Friday, September 23, 2011

DEVELOPING, 2: PM Netanyahu of Israel replies to Mr Abbas, at the UN

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has now responded at the UN. (Text here.)

CSPAN has a video here.

UPDATE: First video, on Youtube:




There is a Jamaican saying that is all too apt:
Fire deh pon mus mus tail, but 'im tink seh cool breeze de deh!
[The mouse's tail is on fire but it thinks it is a cooling breeze, not a fire.]
Key points, via Ynet News:
The potential threat to Israel
The Palestinians should recognize Israel as the Jewish state and make peace with it, before seeking a state of their own [--> i.e. along the lines of the Oslo peace accord process from 1993 on], Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly Friday.

“Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established [Precisely correct, this is in the actual text of the Israeli Declaration of Independence],” offering Israel’s response to a fiery anti-Israel speech delivered by the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas earlier. 

The Palestinians should recognize Israel as the Jewish state and make peace with it, before seeking a state of their own [i.e. underscores acceptance of the Oslo process, now plainly dead -- killed from the Arab side, as usual . . . ], Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly Friday.

 Netanyahu said that he extended his hand to the Arab nations of the Middle East “on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people,” and mostly to the Palestinian people, “with whom we seek a just and lasting peace.”
“I came here to speak the truth. The truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, but they want a state without peace, and the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen,” he said. “The Palestinian should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. After peace is signed, Israel won’t be the last country to accept a Palestinian state – we will be the first.”

Turning his attention to Hamas, the PM said: "Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit for five years. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. If you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today – that’s the resolution you should pass" . . . . 
Referring to the terrorism threat faced by Israel, the PM said: “Thousand of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand why Israelis rightfully ask what’s preventing it from happening again.”

“Would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the life of your families?” he said.

“Since 9/11, militant Islam has slaughtered countless innocents. The most dangerous threat is that these fanatics arm themselves with nuclear weapons and this is precisely what Iran is trying to do. Can you imagine that man armed with nuclear weapons?” Netanyahu added, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad . . . 
Jpost adds some more clips, where responses to Mr Abbas's racism and ethnic cleansing assertions are worth noting HT, Atlas Shrugs]:
 "With God's help lets find the common ground for peace. I can't make peace without you," Netanyahu said during his address.

Netanyahu criticized the hypocrisy of the United Nations, noting that the UN Security Council is now headed by Lebanon, who is controlled by Hezbollah - a group considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, and the European Union.

The UN, Netanyahu said, denounces Israel more than any other nation.

The prime minister called comments by PA officials that Jews would not be allowed in a future Palestinian state "ethnic cleansing."

He called laws in Ramallah making the selling of land to Jews punishable by death "racism."

The prime minister stated that Palestinians should "give up the fantasy of flooding Israel" with millions of refugees, saying that he did not want Palestinians to try and change the Jewish character of the state.

Netanyahu called for the release of kidnapped IDf soldier Gilad Schalit.

"Every nation represented here should request his release," Netanyahu declared to applause.

"If you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that's the resolution you should pass," the prime minister said.

A brave and sobering response, but one unlikely to be heeded in the heat of the moment.

But, for record, let us underscore the money quote above:
“I came here to speak the truth. The truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, but they want a state without peace, and the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen,” he said. “The Palestinian should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. After peace is signed, Israel won’t be the last country to accept a Palestinian state – we will be the first.”
I fear, though, that war clouds loom again over the Middle East, and many misunderstandings and a few outright slanders have been cemented in many minds and hearts. 

Today is a sad day for our world. We will one day look back on this day and wonder why we did not take another path that was so obviously open to us. 

On that day, over the ashes of unnecessarily burned cities and rivers of needlessly spilled blood, let us remember, we were warned; but refused to heed sober counsel. END

==============

The matter is sufficiently serious to reproduce the full text of the speech:


PRIME MIN. NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President. 


Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbors with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression. 


But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace. (Applause.)


Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland -- it was then that this was braided -- branded, rather -- shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn't praised; it was denounced! And it's here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It's singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel -- the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It's the -- the theater of the absurd. 

It doesn't only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi's Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam's Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That's the past. Well, here's what's happening now -- right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world's security.

You couldn't make this thing up.

So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide -- they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me -- and ladies and gentlemen, I don't want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here's what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you'll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.

Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel's prime minister, I didn't come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. (Cheers, applause.) The truth is -- the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn't let that happen.

Ladies and gentlemen, when I first came here 27 years ago, the world was divided between East and West. Since then the Cold War ended, great civilizations have risen from centuries of slumber, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty, countless more are poised to follow, and the remarkable thing is that so far this monumental historic shift has largely occurred peacefully. Yet a malignancy is now growing between East and West that threatens the peace of all. It seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.


That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smoldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.(Applause.)

Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents -- in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.

Can you imagine that man who ranted here yesterday -- can you imagine him armed with nuclear weapons? The international community must stop Iran before it's too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. That would be a tragedy. Millions of Arabs have taken to the streets to replace tyranny with liberty, and no one would benefit more than Israel if those committed to freedom and peace would prevail.

This is my fervent hope. But as the prime minister of Israel, I cannot risk the future of the Jewish state on wishful thinking. Leaders must see reality as it is, not as it ought to be. We must do our best to shape the future, but we cannot wish away the dangers of the present.
And the world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It's determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It's poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.

Now, some argue that the spread of militant Islam, especially in these turbulent times -- if you want to slow it down, they argue, Israel must hurry to make concessions, to make territorial compromises. And this theory sounds simple. Basically it goes like this: Leave the territory, and peace will be advanced. The moderates will be strengthened, the radicals will be kept at bay. And don't worry about the pesky details of how Israel will actually defend itself; international troops will do the job.

These people say to me constantly: Just make a sweeping offer, and everything will work out. You know, there's only one problem with that theory. We've tried it and it hasn't worked. In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. The Palestinians then launched a terror attack that claimed a thousand Israeli lives.


Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn't even respond to it.


But Israel did more than just make sweeping offers. We actually left territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. That didn't calm the Islamic storm, the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and make it stronger.


Hezbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. See, when Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn't defeat the radicals, the moderates were devoured by the radicals. And I regret to say that international troops like UNIFIL in Lebanon and UBAM (ph) in Gaza didn't stop the radicals from attacking Israel.

We left Gaza hoping for peace.

We didn't freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. We did exactly what the theory says: Get out, go back to the 1967 borders, dismantle the settlements.
And I don't think people remember how far we went to achieve this. We uprooted thousands of people from their homes. We pulled children out of -- out of their schools and their kindergartens. We bulldozed synagogues. We even -- we even moved loved ones from their graves. And then, having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas.
Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace.


But ladies and gentlemen, we didn't get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day -- in one day.


President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.


Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand that, given all this,Israelis rightly ask: What's to prevent this from happening again in the West Bank? See, most of our major cities in the south of the country are within a few dozen kilometers from Gaza. But in the center of the country, opposite the West Bank, our cities are a few hundred meters or at most a few kilometers away from the edge of the West Bank.

So I want to ask you. Would any of you -- would any of you bring danger so close to your cities, to your families? Would you act so recklessly with the lives of your citizens? Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we're not prepared to have another Gaza there. And that's why we need to have real security arrangements, which the Palestinians simply refuse to negotiate with us.

Israelis remember the bitter lessons of Gaza. Many of Israel's critics ignore them. They irresponsibly advise Israel to go down this same perilous path again. Your read what these people say and it's as if nothing happened -- just repeating the same advice, the same formulas as though none of this happened.

And these critics continue to press Israel to make far-reaching concessions without first assuring Israel's security. They praise those who unwittingly feed the insatiable crocodile of militant Islam as bold statesmen. They cast as enemies of peace those of us who insist that we must first erect a sturdy barrier to keep the crocodile out, or at the very least jam an iron bar between its gaping jaws.


So in the face of the labels and the libels, Israel must heed better advice. Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel's legitimate security concerns.


I believe that in serious peace negotiations, these needs and concerns can be properly addressed, but they will not be addressed without negotiations. And the needs are many, because Israel is such a tiny country. Without Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, Israel is all of 9 miles wide.

I want to put it for you in perspective, because you're all in the city. That's about two-thirds the length of Manhattan. It's the distance between Battery Park and Columbia University. And don't forget that the people who live in Brooklyn and New Jersey are considerably nicer than some of Israel's neighbors.

