An upside of the Obama presidency

An upside of the Obama presidency

Test

A Mideast Truce By ROGER COHEN

(Another voice from the other side... that realizes détente is the only answer now...unless you are a Kahane-ist like me.)


I’ve grown so pessimistic about Israel-Palestine that I find myself agreeing with Israel’s hard-line foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman: “Anyone who says that within the next few years an agreement can be reached ending the conflict simply doesn’t understand the situation and spreads delusions.”

That’s the lesson of early Obama. The president tried to rekindle peace talks by confronting Israel on settlements, coaxing Palestinians to resume negotiations, and reaching out to the Muslim world. The effort has failed.

It has alienated Israel, where Obama is unpopular, and brought the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, close to resignation. It’s time to think again.

What’s gone wrong? There have been tactical mistakes, including a clumsy U.S. wobble toward accepting Israeli “restraint” on settlements rather than cessation. But the deeper error was strategic: Obama’s assumption that he could resume where Clinton left off in 2000 and pursue the land-for-peace idea at the heart of the two-state solution.

This approach ignored the deep scars inflicted in the past decade: the killing of 992 Israelis and 3,399 Palestinians between the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000 and 2006; the Israeli Army’s harsh reoccupation of most of the West Bank; Hamas’ violent rise to power in Gaza and the accompanying resurgence of annihilationist ideology; the spectacular spread of Jewish settlements in the West Bank; and the Israeli construction of over 250 miles of a separation barrier that has protected Israel from suicide bombers even as it has shattered Palestinian lives, grabbed land and become, in the words of Michael Sfard, an Israeli lawyer, “an integral part of the West Bank settlement plan.”

These are not small developments. They have changed the physical appearance of the Middle East. More important, they have transformed the psychologies of the protagonists. Israelis have walled themselves off from Palestinians. They are less interested than ever in a deal with people they hardly see.

As Ron Nachman, the founder of the sprawling Ariel settlement, comments in René Backmann’s superb new book, “A Wall in Palestine,” the wave of Palestinian suicide attacks before work on the barrier began in mid-2002 meant that: “Israelis wanted separation. They did not want to be mixed with the Arabs. They didn’t even want to see them. This may be seen as racist, but that’s how it is.”

And that’s about where we are.

With Palestinians saying, “Not one inch further will we cede.” The myriad humiliations of the looping barrier, which divides Palestinians from one another as well as from Israel, have cemented this “Nyet.”

On the surface, Obama’s decision to tackle settlements first was logical enough. Nothing has riled Palestinians as much as the continued flow of Israeli settlers into East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Both Oslo (1993) and the Road Map (2003) called for settlements to stop, but the number of settlers has risen steadily to over 450,000.

The president was categorical in his Cairo speech: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

Nor do I. But facts are hard — and Obama has tried to ignore them. The history briefly outlined above makes clear that the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won’t deviate from the pattern of settlement growth established since 1967.

Indeed, Backmann’s book (from which the Sfard quote is also taken), demonstrates a relentless continuity of Israeli purpose, now cemented by a fence whose aim was in fact double: to stop terrorists but also “to protect the settlements, to give them room to develop.”

That is why, even at 250 miles, the barrier (projected to stretch over 400 miles) is already much longer than the pre-1967 border or Green Line: It burrows into the West Bank to place major settlements on the Israeli side, effectively annexing over 12 percent of the land.

The United States condoned the construction of this settlement-reinforcing barrier. It cannot be unmade — not for the foreseeable future. Peace and walls do not go together. But a truce and walls just may. And that, I must reluctantly conclude, is the best that can be hoped for.

Obama, who has his Nobel already, should ratchet expectations downward. Stop talking about peace. Banish the word. Start talking about détente. That’s what Lieberman wants; that’s what Hamas says it wants; that’s the end point of Netanyahu’s evasions.

It’s not what Abbas wants but he’s powerless. Shlomo Avineri, a political scientist, told me, “A nonviolent status quo is far from satisfactory but it’s not bad. Cyprus is not bad.”

