Facing the Truth - Paul Eidelberg

Even if were true—which emphatically is not the case—that “the Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people”—as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others have said—this would not entitle the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.  The Canaanites could make an equivalent claim.

With all due respect to attorney Howard Grief, who should have received the Israel Prize even before he published his monumental work The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, positive law is politically irrelevant where it is not backed by the power to enforce it.  As Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist 15—and I am referring to one of America’s greatest statesman:

It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways, by the agency of courts and ministers of justice, or by military force, by the coercion of the magistracy, or by the coercion of arms.

A legal realist might say “There is no law where it is not enforced.”

In the case of Israel’s title to the Holy Land, one should bear in mind that Israel is at war with an implacable foe, and wars are not won by appeals to law.  Hence, concerning conflicting legal claims to the Land of Israel, it would be wiser for Israel’s government—if it only had the courage—to state the Jewish claim to the Promised Land on the basis of Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 1, where he says in part:

If the nations of the world should say to Israel: “You are robbers, because you have seized by force the lands of the seven nations” [of Canaan], they [Israel] could say to them, “The entire world belongs to the Holy One, Blessed Be He. He created it and gave it to whomever it was right in his eyes.  Of His own will He gave it to them and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us.”

Against this Torah position, all arguments against the Jewish people’s title to Land of Israel on the basis of international law collapse like a deck of cards. 

Not that learned inquiry concerning international law on this issue is not interesting or enlightening. But the metapolitical conflict over the Land of Israel would remain unresolved.  The issue can only be resolved by war or, given the nature of Islam, by Israel’s unilateral disengagement or surrender.  Thus far, Israeli governments have chosen the path to oblivion.  I dare say, however, they will not succeed.

A Silly Dream - Prof Paul eidelberg

Now that Israel has effectively lost the support of the United States—indeed, now that the President of the United States has become Israel’s enemy—I suggest that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seek a new and even more powerful ally, namely G-d—a word he failed to utter in his Remembrance Day speech to the nation.

What?  Am I suggesting that Bibi become an observant Jew?  Ponder the consequences if he did.  He would then have the God of Israel—the only real God—to counter the fictitious deity of Islam.  Now he would have the wherewithal to deal with the fabricated Muslim in the White House.  Now, more than any other prime minister, he would be in the position to unite and strengthen the people of Israel.  Now he would galvanize more than 50 million Evangelical Christians to Israel’s cause.  Now he would put fear into the hearts of Israel’s Islamic enemies.

        Please: spare me the objection that he would be deemed a hypocrite. Instead, think of how the leaders of foreign nations would have to treat a religious prime minister of Israel.  Yes, you can raise all sorts of objections—you don’t have to be rocket scientist for this purpose.  Imagine the reaction of Israel’s religious parties and factions.  Wonderful!  Imagine how that astute political analyst Caroline Glick would react!  Perhaps she too would become observant and even serve as Israel’s ambassador to the United States! 

        Now imagine the “reinvented” Bibi on an American lecture tour.  Boos and cat calls?  So what?  Contrast how Obama won over America with the empty slogan: “Yes We Can.”   Bibi has a mind, he’s an orator.  Obama is an ignoramus—speechless without a teleprompter. 

        Finally, think of the tremendous increase in aliyah—of Jewish immigration to Israel.  Think of the “brain drain” occurring in America and elsewhere.

        But of course, this is only a silly dream. 

Hillary's Hilarious Hoopla - Prof Paul Eidelberg

It has been reported that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has increased the pressure on Israel again to strengthen the PLO and Fatah and make concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Apparently, Hillary is unaware of the fact that the PLO and Fatah are terrorist organizations, and that to make “concessions” to, hence to reward, any terrorist organization is a violation of international law. 

Unfortunately, the United States government has been violating international law year after year by financing the PLO with hundreds of millions of dollars—much of which ending up in the coffers of PLO leaders.  The American people, now suffering an economic meltdown, should take note of this fact.

