Israel Under Fire

Nuclear Enrichment Gains Momentum

2010-02-22T02:02:00.002-06:00

Iran's nuclear weapons intentions are clear

The Obama presidency has moved into it's second year and all signs are on the table that this is going to be his defining year.

And the pressing issues at stake are not those related to economic criteria or health care coverage (although they are certainly pressing domestic concerns). Obama's most important challenges relate directly to Iran.

That the American President is reluctant to engage the Iranian leadership in any way other than a multinational initiative aka sanctions, is worrying.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been the most crippling impediments to the popularity of the all former administrations, most notably the Bush administration..

President Obama wants to be seen as the champion of democracy, of a new outreach program to the Arab world and as the great apologist for American unilateralism in world affairs.

These overt displays of leadership ineptitude are already having dramatic repercussions in the Middle East. Turkey - a secular nation that toed the line with Washington is now increasingly being advised by religious zealots. Sadly the days of a neutral-leaning Turkey are over. Recent undertones in Ankara suggest that this populous Muslim nation is now firmly in the hands of those on the side of anti-Israel advocates.

That Damascus has warmed relations with Turkey is also cause for concern. The Syrians are now firmly in Turkey's pocket and any concept of neutral arbitration in peace efforts between Israel and Syria is a pipe dream. The Americans recently posted an envoy to Syria and despite Syria still being on a terrorist sponsoring list, the USA is clearly trying to normalize relations with Syria.

Lebanon is now officially being represented at the highest levels by Hizballah. This radical, Tehran-backed terrorist group, is now firmly entrenched in government and are now official rulers alongside the moderate Lebanese leadership.

These are worrying signs for Israel and for peace in the Middle East. It cannot be stressed enough that the alliances and shifts taking place are ominous signs. Syria, Lebanon, Iran and now Turkey all share common interests and none of them are good for Israel.

While the EU, America, Canada and the IAEA see the dire threat that Iran's nuclear weaponization program entails, it is the implementation of empty threats that they are trying to punish Iran with. These carrot and stick initiatives are having no effect whatsoever.

Israel is increasingly concerned that the international community's impotence will lead to Israel's very own destruction. As such it has tried to rally support from the nations of the world in favour of stopping Iran's nuclear enrichment. This diplomatic track is having very little success and in all likelihood will fail.

Tehran is emboldened by its alliances with Syria, Lebanon and Turkey and will not cease operations for the likes of Western powers and the Security Council. It is Iranian pride that is keeping the fires burning and it is that same Iranian pride that will ignite a powder-keg of nationalist pride should any nation dare to attack Iran.

The result - if President Obama continues with his liberal and ineffectual doctrine in the Middle East will be Israel's demise and that of the free world. It is time for the American President to mix tough words with tough action, even if it means making unilateral decisions.

Too much praise, not enough substance

2009-10-10T00:56:00.001-05:00

The announcement sent shockwaves around the planet: President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.’

While it cannot be disputed that President Obama has run a fantastic campaign based on hope, change and peaceful co-existence, very little has been translated from campaign rhetoric into real and lasting change on the ground.

There are those in ultra left-leaning circles who firmly believe that President Obama is deserving of this magnanimous award. President Obama was nominated barely several weeks into his presidency – hardly a substantial period within which to evaluate his performance for this tremendous honour to be bestowed upon him.

There are problems in his being nominated – namely that he is as yet an undeserving recipient and secondly the title may come back to bite him in the near future. When the world was searching for hope, they found a Democrat who promised change, so it made sense to heap as much praise and encouragement on the new commander-in-chief as possible. But a Nobel Peace Prize? This is simply heaping praise on a man who is grossly unworthy of it.

If one were to measure his achievements to date – there are sadly none to speak of. President Obama has promised to open dialogue with a largely skeptical Muslim world. We are yet to see real change in the mindset of everyday Americans in this regard and in the largely disillusioned Arab world. Sure Obama has cultivated the seeds of hope, but the Peace Prize is awarded for actual results achieved, not silky smooth words born of nothing.

We are witnessing the continuing intransigence by both sides in the Mid-East peace process. Indeed in this matter, President Obama’s myopia has gotten the better of him. Israel was not born out of the suffering of the Jewish people from the time of the Holocaust as he so incorrectly alluded at his historic address in Cairo earlier this year. Israel has been the Jewish ancestral homeland since the time of Joshua, several thousand years ago.

Before President Obama can talk peace in the Mid-East (as he is only learning now) there needs to be a unified Palestinian leadership, a denouncement of all terror-related activities against the State of Israel by Palestinians across the board and an acceptance of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Likewise there must be tenable security and a complete freeze on settlement building.

At home, Americans are yet to witness the long-term ill-effects of the massive spending that the Obama Presidency put into effect to arrest the economic crisis of 2008/9 in respect of the stimulus packages. Future generations of Americans are going to be saddled with unprecedented national debt, the likes of which will result in inflationary pressures and more job losses.

The most contentious domestic issue for Americans is the ongoing health care debacle. Obama is trying to deconstruct the very essence of capitalism – the heartbeat of America. By providing healthcare to everyone in the USA at the expense of the taxpayer – like it or not – this goes against the very fabric of the American way. Many Americans – Democrats included – are more than a little uptight about Obama’s drastic moves to ‘right the wrongs’ in society.

But the issue that will put egg on the face of President Obama is one that he would rather not deal with – Iran. Now that the US President is a Nobel Laureate – will that embolden the tyrannical Iranian leadership further? Indeed it seems unlikely that a Peace Prize winner would do anything against an intransigent, terror-sponsoring entity like Iran. If Iran chooses to weaponize its nuclear program, will President Obama have the gumption to unilaterally stand up to the greatest threat the world has ever known?

Mr. President you have erred

2009-04-19T08:05:00.002-05:00

The political background against which the 2008 US Elections took place was hardly a predictable one. (R)Senator John McCain of Arizona, a decorated war veteran and proven leader ran against the relatively unknown (D) Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

One major difference separated these two men: Barack Obama’s charisma and political savvy. Senator John McCain certainly fit the bill to be appointed to the highest office in the world, but he lacked the flair and flamboyance of Senator Barack Obama.

While Obama was able to rattle off the right words as effortlessly as greased lightning, McCain would fumble and stutter – not through his inability for structured thought and strategic leadership, but rather through his incompetence as a public speaker.

Obama wooed voters with his dynamic approach. He made use of the internet, public funds and a huge disillusioned base of Bush-era fatigued voters. The failed war in Iraq – often cited as the legacy of the Bush Presidency, was usurped by the Obama administration for all its worth.

Voters needed a scapegoat and all Bush-era doctrine and foreign policy bore the brunt. It was a case of old-school Republican failures vs. an era of Democratic liberalism and inflated government. Obama promised a rapid de-escalation of the Iraq war effort, a focus on education and clean energy, affordable health care, special attention on minority rights and a total break from the past.

