This weekend many celebrated Israel’s Independence Day, but there is little to celebrate about Israel security. Let’s look at the current situation:

The main militarily problems Israel faced in Lebanon, I believe, were:
1) Unrelenting, well planned preparation by Hizbullah, with vigorous support by Iran and Syria, of intensive bunker networks, among other things.
2) No interference by Israel, 3) Using civilians to shield Hizbullah positions and fighters, 4) Ease of firing small rockets into Israeli communities, two people firing and escaping in a minute, 5) Very short distances between attackers and Israeli communities, 6) Forested mountains of Hizbullah positions.
These conditions precluded the effective use of airpower and remote forces, such as canons, to destroy the enemy. Only conquest of the enemy grounds could have been a solution. Because of the hilly, often forested terrain, it was also difficult for Israel to fight a ground war.
(Airpower alone was able to rapidly destroy long range rockets launchers because of their large size and signature fire trail).

The situation in Gaza strip is becoming more dangerous because it is similar in most respects to Lebanon, except a critical one: no forested mountains. Having lived near the Gaza strip I am familiar with the terrain: it is almost flat, no serious hills, no forested zones, and many dry riverbeds. That means, it is difficult to hide unless you build an extensive range of bunkers- which the Palestinians are busy preparing now. In addition, the population density is very high (about a million people) and the ability to hide among civilians is thus also high. Because of the radical nature of the Gaza population: over half below age 20, and one hundred thousands are armed and fighting one another, it is difficult to predict an easy military solution to Hizbullah-like relentless rocket attacks on Israeli population centers. The counter argument is that the Israeli population is considerably less dense than in the north, except that the city of Ashkelon and its region is an important Israeli center. But with larger rockets- they will have longer range.

A very large Israeli ground force would be required to recapture the Gaza zone. How long could it be present there? How much world pressure would be exerted on Israel to "be kind" to the Palestinian attackers and the local Arab population? Who will take over this force-intensive occupation?
Politically it is hard to say. Will the "world" better grasp the aggressiveness of the Palestinians, and put significant pressure on them? Will it be the same uselessness that the International force in Lebanon exhibits, allowing Hizbullah to rearm so rapidly?
We do not know because the global political attitude towards Gaza is different from Lebanon. The pressure to stop the fighting in Lebanon came relatively fast for a UN action because of the following conditions: France has a special protective attitude towards Lebanon because it occupied it for a quarter a century, and they promised a very large French force to secure Lebanon. (Which they did not send.) Europe wanted to help the newly emerging Democratic Lebanon to be freer from Syria domination, and half the population is Christian. And now France has a new, less”liberal” president.

Any way you look at it, it is a highly dangerous situation, since Israel will likely face a coordinated attack from Lebanon and Gaza at the same time. Fortunately, right now Israel controls much of the West Bank and can enter population centers as needed. But Israel does not know how much hidden preparation the West Bank is doing. If Israel did not have this access, the West Bank which is essentially in the center of Israel, could be another war front.

THE DANGER IS THAT SO MUCH IS HIGHLY UNPREDICTABLE IN AN UNCONVENTIONAL WAR. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.
ISRAEL, LIKE THE USA, MUST STOP ASSUMING THE ARABS ARE THIRD CLASS THINKERS. IN UNCONVENTIONAL WAR. THEY ARE HIGHLY STREET SMART, MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED AND UNINHIBITED, THAN WE ARE

The incompetence and lack of support for the current Israeli government and especially the Minister of Defense, exacerbate Israel's ability to react to this developing danger. The positioning of General Efraim Sneh as Deputy Defense Minister is a good move, but still a stopgap measure.

It seems that I was mistaken supporting Sharon’s decision to leave Gaza. If a Gaza war starts, it could cost Israel much more in life and damage than the saving and political gain Israel won by leaving Gaza.