So how do you -- how do you protect such a tiny country, surrounded by people sworn to its destruction and armed to the teeth by Iran? Obviously you can't defend it from within that narrow space alone. Israel needs greater strategic depth, and that's exactly why Security Council Resolution 242 didn't require Israel to leave all the territories it captured in the Six-Day War. It talked about withdrawal from territories, to secure and defensible boundaries. And to defend itself, Israel must therefore maintain a long-term Israeli military presence in critical strategic areas in the West Bank.

I explained this to President Abbas. He answered that if a Palestinian state was to be a sovereign country, it could never accept such arrangements. Why not? America has had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for more than a half a century. Britain has had an airspace in Cyprus or rather an air base in Cyprus. France has forces in three independent African nations. None of these states claim that they're not sovereign countries.

And there are many other vital security issues that also must be addressed. Take the issue of airspace. Again, Israel's small dimensions create huge security problems. America can be crossed by jet airplane in six hours. To fly across Israel, it takes three minutes. So is Israel's tiny airspace to be chopped in half and given to a Palestinian state not at peace with Israel?
Our major international airport is a few kilometers away from the West Bank. Without peace, will our planes become targets for antiaircraft missiles placed in the adjacent Palestinian state? And how will we stop the smuggling into the West Bank? It's not merely the West Bank, it's the West Bank mountains. It just dominates the coastal plain where most of Israel's population sits below. How could we prevent the smuggling into these mountains of those missiles that could be fired on our cities?

I bring up these problems because they're not theoretical problems. They're very real. And for Israelis, they're life-and- death matters. All these potential cracks in Israel's security have to be sealed in a peace agreement before a Palestinian state is declared, not afterwards, because if you leave it afterwards, they won't be sealed. And these problems will explode in our face and explode the peace.


The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state. But I also want to tell you this. After such a peace agreement is signed, Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations. We will be the first. (Applause.)

And there's one more thing. Hamas has been violating international law by holding our soldier Gilad Shalit captive for five years.

They haven't given even one Red Cross visit. He's held in a dungeon, in darkness, against all international norms. Gilad Shalit is the son of Aviva and Noam Shalit. He is the grandson of Zvi Shalit, who escaped the Holocaust by coming to the -- in the 1930s as a boy to the land of Israel. Gilad Shalit is the son of every Israeli family. Every nation represented here should demand his immediate release. (Applause.) If you want to -- if you want to pass a resolution about the Middle East today, that's the resolution you should pass. (Applause.)
Ladies and gentlemen, last year in Israel in Bar-Ilan University, this year in the Knesset and in the U.S. Congress, I laid out my vision for peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Yes, the Jewish state. After all, this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don't you think it's about time that Palestinians did the same?

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day -- in fact, I think they made it right here in New York -- they said the Palestinian state won't allow any Jews in it. They'll be Jew-free -- Judenrein. That's ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That's racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Israel has no intention whatsoever to change the democratic character of our state. We just don't want the Palestinians to try to change the Jewish character of our state. (Applause.) We want to give up -- we want them to give up the fantasy of flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians.

President Abbas just stood here, and he said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that's odd. Our conflict has been raging for -- was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the -- I guess that the settlements he's talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be'er Sheva. Maybe that's what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn't say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict. (Applause.)

The settlements have to be -- it's an issue that has to be addressed and resolved in the course of negotiations. But the core of the conflict has always been and unfortunately remains the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize a Jewish state in any border.

I think it's time that the Palestinian leadership recognizes what every serious international leader has recognized, from Lord Balfour and Lloyd George in 1917, to President Truman in 1948, to President Obama just two days ago right here: Israel is the Jewish state. (Applause.)

President Abbas, stop walking around this issue. Recognize the Jewish state, and make peace with us. In such a genuine peace, Israel is prepared to make painful compromises. We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they're ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel's security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.

I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That's like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we're called "Jews"? Because we come from Judea.

In my office in Jerusalem, there's a -- there's an ancient seal. It's a signet ring of a Jewish official from the time of the Bible. The seal was found right next to the Western Wall, and it dates back 2,700 years, to the time of King Hezekiah. Now, there's a name of the Jewish official inscribed on the ring in Hebrew. His name was Netanyahu. That's my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back a thousand years earlier to Benjamin -- Binyamin -- the son of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. Jacob and his 12 sons roamed these same hills of Judea and Sumeria 4,000 years ago, and there's been a continuous Jewish presence in the land ever since.

