The anti-Israel crowd is obsessed with illegal settlements in Israel. So I decided to share some relevant facts regarding the so-called settlements:
But first an update:
Arab nations have submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution is only one part of a larger effort by the PA/Fatah, to garner international support for establishing a de facto Palestinian state. The impetus for this resolution and the call for states like Brazil, to recognize a Palestinian state, is a result of the inability of the Palestinians to force Netanyahu into extending the freeze on settlements. In other words, Abbas and co. recognize that violence will not work, that America will not turn its back on Israel, and that the only other option is the UN.
Yet the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has, since the 1967 war, been in the Palestinians corner. However this has been almost meaningless because the UNGA's support is not-binding. When it comes down to business, which is conducted by the UN Security Council (UNSC), countries like Britain, which freely condemn Israel in the UNGA, refuse to act on those condemnations in the UNSC. Indeed, the US has already blocked a vote on this resolution in the UNSC.
So why are Abbas, the PA, and the Arab states putting so much effort into introducing more inane resolutions, this time opposing settlement expansion? On that note, why are the Palestinians seeking international recognition for their state, when that recognition will be meaningless, unless America and Israel accept it –which they won’t?
There are many potential answers to this question. But the question is significant because it leads the observer, in this case me, to analyze the settlement issue from a multitude of perspectives.
The Muslim and Arab Perspective:
The fact of the matter is that the argument that the so called "settlements" are the barrier to peace is a convenient excuse. For all the anti-Israel voices, Arabs, Muslims, and the Europeans who can find little else to harp on. Think about it, religious Muslims reject Israel’s right to exist, because the Koran implies that Jews were rejected by G-d for their sins, and have permanently lost their claim to the land of Israel -green-line or otherwise. Secular Muslims and Arabs can never accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Arab heartland. I mean how humiliating is it for the average impoverished and politically suppressed Muslim and Arab to watch how the Jews -the same people who 65 years ago were living with few rights in Muslim lands- thrive and dominate them in war and peace? The same can be asked regarding the many anti-Semites, who just can’t figure out why the Jews and Israel, despite all their efforts, are so successful.
On the other hand very few Muslim and Arab nations are willing to honestly explicate their true beliefs, usually because of overarching economic and political interests. But these states feel threatened by Israel’s inexplicable growth in the face of every type of challenge. They also have to contend with their own perpetually angry populations. So they target the settlements, not just in the West Bank, where they know Israel is willing to compromise, but also in Jerusalem where Israel will not. Thereby the Muslim and Arab states, (and the rest of the anti-Israel crowd) can portray themselves as reasonable state actors on the international stage, while also suppressing the anger of the Muslim street, by their opposition to the Israeli occupation.
So why did the Arabs offer this resolution now? It’s likely that the economic anger and political turmoil that is spreading from Tunisia to Egypt has a lot to do with it.
Regardless the anti-Israel crowd uses Israeli settlements as a convenient excuse to condemn all of Israel and, in many cases, all Jews. America recognizes this and refuses to jump on the bandwagon of hate.
In Part two I will discuss the many Israeli perspectives on settlements.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
"The WikiLeaks-Iran connection" From Haaretz.com
For all the conspiracy theorist out there an interesting development from Haaretz.com
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/the-wikileaks-iran-connection-1.336790
"On November 4, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, arrived in Geneva. He held a press conference in which he hinted that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland. Assange spent two days there as the guest of an Iranian non-governmental organization, which also sponsored the press conference.
The NGO is called the International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights, but the impressive title conceals the Iranian government, which finances the organization. Assange's press conference took place in a building of one of the UN institutions in the city. Iranian diplomats were in the audience, and Iranian photo crews made sure to document who was there, until one of the UN security people told them to stop. It's unclear what Assange, the founder of a website that discloses secrets, and Iran, have to do with each other. WikiLeaks did not respond when asked to comment.
After WikiLeaks began disclosing the U.S. State Department's confidential cables, a rumor mill thrived on websites, mainly Arab ones, that Assange had met in Geneva with Mossad officials and reached an agreement not to disclose documents that could harm Israel. This conspiratorial theory was also based on the fact that some of the published documents embarrassed Arab leaders who were depicted as secret supporters of a military attack by the United States or Israel on Iran.
Assange denied the claim, and the Mossad in principle does not comment on reports about the organization. It seems the truth is very prosaic. The Mossad, as far as I know, was not really interested in Assange and his site. It has more important things to deal with. It's likely, however, that Iran is interested in Assange. His releases are damaging the United States, and that makes Iran happy."