McCain was blindsided by his own campaign. They painted him as the humble, decorated war hero of yesteryear. McCain has been toted as a self-made man, a leader of men and a qualified candidate for the world’s highest office. But McCain failed to offer what it was that the Obama campaign was so successfully promoting – Change.
Americans had long grown tired and distrustful of a war effort that was based on false assumptions. There were no WMD in Iraq. It appeared to the public as if Bush and Cheney were pursuing a personal agenda of the old-school Republican think tank: attack Iraq, destroy its infrastructure and seek to impose democratic governance through unilateral initiatives. Bush was a man of action, not scared to act alone when the world dragged its feet. This proved fatal at some points, especially when America’s actions were deemed illegal and expansionist by parties in the region.

Bush acted on his threats and he cautioned the world against the rising threat of Islamic militancy. The EU and other allies of the United States were war weary and they were reluctant to commit themselves to an unpopular military campaign with no end in sight. Britain, a longtime friend of the United States, withdrew its forces followed by other countries. Owing to global protests against the war efforts, rising costs in civilian and military casualties and the enormous financial burden entailed, the war rhetoric was losing support at a geometric rate.

Against this backdrop of declining support for President Bush – all-time low approval ratings ensued – Barack Obama ascended the ranks of the Democrat Party. He brushed passed Hillary Clinton who ultimately had nothing but praise for the new candidate. Obamania had gripped the world. Barack Obama was simply unstoppable. He spoke of change, of Main Street and not Wall Street, he championed the little man and not the corporate, he spoke effortlessly and plainly of the challenges that Americans face on a daily basis.

Then the Achilles Heel of the Republican campaign struck. The Global Crisis of late 2008. Within a short period of time the housing crisis, mortgages banks, sub-prime lending rates, credit crunch and international insurers and financial/investment houses hit the headlines. It wasn’t good news that was awaiting the world. Massive and widespread layoffs and unemployment ensued; corporate bankruptcies by the dozen, home foreclosures, credit drying up and a crisis of unimaginable proportions gripped the global market. Fear and panic swept like a raging wildfire through the hearts of Americans as first their jobs, then their homes and their families’ livelihoods were at stake.

Obama was elected to the highest office. McCain was relegated to the annals of history as the man who challenged, but was ultimately defeated by President Obama. This was the coup de grace of the Obama camp. McCain and his old school Republican friends were seen as the enemy by the American people. Bush and anyone associated with him was a symbol of failure, of unilateralism, of deceit. The Republicans were seen as pro-corporate and against the average working-class American. Obama promised tax-cuts to 95% of Americans, according to his perception of income brackets. McCain could only cling to Obama’s coattails and offer the American public that he would work alongside Obama in the new presidency.

Obama seized on this crisis and presented what appeared like a workable plan to the American people. This came in the form of a massive and unprecedented bailout. Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds would be used to prop up banks, insurers, automobile manufacturers and investor confidence. The so-called ‘Toxic Assets’ would be bought up by the massive government expenditure and confidence would slowly begin to return to the global market.

Where were all these funds coming from? How did the Obama administration plan to deliver on such promises? With the fear of the Americans and the grand-plan of the Obama administration Congress soon passed a series of stimulus bills that were unheard of in the history of American legislation. A bailout was proposed, which was in excess of $800 billion with well over a trillion dollars ultimately being spent to kick start the American economy.

President Obama knew that by inflating government bureaucracy, awarding contracts and huge budgets to multiple offices across the nation, jobs would be created. What Obama perhaps failed to take into account was the impact that failure of such unprecedented action might have on future generations of Americans. The money had to come from the coffers of the state – from corporates and small businesses. In Obama's defense, the cost of inaction outweighed the potential pitfalls of a failed stimulus package. The tax-payer dollars were being channeled according to the whims of Congressmen and the President. Obama would scold CEOs for being greedy and chastise them for taking profits while the American people were eating humble pie.

But what Obama’s myopia failed to understand was that it was this reality of corporate America that had put America in such a position of dominance in the first place. It was the American capitalism coupled with minimal government involvement in daily life that made the American free market system as successful as it was. The housing bubble had burst and suddenly a quick-fix solution to the unprecedented crisis was being sought. In economics, quick-fix solutions are merely stopgap measures with no strategic timeline. The crisis was fueled by buoyant confidence, which is essentially the perception of people that otherwise drives any stock exchange system.

The Obama camp lay blame squarely on Wall Street and the Bush-era policies that failed to check the activities of these corporations and their accounting practices. Where Bush had failed was in making transparency and accountability more of a priority. But such a series of events could well have occurred under any administration’s watch. Nonetheless Obama seized on this opportunity and promised to clean up house so that Main Street could benefit.

Many Americans feel that President Obama is doing a fine job. They feel that in his first 100 days in office he has achieved the unprecedented. The stimulus package has been passed, moves are afoot to liberalize policies on multiple fronts, the economy is said to be bottoming out. But what President Obama has done is far more than expand the size of the American bureaucracy. He has set in motion a series of foreign policy changes that are likely to change the global political landscape forever.

This is perhaps Obama’s most injudicious political blunder. His desire to be liked and to become a listening partner, not a dictating world power is what has caused the collapse of American dominance. It is crucial to the world at large that America as the beacon of democratic governance, freedom of speech, religion and association maintains its leadership. Exceptionally liberal ideas in Washington are clouding the global waters. This is a dangerous move by the Obama administration and one which is likely to be perceived by America’s enemies as a sign of weakness.

President Obama in his anxiety to break from the Bush administration has allowed the symbolism of America to dramatically weaken. He has personally allowed the image of America to be weakened by his subservience to those he seeks to court. Barring his dubious bowing in front of the Saudi King, his promises to listen and not to dictate terms and his embracing of Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Castro regime, things are looking ominous from a foreign policy perspective.

Obama who was fiery-hot in favour of Israel’s right to stand against terrorism and Islamic extremism is now trying an even-handed approach which is anything but pro-Israel. His advances towards Iran and its tyrannical leadership are perhaps the most incorrigible foreign policy approaches of all. A known anti-Semite in President Ahmedinejad who is also a sworn enemy of democratic systems of western governance, yet Obama is seeking the friendship and compassion of such a villain.

Instead of using the strength of the international community to apply significant pressure on Iran, the Obama administration is seeking to legitimize the fundamentalist Islamist Iranian leadership by airing conciliatory speeches on Iranian television and inviting the Iranians to participate in all matters of global significance. That the Iranians are seeking the annihilation of the State of Israel and to destabilize Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia is of little significance to President Obama. It is his firm belief that negotiation with a terror-sponsoring nation is the way to achieve peace and bolster America’s global image.

At what cost will America sell her soul to be liked by the radical Islamic world? At the cost of American pride, dominance, freedoms, support of Israel and all democratic governance? At the right of Iran to pursue a cataclysmic nuclear weapons program? At the expense of an arms race in the Middle East? The Mid-East envoy George Mitchell has been dispatched to the region and his calls for a 2 state solution to the Israel/Palestinian issue have been voiced.

