoubtedly either be overthrown by Hamas or come to a power sharing agreement leaving Fatah powerless, and the prevention of Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is the one that for some inexplicable reason the American administration has decided to push.

I call on all of my friends and acquaintances to reflect deep and hard on this issue. Take into consideration the items I have listed above. Consider the logic of forcing Israel to make one sided concessions that in the end will lead to years more war. For example, agreeing to a "two-state" solution without basing this concession on a parallel "concession" by the Palestinians of publicly recognizing and accepting that one of these two states will be the Jewish state of Israel. And don't let people fool you. The majority of nations in the world identify themselves by religion. There are 56 nations in the Organization of Islamic Conferences that define themselves by Islam. There are also countless nations that identify themselves as Christian. There can be one Jewish state in the world.

This is also a call to the American Administration, to Barak Obama, Joe Bidden, Rahm Emanuel, and Daniel Shapiro. Take these words to heart. Yes Israel is democratic, it can be reasoned with, and can and will make concessions. But don't let that lead you into thinking that the only way peace is going to move forward ,is by one side making all of the concessions, while the other sides makes all of the demands. Simply because you've come to the conclusion that you think this is the path of least resistance.

Indeed, by you insisting that Israel make all the concessions, requiring nothing from any of the other parties, you're doing nothing less than accepting the basis of the Arab boycott, giving it new life in another shape. Assigning complete blame for the situation in the Middle East to Israel, and completely ignoring history. This is something that is unacceptable.

We understand that you believe the new Israeli administration is the anti everything. But you are mistaken. Don't let looks fools you. As I'm sure you've heard dozens of times, it was Menachem Begin that made peace with the Egyptians, it was Yitzchak Rabin that transformed into a peacemaker, and it was Ariel Sharon who pulled out of Gaza. A move that was at the time supported by a great many Israelis. While today is looked upon by most of those same people as a terrible mistake.

To Israelis, America is gold. It is a metaphor, a synonym, of success, of what Israel strives to be. We in Israel firmly believe that America is our best friend, one that has its own conscience and can use its own judgment to make decisions. Our number one ally. And just like America, Israel also has a conscience, a population to look after, an economy to build. We understand you must do what you believe is necessary for your survival. We just ask that you look long and hard at your approach to the conflict, and ask yourself do you really believe that making threatening public declarations and trying to force Israel into concessions which have in the past proven to be harmful is really the best way to go.

Again, take a good hard look at the circumstances, look at the history, the parties involved, and realistically ask yourself if building bridges is worth it if it means compromising human rights and giving those that have killed you for decades legitimacy and nuclear weapons. In the end, you will do what you believe is necessary, what is in your best interest, to protect your people, and to build a safer world for your children. And in the end, so shall we.

The Two State Solution

There's been a lot of talk as of late about the Two State solution regarding Israel and Palestine. The American administration defines it as the basis for a fair resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, and until recently the Israeli government also supported this formula. With the creation of a new government led by Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister, and Avigdor Lieberman as Israeli foreign minister, the new Israeli government is now hesitant in agreeing to a "two state" solution, and most people are incredulous as to why. This entry explains their hesitation.

There are two primary factors driving the Israeli government's reluctance to agree to a two state solution.

1. Two states: Jewish and Muslim?

The first has to do with the nature of these two states. When most people in western nations hear "two states," they automatically assume that it refers to a state for the Palestinians and a state for the Jews, or in other words, a Palestine, which would most likely have a basis in Islam and be populated primarily by Palestinians, and the State of Israel which would be a Jewish state. However, at no point in time, and throughout today, have the Palestinian leadership ever recognized that Israel is and will remain a "Jewish" state. Many even say that the goal ultimately is to get Israel to drop its Jewish character. And as I've discussed in a previous post (http://anothermudpit.blogspot.com/2009/01/removing-jewish-character-from-israeli.html), this would result in a defacto Muslim state within a short period of time. In this scenario there would be two states, one of which perhaps may even retain the name "Israel," however from a Muslim and Arab perspective, eventually, the State of Israel would eventually become yet another member of the Organization of Islamic conferences.