And for those Jews who were exiled from our land, they never stopped dreaming of coming back: Jews in Spain, on the eve of their expulsion; Jews in the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms; Jews fighting the Warsaw Ghetto, as the Nazis were circling around it. They never stopped praying, they never stopped yearning. They whispered: Next year in Jerusalem. Next year in the promised land. (Applause.)

As the prime minister of Israel, I speak for a hundred generations of Jews who were dispersed throughout the lands, who suffered every evil under the Sun, but who never gave up hope of restoring their national life in the one and only Jewish state.

Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I've worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn't respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn't respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again -- no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever.(Scattered applause.) Once again -- you applaud, but there was no response. No response.

In the last few weeks, American officials have put forward ideas to restart peace talks. There were things in those ideas about borders that I didn't like. There were things there about the Jewish state that I'm sure the Palestinians didn't like.

But with all my reservations, I was willing to move forward on these American ideas.
President Abbas, why don't you join me? We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations. Let's just get on with it. Let's negotiate peace. (Applause.)

I spent years defending Israel on the battlefield. I spent decades defending Israel in the court of public opinion. President Abbas, you've dedicated your life to advancing the Palestinian cause. Must this conflict continue for generations, or will we enable our children and our grandchildren to speak in years ahead of how we found a way to end it? That's what we should aim for, and that's what I believe we can achieve.

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I'll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We've both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we're in the same city. We're in the same building. So let's meet here today in the United Nations. (Applause.) Who's there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let's listen to one another. Let's do as we say in the Middle East: Let's talk "doogli" (ph). That means straightforward. I'll tell you my needs and concerns. You'll tell me yours. And with God's help, we'll find the common ground of peace. (Applause.)

There's an old Arab saying that you cannot applaud with one hand. Well, the same is true of peace. I cannot make peace alone. I cannot make peace without you. President Abbas, I extend my hand -- the hand of Israel -- in peace. I hope that you will grasp that hand. We are both the sons of Abraham. My people call him Avraham. Your people call him Ibrahim. We share the same patriarch. We dwell in the same land. Our destinies are intertwined. Let us realize the vision of Isaiah -- (speaks in Hebrew) -- "The people who walk in darkness will see a great light." Let that light be the light of peace. (Applause.)


DEVELOPING: Abbas asks UN to grant statehood, calls Israel an apartheid state bent on ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem

Following up from the ticking time-bomb, Amb. Bolton's warning and ground zero at Turtle bay posts here at KF, Telegraph is live blogging the developments with the ongoing Palestinian Arab statehood bid at the 66th General Assembly of the UN, here.

As at the time of posting the timelined live-blogging remarks are:
18:06 (13:06) During his speech Abbas said he was calling for a return to the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
18:01 (13:01) Abbas was given a standing ovation at the close of his speech in the UN. AFP are reporting that the crowds watching him on the West Bank "erupted" as the speech finished.
17:50 (12:50) He heeds a warning: "'Loss of hope is the greatest threat to peace; despair is the surest route to extremism"

17:48 (12:48) Abbas: "I am here to say after 63 years since the naqba, enough, enough, enough."
 This already tells us much -- and none of it good; given what has been seen before [cf. links above], things that however would not be evident to a superficial onlooker. 

For instance, it is very tempting to ask, just what catastrophe happened in 1948? 

For, at that time it was the Arabs who rejected what is a very favourable settlement and went to war with declared intent of annihilation of a people -- their cousins, returning to and building up their historic homeland that had lain waste and depopulated for centuries --  who had just lost 1/3 their global numbers to the Nazi Genocide. 

Similarly, in 1967, it was the Arabs who again built a ring of iron, cut the oil lifeline for Israel [already, an act of war in the teeth of previous international guarantees to Israel that were not honoured . . . ], and breathed out threats of destruction and massacre to the point where the Prime Minister of Israel seemed to suffer a breakdown on live radio -- there being no TV at that time in Israel. 

And, indeed, the chief of staff of the IDF at the time did suffer a breakdown; for, of all people, he knew the odds and feared the death of a generation.

Only, in a second "catastrophe" against all odds, the Israelis almost miraculously prevailed. With second line aircraft [except for the sixty Mirage Jets they had from France] and outdated WW II tanks they had modified, going up against then state of the art equipment.
And, yes, in defeating the Egyptians, the Israelis took in war the land of Gaza and Sinai. In defeating the Syrians who had spent twenty years shelling civilians in the Galilee, they took the Golan Heights. And, when -- despite repeated pleas, Jordan joined in, they captured the West Bank and Jerusalem. 