Read the following, please. He has good credentials.
Matania

STRATEGIC LESSONS OF THE WINOGRAD COMMISSION REPORT
Major General (res.) Yaakov Amidror
Institute for Contemporary Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org
Vol. 6, No. 29 7 May 200

In general terms, the Winograd Commission Report [just submitted to the Israeli government] dealt mostly with the flaws in the decision-making process in Israel. However, the report contains important insights into the strategic thinking that was predominant in the Israeli political-military leadership from the time of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon until the outbreak of hostilities in July 2006, with the advent of the Second Lebanon War:

Israel completed its unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon on May 24, 2000. It was hoped that the withdrawal would erode the legitimacy of any continuing military activity by Hizbullah, especially in Lebanon's internal politics. At that time the Israeli government declared that any violation of Israeli sovereignty would bring about a harsh and immediate Israeli response.

These declarations stipulated that in the event of any assault on Israeli soldiers or civilians, all of Lebanon, Syria, and Hizbullah would be affected. The purpose of these statements was to build up Israeli deterrence in the aftermath of the withdrawal. Effective deterrence of this sort was critical for Israel, the Winograd Commission Report explains, for a number of reasons: after the Israeli pullout from Lebanon there was a lack of "elementary depth," there were many points of friction with Hizbullah, and finally there were multiple Israeli targets - both civilian and military - adjacent to the new Israeli-Lebanese boarder. At the same time, within the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) the view developed that if need be, Israel could use "levers of influence" to restrain Hizbullah, such as attacks on Lebanese infrastructure and Syrian targets, as well.

Despite these strong declarations, Israel only responded locally to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in October 2000. The Winograd Commission Report presents the assessment of Deputy Defense Minister Efraim Sneh that the Israeli government at the time did not respond more forcefully because it did not want to show that its Lebanon withdrawal had actually produced an escalatory effect. Moreover, the Second Intifada had erupted and the Israeli government was concerned about having to wage a two-front war. This policy of restraint continued through March 2002, when Hizbullah attacked inside Israel near the town of Shlomi.

As a result, another view became deeply rooted in the Israeli national security establishment that Hizbullah's military buildup after Israel's Lebanon pullout was not so terrible as long as relative quiet along the border was preserved. Israel knew that Hizbullah was gaining strength and acquiring weaponry, but it preferred to turn a blind eye. As a result, Israel did not prepare for war with an enemy that was far more powerful than what it was familiar with in the past.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GAZA STRIP

In the Gaza Strip, a similar process is underway. Hamas is getting stronger as it organizes itself, digs fortifications underground, and builds up its military capabilities. Israel will have to ask itself whether it is preferable to delay the confrontation with Hamas, because meanwhile there is quiet or a temporary truce or some other illusory understanding. We are likely to find ourselves in exactly the same position in Gaza that we created with respect to Lebanon.

The Winograd Commission Report, which does not deal with the Gaza problem, describes Israeli policy toward Lebanon during 2000-2006 as a policy of "containment." Strictly speaking there is a problem with this terminology for what Israel pursued in Lebanon during this period, was not a pure policy of containment, which by definition implies preventing an adversary from reinforcing its capabilities.

What Israel is doing today in the Gaza Strip is not containment either, but rather a case of ignoring reality completely. It is an extremely costly policy. Few have any idea what price Israel will have to pay if it moves into Gaza in two or three years, when Hamas feels strengthened and has the capability to launch 122mm Katyusha rockets -which Hizbullah possessed in the thousands - as far as Ashdod and Kiryat Gat. Israeli decision-makers will have to take into account that inaction has a price, as well.

Anyone who has dealt with military affairs knows that it is impossible to thwart the firing of Katyusha or Qassam rockets by means of artillery fire, or by means of any land-based or air-based firepower. The Winograd Commission Report details, nonetheless, how many of Israel's operational plans for Lebanon during 2002-2004 did not require the use of maneuver units on the ground.

