SOCIAL MEDIA GIANTS INCITE TO JIHAD: Christians, Jews & Others – Raise Your Voices! “First They Came For The Jews” Is More Than A Saying. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

(“We salute the Facebook Jihad, Twitter Jihad and Whatsapp Jihad.”)

BEFORE we proceed, let’s set some basic parameters and clear boundaries: This site will not tolerate any conflation between the all important underpinning of civilized nations, freedom of speech/expression, with the ‘right’ of others to incite to genocide via this same freedom. Dangerous, dangerous immoral inversion.

INDEED, as most rational folks internalize, civilized societies adhere to limits. In fact, NO ethical, moral or legal bases exist which underlie ‘equal’ rights and protections for those who incite to genocide, in juxtaposition to those who rightfully speak out against said inciters to genocidal jihad! Yes, to accede as much is to agree to live in a topsy turvy universe.

NOT only that, a concomitant rallying cry to destroy another nation should be an ethical, moral and legal boundary, one which should never to be crossed by civilized individuals. A slippery slope. More pointedly, what about political leaders and the so-called  ‘fourth estate’ – including social media giants – who hide under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression and act in the service of radical revolutionary political agendas and ideological sympathies?

EFFECTIVELY, unless one is living in Orwell’s universe, whereby there is no diff between good and evil; whereby killers and victims are ‘equals’; whereby the ‘norm’ is an immoral equivalence across the board, then, and only then, the same freedom of speech/expression should be granted to inciters of genocide and those who are its victims.

ALAS, this site has made itself abundantly clear vis-a-vis the above. Still yet, before we segue to the crimes – yes, they are crimes – relative to social media giants, it is imperative to hear from one who is deemed an expert among experts by many esteemed professionals; international law Professor Louis Rene Beres. Mind you, he is this investigative journalist’s mentor in the legal arena, as documented here.

SO among a HUGE compendium of professional work,  the following is gleaned via his documented footnotes, specifically, # 2: ‘Genocide, Death and Anxiety: A Jurisprudential/Psychiatric Analysis‘ –   

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature, December 9, 1948, entered into force, January 12, 1951, 78 U.N.T.S. 277. Although the criminalizing aspect of inter­national law that proscribes genocide‑like conduct may derive from a source other than the Gen­ocide Convention (i.e. it may emerge from customary international law and be included in different international conventions), such conduct is dearly a crime under international law. Even where the conduct in question does not affect the interests of more than one state, it becomes an inter­national crime whenever it constitutes an offense against the world community delicto ius gentium. See M.C. Bassiouni, International Criminal Law: A Draft International Criminal Code 30‑44 (1980). See also Bassiouni, “The Penal Characteristics of Conventional International Criminal Law,” 15 Case W. Res. J. Int’l 27‑37 (1983).

IN this regard, social media giants – with the leader of the pack being Facebook, followed by Twitter, Whatsapp and Youtube – are ‘guilty as charged’, even though appearing to be untouchable.


Still more victimization of Jews in France. Will French authorities act? Or will they continue to cower in fear before predatory Leftists and Islamic supremacists?

“Facebook Page Publishing Identities of French Jews to Encourage Attackers; 15 Men Assault a Jew in Paris Suburb After Confirming Photo,” by by Joshua Levitt, Algemeiner, July 25, 2014:

A violent mob of  more than a dozen men in France assaulted a Jew at his home in a Paris suburb after confirming that his photograph had been published by a French Facebook page identifying Jews to be targeted for physical intimidation, The Union of Jewish Students of France, the UEJF, said in a statement on Friday.

The Facebook page, ‘Jeunes Révolutionnaires Français’, JRF, or ‘Young French Revolutionaries’,posted the names and photos of 32 Jews. The assault on one of those listed took place on Thursday night in Bobigny, Seine-Saint-Denis, a Paris suburb. The assailants were armed with iron bars.

On the ‘Secret Tel Aviv’ Facebook page, Daniel Cohen called the group anti-Semitic, and exhorted Facebook users to report the JRF page to site administrators for removal.

On Facebook, Cohen wrote, “An anti-Semitic page is publishing names and pictures of French Jews in order to target them physically! A few have already been attacked at their homes, one last night by 15 people on one Jewish guy. We need to remove this page!”

The JRF captioned its page with the photos of the Jews to be targeted, “Smile, you’re caught! JRF watches! # AntiLDJ,” referring to the LDJ, the French initials of the Jewish Defense League, an organization created to teach Jews how to defend themselves from anti-Semitic attacks.

The title page of the group’s Facebook presence features a large Palestinian flag and calls for members to attend a rally on Saturday in connection with the international Al Quds Day protests around the world where police are preparing for violence against Jews.

The UEJF condemned the page and provided testimony from the assaulted Jew in Bobigny, according to France’s Le Monde Juif, or The Jewish World on Friday.

The UEJF said three men went to the victim’s house and asked him, “Are you the guy in the photo on Facebook?”

They then said they were there to “break the Jew” and do to him “the same as Ilan Halimi,” a 23-year-old who was kidnapped and tortured for 24 days by a gang led by Youssouf Fofana,described by The Jewish Chronicle as, “the extraordinarily cruel, Paris-born fifth of seven children of immigrants from the Ivory Coast.”

Halimi was found naked, handcuffed and bound to a tree near a railway station in February, 2006, and his body had been mutilated. Still alive, he died on the way to hospital. Halimi’s murder was made into a movie by French Jewish film director Alexandre Arcady entitled, 24 jours: la vérité sur l’affaire Ilan Halimi, or “24 Days: The Truth About the Ilan Hamili Affair,” inspired by a book with a similar title written by the victim’s mother, Ruth.

In Bobigny, after they confirmed him to be the Jew in the photo, the three men werejoined by 15 more, armed with iron bars, who assaulted the victim, the UEJF said. When another resident in the building appeared, the men fled the scene.

The UEJF said: “For several days, many Facebook pages have been created to encourage physical violence against young Jews. Photos were published, with the identities, phone numbers, and contact information. This young man was directly affected by such a Facebook page. It is unacceptable that the Jews are the target of Facebook calls to murder.”

The UEJF said it will file a complaint against the administrators of the Facebook page for incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence.

In the French media, the LDJ has been blamed for calling for a strong reaction by Jews threatened with violence over the past two weeks since Israel began its Operation Protective Edge to stop Hamas’s rocket fire from Gaza.

But Roger Cukierman, president of the CRIF, the umbrella organization representing the Jewish community in France, told The Daily Beast on Friday that was not instigating further violence, and those accusations were beside the point.

“I am shocked when I hear journalists saying if the De La Roquette synagogue was attacked, it is because of the Jews,” Cukierman told The Daily Beast. “This is propaganda.”

“We had eight synagogues being attacked,” he said. “I am worried about the fact that synagogues are being attacked and not worried about these self-defense groups.”

AND as added back-up to the bloody effects of Arab/Muslim militant jihad, its blow back, look no further: ‘Israel On Fire: Arab Israelis (‘Palestinians’) Wage Militant Jihad Against Jews. What’s To Be Done?’

PARADOXICALLY, it is due to their gargantuan sizes that they have a concomitant responsibility to rein in jiihadi incitement at their platforms. On the other hand, it is this same bigness which renders them seemingly immune to accountability. Not so fast.

AS many have already become aware, an Israeli ‘legal eagle’, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, a ‘rock star’ in Zionist circles – as well as respected by her peers for her ability to hold countless feet to the fire in a worldwide arena – has filed a class action lawsuit against Facebook, and 20,000 Israelis have signed on as plaintiffs. You go girl!!

Twenty thousand Israelis have brought a class-action lawsuit against Facebook in New York requiring the social media giant to immediately remove all Palestinian Facebook posts inciting attacks against Jews.

The plaintiffs allege that Facebook has failed in its “legal and moral” obligation to monitor and remove Facebooks posts — including videos and cartoons — inciting hatred towards Jews and calling for deadly attacks against Israelis.

Haaretz reports that the suit, filed late on Sunday in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn by 20,000 Israelis, with the Israeli-American Richard Lankin as lead plaintif, argues that Facebook’s refusal to stop the flood of incitement to violence and murder on its online platform is endangering the lives of Israelis.

According to the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center in a news release issued on Monday, Facebook posts calling for Palestinians to attack Jews are inspiring deadly attacks against innocent Israeli civilians. Social media posts calling on Palestinians to stage attacks against Israelis are “spurring on the terrorist attacks against Israelis in the past month,” the suit claims.

While acknowledging the “need to keep the web free,” the suit argues that being a publicly traded company that “wields tremendous power,” Facebook has the responsibility to act to stop extremists using its online platform to incite others criminal acts. 

According to the complaint, despite the fact that Facebook employs sophisticated algorithm that is able to “monitor and block postings by extremists and terrorists urging violence,” Facebook has allowed its platform to be used to “connect inciters to terrorists… to perpetrate stabbings and other… attacks against Israelis.”

“Facebook’s algorithms and platform connects inciters to terrorists who are further encouraged to perpetrate stabbings and other violence attacks against Israelis.”

The suit alleges that many Palestinian attackers “were motivated to commit their heinous crimes by incitement to murder they read on Facebook — demagogues and leaders exhorting their followers to ‘slaughter the Jews,’ and offering instruction as to the best manner to do so, including even anatomical charts showing the best places to stab a human being.”

Challenging past precedent that protects Internet services from liability for third party posts, the complaint argues that Facebook has a “legal and moral obligation” to monitor and delete content that contains incitement to murder because its social media platform is “far from a neutral or passive social media platform and cannot claim it is a mere bulletin board for other parties’ postings.”

Masked Palestinian Youths
Masked Palestinian Youths Armed With Slingshots (Photo By Pacific Press/Getty Images)

The 20,000 Israeli plaintiffs are seeking an injunction requiring Facebook to “immediately remove all pages, groups and posts containing incitement to murder Jews; to actively monitor its website for such incitement that all incitement is immediately removed prior to being disseminated to masses of terrorists and would-be terrorists; and to cease serving as matchmaker between terrorists, terrorist organizations, and those who incite others to commit terrorism.”

The suit is not seeking monetary compensation for damages, although the lead plaintiff, 76-year-old Richard Lankin, remains in a critical condition in a Jerusalem hospital following an attack in which he suffered multiple knife wounds and a gunshot wound to the head.

The attack against commuters in a Jerusalem bus on October 13 was staged by Palestinians armed with knives and guns. Two people were killed and more than 20 wounded in the attack.

Although most of the other plaintiffs have not suffered an attack, they claim in the suit that the incitement on Facebook is endangering their lives and that because of it they are living “in the crosshairs of a murderous terrorist rampage carried out by killers who attack people with knives, axes, screwdrivers, cars and Molotov cocktails for no reason other than that the attacker perceives the victims to be Jewish.”

According to Hareetz, the 76-page complaint was prepared by “attorney Robert Tolchin (New York), Asher Perlin (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, with the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center.”

Haaretz notes that Palestinian youths and militant organizations have a strong presence on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. The Israeli news site quotes an Associated Press report which says that millions of Palestinians follow the social media accounts of the Hamas-affiliated Shehab News Network and Islamic Jihad-affiliated Quds News Network.

The class-action lawsuit follows eruption of violence in Israel involving attacks by Palestinians armed mostly with knives and handguns. About 10 Israelis have been killed in the attacks while 50 Palestinians have died.

Many of the 50 Palestinians were assailants killed during or after attacks.

AS always, there is no time, nor inclination, to rework the wheel, so to speak. Thus, let us take a page out of history’s most prescient quotes, in so far as its implications couldn’t be more applicable. 


“First They Came for the Jews”
By Pastor Niemoller

 "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

INTRINSICALLY, whether or not one is Jewish is beside the point, when it comes to Islamic incitement to genocide. Basically, whereas countless will shrug their shoulders re the exhortations found at social media (giants ) to “kill the Jews”, said incitement is played out – again and again – against the Christian community on a multiplicity of levels. 


HOW to stab a Jew – video


FACEBOOK’s STAB Israelis Community pages


 ( )
TO wit, how is Facebook (other sites alike) NOT responsible??
{re-blogged at Joe For America}
{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}
{re-blogged at The Homeland Security Network}

HUSSEIN Obama’s Deal With Genocidal Iran: Hitler Redux. How Did This Happen? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

AS the Islamist-in-Chief awaits with bated breath to sign off on “peace in our time” – duly backed up by a recent Iranian defector, a top aide to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani – it must be understood, in relation to Obama Inc. and Iran, the “negotiations” have been little more than theatrical spectacles. Window dressing. Don’t ever forget this.

NOT only that, but guess who is one of his chief adviser’s via said “negotiations”? A highly connected mouthpiece for the Iranian regime! Say what? As is said, the fix is in!

BY the way, Sec Kerry has gone native, and not least of which because his son-in-law is Iranian.

Secretary of State John Kerry exposed a secret that journalists and academics have been agonizing over for the past six weeks: the fact that his daughter has married an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran.

“I am proud of the Iranian-Americans in my own family, and grateful for how they have enriched my life,” Kerry said in the official statement.

Interesting. Nothing to see there…

Friend of colleague ran into at chocolate shop tdy. She said friends in are looking forward to deal. He said ‘inshallah’

Inshallah means – If Allah wills it.

BUT if anything lends itself to said dire outcome, well, this site’s (Nov. 2013) commentary should be considered a centerpiece: “Valerie Jarrett, Iran’s Deal Maker: Her Main Mission As Obama’s Consigliere.”

NOT only that, since this site’s inception, mega alarm bells (seek, and you shall find) rang, and all indicators pointed towards this moment in time. But let’s use the following one (Dec. 2013) as an exemplar, in so far as one of the world’s most authoritative experts on nuclear doctrine, Professor Louis Rene Beres, gave this investigative journalist a special shout out (among many) to said effect, and this one was especially high on his register: “Iran, A (De Facto) Nuclear State: Israel’s Former AMAN Chief Concurs With Former CIA Head.” Them’s fighting words. 

FAST forward 15 months to the here and now, and DEBKAfile Intelligence sets the record straight: “U. S. Surrender On Break Out Time To A Bomb Leads To Breakthrough On Nuclear Deal.”

FOLKS, who’s still shocked…shocked. After all, how many alarms bells had to be rung here and there?

STILL, let’s dare not overlook the historical parallels to the run up to Hitler’s genocidal swathe, if any sense of history still counts among non-blinded and rational thinkers. 

PAY (historical) heed to the (un)learned lessons:

‘Subhumans’ rhymes with ‘Infidels’

Netanyahu, Obama, Iran, nuclear bombs, and a new Munich

Francisco Gil-White – March 26, 2015 –
( Times of Israel )

“Israel must vanish from the page of time!”

–Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Iranian Islamist State (1979)

 “Israel must be wiped off the map!”

–Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran (2005)

 “Israel… has no cure but to be annihilated.”

–Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran (2014)

“Peace for Our Time,” announced a proud Neville Chamberlain after placing the Czechoslovaks in Hitler’s foaming bite, one he relaxed only to spit threats of European war and anti-Jewish genocide. “Peace in our time” promised Barack Obama in his inaugural speech of 2013. History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Obama prepares already the signature that will normalize the nuclear program of terrorist Ali Khamenei, ‘Supreme Leader’ (official title) of Iran, and would-be emulator of Hitler’s crime against the Jews.

Santayana was right: lest we understand history we are doomed to repeat it. So let us interrogate this history and find the rhymes to grasp our moment: How could Chamberlain vault over public opinion to commit his diplomatic barbarities? Historians have answered this already.

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960) William Shirer remarked that the Times of London, “This great journal, one of the chief glories of English journalism, …play[ed]… a dubious role in the disastrous British appeasement of Hitler.” How so? By raising the Führer’s prestige every time he interrupted his violent tantrums to communicate his commitment to ‘peace,’ promised always in return for some license (to reoccupy the Rhineland, rearm Germany, absorb Austria, consume Czechoslovakia…).[1] This media barrage gave Chamberlain cover when he repeated each time—another time—that Hitler could be ‘appeased.’

It wasn’t just the Times.

Neville Chamberlain’s Conservative Party created, in the late 1920s, “ ‘a little intelligence service of our own’ ” that jerked the conservative press around with a clandestine bridle every bit as short as that employed in the totalitarian states. It was led by Sir Joseph Ball, Chamberlain’s most intimate friend, as documented in research published by R.B. Cockett in The Historical Journal. Ball began extending his control over the rest of the British press when the Great Depression called forth the so-called ‘national’ government, in truth conservative to the hilt.[2].

According to Anthony Adamthwaite’s investigations, published in the Journal of Contemporary History, by 1936 this conservative government had “the BBC… firmly on the leash.” That was not enough. In 1937, with Chamberlain installed as Prime Minister, Goebbels complained about remaining criticisms of Hitler still daring to rear their heads in the dailies. Lord Halifax, foreign minister, “promised to do all he could to secure ‘the cooperation of the British Press’ ” and rushed to solve the problem with the owners of the Daily Herald, the News Chronicle, the Daily Mail, and the Evening Standard. There were “awkward questions” about all this in the House of Commons “[that] were met with denials, evasion and ambiguity.”[3]

One newspaper went to extremes: Truth. Chamberlain confessed in a letter to his sisters that “the paper was ‘secretly controlled by Sir Joseph Ball’ ” (he had purchased it clandestinely). And “Truth,” explains Cockett, “as an expression of the views of Ball and Chamberlain, seems to have differed little in its ideological content from the professed prejudices and beliefs of the Nazi leaders.” In fact, “Truth adopted an overtly antisemitic and racialist tone…, [and] any opponent of appeasement came to be branded as a Jewish/Communist traitor to the true English cause.” Naturally, “Truth also became overtly pro-German and pro-Italian as Chamberlain proceeded in his search for a diplomatic settlement with Hitler and Mussolini.”[4]

And in the United States?

Historian Frederick Marks points out in The Historical Journal that Franklin Delano Roosevelt projected in public positions quite at variance with his backstage dealings, producing a “gap between appearance and reality” that was “very wide indeed.” To British ambassador Ronald Lindsay, Roosevelt confessed that he would be the first to celebrate the success of British and French pressure on Czechoslovakia, but that he would be impeached if the US public came to know his opinion.[5]

What about the press? Hearst all by himself owned half of the US press, and it was by “making overtures to William Randolph Hearst and other like-minded businessmen” that Roosevelt had managed to get the White House.[6] What did Hearst want? This was well known, because “Hearst’s editorials were usually printed in all of his 26 newspapers.”[7]

Consider a few of Hearst’s opinions, compiled by historian Rodney Carlisle in the Journal of Contemporary History: 1) Nazism was a welcome barrier against communism; 2) the United States should not threaten Germany or support the League of Nations; 3) Nazi demands about redrawing Germany’s borders were reasonable and the desire to unify German lands quite just; 4) the reoccupation of the Rhineland was justified; 5) if the Nazis attacked US navy ships, this should be tolerated if they issued a sincere apology (!?); and 6) Chamberlain did well in giving Czechoslovakia over to the Nazis.[8]  It was not by accident that Hearst was called “the keystone of American fascism.”[9]

Support for the ‘appeasement’ (is that what it was?) of Hitler was an Anglo-American, and not merely a British phenomenon.