I recall my friend Shlomo dreaming of peace. That’s over. The last decade destroyed the last illusions: hence the fence. The courageous have departed the Middle East. A peace of the brave must yield to a truce of the mediocre — at best.

At least until Intifada-traumatized Israeli psychology shifts. I agree with the Israeli author David Grossman when he writes: “We have dozens of atomic bombs, tanks and planes. We confront people possessing none of these arms. And yet, in our minds, we remain victims. This inability to perceive ourselves in relation to others is our principal weakness.”

MK Ariel: Freeze the Hiring of Freeze Inspectors

(IsraelNN.com) MK Uri Ariel (National Union) warned the Ministry of Defense Tuesday that it was acting illegally in hiring inspectors for enforcing the freeze on Jewish home-building in Judea and Samaria.

Ariel, who is a member of the Knesset's Committee on the Defense Budget, sent a letter to the Coordinator of Activities in Judea and Samaria, Maj-Gen Eitan Dangut, in which he stated that “in recent days it was reported in the news that you intend to recruit dozens of additional employees to the Inspection Unit of the Civilian Authority in Judea and Samaria.”

"As a member of the Committee for the Defense Budget and after checking the matter, I wish to direct your attention to the fact that this has not been approved, neither from a budget angle nor as far as employment positions. Therefore I request that you refrain from acting illegally,” he added dryly.

Ariel said that the way in which the recruitment of inspectors was handled reminded him of the Disengagement. “During the expulsion from Gush Katif, too, the government made sure to run roughshod over any kind of proper management, just so it could carry out the destruction as fast as possible. My brothers, the former residents of Gush Katif, are paying the price of this evil and foolish rush to this day.”

Israel ....Blowin in the wind......

Thomas Friedmans America vs Narrative.

Will this be the first major Jewish voice from the other side to finally understand the problem. Will this trigger the tipping point that gets the USA moving in the right direction against the Muslims...Perhaps all Muslims, until those that are against violence stand up and declare that they are really secular and waiting to see who wins this current war?

I write, many write, all that can plainly see the Muslim mission and the perpetrators keep writing to open the eyes of the humanistic blind members of our tribes.

Are we paranoid, rabble rousers? Do we see what others don't?
Are our views out of step with reality or are we simply not interested in being PC?

What will it take to open the eyes of people like J Street?
Is defeating them needed to reach that tipping point, or are groups like them simply irrelevant?
What fervor drives these people that are clearly blind to the Muslim threat?

How do we take the countless blogs and writers that are trying to warn the rest, and consolidate them into a bona fide movement or party?

When may I speak out clearly and not feel threatened that the deniers will shout me down or worse try to label me a paranoid delusional? We are supposed to be the liberal media, aren't we?
We are however, required to be alive to be open and inviting to all.
We are not supposed to die trying to be PC. Right?

Could Dr Michael Ben Ari of Nation Union be our next leader in Israel? Can he unite Feiglin, Manhigut Yehudit and the Right? Can either of them resist the US pressure to capitulate? It is obvious to any observer that BO wants Israel's compliance to benefit the world at the expense of their lives and country.
Is BO Anti-Semitic...perhaps. Perhaps he believes their will be peace in the world if Israel does not exist.
In reality, Bo is irrelevant to Israel. She does not need him in any way and needs to continue building as it wishes.
Israel also needs to begin retaking her independence by annexing Judea and then Samaria...after beginning to dispel the Arab non citizens!

Where or who is the next leader in the US? Who will lead in 2012?

What is your opinion of the Kach party?
Could it succeed today?

Avi

America vs. The Narrative

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

What should we make of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who apparently killed 13
innocent people at Fort Hood?