By the historic customs of war, they then had the right to hold these lands captured in desperate defensive fighting, pending genuine peace. As we can see, when there was a peace with Egypt, they handed back the Sinai. When there was peace with Jordan, they handed back land they held. Even without a real peace they negotiated with their deadly enemy Arafat, and brought him back to the West Bank. In 2005, they handed back the entire region of Gaza.

And every time, they got further war for their pains, save for the agreements with Jordan and Egypt.

Until things like this are squarely faced by the Arab side, there can be no reasonable peace, and the UN bid clearly marks the death of the Oslo process.

Absent a miracle, it means war; war in an era where the Middle East is at nuclear threshold thanks to the Iranian push for nukes.

Ynet daily adds:
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas asked the United Nations on Friday to recognize a state for his people, slamming Israel in his General Assembly speech as an "apartheid state."

Speaking at the UN, Abbas accused Israel of employing an “ethnic cleansing policy” in Jerusalem.
This is open, vicious slander by outright false accusation -- by a leader whose government has just declared that his proposed state would be Judenrein (ethnically cleansed of Jews) --  in the leading forum for international relations; and it was greeted with a standing ovation.


 This, sadly, is a day of global insanity.

Let us hope, pray and work for a miracle that will pull the Middle East back from the road of war that has again been embarked on, and return it to [begin] a path of serious and sober negotiations that can actually lead to peace. END

Thursday, September 22, 2011

BREAKING: Possible Neutrinos moving at superluminal speeds at CERN!

When I was a kid and was bored in Chem classes I would occasionally daydream of a messenger arriving at the classroom door to tell the late, great, Fr Farrell of a scientific breakthrough.

Of course, in later years, I always assumed that it would be years before a breakthrough would filter down to High School Chem.

But, today, may be a possible day like that.

According to a BBC report from CERN (HT, WUWT):
Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early.

The result - which threatens to upend a century of physics - will be put online for scrutiny by other scientists.

In the meantime, the group says it is being very cautious about its claims.
"We tried to find all possible explanations for this," said report author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration.

"We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't," he told BBC News.

"When you don't find anything, then you say 'Well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this.'"
 One to keep an eye on.

Ole Albert must be peering over the balcony to see what we are going to do. Isaac, standing next to him is taking the bets. END

Capacity Focus, 11: How John Boyd's OODA Loop can help us understand and respond well to our times, their opportunities and challenges

The OODA Loop
A few days ago, I came across a reference to the late USAF Col. John Boyd's OODA model for strategic decision-making. This model helps pull together a lot of my recent thinking on strategic decision-making, and so it has triggered a fair amount of reflection.

I think this is highly relevant to the question of building effective strategic decision-making capacity for the Caribbean.

As Wikipedia helpfully summarises:
 
Boyd hypothesized that all intelligent organisms and organizations undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. Boyd breaks this cycle down to four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:
  • Observation: the collection of data by means of the senses
  • Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of data to form one's current mental perspective
  • Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective
  • Action: the physical playing-out of decisions
Of course, while this is taking place, the situation may be changing. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a planned action in order to meet the changes.

This decision cycle is thus known as the OODA loop.
 This was of course developed in a military context (actually, from an analysis of fighter aircraft combat success), and it is helpful to look at a classic example, the German panzer-led attack in France in 1940:

How the French High Command failed in 1940

Now, of course, business or political competition with battling brands or candidates and ad or public relations campaigns and debates can easily be seen as all too closely parallel to this sort of military struggle, and even the struggle of an organism to survive. But, how does this relate to say the Christian life, or the challenge of church leadership, or Christian educational leadership?