In our time US and British leaders invade Afghanistan and Iraq creating voids that Iran is quick to fill. Now they rush to negotiate with Iran that country’s development of nuclear weapons. In charge is Wendy Sherman, undersecretary of state, author of the deal that allowed North Korea her nuclear bombs and possessor of quite some gall for scolding the South Koreans who insist those bombs are unacceptable.[10]

And to all this, the respected press of our day, what does it say?

On November 2014 the Economist confessed that “Iran is hard to fathom,” and that “journalists who have been able to obtain a precious visa still leave with a sense of uncertainty as few Iranians feel free to speak their mind.” Despite these limitations the British magazine, the most prestigious in the world, the most influential with ‘intelligent’ and ‘educated’ people, stated confidently that “The [Iranian] Revolution is over” and that “the country has unmistakably changed,” flooding its readers with statistics and anecdotes that speak to the supposed liberalism, modernity, and education of the Iranian population.[11]

However, the nuclear agreement will not be signed with the Iranian population but with the tyrants who rule it. In November 2014, when the Economist published said piece, those rulers were energetically financing, as they still do, terrorist groups with a genocidal and antisemitic ideology; prosecutor Alberto Nissman was still around to denounce with his own voice the Argentinian government’s cover up of the Iranian officials responsible for the terrorist attack against the Jewish community of Buenos Aires (85 dead and 300 wounded); and one could still hear echoes of Iranian ‘Supreme Leader’ Ali Khamenei’s July threat of “annihilation” against the Jewish State.[12]

One has got to take this seriously. Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani—former president of Iran and father of Iran’s nuclear program—has already made plenty clear what that program is for: “the application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”

Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, orated eloquently some days ago before the US Congress on the intentions of the ayatollahs and the dangers of signing with them. The Economist replied with firm support for Obama.[14] As did the New York Times.[15]

Thus were we spoken to right before Czechoslovakia was thrown to Hitler. But that wasn’t (not exactly…) a free press. Have things changed? What does recent historical research reveal on the influence of the Western power elite over the media?

Research by Christopher Simpson, professor of communication at American University, documents that US intelligence agencies spent rivers of money to create in the postwar—in a snap—schools and academic departments of ‘communication’ (and related institutes) and staffed them with the researchers who had created the WWII ‘psychological warfare’ programs for the US government. (McCarthyism took care of any dissenters.) This infrastructure “underlies most college- and graduate-level training for print and broadcast journalists, public relations and advertising personnel, and the related craftspeople who might be called the ‘ideological workers’ of contemporary U.S. society.”

        (Watch some related videos here.)

These same intelligence agencies were granted explicit permission, in the National Security Act of 1947, to use ‘covert actions’ to corrupt foreign media.[17]

There is more than enough here for whoever sees in the press nothing less than Power’s megaphone. It was Chamberlain who celebrated Chamberlain’s policies; now Obama sells Obama.

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. We should take heed, because antisemites are dangerous to us all. In World War II more than 54 million non-Jews lost their lives. For Hitler we were ‘subhumans’; for Khamenei, ‘infidels.’ Will the outcome be very different?


(An Islamist wind is blowing through the White House…the People’s House…threatening to destroy the west, if left unchecked!)

IN the same manner in which the geo-political stage was pre-set for World War 2, make no mistake, so too this go around is heading towards World War 3. In fact, whatever doubts one had re his intentions – as to what HUSSEIN Obama has been up to – there should no longer even be a scintilla. For when one factors in the requirements – the geo-political fault lines – for Iranian hegemony (and this is the mullahs and HUSSEIN Obama’s end goal, aside from everything else), it became necessary to alight the entire Mid East (and parts of Africa) to effectuate their plans. None of the fires were happenstance.

BASICALLY, a Sunni-Shia showdown had to take place, and the hyper-muscle of the Islamist-in-Chief was pressed into action to stir the ever-brewing cauldron of inter-Islamic/Arab struggle for regional (then global) hegemony. This was precisely what the so-called “Arab Spring” was about, followed up by the illegal thrust into Libya, Benghazigate. Precursors. 

NOW, for the newly initiated it becomes confusing because HUSSEIN Obama is Sunni and in deep sympathy with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. However, overriding factors are in play, and allowing Iran’s regime to gain nuclear weapons surpasses certain inherent fealty.

REGARDLESS, Valerie Jarrett’s Iranian roots pave his way forward, and she is his absolute right hand…left too. Therefore, rest assured, the west will soon be living under the shadowy threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.

MIND you, PM Netanyahu bears partial responsibility for this nightmare, as repeatedly stated at several forums. Most recently, his onus can be found here. Indeed, he has been in power for years, and did little more than order certain counter measures to push back against Iran’s genocidal march, many of which will never (rightfully so) be known.

NEVERTHELESS, when re-elected in 2009, had he brought to bear (knowing full well that HUSSEIN Obama would never stop Iran’s mullahs) Israel’s FORMIDABLE and multi-layered strike forces, that would have been 6 years less time for Iran’s centrifuges to spin, and said determinate action would have cut the wind out of both their sails, Iran’s and the Islamist-in-Chief’s.

INEXORABLY, as a result of all of the above, back in Dec. 2012, the following was written and this investigative journalist had the foresight to query: Where Have PM Netanyahu’s “Red Lines” Gone…HUSSEIN Obama’s (Ostensibly) Too?”


{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

{re-blogged at Joe For America}

Israel Smacks Down Syria & Russia;ADVANCED Russian Hardware Destroyed.Assists America Too.What’s The Calculus?Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

{re-blogged at Jews Down Under}

MANY have heard about the IAF’s lighting strikes into Syria, especially over the last few years. As always, they are not for nothing, irrespective of the whining from assorted (near and far) foes. Guaranteed, they are not training exercises to prove their mettle. That ship has sailed. In fact, the only air force that can compete with the IAF (at times, beat) is the USAF. {blogger’s note: this site is pro-American and pro-Israeli, make no mistake…but, bear in mind, there are various “sore loser” explanations in the link below}

“How badly did the United States Air Force Get Beaten By The Israeli Air Force During Red-Flag Exercises Or War-Games Exercises (that were not classified)?”

SO with the above understanding in mind, readers must recognize that nations are operating, as they should, in their own national interests. But it is equally intrinsic to realize when it is prudent to work together and when to go it alone, even parting company with an ally. This is a lesson PM Netanyahu too often shuns. In fact, the 2014 summer-long fiery war with Hamas should become EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE; it demonstrated that tying Israel’s strings to Obama Inc. evinced incalculable knock-on effects. The full blown evaluation can be found within the following interview. A relevant excerpt sets the tone:

Adina Kutnicki: Wolff, before we review the dangers associated with the newly-formed Muslim-American party, it must be reiterated: traditional American allies are caught up in a horrifying spider’s web through their association with the Obama administration. Poisonous.

Illustrative of said entangling, one has to internalize when it is in a nation’s best interests to align with a “best friend” and when prudence demands a “trial” separation, at least for the time being.

Basically, PM Netanyahu, MIT smartie that he is, hasn’t figured out this seemingly simple calculus. Along this trajectory, through his joined-at-the-hip actions with Barack HUSSEIN Obama (don’t be distracted by their public tussles – as media grabbing as they are – that’s not where the action/collusion is) Israel now finds herself “involved” with Sunni jihadists, the likes of which include Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS! Yup.

Trenchantly, there is a “quiet” war being fought on the Syrian side of Israel’s northern Golan border to capture key sites. It may very well blow up Israel’s Golan front. Currently, the struggle is between Assad’s henchmen and the aforementioned Sunni jihadists. These are the same “rebels” whom Obama Inc. has “surreptitiously” armed, ever since the administration entered into an absolutely illegal war in Libya. Its (hidden) basis was to arm Sunni terrorists to take over the region for the Muslim Brotherhood! Full circle.

Resultant, instead of PM Netanyahu opting out of choosing between one Islamic devil over another (Assad’s forces are inseparable from Iran’s proxy pawns), thereby, reacting to whichever side illegally fires from Syria into Israel with resolute IDF firepower, Israel is now – like it or not – aiding those who abet Hamas. Ditto, Assad/Iran have been doing likewise.

Assuredly, there are times when NOT choosing sides makes the most strategic sense. However, this is definitely not the case with the Kurdish issue. Alas, it was a relief that PM Netanyahu publicly stated his support for Kurdish independence from Iraq. As is said, even a broken clock can be right once in a while.

Stipulated, sans a scintilla of a doubt, under PM Netanyahu’s missteps, the dangers to Israel have never been greater….

IN this regard, this week’s Israeli airstrike into Syria wielded a two-edge sword; a dual track. Yes, as critical as this investigative journalist is of PM Netanyahu’s penchant for spinelessness, this go around he exerted proper hyper-muscle and secured Israel’s national interests – finally.

High-ranking American military sources revealed Monday, Dec. 8, that Israel’s air strikes near Damascus the day before wiped out newly-arrived Russian hardware including missiles that were dispatched post haste to help Syria and Hizballah frustrate a US plan for a no-fly zone over northern Syria.

The advanced weapons were sent over, as DEBKAfile reported exclusively Sunday, after Russian President Vladimir Putin learned that the Obama administration and the Erdogan government were close to a final draft on a joint effort to activate a no-fly zone that would bar Syrian air force traffic over northern Syria.

The Kremlin has repeatedly warned – of late in strong messages through back channels – that the establishment of a no-fly or buffer zone in any part of Syria would be treated as direct American intervention in the Syria war and result in Russian military intervention for defending the Assad regime.
According to the US-Turkish draft, American warplanes would be allowed to take off from the Turkish airbase of Incirlik in the south for operations against Syrian warplanes, assault helicopters or drones entering the no-go zone. Thus far, Ankara has only permitted US surveillance aircraft and drones the use of Incirlik for tracking the movements of Islamic State fighters in northern Syria.
The Obama administration was long deterred from implementing a no-fly zone plan by the wish to avoid riling Moscow or facing the hazards of Syria’s world-class air defense system.

But Washington was recently won over to the plan by a tacit deal with Damascus for American jets to be allowed entry to help Kurdish fighters defend their northern Syrian enclave of Kobani against capture by al Qaeda’s IS invaders.

However, the US administration turned down a Turkish demand to extend the no-fly zone from their border as far as Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, over which Syrian army forces are battling rebels and advancing slowly into the town.
The no-fly zone planned by US strategists would be narrow – between a kilometer and half a kilometer deep inside Syria. However Moscow is standing fast against any such plan and objects to US planes making free of Syrian airspace, a freedom they are now afforded over Kobani.
To drive this point home, the Russians delivered a supply of advanced anti-air missiles and radar, whose use by the Syrian army and transfer to Hizballah in Lebanon were thwarted by the Israeli air strikes Sunday.

Moscow reacted swiftly and angrily with a Note to the United Nations Monday accusing Israel of “aggressive action” and demanding “that such attacks should not happen again… Moscow is deeply worried by this dangerous development, the circumstances of which demand an explanation.”

The Assad regime has held back from reacting to past Israeli air raids for preventing advanced weaponry from reaching Hizballah. This time, spokesmen in Damascus warned that their government’s response would be clandestine and cause Israel “unimaginable harm.”

EXTRAPOLATING further – and despite the warning that Syria’s response would be clandestine and cause Israel “unimaginable harm” – the fact of the matter is that they never cease plotting to exert “unimaginable harm”. Israel is, as is said, damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. But never mind. Its PRIMARY vested interest (by striking Syria, the transit route to Lebanon’s Hezbollah) is to ALWAYS keep advanced anti-missile hardware out of Hezbollah’s hands. In essence, these air strikes (and other clandestine operations) frustrate Iran’s proxy arm from causing grave damage to Israel. Significantly, said pre-emptive actions should be a no-brainer, even for Israel’s appeasement-oriented political leaders. Not only that, they are manifestly legal under international law, despite Russia’s (and Syria’s) shrill pronouncements before the U.N.’s anti-Israel gaggle of kleptocrats.

AS detailed by this site‘s close and valued contact, Professor Louis Rene Beres, in his joint analysis with U.S. Admiral Leon “Bud” Edney & General Thomas G. McInerney at Oxford’s University Press, anticipatory self-defense is codified:

Enter international law. Designed, inter alia, to ensure the survival of states in a persistently anarchic world – a world originally fashioned after the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 – this law includes the “inherent” right of national self-defense. Such right may be exercised not only after an attack has already been suffered, but, sometimes, also, in advance of an expected attack.

What can now be done, lawfully, about relentless Iranian nuclear weapons development?  Do individual states, especially those in greatest prospective danger from any expressions of Iranian nuclear aggression, have a legal right to strike first defensively? In short, could such a preemption ever be permissible under international law?

For the United States, preemption remains a part of codified American military doctrine. But is this national doctrine necessarily consistent with the legal and complex international expectations of anticipatory self-defense?

To begin, international law derives from multiple authoritative sources, including international custom. Although written law of the UN Charter (treaty law) reserves the right of self-defense only to those states that have already suffered an attack (Article 51), equally valid customary law still permits a first use of force if the particular danger posed is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” Stemming from an 1837 event in jurisprudential history known as the Caroline, which concerned the unsuccessful rebellion in Upper Canada against British rule, this doctrine builds purposefully upon a seventeenth-century formulation of Hugo Grotius.

Self-defense, says the classical Dutch scholar in, The Law of War and Peace (1625), may be permitted “not only after an attack has already been suffered, but also in advance, where the deed may be anticipated.”  In his later text of 1758, The Right of Self-Protection and the Effects of Sovereignty and Independence of Nations, Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel affirmed: “A nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor.”

Article 51 of the UN Charter, limiting self-defense to circumstances following an attack, does not override the customary right of anticipatory self-defense.  Interestingly, especially for Americans, the works of Grotius and Vattel were favorite readings of Thomas Jefferson, who relied  heavily upon them for crafting the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

We should also recall Article VI of the US Constitution, and assorted US Supreme Court decisions. These proclaim, straightforwardly, that international law is necessarily part of the law of the United States.

The Caroline notes an implicit distinction between preventive war (which is never legal), and preemptive war. The latter is not permitted merely to protect oneself against an emerging threat, but only when the danger posed is “instant” and “overwhelming.” Using such a literal framework, it could first appear doubtful that the United States may now construct a persuasive legal argument for preemption against Iran. This would be the case even if the planned American defense operation were carefully limited to exclusively nuclear military targets.

Nonetheless, we live in very different times. Grotius, Vattel and those later jurists who were focused on the Caroline could never have anticipated the genuinely existential risks soon to be posed by a nuclear Iran.  Understandably, the permissibility of anticipatory self-defense is far greater in the nuclear age than in prior centuries. Today, after all, it is easy to imagine, simply waiting impotently to suffer an enemy nuclear attack could be entirely irrational. Even suicidal.

A  special danger is posed by terrorist group surrogates. If not prevented from receiving nuclear weapons or fissile materials from patron states, such proxies (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda) could inflict enormous harms upon targets that would be out of range of nuclear-tipped missiles.

The United States is not the only country at risk from Iranian nuclear weapons. Israel is at greater risk. There is, however, a long and respected international legal tradition that Great Powers have proportionately great responsibilities. This would suggest, from a management of world power standpoint, that America must remain ever-mindful of a potential nuclear threat to other, far smaller states.

MOREOVER, the international precepts outlined above are doubly applicable for distinct genocidal foes. Thus, how many times, how many ways, do Israel’s foes have to declare: it is their intent to destroy her, before pre-emption (against Iran, its proxy arms or others) becomes the only nation-saving option? Ten….50….100…

NOT to be lost in the discussion, this week’s  strike assisted the U.S. military in its quest to block Russia from imposing a “no-fly” zone over Syrian airspace, and all that it entails. Resultant, it became a win-win to strike.

CONCOMITANTLY, Israel’s leaders must steer clear of Obama Inc.’s “relationship” with ISIS and its attendant terror arms, thus, knowing when to “part company”!



Iranian Nukes & ‘Palestinian’ Statehood:Synergistic (Awaiting) Catastrophes For Israel & America/West …Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

{re-blogged at Jews Down Under}

Sentient and rational folks can no longer deny the obvious: the Iranian regime, when they exhort Death to Israel and Death to America, is indeed gunning for both nations. Their genocidal war inexorably twins the “Big Satan” and the “Little Satan”. Factual. Indisputable. Take them at their exact words. 

This past Monday marked the 34th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Iran, leading to 52 Americans being held hostage for several months. Contrary to what many analysts thought, and despite the recent “thaw” and optimism considering rapprochement between Iranian authorities and American leaders, tens of thousands of Iranian demonstrators packed the streets outside of the former U.S. embassy in Tehran this year. Hundreds of thousands also demonstrated against Israel and the U.S. in other cities across the country.

The protests were unprecedented in their scale and scope, reported as the biggest anti-U.S. and anti-Israel rally in years. According to Iran’s official media, millions of people participated in these protests and demonstrations around the country, the largest turnout in years.

Additionally, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have designated Nov. 4 as a “National Day against Global Arrogance.” While this week, tens of thousands of Iranians shouted “death to America” and “death to Israel.” The burning of American and Israeli flags permeated throughout the cities. Furthermore, effigies of American President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry were held up high by protesters….

SIMILARLY, when self-coined PA Arabs (in tandem with Hamas, their “bad cop” partners, and officially part of their terror entity) slaughter Jews, an imperative to destroy Israel, know that their hatred towards America is equally annihilatory. In fact, who recalls PA Arabs dancing and handing out sweets after 9/11/01 jihadists incinerated over 3,000 Americans under the banner of Islam? Their jihad has only gotten worse after years of perfecting their “art”. Think about it.

SO the urgent questions before Israelis and Americans – and the west at large – are: what exactly does Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s backroom deal with Iran’s mullahs portend? and, at the same time, how is PA (jihadi) “statehood” fitting into this same impending prism, both jointly and separately?

IN this regard, aside from Professor Louis Rene Beres, no one is more qualified to address these two synergistic global menaces. This too is a fact. And said qualifier is irrespective of his cornerstone at this site.

Ominously, especially for Israel, Iranian nuclearization and Palestinian statehood are progressing at roughly the same pace. Although this simultaneous emergence is proceeding without any conscious intent or coordinated design, the cumulative security impact upon Israel will still be substantial. Plausibly, and in contrast to more usual geometric orthodoxy, the “whole” of this impact will be considerably greater than the sum of its “parts.” Expressed more precisely, the appearance of Iranian nuclear weapons and “Palestine” will be synergistic.

For Israeli planners, of course, this unique and unprecedented threat should be treated with appropriate intellectual respect. In essence, and contrary to a long-prevailing conventional wisdom, Iran and Palestine do not represent separate or unrelated hazards to Israel. Rather, they delineate intersecting, mutually reinforcing, and potentially existential perils. It follows, unambiguously, that Jerusalem must do whatever possible to remove or diminish expected dangers on both fronts, and also at the same time.

Among other things, Israel will need to further enhance its multi-layered active defenses. As long as incoming rocket aggressions from Gaza, West Bank, and/or Lebanon (Hezbollah) were to remain conventional, the inevitable “leakage” could still be considered tolerable. But once these rockets are fitted with chemical and/or biological materials, any such porosity would quickly prove  “unacceptable.”

Facing Iranian nuclear missiles, Israel’s “Arrow” ballistic missile defense system would reasonably require a fully 100% reliability of interception. To achieve any such level of reliability, of course, would simply not be possible. Now, assuming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already abandoned any residual hopes for a cost-effective eleventh-hour preemption against pertinent Iranian nuclear assets – an altogether credible assumption, at this late time – this means that Israeli defense planners must look instead to deterrence.

