Part I: What is happening in the Gaza Strip?

April 8, 2007 - There's nothing worse than a fool with a cause. It's been well over a year since terrorist thugs were seen dancing in the streets of Gaza City, indiscriminately capping off AK-47 rounds into the skies over southern Israel in celebration of their victory over the Palestinian Authority's Fatah party. The outcome of the Gaza elections in late January of 2006 represented a widely-publicized, unprecedented turn of events in which the "Palestinian" people--or should I say, the conglomeration of Arabs in Southern Israel, democratically elected and thus chose a terrorist organization, Hamas, as the governing body that would lead them to days of social, political and economic bliss. What the citizens of Gaza failed to consider--or should I say, turned a blind eye to, was the true ideology behind Hamas, and the lengths to which "the new kids on the block" were prepared to go in order to facilitate it.

Fourteen months later, gone are the days in which the people of Gaza expected radical change in the form of positive, social and economic reform. Moreover and quite literally, gone are the days in which the Arab people in Gaza could expect a paycheck for hours worked. The situation in Gaza has now evolved into a humanitarian crisis--one on a scale so dangerous that even the U.N. has threatened to withdraw its people from the region. As you will soon see, the Hamas government's infatuation with the elimination of Israel has blinded them to the welfare of their own people and, subsequently and quite literally, has landed them in deep "crap". Read this article in its entirety: Gaza Strip Part I

The Difference Between Love and Hate

April 1, 2007 - Earlier today, as I perused through my email and the various news headlines of the day over morning coffee, I happened upon two news stories that, after reading them both, left me...well, they left me synergistically befuddled. You see, each of these two stories, of which you will, after reading this article, gain a better understanding, are nothing new nor surprising when read and considered independently of one another. The events and circumstances found in each, individual article could be considered, by and large, everyday occurrences in the land of Israel, as evidenced by what we see on televisions and read in newspapers. However, after reading these two headlines within seconds apart, I became confused and perplexed. You see, these two headlines, in and of themselves, tell the whole story.

The first article, entitled "Hamas Threatens Israel", was one riddled with hatred, disdain, vitriol and incitement as Abu Ubaida, spokesman of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, warned and threatened an Israeli, as it were, "occupation": "We will turn the Strip into a graveyard for soldiers of the occupation...", he said, "The Palestinian resistance is ready to deal with this aggression...We will teach the enemy a lesson and send him home disappointed, just like many times before. We have nothing to lose..." This is, of course, in response to a potentially imminent Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip aimed at putting an end to the onslaught of Qassam rockets that continue to be fired into southern Israel by Hamas militants. I know, such hatred on behalf of "Palestinian" militants towards the Jewish state hardly qualifies as "unique", nor is the nonstop barrage of rockets being launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel. My sentiments exactly, but then my eyes immediately met the headline for article #2.

The antithesis of its predecessor, the second article was one of compassion, courage and perseverance. While the first article wreaked of venom and hatred, the second embraced a loving kindness that, quite frankly, evades human understanding. The second headline, entitled, "Israeli Ambulance Saves Palestinian Baby", told of how a bullet-proof Israeli ambulance entered the "Palestinian" territory of Ramallah in order to evacuate and thus save the life of a critically injured, six-month old, "Palestinian" infant. Thought to be the victim of poisoning, the infant was transported by the Israeli ambulance to the Chaim Sheva Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, where the Israeli medical team promptly and professionally (as indicated by eyewitnesses) handed over the child along with all medical documents.

I think you know where I'm going with this. Fathom, if you can, a scenario in which the circumstances were reversed--a scenario, as it were, in which an Israeli infant was on the fringe of death and the only timely medical response available was situated in Gaza City. As saddening as it may be, the reality of such a fabrication is that the infant would be lost, and its death would be a trophy headline that very evening on Al Jazeera television.

An expected response from the "Palestinian" side to this heroic act of courage on behalf of the Israeli medical workers, whom effectively saved the life of the Palestinian infant, would be one of gratitude--one of thanks. Quite contrarily, the "Palestinian" Ministry of Health had this to say in response, "all humanitarian matters, especially those concerning human lives, should be separated from political issues." Fair enough, but I ask you, would the "Palestinians" abide by that logic? If you do not have an answer, then consider the outcome, and subsequent "Palestinian" response, if the infant had died.