Some say that this is just Israel being paranoid. However, through the actions of the Palestinians and other Arab nations, and the complete and total rejection of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, this is a factor which cannot be ignored by the Israeli leadership. In a recent visit by George Mitchell, the Special Envoy to the Middle East for the Obama administration, the American administration tried to calm concerns of the Israeli leadership by explicitly calling Israel the Jewish state, something most American administrations have been hesitant to do. However, a responsible Israeli administration is justified in demanding that before peace talks progress the Palestinian leadership openly recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This is not a factor for negotiation. For Israel, there can be no talk of a two state solution unless the Palestinians accept that one of those two states be Jewish before the start of negotiations. Otherwise Israel is concerned that extremist elements in the Palestinian administration will continue to wage Jihad and continue to kill Israeli civilians, until they achieve their goal.

2. The Hamas Factor

The second factor that concerns the Israeli administration about the "two state" solution is the simple fact that today there are in essence, three states. The State of Israel, Palestine (currently in the West Bank, or alternatively refered to as Fatahland), and Gaza (often referred to Hamastan due to its being overthrown by Hamas). I've previously written about the unwillingness of the International community to make a clear distinction between Fatah, or the so called "moderate" Palestinian leadership, and Hamas, the internationally labeled terrorist organization which was democratically elected by the Palestinian people to lead their nation (http://anothermudpit.blogspot.com/2009/01/hamas-vs-fatah-background.html).

It is exactly this situation that defines Israel's hesitancy in defining a two state solution, and this is for two reasons:

There is not one Palestinian entity, but two. Currently there are two separate Palestinian administrations, one in the West Bank lead by Fatah, and one in Gaza led by Hamas. Hamas has yet again, and just the other day openly stated that it shall never recognize Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079063.html). Therefore, in fact as long as Hamas and Fatah are at war, any talk of peace between the Palestinians and Israelis is pointless, particularly when both the Fatah leadership and the international community continue to ignore that Israel cannot make peace with Fatah and have Hamas continue to target and kill Israeli civilians, yet be expected to abide by peace agreements that prevent Israel from taking action to stop these atrocities. It's actually quite a joke.

If Hamas overthrows Fatah in the West Bank, there will be no peace only war. The second scenario with Fatahland and Hamastan is the risk that much like in Gaza, the much more powerful, violent and repressive regime Hamas will manage to overthrow the Fatah government operating in the West Bank and succeed in converting the entire Palestinian body into a fanatically based Jihad organization from which it will continue to launch missles and attacks against Israelis. Or to put it another way, Israel refuses to make peace with the "moderate" Palestinians, only to have that moderate leadership be overthrown by a Jihadist group bent on Israel's destruction, and then listen to the world talk about how Israel signed peace agreements with the Palestinian government and demand from them to uphold these agreements, even though that government is bent on Israel's destruction. And for those of you who think this won't happen, Israel left Gaza with the international community's ecstatic support, expecting that if this move ended up biting the Israelis in the ass, the international community would know that Israel would not hesitate to use significant force to put an end to attacks from Gaza. Instead Israel has been vilified for protecting its own citizens from attacks emanating from the same lands from which Israel unilaterally withdrew, after Gaza was overthrown by Hamas.

So there you have it, Israel's problem with the two state solution. Israel cannot agree to a two state solution until first it is made clear that the Palestinian leadership recognizes that one of those states is Israel, with a Jewish character. Anything else would be nothing less than asking for another century of Jihad continually killing Israelis in its efforts to "liberate the occupied Muslim lands of Palestine from the Zionists," or in other words, transform the State of Israel from a Jewish state to another brick in the Islamic nation. It would be a much more colossal mistake than Israel unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza strip, with no agreements in place that establish rules for that withdrawal which led to Gaza falling into the hands of a fanatic terrorist organization.