Because of the expectedly corrosive interactive effects involving Iranian nuclear weapons and Palestinian statehood, Israel will soon need to update and further refine its existing strategies of deterrence. In this connection, Israel’s leaders will have to accept that certain more-or-less identifiable leaders of these prospectively overlapping enemies might not always satisfy the complex criteria of rational behavior in world politics. In such improbable but still conceivable circumstances, assorted Jihadist adversaries in Palestine, Iran, Lebanon or elsewhere might sometime refuse to back away from contemplated aggressions against Israel.

By definition, moreover, these irrational enemies could exhibit such refusals in thoroughly considered anticipations of a fully devastating Israeli reprisal.

Sooner rather than later, and facing a new and incalculable synergy from Iranian and Palestinian aggressions, Israel will need to take appropriate steps to assure that: (1) it does not become the object of any non-conventional attacks from these enemies; and (2) it can successfully deter all possible forms of non-conventional conflict. To meet this ambitious goal, Jerusalem, inter alia, must retain its recognizably far-reaching conventional superiority in pertinent weapons and capable manpower, including effective tactical control over the Jordan Valley.

In principle, such retentions could reduce the overall likelihood of ever actually having to enter into any chemical, biological, or nuclear exchange with regional adversaries. Correspondingly, Israel should plan to begin to move incrementally beyond its increasingly perilous posture of “deliberate nuclear ambiguity.” By preparing to shift toward prudently selective and partial kinds of “nuclear disclosure” – in other words, by getting ready to take its “bomb” out of the “basement,” and in carefully controlled phases – Israel could better ensure that its  relevant enemies will remain sufficiently subject to Israeli nuclear deterrence.

In matters of strategy, operational truth may sometimes emerge through apparent paradox. Israeli planners may soon have to understand that the efficacy or credibility of their country’s nuclear deterrence posture could sometime vary inversely with enemy views of Israeli nuclear destructiveness. However ironic or counter-intuitive, therefore, enemy perceptions of a too-large or too-destructive Israeli nuclear deterrent force, or of an Israeli force that is not sufficiently invulnerable to first-strike attacks, could sometime undermine this deterrence posture.

Also critical, of course, is that Israel’s current and prospective adversaries will see the Jewish State’s nuclear retaliatory forces as “penetration capable.” This means forces that seem assuredly capable of penetrating any Arab or Iranian aggressor’s active defenses. Naturally, a new state of Palestine would be non-nuclear itself, but it could still present a new “nuclear danger” to Israel by its impact upon the more generally regional “correlation of forces.” Thereby, Palestine could represent an indirect but nonetheless markedly serious nuclear threat to Israel.

There is more to be done. Israel should continue to strengthen its active defenses, but Jerusalem must also do everything possible to improve each critical and interpenetrating component of its nuanced deterrence posture. In this bewilderingly complex process of strategic dissuasion, the Israeli task may also require more incrementally explicit disclosures of nuclear targeting doctrine, and, accordingly, a steadily expanding role for cyber-defense and cyber-war. And even before undertaking such delicately important refinements, Israel will need to more systematically differentiate between adversaries that are presumably rational, irrational, or “mad.”

Overall, the success of Israel’s national deterrence strategies will be contingent upon an informed prior awareness of enemy preferences, and of specific enemy hierarchies of preferences. In this connection, altogether new and open-minded attention will need to be focused on the seeming emergence of “Cold War II” between Russia and the United States. This time around, for example, the relationship between Jerusalem and Moscow could prove helpful rather than adversarial.

For Jerusalem, it may even be reasonable to explore whether this once hostile relationship could turn out to be more strategically gainful for Israel, than its traditionally historic ties to the United States. Credo quia absurdum. At this transitional moment in geostrategic time, when Washington may need to align itself with Tehran and Damascus against Islamic State, virtually anything is possible.

It is essential that Israeli planners approach absolutely all prospective enemy threats as potentially interactive or synergistic. Even more specifically, if a soon-to-be-formalized state of Palestine does not readily find itself in the same ideological orbit as Iran – now a distinctly plausible conclusion, especially in view of steadily accelerating Shiite-Sunni fissions in the Middle East – the net threat to Israel could still become more perilous than the merely additive result of its area enemies. In approaching the near simultaneity of Iranian nuclear weapons and Palestinian statehood, Jerusalem must consciously bear in mind that the adversarial “whole” would be greater than the simple sum of its belligerent “parts.”

Louis René Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue. He is the author of ten major books, and several hundred journal articles, in the field. Professor Beres’ shorter opinion articles appear in many leading US and Israeli newspapers and magazines, including The Atlantic, US News & World Report, The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Times, and Oxford University Press. In Israel, where his current writings are published by the BESA Center for Strategic Studies, the Institute for Policy and Strategy, and the Institute for National Security Studies, he was Chair of Project Daniel (2003). Dr. Beres’ most recent strategy-centered publications were published in The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, and the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs.

CLEAR as a bell!

Iranian WMD Program Intersects With ISIS.Booms at Parchin Military Base & More…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

iran, nuclear

{re-blogged at Islam}

{re-blogged at Jews Down Under}

FROM the onset, let’s be very clear: no stone was left unturned at this site to highlight the genocidal goals of Iran’s mullahs, to the point of collaborating with a world-class resource to said effect. 

IN this regard, this investigative journalist has kept in close contact, for more than a decade, with Professor Louis Rene Beres. His contributions to all aspects of this global threat are duly noted – and gratefully appreciated – at this site’s “About” tab.

My “go to” expert on all matters pertaining to international law, and a country’s right to anticipatory self defense – via preemptive strikes – is none other than Professor Louis Rene Beres of ‘Project Daniel.’ The working group’s original policy paper is found herein. He was Chair of the above strategic nuclear policy paper given to PM Ariel Sharon in 2003 – and subsequently briefed the report to President George W. Bush and to current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – in relation to Israel’s nuclear strategy in the face of Iran’s pursuit of WMD’s. He is a man of great integrity and humility. Lou, a heartfelt thank you for being my mentor.

SO when this issue crops up at these pages, rest assured, it is with a deep understanding of the subject matter. But before we get to the latest “booms”, as well as the (inevitable/eventual détente) relationship between ISIS and Iran, let’s perform a recap.

Recap One:

COME what may, the Jihadi-in-Chief is leading Iran to the WMD finish line. Yes, he is. The reasons are manifest and may appear convoluted, but they are no less true.

WITHIN this quest belies his Iranian point woman, communist aligned Valerie Jarrett. One can be an Islamist AND a communist. 

Recap Two:

Back in 2003, the most comprehensive report/analysis – in relation to the corresponding global menace – surrounding Iran’s race to nuclear arms status was hand delivered to both President Bush and PM Ariel Sharon. Six years later, with the genocidal program still in place, the report’s essence was requisite updated. These are facts. It was a commissioned report by the most acknowledged apolitical nuclear expert team, bar none. Therein lies its inherent value.

Recap Three:

That being said, fast forward to April 2013 and the following was regretfully reported, but do read between the lines:

In the often-unpredictable theater of modern world politics, a drama that so often bristles with apparent meaninglessness, decisions that rest upon ordinary logic may quickly crumble before madness. Here, dangers can reach even the most utterly portentous level. This is the aptly-dreaded point of convergence, when madness and nuclear weapons capability would coincide, fuse, or otherwise come together.

Enter Israel and Iran. Soon, because not a single responsible member of the “international community” has ever demonstrated a determinable willingness to undertake appropriately preemptive action (“anticipatory self-defense,” in the formal language of law), the Jewish State may have to face an expressly genocidal Iranian nuclear adversary. Although improbable, a potentially “suicidal” enemy state in Iran, one animated by graphically precise visions of a Shiite apocalypse, cannot be wished away, or, capriciously, dismissed out of hand.

Iran’s current leadership, and possibly even a successor “reformist” government in Tehran, could, at some point, choose to value Israel’s physical destruction more highly than even its own physical survival. Should this happen, the “play” would almost certainly end badly for all “actors.” In recognizably theatrical terms, the “director’s” command would be both unambiguous and immobilizing.

Exeunt omnes!

Nonetheless, despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s disingenuous hope for “a world free of nuclear weapons,” Israel’s ultimate source of national security must inevitably lie in sustained nuclear deterrence. Although still implicit or ambiguous, and not yet open, or disclosed, this Israeli “bomb in the basement” could readily “crumble before madness.” In certain easily-imaginable instances, circumstances involving enemy “madness,” the results of failed Israeli retaliatory threats could ultimately be existential…..

IN tandem, do take the time to read Prof Beres’s special Iran report featured at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Institute Publication, Parameters.

BUT let us now turn our attention to Israel’s PM Netanyahu.

FOR over five and a half years, since March 31, 2009, “Bibi” has been in charge of Israel’s ship of state. Within any rational discourse this is a monumental burden, unlike none other. He is, at this critical juncture in history, the guardian of the Jewish people’s thousands yr old – one and only – homeland. Patrimony. And as an American-Israeli (a nationalist Zionist, now living in Israel) there is little more important on this end.

THAT being said, to remonstrate Israel’s PM before a world audience has always been a personal burden. An absolute shame and stain. Nevertheless, it is what it is. As such, let’s first recount his latest operational failure, and it will reveal why he has been incapable of ordering the complete pre-emption of Iran’s explicitly genocidal program, instead of piecemeal (delaying) actions here and there. 

Interview With Adina Kutnicki: (at Inquisitr)

Burying another brave son of Israel who died to protect his people and his homeland.

Burying another brave son of Israel who died to protect his people and his homeland.

Wolff Bachner: Much to our sorrow, the world is in even worse shape than the last time we spoke. Since your previous visit, Hamas managed to provoke another war with Israel, which gave all the Israel bashing bigots of the European Union the excuse they needed to rampage and riot with a truly disgusting display of virulent Jew hate. Adding to the misery, ISIS commenced their campaign of butchering and bloodshed, beheading thousands of helpless human beings as they tore through the Levant in the name of the new Caliphate. Certainly, we are witnessing what may be the beginning of the next clash of civilizations, but let’s narrow our focus just a bit and start our discussion with Israel, Hamas, and much maligned Operation Protective Edge.

Once again, we see Israel’s so-called leaders caving in to pressure from foreign governments and ending the campaign to demilitarize Gaza and disarm Hamas before the job is done.

What effect will this have on the people of Israel, and what will this ill-advised strategy allow Hamas to do to Israel in the future?

Why would Netanyahu call off Operation Protective Edge while rockets are still raining down on Israel. Is this a sane military strategy?

More importantly, is this fair to the many thousands of Israelis who spend part of every day in bomb shelters?……{read the whole thing…..}

MOREOVER, how many toothless (and cartoonish) “red lines” can a leader use as credible threats, after which they mean less than the paper they are drawn on? Exactly.

ON the other hand, what appears to be the case –  as demonstrated with Stuxnet – he is signing off on temporary “setbacks”, in the vain hope Iran won’t go nuclear under his watch and regroup after the latest rubble is cleared. In a nutshell, he will pass the buck. 


TRUE, none but a VERY few can say with exactitude who triggered the latest boom-like setbacks, but one would be wise not to discount Israel’s long arm(s). The odds are on Israel and here is why:

The explosion that destroyed the Parchin site was massive. Various reports reveal that windows shattered up to 15 kilometers away. Satellite photographs backed up claims that the explosion was the result of an attack, and showed almost total devastation to the facility.

Israel’s government declined to issue an official statement on the incident, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent weeks had renewed his firm warnings that Israel would not accept a nuclear-armed Iran.

HERE too: 

A spectacular explosion on Sunday night outside Tehran took place deep inside the Parchin military base, where Iran produces crucial elements of its missiles and other munitions, raising new questions about whether the blast was an accident or sabotage.

The explosion and resulting fire, which Iranian news organizations have described in only the most general terms, could be seen from apartments in Tehran and appeared to have destroyed several buildings. But it was distant from a part of the base to which the International Atomic Energy Agency has been seeking access for years, to investigate reports of experiments on high explosives that could have been used in nuclear weapons.

The agency’s evidence about that activity dates back more than a decade, and that part of the base has been so bulldozed and reconfigured in recent years that inspectors concede it is doubtful there is much left to see or test if they ever get access.

The explosion, according to satellite photographs from Airbus that were analyzed by the Institute for Science and International Security, took place in a densely built region toward the southern end of the base, in an area that appeared from past photographs to be littered with bunkers. The damage was reminiscent of pictures of a missile-development site 30 miles west of Tehran that was virtually destroyed during a test in November 2011 that killed 17 people, including Gen. Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, the leading force behind Iran’s advanced missile efforts.

Parchin military base



At that time, Israel was widely suspected of sabotaging the base. Yet there was never definitive evidence, and no group has ever taken responsibility. (A senior Israeli officer noted several weeks later that the timing of the explosion was remarkable because General Moghaddam, who traveled often, “just happened to be sitting in his office” at the time.)

REGARDLESS, those of sound mind don’t really believe that Israel’s current crop of leaders have the balls to FULLY thwart the Islamist-in-Chief’s push for a “deal” with Iran’s mullahs, whatever the costs to Israel and the west. Resultant, an all out strike on an admitted existential threat would entail going up against Washington’s dictates. And if past is prologue, as detailed within the above linked interview, a PM who couldn’t stand up to Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s demands to leave Hamas’s leaders alive (and their underground command and control structures intact), is certainly not likely to lay to waste, once and for all, Iran’s death program, even though we all know Israel has a multiplicity of strike forces to perform the hits in rapid sequence.

ASK yourselves: does anyone believe that whatever blows up in one part of Iran doesn’t have a mirror site, a redundancy, somewhere else in that vast country? On the other hand, if SEVERAL key sites are laid to waste then it will be (perhaps) decades before Iran’s mullahs catch up to speed. In effect, the open question is: will all the KEY facilities meet similar fates?

MOST significantly, even though Iran’s Shia mullahs are battling ISIS (Sunni) jihadists for Islamic hegemony, the fact of the matter is that either will aid the other when it comes to wiping out Israel. So if ISIS gets its hands on dirty bombs, well, they will unleash them without hesitation. But if Iran requires assistance from ISIS to smuggle in a nuclear bomb into Israel, rest assured, they will more than eagerly cooperate in concert with one another.

AND with the CIA backed operational/intelligence expertise of Clare Lopez, now an integral part of Washington’s Center For Security Policy – a top tier intelligence shop – connecting the regional and global dots, The Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL takes on a crystal clear focus, as does the apocalyptic visions of Iran’s mullahs. Hence, “A Lesson On The Islamic State” is a MUST view!

WITHIN this scope of looming dangers and tribal grudge matches going on between the Shia mullahs and the Sunni ISIS, the reality is that Iran – as it stands -comes out the winner, even though there are booms going off here and there.

CONCLUSIVELY, celebrating Parchin’s dust up for long-term effects is premature, but still very welcome news!

Israeli Leadership LEGITIMIZES & NEGOTIATES With Hamas Terrorists.”Cease-Fires” & Fleeing Jews;The Nexus…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

An Israeli commando from the engineering corps Yahalom (“Diamond”) unit takes part in a tunnel-hunting drill in Sirkin special forces base, near Tel Aviv …

An Israeli army officer on Friday shows journalists a Palestinian tunnel that runs from the Gaza.

AS a native New Yorker – now living in Israel – the following thought experiment is highly germane. Apropo.

IMAGINE, if you will, living nearby the border between the east and west sides of NYC, somewhere in mid-Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue range, but your actual address is west of Fifth. Then, picture heavy-duty missiles flying out of the eastern demarcation into your western sphere, and for well over a decade. Hmm. Yet, in your mind’s eye, go a step further. Situate yourselves in another scenario: “wild west” east siders have upped the ante; digging tunnels into west side buildings, ever ready to cause more explosive terror! Which leader(s) in their rational mind would allow their citizens to “live” under such terrorizing conditions, ever fearful of becoming cannon fodder? Rhetorical.

Hamas’s Missiles.

NOW, as previously demonstrated, Israel’s top leadership – the buck stops with “Bibi” – commit double crimes. The first tier deals with an absolute ILLEGALITY;  negotiating – thus legitimizing – with Hamas, a designated terror group, even within Washington’s listing of terror groups! This is beyond dispute. Beyond the pale, even if masking such negotiations under political/diplo cover. Whom are they fooling? NOT the majority Zionist public, that’s for sure.

A demonstration in support of the war in Gaza in Tel Aviv.

SIGNIFICANTLY, time and again, Israel’s leaders negotiate “ceasefires/deathfires” with terror groups, be they Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah. It makes no diff. And while said “ceasefires” aren’t worth the price of bupkes, the fact of the matter is not only are they worthless and exponentially dangerous – whetting their appetites for more of the same – they are ILLEGAL. Plain and simple….

International Law Precludes Ceasefires With Terror Groups

Professor Louis Rene Beres – {blogger’s mentor}

Any time there is an announced “cease fire” between Israel and Hamas, it wrongly and foolishly bestows upon that terror organization

(1) an expressly legitimate status under international law; and

(2) a clear and newly incontestable condition of legal symmetry between the parties.

This is never a tolerable jurisprudential arrangement for Israel.

Moreover, no proper system of law can ever permit any sort of compromise or accommodation by a government with criminal organizations, even, in the case of Israel and Hamas, one that might involve a somewhat less formal arrangement than the currently proposed cease-fire.

It follows that Israel ought never to unwittingly prop up its criminal adversary in Gaza by agreeing to a cease-fire or similar “armistice”; instead, it should proceed immediately to do whatever is needed operationally, while simultaneously reminding the world that the pertinent conflict is between a fully legitimate sovereign state (one that meets all criteria of the Convention  on the Rights and Duties of States, 1934) and an inherently illegal insurgent organization that meets none of these criteria, and that routinely violates all vital precepts of the law of armed conflict….

IN contravention of said illegality, Israel’s mentally besieged leadership charges forward; one “cease-fire” after another, in fact, feeding, fueling and supplying the enemy!

NEVER ENDING, like drunken sailors on a sinking ship they lumber hither and on, attempting to find a life raft to latch themselves onto, instead of executing what must be done – SMASHING Hamas’s top leadership and command centers!! Alas, here they go again, even as Netanyahu yanks Jerusalem’s negotiating team – like yo-yos – back and forth from Cairo.

BUT never mind…Hamasnicks have measured the mettle (tragically, quite correctly) of Israel’s leaders, as they barrage Israel with more missiles, even before the last “cease-fire” is due to expire at midnight on 8/19…and the next “cease-fire” is surely not far behind.

G-d have mercy…save us from our derelict leaders! You may rightfully inquire: are Israel’s leaders irrational? have they truly lost their minds?

DEBKAfile’s sources report an attempt by some Israeli officials to present the draft as incorporating a process which separates the humanitarian and security issues.
However, it may be that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ya’alon are looking for a pretext to explain the concessions that were made for the sake of a ceasefire for an indefinite period – or else they are trying to ward off Egyptian-Palestinian browbeating for a deal.

According to the disclosures so far, the draft agreement – if it is approved by the cabinet – will embody four major Israeli concessions:
—  Waiving demilitarization of the Gaza Strip and disarmament of Hamas’s rockets and terror tunnels at this point.
—  Lifting the  blockade of the Gaza Strip – economically and by the establishment of ports.
—  Reversal of a government decision to abstain from negotiating the release of convicted Palestinian terrorists from jail, which the Israeli public will never accept.
—  Rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip before any steps are taken towards disarming Hamas.