Condi, you're on the clock.

March 28, 2007 - The sands of the hourglass are approaching a critically low level for this administration. With regards to its Middle Eastern foreign policy, there is one thing--perhaps THE only thing of which they can be certain: Time is running out, and the window of opportunity is about to shatter. That is the only explanation for the direction the Bush administration has chosen as they continue to push Israel toward her destruction under the guise of the facilitation of "peace".

In the media spotlight which illuminates the region's current peace process stands one Condoleezza Rice, whose preoccupation with facilitating the elusive "two-state solution" between Israel and the "Palestinians"--an objective the Bush administration has, in the past, branded as its "cornerstone", has rapidly evolved into an obsession--one that must come to fruition regardless of the degree to which it compromises Israel's national security. Throughout history, the Middle East peace process has proven to be a "Pandora’s box" to those leaders who would advance a doctrine that seeks to facilitate peace at the expense of Jewish blood. As such, the future will become most unfavorable for the Bush administration and specifically, Condoleezza Rice, should they choose to continue treading in the dangerous waters in which they have so willfully placed themselves.

If only for a season, the future could not look anymore promising for the so-called "Palestinians" and an ideology predicated upon the so-called "liberation" of so-called "Palestine" from a so-called "illegal occupation". Under the guise of the erroneously-coined "Arab Peace Plan"--an initiative formulated in 2002 by the members of the Arab League, and the "Palestinian unity government"--a terrorist tag team of sorts consisting of a recent merger between the PA's Fatah and Hamas, the Jewish state is right where they want her: against the ropes and forced to make a decision. Under this plan, Israel would FIRST withdraw from much of Judea and Samaria (although the politically-correct dolts would prefer you use the term, "West Bank"), turn the Golan Heights back over to Syria, and hand over East Jerusalem to the Palestinians which would serve as the "capital" of what would be a newly-created "Palestinian" state. In so doing, Israel would become instantly infused with millions of hostile Arabs, who have garnered sympathy from the international community for years as self-imposed "refugees", with an "all or nothing" philosophy.

AFTER Israel complies with these requirements, her enemies will agree to peace negotiations designed to facilitate "normal relations" between the Jewish state and her Arab neighbors. "Normal" relations. Nowhere under this plan is the unity government required to adhere to the three conditions, as outlined by the Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace": the affirmation of Israel's right to exist, the abandonment of terrorism, and the adherence to prior peace agreements. Quite frankly, for Israel to ink its signature on such a plan would be the literal signing away of her existence--IF the Arabs had their way. Israel's agreement to the plan's requirements would make her borders completely indefensible, and would be nothing short of political suicide.

The Arab world will undoubtedly relish the position in which they find themselves, and they should. After all, it's a "win-win" for them. If Israel caves under the pressure from the West, something Ehud Olmert does too well, then her enemies will have effectively redrawn the frontlines of the war against Israel by bringing it right into the streets of Jerusalem. Furthermore, the strategic value of the Golan Heights will have been turned over to Syria--a country with which Israel is still technically at war. Conversely, should Israel reject the Arab Peace Plan, then they will be seen, by the international community, as a country that refuses to live at peace with her neighbors. At the end of the day, Israel had her chance for "peace", but refused it. The Palestinian "unity government" will effectively garner accolades and sympathy for Israel's rejection of their "olive branch". Boycotts would be lifted. Intifadas and terrorist incursions would be launched. As recently as today, the Saudi foreign minister was quoted as stating if Israel refused said peace initiative, her fate will be determined by the "lords of war". PA Chairman Abu Mazen (aka Mahmoud Abbas) was quoted as saying this is Israel's last chance to live "in a sea of peace".

And there, essentially shoving the "cyanide capsule" down the throat of the Jewish state, sits Condoleezza Rice--who as recently as today felt compelled to remind the world that the Bush administration "still has 18 months" in which to facilitate peace in the Middle East through the "two-state solution". Time is running out, Condi. Your legacy, and that of your employer is at stake here. You're on the clock.