The New York Times, Israel, and Iran

I have a number of small addictions in my life. I guess you could almost say I've got an addictive personality. One of these addictions is news. Working on a computer all day waiting for my applications to respond, I scour the web and any of a dozen news outlets including the Israeli publications such as Ynet, Haaretz, JPost, Globes and the Marker, British publications including the BBC and the Guardian, France's Le Monde, and American publications including CNN, the Chicago Tribune, Yahoo, CNN Money, and the New York Times. Anyone who has read my blog knows that it was started as a result of my comments being retroactively censored on the Guardian, and my growing frustration with a shirking of responsibility by the media regarding what and how they report.

Another addiction of mine is Facebook. I've reconnected with hundreds of friends on Facebook, from school, summer camp and life. I often post links to articles that touch me on my Facebook account. Much like with the Guardian, I've been noticing a trend of the New York Times. They've been posting more and more stories, first about Israel, then about Jews. It started with the now defunct accusations of Israeli soldiers purposely killing Palestinian civilians during the Gaza war. The original accusations were published by Ha'aretz. And in short order it was discovered they were based on soldiers testimony, which itself was based on rumors the soldiers heard, and not directly witnessed. The world pounced on this rumor and once again tried to indict Israel as a war criminal. But when the accusations surface was scratched, it became clear that the specific stories published were in fact baseless.

Since that time, in the New York Times, I've seen a steady increase in stories about Israel, typically very negative, and about Jews, typically light and positive. There was something that disturbed me about the trend. It was something I had seen over a period of a couple of years at another publication, the Guardian UK. And it bothered me because the direction and the result of this trend led to what we see today, the UK openly supporting the "One State Solution," or the dissolution of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state, and the creation of a country for all people in its place. If you want to read more about this failed theory, see here http://anothermudpit.blogspot.com/2009/01/removing-jewish-character-from-israeli.html.

I've voiced my concerns a number of times in Facebook regarding the direction of New York Times reporting, whether it was through a status update or a link that I've posted. At one point, one of my friends from camp who I'll call David made a comment on one or two of my links. He lives in New York, has been to Israel on a number of occasions, and thought I was taking things out of proportion. I had said at one point that it seems that the New York Times seems like it is taking up a line which was hostile to Israel, and that in the end would lead to the alienation of Jews in New York, not to mention seemed geared towards driving a wedge between American Jewry and Israel. Dave told me that I was just being paranoid. He said that there were 2,000,000 Jews in New York and there's no way they would be alienated, and that the New York Times was the flagship paper of this community.

Though something was still bothering me. It took me a while to put my finger on it. We also discussed the Iranian issue. Its seems to be becoming clearer through reports that the American government is looking towards making concessions with Iran regarding its nuclear activity, and furthermore, building a partnership with them to assist America in containing what they see as the biggest world threat: the takeover of Pakistan by Taliban militants and the subsequent possession of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal by Islamic fanatics (the same ones that crashed planes into the Twin Towers). I had told David that I understand the American government is doing what thinks is in the best interest of America. However Israel also had its own situation to think about. How to deal with a religious fanatic country who has openly called for the destruction of Israel (the same one the US is looking to compromise with), funding and training terrorists and sending them to Israel's border in the north in Lebanon (Hezbollah), and to its south in Gaza (Hamas).