The danger of this waiver is already apparent in the announcement by the radical Popular Committees faction that it is not bound by any Hamas commitment to suspend rocket attacks. In any case, according to a Egyptian foreign ministry statement late Monday: Israel and the Palestinians have only agreed to a 24-hour ceasefire extension – i.e., until Tuesday midnight, for further negotiations.

SO, now that the legalities are squared away, as well as their Pavlovian responses to “cease-fires”, Israelis (this blogger included) and onlookers are left in a dizzying state of suspension, incessantly wondering: when will their madness end?and where are they leading the nation of Israel? To PROLONGED war, that’s where!

Most Israelis were stunned Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 19, when rocket fire suddenly erupted from the Gaza Strip against Beersheba and Netivot, after they had been lulled into a sense of false security by the suspension of Hamas attacks for 135 hours. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sent the air force straight back into action to bomb “terror targets’ across the Gaza Strip, and recalled Israel’s negotiators from the indirect talks taking place with Hamas in Cairo through Egyptian intermediaries.

After a month of tough fighting and painful losses, Israelis were aghast to find themselves dumped back in the same old routine, which their leaders had vowed Operation Defensive Edge would end once and for all.

By midnight Hamas had fired around 50 rockets in a steady stream across most of Israel, including Greater Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

So what went wrong?
DEBKAfile reports that, as recently as Monday, Aug. 18, a senior intelligence source asserted that Netanyahu and Ya’alon were satisfied with the Cairo talks, because their outcome would refute their critics, ministers and security chiefs alike, by bringing Hamas to its knees.
Asked how this would come about, the source repeated the mantra heard day after day during the fighting: Hamas is looking for a way out of the conflict and wants to end hostilities, he explained. That is what we are banking on.

AMAN chief Maj.Gen. Aviv Kochavi is believed by some cabinet sources to be the author of this prescription, to which the prime minister and defense minister have stubbornly adhered, against all the evidence to the contrary. They therefore held back from inflicting a final defeat on the Palestinian fundamentalists.

ON this investigative journalist’s worst day, the above outcome could have been predicted. Clear as a bell.

STILL yet, it is not as if a certain segment of Israelis residing on the southern border – particularly within the “Gazan belt” – don’t possess special standing in this life and death struggle to “cease”, or not, Israel’s “firepower”. Why? Well, having been terrorized with missiles for over a decade, for the most part, they relied upon the political leadership to do the right thing, whatever that meant. How did THAT work out? Truth be told, an unfathomable patient response.

BE that as it may, that was then and this is now. Now that tunnels are under some of their bedrooms, kindergartens and what not…hmm…their patience has worn thin, to say the least. In this regard, over 60% of said residents FLED the area, declaring that they won’t return, unless the leaders SMASH Hamas’s terror apparatus for good!   

DEAR readers, juxtapose the spectacle of many thousands of Jewish residents of Israel’s southern belt fleeing for their lives – within the Jewish homeland, no less! – to the return of the scourge of anti-semitism throughout Europe (Islamic-Nazis gaining the aid of radical leftists and far-right fascists…video linked), as Europe’s Jews flee for their lives! Is this American-Israeli the only one who sees the craziness, the irony, of said dual flights?


Video screenshot

IN other words, while France’s Jews (and others) are running for their lives into the arms of the Jewish homeland – a land this blogger would give her life for – Israel’s leaders not only fail to protect Jews already living here, but, by dint of odds, will fail those who are fleeing into her arms! Orwellian. For the record, some of these French Jews (and other new immigrants) are encouraged by Israel’s Absorption Ministry to move to areas not far from Gaza!  

France’s politicians and community leaders have criticised the “intolerable” violence against Paris’ Jewish community, after a pro-Palestinian rally led to the vandalizing and looting of Jewish businesses and the burning of cars.

It is the third time in a week where pro-Palestinian activists have clashed with the city’s Jewish residents. On Sunday, locals reported chats of “Gas the Jews” and “Kill the Jews”, as rioters attacked businesses in the Sarcelles district, known as “little Jerusalem”.

Manuel Valls, France’s prime minister said: “What happened in Sarcelles is intolerable. An attack on a synagogue and on a kosher shop is simply anti-Semitism. Nothing in France can justify this violence.”…….

More than a thousand Jews have made aliyah (the term used when Jews immigrate to Israel) in the past 10 days, according to the Israeli government.

“I came because of anti-Semitism,” said teary-eyed Veronique Rivka Buzaglo, one of 430 immigrants who arrived from France the day before. “You see it in the eyes of people. I see it in everything,” she told HuffPost.

Buzaglo says nothing would have stopped her from becoming an Israeli citizen this week – not even the rocket sirens frequently blaring in the south of the country, where she plans to live.

BASICALLY, one has to peer into ones heart of hearts and decide: are the words of Israel’s leaders meaningful, or just over-bloated hot air? Moreover, it must be recognized that not all bullsh-t is equal. Life and death.

IN this regard, listen carefully to their words and see if they match their actions! Then, decide for yourself: what order of manure are they shoveling?

MEN without chests…feet of clay…

UPDATE: Let’s just assert that public pressure helps…Zionists, the majority public, are getting restless…and this is one such indicator…may their heads roll…faster…faster…but it won’t happen without blowing up SHIFA…and Deif is just one of MANY top level targets still to blow up!!  Hammering Hamas Chiefs With Pinpointed Intelligence New War Effort.


Palestinians throw stones during clashes with Israeli security forces in Jerusalem, Thursday, July 3, 2014. The violence erupted Wednesday after a 16-year-old Palestinian Mohammed Abu Khdeir was abducted and a charred body, believed to be the boy, was found in a Jerusalem forest. The family has blamed extremist Jews for killing him in revenge for the deaths of the three Israeli teens, whose bodies were found in a field in the West Bank on Monday after a more than two-week search. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean) Palestinian official: Murdered youth 'burned alive'

{reblogged here –}

{reblogged here –}

AS always, pretending what is isn’t becomes the proverbial elephant in the room…the 600 lb gorilla…monkey on the back too. And as onerous as it can be within family confines – yes, “it be” – imagine how much more so it is when embedded within a nation’s belly, especially one as endangered as Israel.

IN light of this week’s BELATED operation to deal with Hamas – strangely coined “Operation Protective Edge”…this American-Israeli prefers “Operation Pulverizer…Smackdown”…no matter…after hundreds of rockets/missiles have rained down in recent weeks, let alone over many years – little is more pressing than the oft misunderstood subject of “ceasefires”. They are the death of us.

SIGNIFICANTLY, time and again, Israel’s leaders negotiate “ceasefires/deathfires” with terror groups, be they Hamas, Fatah or Hezbollah. It makes no diff. And while said “ceasefires” aren’t worth the price of bupkes, the fact of the matter is not only are they worthless and exponentially dangerous – whetting their appetites for more of the same – they are ILLEGAL. Plain and simple.

The relentless war waged against Israel has absolutely nothing to do with land per se, and this is precisely why every insane concession, gesture and withdrawal offered by Israel’s (peace-obsessed) leaders has not elicited an expected reciprocal peace gesture, but paradoxically incites to additional jihadist behavior. And in a tangible realm it makes sense for Arabs/Muslims to become hyper-aggressive, particularly after each Israeli capitulation counter intuitively whets their insatiable appetites for more of the same. So as a result of the leadership’s desperate attempt to allay international pressure, thus abating another dangling sword, they have become wedded to peace delusions. A double whammy. Never mind the fact that murderous jihad hasn’t ceased within Israel from time immemorial. But logic escapes many of Israel’s “leading lights”, except for a handful. At the top of the list heralding Israel’s “intellectual warriors” stand Dr. Martin Sherman and Professor Paul Eidelberg.

IN certain high level legal/political circles, primarily in America and Israel, Professor Louis Rene Beres requires little introduction. But for the newly on board, introducing…

My “go to” expert on all matters pertaining to international law, and a country’s right to anticipatory self defense – via preemptive strikes – is none other than Professor Louis Rene Beres of ‘Project Daniel.’ The working group’s original policy paper is found herein. He was Chair of the above strategic nuclear policy paper given to PM Ariel Sharon in 2003 – and subsequently briefed the report to President George W. Bush and to current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – in relation to Israel’s nuclear strategy in the face of Iran’s pursuit of WMD’s. He is a man of great integrity and humility. 

Lou, a heartfelt thank you for being my mentor.

International Law Precludes Ceasefires With Terror Groups

Professor Louis Rene Beres

Any time there is an announced “cease fire” between Israel and Hamas, it wrongly and foolishly bestows upon that terror organization

(1) an expressly legitimate status under international law; and

(2) a clear and newly incontestable condition of legal symmetry between the parties.

This is never a tolerable jurisprudential arrangement for Israel.

Moreover, no proper system of law can ever permit any sort of compromise or accommodation by a government with criminal organizations, even, in the case of Israel and Hamas, one that might involve a somewhat less formal arrangement than the currently proposed cease fire.

It follows that Israel ought never to unwittingly prop up its criminal adversary in Gaza by agreeing to a cease fire or similar “armistice”; instead, it should proceed immediately to do whatever is needed operationally, while simultaneously reminding the world that the pertinent conflict is between a fully legitimate sovereign state (one that meets all criteria of the Convention  on the Rights and Duties of States, 1934) and an inherently illegal insurgent organization that meets none of these criteria, and that routinely violates all vital precepts of the law of armed conflict.

Hamas’ inherent illegality is readily deducible from the far-reaching codified and customary criminalization of terrorism under authoritative international law, and can never be challenged by even well-intentioned third parties (e.g., the United States) in the presumably overriding interests of “peace.” This is true even if Hamas were somehow mistakenly acknowledged to have “just cause” for its insurgency

Since the Hebrew Bible, there have always been clear and determinable rules of warfare. Now, moreover, especially since prominent codified changes enacted in 1949 and 1977, these rules bind all insurgent forces, not only uniformed national armies. In modern usage, they derive most plainly from the St. Petersburg Declaration (1868), which, in turn, followed upon earlier limitations expressed at the First Geneva Convention of 1864.

In any conflict, the means that can be used to injure an enemy are not unlimited. It follows that no matter how hard they may try to institute certain self-serving manipulations of language,  those who would identify the willful maiming and execution of noncombatants in the name of some abstract ideal – any ideal – are always misrepresenting international law.

Whenever Palestinian insurgents (Hamas; Fatah; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; Islamic Jihad, it makes no difference) claim a legal right to use “any means necessary,” they are attempting to deceive. Even if their corollary claims for “national self-determination” were in some fashion legally supportable, there would remain fully authoritative limits on permissible targets and weapons.

Under binding humanitarian international law, the ends can never justify the means.

Intentional forms of violence directed against the innocent are always repugnant, and always prohibited.

While it is true that certain insurgencies can be judged lawful, any such permissible resorts to force must nonetheless conform to the laws of war. Even if incessant Palestinian cries of “occupation” were reasonable rather than contrived, any corresponding claims of entitlement to oppose Israel “by any means necessary” would remain unsupportable.

International law has precise form and content. It cannot be invented and reinvented by terror groups or aspiring states, merely to accommodate their own presumed interests.

Earlier, on November 29, 2012, the Palestinian Authority (PA) had been upgraded by the U.N. General Assembly to the status of a “nonmember observer state,” but significantly, the PA has since declared itself nonexistent.

On January 3, 2013, Mahmoud Abbas formally “decreed” the absorption of the “former “PA into the “State of  Palestine.” While this administrative action did effectively and jurisprudentially eliminate the PA, it assuredly did not succeed in creating a new state by simple fiat. Leaving aside Abbas’ illegal refusal to follow the Palestinian Arabs’ binding obligation to negotiate full sovereignty directly with Israel, the evident criteria of “nonmember observer state” also fell far short of expectations of the only authoritative international treaty on statehood. This governing document is the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (the “Montevideo Convention”) of 1934.

National liberation movements that fail to meet the test of just means are never protected as legitimate. Even if we were to accept the argument that Palestinian insurgent groups somehow met the criteria of “just cause,” they would not meet the additionally limiting standards of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity. These compulsory standards have been applied to insurgent organizations by the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and also by the two authoritative protocols to these Conventions of 1977.

They are also binding upon all combatants by virtue of broader customary and conventional international law, including Article 1 of the Preamble to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. This rule, called the “Martens Clause,” makes all persons responsible for upholding the “laws of humanity,” and for the “dictates of public conscience.”

Every use of insurgent force by Palestinian insurgents must be judged twice, once with regard to the justness of the objective (in this case, a Palestinian state to be built upon the charred ruins of Israel), and once with regard to the justness of the violence employed.

American and European supporters of a Palestinian State continue to believe that this 23rd Arab country will somehow be part of a “two-state solution.”  Oddly, this wishful presumption is contradicted almost everywhere in the Arab/Islamic world. Cartographically, in this world, Israel has already been eliminated. On these maps, unambiguously, Israel exists only as “Occupied Palestine.”

Always, terrorist crimes mandate universal cooperation, in both apprehension and punishment. As punishers of “grave breaches” under international law, all states are expected to search out and prosecute, or extradite, individual terrorist perpetrators. In no circumstances are any states permitted to characterize terrorists as “freedom fighters.”

This expectation is explicitly and emphatically true for the United States, which already  incorporates all international law as the “supreme law of the land” at Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution (the “Supremacy Clause”), and which was intentionally formed according to the principles of Natural Law. For the Founding Fathers of the United States, of course, these principles had already been “born” at Sinai.

IN furtherance of the above legal application, Israel’s leaders, by negotiating with terrorists (and releasing them from jail!), commit treason, as evinced within Israel’s internal laws! Yes, they do.
Article Two: Treason.
Impairment of sovereignty or integrity of the State.
97. (a) If a person commits an act liable to impair the sovereignty of the state with the intention to impair that sovereignty, then he is liable to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.
(b) if a person commits an act liable to remove any area from the sovereignty of the state or place it under the sovereignty of a foreign state with the intention to bring that about, then he is liable to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.


IT is duly instructive that another of this site’s trusted contacts, the above named Professor Paul Eidelberg, joins the fray…

A Question of Treason Leading to Anarchy

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In my June 2, 2008 report on Israel National Radio, I said, inter alia: “Knesset Member Arieh Eldad is to be congratulated for saying Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert’s offer to yield the Golan Heights to Syria is nothing less than treason.  But the same crime may be attributed to Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon – to say nothing of many other politicians who have been complicit in yielding Jewish land to Israel’s enemies.”

A year after my report of June 2, 2008 – on June 14, 2009 to be exact – PM Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech at Bar-Ilan University, endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, and did so without Knesset or public debate.

If (former) MK Arieh Eldad could say “[PM Ehud] Olmert’s offer to yield the Golan Heights to Syria is nothing less than treason,” what shall we say of PM Netanyahu’s offer to yield Judea and Samaria to the Palestinian Authority?

Is it any wonder that Israel today is verging on a state of anarchy?

CONSEQUENTIALLY, in light of continuous rocket/missile barrages – more accurately, blitzkriegs – on southern Israel, one has to stand up and shout unequivocally: today’s incessant barrages – responsible for over a million of Israel’s citizens running into bomb shelters – are the poisonous fruits of the absolutely illegal “ceasefire” from 2012!

Then, as always, PM Netanyahu “ceased” Israel’s firepower during “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008 (and in 2012 during operation עַמּוּד עָנָן, ʿAmúd ʿAnán, literally: “Pillar of Cloud”…as derived from the Bible…aka Operation Pillar of Defense…this is NOT for nothing…know your Bible well…), pulling the troops back both times, as they closed in on victory!

PERVERSELY, what kind of delusional and derelict leadership behaves as such? Will this go around be any different? Time will tell…

Smoke rises from Gaza airport


Israel’s Leadership, Its Achilles Heel:Serial Mendacity Morphed With Besieged Mentality.A Road To Disaster…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Many of this blog’s readership are duly familiar with Professor Paul Eidelberg and the close association herein. Nonetheless, it bears repeating, for not unlike with Dr. Martin Sherman, as well as with Professor Louis Rene Beres, his assessments often serve as a self mirror, at the same time that further insights are often gleaned.

I assist several Zionist academics with their efforts, chiefly through their policy centers. I am particularly in sync with the policy prescriptions elucidated by Dr. Martin Sherman (his latest tv interview at i.24tv on the “peace process”) andProfessor Paul Eidelberg (his latest interview at Inquisitr, ‘Organized Treachery vs. Organized Hypocrisy‘). Therefore, I lend them my insights.

My “go to” expert on all matters pertaining to international law, and a country’s right to anticipatory self defense – via preemptive strikes – is none other thanProfessor Louis Rene Beres of ‘Project Daniel.’ The working group’s original policy paper is found herein. He was Chair of the above strategic nuclear policy paper given to PM Ariel Sharon in 2003 – and subsequently briefed the report to President George W. Bush and to current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – in relation to Israel’s nuclear strategy in the face of Iran’s pursuit of WMD’s. He is a man of great integrity and humility.

Lou, a heartfelt thank you for being my mentor.

But before we get to the main event, please understand that the ways in which Israel’s top leadership reacts to serial terror is more than indicative of their state of mind.

The Palestinian sniper who Tuesday, Dec. 24, shot dead an Israeli civilian employed by the IDF to repair the damaged Gazan border fence, sent  Israeli government and military chiefs into an agony of indecision over how to fight back against surging Palestinian terrorism attacks without derailing ongoing US-sponsored Middle East peace talks. Tuesday afternoon, Israeli warplanes struck a Hamas base in Gaza. This was no more than a relatively mild response. However, Hamas is evacuating its bases in case of further strikes.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had hoped that by refraining from punishing the Palestinian attacks – spreading out from Gaza, across the West Bank, in Jerusalem and inside Israel – he could bring the talks to a successful conclusion. But he was wrong. Like his predecessors, he faild to meet the challenge which defeated them too: How to talk peace with the Palestinians under terrorist aggression.  

Netanyahu however finds himself in worse straits due his secretiveness on the extensive concessions he has offered the Palestinians in such sensitive areas as the Jordan Valley as well as the West Bank, under US Secretary of State John Kerry’s bulldozing tactics.

He almost gave the game away by a secret meeting he held with the dovish ultra-religious Torah Judaism (Aguda) Party leaders, suggesting he was planning a government reshuffle to drop pro-settlement factions from his government in favor of a lineup more amenable to concessions.

With the above firmly in mind, presenting,

Serial Mendacity: The Road to a Mental Disorder

Prof. Paul Eidelberg


Much of the historical data in this article is drawn from scattered reports of the Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA) and other sources. It was necessary to lightly edit this assorted material to make it more coherent and historically more familiar to diverse readers.

My paramount objective is to provide prima facie evidence that Israel is a self-­entrapped state; that its decision makers are ensnared in escapism or in denial of reality. I dare say that these decision makers are suffering from a mental disorder comparable to schizophrenia. This disorder is obscured by the co-presence of normal behavior, but which normal behavior does not preclude irrational responses to the hostile attitude and behavior of Israel’s most proximate antagonists, the Jew-hating Palestinians.