What Obama fails to recognize is that the Israeli/Palestinian issue is nothing like the issue in Ireland. The Jews will never surrender the State of Israel to anyone, let alone radical Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. That Lebanon is a power cell for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and that Gaza is their proxy being ruled by Hamas, is not lost on Israel. A viable Palestinian state must not possess any entities that are backed by Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. Besides if President Obama is willing to overlook Hamas's prestated intent not to recognize Israel under any conditions whatsoever, then the US is making a grave mistake. Israel will never accede to such suicidal concessions. The Obama administration in its anxiety to effect change is forcing an issue which cannot be forced.

Unfortunately those who don’t feel the heat in the kitchen will have to learn through painful experience that there are some issues that require a hard hand in order for change to be effected. As long as Hamas controls Gaza, as long as Iranian radical Islamists fund Hezbollah and Hamas, there will not be a Palestinian sovereign state. There will not be, not because Obama’s liberalism is willing to turn a blind eye to the realities of fanatical Islamism, but because Israel will not allow it.

President Obama is keen to embrace all of America’s longstanding enemies in Hugo Chavez and his ilk. Chavez, the leftist freedom fighter is a virtual dictator in Venezuela. Coupled with him is the communist enterprise of Cuba under Raul Castro. Add the ever growing list of dictators and human rights abusers across Latin America and one seriously has to ponder what it is that President Obama really stands for. What are the values he espouses, besides flashing a wide-eyed grin at leaders across the table. If it is for freedom, democracy and civil liberties then that message has gone horribly awry in the actions he has personally undertaken and the alliances he is trying to forge.

There can be no negotiations with terrorist-supporting entities or the states which harbor them. And there can certainly be no dialogue with states intent on fast-tracking a deadly nuclear weapons program with the intent of annihilating other states in the region. Furthermore in the America's, there can be no courtship of countries seeking to undermine and destabilize American influence in their region of the world. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba have been doing this by seeking to threaten America with the formation of anti-American powerblocs in the region.

The economic policies of Barack Obama seem to make sense by and large, but his world-perspective is severely myopic and is going to cost America and the entire free world dearly. The only hope is that his policy of widespread appeasement and weakness will not bring forth a terrifying Armageddon scenario.

Gaza Violence

2009-01-02T15:54:00.002-06:00

As world condemnation of Israel's assault on Gaza grows, Iran starts making some noise

The citizens of southern Israel have been under threat of rocket fire from neighboring Gaza for several years already. While most of the projectiles have failed to cause fatalities, they are succeeding as a preferred terrorist weapon.

The aim of the rocket barrages that continue to pummel southern Israel is this: to show Israel that Hamas is determined to sew the seeds of destruction in Israel. The terrorist organization is unperturbed by Israeli firepower. Their strength sprouts from their misguided perception of freedom fighting. The more of their own they bury the greater their support base grows.

Any international observer who believes that Hamas is a fad or not a serious threat to Israel is sorely mistaken. Hamas is a well-structured outfit, funded, trained and supplied by radical Islamists in Syria and Iran. Hamas does not care for the Palestinians - they are merely their cannon fodder to serve the greater agenda - Israel's destruction. As a proxy territory of Iran, Gaza will do Tehran's bidding, much like Hizballah in southern Lebanon.

That Israel has been called to task regarding their targeted bombardment of Hamas terror cells, infrastructures, weapons caches and institutions is a sham. Israel has attempted to target specific entities in Gaza. Contrast this with Hamas' indiscriminate bombing of Israeli towns, cities and other random locations. There is no legitimacy for the Hamas operation. They claim to be fighting for the Palestinians when in fact they are placing them in harm's way by dragging Israel into a war.

Hamas broke the 6 month truce. They shelled Israel and continue to do so. It appears as if Ahmedinejad is itching for a fight and Hamas is just the tonic the doctor ordered. With Hassan Nasrallah in the north readying his fighters and the Muslim Brotherhood stirring up protest rallies in Egypt and elsewhere, the world is teetering on the brink of mayhem.

Israel - at least in the eyes of Arabs and their sympathizers - has no right to react to rocket fire. They should take it on the chin and allow Hamas to continue their pyrotechnics extravaganza. Such thinking is unheard of in any country. The Israeli government has been entrusted with the unenviable task of protecting its citizens from terrorist assaults.

With such an unfriendly neighborhood this task is exceptionally difficult. To date there have been over 400 Palestinians killed and over 2000 wounded. International pressure is mounting against Israel to halt its bombardment of the densely populated Gaza. Rocket launch sites, terror cells and Hamas homes have all been hit hard by a ruthless Israeli air assault into the coastal territory.

The next move appears to be the decision as to whether to invade Gaza or to stay out. With just 3 weeks to go before President-Elect Obama gets sworn in, it's anybody's guess what Israel will do. A land assault will have serious ramifications, what with threats of anti-tank missiles and growing Muslim protests the world over.

Israel has a job on its hands and again it's not on the battlefield but in the media. Is Israel's quest a legitimate one? Can Israel expect sympathy when it has exponentially greater firepower and ability?

These are some hard issues that the Jewish state has to contend with.

The Republican Ticket

2008-09-04T09:33:00.002-05:00

McCain and Palin swing the momentum back in the Republican's corner!

There was doubt; there was criticism. Under the microscope of the Democrats's scrutiny, Sarah Palin came out of nowhere and delivered a knockout blow to the raucous cheers of a full-house of Republican supporters.

To her detractors - they're all biting their tongues after they've finished licking their wounds. Palin knows one thing: how to engage her audience on a personal level. She started her speech cautiously but finished strongly. Her commentary was peppered with scathing attacks on the credibility of Obama - given his lack of leadership and hands-on experience. For her part she pressed the mayoral issue and her governorship of Alaska.

One thing's for certain: Sarah Palin is the pitbull to be feared. She's a family woman; a reformer and a determined individual. She's more than able to hold her own on center stage - an issue that'll prove telling come the unscripted debates between her and Democrat rivals.

The Republicans have fought back hard in their efforts to narrow the 6 percentage point gap between them and the Obama camp. With an estimated 8 percent of voters uncertain and many of them leaning towards Obama, it is going to be a rollicking contest in the next 8 weeks to decide on the next US President.

McCain is certainly the maverick they've tagged him as: this is one strategic decision that seems to be reaping a bountiful harvest for his camp. While the Democrats huddle closely and issue a rebuttal, it's going to be interesting how the major issues are played out between the parties.

For now it's even-Stevens. McCain certainly has more bite with Palin
on his ticket; Obama too is strengthened by Joe Biden, but it's the appeal of Sarah Palin which has stolen their thunder. For now it's all systems go for a Republican surge in popular rankings.

If the speech - which was televised to an estimated 37 million households can sway opinion and cut into Obama's lead, the 'gamble' will have paid off.