No, Iran was hurt by the last "dump" and wants to control who gets exposed next,but the point is well taken.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/the-wikileaks-iran-connection-1.336790
"On November 4, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, arrived in Geneva. He held a press conference in which he hinted that he was considering requesting political asylum in Switzerland. Assange spent two days there as the guest of an Iranian non-governmental organization, which also sponsored the press conference.
The NGO is called the International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights, but the impressive title conceals the Iranian government, which finances the organization. Assange's press conference took place in a building of one of the UN institutions in the city. Iranian diplomats were in the audience, and Iranian photo crews made sure to document who was there, until one of the UN security people told them to stop. It's unclear what Assange, the founder of a website that discloses secrets, and Iran, have to do with each other. WikiLeaks did not respond when asked to comment.
After WikiLeaks began disclosing the U.S. State Department's confidential cables, a rumor mill thrived on websites, mainly Arab ones, that Assange had met in Geneva with Mossad officials and reached an agreement not to disclose documents that could harm Israel. This conspiratorial theory was also based on the fact that some of the published documents embarrassed Arab leaders who were depicted as secret supporters of a military attack by the United States or Israel on Iran.
Assange denied the claim, and the Mossad in principle does not comment on reports about the organization. It seems the truth is very prosaic. The Mossad, as far as I know, was not really interested in Assange and his site. It has more important things to deal with. It's likely, however, that Iran is interested in Assange. His releases are damaging the United States, and that makes Iran happy."
No, Iran was hurt by the last "dump" and wants to control who gets exposed next,but the point is well taken.
Imagine a Lebanon without Hezbollah
Yesterday’s announcement by the Lebanese opposition, Hezbollah, that they are leaving the governing coalition over the Hariri probe, is viewed by most as a harbinger of yet another bout of war and violence. These same analysts and dilettantes, conclude that this is bad. While I agree that most actions Hezbollah is associated with result in violence –which is bad- I disagree that Hezbollah quitting the Hariri led government is a negative development.
Of course, the prospect of further violence is in itself terrible, but the idea that Hezbollah would continue to obstruct the Lebanese government’s effort to improve the lot of their citizens is even worse. It is not insignificant that the Lebanese government has been unable to pass its 2010 budget because of Hezbollah opposition to any reasonable compromise. It is also telling that Hezbollah refuses to allow Lebanon to put the 2005 Hariri assassination to rest. Yet this assassination created a political and cultural chasm between the three main segments of the Lebanese population –Shia, Sunni, and Druse-Christian. The key to Lebanese prosperity is unity, if not compromise, amongst these three demographics. If Hezbollah was really serving the interest of Lebanon, and not Iran, then they would recognize this and put the Hariri assassination behind them –even if it meant admitting that some of its own high level commanders were involved.
This comes as no surprise. Hezbollah’s efforts to rebrand itself, after the 2006 Israel-Lebanese war, as a legitimate political entity determined to contribute to Lebanon’s renaissance was treated by most observers, as facile. The observes were right. Hezbollah’s 2008 commitment to renounce violence and become a political party like Ireland's “Sinn Féin (Irish political party that did) was always a monumental charade. Hezbollah still represents its founder, Khomeini, and the Shia ideology he espoused. This ideology is clearly reflected in Hezbollah's intransigence and obstructionism to the utter detriment of Lebanon. When Hezbollah pulled out of the government it exposed itself for what it always was – a terrorist organization loyal only to Tehran.
As long as Hezbollah has a say in governing Lebanon the nation will be incapable of reemerging as the mecca of tolerance and diversity it once represented. And as long as Lebanon and its neighbors continue to entertain the notion that Hezbollah is something more than a terrorist proxy of Iran, the whole region will suffer.
From this perspective, Hezbollah’s distancing itself from Lebanon’s government means the region is closer to peace -which is good.
Of course, the prospect of further violence is in itself terrible, but the idea that Hezbollah would continue to obstruct the Lebanese government’s effort to improve the lot of their citizens is even worse. It is not insignificant that the Lebanese government has been unable to pass its 2010 budget because of Hezbollah opposition to any reasonable compromise. It is also telling that Hezbollah refuses to allow Lebanon to put the 2005 Hariri assassination to rest. Yet this assassination created a political and cultural chasm between the three main segments of the Lebanese population –Shia, Sunni, and Druse-Christian. The key to Lebanese prosperity is unity, if not compromise, amongst these three demographics. If Hezbollah was really serving the interest of Lebanon, and not Iran, then they would recognize this and put the Hariri assassination behind them –even if it meant admitting that some of its own high level commanders were involved.