With Israel, we are dealing with Jewish politicians confronted by existential threats as well as by Arab-Islamic enemies whose traits of character cannot be readily understood and realistically addressed by people whose formal education and moral values and whose habits of life are maladapted to the language and behavior of Muslims and Arabs. This means that the Jewish state of Israel does not fit very well in the Islamic sea of the Middle East, where even Arabs and Muslims are each at their own throats. But this means that Western political analysts, including highly educated students of Islam may lead us astray as we try to understand the conflicts raging in the Middle East, especially the conflict between Israel and that nebulous entity called the “Palestinians,” an almost random conglomeration of people lacking clear-cut historical and territorial definition, as well as clearly defined ethnic and religious characteristics. As for Israel, it seems to be limping along from crisis to crisis without any clear sense of national purpose beyond the mundane but not very inspiring value of security.

Part I. Analysis of a Syndrome: Hung by Their Own Petard

Israel is trapped in a syndrome I call “serial mendacity.”  Not that mendacity is a national trait of Israelis. Rather, it’s a reaction to the mendacity which diverse scholars say is deeply engrained in Arab-Islamic culture. Even Sonia Hamady, a liberated Arab sociologist, admits that “Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth.”

Hence it’s ironic that mendacity became the modus operandi of Israel’s government when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and his Foreign Minister Shimon Peres consummated the fraudulent Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993. This nefarious agreement obscures the most pertinent truths about Israel’s enemy, Islam.

First of all, Islamic supremacism makes it impossible for Muslims and Jews to coexist in genuine and abiding peace. Second, how can Muslims engage in honest negotiations with infidels, when their holiest book, the Quran, describes infidels as apes and dogs? Third, the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya makes a virtue deception and dissembling even with regard to fellow-Muslims. Successful taqiyya is a mark of individual and social superiority, which harmonizes with the theological supremacy that animates Islam and its wars against unbelievers. These characteristics of Islam undermine the primacy of reason as opposed to the primacy of force in resolving disputes with adversaries. As a consequence, it is futile and self-defeating to deal with Muslims on the basis of ‘reciprocity” or compromise, concepts foreign to Arab-Islamic culture.

As conceived by Muslim statesmen, the Oslo Agreement was nothing more than a diplomatic tactic designed to obtain territory from peace-intoxicated Jews and thus facilitate the annihilation of Israel. The demise of the Jewish state is of course sanctified by Islamic scriptures.

It follows that Israeli decision makers did not take these scriptures or Islam seriously. They disregarded Islam’s 1,400-year tradition of genocide, its denial of the nation-state system on the one hand, and its global ambitions on the other. In contrast, Israel’s democratic politicians have been conditioned by the Western concept of pluralism and adulation of parliamentarianism whereby diverse parties resolve their differences by means of mutual concessions or compromise.

Probing more deeply, the fact that Israeli politicians, unlike their Muslim counterparts, prefer to resolve differences via the primacy of reason as opposed to the primacy of force or intimidation clashes with a basic principle of Islamic theology. We need to bear in mind that Islam’s Deity represents absolute Will unbound by Reason, hence unbound by law or justice. This theology stands in striking contrary to Judaism—as illustrated by Abraham’s questioning the justice of God’s projected destruction of Sodom and Gomorra. Can anyone imagine Muhammad or Saladin or Ahmadinejad interposing between Allah and the genocides committed in his name by Muslims?

Given the overweening arrogance of Muslims underlying their murderous hatred of Infidels and supplemented by their art of deception called taqiyya, Muslim diplomats and despots have made fools of western statesmen. Prevarication is congenital in Islam, but what Western decision makers and opinion makers dare expose this seemingly “racist” portrayal of Islam?  It needs to be born in mind, however, that that the untruthfulness intrinsic to taqiyya harmonizes with Islam’s theological rejection of the primacy of reason which, in the West, is the faculty for communicating truth.

Both Israeli and American leaders have ignored Islam’s addiction to taqiyya. By so doing they have endowed Islamic mendacity with a religious veneer and have thereby conditioned Israelis and Americans to remain silent about the Oslo charade. This silence has effectively deprived American and Israeli statesmen of free will—ironically, the human faculty denied by Islamic theology! We may therefore say that the Oslo charade has made Western liberals and atheists the victims of a theology which not only rejects free will, the very quality that distinguishes the human from the subhuman, but which thereby warrants Islam’s denigration of infidels as apes and dogs!

Part II. The Unfolding of a Monumental Dilemma

Now, these ironic conclusions aside, one thing must be kept uppermost in mind: Oslo obscured the fact that the PLO is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. This truth was known to every Israeli Prime Minister, beginning with Yitzhak Rabin. It was concealed by all of his successors: Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, and Ariel Sharon. All were ensnared in falsehood.

None of these prime ministers possessed the wit and the guts to expose the mendacious and vicious nature of the PLO—something I had personally and naively recommended to Peres in a September 1976 meeting with him arranged by former Israel Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Haim Laskov. If Prime Minister Netanyahu revealed the truth about Oslo, he would be incriminating all of his predecessors, as well as himself! Such an exposé would collapse the State of Israel, for it would then be known to the people of this country that their prime ministers were guilty of at least criminal negligence, hence that they were responsible for the thousands of Jewish casualties resulting from the Oslo Agreement. No future prime minister of Israel can avoid this dilemma!

Let us therefore review some of the evidence accumulated by IMRA which exposes the fraud perpetrated by the Government of Israel. We begin with a letter to Yitzhak Rabin from PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat dated September 9, 1993 and published by Ha’aretz Magazine:

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the [Israel-PLO] Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following Palestine Liberation Organization commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations … The PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators….

The PLO affirms that those articles [of the PLO Covenant] which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter, are now inoperative and no longer valid….


Yasser Arafat
Chairman, the Palestine Liberation Organization

September 9, 1993

Prime Minister Rabin responded on the same day: “… The Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and to commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.”

Four days later [on September 13, 1993], the Declaration of Principles was signed in Washington. A month later, the Israeli government committed itself to the PLO by encouraging the activity of the Palestinian institutions of East Jerusalem. In April, an economic agreement with the PLO was signed in Paris. In May, the first PLO officials arrived in Gaza and Jericho, and two months later Yasser Arafat arrived in Gaza. In August of 1994, the protocols transferring authority to the PLO were signed at the Erez checkpoint and Cairo, and in November, donor countries decided on generous grants to the PLO. In December 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the head of the PLO, the Prime Minister Yitzhak of Israel and Foreign Minister Peres.

In September 1995, Oslo II, also known as the Taba Agreement, called for Israeli withdrawals from various areas of the “West Bank.” In November and December of 1995, the PLO assumed control over six cities in Judea and Samaria. In January 1996, 812 terrorists were released from Israeli prisons and 10 days later, elections were held for the Palestinian Authority Council and its president. The reconciliation process reached its climax in April 1996, when Prime Minister Shimon Peres announced that the Palestinian Covenant was annulled.

However, in 2002, nine years after the 1993 exchange of mutual recognition by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin, the Government of Israel (with the participation of the Labor Party) accepted the assessment by the Israel Defense Forces General Staff and the Shin Bet security service that the continued presence of IDF forces in Judea and Samaria is a necessary—though not always sufficient —condition for preventing terror activity. In the opinion of many of these officials, Oslo had fostered a dangerous distortion of the message of peace vis-à-vis the PLO, indeed, that the political method of resolving disputes between of the Arab residents of Samaria, Judea, and Gaza on the one hand, and Israel on the other was “blocked” or no longer tenable.

The perception of the Oslo Agreement as a means leading to peace was based on three assumptions. The first assumption was that the PLO had given up its traditional goal of eliminating the State of Israel. The second and related assumption was that the PLO had really given up violence as an instrument to achieve that traditional goal. The third assumption was that the PLO had renounced its claim of the right of return of the 1948 Arab refugees to their homes. Therefore, the logical conclusion was that a genuine and abiding peace agreement with the PLO was within reach, since the main obstacles were removed from the path to peace, while the remaining disputes, which were detailed in the Declaration of Principles, would be settled around the negotiating table.

That hope was not realized, despite the early, formative period of the Oslo Agreement in the years 1993-1996, when a “dovish” government headed by the Labor Party, with the participation of the left-wing Meretz party, was in power. The PLO terror war continued despite Oslo, and it proceeded along two axes.

The PLO’s Strategy and Tactics

The PLO’s goal was embedded in two plans, strategic and tactical. The strategic plan was included in the Palestinian Covenant, which was approved by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) in Jerusalem, in 1964. The plan is based on the negation of Jewish nationhood. The Jews have no right to statehood in Palestine since they “only belong to a religion.” But since such a state was established on Palestinian land, it must be removed through “armed struggle.”

The PNC approved of this plan in 1974. The plan was known as the “stages plan” for the liberation of Palestine. The PNC decided to achieve control over all of Palestine gradually by negotiations punctuated by “armed struggle.” The PNC had thus decided on a “peace-and-terror” strategy, a strategy of stages by which to truncate and eventually eliminate the Jewish state.

About a year before the 1993 signing of the Oslo accords, the late Faisal Husseini discussed the distinction between strategy and tactics in a speech to an Arab youth organization in Amman (Al-Ra’y, Jordan, November 12, 1992). “In the life of all nations there are two political strategies: the overall strategy and the current political strategy. We have to know that the slogan for the current stage is not ‘from the sea to the river’ … we have not conceded and will not surrender any of the existing commitments that have existed for more than 70 years … We have within our Palestinian and united Arab society the ability to deal with divided Israeli society … We must force Israeli society to cooperate … with our Arab society, and eventually to gradually dissolve the ‘Zionist entity,’”

Two years after the signing of the Oslo Agreement, Husseini repeated this cunning Palestinian stratagem on July 22, 1995, at the University of Jordan. “The political solution we are now proposing is within the context of our political strategy and not our overall strategy. Our policy with regard to the second strategy is known. If you ask any Palestinian, he will tell you that the boundaries of Palestine go from the river to the sea. There are no arguments over that. We might be mistaken about our political strategy, but we are never wrong about our permanent overall strategy.” Husseini proved that this is indeed his permanent view when he reiterated the distinction six years later. He told the Cairo Al-Arabi on June 24, 2001: “We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the political phased goals, which we are compelled to temporarily accept due to international pressure … The Palestinian borders according to the higher strategy [are] ‘from the river to the sea.’ Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation, a land no one can sell or buy, and it is impossible to remain silent while someone is robbing it, even if this requires time and even [if it means paying] a high price.”

In that interview, Husseini revealed the PLO’s strategy with regard to the Oslo Agreement. “The people of Troy … cheered and celebrated thinking that the Greek troops were routed, and while retreating, they left a harmless wooden horse as spoils of war. So they opened the gates of the city and brought in the wooden horse. We all know what happened next.”

Arafat described the tactic in a speech at a Johannesburg mosque, in May 1994 in which he compared the Oslo Agreement to the peace agreement signed between Mohammed and the Koraish tribe, at the Hudeibah springs. Mohammed signed the agreement in a moment of weakness, all the while intending to violate it and eliminate the Koraish, after he gained strength —which is what he did. “This [Oslo] agreement,” said Arafat in Johannesburg, “I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar refused this agreement and [considered] it a despicable truce.”

Barely an hour before the signing of the Declaration of Principles at the White House on September 13, 1993, Jordanian television broadcast a brief speech by Arafat in Arabic, which he had taped in Washington a few hours earlier. With caution that was appropriate to the timing, he mentioned the foundations of the PLO’s traditional struggle: liberating Palestine and turning it into an Arab land, the right of return of the Palestinian Diaspora to their homes, the “stages plan” of 1974 for gradual fulfillment of that right, and jihad as the means of fulfilling the plan.

There was no contradiction between what the PLO’s leaders were saying publicly in Arabic, and what was being said to Israeli representatives in closed-door discussions, and there was no concession on the right of return of the refugees to their actual homes. Deputy Defense Minister Mordechai Gur, who conducted talks with the PLO’s representatives during 1994, said (Ha’aretz, January 30, 1995), “It’s not very pleasant to hear what I hear from the Palestinians. They aren’t talking about the house in Hebron … They are talking about the university hill in Tel Aviv … Once, during one of the sessions, I called aside the head of their delegation and told him that if I were to record the discussions and play them back to the members of my party, not the opposition, 90 percent of them would say ‘stop the talks immediately.’”In early 1995, the Palestinian Information Ministry issued Booklet No. 5 in which the State of Israel is defined as “land occupied in 1948.”
Middle East Media Research Institute Booklet No. 6 declared: “Palestinian refugees and the right of return,” published in English 28 years after the 1967 war, refers to “more than four decades of occupation.” It says “the 1947 resolution guarantees the right of return of all those Palestinians who want to return home and live in peace with their neighbors.” Other sections of the booklet mirror the Palestinian covenant. “The Palestinian people didn’t accept the Balfour Declaration at anytime … The 1947 resolution on the partition of Palestine came only to complement the unjust laws and military orders enacted by the British Mandate government – the partition of Palestine was baseless and illegal … The purpose of the Zionist movement was the establishment of a state of their own at the expense of the original inhabitants of Palestine … Arab and international attempts that sought to convince the Jews to accept self-autonomy rule in Palestine, were doomed to failure …”Arafat himself declared on the Voice of Palestine, November 11, 1995, that the handover of responsibility for cities in the “West Bank” to the PLO will not end “until all of Palestine is liberated.” A clear definition of “all of Palestine” was heard from one of the “moderates” in the PLO leadership, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) who declared on December 23, 1995 at the Deheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem, “Inshallah, the return [of all the Arab refugees] is coming soon.”For Israel, the test of real change in PLO goals would be the implementation of Arafat’s letter of September 9, 1993 renouncing terrorism. When Prime Minister Peres announced on April 24, 1996 that the Palestine National Council had that day annulled what amounted to the genocidal provisions of the PLO covenant, he described this as “the most important ideological event of the past 100 years in the Middle East”; but this he said without realizing that Arafat had deceived him. The circumstances and details of the deception were only to become known two years later, in an article by the legal advisor to the Foreign Ministry in the years 1993-1996, Joel Singer (“The truth about the covenant,” Ma’ariv, June 19, 1998).When the government realized it had been deceived, it demanded a “clarification” from Arafat. It received, in English, a false version of the PNC decision which was nonetheless approved by Israel’s Government presumably because it surfaced only a few weeks before Israel’s May 1996 elections. Singer said in his article that “this was blatantly a political decision.” Elsewhere the article quotes Arafat, “I never gave an opinion to the Israeli government saying that the amendment to the Palestinian Covenant, as adopted by the PNC, met the Palestinian commitments.”The PLO’s fraud was exposed by the chairman of the PNC, Salim Za’anun ten days after the PNC met. He told Al-Nahar on May 5, 1996, that “the PNC accepted a ‘third formulation,’ different from what Israel demanded.”
Five years later, he revealed the entire truth in a manifesto issued in Cairo on February 2, 2001: “The PLO Covenant continues to exist, because the PNC was never convened to ratify the changes that were proposed in the past, particularly because no legal committee was appointed to draft the necessary change.”All of this makes clear that even in the “years of hope,” the PLO did not give up realization of all its rights, as expressed in this order: first, the right of return of the refugees to their homes; second, the right of self-determination after the return of the refugees; and third, the right to establish a state with Jerusalem as its capital on the basis of the fulfillment of the first two rights. The gap between these three conditions and the existence of the State of Israel is unbridgeable….Nissim Zvilli, a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee stated in Ha’aretz, July 27, 2002: “I remember myself lecturing in Paris and saying that Arafat’s double-talk had to be understood. That was our thesis, proved [later] as nonsense. Arafat meant every word, and we were naive, thinking that he is doing it to overcome the resistance to the agreement among his public.”
As far as the PLO is concerned, the Oslo agreement was not derailed and the violence involved in its implementation was dictated from the moment it was signed. Things could not be any different—and therefore they were not.People like MK Nissim Zvilli learned from the bitter Oslo years that Israel cannot reach peace by giving up homeland. The “alchemists,” who failed to bring peace-by-giving-up-land with an agreement, now promise us serenity while abandoning the land without an agreement. [This was exemplified in August 2006 in Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.] Israel’s desperate politicians assume that what does not happen with retreat will happen with escape.Escapism is not only a recipe for continuing war. [Escapism is a mental disorder. In fact, it is one of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, which also includes delusions, apathy, depersonalization, stereotypic behaviors, flattened emotional reactions (to tragedies), impairment of volition, and lack of self-esteem (vis-à-vis others).]
To conclude, let us step back to gain some historical perspective.  In 1993, Israel’s Labor Government, seemingly oblivious of the 1,400-year Arab addiction to violence, hoped that the Oslo Agreement would result in the annulment of the PLO’s genocidal Covenant, and that it would put an end to terror and lead to peace.
The Knesset ratified the Agreement 61 to 50.In 1998, the Likud Government knew that the PLO’s genocidal Covenant remained in force. The Government knew that the operational agreement between the PLO and Hamas about the division of labor with regard to the use of terrorism and negotiations remained in place. In fact, the Government’s own sources were explicitly warned that the PLO intended to violate the Oslo Accords as well as the Wye River Memorandum, the agreement Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority signed on October 23, 1998. The Knesset nonetheless approved the Wye agreement 75 to 19. (None of the extensive security provisions embodied in that agreement have been observed by the PA or enforced by the Netanyahu Government.)Israel’s Government is not only inept; it suffers from a profound intellectual and moral sickness quite rampant in Western Civilization, which lost its moral compass when it abandoned its roots in the Old Testament.  Mere criticism alone will get us nowhere. To go on and on subjecting the territorial policies of Israel’s Government to rational and empirically-based analysis—which Oslo critics have been doing for more than 20 years—is no more effective than trying to talk sense to a catatonic schizophrenic.◙
To wrap things up, when asked by Prof Eidelberg to critique the above analysis, this blogger offered the following and it speaks for itself:
Firstly, you are laying out a prima facie case how Israel’s leaders have adopted serious maledictions from their enemies, as they stumble from one crisis to another, and then pass off their behavior (having become serial liars themselves) as “strategies” which must be implemented, either for “peace” or for security, or a combination thereof. 

Now, it is one thing to lie to ones enemies to “get the job done” ala psy ops etc, but it is another order of magnitude to do so to ones own citizens, particularly in relation to life and death matters. Not only that, but they have adopted their own lies as truths. They are literally trapped in their own (mental and mendacious) vortex.

You have demonstrated that DIAMETRICALLY opposed value systems make it impossible to bridge the divide between Israel (the west) and the Arab/Muslim world, thus abrogating any agreements signed etc. Pretending what is isn’t has become Israel’s/west’s modus operandi. Que credo absurdum.Most tellingly, despite ALL the Arab leadership’s admissions to Arab audiences – revealing what their strategies and tactics are – none of this gives Israel’s leaders pause, even with the evidence of Arab duplicity before them. As such, they are entrapped by their serial mendacity, loathe to EXPOSE the full extent of Arab leadership’s treachery – and through their own words no less! 
In effect, if they so desired, Israel’s leaders could hold both domestic and foreign press conferences, proving, once and for all, through Arab statements, precisely why Oslo must be vitiated. Alas, such (long overdue) statesmanship would indict the entire Israeli leadership and this they will NEVER tolerate. Hence, they would rather continue along the nation’s dismemberment. 
NOT only that, but Israel’s leaders played a DIRECT part in all of Oslo’s national destruction, in so far as the leadership understood precisely what the PA junta was up to. In other words, there is NO longer any plausible deniability. Sach ha’kol, they are accomplices to the PA/PLO/Fatah’s crimes!
You clearly delineated that to continue their serial mendacity they had to pretend that “this and that” didn’t exist, so that they could be free to sign “this and that”. In other words, style over substance, but in matters of grave national import, possibly existential in nature. What kind of leaders behave/operate this way? Serially mendacious…who also happen to be mentally ill/besieged.