It's now a question of less government vs. more government; conservatism vs. liberalism and experience vs. on-the-job training.

President Obama!

2008-07-25T08:09:00.002-05:00

He has done it in grand style - the next US President!!!

There's no more problems with US Party Politics. President Obama has swept to an astonishing election victory in the 2008 race. It's simply phenomenal that he won by such an overwhelming majority.

There were problems in the Barack Obama camp early on - but they were coming from insinuations against them by Republicans. The Democrat Presidential hopeful has the media in a buzz; the world spotlight engulfing his campaign.

Time will tell how Mr. Obama will be tested - especially on his policy towards Israel and the Mid-East.

What is clear is that there is a slither of uncertainty about the Barack Obama persona. Some have claimed that he can't seem to give a straight answer that he doesn't retract or modify at some later point. Some say that he is feverishly trying to defend his faith - while avoiding wanting to be associated in any way with the Islamic faith - although his family has a strong connection to it. Some questioned why would he so vehemently reject linkage to Islam?

It must be known that he is now the vessel of change; of peace between the various religious persuasions.

What is the problem anyway? The problem is not that he has allegiance to any religion - covertly or otherwise, it's perhaps that some felt he was trying to secure the vote by any means necessary. That's politics people are saying, but it is more than that - it borders on chicanery. But they all do it - others say.

Regardless the man has triumphed - kudos to him and to the Democrats.

A job well done, well run and well won!!!

Media Bias

2008-06-13T04:32:00.000-05:00

The picture to the right shows angry Palestinian paramedics hurrying to get wounded people to a hospital. This picture was plastered over the front page of www.iol.co.za - South Africa's premiere news website.

The image is indicative of the type of media bias running rampant in the world in reporting that is blatantly pro-Palestinian. The image not only generates massive viewer sympathy for an apparent aggressive Israeli strike, it allows for the seeds of hatred to germinate.

Before the picture is explained in more detail, it is important to understand what happened on this very day in the south of Israel. Dozens of mortars and rockets pounded Israel (Some 50 or more). In fact the area that militants were targeting was the coastline, knowing full well that thousands of Israelis are enjoying their summer vacation along the coastal strip.

This picture is the result of the deadly shrapnel from a mortar that landed in the south of Israel. A woman was moderately wounded in this terrorist attack. This is the picture that IOL never showed. This is the picture of fear that is in the mind of every Israeli living in the south of Israel. Militant accuracy aside, if these explosives hit their targets - as they did at the Ashkelon mall recently - the damage is catastrophic.

Palestinian terrorists target civilians indiscriminately; Israeli forces target militants precisely. Collateral damage is an unavoidable factor, but the IDF hit/miss ratio is as low as it can be.

The terrorist group Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, blaming Israel for the death of a bomb-maker and his family in Gaza. The truth is the bomb-maker inadvertently detonated his own explosives - killing his family; wounding countless others and leveling his apartment.

And here is the proof

'Gaza blast caused as gunmen prepared for martyrdom op'

By YAAKOV KATZ AND JPOST.COM STAFF

"Hamas's military wing, Izzadin Kassam, said Friday that the previous day's deadly blast in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya was caused by an accident as operatives were "preparing for a special martyrdom operation."

Western Negev comes under heavy rocket barrage

Eight people, including an infant girl, were killed in the powerful explosion, which flattened the home of a Hamas operative.

After Hamas initially blamed Israel for the blast, the IDF immediately said that that was not caused by an Israeli attack but was rather a "work accident," most likely caused by terrorists' faulty handling of explosives.

Rockets began to fly shortly after the blast, with more than 50 mortar shells, Kassam and Katyusha rockets fired into Israel.

An Israeli woman was moderately wounded by shrapnel in an attack on Kibbutz Yad Mordechai shortly after noon and evacuated to Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon. A number of fires broke out following the attack..."

Food for thought...

Can Obama be trusted?

2008-06-05T23:14:00.003-05:00

The words roll off his tongue but the true colors of this Presidential hopeful remain hidden.

Barack Obama - the Democrat Presidential nominee may be a lot of things, but credible he most certainly isn't.

His campaign is peppered with smart talking rhetoric and big ideas, but the bottom line is his true motivation on US Foreign Policy remains unclear.

Recently Obama was seen embracing members of AIPAC in what the Democrats know is a key vote-clincher in their chances of securing the bid for the White House in 2008.

Barack Hussein Obama is constantly defending himself - taking rearguard action - against the vast majority of people who question his past; his affiliations and his religious persuasion.

A key issue is his stance on Israel's security - something the one-time Senator of Illinois and four-time Arizona Senator John McCain are looking to exploit.

Barack Obama has not only cleverly phrased his stance on diplomacy with rogue states; he has made sweeping promises and later had his campaign public spokesmen repudiate such statements soon after.

For example: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," was what Obama said to a crowd of 7000 people at an AIPAC conference. His team later altered that statement which now reads: "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties as part of an agreement that they both can live with..."

This apparent about-turn is what Obama is constantly doing in his election bid - especially regarding the War on Terror; Iran and other sponsors of terrorism. Obama is big on words and even bigger on exploiting American fatigue over an Iraq war effort that is actually a deterrent to a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.

Barack Obama is shrouded in mystery and for that to be the case with the most powerful man on the planet, is totally unacceptable. Senator McCain brings real experience to the table while trying to distance himself from the perceived failures of the Bush administration.

While voters busy themselves with the process of electing a candidate, this campaign is about more than change, it is about a better America with improved security. This is not a gamble; this is a challenge best left to experienced hands.

This is what they say...

2008-05-22T06:03:00.003-05:00

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

The standard assumption is that a military attack by the United States or Israel to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the attackers, and would threaten the stability of the entire Middle East.

Various experts outline doomsday scenarios for such an occurrence, and warn especially of Iran's harsh reaction. Fearing the reaction of the ayatollahs has a paralyzing effect. Even before the first shot has been fired, Iran can credit itself with a success. It created an image of an omnipotent country that will not hesitate to use its power to respond and avenge a military operation against it. This is an impressive psychological achievement.

But a new paper, to be published this month in the U.S. by two well-known experts on the subject, sketches a different and more complex picture. The paper is "The Last Resort," written by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The main point, notes Dr. Clawson in an interview with Haaretz, is that the success or failure of a military attack depends on many variables, and not just the degree of damage the attack would cause.
Advertisement
What are these variables?

The type of weapons chosen for the attack - will nuclear or conventional weapons be used? Who attacks - the U.S. or Israel? Will the attack cause serious collateral damage to the surroundings, that is causing a lot of civilian casualties? Will only the nuclear sites be attacked, or other regime targets? After the attack, will President Ahmadinejad announce Iran's departure from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? If the attack completely destroys Iran's nuclear program that is one thing, but if it does not, that is a different story. Then Iran will be able to continue to develop its nuclear program, and the world will no longer care about that. In short, this is subject that is dependent on many variables.