Here's my take: Major Hasan may have been mentally unbalanced - I assume
anyone who shoots up innocent people is. But the more you read about his
support for Muslim suicide bombers, about how he showed up at a
public-health seminar with a PowerPoint presentation titled "Why the War on
Terror Is a War on Islam," and about his contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, a
Yemeni cleric famous for using the Web to support jihadist violence against
America - the more it seems that Major Hasan was just another angry jihadist
spurred to action by "The Narrative."

What is scary is that even though he was born, raised and educated in
America, The Narrative still got to him.

The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies
about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11.
Propagated by jihadist Web sites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals,
satellite news stations and books - and tacitly endorsed by some Arab
regimes - this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as
part of a grand "American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy" to keep Muslims down.

Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely
dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny - in
Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake
Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan - a narrative that
says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.

Although most of the Muslims being killed today are being killed by jihadist
suicide bombers in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia, you'd never
know it from listening to their world. The dominant narrative there is that
9/11 was a kind of fraud: America's unprovoked onslaught on Islam is the
real story, and the Muslims are the real victims - of U.S. perfidy.

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11,
partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two
tyrannical regimes - the Taliban and the Baathists - and to work with
Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we
did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and
diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and
Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own
leaders.

The Narrative was concocted by jihadists to obscure that.

It's working. As a Jordanian-born counterterrorism expert, who asked to
remain anonymous, said to me: "This narrative is now omnipresent in Arab and
Muslim communities in the region and in migrant communities around the
world. These communities are bombarded with this narrative in huge doses and
on a daily basis. [It says] the West, and right now mostly the U.S. and
Israel, is single-handedly and completely responsible for all the grievances
of the Arab and the Muslim worlds. Ironically, the vast majority of the
media outlets targeting these communities are Arab-government owned - mostly
from the Gulf."


This narrative suits Arab governments. It allows them to deflect onto
America all of their people's grievances over why their countries are
falling behind. And it suits Al Qaeda, which doesn't need much organization
anymore - just push out The Narrative over the Web and satellite TV, let it
heat up humiliated, frustrated or socially alienated Muslim males, and one
or two will open fire on their own. See: Major Hasan.

"Liberal Arabs like me are as angry as a terrorist and as determined to
change the status quo," said my Jordanian friend. The only difference "is
that while we choose education, knowledge and success to bring about change,
a terrorist, having bought into the narrative, has a sense of powerlessness
and helplessness, which are inculcated in us from childhood, that lead him
to believe that there is only one way, and that is violence."

What to do? Many Arab Muslims know that what ails their societies is more
than the West, and that The Narrative is just an escape from looking
honestly at themselves. But none of their leaders dare or care to open that
discussion. In his Cairo speech last June, President Obama effectively built
a connection with the Muslim mainstream. Maybe he could spark the debate by
asking that same audience this question:

"Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, 'This is not Islam.' I
believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn't. You need to tell us
what it is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted
in your schools and mosques. If this is not Islam, then why is it that a
million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the
Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim
suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image
of God? You need to explain that to us - and to yourselves."

Expose the Renegades by Walter Bingham

There are sections of Israel’s academia, that openly delegitimize the country, by supporting one or another boycott of Israel, forgetting that their salaries are paid from the taxes collected from fellow citizens. These educators, though on the face of it meant to be objective and factual, exercise an enormous influence on their charges, many of whom consider them beyond reproach.

When we tolerate senior academics referring to our country as an ‘apartheid State’ - then, as newspaper columnist Isi Leibler writes: ”it is an abomination in the name of freedom of expression”, taking an ideal to a lunatic extreme. Tenure at State sponsored institutions should be denied to all who engage in such activities.

Free speech is a privilege to be jealously guarded, but when large circulation national newspapers openly promote critiques of Zionist doctrine, the raison d’etre of our presence in this land, some kind of rebuke, if not censorship, is called for. It was the recent campaign from certain quarters inside Israel, against the IDF, that gave rise to the Goldstone report.

In the Diaspora too, there are individuals and groups which, though calling themselves Zionist, are working against the interests of a viable Jewish State.