This comes as no surprise. Hezbollah’s efforts to rebrand itself, after the 2006 Israel-Lebanese war, as a legitimate political entity determined to contribute to Lebanon’s renaissance was treated by most observers, as facile. The observes were right. Hezbollah’s 2008 commitment to renounce violence and become a political party like Ireland's “Sinn Féin (Irish political party that did) was always a monumental charade. Hezbollah still represents its founder, Khomeini, and the Shia ideology he espoused. This ideology is clearly reflected in Hezbollah's intransigence and obstructionism to the utter detriment of Lebanon. When Hezbollah pulled out of the government it exposed itself for what it always was – a terrorist organization loyal only to Tehran.
As long as Hezbollah has a say in governing Lebanon the nation will be incapable of reemerging as the mecca of tolerance and diversity it once represented. And as long as Lebanon and its neighbors continue to entertain the notion that Hezbollah is something more than a terrorist proxy of Iran, the whole region will suffer.
From this perspective, Hezbollah’s distancing itself from Lebanon’s government means the region is closer to peace -which is good.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Lieberman, for G-ds sake don’t be such a Putz!
Don’t jump to any conclusions, hear me out.
Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman's rhetoric arouses conflicting emotions. My instinctive response to his abusive rhetoric and behavior, such as his tacit support for the insult towards Turkey’s ambassador to Israel, was YES! FINALLY! AN ISRAELI POLITICIAN WHO SAYS IT LIKE IT IS!
Then I remember how I felt when Turkey's PM Erdogan,stated that no genocide happened in Darfur,Sudan "because Muslims can't commit genocide"! Or when Ahmadinejad of Iran stood in front of the world and denied the Holocaust, while calling for one! Or when Egypt’s tourist minister stated that he could not rule out that the shark attacks on tourists in his country were a Mossad operation! Or when Saudi Arabia incarcerated a Zionist-vulture-spy (yes a bird) because it was caught with a GPS tag on which it was written Tel Aviv University!
Or...
Yes Lieberman's rhetoric is nothing like the above –his statements are usually grounded in the truth and are responsive. But I consider Israel’s track record of saying little and doing a lot as a source of pride. Why should the great nation of Israel succumb to the hate filled and purposeless rhetoric of its neighbors?
Lieberman, be strong, stand for what is right, but for G-ds sake don’t be such a putz!
Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman's rhetoric arouses conflicting emotions. My instinctive response to his abusive rhetoric and behavior, such as his tacit support for the insult towards Turkey’s ambassador to Israel, was YES! FINALLY! AN ISRAELI POLITICIAN WHO SAYS IT LIKE IT IS!
Then I remember how I felt when Turkey's PM Erdogan,stated that no genocide happened in Darfur,Sudan "because Muslims can't commit genocide"! Or when Ahmadinejad of Iran stood in front of the world and denied the Holocaust, while calling for one! Or when Egypt’s tourist minister stated that he could not rule out that the shark attacks on tourists in his country were a Mossad operation! Or when Saudi Arabia incarcerated a Zionist-vulture-spy (yes a bird) because it was caught with a GPS tag on which it was written Tel Aviv University!
Or...
Yes Lieberman's rhetoric is nothing like the above –his statements are usually grounded in the truth and are responsive. But I consider Israel’s track record of saying little and doing a lot as a source of pride. Why should the great nation of Israel succumb to the hate filled and purposeless rhetoric of its neighbors?
Lieberman, be strong, stand for what is right, but for G-ds sake don’t be such a putz!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Subjective Journalism Gone Wild II: Israeli FM Lieberman is Not the New Kahane
“They're right, the villains - Kahane does live. He is the foreign minister today and the cabinet speaks and breathes from his mouth” (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lieberman-is-the-new-kahane-1.336296)
Haaretz.com, the voice of the Israeli left-wing, got it wrong. Avigdor Lieberman, foreign minister of Israel, is not the “new Kahane”. I know Lieberman, like Kahane, is outspoken, openly calls for Israeli-Arab transfer, and sounds more like Middle-Eastern dictator than he does the foreign representative of a Modern-thinking Democracy. However the political motivations driving Lieberman could not be more different than the complicated ideologies that lay at the heart of Meir Kahane’s religious Zionist movement.