Indeed, a mirror image.


Legal precepts, including their constraints and restraints, are often viewed as little more than non-discernible mumbo jumbo. Nevertheless, they are well documented within international and national systems of law and western leaders are NOT allowed to cherry pick when to abide by them, or to ignore their mandates with impunity to execute a more “valued” political outcome, come what may.

YES, one would think that legal dictates, whatever they may be, are binding upon all requisite players, unless legislated or adjudicated otherwise. Alas, this is the way a civilized system is predicated to operate. Then again, “democratic despotism” via a “soft tyranny” has become the (western) norm. Damn the law.

As to the referenced “mumbo jumbo”, there are few better equipped to extrapolate its underpinnings, other than Professor Louis Rene Beres. He is distinctly honored at this blog’s “About” tab.

My “go to” expert on all matters pertaining to international law, and a country’s right to anticipatory self defense – via preemptive strikes – is none other than Professor Louis Rene Beres of ‘Project Daniel.’ The working group’s original policy paper is found herein. He was Chair of the above strategic nuclear policy paper given to PM Ariel Sharon in 2003 – and subsequently briefed the report to President George W. Bush and to current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – in relation to Israel’s nuclear strategy in the face of Iran’s pursuit of WMD’s. He is a man of great integrity and humility.

Lou, a heartfelt thank you for being my mentor.

That being said, aside from his world class expertise in the nuclear warfare arena, he is equally an expert in the (i)legalities of Palestinian “statehood” for a sundry list of legal strictures, notwithstanding the PA’s irrefutable linkage with terror.

Tellingly, PA “statehood” & its violations of international law obligates U.S. leadership to adhere to legal constructs, as well as Israel’s “peace” obsessed too. Both reveal more of the same, indicting U.S. and Israeli counterparts (fueled by internal and external leftist players) for their parts in ignoring legal imperatives, thereby, precluding them from negotiating with those who engage in terror! Ringing any bells…as Abbas’s/Abu Mazen’s Palestinian Authority & its UNRELENTING anti-Jewish incitement more than legally binds leftist ‘peace’ fetishists, outside & inside Israel, from engaging in any “processes”, even as they thrust forward.

‘Little girls on PA TV:’

Jews are the “most evil among creations,
barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs,”
condemned to “humiliation and hardship”

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Palestinian Authority TV continues to promote Islam-based hate speech and Antisemitism, voiced by little children. In this latest example, two sisters recited a poem that included the following demonization of Jews:

“You who murdered Allah’s pious prophets (i.e., Jews in Islamic tradition)
Oh, you who were brought up on spilling blood
You have been condemned to humiliation and hardship
Oh Sons of Zion, oh most evil among creations
Oh barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs.”

The poem also taught that Jerusalem is not for Jews, because Jerusalem “vomits” out the Jews who are said to be “filth” and “impure”:

“Jerusalem vomits from within it your impurity
Because Jerusalem, you impure ones, is pious, immaculate
And Jerusalem, you who are filth, is clean and pure.”

Click to view

NO serious leader can pretend that what is isn’t, even as they sit around the table pretending to be statesmen, “negotiating” this and that. The question remains: When UN thugs bestow “statehood” upon terrorists, how many violations are accrued via international law?

Once again, the floor, so to speak, is left to Professor Louis Rene Beres’s highly capable analysis.

BERES: Creeping toward Palestinian statehood

U.N. nonmember observer status was only the beginning – Washington Times

One year ago, on Nov. 29, 2012, the U.N. General Assembly voted to upgrade the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the status of a “nonmember observer state.” Although it is more or less widely thought that this organizational elevation was tantamount to a bestowal of formal legal personality, this is not the case. Jurisprudentially, at least, “Palestine” still remains outside the community of separately sovereign states.

This exclusion is evident “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Authoritative criteria of statehood making this point are already long-standing, explicit and readily available. More precisely, under pertinent international law, a state must always possess the following specific qualifications: a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

The formal existence of a state, moreover, is always independent of any recognition by other states. According to the 1934 Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (the Montevideo Convention): “Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit .” It follows that even a Palestinian state that would fail to meet evident Montevideo expectations could simply declare otherwise, and then act persuasively “to defend its integrity and independence.” More than likely, any such “defense” would ultimately involve war or terrorism against “Occupied Palestine,” aka Israel.

Whenever the Palestinian Authority finally decides to declare statehood, thereby further enhancing its already upgraded status as a U.N. nonmember observer state, Montevideo standards and rights of statehood will be widely re-examined. Predictably, as Israel — challenging the adversarial declaration — will point correctly to relevant Oslo Agreement violations, the Palestinian Authority will counter-argue that its particular right to declare an independent state of Palestine is fundamental, or “peremptory.” It follows, the PA will subsequently add, that legal rights of statehood override any previously existing expectations of its peace accord with Israel.

In this connection, the Palestinian Authority will undoubtedly cite the plainly non treaty quality of the Oslo Agreements (per definitions of “treaty” at the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties), and certain allegedly basic and immutable human rights under international law that concern “self determination” and “national liberation.” For years, Israel has not troubled itself too intently with the juridical aspects of “Palestine.” Most Israelis, after all, were never entirely convinced that Palestinian statehood could ever become a genuinely critical issue. Now, of course, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have conceded the eventual creation of Palestine, but only on the seemingly prudent condition of Palestinian “demilitarization.”

While this contingent condition may sound reassuring, it actually represents little more than a contrived and thoroughly impotent legal fiction.

No new state is ever under any obligation to remain “demilitarized,” whatever else it may have agreed to in its pre-state incarnation.

Over the years, a number of cases in U.S. federal courts have rejected the idea that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as “parent” of the Palestinian Authority, is in any way recognizable as the legitimate core of an independent Palestinian state. Earlier, perhaps, capable Israeli lawyers and policymakers might have been able to refer to such American case law in compelling support of an argument against Palestinian statehood, but not today. However grudgingly, after Oslo and so many years of incremental Israeli recognition of PLO-PA authority as legitimate, Israel will sometime have to accept Palestine as a co-equal “partner in peace.”

Legally, one must envy the Palestinians for the subtly nuanced dexterity with which they may have managed to outwit the Israelis. For years, legally at least, they have been very patient. Whatever other mistakes it has made in more narrowly tactical or strategic terms, the Palestinian leadership has nonetheless listened, learned, watched and persevered.

Now, even though they remain very far from satisfying the codified expectations of Montevideo, the overwhelming majority of U.N. member states are still all too willing to grant them full juridical parity with Israel.

Under the Montevideo Convention, all states are legally equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The moment that the Palestinian Authority should proceed to declare a state of Palestine, the new country will become the effective juridical equal of Israel. When Israelis then begin to object strenuously to inevitable Palestinian claims for more territory — territory within “occupied Palestine” — the world will listen more than politely to the Palestinians. They will, after all, now be fully equal to Israelis under international law.

It is already too late to change all this. The concocted and perilous drift to legal symmetry between Israel and “Palestine” is the direct result of persistently concessionary policies mistakenly fashioned in Jerusalem, from Yitzak Rabin to Mr. Netanyahu. Israel can still learn some important and potentially remediating lessons from its myriad Oslo mistakes.

Above all, Jerusalem must argue vigorously against new European Union guidelines, insisting that Palestine’s borders never be based upon pre-1967 lines. In the words of an Israeli legal expert, Ambassador Alan Baker: “The legality of the presence of Israel’s communities in [Judea and Samaria] stems from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments, recognized and accepted by the international community. These rights cannot be denied or placed in question.” Accordingly, Jerusalem should clearly affirm that Israeli settlement activity is recognizably consistent with international law.

For Israel to do otherwise on this contentious issue would represent a tangible and self-defeating violation of the law of nations.

At the end of the never ending “peace” process and death dance, few understand the synergistic threats involved, as does Prof Louis Rene Beres. In fact, the following analysis brings to bear the pressing and VERY GRAVE dangers of “Palestinian” statehood: Untangling synergies: Israel’s order of battle. A serious and predictable threat posed by Palestine would involve the new state’s virulent collaboration with Iran.

As the civilized world unravels due to Islamic terror one must demand that western leadership – most acutely America’s and Israel’s – seriously, urgently and diligently take the time to look back at constant error, thus, FINALLY internalizing the tangled narrative of Middle East “peace”. It is brilliantly expounded upon by Louis René Beres at  Israel’s Journal of Foreign Affairs. You think? 

Dead to rights!!

IRAN, FOR ALL INTENTS & PURPOSES, A NUCLEAR POWER: Obama’s LONGSTANDING Quest To Arm Iran. The Jig Is Up! What’s Obama’s End Goal? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Contrary to popular opinion and self deception within the U.S. and Israel – that the POTUS is way out of his depth, therefore, he does not know what he is doing – such an assumption is entirely erroneous and misleading. Dangerously so.                                                                                     

HUSSEIN Obama is seeking an arms race in the Mid East, even as he disarms the U.S. and fails to protect against an eventual EMP attackIn league with the Islamist-in-Chief’s continuous treachery towards America’s interests, his goal is to box Israel into (eventual) oblivion. Whenever it comes to pass, he will take satisfaction/pride that he had a hand in it. That’s the damnable truth.                                                                      

Just consider what has transpired up until this world class game changer: for all intents and purposes (barring an IMMEDIATE bolt out of the blue Israeli strike) Iran has joined the “nuclear club”! The following was noted 2 weeks ago: Iran is heading down to the trip wire, only a month away. Couldn’t be clearer.                                                                             

Coupled with this stark analysis – no pussyfooting around – and to shore up the opening thesis, the leader of the free world is aiming/arming for America’s and Israel’s downfall. His proxy forces are readying to execute his dirty work. NOT only that, but less than a month ago, 2 weeks before the above warnings, this blog “predicted” Iran’s triumph, as Barack HUSSEIN Obama subsumed the free world’s interests to Islamist revolutionaries. Regardless of this American-Israeli’s desire to have been proven wrong, we are where we are.                                                                      

As such, it is more than obligatory to (re)read the following analysis proffered by the foremost nuclear warfare expert, Professor Louis Rene Beres (my mentor). Back in April 2013, the ever patient prof warned: Israel’s pre-emptive window is near closing

In so far as Israel is concerned, tough talking PM Netanyahu – but   actions speak louder than the high art of rhetoric has this to  say:

Kerry, PM Hold Final Meeting; PM: ‘Israel utterly rejects’ Deal – PM reiterates the danger of deal with Iran before Kerry leaves for Geneva; meeting concludes disastrous Kerry visit, further angers Israel.

In light of the above, ponder the following from DEBKA Intelligence:

Israel’s most painful lesson from the two-day Geneva conference on Iran’s nuclear program is that the man who guaranteed to defend Israel’s security, President Barack Obama, is now marching hand in hand with Tehran towards a nuclear-armed Iran.
This is the reality behind the fuss and excitement surrounding the signing ceremony in Geneva Friday, Nov. 8, and the slick words gushing forth to put a convincing face on the interim deal put together between Iran and the Six Powers Thursday and Friday. 
President Obama broke the news to NBC Thursday night: “There is a possibility of a phased agreement, the first part of which would stop Iran from further expanding its nuclear program. We are offering modest relief from the sanctions, but keeping the core sanctions in place, so that if it turned out during the course of the six months when we’re trying to resolve some bigger issues that they’re backing out of the deal or… not giving us assurances that they’re not developing a nuclear weapon, we can crank that dial back up,” the US president said.
Friday morning, when US Secretary of State John Kerry was heading for Geneva to join Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif for the final signing stage, it was still unclear what Iran is willing to concede.

This is because no one was ready to admit exactly what the agreed “freeze” applied to and how far it is from “dismantlement “

Iran had in fact already achieved all the makings of a nuclear bomb and was holding them in place ready for assembly. Uranium enrichment will furthermore continue although at a low grade.

This is because no one was ready to admit exactly what the agreed “freeze” applied to and how far it is from “dismantlement “

Iran had in fact already achieved all the makings of a nuclear bomb and was holding them in place ready for assembly. Uranium enrichment will furthermore continue although at a low grade.

At any moment, Tehran may decide to assemble those components and produce a bomb and has the capacity to do so before the US or Israel catch on to what is happening.

The accord to be signed Friday elevates Iran automatically to the rank of a nuclear power, which already holds Syria, Iraq and Lebanon under its sway. The radical alliance binding Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Syria’s Bashar Assad and Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah has triumphed. Israel fell down badly by trusting the Obama administration to break this axis up before it spreads more violence and havoc across the region.

    As repeatedly stated, the onus lies atop PM Netanyahu’s head, as it is his sworn obligation to protect Israel from genocidal regimes. YET, smartie that Bibi is (MIT educated to boot!), his SPINELESSNESS led Israel down to the trip wire. Yes, he did, even as third world basket cases continue to give Obama the finger.                                                            

    Moreover, the following details the deceitful Islamic mandated taqiyya maneuvers utilized by the Islamist-in-Chief to set the stage for what has come to fruition in Geneva. The Devil Incarnate. Snake in the grass. Machiavellian. 

Obama’s Back-Door Dealing with Iran
No. 544
November 8, 2013
On the first day of the second round of negotiations in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1, the U.S. offering of a“reverse sanctions program” in return for the suspension of part of Tehran’s uranium enrichment has been leaked.  Described as a process of steps towards total abandonment of Iran’s bomb ambitions, this would translate to the a major dropping of some sanctions for a finite term, (6 months?) when Iran takes the first step.But Iran’s position on its nuclear program has remained the same, enriching as much uranium as they wish and keeping it, along with claiming the freedom to expand its nuclear capabilities in any way it sees fit.So, why this public offerning?On November 3, AP reported that Khamenei had admonished hardliners not to undermine negotiators engaged in talks with the West.However, Khamenei also said on the same day that he was not optimistic about the negotiations “and called America the most hated power in the world.”He also reiterated his regime’s view of Israel: “We have said since the very first day (of the Islamic Revolution), and we do say it now and we will say it in the future as well, that we believe the Zionist regime is an illegitimate and bastard regime.”Former Revolution Guard member “Reza Kahlili” notes that the regime’s media outlet Kheybar Online published a statement by Hossein Allahkaram, the regimes “radical” who  is described as a radical theoretician, saying, “Though to improve the economy and relieve some sanctions these matters (negotiations) are considered, the value of enriching to 20, 40, 60, and 99 percent that Iran is capable of doing is much more (important) than a good economy.”Indeed, the Obama administration has been lifting some sanction already before Hassan Rohani’s visit to the U.N. Assembly General in NYC. the U.S.Restrictions on funding and sending medical items and sports exchanges were permitted. And in advance of the current meeting, the Obama administration leaked that it was considering releasing $12 billion of Iranian assets held in the United States, which would undoubtedly be followed by Europe’s unfreezing another $35 billion in assets. Nearly $50 billion would seem like a prize for at least the cessation of all uranium enrichment.But neither Obama nor the Europeans are making such demands.After the first meeting of the new round in Geneva, Fars News was quick to show that Iran had the upper hand, with lead negotiator Seyed Abbas Araqchi saying that the P5+1 had accepted Iran’s proposed framework for continuing the talks.The Obama administration’s longstanding plans regarding to Iran were laid out on the eve of the Geneva talks by the Wall Street Journal.While using back channels is nothing new, Obama seems to have used them with Iran since the beginning of his presidency. According to the Journal, the lead dog in this has been NSC-staffer, Indian-American Puneet Talwar.  Talwar early on “conveyed a succinct message
for his Iranian interlocutors: The U.S. wants to peacefully resolve the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program” and “is ready to deal.“The article also mentions that former UN Ambassador Susan Rice was charged with conveying much the same message to the Iranian UN ambassador during her stint there.To veil their intentions Obama’s staff used the United Nations Association, Asia Society vice president Suzanne DiMaggio, and the Council on Foreign Relations in efforts to bring Rouhani and Obama face-to-face during the recent UN General Assembly meeting.The Journal noted, “U.S. diplomacy has also been aided by Hossein Mousavian, a former top Iranian diplomat and now a visiting scholar at Princeton University.”Obama himself recently admitted that soon after his inauguration, he wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader, to lay out his intentions for raproachment with Iran.It’s no wonder, then, that just before Obama’s 2012 reelection White House adviser-in-chief Valerie Jarrett, who has childhood friends in Iran-some in influential positions, decided to leak the news that the White House was near a deal with Tehran.  She wanted to assure the boss’s reelection by producing good news.Now we know that she had the evidence to show this if Obama had allowed it.It seems that as far as Obama is concerned, the deal with Tehran has already been consummated.Indeed, in a CNN interview, Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif said, “It is possible to reach an understanding for an agreement before we close these negotiations tomorrow evening. I believe the ingredients are there. There is a window of opportunity now that needs to be seized.” However, Iran’s appetite for concessions and humiliation of the U.S., “The Big Satan” may bring up some new demands.As prior “negotiations” with Iran, whatever temporary deal is reached in Geneva, Tehran will continue to stall while progressing towards fast becoming a nuclear power. With this, the U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East will be complete and its pledge to have Israel’s back will be ignored.In the meantime, the news about the American “reverse sanctions program” has led the Saudis to let it be known that they are ready to collect the nuclear bombs they’ve ordered from Pakistan.In addition to abandoning Washington’s traditional policy of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the Obama administration’s actions are all but leading to sett the region on fire. War in the Middle East will disrupt oil production in and transportation from the region and cause severe damage to U.S. economic and strategic interests as well as push the world into chaos.  Nonetheless, in complete disregard to the predictable outcome, Obama forges ahead with his plans to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  Why?


Those of us who understand what’s what realize that Obama Inc. is aiming, arming others, for Israel’s jugular. It has come to the point that only the willfully deluded, within Israel’s Zionist majority, can look the other way, as Kerry, Obama’s henchman, threatens Israel with “this and that”. As a result of Kerry’s BLATANT threats to Israel, this was written: “Since US Secretary of State John Kerry’s threats of a third intifada this Thursday Israel has witnessed a string of attacks in Judea and Samaria, leaving many concerned over the possibility of a “Kerry intifada” that Hamas might escalate.”

PM Netanyahu’s SPINELESS Leadership Assists Iran’s WMD (More Than Likely) Victory…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

As is said, “it ain’t over until the fat lady sings” (is more than a crude colloquialism) but it is decidedly appropriate herein.

Well, Iran’s “fat lady” is singing all the way to sanctions relief and with its bomb making facilities intact. This is the very same course of “negotiation” which Obama Inc. “promised” – through years of jaw-jaw – would stop Iran from gaining the ultimate weapons of mass destruction, even as they vow to wipe Israel off the mapand from the halls of the UN too! Imagine if Israel ever made such a threat….the hell that would unleash upon the nation, and from all over the world no less. YET, Iran’s leaders were still feted and never skipped a beat, despite the so called sanctions. A double standard is hardly an apt charge. Instead, calls to boycott and divest from Israel barely raise an eyebrow, as if Israel is the “bad” actor. For the record “Here Is Israel”.