I even made the assertion that in fact Israel and Iran are already at war (one that I stand by and shall expand upon in a future post), and that while it may be a covert war for now, it is no less a war. And Israel will do everything in its power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Indeed, with the American government seemingly moving towards not only normalizing relations with the fanatic Iranian regime, but actually creating a military relationship with it so that it won't need to send more American soldiers to Afghanistan, the American government will very likely feel that Iran has become a partner in protecting America, even to a degree an ally. Of course anybody that knows that Iran was the major party responsible for killing American soldiers in Iraq with IEDs, and funding and arming Taliban in Afghanistan know that the opposite is true, and that basically the American government is falling into a well known trap. Imagine the Taliban taking over Pakistan WITH Iran's assistance. But that's beside the point for now. What is the point is that this is creating a situation in where Israel feels it needs to do everything in its power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (diplomacy has spectacularly failed after six years). Israel is going to probably attack Iranian nuclear facilities. And the result is very possibly that the American government is going to attack (verbally) Israel for these actions, while defending (verbally) Iran.

And the New York Times, with its finger on the pulse of the American presidency and his constituency, is preparing for this event. They are at one and the same time publishing light and happy articles about Jews (Bahrain embraces all 36 of its Jews http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/world/middleeast/06bahrain.html?_r=1, and Barak Obama's Rabbi http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05rabbi-t.html?ref=magazine ), all the while taking a harsher and more aggressive tone towards Israel (the frontal attack on Israel based on an article published about rumor http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/world/middleeast/21gaza.html , and Op Eds further attacking Israel http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04bisharat.html).

Over the past few weeks Iran's role in war with Israel, and their support for Hezbollah and Hamas have come out into the open. With the Egyptians busting a Hezbollah cell that was planning attacks against Israelis in the Sinai Peninsula and attacks on Egyptian and international interests (ships passing through the Suez Canal), their network of support has been exposed. For background see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078381.html , and http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239633075317&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

If the American government thinks that making agreements with this same country and depending on their graces to assist them in Afghanistan and Pakistan will somehow benefit the American people, I'm afraid he's frightfully mistaken. Afghanistan and the Taliban were brought to power by the American's in the cold war. American and coalition soldiers have now been in Afghanistan since 2002 and the Taliban has still grown more powerful. They've now been funded, armed and trained by Iran. And now the American government potentially sees this same nation that has been building terrorist infrastructure in no less than 8 nations (Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, and very probably South America), as being a new ally in Afghanistan?

Sounds to me like they're in for a major wakeup call. American Jews have America's best interest in heart. For after all, they are American. Even though may of them have sympathy for Israel. Israelis like to believe they're the 53rd state. Although we also know deep down inside that is not true. The real question it seems to be is if the American leadership sees Iran as a greater strategic asset than it sees Israel. Anyone that has been to Israel can tell you that it’s a ethnic melting pot. And while it is a state with a Jewish character, it tries to provide people of all races, colors and religions with equal rights. The current conflict with the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims makes this problematic. None the less, it can be easily argued that the same western nations that are boycotting the UN forum on racism share more values with Israel and its means of governing than they do with Iran.

Israel may have voted in a right-wing government that is hesitant about a peace process with a partner that is split in two, one that has no power, the other who's only goal is the destruction of Israel. But the Palestinians democratically elected a government that is both an internationally known terrorist organization, and a fanatic regime with no respect for human rights.

I think its time that the American government do some soul searching regarding what really is in its best interest. Making a pact with a religious fanatic regime that has been murdering American citizens as part of a strategic plan to convince the Americans why they should compromise with them, and furthermore enabling this same regime to obtain the ability to build nuclear weapons that already has the technology to launch them at any location on earth. Or taking responsibility for the mess in Afghanistan as opposed to making agreements with a regime that is at best a chronic violator of human rights who has been exposed as building a vast terrorist network that targets innocent civilians, funding, training and arming guerilla armies whose primary tactic is building military infrastructure in the heart of civilian population, and who has openly declared its desire and intent to completely destroy another nation.

And I suggest that the New York Times also do a little soul searching regarding America's moral dilemmas in the wars it feels it needs to fight and take that into consideration. And furthermore, do its own homework before publishing what is clearly rumor and innuendo as fact before convicting an entire nation of morally offensive behavior during a dirty war that was forced upon them by this same nation the American government is contemplating as a new ally.