Lieberman is the child of the mass waives of Russian immigrants who poured out of the former Soviet Union. They unlike their Western, Oriental, and Arab Israeli hosts were used to and advocated for un-western-Putin-like politics. Lieberman has captured that public sentiment and has made a career out of responding to rhetoric with rhetoric -like a Russian politician. In his way of thinking, the Arabs living within Israeli borders need to either swear loyalty to Israel or leave. Lieberman would run a war against Hamas like Russia has led its war on Chechen rebels –unapologetic, ambitious, and ruthless.
Conversely Kahane philosophy was
“that Israel's democracy be replaced by a state modeled on Jewish religious law, and promoting the idea of a Greater Israel in which Israel would annex the West Bank and Gaza strip…[to prevent Arabs from] becoming a numerical majority in Israel, he proposed a plan allowing Arabs to voluntarily leave Israel and receive compensation for their property, and forcibly removing Arabs who refused” (Wikipedia).
For Lieberman it was simply a matter of POLITICAL fidelity on the part of the Arabs and they could stay. Not especially extreme, many nations follow this system, especially Russia. For Kahane the land was HOLY and was meant only for Jews and for it to be safe Arabs had to leave. Now THAT is extreme.
Haaretz and the Israeli-Left are so predictable. They don’t like Lieberman’s methods and belief’s, and are doing what they can to stem Lieberman’s meteoric rise to political power. This includes, but is not confined to, comparing him to Meir Kahane. But just because Lieberman is as outspoken as Kahane was does not mean that Lieberman is the new Kahane.
Lieberman is a political opportunist Kahane was an ideological politician.
Haaretz and subjective journalism at its best.
Haaretz.com, the voice of the Israeli left-wing, got it wrong. Avigdor Lieberman, foreign minister of Israel, is not the “new Kahane”. I know Lieberman, like Kahane, is outspoken, openly calls for Israeli-Arab transfer, and sounds more like Middle-Eastern dictator than he does the foreign representative of a Modern-thinking Democracy. However the political motivations driving Lieberman could not be more different than the complicated ideologies that lay at the heart of Meir Kahane’s religious Zionist movement.
Lieberman is the child of the mass waives of Russian immigrants who poured out of the former Soviet Union. They unlike their Western, Oriental, and Arab Israeli hosts were used to and advocated for un-western-Putin-like politics. Lieberman has captured that public sentiment and has made a career out of responding to rhetoric with rhetoric -like a Russian politician. In his way of thinking, the Arabs living within Israeli borders need to either swear loyalty to Israel or leave. Lieberman would run a war against Hamas like Russia has led its war on Chechen rebels –unapologetic, ambitious, and ruthless.
Conversely Kahane philosophy was
“that Israel's democracy be replaced by a state modeled on Jewish religious law, and promoting the idea of a Greater Israel in which Israel would annex the West Bank and Gaza strip…[to prevent Arabs from] becoming a numerical majority in Israel, he proposed a plan allowing Arabs to voluntarily leave Israel and receive compensation for their property, and forcibly removing Arabs who refused” (Wikipedia).
For Lieberman it was simply a matter of POLITICAL fidelity on the part of the Arabs and they could stay. Not especially extreme, many nations follow this system, especially Russia. For Kahane the land was HOLY and was meant only for Jews and for it to be safe Arabs had to leave. Now THAT is extreme.
Haaretz and the Israeli-Left are so predictable. They don’t like Lieberman’s methods and belief’s, and are doing what they can to stem Lieberman’s meteoric rise to political power. This includes, but is not confined to, comparing him to Meir Kahane. But just because Lieberman is as outspoken as Kahane was does not mean that Lieberman is the new Kahane.
Lieberman is a political opportunist Kahane was an ideological politician.
Haaretz and subjective journalism at its best.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Yale Law III: Reason and Violence
In applying to Yale law school I was required to submit a 250 word essay on any give topic. Below is the third essay amongst the three finalists:
The reason offered for society’s rejection of violence often boils down to the axiom that violence is wrong. Yet it is fair to ask: why it is wrong? At this point the respondent would probably assert that violence is antithetical to coexistence and that coexistence is a prerequisite for society’s success. Alternatively, they may respond that causing pain is inherently unjust and violence cannot exist without pain.
But if all reasons underpinning the rejection of violence are rooted in rational reasoning, what happens when violence is rationalized? Take Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or the guy whose wife was cheating on him. Each one of them offered a compelling and reasoned argument to commit violence.
The cynical and pragmatic thinker may agree with the above reasoning and conclude that the degree of justness attributed to acts of violence is simply a product of the position that the one committing the violence is in. Still, for those who wish to establish a universal rule against violence, what principles can we employ that will ensure acceptance?