Returning to Clinton, the American Secretary of State spoke at the Center for Middle East Peace.  She called on the PLO-Palestinian Authority (led by Mahmoud Abbas) to end its incitement against Israel.  How “politically correct” of this peace-preaching lady.  Stupefied by the religion of peace, she ignores the fact that the PLO, whose ruling faction is Fatah, has not only engaged in incitement against Israel decade after decade.  This terrorist organization is responsible for the murder of more than 1,500 Jewish men, women, and children and the maiming and traumatizing of a tens of thousands more. I would like to know whether Hillary would resign her office if her boss, Barack Obama, tolerated such barbarism against Americans?

 Like her boss, whose moral equivalence induces him to “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil” regarding Islam and Islam’s history—a history that includes the enslavement and sale of blacks—Hillary added: "We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.”

I would like attorney Clinton to present evidence that “a comprehensive peace” is possible with Arabs or Muslims whose religion forbids genuine and abiding peace with “infidels.”  I would have her cite the Quran—and not tendentiously.  I would like to see her refute legions of scholars —including former Muslims such as Wafa Sultan, Ayyan Hirsi Ali, and Nonie Darwish—whose books confirm Churchill’s adage that the Quran is “the Mein Kampf of war.”  And if Hillary is abysmally ignorant about such books, or if she has learned nothing from America scholars such as Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and Andrew Bostom, allow me to advise the lady to shut up! 

That is what she wants Prime Minister Netanyahu to do.  She urges him “to refrain from unilateral statements and actions that could undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks [with the Palestinians]”  But only fools would trust the words of Arab leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, a man ingrained in the Arab art of taqiyya—deception.

Nevertheless, Mrs. Clinton said Israel must strengthen the PA and the PLO in order to counter Hamas.  Where has this Secretary of State been lately?  Doesn’t she know that a large majority of the Arabs she calls the “Palestinians” elected Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as the PA’s prime minister, and that PA president Abbas is a nebbish vis-à-vis Haniyeh?

Willfully steeped in denial about the Palestinians, who have used their own children as human bombs, Hillary pontificated: “Israel can and should do more to support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to build credible institutions and deliver results.”

“Credible institutions”?  Did Hillary mean “democratic institutions.”  But when have Arabs ever constructed democratic institutions in their fourteen-century history?  Has this hilarious secretary of state, who deigns to teach Israel, ever read a candid scholar of Islam? 

The bad-nukes myth By RALPH PETERS

Nuclear weapons are not evil. Terrifying, yes. But their horrific capabilities prevented a Third World War.
It all depends on whose finger is on the button.

Until yesterday's formal announcement of the administration's new Nuclear Posture Review, nukes also kept us safe from a range of threats short of a doomsday scenario: Our enemies risked going only so far. Nukes didn't prevent all wars -- but wars remained local.

Yesterday, we threw away a significant part of history's most successful deterrent.
This looks like an act of reckless vanity on the part of the administration, but let's allow that this weakening of our national defense is the result of misguided idealism. The important thing isn't the politics, but the practical consequences.

Summarizing the changes in a Pentagon briefing yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates looked weary and chastened. The new posture emerged only after months of bitter argument between realists and activists. Without Gates, it would have been even worse.

Still, it must be painful to Gates -- a great American -- to accept that this policy went into effect on his watch.
Of all its malignant provisions, from accommodating Russian demands to preventing overdue updates for our arsenal, the most worrisome is the public declaration that, if the US suffers a biological, chemical or massive cyber attack, we will not respond with nukes.


This is a very real -- and unilateral -- weakening of our national security. In the past, our ambiguity made our enemies hesitate. The new policy guarantees that they'll intensify their pursuit of bugs, gas and weaponized computers.

Intending to halt a nuclear arms race, we've fired the starter pistol for a rush to develop alternative weapons of mass destruction.

Will this policy be the inspiration for an engineered plague that someday scythes through humankind? Chemical attacks are horrible, but local; cyber attacks are potentially devastating. But an innovative virus unleashed on the world could do what Cold War nuclear arsenals never did: Kill hundreds of millions.
This change leaves us far less safe. If a thug has a knife, but knows you're packing a gun, he's considerably less likely to attack you. Why promise him that you won't use the gun -- and might not use your knife?
Idealism has devolved into madness.