Israel's Ominous Turn to the Right

That's how the world seems to portray the results of the recent elections in Israel. Fortunately for Israel, all the drama the world wants to portray in the Israeli elections can't nearly compare to the significance of the Palestinian people electing a terrorist organization that openly uses the murder of innocents to achieve its goals. But as the media, politicians and pundits like to say when obsessively and aggressively analyzing and ripping apart Israel, this discussion is about Israel.

So be it.

Elections in Israel are a precarious thing. Pretty much every person whether average citizen or government minister agrees with the fact that the Israeli political model is a failure. That while a coalition government represents one of the most democratic methods of representing the people's will, it also leaves the person in charge of forming and running the government with little ability to make and implement decisions. In Israel the parliament (known as the Knesset) has 120 members. Elections are held and each party that surpasses a minimum is allocated a certain number of those 120 seats. The party that has the most seats, also known as mandates, typically gets to form the government, and their party leader becomes prime minister. And to form a working government they have to assemble a coalition with a majority of members, at least 61.

In the current elections, Kadima, the centrist party led by Tzippi Livini won 28 mandates, Likud (center right) led by Binyamin Netanyahu won 27 mandates, Israel Our Home a right wing party won 15 mandates, and Labor (center-left), traditionally one of the three biggest parties, only won 13 mandates, making it the fourth largest party. And even know Kadima won the most mandates, its seems that Likud will be tapped to form the government. This is because the left wing parties have shrunk in size, and the entire country has taken one step rightward.

The world is lamenting the rise of the right. And openly compares Avigdor Liberman and the Israel is our Home party with the most ominous of parties around the globe.

An article in Time Magazine portraying Israel as Angry (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878891,00.html) shown to me by a friend stated " After the war in Gaza, the peace movement seemed pointless: the Palestinians were shattered, unable to govern themselves, much less negotiate a peace." This seems to be the general approach of foreigners to the Israeli elections. But its very misleading for the world seems to think that the ability to make peace is solely up to Israel. When in fact, it takes two to make peace. And its also very misleading to think that the war is what shattered the Palestinians and left them unable to govern themselves, that was achieved by the Palestinian people themselves, when they elected Hamas.

They are loath to mention that Israel's government has been negotiating with the moderate Palestinian leadership, but the ones really holding the cards these days are the Hamas extremists, who executed hundreds of their moderate Fatah associates after violently overthrowing Gaza, and are holding the 1.5 million citizens of Gaza hostage. Indeed, as Time so eloquently noted, "The peace movement seemed pointless," and regardless of what Israeli government was brought to power it will remain pointless. For as long as the world pretends that Hamas being democratically elected by the Palestinian people has a right to murder Israelis and has no impact on the peace process, an organization who's raison d'etre is the destruction of Israel, there really is no chance for peace.

Even the new Mr. Evil according to the international media, Avigdor Lieberman, head of the right-wing Israel Our Home party believes the establishment of a Palestinian state is a necessity. He's even agreed to give up on parts of east Jerusalem. And for Israeli politics, this is hardly the signs of one that doesn't want peace.

Avigdor Lieberman isn't regarded with fear because he is against the establishment of a Palestinian state, or he is against a peace agreement, for in fact he is for one. He is regarded with fear because of his extreme way of expressing himself, and his call for Israeli Arabs (not Palestinians) show their loyalty to the state of Israel or lose citizenship. And make no mistake, this is a dangerous thing, for Israeli Arabs are full citizens of this country and have every right to live here and hold their opinions. Their leadership however often sides with Hamas and openly supports attacks on Israel, and this is a very sore issue.