Now, no one familiar with this site can suggest that the above sanctions smoke screen, to thwart Iran’s annihilatory intentions, ever held any credence. In fact, it was DOA from the onset. And it was through a deep understanding of the Islamist-in-Chief’s goals, plus internalizing/analyzing the record of spinelessness from PM Netanyahu, that this blogger never veered off course. Indeed, always stopping short of victory, while acceding to Obama Inc.s dictates, hardly qualifies as winning strategies. The path of least resistance. Granted, booms in the night were noted herein, but hardly dent-worthy in the overall scheme of dangers.

With the above in mind, several commentaries are on target, as well as timely:

Dr. Martin Sherman’s analysis was highlighted in order to demonstrate the abject failures/dangers evinced, due to a total lack of strategic thinking/decision making from Israel’s top leadership, non-policies which led Israel from there to here. Piggybacked within is Dr. Martin Sherman’s major strategic interview at Inquisitr, one which expounds upon the above in grave detail.

Most trenchantly, and adding the GREATEST heft to the nuclear equation, along comes Professor Louis Rene Beresunder whose patient guidance this American-Israeli grew to understand what’s what. More than grateful for his years of tutelage. So, once again, pay strict heed, this blog’s “gift” to its readers: Israel’s pre-emptive window precipitously closed re Iran, and all its attendant links are mandatory reading. As is, After Years of Delay, What Can Israel Do About Iran?

Landing Israel straight here…

Netanyahu’s show of muscle comes too late to deter a nuclear Tehran

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis October 11, 2013
Israeli Air Force in long-range drill

Israeli Air Force in long-range drill

Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16 fighter squadrons this week carried out exercises testing their capability to conduct missions at long ranges from base, the Israeli military said Thursday, Oct. 10. The drills included air-to-air refueling and dogfights against foreign combat planes. They were conducted together with Hellenic Air Force aircraft and naval units over the western Peloponnese and the Myrtoon Pelagos of Greece, shortly before the Six Power talks begin in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program.
Israeli commentators noted that the drill broadcast a message to Tehran that Israel’s military option for bombing its nuclear program was alive and kicking. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu bombarded European TV media with interviews warning their leaders that the Iranians were conning the world while continuing to develop a nuclear weapon capability. “Don’t say I didn’t warn you,” he said.
Prime Minister Netanyahu was acting as though he believed he still holds three spanners for throwing into Iran’s nuclear program:

1. The Israeli military as embodied in its air force;

2. European leaders, who are dismayed by President Barack Obama’s precipitate rapprochement with Tehran. Addressing them, Netanyahu warned: “Better no deal than a bad deal.”
3. The US Congress, on which he counts to block future presidential applications to approve the lifting in stages of sanctions against Iran, simply by withholding approval of his agreements with Tehran.
However, the truth which every Middle East and Western leaders knows by now, is that the battle against a nuclear Iran is lost.

President Obama has wound up his secret negotiations with Iran and instructed US delegates to put on the table of the Geneva negotiations on Oct. 15 the understandings or deals he has reached with Iranian leaders.

Those understandings are about to be endorsed by the P5+1 (the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany) for implementation in stages. They will leave Iran with the capacity, reduced but intact, to continue to enrich uranium along with its ability to use clandestine sites to house the nuclear weapons they are able to produce.
Netanyahu may keep on calling this a bad deal. But after all, it took shape on his watch as prime minister. And after Barack Obama became president in 2009, Israel failed to stall Iran’s race for a nuclear bomb – not in Parchin, Arak and Fordo – but in the White House.

The prime minister staged the long-distance air force drill more for domestic consumption than for use as a deterrent to impress Tehran. The Iranians have succeeded far too well in their diplomatic maneuvers to take much notice. They are sure the Netanyahu government will tire of its campaign, end up aligning once again with the Obama administration and swallow its deals with President Vladimir Putin on Iran, just as it did for Syria’s chemical weapons.

Ego aside, would want nothing more than to be proven wrong, after all, living in the eye of the storm makes “right or wrong” less than a footnote, thus, allowing millions of Jews/Zionists to breath easier. YET, PM Netanyahu continues to opine: 

In the midst of what many see as warming diplomatic ties between Iran and the West, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu continues to warn the world on the dangers of a nuclear Iran and told the New York Times in an interview published on Friday that he would not let the Islamic Republic have nuclear weapons.

During the interview Netanyahu reportedly pointed to two photos above his desk in his Jerusalem office, one of the British WWII leader Sir Winston Churchill and the  founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl and said: “They were alone a lot more than I am…..”  

Nevertheless, it is neither hyperbole nor hysterics to state that PM Netanyahu’s FAILURE to act – so far – has been the worst misstep of leadership under any Israeli leader. NOW, that is not an easy statement to make, since the 1973 Yom Kippur War would not have occurred had PM Golda Meir been on the ball, instead of listening to her bombastic advisers, as well as Washington’s arm twisters to “stand down”, even as Egypt’s colossal army, with Syria in tow, amassed at its southern and northern borders. History repeats. Most recently, the accursed Oslo Peace/Death Accords, signed under PM Rabin’s stewardship, pale in comparison to Iran getting the bomb.

The charges laid out are not whether Israel’s leaders have the ability to stop Iran – they do. Dolphin subs…EMP strike…pick a door. Yet, despite ALL of PM Netanyahu’s verbal bluster, again, as is said, “the proof is in the pudding”, as their centrifuges never stopped spinning under his watch – PM Netanyahu’s rhetorical flourishes beside the point!! 

The hour before midnight is fast approaching, with hardly a few weeks left to spare. So, if this American-Israeli wakes up one morning to the sound of sirens wailing, signaling to take cover, that Israel is attacking Iran’s WMD sites, it will be a huge relief, even if the shit hits the fan for weeks to come. So be it. However, more than likely, the opposite will take place. Israelis will probably awake to the grim news, yes, Iran is a nuclear power and that is that. 

So far, “Vegas” odds are  – Iran: 1. Israel: 0. 

Predicating Israel’s “Survival” On the Establishment Of A PA (Terror) State: Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s Bludgeon…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

DESPITE all the wild fires consuming the Mid East, Barack HUSSEIN Obama hasn’t paused a beat in his laser-focused charge to “rearrange” the Mid East. And those who still insist that his missteps are happenstance are whistling past countless graveyards to stand by their assertions. They too will bear the onus as willing accomplices, even if only by their silent assent. As is said, “to be silent is to agree.”

IN the midst of the above ravages, along comes the heretofore leader of the free world warning the world body: 

“Friends of Israel, including the United States,” President Obama said in hisspeech to the UN on Tuesday, “must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state….”

Particularly because of its timing, the statement left most Israelis rubbing their eyes.

Imagine carving out about one-fourth of the U.S. and making it a separate country bordering Washington and a few miles from New York. This country is populated by people who systematically teach their children that the United States has no right to exist and must be destroyed, and name schools, public squares, and summer camps after terrorists who have inflicted mass-casualty attacks on the U.S.

No one in his right mind would call that a way to ensure America’s security……. 

Yet, this site is ahead of the curve in citing the Islamist-in-Chief as an ultimate weapon of destruction towards the Jewish State, so much so that too many commentaries prove said charge. For instance, a most recent analysis wraps the foreseen perils in a bow, thus, little more is necessary to state the case: Update: Nuclear  Iran A Foregone Outcome: A Merging Of The Islamist-in-Chief’s Intentions & Iran’s Hitlerite Regime.

ATOP said purposeful nuclear sword lies the implantation of a PA terror state into the Jewish State’s heartland, as Israel’s demented left helps wield the (deadly) forceps. Both sides are equally culpable. Nevertheless, Washington is indeed violating basic precepts in international law, as well as its own domestic anti-terrorism laws. Israel’s leadership is guilty of said violations as well, ignoring its own Basic Laws.To wit, Professor Louis Rene Beres, a preeminent scholar of international law and nuclear warfare doctrine, gifts this site with his wisdom and is featured prominently herein. Imbibe his lessons well.

But unlike others who claim superior insights, he is indeed head and shoulders above the legal pack. In this regard, read his ‘foreshadowing’ back in 1998 in one of his many policy papers, and then juxtapose it against what is taking place right before our horrified eyes. It is almost as if he is a soothsayer.



Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR) – full paper embedded below

The Oslo Accords exhibit a chilling irony. Not only are these non-treaty agreements inherently illegal, they also weaken Israel in the Jewish state’s protracted struggle for survival. From this starting point, the policy paper that follows identifies the overwhelming jurisprudential fallacies contained in Israel’s pro-Oslo stance (a stance that is not even acknowledged in the Islamic world) and the substantially injurious effects of Oslo on Israel’s security. This paper ends with the informed recommendation that Israel terminate its self-imposed and unreciprocated Oslo obligations immediately, a suggestion that may appear markedly naive and dangerous, but which is, in fact, considerably less risky than maintaining the present collision course. In reaching this conclusion, the paper examines such specific issues as Palestinian “demilitarization”, the requirements of Israeli nuclear deterrence, the question of Israel’s “bomb in the basement” and certain possible preemption expectations. Also included is an extensive/intensive examination of the effects of a nuclear war upon Israel and the region. This sobering examination, which draws upon the author’s more than quarter-century acquaintance with this subject (Professor Beres is the author of Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics, one of the first major books on nuclear strategy and nuclear war), advances three primary models: (1) exclusively counterforce attacks against Israeli hard targets; (2) exclusively countervalue attacks against Israeli civilian populations; and (3) mixed counterforce/countervalue attacks. Here the author’s hope is that such heuristic models will assist Israeli strategists in fashioning a pertinent “master plan”, a body of generalized and interrelated propositions from which precise policy options could be derived.

In the end, the so-called “Peace Process” – never anything more than an enemy Trojan Horse – must be stopped before it is too late. The obligation to rescue Israel from this process of attrition (terrorism) and annihilation (war) stems from both a legal and a strategic imperative. This policy paper clarifies the essential arguments that underlie these closely related imperatives.

For the complete text of this article, click here.

Yes, to fully internalize what drives Islamic jihad, under which a PA terror state will be “birthed”, one must also absorb their unquenchable blood lust, as well as their desire for ‘martyrdom’ which lies above all else. Regardless of time and place, look no further than the non-unique case of Fort Hood’s ‘soldier for Allah’, as he describes his only ‘regret’.

So, once the above is absorbed, the following is just more fuel to indict those who have thrown in their lot with Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his ‘prescriptions for Israel’s security’: Richard Falk’s Case Against Israel: Professor Louis Rene Beres Sets The Legal Record Straight, topped by Looking Back At Constant Error: Understanding The Tangled Narrative Of Middle East Peace, Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs are manifestly judicious. Injurious.

The legal case is CLOSED…SETTLED…against the PA/Fatah terror junta’s “statehood”, as well as those who push for its implementation!


WAR (Mid East & Beyond) Prognostications From Foremost Strategic Nuclear Expert: Professor Louis Rene Beres Expounds…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

NOT unlike a slowly metastasizing tumor, or a lethal parasite, the Mid East is always a cauldron of regional menaces. At certain junctures in time the fires are on a slow burn and can simmer slowly, without evincing too much damage. Flash points. But rational folks also realize, if one pours gasoline into an open fire, well, MEGA explosions ensue. Such is the case when it comes to ‘managing’ the delicate storms in the Mid East. A high wire balancing act. A tightrope.  But just as there are maintenance regimens for some late stage diseases – thank G-d for that – so too are most of the region’s firestorms ‘manageable’, at least with proper hyper-muscle and deterrence factors.

That being said, one must possess intellectual awareness and integrity – from the get go – political posturing aside, to assert: sans interference from the Pyromaniac-in-Chief, certain fires would still be on the slow-burn, instead of engulfing the region. How so? Let this blog point the way:

Simply put, the Islamist-in-Chief lit the fuse via his frontal embrace of the Brotherhood Mafia. As such, the overthrow of strong-arm dictator Mubarak (hardly a ‘democrat’, yet, for decades, he kept the Islamists at bay) sent Egypt into a tailspin, with reverberations felt throughout the region and beyond.

In tandem, plans to overthrow Qadaffi were afoot, back in 2010, having nothing to do with protecting civilians, ala ‘R2P’ (a concept cooked up by leftist, pro Islamist, vile anti-semite, UN ensconced, Samantha Powers), but everything to do with weapons running to aid the Syrian ‘rebels’; a hybrid of Brotherhood/Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra terror frontsTrue, a smattering of coalitions, who seek to just live their lives without Islamists giving them the boot, are in the mix. Nevertheless, they are the proverbial needle in the haystack and will be overrun by the jihadists, before they can say – boo. Devoured alive. Literally. Meanwhile, the release of the Blind terror Sheikh was an inherent factor to the Libyan operation, yet the (Islamist) devil is always in the details. It didn’t pan out. Enter: Benghazigate.

It is into this veritable Devil’s cauldron one finds Iran, not only as the patron/sponsor of the Shiite terror axis, but as the beneficiary of all the wildfires – Sunni and Shia alike. Hence, the centrifuges, the plutonium track and every other aspect of Iran’s genocidal program continues – uninterrupted – at warp speed. Catastrophic.

As such, Professor Louis Rene Beres enters into this Mid East tempest (and analyzes both the regional and global fallout), in relation to the gravest menace of all – Iran.

Syria war, US reprisals, Israeli vulnerabilities, and the Iran nuke threat

09/03/2013 17:07   By LOUIS RENÉ BERES

Where are we heading?

The Arak reactor, 190 kilometers southwest of Tehran
Photo by: Reuters

Oddly enough, with events spiraling out of control in Syria, no one is paying much attention to the puppet master: Iran. As a result, Tehran manages to proceed unhindered with its development of nuclear weapons. In a few years, the strategic shortsightedness of both Washington and Jerusalem could become explosively apparent.

What will happen next? Inevitably, the United States and Israel, more or less cooperatively, will seek a dependable regional system of nuclear deterrence. But could such a last ditch security effort succeed?

Before it can work, any system of deterrence must be based on an assumption of rationality. This means that each side must believe the other will value its continued national survival more highly than any other preference, or combination of preferences.

To be sure, it is at least possible that pertinent decision-makers in Tehran would be rational. Still, it is entirely plausible that, at some point, this core assumption would no longer remain valid. Moreover, even a fully rational Iranian adversary could sometime decide to launch against Israel, because of: (1) incorrect information used in its vital decisional calculations; (2) mechanical, electronic, or computer malfunctions; (3) unauthorized decisions to fire, in the national decisional command authority; or (4) coup d’état.

Probably, in the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear attack upon Israel, the Jewish State would not disappear. Should this be taken as “reassuring?” After all, and at a minimum,  tens of thousands of  Israelis, Arabs as well as Jews, would be crushed, torn apart, and severely burned.

Large numbers would fall victim to raging firestorms. Fallout injuries would include whole-body radiation injury, produced by penetrating, hard gamma radiations; superficial radiation burns, produced by soft radiations; and assorted injuries produced by deposits of radioactive substances within the body.

After an Iranian nuclear attack, even a “small” one, those few medical facilities that might still exist in Israel would be taxed beyond capacity. Water supplies would quickly become unusable. Housing and shelter could be unavailable for hundreds of thousands (in principle, at least, perhaps even millions) of survivors. Transportation would break down to rudimentary levels. Food shortages would be crippling, critical, and forseeably, very long-term. All normal mechanisms of economic exchange would be shattered.

Emergency police and fire services would be decimated. Most systems dependent upon electrical power could stop functioning, perhaps for months, or even longer. Severe trauma would produce widespread disorientation and psychiatric disorders, pathologies for which there would be no available therapeutic services.

After an Iranian nuclear attack, many Israeli survivors could expect an increase in serious and degenerative pathologies. They could also expect premature death, impaired vision, and sterility. Following what we know about atomic bomb effects upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an increased incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lung, stomach, breast, ovary and uterine cervix would be indicated.

Extensive fallout would leave its mark upon Israel. Over time, it would upset many delicately balanced relationships in nature. Those Israelis who had survived the nuclear attack would still have to deal with enlarged insect populations. Like the locusts of biblical times, mushrooming insect hordes could spread widely beyond the radiation-damaged areas in which they first arose.

Insects are generally more resistant to radiation than humans. This fact, coupled with the prevalence of unburied corpses, uncontrolled waste, and untreated sewage, would generate tens of trillions of flies and mosquitoes. Breeding in the dead bodies, these insects would make it utterly impossible to control typhus, malaria, dengue fever, and encephalitis.

Throughout Israel, tens or even hundreds of thousands of rotting human corpses would pose the single largest health threat.   Simply to bury the bodies would prove to be a staggering and conceivably impossible task. Then, unceremonious mass cremations could prove to be the only viable “final solution.”

These same catastrophic effects, possibly even more expansive and destructive, could  be wreaked upon Iran by Israel. With near absolute certainty, an immediate Israeli nuclear retaliation for any Iranian nuclear aggression would be initiated. In both Israel and Iran, legions of battered survivors would envy the dead.

None of this strategic scenario would need to be considered if Iran could still be kept distant from nuclear weapons. Barring the very unlikely prospect of an eleventh-hour preemption against Iranian hard targets, however, it will become necessary to implement a broadly stable program for regional nuclear deterrence. Within this historically familiar threat system, Israel might still be able to identify certain remaining deterrence options.

These options would pertain to both rational and irrational decision-makers in Tehran.

By definition, irrational Iranian adversaries would not value their own national survival most highly. Nonetheless, they could still maintain a determinable and potentially manipulable ordering of preferences. Washington and Jerusalem, therefore, should promptly undertake a meticulous effort (1) to adequately anticipate this prospective ordering; and  (2)  to fashion deterrent threats accordingly.

Future Iranian preference-orderings would not be created in a vacuum. Among other things, assorted strategic developments in already-nuclear Pakistan, and (eventually) “Palestine,” could impact such orderings. This impact could manifest itself in the form of certain game-changing “synergies,” or, in more narrowly military parlance, as significant “force multipliers.”

The preference orderings of a nuclearizing Iran will be effected, especially in the short term, by whatever happens to Tehran’s surrogate in Damascus. If an American missile strike is launched against certain hard targets of the Assad regime, US President Barack Obama may, however unintentionally, also be declaring a de facto war against Iran.

In such increasingly likely circumstances, Washington’s jurisprudential motives would not include a wider conflict, but these high-sounding presidential motives could prove irrelevant. Here, Tehran would almost certainly choose to accelerate the pace of its nuclear weapons program. In part, this acceleration would represent the result of  an increased fear of becoming the object of  an American and/or Israeli  preemptive attack itself.

Over time, Iran’s cumulative response to any impending American attacks on Syrian regime targets could trigger a reduced willingness to abide by the logic of deterrence. It follows that any such American attacks, especially if they did not remain expectedly “tailored” or “limited,” could actually hasten the outbreak of a more-or-less region-wide war, ultimately involving nuclear arms. This is not to suggest that a suitably proportionate American military response to Syrian regime crimes against humanity would be inherently law-violating or “wrong,” but only that there might also be various unintended yet grievously substantial nuclear consequences.

LOUIS RENÉ BERES  was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is Professor of International Law at Purdue.  Born in Zurich, Switzerland, on August 31, 1945, he is the author of many major books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war. His most recent publication dealing with Syria, Israel, and the law of war, appears in the Harvard National Security Journal, Harvard Law School (August, 2013). Ten years earlier, in Israel, Professor Beres served as Chair of Project Daniel (2003). He is a frequent contributor to The Jerusalem Post.