The left has never been willing to accept that deterrence works. In the left's world-view, hostile foreign actors aren't the problem. We are. If we disarm, surely they will . . .
This no-nukes obsession dates back to the early Cold War, when the Soviets used every available means, from dollars to earnest dupes, to persuade Western leftists that America's nuclear weapons were about to wipe out humanity. The USSR couldn't expand its European empire in the face of US nukes -- so the Soviets brilliantly portrayed us as the aggressors. (And the left praised Stalin as a man of peace.)

Massive ban-the-bomb demonstrations filled Western streets for decades (but not the streets behind the Iron Curtain). The left rejected deterrence as a security model.

The seeds sown by the deceased USSR put down durable roots. Pursuing a nuke-free world became a litmus test for the left.

Now we have a president who's taken on that goal as his personal grail. He's absolutely right that nukes have horrifying power -- but the paradox of deterrence is that, the more monstrous the weapons you possess, the less likely you are to ever need to employ them.
The new policy won't stop Iran and other rogue states from pursuing nukes (even though Iran and North Korea were singled out as policy exceptions). But it will accelerate the proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction. And it certainly won't reduce the probability of war.
It will also ensure that our aging arsenal will have to be content with a few Band-Aids; that we won't develop new, safer nuclear weapons -- and that we'll increasingly have to rely on the kindness of strangers.
Idealists just invited the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to ride a little closer.

Obama’s Nuclear Policy - Paul Eidelberg

Concerning Obama’s announced policy not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear armed state:
1)      Isn’t this an invitation for non-nuclear armed states to attack the US?
2)      Doesn’t this policy undermine Israel, whose concentration of people on the country’s coastal plain make it extremely vulnerable to conventional bombardment?
3)      Doesn’t this policy encourage state-sponsored terrorists?
4)      Is this policy intended to persuade Iran (as well as other Arab states) not to go nuclear?
5)      Did Brzezinski have anything to do with this policy?
6)      Is this policy merely a logical spin-off of Obama’s campaign oratory?
7)      Does this policy increase the potential role of the UN?
8)      Are there any serious arms experts or organizations or congressmen that have voiced criticism of this policy?

76 Senators Sign Letter To Hillary Rebuking Obama Stance Towards Israel

From Politico: More than three quarters of the U.S. Senate, including 38 Democrats, have signed on to a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicitly rebuking the Obama Administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel.
The letter, backed by the pro-Israel group AIPAC, now has the signatures of 76 Senators and says in part:
We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.
A similar letter garnered 333 signatures in the House, and its support marks almost unified Republican support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, along with strong, but more divided, public Democratic discomfort with Obama’s policies in the region.
Signatories include key Democrats like Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, and Robert Menendez as well as all but four Republicans, with signers including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Scott Brown.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin, however, did not sign; nor did Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry and ranking member Richard Lugar.
The full Senate letter, circulated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Johnny Isakson, is HERE.
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Clinton:
We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. In fact, we strongly believe that it is more important than ever for Israel and the Palestinians to enter into direct, face-to-face negotiations without preconditions on either side.
Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen for over a year. Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions. By contrast, Israel’s prime minister stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Direct negotiations are in the interest of all parties involved – including the United States.
We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions. The Israeli and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions. But disagreements should not adversely affect our mutual interests – including restarting the peace process between Israel and her neighbors and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
From the moment of Israel’s creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special relationship between our two nations. Israel continues to be the one true democracy in the Middle East that brings stability to a region where it is in short supply. Whether fighting Soviet expansionism or the current threats from regional aggression and terrorism, Israel has been a consistent, reliable ally and friend and has helped to advance American interests. Similarly, by helping keep Israel strong, the United States has helped to reduce threats to Israel’s security and advance the peace which successive Israeli governments have so avidly sought.
It is the very strength of our relationship that has made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who desired Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace. As the Vice President said during his recent visit to Israel: “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel.” Steadfast American backing has helped lead to peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

Shabbos Observance Saved Yidden from Ill-Fated Polish Flight

According to Chabad shaliach in Warsaw, Rabbi Shalom Ber Stambler, a number of leaders of the local Jewish community are alive because they canceled their participation in the official state delegation, realizing the flight was on shabbos.