The quick quip is that spiritual warfare is worldview war, complete with hostile spiritual powers and deceived dupes caught up in worldly systems of deception, manipulation, and domination. As a classic text, we may cite Paul's comparison to the heavy infantryman of his day, the fully armed and well-trained Roman Legionnaire:
Eph 6: 10In conclusion, be strong in the Lord [be empowered through your union with Him]; draw your strength from Him [that strength which His boundless might provides].
    11Put on God's whole armor [the armor of a heavy-armed soldier which God supplies], that you may be able successfully to stand up against [all] the strategies and the deceits of the devil.
    12For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere.
    13Therefore put on God's complete armor, that you may be able to resist and stand your ground on the evil day [of danger], and, having done all [the crisis demands], to stand [firmly in your place].
    14Stand therefore [hold your ground], having tightened the belt of truth around your loins and having put on the breastplate of integrity and of moral rectitude and right standing with God,
    15And having shod your feet in preparation [to face the enemy with the [a]firm-footed stability, the promptness, and the readiness [b]produced by the good news] of the Gospel of peace.
    16Lift up over all the [covering] shield of [c]saving faith, upon which you can quench all the flaming missiles of the wicked [one].
    17And take the helmet of salvation and the sword that the Spirit [d]wields, which is the Word of God.
    18Pray at all times (on every occasion, in every season) in the Spirit, with all [manner of] prayer and entreaty. To that end keep alert and watch with strong purpose and perseverance, interceding in behalf of all the saints (God's consecrated people). [AMP]
Quite an analogy!

But the more insightful answer is a bit subtler. 

Already, for that, we have a hint in the emphasis above on truth, trust and trustworthiness, integrity etc.

The key to that lies in the orientation phase of the OODA loop, in light of two contrasting (but not conflicting!) scriptures:

1 Chron 12:32 Of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, 200 chiefs, and all their kinsmen under their command. [ESV]

Matt 16: 1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered them,1  “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed. [ESV]
To orient ourselves correctly, to make rightly guided decisions, we must understand our times, by correctly observing and "reading" the signs of our times. Which preicisely highlights the dominant phase of the loop, orientation. Clipping a more detailed version of the loop model:


The key to how we understand the signs of our times lies in:
1: Our genetic inheritance as people that determines our basic capacities.


2: Cultural traditions (community and institutional) that shape how we have built on that inheritance.

3: Previous experiences that have shaped us as we come to our current situation


4: The new information that we must access, filter and process in a timely fashion


5: How we therefore continuously analyse and synthesise -- pull together as a whole -- a new picture of ourselves, our situation, opportunities, challenges, threats, action-priorities, etc.
All of this must be done in a timely fashion, or we will be caught in the situation of lagging the developing reality, which may be fatal. We must determine not to be caught off balance, and not to so delay action that in our eagerness to avoid the riskiness of change, we take the greatest risk of all: being caught out of synch with our times.

And, to be frank, this is a major (and longstanding) concern I have for the region, and for the Church in the region. I fear that -- in the face of the tidal waves from the north [dechristianisation] and the east [radical islamISM], as well as other trends and issues -- we are out of synch with our times, and are lagging the pace of events and acts by others very badly. In addition, we have a great potential in the global mission and mandate of the church in the world, that seems to go largely unrecognised. Perhaps this figure may help capture what I am seeing and thinking:


The response to this issue is that we must build up our capacity to respond and act in good time, based on being able to correctly read the signs of our times.

The OODA cycle is one step in that process, and so I draw attention to a more elaborate discussion here.

Beyond that, we have to focus on upgrading our strategic decision-making process as a region, and as the church in the region. 

In particular, we must beware of undue delays and misreadings, as these can throw us off balance, and leave us vulnerable to events and others who may well not have the best interests of our region in heart and mind.

And so, it looks like our region's strategic thinkers -- including those in the church and in our education systems --  need to do some OODA-oriented workshops and short courses; perhaps, a topic for a future KF blog Capacity Factor post. (The just linked presentation has some ideas for such, in light of the challenges we face.) END

Matt 24 Watch, 137: Mr Obama's diplomatic time-bomb ticks away . . .

Potential threats to Israel from a
hostile Palestinian Arab state
One of the key questions we need to ask about the sudden push to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab -- and, revealingly, Judenrein: "Jew-free" -- State [cf. here and here] is, why now?

[UPDATE: It seems there may be some postponements in the wave of diplomatic moves, due to the US and French initiatives in the UN over the past day, e.g. the French seem to have put on the table a one-year timeline and Mr Obama has underscored to Mr Abbas that the US will veto a Palestinian Arab bid in the Security Council. That, DV, will be followed up; as the dust settles and events become clear. However, the matter is still fundamentally the same, so we need to address the below, for record. (Tracking: here, here.)]

One obvious suggestion is, that many of the Arab states see this as an opportunity to distract attention from their own problems and uprisings or potential uprisings, by attacking the longstanding Jewish bogeyman. 