Now, the ever patient Prof has access to many ears – ever so grateful he lends me his! – both within Israel’s leadership, as well as the U.S. It remains to be seen if his warnings, evinced to top leadership back in 2003, as well as in 2009, are now falling on deaf ears. But this much is for sure: if Iran breaks out into a nuclear power, despite all the clarion calls emitted herein, future generations will hold this generation of leaders wholly responsible. Indictable. History will crucify them, in a manner of speaking!

In comparison, Chamberlain will come off as a capable leader. A reasonably good guy.

Israel: The Most Imperiled/Targeted Nation In History. What Are Its Options, Now That Its Leaders Left Zion’s Fate To U.S. Dictates? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

In hoping against hope to become like any other ‘normal’ (western) nation, Israel’s leaders have placed the ancient Jewish nation (re-birthed a mere 65 years ago) in mortal peril. Whether or not such forthright statements make many uncomfortable is hardly of any consequence. At least it shouldn’t be.

So, if ensuring Israel’s survival is first and foremost – personal sensibilities aside – listen up to the sage advice (once again) of this blogger’s mentor, Professor Louis Rene Beres.

Ensuring Israel’s survival: Targeted threats and remedies

08/19/2013 16:08   By LOUIS RENÉ BERES

In limiting the expected harm of a nuclear Iran, Israel would be well-advised to further enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrence posture.

View of the Israeli nuclear facility in the Negev outside Dimona
Photo by: REUTERS

When it is assessed in narrowly scientific terms, modern Israel’s physical survival has never been a safe bet. After all, from the very beginning, even before the UN’s  grant of statehood took legal effect in May 1948, the common goal of Israel’s enemies has been plain. Unrelieved, even by time, this goal remains what is has always been: collective Jewish extermination.

There is an obvious corollary to any such proposition in world politics. Israel exists perilously, in a tentative condition of permanent insecurity and unending vulnerability. Among other more particular liabilities, this situation represents the most bitter of historical ironies. Israel, an ancient nation that was ingathered in mid-20th century, expressly to prevent another genocide, has been targeted for another “Final Solution.”

Jurisprudentially, because war and genocide need not be mutually exclusive, a second Holocaust could be unleashed, in whole or in part, by nuclear and/or biological attacks. In preparing to launch such attacks, determined enemy states such as Iran could be aided, even unwittingly, by more or less simultaneous Palestinian movements toward a “Two-State Solution.” It follows that the targeted threats from Iran, and the targeted threats from “Palestine,” are not really separate and discrete, but rather intersecting and interpenetrating. In narrowly military parlance, they could be described as “force-multipliers.”

Oddly, perhaps, this critical linkage of threats has yet to be meaningfully understood. In brief, Iranian nuclearization and Palestinian “self-determination” could become mutually reinforcing, or, in somewhat technical/biological terms, “synergistic.” Israel’s survival could then become substantially more problematic than if the Jewish State had to deal with only one or the other of these two existential threats.

“For what can be done against force, without force?” inquired the Roman statesman, Cicero, more than 2000 years ago. The use of force in world politics is never evil in itself. On the contrary, in preventing nuclear and terrorist aggressions, force or threats of force may almost always be required; often, they are indispensable.

All states have a fundamental and irreducible right of self-defense. This “peremptory” right is made explicit and unambiguous in both codified and customary international law. It can be found, most conspicuously, at Article 51 of the UN Charter, and also in multiple jurisprudential clarifications of what is correctly called anticipatory self-defense.

In law, Israel has every available right to forcibly confront both the expected harms of Iranian nuclear missile strikes, and the more-or-less related expressions of Palestinian terror. The problem is that although such a confrontation could be perfectly lawful or permissible, it would not necessarily be operationally successful. In all world politics, any specific national military posture may be perfectly legal, but still be ineffectual.

What is to be done?

On the Palestinian front, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has already accepted the idea of a 23rd Arab state that would be “demilitarized.” The core dilemma, however, is that the Palestinian side (Hamas, Fatah, it makes little real difference) still seeks only a One-State Solution (see their official maps), and a demilitarized Palestine could never be made to work. Any post-independence abrogation of earlier pre-state agreements to demilitarize, once announced by a now-sovereign Palestinian state, could prove incontestable under authoritative international law.

Iran is a determinedly frontline Islamic state, one with a plausibly near-term potential to inflict nuclear harms upon Israel. The “international community” has done nothing to genuinely impede Iranian nuclearization. Once-heralded “economic sanctions” have caused ordinary Iranians considerable economic pain and discomfort, but they also have not slowed the development of that country’s nuclear weapons option.

An aptly palpable metaphor comes to mind:  For Iran, these sanctions have irritated little more than would a fly on an elephant’s back.

What about America? If US President Barack Obama’s wish for “a world free of nuclear weapons” were ever taken seriously, even as a carefully crafted end-run toward a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, Israel wouldn’t stand a chance. Fortunately, this American presidential preference is not only prima facie foolish; it is also patently unrealistic, and therefore destined to fail.

For the foreseeable future, at least, Israel will likely retain some deterrence benefit of its alleged, still-undeclared “bomb in the basement.”

Over time, however, it is likely that the longstanding Israeli policy of deliberate nuclear ambiguity will have to give way to certain limited and selective forms of nuclear disclosure. In this calculably reluctant policy transformation, enemy states, real and prospective, will need to be convinced that Israel maintains both the capability, and the willingness, to respond to determinably major first-strike aggressions, with an “assuredly-destructive” reprisal. In the vital matter of perceived capability, such enemies will need to believe, among other things, that Israel’s nuclear forces are distinctly usable, and also capable of penetrating their enemies’ active (ballistic missile) defenses.

Sometimes, especially in complex matters of military strategy, truth is counter-intuitive. Expected “usability” may vary inversely with expected yields of destructiveness. This means that any enemy perceptions of a too-large or too-destructive Israeli nuclear weapons capability could  actually impair rather than enhance Israel’s essential nuclear deterrent.

The “Road Map,” or Middle East Peace Process, will not save Israel. Expanding economic sanctions against Iran will not save Israel. Once Iran had begun a countdown-to-launch of its nuclear weapons against Israel, US President Barack Obama’s only possible assistance would be to help with the mass burial of Israel’s myriad dead. Moreover, before even this post-catastrophe “remedy” could be applied, entire Israeli cities would first need to be transformed into giant cemeteries.

To cope with any prospective harm issuing forth from Iran and “Palestine,” Israeli planners will need to focus intently upon effectively diminishing both threat components. In the best of all possible worlds, a Palestinian terror state and an Iranian nuclear capacity could still be prevented. As a practical matter, however, the best available outcome at this time would include: (1) a Palestinian state, without any sovereign-authority over Jerusalem, and within still-manageable borders for Israel; and (2) a very slowly nuclearizing Iran, one that remains fully rational in all decisional matters of war and peace, and fully subject to Israeli nuclear deterrence.

In limiting the expected harms of “Palestine,” there would be little point for Israel to seek enforcement of any pre-independence Palestinian commitments to demilitarize. For both legal and strategic reasons, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s declared policy contingencies notwithstanding, no such demilitarization measures would actually be implemented.

In limiting the expected harm of a nuclear Iran, Israel would be well-advised to further enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrence posture. This could be done, incrementally, and in part, by moving cautiously beyond its tenuous stance of deliberate nuclear ambiguity or “bomb in the basement,” and by continuing its reciprocal improvements of ballistic missile defense, especially the Arrow.

Significantly, at this already late date, any residual benefits of a preemptive strike against pertinent Iranian hard targets, would likely be outweighed by any prospective costs.

To posit that Israel is running out of options re Iran (and its surrounding genocidal neighbors) is the biggest understatement. In fact, there have been several blaring headlines to said effect, and this is no longer debatable – Analysts Predict Iran Able To Produce Bomb By Mid 2014 . IF past is prologue, surely this time frame must be considered the most ‘hopeful’ scenario, certainly not the most realistic.

Thus, as Professor Louis Rene Beres postulates – unarguably the world’s expert on this issue – the heretofore ‘red line’ has come and gonehence, Israel’s poohbahs essentially allowed Iran to gain the bomb! Hitching Jerusalem’s fate to Washingtonnot only in the Iranian arena, but throughout the Mid East’s firestorms, (read: Syria)  will (eventually) exact an unbearable price (at least for the dead Jews !), and it makes no sense to whitewash its efficacy, as comforting as daydreams may be.

UPDATE: This just in: 

A definitive legal analysis of Israel’s actions against Syrian weapons transfer to Hezbollah under international law. Take it to the (legal) bank!

Sec of State Kerry, PA/Fatah’s Abbas & PM Netanyahu’s Bazaar/Bizarre Haggling Reaching Critical Mass: Jerusalem, Judea & Samaria (aka The ‘West Bank’) & ‘Refugees’: Jewish Nationalists, Pay Heed…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

LOST in the shuffle of all the ‘delicate’ business of ‘peace processing’ are the absolute violations of legal imperatives. In the main, Washington and Jerusalem are ‘legal’ outlaws, as they are both ‘conducting business’ with a terror entity, whose Charter (even after its so called ‘revisions’) explicitly exhorts for genocidal goals against Israel/Jews, itself a violation of international law! You got that?

NOT only that, pre-eminent international legal expert, Professor Louis Rene Beres, brings the violations to the fore. In a previous commentary, this blog laid out another one of his gems, one which involves the LEGAL (not to forget the moral) obligation of Israel’s Zionist citizens to start mobilizing – Kadima (forward) – to ‘civil disobedience’; a right afforded its citizens’, under the so called democratic process to stop the machine! 

NO time like the present….
DEBKAfile Special Report August 9, 2013,

Their secret peace track nears its climax
Their secret peace track nears its climax

The formal Israeli-Palestinian meeting announced by the US State Department as scheduled for next Wednesday, Aug. 14 is but the outer shell of the secret hard-core negotiations bouncing back and forth for weeks between US Secretary of State John Kerry, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, DEBKAfile reports.
The real talks are approaching a climax on the fundamental issues of borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements. Every afternoon in past weeks, Kerry has called the Israeli prime minister and Palestinian leader on secure phone lines and taken the talks a step further. Any incoming calls from the two leaders are switched directly through to the Secretary of State, an unheard of procedure in his department.
As early as June 30, DEBKAfile revealed exclusively that the three-cornered negotiations had secretly got down to the brass tacks of core issues.

Ten days later, our sources reported dramatic progress, to the point that Kerry was asking Netanyahu for specific information on the Jewish settlements he was willing to remove in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), and Abbas was chipping in with additions to the list. Netanyahu countered with questions about the Palestinian concessions on offer for the evacuations.
The process has been reduced to straight haggling, Middle East bazaar style – except that the wares laid out for sale are Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, security, international security forces and the borders that will separate Israel from a future Palestinian state.
Although Secretary Kerry has stated publicly that his objective is a final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, his expectations are more realistic when he handles the behind-the scenes, real-life horse trading. All three parties appreciate that the most they can achieve are interim accords. Items bound to remain at issue will have to be set aside for a future round of negotiations at a time which none of the parties is inclined to pin down.
For now, the officials assigned with conducting the formal negotiations are not privy to the progress made secretly by their principals. US special envoy Ambassador Martin Indyk, Justice Minister and senior negotiator Tzipi Livni and Palestinian negotiator Saab Erekat are therefore still in the dark.
Progress is substantial enough by now to have prompted Kerry to convene a meeting of Jewish American leaders for a briefing Thursday evening, Aug. 8, at the White House.

He told them there was a “strategic imperative” to arrive at a deal soon, and said he understood the difficulties Netanyahu faced in dealing with a coalition that included hard right parties and figures. He was described as appearing “bullish” about the talks, but also “nervous” about the Israeli prime minister’s ability to overcome the resistance in his own Likud party and government coalition to sweeping concessions on settlements.
As well as Ambassador Indyk, Kerrry invited National Security Adviser Susan Rice to join him at the meeting, which lasted 90 minutes, to signal President Barack Obama’s approval.

Kerry criticized the European Union’s policy of excluding Israeli enterprises on the West Bank from grants and prizes as likely to “nudge Netanyahu away” from a deal with the Palestinians, and therefore counter-productive to the peace effort he launched last February.

According to the information reaching DEBKAfile, Kerry’s motive in summoning American Jewish leaders to the White House was his belief that progress in the negotiations has brought the Israeli prime minister close to a crossroads. He will soon face a decision to reshuffle his cabinet and replace ministers who would oppose the terms of the interim accord shaping up with Palestinians. For this step, he would find the support of American Jewry helpful.
Netanyahu will soon need to present the leaders of the pro-settlement Israel Beteinu and Bayit Yehudi parties with the choice of backing him up all the way to the accord with the Palestinians to which the US Secretary is steering at speed, or quitting the government coalition. The same question will be put to Netanyahu’s own Likud party members.

ADDING heft to the prof’s legal analysis is a most recent article he penned for US News and World Report: Israel Should Beware the Mid East Peace ‘Road Map’ and Palestinian Statehood. Clear as a bell….and the core roots of Palestinian terrorism are evinced herein.

And, not to be lost in the indictment, let us hear what Professor Paul Eidelberg has to add:

Let the Truth Be Told

Paul Eidelberg

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been roundly condemned for bowing to U.S. President Barack Obama by releasing more than 100 Arabs terrorists, including murderers, as a “good will gesture” to the Palestinian Authority —the sponsor of those villains.

Mr. Netanyahu has been excoriated not only by the families of the victims, but also by countless Israelis, including renowned political commentators—and not only in Israel but also in the United States. The intrepid Jerusalem Post political analyst Caroline Glick has denounced Netanyahu’s subservience to U.S. pressure as “cowardice.” In a comprehensive review of Netanyahu’s previous failings, Israeli political scientist Martin Sherman has urged Netanyahu to resign, to JUST GO!

The eminent legal expert, Purdue University Professor Louis Rene Beres, has shown that the release of those terrorists by the Netanyahu-led government is a clear cut violation of international law. Beres has repeatedly cited the principle “No crime without a punishment,” NULLUM CRIMEN SINE POENA. This principle, he says, is conspicuously codified in binding international law. The same principle, he adds, “is codified directly in many different authoritative sources, and is also deducible from the binding Nuremberg Principles (1950).” Accordingly, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”

Nevertheless, the unlawful release of terrorists by Israeli governments has been going on for ten years, since Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993. Thousands of Palestinian Jew-killers have been released by these governments with the connivance and complicity of the United States.

The simple but inescapable truth is that both Israel and the United States have been patrons of terror. In fact, year after year, the U.S. has violated American law by appropriating hundreds of millions in support of the Palestinian Authority, a consortium of terrorist organizations with Jewish and even American blood on their hands. Yes, and no Israeli politician and no American politician have been held accountable for any of the crimes perpetrated by the PA.

The bitter truth is that given their complicity in the release of Arab terrorists, the governments of both Israel and America may arguably be called “criminal regimes,” which makes their respective leaders complicit in crimes against humanity.

This makes the example of Israel all the more puzzling—and not only because of Israel’s tortured history. How is it that Israel’s parliamentary, the Knesset, the supreme law-making body of the country, had nothing to say about Netanyahu’s craven obeisance to the United States—especially in view of the fact that his release of Arab terrorists is a clear violation of international law, a criminal act?

What makes the Knesset even more culpable is that members of that assembly are not individually elected by, or accountable to, the voters in constituency elections! Hence, each member of the Knesset bears all the more responsibility for the criminal acts of Israel’s government, which the Knesset in principle, can topple by a vote of no confidence. But as I have explained ad nauseam, the Knesset is subservient to the Cabinet, whose ministers are the leaders of the parties composing the Government!

Hence, there is no system of checks and balances, no accountability, and no effective rule of law in the so-called democratic State of Israel—a Big Lie in the Middle East, where bad people get away with murder and mayhem thanks partly to those deemed “good.”

A Protest against any Collaboration with Terrorists

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

My previous article, “Let the Truth Be Told,” referred to urgent and vital teachings of Professor Louis Rene Beres, an expert in international law.  I pointed out that the release of Arab terrorists by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the collusion of the President Barack Obama renders the governments of both countries guilty of violating international law, specifically the principle stated by Professor Beres: “No crime without a punishment,” NULLUM CRIMEN SINE POENA.

This principle, he writes Beres, “is codified directly in many different authoritative sources, and is also deducible from the binding Nuremberg Principles of 1950 according to which “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”

It was under the Nuremberg Principles that various Nazis were punished and executed as war criminals.

Both the United States and Israel are parties to international laws that prohibit the release and/or rewarding of terrorists. Hence it is the duty of all citizens in both countries to protest the violation of these laws by their respective governments, above all by their political leaders: in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; in the United States, President Barack Obama.

I write of this grave matter because I have the honor of being a dual citizen of both countries and of having served several years as an officer in the United States Air Force. In pondering the plea contained in this letter, I entreat my readers to bear in mind that I am animated by more than sentiment or outraged feelings. I am not only the author of several books on the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, but I have devoted years to showing that the basic principles of these two foundational documents of the United States can be traced to Holy Writ, indeed, to the Hebrew Republic of antiquity. In witness thereof, no less than Harvard President Samuel Langdon, at the outbreak of the American Revolution, recommended that the ancient Hebrew Republic, shorn of its ceremonial laws, could serve an excellent model for the then about-to-be-established government of the United States.

Moreover, since I have drafted a Constitution for the State of Israel—which in violation of its own Declaration of Independence has no constitution—I am all the more obligated to urge my fellow citizens in America as well as in Israel to rise up and protest, in a vigorous and sustained but civilized way, against the unlawful and immoral conduct of the Governments of our two beloved countries for having violated international law by releasing, or collaborating in the release, of Arab terrorists, on the one hand, and by thus sullying the lives of their victims on the other.

Letters, telegrams, emails, and other modes of communication should be sent to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Hussein Obama protesting their violation of international law as well as universal principles of morality by their collusion in releasing Arab terrorists and thus becoming patrons or collaborators in Arab terrorism.

DESPITE all of the above, it is still imperative to peer into the hypocritical, audacious, sanctimonious mindset of Obama Inc. (though previous administrations have been equally culpable), as they send drones to far away lands to assassinate Al Qaeda terrorists – hardly having mercy on them – as they plot to kill American ‘infidels’. Well and good. On the other hand, Kerry demanded – via the Islamist-in-Chief’s directives, but more than of like-mind – that Jerusalem must accede – once again – to the PA terror junta’s demands and release 100 plus Jew-killers, a crime, in and of itself, all for the sake of ‘peace’! Never mind that Israel’s erstwhile ‘peace partners’ have been purposefully killing Jews for decades and will become exponentially more ‘efficient’ in their Jew-killing’, if gifted over any more Jewish land! Need visual aids? Fine. Peek inside the binoculars of a PA intelligence officer.

Not sure about others, but how evil, sick, and twisted is that? Hardly one to release Israel’s PM from his most sacred obligation, that of, protecting the Jewish nation, PM Netanyahu has shown himself to be more than unfit to lead.   

More specifically, read the following and decide how ‘fit’ – or not – PM Netanyahu is to remain at the helm – “Two years ago, Israel refrained from pointing the finger at Teheran when missiles made in Iran and supplied to terrorists were first launched against Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Rishon Lezion. Israel remains silent when they are pointed at Eilat. DEBKAfile reported Friday.”

As such, he should resign, just resign and allow a Zionist statesman to take over the helm! For if not for PM Netanyahu’s spineless leadership – masked by his splendid oratorical skills – none of the above would be ‘part of the process’.

Indeed, a stillbirth.