Could you imagine if an American congressman supported Osama Bin Laden and his murder of Americans in the Twin Towers? In fact, that is what Arab Israeli members of the parliament do. And it infuriates many Israelis. For while the average Arab Israeli is allowed the right to hold their own political opinion, even side with Israeli's enemies, most Jewish Israelis believe that member's of its government should accept the existence of Israel's right to exist, as a Jewish state, and as opposed to attack it and support Israeli's enemies, at least be moderate in the expressions they use. And obviously this is a source of contention, for Palestinians are the Arab Israeli's first cousins.

Unfortunately, as I have noted in previous posts, the precarious position of Israeli Arabs will not change in the near future. It will not change until all Arab and Muslim nations stop attacking Israel, and it will not change until Israeli Arabs stop expressing support for these attacks. This is the primary source of contention between Israeli Arabs and Jews. Unfortunately, until the conflict itself is brought to an end (Arab Israel conflict, not just that with the Palestinians), and Arab Israelis stop expressing support for attacks on Israel, even if it is only a portion, the precarious position of Arab Israelis will not significantly change.

But to return to Avigdor Liberman and the building of a government in Israel. Avigdor Lieberman has shown himself to be very problematic, though he just might be exactly what the peace camp needs. For if someone that is considered so right-wing actually supports the creation of a Palestinian state, that makes it more acceptable in the eyes of some Israelis who might traditionally reject it.

The traditional left in Israel has been heavily hit. The election of Hamas by the Palestinian people, the relentless attacks of Hamas on Israeli civilians in the south, and the comatose peace process that is due to the impotence of the moderate Palestinian leadership and the inability of the world to cut off Hamas from that leadership has all led Israel's traditional left to take one step right.

Israel wants peace, most Israelis (including Avigdor Liberman and his party) support the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, but Israelis are no longer willing to be pigeonholed into making concession after bloody concession, all in the name for a peace that is as non-existent as Santa Clause. Israel pulled out of Gaza and got Hamas. Israel agreed to the Rafah agreement where European monitors were supposed to supervise the border between Egypt and Gaza, and got Hamas again, this time smuggling the weapons they needed to kill Israelis and attacking Israeli civilians.

Yes, Israel is fed up, fed up with the world's unwillingness to search for a realistic solution. With its inability to understand that it is not Israel that does not want peace, but Palestinians. Fed up with making concession after bloody concession, and only getting war and the murder and terrorization of its children in return.

But anybody that thinks that Israel has really turned into a fascist state is deluding themselves. Israeli democracy has shown its vibrant nature once again. And even after voting Labor, I sincerely think that just maybe having Binyamin Netanyahu form a government and run this country might do some good. If Kadima forms the government and Tzippi Livni is prime minister we shall see the same stagnation we did for the past two years. Why? Because the world thinks that it is only for Israel to make concessions, and that for some obscene reason Hamas has a right to kill innocent Israeli civilians. And they beliebe that if Israel elects a centrist government, its supports this assumption.

No, this has got to stop, this perverted formula has to be changed. Israel cannot accept that anybody has a right to murder and terrorize its civilians. And it cannot let any government force them to do so. It is not Israel that is rejecting peace, it is the Palestinian government, that which was democratically elected and shows the will of the Palestinian people. And no matter what the reason for Hamas being given the mandate to govern the Palestinian people, Israel has not only the right but the responsibility to protect its own civilians, and obtain a fair and just peace without having to watch its own people live in terror and be murdered, all because the world thinks that the conflict has to end at any cost.

And at any cost is no longer acceptable to Israelis.

Avigdor Liberman? Sure he's not a very sympathetic character, but he's not the reason there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The reason that there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians is that the Palestinians elected a terrorist organization as their government, and the world thinks Israel has to permit that terrorist government to murder its civilians with impunity.

The face of the Israeli government may not be the smiling bouncing personality of Tzippi Livni, it may have taken on an uglier face. But that does not mean it is not willing or able to make peace with the Palestinians.