Nevertheless, what would be deemed a success?

If the attack does destroy the nuclear facilities, and it leads to a broad consensus in Iran that nuclear weapons are dangerous for the future of the regime or the nation. In other words, success or failure is determined by the political result of the military attack. The primary objective of the military option has to be to convince Iran to cease its nuclear program, that it's not worthwhile to continue. Destroying the nuclear facilities is not an end in and of itself; it is merely a means to an end. And therefore it is necessary to create the political conditions that will increase the chances for the success of the attack.

And what will be a possible result of an Israeli attack?

Again, my answer is that it depends. Israel has to create the circumstances in which world public opinion will understand Israel and its motives, even if it regrets the attack.

That's more or less what happened with the attack against the nuclear facility in Syria?

Yes, it is quite similar. Israel benefited from President Assad's hostile attitude to the world, and therefore the international community showed understanding of the Israeli air force's attack. Israel did not have to do much because Assad did the job for it. In this respect, Israel also benefits from Ahmadinejad and his statements. They help Israel present its position to the world and explain the threat it faces.

Do you share the sweeping assessment of most experts that Iran's reaction if attacked will be harsh and painful?

No. Iran's record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed. When the Taliban assumed power in Afghanistan and persecuted the Shi'ite minority there, Iran mobilized military forces on the border and threatened to respond, but in the end it did nothing. The same occurred when the U.S. shot down an Iranian passenger airline in 1988: Iran threatened to avenge the incident, but in the end the exact opposite happened. Not only did Iran not respond, but also the incident hastened its decision to agree to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq for fear that the U.S. was about to join the war on Saddam Hussein's side.

In another incident during the war, Iranian boats attacked an American naval force that set out to mine the Gulf. The U.S. did not expect Iran to react, and was surprised. This did not stop it from sinking half of the Iranian fleet in response.

Iran has lately been threatening that if it is attacked it will close the Straits of Hormuz and block the flow of oil, and thereby damage the world economy. But this is a problematic threat, since it would also affect Iran's friends and supporters, such as China and India. I have no doubt that in such a case, they would be angry at Iran.

But most experts estimate that in the event of an Israeli attack, the Iranians will respond with force and launch Shihab missiles at Israel.

It is possible, but first, the Shihab missiles are not considered particularly reliable. Iran deploys them without having done hardly any significant tests. Second, the Shihab's guidance system is not very accurate. The missile's range of accuracy is up to a kilometer. And finally, Israel's aerial defense system - the Arrow missiles would certainly intercept quite a few Shihab missiles. Moreover, Iran's firing missiles at Israel would enable Israel to respond in a decisive manner.

And what about Hezbollah? They will certainly mobilize to help Iran and respond against Israel.

There is no guarantee that Hezbollah will react automatically. They will make their considerations on the basis of their interests, as they understand them. In Hezbollah, they are very aware of Israel's strength, and of the harsh reaction that may result if Hezbollah attacks.

In other words, you're basically saying that things are not as they seem? That Iran is like a dog whose bark is worse than his bite?

There's something to that. My assessment is that contrary to the impression that has been formed, Iran's options for responding are limited and weak.

And this is what I say...

First off it's interesting to read the theoretical hypotheses of those working in the strategic military institutes.

There are several factors to consider that have not been pointed out in this argument:

Never before has President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iranian leadership been less concerned about world opinion vis-a-vis his nuclear proliferation strategy

Never before has Iran been the most powerful military force in the Middle East

Never before has Iran been in a more favorable military position - given American and world fatigue for Middle East wars (following from several years of bloodshed and thousands of casualties in Iraq)

Never before has Iran faced the prospect of an ultra-liberal American President - the likes of which (assuming Barack Obama wins) is more likely to favor appeasement than military action

Never before has Iran commanded so much power in the Middle East in its aggression and rhetoric against Israel. This can be seen with continuing support and training for Hamas operatives and other militants in Gaza; financial support for families of suicide bombers and weapons and financing for Hizballah in Lebanon.

Never before has Iran had access to Nuclear weapons-grade material

Now, things are a little different.

Iran has been estimated to have nuclear-ready bomb material within 1-3 years.

Iranian leadership has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map.

Iranian leadership flatly denies or at best questions the accuracy of Holocaust reports.

Iranian leadership likened Israel to a rotting corpse (on the eve of Israel's 60th birthday) and promised that it would die.

Iran has been conducting large-scale military operations across it's vast expanses. Huge displays of its military might were made public.

Iran purchased the latest anti-aircraft defense systems from Russia to guard its Nuclear Facility from an enemy attack.

Iran is working feverishly - against UN & IAEA recommendations in fast-tracking its nuclear program.

Iran is looking to purchase ICBMs that are capable of avoiding detection by radar and satellites. Add this fact to the likelihood of potential nuclear warheads and it becomes clear that Iran is intent on striking first and wreaking absolute havoc - so much so that its enemies would be unable to respond.

Iran has defied every single UN resolution requesting it to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Iran does not need nuclear power - it has one of the world's largest supplies of petroleum.

Iran recently apprehended British sailors in international waters and held the world to ransom with their demands that Britain apologize for the supposed incursion.

Given the facts, and we must take history into account, the situation is indeed grave.

President George W. Bush is fast coming to the end of his term. A likely successor in Barack Obama will initially prove too soft to Iran - given Obama's severe short-sightedness in foreign affairs. Barack Obama has one slogan - Change - but that counts for precious little if the change is going to tilt the balance of power in the world in favour of radical Islamic states.

As potential leader of the free world, it is not only Obama's world duty to protect and to preserve the principles of justice and democracy - it is his duty to enforce them. Diplomacy with terrorist states is appeasement. Barack Obama is too self-absorbed in fancy ego-aggrandizement to take criticism of his ill-informed; misguided world politics. What the world demands of America is RealPolitik.

If however John McCain assumes the Presidency then President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iran's military dictatorship will face severe recriminations from a powerful Western democracy and its allies.

Either way a US congress of Republicans and Democrats - regardless of who the President is - will not allow a rogue Iran - armed with Nuclear warheads - to threaten the security of the world.

The European Union is exerting tremendous political and economic pressure on Iran to end its enrichment objectives. This has had a minimal effect. Iran has been ratcheting up its anti-Israel slander with increasing alacrity.

This poses the question: will military action incur severe reprisals by Iran?

The short answer - yes.

Whether it is Israel that surprises Iran or a western coalition, Israel will in all likelihood suffer a barrage of missile strikes - the likes of which will make the 2006 2nd Lebanon War look like a walk in the park.

This means that it is necessary to exert maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran. The country needs to be completely isolated from other nations. It needs to feel the isolation. This can be done through a strong multilateral initiative comprising Russia; China; EU; USA; Canada and Australasia. In the face of such sanctions, Iran may consider - being rational - halting enrichment.