It is now clear that the only way to thwart rocket attacks is by controlling the situation on the ground. Qassam rockets are today landing in Sderot and Ashkelon - and not in Kfar Saba - because Israel does not control the situation on the ground in Gaza, whereas it has control of the ground around Qalqilya.

For political reasons, the IDF was not permitted by the political echelon to cross the Israeli-Lebanese border from 2000 to 2006. This allowed Hizbullah to conduct exercises day and night and to attack at will, while Israel was unable to stop any of its preparations. The only way to deal with such a situation in the long term is to allow the IDF to cross the border and halt such offensive preparations. As long as no responsible government is preventing attacks against Israeli territory, the IDF will have to adopt such an approach both with respect to its northern border with Lebanon and its southern border with the Gaza Strip.
***

Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, program director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is former commander of the IDF's National Defense College and the IDF Staff and Command College. He is also former head of the IDF's Research and Assessment Division, with special responsibility for preparing the National Intelligence Assessment. In addition, he served as the military secretary of the defense minister.

Almost everything we do today: the war in Iraq, in Lebanon, US politics, standard of living, vacations, food, depends on a mass amount of energy. Our global society uses, and abuses, the energy available to humankind in an unprecedented rate. The negative implications are many and highly important.
Let me tell you a little about our energy use:

Our personal economic desire is one of the most powerful forces in our lives. Most of us, in the US especially, seek a continuously increasing level of comfort and luxury as our natural right. To satisfy this powerful desire we consume lots of energy. In fact, most of our unprecedented economic growth in the last century is directly related to our use of easily available cheap energy.
We can not live a modern life without substantial amounts of energy. However, we depend more and more on external suppliers of energy, we compete with other large users for this essential but limited resource, and we destroy our global environment with the byproducts of this vast energy use.

The war in Iraq and our special interest in the Middle East, directly relates to the oil wealth in that region. We need their oil more than they need us.

Those of us who are upset that we are so much dependent on oil are the main beneficiaries of it. The middle class and the wealthy benefit out of all proportion from cheap energy. The cars we drive, the huge houses we heat and cool, the unprecedented quantity of unneeded things we surround ourselves with demands a lot of energy. Are we ready to give them away? No, we do not. What can we do?

Alternative energies, unfortunately, can make just a small dent in the energy picture. We must cut our use. Conservation and higher energy efficiency are crucial but our wasteful society is not ready, and not yet capable of change to make our world fit for our children. How many of us are buying energy efficient, smaller cars and reducing our driving? Or do other inconvenient things such as reducing our flying? (One of the largest energy using global activity)

We use energy as if there is no tomorrow: We mine iron in Australia, ship it for processing in Japan, ship the iron to China to turn it into computers and other products, ship computers to US ports by container ships, truck the containers to distribution centers, ship smaller packages to individual stores, and throw the packaging and other stuff into mass garbage damps.
China is almost surpassing us in Global Warming pollution because of us. Each of us is consuming most of what China produces, from computers to toys. We drive their economic growth, which drive their unending appetite for polluting energy- mostly highly polluting coal. China has probably the worse pollution in the world.

Our transportation depends on easy availability of low cost oil. Oil is a miracle fluid, it contains a very large amount of energy in a small space and can be easily, safely, and cheaply transported long distances. We have nothing that could replace it. Also, there is a limited amount of oil and there is an increasing international competition for it. Supply and demand are in balance now. Increased demand can lead to higher prices. World oil resources will soon decline despite all the discoveries of additional oil fields. They are too small to make a sustainable difference since global consumption is THIRTY BILLIONS BARRELS OF OIL A YEAR.

The immense amount of pollution generated by the mass use of energy is dispersed into our very thin layer of the atmosphere. This destabilizes the delicate balance of nature that was stable for millions of years. So who cares if our temperature increases a few degrees over a hundred years? Just think that if the global temperature increased by just one degree in a MILLION years the world could have been now a thousand degrees hotter!