The upstart organisation J-Street in the US is a case in point. In the publicity for their student wing, they recently dropped ‘Pro Israel’ from their slogan “Pro Israel - Pro peace”, so as not to offend certain sections of the student body. They allow individual chapters to ad “Pro Palestine”.

The Jewish ‘enemies from within us’ hide in the crevices provided by their benefactors whose only aim is assimilation and success, at the cost Israel’s security. These renegades, who present themselves as a legitimate post- Zionist alternative need to be exposed as the unrepresentative fringe that they are.

Leibler reminds us that “Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion took ruthless measures against Israeli renegades, insisting that Israeli embassies keep close ties with local Jewish leaders and persuade them to refrain from publicly criticising policies…… that could have life and death implications for Israel’s citizens.” This is more relevant today than it ever was.

Soldiers Made from Steel‚ Leaders Made from Putty - MK Dr. Michael Ben Ari – Eretz Yisroel Shelanu

It had become routine. U.S. government treats the government of Israel and its branches as if they were clerks. When it comes to routine, there is no discomfort level.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed several such rude and coarse interventions. One was the incident in which Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin disqualified my speech in the Knesset after the American envoy Mitchell demanded an answer from Rivlin "until the afternoon" as if he was the last of Mitchell's subjects. This entire give and take was carried out amidst full media exposure. And that is only one of the events where they have demonstrated their intervention, even in matters that seem worthless.

Apparently Obama's envoy to the Middle East refers to the internal conduct of the Knesset's as if he was appointed to this as part of his job. That's why the referendum law to the Golan Heights, which was supposed to be put up for vote, was suddenly removed from the agenda without any logical explanation. The U.S. government occasionally sprinkles admonitions about building homes for Jews at Pisgat Zeev, and about the master plans of Giloh. Our pitiable response is reminiscent of a child caught doing mischief and tries to explain: "I did not understand", "I did not know", "I will not do it any more."

Crossing this line would not occur was it not that we ourselves broke all the boundaries. It began coordinating positions with the big American brother, and moved forward to total subjugation to American lordship and absolute flaccidity of our leadership.

We could have let desperation set in, if we were not exposed in recent weeks to the steadfastness of the brave soldiers. Brave young teenagers, for once, do not suffer from diseases of subordination or existential complexes.

Soldiers who had enlisted in the military service this week, were asked by a Channel 10 reporter if they would refuse an order to expel Jews. The question was asked a few minutes after the Chief of Staff talked with them about the refusal, including explanations and threats. The young soldiers who had just enlisted answered the reporter without hesitation, in this fashion:

A soldier from Migdal Haemek: "I will refuse an order, because I'm going with everyone, that's why. With friends, we're brothers, so I would refuse an order. If he refuses I will also refuse a command". A soldier from Kfar Vradim explained: "We are all Jews, there is nothing to do. You can not do this to Jews. I probably will not obey command because those are my values."
A soldier from Rechovot, enlisted today to the infantry brigade: "There are minimum values. We came to protect, not to expel. I protect my brothers, do not turn them out. I am now enlisting to protect and not to drive out."

Those who have seen the pictures of young soldiers see that they are not yeshiva students, none of them wore a skullcap, and none had a religious appearance. To the sorrow of those seeking to go against us, there isn't any Rosh Yeshiva you can point a finger at. The threats, intimidation and explanations that their refusal to expel Jews will allegedly dismantle the army - all these did not work for them. Their words were sharp and clear: We came to protect! We came to fight! Not to fight our brothers! They also renewed something our leadership lost long ago; they claimed that will not expel because "we have values."

Netanyahu and Barak's leadership may unfortunately be made of putty in the hands of haters of Israel. But the youth are made of natural steel, honesty and love of Israel. So who said there was no hope?

Who is Manhigut Yehudit - The Jewish Leadership Movement?

We are simply Jews, with no added definitions. We do not call ourselves Orthodox, Conservative or Reform - neither "right-wing" nor "left-wing." Like the overwhelming majority of Jews, we believe in G-d, Who has brought us back to our Jewish home; the Holy Land of Israel. In Israel, the natural predisposition of the Jewish People to illuminate the world with God's light is brought to perfection, enabling us to perform our task in the most consummate way.