Rabbi Stambler stated the Polish president who was among the many government officials that perished in the crash was a true friend of the Jewish People and Israel. He stressed that President Lech Kaczynski showed his solidarity with the Jews by his actions, not just with words.
He pointed out that when the late president served as mayor of Warsaw, he played a major role assisting in the construction of the Jewish Museum, which is soon to open in the location of the Jewish ghetto area.
Rabbi Mordechai Shudrich, the chief rabbi of Poland, was among those invited to accompany the president on the ill-fated flight. The rav explained he told the president that he cannot fly on shabbos, and his explanation was received and understood.
A Polish guard came into shul during krias hatorah on shabbos, informing the rav of the tragedy. The rav stated the shul was full, “with hundreds of young mispalalim who were in Poland to take part in Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremonies” on Sunday night and Monday. The rav waited until krias hatorah was over and then made the announcement. The mispalalim recited Tehillim 130 and then proceeded to davening, with the tzibur visibly upset over the tragic news.
The rabbi on Sunday explained that he recalls a case in which the president responded to his request, to intervene to prevent an autopsy, stating he was a true friend of the Jewish community.
(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)

Children Collect 1.5 Million Buttons to Commemorate Holocaust

Schoolchildren in the city of Efrat, south of Jerusalem, are commemorating the Holocaust in an unusual way this year, by presenting a collection of 1.5 million buttons. The buttons represent the 1.5 million Jewish children murdered in the Holocaust.

The project was organized by teachers Susan Weiss and Tali Samuel of the Aseh Chayil elementary school. It was inspired by similar projects in the United States and Europe.
The purpose of collecting buttons is to help the mind grasp the concept of “1.5 million,” a number so large it is difficult to comprehend, the teachers said. Buttons in particular are significant due to their individuality, which reminds viewers that each of those killed in the Holocaust was unique, they said.

US Fighting Israel's Nuclear Program

(Israelnationalnews.com) The United States has begun denying visas to Israel's nuclear scientists, according to the Hebrew-language daily Maariv. Workers at the reactor in Dimona told the paper that they had been treated poorly by US representatives, and had been told they could not travel to the States.
For the past 20 years it has been common for scientists working at the Dimona reactor to travel to universities in the U.S. to enhance their knowledge in the fields of physics, chemistry, and nuclear engineering.
The only reason the Dimona scientists' visa requests were refused was their work at the reactor, sources in the military establishment said. None of the researchers has had any trouble with the law, in Israel or America.
A former Dimona worker told Maariv that the problems between Israel and America went beyond denied visas. The US has also created a “de-facto embargo” on equipment needed in the Dimona reactor, he said.

What Bibi should say....Paul Eidelberg

What Needs Saying

In response to the infamous Goldstone Report, Israel’s Prime Minister should quote that marvelous poet and literary critic Matthew Arnold who wrote: “As long as the world lasts, all who want to make progress in righteousness will come to Israel for inspiration…”

In response to European anti-Semitism, Prime Minister Netanyahu—with Genesis 12:1-3 in mind—might quote South African author Olive Schreiner: “The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed him have written out their own curse.”

Finally, how would you feel if you heard Mr. Netanyahu quote British historian and statesman Thomas B. Macaulay who declared, in a debate in 1833 in the British House of Commons over whether Jews should have their legal and political disabilities removed by law:

In the infancy of civilization, when our island was as savage as New Guinea, when letters and arts were still unknown in Athens, when scarcely a thatched hut stood on what was afterwards the site of Rome, this condemned people had their fenced cities and cedar palaces, their splendid temple ... their schools of sacred learning, their great statesmen and soldiers, their natural philosophers, their historians and poets.

Ah, if only Mr. Netanyahu—when speaking of Jerusalem—had the wit to quote Macaulay in the presence of Barack Obama!