Our energy dilemma is not a new problem suddenly discovered. Fifty years ago I studied this dilemma at the University of Washington. When I asked the professor what we are doing to reduce the enormous energy consumption and its negative impacts he said: “Nothing.” He told me that our elected officials have a short term view, interested mostly in reelection and are unable to think about global problems.
We still face the same political problem a half century later.

LET’S CONCENTRATE ON USA ENERGY USE.

It is difficult to grasp the energy story. The numbers are staggering; they are beyond our range of experience.
The US consumes the equivalent of thirty Trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy a year. (A quarter of global energy). It is equivalent to one hundred thousands (100,000) kilowatt hours per person in the US. If we paid for it like electricity it would be $15,000 per person a year!
We pay it at the gas pump, we pay it in heating gas, we pay it in the food we eat, and restaurant we dine. Quarter of this energy comes from foreign oil suppliers. The US does not buy oil from the Middle East, but the rest of the world does. Since oil is a global market any disturbance in supply any place in the world impact most oil users.

The most important and cost-effective approach is to reduce our wasteful consumption As environmental scientist and previously Manager of the Solar Office for the State of California I fully support the use of alternative energies. Regrettably, alternative energies can not solve our energy problems. We need to use all practical technologies, but a lot of promising new technologies are not likely to make any useful contribution. Most new technologies fail to reach mass productions because of unforeseen production complexities and costs. At best, I estimate that alternative energies could supply 10% to 15% of our TOTAL energy in the next two decades. We need to do better than that and increase our investment in research and development of promising alternatives. But we must grasp that technology can not, again –can not, solve most of our energy problems. THE CRUCIAL THING IS TO REDUCE DEMAND!

Here are a few examples of alternative energy possibilities: It is disappointing that most of the support for alternative energies is from uninformed or profit motivated people, and not based on facts:

Ethanol consumes almost the same amount of energy is produces. THERE IS AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASES RELEASED IN PRODUCING CORN ETHANOL AS SAVED IN REPLACING GASOLINE BY IT. Corn-ethanol also increases the price of many foods. Corn ethanol is inefficient, economically wasteful, and we should not continue to subsidize it.
Converting total plants to energy shows promise.

Hydrogen is NOT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. It is a different form of energy. IT REQUIRES ENERGY to produce it! Currently we use natural gas; what will be the future source to make hydrogen?

Natural gas emits considerably less Greenhouse gases than oil, and oil - less than coal. Large quantities of natural gas are now freely discharged into the atmosphere in many oil producing countries. They don’t have use for it. It may be environmentally better to ship and consume it as energy, instead of using oil and coal, rather than just vent the gas into the environment.

Solar Electric systems: As an electrical engineer I have recently studied solar-electric systems in some depth. There is a myth that eventually roof systems would be available at low cost. I believe this is not the case. These systems are very expensive and produce little energy at the very high cost of one dollar a kWh. The high system price, which is now highly subsidized, can not go down much because of inherent technical and production limitations. Sun energy is relatively weak at ground level requiring large areas to collect it- many square feet of expensive materials. We can do little about the sun.
Large scale desert systems may be useful with more efficient technology. We should continue research to find superior technologies, but current technology should not be subsidized.

Wind energy is the only practical and already economical (6 cent a kWh) technology in mass use globally, but not in the US. We developed it and installed it in California a quarter century ago, but is spreading too slowly in the US because we want ideal systems. Some complained about their “unattractive” look and killing of a few thousands birds a year. The number of birds killed in the US a year from other causes, such as crashing into buildings and cars, is five hundred millions!

For those technology minded, there are inherent reasons why wind energy is now cost effective and used globally, while solar electric energy is expensive and barely used:
Three crucial things work in favor of wind energy:
1)The wind is concentrated by nature and is powerful in many locations, 2) a relatively small wind turbine blade capture the energy from an area fifty times larger than the blade, so the investment in material is low , 3) wind machines are simple technology and easy to produce.
Three things work against solar-electric systems:
1) Sun energy is weak everywhere, 2) collectors must be very large to capture the sun from large areas; 3) technology is complex and energy intensive.