If the world media would rather try to isolate Israel by throwing around cheap slogans like "The election has strengthened anti-Arab forces who are isolating the country from the world," as so eloquently put by Time Magazine as opposed to encouraging open dialog and realizing that in Israel, it has always been the right-wing governments that have actually succeeded in making peace, and start to realistically examine just why no peace has been achieved up to now, there just might be a chance for peace.

As for me, I'm quite optimistic. Indeed, even with the government once again having little power to actually make decisions, I think that it might finally be a wake up call. Though not for Israel, for the world. A wake up call that is there to say that the time has come to realize that Israel cannot make peace with those whose open goal is to destroy it. That Israel can no longer be the sacrificial lamb of the international community. That if the Palestinians really want peace, its about time they start taking responsibility for their actions, starting with the electing of a government formed by terrorists who murder children for political gain, and stop inculcating their own children into a culture of hate, where the murder of Israelis is openly encouraged.

Israel today stands tall and proud. As always, there are voices of dissent; a sure sign as to the vibrant and open democracy that this country represents. We may have taken a step to the right, but is that really surprising when not only terrorist neighbors try to kill our children, but respected media outlets try to deligitimze our very existence?

We value life, and we want peace.

It's about time the other side said the same thing. It's about time the world started to hold them to account for their actions and their words. Its about time the world started making demands of the Palestinians, as opposed to compromise after bloody compromise. And that compromise being the blood of Israeli civilians.

Election Day in Israel

Yes, it's election day in Israel. Our day of civic duty. Our day to show the world that we are a democracy. And what a grand day it is, for in Israel, election day is a day off from work! This is to encourage people to participate. After the past few weeks of spring and even summer like weather, today was a drastic change. Winds that destroy umbrellas in a single gust, with the sun peaking out occasionally from behind the clouds, and the rain starting to fall in the afternoon. The radio just reported that the malls were showing a more than 250% increase in sales and traffic up against what they typically experience for a weekday at this time of the year, so not only is Israel standing tall in their role of a democratic nation, but in this time of economic upheaval Israelis are patronizing shops and filling the restaurants and café's.

And yet, as Israel's major English daily Ha'aretz noted, "Journalists have hard time selling Israel election story abroad." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1063023.html

They say that after the drama of the battle that took place in Gaza, the world seems it could care less about the Israeli elections than, for example, a girl's struggle to find justice from the airport authority in Chicago for her lost and damaged luggage. It appears as if they only news about Israel the world wants to hear is that in which the Jews are murdering the Palestinians, proving what one journalist that participated in the Tel Aviv Writer's Café said just two short weeks ago: if it bleeds it leads.

Its quite fascinating that Israel, for all its blemishes and faults really is a strong, thriving democracy, a Western nation by any other standard, surrounded by middle eastern countries and proxy armies all of which attack Israel, whether through the media or with bullets and missles. Yet Israel manages to hold its head up and provide its citizens with democratic freedoms. Of course the criticism would say otherwise, but I suggest before attacking Israel, you compare it to other democracies in the same boat, in perpetual war against those who openly call for its destruction.

Of course, the tragedy we all already know, and it's not just the Palestinians. For the Palestinians while tragic their situation, are stateless, and their democratically elected government chooses to use them as human shields.

Israeli Arabs on the other hand, who are an integral part of the state of Israel experience discrimination on a regular basis. Not to say that there isn't discrimination in countries like the US, France or Italy of course. But the tension and feeling of disenfranchisement cannot be denied. One has to remember though, that it is primarily the result not of inherent racism, but of a conflict that has existed between Israel and its Arab neighbors since its founding. And subsequently, that tension that exists between Israeli Arabs and Jews, and the discrimination they experience can only be brought to an end once the Arab (Muslim)/Israeli conflict is over. And that conflict is much more than just between the Palestinians and Israelis. For the Palestinian refugee issue is not the source of conflict between Israelis and Arabs, but it’s a symptom.