Our aim is to create a genuinely Jewish consciousness in the Land of Israel, motivated by the awareness that our faith and our country are intrinsically woven together. An Israeli society predicated on Jewish faith - the Torah - is an ethical and loving society whose ultimate goal is to illuminate the entire world with God's benevolence.

The Modern State of Israel in Crisis
The Zionist movement, which founded the modern State of Israel, was a product of the millennia of longing for return to the Land of Israel. However, it was also a product of the times in which it was born. Basing itself on secular 19th century Western values, Zionism came to fill the need for a safe haven for the Jews of the world. Miraculously, the Zionist movement succeeded in building the complete infrastructure of a modern state - replete with a strong army, high tech, immigration absorption etc. out of the wilderness.
In its essence, though, the secular Zionism on which Israel was built negates holiness. In doing so, it has stripped itself of the tools necessary to reflect the Jewish nature of Israel and its ultimate holy purpose.

We are now witnessing a complete unraveling of the fabric of Israeli society. The very Zionist ideology that built the modern state of Israel has now turned against itself as it seeks to counter its Biblical roots and Divine purpose. This self-destructive bent is the ultimate conclusion of the secular ideology upon which Zionism is based.

The Essential Question: Is Israel a State of Jews - or a Jewish State?
Until now Israel has been a state of the Jews. It is vital to our future to transform Israel into a Jewish state. Israel's elected officials must lead the country with policies based exclusively on Jewish identity, values and ethics.

An Alternative
In 1994, Moshe Feiglin began the Zo Artzeinu ("This is Our Land") protest movement that opposed the self-destructive Oslo Accords with a massive civil disobedience campaign.
It became clear, though, that it was not enough to protest; we had to offer a fundamental alternative - a new strategic objective - in place of the process of collapse that gave rise to the Oslo Accords. Such an alternative would need to be based on both an alternative ideology that would inspire the nation and possess the means for implementation.

Faith-Based Leadership
There is only one way to truly imbue the State of Israel with the meaning it deserves and needs: to promote an alternative leadership for the State of Israel that is based on Jewish belief. Only leadership motivated by an authentically Jewish vision will be capable of meeting all the challenges currently facing the State of Israel and the Jewish People. Only leadership of this kind will be capable of reinvigorating the State of Israel and the Jewish People and leading it towards the realization of the vision of the prophets.

Leadership of the Likud
In 1998, Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement) was established as the successor to Zo Artzeinu. Our aim is to register thousands of believing members in the Likud - the ruling party of the National Camp - and to elect a party leader who will be motivated by Jewish ideals and values. As the Likud's candidate for Prime Minister, this candidate would be the natural leader of the national camp and would be elected as the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.

What began as a dream has become a reality. Already today, Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement) has the largest bloc inside the Likud's Central Committee. In a very short time we became known as the group that "does not come with a price tag." Our weapon is our ideology and tens of thousands of supporters have already joined our ranks. Many Israelis throughout the political spectrum believe that we are the future of Israel's political life and the path we have chosen is correct and viable.

Our Future
With firm faith in the God of Israel, Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement) is confident that our future is bright. Indeed the totality of our strategic goals could be summed up in a single phrase from the traditional Aleynu prayer recited daily:

To perfect the world in the kingdom of the Almighty

2009 Elections Prove Israel Ripe for Belief-Based Leadership

Playing on the theory that Israel is not yet ready for a belief-based leader, Moshe Feiglin's opponents claimed that his election in the 2009 Likud primaries would mean that the Likud would lose 6 mandates; ostensibly of those people who would not identify with belief-based leadership. But when Feiglin was elected to the 20th place on the Likud roster, just the opposite occurred. The Likud immediately began to gain in the polls, reaching 36 projected mandates. After Moshe Feiglin was forced down to 36th place on the Likud roster, the Likud's standing in the polls began to decline.