Some US energy details:
We get 40% of our energy from oil, 23 percent from local coal, 23 percent from mostly local natural gas, 8% from nuclear, 3% hydro and 3% renewables.

About 40% of our energy goes to produce electricity, two third of it is wasted in the process.
Eighty percent of our oil energy in transportation is wasted, because car engines by their nature are highly inefficient, and are also gas guzzlers because they are heavy and poorly designed. Our domestic cars are the worse offenders.

Industry is the most efficient user of energy because many companies have worked very hard to reduce their energy use to cut costs.

Last year US paid $500 billions for eight billion barrels of imported oil. Global oil profit to oil exporters $750 billion. Globally, oil companies made 140 billion dollar profit on imported and domestic oil consumption. Try to grasp these immense numbers and the economic, environmental, and military damages associated with energy. (All numbers are for 2005 and are rounded for simplicity).

Conclusions:
Our energy use globally is too high and unsustainable. It must be reduced substantially. But human desire in the “advanced” world certainly, for more, better, bigger, is a serious obstacle to a practical solution.
As appealing as it may be, no individual effort to reduce our dependence on energy can make any dent in this global, massive energy/pollution problem. Only global government regulations and ENFORCEMENT may be able to force humanity to curtail somewhat its insatiable use of energy. Sustainable large citizens’ pressure on governments is crucial to curtail our wasteful consumption of energy and the grave environmental damages it causes.

Matania
4/07

I have mixed feelings looking at the peace marches to stop the war in Iraq. I am eager to stop all wars; in fact I spent many years working against the Reagan Administration’s escalation of the armed race. I understand the peace marchers, I was one. It is very hard for all of us to read about the many innocent Iraqis being murdered daily, and so many of our own soldiers are dying also in this war. We feel guilty about the killing and want peace. However, no national policy should be conducted on the basis of current feelings, as noble as the desire for peace is. Our national actions must be based on the full reality, and long term aspects of the situation.

What is the situation now?
Today, these peace loving people want the US and England to leave Iraq now and stop the killing there. I am eager for it also. Can it be done now?

Sadly their desire for peace does not allow them to grasp the reality of the Arab world. The killings in Iraq are done mostly by one Muslim group against another, Shiite and Sunnis are murdering one another, resulting in innocent civilians being murdered by the hundreds every week. These Muslim extremists have even resorted lately to blowing trucks with Chlorine gas to spread the fear, the terror. But these are not only a limited number of Muslim extremists; the Mehdi army, is one of the main murderers of civilian, lead by Muqtada Al-Sadr, a religious “firebrand” as the media calls him. He commands many thousands of Shiite terrorists.

The peace marchers are against US “aggression” in Iraq. However, we are doing all we can, sacrificing our soldiers and spending immense amounts of money, to reduce Iraqi casualties. The anger of many marchers is directed at us, not against the Sunnis and Shiite leaders who direct their youth to kill one another. Similarly in Israel, the Palestinians got freedom to create their own government in Gaza and instead have been murdering one another and shooting rockets into Israel. But rarely any media expresses anger at the Palestinians’ disregard for human life.

Why is there anger against the US? Is it because President Bush opened a Pandora box of sectarian killing no one would expected? No one anticipated the gruesome atrocities committed daily in Iraq. I certainly did not expect such mass atrocities and I have some reasonable knowledge of the massacres Muslims have committed against their own, and others, for untold decades, if not centuries. Because of our Western way of life, it is hard, very hard for us; me included, to grasp the utter lack of care for human life by Muslim terrorists. We should direct our anger at the source of the killings: at the terrorists and their leaders.

