Doc's Talk

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

The World Has Just Rewarded Civilian Shields
By
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

It is Friday evening here in Israel. Families here, as I am sure is the same in Lebanon, are anxious, worried and confused. It appears that the United Nations has finally put together a resolution designed to stop the death and destruction in both countries. Interesting that the world is in a rush to stop the war and THE answer suddenly appears-it is called a ceasefire resolution. Perhaps this rush to judgment is the result of photos, video, story lines that focus upon primarily the action among the Lebanese people. Perhaps the PR campaign of doctored photos, staged scenes of destruction, and “forced” story lines have lead otherwise intelligent, caring people to fall for the oldest trick in the terrorist book. Emotion nearly always over rides analysis based upon facts. Hezzbllah’s PR campaign has overwhelmed the world. People actually believe the only way out of this situation is with a ceasefire, buffer troop resolution-you bought this hook, line and sinker. The situation I am talking about is the alleged death rate of civilians. The entire motivation for this resolution is based upon a false assumption. You have now rushed to judgment-there are multiple other possibilities for resolving this situation-no one seems to want to discuss them and Israel is displaying its inept public relations.

A great deal of diligent work and effort was expended by hundreds of people in order to finally arrive at this resolution. Many people in the international community will rejoice this evening-I am not one of them.

If this resolution is enacted, Israel and the free West will have been dealt a catastrophic blow for freedom. There are many questions left either asked or unanswered by governments, media types and citizens of the world.

Why a new resolution when the UN had one already in place-UN 1559? As written, if enforced, this war would never have begun; therefore there would be no need for another resolution to stop it.

If you can’t enforce UN 1559, what makes anyone think this “cease-fire” resolution can be successfully implemented? The recent history of UN resolutions being implemented successfully has been comparable the number of times the Red Sox have won the World Series.

“The essence of this new resolution is it would give UN forces in south Lebanon a mandate under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter - which Israel has previously opposed.
The mandate would be modified to make the force stronger than it has been in the 28 years it has been in south Lebanon. The UN force, known by its acronym UNIFIL, would help coordinate the deployment of Lebanese forces to the south, which has been under de facto control of Hizbullah for years. IDF troops that have been operating in the area in more than four weeks of war would then withdraw. “
If I understand this correctly, the UNIFIL troop base will be expanded while assisting the Lebanese army to deploy on the border. Isn’t this the same UNIFIL who has failed repeatedly when a peacekeeping action was needed on the border? Isn’t this the same Lebanese army that has been described as weak and unable to deter in any manner Hezzbollah as reported by the Lebanese PM himself? Isn’t this the same army whose members have been assisting Hezzbollah on the battlefield? What has changed with either to make any of us believe they can produce a ceasefire? The data is that UNIFIL and the Lebanese army are weak, poorly armed and without proper training relative to the Iranian army wing we call Hezzbollah. Both were so ineffective that they allowed the weapons of mass death to be imported into Lebanon, they allowed for over 5 years the country side to be radically change by permitting deep, enforced bunkers to be built. These bunkers were built for munitions, missiles and terrorists-none were built for the Lebanese people.
What country when attacked is told it may not respond in any manner it deems necessary and is then told you have a timeline to complete whatever military action you are going to take? As far as I know this has applied to only Israel. A stopwatch has literally been placed upon a sovereign country-do you not see the injustice of this? You have just rewarded Hezzbollah and Iran. You have also rewarded all other countries and/or terrorist groups who will next engage in battle with countries other than Israel.
Do you realize that you have immediately provided a reward for battles accruing civilian deaths? Do you look the other way when challenged by those of us who realize you have given Hezzbollah, Iran and fascist Islam a new winning strategy? You reward them by not holding Hezzbollah accountable for its actions. You reward Hezzbollah and Iran when you allow them to violate most of the Geneva Convention rules when it comes to combatant rules of war. Hamas has already said it will use these same tactics. Imagine what has occurred and will take place with munitions, nuclear plants and missile launchers in Iran. You have made it profitable to have civilians killed-you have rewarded one of the most despicable human behaviors known to humankind!
Have you given consideration that this resolution has established a precedent when it comes to across border fighting? Was this also your intention? Israel, correctly so I might suggest, has had a policy of not allowing such an action to occur. The 15,000 person group will serve as shields for Hezzbollah. Can you imagine Israel responding to fire from Hezzbollah and returning fire over the heads of this force? What happens when Hezzbollah deliberately fires into this group, kills and maims soldiers and then blames Israel? How will you deal with this and the media jumping on the action to once again denigrate Israel?

What are the rules of engagement for this resolution? How long will these troops be deployed on our border? What is the exit strategy? What are the performance markers used to determine if the group is effective? Without answers to all of these and other questions, this resolution should never see the light of day.
Do you not see that you have given our enemies a new strategy to limit us while strengthening them? One of the outcomes of this kind of resolution is any aggressor can operate freely with the knowledge that in less than 31 days, the international community will step in and rescue it while punishing the victim country. It is precisely this unspoken outcome that begins the death nil for the West. Once again we failed to honor our beliefs and our way of life. We have capitulated to the enemy.
Clear defined beliefs lead to the establishment of precise goals. The goals enable us to make decisions about what we know we have to do as well as dictate what we need to do. It is time to once again state with clarity of vision and precision of thought what we stand for as well as what we believe our way of life should look like. We need to be resolute in our convictions and then develop the goals leading us into action-a nation’s soul depends upon this. We need to have congruity between what we say and what we do. I call this acting within integrity-perhaps we have lost some along the way. We can regain our lost souls as a country and as a nation-let us begin now. By requesting that the UN demonstrate its ability by asking the international community for implementation of 1559 before we attempt another new resolution.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.