And that should not be overlooked, as -- again -- we must remind ourselves of the prophesied Gharqad Tree end-times massacre of Jews hadith (saying, example or precedent set by Mohammed)  appealed to in the Hamas covenant, Clause 7:
 . . . The Islamic Resistance [= HAMAS, an Arabic acronym]  Movement aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time that may take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until the Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them), until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdullah! [= servant/slave of Allah, a common Muslim name], there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
That ghastly and murderous religiously motivated ideological, IslamIST aspiration, sadly, is all too typical of a millennium-deep ingrained hostility that dominates the mindset of too many radicalised Muslims. And, while it has been said that the radical fraction is only ten percent, it plainly has utterly disproportionate influence and -- too often, murderous -- impact.

Indeed, such radicalisation easily explains why from the 1929 massacres in Jerusalem and Hebron to today, there has been a consistent pattern of targetting Jewish civilians for murder. It is also the obvious context for the openly declared intent in 1948 and 1967, once an independent Jewish state had been founded,  to drive the Jews into the sea and to massacre them. In 1948, of course, notoriously, the Arab residents of Mandate Palestine had been invited by their fellow Arabs to temporarily evacuate while the Jews were displaced and wiped out. 

Only, Israel survived, and so we have had the intractable Palestinian Arab refugee problem, which has been willfully maintained by artificially discouraging of resettlement [see below for an astonishing revelation on this . . . ], in order to keep a running sore going. 

By contrast to the fate of the Palestinian Arab refugees, 600,000 of the 800,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries in the period from the 1940's - 60's were resettled in Israel and they and their descendants are now the core Jewish population of Israel.

This highlights the pivot of the problem, which is usually not frankly discussed: 
(i) Unless there can be a resolution of the just described exchange of refugees [which was actually favourable to the Arabs, in numbers, lost wealth and lost property . . . ] the Arab-Israeli problem cannot be solved.


(ii) However, there is a stubborn sense of Arab-Muslim entitlement to the Middle East  (and, actually, to the world as a whole . . . from the Black Flag Army Hadith and much more, the end-times Muslim leader, the Mahdi, is predicted to dominate the whole earth; a point we in the Caribbean should particularly note) driven by the cultural-religious expectations based on the Quranic teachings and traditions of Muslim domination of all other peoples.


(iii) This sense of entitlement is compounded by the expectation of a latter-day massacre of Jews upon their defeat, where Jews are specifically identified in Muslim eschatology as principal supporters of the Dajjal who opposes the Mahdi. (It does not help here, that in the Muslim tradition, Mohammed is commonly held to have been poisoned shortly before his death by a Jewish woman.)


(iv) In that context, Arab Muslims are typically unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of national aspirations and religious views of other peoples rooted in the Middle East, whether Kurds, or Copts, or Dinka, or Berbers, or Jews. But, especially, Jews: the dhimmis who have succeeded in rising up and becoming economically and militarily dominant.


(v) So, unless the underlying venomous, religiously and -- oh, yes, it is obviously so -- racially tinged hostility and sense of entitlement to dominate can be exposed before the watching world and made a shameful and renounced attitude of the past, the "obvious" solution -- to build two peaceful communities side by side on the basis of an existing exchange of refugees [there were tens of millions of such in the aftermath of World War II], is infeasible; primarily due to Arab hostility.
This brings us to the time bomb that has been set ticking by Mr Obama a year ago, towards Friday this week. 

As the Washington Times notes in a current editorial:
In his Sept. 23, 2010, speech before the U.N. General Assembly, President Obama waxed eloquent about the goals of the direct Mideast peace talks being held under American auspices. He said he hoped that "when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations - an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel." The talks soon broke down, but the proposed timeline remained. The idea of asking the U.N. to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority from nonvoting "observer entity" to "observer state" was discussed at an Arab League meeting in Libya in October and soon dominated Palestinian strategic thinking.
 The consequences were all too predictable. And, Mr Obama and his advisers plainly knew this, or full well should have known it.

Mr Obama started the time-bomb ticking, and now faces the challenge of defusing it before it blows up.

For, once international momentum to push for a Palestinian state was on the table, that could very conveniently be used to further delegitimise and harass Israel through lawfare.  Not to mention, riots and terrorist attacks, now including rockets with range to reach the Israeli city of Beersheba, where the nuclear research and development centre, Dimona, is located. Dimona is also the home of the open secret, Israeli nuclear weapons programme.