If however international pressure is unable to end enrichment in Iran within a short time, then military action must come to pass. There simply is no alternative. The world cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran to threaten another state with extinction. The world cannot allow the leading sponsor of terror to be armed with nuclear weapons.

The world must act and sacrifices will have to be made - it is inevitable that sacrifices will have to be made - but the alternative of inaction will yield grave consequences.

The new Israel with the problems of old

2008-05-20T00:58:00.003-05:00

The State of Israel has come under immense scrutiny since its inception in 1948. However in spite of these difficulties - 7 wars and 7 victories - Israel stands firm. The threat of war hangs over Israel at every juncture; peace is as fragile a concept as always - yet the Israeli people stand firm. At a time where Israel's enemies are planning the ultimate affront - in nuclear war - Israel has a duty to remain strong.

An article written in www.theherald.co.za recently captures the essence of Israel's existence; its desire to live in peace the challenges confronting the Jewish State.

60 years after founding, no peace for Israel

SIXTY years after the declaration of independence as a sovereign Jewish state on May 14, 1948, Israel has not yet found peace (shalom).

Judaism is twice as old as Christianity and three times older than Islam – yet there are 82 Christian countries, 56 Muslim countries and only one Jewish state.

A country which is smaller than the Kruger National Park – less than one quarter of one per cent of the land mass of the Arab world – Israel is the only place on earth where Jews have formed the majority, the only place where they have been able to rule themselves and defend themselves, the only place where they have been able to do what every other people takes for granted – to live as a nation, sharing its own destiny and creating a society according to its own values.

Only in Israel can the Jew speak the Jewish language, live by the Jewish calendar, walk where their ancestors walked and continue the story they began. Yet still it has to fight for the right to exist.

So often the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is portrayed as a zero sum game in which one side wins and the other side loses. But from violence both sides lose, from peace both sides gain.

What matters, therefore, is that all involved work for peace, a peace that allows Israel and the Palestinians to live in dignity and freedom without fear, a peace in which each makes space for the other, a peace in which the children of Abraham – Jews, Christians and Arabs – live together as brothers and sisters, part of the same extended family, a peace that heals the wounds of the past – for the sake of generations not yet born.

Israel is the country whose national anthem, Hatikvah, means “hope”. Israel is the home of hope and on the occasion of its 60th anniversary it is fitting that the people of God will express that hope by praying for peace in the Holy Land.

David Abel, co-chairperson, Support Association for Zionism, George

What really happened

2008-05-20T00:37:00.003-05:00

Israeli bombing of suspected Syrian nuclear reactor spreads fear throughout the Middle East

The September 2007 precision strike, by the IAF, against a suspected Syrian nuclear site has stirred up a hornets nest.

The Israeli Air Force, guided by operatives on the ground, deep within Syrian territory smashed a suspected nuclear facility.

For several months both Israel and Syria were mum on the incident. Both have their reasons. Israel not eager to make public it’s illegal air raid across sovereign territory and Syria not willing to disclose the likelihood that it is conducting a covert nuclear operation.

Syrian admittance of a nuclear operation would arouse instant condemnation from the IAEA under M. El Baradei. Further economic sanctions – the likes of which Iran is being heavily subjected to – would certainly follow.

Israel is keen to downplay the incident amidst growing discontentment from the Palestinians in their fractured two-state (Gaza and the West Bank) and their frail leadership; rising tensions with Hezbollah and of course the Syrians.

The use of force against suspected nuclear targets is frowned upon. The international community is eager to desist unilateral initiatives in favour of agreed upon diplomatic; political and economic sanctions.

Of course the only point agreed upon by members within the Security Council is their disagreement. Thus the organ of international peacekeeping is akin to a toothless tiger when the opinions of its members result in moribund resolutions.

Israel is unwilling to accept an enemy neighbour armed with nuclear capability. Thus the rapid dismembering of Syria’s capability was paramount. A larger threat, to the Israelis and the world at large, appears to be Iran.

That American security reports found no evidence corroborating nuclear proliferation in Iran, the Iranians have publicly announced, on multiple occasions, their desire for the rapid development of uranium enrichment.

This does not bode well for the teetering world order. With the Mid-East as a potential hotbed for a nuclear arms race, countries are aligning themselves with either side. Moderate Arab states are reluctant to criticize Iran, for fear of arousing the wrath of sympathizers. The delicate situation requires global unity to apply sufficient pressure to bring closure to the matter.

Israel meanwhile sits with its ears to the ground. The drums of war are beginning to sound in the distance.

The Syrian position

2008-05-20T00:36:00.001-05:00

Top-level envoy describes the unlikelihood of a break in the strategic alliance between Iran; Hezbollah and Syria.

Ongoing negotiations between Syria and Israel via the Turkish intermediary have given hope to renewed peace efforts between the enemy states. Syria demands that the Golan Heights – a strategic area for both Israel and Syria that was captured by Israel in 1967 – be returned as a prerequisite for peace talks.

President Assad has expressed his desire to continue in peace negotiations provided that the Golan Heights are returned. His Israeli counterpart – Ehud Olmert – has some preconditions himself.

In order for Israel to be content with returning the Golan Heights to Syria, it is necessary – according to Israeli officials – that Syria cut ties with the terror-sponsors. These include Hezbollah and Iran.

Recently a high-level advisor to the Syrian regime made it clear that Syria is unlikely to detach itself from Iran or Hezbollah for the sake of peace with Israel. This places the opportunity for peace in a precarious predicament.

Without a guarantee that Syria will desist in enemy activities, handing over the Golan Heights will simply allow enemies of the State of Israel to camp out on Israel’s doorstep. Such a solution is hardly attractive to Israel.

The leftists in the Knesset may feel that a conciliatory gesture such as handing back the Golan Heights may be viewed positively by the outside world. If the Syrians then continue to allow weapons to pass from Iran into southern Lebanon it will again be up to Israel to prove such actions are being undertaken. This results in a zero-sum for Israel. They will have lost face and land in the interests of a peace that was barely worth the paper it was scribbled on.

The problem it seems comes to down to Iran. As the major antagonist in the region, it is Iran that pulls the strings with Syria; Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran may be fighting a proxy war against Israel now, but international pressure may yet put an end to such bullying tactics in the near future.

Looking back

2008-05-20T00:32:00.001-05:00

Thou shalt ne’er forget

Holocaust Memorial Day marks the 63rd anniversary of one of the greatest crimes ever committed against humanity.

Nazi occupation of much of Europe from 1941 onwards resulted in the widespread deportation of European Jewry to ghettos and concentration camps across Poland and Germany, among others.

That close to 300 000 Jews were able to leave Germany and Austria between 1933 and 1939 allowed for an even greater tragedy to be averted. The countless millions who perished were often taken by complete surprise at the hands of Einzatzgruppen – Nazi mobile killing units – while the Nazis plundered one country after another.

