FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

David Kimche, writing in the Jerusalem Post:

Anwar Sadat, just like Bashar Assad, offered to enter into peace negotiations with us. More than a year before the Yom Kippur War exploded on us, he told us “peace in exchange for Sinai.” We turned him down, and the result was – eventually – that we did agree to peace in exchange for Sinai, but only after a war in which more than 2,000 Israeli soldiers were killed and many more thousands wounded…

How many will die if fighting flares in the Golan this summer? Every single loss of life will have been in vain, for eventually we will be negotiating with the Syrians, and we will reach an agreement with Damascus on a solution in the Golan, just as Menachem Begin did with Egypt over the Sinai…

Nobody wants a war with Syria (at least, nobody I know). Certainly not me; if war comes, my son will be fighting in it.

But Kimche’s argument can be carried even further. Eventually we’ll be negotiating with Hamas over Tel Aviv, so why not get it over with and avoid war?

The real question is this: if war with Syria comes, would it be best to fight with or without the Golan?

Technorati Tags: Israel, Syria, Golan

There is no more controversial issue for Jews in the US today than their relationship to Christian Zionists — and in particular to Dr. John Hagee.

Before you dismiss this movement as unimportant or peripheral, remember that the Balfour Declaration, without which there probably would not be a state of Israel, was in great measure a product of Christian Zionism. Keep in mind that by far most Christians in the US identify themselves as evangelical or “born-again”: estimates of their number range from 50 million to over 100 million! In any case, there are far more of them than there are Jews in the world, by any estimate. If a significant number of these can be called ‘zionist’ or even mildly pro-Israel, this has enormous significance.

(more…)

As everyone knows, six Muslim Jihadists were arrested this week for planning an attack on the huge army base at Ft. Dix in New Jersey.

The Justice Department said that they had viewed Islamic training and weapons videos on the Internet. It’s also been suggested in some news reports that some of the men became acquainted with one another online. But so far, there’s no indication that they have anything but a virtual connection to international terror groups:

White House spokesman Tony Snow said there is “no direct evidence” that the men arrested in the Fort Dix plot have ties to international terrorism.

“They are not charged with being members of an international terrorism organization,” Snow said. “At least at this point, there is no evidence that they received direction from international terror organizations. — AP

It’s probably safe to say that without the Internet, this group would not exist. This is exactly what I meant when I called the Internet a Jihad Amplifier. The fact that no direct connection to Al-Qaeda or other organizations was found is not something to be happy about. Indeed, Jihadists without such connections have a much better chance of remaining undetected until it’s too late.

They were caught only because they made a really dumb mistake when they tried to get a video of their training activities copied at a local Circuit City store. The next batch might be a little smarter.

Technorati Tags: Terrorism, Internet

None of this makes any sense:

In an attempt to advance peace talks based on the Arab League’s peace initiative, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is scheduled to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo on Thursday…

The plan calls for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, Israel’s acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem in return for the establishment of normal relations with the Arab world in the context of a comprehensive peace.

Israel on its part, plans to participate in talks on the plan, but will insist on avoiding the initiative’s main topics, namely the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, retreating to the 1967 borders and dividing Jerusalem. — YNet (5/9/2007)

How can Israel ‘participate’ when it can’t accept any of the plan’s provisions? In fact, Livni herself said:

It’s impossible for Israel to accept the Arab peace initiative in its current version, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam in an interview…

The foreign minister said that the current version of the initiative was primarily problematic due to its references to the right of return. — YNet (3/1/2007)

And the Arabs, including Mubarak, have said that they are not interested in changing anything about the plan:

Mubarak’s spokesman Suleiman Awwad said Egypt also [with Saudi Arabia and Syria — ed.] rejects the Israeli demands for amending the plan. ”Israel cannot pick and choose from the initiative and then jump into establishing normal relations with Arabs,” Awwad said. ”The Arab plan offers full withdrawal for full peace.” — YNet (3/14/2007)

It seems to me that nothing can be accomplished by Israeli ‘participation’ in this, except that Israel can be made to appear intransigent.

About a month ago PM Olmert proposed a summit between Israel and the Arab states with no preconditions. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: if the Arabs really want peace they should be prepared to talk about it, instead of simply demanding Israel’s signature on their document of surrender.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, Livni, Mubarak