Yet if we are to find one universal principle that all humanity follows we need that principle to be non-rational. After all, as the post modernist would contend, the only truth that is universal is that which each individual has created as their own unique truth. If Humanity is inherently subjective, it would seem then, that there is no source for or of universal truth.
Is humanity then doomed to experience murder, and even genocide? Or is it that murder is in fact a natural occurrence that is as integral to the human as subjectivity or passion?
The reason offered for society’s rejection of violence often boils down to the axiom that violence is wrong. Yet it is fair to ask: why it is wrong? At this point the respondent would probably assert that violence is antithetical to coexistence and that coexistence is a prerequisite for society’s success. Alternatively, they may respond that causing pain is inherently unjust and violence cannot exist without pain.
But if all reasons underpinning the rejection of violence are rooted in rational reasoning, what happens when violence is rationalized? Take Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or the guy whose wife was cheating on him. Each one of them offered a compelling and reasoned argument to commit violence.
The cynical and pragmatic thinker may agree with the above reasoning and conclude that the degree of justness attributed to acts of violence is simply a product of the position that the one committing the violence is in. Still, for those who wish to establish a universal rule against violence, what principles can we employ that will ensure acceptance?
Yet if we are to find one universal principle that all humanity follows we need that principle to be non-rational. After all, as the post modernist would contend, the only truth that is universal is that which each individual has created as their own unique truth. If Humanity is inherently subjective, it would seem then, that there is no source for or of universal truth.
Is humanity then doomed to experience murder, and even genocide? Or is it that murder is in fact a natural occurrence that is as integral to the human as subjectivity or passion?
Israel Must Support Mubarak
Egypt and Israel are in serious trouble!
The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).
Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.
The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.
If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.
This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.
From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.
For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.
For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.
The recent bombing outside a Copt church, was not committed (Debka.com) by foreign Al-Qaida extremists, but by homegrown terrorists intent on toppling Egypt’s secular regime. This bombing follows a rigged election which ensured that Mubarak would win. Domestic sectarian terror is not the only issue challenging Egypt. In the South, Egypt’s control of the Nile (its life blood) is being challenged. Egypt is also weary of the implications of Southern Sudanese independence (Huffingtonpost.com).
Don’t get me wrong, I am no supporter of Egypt. It is led by a corrupt government that has mostly squandered its position of leadership in the Arab world. However, Mubarak’s Egypt is an ally of America and does have a “peace” accord with Israel. If Mubarak’s regime falls, it is likely Egypt will go the way of Pakistan.
The Copt bombing which occurred following the red mosque fiasco could galvanize Egyptian Islamists. Mubarak is being heavily criticized, both domestically and internationally, for election fraud and the Islamists are attempting to create a tipping-point event to ensure that Mubarak is overthrown. Like post-Musharraf Pakistan, Egypt’s subsequent central government will be weak, and the Islamists who always seem to be lurking in the back waiting to jump will overrun Egypt. Who has been supporting the Islamists? According to a plethora of sources, including Mubarak himself, Iran.
If Egypt falls under Islamist control, peace with Israel will be a bitter-sweet memory. Jordan -seeing that Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt have fallen under the influence of Iran- will also submit to the anti-Israel coalition.
This will create a vacuum for a global-power, like China, to establish a foothold in the region. Unlikely, you say. Remember it was the Soviet Union which supplied Syria and Egypt to counter American influence, in the guise of Israel, prior to Camp David. China, like the Soviets, will likely jump at the opportunity to secure its growing energy demand, and will accomplish this by challenging American influence by arming its Iranian allies. Israel, surrounded by enemies on every side as it was prior to the Yom Kippur war, will be weakened, along with the power that rules it, America.
From Israel’s perspective, it would be akin to national suicide to stand by and watch itself be surrounded completely by Iran. An Iran that recently hanged an Israeli spy and has been the primary enabler of both Hamas and Hezbollah. Without peace with Egypt and Jordan, Israel will be back to the position it was before war with the Arabs, and this time around the Arabs will backed by a nuclear Iran.
For America the question is: do we allow a region, which supplies a significant amount of oil to America, to be controlled by a country that calls for a new world order (i.e. for America to be replaced)? Or do we continue pursuing our current policy of challenging Iran, and prop up Mubarak of Egypt? Barring a revolution in energy technology, American policy makers, both left and right wing, need to put ideology aside and not miss what is going on.
For Israel the issue is clear. It must do what it can to support Mubarak against the Islamists, and their Iranian backers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