The Jews were being systematically slaughtered and removed from every sector of society, until nothing more than a homeless, faceless, wandering soul remained – awaiting deportation to death chambers or slave labor camps. The vehement anti-Jew propaganda, perpetrated by Goebels’ mastery of the genre, resulted in a German society that was complacent and accepting of the miserable fate of the Jews.

Following the horrific pogroms of Kristalnacht on November 9 and 10 1938, masses of Jews were rounded up and sent to camps. Jewish businesses; synagogues and homes were ransacked and plundered, while the German populace stood by and did nothing. The world – informed by various emissaries; diplomats; correspondents and public officials likewise witnessed the horrors of that night.

While Britain and the USA allowed for greater Jewish emigration, their tolerance was being severely tested by stringent immigration laws and intolerance toward large Jewish influxes. After war was declared, Germany’s borders were sealed and so too was the fate of European Jewry. What few could escape to Palestine; Britain and China did, but they represented a pittance of the estimated 9 million stuck in Europe.

Adolph Hitler and his henchmen were eager to rid the world of the Jew. Goering – a former asylum patient – was given the go-ahead to expedite Jewish movement out of Germany. When this was taking too long, deportations to camps became the order of the day. German annexation of foreign territory resulted in their acquisition of large numbers of Jews to add to their extermination lists.

That the Germans were accurate and precise with their lists; documents and records was proof enough to corroborate the unbelievable; the unthinkable horrors that were to follow. German admission of such atrocities flies in the face of Holocaust denial. That a society was complacent while their fellow Germans were being slaughtered baffles the mind; that a supposedly advanced and civilized people were capable of such barbarism defies logic. That a cultured and educated people could resort to such vitriol smacks of bigotry of the highest order.

By doing nothing all are guilty; by failing to stand up to such inhumanity all bare responsibility. Thus while the Allies trumpeted their victory over Nazism; what was Nazism was merely a thinly veiled guise for all of Germany of yesteryear. A few brave men and women stood up to the iniquitous regime, often to their own detriment. It is to these heroes that the world owes an incredible debt of gratitude.

To them we say: we salute you. To the rest, there is no fate worse than having to live with an uneasy conscience. The true horrors of that time will never be forgotten and as such they will never be repeated.

Cautiously celebratory

2008-05-20T00:29:00.000-05:00

The music plays; the parties continue. Sixty years later and the State of Israel has much to celebrate.

Iran wins round after round

2008-05-20T00:25:00.001-05:00

Islamic Republic has the world by the short and curly

President Ahmadinejad has once again raised the ire of the West and once again the threat of sanctions and incentives are at the negotiating table.

It appears that the world’s leaders are intent on finding a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear proliferation attempts. These measures are comprised of harsh economic sanctions; diplomatic pressure and political isolation. But if Iran complies - and this is the bizarre part - it will reap windfall gains. Smacks of appeasement - that's because it is.

Best case scenario - Iran complies by temporarily suspending enrichment – it appears that the world is willing to shower the Islamic Republic of Iran with praise and gifts alike. But the Iranians are having none of it. Why one may ask? The reason is clear: they are so close to completion that they can smell it. A nuclear-armed Iran has infinitely more leverage than an Iran attempting to gain nuclear potential.

Iran is a nation built on tremendous wealth. That wealth from its vast petroleum supplies has helped precious little in alleviating the growing poverty of the Iranian people. Why then has a nation with an abundance of natural resources failed to capitalize on it’s wealth? Naturally isolation; war; corruption and mismanagement have resulted in Iranians living below their potential. But it is the nature of the regime - one that is repressive - that stifles growth and maintains misery.

This complex question requires more than mere prodding. Suffice it to say the Iranian hard-line president has chosen to anger the west in an attempt to divert growing internal tensions. Naturally a scapegoat is ideal in such situations and that is Israel. Jew-haters know this line all too well. It works every time - but Israel has absolutely nothing to do with Iran's survival yet Iran has everything to do with Israel's survival/demise.

According to Iranian spin doctors: Israel is America’s representative in the Middle East. Israel has an aggressive, expansionist programme intent on colonizing the region and bringing suffering to the Arab people. For the majority of different populations of the region this propaganda is largely accepted.

Why is this so? It is simple: an entity that is democratic (despite protestations to the contrary); Judaic and western in culture is a natural affront to the largely Islamic; conservative culture existing in the region. Many of the regimes in the Arab world are long standing. These include families and kingdoms that have been around for generations. This style of governance would be severely hamstrung if democratic ideals were embraced.

Therefore the reluctance to accept Israel as a neighbour is more of a rejection of democracy than anything else. The people are used to being ruled by blood and iron. Women are subservient to men and religion is the way in which people must live their lives. A democratic society that embraces secular society is an abomination to Arab countries. A democratic Jewish society is even more disquieting.

Therefore Iran continues to provoke Israel – in so doing it tries to garner Arab support - so that it can boast a place in the greater scheme of things. Why threaten Israel? Simply because its easy to do so. It unites the dissenters in the region and it provides a militant leadership with the perfect enemy - one that has been made the scape goat since time immemorial.

Iran’s rhetoric has more ominous overtones. A mad man simply doesn’t build a nuclear weapon if he doesn’t intend to use the weapon should he wish to threaten others or feel threatened himself.

Israeli Presidential Conference

2008-05-20T00:17:00.003-05:00

Israel President and former Prime Minister, Shimon Peres - an internationally renowned icon of wisdom, fortitude and idealism, championed the 60th anniversary of Israel's existence. Among the many decorated guests; analysts; nobel laureates and world leaders were a capacity crowd of future leaders; inventors; investors and political strategists. The star of the show however, besides for Peres, was outgoing American President and staunch Israel ally - President George W. Bush.

President George W. Bush made an historic entrance to the ICC in Jerusalem to mark Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations. The American President - the leader of the free world - was honored with a thunderous standing ovation that overshadowed that of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. President Bush pledged unwavering American support for Israel in the face of the existential threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program. Indeed Bush's comments that Israel is not merely a nation of 7 million free people fighting terror, but a nation of 307 million free people fighting terror rang out in the Knesset when Bush spoke on Thursday afternoon.

In addition to the most powerful leader of the free world, his envoys and emmissaries littered the conference. Special mention must be made of Dennis Ross, the MidEast peace envoy, who chaired the proceedings. Ross pointed to the technological advancements in Israel that are completely out of proportion, both to the country's size and lack of mineral and natural resources. Panelists pointed to the abundance of Human Capital available in Israel. As industry giant Warren Buffet stated "Always bet on Brains" when refering to Israel's intellectual genius.

Other significant personalities at the conference included: Google Co-Founder(Sergy Brin); Media and Internet Mogul (Rupert Murdoch); Yahoo President (Susan Decker) and Former Warner Bros. President and Yahoo President - Terry Semel, among countless others. Celebrities and Presidents from Jon Voight to the President of Albania were among the star-studded event. Henry Kissinger lent wisdom while delegates spoke of Israel's past and future challenges within the ambit of a successful and solid 60 years of existence.