This, while the arsenals of rockets to bombard Israel and the Iranian nukes to back it up are being built up.  Nukes in the hands of a state whole leader has openly declared intent to wipe Israel off the sands of time.

So, while there are legitimate aspirations of a displaced people, the only reasonable way forward, the Oslo process, is in imminent danger of being run over and left behind; with its inconvenient insistence on actually making peace forgotten in the whirling bloody chaos that could easily now dominate events. 

Is that what we really want?

Is the resulting turmoil, bloodshed and upset to the global energy market, with the looming threat of a Middle East nuclear exchange what we really, really want?

For that, even just a UN General Assembly declaration or vote (and given the context, upgrade to observer state status might well be enough to light the match) would predictably be enough. 

Israel would then be pushed into the corner of being perceived as oppressing a legitimate state.

Meanwhile, the nuclear fuze burning in the background runs on down in the Iranian nuclear centres . . . 

Indeed, that policy of running over and forgetting the Oslo principles is exactly what Mr Abbas has implied. For, as the New York Times reports in a September 5th 2011 article, "Abbas Affirms Palestinian Bid for U.N. Membership":
Mr. Abbas said the Palestinians planned to start their membership drive with the Security Council despite a vow by the Obama administration to exercise its veto there. It is expected that the Palestinians’s next step would be in the General Assembly, where there is no veto but which can grant only observer status, not full membership.

He offered an impassioned defense of his approach. 

“Some Israelis complain that this is a unilateral move, but when you address 193 countries, that is not unilateral,” he said. “We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years.” 

“We don’t want to isolate Israel but to live with it in peace and security,” he also said. “We don’t want to delegitimize Israel. We want to legitimize ourselves.”
 The dead giveaway lies in that reference to "63 years."

Sixty-three years ago, the Arabs of Palestine could easily have had an internationally recognised state, side by side and living in peace with Israel, and with Jerusalem as a shared International city. The Zionist Movement accepted the UN partition vote, but the Arab League and the Palestinian Arabs rejected it. They declared intent to invade, and to massacre, inviting the Arabs to leave the zone of war for a short time. Thus, we faced the War of Independence.

Only, the intended victim, Israel has survived against all odds, including an even more menacing attempt to wipe it out in 1967

Similarly, when in 2000, as the culmination of the Oslo process, the Palestinian Arabs could have had over 90% of the West Bank (with compensating land elsewhere), and 100% of Gaza [which they got in 2005 anyway, and which was then immediately turned into a terrorist rocket platform that now threatens Beersheba], with a connecting highway and a US$ 15 billion development programme, they walked away and found a handy excuse to launch the terrorist war that dominated relations in the past decade.

So, the reference to sixty-three years is a plain reference to the existence of Israel being the "occupation" that the Palestinian Arabs still intend to end. That is, we are right back at the Arab intransigence we have already seen.

The clincher has been highlighted overnight by Israel Matzav blog in a post that deserves full citation and the strong recommendation that we add this blog to our bookmarks:

45% of 'Palestinian' residents would be denied 'Palestinian citizenship'

What kind of state would Palestine be? Here's a clue:45% of the 'Palestinians' who currently live in the area intended for 'Palestine' would not be allowed to live there.
The [PLO’s ambassador to Lebanon, Abdullah Abdullah, in an interview with the Lebanese Daily Star last week] unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state

This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees…

“When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”

The Palestinian Liberation Organization would remain responsible for refugees, and Abdullah says that UNRWA would continue its work as usual.
Read it all. It's not about establishing 'Palestine,' it's about destroying Israel (God forbid).[UPDATE, Sept 23: Original Lebanon Daily Star Interview here, in case that smoking gun article 'disappears':  Google Doc clipping here.]
This whole current exercise in Turtle Bay, in short, is a dangerous and potentially utterly destructive gambit.  (Stronger words come to mind, but they would not be prudent. Let's just say that Eph 4:11 - 14 and 2 Cor 10:4 - 5 are plainly relevant to our duty as Christians to inform ourselves about current events and trends relevant to the church's global mission and to that sound understanding of the signs of our times that should guide us as we consider what we should do.)

And, if the Obama Administration does not know the above facts and issues, it full well should know them. Such negligence of due care would itself be utterly inexcusable.

The timer on the Middle East Bomb is ticking away . . . END