It matters little now if the Bush administration misled us, by mistake or by design, to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The past is over; we must deal with the current reality not what might have happened. This is one of the first things they thought us in business school: the past is now over, how would you solve the problem as it is now before you? Blaming may feel good but accomplish nothing. Maybe it gives political benefits to the Democrats, but that is not in our national interest now.

We all want to reduce the murders, but if the US leaves Iraq soon, will it be better? Will the Sunni- Shiite struggle for power and a bigger share of the oil wealth disappear with our departing troops?
Obviously not. The killing would escalate and we would be blamed again for leaving and opening this new Pandora’s Box. Some say we should have left Saddam in power, let him plan another regional war, let him cause the killing of a million more of his own people and Iranian again.

Some believe that we should have attacked Iran first, not Iraq, however, very few grasped earlier Iran’s intensive nuclear weapon development, and its desire for regional domination and destroying Israel. If we did we should have stopped them first by any means appropriate. What can we do now is the question, not what might have been.
If we leave Iraq soon it would not be easy for us to attack Iran; every one will accuse us again of meddling in the internal affairs of another Muslim country - Iran.

There is no clean solution to the internal Iraqi power struggle. They have to solve it, if they can. We should continue to rebuild the Iraqi military and police so they can control and quiet their own country. When they can do it to a reasonable extent, we could leave.

The peace marches were few and small, but still I am concerned that increased pressure by Europeans and American peace loving people on the US to withdraw soon from Iraq would escalate the killing there.
The murders by Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are being used for both internal and external purposes, in revenge, power, and to influence the global media and the world.

Is that what the peace marches want, escalation of murders?

I don’t think so.

Matania
3/07

So many complained that Israel did not tell its story during the Lebanon war. Israel could not do it well because of its belief in a free press. It allowed almost any one to go anywhere and to see anything they wanted. Dictatorship and terrorists do not suffer from this problem, they select and manipulate the information. This is especially important because the global media cooperated with Hizbollha and some of the media is anti Israeli to start with. This media was eager to display anti Israeli stories and pictures without checking their validity.
Read the summary below to grasp better this critical issue that affected the war itself.

Matania

The Price of a Free Press - Anshel Pfeffer (Jerusalem Post)

An important study on last summer's war has just been published by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. It is the first to give a comprehensive explanation of how, in an asymmetrical war "between a state [Israel] and a militant, secretive, religiously fundamentalist sect or faction [Hizbullah]," the fight is just as much about information and image as it is about military gains.
(http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/research_publications/papers/research_papers/R29.pdf),

"The Israeli-Hizbullah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict" by veteran reporter, author and broadcaster Marvin Kalb is a must-read for journalists, the military, politicians, spokesmen and news consumers.

Kalb writes that democratic societies living by the ideals of a free and unfettered press will always be at a disadvantage to dictatorships and oppressive ideologies, adept at manipulating the media. "A closed society conveys the impression of order and discipline; an open society, buffeted by the crosswinds of reality and rumor, criticism and revelation, conveys the impression of disorder, chaos and uncertainty."

* Israel's campaign was remarkably transparent. Even openly hostile Arab TV networks, such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, were allowed to operate in almost total freedom and film IDF units preparing for battle. Every failure and mishap on the battlefield - and relative chaos on the home front - was highlighted.

* On the other side, Hizbullah controlled the journalists covering Lebanon with an iron fist. Media tours of Hizbullah-controlled areas were tightly managed, with foreign reporters sternly warned against wandering off and talking to local residents unsupervised.

* Hizbullah also forbade any photographs of its fighters. Cameramen were warned never to show men with guns or ammunition. The only armed personnel seen during this war were IDF soldiers; Hizbullah remained throughout a phantom army.

* Another scene almost never shown was the hundreds of Hizbullah firing positions and missile launch sites within residential areas and private homes, the cause of many civilian deaths and a violation of international law.