Top Leaders Pledge Unity

2008-05-20T00:17:00.002-05:00

The Israeli Presidential Conference hosted by eminent world leader, Shimon Peres, was a resounding success.

The octogenarian showed no sign of slowing down as his desire to see the State of Israel securely placed among the developed nations of the world.

President Peres, flanked by President George Bush; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Barak was clearly reveling from the fantastic opportunities provided for Israeli unity.

An audience comprised of some of the most respected industry leaders; politicians and business people packed the auditorium as speaker after speaker commmanded the utmost respect.

Had it not been for people like Rupert Murdoch; Surgey Brin; Dennis Ross and Henry Kissinger the conference may not have been so impressive. But it was a resounding success owing to the committment of so many to the State of Israel.

While the notable exception of Arab delegates was apparent, it must nonetheless be noted that there were leaders from all part of the world - Africa; Eastern and Western Europe; North America and beyond. The global affiliation commmemorating Israe's 60 years as a State was marked by commitment and confidence.

There are challenges - great challenges; there are existential threats, but there is an iron will that is as resolute as the spirit free men not relinquish that most sacred value.

Notables at Presidential Conference

2008-05-20T00:16:00.003-05:00

In descending order the list of notables include the following:

Eli Wiesel, Author of 40 books; Nobel Laureate and Holocaust Survivor
Mayor of Haifa - Yona Yahav

Ra'anan Gissin (Reserve Colonel in IDF (Phd); Strategic Analyst and Advisor to Ariel Sharon. Currently involved in Media and Public Affairs)
Dennis Ross: US Mideast Peace Envoy and government advisor

Henry Kissinger Leading Statesman and former Secretary of State

SA Jewry comes under attack

2008-05-20T00:15:00.001-05:00

The relative calm enjoyed by Jews in South Africa is slowly but surely coming to an end as marked by increasingly virulent anti-Israel sentiment; brewing Antisemitism and a government and media that is unwilling and unable to combat this prejudicial scourge upon the Jewish People. In the following link - supplied by Supernatural.blogs.com, Anti-Semitism in all its tardiness and grotesqueness is displayed. These are the reactions of pro-Palestinian supporters at a leading South African university - the University of the Witwatersrand - to Israel's historic 60th birthday celebrations.

It must be borne in mind that there has been a paradigm shift in South African political affiliation in regards to the Mideast crisis. While the apartheid government saw fit to identify itself more with Israel - despite the fact that Antisemitism was rampant within National Party circles, the ANC has gone the other way. The absurdity of NP politics and the apartheid regime - a miserable, repressive dictatorship of sinister proportions was that none of their founding members were even steadfast adherents of their vile creed. The ideologues of apartheid in Verwoerd and Malan and their ilk was lost on that generation. For none of their successors had the courage of their convictions to continue in their acerbic; irascible manner. Indeed the days of prejudice and intolerance within the NP were over. Like rats scurrying from a sinking ship, one Afrikaner after another abandoned the NP and joined ranks with the monolithic ANC - hoping not only to secure some waning influence, but more importantly to serve their selfish financial interests.

This begs the question: where are these ideologues today? Where are the hardcore Afrikaners who desperately fought to ensure the survival of their culture; their traditions and way of life? Where is the inimitable Boer - a champion on the frontiers of an African land. The Boer is gone. He is a shadow of himself; lost in the transition; faded and jaded as he limps between places today. The Boer of old is a broken man hiding behind the excuse of a united nation. His fears have silenced him; his spirit sunken and his assimilation complete. A pocket of them stubbornly resist the change but it is these fools, stalwarts of the past, that make a mockery of a once proud people. And as the rapid, widespread changes take root, it is not only the Boer that has become entrenched in yesteryear. It is now the African foreigners who are subjected to daily pogroms of vile, putrefying hatred. Xenophobia - the likes of which are sweeping across the pages of the world media is as savage as it can get. Innocent men, women and children are having their families torn apart by sheer carnage, savagery and inhuman conduct. Murders; brutal attacks and broken glass - that's what many refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are facing today. Wave after wave of vicious onslaughts continue to plunder these defenseless people. Indeed history is repeating itself and one has to look no further than Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany to understand the parallels. Again the official silence is disquieting.

Now as Jews mark the 60th anniversary of Israel's Statehood, pro-Palestinian radicals have the shameless audacity and criminal voracity to spew their ill-informed hate-filled rhetoric all over this once prestigious University Campus. Their misguided tripe; replete with Jew-hatred is all pervasive. That the shift in political circles in favour of the Palestinians has been firmly entrenched only serves to strengthen the argument of Jew-haters the country over. Now the transformation is complete - the democratic Jewish state - Israel - has been tarred with the brush of apartheid; likened to Nazi Germany and been accused of crimes against humanity. Does such misguided vilification deserve a response: most certainly. The enemy of peace is radical Islam. The light is Israel. Whomsoever dares to challenge the autonomy; independence and right of Israel to exist does so at their own peril. The house of Judah has stood the test of time and the right of the people of Israel to live in peace, within secure borders, with friendly neighbours alongside an independent Palestine is undeniable.

The wanton violence in South Africa has claimed countless lives. It is not only minorities whose lives are being threatened, it is anybody and everybody. South Africa needs a champion of justice. It needs leadership capable of stemming the tide of societal decay. From over 120 000 Jews barely a decade ago, the Jewish community now stands around 65 000. Official statistics cite an increasing number of people emigrating - predominantly whites - statistics show in the region of 20% having already left the country. This trend cannot continue, not if South Africa wants to remain a competitive and viable destination for multi-national investment and tourism.

Click on HATRED for shocking graphic material

Angela Merkel pledges support

2008-03-21T04:36:00.000-05:00

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has arrived in Israel to a thunderous reception. Amidst speculation over the continued efforts at Uranium enrichment by Iran, Merkel has pledged total German commitment to reaching a multilateral initiative aimed at halting Iranian nuclear ambitions.

This initiative, although welcomed by Israel, is proving to be a diplomatic nightmare for Israel-aligned states. The Iranians are in a position of immense political power. Theirs is a regime powered by massive petroleum revenues; a fundamentalist anti-western regime whose democratically-elected President is hell-bent on Israel's destruction. As a result of this stance, it is exceedingly difficult to resolve the tensions.

President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is seen as a hero to his people and although Iran is not an Arab state, it is seen as the only defiant regime to counter the purported Western imperialism in the region. Since the end of the 1970s Iran has moved to abolish the secular state system. It is now a fully-functioning Islamic republic. As such, the tolerance for other religious denominations is limited at best.

The existence of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East is a thorn in the side of extremists in the region. Whether Israel poses a threat to Muslim interests is overshadowed by a calculated game of duplicity and alignment among various power blocs. American interests are being countered by Russian and Chinese interests.

As the German Chancellor embarks on yet another mission of support to Israel, the world waits with baited breath for a diplomatic solution to a massive threat.