The following graph clearly shows the patterns that led to the Likud's slow but steady decline over the election campaign.

                 Conclusions:
A. There is complete symmetry between the decline of the Likud and                  the rise of Lieberman's party, and later of the National Union.

B. The Likud's decline begins when it loses its rightist/nationalist                  hue as a result of Netanyahu's battle against Feiglin.

C. From the beginning of December and until the elections, Lieberman                  and the National Union gained 11 mandates at the Likud's expense.                  The Likud with Moshe Feiglin could have won at least 38 mandates in these elections.

                 D. Israel voted Right because it is thirsting for                  leadership based on Jewish values and ethics.

Insubordination Can Save Israel

By Moshe Feiglin

5 Kislev, 5770 (Nov. 22, '09)

As a result of my attempts to halt the Oslo collapse, I was put on trial for "sedition." I asked the judges to allow me to read a short piece from a book that I had brought with me. The judges agreed, and to their surprise, I removed "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint Exupיry from my briefcase:

"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

"And the stars obey you?"

"Certainly they do," the king said. "They obey instantly. I do not permit insubordination."

"I should like to see a sunset . . . Do me that kindness . . . Order the sun to set . . ."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable." (The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint Exupיry, Chapter 10).

It is a mistake to think that the state works within the boundaries of laws. The public does not obey laws. It obeys rules within the boundaries of a triangle, the first side of which is the law. But the triangle has two other sides: common sense and ethicality.

What if the Knesset would pass a law requiring drivers to drive in reverse all winter? That would counter the logic side of the triangle. The public's subsequent refusal would be the fault of the government, not of the public. In other words, the fact that we obey the law is not because of the law itself, but because it is logical enough to warrant our adherence.

The third side of the triangle is ethicality. If the government would order us to drive our elderly and infirm out onto the frozen tundra, as per Eskimo custom, we may agree that it would logically enhance the economy. But nobody would obey, because it would be patently immoral. The party at fault for the insubordination would be the government that enacted the law and not the citizens who refused to obey.

How are the boundaries of this triangle determined?

The law is obviously determined by the government. A government has unlimited power to enact and enforce laws. The government, with its Knesset majority, can enact a law that would postpone elections for fifty years. Why doesn't it do so? For only one reason. Because it knows that the public would not accept it and the government would subsequently lose its credibility. In other words, just like Exupיry's king, the government enacts laws within the boundaries that it assumes the public will accept, both logically and ethically.

Power always strives for more power and the government will always attempt to test the boundaries of common sense and ethicality. But fortunately, it is not the government that determines these boundaries, but the public. How does the public accomplish this? By using its right and sometimes, its duty – to refuse to obey the law. That is how the logical and ethical platform for the healthy functioning of society is created.

In order to increase its power, the government tries to convince us that insubordination will cause the state to collapse. But that is completely false. The greatest crimes in human history were perpetrated when citizens ignored their duty to delineate logical and ethical boundaries for the rule of law. The societies in which this took place by and large collapsed.

"Good men must not obey the laws too well" (Ralph Waldo Emerson).

Emerson understood what the disengaging Israeli tyranny no longer wants to hear.

Those soldiers who obeyed the Expulsion law in Gush Katif despite the fact that they knew that it was illogical and unethical, brought the Hamas missiles to Be'er Sheva, the resulting Cast Lead Operation, Goldstone and the international anti-Israel demonization campaign that is gaining momentum by the day. In short, our eager-to-obey soldier has endangered Israel's very existence.

The writing on the wall of Netanyahu's office is clear: Destruction of the Golan Heights, of the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the division of Jerusalem. Public delineation of clear, logical and ethical boundaries for the law can prevent Netanyahu from carrying out his plan.

In the past few weeks, soldiers from two separate units in the IDF expressed their civic responsibility by refusing to obey orders to expel Jews from their homes. These brave young men are positioned to save Israel from collapse.