But getting back to the elections, it's interesting to see how smoothly it all ran. My wife voted first, in her old primary school, which was exciting for her, for she hasn't been inside it for close to 30 years. And voting took no more than five minutes, there was only 1 person ahead of her in the classroom which was her polling station. And on the way out she saw the very same janitor that was working when she was a child.

Even though the polling station was relatively empty, it seems that everybody we know is going out to vote. As a matter of fact, I don't think that a single one of my friends that have the right to vote are not voting today. Quite a change from the last elections, when apathy was everywhere, and those that went out and voted but felt they had no real choice, voted for the Pensioners' party. After my wife finished voting, we took a walk through in Givataim, past the mall into a neighborhood called Givat Rambam. We're starting to think about buying an apartment. While the economy was booming in the past few years, and real estate prices exploded, the economic slump has taken its toll. And after jumping no less than 20% over the past 12 to 18 months, real estate has started on its way down.

I suspect it will continue to go down, probably about 10 or 15% if the market remains as it is. And more if the economy continues to get worse, as seems very likely. Though we only saw a single for sale sign on an apartment, and the items listed in real-estate offices didn't seem very promising. Finally after checking out the neighborhood, we got on bus number 63 and headed to Tel Aviv, where I was to vote. Since leaving Tel Aviv I have yet to change my address at the ministry of the interior, so my polling station is in a Yeshiva in central Tel Aviv, not far from our old apartment.

And what better excuse to go into Tel Aviv. I love election day, a day off from work, an extra day to hang out and relax, and in the middle of the week no less! When we arrived at my polling station, there were a number of dogs tied to the railing outside, all patiently waiting for their owners to come back out. A young policeman with rifle watched the entrance, and political canvassers greeted us as we approached. Though once we were on the same block as the Yeshiva turned polling station, they were no more. Walking up the steps the polling station I discovered it was pretty crowded. I checked in which room I was to vote, and got into line. The lines at each of the rooms were 5 and 6 people deep, but they went quickly. Finally when my turn came, I stepped into the classroom. There were four people, all of which looked pretty bored, with one guy who seemed on the verge of dozing off. The first person took my ID and checked my name off a list, then handed me a blue envelope as the other three looked on.

I walked around to the polling booth where a cardboard tray of 30 or 40 stacks of voting slips were piled. On the wall behind the booth there was a poster that showed the various slips. I chose my party slip after scanning the different options, slipped it into the envelope, pulled off the plastic that exposed the adhesive to the envelope and sealed the envelope, then slipped my ballot in the cardboard ballot box. On the way out taking back my ID card and extending my thanks to the election board.

All in all, again this entire process took no more than 10 minutes. I guess that's democracy in action. Me and the wife were free to head out for breakfast. After agreeing on a location, we headed down to a place we call the Balcony on Borgashov. On the second floor they have a balcony with a bar built along its edge where you can sit and eat while you watch the people coming and going on the street. I ordered Shakshuka, a pan with tomatoes and peppers cooked together and two eggs cracked on top. We watched the rain start to fall as we relaxed and ate our breakfast, appreciating the extra day off, time to spend together, and the freedom that our nation provides for us. Taking advantage of that same freedom to walk the street, speak our minds, and eat our breakfast in peace, while knowing that this same freedom comes at a cost, whether it be the lives of innocents taken on a regular basis, sending our children to the army to protect us, or the bomb shelters built into our houses that we hope we'll never have to use. Its so easy for those that don't have to think about missles falling on their head to take advantage of having the freedom to live their lives in peace. If only they would take the time to appreciate the fact that they don't live in a place where their children don't have to fight to provide that freedom.

There is nothing like election day in Israel, democracy at its shining best. And the sinister winds that blew across Israel with the grey clouds and drops of rain were in direct contrast to what was really taking place in this country, an open and free election that would decide the direction for however long the incoming prime minister can manage to keep in power. And tomorrow we'll all wake up and go to work, take our children to school, debate politics and protest for our beliefs. For that's what we do in Israel, live life.