* Footage coming out of Lebanon dealt almost exclusively with the results of the IDF bombing. Few news organizations made an effort to balance these pictures with those of the damage from Hizbullah's indiscriminate bombing of Israeli civilians.

****

I was trimming my roses that were damaged by the freezing weather in our central California yard and I started to complain to myself: look at all this damage. Despite all the work I had put into these plants for years, I could not prevent the damage. Then I started to laugh: look at me, I want the weather to be my way, I want the plants to behave my way, I want, I want..... And I realized how ludicrous it is.

I immediately was reminded of our attitude towards the security of Israel. We want peace. We complained: “how could it be that for sixty years the Arabs still do not accept Israel. We are outraged, justly so, by the continued attacks and killing of Israelis, either by Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah or whatever group you can name. The Israelis are not willing to give enough to gain peace, say some. Others have different ideas how to achieve peace in Israel. Most of us are frustrated that instead of the situation becoming better, Iran and its nuclear weapons are added to the dangerous mix.

We want it our way, and we believe we “know” how to achieve peace.

How unrealistic our attitude is. No, we do not have the answer. The Israelis have tried everything, actually too much in my judgment. The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular do not want, and are not ready, to have peace with Israel You can not twist their arms and force them to accept with peace Israel’s existence. They have the oil wealth and there are many of them.
There are many things that are completely beyond our control. It is their Arab culture and it is the way they have been doing it for over a thousand years: Use force to achieve their goals. The Rule of Law, women equality, sanctity of life, freedom of religion are unacceptable to most Arabs, and a great many other Muslims. Just look around the Middle East, Arab country after Arab country. Look at the daily slaughter on the streets of Baghdad.

It took the Europeans a thousand years to arrive at the cooperation of the European Union. At least a hundred million Europeans died during those turbulent times. We hope it will take less time, and less casualties for the Arabs to realize that living in harmony among themselves, and with others is superior to murdering one another. Just note what they have been doing in Gaza, Darfur, Iraq, Iran- Iraq war, Lebanon, and untold other mini wars the Arabs fought with one another, and with Israel too.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and the great majority of them are silent about the slaughter of Muslims by Muslims. Of course there are many Muslims who wish to live in peace, however, there are enough Muslims who incite, support, and do not object to the extreme actions of extremists thus letting them dictate the Muslim’s agenda. Even if only one tenth of one percent of the world’s Muslims support and participate in the Jihad against the West, it is one million, yes, one million people. However, 65 to 75 percent of the Palestinians support suicide bombing of Israeli civilians.

So, let’s be realistic. Do not expect a viable, satisfactory solution to the Arab- Israeli struggle any time in the near future. It is simply not possible. Abbas of Fatah is not significantly different from Hamas leadership. Fatah groups continue to murder Israelis. Just because they fought with Hamas it does not mean that they want real peace with the Israelis. Hamas and Fatah are mainly struggling for power, for wealth, and for jobs.
It is not clear what the recent Mecca power-sharing agreement between Fatah and Hamas will bring out. The power and persistence of the groups will decide the outcome, but even that may be temporary.

American support of Israel is crucial for Israel survival. We should not do what we did before WWII when the Germans started to murder Jews. We, American Jews, (and other Americans,) essentially kept quiet. We did not want to enrage the non Jewish community.

We must do all we can to support Israel, join AIPAC to educate Congress (American Israel Public Affair Committee- “The most important organization affecting America relationship with Israel”- the New York Times *). We should visit Israel. We should donate money to improve life there. The Israeli military budget is huge! Larger percentage then probably any other country, draining Israeli citizens by very high taxes. They do not have enough money to take care of their social needs.
It is not enough to feel good by reading, talking and emailing. We need to support Israel by our actions, by money too.

If we do not take those little actions, we may not be able to pray any longer towards Jerusalem. It may not be there.

Matania
2-07

*To join AIPAC: 202-639-6933, memebership@aipac.org

To comment on this post please visit this forum thread.

Tags:

Israel news,
Middle East